If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   British and French nuclear missile submarine collision in the Atlantic Ocean dismissed as "bad luck"   (theguardian.com) divider line 71
    More: Unlikely, bad luck, ballistic missile submarine, nukes, missiles, collisions, registered nurses, stroke, nuclear disarmament  
•       •       •

3683 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-08 08:57:22 AM
Monday,
16 February 2009,
19.01 EST

The day this article was originally published.

You managed to submit an article that is over 4 years old, subby.

Good jerb.
 
2013-08-08 09:01:21 AM

Elegy: Monday,
16 February 2009,
19.01 EST

The day this article was originally published.

You managed to submit an article that is over 4 years old, subby.

Good jerb.


And you forget to mention the greenlight.

/it's not news don't you know
 
2013-08-08 09:19:25 AM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
I hope they got to see Montana.
 
2013-08-08 10:08:56 AM
How is this possible? What do they have? 2 or 3 nuclear subs between them? Plus the oil slick from the Brit sub should have been clearly evident. And how could the Brits miss seeing the twin deployed periscopes of the French sub?
 
2013-08-08 10:11:28 AM
Fetchez la vache.
 
2013-08-08 10:12:00 AM
The Brits were playing chicken, failing to realize they were going up against the French.
 
2013-08-08 10:12:13 AM

Elegy: Monday,
16 February 2009,
19.01 EST

The day this article was originally published.

You managed to submit an article that is over 4 years old, subby.

Good jerb.


to be fair, it's about subs crashing into each other

/one in a millennia derp if anything
 
2013-08-08 10:12:31 AM

Elegy: Monday,
16 February 2009,
19.01 EST


This business will have gotten out of control. It will have gotten out of control and we'll have been lucky to have lived through it.
 
2013-08-08 10:14:28 AM
More importantly..

How awesome of a title is SEA LORD.

Its like Time Lord, but... all watery.
 
2013-08-08 10:14:48 AM
The big sky theory only works for so long.
 
2013-08-08 10:15:04 AM
A second submarine has crashed into the Cutty Sark!
 
2013-08-08 10:15:14 AM
FTFA: in an incident which some experts say could have caused a nuclear catastrophe.

Who are these "experts?"  Greenpeace bloggers?  USS San Francisco plowed into an undersea mountain at a flank bell and didn't even damage its torpedoes which were in the part that struck the mountain.  Two boomers doing 4 kts to nowhere going bump in the night isn't going to cause any god-damned "Nuclear Catastrophe."

Elegy: You managed to submit an article that is over 4 years old, subby.


Pretty lame, Milhouse.
 
2013-08-08 10:15:42 AM
Regardless of when this happened, I'd never heard about it.  Whoah.  And the French crew didn't find out until later what that thing was they bumped into?  Merde!
 
2013-08-08 10:17:07 AM
Monday,
16 February 2009,
19.01 EST

????? I've heard of no surrender.
 
2013-08-08 10:19:31 AM
"Friendly submarines should not bump into each other. Unquestionably it's a very serious incident,"

Would it be less bad if it were North Korean?
 
2013-08-08 10:20:19 AM

Skraeling: More importantly..

How awesome of a title is SEA LORD.

Its like Time Lord, but... all watery.


I detect the wrinkled jealous hand of Poseidon in this.
 
2013-08-08 10:20:34 AM
Gotta watch out for that Crazy Bigglesworth, Frenchy.
 
2013-08-08 10:21:15 AM

factoryconnection: Who are these "experts?"  Greenpeace bloggers?  USS San Francisco plowed into an undersea mountain at a flank bell and didn't even damage its torpedoes which were in the part that struck the mountain.


Actually, the torpedo room the USS San Francisco is significantly aft of where all the damage occurred.
 
2013-08-08 10:22:24 AM
Seriously? For a minute I thought this might have been an update to an old story.

No, it's truly from 2009.

Also in the news from 2009... Micheal Jackson died!
 
