Nuclear Subs 'Collide In Ocean' 622
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."
Subs don't always use SONAR (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.
All Alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Run silent - Run deep.
When you think you are all alone out there in the big ocean then there is no need for sonar which would just gives your position away... just in case someone is out there.
When two play the game it can only lead to problems eventually... sort of like driving at night without headlights.
Re:Subs don't always use SONAR (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.
It's not called the Silent Service for nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's my understanding subs tend to listen for what's out there because using one's own sonar would broadcast your own position to the enemy. If both these subs were running in this way I can see how a collision would occur. It's happened before and is bound to happen again.
Despite each being equipped with sonar? (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:
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.
Well, (Colonel?) Angus, it's called physics. See, two objects with mass cannot occupy the same space...
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.
Same side (Score:5, Insightful)
Bright Thinking (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.
This is nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
USS Agusta vs. Russian nuclear submarine: It's true, trust me [wikipedia.org]
Big 8 military always play little war games with each other; sometimes there are accidents. There is absolutely NO reason to think the British and French don't play war games. If the USA and USSR couldn't get sonar navigation good enough for playing chicken, there is no reason to think the British and French would.
Meh, shit happens....
Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Allies should not be crashing nuclear reactors into each other by accident.
Drivers should not be crashing containers of flammable liquids into each other by accident. Let's ban cars!
If extra precautions are necessary to prevent a recurrence, then they should at least be considered, even if there is some impact on e.g. the realism of training exercises.
You'd prefer they used unrealistic training exercises which will leave them unprepared in the event of an emergency?
There is a history of nuclear warheads being lost due to crashed subs and bombers, and it's definitely something we want to avoid.
While I agree in principle, in practice the only way to win is not to play.
Until that day comes, we're going to have a need for stealth.
In practice, the only people who can afford to retrieve nukes off the bottom of the ocean are people who already have them, so I'm not sure it's as serious a problem as you make it out to be.
Anyway, like I said, the ONLY way to stop this from happening is to get rid of the nuke subs. The whole point of them is to avoid detection, so things like this WILL happen given a long enough timescale. Forget about the issue of joint training exercises, all first strike subs have the same purpose, so they will by definition be occupying similar spaces. Just like most mid-air collisions happen near airports, most mid-ocean collisions will happen where everyone else wants to be.
We're not getting rid of the nuke subs or compromising their stealth, so if you want to get rid of nuke subs, work for world peace. Don't work on nuclear disarmament, because it's a misguided goal. Nuclear stockpiling is a symptom, not a disease.
Re:Subs don't always use SONAR (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they collided almost head on so unless that manoeuvre was a handbrake turn I doubt they were shadowing one another (submarines not being well known for their manoeuvrability). I suspect that it's more likely a case of wrong place at the wrong time combined with good stealth technology). Actually, this does say a bit about how good the stealth technology must be since they weren't able to passively detect one another.
Re:Odds ? (Score:1, Insightful)
What are the odds that two advanced SSBN submarines would collide in a vast ocean accidentally ?
100% apparently
Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? (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.
Re:Nulcear Subs -- my, how the Big Boys love to pl (Score:2, Insightful)
Except, one thing puzzles me -- if your Sonar is switched on, the other sub should pick that up. So the sonar systems of both subs must've been running quiet. So the anti-sonar systems have nothing to do with the collision. So why does the article mentions them? Did I miss something?
Yes you did :) You can't detect passive sonar [wikipedia.org].
Stealth is good, detection is poor (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they collided almost head on so unless that manoeuvre was a handbrake turn I doubt they were shadowing one another (submarines not being well known for their manoeuvrability). I suspect that it's more likely a case of wrong place at the wrong time combined with good stealth technology). Actually, this does say a bit about how good the stealth technology must be since they weren't able to passively detect one another.
While it says something about how good their stealth technology is, it also says something about how much more work needs to be done on passive detection systems. What I mean by passive detection systems is anything like an optical camera which does not need to emit anything to see something. I am not sure what technologies could be used, but while hiding is a good thing, being able to 'see' is just as important.
Re:Whoops (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, we Americas drive on the right side of the road. There is no driving on the left side, only the WRONG side.
Re:Video Cameras (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.
Re:Subs don't always use SONAR (Score:3, Insightful)
Subs always use SONAR. However, they use passive SONAR.
Right, and that's where I think people are getting the misconception, because they see SONAR as the active type - which you don't want to use when you don't want to be found. As you point out, stealth technology defeats sensors underwater these days.
So, this is not a surprise they were not able to hear each other. What is surprising is with all that deep, deep ocean out there, two of them just happened right into each other.
Methinks I detect some sarcasm? ;) A different way of looking at that might be to ask what the interesting thing is that both of them were looking for. The article mentions that they happen to frequent the same sea lanes, but even still that seems a tad improbable.
Unless one of these two subs has swapped out the nuclear propulsion for Douglas Adams' Infinite Improbability Drive, something smells a tad fishy.
Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the same logic that the DC government got spanked on with Heller - Since you only need a gun when your house is being invaded, and it is so dangerous otherwise, it should remain locked or inoperable until immediately needed. Of course, by the time the need is immediate, it's too late.
And I thing the "Troll" mod on your comment is unfair. I believe your logic is faulty, but many, MANY people share it.
Re:This is nothing new (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Whoops (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Irish, may I suggest something concerning Lucky Charms, or perhaps pots of gold? Alcoholism?
Since always? (Score:1, Insightful)
Your war of independence for example ?
WWI?
WWII?
First Gulf War?
Afghanistan invasion?
Should I carry on?
Re:France... (Score:5, Insightful)
Check the history about the US war of independence.
Why? 300 years ago the US and Britain were enemies, and now they are friends. What happened 300 years ago has no bearing on how we should behave today.
I hate arguments like that single quoted sentence. It's like how some Koreans complain about Japan invading them over the past few hundred years and the domination from 1905 until 1945 as reasons to dislike Japan and Japanese today.
I don't even know where the anti-France thing comes from. I just view it as a funny running joke.
Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, that's moot since most drivers don't go around with the windows boarded over, trying to sneak up on other cars, as would be the analogy for the subs.
That would make for a hell of an extreme sport.
Re:Whoops (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Why are you dividing there? If you've got 238500 cm^3 (that is, ml - not grams) per hogshead, and plutonium has a density of 19.86 g/cm^3, you'd arrive at
238500*19.86 = 4736610 grams of plutonium
That's 4.7 metric tons, not 12 kilograms - in other words, you're off by a factor of 400.
Re:Whoops (Score:2, Insightful)
Extremely low sound. The ocean waves above them and other natural sounds would be louder than they were if they were running quiet.
Like space, as vast as it is, collisions do still occur just like the two satellites last week.
Re:Whoops (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how the US people started calling the French cowards for standing up to oppose them in the UN.
Re:Despite each being equipped with sonar? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that's the "must retreat" doctrine that has worked it's way into state laws. The problem is this: if you must retreat to somewhere safe, to where does one retreat when in your own home? English common law has recognized that "a man's home is his castle" for close to 1000 years; the home IS the retreat of last resort.
Under your theory, if someone breaks down my door I would need to run out of the house, which leaves me with even LESS protection, or submit to whatever gets inflicted under threat of violence. I mean, sure, the police will show up eventually, but that really doesn't do me a lot of good if I'm dead and my wife raped, or vice-versa.
Remember, even in "Ringworld" Nessus eventually defended himself.
BTW, can I have your address? I have some friends in NZ that need some stuff and, since you are offering...
As for NZ being "nuclear free", bfd. Aside from the production of tasty lamb chops, your country has nothing to offer the world, and has 3 great big countries (US, UK, AUS) that will defend them. You're like that brat in school who irritates everybody, even his big brother, but when someone wants to teach him a lesson he goes squealing back to that same bug brother begging for protection.
And finally, ALL civilians in modern countries defend themselves and their belongings with violence - they simply hire others (police/bodyguards) to do it for them.