Sub collision off Holy Loch 40+ years ago?

[Catfish]

Isn't that old news? :hmmm:
The beginning of a secret co(l)d war? :O:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/nuclear-sub-crash-could-have-started-war-hmdlcm0p0

From The Times today's article:

"The crash between an American submarine carrying 160 nuclear warheads and a Soviet vessel was so serious that it could have led to a third world war, one expert claimed."

"The incident took place in shallow waters near Holy Loch, Argyll, about 30 miles from Glasgow. The US maintained a nuclear submarine base at Holy Loch between 1961 and 1992."

[Jimbuna]

There was always a lot of traffic (both known and suspected) around that area in those days and it has long been rumoured here in the UK that other collisions involving Royal Navy vessels also went unreported to the public.

[Catfish]

^ Right, i was just astonished to find such an article on The Times' main page :)

[Commander Wallace]

There have been as Jim said a number of collisions between subs, documented and otherwise unknown. I'm sure the actual number would be astonishing. 40 years later, they felt safe enough reporting it ?

[Mr Quatro]

Isn't that old news? :hmmm:
The beginning of a secret co(l)d war? :O:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/nuclear-sub-crash-could-have-started-war-hmdlcm0p0

From The Times today's article:

"The crash between an American submarine carrying 160 nuclear warheads and a Soviet vessel was so serious that it could have led to a third world war, one expert claimed."

"The incident took place in shallow waters near Holy Loch, Argyll, about 30 miles from Glasgow. The US maintained a nuclear submarine base at Holy Loch between 1961 and 1992."

Twenty-three safety devices on each missile kept them safe from a nuclear accident ... possibly the reactor would scramble, but they have a diesel back up to make it back to port.

Longer range missiles keep us from using Holy Loch anymore ... no telling how many enemy vessels were waiting for a boomer to go on patrol.

[Mr Quatro]

There have been as Jim said a number of collisions between subs, documented and otherwise unknown. I'm sure the actual number would be astonishing. 40 years later, they felt safe enough reporting it ?

Here's one few people know about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Von_Steuben_(SSBN-632)

On August 9, 1968, while operating submerged about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the southern coast of Spain, the USS Von Steuben (SSBN-632) was struck by a submerged tow cable connecting a tug and a merchant tanker called the Sealady (Sealady was a liberty ship previously named Bengt H. Larson (1959) and before that was named Alan Seeger (1954)). Due to the merchant being under tow at the time of the collision, the ship had no engine noise for the submarine to detect its presence. When it became apparent the submarine had lost depth control and steering, but not knowing why, the submarine conducted an emergency main ballast tank blow, which resulted in the collision of the submarine and the towed ship. The submarine suffered external damage to the sail and superstructure. After local repairs at the submarine squadron facilities in Rota, she reported to Groton, Connecticut, for more detailed repairs at the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation, after which she resumed deterrent patrols out of Rota.

The Sealady sank in the harbor of Cadiz, Spain in plain sight of the submarine base at Rota.

[Commander Wallace]

Here's one few people know about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Von_Steuben_(SSBN-632)



The Sealady sank in the harbor of Cadiz, Spain in plain sight of the submarine base at Rota.


Thanks for the info and update.



The contract to build Von Steuben was awarded on 20 July 1961 and her keel was laid down there on 4 September 1962.



Decommissioning and disposal

Von Steuben was decommissioned on 26 February 1994 and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Vessel_Register) simultaneously. Her scrapping via the Nuclear-Powered Ship and Submarine Recycling Program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_and_Submarine_Recycling_Program) at Bremerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremerton,_Washington), Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_%28U.S._state%29), began on 1 October 2000 and was completed on 30 October 2001. Von Steuben's age from delivery to disposal was 37.2 years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Von_Steuben_(SSBN-632)


37 years is a long time to serve. :Kaleun_Salute:

