Russian Sub

[Guest]

No, it's not Branson. One of his competitors in the round the world "race". The name "Lindstrom" comes to mind, but I may be thinking of something else (I'm useless at remembering names, even important ones like this). I did check back to the page where I originally read the story, but it had been taken down by that stage, so I'm afraid I've no way of finding out now, unless a bid is officially launched and I catch a bulletin mentioning it.

Sorry and all.
THe idea was they'd use effectively big balloons attached to the side filled with compressed air to raise it up gradually. I don't know if that's a conventional or unconventional idea, but it does sound kinda cool.

And as for recovery of warheads (referring to an earlier post) the Russians still insist there were no nukes aboard. Like I've said, I don't believe it, but whatever, the reactors alone are probably a reason to raise the wreck (how do the Russians know the reactors were turned off? They didn't get any communication after it sank!) If it's possible, I'd like to see the whole thing off the seabed and into drydock. But then you just get into the whole Russian nuclear disposal question, and that in and of itself could be another big thread I really don't want to get involved with if it starts.... :-(

Maniacal Maestro (who's starting to consider registering, just for the occasional "serious" conversation.)

 

[Wizard]

It was just a thought...........

 

[Guest]

Right, I finally found that old story. It's a swedish guy, Per Lindstrand.

The story's at:

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_886000/886741.stm

So if you're interested, there it is.

MM

 

[Flagg]

Make Pasta not War.

No, not idiotic DCL, an opinion.

They are not going to staff a top nuclear submarine with a load of rookies away from home for a year.

Of course I'd rather they survived. I just don't get all teary when members of the military die. Sorry.

The Gulf War for example. Four or maybe five british soldiers get killed and its like the whole bloody nation is in mourning. Their photos get paraded in the newspapers, the mothers are interviewed and all say how sweet and lovely Tom, Peter or Harry were. The whole thing is a charade. Its a fucking war for godsake! Thousands or Iraqi soldiers were killed and we lose a handful! What kind of war is that anyway!

As a pacifist it is hard to respect the fate of a man who signs himself up to violence.

Glad to see you're still your arrogant self DCL. Can't say I missed you.

 

[Weird Harold]

And as for recovery of warheads (referring to an earlier post) the Russians still insist there were no nukes aboard. Like I've said, I don't believe it, ...

According to one of the links in the story Laurel linked to, the missiles and torpedoes could be either nuclear or conventional warheads. Given the current world situation, and the fact it was involved in an excercise, I can't see any logical reason there would be any nuclear warheads aboard.

If the reactors weren't shutdown BTW, the whole world would know about it by now. The large hole melted through the hull and the boiling seawater would have been obvious to the Norwegan divers.

 

[Expertise]

Harold there are without question Nukes aboard Kursk. Nuclear torpedos? Unlikely. Nuclear missiles? I would bet my house.

What you fail to understand that except in the case of am major refit or overhaul SSBN's DO NOT offload their nuclear weapons. Remembering we are talking about nukes when I say this, yes I realize the irony, it would be insane to offload them. A big pile of some of their best and most accurate nukes sitting on a pier somewhere on the Kola Peninsula is of little use and even less deterent value. It is not a simple or quick operation to load these beasts up. Not like hanging a few cruise missiles or bombs on a Backfire or Lancer.

Yes they were on an excercise and no they wouldnt need either of those types of weapons on an excercise. But I god damn gaurantee they were aboard. It is that type of submarines reason for being. You would find that when American or British SSBN or SSN are on an excercise they carry pretty much a full "war load" of weapons as well. And no, the americans DO NOT offload the Trident D-5's on an Ohio class boat, just because they are on an excercise.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Re: Make Pasta not War.

No, not idiotic DCL, an opinion....Glad to see you're still your arrogant self DCL. Can't say I missed you.

I can smell your bullshit from across the pond.

No sympathy for dead soliders..!? Opinion my bung-hole, you're just a big old Grumpy-puss who says "black" to everyone else's "white" and tries to pass it off as intellectual detachment.

Sing with me, Mr. Contrary!

"Grey skies are gonna' clear up!
Put on a happy face!"

I see you smiling...

"Brush off the clouds and cheer up!
Put on a happy face!"

There's that sparkle...

"Take off the gloomy mask of tragedy,
It's not your style!
You'll look so good that you'll be glad,
you decided to smile!"

There! Feel better now, Snookums?

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold there are without question Nukes aboard Kursk. Nuclear torpedos? Unlikely. Nuclear missiles? I would bet my house.

From the MSNBC link Laurel posted:
The signature weapons in the Kursk and other Oscar II-type submarines are the 24 Chelomey SS-N-19 Shipwreck (Granit) missiles designed to destroy surface fleets. Each SS-N-19 has a range of 300 miles and is capable of carrying 338 pounds of high explosives or a 500 kiloton nuclear warhead. Oscar II-type submarines carry additional torpedoes or anti-submarine Novator missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads

Neither the Russians nor the Americans (nor to the best of my knowledge, any other nuclear power,) have actually deployed tactical nukes in any of their services for a long time. Granted, the last classified threat briefing I had was some time before I retired 11 years ago, so my information may be a bit out of date.

According to the quote above, the Kursk was NOT a ballistic missile submarine, it was an attack submarine. If it were a ballistic missile submarine, I'd agree with your point about the time and effort required to remove a nuclear missile, but as it is an attack sub, then it should take less than 24 hours to completely reconfigure the entire armament load. Secure storage for weapons of all kinds is the general rule for all of the NATO and other allied militaries my service brought me in contact with. Logic would indicate the Russians are no less careful of their weapons. Unless world tensions were heightened, there is no logical reason for any country to load their attach subs with nukes. Patorls for Attack subs are generally short enough that they can be rearmed to suit the political climate easily.

Despite 21 years active military service as a "cold warrior", I see no logical reason to dispute the assertion there were no nuclear warheads aboard the Kursk. There is no military reason there should have been.

 

[Expertise]

Harold opinionated old fart or not...your right. Reading too quickly and not noticing that the Oscar's were SSGN instead of SSBN was just plain stupid of me. My appologies.

I'm ex-Army not Navy so shoot me.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm ex-Army not Navy so shoot me.

Zoomies don't shoot grunts, they bomb them.

My brother is the swabbie in the family. (former Submariner coincidentally.) I'm retired UASF myself.

I don't think you're alone in not understanding the type of Sub the Kursk was. The news reports at first were somewhat confused, and like many I didn't read every story about it myself. It's just that when I did find the technical specs, I took the time to read them closely.

 

[Expertise]

I read them many moons ago (apparently not very carefully) and had in the back of my mind that the Oscars weren't attack boats SSN and automaticly shifted into NATO/Western thinking that if your not an attack boat your a boomer forgetting that the Russians had their cruise missile boats SSGN.

I won't hold your choice of service against you