Newer technology. Help or hindrance in a rescue?

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
CambridgeNavyBoy
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:10 pm

Newer technology. Help or hindrance in a rescue?

Postby CambridgeNavyBoy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:45 pm

Hello guys,

I am three quarter's of the way through reading the book 'A time to die: The kirsk disaster'. For those of you who do not know the history of the Kirsk in the year 2000 the Russian Submarine Kursk sank due to a explosion with one of the Torpedoes on the Northern fleet training. When the rescuers from the assisting Country's of the United Kingdom and Norway, the midget rescue subs had problems locating stricken submarine, and yet the Russians had given exact location of it. So why could they not find it.
A faint ping is what gave it away.
It dawned on all on board the two rescue ships. The Kursk was fitted with a hull surrounded by rubber tiles greatly decreasing the chance of a sonar ping.
So I would like to put the question out of there. Do you guys think with the increase of naval technology an successful risk with fall dramatically?

Before you reply I would like to let you know a few things. I understand that while there is always negative there is a positive. The increase of naval technology is to increasing.
I would like to dedicate this page to all who lost there lives in the Kursk disaster (All 118 sailors and officers on board.) and the Family's who where heartbroken by there losses and the ever increasing wait for information in Russia.

This is my first post so some feedback would be greatly appreciated.

MikeBrough
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Newer technology. Help or hindrance in a rescue?

Postby MikeBrough » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:44 am

CambridgeNavyBoy wrote:Hello guys,

I am three quarter's of the way through reading the book 'A time to die: The kirsk disaster'. For those of you who do not know the history of the Kirsk in the year 2000 the Russian Submarine Kursk sank due to a explosion with one of the Torpedoes on the Northern fleet training. When the rescuers from the assisting Country's of the United Kingdom and Norway, the midget rescue subs had problems locating stricken submarine, and yet the Russians had given exact location of it. So why could they not find it.
A faint ping is what gave it away.
It dawned on all on board the two rescue ships. The Kursk was fitted with a hull surrounded by rubber tiles greatly decreasing the chance of a sonar ping.
So I would like to put the question out of there. Do you guys think with the increase of naval technology an successful risk with fall dramatically?

Before you reply I would like to let you know a few things. I understand that while there is always negative there is a positive. The increase of naval technology is to increasing.
I would like to dedicate this page to all who lost there lives in the Kursk disaster (All 118 sailors and officers on board.) and the Family's who where heartbroken by there losses and the ever increasing wait for information in Russia.

This is my first post so some feedback would be greatly appreciated.


Morning, CNB. I'm new here myself but I thought I'd post my thoughts. More experienced types may be along later.

In this case, the benefits of the anechoic tiles would more than outweigh any downside. I think the average submariner would prefer not to be heard, thus decreasing the chances of being detected and then sunk.

It could be an interesting question, though. Do you have any other examples?


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests