>David Strike <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>It's easy for me to be an armchair critic without being in possession of
>>all of the facts, but it seems to me to be strange that the Russian's
>>have, while developing their submarine technology, apparently done
>>little to advance their rescue techniques.

I dont normally reply to the same thing twice .. but its ironic that Strike
said in the paragraph above "while developing their submarine technology,
apparently done little to advance their rescue techniques".

Tonight on the 7:30 Report programme a spokesperson from Jane's in Britain
said they thought the Russians still had two of their rescue subs in action
and were shocked to hear they had sold off ALL five of them. They didnt
think they would require the subs having state of the art submarines!! I
felt sick hearing this as they took so long to take up the offer of outside
help & now time and weather conditions are against them :-(

Even worse the spokesman said the Russians had tried using diving bells
first :-( Now I hear the damage to the sub may be worse than originally
reported - there were two distinct explosions (heard by other countries
subs in the area) and the Kursk may be damaged/flooded from the weapons
area to the control room. If the later is anywhere near correct that means
quite a bit of the sub is out of action. Also it appears even the Russians
are not sure how many submariners are actually on board ... specs say it
comfortably carries 90+ but all the news items Ive seen flashed on tv have
the crew numbers as 112, 114, 116, even 120. Things are getting bleaker &
bleaker for those still alive after those explosions :-(
Viv