Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Naval News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 23 Aug 2017 15:31

(CNN)Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin has been relieved of his duty as the commander of the US 7th Fleet, based in Yokosuka, Japan, according to the Navy.

A statement from the 7th fleet said Aucoin was relieved "due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command."

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 23 Aug 2017 15:33

few years ago the commander of the USS Enterprise homeported in yokosuka was relieved due to his ship failing a scheduled inspection with rust and other unattended problems.

must have been a rear or vice admiral to command a CBG.

the naval elite leaders are held to very high benchmarks it seems.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby chola » 23 Aug 2017 15:39

Yes, both inspiring and scary too. Inspiring for the rank and file as this shows them that no one, not even an Admiral, is beyond reproach.

But scary, as in business, once high level management and directors start getting heat, they start tightening the reins on everyone and this goes down the line until anyone could be at risk for routine things that might not be up to standards.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20399
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 23 Aug 2017 23:40

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ble-comms/
First underwater entanglement could lead to unhackable comms

The weird world of quantum mechanics is going for a swim. A team of Chinese researchers has, for the first time, transmitted quantum entangled particles of light through water – the first step in using lasers to send underwater messages that are impossible to intercept.“People have talked about the idea of underwater quantum communication before, but I’m not aware of anyone who has done an experiment like this,” says Thomas Jennewein at the University of Waterloo in Canada. “An obvious application would be a submarine which wants to remain submerged but communicate in a secure fashion.”Entanglement starts with a beam of light shot into a crystal. This prism splits the light into pairs of photons with strangely linked behaviour. Manipulate one particle in a pair, and its partner will instantly react. Measure the first one’s polarisation, for example, and entanglement could ensure that its twin will have the opposite polarisation when measured.These entangled photons can theoretically be used to set up a secure communication line between two people, with privacy guaranteed by the laws of physics.But this fragile quantum state can easily be disturbed by the surrounding environment. So far, entanglement has been maintained between particles separated by long distances after traveling through air, space and optical fibres.To test entanglement in water, which is less forgiving toward light, Xianmin Jin and his colleagues at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China gathered saltwater from the Yellow Sea and placed it in a 3-metre-long container. They were able to transmit entangled photons through the water without disturbing their quantum link.

As the first experiment of its kind, it’s not clear whether this will be enough to build a communications system. Three meters may not seem that impressive compared with the 1200 kilometres that a Chinese satellite recently sent entangled particles down to Earth’s surface. “It’s not very surprising to me that if I send light through 10 feet of water it doesn’t get depolarised,” says Paul Kwiat at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.But Jin says this is only the beginning. His team’s calculations suggest that it should be possible to communicate over nearly 900 meters in water. Previous calculations set a more conservative limit of just over 120 meters.“Because ocean water absorbs light, extending this is going to difficult,” says Jeffrey Uhlmann at the University of Missouri in Columbia. “One option would be to use relays, but right now this is very far removed from anything that would be practical.”

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 24 Aug 2017 01:13

Philip, The USS McCain damage looks like it was broadsided by the tanker. Most likely a crossing the Tee type situation.

USN relieves the base commander always as first step.
Stand down is a normal procedure in case of accidents like this.

However since four ships have had incidents the 7th Fleet commander was relieved as it shows systemic issue.

It could still go higher reason is passive oversight that allowed four ships damaged and loss of life.

My gut feeling is the higher ups will resign.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1803
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby AdityaM » 29 Aug 2017 19:29

A rather unusual setup

https://twitter.com/xaviervav/status/899574732491821056

Nice pic of ROC Navy (Taiwan) Catamaran Corvette Tuo River with 16x ASM: 8x Hsiung Feng II + 8x HF III supersonic missiles via @heikihenken

Image


Unsinkable boat
https://twitter.com/capt_navy/status/898858657139404800

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Aug 2017 20:05

looks like idea is disperse their ASMs into small, fast, hard to track corvettes which will be better able to evade a crippling large scale attack by the dragon on the major units. unlike Japan, taiwan has nowhere near the brawn needed to tangle with PLAN fleets.

they could use 24 SSK but unforunately all the euro makers and russia make too much money off cheen. only Japan and later india might be able to help.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Aug 2017 16:11

Another successfully Medium Range Ballistic Missile target intercept for the Standard Missile - 6 (SM6):

The Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) successfully conducted a complex missile defense flight test, resulting in the intercept of a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) target using Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) guided missiles during a test off the coast of Hawaii today.

John Paul Jones detected and tracked a target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar, and onboard SM-6 missiles executed the intercept.

"We are working closely with the fleet to develop this important new capability, and this was a key milestone in giving our Aegis BMD ships an enhanced capability to defeat ballistic missiles in their terminal phase," said MDA Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves. "We will continue developing ballistic missile defense technologies to stay ahead of the threat as it evolves."

This test, designated Flight Test Standard Missile-27 Event 2 (FTM-27 E2), marks the second time that an SM-6 missile has successfully intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile target.


While the organic SPY-1 radar was used for the actual intercept, these missile shots also give an opportunity for the SPY-6 test radar to rake up ballistic missile test points since it is also at Hawaii. They've already done 3-4 of these tests piggy backing on routine MDA ballistic missile testing there.

This is the 3rd SM6 Ballistic Missile live test till date (1 SRBM and 2 MRBM). 4 more Sea Based Terminal tests are currently planned between now and the end of 2019.

