Well it was an exercise, it is a Hunter-Killer, not a Boomer; and as demonstrated in the Hunt For Red October, you do want the Captains and crew trained to undertake close in operations against the enemy if needs arise. And accidents do happen in training.

I'd be more alarmed if they weren't training, despite the supposed end of the Cold War.

I do like the sensor cover, it reminds me of black plastic sheet and bodge tape, for a multi billion system, it looks a lash up, but probably cost thousands.

TEEJ, didn't say it didn't happen, just not to jump to conclusions how if happened.

Admittedly the normal rules of the seas cannot apply when one of the vessels is not visible to the other, but I can envisage a situation where the larger vessel turns into the other.

PN

The reasons for the collision are quite simple, two Ballistic missile subs were operating in the same patch of water. Both were pretty much operating in a make as little noise as possible mode and were both looking for the best water conditions around them to avoid detection. Needless to say they couldn't hear each other and thus ended up hitting each other.

Mainjafad, sorry, my sarcastic humour. We had a similar issue with MAP areas. As you no doubt know no MPA should be Greene's into the same area at the same time except for handover procedures.

Well, one day, what should we see but a P3 bumbling along below us. Quick check of our Green, check checksums, all checked, he is the intruder. Down we went but still some way off realise it is a MAY. As we closed for the bounce we spot two more MAY going the other way.

Finally, to cut the story short, we missed the first May very much by brilliant flying and good luck.

PN, in March of 1991 two P-3's hit each other in mid air. (San Diego, CA, op area). One was coming on station and one was leaving. Our squadron had some tasking to support the SAR effort. One of our detachments was on a ship in that same exercise ... what little was found was pretty grim. It was a head on collision.
VPNAVY - VP-50 Memorial Page
(The best clue as to "why" based on info form our higher HQ was that there had been a miscommunication with one of the aircraft from the exercise controllers on ingress and egress altitudes ... )
(If you scroll down the Tracy Kreckman at this link you'll get a hint of what someone saw when the collision happened).

Democracy
 

Members of this esteemed website are losing sight of the Corbyn view of democracy which may be seen thus;

If the majority of voters agree with Corbyn he is correct
If the majority of MPs agree with Corbyn he is right
If the majoprity of Labour MPs agree with Corbyn he is right
If the majority of Labour party members agree with Corbyn he is right
If none of the above apply he is brave and principled and therefor right

Well put, tin ribs. This isn't about whether or not we agree with Corbyn's opinion. He is fully entitled to campaign for his view. But he's gone way beyond that. His statement imposes his view regardless of the result of the debate, even of the views of his own MP's and two fingers to democracy. Inexplicably, some portray this as "principled".

The thread is nothing to do with who leads the Labour Party; its about his public statement that he would never use the nuclear deterrent.

not just him - quite a few Tories have a similar view...................

Deterrent works now and is needed for the future
 

It's a nuclear deterrent - whether the useless bunch of politicians we currently have decide to use it or not. It's there - it works - its use should be a matter of doubt to any aggressor - that adds to its deterrent value - putting doubt into the mind of an adverory weakens him.

As for ''would they use it?'' well some say ''oh no not me'' but that is here, now, today's world. What about in 10 - 20 years from now? Maybe when they've grown up a bit and experienced the real world they might think differently.

Only one country has 'given up' nuclear weapons - the Ukraine - and we can all see how well that's worked for them.

Take a look around the world at states planning for sea based nuclear weapons ... if they are such a bad idea why are they spending billions on them?

They are potentially disastrous weapons ... truly horrific in their capability ... also very effective at deterring other states and the individuals that control them ... and that is their purpose.

Politics is at a very low ebb at the moment in the UK with so called 'democracy' being seen by many as a failed system, government isn't governing any more it's trying to give the people what they think they want in order to make them look good. There is very little credible leadership being shown.

These are dangerous times and I for one am glad that the go-ahead has been given to build four new submarines to house the system we currently have.

Fortunately, they don't have the authority to make the decision.
I do hope that the leaders of foreign powers understand that those people speak only for themselves and those, such as Vince Cable, have no governmental power whatsoever.

Technically, so did the Saffers. Not worked out too well for them either - although I for one am glad they're not accessible to some of the "yoof" down there.

Basil:-
Vince Cable is fast becoming a caricature, the sort that whispers in an overloud voice, "I'm not one to gossip but...". The mistake was ever allowing him to become privy to policy discussion that he cannot keep to himself.

LW50, thanks, that is what I was saying about the handover procedure, a procedure introduced decades earlier.

I was a VP-50 Blue Dragon at Moffet Field for several years and two deployments. Even though I was already in the reserves when this tragedy happened it was still a very sad day for me. Somebody had to have screwed up big time for both the ingress and egress aircraft to be at the same altitude.