Express Edition: five out of six British submarines are being repaired

23
In the past, Britain was called the mistress of the seas. Such an honorary “title” was deserved, since the Royal Navy ensured the presence of the state in many regions and allowed maintaining order in numerous colonies. To date, the naval potential of Great Britain has seriously declined. Moreover, recently it became known about new problems. fleet.



3 in May, the British edition of Express published an article: Don't tell Moscow: five out of six British submarines are being repaired. As the name implies, this material describes the difficult situation in the submarine forces of the Royal Navy. For various reasons, the vast majority of UK multi-purpose nuclear submarines are currently unable to perform combat missions.

Express authors begin their article with a stunning news: Only one UK multipurpose nuclear submarine can patrol and carry out the tasks assigned to it. The rest of the underwater "hunters" are under repair for various reasons and, as a result, are not yet able to participate in the full-fledged combat work of the fleet.

At the moment, the situation in the submarine forces of the Royal Navy is as follows. One multi-purpose submarine is combat-ready, another has a lot of problems, and the remaining four are under repair. Similar news about British submarines appeared just a few days after receiving news from Finland.

Recall, on the night of Tuesday 28, April, the Finnish Navy discovered an unidentified underwater object in the territorial waters of the country. The object was attacked using depth charges, but such a blow did not produce any results. Shortly after the incident, Finnish Defense Minister Karl Haglund announced that an unidentified object could be a Russian submarine. No evidence of this version, however, was cited.

At the moment, the situation with the British multi-purpose submarines is as follows. The only combat submarine of this class in the Royal Navy is currently HMS Astute. Last year, this boat went on duty and, after a short break, is again ready to perform tasks.

Sistership of the submarine HMS Astute, HMS Ambush, while performing the functions of a training ship. Shortly after the start of operation, 57 of various defects were identified, and shipbuilding experts are now working to eliminate them. After fixing all the shortcomings, the HMS Ambush submarine will be able to go to sea for the first time on patrol.

Astute class submarines are the main hope of the Royal Navy. At the moment, it is planned to build a series of six such submarines. To date, the fleet received the first two boats, four more are at different stages of construction. In addition, the construction of the seventh submarine is being discussed. Each Astute class submarine will cost the treasury about one billion pounds. The project uses the latest technology aimed at improving the combat qualities. In particular, it is claimed that submarines of this type will be able to detect targets at a distance of 3 thousand nautical miles. This means that a submarine stationed in the British Devonport will be able to detect a ship located near American New York. New British submarines are armed with Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles and Spearfish heavy torpedoes.

The construction of the Astute class of submarines, the Express edition reminds, was associated with certain difficulties. The first three submarines of this type were ordered in the 1997 year, but the lead ship was transferred to the fleet only in the 2010. The second boat, HMS Ambush, began service in the 2013 year. Due to similar delays in the construction of new nuclear submarines, the command of the Royal Navy is forced to keep outdated ships in service. In parallel with two new Astute class boats, four Trafalgar class submarines are being operated.

In the fleet there are submarines HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant, HMS Talent and HMS Triumph. The first was handed over to the fleet at the start of 1987, the last to the fall of 1991. Enough old ships need increased attention and regular repairs aimed at extending the service life. According to existing plans, submarines of the Trafalgar class will be gradually withdrawn from the fleet as they are built and new ships are received. So, HMS Torbay is scheduled to be written off in the 2017 year.

According to the Express edition, the current situation with the Trafalgar-type submarines is as follows. The HMS Trenchant and HMS Triumph submarines are being renovated and upgraded with the installation of some new equipment, which will take a long time. HMS Torbay submarine repair is coming to an end, thanks to which it will be returned to service within the next three months.

With reference to a source in the Ministry of Defense, the British edition reports that at the present time many of the ships available to the fleet can perform combat missions, but are located in ports. In particular, the port is located submarine HMS Talent. March 13 This submarine, interrupting patrols, returned home. The reason for the return was damage to the horizontal rudder as a result of a collision with an iceberg. According to Express, the submarine currently in need of repair stands in a port with a steering wheel covered with a tarpaulin. In such a state, obviously, she cannot serve and perform patrols.

