US SSN torpedoed Kursk?

As far as the torpedo maintaining orientation, the massive computing power and inertial guidance system keeps the torpedo in the most efficient attitude. There is a lot of talk about the ADCAP’s digital computers well, before the digital computers many of the functions were analog when necessary.
The torpedo’s range safeties. Anything within this volume that is detected if the torpedo is searching for a target will be classified as ‘friendly’! Outside the these limits are treated as an enemy.

I would imagine so but, either way its inertial guidance would keep it aligned properly.

Thank you for the details.

I got the photo from a book entitled, “Underwater Missile System” back in the 1970s. I came across the book once at the Stanford University library.

If you are trying to break the keel of a large carrier, focusing the energy offers greater assurance that the massive network that forms the keel will be broken. Breaking the keel of the HMAS Torrens, an 2,700 ton destroyer escort and breaking the keel of a ship that displaces more than 30,000 tons are two different things.

Going back to Kursk and the mysterious round hole. This hole was said to have been cause by a shaped charge and is in the SIDE of the sub (not in its bottom).
Here’s an explanation: http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/incidents/kursk/18142 (story of 2 holes of 1 x 0.7 m each)

Re: US SSN torpedoed Kursk?

As far as the torpedo maintaining orientation, the massive computing power and inertial guidance system keeps the torpedo in the most efficient attitude. There is a lot of talk about the ADCAP’s digital computers well, before the digital computers many of the functions were analog when necessary.
The torpedo’s range safeties. Anything within this volume that is detected if the torpedo is searching for a target will be classified as ‘friendly’! Outside the these limits are treated as an enemy.

I’m not so sure that is the case that torpedoes can be loaded into launch tubes in only one ‘way’ with correct orientation of the warhead.

I would imagine so but, either way its inertial guidance would keep it aligned properly.

The Frigate HMAS Torrens (or ‘destroyer escort’ in aussie naval parlance) paid off in 1998

Thank you for the details.

high-explosive unitary warhead of some 650 lbs 293 kg) of high explosive.

I got the photo from a book entitled, “Underwater Missile System” back in the 1970s. I came across the book once at the Stanford University library.

This has nothing to do with upwardsfiring shaped charge warheads.

If you are trying to break the keel of a large carrier, focusing the energy offers greater assurance that the massive network that forms the keel will be broken. Breaking the keel of the HMAS Torrens, an 2,700 ton destroyer escort and breaking the keel of a ship that displaces more than 30,000 tons are two different things.

The real truth wil only emerge when Tom Clancy writes a book about a similer incident !!Then you can believe it!

Clancy now rents out his name to other aspiring writers ….

Not true

The real truth wil only emerge when Tom Clancy writes a book about a similer incident !!Then you can believe it!

Last point 1st. Don’t care how old it is, I’ve only recently seen the photographs of the Stbd side of the hull. So I perused the forum. I don’t tend to watch the news so missed it all at the time.

Other points raised: –
a) things that happen during an underwater explosion (stuff implodes)
Yep, but the damage was to local around the hole, an implosion caused by the vacuum of the bang would have damaged an area at least between two frames as the steels and titanium folded. The only possible explanation of a hole imploding would be if there was a type of “Build Door” in the hull. A door that is used in construction then finally welded up after the finish…..but that somewhat defeats the object of a pressure hull. This practice is more normal on Surface ships or Aeroplane wings (Front Spar usually – but NOT welded)

b) things that happen when a lage, heavy hull comes down onto a rocky sea bed.
Can’t buy that one, the hole is to neat. Not sure how rocky it is at that point, it looked fairly flat on the rescue attempt pictures. Also, I’m not sure of the drop speed from her depth at the time to the 500 feet bottom.

c) things that happen during a rescue attempt (holes were cut to look/listen)
A look / listen hole the size of a Dustbin lid? And, they opened the hatches anyway. Holes for a shufty-scope need to be no more than 1/2 inch, more like 1/4 inch.

d) things that are done during salvage (hull sawed through vertically, holes were cut to affix lifting cables)
In that case there would be several cable holes, not one. The sawing could not cause a hole.

The hole size is indeed odd for a molten metal shaped charge. I don’t know about torps but yes anti “Land armour” holes are 1/2 inch or so.

I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, but it is not so outrageous to assume it could have been sunk by the act of another sub – a weapon or a collision.
I’ve lied enough for Queen and Country/defence of the realm so it’s actually possible for those higher up than me to lie. Politicians are duty bound to lie so we cannot even hope to believe them. We (Reading this) shall never know, this is probably covered by the hundred year rule.

