The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
No. Same second stage.
Thanks for the post, looks like they are almost there.
icecoolben
New Member
UK to launch its biggest, deadliest nuclear submarine
London, Dec 14 – A nuclear reactor which can power a small city and guided-missiles that can pulverise an enemy more than 1,000 miles away — meet HMS Ambush, the Royal Navy’s newest killer submarine.
The ’super-sub’ can produce oxygen and drinking water from seawater to keep its 98 crew members alive in time of crisis.
More complex than the US space shuttles and able to circumnavigate the globe without surfacing, Ambush is 291 ft long, the same length as a football pitch, as wide as four double-decker buses and 12 storeys high.
Its nuclear-powered engine can propel her at more than 20 knots, allowing her to travel 500 miles a day, reports the Daily Mail.
And despite being 50 percent bigger than the Swiftsure and Trafalgar subs it will replace, Ambush is much quieter. Its propellers are the quietest ones, making less noise than a baby dolphin and undetectable to enemy vessels.
Of course, that is if enemy vessels can get near Ambush. The submarine’s sonar and radar are so sensitive that it can detect ships a staggering 3,000 nautical miles away.
It means that if parked in the English Channel, Ambush would know if a ship left the New York harbour. A true titan of the deep, the 1.2-billion-pound warship will be launched at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria Thursday.
A typical patrol lasts 10 weeks, but Ambush could theoretically stay underwater for its entire 25-year lifespan.
HMS Ambush will carry 38 missiles, a mixture of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of 1,240 miles, and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes to target other ships and submarines.
IANS
London, Dec 14 – A nuclear reactor which can power a small city and guided-missiles that can pulverise an enemy more than 1,000 miles away — meet HMS Ambush, the Royal Navy’s newest killer submarine.
The ’super-sub’ can produce oxygen and drinking water from seawater to keep its 98 crew members alive in time of crisis.
More complex than the US space shuttles and able to circumnavigate the globe without surfacing, Ambush is 291 ft long, the same length as a football pitch, as wide as four double-decker buses and 12 storeys high.
Its nuclear-powered engine can propel her at more than 20 knots, allowing her to travel 500 miles a day, reports the Daily Mail.
And despite being 50 percent bigger than the Swiftsure and Trafalgar subs it will replace, Ambush is much quieter. Its propellers are the quietest ones, making less noise than a baby dolphin and undetectable to enemy vessels.
Of course, that is if enemy vessels can get near Ambush. The submarine’s sonar and radar are so sensitive that it can detect ships a staggering 3,000 nautical miles away.
It means that if parked in the English Channel, Ambush would know if a ship left the New York harbour. A true titan of the deep, the 1.2-billion-pound warship will be launched at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria Thursday.
A typical patrol lasts 10 weeks, but Ambush could theoretically stay underwater for its entire 25-year lifespan.
HMS Ambush will carry 38 missiles, a mixture of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of 1,240 miles, and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes to target other ships and submarines.
IANS
Big changes in the Royal Navys surface Fleet.
The remaining Type-22 frigats are to be withdrawn in 2011.
HMS Ark Royal are to be decomissioned in early 2011 with the HMS Illustrious to follow in 2014.
Also one Bay class landing ship dock is to be decomissioned in 2011 after less then 5 years in service.
The Auxiliary Oiler RFA Bayleaf and the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel RFA Fort George will also be withdrawn from service in April next year.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Changes to Royal Navy's surface fleet announced
News & Star | News | HMS Cumberland faces scrap heap
All this and finish date for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, with only one now to be in full service relly makes the RN look very weak I must say. Far from the old days when the Empire ruled the seas.
The remaining Type-22 frigats are to be withdrawn in 2011.
HMS Ark Royal are to be decomissioned in early 2011 with the HMS Illustrious to follow in 2014.
Also one Bay class landing ship dock is to be decomissioned in 2011 after less then 5 years in service.
The Auxiliary Oiler RFA Bayleaf and the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel RFA Fort George will also be withdrawn from service in April next year.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Changes to Royal Navy's surface fleet announced
News & Star | News | HMS Cumberland faces scrap heap
All this and finish date for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, with only one now to be in full service relly makes the RN look very weak I must say. Far from the old days when the Empire ruled the seas.
I'm not clear on the Bays is this the one that has already gone into reserve of another one, are we down to 2 or 3? Also with the Albion/Bulwark one is "extended" and the other is "high" readines,s does "high" mean she will be regularly at sea?Big changes in the Royal Navys surface Fleet.
The remaining Type-22 frigats are to be withdrawn in 2011.
HMS Ark Royal are to be decomissioned in early 2011 with the HMS Illustrious to follow in 2014.
Also one Bay class landing ship dock is to be decomissioned in 2011 after less then 5 years in service.
The Auxiliary Oiler RFA Bayleaf and the Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel RFA Fort George will also be withdrawn from service in April next year.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Changes to Royal Navy's surface fleet announced
News & Star | News | HMS Cumberland faces scrap heap
All this and finish date for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, with only one now to be in full service relly makes the RN look very weak I must say. Far from the old days when the Empire ruled the seas.
I can't understand why they are disposing of RFA Fort George, when the 2 Rovers are so much older, I assume they are a more useful size and cheaper to operate, but still it seems another example of waste.
