Sub vs Sub

[Spitfire303]

Was there any sub vs sub clash after WW2?

[ShotOver]

Was there any sub vs sub clash after WW2?

You need to be a bit more specific mate. Plus, remember the nature surrounding Submarines, there is alot "Off the record".

[AussieJohnDoe]

Off-Topic: If someone farts in a Submarine, does the air get recycled through all the compartments?

[ShotOver]

Off-Topic: If someone farts in a Submarine, does the air get recycled through all the compartments?

Indeed, quite the question.

[Spitfire303]

You need to be a bit more specific mate. Plus, remember the nature surrounding Submarines, there is alot "Off the record".

I know there`s a lot "off the record". But we are unable to discuss those. So what do we know? Where there any torpedo attacks of one sub against another?

[digrar]

There was Dallas and the Red October............

[ShotOver]

Spitfire, since I posted originally in this thread I feel I should post again. To my knowledge there has not been a submarine on submarine engagement after WW2. Anybody reading, feel free to correct me.
They still think the Kursk was taken out by another submarine. Country of origin unknown.
Have you tried google or wikipedia?

[Spitfire303]

It occurs that nothing like that happened after WW2.

[onefast93z28]

Who still thinks Kursk was torpedoed? Last I heard even the Russians said one of it's own blew up in a tube.

[Kilgor]

Who still thinks Kursk was torpedoed? Last I heard even the Russians said one of it's own blew up in a tube.

Film: Kursk: a Submarine in Troubled Waters

French filmmaker Jean-Michel Carré, in his film Kursk: a Submarine in Troubled Waters (Koursk: un sous-marin en eaux troubles), which aired on 7 January 2005 on French TV channel France 2, alleged that Kursk sank because of an exchange triggered by the collision with the US submarine USS Toledo. According to Carré, the Kursk was performing tests of a new torpedo called Shkval and the tests were being observed by two US submarines on duty in the region, the USS Toledo and USS Memphis.
RFS Pyotr Velikiy was to be the designated target of the submarine Kursk, and was conducting evasive maneuvers when communication with Kursk was lost. During the Kursk salvage operation the battlecruiser allegedly recovered green and white distress buoys of the type released automatically and used only by the U.S., UK and Norway.
RFS Pyotr Velikiy was to be the designated target of the submarine Kursk, and was conducting evasive maneuvers when communication with Kursk was lost. During the Kursk salvage operation the battlecruiser allegedly recovered green and white distress buoys of the type released automatically and used only by the U.S., UK and Norway.

At some point, the Kursk and the Toledo collided, damaging the former(video footage shows long gashes carved in the side of the Kursk) and, in order to prevent the Kursk firing upon the Toledo (allegedly presaged by the audible opening of the Kursk's torpedo tubes), the Memphis fired a Mark 48 torpedo into the Russian submarine. According to this story, the US torpedo would have hit an old type Russian torpedo on the Kursk which did not explode until later, but when the explosion did occur it substantially damaged the Kursk. Carré — who has no expertise in submarines, U.S. naval operations, or Russian operations for that matter — alleges that Russian president Vladimir Putin deliberately concealed the truth about what happened and let the crew members die, in order to not strain relations with the US Government


Its a shame the film maker did not spend 5 minutes looking at the accident rate of the soviet/russian navy.

[chuckster]

Film: Kursk: a Submarine in Troubled Waters

French filmmaker Jean-Michel Carré, in his film Kursk: a Submarine in Troubled Waters (Koursk: un sous-marin en eaux troubles), which aired on 7 January 2005 on French TV channel France 2, alleged that Kursk sank because of an exchange triggered by the collision with the US submarine USS Toledo.

Its a shame the film maker did not spend 5 minutes looking at the accident rate of the soviet/russian navy.

Remember, it's a FRENCH filmaker.

In the 60's the USS Thresher and USS Skorpion? (I believe) were lost along with several Soviet submarines. The US hasn't lost a sub since then. These incidents were probably accidents, but there's room there for a conspiracy theory. I remember a book written a few years back that I almost bought. It's fiction, but the plot revolves around the idea these submarine losses are the result of a seceret submarine war between the US and the USSR.

Then again, there are the two recent incidents where Japanese commercial ships and US submarines collided. Maybe the US is in a seceret submarine war against Japanese merchant shipping!

[CG51]

A MK 48 would do more than put a hole in the hull of a sub. Those are some big bitches.

[onefast93z28]

Carré — who has no expertise in submarines, U.S. naval operations, or Russian operations for that matter



Well, there you go....

[GazB]

Its a shame the film maker did not spend 5 minutes looking at the accident rate of the soviet/russian navy.

Or the performance of US torpedos... the last few US subs to sink destroyed themselves with jettisoned torpedos...


A MK 48 would do more than put a hole in the hull of a sub. Those are some big bitches.

The Kursk has a double hull with more than 3 metres between them. Also in what way could two subs collide and then one fire a torpedo at the other and hit the front of the target? Most torpedos hit the rear or the centre of the target, yet this torpedo is supposed to have hit the nose of the target...

But then Kilgor is likely to dribble on about such rubbish to purpetuate such nonsense.

The reality is that a hydrogen peroxide powered torpedo was activated in a torpedo tube without the tube being flooded. Without sea water to cool its propulsion motor it overheated and sprayed HTP around inside the torpedo body which, when contacting certain materials generates huge amounts of heat and large volumes of oxygen. This would blow back into the torpedo compartment and start a fire. Eventually that fire would reach the torpedo store and boom.

[CG51]

The MK 48 can be programed to detonate under a vessel. It doesn't matter how many hulls you have, it will break your back.

But, yes, I agree that it was one of her on torps that detonated.

[ShotOver]

The MK 48 can be programed to detonate under any vessel. It doesn't matter how many hulls you have, it will break your back.

But, yes, I agree that it was one of her on torps that detonated.

Yeah, too bad they melted her down before any other countries could have a look at her wreckage p-)

[CG51]

Did the explosion cause to front of the Kursk to seperate or was it due to the salvage?

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/512/kazouille1105145210torpbl2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[GazB]

Yeah, too bad they melted her down before any other countries could have a look at her wreckage

Why didn't the US make reminants of the Space Shuttle Challanger available for international inspection? Why would they even consider letting anyone else inspect an OSCAR II class SSGN that is still in operation and without equal?

[GazB]

Did the explosion cause to front of the Kursk to seperate or was it due to the salvage?


From memory at least one section was removed to allow the sub to be lifted to the surface.

[nullterm]

There was Dallas and the Red October............

Dallas and Red October didn't tangle. The Konovalov however did tangle with them and received the short end of the stick. Unless you believe the official story.

[ShotOver]

Why didn't the US make reminants of the Space Shuttle Challanger available for international inspection? Why would they even consider letting anyone else inspect an OSCAR II class SSGN that is still in operation and without equal?

Haha, ease up mate. Note the pirate kidding smiley. The day the Russians release any information regarding what actually happend is very, very, very, very.. far off to say the least.

[bigfoot]

Kursk - a Submarine in Troubled Waters

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=3601018731467852276

[Galileo]

This 'movie' is a total bull****, when you see the Navy expert he choose ; J. P. Petit, an a$$hole former scientist who developp the first french ICBM but after make theroy on UFO and Ummites ET invading earth, etc.... but he know nothing on submarine or navy.
The worst it that film was show on the public TV and paid with my tax.

[Oneto15]

From memory at least one section was removed to allow the sub to be lifted to the surface.

The bow section, including the forward torpedo room where the initial blast happened, was cut away from the main section and was left on the sea bed. It has been surmised by (and I use the word advisedly) naval experts that the initial explosion was cased when a leak of hydrogen peroxide fuel in one of the torpedoes reacted with certain metallic components (probably brass), the resultant fire rapidly went out of control, leading to a second catastrophic blast which put the Kursk on the bottom. The evidence for the two blast theory is contained in a series of seismographic paper traces recorded by various world academic organisations.

This theory is in part supported by a similar accident reported to have occurred with an Royal Navy experimental torpedo.

Regards. Oneto15

[Mastermind]

Truth!! Bush did IT! MM

[sct1886]

The French documentry purported that the MK48 used was more of a kinetic energy weapon. The nose was supposedly filled with uraniun and designed to punch thru the heavy armor of the Kursk type subs and detonate between the control room and the foward torpedo room. The supposed proof were photos of a perfectly round hole punched inward at the above mentioned aiming point about the size of a MK48.

[ShotOver]

The French documentry purported that the MK48 used was more of a kinetic energy weapon. The nose was supposedly filled with uraniun and designed to punch thru the heavy armor of the Kursk type subs and detonate between the control room and the foward torpedo room. The supposed proof were photos of a perfectly round hole punched inward at the above mentioned aiming point about the size of a MK48.

They put forward a good argument, the pictures are very odd. With the circle hole and the indented metal around it. But yeah, nothing is going to be confirmed for a long time, if ever.

