backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by Kugar.. on Feb 18 at 3:46 PM


A collision in the Atlantic with a French sub left Britain's HMS Vanguard, pictured here, badly damaged. The sub has since been tugged back to port.  (Source: BBC/PA)
Collision leaves two nuclear-armed subs badly damaged

The HMS Vanguard of Britain's Royal Navy and Le Triomphant of France's Navy, both nuclear subs, collided earlier this month and sustained heavy damage.  While both countries assure there's no danger of a nuclear threat, both subs are key parts of their respective country's nuclear arsenal and are presumed to have been carrying a full complement of nuclear warheads.

The crash occurred in the middle of the Atlantic at an undisclosed date earlier in the month.  First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the collision was at low speed and while the damage was heavy, no injuries were reported.  The British vessel had to be towed back to port and featured "very visible dents and scrapes" according to British officials.

The irony of the collision was that it perhaps proved that the countries' respective anti-sonar technologies were working as planned.  Neither nuclear sub could see the other, despite the fact that both were equipped with sonar.  And the seemingly rare chance crossing of the sub's paths occurred, and thus led to a collision.  States BBC's Caroline Wyatt, "This is clearly a one-in-a-million chance when you think about how big the Atlantic is. It is actually unbelievable that something happened."

French officials describe their sub's damage from the incident stating, "The sonar dome, at the front, was damaged. This incident did not cause any injuries among the crew and did not threaten the nuclear security at any time.  The submarine came back by its own means to L'Ile Longue, escorted by a frigate, as it is the usual practice when leaving or coming back."

While the collision seems like a highly improbable occurrence, it may actually be more likely than some suspect.  According to British nuclear engineer John Large, both countries prefer deep waters a certain distance off their coasts to patrol in.  Given the geography of Britain and France, these deep waters feature significant overlap.

States Mr. Large, "Both navies want quiet areas, deep areas, roughly the same distance from their home ports. So you find these station grounds have got quite a few submarines, not only French and Royal Navy but also from Russia and the United States."

In Britain, the Liberal Democrat spokesman Nick Harvey praised the Royal Navy and its response stating, "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.  Now that this incident is public knowledge, the people of Britain, France and the rest of the world need to be reassured this can never happen again and that lessons are being learned."

However, Scottish National Party officials blasted the error, stating, "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."

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament also jumped aboard the criticism boat, stating, "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."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Here we go
By 9nails on 2/16/2009 10:39:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear detonation is less probable. But nuclear radiation exposure and sickness is still likely. There isn't any vibration dampening to isolate and protect nuclear power plants and warheads from cracking and crushing during collisions. Jolted around, these things can be damaged and radiate the compartments they're in. If significantly shifted, such as in a collisions with another sub or the sea floor, we have reason to worry for the men's health and the health of the ocean's creatures during these peaceful times.

It might be time to consider some form of vision system to aid in reducing further improbable collisions.


RE: Here we go
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2009 10:57:05 AM , Rating: 5
> "There isn't any vibration dampening to isolate and protect nuclear power plants and warheads from cracking and crushing during collisions"

Boomers only move at about 25 mph and they (I believe) nearly always cruise much slower. A 'crash' doesn't cause much accelerative forces, compared to what a warhead has to withstand during the boost phase on its ICBM carrier.

Similarly, the reactor itself has an enormously strong containment structure, built to withstand the much higher pressures of the nuclear reaction inside. You might get a little low-level leakage from a coolant pipe or something, but not an actual release of core contents.

Worrying about the "health of the men" inside is silly. Any collision that could jeopardize the reactor would breach the hull, almost a near-certain death sentence.

As for a 'vision system', see my previous post as to why this isn't practical.


RE: Here we go
By djc208 on 2/17/2009 8:57:52 AM , Rating: 3
Um, this is a WAR machine. They are built to operate under extremely demanding conditions, such as actual enemy attack. So asside from the extremely high safty factor engineered into them because they are nuclear reactors, they are usually even more heavily designed in order to allow them to survive wartime conditions, such as enemy attack.

I'd be surprised if the reactor even SCRAMed from the collision. Wouldn't be much of a war machine if the power went out the minute you had any trouble. Remember the US fast attack sub than ran into the underwater mountain? That was much more severe than this collision and the reactor was fine.

As for the health of the men and the oceans creatures well significant radiation leakage would only be a concern if you had issues with the fuel cladding that released core material into the reactor compartment, which is a VERY unlikely event, and even then the shielding in the RC is such that a sailor on a nuclear submarine recieves less exposure during a tour than you do on the surface in that same time period. Remember these vessels can set peir side while critical and people can walk all over the topside of the ship with no special requirements.

As for sea life, there is still the shielding provided by the hull. If the boat is on the bottom part of that radiation is facing toward the sea floor. As for the rest well water is a wonderful radiation barrier. The 10th value is about 24". So the sea life on the hull might see higher levels but fish in normal habitable zones wouldn't be affected. Again, this is all assuming actual leakage of the core material, which is extremely unlikely. Otherwise the reactor would SCRAM and you'd be left with the much lower shutdown radiation levels outside the hull.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki