Russian Nuclear Sub Trapped on Sea Floor

One of Russia’s newest nuclear submarines, with more than 100 crew members aboard, lay crippled Monday on the seabed above the Arctic Circle after a collision or explosion, and Russia’s top naval official grimly acknowledged that a rescue would be difficult.

Equipment was lowered hundreds of feet into the icy Barents Sea to supply the stricken sub with oxygen and power, and after hours in which the trapped crew communicated by pounding out messages on the vessel’s hull, radio communication reportedly was reestablished. Deep-water equipment was used to inspect the hull.

But Russian officials also went into a reflexive, Soviet-style clampdown on information. There were no details on casualties, the extent of damage, the submarine’s exact location, or a timetable for a rescue operation.

The torpedo section reportedly filled with water after the accident Sunday, and Russian media reports quoted naval sources as saying that some crew members may have perished.

The commander of the Russian navy, Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov, told the Itar-Tass news agency that there were signs of a collision involving the 13,900-ton, 500-foot Kursk, one of a class of Russian submarines that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has dubbed Oscar II.

The Kursk was built in 1994 and commissioned in 1995. A Russian navy spokesman said that the submarine, which is capable of carrying 24 nuclear or conventional missiles, had no nuclear weapons on board and that the two reactors had been switched off.

Kuroyedov said all available rescue services rushed to the scene, but “the situation is bad. Despite all the efforts being taken, the probability of a successful outcome with the Kursk is not very high.” It was not clear whether he was referring to the prospect of rescuing the crew or saving the submarine.

Sergei Sokut, a naval expert at the Independent Military Agency, a news agency, said it would be difficult to raise the submarine. However, he said he believed that the crew could survive for several weeks since power and oxygen have been restored.

Late Monday, naval officials told Russian news agencies that the most likely cause of the accident was a collision with a foreign submarine. But early today, Itar-Tass quoted a source in a defense firm that is part of the rescue team as saying the preliminary inspection of the hull showed that the crisis most likely occurred because of a blast and not a collision.

The Russian--and before, Soviet--submarine fleet has been plagued by tragedies, and this latest accident raised doubts about standards and procedures in the decaying and cash-starved navy.

The Russian navy spokesman said there were no radiation leaks. Norwegian authorities monitoring the situation confirmed that there were no signs of radiation leakage.

The submarine plunged to the floor of the Barents Sea on Sunday during naval exercises, which were being observed discreetly by NATO vessels. Two hours after the Kursk failed to make a scheduled radio communication, other Russian vessels in the area became aware that the crew of the Kursk was communicating by tapping on the hull.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a meeting with reporters and editors at The Los Angeles Times, would not comment on the possibility of American involvement.

“We are talking with the Russians,” she said. “We’re obviously very concerned about their people who are in the submarine, and we’re trying to figure out a way to be helpful.”

At the Pentagon, U.S. Navy officials denied that any American surface ship or submarine was involved. An electronic surveillance ship, the Loyal, was operating in the area, presumably monitoring one of the Russian navy’s largest regular naval exercises. But Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley said the Loyal was “a long way away” from the Kursk.

But officials refused to discuss the whereabouts of American subs at the time the Kursk went down. U.S. nuclear submarines, which sit silently offshore and eavesdrop on communications, often operate near military exercises. Often, the U.S. vessels shadow Russian subs during exercises to hone their tracking skills.

The Barents Sea, which is home to most of the Russian submarine fleet, is a common bumping ground. In 1993, a U.S. nuclear submarine, the Grayling, collided with a Russian ballistic missile submarine, causing slight damage to both vessels. A year earlier, also in the Barents Sea, the Baton Rouge nuclear submarine hit a Russian sub, also causing minimal damage.

Quigley said Monday that the U.S. military had not been asked to assist in a potential rescue of the Russian crew. One reliable U.S. source said that the United States had offered its help but that the Russians had declined.

The U.S. Navy has four rescue vessels designed to be flown anywhere in the world from North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado to save the lives of submariners trapped in a crippled boat at the bottom of the sea.

