View Full Version : Russian sub videos
nikimcbee
03-17-07, 12:36 AM
Victor III
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oWu9uJO_fTk
Alfa/ Lira
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G31Qc16r5yQ&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5fn-02-2cJ0&mode=related&search=
Foxtrot
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1onJRTXIN9M&mode=related&search=
Kursk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f5BdJcb3iSg
Scrap yard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLkqk0BqvGs
Thanks nikimcbee, this is really amazing!!!:up:
Where ever a tragedy happens a conspiracy isnt far behind...... I really doubt the americans would fire on the kursk :o
So which was better then? The Kursk or the Typhoon class? I assume the typhoon class was still bigger then the Kursk?
NefariousKoel
03-18-07, 10:44 PM
Where ever a tragedy happens a conspiracy isnt far behind...... I really doubt the americans would fire on the kursk :o
So which was better then? The Kursk or the Typhoon class? I assume the typhoon class was still bigger then the Kursk?
You'd be surprised at how many conspiracy theorists still cling to their beliefs even after being repeatedly disproven.
People just don't want to give up their beliefs and admit they were wrong. It happens all the time between professionals in scholastic sciences too. Archaeology is a good example of the inability to say you were wrong.
Sorry for the hijack, thanks for the vids Nik. Russians know how to make a sexy looking sub.
Kapitan
03-21-07, 11:17 AM
When the MK48 ADCAP came out the oscar II series were improved to take a direct hit from one and still surface, the Oscar II could remain afloat with 2 compartments fully flooded however on the kursk the first 7 compartments were flooded so no chance.
Also the fact that an american dare fire on a russian submarine i find hard to believe, would it be the same as when the "russians fired on the scorpion" ?
I personaly dont believe the US and Russians ever fired a shot at each other under the sea.
Typhoons designed around the same idea to take a direct hit and still surface however thier rear ends are very very vulnreble.
The old screw shaft problems, eh Kap? Damn things are a weak spot on a lot of subs.
Anyway, the idea of the Kursk being sunk deliberately by a US or UK sub belongs in the same category as the faked Moon landings, the dynamite in the world trade center, the cruise missile into the Pentagon and Elvis working in a Fish and Chip shop in Oxford road.
K-141 sank due to an explosion in one of her hydrogen-peroxide fuelled torpedoes. I just wish the conspiracy theorists would drop it...it does nothing for Russian/Western relations...particularly as a lot of the conspiracy theorists were found in the Kremlin to start with. :-?
I once spoke to a person who was in a position to know,and I am reluctant to give any more detail on him due to his senior position, and he affirmed that Memphis was nowhere near Kursk when she sank.
Kapitan
03-23-07, 12:42 PM
Memphis was a good 70 miles away and toledo was at least 40 miles away the unknown british submarine wasnt in the near area either, there have been reports that there were possibly german norwiegen and swedish subs also monitering the exercise.
Bilge_Rat
03-23-07, 01:37 PM
I havent seen the video, but I thought the original conspiracy theory spun by the Russians was that a U.S. sub had collided with the Kursk causing the fire which resulted in the torpedo explosions, that at least had a factual basis since there were quite a few collisions during the cold war between US and Soviet subs, one as recently as 1993.
Rickenbacker
03-23-07, 01:38 PM
Ah, so it was us swedes all along! :D
Seriously, though, thanks for the links. Gotta admit that the ballistic missile booster sent a chill down my spine when I saw it. Scary stuff.
Kapitan
03-25-07, 02:16 PM
Even if a US submarine had collided with the kursk it is highly doubtful the other submarine would survive if you look the memphis toledo and traffie is averaging only 7,000 tonnes, the kursk submerged fully loaded which she was is 24,000 tonnes.
The U.S submarines stalking the kursk would be doing around 6 knots say the kursk in her attack run would be at around 12 or more, it would basicaly be like a bus running into a school kid at 30mph.
i doubt there was a collision the kursk would have sunk the submarine or damaged it so much it would have to surface and would be seen!, not to forget the Oscar II has a reinforced double hull so if there was a collision it would only dent, doubtful if it could cause a fire or explosion.
Whole the 'Kursk' video is full of mistakes .. it's just another of those conspiracies .. not worth attention.
