Red Sparrow / Kursk [2DVD] (English audio. English subtitles)

Product Information

In any event, the Russian rescue teams were poorly equipped and badly organised, while foreign teams and equipment were far away and not given permission to assist. [6] :143–145 [65] It is unlikely that any rescue by either Russian or foreign specialists could have arrived and reached the sub in time to rescue any survivors. [104] Forensic examination [ edit ] The most striking factor about the incident is the Russian officials’ continued denial of accepting the enormity of the situation. They shunned rescue help from the United Kingdom and the United States. This outright refusal to accept the much-needed help that could have saved the 23 lives aboard the ship portrayed the Russian government negatively. Sviatov, George. "The Kursk's Loss Offers Lessons." U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 129.6 (2003): 71. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 December 2011. A consortium formed by the Dutch companies Mammoet and Smit International [23] was awarded a contract by Russia to raise the vessel, excluding the bow. They modified the barge Giant 4 which raised Kursk and recovered the remains of the sailors. [24]

The fact is that these [vehicles] were created especially for use with various types of submarines, including for the Kursk," Kuznetsov says. "But they were never, not once, tested with it -- not during sea trials, not during the submarine's [four years of] service, and not during the preparation for these exercises." The captain of the Sidon, Commander Hugh Verry, who survived the terrible accident, also made the connection. Despite the many lapses in procedures and equipment, Ustinov said no charges would be filed because the disaster was caused by a technical malfunction and blame could not be placed on specific individuals. He said that all of the sailors had died within eight hours and none of them could have been rescued in the time available. At a news conference announcing the end of the official inquiry, he absolved the torpedo's manufacturer of any fault. "Those who designed the torpedo couldn't foresee the possibility of its explosion." He also said there was no evidence that the torpedo had been damaged when it was loaded onto Kursk. [83] While Moscow accepted the unproven claim of the NATO Submarine, the US officials declined to accept the charge that a British sub was responsible for the accident. The importance and the need to understand the Kursk submarine disaster is not just because of the mishap that occurred but also because of the very nature of the naval vessel and the theories that followed its sinking in the Barents Sea on the 12 th August 2000, 11.28 am as per the local Russian time.Experience the history of the fateful voyage of K-141 KURSK that ended at the bottom of Barents Sea.

On Thursday at 12:00, Popov reported to the general staff of the Navy that no explosion had occurred on the Kursk, that the sub was intact on the seafloor, and that an "external influence" might have caused a leak between the first and second compartments. [19] On Thursday, the Russian DSRV made another attempt to reach the aft area of the submarine, but it was unable to create the vacuum seal necessary to attach to the escape trunk. [24] The Russians' 32-hour response time was widely criticised. [34] Their death was quite poignant, for these men often went without a decent salary for their dedicated naval services. To reach the once-attained pedestal of military supremacy and unwanted pride, innocent lives were sacrificed. The submarine was finally salvaged from the seabed, and its remains were raised by the Dutch salvage company a year after the disaster in 2001. Out of the 118 dead, the bodies of 115 members were recovered, providing a much-needed consolation to the crew’s families. Other submarines have been lifted in the past, but none has been comparable in size to the giant, 18,000-ton Kursk, which exploded and sank in August 2000 during naval manoeuvres, killing all hands. Do Bombs Cause Earthquakes?". Archived from the original on 18 October 2006 . Retrieved 20 February 2014.In October 2000, prominent television journalist Sergei Dorenko ran a one-hour special on the Kursk tragedy on Russia's national ORT television, then controlled by tycoon Boris Berezovsky. After enumerating the government's failures in its handling of the disaster, Dorenko ended the piece with this conclusion: No one was ever held responsible for the Kursk disaster. Kuznetsov said Putin made "a political decision" to protect Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, commander of the Navy. Kuroyedov offered to resign over the incident, but that offer was rejected and he was allowed to retire in 2005. At 11:31:48, [15] 2 minutes and 14 seconds after the first, a second event, measuring 4.2 on the Richter scale, or 250 times larger than the first, [14] was registered on seismographs across northern Europe [17] and was detected as far away as Alaska. [9] The second explosion was equivalent to 2–3 tons of TNT. [5]

If the seas get rough, the barge may take a longer journey, allowing it to wait out a storm near the coast. Reports threatened worse weather for this evening, with snow flurries covering Murmansk. The sinking of the ship, the pride of their submarine fleet, was a devastating blow to the Russian military. [9] Kursk 's participation in the exercise had been intended to demonstrate Russia's place as an important player on the international stage, but the country's inept handling of the crisis instead exposed its weak political decision-making ability and the decline of its military. [12] At 04:50 on Sunday, 13 August, personnel aboard Pyotr Velikiy detected two anomalies on the seabed that might be the boat. At 09:00, Mikhail Rudnitsky arrived at the location. While setting anchor, its crew interpreted an acoustic sound as an SOS from the submarine, but soon concluded the noise had been produced by the anchor chain striking the anchor hole. At 11:30, Mikhail Rudnitsky prepared to lower the AS-34, which entered the water at 17:30. At 18:30, at a depth of 100m (300ft) and at a speed of 2kn (3.7km/h), the AS-34 reported colliding with an object, and through a porthole, the crew saw the Kursk 's propeller and stern stabiliser. With the AS-34 damaged by the collision and forced to surface, the crew of Mikhail Rudnitsky began preparing the AS-32 for operation. [19] It's dark here to write, but I'll try by feel. It seems like there are no chances, 10–20%. Let's hope that at least someone will read this. Here's the list of personnel from the other sections, who are now in the ninth and will attempt to get out. Regards to everybody, no need to despair. Kolesnikov. [101] A retired Russian Admiral raised speculation that the country’s worst post-soviet naval catastrophe occurred as a faulty torpedo belonging to the US had collided with Kursk, causing the dually-pressurised hulls of the submarine to explode. These speculations arose from the fact that the western submarine was also damaged by the powerful explosion and sent a distress signal. The Russian Media reports highlighted that three US submarines were spotted near the area where the disaster happened.By the time Western divers opened the hatch, the submarine was fully flooded and no one was left alive. Flynn, Ramsey (2004), Cry from the Deep: The Sinking of the Kursk, the Submarine Disaster That Riveted the World and Put the New Russia to the Ultimate Test. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0060936419