View Full Version : HMS Astute runs aground
nae luck, our newest submarine, is so ashamed at the Condem lot, it has tried to commit seppuku (hari kari) to the unwashed.
The Commanding Officer will be attending a court martial soon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8079960/HMS-Astute-worlds-most-advanced-nuclear-submarine-runs-aground.html
Interesting to note that residents of Broadford in the late 1990s were up in arms at the prospect that nuclear submarines could tie up for supplies and they were reassured that accidents were almost unheard of.
I just hope for their sake that the tide doesn't fall below the reactor cooling inlets...
PWRs have a tertiary cooling system don't they?
PWRs have a tertiary cooling system don't they?
The sub will still need seawater cooling so I hope the tide doesn't fall below the inlets.
Why? Do you think there is potential for some kind of accident?
Interesting to note that residents of Broadford in the late 1990s were up in arms at the prospect that nuclear submarines could tie up for supplies and they were reassured that accidents were almost unheard of.
I just hope for their sake that the tide doesn't fall below the reactor cooling inlets...
A submarine running aground and a nuclear accident are two separate things.
The reactor would be safe even if the submarine was fully out the water. Seawater is not used for cooling the reactor.
A submarine running aground and a nuclear accident are two separate things.
The reactor would be safe even if the submarine was fully out the water. Seawater is not used for cooling the reactor.
You obviously know better than me, BAESystems and the navy and I must be mistaken then when I was part of a specific emergency task unit which was responsible for attaching cooling docking bonnets and pumps to nuclear submarines when they left the shallow waters in Morecambe bay just in case they ran aground.
The reason for the task unit was to ensure sea water cooling for the reactor as there would be a significant risk to the integrity of the submarine's ability to cool itself if the water dropped below the inlets. :roll:
"Seawater is not used for cooling the reactor", how ridiculous.
You obviously know better than me, BAESystems and the navy and I must be mistaken then when I was part of a specific emergency task unit which was responsible for attaching cooling docking bonnets and pumps to nuclear submarines when they left the shallow waters in Morecambe bay just in case they ran aground.
The reason for the task unit was to ensure sea water cooling for the reactor as there would be a significant risk to the integrity of the submarine's ability to cool itself if the water dropped below the inlets. :roll:
"Seawater is not used for cooling the reactor", how ridiculous.
Heat is removed from the reactor first by primary coolant, then by heat transfer in the boilers. The reactor is therefore cooled by steam take-off.
The steam is then condensed by seawater.
If the seawater is unavailable, for whatever reason, the submarines are equipped with "high and dry" lines to vent the steam to atmosphere. The clue for their use is in the name.
Heat is removed from the reactor first by primary coolant, then by heat transfer in the boilers. The reactor is therefore cooled by steam take-off.
The steam is then condensed by seawater.
If the seawater is unavailable, for whatever reason, the submarines are equipped with "high and dry" lines to vent the steam to atmosphere. The clue for their use is in the name.
So you concede to the fact that seawater is needed to cool the reactor. I'm not even going to tackle your limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine under emergency circumstances except to say that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
I'm not even going to tackle your limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine under emergency circumstances except to say that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
I've qualified as a category"A" nuclear watchkeeper of a Royal Navy submarine propulsion plant. Thats the supervisory position, in control of the whole reactor plant.
I would suggest that my "limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine" are not so limited at all.
So you concede to the fact that seawater is needed to cool the reactor. I'm not even going to tackle your limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine under emergency circumstances except to say that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
No, seawater is not needed to cool the reactor. It is used to recycle the steam.
Steam takeoff can still be achieved without this closed loop system.
I've qualified as a category"A" nuclear watchkeeper of a Royal Navy submarine propulsion plant. Thats the supervisory position, in control of the whole reactor plant.
I would suggest that my "limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine" are not so limited at all.
Then you should know better than that if you think that there is nothing to worry about if the tide drops below the seawater cooling inlets. Obviously an operational submarine is a different beast to the one you're used to but having said that you should be fully aware about limitations to operation during 'low tides'.
No, seawater is not needed to cool the reactor. It is used to recycle the steam.
