Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Kursk submarine disaster

    Share
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  TR1 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:26 am

    12 years ago the Kurks sank.
    RIP, and never forget those brave men, who fought to stabilize a catastrophic situation while Putin relaxed on the Black Sea.
    I don't want to turn this political, but my blood boils when I think about the thieves who bankrupted the nation/military and directly led to this happening.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3262
    Points : 3368
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:33 am

    RIP. I know people who serve on submarines nowadays. They at least get paid very handsomely. And for that line of work - they oughta.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:58 am

    RIP russia respekt


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  Austin on Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:55 am

    RIP Indeed to the brave souls.

    Kursk could have been handled much better instead of letting the submariners die a slow painful death , Putin refused to take help of DSRV from Western countries and then handled the aftermath badly.

    I hope lessens have been learnt and it wont be the same ever again.

    One of the aftereffect of Kursk has been the complete removal of heavy Type 65 torpedo powered by liquid monofuel a leak in the fuel of torpedo caused that incident.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:17 pm

    Kursk could have been handled much better instead of letting the submariners die a slow painful death , Putin refused to take help of DSRV from Western countries and then handled the aftermath badly.

    Well lets be fair, from the time they accepted western help to the time the help arrived was 2 weeks due to the weather conditions... even if they had asked for help the instant of the incident there would still have been no survivors.

    Equally the west does not have a great record when it comes to offering aide to Russia.

    When Chernobyl happened the Soviets asked US universities for assistance in terms of robot technology to go in and measure radiation levels. The US universities agreed, and the US government stopped them.

    Not really conducive to friendly relations.

    Yes, I realise that was during the cold war but look at post cold war the example of Katrina where the Russians offered helicopters to help the US, and the US refused. How many Americans died for US pride?

    BTW their deaths would have been suffocation, and from what I have read I suspect with their oxygen generating candles it is rather likely they died of carbon dioxide poisoning from the air they were breathing out.

    Not particularly enjoyable, but not hours of agony either.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  runaway on Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:41 pm

    Austin wrote:RIP Indeed to the brave souls.

    Putin refused to take help of DSRV from Western countries and then handled the aftermath badly.

    One of the aftereffect of Kursk has been the complete removal of heavy Type 65 torpedo powered by liquid monofuel a leak in the fuel of torpedo caused that incident.


    RIP
    Hm, that Putin didnt ask for western help at that point, was because the russian navy intensively was hunting and searching for Nato subs, that may have sunk Kursk, either by collision or by weapon engagement.
    Two U.S subs was in the area, and there is satelite pictures of a damaged one in a navy dockyard nearby.

    I have read books that say it proved Putins statesmanship, and shortly after the U.S granted Russia a big loan.

    This could have been a war starter, and the Kursk could have been sunk by an enemy torpedo. The torpedo leaking peroxide is perhaps only a cover up, or not, we will never know.


    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:15 pm

    There was no US sub but UK subs in that area and Russian Navy was aware of it.

    Basicly UK and US take their own turns in tracking Russian waters and they should be considered as one and same.

    Infact the relationship is so close that recently they held an exercise between virginia and newest RN subs Astute where both subs played the aggressor and hunter role interchangebly.

    Putin could have dealt the Kursk in a much better way , I dont claim he could have saved lives or any thing like that but should have accepted western offer for help in a day or so that would have also made public perception of Putin in Russia much better.

    But I hope thats the last tragedy Russian subs ever faces and hopefully right lessons learnt and implemented
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  runaway on Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:36 pm

    Austin wrote:There was no US sub but UK subs in that area and Russian Navy was aware of it.

    "As is common, the exercise was monitored by two American Los Angeles-class submarines– USS Memphis (SSN-691) and USS Toledo (SSN-769)–and the Royal Navy Swiftsure class submarine HMS Splendid; after the disaster the exercise was cancelled and they put in at European ports.

    USS Memphis was sighted soon afterwards being repaired in a Norwegian port."

    And why did the russian air force drop hundreds of hydrophone bouys, moving southwards?
    Evidentally, they were hunting..

    Still, i also hope the resque equipment and attitude for asking for help is much better now.

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:43 pm

    I am sure if the same thing happened with US and Russian subs were spotted they would have cried murder and senators would have gone for the kill.

    The explosion shown on kurks is inward out from torpedoes ,so there is no sign of US subs hitting Russian Oscar , may be they must have hit something else like a rock or boat on its way out.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:05 am

    This could have been a war starter, and the Kursk could have been sunk by an enemy torpedo. The torpedo leaking peroxide is perhaps only a cover up, or not, we will never know.

