A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 13th 04, 06:01 PM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Ads
  #2  
Old March 13th 04, 06:57 PM
David Nicholls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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!


  #3  
Old March 14th 04, 12:26 PM
Stephen Harding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #4  
Old March 14th 04, 07:31 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #5  
Old March 14th 04, 07:46 PM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #6  
Old March 14th 04, 07:46 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #7  
Old March 14th 04, 08:59 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"
  #8  
Old March 14th 04, 10:23 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #9  
Old March 14th 04, 10:29 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #10  
Old March 14th 04, 10:33 PM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Second wing activated at Ramstein Air Base Otis Willie Military Aviation 5 January 17th 04 05:23 PM
U.S. military leaving Kuwaiti air base ~ Associated Press Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 21st 03 10:39 PM
Base Closure List- 2005 Phineas Pinkham Military Aviation 1 September 9th 03 11:06 PM
Yokota Air Base bids fond farewell to C-9s Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 8th 03 08:55 PM
Erosion of U.S. Industrial Base Is Troubling The Enlightenment Military Aviation 1 July 29th 03 06:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.