The Kursk tragedy.

Quite surprisingly there seems to be no dedicated thread on the loss of the Kursk submarine?

The former Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov offered a theory (and there are many!) that a NATO submarine caused the loss of the Kursk where a 118 sailors lost their lives more than two decades ago.

https://www.rt.com/russia/540944-sinking-kursk-submarine-nato/

The catastrophic sinking of the Russian nuclear-powered Kursk submarine more than two decades ago was the result of a collision with a stricken NATO vessel in the Barents Sea, a former high-ranking navy chief has insisted.

The ‘Kursk’ sank on August 12, 2000 at a depth of 108 meters, claiming the lives of all 118 crew members and sparking the first major international crisis of Vladimir Putin’s presidency. An official investigation commissioned by the Russian government ruled two years later that the incident was the result of a torpedo explosion, which then triggered the detonation of ammunition on board.

However, in an interview with RIA Novosti, aired on Monday, former Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov offered a theory on how the incident might have happened. According to him, a vessel operated by a NATO power got too close to Moscow’s vessel, colliding with its bow and damaging the torpedo tube, which was followed by an explosion. The compartment then flooded, sending the sub to the depths of the sea.

“The submarine that collided with ‘Kursk’ was following it, apparently, but failed to ensure safety in the sea’s environment and all other conditions, approached too close, or the Kursk maneuver led to a loss of contact,” he said.

Popov claimed he knew the name of the sub belonging to the US-military led bloc “with a 90% probability.” However, he admitted he did not have sufficient available evidence to make the case publicly at present.

Some years ago I watched a French made documentary narrated by Peter Coyote on the subject. The documentary pointed out that the suspect circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Kursk. Putin was just elected as President and Russia and the it's Western "partners" had good relations at the time, and a cover up of the real circumstances may well have been on the cards. Who knows?

One of the things that popped up in the documentary was a large hole on the starboard side of the Kursk. The hole represents that of a torpedo that penetrated the hull from the outside. Cameras were quickly barred from taking any footage of the hole.

There were many "conspiracy theories" floated on the internet at the time but this one made quite a bit of sense to me.

One US sub, I think it was the Toledo, was seen damaged in the area.

The Kursk was in the middle of a training exercice using live torpedo (with chinese admirals invited to watch them). The US knew that and were just spying it so there was no deliberate attack.

Most likely what is says is true when he says they collided. But what killed the Kursk is an internal torpedo explosion.

Isos wrote:One US sub, I think it was the Toledo, was seen damaged in the area.

The Kursk was in the middle of a training exercice using live torpedo (with chinese admirals invited to watch them). The US knew that and were just spying it so there was no deliberate attack.

Most likely what is says is true when he says they collided. But what killed the Kursk is an internal torpedo explosion.

Yes the Kursk sunk because it was hit in the most sensitive part of the submarine in contrast with the US submarine

Kursk was performing tests with VA-111 Shkval torpedoes

If I remember correctly, Clinton called Putin like an hour after the "accident". At that time the russian Navy herself wasn´t sure that something happened onboard the Kursk. And a few days later the boss of the CIA or security council visited Moscow.

Hole wrote:And a few days later the boss of the CIA or security council visited Moscow.

Incognito..

Isos wrote:One US sub, I think it was the Toledo, was seen damaged in the area.

It was Memphis.
Toledo was on the scene as well, plus one UK sub of unknown name.
And several surface vessels from UK and Norway.

The Kursk issue was solved a long time ago, actually with the very first materials taken by the diving Mirs.

You can easily spot markings of a collision on it.

All the other stuff is fog&mirrors.

ALAMO wrote:

Isos wrote:One US sub, I think it was the Toledo, was seen damaged in the area.

It was Memphis.
Toledo was on the scene as well, plus one UK sub of unknown name.
And several surface vessels from UK and Norway.

The Kursk issue was solved a long time ago, actually with the very first materials taken by the diving Mirs.

You can easily spot markings of a collision on it.

All the other stuff is fog&mirrors.

Yeah that was this one. It was spotted in a nato base in one of the nordic country and then sent in the USA.

What is sure to me is that there was no deliberate attack but an accident that provoked a bigger problem (a torpedo using some unstable chemicals).

The inspection of the front section should be enough to know what exploded and if there was a torpedo attack tgey should be able to find some parts of it inside.

A torpedo launch should have been picked up easily by the sub or the ships that were there.