What size is that hole anyway (and how is this size established?)

Just the opposite direction than the Bill, TOW, etc. anti-tank missiles.

Except that the ATGW launch tube can be clipped to the aiming unit in only one way (i.e. missile is ‘up right’) whereas I’m not so sure that is the case that torpedoes can be loaded into launch tubes in only one ‘way’ with correct orientation of the warhead.

There are a few pictures on the I-net showing how the warhead being a ‘keel hunter’ torpedo does not impact into the side of a ship but, explodes about 10-ft (3-m) under the keel of the ship, breaking it in half.
One such photo is of a Australian destroyer being sunk with a Mk.-48 torpedo fired from an Australian sub. The other attached photo is of the shaped charge warhead underwater.
When a torpedo explodes under the keel, the force of the explosion will lift up that portion of the ship. As the energy is expended, the remaining gases mixed with the water causes a low density area where the ship settles and because of the low density the target settles far deeper than it normally would. If the back isn’t broken by the explosion, the ship settling in the low density water will cause the keel to break completely.

Yawn. The Frigate HMAS Torrens (or ‘destroyer escort’ in aussie naval parlance) paid off in 1998, and was sunk as a target by the submarine HMAS Farncomb off Western Australia on 14 June 1999. The torpedo used was a Mk48.
http://www.military.cz/usa/navy/weapons/mark48attack/mark48attack_en.htm

Mk-48 and Mk-48 ADCAP torpedoes can be guided from a submarine by wires attached to the torpedo. They can also use their own active or passive sensors to execute programmed target searches, acquisition and attack procedures. The torpedoes are designed to detonate under the keel of a surface ship, breaking the ship’s back and destroying its structural integrity. In the event of a miss, it can circle back for another attempt.

Note it has a conventional, high-explosive unitary warhead of some 650 lbs 293 kg) of high explosive. (i.e. NOT an upward directed shaped charge warhead)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm

The torpedo is the smartest missile used! It has re-attack capability if it misses the first time. Some anti-ship missiles have a limited ability to re-attack a target. Think about it, PC boards almost twenty inches in diameter, many of them. That is a lot of computing power.

This has nothing to do with upwardsfiring shaped charge warheads.

Just like in the movie, “Crimson Tide”…. the Mk.-48 headed for the Soviet Sierra sub. The torpedo approached from the side, then dipped down and was hit under the keel. Also very similar to the video from Iraq when some insurgents fired a Kornet anti-tank missile from inside a room, through a window at an M-1 tank about seventy-five feet from the house. The missile approached the M-1 then climb above it and exploded.

Hitting under the keel has nothing to do with warhead type. The issue is not that the torpedo could not postition itself underneath the ship hull, the issue is whether the torpedo get into and remains ‘upright’ i.e. if you picture it’s cross-section and think of it as a clock, where 12 o’clock is ‘up’ and 6 ‘down’, does a torpedo fired with 12 in the up position maintain that orientation while maneouvring towards its target? And does a torpedo fired in another orientation than with 12 up right itself? Because that is what an upwards directed shape charge warhead would require to be effective.

The Kurst displaces 16,600 tons submerged while the LA class is around 9,000 tons, in a collision of two front ends of a sub colliding, why would people think the smaller sub would fair better. A single hull versus a double hull and the double hull looses? If the USN caused a Soviet sub to sink don’t you think the Russians would have figured out some way for an American sub to have an accident? Once real common sense is injected into the argument is ceases to be a conspiracy.

In a collision scenario, the relative sizes of subs would be relevant, I agree.

Re: US SSN torpedoed Kursk?

Interesting! I’ve not heard of an upward directed shaped charge warhead on a heavyweight before. Non-directional warhead seem quite sufficient in breaking a ship’s back. Would a upward firing shaped charge be THAT much more effective to warrent its development?

Just the opposite direction than the Bill, TOW, etc. anti-tank missiles. There are a few pictures on the I-net showing how the warhead being a ‘keel hunter’ torpedo does not impact into the side of a ship but, explodes about 10-ft (3-m) under the keel of the ship, breaking it in half.
One such photo is of a Australian destroyer being sunk with a Mk.-48 torpedo fired from an Australian sub. The other attached photo is of the shaped charge warhead underwater.
When a torpedo explodes under the keel, the force of the explosion will lift up that portion of the ship. As the energy is expended, the remaining gases mixed with the water causes a low density area where the ship settles and because of the low density the target settles far deeper than it normally would. If the back isn’t broken by the explosion, the ship settling in the low density water will cause the keel to break completely.

is it developed with a particular type of target in mind? If so, the torpedo would have to be made smart enough to know which ‘side’ is up and be ‘self righting’, unless it is always loaded and fired with a particular ‘side’ up (‘side’ is a strange term considering we’re talking about a round object.