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 31 Aug 2017 05:28, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Aug 2017 20:59

Having trouble finding a charging station for your hybrid or electric car on a long road trip? Try tasking an unmanned undersea vehicle to recharge itself at an underwater gas station.

The UUVs the US Navy uses for underwater surveillance to detect mines and map the ocean floor must rely on operators to recharge batteries at a land base or a surface ship. Both methods expose the warfighter and impose limitations on remote autonomous operations.Wayne Liu, an SSC Pacific project manager developing wirelessly charged undersea and aerial platforms, initially demonstrated the submerged charging capability using his own phone several years ago as a proof-of-concept experiment. Several feet below the surface, his phone rested in a plastic bag on a charging pad. The demo was a success, as Liu left with a few more battery bars. Development of these systems has improved significantly since that time, and the researchers are now advocating for the creation of a guiding set of standards for these underwater wireless power transfer devices.

“This type of technology is going to widen the array of missions the Navy can use UUVs for,” said Dr. Graham Sanborn, an engineer in Phipps’ group. “Having a UUV that can travel long distances gathering intel from ports and areas of the world our surface ships and underwater craft typically can’t go is going to increase the effectiveness of them. It’s also going to make missions safer, because service members will no longer need to accompany the machine, potentially into harm’s way. It’s a safer, more cost-effective option that we’re really excited about.”


Image

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -uuvs.html

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Sep 2017 07:44

here is a very readable article by a serving USN officer (perhaps under a pseudonym) on the problems and root causes of the 7th fleet accidents and surface ship stream in particular
https://southfront.org/adrift-unready-w ... um=twitter

a while ago these same problems of nepotism and arm chair captains with more desk time than ship time were discussed in the context of IN. ships and countries can change, but the roles and human factors are same.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2017 16:00

A fuel offloading capability of nearly 7000 kg, 900+km from carrier is pretty significant and gets the mission tanking back to the USN carrier air wing. Although not anything close to KS-3 configuration it is significantly better than the S-3 kitted for the mission tanking role where it could offload around 4500 kg of fuel at around 750 km from carrier. These could well be threshold requirements and contractors could aim higher at least those looking to focus heavily on this mission (General Atomics and Lockheed). Of course one advantage of having an unmanned aircraft take over this role is that you can scale the capability at time of need. You could have shore based capability that can rush to a carrier significantly increasing the orbits as required, or in peacetime you could simply dial it down and use just the recovery tanking requirement (minimum number of aircraft on the deck). With manned aircraft you would still require extensive training, flying and maintaining the skills for carrier ops and incur a significantly larger expense to maintain that flexibility.

The specific parameter is to try to maximize fuel give at 500 nautical miles, not at the 200-mile range, and I think we’ll see something on the order of 15,000 pounds or so


https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... w-air-boss

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 06 Sep 2017 17:29




South front is a Russian propaganda site. Take it with a bucket of salt please.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5070
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 06 Sep 2017 17:52

Pratyush wrote:South front is a Russian propaganda site. Take it with a bucket of salt please.

To be fair, in this case Southfront has just reproduced an article from 'Encyclopedia Geopolitica'.

https://encyclopediageopolitica.com/contributors/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2017 17:57

One need not even look at think tank or other independent assesments. The Navy and the GAO have in the recent past, themselves reported on many issues that could cause such issues.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60464
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Sep 2017 14:17

yes a US govt report accessed by CNN has said the same thing. 7th fleet is very short on training time with many expired certifications. san diego and norfolk based units are fine probably.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/06/polit ... index.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19899
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Sep 2017 21:02

S. Korea launches new 1,800-ton submarine

The launch of the diesel-electric submarine wrapped up the Navy's KSS-II acquisition program, which began in 2000, for the introduction of nine 1,800-ton 214-class submarines.

"It's a national strategic dagger capable of precisely striking not only the enemy's ships and submarines but also ground targets deep inland," Adm. Um Hyun-seong, the Navy chief of staff, said during the launch ceremony at the Hyundai Heavy Industries shipyard in Ulsan.

Image

The Sin Dol Seok sub is named after a famous Korean admiral who led the country's fight against Japanese aggression in the late 1890s and early 1900s.

Equipped with South Korea's indigenous 1,000-kilometer-range cruise missile, it is 65 meters long and 6.3 meters wide, and it can sail at a maximum speed of 20 knots.

The Navy plans to put it into operation in 2019 after a series of tests.

It will increase the number of the Navy's submarines to 18. The Navy will begin to introduce 3,000-ton submarines in 2020.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Sep 2017 18:54

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/11/polit ... index.html

Exclusive: US Navy ships in deadly collisions had dismal training records
By Jeremy Herb, CNN
Updated 0118 GMT (0918 HKT) September 12, 2017

The USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain had many expired training certifications
Seventeen sailors were killed in the two collisions in the Pacific this summer
(CNN)The two US Navy destroyers involved in deadly collisions in the Pacific this summer both had lengthy records of failure to fulfill key training requirements, according to Government Accountability Office data provided to Congress and obtained by CNN.