Isos wrote:
Yeah that was this one. It was spotted in a nato base in one of the nordic country and then sent in the USA.
What is sure to me is that there was no deliberate attack but an accident that provoked a bigger problem (a torpedo using some unstable chemicals).
The inspection of the front section should be enough to know what exploded and if there was a torpedo attack tgey should be able to find some parts of it inside.

A torpedo launch should have been picked up easily by the sub or the ships that were there.

Close.
It was spotted with structures masking conning tower in a small shipyard in Norway, having not a single certificate to handle with a nuclear sub.
Next step, it was dispatched to UK, to a sub repair facility and a closed dock, having those. It was 20 years ago, so I don't remember the precise name of the places, but you can find it if interested.
The narrative around was second to idiocy, as the comment for a Russian satellite photo showing Memphis next to Oslo class frigate was "it was sunken in an accident before the stated event".
Sure, one was. But they have operated two others of the same class, out of four constructed.
The interesting part is the Halliburton.
It was Dick Cheney who was a boss there till 2001, leaving for secretary of a state office.
Who grants a close inspection to a brand new nuclear submarine, one of the newest in your fleet, to a company led by US secretary of a state few months ago, if there is no something bigger in the background?

George1 wrote:
Kursk was performing tests with VA-111 Shkval torpedoes

No George it was just a part of F&M tactics.
WA-111 is a 40+ y/o weapon system and was 20+ y/o when the tragedy happened.
Well mastered within the fleet, no need to "test" it other way tnah standard operational shootings.
The only reason why it surfaced for this big bang manipulation, was the fact that it possessed features unknown to ze Wezt.
So they could easily driven the narrative out of the common sense with it. "Supa dupa secret Russkies weapon that raged!"

Mir, take a look at the diameter of this supposed-to-be breach, and combine that with 533 mm Mk48 caliber, and the fact that it uses a HE warhead, and a HE warhead is set for proximity detonation under the keel, if used against a surface vessel, and next by if used against a submarine.
It is not a Chinese torpedo, that melts metal using chemical reaction dude We talk Muricans, and thing that is 30 years old.

The collision did not sink the Kursk - the secondary explosion did. The Toledo was badly damaged though.

As far as the hole in the side of the Kursk - in the image below you can clearly see the indent into the hull and the clean cut made by something like a Mk-48 torpedo that apparently has a DU warhead together with the combustion of liquid copper makes it possible for the warhead to cut a clean hole through the hull. That was apparently the primary explosion that was picked up.

The Memphis that ended up in the Norwegian port was slightly damaged from the huge secondary explosion that triggered it's distress decoy that was found in the area. However the Memphis was apparently used as a decoy for the heavily damaged Toledo that rammed into the Kursk. The Toledo limped all the way back to the US and was repaired in a closed dock. The US refused that the Russians inspect the Toledo.

That hole was made during the recovery of the sub. It's not a torpedo hit.

Torpedo don't attack this way, they explode outside of the sub.

I have never seen any serious reports about Toledo, other than admitting the fact that it was there.
It does not prove that your version is not possible.
And that part itself is one of the proofs how much the NATO side lied on that matter, and how much F&M was implemented.
The very first reports denied any NATO presence there, not to mention involvement.
As the situation cleared out, we found out both Memphis and Toledo, one Brit submarine, and several surface vessels.
And the shitload pumped into the informational sphere started to be really amusing.
The collision allegations were immediately glued to the Peter the Great.
A hole you see, it was a P-700 that struck the Kursk (while submerged, you know ).
Each and any Russian claim and question, was brought to an absurd, claimed invalid, stupid, a conspiration theory, name it as you want.
People were fed by the MSM with pictures of women being injected "with some suspicious substance" of course, as an answer to the Russian questions.
The whole Russian efforts to salve the crew were portraited as too late, not good enough, lacking skills and good will.
This is just another bullshit told, as I will remind you, that the officer in charge of a salvage operation lost his son on board of Kursk. He was saving his son's life there&then.
Don't remember his name now, but it would be easy to check.

