UK most powerful attack submarine HMS Astute officially commissioned
The UK’s most powerful attack submarine, HMS Astute, was welcomed into the Royal Navy on Friday. In a Commissioning ceremony overseen by the boat's patron the Duchess of Cornwall, Astute officially became 'Her Majesty's Ship'.
HMS Astute is quieter than any of her predecessors, meaning she has the ability to operate covertly and remain undetected in almost all circumstances despite being fifty per cent bigger than any attack submarine in the Royal Navy’s current fleet.
The latest nuclear powered technology means she will never need to be refuelled and can circumnavigate the world submerged, creating the crew's oxygen from seawater as she sails.
The submarine has the capacity to carry a mix of Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes and Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise missiles – and can target enemy submarines, surface ships and land targets with pinpoint accuracy, while her world-beating sonar system is capable of detecting ships and submarines at many hundreds of miles.
“The Astute Class is truly next generation –- a highly versatile platform she is capable of contributing across a broad spectrum of maritime operations around the globe, and will play an important role in delivering the fighting power of the Royal Navy for decades to come. A highly complex feat of naval engineering, she is at the very cutting edge of technology, with a suite of sensors and weapons required to pack a powerful punch”, said Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord.
“Today is an important milestone along the road to full operational capability which will follow after a further series of demanding seagoing trials testing the full range of the submarine’s capabilities”, he added.
“HMS Astute has today also reached an important milestone on the road to operational handover. Following the successful completion of the first rigorous set of sea trials which began at the end of 2009, she has achieved her In Service Date signalling that she has proven her ability to dive, surface and operate across the full range of depth and speed independently of other assets thereby providing an initial level of capability”.
Rear Admiral Simon Lister, Director Submarines, who oversees the build programme of the class for the MOD, said that “to my mind Astute is a 7,000 tons Swiss watch. There is an extraordinary amount of expertise that goes into putting one of these submarines together. There are stages when it’s like blacksmithing and there are stages when it’s like brain surgery”.
“So to see Astute commissioned is momentous not only for the Royal Navy, who have been eagerly anticipating this quantum leap forward in capability, but for the thousands of people around the country who have been involved in the most challenging of engineering projects”.
Following the Commissioning, HMS Astute will return to sea for further trials of the submarine and her crew before she is declared as operational.
As the base port of all the Navy's submarines from 2016, Faslane will be home to the whole Astute class, which includes Ambush, Artful and Audacious which are already under construction in Barrow-in-Furness by BAE Systems.
HMS Astute was built by BAE in Barrow-in-Furness. She’s 97 metres from bow to stern – almost as long than a football pitch and displaces 7,400 tons of sea water – the equivalent of 65 blue whales.
HMS Astute is the first Royal Navy submarine not to have a traditional periscope instead using electro-optics to capture a 360 image of the surface for subsequent analysis by the Commanding Officer.
She manufactures her own oxygen from sea water as well as drinking water and could theoretically remain submerged for her 25 year life if it weren’t for the need to restock the crew’s food supplies. Faster under the water than on the surface she is capable of speeds in excess of 20 knots although her top speed is classified
HMS Astute 98 crew members are fed by five chefs who, on an average patrol, will serve up 18,000 sausages and 4,200 Weetabix for breakfast.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
Prince Harry named best co-pilot gunner of the Apache helicopter training course
-
Feb 10th 2012
Royal Navy patrol issues record fine to Dutch fishing vessel
-
Feb 10th 2012
Timerman on Friday formalizes at UN complaint against UK ‘militarization’ of Malvinas dispute
-
Feb 10th 2012
State Department ratifies Falklands’ dispute is a bilateral Argentina/UK issue
86 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
This sub can sit at the bottom of the English Channel and monitor sea traffic in New York - Britsh engineering at its best.
Getting ready for the ideotic and nationalistic posts of the resident bitter Argentines that lurk in these waters.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7969017/Russian-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html
At least we don't have to watch out for Argentina and their patrol boats. Like Sam Moody said they are a minor irritation.
Looking forward to a RNS next week to say drilling for the flow test is underway! Keep drilling boys :-)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2039528/HMS-Superb-nuclear-submarine-damaged-in-Red-Sea-crash.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7892294.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1048413.stm
Now, Margo, can you not do better than a 10-year old report, a report about a boat since decommissioned and a report about the French not knowing where they were going? Of course, the Le Triomphant class isn't as advanced as the Vanguard class. And nowhere near the Astute class.
As far as the Russians are concerned, who cares? What a terrific idea to try to get a recording of a Vanguard class propellor noise. Just before they're replaced!
“Britain must to invest in large numbers of cheaper warships if the “dangerously weak” Royal Navy is to guarantee the country's maritime security, an academic paper has said”.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7956549/Royal-Navy-underfunding-has-left-it-inadequate-for-vital-tasks-report-finds.html
and that is BRITISH POWER, from a navy that you all think is finnished,
as you history books tells you, if you ever bother to read them,
british is best, up the falklands
Thanks.
Pity you are so jelous that the UK is upgrading her military. Any country that cares for its servicemen will upgrade the kit. Why you harp on about the doom of the UK and the UK forces you ignore all of the developments that the UK is making for the future.
There is Astute and her sisters.
The F35 (the stealth replacement to the Harrier) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
The F35 will be the last piloted fighter/bomber to be comissioned by the UK. The next peice of the future can be found with Taranis which will make its first flight next year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Taranis
Before attempting to paint a picture about the demise of the UK military then compare this to your canoes and catapults.
Enjoy your new patrol boats and 1960s designed Russian helicopters. I am sure they make you feel very masculine.
And theres the carriers.
An American rig that can port in Brazil if it wishes. That is the kind of support that counts.
Who else of any note supports your delusions? China, they may massage you verbally but where are the fruits of their support, certainly not in any writs or minutes of meetings.
Keep up with the delusions, you are good entertainment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2)
end of problem, next quango marco
no Marco we will stay with the real world and leave you and your friends to live in fantasy land,
the British empire was the best, the biggest, and was turned into a commonwealth of free nations, unlike Argentina, the British by the way
BUILT YOUR RAILWAYS so stop complaining if they are running late .
And we built your tallest and modern building in UK and your point is?
Canary Wharf London
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square
One Park West Liverpool
www.oneparkwest.co.uk/oneparkwest.aspx
Citigroup Centre, London
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Canada_Square
40 Bank Street
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_Bank_Street
Wood Wharf Tower
www.bdonline.co.uk/news/pelli-clarke-pellis-wood-wharf-tower-in-for-planning/3141254.article
25 Bank Street
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Bank_Street
North Quay
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Quay
etc.
There was a small difference between the Argentine carrier and the British ones. The British ones stayed and did their duty, defeating the Argy air forces with only 28 aircraft, whilst the Argentine carrier ran away.
Only one of the reasons that the “old, broke” British whipped the Argentine cur back to its kennel.
On the other hand, if Argentina obtains a nuclear defence program, Britain will be free to use its nuclear weapons.
“On the other hand, if Argentina obtains a nuclear defence program, Britain will be free to use its nuclear weapons.”
And in that case we will cook Malvinas, England, Wales and Scotland like the Yanks have done with the Japs but we more hot power.
Unfortunately maps will have to be re printed but this time without large Island in the Northern Sea and Malvinas.
None in the world will save of that my friend even Uncle Sam.
As the Argentine government cannot afford to pay it's current Army or look after veterans then it is clear that their military spending will be focused on four poxy patrol boats and some Russian helicopters which were designed in the 1960s.
Grow up!
The only fallout in the islands will be the oil from the Sea Lion well test!
With imaginary weapons launched from imaginary subs.
The 3,000 Falkland Islanders are being protected (by the terms of the treaty between FIG and the UK) by a government that takes treaties that it signs seriously, rather than ignoring them when it's politically expedient.
His own stupidity speaks for itself really, nothing i can say will make him look any more stupid or braindead than he's already made him self look.
Lets ignore the billions of £/$ Argentina would have to find to build nuclear weapons, and the billions of £/$ it would then have to find to build delivery systems for those weapons, not to mention the billions of £/$ they would then need to find to then build them in such quantities as to match the nuclear arsenal of the UK, no lets not ask avargas2001 where all this money is coming from.
No instead let us ask avargas2001 what he thinks the consequences for Argentina would be? Does he believe there would be no response from Britain? Does he believe NATO would stand quietly to one side and ignore the purpose of the Alliance, that an attack on one is an attack on all? Does he not think that such an ill thought out, ill considered strategy would lead to nothing more than nuclear Armaggedon for Argentina?
avargas2001 you world view is quite frankly staggeringly simplistic, and one would hope not an indicator of the Argentine education system as a whole.
British need to go home to Europe they don't belong in the southern hemisphere nor we belong to the northern one. We do not sail around their island trying to do the same.
Secondly, no one stole the Islands from Argentina. They were British before Argentina existed as a nation.
Thirdly, this being the case, they aren't Argentina's natural resources.
Fourthly, no, that is not what the UK does. It is, however, what Argentina does - invading the Falklands in 1982 after having set foot on the Falklands for a few months back in the 1830s.
Finally, if the descendants of the British living in the Falklands go back to the Northern hemispehere, do you agree that all descendants of the Spanish and the Potuguese living in South America should go back to Spain and Portugal? Otherwise it would be a bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?!
“invade Buenos Aires again under the excuse that they set foot there for a few weeks in two occasions 200 hundreds years ago”
You invaded the falklands under the excuse that you visited there 200 years ago, lol.
No comparisom whatsoever, we do not claim to be Spanish, portuguese or british like you do , all of us are Argentinians. And none of us claim any part of Argentina, South America, for the country of origin of our ancestors.
Zethe, I told you the war of 1982 was wrong, even if belong to Argentina. What was the excuse for the British to invade Buenos Aires in two occasions?, I already know all the british excuses for Malvinas.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4779479.stm
I don't know about both occasions, wasn't aware there was more than one, but at the time of the attack I do know about there was no such nation as Argentina and Buenos Aires was still a part of the Spainish Empire, and as we were at war with Spain her holdings in South America were legitimate targets.
Back in those days we was constantly at war with spain. you are compairing actions from 200 years ago with todays ethics.
Done some checking and the first invasion was in 1806 and the second in 1807. During this period there was no Argentina, it was the Vice Royalty of the Río de la Plata, a Spanish colony.
As Spain was an Allie of Napoleonic France at the time, and we were at war with both, Spains colony in South America was a legitimate target as previosly stated.
No excuse was needed, we were at war.
Bloody oath! ....You lost indeed....... But it was against the numerically far superior treacherous Napoleonic elite forces based in Buenas Arias that cowardly ambushed the heroic British batallion who's only intention was to protect inocent Criollo civilian lives :-)
PS:
Anybody in here who knows why “ harrier61” needs to re-publishing his “best material” under the “Conqueror” nick?
Do you seriously think that an army and navy that beat the Napoleonic Empire would have been defeated by a mob of Spanish immigrants if they had been really trying?
The only reason the Americans won their Revolutionary War was that Britain was mostly concerned with Europe. America was seen as a sideshow.
59, Conqueror, I know, I know, but...throw them a bone every now and again. Come on! It keeps them happy to think that they done well! If we keep spanking their butts without giving them any “mercy spankings” they spit their dummies out and don't come back to play - like Fernando_A!
By the way (and I suspect you know it), you might be pushing it a bit much to say that the American Revolutionary War was a sideshow! George III, between his madhouse episodes, didn't see it that way anyway! Sshhh, but don't tell anyone we lost. The “you-know-who”s might get ideas!!
After losing more than half his force, the British signed a ceasefire on 7 July and left for home, where Whitelock was court-martialled and discharged.”
Well, like Pomi said “British being at their historical naughty best!”
So they failed in Buenos Aires and they said ”let's try to invade Malvinas, yes...those islands that we abandoned long time ago, nobody remembers that we signed Nootka conv. and Argentina enherited from Spain...should be easy, only a few hundreds of them live there and then will find some excuses to keep it like a colony....like for example, we left in 1776 a plaque over some rocks saying that we were here long time ago in fishing... and the story of lies continued until.......
Relax........... everybody knows that no “small coloured people” can ever win against the mighty Britsh...................
“Hundreds of years in the making, the British empire in Asia came tumbling down in roughly two months in late 1941 and early 1942, courtesy of a crushing military defeat at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army. ”
Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945
By Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper
As far as the Falklands are concerned, Britain sighted them in that late 1500s, claimed them for the British Crown in the late 1600s and never relinquished sovereignty (or, at the very least, a dispute over sovereignty, ever since). So, to say that the British abandoned them is not true.
For the final time, the terms of the Nootka Conventions could not ever confer on Argentina any claims that Spain might have had over the Falklands. For one, the terms were repudiated by Spain shortly afterwards (and well before Argentina became a recognsied nation - and remember, Britain was one of the first to recognise your country), and for two, even if the first Covention was still alive, any claims by a third-party (such as...I don't know, say, Argentina!) in respect of the Falklands made the Convention null and void.
Britain has offered to take the dispute to the ICJ on a number of occasions. Argentina has refused every time. If, as you think, Argentina has a good legal and historical claim to the Islands, why should this be? The reason is because the “facts” that Argentina believes backs up its claim are treaties like the Nootka Conventions, “facts” that any international lawyer laughs at.
May I suggest you check again your following postulate?:
“Britain has offered to take the dispute to the ICJ on a number of occasions”.
The British offer to take the dispute to the IJC was only for the other South Atlantic Islands; not for the Malvinas/Falklands.
My info is somewhere in the Mercopresss Archives...... As I remember it was quite authoritative. So much that Mr. Justin Kuntz didn´t care to answer :-)
As for your post at 65, well, I had thought that it was both the “question” of the Falklands and the other sub-Antarctic islands. I may be wrong and I'm quite happy to be corrected (alright, not that happy, but satisfied...will that do?!). I'll check and get back...
I'm not in favour of giving the dumbos bones. Over time they have come up with every possible justification, lie and twisting of the facts. For so long as they were prepared to debate reasonably, they were reasonably shown that every single thing they came up with was wrong. They still won't accept it and go over the same ground time after time.
