Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/2/2002 6:59:48 AM EST
[url]http://www.kfwb.com/news_international.asp?displayOption=&contentGUID={02F1C992-26C1-4940-8C83-62B090B0BE29}&groupName=KFWB Front Page International Headlines&siteGUID={3B62BF55-4A93-48E6-A45D-6A495DC423AD}[/url] KFWB NEWS 980 -- ALL NEWS ALL THE TIME Tuesday, July 02, 2002 Kursk Accident Caused by Explosion of Fuel in Torpedo MOSCOW (AP) 7.1.02, 1:03p -- The Russian government said Monday that leaky torpedo fuel caused the explosions that destroyed the Kursk nuclear submarine, wrapping up nearly two years of sensitive investigation into one of the country's worst post-Soviet disasters. The announcement that the vessel was destroyed by an internal malfunction -- and not a foreign submarine as had once been theorized -- was an uncomfortable admission for Russia's struggling military. The Kursk was one of the navy's most advanced submarines when it sank in the Barents Sea in August 2000, killing all 118 men aboard. Industry and Science Minister Ilya Klebanov, who led the commission investigating the disaster, said a leak of hydrogen peroxide used to fuel the 65-76 Kit (Whale) torpedo was at fault, according to the Interfax news agency. The conclusion was reached unanimously at the commission's last meeting Saturday, Klebanov said. "The reason for the accident was a thermal explosion of torpedo fuel components. It occurred as a result of a leak of hydrogen peroxide and the ignition of materials in the torpedo apparatus," Klebanov was quoted as saying. The torpedo fuel caused one explosion that killed all crew members in the submarine's first compartment and some in the next compartment, another commission member, parliament member Vice Admiral Valery Dorogin, was quoted by Interfax as saying. Then the fire and increase in pressure caused other ammunition on the submarine to detonate, resulting in a huge, second explosion, signaling doom for the entire craft, he said. Outside observers, including U.S. and Russian experts, had long ago reached the same conclusion about what destroyed the Kursk. But the Russian government investigation dragged on, and Russian officials refused to rule out the theory of a collision with a foreign submarine -- possibly American or British -- until recently. Klebanov's office refused to comment Monday on the announcement, and calls to Dorogin's office went unanswered. "We knew this a long time ago," said Igor Kudrin, a former submarine officer who heads the Submariners' Club in St. Petersburg, a relief organization of mostly retired officers that has lobbied on behalf of the victims' families. While Kudrin said it was some comfort that the commission agreed with other experts' findings, he added it "will not put an end to the Kursk story for the relatives." -- continued --
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:00:34 AM EST
Russia has already pulled from service all torpedoes of the type that malfunctioned, which use highly volatile hydrogen peroxide for a propellant and have reportedly been used since the early 1970s. The torpedoes have a higher speed and range than conventional torpedoes powered by electric engines -- advantages that, according to Russian news reports, prompted the Navy to neglect concerns about its unstable fuel. President Vladimir Putin's handling of the Kursk disaster was considered his first major blunder in his presidency. He stayed on vacation after it happened and did not comment on it publicly for several days. The government hesitated for several days before accepting foreign offers of help, while Russian submersibles were unsuccessful in attaching themselves to the Kursk's escape hatch. When foreign divers reached the Kursk a week after the catastrophe, it took them only hours to open the hatch. The public later learned with dismay that the navy had dismissed its own deep-sea divers years before the disaster as a money saving measure. The commission's investigation was largely based on study of the bulk of the Kursk's wreckage, which was lifted in an international operation last October. During the salvage effort, the front section of the Kursk was cut off out of fear it could break off while being raised, and it remains on the floor of the Barents Sea. Dorogin told Interfax that the commission had decided that the remains of the submarine should be blown up. ©2002 Radio Web Network. All rights reserved.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:11:18 AM EST
If you can find the story about how the US new the sub exploded it is fascinating itself... A geologist had the seismegraph of the explosions, after the Russians issued their first report on the cause, he cryed foul and published his results... Ben
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:11:59 AM EST
I knew we had not hit the Kursk but the Russians didn't seem convinced. We lost the Scorpion - probably due to a faulty torpedo - and now another faulty torpedo costs the Kursk. That big muther ocean is always waiting to kill your ass.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:12:45 AM EST
I happened to be with my relatives in Russia that August when we saw it on the news. Suffice it to say it troubled me. Of course, it received constant media coverage, and it was quite horrifying to see, day by day, the last taps of the trapped sailors. To blame, was of course, the Russian gov't, for not calling for help when it should have. Those stubborn fools... Well, at least this brings [i]some[/i] closure.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:16:30 AM EST
The blame ultimately is the russian government, because they build a lot of weapons platforms, but their maintenance always has sucked... Ben
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:24:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: If you can find the story about how the US new the sub exploded it is fascinating itself... A geologist had the seismegraph of the explosions, after the Russians issued their first report on the cause, he cryed foul and published his results... Ben
View Quote
Ben, if you find that story please post a link as I would really like to read it. ----------------------------------------------- We, the U.S., would have begun to trail the Kursk as soon as it left port. Some where there are some prime sonar recordings of the event but we'll never hear those.