The USS Fitzgerald had expired training certification for 10 out of 10 key warfare mission areas in June, and the USS John S. McCain had let its certifications lapse in six out of the 10 mission areas, the data show.
The dismal training record for the two ships sheds new light on one factor that may have contributed to the two collisions with commercial ships in June and August, which killed 17 sailors.
The training records of the McCain and Fitzgerald were worse than the average warship in the Pacific, but they weren't the only ones with training problems. GAO testimony released last week revealed that expired training certifications for the Navy's 11 cruisers and destroyers based in Japan had skyrocketed five-fold from 7% in January 2015 to 37% in June. Two-thirds of the certifications had been expired for at least five months.

The deadly destroyer accidents -- along with two Navy cruiser collisions Pacific earlier this year -- prompted the dismissal of the Navy's 7th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, as well as multiple reviews of the way the Navy trains, maintains and deploys its fleet that's stretched thin.
A Navy official contested the GAO's training certification data, arguing that the GAO was focused on higher-level warfighting certifications and not the nuts-and-bolts certifications for operating ships where the Pacific fleet's destroyers and cruisers have a better record. There are 22 certifications required for each ship and the GAO only reported on half, the official noted, though they declined to provide the full training records for the USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain, citing the ongoing investigations into the collisions.
Senior Navy officials told lawmakers last week that the service is committed to getting to the root of the issues that have contributed to the spate of collisions.
"We ask the sailors to do an awful lot ... and perhaps we've asked them to do too much," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told the House armed services committee at a hearing last week on the collisions. "That's what the comprehensive review will look at."
Moran told lawmakers he had made a "wrong assumption" that forced forward-deployed naval forces in Japan were the most proficient and well-trained because they were operating all the time.
A Pacific Fleet spokeswoman said the Navy will examine all aspects of surface fleet operations with an emphasis on the 7th Fleet as part of the review ordered by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson.
"This will include, but not be limited to, looking at operational tempo, trends in personnel, materiel, maintenance and equipment. It also will include a review of how we train and certify our surface warfare community, including tactical and navigational proficiency," Lt. Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman said in a statement. "It would be premature to comment on any one part of the investigation before it is complete."

Expired training certifications mounted

The GAO examined training records in June for all of the Japan-based destroyers and cruisers, focusing on 10 key warfare training areas. They included air warfare, ballistic missile defense, electronic warfare, fire support, cruise missiles and more.
The USS Fitzgerald had let its training certifications expire for all of them, according to the GAO data.
The Navy's preliminary findings in its Fitzgerald investigation found the crew failed to understand and acknowledge the cargo ship was approaching and failed to take any action necessary to avoid the collision.

The ship's commanding officer, executive officer and senior non-commissioned officer were relieved of their duties following the collision.
The USS McCain's training record was better than the USS Fitzgerald, but the ship was still overdue on a majority of its training certifications.
A source familiar with the training data told CNN that other ships in the Pacific have similar poor training records.
John Pendleton, the GAO's director of defense force structure and readiness issues, testified last week that eight of the 11 destroyers and cruisers in the Pacific, or 73%, had expired training certifications for seamanship and undersea warfare, and 64% had cruise missile and surface warfare certifications that had expired.
The ships' basic certifications were better, Pendleton said, but he noted that seamanship stood out as a problem area.
Moran said that when a ship's certifications expire, the vessel's commanding officer is required to put a plan in place to mitigate risk that must be approved up the chain of command. He also said there have been problems getting officials from the Pacific's Afloat Training Group, which certifies the ships, to conduct certifications due to staffing issues.
"We have allowed our standards of the numbers of certifications ... to drop as the number of certification waivers have grown," Moran said. "While not against the rules, they are below the standard that we should accept."
Less training for overseas ships
Rep. Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat, said he was concerned about who was approving the waivers and who ultimately decided that a ship with expired training was fit to deploy.
"The certification process which covers key competencies in seamanship, surface warfare, ballistic missile defense to, name just a few, needs to be reviewed and approved by an accountable decision-maker," he said.

The training issues have been particularly acute for ships based in Japan.
The Navy has moved toward a model of basing ships abroad so they can deploy more quickly and frequently, but that method has come at the cost of training and maintenance, the GAO has warned
The GAO found in past reports that ships based overseas had less time for training and maintenance time compared to ships that call US ports home, and Pendleton testified that ships in Japan had no dedicated training periods at all.
"Their aggressive deployment schedule gave the Navy more presence, it's true. But it came at a cost, including detrimental effects on ship readiness," Pendleton said. "In fact, we were told that the overseas based ships were so busy that they had to train on the margins. Term I'd not heard before. And it was explained to me that meant that they had to squeeze training in when they could."


PS:Before we try and take comfort from this report,it is no secret that in the recent past the IN has bene plagued with a series of accidents,including the massive explosion and destruction of INS Sindhurakshak at Bombay now attributed to improper SOPs used during loading of weapons.Many analysts have also pointed out an alleged steady deterioration of shiphandling capabilities of the current crop of sailors aboard our warships and subs.While in years past there was less sophistication of eqpt. most eqpt. was of the pre-digital era,far less automation and ships carried larger crews who had to perform their tasks perfectly using non-electronic eqpt. ,analogue instrumentation etc. However,even in those days of WW2 and the Cold War,the rules of the road and basic seamanship changed little. Warships,merchantmen today use an array of elec. eqpt. for navigation,GPS,etc.,making navigation much easier than before. In the case of warships,where there are even el-op devices,it beggars belief that such incidents could happen as often as they do.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Sep 2017 13:24

AI induction accelerates. However,the possibility of AI taking over control of weapon systems as in the Terminator films ,is a v. real one say many scientists ,who've been warning about this. AI when used in defensive mode,say ABM systems,anti-missile,anti-torpedo,anti-air,etc.,etc., are understandable given the v.short response time,which with the intro of hyper missiles is going to make matters worse.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 43816.html
DSEI 2017: Future warships will have a 'mind' of their own, says Royal Navy chief
'The Royal Navy aims to develop a ship's 'mind' at the centre of our warships and headquarters to enable rapid decision making in complex, fast moving operations'
Will Worley

New Royal Navy ships will come with AI capabilities, the First Sea Lord has said. Pictured is the HMS Prince of Wales,slated for launch in 2020 Getty Images
Warships will soon have computer assistants with a “mind” of their own, according to Britain's First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Philip Jones.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is set to play a key role in the future of the service, with new ships being equipped with systems similar to Apple's popular "intelligent personal assistant", Siri, he said.

The military has been focusing on developing its AI capabilities and recently held its first "hackathon".
New Type 31e frigates will come with app-based tools able to access the ship's data using touch screen displays and voice-controlled systems, Admiral Jones said.

READ MORE
What is the DSEI arms fair and why does it attract so many protesters?

"This is not a gimmick or a fad," he said. "As modern warfare becomes ever faster, and ever more data driven, our greatest asset will be the ability to cut through the deluge of information to think and act decisively.

"Under Project Nelson, the Royal Navy aims to develop a ship's 'mind' at the centre of our warships and headquarters to enable rapid decision making in complex, fast moving operations."

Admiral Jones’s comments came at the first day of the biennial Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) event, the world's biggest - and for some most controversial - arms fair held in the cavernous ExCel centre in London's docklands.

On display was a vast array of state-of-the-art military equipment, from tanks and armoured personnel carriers through fighter jets and high-speed inflatables, to sniper rifles and hi-tech protective clothing.

Organisers said it was the biggest DSEI to date with 1,600 exhibitors displaying their wares and 42 national pavilions.

Lifesaving water bottle unveiled at DSEI London event
In his opening address, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox emphasised the importance of the defence industry to the UK economy with an annual turnover of £35 billion last year.

The Department for International Trade's stand featured a Bowler off-road rapid intervention vehicle (RIV) complete with machine gun, a light artillery gun and an inflatable rescue launch as well as a series of unmanned aerial drones.

"We are clear that the success of this industry is the United Kingdom's success and that our position as a global leader in defence and security exports is something that should be celebrated," Dr Fox said.

However, such an overwhelming display of military hardware inevitably provoked a different reaction from arms control campaigners demanding Britain halts sales to "repressive" overseas regimes blamed for human rights abuses.

Andrew Smith of the Campaign Against Arms Trade said: "It is shameful that the Government is welcoming despots and dictatorships to the UK to buy weapons.

"The weapons being promoted at DSEI are deadly and could be used to fuel war and conflict for years to come. If the Government cares for human rights and democracy then it's time to end its support for arms fairs like DSEI."

Additional reporting by agencies

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2017 12:18

Possibly some undersea action off the Korean peninsula what? If "Kim-the-turd" has lost one of his UW toys,he won't be telling anyone .There would also be much speculation about the loss as to the reason and if it was the JC who "dun it",they aren't advertising the fact,but may indeed be hinting at UW success using the "Jolly Roger". It is unlikely to celebrate taping/splicing into an undersea commn. cable,as this has been done for decades,or even laying UW sensors.That was par for the course during the Cold War. Let the "Kim in his counting house..." check again!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/14/us ... ation.html
US nuclear sub returns flying pirate flag, sparking speculation
Published September 14, 2017 Fox News

USS Jimmy Carter flies pirate flag Jolly Roger
One of the United States' most advanced nuclear submarines returned to port in Washington state this week flying a Jolly Roger, a move steeped in maritime lore and mystery.

The images of the USS Jimmy Carter, a Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarine passing through the Hood Canal, were posted to a Pentagon media site and Twitter page. They show the skull and bones flying beside the American flag, the Washington Post reported.

The 450-foot-long Carter is one of three in its class and designed to conduct covert sea operations, the paper reported. The sub also was filmed returning from its last patrol in April with the Jolly Roger flying from the conning tower.

USS Jimmy Carter, 1 of the most secretive subs in the USN, returns to home port flying the Jolly Roger flag - indicating operational action.
5:44 AM - Sep 13, 2017

The black flag emblazoned with a skull and crossbones is of significance, says Scottish journalist Ian Keddie, who posted one of the photos on Twitter. The tradition of flying it dates to 1914, during World War I, when a British submarine sank the German battle cruiser Hela, according to the historical book “Submarines at War 1939-45,” the paper reported.

When the HMS E-9 returned to port, Lt. Cmdr Max Horton raised the iconic pirate flag to signal that its crew had sunk an enemy warship. British naval fleets have honored the tradition sporadically ever since.

It was not immediately clear why the Carter returned to its home port observing a British tradition, according to the paper. U.S. submarine activity is reportedly rarely discussed by the Pentagon, and the vessels operate in secrecy.

The paper pointed out that the flag display could represent the success of a more covert mission.

The Carter is able to deploy unmanned submersibles and probably splice undersea cables, all while using specially outfitted thrusters to almost hover off the ocean floor.

One of the Seawolf class’s namesake subs participated in the Cold War-era operations, in which U.S. subs tapped Soviet communication lines that were underwater.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2017 12:26

Truly sad. The RN is desperate shape, v.sad commentary on the navy which once ruled the world's oceans.Poor Adm. Horatio Nelson must be turning in his grave at the plight of the RN today.Shame on the Brit. politicos of today.Instead of dumping part of Trident,which is the ultimate weapon of last resort and non one takes Britain seriously anymore,the billions saved could be sued to maintain a decent conventional force,esp. the RN. I suggest that the RN dump/sell its second QE carrier,offer it to India since we've earlier bought ex-RN carriers and have used them v.successfully.
I am sure that there would be many in the IN and MOD who would jump at the idea. Could we be pro-active and make an offer?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... truggling/
Royal Navy a 'laughing stock' with three quarters of its warships out of action and 'struggling to protect British citizens'
HMS Ocean was sent to the Caribbean for hurricane relief but has now been delayed by engine trouble - contributing to Britain being seen as a 'laughing stock' CREDIT: BRITISH MINITRY OF DEFENCE

Con Coughlin, defence editor
14 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 9:30PM
The Royal Navy can only send a quarter of its warships to sea due to spending cuts which have left the armed forces "struggling to protect Britain's citizens", the Telegraph has learned.

Currently 13 of the Navy's 19-strong fleet of Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers are unable to go to sea due to a lack of manpower, fuel and supplies, senior military sources have revealed.

The cuts to defence spending have also severely hampered Britain’s response to Hurricane Irma.

HMS Ocean, the amphibious assault ship that currently serves as the Royal Navy’s flagship, was sent to provide support to the British overseas territories in the Caribbean but suffered engine problems and has now been delayed by a week.

Royal Marines with a local resident in the British Virgin Islands after Irma
The RAF flew a small number of Royal Marines, Royal Engineers and police to the Caribbean after Irma
Tonight the source said that Britain's response has turned the Navy into a "laughing stock".

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2885
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby vera_k » 22 Sep 2017 21:40

The U.S. Navy's most advanced submarines will soon be using Xbox controllers

The Navy is beginning to use an Xbox 360 controller – like the ones you find at the mall – to operate the periscopes aboard Virginia-class submarines.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2017 17:23

Navy Awards Electric Boat $5.1B Columbia-Class Submarine Design Contract


General Dynamics Electric Boat has been awarded a $5.1 billion contract to undertake the detailed design work for the U.S. Navy’s next generation of ballistic missile submarines – the Columbia-class (SSBN(X))

According to the Pentagon notification, “the Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) contract award is for the design, completion, component and technology development and prototyping efforts for the Columbia-class Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBNs). This work will also include United Kingdom (U.K.) unique efforts related to the Common Missile Compartment.

“The Columbia-class submarine is the most important acquisition program the Navy has today,” said Secretary of the Navy Richard V. Spencer in a statement.
“This contract represents a significant investment in maintaining our strategic deterrent into the future, as well as our ongoing partnership with the United Kingdom.”


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Sep 2017 16:06

RAYTHEON DETAILS SUCCESS IN AN/SPY-6(V) RADAR



Raytheon's AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar acquired and tracked multiple threat-representative targets simultaneously during its third dedicated flight test at the US Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.

The Air and Missile Defense Radar (AN/SPY-6[V]) is the US Navy's next generation integrated air and missile defence radar, .advancing through development and on track for the DDG-51 FLIGHT III destroyer.

Test success proved AN/SPY-6(V) integrated air and missile defence performance against a short-range ballistic missile target and multiple anti-ship cruise missile targets. The radar searched for, detected and tracked all targets from launch throughout their flights. The test demonstrated the radar's sensitivity and resource management, a critical multi-mission capability to extend the battlespace and safeguard the fleet from multiple threats.

"The speed, range, trajectory and complexity of multiple targets proved no match for AN/SPY-6 – it acquired and tracked them all," said Raytheon's Tad Dickenson, AN/SPY-6(V) Program Director. "It was truly gratifying for our government-Raytheon team to see the culmination of our engineering efforts in action, and achieve our third straight success."

"This radar was specifically designed to handle ballistic missiles and cruise missiles simultaneously and it's doing just that," US Navy Cpt. Seiko Okano, Major Program Manager for Above Water Sensors, Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems, continued. "AMDR is successfully demonstrating performance in a series of increasingly difficult test events and is on track to deliver advanced capability to the navy's first FLIGHT III Destroyer."

Successes for AN/SPY-6 continue to stack up, following its second ballistic missile test flight in July. The radar has now demonstrated its performance against an array of singular and simultaneous live targets of increasing complexity, including integrated air and missile defence targets of opportunity, satellites and aircraft.

Thanks to gallium-nitride-based technology, the new radar is many times more capable than the current AN/SPY-1 that is installed on the current generation of ARLEIGH BURKE–class destroyers and TICONDEROGA-class missile cruisers. Indeed, compared to the SPY-1D(V) on the current DDG-51 ships, the SPY-6(V) can spot a target of half the size at twice the distance of the existing radar. The system is, “over 30 times more sensitive than AN/SPY-1D(V) in the Flight III configuration,” according to Raytheon.