In general, my own&privat theory for the situation there was that Kursk collided with Memphis while getting ready for training lunches, diving to the periscope depth. They didn't hit eachother head on, more like scratched.
But the case was that Kursk is a 150+ meters monster, with huge kinetic energy. And it was on periscope depth in a water, that is 108 m deep. It was enough, that steersmen panicked while on collision, and pushed the rudder against it ... There was no safety margin for a sub that was 30% longer than the depth there ... They collided with a bottom, and that was the first recorded noise. The collision led to the leakage and - probably - some destruction of a loaded torpedo, igniting a chain reaction shortly after.
There was a wide groove on the bottom, Kursk didn't sunk vertically. It grooved the bottom for several hundred meters, that was documented by the Mirs as well.
It was an accident. Tragic, but only an accident. As Russia was only on the edge of recovery, they could not put any pressure on the Yanks to admit that, demand compensations etc. But in fact, they did. Only quietly. The Halliburton winning the recovery "bid" in 2003 is one of indirect proofs. I will remind you - the Regalia platform was owned by Norwegian branch of Halliburton, too. The first body recovering operation in 2000 was performed from it.  It was one of a bribes Russian side received for keeping the mouth shut.

Isos wrote:That hole was made during the recovery of the sub. It's not a torpedo hit.

Torpedo don't attack this way, they explode outside of the sub.

Exactly.
The cutting device that was used to cut to the whole bow part of Kursk, had a leading elements attached to the hull. I guess that is the remain of it. But that is my educated guess only.

Russian side was also lying and certainly wasn't able to save the crew because, well, they didn't and ended up asking foreign help.

If they accepted foreign help at the first day they would have saved them.

We will never know what really happen for the explosions, but one thing is sure the crew left alive could have been saved but russians were not able to do so and refused externl help. They are guilty for their deaths.

Reminded me of one more interesting thing. What was written in the Norwegian press at that time? The Memphis was commented as "peered for routine repair operation". That raised tons of question marks, as the small Norwegian Navy repair facility there, had zero skills, experience, and certification to make any maintenance for a nuclear submarine. Norwegians are crazy hyped for anything that is nuclear, so it looked like a shit hitting a fan there, with their own citizens asking the uncomfortable questions. So the story was changed that it was "a routine visit for food approvisation", and the base spokesmen who claimed "repair" was claimed wrong, or misunderstood Laughing Laughing

Isos wrote:Russian side was also lying and certainly was able to save the crew because, well, they didn't and ended up asking foreign help.
If they accepted foreign help at the first day they would have saved them.
We will never know what really happen for the explosions, but one thing is sure the crew left alive could have been saved but russians were not able to do so and refused externl help. They are guilty for their deaths.

Most of the crew was already dead after the explosion.
The rear rescue hatch was broken. Cracked, actually.
That part was denied by the MSM later on, but I saw that with my own eyes.
I would not judge if any "western" rescue team would do any better...
The very first materials released by the Russians and made by the Mirs performing a salvage operation there are extremely informative.
That is why those were wiped out of the informational sphere very fast.
We could have seen an anechoic cover freshly torn off at about 20m of the Kursk side hull.
They presented the groove on the bottom, giving clear evidence of the energy and dynamics involved in the accident.

Isos wrote:That hole was made during the recovery of the sub. It's not a torpedo hit.

Torpedo don't attack this way, they explode outside of the sub.

They decided to cut the front section of the submarine off which was left behind on the seabed. No amount of underwater cutting would have caused damage like that. Only a hit or collision from outside would have cause such an indent.

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:That hole was made during the recovery of the sub. It's not a torpedo hit.

Torpedo don't attack this way, they explode outside of the sub.

They decided to cut the front section of the submarine off which was left behind on the seabed. No amount of underwater cutting would have caused damage like that. Only a hit or collision from outside would have cause such an indent.

We are talking about the little hole on the side... look at tge picture.

Isos wrote:

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:That hole was made during the recovery of the sub. It's not a torpedo hit.

Torpedo don't attack this way, they explode outside of the sub.

They decided to cut the front section of the submarine off which was left behind on the seabed. No amount of underwater cutting would have caused damage like that. Only a hit or collision from outside would have cause such an indent.

We are talking about the little hole on the side... look at tge picture.

Mir, Mk48 uses a HE warhead. That is a fact, there is no space for derivatives here.
It uses contact and proximity fuse, with two general patterns of attack: detonates under the keel for a surface ship, or next by for a submarine.
A hole you are showing is more than 1m diameters. Take a people on the ground as a benchmark. I would say, that it is actually MUCH more than 1m diameters.
It could not be made punched by a torpedo that is 533m caliber.
It could not be made by a shaped charge warhead, first as it does not have one, and second, a shaped charge warhead of 533 mm caliber could not penetrate a 1m+ hole.
Agree?

