PDA

View Full Version : Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters



SlowBurn68
10-02-2006, 02:26 PM
Has anyone else seen this documentary? I'm watching it now on Sundance. The theory is that the USS Toledo crashed into her - The Kursk opened her doors to fire and the USS Memphis shot the Kursk. China, 10Mill loan to Russia, etc. etc... Must see.

http://www.sundancechannel.com/film/?ixFilmID=6429

leitmotiv
10-02-2006, 02:49 PM
I would consider a French documentary shown on Robert Redford's Sundance Channel hyper dubious in the extreme. Even the Russians have shown evidence the hapless KURSK's shattered hull exploded from the inside. But, we all know the U.S. is the nexus of evil in the universe! (Actually, with all the psychotics going to schools and executing harmless girls, I'm beginning to believe it).

SlowBurn68
10-02-2006, 02:53 PM
Well at lest we dont blow up our own appartment buldings (yet)

WOLFMondo
10-02-2006, 02:55 PM
Looks good but the inquiry said what Leitmotiv points out.

The US isn't the nexus of Evil, just **** Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld :P

*edit*

**** Cheney gets 4 stars!! woohooy!

Slowburn, mate, you ain't gonna make any friends round here talking like that.

R_Target
10-02-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I would consider a French documentary shown on Robert Redford's Sundance Channel hyper dubious in the extreme.

Lol, no doubt.

Someone will be along to post a link to the moronic loose change video soon.

GerritJ9
10-02-2006, 03:10 PM
Underwater collisions between USN and Russian subs have occurred in the past, in itself such a collision isn't unlikely. I have seen a similar documentary on Belgian TV about a month ago (perhaps the same one?). It DOES seem rather odd that the Russians insisted on the shattered bow section being cut off before the rest was salvaged however- it would have been much easier (not to mention cheaper) for the complete hull to be salvaged. The Russian Navy stated at the time that the bow section would be salvaged at a later date- instead, it was blown up.

tigertalon
10-02-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
Well at lest we dont blow up our own appartment buldings (yet)

Are you sure about that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SlowBurn68
10-02-2006, 03:44 PM
The salvaged hull showed the perfect "tell tale" hole made by a mk-48 torpedo. Later that side of the hull was off limits to the public. Even today the Toledo is still in a sealed covered dry dock.

Daiichidoku
10-02-2006, 03:49 PM
read "Incident at Sakhalin"

probably a 2 hours air battle resulting in 2 ELINT-135 jobs and 2 EF-111s (or more) downed by MiG23s and Su-15s, besides KAL007 itself (with its dubious captain) being downed, 400 miles from where it was claimed to have been downed

Sergio_101
10-02-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
The salvaged hull showed the perfect "tell tale" hole made by a mk-48 torpedo. Later that side of the hull was off limits to the public. Even today the Toledo is still in a sealed covered dry dock.

100% grade A Bull****.

As to KAL 007, the Russian pilot who shot
it down is still furious that
he was not awarded a "kill".

Sergio

SlowBurn68
10-02-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
read "Incident at Sakhalin"

probably a 2 hours air battle resulting in 2 ELINT-135 jobs and 2 EF-111s (or more) downed by MiG23s and Su-15s, besides KAL007 itself (with its dubious captain) being downed, 400 miles from where it was claimed to have been downed

Well yes - We needed some way to light up thier air defense grid.

F6_Ace
10-02-2006, 04:07 PM
Last time I saw anything on this, it was speculated that a torpedo had exploded (something to do with the propellant...hydrogen peroxide or something like that had reacted with the atmosphere) and that "no one else" was involved.

Daiichidoku
10-02-2006, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
As to KAL 007, the Russian pilot who shot
it down is still furious that
he was not awarded a "kill".

Sergio

how can you be sure it was a russian who shot down KAL007?

or for that matter, that it was shot down by an aircraft at all, and not perhaps, by a ship?

oh. ok...youre going to eat what US gov feeds you...mn

tigertalon
10-02-2006, 04:18 PM
We can not possibly imagine how much the one that's supplying us with the info can alter our way of thinking.

Sergio_101
10-02-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
As to KAL 007, the Russian pilot who shot
it down is still furious that
he was not awarded a "kill".

Sergio

how can you be sure it was a russian who shot down KAL007?

or for that matter, that it was shot down by an aircraft at all, and not perhaps, by a ship?

oh. ok...youre going to eat what US gov feeds you...mn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can rest assured I trust the US Goverment
a LOT MORE than any French or Canadian sources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Toledo_%28SSN-769%29


Sergio

berg417448
10-02-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
As to KAL 007, the Russian pilot who shot
it down is still furious that
he was not awarded a "kill".

Sergio

how can you be sure it was a russian who shot down KAL007?

or for that matter, that it was shot down by an aircraft at all, and not perhaps, by a ship?

oh. ok...youre going to eat what US gov feeds you...mn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying that Russian pilot who shot down KAL 007 is lying for the American government ? I've seen his interview and he was very clear about what he did and what he shot down.

Sergio_101
10-02-2006, 05:22 PM
berg417448 I have seen it to.
He is proud of what he did and
is FURIOUS that he was not awarded
the kill or prize money.