2013-08-08 10:24:03 AM

Arnprior Joe: "Friendly submarines should not bump into each other. Unquestionably it's a very serious incident,"

Would it be less bad if it were North Korean?


If you're deliberately following a submerged submarine, being that things are quite quiet and range-establishing tactics have error bands, sometimes things go "bump."   Such an incident is a failure of both crews, primarily the hunter.

However, when two allied boomers, which should most assuredly have waterspace management schemes to separate them still end up colliding, it is considerably more serious, as it points to a failure that rises well above the ships' level.
 
2013-08-08 10:24:15 AM
Also... anyone who watched the Hunt for Red October knows that one sub was probably following the other one intentionally and someone pulled a Crazy Ivan.
 
2013-08-08 10:24:46 AM

tricycleracer: The big sky theory only works for so long.


This.

Since both were strategic nuclear missile subs, you can bet that they weren't playing tag on purpose.  It's just that two ultra-stealthy submarines tried to occupy the same space at the same time.  They likely have patrol areas that overlap, and that's why this happened.  For obvious reasons, nations don't consult with each other about where their nuclear missile submarines patrol.
 
2013-08-08 10:26:26 AM

dittybopper: factoryconnection: Who are these "experts?"  Greenpeace bloggers?  USS San Francisco plowed into an undersea mountain at a flank bell and didn't even damage its torpedoes which were in the part that struck the mountain.

Actually, the torpedo room the USS San Francisco is significantly aft of where all the damage occurred.


SES was trashed, and some sonar techs were shiatting bricks, but that's not "significantly aft".

/former 688 class sonar tech.
//old story is old
 
2013-08-08 10:26:34 AM

andyofne: Also... anyone who watched the Hunt for Red October knows that one sub was probably following the other one intentionally and someone pulled a Crazy Ivan.


Not.

Attack submarines follow missile submarines and other attack submarines.  Missile subs don't intentionally follow other missile subs.  In fact, they like to stay away from all other vessels as a matter of principle, as much as they possibly can.
 
2013-08-08 10:27:07 AM

dittybopper: Actually, the torpedo room the USS San Francisco is significantly aft of where all the damage occurred.


The torpedo room is the forward-most compartment in FCLL.  The San Fran ran into a mountain that was in front of it, a worst-case grounding, shredding the sonar dome, sphere, and puncturing forward ballast tanks.  Oh, by the way, the torpedo tubes protrude through those ballast tanks.

The missile and reactor compartments on these boomers are tucked in the middle of each ships... considerably farther from most "danger zones" in collisions, and regardless well protected from this type of impact.
 
2013-08-08 10:27:29 AM
Damn Eurpoeans.  This is what happens when you drive on the left side of the ocean.
 
2013-08-08 10:30:14 AM

andyofne: Also... anyone who watched the Hunt for Red October knows that one sub was probably following the other one intentionally and someone pulled a Crazy Ivan.


Also, anyone who watched the Hunt for Red October knows submarines have very loud dot matrix printers in the Sonar Shack.

/still chuckle at that
 
2013-08-08 10:40:08 AM

mediablitz: dittybopper: factoryconnection: Who are these "experts?"  Greenpeace bloggers?  USS San Francisco plowed into an undersea mountain at a flank bell and didn't even damage its torpedoes which were in the part that struck the mountain.

Actually, the torpedo room the USS San Francisco is significantly aft of where all the damage occurred.

SES was trashed, and some sonar techs were shiatting bricks, but that's not "significantly aft".

/former 688 class sonar tech.
//old story is old


The construction that factoryconnection used implied that the torpedo room was part of the damaged area.

/San Franalulu is fun to say.
 
2013-08-08 10:40:22 AM
I'm going to submit an article about the Titanic sinking to see if I can get my first greenlight....
 
2013-08-08 10:41:27 AM
Passing you on the left.
Right.
No, left.
Wait...whose left?
We're all left.  None of us left.
...etc.
 
