- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
So how would we kill an enemy submarine sitting on the sea bed?
Thoughts and Comments on Who Sabotaged the Russian Nord Stream 1 & 2 Pipelines
- Thread starter gorillamotors
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,404
- Reaction score
- 7,941
NS 1 and 2 are actually 1.6” (likely 40mm) thick, so the factor of safety is more like 3 and change. They’re also a lot smaller diameter than a submarine so they’re harder to put a hole in by external pressure.
If it was the US, they wouldn’t use a torpedo. They’d drop a SEAL team out of a sub and attach the bomb to the pipe directly. Way easier and way less evidence that way.
If it was the US, they wouldn’t use a torpedo. They’d drop a SEAL team out of a sub and attach the bomb to the pipe directly. Way easier and way less evidence that way.
Wire guided torpedo. Once the torpedo acquires the target with active sonar (and a metal pipe coated in in a layer of concrete stationary on the sea floor would be super easy to acquire with active sonar) the rest is almost a 100% certainty.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,404
- Reaction score
- 7,941
It's also worth pointing out that an air-dropped torpedo is by definition not wire guided. The airdropped torpedoes do have some sort of inertial guidance system, but I don't know anything about its capabilities. I would expect that you could tell the torpedo to get close to a point, but I don't know how close it can navigate without aid from its active sonar.
Another interesting thought is what the noise threshold for a torpedo is. If they're trying to kill subs, they want things that are 10+ feet in diameter. Their sonars and/or processing systems might throw out things smaller than that. One would hope that the operator could dial that noise threshold down if desired, but who knows? Well, someone definitely does, but they're not talking.
Another interesting thought is what the noise threshold for a torpedo is. If they're trying to kill subs, they want things that are 10+ feet in diameter. Their sonars and/or processing systems might throw out things smaller than that. One would hope that the operator could dial that noise threshold down if desired, but who knows? Well, someone definitely does, but they're not talking.
There's probably no real crime if the Russians blew up their own pipeline. It's bad form to do that in someone else's EEZ, but probably not criminal unless it somehow ends up in their jurisdiction. Resolving that will take several years and millions of dollars of lawyering.
modeltrains
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,872
- Reaction score
- 758
No, there are no leaps. The wire is the transmission medium for control input from the launching vessel to the torpedo & that input can be generated either by electronic systems or by human input as data updates and command decisions about new data are made:
Reference,
"
TECHNICAL REPORT 2017
June 2013
Copper-Based Torpedo
Guidance Wire: Applications and
Environmental Considerations
B. Swope
J. McDonald
Approved for public release.
SSC Pacific
San Diego, CA 92152-5001
"A wire-guided control system allows users to make last-minutes tactical decisions and convey
instructions from a firing vessel to a moving torpedo to overcome target evasion tactics
(Environmental Sciences Group, 2005)." on page 1.
"
Although not exactly the same thing as a submarine hiding in the mud, this from 1984 may be of interest since it involves the nation investigating the pipeline explosion,https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/can-submarines-stay-hidden.html"
The Swedish Navy suspects that its inland waters have been penetrated by a miniature, bottom-crawling submarine of the Soviet Navy. Its tractor prints have reportedly been found on the bottom.
"
More on the thing, http://www.hisutton.com/Lulea 1983.html
A little about and more by that author, https://news.usni.org/author/hisutton
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,731
- Reaction score
- 1,378
Prolly gonna take a few months before we find out who's "conspiracy theory" was right all along...This is kind of a grassy knoll for you isn’t it, John?
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,404
- Reaction score
- 7,941
On the bridge they’ve more or less claimed responsibility. Not that I’d 100% believe a denial, but I usually believe it when people claim responsibility.
Unlike the currently unused pipeline, the partial loss of the bridge hurts the Russians practically immediately on the battlefield (morale first, logistics slightly later) and it also undermines Putins "everything under control" narrative at home.
On the pipeline, one pipe was unharmed (NS2B). That pipe has more than enough capacity to resume transport at July levels, but it's currently not certified because the Germans refused to do so after the invasion. If the US would have blown up the pipeline to cut off the Germans, I kinda doubt NS2B would have survived.
By the way, both the pipeline and bridge are multi-billion infrastructure projects, but the damage is quite localized and comparatively cheap to repair. The main effect of the attack is their immediate unavailability but not necessarily long lasting.
