Talk:HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant submarine collision

I was on the HMS Vangaurd!

Ask me for any questions regaurding the collision!98.117.140.24 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Right then, mind telling us what is your vocation and rating? --Dave1185 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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) How are we going to find that out? I deleted earlier maps based on a Daily Mail article that placed the collision smack bang in the middle of the Atlantic.Smartse (talk) 19:42, 22 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)

I'm happy about that; I'm a supporter of nuclear power too, but that doesn't mean this is news. If this had been two ships laden with explosives, there would have been casualties too. Reasons for hypothetical notability don't cut it. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 20 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)

I would agree that this is probably not notable, boats bumping into one another is a fact of life and it's happened many times. However any attempt to apply some common sense is likely to fail because it's developed a head of steam. A French bomber ran over the top of a British bomber.

Neither boat suffered significant damage, the nuclear safety aspect is insignificant and we won't know the outcomes of any investigations into waterspace management for a very long time.

The possible causes section is speculative and based on non-authoritative sources.

The story is now the story.

ALR (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not paper and stories should be allowed time to develop into articles: if in a year's time this article is not substantially better than it is now then there probably won't be any resistance to moving the information to the respective submarines' articles.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to WP not being paper, So what?. That doesn't respond to the fact that this has very limited mileage.

Essentially two boats collided, that's about the limit of the factual content. All of the probable cause section is derived from media commentary, so has questionable value. In fact the entire section needs a caveat to say that it's all based on media commentary, rather than a pseudo-informed attempt to synthesise potential operational scenarios.

The bleatings from CND are without value, they whine about anything nuc related, whether they understand it or not.

ALR (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't get to sit around for a year before we sit down and ask if they're notable. The relevant question is if the topic is notable now; if it is in a year, make the article then. I remain unconvinced. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is notable when two nuclear reactors collide blindly, and the operators are apparently not willing to talk about it.Ekem (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current level of coverage given to this story is enough to meet WP:N, even with WP:NOT#NEWS taken into account, and it's better to have a single fairly detailed article rather than split the coverage between the articles on the two subs. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For me as purely a reader, the article is noteable. It wouldn't have made sense to dig the information out of the respective submarines articles. If i want the technical and historical information about the subs, i could go to their pages, but i don't. So yes, this article (and others like it) is relevant to me as a reader. If everything was jumbled into the submarines articles, i probably wouldn't have bothered to use wikipedia and started with a Google search instead. cavac (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the UK and France each have 4 SSBNs, with the French having some airplane-based nukes and the UK none. From what I can tell, both countries only have 1 sub on patrol at one time. So for a short time, two nuclear powers suffered a rather large loss in their deterrent capabilities. I think it is notable for that, also it's entirely possible that this incident would be used to argue for a larger fleet of subs or other nuclear forces in either country. Note that the US would not have suffered from a loss of deterrence from this type of incident because they have more than 1 SSBN on patrol at one time, plus they kept their land-based ICBMs. I assume the same goes fro Russia. Identity0 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 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)

• If you have any evidence to suggest this, it could go in the possible cause section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.44.211 (talk) 00:02, 25 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)

That is a bit naive to think the location of the incident will ever be disclosed. The reason why these two subs are stealth is to avoid being localised. The best answer is somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and probably not near a harbour or channel but far away from traffic where noise pollution is a problem from them. Blastwizard (talk) 16:45, 18 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)

I think that this passages singles out France for the secrecy of her nuclear deterrence, but all nations who use submarine nuclear deterrence are very secretive about it. Do we have any indication that the USA and the UK share details of their nuclear deployments with other NATO countries, for instance? Rama (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence since the British authorities do not communicate to their allies the position of their nuclear missile subs (see article in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/so-admiral-what-have-you-got-to-say-about-the-nuclear-submarine-crash-1623787.html; or in the FT) Lupus00 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Name II

I propose moving the article to Triomphant and HMS Vanguard submarine collision because the current title, "HMS Vanguard and Triomphant submarine collision", implies to the casual reader that it's "HMS Vanguard and HMS Triomphant". By moving HMS to the second submarine only it should be more clear. Tempshill (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think it's better to be specific and call it "HMS Vanguard and French submarine Triomphant collision", as per WP's guideline on naming conventions. See section 1.2 of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)

crosspost: This incident related to West_Cork_oil_spill?

mostly the question being, what is a Russian ASW group doing causing oil spills and wandering around, trying to steam up the river Shannon or whatever? Sounds more likely to explain a submarine incident, then the current theory of two advanced western designs simultaneously making the same mistakes and no overarching co-ord. between nato members... occams razor as usual....72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think not. This collision occurred on the 3 or 4 of February whereas the oil spill wasn't spotted until 14 February (and then it was surrounding the Russian ships, the likely source of the spill) at which point Vanguard was putting into dock at Clyde. Unless the Russians seriously underestimated the speed of the sub they weren't intentionally in the same area (assuming that they knew where it was in the first place, highly unlikely). The Russians were returning to their home port from exercises in the Med so international waters at the west of Ireland lie on the natural route. The sub collision seems to be an unlucky accident between two vessels designed not to be detected. Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's say there is a preferable area to target a position from a sub because of wind currents etc. For practice, the subs follow each other and military ships around so that they are good at it, so, they are following the best spots to fire from (probably the 3rd or 4th best spot to avoid detection). Both Brit and French sub are tracking the Russians, let's say, and when they collide the Russian Commander says, for fun, spill enough oil on the water to make the news because he fooled both subs and it turns out he is way over near Ireland where he can launch fighters at both Britain and France when the subs were tracking in the middle of the ocean. When they say, "Did you spill that?" he says, "Who? Me?" Anything else is probably far fetched. ~ R.T.G 07:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Clancy is that you???

In practice unless something independent of speculation here demonstrates anything more than speculation about a relationship then it's inappropriate to say anything about it.

In terms of addressing your own speculation, it's worth being aware of the operational doctrine of all three navies, with respect to bomber operations. Bombers trog around at 3-4 knots, just fast enough to be able to steer but not fast enough to make much noise. They mind their own business and keep out of the way. They certainly don't trail surface units, that's the role of fleet submarines.

ALR (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I followed to this page from WikiNews. I thought we were having a wild discussion or something. They said "Reply on the collison article" like it was still the discussion place, but now, what do you you suggest they do, ALR (the subs)? I actually sparked that idea because some expert talking (on TV ofc) about the odds of colliding in the middle ofthe atlantic and how they were notorious for following each other around to practice tracking, colliding often in the 80s or some archaic time like that. Do you suggest they trawl fish and stick to shipping lanes? Of course not. They "perform manouvers" all the time. You cannot practice moving from fire point A to fire point B on a one of a kind machine without doing it (like fire drills, they don't pay the guys to go and buy fishing rods, ALR, they train). Bruce Lee didn't sit at home smoking between movies. Maybe they were both quietly tracking the latest marine creature they had heard about or maybe an unknown sub hit something in that area making a big noise and they were trawling around listening without discussing it (which is what military subs do apparently). ~ R.T.G 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

These are SSBNs we're talking about. their role is not hunting other boats, but keeping a low profile, sitting around candidate launch sites waiting for a Low frequency radio signal telling them to come up to Periscope Depth and let the weapons go.

Training for bomber queens involves running drills of the launch process, keeping out of the way and avoiding being detected.

there are two main types of boatt, and it's useufl to know the difference.

