Dreadnought Class SSBN

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by shark bait »

jonas wrote:
In regards to a new propulsion system for successor whatever it is will be highly classified, so I take it that you are making a guess. Orherwise you can be expecting a knock on your door from some gentlemen in grey suits. 8-)
I hope not!

It's based off some BAE concepts;




The above one is the advanced hull form, the propulsion is hidden by the shape of the hull





The above 2 are called concept 35 and is propelled by 8 pump jets on the rear
@LandSharkUK

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

Interesting, I don't normaly trust to WIKI but this does seem to be in line with the your article:-

"Reports on the Royal Navy Successor submarine (i.e., the class that will replace the Vanguard class SSBNs) state that the submarines may have submarine shaftless drive (SSD) with an electric motor mounted outside the pressure hull.[56][57] SSD was evaluated by the U.S. Navy as well but it remains unknown whether the Ohio class replacement will feature it.[58][59] On contemporary nuclear submarines steam turbines are linked to reduction gears and a shaft rotating the propeller/pump-jet propulsor. With SSD, steam would drive electric turbogenerators (i.e., generators powered by steam turbines) which would be connected to a non-penetrating electric junction at the aft end of the pressure hull, with a watertight electric motor mounted externally (perhaps in an Integrated Motor Propulsor arrangement),[60] powering the pump-jet propulsor,[56] although SSD concepts without pump-jet propulsors also exist.[61]"

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by R686 »

its a pity that the Vanguard and Ohio class replacement projects don't line up, I would expect a fair bit of coin could be saved if the RN/USN could merge the project together.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by shark bait »

R686 wrote:its a pity that the Vanguard and Ohio class replacement projects don't line up, I would expect a fair bit of coin could be saved if the RN/USN could merge the project together.
They pretty much do. Successor 1 aimed at 2028, Ohio replacement aimed at 2031. They are working together on the missile, the missile compartment and the propulsion system.
British subs are the best in the world, we should keep going on as planned to another best in the world submarine.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by seaspear »

Regarding detection of submarines via sea life I did come across an article that visual observation can be made of some species dinoflagelite plankton causing bioluminescence in a 0.2-0.59 band caused by submarine disturbance in the wake most prevalent between 50-150 metres best observed on a moonless night

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by shark bait »

It's worth noting that those designs are 8 years old now. It is thought that the concept 35 design was chosen and developed further, its probably only a slight image of its former self now. At this stage it would be reasonable to assume the base design is locked down.

Of course details are very sketchy which leave a picture to be pieced together from vague interviews and speculation.

A few things we can be sure of is that the submarine will feature 12 common missile compartments with a maximum of 8 missiles sharing a Max of 40 warhead's. The remaining tubes may be used for other missions. The submarines will use more automation and more 'off the shelf' product to lower through life costs. The boats will also use the new Rolls Royce PWR-3 reactor which is a bit of american, bit of British design. It is larger, longer life, more expensive, less maintenance and safer than the PWR-2 in the astute.

On to the more vague stuff. Construction will build on the experience building astute, built in a similar way, but with a more homogeneous and flatter cross section to reduce building costs. It has been suggested that the propulsion will be very different to almost anything, a nuclear electric drive, which I think will be a world first. This offers the opportunity to remove rotation parts like gears and shafts which will reduce vibrations and noise. An electrical system can make use of multiple propulsors, which allows some to be shut off for extra quite slow speed, or when all are turned on it should be quieter than a single large propeller at high speed. For low speed work this method will also be more efficient, increasing reactor life, reducing maintenance and related costs. I am completely making up this next bit but if it generates DC current you can use PWM to alter the speed which will be many times more quiet than a current system. Dampers can be optimised for the generator running a single speed then PWM adjusts the output speed. The propulsors, whatever form they take, are likely to be mounted inside the hull, reducing the noise output.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by shark bait »

seaspear wrote:Regarding detection of submarines via sea life I did come across an article that visual observation can be made of some species dinoflagelite plankton causing bioluminescence in a 0.2-0.59 band caused by submarine disturbance in the wake most prevalent between 50-150 metres best observed on a moonless night
its something commanders should be aware of, but it would have to be right place, right time of year and right conditions for it to be a useful means of detection, assuming you have the sensors capable of picking up the faint light. So the sub would just avoid those conditions, or go deeper. I think its such a non issue for submarine designers, maybe a small issue for submarine operators.
@LandSharkUK

