Zavtra

No. 34 (457), 20 August 2002

Translated from the Russian

Webmaster's note:This article should really be read in conjunction with another article posted on this topic, entitled The Fatherland Is in Danger! (Did the Americans sink the "Kursk"?), which contains photographs of the "Kursk" after it was raised where a curious round hole is distinctly visible, a hole which could only have been made from the outside, thus overturning the official story that the "Kursk" was sunk by an explosion inside the submarine. Although the present article doesn't mention the curious round hole, the facts that it brings to light also point to an external reason for the "Kursk's" demise, presumably an American attack. Only one contradiction exists: the report of the governmental commission cited in this article points to an impact from the left side of the sub, while the round hole was located on the right side. Perhaps the commission's report wa s falsified?

At the end of July Vice-Premier Ilya Klebanov and Attorney-General V. Ustinov announced that the governmental commission for the investigation into the the accident of the atomic submarine "Kursk" had finished its work, and offered the public the results of its two-year labors. Their conclusion: The reason for the atomic sub's demise was a torpedo fuel explosion occurring in the 4th torpedo tube, leading to a detonation of all warheads.

Ilya Iosifovich Klebanov, head of the "Kursk" investigation commission

[We can't refrain from saying a few words about this individual, Klebanov. He began his career during perestroika as head of the Leningrad Optical-Mechanical Conglomerate (LOMO). In a few short years he succeeded brilliantly in "privatizing" (read selling off everything that wasn't nailed down and pocketing the proceeds) this former crown jewel of the Soviet military-industrial complex, leaving it in a complete shambles. Naturally, the "talents" of this administrator didn't go unnoticed by his fellow Jews in Moscow and Klebanov was promoted to head the entire Russian military-industrial complex in Putin's first year in office. The peak of Ilya Iosifovich's career came with the "Kursk" tragedy, when his acting talents suddenly emerged. There he was comforting the relatives of the victims. There h e was explaining the official government lies on TV. Now this "public servant's" star has waned a bit, but there's no doubt that a comfortable retirement awaits him and many rewards for invaluable services rendered to the New World Order establishment. -- Webmaster]

And that was it! The end of the whole matter.

About the main things -- the first cause of the disaster, about how that miserable torpedo could have blown up in the first place -- about these things the high commission uttered not a word.

In short, we've created a remarkable legal precedent: we haven't located the perpetrator, only the murder weapon, but with this the investigators consider themselves to have done their duty.

But the public has arrived at a different opinion in the matter. Many are unsatisfied with the results of the investigation, from the former head of the Navy to the relatives of the victims. The "Kursk" tragedy stirred up the whole nation, leaving no one indifferent. In those tragic days of August, 2000, those dying sailors became the nearest and dearest of all of us. And that's why the secret of their deaths needs to be revealed and become known to the whole country, not just to a narrow circle of governmental ministers. Russia has the right to know just who is responsible for the agonizing deaths of 118 of her best sons in a steel sarcophagous on the floor of the Barents Sea.

This led our newspaper to conduct its own journalistic investigation.

We were driven by one other circumstance: Immediately after the accident the authors of "Sovetskaya Rossiya" put forth the notion that a foreign, most likely American, submarine could have been involved in the sinking of the "Kursk". This idea didn't receive the attention it deserved.

Well then, in light of Klebanov's and Ustinov's statement, there's nothing left to do but shuffle our feet in front of the Americans and apologize with a "Sorry, sir, we made a mistake"?

Let's not hurry with our apology. Your special correspondent conducted his investigation. By happy accident he became acquainted with certain materials from the governmental commission: those same materials which the commission promises to make public, but is not hurrying to do so. These materials place the Barents Sea tragedy in a whole different light.

DISCREDITED VERSION

Klebanov and Ustinov, in their meetings with the press, explained the chain of events thusly: Allegedly, when the type 298 torpedo was already in torpedo tube no. 4, it began to leak hydrogen peroxide (H202) through a poorly-welded seam. That led first to a fire inside the torpedo tube and then to the explosion of the torpedo's fuel, which caused the whole arsenal stored in the first section of the sub to explode.

For a non-specialist this all looks logical at first glance: torpedos can blow up because that's what they're designed to do. Thus public opinion is led into a technical dead-end.

But the experiments carried out in the course of the investigation make shreds out of the official story just as a live torpedo would annihilate some fishing dinghy unlucky enough to get in its way.

Klebanov and Ustinov say that the hydrogen peroxide leaked and leaked, and then caught on fire. However, during the investigation a series of experiments were conducted in accordance with the "list of experimental tasks" confirmed on 8 Sep. 2000 by deputy chairman of the governmental commission, Vice-Admiral Barskov. And here are the conclusions the experts came to:

"No aberrations from the norm were revealed during the check of weld-joints on the type 298A torpedo." The same was confirmed by Academic Gorynin at one of the commission's sessions.

What's more, there are the results of experiments conducted by specialists from the Russian Applied Chemistry Scientific Center. And they show that "a fire in the torpedo tube can happen only in case of a slow leak of hydrogen peroxide, in the range of 200 grams per second."

The thing is that a more powerful stream of H202 would simply extinguish the fire, and a weaker one would cause the flame to go out of its own accord: There's enough oxygen in the torpedo tube to support combustion for only 1.5 seconds. And here it's enough to remember your fifth-grade chemistry to know that a regular supply of oxidizer is needed to support flame in any enclosed space.

If Messrs. Ustinov and Klebanov really believe what they say at their press-conferences, then the following picture emerges, if we take into account the above-mentioned experiments: First, some disembodied spirit squeezed into the torpedo tube along with the torpedo loaded there. Then this same demon bored a little hole and let a few drops of peroxide leak out. After the fire began, that very same terrorist from the beyond widened the opening just enough to ensure 200g/sec. leakage, no more, no less, and in that manner kept the fire going. Nonsense, you say? By no means: our scenario is based on the official conclusions, you see.

But let's go on. There was, they say, a fire in the torpedo tube. But in the commission's materials we find, written in black and white: "On the fragments of torpedo tube no. 4 raised from the ocean floor and the torpedo itself the paint is intact..."; "the nylon track inside torpedo tube no. 4 shows no signs of high temperature influence...".

So there you have it: Inside the torpedo tube a fire is raging, if we're to believe the report, but paint and nylon are intact. Though they ought to have burned up in the first moments of the blaze. Not nylon, but a veritable "burning bush" was located in torpedo tube no. 4! That's really something: the torpedo is in shreds, the sub in pieces, but paint and nylon are like new.

By the way, experiments during the investigation also revealed that the the fuel in our torpedos is very stable and even in the presence of high temperatures can go for a long time without exploding. (Just how long we'll keep a secret so as not to tempt foreign intelligence.) So if we're to take the official version seriously, we have to accept that at the moment of the "Kursk" disaster there's a fire raging in the 4th torpedo tube, sirens are wailing, warning lamps blinking, but no one on the crew is paying any attention, and the sailors are cold-bloodedly lighting their cigarettes off of the scorching lid of the torpedo tube... Not so smooth, this official story. One gets the impression that it's not the torpedo, but the official report which is coming apart at the seams.

THE MYSTERIOUS HOT-SPOT

Making the official version fit with the experimental data is about as hard as hitching a horse to a submarine.

Let's return our attention, however, to the commission's materials: "...On the basis of the work done to date it's too early to come to a final conclusion about the reasons for the accident and loss of the atomic submarine "Kursk". For example, it's impossible to conclude that the first explosion resulted from other events, either inside the submarine or without. However we can confirm with some certainty that a thermal explosion of hydrogen peroxide is possible only in a fast-developing situation such as dynamic influence on the submarine and the No. 298 torpedo, which left the crew with insufficient time to liquidate its consequences."

Translating the extremely cautious and weighed words of the expert conclusion into plain language, one could say that an explosion of the fuel in the torpedo could have occurred in one, and only one, case: a sudden and powerful impact from the outside. What sort of impact could this have been? A foreign metal object, a burst of flame, a stream of hot gases?

Let's hold off with our hypotheses and recall one episode which occurred during the operation to raise the "Kursk". Reports of this incident appeared briefly in a few Western media sources, then they were picked up by European "greens", and then ... silently disappeared.

Here's what is said to have happened: On the 5th of September, 2001, they were getting ready to begin cutting the hull to separate the 1st compartment. Underwater work was being done exclusively by English divers. Two of them worked on that day on the ocean floor in the region of the planned cut, and a third was located not far away in the diving bell. When the diving crew was raised to the ship "Mayo" at the end of its shift, and underwent a radiation check, the faces of the testers went pale: All three of the divers had received a serious overdose of radiation. Immediately tests were made of the radiation level around the hull of the "Kursk", but no radiation leaks were discovered.

That meant that an unknown source of radiation had to be sought in the vicinity of the sub. Soon they found it: Several meters from the right side of the sub a radioactive hot spot was discovered.

