Marine Britannique

[Invité Rob]

Les excellentes frégates "Type 23" ne sont plus que 13 (sur 16 à l'origine) et vont prendre un coup de vieux dans les années 2010 ; je vois mal comment la RN pourrait maintenir son efficacité opérationnelle sans un minimum de 8 destroyers Type 45 !

Le solution: 12 jusqu'a 13 Type 23s vont recevoir probablement un upgrade. Un autre part du solution: S2C2 - C3, un navire du type "corvette", "OPV" ou meme "light frigate" de 2000 tonnes. Le Royal Navy veut au minimum 8, mais avec le replacement du "River" et "Echo" classes en "longterm" ils veulent peut-etre 14. Le Type 23s et Type 22s va remplacer par les C1s et C2s.

Une example pour un C3 est peut-etre une version (avec plus d'armes britannique) d'OPV du VT Group pour Oman:

Incroyable que les dirigeants britanniques essayent de pomper le budget au détriment de ce fleuron traditionnel qu'est la Royal Navy, alors qu'ils pourraient récupérer de l'argent ailleurs avec beaucoup moins de préjudice pour leur pays : réduire fortement la commande des 232 "Typhoon" prévus par exemple (120 à 140 ça pourrait suffire vu l'absence de véritable menace aérienne sur la GB et les divers théâtres d'opération), ou revendre une vingtaine des 67 hélicos "Apache Longbow" récemment livrés (les saoudiens seraient sûrement très enthousiasmés par un aussi beau jouet)...

Reduire seulement le commande britannique pour le Typhoon n'est pas possible (sans payer beaucoup d'argent aux autres partnaires), mais en tout cas, le RAF besoin les 232 Typhoons. En probablement l'autumn 2007 4 Typhoons sont sur les Falklands et en 2008 des Typhoons vont etre en Afghanistan. Le Typhoon est tres important pour le "Future British Air Power". Et les Apaches sont tres important en Afghanistan par exemple.

Le T45 est peut-être un peut trop axé AAW pour être commandé dans cette quantité. Un dérivé avec moins d'électronique serait préférable.

Le Type 45 a l'espace pour installer 16 "Tomahawks" ou un 155mm "NFGS gun". Mais il est sur a mon avis, que, avec en avenir 2 CVFs, 2 LPDs, 1 LPH, etc..., on besoin beaucoup des "AAW destroyers".

[P4]

Navy argues against Marine variant of JSF

Corps defends JFF STOVL against assertions outlined in document

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday May 1, 2007 13:58:00 EDT

Despite public support by Pentagon and Navy leaders for the short-take-off/vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, debates about the planned acquisition and operation of the F-35B continue behind the scenes — worrying Marine Corps officials and potential foreign customers who are counting on the versatile aircraft.

Navy officials have set no public deadline to settle JSF procurement plans, but a current Navy briefing document provides a rare window on the debate. It argues that the STOVL version should not fly as part of a carrier air wing.

The JSF program is slated to produce three variants: the F-35A, a conventional takeoff version; the F-35C, strengthened for carrier takeoffs and landings, and the F-35B, fitted with a liftfan that allows it to perform the crucial Marine missions of operating from amphibious ships and primitive bases in forward areas.

The plane’s biggest customers — the Navy and Air Force — are more enthusiastic about the higher-performance F-35A and C versions. But the five-year-old practice of including a Marine fighter squadron with most carrier air wings means putting the F-35B, with its slightly different shape and maintenance requirements, aboard the carriers.

In the briefing document, Navy tactical-aviation planners argue that the Marines should drop the F-35B in favor of the F-35C, at least for carrier-based units. They cite the differing operating characteristics of the STOVL aircraft and note the C’s superiority in range and weapons load.

“STOVL sub-optimizes CVW [carrier air wing] operations and capabilities,” Navy planners assert in the document, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News. “STOVL, while capable of CVN operations, should not be integrated into the CVW as part of a standard construct.”

