KURSK sunk by USA?

[sorghaghtanibeki]

Anybodey see this:
'Kursk' Friday 10 August at 22.00 on The History Channel (channel 456)
"It now appears that when the Russian submarine Kursk sank in 2000, it was after being torpedoed by an American submarine. The Russians have engineered a torpedo which is rocket propelled and can travel at 300 miles per hour under water. They were going to demonstrate it to the Chinese ( potential customers), but this would change the balance of sea power, which America did not want to happen. Two American subs were apparently trailing the Kursk, when a collision occurred between one of the American boats and the Russian sub. Fearing an attack, the Russians loaded a torpedo and the other American sub fired off one of its torpedoes and sank the Kursk. Putin, however struck a deal with Clinton and war was avoided after the Americans handed over several billion dollars. It now seems that Canada are negotiating, on behalf of America to purchase the Rocket Torpedo from Russia."

[Tubthumper]

"... and the Commander of the United States Navy Submarine 'USS Bullshot', normally based in Area 51, was named as Captain Lee Harvey Oswald, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour for his part in the Kursk dramatisation.
In other news, former astronaut Neil Armstrong admitted that pictures of the first moon-landing were faked. "We were just having a laugh," claimed Armstrong, 74. "We were drinking a few beers and larking about in the NASA film studio. My mate Dan Onderware was on soft drinks and wanted to rest as his back was sore; What I actually said was, 'That's one small schweppes for Dan, one giant sleep for Dan's spine...'
Washington insider Grassy O'Knoll reopened the JF Kennedy assassination debate, claiming that the president was killed by poisoned medication. He claims that the Texas Book Suppository...

[northener]

300mph Torpedo? Sounds interesting.

Russians flogging off their latest technology to a powerful rival?

Who broke this story - Ian Fleming?:D

[j4bberw0ck]

Yes, I did. Very interesting, but what's not clear from the source you quote is that the explanation given is speculative, though it very neatly explains observations and actions taken by both sides at the time and subsequently.

I must admit that I'd understood them to say in the program that the Americans, having initially been sceptical of reports of the "Skvall" torpedo, had been dealing through Canada in 2000 / 2001 (with the compliance of the Russians) to buy the weapon. It wasn't something that happened later.

What, it was said, the Americans didn't like was the presence of Chinese senior observers on the Russian boats which was why they were trying to harry the Kursk. The point was also made that collisions between submarines are regular, though not frequent, as they play what are effectively games of "chicken".

The US torpedo was (it was said) fired after Kursk opened a torpedo tube door and the sound of a Skvall being loaded was heard. Since at 300 mph, the torpedo would hit before they Americans even had chance to think, they fired off a torpedo. Right or wrong, readers of Tom Clancy novels will recognise the tactic.

Interesting also that the Russians apparently lied through their teeth in all directions - depth of water (shallow), presence of currents (none), and damage to the escape hatch sealing gland (none) - in order that the story of the incident (if true) wouldn't leak out.

I think the most disturbing images in the whole program were those of the hysterical, angry mother accusing the Russian Navy Admirals of allowing the crew to die, and being forcibly tranquillised by a "doctor" and naval officers before the "doctor" slipped away in the crowd.

Excellent documentary, though.

[Tubthumper]

This reminds me of the scandal that surrounded that famous Caithness lad Professor Iraquisuper-Gunn. Mind you that turned out to be true, although worthy of an Ian Fleming plot!
Thankfully it wasn't the Royal Navy that were involved in the suggested collision and subsequent events.

[j4bberw0ck]

300mph Torpedo? Sounds interesting.

I know Wikipedia isn't exactly the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval)

It wasn't long ago the German Navy was rumoured to be experimenting with a supercavitating design which could exceed 800kph submerged....

[Rheghead]

Nothing unusual about US submarines ghosting a Russky sub but the thing I find disturbing is why would any submarine captain want to fire a torpedo against another at close quarters after being in a collision. Collisions have happened before between UK/US and Russian subs without further incident. The whole thing doesn't compute, another conspiracy theory, but I guess the usual crowd will jump on this anti american bandwagon.....yet again.

On another matter, I'm still wondering on why the Belgrano had her guns at the broadside position (in a combative position) when she was struck by a torpedo, when she was supposedly steaming away and outwith the exclusion zone during the Falklands conflict. Was she about to fire on British shipping when she was struck?:confused

[northener]

Hmmm, interesting.

It appears that there was an American businessman called Pope who was trying to buy the technology to sell on. Unfortunately he allegedly stepped on the toes of the Canadian Secret Service who were after the same deal. They made sure Mr Pope was arrested and imprisoned by Russia on espionge charges. Apparently he has been released by Putin as he has cancer.

I knew the Shkval existed from my time in the RN in the 70's and 80's, but I hadn't realised just how fast these things were. The figures being bandied around were vv short range and up to possibly 200kts with big question marks over whether they were deployable successfully in a combat situation - obviously moved on a lot since then!