Steam takeoff can still be achieved without this closed loop system.
Seawater is still required to cool the reactor. And you have a very serious plant condition if you get to that stage which is really a last resort.
Then you should know better than that if you think that there is nothing to worry about if the tide drops below the seawater cooling inlets. Obviously an operational submarine is a different beast to the one you're used to but having said that you should be fully aware about limitations to operation during 'low tides'.
I'm well aware of the limitations to operation caused by loss of seawater. But I'm not suggesting continued operation. The reactor would be shutdown and an alternative heatsink (steam dumping to atmosphere) achieved.
Therefore, no, I dont think there is anything to WORRY about.
Therefore, no, I dont think there is anything to WORRY about.
Well I would expect that there will be very worried faces on board HMS Astute today, especially in the reactor compartment.
Even now I'd expect that they will be exploring the need for fitting cooling connections to the outside of the boat and external pumps to pump sea water in.
Obviously you see no need for that because they could just put the plant into an abnormal condition and let off steam if need be.:roll:
Well I would expect that there will be very worried faces on board HMS Astute today, especially in the reactor compartment.
Even now I'd expect that they will be exploring the need for fitting cooling connections to the outside of the boat and external pumps to pump sea water in.
Obviously you see no need for that because they could just put the plant into an abnormal condition and let off steam if need be.:roll:
I'm sure there are many woried faces on astute today! But I don't think the possibility of a reactor accident would be their biggest concern.
I'm sure there are many woried faces on astute today! But I don't think the possibility of a reactor accident would be their biggest concern.
Perhaps, because they've probably assessed with certainty that the risk of the tide dropping below the seawater inlets is actually minimal.
I just hope they have enough water on board to ensure emergency cooling and steam let off or they might have to make some......from seawater.
They're more worried about showing off the propulsion system at low tide aren't they?
Funny to see the coastguard tug there, the ones the gubberment are scrapping and telling vessels to rely on their insurers!
The CO will be getting a bit hot under the collar, looking forward to his next appointment no doubt! The first of the redundancies from MOD:eek:
Perhaps, because they've probably assessed with certainty that the risk of the tide dropping below the seawater inlets is actually minimal.
Yes perhaps. Or perhaps because they always had an alternative cooling method available regardless.
I'm actually watching BBC news now. Theres a live feed from a helicopter above Astute and guess what, there's steam coming out of the high and dry lines....
They're more worried about showing off the propulsion system at low tide aren't they?
Funny to see the coastguard tug there, the ones the gubberment are scrapping and telling vessels to rely on their insurers!
The CO will be getting a bit hot under the collar, looking forward to his next appointment no doubt! The first of the redundancies from MOD:eek:
The propeller is actually one on the most secret components. In drydock its often covered to prevent people seeing it.
Tubthumper
22-Oct-10, 16:10
the submarines are equipped with "high and dry" lines to vent the steam to atmosphere.
TV pictures I saw showed steam billowing out Astute's chimney, a bit like Casey Jones.
I wonder, as our Navy & Air Force seem completely unable to work any technical stuff (eg Nimrod, Astute) should we maybe stop shelling out billions and just invest in our green chaps going about in armoured trucks with German-engineered Gats.
Perhaps we could let the navy have a dinghy or two, and a wee yacht for HM the Q and P the G.
And the Air Force could have some hang gliders and one or two of them robo-planes.
I'm actually watching BBC news now. Theres a live feed from a helicopter above Astute and guess what, there's steam coming out of the high and dry lines....
Perhaps it is more serious than we were led to believe, perhaps the sandy shingle has blocked the lower inlets thus rendering the emergency cooling systems useless.
The MoD said there is no risk to the public, perhaps that is true, but then they would say that as a standard response. The Russians said that about Chernobyl even after the top of the reactor blew off and there was a meltdown.
If the tide goes down so far that you can see the propellor then Astute has big problems.
Stand down Chaps, soon to be scrapped tug dragged her free.
Navy bods been flying up this afternoon, methinks someone's getting a bottom kicking. And mebbe an Eng' to look at the not yet in service dredger sub.