Shopping plans

Officials in the Navy Department, which includes the Navy and Marine Corps, are trying to decide how many of each variant to buy. The Navy plans to buy a total of 680: 360 F-35Cs and 320 F-35Bs, although the Marines have a requirement for 420 JSFs.

Early-production F-35As are already five months into flight tests, while the first F-35B is scheduled to take to the air in 2008, and the F-35C in 2009.

In the document, Navy planners say the STOVL aircraft will have “thermal, pressure and acoustic effects more dramatic than models predict” and refer to issues certifying Marine V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for shipboard operations. Flight deck movement will be restricted by blast from the aircraft, the planners wrote, and launching and recovering each STOVL F-35 will add two minutes to the carrier’s flight cycles.

Marine planners are digging in against these assertions, claiming built-in biases by Navy aviators against STOVL operations. They also say the briefing misuses and mischaracterizes numerous facts.

In the briefing, the Navy aviation planners list more than a dozen ways the F-35B short-takeoff-and-landing version will “sub-optimize” aircraft-carrier operations. Among other things, they say the F-35B will:

* Offer poorer capability and sustainability at a higher price than the carrier-optimized F-35C. The Marines say the STOVL aircraft outperforms the C model in all kinds of missions except carrier-based ones.

* Reduce flexibility in carrier-deck operations. Marines: That won’t be known until flight tests begin.

* Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That advantage will be reduced by the F-35C’s heavier weight, by the -B’s ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL version doesn’t need to carry backup fuel in case it can’t trap aboard a carrier.

* Not carry a 2,000-pound bomb in its internal bomb bay. Marines: The F-35B can carry one externally, and weapon is needed for only 15 percent of missions anyway.

* Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy radar. Marines: That could be remedied with the under-development Small Diameter Bomb.

* Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy ships. Marines: It carriers the Joint Stand-Off Weapon externally.

The use of Marine fighter squadrons in Navy carrier wings is mandated under the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration plan, approved in 2004. By including Marine strike fighters in regular carrier deployment, each service was able to reduce the number of squadrons and aircraft. The TacAir plan allowed planners to cut the total procurement of F-35s and F/A-18 Super Hornets by nearly 500 aircraft, saving — according to the Navy in 2004 — about $35 billion.

The Marines, committed to an “all-STOVL force,” intend to replace the current crop of AV-8B Harrier jumpjets and F/A-18 Hornets with the F-35B. Replacement of the Harrier with the JSF is not at issue. Rather, the problem facing Navy planners is how to manage the STOVL F-35Bs in a wing otherwise composed of F-35Cs, F/A-18E and -F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy is committed throughout its aviation community to “necking down” the number of different types of aircraft to a handful of basic models. Last year, the strike fighter community finished their switch from the F-14 Tomcat to an all-F/A-18 force. Several observers note that introducing the F-35 into the -18 mix could strike Navy planners as counter-productive, and figuring how to use yet another version of the F-35 would only compound perceived problems.

That notion struck one aviation analyst as silly.

“I’ve never seen any definitive analysis that says a STOVL aircraft can’t be successfully integrated into a carrier wing,” he said. “I think what you have is this sort of culture in the Navy that says we just don’t do it that way. I’m not convinced [sTOVL aircraft] can’t work with air wings.”

At the other end of the cultural debate, the Marines argue they didn’t join up to fly from carriers.

“The surface story of blue and green working together is great,” said Dakota Wood, a former Marine officer who is now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “But the reality is that [in a carrier wing] you’re on Navy time, and the Marine Corps ground commander is saying, where is my tac air?”

The comparisons of the two JSF versions also struck Wood as “an unfair comparison. Each version has been optimized for the environment in which it’s to be employed.”

“The legitimate argument,” he said, “is how you’re going to use the airplane.”

Ships Riding on JSF

And while the Navy and Marine Corps continue their debate over the JSF, at least two members of the 11-nation JSF partnership have a far deeper interest in the survival of the STOVL plane.

Britain is making an enormous investment — $7.7 billion in ship construction costs alone — in building two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft carriers intended to operate the F-35B. Later this year, Italy expects to commission the 27,000-metric-ton carrier Cavour, specifically intended to operate JSFs as a replacement for its aging carrier-capable AV-8B Harriers.

The planned 131-aircraft Italian JSF order — 22 STOVLs and 109 conventional aircraft for the Air Force — is strictly linked to the need to replace the Harriers, Italian Defense Undersecretary Lorenzo Forcieri said Jan. 16.

The British are even more dependent on the F-35B, as they have chosen to build their two carriers without the steam catapults planned for the French Navy’s similar PA2 ship.

Evidence of British concern for the health of the F-35B program was published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) April 27. MoD said it “remained fully committed to the carrier program” but added, “The department continues to closely monitor the U.S. STOVL requirements and the performance of the STOVL variant.”

With no other STOVL strike fighter in development, loss of the F-35B would mean British planners could choose to install catapults — early design work on the ships accounted for this possibility — and decide between the French Rafale, F/A-18 or another competitor.

British support for the F-35B is seen by many observers as a key element in the survival of the variant in last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Although the QDR was completed over a year ago, the British carrier program remains a major ingredient in the STOVL program.

A British government official said Pentagon officials “periodically seek updates from the British government on the status of the carrier program — a move that some have suggested has less to do with Britain’s interest in building the ships than whether London is wavering on the raison d’être for the JSF STOVL program.”

Debate goes on

Inside the Pentagon, Navy and Marine Corps planners continue to debate the issue, which soon could move to Capitol Hill. Sources close to service leaders Adm. Mike Mullen of the Navy and Gen. James Conway of the Marine Corps say both officers are seeking to avoid public disagreement on the JSF program and other issues and are working to find common ground.

“This is a 20-year discussion,” said an industry analyst. “It’s not going to be over just because the Navy did a briefing.”

Staff writers Andrew Chuter, Tom Kington, Vago Muradian, Bradley Peniston and Gayle Putrich contributed to this report.

Navy argues against Marine variant of JSF

[Invité Rob]

HMS Chatham successfully test-fires Sea Wolf missiles

4 May 07

Royal Navy Type 22 frigate HMS Chatham has conducted the last ever salvo firings of Bock 1 Sea Wolf missiles as part of training trials which involved a visit to her affiliated town of Chatham.

HMS Chatham's last ever salvo firings of Block 1 Sea Wolf missiles [Picture: Royal Navy] - [Picture: Royal Navy].

The ship had originally been due to fire just one test missile from each of her forward and aft launchers, but then the opportunity arose to conduct salvo firings where two missiles are fired simultaneously at the same target. The results were both impressive and spectacular, as Weapon Engineer Officer, Lieutenant Commander Chris Smith explained:

"This serial is about testing the capability of the whole firing system and there is no better assessment than a salvo firing. This is a rare opportunity and, despite the extra preparations involved, there was no way we were going to let this pass."

A high level test run was successfully conducted by the operations room team and this was followed by a simulated firing run with the target screaming in towards the ship at ultra-low level. Despite the trial being undertaken with a junior crew still undergoing training, both runs were successful at the first attempt.

It was then a case of firing live missiles and, as the target again hurtled towards the ship, the forward missile doors opened and two huge plumes of flames appeared as the operations room team gave the traditional Naval cry of 'birds away'.

The two missiles careered away from the ship, skimming the waves. The first then hit the target, simultaneously exploding and shredding the target to pieces and, such was the accuracy of the system, that the second missile, close behind, tracked the shrapnel down towards the sea and exploded when it hit the largest piece of the debris caused by the first missile. The firings were repeated at the other end of the ship with similar success.

The Commanding Officer, Commander Martin Connell, said:

"This was a great result for HMS Chatham. With a junior crew we have successfully completed two salvo firings at the first attempts. The textbook results show the keenness and professionalism of both my warfare and weapon engineering teams and have proven the capability of our equipment."

The Sea Wolf Block 2 missile is now in service with the Royal Navy's Type 22 and 23 Fleets. HMS Chatham is now completing her war-fighting and humanitarian relief training in readiness to deploy anywhere in the world at short notice.

