Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
Unsurprisingly, both Detroit and Little Rock are scheduled to be decommissioned to the inactive reserve fleet next year; they both suffered failures of the combining gear (which was found to be defective across most ships of the class).
Interesting that I am servicing a Norwegian frigate currently. They have the same combining gear.
Guessing you're referring to a Skjold-class missile catamaran, as those are listed as having a Renk COGAG plant like the Freedom-class LCS. They're also a fraction of the displacement (listed at 274 tons full load versus 3,500 for a Freedom-class), which maybe also explains the lack of issues (if I recall, in the early concept days something like an enlarged Skjold was a proposal for the LCS program). They're only about 20 years old though, with the first unit being commissioned in 1999.
It is, in fact, the Fridtjof Nansen, F-310. CHENG claimed 30 years old, fact checking disagrees. Keel laid 2003.
www.19fortyfive.com
Hmm, well we do have a couple of examples there. The Soviets and later the Russians leased three nuclear boats to India (a Charlie-class SSGN during the Cold War, one Akula that was just returned to Russia after a decade, and another Akula reportedly scheduled to be leased after it completes repairs in 2026); however when the US helped the UK jumpstart their SSN program in the 1960s they simply provided the reactor section of their first boat (HMS Dreadnought).An interesting concept, maybe they can start with the flight I of the Virginia's.
Could Australia Buy or Lease Used U.S. Navy Attack Submarines?
Would Australia ever consider a purchase or even leasing older, U.S. navy nuclear-powered attack submarines? The idea seemed almost crazy nearly ten years ago when I was writing and doing research on it, but it might not be as crazy as it sounds these days. Think about it from this perspective...
I read something that the Indians were using pre-fab outfits in the Akula hull. Electronics and quarters stuff. Perhaps the UK and Australia can manufacture pre-fabbed stuff to us for our mutual defense program?
Not sure about that; the first Akula they leased was one that was laid down in 1993 but then suspended. Basically India paid Russia to finally complete the sub 15 years later on the condition they got a 10-year lease on it; apparently after work resumed there were issues at the Komsomolsk shipyard with quality control, payment, and the power being cut off. The lease started in 2011 and they just returned it recently. The second Akula they are supposed to get was an older one that was launched in 1989 and taken out of service for upgrades in 2003, but given the lousy state of Russian shipyards it took five years to get the boat into a drydock at Kamchatka. Five years later with work still incomplete they put it on a ship transport and moved it back east to Severodvinsk. After that it apparently took six years to get into a drydock there and it's not due out until 2025; one might guess there was a similar funding deal with India in exchange for the lease. As to how much say the Indian Navy had on outfitting the subs, who knows - my guess is not an extensive amount as the boats were intended to go back into Russian service after the lease was up. Reportedly when the Soviets leased a Charlie-II to the Indian Navy between 1988 and 1991, it retained a partial Soviet Navy crew and Indian personnel were not allowed into the reactor or missile compartments. The deals for the Akulas may have been less restrictive as Russia was in a weaker bargaining position and the Indian Navy was reportedly unhappy enough about the Soviet arrangement to send the boat back after only three years.
news.usni.org
