It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What happened to Kursk?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Having seen 3 different documentaries on the Kursk i am left with alot of unanswered questions. These docs seem to be short on explanations or theories. So i ask the members of ATS, what the heck happened?




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
You may find some theories, points, views and answers in any of these threads:

Did the Americans sink the Kursk? (by Hellmutt)

Did a U.S. sub torpedo the Kursk? (by JamesinOz)

[edit on 2006/8/27 by Hellmutt]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28
Having seen 3 different documentaries on the Kursk i am left with alot of unanswered questions. These docs seem to be short on explanations or theories. So i ask the members of ATS, what the heck happened?


Prototype rocket torpedo blew up in the torpedo room sinking the sub. Then the Russian rescue attempt makes FEMA look competent.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I think the Russians cut off the front of the Kursk to hide this torpedo tech'.





UNDERWATER MISSLE. The VA-111 Shkval (Squall) supercavitating torpedo, shown here being launched from a Russian Navy Oscar II-class submarine, rockets to a speed over 200 mph, which would give a targeted vessel little chance to evade it.


diodon349.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cara
I think the Russians cut off the front of the Kursk to hide this torpedo tech'.





UNDERWATER MISSLE. The VA-111 Shkval (Squall) supercavitating torpedo, shown here being launched from a Russian Navy Oscar II-class submarine, rockets to a speed over 200 mph, which would give a targeted vessel little chance to evade it.


diodon349.com...




I really doubt that anything human nature can go 200 miles underwater, if we did have that kind of tech then I think it would be Above top secret



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The Unites States Navy has been working on secret underwater missile technology for a long time and have created a supersonic torpedo. It was released a few months to a year ago, with little information. They mentioned supersonic speeds and invunerability.

From Pop Sci - - -

Several challenges remain for the supercavitating torpedo, including how it will be steered underwater. Water-tunnel tests have already proven that speed can be achieved: In 1997, the Navy tested a supercavitating projectile that reached 5,082 feet per second, becoming the first underwater projectile to exceed Mach 1.


Train

[edit on 29-11-2005 by BigTrain]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
What happened to he Kursk?

There was a US Attack Sub in the area eavesdropping on the Russian naval exercise, but I don't think it torpedoed or collided with the Kursk. Most likely the Russians were using some new Torpedo with a very volatile fuel that the west stopped using decades ago because of its explosive properties. That is why two blasts were recorded, a small blast first, then a larger one measuring 1.5 on the Richter Scale.

My guess is the torpedo exploded in the torpedo room causing all the other torpedoes to explode simultaneously, blowing the front third of the ship off and sinking the Kursk. Also, I think the reason the US sub that was in the area later received emergency repairs is because they might have been in close proximity the Kursk, and therefore would have been damaged by the immense explosion.

Kursk

[edit on 29-11-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
It wasn't the US sub, don't be ridiculous those of you who believe that.

There's a perfectly logical explanation which makes perfect sense.

If I remember correctly,
A crewmember on Kursk (possibly corrupt, but no evidence or suggestions of this whatsoever) "started" the torpedo, probably by accident, or as part of a drill and then got distracted.

The propellent liquid (or some liquid) inside the torpedo got very hot, and bust out of the tubes.

It then reacted with a certain type of metal in the torpedo (not the main one torpedos are made of, this one has a specific purpose, i can't remember what).

It [ the liquid] then I think turned into gas and started expanding, and then when there was no room to expand it exploded.


This happened many years back on a British ship, when it was in the dock.
They concluded this to be the resaon for that and stopped using that liquid in missiles.

This is I think perhaps the only recorded incident of this (apart from Kursk now).

Not sure if the US Navy use it or not.

But this type of thing is very rare.

Just think how many subs Russia has, and SU had, and how much they used them, nothing like this ever happened.

Which all the more makes this very odd...but anyway, that is what happened.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
The Kursk was carrying old-style torpedoes that had already been mandated to be destroyed by the Russian military due to instability issues. This type torpedo had sunk a British sub before. Problem is I don't believe the Russian military was providing new torpedoes to replace the salvaging of these.

The driver motor for the pressurization system, which should only be engaged just prior to the torpedo launching, was either inadvertently knocked on by one submariner or turned on for testing and then he didn't turn it off. This caused the pressurization system, which used hydrogen peroxide as the pressurizing liquid, to over pressure, burst a stainless steel line, and pour hydrogen peroxide into the carbon steel casing of the torpedo.

When hydrogen peroxide hits carbon steel it expands something like 600 times its volume (I'm pulling that out of my worn out memory hole so I'd have to check the exact number). So, when the pressurization system sprung a leak, the torpedo casing turned into a giant pipe bomb. When it went off it caused neighboring torpedoes to go off.

EDIT NOTE: I know the above is true because I was there.
Seriously, this scenario is the one that makes the most sense, unless of course you're hell bent on blaming another country for Russia's negligence in replacing these dangerous torpedoes.


