NationStates Jolt Archive

Me and Macabees are having a neat debate, I ran acrossed a documentary reguarding the loss of the Kursk, and saw something rather interesting. A 36 in clean cut, blown inwards hole (a circle) in the starboard bow section. Now if I recall, two American submarines were shadowing the Kursk.

The Theroy goes, one submarine rams Kursk by mistake, as it flees, the second covers, as Kursk opens her torpedo tubes, the second subs distress boey goes out, and she fires, and hits the Kursk. This is the first explosion. The Kursk instead of going to the surface, goes deeper, then the second explosion, then her sinking.

Now, for some strange reason, the United States "forgets" a huge Russian debt, then loans 10 billion more to Russia. One American submarine, shows up in a Noregian harbor, with a tarp over the spot where her distress boey is located, the second submarine was tracked to a floating drydock, and when the Russians asked to inspect her, the United States refused (granted this a LA class attack submarine, nothing new.)

Now when the Kursk was raised, her bow section was cut off. Then it was later blown up on the bottem.

Mac believes this is wrong completely, and claims a turbine caused the Kursk to sink, if so, why would she suddenly break off contact before the explosions, and not surface if a turbine exploded? Granted she's a double hulled warship with a massive size. And it's been confirmed the second explosion was caused by her torpedos, but the question remains, how did that 36inch wide hole, blown clean cut and inwards, appear?

As I know, the Mk48 has a depleted urainium tipp, so it's possible.

Nope, sorry. The Kursk was sunk by an explosion in its interior. Read "A Time To Die", excellent book about the Kursk sinking and the aftermath. Now the USS Memphis was in the area montiring the Russian exercise, it heard the explosion but it was not the cause of it. What sunk the Kursk was when one its torpedo's explode, this was the first explosion, there was a second when the rest of the torpedos exploded along with their fuel. The torpedo that exploded was a HTP torpedo, high-test peroxide (highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide). Now, a similar thing happened to HMS Sidon in 1955 when a htp torpedo exploded killing 12 men and sinking the submarine. Basicly, the HTP leaked out of a pipe and into the rest of the torpedo, come into contact with an oily or greasy surface and then BANG 12 dead men and Sidon is at the bottom. It was in dock at the time.

Any questions?

Nope, sorry. The Kursk was sunk by an explosion in its interior. Read "A Time To Die", excellent book about the Kursk sinking and the aftermath. Now the USS Memphis was in the area montiring the Russian exercise, it heard the explosion but it was not the cause of it. What sunk the Kursk was when one its torpedo's explode, this was the first explosion, there was a second when the rest of the torpedos exploded along with their fuel. The torpedo that exploded was a HTP torpedo, high-test peroxide (highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide). Now, a similar thing happened to HMS Sidon in 1955 when a htp torpedo exploded killing 12 men and sinking the submarine. Basicly, the HTP leaked out of a pipe and into the rest of the torpedo, come into contact with an oily or greasy surface and then BANG 12 dead men and Sidon is at the bottom. It was in dock at the time.

Any questions?

Yes, I have one.

Why must you bring your facts and knowledge to a perfectly paranoid conspiracy theory?

Awanser this, nice neat hole in the starboard side of the Kursk, and how the Russians got ahold of the Memphis's distress boey.

Nice, Neat hole in ship = Salvage crew, Rescue Crew... anything but the US. I doubt Russia has any Submarine Tech we really need.

Nice, Neat hole in ship = Salvage crew, Rescue Crew... anything but the US. I doubt Russia has any Submarine Tech we really need.

The ability to sink ships and endanger lives might be useful.

No they didnt because the USSR would know and blow something up.

Nice, Neat hole in ship = Salvage crew, Rescue Crew... anything but the US. I doubt Russia has any Submarine Tech we really need.

I hate to be a Necroposter, but I feel I must Answer this.

The Russians do have those neeto Supercavitating Torpetoes.

