Dreadnought Class SSBN

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by rec »

I for one would prefer no successor, but the money being spent elsewhere in the coventional forces budget. Our conventional forces are so thin, and really are more useful. Also morally maybe having weapons of mass destruction is not a good thing?

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by downsizer »

Interesting POV. Don't think many here will agree.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by seaspear »

Morally or ethically we can discuss wmd all day, I would like to see all wmd eliminated but you would appreciate some people have more recently commited heavy resources to making their wmd pointed at western Europe more effective and are oposed to further cuts if not breaching wmd treaties .

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.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Ron5 »

From Fallons speech: "That requires nationwide effort. Politicians, unions, and the business community putting aside politics in the national interest. Let’s work together to strengthen the consensus ..."

But if it all goes tits up, we all know who to blame. Not the politicians, not the unions, not the civil servants, not the MoD but, you've guessed it, ....

"But what of the other risk to our deterrent? The prospect of industry failing to deliver"

Twat. It's just as much on his shoulders as Bae's.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Let's not forget that RR and Babcock are also within the Submarine Enterprise.

Anyway, from NAO's Major Projects report it would seem that we are well past the stage of studying radically different hull form alternatives:
"£3M of platform approval was provided to Next Generation Nuclear Propulsion Plant
(NGNPP) to pay for additional contractor assistance in the US.
A.3. In-Year Progress
The platform entered design stage in July 2014; this sees the spatial arrangements developed. A
wholeboat Preliminary Design Review was held in November 2014 and the Pressurised Water Reactor 3
(PWR3) Critical Design Review in December 2014. Achievement of the latter two Reviews was within a
week of the date set 3 years previously."

I kept the initial part of the quote there as it would seem that assistance required from the US is minimal, compared to the days of the Astute (when a US Prgrm Director had t be brought in, to put the house in order as well as draw on specialist resource that simply did not exist within the UK).
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)

User avatar
desertswo
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:03
Contact:

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by desertswo »

Interesting about the American program manager. If one thinks about it though, the sheer volume of construction of fast attack boats done on this side of the pond over the last 35 to 40 years with the the last of the LA class, Seawolf and Virginias, thus maintaning the industrial base, there is a lot of program manager knowledge and ability sort of looking to be used.

Helping out an ally like that in a pinch is just good business all around. I imagine our involvement this time around will be more of the QA variety rather than QC. Just looking over the shoulder a bit.

When I was working at SWOSCOLCOM in Newport, RI my name was in the barrel for escorting VIPs. It's just one of those bulls hit collateral duties that befall a staff officer now and again. Well my turn came up in the spring of 1995 when I was tasked with escorting members of newly elected Congressman Patrick Kennedy's staff around all of the military installations as well as military contractor facilities in the state.

The "Commonwealth of the Providence Plantation and the Rhode Island" as its officially known is very small and all of those facilities are clustered right around Narragansett Bay. I tell you, I was like a kid in a candy store. At the Naval Undersea Warfare installation there was a very pretty Ph.D in a white lab coat describing what she was working on to the brain dead staffers while I was watching an oscilloscope very intently because there was something vaguely familiar about the pattern I was seeing, and then I noticed a contraption nearby that seemed to be slaved to the pattern I was watching; moving back and forth in rhythm. I raised my hand, the first time I had interrupted a presenter all day, and asked her what was going on there. Her response, as if it was no big deal, "Oh, that's just the seeker head of a Soviet wake homer."

My jaw must have dropped a foot. "Just a wake homer" is sort of the Holy grail of ASW operators. Having one is like robbing Ft. Knox. I don't know how we got it but it was pretty cool nonetheless.

Kind of got sidetracked there because what I wanted to talk about was the tour we got of GD Electric Boat's facility at Quonset Point where they were in the midst of building the 2nd and 3rd of the Seawolf class.

No shit, it was about the coolest thing I'd ever seen with these huge rings of three or four inch thick HY-100 steel stacked one upon the other vertically on a jig and then these robot welders joining them together. Decks were added (three all told), and when the stack got to a given height , the jig turned the whole thing horizontal. Then they go in and add the piping, electrical cable runs, control systems, reactor, main engine, etc., etc., etc. The project manager even showed us how the sick bay already had all of the required instruments in its various drawers and cabinets.

The three sections were then placed on barges and towed down to Mystic, Connecticut where they are joined. They can't join them at Quonset because afloat the Seawolf draws too much water.

