Submarine Collision - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

genuinegirly · 02-16-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

British, French nuclear submarines collide

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British Royal Navy nuclear submarine and its French equivalent collided while on operations in the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month, defense ministries in Paris and London confirmed Monday.

Both vessels, HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant, were armed with nuclear warheads and suffered damage as a result of the collision, which is understood to have occurred on February 3 or 4.

"Two "SNLE" (nuclear submarines), one French and the other British, were, a few days ago, on standard patrols in the Atlantic. They briefly came in contact in a very slow speed while they were immersed. There is no casualty or injury among the crew. Neither the nuclear deterrent mission nor the nuclear security have been compromised," the French Ministry of Defense said in a statement.

In an earlier press release issued on February 6, the Ministry of Defense said the vessel's sonar dome had been damaged in a collision. The vessel was able to return to its base at Ile Longue in Brittany, northwest France, accompanied by a frigate.

The UK's Ministry of Defence also confirmed the incident. In a statement, the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathan Band said the collision occurred during "routine national patrols."

"Both submarines remained safe and no injuries occurred. We can confirm that the capability remained unaffected and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety," Band said.

HMS Vanguard returned to its home base at Faslane in Scotland under its own power on February 14. The UK's Sun newspaper reported that the vessel was towed back into its home base at Faslane in Scotland "with dents and scrapes visible on her hull." It is normal procedure for the vessels to be towed into dock, according to the Ministry of Defence press office.

Both the UK and French nuclear deterrent operations depend on complete secrecy, despite both countries' membership of NATO. But naval analyst Richard Cobbold told CNN that procedures would be in place to ensure that French and British submarines were routinely kept apart.

"Either one of these submarines was doing something different or somebody made a mistake -- but we don't know that," Cobbold said.

Both submarines were equipped with state-of-the-art sonar technology, but Cobbold said it was possible that neither was aware of the close proximity of the other vessel.

"Modern submarines are very, very quiet. In many types of water conditions they might not hear the approach of another submarine," he said.

But with both nations keeping at least one nuclear-armed submarine constantly at sea for the past 40 years, he said it was no surprise that they had eventually ended up in the same area of ocean.

"Even in an ocean the size of the North Atlantic the submarines are eventually going to be in the same patch of water at the same time," he said.

In a statement issued Monday, the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament described the incident as "a nuclear nightmare of the highest order."

"The collision of two submarines, both with nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons onboard could have released vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed," said CND chair Kate Hudson.

"The dents reportedly visible on the British sub show the boats were no more than a couple of seconds away from total catastrophe."

Hudson said the incident was the most serious involving a nuclear submarine since the sinking of the Russian Kursk in 2000 with the loss of the vessel's entire 118-man crew.

HMS Vanguard, which was launched in 1992, is one of four submarines which make up the UK's nuclear deterrent. Its firepower includes 16 Trident II D5 missiles capable of delivering multiple warheads to targets up to a range of 4,000 nautical miles.

The 150-meter vessel carries a crew of 141 and is powered by a uranium-fueled pressurized water reactor. Vanguard Class submarines routinely spend weeks at a time underwater on patrol in the North Atlantic.

But contact with naval commanders and government officials, including the defense secretary and the prime minister, are maintained at all times by a "comprehensive network of communications installations," the Royal Navy Web site said.

Le Triomphant was launched in 1994 and entered service in 1997 and carries a crew of 111, according to the GlobalSecurity.org Web site. Its weapons include 16 M45 missiles capable of launching multiple nuclear warheads.

The UK has maintained a nuclear arsenal since 1956, with at least one nuclear-armed submarine somewhere at sea continuously since 1969.

In 2006 the government approved plans to update the Trident deterrent program. A new generation of submarines is due to be ready to replace the Vanguard Class submarines by 2024. But the program, which is expected to cost around £20 billion ($29 billion), has been heavily criticized by anti-nuclear campaigners.

What the heck?
A few pressing questions come to mind as I read this article:

Wouldn't they have advanced navigation systems to prevent an incident like this - how do submarines run into each other?

Why were they carrying nuclear weapons in the Northern Atlantic Ocean? There aren't any wars in that part of the world that I'm aware of.

Why risk carting around nukes when they will never be used?

Baraka_Guru · 02-16-2009, 07:46 AM

Quote:

But with both nations keeping at least one nuclear-armed submarine constantly at sea for the past 40 years, he said it was no surprise that they had eventually ended up in the same area of ocean.

Mmm, yes. "Nuclear deterrent." Keeping nukes at sea at all times means you'd better think twice before nuking us. This is the same reason why places like Iran and North Korea would want nukes. They aren't merely for destruction. It's what they can do more so than what they do. When was the last time nukes were used against anybody? When was the first time?

