Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ghi on July 04, 2007, 12:46:23 PM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c4_1175608994
-
That was interesting-particularly, If what's said is true. It would be really inflammatory.
-
1905!!!!!!
-
Very interesting vid. The Russians came close to saying exactly what this video concludes. It's always been very shaded over, since the explosion was localized in the torpedo room...and detonating torpedoes is very very difficult unless there is a large explosion caused close by... torpedoes are stored in "safe" mode, and are set to run a predetermined distance before the warhead even arms, to prevent fratricide.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Very interesting vid. The Russians came close to saying exactly what this video concludes. It's always been very shaded over, since the explosion was localized in the torpedo room...and detonating torpedoes is very very difficult unless there is a large explosion caused close by... torpedoes are stored in "safe" mode, and are set to run a predetermined distance before the warhead even arms, to prevent fratricide.
LOL what are you kidding? The warheads might be "safe" as you put it, but the actual torpedoes sure as hell are not. Few things are as prone to exploding as torpedo propellants.
-
so the "invincible" kursk was sunk by a inferior american sub.
Just for the record every russian sub is shadowed by a american hunter killer sub, make the wrong move you die.
-
I just saw the film. What unbelievable crap.
"the soviet captain could have released the air ballast to rise to the surface"
...the air ballast?
-
Originally posted by john9001
so the "invincible" kursk was sunk by a inferior american sub.
Just for the record every russian sub is shadowed by a american hunter killer sub, make the wrong move you die.
Or that's what hollywood/ministry of information wants you to think. Really John are you an adult?
On topic: official studies say the outdated practise torpedoes had a known problem with the volatile fuel and leaks. Water is a catalyst to the fuel. Fuel leak + condensed water in the torpedo tube -> explosion.
And yes, there's something very russian in risking a billion dollar sub and 200 crew by stocking the sub with over stock dangerous old training torpedoes. Just like having 3 out of 4 safety systems inoperable and simulating a system error with the last remaining one on a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Really John are you an adult?
really mr ripley, that sounds like a personal attack.
-
Originally posted by john9001
really mr ripley, that sounds like a personal attack.
Really? I wouldn't be surprised. Your ultra naive oneliners give a reason to ask the above question.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I just saw the film. What unbelievable crap.
"the soviet captain could have released the air ballast to rise to the surface"
...the air ballast?
I think he was talking about releasing the compressed air to clear the water in the ballast tanks so the sub could surface.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think he was talking about releasing the compressed air to clear the water in the ballast tanks so the sub could surface.
Yeah, that would actually make sense since that is how a submarine works.
But he didnt...
-
Mr. Ripley, according to the film, the torpedoes weren't old training torps.
They are a new, sophisticated High-speed underwater ASW rocket.
Apparantly, up for sale to the Chinese, as well.
I could see why Intel services would be interested in seeing such a weapon test-fired. It will change submarine warfare quite a bit. As to the suspected collision, and an American sub torpedoeing a Russian craft in response, seem pure Hypothesizing on the part of the film's makers. That would have been an act of war, That I'm sure the Kremlin would have made lot's of noise over.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, that would actually make sense since that is how a submarine works.
But he didnt...
No, he didn't say it correctly, but I think he meant what I described.
-
I could see why Intel services would be interested in seeing such a weapon test-fired. It will change submarine warfare quite a bit. As to the suspected collision, and an American sub torpedoeing a Russian craft in response, seem pure Hypothesizing on the part of the film's makers. That would have been an act of war, That I'm sure the Kremlin would have made lot's of noise over.
If an American sub had fired a torpedo at the Kursk, every ship in that exercise would have heard the torpedo firing on their sonar. In those shallow waters the American sub probably wouldn't have escaped the wrath of the Russian surface ships.
-
You're right, Elfie. More likely, one of those Rocket-torps hung up in the tube, or had some other kind of malfunction during the test-launch. THAT would wreck the bow torp room, and sink the Oscar-II.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Mr. Ripley, according to the film, the torpedoes weren't old training torps.
They are a new, sophisticated High-speed underwater ASW rocket.
Apparantly, up for sale to the Chinese, as well.
I could see why Intel services would be interested in seeing such a weapon test-fired. It will change submarine warfare quite a bit. As to the suspected collision, and an American sub torpedoeing a Russian craft in response, seem pure Hypothesizing on the part of the film's makers. That would have been an act of war, That I'm sure the Kremlin would have made lot's of noise over.
First of all that film someone found on a crap site is hardly the final stand point of truth in the universe. It has more flaws to its logic than swiss cheese has holes.
Secondly subs can carry several different kinds of munition on them. The russians have a large quantity of outdated training hardware at stock which they must either destroy or use in training. Being as they are they chose to risk it.
Not so many years ago they destroyed another nuclear sub when they were loading a torpedo on it. The faulty crane slipped the torpedo on the subs deck which resulted in the explosion of the fuel. I think that sub still sits at the port in Novaja Zemlja having the front portion of the hull scorched up resulting in structural failure.
