Why do Americans "drown" our submarines?
According to our unofficial statistics, during the Cold War and the confrontation of the USSR and the USA in the ocean, there were about 25 cases of collisions of submarines of the USSR, Russia and submarines of foreign states (mainly the USA). At the same time, we believe that 12 cases of collisions occurred near our territorial waters. Of 12 cases, 9 clashes occurred in the North navy, 3 - in the Pacific Fleet. According to the same unofficial statistics, as a result of such collisions, 3 nuclear submarines of the USSR and Russia were sunk (K-129, K-219, K-141 Kursk). According to official statistics, which is confirmed by factual evidence, for the entire period of the Cold War and the post-Soviet period, there were only 3 collisions of our submarines with American ones. (K-108 (Pacific Fleet) collided with the American Totog submarine in 1970, K-276 (SF) collided with the Baton Rouge in 1992, K-407 (SF) collided with the US PLA in 1993 Grayling "). All other, in our version, nuclear submarine collisions with foreign submarines are not supported by facts. Often, such information is taken from foreign media, which are everywhere looking for a sensation. Example: in 1968, the US Navy's Scorpion submarine perished in the ocean. The US government commission did not establish the exact causes of the death of the submarine. Some American newspapers immediately published sensational information that the Scorpion was sunk by a Soviet submarine, allegedly in revenge for the death of the K-129. Allegedly, the Soviet K-129 in March 1968 was sunk by the US Swordfish submarine. Our experts and journalists immediately supported the version of American journalists that the K-129 drowned an American submarine. And they built the “iron” logic of evidence that this was so.
Why did the Americans find the place of the death of K-129, but we did not find it? Our version: because they knew exactly the coordinates of the Suordfish submarine collision with the K-129. We did not take into account the fact that the Americans had a global system of hydroacoustic observation in the Pacific Ocean SUSUS, which allowed us to accurately determine the location of various underwater objects.
Why, when the Americans lifted K-129 in 1974, it broke almost in half and the stern was not raised? Our version: because as a result of a collision with the Suordfish submarine, the K-129 got a hole in the middle part of the hull and from this, when it was raised, the submarine body broke. The fact that in the process of falling to a depth of more than 4000 meters, the submarine K-129 subway crashed into the ground at the speed of an express train and could cause damage to the hull from this, we did not take into account.
Why did the Suordfish submarine enter the Japanese port with hull damage? Our version: Because she faced K-129. The fact that K-129 sank in the area of the Hawaiian Islands and the Suordfish submarine, if it ran into it, would have been closer to repair to the main US naval base in Hawaii, and not to Japan, we did not take into account .
It is from such arguments of our large and small military commanders of the Navy and some citizens that we still believe that the Americans sank K-129 and the Scorpion sank in response. We have no evidence of involvement in the death of the K-129 of the American PLA.
During the investigation of the K-219 catastrophe in 1986, rumors and versions were again born that the US Navy "Augusta" was involved in this catastrophe. These rumors were spread by foreign media, the command of the Northern Fleet and the crew of the SSB-K-219, and the Navy leadership supported them. From what logic of their reasoning was this version born?
The Americans did not make much noise, despite the fact that K-219 sank near their coast, and this happened on the eve of the talks between the presidents of the United States and the USSR. So the US did not want to advertise the involvement of its PLA in this catastrophe.
On the body of the K-219 there was a silver trail from some external influence. So, it was a trace from the keel of the PLN Augusta, which destroyed the 6 rocket mine. As a result, the rocket was crushed by outboard pressure, an explosion of fuel and oxidant occurred. The fact that still at the stage of preparation for the march, and then, throughout the entire voyage, rocket shaft No. 6 was caused by the failure of the mining equipment due to malfunctioning of the mine equipment, and the personnel concealed this fact into account. And the fact that “Augusta” “delicately” destroyed exactly the faulty rocket mine No. 6, and the neighboring mines remained intact, it didn’t surprise anyone in the Northern Fleet and in the Navy Headquarters.
When towing the K-219 SSBN, the towing cables were torn, which means that the Augusta specially passed at a periscope depth between the emergency submarine and the towing vehicle, and the hauling cable was cut off. The fact that not a single competent commander of a submarine, of any state, would have done so because of the danger of damage to the hull of his submarine and its outboard devices by the towing cable, our “experts” did not take into account. The fact that such actions at sea, in peacetime, are a violation of the sovereign rights of the USSR, and not a single commander of a warship, of any state, will act this way, our high-ranking leaders did not embarrass.
And today, this crazy version of the involvement of the American Augusta PLA in drowning the K-219 continues to "walk" in the vast book, magazine, newspaper and television information fields and in the heads of the "best specialists in the underwater business."
In 2000, the Kursk submarine K-141 crashed. Despite the fact that the government commission did not find evidence of involvement of foreign submarines in the death of the Kursk, most of our citizens believe the statements of certain officials of the Northern Fleet, the Navy Headquarters, and submariner veterans that Kursk died from -for the collision (was torpedoed) with the US Navy's Memphis submarines.
What is the logic of such judgments?
1. In the area of the exercise, the ships of the Northern Fleet were 3 submarines of foreign countries (US 2 submarines and 1-UK). The fact that these submarines were not detected by the forces of the Northern Fleet, as they were outside the area closed to other vessels, is not surprising to anyone.
2. The Memphis submarine arrived at the Norwegian port with hull damage, and the Americans refused to let our specialists inspect the Memphis and Toledo submarines. There is a snapshot of a reconnaissance satellite, which clearly shows damage to the Memphis PLA. The fact that this snapshot of an American submarine with a damaged hull is many years old and belongs to a completely different US submarine, our interpreters of the collision version did not convince of the fallacy of such a judgment.