The system is completely digital and software programmable, based on commercial computer hardware, which means that the SPY-6(V) can easily be adapted for the future. The SPY-6 (V) is capable of, “adaptive digital beamforming and radar signal/data processing functionality provides exceptional capability in adverse conditions, such as high-clutter and jamming environments,” according to Raytheon. “It is also reprogrammable to adapt to new missions or emerging threats.”

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Sep 2017 16:24

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/australias-newest-worldclass-navy-ship/news-story/b0b36c6fda58047d6c4edc77b710115c

Australia's newest world-class navy ship
AARON BUNCH

Australian Associated Press7:41PM September 21, 2017

...

AUSTRALIA’s most sophisticated warship comes into service as regional tensions reach boiling point following North Korea's successful tests of inter-continental ballistic missiles that have the potential to reach northern Australia.

When she does start operations, the 7000 tonne destroyer will be tasked with providing air defence to the Australian naval fleet from both aircraft and missiles.

Armed with the "best you can get" Aegis Combat System, along with "powerful spy radar" and 48 vertically launched missiles capable of travelling 100km, the Hobart will also be no slouch defending against submarine attack.





chola
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Sep 2017 16:33

Oz’s Hobart Class:
7000-ton Aegis destroyer
48-cell Mark 41 UVLS
8 x Harpoon canisters
2 x Torpedo tubes
Mark 45 5” Gun
1 x Phalanx CIWS
1 x Seahawk Med Helo

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2017 16:46

US Navy receives 15th Virginia-class submarine Colorado (SSN 788)


Image

General Dynamics has delivered the 15th Virginia-class submarine – future USS Colorado (SSN 788) – to the US Navy on September 21.

The submarine’s sponsor is Annie Mabus, daughter of the 75th Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus.

According to the US Naval Sea Systems Command, Colorado is scheduled to commission in spring 2018, after beginning construction in 2012.

“Colorado’s delivery brings another Block III Virginia-class submarine to the fleet within budget. The submarine’s outstanding quality continues the Program’s tradition of delivering combat ready submarines to the fleet,” said Capt. Mike Stevens, Virginia-class submarine program manager. “The Colorado is the most capable Virginia-class submarine bringing advanced capabilities and technology to the Navy fleet.”

USS Colorado is the 15th Virginia-class submarine and the fifth of overall eight Block III submarines.

Block III submarines incorporate two tubes with twelve missiles instead of twelve separate missile tubes their sister ships had. This is a feature borrowed from the Ohio-class SSGNs.

Block III submarines from boat eleven onward will also feature a revised bow and a number of other changes.

The submarine will be the fourth U.S. Navy ship to be commissioned with the name Colorado. The first Colorado was a three-masted steam screw frigate that participated in the Union Navy’s Gulf Blockading Squadron that fought in the Second Battle of Fort Fisher. The second Colorado (ACR-7) was a Pennsylvania-class armored cruiser that escorted convoys of men and supplies to England during World War I. The third ship of her name, the lead ship of the Colorado class of battleships (BB-45), supported operations in the Pacific theater throughout World War II, surviving two kamikaze attacks and earning seven battle stars.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Oct 2017 17:36

This report says that SoKo's N-sub ambitions are too costly.SoKO has primarily to counter NoKo's large number of mostly ancient subs,approx 70 in its inventory.It has built around 18 new subs.mostly German U-boats and is now toying wiht the idea of at least 3 SSNs,costing around $2.% each,without infrastructure. Unlike India,a sub-continent, which has vast coastal areas,island territories and out of IOR ops too,requiring dozens of subs,SoKo has just the waters adjacent to NoKo and China to sanitise.While an N-sub may provide it with greater endurance,it could acquire 7 times as many conv. subs suggests this report.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 540?page=2
South Korea Is about to Make a $7 Billion Nuclear Submarine Blunder
Zachary KeckHenry Sokolski
September 30, 2017

One of the toughest challenges for military allies to sort out is a sensible division of labor when it comes to expensive high-tech weaponry. A case in point is South Korea’s interest in developing extremely expensive nuclear submarines, which also raise nuclear proliferation concerns.

Although South Korea has invested heavily in conventional subs, operating eighteen of the vessels with more on the way, Yonhap News Agency recently reported, “The Moon administration is considering the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines to counter the North's fleet of around 70 military subs, some armed with ballistic missiles.” The same article noted that Seoul would require that at least one of these submarines would be operating at all times. The main rationale for acquiring nuclear subs (SSNs) is that unlike conventional submarines, which must surface every few days or weeks for air, the nuclear reactors allow SSNs to stay submerged indefinitely. This will allow them to track North Korea’s emerging submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

This capability does not come cheaply. One way South Korea could acquire nuclear submarines is by buying or leasing American-built SSNs. It’s unclear if this option is feasible since the United States has never sold nuclear-powered submarines to another country. Still, assuming that it is, the question becomes how much would this cost South Korea?

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute examined this question in a 2012 report by Andrew Davies. It explored how much it would cost Australia to purchase Virginia-class SSNs from the United States.

According to Davies:
[The U.S. Navy’s] goal is to reduce costs to $2.24 billion per vessel and the time required to build each ship to about 60 months. Under the US Foreign Military Sales regulations, any submarine purchased by Australia would cost a little more than the cost of production for the USN. A working figure might be US$2.5 billion, with a lead time of at least five years, although that figure does not include the support systems, infrastructure investment and other costs that would also be incurred.

