21-07-2016, 09:22 AM
1
HMS Troutbridge???
So these super sophisticated nuclear submarines bristling with modern radar and sonar equipment capable of seeing or hearings many miles away is suddenly involved in a collision with a merchant ship. So just where was all this super sophisticated equipment and why weren't collision alarms being sounded???still think we should renew our 'trident' fleet???
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-in-collision
21-07-2016, 09:35 AM
3
Re: HMS Troutbridge???
Originally Posted by Tpin
->
What has Trident got to do with poor seamanship?
21-07-2016, 09:36 AM
4
Re: HMS Troutbridge???
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
It doesn't require too much forethought because if this submarine had been a missile carrying vessel, the consequences could have been horrendous.
Please explain why the missiles are a threat, what consequences are you referring to?
21-07-2016, 09:53 AM
5
Re: HMS Troutbridge???
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
if this submarine had been a missile carrying vessel, the consequences could have been horrendous.
The Astute-class are the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy. The collision took place despite being equipped with what the Royal Navy boasts are “world-leading sensors”.
The 7,400 tonne vessels, which cost more than £1bn each, carry torpedoes for targeting enemy submarines and ships and Tomahawk cruise missiles.
21-07-2016, 09:57 AM
6
Re: HMS Troutbridge???
Originally Posted by Tpin
->
Why.....?Please explain why the missiles are a threat, what consequences are you referring to?
This took me all of 30 seconds to locate on the 'net' - extract of a larger report on 'nuclear' accidents'
The safety of the Trident D5 missile has long been a source of concern. In December 1990, the Panel on Nuclear Weapons Safety, a group of eminent physicists appointed by the US Congress, warned that its unusual design posed significant risks. To save space, the multiple warheads weren't mounted on top of the missile; they surrounded its third-stage rocket engine. And the "high-energy" class 1.1 propellant used in that rocket engine was far more likely than other propellants to explode in an accident. "The safety issue of concern here," the panel found, "is whether an accident during handling of an operational missile – viz, transporting and loading – might detonate the propellant which in turn could cause the HE [high explosives] in the warhead to detonate, leading to dispersal of plutonium, or even the initiation of a nuclear yield."
21-07-2016, 10:00 AM
8
Re: HMS Troutbridge???
Originally Posted by Tpin
->
It would appear UJ thinks the missiles would be a hazard.They wouldn't be.
This is the worst type of scaremongering, uninformed waffle.
21-07-2016, 10:21 AM
10
Re: HMS Troutbridge???
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Seems some people on here are incapable of reading and understanding a scientific report.
How many accidents involving missile carrying vehicles have there been?
How many 'accidental' detonations?
You can drop a nuclear warhead from 30000 feet and it won't detonate. Impact has nothing to do with detonation.
A 1990 report is hardly relevant.
|
|