So, use a f'ed up crane with $400 hardware broken/missing (probably because someone stole it) and end up destroying a friggin nuclear sub at port.
That is russia for you. And you can't make these things up - nobody would even dream in their right mind of the stuff that happened/happens down there.
-
Me think they met the giant brother of this shrimp :
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c77_1181450463
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If an American sub had fired a torpedo at the Kursk, every ship in that exercise would have heard the torpedo firing on their sonar. In those shallow waters the American sub probably wouldn't have escaped the wrath of the Russian surface ships.
Well not saying it happened, but like they like to imply. However you know sooner or later something like that can and likely will happen when two ships are so close to each other.
It's fairly common knowledge that we do play cat and mouse with the Russian subs and now other subs from other nations. So it's very likely that they could have had a collision. As for the torpedoing I wouldn't think so, and we will likely never know the real truth.
When our spy plane collied with the Chinese fighter plane, did we go to war with China? When you are pushing the edge on this kinda stuff "things" like this tend to happen and no country is going to go to war over something so minor in the overal scope of things. Unless of course they already intended to go to war.
Look into the USS Liberty.. It was attacked and almost sunk by Israel during the Six Day war. It was pretty much brushed under the table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
-
Just to add few more doubts :):
As you may know Russian finance institutions collapsed in 1998, so called 'default ' happened.
This link to the Central Bank of Russia, External Debt of the Russian Federation in 1999-2003
http://www.cbr.ru/eng/statistics/credit_statistics/print.asp?file=debt_04_e.htm
As you can see, our external debt dropped in 2000 from 177.7 bln in the end of 1999 to 146.3 bln in 2001.
30.6 bln of our debt to London Club were restructuring to 20.5 Eurobonds loosing more than 10 bln.
Common belief that Russia could do that because of high price on oil, but... This is the price of oil:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp
Year Nominal Inflation Adjusted 2006
1996 18.46 22.40
1997 17.23 20.39
1998 10.87 12.66
1999 15.56 17.78
2000 26.72 29.54
2001 21.84 23.39
2002 22.51 23.78
2003 27.54 28.42
2004 38.93 54.93
2005 46.47 47.97
2006 58.30 58.30
There was jump in oil price in 2000 but not so huge. And remember, Russia just experienced default we had a lot of domestic problems. Miraculously exactly in 2000 Russian economics started to grow, it means that there were some investments.
Russia paid external debt, invested... Where did we get all that money?
-
It's fairly common knowledge that we do play cat and mouse with the Russian subs and now other subs from other nations. So it's very likely that they could have had a collision. As for the torpedoing I wouldn't think so, and we will likely never know the real truth.
As far as the first part, very true.
Second part, do you think the Russians would have kept quiet if we had torpedo'd one of their subs while they were trying to impress the Chinese with their new torpedo? Highly unlikely. Very likely that if an American sub had fired a torpedo that the rest of the Russian fleet would have immediately attacked the American sub and sunk it. In those shallow waters it would have been extremely difficult to evade both surface and air attacks.
What about that new Russian torpedo? You guys that know physics how do you suppose it works?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What about that new Russian torpedo? You guys that know physics how do you suppose it works?
It's a supercavitating underwater missile. It travels in a curtain of steam extremely fast. It doesn't have homing capability afaik apparently due to the method of travel but it's extremely fast.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
As far as the first part, very true.
Second part, do you think the Russians would have kept quiet if we had torpedo'd one of their subs while they were trying to impress the Chinese with their new torpedo? Highly unlikely. Very likely that if an American sub had fired a torpedo that the rest of the Russian fleet would have immediately attacked the American sub and sunk it. In those shallow waters it would have been extremely difficult to evade both surface and air attacks.
And what would be the goal? To start WW3?
Everybody understood that even if it would happen it was incident and stupidity of one American captain. If French are right, Putin did the best thing he could in that situation.
It would explain what did Bush see in his eyes in 2001 :)
What about that new Russian torpedo? You guys that know physics how do you suppose it works?
Underwater missile, boils the water and fly in steam capsule.
I don't know details of guidance control.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
First of all that film someone found on a crap site
Maybe this site is full of dodo and fatasy, but i found this also interesting LASER intercept missile, shells (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=128_1177763195)
and i think is real cuz i read about it in papers ,i think Israel was testing for katiusa rokets
-
Two Il-38 ASW aircraft allegedly tracked a contact near Kursk into Norwegian waters and down the coast of Norway for several days before losing contact.
On the night of 18th of August 2000, 6 days after Kursk sank, the USS Memphis (SSN-691) arrived at the Haakonsvern naval base in Bergen, Norway. She had visible damage to her bow and sail, and 12 American women had quietly arrived in Bergen. The one thing they had in common is that they were married to US sailors serving on the Memphis.
