K141 KURSK, an accident? or is there more to it

i think they should've pointed their torpedo testing in the opposite direction, russia's always been subject to great losses...but this is ridiculous
another thing comes to mind as i type this out....the kursk k141 was given some sort of award for being the best submarine in it's fleet
was it really that hard to steer away from the missiles the american sub responded to the test-fire from the k141?
i guess russians need to learn how to build smaller/faster subs..

american propaganda has means and ways of evading suspicion, the k141 sub was totalled out in a few minutes...an american sub is the most likely conclusion since the test-fire results from the k141 were positive(surprise,surprise, they were meant to simply explode at proximity from a stationary object)...meaning, the tests might have hit an unspecified target without full explosion upon impact(test-fires r never fully loaded for obvious reasons)
I think it was a retaliation from an american sub, only the sub realized their error all too soon and fled the scene.

since the "k141 provoked" an attack from the other sub(i dont know if it was american or not.btw...another point to be made clear ), the matter was set at rest as a unilateral lack of etiquette from both sides(the russians wouldn't under ANY circumstances have let anything this big go, unless they were faced by some bigger force, the U.S for instance).
i hope i havent lost you.....it's this theory i've contemplated on, but the news has blacked out on the details due to the blotching of the amerian defence system if it was to get out...
if i remember correctly, enough "blotching" has occured during the 2nd gulf war to double the hatred from the middle eastern regions, remember when the amerians got to the city center in iraq? covering saddam's statue's face with the american flag, in a word "outrageous"...the middle eastern reaction to that was just short of scandalous.
could the Kursk accident have simply been a "lack of etiquette" causing a kneejerk reaction on the submarine that sank the kursk? in other words...how possible is this theory???
thoughts on this would be highly appreciated

[Edited on 28-10-2003 by Cyrus]

Well, my thought is, unless you can produce something more than rambling half connected thoughts on this, I'm still over here in the camp that your Kursk blew itself up because your military leaders didn't take care maintenance and obscelence issues like they were supposed to and it had an obsolete torpedo that blew up.

I'll check back to see if you offer anything to support your theory.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, my thought is, unless you can produce something more than rambling half connected thoughts on this, I'm still over here in the camp that your Kursk blew itself up because your military leaders didn't take care maintenance and obscelence issues like they were supposed to and it had an obsolete torpedo that blew up.

I'll check back to see if you offer anything to support your theory.

theories dont support evidence, they simply raise the stakes and challenge the "truth" if u like.
that...however does not imply that i havent come prepared for a cold welcome.
if you look at this statement from

pravda article

i'll paste the important bits tho

According to the admiral, Russian anti-submarine aircrafts did pursue on August 17th a foreign submarine escaping from the site of the nuclear submarine Kursk-s crash. Admiral Skorgen also said that Russian North Fleet aircrafts got so absorbed in the pursuit that nearly violated the Norwegian air space,[the norwegians were notified and the pursuit was lost due to the fighters going airborne and therefore distracting the russian aircrafts]

This was discussed previously on this site, I have no clue where the thread is now. I recall some seismic activity that was analized within the exact time frame of the incident. Seems there seismographs picked up more than just a couple explosions prior to the Kursk getting destroyed. Someone here will know what I'm typing, this is where the research projects come in, and this would make a great project!


I remember now, the "offical", if there is such a thing anymore, anyways this offical story went on to say that one or more of the weapon systems on board had a leak of some kind. Going on about how the water or air got inside of the missle caseing and caused a reaction with the chemical on metal inside that created an explosion, hence detonating the rest of the weapons. This is just a theory, a possible one, but unlikely. Just had to throw that in, cause I remembered.


[Edited on 28-10-2003 by ADVISOR]

Well, Advisor, it wasn't just a theory, it was the official conclusion. And it was the hydrogen peroxide propellant that leaked into the carbon steel casing. Something like a volumetric expansion of 600 times is caused by this. Basically, the minute the HO started leaking, the torpedo was a pipe bomb. And there would be more than one explosions. The leaky torpedo explosion, and then the subsequent and resultant munitions explosions caused by the first.

There was actually a British submarine that was sunk in port from the same thing.

These torpedoes were supposed to be completely obsoleted, and had not been pulled from the munitions stores...hence the occurence.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, Advisor, it wasn't just a theory, it was the official conclusion. And it was the hydrogen peroxide propellant that leaked into the carbon steel casing. Something like a volumetric expansion of 600 times is caused by this. Basically, the minute the HO started leaking, the torpedo was a pipe bomb. And there would be more than one explosions. The leaky torpedo explosion, and then the subsequent and resultant munitions explosions caused by the first.

There was actually a British submarine that was sunk in port from the same thing.

These torpedoes were supposed to be completely obsoleted, and had not been pulled from the munitions stores...hence the occurence.

they werent exatly in a warzone situation, it was a calm cold day...everything was running smoothly, some target practice was going on when-bam- their first round hit the wrong target.
the "target they hit" (the uknown submarine), thinking they were under attack responded by firing back.
the results on impact were positive...i repeat, they hit a moving TARGET.
and i suppose a submarine, just-happened-to-be nearby suddenly gave the order to head for deep water
it's a little too obvious...you can explain the reason for the "so called decision", but in actual fact a totally different story evolves when faced by the all too predictable sequence of events.


