There are some stultifyingly comments by otherwise very informed people regarding the SSBN collision mid-Atlantic

[dug777]

http://www.theaustralian.news....25069697-31477,00.html

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time."

As the topic says, I would have thought it entirely against the purpose of having Trident if you're going to tell the Frogs, or indeed anyone else, where you keep the 'ace in the hole'?

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst who advised the Russian Government after its Kursk submarine sank in 2000, said the incident could have been far worse.

"The real risk is if you have a fire on board caused by the impact," he said. "Each warhead has about 30-50kg of high explosive around it. That would burn and your plutonium core would burn as well. That would disperse into the atmosphere and be a major problem."

I don't understand how any nuclear material would disperse in the atmosphere if both SSBNs were at depth?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: dug777

http://www.theaustralian.news....25069697-31477,00.html

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time."

As the topic says, I would have thought it entirely against the purpose of having Trident if you're going to tell the Frogs, or indeed anyone else, where you keep the 'ace in the hole'?

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst who advised the Russian Government after its Kursk submarine sank in 2000, said the incident could have been far worse.

"The real risk is if you have a fire on board caused by the impact," he said. "Each warhead has about 30-50kg of high explosive around it. That would burn and your plutonium core would burn as well. That would disperse into the atmosphere and be a major problem."

I don't understand how any nuclear material would disperse in the atmosphere if both SSBNs were at depth?

Chances are they would surface in case they need to abandon ship.

For me, it was probably a stupid game that went really wrong.

 

[lupi]

He means into the atmosphere of the submarine; as for location of the boats yeah they're idiots. The majority of the members of most US submarines aren't aware or told exactly where they are for security reason, but that should be broadcast to other nations - lol.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: lupi
He means into the atmosphere of the submarine; as for location of the boats yeah they're idiots. The majority of the members of most US submarines aren't aware or told exactly where they are for security reason, but that should be broadcast to other nations - lol.

If he meant inside the ship, the guy is indeed an idiot. The whole boat would be blown to pieces and he is worried about radioactive air in the boat?

The commodore is bitching about France not sharing location with NATO.

Damn, boomer collisions...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: dug777

http://www.theaustralian.news....25069697-31477,00.html

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time."

As the topic says, I would have thought it entirely against the purpose of having Trident if you're going to tell the Frogs, or indeed anyone else, where you keep the 'ace in the hole'?

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst who advised the Russian Government after its Kursk submarine sank in 2000, said the incident could have been far worse.

"The real risk is if you have a fire on board caused by the impact," he said. "Each warhead has about 30-50kg of high explosive around it. That would burn and your plutonium core would burn as well. That would disperse into the atmosphere and be a major problem."

I don't understand how any nuclear material would disperse in the atmosphere if both SSBNs were at depth?

I agree. It's amazing that two boats could collide in the open ocean, but I don't think anyone would advocate allowing another country access to the location of your nuclear guarantee. If someone within your government is providing secrets, that's one thing, but if you're providing some of the most sensitive military information to an ally who then turns that over to an enemy, that's unacceptable.

 

[tefleming]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: dug777

http://www.theaustralian.news....25069697-31477,00.html

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time."

As the topic says, I would have thought it entirely against the purpose of having Trident if you're going to tell the Frogs, or indeed anyone else, where you keep the 'ace in the hole'?

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst who advised the Russian Government after its Kursk submarine sank in 2000, said the incident could have been far worse.

"The real risk is if you have a fire on board caused by the impact," he said. "Each warhead has about 30-50kg of high explosive around it. That would burn and your plutonium core would burn as well. That would disperse into the atmosphere and be a major problem."

I don't understand how any nuclear material would disperse in the atmosphere if both SSBNs were at depth?

I agree. It's amazing that two boats could collide in the open ocean, but I don't think anyone would advocate allowing another country access to the location of your nuclear guarantee. If someone within your government is providing secrets, that's one thing, but if you're providing some of the most sensitive military information to an ally who then turns that over to an enemy, that's unacceptable.

With NATO, it's not EXACT locations. It's "zones" that each country operates in. If you want to enter the UK's zone, you have to tell them. If you're in your own zone, then you're fine.

It's not THAT surprising. There was a good article on the BBC that explained there are spots where a sub can more easily hide, not surprising that subs would congregate around those spots. (ie the "whole big ocean" is a red herring, most SSBN's hang out in a few areas)

 

[Pocatello]

Off topic, but I wonder if France and GB have any land based ICBM? Those SSBN are expensive to build and run.

