Slashdot Mirror


Nuclear Subs 'Collide In Ocean'

Jantastic noted a BBC report saying "A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic. It is understood HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash earlier this month. Despite being equipped with sonar, it seems neither vessel spotted the other, the BBC's Caroline Wyatt said."

34 of 622 comments (clear)

  1. Whoops by Spazztastic · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'd think we would... you know... communicate with our allies? Maybe? At least they didn't almost collide with a lighthouse, though.

    --
    Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    1. Re:Whoops by wisty · · Score: 5, Funny

      They drive on the opposite sides of the street. Maybe they give way differently was well?

      Or maybe they were both in stealth mode.

    2. Re:Whoops by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reality is that they now travel very quiet. The collision is just an illustration of that.

    3. Re:Whoops by Sierran · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nuclear submarines, and especially ballistic missile submarines, don't communicate with anyone at sea unless it's absolutely critical. Communicating gives away your position, and for such submarines, the fact that nobody outside the hull knows exactly where it is is their number one means of survivability. In addition, ballistic missile subs don't have 'allies' - they treat even the surface and submarine forces of their own navy as 'potential hostiles' when at sea in order to maximize their survivability and to continually train to avoid such threats.

      Collisions between submarines were fairly common during the Cold War, and were indicative of the amount of time subs spent playing 'hide and seek' with their opponents - because in order to gain intelligence on other submarines, or even to follow them reliably, subs have to be quite close relative to how long it takes them to stop or turn. As a result, however, most collisions were between or involved attack submarines. For two SSBNs to involved in such a bump, either one or the other had to be involved in SSN-like games, or pretty astronomical odds were just surmounted in a random collision. It's a big ocean. It'll be interesting to see precisely where the damage to the two boats is, as it might tell us what aspect they collided at - I have heard it was a slight angle from head-on. Even that doesn't meant they weren't playing silly buggers - if one submarine turned to check its baffles and the other didn't maneuver out of the way, that could result in an angled head-on.

      --
      A hero is someone who knows when to run away. I am a hero. -Trent the Uncatchable
    4. Re:Whoops by ryanvm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you know what you're talking about or did you just watch The Hunt for Red October?

    5. Re:Whoops by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      They drive on the opposite sides of the street. Maybe they give way differently was well?

      Actually, they were taking a page from NASA's book. Someone accidentally gave a measurement in SAE units, which didn't go over well on a metric boat. I told you using furlongs per fortnight was a bad idea...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Whoops by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      the fact that nobody outside the hull knows exactly where it is is their number one means of survivability.

      Does the fact that nobody inside the hull knows exactly where it is help too?

      For two SSBNs to involved in such a bump, either one or the other had to be involved in SSN-like games, or pretty astronomical odds were just surmounted in a random collision

      Considering that 2 satellites just collided, astronomical odds don't seem that great.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Whoops by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is correct - a nuclear missile submarine's whole purpose is to hide. According to this writeup, the Admiralty and the US Navy compare notes on the subs' planned courses to avoid such incidents; we can only assume that the French are not privy to these planning sessions.

      Perhaps Sir Humphrey Appleby spoke the truth about the true purpose behind Britain's independent deterrent?...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    8. Re:Whoops by Spatial · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah. So it works the same way as an American car does.

    9. Re:Whoops by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Funny

      *** CaptainSpam quietly logs into his server and adds a 5

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    10. Re:Whoops by Zerth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1 hogshead=238.5 L

      238.5 L in 1 hogshead

      Plutonium 19.86 g per cm^3
      1 liter=1000 cm^3
      238500 grams/hoghshead

      238500/19.86=12009 grams of plutonium(call it 12 kilos)

      1 kilo plutonium, fissioned=20,000 tons tnt

      240,000 tons tnt

      1 ton tnt=4.184 Gj

      1004160 Gj of energy per hogshead of plutonium

      40 rods=201 meters

      1004160 Gj/201 meters

      or a hair under 5,000,000,000 kilonewtons

      1 newton being the energy to accelerate 1 kilo to 1 meter per second and the earth being a bit under 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms, I don't think we'd notice much.

      The british sub, weighing about 14,500,000 kilograms, would get something like 344 meters/second out of it. Or just about the speed of sound at sea level. I imagine that might be a first, for a sub, breaking the sound barrier and taking flight(plummeting glide, really) with those stubby dive planes.

      Some one will now rip my math into shreds of sobbing uselessness, probably around the newtons to meters/second part.

  2. Euphemism? by FrostDust · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there a reason "collide in ocean" is in quotes? Could we also say they were "bumping their ballasts", "raising their periscopes", and so on?

    1. Re:Euphemism? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is in so called 'quote marks' because it is a quotation.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Euphemism? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Funny

      To differentiate it from nuclear subs that 'collide in mid-air'.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Euphemism? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 5, Funny

      "There are more airplanes in the ocean than submarines in the sky."
      --old Navy reply to cocky Air Force pilots

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  3. collision crisis by Caue · · Score: 5, Funny

    forget the credit crunch. it's the collision crisis that will doom us all. I can already predict people bumping one another on the streets, cows going to waste on the fields, large buildings tripping the little ones... it's the apocalypse.

    1. Re:collision crisis by ideonode · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apparently, the UK submarine was carrying red paint, and the French sub was carrying blue paint.

      All the sailors are marooned.

  4. Subs don't always use SONAR by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite being equipped with sonar, it seems neither vessel spotted the other, the BBC's Caroline Wyatt said."

    That's not surprising. All that stealthy sub technology doesn't work well when you're pinging with active SONAR. When subs don't want to be found, they go quiet and depend on their sensors to pick up noise from other vessels. Of course, if you have two subs each of whicf has stealth technology that is better than the other sub's sensors, then you have a situation where two subs can't see each other. Which could lead to a collision.

    1. Re:Subs don't always use SONAR by coulbc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could also be possible one sub had detected the other and was shadowing it. The shadowed sub could have performed and unexpected maneuver and they collided. It's happened before.

    2. Re:Subs don't always use SONAR by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

      And to misquote Order of the Stick:

      *bump*

      "Sorry for knocking you over, I didn't see you there."

      "Don't worry. Happens all the time. 'Cause, you know. Ninja."

  5. Stealth Technology is Too Dangerous by psyopper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe if they weren't in super stealth mode they would have seen each other and the accident could have been avoided. This technology is too dangerous and needs to be outlawed through international treaty. The up side is that we know that stealth works!!

    1. Re:Stealth Technology is Too Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Being ex Royal Navy myself, I know just ho stealthy these SSBNs really are.

      We had a two week exercise with the US Navy to hunt for a Vanguard class sub. The sub said its goodbyes, we gave it a couple of hours then we went hunting. Two weeks later we didn't find it. The sub surfaces, only for them to tell us they have been sitting under one of the destroyers hulls all the time.

    2. Re:Stealth Technology is Too Dangerous by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were pulling your leg. In actual fact they dry-docked it and spent two weeks in the pub.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  6. in the immortal words from Star trek.... by pig-power · · Score: 5, Funny

    Chekov "where are your nukleer wessels??"

  7. Despite each being equipped with sonar? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  8. Same side by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A head on collision was bound to happen even if they knew the other sub was there. The French drive on the right, the British on the left.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  9. Bright Thinking by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Oh James... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nuclear submarines colliding, satellites colliding, 200 million Chinese suddenly move inland leaving cities, US government giving away billions of dollars to banks...

    Don't know about you, but lately I feel more and more like I am living in a James Bond movie.
    Only I am not the one with cool gadgets, drinking problem and a girl with a sexual innuendo for a name under each arm.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Oh James... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would explain the terrible characterization of people around me!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  11. The French response: by hampton · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Now go away or I shall bump you a second time!"

  12. Final transmission: by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Funny

    "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  13. Re:Video Cameras by MadnessASAP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because light of just about any sort and whole swaths of the rest of the EM spectrum don't travel very far under water, and even if it did the hulls of the submarines are going to only be marginally higher temperature then the surrounding ocean.

    I have a good thinking strategy that I go through before I open my mouth and say things like this. It basically figure that if I managed to think of this in only a few minutes there's probably a good chance that the many thousands of engineers from around the world over the past 30 years who are far more knowledgeable about this then me have also probably thought of it and have a good reason for not using it.

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  14. Re:All Alone by Lars+T. · · Score: 5, Funny

    Run silent - Run deep.

    - Run into each other.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck