Re: Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base

[Krztalizer]

>
>Missile damaged at naval base
>12.03.2004 [19:20]
>
>

If the same thing happened in Russia, they would first claim an American caused
the accident.

[David Nicholls]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Missile damaged at naval base
> >12.03.2004 [19:20]
> >
> >
>
> If the same thing happened in Russia, they would first claim an American
caused
> the accident.

And then the US members of the news group would point out that it showed the
total incompetance of the Russian military!

[Stephen Harding]

Stinky Pete wrote:

> The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub sinks and
> its crew is lost (Kursk).

But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.

Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
in Norway where it had limped off to.


SMH

[[email protected]]

"Mark Test" > wrote:

>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>> Stinky Pete wrote:
>>
>> > The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub sinks
>and
>> > its crew is lost (Kursk).
>>
>> But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
>> collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
>>
>> Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
>> in Norway where it had limped off to.
>>
>>
>> SMH
>>
>Stephen,
>I was going to get "spun up" over you comment, then I realized
>you must be joking.
>
>Here's why; the KURSK displaced 24,000 tons, wheras an LA
>displaces 6,900 tons, and a UK Trafalger / Swiftsure class
>displace 5,200 / 4,900 tons. So you see how ludicrous it is to suggest
>that a HUGE double hulled sub could have been taken down
>by a collision with a sub 1/4 it's size.
>
>Nice joke though.
>
>Mark
>
Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.

Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?
--

-Gord.

[John Mullen]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Mark Test" > wrote:
>
> >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Stinky Pete wrote:
> >>
> >> > The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub
sinks
> >and
> >> > its crew is lost (Kursk).
> >>
> >> But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
> >> collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
> >>
> >> Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
> >> in Norway where it had limped off to.
> >>
> >>
> >> SMH
> >>
> >Stephen,
> >I was going to get "spun up" over you comment, then I realized
> >you must be joking.
> >
> >Here's why; the KURSK displaced 24,000 tons, wheras an LA
> >displaces 6,900 tons, and a UK Trafalger / Swiftsure class
> >displace 5,200 / 4,900 tons. So you see how ludicrous it is to suggest
> >that a HUGE double hulled sub could have been taken down
> >by a collision with a sub 1/4 it's size.
> >
> >Nice joke though.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
> at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
> entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.
>
> Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
> practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?

And of course it was a torpedo, not a missile...

John

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Mark Test" > wrote:

> Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
> at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
> entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.
>
> Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
> practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?

The hulk was raised and towed ashore by a Norwegian salvage
firm as I recall and it seemed very professional.

Keith

[BUFDRVR]

>Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
>practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?

Gord,
IIRC, this was entirely seperate event with a completely different
ship. I believe it was an older Russian model sub that was being towed to the
scrap yard in heavy seas. Apparently the seas were too rough for the towing
operation, the sub sank and the few crew manning the sub were all lost. This is
all from memory...anyone got any facts to support me...or prove I'm entirely
off base?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Mark Test" > wrote:
>
>> Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
>> at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
>> entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.
>>
>> Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
>> practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?
>
>The hulk was raised and towed ashore by a Norwegian salvage
>firm as I recall and it seemed very professional.
>
>Keith
>
Oh...ok, sorry, no harm meant, must be some other incident that
I'm remembering about losses of life during towing something
then.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"John Mullen" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Mark Test" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Stinky Pete wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub
>sinks
>> >and
>> >> > its crew is lost (Kursk).
>> >>
>> >> But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
>> >> collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
>> >>
>> >> Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
>> >> in Norway where it had limped off to.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> SMH
>> >>
>> >Stephen,
>> >I was going to get "spun up" over you comment, then I realized
>> >you must be joking.
>> >
>> >Here's why; the KURSK displaced 24,000 tons, wheras an LA
>> >displaces 6,900 tons, and a UK Trafalger / Swiftsure class
>> >displace 5,200 / 4,900 tons. So you see how ludicrous it is to suggest
>> >that a HUGE double hulled sub could have been taken down
>> >by a collision with a sub 1/4 it's size.
>> >
>> >Nice joke though.
>> >
>> >Mark
>> >
>> Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
>> at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
>> entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.
>>
>> Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
>> practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?
>
>And of course it was a torpedo, not a missile...
>
>John
>
Yes of course, I forgot to say that...thanks John.
--

-Gord.

[Thomas Schoene]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Mark Test" > wrote:
>>
>>> Mark, don't you remember Venik's(?) absolutely bananas, frothing
>>> at the mouth accusations to this effect?...It was quite
>>> entertaining if you ignored the tragedy associated with it.
>>>
>>> Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
>>> practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?
>>
>> The hulk was raised and towed ashore by a Norwegian salvage
>> firm as I recall and it seemed very professional.
>>
>> Keith
>>
> Oh...ok, sorry, no harm meant, must be some other incident that
> I'm remembering about losses of life during towing something
> then.

