British and French nuclear submarines collide in Atlantic

[Angleae]

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant are understood to have both been severely damaged in the underwater accident earlier this month.

Both are fitted with state-of-the-art technology aimed at detecting other submarines, but it apparently failed completely.

Although both France and Britain insist that security was not compromised during the collision and there was no danger of a nuclear incident, inquiries are now under way in both countries.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4634582/British-and-French-nuclear-submarines-collide-in-Atlantic.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. Maybe if there was a window?

I'm just sayin'.

[Turbineguy]

2. With a screen

to keep the plankton out.

[Angleae]

3. Some details on the subs

Le Triomphant (1st of class)
Commissioned: 1996
12,640 tons surfaced/14,335 tons submerged
138m length
crew of 222 (30 officers, 192 enlisted)
carries 16 x M 45 ballistic missiles (range 5000km, 6 x 150kt warheads)

HMS Vengeance (4th and last of class)
Commissioned: 1999
15,850 tons submerged
149.3m length
crew of 135 (14 officers, 121 elisted)
carries 16 x Trident D-5 ballistic missiles (range 6000nm, 1-6 x 100kt warheads)


These aren't some small attack subs but missile subs that are capable of destroying entire countries on their own.

[Mr. Hyde]

4. what are the odds I wonder?

[Thothmes]

6. During the cold war

There were several incidents where U.S. submarines bumped into Soviet submarines. Most of these incidents never made the news.

[NutmegYankee]

11. Usually it was one submarine following another though.

The US attack submarine was hunting the Soviet missile submarine ready at a moments notice to sink it before it could fire its missiles. However, the Soviets occasionally would do crazy maneuvers to clear their baffles, leading to a few bad "run-ins".

[Thothmes]

18. At least 3 head ons that I know of

two in the 60s one in the early 70s.

[trusty elf]

5. Sorry, couldn't resist....

I doctored up this picture I took of the "Redoutable", a nookyalur shrubmarine dry docked in Cherbourg. :dunce:

[bushmeister0]

7. So, each of these boats has 16 MIRVed Trident II missiles

and on each of them there may be 10 W-76 100 kt warheads (by comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was 10 to 12 kt).

Talk about deterrence!

Seriously, what is the freakin' point of having France and the UK sending these boats out on patrol? Who the hell is really going to bother nuking either of them? If I were the UK gov. I'd be more worried about dudes with backpacks and the French probably have more to be concerned about from their seething masses of poor young people than the ghost of the USSR.

This is the hidden headline here: "Both are fitted with state-of-the-art technology aimed at detecting other submarines, but it apparently failed completely."

This is just the height of insanity.

[NutmegYankee]

9. Submarines are designed to be super quiet.

Passive sonar is just that - passive. It can only hears the sounds made in the ocean. If a submarine is operating very quietly, then another sub wouldn't realize it was there without using active sonar. Missile submarines are not intended for attacking shipping, their purpose is to go out into the sea and not be able to be found.

[bushmeister0]

12. Nowadays, you're right, they're not intended to attack shipping

like they were originally created for. Nowadays, they're intended to deliver several super-sonic SLICBMs with ten 100kt warheads to a certain north-eastern European capital, which will remain unnamed(hence the stealth).

Since that particualar country is no longer a threat to us, or to Britian or France, they're mission is outmoded, expensive and potentially dangerous. If there had been a Kursk-type of incident at the bottom of the Atlantic, we'd all be wondering about how many of those 48 or so warheads and two nuclear reactors were leaking radiation.

If these subs can't see what's right in front of them, and therefore constantly in danger of crashing into each other, I'd say we need to get them out of the oceans before something really bad happens.

[NutmegYankee]

13. First of all, there are different types of submarines.

Attack submarines still exist and are for attacking shipping, launching strikes with cruise missiles (like in the Gulf war), and deploying Special Ops forces, like what was done in WWII on a few islands. Cruise missile submarines, like the Kursk, just carry a larger compliment of cruise missiles, either for sea based attack on a city or shipping, depending on the type of missile installed. Last is the ballistic missile submarine, which serves as a deterrent force, and carries ICBMs. The purpose of a ballistic missile sub is to prevent any one nation from thinking that they could get all the land based missile silos in one hit. Basically the sub goes out somewhere unknown to anyone and stays out as a deterrent until the deployment is over.

Now, if a submarine went down, chances are the radiation wouldn't get out, or go far. Radiation is particles or gamma rays emanating from heavy metal isotopes that want to decay into a more stable metal (or gas in some cases). The radiative metals would remain close to the sunken submarine, and given the volume of water, wouldn't pose much risk. Unlike chernobyl, there will be no fire to carry the metals into the atmosphere, and the reactor is unlikely to be atomized in any sinking.

The warheads are well contained and designed to survive impacts, which makes them unlikely to split open. If they did, once again, it's a metal, and won't go anywhere far.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bushmeister0]

15. Well, you're talking best-case scenarios there.

A nuclear submarine with a reactor, missiles and the fuel to propel the missiles has a lot of moving parts. The warhead might not explode, but if any number of a thousand things were to do wrong during or after a collision, there's no telling what might happen.

You've got 16 SLICBMs, with 3 to 10 warheads on each, which have explosive rocket fuel that must be maintained at a certain temperature and pressure. If even one of them was jolted too much or either the pressure or temperature, or both, were disturbed they'd go up.

When it comes to nuclear reactors next to nuclear warheads surrounded by rocket fuel, I tend to err on the side of worst-case.

[NutmegYankee]

16. Warheads are designed to only go off when triggered by the device.

The mechanics to detonate a nuclear warhead are very complex and precise, and it's basically impossible to detonate a nuclear warhead without the firing mechanism itself doing it. What could happen is the explosives go off, which wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion, but might spread chunks of radioactive metal around. Once again, it is a localized event.

The reactor and the warheads are not in danger in the collision, the bigger concern is breach of the pressure hull which results in sinking of the ship.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. They were playing a game of chicken!

[dysfunctional press]

10. our plans are proceeding along quite well, thank you...

nothing can stop spectre now.

[Tesha]

17. "Con, Crazy Jean-Claude!" (NT)

[Mika]

20. Good one.

:rofl:

[KakistocracyHater]

19. I gues their Chinese radar failed

for both of them.