Ron5 wrote:If only there was a Haynes manual that could answer such questions.
Keithdwat579 wrote:'Hangar' you say....
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why waste the space... when you can have a big gun:
https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/bfd ... 5a95_large
Scimitar54 wrote: potential for the building of another PWR2 reactor or two?
Astute boats 8 and 9 might now be at least theoretically possible.
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.
shark bait wrote:Why would Barrow revert to building Astute's after the Dreadnoughts?
shark bait wrote:Better off building a Dreadnought lite
Poiuytrewq wrote:Got to be good news :
Personally I would rather spend the £1.5bn+ that would require on getting an RN SSK programme off the ground.Lord Jim wrote:I really wish we could push back the Dreadnought programme to allow an eighth Astute to be built as most experts believe that is the minimum number we need, but I also wish I could win the lottery this Wednesday or Saturday.
The article spells out the two year delay recently introduced, and also the current level of activity "The MUFC program emerged out of the Future Attack SubMarine program of the early 2000s (FASM). MUFC has moved into the initial Concept Phase in 2018 and is spending about £20 million in 2018-19, a fraction of the budget for other submarine programs."Poiuytrewq wrote:the future Astute replacement
shark bait wrote:Fully expect it to be a Dreadnought with the trident tubes removed
Users browsing this forum: Phil R and 13 guests