Just Chris Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Ignoring the unlikely possibility of a nuclear incident, it could so easily have been a disaster on a scale twice that of the Kursk in 2000.Very easy to be flippant, but there for the grace of God go we.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Not me! There's no way you'd get me on a sub. I never thought of myself as claustrophobic until I went on a sub tried up at Portsmouth Navy Days.I take your point though and it would be a completely different matter if anyone had been injured. I wonder what the bill will be for fixing them up and is it handled 'knock for knock'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Nothing like both parties blasting out anti-sonar waves to make yourself invisible then bumping into each other in the dark!Why do we need such expensive useless equipment.Why has UK one of the biggest armies in the world for a third rate nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 [quote user="ChrisnJulie"] Ignoring the unlikely possibility of a nuclear incident, it could so easily have been a disaster on a scale twice that of the Kursk in 2000.Very easy to be flippant, but there for the grace of God go we.Chris[/quote]The Kursk could have been twice the disaster if the US sub that collided with the Kursk had sunk too. Alternativley if the Russians had allowed the "other" subs in the area to help then maybe no one need have died. God doesn't enter in to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I am with you on this Dog.......forget Oxford and Mini production...lets start making cookoo clocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 [quote user="Frederick"]I am with you on this Dog.......forget Oxford and Mini production...lets start making cookoo clocks[/quote]Or fitting Volvo bumpers to our subs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardian Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 When you think about it, this must have been one hell of a fright for the crews.There you are, bimbling along at 5 knots, middle of the Atlantic, 50m down, and all of a sudden there's one hell of graunching noise. Sounds of "Merde alors" fill the ears of the HMS sonar operators, with the opposite for the French guys.Fair enough - this has been a bit flippant, but it was only started once it was clear that nobody was hurt. The cliche, "Lessons will be learned", was never more true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I am sure they were playing chicken or catch me if you can or tag. It was no accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Yes good point. One or other of them was trying to get 'Hull shots' ie pictures of the other sub just like the Yanks used to do to the Ruskies some years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Teapot,What a load of cobblers.You have been reading too many conspiracy theories. There was no US sub collision, it was a torpedo malfunction, in combination with substantial operational mal-practice.Regarding the French / British boat collision. There seem to be an awful lot of people in UK who's knowledge seems to be locked in WW2 submarine films.Imagine a scenario:- you and I are in a large room, say a football stadium, that is totally, pitch black. We are both either very very silent or are deaf or are wearing earplugs. We cannot hear each other. We wander around said room for lots of time. At some point we are going to bump into each other. That's what happens when two very silent missile boats are patrolling, particularly when sea conditions are rough and 'background' noise levels are higher than normal thus masking any passive sonar chance of a very slight noise being heard. Both boats are designed to be not detectable, that's how they would survive in a conflict.Sods Law rules OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Teapot advises "Or fitting Volvo bumpers to our subs"Far better to fit them to all cars that enter a supermarket carpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What have shoe repairers got to do with the Kursk? [;-)]http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/KURSK/kursk.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 This made me laughhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/19/sam-leith-submarine-crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Agreed whole heartedly, Sam Leith has a wicked sense of humour.Teapot, Your comment re shoe repairers is my sort of comment [:P], I think we should agree to disagree on this one - OK [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 What happened was they were both using anti-sonar devices so they could not detect each other.They wre probably on exercise and looking at each other with optical devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG MAC Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Whats an anti sonar device then?There's no secret that British boats as far back as Poliaris were able to pick up signals and bounce them as though they had passed through the boat.I think the point here is that to use sonar would automatically make the boat using it visible.So the anti sonar would I guess have been the off switch on the signal generator.It's not all 'Red October' but there are some truths in that film. They do listen for propwash (The sound of water displaced by propellers or jets)They do measure for changes in magnetic field.There are listening bouys out there.Fact is that if one of the boats had been going at full chat there could have been a tragedy. If you think about it if someone shouts to the helm turn! the reasonable response will be which way? Sad thing is that it's only a matter of time before it happens again.I shouldn't Imagine the French navy are putting out the nuclear equivalent of the one eyed renault 4 avec pi55ed up Pierre but I have my reservations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 If one of the boats had been going at full chat the other boat would definitely have heard it, cavitating prop and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG MAC Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 [quote user="powerdesal"]If one of the boats had been going at full chat the other boat would definitely have heard it, cavitating prop and all.[/quote]Granted but its a question of which way to jump then when something is bearing down at 25 knots. Even with drive disengaged they will hear the water passing over the hull but it's all a bit like the screech of tyres before the inevitable thump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Dive, Dive, Dive [:D]You know the bearing, you know the depth, you know the track, you know the distance (hence time to impact [:(] ), so theoretically you can get out of the way Ins'Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 All you boys have been reading too many Tom Clancy and Stephen Coonts books [:P] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Now why would you say that....................................unless of course you have been reading them as well!!!!!!![:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Guilty as charged, my excuse being that the charity shops I buy from in the UK have less and less "blokes books".They tell me that they are just not being donated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG MAC Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I haven't read them but maybe I should..............It always amazes me that anyone can hear anything over the clatter of an elderly shackleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How did the Shackle-bomber (10,000 rivets flying in loose formation) get into the topic ???????? [8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I assumed it was a reference to Ernest Shackleton being a bit grumpy in later years.But them I found out that he died at the young age of 47 so not so funny after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now