Funny thing, both Soviet and American comm
intercepts agree with rhe sequence
of events about KAL 007.

The only thing disagreed on is the C-135 spy planes.
The US generally won't admit to anything about
spy plane tracks. But it is agreed that a EC-135
had flown through the area a few minutes eariler.
As to EF-111s? Not a chance, that is not even close
to the EF-111s mission profile!
EF-111s are for jamming enemy RADAR and electronicd
during combat.
Claiming that EF-111s were involved only displays
your ignorance.

Sergio

Hysyde
10-02-2006, 05:29 PM
When did they start letting off-topic threads to be posted in the GD forum? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

heywooood
10-02-2006, 05:31 PM
this thread is going places...and who's throwing Canada under the bus?..thats my job. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

vocatx
10-02-2006, 05:33 PM
When has a thread containing this much absolute drivel been allowed to continue this long without being locked?

Sergio_101
10-02-2006, 05:34 PM
Daiichidoku has placed himself under the buss
as usual, and is begging for us to start driving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sergio

berg417448
10-02-2006, 05:36 PM
Here is a Russian source explaining how the Kursk was destroyed by its own torpedo:

http://www.wps.ru/en/pp/kursk/2002/02/19/1.html

SlowBurn68
10-02-2006, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
When has a thread containing this much absolute drivel been allowed to continue this long without being locked?

I just thought the documentary was interesting and gave an alternate theory. I still cant imagine that thoes old torpedos were even on that boat.

Daiichidoku
10-02-2006, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Daiichidoku has placed himself under the buss
as usual, and is begging for us to start driving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sergio

perhaps you should read "Incident at Sakhalin", then get back to me...its only about 300 pages, shouldnt pose a problem to you

you can get it here, btw:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/literature2.htm

TX-Gunslinger
10-02-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vocatx:
When has a thread containing this much absolute drivel been allowed to continue this long without being locked?

I just thought the documentary was interesting and gave an alternate theory. I still cant imagine that thoes old torpedos were even on that boat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one of the world's most awesome anti-surface weapons. The 65-76 as long as a greyhound bus, carries a payload of over 1100 lbs and runs for an hour at 50 knots.

OSCAR II is one of the few subs built with larger 65 cm torpedo tubes to wield them. Most submarines, including Russian vessels use 53 cm (21 inch) torpedoes/torpedo tubes.

You can't judge the effectiveness of modern weapons by the year in which they became operational. While the 65-76, even though first produced in 1976, has been around for a long time, so has the AIM-9 Sidewinder series.

S~

leitmotiv
10-02-2006, 06:30 PM
The Korean airliner business was rum as hell. I knew a Flying Tiger Airlines 747 first pilot who had just retired in '83, and who had flown that run for years with freight. He told me there was absolutely no way all the navigational malfunctions on the Korean airliner could have occurred without the crew being aware. Now here is the clincher---this guy was ultra-right wing, voted for Reagan, and hated the USSR with every fiber in his body. I read a book by a British TIMES journalist written a few years later who documented the tension in the Pacific between the USSR and the US at the time. US ELINT aircraft were constantly sneaking into Soviet airspace and playing "chicken" with Sov defenses. Furthermore, US SAC aircraft were flying right to the border in attack formations constantly in war of nerves maneuvers. I kept the article printed in the US papers several years later in which the USAF and the USGOV admitted that at night it was impossible to tell the difference between a 707 (ELINT) and 747. This is one case where I have to agree with the conspiracy people---this incident stinks.

leitmotiv
10-02-2006, 06:37 PM
P.S. As for the TOLEDO being under wraps in drydock to this day---balderdash. The sub was involved in the 2003 op vs Iraq, among other things. Look, one of the US Navy's hunter-killer subs was lost in the '60's due to an apparent hot-run torp incident. These things happen.

Sergio_101
10-02-2006, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
P.S. As for the TOLEDO being under wraps in drydock to this day---balderdash. The sub was involved in the 2003 op vs Iraq, among other things. Look, one of the US Navy's hunter-killer subs was lost in the '60's due to an apparent hot-run torp incident. These things happen.

I agree on one thing posted here. There is
plenty of reason to believe the KAL flight
was involved in the "war of nerves". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
But no solid evidence to verify it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes, the Toledo thing is Horsefeathers.
It was here in Portsmouth NH (Kittery to you Mainers)
recently, not hardly kept a secret. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But EF-111s in the KAL incident?
No chance. If you used your imagination
and suggested a P3 orion spy bird
it would have made sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Entirely the wrong mission for a EF-111. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

YES, the US Navy lost an attack sub, 1968 - USS SCORPION (SSN-589)
I believe it was to a false start in a torpedo.
They did a 180 deg turn in an attempt to disarm it.

Kursk was a tragedy made worse by Russian cold war paranoia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Everyone and anyone would have gladly helped. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sergio

Daiichidoku
10-02-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
But EF-111s in the KAL incident?
No chance. If you used your imagination
and suggested a P3 orion spy bird
it would have made sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Entirely the wrong mission for a EF-111. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


whatever...read the book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Philipscdrw
10-02-2006, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Kursk was a tragedy made worse by Russian cold war paranoia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Everyone and anyone would have gladly helped. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sergio

Kursk incident was in 2000 or 2001, wasn't it?

I read a book on the incident. I think it said that, at first, the Russians denied that anything had happened, then said that the US submarines observing the Russian fleet manouevers had collided with the Kursk.

But in fact a hydrogen-peroxide practice torpedo had exploded, the ship crashed and rested on the sea-bed, the surviving crew couldn't escape because, unlike RN and USN subs, there were no escape hatches that could be opened from the inside.

A RN or USN sub, grounded 400m below the surface, the crew could bail out and swim to the surface and survive with the training they're given. Russian navy didn't have that - the design of the Kursk required a rescue sub to dock with the hull and open the escape hatch from outside. But the only rescue sub available was with the Pacific fleet and Kursk was in the Baltic...

Eventually the air-scrubbers caught fire, probably due to an ergonomic flaw which makes the things catch fire if any water or dirt gets onto the main internal component - not ideal for a crashed sub.

A tragic incident. I don't want to serve in any navy!

geetarman
10-02-2006, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vocatx:
When has a thread containing this much absolute drivel been allowed to continue this long without being locked?

I just thought the documentary was interesting and gave an alternate theory. I still cant imagine that thoes old torpedos were even on that boat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the problem! Any ***hole can come up with an "alternate" theroy about anything significant that has occurred in the world's history. It may have no credible basis, yet, someone (like you) posts it, and now, it's a topic for discussion. Not blaming you.

Remember, there are liars and scoundrels the world over.

BiscuitKnight
10-02-2006, 10:10 PM
I love the idea that being struck by a Mark 48 will leave two tell tale holes. Being struck by two Mark 48s will leave bits of tinfoil - Mark 48s sank the General Belgrano. They have enough explosive in them to tear Kursk into confetti, you'd be able to tell that Kursk was hit by Mark 48s because the whole boat would have been broken in pieces.

Philipscdrw, you're fairly on the money: the High Test Peroxide fuel for one of the torpedoes leaked out, when HTP comes in contact with brass (or was it copper?) it ignites, just a small amount is bad, Kursk had several hundred litres. Notably, the British lost a submarine in the 60s to HTP problems, and apparently it's why neither they nor the US use HTP anymore. Naturally, neither would tell the Russians this.

Point being, the HTP exploded and it is/was proceedure in the Russian Navy to leave all the compartment doors open when firing a torpedo to equalise the air pressure, thus the concussive force from the explosion went through every room, including the control room. Kursk began nose diving (I can't remember whether there was a hole in the bow or not, but regardless it was nosediving) the bridge crew is thrown against the forward bulkhead, and moreover, the effect of the shockwave and compressed gasses of the explosion left them in pretty bad shape anyway, so they probably didn't act to save the ship, but it was that shallow in the Barents that it doesn't matter much. They struck bottom and the torpedo room detonated - the siezmic (sp?) force was enough to be detected as a major earthquake in Norway. The only potential survivors were in the stern and made their way right up the back. As you said, the scrubbers caught fire when dropped in water, and there was a layer of oil and other inflammable materiel over the surface of the water. The crew would have died before rescue though because by the time they successfully docked the scrubbers would have run out of juice.

Rescue was mounted, however it started late, it was hard to find Kursk as she was designed not to be found, and when they found her they had poor rescue equipment: they had previously owned the AS-32 and a ship to launch her for such operations, but decommissioned her because of budget cuts. AS-32 sat in a warehouse for the duration of the rescue, even though it was their best shot at rescue. The other submarines were outdated, low powered machines named Priz and Bester. Priz made several attempts to dock with Kursk, however Priz had weak batteries and they were exhausted after a few short minutes, thus they never managed to get a lock on the rescue hatch (it's believed the crew were all dead by the time Priz was attempting this anyway). Bester also had several tries after arriving on-scene, but it was only when Norwegian and British assistance arrived that they were able to dock and found the boat was entirely flooded.

There is no conspiracy, it was all just an accident caused by budget cuts and a questionable SOP with leaving the doors open. Budget cuts then made the rescue operation so hopeless and paranoia also led to the refusal of help until later. There was no reason for Kursk to engage the US ships or vice-versa, nor would either party ever fire other unless they were first engaged - obviously a circular situation. During the Cold War it was common practice to sneak up on each other and all sorts of things that increased tension, but never started shooting - not even when a Crazy Ivan caused damage to one US submarine and sank the performer.

Whirlin_merlin
10-03-2006, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:


Philipscdrw, you're fairly on the money: the High Test Peroxide fuel for one of the torpedoes leaked out, when HTP comes in contact with brass (or was it copper?) it ignites, .

Hydrogen peroxide will decompose to oxygen and water (releases alot of heat when it does so this forms steam) on contact with many metals including brass (acts as a catalyst). It doesn't technically ignite but the the build up of steam can cause an explosion if in a confined space. Also the the heat can ignite other materials which the oxygen the helps to burn. All in all pretty dangerous stuff (but quite usefull eh ladies).

WOLFMondo
10-03-2006, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Last time I saw anything on this, it was speculated that a torpedo had exploded (something to do with the propellant...hydrogen peroxide or something like that had reacted with the atmosphere) and that "no one else" was involved.

Its why all the sections within the sub are compressed backwards towards the stern. Internal explosion.

BiscuitKnight
10-03-2006, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Hydrogen peroxide will decompose to oxygen and water (releases alot of heat when it does so this forms steam) on contact with many metals including brass (acts as a catalyst). It doesn't technically ignite but the the build up of steam can cause an explosion if in a confined space. Also the the heat can ignite other materials which the oxygen the helps to burn. All in all pretty dangerous stuff (but quite usefull eh ladies).

Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was going by memory of a book I read some months ago, and I think it simplified the explanation, though I may just have remembered incorrectly. I remember it saying that a metal (either brass or copper mentioned in the book, you've confirmed it was brass, thanks) acted as a catalyst and caused an explosion. I wouldn't say either way if it simplified to saying that the HTP ignited or if I simply remember that bit incorrectly. But yes, the key thing is that the heat caused the torpedo explosion, and when the Kursk hit the bottom it caused the rest of the torpedo room to explode.

Whirlin_merlin
10-03-2006, 01:06 AM
Sry wasn't trying to correct you just adding to what you said old chap.

By the way I'm currenty eating a rich-tea smeared with nutella, nice.

Sergio_101
10-03-2006, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
But EF-111s in the KAL incident?
No chance. If you used your imagination
and suggested a P3 orion spy bird
it would have made sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Entirely the wrong mission for a EF-111. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


whatever...read the book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That book is a "No Read". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Not worth the paper it's written on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

After a few reviews I decided it's a throw back. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Some moron is trying to make a pile of loot
by peddeling a conspiracy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

To add to that, I'll re-post my comment about the EF-111.

But EF-111s in the KAL incident?
No chance. If you used your imagination
and suggested a P3 orion spy bird
it would have made sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Entirely the wrong mission for a EF-111. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Just like the idiot who wrote the book about the JFK
assination conspiracy claiming JFK was shot
by a M-16.
I believe at that time there were only 4 or 5 prototype
M-16s in existance! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

If you want to print pring propaganda take Joseph Gobbels's
advise and mix solid facts with fiction.
It makes your propaganda more believable.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Sergio

-HH-Quazi
10-03-2006, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by vocatx:
When has a thread containing this much absolute drivel been allowed to continue this long without being locked?

Well I for one am glad you don't have the keys to lock it up, HEHE Seems like a good "general" discussion going on here with plenty of give-n-take being spread about. I am quite proud of our members here lately. Several touchy subjects that have been discussed with class. I say, "Carry on m8!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

smokincrater
10-03-2006, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
Well at lest we dont blow up our own appartment buldings (yet)

I don't want to be a smart a#$e and I am not trying to be anti-American http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif(ASIO take note) but wasn`t Timothy McVey American? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
10-03-2006, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by smokincrater:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
Well at lest we dont blow up our own appartment buldings (yet)

I don't want to be a smart a#$e and I am not trying to be anti-American http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif(ASIO take note) but wasn`t Timothy McVey American? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in theory, yes

BiscuitKnight
10-03-2006, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
in theory, yes

In theory Communism works.

smokincrater
10-03-2006, 03:38 AM
With KAL 007 shoot down a USAF rc-135 intertracked with the 747 to confuse Russian radar controllers, also breaches of airspace by RC-135 and P-3's were common. The Russians had every right to shoot down that airliner. They given them plenty of warning and you don't overfly important miltary sites without annoying them. What is more amoral was the shooting down of an Air Iranian Airbus that was flying along in an internationaly recongized corridor without any provoking acts by an American Warship.

RCAF_Irish_403
10-03-2006, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
in theory, yes

In theory Communism works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just saying that McVey was a f*ckwad first, American second. The guy thought he was some uber-patriot...starting the great Second American Revolution which would clense the US through a race war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I can't remember, hasn't he been put to death?

ploughman
10-03-2006, 03:49 AM
BK, it wasn't Mk 48s what sank the Belgrano, it was Mk VIIIs.

joeap
10-03-2006, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by smokincrater:
With KAL 007 shoot down a USAF rc-135 intertracked with the 747 to confuse Russian radar controllers, also breaches of airspace by RC-135 and P-3's were common. The Russians had every right to shoot down that airliner. They given them plenty of warning and you don't overfly important miltary sites without annoying them. What is more amoral was the shooting down of an Air Iranian Airbus that was flying along in an internationaly recongized corridor without any provoking acts by an American Warship.

BS, I wish people would stop making excuses fro killing civilians. The Russians only had the right if they did not know it was an airliner which is what I think you were saying. I read however the pilot had closed to visual ID...so he had no right to shoot down a civilian airliner.

The Iranian airliner thing was a stupid criminal act too I agree. It was in international airspace as well.

DuxCorvan
10-03-2006, 04:38 AM
In the end, it was the Spanish who put a mine under the Kursk hull. Just as we did with the USS Maine, mwahahahaha!

Now the Russians may claim Cuba, Philippines and Puerto Rico.