3. On the starboard side in the K-141 “Kursk” submarine light submarine, in the 2 compartment, there is a round hole. So this is a trace of the American torpedo Mk-48 with a depleted uranium tip, which pierced a solid hull and exploded in the 2 compartment, hitting the personnel of the Kursk main command post. The fact that the torpedoes with "tips" never, in any state, was and never will be, our "soothsayers" do not realize. The fact that the durable hull of the submarine against this hole is not damaged does not bother anyone either. The fact that the torpedoes, in contact with the object of attack, immediately explode, and do not pierce holes, many of our “specialists of the underwater business” cannot understand. In peacetime, in stories the submarine fleet of all countries of the world, there was not a single case of attacks from submarines of both surface and submarine targets, our "latter-day Jules Verne" do not know.
4. The Americans were unambiguously involved in the death of the Kursk nuclear submarine, because after its death the president of the Russian Federation and the president of the United States talked for a long time on the phone, and the director of the CIA and Russia immediately flew into Moscow to negotiate a huge financial debt. According to the logic of our military and civilians, the leaders of the states should not talk for a long time on the phone, and the director of the CIA cannot discuss the existing problems of relations between Russia and the United States in Moscow. In addition, the IMF and the IBRD cannot implement interstate regulation of monetary and credit relations. And if they do, it is only with some intention (in this case, so that Russia does not make a fuss about the involvement of the American PLA in the sinking of the Kursk).
5. When the submarine "Kursk" was raised to the surface, the remnants of the 1 compartment were cut off and left on the ground. So, according to the logic of many of our “best specialists of the underwater service,” the Russian rescue team did this intentionally to hide the evidence of the torpedoing (collision) of the American submarine of our submarine. The justification of the rescuers that when the submarine was lifted to the surface, the destroyed 1 compartment could fall off and disrupt the alignment of the load distribution to the cable accessories of the lifting mechanisms, no one believed. Many people on 148% were convinced that once they sawed the 1 compartment, they wanted to hide the causes of the disaster.
As of today, Russian specialists do not have any actual evidence that would confirm the fact of a collision or torpedoing of the Kursk submarine of an American submarine. Nevertheless, over the years 12, our and foreign media have been publishing “sensational exposures and interviews”, shooting “horror films”, staging plays about the torpedoing of the Kursk submarines by Americans. The latest publications of journalist G. Nazarov in the newspaper “Russkiy Vestnik” for August and December of 2012 in the form of interviews with “courageous and fearless officers of the Navy”, as if “summed up” this ugly, long-standing lie. Who are these “brave officers” who revealed to the journalist the “secret of the death of the submarine Kursk?” These are captains of stock rank 1 A.P. Ilyushkin, former commander of the submarine, and V.I. Akimenko, deputy head of the mine-torpedo armament cycle of the Navy Training Center, member of the governmental commission for the investigation of the nuclear submarine K-141 Kursk. Here are some of the answers from V.I. Akimenko on the questions of the journalist "Russian Herald":
“According to the Kursk nuclear submarine, many books and articles have been written in which the authors try to show the uterine truth from their position. As a rule, these authors are incompetent, do not know the essence of the problem, nor the technology ... They use rumors, other people's thoughts, heard at the table or on the sidelines, "..." ... only those who investigated the cause of the catastrophe can be interviewed , have truthful information from reliable sources, photo and video data, is a specialist miner engaged in the operation of this type of torpedoes. In my answers, I focus your attention on what I know well, "..." At the time of the investigation into the causes of the Kursk catastrophe, I was the deputy head of the mine-torpedo armament cycle at the Navy Training Center. L.G. Osipenko (Obninsk). Previously, he served 7,5 for years on the submarine of the same project as the Kursk as a flagship miner, tested torpedoes (referred to) and worked with Sadko equipment (equipment for monitoring the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in torpedo tanks). From the Directorate of anti-submarine weapons of the Navy, I was assigned to the commission to investigate the causes of the death of the Kursk, since there were no submariner specialists of this project. ”
“Hydrogen peroxide when mixed with kerosene is not explosive - the 9 class chemistry of the Soviet school”, “In the 2 compartment of the bulkhead, the back cover could not be boiled, because the bulkheads of the first four compartments were completely destroyed ...” ... “Ustinov’s statement that the gases formed during the explosion, they torn off the back cover of the torpedo tube, simply absurdly ”, ... Large Izhera showed under what conditions a hydrogen peroxide reservoir could explode. We had to put more than 4 kg of TNT under it before it exploded. ”
“Unlike Ustinov, my opinion is completely different. Presumably - the occasional torpedoing of the “Kursk” by the American submarine “Memphis”, who was watching our boat. In the main command post of the American PL, an instrument was installed which, when approaching at a distance of less than 20 cable (approximately 3,7 km), takes control of the use of torpedo tubes. weaponsif the CICS (combat information management system) and the torpedo complex operate in combat mode. Apparently, the operator of the BIUS, the watch officer or the commander of the “Memphis” forgot to turn it off when they lost contact with the submarine “Kursk” after its ascent to the periscope depth. This assumption was developed in conjunction with representatives of the cycle of the Radio Engineering Service of the Training Center. L. Osipenko ... According to the analysis of pieces of the hull and torpedoes, racks after the rise of the Kursk, the first American MK-48 torpedo allegedly entered the left boulevard, it was thrown into the 2 compartment by an explosion, respectively, destroyed the torpedo case No. 4 at the bottom of the training torpedo. This is where the remnants of the group hydraulic torpedo tube and part of the torpedo are located at the point of the Kursk at the periscope depth. ... The second torpedo allegedly pierced the hull of the boat in the area of the 12 th frame, between the second and sixth torpedo tubes, snatched a piece of the hull of 2,2 x X 3,0 size, weighing about 6 tons and threw it onto the left side of the 2 compartment of the square. At the same time, the torpedoes located on the left-side racks were detonated, which was shown by the results of the inspection of the 2 compartment ... "The hole in the starboard in the area of the 2 compartment is a technological hole made by divers during the first inspection of the Kursk.
