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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Hellmutt, im sorry man, I just think this scenario that you have postulated has too many what ifs and too many improbable possibilities for me to accept it as truth. I find it almost near impossible for the US attack sub to accidentally run into the kursk, not with that technology. The front of the kursk is blown off, not blown in. The whole front is destroyed. The only thing that could cause that is an internal explosion. Think about it, I dont even think the US has a hull penetrating torpedo, like has been said, torpedos like the MK48 explode under the hull and cause a pressure wave that implodes the sub.

The idea behind that double hull is not to stop penetration, but to have a layer of material that essentially absorbs the blast and is made to crumple like the fender and bumper of a car. The outter hull is pulverised while the inner hull remains intact. Kursk was destroyed by an internal explosion.

Train




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Train, you're right on. The day that the Kursk sunk, American, Russian, and Norweigan geologists recorded 2 disturbances in the area that Kursk went down. The first one was an explosion that amounted to 400 pounds of TNT, and the second one with a force of around 1.7 tons of TNT. After the investigation was over, it was determined that these explosions amounted to 3-5 of Kursk's torpedoes going off.

Just as a background here, the Kursk was one of what was called in Russia as the "Anataeus" (spelling?) class boats, more commonly known as the Typhoon class. These boats were huge, with a length of 560 feet 11 inches, and a displacement of 30,000 tons submerged. It also had a double pressure hull typical of Russian nuke boats. What I'm trying to say is that these babies were built to last....the Soviet Navy built this class of submarines to survive more than one hit from an American sub so it could launch its cruise missiles in the event of a war.

Like train said, ONE TORPEDO wouldn't have sunk this sub. It would have damaged it, but there is no way that one single MK 48 could have sent this sub down, unless it was nuclear tipped. Kursk went to the bottom after its own torpedoes went off. A hydrogen peroxide torpedo going off inside a sub would have cut through the pressure hull like a hot knife through butter.

Just my thoughts.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Hellmutt, im sorry man, I just think this scenario that you have postulated has too many what ifs and too many improbable possibilities for me to accept it as truth.

It was not supposed to be "accepted" by anyone as truth. This is speculation based on facts, details and events. Fiction..., it could have happened this way. Is there no torpedo which can penetrate a sub and explode inside of it? What is truth? What the media says? They often change their minds. The official story? I won´t accept it as truth without a fight



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
8 days late sorry, but the US always has fast attack subs watching Russia's Northern fleet in the Barents, OK one we would'nt attack anything of Russia's becuase although they may be a little outdated they still have very formidible stocks of WMDs and crashing of even being heard by another ship while observing would be really bad so that eliminates that theory, and personally I think Valhal's is the best answer.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
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.


I've heard from someone who I consider a reliable source that the USS Memphis made a speed run into Norway to be in a position to be mated up with a DSRV (probably the Avalon) to be in a position to both offer aid to the Russians and to inspect the wreckage. The so called protests from the Russians caused the Navy to change their mind and the DSRV wasn't flown in.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
USS Toledo SSN 769 was the sub my Dad was aboard while observing Murmansk in the 90s




[edit on 21-12-2005 by Senor_Vicente]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
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.



About three days ago a friend of mine told me that when he was in the navy he saw this US sub that had to have emergency repairs. He could not identify the name of the sub, only that it had a lot of damage to its hull, as if it had crashed into something.

The port in question is Håkonsvern in Bergen. He also said that the whole port was on some sort of security lockdown when the sub arrived so hardly anyone saw it enter and when it left it was already submerged so he couldn't see much then either.

But he says the crew of the sub was living on Håkonsvern during the repairs and had some sosial interaction with the norwegians. This seems quite normal to me but at the same time a bit strange. If they were trying to keep it secret then why would they expose the crew?

And the timing... He claims this was roughly a week after Kursk sank. If they needed emergency repairs I'm sure they could have gotten it faster somewhere else? But then again he wasn't too sure about the timing.

I'm leaning towards the idea presented earlier in this thread that Kursk collided with the US sub and was torpedoed when it tried to attack it. Any evidence supporting this?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
There were other collisions during the Cold War, and not ONCE did anyone try to shoot at the other sub. Why would this be any different? Not to mention, again, a torpedo doesn't hit the hull, it hits the noisiest part of the sub which would be the stern, and all the damage to the Kursk started at the INSIDE, and blew OUTWARD.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary

The port in question is Håkonsvern in Bergen.

