I just heard on NPR, that the Russians are getting ready to start salvge operations on the Kursk. Ostensibly, this is to remove the bodies of the sailors-but why , at the start of the brutal arctic winter, are they so hell bent on this?
My question: is there some supersecret weapon that thy have on board, that they don’t want the world to know of? What arethe chances that the US Navy has already been inside the hull?
Well, not a naval expert here, but I doubt they USN has been inside it. Although Subs are amongst the most jealously guarded secrets of a nation, I don’t know how much the US would be willing to risk to go inside to add to what they already know. I am willing to bet it wouldn’t be worth it to them.
The other question, I think that Putin is under tremendous pressure from the public to get the bodies of the crew. I agree with you though, the timing is very bad and I am suprised that he isn’t waiting until spring/summer. What a tragedy.
Personal note though, I think they should raise it. It seemed relatively intact from the photos I have seen and the “expert” opinions that I have heard.
I’m reading a book called Blind Man’s Bluff, about submarine espionage. The book starts just after WW2 and so far I’ve read up to the Carter administration. It’s an interesting read.
There were two reports that might give a reason why they are so anxious to retrieve the ship:
-
They were testing a new type of torpedo, and they are anxious to keep it a secret.
-
During the testing, about a dozen of the Russian Navy’s top officers were on board. This accident appears to have decapitated the submarine command. They need to make at least a symbolic gesture to the Navy.
Maybe they don’t want us to get the design of the caterpillar drive.
It’s worth a lot. Especially to Naval Intelligence types.
Nah, we already have that remember? That Soviet sub captain that defected with his sub? 
That was many years ago. The US has learned an awful lot about the subs since then. That was an amazing feat though.
And so have the Russians.
So, is there any more news on what happened? It seems like everyone in the world except the US military is claiming that the USS Memphis rammed the Kursk through some act of gross navigational incompetence, and that this caused some sort of secondary explosion on the Russian sub. The US is claiming innocence, of course. BTW: One website I visited posted a list of collisions between US and Soviet/Russian submarines. Let me tell you, it’s a long list. There’s been an average of one collision every few years since World War 2, though most are not very serious.
This link claims the accident was the result of a Russian torpedo test (a supersonic torpedo):
Arjuna34
I think the answer is quite obvious. There is some mighty fine vodka down there. Those Ruskies would be damned to see it wasted.
This morning’s Post had an article with a very different slant about that new torpedo. Here is a link.
This just in-Russian divers recovered the body of a Russian officer. There was a note in his pocket, describing how he and a few others, survived for a few days after the sub sank.
What a horrible way to end your life-i just hope they went quickly!
IIRC the damage that was reported to the Kursk did not support the conclusion that the calamity was a result of a collision… and, there HAVE been times in the past when subs were sunk as a result of their own, faulty, torpedos detonating (the US has lost at least 1 this way)!
Also keep in mind that Russia’s military is FRIGGIN’ BROKE!! The quality of their repairs and upkeep is piss-poor right now… accidents are waiting to happen to anything as complex as a sub…
Read Blind Man’s Bluff (if you haven’t already) if you are interested in this… I read it a couple of years ago, and then gave it to my Dad… so I’m going from memory
Diceman:
Weird as it may seem, that’s not at all the version I’ve heard from the European media. The Norwegian divers and the Norwegian DOD claim the the “collision” theory is bogus. OK, these people might not want NATO to look bad, but OTOH, if they were caught lying, they would lose the enormous goodwill Norway gained by assisting when they were allowed to.
More interestingly, a Norwegian environmental organization (who have become authorities on Russian subs because they’re worried about radiation) have joined forces with Norwegian seismologists (is that a word ?) and analyzed the seismograph data. They, too, refuse the collision hypothesis. And I for one do not doubt they’d cry out if they had reason to believe in a collision, these guys don’t care one whit about NATO’s image.
Even in Russian media, the Navy is blamed. The credibility of the Navy command is completely destroyed - they lied & contradicted themselves so often just after the accident that noone is paying any attention to them except to look for spin control.
So I seriously doubt that the USS Memphis can be blamed for this.
Apart form taht: Poor fellows. Such a needless, tragic waste of lives.
S. Norman.
The irony is that the water is relatively shallow. If they could, somehow, lift the stern of the submarine up with the bow resting on the bottom, the surviving crew might be able to climb their way to safety.
I remember reading that the subs operating in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm were longer than the water is deep.
You meant, of course, that if they had been able to do that, the crew might have been able. There’s no doubt anymore that there are no more survivors.
And I think that was considered, but judged to be too risky.
For those interested, an explanation of the seismic data and their interpretation can be found here.
The technique involved is the same technique that would be used to monitor compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). While the method is not foolproof under all circumstances, it is well enough established that the identification of an explosion on the Kursk can be considered pretty accurate.
[quote]
You meant, of course, that if they had been able to do that, the crew might have been able. There’s no doubt anymore that there are no more survivors.
[quote]
Yes, that’s what I meant. I should have written “might have” instead of “might be”.
I was not aware that that was an option at all.