Lovely twisted plot regarding the actual cause of the damage to the Kursk. Certainly would make a good book.

[northener]

Rheghead,

Regarding the sinking of the Belgrano, she was definitely outside the TEZ and steaming away at the time of her sinking. I'm pretty confident that there were no British ships in the vicinity at the time - we'd have found out later if there was. Certainly, apart from the Subs we were the most Westerly warship of the Task Force - and we were a long way off.

Unfortunately, a certain idiot MP with his own anti-Thatcher axe to grind, one Mr Tam Dalyell - a man with no seagoing tactical insight whatsoever, decided to try and make some political gain out of the sinking.

Mr Dalyell decided that if the Belgrano and her escorts were steaming away from the TEZ, they could't possibly be a threat to the task force. The fact that they had been zig-zagging back and forth meant nothing to him at all.....

The Argentines knew that the very presence of the Belgrano could cause us a serious tactical problem. To deal with the threat from her, we would have to split our warships to block her, leaving the main carrier group vulnerable to attack. She could draw out the nearest warships whenever she wanted and then simply head back towards South America as and when she choosed. She wouldn't have to fire a shot in anger.

Admiral Sandy Woodward repeatedly said (not in public at the time) that if we lost one aircraft carrier, we would not have the Combat Air Patrol capabilty to counter the Argie Air Force and cover the landings.

Probable result - Game Over.

So it was goodbye Belgrano.

This sinking also ensured that the Argentine Navy kept well away from the playground as the risk from our subs was too great. I personally believe that this saved a massive amount of lives on both sides.

Doesn't help you with the position of the turrets though, perhaps they were moved to face in the direction they thought they were being attacked from after they were hit? Maybe they were expecting another attack to come in. Or maybe it was a vain attempt to try and shift the centre of gravity when she began to list over? I don't know which way the barrels were pointing.

[j4bberw0ck]

the thing I find disturbing is why would any submarine captain want to fire a torpedo against another at close quarters

I suppose (and I'm guessing) that he felt he had to do something if he heard a bow door open or he'd just disappear without a trace? Don't know. Helluva tough call, though, if that's what happened. Mind you, they had some stills of the Kursk taken just after the hulk was put in dry dock - and guess what? Nice big neat round hole in the side; and the US Mk48 torpedo is a DU "warhead" with a molten copper exploding "teardrop" projectile designed to pierce armour cleanly.

Northener being ex-RN might have some input on what a sub might do?

[Tubthumper]

It appears that there was an American businessman called Pope who was trying to buy the technology to sell on.
Pope involved?? Da Vinci code ...?

[Tubthumper]

There was a History Channel programme that identified the likely cause of the Kursk's loss as the propellant (Hydrogen peroxide based??) for the Kursk's own torpedoes accidentally igniting.
I wonder sometimes. Who gains from this conspiracy theory suddenly 'surfacing' (hoho!). The Americans as they gain from showing tech superiorty over the potentially resurgent Russia?
Resurgent Russia protesting at the mighty US flexing muscle and stamping on attempts to earn foreign revenue?
Or The History Channel, with something a bit more appealing than the da Vinc code..?
I thought there were parallels between that Pope dude and the French bloke who was meant to be the descendant of JC...
Forgive me. To thump Tubs one must be very cynical.
1,2,3,4!

[northener]

Northener being ex-RN might have some input on what a sub might do?

Not a clue mate, as you said, if that's what happened - it's a very tough call.

Maybe the following may offer an insight into what can happen:

I was fortunate enough (or not) to spend a fair amount of time shadowing the Soviet surface fleet, on excercise, up off the Kola Inlet and Murmansk. There were lots of situations with warships going to action stations and obviously arming up, (sabre rattling) yet it never got out of hand.

Until you involved the US Navy. The Russians obviously loathed them whereas they were always fairly chummy and polite with the RN. They would let us close in until we were literally steaming alongside them, but as soon as the Americans tried it things would get very interesting.

There were more that a few incidents were the big Russian Krivak and Kashin cruisers would deliberately close on the US warships at high speed and then veer astern at the very last second. Another trick was they still had the capability to make smoke and they would try to 'blind' the Americans everytime they got too close. Got some belting piccies!

Sometimes it could get very fraught for the US Navy, so going along with this alleged reason for the Kursk being sunk ...maybe, IMHO, but it reads a bit too much like that film 'Red October' to me.

[Tubthumper]

I remember our 'relationship' with the russkis in Berlin was fairly cordial. They weren't very keen on the US involvement though. Also remember the photos from days of soviet 'Bears' nipping alongside UK airspace, and the Phantoms & Lightnings escorting them off the premises.
I hope to goodness we're not getting dragged back into the Cold War (expensive but only a few spies get killed) again just to fuel tech development and fiscal regeneration. Although I suppose it would be better than the present state of affairs in Iraq & Afghanistan (expensive and everyone gets killed)...