As far as the collision is concerned, you should always factor in human error. Technology only works when you know how to work it without fail. Sometimes it fails; sometimes the operator(s) fail(s).

Yeah, this is pretty scary.

bobby · 02-17-2009, 07:41 AM

You can sleep safely tonight because this could never happen.....xoxoxoo

snowy · 02-17-2009, 08:05 AM

Jeez...when I start thinking about the probability of this happening (it's very, very small), and then the probability of an incident occurring wherein the nuclear warheads somehow manage to detonate (even smaller), it blows my mind that this could happen.

On CNN yesterday, it sounded as if one of the subs dented up its nose pretty badly; I think it was the French sub as I recall that they mentioned the sonar had been damaged on this vessel. Some of the payload is located in the nose.

Part of the issue is that since the end of the Cold War, militaries have had a difficult time adjusting to the lack of a clear enemy. We've responded to this in the United States with the Global War on Terror (when you've gone so long with a boogeyman, it's hard to let go), but we still have protocols and practices that are more in line with what we were doing in the Cold War. Obviously, other militaries are having the same problem.

Cynosure · 02-17-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Wouldn't they have advanced navigation systems to prevent an incident like this - how do submarines run into each other?

The whole point of submarines is being unseen, unheard – even to each other. (Well, to those not of your own nation.) So, it's really not so surprising that, eventually, two of them would blunder into each other.

World's King · 02-17-2009, 12:26 PM

How the fuck...?

MSD · 02-17-2009, 12:27 PM

Lewis Page has a great article in the Register that looks at it from a levelheaded approach. One thing to consider with his point on using active sonar is that it's just like the movies. When you're pinging, you're sending out an audible sound that's easy to detect, and if you ping another sub, everyone on board will hear it.
16th February 2009 Archive ? The Register

Quote:

Updated British and French nuclear missile submarines collided earlier this month beneath the Atlantic, according to reports. Much is being made of the fact that the two subs "failed to see each other", but this is actually quite normal.

The story appears to have first broken with a report in the Sun, stating that HMS Vanguard has been "towed" into her home base at Faslane with "dents and scrapes visible on her hull". It was understood that the nuclear powered, nuclear armed vessel had collided early this month with the French Triomphant, also an ICBM-carrying sub.

The MoD said there had at no time been a break in the British deterrent, but this doesn't mean Vanguard wasn't seriously damaged. The UK now has relaxed rules on maintenance of the deterrent, not requiring a working boat at sea uninterruptedly. Both navies, however, insist there was no damage to anything nuclear, reactors or missiles.

Most of the media have followed the BBC's comment "despite being equipped with sonar, it seems neither vessel spotted the other". But in fact this is not at all unusual.

All submarine captains prefer to refrain from driving about beneath the oceans with their sonar "pinging" sound pulses into the water - this is known as "active" sonar. The pings give a sub's position away, so active sonar is generally only used in special circumstances.

Nuclear-missile subs, whose primary imperative is to remain undetected, are even less likely than normal ones to turn on active sonar. Even where there is no state of war, once a deterrent sub is being tracked by a foreign navy, it is no longer much of a deterrent as it can be attacked and sunk before it will be able to launch its missiles.

Where a nation may have only one deterrent sub at sea - as in the case of Britain and France - the imperative to remain undetected remains even stronger. So neither boat will have been using active sonar, we can be sure.

There remains passive sonar, where one merely listens for the machinery and propulsion noises made by other vessels. But modern Western submarines are deliberately made very quiet in operation - so much so that they are very difficult indeed to detect using passive sonar, and subhunting surface ships are now moving to new forms of active kit.

Vanguard and Triomphant, deterrent subs belonging to competent navies, will be very quiet indeed. If both were patrolling very slowly and listening as hard as possible they might still miss each other entirely. Alternatively, if they were going faster their own speed would tend to blind their passive sonar, and they would still not turn on active equipment and announce their location to the whole ocean.

After all, the whole reason that nations expensively put nuclear missiles on submarines is that it's the only reliable way of making it impossible for anyone to know where the missiles are. Nobody should be surprised at two purposely-designed undetectable launch platforms having remained undetected.

This inability of quiet Western submarines to see each other, especially when moving at speed, has led to the setting-up of a joint traffic-control system by the US and UK, in which submarines are given deconflicted, preplanned moving boxes of sea within which to stay. This avoids British and American boats crashing into each other.

