Wreck of the Kursk

[Koeketiene]

Russian submarine Kursk - lost with all hands

 

[Danny Jo]

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories, but the explanation given on this link seems the most plausible: Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin agreed, after a number of frantic phone calls from Clinton, to cover up the fact that the Kursk was sunk by an armour-piercing American torpedo. This would account for Putin's uncharacteristic decision to stay in his daccau and not go to Murmansk after the incident. One can only guess at how much this cover-up must have cost the Americans.

Among other things, they had to pay the full cost of cutting the sub in half (at the insistence of the Russians) and raising the half shown in the photos. A very large wire hacksaw had to be built to achieve this. Unfortunately for the cover-up, the recovered section shows the point of penetration of the American torpedo.

Edit: I hope that this post won't be seen as flippant - we should not forget that 118 persons died in the Kursk. The possibilty that their deaths were avoidable is especially sad.

 

[bilbobaggins]

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories

Well, most of on here are! Try this on for size....

A few years ago, late at night in the bar of the Scottish Physical Recreation Centre HQ building near Largs, a handful of us on an RYAS Assessment Course were 'shooting the breeze'. We all happened to have Services background - i.e. signatories to the old OSA - and one of our number was queried on his take on the Kursk disaster. The principal reason for seeking his view was that he was a two-times captain of a British nuclear sub, then on a 'ground tour' at Faslane, and that he was obviously likely to have an informed view close to the 'verite'.....

This was an impressive character. He had an 'aura' of calm around him that was almost palpable. To the small but not inexperienced group around the table that night, that registered.

He offered these suggestions....

"We all know that the submarine world has continued to push for advantages, hidden from public prying eyes, without let-up. That has often resulted in 'close-run' situations, for attack boats' skippers of all nationalities are chosen for their calculated, analytical aggression. That not-infrequently results in two massive egos, wrapped in massive submarines, doing John Wayne-type confrontations to see who blinks first.

Also, part of the job has always been spying-by-listening-up-close, and nowhere has this been more actively pursued than in the Barents Sea just off the Polyarny Inlet.

Consider the situation where a NATO boat or two has been tasked with eavesdropping on the capabilities of several Soviet ships and boats due to participate in a much-advertised sea exercise, where new weapons are to be trialled. Part of that would certainly include the desire and the instructions to hear and record exactly what noises are created just prior to the launch of a new-type undersea weapon of interest.....

Also, it is also well known that the Soviets - and most others - try their damndest to disrupt such eavesdropping/spying, including some quite aggressive manoeuvres of their own. And it is known that a large Soviet Battle Fleet ( Task Group ) was at sea, participating in the exercise.

One tactical concept for dealing with an enemy submarine involves a surface fleet, with sonar-dunking helicopters like the 'Hormone', driving said intruder sub in a particular direction - ideally into shallow water - where it will be easier to force the intruder boat to the surface and surrender - or, more likely these days, drive it onto the 'guns' of a group of waiting attack submarines of one's own, and there sinking it 'unseen'. 'Beaters and guns'....."

There was a pause while beer mugs were replenished, and the tactical situation considered by the rest of us.

"The solitary spy sub will try a number of ploys to escape. In the end, if trapped, that boat's commander has a decision to make - whether to surrender his boat and crew to the opposition, or to fight his way out. Consider first that commander's likely temperament. You won't know, of course, his written orders regarding such a situation. Suffice it to say that those will exist.

The next question is 'How might such a commander choose to fight his way out?' and one of the better options is to get his retaliation in first. He needs to do what a trapped rat would do, and go for it. If his boat was seriously at risk of loss, he'd probably shoot first and hope to discuss it afterwards. He might choose to shoot at quite close range, and hope to break through the line in the minute or two's chaos immediately following..... If he chose to break through very close to his damaged target, he would reduce the likelihood of another adjacent combatant having a clear and unambiguous firing resolution. That could very readily result in a glancing collision....

But these are just idle thoughts," he said, "to while away the time until the bar closes."

 

[sarabande]

not unknown for a torpedo to go batty and sink its own sub. USS Tang 1944


As it's very unlikely that the Kursk was using live torpedoes in the exercise -)) , the clean hole could indicate penetration damage, with the torpedo fuel (hydrogen peroxide) causing the fatal explosion inside the pressure hull.

Modern torpedoes use a principle called supercavitation which surrounds the body of the weapon with gas, enabling it to travel at speeds in excess of 300 kph. The Shkval weighs 2700kg. Imagine the energy in that "dead" torpedo travelling at 300 kph.