ALR (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is safe to say, it is about time they installed some of those little cameras you get on Ebay to help when you are reversing the car. ~ R.T.G 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fact 1: A typical car is approx 4.25 meter long, 1.975 meters wide, 1.525 meters high, Max. gross vehicle weight 1.6 tonne (1,600 kilogram). Fact 2: A typical nuclear ballistic missile submarine is approx 149.9 meter long, 12.8 meter wide, 12 meter high, Max. displacement dived 15,680 tonne (15,680,000 kilogram). How's that for comparison? Another thing, do you expect to have enough ambient light for those neat little camera to work with those boomers operating at those depth? Also, I agree with ALR that SSBNs were designed from the start to be unheard and unseen during the course of their patrols because their primary duty is to launch those nuke-tipped missiles, and unless an order comes through from the navy high command, the captains of those boomers would rather be unheard and unseen, lest they want to give away their position and that is a surefire career stopper under peacetime condition! --Dave1185 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible cause

To whoever keeps deleting the information relevant to the type of anti-sonar equipment referenced in the BBC article, please stop. This information is important if the reader is to understand the references being made and how they could have caused the accident. If you wish to make a separate section exclusively on media reports of the accident that would be acceptable, but this section is not intended to be limited exclusively to media references, but rather the understanding and background of those references as well. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below, I would disagree strongly with both your representation of the authority of the sources and your interpretation of anti-submarine warfare techniques and technologies. If there is a general consensus that there should be an original research section then that should be clear.

ALR (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Media speculation section

It's not entirely clear why the discussion of counter detection was part reverted, as the previous version was a pretty poor discussion of the topic. A large part of that is that it's reliant on speculation, and quite a lot of dual reporting. The media sources are all rehashing the same interviews. Anyway, a handful of points.

The title should reflect that this section is discussing the media commentary on possible causes. If, on the other hand, there is an insistence that the section should be possible causes then it would be original research and therefore removable. Instead we can report it as speculation, a fair reflection of its status.

Counter detection methods. The BBC don't identify their correspondent that referred to anti sonar devices, it could quite easily have been one of the peace camp inmates. Counter detection techniques include a range of systems and methods that counter both passive and active detection. The entire design of the hull and systems is intended to reduce radiated noise, so countering passive detection. Travelling at a slow speed, 3-4kts, is part of that but also the anechoic tiles do have some effect on preventing internal noise from radiating. Alternatively some design issues are intended to counter active sonar, by reducing the effective size of the boat from an acoustic perspective; the shape of the hull, and the use of the anechoic tiles, being the main one. The statement that radiating on active would have indicated that the other hull was in the vicinity is false, it may have done, but bombers are designed so that the risk of detection in that way is minimised.

Other factors are the use of environmental effects, moving below a thermocline improves the chance of avoiding detection by either active or passive means are also anti sonar, since using the characteristics can cause the sonar signal to be diverted away from the hull completely, or bounce off into the distance.

It's interesting that in partially reverting we ended up with the same point mentioned three times, the speculation about overlapping operational areas and the French position with respect to subnotes. fine, the media have speculated, and that's the sourcing we have to use. But we only need to mentioned it once. I do caution blithely regurgitating the BBC guesses about potential operating areas though, which is why I had previously removed the Original Research about probability and areas.

In general I would avoid merely regurgitating quotes from various sources and stitching snippets together in the hope that they make sense. We have no idea of the quality of the information that the sources are using, and we should avoid self corroboration, such as the quote from the editor of Janes fighting ships that has been in most media sources.

I've tried to amplify on the counter detection reasoning a little, although frankly it starts to feel quite clunky as this shouldn't be an essay on anti-submarine warfare.

ALR (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that repeating the same speculation from the BBC and Time magazine is unnecessary, which is why I don't want to see this section relegated to a collection of all the individual media speculations. Since the BBC has gone to the trouble of indicating that anti-sonar may have been an important contributing factor, it is relevant to the article to explain what the correspondent is referring to, without necessarily adding further speculation. As such the mention of Anacolic tiles and thermalclines is relevant, as these are two forms of anti-sonar that would have been employed at the time of the incident (particularly the tiles, which are permanently attached, and therefore beyond speculation as to their implementation). The actual speed of the boats at the time of the incident is unknown and should not be referenced without additional information. Since there is a media report concerning the overlapping use of patrol areas it should be included and described for the reader's benefit. The article as I have it set up gives the reader a good picture of what was taking place and what factors were involved using the BBC's references, but does not speculate beyond that. Ken keisel (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've not really addressed the important points:

• The media reports are not authoritative, therefore the media speculation section is just that and it is fraudulent to represent it as anything more.
• The media reports are wrong with respect to a number of points:

• The use of anechoic tiles are predominantly to counter the active threat, not the passive threat as stated. They do have some benefit in counter detection against passive, but no more. Since there is no such thing as an anti-sonar device then there is nothing more that I can really say on this. Sonar counter-detection is not the same as Electronic Warfare, where there are devices that transmit a suppressive signal to actively deceive radar. The BBC have spoken to someone, who that have failed to identify, who has wheeked out claptrap and the BBC have uncritically reiterated that.
• A thermocline is not a device, it's an environmental effect that is exploited when seeking to evade detection. In practice I haven't gone the required step further to indicate that in this case, two SSBNs, it is highly unlikely that either CO was actively countering. To counter one must first actually be being prosecuted on active!
• Admiral Band identified that it was slow speed. High speed for submarines is around 12 knots and SSBN doctrine is for around 3-4 knots. Slow speed is a counter detection technique.
• With respect to overlapping patrol areas whilst I recognise your point that we should seek to make the concepts of SubOpAuth understandable to the reader I would suggest that this needs to be tacked onto an explanation of the detail. I would draw attention to the fact that the available information is inhereently contradictory. The French SubOpAuth either declares the patrol areas, or it doesn't. If they don't declare then there is no way for anyone to know if the areas overlap, if any overlap of the patrol areas are known then the French clearly declare theirs.

Whilst you may believe that the article as it stood gave the reader a really good understanding I would suggest that because it was a piecing together of snippets of ill informed bollox it was a complete misrepresentation of both the theories and the actual contributors. I return to my previous position. If the section is rehashing of media speculation then it should be identified as such, to give the reader fair warning that it is complete tripe. That is not the fault of the various editors who have thrown the material together in good faith, but having been flagged as an issue I would take the position that it is unfair on the casual reader to persist with such a flawed representation.

I could, as an alternative to providing some context and explanation, merely go through the section and remove the items that are plainly wrong. The verifiability policy allows for that as there are other sources available that would conflict with the content. However I don't believe that is all that fair on a reader who may want to see some potential background. Which approach would you prefer to take, cull it, or explain it?

ALR (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to second ALR on a number of these:

• "anti-sonar device" does not mean anything. The only way to stop an active or passive sonar from working would be to launch a missile or a torpedo at it, but surely we are not talking about this. There are decoys which actively disturb opponent sonar, active or passive, by emitting curtains of bubbles or by broadcasting submarine engine sounds, but these are implements for a submarine already detected and in combat. Out of the question here.
• "using only their passive sonar systems for navigation": one does not use a passive sonar for navigation. Underwater mountains do not emit noise. For navigation, you use maps and inertial positioning systems; passive sonars are used to detect other ships. It might be an unfortunate formulation, but as it is, one could have the impression that there is a confusion between passive sonar on submarines and navigation radars for yachts.
• "Lack of communication between France and other members of NATO" is unfairly singling out France. We have no indication that the USA share information about their underwater nuclear deterrence with their allies. The same applies to the UK, as the next sentence explicitely says. This should be changed into a neutral statement that nuclear deterrence is clad in extreme secrecy.

Rama (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to jump in here and correct the previous comment. The BBC's use of the term "anti-sonar device" does correctly reference a variety of features designed to hide a submarine from an enemies sonar systems, both active and passive. Though perhaps not a generally used term, it is essentially correct, and devices such as anechoic tiles and other devices that remain undisclosed but operational are designed to disrupt the submarines acoustic return from active sonar and it's signature on passive sonar, as well as reduce sound emissions from the submarine itself. These features would have been in use at the time of the collision.

There is a significant difference between design features and equipment fit, the latter being suggested by the use of the term device where the former is what is meant. In this context, and as already indicated, we're not talking about either boat being prosecuted on active.