The US and UK trust each other enough to disclose where their subs are, even on occasion their nuclear deterrent boats. Your correspondent isn't aware how closely France participates in/cooperates with this system: on the evidence of the current reports, perhaps not closely enough. ®

Update
At an event held in London this morning, Admiral Sir Jonathan Band (the First Sea Lord, head of the Royal Navy) told reporters including the Reg that both subs were on routine national-deterrent patrols and had hit each other while "moving very slowly". This is a missile boat's normal posture while on deterrent patrol, as it makes the sub as silent and undetectable as possible - evidently quite successfully in this case.

Admiral Band said that damage to Vanguard had been "minor" and the submarine had remained fully able to launch missiles if ordered to. He said she had returned to Faslane "under her own power", contradicting the Sun report. (One should note that it is routine for arriving submarines at Faslane to be accompanied by tugs and assisted into their berths by them, perhaps leading to confusion for the Currant Bun's sources.)

genuinegirly · 02-17-2009, 03:12 PM

Fascinating article, MSD. Thank you for sharing. It helps to clarify the overall concept of sonar and submarine tracking systems.

Seaver · 02-17-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Why were they carrying nuclear weapons in the Northern Atlantic Ocean? There aren't any wars in that part of the world that I'm aware of.

Why risk carting around nukes when they will never be used?

The point of doing it is you never know where the guy with a nuke is hiding, and he is ALWAYS out there just in case.

As for the navigation system... you fail to realize how good these subs are. The Modern Nuclear Attack sub is quieter than a shrimp when it's at cruising speed. The modern Nuclear Missile Submarine is even quieter. My uncle was a P3 Orion pilot (sub hunter plane), he says you don't look for their sound... you look for an abnormally quiet spot in the water.

As stated before, the entire point is to NOT be seen. Subs have collided before, even those armed with Nuclear missiles. The US/Soviet submarines in the Cold War actually had quite a few run-ins, the Soviets lost one while we've had a couple damaged.

shakran · 02-17-2009, 06:11 PM

Every once in awhile you read a story about a whale bonking into a submarine because it had no idea there was anything in the area.

ASU2003 · 02-18-2009, 03:05 AM

The odds of two subs being in the same place, at the same depth at the same time in the huge ocean is just too great to calculate. Kind of like two satellites in space.

What is going on?

stevie667 · 02-18-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

The odds of two subs being in the same place, at the same depth at the same time in the huge ocean is just too great to calculate. Kind of like two satellites in space.

What is going on?

Probably both navigating a particular set of underwater geography at low speed and missed each other. The actually patrol locations are somewhat limited, and since both subs will travel in roughly the same direction to reach them its not hard to believe that they had a minor snafoo.

Either that or the captains were playing cat and mouse.

shakran · 02-18-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

The odds of two subs being in the same place, at the same depth at the same time in the huge ocean is just too great to calculate. Kind of like two satellites in space.

What is going on?

The odds of two specific vehicles being in the same place at the same time and colliding are also vanishingly small. This does not mean that the wreck you see on the way home from work is a conspiracy or evidence of Armageddon

roachboy · 02-18-2009, 10:21 AM

every morning i see the ocean and every morning one thing i notice about the ocean is that it is really really big.
big big big.
while i understand all this secret floating about underwater blindly so as to maintain the fun and excitement of being secret, and, even as i think it's ridiculous, understand the carrying nukes around as you do that ("we have em, so we might as well sail them around") what i really don't get is how these two submarines could possibly have clunked into each other given how very very big the ocean is.

i know other folk have noted this bigness factor with reference to the ocean, but i just looked at it again on the way out of essex this morning and so have a new and improved sense of the bigness of the ocean.

it is really fucking big.

shakran · 02-18-2009, 10:30 AM

So what are we suggesting here? "The ocean's too big for them to have possibly accidentally collided and therefore. . .they did it on purpose?"

ratbastid · 02-18-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Either that or the captains were playing cat and mouse.

Was one of the captains Sean Connery?

roachboy · 02-18-2009, 10:42 AM

shakran:

i don't think it was intentional. to think that you'd have to subscribe to a version of the theory advanced by jamie brockett in that old strange song "the ballad of the uss titanic" to explain that collision. , if memory serves, ithe theory involved433 1/2 feet of rope made from hemp. while i expect that you can derive the rest of the theory, here's what i remember of it: at the critical moment, the captain of the titanic, who has just previously been passed out after smoking a length of that rope, woke up, saw the iceberg and bellowed: "I'M GONNA MOVE YOU BABY."

i think the song ends just after that. what more is there to say really?
but i haven't heard it since high school and am surprised that i remember as much of it as (apparently) i do.

more realistically, who knows?
maybe there are particular corridors where submarines like to hang out, like puppy parks for submariners where they go to frolic about and chase each other and something went awry.

Baraka_Guru · 02-18-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

maybe there are particular corridors where submarines like to hang out, like puppy parks for submariners where they go to frolic about and chase each other and something went awry.

