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: There's a solution ...
By TA152H on 2/16/2009 3:54:05 PM , Rating: 0
The energy you could create from directionally lighting would exceed a few meters. Deep sea is dark because it's far from the source of light.

A directional light beam would not be detectable except via the direction it was sent from. The scatter to the top of the ocean, in deep sea, would be essentially zero. Let's use your point, that it's so dark there. But, somehow the light from the sub, being entirely directional in the wrong direction, would be very detectable.

I also disagree you'd have to be as careful in peacetime as wartime. Who is going to attack the English and French now? It's much more likely they will have an accident than they will get attacked, and therefore it is a worthwhile preventative. Wars really happen with no warning at all, very rarely, and in the event of pre-war tensions, you'd have able time to move your subs before war.

Between the very unlikely event you'd actually be seen by someone above the sea, and the unlikely event you'd be attacked out of nowhere during a time of relative peace for the countries, some way of seeing other subs would probably be worth the effort. It's very unlikely they will run into each other, but, then again, they just did. It could have been a lot worse.


RE: There's a solution ...
By rudolphna on 2/16/2009 4:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
do you know WHY they dont get attacked? Because half of their nuclear arsenal is on land, in plain view.. The other half is under water, and could be anywhere in the world with an ocean deep enough. Its called a Deterrent, and MADD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Whicn means if you blow us up, we blow you up a million times worse. Ballistic Missile Subs represent the first, and last lines of defense. They have to be absolutely quiet. and then if you make them loud, say use diesels again. We get into a war? OOPS. We are screwed their submarines are quiet and ours sound like freight trains.. Might want to rethink that plan. ;)


RE: There's a solution ...
By Darkskypoet on 2/16/2009 7:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually.. Hate to burst your bubble as it were; but Diesel subs are quieter then nuclear subs, however time on station is the draw back, as they do have to rise and charge batteries via the diesels. When running silent though, a diesel electric sub can be quieter, as there is absolutely no generation noise, whereas there is always some form of low level noise on a nuclear sub. Mainly because it takes so long to restart the reactor, they don't shut them down.

Seeing as time on station trumps the slight bit quieter diesel electric subs can be, I believe all boomers are nuclear.


RE: There's a solution ...
By Jedi2155 on 2/17/2009 2:34:25 AM , Rating: 3
Fuel Cell Subs..quieter....and already in service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine


RE: There's a solution ...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/16/2009 6:16:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"The energy you could create from directionally lighting would exceed a few meters. Deep sea is dark because it's far from the source of light.

A directional light beam would not be detectable except via the direction it was sent from
No. You missed my use of the word "turbid". In turbid waters, visibility would indeed be only a few meters, no matter how bright your light. Try diving sometime in the North Atlantic. You'll see just how low visibility can be...it's not all the crystal-clear waters of the Caribbean.

As for light being "directional", this is wrong as well. Even in atmosphere, light isn't completely directional -- which explains why one can see the beam of a powerful spotlight, even if its not pointed directly at you. In the ocean -- which tends to have a far greater amount of suspended particles floating about -- the amount of backscatter is much greater.

> "Who is going to attack the English and French now?"

As long as they have their nuclear deterrent-- no one will. Without it, it's anyone's guess. History makes one thing painfully clear, however. Wars happen, and they're often begun by surprise attacks. If a strategic nuclear sub needs to be at sea in the first place, then it needs to be stealthy when doing so.

> "Between the very unlikely event you'd actually be seen by someone above the sea"

Above the sea? What are you talking about? Hang a massive headlight on the front of your sub, and you're advertising your position to every other sub in the sea -- not to mention defeating several billion dollars worth of expensive stealth technology.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













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