Pakistan, Russia ‘vulnerable to N-theft’

[MastanKhan]

Hi Keysersoze----I am not a 'dude' if you were addressing me---thankyou.

You maybe trying to tell me about ramming whereas I am talking about a glancing blow. Submarines are not used for ramming other subs---most often there are glancing blows where the severity of damage depends upon the angle of approach of one boat in comparison to the other. A bigger boat on an incline angle going down, if hit from the top, let me rephrase it----gets a glancing blow from the top in the front, closer to the nose section, would be devastating to the bigger boat. First of all, it is taking a nose dive---secondly when hit from the top in the front section would give the impact extra leverage, change the angle of incline severely going downwards.

Just because of the size of these boats, the direction of impact continues for a long time. If a 100 ft long boat scrapes a 300 ft long boat, the impact would continue all along---it is not like two ballerinas dancing on the floor--touch and go--it is like two behemoths coming together---it takes them time to move away-----they are so big that won't be able to get out their way even if their life depended upon it. Am I lecturing an ex millitary man!!!! Sorry.

The fluid dynamics of impact under water are different than on ground. I don't know if the website link showed the angle and position of impact, but it is there on one of the sites.

 

[MastanKhan]

Office of engineers,

The link that you posted sir, is of a differnt time frame than the link that I posted. On your link, the outside of the front portion has been stripped out, the front portion has been cut off again. The front end of your link is different than the one I posted.

The difference is clearly visible on the picture posted by 'Hellmut'.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Check the position of the dorsal, it's the same position as shown in my links. Look at the inner hull. There was no penetration where the damage occurred.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hi Keysersoze----I am not a 'dude' if you were addressing me---thankyou.

You maybe trying to tell me about ramming whereas I am talking about a glancing blow. Submarines are not used for ramming other subs---most often there are glancing blows where the severity of damage depends upon the angle of approach of one boat in comparison to the other. A bigger boat on an incline angle going down, if hit from the top, let me rephrase it----gets a glancing blow from the top in the front, closer to the nose section, would be devastating to the bigger boat. First of all, it is taking a nose dive---secondly when hit from the top in the front section would give the impact extra leverage, change the angle of incline severely going downwards.

Just because of the size of these boats, the direction of impact continues for a long time. If a 100 ft long boat scrapes a 300 ft long boat, the impact would continue all along---it is not like two ballerinas dancing on the floor--touch and go--it is like two behemoths coming together---it takes them time to move away-----they are so big that won't be able to get out their way even if their life depended upon it. Am I lecturing an ex millitary man!!!! Sorry.

The fluid dynamics of impact under water are different than on ground. I don't know if the website link showed the angle and position of impact, but it is there on one of the sites.

Dude is a slang term used to describe a male apologies if you are female........

Well the next simple question is as follows how can a lighter submarine with a single hull in this equation, take less damage (than a double skinned vessel) regardless of angles the damage would be catastrophic for both vessels and not sink then?

Frankly everyone is saying it was a accident (including the Russians) but obviously it is another pointless conspiracy.....

Science does say that the simplest answers are probably true.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Today, it is 'in', amongst the young, to call folks, 'dude'.

However, it is actually derogatory since the meaning is:

1. a man too much concerned with his clothes and appearance; dandy; fop; or,

2. A Wild West Slang for a city fellow or tourist, esp. an Easterner who is vacationing on a ranch and who knows nothing about 'real life'.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The impact is not the reason for the sinking----after the glancing blow, Kursk armed her torps to make a strike, but the captain didnot launch immediately. When Toledo heard the kursk flooding her tubes knew something had to be done real fast or both of them, memphis and toledo would be done. The fast thinking fast reacting captain saved the day for the americans. Shoot and scoot. The americans knew where they were, the russian was clueless of the enemies position.

Now as for as the picture of kursk posted in the link by OOE, I look at it in a different manner. Firstly it looks like and older picture than the one posted by Hellmut. Secondly, the top half where the hole was in Hellmut's picture is seemingly sawed off. The way it has been sawed off is from the top half upto wher that hole was.
You can see the structural beams or rods in OOe's link----they ae not present in Hellmut's link.

Ps---this discussion has reached a dead end as far as I am concerned----russian and american boats had manya collisions before this incident resluting in the loss of man and material. They have taken their losses with a grain of salt---the russians more so. Atleast they won't start the 3rd war because of collisions. Both of them love playing these games.

People should be grateful to TOM CLANCY / HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER to open up to what has been happening under blue seas.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

MK,

I am lost. We've presented to you evidence that there was no impact or at least no attack that has resulted in the sinking of the KURSK. Even if I take Hellmut's pictures as legitimate (which I do not), I've presented more than convincing proof that no torpedo has penetrated the KURSK's torpedo bays and caused the explosions noted.