Well, that's what W.R.Hearst said, so it must be true.

smokincrater
10-03-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
With KAL 007 shoot down a USAF rc-135 intertracked with the 747 to confuse Russian radar controllers, also breaches of airspace by RC-135 and P-3's were common. The Russians had every right to shoot down that airliner. They given them plenty of warning and you don't overfly important miltary sites without annoying them. What is more amoral was the shooting down of an Air Iranian Airbus that was flying along in an internationaly recongized corridor without any provoking acts by an American Warship.

BS, I wish people would stop making excuses fro killing civilians. The Russians only had the right if they did not know it was an airliner which is what I think you were saying. I read however the pilot had closed to visual ID...so he had no right to shoot down a civilian airliner.

The Iranian airliner thing was a stupid criminal act too I agree. It was in international airspace as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Okay Kal 007 was well out of the lane. The russians gave every oppotunity for the aircraft to go back into the corridor even coming along side and rocking their wings. The pilots of Kal 007 should have bloody well known something was up. Ture firing on an aircraft that visably had passengers aboard is not on. However as fighter controler you have to weigh up what the aircraft was doing. Ture Keoran airliners often cut the the corner when flying that route. But it was such a big breach. Then you had USAF recon aircraft intertracking and decoying themselves as civilian aircraft. Often they would switch off their squarwks or worse yet mimick civilian aircraft. Then the aircraft overflew a missle base. And then to top it off when incepted by fighter aircraft the crew ignored them. There is a lot of error there, it would take a very restrained man not to fire. BUT I do agree that non-combat aircraft should not be fired on, but non-combat aircraft should not get themselves that far into trouble.

luftluuver
10-03-2006, 07:06 AM
smokincrater,

how many Soviet a/c did the Americans shoot down that had intruded into American airspace (and there was lots of them)? The Soviet a/c were military a/c not civilian either.

Von_Rat
10-03-2006, 08:07 AM
i guess it was the cold war that really was responsiable.

i cannot see russia shooting down a airliner today, even if it was over a important installation. conversly i cant picture the u.s. shooting down a airliner flying anywhere over the u.s., unless they were convinced terroists controlled it.

the u.s. considered the persian gulf a warzone at the time it shotdown the airliner there. in warzones people get trigger happy and make stupid horriable mistakes.

jensenpark
10-03-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Looks good but the inquiry said what Leitmotiv points out.

The US isn't the nexus of Evil, just **** Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld :P

*edit*

**** Cheney gets 4 stars!! woohooy!

Slowburn, mate, you ain't gonna make any friends round here talking like that.


LOL! and I thought at first it was editing out "Bush". As in...well, you get it.

Daiichidoku
10-03-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
That book is a "No Read". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Not worth the paper it's written on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
After a few reviews I decided it's a throw back.


excellent...keep yourself as least informed as possible, dont look at anything at all that may change your view...




Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Just like the idiot who wrote the book about the JFK
assination conspiracy claiming JFK was shot
by a M-16.
I believe at that time there were only 4 or 5 prototype
M-16s in existance! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

if you had read that book, you'd know he was talking about an AR-15, not an M-16

Stoner designed it in 1958, ArmaLite sold its rights to Colt in '59, and it was in service by US services by 63

but i guess a third rate organisation like the Secret Service would only be getting the oldest hand-me-down weapons, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

besides, the claim was that LHO indeed DID shot JFK, but that the SS AR-15 shot happened to be the one that scalped him...LHO's second shot near JFKs spine would have likely killed him anyhow, or would have left him an invalid

the book did NOT in any way raise any sort of "conspiracy" theory



Originally posted by Sergio_101:
If you want to print pring propaganda take Joseph Gobbels's
advise and mix solid facts with fiction.
It makes your propaganda more believable.


you're right!

lets try it now....

solid facts:
tons of P51s fly privately and race at reno

fiction:
P 51s were the greatest US fighter of WWII, or indeed, of any and everything

:P

jarink
10-03-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
excellent...keep yourself as least informed as possible, dont look at anything at all that may change your view...

Dr Suess writes books, too. Does that mean Horton really DID hear a who?

I like keeping myself informed as much as possible using credible sources. Crackpots and people out to sensationalize an issue so they can make a buck don't interest me.

Take the current war in Iraq. I spend much more time listening to the dozen or so people I personally know who are over there (including my nephew who just rotated back for a 6 month breather) than 90% of the stuff spewed by the evening news. Things are going incredibly well out in the countryside, most of the violence is limited to the large cities. Conincidentally(not!), that's where all the reporters and cameras are. Bush & co. say the war is going great. Al-Jazeera says the war will destroy America. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

Sergio_101
10-03-2006, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
smokincrater,

how many Soviet a/c did the Americans shoot down that had intruded into American airspace (and there was lots of them)? The Soviet a/c were military a/c not civilian either.

Soviet "Bears" intruded often into US airspace.
They were escored back into international airspace
every time.
US fighter pilots were instructed NOT to shoot
unless the Soviet crews failed to respond.
As far as i know, all of them cooperated.

Those Bear bombers flew a track across the Atlantic
and down the east coast to Cuba, then back.

