Banned User
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:04:45 EDT [hidden email] writes:
>Look at this article. >Hopes Sink For Russian Sub=20 'Kursk' May Be Too Far Down In Barents Sea For Rescue=20 >Expert Says Russians Ill-Equipped For Saving Crew=20 >No Firm Word On Crew; Navy Says No Weapons On Board=20 >MOSCOW, August 14, 2000 Not to sound disrepectful to the possible reality of this event but the movie Red October comes to mind .... A deception of a sinking maybe? However, too bad they junked the huge submarine rescue ship built by Howard Hughes... Tiger |
Banned User
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
In reply to this post by Tiger Fly
Doubtful this is a ruse.
Ol' Jimmy Carter was on TV tonight saying poor maintenance was most likely the cause. He's probably right. The Glomar Explorer was an amazing ship. Should have been for what it cost us. Almost pulled off a big intelligence coup. If only that Ruskie sub didn't break apart in the wrong way (the encryption equipment sank). Today the concern is simply humanitarian. Tiger Fly wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:04:45 EDT [hidden email] writes: > >Look at this article. > >Hopes Sink For Russian Sub=20 > 'Kursk' May Be Too Far Down In Barents Sea For Rescue=20 > >Expert Says Russians Ill-Equipped For Saving Crew=20 > >No Firm Word On Crew; Navy Says No Weapons On Board=20 > >MOSCOW, August 14, 2000 > > Not to sound disrepectful to the possible reality of this > event but the movie Red October comes to mind .... > A deception of a sinking maybe? > > However, too bad they junked the huge submarine > rescue ship built by Howard Hughes... > > Tiger |
Banned User
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
This seems to be more a matter of national pride than security.
Whether it's this sub of that rust bucket MIR, they refuse to accept the reality of the situation. Very sad.. [hidden email] wrote: > > Here is a short article on what we could use. > U.S. Has Deep Water Submersible for Rescues > Reuters > > WASHINGTON (Aug. 14) - The United States, which has offered to help Russia > try to rescue over 100 sailors from a disabled submarine, would in similar > situations probably use a special craft to take the crew off the seabed, U.S. > defense officials said Monday. > > Moscow has not accepted Washington's offer of assistance in dealing with the > submarine Kursk, which is at the bottom of the Barents Sea inside the Arctic > Circle. > > The United States has two Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicles (DSRVs), the > Avalon and the Mystic, that can conduct rescue operations in depths of up to > 2,000 feet. > > The Avalon is operable, while the Mystic is being recertified after > maintenance, a Navy spokeswoman said. Both were launched in the 1970s, but > neither has carried out a rescue operation. > > The optimum condition for a DSRV rescue would be for the submarine to be > resting upright or to be tilted no more than 45 degrees to one side. > > The rescue craft, which looks like a miniature submarine, would latch onto > the disabled vessel's hatch, and crew members could transfer, with up to 24 > being transported in one trip. > > Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman, said, ``We would offer help of > whatever (kind) the Russians would find helpful.'' > > At the Russian sub's reported depth, sending the crew out through torpedo > hatches is probably not possible because of the water pressure, Quigley said. > > U.S. defense officials said the U.S. submarine rescue vehicle was probably > compatible with the Russian sub. > > The Russian sailors probably have battery-powered electricity and the means > of replenishing oxygen for a certain amount of time, a retired naval officer > involved with the U.S. submarine rescue program told a media briefing. > > The Russian sub is probably running air conditioning from batteries power, > the officer said on condition of anonymity, but he added that he did not know > how long power would last. > > Pretty eerie how this disaster resembles Subsmash. Although I rather doubt > they had a superior officer aboard who joined the mission deliberately to > challenge his own claustrophobia. > I agree with Keith, I saw that interview with Pres. Carter, and as an old > Navy man he knows the situation. But I am beginning to wonder why the > Russians so far are refusing our assistance/not requesting it. |
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
> Navy man he knows the situation. But I am beginning to wonder why the
> Russians so far are refusing our assistance/not requesting it. I think that it's also a matter of what practical help other countries can offer. I understand that the US DSRVs can't dock with anything other than US designed subs. I suspect the story is the same for most of the other equipment involved. Having help is great, but if it's just going to clutter the rescue site with more ships, and create lots of wrangling and language mix-ups when you're short on time already, how much help would the help be? What I *really* want to see is Thunderbird-2 circling the Danger Zone about to drop the pod with TB-4 in it. (Go Gordon!) Jason. Jason Hellwege Email: [hidden email] ********************************************************************** PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information, which is confidential or privileged. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee (or responsible for delivery of the email to the addressee), please disregard the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the author immediately. ********************************************************************** |
In reply to this post by BedsitterOne
Amelia wrote:
>In a message dated 8/14/00 10:09:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >[hidden email] writes: > > >determine how genuine this incident is. That's just my guess, I'm not >familiar with what is possible. It does make me nervous when the Russians >refuse our help in this matter, which I understand they are doing. It does >lead me to believe there's more going on then they've said. Not necessarily. May have to do with the law at Sea - the laws about salvaging ships. Ship, submarine, same thing in this case. If a ship were to salvage the sub in its entirety (not just rescue the people trapped in it), the Russians may not be able to afford the bill, hence the vessel could possibly be impounded by the company (or vessel and its owner) doing the salvaging. And salvaging costs heaps! I've heard stories about ships not really in that much of trouble, getting helped by another ship, and receiving huuuuge bills, in spite of refusing help (since they didn't really need it) I'm sure no country wants its technology (or absence of it) to fall into the hands of another country. And an eventual salvaging company would have no problems finding a buyer for the vessel... If a ship belonging to the navy of another nation were to do the salvaging, they may have a right to the sub. They could at least impound it until the bill for the salvaging was paid, and have a good look around first. If national security is at stake, of course the lives of individuals aren't important, that stands to reason. Else the wouldn't be any wars going on anywhere, would there (apart from our war with the aliens) CU Lieve CU Lieve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lieve Peten, Vlaanderen, Belgium : Mailto:[hidden email] * Internet Sites link page: http://pinball.iwarp.com/mysites.html * The Pinball Site * Loch Ness + UFOs in Belgium * Vangelis * * Nikita * UFO TV-series * Animated Gifs * Andrea Bocelli * |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |