Two Nuclear Submarines Collide in the Atlantic [Military]

What I gather from other posts and blog entries, both nations use M$ Windows to run their military hardware.

Just last week Windows-packing French jet fighters were grounded because of a Windows virus. A few months earlier there was some noise about the British installing Windows on their subs (Windows on subs. Imagine that)

If the'd have had windows on the subs then they would have been able to see the frogs underwater!

Chas

ROFL !

Remember my encounter with a bank cash-point machine that was running Windows ? Just before Iceland went bust. Coincidence ? I think not....

....and sonar supplied by I-tunes

Maybe a view screen like in star trek is maybe not such a bad idea after all

Nuclear submarines are expected to hide somewhere invisible to potential attackers.

So the crews and land-based commands try the few places where different layers of seawater, different in density by temperature or salinity, act as a refractive index step and thus shielding the beneath objects from detection by sonar and maybe other means.

Thought to stay there for weeks or months with nearly no movement nor any other source of noise - only waiting - there is a possibility not to detect your nearest neighbour.

The bump must have been very small else there would have been a major damage.

3000 to 4000 tons colliding with only 1m/s, calculate the energy and see that this energy dumped into deformation will damage nearly any structure.

Optical overview of the periphery is not existing ? as no fishing activity for deep-sea fish or squid allowed.

RHABE

I think they're still arguing about who won at Trafalgar.

Look at the size of the plaster they had to stick on Vanguard ;

That's pretty much the area of damage from what I saw on a TV clip. Doesn't seem to be available on the web.

If you have read deeper into the story, France's military does not participate in NATO control like the US and Brits do. The US and British strategic sub forces communicate with each other to ensure that something like this happens by sectioning off portions of the ocean in 3D sections. In addition, trying to find someone that is trying not to be found is virtually impossible. Being a ex US fast attack submariner, the boats I have been on have been repeatedly embarrassed in trying to find a "boomer". During one exercise our Weapons Officer stated after initial acquisition (by boomer making noise) and subsequent disappearance, stated to the captain, "Sir, I believe she's cloaked" (He was a huge Star Trek fan). So, two very quiet vessels could possibly approach each other without detection.

Perhaps it time to re-design these subs:

Anyone remember this one?

Richard Basehart played the captain, as I recall.

How sad this world is. You all write about windows crashing but not a word is written about what they were carrying onboard. Nuclear missiles???? What the hell is going on in this world?? Wasn't Iraq invaded for having weapons of mass destruction?? These subs have weapons of mass destruction onboard, and that's ok?? I just don't understand.

It's a bit like "if you didn't laugh, you'd cry". A fairly common reaction when near tragedy occurs. Most humour is rooted in fear of something. Reports say there was no radiation leak etc, but they wouldn't exactly advertise it if there was. Many, much more risky, nuclear related events are occurring around the world right now. The problem is, nuclear is the only viable way to bridge the energy gap while alternatives are found, and Nuclear weapons have arguably prevented WWIII (so far). Your point is quite valid, Conrads. If the outcome had been anything like the Kursk nobody would be joking. There are probably dozens of similar incidents that are covered up.

This one was tragic. So was this.

As somebody (sorry forgot name) pointed out, this particular incident is related to operating procedures/space allocation on manoeuvres, also the problems caused by increased stealth ability. In short, lack of communications between supposedly 'friendly' forces. The Russians operate in the same area, so the outcome could have been worse beyond the physical damage to both vessels and UK/French embarrassment.

Interesting Wiki is still sticking to the explosion theory on the Kursk. When she was lifted out of the water the hole in her side sure looked like a torpedo impact.

Ya, but wiki is as wiki does. Sort of easy start-point without hunting around for a good reference

Having been in the submarine service at the time of the Kursk incident, stationed aboard a submarine that was just certified for DSRV operations, wanted in the worst way to go and get those guys that were trapped. Unfortunately, politics got in the way and the people died. Further investigation reveled that the explosion was due to a torpedo but from the inside not outside.

I've heard of the official explanations but.........

would an explosion leave an indented hole, roughly the size of a torpedo, in her starboard side?

Allegedly the Kursk was test firing a new type of torpedo. Perhaps this was mistaken to be an act of aggression and defensive measures were taken by whoever was shadowing her?

Due to the design of the Oscar Class submarines (Double hulls with many baffles between the two to absorb torpedo hits), most likely the hatches were blown out then the ship had a combination of explosion/implosion, along with the impact with the ocean bottom. My analysis was based upon looking at pictures of the damage, the possible actions being performed at the time (weapons test), along with my knowledge of submarine construction. Of course, we may never know what really happened. Even though the fall of the Soviet Union opened up new freedom in the press and information, the country is still run by former KGB persons and it is a military matter, with the inherent secrecy involved.

The difference is that the term Weapons of Mass Destruction is the definition of numerous weapons that kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time. This included poisonous gas (Which Saddam has used on his own people and both sides used during the Iran/Iraq war), biological weapons (rumored to be used by Saddam) and last but not least, Nuclear weapons. I am not going to debate whether the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified (I will leave that to historians with phd's) but the present members of the nuclear weapons "club" (And at one time your country.) don't go around launching these things at people that annoy them. They are presently used as a threat device (Franklin D Roosevelt quote, Talk softly and carry a big stick) to give nations that do have these (nuclear) weapons pause in using them. The use of submarines also give the people that are willing to use nuclear weapons another pause, because of a "retaliatory/second strike" capability, so if they destroy the cities of the targeted nation, that nation can also strike back. In the US, we have what is called the Nuclear Triad, which is made up of ICBMs, Bombers, and strategic missile submarines, in which the submarines are the best protected leg of the triad.

I am not an advocate or opponent of nuclear weapons, just trying to give some facts so that you can understand what is going on. I hope this helps.

Been off line for about a week, but immediately thought of those Europeans practicing experiments while waiting for LHC to come back on line.

Two nuclear particles starting from opposite sides of the ocean and actually hitting each other almost head on while not actually knowing where the other one was.

We'll probably never know, but maybe there was a third one nearby watching the two radar images as they converged.