We both played "cat and mouse".http://www.f-106deltadart.com/159fis/159_bear.jpg

Daiichidoku
10-03-2006, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
I like keeping myself informed as much as possible using credible sources. Crackpots and people out to sensationalize an issue so they can make a buck don't interest me.


so......you read the book then?

you must have, to judge the author as a "crackpot" etc


if you havent...then like Sergio..go read the damn thing...THEN make a judgement

Sergio_101
10-03-2006, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
I like keeping myself informed as much as possible using credible sources. Crackpots and people out to sensationalize an issue so they can make a buck don't interest me.


so......you read the book then?

you must have, to judge the author as a "crackpot" etc


if you havent...then like Sergio..go read the damn thing...THEN make a judgement </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I read some reviews, they judged him a "Crackpot". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I avoid badly written propaganda.

The reason for the Kursk disaster is known.
It was a unstable torpedo. The Russians
have no reason to lie for the US.

The reason for the KAL 007 shootdown is equally
obvious. Again the Russians have been open about it and the US has released all the secret
communication intercepts.
And both sides are 100% in agreement!
again, the Russians have no need to lie for the US.

Lee Harvey Oswald fired 4, maybe 3 rounds at JFK.
Killing him instantly.
All the parameters of the set up indicated
an easy shot for a scoped rifle. VERY easy.
Ballistic tests verify every aspect of the
evidence.
The only question I have is how did Oswald miss twice? (I believe he fired 4 rounds).

There is big money in fools. So conspiracy theories
are manufactured for the fools market.

Sergio

tigertalon
10-03-2006, 05:57 PM
Daiichidoku, I don't think it's worth it. Some people will always just see what they want to see, get informed from sources that fit what they WANT to see, and do everything they can to discredit, ridicule and ignore all the facts that oppose the scenario they WISH to be the correct one. Some people are simply more willing to discredit the messenger than to read the message. Problem I see is, that this same people build up their mind before looking at any evidence. They build up their mind and beliefs about a certain problem/conflict/event mostly based on their feeling toward the nationality (or other 'memberships') of the ones involved. Still remember the Iraqi envoy in the UN, who claimed Iraq had no WMDs just before the invasion? He was laughed at by whole world. Why? Because he was an Iraqi, he was a member of 'evil' regime. That's why it didn't even matter what he said. He was doomed to be ridiculed in the moment he opened his mouth. Simply because we all believed the 'ever truth telling saints' from Washington. I for instance have no clue who killed JFK or what indeed happened to KAL007. Of course I know what official stories are, and I also know what some of the 'conspiracy theories' are claiming. But to find the truth myself, I'd have to dedicate ENORMOUS effort into a research. I just can't accept a 5 sec news from CNN stating: 'It was Harvey Lee Oswald!' and I am amazed how many people do...

Some people don't look at the action itself, they look at who executed it, and then adjust their feelings/beliefs accordingly. It is not possible to move them. You only end up ridiculed yourself (and, of course, now when posting this, I risk the same fate).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/ghost.jpg

Sergio_101
10-03-2006, 05:58 PM
As I said, there is always a fools market.

Sergio

jsd23
10-03-2006, 06:18 PM
I think that JFK was killed by a laser, fired from the eyes of a floating carton of fries.

Daiichidoku
10-03-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:


absolutely correct, it would seem, TT

Daiichidoku
10-03-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by jsd23:
I think that JFK was killed by a laser, fired from the eyes of a floating carton of fries. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MrMojok
10-03-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
I love the idea that being struck by a Mark 48 will leave two tell tale holes. Being struck by two Mark 48s will leave bits of tinfoil - Mark 48s sank the General Belgrano. They have enough explosive in them to tear Kursk into confetti, you'd be able to tell that Kursk was hit by Mark 48s because the whole boat would have been broken in pieces.

Philipscdrw, you're fairly on the money: the High Test Peroxide fuel for one of the torpedoes leaked out, when HTP comes in contact with brass (or was it copper?) it ignites, just a small amount is bad, Kursk had several hundred litres. Notably, the British lost a submarine in the 60s to HTP problems, and apparently it's why neither they nor the US use HTP anymore. Naturally, neither would tell the Russians this.

Point being, the HTP exploded and it is/was proceedure in the Russian Navy to leave all the compartment doors open when firing a torpedo to equalise the air pressure, thus the concussive force from the explosion went through every room, including the control room. Kursk began nose diving (I can't remember whether there was a hole in the bow or not, but regardless it was nosediving) the bridge crew is thrown against the forward bulkhead, and moreover, the effect of the shockwave and compressed gasses of the explosion left them in pretty bad shape anyway, so they probably didn't act to save the ship, but it was that shallow in the Barents that it doesn't matter much. They struck bottom and the torpedo room detonated - the siezmic (sp?) force was enough to be detected as a major earthquake in Norway. The only potential survivors were in the stern and made their way right up the back. As you said, the scrubbers caught fire when dropped in water, and there was a layer of oil and other inflammable materiel over the surface of the water. The crew would have died before rescue though because by the time they successfully docked the scrubbers would have run out of juice.

Rescue was mounted, however it started late, it was hard to find Kursk as she was designed not to be found, and when they found her they had poor rescue equipment: they had previously owned the AS-32 and a ship to launch her for such operations, but decommissioned her because of budget cuts. AS-32 sat in a warehouse for the duration of the rescue, even though it was their best shot at rescue. The other submarines were outdated, low powered machines named Priz and Bester. Priz made several attempts to dock with Kursk, however Priz had weak batteries and they were exhausted after a few short minutes, thus they never managed to get a lock on the rescue hatch (it's believed the crew were all dead by the time Priz was attempting this anyway). Bester also had several tries after arriving on-scene, but it was only when Norwegian and British assistance arrived that they were able to dock and found the boat was entirely flooded.

