| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Russia | ||
| More on the Russian Battle-cruiser "about to explode" | ||
| 2004-03-24 | ||
In another blow to Russia’s beleaguered military, the navy’s commanding admiral ordered a nuclear-powered battle cruiser to return to port Tuesday for fear that ’’it could explode at any moment,’’ a statement he retracted hours later.
No doubt his retraction is a "sugestion" from the Russian Admiralty Snip His order for all repairs to be finished within three weeks apparently still stands. He also said the crew would have to take another training course before putting out to sea again. The Peter the Great is worthy of the adjective: It displaces 28,000 tons, stretches the length of three football fields and carries a crew of 610. It reportedly can carry 20 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. But the ship has had a troubled history. During testing in 1996, an explosion in a steam pipeline killed five sailors. The vessel was commissioned in March 1998 -- 12 years after construction started -- maybe the Ruski’s hired a french national firm for the construction? but by that June it was back in port for repairs. Military analysts in Moscow said Kuroyedov’s unexpected docking of the cruiser could be part of a personal feud with the ship’s commander, Vladimir Kasatonov. The two officers are said not to like each other, and the admiral blamed Kasatonov personally Tuesday for the shoddy conditions. President Vladimir Putin has made military reform and modernization a priority, although little has improved. Putin’s own military chief of staff has called the situation ``beyond critical’’... Putin was embarrassed last month when he attended the launch of two ballistic missiles from a Northern Fleet submarine. The missiles never got out of their tubes. the ruskis were claiming it was an "administrative launch" at the time Kuroyedov said Tuesday that the expiration date on the missiles had been exceeded by nearly a decade. i did not know that untill today | ||
| Posted by:Evert Visser in NL |
| #6 Mike K. Tell me it wasn't hydrazine they were using.... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-03-24 2:41:03 PM |
| #5 Mike, I suspect it would look like July 4th in NYC, festive but not very dangerous. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-3-24 11:38:34 AM |
| #4 umm... if the cruiser is about to explode, wouldn't you want to order it away from port? |
| Posted by: BH 2004-3-24 11:14:10 AM |
| #3 This ought to calm down that "round the world" cruise noise they occasionally come out with. Don't think we'll be hearing any of that for awhile. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-3-24 11:12:33 AM |
| #2 ...The "Best When Used By" date deserves a bit of explanation. The Soviets had a dickens of a time developing reliable solid fuel systems like we did, so liqid fuel was their standard for years. (I think it is just in the last generation or so that they have gotten SF units they can count on). On top of that, they were loath to even let a single missile down for any kind of maintenance lest someone call and ask why the missile wasn't ready. They essentially went to a 'wooden round' philosophy - where you drop the missile into the hole, fuel it, lock the cover and walk away...for as long as fifteen years. That philosophy eventually spread to the fleet as well, which would explain that administrative launch. This worked as far as the land based deterrent went, but as a practical matter it does bring into question how well they would have worked when suddenly called for. Supposedly they launched one not long ago that had sat for thirteen years, but I have my doubts that it was just pulled out and fired, as the report suggests. Even as reliable as our systems are, they're still yanked out, torn apart and checked from head to toe at regular intervals. The Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-3-24 10:58:32 AM |
| #1 "The expiration date on the missle" Is that the use by date? Good thing the Soviet Uniond fell apart in '89. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-3-24 10:09:50 AM |