Link: Ministry of Defence

L'information sur le SeaWolf Block 2:

MBDA (formerly the missile division of Alenia Marconi Systems) was awarded a contract for the mid-life update of the Seawolf missile which will include upgrading the radar tracking system and addition of infrared tracking, with sensor fusion technology. The new Seawolf Block 2 missile entered service in July 2005.

Improvements include a new electronic fin actuation system for improved control and extended range and a new fuse with IR/RF (infrared / radio frequency) sensors for improved performance against very low sea-skimming targets.

Link: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/t23/

[Invité Rob]

Encore 32 jours jusqu'a le Royal Navy a une nouvelle "Queen of the Seas":

[jeune]

A l'arrière, je ne vois pas l'hélice, c'est bizarre !!

[European]

Ou en est la helice???? Les brits ont oubliè la helice de la nouvelle reine du mar? Hi Rob, the kingdom, his land, his sea and his sky has only a queen. Her majesty The Queen. (I like HerMajesty, she is very nice person. She looks a very sweet grandma [61]) [12] I would like to ask a question. Why the navy and the airforce are Royal and the army is not royal army??? Aircrafts of Raf are called HMA (aircrafts) ? Thanks a lot. Best regards.

[Davout]

Les anglais utilisent le féminin pour parler de leurs navires. Les astute auront une pompe hélice (pumpjet) comme tous les sous-marins récents (sauf les russes?). Ce que l'on voit ne sont que des images de synthèse...

[Invité Rob]

Peut-etre parce que l'Astute a un "pump jet" developpe par Rolls-Royce? Mais, je ne suis pas sur si on pourra voir le "propulsor". Les Trafalgars, je pense, etaient les premiers SSNs avec un "pump jet".

Link:

Rolls-Royce develops "pump jet propulsor" for the Astute SSN class

Hi Rob,

the kingdom, his land, his sea and his sky has only a queen. Her majesty The Queen. (I like HerMajesty, she is very nice person. She looks a very sweet grandma)

Long live our noble Queen! [12]

Aircrafts of Raf are called HMA (aircrafts) ?

Non.

I would like to ask a question.

Why the navy and the airforce are Royal and the army is not royal army???

That has to do, iirc, with Oliver Cromwell, the only non royal ruler of the UK (He called himself "Lord Protector"). He started as an MP and became the revolution leader in the 17th century and set up an army for the parliarment to fight the monarchists (iirc in structure referred to as "The new model Army"). He however became more and more totalitarian and after his death, the monarchy was soon restored by parliarment because his son did not have the influence in the parliarment nor in the army. Oliver Cromwell's body was excuted posthumously and his remains lie in Sydney Sussex College (where he studied), Cambridge. The British Army I believe goes back to this and that is why it is not Royal. Though do not doubt the Army's loyalties. ;-) It's just a bit of history. However a lot of Army units are Royal, such as the Royal Engineers, the Royal Artillery, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Dragoon Guards, the Royal Gurkha Rifles, the Royal Logistics Corps, etc... . Also many are King's, such as King's Own Scottish Borderers, King's and Cheshire Regiment, King's Royal Hussars. Many units iirc received the affiliations due to valour on the battlefield.

[Invité Rob]

J'ai oublie de dire: BAE a dit que une "senior royal" va "launch" HMS Astute. Des rumeurs disent que, peut-etre, HRH Elizabeth II va faire ca. Ca sera tres bon!

Un part du "crew" de HMS Astute avant HMS Astute.

Commander Mike Moreland (je pense, qu'il est tres content), avant HMS Astute.

[European]

Thanks Rob. Very very interesting. When Charles will be King the royal ships will be His or Her majesty ship? [21]

[Invité Rob]

When Charles will be King the royal ships will be His or Her majesty ship?

His. The good thing is the prefix (HMS) remains the same. Now, I'm not totally sure if that was an honest question or if you were having a go at Prince Charles. ;-)

[Fenrir]

En français screugneugneu!