(http://www.baksiden.net/bilder/kursk.16.jpg)
-USS Memphis docked behind KNM Bergen, an Oslo-class FF. Picture taken by Russian satellite.
On direct questioning by the Russians the Norwegian embassy in Moscow confirmed the USS Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern for repairs. Allegedly part of a fence used on LA-class SSN's sail was found near Kursk.
In the days that followed both President Clinton and the Chief Director of the CIA travelled to Moscow. Later the Norwegian government would retract their previous statement and deny that the Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern.
As far as conspiracy theories go this one is one of the more believable. Numerous collisions at sea between US and Russian subs have occurred during the Cold War, but information about the accidents was kept quiet to avoid increasing tensions.
Another theory that gained some popularity in Russia is that the Peter the Great accidentally sank the Kursk with ASW weapons during a live fire demonstration.
-
What a crock!
The Kursk was sunk due to a malfunction in their new experimental rocket torpedo.
Pretty simple
to the brave souls that were lost.
-
Originally posted by Swager
What a crock!
The Kursk was sunk due to a malfunction in their new experimental rocket torpedo.
Pretty simple
to the brave souls that were lost.
That’s just as much of a ”crock” as the collision theory. The official Russian report says it was an older Type 65-76 torpedo that had been damaged during loading, and leaked hydrogen-peroxide fuel. The hydrogen-peroxide started a fire the Kursk’s crew couldn’t handle and after a while the fire cooked off other munitions resulting in a catastrophic explosion.
-
And what would be the goal? To start WW3?
Everybody understood that even if it would happen it was incident and stupidity of one American captain. If French are right, Putin did the best thing he could in that situation.
I would expect any country to sink the offender in the situation I described. The goal would be to stop an aggressor from making another attack. If they attacked once, they could and probably would do so again.
Not that I believe the USS Memphis launched a torpedo, I'm just responding to what was said in the video.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I would expect any country to sink the offender in the situation I described. The goal would be to stop an aggressor from making another attack. If they attacked once, they could and probably would do so again.
Not that I believe the USS Memphis launched a torpedo, I'm just responding to what was said in the video.
May be you are right... I don't know.
Hope we will be never on the position to make such decisions.
-
As some one who served on an America fast attack submarine (Swager did as well) as a sonar tech I can tell you it was routine for us to set off Soviet waters and then track Soviet submarines as they left for patrol. sometimes for months. That's here-nor-there...
The Kursk sank due to a malfunction in a torpedo that used a hydrogen peroxide based propellant. This type of propellant is highly volatile and a serious fire hazzard.
This is what probably caused the Kursk to sink - the propellant caught fire then detonated the torpedo warhead. Once the Kursk flooded and went to the bottom there was no hope in saving any of the surviving crew.
Torpedo fuel leak sank Kursk (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2600)
All other nonsensical 'conspiracy theory' nutbagness aside some of you seem to want to believe in the most ridiculous garbage.
Oswald killed Kennedy alone, the earth is round, the US actually landed men on the moon and Bush actually believe WMDs were in Iraq.
Wotan mit uns!!!
-
This link gives a little info on the rocket torp, for those of you wondering about it:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a20_1174275765
Interesting read, that.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
As some one who served on an America fast attack submarine (Swager did as well) as a sonar tech I can tell you it was routine for us to set off Soviet waters and then track Soviet submarines as they left for patrol. sometimes for months. That's here-nor-there...
The Kursk sank due to a malfunction in a torpedo that used a hydrogen peroxide based propellant. This type of propellant is highly volatile and a serious fire hazzard.
This is what probably caused the Kursk to sink - the propellant caught fire then detonated the torpedo warhead. Once the Kursk flooded and went to the bottom there was no hope in saving any of the surviving crew.
Torpedo fuel leak sank Kursk (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2600)
All other nonsensical 'conspiracy theory' nutbagness aside some of you seem to want to believe in the most ridiculous garbage.
Oswald killed Kennedy alone, the earth is round, the US actually landed men on the moon and Bush actually believe WMDs were in Iraq.
Wotan mit uns!!!
And yet the U.S.S. Memphis shows up in a Norweigan port, on an unscheduled port call, 6 days after the "incident", (almost the exact time it would take to get there if you were limping along with major stability issues) with damage to her starboard bow? Do I think there was an incident? YES. Do i think we fired any torpedoes? Probably not, although, in such shallow water with so much traffic in a wargame, it would be possible to slip one into the Kursk, and get out of there. Both subs would easily have been able to negotiate their way out in the confusion of what happened. Would be interested to see the sonar tapes from a good russian boat.... or better yet the sonar log from the other attack boat we had.... but it's unlikely that would ever happen.
-
The new torp the russians developed, (and which the Iranians apparently developed on their own with help from China, as well) basically, sheathes itself in vapor. It is said it is unguided or capable of only the bare minimum of course corrections. Moving at 225 to 300 miles per hour though, it really doesn't have to have any form of guidance. It's designed to attack surface ships, specifically, our aircraft carriers. Using it on subs would be difficult, and only achieved with active sonar.... which would give away the attacking sub.
-
Yes, but all the sub would have to do would be flip on the sonar for a second, find out if they were lined up, and shoot. A torpedo moving that fast, the aircraft carrier could do nothing more than take the sub down with it. They aren't exactly capable of dodging.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Yes, but all the sub would have to do would be flip on the sonar for a second, find out if they were lined up, and shoot. A torpedo moving that fast, the aircraft carrier could do nothing more than take the sub down with it. They aren't exactly capable of dodging.
He meant when attacking another sub. The carrier can be passively monitored or even actively using the good old periscope view.
With an another sub there's a problem of depth and quiet operation.
-
Ah, I thought he meant in the attack of a carrier. :o
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
(almost the exact time it would take to get there if you were limping along with major stability issues)
What kind of rubbish is this? How do you calculate the exact time it would take for a submarine to "limp home". Is it capable of 4 knots? 9 knots? On what do you base this assumption?
-
Something tells me that there are plenty of people both in norway, usa and russia that knows in detail what happened. Some things are best kept in the dark and settled behind closed doors.
-
The over dramatic descriptions of the shkval makes me think that the story is likely bs.
The shkval has very limited usefullness, it's unguided and uses a magnetic fuse. But most importantly it's extremely LOUD, and because it travels in a straight line, if you shoot one off everybody in the ocean is going to know where you're at.
It's really more of a defensive counter measure.
-
What do the guys over on the subsim.com forums think of the clip ?
-
Originally posted by Vad
May be you are right... I don't know.
Hope we will be never on the position to make such decisions.
I have never envied commanders when it comes to making life/death descions.
Do i think we fired any torpedoes? Probably not, although, in such shallow water with so much traffic in a wargame, it would be possible to slip one into the Kursk, and get out of there. Both subs would easily have been able to negotiate their way out in the confusion of what happened.
I'm pretty sure the USS Memphis couldn't have fired a torpedo w/o some sonar operator noticing. As far as escaping afterwards.....it's said that from the air the wreck of the Kursk was clearly visible in those shallow waters. It would be pretty hard to escape if they can see you from the air.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
He meant when attacking another sub. The carrier can be passively monitored or even actively using the good old periscope view.
With an another sub there's a problem of depth and quiet operation.
Exactly what I meant. Surface contacts are monitored and prosecuted with passive measures. Sub-surface usually, at least in this age, must be approached with active pinging.
-
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/kazouille_1105145210_torpille3.jpg
Interesting picture. The source, ostensibly, was a european news agency...and it is posted on an admittedly slanted website.. though I cannot verify it with a palatable source, I will not make a decided opinion on it. That being said, I showed it to a colleague that designs submersibles where I am employed, and he could not come up with logic that would explain a hole on the outer hull dented inward, resulting from an internal explosive event. He stated, that it appeared as though, from that picture, something pierced the outer hull, coming from starboard and aft, at an angle of around 15-30 degrees, and the resulting effective explosion would radiate forward as dictated by the bulkhead structure on the Kursk, if it were an explosive that pierced the hull.
I am well aware the photo could be doctored...I work in the business of definable truths.. but if it is not... that is a serious question, at least in my eyes.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What kind of rubbish is this? How do you calculate the exact time it would take for a submarine to "limp home". Is it capable of 4 knots? 9 knots? On what do you base this assumption?
From a Russian magazine report.
.......The American nuclear submarine SSN 691 Memphis, Los-Angeles class, is currently located at the Norwegian port in Bergen. A representative of the Norwegian embassy in Moscow told the Russian RIA "Novosti" news agency that the 'Memphis' entered the Norwegian port "for repairs." Initially the Norwegian embassy refused to say when the American submarine requested entry to and entered the Norwegian base. Shortly after publishing this information, RIA "Novosti" was contacted by another representative of the Norwegian embassy, Ule Hopestad, who said that his colleague, who gave the initial interview to the news agency, provided "incorrect information" due to his "problems with the Russian language. According to Ule Hopestad, the 'Memphis' entered the Norwegian port in Bergen on August 18 not for repairs but to replenish its supplies of food and to allow its crew to rest. Norwegian officials say that 'Memphis' was scheduled to arrive to Bergen almost two months in advance.
According to the Russian Defense Minister, Igor Sergeyev, Russian experts are studying satellite photos of the area where "Kursk" sank. 'Memphis' was detected by satellites when it surfaced and was traveling at a very low speed away from the general area of the "Kursk" accident toward Norway. Later the American submarine accelerated to around 8-9 knots (16-17 km/h) and proceeded along the Norwegian coast toward Bergen (roughly 1,900 km from the site of the "Kursk" accident along the Norwegian coastline). The submarine was generally identified as a Los-Angeles class and later was determined to be the SSN 691 'Memphis'. The unidentified foreign submarine was initially detected by the Russian nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" after it intercepted a NATO radio distress signal originated by the submarine, requesting emergency entry to one of Norwegian naval bases.