[Aktungbby]

http://everything2.com/title/Submarine+Collisions (http://everything2.com/title/Submarine+Collisions) :k_confused: PS: the USS Madison SSBN 627 (in the OP article) carried 16 ballistic missiles not 160 and was decommissioned at Mare Island CA 2/18/92 Armament: 4 × 21 inches (530 mm) Mark 65 torpedo tubes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_tube) (bow; Mark 48 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo)torpedoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo), (At the time of the collision: 16 Polaris A-3:know: later upgraded to Poseidon C-s and Trident C-4) 16 vertical launch missile tubes amidships, various small arms https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2e/cb/72/2ecb721abf531a978950992a11f3784a.jpgUSS Madison in dry-dock in Scotland 1974, only days after collision. The
collision left a nine-foot scrape in the Madison. According to
Anderson the two submarines came within inches of sinking one
another. The Madison proceeded to Holy Loch, Scotland, to effect
repairs. The U.S. Navy refused to comment on the incident.:arrgh!: http://www.skeptictank.org/treasure/GP5/SOVNUK.TXT (http://www.skeptictank.org/treasure/GP5/SOVNUK.TXT)
edit: in tracking what happened to the Victor class Russian sub involved (no mention so presumably all good) I feel sorrier for the Russians: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pl-casualties.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pl-casualties.htm)

[Commander Wallace]

http://everything2.com/title/Submarine+Collisions (http://everything2.com/title/Submarine+Collisions) :k_confused: PS: the USS Madison SSBN 627 (in the OP article) carried 16 ballistic missiles not 160 and was decommissioned at Mare Island CA 2/18/92 https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2e/cb/72/2ecb721abf531a978950992a11f3784a.jpgUSS Madison in dry-dock in Scotland 1974, only days after collision. The
collision left a nine-foot scrape in the Madison. According to
Anderson the two submarines came within inches of sinking one
another. The Madison proceeded to Holy Loch, Scotland, to effect
repairs. The U.S. Navy refused to comment on the incident.:arrgh!: http://www.skeptictank.org/treasure/GP5/SOVNUK.TXT (http://www.skeptictank.org/treasure/GP5/SOVNUK.TXT)



The article never said 160 nuclear missiles but rather 160 nuclear warheads. 16 missiles X 10 warheads or MIRV's a piece = 160 warheads although specs say the newer versions carried 3 MIRV's a piece as you said. This is the A3 you mentioned at the time of the collision.


http://military.wikia.com/wiki/James_Madison-class_submarine


It also could carry the Poseidon missile.

Quote: Poseidon could deliver up to fourteen W68 (http://military.wikia.com/wiki/W68) thermonuclear warheads[1] (http://military.wikia.com/wiki/UGM-73_Poseidon#cite_note-missilethreat-0) contained in Mark 3 reentry vehicles to multiple targets. The high-re-entry-speed design was intended to counter Sprint-type terminal ABM (http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile) defenses. See Atmospheric re-entry (http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Atmospheric_re-entry?redlink=1&veaction=edit&flow=create-page-article-redlink) for blunt body theory.

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/UGM-73_Poseidon.


That would be 16 missiles X 14 = 224 Mirvs unless I'm reading this wrong. The author of the original article may just have been confused.


Great links and good reading though. :up:

[Aktungbby]

OH NO correct away!:Kaleun_Cheers: I had considered MIRV's incl the Poeidon C-3 but couldn't get the count: The A3 was the first Polaris to have multiple reentry vehicles. The Polaris program started development in 1956. USS George Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washington_(SSBN-598)), the first US missile submarine, successfully launched the first Polaris missile from a submerged submarine on July 20, 1960. The A-2 version of the Polaris missile was essentially an upgraded A-1, and it entered service in late 1961. It was fitted on a total of 13 submarines and served until June 1974.(1). Ongoing problems with the W-47 warhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W47), especially with its mechanical arming and safing equipment, led to large numbers of the missiles being recalled for modifications, and the U.S. Navy sought a replacement with either a larger yield or equivalent destructive power. The result was the W-58 warhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W58) used in a "cluster" of three warheads for the Polaris A-3, the final model of the Polaris missile. The confusion thus arises: If the USS Madison even had the latest W-58 version in 1974 as of the collision date, and if that: 'three war heads' per silo-thus I assumed the "lesser of two weevils"http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/ranks/luckyjack15.jpg (this being a Naval forum:D) and went with a dramatic Newspaper typo error on the assumption: 'Ya gotta sell papers'..assuming the W-58 makes it 48 warheads imho. https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/polaris-a3-DFSC8407332_JPG.jpghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris) [/URL]<(enlarges)Transfer of a Polaris missile between [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Proteus_(AS-19)"]USS Proteus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Proteus_USS_Partick_Henry_HolyLoch_1961.j peg) and USS Patrick Henry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Patrick_Henry_(SSBN-599)) at Holy Loch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch)