The period 2014-2020 is going to be particularly bleak, with only Ocean when she can get to sea, assuming there is no further delays in QE. If the T26 do replace the T23 as they leave service they will not start to enter service till c2023/24? It looks like it is going to be decades before the RN can field a balanced force again.
Apparently the RAN are looking at purchasing a Bay.
In what respect ? Do you mean an ex RN,or are you talking about the new sea lift ship planned for in the White Paper ? Would not be surprised if they did seriously look at an ex bay, they have been talking about it for a while now. Could be a good op to train up prior to the LHD's coming online and how could the government pass up a bargain price offer compared to new price ?
EX RFA, while I can't post links, have a look at australiandefence.com.au.
The article is halfway down the front page.
The article is halfway down the front page.
here is the link
ADM: RAN to acquire ex-RN Bay Class LSD?
Not sure about the comment in the article about the RAN at one stage looking at a Rotterdam/Galicia Class to replace Success ?? I think someone is confussed
Also in the article it states that the Spanish based their Galicia Class on the Rotterdam. The original design was by Navantia for the Spanish Armada and the Rotterdam is the same ship buit for them in the Netherlands with a few changes specific to the Dutch. The Bay class is just a larger version of the Navantia design
A misunderstanding. Someone has mistakenly thought that the proposal is to buy RFA Largs Bay instead of one of the Canberra class LHDs. This is wrong: the proposal for JP2048 Phase 4C is, as stated earlier in the article, in addition to the LHDs. Someone else appears to have confused it with a replacement for HMAS Success. You've compounded the problem by quoting out of context.
What follows on from your quote is -
What follows on from your quote is -
Suddenly, it all makes sense. The RAN has a requirement for a replacement for HMAS Tobruk. The Bay class was built by the UK to replace the Round Table class LSLs - of which Tobruk is a modified example. The RAN specification for its new ship closely resembles the Bay class. What a surprise!
overlander
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5,455
If the R.N. will be 10 years without carrier capability it,s possible that in 2020 they decided simply to sell not only 1 but the 2 carriers, in my opinion these heavy cuts have been too radical and unrresponsible, I think the morale of sailors and officers of the navy will not be the highest as they see that for coalition government the armed forces are a secondary and not important matter.
You can't sell something unless there's a customer, & there are no prospective customers. Selling is unlikely to be an option.
Also, the decision would have to be taken much earlier. In 10 years time, we're scheduled to have a fully operational carrier with a fully operational US-built air wing. We'd be unable to sell the air wing without US permission; even if we got permission, we'd lose money on selling the aircraft; we'd also be writing off a huge investment in crew training & infrastructure.
Also, the decision would have to be taken much earlier. In 10 years time, we're scheduled to have a fully operational carrier with a fully operational US-built air wing. We'd be unable to sell the air wing without US permission; even if we got permission, we'd lose money on selling the aircraft; we'd also be writing off a huge investment in crew training & infrastructure.
Brazil will be in the Market for a carrier then? The F35c could either operate from land by the RAF or if the decision is make earlier enough the order could be switched again to As. This option will be on the RAF's agenda.
If the RN is careful (both financially and managing the business case better) I think we will get the carrier, but to right off the threat of both getting sold is very unwise.
I do get the feeling there is an acceptance that the RN has come off badly compared to the other services.
The RN came off bad?
The cuts in the UK are universal. The RAF will have only 6 fast Wings and the Army looses manpower and enough heavy equipment that fielding a heavy division would be a challenge.
I understand that the RN simpathizers feel that the Navy lost more than the others but in the end all services have to bleed alot.
The cuts in the UK are universal. The RAF will have only 6 fast Wings and the Army looses manpower and enough heavy equipment that fielding a heavy division would be a challenge.
I understand that the RN simpathizers feel that the Navy lost more than the others but in the end all services have to bleed alot.
I agree all the services have taken a hit, and maybe the RN's mismanagement of large procurement projects has left it with potentially such an unbalanced force.
I think there is also an arguement that the Army has not done so well before. However the RAF has given up assets it looked after for others (MR4 & Harriers)
Yeah, for sure. But what should they do? From a RAF perspective the Tornados and EFs bring alot more to the table than the Harriers.
With the Tonis they are able to perform deep strike, CAS, interdiction, maritime strike and can employ Storm Shadows. The Harriers on the other hand are good for...
While I am sceptical of the Nimrod decision I fully understand the motivation behind retiring the Harriers.
I really understand that the RN has alot of fans here and I don't say this in a negative way.
But IMHO blaming the other services is wrong and I understand 1805s position.
The army is the service that is deep in the shit since nearly a decade and one can't blame the RAF for trying to save as many of their capabilities as possible.
With the Tonis they are able to perform deep strike, CAS, interdiction, maritime strike and can employ Storm Shadows. The Harriers on the other hand are good for...
While I am sceptical of the Nimrod decision I fully understand the motivation behind retiring the Harriers.
I really understand that the RN has alot of fans here and I don't say this in a negative way.
But IMHO blaming the other services is wrong and I understand 1805s position.
The army is the service that is deep in the shit since nearly a decade and one can't blame the RAF for trying to save as many of their capabilities as possible.