The cutting was performed by a device that used rope-like cutters, attached to two towers sealed on a seafloor.
The power was transferred from engines on those towers, while the cutting line was secured by symmetrically attached to the hull ... devices Don't know how to call it in English.
What you see, are the remains of a hull after an explosion of a whole battle set it had on board. It was torn apart, that is why the cutting line is not clean. It broke to pieces. And - by accident of course - the section left on the bottom, is the one where the torn off panels used to be

Bullshit.... DU what?

At the speed a torpedo moves there is no value at all in making any component part of it out of depleted uranium, in fact it would be stupid because that would make it heavier than if you made it out of steel which would be hard enough to penetrate any sub or ship below the waterline.

Well apparently this is classified information - but it makes kind of sense to me as NATO subs would have a hard time penetrating the double hulls of Russian subs as is so they had to make a plan. DU and copper would be able to cut through a hull like a knife through butter I would think? If it can penetrate classified tank armour it is most likely that it can penetrate classified submarine steel?

Those clever HEAT mines that hangs in the air until they see a tank passing by underneath don't move at any great speed but their shaped charge cuts through the armour with ease. Adding a bit of DU can only improve your chances of penetration.

We are talking about the little hole on the side... look at tge picture.

Yes I posted it and it's not a"little hole"

Can you even see the indent?

Mir wrote:
Well apparently this is classified information - but it makes kind of sense to me as NATO subs would have a hard time penetrating the double hulls of Russian subs as is so they had to make a plan. DU and copper would be able to cut through a hull like a knife through butter I would think? If it can penetrate classified tank armour it is most likely that it can penetrate classified submarine steel?
Those clever HEAT mines that hangs in the air until they see a tank passing by underneath don't move at any great speed but their shaped charge cuts through the armour with ease. Adding a bit of DU can only improve your chances of penetration.

The Chinese resolved that issue effectively and simply. They are using some sort of sodium (won't play a smartass with chemical names in a foreign language, having chemistry in a highschool almost 30 years ago ) and chemical reaction with seawater. It creates an extremely high temperature of 2000+ deg C, functionally melting everything in a waste radius stated to be "several dozen meters" (which I hardly believe, but "meters" would be enough). Yu-8 we talk about.

I'm intrigued about this US sub being spotted damaged in Norway

Obviously can't judge anything about damage in the area of the cut: it was literally a giant chainsaw cutting through a submarine, any damage anywhere near that cut can't be proven to be not caused by the cutting. (Edit: unless there is photos showing the damage there before the cutting)

The thing that really bothers me about the whole thing is the pervasive UK narrative that 'if Russia had only accepted the RN offer of assistance quicker then the explosion survivors could have been saved'.
Its bullshit.

They were dead before the first Russian rescue vessel got there (or shortly after, I forget) & the only way a UK sub could have been there in time was if they had left some time before the event actually happened.
When they did get there several days after getting the ok, IT COULDN'T DOCK.

They tried a bunch of times and had no more success than the Russian rescue sub.
So they wound up having divers open the hatch several days later -> even if they'd actually arrived before everyone died, everyone still would have died.

@ Alamo etc

Naturally this is all speculation and guesswork. Even the stuff you're talking about is mostly based on speculation and perhaps also the final report. Perhaps the final report is the truth - who knows?

I'm just talking about ONE documentary on the subject that I found quite interesting and some of it made quite a bit of sense to me. A lot of stuff that was going on at the time made the whole thing very fishy - like Dick Cheney and not to mention Edmond Pope that was send "Siberia" for buying up and smuggling classified military equipment out of the country as scrap metal. He was arrested a couple of weeks before the Kursk disaster when he tried to get the Shkval in one of his deals.

Another interesting point was the Chinese interest in the Shkval - something the Americans disliked very much! A large Chinese contingent was present during theat naval exercise.

A LOT of things have been said about it and now we have an ex-admiral making some interesting claims - who knows what the truth is?

The Chinese resolved that issue effectively and simply. They are using some sort of sodium (won't play a smartass with chemical names in a foreign language, having chemistry in a highschool almost 30 years ago Laughing ) and chemical reaction with seawater. It creates an extremely high temperature of 2000+ deg C, functionally melting everything in a waste radius stated to be "several dozen meters" (which I hardly believe, but "meters" would be enough). Yu-8 we talk about.

