Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base

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.

"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!

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

"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.

"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

"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

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"

"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.

"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.

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