This one, I imagine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3193625.stm

In August of 2003, a retired November-class SSN was being towed to Polarnye
for scrapping lost its flotation pontoons and apparently rolled and sank
with most of the tow crew still on board. Remarkably slipshod performance
for the Russian navy, towing an unseaworthy ship in bad weather and with the
hatches open.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[[email protected]]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>Also, didn't they lose some more men with some ham fisted
>>practices while towing the raised hulk ashore?
>
>Gord,
> IIRC, this was entirely seperate event with a completely different
>ship. I believe it was an older Russian model sub that was being towed to the
>scrap yard in heavy seas. Apparently the seas were too rough for the towing
>operation, the sub sank and the few crew manning the sub were all lost. This is
>all from memory...anyone got any facts to support me...or prove I'm entirely
>off base?
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
No, you're quite right Buff...it was three years after Kursk.
Tom left this url:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3193625.stm

Thanks.
--

-Gord.

[Stephen Harding]

Mark Test wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>
>>But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
>>collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
>>
>>Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
>>in Norway where it had limped off to.
>
> I was going to get "spun up" over you comment, then I realized
> you must be joking.

I was being facetious, and really not trolling.

Honest.


SMH

[Matt Wiser]

"Mark Test" > wrote:
>"Stephen Harding" > wrote
>in message
...
>> Stinky Pete wrote:
>>
>> > The difference is that when the Russians
>damage a missile, a sub sinks
>and
>> > its crew is lost (Kursk).
>>
>> But if you recall, the Kursk was actually
>sunk by
>> collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
>>
>> Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO
>base
>> in Norway where it had limped off to.
>>
>>
>> SMH
>>
>Stephen,
>I was going to get "spun up" over you comment,
>then I realized
>you must be joking.
>
>Here's why; the KURSK displaced 24,000 tons,
>wheras an LA
>displaces 6,900 tons, and a UK Trafalger / Swiftsure
>class
>displace 5,200 / 4,900 tons. So you see how
>ludicrous it is to suggest
>that a HUGE double hulled sub could have been
>taken down
>by a collision with a sub 1/4 it's size.
>
>Nice joke though.
>
>Mark
>
>
And even the Russians admitted after Kursk was raised that a hot torpedo
going off in the torpedo room was the likely cause of the sinking. All of
the damage was caused by an INTERNAL explosion, not an external impact.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[BUFDRVR]

> No, you're quite right Buff...it was three years after Kursk.
>Tom left this url:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3193625.stm
>

Ever wonder why you remember such things? I've got better things to do with my
limited brain cells ;)




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Thomas Schoene]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>> No, you're quite right Buff...it was three years after Kursk.
>> Tom left this url:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3193625.stm
>>
>
> Ever wonder why you remember such things? I've got better things to
> do with my limited brain cells ;)

Well, I actually make my living in part from knowing this sort of thing. So
I reckon it's a worthwhile way to use those cells.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Qman]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> ...anyone got any facts to support me...or prove I'm entirely
> off base?

Some pics taken right before fatal towing accident:
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=31503

Go to www.bellona.no and run a search with "K-159"... you get lots of
articles with all the information...



Qman

[John Mullen]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...

> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Great sig!

John

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:26:34 -0500, Stephen Harding > wrote:

>Stinky Pete wrote:
>
>> The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub sinks and
>> its crew is lost (Kursk).
>
>But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
>collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
>
>Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
>in Norway where it had limped off to.
>
>
>SMH
>
That is utter BS, and you either know, or should know, it.

Al Minyard

[Krztalizer]

>>> The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub sinks and
>>> its crew is lost (Kursk).
>>
>>But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
>>collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.
>>
>>Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
>>in Norway where it had limped off to.

Is Petukhov posting under a nom de troll?

1) 99.99% of the people familiar with the event know that it occurred due to a
weapons malfunction on the Kursk. Those that know the facts and refuse to
accept them are not ignorant, just foolish.

2) The "damaged" US sub was apparently not worked on in any way, it made a port
visit and then left, as subs do - the white canopy cover, pointed at as
evidence of damage, is in its normal place over the entrance hatch at the
Quarterdeck - and if the damage WAS located there, it would mean the two
submarines collided with one of the subs upside down (or both laying on their
sides!); patently impossible, let alone in waters as shallow as the Kursk
disaster.

There are only about six conspiracy theorists left on earth that believe, in
the absense of any evidence at all, the US played a hand in the Kursk loss -
are you claiming to be one of them? :)

Gordon

[Thomas Schoene]

John Mullen wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
>> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
>> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz,
>> 1872
>
> Great sig!

Thanks. It's my small editorial comment on the nature of true patriotism.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[David Lesher]

>>And of course it was a torpedo, not a missile...

That's the cover story; but we know it hit that UFO
that was coming out of the ocean trench base...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433