Fishing Boat in UK Clashes With Mysterious Vessel...

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

Years ago a US sub collided with a Japanese fishing boat as it rose to the surface.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: AlmostRosey

Who told them there were no subs in the area? I asked because a subs location is always classified.

I'm just basing it on this quote from the article: "The MOD told the Coastguard they had no subs in the area where Angus’s vessel, the Aquarius, was operating on Tuesday."

Not sure if that's reliable.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I would wonder about the whip back of a cut line to the nets which I suspect would be as dangerous as hell to people on board.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AlmostRosey

Oh not at all. If the fishing boat was at low power or not moving passive sonar may not have picked it up. Or if there was a lot of other noise. Sonar doesn't work nearly as well in shallow water.

What, have we shifted dimensionally back to the 1940's technology or something?

It's a bit surprising that 21st century nuclear submarines can't seem to be able to locate a surface vessel directly above it, especially considering how much they cost and how much our nuclear defence rests on those subs and their 1940's technology.

Just hope a potential enemy doesn't have fishing boat sized anti-submarine vessels...or we'll really be in trouble!

a reply to: MysterX

Passive sonar works by detecting noise around the submarine. There are no emissions for an opponent to detect, hence the name. In shallow water the noise can bounce off other objects, distorting it, or can be blocked. It doesn't matter who owns the sub, it works the same for everyone. Better computers can pick more sounds out but it's not perfect.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Still quite surprising though isn't it.

All that technology crammed into such a sophisticated and hugely expensive machine and it still relies on what is essentially old and inefficient tech to locate prey or avoid predators, much like a couple of tin cans attached by a length of string to transmit the sound down.

Not saying that how it is, is not how it is, just that it's surprising there isn't a more technologically superior method of detecting surface vessels that's all.

a reply to: AlmostRosey

It happened recently in 1990, with the crew of the Antares:

MISTAKES by a submarine's command team led to the sinking of a Scottish trawler with the loss of its four-man crew, according to an official accident report published yesterday.
The report by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch said there had been 'a partial breakdown in the watchkeeping structure and standards' on board HMS Trenchant, a nuclear- powered submarine.
It also said incorrect reports from Trenchant led to an eight-and-a-half-hour delay in mounting a search and rescue operation 'which may have contributed to the loss of life'.

The crew of the trawler Antares died on 22 November 1990 when the Trafalgar class submarine snagged its nets in the Bute Sound, north of Arran. Trenchant had been engaged in a submarine command exercise, known as a 'perishers' course.

The Independent

Just because a sub was said not to be there, don't believe for a minute that it wasn't.

a reply to: MysterX

There is. Active sonar. But as soon as you go active everyone within a huge area knows exactly where you are.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, i know about active sonar...but as you say it lights your position up like beacon.

I was thinking more of some kind of remote robotic probe / sensor buoy / as yet un-invented device that could independently rove around, above and below the sub and feed live data back to it...a small football (ish) device, perhaps a dozen or so compliment could rove near the surface, detect surface vessels or aircraft within a shortish range, as well as rove out to the sides and below the sub and report back depths, contacts and so on.

I mean, even HD cameras pointing straight up to the surface would have seen the dark outlines of a fishing vessels hull on the surface above...i guess my point is, if active sonar cannot be used as it gives away position, and passive sonar isn't up to detecting objects that ate powered down or not moving much, then common sense would say something else, something better ought to have been designed by now.

We spend billions on these things, what's a few dozen million more to develop better detection tech?

a reply to: MysterX

Cameras don't work well underwater without light. Rovers are more detection sources that can be found through both they're own sound success l sources as well as transmissions being detectable underwater. Passive sonar is currently the best method we have.

originally posted by: babybunnies
If it was a Russian submarine, it's even less likely that they would admit it than if it were a British one.

The MoD have admitted before when Submarines have been involved with hits on fishing boats - not always and not usually at the first pass, but they do cough up eventually especially if people are killed.

originally posted by: babybunnies
The MoD would have to admit that they allowed a Russian submarine into British waters, a major embarrassment.

Such a thing isn't technically illegal, especially if outside the 12 mile territorial limit and in the EEZ. At any rate, what are they supposed to do about it in peacetime? They can't just sink it! They do what they do with the aircraft, just shadow them and watch them pass through or around.

a reply to: MysterX



1940's technology? Righto...

Some of the most advanced machines on the planet are the Nuclear submarines employed by the Royal Navy and US Navy, but as Zaph said, there are limitations to everything.

a reply to: MysterX

And how do you control these drones, store them and what kind of sensory package do they have on that is in anyway different to what they can put on the submarine itself?

It's a whole lot of fuss for something that is not required 99% of the time.

a reply to: stumason

Give me a few million quid and i'll get back to you in 6 to 12 months with an answer!

Zap, cameras pointing straight up do have a light source, the sun and or moon / stars.

All we're talking about really is light amplification tech and that's been around for decades.

a reply to: AlmostRosey

What ever the other mysterious vessel was the crews lucky to be alive considering fishing vessels that collide with submarines seldom fare well especially so if there nets are deployed and become entangled.

a reply to: MysterX



You'd make an excellent defence contractor! Getting money to design something that simply isn't needed and already exists anyway, only to then charge a fortune to build, install and maintain it as well....

a reply to: andy06shake

Would have thought fishing boats would have an emergency net cable cutter or similar to the system employed on parachutes to cut away the main chute and clear the way for the reserve chute...it's usually the boat being dragged under the surface by the sub snagging the nets or net cables that's the problem.

If there was an emergency cable cutter monitoring the tension on the net cable, being dragged under would probably not be an issue for fishing boats.

a reply to: stumason

How's that any different to how it usually works then?

a reply to: MysterX

Hehe, it's not!

Seriously though, it's a whole lot of fuss for nothing. There are very good procedures in place now, at least around the UK and within the RN at least, that generally prevent this kind of thing from happening.

It could be that this was a foreign sub or there is even the possibility that this is a fishermans tale...

a reply to: MysterX

I would have thought such a system would be in place also. Then again things don't always plan out or work the way they are supposed to in the middle of the ocean. Being dragged under via there nets becoming entangled is exactly what has happened or been suspected to have happened to numerous other Fishing vessels in the past.