[Commander Wallace]

OH NO correct away!:Kaleun_Cheers: I had considered MIRV's but couldn't get the count: The confusion thus arises: If the USS Madison even had the latest W-58 version in 1974 as of the collision date, and if that: 'three war heads' per silo-thus I assumed the "lesser of two weevils"http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/ranks/luckyjack15.jpg (this being a Naval forum:D) and went with a dramatic Newspaper typo error on the assumption: 'Ya gotta sell papers'..assuming the W-58 makes it 48 warheads imho. https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/polaris-a3-DFSC8407332_JPG.jpghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-27_Polaris) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/USS_Proteus_USS_Partick_Henry_HolyLoch_1961.jpeg/220px-USS_Proteus_USS_Partick_Henry_HolyLoch_1961.jpeg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Proteus_USS_Partick_Henry_HolyLoch_1961.j peg)Transfer of a Polaris missile between USS Proteus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Proteus_(AS-19)) and USS Patrick Henry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Patrick_Henry_(SSBN-599)) at Holy Loch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch), Scotland, in 1961


You may well be right Aktung. It's really hard to know the exact count there. It still makes you think about the destructive power though. :Kaleun_Cheers:

[Mr Quatro]

I'm just glad that they never had to be used :yep:

I think the first boomers use to be called "Peace Keepers"

They had one that was named the USS Will Rogers who said, "I never met a man that didn't like" carring 16 missiles with only the Lord knows how many warheads on each one.

Do you think they are independently targeted or just add to the final conflict?

Seems almost impossible, uh? To target up to ten (10) warheads on each missile.

[Catfish]

I'm just glad that they never had to be used :yep: [...].

This must be the third time out of many more i actually agreee with you :up:

[Bilge_Rat]

I don't if anyone ever read this book, "Blind man's bluff", which dealt with Cold war U.S. vs Russian sub ops:

https://www.amazon.ca/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/006097771X

I read it a long time ago, fascinating stuff if you are into subs. Anyway, there have been quite a few underwater sub vs sub collisions over the years, including as recently as 1992 and 1993.

As to why, sub captains on both sides were very aggressive in getting info on the other side, which meant tailing subs from very close, both to get info, but also not to lose them.

On top of that (and I am sure real submariners can explain much better than a landlubber like me), sound gear was nowhere near as perfect as we think from our games. It is hard to gauge exactly where another nearby sub is and under certain acoustic conditions, you may not pick up another sub until you are almost on top of it.

For example, the Barents Sea, which was a favorite hunting ground to track Soviet subs leaving on patrol has peculiar sound conditions, because of the depth and temperature and salinity variations. There are many sound channels and you might have absolutely no sound contact, followed by the sound of a freight train as a sub would suddenly appear on sonar close by.

The fact that there have been so many collisions over the years was one reason why the Russians initially thought the "Kursk" sinking was caused by a collision with a Nato sub.

[Commander Wallace]

I'm just glad that they never had to be used :yep:



Do you think they are independently targeted or just add to the final conflict?

Seems almost impossible, uh? To target up to ten (10) warheads on each missile.

The " mirvs " can be independently targeted on differents sites or the same site and Amen to them never having been used.

I don't if anyone ever read this book, "Blind man's bluff", which dealt with Cold war U.S. vs Russian sub ops:

https://www.amazon.ca/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/006097771X

I read it a long time ago, fascinating stuff if you are into subs. Anyway, there have been quite a few underwater sub vs sub collisions over the years, including as recently as 1992 and 1993.

As to why, sub captains on both sides were very aggressive in getting info on the other side, which meant tailing subs from very close, both to get info, but also not to lose them.

On top of that (and I am sure real submariners can explain much better than a landlubber like me), sound gear was nowhere near as perfect as we think from our games. It is hard to gauge exactly where another nearby sub is and under certain acoustic conditions, you may not pick up another sub until you are almost on top of it.

