According to the magazine “SEA TECHNOLOGY” (Dec. 2000), the government of the Netherlands is going to fund a feasibility study, of how the Russian submarine “KURSK” can be raised from the bottom of the Barents Sea. There is a website (http://WWW.KURSKFOUNDATION.ORG)which shows what is going on. I guess this means that there are some pretty serious ecological hazards involved if the sub is left there-also, why is the Netherlands paying for this? Are the Russians so broke that they cannot even do the study themselves? Or are there secret weapons aboard (that they don’t want the US Navy to ferret out?)
Anybody know more?
Supposedly, the Kursk was involved in testing secret weapons. “Supersonic torpedo” is a phase that pops up often. Of course, those probably blew up after the USS Memphis collided with the Kursk, causing the sub to sink. As to why the Netherlands is involved…beats me. I don’t think it’s really environmental hazards they’re worried about. I just have a gut feeling that that’s a cover for some other reason.
Is this the proven cause of the wreck? I know this was run up the flagpole as a possible theory on the sinking, but the last I heard the U.S. absolutely, unequivocally denied it. I’m not being Jane Defensive U.S. Citizen, but you state this as fact and I was unaware it had been proven to be true. Has it been? Has the U.S. theory that a torpedo misfire followed by an explosion was the cause now been affirmatively discredited?
Did the Illuminati tell you this, or was it the space aliens from Area 51? 
The likelist explanation for the Kursk diaster is really quite simple; a torpedo exploded and blew a hole in the forward pressure hull. Accidents with warheads and shells do happen.
From everything I’ve seen, the Russians have been most eager to prove it wasn’t their fault that the sub sunk.
Relax. Diceman may well have his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek. Only the Russian military and a few other conspiritorially minded folks believe there was any collision. The damage to the sub is consistent with an explosion, not a collision.
Besides, aren’t the Russians blaming the USS Los Angeles? They had a satellite photo that they claimed was the Los Angeles docked at a Norwegian port, showing damage to the bow, a couple days after the accident. The problem is that port records and a photo taken at ground level show it as the USS Memphis, and it was docked facing the opposite way - the “damaged bow” was actually the (undamaged) stern. Or maybe I have the sub names mixed up.
Diceman is worried that the Netherlands will recover the sub and its weapons. Then the Netherlands will be a nuclear power and take over the world. Start learning Dutch.
There was no collision. The true story is that the USS Memphis docked underwater with the Kursk, took all of the secret weapons and the defecting crew members, then set an explosive charge to sink the Kursk. That’s why the divers only found a few bodies. Most of the crew defected and are living in the US. It also explains why there is no damage to the Memphis. [Or am I thinking about a movie?]
I don’t understand the Netherlands connection either. It’s a Russian sub so it belongs to them. No one else has the rights to salvage it.
However, few countries have the capability to salvage it, and the Dutch have been specializing in marine salvage for a long, long time. The Netherlands is probably the country with the fewest direct ties to the U.S. that has a working knowledge of marine salvage. (We’re allies through NATO, but do not have the agreements for sharing intelligence that the U.S. has with the U.K., for example.)
As to “rights” of salvage, to a certain extent, if you’re the only guy who can gain access to a wreck, you get to define your own salvage rights.
Hey, I’m relaxed as a wet noodle. But I’ll be darned if I can find any indication in Diceman’s straightforward post to indicate tongue-in-cheek-ness. Although I take it the Memphis theory is not generally accepted, a Google search of “Kursk Memphis” brings up a few sites that do not discredit a collision as a possibility, not to say a probability, and they don’t appear to be lunatic-fringe sites.
Anyway, I haven’t been keeping up on the issue, and to see someone post affirmatively “the Kursk was sank by the Memphis” just made me go “WHAT? Why haven’t I heard about this??”
Do the Russians still contend the Kursk sank as the result of a collision? If so, do they say it was with an unknown object, or a sub?
This is starting to sound like the makings of a Tom Clancy yarn! Remember the ex-US naval officer that the Russians just released (he was sweating a 20 year sentance for espionage). Supposedly he was trying to get the details of the new Russian high-speed torpedo-something no other navy has!
I wonder if the CIA/US Navy has been down to visit the KURSK?
Recall the “YAKEE” Class Sub that sank off bermuda in 1986-when the Russians finally got down to it, they found a lot of stuff missing!
Item: The businessman in mentioned above was a Naval Veteran. Just like 100’s of thousands of other veterans who engage in a life after the service.
Item: Said ‘Super Secret’ torpedo technology has already been published in various journals. In other words: It ain’t a secret. In all likelyhood, he simply failed to suck-up to the right offical.
Item: The Yankee-class boomer that went down was ‘missing’ stuff because it suffered a huge internal explosion, which actually ruptured the pressure hull and the outer hull.
Item: Dutch seismographs recorded two huge-ass explosions at the time of the sinking. A collision hard enough to measure on the Richter Scale would’ve destroyed any LA-class boat. The LA-boats are thin-hulled and shallow-diving, thanks to our good buddy, Adm. Himen G. Rickover, USN (Ret)(deceased), and are therefore highly unlikely to have survived a collision that sank a much heavier and tougher Russian boat.
Item: The Russian Navy (excepting certain jingoistic admirals) has already admitted that the Kursk sank due to an explosion, not collision.
Item: The Russians were testing (or supposed to be testing) New Weapons, which have a habit of going wrong (That’s why you test them).
