PDA

View Full Version : BRITISH and French nuclear submarines which collided deep under the Atlantic

PatriotnMore
15 February 2009, 22:40
Any word on this? Verified true? Speculation?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2240543.ece
ET1/ss nuke
16 February 2009, 00:04
Two boats pulling into separate ports at about the same time, one with a smashed sonar dome and the other with impact damage? Sounds like August 2000 all over again. ;)
ironpaw
16 February 2009, 02:20
Two boats pulling into separate ports at about the same time, one with a smashed sonar dome and the other with impact damage? Sounds like August 2000 all over again. ;)

How so? Nothing ran into the Kursk...I thought it was just typical Russian QA/maintenance which sank it?

Were they on a join anglo-french exercise? Cos it'd been interesting to find out who was tailing who :biggrin:
JumpCut
16 February 2009, 05:40
Did the French immediately surrender?
Invictus
16 February 2009, 05:54
Yes, apparently we were lucky that the damage wasn't any worse, especially as the French were travelling at "Full Speed Surrender!!
PatriotnMore
16 February 2009, 09:48
How so? Nothing ran into the Kursk...I thought it was just typical Russian QA/maintenance which sank it?

Were they on a join anglo-french exercise? Cos it'd been interesting to find out who was tailing who :biggrin:


And, how two subs with highly sophisticated electronics gets that close? :frown:
PatriotnMore
16 February 2009, 10:24
Kate Hudson is beautiful, too bad she is such a political douche bag, like others in Hollyweird.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_sub_collision

Stephane Lhomme, a spokesman for the French anti-nuclear group Sortir du Nucleaire, said its activists were on alert for any signs of radioactive leaks near French shores.
"This reminds us that we could have a new catastrophe with a nuclear submarine at any moment. It is a risk that exists during missions but also in port," he said. "These are mobile nuclear reactors."
Britain's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to end his country's nuclear submarine patrols of the Atlantic.
"This is a nuclear nightmare of the highest order," said Kate Hudson, the group's chair. "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."
Gryfen-FL
16 February 2009, 10:32
The sky is falling!
The sky is FALLING!

Since they both made it to port under their own power. Somehow I doubt that they were playing chicken at Warp 5. It is, no doubt, a serious incident and I'm sure heads are going to roll. I'd also bet money that the Navies involved are perfectly capable of handling this without HollyWood's help.

"This is a nuclear nightmare of the highest order," said Kate Hudson, the group's chair. "Lets apply a little historical perspective. Cherynobl was a nightmare of the highest order. Hudson is a damn fear monger!
DaedalusX
16 February 2009, 10:35
How the British couldn't see the big fricking white flag is beyond me. Sunday drivers ....
PatriotnMore
16 February 2009, 10:40
Wow, I've been accused of alot of things, but air head?:eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by some airhead
"This is a nuclear nightmare of the highest order," said Kate Hudson, the group's chair. "
Gryfen-FL
16 February 2009, 10:44
:p I meant Kate Hudson. :p
ET1/ss nuke
16 February 2009, 10:50
How so? Nothing ran into the Kursk...I thought it was just typical Russian QA/maintenance which sank it?

I never said anything ran into the Kursk. It was probably just coincidence that a US boat made an unscheduled stop in Norway with bow damage, another turned up in Scotland tied to a pier with awnings coving parts of the boat, and a Brit boat returned from patrol early. All coincidences with logical explanations. Move along, nothing to see here.
Terminator2
16 February 2009, 11:48
"Our fault? OUR FAULT? You said you were going left, so we went right, then you went right, so we turned left, and then you turned left again, you idiots!"
The91Bravo
16 February 2009, 13:06
How the British couldn't see the big fricking white flag is beyond me. Sunday drivers ....

It tore off and blocked the periscope....
Run Silent
16 February 2009, 15:28
"how two subs with highly sophisticated electronics gets that close?"

No offense, but for collision avoidance, that sophisticated electronics stuff is generally just about as good as grandpa's hand-held hearing aid, or driving around in a thick fog. RADAR IT IS NOT.

And, as with all media reports, especially early ones ..... not enough info. I wonder where this happened, what the weather was like in the collision area ..... read ambient noise and sound propagation conditions - bottom depth/type .... wave and wind action. This time of the year, significant effects in the Atlantic/North Atlantic. Were these guys operating together somehow? Article kinda says "no", but .... Were they both going fast, or one slow the other fast. If a Sub is transiting (fast) it is blind ..! A Sub's bow aspect is its quietest point; the stern around the screw also has a null point.

Subs usually don't know if another is around unless some third party info is available. Absent third party queing, when one Sub actually hears another, it is RIGHT THERE, add speed, just the right (wrong) aspect and BAM you are an article in THE SUN .....

