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

Product Information

Over four days, the Russian Navy repeatedly failed in its attempts to attach four different diving bells and submersibles to the escape hatch of the submarine. Its response was criticised as slow and inept. Officials misled and manipulated the public and news media, and refused help from other countries' ships nearby. President Vladimir Putin initially continued his vacation at a seaside resort in Sochi [1] and authorised the Russian Navy to accept British and Norwegian assistance only after five days had passed. Two days later, British and Norwegian divers finally opened a hatch to the escape trunk in the boat's flooded ninth compartment, but found no survivors.

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. The Oscar IIs were big because they carried big missiles. Each submarine carried 24 P-700 Granit missiles, which themselves were the size of a small plane—33 feet long and weighing 15,400 pounds each. The missiles had a top speed of Mach 1.6, a range of 388 miles, and used the now-defunct Legenda satellite targeting system to home in on their aircraft carrier targets. A Granit could carry a 1,653-pound conventional high-explosive warhead (enough to damage a carrier) or a 500-kiloton warhead (enough to vaporize an aircraft carrier with a single hit). The continued problems that the rescuers had in reaching potential survivors and ongoing conflicting information about the cause of the accident inflamed Russian public opinion. [28] Media described the Russian government's response to the disaster as "technically inept" and their stories as "totally unreliable". [7] Putin meets with families [ edit ] President Putin in a contentious meeting with relatives of the dead sailors in Vidyayevo, during which the families complained about the Russian Navy's response to the disaster The submarine sank after two blasts and sank only 350 feet below the surface. 23 crew were able to take refuge in the rear compartment and waited for help. However, it was too late. When the Norwegian divers opened the compartment, they were found dead, probably due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Peter Davidson; Huw Jones; John H. Large (October 2003). "The Recovery of the Russian Federation Nuclear Powered Submarine Kursk" (PDF). World Maritime Technology Conference, San Francisco. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 February 2012 . Retrieved 3 July 2009.N. A. "Kursk Inner Hull Breached." Australian, The (n.d.): Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 7 December 2011. On Sunday 20 August, the Norwegians lowered a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to the submarine. They found that the first 18m (59ft) section of the boat was a mass of twisted metal and debris. [16] Senior officers in the Russian Navy offered a variety of explanations for the accident. [9] Four days after Kursk sank, Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief and Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov stated the accident had been caused by a serious collision. Vice-premier Ilya Klebanov said the submarine might have hit an old World War II mine. [30] He also said that almost all of the sailors had died before the vessel hit bottom. [31] The British and Norwegian navies offered assistance, but Russia initially refused all help. [18] All 118 sailors and officers aboard Kursk died. The Russian Admiralty initially told the public that the majority of the crew died within minutes of the explosion, but on 21 August, Norwegian and Russian divers found 24 bodies in the ninth compartment, the turbine room at the stern of the boat. Captain-lieutenant Dmitri Kolesnikov wrote a note listing the names of 23 sailors who were alive in the compartment after the boat sank. When Ustinov closed the criminal case without filing charges, [ citation needed] family members were angry. Retired Russian Navy Captain Vladimir Mityayev, who lost a son on Kursk, said "To me, this is a clear case of negligence." [83] In the end, no one was blamed for the disaster and no one was held responsible. [20] :34 Alternative explanations [ edit ]

Once we heard about the submarine we made the link and came to the conclusion that it was a very large explosion. I couldn't believe anyone had survived that.'He was obligated to listen to the experts and the reports of the commanders and the reports of the naval command. He was obligated to do all this," Kuznetsov says. "And he did not." The Russian submarine Kursk took its name from the city of Kursk, where the battle of Kursk was fought. This battle which took place in 1943, is regarded as the biggest warfare in the army combat tanks. More than a decade has passed since the Kursk disaster took place. People worldwide might have forgotten the submarine Kursk, but for the parents and other loved ones aboard the submarine, it would be a date that could never be overlooked. The Kursk submarine and its crew might have gone forever, but the thought of whether the disaster could have been prevented will always linger on. Frequently Asked Questions 1. How long did Kursk crew survive? 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]

They bought the media and now they’re manipulating public opinion,” he said of Berezovsky and other powerful media magnates. Vice Admiral Mikhail Motsak, the Russian naval commander overseeing the recovery operation, said the Kursk should arrive in the harbour of the town of Roslyakovo, near Murmansk, at around 12pm Moscow time (0800 GMT) on Wednesday. The Komsomolskaya Pravda tabloid published a report in June 2001 that senior officers in the Russian Navy had engaged in an elaborate deception to cover the actual cause of the disaster. This referred to statements that the boat's captain, Gennady Lyachin, had sent a message to headquarters immediately prior to the explosion, "We have a malfunctioning torpedo. Request permission to fire it," [9] though it is unlikely that, as captain of the vessel, he would have needed to request permission under such circumstances. [19] A Time to Die (2002, ISBN 0609610007), an investigative book on the events, was The crew of the submarine Karelia detected the explosion, but the captain assumed that it was part of the exercise. [18] Aboard Pyotr Velikiy, the target of the practice launch, the crew detected a hydroacoustic signal characteristic of an underwater explosion and felt their hull shudder. [19] They reported the phenomenon to fleet headquarters but their report was ignored. [18]

When the Russian government finally relented, and foreign rescue aid was allowed to be carried out five days following the accident, it was too late for the crew of the Kursk submarine. All 118 members had perished. By the time Western divers opened the hatch, the submarine was fully flooded and no one was left alive. In recent months Russian opinion has begun to swing towards the conclusion that some sort of torpedo malfunction may have caused the Kursk disaster. Reports in the Communist newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda in June suggested that the Russian admiralty may have been involved in an elaborate cover-up. On Monday 14 August, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov stated the accident had been caused by a serious collision with a NATO submarine, [30] although he gave no evidence to support his statement. [20] Senior commanders of the Russian Navy repeated this account for more than two years after the disaster. Many who wished for continued poor relations between Russia and the West supported this scenario. [20]