Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base

(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.

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

"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!

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"

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

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

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news
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

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

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

John Mullen wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
news
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