Cold War - (submarine detail from installation) John Dickson 2003
First of all, anyone who was at my house last week for tea in the garden can stop reading now, since I am just going to repeat all that stuff I told you about the Kursk. (I saw your eyes glaze over, you know who you are)
While I was gluing fighter plane models together in front of the TV, I watched a French documentary called The Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters.(I meant to start posting about this earlier, but I got carried away on line reading missile discussion boards, and then watched Das Boot for the 11th time.)
I love submarine week on Discovery. I digress.
As you know, the Kursk was a Russian submarine that sunk under mysterious circumstances while on a routine military exercise in the Barents Sea in August, 2000, killing 118 crewmen.
This particular routine military exercise was apparently very much about smart shopping. The Russians were demonstrating the latest model of the Shkval torpedo, and if you couldn't be bothered with that nerdy link, the technology for this torpedo is based on Supercavitation! Yay! (an equally nerdy link), basically, its a super fast torpedo (five times the speed of anything Nato had at the time) with a reported range of 60 miles. Now in researching the Shkval, I found a lot of discussion from weapons experts who doubt the claims that were made about the technology, the Russians did have earlier versions on the market, (you can even go to international arms shows ...well, maybe not me or you, dear reader) and at the time (mid 90's) the Americans weren't buying into the sales pitch.
Now to 2000, the speculation is that U.S. intelligence got wind that the Russians had developed a Shkval with greater range & velocity plus a homing capacity. A few months prior to the Kursk sinking, the FSB (formerly KGB) arrested an American businessman, (who was also a former naval intelligence officer) for attempting to purchase the designs for the new improved Shkval VA-111 from one of the scientists who had worked on it. (so maybe it worked after all.)
Anyway, the film claims that the Kursk was armed with this new improved weapon (for this routine exercise) and the prospective buyers were the Chinese. It also claims that the manoeuvres were being closely observed by two U.S. attack subs, a British sub and a surface spy ship from the US with a sensitive sonar grid, Nato? and a Norwegian spy ship. (but from the reading I have done that's standard, everyone spies on everyone else, carry on, nothing to see here) So onto the doc's conspiracy theory, and I like it, the two US subs: the Toledo and the Memphis are shadowing the Kursk, maybe they play chicken, (and I must say that if Sally and I were driving nuclear subs, we would be just like Chip 'n Dale: "Excuse me!", "Oh please, after you!", "Oh no, I must insist, after you!") but sadly, common courtesy is so rare, and the Toledo accidentally collides with the Kursk, the Kursk opens the torpedo tubes, and then the Memphis, in order to protect the now damaged Toledo, launches am MK48 torpedo at the Kursk. (though you'd think there'd be some kind of chain of command thing going on before a US sub attacked a Russian sub.) (Monica: dirty blue dress!) (I'm sorry that's a cheap shot, but this narrative needs a honey trap, zany submariner antics were not enough.)
The good questions that the doc poses are:
"Why did it take 30 hours to find the Kursk, when it could be seen from the surface?? (the water was 108m deep, the ship was 160m long) .
Why were the sailors of the Kursk, who may well have known the truth, not rescued when all indications are that a successful rescue was possible? .
Why did the Russian government declare a nuclear emergency, prompting its air force to take the air, if it had no reason to suspect a possible foreign aggression? .
Why did the CIA director, G. Tenet, go personally and secretly to Moscow 3 days later? .
Why did Putin and Clinton hold numerous telephone conversations during the week following the accident.? .
Why was a large Russian debt cancelled, a new loan granted, and Clinton decided to stop the anti-missile shield project?"
But the most bizarre question (or claim) is why did Canada buy a bunch of Shkval VA-111's shortly after this kafuffle? Potential punch lines in the comments thread.
We purchased them because WE KNEW THE TORPEDOES WOULDN'T WORK!
(HMSC Chicoutimi being towed back to Canada from the North Sea)
Cavitation torpedos? It sounds like science fiction - but it was covered in the May 2001 Scientific American:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=92F4353E-8ABD-4C63-B4DB-2D231D664CD&ARTICLEID_CHAR=B0A56C17-3ED7-48EE-B83F-486455B06F0&sc=I100322
(or, go to http://sciam.com and search for "cavitation torpedo".)
I found a lot of forums where a variety of defence experts debated that the torpedo worked as advertised. (they were a hoot to read, lots of engineers grumbling about the R&D departments at Lockhead Martin. Dreamers I say! Dreamers! A bunch of spoiled rotten smarty pants with their smarty pants white-boards full of their smarty pants theories!) But a lot of it could have been sour grapes because Russian missile technology was considered 10 years ahead of the US.
|
Cold War - (submarine detail from installation) John Dickson 2003
First of all, anyone who was at my house last week for tea in the garden can stop reading now, since I am just going to repeat all that stuff I told you about the Kursk. (I saw your eyes glaze over, you know who you are)
While I was gluing fighter plane models together in front of the TV, I watched a French documentary called The Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters.(I meant to start posting about this earlier, but I got carried away on line reading missile discussion boards, and then watched Das Boot for the 11th time.)