Just look at Twinky's latest effort and then take this quote:
”Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague (1947, 1948 and 1955); on each occasion Argentina declined.“
I think it reasonable to assume that the Falkland Island Dependencies included the Falkland Islands. Note that Argentina now claims South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as well as the Falklands. They could have got the whole thing mediated 50-odd years ago. But they declined. There could only be one reason. They know they have no case. And in front of the ICJ that would be proven.
Instead they ”stack the deck” in the UN Decolonisation Committee and try to sneak things that way. Argentines are good at lying, sneaking and stealing.
www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority”
The Japs and Argies had a bit in common and it wasnt that they got beaten by the Brits
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_and_Japan
65, Think, just checked. I'm having difficulty accessing the ICJ's records that far back, but I've managed to get hold of the 1955 submissions and...you're right! It was the Dependencies, not the Falklands themselves, that were submitted for a decision by the ICJ. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but the dates 1908 (provision of the British claims over South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands, et al, to Argentina and Chile at their request - 20 years after the original British claims) and 1927 (first protest by Argentina) ring bells!
What can I say?! Got it wrong? Absolutely! Yikes!
Still, it does have a bearing on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The fact that Argentina is willing to lie through its teeth to claim the sub-Antarctic islands (over which we both know it has no historical claim whatsoever and so declines to submit to the ICJ) reflects on the veracity of Argentina's so-called claims over the Falkland Islands. The ICJ does take into account the character of the witnesses who appear before them!
In addition, I see no issue at all with taking the Falkland Islands claim to the ICJ. Come on. Let's do it!
Let's do it!
Don't be fooled. Can you think of any reason for the Falkland Island Dependencies not to include the Falkland Islands.
Re Margo's ridiculous quotes from the British Empire site, I have been in touch with the owner of the site, Stephen Luscombe. Turns out he has been in the process of moving home (and country). He agreed with virtually every point I made about the “errors” on his site. So you can ignore anything Margo comes up with. It's usually crap wherever he gets it from. In the meantime, I have thought it right to give Mr Luscombe adequate time to settle into his new home and country before entering into a full-fledged conversation.
As for the FI Dependencies not including the Falkland Islands, it is true, I'm afraid. They were separated, administratively, some (many) years ago. It does appear that the ICJ cases were exclusively concerned with the dependencies - at the moment I have got hold of the 1955 case - I'm doing my best to get hold of the others - pray, Think, that you are right!! But, as I said before, the fact that the Argentine's claim them (the dependencies) has a massive bearing on their claim over the Falklands themselves. The Argentines know that their claim over the dependencies is rubbish, and yet they maintain it. Their maintaining of their “claim” to the dependencies thus diminishes their credibility in respect of their discredited claim to the Falkland Islands.
I assume you found this original document:
www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/9065.pdf?PHPSESSID=58e48b8d8d7f29e232b750d37e368b80
The author of this little book did also read the original ICJ documents and reached the same conclusion as you….:
The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: War and diplomacy
By Lawrence Freedman
“In 1947 and subsequently Britain had in fact offer to submit the dispute over the Dependencies, ALTHOUG NOT THE FALKLANDS THEMSELVES, to the court in the face of Argentine and Chilean encroachments, and in 1955 had even approached the court unilaterally on this matter”……..
As I said, though, the fact that Argentina did not submit to the UK reference says a huge amount. To a certain extent, one of the reasons for this, as far as I can see from my reading of the 1955 account so far, is that Argentina did not want to have its claim to the Falklands judged in any way, shape or form. I'm not going to say that it is definitive, but it appears that Argentina dodged the case to dodge any conclusion over the Falklands proper. I'll keep on reading and get back to you all if I don't fall asleep beforehand!
Haaaaaaaa, I heard that before under a different name. Come on don't be afraid, and come out from hiding with your old name...
Which of his many old names?
He used to call himself Agent0060....
He changed then to Harrier 61......
Suddenly he is also Conqueror.......
And Thypoon.....
Diferent names ........ same **** :-)
The ICJ cases concerned the Falkland Islands Dependencies, what I think is telling is the case was dropped because Argentina indicated it would refuse to accept the judgement.
There was the option of an ICJ case for 1983 suggested by the British delegation in talks in New York in February 1982.
And of course there is nothing to stop Argentina submitting its claim to the ICJ for an opinion at any time. But hell will freeze over first.
200 years ago there were many cases for the islands, but this is not 200 years ago. No ammount of polital pressure will change our stance on this, we are willing to go to war and loose lives defending these people if need be, and we are capable enough to do it.
That is the harsh reality of the situation.
Zethee, I understand your frustration, not even British websites and news papers support the non sense colonial situation in Malvinas Argentinas.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
Read the comments on your quoted artical.
We are not expanding our borders, we gave up imperial goals a long time ago, however as long as these people wish to remain british, they shall have our protection.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!