Dog-eared
22-Oct-10, 20:08
They should never given the cook a shottie at the wheel !
If that is what HMS Astute can do then imagine what HMS Stupid can do?
I can imagine a commanding officer will be falling on his sword tonight.
If that is what HMS Astute can do then imagine what HMS Stupid can do?
Shhh, that's the top secret codename for the PM.
I can imagine a commanding officer will be falling on his sword tonight.
".....flood the tubes"
"Of course I've seen it. With all the latest navigation aids we can find our positon to within half a metre and would have absolutely no problem avoiding this AAARRRGGH!" :eek:
George Brims
22-Oct-10, 20:47
I can imagine a commanding officer will be falling on his sword tonight.
We were sitting in a restaurant having lunch one day, and the couple at the next table were clearly on a date, possibly a first date. The guy was explaining to the lady that he was captain of the US submarine that came up under a Japanese research vessel off Hawaii and caused nine deaths. Or to be more accurate, former captain, as he got booted out of that position pretty swiftly. He was also sent to Japan to apologize to the families of the victims, who included four high school students.
Parking a sub temporarily on a reef or sandbank is definitely not the worst that can happen.
Saw it this morning it was quite close in and the steam was fair belting out of it, Plenty boats were going out taking photos of it :lol: got a few photos will try and get them up later :)
John Little
22-Oct-10, 20:57
Am I the only one here thinking of the Navy Lark?
Left hand down a bit CPO Pertwee.......
good vid here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V_em-PJkz8
Paul_and_Anna
22-Oct-10, 21:36
Am I the only one here thinking of the Navy Lark?
Left hand down a bit CPO Pertwee.......
You were not alone ........ :)
I wonder how many satellites rang alarm bells over her showing a very still face on the water? Whatever, I can't help but laugh thinking about it.
Paul.
Mystical Potato Head
22-Oct-10, 21:41
Jeez i hope the primary circuit closure welds i did on the reactor head are ok :lol:
Paul_and_Anna
22-Oct-10, 21:43
Jeez i hope the primary circuit closure welds i did on the reactor are ok :lol:
Now he tells us .................
Did you use a good mix? :) :)
Mystical Potato Head
22-Oct-10, 21:51
Now he tells us .................
Did you use a good mix? :) :)
There were a few cracks but we just filled them with devcon. ;)
I wonder if Alex Salmond regrets doing a u-turn on his opposition to Faslane etc after this incident? Will he twist his stance back round to opposition again?
Mystical Potato Head
22-Oct-10, 22:09
I wonder if Alex Salmond regrets doing a u-turn on his opposition to Faslane etc after this incident? Will he twist his stance back round to opposition again?
It wasnt an incident,just a shallow water issue. :lol:Alex Salmond does more twists and turns than pole dancer on a bonus.
northener
23-Oct-10, 07:32
The reactors are dry run without any external cooling during comissioning trials IIRC.
They tend to plan for things like that...
...but obviously not for shallow water. Pressureheads, eh?:roll::Razz
The reactors are dry run without any external cooling during comissioning trials IIRC.
They tend to plan for things like that...
Yes they do.
But why let the truth get in the way of some scaremongering?
But why let the truth get in the way of some scaremongering?
Because it makes life interesting and no harm done.
Because it makes life interesting and no harm done.
I disagree.
Public perception and understanding of Nuclear power are poor at best.
Using peoples fear and ignorance to achieve personal, religious, politcal, or whatever other goals is the lowest of the low in my opinion. That's exactly what Hitler did.
I disagree.
Public perception and understanding of Nuclear power are poor at best.
Using peoples fear and ignorance to achieve personal, religious, politcal, or whatever other goals is the lowest of the low in my opinion. That's exactly what Hitler did.
I doubt if anyone would be daft enough to take heed of anything here if they want to increase their knowledge of nuclear power, it is just an internet forum for goodness sake, they can just read up about nuclear power from a reputable source if need be. Like if they want to read up about crystal healing or something else.
I doubt if anyone would be daft enough to take heed of anything here if they want to increase their knowledge of nuclear power, it is just an internet forum for goodness sake, they can just read up about nuclear power from a reputable source if need be. Like if they want to read up about crystal healing or something else.
So what were you trying to achieve then? I think you were scaremongering.
Interesting to note that residents of Broadford in the late 1990s were up in arms at the prospect that nuclear submarines could tie up for supplies and they were reassured that accidents were almost unheard of.
I just hope for their sake that the tide doesn't fall below the reactor cooling inlets...
Nuclear submarine accidents are almost unheard of. How many nuclear accidents have there been in the last 40 years?
What reactor cooling inlets?
The sub will still need seawater cooling so I hope the tide doesn't fall below the inlets.
How do you define "need"?
"Seawater is not used for cooling the reactor", how ridiculous.
Not rediculious at all. Normal heat removal from the reactor is by taking steam. The ability to take steam is not influenced by seawater availability.
Seawater is still required to cool the reactor. And you have a very serious plant condition if you get to that stage which is really a last resort.
Not at all. Steam dumping to atmosphere is not a last resort, it is a normal operating practice used during any surfaced cooldown.
Obviously you see no need for that because they could just put the plant into an abnormal condition and let off steam if need be.:roll:
As I said above, it is a normal condition, not requiring the use of "abnormal" methods.
Perhaps it is more serious than we were led to believe, perhaps the sandy shingle has blocked the lower inlets thus rendering the emergency cooling systems useless.
If the tide goes down so far that you can see the propellor then Astute has big problems.
Why would they need "emergency cooling" when the normal, steam removal option is still available? Even it it wasn't, there are still other methods before requiring emergency systems.
Define "big problems".
I'm a fraud, it is obvious that I know nothing really about nuclear submarines and I have been stabbing in the dark. I get my info from newspapers and such like. I'm glad we have theone to put us right though. This thread has been fun. :lol:
I'm a fraud, it is obvious that I know nothing really about nuclear submarines and I have been stabbing in the dark. I get my info from newspapers and such like. I'm glad we have theone to put us right though. This thread has been fun. :lol:
I have not suggested for a second that you know nothing about submarines.
If true, your statement that you were involved in an emergency plan would prove otherwise. I suppose that, however, would depend on your capacity in that role. My father once worked on an anchor handler that was being used to tow a gas tanker. That doesn't make him an expert on gas liquification.
I'm not even going to tackle your limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine under emergency circumstances except to say that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
Maybe I'm just trying to get a bit of revenge for that? Who knows?
But be careful, there's many people reading these pages, and many that can be influenced by them, so I wouldn't recommend "having fun" with the public opinion that may directly interfere with the economy of this county or the defence of the whole country.
Well there is nothing that I've said here that can't be read on our national broadcaster and that is where I got my info.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365
Martin Douglas, a former nuclear submarine engineer, said a concern for the crew was the provision of sea water to the boat's reactor.
He said: "The sea provides the primary cooling for the reactor system.
"There are many, many levels of back up systems, but they may have to find some interesting ways of getting sea water supply to the reactor."
You make me sound like a political subversive or something? :(
Well there is nothing that I've said here that can't be read on our national broadcaster and that is where I got my info.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365
You make me sound like a political subversive or something? :(
I beg to differ.
You inferred not once, but twice, that there might be a problem if the water level were to drop.
Then again, through inference, you suggested that nuclear safety might be comprimised.
The link you provide from our national brodcaster clearly states that this was not a nuclear incident. So why did you scaremonger?
I will state again, from my own experience in this industry, that the risk you suggested is unfounded. I don't know your motives for doing so, but regardless of that, you were wrong to do so.
I beg to differ.
You inferred not once, but twice, that there might be a problem if the water level were to drop.
Then again, through inference, you suggested that nuclear safety might be comprimised.
The link you provide from our national brodcaster clearly states that this was not a nuclear incident. So why did you scaremonger?
I will state again, from my own experience in this industry, that the risk you suggested is unfounded. I don't know your motives for doing so, but regardless of that, you were wrong to do so.
How was I to know that? I'm just a layman. It is an internet forum where people exchange their views.
So if there was not a problem, why would the nuclear engineer guy say the crew would be seeking interesting ways to cool the reactor?