ALR (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the use of passive sonar for navigation, this is a common practice. The submarines acoustic receivers and passive sonar systems are its two primary sources of information on the location of other vessels and aquatic life when operating underwater. They work fine at detecting surface vessels, and some submarines, but are useless at detecting modern military submarines equipped with features such as anechoic tiles. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds like you're on about navigational safety, not navigation.

Anechoic tiles aren't a huge issue in countering passive detection, there are far more important aspects of submarine design and operation. On the other hand tiles do make some difference in countering an active threat.

ALR (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturally the navies have been very quiet about the effectiveness of tiles against active sonar, but what has come out indicates that countering active sonar is a part of the design process.Ken keisel (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aviation historian you'll be familiar with the effect of radar absorbent materials and radar absorbent paint in reducing the effective signature of aircraft. Anechoic tiles serve a similar purpose in acoustic counter detection. They're generally tuned to the frequencies of search sonar, and serve to reduce the reflective area of the casing. The generated sound of a submarine tends to be at a lower frequency, so that the tiles are a lot less effective in terms of controlling the radiated noise. Partly that's why Low Frequency Active has some interest at the moment, the anechoic tiles are completely ineffective against it. I was involved in some LFAS experimentation about 15 years ago and the results were outstanding, but it's a big investment and not entirely effective tactically.

Countering active detection does have some design aspects; absence of right angles and the like, similar to aircraft design. Most counter detection whilst being prosecuted on active is based around tactical handling, being able to use the environmental effects and moving the hull profile with respect to the threat. As noted above there are some decoys that can be used to disrupt active transmissions; by generating a curtain of air bubbles and similar.

ALR (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Waterspace management

The term "waterspace management" and "geographic separation of the submarine operating areas" are redundant and do not constitute two of three different possible causes of the collision. I have included the term "waterspace management" in parentheses as an alternate description of "geographic separation of the submarine operating areas".

In addition, the use of redundant adjectives such as "allegedly" and "possibly" within the same sentence is grammatically incorrect. The addition of the disclaimer header to the entire section satisfies the Wikipedia requirement indicating that the information is referenced from media reports but subject to dispute. It is not necessary to clutter every sentence with additional adjectives reinforcing this point. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you don't get the fact that geographical separation and waterspace management are one and the same thing, which is largely why I didn't write them as two different things. Waterspace management is the term used in submarine operations to denote the activity of keeping boat operating areas apart.

Unfortunately what you keep doing is separating out the speculation on waterspace management by the BBC from the more informed comment on the topic by Saunders and Woodward. The whole issue of acoustic detection is the second point and you end up throwing it into the middle of the discussion.

I understand why you are uncomfortable with the use of caveats on the media reporting, however I am uncomfortable with trying to represent material that is patently wrong to anyone who understands the subject as anything other than media bollox.

ALR (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're trying to do. My goal was to keep the material referenced by the BBC together, then add the Jane's material to its own paragraph, instead of inserting it in between two BBC referenced paragraphs. I don't have a problem with your way, but I think now it would be better to place the BBC referenced paragraph about the anti-sonar causes first, then follow with the BBC comments about the operating areas, then the Jane's comments about the operating areas. This would keep the BBC comments together, and allow all the operating area comments to follow one another. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that, although I still feel that we're giving too much credit to a credulous BBC reporter. Personally the waterspace management issue is the more important, and should be first, but I can see why you might want to keep the sourcing together.

ALR (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The British and French navies must be over the moon, no error from their part, it's just that they have two of the best and most stealthy nuclear submarines in the world. Please give us a break, all this media speculation is bread and butter for them, no need to communicate about the truth, media and wikipeadians delirious speculations on what really happened. This is a very costly accident for British and French tax payers and they should act upon it by making the results of any investigation on the causes of this incident, which doesn't mean revealing where the submarines were when this happened which has to be understandably secret. Blastwizard (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that one or other either SubOpAuth or boat ignoring the SubNote system is no error? Looks like a fairly fundamental error to me, although one has more history on the subject than the other.