    The two main problems with the theory that it was a NATO torpedo or a collision is that we are talking about an Oscar class sub. A single torpedo hit is very unlikely to sink the Kursk... there are two types of western torpedo kill mechanisms against submarines... one is a big HE charge that will crush the whole side of a sub... but is not very effective against large double hull vessels like the Oscar class. The other type has a shaped charge that like with anti tank weapon blows a much smaller hole into the side of armour or thick layers of protection.

    The problem is that both types of missiles either go after noise and therefore would most likely hit near the propeller or engine, or they will be active sonar guided and therefore most likely hit near the centre.

    The most effective torpedo option only works against surface vessels like a sub on the surface or a ship, where the torpedo detonated directly under the ship and creates a huge bubble of gas which rises up and lifts the vessel out of the water... almost always breaking its back and making it sink rapidly.

    Doesn't work for subs underwater because the weight of the water above the sub prevents it from being lifted from the centre.

    In other words the only real solution that would explain all the damage would be an internal explosion.

    Two explosions were detected... I rather believe the theory of the torpedo problems explains the evidence best... the HTTP is exposed to a catalyst and starts a fire which eventually sets off the warhead of the torpedo that failed. 300kgs of HE exploding inside a sub will ruin any subs day.

    If it had been a collision or a torpedo hit they could easily have sealed off the compartments that were damaged and remained operational, But both are incredibly unlikely... I doubt NATO subs monitor Russian Navy exercises with tubes loaded, and there is no western sub that could hit an Oscar hard enough to sink it and not be sunk from the damage it sustained.

    Putin could have dealt the Kursk in a much better way , I dont claim he could have saved lives or any thing like that but should have accepted western offer for help in a day or so that would have also made public perception of Putin in Russia much better.

    I disagree. Russia had a few options to try to rescue them first, they are hardly going to run to the west every time they have a problem. I doubt if the roles were reversed and the US had problems with its Virginia Class subs they wouldn't ask Russia for help.

    And why did the russian air force drop hundreds of hydrophone bouys, moving southwards?
    Evidentally, they were hunting..

    They were on exercise. They didn't know what happened and were probably instructed by their superiors to find what might have happened. For all they know it could have been a very old mine that had come loose from the bottom and started to float to the surface. They had no idea and had to look.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  TR1 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:44 am

    Putin continued his vacation while knowing what was happening. That says a lot about the man.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  runaway on Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:07 am

    GarryB wrote:[A single torpedo hit is very unlikely to sink the Kursk... there are two types of western torpedo kill mechanisms against submarines... one is a big HE charge that will crush the whole side of a sub... but is not very effective against large double hull vessels like the Oscar class. The other type has a shaped charge that like with anti tank weapon blows a much smaller hole into the side of armour or thick layers of protection.

    In other words the only real solution that would explain all the damage would be an internal explosion.

    Two explosions were detected... I rather believe the theory of the torpedo problems explains the evidence best... the HTTP is exposed to a catalyst and starts a fire which eventually sets off the warhead of the torpedo that failed. 300kgs of HE exploding inside a sub will ruin any subs day.

    If it had been a collision or a torpedo hit they could easily have sealed off the compartments that were damaged and remained operational, But both are incredibly unlikely... I doubt NATO subs monitor Russian Navy exercises with tubes loaded, and there is no western sub that could hit an Oscar hard enough to sink it and not be sunk from the damage it sustained.

    Check this out, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/KURSK/kursk.html
    Especially the picture of the round hole in Kursk, according to experts it matches exactly that of a shaped charged Mark torpedo type.
    In that case, you have the answer to what triggered the internal explosion.

    And really, Putin wouldn´t and will not fly directly to a hotspot, which can turn into an armed conflict. Make no mistake, this was the riskiest moment since the Cuban missile crisis.

    There is this dokumentary made by a french guy, you can probably find it somewhere, the torpedo scenario is very probably.
    According to the movie, it was first a collision, which the huge Kursk didnt notice, but the Toledo was damaged. Seconds later, Kursk opened her torpedo door to fire a practise torpedo at Peter the great. Toledo heard this, and thought Kursk was going to fire on her! The Captain on Toledo panicked, and fires a live torpedo at Kursk.


    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  TR1 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:15 am

    Why would anyone sink the Kursk?
    Weird that an act of war involved only the sinking of 1 sub.
    Not to mention the UK and the US are not in the habit of giving Russia an excuse to put all nuclear forces on alert.

    Seriously, this theory is absurd and implausible to put lightly.
    The official RuNavy report is pretty clear, the rest is tinfoil theories.

