Today, I watched a documentry on the Sundance Chanel entitled "KURSK, A SUBMARINE IN TROUBLED WATERS"
From the Web Sight:
"When the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk tragically sank in August 2000, official accounts raised more questions than they answered. What caused the explosion that ruptured the sub's watertight hull? Why did rescue efforts take so long? And, perhaps most troubling, what about the American submarine that was reportedly in the same area of the Barents Sea? Investigative French filmmaker Jean-Michel Carré reveals some new details suggesting an American involvement in the disaster that took 118 lives. Peter Coyote narrates. (CCAP/Stereo/Letterbox)"
................
In a Nut shell, the US unhappy about the potential sale of an advanced Wepon system to China sends two US Subs to observe the operation, The USS Toledo and the USS Mephis, Acording to the Film the Toledo actualy ran into the Kursk,a nd then the Memphis Torpedoed the Kursk for fear she was being targeted by the Russians who were a tad trigher happy they felt after being hit by the US sub. The Film offers compelling evidance to suport this. I will not list all of it hear and now but it is quiet a shocker to say the least.
Coments?
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
and then the US cancelled a USD10 billion dollar debt owed by the Russians. Compensation for sinking the Kursk? Did you see the photo of the round hole in the side of the Kursk with the skin dented inwards showing that it was hit by an object travelling towards the submarine ie. not a result of the internal explosions? Just about the size of a US Navy torpedo...
It becomes nastier when you consider the possibility that the slow Russian start in asking for help was possibly because they didn't want any survivors who could explain what really happened.
Ya they showed the "hole", like I siad it is a very compelling presentation, I highly recomend the watching of it.
The Big question I have is how did they manage to "silance" both crews of the US boats that were damaged as a result of this incedent. Presently I am buying this, that is how well done this film is.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
The Kursk was almost certainly sunk by a primary explosion of the hydrogen peroxide fuel of a torpedo, followed by a much larger secondary explosion of the stacks of stored torpedoes. There is no remotely convincing evidence for any other possibility.
Even the Russians accepted that, after first blaming the incident on a collision with another submarine.
Yes and the last passage on the sight concludes that the Russian Goverment and the US goverment agread to conceal the colishion for their mutal benifit.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
The Kursk was almost certainly sunk by a primary explosion of the hydrogen peroxide fuel of a torpedo, followed by a much larger secondary explosion of the stacks of stored torpedoes. There is no remotely convincing evidence for any other possibility.
You mean apart from the circular torpedo-sized hole in the front of the Kursk? Have a look at it here... Photo of front of Kursk
Even the Russians accepted that, after first blaming the incident on a collision with another submarine.
Just like they accepted the $10billion dollar debt cancellation. You can buy a new submarine and pay a few pensions with that kind of money. It also helps avoid WWIII
You mean apart from the circular torpedo-sized hole in the front of the Kursk? Have a look at it here... Photo of front of Kursk
No I don't mean apart from that. You think that maybe the Russian investigators, who initially were under huge pressure to find a reason to blame the disaster on anybody else managed to "miss" a hole made by a torpedo?
The hole was a marker for the weld where connecting structures joined the inner and outer hulls. It's the point where the support truss broke away during the second explosion.
Why would a large, exploding torpedo warhead leave a neat hole like that? Even a shaped charge wouldn't. I saw the documentary and I didn't think much of it. From memory there was no scientific analysis of whether a such a hole could be the result of a torpedo strike at all. Hertson's explanation sounds much more likely.
The Documentry explained that a MK 48 aparently has a depleated uranium penatrating nose pice, intended to puncture the hull on a sub and then detonate inside the sub/target. The MK 48 also acording to the documentry is programed to seak out this very spot to impact the target, or area, since it is likely to be the comand and controle area of most subs. The Documentry also explained that a British expert on such matters disclosed that this is exactly the entry wound that one would expect to find on such a target by a MK 48.
In short the scenario goes like this acording to the documentary:
1) Kursk is gooing about her busisness crusing along.
2) USS Toledo is shadowing her at a very clsoe proximinity.
3) USS Memphis is ordered to observe from a distance.
4) USS Toledo screws the puppy and acedently runs into the Kursk. She moves off...hurt. Kursk increases spead to clear the area.
5) USS Memphis hears all this and runs in to cover Toledos withdrawl, fearing that the soviets may not react well to this. Tenshion is high.
6) Kursk opens outer torpedo doors.
7) Memphis know she will not be able to evade Soviet torps, their to fast if launched she and or toledo will be dommed. Memphis fires a MK 48 at Kursk.
8) It hits...a couple minutes later the secondary detonation ocures which kills kursk.
9) Toledo has moved off but Memphis is close enough to damaged by this secondary exploshion, so damaged that the emergancy bouy is released and found by the soviets.