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by R686 »

shark bait wrote: They pretty much do. Successor 1 aimed at 2028, Ohio replacement aimed at 2031. They are working together on the missile, the missile compartment and the propulsion system.
British subs are the best in the world, we should keep going on as planned to another best in the world submarine.
I knew you were working on using the same missile and missile compartments, but for the so few SSBM for the RN using the USN to your advantage I thought would more logical with any offsets available going to more Astute Submarines, but that also means going around treasury which Defence rarely wins.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by shark bait »

R686 wrote: I knew you were working on using the same missile and missile compartments, but for the so few SSBM for the RN using the USN to your advantage I thought would more logical with any offsets available going to more Astute Submarines, but that also means going around treasury which Defence rarely wins.
I'm not so sure , what we are sharing at the moment is pretty significant and US boats all aways cost a fortune. I'm sure we could do it the same price ourself, whilst maintain all those difficult to come by skills.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Halidon »

shark bait wrote:
R686 wrote: I knew you were working on using the same missile and missile compartments, but for the so few SSBM for the RN using the USN to your advantage I thought would more logical with any offsets available going to more Astute Submarines, but that also means going around treasury which Defence rarely wins.
I'm not so sure , what we are sharing at the moment is pretty significant and US boats all aways cost a fortune. I'm sure we could do it the same price ourself, whilst maintain all those difficult to come by skills.
Just don't lose EB's phone number.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

Halidon wrote:
shark bait wrote:
R686 wrote: I knew you were working on using the same missile and missile compartments, but for the so few SSBM for the RN using the USN to your advantage I thought would more logical with any offsets available going to more Astute Submarines, but that also means going around treasury which Defence rarely wins.
I'm not so sure , what we are sharing at the moment is pretty significant and US boats all aways cost a fortune. I'm sure we could do it the same price ourself, whilst maintain all those difficult to come by skills.
Just don't lose EB's phone number.
I think they still have guys at Barrow.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by marktigger »

well hope comrade corbyn doesn't end up as PM or workers will be on more socially rewarding industries instead of building subs

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Post by arfah »

...................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by RetroSicotte »

marktigger wrote:or workers will be on more socially rewarding industries instead of building subs
Yes. Clearly. I'm certain that will happen. All those workers will find new jobs in happy liberal jobs right away. They certainly won't dare go out of the country to use their specialist skills in the same industry abroad and strip out skillbase dry.

That clearly won't happen, so why not vote for him?!

My apologies if anyone's sarcasm detectors just broke.

(I am aware you were not endorsing it, btw)

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

BAE kicks off major nuclear submarine yard upgrade
Andrew Chuter, Defense News 2:42 p.m. EDT August 21, 2015
The first Astute class nuclear submarine

LONDON — An eight-year redevelopment scheme enabling BAE Systems nuclear submarine facility to build a new generation of nuclear missile boats for the Royal Navy has got underway in northwest England.

The rebuilding program at the Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, nuclear submarine yard has started with the construction of a £23 million ($36.1 million) logistics facility, BAE announced Aug 20.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the Conservative government is expected to decide next year to give the final go ahead to the Successor program aimed at replacing the four Trident missile equipped, Vanguard-class submarines, which have provided Britain's nuclear deterrent capability since 1995.

The government is committed to build four Successor submarines, with steel for the first boat being cut at the BAE yard in 2016 and an inservice date of 2028.

To equip the yard for construction of the largest submarines it has ever built, between £300 and £400 million is being spent expanding and upgrading the yard.

In it's 2014 update to Parliament on progress in the future nuclear deterrent, the overnment outlined its part in financing the facilities upgrade program.

The report said the Ministry of Defence had brought forward, or reprofiled, £261 million of funding into the current assessment phase offering better value for money investing in facilities at the yard. The reprofiling also allowed for long lead item ordering.

"The MoD is able to re-pay the company for the cost of the facilities as building work progresses, rather than recovering the costs across the build programme as a whole. This approach is expected to reduce the cost by some £42 million from that originally planned," said the report.

BAE said the work will include a "mixture of new build projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities in what is the most significant redevelopment of the site since the 1980s."

