Official Version of KURSK Sub not TRUE

No really. It was sunk by the Argentine Navy…they thought it was the HMS Invincible.
Done in by stealth A-4s and Super Entendards.
See locked thread “Argie SUE´s sunk R05 HMS Invincible in 1982” for the truth!!! 😀

I can buy the idea of an accidental collision by a US sub that was there to take a look at the excercise but to take out a Russian sub in order to test a super weapon? Nope.

The Russian military has been underfunded since the fall of the Soviet Union. The bulk of the Russian Navy stays in port with a handful of units putting to sea for short cruises. A lack of proper training on how to handle torpedoes is a more likely cause of the Kursk sinking.

priceless 😀

White Clowd, allow me to correct a few of your more obvious errors.

You said

“your American “Normal Palmer” Back in 1989 wrote in a Military Publication called “Proceedings” 1989 XII, No.1042 on pages 119-122 Titled “Battling Against Torpedos”… “

The name of the person in question is Norman Polmar, a very reputable naval analyst and author.

The publication in question is Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute. It is not a government publication in that it is not published by the US government, but by the US Naval Institute, a private organisation which was set up more than a century ago to promote better understanding of the US Navy and maritime issues in the public arena.

You said

“Further on, the author lists the weaponry being developed by the American Navy against Soviet subs armed with these wonder-torpedos:”

The article in question did not say the US Navy was developing these weapons. Polmar stated that these were some possible current and future technologies which could be developed to offset the 65 inch “wave following” torpedo.

The article in question was written in the period after the Western navies had become aware of the existance of the “wake homing” torpedo and much speculation was underway in various publication as to the threat it posed to ships, particularly the USN’s major surface combatants such as the Iowa class BBs and the CVNs.

As is usually the case when only a portion of the information is known, speculation was rampant and tended to the worst case scenario.

Later information, particularly in the years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Communism in Russia allowed the USN to take a more balanced view of the wake homing torpedo, it is a threat, but simply one amongst many, not a game ending device.

Please be a little more careful in the information you present and how you present it.

Selective quoting and taking statements out of context, or changing the wording to support your assertions does you no credit.

Unicorn

A US independent film channel (the “Sundance” channel if i recall correctly) aired the French documentary the other night.
It seemed to use the same “UK expert” quoted by the BBC film.

As a journalist I had some issues with it…
-They NEVER presented any other side…other than the “Official” Russian explaination of the torpedo explosion. The whole idea of a story is to present both sides and let the viewer make up his/her mind.
-They hung a lot on an unnamed US “naval source” who said the hole was made by a Mk 48 torpedo. It would have been more believeable if they had someone on camera….if it were true, I’m sure they could have found someone (retired sailor?) with expertise to gpo on camera to say it looked like a torpedo hole. Since the USA doesn’t have an offical secrets act, anyone could have given their opinion without fear of prosocution….and if you’re retired, they can’t take away your pension. And if the government did try something that sinister, all the person would have to go to The New York Times…they’d love a story like that.
-They said the torpedo “Was designed to hit that area” of the submarine…near the “command post”. Wow, that’s one smart torpedo! From what I know of munitions, I don’t believe that’s possible.
-The Russians are smart enough not to show the sub to the media if there was an imcriminating torpedo hole in the side…especially if they were smart enough to leave the bow section on the ocean floor.
-Finally, any pretense at fair journalism went out the window when the end credits sarcastically thanked Putin and Bush for their unwilling cooperation with the production. At the time of the loss, Clinton was the president and would have been the US end of the conspiracy. Why mention Bush…unless it’s meant to trade on his current unpopularity overseas?

I don’t have an axe to grind interest in the sad affair…but the wholeshow came across as a clumsy attempt to smear Russia and the US…
I hate to think it will be shown to a lot of people around the world who seem to take anything on TV as truthful.
There are a lot of unsophisticated “consumers” of news out there.

WHERE did I say the Russian Govt cut a hole in Kursk???? I don’t think I ever said that, all I said was that Mammoet/ Mammoth cut a hole in that hull and I know very well from experience how that happens and what type of material they use for such operations. And they just happen to correspond with this hole in size as well as shape. So alltogether I’m pretty sure I’m closer to the answer to this “hole-question” than you are. The Zionist idea surely isn’t yours that’s for sure and at least I do have knowledge to form an own opinion to follow and not someone else’s.

“the middle of the hull you could see a nearly perfectly round hole, about a meter in diameter”
More like 1,5 meters if you ask me but even at 1 meter it is hardly indicative of ‘a small diameter projectile’ (if at all of a projectile), particularly considering the fact that naval artillery hasn’t gone beyond 45cm and torpedoes don’t currently come in diameters over 65cm.

“right there in the middle of the hull, that round hole, whose diameter corresponds exactly to the impact point of our new weaponry”
And we know this how? Secret weapon details somehow suddenly became available?