[angry cow]

One last speculation: Alot of times people point out that the force of any explosions (in any maritime disaster) would have bent the hull outwards if it were truly from the INSIDE of the vessel. But my understanding was if the metal surrounding the hull was still heated from the explosion it probably would be bent inward regardless of where the explosive came from due to the tremendous forces and pressures of the water outside the vessel?

[DaGreatRV]

I've seen a documentary about it on National Geografic Channel.
The torpedo was a practice torpedo(no warhead), it leaked it's fuel, that reacted with something else in the tube and it blew up.
Had this occured when the inside hatch was fully closed, the blast would have gone through the outside hatch. (the inside hatch is three times stronger than the outside hatch.

The reason why the inside hatch wasn't fully closed is that the plug wich connects the torpedo with the sub has a tendacy to get dirty or not connect well. often the plug has to be reinserted several times befor the conection is good enough to run a torpedo 'self test'. (it needs to run a selftest before launch) The sailors know this, so they don't fully close the hatch every time.


/backontopic

There have been numerous sub to sub colisions throughout the cold war between Nato and russian subs, these are ofcourse denied.
As for engaging eachother with torpedos, it might have happened, who knows. There are still a lot of unanswered questions from the cold war.
Perhaps it will be made public over 35 years, maybe never.

[Brute]

The bow section, including the forward torpedo room where the initial blast happened, was cut away from the main section and was left on the sea bed.

Regards. Oneto15


It has since been raised. There's no way the Russians were going to leave such a sensitive piece of equipment laying on the seafloor where it could've been salvaged by anyone, *cough*USA*cough*.

[Oneto15]

It has since been raised. There's no way the Russians were going to leave such a sensitive piece of equipment laying on the seafloor where it could've been salvaged by anyone, *cough*USA*cough*.

Thanks for the update, I'll bet the boys at Langley were in a mad rush to see if they could resurrect Howard Hughes' Glomar Explorer. p-)

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/submarine/glomar-explorer.jpg

11 April 1968: The Soviet Golf-class diesel-powered ballistic missile submarine K-129 sank in over 16,000 ft (4,875 m) of water in the Pacific Ocean several hundred miles northwest of Hawaii. The entire crew of 98 was lost and the vessel sank with three ballistic nuclear missiles plus two nuclear torpedoes. The reason for the sinking remains unsolved but the most accepted theory is that leaking hydrogen from the submarine's batteries caused an explosion. In one of the most amazing tales of the Cold War, America's Central Intelligence Agency launched "Project Jennifer" to recover the vessel and its nuclear weapons from the deep seabed. The CIA secretly funded the construction of a massive ship called the Glomar Explorer that was ostensibly built for undersea mining. In reality, the vessel carried an enormous crane designed to grapple the Soviet submarine and lift it to the surface for study. It is unknown for sure how successful the effort was, but the US has admitted to recovering at least a portion of K-129.

Source:http://www.aerospaceweb.org

[CG51]

I remember watching that documentary. Very interesting. I believe some of the ballistic missiles fell back to the ocean floor as part of the sub broke away during the salvage effort.

[GazB]

The French documentry purported that the MK48 used was more of a kinetic energy weapon.

Rubbish. The MK-48 has a shaped charge warhead to try to blow a hole through the widely seperated outer and inner hulls of Soviet Subs. Putting a heavy DU nose on a torpedo would make it dive downwards like a dropped dart and hit the sea floor.


The supposed proof were photos of a perfectly round hole punched inward at the above mentioned aiming point about the size of a MK48.

It couldn't possibly be a hole cut so that the various lifting chains could be attached to the hull of the vessel? If that really was a hole made by an incoming torpedo then you'd think they would have obliterated the evidence when it was raised rather than leave it there for public viewing?

If there were remains of this armour piercing torpedo then why not reveal to the world that this vessel was fired upon by the evil American Navy?


They put forward a good argument, the pictures are very odd. With the circle hole and the indented metal around it. But yeah, nothing is going to be confirmed for a long time, if ever.

So do you think blowing a hole into a submarine would introduce water into the torpedo room rather than fire? How would the flooding of the torpedo room lead to all the torpedos exploding?

Assuming the torpedo was wire guided and also assuming the US Navy hasn't got some super system of being able to see clearly underwater, would you guide a torpedo at the nose of the target and risk missing it all together if it is not purpendicular to you (ie if it is at a 45 degree angle if you aim for where the nose would be if it was side on you would miss). Or would you aim to guide your torpedo near the propellers of the target and try to cripple it by hitting the engine room? Can't use active sonar because there is are Russian ships above you...

[ShotOver]

So do you think blowing a hole into a submarine would introduce water into the torpedo room rather than fire? How would the flooding of the torpedo room lead to all the torpedos exploding?