There is no conspiracy, it was all just an accident caused by budget cuts and a questionable SOP with leaving the doors open. Budget cuts then made the rescue operation so hopeless and paranoia also led to the refusal of help until later. There was no reason for Kursk to engage the US ships or vice-versa, nor would either party ever fire other unless they were first engaged - obviously a circular situation. During the Cold War it was common practice to sneak up on each other and all sorts of things that increased tension, but never started shooting - not even when a Crazy Ivan caused damage to one US submarine and sank the performer.

Probably none of you care anymore, because the thread has degenerated into JFK conspiracy theories and the evil of the US propaganda machine, but since the thread start was about what happened to Kursk, no one could have summed it up better than the man did above.

She blew herself up with one of her own torpedoes. There was no collision, and there was no firing done by any US subs that were in the area. Poor training, discipline, and funding on the part of the former USSR sank her. Later, the above ineptitude combined with Russian paranoia combined to ensure that none of the crew who survived the initial catastrophe would ever be saved.

Case closed. It was closed a long time ago.

BiscuitKnight
10-04-2006, 03:47 AM
IRT Ploughman

Ah. I was a bit iffy on that one, I knew they sunk her with an obsolete design when everyone thought it was the Tigerfish.

Still, the point stands that being struck by a torpedo with 295 kg of high explosives doesn't leave any telltale hole, it blasts a massive chunk out of the target. Two holes in Kursk's side wouldn't have done her in. As said before, it was the HTP leak onto brass that caused an explosion and then when she hit the bottom the whole torpedo room cooked off.

ploughman
10-04-2006, 04:26 AM
While I agree with you on the probable cause of the loss of the Kursk there are directed energy torpedoes out there that might have cut a hole into the boat.

The US Mk 50 torpedo and the UK's Spearfish torpedo both have shaped charge warheads. The Spearfish is a heavyweight torpedo and is designed especially to take out tough targets like the Oscar class subs with their double hulls that might survive a convetional warhead. The US Mk 50 is a lightweight torpedo and not really the sort of thing you'd find on a US SSN.

I don't know if the Mk 48 ADCAP has a directed energy warhead, like the Spearfish.

I wonder though, what did cut that hole.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/submarine/kursk-wreck.jpg

whiteladder
10-04-2006, 04:57 AM
I don't know if the Mk 48 ADCAP has a directed energy warhead, like the Spearfish.



I`m pretty sure that the MK48 has a conventional warhead. The hole produced by a shaped charge warhead is typically smaller than the diameter of the warhead itself and never bigger. The effect under water is magnified, making the hole even smaller, the hole in the picture doesn`t look to me like it has been made by a shaped charge.

ploughman
10-04-2006, 05:31 AM
Yeah, it's a big hole isn't it? It's got to be 30 inches across at least. Maybe it's an artifact of the salvage. Who knows?

DuxCorvan
10-04-2006, 01:56 PM
Ok, guys, you caught me. It was me. I confess... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://i18.ebayimg.com/03/i/05/78/bc/bb_2.JPG

BiscuitKnight
10-05-2006, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
While I agree with you on the probable cause of the loss of the Kursk there are directed energy torpedoes out there that might have cut a hole into the boat.

The US Mk 50 torpedo and the UK's Spearfish torpedo both have shaped charge warheads. The Spearfish is a heavyweight torpedo and is designed especially to take out tough targets like the Oscar class subs with their double hulls that might survive a convetional warhead. The US Mk 50 is a lightweight torpedo and not really the sort of thing you'd find on a US SSN.

I don't know if the Mk 48 ADCAP has a directed energy warhead, like the Spearfish.

I wonder though, what did cut that hole.

The Mark 48 isn't shaped charge: look at the photos of Torrens being hit (I've met the guy that "pressed the button", as a side note: amusingly, it was the first warship he served on and then he blew it up!)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg/400px-Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

The Mark 48 is meant to move fast and blow up under hull, breaking the keel. For anti-submarine usage it presumably gets close and then blows up.

Out of curiousity, does the Spearfish just use a shaped charge? Because while that would work beyond certain depths, at shallower depths if the compartment was sealed off, wouldn't the target survive several hits to different compartments before succumbing?

And most likely that hole was made by something in the bow area being cast backwards: look at the positioning and you see the plates around it are stove in, but other parts are pushed out. My best guess is a big peice of equipment was thrown in a semicircular motion and smashed through the hull then swung around a bit like a can opener and lodged in that hole there, then was knocked loose later. Just a guess, but it seems, at least to me, to answer why part of the plates are in and others are out (the object's tail end kicked part out while wrenching the other parts in) and doesn't involve a conspiracy theory.

whiteladder
10-05-2006, 02:47 AM
Out of curiousity, does the Spearfish just use a shaped charge? Because while that would work beyond certain depths, at shallower depths if the compartment was sealed off, wouldn't the target survive several hits to different compartments before succumbing?


