Tiki Tam Tam
<b>MILITARY PROFESSIONALS</b>
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,330
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistan, Russia vulnerable to N-theft
- Thread starter solid snake
- Start date
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
My understanding was that it was a faulty torpedo (inside the sub) that was the causation.
But hey, Why have simple explanations when conspiracies are there
su-47
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm sure the kursk was not sunk by the Memphis. Reason: had the M48 torpedo hit, it would have shredded the hull inwards. all the photos shown show the hull being blasted outwards.
Also, there was a second explosion that was equivalent to about 3-7 tons of TNT and was large enough to register on seismographs across Northern Europe. This shows that many torpedos inside the kursk exploded simultaneously. Usually torpedos inside a modern sub doesnt explode when a torpedo hits it from outside.
Also, there was a second explosion that was equivalent to about 3-7 tons of TNT and was large enough to register on seismographs across Northern Europe. This shows that many torpedos inside the kursk exploded simultaneously. Usually torpedos inside a modern sub doesnt explode when a torpedo hits it from outside.
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
Well guys---why don't you type in ' What happened to kursk ' in the search engine and see what kind of results pop up. Read the material and see for yourself.
Remember that kursk had the new russian torpedos---a chinese delegation was also there to see the demonstration of the so called 300km/hr torpedo ( correct me on that plz ) that could get through the defences of the american aircraft carrier.
Well guys---why don't you type in ' What happened to kursk ' in the search engine and see what kind of results pop up. Read the material and see for yourself.
Remember that kursk had the new russian torpedos---a chinese delegation was also there to see the demonstration of the so called 300km/hr torpedo ( correct me on that plz ) that could get through the defences of the american aircraft carrier.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Dude I am going to post a few things from other people and then let you decide what the truth is......
The Kursk was carrying old-style torpedoes that had already been mandated to be destroyed by the Russian military due to instability issues. This type torpedo had sunk a British sub before. Problem is I don't believe the Russian military was providing new torpedoes to replace the salvaging of these.
The driver motor for the pressurization system, which should only be engaged just prior to the torpedo launching, was either inadvertently knocked on by one submariner or turned on for testing and then he didn't turn it off. This caused the pressurization system, which used hydrogen peroxide as the pressurizing liquid, to over pressure, burst a stainless steel line, and pour hydrogen peroxide into the carbon steel casing of the torpedo.
When hydrogen peroxide hits carbon steel it expands something like 600 times its volume (I'm pulling that out of my worn out memory hole so I'd have to check the exact number). So, when the pressurization system sprung a leak, the torpedo casing turned into a giant pipe bomb. When it went off it caused neighboring torpedoes to go off.
The Kursk was carrying old-style torpedoes that had already been mandated to be destroyed by the Russian military due to instability issues. This type torpedo had sunk a British sub before. Problem is I don't believe the Russian military was providing new torpedoes to replace the salvaging of these.
The driver motor for the pressurization system, which should only be engaged just prior to the torpedo launching, was either inadvertently knocked on by one submariner or turned on for testing and then he didn't turn it off. This caused the pressurization system, which used hydrogen peroxide as the pressurizing liquid, to over pressure, burst a stainless steel line, and pour hydrogen peroxide into the carbon steel casing of the torpedo.
When hydrogen peroxide hits carbon steel it expands something like 600 times its volume (I'm pulling that out of my worn out memory hole so I'd have to check the exact number). So, when the pressurization system sprung a leak, the torpedo casing turned into a giant pipe bomb. When it went off it caused neighboring torpedoes to go off.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
No-one has yet established the truth about what caused the Kursk K-141 nuclear submarine to lose contact with the outside world and sink to the bottom of the Barents Sea with all hands on board.
The extent of the damage discovered by rescuers has led experts to conclude that the submarine was hit by a large explosion or that it collided with the sea bed or another large vessel. Some theories suggest a collision triggered an explosion.
Two explosions were heard at the time of the accident, by US and Norwegian authorities monitoring Russian exercises.
The second explosion was reported to be equivalent to two tonnes of TNT and bigger than the first.
The theories about the cause of these explosions abound, and so far none have been substantiated:
* A torpedo in the Kursk's forward compartment - which was carrying up to 30 warheads - exploded.
