Thread: Think this goes under the politics section....KURSK

Originally Posted by Pravit

Oh, God bless you Brits! May the spirit of Imperialism live within you for all eternity.

And your little brothers, the Americans!

HOOAH!

You keep stackin em up, and i keep knocken em down. That's right nubs, i'm talking to YOU.

Originally Posted by BlackMage

Now that I think of it, if they could break the speed of sound they would be entirely uncounterable... (Because they would outrun their sonar signatures)

Very interesting. And since the speed of sound travells about 5 times faster underwater than it does in air it may be easier than you think to break the speed of sound excep.....t then we run into the problem of "uncounterable or not"? What I am getting at is that when you break the speed of sound in air you get a sonic boom . So I would imagine that breaking the speed of sound underwater would produce an even bigger "disturbance" since water is a better conductor of sound than air. What say ye?

The speed of sound underwater is about 1.6km/s.

Also, I think they would be more occupied with the massive DEATH than the sonic boom to follow.

Originally Posted by BlackMage

Also, I think they would be more occupied with the massive DEATH than the sonic boom to follow.

Are they really, fatal?

How do aircraft (passenger liners like the concord) and fighter jets break the speak of sound and manage not to die ?

Seeing how the Russians outifit their Shkvalls with nukes, yes, fatal.

Originally Posted by BlackMage

How exactly do subs collide??
We have some pretty powerful sonar devices around here, and as long as one of the two sonar stations was actually paying attention, the only way this could happen is if one sub literally rear-ended the other.

Look up "Baton Rouge". It was decommissioned after such a collision. The Russian titanium-hull sub survived and now sports a star on her sail.

It may be the other way around, though. There is a lot of evidence supporting that at least two Russian subs sank following a collision with American submarines. One in the 60's (diesel), which led to the CIA-sponsored Glomar Explorer "salvage", another in 80's, just off the American shore (nuclear), both with thermonuclear warheads aboard.

If my memory serves me correctly, Kursk was on an exercise to fire 'supercavitating' torpedoes.

Nope. She had to test just a regular per-oxide powered torpedo. I do not even think she had Шквал.

Now that I think of it, if they could break the speed of sound they would be entirely uncounterable... (Because they would outrun their sonar signatures)

Why bother? They have their missile-torpedo combos, they launch one 100 miles away, it flies in the air (no underwater sound) and when it enters the other element it is too late to do anything.

Originally Posted by waxwing

subs are basically utterly undetectable due to the noise reduction techniques used - of course this is only possible with a nuclear reactor for power.

Nope. The nuclear submarines are the worst when it comes to silencing. Turbines and their reduction gear are inherently noisy, and the reactor is only silent at low power output levels. Conventional submarines are a lot less noisy when submerged. In the long run, though, conventional submarines will have to surface, and this is where the idyll breaks down.

Originally Posted by Светлана Ежова

What did y'all think about that submarine "kursk" going down back in 2000 with all 118 people lost? I was angry as hell at Putin. USA offers to help. Putin goes "nyet." I think he was worried about secrets. More worried about damned secrets on a SUBMARINE then about the lives of living people! Befor August 2000 I was like "Oh, Russia has a new president. Ehhhh...." After August 2000 I was like "I hate putin."

Accepting "help" from the people, who actually are responsible for drowning of submarine, seems to be a bit illogical.

Originally Posted by BlackMage

Originally Posted by Pravit

Oh, God bless you Brits! May the spirit of Imperialism live within you for all eternity.

And your little brothers, the Americans!

HOOAH!

Ugh.

I understand how low-pressure fields work as a means of propulsion; I'm reasonably educated. My question was WHY would a Шквал create such a field in the ship? And even if it did, wouldn't the boat's designers have built in some sort of control other than, oh, OPENING THE INTERIOR HATCHES? BM, can you back up your claim with any sort of documentation? I'm finding this entire scenario rather unlikely.

Repeat. It was. An ordinary. Kerosene/per-oxide. Torpedo.

The supercavitating torpedoes, as you can easily guess, will not start their main engine in the boat, just like missiles will not start their main engine in the same boat. Both will start their engines when they are far enough from the boat.

A second, but less likely, cause of the fire is a solid rocket motor on a VA-111 Shkval super-cavitating torpedo. Explosive squibs generally utilised to initiate and light off a rocket motor are susceptible to static electricity.

"Normal handling of these motors requires a very specific set of actions and procedures to prevent initiation. If an inexperienced sailor made a mistake during torpedo loading the rocket motor could light off in the torpedo tube or room. It would likely take place at the moment when the torpedo is almost completely in the torpedo tube and the firing cables are being hooked up.

"A static discharge or a stray voltage in the firing cable results in rocket motor firing and the flame and exhaust would be back into the torpedo room.

"And would most certainly instantly kill all personnel in the area, if not the entire compartment, and initiate fires in other torpedoes and fuel, possible fuel tanks."

http://www.murman.ru/kurskmem/articles/torpedoe.html

I remember reading about the whole Kursk-Shkval thing in Scientifici American... I'll stop by the library and see if they still have that issue.

@Lindzi : Sorry, it seems I have mislead you. The doors were not left open to dissipate pressure from the torpedoes, but rather to help dissipate the loud sounds associated with launching a torpedo. This is against protocol but common practice in the Russian Navy.

Originally Posted by Black Mage

@Lindzi : Sorry, it seems I have mislead you. The doors were not left open to dissipate pressure from the torpedoes, but rather to help dissipate the loud sounds associated with launching a torpedo. This is against protocol but common practice in the Russian Navy.

Yep, this:

Originally Posted by Black Mage

I don't know why they release their gas in the vessel, however I have read numerous reports claiming they do.

would have been fairly misleading, had I believed you, of course. Luckily my brain is capable of rudimentary logic.

Of course, if what bad manners says is correct, the whole discussion is moot anyway, since there'd be no Skval to set aflame.

I'd do some research myself, except I don't actually care that much.

Shkval class torpedo (53cm / 8m) was taken in use in 1977. Shkval torpedoes are launched with a help of a trigger that produces gas, shooting the torpedo out at a very high acceleration. This encapsulates the torpedo in a gas cavern, easing the water resistance and allowing it to go at a speed of up to 200 knots (normal torpedo speed is between 40 knots and 50 knots). It is believed that the two representatives from Dagdizel, which were onboard the Kursk, were testing a modification of Shkval’s propulsion.

Russian military daily, Red Star, published an article in August saying that the Kursk was refitted at Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk in 1998 to carry upgraded torpedoes. The newspaper does not say directly whether these were Shkval class torpedoes, but the description placed in the article fits Shkval’s characteristics. The newspaper reported that the Navy was against the new torpedoes, saying that they were difficult to store and dangerous to handle. These protests did not help much, however

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/ ... 18468.html

Yay America!!!

Supercavitation has obvious applications. Dropped from helicopters and airplanes, new torpedoes supercavitate from the moment they enter the water. A supercavitating torpedo would contact liquid water only at its nose and could outrun any ship; the Russian Shkval torpedo has been clocked at speeds up to 230 miles per hour. Researchers at the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center were able to fire unpowered supercavitating projectiles at speeds faster than the speed of sound in water, approximately 1 mile per second!

"Normal handling of these motors requires a very specific set of actions and procedures to prevent initiation.

If it does, then sailors would not be allowed to do it. But I doubt it. It may be true that launching a torpedo requires a complex sequence, but it is utter BS that preventing initiation requires any special action. All complex and highly destructive weaponry is fool proof in the extreme, and this is true in any country.

If an inexperienced sailor made a mistake during torpedo loading the rocket motor could light off in the torpedo tube or room.

Hardly. Those boats have probably more officers than sailors, and inexperienced sailors might watch the operation or, at most, carry out some actions under very close supervision.

"A static discharge or a stray voltage in the firing cable results in rocket motor firing and the flame and exhaust would be back into the torpedo room.

BS. Static and stray voltage is assumed when things like that are designed. Because it happens all the time in real world conditions. And those things are tested very thoroughly before they are commissioned.

I am no submarine expert, but I saw on a tv show about Kursk that it sank because of the material HDP (or smth like that) that is normally harmless but when you put it with certain metals it reacts and can explode. This tv show said that this was what happened with the Kursk. The Russians weren't aware of HDP's abilities to become dangerous and the circumstances it needed to become dangerous.

HDP, maybe HyDrogen Peroxide? The properties are similar.

Originally Posted by BlackMage

HDP, maybe HyDrogen Peroxide? The properties are similar.

Well, it did wonders for Madonna!

Yes, that's it. Hydrogen Peroxide. Спасибо большое.