UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 12° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

So, Admiral, what have you got to say about the nuclear submarine crash?

British and French vessels had enough material to carry out 1,248 Hiroshima bombings

By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band at a news conference in London yesterday

PA

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band at a news conference in London yesterday

Defence chiefs are facing an inquiry into the safety of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent after British and French submarines, each laden with missiles powerful enough for 1,248 Hiroshima bombings, collided while submerged in the mid-Atlantic.

HMS Vanguard, the lead boat of Britain's fleet of four V-class submarines armed with Trident nuclear missiles, limped back into its home port of Faslane in Scotland on Saturday showing significant damage. Witnesses said the hull was scarred with dents and scrapes.

The weather was rough in the middle of the night of 3 and 4 February when the British submarine, which was carrying 135 crew, struck Le Triomphant, the flagship of the French nuclear strike force, destroying the French vessel's fibreglass sonar dome, which juts out from the bow and, among other tasks, is supposed to detect other submarines. In London, the Ministry of Defence tried to maintain its policy of total secrecy about the movements of Briain's nuclear fleet, but it was forced to confirm the embarrassing collision between strategic allies after the French Navy posted details of the accident on its website. Both countries insisted that neither the missile-launching capacity nor the nuclear safety of the submarines, carrying 265 crew and 32 intercontinental ballistic missiles, were affected.

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, said: "Recently, the two submarines came into contact at very low speed. Both submarines remained safe and no injuries occurred. We can confirm that the capability remained unaffected and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety."

Defence sources said the accident was the result of the "infinitesimal" coincidence that both submarines were operating at the same depth and location in the Atlantic. Such a claim is undermined because Nato allies routinely share information at a top-secret level about the deployment of submarines to ensure they do not occupy the same area of ocean, an arrangement in which the French, whose nuclear deterrent remains independent, are understood to participate.

But nuclear-armed submarines often gravitate towards the same "nesting grounds" – deep, quiet sectors of ocean – to allow them to fulfil their mission by sailing continuously with minimal noise and remaining within range of potential targets.

For many years, Britain and France have maintained their nuclear deterrent by ensuring they have at least one of their missile-carrying submarines at sea 365 days a year with the ability to launch within seconds' notice. Vanguard and Triomphant, which was at the end of a 70-day tour, each carry 16 intercontinental missiles, armed with between six and eight warheads in each.

Politicians said the incident raised serious questions about the precautions to protect the V-class nuclear vessels, which, at nearly 16,000 tonnes and 150m long, are among the largest submarines ever built. Similar questions were being asked in France, where the 14,335-tonne Triomphant returned to its base at L'Ile Longue, near Brest. The boat will spend up to four months in dry-dock undergoing repair. The French Navy intially claimed the submarine had been in a collision "apparently with a container".

Angus Robertson, the leader of the SNP in Westminster, said: "The MoD needs to explain how it is possible for a submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction to collide with another submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction in the middle of the world's second-largest ocean."

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "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. The public entrust this equipment to the Government confident that all possible precautions are being taken."

Naval experts, who underlined that the two nuclear submarines were built with hulls designed to withstand huge pressures, expressed surprise that the sonar arrays of both had failed to detect either vessel. Sonar technology is now so sophisticated manufacturers boast it can recognise a small fish.

That it does not seem to have been able to pick out a submarine nearly the length of two football pitches and the height of a three-storey building could be explained by the development of stealth technology, making the submarines less visible to other vessels. Stephen Saunders, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, said: "The modus operandi of most submarines, particularly ballistic-missile submarines, is to operate stealthily and to proceed undetected. This means operating passively, by not transmitting on sonar, and making as little noise as possible. A great deal of technical effort has gone into making submarines quiet by reduction of machinery noise. And much effort has gone into improving the capability of sonars to detect other submarines; detection was clearly made too late or not at all in this case."