The torpedo is the smartest missile used! It has re-attack capability if it misses the first time. Some anti-ship missiles have a limited ability to re-attack a target. Think about it, PC boards almost twenty inches in diameter, many of them. That is a lot of computing power.

I would assume that the shaped charge design would be solely for use against subs, whereas creating a large air cavity under a ship with a more normal explosion on ships would make sense.

the large air cavity rising and breaking the ships back.

Just like in the movie, “Crimson Tide”…. the Mk.-48 headed for the Soviet Sierra sub. The torpedo approached from the side, then dipped down and was hit under the keel. Also very similar to the video from Iraq when some insurgents fired a Kornet anti-tank missile from inside a room, through a window at an M-1 tank about seventy-five feet from the house. The missile approached the M-1 then climb above it and exploded.

The Kurst displaces 16,600 tons submerged while the LA class is around 9,000 tons, in a collision of two front ends of a sub colliding, why would people think the smaller sub would fair better. A single hull versus a double hull and the double hull looses? If the USN caused a Soviet sub to sink don’t you think the Russians would have figured out some way for an American sub to have an accident? Once real common sense is injected into the argument is ceases to be a conspiracy.

Note:
The director of that movie offended the RC submarine modelers by exchanging the Soviet the Mk.-48 and the Soviet torpedoes. So the Sierra fired Mk.-48s and the ‘Alabama’ fired a Soviet torpedo. The director felt the Mk.-48 looked more sinister!

How specifically (i.e. from an engineering point of view) can you tell what caused the hole and the denting and what not?
And what exactly is ‘a hit from outside’? A collision with another sub (rather small hole then, don’t you thinkg?), a torpedo explosion (suggests an ASW lightweight 324mm diameter torpedo, not a 553 mm diameter M48 heavyweight. however, Kursk is designed to withstand such lightweight torpedoes. besides the hole seems far larger than a 324mm or even a 533m shaped charge warhead would cause. considering that a 125-150mm ATGW shaped charge warhead causes a hole in tank armor of maybe 10mm, which diameter torpedo would there have had to have been to cause a hole the size of which is in the Kursk’s side), something else?

As an engineer, try e.g. thinking about
a) things that happen during an underwater explosion (stuff implodes)
b) things that happen when a lage, heavy hull comes down onto a rocky sea bed.
c) things that happen during a rescue attempt (holes were cut to look/listen)
d) things that are done during salvage (hull sawed through vertically, holes were cut to affix lifting cables)

Can you rule out all other possibly causes besides ‘a hit from outside’? I think not.

And indeed, how on earth did you drag up this 4 year old thread?

Last point 1st. Don’t care how old it is, I’ve only recently seen the photographs of the Stbd side of the hull. So I perused the forum. I don’t tend to watch the news so missed it all at the time.

Other points raised: –
a) things that happen during an underwater explosion (stuff implodes)
Yep, but the damage was to local around the hole, an implosion caused by the vacuum of the bang would have damaged an area at least between two frames as the steels and titanium folded. The only possible explanation of a hole imploding would be if there was a type of “Build Door” in the hull. A door that is used in construction then finally welded up after the finish…..but that somewhat defeats the object of a pressure hull. This practice is more normal on Surface ships or Aeroplane wings (Front Spar usually – but NOT welded)

b) things that happen when a lage, heavy hull comes down onto a rocky sea bed.
Can’t buy that one, the hole is to neat. Not sure how rocky it is at that point, it looked fairly flat on the rescue attempt pictures. Also, I’m not sure of the drop speed from her depth at the time to the 500 feet bottom.

c) things that happen during a rescue attempt (holes were cut to look/listen)
A look / listen hole the size of a Dustbin lid? And, they opened the hatches anyway. Holes for a shufty-scope need to be no more than 1/2 inch, more like 1/4 inch.

d) things that are done during salvage (hull sawed through vertically, holes were cut to affix lifting cables)
In that case there would be several cable holes, not one. The sawing could not cause a hole.

The hole size is indeed odd for a molten metal shaped charge. I don’t know about torps but yes anti “Land armour” holes are 1/2 inch or so.