"There may have been an explosion in one of the weapons systems aboard, for example a torpedo, which then triggered a bigger explosion two minutes later," said Norwegian armed forces spokesman Brigadier Kjell Grandhagen.
Russia's official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda has reported that the Kursk's battery and propeller torpedo-launching technology had been replaced with a cheaper and potentially dangerous liquid fuel system, against the wishes of Navy officials. The liquid fuel is highly combustible.
US naval experts also believe volatile fuel could be to blame. Using data obtained from an intelligence gathering ship and two US nuclear submarines that were monitoring the Kursk during exercises, they say the first explosion involved fuel from a torpedo or a long-range anti-shipping missile carried by the sub.
They say this then created a fire which set off other warheads, provoking an explosion which ripped open the Kursk's twin-pressurised hulls.
* The submarine collided with the seabed during a manoeuvre, causing tanks of pressurised air inside the submarine to explode or otherwise triggering a larger explosion. A retired commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, has suggested that the accident was a result of incompetence, bad planning and bad training.
"The Kursk is designed for the ocean, not for shallow waters. Where it was manoeuvring and where it perished is completely wild - strong currents and strong winds. You can't carry out torpedo firing there," he said.
* The submarine collided with a US or British submarine, which triggered a second explosion. Russia's navy chief Mikhail Motsak said three non-Russian submarines were in the Barents Sea at the time of the accident. "We think that it could have been a British submarine", he said. The Russian daily Sevodnya said it had evidence that the Kursk crashed into a US submersible, which then limped into a Norwegian port.
The Pentagon has admitted that two US submarines were in the same zone, but denied they were involved in a collision.
"We have found absolutely no indication that there has been a collision in the area," Norwegian armed forces spokesman Brigadier Kjell Grandhagen has told the BBC.
* It was sunk by an anti-ship missile fired by a Russian cruiser. According to Germany's Berliner Zeitung, quoting a report by Russia's intelligence service the FSB, the Kursk was sunk by a radar-guided Granit missile fired by the Kirov class nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great. The FSB, however, has denied knowledge of the report.
* The submarine hit a surface vessel, possibly a Russian ship
* It hit a mine left over from World War II.
Casualties
It is thought that whatever happened to the Kursk it happened quickly - so quickly that it could not even send out a distress call, or release an emergency beacon.
Vladimir Putin on a submarine
President Vladimir Putin took a trip on a submarine, the Karelia, earlier this year
Doubts have arisen regarding the news disseminated by the Russian navy that seamen inside the vessel had been communicating with rescuers by tapping on the submarine wall.
Russian defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer says the sounds detected were never more than a faint knocking sound coming from somewhere inside the vessel.
And a US intelligence analysis, details of which were apparently leaked to the US media, is said to indicate that no communication of any kind was heard from inside the submarine at any time after the disaster struck.
BBC NEWS | Europe | What caused the accident?
The extent of the damage discovered by rescuers has led experts to conclude that the submarine was hit by a large explosion or that it collided with the sea bed or another large vessel. Some theories suggest a collision triggered an explosion.
Two explosions were heard at the time of the accident, by US and Norwegian authorities monitoring Russian exercises.
The second explosion was reported to be equivalent to two tonnes of TNT and bigger than the first.
The theories about the cause of these explosions abound, and so far none have been substantiated:
* A torpedo in the Kursk's forward compartment - which was carrying up to 30 warheads - exploded.
"There may have been an explosion in one of the weapons systems aboard, for example a torpedo, which then triggered a bigger explosion two minutes later," said Norwegian armed forces spokesman Brigadier Kjell Grandhagen.
Russia's official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda has reported that the Kursk's battery and propeller torpedo-launching technology had been replaced with a cheaper and potentially dangerous liquid fuel system, against the wishes of Navy officials. The liquid fuel is highly combustible.
US naval experts also believe volatile fuel could be to blame. Using data obtained from an intelligence gathering ship and two US nuclear submarines that were monitoring the Kursk during exercises, they say the first explosion involved fuel from a torpedo or a long-range anti-shipping missile carried by the sub.
They say this then created a fire which set off other warheads, provoking an explosion which ripped open the Kursk's twin-pressurised hulls.
* The submarine collided with the seabed during a manoeuvre, causing tanks of pressurised air inside the submarine to explode or otherwise triggering a larger explosion. A retired commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, has suggested that the accident was a result of incompetence, bad planning and bad training.