Representatives of the Norwegian embassy in Moscow told RIA "Novosti" that the American submarine was seen by Norwegian journalists. However, attempts on the part of the Russian news agency to locate these journalists have failed.....
This snapshot was made by the Russian intelligence satellite on August 19, 2000 from the altitude of 40 thousand meters. This is the Norwegian naval base Haakonsvern, arranged on the coast of a Grimstad-fiord in a province Hordalan, in nine kilometers to the southwest from Bergen. Geographical coordinates of base are 60-20-20 N, 5-13-53 E, ? = +20?. Naval base Haakonsvern is used by the small and medium ships - up to frigate class, but not for for submarines.
On the August, 19 the nuclear submarine of the Los Angeles class has come into Haakonsvern and moored in the piers close to the frigate of Oslo class. A submarine moored in the piers, instead of dock, because the docks in Haakonsvern, we have to repeat, are not assigned for submarines, especially nuclear. We presume that the name of this boat is Memphis or Toledo. Both of them are of Los Angeles class submarines. The submarines of this class are of 109,7 meters length, 10,1 meters high and 9,9 meters width. Displacement is of 6000 tons.
The boat coming for the repair had considerable damages in the bow, and that was captured by the means of optical-electronic reconnaissance. The thick rubber-ceramic skin of the submarine was torn off, as a peel from a banana. Obviously the steel inner hall was also damaged.
The boat has been repaired for 8 days. On the August, 27 in second half of day she left the base and has departed to the coast of Britain. The boat doubled the British islands in the east, entered Southampton on the southern coast of England and became on repair in closed dock.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Very likely that if an American sub had fired a torpedo that the rest of the Russian fleet would have immediately attacked the American sub
Well........they were going to do just that. The only problem was they couldn`t get the 25hp Evinrude started on the attack vessel.
An order for a new set of sparkplugs from Sears has been made to correct the problem.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I am well aware the photo could be doctored...I work in the business of definable truths.. but if it is not... that is a serious question, at least in my eyes.
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/kazouille_1105145222_torpille4.jpg)
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/kazouille_1105145210_torpille3.jpg)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1620000/images/_1621308_hole_rtr_150.jpg)
(http://politicsofet.com/images/kursk_2.jpg)
(http://matt-marriott.faithweb.com/russia/kursk_hole.jpg)
-
Well Moray37 i can tell ya for sure that Haakonsvern is the homebase for our subs so that is abit misleading. There is however easy to see the difference between a LA class and norwegian ULA class subs. I actually went inside and took the tour of a LA class sub at Haakonsvern in the winter of 94 and it acutally was moored in the same spot as that sub in the photo. :)
As I understood it at the time they moored there on a fairly regular basis.
-
A collision is plausible. The launching of a torpedo is wild speculation.
-
Implosion could have caused an inward hole from the water pressure, and the air after it cooled from the initial heat of the blast would have had lower pressure, and no oxygen.
-
If Memphis was there it could have been damaged from the same explosion that sank Kursk if it was close enough.
Theoretically, although it's a very long shot.
-
Looking at those photos, it looks more like that hole was cut into the the sub. The edges are too neat to be a puncture, or an explosion. If you will notice, there is no metal pointing in from the edges, they are clean cut.
-
Pics of ships that were torpedoed in WW2 show rips in the hulls, not perfect holes.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Pics of ships that were torpedoed in WW2 show rips in the hulls, not perfect holes.
True, and i dont belive it was a torpedo. Torpedoes in ww2 had different warheads and fuzes than now, and _perhaps_ a mk48 adcap penetrates the sub before detonating.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
True, and i dont belive it was a torpedo. Torpedoes in ww2 had different warheads and fuzes than now, and _perhaps_ a mk48 adcap penetrates the sub before detonating.
Don't they also have more powerful warheads? If so I doubt there would have been a perfect hole.
-
Depends on how far the torpedo penetrates the sub before xploding.
-
That hole wasn't made by any torpedo or collsion unless it was a collision with a saw blade. That hole is almost perfectly round, no metal pointing inward or outward, no jagged adges, it's just a perfect clean cut. Last I checked, there wasn't a torpedo equipped with a boring bit to cut into a ship. And if it had been melted, it would still be rough edged, and there would have been corrosion from the action of the salt water on the hot metal.
-
correct.. that is not a torpedo hole
-
it was not a torpedo, the hole was made by the super secret american under water lazer. :noid
-
Perhaps it was a Norwegian drilling-rig, and we're just trying to pass the buck on the Americans?
-
So you guys believe that a blunt object traveling at 40-50 knots will penetrate a submarine hull ?
What a torpedo with a special delayed fuse and an auger bit.. a bunker buster torpedo?
Think guys, don't be such sheople.
