The death of "Kursk" - no more secrets?

359


12 August marks the anniversary of the death of the nuclear submarine Kursk, which perished in the Barents Sea in 2000. It was one of the newest and most reliable submarine cruisers. However, 118 crew members died.

Around this catastrophe, so many plausible, and not very plausible versions of what happened, that many citizens of the country did not know the truth were accounted for. The main versions of the tragedy were considered a collision with another submarine, an explosion of a rocket in one of the compartments, an explosion on a mine left over from World War II.

The official version was about the explosion of a torpedo. The government commission that conducted the investigation dwelled on this scenario, since it can most easily be mislead by ordinary people who are not familiar with the intricacies fleet.

But this version does not quite correspond to reality. The fact is that in the nose compartment, where, following the results of the investigation, an explosion of training torpedoes occurred, there were also rack torpedoes (they are just fighting ones). So what could explode if there was no combat torpedo stuffing? According to the official version, the explosion occurred as a result of leakage of hydrogen peroxide. But in order to accept it, it is necessary at the same time to admit that either completely illiterate people or suicides served on the Kursk. But since it is well known to all that the entire crew was highly qualified, then, accordingly, nothing like this could happen. Thus, this version is untenable.

Another version that does not stand up to scrutiny is the version about a blast on a mine of times of war. This can be very easily refuted. Firstly, the damage that remains from such ammunition has a characteristic shape, which is simply impossible to confuse with something else. And if it really happened, then no other versions simply would not have arisen. Secondly, the mine of those times could not cause so serious damage to the boat to cause its immediate death. In addition, the training grounds on which the exercises were carried out have been used for similar purposes for more than a decade, they have been repeatedly tested, so it’s impossible to say that a mine can still be found here. Moreover, the Kursk itself is equipped with a “mine detection path”. Thus, this version is not true.

The death of "Kursk" - no more secrets?


The third version is the most prosperous and even more proven - the assumption that the Kursk was killed in a collision with another submarine (or, to be precise, as a result of torpedoing). Most of the relatives of the dead sailors are confident that their loved ones died because the nuclear submarine Kursk was torpedoed by the American submarine Memphis. In addition, among them there are rumors that after the tragedy, the Americans wrote off a large debt to the Russians.

At the same time, the President of the Russian Federation V.Putin, speaking in one of the interviews, answering the question about what actually happened to the submarine, answered that she drowned ... By the way, the death of the Kursk was the first big accident in time finding Putin at the head of state.



The reasons for the death of the Kursk are explained by the presence of a hole in the side of the boat, as well as evidence that during the Russian exercises in the same area were American and British submarines. In addition, on the part of the ship that we managed to lift from the bottom of the sea, you can clearly see a flat round hole, and even more, the edges of this hole are bent inwards, which indicates an external impact. And some American experts even claim that such a hole is a kind of trademark of the American torpedo MK-48, which is able to pass through the steel lining thanks to a special mechanism that is on the nose and is capable of melting copper.



According to this version, the attack on the "Kursk" was carried out while tracking the US submarines "Memphis" and "Toledo" of the Russian ship.

Moreover, during the search and rescue operation until the moment when the situation was not yet controlled by the authorities, information was leaked to the media that light green rescue buoys were found near the site of the death of the Kursk, although Russians only use white and red. Another evidence of the plausibility of this version is the reception of signals for help, which took the cruiser "Peter the Great" 13-14 August. And if initially the rescuers hoped that these signals were sent from the Kursk, then later, after decoding them, it became clear that they came from a foreign submarine (they were fed by a mechanical radiator, and they are not used on Russian submarines). And the posthumous note of the captain of the submarine cruiser clearly indicates that at that time there was no one left on the ship who could ask for help.



