UK Defence Forum

All four Vanguards now need refueling apparently. My understanding was that only one was previously planned for.

Which is going to have some pretty serious repercussions and likely indicates that Dreadnought is going to be late.

Spinflight wrote:repercussions and likely indicates that Dreadnought is going to be late.

The unplanned re-corings for nuclear boats have put an extra 51-52 months to the work queue, which is strictly sequential. I believe - but do not know - that the same line will need to be "retooled" when they make the switch between reactor types. So a build project in its own right.

The navy has been saying all along that extending the boats beyond their planned lives is not a good idea (no matter what type, SSN or with an extra "B", they are.

Makes you wonder why they make our subs so difficult to refuel.

The French, Russians and Chinese all have refueling hatches, whereas the UK and Americans believe we can work with full life cores, which is fine until the replacement is inevitably delayed.

Because it's cheaper to design for a certain life on the assumption it's replacement will be ready.

This will cost billions.

Spinflight wrote: it's cheaper to design for a certain life on the assumption it's replacement will be ready.

This will cost billions

You may have Cabinet Office running the MoD, you may have the Submarine Enterprise (where Treasury gets to sit), you have all these wise people, but with only partial knowledge/ understanding and either lacking comms skills or lacking incentives to talk to each other,

So that they could make also the politicians, with plenty of one of the skills listed above and with less of all the others, to understand the real costs equation. It does not require differential calculus, may be calculating fractions and percentages, at times .

Is there any chance that the Vanguard class boats could be life extended and added to the SSN fleet possibly with vertically launched TLAM capability?

I suspect even if it was possible it would prove to be cost prohibitive but at present given the building schedule at Barrow it's hard to see how SSN numbers could increase in the coming decades unless the Vanguard and\or Trafalgar boats are life extended or a new class of SSK's are introduced.

Are any of these options even remotely possible?

Very unlikely, they're already being pushed out beyond their original design life any further extension would likely be prohibitively expensive.

The RN wont be short of cruise missiles when the T26 comes into service any way. Each frigate has the capacity for more missiles than the RN has ever used in a single conflict.

shark bait wrote:The RN wont be short of cruise missiles when the T26 comes into service any way.

If the Type 26 actually comes into service with TLAMs in its Mk41, then I'll owe you a drink for optimism affecting reality, cos I very much doubt that will happen.

I agree. I'm sure anti-ship missiles and/or ASROC would be higher on the priority list. And the UK/French missile under development is supposed to be anti-ship and land attack. So Tomahawk would be long odds.

RetroSicotte wrote:

shark bait wrote:The RN wont be short of cruise missiles when the T26 comes into service any way.

If the Type 26 actually comes into service with TLAMs in its Mk41, then I'll owe you a drink for optimism affecting reality, cos I very much doubt that will happen.

Seconded.

shark bait wrote:
The RN wont be short of cruise missiles when the T26 comes into service any way.


Each frigate has the capacity for more missiles than the RN has ever used in a single conflict.

Tell me, how exactly do you think that these two sentences can stand there, one by another, and not being in contradiction?

The RN has never used more than 24 cruise missiles in a single conflict. It will soon have Astutes, F35, and T26, all of which should carry cruise missiles, a far greater capacity than in the past.

Paying through the roof to keep the V Boats going as cruise missile ships is totally unnecessary.

Ron5 wrote:I agree. I'm sure anti-ship missiles and/or ASROC would be higher on the priority list. And the UK/French missile under development is supposed to be anti-ship and land attack. So Tomahawk would be long odds.

TLAM block 4 can do anti ship. They are not stealthy, but has two way data link, as I understand.

shark bait wrote:Paying through the roof to keep the V Boats going as cruise missile ships is totally unnecessary

True on its own, and we have already seen the upset to (single) supply chains caused by suddenly a re-coring need "jumping the queue"
- so there are other costs than purely monetary, too
- if we were still getting the "full-format" NAO major projects reports, such would appear under "Capability Risks" header

I’ve said before, but I think the new Dreadnoughts should be built in larger numbers as hybrid SSBNs and SSGNs, though only in one role at any time (3 SSBNs and 3 SSGNs). It sounds fantasy but a fully loaded sub with Cruise Missiles is a Big Stick that would compliment perfectly or act independently from the CSG.