[Tristan]

There were a few concerns about being dropped back into cold war scenario a while back....I must say I hope not.

[Tubthumper]

What gets up my nose is, true bits or false bits, the sensationalist nature of this programme cheapens the sacrifice made by the sailors of the Kursk. 'They gave their all as part of a sale to the Chinese...they were done in by the US Navy by mistake...'

[Tubthumper]

What heppened to Soregaga anyway?

[j4bberw0ck]

To thump Tubs one must be very cynical.

As indeed I am............. the point was made that H2O2 propellant for torpedoes was generally abandoned 50 years ago for safety reasons. Me? I don't know; but it does seem strange that the Russian Navy's most modern "boomer" would be equipped with 24 MIRVs of advanced design, a number of Skvalls, and the odd 50 year-old torpedo. Unless, of course, someone knows different? Maybe the Russkis don't care about safe torpedoes......... or indeed torpedoes that would have a hope in hell of hitting something.

@ Jeemag: sorghaghtanibeki made no accusation; he /she / it just relayed the content of a TV program for comment. You have a problem with that? If so, why?

[Tubthumper]

Fair enough Jabs. I have heard of situations where navies have employed a spread of technology, given the inherent unreliability of 'new technology', some commanders might want to have a good old bang up their sleeves just in case.
I wonder though, what kind of rocket fuel did the Skvall torpedo use?

[JAWS]

Keep the stories coming, not only do they pass the time, they are always worth a laugh.
Once the Russians got over the knee jerk reaction of blaming the West for the Kursk, especially when even their own people found it a ridiculous idea, they dropped the nonsense and admitted it was a tragic accident.

With the Belgrano, the only country which is in the least bit interested in which way it was pointing or about exclusion zones is here in Britain. I don't recall the Argentineans making much of a fuss at the time let alone 20 years later.

I think the whole thing was best summed up by the Lancaster pilot who said he should have complained most bitterly because he was definitely pointing away from Germany when the Germans shot him down over the channel.

Just as a matter of interest, have ships stopped zigzagging in war zones or do they have to keep to a straight course to make things easy for the enemy?

[golach]

Keep the stories coming, not only do they pass the time, they are always worth a laugh.
Once the Russians got over the knee jerk reaction of blaming the West for the Kursk, especially when even their own people found it a ridiculous idea, they dropped the nonsense and admitted it was a tragic accident.

With the Belgrano, the only country which is in the least bit interested in which way it was pointing or about exclusion zones is here in Britain.
Just as a matter of interest, have ships stopped zigzagging in war zones or do they have to keep to a straight course to make things easy for the enemy?
Exactly Jaws, why would the US Navy allow her biggest Nato ally Britain to go and offer to help rescue the crew of the Kursk, and why would Russia honour the said rescuers if there had been a deliberate act of War.
And I as a former Radar Plotter in the RNR who tracked and plotted many vessels in my time, I do agree that a warship would be taking evasive action if there were the least suspicion that there could be a submarine threat, by evasive action I mean Zigzagging

[Skerries]

As indeed I am............. the point was made that H2O2 propellant for torpedoes was generally abandoned 50 years ago for safety reasons. Me? I don't know; but it does seem strange that the Russian Navy's most modern "boomer" would be equipped with 24 MIRVs of advanced design, a number of Skvalls, and the odd 50 year-old torpedo. Unless, of course, someone knows different?

The Kursk was armed with 24 torpedoes, two with dummy warheads, the remainder with conventional explosives. The two dummies were prototype 'super-captivating' torpedoes. The gas-generating agent was hydrogen peroxide and it is likely that the second was an anti-submarine weapon powered with lithium fluoride.

Kursk also had 23 SSN-19 GRANIT cruise missiles with conventional explosives.

Re. the conspiracy theories, Russia, just like any other country, is capable of having an accident without it being some other country's fault.

[northener]

The Kursk was armed with 24 torpedoes, two with dummy warheads, the remainder with conventional explosives. The two dummies were prototype 'super-captivating' torpedoes.

Re. the conspiracy theories, Russia, just like any other country, is capable of having an accident without it being some other country's fault.


I've realised what it is that's been bugging me about the alleged attack by a US sub.

The cavitating Shkval's are launched through conventional tubes, methinks, so.........How did the skipper of the US sub know they were loading non-conventional torpedoes?

All the Elecronic Warfare info he would have available to him is a noise signal indicating a tube being prepared to fire (if he has that level of capability). He wouldn't have a clue if it was live/dummy/conventional or Shkval torp or a wheelie bin full of turnips.

Hmmmmmmm...

[Rheghead]

Or maybe it was a vain attempt to try and shift the centre of gravity when she began to list over? I don't know which way the barrels were pointing.

Thank you for your post. Yes it would be a vain attempt as the axis of turn holds the centre of gravity, I'm sure an Argentinian Captain would know this?:confused

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=90078&rendTypeId=4