UK Submarine Design

Attack subs are great and all, but shouldn't the maritime nations be building research subs as well? After the US Navy sub rammed the underwater mountain, you would think we would want to know a little bit more about what is actually down there. Rescue vehicles for submariners would be nice to invest in also.

I was also wondering why the UK has so few submarines? I imagined that they would have much more.

[edit on 6-17-2005 by groingrinder]

Originally posted by groingrinder
I was also wondering why the UK has so few submarines? I imagined that they would have much more.

[edit on 6-17-2005 by groingrinder]

u should know wat the price tag for an attack sub or missile boat. the UK aint that rich in terms of affording to provide the defense budget for the Royal Navy to buy the boats they need. however they invest in the Perisher course that makes a Brit sub 5 times more dangerous compare to a U.S. sub. the U.S. Navy should copy the Brits in the Perisher course where its design to make commanders commanding the boats aggressive in tough situations and survive.

Read my last post on "China's new aircraft carrier." This should explain alot.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by groingrinder
I was also wondering why the UK has so few submarines? I imagined that they would have much more.

[edit on 6-17-2005 by groingrinder]

u should know wat the price tag for an attack sub or missile boat. the UK aint that rich in terms of affording to provide the defense budget for the Royal Navy to buy the boats they need. however they invest in the Perisher course that makes a Brit sub 5 times more dangerous compare to a U.S. sub. the U.S. Navy should copy the Brits in the Perisher course where its design to make commanders commanding the boats aggressive in tough situations and survive.

Found an interesting article regarding the Perisher course. Seems the USN is sending 3 Sub commanders per year on the Perisher course 1 to the Netherlands and 2 to the UK.

Perisher course

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Read my last post on "China's new aircraft carrier." This should explain alot.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Going there now, anticipating a goooooood read.

Attack subs are great and all, but shouldn't the maritime nations be building research subs as well? After the US Navy sub rammed the underwater mountain

That had nothing to do with incomplete underwater mapping it had to do with a captain not referring to his charts and maps before he decided to die and increase his speed. If he had checked is charts he would have seen that the underwater ridge was there.

What you state is the basic outline of what I have gotten from the retired navy people with whom I have the privilege of working. Human error. Failure to follow established proceedures.
Collisions above or underwater is not a new thing to the Navy. They do however frown heavily on such incidents though alot of the specifics are not made public. This one was very close..very close...and avoidable.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Cool site... How many carriers does the British army have...? I found 3...

The UK Army has none, the Navy insist on running them - something to do with the sea

We have 3 tiny, blink & you'll miss 'em, carriers - actually 'through-deck cruisers'. The govt at the time decided we couldn't afford 'aircraft carriers' so we invented a new classification for helicopter ASW ops in the North Atlantic and just hoped the Harrier would work! A 'make-do' solution in spite of the politician's best efforts

We have two 60-70,000 ton super carriers planned for c. 2012 in-service dates.

The ASW TDC's will then probably go to India / Brazil etc I doubt Argentina will be offered them!

Yup, the UK plans to retire its 3 Invincible class carries and produce two 65,000 tonne carries each capable of holding 50 planes.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yup, the UK plans to retire its 3 Invincible class carries and produce two 65,000 tonne carries each capable of holding 50 planes.

Yeah it's just the first part of our strategy for A New British Century. 2012 new carriers, 2050 we re-take Boston, by 2099 we'll be sitting back, drinking your tea and counting all the ££££££'s we're making out of Texas Crude.



No seriously it's just in case we have to go to war against the French



[edit on 17-6-2005 by CTID56092]

Originally posted by deltaboy
wat do u mean doom to failure? its just a name, people shouldnt be too superstitcious that they dink they gonna sink because of a name.

We sailors are superstitious though...

Originally posted by CTID56092
No seriously it's just in case we have to go to war against the French

We'd just use the channel tunnel, a whole lot easier.
Tea and crumpets in paris in 13 and a bit hours...

Originally posted by bodrul
how many Subs do we have by the way?

More than France.

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Cool site... How many carriers do the British have...? I found 3...

More than France.

Originally posted by CTID56092
No seriously it's just in case we have to go to war against the French

Exactly

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
i always liked shots of the Vangard class (UK SSBN) from front on. It looks mean with big shoulders!!!

Me too.

I wish people would stop using the 'Through deck cruiser' name. That was applied in the 70's when they were being designed to disguise what they were from politicians who had decided the UK didnt need carriers anymore. As soon as they were built everyone realised what they were and they we reclassified as aircraft carriers. If you look back through navy records and the design teams work, they are refered to as carriers from about 1980 through to the current day. You say they are small but they are still 20,000 tonnes displacement and with the exception of the CDG they are the largest ships in the european fleet.

To expand a bit on the above comment, the British Navy didn't think at the time that they had a need for Carriers of the same size that the US were building, that and money, and thought that the best way was to go with smaller Carriers that didn't need as many crew and didn't cost as much to maintain as the US Super Carriers did. This decision seemed to have born out when we took the Falklands back as the Carriers performed well in that conflict.
But times change and the present government seems to think that a larger Carrier is a way to go, after all the US success with their Carrier fleet has been unmatched. The larger carriers will mean we can project more air power without the need for land bases giving us more flexibility in any future conflict.

Almost Janus.

The 1966 Labour Govt. decided 'aircraft carriers' were too expensive and forbade them although helicopter ASW carriers were ok/affordable. The Navy designed the TDC as way of getting round the restriction - their designated role was ASW and it was envisaged embarking a few Harriers for defence (official view).

The Navy wanted 'aircraft carriers' that could protect a fleet / establish air superiority so they went along with the TDC story to get the boats approved and worked on the politicians to allow development of the Harrier (only one of two aircraft to survive the chop in the same defence review).

As was said they were re-designated but the fact remains they're not really aircraft carriers - no fast jets, AAR etc. - they're a budget compromise solution, fine for regional powers but not for a 'large' country like the UK.

The Falklands showed the limitations of the concept, we were very lucky - TDC's are no substitute for proper aircraft carriers

Originally posted by CTID56092
As was said they were re-designated but the fact remains they're not really aircraft carriers - no fast jets, AAR etc. - they're a budget compromise solution, fine for regional powers but not for a 'large' country like the UK.

The Falklands showed the limitations of the concept, we were very lucky - TDC's are no substitute for proper aircraft carriers

Hence the navy is pushing so hard for our new carriers, that will redress the balance abit. The silliest part was that in the 60's when they cancelled the planned carriers, the government decided that the raf would be able to supply fleet air defense using its bases around the world. Next thing they close most of the bases so that during the next major blow up (the falklands) the nearest base is over 4000 miles away (assension isld) and all the raf could manage was some over complicated vulcan raids. If they had built the carriers, then the falkland would have been very different (if it happened at all - Arg. thought we were selling off invincible)

Originally posted by CTID56092
Almost Janus.

I was working from memory from a documentary i saw a few years ago about our Carrier Fleet. I was pretty close tho lol.
Thanks for the full story about the Carriers

Originally posted by paperplane_uk

If they had built the carriers, then the falkland would have been very different (if it happened at all - Arg. thought we were selling off invincible)

Think the Aussies thought they'd bought it too! They must have been so hacked off when it sailed due south! Presumably a bargain price as they never replaced it - could have bought new from Spain or UK.

There were strong rumours we were going to sell 'Invincible' to India in the next few years but they're now building their own and buying one from Russia - anyone know what happened?



[edit on 23-6-2005 by CTID56092]