[Ayrstest] some stuff2

[Dave Culp]

Delivered-To: daveculp@atlas.dnai.com
X-Sender: brittons@mail.maxinter.net
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:43:56 -0400
To: <AYRS@kfs.org>
From: Keith Britton <brittons@maxinter.net>
Subject: Re: Cavitation. On purpose
Status:  U

An update:

The August 30 edition of the Washington Daily Post carried an article
headlined "U.S. Theory: On-Board Blasts Sank Sub", byline Roberto Suro,
staff reporter.

Noting that a variety of data were being analysed at the National Maritime
Intelligence Center at Suitland, the reporter stated that seismic and sonar
data recorded an initial moderate explosion, followed two minutes later by
a second one consistent with detonation of up to two tons of high
explosives.  Majority analyst opinion assumes a weapon fuel explosion
followed by one or more warheads detonating.

The compiler of The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World was
quoted as saying that Russian anti ship torpedoes are fuelled by hydrogen
peroxide, that they have been trying to market them and may have been
testing a new model.

Attributed to "submarine experts", another possibility was the "Shkval"
liquid propellant high speed anti submarine torpedo, which the Kursk was
known to have carried in the past.  The weapon can reach "200 knots" using
a "rocket motor".  This scenario was considered unlikely, due to the
shallow water, proximity of other fleet elements and the fact that the
Shkval was designed to carry a nuclear warhead and is now "largely fallen
out of Russian inventory".  (Against this, there was a report a week or so
back that Russian technicians "controlling an underwater object" were being
blamed for causing a collision.  If that was a submerged drone, then an
antisubmarine weapon seems likely.)

If my memory serves, 90% hydrogen peroxide was used in C-Stoff/T-Stoff
rocket motors and in powering the type XXII Uboat.  It reacts violently
when intentionally exposed to a catalyst, or to a contaminant which acts
that way.  It's thus simple to make it hypergollic on mixing with a fuel.
It's probably shock sensitive too, judging from reports of Me 163s
exploding when landing stresses shook up remnant fuel.

It may be fun to speculate on supersonic supercavitating marine travel, but
conventional submarining is dangerous enough.  I seem to remember an
electric torpedo cooking off about 40 years ago while stored in a magazine
near Lossiemouth, and it seems likely the Scorpion was lost similarly.
Whatever the efficiency of high speed underwater travel, the energy
densities required mandate propellants which are orders of magnitude more
hazardous.

kb