Talk:Golf-class submarine

"In 2005 the book Red Star Rogue, by Kenneth Sewell, claimed K-129 sank 500 km northwest of Oahu on March 7, 1968 while launching one of her three ballistic missiles. He also claims Project Jennifer recovered virtually all of K-129 from the ocean floor." -- My understanding is that this is a controversial claim. It contradicts most sources on Project Jennifer -- any corroboration on this?Posthoc777 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
"Actually, the K-129 was brought up in five or six pieces along with the bodies of an undisclosed number of Russian sailors (the Pentagon says six but the real number is probably closer to 90)." If you're going to contradict the Pentagon, you really should have SOME citation or reasoning to back up your claim. Otherwise, the Pentagon's word is PROBABLY more accurate than that of an anonymous writer on the internet. JDS2005 05:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was an officer in the Pentagon in Navy Intelligence during the early 1970s with some slight knowledge of the Jennifer program at that time. I have read most of the unclassified information on the program that has seeped out into the public domain in the intervening years.  I have just finished reading "Red Star Rogue" and find that my B-S detector has been ringing throughout.  This book is not history, but instead is conspiracy theory and in the same category as UFO-ology.  The author provides a mish-mash of fact, supposition, hypothesis, ignorance, and misdirection to lead the reader into buying into his theory.  He then sets up a separate theory that the CIA has purposefully directed a dis-information cover-up that has hidden his revealed truth.  Anyone not agreeing with the Red Star Rogue theory, must therefore be under the influence of the nefarious CIA's dis-information. The author uses this type of circular argument through-out the book.  I recommend that this book and its claims be treated as undocumented and controversial, indeed as conspiracy theory clap-trap; and not be allowed as a reference in history or military history wikipedia articles. Gwyncann 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The accuracy of Red Star Rouge notwithstanding, how could there have been 98 people on board when the crew is given as only 83? One of the numbers has to be wrong. SirBob42 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously there are inconsistencies between information provided verbally from many sources, some of which are often unqualified to provide such information but do so to appear knowledgeable and important. Such is the danger of utilizing uncorroborated verbal data.  It is a reporter's job to independently verify verbal claims; and research, where possible, into the written record.  Sewell does the opposite.  He bends facts to fit his theory; and apparently concocts data wherever such information is lacking.  Two of the most glaring concoctions Sewell wrote to bolster his theory involve the idea that the missile launch attempt was conducted on the surface rather than submerged.  Open sources on the internet document that the G-II submarine with the SS-N-5 SERB missile was a SUBMERGED launch system requiring the missile tubes to be flooded prior to launch.  I suspect, but do not know for sure, that attempts to launch from a dry tube would damage the submarine to the point of endangering the safety of the ship and crew.  Launching with a flooded tube on the surface is similarly unpalatable due to the high center of gravity and the ensuing unstable platform thus available for launch.  Sewell apparently requires a surface launch scenario in order to bolster his theory with similarly specious claims that a U.S. infrared satellite detected two explosions at the time and near the location he proposes as the site of K-129's sinking.  On pages 134, 158, 180 and elsewhere, Sewell asserts that U.S. intelligence satellite assets (specifically a NORAD satellite) provided information on the K-129 sinking by detecting the explosion of the missile propellant in tubes 1 and 2 on 7 Mar 1968.  Page 158 states:  "The Navy was notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command that one of its satellites had identified and recorded an event in the Northern Pacific as having some of the characteristics of a Soviet Missile launch.  A satellite sensor had recorded two massive surges of radiant energy when the missile fuel in the K-129's launch tubes one and two exploded.  The camera's sensors were tuned to record the light spectrum created by the burning of specific chemicals known to be used in Soviet rocket fuel."  This is an unqualified statement by Sewell, and demonstrateably false, misleading and ridiculous.  A quick internet key word search will show that the NORAD launched its first missile detection satellites (IMEWS-1) in 6 Nov 1970, 20 months after Sewell claims NORAD resources recorded his theoretical missile explosion aboard the K-129.  As a possible defense for Sewell, he might not have known that the infrared detection satellites of the time were under the control of the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office), NOT NORAD.