A Mk48 torpedo does not have a depleted uranium tip. Depleted uranium is for inert, non-explosive kinetic energy rounds used above water to hit ground targets where the velocity of the round is used as the mechanism of damage.

You simply can't get a Mk48 to move fast enough to be a kinetic energy penetrator.

It has a conventional, high explosive warhead that has 650 pounds of high explosive (probably Minol).

It would not have cut a perfect hole. That, and the diameter of a Mk48 is 21 inches - much smaller than the hole you describe.

If it were a kinetic energy penetrator (somehow moving at 5000 feet per second) it would have made a hole no larger than 21 inches.

If it were a shaped charge, it would have made a hole smaller in diameter than 21 inches - in fact, probably only an inch or so wide.

If a Mk48 had struck the Kursk and detonated, it would not only have made a hole, it would have crushed in a major section of the ship - potentially cutting the ship in two. Not sure about submarine targets, but when used against surface targets, the Mk48 detonates under the ship - where it lifts the ship upwards allowing the ship to fall back and break the keel, sending two halves to the bottom in short order. It is extremely powerful, and not a precision hole-cutting instrument.

Yes, I have one.

Why must you bring your facts and knowledge to a perfectly paranoid conspiracy theory?

Because it is rare for people to do that on these forums when the topics is about the US in some way.

I hate to be a Necroposter, but I feel I must Answer this.

The Russians do have those neeto Supercavitating Torpetoes.

Supposedly have. And we're working on them too, or at least an improved version. They aren't that fearsome, really. Our subs run quiet and hide, which makes the squall a moot point. Can't hit what you can't find. :)

I remember hearing in some documentary (possibly Horizon) that various undersea monitors around the North Sea (which are controlled by scientists, not the military) heard the explosion, and the sound's profile supports the faulty Russian torpedo theory that Novoga mentioned.

No they didnt because the USSR would know and blow something up.

There isn't a USSR anymore-it collapsed

I remember hearing in some documentary (possibly Horizon) that various undersea monitors around the North Sea (which are controlled by scientists, not the military) heard the explosion, and the sound's profile supports the faulty Russian torpedo theory that Novoga mentioned.

Correct, the explosion of the torpedo measured 1.5 on the richter scale. The second explosion measured 3.5 on the richter scale, it occured at the same depth of the seabed so it may have been caused by the crash into the sea floor but this has not been proven.

http://politicsofet.com/images/kursk_2.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/KURSK/SMALL_kazouille_1105145222_torpille4.jpg

I'm curious what could have made that hole then....

I'm curious what could have made that hole then....
Those steel eating termites are a bitch aren't they?

uss san francisco-looks very nice.http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeee7gi.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeeee7pj.jpg

uss san francisco-looks very nice.http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeee7gi.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeeee7pj.jpg

Those are pics from that sub that crashed into the underwater moutain, not the Kursk.

Those are pics from that sub that crashed into the underwater moutain, not the Kursk.yeah sure they are oufcource -did they give location of that mountain or explain whow other submarines who went there had no mountains damage,or their most accurate maps were wrong...

yeah sure they are oufcource -did they give location of that mountain or explain whow other submarines who went there had no mountains damage,or their most accurate maps were wrong...

The USS San Fransisco Incident occured in the year 2004, four years after the Kursk sank. It also occured in the Pacific, near the Phillipines if my memeory is correct. It collided with a previously uncharted seamount because it was traveling too fast to detect it with navigation sonar.

it was in a dry dock in Grenland or north Canada untill Russians told them they knew--usa offers money as payment for kursk and then they brought it back but only after 4 years untill the dust comes down...san francisco sub was in white sea at that time!And if it was traveling that fast so it could not listen , over 20-25 knots hit in mountain it wouldnt survive!!!

I think we're all forgetting who's really at fault here. I personally watched W drive that torpedo into the Kursk. Told me something about getting Putin back for beating him in a 5K.

Olara']I think we're all forgetting who's really at fault here. I personally watched W drive that torpedo into the Kursk. Told me something about getting Putin back for beating him in a 5K.