It should also be noted that at the time when the anti-submarine squadron planes were alarmed in search of the submarine, the pilots found oil spots left by another submarine. It is clear that suspicion immediately fell on the British and Americans, whose submarines were there. But if the British zealously defended their innocence, demanding evidence from the Russians, the Americans behaved more restrained, as if they had something to hide. But the truth was that: on the seabed, rescuers found the fencing of the conning tower, which is usually installed on American submarines. Thus, from the very beginning everything was very clear, until the authorities tried to mislead the civilian population as much as possible.

A few days after the tragedy, a conversation took place between the presidents of the two states, and, obviously, they managed to come to an agreement. After a very short time, Clinton announced that the United States of America was refusing to launch a missile defense program. In addition, Russia forgave a large debt and even gave a loan of 10 billion. In addition, there are rumors that ships from America also came to carry out the operation to lift the bodies of the dead crew members and the ship's hull itself. And why were all of them awarded orders of Courage, and the captain - the Hero of Russia before the official end of the investigation? Why did not the Minister of Defense and Commander-in-Chief of the Navy resign? And in the end, why no one called the names of those responsible for the tragedy?


359 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    12 May 2012 07: 43
    Why are you guys so keen on the torpedo version? I gave a link above to one very interesting article, there is a version put forward that the Kursk was hit not by a torpedo, but by a rocket, and its own one... And that the nuclear submarine at that moment was on the surface, since at a depth of about 100 m .nuclear submarines are not allowed to dive...they say 100m for them is like a puddle for a pike, and the minimum permissible depth should be much greater...
    Of course, I’m an amateur when it comes to such things (what depths nuclear-powered ships can or cannot dive to, so I’d like to ask knowledgeable people who know the fleet first-hand, what do you think of this version, does it have the right to life? By the way, the diameter of the same Mosquito missile defense system is almost a meter...
    1. 0
      12 May 2012 07: 50
      I’m off topic, but I got over the question. Does LiveJournal work for you? In Kazakhstan?
      1. +2
        12 May 2012 08: 24
        Works! We have cellular communications in Kazakhstan, water supply and sewerage, electricity and gas. And we drive Mercedes, not camels, we also live in cozy apartments, not in yurts! smile bully
        1. 0
          12 May 2012 08: 36
          I’m quite serious. It’s just that the guys couldn’t get in before that. They got lost somewhere

          1. 0
            12 May 2012 08: 48
            Well, I don’t know... I don’t use LiveJournal... I typed it in the address bar and it opened
    2. postman
      +1
      12 May 2012 09: 38
      Quote: Rus_87
      there is a version put forward that the Kursk was hit not by a torpedo, but by a missile, and its own...

      Anti-ship missiles from this angle do not hit the target.
      At a minimum there should be an ellipse, and most likely the hole should be almost at the top.
  2. James_norton
    +2
    12 May 2012 12: 30
    Why are you picking on this hole? It’s a fact that it’s not from a torpedo. Even if it were a UM90 torpedo with a directional warhead, there wouldn’t be such a hole.
    This hole was most likely cut out when cutting the boat for some technical reasons and has nothing to do with the sinking of it.
    The causes of death, in my opinion, are the human factor on our part.
    Or maybe Putin and the Amers are in cahoots if they are involved in this.
    1. Novosibirsky
      +2
      12 May 2012 16: 39
      James_Norton, what do you mean “why did you bother”?! )) This hole has drunk so much blood!!! The main argument of conspiracy theorists. How in ritual ecstasy they rush around different sites and repeat the same mantra “hole, hole, hole”! Just like old Freud! laughing
      1. 11Goor11
        +3
        12 May 2012 19: 40
        Novosibirsk, my respect to you.
        These theorists don’t seem to understand that submarines have two hulls -
        lightweight and durable
        This boat has a durable hull with a thickness of 45 to 68 mm
        therefore, to break through it, kinetic energy alone is not enough
        therefore, if the warhead of a torpedo exploded, a hole of at least several meters would be formed in a light hull

        Has anyone seen torpedoes explode? God forbid!
        1. 0
          13 May 2012 22: 57
          You're right about the hole. A hundred times right - the hole is technological. It is enough to look at its edges, and not at the dent in the area of ​​which this notorious hole is located.
  3. 0
    12 May 2012 15: 33
    Here is another link to material on the topic....

    http://evasiljeva.ucoz.ru/index/pravda_i_lozh_o_tragedii_podlodki_quot_kursk_quo
    t/0-97

    The version of the death of the boat from its own missiles has already been mentioned here, but somehow this version did not arouse interest... But in vain.... Read carefully the material at the link I suggested. there is something to think about.
  4. 0
    12 May 2012 15: 54
    the hole is too big even for a 650 mm torpedo (at first glance), somewhere I came across information that the bow cover of the torpedo was lying to the side of the submarine, and the aft cover of the torpedo was imprinted in the aft bulkhead of the torpedo compartment, i.e. the torpedo tube was simply torn apart, and I also read somewhere that when loading Kursk, the torpedo was accidentally hit. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the sources, but if you want, I think you can find them. And this Frenchman is a great guy, but only in the case of the Boeing KAL-007 in the film "The Mystery of the Korean Phantom"
    1. +1
      12 May 2012 16: 49
      The torpedo was not damaged during loading. This is noted by supporters of different versions. This torpedo has enough chances of exploding even without “bumping”. That’s why the whole world abandoned them, except Russia. Although, after the Kursk, Russia did remove them from service
  5. James_norton
    0
    12 May 2012 18: 51
    Novosibirsky,
    Yes, I see, I see, and it is for this reason that I speak out, where is loica, where is common sense, where is the deductive method. Well, wouldn’t they really start sawing and lifting it to the surface just like that, to show everyone the gaping hole from an enemy torpedo? Well, it’s complete absurdity, why the hell..... where is the off. statement - look, we sawed it off in the most interesting place and raised it for everyone to see, so that everyone could see how they put a torpedo right under the Amer’s wheelhouse.....
  6. 0
    13 May 2012 14: 35
    Guys, I can’t find something, please remind me, but as an official. did the people argue that the bow of the Kursk needs to be sawed off?
    1. 0
      13 May 2012 16: 56
      Yes, they commented that there was a danger of detonation of the remaining ammunition.
  7. +3
    13 May 2012 23: 07
    I’m pleasantly surprised that more and more literate people are leaving comments. As for the article - nonsense. A collision is unlikely (I’m generally silent about torpedoing - it’s a laughing matter). Our sonars, of course, are not ultranova, but they can detect an object like Toledo, Memphis, BOD, etc. on the bow corners at safer distances than those threatening a collision. About writing off debt after death... can anyone confirm this point with at least some relatively plausible facts?
  8. 0
    14 May 2012 12: 30
    What does it mean - there are rumors. If there were American ships, then they were there. If not, then no. Swampers can walk around the monuments.
  9. 0
    14 May 2012 16: 48
    I wouldn’t be surprised if in fact it turns out (if it turns out, of course) a completely different cause of death, one that has not even been discussed here or in any other sources... Because absolutely everyone, I emphasize, all the versions put forward at today there are many inconsistencies...But the depressing thing is that most likely we will never know the true truth and the cause of the death of the Kursk...
    1. -1
      15 May 2012 14: 41
      The more I read on this topic, comparing the facts and comparing them with my knowledge of a former naval officer (naval officer), the more I am inclined to the version that the Kursk was hit by their own missiles... Due to inconsistency of action, carelessness and other things." delights" of the post-perestroika organization of the fleet in particular and the armed forces in general. Here, in some comments, this version has already been mentioned, but very superficially... But in vain, in my opinion.
      1. 0
        15 May 2012 15: 56
        can you cite the facts that led to this conclusion?
  10. Rojer
    +1
    16 May 2012 20: 14
    I think aliens. There are no and will not be torpedoes that leave a smooth hole in the hull when they hit (I mean the edge of the hole). If we assume that the hole is the cause of the flooding and the deformation near it is not a consequence of rescue operations, but a consequence of the pressure of water entering the boat at high speed, then as Mr. Holmes used to say... damn I don’t remember what he used to say - something like remove everything true, leave only the facts and get the Version. The Americans don’t seem to want to bomb our boats, and then pay an indemnity. What exactly do they have to do with it, and they told Volodya that it took him a week to figure out what to do and ultimately bury the guys in the name of peace and tranquility. Eternal memory to them is a terrible and long death. Death of a soldier
  11. Patriot
    0
    17 May 2012 11: 06
    Once again we have to realize that the death of the Kursk team is a classic case of blatant impunity for the authorities in their anti-people actions.
    This is also a classic of Putin’s gang

    “By decree of the President of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov, the former Minister of Internal Affairs of the republic Asgat Safarov, who resigned after a scandal in the Kazan police department “Dalniy”, was appointed acting deputy prime minister of the republic.”

    As they say. Another indicative example that none of the current government will ever answer. The offenders will simply be shoved a little further away. As they say, the bandit-thieves' authorities tremulously value their "CHADAS" and will never give them offense. If only because they, in turn, will begin to hand over their higher sawmills, and further higher. And thus this pyramid of corruption, theft and sawing will surely collapse like a house of cards.

    God grant that this happens as soon as possible!
  12. 0
    23 May 2012 23: 06
    If this is torpedoing, then what is the reason, who will answer?
  13. cool.ya-nikola
    +2
    28 May 2012 17: 10
    I enjoyed reading the comment volcano dated May 11, 2012. Fully sharing his point of view regarding American “peacefulness,” however, I would like to add a few more facts to this topic:
    1. 1898 February 15, 9:30 a.m. on the US battleship Maine stationed in the roadstead in Havana (Cuba at that time belongs to Spain), two explosions occur, as a result the battleship sinks, taking with it the lives of 266 people (by a strange circumstance, 260 of them are blacks, or let’s be tolerant - "African Americans"). A version immediately arises about a mine planted by the insidious Spaniards in the area of ​​the battleship's ammunition depot. Enraged by the “brazen provocation,” US public opinion demands fair retribution and is seeking it. On April 21, 1898, the United States officially declares war on Spain. The war lasted 3,5 months, the total losses on both sides were about 10 thousand people, but in the end Spain lost about. Guam, Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico and control over them smoothly passes to the winner, i.e. USA. Everything is according to Dickens: “evil is punished, but virtue triumphs!” (However, it later turns out that there was a banal fire in a coal bunker on board the Maine)
    2. 1964 August 2. The US destroyer Maddox, peacefully carrying out radio-technical reconnaissance in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam, is suddenly subjected to an “unprovoked” attack by three Vietnamese boats (the first to fire was the Maddox, whose captain found the actions of the Vietnamese boats “suspicious”). Well, with God’s help and a flight of “Corsairs” from the nearby aircraft carrier “Ticonderoga” (it was passing by there), the insolent Vietnamese were driven away (and even one of the boats was sunk), but the destroyer “Turner Joy” joined the “Maddox” in reinforcement. True, the Vietnamese claimed that their boats were trying to oust the Maddox from their territorial waters, but who would believe them!
    On the night of August 4th, multiple targets appeared on the radars of both destroyers. (Well, of course, the damned “hooks” came to take revenge for the sunken boat) But you can’t take a cowboy with your bare hands, naturally both ships opened fire from all guns, so this time everything turned out well for America. (However, it later turned out that no one saw anything visually, the planes raised on alert also did not find anyone, the combing by aircraft the next day of the supposed battle site did not find traces of the Great Vietnamese Armada, so after soberly weighing all the facts, it was decided that the enemy was defeated , drowned and thrown into the wind, and what fragments were not found, the surviving enemies most likely took with them). But still, the USA does not forgive such tricks and retribution is inevitable!
    Already on August 5th, Operation Pierce Arrow was carried out - an air strike on Vietnamese naval bases and oil storage facilities. As a result, 64 combat missions were carried out (two aircraft were lost, one pilot was killed and the second, Everett Alvarez, became the first American pilot to be captured), an oil storage facility in the city of Vinh was destroyed (90% of the oil reserves of the Vietnamese fleet and 75% of all Vietnamese torpedo boats. Well, then and away we go! There were long years of war, golden rain fell on the American military-industrial complex (and we remember the coined formulation: “What is good for General Motors is good for America!”) However, in 2005, the NSA declassified documents on this incident and on to the conclusions of NSA historian Robert Hannock - “there was a deliberate distortion of NSA reports for the American leadership...” But what’s the point, as they say, the train has left...
    So dear volcano, I would like to draw your attention to such a strange pattern, no matter what intrigues and dirty tricks the enemies of America do, in the end everything works out to their advantage, well, since it turns out by itself, somehow, surprisingly, everything will turn out on time and in the right place! As experienced analysts say, “when there are more than two coincidences, it’s not a coincidence!” or as our Chukchi say: “The tendency, however...”
  14. Nubia2
    0
    2 June 2012 13: 44
    I read it. Interesting.
    But why is only the option of torpedoing Kursk with a US NAVY boat being considered? there in those days there were many who shot... the same Peter the Great.
    Taking into account the traditional Russian mess - torpedoing as a result of being hit by a "friendly" torpedo - this version is quite worthy of attention.
  15. cool.ya-nikola
    0
    15 June 2012 14: 25
    It seems to me that I read all the comments quite carefully. I think I agree with the opinion of many: - we will probably never know the whole truth about this catastrophe! (Most likely they just won’t say). But one comment, I admit, caught my attention with its negative attitude towards the opponent. I mean Mr. Delta, who, polemicizing with someone, with truly aristocratic arrogance, throws out the phrase: “have you read Cherkashin?...”, in connection with which I personally had a question: - what did Cherkashin not please Mr. -well Delta? Not being personally acquainted with Mr. Delta, I would venture to suggest that in his ordinary (non-Internet) life he is probably no lower than a rear admiral, and he served in the submarine force for several decades. Of course, from such heights, Captain 1st Rank (and retired) Nikolai Cherkashin looks pitiful and funny, according to Mr. Delta, who writes science fiction works for the needs of bored holidaymakers. And the fact that Cherkashin, a submariner officer of the Northern Fleet, who began his service on diesel boats, a participant in long-distance cruises and knowledge of his service not from the Internet and the stories of his neighbors, and a marine painter, laureate of the international Golden Sea Dagger award, all this as I understand According to Mr. Delta, this is so-so nonsense. By the way, if you don’t think it’s too much trouble, Mr. Delta, tell me where can I get acquainted with your works, in which publishing houses and in what editions are they published? Are you planning to publish the complete collection of your commentaries as a separate multi-volume edition? Descendants will be very grateful to you!
    Well, seriously, even at the risk of incurring someone's displeasure, I would like to recommend to everyone who is interested in maritime topics the book GONE WITH THE ABYSS Subtitle: The Death of the Kursk Chronicle. Versions. Fates. The book was published by the publishing house "Top Secret" in 2001. Circulation 20 copies. The book is a documentary, different versions of the disaster that occurred are analyzed and much more. For those who can familiarize themselves with the book, I advise you to pay attention to Appendix No. 000 - a private version of Captain 1st Rank Mikhail Volzhensky.
    And lastly, only Nikolai Cherkashin was allowed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy to participate in the work of the Government Commission to investigate the circumstances of the sinking of the Kursk.
  16. Viktor37
    0
    22 August 2012 13: 40
    Anyone who still doubts that the Kursk died due to banal negligence, irresponsibility and impunity - I suggest reading the article by Elena Milashina (Novaya Gazeta):
    “I will also quote the opinion of the retired French admiral Camille Cellier in an interview with the Liberation newspaper (August 12, 2005). In the interview, the admiral stated: “One of the torpedoes exploded in the submarine’s torpedo tube during launch. We are talking about a tactical missile using hydrogen peroxide.” The British developed this type of torpedo in the 50s, but abandoned it after an explosion aboard the submarine HMS Sidon, which sank in 1955. The Russians were the only ones to use them and, to our knowledge, never had any problems with them. The specific causes of this explosion are known. It immediately caused an “irresistible”, as we say, flow that cannot be stopped. After the first explosion, equivalent to 60 kg of TNT, the submarine sank with its bow. The only way out in such cases is to speed up the movement in order to try to float But the bottom was close - at a distance of 105 meters, while the length of the Kursk was 154 meters. Two minutes later it crashed into the bottom... Due to the impact, and also due to the fact that the first explosion made the remaining torpedoes unreliable, they detonated charges stored in the bow. The power of the explosion was equivalent to 6 tons of TNT."

