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.
S M H
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby S M H » 22 Jan 2017, 13:05

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

If they had not slowed the production down we could of got 8 for a little increases in expenditure. They need to make sure that the production run for the new S.S.B.N.s is efficiently and not deliberately slowed down increasing cost overall.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby PAUL MARSAY » 22 Jan 2017, 13:46

Could we design a new SSN based on the Dreadnought and build it concurrently could even be classified as a SSgn and carry vertically launched cruise missiles thus releasing the Astutes to return to pure attack sub roles

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10633
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Jan 2017, 16:26

PAUL MARSAY wrote:Could we design a new SSN based on the Dreadnought


If it is not going to be "pleasantly plump" for reasons I outlined a little bit further back: yes
- and we can probs scale it down slightly, or
- make it easier for the chef to find the ingredients over all those months when they do not need to be pushed into endless tunnels (takes some menu planning as the order for retrieval is predetermined), but can be stacked up, in a more normal fashion, with the extra space

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3557
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 22 Jan 2017, 18:08

Defiance wrote:
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


You mean government desire, right?

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 22 Jan 2017, 20:00

S M H wrote:
Defiance wrote:Never going to happen, nowhere near enough resourcing available for that

If they had not slowed the production down we could of got 8 for a little increases in expenditure. They need to make sure that the production run for the new S.S.B.N.s is efficiently and not deliberately slowed down increasing cost overall.


Not denying that, i'm saying the idea that if you wanted to build an 8th boat now there is zero capacity to build another 7000t+ boat without seriously compromising Dreadnoughts scheduling, it just is not possible.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 22 Jan 2017, 20:01

Ron5 wrote:
Defiance wrote:
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


You mean government desire, right?


Capacity of the yard. The scheduling pushed it all to the right and Dreadnought can't be held off any more, the time for an 8th boat is long gone and people need to accept that fact.

Last of the Astutes is on the way, steel has been cut on Dreadnought and you cannot just slide in the work on another 7000+t boat without causing major scheduling delays on Dreadnought.

S M H
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby S M H » 23 Jan 2017, 18:26

Defiance wrote:Capacity of the yard. The scheduling pushed it all to the right and Dreadnought can't be held off any more, the time for an 8th boat is long gone and people need to accept that fact.

The space in Devonshire hall would no permit the construction of a eighth S.S.N. The sections of the S.S.B.N.s and pure size means that if they follow the construction of the Vanguards they will only be space for two subs under construction. Last time they required more nuclear subs than Barrow could produce they built one at Birkenhead that would be impossible with modern construction safety requirements. So there will only be seven astute class subs.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3557
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Ron5 » 23 Jan 2017, 18:52

OK got it. Thanks.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 23 Jan 2017, 20:04

S M H wrote:
Defiance wrote:Capacity of the yard. The scheduling pushed it all to the right and Dreadnought can't be held off any more, the time for an 8th boat is long gone and people need to accept that fact.

The space in Devonshire hall would no permit the construction of a eighth S.S.N. The sections of the S.S.B.N.s and pure size means that if they follow the construction of the Vanguards they will only be space for two subs under construction. Last time they required more nuclear subs than Barrow could produce they built one at Birkenhead that would be impossible with modern construction safety requirements. So there will only be seven astute class subs.


Exactly, that's what i'm saying; Barrow is at capacity.

Rambo
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Rambo » 23 Jan 2017, 20:47

The best chance of an 8th boat is during the Astute replacement program after the SSBNs. That would probably mean cutting steel for the new class as soon as HMS Dreadnought leaves the hall..

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 23 Jan 2017, 21:19

Pretty much, it is literally impossible for it to happen before the Dreadnoughts are well underway and it's frustrating when it's described as such an easy thing to do. Would I like it? Sure would, but it ain't gunna happen.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5831
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 24 Jan 2017, 08:15

Yes, the nuclear sub industry is a bespoke industry that is tuned to a certain demand, it takes a long time to ramp it up.