 * Later in the book, on page 184, Sewell conducts a discussion of intelligence satellite resources circa 1968. He discusses the CORONA PhotInt (photo intelligence) satellite as if it could have been the system that reported an explosion in the Northern Pacific in March 1968.  However, this system returned its photos to earth within re-entry capsules, so photos were carefully rationed to high-interest targets.  The probability is it using film on an empty northern Pacific water area is nil.  He then discusses the TIROS weather satellite as a possible sensor of such an explosion (a hail-Mary pass requiring the ideas that this system 1) had such a capability; 2) was secretly connect to CIA and/or USAF customers; and 3) that this subterfuge has never come to light in the intervening 40 years).  Finally he discussed the SAMOS and MIDAS systems.  SAMOS satellites took pictures on film, developed the film in orbit, and transmitted TV scans of the pictures to Earth. Because the TV pictures were much blurrier than the film, SAMOS had low resolution even for its day (5–20 feet), and some authorities have claimed that SAMOS never produced useful data. Again, because each photo utilized irreplaceable satellite resources, the idea of a SAMOS satellite expending film on open ocean photography is untenable.


 * MIDAS satellites transmitted launch indication via radio links; if two MIDAS satellite picked up the same indication, launch location could be calculated. Each MIDAS satellite was stationed at a much higher altitude then CORONA or SAMOS (e.g., 2170 miles vs 200 miles), from which it could see most or all of the Soviet Union at any moment. The MIDAS satellites were designed to observe Earth in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum. The goal was to detect the heat radiation (infrared light) given off by missile and rocket launches; specifically ICBM launches from Russia or China. Twelve attempts to orbit MIDAS satellites were made between February, 1960, and October, 1966. Most failed, but experience with MIDAS made possible its successor, IMEWS, and the later third generation DSP satellites. The MIDAS system was rather primitive and detection of short duration signals was never attempted; nor desired (short duration signal processing would overload the downlink bandwidth and was specifically programmed out as noise).  The long-duration boost phase of an ICBM (which may exceed 10 minutes), was part of the signature of an attack profile used by MIDAS signal analysis.  Attempts to detect and analyze theater range missile launches (say 400 nm or less) with their much shorter boost phase became a goal of satellite IR detection only with the third generation DSP satellites in the 1980s.  The idea that the explosion of two missiles on the surface of the waters of the northern Pacific in 1968 was detected by a MIDAS and forwarded via downlink as a signal of interest, overestimates the state of the art of satellite IR detection by over 20 years.


 * In the cases of MIDAS, IMEWS and DSP satellites, the IR signature being sought is generated by the heat of the missile exhaust plume. The IR signature is a function of heat and chemistry, so the satellites were provided with detectors which covered a band of IR frequencies centered on 2.7 microns.  There is nothing in open source literature to indicate that spectrographic data was part of MIDAS' signal analysis criteria for reporting targets; thus nothing to indicate that an explosion bearing such spectrography would be processed and reported by a MIDAS.  Finally, an explosion confined by missile launch tubes would have little infrared similarity to a boost phase missile exhaust plume and thus would be missed by MIDAS detectors directed specifically toward detecting plume characteristics.


 * It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Sewell has populated his book with spurious data and purposefully presented his "facts" without regard to normal and traditional independent verification testing. It is tempting to conclude that Sewell's efforts were never intended to represent historical reality, but rather are the most recent example of that most troublesome form of imaginative writing: fiction masquerading as fact.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golf-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109031854/http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.3/pub_detail.asp to http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.3/pub_detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130811121225/http://www.cdb-lazurit.ru/indexe.php?0 to http://cdb-lazurit.ru/indexe.php?0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)