True tale of Cold War terror - Account of 1969 sinking of Soviet sub has lessons for today

Flint Journal ^ | December 18, 2005 | Doug Allyn

[Tailgunner Joe]

One unforeseen blessing of the collapse of the Soviet Union has been the easing of security restrictions in former Iron Curtain nations. Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Western journalists have been able to access to classified documents that would have gotten them shot a few years before.

That's a scary thought - but not nearly as chilling as some of the secrets they've uncovered.

In "Red Star Rogue," author Kenneth Sewell takes us inside the once top-secret Soviet nuclear navy to reveal the explosive facts about one of best-kept secrets of the Cold War, the sinking of Soviet sub K -129. The incident could have ended the world as we know it. And very nearly did.

Sewell is no dilettante. A nuclear engineer and U.S. Navy veteran, Sewell served five years aboard America's most decorated fast attack submarine, the USS Parche. During his time in the Navy, he heard rumors of a disaster at sea during the late '60s that had been hushed up by both sides. But as Sewell probed deeper to ferret out the details, he uncovered a story more shocking than he ever imagined.

Some of the facts are straightforward. In March 1968, the K-129, a Soviet nuclear submarine, exploded and sank with all hands in the Pacific Ocean roughly 300 miles from Pearl Harbor.

From the beginning, the tragedy was shrouded in mystery. Despite the fact that K-129 was carrying atomic missiles, neither the U.S. nor Soviet navies reported an explosion. The Russians simply announced that the sub was missing and launched a massive sea and air search to locate it.

Finding it could have been easy. The K-129 had been photographed from space by American spy satellites, and we knew exactly where it sank. Unfortunately, informing the Soviets of K-129's location would have compromised the capabilities of our satellite surveillance systems, a breach of national security. So we left the Russians to their own.

What happened next was even more surprising. The Russians began looking for K-129 in the wrong place. They were combing the seabed nearly 400 miles from where the sub actually sank.

No military unit on the planet is as closely monitored as a nuclear submarine. Why didn't the Russians know the location of their own sub?

In rechecking its radio-intercept files, U.S. Navy intelligence determined that K-129 hadn't filed a position report for at least four days, a incredible breach of Soviet security procedures. If the Russians were searching for K-129 in the area where it was supposed to be, why had the sub moved so much closer to Pearl Harbor?

From the satellite photos, it was clear that K-129 had surfaced shortly before the blast. There were only two reasons why it would have done so. If it had been in desperate trouble, K -129 might have surfaced. But, if so, the sub would have radioed for help immediately. It didn't.

The second reason was far more chilling. The sub would have had to surface in order to launch its nuclear missiles at Pearl Harbor. And from all appearances, that's exactly what K-129 was trying to do when it blew up. But if the Russians were planning a nuclear war, why would they attack Pearl Harbor? From a strategic standpoint, it made no sense.

The truth of the incident was 3,000 feet below the surface at the bottom of the Pacific. At the time, the US Navy had no means of recovering a wreck from that depth. Only one man might be able to do it: An eccentric billionaire named Howard Hughes who owned a gigantic deep water research vessel called the Glomar Explorer.

"Red Star Rogue" reads like the latest Tom Clancy thriller, with twists and turns that are positively breathtaking. The truth is like that sometimes. But Sewell spent nearly a decade researching the story of K-129, and his scholarship is impeccable.

This tale is as fascinating as it is frightening, and it has a timely message. Are terrorists capable of launching a nuclear attack on an American city? You bet. In 1968, it nearly happened.

[Jeff Gordon]

The Russians were paranoid about loosing control of their nucs as they almost did during the Cuban Missile Crises. They rigged their boomer missiles to blow up if launched without the proper permissive action codes. The people manning the subs did not know this.

The K129 was a case where their paranoia was correct and their safeguards worked.

This is verified fact.

[Jeff Gordon]

The technology was in its infancy at that point ... not likely.

True. The K129's approximate location was plotted by SOUS microphones which recorded the explosion. The exact location of K129 was found by the crew of the Navy's NR1 submarine.

[Jeff Gordon]

Blind Man's Bluff...

Even better...

The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath the Sea.

[quietolong]

But as John Craven said in his book...

The secret within the secret. Is the one that should be told. And that remains intact.

So I don’t think ?? it was going to send a nuke to Pearl.


John P. Craven
http://www.aloha.com/~craven/spook.html

[quietolong]

The main sub hunter was at that time (and still is) the P-3 But there were P-2s & P-5Ms still flying.

VPNavy
http://www.vpnavy.com/

[JoeGar]

American spy satellites in March 1968? The technology was in its infancy at that point ... not likely.

In 1961, Sports Illustrated published a photo taken by a SAMOS satellite. It clearly showed a golf ball sitting on a golf green. SAMOS was public knowledge, but I have no idea how the magazine got hold of a photo from such a sensitive program.