A source in the military noted that the current state of the submarine forces is not a serious problem. Talk about any problems should be if the only combat submarine was located on the coast of Libya or to the east of the Suez Canal. In this case, the Royal Navy could not conduct patrols in the North Sea and the surrounding region. The main objective of the British submarines, as follows from the words of the source of the publication Express, is to search for Russian submarines operating at a short distance from the UK.

Also in the article by RUSI Peter Roberts, senior scientist of RUSI, gives the article: This analyst claims that the return of the HMS Talent submarine with damage broke all the Department of Defense’s plans to deploy submarine forces. Even the most advanced submarine (meaning the only service carrier HMS Astute) cannot be and perform tasks in several places at once. Now, according to P. Roberts, the British military will have to rely on allies who can ensure the security of the country. This situation is a serious cause for concern.

As we see, the situation in the submarine forces of the Royal Navy of Great Britain leaves much to be desired. The fleet has six multipurpose nuclear submarines, but only one of them is able to patrol specific areas and search for underwater or surface targets. Thus, the former "mistress of the seas" now has naval forces with seriously limited capabilities.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the near future the situation may seriously change. Over the next three months, the HMS Astute submarine, which is still under repair, should join the only HMS Astute multi-purpose submarine. As far as is known, the HMS Talent submarine, which had collided with an iceberg, did not receive any particularly serious damage, so that repairs could also be carried out in the next few months. Finally, active work is underway to eliminate the identified shortcomings of the newest submarine HMS Ambush.

Thus, by the end of this year - with a favorable set of circumstances and the absence of new unforeseen problems - the United Kingdom can partially restore the existing grouping of multi-purpose nuclear submarines. As a result, instead of one submarine, three or four will be able to participate in duty at once. Two more boats should return to service after repairs and upgrades over the next few years.

In general, at the moment the situation with the British multi-purpose submarines looks complicated, but not fatal. In addition, it can be considered a very unfortunate coincidence. First, as the submarine fleet struck, delays in the construction of new submarines, and then unsuccessfully "intertwined" planned and unplanned repairs of various ships. As a result, the old submarines are on long-term repairs, while one of the new ones cannot fully solve the tasks assigned to it. To all this, HMS Talent’s collision with an iceberg and the need to repair it were added.

Without resorting to any emergency measures, the UK Department of Defense may remedy the situation for some time. To do this, you should continue the planned repair of submarines standing at the docks, as well as keep fine-tuning the last of the built submarines. Thus, in the future, the submarine forces of the Royal Navy will be able to restore their potential. However, until this is done, the British press is left with a reason for alarming or even panicky publications.


The article on the repair shed:
http://express.co.uk/news/uk/574556/Britain-only-one-nuclear-submarine-active-patrol-defects-defence-fleet
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor the Great
    0
    15 May 2015 06: 32
    A logical question arises, why would Britain even have its own fleet, if there is an American ??
    Yankees, reliable allies ... and to fulfill the allied duty of NATO and broken nuclear submarines is more than enough. So in vain do you raise a panic, comrades, Europeans just know how to count money and do not overwork, do not suffer for nothing.
    1. +7
      15 May 2015 12: 27
      This "reliable ally" has already ripped off Britain twice as sticky, during both world wars ....
    2. +2
      15 May 2015 16: 25
      Quote: Victor the Great
      why does Britain even have its own fleet, if there is an American ??

      For example, to protect the Falkland Islands
      In general, the United States may not get into a small local conflict, for example, a disputed territory with some Guatemala without nuclear weapons will be announced tomorrow, or the former dominion island will hold a referendum on accession
  2. +5
    15 May 2015 06: 52
    The British still do not understand that they are vassals of the states! All nuclear weapons are on American missiles. Aircraft engineering was poached back in 60 e. It remains to finish the tank building and shipbuilding so that the British are completely dependent on the American military commander, but the situation in the apl is not so critical. the world is certainly serious, but not so much to raise such a panic. I was more struck by the price of Astyut. 1 billion pounds !!!
    1. +2
      15 May 2015 09: 11
      They seemed to have poached tank building.
    2. +1
      15 May 2015 19: 35
      Quote: Magic Archer
      still do not understand what are state vassals!

