UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Oct 2018, 18:49

Not that I am aware of. It is more a hanger that can be flooded.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Ron5 » 11 Oct 2018, 21:08

If only there was a Haynes manual that could answer such questions.

Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Location: Niue

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Keithdwat579 » 11 Oct 2018, 21:19

'Hangar' you say....
;)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 743
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Aethulwulf » 11 Oct 2018, 22:50

Ron5 wrote:If only there was a Haynes manual that could answer such questions.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Astute-Class-Nuclear-Submarine-Workshop/dp/1785210718

Only £6. I'm sure mine cost more than that!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2018, 15:51

Keithdwat579 wrote:'Hangar' you say....
;)


Why waste the space... when you can have a big gun:
https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/bfd ... 5a95_large

Having updated the avatar, perhaps the post script could be : fu-barista par excellence?

Simon82
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Simon82 » 08 Nov 2018, 22:53

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why waste the space... when you can have a big gun:
https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/bfd ... 5a95_large

Quite a clever idea those M-class submarines. Getting round the slow running speeds of period torpedos by firing a supersonic, sea skimming 12” missile from a virtually submerged position before scooting silently away. Unfortunately the technology to do that in a practicable fashion was still over 50 years away.
Same goes for the K-class submarines (submersible destroyers would be a far better description of role). Steam turbine propulsion in a submarine is a grand idea, providing you have a nuclear reactor and not oil fired boilers. You’ve got to admire the shear audacity of the attempt though.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Scimitar54 » 09 Nov 2018, 22:11

Now that the remaining three Vanguard class SSBN have been found not to need a record for their reactors, will this not, as a consequence mean that there is the potential for the building of another PWR2 reactor or two?
Astute boats 8 and 9 might now be at least theoretically possible.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Scimitar54 » 09 Nov 2018, 22:17

Damn predictive text! I typed in Recore, not Record.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Nov 2018, 08:57

Scimitar54 wrote: potential for the building of another PWR2 reactor or two?
Astute boats 8 and 9 might now be at least theoretically possible.


News about going ahead with boat 7 and the reactor core delay against boat construction plans (Dreadnoughts incl.) being cut from 51 to 8 months obviously have a connection, but
- were released in reversed order
- with a good delay inserted in between

We might end up building Astutes (with Virginia "payload" module behind the conning tower?) after the Dreadnoughts, anyway, as the couple of billion for starting the A successor design were shunted to the right in the latest EPP.
- to the right, as far as past the 10 years
- which does not mean that it is not planned, just not funded (and no political commitment, the reversing of which might be pre-empted by being "politically" costly)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby shark bait » 12 Nov 2018, 08:28

Why would Barrow revert to building Astute's after the Dreadnoughts? It will be a 40 year old design by then, with a reactor well out of production, and the PWR-3 wont fit.

Better off building a Dreadnought lite with the Virginia payload module instead of Trident.
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 833
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Nov 2018, 09:35

shark bait wrote:Why would Barrow revert to building Astute's after the Dreadnoughts? It will be a 40 year old design by then, with a reactor well out of production, and the PWR-3 wont fit.

Better off building a Dreadnought lite with the Virginia payload module instead of Trident.


I thought the new launchers on the dreadnoughts where design to be flexible in the terms that they can launch trident missiles or a multitude of others ?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby shark bait » 12 Nov 2018, 09:42

That's correct, the idea is to put different paylaod's inside the trident tubes, but I think its only and idea at the moment.

Personally I would be weary of increasing the number of trident 'capable' boats, that's why I suggested the Virginia payload module in place of the common missile compartment. (I bet its also cheaper)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Nov 2018, 09:52

shark bait wrote:Why would Barrow revert to building Astute's after the Dreadnoughts?


If you look for the reason on pp.22-23 of the 2018 EPP (Navy Command) you can't find it. But if you read through the separate NAO report, there is e.g. this:
" In response to affordability
challenges within the Equipment Plan, the Department took a number of measures
to make savings. These included delaying by two years its programme to introduce
new remotely piloted aircraft (Protector), resulting in an estimated £160 million cost
increase, and delaying some Typhoon training by one year, which increased costs
by £6 million. We have also reported on how the Department delayed by two years
the development of a replacement for the Astute-class submarine. This enabled
it to remove £1.2 billion of costs"

shark bait wrote:Better off building a Dreadnought lite


Quite a 'fatso' that would be, for hunter-killer duties? Even reactor designs should - ideally - be different for the silent cruising of boomers and the high speeds and spurts required - at times -of the SSNs.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caribbean, pbs, silabario, Zero Gravitas and 9 guests