Reinhard
As for who destroyed the pipeline, it was almost certainly Russia false-flagging. It's certainly irritating, as it caused possibly the largest ever single gas leak and natural gas is a very potent greenhouse gas.
Nordstream was politically dead, so might as well blow it up and blame it on the US to try to divide a wedge between the EU and the US. This is one of Russia's urgent geopolitical goals so even long shots are likely worth it to them. Plus, even if the evidence comes out that they did it, it's not really going to cause the US or Germany to hate Russia substantially more. In the meantime, they get months they can blame it on the US and sh*t-stir as the cause is investigated. The US had already done a lot of the work for them with the prior statements about closing it one way or another in the past and Russia immediately jumped into claiming it was the US before they could have had any possible way to gather evidence. The US doesn't even benefit from Nordstream being destroyed compared to inactive and have so, so much to loose if they truly did it and got caught. The motive isn't there.
Anyhow, it's worth waiting for the investigation, which will take time to do correctly. In the meantime, the people blaming the US are doing Russia's work for them.
Meanwhile, the bridge is a national embarrassment for Russia, Ukraine has already claimed credit and yeah, the repairs are going to be vastly less than a billion dollars. Literally everyone knows Ukraine or pro-Ukraine agents did it, most likely with a VBIED or possibly a boat packed with explosives. I'd call it Ukraine's Doolittle raid.
Nordstream was politically dead, so might as well blow it up and blame it on the US to try to divide a wedge between the EU and the US. This is one of Russia's urgent geopolitical goals so even long shots are likely worth it to them. Plus, even if the evidence comes out that they did it, it's not really going to cause the US or Germany to hate Russia substantially more. In the meantime, they get months they can blame it on the US and sh*t-stir as the cause is investigated. The US had already done a lot of the work for them with the prior statements about closing it one way or another in the past and Russia immediately jumped into claiming it was the US before they could have had any possible way to gather evidence. The US doesn't even benefit from Nordstream being destroyed compared to inactive and have so, so much to loose if they truly did it and got caught. The motive isn't there.
Anyhow, it's worth waiting for the investigation, which will take time to do correctly. In the meantime, the people blaming the US are doing Russia's work for them.
Meanwhile, the bridge is a national embarrassment for Russia, Ukraine has already claimed credit and yeah, the repairs are going to be vastly less than a billion dollars. Literally everyone knows Ukraine or pro-Ukraine agents did it, most likely with a VBIED or possibly a boat packed with explosives. I'd call it Ukraine's Doolittle raid.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 394
Someone attempted to damage the Line 5 pipeline under the Mackinaw Straits some years ago. An anchor strike in this case.
99% sure it was Russian, 1% Biden for that slim possibility. If the blast is outwards then 100% Russian because that means they sent an explosive "pig" through the line.
modeltrains
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 1,872
- Reaction score
- 758
I'm going to claim that it is worth 5 minutes of your time,
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,404
- Reaction score
- 7,941
There's some purported video of one of the Nord Stream pipelines. The Reddit link doesn't list a source, but someone could no doubt look it up. It's hard for me to tell what happened, but it looks a little more like an explosion from the outside than from the inside to me. Some pretty big chunks of the pipe are missing.
[edit] An article from the BBC, which is a bit more authoritative than Reddit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085
[edit] An article from the BBC, which is a bit more authoritative than Reddit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63297085
Last edited:
The article implies results of investigation will be secret due to national security. Okay, but no closer to an answer to the question posed by the OP. I'm not really sure of who benefits most from this sabotage, but I'm pretty sure it's the Germans who benefit least.
I agree, looking at this picture.
Looking at the BBC article picture, I thought it was an inside job...
MidOH
Well-Known Member
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ussia-invades-ukraine?leadSource=uverify wall
Seems cut and dry to me. Motive: Keep the European nations from getting cold feet and abandoning Ukraine for some fuel.
Seems cut and dry to me. Motive: Keep the European nations from getting cold feet and abandoning Ukraine for some fuel.
Just think, if Eve wouldn't have bit into the apple, no Worldly conflict would ever exist because we would not have free thought.
I say Eve did it...Darn women anyways...
I say Eve did it...Darn women anyways...
"Point your fingers back far enough, pretty soon you're blaming a bacterium for splitting in two."
Commander Tigh, Battlestar Galactica
Commander Tigh, Battlestar Galactica
Last edited:
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,482
I think it was Russia.