What functional railguns are there, and where? Aren’t they all experimental rigs only? Only last year did the USN get funding for development of a prototype for a surface ship railgun to be developed for DDX (expected 2010). How big would a railgun capable of firing a 1m projectile be? Would it fit into a LA class sub and where? Would a submarine of the LA class be able to generate sufficient electrical power to fire a rail gun? Does electromagnetic railgun technology even work under water? Does any any gun technology work underwater (i.e. how do projectiles – not torpedo’s – behave underwater)?

Turning to motive and opportunity: Supposedly (according to the articles quoted by WC), the Kursk incident was used as a pretext for re-examining Russia’s whole naval doctrine and for the abandonment of all means of countering American carrier might, notably 650mm torpedo’s. The 650mm torpedo first appeared together with the 949 Granit/Oscar I cruisemissile sub in 1982, and followed by 971 Bars/Akula class in 1985. In 1989 USS Memphis (SSN-691) was withdrawn from active service to become a research platform to test advanced submarine technology such as optronic non-hull-penetrating masts, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV), and large diameter torpedoes. Although the USS MEMPHIS was modified to serve as a test and evaluation platform for advanced submarine systems and equipment, she retained her combat capability. In January 1994 MEMPHIS entered Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for RCOH and modifications to support her Research and Development role. Upon completion of the shipyard availability she was assigned to Submarine Development Squadron TWELVE in Groton, CT. Assuming it was fitted with a functional railgun in 1989, and considering the threat from 650mm torpedos to US carrier groups, why did the US wait no less than 11 years untill August 2000 to kill the Kursk (or another sub) and create the incident that would lead to withdrawal of 650mm torpedos from russian active service? Even is the railgun was fitted only in 1994, you can ask the question as to why wait for 6 years given an accute threat?

Kursk on seabed: where’s that hole again?

Double hull, with 3,5-4m space and equipement between outer and inner hulls. (Just the outer is 2,5 inch steel plate)

688 class fast attack submarine diagram: where can we put a railgun that fires a 1m projectile?

My theory is exactly what the article says scince it makes more scence, Neptune when you told me they (Rus-Government) cut the hole in the Kursk, that is your Opinion it’s not based on FACTS, the front part was cut but when you look at the hole it’s not cut it’s a hole going “INTO” the Kursk AND even the Attorney General Vladmir Ustinov asked Admiral Vyacheslav Popov “Could they hole have been made during the transportation” The Admiral said, “No” and then The Admiral for a long time cept trying to expose what REALLY happend to the Kursk but he was removed from his post http://oag.ru/views/kursk1.html . Then main reason I believe the article is because even your American “Normal Palmer” Back in 1989 wrote in a Military Publication called “Proceedings” 1989 XII, No.1042 on pages 119-122 Titled “Battling Against Torpedos” here all copy it : In that article the author states that the American Navy is practically defenseless against Soviet torpedos of 650 mm. caliber. He cites one American admiral, who noted that the only means of defense is to put a frigate in the wake of an aircraft carrier to take the hit, thus sacrificing the less costly ship to save the more valuable one. Further on, the author lists the weaponry being developed by the American Navy against Soviet subs armed with these wonder-torpedos:

the creation of powerful underwater whirlpools;
an impact wave in front of the sub in the form of concentric rings;
high-speed chemical rockets;
high-speed submarine-fired electromagnetic projectiles.
We’ll zero in especially on that last item, because several years ago other sources announced that the United States had created and successfully tested a new type of weapon, based on entirely new physical principles. Mention was made of electromagnetic guns for the submarine fleet. These guns accelerate a small-diameter projectile to enormous speeds using a powerful electromagnetic field.

And here’s the most remarkable thing: The projectiles are tipped with depleted uranium, inasmuch as this metal is the densest available.

So what do we have here? A chain of coincidences? Unrelated facts randomly fitting into a logical construction, or … maybe we’re on to something?

Here’s one more “random coincidence”. The newspapers all printed that the American sub “Memphis” was near the “Kursk” at the moment of the accident. Everyone knows that. But here’s what the American military journal “Jane’s Fighting Ships” for 2000-2001 has to say: “The atomic submarine “Memphis” of the “Los Angeles” class, numbered No. 691, was re-equipped in 1989 as a testing platform for new types of experimental technologies, including new types of weaponry”. http://oag.ru/views/kursk2.html

Another coincidence? I don’t think so Look even “Jane’s Military Journal” coroberating the U.S. Sub (Menphis) that was near Kursk being fitted with this Technology way back in 89′, so Neptune are YOU GONNA NOW SAY “These Conspirousy Nuts are now working with American “Normal Palamer AND “Jane’s Military Journal” to make U.S. LOOK like they had sunk the Kursk??”

Leave it out quit enough is enough

guys

metophorically speaking our respective governments (parants) have made the bed, after a rough night, tidied up the room and all is in order. what we have here is the kids jumping all over the bed and making a mess all over again.
Dont mess in things beyond our control someone might get pissed off.