Anyway .. was it really so shallow water ? In such case it is really sad that Russian navy was unable to save the men.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
03-26-07, 07:16 AM
Even if a US submarine had collided with the kursk it is highly doubtful the other submarine would survive if you look the memphis toledo and traffie is averaging only 7,000 tonnes, the kursk submerged fully loaded which she was is 24,000 tonnes.
Unfortunately, mass is not the only factor in damage in collision. It is certainly possible for a light collision to cause LESS damage to the American in terms of deformation because it is its hard pressure hull rubbing against the weak light hull of the Oscar. In effect, the Oscar's light hull becomes a cushion, except it doesn't bounce back. A heavy collision, on the other hand, pits the pressure hull against the Oscar's pressure hull, which is of AFAIK higher tensile strength and the sub is bigger, so you'd be right in that scenario.
The U.S submarines stalking the kursk would be doing around 6 knots say the kursk in her attack run would be at around 12 or more, it would basicaly be like a bus running into a school kid at 30mph.
There are many possible geometries for collision. Besides, if they are stalking the Kursk, they would have to more or less match speed or they'd lose her in the noise of the Barents.
i doubt there was a collision the kursk would have sunk the submarine or damaged it so much it would have to surface and would be seen!, not to forget the Oscar II has a reinforced double hull so if there was a collision it would only dent, doubtful if it could cause a fire or explosion.
The outer hull would only dent, but the shock is still transmitted if somewhat attenuated through the frame of the submarine. If the wrong thing gets moved about by the shock inside the sub, there could be secondary damage.
Also the fact that an american dare fire on a russian submarine i find hard to believe, would it be the same as when the "russians fired on the scorpion" ?
Kapitain, the Scorpian was lost due to an internal torpedo malfunction?
Kapitan
03-26-07, 10:05 AM
No one knows what sank the scorpion many theorys persist that maybe due to a leaky pipe, even down to russian engaugement (there was russian subs near her at the time and also scorpion had just spent 3 days monitering a soviet fleet conducting suspisious activities near gibralter could it be that the russians sank her cause they didnt want the americans to know what they were doing?
Bilge_Rat
03-26-07, 01:51 PM
That is true, there were theories the captain had expelled a hot running torpedo which turned and hit the sub, but this is based on sparse circumstancial evidence. AFAIR the only evidence found was the wreckage of the Scorpion and recordings (or was it seismic readings?)of what may have been an explosion about the same time as the sub disappeared.
What is known is that scheduled maintenance on the sub had been delayed since it was being used in spying missions, so the accident theory appears to be the most logical.
Same thing with the Kursk , given the notoriously poor design, crew standards and maintenance of russian submarines, even a slight collision could have started a fire. I believe there were also unconfirmed rumors in the media of a damaged US sub being sighted coming in to port a few days later, so the russian suspicions were not entirely unfounded.
Kapitan
03-27-07, 03:49 AM
Kursk had just come out of refit before she sailed, also a collision could have started a fire yes but the outside hull is the same steel the pressure hull is made of thats why they cost $1.2 billion each to build.
The outside hull would have dented, as stated Captain sergey bulgarkov's delta IV submarine who collided with USS Grayling in 1993 dented the outter hull but there was no damage to the inner hull, only that dent.
Kursk would have survived the first explosion if it hadnt have clocked of a dozen other torpedos at the same time.
The steel used in kursks construction is similar to that used in the 688i and other previous submarines of the USN.
From what ive read the scorpian was lost due to torpedo malfunction. If there was a conspirisy surrounding it loss, it came from the navy who witheld vital information regarding its arming mechanism.
According Dr Craven (the guy that managed to find the sub) the scorpion (which was overdue for an overhaul) suffered from one of its torpedos suffering from a slow burning chemical fire caused by a catastophic faliure of the foil seal protecting its arming mechanism. There was strong evidence that the submarine had turned 180 degrees from its planned heading (it was this discovery that allowed craven to locate the sub after extensive searches to find it had failed). The most likely explaination for this would have been a call of "Hot Running Torpedo" an event where a torpedo arms in the tube. Due to the saftey mechanisms in the torps the captain would of commanded a complete turn in order to disarm the torpedo.
Craven suggested that instead of a "Hot Running Torpedo" the actual call was "Hot Torpedo" refering to the burning torp and the imminent warhead cook off. Consequently the turn did not save the Scorpian and the detonating warhead caused loss of both the boat and crew.