At the beginning, I would like to inform this “well all knowledgeable specialist” that there are no flagship mineral posts on any submarines. On all types of submarines there is a post of commander of a mine-torpedo warhead. The position of the flagship mineral is only in the headquarters of divisions, brigades, divisions of ships. And now there are questions to Mr. V. Akimenko: “Where has he served 7,5 for years? On which Kursk-type submarine (949A of the project) did he test 65-76А torpedoes and Sadko equipment as a flagship miner? Why does he not know what type of torpedo tubes on the submarine, where he served 7,5 for years, stating that there are torpedo tubes of a hydraulic type, although in fact they are pneumohydraulic? And this, as they say in Odessa, is two big differences. What office appointed him to the “commission investigating the causes of Kursk’s death?” In the Navy there is no "Anti-submarine weapons control", there is a MANAGEMENT OF UNDERWATER ARMAMENT. I admit that an officer of a non-mine-torpedo specialty does not know the correct name of all Navy directorates. But an officer with the rank of captain 1, who has a mine education and does his entire service in a mine-torpedo business, does not know the correct name of his MAIN administration, does not know the correct name of his position on the nuclear submarine, does not know his material part, this is from the category “You can’t think of anything deliberately!” Hair stands on end when you think that Mr. Akimenko was appointed to the government commission as the best mineral expert! Then what other miner specialists represent is not the best?
This “torpedo weapon specialist” claims that a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene is not explosive. Then how to understand the requirements of factory instructions, which categorically prohibit the use of non-fat tools and air hoses when working with highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide? How to understand the approval of the textbook for high school "General and inorganic chemistry", that poorly purified highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide is explosive? How to understand the statement of the manufacturer's instructions for the use of peroxide torpedoes that if organic oils, dirt, metal and other objects get into highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen peroxide may explode?
Hydrogen peroxide when mixed with kerosene begins to rapidly decompose with the release of large amounts of heat. When 1 decomposes kg of hydrogen peroxide, 197,5 kilojoules of heat are released. If such a reaction takes place in a closed volume with a large amount of hydrogen peroxide, there is an instant decomposition of a huge mass of peroxide and an instantaneous release of a large amount of thermal (chemical) energy. There is an explosion that creates a shock wave.
The combination of hydrogen peroxide with kerosene in the practical 65-76 PV torpedo on the Kursk submarine caused an explosion of these substances and the destruction of the torpedo. The explosion of these substances "gave birth" to a shock wave. The shock wave, not the gases, destroyed the back and front covers of the torpedo tube No. 4, as well as the torpedo tube in the interbelt space and elements of the light body in the nose. The shock wave propagates from the epicenter of the explosion evenly in all directions. The epicenter was in the middle of the torpedo tube № 4. With the explosion of hydrogen peroxide, the pressure in the front of the shock wave was of the order of 5-8 kg / cm². The area of the back cover is about 350 000 cm². Thus, the back cover, with great speed, was impacted by a huge pressure impulse. From such a load, the lid was torn off along with the kremalerny lock and "welded" into the nasal bulkhead of the 2 -th compartment. But Mr. Akimenko doesn’t understand this, since he doesn’t even understand that at the time of the 1 explosion, all the bulkheads of the 2,3,4 compartments were intact, not destroyed. The bulkheads of these compartments collapsed after a second, more powerful explosion. When identifying the causes of the hydrogen peroxide explosion, Mr. Akimenko and other members of the same commission, the peroxide reservoir was blown up with TNT. Of course, it did not explode, since there was no instantaneous reaction of decomposition of peroxide and the release of a large amount of chemical energy. If these gentlemen had blown up a structure made of hydrogen peroxide, aviation kerosene, high-pressure air cylinder 200 kg / cm², placed in a tight confined volume (as in a real torpedo), or a real torpedo, they would have learned how hydrogen peroxide explodes. What is the explosive hexogen? From components of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. If you blow up ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder separately, there will be no explosion. But if these substances are combined together and blown up, we get an explosion of tremendous power. But V. Akimenko, “a major specialist in peroxide torpedoes of the 949A submarine of the project,” cannot understand this.
What “left bull entered the American torpedo”? The word "bul" comes from the English "bulges" - bulge, bulging. In the pre-war Navy of the USSR, this word had two meanings: for surface ships, the word “boules” meant special bulges in the underwater part of the ship hull. The bulges had internal cavities. When a torpedo or mines hit the ship's hull, these prominent structures were primarily destroyed, thereby protecting the ship's hull from destruction. It was a kind of constructive protection of the ship from the torpedo and mine weapons. For submarines, the word “boules” had a meaning and significance, as the light hull of a submarine of a one-and-a-half structure. That is, such submarines did not have a solid light hull, and there was a light hull only in the middle part of the submarine. Ballast and fuel tanks were housed in this lightweight hull. Look at the sign "Submarine Commander". In the middle of the sign of the submarine there are bulges. This is the boule, i.e. part of the light body. But it was all on surface ships and submarines of pre-war construction. On modern surface ships and submarines there are no such devices and bulges. [...]
Not a single nuclear submarine in the United States has an instrument for the automatic use of torpedo and other weapons. All warships, including US nuclear submarines, provide automatic pre-launch preparation of weapons for use. But the team at the beginning of pre-launch preparation and the use of any weapon always gives the captain (in wartime, such a command can be given by a watch officer). No computer Robot, who would himself give the command to use weapons, was not on US warships, is not and, I am sure, will not be.