10) Memphis radios for permishion to go to a Norweigen port to efect emergancy repairs on a NATO frequency. She takes 7 days to make a 2 day trip.
11) She makes port and efect reparis, is photograhed their, Toledo goes to a covered drydock....the rest is all their for the reading.
............
It all sounds very plausable to me, though I must admit some doubt remains, my big question is that two entire crews from the US subs have said nothing so far, or as far as I know they have said nothing.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
The Russian/Soviet navy have a long history of submarine problems, either they don't do a good job at preventing accidents or everyone is out to get them...
It wouldn't be the first time a sub sank because of a hydrogen peroxide torpedo either, e.g. HMS Sidon was lost for the same reason in 1955.
A Brief History Of US/Russian submarine collisions
Here's a short list of known collisions.
1961 USS Swordfish (SSN-579) is on a spy mission in Soviet waters when a Soviet sub surfaces underneath it.
196? A US sub, possibly USS Skipjack, on a spy mission in Soviet waters, collides with a destroyer. Finally made public in a New York Times article in 1975.
July 1965. USS Medregal rams a Greek freighter.
March 1966. USS Barbel rams a freighter near North Vietnam.
December 1967. USS George C. Marshall (SSBN-654) is grazed by a Russian sub.
October 9, 1968. This appears to be the historical precedent for the Kursk sinking. A Russian sub operating normally collided with an unknown sub in the Barents sea, leaving a sizable hole in the Russian sub. Russian intelligence notes the arrival of a damaged sub in a Norwegian port a few days later.
November 1969. USS Gato's sail hits the hull of a soviet sub.
March 14, 1970. USS Sturgeon bashes her sonar dome against a Russian sub's sail.
June 1970. USS Tautog is rammed by Black Lila. It is erroneously assumed at the time that Black Lila sank.
March 1971. An unnamed US sub operating 12 miles off of the Soviet coast collides with a Russian sub. Reported in the New York Times in 1975.
Mid-1971. USS Dace hits a Russian sub in the Mediterranean.
Late 1971 or early 1972. USS Puffer is trailing a Soviet sub when the Soviet sub unexpectedly dives, bumping into Puffer.
March 1974. USS Pintado rams a Soviet missile boat while on a spy mission in Soviet waters near Petropavlovsk. Reported in the San Diego Evening Tribune in 1975.
November 3rd, 1974. USS James Madison hits an unknown Russian Victor class attack sub in the North Sea. Reported by columnist Jack Anderson.
1981. HMS Sceptre is trailing a Russian sub and rear-ends it.
October 1986. USS Augusta, while testing a new computer sonar system to make detecting enemy subs easier, rams a Soviet sub. The Augusta claims they rammed a Delta class. Others report it was a Yankee missile boat that subsequently sank.
December 24, 1986. HMS Splendid and a Soviet sub were trying to dodge out of each other's way when they collided. HMS Splendid's towed sonar array became tangled in the other sub and was lost.
February 11, 1992. USS Baton Rouge hits a Soviet sub near Murmansk. For the first time, and in response to Yeltsin's demands, the US Navy publicly acknowledges the collision.
March 20, 1993. USS Grayling with a Russian sub in the Barent's Sea.
Collisions between US surface ships and Russian submarines
The above list does NOT include the numerous times that US surface ships have been involved in collisions with Russian submarines.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
ORIGINAL: Brady
The Documentry explained that a MK 48 aparently has a depleated uranium penatrating nose pice, intended to puncture the hull on a sub and then detonate inside the sub/target.
Not according to my research. Its warhead contains 292.5 kg of high explosive. Depleted uranium is used in superhigh velocity rod penetrators. They work at supersonic velocities, not 55 knots. Sounds like utter bollocks to me.
ORIGINAL: Brady
The MK 48 also acording to the documentry is programed to seak out this very spot to impact the target, or area, since it is likely to be the comand and controle area of most subs. The Documentry also explained that a British expert on such matters disclosed that this is exactly the entry wound that one would expect to find on such a target by a MK 48.
Targetting exact spots on submarines with torpedoes is rubbish. Active sonar doesn't work like that. That's why it's got a big, high-explosive warhead. A hit anywhere or even a near miss is likely to be deadly. From memory we didn't see this British "expert" and this vital part of their case was mentioned in passing. Not very impressive.
ORIGINAL: Brady
It all sounds very plausable to me...
Well it sounds like a gigantic pile of rotting elephant manure to me. They don't seem to know much about Mk 48 torpedoes for a start. This is a picture of what they actually do.
Cheers, Neilster
Attachments
Mark_48_To.._testing.jpg (508.87 KiB) Viewed 514 times
