one for the kursk

[robbo180265]

This is the official memorial website, it offers a number of theories.

http://www.murman.ru/kurskmem/indexe.htm

Untill they raise the front end of the sub we'll probably never know the truth.I feel sorry for the crew(some of whom may have lasted 3 days apparently)

[Kapitan]

Well the hope of ever raising the bow is now near immpossible, as well placed roumers have been said that russian naval divers have blown it up due to what it may still contain, so any evedence is probably been blown to bits.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Well the hope of ever raising the bow is now near immpossible, as well placed roumers have been said that russian naval divers have blown it up due to what it may still contain, so any evedence is probably been blown to bits.

Convienent that.

[micky1up]

absolute speculation funny enough 2 mins is the bogey time for a fire in the torpedeo compartment to set off the other torpedoes the info from the science station is compelling the first explosion then 2 mins later the 2nd which is the exact type of explosion as the first but multiplied many time these are the other torpedoes cooking off , no trailing sub would have come anyhere near the kursk its job is to monitor and report info what use is this info if you dont bring it back to base and in my experience the only nations sub that has ever used harrasing manovers is the russians we in the nato alliance do not conduct such manouvers what would be the point? yes those subs where their to monitor the exercise but the whole point is to monitor not acctually become part of the exercise althouogh US submariners like their army and airforce are prone to the odd gung ho incident no captain could ever justify such a risk too his own crew it just wouldnt happen

[Enigma]

punc·tu·a·tion
–noun 1.the practice or system of using certain conventional marks or characters in writing or printing in order to separate elements and make the meaning clear, as in ending a sentence or separating clauses. 2.the act of punctuating. 3.punctuation marks.

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by Enigma

punc·tu·a·tion
–noun 1.the practice or system of using certain conventional marks or characters in writing or printing in order to separate elements and make the meaning clear, as in ending a sentence or separating clauses. 2.the act of punctuating. 3.punctuation marks.

Niggle(nig'l)

To trifle,potter:busy oneself with petty criticism of detail; in a fidgety or ineffective way;to gnaw,to criticize in a petty way - vt ; to worry ,irritate or nag;to work,make or perform with excessive detail; to make fool of.

[ASWnut101]

Robbo, alot of people here find it hard to read without punctuation.

Oh, I almost forgot:

[Enigma]

Touche.

hyp·o·crite
–noun 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Enigma

punc·tu·a·tion
–noun 1.the practice or system of using certain conventional marks or characters in writing or printing in order to separate elements and make the meaning clear, as in ending a sentence or separating clauses. 2.the act of punctuating. 3.punctuation marks.

so what your saying is that your not intelligent enough to read without punctuation


what if i where to say some of the most intelligent men in the world didnt use punctuation either for instance einstien he was dyslexic and couldnt form paragraphs or puncutuate



of course if you dont want the considered view of a serving member of the submarine service dyslexic or not the hey dont read



your the kind of person who when bumped into by a blind man would say hey look where your going never really bothering to find out wether the man was blind or not its called intollerance and ignorance

[Polak]

"one for the kursk"
And here I thought that you where drinking wodka, instead I found a youtube video and thread full with grammar rules. :hmm:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by micky1up

Absolute speculation. Funny enough 2 mins is the bogey time for a fire in the torpedeo compartment to set off the other torpedoes. The info from the science station is compelling - the first explosion, then 2 mins later the 2nd which is the exact type of explosion as the first but multiplied many time. These are the other torpedoes cooking off. No trailing sub would have come anyhere near the kursk its job is to monitor and report info. What use is this info if you dont bring it back to base and in my experience the only nations sub that has ever used harrasing manovers is the russians. We in the nato alliance do not conduct such manouvers what would be the point? Yes those subs where their to monitor the exercise but the whole point is to monitor not acctually become part of the exercise. Althouogh US submariners like their army and airforce are prone to the odd gung ho incident, no captain could ever justify such a risk too his own crew. It just wouldnt happen

Better. Unfortunately, I (and I think many others) do not have the same confidence with US Captains as you do. But then, there are a wide range of Captain personalities.