[Coriace]

Ils parlent du HMS (Her/His Majesty Ship) et du pourquoi on ne dit pas la Royal Army (j'ai pas très bien compris cette partie). Ensuite European met en doute la virilité du Prince Charles [28]

[hadriel]

Il dit qu'on ne dit pas Royal Army car elle était fortement avec Cromwell pendant la guerre civile.

[Coriace]

C'est la que j'ai pas compris... Cromwell il étais avec le Roi non?Et le Parlement a repris le pouvoir après sa mort ...?

[Coriace]

Double post dsl :S

[Philippe Top-Force]

Qu'en est-il du projet MARS ,Rob ?

[Invité Rob]

Cromwell il étais avec le Roi non?Et le Parlement a repris le pouvoir après sa mort ...?

Cromwell etait un republicain. Le seul republicain qui gouvernait le Royaume-Uni dans notre histoire. Cromwell etais dans le parlement du 17th siecle. Et quand le parlement et le roi (Charles I) avaient une dispute Oliver Cromwell etais le general pour le parlement. Il lutte contre les royalists, mais apres des victoires, il etais un dictator. Le "British Army", en sa structure original, est tres similaire a l'armee de Cromwell's "New Model Army". C'est la raison, afaik, que le "British Army" n'est pas "Royal". Le parlement, apres la mort du Cromwell, a demande un nouveau Roi. C'etait Charles II. J'espere que c'est plus claire. :-)

Qu'en est-il du projet MARS ,Rob ?

Il n'y a pas beaucoup de nouvelles. :-( Le dernier information important est:

In April 2006, reports indicated plans for a total of 11 new naval support ships under MARS, these comprising:.

1. Five fleet tankers for delivery between 2011 and 2015.

2. Three joint sea-based logistics vessels for delivery in 2016, 2017 and 2020.

3. Two fleet solid-support ships for delivery in 2017 and 2020.

4. A single fleet tanker (CVF/carrier strike) for delivery in 2021.

Link: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/mars.htm

Je pense que les deux "Wave Class" tankers seront etre en service apres 2020.

[Invité Rob]

En français screugneugneu!

Excusez-moi. :-) Qu'est que ce "screugneugneu"? :-)

[chimère]

Excusez-moi. :-) Qu'est que ce "screugneugneu"? :-)

C'est une forme polie pour dire: "bordel de merde!" [50]

[Chris.]

C'est une forme polie pour dire: "bordel de merde!" [50]

ou plus poliment, ça veut dire que la personne est (très) énervée [08]

[Invité Rob]

Des autres articles sur HMS Astute:

Navy's stealth submarine will rule the oceans

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:06am BST 09/05/2007

A new £1.2 billion Royal Navy submarine which from the Channel is able to detect the QE2 cruise liner leaving New York harbour was unveiled yesterday.

The Astute, the first attack submarine to be built in almost two decades, is the "most stealthy in the world" and will put the Navy at the "top of the premiership", commanders said.

An Astute class nuclear submarines, navy's stealth submarine will rule the oceans

The first of two Astute class nuclear submarines being built by BAE systems in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria

At a time when morale is suffering, the launch next month of the Navy's biggest ever hunter-killer submarine will also give hope that Service can provide considerable punch anywhere in the world.

With threats in the next decade more likely to come from Islamic terrorism the submarine will be able to sit off coasts undetected listening in to mobile phone conversations.

It also has the ability to insert Special Forces by mini submersibles into enemy territory where they can direct the boat's deadly Tomahawk missiles with a range of 1,400 miles.

"It will feel like we have won the premiership when the Astute is handed over to the Navy. We will become the Manchester United of submarine nations," Capt Mike Davis-Marks, a submariner for 25 years, told the first journalists allowed on board the boat yesterday.

Three of the Astute-class boats will be built by BAE Systems for £3.6 billion but the project is £750 million over budget and three years late.

The boat has more than double the armoury of the Trafalgar class it is replacing, and is able to carry 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 1,400 miles and Spearfish torpedo capable of destroying a warship.