And now I will try to translate this nonsense of the “brave naval officer” into the public human language. So, my translation of Mr. Akimenko’s words: “American nuclear submarine Memphis watched the submarine Kursk. While tracking, the combat information control system (CICS) and the torpedo-missile system worked in combat mode, since the American submarine commander believed that he could be attacked by a Russian submarine. As a result of bad watch keeping by American submariners, Memfis moved closer to Kursk at an unacceptable distance of less than 20 cables. At that moment, the submarine "Kursk" surfaced to the periscope depth and the Americans lost hydroacoustic contact with it. As a result of the confusion or forgetfulness of the American submariners, they forgot to turn off the automatic attack system at the main command post. The system turned on and fired two torpedoes, the Mk-48, without the knowledge of the submarine commander.
The Americans, at the time of the shooting, did not have hydroacoustic contact with the submarine "Kursk" and did not know where it was located. The CICS still gave the command to launch torpedoes and torpedoes found our submarine. The first American torpedo MK-48 allegedly entered the left ballast tank, the explosion of the ballast tank thrown into the 2-th compartment. The body of the torpedo tube No. 4, which is located in the inter-sided space at the very top of the strong case, next to which there are two more bodies of the torpedo tubes No. 2 and No. 6, collapsed only at the bottom. Torpedo tubes No. 2 and No. 6 were not affected. The second torpedo, like a shaped-charge projectile, pierced the submarine hull in the 12 area of the frame, tore off the steel sheet of the robust hull of 2,2 x 3,0 m size and threw it into the left side of the 2 compartment. The accuracy of the shooting was amazing, both torpedoes hit almost the same place as the Kursk submarine, as when shooting an optical rifle. This happened because on the American torpedo tubes are top secret development of "fiber-optic fiber gravity sights."
That is the meaning of Mr. Akimenko’s statements. Anyone who understands something in the marine service will say that this is a nonsense of a sick person. But this is said by a mine and torpedo specialist, a rank 1 captain, a teacher at the Navy Training Center cycle, a member of the government commission to investigate the causes of the death of the Kursk nuclear submarine. It says a person who "knows everything well." The most striking thing is that they believe this crazy stuff.
Here are the statements on this issue of A.P. Ilushkin, another “brave officer”.
“The torpedo launched at Kursk pierced the light and durable hull of the boat and exploded inside the 2 compartment. This is an indisputable fact. But this explosion could not destroy the other compartments of the boat. They were destroyed by the second explosion - after the explosion of the entire ammunition torpedoes, which was located on the "Kursk". This is the second indisputable fact. The third fact follows from here - two torpedoes were fired at the Kursk
The first indisputable fact is that behind the stern, located at the bottom of the Kursk nuclear submarine, at a distance of 80 - 150 meters, there were fragments of the nose section of the submarine's lightweight hull, hydroacoustic antenna, torpedo tube number 4, practical torpedo 65-76 PV. How, according to Ilyushkin, did they get there if the first American torpedo exploded in the 2 compartment? Or were these fragments for the stern of the sunk submarine suffered by the Americans, who attacked the Kursk? Or maybe all these explosions of American torpedoes are the fruit of Mr. Ilyushkin's utter fantasy? Torpedoes never "stitch" a durable and lightweight submarine hull. Torpedoes, both ours and the Americans, have non-contact and contact fuses. These fuses will detonate the torpedo's ammunition if it passes near the submarine at a distance of 5-8 meters or just comes into contact with the submarine's hull. The torpedo itself cannot penetrate the robust hull of modern submarines. It can only penetrate an explosive explosion. The second indisputable fact is that no one from the government commission and the investigative team discovered the destruction of a solid hull in the 2 compartment, either from a torpedo “flashing”, or a torpedo explosion. And the third indisputable fact is that all the arguments of Mr. Ilyushkin about the torpedoing of the Kursk nuclear submarine are no more nothing less than his elementary ignorance in matters of maritime service. The saddest thing about this is that many of our citizens believe the statements of this "illiterate science fiction." [...]
1. In the area of the exercise, the ships of the Northern Fleet were 3 submarines of foreign countries (US 2 submarines and 1-UK). The fact that these submarines were not detected by the forces of the Northern Fleet, as they were outside the area closed to other vessels, is not surprising to anyone.
2. The Memphis submarine arrived at the Norwegian port with hull damage, and the Americans refused to let our specialists inspect the Memphis and Toledo submarines. There is a snapshot of a reconnaissance satellite, which clearly shows damage to the Memphis PLA. The fact that this snapshot of an American submarine with a damaged hull is many years old and belongs to a completely different US submarine, our interpreters of the collision version did not convince of the fallacy of such a judgment.
3. On the starboard side in the K-141 “Kursk” submarine light submarine, in the 2 compartment, there is a round hole. So this is a trace of the American torpedo Mk-48 with a depleted uranium tip, which pierced a solid hull and exploded in the 2 compartment, hitting the personnel of the Kursk main command post. The fact that the torpedoes with "tips" never, in any state, was and never will be, our "soothsayers" do not realize. The fact that the durable hull of the submarine against this hole is not damaged does not bother anyone either. The fact that the torpedoes, in contact with the object of attack, immediately explode, and do not pierce holes, many of our “specialists of the underwater business” cannot understand. In peacetime, in stories the submarine fleet of all countries of the world, there was not a single case of attacks from submarines of both surface and submarine targets, our "latter-day Jules Verne" do not know.
4. The Americans were unambiguously involved in the death of the Kursk nuclear submarine, because after its death the president of the Russian Federation and the president of the United States talked for a long time on the phone, and the director of the CIA and Russia immediately flew into Moscow to negotiate a huge financial debt. According to the logic of our military and civilians, the leaders of the states should not talk for a long time on the phone, and the director of the CIA cannot discuss the existing problems of relations between Russia and the United States in Moscow. In addition, the IMF and the IBRD cannot implement interstate regulation of monetary and credit relations. And if they do, it is only with some intention (in this case, so that Russia does not make a fuss about the involvement of the American PLA in the sinking of the Kursk).
5. When the submarine "Kursk" was raised to the surface, the remnants of the 1 compartment were cut off and left on the ground. So, according to the logic of many of our “best specialists of the underwater service,” the Russian rescue team did this intentionally to hide the evidence of the torpedoing (collision) of the American submarine of our submarine. The justification of the rescuers that when the submarine was lifted to the surface, the destroyed 1 compartment could fall off and disrupt the alignment of the load distribution to the cable accessories of the lifting mechanisms, no one believed. Many people on 148% were convinced that once they sawed the 1 compartment, they wanted to hide the causes of the disaster.
As of today, Russian specialists do not have any actual evidence that would confirm the fact of a collision or torpedoing of the Kursk submarine of an American submarine. Nevertheless, over the years 12, our and foreign media have been publishing “sensational exposures and interviews”, shooting “horror films”, staging plays about the torpedoing of the Kursk submarines by Americans. The latest publications of journalist G. Nazarov in the newspaper “Russkiy Vestnik” for August and December of 2012 in the form of interviews with “courageous and fearless officers of the Navy”, as if “summed up” this ugly, long-standing lie. Who are these “brave officers” who revealed to the journalist the “secret of the death of the submarine Kursk?” These are captains of stock rank 1 A.P. Ilyushkin, former commander of the submarine, and V.I. Akimenko, deputy head of the mine-torpedo armament cycle of the Navy Training Center, member of the governmental commission for the investigation of the nuclear submarine K-141 Kursk. Here are some of the answers from V.I. Akimenko on the questions of the journalist "Russian Herald":
“According to the Kursk nuclear submarine, many books and articles have been written in which the authors try to show the uterine truth from their position. As a rule, these authors are incompetent, do not know the essence of the problem, nor the technology ... They use rumors, other people's thoughts, heard at the table or on the sidelines, "..." ... only those who investigated the cause of the catastrophe can be interviewed , have truthful information from reliable sources, photo and video data, is a specialist miner engaged in the operation of this type of torpedoes. In my answers, I focus your attention on what I know well, "..." At the time of the investigation into the causes of the Kursk catastrophe, I was the deputy head of the mine-torpedo armament cycle at the Navy Training Center. L.G. Osipenko (Obninsk). Previously, he served 7,5 for years on the submarine of the same project as the Kursk as a flagship miner, tested torpedoes (referred to) and worked with Sadko equipment (equipment for monitoring the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in torpedo tanks). From the Directorate of anti-submarine weapons of the Navy, I was assigned to the commission to investigate the causes of the death of the Kursk, since there were no submariner specialists of this project. ”
“Hydrogen peroxide when mixed with kerosene is not explosive - the 9 class chemistry of the Soviet school”, “In the 2 compartment of the bulkhead, the back cover could not be boiled, because the bulkheads of the first four compartments were completely destroyed ...” ... “Ustinov’s statement that the gases formed during the explosion, they torn off the back cover of the torpedo tube, simply absurdly ”, ... Large Izhera showed under what conditions a hydrogen peroxide reservoir could explode. We had to put more than 4 kg of TNT under it before it exploded. ”
“Unlike Ustinov, my opinion is completely different. Presumably - the occasional torpedoing of the “Kursk” by the American submarine “Memphis”, who was watching our boat. In the main command post of the American PL, an instrument was installed which, when approaching at a distance of less than 20 cable (approximately 3,7 km), takes control of the use of torpedo tubes. weaponsif the CICS (combat information management system) and the torpedo complex operate in combat mode. Apparently, the operator of the BIUS, the watch officer or the commander of the “Memphis” forgot to turn it off when they lost contact with the submarine “Kursk” after its ascent to the periscope depth. This assumption was developed in conjunction with representatives of the cycle of the Radio Engineering Service of the Training Center. L. Osipenko ... According to the analysis of pieces of the hull and torpedoes, racks after the rise of the Kursk, the first American MK-48 torpedo allegedly entered the left boulevard, it was thrown into the 2 compartment by an explosion, respectively, destroyed the torpedo case No. 4 at the bottom of the training torpedo. This is where the remnants of the group hydraulic torpedo tube and part of the torpedo are located at the point of the Kursk at the periscope depth. ... The second torpedo allegedly pierced the hull of the boat in the area of the 12 th frame, between the second and sixth torpedo tubes, snatched a piece of the hull of 2,2 x X 3,0 size, weighing about 6 tons and threw it onto the left side of the 2 compartment of the square. At the same time, the torpedoes located on the left-side racks were detonated, which was shown by the results of the inspection of the 2 compartment ... "The hole in the starboard in the area of the 2 compartment is a technological hole made by divers during the first inspection of the Kursk.
At the beginning, I would like to inform this “well all knowledgeable specialist” that there are no flagship mineral posts on any submarines. On all types of submarines there is a post of commander of a mine-torpedo warhead. The position of the flagship mineral is only in the headquarters of divisions, brigades, divisions of ships. And now there are questions to Mr. V. Akimenko: “Where has he served 7,5 for years? On which Kursk-type submarine (949A of the project) did he test 65-76А torpedoes and Sadko equipment as a flagship miner? Why does he not know what type of torpedo tubes on the submarine, where he served 7,5 for years, stating that there are torpedo tubes of a hydraulic type, although in fact they are pneumohydraulic? And this, as they say in Odessa, is two big differences. What office appointed him to the “commission investigating the causes of Kursk’s death?” In the Navy there is no "Anti-submarine weapons control", there is a MANAGEMENT OF UNDERWATER ARMAMENT. I admit that an officer of a non-mine-torpedo specialty does not know the correct name of all Navy directorates. But an officer with the rank of captain 1, who has a mine education and does his entire service in a mine-torpedo business, does not know the correct name of his MAIN administration, does not know the correct name of his position on the nuclear submarine, does not know his material part, this is from the category “You can’t think of anything deliberately!” Hair stands on end when you think that Mr. Akimenko was appointed to the government commission as the best mineral expert! Then what other miner specialists represent is not the best?