Oh c'mon........we all know it was Cheney and Rove who rode the torpedo in.

Well, its obvious that hole by the torpedo section is obviously a torpedo strike. There just nothing out there that would make a hole that clean in the side of a submarine. Because when the submarine was recovered, the rods placed inside of her, to raise her, were planted on the dorsal section, not the sides, well if so, not that far down. Then theres the idea of the Russians blowing up the bow on the bottem. To be honest, it doesn't make sense to cut off the front of the submarine, when her torpedo bay obvious blew it self apart, there was nothing obviously classified (technological wise) in the bow of the Kursk, so why cut off her bow, then blow it up on the bottem?

Thats got to be a torpedo strike, nothing else could have made such a clean hole in the side of the ship, I seriously doubt salvage teams would cut a hole in the side of the ship right there, it makes no sense.

Its obviously a torpedo strike, and I doubt the Russians sank her, the Kursk disaster blew up in Putin's face, and he barely recovered. So that leaves one culprit, the US.

1. Who made you a Torpedo expert?

2. What possible motivation would the U.S. have for sinking the Kursk?

1. Who made you a Torpedo expert?
The Teknikal Skool of Torpaedology, obviously.
2. What possible motivation would the U.S. have for sinking the Kursk?
The fact that the US is always the evil Great Capialist Satan who never wants anyone to have any fun ever, and they sank the holy and noble Russian boat because they were a bunch of jerks who didn't want glorious Stalin to take over the world and fill it with magical ponies and communist rainbows.

1. Who made you a Torpedo expert?

2. What possible motivation would the U.S. have for sinking the Kursk?

1. What made you a critic?

2. They're Russians! And they have funny names for ships! Why else wouldn't we hit them with torpedoes?

I don't know much about torpedos. Do they blow nice clean round holes in their targets? It would seem to me that a torpedo with 650 pounds of high explosive in it would tear a bigger, uglier hole into anything it hit.

I don't know much about torpedos. Do they blow nice clean round holes in their targets? It would seem to me that a torpedo with 650 pounds of high explosive in it would tear a bigger, uglier hole into anything it hit.

Actually, if a US Torpedo hit it, there wouldn't be a sub left to find.

if you live by Horizon then in short...

a torpedo was accidently turned on, the prop then overheated because it was not in water.
The over heated torpedo sprang leaks, one pipe containing hydrogen peroxide (i think) leaked onto a copper pipe, this caused a reaction which caused steam and the torpedo exploded.

The fire it made, simutainiously detonated the entire torpedo room and front sections of the sub after about 2 minutes. it then sank and lay on the bed, a few hours later the surviving vrew died huddled together where they sat and wrote last letters and put them in plastic bags.

thats the story i believe

if you question my reasoning then i will provide evidence, from the program.

Couple things you're wrong about.

The Crew (what was left of it) had survived for three days, Dimitri Kolesnikov reported this in his last letter to his wife, and the admiralty.

The Hole in the side of the sub, what the hell is it? I doubt a torpedo exploding from within is going to cause a neat hole like that blown inwards, perhaps a torpedo failed to detonate?

Me and Macabees are having a neat debate, I ran acrossed a documentary reguarding the loss of the Kursk, and saw something rather interesting. A 36 in clean cut, blown inwards hole (a circle) in the starboard bow section. Now if I recall, two American submarines were shadowing the Kursk.

I'm sorry to have to do this, but I am about to blow your theory out of the water. Having served as a Fire Control Technicial aboard Los Angeles Class submarines...


The Theroy goes, one submarine rams Kursk by mistake,

Los Angles Class submarines are made from a classified alloy of steel, that is pretty maliable, Russian subs are made of titanium.... And theoretical impact would have done serious damage to the US Submarine.


as it flees, the second covers, as Kursk opens her torpedo tubes, the second subs distress boey goes out,

Los Angeles class submarines do not carry distress buoy's, or even any type of "communications" buoy..... The only under-water radio communications suite they carry is a trailing wire antenna... for VLF [Very Low Freqency] communications.


and she fires, and hits the Kursk. This is the first explosion. The Kursk instead of going to the surface, goes deeper, then the second explosion, then her sinking.