ALR (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was being ironical, what I meant is that as long as the media is speculating on the causes of the incident they wouldn't need to disclose the truth. Of course there is/are error(s) that led to this incident but there is no point to speculate, what we need is a serious and credible official answer to what happened, how can it be avoided and implement the solutions. All the speculations are useless and unencylopaedic, facts and only the facts. On the other hand, a good article on the technologies used to make these subs silent is welcomed (regardless whther they are working or not), but that might not be the cause, even if it is a likely cause, who knows maybe they had a bit too much of Muscadet on the French sub and/or a bit too much bitter (I can think of a few brands that would be appropriate) on the British sub. Blastwizard (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think my biggest objection to the majority of this article hinges on the fact that it's reliant on ill informed speculation by media hacks who don't understand submarine warfare.

Since it is highly unlikely that this article can be deleted, as it deserves to be, then the only way to mitigate for that is to try to present the media speculation accordingly. As there is resistence to applying the required caveats to the media speculation then the best we can do is try to make clear in text using other methods that in fact the entire section is bollox and should really be ignored by the reader.

As far as I'm concerned the whole thing can be dealt with adequately in one paragraph on each boats article, along the lines of around these dates the two submarines collided at slow speed with minimal damage. We can't even say with any authority that it was Triomphant that hit Vanguard, despite the fact that the respective damage indicates that.

Bah 'kin humbug and yet another triumph for idiot media hacks dumbing down reality for chav readers fed a staple diet of pseudo-celebrity lifestyle garbage masquerading as news.

There, that's that off my chest :)

ALR (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearly sunk Vanguard?

Although we still don't know the exact angle at which the two submarines collided, the damage reports that have been confirmed by both governments make it clear that Triomphant was slightly above HMS Vanguard at the time of the collission. The result was damage to the upper side of Vanguard near amidship, and damage to the lower edge of Triomphant's sonar dome. In other words, Triomphant was about 10 to 15 feet higher in the water than Vanguard at the moment of collision. That being the case, if the collision had occurred 2 to 3 seconds earlier Triomphant would have struck Vanguard's sail from the side, at an unknown angle. If Triomphant was traveling, as has been reported, at 3 to 5 kts, this would almost certainly have dislodged Vanguard's sail, and possibly separated it entirely from the hull (British submarines have relatively narrow sails). At that point the submarine would have suffered catastrophic flooding of the control center, which is located just below the sail on Vanguard. The C&C crew would have had just seconds to blow ballast, and set the dive planes (which are located on the forward hull on Vanguard) before C&C would have been lost, probably with its crew. If all went well the submarine would have been able to surface, though with a dislodged or missing sail it would have been very difficult to tow back to port. If all didn't go well, and the crew were not able to blow ballast and set planes to surface, the flooding would have become a problem and the submarine may not have been able to surface. Worst case scenario is the crew are unable to isolate the flooded control room, and the flooding continues until the submarine is lost. In any case, though the damage is minor, this incident could have been a LOT worse if it had occurred just 2 or 3 seconds earlier. It's also another argument for electronic periscopes, and the placement of the control center further back in the hull. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete and utter speculative rubbish! At the speed of 3 knots, in the worse case scenario, the two submarines travelling in exact opposite directions would have a relative speed of 6 knots, at that speed in 3 seconds the relative displacement of the two sub would be about 9 feet and that's in the frontal collision scenario, 9 ft is neglectible given the size of the beasts. You assume and speculate way too much, also what do you know about the mechanical properties of the hull of the HMS Vanguard? After all it is designed to withstand the pressure at a depth of 900 ft and possibly a lot more so it is probably not made of papier mache. Also the speed of the sub was certainly not reported anywhere, but speculated by the media, you draw far too many conclusions from the little that is known about the incident. In other words, it is impossible to say what would have happened if the collision was 3 second earlier or later. Blastwizard (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/triomphant/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)