Anti-nuclear campaigners said the two vessels had been moments from a potentially catastrophic accident which could have resulted in the widespread release of radioactive material. Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: "This is a nuclear nightmare of the highest order. It is the most severe incident involving a nuclear submarine since the sinking of the Kursk in 2000 and the first time since the Cold War that two nuclear-armed subs are known to have collided. Vanguard is likely to be confined to port for months with a multimillion-pound repair bill. Gordon Brown should seize this opportunity to end continuous patrols."

Several serious accidents have befallen the UK's submarine fleet. In 2002, HMS Trafalgar suffered considerable damage when it ran aground on rocks off Skye in a training exercise. Last week, an inquest heard how two sailors on the Trafalgar's sister vessel, HMS Tireless, died in an explosion caused by a faulty oxygen generator. Crewmates battled for 40 minutes to reach the two men after the force of the blast closed and buckled hatch doors.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
big toys for little boys playing at being men
[info]2012alignment wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 01:40 am (UTC)
I find it absolutely absurd, and an insult to the intelligence of us all, when these people try to deny recklessness like this...

When are we going to see a shift away from fear based thinking, running our country?

It achieves nothing outwith keeping us bound in limitation... Locked into a paradigm of fear, instead of love and respect....

What do we need all these nuclear warheads at sea for?

Who are we going to fire them at?

Grow up, and channel all this wasted energy into creative opportunity for the people on this planet.
Re: big toys for little boys playing at being men
[info]nixcails wrote:
Wednesday, 18 February 2009 at 12:18 am (UTC)
"When are we going to see a shift away from fear based thinking, running our country? "

When Scotland and Cymru get independence. I don't think that fear and xenophobia will ever leave England though. The English MP's and people I've spoken to all seem to see the Nuclear Deterrant as necessary but I don't see it. And expensive all killing firework more like and a multi million pound white elephant. I agree "Who are we going to fire them at?" - and more to the point who will we receive some back off.. mankind hell bent on it's own downfall,- use them and loose them, and everything and everyone else.

IF... and tis a BIG IF... we really need a Nuclear detterant then WHY do we need all these nuclear warheads at sea for? .. why not a few discreet scattered bunkers away from major population centres say Salisbury Plain, Powys, St Kilda, The Isles Of Scilly, Ascencion or a final use for the Falklands?
rather than dangerously hiding in the worlds oceans?

Just a thought.


boys with toys
[info]mmaddox wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 01:42 am (UTC)
Neither country needs a nuclear deterrent. Both countries suffer from Napoleonic ego syndrome, Freudian phallic syndrome, take your pick. What a waste of taxpayers money.
Re: boys with toys
[info]hiragani wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 02:28 pm (UTC)
We've got the bomb because France won't get rid of theirs and they won't get rid of theirs because we've got the bomb.
case for immediate promotion
[info]redtsar101 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 02:36 am (UTC)
The Atlantic is a mighty big place - in fact, they don?t come much bigger than the Atlantic! It must have taken magnificent seamanship and near transcendental navigational skills to bring these two lonely subs together? I cannot think of a more obvious case for promoting the two commanding officers to the rank of full admiral!!
Re: case for immediate promotion
[info]eto_seadog wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 12:17 pm (UTC)
You may jest but you are probably on the money! It was always routine practice in merchant fleets to 'promote' senior officers like captains and chief engineers who proved themselves too dangerous at sea, to positions as shore superintendents where they could theoretically do less harm but would make the lives of more competent seafaring officers difficult. Before blaming the captains involved you should consider that it is never safe to underestimate (in these days of instant communications) the influence and incompetence of the shoreside mob - in this case Naval Operations or maybe the MOD!

In one incident in 2001 a shore superintendent tried to bully our captain into leaving drydock in the Bahamas as a hurricane rapidly approached. Our 170,000 ton tanker had been in drydock for a month following the seizure of the propeller shaft. This happened after the company ignored the result of an underwater survey performed a month earlier in Dubai which showed that some external plugs had fallen out of the stern tube which houses the shaft. If you have ever been to the Bahamas on a passenger ship you may remember the very narrow harbour entrance - even in clear calm weather it was a highly tricky manoeuvre for our much wider tanker to get through.