How was I know that? I'm just a layman. It is an internet forum where people exchange their views.
Yes, you are 100% right on this one.
I've got a countless number of opinions on a countless number of subjects. I've no doubt that you do too! Maybe our paths will cross again on here.
I'm sure these thoughts will be expressed in the future.
But I see no need for the tone suggested by the "layman" term.
I've got no problem with ignorance. Failure to admit ignorance is a problem. We can't all be experts on everything. But that's for another thread....
So if there was not a problem, why would the nuclear engineer guy say the crew would be seeking interesting ways to cool the reactor?
Quite simply because it is normal, good engineering practice to have a number of alternatives.
The moment that one of these alternatives is comprimised then others will be sought. The likelyhood of them being required is a totally different issue.
It annoys me that people using good engineering practice, seeking alternative methods already covered through design, is seen as as a flaw.
It is good practice and indicative of the mentality that the great people defending our country have.
So how can I as a layman differentiate between your reassurances about plant design and the incidences where there have been accidents involving nuclear plants which did have multiple failsafe mechanisms designed into them and the reassurances they had previously about them?
So how can I as a layman differentiate between your reassurances about plant design and the incidences where there have been accidents involving nuclear plants which did have multiple failsafe mechanisms designed into them and the reassurances they had previously about them?
That's a great question.
And the probable answer is that you cant. What you may have to do do is seek assurance that the government which you have elected have made sure that those safeguards are in place.
Using personal exerience, I have worked in the chemical, nuclear and offshore oil industries. I have NEVER felt safer about the design, operation or simple attitude than that of the nuclear industry. If I could, I would go back into it tomorrow but sadly I have to be selfish and think of my own career.
Yes, there have been previous accidents in the nuclear industry. But that industry is great at realising from mistakes. How many deaths/illnesses have been propsed from the accidents you suggest? I bet they are less than the number of deaths in coal mines. I don't condone it it, but "getting energy" costs lives.
You mentioned "incidences where there have been accidents involving nuclear plants which did have multiple failsafe mechanisms ", fair enough.
But again I can tell you, from personal experience, that nuclear submarine operators are taught about these accidents and have learned from them. Education.
I would take pride in being part of a future Scottish nuclear energy programme. I would build on the expertise that Caithness has both recieved and produced.
northener
26-Oct-10, 07:43
As always, uninformed opinion is a dangerous thing.
Here's some info from a Pressurehead:
"Having served as a Reactor Panel operator on hunter killer nuclear submarines from 1975 to 2003, I can reassure the alarmists that there are Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's) that, when put in to action ensure that the reactor is shut down safely, and an alternative cooling water source for reactor plant cooling services is provided from internal trim and ballast tanks. The reporter on BBC news today got it wrong when he stated that she was discharging steam from the top of the fin. This would have been water cooled diesel generator exhaust gases. With the reactor shutdown, an alternative source of power is provided by back up Diesel Generators. The power produced from this source will be used for all routine services as well as providing an alternative power source for the Emergency Propulsion System which operates independent of the reactor. Rest assured that these eventualities are covered in Operating Procedures and crew training so that the submarine can continue to fight another day in a very safe manner."
Perhaps it is more serious than we were led to believe, perhaps the sandy shingle has blocked the lower inlets thus rendering the emergency cooling systems useless. The MoD said there is no risk to the public, perhaps that is true, but then they would say that as a standard response. The Russians said that about Chernobyl even after the top of the reactor blew off and there was a meltdown.
If the tide goes down so far that you can see the propellor then Astute has big problems.
I wondered how long it would be before 'someone' came up with Chernobyl!
"The Russians said that about Chernobyl even after the top of the reactor blew off and there was a meltdown.they were reassured that accidents were almost unheard of."
I think you worry too much Reggy, and you were certainly downright rude (par for the course?): "'I'm not even going to tackle your limited knowledge of the workings of a nuclear submarine under emergency circumstances except to say that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing" and then Theone comes back and shoots you out of the water: "I've qualified as a category"A" nuclear watchkeeper of a Royal Navy submarine propulsion plant. That's the supervisory position, in control of the whole reactor plant,"
I also agree you were scaremongering.