Now, for some strange reason, the United States "forgets" a huge Russian debt, then loans 10 billion more to Russia. One American submarine, shows up in a Noregian harbor, with a tarp over the spot where her distress boey is located,

Once again, no distress buoy... So there can be no "tarp" over a non-existant spot on this submarine... However, images release show a "tarp", which is actually a framework "weather" hutch which can be placed over the forward escape truck (located just aft of the "sail" or "fairwater"), which is the normal egression point for an LA class submarine in port (along with the weapons loading hatch, located midway between bow and sail).... The aft truck is located further back (and is over engineering, just aft of the maneuvering room); this hatch is generally used to feed shore-power, and not for eggression.


the second submarine was tracked to a floating drydock, and when the Russians asked to inspect her, the United States refused (granted this a LA class attack submarine, nothing new.)

Actually, a dock, in Bergen...


Now when the Kursk was raised, her bow section was cut off. Then it was later blown up on the bottem.

Mac believes this is wrong completely, and claims a turbine caused the Kursk to sink, if so, why would she suddenly break off contact before the explosions, and not surface if a turbine exploded? Granted she's a double hulled warship with a massive size. And it's been confirmed the second explosion was caused by her torpedos, but the question remains, how did that 36inch wide hole, blown clean cut and inwards, appear?

As I know, the Mk48 has a depleted urainium tipp, so it's possible.

The Mk48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability) [which is the only torpedo type the LA class carries, Mk48's (no ADCAP), are carried aboard Ohio class SSGN's/SSBN's only] does not have a depleted uranium tip.... It has a 655lb HE warhead, and is a proximity weapon.... Not an impact nor penetrating weapon... It uses the explosion to generate a massive "steam" bubble, and uses the cuncussion force of the expanding and then retracting water to tear the target's keel. Since what you "know", I know, for absolute fact, having handled, opened, and worked on Mk48 ADCAP's to be wrong, I know it's not possible by any weapon carried aboard an United States, Los Angeles Class, Fast Attack submarine...

Well, its obvious that hole by the torpedo section is obviously a torpedo strike. There just nothing out there that would make a hole that clean in the side of a submarine. Because when the submarine was recovered, the rods placed inside of her, to raise her, were planted on the dorsal section, not the sides, well if so, not that far down. Then theres the idea of the Russians blowing up the bow on the bottem. To be honest, it doesn't make sense to cut off the front of the submarine, when her torpedo bay obvious blew it self apart, there was nothing obviously classified (technological wise) in the bow of the Kursk, so why cut off her bow, then blow it up on the bottem?

Thats got to be a torpedo strike, nothing else could have made such a clean hole in the side of the ship, I seriously doubt salvage teams would cut a hole in the side of the ship right there, it makes no sense.

Its obviously a torpedo strike, and I doubt the Russians sank her, the Kursk disaster blew up in Putin's face, and he barely recovered. So that leaves one culprit, the US.


Even if it was a torpedo strike, it was not anything in any known arsenal we are presently using in active service aboard United States, Los Angeles Class, Fast Attack submarines...


and how the Russians got ahold of the Memphis's distress boey.

The Memphis (as well as all other Los Angeles class subs) have no distress buoy...

Very well put.

The Hole in the side of the sub, what the hell is it? I doubt a torpedo exploding from within is going to cause a neat hole like that blown inwards, perhaps a torpedo failed to detonate?

Not sure, but I can absolutely gurantee it is not a Mk48 ADCAP (as would be carried aboard an LA class)...

It's entire "nose" structure is a rubber-composite dome over it's sonar transceiver (for guidance and tracking), if it impacted against the hull of the Kursk, without detonating, the entire front section all the way to the OTTO-II fuel tank would have collapsed, and there would not be any penetration...

