UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 14 Apr 2018, 15:42

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.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Apr 2018, 04:44

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?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 15 Apr 2018, 07:16

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.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby shark bait » 16 Apr 2018, 07:32

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.


A VLS is becoming a must have on a new sub, the Americans are fitting extras to their new boats, and Saab are even offering VLS on their upcoming SSK. I think it's fairly safe to say a next gen British boat will have some kind of payload module.

Instead of building 2 more Dreadnought's, I will propose building follow on a shorter sub-class, with with all but 2 of the missile tubes removed for various payloads. We're investing such an incredible sum in this new class, we have to stretch out that investment a bit more, and get some extra boats out of the same design.

I do find your suggestion of dropping down to three SSBN's interesting; usually I would write off the idea because it removes the layer of redundancy required for a water tight full time deterrent. However if their is a sub-class that could provide that redundancy, is it then acceptable to drop down to thee boats?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 16 Apr 2018, 20:27

shark bait wrote:However if their is a sub-class that could provide that redundancy, is it then acceptable to drop down to thee boats?


I believe so, yes. I'd also like to see a new SSN class with VLS, though of its just for TLAM I don't see the need for the size of the CMC. Maybe even 5 Dreadnoughts would do it, 3 on CASD and 2 on Conventional SSGN duties (1 deployed or ready to deploy within a week).
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Apr 2018, 23:40

To all the ship building experts out there, is there a reason why you cannot design a sub with a single row of SLBM tubes down the middle of the hull? If there isn't, would a design to replace the Vanguards with six to eight tubes be sufficient for the UK. Such a design could be used for both CASD using Trident and as a SSGN using the six pack launchers the USN installed on a number of their Ohio class a while back. The latter would give a load out of between 36 and 28 TLAM which would be a step change in the UKs capability. A design with only six tubes would be small enough to also act as a hybrid SSN/SSGN so could be a follow on to the Astute class, especially if the Anti Ship Tomahawk re emerges in the USN as I am sure I have read it might somewhere. Just thinking outside the box a little.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby shark bait » 17 Apr 2018, 07:39

There's no reason why not. The new Virginia class are getting a single row of silos down the back, so there's little reason why it couldn't be done on an SSBN.

Thing is, once the diameter is enough to fit in the length of a ICBM it's wide enough to fit another side by side, that's why they tend to come in pairs.

Either way its irrelevant, Dreadnought is Dreadnought and that isn't going to change now.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Apr 2018, 08:45

Thanks for the info.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 308
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby jimthelad » 17 Apr 2018, 15:04

Having a SSBN?GN so close to the coast is a bad idea. Ok Tactom has a 1200 mile range (the figure that seems to get kicked around in the US forums) but if you really want to reach out and touch the deep strike targets that means your sub has to be in shallower inshore waters (ie at the continental shelf) rather than lurking as a lack hole in the abyss. It opens your CASD up to easy tracking and prosecution. SSN are really the best at this. The Oscars and to a lesser extent Charlies were designed to be CVN/SAG killers with coordinated air strikes from the Backfires. When this stopped to be the Soviet MO they were tied up. Big subs trying to prosecute inshore targets need to be able to hide, something they cant in the near littoral.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Caribbean » 17 Apr 2018, 16:46

jimthelad wrote:but if you really want to reach out and touch the deep strike targets that means your sub has to be in shallower inshore waters (ie at the continental shelf) rather than lurking as a lack hole in the abyss.

A fair point, but sitting two hundred miles of the coast still gives plenty of ocean to hide in (even when those areas with extensive continental shelves are taken into consideration) and an overland range of 1000 miles covers a huge part of the world's surface, particularly when you consider that he majority of the World's megacities are oceanfront and about 80% of the world's population lives within 60 miles of the coast. What's left can be dealt with by other means, I guess.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Repulse » 17 Apr 2018, 20:38

jimthelad wrote:It opens your CASD up to easy tracking and prosecution.


We are talking separate subs doing the SSGN role to the CASD, same design mind but no mixing of roles at one time.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

NickC
Member
Posts: 355
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby NickC » 18 Apr 2018, 12:11

Electric Boat talking at SAS2018 on the new US SSBN 566 feet long Columbia, saying achieved 85% completion of computer aided model and 25% disclosures/electronic drawings, started build of hull with missile compartment in co-operation with UK, MOD/BAE/Subs, mention of Dreadnought further ahead in build.

Have seen no info. on the new generation quieter propulsion system for Dreadnought with IEP, by removing the noisy gearbox . RR have invested in new tech magnetic gears, if they have chosen this system for Dreadnought hope the R&D more robust than with the Type 45 IEP/WR-21 GTs, otherwise it could turn out very, very expensive.

Columbia was delayed because of a manufacturing defect as some of the components for the pre-production motor were not properly insulated, guessing the DRS 36.5 MW PMM originally developed for Zumwalt (not chosen for Zumwalt as USN thought as not mature at the time), Columbia program said to be back on target . No knowledge of Dreadnought electric motor, may be a GE Power Conversion (pre. Alstom) though understand GE in January proposed making 1,100 redundancies from its 2,800 workforce, they manufacture the new electric motors for the Type 26.

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby Timmymagic » 07 Nov 2018, 13:02

Good news on the Vanguard (and Astute) reactor cores. Looks like Vanguards was replaced unnecessarily in the end, but good news for the rest..

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-reli ... efuelling/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Vanguard Class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) (RN)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Nov 2018, 13:33

Timmymagic wrote:Good news on the Vanguard (and Astute) reactor cores. Looks like Vanguards was replaced unnecessarily in the end, but good news for the rest..

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-reli ... efuelling/


Well, a happy end to the long saga:
- Controversially, government delayed making this announcement (about the problem) to Parliament until March 2014.
- This extra cost "A further £150 million had to be spent on reactor infrastructure at Devonport and the Rolls Royce facility in Derby so as to retain the ability to manufacture Core H potentially, for HMS Victorious and the other two boats. These additional expenses were met from contingency funds" was negligible compared to the fact that it held back the planned core production (delay vs. plans at its worst 51 months)
- Are we surprised, then, that Boat 7 was suddenly - with the "All Clear" - cleared for take off (in its construction): "Had a serious issue with Core H been identified, it could also have had implications for the Astute class submarines, which use the same design."... catching up with the delay was served as "great news" ;)

Sorry to have stated (on these pages) that the sudden reduction in the reactor cores' delays (from 51 to 8 months) was down to the MoD being allowed to 'mark its own homework'... when there was a genuine improvement!
- the fact that the news were suppressed, and the (reversal of) consequences were released first (as new news) of course makes it even more worthwhile to have a sharp eye and read publications released side by side - as the discrepancies seem to contain the real changes (most often :( )


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests