British authorities will spend 771 million dollars to upgrade the base of nuclear submarines

19
British authorities plan to spend about 771 million dollars to upgrade the Royal Navy's Faslane nuclear submarine base, which is in Scotland, the newspaper said "Sight".



In particular, according to the contract, the message about which appeared on Monday, in the next ten years it is planned to build new lifts, piers and breakwaters.

The British nuclear submarine fleet, consisting of four Vanguard class submarines equipped with Trident nuclear ballistic missiles, is deployed at the Faslane base on the River Clyde. One of the submarines is constantly on combat duty.

Earlier, British Finance Minister George Osborne said that, thanks to a project to modernize the base of submarines, 6.7 thousands of jobs would be created.
  • http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    1 September 2015
    They will look for Russian submarines around the base.
    1. +3
      1 September 2015
      Quote: avvg
      They will look for Russian submarines around the base.

      They will be looking for a long time))))) Great Britain, although it is a nuclear power, but in essence this is a nominal rank. 4 submarines are not serious.
      1. +5
        1 September 2015
        Quote: vodolaz

        They will be looking for a long time))))) Great Britain, although it is a nuclear power, but in essence this is a nominal rank. 4 submarines are not serious.

        Four modern submarines with ballistic missiles is VERY serious, believe me.
        1. -1
          1 September 2015
          Quote: Penetrator
          Four modern submarines with ballistic missiles is VERY serious, believe me.

          Why not? Or you sink them one left.
          1. +1
            1 September 2015
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            Quote: Penetrator
            Four modern submarines with ballistic missiles is VERY serious, believe me.

            Why not? Or you sink them one left.

            I speak without sarcasm. This is really a serious force, especially when the missiles of these submarines are aimed at our cities.
        2. 0
          1 September 2015
          And 6 boats of project 212 with an air-independent power plant and autonomy of 50 days and nuclear cruise missiles on board is this power?
      2. 0
        1 September 2015
        You forgot to mention that these missiles belong to the states.
      3. 0
        1 September 2015
        These 4 submarines carry 16 ICBMs each missile can carry 10 warheads - if necessary and in case of war they will very quickly cover a third of our military bases in 7 minutes.
      4. 0
        1 September 2015
        We have KON PLARB 0,1-0,15 (and even during the USSR it never exceeded 0,5 (in the early 80s, due to the use of equipment and personnel for wear), i.e. from both fleets in the service of 1 -2 SSBNs, and sometimes not even a single one. A fresh photo from Gadzhievo in confirmation, that is, on the use of ICBMs (SLBMs) ​​on a nuclear submarine, we are, by and large, equal to Britain (provided that the full BC is carried on English boats).
    2. +1
      1 September 2015
      Quote: avvg
      They will look for Russian submarines around the base.

      Yes they will not ..... not to our boats right now
    3. 0
      1 September 2015
      ????? If SSBNs are placed on the island, this only means that those who made the decision and the initiates either have already left this territory, or are already on "suitcases".
  2. +3
    1 September 2015
    And why did Scotland not separate from Britain.
    1. +2
      1 September 2015
      Quote: SAM 5
      And why did Scotland not separate from Britain.

      Money, money and money again. England took Scotland purely financially and retained the same.
      1. +1
        1 September 2015
        Quote: vodolaz
        Quote: SAM 5
        And why did Scotland not separate from Britain.

        Money, money and money again. England took Scotland purely financially and retained the same.

        On TV they showed How counted the voices and How voted! "Democracy"! If everything was according to the rules, Scotland would be independent ... from Britain. And from the Americos?
  3. mad
    +1
    1 September 2015
    Let the Internet be taken to cabins, they wrote that without Facebook no one wants to serve on submarines.
  4. 0
    1 September 2015
    British authorities plan to spend about 771 million dollars to modernize the base


    And what is included in this modernization is interesting ... the modernization of berths or nuclear weapons storage facilities for submarines.
  5. 0
    1 September 2015
    Let them spend money wherever they want without benefit.
  6. +1
    1 September 2015
    So the old GB woman is forced to fork out for her nuclear forces.
    You look, so soon they’ll stop grabbing oatmeal, not like coffee with a croissant!
    Do not want to live peacefully - you have to tighten your belts. sad
  7. 0
    1 September 2015
    let them spend, let them be afraid
  8. 0
    1 September 2015
    From the beginning, let them finish it)) And then two firs have adopted the rest have not finished building yet))
  9. 0
    1 September 2015
    Quote: avvg
    They will look for Russian submarines around the base.

    The unkilled argument. But "sorry, I don't recognize you in makeup" ... Forgive me, but I do not grasp the logical connection between the modernization of the base and the search for Russian boats. After all, proceeding from this, the modernization of the base in Vilyuchinsk means that we will start looking for "Virginia" there?

    Quote: vodolaz
    Great Britain, although it is a nuclear power, but in fact the title is nominal. 4 submarines are not serious.

    Well, based on this, there are only two "non-nominal" nuclear powers in the world. Russia and the United States, all others are nominal. The PRC EMNIP has 4 SSBNs of project 094 and one outdated project 091. Moreover, they all carry 12 missiles.
    Purely nominal is France with its 4 SSBNs. Well, India, Pakistan, Israel, and even more so the DPRK, do not dare to call the language even nominal nuclear powers. They don’t have submarines (since the number of boats is a rating criterion)

    Quote: Alex_Rarog
    You forgot to mention that those missiles belong to the states

    So what? They are bought in the USA, although MOTs do take place in the USA. But they are on boats in the UK and under its operational management

    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    And what is included in this modernization is interesting ... the modernization of berths or nuclear weapons storage facilities for submarines.

    And no one knows what kind of modernization it is, but everyone has already decided everything and ridiculed the UK
    The routine process caused a storm of emotions.

    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    So the old GB woman is forced to fork out for her nuclear forces.

    Actually, this does not apply to nuclear forces, as you write, forced to fork out.
    This is not the purchase of new tridents, not the laying of a new missile carrier. This is a base upgrade. Or is this not happening with us, are bases not being reconstructed and modernized ???

    Quote: atamankko
    Let them spend money wherever they want without benefit.

    In fact, modernization is just a waste of money to good use. Everything is better than drank
  10. 0
    1 September 2015
    Quote: ava09
    If SSBNs are placed on the island, this only means that those who made the decision and the initiates either have already left this territory, or are already on "suitcases".

    ????????????? Damn, they’ve been on the islands since 1967 !!!!!!!!!!!! Almost half a century

    Quote: MolGro
    From the beginning, let them finish it)) And then two firs have adopted the rest have not finished building yet))

    Submarines with missiles ??? Are you probably stuck in 1995? Since the two were adopted in 1995. The first - Wangard - 93, the second - 95, the third at 96 and the last, the fourth at 99

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"