There's this little bit:

Quote:

While such collisions are uncommon, nuclear expert John Large said such boats often ply the same waters. "Both navies want quiet areas, deep areas, roughly the same distance from their home ports. So, you find that these nesting grounds, these station grounds, are pretty, have got quite a few submarines. Not only the French and Royal Navy submarines, but also from Russia and from the United States," he said.

Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea

ring · 02-18-2009, 11:24 AM

I hope they don't have an urge to lay eggs in those nesting grounds

shakran · 02-18-2009, 11:50 AM

what Baraka said, Roach. There are corridors where subs like to go due to ease of navigation, or predictable and good thermal layers (which help keep subs hidden), or proximity to somewhere the sub is supposed to be hitting.

Also, esp. with US and Russian subs, we each know where the other country's subs like to hang out. If you were running the US submarine fleet, and you knew that Russia liked to park a nuclear missile-armed boomer in a certain place, wouldn't you send your hunter submarines over there to watch for it? So really, it's not at all surprising that submarines from different countries wind up in the same general area and that, from time to time, they run into each other.

Nimetic · 02-18-2009, 01:38 PM

I'm fairly sure they try to follow each other, just for practice.

It's like aircraft collisions. The sky is huge.... so in theory there would be no collisions. However, military aircraft fly close to each other and crash occasionally. Although it's different reasons there.

Anyways... I'd not want to travel in a previously damaged sub.

Xerxys · 02-18-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

The odds of two specific vehicles being in the same place at the same time and colliding are also vanishingly small. This does not mean that the wreck you see on the way home from work is a conspiracy or evidence of Armageddon

LOL, I disagree, ASU2003 has a valid question.

What is going on??

shakran · 02-18-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

LOL, I disagree, ASU2003 has a valid question.

What is going on??

It's been explained.

The odds of any one particular sub being in any one particular place are the same as it being in any other particular place. These subs happened to be in the same place.

What are the odds that I will crash into your car tomorrow? Pretty small, right? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it can't happen. Otherwise wrecks would never occur. Same with this story. Yes, the odds were very small, but there was still a chance that it would happen, as evidenced by the fact that it happened.

The only other conclusion we can draw other than "It was an accident because they both happened to be there at the same time" is that it was deliberate, in which case the question would have to be posed, WHY, was it deliberately done? If you want to sink a sub, there are much more effective ways to do it than to ram into it at very slow speeds. That's why submarines have torpedos.

MSD · 02-18-2009, 06:09 PM

Is it really that hard to believe thatthe captains of two equivalent subs, serving two advanced navies, very likely with almost identical training, looked at the same spot and said, "that looks like a good place to chill"?

Seaver · 02-18-2009, 08:04 PM

Um... forgive me if I'm wrong... but it doesn't say where in the Atlantic it happened. Is it so odd if they ran into each other near the Straights of Gibraltar? Yeah it's a big ocean... but they have intersections.

Aside from that, subs travel with a certain level of buffer between them and the ocean floor. In addition, they like to find trenches and valleys which further mask their signal. Saying it's 1:1k chance is like saying aircraft colliding is equal chance in trans-ocean flight as hovering over an airfield. There are certain areas of high-traffic which increase likelihood.

Nimetic · 02-19-2009, 01:41 AM

Aha.

The Brits drive on the LHS. Which side do the the French drive on?

Could be the problem right there.

roachboy · 02-19-2009, 06:51 AM

what i learned from this:

"Le Triomphant" serait plus endommagé qu'annoncé - Europe - Le Monde.fr

is (a) these submarines were frolicking about together in the context of manoevers, which for reasons obscure the uk spokesmodel cited in the earlier article had decided to be coy about. this reduces puzzlement over the bigness of the ocean as such by providing some other framework for thinking about proximity and frolicking in the way that fully armed nuclear submarines will, apparently, frolic, much in the way that flipper once did on television except with nuclear weapons on board and a nuclear reactor too.

i also learned that the french sub was pretty heavily fucked up by the encounter, much more than had previously been admitted.

i also learned that the french sub is one of two of this generation of submarines, but will for quite some time be the lonely, sad nuclear submarine with nuclear weapons on board and a nuclear powered engine as well that will not be able to go out and frolick with its other fully-armed nuclear submarine buddies.

poor lonely and sad fully armed nuclear submarine.

ring · 02-19-2009, 08:02 AM

*sigh*

Xerxys · 02-19-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

It's been explained. ...

The odds of any one particular sub being in any one particular place are the same as it being in any other particular place. These subs happened to be in the same place.

What are the odds that I will crash into your car tomorrow? Pretty small, right? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it can't happen. ... Otherwise wrecks would never occur. ... Same with this story. ...

Dude, this statement is SO wrong!!! Please stop. How many people own cars, ok now, how many people own submarines?! Do you get why the number of cars tip the scale of chances there will be a wreck?

C'mon man!!!

shakran · 02-19-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Dude, this statement is SO wrong!!! Please stop. How many people own cars, ok now, how many people own submarines?! Do you get why the number of cars tip the scale of chances there will be a wreck?

C'mon man!!!

Look at it from a mathematical point of view. the number of submarines and the number of cars is irrelevant. The odds of your specific car being at any one place at any one time are not, unless one counts traffic jams, influenced by how many other cars there are out there. Similarly, the odds of any one specific submarine being in any one specific place at one specific time are not influenced by how many submarines are out there.

You seem to think that the odds are zero, that two submarines could be in the same place at the same time. This is not true, even if you dismiss the hard evidence we have that you are wrong seeing as how two of them ran into each other.

Besides which, your point does not seem to make a whit of sense. What are you suggesting here? The odds of the subs running into each other are too great (which you incorrectly seem to take to mean that it cannot happen) and therefore . . . What? It didn't happen? It did happen but it was on purpose? Something else happened and they're only claiming the subs ran into each other? What alternative are you suggesting in order to justify what you're saying in here?

My point about the automobiles is not that wrecks cannot happen. It is that wrecks can and do happen, even though the odds of one specific car being in the same place at the same time as another specific car are vanishingly small. If the odds were not vanishingly small, you'd wreck every time you left your driveway. Even though the odds of this happening are vanishingly small, we do not run around and say "holy shit! The odds of those two specific cars colliding are so small. . What's going on here! It's a bloody conspiracy!"

The same point applies to the submarines.

roachboy · 02-19-2009, 09:51 AM

generally arguments from probability are so much fun once something has happened: the probability of what just happened happening is 1, yes?
just saying.

shakran · 02-19-2009, 10:12 AM

hehe.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. If the probability was 1, then it would happen to every submarine.

filtherton · 02-19-2009, 10:12 AM

Yep. I mean, the odds that the ether would coalesce into our universe are astronomically small-- that proves that there is at god a work. Or something.

The odds of anything happening ever are vanishingly small if you examine them from the proper vantage point. Within that context, one in a million billion, billion doesn't seem that bad.

roachboy · 02-19-2009, 10:18 AM

well, we're talking about these two submarines not all submarines...and they collided. so for those two submarines, it'd be 1.

at any rate, what puzzled me up front about the collision was cleared up by the article in le monde, which actually says "there were manoevers happening..." so there was a reason for the subs to be around each other. so the big big big ocean thing became less a factor.

speaking for myself, at least some of the goofing about this situation is motivated by the fact that these were nuclear submarines and were fully armed. while i know that the weapons themselves are not set up to detonate without a particular command sequence, the engines seem more problematic to me. and there's something alarming in general about 2 nuclear anythings crashing into each other. just now, i was almost run over by a fedex truck. that alarmed me. but this collision alarmed me more.

ring · 02-19-2009, 10:40 AM

I had some hope of seeing a reduction in these weapons back when Reagan and Gorbachev seemed to be coming close to an agreement.

What happened?

Point me to a place for info, please.

/end threadjack.

shakran · 02-19-2009, 10:41 AM

the probability that it /did/ happen is 1 because it happened. The probability that they /will/ collide is still vanishingly small (otherwise as soon as they got repaired, they'd go out to sea and hit each other again)

As for nuke boats hitting each other, there really isn't a whole lot of risk of a nuclear incident. In the first place, the Kursk did not cause nuclear fallout, and its wreck was a lot worse than this one. The reactors are very, very tough, and a collision at sea will not make them explode.

Even if the fissile material is exposed t o the ocean, nothing much will happen. The ocean is the world's biggest cooling tank. The minuscule amount of radioactive material in a submarines reactor vessel would cause no noticeable effects to the environment of the ocean, certainly not on a long-term basis. Probably the worst nuclear accident on a sub happened in a bay in Russia in the 80's. A refueling accident caused the nuclear fuel to explode, taking the reactor and part of the ship with it, and spewing radioactive debris all over the harbor and dock. Within 7 months, radiation levels in the harbor were back to normal. And that's in a sheltered, enclosed body of water. In the depths of the ocean, you'd barely notice it.

In fact, the old style submarines (and other naval vessels - -Aircraft carriers are nuclear too) would cause more damage because they had diesel engines that had to run often to keep the batteries charged, and that pollutes the oceans in a big way.

I'm not a fan of nuclear myself, but it is the best solution, especially for submarines if you don't want them to have to surface all the time to snorkel air.