Mk48 Adcap layout is as such

|Nose/Sonar Transceiver|Warhead|Electronics|Fuel|Engine|

the shaped HE charge (655lbs) in the warhead, if you've ever seen it, is too soft and maliable (thick of wet-chalk) to have penetrated either... and a handfull of circut boards moving at (some classified speed, but not all that fast) could not penetrate the sheet medal on the side of a honda, let alone the hull of the Kurst...

[I'd give more info, but I'm still bound by my debrief for another 60 some odd years...]

OTTO-II fuel tanks?

What use would a nuclear submarine have for any fuel short of nuclear?

OTTO-II fuel tanks?

What use would a nuclear submarine have for any fuel short of nuclear?

OTTO-II is a monopropelant.... It's used on the fuel tank of the Mk48 and Mk48 ADCAP... for ITS propelant...

[On a side note, nuclear subs do carry diesel fuel oil as well, as they do have a diesel generator for backup power]...

For an overview, let's look at the weapons that are carried on a Los Angeles class attack sub...

Mk48 ADCAP - Torpedo, sonar guided... 655lb HE warhead, designed for proximity explosion [non-penetrating]... Could not have been the culprit.

Mk67 SLMM [Submarine Launched Mobile Mine]... It's actually an old modified 1950's era torpedo, with a newer electronics package... Designed to be deployed in shallow waters, it "Swims" to the bottom, and digs itself in, where [depending on it's program], can engage at the detection of a specific vessel class, or "count" several ships passing before engaging a random target... It's limited warhead would not even compare to the damage of a Mk48...

BGM-84A Harpoon... The Harpoon is a submerged launched anti-ship cruise missile. It is designed for penetration, but is only capable of hitting surfaced targets [radar guided].

UGM-109(x) - Tomahawk Missile... Designed for either proximity or penetration engagements... Models A,C, and D are only designed for LAND attacks... Requiring pre-packaged mission objectives [canned missions].

UGM-109A TLAM-N [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear] - (Classified Power) Plutonium-Tritium fission-fusion nuclear warhead... Can be carried aboard any Los Angeles Class Fast Attack... [only horizontal launch(Torpedo tubes)]
UGM-109C TLAM-C [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Conventional] - ~600lb shaped penetrating HE warhead.... Only designed for land attack... [can eithe r be launched horizontal (torpedo tubes), or on Flight 2-3 ships vertically from the VLS (Verticle Launch System)]
UGM-109D TLAM-D [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Dispenser] - Double-bay bomblet dispenser... Designed for "peppering" a field with small (less than 50lb) bomblets... Designed for over-land engagements only [Same as TLAM-C]

[The UGM-109B TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) has not been used in service since the late 80's... The BGM-84A takes the roll of the old TASM project].

Then what caused the hole in the side of the Kursk?

And I'm assuming the Memphis and Toledo are LA class submarines, not Seawolf?

Its just in this one movie I watched. The Russian submarine was off the coast of the US and one of the missile bays had a fuel leak. When Russian fuel hits sea water they produce an acidic vapor and fire. This fire spread and I forget exactly how it damaged the reactor. But in short Russian fuel is very dangerous when exposed to sea water. One of the many design flaws in Russian equipment.

There isn't a USSR anymore-it collapsed
Bullshit quit lieing.

Then what caused the hole in the side of the Kursk?

And I'm assuming the Memphis and Toledo are LA class submarines, not Seawolf?

1. I don't know, but it does not match the signature of any underwater capable weapon in a LA Class weapons arsenal.

2. Yes, the Memphis (SSN-691) is a refit flight 1 Los Angeles Class, the Toledo (SSN-769) is a flight 4 Los Angeles Class... The differences between the flight 1 and 4 are;

A. Flight 1 LA's have "fairwater" mounted diving planes (these are the "wing" like structures seen sticking from the sides of the "sail" on these submarines) [shared as well by flight 2 and 3 LA's]... Flight 4's have retractable bow planes (the "sail" [or fairwater] is featureless, diving planes instead, retractable and below the on-surface "waterline" towards the bow)....