On the subject of Stingray think back to the wierd goings on at Marconi (as I remember correct me if wrong) and the bizrre deaths of some of the scientists / engineers there, even made a Horrizon or was it a CH4 TV program.
leave it alone please

jb154

How many times did I tell you they cut holes in that hull? Finally someone seems to have noticed it. And I’m still waiting for PROOF White CloUd.

White Clowd

Wanshan is probably one of the most respected members on the navy section of AFM and beyound. When he speaks, we listen.

WHITE CLOWD
Official Version of “KURSK” Sub not TRUE
This is what Really happend, http://oag.ru/views/kursk2.html

Technically, you’ve not provided a theory of your own, you’ve just linked to sites where other people pose their theories. However, you have made clear you believe and support those theories. When and where exactly did I claim to know your personal theory? Also, my remarks about DISPROVING a theory were clearly about the story of the railgun. So, I’ve not claimed anywhere to have disproven your personal theory.

On my part, I’ve accepted the possibility that the official explanation of the tragedy may not be true. I have directed my comments at the sites (i.e. my comments where about what was said on those sites i.e. about the alternative explanations for the Kursk tragedy you put forward). Now, lets assume I did claim to know about you personal theory (which I didn’t). How is that at all relevant to the arguments I’ve made against the theories put forward on the sites you linked to?

“Zionists from outer space ate my Buick” :rolleyes:

Promises promises

Hey Wanshan, what’s my theory about what happend to “KURSK” ? You claimed you knew so I’m asking you to tell everyone AND me??

They did attach 26 cables to the sub to raise it. Since it was listing to port on the seabed that hole might be an attachment point for one of the cables. Divers did go down and drill a bunch of holes. But that isn’t anti-American, now, is it?

Indeed, the salvagers from the Dutch company Mammoth did cut holes in the hull. See here Download pdf from Smit-Tak here

I will PROOVE that YOU don’t even know what I’m sayin, SO Wanshan what is MY theory, that you think you’ve DISproved, people stay tuned cus I’ll show YOU he doesn’t even know!!

Promises promises

But there is obviously a hole in the Kursk, bar the man made possibility to fool the French dude, what else could it be then if the Kursk hull is designed to withstand a hit from a mk-50?

Also if the Kursk was designed to withstand an mk-50, would distance from sub make a difference at all or any denotation before impact?

Any possibility wherein an mk-50 type torp would be able to penetrate a double hull?

As far as the debt cancellation, I have checked the IMF website and I can confirm that there was a large transfer of payment that month by Russsia but as per reports on the Russian transaction with the IMF, such repayments had been planned and expected by the IMF already….

It’s not that this sub’s outer hull would withstand a Mk50 hit. Indeed, quite the contrary, the Mk50 would penetrate it. However, penetration of the outer hull by a Mk50 would not be sufficient to sink the sub.

“The Oscar-class nuclear-powered cruise missile attack submarine, which displaces more than 18,000 tons when under water, is one of Russia’s largest and most capable submarines. As with earlier cruise-missile submarine, the Oscar was designed primarily to attack American aircraft carrier battle groups.

As with other Russian submarines, the Oscar features a double hull — and inner pressure hull and an outer hydrodynamic hull, with eight inches of rubber between them to muffle sounds. American submarines have a single pressure hull, with additional hydrodynamic fairings, such as the cap that encloses the bow sonar dome. The 3.5 meter separation between the inner and outter hulls on the Oscar provides significant reserve buoyancy, and improved survivability against conventional torpedoes.

…

The Project 949A submarines have a total of at least ten separate compartments, which can be sealed off from each other in the event of accidents. “
Source

I don’t have to come up with an explanation for this in order to DISPROVE the theory put forward in the article. Read up on the principle of FALSIFICATION in any social science methods book.

I will PROOVE that YOU don’t even know what I’m sayin, SO Wanshan what is MY theory, that you think you’ve DISproved, people stay tuned cus I’ll show YOU he doesn’t even know!!

They did attach 26 cables to the sub to raise it. Since it was listing to port on the seabed that hole might be an attachment point for one of the cables. Divers did go down and drill a bunch of holes. But that isn’t anti-American, now, is it?

But there is obviously a hole in the Kursk, bar the man made possibility to fool the French dude, what else could it be then if the Kursk hull is designed to withstand a hit from a mk-50?

Also if the Kursk was designed to withstand an mk-50, would distance from sub make a difference at all or any denotation before impact?

Any possibility wherein an mk-50 type torp would be able to penetrate a double hull?

As far as the debt cancellation, I have checked the IMF website and I can confirm that there was a large transfer of payment that month by Russsia but as per reports on the Russian transaction with the IMF, such repayments had been planned and expected by the IMF already….

I have not for a moment accepted that the US would. But while I can’t disprove the presence of ‘ other than russian’ submarines, I can disprove a theory.

Sorry Wan mate, that first part was in support of your statements and the second was directed elsewhere entirely 🙂

Daniel