If this figure is correct, it would cost South Korea around $7.5 billion to purchase three SSNs before accounting for the substantial operating costs, personnel training and infrastructure investments.

A more realistic option is for South Korea to build its own SSNs. South Korea already has extensive experience in building its own conventionally-powered submarines, as well as nuclear reactors. In the early 2000s, South Korea was also caught conducting research into miniaturized nuclear reactors that can fit on submarines. In fact, one atomic energy official who worked on that clandestine effort recently bragged: “South Korea’s atomic energy agency finished its basic design for a nuclear reactor that can be used for a nuclear-powered submarine in 2004.”

To gauge the cost of an indigenous effort, it would again be helpful to look at other countries’ experiences. One potentially helpful comparison is Britain’s program to build seven Astute-class SSNs. This is obviously an imperfect comparison since Britain has prior experience with SSNs and is using reactors from its older ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) for the Astute-class subs. Nonetheless, it’s a useful starting place.

The Astute-class submarines have been beset by repeated problems since the program began, including myriad operational challenges and massive cost overruns. The current cost estimate is that the seven submarines will cost $13.3 billion, or nearly $2 billion per ship. Even this is misleading because the unit cost is driven down by how many vessels Britain is procuring. The lead ship of the class was $2.6 billion over budget. Thus, an extremely optimistic estimate is that the first three ships would cost $7 billion.

Another useful example is Brazil’s efforts to acquire a nuclear attack submarine. Brazil is teaming with the French firm, DCNS, to build the SSN. According to the contract, DCNS will provide “design assistance and production of the non-nuclear part of the first Brazilian nuclear powered submarine, including support for construction of a naval base and a naval construction site.” Brazil itself will provide the nuclear reactor that will power the submarine. Altogether, the SSN will cost $2.4 billion, with about $1.5 billion of that going to the nuclear reactor. Once again, this suggests a cost of at least $7 billion for three South Korean SSNs.

The Brazil case is informative in another way: Brazil is also constructing a submarine pen to house and protect the nuclear-powered submarine. This is something South Korea might also need if it builds SSNs. Although Seoul recently built a new naval base in Jeju-do in part to house its conventionally-powered submarines, a hardened submarine pen to protect the SSNs would likely be necessary in light of their enormous expense and North Korea’s increasingly accurate MARV (maneuverable reentry vehicle) missiles. Brazil estimates its new base will cost around $2.1 billion.

In light of this, it is worth asking whether it would be wise for South Korea to invest $7–9 billion in SSNs when other capabilities exist to deal with the threat of North Korea’s nascent submarine-launched ballistic missiles. A number of other possibilities could be explored. For instance, South Korea could buy at least seven times as many conventional submarines as SSNs. While these individually aren’t as capable as nuclear-powered submarines, quantity has a quality all its own, especially given that Seoul is facing a North Korean force of nearly eighty subs. In addition, as the National Interest has repeatedly covered over the years, there are a bunch of emerging technologies that make detecting and tracking submarines far easier than ever before. South Korea could also put more money into other anti-submarine capabilities such as the P-8A Poseidon Maritime Surveillance Aircraft. Improving missile defense is another option that should be considered.

Another advantage of these options is that they don’t pose nuclear weapons proliferation concerns like the SSNs do. The nuclear reactors on these submarines would require enriched uranium. If South Korea was to buy this fuel from the United States—or Washington was to allow South Korea to enrich U.S. uranium on its territory—this would violate U.S. non-proliferation restrictions, forcing Congress and the White House to wrangle over how to rearrange the rules and for Washington to renegotiate a new nuclear cooperative agreement with Seoul. This would take time and risk encouraging other nuclear submarine aspirants, including Iran, to build their own SSNs. None of this would help strengthen U.S.-South Korean security relations at a time when that is desperately needed to confront the North Korean threat.

Zachary Keck (@ZacharyKeck) is the Wohlstetter Public Affairs Fellow at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
Henry Sokolski (@NuclearPolicy) is Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33924
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2017 19:11

Philip wrote: For instance, South Korea could buy at least seven times as many conventional submarines as SSNs. While these individually aren’t as capable as nuclear-powered submarines,
<snip>
Zachary Keck (@ZacharyKeck) is the Wohlstetter Public Affairs Fellow at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
Henry Sokolski (@NuclearPolicy) is Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
[/quote]

It would be a great idea for submarine manufacturers and exporters to pay off these "experts" to write what they do no?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Oct 2017 13:25

KIlos come in at just $300M a pop. Western conv. subs at $500M+ Therfore for about $10B,one could actually get around 20+ subs as such large roder would have economies of scale. Don't forget NoKo has around 70-80 subs,mostly of ancient vintage,but v.sueful in its coastal warfare with SoKo.Remember how a SoKo ASW corvette was allegedly sunk by a NoKo sub?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1463
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 05 Oct 2017 07:03

Aren't Kilos the most exported subs and China with its copy grade subs has enough knowledge of these if not the western nations, that renders its capabilities as much exposed as the Scorpene data leak?

