Royal Navy's entire fleet of attack submarines out of action

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Sounds like the #2 NATO partner needs to step up their game and commit some resources to their navy. Only seven attack subs? And none capable of doing their job? That's not good.

We only have 6 in total IIRC.

[Onkel Neal]

Look out, the Russians know about this now

No attack submarines are left in Britain

[Jimbuna]

Is Lend-Lease still an option?

[Oberon]

The US Navy isn't without its problems either, over half of their F-18s are grounded awaiting maintenance, the USS Boise has lost its diving certificate, and five other submarines (presumably also 688s) are not looking in good condition.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...hters-cant-fly

And if that wasn't cheerful enough (that's sarcasm by the way) the UK MOD rumour mill indicates that this years military spending review is going to be a massacre.

[Aktungbby]

I can't really believe that the notoriously poor condition budget-buggered Russians are in any better shape to even take advantage of this. They're just quieter about it ....until they are 'Akursk they are not there" Then real suddenlike: -everybody knows!

The archetypal image of Eastern European nuclear contamination is the radioactive wilderness of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and the abandoned city of Pripyat. But more than 1,000 miles to the north, the Russians have spent years struggling to dispose of hundreds of nuclear reactors left over from decaying, geriatric Soviet nuke subs.
It’s a dangerous, vexing problem. The Soviet Union built more than 260 nuclear-powered ships during the Cold War, most of them submarines with the occasional surface ship and even icebreaker. But Russia decommissioned more than half of them during the 1980s and 1990s as the economy imploded and Moscow’s military budget collapsed.
The rusting, contaminated remnants of these ships — the large reactor containers are a particular source of pollution — sit floating along Russia’s Arctic coast, with few places to put them.

https://warisboring.com/russia-is-finally-slicing-up-its-abandoned-radioactive-submarines-771bafa77465#.jacznztts

[Mr Quatro]

War is hell! But real hell would be standing topside watch on a submarine in port due to spare parts or waiting for a drydock or for the budget to be approved and seeing a mushroom cloud near London Town.

Control room
Topside watch here:
"We seem to have a problem ... I see a large mushroom cloud over near London Town".

Topside watch
Control room here:
"Aye, keep us informed"

IMC: "Now man the maneuvering watch" "Single up all lines"

They all should be at sea ... any sailor would agree that they get into a lot less trouble at sea.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Is Lend-Lease still an option?

No we must buy it outright and allow Trump to build Trump Towers in Scotland and more golf courses, ass long as its all in Scotland what the heck.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Look out, the Russians know about this now

You mean they will have to reduce their patrols, now there 's no one to rescue them?

[ikalugin]

I mean this is a natural result of the smaller SSN force - the smaller you go the higher is the risk that no subs would be availiable for duties.

For RuN, readiness was vastly improved since we actually got the funding going (around 2010), this (unofficial, made out of the open data):

 

(the table shows SSNs of Akula series with historical and projected statuses. gray = reserve; yellow = repairs, refits and modernisation; green = availiable for duties)
Currently it appears that we plan to maintain a ~24 strong force of non strategic nuclear submarines (ie SSNs and SSGNs) between the various classes. This allows us to deploy more than one such submarine on missions, you may remember the reports regarding Kuznetsov's sortie into the Med when multiple subs participated.

Only in 00s (and now in 10s) we got the money to fix the submarine fleet's problems, including decomissioning the nuclear reactors. One of the big projects in the later area was decomissioning the support vessel we were using for refuelling, as it had a lot of spent fuel assemblies in it. You can read more here: http://www.rosatom.ru/production/safety/ (unfortunately the eng version of Rosatom website appears to lack the data)

So while there were problems in the past due to the funding problems they are by now largerly either solved or in the process of being solved, so propelling the myth about "useless russian rusting submarines" serves noone. Also, an interesting graph (this time in english):

 

(note this graph depicts nuclear submarines of all types, with Delta and Victor series being counted as 2nd gen SSBNs)

[lesrae]

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-...he-royal-navy/

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by lesrae

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-...he-royal-navy/

“We also looked long and hard at re-activating HMS Victory but it was felt our new French allies would be too upset by this” said an MoD spokesperson.

CLASSIC!!

[Jimbuna]

You're link isn't working.

This one should.

[Aktungbby]

[/QUOTE] Thanks deleted post as useless. Very 'iffy' indeed??!! Tested again: no problems directly off U-Tube. Apparently no longer transferrable; And it Still works from my previous posting: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2259770&postcount=3 Which incl. your version as well.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

We only have 6 in total IIRC.

But we have eight Airbus transporters

oh, wait... http://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/d...ustriert-.html

But.. one

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

But we have eight Airbus transporters

oh, wait... http://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/d...ustriert-.html

But.. one

What have you been doing with those A400s? I don't think we've managed to break ours yet.