💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 1044.gmi captured on 2023-06-14 at 17:50:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2009-02-17 11:03:24
By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer David Stringer, Associated Press
Writer Mon Feb 16
LONDON Nuclear submarines from Britain and France collided deep in the
Atlantic Ocean this month, authorities said Monday in the first acknowledgment
of a highly unusual accident that one expert called the gravest in nearly a
decade.
Officials said the low-speed crash did not damage the vessels' nuclear reactors
or missiles or cause radiation to leak. But anti-nuclear groups said it was
still a frightening reminder of the risks posed by submarines prowling the
oceans powered by radioactive material and bristling with nuclear weapons.
The first public indication of a mishap came when France reported in a
little-noticed Feb. 6 statement that one of its submarine had struck a
submerged object perhaps a shipping container. But confirmation of the
accident only came after British media reported it.
France's defense ministry said Monday that the sub Le Triomphant and the HMS
Vanguard, the oldest vessel in Britain's nuclear-armed submarine fleet, were on
routine patrol when they collided in the Atlantic this month. It did not say
exactly when, where or how the accident occurred.
France said that Le Triomphant suffered damage to a sonar dome where
navigation and detection equipment is stored and limped home to its base on
L'Ile Longue on France's western tip. HMS Vanguard returned to a submarine base
in Scotland with visible dents and scrapes, the BBC reported.
"The two submarines came into contact at very low speed," Britain's First Sea
Lord, Admiral Jonathon Band, said. Band, Britain's most senior naval officer,
offered no further explanation.
HMS Vanguard came into service in 1993, has a crew of around 140 and typically
carries 16 Lockheed Trident D5 missiles. Under government policy, British
nuclear submarines carry a maximum of 48 warheads. At least one of Britain's
four submarines is on patrol and ready to fire at any given time.
France's Le Triomphant carries 111 crew and 15 nuclear missiles, according to
defense analysis group Jane's.
"This is the most severe incident involving a nuclear submarine since the
sinking of the Kursk in 2000 and the first time since the Cold War that two
nuclear-armed subs are known to have collided," said Kate Hudson, head of
Britain's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Russia's Kursk nuclear submarine crashed to the bottom of the Barents Sea
during a training voyage in August 2000, killing all 118 crew members.
In March 2007 two British sailors were killed in an explosion on board HMS
Tireless during a war game beneath the Arctic ice cap. The same submarine
crashed into an object, possibly an iceberg, while on patrol in the Arctic in
May 2003. And in November 2002 HMS Trafalgar suffered considerable external
damage after running aground on rocks off Scotland while taking part in a
two-week training exercise
"It's an absolute one in a million chance that the two submarines were in the
same place at the same time," said Lee Willett, head of the maritime studies
program at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based military think
tank. "There is no precedent of an incident like this it's a freak accident,"
he said.
Stephen Saunders, a retired British Royal Navy commodore and the editor of
Jane's Fighting Ships, said that while NATO countries let each other know what
general area of the Atlantic they are operating in, neither submarine would
have had a precise position for the other.
"This really shouldn't have happened at all," Saunders said. "It's a very
serious incident, and I find it quite extraordinary."
Both Saunders and Willett said submarines don't always turn on their sonar
systems, or make their presence obvious.
"The whole point is to go and hide in a big chunk of ocean and not be found.
They tend to go around very slowly and not make much noise," Saunders said.
Willett said the greatest risks from an accident would be from a leak of
radioactive waste. An accidental firing of a nuclear weapon as a result of a
crash would be impossible, because of the complex processes needed to prime and
fire a missile, he said.
Stephane Lhomme, a spokesman for the French anti-nuclear group Sortir du
Nucleaire, said his organization is checking the French coastline for evidence
of any leak of radioactive material.
"This reminds us that we could have a new catastrophe with a nuclear submarine
at any moment," Lhomme said.
--- Mobile internet site for reading on mobile phones, smartphones, small
screens and slow internet connections. ---http://mpggalaxy.mine.bz/www/BB/
mobile_news/threads/index_last.html
Posted: 2009130@669.47
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
stranger
Despite each being equipped with sonar? (Score:5, Insightful)
by drinkypoo (153816) on Monday February 16, @10:08AM (#26872309) Homepage
Journal
That was the most retarded thing that could possibly have been added to that
summary. You don't use active sonar unless you want to be found. Passive sonar
won't find everything. It's entirely possible that both subs detected each
other, both went silent, and both coasted right into one another. The FA is
hilarious though:
Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey has called for an immediate internal
inquiry with some of the conclusions made public.
"While the British nuclear fleet has a good safety record, if there were ever
to be a bang it would be a mighty big one," he said.
No, Nick. It wouldn't be, because nuclear weapons have to be detonated. A lot
of careful work goes into making sure they don't go off accidentally. If two
subs crash hard enough to destroy them, there will be a lot of bubbles, and
dead crewmen.
Meanwhile, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson has called for a government
statement.
"The Ministry of Defence needs to explain how it is possible for a submarine
carrying weapons of mass destruction to collide with another submarine carrying
weapons of mass destruction in the middle of the world's second-largest ocean,"
he said.
Well, (Colonel?) Angus, it's called physics. See, two objects with mass cannot
occupy the same space...
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament described the collision as "a nuclear
nightmare of the highest order".
CND chair Kate Hudson said: "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."
No, a nuclear nightmare of the highest order is scores of terrorists running
around with suitcase nukes. (you know, like the USA)
The collision of two submarines would actually be unlikely to release vast
amounts of radiation, although it could scatter scores of nuclear warheads
across the seabed. This is actually enormously unlikely since the weapons are
stored in the most structurally secure portion of the vessel, in their own
launch tubes. Most likely they would stay in the tubes in all but the most
severe impact. Remember, submarines are not made out of porcelain. They are
made out of various metals and in a collision (as opposed to an explosion) they
would not likely separate into many pieces. Just think of the physics involved
- when two cars collide head-on at over 50 mph they do not typically
disintegrate. The total energy is vastly higher here, but the relative speed is
much slower, and a lot of the energy involved will be absorbed by the water in
the way that air doesn't.
I'm as put off by the fact of WWIII in a can being writ across our oceans many
times over as the next guy, but I prefer to skip the bullshit rhetoric. I guess
that's why I'm not a politician.
--- Mobile internet site for reading on mobile phones, smartphones, small
screens and slow internet connections. ---http://mpggalaxy.mine.bz/www/BB/
mobile_news/threads/index_last.html
Posted: 2009130@670.56
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
stranger
Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Ihlosi (895663) on Monday February 16, @10:58AM (#26872947)
Yeah, but it's not like they were actually at war, right? There's no reason to
use passive unless you're trying to sneak around,
A SSBN that doesn't "sneak around" during peacetime survives exactly as long as
it takes a torpedo to cross a few hundred meters once peacetime ends.
--- Mobile internet site for reading on mobile phones, smartphones, small
screens and slow internet connections. ---http://mpggalaxy.mine.bz/www/BB/
mobile_news/threads/index_last.html
Posted: 2009130@674.08
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
stranger
Bright Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
by ledow (319597) on Monday February 16, @10:19AM (#26872449) Homepage
The bit I find hilarious about every showing of this story that I've seen on
the net, is that everyone says "How can this have happened?"
Do *you* want to tell the French where all our nuclear subs are at any moment
in time?
Do the French want to tell us where all their nuclear subs are at any moment in
time?
Do *you* want to be in a country where all our nuclear subs light up the sonar
of any passing ship like a Christmas tree?
No. Therefore, it's an INCREDIBLE show of the power of the anti-detection
capabilities of these subs that they BOTH manouvered close enough to each other
to collide without EITHER of them detecting the other. That's bloody fantastic.
A technology used by the military that actually works in production and has an
incredibly relevant use.
As to what happens in a collision... if ANY country in the world truly has
nuclear weapons that can be set off without being ARMED first, then we have a
bigger problem than what happens if two tiny ships in a vast, three-dimensional
ocean might happen to accidentally collide. These things NEED to withstand just
about anything, or else the enemy just fires one shot in the right place and
"Blam!"... nuclear detonation without ever having owned a nuclear weapon.
Similarly for the onboard reactor. Nuclear subs are not fragile, and their
designers not stupid (as has been proved by the anti-sonar technology!)... if a
sub is really that easy to sink / destroy and leak radiation enough to matter,
then they become nothing more than timebombs. When they next dock for repairs
etc. (which cannot really be hidden from satellites, etc.), just blow them up
and you've set off a nuclear warhead / contaminated the seas inside your
enemies own country.
--- Mobile internet site for reading on mobile phones, smartphones, small
screens and slow internet connections. ---http://mpggalaxy.mine.bz/www/BB/
mobile_news/threads/index_last.html
Posted: 2009130@675.72
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
stranger
Chicken of the sea! (Score:5, Interesting)
by erroneus (253617) on Monday February 16, @10:40AM (#26872725) Homepage
This is not likely. I have served in the Navy and am familiar a lot of how this
stuff works and happens and ultimately, I believe this came down to a game of
chicken where neither wanted to change course. Why they didn't want to? Who
knows exactly, but acknowledging that you know that someone else is there
reveals a lot about yourself that you wouldn't otherwise want them to
know....such as that you have the capability to know where they are which is a
useful secret in war-time. After all, if they don't know they can be seen, they
will think they are invisible.