[Edited on 28-10-2003 by Cyrus]

Cyrus,
Any sailor will tell you that driving subs is a very risky business. Lets face it - a sub is a ship that has been purposely designed to SINK. Submariners take great risks every day.

Accidents do happen on submarines, not just Russian subs. Most nations who use subs have lost a few over the years, the US included. The Chinese just lost an entire crew of a fast attack boat due to a fire at sea or some malfunction of their life support system. The US lost a fast attack boat (USS Scorpion) in the Atlantic due to a torpedo malfunction. Sometimes it happens.

I personally was involved with rescuing the crew of the USS Bonefish in 1989. They were participating in an ASW exercise with my ship when they caught on fire (at a depth of 200 feet). They got to the surface quickly, and most of their crew got out of the boat fast, but 3 sailors still died due to smoke inhalation and the boat had to be towed back to base and scrapped. That was a crappy day to say the least.

There is no doubt that US and Russian subs sometimes get a little close to each other in their zeal to see who is best, but you shouldn't feel bad about Russian sub accidents, cause they happen to everyone. Russian is just having a bad time lately because she cannot properly fund her sub fleet (and therefore train crews and perform maintenance), which is making the accident rate climb.

Once the Russians reduce the size of their fleet and professionalize it, they will be an effective and safe fighting force. But any improperly funded and training fighting force is bound to suffer accidents.

Originally posted by Pyros
Cyrus,
Any sailor will tell you that driving subs is a very risky business. Lets face it - a sub is a ship that has been purposely designed to SINK. Submariners take great risks every day.

Accidents do happen on submarines, not just Russian subs. Most nations who use subs have lost a few over the years, the US included. The Chinese just lost an entire crew of a fast attack boat due to a fire at sea or some malfunction of their life support system. The US lost a fast attack boat (USS Scorpion) in the Atlantic due to a torpedo malfunction. Sometimes it happens.

I personally was involved with rescuing the crew of the USS Bonefish in 1989. They were participating in an ASW exercise with my ship when they caught on fire (at a depth of 200 feet). They got to the surface quickly, and most of their crew got out of the boat fast, but 3 sailors still died due to smoke inhalation and the boat had to be towed back to base and scrapped. That was a crappy day to say the least.

There is no doubt that US and Russian subs sometimes get a little close to each other in their zeal to see who is best, but you shouldn't feel bad about Russian sub accidents, cause they happen to everyone. Russian is just having a bad time lately because she cannot properly fund her sub fleet (and therefore train crews and perform maintenance), which is making the accident rate climb.

Once the Russians reduce the size of their fleet and professionalize it, they will be an effective and safe fighting force. But any improperly funded and training fighting force is bound to suffer accidents.

what can i say, ur argument is complete....no flaws whatsoever
but you didnt answer whether u agree to my suspicions regarding an attack on this-particular-sub..
dont get me wrong, i repeat, ur totally right, joining a naval fleet is suicide...

Accident it could have been, but given the nature of the US govornment........keep your suspicons fresh and healthy, Cyrus, you might need them later on.....

I spoke in another thread about TWA flight 800 being the victim of an accidental missle strike during naval live fire exercises, accidents happen alot........

But, then again, sometimes accidents do "conviently happen, and the only thing that might point to something more is speculation......until more evidence surfaces.

I agree though, like I said, stay suspicous. Its good to question and doubt trhe "offical conclusions" since the US gov is notorious for lying, cheating, stealing, and cinvering up stuff.

Your theories are plausable for a vanilla conspiracy theorist, evidenced by your quickly formed conclusions. But without studying all facts available, which allows you draw an deduced and educated conclusion, and makes you look like more than just another knee-jerk paranoid whose opinion doesn't count for much.

The only United States Navy submarine on scene during the exercise was the USS Memphis, monitoring from a 13 mile distance. No hull-tapping could occur at that distance, and the suggestion that the U.S. Navy intentionally fired upon the Kursk with intent to destroy is laughable at best, considering the arsenal the Russian fleet has on scene. Both Navies are smarter than you give credit to, and neither would do something that would trigger conflict that could escsalate into a limited or nuclear exchange.

In 2003, the Russian Navy released a report that concluded that the primary explosion aboard was caused by a thermally induced explosion caused by the overheating of a 'Fat Girl' torpedo, which, when charged, contains 100% Hydrogen Peroxide, highly volatile and caustic, requiring the discharge of the torpedo within a limited time period, which had been exceeded.

The secondary, and largest explosion which followed was the detonation of high explosive payloads from additional torpedos, and guided missiles which were stored in compartment 2 and 3 of the vessel, destroying any remaining operational control of the vessel, which then sank to the bottom of the Barents, in 350' of water.

Your assumption the the U.S. Navy did it is cause for giggle, and is certainly due the embarrassment you deserve.

It's sad that mentalities which rise sightly above MySpace level are capable of navigating the web, finding sites where their idiocy can be further displayed. One of the collateral side effects of a society which practices free speech, even when it's dreadfully unqualified.