The sinking of the kursk

[theavonlady 2]

Self-inflicted.

[Satchel 0]

Likely a faulty russian "supertorpedo" of the sort that goes around 350-400Km/h submerged, some time ago there was a documentation in Spiegel TV about the incident.

They interviewed anonymous dockworkers that told the reporter team there were new "special" torpedos for testing purposes loaded. Some had obviously visible fuel leaks, the captain had known this but loaded the torpedos regardless.

[red oct 2]

nothing is more scarier than when something goes wrong in a submarine, you either drownd or you die of radiation poisioning

[cam0flage 0]

The "supertorpedoes" Der Spiegel reported about are possibly supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Russians.

Read more here! Pretty interesting.

// cam0flage

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

It wasn't actually a fuel leak.

For an internal combustion engine to work the engine needs oxygen. In a torpedo, because it is submerged this is provided with a colourless, and relatively harmless liquid, somewhat similar to water (that name iludes me right now...two years since last chemistry lesson! ) that seperates into it's componants of oxygen and 'whatever else' as it warms up along the piping on route to the engine.

Many engineers are lulled into a false sense of sercurity with this apparently 'harmless' liquid. However, when it touches some metals the reaction is quiet spectacular.

What happened in the Kirsk, is what has happened with another British submarine in the 1950's. Is that this fluid actually leaked, not the fuel itself, into the torpedo casing. A chemical reaction followed as the metal was disolved. The pressure build up of excessive gases (side effects of a chemical reaction) proved too much for the torpedo casing and the torpdo exploded releasing the flamable fuel of that torpedo and no doubt rupturing many others in the hold. Sparks created by the explosion created a fire which the crew men failed to put out. As the temperature and pressure rose in the weapons hold eventually all the other torpedos exploded (regardless of them not being armed), rupturing the double hull.

Letters to loved ones show that at least 7 crew men survived for sometime towards the back of the vessel as the ship sank, before the generators shut down and the pressure crushed the ship like a tin can.

Well, that is the most convincing story I have heard...I have heard a few, but they lack credibility.

The next possible story I heard was that it was a collision with a US vessel. The US and Russians don't deny 'watching' each other and the Pentegon has admited to having US submarines in that area at the time. The evidence that supports this theory is a gash along the side of the Kirsk that could plausably have been left by a fin of an American sub. Satellite images show a US Submarine pulling into a Norwegian militay port not long after the incident, some claim to fix the damage. But Pentegon claims they were offloading Norwgian intellegence.

Anyway...that's my contribution

Jubs

[Stag 0]

Jub-Jub Bird beat me to it.

You don't need new technology to produce disasters, just classified old technology.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

A torpedo malfunction? Thats how the USS Scorpion was probably lost also

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

You would think they would learn from their mistakes...

Jubs

[Stag 0]

It may well have been a torpedo accident that killed Thresher, but there was something unique about the construction of the torpedoes in question; they used Hydrogen Peroxide as fuel. I believe American fish are either electrical or use compressed air. BTW. Britain stopped using that particular type of torpedo shortly after the incident.

The British incident would have been restricted under The Official Secrets Act. How would the Commies have known?

Well, aside from Philby, Maclean, Burgess...

[The Jub-Jub Bird 1]

Hydrogen Peroxide was it...I was raking my brains for that, but I couldn't for the life of me think...anyway...sorted.

And back to what you were saying about how the commies would know...the KGB maybe...or the moles that we keep finding out about now in Mi5 and Mi6.

Jubs

[theavonlady 2]

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!!!

Quote[/b] ]US 'torpedoed Kursk nuclear sub'

Daniel Stacey, London

May 09, 2005

A FORMER British military official has backed a sensational claim that the Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, was torpedoed by US forces in August 2000.

An official inquest concluded that the disaster – in which all 118 crew drowned in the Barents Sea, 135km off the Russian coast – was caused by an accidental explosion of an onboard torpedo.

But Maurice Stradling, a former torpedo engineer and a key figure in the original investigation, believes a new French documentary, The Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters, should change world opinion on the sinking.

"On the balance of probabilities, the Kursk was sunk by an American MK-48 torpedo," said Mr Stradling, formerly a senior member of the British Defence Ministry.

BBC editor Nick Fraser called the claim a "pack of lies" and has refused to air the documentary, which attracted a record audience of more than 4 million when it screened on French TV.