The company wouldn't provide details of the redevelopment but previous reports list a new quayside, extension of the Devonshire Dock Hall building, two new pressure hull unit facilities and refurbishing the main fabrication facility as being among the projects alongside the new logistics center.

At nearly 300 meters long and over 50 meters high, the Devonshire Dock Hall where BAE assembles the submarines is already one of the largest buildings in northern England. .

Allan Day, the director of the redevelopment program at BAE Submarines, said "the infrastructure this redevelopment will provide, together with our highly skilled workforce, will be critical in delivering these submarines to the Royal Navy."

The improvement to facilities in support of the Successor program is not limited to BAE.

Nuclear propulsion unit supplier Rolls-Royce is updating and refurbishing it's aging factory at Raynesway, Derby, to build the new PWR3 power plant.

BAE is already building Astute-class attack submarines at its Barrow-in-Furness yard as well as designing the new Trident missile boats and pushing ahead with the infrastructure work.

Just days before the announcement that work had begun on the logistics facility, BAE revealed that HMS Artful, the third of the expected seven boat Astute class of nuclear attack submarines, had left the Barrow-in-Furness yard for the start of sea trials.

The submarine subsequently arrived at the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine base on the Clyde in Scotland on Aug 18 from where it will conduct the trials ahead of what is scheduled to be its commissioning later this year.

In a mirror of the submarine yard update, BAE is also involved in a major £100 million update of its two surface warship yards on the Clyde at Govan and Scotstoun.

The two yards are being modernized as part of a shipbuilding plan that will see up to 13 Type 26 frigates built for the Royal Navy over the next few years.

The Sunday Times reported earlier this month that the government declined a request from the company to help fund it's favored option of closing Govan and investing £200 million in a more extensive upgrade of the Scotstoun yard.

BAE declined to comment on the report in time for publication but said in a statement.

"Following a thorough assessment of options, a number of factors led to the decision to retain and invest in both of our sites in Glasgow....... We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence and trade unions to determine the best design for the facilities," the company said.

During a briefing earlier this summer BAE executives said the reasons the company went for incremental improvements of the two yards rather than build a single super yard included the cost of investment and the detrimental impact the one yard approach would have on the early stages of the Type 26 construction program.

The cost of the Scotstoun option was also higher than originally estimated they said.

Government money is involved in the £100 million two yard approach.

The company is targeting the first quarter of next year to award a contract to a construction to get the update work underway.

BAE is four months into a £859 million Type 26 demonstration phase contract and is continuing negotiations with the Ministry of Defence for an initial manufacturing deal covering the first three frigates expected to be signed around the start of April next year.

The company recently placed a number of production contracts with key suppliers like Rolls-Royce, Rohde & Schwarz and David Brown Gear Systems for the first three warships.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Cooper »

Looking forward to the vote in Parliament next year, giving final approval to the Successor class.

We will have the unedifying, but hugely satisfying sight of Labour rebels voting with the Government and against that lefty prick Corbyn (if he becomes leader) and the SNP knuckledraggers wailing and whining, frustrated at their self inflicted powerlessness to stop it.

Good times.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

Cooper wrote:Looking forward to the vote in Parliament next year, giving final approval to the Successor class.

We will have the unedifying, but hugely satisfying site of Labour rebels voting with the Government and against that lefty prick Corbyn (if he becomes leader) and the SNP knuckledraggers wailing and whining, frustrated at their self inflicted powerlessness to stop it.

Good times.
Well said, I couldn't agree more.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: RE: Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

Cooper wrote:Looking forward to the vote in Parliament next year, giving final approval to the Successor class.

We will have the unedifying, but hugely satisfying site of Labour rebels voting with the Government and against that lefty prick Corbyn (if he becomes leader) and the SNP knuckledraggers wailing and whining, frustrated at their self inflicted powerlessness to stop it.

Good times.
Well there's a potentially big downside to that. Depending on what happens to the Labour Party under a Corbyn leadership a rebellion over the Successor Programme might be big enough to topple a Corbyn leadership. When you combine that with the certainty that the longer a Corbyn leadership lasts the more likely a Conservative government is at the next election, that might make it strategically beneficial for the Conservatives to delay any vote on the Successor Programme for as long as possible.