I forecast big challenges for the industry. Either the Astute are being replaced before the last Dreadnought's hit the water, or the Astute are life extended. Both of those are difficult scenarios.

HMS Astute was designed with a 25 year service life, entering service in 2010, means she will be out by 2035. The Dreadnought schedule is;
  • Dreadnought - 2030
  • S33 - 2033
  • S34 - 2035
  • S35 - 2037
I think that highlights a problem, with an Astute life extension being the only solution to introduce as little risk to the Dreadnought project as possible.

From their I'd advocate a Dreadnought derivative to keep things ticking over whilst a clean sheet SSN is developed.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10633
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Jan 2017, 08:30

shark bait wrote:HMS Astute was designed with a 25 year service life


It is now easy to see why swapping to PWR3 for the late in the series boat(s) was planned at one point
"The PWR3 reactors, while £50 million more expensive per ship to buy and operate, offer enhanced safety measures and a simplified control and operation scheme. Furthermore, the PWR3’s would eventually become equal or cheaper than the existing PWR2 due to their longer life spans (rated for 25yrs with an optional 5yr extension)."
as just one would have made a huge difference
- as said , the plan was not adopted (perhaps due to "events" surfacing, after forming that plan)
- initial numbers drop (HMS Astute itself) would not have been avoided, but the gap filled sooner (how many boats in 5 yrs?)

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 24 Jan 2017, 08:39

They'll be extended, Dreadnought boats won't keep to schedule (not due to lack of effort) and it'll move to the right and the Astutes will have to be extended.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5831
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 24 Jan 2017, 09:52

Dreadnought design was completed before the Government would sign off on the build, and now they have 13 years and a shit load of money to build it with.

I have confidence the project can keep to its schedule, which is not ambitious. It's much like when they rebaseline the CVF project, with realistic time and resources, since then it's kept close to the plan.

Previous leadership tended to push things through budgets with massively unrealistic resources, just to get them through and worry about the fallout later. The current approach is much more pragmatic, but painfully slow.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10633
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Jan 2017, 10:35

shark bait wrote: tended to push things through budgets with massively unrealistic resources, just to get them through and worry about the fallout later. The current approach is much more pragmatic


Yep, made worse by the services doing that "in competition". Only the "too big to fail" projects survived and the rest got thrashed (hence the FRES project, to play the same game).

But back to the topic, has it been published whether this (from globalsecurity) is part of the final design?
"The Advanced Hull Form (AHF) concept was a much more ambitious design model. It featured a Y-shaped stern in place of a more traditional design. It used modular design techniques and advanced hydrodynamic ideas. The resulting external hull form offered advantages in signatures, maneuvering, and safety. It also provides large volumes of space for payloads and equipment outside the pressure hull. This gives exceptional flexibility in design and operation, with the maximum capability for rapid role change or upgrading. Safety is enhanced by the hydrodynamic design, which offers improved maneuvering and emergency recovery compared with current designs. It is further improved through the external payload and equipment locations, which minimize hull penetrations and improve watertight integrity. The AHF was designed for low cost fabrication using largely flat or single curvature surfaces. This approach allows rapid repair and modification, providing the basis for a flexible and economical platform throughout its useable life."

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5831
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 24 Jan 2017, 12:48

Unknown in the opensource.

2 models made it into the opensource, one looks a lot like that the description above, the other looks more traditional. They have been dubbed 'design-X' and 'design-Y', I think the reason is clear.

Did some digging a while back, and unsurprisingly there wasn't a whisper of which concept has developed into Dreadnought.

Image
@LandSharkUK

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 24 Jan 2017, 12:51

shark bait wrote:Dreadnought design was completed before the Government would sign off on the build, and now they have 13 years and a shit load of money to build it with.


Have you got a source for that?

You've got more confidence than I have, there are always areas people are seeking to improve, that don't work practically, that require new techniques and experiences which may not exist.