The BBC used Mr Stradling as its main authority for a documentary it made in 2001 – What Sank the Kursk?, in which Mr Stradling theorised that the sinking was caused by the malfunctioning of an old-fashioned HTP torpedo.

Mr Stradling, who also appears in the new French documentary, said: "At the time (2001), that was a perfectly reasonable film, given the facts as we knew them then, when there seemed to be no third-party involvement,"

The new explanation for the Kursk's downing is based on film footage of a hole in the side of the vessel, and evidence placing US submarines in the area at the time it was sunk.

The French film shows stills of the Kursk raised above the water after being salvaged, with a precise circular hole in its right side. The hole clearly bends inwards, consistent with an attack from outside the submarine.

A US military source in the documentary declares the hole to be the trademark evidence of an American MK-48 torpedo, which is made to melt cleanly through steel sheet due to a mechanism at its tip that combusts copper.

The film suggests the attack happened while two US submarines, the Toledo and Memphis, were shadowing the Kursk in a routine military exercise.

The documentary says the Toledo accidentally collided with the Kursk, at which point the Russian submarine opened its torpedo tubes, leading to an attack from the Memphis, which was protecting the damaged Toledo while it retreated.

The cause of the sinking was covered up at the time in an act of diplomacy between then US presidents Bill Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin – a deal that included the cancellation of $US10 billion ($12.5 billion) of Russian debt, the film states.

After the documentary received its only public broadcast in Britain, some claimed the Russian navy had drilled the hole and fed doctored footage to the film-makers to create a false impression.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Kind of strange that this appears a day after Bush's inflammatory speech in the Baltics though Very very interesting timing...esp. since this is explosive enough to have the ability to cost Putin his job

I don't know whether this is genuine or an elaborate ruse to get rid of Putin...

[theavonlady 2]

Personally, I don't believe it.

BTW, didn't they place holes in the Kursk's hull during the salvage operations? I forgot how they did it.

[Colossus 2]

3 year old topic?!

Oh well..

Very strange claims indeed

[FerretFangs 0]

MK48's don't have to impact a target. It's equipped with a proximity fuse, and can even be command detonated. The pressure wave of the warhead detonation is just as effective as an internal detonation. It the torpedo penetrated the hull of the Kursk, it wouldn't have just made a neat, circular hole in the hull. It would have penetrated, and detonated,and would have caused a catstophic disintegration of most of the sub forward of the con. The only other hypothetical, is that the MK48 punched a hole in the Kursk and didn't detonate, leaving a small hole in the side of the sub. This wouldn't sink the Kursk, however. Concievably, the crew in the flooded compartment might perish, but due to comparmentalization, and water-tight doors, the remainder of the sub would have been completly operational.

I also believe that it was a torpedo malfunction, either one of Kusrk's own, or was possibly from one of the other Russian naval vessels involved in the excercise. Even if an American sub rammed Kursk, and Kursk opened her torpedo doors, there would be no reason for the use of an American torpedo, unless the sub in question was under imminent threat of an attack. That means Kursk, or some other Russian unit would have had to fire a torpedo in anger at the American boat.

This incident, as are ALL sub-related incidents on either side, is buried under multiple layers of state secrecy. The Russian, or American public is likely never to know exactly what caused the sinking of the Kursk, because THAT'S just what the Russians want.

Incidently it goes without saying that it's all too convenient to blame the US rather than Moscow excepting the blame for a Russian malfunction that cost the lives of numerous sailors, and one of Russia's most formidible subs.

[denoir 0]

Concievably, the crew in the flooded compartment might perish, but due to comparmentalization, and water-tight doors, the remainder of the sub would have been completly operational.

Actually, since an accident in the 80's, the standard russian modus operandi is to open up all water tight compartments before firing a torpedo. This has to do with an accident they had with compressed air from a defective torpedo killing off the crew in the torpedo compartment. The opening of the compartments prevents that as the pressure would be equalized throughout the sub.

But beyond that, you are quite correct.

An Mk-48 would not leave a neat little hole: it would disintegrate a good portion of the submarine. What would happen next would be an explosion as the sub's compressed air would rapidly expand. And that would be followed by an implosion when the water pressure would crush the sub after its structural integrity was severely damaged.

Having said that, there is one very remote possibility of the damage on Kurks being explained by an Mark 48 impact. There are versions of the MK-48 ADCAP that have a tandem warhead - one shaped penetration charge and one follow up radial charge. If such a torpedo was used and the secondary stage failed, then you would get a neat localized hole from the shaped charge.

It would however not make any sense to use such a version against another submarine. The tandem version is designed for attacking heavly armoured targets. Furthermore, it is unlikely that if used, that the secondary charge would fail.

[FerretFangs 0]

Oh, and one more thing, just so that people here realize, the Kursk was in shallow water. Afer the incident, she came to rest upright on the sea floor. Hull crush wasn't a problem at her depth. Water temperature, and a lack of proper rescue equipment on scene was.

[SPQR 0]

I've seen this documentary when it was on screen a few monthes ago.

My opinion is that good questions had been asked. However many answers were not based on facts but on rumours and suppositions.

The explaination about the Mk48 torpedo puzzled me a lot, and I didn't find any satisfying answers on the net (FAS, ...). I also fear that some answers where not understtod and were tainted of ideological depleted uranium mouvment.

I remember well that a so-called expert explained that the warhead was made of Depleted uranium, supposed to vaporize with incendiary effects inside the targeted submarine....

He also explained that the torpedo was autonomously able to aim a precise vulnerable area of the submarine (impossible with a passive sonar, and would need a sob of computer and program in order to identify the sub, recognize its silouhette, determine the front and aft parts and then aiming the vulnerable area).

I don't know if this is truly possible, but all of this sounds Sci-Fi to me

I read that some modern torpedoes have Directed Energy warheads, acting like a HEAT warhead, which role is to counter double-hulled russian submarines.

But with a 300kg warhead for a Mk48 torpedo, what would be the use of DU and pyrophoric effect ?

Another hypothesis was that a US sub crashed into the Kursk. The Kursk was badly sunk and the US sub, badly mauled, managed to sail to a NATO's harbour

But, How could a 6900+ tons single-hulled Los angeles survived to a crash into a 16000+ tons double-hulled Oscar II, while the heavier sunk ?

I'm not expert enough to tell the truth, but those two points among many others made me think about this report as "good journalist answers, bad amateur answers".

[FerretFangs 0]

The MK-48 ADCAP MOD6 is a BADASS ASW/ASuW weapon, but it's quite THAT badass.

Quote[/b] ]A highly capable weapon, the MK 48 can be used against surface ships or submarines, and has been test fired under the Arctic ice pack and in other arduous conditions. The ADCAP version, in comparison with earlier MK 48 torpedoes, has improved target acquisition range, reduced vulnerability to enemy countermeasures, reduced shipboard constraints such as warmup and reactivation time, and enhanced effectiveness against surface ships. The MK 48 is propelled by a piston engine with twin, contra-rotating propellers in a pump jet or shrouded configuration. The engine uses a liquid monopropellant fuel, and the torpedo has a conventional, high-explosive warhead. The MK 48 has a sophisticated guidance system permitting a variety of attack options. As the torpedo leaves the submarine's launch tube a thin wire spins out, electronically linking the submarine and torpedo. This enables an operator in the submarine, with access to the submarine's sensitive sonar systems, initially to guide the torpedo toward the target. This helps the torpedo avoid decoys and jamming devices that might be deployed by the target. The wire is severed and the torpedo's high-powered active/passive sonar guides the torpedo during the final attack.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm

You know, it's really just common sense. There was no motive for an American fast attack boat to deep-six a Russian SSGN in her home waters. Is it within our capability? Certainly. The Russians could probobly do the same or worse to us if they wanted to. But there's no motive, unless the nation in question is going to follow up with a massive, devastating pre-emptive strike to the other side.

As to a collision, (which has certainly happened in the past) I seem to remember the Russian boats always got the worst of it after a collision. Maybe it's a difference in construction?

Oh, and about DU in the warhead, I find that really hard to believe. Even if it were true, the pyrophoric effects are a result of oxidation. Completely submerged in seawater, DU would simply be an extremely dense, inert metaloid.

There have been studies of sodium warheads for torpedoes, but I doubt they are being used on any American torps at this time. And the result of a sodium warhead is an enormous shockwave/pressure bubble, meant to explode beneath a hull and break it in half by hyperflexing the frames and hull plating. Its particularly effective against surface ships.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

As to a collision, (which has certainly happened in the past) I seem to remember the Russian boats always got the worst of it after a collision. Maybe it's a difference in construction?