[75thOVI]

Not the NR-1, but the USS Halibut. The book explains very thoroughly how the K-129 was found. The satellite tracking wasn't by reconnaissance sats, but rather by the MIDAS sats that gave early warning of missile launch. Apparently they detected the ignition of the fuel, but since they didn't detect an actual launch, (missile movement) no serious alarms were raised. A university research ship down wind of the explosion retrieved samples of radioactive rocket fuel. They reason the author believes the sub was trying to simulate a Chinese Golf I is that it was positioned far inside the launch rage of the Missile carried by the Russian Golf II, (K-129). But right at the range of the older Golf I missiles carried by the Chinese Golfs. The retrofitted Russian Golf IIs could launch submerged, but the older Chinese models had to surface to launch. K-129 was attempting a surface launch when the missile exploded. To clarify one other point. Red Star Rogue posits that a rogue element of the KGB planned and carried out this mission. A fairly large contingent of non-submariner types reported aboard just before the ship left port. The majority of the crew was found locked in the first compartment. There's a lot more. The best thing to do is read the book.

[Jeff Gordon]

The best thing to do is read the book.

If it is in a book, it must be true.

[75thOVI]

Not necessarily. I spent 10 years driving subs, including 6 SSBN patrols, and was interested in "Project Jennifer" long before that. I have no direct knowledge of the circumstances of the loss and discovery of K-129. But there is nothing in the book that contradicts anything I do have knowledge of. Red Star Rogue also answers several questions I've always had about the "cover story" that has come down to us over the years. For instance, according to the official story, the boat was intact on the bottom, and was grappled and partially raised with the intention of being brought whole into the "Moon Pool" of the Glomar Explorer. However the doors of both the recovery barge, HMB-1 and the bay doors of the Moon Pool were too small to admit an entire Golf II hull. Therefore the story of an intact grapple that fell apart within a few hundred feet of the surface, seems to be Bravo Sierra on it's face. RSR puts together a much more compelling scenario. Is it therefore correct. Maybe, but it makes more sense than what has gone before.

[BluH2o]

In 1961, Sports Illustrated published a photo taken by a SAMOS satellite. It clearly showed a golf ball sitting on a golf green.

Sports Illustrated? Maybe ... but spy satellites were not tracking Russian submarines in March 1968. There were undoubtedly spy satellites aloft, however, they were few and far between ... and most of those were Russian.

[AppyPappy]

It sounds more plausible that the sub was trying to defect and was sabotaged. Or that the sub surfaced after running into trouble and the trouble sunk the sub before the decision to broadcast a message.

[HamiltonJay]

The boat was built exclusively for the purpose of retrieving this sub.. Hughes was brought on board for a cover story that for the public.. that being Oil Exploration I believe...

I never knew the sub was believed to be in the process of launching its missles when it sunk.. but if it did sink, by accident, it would once more show God's providence....

I have heard it said that during the Missle Crisis the Kremlin authorized a launch at Omaha.. but due to technical issues the launch failed. DOn't know if that's true, but have heard it referenced places.

[cardinal4]

What was the name of that russian spy that fed the british and US intelligence guys the actual facts on the USSR's nuclear forces and capabilities?

Oleg Penkovsky. He was a British asset as the CIA didnt believe a Colonel in the Strategic Rocket Forces was anything but a dangle or a plant. Its a good thing the Brits persuaded us to listen..

[PAR35]

It fits the facts pretty well, too. That would be another decent scenario, one I'd still think more likely than the "mad Russian cap'n" scenario

The main problem you run into with the collision theory is the same one you run into with the Kursk. There was such a disparity in damage between the Russian boats that were lost and the American boats which needed only minor repairs at the same time. (I think the Swordfish had only a damaged periscope, and continued its patrol after repairs).

I personally favor the 'accident while charging the batteries' scenario.

[PAR35]

Japan had already set a date for the bombing

Japan wasn't that close to producing a bomb.

[timer]

Ah yes, Oleg Penkovski, remember the story well. If not for him we might very well have had a nuclear war in the early 1960's. The whole world owes him a debt of gratitude. It is interesting to speculate : perhaps there was another Oleg Penkovski on board that sub and knew he had to stop the nuc-ing of Pearl Harbor...

[metmom]

I remember that they got part of it up and when the section broke off they thought they were goners; they expected a nuclear detonation. IIRC, they actually brought back part of the sub and it was all very hush, hush and everything just kind of "disappeared", according to this special I saw.

[LibertarianInExile]

"I personally favor the 'accident while charging the batteries' scenario."

That's a good `un, too. I just have a predisposition against the apocalyptic 'Mad Russian' notion. Maybe it's wishful thinking.

[LibertarianInExile]

"what is the possibility of a torpedo malfunction?
a malfunction of the warheard, or a fuel handling
accident?"

Certainly seem like possible options, but to me less likely than a suggestion by Par350--an explosion during battery switching. That's the best one I've heard thus far on the thread.

[LibertarianInExile]

Par35, that is. Credit where it's due. 8)