What evidence can you provide to counter my photo proofs?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Talk about blaming everybody else-----first the b 52 bomber fiasco----now a nuclear sub fiasco-----MSN re3ported that the records were faked over a month---.


updated 12:19 p.m. EDT, Fri October 26, 2007 Nuclear sub commander loses job amid misconduct probeStory Highlights
Navy says it has lost confidence in officer's ability to command

Crew members on sub disciplined for faking inspection records, Navy says

Ten people have been relieved of duty; six received "nonjudicial punishment"

Next Article in U.S. »




(CNN) -- The commander of the nuclear-powered submarine USS Hampton has been relieved of his command amid an inquiry into misconduct by crew members, the U.S. Navy said Friday.


The USS Hampton appears in an undated photograph.

Cmdr. Michael B. Portland lost his post "due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command," the Navy said in a statement. Cmdr. William J. Houston will replace Portland.

The crew neither maintained inspection records nor conducted the required inspection of chemical levels associated with the cooling system of the ship's nuclear reactor, Navy officials said. The crew then went back and falsified existing records to make it appear the work had been done.

"There is not, and never was, any danger to the crew or the public," the Navy said.

Portland's demotion brings to 10 the number of people relieved of duty on the submarine in the wake of the misconduct probe.

Six personnel have been punished for forging inspection records for the cooling system, the Navy officials said Monday. Those six -- one officer and five enlisted personnel -- received a "nonjudicial punishment" after other Navy personnel discovered their actions, the officials said.

The Navy said Friday that one officer and two enlisted crew members have been temporarily reassigned to Submarine Squadron 11. Portland also will be temporarily reassigned to that squadron.

The misconduct was discovered September 17 but not made public until after completion of an initial inquiry.

A fact-finding investigation is under way, and further action against Navy crew members is possible, a Navy official said.

The Hampton remains in port in San Diego, California. In all, the $900 million vessel's crew includes 13 officers and 116 enlisted personnel. E-mail to a friend

All About U.S. Navy

 

[never]

the states has a great ability to point fingers even when it is almost always at fault. we all know their underlying theme of maligning pakistan inparticular.
1- the us loosing track of nuclear weapons
2- loosing weaponary in iraq
3- killing millions of innocent people around the world for several decades
4- using depleted uranium munitions or dirty bombs
5- using nuclear weapons against cicvilians twice, against a non nuclear enemy
6- starting illegal wars
7- shooting down passenger airline in the gulf
infact if you start thinking there is noworse country in the world, and there actions are consistent and not confinned to any individual president or party.

 

[fatman17]

getting back to the thread...

Pakistan’s nukes not about to fall under jihadi control’

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not about to fall into the hands of jihadists or rogue elements in the military, according to a private US intelligence firm.

Kamran Bokhari, who is director of Middle East analysis at Strategic Forecasting Inc, said in an online discussion on Pakistan sponsored by the Washington Post that Pakistan’s army has developed a decent command and control infrastructure to protect its nuclear assets. A three-star general heads the Strategic Plans Division which is the body responsible for managing the country’s nuclear arsenal. “Recently, Islamabad further institutionalised the issue by widening the circle of people with decision-making power regarding the nukes,” he said.

Mr Bokhari said the Pakistan Army is not designed to fight insurgencies, and the ongoing political transition and the pending retirement of President Pervez Musharraf as army chief has further complicated matters.

“Another major issue is that the Pakistani intelligence/security establishment is to a significant degree compromised (mostly in the junior ranks) to where the jihadists are always one step ahead of the authorities. Well placed sources have described the situation as agencies within agencies, which are dominated by people who bat for both sides. It will be sometime before the Pakistanis can successfully engage in a cleansing process and for that political stability is a pre-requisite,” he said.

He said it was wrong to lump Pakistan with states such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, because the government’s writ on its territory “has been quite solid”, except in the tribal areas.

Mr Bokhari said there was a huge poverty of thought, not just in Pakistan but globally, on how to fight the scourge of jihadism. There was a massive saturation of “experts” contributing to the intellectual confusion. “There is a dire need to bring together the real experts who understand the phenomenon we are dealing with and are familiar with the needs of policy-making. We are talking about a very small group of people from the epistemic community who at their individual level have some decent ideas,” he said.

He said the extremism and militancy in Pakistan was to a great degree the outcome of the unsettled debate over Pakistan’s ideology, on whether it should be a secular state or an Islamic state.

Mr Bokhari said Benazir Bhutto is unlikely to be able to make any significant dent in the jihadis because she would need major political capital and the full support of the military establishment to do so, neither of which was likely.