The Germans were not accepting gas through that pipeline, and they had refused to certify the opening of the new pipeline.
By blowing up the existing pipeline that was being embargoed, Russia only loses the ability to move gas they cannot currently sell anyway, plus the costs of repairs if they want to use that pipeline in the future, which probably isn’t that much in the big picture.
In the meantime, if Germany decides they need Russian gas, Russia can force them to certify the other pipeline to get it.
Plus, having the pipeline mysteriously blow up during a time of war gets the company operating the pipeline out of some contractual and financial obligations.
I don’t think it was the US or other NATO country. Blowing up another country’s infrastructure projects is a direct act of war. The US has been extremely reluctant to help Ukraine in any way that could be interpreted as a direct attack on Russia. We want to help, but we don’t want a war with Russia. And I don’t think other NATO countries would get out in front of the US on something like that.
Russia has made noises about it being the US and NATO, but if Russia really believed that were the case, I think Russia would have already retaliated in some way.
The Germans were not accepting gas through that pipeline, and they had refused to certify the opening of the new pipeline.
By blowing up the existing pipeline that was being embargoed, Russia only loses the ability to move gas they cannot currently sell anyway, plus the costs of repairs if they want to use that pipeline in the future, which probably isn’t that much in the big picture.
In the meantime, if Germany decides they need Russian gas, Russia can force them to certify the other pipeline to get it.
Plus, having the pipeline mysteriously blow up during a time of war gets the company operating the pipeline out of some contractual and financial obligations.
I don’t think it was the US or other NATO country. Blowing up another country’s infrastructure projects is a direct act of war. The US has been extremely reluctant to help Ukraine in any way that could be interpreted as a direct attack on Russia. We want to help, but we don’t want a war with Russia. And I don’t think other NATO countries would get out in front of the US on something like that.
Russia has made noises about it being the US and NATO, but if Russia really believed that were the case, I think Russia would have already retaliated in some way.
Agreed, we'd all like to think Russia is responsible for all the world's ills, including bedbugs, flat feet and hemorrhoids. But If it really were Russian sabotage of the pipeline, then why are European countries claiming to know who did it, but are fearfully refraining from announcing it on national security grounds?
Russian retaliation currently seems to be coming in the form of strikes against Ukraine power plants and water distribution infrastructure.
They’re refraining because to do so would reveal sources and methods.
Russia did not retaliate for the pipelines. They didn’t begin retaliatory actions until Ukraine attacked the bridge to Crimea. Russian retaliations are aimed primarily at harming the citizens of Ukraine, not military targets.
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,482
I don’t buy it. Ukraine might have a motive to do it (obviously), but they also have serious motives NOT to do it, the most important being that they are currently completely dependent on the US and Europe for their very survival.
I do agree with the guy in the video that Ukraine would not make such a move without US approval. But I think there is no way the US would approve it. No one wants this war to expand. Also, the US has a very strong interest in NATO holding together, so there’s no way we would be a part of attacking European energy infrastructure.
The video makes no sense. The guy says Germany knows who did it but won’t say, and then runs down a rabbit hole of conclusions based on that: therefore Russia didn’t do it, therefore Ukraine did it with US agreement, or one of Germany’s allies did it and admitted to it, and then they act like that’s a foregone conclusion and go on to say how STUPID it is for lots of reasons. Maybe it would make more sense to conclude those theories are as stupid as they say for all the reasons they mention, and conclude it’s not likely those theories are correct.
And is their initial premise even true? Has Germany claimed to know who blew up the pipeline? This is the first I’ve heard of that.
Agreed. The origin and merits (if any) of that video are definitely open to question.
But your 2nd paragraph is brilliant! The only change I'd make is to use the term "should" in the places you used "would".
Can you clarify where you've seen evidence of countries claiming to know who did it?
Then why did you post it?
Exactly. Especially when it was framed as an endorsement of the content of the video.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-nord-stream-leak-citing-national-2022-10-14/
Sweden was down there and saw the damage. They are not cooperating with any joint formal investigation. Denmark and Germany are also in this position of knowing but not saying who did it.
Let's try this again...
Where did Sweden claim to know who was responsible? Your article makes no such claims.
Where did Denmark and/or Germany indicate they knew?
You've made a lot of extraordinary blanket statements with no supporting documentation whatsoever.
