UK Defence Forum

I think we will have to contend with one of the FLSSs to squeeze HMS Aboukir (Bay) in; was a Cressy-class armoured cruiser
- the name would suit as they will venture (and be seen, unlike the Dreadnoughts) to far away lands

BAE Maritime graphic:

Previous HMS Dreadnought (S101) thread: https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=226

Still think the reduced to 12 number of CMC missile cells is a stupid choice, same with the never carrying more than 40 warheads isn’t it? Whilst the yanks are going for 16 on theirs this time, they had 24 on the current design. If you’re gonna spend the sort of colossal money an SSBN costs you may as well go all in and have something that is truly terrifying and capable of wiping out the whole of any country - ie MAD! IIRC the US CMC design comes in blocks of 8 so what are the bets having 12 on each boat ends up costing more than 16!
Was a decision typical of that little worm Cameron and the treasonous 2010 defence review, sorry I mean cuts.”Oh aren’t we being modern, PC and not at all the nasty party anymore. What’s more whilst I decimate our armed forces worse than any enemy has in recent times let’s give .75% of GDP that we just took from defence to the third world while they keep breeding at an unsustainable rate and hate our guts still. Gosh I just love being generous with other people’s money!” God I hated him!!

We would do as well to have a single module on each boat as eight fully armed Trident D-5s is more than enough for a deterrent and would probably same some pennies. The only benefit I can see for going for twelve tubes and designing a half sized CMC (which sort of defeats the purpose of a CMC) is that the four tube module could be fitted to the follow on to the Astute, being able to hold 24 TLAM or whatever succeeds it amongst other possible future options.

Actually, I am even wondering why not only 8 per hull. This will
- reduce the hull size = maintenance load = crew size. As SSBN patrol is dull and long, smaller crew is better?
- reduce the Trident missile number = less cost.
Even with 8 missiles, 5 each = 40 nuclear warhead can be deployed. This is not much different from "48" warheads per hull currently on Vanguard SSBN.

SSBN is a key asset to UK. But, keeping the program as cheap as possible is vital to keep all the other assets more "active", I think.

cky7 wrote:Still think the reduced to 12 number of CMC missile cells is a stupid choice, same with the never carrying more than 40 warheads isn’t it? Whilst the yanks are going for 16 on theirs this time, they had 24 on the current design. If you’re gonna spend the sort of colossal money an SSBN costs you may as well go all in and have something that is truly terrifying and capable of wiping out the whole of any country - ie MAD! IIRC the US CMC design comes in blocks of 8 so what are the bets having 12 on each boat ends up costing more than 16!
Was a decision typical of that little worm Cameron and the treasonous 2010 defence review, sorry I mean cuts.”Oh aren’t we being modern, PC and not at all the nasty party anymore. What’s more whilst I decimate our armed forces worse than any enemy has in recent times let’s give .75% of GDP that we just took from defence to the third world while they keep breeding at an unsustainable rate and hate our guts still. Gosh I just love being generous with other people’s money!” God I hated him!!

Not one of the politicians, Tory or Labour, who made the decisions to retain a UK nuclear deterrent over the decades, really, truly believe in it.

The ONLY reason they keep it is for political reasons, because of the notion it keeps the UK at the 'top table'. If you could give them a convincing argument that the UK wouldn't lose its 'top table' status without Trident, they'd drop Trident in a heartbeat, but the next best thing is to spend the absolute minimum on it as possible.

If we were really serious about our nuclear deterrent we'd drop the yanks and build every last piece of it ourselves, we are more than capable of doing it.

Well is you really want to break the Defence Budget, having to fund a programme to design and develop a UK only SLBM would do it But you are right the CASD is a political tool not a military weapon, as are all nuclear weapons.

Maybe a stupid question but would it be possible at this late stage on design to omit 4 tubes (so just have the 8 tube CMC) to save a bit of money & replace the space with better accomadation for the crew?

serge750 wrote:Maybe a stupid question but would it be possible at this late stage on design to omit 4 tubes (so just have the 8 tube CMC) to save a bit of money & replace the space with better accomadation for the crew?

If you want to add more accommodation, likely no. There would be long-term savings from not operating the additional missile tubes, most likely.

Cheers for the reply, was thinking less tubes maybe less hot bunking for the crew if they still do that? also thinking about it the redesign cost would probably cost more than deleting the 4 tubes !

But if the design is on CAD the cost of altering it are not going to be immense surely? No steel has been cut and the items that have been purchased under firm contracts are in all likelihood not unique to a design with one and a half CMC.

As we can't afford every capability these days, demonstrated by recent capability gaps, are we not missing a trick by continuing to have separate SSN and SSBN fleets? Could we not have developed a hybrid SSN with say four Trident missiles on Each SSN and do away with SSBN altogether? 12 of these boats, 48 missiles in total, greater surviveability, more deterrence, more hunter killer capability etc. greater costs in other areas, savings in some. Wouldn't this be better than the current all eggs in one basket approach? Not sure what if any SALT this would impact?

Digger22 wrote:As we can't afford every capability these days, demonstrated by recent capability gaps, are we not missing a trick by continuing to have separate SSN and SSBN fleets? Could we not have developed a hybrid SSN with say four Trident missiles on Each SSN and do away with SSBN altogether? 12 of these boats, 48 missiles in total, greater surviveability, more deterrence, more hunter killer capability etc. greater costs in other areas, savings in some. Wouldn't this be better than the current all eggs in one basket approach? Not sure what if any SALT this would impact?

A big problem with hybrid-SSN/SSBN's is that in times of high tensions every SS(B)N deployment increases those tensions. It would also create big diplomatic problems if your entire submarine force was made up of these hybrids because it would mean that every carrier deployment that includes a submarine would be a nuclear deterrent deployment. How do you think China would react to the idea of an RN carrier group sailing through the south china sea if it also meant that the UK was deploying nuclear weapons in the south china sea?

I suspect that for a hybrid solution to work say 11 boats with 4 x ICBM tubes only 4 or so would be loaded with Trident and on their deep patrol zones sitting in wait for the MAD signal to come through which we all hope never happens, while the rest would be doing the normal hunter killer recon etc tasks, maybe they could declare the names of the boats with no ICBM loaded as to allay the fear of our Enemy's...

maybe the empty tubes could be used for land attack missiles or drones when no ICBM's are carried, sure I read some ware there was an adapter being worked on?

serge750 wrote:I suspect that for a hybrid solution to work say 11 boats with 4 x ICBM tubes only 4 or so would be loaded with Trident and on their deep patrol zones sitting in wait for the MAD signal to come through which we all hope never happens, while the rest would be doing the normal hunter killer recon etc tasks, maybe they could declare the names of the boats with no ICBM loaded as to allay the fear of our Enemy's...

maybe the empty tubes could be used for land attack missiles or drones when no ICBM's are carried, sure I read some ware there was an adapter being worked on?

Another big point against hybrid SSN/SSBN's is that the purpose of SSBN's is as a second strike capability. That irrespective of how devastating an enemies attack on your country is, there will be a devastating response on theirs. That means that the only way to maintain deterrence is to protect your second strike capability, which is obviously entirely incompatible with using frontline assets to deploy that capability and would likely constrain the RN in using its submarine force in a major war due to the strategic need to maintain that second strike capability.

Is the above the first confirmation Dreadnought is electrically driven? That would be a first on a British sub, removing the last source of noise on a low speed patrol.

That'll give a SSBN the same stealth qualities as a modern SSK!

Lord Jim wrote:But if the design is on CAD the cost of altering it are not going to be immense surely?

The cost of Dreadnought is huge, so much so it exposes the MOD to a lot of risk, thus the huge contingency set aside for dreadnought. Any change introduces risk, and here even a small increase in risk has a huge cost. A project like this comes with a huge inertia, and need to be left continuing on it's planned course, any deviation will require huge effort/cost.

Because of this the opportunity for a Hybrid design is long gone.

Because of the huge cost sunk into the Dreadnought design it makes sense to reuse as much as possible on the Astute replacement. I expect the back end (propulsion) will be almost identical, with the mid section featuring VPM (virginia payload modules) or similar, instead of the common mission compartment. That creates a short Dreadnought sub-class, which is much more realistic than a hybrid design.

shark bait wrote:virginia payload module

It's worth noting that the VPM is physically large enough to house a Trident missile, even if we don't intend to use it for that

Surely the whole point of a SSBN is that nobody knows where it is? The notion that you could not sail one through a Navigable area of any Ocean defies the point. Also you could sail one without the Trident fitted, so in an engagement against a none nuclear power, such as the Falklands you make it clear that the Boats are not carrying Nukes. Besides there are plenty of other Nuclear Weapons sailing around out there. I think it's a perfectly reasonable solution and one Uncle Sam may be moving towards, or certainly thinking about, and then no doubt it will be a great idea!

shark bait wrote:Is the above the first confirmation Dreadnought is electrically driven? That would be a first on a British sub, removing the last source of noise on a low speed patrol.

Yes it appears to be.

One thing confusing about the BAE Dreadnought graphic is it mentions the original Dreadnought SSN as having a range of 10,654 nautical miles, which is awfully exact, and surely for a SSN wrong...

Digger22 wrote:I think it's a perfectly reasonable

What is the benefit of a Hybrid class?

You do not want to risk using your SSBN's as attack subs though, and with more of them around their signature will be easier for potential enemies to identify.
If you sit one off Russia or China's coast, will they honestly believe you that its not an ICBM armed one? Why would they take the risk.
If our potential enemies had one off the UK or America's coast the RN/USN and politicians would be going bat shit crazy!

Yes use some of the same technology, but make it a different class (though VLS's for Cruise & Anti-Ship missiles would be very useful.)

shark bait wrote:

Digger22 wrote:I think it's a perfectly reasonable

What is the benefit of a Hybrid class?

More than one boat on Patrol maybe
More available for SSN duties (12 boat fleet)
Cheaper Future production costs
One type fleet
Greater survivability
Trident is capable of carrying 14 MIRV per missile. 56 warheads per Patroling boat.
Greater serviceability/Availability with More boats.
Single Type Training.
Continuous SSN production, with a constant evolving single class, further reducing RnD while providing a class of relevant, modern and flexible boats.

Our Next class of SSN should give us the option to not replace Dreadnought class with another single role SSBN type, but simply have more hybrid SSN.