I love submarine week on Discovery. I digress.
As you know, the Kursk was a Russian submarine that sunk under mysterious circumstances while on a routine military exercise in the Barents Sea in August, 2000, killing 118 crewmen.
This particular routine military exercise was apparently very much about smart shopping. The Russians were demonstrating the latest model of the Shkval torpedo, and if you couldn't be bothered with that nerdy link, the technology for this torpedo is based on Supercavitation! Yay! (an equally nerdy link), basically, its a super fast torpedo (five times the speed of anything Nato had at the time) with a reported range of 60 miles. Now in researching the Shkval, I found a lot of discussion from weapons experts who doubt the claims that were made about the technology, the Russians did have earlier versions on the market, (you can even go to international arms shows ...well, maybe not me or you, dear reader) and at the time (mid 90's) the Americans weren't buying into the sales pitch.
Now to 2000, the speculation is that U.S. intelligence got wind that the Russians had developed a Shkval with greater range & velocity plus a homing capacity. A few months prior to the Kursk sinking, the FSB (formerly KGB) arrested an American businessman, (who was also a former naval intelligence officer) for attempting to purchase the designs for the new improved Shkval VA-111 from one of the scientists who had worked on it. (so maybe it worked after all.)
Anyway, the film claims that the Kursk was armed with this new improved weapon (for this routine exercise) and the prospective buyers were the Chinese. It also claims that the manoeuvres were being closely observed by two U.S. attack subs, a British sub and a surface spy ship from the US with a sensitive sonar grid, Nato? and a Norwegian spy ship. (but from the reading I have done that's standard, everyone spies on everyone else, carry on, nothing to see here) So onto the doc's conspiracy theory, and I like it, the two US subs: the Toledo and the Memphis are shadowing the Kursk, maybe they play chicken, (and I must say that if Sally and I were driving nuclear subs, we would be just like Chip 'n Dale: "Excuse me!", "Oh please, after you!", "Oh no, I must insist, after you!") but sadly, common courtesy is so rare, and the Toledo accidentally collides with the Kursk, the Kursk opens the torpedo tubes, and then the Memphis, in order to protect the now damaged Toledo, launches am MK48 torpedo at the Kursk. (though you'd think there'd be some kind of chain of command thing going on before a US sub attacked a Russian sub.) (Monica: dirty blue dress!) (I'm sorry that's a cheap shot, but this narrative needs a honey trap, zany submariner antics were not enough.)
The good questions that the doc poses are:
"Why did it take 30 hours to find the Kursk, when it could be seen from the surface?? (the water was 108m deep, the ship was 160m long) .
Why were the sailors of the Kursk, who may well have known the truth, not rescued when all indications are that a successful rescue was possible? .
Why did the Russian government declare a nuclear emergency, prompting its air force to take the air, if it had no reason to suspect a possible foreign aggression? .
Why did the CIA director, G. Tenet, go personally and secretly to Moscow 3 days later? .
Why did Putin and Clinton hold numerous telephone conversations during the week following the accident.? .
Why was a large Russian debt cancelled, a new loan granted, and Clinton decided to stop the anti-missile shield project?"
But the most bizarre question (or claim) is why did Canada buy a bunch of Shkval VA-111's shortly after this kafuffle? Potential punch lines in the comments thread.
- L.M. 9-16-2005 11:29 pm
We purchased them because WE KNEW THE TORPEDOES WOULDN'T WORK!
(HMSC Chicoutimi being towed back to Canada from the North Sea)
- L.M. 9-17-2005 1:57 am
Cavitation torpedos? It sounds like science fiction - but it was covered in the May 2001 Scientific American:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=92F4353E-8ABD-4C63-B4DB-2D231D664CD&ARTICLEID_CHAR=B0A56C17-3ED7-48EE-B83F-486455B06F0&sc=I100322
(or, go to http://sciam.com and search for "cavitation torpedo".)
- gh (guest) 9-17-2005 3:06 am
I found a lot of forums where a variety of defence experts debated that the torpedo worked as advertised. (they were a hoot to read, lots of engineers grumbling about the R&D departments at Lockhead Martin. Dreamers I say! Dreamers! A bunch of spoiled rotten smarty pants with their smarty pants white-boards full of their smarty pants theories!) But a lot of it could have been sour grapes because Russian missile technology was considered 10 years ahead of the US.
- L.M. 9-17-2005 3:42 am