B. Flight 1 LA's have 4 torpedo tubes.... Flight 4's have 4 torpedo tubes, in addition to 12 VLS [Verticle Launch System] tubes (for Tomahawk missiles) [Additionally Flight 3's also have 12 VLS tubes, and flight 2's 10]

C. Flight 1's FireControl system was bassed off, originally, the CCS [Combat Control System] Mk1 FireControl, mostly upgraded to CCS Mk2 now.... [Also shared by Flight 2 and 3's]; Flight 4's use [for both sonar and FireControl] the AN/BSY-1 (Busy-One) CC/AS [Combat Control/Accoustic Set]...

D. Most Flight 4's are outfitted with "shrowded" screws, Flight 1's generally have "speed" screws [Though the Memphis may have gotten one during her 1989 refit]...

* My last boat was the USS Hampton [SSN-767], close to the same design as the Toledo, a Flight-4 Los Angeles Class submarine. Even we were fitted with experimental weapon systems [including Anti-Torpedo holming weapons, 5" aft-firing dihedral launchers, and a whole slew of cool gadgets] and did not have any under-water launched operating weapon capable of polking a ~35 inch hole in the side of anothre submarine [we could tear it to shreds, yes... but nothing designed to penetrate]...

There are only 3 Seawolf class submarines, The USS Seawolf [SSN-21], the USS Connecticut [SSN-22] and the USS James Carter [SSN-23]...

The newer Virginia Class, led by the USS Virginia [SSN-774], was just commissioned [August 16th, 2003]... So none of it's weapons are a factor.

Bullshit quit lieing.

Last time I checked, it collapsed in 1991.

Bullshit quit lieing.

Last time I checked, it collapsed in 1991.

OTTO-II is a monopropelant.... It's used on the fuel tank of the Mk48 and Mk48 ADCAP... for ITS propelant...

[On a side note, nuclear subs do carry diesel fuel oil as well, as they do have a diesel generator for backup power]...

Oh, so the Torpetoes are not kept fully fueled? Are they fueled in the launch tube?

How exactly does the torpeto engine work? I can't really see how it can. Could you enlighten a layman like me?

(If I sound condisending or arguementitvie, I'm not trying to be. I'm genuinely curious.)

Oh, so the Torpetoes are not kept fully fueled? Are they fueled in the launch tube?

How exactly does the torpeto engine work? I can't really see how it can. Could you enlighten a layman like me?

(If I sound condisending or arguementitvie, I'm not trying to be. I'm genuinely curious.)

The torpedoes are refueled at weapon refit facilities before their deployment to 'boats' [You'll understand why by the end of this post]...

The torpedo engine is a pretty normal turbine driven engine [external combustion]... This may not seem like it would work, untill you know the fuel...

OTTO-II fuel is used in the torpedo. Derived from OTTO fuel. The fuel is a monopropelant [a monopropellant produces the oxygen it needs for its own combustion as it burns...], OTTO fuel was initially developed under Nazi Germany's rocket programs as a rocket fuel.... It contains several poisons, including; propylene glycol dinitrate, dibutyl sebacate and 2-nitrodiphenylamine. Combustion results in Oxygen, Nitrous Oxide, Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Cyanide along with several other trace gases.

Because of OTTO-II's ingredients, it's combustability and the dangerous fumes resulting from such, it is fueled only in controled enviroments in weapons refit facilities.

Since OTTO-II produces it's own oxygen as it burns, the fuel can burn readily, even when in water.

The Torpedo's engine is not lit untill after impulse.... The impulse process to be illustrated as follows...

Simple Diagram of the Torpedo launch system mechanics of a Los Angeles Class Fast Attack Submarine...
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/tubes.jpg
1. Upper Torpedo Tube
2. Lower Torpedo Tube
3. Impulse Tank
4. Impulse Ram
5. Upper Torpedo Tube Muzzle Door
6. Lower Torpedo Tube Muzzle Door
7. Impulse Ram Breech Door [to sea]
8. Impulse Ram High-Pressure Pneumatic Cylinder
9. Upper Torpedo Tube Breech Door
10. Lower Torpedo Tube Breech Door
11. Torpedo Tube to Impulse Tank "vents".

