Talk:Russian submarine Kursk (K-141)

K-148 redirect

Why does Russian submarine K-148 redirect to the Kursk article? Unless there's some weird story behind it I don't know about, it should be removed (the redirect). kallemax 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Second explosion?

According to a recent documentary, the second explosion had a yield much greater than a single torpedo can produce. The implication was that all torpedoes in the forward compartmnet blew at about the same time. Can anyone confirm? JDG 20:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

I have recently obtained a copy of Robert Moore's "A Time to Die" which confirms this, and that the second explosion probably occured as it hit the bottom of the sea. I want to expand this article once I have finished reading the book! Pcb21| Pete 21:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spliting

Once I get the time, and the folks to do it, I want to split the article into two. this sub stinks compared to us subs.

Well seems like you are in the middle of things at the moment so it is hard to comment. But, why do you want split this? Pcb21| Pete 07:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to have one article about the ship itself, while have a second article about the accident. The later seemed to dwarf the main section about the ship. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem at all. 99 out of a hundred wanting to read about the Kursk will wanting to mainly read about the end of the Kursk. I am not sure I see gain by making them click one more time. Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok. What we can do is condense the accident section into one or two paragraphs here, then have the accident article there in its full entirity. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Largest ?

This article:"At 155 metres in length, and four storeys high, it was the largest attack submarine ever built. " What about Typhoon class submarine ? Not an attack submarine ? Kummi 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not an attack sub. "Typhoons" (Akulas to the Russians) are ballistic missile submarines (Podvodnaya Lodka Atomnaya Raketnaya Ballistecheskaya — PLARBs — to the Russians) . ➥the Epopt 22:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oscar class subs are not attack subs either they are SSGNs, so neither is the biggest.Noha307 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk

rename to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk

Support

1. Note that I didn't propose this. However it does seems logical given the contents of the Russian Navy Submarines and Soviet Navy Submarines categories. Support. Megapixie 06:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - I nominated this, sorry about forgetting this step. 132.205.3.20 19:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

To me all the "Russian/Soviet submarine..." article titles seem overly disambiguated. I'd suggest something more like Kursk (K-141). It's simpler and more consistent with other navy's submarine articles (note the two in the see also section). Niteowlneils 22:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the large number of Russian/Soviet submarines that don't have names (or at least names that our publically known) - We are going to end up with half the submarines named like Kursk (K-141) and half named Soviet submarine K-142 - since K-142 or (K-142) is a bit messy. What I'd really like is to get rid of the Russian/Soviet split in the names. Megapixie 07:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not call this article RFS K-141 Kursk, and submarines without names "RFS [number]"? RFS = Russian Federation Ship kallemax 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 06:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

metric and imperial measurements

"The outer hull, made of high-nickel high-chrome content steel just 8.5mm thick, had exceptionally good resistance to corrosion and a weak magnetic signature which helped prevent detection by Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) systems. There was a two-metre gap to the two-inch-thick steel inner hull."

two-metre...... two-inch

Imperial measurements are on the way out. The article has non-continuum of standard measurement usage [GR]

Net loss

When the Kursk was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea, it could not be tracked by NATO and there was a lot of anxiety about what it could be up to. However, it was accidentally caught in netting by a fishing boat and the big sub towed the small ship for several hours before surfacing and exchanging nasty words between the two vessels. Afterwards, the US Navy awarded a "Catch of the Year" plaque to the fishing ship. That's what I read. Someone should find the details and include it in the article, because it is such a funny story. 195.70.32.136 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible reasons for sinking

Video footage has since come to light from the norweigan rescue vehicles showing a circular inwards hole to the rear of the Kursks forward torpedo area. Indeed additional photography once the kursk was risen also shows this near perfect circular inwards directed hole which appears to be around the diameter of a current western torpedo.

A suggestion has been made that the Kursk was testing a supercavitation torpedo and was being watched by at least two US submarines. These suggestions go on to say that upon launching the supercavitation torpedo the commander of one of the US submarines launched their own torpedo which caused the initial explosion (the suggestion is that the US commander felt the 2nd US sub was under fire as a result of the test torpedo). The suggestion continues that the US torpedo breached the kursks hull and caused shortly afterwards the explosion of Russian torpedoes. This hypothesis fits with the facts as known. This would also lend credence to the russians refusal to allow initial western rescue attempts of their vessel (the Kursk may have been attacked by a western vessel). It would also explain why the front portion of the Kursk -which would contain supercavitation torpedoes, was not raised by the norweigan salvage team (concern with the west obtaining sensitive soviet military technology.)

It is also a fact that some months after the Kursk sank the US gave Russia approximately 10 Billion dollars of US aid. It is worth noting that Russia had not approached the world bank for this money prior to the loss of the Kursk but that it was supplied, almost without asking, once the Kursk was lost.

A lot of this information was precised in Jean-Michel Carre's documentary entitled 'Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters'. The video footage of the kursk both underwater and once salvaged gives some credence to the suggestion that the Kursk was sank by torpedo. For this reason I believe there should be a coment saying that there is thought that the Kursk may have been sank by a tropedo fired at it.

I agree with this (I saw the documentary yesterday). The evidence is too big to ignore, so it should be mentioned in the article. --Pierre Vis 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that an emergency beacon from the USS Toledo was recovered by the Russian Navy in the immediate area shortly after the incident. It's also worth noting a satellite photo was available showing the Toledo docked in Norway with the emergency beacon hatch shrouded and damage to the outer hull.

These rumors have been disproved by multiple sources, so I would not include them... (Ego Felem Amo 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

How many nuclear reactors?

In the german and the french article about the Kursk the submarine has two nuclear reactors, in the english it has one. In the article about the type of the Kursk: Oscar class submarine it has two. What is right? -- 80.141.122.181 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two is correct per Janes. I'll change it. Good spot. Megapixie 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a gordon? =

"Though a rescue attempt was made by British gordon and Norwegian teams," <-- what is a British gordon? Paulc206 09:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

where they going for war

would it be possible that these russians were going for war,why would they carry armed nuclear reacters for the practice session? Munashe Gudu

Nuclear reactors are the nuclear submarine's source of power to drive the vessel. They have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. -Will Beback · † · 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This section regarding "armed reactors" should be deleted, due to it being ill informed nonsense. Armed reactors indeed, lol.

Sinking Depth

The Kursk sank to a depth of 350 feet, not 85 miles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.43.65.38 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Unsinkable

The statement about the class being unsinkable due to a double hull sounds inaccurate. People stopped calling ships unsinkable after RMS Titanic, and a double hull doesn't guarantee protection from torpedoes. Anynobody 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)