Not that it's the fault of the yard, but they'll be asking more of Dreadnought than they did of Astute, I personally don't believe it's unreasonable to see delays.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10633
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Jan 2017, 14:37

money...
is well known as Parliament sits on it:
"In February 2016, HM Treasury agreed, as set out in SDSR15, the further investment of £642 million in the Assessment Phase, including further submarine design de-risking and buying essential long-lead items for the fourth submarine. This will take the total cost of the Assessment Phase for the Successor submarine program to £3.9 billion. It was intended to pursue an incremental approval approach to this program, in order to maintain better control of cost. The programme estimate published in SDSR is for a 35-year period and includes £10B for contingencies."

Round figures, but you can guess what the long-lead items stretching out all the way to the 4th boat might be.

Design-wise: never seen anything more than what SB just put up. Number of tubes reduced (though bigger, each... coming in more divisible modules... a more compact (? I think this was contradicted) reactor design); it all sums up in lots of options.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 24 Jan 2017, 15:09

ArmChairCivvy wrote:money...
is well known as Parliament sits on it:

{snip}

Round figures, but you can guess what the long-lead items stretching out all the way to the 4th boat might be.


Agreed, there is plenty of money on the table, it's the other two bits I took issue with. Astute took 10 years which granted had issues getting going, but Dreadnought is more than twice the size, is expected to do what Astute can do and more, as well as being more advanced, more stealthy, more efficient etc

Just feels like 3 years doesn't seem like a lot of leeway, it'd be less than that if Vanguard leaves on schedule and they want to keep the 4 boats.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Design-wise: never seen anything more than what SB just put up. Number of tubes reduced (though bigger, each... coming in more divisible modules... a more compact (? I think this was contradicted) reactor design); it all sums up in lots of options.


Didn't mean specifics, wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't public until she's together enough for some publicity snaps in the DDH, more about that the design was complete. Signed off with a level of confidence is one thing, complete is another.

It might've been me taking away the wrong message from SB (apologies in advance if so), but it read as though she was designed and now it's just an assembly exercise, i simply do not believe that is the case.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5668
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby SKB » 07 Jul 2017, 02:06

Got some specifications for the new Dreadnought class SSBN's off Wikipedia:

Now Building: 1
Planned: 4
Completed: 0
Type: Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement: 17,200 t (16,900 long tons; 19,000 short tons)
Length: 152.9 metres (502 ft)
Propulsion: Nuclear reactor, turbo-electric drive, pump-jet
Range: Unlimited
Complement: 130
Armament: 12 × ballistic missile tubes for 12 Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each). Torpedo tubes and torpedo type and numbers not specified as yet.


The current Vanguard Class SSBN's for comparison:

Now Building: 0
Planned: 4
Completed: 4
Type: Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement: 15,900 t (15,600 long tons; 17,500 short tons)
Length: 149.9 m (491 ft 10 inches)
Propulsion: 1 × Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, 2 × GEC turbines; 27,500 shp (20.5 MW), 1 × shaft, pump jet propulsor, 2 × auxiliary retractable propulsion motors, 2 × WH Allen turbo generators (6 MW), 2 × Paxman diesel alternators; 2,700 shp (2.0 MW)
Range: Unlimited
Complement: 135
Armament: 4 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes for: Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes. 16 × ballistic missile tubes for: 16 Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby dmereifield » 07 Jul 2017, 07:28

So the dreadnought class will not be armed with torpedos?

Defiance
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 07 Jul 2017, 08:18

dmereifield wrote:So the dreadnought class will not be armed with torpedos?


It's Wiki, what do we expect :)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5831
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 07 Jul 2017, 08:24

It will almost certainly have torpedo tubes.

Better to go with 6 tubes like the Astute, rather than the 4 on the Vanguard to the design is ready to be shortened for a follow on hunter killer class.
@LandSharkUK

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby dmereifield » 07 Jul 2017, 08:27

Ah, good stuff


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jedibeeftrix and 6 guests