As far as what happened to the reduction of weapons. . .There already has been a reduction of weapons. That's why nuclear missile launch sites in the Dakotas, Florida, and elsewhere are abandoned (some having been converted into private homes). The reduction is pretty meaningless, however. If I have a revolver, and I remove 5 bullets, leaving one, and then hold it up to your head, are you gonna feel any safer that I've complied with arms reduction? No, because you're still gonna die if I pull the trigger.

Xerxys · 02-19-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Besides which, your point does not seem to make a whit of sense. What are you suggesting here? The odds of the subs running into each other are too great (which you incorrectly seem to take to mean that it cannot happen) and therefore . . . What? It didn't happen? It did happen but it was on purpose? Something else happened and they're only claiming the subs ran into each other? What alternative are you suggesting in order to justify what you're saying in here?

Wha??

a) My point was, your wrong ... plain and simple. It doesnt matter about a specific sub, what matters is two monoliths of navigation FAILED TO NAVIGATE!!
b) I want to know why they ran into each other, and no, it was not an accident.
c) Were not all crazy just because we assume WE DONT KNOW WHATS A-HAPPENING.

blktour · 02-19-2009, 11:38 AM

My question would be. Can they get internet ?

That would be awesome if they could. but I bet signal would play a factor in this..?

shakran · 02-19-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Wha??

a) My point was, your wrong ... plain and simple. It doesnt matter about a specific sub, what matters is two monoliths of navigation FAILED TO NAVIGATE!!

1) you are confusing navigation with collision avoidance.
2) You are confusing the navigator with the sonar operator.
3) They navigated just fine. They just happened to navigate into the same place at the same time.

Quote:

b) I want to know why they ran into each other, and no, it was not an accident.

If it was not an accident, then it was deliberate. I trust you have an interesting theory as to why anyone would want to run a mutli-billion dollar submarine into another multi-billion dollar submarine. Perhaps you are suggesting insurance fraud writ large? You are surely not suggesting that it was a deliberate aggressive act from one sub to the other, because as I have already explained, that's what torpedos are for. They're cool 'cause they let you break the other guy's submarine without hurting your own.

Quote:

c) Were not all crazy just because we assume WE DONT KNOW WHATS A-HAPPENING.

Eh, from my standpoint it's pretty crazy to look at two things that accidentally ran into each other and to automatically assume that it was deliberate, even though you either have no ideas or have failed to tell us your ideas as to what actually happened.

Cynosure · 02-19-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Why are submarines always bumping into things?

By Christopher Beam
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2009, at 6:01 PM ET

Because they're stealthy. So stealthy, in fact, that they don't use the equipment necessary to detect obstacles. Most subs have two types of sonar: active and passive. Active sonar sends out acoustic sounds, or "pings," which can reach thousands of yards. If the ping bounces back, that means it hit an object—like a whale, a ship, or another submarine. But stealth subs often avoid active sonar, since the ping could give away their location. Instead, they use passive sonar, which merely detects sounds. (Sophisticated passive sonar reaches dozens of miles and can even distinguish between different types of boat engines.) If two extremely quiet subs are using only passive sonar, there's a good chance they won't detect each other. That also explains why subs occasionally hit land masses and icebergs—those objects make no sound.

How do the subs get so stealthy? Ballistic-missile submarines are built to evade detection by making as little noise as possible. They move slowly—usually no more than 20 knots. They're coated in anechoic tile, a rubbery substance that absorbs sound and prevents sonar detection. And nearly every moving part is isolated so that it won't transmit sound. The deck where the engine runs, for example, is built on shock mounts, which absorb vibrations. Piping is suspended from rubber-lined isolation hangers, which keep the flow of water from making noise. When an engineer wants his sub to be really quiet, he can switch to heat convection instead of pumps to move water.

The biggest challenge for navy engineers is keeping the propeller quiet, since it can't be isolated. When the spinning blades reach a certain speed, they create bubbles, which make a lot of noise. One quieting technique is to use lots of blades—most sub props are seven- or eight-bladed. That way, each blade doesn't have to spin as fast to create the same propulsion. Engineers will also adjust the shape of the blades and the angle of the propeller to compensate for the flow of water around the hull. (Specifics about Navy propellers are supposed to be secret, but Microsoft's Virtual Earth caught a glimpse of one in 2007.)