    I Can find you "experts" that claim the US government blew up the Twin Towers, doesn't make it any more credible.
    Or that the Moon landings never happend.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  runaway on Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:28 am

    TR1 wrote:Why would anyone sink the Kursk?
    Weird that an act of war involved only the sinking of 1 sub.

    Seriously, this theory is absurd and implausible to put lightly.
    The official RuNavy report is pretty clear, the rest is tinfoil theories.

    I Can find you "experts" that claim the US government blew up the Twin Towers, doesn't make it any more credible.
    Or that the Moon landings never happend.

    Read what i wrote and the article.
    Yes, i agree its an conspiration theory, but its also much more likely then that the U.S blew up the twin towers themselves, or that the moon landings never happened.


    Submarine collisions have happend, and its not unlikely the U.S captain panicked.
    You dont seriously beilive goverments always tells the truth, do you?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:46 am

    Especially the picture of the round hole in Kursk, according to experts it matches exactly that of a shaped charged Mark torpedo type.
    In that case, you have the answer to what triggered the internal explosion.

    Sorry but that page contains enough evidence to refute any possibility that it was a shaped charge warhead from a torpedo.

    First... a shaped charge warhead torpedo is hardly going to target the nose of the sub.

    Secondly if you look at the time chart there they list the initial explosion (ie supposed torpedo impact and detonation at 550 seconds and the explosion that did most of the damage at about 700 seconds. That is 150 seconds, which to normal people means two and a half minutes between the impact and the main detonation.

    Think about that.

    This suggests that the shaped charge warhead punched through the outer layer of the sub and then through a couple of metres of sound damping material that is between the hulls and then through the inner hull... and then what?

    Started a fire that burned for 2.5 minutes before the onboard torpedoes exploded.

    Even if they were near the surface the water pressure would mean there is a torrent of sea water entering that torpedo room... there would be no internal fire in there for very long... the torpedo room would be sealed off and the sub would be easily able to surface and deal with the problem.

    The hole they are referring to is also far too big to be caused by a shaped charge... shaped charge warheads use shaping of the front of the charge, often together with a metal lining to give the plasma beam that is generated some mass. The hole in the picture is most likely a cut area used to attach the lifting equipment that lifted it out of the water when the sub was recovered.

    According to the movie, it was first a collision, which the huge Kursk didnt notice, but the Toledo was damaged. Seconds later, Kursk opened her torpedo door to fire a practise torpedo at Peter the great. Toledo heard this, and thought Kursk was going to fire on her! The Captain on Toledo panicked, and fires a live torpedo at Kursk.

    Awww come on... Soviet subs are so dumb and deaf they can't hear when they collide with something?

    Give me a break. US subs aren't so stupid as to sail through Russian exercises... they would have listened from a distance near the perimeter of the exercise area.

    Yes, i agree its an conspiration theory, but its also much more likely then that the U.S blew up the twin towers themselves, or that the moon landings never happened.

    Not based on the evidence it is not likely at all. The only theory that fits is problems with the HTP torpedoes.

    Submarine collisions have happend, and its not unlikely the U.S captain panicked.
    You dont seriously beilive goverments always tells the truth, do you?

    It is not a question of who is telling the truth. It is looking at the evidence and thinking about it.

    The shaped charge warhead of a torpedo is 200-300kgs... when it is 5-10kgs of shaped charge warhead against heavy tank armour it does punch a neat little hole, when is is hundreds of kgs... even with a shaped charge there would be rather more damage than a neat big hole and slightly bent outer structure.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  runaway on Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:Sorry but that page contains enough evidence to refute any possibility that it was a shaped charge warhead from a torpedo.

    This suggests that the shaped charge warhead punched through the outer layer of the sub and then through a couple of metres of sound damping material that is between the hulls and then through the inner hull... and then what?

    Even if they were near the surface the water pressure would mean there is a torrent of sea water entering that torpedo room... there would be no internal fire in there for very long... the torpedo room would be sealed off and the sub would be easily able to surface and deal with the problem.

    The hole they are referring to is also far too big to be caused by a shaped charge... shaped charge warheads use shaping of the front of the charge, often together with a metal lining to give the plasma beam that is generated some mass.

    Awww come on... Soviet subs are so dumb and deaf they can't hear when they collide with something?

    Give me a break. US subs aren't so stupid as to sail through Russian exercises... they would have listened from a distance near the perimeter of the exercise area.

