# Nuclear subs collide **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 16, 2009, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077 "2009-02-16T11:40:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/41 "2009-02-18T12:55:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by_\*\* FRDE\*\*: > It reminds me of the poor lab technician at Porton Down, who split his glove and got Green Monkey Disease. Shortly before, my father had been on a visit to Porton, he came back saying how they were doing peaceful research. My response was to jeer - after the GMD news story my father became a born again cynic. At the risk of derailing the thread: cite? When was this? It is a subject I’m interested in and I’ve not come across a reference to a lab tech becoming infected at Porton. (Google hasn’t helped this time!) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/42 "2009-02-18T17:18:01Z")
> [@FRDE](#): > > The version I read was that the French sub’s sonar kit was damaged by (probably) a submerged container. But would a nuclear missile sub on patrol be using its sonar at all? previous posts in this thread suggest not, because that would give away its location. so even if its sonar were damaged from a previous collision, it’s hard to see how that would have contributed to the collision with the British sub. > [@FRDE](#): > > Why they were in the same place at the same time rather baffles me, as does the supposition that they actually collided but only figured it out later. Why is that unusual? If it were a collision between a British sub and a Chinese sub in the coastal waters around Britain and France, that would certainly raise eyebrows. But both subs were operating in their home waters, which have a substantial overalap; and as **Pleonast** indicates, they would both be seeking the same type of water conditions that would best enable them to operate silently. Those two factors suggest that they might have ended up in similar locations. Also, even after the collision, both subs would have been under standing orders not to break radio silence or make any noise, so neither of them would have sent out a radio signal to report the collision, unlike a surface naval ship might have done. So after the collision, the communications guys on both subs would have listened and heard no man-made sounds coming from the object they hit; no radio or sonar. So it’s no stretch for them not to have realised they’d collided with another nuclear sub. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/43 "2009-02-18T17:20:08Z")
Perhaps the collision speaks volumes for the technology of stealth in the subs. Maybe they are just too quiet. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/44 "2009-02-18T17:46:07Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But would a nuclear missile sub on patrol be using its sonar at all? previous posts in this thread suggest not, because that would give away its location. so even if its sonar were damaged from a previous collision, it’s hard to see how that would have contributed to the collision with the British sub. Passive sonar does not give away your own location, and should be used as SOP. If the passive array was inop, I presume there are other procedures for safe operation. (Surfacing and navigating by radar, or using active sonar to navigate.) But I could be wrong about their standing orders/SOP… ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/45 "2009-02-18T18:12:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But would a nuclear missile sub on patrol be using its sonar at all? previous posts in this thread suggest not, because that would give away its location. so even if its sonar were damaged from a previous collision, it’s hard to see how that would have contributed to the collision with the British sub. There are 2 kinds of sonar - active and passive. Active sonar is like acoustic radar - the sub sends out a blast of sound (a ping), and reads the echoes back to determine whats in the area. Subs rarely use this, because it gives away their position as well. Passive sonar is just listening for sounds in the ocean that other things give off. Subs use that all the time. But if the French passive sonar was damaged, it could have contributed to the accident. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/46 "2009-02-18T18:17:37Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Perhaps the collision speaks volumes for the technology of stealth in the subs. Maybe they are just too quiet. That’s why I’ve doubts. Two subs hit each other, and it ends up with everybody saying “that’s because our subs are sooooo good”. Interesting thread : I wanted to open one because I too couldn’t believe that two ICBM launcher subs, out of a handful in each country, would collide in the middle of the ocean, while submerged, by random chance. The answer so far seem to imply that it’s more believable than I thought at first, but still, the ocean is big (and those subs’ job, AFAIU, isn’t to roam around the Channel) so I’m not entirely convinced. For instance I could envision some kind of unusual exercise between the French and British navy that went wrong. Better to say “Our subs are too perfect” than “We messed up that exercise we don’t want to talk about”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/47 "2009-02-18T18:18:34Z")
Sean Connery: One ping only, please. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/48 "2009-02-18T18:59:34Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Oh sure, that’s what they say now, but the real explanation is that neither one wanted to leave a note on the other one because they were both afraid their insurance premiums would go up. 😛 Or maybe they were breaking the law by being uninsured. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/49 "2009-02-18T19:04:13Z")
I take it some USA nuke sub folks are cruising through here. Could anybody help me find a old fellow student I knew who was in the nuke sub program? ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/50 "2009-02-18T20:01:52Z")
> [@FRDE](#): > > The version I read was that the French sub’s sonar kit was damaged by (probably) a submerged container. This refers to the intial belief that the sub had hit debris, not that previous sonar damage contributed to the accident. Note that sonar domes are rather fragile and easily damaged, since they are typically fiberglass or similar materials, not the pressure-resistant metal that the sub’s hull is made from. The fin/conning tower is mostly a fiberglass shell as well. These are the bits that usually suffer in collisions, due to their vulnerable location. ---
**Author:** ![davekhps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@davekhps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davekhps)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/51 "2009-02-18T20:40:15Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > This refers to the intial belief that the sub had hit debris, not that previous sonar damage contributed to the accident. Darn, beat me to it. FYI, by “containers” the story is just that-- an intermodal shipping container. These [fall off cargo ships quite routinely](http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f121/shipping-containers-navigation-hazard-16706.html), and those that have enough buoyancy to keep from sinking to the bottom end up being dangerous on-the-water/underwater hazards. BTW, a similar situation happened in fiction: Tom Clancy’s novel “The Sum of All Fears”-- the Ohio-class U.S.S. Maine hits submerged debris (in this case, logs chained together) that damages the boat and allows for a Soviet attack submarine to find her. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/52 "2009-02-18T20:42:51Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > This refers to the intial belief that the sub had hit debris, not that previous sonar damage contributed to the accident. > > Note that sonar domes are rather fragile and easily damaged, since they are typically fiberglass or similar materials, not the pressure-resistant metal that the sub’s hull is made from. **The fin/conning tower is mostly a fiberglass shell as well.** These are the bits that usually suffer in collisions, due to their vulnerable location. (bolding mine) Cite, please? I assume you are talking about the sail, right? I thought they were steel, reinforced to be able to punch up through artic ice when surfacing… ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/53 "2009-02-18T20:44:11Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > The fin/conning tower is mostly a fiberglass shell as well. These are the bits that usually suffer in collisions, due to their vulnerable location. Actually, no. Most of the sail is in fact high-strength structural steel, the same steel as the rest of the outer hull. There are transducers and acoustic windows of composite materials _on_ the sail, but they most certainly do NOT make up the majority of the structure. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/54 "2009-02-18T20:52:14Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I thought they were steel, reinforced to be able to punch up through artic ice when surfacing… Some boats have re-enforced sails, some do not. It all depands on the boat’s envisioned mission, and the prevailing military and design philosophies current when the boat was designed, plus any subsequent refitting. The ability to punch up through ice is generally less useful than one might anticipate, but the fact of a re-enforced sail _does_ come in handy in collisions situations - A re-enforced sail takes a beating better, and thus generally requires less repair after an ‘oops.’ 😉 OTOH, a GRP or FRP sail would be at substantial risk from collisions, and that’s the structure that supports important structures, like periscopes, radar, snorkels, and the bridge. You kinda want those to be durable, ya know? Edit: **Billfish678** , you might try connecting though [Classmates.com](http://Classmates.com), or [HullNumber.com](http://HullNumber.com). ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/55 "2009-02-18T20:55:01Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > Some boats have re-enforced sails, some do not. It all depands on the boat’s envisioned mission, and the prevailing military and design philosophies current when the boat was designed, plus any subsequent refitting. The ability to punch up through ice is generally less useful than one might anticipate, but the fact of a re-enforced sail _does_ come in handy in collisions situations - A re-enforced sail takes a beating better, and thus generally requires less repair after an ‘oops.’ 😉 > > OTOH, a GRP or FRP sail would be at substantial risk from collisions, and that’s the structure that supports important structures, like periscopes, radar, snorkels, and the bridge. You kinda want those to be durable, ya know? Ok, thanks. For some reason, I assumed that since any given sub might be ordered into artic waters, the USN would require that they _all_ have that feature. Sloppy thinking on my part. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/56 "2009-02-18T21:03:56Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Ok, thanks. For some reason, I assumed that since any given sub might be ordered into artic waters, the USN would require that they _all_ have that feature. > > Sloppy thinking on my part. 🙂 Well, _most_ US boats _did_ have re-enforced sails, at one point. I’m not current on the most recent boats, sao can’t say there. But in general, if it’s possible and reasonable for US boats to have it, they probably _do_ have it; We build some damn nice boats - and pay a pretty penny for them, too! Other navies, however, have different design philosophies, and/or smaller wallets, or at least different priorities for their spending. The Russians, for instance, will have ice-breaking sails on everything. The Chinese? Rather less likely. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/57 "2009-02-18T21:14:45Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > Well, _most_ US boats _did_ have re-enforced sails, at one point. I’m not current on the most recent boats, sao can’t say there. But in general, if it’s possible and reasonable for US boats to have it, they probably _do_ have it; We build some damn nice boats - and pay a pretty penny for them, too! > > Other navies, however, have different design philosophies, and/or smaller wallets, or at least different priorities for their spending. The Russians, for instance, will have ice-breaking sails on everything. The Chinese? Rather less likely. That’s what I meant about sloppy thinking. I let my USN bias color my assumptions. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/58 "2009-02-18T22:55:20Z")
I say that the real fault for this is that it’s bad luck to name a submarine so it shares its name with a [ship that blew up in harbor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(1909)). It’s cursed, I tell you! Cuuuuuuuursed! ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/59 "2009-02-19T18:34:49Z")
A previous thread of mine: > **[Do submarines ever crash into each other?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=381817)** > > AFAIK, subs have no windows; the helmsman navigates with sonar. During wargame exercises…or actual combat with the enemy…one runs silently. Isn’t possible, if not likely, one bumps into something else if you’re both blind and deaf? ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077/60 "2009-02-19T18:39:36Z")
I seem to remember the sails on the DSRV and Alvin were fiberglass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-subs-collide/486077.md?page=4)