How much of a defensive role are the Chinese copy grade subs playing in the SCS?

and can DRDO's AIP be added to the Kilo? since nothing of that sort was heard with the existing Kilo inventory of IN


Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 463
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 07 Oct 2017 07:12

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... -laughable

According to the Government Accountability Office, the [U.S.] Navy's fleet dreams far outmatch their investments in the critical but unglamorous infrastructure needed to support them. The GAO has put out a fabulous and troubling video on the subject that is really a must watch:
...
Just a few highlights from the short video:

At one time the Navy had 13 shipyards, but now it has just four.
None of these facilities were built to sustain a modern Navy.
There is nearly a $5B maintenance backlog alone and this estimate is likely far less than the actual cost.
Uses old inadequate equipment on high-tech vessels.
Drydocks are on average 89 years old and are in poor condition.
Due to the lack of dry dock capacity, the Navy won't be able to perform a third of its scheduled aircraft carrier and submarine maintenance projects over the next two decades.
Rising sea levels pose a threat to old dry docks.
The Navy says it will take nearly two decades to address these issues, but GAO says it will take longer. By that time the fleet will have ballooned putting more pressure on these tired facilities.
As of now the Navy is only funding roughly half the cost just to keep up maintenance on their own naval shipyards.


The GAO video is just 4 minutes long, but is jaw-dropping.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Oct 2017 15:46

Trials glitch for OZ's new amphib vessel.http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... ls-4287168
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... ls-4287168

Australian Navy’s new Canberra-class LHD damaged during maiden sea trials
BAE Vessel
The Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) Canberra-class landing helicopter dock (LHD) vessel, HMAS Canberra, has reportedly been damaged during a trial cruise.

During its first 'shakedown cruise' between Sydney and Melbourne last month, the hull of the LHD was damaged and its circuit breakers melted.

The damage to the hull was mainly due to the fact that two German-built Siemens propulsion pods, integrated within the vessel, were misaligned.

A crew from Teekay Shipping, hired by BAE Systems to test the vessel's performance prior to its commissioning, was allegedly not aware of the need to operate the pods.

This led to severe vibration all over the ship, which caused paint to be stripped from the hull directly above the pods.

A project source was quoted by the Daily Telegraph as saying that it was like the shaking floor in an amusement park house of fun.

"The claim that Teekay sea staff were negligent, resulting in damage to the vessel, is completely false."
"Once the pods were back in the correct mode the vibration ceased," the source said. "It was an operator error and the return journey was much smoother."

In addition, the vessel was also hit with an electrical power failure when the crew neglected to disconnect the emergency power, leading to the circuit breakers melting. This resulted in the vessel losing steerage. The crew then had to drop anchor for four hours.

However, a Teekay Shipping Australia spokesperson rejected claims that negligence from the crew was the reason for the incident.

"The claim that Teekay sea staff were negligent, resulting in damage to the vessel, is completely false," the spokesperson said.

With the next round of sea trials scheduled for July, the 27,000t vessel is expected to be handed over to the RAN later this year. It will assist in transporting military equipment and aviation units, in addition to supporting humanitarian missions.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2017 15:01

General Atomics shows its MQ-25 offering. Minimum requirements for fuel offload are 15,000 lb. @ 900 km from Aircraft Carrier - adequate (would have preferred 20-25K range) in the mission tanking profile I guess, but SIGNIFICANTLY better than the Rhino in the current role of recovery tanking. Also, likely some ISR and light strike requirements over and above.

Navy Releases Final MQ-25 Stingray RFP; General Atomics Bid Revealed

They have widened the fuselage compared to the Predator-C. Should have a significant improvement in the TOS when not in the tanker role.

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Oct 2017 18:24

More EMALS and AAG Action -


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5993
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Oct 2017 16:13

First ESSM Block I combat intercept :

Image

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1725
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby chola » 19 Oct 2017 16:29

brar_w wrote:More EMALS and AAG Action -




Oh yeah! Will be on Vishal. I hope.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3340
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Oct 2017 02:12

A Russian Ghost Submarine, Its U.S. Pursuers and a Deadly New Cold War
A resurgence in Russian submarine technology has reignited an undersea rivalry that played out in a cat-and-mouse sea hunt across the Mediterranean

"The Krasnodar, a Russian attack submarine, left the coast of Libya in late May, headed east across the Mediterranean, then slipped undersea, quiet as a mouse. Then, it fired a volley of cruise missiles into Syria.

In the days that followed, the diesel-electric sub was pursued by the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, its five accompanying warships, MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and P-8 Poseidon anti-sub jets flying out of Italy."

Paywall

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-russian- ... 1508509841

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 463
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Avarachan » 21 Oct 2017 05:36

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/ ... ntly-down/

The German Navy’s six-strong fleet of submarines is completely out of commission after the only operational sub had an accident off the coast of Norway on Sunday ....

The submarine joins three ships already being overhauled at the Kiel shipyard. German military news service Augen Geradeaus, citing sea service data, reported that the U-31 will be in the yard until December, and the U-33 and U-36 are undergoing maintenance until February 2018 and May 2018, respectively. Additionally, the U-32 and U-34 are out of service and awaiting maintenance spots at the shipyard.

Navy officials blame bottlenecks in the procurement of spare parts for the submarines’ downtime. While a comprehensive package of spare parts was a key aspect of any new acquisition during the Cold War, cost-saving measures adopted since then have resulted in parts no longer being kept in reserve, German Navy spokesman Capt. Johannes Dumrese told the newspaper group SHZ.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mody, Nitesh and 46 guests