Article

2007-04-16 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-04-16 00:40|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I assume the Kursk was a nuke but I don't see any radiation suits on the workers.

Posted by 3dc 2007-04-16 01:33|| 2007-04-16 01:33|| Front Page Top

#2 Near the bottom are two utube videos touting the conspiracy theory that one US sub bumped into it and another torpedoed it because they were afraid the Kursk was going to attack the first one that bumped into it. Interesting stuff, but all sorts of illogical behavior had to follow if you are to believe it. Does anyone know if any good debunking has been done here?

Posted by gorb 2007-04-16 02:24|| 2007-04-16 02:24|| Front Page Top

#3 English translation: Kursk

Posted by RD">RD 2007-04-16 05:04|| 2007-04-16 05:04|| Front Page Top

#4 something lost in teh translation, it seems :-) "View boats in the nose."??

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-04-16 05:10|| 2007-04-16 05:10|| Front Page Top

#5 WAFF.com > Russia to complete EIGHT BOREI-CLASS Boomer subs by Year 2017. First of BOREIS may carry only 12 SLBMS [BULAVAS] but later versions may carry up to 16; + LENTA.RU > Russia to buy dozens of KA-50 BLACK SHARKS + KA-52 ALLIGATOR attack/combat helos.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-04-16 05:34|| 2007-04-16 05:34|| Front Page Top

#6 The Russian submarine Kursk was named after a gigantic tank battle near Stalingrad in July, 1943 in which the Soviets repelled a massive, two-pronged German attack and turned it into a rout. The Germans lost 350 tanks in a single day! The name had emotional value to the Russians akin to our battles of Midway, or the Alamo, or Bunker Hill.

The Kursk was the latest in Russian submarine technology, with a double-wall titanium hull designed to attack NATO aircraft carriers. The vessel sank while on maneuvers on August 11, 2000. Shadowing U.S. subs detected an enormous explosion on sonar. The sub crashed to the bottom in 350 feet of water, but several of the crew survived in the stern of the ship, although they suffocated within a few hours.

The Russians had several theories, including collision with a U.S. sub, or a new NATO secret weapon, but I am going to treat it as another failure of quality control, with a twist. You may recall the Russians were very reluctant to accept help from the U.S. or Norwegians, and I think thats because the quality control problem was with their new secret weapon!

The BBC broke a story a year after the sinking with a theory that highly volatile hydrogen peroxide propellant had caused the explosion of a torpedo, which then exploded adjacent warheads. Western navies gave up on using hydrogen peroxide as torpedo fuel because it was too dangerous. Finally, almost two years after the disaster, the Russians admitted a practice torpedo had malfunctioned, and blamed the hydrogen peroxide fuel. How convenient: it fit right in the British theory!

But the official story also diverts attention from the early rumblings in the Pentagon that the misfire was not a practice torpedo, but the Russian VA-111 Shkval (Squall) torpedo. A Russian website set up by the families of the Kursk crew states, The tests of upgraded VA-111 ("Shkval") torpedo with a rocket propulsion are supposed to conduct on the submarine. It explains the presence onboard of two experts of "Dagdizel" military plant. Naturally, the family website notes that Russian officials categorically deny the rumor.

Wait a minute! A rocket torpedo? Yes. 200 miles per hour, underwater. No ship could avoid it, outmaneuver it, or outrun it. Cavitation is bubbles of water, which can damage propellers or pumps when the bubbles collapse. A supercavitating torpedo creates, and maintains, a bubble inside which the torpedo zooms along, without hydrodynamic drag.

And the morale of the story is Whether it was a cheap practice torpedo, or an amazing 200 mph underwater rocket, the declining budgets and resulting declining quality standards of the Russian Navy caused the loss of their newest and most technologically advanced - submarine. And they were so embarrassed by the facts, it took them two years to reveal them!

A quality control fable by Bobby, prepared in August, 2003, and based on an article in Scientific American and research of related web sites.

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 06:25|| 2007-04-16 06:25|| Front Page Top

#7 "Us"? The Alamo was a battle of Texans versus Mexico.

Posted by gromky 2007-04-16 06:45|| 2007-04-16 06:45|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm still sad to see that good sailors died due to Russian corner cutting and bad technology. Seems to be a recurring theme in the Russian military.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-04-16 09:55|| 2007-04-16 09:55|| Front Page Top

#9 Yep, Darth - another story included this summary -

The History Channel provided the real story of the K-19, which had two catastrophic accidents killing some 36 crewmen. An American submarine expert concluded that Soviet subs were a more advanced design than ours faster, could dive deepereven had better torpedoes. But I digress. The Soviets were hard pressed to keep up with the Americans, so schedule pressures drove their ballistic missile submarine program. The K-19 is just one example of the resultant problems.

The American submarine expert concluded the quality control problems offset the superior traits of the Soviet submarines. Roger Mudd (after Walter Cronkite but before Dan Rather) says there are 17 nuclear submarines at the bottom of the ocean. I am aware of two American submarines the Thresher and the Scorpion, which sank in 1963 and 1968. Thirteen (76%) are Soviet.

BTW, the Thresher (at least) suffered from another quality problem - the failure to adequately test the sub before commissioning it.

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-16 13:04|| 2007-04-16 13:04|| Front Page Top

#10 Roger Mudd ... says there are 17 nuclear submarines at the bottom of the ocean.

I'm sure the count is far higher than that. There is at least one PRC nuke sub on the list. The Russians lost two "Delta" class nuke missile submarines - one in the Atlantic, and one in the Pacific. A Russian sailor who defected to the US in 1988 said the Russian Navy had lost at least one nuke submarine a year ever since 1962. Most of that could be rumor, but I'd guess the number is much closer to 30 than 15.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-04-16 18:31|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-04-16 18:31|| Front Page Top

#11 There's also at least 1, possibly 2, French nukes on the bottom.

A long time ago there was a pretty good scifi/adventure novel that had the premise that in 1968 there was a secret submarine "shadow war" fought in the Med and mid-Atlantic. Wish I could remember the title and find a copy these days.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-04-16 19:41|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-04-16 19:41|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh, yeah - at least 4 subs sank under questionable circumstances in 1968.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-04-16 19:41|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-04-16 19:41|| Front Page Top

#13 Russian sub technology may have been better in the 50's, but not since.

A good read is Blind Man's Bluff.

Posted by DoDo 2007-04-16 19:56|| 2007-04-16 19:56|| Front Page Top

23:53 Brian H
23:50 Silentbrick
23:44 gorb
23:34 Zenster
23:31 trailing wife
23:29 RD
23:27 RD
23:27 newc
23:23 trailing wife
23:20 mrp
23:16 trailing wife
23:13 Hyper
23:10 Icerigger
23:08 WTF
23:04 RD
23:03 Zenster
23:00 mrp
22:58 gromgoru
22:58 Icerigger
22:56 Galactic Coordinator Elmaving4888
22:54 RD
22:53 trailing wife
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:38 Barbara Skolaut