But this is where the interesting part begins. In the West, fear of radiation is universal. Even small doses are considered to be the end of the world. But, surprising to say, no sooner had this radioactive hot spot been discovered on the ocean floor than all discussion on the matter ceased, as if someone had waved a magic wand. Work continued as if nothing had happened.

European "greens" made one bold hypothesis. They remembered how after the American bombardment of Yugoslavia innumerable radioactive hot spots were discovered throughout Kosovo. Their source was the anti-tank projectiles with depleted uranium tips used by American bombers against Serb armor. The "greens" remembered ... and then fell silent.

We were able to track down one specialized military publication, "Proceedings", 1989, XII, No. 1042, where on pages 119-122 an article by Norman Palmer, "Battling Against Torpedos", was published. In that article the author states that the American Navy is practically defenseless against Soviet torpedos of 650 mm. caliber. He cites one American admiral, who noted that the only means of defense is to put a frigate in the wake of an aircraft carrier to take the hit, thus sacrificing the less costly ship to save the more valuable one. Further on, the author lists the weaponry being developed by the American Navy against Soviet subs armed with these wonder-torpedos:

the creation of powerful underwater whirlpools;

an impact wave in front of the sub in the form of concentric rings;

high-speed chemical rockets;

high-speed submarine-fired electromagnetic projectiles.

We'll zero in especially on that last item, because several years ago other sources announced that the United States had created and successfully tested a new type of weapon, based on entirely new physical principles. Mention was made of electromagnetic guns for the submarine fleet. These guns accelerate a small-diameter projectile to enormous speeds using a powerful electromagnetic field.

And here's the most remarkable thing: The projectiles are tipped with depleted uranium, inasmuch as this metal is the densest available.

So what do we have here? A chain of coincidences? Unrelated facts randomly fitting into a logical construction, or ... maybe we're on to something?

Here's one more "random coincidence". The newspapers all printed that the American sub "Memphis" was near the "Kursk" at the moment of the accident. Everyone knows that. But here's what the American military journal "Jane's Fighting Ships" for 2000-2001 has to say: "The atomic submarine "Memphis" of the "Los Angeles" class, numbered No. 691, was re-equipped in 1989 as a testing platform for new types of experimental technologies, including new types of weaponry".

Another coincidence? Possibly. There's no proof? Well, you'll have to excuse me, there is! And it's to be found not just somewhere, but in the materials of the governmental commission.

TORPEDO FRAGMENTS

Among other documents there exists a detailed list and description of all the fragments from the "Kursk" raised from the ocean floor at the place of the accident. Among them there's one which can throw light on the main question: What was the cause of the explosion? It's a piece of metal, a fragment of the body of that same ill-fated torpedo. Here's what the experts write about this fragment: "...there's a piece of metal from the body of the torpedo which shows signs of the local influence of heat on its outer side... On the outer edge of this metallic fragment there are signs of the presence of high heat, more than 500 degrees [Celsius]... On the remainder of this torpedo body fragment the paint is unharmed."; "...we can confirm with a high degree of certainty that a powerful and sudden physical and heat impact was directed at the torpedo from the outside, from the left side of the inner hull of the submarine."

What does this mean? It means that there was no fire in torpedo tube no. 4, which allegedly led to an explosion. In fact, only a part of the torpedo shows signs of a "powerful and sudden physical and heat impact". What could have caused it? A beam of fire, a stream of incandescent gases, an explosion of a cumulative charge, or any similar phenomenon. It's important to note the circumstance that the supposed cumulative charge hit the torpedo from the outside, just at the place where it was unprotected by the outer hull of the sub.

We can theorize about the nature of the supposed weapon used, but one thing is clear: The demise of the "Kursk" was brought about not by internal factors, not by an explosion inside the sub or a mistake of the crew. No. The "Kursk" was hit by a "powerful outside impact". This is witnessed by the results of the investigation of the fragments.

In this manner, the last witness for the prosecution, a heat-scarred and distorted piece of a torpedo, was raised from the bottom of the Barents Sea, making its appearance to point at the true perpetrators of the tragedy. Only one thing remains: to answer the question, "Who's the murderer? Who fired the weapon?"

Without revealing any state secrets we'll mention here that the Russian Navy has no anti-ship weapons based on cumulative charge technology. However, there's no shortage of such weapons in the navies of other countries. NATO's small anti-ship torpedos, both the MK-50 and the "Stingray", are armed with cumulative charges, for example. And recent reports state that NATO has been arming its underwater fleet with these weapons.

The new French-Italian torpedo, "MU-90", is also armed with a cumulative warhead. So you see that foreign governments have rich experience in developing cumulative charge weaponry to counter Russian subs.

No, we aren't jumping to conclusions here; we're just trying to weigh and assess the facts. Guided by the tried-and-true principle: "Who benefits?"

THE "FAT BOY" AND "SATAN"

Indeed, who benefits from the sinking of the "Kursk?" The Americans? Yes, three subs of the "Kursk" category are enough to send a whole American carrier group to the bottom of the sea. But here's the question: Would the Yanks have gotten their hands so dirty just for the sake of sinking one submarine? Not likely. They have better means at their disposal to nullify our military might: the "economic reforms" which are slowly starving our sailors to death, leading officers to take their own lives, and thanks to which our ships stand eternally at anchor.

So if there indeed was foul play here, then an aim larger than the destruction of a single submarine was being pursued. Such as? Let's recall: What conclusions were made and decisions taken after the "Kursk" disaster? Very simple: Navy head Admiral Kuroyedov issued an order to immediately remove all "fat" torpedos of classes 298 and 298A from our fleet -- those very same torpedos which Klebanov and Ustinov blame for the tragedy. And it's just this decision, in the opinion of specialists, which could have fatal consequences for our Navy and Russia's whole military doctrine.

Why? Let's take a closer look at these torpedos, the 298 and 298A, christened "fat boys" for their large 650 mm. caliber. They were created specially to do battle with the large ships of the enemy, above all with aircraft carriers and their escorts.

From the moment of its appearance twenty years ago our "fat" torpedo has been a chronic headache for American admirals. At the beginning of the 1980's the USA adopted a new strategic conception with the main accent on naval power (carrier attack groups and submarines armed with strategic nuclear missiles). And here's the Soviet "fat boy", capable of breaking the back of any US aircraft carrier from an unthinkable distance.

It's known from reliable sources that the Americans never succeeded in countering our "fat" torpedos, whose range of many tens of kilometers is superior to any torpedo in the world by a factor of two. In power it had no equal either: One hit could turn any aircraft carrier into a very large and very dead "submarine". The 298 has one other feature: It's guided by the wake of the target ship. This means that trying to destroy it using hydroacoustic means is like trying to stop a wounded rhinocerous with a Sunday sermon. And now, after the "Kursk" accident and Ustinov's and Klebanov's conclusions these torpedos have been removed from our arsenal. There you have it! American aircraft carrier commanders can breathe a deep sigh of relief -- no overwhelming and irresistible strike threatens them from the deep.

In general, if you look at it from a certain point of view, a surprising picture opens up in front of us. Russia had two "long arms": one cosmic one, the heavy "Satan" SS-18 ICBM, which hung like a cloud over America, capable of turning any state of your choice, or the whole country at once if you prefer, into rubble. Any "Star Wars" missile shield was as powerless against it as an umbrella aginst a tidal wave. And our second "long arm" reached from the ocean deep: the "fat boy" torpedo -- as short, overwhelming and irresistible as an uppercut -- aiming a blow right to the keel of an enemy carrier.

So our resourceful leaders oblige the Americans by destroying our "Satans". Then in the blink of an eye they remove the "fat boy" from our arsenal, without even waiting for the official conclusions on the reasons for the "Kursk" disaster. And you begin to come to the conclusion that the "Kursk" incident was about much more than the deaths of 118 sailors and one submarine. This tragedy was used as a pretext for re-examining Russia's whole naval doctrine and for the abandonment of all means of countering American carrier might. The USA, as we know, regards the aircraft carrier above all as an instrument of foreign policy. And now nothing can stop "our friend George" from establishing his "new world order" over the whole planet with the help of bombs and missiles.

Zavtra is Russia's highest-circulation weekly patriotic newspaper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more on-site articles on this topic, see:

The Fatherland Is in Danger! (Did the Americans sink the "Kursk"?)

Added to Site: 8 Sep. 2002 - Last modified: 8 Sep. 2002

The Russian-language original of this article is located at:

http://zavtra.ru/cgi//veil//data/zavtra/02/457/51.html

URL of this page:

http://oag.ru/views/kursk2.html

mirrored at:

http://eairc.boom.ru/views/kursk2.html

http://oag.newmail.ru/views/kursk2.html

Copy and distribute freely, but please credit

The Orthodox Anti-Globalist Resource Center

and include a link to our site:

http://oag.ru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------