    http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/53911.html

    The hole on the side, allegedly left by an American torpedo, is just a technological hole in which there were depth control surfaces, which were removed before lifting to lighten the weight and balance. Lawyer Boris Kuznetsov talks about this in Novaya Gazeta:

    http://www.novayagazeta.ru/video/53962.html

    THERE WAS NO AMERICAN TORPEDO!!!

    http://www.novayagazeta.ru/video/53962.html
  17. Skorp56
    0
    23 August 2012 21: 54
    I also had the patience to read all the comments (the article was just nonsense, that’s why the reaction was interesting) and I’m simply amazed at some of the authors who simply cannot put their heads to what they see in the photographs, but stupidly replicate the Internet nonsense of pseudo-experts and pseudo-specialists. On one social network, one of the representatives of the LDPR spoke in the same style and also signed that this is, supposedly, “the work of the LDPR analytical center”))). This completely threw me off balance and I began searching for materials related to the death of the nuclear submarine and their analysis. And so, I come across data collected in one place, which, in my opinion, most objectively presents the picture of what happened. Naturally, based on these materials, this LDPR member “got hit in the face”, so much so that he has not stuck out for a long time))).
    Read - http://sciencevsnonsense.narod.ru/istinnie_prichini_gibeli_apl_kursk/.
    To top it all off, I managed to talk to one privateer submariner who participated in the inspection of the boat as part of a group of experts. He didn’t say much (for obvious reasons), but the main thesis was the same - the human factor. And I saw such theses here. Of course, I really want to blame everyone, anyone: Americans, officials, of course, Putin))), but we need to face the truth, and not curse each other for... However, this is a matter of education))).
  18. Mur-140
    0
    11 September 2012 02: 11
    The article is crazy, but this is not surprising; journalists also need to earn money somehow.
    The whole secret of Kursk is that for some reason both covers of the torpedo tube were knocked out and the 1st compartment was instantly flooded through this hole.
    There are few options for how this could have happened - either the fuel in the torpedo exploded, or the torpedo engine started in a closed torpedo tube, which led to the explosion of all the torpedo fuel.
    And the whole question here is - why did this happen?
    And whatever one may say, it couldn’t have happened without the playful hands of one of the boat’s crew.
    Some commentators are confused that the explosion of torpedo fuel can be so powerful, but just imagine the energy contained in this fuel (it is enough to push more than 10 km, a 2-ton blank, 65 cm in diameter, under water, at a speed of 500 km/h).
    Judging by the seismic data, after the first relatively weak explosion, a more powerful explosion followed two minutes later.
    How this happened is also clear.
    The first compartment was flooded, which led to the fact that two minutes later the bow of the boat stuck into the ground (it was only 60-70m to the bottom) and due to the impact, combat torpedoes detonated. As a result, the 1st compartment was blown to shreds and another half of the compartments were distorted.
    And again the question is, why did this happen, or more precisely, why did the crew allow the boat to stick its nose into the ground?
    It was possible, if not to surface, then at least to lower the stern so that the impact on the ground would not hit the bow torpedo tubes, but the bottom of the boat.
    Previously, I thought that this also happened solely through the fault of the crew, but Delta released interesting information. Namely, the boats of this model have a design flaw, due to which it is necessary to open the ventilation between the first and second (command) compartments during torpedo firing.
    That is, everyone who was in the command compartment was deafened by the torpedo explosion and because of this they could not do anything to level the boat.
    Therefore, perhaps, in addition to the crew, the boat designer is also to blame. The crew was clearly to blame for firing on the move at a very shallow depth. If the depth had been greater or the boat had not moved, there would not have been such a strong impact on the ground (which led to the explosion of combat torpedoes). And the designer may be to blame for the fact that if he decided to combine the compartments when firing, then he should have provided a protective mechanism for the second compartment from an explosion in the first. But due to the lack of drawings of the boat, it is unclear whether the designer is to blame here or not.
    The next 3rd explosion, if memory serves, occurred 10 hours later. Apparently, the water reached the hot reactor and the resulting steam exploded. That is, the flooding of the remaining compartments occurred quite slowly.
    And again the question arises: why was the remaining crew unable to get out of the boat; there was enough time for this?
    It is clear that at such a depth it was very difficult to do this, but these people are the crew of a combat submarine, and not passengers on a cruise ship.
    Ultimately, the biggest mystery in this whole story is what were the entire crew rewarded for? This is truly a mystery.

    And from journalists we are waiting for the next, more interesting article, like -

    The death of Chernobyl - is there no more mystery?
    The US submarine Memphis sailed through Pripyat to Chernobyl and torpedoed the 4th power unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
    The MK-48 torpedo passed through a water intake well located in the river and then through the cooling system reached the reactor...
  19. High speed
    0
    12 August 2013 18: 16
    Quote: komTMG
    "In the wake of death."
    Book by the Deputy Chief of the Russian Navy Main Staff for combat training, Vice Admiral V.D. Ryazantsev


    I was not too lazy to download and read the work of the vice admiral. It is very correct that everyone refused to publish it. And the fact that he headed the combat training of the Navy a priori deprives him of the moral right to write anything, incl. and about Kursk.

    A few words about state tests (GI) (in which the admiral did not boom-boom). Kursk is a serial ship. State tests are carried out in FULL on experimental and lead ships. For the rest - there is no need.
    The construction company (in good tradition) invites the chairman of state tests to the launch of the ship, to the last exits of the factory sea trials (FSC), and not alone, but with members of the state commission, at the discretion of the chairman. People are already delving into the condition of the ship.

    I haven’t heard anything from the chairman about combining ZHI and GI Kursk. But the situation when, at the last exit of the chemical chemical plant, defects are discovered that require elimination on shore, this occurs often. And what?
    Right. The State Commission begins work on the shore. Next, the ship goes out to sea to check that the latest comments have been corrected. This takes a day or three. State Commission on the supply vessel. The comments have been eliminated, and the provider is submitting the ship to the civil inspection in full regarding the composition, documents, etc. If everything is fine - GI forward! :o) Result: one less trip to sea, saving resources, saving time. This situation is what the ignorant call the combination of chemical chemicals and chemical insulation.

    Now why did the boat die, exactly the boat, and not Kursk. And who is to blame?
    The honored wrecker of the USSR, Gorbachev (the first culprit), began a great cause for peace, the result of which, in particular, was the cessation of supplies of thick missiles and missile torpedoes. His work was continued by the second culprit Yeltsin. As a result, there are no new products, and the old ones have expired. the fuel is solid. They have been unloaded, the places are empty.

    This is where the combat training specialists started thinking (3rd culprit). But what about, Ratsukha, a new tactical technique. And into the empty space of Project 949A they shoved someone else’s torpedo, the most complex and dangerous.
    Precisely because the torpedo was foreign, it was not fired at Kursk during the Civil Aviation period. Moreover, a ship (weapon) is tested for GI, not a torpedo (ammunition).

