What's new

Explosion sinks INS Sindhurakshak Submarine with 18 onboard.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stupid Journos !

Time when whole country is united in grief . This is what Indian journalist has to ask .


A reporter asks Navy chief DK Joshi: "Kis pranth key rehne vaale they sailors? (Where were the sailors from?)

Admiral Joshi answers: Us-se kya farak padta hai, Bharat varsh key they. (That does not make any difference. They were from India.)

God save our country from such stupid people. With people like that we do not need any enemies !
 
. .
According to Naval chief, XO, ASW officer and a Signal comm officer were on night duty along with 15 sailors. 3 sailors were on the outside and managed to escape. Ordnance did go off...hatches got fused together due to heat...things not looking too bright.

There was one stupid reporter who asked the chief that there was one Chinese hospital ship in the harbour at the same time, does it have any link in this? These mediapersons just can't keep their senses in times like these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SRP
.
Some Hope AMIDST The Gloom

Sindhurakshak quite a setback, Navy will recover | Business Standard

The explosion aboard the country's frontline submarine 'Sindhurakshak' was quite a setback, said former commanders and top naval experts even as they expressed hope that Indian Navy would soon be able to set things right.

Former Navy Chief Admiral Sushil Kumar said that the incident was, "quite a setback for the navy as Sindhurakshak was one of our frontline submarines which was recently modified and was operational".

But Kumar said that he was confident that the navy had ways of galvanising into action to find out what went wrong.

ALSO READ: 10 key facts about Sindhurakshak submarine

"There could be many reasons why it happened, submarines do need a lot of precautions... There are many possible causes for such mishaps, but it is not the first time that such an accident has taken place," Kumar said.

He recalled an incident many years ago when the President had called a board of inquiry, but added that the damage in that case had been contained.

"And, I am sure the navy will have the professional determination to set it right and everything will be back in order," he said.

Vice Admiral (retd) AK Singh said that an internal explosion on a submarine could have been caused either through material failure or because the standard operating procedure was not followed.

In submarines, the batteries are placed in the lower part while on top are the missiles, Singh said.

The batteries release hydrogen and, during charging, the gas reaches a concentration level of about 4%, which may form an explosive mixture.

Singh, however, added that hydrogen alone was not enough to cause an explosion of the magnitude witnessed in the 'Sindhurakshak' case.

"I suspect the hydrogen could have created a fire, which spread to the top where the missile compartments are and reached the warheads, (thus) causing a massive explosion.

"It is unfortunate it was our frontline submarine. The damage done is enormous," Singh said.

"This is a very major loss. Our conventional submarine fleet has been declining alarmingly and this was a frontline submarine, which had just come from Russia a couple of months back after major repairs and modernisation.

"It was our most important platform fitted with anti-ship and land attack missiles, torpedoes and very excellent sensors," Vice Admiral Singh said.

He, however, expressed hope that personnel on board the submarine would have survived the mishap.

"All our submarines carry secondary systems of individual escapes... Giving oxygen for two-and-a-half hours, there are enough sets for the entire crew," he said.

Singh said that submarines are divided into six or seven watertight departments in which people can be isolated. People are known to have survived submarine disasters for upto 14 days, he said.

The 'Sindhurakshak' had sunk at the naval dockyard and not at sea, Singh said, adding that, moreover, it had submerged only 2-3 metres, which means that anybody alive could come out.

Singh felt that the submarine itself could be salvaged and there are means of lifting up the vessel. The personnel who are trained for such jobs, too, are there, he said.

Not only Indian Navy, other navies, too, faced problems of battery explosions, Singh said, adding that there had been an explosion on a submarine in 1984, although the damages then were not as heavy as in the present case.

"Indian Navy, I am sure, is capable of getting the submarine back, but if the damage is extensive that will take some years," he said.

Vice Admiral (retd) Madanjit Singh said that the incident was the first of its kind in the country in peacetime and was a matter to be seriously investigated.

He said it was possible that the hydrogen that accumulates during the charging of its batteries could have started the initial reaction through a likely spark which then caused the explosion.

"All these weapons have a series of safeguards: inter-locks — electronic and mechanical — which prevent the weapons from exploding.


"So, this is a matter of serious investigation as to what caused this explosion," Madanjit Singh said.

Former IDSA director, Commodore (retd) Uday Bhaskar, said that since the rate of induction of new platforms has not kept up with the kind of wear and tear that a submarine faces, the Navy's submarine fleet was depleting while its operational load was increasing.

"The fact that the Sindhurakshak (incident) has happened, is going to have its own adverse impact," he averred.
 
.
According to Naval chief, XO, ASW officer and a Signal comm officer were on night duty along with 15 sailors. 3 sailors were on the outside and managed to escape. Ordnance did go off...hatches got fused together due to heat...things not looking too bright.