But you continue to dig your hole deeper "Then you should know better than that if you think that there is nothing to worry about it.. And you have a very serious plant condition if you get to that stage which is really a last resort. Perhaps it is more serious than we were led to believe"
But finally you admit the truth with the diatribe: "I'm a fraud, it is obvious that I know nothing really about nuclear submarines and I have been stabbing in the dark. I get my info from newspapers and such like. I'm glad we have theone to put us right though." - well done Rheghead, perhaps you are joining the real world... but I doubt it.. ;)
well done Rheghead, perhaps you are joining the real world... but I doubt it.. ;)
It is not about joining the real world, it is about being a sad little loner at a computer looking at newspaper snippets and wacky websites and trying to create a lively debate on a local website and seeing if I can get a bit of repartee. The thing that you always miss about my posts is that they are invariably tongue in cheek, and if the bigger fool argues with the fool then the joke is on them, not me. [lol]
It is not about joining the real world, it is about being a sad little loner at a computer looking at newspaper snippets and wacky websites and trying to create a lively debate on a local website and seeing if I can get a bit of repartee. The thing that you always miss about my posts is that they are invariably tongue in cheek, and if the bigger fool argues with the fool then the joke is on them, not me. [lol]
You're a wee bit slow on the uptake Rheggy - what do you think these are?:;)
May I just say that I did not work on that boat and it has got absolutely nothing to do with me.
northener
27-Oct-10, 08:44
May I just say that I did not work on that boat and it has got absolutely nothing to do with me.
Is that the sound of Bazeye covering his tracks?:Razz
Is that the sound of Bazeye covering his tracks?:Razz
Seems a few on here do that? ;)
My god isnt it revealing when sombody throws some light under the bridge......double intresting and hilarious thread....
Well done guys, a great read, information revealed, and all spiced with an element of good hearted sword play between contributers.
Vintage Org!
Can anyone tell me why they cover the fin when the sub is docked? It was mentioned on the first page of the thread.
'cos if yer see it they have to kill yer :eek:
The propulsion system is secret so they cover it in dock to keep it hush hush.
The impeller / propeller (?) (I think it still has one) design is for a reduced noise signature I guess.
'cos if yer see it they have to kill yer :eek:
The propulsion system is secret so they cover it in dock to keep it hush hush.
The impeller / propeller (?) (I think it still has one) design is for a reduced noise signature I guess.
I saw it clear as day in some video shot when it's ass was out the water:eek:
I'd describe it but them Ruskys might be eaves dropping ;)
Haha was it anything to talk about? Or was it just a propeller?
Back in 1981 Mrs Beks and I paddled out to the Eddystone in a kayak - on the way back, nothing really about; a couple of small boats away off.
About four miles out from Plymouth breakwater, had a funny feeling and looking over our left shoulder discovered a bloody great sub had surfaced and was gliding by about 30 yards away; not a sound as it went by - one of the more creepy things I've experienced...
I'd describe it but them Ruskys might be eaves dropping
Divnae worry about the Ruskies, the sub they have currently patrolling our waters would have bin round there like a shot.
I have it from a good source that the Russian sub has been spotted of the coast by Portgower!!! :eek::eek::eek:
What a cool nerdy fight!
Way to go.
Compasses at the ready.....Careful not to pr ick yourselves though....
No compassussusess' here, unless they have corks on the pointy bits.
(by order of matron apparently)
Can anyone tell me why they cover the fin when the sub is docked? It was mentioned on the first page of the thread.
Not the fin, the propeller.
I'm not sure why its done, I just remember many years ago the prop getting covered up in Rosyth dry dock because they were getting a visitor from the US Navy and didn't want him to see it. There was a bit of laughter about it because wives and kids had been allowed to see it, but our supposed allies weren't.
I assume its either to do with noise signature or to hide the performance of the submarine.
I can't explain how Ducati saw it on a video. As any videos made in a dockyard would be controlled I can only assume that the images were deamed to be acceptable. Maybe they were far enough away or not of sufficient quality to let any secrets out?
What a cool nerdy fight!
Way to go.