 

[compman25]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: dug777

http://www.theaustralian.news....25069697-31477,00.html

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time."

As the topic says, I would have thought it entirely against the purpose of having Trident if you're going to tell the Frogs, or indeed anyone else, where you keep the 'ace in the hole'?

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst who advised the Russian Government after its Kursk submarine sank in 2000, said the incident could have been far worse.

"The real risk is if you have a fire on board caused by the impact," he said. "Each warhead has about 30-50kg of high explosive around it. That would burn and your plutonium core would burn as well. That would disperse into the atmosphere and be a major problem."

I don't understand how any nuclear material would disperse in the atmosphere if both SSBNs were at depth?

Chances are they would surface in case they need to abandon ship.

For me, it was probably a stupid game that went really wrong.

Chicken of the sea?

 

[SunnyD]

Well duh. Same as all the space junk in orbit. We keep lobbing more and more shit up there without a clue as to who else is putting what up there, because no one wants to tell anyone else what they have up there.

Something is bound to go boom eventually. Entropy at it's finest.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: compman25

Originally posted by: sdifox
Chances are they would surface in case they need to abandon ship.

For me, it was probably a stupid game that went really wrong.

Chicken of the sea?

something along those lines, boomer captains trying to dick with each other.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: lupi
He means into the atmosphere of the submarine;

I believe he meant atmosphere of the planet, if a fire the sub would surface to remove the crew. If not scuttled in time, that plutonium (in theory) could be released.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: lupi
He means into the atmosphere of the submarine;

I believe he meant atmosphere of the planet, if a fire the sub would surface to remove the crew. If not scuttled in time, that plutonium (in theory) could be released.

not to mention if it blows up it's not like the stuff doesn't go into the ocean to maybe evaporate. How about the large amount of air being released, both within the pressure hull and as a result of the heat of the explosion potentially creating air pockets. I'm not a physicist but I think that's plausible.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: lupi
He means into the atmosphere of the submarine;

I believe he meant atmosphere of the planet, if a fire the sub would surface to remove the crew. If not scuttled in time, that plutonium (in theory) could be released.

not to mention if it blows up it's not like the stuff doesn't go into the ocean to maybe evaporate. How about the large amount of air being released, both within the pressure hull and as a result of the heat of the explosion potentially creating air pockets. I'm not a physicist but I think that's plausible.

Unless the fire managed to cause multiple rocket motors to cook off at exactly the same time it is extremely unlikely. If it looked to be headed that way the sub commander would definitely scuttle the boat the second the crew were off. All he has to do is open the valves for the ballast vents and down she goes.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: tefleming

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: dug777

http://www.theaustralian.news....25069697-31477,00.html

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time."

As the topic says, I would have thought it entirely against the purpose of having Trident if you're going to tell the Frogs, or indeed anyone else, where you keep the 'ace in the hole'?

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst who advised the Russian Government after its Kursk submarine sank in 2000, said the incident could have been far worse.

"The real risk is if you have a fire on board caused by the impact," he said. "Each warhead has about 30-50kg of high explosive around it. That would burn and your plutonium core would burn as well. That would disperse into the atmosphere and be a major problem."

I don't understand how any nuclear material would disperse in the atmosphere if both SSBNs were at depth?

I agree. It's amazing that two boats could collide in the open ocean, but I don't think anyone would advocate allowing another country access to the location of your nuclear guarantee. If someone within your government is providing secrets, that's one thing, but if you're providing some of the most sensitive military information to an ally who then turns that over to an enemy, that's unacceptable.

With NATO, it's not EXACT locations. It's "zones" that each country operates in. If you want to enter the UK's zone, you have to tell them. If you're in your own zone, then you're fine.

It's not THAT surprising. There was a good article on the BBC that explained there are spots where a sub can more easily hide, not surprising that subs would congregate around those spots. (ie the "whole big ocean" is a red herring, most SSBN's hang out in a few areas)

"Zones" make it that much easier to locate someone's subs. In fact, it almost makes it easier unless you continually change the zones. The exact location would only be good for a short time while the zone would cut down your search area at any time (ie., conduct your search HERE).

Plus, if you ask permission to enter a zone, that alerts anyone who cares that you have a boat somewhere around there. Yes, such requests would be protected, but anytime information is transmitted or exchanged, there is the possibility of compromise.

Of course there are areas where boats can better hide given depth, thermoclines, etc., but that doesn't mean that they are always there nor does it mean they are always sharing them like some nuclear boat "watering hole". Relative to the size of the ocean, even smaller parts of it, these boats are tiny especially when you consider depth along with latitude/longitude.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: lupi
He means into the atmosphere of the submarine;

I believe he meant atmosphere of the planet, if a fire the sub would surface to remove the crew. If not scuttled in time, that plutonium (in theory) could be released.

not to mention if it blows up it's not like the stuff doesn't go into the ocean to maybe evaporate. How about the large amount of air being released, both within the pressure hull and as a result of the heat of the explosion potentially creating air pockets. I'm not a physicist but I think that's plausible.

Unless the fire managed to cause multiple rocket motors to cook off at exactly the same time it is extremely unlikely. If it looked to be headed that way the sub commander would definitely scuttle the boat the second the crew were off. All he has to do is open the valves for the ballast vents and down she goes.

There's no way the nukes could actually trigger, and it's hard to imagine a collison at depth causing a fire, let alone one that allows the boats to surface and evacuate if it's hot enough to release radiactive material from the warheads.

Even if it did burn and rupture at depth, I would have thought any 'air pockets' would dissolve into the water as they bubbled up, there's not that much air there...

The Scorpion was lost in 'unexplained' circumstances, and it's sitting on the silt somewhere off the Azores doing sweet FA with its nukes.

 

[dennilfloss]

Maybe someone attempted a Pépé Le Pew and neither commander blinked.

 

[olds]

Ever farted in a bath tub?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dug777
There's no way the nukes could actually trigger, and it's hard to imagine a collison at depth causing a fire, let alone one that allows the boats to surface and evacuate if it's hot enough to release radiactive material from the warheads.

Even if it did burn and rupture at depth, I would have thought any 'air pockets' would dissolve into the water as they bubbled up, there's not that much air there...

The Scorpion was lost in 'unexplained' circumstances, and it's sitting on the silt somewhere off the Azores doing sweet FA with its nukes.

Fire can be caused by any number of things, electronics would be one of them.

There is a decent enough amount of air that it probably wouldn't dissolve without some hitting the surface.

The Scorpion was most likely sunk by the Soviets. It was an SSN, not an SSBN, and wouldn't likely have had any nukes, unless it had some type of nuclear torpedo or nuclear ASROC, both of which aren't liklely.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: dug777
There's no way the nukes could actually trigger, and it's hard to imagine a collison at depth causing a fire, let alone one that allows the boats to surface and evacuate if it's hot enough to release radiactive material from the warheads.

Even if it did burn and rupture at depth, I would have thought any 'air pockets' would dissolve into the water as they bubbled up, there's not that much air there...

The Scorpion was lost in 'unexplained' circumstances, and it's sitting on the silt somewhere off the Azores doing sweet FA with its nukes.

Fire can be caused by any number of things, electronics would be one of them.

There is a decent enough amount of air that it probably wouldn't dissolve without some hitting the surface.

The Scorpion was most likely sunk by the Soviets. It was an SSN, not an SSBN, and wouldn't likely have had any nukes, unless it had some type of nuclear torpedo or nuclear ASROC, both of which aren't liklely.

I understand that USS Scorpion had two nuclear tipped torpedos, and it was most likely lost in an accident, unless you believe the conspiracy theorists 😉

Anyway, in 24 the drone with the nuke crashed and burned, and it wasn't THAT bad.

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: tefleming

There was a good article on the BBC that explained there are spots where a sub can more easily hide, not surprising that subs would congregate around those spots. (ie the "whole big ocean" is a red herring, most SSBN's hang out in a few areas)

Kinda funny how the attack boats probably would bee-line for those areas too... 😛

 

[Buttzilla]

why isn't the french part of nato? is it cause they never really do anything to begin with?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Buttzilla
why isn't the french part of nato? is it cause they never really do anything to begin with?

They are part of NATO, they just refuse to report the general location of their nukes.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Buttzilla
why isn't the french part of nato? is it cause they never really do anything to begin with?

Q. Why do the French have rear view mirrors on their tanks?

A. So they can see the war.