For example, the Barents Sea, which was a favorite hunting ground to track Soviet subs leaving on patrol has peculiar sound conditions, because of the depth and temperature and salinity variations. There are many sound channels and you might have absolutely no sound contact, followed by the sound of a freight train as a sub would suddenly appear on sonar close by.

The fact that there have been so many collisions over the years was one reason why the Russians initially thought the "Kursk" sinking was caused by a collision with a Nato sub.


I read it a while ago and the book detailed the collision of the USS Tautog with
with K-108, an Echo II class guided Missile Submarine in 1970 which is consistent with the thread topic. The Tautog was under the Command of Buele G. Balderston. Balderston, as a result, was relieved of his command. Commander Balderston later became a minister.

Quote :The former captain of the K-108, Boris Bogdasaryan, was able to provide a concise narrative of the collision. The collision resulted in no casualties aboard either submarine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tautog_(SSN-639)

It also detailed the exploits of Whitey mack, commander of the USS Lapon. Blind man's Bluff is a very good read if anyone is interested.

[em2nought]

Long long ago, I was a midshipman on Von Steuben for one patrol, and later, as a petty officer(yeah direction up the ladder I know lol) I strung lights over submarine screws at Holy Loch so that WE didn't run into them ourselves with LCMs. lol

[Bilge_Rat]

I found the two sub collisions I was thinking of:

1. USS Baton Rouge and B-276, february 11, 1992:

that one seems to have been a pure accident:

At the time of the incident both vessels were equipped with only passive sonars,[13] creating too much ‘noise.' Miasnikov maintains that the submarines of the Los Angeles class are unable to detect acoustic signals from targets located within a cone of 60 degrees astern, thus the most probable scenario was that Kostroma approached Baton Rouge from behind. Indeed the collision took place when the Kostroma was surfacing, hitting the US submarine underneath on her aft section. The Sierra class sonar is also ‘deaf’ to the aft direction; her usual pattern of acoustic search is moving along a loop course. The incident, however, implied that Russian attack submarines are capable of avoiding passive acoustic detection, at least under certain conditions.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_Island


2. USS Grayling and K-107, march 20th, 1993:

This one is more interesting. Grayling was trailing K-107, lost contact and while trying to regain contact ran into her. It seems the Russian sub never knew it was being tailed. K-107 is a Delta IV "boomer" with 16 ICBMs (64-160 nuclear warheads) on board.

Novomoskovsk, commanded by Captain First Rank Andrei Bulgarkov,[11] was performing combat training tasks at a site 105 nautical miles (194 km) north of Murmansk.[12] Having reached the northern border of the designated area, she turned back, making between 16 knots (30 km/h) to 18 knots (33 km/h).[11] Twenty-five minutes later, while submerged at 74 meters,[13] Novomoskovsk felt an impact followed by screeching noises. Immediately afterwards, her sonar reported noises of a foreign submarine close by. Before clearing the area, the Grayling checked that the Russian submarine had not sustained serious damage.[12]

An investigation revealed that Grayling had been tracking Novomoskovsk from a position between 155 and 165 degrees to port and from distances of between 11–13 kilometres (5.9–7.0 nmi). Grayling lost contact with Novomoskovsk when the Russian submarine changed course to 180 degrees. To reacquire the target, Grayling sped to the location of contact loss at 8–15 knots (15–28 km/h).[14]

The breaking waves created in the shallow waters of the Barents Sea generate background signals, so that when two submarines approach one another head-on, each detects the other when the distance between the two vessels is just a couple of hundred meters.[4] Grayling's passive sonar detected Novomoskovsk at a distance of about a kilometer (0.54 nautical mile). With the distance closing and Grayling's Combat Information Center still trying to decide on the best way of avoiding a collision, Grayling's commanding officer, Captain Richard Self, tried to change course and to surface, but the attempts were thwarted by Grayling's momentum. Grayling collided with the upper structure of Novomoskovsk,[14] which suffered a large scratch on her starboard bow.[15] The American submarine limped away also with minor damage




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kola_Peninsula


Both collisions occurred in the Barents Sea where sound conditions seem to be fairly poor for tracking on passive sonar.