I presume we are still talking about anti submarine use. The warhead for the the Mk48 and spearfish are similar in weight around 600lb there are very few submarine in service that could withstand a compartment being filled with the volume and pressure of gas produced by a warhead this big. The mechnisim destroying the vessel is the failure of the compartment from the rapid expansion of the gasses, not flooding through the tiny hole produced by the shaped charge. The resultant explosion would be of the same magnitude as seen in your pictures of the Frigate, except on the inside of the sub and not under the keel as in the picture.

Also Spearfish uses a developement of the seeker used in the Stringray torpedo, which is able to direct the weapon to a specific part of the hull.

When used in the anti ship role Spearfish produces pretty much the same results, from a recent test

"The High Seas Firing exercise ended when the American Commander in USS Donald Cook invited Tireless to close the ex-USS Wainwright to a range of two miles to deliver the coup de grace in the form of a Spearfish torpedo.

The torpedo detonated beneath the bridge, breaking the ship€s back and splitting her in half."

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/964/0002073001gxuo2.jpg

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4601/0002073001ixdf3.jpg

ploughman
10-05-2006, 02:58 AM
The Spearfish uses the same attack profile as the Mk 48 for surface targets, exploding under the hull and breaking the target's back.

This is the ex-USS Wainwright being hit by a Speafish.
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/0207_images/0002073001gx.jpg

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0207/0207_images/0002073001ix.jpg

I expect you're right about the damage been inflicted by a part of the hull being flicked back.

ploughman
10-05-2006, 03:08 AM
Er...ditto.

whiteladder
10-05-2006, 03:37 AM
freaky http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

BiscuitKnight
10-05-2006, 04:51 AM
ROL way to go guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for the explanation, I probably should have guessed the gasses would blow the comparment apart. But then that leaves us back where we started from, doesn't it: no tell tale holes, just shredded hull?

The under the hull detonation is a fearsome looking thing, it's interesting that apparently the explosives aren't actually intended to damage the hull in the same way as a bomb, but to generate a large enough amount of force through released gas to force the keel upwards and either break it because a particular section's being pushed up and the rest isn't (a la Titanic's stern), or to lift the ship out of the water, if light enough, and drop it back down the same way as some light vessels have been destroyed by near misses.

WWMaxGunz
10-05-2006, 08:26 AM
TT, given that none of us or the maker of that film are ever going to know more than very
little and a LOT less than what has been speculated... how are you to say what version is
true? Your comment about people believing what they want and choosing sources holds true
for everyone who takes a stand without information doesn't it? And as for anyone unravelling
what happened to JFK in 1963? Sorry but Bill Gates don't have enough money and 100 years
ain't enough time. When Oswald was shot, I can only speculate it was to shut him up and
that could have been by a dozen groups. But then I didn't know that the OKC Federal Bldg
was an apartment block, did I?

Daichman, I have an old movie for you to watch. Facts, man. They had to make it out like
fiction but really well just watch it. Title is Ice Station Zebra. And that Tom Clancy dude
is really telling it as it happens!

WB_Outlaw
10-05-2006, 10:40 AM
The gas pressure from the HP leak (and subsequent breakdown into explosive gases when it came in contact with brass fittings) caused the torpedo to burst, releasing the gas, which caught fire. After a few minutes the fire detonated the warhead, which detonated the rest of the warheads in the torpedo room. The two explosions are identical frequency wise, but the second one is much larger. That's how they came to the conclusion that the first warhead detonated many others. Even if the sequence was similar, a different kind of warhead (ie, US) would have had a different frequency signature than the Soviet warheads.

Thw way I heard it, the torpedo on the Scorpion had a flaw that would start the torpedo if a set of test leads were hooked up backwards and that's (probably) what happened during routine maintenance. The torpedo detonates at the end of the run and there is no way to turn it off. As was mentioned earlier, the torpedo is designed to shut down and sink if it turns 180 degrees, the theory being that it is now pointed back at the firer. They tried turning the whole sub but it wasn't fast enough.

--Outlaw.

WWMaxGunz
10-05-2006, 03:31 PM
Hydrogen Peroxide (HO) is liquid fuel. Robert Goddard used it in his rockets and it was one
of the 2 fuels that the He-163 used, IIRC the one called C-stuff (but spelled in German) and
very, very scarey. It eats organic materials like your clothes and flesh.

Daiichidoku
10-05-2006, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Daichman, I have an old movie for you to watch. Facts, man. They had to make it out like
fiction but really well just watch it. Title is Ice Station Zebra. And that Tom Clancy dude
is really telling it as it happens!


i read reviews about that film; they called Ernest Borgnine a crackpot, and Rock hudson was only out to make a buck, so it must be fantasy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


ive seen that film before, actually, and it wasnt bad...

and yes, ive heard that it was loosely based on real events

but it was not quite like that,actually...the movie was altered a bit from the book

flockzap
10-05-2006, 04:02 PM
S!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/kursk.html

It is said that the american subs were very near to assist a firing test of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo
(site about the weapon)

The explanation for such enormous underwater speed has to do with a special shaped nose that creates air bubbles around it thus creating an "shield" to avoid the drag caused by the water.

Flockzap