collisione fra SSBN....

[F104]

Ci sono diverse cose che non quadrano. Innanzitutto se veramente i due battelli stavano giocando a "chi riesce a catturare l'altro", cosa peraltro possibile, non lo stavano facendo alla medesima quota.

I protocolli NATO sono rigidissimi in tal senso. Puoi giocare quanto vuoi, ma se tu manovri da 0 a 100 metri, il tuo avversario lo deve fare da 200 a 300, ovvero ci devono stare almeno 100 metri di dofferenza di quota proprio per motivi di sicurezza.

Quindi escluderei questa ipotesi.

Non penso neanche che stessero comunicando, in quanto sott'acqua guai ad utilizzare metodi attivi da parte di un "sub", soprattutto nel contesto di una missione operativa com'era quella dei due SSBN. L'unica volta che ho visto utilizzare il telefono subacqueo è stato da parte di un proccupatissimo comandante italiano, al quale la sala sonar aveva riportato un contatto in cavitazione in rotta di collisione, rivelatosi un SSN russo ed in quella occasione, neppure il tempo per dire: "scampato pericolo", che l'equipaggio italiano si è dovuto attaccare al sonar attivo un'altra volta per avvertire lo SSN statunitense che seguiva a tutta velocità quello russo.

Diciamo allora che l'ipotesi più verosimile sia quella che fossero a quota periscopica o comunque tale da tirare fuori l'antenna per comunicazioni ed i francesi, o gli inglesi giusto per essere bipartisan, sapessero entrambi della presenza dell'altro, ma abbiano sbagliato qualcosa, magari l'abbrivio di spinta (che su un SSBN ha un'inerzia incredibile) e siano arrivati a tamponare, ma che sapessero sicuramente che stava accadendo.

[Ospite iscandar]

perdonatemi l'OT

 

...What are the chances of two submarines colliding somewhere in the middle of an ocean? About the same as two satellites colliding in space, it seems....

 

a quanto pare in questi giorni le due probabilità infinetesimali si sono verificate

Modificato 17 Febbraio 2009 da iscandar

[picpus]

Ancora particolari interessanti sullo scambio d'informazioni relative all'attività dei sottomarini strategici.

 

 

Eccovi il link ad un articolo in francese:

 

http://www.corlobe.tk/article12730.html

 

 

ed il link ad un articolo in inglese:

 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...ml?iid=tsmodule

[enrr]

da Ares - AW&ST

Much Ink Flows Over Sub Collision

 

Much ink is flowing concerning the collision on the night of Feb. 3 between French and British submarines, each of which was carrying 16 ballistic missiles, with commentators stressing that the incident underlines the need for the three NATO nations with submarines of this type – Britain, France and the United States – to seek new accords on the secrecy that made the collision possible.

Le Triomphant, photo credit: French Navy

 

But these nations are likely to be very reluctant to share information on the whereabouts of thier subs, according to Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute in London who is quoted by AFP. “These are the strategic crown jewels of the nation. The whole purpose of a sea-based nuclear deterrent is to hide somewhere far out of sight. They are the ultimate tools of national survival in the event of war. Therefore, it’s the very last thing you would share with anybody.”

 

Commentators all agree that Britain's HMS Vanguard and France's Le Triomphant, both about the same size and age, more than just brushed past each other because neither knew the other was there. “The Triomphant makes no more noise than a shrimp,” commented France's Defense Miniser Hervé Morin, while a senior French naval officer commented that the Triomphant generation of subs is 1,000 times quieter than the previous generation and cannot be heard above the ambient sound of the sea.

 

The Triomphant's fibreglass sonar dome was shattered in the collision while the Vanguard returned to its home base in Scotland with “very visible dents and scrapes,” according to British press reports.

 

Both British and French navies say the vessels were moving at “very low speed”, at just four-and-a-half miles an hour, with active sonars off and passive ones on, when they collided, probably somewhere in the Bay of Biscay.

 

Arrangements between France and Britain for closer cooperation between their navies and a possible carving up of deployment zones for their nuclear-armed submarines patrols were formalised in September 2000 in the UK-French Bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement which called for port visits by the subs and regular exchanges on nuclear policy. But experts say the agreement probably did not include revealing the precise location of the subs. Hans Kristensen is quoted by Time Magazine as saying that “the fact that the collision occurred at all indicates that the two allies need to talk more.” And indeed, Morin said on February 17 that “one of the solutions is to talk with the British about patrol zones.”

 

And the situation is unlikely to change even when France rejoins NATO's military command structure at the NATO summit in April. NATO operates a traffic-control system that alerts allied nations to the deployment zones of friendly submarines, specifically to avoid such collisions. But NATO's nuclear-armed submarines do not adhere to this system. “France uses the same procedure with regard to its submarine fleet as all other allies,” according to a NATO statement. Which means France, Britain and the United States – and logically absolutely nobody else either – ever know where each other's nuclear-deterrent subs are.

 

And although one might wonder how two relatively small vessels could bump into each other in the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, most navies use the same quiet, deep areas of the Ocean to hide in.

HMS Vanguard. Photo credit: Royal Navy