On the way from the Persian Gulf to the US, the superintendents had repeatedly played down warnings from the captain that seawater was entering the stern tube cooling system. Missing the opportunity to correct the problem in the Caribbean by replacing the plugs, the shaft seized as we left St Lucia for Louisiana a short voyage away. To crown their stupidity the company sent a copy of a video of the underwater survey to the ship while we were in drydock which was promptly copied by the crew. Otherwise guess who would have been blamed for the whole mess. The captain and chief engineer of course.

Fortunately as the hurricane approached, the port captain closed the harbour, thwarting the cretins at head office, though this didn't stop the superintendent calling the port captain from Dubai to try and get him to reopen the harbour.

There is an old saying "worse things happen at sea" but happily the incident with the subs resulted in no deaths.
The reality is that far worse incidents occur on a regular basis but rarely make the news unless they happen off our own shores.
In the case of our shaft seizing up, think about the implications of this happening in a crowded waterway such as the English Channel, the inland sea in Japan or the Suez or Panama canals.

Wake-up Call?
[info]truth_will_out wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 03:24 am (UTC)
This event is a stark reminder of the continuing insanity of individual countries maintaining independent nuclear weapons capabilities. We have an opportunity to do something constructive to rid ourselves of these obsolete monsters. For example, One possible solution, one that I have yet to hear voiced, yet which is surely an avenue worthy of exploration, is that the United Nations (or some other international body) be designated the only legal and legitimate organization world-wide to possesses and maintains nuclear weapons technology of any kind. Under such an arrangement, wherever these weapons might be located physically - whether land, sea or air, they would always be under UN control, with the support of those nation states within whose territories they are developed and deployed. The UN is surely the only hope we have, no matter how limited its influence has been recently on many world issues.
Re: Wake-up Call?
[info]madmax42724 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 05:28 am (UTC)
I could agree IF the U.N was not full of corruption! Until We as People, can elect, appoint or otherwise get Decent, Moral & Honest People to be Our Representatives, We will just be handing over tremendous power to different Criminals!
Re: Wake-up Call? - [info]andre_t - Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC) Expand
The Admiral Knows but...
[info]thisanthat wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 03:36 am (UTC)
The Admiral knows what went adrift alright and has had fourteen days to cook up an approprite shanty to cover his well decorated posterior. It will be another case of "Not in the Interest of the Realms Defence," to make matters more public than need be!
Traffic in Atlantic
[info]gumulcine wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 05:09 am (UTC)
How can you justify this collision in the Atlantic & how can you sell this to public?
1) If this is an accident we are living accidentally.
2) If this is happen I am sure a lot of accidents happen and they don't tell us.
3) 2 Admirals in Atlantic with nuclear submarine managed to have an accident, it would be very funny if it wasn't dangerous. These people protects British And French people ?
4) If there was large population of victims because of this accident it would be so convenient to blame maybe Pakistan or Al Qaeda?

Maybe we all deserve this type of admirals because we public stay silent and tolerate Iraq Afghanistan invasion.

One wish to see horrible accident then one will learn that we don't need this nuclear weapons.
A small, but important correction
[info]madmax42724 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 05:22 am (UTC)
" Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said:"

I find it easy for Kate to make an error when talking about accidents with Nuclear Submarines because the U.S. does NOT release Their information! I believe it was in 1982 when I was transferred off an American Submarine ( I would gladly give the name if I could remember it, but that is a part of My life I have tried to forget!) & with in two weeks of that transfer, that Sub surfaced in front of the U.S.S. Lefwich in the waters off the coast of Guam and was ran over. I know because the Commanding Officer, Cdr R.E. Fast & I did not see 'eye to eye' on Navy Regulations & I was on T.A.D. in COMSUBGRP7 and SAW the photographic evidence. The Sub in question had to transit from Guam to Bremerton Washington on the surface because the front half of the Sail had been torn open & water tight integrity was compromised. I am Glad I missed THAT cruise! This story has never seen the light of day and Yes the Sub WAS carrying 16 Poesiden Missiles! Now I guess I get to wait for the Men in Black to come arrest Me for being an American "Terrorist"!
Submarine Nuclear Laxative
[info]mindful2020 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 05:54 am (UTC)
An accidental collision of two of the deadliest weapons of war ever to have put to sea proves what ?
Proves that, at sea, the improbable happens.
Proves that a Nuclear Deterrent does not represent a guarantee of any sort.
Proves that the Admirals pride was dented - an event that will have seismic repercussions upon the grave of Lord Nelson.

There is source material here for Billy Connelly to flood the comedy stage with the "F" word - Now that's tax payers money well spent !
"This was the Charter! The Charter Of The Land!
[info]neil_mcgowan wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 05:54 am (UTC)
They put a wanchor in charge named Admiral Band".

Why has Britain got subs of this kind? What do they do? When were they last used for the benefit of the taxpayers who pay the bills for them??
[info]andre_t wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:19 am (UTC)
...but we need to spend 70bn for new nuclear rockets, which the US will have full power over, who needs infrastructure spend or or or the the boys some toys
[info]aforeit wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:42 pm (UTC)
Not quite the end. The Soviets detonated a test bomb that was over 13000 times the power of the combinded bombs dropped ion Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We're still here.
With friends like those who needs...
[info]mackname wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:22 am (UTC)

It seems like a humorous incident, but it could have also been the end of civilisation.
Nuclear subs carrying nuclear weapons and why not?
[info]jrrussell wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:29 am (UTC)
Those who know little or nothing about the subject always seem to have the most to say about some subject and with the most vitrol they can drum up in their criticisim about whatever happened. They would like you to believe that if they were in command that such an incident would not have happened.

Things like this just don't happen but rarely, if at all. Something will have been learned about the incident and changes will be made in approved procedures you can be sure. Maybe if the sub is going North they should be at some depth. Other directions should be at a different depth. This would be similar to the altitudes aircraft are required to fly at above a particular altutude.

Those of you who believe that we should do away with all nuclear weapons, please explain how you would propose to gaurentee that no other nation would continee to have nucleat subs with nuclear weapons still wandering around the oceans so the rest of us could sleep soundly at night. You know you can not gaurentee any such thing, so please pull your horns back in untill you become intellegent to prove your position and otherwise shut up about the subject.
Re: Nuclear subs carrying nuclear weapons and why not?
[info]pendhome wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC)
I absolutely agree with this message, people are making all sorts of ridiculous comments about this incident.

There have been similar submarines patrolling for over 40 years without serious incident. The basic modus operandi of this type of submarine is to be undetectable, both Navies will be pleased that their Boats were undetected.

Even though the Atlantic is a big area, there are particular areas which will suit the operational needs of such submarines, so they don't have the whole Ocean in which to roam, by chance they ended up in the same place at the same time, probably because they were seeking similar operating conditions, that is ones where they had minimised the chances of detection.

People are suggesting that Nuclear Armageddon was narrowly avoided, well first of all Missile submarines typically patrol at very low speeds (since it minimises the noise that they make), they have immensely strong casings to withstand extreme depths, so they will withstand collission of this kind without any threat to watertight integrity and even penetrating the hull would not lead automatically to radioactive leakage. For those who seem to think Nuclear Weapons can somehow be accidentally detonated - they can't, they have to be activated in specific ways, they aren't sensitive to rough handling like gelignite!
Re: Nuclear subs carrying nuclear weapons and why not? - [info]karachi747 - Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 01:49 pm (UTC) Expand
The meetings of the water machines
[info]andyod wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
Murphy's Law states "If something can go wrong it will go wrong" Given the time available to Murphy it is only a matter of time.Dagh!
1,248 Hiroshima blasts
[info]jukeman wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:53 am (UTC)
I can't believe that one H-Bomb wouldn't be 100's of times more powerful then an old crude A-bomb, making the total much more then 1248 A-Bombs. Come on, if you are going to try to scare us shitless, do it right. Frankly if they all went off (I know they can't) at the bottom of the Atlantic, if someone did not report it, no one on the mainland would even know.
Nuclear Subs
[info]fox2step wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
Shit happens.
[info]cm999 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 08:16 am (UTC)
I applaud the captain of the sub it must take real to crash into the french sonar without being detected.
Unbelievable
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 08:40 am (UTC)
These subs have passive sonar systems which can detect a single fish. There is no way that they would not have known of each other's presence if the equipment was operating. If they were using active sonar they would be able to count each others rivets.

Either they were playing tag and it went wrong, or they were all asleep.

The silent service indeed! Plus ca change.
Watch out, lads, the Navy's coming!
[info]therealskipper wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)

Perhaps the captain was listening to his iPod ...

What shall we do with the drunken sailor? What shall we do with the fuckin Navy??
[info]cerald wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
"It seems like a humorous incident, but it could have also been the end of civilisation."

No better words were spoken. Nuclear weapons means nobody wins. We all die. If this was a democracy my tax would not be spent on weapons that could destroy humanity.



Size Matters?.....
[info]rayleddy wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
You say the subs are nearly the length of 2 football fields, which are an average 105m long. This sub, then you say is 150m long? We're missing 55m or 29%. While not blaming the Indie, I do suspect that Royal Navy don't know either, hence the prang...
Boys With toys it is a good to be kept out!
[info]srary wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 09:22 am (UTC)
I do believe that incident must be investigated fully and will never be allowed to be happen again.i don't know why these unconventional weapons must be kept and for what?since the soviet Union has gone forever ,It should be have wide international treaty to banned all conventional weapons from earth ,those lethals weaponry never bring peace our plant so small for this.
Nuclear submarine accident
[info]cleckheaton wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
It was illuminating to read that the Ministry of Defence tried to maintain total secrecy over the recent collision with the French nuclear submarine, the incident only coming to light through the French authorities.

Of course the excuse given is always that it is in the interests of 'national security'.

The Ministry and the Government should realise that the price to pay for this approach is that most people no longer believe any statistics, promises or information coming from these sources!
unclear nuclear reaction
[info]scot_in_canada wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 10:25 am (UTC)
Two silent-running nuclear subs collide in the vastness of the ocean. There have been other submarine accidents in the past, but how many involve the collision of 2 nuclear subs? As a near tragic accident, it should be investigated fully. As a harbinger of things to come, it is not.
As far as the usefulness of these vessels, would you feel safe knowing that your country was one of only a few who banned the use of nuclear subs? With Putin in power, the cold war might be over but the cool war (F.Pohl) has just begun.
CERALD: why not move to a country where your tax dollars aren't spent on nuclear weapons?
SRARY: How can you "allow" this not to happen again? A" wide international treaty' would never be agreed upon by all nuclear parties. I can't even get my children to agree on the choice for veg. And the soviet union may be gone, but their nuclear weapons ain't. How much do you trust Putin?



Hmm...
[info]annelew wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 10:28 am (UTC)
Do you have house buildings insurance? Have you claimed in the last five years?

Do you have home contents insurance? Have you claimed in the last five years

Do you have car insurance? Have you claimed in the last five years?

Well the UK insurance policy just bumped heads with the French insurance policy

Nuff said.
Cleckheaton
[info]scot_in_canada wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. As Samuel Clements once said: " There are 3 types of lies: lies; damn lies; and statistics."
Government is akin to an iceberg. And do we want to know what goes on under the water?
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date