Thanks for identifying the norwegian port
. This is great input.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
If a collison occured, the los angeles sub would have been damaged, the severity depending on speed of collison and point of impact. Therefore, the only way for the kursk to sink after that would be if the los angeles sub sunk it, but this begs, why would they. The only possible reason I can see this hapening is if the kursk fired first. So if the kursk was performing military operations, suddenly got hit by a sub, or hit the los angeles, and panicked and for some reason felt they were under attack, and fired a torpedo, then I guess the los angeles would be forced to retaliate, correct?

But it just doesnt make sense, the whole front of the sub is blown off, just where the torpedos are located. I buy the internal explosion.


Just as a side note here, has anyone ever been able to prove any of the conspiracy theories brought forth on this website?

Train



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Sorry to drag out an old thread like this, but I've just seen a documentary that mentions the Kursk sinking. It's called The Fifth Estate - Spies Lies and Secret Weapons. It talks about how the US was desperately trying to get their hands on the russain Shkval torpedo.

Vice admiral Valeri Dorogan (spelling?) states that the latest russian subs outmatch the us subs, despite the russian economic situation. And the Holy Grail is the Shkval torpedo. The torpedo uses a rocket engine to propell it and creates a bubble of air/gas around it as it moves through the water, and thus eliminates the friction and drag assossiated with high speed underwater movement. It is said to be able to do 200mph and that they are working on a version that can do 300mph.

Kursk was supposedly armed with a new version of the Shkval and this is why there was (atleast) one american spy sub in the area. The documentary interviews John Large, who is a nuclear engineer and was involved in the recovery of the Kursk. He states that it was some sort of accident with these torpedoes that sunk the Kursk and also claims that they were told this by Admiral Barskov (spelling again?), the second in command of the Northern Fleet.

Most people seem to agree that it is most likely an internal explosion that sunk the Kursk, so where are we at then? How did the us sub get damaged?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
There is and always will be a US sub in the area of a Russian exercise the size of the one Kursk is involved in. They eavesdrop to listen for new subs, and to observe weapons tests. Especially if they hear a new torpedo is being tested.

[edit on 7/18/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary
How did the us sub get damaged?


I already mentioned earlier that the damage could have been caused by the explosion of the torpedoes, if the US sub was in close proximity to the Kursk it could have been affected by the blast. I’m not an expert on underwater explosions so don't ask me how wide an area such an explosion would affect, its just a theory I’m putting out there. Another possibility is that the damage, whatever its nature, was unrelated to the Kursk.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
ok , as this thread has some how resurected , try this theory for the damage to the USN sub :

the USN sub is shadowing the russian task force exercies , when the KURSK surrers a catastropic explosion and hits the bottom [ cause irrelevant ]

the USN sub is now in the middle of a task force that has just gone to GQ and is looking for an answe , culprit for why the pride of thier fleet has just deep sixed .

if they aquire contact with a USN sub -- they might go postal -- and start an even bigger incident .

bear in mind that at the time , no one knew exactly what was happening -- all they had was massibe underwater explosions on the sonar plots -- centred on the kursks posiion -- and zero comms from kurk .

faced with a fight or flight choice -- the US commander wisely choses flight -- he has no orders -- and is not going to start a ruck with the russians , the USN sub then preformes some sort of emergency escape drill -- or other extreme manouver [ that they would not normaly attempt ] and runs into the bottom , or a sea mount , Cf. the USS greeville .


of course -- i have no evidence for this -- its just the rantings of a munkie


if i was commanding a ub on a spyoing mission and the sub i was tracking suddenly and unexpectedly exploded under my nose -- i would go deep fast -- and try to get the hell out of the area befor a paranoid russian destroyer captain starts shooting at shadows . but , maybe thats why no one has ever let me take charge of a submarine


but IMHO it makes a lot more sense than many other explinations offered .


[edit on 19-7-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Its pretty standard procedure I think for foreign countries to covertly observe another countries war games. Its widely believed that there were US, british and norwegian subs there the day that the Kursk sank. They didnt know anything was going on that was unusual regarding the large explosions on the Kursk and neither did the Russians, they didnt notice that anything had happened until that night when the Kursk hadnt responded for hours.


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?).

This is against the american rules of engagment. According to the rules the sub would not be allowed to fire upon the Kursk until the Kursk fired on it, not just opened its torpedo tubes. If the Kursk had fired on one of the american subs there would be more to see than just some damage which may or may not have been there.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
There was a really good Channel Four (UK) Documentary about the sinking of the Kursk which went out a couple of years ago. It went through all the theories and counter theories surrounding the loss of the ship and carried interviews with Rtd. USN officers as-well as senior Russian naval officers. The Russians were initially convinced that the Kursk had been sunk as a result of a collision with a US sub, particularly as one had been photographed at a Norwegian naval facility some days before the incident. The Norwegian Navy confirmed the presence of the Sub and that Norwegian officers had been on board prior to the sub docking. But the USN maintained that whilst they were monitoring the exercise no subs were in the exercise area.

The Russian suspicions were based on the peculiar double explosion signature that was recorded by seismological institutes in Scandinavia and in Aberdeen in the Uk (they played a recording and showed a copy of the readout). There was clearly a smallish initial explosion followed buy a truly large one a little later. The Russians felt the first explosion was the result of a collision with an unknown sub whilst the second was the result of the Kursks torpedoes detonating as a result of a fire or collision damage. However, even they conceded that the Kursk should not have suffered such a fate due to a collision because of it's size (there was a swiming pool for the crew on it!), strength and double skinned hull. Everyone seemed to accept that the Kursk was lost due to a fire and initial explosion which occurred when torpedo propellant was either being drained or leaked catastrophically. This ignited causing other torpedoes to explode crippling the sub.

I'm trying to find a link to this documentary and I think the BBC also produced on e on the same subject.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
The torpedoes exploding theroy is the most likely what happend.
Perhaps the Russians were expermenting with a new tech that they wanted to keep secret.
Why would the Russian stick with torpedoes that were proven to be unstable over 50 years ago ?
It was hardly a secret. Below is a link to why the RN cease to use those kinds of fish.


HMS Sidon was launched in September 1944, one of the third group of S-class submarines built by Cammell Laird & Co Limited, Birkenhead.

On the morning of June 16, 1955, Sidon was moored alongside the depot ship HMS Maidstone in Portland Harbour. Two experimental torpedoes, code-named "Fancy", had been loaded aboard for testing. Fifty-six officers and crewmen were aboard.

At 08:25, an explosion in one of the Fancy torpedoes (but not the warhead) burst the number-three torpedo tube it was loaded into and ruptured the forward-most two watertight bulkheads. Fire, toxic gases, and smoke accompanied the blast. Twelve men in the forward compartments died quickly and seven others were seriously injured.

The submarine started to settle by the bows with a list to starboard, and her commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Verry, ordered the ship evacuated from the engine room and after escape hatches. Thanks to a rescue party from Maidstone, everyone not immediately killed escaped, except Maidstone's medical officer, Lieutenant Commander E. J. K. Needham. He had gone aboard with the rescue party, assisted several survivors, and collapsed, unnoticed, in the control room after everyone else had left. At about 08:50 Sidon sank to the bottom of the harbour.

link



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThorn311

Just as a background here, the Kursk was one of what was called in Russia as the "Anataeus" (spelling?) class boats, more commonly known as the Typhoon class. These boats were huge, with a length of 560 feet 11 inches, and a displacement of 30,000 tons submerged. It also had a double pressure hull typical of Russian nuke boats. What I'm trying to say is that these babies were built to last....the Soviet Navy built this class of submarines to survive more than one hit from an American sub so it could launch its cruise missiles in the event of a war.



Kurk was in fact what the west call on Oscar class guided missile submarine. The Russian classification was Antey 949A. Dsiplacement 13,200 tons dived and 143m long.

Sorry to bring this up as a late post but i have just stumbled upon ATS.

As for what destroyed Kurk - internal torpedo explosion as already discussed. Memphis was probably damaged as she tried to out of the way of a disabled Kursk requiring her to port in Haakansvern submarine base in Norway. The only weird part of this is a image shown on a documentry which i forget the name of showing a hole indicating an object entering the submarine just aft of the damaged area that had been left down in the sea once Kursk had been recovered.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join