Though that's dependent on Corbyn being leader when the Successor vote comes up. Likely as not the centrists in the PLP will find some reason to topple Corbyn within 12-18 months anyway. Then the Successor Programme vote becomes a way to undermine the new Labour leader with the size of the rebellion voting against.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Cooper »

The vote can't be delayed, the time frame is set for the introduction of the first boat in 2028.

It has already been delayed once, there can't be another one for military and industrial reasons, it has to be 2016.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

Why would they delay it when they have been going full steam ahead for the last couple of years, in the face of much criticism even from their coalition partners. They have already committed hundreds of millions to the project, BAE are also committing heavily so it would be in no ones interests to delay.

If Corbyn gets the leadership, labour will split and the whole socialiast movement will be left in shreds.It would take them years in that case to once again form any credible opposition. The SNP are an irritant at most, only the Greens and whats left of the Liberals would vote with them, so no contest

No,I am sure the Tory's are fully committed to the timescale for successor.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: RE: Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

Cooper wrote:The vote can't be delayed, the time frame is set for the introduction of the first boat in 2028.

I'm not sure that there's such a thing as "can't be delayed" in British military procurement.:P
It has already been delayed once, there can't be another one for military and industrial reasons, it has to be 2016.
It's already been delayed once to politically benefit the Conservative government. While I don't think it's likely they'll delay it again, I'm not ruling it out because it does present some political advantages for the government.
jonas wrote:Why would they delay it when they have been going full steam ahead for the last couple of years, in the face of much criticism even from their coalition partners. They have already committed hundreds of millions to the project, BAE are also committing heavily so it would be in no ones interests to delay.

I explained the possible motivation for delay in the post you're replying to. I don't think it's likely which is why I used words like "possibly" and "might", but I wouldn't rule out the possibility entirely. Though in reality they'd probably only be able to delay it for a few months at most before the Conservative backbenchers got restless.
If Corbyn gets the leadership, labour will split and the whole socialiast movement will be left in shreds.It would take them years in that case to once again form any credible opposition. The SNP are an irritant at most, only the Greens and whats left of the Liberals would vote with them, so no contest
I think that I explained many months ago during the general election campaign that no matter what happened there'd be more than enough support between the Conservative MP's and Labour MP's to pass the Successor Programme bill. As for what will happen to Labour under Corbyn, well there are a few possibilities, none of them particularly great.
No, I am sure the Tory's are fully committed to the timescale for successor.
I'm sure that they are, but since they've not been shy about backing off or delaying other things that they've been fully committed to for political expediency or advantage it's worth pointing out the potential political reasons why they might look to delay a vote.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

Perhaps you should have said speculated rather than explained.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: RE: Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Cooper »

Pseudo wrote: I'm sure that they are, but since they've not been shy about backing off or delaying other things that they've been fully committed to for political expediency or advantage it's worth pointing out the potential political reasons why they might look to delay a vote.
The Tories will not hesitate to bring any vote they can before the commons in order to split Labour, the media will be all over the chaos in Labour and its leaders inability to command his party.

Even if the military reasons for delay could be justified (and they can't) the political reasons for not delaying, override all.

Its simply too irresistible of a goal for the Conservatives.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

Cooper wrote:
Pseudo wrote: I'm sure that they are, but since they've not been shy about backing off or delaying other things that they've been fully committed to for political expediency or advantage it's worth pointing out the potential political reasons why they might look to delay a vote.
The Tories will not hesitate to bring any vote they can before the commons in order to split Labour, the media will be all over the chaos in Labour and its leaders inability to command his party.

Even if the military reasons for delay could be justified (and they can't) the political reasons for not delaying, override all.

Its simply too irresistible of a goal for the Conservatives.
The point I originally made was that the Conservatives benefit most from a split Labour Party remaining so for as long as possible. They won't need votes on legislation to demonstrate the split, it'll be pretty much glaringly obvious anyway. Putting forward legislation for a vote that might cause the Corbyn leadership to fall isn't in the government's interest because the next Labour leader after Corbyn can only be more moderate. As I say, it's not likely but it's certainly a consideration. That said, if a vote on the Successor Programme were to be a contributing factor in the fall of a Corbyn leadership it would cause a few problems of its own for Labour centrists.

Whatever happens it'll certainly be interesting to watch.

Post Reply