I am sceptical - surely a Titanium-based alloy is a lot sturder than a steel-based one? Plus, you have the fact that Russian/Soviet subs are dubble hulled, with batteries inbetween the hulls providing extra armour...although this advantage might be negated by improper construction of the internal compartments?

[FerretFangs 0]

I'm just going by what I've read. They've either got a glass jaw, or our boats are just freaking tough. Maybe a bit of both.

A case in point: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330034/posts

The damage was certainly catastrophic, but despite the damage and the depth, the San Francisco returned to port with only one dead crewman. She's currently underging repairs, and will eventually be returned to service, albeit with a completely rebuilt front end. The Kursk had a fraction of this damage and sunk, killing all hands aboard.

[Oeil2Lynx 0]

i'm just asking myself why none of the 118 submariners(or sailors?my english is far away from perfect )

got out of the submarine? they where well trained, equiped for, and the submarine was only at 100m deep

i think we'll never know why and by who it was sunk.

[denoir 0]

As to a collision, (which has certainly happened in the past) I seem to remember the Russian boats always got the worst of it after a collision. Maybe it's a difference in construction?

It's the other way around. A Russian Alpha (titanium, double hull) could easily ram a Los Angels, break it in two and live to tell the tale.

In principle the Russian subs have a much more robust structure and can take a very severe punishment.

Quote[/b] ]A case in point: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330034/posts

The damage was certainly catastrophic, but despite the damage and the depth, the San Francisco returned to port with only one dead crewman. She's currently underging repairs, and will eventually be returned to service, albeit with a completely rebuilt front end. The Kursk had a fraction of this damage and sunk, killing all hands aboard.

Those cases are not comparable. First of all, the San Francisco is a much smaller sub (about a quarter of displacement submerged compared to an Oscar II). Second, at the time of the incident, Kursk had most of its compartments opened, meaning that most of the sub was immediately flooded. Had the bow compartment been sealed, it wouldn't have sunk.

Edit: Oh yeah, the DU story is bullshit. It would only be a disadvantage in a torpedo as it would contribute with nothing but weight.

[FerretFangs 0]

That water is COLD, 100 meters depth is WAY too deep for a human to survive the ascent, and they really weren't equipped with adequate rescue systems for a submarine disaster. The US maintains a quick reaction force for submarine rescues with DSRV's and specially trained crews, but theres no way in Hell that the Russians would allow a USN team to step foot aboard an Oscar II SSGN. That sub is their primary, and one of the few remaining, offensive platforms for use against USN CVBG's, and Aegis-equipped surface combattants.

Sadly, it's a tactical advantage for us that they lost the Kursk, as they aren't replacing them with anything possessing her capapbilities.

That said, I don't suggest in any form that that would have been a motive for us to sink her.

[FerretFangs 0]

I think this puts it to rest for me:

Submarine Explosion in Barents Sea

Quote[/b] ]The Russian submarine Kursk was accidentally sunk while participating in war games in the Barents Sea on 10 August 2000. The associated explosions were recorded by over 20 seismic stations at distances of up to 5000 km. This photo was taken by a Russian submersible and is courtesy of The Kursk Foundation.

On August 10, 2000, Russia's Northern Fleet began its largest naval exercise in more than a decade. Among the vessels taking part was the heavily armed Kursk, an Oscar class submarine that was the most modern cruise-missile sub in the fleet. Beginning on August 14 a series of press reports indicated that the Kursk had been severely damaged during the exercise and that the crew were likely dead. By August 17 news agencies were reporting that seismic networks in the Baltic area had detected two seismic events which appeared to correspond to the Kursk disaster in time and space. Specifically, the seismic events were consistent with BBC reports on the location of ongoing rescue efforts. The fact that this section of the Barents Sea is essentially aseismic added credence to the assertion that the seismic events were directly related to the sinking of the Kursk.

The basic facts about the Kursk incident that can be determined seismically are similar to the information that is routinely generated for earthquakes: the geographical location of the event, the origin time, the character of the source, and the amount of energy released. There are two distinct events separated by 135 s. The first event (2.2 ML) is approximately 250 times smaller than the second event (4.2 ML) and was clearly recorded at only a handful of nearby stations. The second event released energy equivalent to 3-7 tons TNT and was recorded at distances of up to 5000 km. The Kursk data also possess features that are unique to underwater explosions and rule out the possibility of collision or impact as a source mechanism.

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/KKoper/Research/forensic.html