Why are submarines always bumping into things? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

02-17-2009, 07:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
bobby Super Moderator Location: 18,000+ posts on TFP #1,2,3,4 and 5,but I'm not counting!	You can sleep safely tonight because this could never happen.....xoxoxoo __________________ "Life goes on,within you,and...with out you !" xoxoxoo

02-17-2009, 08:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Jeez...when I start thinking about the probability of this happening (it's very, very small), and then the probability of an incident occurring wherein the nuclear warheads somehow manage to detonate (even smaller), it blows my mind that this could happen. On CNN yesterday, it sounded as if one of the subs dented up its nose pretty badly; I think it was the French sub as I recall that they mentioned the sonar had been damaged on this vessel. Some of the payload is located in the nose. Part of the issue is that since the end of the Cold War, militaries have had a difficult time adjusting to the lack of a clear enemy. We've responded to this in the United States with the Global War on Terror (when you've gone so long with a boogeyman, it's hard to let go), but we still have protocols and practices that are more in line with what we were doing in the Cold War. Obviously, other militaries are having the same problem. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

02-17-2009, 12:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	How the fuck...? __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

02-17-2009, 03:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Fascinating article, MSD. Thank you for sharing. It helps to clarify the overall concept of sonar and submarine tracking systems. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

02-18-2009, 10:21 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	every morning i see the ocean and every morning one thing i notice about the ocean is that it is really really big. big big big. while i understand all this secret floating about underwater blindly so as to maintain the fun and excitement of being secret, and, even as i think it's ridiculous, understand the carrying nukes around as you do that ("we have em, so we might as well sail them around") what i really don't get is how these two submarines could possibly have clunked into each other given how very very big the ocean is. i know other folk have noted this bigness factor with reference to the ocean, but i just looked at it again on the way out of essex this morning and so have a new and improved sense of the bigness of the ocean. it is really fucking big. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-17-2009, 06:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Every once in awhile you read a story about a whale bonking into a submarine because it had no idea there was anything in the area.

02-18-2009, 03:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	The odds of two subs being in the same place, at the same depth at the same time in the huge ocean is just too great to calculate. Kind of like two satellites in space. What is going on?

02-18-2009, 10:30 AM	#15 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	So what are we suggesting here? "The ocean's too big for them to have possibly accidentally collided and therefore. . .they did it on purpose?"

02-18-2009, 10:42 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	shakran: i don't think it was intentional. to think that you'd have to subscribe to a version of the theory advanced by jamie brockett in that old strange song "the ballad of the uss titanic" to explain that collision. , if memory serves, ithe theory involved433 1/2 feet of rope made from hemp. while i expect that you can derive the rest of the theory, here's what i remember of it: at the critical moment, the captain of the titanic, who has just previously been passed out after smoking a length of that rope, woke up, saw the iceberg and bellowed: "I'M GONNA MOVE YOU BABY." i think the song ends just after that. what more is there to say really? but i haven't heard it since high school and am surprised that i remember as much of it as (apparently) i do. more realistically, who knows? maybe there are particular corridors where submarines like to hang out, like puppy parks for submariners where they go to frolic about and chase each other and something went awry. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-18-2009 at 10:45 AM..

02-18-2009, 11:24 AM	#19 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I hope they don't have an urge to lay eggs in those nesting grounds

02-18-2009, 11:50 AM	#20 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	what Baraka said, Roach. There are corridors where subs like to go due to ease of navigation, or predictable and good thermal layers (which help keep subs hidden), or proximity to somewhere the sub is supposed to be hitting. Also, esp. with US and Russian subs, we each know where the other country's subs like to hang out. If you were running the US submarine fleet, and you knew that Russia liked to park a nuclear missile-armed boomer in a certain place, wouldn't you send your hunter submarines over there to watch for it? So really, it's not at all surprising that submarines from different countries wind up in the same general area and that, from time to time, they run into each other.

02-18-2009, 01:38 PM	#21 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I'm fairly sure they try to follow each other, just for practice. It's like aircraft collisions. The sky is huge.... so in theory there would be no collisions. However, military aircraft fly close to each other and crash occasionally. Although it's different reasons there. Anyways... I'd not want to travel in a previously damaged sub.

02-18-2009, 06:09 PM	#24 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Is it really that hard to believe thatthe captains of two equivalent subs, serving two advanced navies, very likely with almost identical training, looked at the same spot and said, "that looks like a good place to chill"?

02-18-2009, 08:04 PM	#25 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Um... forgive me if I'm wrong... but it doesn't say where in the Atlantic it happened. Is it so odd if they ran into each other near the Straights of Gibraltar? Yeah it's a big ocean... but they have intersections. Aside from that, subs travel with a certain level of buffer between them and the ocean floor. In addition, they like to find trenches and valleys which further mask their signal. Saying it's 1:1k chance is like saying aircraft colliding is equal chance in trans-ocean flight as hovering over an airfield. There are certain areas of high-traffic which increase likelihood. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-19-2009, 01:41 AM	#26 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Aha. The Brits drive on the LHS. Which side do the the French drive on? Could be the problem right there.

