Latest news with #Royal Navy
The Sun
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Royal Navy's only hospital ship banned from sailing as it's so decrepit it could sink
THE Navy's only hospital ship is so decrepit it has been banned from sailing amid fears it could sink. RFA Argus — which first saw action during the Falklands War in 1982 — underwent major repairs in April. Navy chiefs want to send the ship back to Falmouth, Cornwall, for more urgent work. But the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Lloyds insurers ruled the crew and other vessels would be at risk if Argus left her Solent mooring near Portsmouth. A naval source said: 'This is what hollowed-out means. "Argus has so many problems. "There's no way they'll let her sail back for proper repairs.' It is a humiliating blow to proud Royal Navy as its fleet sinks to an all time low. Labour have axed seven warships – including two frigates – in their first year in office. It leaves the Royal Navy fleet with just 15 prinipal warships, including five frigates, six defenders and two aircraft carriers. Around half those are in dock for repairs. A Royal Navy spokesman said talks were taking place with Lloyds and the Coastguard 'to address' issues with the 28,000-tonne vessel. They added: 'There are no current plans for the ship to depart until all identified defects have been rectified.' Putin's Navy plans are 'bonkers' as PR stunt highlights fatal flaws 1
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Nuclear submarines are to conventional ones as machine-guns are to muskets
So, we and the Australians have reaffirmed our commitment to the Aukus pact, the central element of which is that Australia will get a force of nuclear powered but conventionally armed submarines. Down the road, the plan is that there will be a jointly developed Australian-British submarine class, which will follow on from the current British Astute class boats. But Britain must first – with very great urgency – finish building the Astutes and then get cracking on our replacement nuclear deterrent submarines. Our current Trident subs are now so old, and their support infrastructure so messed up, that getting the next one ready to take over from the one setting out on patrol can take six months – putting an intolerable burden on our submariners. We don't have the industrial base or the funding to build two classes of submarine at once, so the Brit-Aussie subs will have to wait, probably for quite a long time. Thus, under the Aukus plan, the first few boats for Australia will be US made Virginia class subs. Unfortunately that part of the plan was always a little problematic, as the US industrial base is also creaking. The US Navy has the money to buy two new attack submarines a year, which assuming a 30-year lifespan would sustain a fleet of 60. But US yards have only managed to produce an average of 1.2 Virginia s per year in recent times: the American attack-boat fleet is shrinking, and is now down to 53. While this seems like a huge number to a former Royal Navy man like me, and I would suggest that the USN can easily spare a few hulls for the land Down Under, to Americans the prospect of having a measly 50 attack boats in service – or even fewer – is a horrifying one. Now President Trump has launched a review of the Aukus deal, which could see the US pull out. That might torpedo the whole plan, as Australia cannot afford to wait decades to get some new submarines. Before the Aukus plan was announced, it had been thought that the Aussies might buy conventionally-powered boats from France, and the Aukus plan has never lacked for opponents in the US, the UK, Australia – and France, of course. But there are a few things that enemies of Aukus might consider. The first is the absolutely enormous difference between conventionally-powered and nuclear-powered submarines. They are both called 'submarines' but that is hugely misleading. It's a bit like saying that a musket and a machine-gun are both firearms. The standard form of conventional sub has diesel-electric propulsion. It's essentially a somewhat modernised version of the German U-boats of World War Two (and One). Diesel engines need air to run, so when the boat is submerged it has to use electric motors fed by a bank of batteries. It cannot move fast like this except very briefly, nor can it go very far even at a crawl. It has to put up a 'snort' air-intake mast at regular intervals for long periods of time to recharge its batteries if it is to go a long way, and if it wants to go that long way at any reasonable speed it has to surface completely. Doing either means it is easily found using radar. A conventional submarine is therefore unlikely to last long under the footprint of hostile radar-equipped aircraft – as indeed the U-boats did not, back in the day. By contrast a nuclear boat can stay fully down for months on end, going at any speed it chooses the entire time. Only a complex system of specialist assets – seabed sensors, enemy nuclear subs, specially equipped anti-submarine warships and aircraft, all working together – has any chance of locating and tracking it. Its heavyweight torpedoes can sink any ship: its cruise missiles can strike targets ashore from a thousand miles away. It's a game-changing weapon, and a nation with nuclear subs is a hugely more dangerous opponent than one without. It's true, there are various so-called 'air independent' enhancements which can be added to conventional boats. These involve using tanks of oxygen to run various different kinds of auxiliary propulsion while submerged. The mainstream method is hydrogen fuel cells, but some nations prefer Stirling-cycle engines as these can be run on the boat's ordinary diesel fuel while the oxygen lasts. France, uniquely, has developed the 'Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome' (MESMA) system, which is an ethanol-powered steam turbine. It's considerably more powerful than the other air-independent options, but it apparently lacks endurance and makes a lot of noise. The only nation which actually uses MESMA is Pakistan: France doesn't, of course, as it has proper nuclear boats. All the air-independent options are always installed alongside conventional diesels, which gives a good handy hint as to just how useful they are. None of them come anywhere close to the capability of a nuclear boat, and they require recharging with oxygen and usually one or another kind of exotic fuel as well: they can't do this at sea, or even in most harbours or naval bases. A nuclear boat, by contrast, runs for many years without refuelling and makes its own air and water: all it needs is supplies of food for the crew every few months. If Australia and its friends are going to tip the Pacific balance of power in their favour, it's nuclear submarines that are needed, not any kind of conventional ones. That means Aukus. The second factor in favour of Aukus is basing. When it comes to facing down China a submarine based at Perth in Western Australia has a lot more effect than one based on the US West Coast, and enormously more than one based in the Atlantic. The first element of the Aukus plan – before even the transfer of Virginia s to Australia – is the basing of a British Astute and some USN boats at Perth. This is planned for this decade, and will appreciably change the parameters of wargames modelling a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Elbridge Colby, the man in charge of Trump's Aukus review, is a known China hawk. If he's serious about that he'll realise that the Perth base is a good thing on its own. Getting that base is well worth leasing a few Virginia s to the Aussies, especially as it brings a British Astute into the Pacific in the near future, and a new friendly fleet of UK-Australian boats further off. From the American point of view, Aukus is a rare case of some Western allies actually pulling their weight on defence – something President Trump and Secretary of Defence Hegseth are vocally in favour of. As Tom Sharpe of this parish has put it: ' The free world needs a fleet of nuclear submarines based in Australia '. Aukus must succeed.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
UK and Australia sign Aukus treaty to build nuclear submarines as Lammy downplays US doubts
Australia and the UK have signed a 50-year treaty to cement the Aukus pact to design and build a new class of nuclear-powered submarine. Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, and the UK's defence secretary, John Healey, signed the deal – dubbed the 'Geelong Treaty' – in Geelong on Saturday, with Marles saying it was among the most significant treaties between the two nations. It came as the US, which is not a party to the treaty, wavers on its own role in the trilateral Aukus agreement, after the Trump administration launched a review to examine whether it aligns with his 'America first' agenda. A joint statement released by the UK and Australia said the treaty would enable cooperation on the SSN-Aukus submarine's design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal, as well as workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems. The SSN-Aukus is intended to incorporate technology from all three Aukus nations. It will be built in northern England for the UK Royal Navy, and Australia plans to build its own in South Australia for delivery to the Australian navy in the 2040s. The treaty is yet to be released publicly and will be tabled in parliament next week. Marles told reporters the treaty will underpin how the UK and Australia work together to deliver the submarines. He said there were three parts to the treaty, including training in the UK for Australian submariners and other required roles, and 'facilitating the development' of infrastructure at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide. 'And finally, what the treaty does is create a seamless defence industrial base between the United Kingdom and Australia. This project is going to see Australian companies supplying into Great Britain for the building of submarines,' he said. 'It will see British companies supplying to Australia for the building of our own submarines here in Adelaide. Healey said the treaty would support tens of thousands of jobs in both Australia and the UK. 'It is a treaty that will fortify the Indo-Pacific. It will strengthen Nato and we're the politicians signing it today. But this is a treaty that will define the relationship between our two nations and safeguard the security of our country for our children and our children's children to come,' he said. Marles said the deal was 'another demonstration of the fact that Aukus is happening, and it is happening on time, and we are delivering it'. 'It's a treaty which will last for 50 years. It is a bilateral treaty which sits under the trilateral Aukus framework.' As part of the existing Aukus agreement, Australia will pay about $4.6bn to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future Aukus-class submarines. It will pay a similar amount to the US to support America's shipbuilding industry. Under the $368bn Aukus program, Australia is scheduled to buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US from the early 2030s. Earlier on Saturday, the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, appeared at an event in Sydney run by the Lowy Institute. Asked by the presenter if the UK was 'coming to the rescue because America is losing interest in Aukus', he said that wasn't the case, and that the deal was about '20,000 jobs between our two countries' and a secure partnership well into the future. Lammy dismissed concerns over the Trump administration's Aukus review, saying it would 'flush out any issues for them'. He said both the UK and Australian governments had also undertaken a review of the pact. 'All governments do reviews, and should do reviews, particularly when they involve big aspects of procurement and defence,' he said. Lammy said the world had entered a 'new era' of instability and that 'investing in defence is an investment in peace' because opponents 'realise that you are armed and capable'. The Trump administration's review is being headed by the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence policy, Elbridge Colby, who has previously declared himself 'sceptical' about the deal, fearing it could leave US sailors exposed and underresourced.
The Independent
16-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Queen receives ‘brilliant' birthday gift: A clingfilm holder
Queen Camilla received an unconventional 78th birthday gift this week: a clingfilm holder, presented by a submarine commander whose crew once used the everyday household item to keep a nuclear vessel operational. The unique present, given by Commander Chris Bate of HMS Astute, came with a small plaque bearing the inscription: "Clingfilm keeping nuclear submarines at sea." The Queen, who celebrates her birthday on Thursday, reportedly remarked: "There's nothing more useful, brilliant how wonderful." As HMS Astute's Lady Sponsor, the Queen has cultivated a close relationship with the crew and the wider Royal Navy, a bond recognised by her appointment as a Vice Admiral during a visit to Devonport naval base in Plymouth. She boarded the submarine's substantial hull as it neared the end of its initial two-decade operational phase, meeting eight of its former commanders. Addressing the crew and their families at a garden party, she expressed anticipation for the submarine's return to service following a four-year refit. She also cautioned that with "global tectonics shifting unpredictably", the submarine might re-enter an "unfamiliar world" – but said this was a 'challenge that I know will be taken on with her usual tenacity'. Camilla referenced the ingenuity of the crew '…from the innovation of one petty officer to code cutting-edge long-range communications software, through to the resourceful solution to maintain a vacuum, in the middle of the Indian Ocean, with clingfilm! 'I can only imagine what the unofficial toolkit in a submarine might look like.' The present comes after an unauthorised biography of King Charles claimed he had no idea what cling film was and 'shrieked' at the sight of it. Ahead of the royal visit, Commander Christopher Bate, commanding officer of HMS Astute, said the crew took enormous pride in the Queen's sponsorship of their submarine and support for all onboard since she formally named the vessel nearly 20 years ago. 'Her Majesty the Queen has supported us from the very beginning, she has consistently shown a deep commitment to all aspects of our work,' he said. 'Her continued engagement with our activities and achievements over the years has meant a great deal to us.'