Anyway, there's a lot of smarts and experience just waiting to be used, and as I said, sharing that wealth is just good business all around.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by bobp »

About the American Program Manager, his involvement is probably due to the fact that the US is building the common Missile compartment, and also the missiles themselves originate from the US.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A while back I was looking at the bio's of the people on Electric Boat board, and seem to remember that the guy who saved the proverbial bacon is now a member. Cheers all round; hope that this time it will be less dramatic!
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)

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by xav »

UK Government Commited to the Successor SSBN Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
The UK Government remains committed to the Successor submarine programme, according to the country's Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. It is a project of absolute necessity in order for the UK to remain a capable deterrent force in an era of critical global security issues, the minister reiterated during his speech at a reception at the House of Commons on 21 October.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3201

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.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by bobp »

Good way of robbing the defence budget :D

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Don't worry, if he makes it to PM, it will all be forgotten.

If he does not make it to PM, it will all be forgotten.

Kow-tow was not a good policy in the Kingdom that was the centre of the universe then, and we are not the centre but at least a Kingdom... still not a good policy?
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)

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jimthelad »

arfah wrote:http://forces.tv/42828458

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, wants the programme to replace our SSBN's to be managed by HM Treasury and not the Ministry Of Defence.
That may not be as daft as it seems, they took over oversight of crossrail in 2013 and brought the overspend under control.

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.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I doubt it, too.

The Treasury has the youngest average age of any department, and a high turnover in staff. When they tear their shirt open, I fail to spot the Superman outfit
- are there any other successful interventions than Crossrail?
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)

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by marktigger »

just shows how much faith there is in the new MoD procurement orginisation

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by jonas »

jimthelad wrote:
arfah wrote:http://forces.tv/42828458

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, wants the programme to replace our SSBN's to be managed by HM Treasury and not the Ministry Of Defence.
That may not be as daft as it seems, they took over oversight of crossrail in 2013 and brought the overspend under control.
Agree with you, and as long as they get ordered and building gets underway then George might be the guy to keep BAE in check. Let's face it someone needs to keep an eye on the cash flow.

Make the contract watertight just as BAE did with the carriers, only this time in favour of the government.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The carrier contract was made fool proof as the then Gvmnt was worried about the next one (if the opposition were to win, which they did) wanting to cancel one or both of the vessels.
- the guy who was the lead for drafting it is now the head honcho in NAO
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)

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by S M H »

The nuclear deterrent was in a treasury controlled supplementary defence budget which had treasury oversight. That was until S.S.D.R.. 2010 when the chancellor forced it into core defence budget with no additional funding. The treasury want to control the procurement of the submarines because it is the Elephant in the procurement budget. But want the funding to be from core defence budget. George should have kept the nuclear deterrent as a supplementary budget. Then he would have no need to cover up his S.S.D.R 2010 blow back. Then he should develop some balls and say he messed up!

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The carrier contract was made fool proof as the then Gvmnt was worried about the next one (if the opposition were to win, which they did) wanting to cancel one or both of the vessels.
- the guy who was the lead for drafting it is now the head honcho in NAO
Not quite. The hefty cancellation policies that meant that the carriers were all but uncancellable were a side effect of getting the best price for the contract because it eliminated the financial risk to BAe of cancellation.

Which is the same reason that Successor will be uncancellable.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The aspects provided by both of us equally apply to the carriers.
- raised an interesting thought: do they apply also to the Successors, as well (or only your point)?
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)

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The aspects provided by both of us equally apply to the carriers.
- raised an interesting thought: do they apply also to the Successors, as well (or only your point)?
It should apply to the successor simply because the government will get the best terms on manufacturer overspends and delays if the manufacturer is insured against potential losses from cancellation by having a contract with cancellation penalties that cover the entire cost of the project and the legal costs of enforcing the penalties.

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, but have you noticed the latest amendment to the carrier contract:

Also any underspends from the revised targets are now shared 50/50. Symmetric contract structures, while recognising those risks that are asymmetric (like cancellation)
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)

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

Re: UK's successor submarines

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes, but have you noticed the latest amendment to the carrier contract:

Also any underspends from the revised targets are now shared 50/50. Symmetric contract structures, while recognising those risks that are asymmetric (like cancellation)
I hadn't seen that, and I'm no expert on contract law. My guess is that because the carriers will be all but completed during this parliament the risk of cancellation is no longer as significant as it was when the project was being carried through elections. It's probably also the case that were they to be cancelled they're at a stage where they'd be attractive to other nations, so there'd be some compensation for BAe from that. So the risks probably aren't nearly as asymmetric as they were.

Post Reply