02-19-2009, 06:51 AM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what i learned from this: "Le Triomphant" serait plus endommagé qu'annoncé - Europe - Le Monde.fr is (a) these submarines were frolicking about together in the context of manoevers, which for reasons obscure the uk spokesmodel cited in the earlier article had decided to be coy about. this reduces puzzlement over the bigness of the ocean as such by providing some other framework for thinking about proximity and frolicking in the way that fully armed nuclear submarines will, apparently, frolic, much in the way that flipper once did on television except with nuclear weapons on board and a nuclear reactor too. i also learned that the french sub was pretty heavily fucked up by the encounter, much more than had previously been admitted. i also learned that the french sub is one of two of this generation of submarines, but will for quite some time be the lonely, sad nuclear submarine with nuclear weapons on board and a nuclear powered engine as well that will not be able to go out and frolick with its other fully-armed nuclear submarine buddies. poor lonely and sad fully armed nuclear submarine. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-19-2009, 08:02 AM	#28 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	sigh

02-19-2009, 09:51 AM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	generally arguments from probability are so much fun once something has happened: the probability of what just happened happening is 1, yes? just saying. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-19-2009, 10:12 AM	#32 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	hehe. You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. If the probability was 1, then it would happen to every submarine.

02-19-2009, 10:12 AM	#33 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Yep. I mean, the odds that the ether would coalesce into our universe are astronomically small-- that proves that there is at god a work. Or something. The odds of anything happening ever are vanishingly small if you examine them from the proper vantage point. Within that context, one in a million billion, billion doesn't seem that bad.

02-19-2009, 10:18 AM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, we're talking about these two submarines not all submarines...and they collided. so for those two submarines, it'd be 1. at any rate, what puzzled me up front about the collision was cleared up by the article in le monde, which actually says "there were manoevers happening..." so there was a reason for the subs to be around each other. so the big big big ocean thing became less a factor. speaking for myself, at least some of the goofing about this situation is motivated by the fact that these were nuclear submarines and were fully armed. while i know that the weapons themselves are not set up to detonate without a particular command sequence, the engines seem more problematic to me. and there's something alarming in general about 2 nuclear anythings crashing into each other. just now, i was almost run over by a fedex truck. that alarmed me. but this collision alarmed me more. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-19-2009, 10:40 AM	#35 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I had some hope of seeing a reduction in these weapons back when Reagan and Gorbachev seemed to be coming close to an agreement. What happened? Point me to a place for info, please. /end threadjack.

02-19-2009, 10:41 AM	#36 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	the probability that it /did/ happen is 1 because it happened. The probability that they /will/ collide is still vanishingly small (otherwise as soon as they got repaired, they'd go out to sea and hit each other again) As for nuke boats hitting each other, there really isn't a whole lot of risk of a nuclear incident. In the first place, the Kursk did not cause nuclear fallout, and its wreck was a lot worse than this one. The reactors are very, very tough, and a collision at sea will not make them explode. Even if the fissile material is exposed t o the ocean, nothing much will happen. The ocean is the world's biggest cooling tank. The minuscule amount of radioactive material in a submarines reactor vessel would cause no noticeable effects to the environment of the ocean, certainly not on a long-term basis. Probably the worst nuclear accident on a sub happened in a bay in Russia in the 80's. A refueling accident caused the nuclear fuel to explode, taking the reactor and part of the ship with it, and spewing radioactive debris all over the harbor and dock. Within 7 months, radiation levels in the harbor were back to normal. And that's in a sheltered, enclosed body of water. In the depths of the ocean, you'd barely notice it. In fact, the old style submarines (and other naval vessels - -Aircraft carriers are nuclear too) would cause more damage because they had diesel engines that had to run often to keep the batteries charged, and that pollutes the oceans in a big way. I'm not a fan of nuclear myself, but it is the best solution, especially for submarines if you don't want them to have to surface all the time to snorkel air. As far as what happened to the reduction of weapons. . .There already has been a reduction of weapons. That's why nuclear missile launch sites in the Dakotas, Florida, and elsewhere are abandoned (some having been converted into private homes). The reduction is pretty meaningless, however. If I have a revolver, and I remove 5 bullets, leaving one, and then hold it up to your head, are you gonna feel any safer that I've complied with arms reduction? No, because you're still gonna die if I pull the trigger. Last edited by shakran; 02-19-2009 at 10:43 AM..

02-19-2009, 11:38 AM	#38 (permalink)
blktour Psycho Location: Anchorage, AK	My question would be. Can they get internet ? That would be awesome if they could. but I bet signal would play a factor in this..?