Fire at a docked Russian SSBN

[Lostfleet]

CNN just reported that a Delta IV class submarine K-84 Yekaterinburg had an incident, where scaffolding over the submarine caught fire during maintenance.

Does any member live in Russia or have access to Russian media to have more info on what happened?

video
Video: Nuclear Submarine “The Yekaterinburg” on Fire Russia

Fire burns docked Russian nuclear submarine - CNN.com

 

[My2Cents]

Googled this Fire on Russian nuclear sub contained - emergencies minister | Defense | RIA Novosti

Apparently wooden scaffolding around the submarine in drydock caught fire and it spread to the anechoic tiles. No damage to the interior. There is no indication of how much damage there was to the tiles yet, and we probably won’t get any unless it is pretty extensive and they feel a need for an extended overhaul to replace damaged ones.

 

[gf0012-aust]

tiles aren't going to catch fire by themselves even if something drops on them, they'd need to be assisted, ie by an accelerant.

 

[Lostfleet]

I wonder what would be the burning temperature of the tiles,

If it is just the tiles that got damaged then probably it will be not much of problem replacing them. However if the smoke and the fire breached inside then they will have bigger problems repairing the sub.

CNN reported that they partially submerged the sub to minimize the fire damage, so I guess they sunked the drydock a bit ( looked like a floating drydock in the video) but I cant find any other reference to it in other news agencies.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wonder what would be the burning temperature of the tiles,

If it is just the tiles that got damaged then probably it will be not much of problem replacing them. However if the smoke and the fire breached inside then they will have bigger problems repairing the sub.

CNN reported that they partially submerged the sub to minimize the fire damage, so I guess they sunked the drydock a bit ( looked like a floating drydock in the video) but I cant find any other reference to it in other news agencies.

it would have to be significant surface heat for the hull to start deforming. the tiles themselves will basically melt, the bonding agent underneath is the issue

partially submerging the hull was a smart move.

 

[t68]

Depending on how intense the fire was and how long the fire was on the metal surface it might not have been enough to deform the surface, but it still my have effected the metal in regards to its tensile/compressive strength (might not be as strong as it once was)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Depending on how intense the fire was and how long the fire was on the metal surface it might not have been enough to deform the surface, but it still my have effected the metal in regards to its tensile/compressive strength (might not be as strong as it once was)

on those subs its a minimum of HS100 rated steel.

its going to have to be sustained and localised intense to cause integrity problems

edit:

just saw the footage of the bow section, it looks pretty ordinary at the moment (as in buggered)

 

[phreeky]

on those subs its a minimum of HS100 rated steel.

its going to have to be sustained and localised intense to cause integrity problems

edit:

just saw the footage of the bow section, it looks pretty ordinary at the moment (as in buggered)

Any significant heat cycling regardless of what the material is would surely raise a Russian equivalent of "oh, shit". I dunno what the Russian equiv of "she'll be right" is either, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be using that one.

Which video shows that damage? Link?

 

[My2Cents]

tiles aren't going to catch fire by themselves even if something drops on them, they'd need to be assisted, ie by an accelerant.

Stick them on top of a bonfire and they will eventually get hot enough to burn nicely without an accelerant, and are very hard to extinguish. That is what happened here, the burning scaffolding is the key.

We did it on the beach with washed up tires when I was a kid. :flame

 

[t68]

We did it on the beach with washed up tires when I was a kid. :flame

The watermelons will love you.

 

[RobWilliams]

Repairs of fire-damaged nuclear sub to take at least one year | Navy News at DefenceTalk

DT article, it seems that

The outer hull of the Yekaterinburg, a Delta-class nuclear submarine, caught fire on Thursday during repairs when when fuel and lubricants were set ablaze by welding in the system's nose section. Fire safety violations during routine maintenance works are cited as the most likely cause.

NOTE: the dual 'when when' is in the article, not a copy-n-paste error by me, might need to get looked at.

Seems like gf0012-aust was correct, with the 'accelerant' in this case being 'fuel and lubricants' although to me i'm not sure why flammable liquids were uncontained inside the nose of a nuclear submarine anyway, someone messed up badly.

 

[My2Cents]

Seems like gf0012-aust was correct, with the 'accelerant' in this case being 'fuel and lubricants' although to me i'm not sure why flammable liquids were uncontained inside the nose of a nuclear submarine anyway, someone messed up badly.

The fire was external, not internal.

The supply of fuel and lubricants could have been either for the equipment being used to work on the sub, or to replace material on the sub as part of the work. They had probably been placed under the submarine either for convenience, or to protect them from the weather instead of covering them with tarpaulins. The location happened to be under or near the scaffolding that caught fire, which then spread to them. If so, this would be one of the safety violations that is mentioned.

 

[RobWilliams]

The fire was external, not internal.