-
Not that I think that's what happened to the Kursk, but a 1.6 ton torpedo traveling at about 70 mph (Mk 48 ADCAP) will penetrate a submarine's pressure hull.
-
not before it explodes, and then it won't be a circular hole.
-
Yes, before it explodes. Even German WWII torpedoes had delayed detonation fuses. My neighbor (now long dead I'm afraid) was a merchant sailor during WWII; served as a telegrapher on a cargo ship. The first time they got torpedoed the torpedo punched through the hull, went straight through the crew quarters (luckily my neighbor was on duty), and out the other side of the ship. A dud. Later they were torpedoed again, but they were not so lucky that time. The torpedo slammed through the hull and exploded in the cargo hold, blowing out the bottom and dooming the ship. He spent tree weeks in a lifeboat before being rescued. He also suffered from claustrophobia after that.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, before it explodes. Even German WWII torpedoes had delayed detonation fuses. My neighbor (now long dead I'm afraid) was a merchant sailor during WWII; served as a telegrapher on a cargo ship. The first time they got torpedoed the torpedo punched through the hull, went straight through the crew quarters (luckily my neighbor was on duty), and out the other side of the ship. A dud. Later they were torpedoed again, but they were not so lucky that time. The torpedo slammed through the hull and exploded in the cargo hold, blowing out the bottom and dooming the ship. He spent tree weeks in a lifeboat before being rescued. He also suffered from claustrophobia after that.
YES and the holes they made were FAR from round. The ripped gashes in the hulls.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If an American sub had fired a torpedo at the Kursk, every ship in that exercise would have heard the torpedo firing on their sonar. In those shallow waters the American sub probably wouldn't have escaped the wrath of the Russian surface ships.
AFAIK, Mark 48 ADCAPs have a "swimout" mode. Little to no launch sound. No big rush of seawater spitting it out. Just swims out quietly, gets a good ways from the submarine, and then goes active and loud hunting for a target.
-
hmmm......
someday this war is gonna end..........
-
Cant we just say its russian and it did what most russian equipment is good at?
Malfuntion, blowing up killing most of the crew.
Do any of you remember how they tested bombers?
"oh no, we lost another one to engine fires, okay..load the next one up,and fly that."
Rinse and repeat.
Quality junk.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Two Il-38 ASW aircraft allegedly tracked a contact near Kursk into Norwegian waters and down the coast of Norway for several days before losing contact.
On the night of 18th of August 2000, 6 days after Kursk sank, the USS Memphis (SSN-691) arrived at the Haakonsvern naval base in Bergen, Norway. She had visible damage to her bow and sail, and 12 American women had quietly arrived in Bergen. The one thing they had in common is that they were married to US sailors serving on the Memphis.
(http://www.baksiden.net/bilder/kursk.16.jpg)
-USS Memphis docked behind KNM Bergen, an Oslo-class FF. Picture taken by Russian satellite.
On direct questioning by the Russians the Norwegian embassy in Moscow confirmed the USS Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern for repairs. Allegedly part of a fence used on LA-class SSN's sail was found near Kursk.
In the days that followed both President Clinton and the Chief Director of the CIA travelled to Moscow. Later the Norwegian government would retract their previous statement and deny that the Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern.
As far as conspiracy theories go this one is one of the more believable. Numerous collisions at sea between US and Russian subs have occurred during the Cold War, but information about the accidents was kept quiet to avoid increasing tensions.
Another theory that gained some popularity in Russia is that the Peter the Great accidentally sank the Kursk with ASW weapons during a live fire demonstration.
I remember the report of the American sub reportedly damaged and IMO it's pretty likely that there was some sort of incident between the two subs.
I'd personally have to assume they collied and it's being kept a secret for obvious reasons. I'm just not convinced that the US sub fired on them, if it did I'm 100% certain there was reason for it.
I have seen the pictures b4 of the round hole in the Kursk and it's enough to make you go hummm. However we will likely never know the real truth, as it's obvious both sides wanted to bury the subject other than to sling a little mud in the media at each other.
-
well it's obvious, a inferior obsolete tiny US sub sunk the pride of the russian sub fleet in the middle of mighty russian navy and got away with it.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
As far as the first part, very true.
Second part, do you think the Russians would have kept quiet if we had torpedo'd one of their subs while they were trying to impress the Chinese with their new torpedo? Highly unlikely. Very likely that if an American sub had fired a torpedo that the rest of the Russian fleet would have immediately attacked the American sub and sunk it. In those shallow waters it would have been extremely difficult to evade both surface and air attacks.
What about that new Russian torpedo? You guys that know physics how do you suppose it works?
Well first off, there is still enough bad blood between the US and Russia that if it was found out that an American sub sunk a Russian sub or played in part in it's sinking. well lets just say it would be good for either country.
As already posted in this thread, the Russian economy was not doing so good. The last thing Russia would want or could afford at that time was any sort of confrontation with the US.