Captains that will falsify their log records and intrude into other people's waters for intelligence work (breaking even the very broad interpretations Americans use for "innocent passage"). Captains who also take pride of the underhulling exploits. Even if I assume that they are boasts and not real exploits, such people can hardly be trusted to place the crew's safety over 1) altruistically, the USN's need for intelligence and/or 2) cynically, the Captain's career and reputation.

Besides, it is supposed to be a real acoustic murk in the Barents at times. To get intelligence, getting close might have been the tactical necessity.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Better. Unfortunately, I (and I think many others) do not have the same confidence with US Captains as you do. But then, there are a wide range of Captain personalities.

Captains that will falsify their log records and intrude into other people's waters for intelligence work (breaking even the very broad interpretations Americans use for "innocent passage"). Captains who also take pride of the underhulling exploits. Even if I assume that they are boasts and not real exploits, such people can hardly be trusted to place the crew's safety over 1) altruistically, the USN's need for intelligence and/or 2) cynically, the Captain's career and reputation.

Besides, it is supposed to be a real acoustic murk in the Barents at times. To get intelligence, getting close might have been the tactical necessity.

when conducting such missions there is a list of priorities first being safety

[Oberon]

I'm in the interesting position of agreeing with Micky (had to happen one day ) The Toledo and the Memphis were probably in the area, as close to the Kursk as they could judge safe to be, listening for the accoustic details of the Skhval, however, what they landed up recording was a terrible accident caused by the torpedo design. It's not just the Russians who've had issues with that torpedo fuel...IIRC us Brits had a boat severely damaged with the loss of at least twelve men when the Hydrogen Peroxide propelled torpedo exploded. The reason? A Hot running torpedo, which is quite likely the cause on the Kursk...the torpedo exploded, causing a severe fire in the Torpedo room which then cooked off the rest of the torpedoes, the explosion would have smashed every torpedo tube door off and probably made a horrible mess of the bulkhead doors for several compartments...hence the sad, prolonged fate of the survivors at the stern.

Here's some more quotes from Wiki which give better technical looks at what I've said:

Originally Posted by Wiki on HMS Sidon

The direct cause of the accident was determined to have been malfunctioning of the "Fancy" torpedo, and that torpedo program was terminated.
A torpedo being readied for the morning test shot had begun a "hot-run" — its engine had started while it was still inside the submarine and was over-speeding, creating very high pressures in its fuel system. The "Fancy" torpedo used high test peroxide (HTP) as an oxidizer. When an oxidizer line burst, HTP sprayed onto the copper fittings inside the torpedo, decomposing into oxygen and steam. The torpedo's warhead did not detonate, but its hull burst violently, rupturing the torpedo tube and causing the flooding that destroyed the boat.

Originally Posted by Wiki on HTP

In the 1940s and 1950s, the Walter turbine used hydrogen peroxide for use in submarines while submerged; it was found to be too noisy and maintenance-demanding compared to the conventional diesel-electric power system. Some torpedoes used hydrogen peroxide as oxidizer or propellant, but this use has been discontinued by most navies for safety reasons. Hydrogen peroxide leaks were blamed for the sinkings of HMS Sidon and the Russian submarine Kursk. It was discovered, for example, by the Japanese Navy in torpedo trials, that the concentration of H2O2 in right-angle bends in HTP pipework can often lead to explosions in submarines and torpedoes. Hydrogen peroxide is still used on Soyuz for driving gas turbines to power turbopumps, however. SAAB Underwater Systems is manufacturing the Torpedo 2000. This torpedo is used by the Swedish navy. The torpedo is powered by a piston engine, propelled by HTP as an oxidizer and parafine as a fuel in a bi propellant system.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by micky1up

when conducting such missions there is a list of priorities first being safety

This safety, however, is in an intrinsically dangerous operation. It is like saying you have a priority in "safety" when you are blazing 400km/h down the highway - sure you are trying, but you are trying starting from a dangerous situation.