    Why does a ship that has a long arm (outside the PLO zone) need this torpedo? Need not! Ratsukha is needed! This would sound beautiful, in a separate line - a new tactical technique!
  20. 0
    11 March 2015 10: 31
    Strange article... Two versions merged into one. So was it a collision or torpedoing???
  21. 0
    27 September 2015 16: 38
    The article is some kind of collection of emotions and illogical conclusions. What is only one worth:
    Firstly, the damage that remains from such ammunition has a characteristic shape that is simply impossible to confuse with something else. And if this really happened, then no other versions would simply arise. Secondly, a mine of those times could not cause such serious damage to the boat as to cause its immediate death.
    . Seriously? And the S-178 was not torpedoed and was not blown up by a mine, but it took so much water from the hole into its durable hull that it sank in less than a minute! Has the author heard anything about the S-80? That both cap 3 commander and backup barely had time to jump out of the wardroom into the middle passage of compartment 2 - if you want, you can look online at the location of the Project 644 compartments to understand how quickly the S-80 sank. And further. In 1991, American divers found U-1945, which had sunk in early 869 off the coast of New Jersey. Look at its damage - the conning tower lies nearby at the bottom. The upper deck in the area of ​​the aft torpedo compartments was torn apart along with the pressure hull. Therefore, it was torpedoed or blown up by aliens, because - following the author, the weapons of those years could not cause such serious damage to the boat. There is still no consensus on the real cause of the death of U-869, most likely the powerful 600-pound depth charges of one of the American destroyers that participated in the hunt for it. About American torpedoes and unnamed “experts” - this is a clinic, about the level of training of the crew - I served in the army for 15 years, and I can safely say - there was enough lousy training both in Soviet times and now. And further. All who take the oath understand that if necessary, they must be prepared to give their lives. So it was, so it is. Those who have left cannot be returned anyway, let them remain in the hearts of friends and loved ones. Eternal memory to the guys from Kursk.
  22. 0
    15 August 2021 14: 03
    It’s disgusting to the point of nausea to review yet another UNIVERSAL REMARK of amateurs, with references to “experts” who talk (as an “indisputable fact”) about the MK-48 torpedo penetrating inside the submarine’s hull, like a bullet into a pumpkin... :(
    I have 29 years of service in the USSR Navy, including on nuclear submarines, both strategic and not so strategic, and I also served as the flagship miner of a nuclear submarine division, but I haven’t heard such nonsense for a long time. For me the picture has long been clear. The personnel of the mine-torpedo warhead were unable to neutralize the emergency leak of low-water hydrogen peroxide from the practical torpedo, which led to its explosion, as a result of which the boat lay on the ground and already on the ground, from the fire that broke out in the first compartment, the main part of the torpedo ammunition exploded. In this case, the nuclear submarine "Kursk" appeared before the foreign submarine watching it at close range as a "super powerful bottom mine" and thereby inflicted significant damage on the "adversary". And this is not surprising if you know that a typical anti-submarine mine contains approximately 50 kg of explosives in TNT equivalent. This amount is quite enough to damage a target underwater, because... the presence of water pressure at depth enhances the destructive effect. And in the first compartment, the total explosive weight of combat torpedoes far exceeded one (if not more) ton.
    PS For those who really want to get closer to the truth on the topic of the death of the Kursk, I suggest reading the discussion between experts -
    Drakon and Igor_Fe, the beginning of which can be seen at this link:
    https://vmf.net.ru/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1511#p1511
    1. 0
      17 February 2022 15: 08
      Sorry for the typo, we need to add another zero to the weight of the explosive...
  23. 0
    20 November 2021 22: 38
    ....they were fed by a mechanical emitter, but they are not used on Russian submarines...what the hell is wrong!? ...and this is an investigation-exposure article on a specialized resource about weapons??!! no words...idiot! you even posted Dorenko’s release yourself confirming that such devices exist on our submarines and in Kursk in particular!!
  24. 0
    29 February 2024 18: 29
    One drove the other away, the other fired back, very similar to that.