If it could find a way of being self-sufficient in food, the submarine, theoretically, could remain submerged for 35 years as its nuclear reactor does not need refuelling and it can produce drinkable water by an onboard desalination plant.

But life for the 98 crew has only improved to the point that the submariners have a tiny bunk space each, rather than sharing, and can now watch films on a plasma television.

The Astute will carry the latest Block 4 Tomahawk smart missile that can loiter over a target and can be reprogrammed in mid-flight by commanders.

"It can also find out what is going on and report back to op commanders without anyone knowing we have been there," said Capt Davis-Marks "Because of its covert nature the politicians like them as you can up the ante when you want or withdraw without anyone knowing you have been there."

At 7,200 tonnes the Astute is the biggest British nuclear attack submarine ever built, although it is half the size of the Trident nuclear submarines at 16,000 tonnes. It is also extremely quiet for its size, making less noise than a small whale, and is likely to be detected only by another British submarine.

It is also the first submarine not to have a conventional periscope. Instead a fibre optic tube - equipped with infra red and thermal imaging - pops above the surface for three seconds, does one rotation and then feeds an image in colour that can be studied at leisure.

The nuclear power plant has the acoustic signature of a torch battery and is the size of a family car.

The submarine has been built at the BAE systems facility in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, where Navy submarines have been made since 1901.

It is due to enter into active service late next year.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/09/nsub09.xml

Ici, un tres bon image du Sun sur HMS Astute:

1. Shrouded Propulsor 2. Upper Rudder Segment 3. Lower Rudder Segment 4. Starboard Hydroplane 5. Aft Anchor Light 6. Rudder and Hydroplane Hydraulic Actuators 7. No.4 Main Ballast Tank 8. Propeller Shaft 9. High Pressure Bottles 10. No.3 Main Ballast Tank 11. Towed Array Cable Drum and Winch 12. Main Ballast Vent System 13. Aft Pressure Dome 14. Air TReatment Units 15. Naval Stores 16. Propeller Shaft Thrust Block and Bearing 17. Circulating Water Transfer Pipes 18. Lubricating Oil Tank 19. Starboard Condenser 20. Main Machinery Mounting Raft 21. Turbo Generators, Port and Starboard 22. Combining Gearbox 23. Main Turbines 24. Steam Delivery Ducting 25. Aft Equipment Compartment 26. Watertight Bulkhead 27. Manoeuvring Room Citadel 28. Manoeuvring Room Isolated Deck Mounting 29. Switchboard Room 30. Diesel Generator Room 31. Static Converters 32. Main Steam Valve 33. Reactor Section 34. Part of Pressure Hull 35. Forward Airlock 36. Air Handling Compartment 37. Waste Management Equipment 38. Conditioned Air Ducting 39. Gallery 40. Fwd Section Isolated Deck Mountings 41. Batteries 42. Junior Rating's Mess 43. RESM Office 44. Commanding Officer's Cabin 45. Port Side Communications Office 46. Diesel Exhaust Mast 47. Snort Induction Mast 48. SHF/EHF (NEST) Mast 49. CESM Mast 50. AZL Radar Mast 51. Satcom Mast 52. Integrated Comms Mast 53. Visual Mast - Stbd 54. Visual Mast - Port 55. Navigation Mast 56. Bridge Fin Access 57. Junior Ratings' Bathroom 58. Senior Ratings' Bathroom 59. Battery Switchroom 60. Control Room Consoles 61. Sonar Operators' Consoles 62. Senior Ratings' Bunks 63. Medical Berth 64. Weapons Stowage and Handling Compartment 65. Sonar Array 66. Maintenance Workshop 67. Sonar Equipment Room 68. Forward Hydroplane 69. Hydroplane Hydraulic Actuator 70. Hydroplane Hinge Mounting 71. Ship's Office 72. Junior Ratings' Berths 73. Torpedo Tubes 74. Water Transfer Tank 75. Torpedo Tube Bow Caps 76. Air Turbine Pump 77. No.2 Main Ballast Tank 78. High Pressure Air Bottles 79. Forward Pressure Dome 80. Weapons Embarkation Hatch 81. Gemini Craft Stowage 82. Hinged Fairlead 83. Anchor Windlass 84. No.1 Main Ballast Tank 85. Anchor Cable Locker 86. Bow Sonar