      And how does this affect their standard of living? Incidentally, joint development and the purchase of serial weapons are cheaper than developing all of their own and alone. For example, Boeing and Airbas practically divided the global aviation market,
  3. +9
    15 May 2015 07: 02
    You just don’t speak to Americans, British and Japanese, but in Russia in the Northern Fleet out of 18 multipurpose nuclear submarines only 8 can carry out the assigned tasks. And in the Pacific Fleet out of 10 submarines - only 3 (three). Here is such a sad arithmetic.
  4. +3
    15 May 2015 07: 03
    Its me again. With such a sad previous comment I run the risk of running into a bunch of minuses, but the truth (statistics) is the truth.
  5. +11
    15 May 2015 08: 34
    As for the British nuclear submarines, I’m not observing anything unusual. The author does not write in what repairs the ships are: navigational, dock, current or capital, but maybe in general sucks and conservation. The fleet is a very expensive instrument requiring huge financial investments. Although it is not normal when out of six boats only one can operate in a boat and it’s not a matter of iron, it’s a matter of crews. If you don’t teach people using sea simulators, this will not replace.
    We also have not everything in chocolate, but the ratio of combat-ready and repairing ships is quite decent, especially against the background of the 90s and early 2000s. I know not by hearsay. A ship is a small city or a village with all its systems and communications; keeping it in the proper order is not a trivial task; it is the hard daily work of the entire crew plus combat training and various introductory tasks.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  6. +4
    15 May 2015 09: 02
    Sunset of the Empire of the impudent Saxons!
    It is clear that Britain remains one of the main financial centers of the Western World ...
    But it’s already difficult to maintain your fleet and army when there is no way to directly rob and kill the population of half the World))))
    And all this is largely due to the Liberation Movement supported by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics! hi
  7. +3
    15 May 2015 09: 54
    And not the Scandinavians, did they drive them into repairs ..? Judging by the whining, they only attack submarines of unknown affiliation ...
    1. +4
      15 May 2015 13: 31
      Quote: uge.garik
      And not the Scandinavians, did they drive them into repairs ..?

      I also laughed to myself on this subject.
      Recall Tuesday night April 28, the Finnish Navy discovered in the territorial waters of the country an unidentified underwater object. The object was attacked with depth bombs.
      On May 3, the British edition of Express published an article Don't tell Moscow: Five of Britain's six nuclear subs held up in the repair shed (“Don't tell Moscow: five of the six British nuclear submarines are under repair”).
  8. +1
    15 May 2015 09: 59
    Do not underestimate, we have a slightly better situation with battle-worthy ships. 1-2 is now able to go from Barca to the sea, no more, this year, after the completion of the Cheetah repair, there will be 2-3. To this we add 2 Anthea, 2 old Pike, Ash, which is still being mastered, and a couple of titanics 945 and 945А, 1 from the project 945А will return to operation this year.

    And what happens so densely? 7 boats are not many, but this year there will be 9, this is already something.

    And most importantly, Astyutes, these are very serious units, they can not be underestimated, even such an 1 carries a very great danger, it will be dealt with without problems with our 3 generation boats.
    1. -3
      15 May 2015 10: 37
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      And most importantly, Astyutes, these are very serious units, they can not be underestimated, even such an 1 carries a very great danger, it will be dealt with without problems with our 3 generation boats.

      In Russia, the main problem that harnesses for a long time, we must not lag behind the United States on technology. Take at least a spherical SAC, the United States back in the 70s it was installed on a Los Angeles class submarine. And after 45 years, they began to install such an antenna on Yaseni, and they did not install a spherical HAC on Borey. Further, the jet engine, the United States has long been installed on a submarine. We only began to install it on Borey (there was a prototype on the Alrosa submarine), and probably on the Yasen-M submarine.
      1. +5
        15 May 2015 12: 32
        For reference, a spherical HAK antenna gives only one obvious advantage over a cylindrical one, as on all our boats up to the 4 generation, a smoother distribution of HFS and only. This is not a technology, it is a technical solution that we have long been abandoned for our reasons.

        The water-jet propulsion, and not the engine (!!!) has not yet proved its unique advantage over the propeller, and it is premature to attribute it to the advantages of enemy boats unequivocally.

        And for reference, there will be a screw on Yasene-M!
        1. -3
          15 May 2015 16: 01
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          And for reference, there will be a screw on Yasene-M!

          I hope in the annular fairing (fenestron) make a screw.
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          For reference, a spherical HAK antenna gives only one obvious advantage over a cylindrical one, as on all our boats up to the 4 generation, a smoother distribution of HFS and only. This is not a technology, it is a technical solution that we have long been abandoned for our reasons.

          The area of ​​the HAC affects the ability to better hear enemy submarines; spherical HACs have more hydrophones than cylindrical ones. Not for nothing that the USA in Virginia block 3 establish a HAC with a larger surface area. Probably not fools are sitting there.
          They didn’t install it for us because they didn’t want to place torpedo tubes on the sides of the submarine, it’s like if torpedo tubes in the nose of the submarine can conduct torpedo fire with greater speed, but in most cases the submarines track the target at low speeds, since at high speed from Because of the noise it’s difficult to lead the target. So hardly anyone thinks to conduct torpedo fire at a speed of 25-30 knots.
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          The water-jet propulsion, and not the engine (!!!) has not yet proved its unique advantage over the propeller, and it is premature to attribute it to the advantages of enemy boats unequivocally.

          The advantage is that with a jet propeller you can move at high speeds while remaining undetected, unlike a screw that retains secrecy only at speeds up to 8 knots.
          1. +1
            15 May 2015 17: 58
            You were initially talking about a spherical HAK antenna, about a horseshoe-shaped HAK LAB antenna, there was no speech initially!

            And for your reference, the number of hydrophones is not the most important thing in HACs. The most important things here are: the power of the emitted signal, the level of interference to the HAC, the power and capabilities of hardware and software.

            About the fact that in the US, however, as in all other KB developing submarines, they are not fools, and I also know the reasons why we refused the spherical antenna of the HAK without you.
            1. 0
              15 May 2015 18: 57
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              The most important things here are: the power of the emitted signal

              On a submarine, in a pinch, they use the SAC in active mode, since its work unmasks the ship.
          2. 0
            15 May 2015 17: 59
            And once again I will repeat about Ash-M.TAM WILL BE A VFSH-SCREW OF A FIXED STEP! Without a nozzle (it’s on your fenestron). And once again, the water cannon did not prove a definite advantage over the screw, including the noise.
            1. 0
              15 May 2015 18: 58
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              And once again I will repeat about Ash-M.TAM WILL BE A VFSH-SCREW OF A FIXED STEP! Without a nozzle (it’s according to your fenestron).

              And why was such a choice made with us? While Britain, France and the United States, they haven’t installed screws for new submarines for a long time?
            2. +1
              15 May 2015 21: 39
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov
              the water cannon did not prove a clear advantage over the propeller, including the noise.

              Here is the conclusion of the hydrodynamics:
              The indisputable advantage of a water cannon is "Less hydrodynamic noise compared to propeller propellers, which is very important for submarines." Https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodometny_movit
              spruce#
              It is for this reason that there is a water cannon on Bor.
              Reading about the "internal resistance of pipes" and other "eddies" are true for the NK, where the water cannon works as a water pump, but not for a unit completely submerged in the working environment ("a hydrojet engine - mind you, not a propulsion! - consisting of moving rotor blades with a fixed channel "- the definition of" Rolls Royce "!) By the way, the Americans, without further ado, put this unit on their newest boats.
              And this is how he looks on Amerovskaya Virginia:
              1. +1
                15 May 2015 21: 44
                There is a much stronger wake mark from the water jet, which negatively affects stealth. It has less reliability, less efficiency than a screw. It is much more complicated, and it requires expensive and extensive research to create it, and also large, full-scale models. And it is still not a fact that it will be possible to achieve a significant difference in hydrodynamic noise.