    Ok, Gary, i dont know about how it looks when a AP torpedo hits, but maybe it hits the outer hull, round big hole, then the shaped charge punches through inner hull with a smaller hole?
    In that case the water intake wouldnt be enough to put out the fires.

    But you have some points and lets say its correct, the can you explain the damaged U.S subs, no collision either? How were they damaged? Satelite pictures, radio signals etc?

    And no, i dont think dumb ex soviet subs, point is neither the Toledo or Kursk had a firm position on each other.
    So a collision is an strong alternativ, remember, the very first thing the Russian Navy said, was that Kursk collidied with a foreign submarine!
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  TR1 on Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:59 pm

    runaway wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Why would anyone sink the Kursk?
    Weird that an act of war involved only the sinking of 1 sub.

    Seriously, this theory is absurd and implausible to put lightly.
    The official RuNavy report is pretty clear, the rest is tinfoil theories.

    I Can find you "experts" that claim the US government blew up the Twin Towers, doesn't make it any more credible.
    Or that the Moon landings never happend.

    Read what i wrote and the article.
    Yes, i agree its an conspiration theory, but its also much more likely then that the U.S blew up the twin towers themselves, or that the moon landings never happened.


    Submarine collisions have happend, and its not unlikely the U.S captain panicked.
    You dont seriously beilive goverments always tells the truth, do you?

    I don't seriously believe the US or UK would be so utterly foolish and nonsensical to attack the Kursk.

    There is nothing to gain and massive potential loss.
    Not to mention Putin would not have stayed quiet if there was any indication the Kursk was actually attacked.

    No US or Russian sub captain is going to fire a torpedo at the other's vessel unless their is CONCRETE instruction from the government, because he is well aware 1.) that could trigger world war 3 2.) his ass would be in the grass for good.


    Collisions are possible, but this is not like the cases where a Russian/Soviet sub and an American sub were playing cat and mouse in an isolated part of the Barents sea. There were significant Russian naval assets around, how did they not notice anything?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:33 am

    Ok, Gary, i dont know about how it looks when a AP torpedo hits, but maybe it hits the outer hull, round big hole, then the shaped charge punches through inner hull with a smaller hole?

    The outer hull is several cms thick and is covered in tiles that reduce noise... the torpedo will not have been moving fast enough to penetrate the outer layer.

    More importantly if it could then it wouldn't need a shaped charge warhead.

    A submarine with a single hull is a strong structure designed to resist the water pressure outside the submarine. Even a fairly small charge placed on the outside of the subs hull will penetrate because water does not compress. The explosion will try to expand in three dimensions but the water does not compress so it would take an enormous amount of energy to move it. In comparison even quite thick steel can be crushed inwards by the explosion because it has air behind it that does compress easily and therefore does not support the steel against the force of the explosion.

    Two hulled designs are effective against HE charges because you can put things between the inner and outer hull like sound absorbing rubber materials and so even if the outer hull is crushed inwards the inner hull is not reached so the sub is safe.

    If you could get a torpedo to punch through the outer hull of a submarine and continue inside to hit the inner hull then you have your large HE charge next to a steel wall that has air supporting it from behind... in other words no support at all... a standard HE charge would do the job.

    Another point is that a shaped charge warhead is still an explosion. At the front where the plasma beam is formed there is little blast because the energy is focussed into the beam but behind the explosive and to every side there is an explosion so if a shaped charge had punched into the gap between the two layers the explosion of a normal HE charge or a shaped charge would have blown the whole section of outer hull outwards... there would not have been any little hole.

    But you have some points and lets say its correct, the can you explain the damaged U.S subs, no collision either? How were they damaged? Satelite pictures, radio signals etc?

    Subs bump into things all the time... ice, whales, all sorts of things.

    And no, i dont think dumb ex soviet subs, point is neither the Toledo or Kursk had a firm position on each other.
    So a collision is an strong alternativ, remember, the very first thing the Russian Navy said, was that Kursk collidied with a foreign submarine!

    If they didn't know where each other was then how could they fire a torpedo?

    If the sonar set of a submarine (which is enormous) can't spot each other then how can a torpedo get a hit while homing passively?

    There is no active ping on the sound record... from a sub or a torpedo.

    The first thing the Navy said was that it COULD have been a collision... because they are so common and there was no evidence to suggest anything else.

    Besides why do you believe them when they are speculating before any investigation, but don't believe them after the investigation when they say it was a faulty torpedo?

    I don't seriously believe the US or UK would be so utterly foolish and nonsensical to attack the Kursk.

