Question for Submarine hunters

[cornwallis]

I see in the "Sun" newspaper that the Royal Navy are to repaint their submarines blue.Do you think this will make them harder to spot from the air?There is a competition by the way,If you see one send an e-mail to [email protected].
I don't know what the prize is,200litres of now surplus black paint?:}

[SASless]

Wow....scared me there for a minute....was afraid you would say "pink" or "mauve" or some pastel hue.

[Navaleye]

Ah, well we did have a pink submarine not all that long ago. I think it was HMS Porpoise. It was determined (then) that it was not the ideal colour. Mid 80s if I remember. Jack did not like the idea of serving on a pink sub. Dunno why.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I suspect its the cuts and overstretch that have made them blue. :eek: :eek:

This so called story is also reported on the RN website: Here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5109)

I seem to recall similar experiments a few years ago. All part of the move to operations in the littoral. Pity the surface fleet will have problems with littoral operations due to losing* organic air defence - see the Sea Jet thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152).

*Also cuts across the fleet, cuts to future projects and programmes, delays in procurement of new equipment, delays to CVF, reduced spending on helicopters, keeping much of the fleet at a lower state of readiness, cutting the training budget etc etc etc.

[The Helpful Stacker]

http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/seaharrier_lg.jpg

"For Sale, FA2 Sea Harrier. Little use since 1982, one careful owner, sold as seen. Lack of use and spiralling costs force sale. Much loved by air shows and matlots with one foot still firmly in the past."

[cornwallis]

Oh no I have created another sea-jet forum.........Have any of you flown a nimrod ,P3,or IL38 looking for submarines?

[teeteringhead]

cornwallis mon brave, you could post a thread on ethnic macrame work in the Gobi Desert and WEBFoot would find a SHAR connexion.....:{

[tablet_eraser]

The littoral theatre?

We need SSKs for littoral ops. SSNs are too big and noisy to be effective in close-quarter ops. Losing our SSKs meant we lost our ability to deploy subs at the tactical level close to shore, and this was supposed to be mitigated by the use of Tomahawk. I don't think they were too bothered about what colour the subs were.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh no I have created another sea-jet forum.........Have any of you flown a nimrod ,P3,or IL38 looking for submarines?

Yes. What's the question?

[cornwallis]

Roland Pulfrew,back to the original question,do you think that you would spot a submerged submarine in shallow water if it was painted blue?I hear that pink is the trial colour for the far east

[VitaminGee]

.......but they are diiferent colours on the inside [with apologies to the crew of USS San Francisco]:E
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f143/VitGee/usssanfrancisco.jpg

[Vage Rot]

Submarine? What's that?

The mighty Kipper spends most of it's year in the desert now! Not sure a blue sub would blend in there!!

[akula]

Seen many a submarine in various states of submergence and can testify as too how hard they are to spot(VERY). Our Israeli friends have been using funky colour schemes for donkey's. I am sure I have seen a photo of the Dolphin submerged and will try to hoke it out and post it for your inspection:ok: :ok: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/images/dolphin_subp_idf-navy3out.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

I had a nice piccy of a submarine underwater in the North Sea. Don't know about colour though as it was a black and white picture.

Despite it being 30 years ago there are certain things that might be true today so sorry, I can't say whose submarine, what type, what colour or what we saw. I can say however it was submerged, conventional and near devil's hole.

[doubledolphins]

We don't need SSKs and if we do we borrow them. As for colour, U32 is a rather steely grey. With some great fin artwork.

[southside]

Concur......

Losing our SSKs meant we lost our ability to deploy subs at the tactical level close to shore why do we need an ability to operate close to the shore?

[Navaleye]

Cos that's where the enemy are silly!

[BillHicksRules]

Navaleye,
If the enemy is being silly then they should pose us no threat!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:
I mean sticking there fingers in their ears and going “la la la la la la we cannot hear you” is not where we should have subs anyway.
What we have to worry about is when they are being nasty:ouch: :ouch: :ouch:
Like poking people in the eyes or giving out wedgies!!!
Cheers
BHR

[keithl]

Submarines should definitely be painted pink.

If they'd been that colour a few years ago, I wouldn't have CertSubbed that whale!

[southside]

If the enemy are being silly then why not send in the Air Force or a bunch of soldiers.... Whats a submarine gonna bring to the party? Torpedoes...?


Nah, there is a very good reason the RN doesn't operate any SSK's...... we don't need em.

[southside]

Good call.....but hang on...

SBS....ships and helicopters can do that...

Surveillance....Ships and Helicopters can do that....

Mines....again, Ships and Helicopters can do that....


Even my own suggestion of Torpedoes....Ships and Helicopters can do that...

So why spend upwards of £100million for a vessel which doesn't have a role?

[Navaleye]

Since when have ships and helicopters been capable of launching heavyweight torpedoes? 1950s??

[southside]

What do you want a heavyweight torpedo for? And if you do want one....who are you going to fire it at?

If the RN had a requirement for SSK's, we'd have them.....there is no requirement.

[BillHicksRules]

Southside,

Good call.....but hang on...
SBS....ships and helicopters can do that...
Surveillance....Ships and Helicopters can do that....
Mines....again, Ships and Helicopters can do that....
Even my own suggestion of Torpedoes....Ships and Helicopters can do that...
So why spend upwards of £100million for a vessel which doesn't have a role?

You will find many on here who are happy to spend upwards of £20billion on SSBNs that no longer have a role so £100million is nothing.

If the RN had a requirement for SSK's, we'd have them.....there is no requirement.

Man you are a brave one!! That is asking for a diatribe from WEBF on the SHAR!!!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Cheers

BHR

[Fourfans]

SBS insertion by submarine is easily the most stealthy way to do that particular role.

Turn the debate around and see things from the other side: which bit of Argentine military equipment can get the closest to the Falklands unseen? A ship? A Helicopter (from a ship)?

I am a truckie but even I see the use for submarines.

FourFans

[Tourist]

Southbite.

You really aren't in the RN are you?
If you were you would be well aware that the only reason we don't possess SSKs is that the were put forward as a cost saving measure under the misapprehension that nobody would cut something so vital.
Unfortunately, the bluff was called, hence no SSKs

[cornwallis]

Judging by the problems the canadians are having with the cupholders the RN is probably well rid of them.Doing littoral stuff an ssn is not really suitable-far too big.The germans seem to have cornered the market with successful ssk designs especially ones with aip-and they are all black!

[southside]

If you were you would be well aware that the only reason we don't possess SSKs is that the were put forward as a cost saving measure under the misapprehension that nobody (wanted them).

Do you really think we need SSK's ?

Im not arguing about Submarines in general...Gawd knows how muchg we rely on Trident and the Astute is going to be a world beater...But, is there really a requirement for SSK's to sneak around in Littoral waters gathering Intelligence and laying mines..? when would we want to do that?