Link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007210331,00.html

Et ici, l'article du Sun (un petit "mistake" est que le Navy veut encore 4. Interessant est aussi que le Sun veut savoir que le 4eme's Astute SSN nom est HMS Audacious - a mon avis un tres bon nom avec beaucoup d'histoire):

By TOM NEWTON DUNN

Defence Editor

MAY 09, 2007

MEAN, menacing and devastating, this is the first of the Navy’s 21st Century super subs – and The Sun has been on an exclusive tour.

With a design more complex than the Space Shuttle, HMS Astute’s awesome abilities will take underwater warfare to a new level.

Incredibly, the £1.2billion, 7,675-ton beast could stay submerged for an astonishing 25 YEARS without running out of fuel thanks to power coming from a nuclear reactor.

While under water hi-tech gadgets purify sea water and manufacture oxygen and get rid of dangerous waste gasses.

The only performance limitation is the 98-man CREW because the stores will run out of food after three months — long enough for one-and-a-half trips around the world.

Then there is the Astute’s astonishingly quiet sonar signature, making the vessel almost undetectable under the waves.

As Britain’s first stealth sub, she gives off less noise than a baby dolphin thanks to her extraordinary amount of sound proofing — despite weighing as much as 975 double-decker buses.

Older subs’ noisier propellers have been replaced by a multi-bladed “propulsor”, and the rest of the vessel has been lined with special rubber tiles that mute all internal noise such as TVs and radios.

Meanwhile, Astute’s own top-secret sonar system — the subs’ jumbo-sized ears — is the best in the world.

If water conditions are right, operators could pick up the QE2 cruise ship leaving New York harbour while sitting thousands of miles away in the English Channel.

Astute has devastating firepower and is the biggest attack sub ever built for the Royal Navy.

She can carry 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of 1,240 miles each.

A vital weapon in the War On Terror, Astute can use them to blast land targets with pinpoint accuracy in North Africa from off the coast of Plymouth, in Devon.

She can also fire Spearfish torpedoes in ship-hunting missions.

Navy bosses allowed The Sun an exclusive sneak preview as workers put the finishing touches to HMS Astute in BAE Systems’ massive Devonshire Dock Hall in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.

Painted jet black, she towers a total of 12 storeys from keel to the top of the conning tower.

With a length of 106 yards and width of 12 yards, she is as much as 30 per cent bigger than her predecessors — seven Trafalgar Class subs — under the seas today.

With her revolutionary technology, the Astute Class packs double the punch of the current hunter-killer fleet too. On top of the two traditional roles of land attack and ship-killing, HMS Astute will also be a massive reconnaissance asset.

Armed with powerful sensors and eavesdropping devices, her invisibility under water means she will be able to lurk just a few hundred yards off coastlines.

There she can listen in to enemy transmissions and secretly land Special Forces teams.

In fact, her only downfall might be that she is TOO quiet.

Her position could possibly be given away because the normal sound of the ocean is louder, and her presence could be betrayed on a sharp-eyed enemy’s sonar screen as a black hole of nothingness.

Astute is the first sub ever to be built without a periscope. Instead she has an optical mast topped by an ultra-sharp TV camera equipped with long range thermal and infra-red lenses beamed to the captain by fibre-optic cable.

The mast is raised above surface level for a three-second, 360-degree rotation to tell him everything he wants to know.

The Navy has asked for four Astute Class subs at £1.2billion each.

HMS Astute — the first — is launched next month for a year of sea trials before being handed over to the Navy’s Silent Service in August 2008. She will enter frontline service in January 2009.

HMS Ambush, Artful and Audacious will follow.

The Astute programme has come in for heavy criticism for being three years late and a whopping £750million over budget.

But Navy submarine boss Captain Mike Davis-Marks said last night: “The Astute class of submarines will quite simply be unbeatable worldwide for many years to come.