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:29:10 AM EST
I'll go look 5SubSlr
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:33:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2002 7:40:53 AM EST by Benjamin0001]
The Submitted Paper [url]http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/RUSSIANSUB/PAPER.html[/url] An Article from About.com:
Scientists half a world away from the Russian Arctic have brought us hard news about the sinking of the submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea on August 12, 2000. How did they find this out? They had their ears to the ground. Their specialty is a tiny subfield of earthquake science, a micro-discipline they call forensic seismology. The solid Earth is a noisy place. That's because sound travels so well in it, and that's why seismographs need to be carefully placed and their data carefully analyzed. Natural earthquakes have competition from many other natural sources of earth noise: landslides, surf, atmospheric motions, meteorite impacts, trees rocking in the wind, waterfalls, and volcanic eruptions, for instance. Humans also make earth noise from mining, traffic, sonic booms, and explosions. Noise from explosions has long been of interest to scientists. Nuclear testing is the most compelling reason, of course, but seismologists have gotten involved in other cases—plane crashes, pipeline bursts, and the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995. More recently, the controlled demolition of a Seattle stadium was studied through its seismographic records. Keith Koper, a University of Arizona scientist, spends part of his time analyzing unusual events recorded by seismographs. For instance, he wrote a paper about the seismic signals from the August 1998 truck-bomb blast at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. So when the Russian submarine Kursk sank during naval exercises in the Arctic Ocean, he examined that day's data from seismic stations in the region. Some 16,000 seismic stations cover the globe, and many of them share their data openly, so it did not take long for Koper and his colleagues (Terry Wallace, Hans Hartse, and Steven Taylor) to collect the records. The Russian authorities at first blamed the tragedy on a collision, hinting darkly of a foreign submarine that had been in the area. But Koper's team saw two events on the seismograms, a small one of magnitude 2.2 and, 135 seconds later, a much larger one of magnitude 4.2. They ran a spectral analysis of the records, a graph showing how strong the signals are at different frequencies of vibration. These events had clear signs of an underwater explosion. One sign was a strong reflection of energy off the surface of the water, a kind of ringing that shows up clearly in a spectral analysis as a peak in the line around 9 hertz (cycles per second). Given the speed of sound in water, a sound wave would ring between sea surface and seafloor at 9 Hz if the water were about 100 meters deep. That jibes with the depths of the sea where the naval exercises were taking place.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 7:34:04 AM EST
The other sign of an underwater explosion is the so-called bubble pulse. When explosions create a huge bubble of hot gases, the surrounding water presses back on the bubble until it reaches a minimum size, then "bounces" back. This oscillation continues for several seconds, changing as the bubble rises to the surface. That shows in the spectra graph as a set of distinct, scalloped low-frequency peaks. Spectra of the Kursk explosion. Frequency in hertz across the bottom, signal strength in arbitrary units up the left. Figure reproduced by kind permission of Terry Wallace, University of Arizona. Koper's team compared the Kursk record to the seismograms from an explosion study that Israel conducted in 1999 in the Dead Sea. From that they concluded that the second event was an explosion equivalent to 3–7 tons of TNT, or about a half-dozen torpedo warheads. The small first event, they think, was likely a single torpedo exploding very near the sub, perhaps even inside it. Because film of the sunken boat shows the periscope up, this must have occurred near the surface. And it was known that the sub had just radioed for permission to launch its weapons. The other evidence suggests that the larger explosion occurred on the seafloor, probably as the sub's impact set off the other torpedos. Presumably the two minutes in between was when the surviving submariners were sealing off their compartments, taking stock of what had happened, and scribbling the notes that divers would later find on their bodies. Koper's team believes that forensic seismology will grow in importance. First, there are more seismometers than ever with data openly accessible on the Web, they say. And large-scale projects like USArray (here's my article about that), which will deploy hundreds of high-quality instruments in a huge portable network across North America, will surely detect many exotic events to test the skills of seismic detectives.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/2/2002 10:20:43 PM EST
I saw a thing on t.v. about the theory behind what happened. Basically the Russians continued to use a very old torpedo design similar to one that was scrapped by the Brits after the same type of accident occured on one of their subs.
Top Top