Loading:
The Muzzle Door [5] is closed. Tube is drained and empty...
Breech Door [9] is opened, weapon is loaded into the tube [1].
Breech Door [9] is closed, torpedo tube [1] is flooded.
Vents [11] are opened on the tube [1]... Torpedo Tube [1] is equalized with sea pressure...
Impulse Ram sea side breech is opened [7]

Tube [1] is now ready for firing...

Launch Sequence:
Tube [1] Muzzle Door [5] is opened to sea...
High Pressure air is sent to the Impulse Pneumatic Cylinder [8].
Pushing the piston, it begins pulling the ram [4] and pressurizing water in the impulse cylinder [3]..
Water flow from increasing pressure is pushed through the tube [1] vents [11], "flushing" any weapon in the tube [1] out into the water...

[The system will cycle about 4000 galons through the tube in under 10 seconds... It sounds like a really large toilet being flushed.... Ohio class submarines (SSBN/SSGN) use a turbine instead of the impulse ram, they sound more like one of those little noisemakers children will use, which make a whirling sound...]

G-force from the launch triggers sensors in the torpedo, which will light off the torpedo's engine...

[An engine which lights off while still inside the tube, prior to or without impulse, is known as a "Hot Run".... from the hazards of OTTO-II you can see why this can be dangerous, even if the torpedo's warhead is not armed. In a hot run there are several procedures which can be used to make the torpedo shut itself down, which rely upon classified fail-safe's in the torpedo's eletronics package.]

How a Mk48 or Mk48 ADCAP is used against a target...

http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/mk48_exp.jpg

1. Vessel's Aft Buoyancy
2. Vessel's Fore Buoyancy
3. Gravity
4. Torpedo
5. Steam Bubble

Idealy, the target should be "hit" amidships along its centerline.

The Mk48 has a "proximity" detector, to detect when it is near or under a vessel.

When the torpedo [4] detonates, it creates a massive pressure bubble of steam [5]... which moves water from out of under the target's center.... This creates minor upward pressure against the target's keel... Followed by an empty bubble which begins to collapse on itself [5].... The ships fore [2] and aft [1] buoyancy, combined with gravity [3] pushes the center of the ship "down" into the collapsing bubble.... Ship's keels are designed to bear the weight of the vessel, evenly, over the water.... The result above disrupts this, and places massive pressure upon the center area of the keel... weaking and/or tearing the keel [depending on how strong the keel of the ship is], which will lead to the ship tearing apart under its own mass... [the Mk48 is not a penetrating weapon... we figured out that this is much more effective long ago after WW2]... The weapon will rip just about any ship, Cruiser or smaller, in half.... Though, more weapons would be needed agaisnt something the the size of a carrier...

Against Submarine's, the same principle is used, except optimal attack is against either the subs screw (propeller), disrupting the shaft seals, and causing the propulsion system to seize, or to create a massive pressure differential in the submarine's ballast tanks, causing them to rupture... [prefferably the latter]... Again, the weapon is not designed for penetrating attacks....

The only submarine based weapon in the US arsenal designed to penetrate in an attack, is the BGM-84A Harpoon Anti-Ship cruise-missile, which can only be used on target's running on the surface....

I can't say what could have made the 36" hole on the Kursk... But I can say what didn't make it.... No torpedo or mine carried aboard Los Angeles Class submarines.... A Harpoon could, theoretically, but since we know the Kurst was not surfaced at the time, it can be rulled out.

Since I know, for fact, that it cannot be any weapon on an LA class sub, and thus the Mk48 ADCAP is rulled out... You need to find a new explanation for it.

Last time I checked, it collapsed in 1991.
That cant be true cause we still had a map in School.

That cant be true cause we still had a map in School.

It is true. The USSR is no longer in existence.