This theory was supported by labs who had been working on the torpedos and even offered out several warnings that the unit suffered from this defect. Amazingly the court of enquiry regarding the incedent wasnt aware of the defect and therefor discounted the likelyhood of torpedo malfunction as being the cause of the accident.
As far as ive read the accepted cause for the kursks loss was also torpedo malfunction. Im not as aware of the facts, but I do know that the russian pulled an entire class of torpedo from their arsenal shortly after the incident.
Kapitan
03-27-07, 03:54 AM
As soon as they found the cause the 65-76 "fat girl" torpedo was removed from service and today is still not alowed on any russian vessel.
All the 65-76 torpedos are undergoing dismantlement.
As soon as they found the cause the 65-76 "fat girl" torpedo was removed from service and today is still not alowed on any russian vessel.
All the 65-76 torpedos are undergoing dismantlement.
Excatly, so that would indicate a problem with that issue of Torpedo, Im thinking that these things would cost a huge amount of money to develop and manufacture, so it wouldnt be pulled without good reason, especially in a cash strapped navy like russias.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
03-27-07, 07:29 AM
Kursk had just come out of refit before she sailed, also a collision could have started a fire yes but the outside hull is the same steel the pressure hull is made of thats why they cost $1.2 billion each to build.
Oh, they made it with the same grade steel this time?
Nevertheless, the outer hull will be a lot thinner (and thus effectively weaker) than the main pressure hull. Unless they want to compromise their diving depth by thinning out the pressure hull.
The outside hull would have dented, as stated Captain sergey bulgarkov's delta IV submarine who collided with USS Grayling in 1993 dented the outter hull but there was no damage to the inner hull, only that dent.
Yes, that's what should happen, but shock could easily still move something inside that shouldn't move.
Kapitan
03-27-07, 10:26 AM
Russian navy isnt as cash strapped as it was in 1991 the expenditure has quadrupled since 1995 and is adaquate at the moment, when they pulled the 65-76 out they launched plans to replace the torpedo so far they are still designing fighting over it ect the norm.
Kapitan
03-27-07, 10:28 AM
inner hull is a fair bit thicker than outer hull the outer hull is mainly just a caseing so yes it is weaker.
GakunGak
03-27-07, 12:01 PM
Loved the videos!!!
Where I can find more of them, no matter the language?
Or at least linx?:ping:
nikimcbee
03-27-07, 12:06 PM
Loved the videos!!!
Where I can find more of them, no matter the language?
Or at least linx?:ping:
O'm glad you like them.:rock: I'll post more as I find them.:smug:
GakunGak
03-27-07, 03:12 PM
These were awesome, especially The Kursk!:up: :rock:
For more on the sinking of the Scorpion, read "Red Star Rogue", although it's about the Golf II (K-129). As in the review below, I wasn't sure what to believe, but it was a very fun read.
http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/281.asp
UglyMowgli
04-02-07, 11:13 AM
for the scoprion only one book to read:
Silent Steel: The Mysterious Death of the Nuclear Attack Sub USS Scorpion by Stephen Johnson (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/102-9126832-7194537?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Stephen%20Johnson)
http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Steel-Mysterious-Nuclear-Scorpion/dp/0471267376/ref=sr_1_1/102-9126832-7194537?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175530358&sr=8-1
Gorshkov
04-02-07, 11:44 AM
As soon as they found the cause the 65-76 "fat girl" torpedo was removed from service and today is still not alowed on any russian vessel.
All the 65-76 torpedos are undergoing dismantlement.
Excatly, so that would indicate a problem with that issue of Torpedo, Im thinking that these things would cost a huge amount of money to develop and manufacture, so it wouldn't be pulled without good reason, especially in a cash strapped navy like Russias.
One question about 65-76 torpedo: Why does stock DW game include completely false 65-76's guidance systems? This torpedo is a pure ASuW long range wake-homer, not any universal ASW-ASuW weapon.
So, it is an incorrect USNII data or maybe some advanced 65-76 top secret modification with A/P sonar+wire+wake-homing guidance really exists???
PS. Besides I think that 65-76 withdrawal from service was a bad decision because Russian Navy lost its best way to sink US carriers by these mighty torpedoes which could be carried on-board all Russian nuclear submarines. Relying exclusively upon "Granit" SLCMs carried only by several "Oscar-II" SSGNs is too insufficient posture for me.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.