Repulse wrote:I’ve said before, but I think the new Dreadnoughts should be built in larger numbers as hybrid SSBNs and SSGNs, though only in one role at any time (3 SSBNs and 3 SSGNs). It sounds fantasy but a fully loaded sub with Cruise Missiles is a Big Stick that would compliment perfectly or act independently from the CSG.

How much is that likely to cost?

30bn for the 4 Dreadnoughts is the published figure, but how much of this is for design / extra stuff is not known. My guess £6bn for the extra two. Sounds a lot, but in a world that is getting more dangerous the conventional deterrent effect when coupled with the CSG would save a lot more IMO.

Howabout a "Virginia" SSGN module, attached to the back of the 7th Astute's conning tower?
- the boat is likely to be slowed down in its construction, in order not to empty the nuclear contingency altogether
- would be much cheaper (the module exists, and we have been part of working on its "inners")

Talk about spiral development philosophy

Repulse wrote:30bn for the 4 Dreadnoughts is the published figure, but how much of this is for design / extra stuff is not known. My guess £6bn for the extra two. Sounds a lot, but in a world that is getting more dangerous the conventional deterrent effect when coupled with the CSG would save a lot more IMO.

It's an interesting idea, how many TLAM's would you expect these boats to carry, more than the 12 tubes planned for the SSBN version?

Repulse wrote:I’ve said before, but I think the new Dreadnoughts should be built in larger numbers as hybrid SSBNs and SSGNs, though only in one role at any time (3 SSBNs and 3 SSGNs). It sounds fantasy but a fully loaded sub with Cruise Missiles is a Big Stick that would compliment perfectly or act independently from the CSG.

Interesting idea 2 quick questions though,
1 - would we be able to have 2 on patrol at all times out of the 6 ( one as SSBN and the other as SSGN ) since it's said 4 are needed for just one on patrol at all times ??

2 - is there any info on how many TLAMs the new tubes can carry each is it just one each or more ? As 12 TLAM for the cost of each of these is not much of a deterent or good value for cost in my opion.

Jake1992, 4 SSBNs is needed in case one breaks down / has an accident which would prevent a continuous deterrent. If one had an accident then one of the SSGNs could be re-roles.

Ohio class can fit 7 TLAM per tube, so technically 7*12 = 84 TLAMS. Enough to ruin anyone’s day, and enough to make the UKs enemies think twice with this capability lurking anywhere in the world.

Repulse wrote:Jake1992, 4 SSBNs is needed in case one breaks down / has an accident which would prevent a continuous deterrent. If one had an accident then one of the SSGNs could be re-roles.

Ohio class can fit 7 TLAM per tube, so technically 7*12 = 84 TLAMS. Enough to ruin anyone’s day, and enough to make the UKs enemies think twice with this capability lurking anywhere in the world.

Are the dreadnoughts going to use the same tubes as the Ohio class, as I know went in with the US to develop a new all perpouse tube ? If so then that load out is very nice indeed.

If they extra 2 could be got for a reasonable price I quite like the idea, and as said could serve as a very useful conventional deterent like the QEs

Not the same tubes no - there’s no data on the CMC but as the missiles are the same (size) then as an order of magnitude the multiplier would’ve similar.

Repulse wrote:there’s no data on the CMC but as the missiles are the same (size)

There is data (the tubes are bigger, and we have hundreds of posts here about "quadpacking" other stuff... into other tubes).
- however, there is no data (open source) on the next missile, and in UK defence budgets any such - if we go for it - figure in the years from 2040
- then again, how long to to the OSD of the Dreadnoughts?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Repulse wrote:there’s no data on the CMC but as the missiles are the same (size)

There is data (the tubes are bigger, and we have hundreds of posts here about "quadpacking" other stuff... into other tubes).
- however, there is no data (open source) on the next missile, and in UK defence budgets any such - if we go for it - figure in the years from 2040
- then again, how long to to the OSD of the Dreadnoughts?

Ok, what I was referring to was official information on TLAM packaging in particular when compared to the current tubes, but keen to see the links if you have them to hand. The comment on the missile was that there is no immediate change to the Trident II D5 initially.