Nuclear submarines collide in Atlantic

[GordMay]

Two armed nuclear submarines have collided while on separate exercises in the Atlantic Ocean.

“A Royal Navy nuclear submarine and a French vessel have been damaged in a collision deep below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean.

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant, which were carrying nuclear missiles, are believed to have collided while submerged on 3 or 4 February, according to reports. The submarines had a total of around 250 sailors on board ...”

More:
Nuclear submarines collide in Atlantic | UK news | guardian.co.uk

[Blue Stocking]

There is a Russian nuclear boat on the bottom about 250 miles NE of Bermuda. Went down maybe 5-7 yrs ago. If memory serves me correctly, US never admitted a collision, but one of their boats showed up at port for repairs shortly after. I admire submariners--they gotta be a rare breed.

[Sandero]

These war machines need to all be decommissioned. A huge waste of resources and an absurd mission.

[witzgall]

The only good submarines are the ones with the glass bottoms, so you can see all of the little fishes.

Chris
EX=Aviation Anti-Submarine Warefare Operator aboard P-3 Aircraft.

Chris

[GordMay]

Submarine Accidents: Understated, Under-Reported, Undersea
“... Since the year 2000, there have been 16 known accidents involving submarines: 6 with U.S. subs, 3 Russian incidents, the same British sub twice, and 1 each involving Chinese, Canadian and Australian subs...”

More:
http://www.nukewatch.com/quarterly/20073fall/page4.pdf

[Gudgeon]

As ususal the news sensationalizes the head lines. The weapons probabily were not yet armed. Yes the nuke boats are out there on patrol. Part of the reason for the collapse of the soviet union. Kept each of us from starting a war as we were each assure of mutual destruction.
Witzgall your just jealous becuse you could not ind the US boats.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Yet more proof of Global Warming

[witzgall]

Originally Posted by Gudgeon

Witzgall your just jealous becuse you could not ind the US boats.

Well, we were always told that if the US boats did not want to see us, we would not. Once on patrol I did spot a US sub (acoustically). I made the mistake of saying so over the comms, which were recorded. The next thing I knew, the radio operator was having me sign a document that said I have been exposed to classified information beyond my security clearance, and I would keep my mouth shut. Turns out that the location of a US Nuclear submarine on patrol, in this case LA class, is classified Top Seacret. I was cleared Seacret.

This was during the Cold war.

Chris

[Bash]

...of whether or not submariners are violating Rule #5 of the Colregs, which deals with keeping a proper watch. "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by witzgall

Well, we were always told that if the US boats did not want to see us, we would not. Once on patrol I did spot a US sub (acoustically). I made the mistake of saying so over the comms, which were recorded. The next thing I knew, the radio operator was having me sign a document that said I have been exposed to classified information beyond my security clearance, and I would keep my mouth shut. Turns out that the location of a US Nuclear submarine on patrol, in this case LA class, is classified Top Seacret. I was cleared Seacret.

This was during the Cold war.

Chris

Well, that's comforting.

If I'm understanding witzgall's post correctly, if a US person on sub patrol locates a US sub, but doesn't want to have to go through the "I promise I won't reveal a secret above my clearance" routine, he just keeps the information to himself. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the sub patrols?

It would seem to me that the US Navy would want to know that one of their Los Angeles class nuclear subs is more "visible" than they had, perhaps, assumed. How could they attempt to remedy the problem if they aren't made aware of it?

It's doubtful that any US allies would let the USN know that their sub patrols had spotted a US sub, and any US "enemies" definitely wouldn't. So the Navy may be left with the false impression that no one is aware of the location of USN subs unless the Navy wants them to be detectable.

What's wrong with this picture?

TaoJones

[witzgall]

Subs can control to a great extent what noises come from it. So if they want to be found, or don't care at the time, they certainly make it easier.

Chris

Originally Posted by TaoJones

Well, that's comforting.

If I'm understanding witzgall's post correctly, if a US person on sub patrol locates a US sub, but doesn't want to have to go through the "I promise I won't reveal a secret above my clearance" routine, he just keeps the information to himself. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the sub patrols?

It would seem to me that the US Navy would want to know that one of their Los Angeles class nuclear subs is more "visible" than they had, perhaps, assumed. How could they attempt to remedy the problem if they aren't made aware of it?

It's doubtful that any US allies would let the USN know that their sub patrols had spotted a US sub, and any US "enemies" definitely wouldn't. So the Navy may be left with the false impression that no one is aware of the location of USN subs unless the Navy wants them to be detectable.

What's wrong with this picture?

TaoJones

[witzgall]

Does the Colregs apply to submerged vessels? Do they care?

Chris

Originally Posted by Bash

...of whether or not submariners are violating Rule #5 of the Colregs, which deals with keeping a proper watch. "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."

[sailorboy1]

As an ex-nuc sub guy; HIGHLY unlikely that a LA class boat had any nuc weapons on it as it is an attack boat not a missile boat. This probably applies to the 2 boats involved in this event also. Nuclear reators don't blow up! Not that hard to believe that 2 subs playing hide and seek with each other could end up hitting each other if a thermal layer got between them bouncing passivative sonar so they couldn't detect each other (this is what the goal of hiding is about). Not like they could look out the window!

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

As an ex-nuc sub guy; HIGHLY unlikely that a LA class boat had any nuc weapons on it as it is an attack boat not a missile boat. This probably applies to the 2 boats involved in this event also. Nuclear reators don't blow up! <snio>

From British Defense spokesman Nick Harvey, commenting on the recent collision:

"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."

TaoJones

[Gudgeon]

Taojones
US patrol locations are classified. I am sure message went up chain that they were detected. Boat skipper was not happy about that.
These were missle boat and there are many thing that have to happen to arm the missles they would not blow up due to a collision.
If we detected an ally sub while on patrol you bet we notified them it reall piss the other crew off when you get counter detected.
Bash
Subs are keeping a proper watch I will not speculate what happened this time as not enough info. Normally 4 or 5 sonar watch standers on watch. The sub is the burdened vessel when surfacing. In this case it would be interesting to know all of the details the brit boat might have been clearing baffles.

Thanks to Adm Rickover the US navy has very good nuclear safety record.