"The Kursk is designed for the ocean, not for shallow waters. Where it was manoeuvring and where it perished is completely wild - strong currents and strong winds. You can't carry out torpedo firing there," he said.
* The submarine collided with a US or British submarine, which triggered a second explosion. Russia's navy chief Mikhail Motsak said three non-Russian submarines were in the Barents Sea at the time of the accident. "We think that it could have been a British submarine", he said. The Russian daily Sevodnya said it had evidence that the Kursk crashed into a US submersible, which then limped into a Norwegian port.
The Pentagon has admitted that two US submarines were in the same zone, but denied they were involved in a collision.
"We have found absolutely no indication that there has been a collision in the area," Norwegian armed forces spokesman Brigadier Kjell Grandhagen has told the BBC.
* It was sunk by an anti-ship missile fired by a Russian cruiser. According to Germany's Berliner Zeitung, quoting a report by Russia's intelligence service the FSB, the Kursk was sunk by a radar-guided Granit missile fired by the Kirov class nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great. The FSB, however, has denied knowledge of the report.
* The submarine hit a surface vessel, possibly a Russian ship
* It hit a mine left over from World War II.
Casualties
It is thought that whatever happened to the Kursk it happened quickly - so quickly that it could not even send out a distress call, or release an emergency beacon.
Vladimir Putin on a submarine
President Vladimir Putin took a trip on a submarine, the Karelia, earlier this year
Doubts have arisen regarding the news disseminated by the Russian navy that seamen inside the vessel had been communicating with rescuers by tapping on the submarine wall.
Russian defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer says the sounds detected were never more than a faint knocking sound coming from somewhere inside the vessel.
And a US intelligence analysis, details of which were apparently leaked to the US media, is said to indicate that no communication of any kind was heard from inside the submarine at any time after the disaster struck.
BBC NEWS | Europe | What caused the accident?
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
U.S. Spy Sub Said to Record Torpedo Blast Aboard Kursk
By STEVEN LEE MYERS AND CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: August 29, 2000
Six days after something went dreadfully wrong with the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk, another submarine quietly pulled into a Norwegian port, carrying some of the most detailed evidence so far of why the pride of Russia's navy sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea.
The other submarine was the Memphis, a nuclear-powered attack submarine based in Groton, Conn., and one of two American submarines that were spying on the largest Russian naval exercise in years when disaster struck the Kursk on the morning of Aug. 12.
By the time the Memphis reached Bergen, Norway, Russian officials, including the defense minister, Marshal Igor D. Sergeyev, had said the Kursk had probably sunk after colliding with a foreign submarine or a World War II mine. So the arrival of the Memphis spawned news reports in Russia that a damaged submarine needing repairs had limped into port.
Publicly, the Pentagon still refuses to comment on the whereabouts or the mission of the Memphis. And they say the most likely cause of the sinking is the misfiring of one of the Kursk's torpedoes.
They insist that the Memphis was not damaged. Nor was it, the other American submarine or any other foreign submarine involved in any collision, they said. The Memphis's arrival in Norway was a long-scheduled liberty call, they said.
The call allowed the submarine to unload sonar tapes and other recordings that the Americans say captured two explosions that ravaged and sank the Kursk, killing all 118 people on board.
Those tapes, now being analyzed at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Md., contain the strongest evidence, until now not discussed in detail, to support the leading American theory of what destroyed the Kursk.
And that theory, they said, does not include the collision that the Russians have said probably occurred. ''We have subs that hear everything that goes on,'' a senior officer in Washington said. ''It's pretty clear to us what happened.''
According to the American theory, a rocket-propelled torpedo being loaded or launched as part of an exercise misfired, its engine or its fuel exploding.
After 2 minutes and 15 seconds -- during which time the Kursk's captain either increased power from the nuclear reactor or blew ballast in an effort to surface -- a powerful explosion of the torpedo's warhead tore a gaping hole in the submarine's bow, killing most if not all of the crew instantly.
[In Vladivostok, Russia, today, a former submarine officer who is a member of a governmental commission investigating the explosion said a new weapons system was being tested on board the Kursk when it sank. But the former officer, Sergei V. Zhekov, would not elaborate on the system during a news conference, saying it was a state secret, the news agency Interfax reported.]
When the Kursk sank, the United States government knew within hours. The Americans collected telltale recordings by means of submarines and a surface ship, and even from shore.
They detected no sounds of a collision. And they monitored the Russian fleet's emergency radio transmissions closely during the aftermath.
In addition to two submarines, the Navy had a surface ship, the Loyal, in the Barents Sea.
The Loyal is one of a class of surveillance ships operated by civilian contractors, but with as many as 15 Navy sailors and officers aboard.
According to the Navy, ships like the Loyal have only a single mission: ''to gather underwater acoustical data'' in support of ''the antisubmarine warfare mission'' of fleet commanders.
The ship can tow an array of underwater listening devices that pick up the most minute data, and that, the officials said, was precisely what it was doing.
A senior American officer said the two submarines were ''a long ways away'' from the Kursk at the time of the explosions, but he declined to say how far. Another senior officer said that under the Navy's rules of engagement the submarines would not have gone any closer than five miles, especially because the Russian ships were testing weapons. The Loyal, whose presence would have been obvious to the Russian fleet, was presumably even farther away.
Still, the senior officer said, the submarines were close enough not only to detect the explosions with their sonar, but also to feel the underwater concussion caused by the second, larger blast.
Even so, there was no damage to the Memphis or the other submarine, all of the officials said. ''Not a teacup was rattled,'' the senior military officer said.
Britain, the other country whose submarines regularly prowl the Barents, has denied that it had a submarine in the area at the time.
Within hours of the explosions, both American submarines radioed messages back to fleet headquarters. ''They were alive and well and had no bumps,'' another senior officer said.
The American officials said that neither the two submarines nor the Loyal had detected any sounds that would suggest that the Kursk had been involved in a collision of any sort.
Even at great distances, the signals created by a collision or an explosion are easy to distinguish, the officials said.
One official also said that given the Kursk's immense size, larger than the American Trident ballistic missile submarines, it was unlikely that another vessel could have endured a collision without suffering significant, perhaps debilitating damage.
It is also unlikely, given the Kursk's double-hulled design intended to withstand crashes or torpedoes, that a collision alone could have caused the damage that doomed the Kursk, the officials and experts said.
Ever since the Kursk sank, Russian accounts of what happened have been imprecise and sometimes contradictory. Officials in Russia did not report the accident until early on Aug. 14, which was a Monday, a day after the they realized that something had gone wrong and nearly two days after the accident. Even then, they said it had happened on Sunday, rather than on Saturday.
The Russians do not deny that a massive explosion hit the Kursk. But they have insisted that the submarine first was involved in a collision with some huge object, possibly a submarine or a World War II mine.
The Russian assertions are based in part on five hours of underwater videotape now being examined by an investigative commission headed by Deputy Prime Minister Ilya I. Klebanov. Russians officials have cited external damage on the submarine's hull that they said could only have been caused by its scraping another large object, and they have reported detecting pieces from unknown foreign submarines on the ocean floor.
In a television interview a week ago, Marshal Sergeyev, the defense minister, said that Russian surface ships racing to rescue had detected a second vessel on the seabed near the Kursk and had found an unknown signal buoy like those used by submarines. Some Russian reports said the buoy's markers were green and white and did not match those of the Russian fleet. Mr. Sergeyev said the buoy had never been recovered.
American officials questioned the reports of a green and white buoy being found. They said rescue buoys on American and British submarines are orange, while emergency communication buoys are gray.
They also discounted the possibility that the second vessel the Russians claimed to have detected on the ocean floor could have been one of the two American submarines.
''They didn't go in that close to look at what happened,'' a senior intelligence official said.
But even after the explosion, the two submarines did not immediately leave the area, the officials said. They continued to gather intelligence, intercepting frantic, confused radio messages between the other Russian ships trying to determine what had happened to the Kursk and trying to coordinate a rescue effort, the officials said.
The officials and submarine experts said it was possible that some of the crew -- perhaps 15 men or more -- had survived the initial explosions if they had managed to shut the watertight doors to their compartments in the stern quickly.
The Russians said they had detected tapping sounds from within the Kursk at least two days after it had sunk, raising hopes that a rescue of some crewmen might be possible.
Some American officials said that neither the Loyal nor the American submarines had detected the sounds, though they might not have been able to do so if they had been too far away.
The officials said it also appeared likely that the force of the second explosion had torn the Kursk apart with the force of one to two tons of TNT. The Norwegian divers who reached the Kursk a week after the accident found the rear escape hatch deformed, suggesting that the force of the blast might have rocketed throughout the submarine's compartments.
One question is whether the American submarines could have done anything to help the rescue effort. The American officials said the American submarines had not carried the kind of rescue equipment, like a submersible vehicle, that could have helped.
While the Americans had a fair guess of what had happened to the Kursk early on, it was only after the Memphis unloaded its sonar tapes on Aug. 18 that officials in Washington began to offer the theory of the torpedo misfiring.
But how much the Pentagon will be prepared to say in public remains in question. The submarine fleet has been traditionally wrapped in silence, and even now, more than two weeks later, the Pentagon has not publicly acknowledged the presence of two submarines in the Barents. Officials privately confirmed the role of the Memphis only when the vessel surfaced in Norway, and they still will not disclose the name of the other submarine. Nor have the Americans provided information on the submarines' exact whereabouts when the Kursk went down.
Given that secrecy, and the likelihood that the Russians will not fully share what they learn even if they recover the wreckage, it will be difficult to learn with any certainty what happened to the Kursk.
In 1968 an American submarine, the Scorpion, sank in the Atlantic near the Azores. Like the Kursk, it may have have been destroyed in an accident involving a torpedo misfiring. Other experts have argued that a faulty battery led to a fire and explosion. But to this day there is no public explanation of what happened.
U.S. Spy Sub Said to Record Torpedo Blast Aboard Kursk - New York Times
By STEVEN LEE MYERS AND CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: August 29, 2000
Six days after something went dreadfully wrong with the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk, another submarine quietly pulled into a Norwegian port, carrying some of the most detailed evidence so far of why the pride of Russia's navy sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea.
The other submarine was the Memphis, a nuclear-powered attack submarine based in Groton, Conn., and one of two American submarines that were spying on the largest Russian naval exercise in years when disaster struck the Kursk on the morning of Aug. 12.
By the time the Memphis reached Bergen, Norway, Russian officials, including the defense minister, Marshal Igor D. Sergeyev, had said the Kursk had probably sunk after colliding with a foreign submarine or a World War II mine. So the arrival of the Memphis spawned news reports in Russia that a damaged submarine needing repairs had limped into port.
Publicly, the Pentagon still refuses to comment on the whereabouts or the mission of the Memphis. And they say the most likely cause of the sinking is the misfiring of one of the Kursk's torpedoes.
They insist that the Memphis was not damaged. Nor was it, the other American submarine or any other foreign submarine involved in any collision, they said. The Memphis's arrival in Norway was a long-scheduled liberty call, they said.
The call allowed the submarine to unload sonar tapes and other recordings that the Americans say captured two explosions that ravaged and sank the Kursk, killing all 118 people on board.
Those tapes, now being analyzed at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Md., contain the strongest evidence, until now not discussed in detail, to support the leading American theory of what destroyed the Kursk.
And that theory, they said, does not include the collision that the Russians have said probably occurred. ''We have subs that hear everything that goes on,'' a senior officer in Washington said. ''It's pretty clear to us what happened.''
According to the American theory, a rocket-propelled torpedo being loaded or launched as part of an exercise misfired, its engine or its fuel exploding.
After 2 minutes and 15 seconds -- during which time the Kursk's captain either increased power from the nuclear reactor or blew ballast in an effort to surface -- a powerful explosion of the torpedo's warhead tore a gaping hole in the submarine's bow, killing most if not all of the crew instantly.
[In Vladivostok, Russia, today, a former submarine officer who is a member of a governmental commission investigating the explosion said a new weapons system was being tested on board the Kursk when it sank. But the former officer, Sergei V. Zhekov, would not elaborate on the system during a news conference, saying it was a state secret, the news agency Interfax reported.]
When the Kursk sank, the United States government knew within hours. The Americans collected telltale recordings by means of submarines and a surface ship, and even from shore.
They detected no sounds of a collision. And they monitored the Russian fleet's emergency radio transmissions closely during the aftermath.
In addition to two submarines, the Navy had a surface ship, the Loyal, in the Barents Sea.