                A water cannon is a technically rather risky way. And so far, taking into account all of the above, it has not proved a definite advantage over a screw.

                By the way, did Wikipedia become a true last resort?
                1. 0
                  15 May 2015 23: 07
                  Quote: Anton Gavrilov
                  There is a much stronger wake mark from the water jet, which negatively affects stealth. It has less reliability, less efficiency than a screw. It is much more complicated, and it requires expensive and extensive research to create it, and also large, full-scale models. And it is still not a fact that it will be possible to achieve a significant difference in hydrodynamic noise.

                  A water cannon is technically a pretty risky way. And while, taking into account all of the above, he has not proved a clear advantage over the screw.

                  If the water cannon has no gain in quieter work, and it has a lot of disadvantages, why did they install it on Borey? And why does the whole world pass to it? All the same, the jet propulsion device is more secretive than a simple screw; cavitation occurs inside the jet turbine, from which water comes out under high pressure, and not outside using a conventional propeller, this already reduces noise.
                  1. 0
                    16 May 2015 00: 32
                    Well, I realized that you are useless to prove something.

                    The application of certain technological solutions depends on the views of the design bureau that led the development of the project, which was explained to me by the person who works there, and among other things, just in this regard, I told you, and these are much more significant statements than those written in Wikipedia that led the Boa KAA.

                    On account of whether he is hidden or not. Do you have the exact characteristics of the propulsors of all 4 generation nuclear submarines ??? If you are kind enough to share, you will also be given a medal for this.) If not, then do not make unambiguous conclusions in the spirit of quieter / noisier!

                    I have already said. Much depends on how well it is done, it may turn out that there will be no difference, or the difference will be "clogged" by some other factor.
      2. cleary
        -1
        15 May 2015 14: 09
        And what are the advantages of a water cannon? Unless you wrap anything on the screw, and there are only problems - the complexity of the design, the extra size is lower than the efficiency
  9. 0
    15 May 2015 10: 15
    Of foreign the Astyud submarines under construction are the best (not counting the Sivulf which they are not building anymore), then comes Virginia, then French Barracuda (Barracuda has small ammunition and low speed).
  10. +4
    15 May 2015 12: 57
    everything is natural, new boats are being built and brought to mind for a long time, they will need to be taught for a long time what is stated in the advertising characteristics. I would not be surprised at all if it turns out that Astyut and subsequent boats are worse in performance and more expensive than, for example, Virginia or our 885s.
    Here, many praised the new Astyut, Daring, as an example of the great technology of the British, on the basis of golimy advertising, but it turned out that everyone has their own problems, and the British have big ones. And it’s not a question of a billion pounds per boat, for example, the British themselves say.
    “The latest HMS Astute nuclear submarine, which cost £ 9,75 billion in the UK, is leaking, rusting and not moving fast enough to escape the pursuit. The latest tests of the submarine revealed engineering problems, due to which the ship is not able to develop the declared maximum speed "- (The Guardian of November 16, 2012)