Threat of war is great for the economies of both Russia and the US, however war it's self can be harmful to the economies. The US knows this, Russia knows this and China knows this. None of them will go to war of something as small as this hence the reason if anything did happen it was covered up.
That's the reason both out countries has supported and fought in smaller wars of proxies, because it's good for biz and the economy. On the other hand Russia knows damn well it couldn't afford a war aginst the US and the US knows there is a lot of money to be made with an open Russia.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Pics of ships that were torpedoed in WW2 show rips in the hulls, not perfect holes.
weapons are much different today than what was used in ww2. We have weapons that are designed to go through tank armor b4 they explode. I'm sure the same could be said for a torpedo.
Look at this picture as example of this destroyed tank from Iraq.
(http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/03/07/tank5.jpg)
hot linked from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/07/16727761.php
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
True, and i dont belive it was a torpedo. Torpedoes in ww2 had different warheads and fuzes than now, and _perhaps_ a mk48 adcap penetrates the sub before detonating.
I was under the impression that torpedo's were supposed to explode under the keel of the ship, breaking it's back so to speak. I have been known to be wrong before though. ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I was under the impression that torpedo's were supposed to explode under the keel of the ship, breaking it's back so to speak. I have been known to be wrong before though. ;)
Is that the way they currently work? I know i remember seeing a documentary on nuclear torpedo's and that's how they worked.
That and I saw one on future weapons I think it was where they were experimenting with releasing large volumes of air under a ship to make it lose bouncy and break in half.
I just wonder if they would use something like that in submarine to submarine warfare. I'd think it might be risky for both subs because of the shock waves in the water.
I don't know one way or another, just seems to be the best bet when attacking a sub from another sub, would be using a direct hit, rather than a proxy weapon. I'd think the most effective weapon would be one that punctures the hull rather than actually tear it apart with an outside explosion. (remember they do have nuclear reactors on them)
Maybe someone can chime in on whats used for sub to sub attacks.
-
Torpedo exploding under a destroyer, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aad_1183458039
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Torpedo exploding under a destroyer, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aad_1183458039
Yea I looked up info on the MK-48 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm
It doesn't say if it's only a proxy weapon or if it's ever used in a direct hit attack. Just says it uses conventional explosives and is driven by wire.
So I'll have to just assume it's a attack by proxy weapon, rather than a puncture the hull style. It just seems very risky using a weapon that is designed to break a ship apart when the ship has a nuclear reactor on board.
Just seems like the more effective and safer way to destroy a submarine would be to have a weapon that penetrates the hull and a few bulk heads by brute force. Then let the rapid inflow of water actually sink the sub. At those pressures the speed the water would come it would sink it just as fast as blowing it in half I'd think.
-
Originally posted by crockett
weapons are much different today than what was used in ww2. We have weapons that are designed to go through tank armor b4 they explode. I'm sure the same could be said for a torpedo.
Look at this picture as example of this destroyed tank from Iraq.
(http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/03/07/tank5.jpg)
hot linked from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/07/16727761.php
And you can also see the scoring around the hit on the tank turret where it went through. All there is on the sub is a clean perfect hole.
-
Originally posted by crockett
weapons are much different today than what was used in ww2. We have weapons that are designed to go through tank armor b4 they explode. I'm sure the same could be said for a torpedo.
Look at this picture as example of this destroyed tank from Iraq.
(http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/03/07/tank5.jpg)
hot linked from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/07/16727761.php
Look at this example of a Tiger tank destroyed by a Sherman M4A1 firing a 75mm AP round from 20-35 yards away.
(http://www.752ndtank.com/images/221Hole3Web.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Sub to sub battle is generally settled by a torp hitting in the stern baffles, popping the seals around the shafts for the props.......torp homes in on the sounds generated (generally speaking), tho they can also use active sonar for acquisition etc.
Wurzel
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Look at this example of a Tiger tank destroyed by a Sherman M4A1 firing a 75mm AP round from 20-35 yards away.
(http://www.752ndtank.com/images/221Hole3Web.jpg)
ack-ack
Whats that ring around the hole?
-
Originally posted by Tango
Whats that ring around the hole?
It's Zimmerit coating that was blown off from the impact of the AP round.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Viking
Two Il-38 ASW aircraft allegedly tracked a contact near Kursk into Norwegian waters and down the coast of Norway for several days before losing contact.
On the night of 18th of August 2000, 6 days after Kursk sank, the USS Memphis (SSN-691) arrived at the Haakonsvern naval base in Bergen, Norway. She had visible damage to her bow and sail, and 12 American women had quietly arrived in Bergen. The one thing they had in common is that they were married to US sailors serving on the Memphis.
(http://www.baksiden.net/bilder/kursk.16.jpg)
-USS Memphis docked behind KNM Bergen, an Oslo-class FF. Picture taken by Russian satellite.
On direct questioning by the Russians the Norwegian embassy in Moscow confirmed the USS Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern for repairs. Allegedly part of a fence used on LA-class SSN's sail was found near Kursk.