When a Sub enters restricted waters returning to port there is ALWAYS a tug attached or touching the hull until lines are made up. I wonder if the Brit was really "towed" back to port (our media friends again). I have been to Faslane and nearby mooring points, and we never went too far up the Firth before a tug or two snuggled up next to us.

There are other, admin on the beach, factors that may or may not have been in play. Some we will hear about; others we won't ...

LH
DC Photog
16 February 2009, 15:38
Has anyone been able to verify that the Kate Hudson of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is the same person of the American actress? I haven't been able to verify it. It doesn't seem impossible for someone from Hollywood to be involved with that kind of group, I would just doubt that she is up to par or has the time to really be the chair of such an organization.

Not defending the actress at all, just interested in clarification.

By my search, which shouldn't stand on it's own she is a British activist unrelated to the actress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Hudson_(activist)
PatriotnMore
16 February 2009, 15:51
Has anyone been able to verify that the Kate Hudson of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is the same person of the American actress? I haven't been able to verify it. It doesn't seem impossible for someone from Hollywood to be involved with that kind of group, I would just doubt that she is up to par or has the time to really be the chair of such an organization.

Not defending the actress at all, just interested in clarification.

By my search, which shouldn't stand on it's own she is a British activist unrelated to the actress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Hudson_(activist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Hudson_%28activist))

No, I thought the same, after posting. It may be a fairly common name in England, and she has nothing to do with the comment.
Scratchy
16 February 2009, 19:11
Sounds like the world's most expensive game of chicken.
BSDCA
16 February 2009, 19:43
This thread reminded me of this old video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQBNMT9318A


Safe for Work.
ironpaw
16 February 2009, 20:10
I never said anything ran into the Kursk. It was probably just coincidence that a US boat made an unscheduled stop in Norway with bow damage, another turned up in Scotland tied to a pier with awnings coving parts of the boat, and a Brit boat returned from patrol early. All coincidences with logical explanations. Move along, nothing to see here.

Hmm, always thought that was tin foil hat stuff...but it does seem logical...
Amarillo
17 February 2009, 09:34
Brits drive on the left. French drive on the right. You don't suppose...
Texx
19 February 2009, 10:11
No news on any wires that I can find since the initial release on the 16th. Anyone hearing anything under the radar?
ET1/ss nuke
19 February 2009, 20:49
No news on any wires that I can find since the initial release on the 16th. Anyone hearing anything under the radar?

If you do hear anything, it will probably be about a change of command ceremony. "Silent Service" and all that, you know. :cool:
Texx
19 February 2009, 21:33
If you do hear anything, it will probably be about a change of command ceremony. "Silent Service" and all that, you know. :cool:

Well I did hear something on another forum I frequent. It's from a former US sub driver whom I can vouch for. I didn't post it because it's all hearsay. But with that caveat IU will post it. NOT presenting this as anything but speculation and that's all it probably is.

. . . the french fry got a sniff and turned into the source . . . the Brit’s screws. French ran bow first into the screws, breaking off 3 blades on 2 screws. I didn't think any of the modern boats had twin screws???

haven’t been able to hear anything from my "trusted" sources.
Run Silent
19 February 2009, 21:55
" the french fry got a sniff and turned into the source "

Oh my..... this isn't "go to the sound of the guns" stuff. Turning towards is a tactical (and safety) no-no .... as the French discovered. And, if they were "on patrol" turning towards an unknown (and un-ranged) "sniff" is even worse. ... Supposed to turn away, quietly analyzing as you slip away .... Missile subs on deterrant runs don't hunt.

Or were they in an op together ? Then safety rules had to have been violated. Even NATO uses depth separation for ops. ET1 is probably correct; the next story will be the COC .... quietly ....:rolleyes:

LH
Le3
19 February 2009, 22:57
Nevermind.
ET1/ss nuke
20 February 2009, 06:16
Turning towards is a tactical (and safety) no-no .... as the French discovered. And, if they were "on patrol" turning towards an unknown (and un-ranged) "sniff" is even worse. ... Supposed to turn away, quietly analyzing as you slip away .... Missile subs on deterrant runs don't hunt.


Turning toward a detected target masks your own towed array and makes no sense at all. If those two boats had flank arrays like many of the modern boats do, turning toward the target would mask their flank arrays, too. Modern torpedoes do not have to be pointed at the target upon firing, and a boomer would have no reason to want to close the range with an unknown target.

I'm not familiar with the two boats in question, but to the best of my knowledge the only nuclear boats running around on twin screws are some older model Russian and Chinese missile boats. Even on those boats, the shafts are arranged to make it unlikely that both screws would be damaged in one accident unless the whole stern got smashed.