    Where is one billion here? Even taking into account the costs of research and development and the fact that the lead boat is traditionally more expensive. Even a wiki gives a significantly larger figure for the cost of a boat
  11. +1
    15 May 2015 22: 43
    The rest of the underwater "hunters" for various reasons are under repair and, as a result, are not yet able to participate in the full-fledged combat work of the fleet. The only combat-ready submarine of this class in the Royal Navy is currently HMS Astute.
    HMS Astute (S-119) is followed by a sad trace of incidents.
    So on October 22.10.2010, 10, during the tests, the boat ran aground near Skite Island (the western coast of Scotland). When removing from aground the tug "Anglian Prince" piled on the starboard side of the boat in the area of ​​forward horizontal rudders. The steering wheels are bent. Damage $ XNUMX million. The commander was removed from office.
    08.04.2011 23-year-old sailor Ryan Samuel Donovan, having quarreled with a colleague, shot the chief technical officer of the boat and wounded 3-x sailors.
    Interesting data on the armament of the submarine.
    Of the 48 weapons, 38 (?) Guided missiles, of which 7 are the Tomahawk Block-4 missiles. The remaining 10 "places" in the BC were given for super-heavy long-range torpedoes "Sword Fish" (Spearfish) - range of 65 km, telecontrol by wire, active-passive seeker, BZO - directed energy of the explosion (!). Thus, the composition of the weapons speaks of the "littoral" targeting of the submarine.
    D gus is clearly overpriced: the British themselves give up to 300 miles, which is quite comparable with our Ashen.
    New I believe it has become the presence on board of a high-precision echo sounder DESO, which makes it possible to form a "hydrographic atlas" of the area and carry out "topographic" underwater navigation in the water area with a depth of up to 10 thousand meters.
    At the cost of the boat. The British say it costs $ 3,85 million
    1. 0
      16 May 2015 07: 14
      Probably, all the same, the price is - billion. Otherwise, it is cheaper than their own "Aston Martin" turns out.
      1. Ostwald
        -1
        16 May 2015 23: 23
        Dams really Ukropovskiy "Oplot" and that will be more expensive than the British submarine.
  12. 0
    16 May 2015 18: 21
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
    There is a much stronger wake mark from the water jet, which negatively affects stealth. It has less reliability, less efficiency than a screw. It is much more complicated, and it requires expensive and extensive research to create it, and also large, full-scale models. And it is still not a fact that it will be possible to achieve a significant difference in hydrodynamic noise.

    A water cannon is a technically rather risky way. And so far, taking into account all of the above, it has not proved a definite advantage over a screw.

    By the way, did Wikipedia become a true last resort?


    Keyword COMPLEX SCREW. It is not pulling, and it is not pulling, our industry, I hope this lag will be reduced, in the complex, over-precise processing of products. That’s the whole conversation. The screw in the nozzle is a very complex design, but its advantages over the screw are not disputed.
  13. Ansete
    -1
    26 May 2015 23: 43
    It is not good for the Lady of the Seas to keep her fleet in the docks.
  14. +1
    14 June 2015 12: 50
    Quote: Fotoceva62
    As for the British nuclear submarines, I’m not observing anything unusual. The author does not write in what repairs the ships are: navigational, dock, current or capital, but maybe in general sucks and conservation. The fleet is a very expensive instrument requiring huge financial investments. Although it is not normal when out of six boats only one can operate in a boat and it’s not a matter of iron, it’s a matter of crews. If you don’t teach people using sea simulators, this will not replace.

    Britain now does not have the strength and ability to solve the problems that it solved as the "Lord of the Seas". And for the current situation, the number of boats on the DB is quite enough. For example, the British strategic nuclear forces have 4 boats. There is always ONE boat on patrol. Two more are in the "hot standby" and are ready to go to sea within a few hours, maximum of a day. One is under repair and it takes weeks, and possibly months, to put it into operation.
    But they do not make of this tragedy. Moreover, if you look at the combat equipment of their missile carriers, then there generally mine number 1 is testintended for combat training launches, that is, it is not loaded with a combat missile. Mines No. 3,5,7,9 (all on the starboard side) are intended for the so-called pre-strategic missions (substrategic strike) and equipped with 1 BB, and in the low-power version. The remaining 11 mines are equipped with 3 BB missiles. And this despite the fact that the rocket itself in the English version of the combat equipment is capable of carrying 6 blocks. They have options in general to reduce the ammunition on boats in peacetime to 8. So there is nothing terrible about this.