Did the US torpedo the Kursk?
 

Interesting Monday morning reading

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15220443%255E2703,00.html

Bill Clinton . . . cover-up?

That just couldn't be.

It must be part of a "vast right-winged conspiracy. " :rolleyes:

You know, I used to read this kind of stuff and blow it off immediately, but at this point, I really don't trust the government to "tell the truth".

Regardless of how you spin it, the WMD issue was a fiasco from a "tell the public the truth" standpoint and we need not go much further than say...TWA Flight 800... to find strong evidences of government cover-ups...so...interesting reading.

Mike

But the fact that the Russians use hydrogen peroxide to fuel their torpedos could have nothing to do with it? It's amazing how they (Russians) immediately reverted to the cold war style of "it's not my fault" when this happened. Truth is, no one in the Russian chain of command wanted to be stuck with the blame for this, so they invented reasons that would find them blameless.

From the perspective of an actual sub-driver, the story they present is fantastically concocted. In recent years, the Russkies have been building some pretty mediocre boats. Front line reports indicate that figuring out exactly where they are from a great distance is pretty straighforward. Collisions are thus ... unlikely, to say the least -- there's no reason to get anywhere near them.

Further, it is not standard practice to assign two boats into the same water -- confusion about who's who abounds in situations like that, and it's a recipe for disaster. We have pretty strict rules about going into the same water as another boat has been assigned. So it's unlikely that the Toledo and the Memphis were both on the same job -- that would just be silly.

Then this mess about how the Toledo _hit_ the Kursk, then fired a torpedo? Come on, are you serious? There are interlocks integral to the torpedos to keep them from doing things like that! Not that the weapons would have any value after a front end collision with a Russkie, but even if the front end survived enough to use, there are all kinds of interlocks that would prevent a submarine from shooting at something they just ran into. The alternate version, that the Toledo impacted, then ran away while the Memphis "covered her retreat" is just absurd -- no CO in his right mind would fire a weapon into a mess like that. The risk of hitting your own people is just too great.

From the sub-driver perspective, the whole story just seems stupid. I mean, I've downed my glass of Kool-Aid, and I have my tinfoil hat tuned correctly, but I'm just not getting this one at all. Sorry.


Dan



(BTW -- the only piece of evidence suggesting an external attack is the shape of the explosion. Consider a hot-running weapon -- a fish that somehow over-rides engineered safeguards to prevent it from running in the tube. Such a weapon would be immediately discharged overboard, as there are a number of really interesting ways that a hot-running weapon could kill us all. Consider such a weapon that was not discharged until relatively late in the running sequence, and which detonated shortly after leaving the submarine. Such a weapon would leave exactly the kinds of explosion hole witnessed. Add to this theory the fact that they were supposed to be out testing a new version of weapon, and it suddenly has a much simpler credibility than the ridiculous pack of nonsense linked above.)

Good post, Dan.

Occam's Razor

I think the report said the Memphis fired the torpedo.

Mike

Dan, you are overqualified for this argument. We don't want facts and techincal detail messing with a perfectly good story...

Next he's gonna tell us that some drunk English guys started the crop-circle phenomena on the way home from a pub one night!

Or that Vince Foster's death wasn't a simple suicide...

Interesting possibility..................I'd like to know which technology allows them to see the torpedo bay/tubes open but still lets them accidentally ram the other sub.:rolleyes:

Good post Dan.

USS Boston 96-99.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone with facts or technical details. (blushes) It's just that there are so few things I know anything about, when one comes up that I can contribute usefully with ...

Kach -- torpedo doors make a lot of noise when they open. Clankety-clankety-clank, audible from really huge distances. You don't so much "see" the doors open as hear them -- just like anything underwater. Collisions happen when submarines are trying to be really super-quiet (and succeeding). They get closer and closer trying to get close enough to hear something, then they go "bump" in the night. Sort of.

Marc -- oorah. Always good to find another dolphin-wearer. I can hardly wait to get back to a boat. Are you still in?

[quote]A US military source in the documentary declares the hole to be the trademark evidence of an American MK-48 torpedo, which is made to melt cleanly through steel sheet due to a mechanism at its tip that combusts copper.[quote]

Who is this "US military source?" Did he get this "trademark" from Marvel Comics? Weapons that melt cleanly through submarine hulls? I just showed that paragraph to one of my chiefs, and he just about fell off his chair laughing.

... or maybe I'm part of the cover-up? (conspiratorial tone) Isn't this exactly how I'd behave if I was part of the inside secret? Hmmm, I see plans within plans ...

Gotta admit - everything I know about subs I learned from Tom Clancy

http://www.bergall.org/mk-48.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK-48 good visual

I really found the notion of melting through steel to be fantasy. You detonate near the hull and the hull crushes.

LOL, yeah, I'm in the same boat

Must be the same U-boat...

that's "boomer" to you :D

These are attack subs, not boomers.;)

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html