Having never been inside a Russian SSBN boat before, I would not be able to know what they store in the bullet bin, any water in the boat is bad. Sea water in the battery, which could make its way down decks through open hatches, cracks.. etc (which I assuming is stored as low as possible/used for ballast) means a build up of explosive gas, then you add electronics to sea water and you have an electrical fire then a spark to the gas, then bang. Then bang, bang.. etc.

Assuming the torpedo was wire guided and also assuming the US Navy hasn't got some super system of being able to see clearly underwater, would you guide a torpedo at the nose of the target and risk missing it all together if it is not purpendicular to you (ie if it is at a 45 degree angle if you aim for where the nose would be if it was side on you would miss). Or would you aim to guide your torpedo near the propellers of the target and try to cripple it by hitting the engine room? Can't use active sonar because there is are Russian ships above you...

Passive sonar gives you everything you need to fire a snap shot off. We are talking submarines here mate, the most thing we can do is assume for both sides. The argument will become invalid because simply we do not know what the hell happend and what technology each side has. Plus if you knew anything about the Mk48 you would understand how your last paragraph is simply wrong. For reasons I am not going to go into, simply because I am not aware of how much info about it is public.

EDIT: Heres why

MK-48 and MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes can operate with or without wire guidance and use active and/or passive homing. When launched they execute programmed target search, acquisition and attack procedures. Both can conduct multiple reattacks if they miss the target.
Source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm

So the Mk48 does not need to hit on the first run, it can miss, come around again and again. So Aim is not really a factor, aslong as you get the Bearing and Range you can snap shot one off and the keep feeding it information through the wire to score a kill.

[Galileo]

Rubbish. The MK-48 has a shaped charge warhead to try to blow a hole through the widely seperated outer and inner hulls of Soviet Subs. Putting a heavy DU nose on a torpedo would make it dive downwards like a dropped dart and hit the sea floor.

Only lightweight torpedos (Mk50/54) have shaped charge, the heavy one didn't need, the explosive power of a Mk48 is equivalent to a small trcuk full of explosive.
All double hull submarine can be kill with only one mk48 (except the Typhoon)

[ShotOver]

Only lightweight torpedos (Mk50/54) have shaped charge, the heavy one didn't need, the explosive power of a Mk48 is equivalent to a small trcuk full of explosive.
All double hull submarine can be kill with only one mk48 (except the Typhoon)

When was the last time they hit a Typhoon with a Mk48 ADCAP to find out? Any breach of watertight integrity can kill a submarine, you dont need to break the whole boat in half, you just need to let the water in.

[Kant]

When was the last time they hit a Typhoon with a Mk48 ADCAP to find out?
Last Tuesday.
Then we had a sleepover, and a pillow fight.
Good times.

[playtym]

Last Tuesday.
Then we had a sleepover, and a pillow fight.
Good times.

rofl123456789

[angry cow]

No weapon on earth can sink the mighty Typhoon class save a nuke fired from Jack Ryan's pistol.

[ShotOver]

http://www.youtube.com/v/pBSixrh4G_4
An RAN Collins boat killing Decommisioned HMAS Torrens with a Mk48.

Was an odd shot, the Mk48 went under a couple of times and did not detonate, since HMAS Torrens had no ammunition, oil, fuel, crew or supplies onboard - was sitting very high in the water, as you can see by the line on the ship. Quite impressive.

[Galileo]

When was the last time they hit a Typhoon with a Mk48 ADCAP to find out? Any breach of watertight integrity can kill a submarine, you dont need to break the whole boat in half, you just need to let the water in.

In the us Navy and OTAN submarine force, the standard rule is : "only one heavy torp for any sub except the Typhoon, 2 shoots".

[ShotOver]

First time I have heard of it, certainly can understand why you would use 2, being as there are only 6(?) Typhoons in existance and they carry such a weapon load, you would want to make sure.

[Galileo]

At this time only 2 are in service , one in refit , 2 in reserve (full of rust) and the last one is decomissionned.

[Kilgor]

Only lightweight torpedos (Mk50/54) have shaped charge, the heavy one didn't need, the explosive power of a Mk48 is equivalent to a small trcuk full of explosive.
All double hull submarine can be kill with only one mk48 (except the Typhoon)

water also transfers the shock wave of the explosion far better than air, so it cant be really compared to a truck bomb ;)

[Galileo]

I compare what is comparable and the most effective effect is not the shock wave but the bubble gas, first it developp like a ballon the like a ring, and in the hole of the ring water is like a dart of of shaped charge, the duration is about milli seocnds but the effect is devastating.