[edit on 11-30-2005 by Valhall]

[edit on 11-30-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
There were two American subs there. Something happened causing Kursk to collide with one of them. After the collision Kursk open her torpedo tubes ready to fire at the American sub, causing the other American sub to fire a torpedo at Kursk to protect the other damaged sub. Kursk get sunk by that torpedo which might have been a special kind of torpedo (high-speed torpedo?). A damaged American sub was actually spotted just after this incident. The whole thing was covered up by the Americans and Russians together. Maybe the Americans paid the Russians some kind of compensasion under the table...



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Do you normally believe the most ill-logical theories? Who said it.. "The Simplest explanation tends to be the correct one". The Russians messed up and it cost their sailors 117 lives. Forget about the "HOLE" caused by a MK-48 or the other crap shoot theory you got. Care to explain to me, Hellmutt how that "HOLE" is so perfectly round.

Train



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Valhall pretty much hit it right on the dot. It was pure Russian Negligence that sunk the Kursk, no torpedo from the US attack sub in the area, nor was there 2(where did someone get 2 from?) I find it hard to accept any of those theories.

I really do think it was the horrible care taking of the torpedoes.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The problem was that something let water into the people spaces. I watched a show on the Discovery channel about the raising of the Kursk. The divers who were operating the saw said that the edges of the holes in the hull were bulged outward, consistent with an internal explosion.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
There were two American subs there. Something happened causing Kursk to collide with one of them. After the collision Kursk open her torpedo tubes ready to fire at the American sub, causing the other American sub to fire a torpedo at Kursk to protect the other damaged sub. Kursk get sunk by that torpedo which might have been a special kind of torpedo (high-speed torpedo?). A damaged American sub was actually spotted just after this incident. The whole thing was covered up by the Americans and Russians together. Maybe the Americans paid the Russians some kind of compensasion under the table...


Or much more plausible and likely. The Russians attempted to build and use a weapon system beyond their capability to build, maintain (key word here is maintain) and use - with disasterous results for the crew. They then compounded their errors by delaying the kind of rescue attempt from NATO countries that could have saved the survivors.

[edit on 12/2/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
USS Memphis and USS Toledo, type 688 Los Angeles class fast attack submarines were in the area. USS Memphis had to undergo "emergency repairs of an unspecified nature" in a Norwegian naval yard.


The Sinking Of The Kursk?

CBS news then broke the story that the United States had three ships in the vicinity observing the naval exercise that Kursk was taking part in, possibly a test of a new ultra-high speed torpedo. Two of the three ships were submarines, later determined to be USS Memphis and USS Toledo, type 688 Los Angeles class fast attack submarines which are often used for covert intelligence gathering.


USS Memphis, reported by Norway to be undergoing repairs at a Norwegian naval yard.

The Russians then announced that they had identified the submarine that had collided with Kursk, then lay on the bottom before slowly moving away, as USS Memphis. Radio amatuers had reported overhearing a US Navy submarine asking for emergancy permission to enter a Norwegain port, and the Norwegian embassy in Moscow informed the Russians that USS Memphis had required emergancy repairs of an unspecified nature. This report was later retracted with the excuse that the Norwegian embassy in Moscow does not employ people who speak fluent Russian, and that the word for "food" had been confused with the word for "repair". The Norwegians then reversed their story again, admitting that USS Memphis was undergoing repairs and that Norwegian journalists had actually seen the damage. Russia officially requested a report on the damage to USS Memphis from the Norwegian government.


[edit on 2006/8/27 by Hellmutt]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
There have been a number of torpedo accidents causing damage/loss to a sub. IIRC USS Thresher, sailing home, apparently a torpedo activated in the torpedo room, causing her to sink. During WWII, there was at least one US sub lost to a torpedo turning around on them after they fired. The British sub that was mentioned. The evidence points to Kursk just being the latest one. That is NO WAY that a single Mk-48 torpedo will bring down a sub by impacting the hull and causing a perfectly round hole. IF a torpedo had sank the Kursk she would have been snapped in two, or there would have been a LOT more damage. A torpedo is designed to explode under the hull of the target, causing an air bubble to shoot up under the keel of the target, breaking it in two, or at least breaking the keel. There hasn't been a torpedo with a contact fuse since the end of WWII.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Hello all, this is my first post on the board, so if i screw anything up, forgive me....


There's a book out there called "Rising Tide," which is pretty much a history of the Russian Navy up until (and including) the Kursk incident. The whole last chapter of it is dedicated to looking at what happened to the Kursk, and it talks about prety much every scenario posted on here so far and the validity of them.....maybe you want to check it out?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Sorry fella's, but the collision claim does not live up to its billing, heres how.

Your telling me a 9,000 ton fast attack boat, single hulled, collides with a 24,000 ton double hulled vessle and completely destroys the Kursk while only sustaining minimal, damage. I guess the person making this claim has completely passed off physics as bull.

Train



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
No, in the collision scenario there was only a light collision. But it created the situation where Kursk was about to fire at the vessel it collided with, and a torpedo was launched at Kursk to protect that vessel.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Except the Mk48 detonates UNDER the hull, and snaps the keel. Not to mention that a double hull design like Kursk would probably be able to withstand one hit. The divers didn't see anywhere NEARLY enough damage or the TYPE of damage that would occur after a torpedo hit. All of the damage on Kursk came from the INSIDE and blew outward.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join