The Loyal is one of a class of surveillance ships operated by civilian contractors, but with as many as 15 Navy sailors and officers aboard.
According to the Navy, ships like the Loyal have only a single mission: ''to gather underwater acoustical data'' in support of ''the antisubmarine warfare mission'' of fleet commanders.
The ship can tow an array of underwater listening devices that pick up the most minute data, and that, the officials said, was precisely what it was doing.
A senior American officer said the two submarines were ''a long ways away'' from the Kursk at the time of the explosions, but he declined to say how far. Another senior officer said that under the Navy's rules of engagement the submarines would not have gone any closer than five miles, especially because the Russian ships were testing weapons. The Loyal, whose presence would have been obvious to the Russian fleet, was presumably even farther away.
Still, the senior officer said, the submarines were close enough not only to detect the explosions with their sonar, but also to feel the underwater concussion caused by the second, larger blast.
Even so, there was no damage to the Memphis or the other submarine, all of the officials said. ''Not a teacup was rattled,'' the senior military officer said.
Britain, the other country whose submarines regularly prowl the Barents, has denied that it had a submarine in the area at the time.
Within hours of the explosions, both American submarines radioed messages back to fleet headquarters. ''They were alive and well and had no bumps,'' another senior officer said.
The American officials said that neither the two submarines nor the Loyal had detected any sounds that would suggest that the Kursk had been involved in a collision of any sort.
Even at great distances, the signals created by a collision or an explosion are easy to distinguish, the officials said.
One official also said that given the Kursk's immense size, larger than the American Trident ballistic missile submarines, it was unlikely that another vessel could have endured a collision without suffering significant, perhaps debilitating damage.
It is also unlikely, given the Kursk's double-hulled design intended to withstand crashes or torpedoes, that a collision alone could have caused the damage that doomed the Kursk, the officials and experts said.
Ever since the Kursk sank, Russian accounts of what happened have been imprecise and sometimes contradictory. Officials in Russia did not report the accident until early on Aug. 14, which was a Monday, a day after the they realized that something had gone wrong and nearly two days after the accident. Even then, they said it had happened on Sunday, rather than on Saturday.
The Russians do not deny that a massive explosion hit the Kursk. But they have insisted that the submarine first was involved in a collision with some huge object, possibly a submarine or a World War II mine.
The Russian assertions are based in part on five hours of underwater videotape now being examined by an investigative commission headed by Deputy Prime Minister Ilya I. Klebanov. Russians officials have cited external damage on the submarine's hull that they said could only have been caused by its scraping another large object, and they have reported detecting pieces from unknown foreign submarines on the ocean floor.
In a television interview a week ago, Marshal Sergeyev, the defense minister, said that Russian surface ships racing to rescue had detected a second vessel on the seabed near the Kursk and had found an unknown signal buoy like those used by submarines. Some Russian reports said the buoy's markers were green and white and did not match those of the Russian fleet. Mr. Sergeyev said the buoy had never been recovered.
American officials questioned the reports of a green and white buoy being found. They said rescue buoys on American and British submarines are orange, while emergency communication buoys are gray.
They also discounted the possibility that the second vessel the Russians claimed to have detected on the ocean floor could have been one of the two American submarines.
''They didn't go in that close to look at what happened,'' a senior intelligence official said.
But even after the explosion, the two submarines did not immediately leave the area, the officials said. They continued to gather intelligence, intercepting frantic, confused radio messages between the other Russian ships trying to determine what had happened to the Kursk and trying to coordinate a rescue effort, the officials said.
The officials and submarine experts said it was possible that some of the crew -- perhaps 15 men or more -- had survived the initial explosions if they had managed to shut the watertight doors to their compartments in the stern quickly.
The Russians said they had detected tapping sounds from within the Kursk at least two days after it had sunk, raising hopes that a rescue of some crewmen might be possible.
Some American officials said that neither the Loyal nor the American submarines had detected the sounds, though they might not have been able to do so if they had been too far away.
The officials said it also appeared likely that the force of the second explosion had torn the Kursk apart with the force of one to two tons of TNT. The Norwegian divers who reached the Kursk a week after the accident found the rear escape hatch deformed, suggesting that the force of the blast might have rocketed throughout the submarine's compartments.
One question is whether the American submarines could have done anything to help the rescue effort. The American officials said the American submarines had not carried the kind of rescue equipment, like a submersible vehicle, that could have helped.