This “torpedo weapon specialist” claims that a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene is not explosive. Then how to understand the requirements of factory instructions, which categorically prohibit the use of non-fat tools and air hoses when working with highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide? How to understand the approval of the textbook for high school "General and inorganic chemistry", that poorly purified highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide is explosive? How to understand the statement of the manufacturer's instructions for the use of peroxide torpedoes that if organic oils, dirt, metal and other objects get into highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen peroxide may explode?
Hydrogen peroxide when mixed with kerosene begins to rapidly decompose with the release of large amounts of heat. When 1 decomposes kg of hydrogen peroxide, 197,5 kilojoules of heat are released. If such a reaction takes place in a closed volume with a large amount of hydrogen peroxide, there is an instant decomposition of a huge mass of peroxide and an instantaneous release of a large amount of thermal (chemical) energy. There is an explosion that creates a shock wave.
The combination of hydrogen peroxide with kerosene in the practical 65-76 PV torpedo on the Kursk submarine caused an explosion of these substances and the destruction of the torpedo. The explosion of these substances "gave birth" to a shock wave. The shock wave, not the gases, destroyed the back and front covers of the torpedo tube No. 4, as well as the torpedo tube in the interbelt space and elements of the light body in the nose. The shock wave propagates from the epicenter of the explosion evenly in all directions. The epicenter was in the middle of the torpedo tube № 4. With the explosion of hydrogen peroxide, the pressure in the front of the shock wave was of the order of 5-8 kg / cm². The area of the back cover is about 350 000 cm². Thus, the back cover, with great speed, was impacted by a huge pressure impulse. From such a load, the lid was torn off along with the kremalerny lock and "welded" into the nasal bulkhead of the 2 -th compartment. But Mr. Akimenko doesn’t understand this, since he doesn’t even understand that at the time of the 1 explosion, all the bulkheads of the 2,3,4 compartments were intact, not destroyed. The bulkheads of these compartments collapsed after a second, more powerful explosion. When identifying the causes of the hydrogen peroxide explosion, Mr. Akimenko and other members of the same commission, the peroxide reservoir was blown up with TNT. Of course, it did not explode, since there was no instantaneous reaction of decomposition of peroxide and the release of a large amount of chemical energy. If these gentlemen had blown up a structure made of hydrogen peroxide, aviation kerosene, high-pressure air cylinder 200 kg / cm², placed in a tight confined volume (as in a real torpedo), or a real torpedo, they would have learned how hydrogen peroxide explodes. What is the explosive hexogen? From components of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. If you blow up ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder separately, there will be no explosion. But if these substances are combined together and blown up, we get an explosion of tremendous power. But V. Akimenko, “a major specialist in peroxide torpedoes of the 949A submarine of the project,” cannot understand this.
What “left bull entered the American torpedo”? The word "bul" comes from the English "bulges" - bulge, bulging. In the pre-war Navy of the USSR, this word had two meanings: for surface ships, the word “boules” meant special bulges in the underwater part of the ship hull. The bulges had internal cavities. When a torpedo or mines hit the ship's hull, these prominent structures were primarily destroyed, thereby protecting the ship's hull from destruction. It was a kind of constructive protection of the ship from the torpedo and mine weapons. For submarines, the word “boules” had a meaning and significance, as the light hull of a submarine of a one-and-a-half structure. That is, such submarines did not have a solid light hull, and there was a light hull only in the middle part of the submarine. Ballast and fuel tanks were housed in this lightweight hull. Look at the sign "Submarine Commander". In the middle of the sign of the submarine there are bulges. This is the boule, i.e. part of the light body. But it was all on surface ships and submarines of pre-war construction. On modern surface ships and submarines there are no such devices and bulges. [...]
Not a single nuclear submarine in the United States has an instrument for the automatic use of torpedo and other weapons. All warships, including US nuclear submarines, provide automatic pre-launch preparation of weapons for use. But the team at the beginning of pre-launch preparation and the use of any weapon always gives the captain (in wartime, such a command can be given by a watch officer). No computer Robot, who would himself give the command to use weapons, was not on US warships, is not and, I am sure, will not be.
And now I will try to translate this nonsense of the “brave naval officer” into the public human language. So, my translation of Mr. Akimenko’s words: “American nuclear submarine Memphis watched the submarine Kursk. While tracking, the combat information control system (CICS) and the torpedo-missile system worked in combat mode, since the American submarine commander believed that he could be attacked by a Russian submarine. As a result of bad watch keeping by American submariners, Memfis moved closer to Kursk at an unacceptable distance of less than 20 cables. At that moment, the submarine "Kursk" surfaced to the periscope depth and the Americans lost hydroacoustic contact with it. As a result of the confusion or forgetfulness of the American submariners, they forgot to turn off the automatic attack system at the main command post. The system turned on and fired two torpedoes, the Mk-48, without the knowledge of the submarine commander.