2013-08-08 10:45:17 AM

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Actually, the torpedo room the USS San Francisco is significantly aft of where all the damage occurred.

The torpedo room is the forward-most compartment in FCLL.  The San Fran ran into a mountain that was in front of it, a worst-case grounding, shredding the sonar dome, sphere, and puncturing forward ballast tanks.  Oh, by the way, the torpedo tubes protrude through those ballast tanks.

The missile and reactor compartments on these boomers are tucked in the middle of each ships... considerably farther from most "danger zones" in collisions, and regardless well protected from this type of impact.


Yes, I know.  But there is a difference between running square into an undersea mountain at 30+ knots and nudging another boat at 5 knots.

One results in almost losing the boat.   The other results in damage that will buff out with a little elbow grease.
 
2013-08-08 10:50:19 AM

dittybopper: Since both were strategic nuclear missile subs, you can bet that they weren't playing tag on purpose. It's just that two ultra-stealthy submarines tried to occupy the same space at the same time. They likely have patrol areas that overlap, and that's why this happened. For obvious reasons, nations don't consult with each other about where their nuclear missile submarines patrol.


You hit just about every point I came here to make, except for my need to reiterate how much respect I have for (skilled) submariners. You drive around blind, and either A) broadcast your position to everyone listening, or B) just hope that everything (passive) around you is still where you expect it to be, and there are no submerged objects.
 
2013-08-08 10:53:13 AM

dittybopper: andyofne: Also... anyone who watched the Hunt for Red October knows that one sub was probably following the other one intentionally and someone pulled a Crazy Ivan.

Not.

Attack submarines follow missile submarines and other attack submarines.  Missile subs don't intentionally follow other missile subs.  In fact, they like to stay away from all other vessels as a matter of principle, as much as they possibly can.


Relax dude, it was a joke.

Know plenty about submarines.

I think we've established in the past that we both did the same work in the Navy.

Or maybe that was another 'ditty bopper'
 
2013-08-08 10:54:41 AM

Arnprior Joe: "Friendly submarines should not bump into each other. Unquestionably it's a very serious incident,"

Would it be less bad if it were North Korean?


I would think even telling your allies exactly to the meter where all your subs are going to be is not really viable, and they are designed to not be noticeable, so I would have thought this will happen from time to time and there isn't much to do about it. There is a lot of ocean and not many subs, so shouldn't happen very often.
 
2013-08-08 10:55:15 AM
And then did the French seamen all drown when they opened the door to stick out the white flag?
 
2013-08-08 10:59:56 AM
Be careful Dr. Ryan. Shome things in here don't react well to other shubmarinesh.
 
2013-08-08 11:03:27 AM

dittybopper: Yes, I know. But there is a difference between running square into an undersea mountain at 30+ knots and nudging another boat at 5 knots.


Minor quibble. Can't see a 688 class doing 30+ knots while out on normal patrol. Your point however is mucho valid.

I WILL say we had an Echo II class miss us by about 20 yards (est. They are so loud, it's hard to tell). You could hear their boat through the hull. They were moving VERY fast and never knew we were even there. Echo II are (were) the 80 year old grandma of the ocean. Blind and deaf. That would have done very significant damage.

/fun reliving those years
 
2013-08-08 11:13:03 AM

andyofne: dittybopper: andyofne: Also... anyone who watched the Hunt for Red October knows that one sub was probably following the other one intentionally and someone pulled a Crazy Ivan.

Not.

Attack submarines follow missile submarines and other attack submarines.  Missile subs don't intentionally follow other missile subs.  In fact, they like to stay away from all other vessels as a matter of principle, as much as they possibly can.

Relax dude, it was a joke.

Know plenty about submarines.

I think we've established in the past that we both did the same work in the Navy.

Or maybe that was another 'ditty bopper'


I was in the US Army.
 
2013-08-08 11:14:13 AM

dittybopper: I was in the US Army.


Their submarines SUCK.
 
wud
2013-08-08 11:14:46 AM
Did they get drunk, pass out and wake up with a tattoo?
 
2013-08-08 11:16:17 AM

dittybopper: Yes, I know. But there is a difference between running square into an undersea mountain at 30+ knots and nudging another boat at 5 knots.


Which was my point as well; given a worst-case scenario, we don't even have a conventional weapons catastrophe one can safely infer that these ships were extremely far from a nuclear one.

mediablitz: Minor quibble. Can't see a 688 class doing 30+ knots while out on normal patrol. Your point however is mucho valid.


The San Fran was doing a high-speed transit of the Pacific when it grounded.  Not a quibble; it happened.
 
2013-08-08 11:16:42 AM

mediablitz: Minor quibble. Can't see a 688 class doing 30+ knots while out on normal patrol.


USS San Francisco was at flank speed when she hit the seamount:

"The findings of fact show that San Francisco, while transiting at flank (maximum) speed and submerged to 525 feet, hit a seamount that did not appear on the chart being used for navigation," the 124-page report said of the incident in the vicinity of the Caroline Islands.
 
2013-08-08 11:18:48 AM

mediablitz: dittybopper: I was in the US Army.

Their submarines SUCK.


Point of fact:  No one ever died on a US Army submarine.

/Unless you count the CSA Army.
 
2013-08-08 11:20:39 AM
factoryconnection: dittybopper: Yes, I know. But there is a difference between running square into an undersea mountain at 30+ knots and nudging another boat at 5 knots.

Which was my point as well; given a worst-case scenario, we don't even have a conventional weapons catastrophe one can safely infer that these ships were extremely far from a nuclear one.



Yep.
 
2013-08-08 11:31:53 AM
Only bad luck because the french sub was not carrying a white flag.
 
2013-08-08 11:47:22 AM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Passing you on the left.
Right.
No, left.
Wait...whose left?
We're all left.  None of us left.
...etc.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-08-08 11:48:20 AM

factoryconnection: FTFA: in an incident which some experts say could have caused a nuclear catastrophe.

Who are these "experts?"  Greenpeace bloggers?  USS San Francisco plowed into an undersea mountain at a flank bell and didn't even damage its torpedoes which were in the part that struck the mountain.  Two boomers doing 4 kts to nowhere going bump in the night isn't going to cause any god-damned "Nuclear Catastrophe."

Elegy: You managed to submit an article that is over 4 years old, subby.

Pretty lame, Milhouse.


The torpedoes haven't been there since the 41 for Freedom boats. Try again.
 
2013-08-08 11:51:33 AM

dittybopper: factoryconnection: Who are these "experts?"  Greenpeace bloggers?  USS San Francisco plowed into an undersea mountain at a flank bell and didn't even damage its torpedoes which were in the part that struck the mountain.

Actually, the torpedo room the USS San Francisco is significantly aft of where all the damage occurred.


Oops. I see this has been covered. That's what I get for not reading the thread. Also:

upload.wikimedia.org

/hot
 
2013-08-08 12:04:00 PM
 
2013-08-08 12:15:15 PM

factoryconnection: However, when two allied boomers, which should most assuredly have waterspace management schemes to separate them still end up colliding, it is considerably more serious, as it points to a failure that rises well above the ships' level.


Nope.

As pointed out, we don't tell ANYBODY where the boomers lurk. Hell, as I understand it, we don't necessarily even know exactly where ours are at any given time (a patrol area can be a big chunk of ocean and they can be anywhere in there). We don't tell our allies, I can't think of one reason why the UK and France would have shared notes on this.

I'd even go so far as to assume that the moment the UK and France realized what had occurred they immediately changed patrol areas for all their SSBNs... if your adversaries know where your patrol areas are it makes life significantly easier on them if they want to whittle down your deterrent force.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report