<https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ursa-major-north-korea-and-nuclear-reactors-new-details-on-russian-vessel-sinking/>
rCLAn inspection of the damage revealed a hole in the hull with metal deformed inward, indicating an external impact rather than an internal explosion.
The size of the breach did not match that of a conventional torpedo, but
was consistent with a strike by a supercavitating armor-piercing torpedo
with a small or no warhead.
Spanish authorities do not rule out the possibility that the interference
was intended to disrupt a covert delivery of nuclear technology to KimrCOs regime.rCY
On 01/01/2026 00:17, Spike wrote:
<https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ursa-major-north-korea-and-nuclear-
reactors-new-details-on-russian-vessel-sinking/>
rCLAn inspection of the damage revealed a hole in the hull with metal
deformed inward, indicating an external impact rather than an internal
explosion.
The size of the breach did not match that of a conventional torpedo, but
was consistent with a strike by a supercavitating armor-piercing torpedo
with a small or no warhead.
Spanish authorities do not rule out the possibility that the interference
was intended to disrupt a covert delivery of nuclear technology to KimrCOs >> regime.rCY
Hmmm.-a So who exactly was supposed to have, and choose to use, a supercavitating torpedo on an incapacitated target?
Are we to suppose that Russia[1] equips its landing ships with these?
In the very unlikely case that the landing ship just happened to have
such a thing on board - and even less likely - a 21 inch torpedo tube
from which to launch it, why would anyone use such an expensive device
when low tech scuttling charges would be just as effective?
[1] Iran also has some, procured from Russia, but it's hard to see their involvement in this.
On 1/1/26 01:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 01/01/2026 00:17, Spike wrote:
<https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ursa-major-north-korea-and-nuclear-
reactors-new-details-on-russian-vessel-sinking/>
rCLAn inspection of the damage revealed a hole in the hull with metal
deformed inward, indicating an external impact rather than an internal
explosion.
The size of the breach did not match that of a conventional torpedo, but >>> was consistent with a strike by a supercavitating armor-piercing torpedo >>> with a small or no warhead.
Spanish authorities do not rule out the possibility that the interference >>> was intended to disrupt a covert delivery of nuclear technology to KimrCOs >>> regime.rCY
Hmmm.-a So who exactly was supposed to have, and choose to use, a
supercavitating torpedo on an incapacitated target?
Are we to suppose that Russia[1] equips its landing ships with these?
In the very unlikely case that the landing ship just happened to have
such a thing on board - and even less likely - a 21 inch torpedo tube
from which to launch it, why would anyone use such an expensive device
when low tech scuttling charges would be just as effective?
[1] Iran also has some, procured from Russia, but it's hard to see their
involvement in this.
I think you have misread. The implication appears to be that the ship
was sunk by a torpedo fired by a non-Russian enemy. The Russian landing
ship cleaned up sometime afterwards.
Why someone would think the Russians were sending sensitive military equipment from St Petersburg to Vladivostok via the Mediterranean,
rather than internally, is a bit of a mystery to me.
The implication appears to be that the ship was sunk by a torpedo fired
by a non-Russian enemy. The Russian landing ship cleaned up sometime afterwards.
Why someone would think the Russians were sending sensitive military equipment from St Petersburg to Vladivostok via the Mediterranean,
rather than internally, is a bit of a mystery to me.
On 1/1/26 01:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 01/01/2026 00:17, Spike wrote:
<https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ursa-major-north-korea-and-nuclear-
reactors-new-details-on-russian-vessel-sinking/>
rCLAn inspection of the damage revealed a hole in the hull with metal
deformed inward, indicating an external impact rather than an internal
explosion.
The size of the breach did not match that of a conventional torpedo, but >>> was consistent with a strike by a supercavitating armor-piercing torpedo >>> with a small or no warhead.
Spanish authorities do not rule out the possibility that the
interference
was intended to disrupt a covert delivery of nuclear technology to KimrCOs >>> regime.rCY
Hmmm.-a So who exactly was supposed to have, and choose to use, a
supercavitating torpedo on an incapacitated target?
Are we to suppose that Russia[1] equips its landing ships with these?
In the very unlikely case that the landing ship just happened to have
such a thing on board - and even less likely - a 21 inch torpedo tube
from which to launch it, why would anyone use such an expensive device
when low tech scuttling charges would be just as effective?
[1] Iran also has some, procured from Russia, but it's hard to see
their involvement in this.
I think you have misread. The implication appears to be that the ship
was sunk by a torpedo fired by a non-Russian enemy. The Russian landing
ship cleaned up sometime afterwards.
Why someone would think the Russians were sending sensitive military equipment from St Petersburg to Vladivostok via the Mediterranean,
rather than internally, is a bit of a mystery to me.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 10:15:18 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (218K bytes) |
| Messages: | 190,348 |