Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Ah we are going all Water World then.
Who watches the watchmen?
What in the name of fresh, front mounted fuck is going on with our submarines and their propensity to collide into things?
"HMS Ambush, an Astute-class submarine, was "submerged and conducting a training exercise" when it was involved in what the Ministry of Defence described as a "glancing collision" off the coast."
Oh, so it's an Astute-Class one then? Carry on. Those things are BUILT to have collisions. Just ask the Isle of Skye - that poor lump of rock is still carrying the scars from when the Astute rammed into her.
They dont have windows, what do you expect to happen. 
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The subs are just too damn hard to find and see in the water and someone inevitably runs one over.
Who watches the watchmen?
The law in the night
So damn sneaky.
Inter arma enim silent leges
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Funny you mention that. The Zumwalt has reflectors that make it easier to see outside of operations when it is sailing more heavily trafficked waters.
The law in the night
ALL HAIL THE REFLECTIVE BELT.
State of Mind
The Navy has been pursuing a carrier-based drone since 2006 — first as a long-range stealthy bomber, then as a surveillance and strike craft, and finally as a flying tanker. Though air-to-air refueling is hardly a breakthrough, having a carrier-based tanker provides the Navy with a possible solution to one of their most pressing problems — anti-access area denial (A 2 AD).
Both China and Russia have developed ranged platforms capable of locking US forces out of key locations in their respective areas, but the Stingray could increase the range of US carrier-based aircraft indefinitely, allowing them to burst enemy A 2 AD bubbles.
For instance, China's famous DF-21D "carrier killer" ballistic missile has a range of about 810 miles. The US's longest-range carrier-based aircraft only have a range of about 550 miles, which forces the US to either operate carrier-based aircraft outside of their effective range or risk bringing an entire carrier, with 6,000 sailors and about 70 aircraft, within range of the DF-21D.
The Stingray, once integrated into carrier fleets, will extend the range of US carrier's existing F-18s, allowing them to effectively operate from a safe distance.
Once fielded, the Navy will look to increase the role of the Stingray.
Wasn't that thing designed to be used as a semi-autonomous STRIKE aircraft rather than a glorified flying fuel bowser? Seems a hellacious waste of resources if that's true.
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
It would appear that the Navy decided to prioritize tanker duties. Strike capabilities will come later, it seems.
The saying's still true, though: Nobody kicks ass without tanker gas...
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Show an affirming flame
And while the USN is okay on strike at the moment (yes I'm still bitter they retired the Intruder, yes I've learned to move on and accept the Super Hornet in the role), it has a capability gap in carrier-based tanking. What was formerly carried out by specialized KA-6Ds now requires Super Hornets. Plus, unmanned autonomous strike is really hard to do, so it's better that they're aiming a little lower to start with.
(A little while ago, possibly in another thread, I joined a mini-conversation on how the Brits had been lacking the various support assets needed to really maximize what a carrier can do? In the Falklands they only had CAP, strike, and helicopters. The lack of AEW meant no early warning against Argentine attackers; the lack of tankers meant the whole carrier group had to sail in close to the Falklands and risk retaliation any time it wanted to launch a strike. And the Brits were extremely lucky in that the Argentines never bothered to station serious air defense assets in the Falklands proper, or the lack of EW and SEAD assets could've crippled their air attacks. All three—radar craft, tankers, and jammers—are absolutely crucial both in defending from attack and in attacking with strike packages, and it's that middle one that the USN currently lacks and has to borrow from the USAF. Hopefully Stingray can change that.)
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
Show an affirming flame
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Viraat is probably the last major vessel in service to have been laid down during World War II — Hermes was laid down in 1944 (as HMS Elephant), launched in 1953, but not commissioned until 1959.
edited 23rd Jul '16 12:44:34 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
LRASM had its 3rd successful test launch off of the Point Mugu Testing range from a ship in sea conditions. It used a modified Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System to fire it from a VLS launcher which went well followed by the missile reportedly following its designated route successfully.
The law in the night
This thing has such long range it isn't even funny.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
900+Km yeah kind of scary really.
Who watches the watchmen?
Looks like the Type 26 frigates have been canned "indefinitely delayed".
edited 28th Jul '16 5:09:41 AM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Show an affirming flame
South Korea has just launched the first PK(X)B craft—that's "Patrol Killer, Experimental, B variant". It's a little 200-ton 40-knot corvette with a 3-inch gun and a rear deck of 130mm MLRS rockets; these are closer to Grad than to the big MLRS, Uragan, or Smerch type systems. The PK(X)B is supposed to be a counter to North Korea's fleet of small craft, presumably in conjunction with larger craft, helicopters, and aircraft.
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
Harvey Milk is getting a US Navy tanker named after him.
Show an affirming flame
This isn't strictly naval but maritime: an NYT investigation on the expanded Panama Canal reveals some major shortcomings.
And sure enough, reports are starting to surface of the first cargo ship—a Chinese merchantman—to scrape its sides against the too-small extensions.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
More on the dodgy engines in our new ships story, this time from the Daily Torygraph, so apologies in advance.
Yeah, it's Labour's fault. A decision that was taken by TCH, which is the MLA for the descriptive title for the former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon. (It means, "That C*&t Hoon") if you're interested.
From the Admiral who's being featured in the article:
“The Government made a decision that they would go for British shoddy engines and everyone said at the time ‘don’t go for them, they’re rubbish’,” he said.
He may have a point as all six of the Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth now, with the engines due to be replaced starting 2019.
V
They're all in because five of the six were on deployment, including one which had been in the Persian Gulf.
edited 30th Jul '16 11:16:11 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
See, what you do is strap a couple JATO rockets to a jetski, arm it with Harpoons and launch it off a ramp.