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
Good to read a story about a sub in its natural habitat... Underneath a carrier.Properly falls under the "sea story" heading ...
How A British Submarine Spent Hours Under A Russian Aircraft Carrier
A Cold War British nuclear sub sneaked into a Soviet naval exercise and took closeup underwater pictures of Russia’s new aircraft carrier.www.thedrive.com
We don't have any boats to share or spare. I also don't think we would let them train on a Seawolf or Virginia class, let alone Ohio or Colombia.
www.thedrive.com
Make it like Down Periscope and give them a Balo or Gato class and let the games begin.
Sent that to a friend with the comment "I'd say it takes balls to be in the same compartment as a Russian nuclear reactor, but ..."How do you tell a northern fleet sailor apart from the rest of the Soviet Navy?
He glows in the dark
Rare Look At Nuclear Reactor Inside Russian Ballistic Missile Submarine
Reactors inside nuclear-powered submarines are very sensitive pieces of equipment and it's highly unusual for a navy to publicize them.
I think this probably means basing a US boat (or multiple ones) in Australia, which would remain under USN command and control but have a number of Australian sailors assigned to the crew for training and familiarization with SSN operations, particularly the reactor (somewhere Hyman Rickover is rolling in his grave, but that doesn't take much). As stated before it's not a completely new idea; back when the UK Royal Navy axed HMS Illustrious and the Nimrod MRA4 program they sent RN and RAF flight officers to USN fighter and patrol squadrons (and not just as GIBs, but carrier-qualified pilots in the former case) to keep their skills up while waiting for the MoD to replace those capabilities. We do the same; USN/USAF pilots have served on exchange tours in NATO squadrons (one of the more fascinating examples I've read about being a USAF pilot who got to fly in a Luftwaffe MiG-29 squadron, which gave him a very thorough understanding of the type's strengths and weaknesses).
It's just the problem getting over on how sensitive the submarine service is in terms of sharing information and allowing foreigners aboard. Think about how much is still classified from WW2 let alone early Cold War. The US is probably VERY hesitant to work with even the closest of allies. I always wondered what the British had to do to get the Poseidon missiles on their subs.Sent that to a friend with the comment "I'd say it takes balls to be in the same compartment as a Russian nuclear reactor, but ..."
I think this probably means basing a US boat (or multiple ones) in Australia, which would remain under USN command and control but have a number of Australian sailors assigned to the crew for training and familiarization with SSN operations, particularly the reactor (somewhere Hyman Rickover is rolling in his grave, but that doesn't take much). As stated before it's not a completely new idea; back when the UK Royal Navy axed HMS Illustrious and the Nimrod MRA4 program they sent RN and RAF flight officers to USN fighter and patrol squadrons (and not just as GIBs, but carrier-qualified pilots in the former case) to keep their skills up while waiting for the MoD to replace those capabilities. We do the same; USN/USAF pilots have served on exchange tours in NATO squadrons (one of the more fascinating examples I've read about being a USAF pilot who got to fly in a Luftwaffe MiG-29 squadron, which gave him a very thorough understanding of the type's strengths and weaknesses).
The subs in question would be either Improved 688s or Virginia-class boats; I expect the latter as those are on par with what the eventual Australian SSNs are supposed to be and theoretically at least the last of the 688s should leave the fleet in the next decade (although examples like USS Boise, which sat idle for several years waiting for overhaul, might have a few more years of core/hull life to spare and serve into the mid-late 2030s).
The RN never received the UGM-73 Poseidon C3 SLBM; they got the A3 version of the UGM-27 Polaris missile after the 1962 Nassau Agreement and 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement that I mentioned earlier in this thread. The UK Polaris missiles were US-made, but had UK nuclear warheads and were maintained in the UK. At the time, Polaris A3 was the newest US SLBM. When the US upgraded to the Poseidon C3 in the early 1970s, the UK attempted to acquire it, but relations had soured slightly between the US and UK and the UK instead pursued Chevaline, which replaced one of the Polaris's three reentry vehicles with a decoy system designed to confuse antimissile defenses.