In the days that followed both President Clinton and the Chief Director of the CIA travelled to Moscow. Later the Norwegian government would retract their previous statement and deny that the Memphis had docked at Haakonsvern.
As far as conspiracy theories go this one is one of the more believable. Numerous collisions at sea between US and Russian subs have occurred during the Cold War, but information about the accidents was kept quiet to avoid increasing tensions.
Another theory that gained some popularity in Russia is that the Peter the Great accidentally sank the Kursk with ASW weapons during a live fire demonstration.
I have posted all this back in 2000, including the photo. Photo is not exactly a fake, but it was taken long before Aug 2000.
You summed up most of the "conspiracy theories" just as if you read Russian internet forums.
What I didn't hear in that silly film was that Kursk (pronounced Koorsk) didn't have electric batteries loaded, so after commander ordered to shut down the reactor - there was no power aboard...
The video is so full of obvious mistakes that it's not worth discussing. And I was defending that point of view back in 2000 :( As far as I remember Funked invited me to post in Kursk topic so I moved here from AGW.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Cant we just say its russian and it did what most russian equipment is good at?
Malfuntion, blowing up killing most of the crew.
Do any of you remember how they tested bombers?
"oh no, we lost another one to engine fires, okay..load the next one up,and fly that."
Rinse and repeat.
Quality junk.
USS Scorpion. Best advertisement for the US Navy reliability. So far USSR/Russia didn't lose any nuclear subs in such circumstances.
Anyone calling Soviet military equipment "unreliable" should compare M-16 to a good old Kalashnikov.
Is it true that American submariners still have to share beds with other shifts? Since 1958 Soviet nuclear sub crews have separate bed for each crew member, so sometimes Soviet stuff is more comfortable too.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I have posted all this back in 2000, including the photo. Photo is not exactly a fake, but it was taken long before Aug 2000.
You summed up most of the "conspiracy theories" just as if you read Russian internet forums.
What I didn't hear in that silly film was that Kursk (pronounced Koorsk) didn't have electric batteries loaded, so after commander ordered to shut down the reactor - there was no power aboard...
The video is so full of obvious mistakes that it's not worth discussing. And I was defending that point of view back in 2000 :( As far as I remember Funked invited me to post in Kursk topic so I moved here from AGW.
Thank you for clearing that up and preventing others from stepping in the bull****.
Wolf
-
While serving as a sonarman in the US Navy, I was directly involved in over 100 MK48 Torpedo shots. Trust me, these things have a unique signature. IF one was fired, many listening posts would have known it.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Is it true that American submariners still have to share beds with other shifts? Since 1958 Soviet nuclear sub crews have separate bed for each crew member, so sometimes Soviet stuff is more comfortable too.
I read that the Typhoon class had a full sized swimming pool, spa, and movie theater. Definately better than American boats for creature comforts.
Both sides make good stuff. Sometimes, something malfunctions. Nothing is perfect :(
-
These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.
-
true and false mcfarland
-
Originally posted by McFarland
These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.
Being continually uncomfortable can be a distraction. Military ships are spartan for monetary and efficiency reasons, not disciplinary.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.
Ever been on a US aircraft carrier? All the same stuff you'd find in a city with a population of 6000. Post office, movie theaters, stores, etc, etc. Everything but a Wal-Mart.
-
(http://www.gwrra-mi.org/Images/clipart/TAZ.jpg)
Be afraid Russia, Be Very Afraid!!!
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by McFarland
These are millitary ships. They aren't supposed to be comfortable, you're supposed to always be aware. Being comfortable makes you less aware. Only idiots would make a millitary ship like a civilian hotel.
All the same, I'm glad we had Air Conditioning and individual racks on our VLS Tico. I like to think that it didn't make us bad Sailors lol.
Anyhow, am I the only one who reads Boroda's posts with a Russian Accent?
-Sik
-
Anyhow, am I the only one who reads Boroda's posts with a Russian Accent?
:rofl nope
-
omg guys. russia contracted a company to raise the kursk. for some reason they decided to cut the damaged part of the bow off before raising it. they did this with a sort of rope type saw. that's why the pictures look like that. some time after that russia raised the bow and after an investigation concluded that a faulty torpedo caught fire and exploded. just over two minutes later the resulting fire detonated the remaining torpedos, ultimately sinking the kursk. russian sonar picked up a small explosion in the area of the kursk and 124 seconds (if i remember correctly) later recorded a large explosion of similar type.
the kursk was supposed to be designed to take a torpedo hit. how in the hell do you think an american sub could collide with the kursk, sink it, and still make it back to port??
-
Just because we hot-racked, did not mean we were uncomfortable. Not the entire crew hot racks. Mainly the non-qual pukes hot-rack. Gives them incentive.
NQPs don't need to sleep because basically if they have time to sleep, they have time to qualify! Enuff said!!
:D