Compasses at the ready.....Careful not to pr ick yourselves though....
I'm glad you were entertained!
Not sure if I like being a nerd though.....
Not the fin, the propeller.
I can't explain how Ducati saw it on a video. As any videos made in a dockyard would be controlled I can only assume that the images were deamed to be acceptable. Maybe they were far enough away or not of sufficient quality to let any secrets out?
When it was stuck on the beepin' sandbank you walley :lol:
its a single shrouded fan......but don't tell the Ruskys...or the Septics :eek:
looks like it might have vectored thrust rather than a conventional rudder
it was on telly so if it was a secret, it isn't now
No compassussusess' here, unless they have corks on the pointy bits.
(by order of matron apparently)
Nothing sharper than a banana for that man. Nurse, NURSE!
When it was stuck on the beepin' sandbank you walley :lol:
its a single shrouded fan......but don't tell the Ruskys...or the Septics :eek:
looks like it might have vectored thrust rather than a conventional rudder
it was on telly so if it was a secret, it isn't now
Oops.
That one went right over my head.
Theres a picture of Astute in drydock with propeller covered here for anyone geeky enough to care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4583907
Back in 1981 Mrs Beks and I paddled out to the Eddystone in a kayak - on the way back, nothing really about; a couple of small boats away off.
About four miles out from Plymouth breakwater, had a funny feeling and looking over our left shoulder discovered a bloody great sub had surfaced and was gliding by about 30 yards away; not a sound as it went by - one of the more creepy things I've experienced...
I believe that.
Working in the reactor compartment, the noise of the ventilation used when manned is louder than the actual plant.
I laughed when I first went into the petrochemical industry and they told me that PPE was a last resort, risks were always reduced to minimum by engineering etc only to be handed a set of ear muffs because a couple of badly aligned and balanced pumps were rattling themselves to bits.
Oops.
Theres a picture of Astute in drydock with propeller covered here for anyone geeky enough to care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4583907
I love the diagram-where's the khazi? :eek:
I love the diagram-where's the khazi? :eek:
Sighs, its the Heads!!!!! Do try and get it right ducati [lol]
Sighs, its the Heads!!!!! Do try and get it right ducati [lol]
Yip, get it right.
You better not dare go for a shi'ite, it realy stirs up tensions with the Sunni's.
We live in a multi cultural society don't you know?
Troublemaker!
northener
29-Oct-10, 06:37
It's all held together with black masking tape and paint y'know.
Well, the surface fleet always was, anyway.
Its a propulsor.
Hmmmmm :confused Likely story, is that like one of those "Body Massager's"?
Hmmmmm :confused Likely story, is that like one of those "Body Massager's"?
I'm sure i dont know what youre talking about.
I'm afraid to report that "theone" has obviously never actually served on a submarine. The "steam dumping to atmosphere being normal practice" makes that fairly obvious.
No luck HMS Astute, another accident, that is one unlucky vessel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11691034
No luck HMS Astute, another accident, that is one unlucky vessel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11691034
That boat is jinxed. Feel sorry for the crew as submariners are very superstitious.
Why jinxed ? Superstitious - how do you make that out ? The media have just latched on to something they know little about. Whatever next - are they going to report on a scratch.
northener
05-Nov-10, 08:22
Why jinxed ? Superstitious - how do you make that out ? The media have just latched on to something they know little about. Whatever next - are they going to report on a scratch.
I reckon you're a Jonah......
No, I am the "albatross."
Oh well the wheels are rolling:
"The naval chief in charge of a nuclear-powered submarine which ran aground off the Isle of Skye has been relieved of his command. HMS Astute was being put through sea trials when it got stuck last month."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11853493 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11853493)
Why jinxed ? Superstitious - how do you make that out ? The media have just latched on to something they know little about. Whatever next - are they going to report on a scratch.
When the Sheffield was getting built there was an explosion killing a couple of workers. Instead of re building the bulkheads etc that got destroyed the parts were taken off an order from an Argentinian ship that was getting built at the same time. I'm sure you know the fate of the Sheffield.
Co incidence? More than likely but it still doesnt stop sailors, especially submariners being superstitious.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.