[GazB]

Having never been inside a Russian SSBN boat before, I would not be able to know what they store in the bullet bin, any water in the boat is bad. Sea water in the battery, which could make its way down decks through open hatches, cracks.. etc (which I assuming is stored as low as possible/used for ballast) means a build up of explosive gas, then you add electronics to sea water and you have an electrical fire then a spark to the gas, then bang. Then bang, bang.. etc.


The Kursk was an Oscar Class sub... it is an SSGN, not an SSBN. (ie it is a cruise missile carrier, not a boomer). The cruise missiles it carried were designed to take on carriers and each weighed several tons. It carries 24 of these enormous missiles.

Regarding the batteries, they are not particularly large and would certainly not be stored in the nose. Nuclear powered subs are nuclear powered, you might be confusing it with a diesel electric that runs diesel engines on the surface to charge batteries for running underwater.

Second you punch a large hole in the side of a sub and water comes flooding in the front compartment would be sealed no matter how many men were in there. A sealed compartment filling rapidly with sea water is not really condusive to large uncontrolable fires.
Submarines are heavily compartmentalised. Heavy doors are kept shut between these comparments and are not opened in case of fire or flooding. Any one left in that compartment will fight the fire or flooding till it is beaten or they are beaten... those doors are not opened.


Passive sonar gives you everything you need to fire a snap shot off.

Ever heard of the Stingray? The fact that they supposedly collided with the Kursk suggests that passive sonar is not good enough!!! Very few torpedos will arm till they have travelled half a kilometer. If the Mk48 turns around after missing the Kursk then it willbe heading back toward the Kursk... AND THE SUB THAT LAUNCHED THE TORPEDO.
(BTW The Stingray was a US sub that jettisoned a malfunctioning torpedo... it travelled in a large arc and came back and hit and sank the Stingray...)


So the Mk48 does not need to hit on the first run, it can miss, come around again and again.

So after it comes around a second time... what do you think the captain of the Kursk is doing? Firing jammers which just require a push of a button to launch? Contacting his fleet above to ask who the hell is firing Torpedos at him?

Not only that if there is a significant collision the US vessel will likely come off rather worse than the Russian sub simply because the nose of the US sub is antenna array, and it is single hulled. The Russian vessel has a double hull large enough to store 24 very large 600km range supersonic anti ship missiles.


All double hull submarine can be kill with only one mk48 (except the Typhoon)

First of all the Akula (western codename Typhoon) is actually a triple hulled sub. Second the two hulls in the Oscar are further apart than on the Akula SSBN because the Oscar has its load of cruise missiles loaded between the two hulls.


When was the last time they hit a Typhoon with a Mk48 ADCAP to find out? Any breach of watertight integrity can kill a submarine, you dont need to break the whole boat in half, you just need to let the water in.

The purpose of the widely seperated hulls is so that an external explosion will only breach the outer hull. The Oscar has a rubberised material designed to be boyant and reduce noise as emitted from the sub while at the same time reducing the effect of external explosions in the gap between the two hulls, which are over 3m apart.

[Oneto15]

First of all the Akula (western codename Typhoon) is actually a triple hulled sub. Second the two hulls in the Oscar are further apart than on the Akula SSBN because the Oscar has its load of cruise missiles loaded between the two hulls.

GazB.

I'm quite happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think you've got your boats mixed up a little, but aren't the Akula (Shark) an attack boat (SSN), and the Typhoon an ICBM missile boat (SSBN) two completely different entities?

[GazB]

Oneto15.
Sorry for the confusion.

To be more clear you were talking about double hull subs and I pointed out that one of the subs you mentioned was triple hulled (Typhoon SSBN).

The sub Known in the West as the Typhoon class SSBN has the Russian name of AKULA. ie Project 941 AKULA:

http://www.submarine.id.ru/thumbs/941/index.shtml

The sub the west calls Akula which is an SSN is called Schuka (sorry spelled badly). and is Project 971.

[Oneto15]

Oneto15.
Sorry for the confusion.

To be more clear you were talking about double hull subs and I pointed out that one of the subs you mentioned was triple hulled (Typhoon SSBN).

The sub Known in the West as the Typhoon class SSBN has the Russian name of AKULA. ie Project 941 AKULA:

http://www.submarine.id.ru/thumbs/941/index.shtml

The sub the west calls Akula which is an SSN is called Schuka (sorry spelled badly). and is Project 971.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction.

Regards. Oneto15

[GazB]

If Schuka sounds strange it means Pike (as in the fish called a Pike, not the spear type weapon).