Item: The Russians like putting BIG warheads on their weapons.
Item: The Russian Navy has stated that maintenance on their warships has fallen far below their (already dangerously low) standards.
Item: The farewell letter recovered from the body of one of the crew surviving the initial explosion puts paid to the collision theory, anyway.
Anyone who seriously believes the ‘Clandestine Rendevous’ theory has obviously never spent any time dealing with the realities of submarines.
I shave with Occams Razor: The simplest explanation, that makes the most people look stupid, is probably correct.
Then again, I could be a Tool of the Conspiracy…
Maybe not rightfully, but that don’t mean it can’t happen. The Glomar Explorer was a mining ship, right? 
[sub]In case anybody doesn’t know, the Glomar Explorer was built by Howard Hughes for the CIA to steal a sunken Russian missile sub. It brought up a big piece of the boat, including one of the missiles. The cover story was that it was looking for seafloor mineral deposits to be mined.[/sub]
Damn, that was ugly.
Note to self: Use the @#$^%@ preview button!
If I was a betting man, my money wouldn’t be on the collision theory.
The spokesmen of the Russian Navy have very little credibility left - did anyone even count how many lies they managed to put in circulation in the first days after the accident ? The Kursk was damaged, was lying intact on the bottom, communication had been established, communication was impossible, there was hope of survivors, there was no hope of survivors, Russia could handle rescue ops on their own, Norwegian help was welcome after all etc. etc. Later, parts of foreign subs have been found, only to dematerialize before anyone could take a look at them.
Surprisingly enough, the Norwegian environmental organization “Bellona” has some convincing data on Russian subs and the Russian Navy - they’re worried about Russian nuclear subs decaying in Murmansk, just next door. These people certainly have motive to call out if anyone - be they Brits or Americans - aren’t playing it safe when there’s Russian subs around. They haven’t.
What they have done is look into a lot of internal (unclassified) Russian Navy publications. It’s pretty clear that the Russian Northern Fleet is in bad repair - there are complaints about subs going on maneuvers with their warshots still aboard because the ammo handling cranes are broken(!) The Fleet dislikes the 200-knot torps, claiming that they are unsafe to handle, but are forced to accept them due to economic reasons. The Russian rescue operations are a complete shambles - not due to lack of courage and proper seamanship, but because of insufficient equipment. 2 out of 3 submersibles break while attempting to find the Kursk.
The collision theory is popular with Russian Fleet commanders for obvious reasons, but it’s not the official Russian version yet. Noone has presented convincing evidence that the Memphis (or the British sub also claimed to be involved) was damaged. A presumably neutral organization like Bellona is openly skeptical of the theory.
My guess: There’s no there there. The Kursk was killed by bad quality control, a lack of money and a surplus of stupid pride.
S. Norman
Sounds to me like the Russians don’t want to raise it (for whatever reason) and the government of the Netherlands wants it raised (for environmental reasons?).
Does the article say that the Netherlands would actually pay to raise it or just that they are doing a feasibility study. Perhaps they are trying to show a richer country how it could be done safely and cheaply in the hopes of gettting nuclear material off the bottom of the ocean.
But regardless, I thought that salvage rights were first come first serve in international waters (or has that right been claimed by the Russians because they were the first to find the wreckage?), but the politics of it are a different matter.
Ta, Spiney, that’s what I thought.
Ehm - I don’t think the Dutch are after anything but a bit of business for their salvage companies. Does anyone seriously think the Russians will let the Dutch steam away with the Kursk ? Look at a map and stop being silly.
Anyway, the link egkelly provided specified the use of a Russian harbour as the “Docking place”.
I’d guess the Dutch Gvt. is doing this because - as has been pointed out - Dutch salvage companies are good at what they do, and this will make them the obvious choice if & when a salvage operation is started. What’s spent on a feasibility study will easily be returned in taxes if a Dutch company brings the Kursk back to Murmansk. As for who’ll pay for the salvage - I guess the EU will pay some (and that’s OK by me), Norway will probably add a sum as well, Russia will presumably chip in with their heartfelt thanks and a lot of manhours.
Presumably very little cloak and dagger - though a lot of cameras will presumably be present, and one or two of the salvage workers will probably be spooks. But don’t expect anyone to grab the code books and hijack the helicopter - that’s soo cold war.
S. Norman
I had occasion to be in New London County, Connecticut (lots of submariners around there) not too long ago and I couldn’t help but ask around a little. Everyone I talked to (including a couple of submariners) said they couldn’t help asking around, either. As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been a whisper, not a fourth-hand account, nothing.
I am much more inclined to believe that it was a self-inflicted wound. However, I would not at all discount the possibility that Americans were in the immediate vicinity to witness such an event.
At that point, the first order of business is to get somewhere abovewater where the news–and the massive volume of recorded information–can be discreetly offloaded to higher authorities. So I don’t think it’s unusual at all to see an American sub bob up somewhere nearby after the fact.
There were, in fact, both US and UK boats in the area. That’s standard whenever there are manuevers. I’ve participated in similar activity(s) when I was still in the boats. We’re very damn carefull to not get too risky these days, as there were some hair-raising events a couple of decades ago. My buddies still in the service are adamant that the US boat in the area was well clear of the scene, but close enough to clearly hear the explosions (not hard to do, when one explosion measured 4+ on the Richter Scale)