Submarines Being Sabotaged? Tit-for-Tat? Cold War 2013

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I was wondering what theories/constructive logical thoughts ATSers could think up regarding,

1.) The loss of a US nuclear submarine from fire.

Loss of American Submarine

2.) The loss of a Indian submarine from fire (in field.)

Indian Submarine Lost

3.) The INS-Vikrant

INS Vikrant

4.) Japan's new Izumo definitely-not-a-carrier-destroyer.

Izumo

Is this a tit-for-tat submarine for submarine situation?

Are the submarines being targeted due to the development of the carriers?

Does fertilizer just happen?

Lets hear what ATS can come up with from OSINT.




posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 

I hate to sound boring about it, but Submarine Service is the most dangerous form of military service, generally speaking, which exists. The hardest, highest sacrifice and highest loss rate when things go wrong. After all....Where do you run? Escape? At least these incidents happened in port so we know what happened. At sea? Well... Look up the USS Thresher or USS Scorpion to see what it's like to have no real clear indication how a sub was lost for awhile.

At least the ones who died here? Families knew how and why.

edit on 16-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Probably are Black-ops to limit capabilities of other nations, Submarines and Flat-tops are the main naval strategic pieces.
As for the Indian carrier it's probably about time they built one and the Japanese are restricted to what they can build. Military equipment is for defensive purposes. It's been disguised as a helicopter carrier to circumvent the rules.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
OP there is no doubt you have made some interesting connections but i dont think there is anything to this.

just so happens that two submarines have been unlucky this , the USS Miami has been in the news quite a bit and the story of what happened to its seems to be well documented. I dont know much about the Indian submarine yet at the same time i dont think that countries are starting to sink each others subs just because China and India have new aircraft carriers.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
OP there is no doubt you have made some interesting connections but i dont think there is anything to this.

just so happens that two submarines have been unlucky this , the USS Miami has been in the news quite a bit and the story of what happened to its seems to be well documented. I dont know much about the Indian submarine yet at the same time i dont think that countries are starting to sink each others subs just because China and India have new aircraft carriers.



Any man who burns a nuclear submarine down, not once but TWICE, is indisputably unambiguously and indubitably a saboteur.

And a cheeky little bugger as well.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I thought folks may be interested by some of what I dug up for background on the USS Miami. Context wise anyway...

The first one here is a list of all the Submarine classes the U.S. has ever built with a short description of each. According to that on Page 57, 62 Los Angeles Class boats were produced. (The last sub class shown ought to get a laugh out of the older Navy men here, BTW)

US Submarine Classes

and then the boring list to confirm hull count. There are, as of March 2012, 42 active type 688/Los Angeles Class attack subs. Miami was just one of them. So if it was a black op? I'd say someone needs to get a refund. It had 0 impact on U.S. readiness and ability to fight. Although it sure was a black eye for general image. (Losing a sub to your own goober lighting it on fire? Ouch.. Embarrassing)

US Hull Count
edit on 16-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
They are probably easy to attack though,Submarines.
I expect most big players all have trained suicide bomber dolphins by now,after everyone found out about the USA having them ages ago...
Would not be that tricksy for a country wishing to blow a sub.
Same thing with oil rigs,off shore drilling platforms etc...
Maybe not dolphins,but trained frogmen with limpets would be more likely-they have been learning that craft since WW1.

More likely again,its just a series of mechanical/technical accidents,but its good to speculate.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
The Indian sub was a diesel electric, and an older one at that. She already had a battery explosion in 2010, and had undergone an overhaul in Russia recently.

A Kilo class diesel sub has something like 500 batteries on board, that need to be over charged once a month. If you aren't careful they release hydrogen, which can explode very easily. That's just the batteries, some torpedoes use a hydrogen peroxide mixture that can explode (the Kursk was sunk by one exploding).



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


She went to Russia...

So, who in Russia was tasked with this overhaul?

The military?

Contractors?



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


The same people that overhaul Russian submarines.

The overhaul probably had nothing to do with it. It had operated for awhile after the overhaul was completed with no problems that I've heard about. My understanding is that the fact that there were 18 people on board at the time is an indication that they were doing the monthly overcharging of the batteries. You need quite a few people on board to monitor for hydrogen release, and the vent controls.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You've essentially said that the mechanics aren't at fault for mechanical failures. Talk sense.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
pound to a penny it was some idiot lighting a ciggy or using welding gear and not venting the area



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


No, I didn't. Learn to read.

I said that the overhaul probably didn't have anything to do with the accident. Which it most likely didn't. The most likely cause was either a hydrogen release from the battery overcharge that ignited, or a torpedo accident. Being that they were at the dock, and there is no reason for them to be messing with the torpedoes, that makes that much less likely.





top topics
 
1

log in

join