“Astute will have a capability that will keep us right at the top of the Premiership of the world’s navies — the Manchester United of submarine nations. With our proud heritage, Britain deserves nothing less.”

Astute Facts:

Astute Facts

THE sonar suite has the processing power of 400 laptop computers.

Cutting-edge construction has been used on the Astute Class. On previous subs installing the engine would have taken two or three days. On this one it took less than six hours.

There is around 68 miles of cabling and pipework on board.

It has more than three times the displacement of the last ‘conventionally’ powered submarine (HMS Upholder) built for the Royal Navy.

She is able to carry more torpedoes and tube-launched missiles than any previous class of Royal Navy submarine – nuclear or conventional.

Bathroom fittings include five showers, five toilets, two urinals and eight hand basins for a crew of 98 – the commanding officer has his own hand basin.

The sub has individual bunks for the whole crew – and 11 extra bunks for “passengers”.

She can manufacture her own oxygen from sea water to replenish the onboard atmosphere.

Astute can also purify the onboard atmosphere by removing and disposing of waste carbon dioxide, hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

She can compact and store onboard all the food waste and garbage arising from an extended patrol so it can be thrown away on arrival back in harbour.

She is faster underwater than on the surface.

Sonar 2076 has the world’s largest number of hydrophones, which means it provides the Royal Navy with the “biggest ears” of any sonar system in service today.

A team of five chefs (one petty officer caterer, one leading chef and three other chefs) provide a 24-hour service to the hungry crew.

On a ten-week patrol the crew would be expected to chomp their way through, on average, 18,000 sausages and 4,200 Weetabix for breakfast.

Astute cost £1.2billion and weighs as much as 975 double-decker buses.

It can detect QE2 leaving New York harbour from the English Channel.

Astute displaces 7,675 tons of water, as much as 65 blue whales.

Astute is so quiet it makes less noise in the water than a baby dolphin.

It is the first submarine without a periscope. It uses a TV camera and fibre-optics.

Cruise missiles could pinpoint target in North Africa from Portsmouth.

Link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007210331,00.html

[Bruno]

La forme des SNA de la classe "Astute" est peu commune, d'habitude les sous-marins sont des cylindres, alors que l'Astute est plutôt anguleux, il fait 97,50 m de long, pour 7700 tonnes de déplacement en plongée, c'est à dire un gabarit légèrement supérieur aux futurs "Barracudas" de la Marine Nationale (7000 tonnes de déplacement en plongée) dont le premier a été commandé en décembre 2006 et sera opérationnel en 2017... Rob, la mise en service du premier "Astute" de la Royal Navy est toujours prévue en 2009 ?

[Invité Rob]

La forme des SNA de la classe "Astute" est peu commune, d'habitude les sous-marins sont des cylindres, alors que l'Astute est plutôt anguleux, il fait 97,50 m de long, pour 7700 tonnes de déplacement en plongée, c'est à dire un gabarit légèrement supérieur aux futurs "Barracudas" de la Marine Nationale (7000 tonnes de déplacement en plongée) dont le premier a été commandé en décembre 2006 et sera opérationnel en 2017...

Je pense que le Barracuda a un deplacement de 5000 tonnes.

Rob, la mise en service du premier "Astute" de la Royal Navy est toujours prévue en 2009 ?

HMS Astute va etre avec le Royal Navy en 2008, et le date officiel pour etre en service est January 2009.

BAE Systems Submarine Solutions at Barrow-in-Furness is the prime contractor for the Astute Class of submarine. The company will launch the first boat on June 8 2007 and deliver the vessel to the Royal Navy in August 2008.

Link: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.8592

Et, je vois que HMS Astute (comme des autres navires et submarines) a un website sur le website du Royal Navy!

Link: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6229

[Nitro]

Ce qui est drôle avec les sous marins, c'est que ce soit UK US ou FR, ils sont toujours les plus discrets au monde, on les confonds avec les fonds marins, ils detectent par contre tous les autres sous marins et on disait la même chose pour la génération précédente :p