UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Dreadnought Class SSBN

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 07 Jan 2017, 17:24

Never happen in the end. Realised what a bad idea it was.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2017, 17:31

Ron5 wrote:the Astutes hull was enlarged to make room for the larger reactor


Correct, so it is larger than would need to be ... but also a lot of extra noise dampening had to be applied. Not a problem with all that space, but a lot of extra cost.

However, if we really manage to build the Dreadnoughts on budget, the unit cost (all in) will come out the same as the one for Columbus Class (built in three times the quantity, and by a builder/ in facilities that are primed for serial production).
- that will be the day!

shark bait wrote:Never happen in the end. Realised what a bad idea it was.

- which reactor do you think is bigger?
- yes, it did not happen, but that is a different story

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2017, 17:34

ArmChairCivvy wrote: to maintain the capability for the production of existing cores,
while minimising the risk to the capability for producing cores for Successor;"


Think of having already retooled the factory for the latest Mustangs, but the boss tells you that you will need to be building T-Fords as well

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 07 Jan 2017, 17:39

PWR3 is bigger, part of it being much longer lifed.

Rolls are going to have 'fun' when the Astutes need new reactors.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2017, 18:29

shark bait wrote:going to have 'fun' when the Astutes need new reactors.


I am sure that by then size will have gone down, but someone will still have to cut the boat open for them, it will hardly be men in white coats, walking in with a couple of briefcases

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 07 Jan 2017, 18:32

I expect it would still have to be the PWR2 for the Astutes. Not a trivial task, costs around £300m for each new reactor fitted. The french I believe have got quite efficient at cutting open and changing their little subs.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jan 2017, 19:03

I would say the end of the line is nigh... though contingent:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:to retain the capability to produce a core for HMS Victorious,
if required, means that the final phase of regeneration of the production facility has
been deferred. This is to maintain the capability for the production of existing cores

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 08 Jan 2017, 17:42

Very confused by this thread. When has a nuke sub ever needed a new reactor?

Anyhoo, not that interested. Dreadnoughts will have an American designed reactor. Yay go USA.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 08 Jan 2017, 18:48

All the time when their life extended like the vanguard's, a bit like Trigger's broom.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Old RN » 08 Jan 2017, 19:57

To my knowledge, the only SSN to have had its reactor changed was USS Seawolf in the 1950s. It was the second US nuclear submarine design and had a sodium cooled reactor, which was not a success, so it was removed (and dumped at sea) and replaced by a PWR. What was standard was the refuelling of submarines with new cores. The early UK boats had Core A, which required replacing every 3 years or so. From the Swiftsure class onwards there was Core B, which needed refuelling every 7 years or so, with the Core A boats getting Core B at their first opportunity. Core life has got longer with as technology improved to the current state where full life cores are possible. Back in the 1970s Rolls Royce Derby must have been building more than 5 cores a year (12+ SSNs, 4 SSBNs and a new boat every 12-18 months).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Jan 2017, 20:30

ArmChairCivvy wrote:to retain the capability to produce a core for HMS Victorious,
if required, means that the final phase of regeneration of the production facility has
been deferred. This is to maintain the capability for the production of existing cores


That is it, as per Old RN above, just that
- tooling for the cores is unique
- the old is normally replaced with the new & better
- UK cannot run (without excessive cost) two in parallel, and
- what may have been meant "for life" turned out not to be so when the planned lives were extended; even though this cannot be statistically proven (only one unexpected surprise, with another "expected" surprise in tow, and for which - the latter - a contingency has now been built into the plans.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 08 Jan 2017, 23:16

Important to note its not a completely American designed reactor.

The only technology transfer that exists between the UK and USA for naval nuclear propulsion is for the S5W reactor, that was built by Rolls Royce, and was a direct copy of the Westinghouse design. That allowed the Royal Navy to skip a few generations and bring HMS Dreadnought into service sooner.

From there the PWR1 was a UK specific development of the Westinghouse's S5W design. The PWR2 followed the same path, and presumably the PWR3 will too.

At all stages the developments have made in parallel with US through consultation, and apparently Rolls Royce have has exposure to the new General Electric design. What is important is that has all stayed high level, and no technology transfer exists for the latest development.

Its almost an official knock-off of American technology from a high level, but the detailed design remains British work, with consultations from the Americans. We are left with a UK bespoke derivative of a high level US design.

It would be wrong to call it a American designed reactor.
It would be wrong to call it a British designed reactor.
@LandSharkUK

jonas
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby jonas » 20 Jan 2017, 15:00

Could someone throw any light on this article, as it's either complete nonsense or they know something that I am not aware of.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... d-cms.html

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1917
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby dmereifield » 20 Jan 2017, 15:32

I saw that, but according BAE and HMG they have cut steel for the 7th already....

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1917
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby dmereifield » 20 Jan 2017, 15:33

^if you we're referring to the Astutes

S M H
Member
Posts: 383
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby S M H » 20 Jan 2017, 21:08

Looking at dimensions of the building under construction by Morgan Sindal on Dock road Barrow in Furness. It looks like the place the Dreadnought class sections will be built. As the P. W.R. 3 with heat exchangers in the pressure vessel make it impossible to manufacture the submarine ring sections in the existing building. They have cleverly covered the overhead crane details which would remove all doubt. Looking at the steel in the sides of the building with the nose of the pilling inside a constructed shell to reinforce the floor slab. to take the weight of the ring sections. They will actually start S.S.N.B. construction shortly after it is completed.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby SKB » 20 Jan 2017, 21:15






User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby SKB » 20 Jan 2017, 21:29

Image
^CG Artists impression

Barrow TV signals 'being blocked' by huge new BAE submarine complex for building Trident replacement!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tv ... ge-9522453

jonas
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby jonas » 20 Jan 2017, 22:51

dmereifield wrote:I saw that, but according BAE and HMG they have cut steel for the 7th already....


Thanks, yes I was. That and the comment about going for a new design for successor, which seems a bit far fetched after all the time, effort and money that has been put into the design. Either someone has got their wires crossed, or it's bad reporting.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 21 Jan 2017, 00:14

Thank you gentlemen for the very interesting posts on the Barrow facilities.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 21 Jan 2017, 00:19

If the Dreadnoughts will be built in a different facility than the Astutes, does this allow the possibility of an 8th Astute?

jonas
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby jonas » 21 Jan 2017, 08:40

Ron5 wrote:If the Dreadnoughts will be built in a different facility than the Astutes, does this allow the possibility of an 8th Astute?


As I read it the ring sections will be built in a new facility, they will then be moved to the extended Devonshire dock hall to be joined/assembled. So their will not be any possibility of an 8th Astute ( not that there ever was )

http://nuclearinfo.org/article/future-s ... de-project

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Jan 2017, 09:05

The hull form will be extremely interesting as and when details will be released:
- the Astutes are bigger than would have been necessary, because of the PWR2 dimensions... will PWR3 be more compact?
- SSBNs have tended to be pleasantly plump because of the silos; now, with more modular silos there is also more flexibility in design (not to mention that we will go down in number of silos incorporated, though not in the size of an individual silo)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby bobp » 21 Jan 2017, 18:03

Article in the Telegraph sponsored by BAE about the skills needed to build the Dreadnought Class. A lot of jobs will be on offer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/st ... 1&plr=1#!/

Defiance
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 21 Jan 2017, 18:34

Ron5 wrote:If the Dreadnoughts will be built in a different facility than the Astutes, does this allow the possibility of an 8th Astute?


Never going to happen, nowhere near enough resourcing available for that


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdamS, bbottle, Paf_82, redsquirrel and 19 guests