Most U.S. allies, including Britain, Turkey, France, Italy and Japan, have retrofitted their submarines with compatible escape hatches and “skirts” capable of keeping one of the so-called Deep Submerged Rescue Vessel in position during a rescue.

A retired U.S. admiral involved in past submarine rescues said the Russians apparently have a rescue device that attaches near the hatch of a stricken sub and works like a cable-guided elevator.

News of the accident did not emerge in Russia until Monday morning, when a minor malfunction aboard a Russian nuclear submarine was reported.

Naval sources later told Russian news agencies that a foreign submarine may have collided with the Kursk and could be lying nearby, damaged. But the U.S., Britain and Norway all denied that their vessels in the area were involved in any collision.

Paul Beaver, a naval expert with Jane’s Information Group, said that it was unlikely that the submarine collided with a NATO vessel, but that it might have hit a Russian craft.

Beaver said the Russian and Soviet submarines had a poor accident record because the fleet was large and technical standards were lower than in the West.

“You have to look at this and say to yourself, ‘How did they get into this position? Were they just unlucky?’ Giving the Russians the benefit of the doubt, you can say they had an accident. But now they’ve got to get those people out. That will be the true test of their professionalism,” he said.

Nine Russian navy war and rescue ships steamed to the area, north of the Northern Fleet base of Severomorsk, near Murmansk, and several others were expected to join them.

There have been varying reports of the submarine’s location and depth under water. The AVN military agency reported that the stricken vessel was 85 miles north of Severomorsk. ORT television said it was 60 miles north of Severomorsk. Russian media reports said the submarine was marooned at a depth of 350 feet, while Norwegian authorities, which had a vessel in the area, put the depth at 450 feet.

There also were conflicting reports on whether the sub was lying level on the seabed or listing at an angle.

Beaver said he believed that there was a good chance of rescuing the crew, provided that the Russians asked for Western help if they needed it.

“I’m not sure the Russians have got the technical expertise to do it,” he said.

One option would be to evacuate the crew using rescue submarines. A second option would be a “free ascent,” in which the crew would swim out.

Ivan Safranchuk, an analyst from the Center for Policy Studies, a Moscow think tank, said that if Russians continued to cast blame on a foreign vessel despite denials from Western powers, it could further complicate its troubled relationship with NATO.

“The worst possible consequence would be that we never admit that we were at fault in this accident. It seems obvious a number of people died, but the main reason is still being given as an accident due to a collision with a foreign submarine.

“That could cause serious tension in Russian-U.S. relations--after all those exchanges, meeting and summits,” he warned.

There have been many major accidents involving Soviet nuclear submarines from 1960 to 1989. The most recent was the Komsomolets in 1989, which went down in the Norwegian Sea after a fire. Forty-two crew members, including the captain, perished.

Other incidents included a near-meltdown in a Soviet nuclear submarine in October 1960; a similar crisis in 1961; power failures and radiation leaks in a submarine in 1963; a fire on a submarine in 1970 that caused the vessel to sink off the Spanish coast, killing 52; and a 1986 explosion in a nuclear submarine missile tube that caused the vessel to sink near Bermuda, killing four crew members.

According to the CIA, a Soviet submarine sank off the Kola Peninsula in 1968. That same year, another sank about 750 miles northwest of Hawaii, coming to rest on the ocean floor nearly 17,000 feet down. In 1973, the CIA commissioned the construction of a special vessel, the Hughes Glomar Explorer, to raise the sunken boat. Built at a cost of more than $200 million, by some estimates, and with a cover story that its purpose was to seek undersea mineral deposits, the Glomar Explorer found its quarry. But an accident during the lifting operation in 1975 caused the hulk to break apart, resulting in the loss of a critical portion of the submarine, its nuclear missiles and codes.

In 1983, a Soviet submarine sank in the northern Pacific, according to U.S. intelligence.

*

Times staff writers Melissa Healy in Washington, Carla Hall in Los Angeles and Tony Perry in San Diego contributed to this report.