Nuclear subs 'collide in ocean'

2009-02-16 03:38:14

#1

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic, it has been reported.

It is understood HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash in heavy seas earlier this month.

Despite being equipped with sonar, it seems neither vessel spotted the other, the BBC's Caroline Wyatt said.

The UK's Ministry of Defence is not commenting on the reports, but insisted nuclear security had not been breached.

Our defence correspondent said HMS Vanguard, with "very visible dents and scrapes", had to be towed back into its home base at Faslane on the Firth of Clyde. The submarines were both "seriously-armed", she also said.

The reported incident is being investigated on both sides of the Channel.

The two submarines are key parts of each nation's nuclear deterrent, and would have been carrying missiles, though both the UK and France have insisted there was no danger of a nuclear incident.

The two 150m-long (492ft) submarines were carrying around 240 sailors between them. A French naval spokesman said the collision did not result in any injuries to the crew.

HMS Vanguard is now back at Faslane.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament described the reported collision as "a nuclear nightmare of the highest order".

CND chair Kate Hudson said: "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."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7892294.stm?lss
What exactly does 'seriously armed' mean? This is MOD-speak I've not heard before.

Two broken submarines and umpteen warheads at the bottom of the atlantic doesn't sound too funny, not to mention the loss of the sailors.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-16 03:39:24)

Fuck Israel

2009-02-16 03:43:51

#2

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

Dilbert_X wrote:
What exactly does 'seriously armed' mean? This is MOD-speak I've not heard before.

Considering each sub can carry up to 16 nuclear missiles (or 178 total warheads for the HMS Vanguard), "seriously armed" sounds like typical English understatement.

2009-02-16 03:46:14

#3

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7113|Nårvei

It's not common practice to carry warheads in naval vessels with the current treat situation we have now ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-02-16 03:48:03

#4

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

Pretty sure the UK always has at least one nuclear armed sub floating about somewhere.

Fuck Israel

2009-02-16 03:54:03

#5

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

I'd imagine the English Admiralty is probably screaming "And THAT is why we don't share our really good ballistic missile sub camping spots with the FRENCH!"

2009-02-16 04:22:20

#6

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty sure the UK always has at least one nuclear armed sub floating about somewhere.

I think we have quite a few...

Should have declared it an act of war, and burnt France to the ground. Haven't done that in a while.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-16 04:24:36

#7

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

FatherTed wrote:
Should have declared it an act of war, and burnt France to the ground. Haven't done that in a while.

LMAO

THIS!!

Cheers! I'll drink to that!

The "in a while" just makes that a classic.

2009-02-16 04:26:24

#8

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

rdx-fx wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
Should have declared it an act of war, and burnt France to the ground. Haven't done that in a while.
LMAO

THIS!!

Cheers! I'll drink to that!

The "in a while" just makes that a classic.

It used to be pretty much a national pastime

-edit

Reminds me of a wonderful line i heard on a UK comedy show last night

They were talking about the Olympics costing us x amount of billions, and restoring national pride ,and then one of em says something like

"for that amount of money you could have written 'fuck off Germany' on the moon!

yes?

Last edited by FatherTed (2009-02-16 04:31:46)

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-16 04:38:56

#9

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

FatherTed, I can understand being a little bitter at Germany.

They did kinda steal your national passtime of abusing the French. Though they were a bit too .. German about it last time. Methodical, industrial, and over without really having a chance to enjoy it much. No sense of class or poetry about it.

2009-02-16 06:02:04

#10

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6845|Texas - Bigger than France

"CND chair Kate Hudson said:"

If this is the HOT Kate Hudson?

2009-02-16 06:27:19

#11

Kez: Member; +778|6006|London, UK

Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey has called for an immediate internal inquiry with some of the conclusions made public.

"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," he said.

No shit

2009-02-16 06:44:51

#12

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6526|Escea

Kptk92 wrote:
Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey has called for an immediate internal inquiry with some of the conclusions made public.

"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," he said.
No shit

More like a large pop tbh

2009-02-16 06:51:51

#13

Locoloki: I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!; +216|6943|Your moms bedroom

what do rough seas have to do with being underwater? I mean, unless your in shallow water right?

LOL at the OP, dude did you read the article,

They were carrying around 240 sailors between them. A French naval spokesman said the collision did not result in any injuries to the crew.

2009-02-16 07:48:26

#14

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6714|'Murka

The whole point of having a nuclear deterrent in the form of subs is to have them out on patrol. To keep them in port eliminates their deterrent.

Perhaps that might explain why they were out and "seriously armed".

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-02-16 07:52:06

#15

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

rdx-fx wrote:
"seriously armed" sounds like typical English understatement.

- I love the way the government types here use language like that

---

Anyway according to the BBC article I read before, it was a case of the anti-Sonar working too well

At least both ships now know that their Sonar ain't worth shit because there is shit out that there that can defeat it. Also I'm surprised there was almost zero co-ordination between French and British ships, I thought with all the NATO EU crap etc.. that they'd at least somewhat know each others whereabouts, at least very roughly

2009-02-16 07:55:55

#16

Locoloki: I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!; +216|6943|Your moms bedroom

quite incredible to believe that the 2 were at the same lat. and long, and at the same depth. probably playing games and chasing eachother around with neither willing to admit who was at fault

Last edited by Locoloki (2009-02-16 07:56:16)

2009-02-16 09:17:06

#17

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

Mekstizzle wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
"seriously armed" sounds like typical English understatement.
- I love the way the government types here use language like that

---

Anyway according to the BBC article I read before, it was a case of the anti-Sonar working too well

At least both ships now know that their Sonar ain't worth shit because there is shit out that there that can defeat it. Also I'm surprised there was almost zero co-ordination between French and British ships, I thought with all the NATO EU crap etc.. that they'd at least somewhat know each others whereabouts, at least very roughly

i don't think anyone except the admiralty knows the daily location of our nuke subs

Locoloki wrote:
what do rough seas have to do with being underwater? I mean, unless your in shallow water right?

LOL at the OP, dude did you read the article,
They were carrying around 240 sailors between them. A French naval spokesman said the collision did not result in any injuries to the crew.

Currents are quite strong underwater. Something called the Ekman spiral i think, not sure.

Last edited by FatherTed (2009-02-16 09:18:43)

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-16 09:18:34

#18

PureFodder: Member; +225|6589

The problem with making things hard to detect is they become hard to detect.
Eventually subs are going to run into each other, fortunately this resulted in no casualties or 'serious' explosions.

Anyone know if France has surrendered yet?

2009-02-16 09:29:34

#19

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7069|UK

Locoloki wrote:
quite incredible to believe that the 2 were at the same lat. and long, and at the same depth. probably playing games and chasing eachother around with neither willing to admit who was at fault

Indeed. First you get 2 satellites that are meant to be in separate 100km3 boxes colliding and now two subs in the Atlantic ocean.

2009-02-16 09:55:57

#20

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6952

Vilham wrote:
Locoloki wrote:
quite incredible to believe that the 2 were at the same lat. and long, and at the same depth. probably playing games and chasing eachother around with neither willing to admit who was at fault
Indeed. First you get 2 satellites that are meant to be in separate 100km3 boxes colliding and now two subs in the Atlantic ocean.

Agreed. The chances of them happening to be at the exact same place in such a massive ocean by chance is tiny.

2009-02-16 09:57:08

#21

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

ghettoperson wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Locoloki wrote:
quite incredible to believe that the 2 were at the same lat. and long, and at the same depth. probably playing games and chasing eachother around with neither willing to admit who was at fault
Indeed. First you get 2 satellites that are meant to be in separate 100km3 boxes colliding and now two subs in the Atlantic ocean.
Agreed. The chances of them happening to be at the exact same place in such a massive ocean by chance is tiny.

Read the article, apparently it's a common maneuvering ground for French, UK, US and Russian subs.

Still a fucking tiny chance though!

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-16 10:00:29

#22

andy12: Banned; +52|6960

FatherTed wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Indeed. First you get 2 satellites that are meant to be in separate 100km3 boxes colliding and now two subs in the Atlantic ocean.
Agreed. The chances of them happening to be at the exact same place in such a massive ocean by chance is tiny.
Read the article, apparently it's a common maneuvering ground for French, UK, US and Russian subs.

Still a fucking tiny chance though!

Since Subs from every significant country are always on patrol every hour of the year it increases the chances, was going to happen sometime...

Not to mention subs stick to general patrol routes and sub(pun is as lol as josh) routes. The routes and sub routes decrease the patrol area from the size of the Atlantic ocean by a factor of 4.

Last edited by andy12 (2009-02-16 10:00:48)

2009-02-16 11:17:21

#23

BVC: Member; +325|6999

The French got spooked by the presence of another sub and fucked up their surrender routine I guess.

2009-02-16 11:18:09

#24

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6803|so randum

Pubic wrote:
The French got spooked by the presence of another sub and fucked up their surrender routine I guess.

Seriously, we should just park a carrier group offshore for the kicks

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-02-16 11:20:17

#25

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7069|UK

Pubic wrote:
The French got spooked by the presence of another sub and fucked up their surrender routine I guess.

lol I was gunna use a very similar joke on my French housemate.

BF2S Forums Nuclear subs 'collide in ocean'

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Kptk92 wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Board footer