The supply of fuel and lubricants could have been either for the equipment being used to work on the sub, or to replace material on the sub as part of the work. They had probably been placed under the submarine either for convenience, or to protect them from the weather instead of covering them with tarpaulins. The location happened to be under or near the scaffolding that caught fire, which then spread to them. If so, this would be one of the safety violations that is mentioned.

I took the part "welding IN the system's nose section" to mean inside the sub as an entire entity. IIRC the sub was complete when work was being done on it so i can't really see how welding inside the nose caused an external fire.

Or is it a fault in the wording of the article? Because if 'in' was replaced with 'on' it would make more sense, a typo maybe?

 

[My2Cents]

I took the part "welding IN the system's nose section" to mean inside the sub as an entire entity. IIRC the sub was complete when work was being done on it so i can't really see how welding inside the nose caused an external fire.

Or is it a fault in the wording of the article? Because if 'in' was replaced with 'on' it would make more sense, a typo maybe?

Yes. The fire ignited the anechoic tiles on the outside. They would have been protected from an internal fire by the ballast tanks.

It occurs to me that the sonar dome on the bow may be filled with oil. The oil might have been for refilling the enclosure after they finished working on it.
:unknown

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes. The fire ignited the anechoic tiles on the outside. They would have been protected from an internal fire by the ballast tanks.

It occurs to me that the sonar dome on the bow may be filled with oil. The oil might have been for refilling the enclosure after they finished working on it.
:unknown

Ok, thanks. The wording of the article just threw me, i place DT articles very highly on my 'reliable sources' list so

True, but it'd still be an extremely incompetent move leaving flammable liquids exposed near wooden scaffolding next to a nucleur submarine. I mean honestly, who would really do that? [insert foiled espionage plot here]

 

[gf0012-aust]

It occurs to me that the sonar dome on the bow may be filled with oil. The oil might have been for refilling the enclosure after they finished working on it.
:unknown

inert lubricants have been used as heat sinks for electronics in the past (one of the def profs here built the first one used by FEMA)

I have no idea whether this was the case here, but the lubricant is in a state where it won't flash unless under extreme duress anyway

I'm guessing that there's a whole pile of other triggers that have contributed to this and we'll gradually get a clearer picture. either way, people will be unemployed in the near future

 

[RobWilliams]

I'm guessing that there's a whole pile of other triggers that have contributed to this and we'll gradually get a clearer picture. either way, people will be unemployed in the near future

I agree, there has to be more too it than what we know now as what there is makes little sense. Unless someone who was doing work there really had a major lack of common sense (i wouldn't go as far as to say stupidity, for i've known plenty of truely intelligent people make FUBAR decisions which could easily be solved by common sense)

It does nothing for the image of the Russian SSBN fleet, that they experience fires due to carelessness in dock. It'll be interesting to see if and how this develops as i would not be surpised if this got swept under the carpet quite quickly.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

Ok, thanks. The wording of the article just threw me, i place DT articles very highly on my 'reliable sources' list so

True, but it'd still be an extremely incompetent move leaving flammable liquids exposed near wooden scaffolding next to a nuclear submarine. I mean honestly, who would really do that? [insert foiled espionage plot here]

Oil as a heat sink or lubricant not loaded on yet, just stored there during transit or maybe like we used in the navy on the sub (and every other navy in the world) a can of paint , if your painting and getting slag dropped on you your going to move but if slag falls into your paint can that your using to touch up the paint you might drop it into the basin and yell your head off until they can get a firehose onto the fire or submerge the drydock. I'm guessing hot work gone awry w/o proper pre job inspections / work site preperation.

:jump :jump :jump

 

[RobWilliams]

Oil as a heat sink or lubricant not loaded on yet, just stored there during transit or maybe like we used in the navy on the sub (and every other navy in the world) a can of paint , if your painting and getting slag dropped on you your going to move but if slag falls into your paint can that your using to touch up the paint you might drop it into the basin and yell your head off until they can get a firehose onto the fire or submerge the drydock. I'm guessing hot work gone awry w/o proper pre job inspections / work site preperation.

:jump :jump :jump

Good scenario, gf0012-aust earlier talks about the lubricants used as heat sinks can be inert and this has been done and i would expect a SSBN of the Russian fleet to also use inert fluids for its heat sink, not an oil that could set alight due to sparks caused by welding.

Hell, you can put a match out by dropping it in diesel so i wouldn't really expect the heat sink for a nucleur submarine to use a fluid with a flash point low enough to be ignited by sparks, unless they do? + what kind of paint can catch fire? The only experience of paint i've had is household paint so i've no clue in that area

 

[gf0012-aust]

It does nothing for the image of the Russian SSBN fleet, that they experience fires due to carelessness in dock. It'll be interesting to see if and how this develops as i would not be surpised if this got swept under the carpet quite quickly.

$hitt does happen though. eg dodgey welds on some of the virginias, dodgey welds on No:1 for Collins by the swedes, dodgey overhead welding by early ASC staff on boats 1 and 2. you wouldn't think that US or Swedish welders were hopeless by any margin - and yet booboos happen