    Especially with the northern fleet above them...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16891
    Points : 17499
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:27 pm

    TR1 wrote:http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2012/0824/115514453/detail.shtml

    4th 21631 missile ship will be laid down @ Zelenodolsk on the 29th of this month.

    Nice article TR-1... especially the bit at the end to remind us that all this new work means they can afford to buy new tooling equipment and systems to do the job better and faster. With work to do and known projects in the future they can afford to invest in infrastructure and technology to make their products better and faster and in the long run cheaper if they are made in significant numbers.

    And Gary, the Northern fleet of 2000, scared none. Even today, the legacy is warships from the 80´s and early 90´s.

    I think you are missing the point of what navies should be for.

    The perception of your fleet by neighbouring countries is irrelevant generally... most western countries considered the Soviet Navy as some sort of support unit for an expansionist empire wanting to gobble up all of Europe.
    I think they would not have wanted to occupy Europe... I think they felt threatened by Europe... if they did want to attack it was to neutralise it as a threat... ie destroy rather than capture to remove it from their danger list.

    In other words they felt threatened by you, and their natural response to that is to build up a capability to stop any attack from you and to destroy you.

    Is that healthy?

    If the Russian navy is for bullying and threatening other countries then I hope it collapses in a small heap.

    The Russian Navy is first and foremost for protecting Russia and her waterways and interests in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
    It can also be used to project Russias will around the globe, but that can be assertive rather than bullying. Most countries have global interests... even little New Zealand way down here in the middle of nowhere sells products all round the world. We have expertise in quite a few areas, including dairy farming... which is of course a consequence of our very mild climate.

    About Kursk, after the collision, the subs would be well aware where they had each other, well enough to fire a torpedo...
    I dont say i beilive in the teory, but its to many uncertain things in the chain of events to entirely buy the official version.

    Subs are not like cars... unless you can hear the other guy you have no idea where they are. A collision could occur in dozens of different ways involving different angles and different points of contact on both submarines... when they contact there will be a noise so as it is scraping past you know exactly where it is... but it takes more than two minutes to load and fire a torpedo let alone turn around. If they had launched a torpedo where is its launch noise on the sound graph? At low speed of a few knots it would take more than two an a half minutes for either sub to turn around... in reality they would need to accelerate to at least half speed to turn that fast... these are enormous vessels.

    If the Kursk had collided with something it would not continue to launch a weapon. In wartime it would not do that either... it would take some time to work out what it had collided with. In an exercise there is even less reason to continue with the exercise.

    I am sorry but I don't believe the western sub... whether it was American or British would have fired on the Kursk either.

    This is not war time.

    So 24 submarine it is , 8 Borei , 8 Yasen and 8 Coventional subs ?

    6 Kilo and 2-3 Lada

    That sounds about right for now. They want to complete the two unfinished Lada class subs as Lada-M with as yet unproven new AIP technology that runs from diesel... they will want to test those thoroughly before committing to full scale production.

    That doesn't mean they will only make 2 Lada-M subs before 2020, it means current plans allow for two. If they are successful then they can add perhaps more Lada-Ms to the production schedule at the cost of future orders for Kilos for domestic use.

    The Kilos are still pretty good boats... I would like to see New Zealand buy 4 but I know they would never consider it... and I realise they are not really very practical for patrolling New Zealands waters.

    Would be cool for a foreign fishing boat to drop a net in our waters without permission and have a Kilo class pop up and a few inflatable boats zip over to them to check their haul... Smile Just not very practical. Neutral

    About Admiral Tereshnikov :

    Nice vid. That is Technology Update from Russia Today... that is my favourite program on that channel... I download it every month. Thanks for posting.

    I don't think so - from 2010-2012, 3 Kilos were laid down. Another 3 will be laid down in next 2, 3 years max. So before 2020 there is easily enough space for more new Kilos/modernized Kilos.

    Are they all for the Russian Navy?

    Which is exactly how old (if not older!) the US and British subs of the period were

    Indeed, super new stealth frigates get a lot of photos taken of them but still don't make up the majority of the western fleet.

    The thing is that navies are not cheap and throwing money at the problem will not change that and will not update all the force overnight. Right now Russian shipyards are getting work and are building new small ships and the odd medium sized vessel... so they will be busy with bigger projects and the results will start to enter service and result in tangible improvements in the fleets.

    By 2020 they will be looking good. Can't really guarantee that for western navies which often get their budgets cut rather than increased, but then of course they didn't have a 20 year gap of no funding at all so they look in much better shape.

    Still I wouldn't underestimate the Russians or overestimate the west... both are common practise these days.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Kursk submarine disaster

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:40 pm