Now if the Chinese can do it, just thing what those super dooper Americans can do!

hoom wrote:I'm intrigued about this US sub being spotted damaged in Norway
Obviously can't judge anything about damage in the area of the cut: it was literally a giant chainsaw cutting through a submarine, any damage anywhere near that cut can't be proven to be not caused by the cutting. (Edit: unless there is photos showing the damage there before the cutting)
The thing that really bothers me about the whole thing is the pervasive UK narrative that 'if Russia had only accepted the RN offer of assistance quicker then the explosion survivors could have been saved'.
Its bullshit.
They were dead before the first Russian rescue vessel got there (or shortly after, I forget) & the only way a UK sub could have been there in time was if they had left some time before the event actually happened.
When they did get there several days after getting the ok, IT COULDN'T DOCK.
They tried a bunch of times and had no more success than the Russian rescue sub.
So they wound up having divers open the hatch several days later -> even if they'd actually arrived before everyone died, everyone still would have died.

Well, it is just another piece of propaganda, so no wonder we can't find the obvious conclusions. It is good as long as we realize that.

There is nothing really special with a 688 photo in that particular base, as it is often used to moore nuclear subs from both UK and US. It is a Navy facility, and due to this nuclear tourists, is a pain in the ass of Norwegian environmentalists. They condemned that for years, and that is why the whole story emerged in the western MSM. It used to be Bergens Tiedende which wrote the story, and publicized the photo of Memphis in August 2000. That forced the spokesmen to stand a position to the matter - and he started with the repairs. That fueled the story, and combined with declining that the sub was even there, when Russians proved a satellite recon photos ... speaks for itself.

According to the statements of prosecutor Ustinov, who was in charge, the whole sub was sunken in about 8h after the explosion. The crew that survived the blast, died due to CO poisoning, and the last survivors from the 9th compartment drown. When the bow rescue hatch was finally opened in the October 2000 expedition, the space there was already filled with water, forcing them to cease the operation and find out the technical solution for how to open the lower hatch. And they have opened it manually, with help of 500l gas balloon and manual force of divers down there. Not supa dupa rescue submersible.

Mir wrote:@ Alamo etc
Naturally this is all speculation and guesswork. Even the stuff you're talking about is mostly based on speculation and perhaps also the final report. Perhaps the final report is the truth - who knows?
I'm just talking about ONE documentary on the subject that I found quite interesting and some of it made quite a bit of sense to me. A lot of stuff that was going on at the time made the whole thing very fishy - like Dick Cheney and not to mention Edmond Pope that was send "Siberia" for buying up and smuggling classified military equipment out of the country as scrap metal. He was arrested a couple of weeks before the Kursk disaster when he tried to get the Shkval in one of his deals.  
Another interesting point was the Chinese interest in the Shkval - something the Americans disliked very much! A large Chinese contingent was present during theat naval exercise.
A LOT of things have been said about it and now we have an ex-admiral making some interesting claims - who knows what the truth is?  

There is a really heavy shitload surrounding the issue, and that speaks as another proof to me. Those tons of conspiracy theories cover perfectly well an easy answer.
Yes, subs uses to collide with each other.
Yes, quite often.
Yes, subs are colliding with civilian vessels, fishing trawlers.
Sometimes get sunken by a fisherman's net or a cable - a case of AS28 in 2006 if I remember.
What can you do to camouflage a simple story of an accident, you don't want to admit?
Creating tons of bullshit stories surrounding.
A supa dupa weapon. Yes, the one that had 20+ years when that happened.
PdG sunk it, with Granit! Yes, while submerged.
PdG sunk it, because those two collided! Yes, even considering the fact that the distance between them was about 20 nm.
Mighty Mk48 torpedo sunk it! Yes, we are the Muricans, and our supa dupa torpedo would do! Beware!
Yes! The Chinese wanted the WA111 badly, so they bribed the Dagestani on board of Kursk, to malfunction it, letting them intercept the missile (true conspiracy theory bro, remember hearing it 15 years ago or so ).

That all with graphs, pictures, tons of material. Interviews, written papers&on line materials. All the bizarre theories, everything is there!

But try to find a satellite photo of Haakonsvern naval base made 19th of August 2000, the Russians claim widely. In English I mean