There was one stupid reporter who asked the chief that there was one Chinese hospital ship in the harbour at the same time, does it have any link in this? These mediapersons just can't keep their senses in times like these.

INS Sindhu maybe salvaged as it was in just 2 m deep water. We have a pact with USA. As of 5 : 00 PM Navy chief says no foul play, to tum logo ko chuthi.
 
.
I said it sounds feasible, especially the black magic part.

muslims do not belive or are prohibited doing black magic. if a muslim involves in black magic he is no more a muslim.
 
.
INS Sindhu maybe salvaged as it was in just 2 m deep water. We have a pact with USA. As of 5 : 00 PM Navy chief says no foul play, to tum logo ko chuthi.

Well.. the scale of damage looks quite large. I am doubtful if can be salvaged and made operational again.

The only saving grace is that since this happened in the port and not on high seas, it will be lot easier to investigate the cause and make rectifications in all future submarines.
 
. .
.
feel sorry for lose of souls might point fingers at Russians as well other then Pakistani ISI.more them 80 million spent and on MLU and lost of sub and like is questionable fair inquire should opened and should shed some light on Russian team running the upgrade project.:coffee:
 
. .
INS Sindhu maybe salvaged as it was in just 2 m deep water. We have a pact with USA. As of 5 : 00 PM Navy chief says no foul play, to tum logo ko chuthi.

Why does the IN need the USA? The IN has said it has all the adequate resources and expertise to deal with this by themselves.
 
.
Russia distances itself from India submarine disaster

The incident deals a powerful blow not only to India’s naval ambitions but also to Russia’s own military prestige

Moscow: Russia on Wednesday sought to guard its reputation as a supplier of military hardware by distancing itself from a deadly accident on an Indian Navy submarine, the INS Sindhurakshak, that its manufacturers had built and recently repaired.

The 2,300-tonne diesel-powered Sindhurakshak exploded and caught fire while docked in Mumbai early Wednesday on the eve of India’s Independence Day.

The fully-loaded boat partially sank with 18 seamen on board. India’s defence minister said a still-unknown number of personnel had “lost their lives in service of the country”.

The incident deals a powerful blow not only to India’s burgeoning naval ambitions but also to Russia’s own flagging military prestige.

Moscow remains New Delhi’s biggest defence partner and is keen to preserve a market it has nurtured with great care since Soviet times.

Official statistics show that eight of the 11 Project 877 submarines such as the INS Sindhurakshak Russia has built for export since the 1980s have been delivered to India.

“I do not believe that this incident will have a negative impact on Russia’s military cooperation with India,” the state-run RIA Novosti news agency quoted Moscow’s Global Arms Trade Centre expert Igor Korotchenko as saying.

But Indian officials have voiced growing displeasure with their old partner’s service— particularly concerning the cost-overruns and delays involved in the refit of a Russian aircraft carrier that now bears the name INS Vikramaditya.

Analysts believe that India is forced to continue purchasing Russian military parts because it still operates so many Soviet-era warplanes and vessels.

But New Delhi has also sought to expand its military trade ties with Washington in the past decade after remaining for so long under Moscow’s care.

The US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that cumulative defence sales between New Delhi and Washington had grown “from virtually zero” 10 years ago to more than $8 billion today.

That trend has unnerved Russian officials who have already suffered humiliations from two deadly post-Soviet submarine disasters and a raft of other military and space setbacks.

The Kursk nuclear submarine tragedy claimed 118 lives when it sank in August 2008 while the Nerpa sub—eventually commissioned by India—killed 20 Russian sailors when it caught fire while conducting exercises in November 2008.

The INS Sindhurakshak was under a Russian warranty until January 2014.

The Russian-built boat—commissioned in 1997—underwent a refit lasting more than two years after it had caught fire in 2010 and had only left its Barents Sea repair dock at the end of January.

Russian officials were quick to report that India had voiced no complaints after receiving the submarine in April.

“There have been no claims or technical complaints,” the United Shipbuilding Corp.’s spokesman Alexei Kravchenko told Russian state television.

The Russian firm that refitted the submarine also stressed that the craft was fully operational when returned to India.

A spokesman for the Russian Zvyozdochka ship repair company told RIA Novosti that “certain issues” had been raised when the INS Sindhurakshak was inspected by experts at the Severodvinsk port on the Barents Sea.

The unnamed spokesman did not give further details about the nature of the issues but said they were part of the “normal working process”.

Russia’s Interfax news agency also carried a report citing an unnamed “military-diplomatic source” who claimed that the INS Sindhurakshak could have been the target of a terror plot.

The official speculated that the boat could not have suffered an accident while in its dock because most of its main systems would have been probably switched off. However no further evidence was given to back up the claim. AFP

Russia distances itself from India submarine disaster - Livemint
 
. . .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom