Talk:HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant submarine collision

Sub class

The British sub is not a V-class submarine. The V-class was back in WWII, and the Vanguard was laid out in the late 80's. I fixed this. PeterTheWall (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

I don't think the title is appropriate. I is a copy of the 2009 Satellite Collision. How about something more descriptive such as HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant Submarine Collisions. Also as more information is revealed the article can be expanded, right now I've yet to fund too much more in terms of what actually happened. Shelnutt2 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the name of this article is a copy of the name of the other one - I created both articles! Please feel free to change the name of either one, or both, if you want to. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the new title. Similarly 2009 Continental crash is inappropriate and the WP article is not so named. If there is tremendous support for the vague title, let's discuss it! Good luck on the interesting article. Let's see if we can make it into a Good Article. It's so interesting! Chergles (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the new name! Grundle2600 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates

The intro paragraph says this happened on 3 or 4 February, but then the body text in the "Collision" section says it happened on 4 or 5 February. Which is it? LordAmeth (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sonar

Both this page and the BBC.co.uk article about the collision use the phrase "despite being equipped with sonar". Ballistic nuclear missile submarines use passive (listening) sonar, they don't go around pinging actively. They're trying to hide from potential enemies, not give away their position to everybody in the entire ocean. They also use every technology at their disposal to reduce the amount of noise they make so that nobody can detect them with passive or active sonar. The US Navy subs use the slogan "We hide with pride". The fact that they couldn't hear each other is a testament to how well they do the hiding. Ptomblin (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

french sub - number of SLBms and warheads

re the french sub and the number of SLBMs and warheads in the quote/cite - ie 16 SLBMs and 6 warheads - are you sure that's right ? do we mean there are 16 missiles, each MIRV'ed with 6 or up to 6 warheads (ie 16x6=x, etc) **or** that the boat sailed without her full compliment of missiles (but we've said there were 16) **or** (most importantly) the French have missiles in their boats without any warheads and/or they have conventional war headed SLBMs. I'm sure ii'm reading far to much into a typo but can anyone clarify ??? 91.109.201.157 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear the full truth is secret. The missiles can take up to 6 MIRVs each. The Brits have usually not the full possible number of warheads on all their missiles, so they can do single-warhead warning shots or other limited strikes. Perhaps the French do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.4.89 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Triomphant carries 16 missiles of the M-45 type. These missiles can each carry up to 6 nuclear warheads, but could carry less. In 2006, President Chirac announced a shift in nuclear doctrine [1] which might involve some M-45 to be fitted with fewer warheads in an effort to increase their range. This could make North Korea vulnerable to a strike by a French submarine. Rama (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers/clarifications guys. 91.109.201.157 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Okay, so two nuclear submarines from two allied nations bump into each other and get some scrapes. Why does this merit a Wikipedia article? I understand that it could have resulted in a disaster, but it didn't. Really, am I missing something here? This is a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Unless further information develops and there's a real story here, why is it worth keeping? I'll hold off on an AfD nomination since this is apparently front-page news. Could someone enlighten me? --BDD (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is potential one of the top 10 nuclear submarine incidents. Of course, the Scorpion and Thresher are two. The Kursk is another.

Let's try to improve this. I can think of many ideas. One is the need for a map showing the approximate site of the collision. Chergles (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's notable, because it shows how safe nuclear power is. If this had been two oil tankers colliding, who knows how many people would have been killed. When I created this article, I made a point to state that no radiation was leaked. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Concure with Grundle2600. Further, this will likely be the one place on the internet other than submarine blogs that one can find accurate information about the incident. Reading the NY Times article on this the ignorant author couldn't even discern between US and UK submarine terminology. I may be a stickler as a former US submariner with a British wife, but that doesn't change what the correct terminology is. So far this article is not bad on the terminology and accuracy side.Huckfinne (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is notable because it is one of two incidents where nuclear subs have collided. The last time was in 1992 between a Russian and US nuclear sub. Chergles (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

another perspective

Or were they, as proposed by a retired submariner instantly upon hearing the news, playing cat and mouse, always to quote " a way to pass the time and exercise the brain!" Edmund Patrick – confer 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

location

this sounds more likely to have occurred near a harbour or channel. than in the open ocean. I know we live in a police state but at some point location info for this article would be nice. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

suitability of final statement

This statement, which concludes the first section:

However realizing the number of patrols all of the SSBNs over many years of all three Western nations (US, UK and the French) have taken, the fact that this is the first collision is a sign of good detection and collision avoidance by all concerned.

seems editorial in nature, and un-suitable for a wikipedia article. It is not telling us what occurred, but what we ought to believe about what occurred. I recommend removing it. - fourthstooge 68.230.253.153 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; someone has since removed it. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed uncited commentary and speculation

I've just removed the following two paras as they lack sources and seem to be speculative. The second para needs a strong citation to attest to the effectiveness of collision avoidance, especially given that it's been reported that the French don't notify the British and US of where they send their SSBNs (which is actually cited in the article using: [2]).Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strategic nuclear submarines are designed to emit very little noise while moving, especially at lower speeds. As a result, they tend to spend much of their patrol moving slowly at about 3 knots and at a depth of about 50 metres. Since the Royal Navy reported that the collision took place at low speed, it is quite possible that the two submarines were moving so slowly that they simply did not hear each other.

However realising the number of patrols all of the SSBNs over many years of all three Western nations (US, UK and the French) have taken, the fact that this is the first collision is a sign of good detection and collision avoidance by all concerned.

Probable Cause Statement

"Lack of communication between France and other members of NATO over the location of their SLBM deterrents is certainly another reason for the crash." [Emphasis added]

I have altered the above statement to read:

"Lack of communication between France and other members of NATO over the location of their SLBM deterrents may be another reason for the crash." [Emphasis added]

The source ("Did France's Secrecy Cause a Nuclear Submarine Collision?") did not explicitely draw that conclusion (indeed, the source article was very careful to avoid doing so), and drawing it here constitutes original research. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of these articles are full of inaccuracies and speculations as this is a very secretive subject for the countries involved. Also the article is not very neutral, as it is implicitly blaming the French Navy for not telling its allies where its nuclear submaries are. But equally the Royal Navy is unlikely to tell the French Navy where its own subs are. The issue is about exchange of highly sensitive informations between allies, as the information will have to go both ways, and mutual awareness is the best way to avoid this type of collision.

There are a lot of speculations or some sort of conspiracy theorists, eager to say that the two subs were playing cat and mouse, this is rubbish as none of these two submarines is designed for hunting other subs, they are designed for maximum stealth and deliver nuclear strikes, their torpedos are for self defence as a last resort against enemy attack nuclear submarine. For the date of the event, I doubt we'll know it exactly, as the time of the incident can tell how far away from their bases these two subs were and therfore their location, which neither French nor British will be willing to reveal. Finally, the Atlantic Ocean might be vast, but the places where these submarines can hide might be very limited (thermoclines, landscape of continental plateau, ...) and it is very possible that the two subs found the same hiding spot, leading to the collision. Bad luck! Blastwizard (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)