I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, but it is not so outrageous to assume it could have been sunk by the act of another sub – a weapon or a collision.
I’ve lied enough for Queen and Country/defence of the realm so it’s actually possible for those higher up than me to lie. Politicians are duty bound to lie so we cannot even hope to believe them. We (Reading this) shall never know, this is probably covered by the hundred year rule.

There is still no conclusion here as to what did cause the round hole in her Stbd side. The indented metal around the hole too. I’m not a submariner, but I am an engineer. The hole and the dent were caused by a hit from the outside.

How specifically (i.e. from an engineering point of view) can you tell what caused the hole and the denting and what not?
And what exactly is ‘a hit from outside’? A collision with another sub (rather small hole then, don’t you thinkg?), a torpedo explosion (suggests an ASW lightweight 324mm diameter torpedo, not a 553 mm diameter M48 heavyweight. however, Kursk is designed to withstand such lightweight torpedoes. besides the hole seems far larger than a 324mm or even a 533m shaped charge warhead would cause. considering that a 125-150mm ATGW shaped charge warhead causes a hole in tank armor of maybe 10mm, which diameter torpedo would there have had to have been to cause a hole the size of which is in the Kursk’s side), something else?

As an engineer, try e.g. thinking about
a) things that happen during an underwater explosion (stuff implodes)
b) things that happen when a lage, heavy hull comes down onto a rocky sea bed.
c) things that happen during a rescue attempt (holes were cut to look/listen)
d) things that are done during salvage (hull sawed through vertically, holes were cut to affix lifting cables)

Can you rule out all other possibly causes besides ‘a hit from outside’? I think not.

And indeed, how on earth did you drag up this 4 year old thread?

There is still no conclusion here as to what did cause the round hole in her Stbd side. The indented metal around the hole too. I’m not a submariner, but I am an engineer. The hole and the dent were caused by a hit from the outside.

Did you really need to drag up a 4 year old thread about a conspiracy theory?

There is still no conclusion here as to what did cause the round hole in her Stbd side. The indented metal around the hole too. I’m not a submariner, but I am an engineer. The hole and the dent were caused by a hit from the outside.

well as for me, I believe in the version abt the collision, and the torpedo affair now cud be to put the blame again on the Russian’s poor training which lead the American/NATO sub to fire in self defence.

This whole thing can be taken parallel to what the Tu-144 met at Paris. All were blaming the Soviets when the hardest of the hardlners even if demanded to ‘show-off’ , no pilots wud show-off greater than from what he can maintain his posture. But the Tu-144 thing was ‘dealt-with’ by the govts which had more likely to do with the French – Mirages – fault which was tracking the Tu-144 and did not inform the Russians.

And this same thing is what I belive is the case with the Krushk, the Americans surely bumped into it, which caused the torpedoes/weapons to explode giving no chance to the crew to escape. Abt the rumoured $10billion, it cud be the deal which was made to keep the ‘boiling poinnt’ under wraps which otherwise mnight have created an enormous anti-American wave inside Russia, and the first of those casualties wud have been the ‘moles’ inside.

Moreover the CKB-Rubin have been maintaining abt the collision theory, even though it wont be any more embrassing/insulting for a Design Bureau to say that their prestegious design went down after a collision with a foreign sub.

Regarding the US Torpedo, I don’t know for sure, but I would assume that the shaped charge design would be solely for use against subs, whereas creating a large air cavity under a ship with a more normal explosion on ships would make sense. A shaped charge is fused from the rear so the blast move forward through the explosive forming a jet of molten metal liner and plasma (very hot gas). Fusing it from the middle or front would create a more uniform explosion.

The reason I suggest the difference is because with different targets you want different effects.
The best way to sink a ship is to detonate under it, the large air cavity rising and breaking the ships back.
With a double hulled sub that is not at a fixed depth then you want to hit it, but a hit on the side, if the other side is already filled with water is not very effective. An explosive on the side of a hull underwater is more effective because the water around the outside of the hull resists the explosion. Once the hull gives way the air inside the hull compresses much more than the sea outside so in effect the blast is forced into the ship. If there is water on both sides of the hull then the effect of the explosion is greatly reduced. The obvious solution is to use a shaped charge to blast a rather narrow beam of hot gas and molten metal in the hope that it will reach through the outer hull and through the water between the hulls and through the inner hull to the inside of the vessel. The problem remains that with good door shutting discipline unless you hit a weapon magazine or hit the reactor or bridge then the compartments will likely save the sub from being destroyed outright. You will have certainly changed its role from whatever it was to that of survival…

As Wanshan alludes to above an upward firing shaped charge warhead would be no more effective than a direct contact shaped charge warhead… just much much harder to impliment.

Needless to say when firing a torpedo at a ship you will know its draught and therefore know the depth to set the torpedo to run at to go under the ship. With a sub target you have no idea what depth to set it at…

> Wanshan
> I found online indicate anything other than a HE (bulk) warhead on the Mk48
A little over a dozen years ago I obtained a picture of a Mk.-48 warhead in the process of exploding. The picture is taken a few micro seconds after the explosion started. The original caption wrote of the fact that the warhead a shaped charge. The shaped charge can be focused upward to insure maximum destruction of the keel.

> GarryB
> If the kursk heard a torpedo coming they’d have fired decoys. Also why would
> the torpedo hit it in the nose? There is no noise making gear in the nose.
> If an active sonar was used for guidance by the torpedo then a more central
> hit would be much more likely, while a passive torpedo would more likely
> have hit the rear of the vessel.
Thanx Garry, I had not thought of that perspective. You are correct, the Mk.-48 torpedo would have hit under the Kurst not on the side.

Adrian

Interesting! I’ve not heard of an upward directed shaped charge warhead on a heavyweight before. Non-directional warhead seem quite sufficient in breaking a ship’s back. Would a upward firing shaped charge be THAT much more effective to warrent its development? Or is it developed with a particular type of target in mind? If so, the torpedo would have to be made smart enough to know which ‘side’ is up and be ‘self righting’, unless it is always loaded and fired with a particular ‘side’ up (‘side’ is a strange term considering we’re talking about a round object ;-).

The story was probably written by the same guy who wrote that piece about Boeing sabotaging all the Airbusses that crashed…including the Concorde… :rolleyes:

Some people will believe anything…..by the way did you know that the US and Israel caused the Tsunami? t was printed in a mideast paper. Everything that’s printed HAS to be true!

RE: US SSN torpedoed Kursk?

> Wanshan
> I found online indicate anything other than a HE (bulk) warhead on the Mk48
A little over a dozen years ago I obtained a picture of a Mk.-48 warhead in the process of exploding. The picture is taken a few micro seconds after the explosion started. The original caption wrote of the fact that the warhead a shaped charge. The shaped charge can be focused upward to insure maximum destruction of the keel.

NOTES:
■- For years the US have been working on a “shaped charge” nuclear warhead! This is to increase the productivity of the cruise missiles.
■- I tried to attach a picture to this posting but, it failed. If you want a copy of the photograph of the Mk.-48’s explosion, then E-mail me at;
[email]avon1944@hotmail.com[/email]

>> Adrian
>> The engine of the Mk.-48 is an “external combustion” engine!
> Wanshan
> Thanks, that was informative.
Glad to help…. I am here to learn also.

> GarryB
> If the kursk heard a torpedo coming they’d have fired decoys. Also why would
> the torpedo hit it in the nose? There is no noise making gear in the nose.
> If an active sonar was used for guidance by the torpedo then a more central
> hit would be much more likely, while a passive torpedo would more likely
> have hit the rear of the vessel.
Thanx Garry, I had not thought of that perspective. You are correct, the Mk.-48 torpedo would have hit under the Kurst not on the side.

Adrian

Equally there have been a huge number of cases where ships and subs or subs and subs or ships and ships have gone bump either in the night or during day time. Why would anyone fire upon the vessel they bumped into?

BTW quite right, just one abrest but this gives an indication of how big the gap is…

> Vortex
> a piston does not mean “internal” or “external”…it merely acts as a momentum exchange surface. But, yes, the Mk48 uses a Stirlin type engine.
No the term internal versus external simply refers to whether or not the combustion chamber is or “is not” in the chamber which houses the piston.

Adrian

exactly, but why you jump on the word “piston” and had to use the word “external” when that word “piston” is used. That is my point. No where did i said piston means “internal”…in fact i said it “DOES NOT”.

I’ve always thought a heavy torpedo (at least the Mk.48) goes below a ship and detonate underneath to break the hull. Smaller torpedoes have no choice but to hit it and hopefully disable it not break it.

i don,’t really believe this theory as bumping between us and russian subs was not a rarity in the old days and if the kursk plotted a targeting solution on the us sub afterwards and opened her tubedoors i think the US has a strong case for self defense anyway and would not go to all the trouble to hide it.

also the fact that russia didn’t wat the rescue crews to come to close to the bow when the rescue attept was made contradicts any of this as i don’t see why you would want to hide an attack on your own vessel?

I don’t know what’s worse-the fact that this guy writes this crap, or that so many people believe it.