The Americans, at the time of the shooting, did not have hydroacoustic contact with the submarine "Kursk" and did not know where it was located. The CICS still gave the command to launch torpedoes and torpedoes found our submarine. The first American torpedo MK-48 allegedly entered the left ballast tank, the explosion of the ballast tank thrown into the 2-th compartment. The body of the torpedo tube No. 4, which is located in the inter-sided space at the very top of the strong case, next to which there are two more bodies of the torpedo tubes No. 2 and No. 6, collapsed only at the bottom. Torpedo tubes No. 2 and No. 6 were not affected. The second torpedo, like a shaped-charge projectile, pierced the submarine hull in the 12 area of the frame, tore off the steel sheet of the robust hull of 2,2 x 3,0 m size and threw it into the left side of the 2 compartment. The accuracy of the shooting was amazing, both torpedoes hit almost the same place as the Kursk submarine, as when shooting an optical rifle. This happened because on the American torpedo tubes are top secret development of "fiber-optic fiber gravity sights."
That is the meaning of Mr. Akimenko’s statements. Anyone who understands something in the marine service will say that this is a nonsense of a sick person. But this is said by a mine and torpedo specialist, a rank 1 captain, a teacher at the Navy Training Center cycle, a member of the government commission to investigate the causes of the death of the Kursk nuclear submarine. It says a person who "knows everything well." The most striking thing is that they believe this crazy stuff.
Here are the statements on this issue of A.P. Ilushkin, another “brave officer”.
“The torpedo launched at Kursk pierced the light and durable hull of the boat and exploded inside the 2 compartment. This is an indisputable fact. But this explosion could not destroy the other compartments of the boat. They were destroyed by the second explosion - after the explosion of the entire ammunition torpedoes, which was located on the "Kursk". This is the second indisputable fact. The third fact follows from here - two torpedoes were fired at the Kursk
The first indisputable fact is that behind the stern, located at the bottom of the Kursk nuclear submarine, at a distance of 80 - 150 meters, there were fragments of the nose section of the submarine's lightweight hull, hydroacoustic antenna, torpedo tube number 4, practical torpedo 65-76 PV. How, according to Ilyushkin, did they get there if the first American torpedo exploded in the 2 compartment? Or were these fragments for the stern of the sunk submarine suffered by the Americans, who attacked the Kursk? Or maybe all these explosions of American torpedoes are the fruit of Mr. Ilyushkin's utter fantasy? Torpedoes never "stitch" a durable and lightweight submarine hull. Torpedoes, both ours and the Americans, have non-contact and contact fuses. These fuses will detonate the torpedo's ammunition if it passes near the submarine at a distance of 5-8 meters or just comes into contact with the submarine's hull. The torpedo itself cannot penetrate the robust hull of modern submarines. It can only penetrate an explosive explosion. The second indisputable fact is that no one from the government commission and the investigative team discovered the destruction of a solid hull in the 2 compartment, either from a torpedo “flashing”, or a torpedo explosion. And the third indisputable fact is that all the arguments of Mr. Ilyushkin about the torpedoing of the Kursk nuclear submarine are no more nothing less than his elementary ignorance in matters of maritime service. The saddest thing about this is that many of our citizens believe the statements of this "illiterate science fiction." [...]
It’s a pity I don’t live to see this tragedy our descendants remember the years through 50. What will they say about it? Surely, the archives will find today's delusional statements and assumptions about this catastrophe. Of course, the fact of the torpedoing of our submarines of the American submarine is much more attractive than the fact of the destruction of our submarine due to the low reliability of military equipment and insufficient crew training. The fact of the torpedoing (collision) of our submarine by the Americans is much more sacrificial and heroic than the fact of drowning their submarine due to the mistakes of the crew. Therefore, I am sure of this, and through 50, and through 100 for years, our descendants will speak about the drowning of the K-141 "Kursk" NPS by the Americans. All these myths over the course of many years of history will be overgrown with “new and new details,” which will be expressed by “specialists”, like today's Ilyushkin and Akimenkov. Only from all these speculations neither the combat skills of our nuclear submarine crews, the design development of combat weapons and equipment, nor the reliability of our combat ships will improve. These myths will be a sedative for our future sailors, for designers of naval weapons and equipment, for shipbuilders and ship repairmen, for the leaders of the Russian military department. Our weapons and equipment are reliable, the ships are modern and the best in the world. Our sailors are the best marine specialists. Approximately so our descendants will argue after the next disaster of the Russian warship. They will also look for the involvement of foreigners in this next tragedy. After all, they will be sure that in the past the “crazy Yankees” in peacetime, in impudent, drowned our ships.
Of the 25 cases of allegedly colliding our submarines with foreign submarines, the 22 cases are unknown foreign submarines (not installed). We have no evidence of these collisions. Why most of these "collisions" occurred in the Northern Fleet? Because the Northern Fleet operates in the Arctic basin, where ice fields are present all year round in the sea, icebergs and ice hummocks are carried to the open seas. Accurately track their location is difficult. Yes, and map the situation of the exact location of the drifting ice and iceberg problematic. Therefore, always, before going out to sea, the commander of the ship was instructed approximately like this: “When sailing in the sea, be careful, you can meet with icebergs and ice fields”. Therefore, when at sea the submarine collided with ice or fishing trawls and received damage to the hull, there was somehow getting out of this unpleasant situation. A collision with ice, iceberg or fishing trawl is a navigational incident for which the navigator and commander of the ship are responsible. This is where the saving thought of a collision with an unidentified foreign submarine comes. Such a clash did not entail punitive measures against the commander and navigator. Everyone knew that our hydroacoustics were inferior in technical capabilities to American ones. Everyone knew that our submarines exceeded US submarines in terms of noise and acoustic noise. And if this is so, it means, objectively, our submarine commander could not prevent a collision with a foreign submarine. The commander will be rewarded by the commanders for "an accidental collision with a foreign submarine", especially since there have been isolated instances of actual collisions, will require "strengthening" observation at sea, and this will end the "repression" against the submarine commander. And they will “write off” another navigational incident on “illiterate Americans”. It is almost impossible to prove that the submarine collided with ice, hummocks, iceberg or trawl. The hull is damaged, the ice has melted, from the trawl can only be a trace of the cable, which can be classified as you like. So - this is an unidentified foreign submarine. Submarine collisions cannot be hidden. There will always be physical evidence of such a collision. The remains of “alien” paint, “alien” metal, rubber objects will always be found on the damaged hull of our submarine. So where are the 22 evidence of "clashes with unidentified foreign submarines"? They are not. And if they exist and the leadership of the Navy or fleets hides them, then this is an official crime. Where are our international applications for all these 22 collisions? They are not, as there is no material evidence of this. Where are the international statements and notes of protest on the facts of the "drowning" by the Americans of our submarines K-129, K-219, K-141 Kursk? They are not, and can not be, because there is no evidence of these cases. We invite Americans to develop regulatory documents to prevent underwater collisions. At the same time, in these regulatory documents we offer Americans such actions and obligations of the parties that completely deprive Americans of the advantages in submarine shipbuilding, in the technical and tactical capabilities of nuclear submarines that they have today. So the Americans will go for it?