While the Americans had a fair guess of what had happened to the Kursk early on, it was only after the Memphis unloaded its sonar tapes on Aug. 18 that officials in Washington began to offer the theory of the torpedo misfiring.
But how much the Pentagon will be prepared to say in public remains in question. The submarine fleet has been traditionally wrapped in silence, and even now, more than two weeks later, the Pentagon has not publicly acknowledged the presence of two submarines in the Barents. Officials privately confirmed the role of the Memphis only when the vessel surfaced in Norway, and they still will not disclose the name of the other submarine. Nor have the Americans provided information on the submarines' exact whereabouts when the Kursk went down.
Given that secrecy, and the likelihood that the Russians will not fully share what they learn even if they recover the wreckage, it will be difficult to learn with any certainty what happened to the Kursk.
In 1968 an American submarine, the Scorpion, sank in the Atlantic near the Azores. Like the Kursk, it may have have been destroyed in an accident involving a torpedo misfiring. Other experts have argued that a faulty battery led to a fire and explosion. But to this day there is no public explanation of what happened.
U.S. Spy Sub Said to Record Torpedo Blast Aboard Kursk - New York Times
Officer of Engineers
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't need google to read ruptures.
The SHKVAL. It's a straight line weapon, no guidance. You get better results with a missile.
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Now to sum up.......I believe that a lot of people need to apply Occams razor to their thinking sometimes.
Whats more likely?
Dodgy Russian torpedo's explode inside sub? Or a lighter (9000 ton) single skinned American sub, hits a heavier 24000 ton double skinned vessel (The Kursk) and the lighter sub gets away whilst the heavier sub sinks?
Whats more likely?
Dodgy Russian torpedo's explode inside sub? Or a lighter (9000 ton) single skinned American sub, hits a heavier 24000 ton double skinned vessel (The Kursk) and the lighter sub gets away whilst the heavier sub sinks?
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
People who want to read up more, please click on these pages
The Sinking Of The Kursk?
THE KURSK MUST HAVE BEEN RAMMED BY A FOREIGN SUBMARINE / Kursk submarine (2000-2003) / WPS Russian Media Monitoring Agency -
People who want to read up more, please click on these pages
The Sinking Of The Kursk?
THE KURSK MUST HAVE BEEN RAMMED BY A FOREIGN SUBMARINE / Kursk submarine (2000-2003) / WPS Russian Media Monitoring Agency -
Officer of Engineers
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
MK,
The photos showed no evidence of a ramming. That is what we're trying to tell you. Look at the photos. They don't lie.
The photos showed no evidence of a ramming. That is what we're trying to tell you. Look at the photos. They don't lie.
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
I am looking at another web site right now----I am looking at a picture on another page-----right where the front portion of the kursk is cutoff, there is a good sized round hole, edges inside, a perfect fit for the type 48 torpedo. I was trying to post the picture here, but am unable to----you can try also click on the site below and scroll down and click on 'Did the americans sink the kursk '
What happened to Kursk?, page 1
I am looking at another web site right now----I am looking at a picture on another page-----right where the front portion of the kursk is cutoff, there is a good sized round hole, edges inside, a perfect fit for the type 48 torpedo. I was trying to post the picture here, but am unable to----you can try also click on the site below and scroll down and click on 'Did the americans sink the kursk '
What happened to Kursk?, page 1
Officer of Engineers
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
Photoshopped.
Here are the interior shots - no penetration.
English Russia » The Remains of Kursk Submarine
Here are the interior shots - no penetration.
English Russia » The Remains of Kursk Submarine
Keysersoze
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,858
- Reaction score
- 2
Dude I covered the ramming thing with the question "How can a 7000 ton boat hit a 24000 ton boat hard enough to sink it and then sail away?"
su-47
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 0
The kursk could not have been sunk by a foreign sub.
at the time of its sinking, the kursk was conducting naval exercises with the cruiser Pyotr Velikiy. Had a foreign submarin sunk kursk, the cruiser would have blown that foreign sub to shreds.
at the time of its sinking, the kursk was conducting naval exercises with the cruiser Pyotr Velikiy. Had a foreign submarin sunk kursk, the cruiser would have blown that foreign sub to shreds.
Similar threads