Why did actual submarines collide with American U-boats? Americans from the middle of the 60 of the 20 century began to create a card file of the noise of our warships. On all American submarines were installed onboard noise classifiers. The filing card in use allowed us to accurately classify the object of noise, its nationality, and what it does in the process of sailing (to detect the beginning of prelaunch preparation, weapon launches, changes in the parameters of working mechanisms, etc.) In order to create such a card file, it was necessary to collect noise our ships from different distances, from different course angles, at different speeds of course, when our ships perform various combat training tasks. This was especially true of our missile nuclear submarines. Therefore, the Americans climbed almost under the "belly" of our submarines. And with the sudden maneuvering of our submarine, in such a situation, the Americans lost their sonar contact and a collision occurred. An illustrative example of such a collision is the collision of the K-314 submarine of the Pacific Fleet with the American aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan. Only in this case, our submarine "climbed under the belly" of the American aircraft carrier. K-314 watched the actions of the AVI Kitty Hawk being in the center of the order. At some point, the sonar contact was lost with the aircraft carrier. The commander decided to ascend to the periscope depth to clarify the situation. When surfacing, the acoustics reported to the commander that there was a group target in the feed sector, presumably with an aircraft carrier. The commander did not take this hydroacoustics report into account and continued to ascend. At the periscope depth, the commander violated the rules for inspecting the water surface and after 3 minutes there was a powerful blow to the aft stabilizer of the submarine. At the speed of 10-12, the nodes of an aircraft carrier with the right cheekbone hit the propeller and the left aft stabilizer K-314. The submarine lost its course and surfaced under surface propulsion. The aircraft carrier did not even feel that he ran into someone. Only after the ascent of our nuclear submarine and the detection of leakage of aviation fuel from its punctured fuel tank, did the Kitty Hawk realize that they were facing a Soviet nuclear submarine. The entire anti-submarine defense of the aircraft carrier did not detect the presence in the center of the order and right along the Kitty Hawk course of the tracking Soviet submarine. Well, and the crew of the K-314 nuclear submarine, due to the ignorance of the commander, was in 20 seconds from his death. If the submarine surfaced 20 seconds later, the aircraft carrier would have cut it in half. Lucky! In this case, our submarine commander had information about the aircraft carrier, but the Americans did not find the submarine, but the collision happened anyway. And in the case when neither we hear an American, nor an American cannot hear us, collisions at short tracking distances are inevitable. Although our submarine commanders have the opinion that the American submarine commander has the technical ability to determine the depth of the submarine submersion, it does not save them from actual collision.
Submarines of all countries of the world, where they exist, as they performed in peacetime reconnaissance missions in the past, as they perform them today, and will fulfill them in the future. The technical capabilities of submarines are constantly being improved. Today's Russian and US submarines have relatively equal opportunities to detect submarines in the near zone of self-defense. With proper maneuvering, this zone provides the possibility of avoidance of collision in any conditions of navigation. With proper observation and timely response of the crew to the changing situation in the navigation area, none of the submarines, both tracking and monitored, will not collide. With relatively equal technical capabilities, the probability of a submarine collision in a submerged position will depend on the maritime and professional training of submarine crews. If our submarine commanders, while tracking an object, will put the question of the secrecy of navigation and secretive monitoring at the center, and the safety of navigation will not be ensured, then such tracking in peacetime should be prohibited. This provision should also be proposed to our potential adversaries in the maritime negotiations. If we cannot provide proper underwater, surface and air surveillance in our nearby seas, near territorial waters, this does not mean that there will be no other warships there. It means, first of all, it is necessary to create such effective observation in these seas, which will allow our forces to immediately respond to “intruders”, to constantly know their position and intentions. Then, in principle, there should be no prerequisites at all for submarine clashes in the nearby seas of submarines. Then we can secure our maritime borders.
From the foregoing, we can draw conclusions:
1. No matter how perfect today's military equipment is, it will not be able, in peacetime, to ensure the safety of navigation with weak professional training of crews of warships;
2. Professional training of submariners should be such as to exclude in peacetime dangerous maneuvering under water under various conditions of navigation and the performance of various combat training tasks.
3. Stop creating and developing myths about the involvement of American submarines in the death of our submarines K-129, K-219, K-141 Kursk. These myths prevent us from objectively assessing our own capabilities and the fighting qualities of our ships. Americans have nothing to do with these disasters. The causes of these disasters should be sought in paragraph 1 of these findings.
All that is stated above is only a personal opinion of the retired Vice-Admiral V. Ryazantsev.
Evaluation of the Soviet Navy S.Gorshkov
Information