If they had not slowed the production down we could of got 8 for a little increases in expenditure. They need to make sure that the production run for the new S.S.B.N.s is efficiently and not deliberately slowed down increasing cost overall.Defiance wrote:Never going to happen, nowhere near enough resourcing available for that
Dreadnought Class SSBN
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Could we design a new SSN based on the Dreadnought and build it concurrently could even be classified as a SSgn and carry vertically launched cruise missiles thus releasing the Astutes to return to pure attack sub roles
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
If it is not going to be "pleasantly plump" for reasons I outlined a little bit further back: yesPAUL MARSAY wrote:Could we design a new SSN based on the Dreadnought
- and we can probs scale it down slightly, or
- make it easier for the chef to find the ingredients over all those months when they do not need to be pushed into endless tunnels (takes some menu planning as the order for retrieval is predetermined), but can be stacked up, in a more normal fashion, with the extra space
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
You mean government desire, right?Defiance wrote:Never going to happen, nowhere near enough resourcing available for thatRon5 wrote:If the Dreadnoughts will be built in a different facility than the Astutes, does this allow the possibility of an 8th Astute?
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Not denying that, i'm saying the idea that if you wanted to build an 8th boat now there is zero capacity to build another 7000t+ boat without seriously compromising Dreadnoughts scheduling, it just is not possible.S M H wrote:If they had not slowed the production down we could of got 8 for a little increases in expenditure. They need to make sure that the production run for the new S.S.B.N.s is efficiently and not deliberately slowed down increasing cost overall.Defiance wrote:Never going to happen, nowhere near enough resourcing available for that
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Capacity of the yard. The scheduling pushed it all to the right and Dreadnought can't be held off any more, the time for an 8th boat is long gone and people need to accept that fact.Ron5 wrote:You mean government desire, right?Defiance wrote:Never going to happen, nowhere near enough resourcing available for thatRon5 wrote:If the Dreadnoughts will be built in a different facility than the Astutes, does this allow the possibility of an 8th Astute?
Last of the Astutes is on the way, steel has been cut on Dreadnought and you cannot just slide in the work on another 7000+t boat without causing major scheduling delays on Dreadnought.
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
The space in Devonshire hall would no permit the construction of a eighth S.S.N. The sections of the S.S.B.N.s and pure size means that if they follow the construction of the Vanguards they will only be space for two subs under construction. Last time they required more nuclear subs than Barrow could produce they built one at Birkenhead that would be impossible with modern construction safety requirements. So there will only be seven astute class subs.Defiance wrote:Capacity of the yard. The scheduling pushed it all to the right and Dreadnought can't be held off any more, the time for an 8th boat is long gone and people need to accept that fact.
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Exactly, that's what i'm saying; Barrow is at capacity.S M H wrote:The space in Devonshire hall would no permit the construction of a eighth S.S.N. The sections of the S.S.B.N.s and pure size means that if they follow the construction of the Vanguards they will only be space for two subs under construction. Last time they required more nuclear subs than Barrow could produce they built one at Birkenhead that would be impossible with modern construction safety requirements. So there will only be seven astute class subs.Defiance wrote:Capacity of the yard. The scheduling pushed it all to the right and Dreadnought can't be held off any more, the time for an 8th boat is long gone and people need to accept that fact.
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
The best chance of an 8th boat is during the Astute replacement program after the SSBNs. That would probably mean cutting steel for the new class as soon as HMS Dreadnought leaves the hall..
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Pretty much, it is literally impossible for it to happen before the Dreadnoughts are well underway and it's frustrating when it's described as such an easy thing to do. Would I like it? Sure would, but it ain't gunna happen.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Yes, the nuclear sub industry is a bespoke industry that is tuned to a certain demand, it takes a long time to ramp it up.
I forecast big challenges for the industry. Either the Astute are being replaced before the last Dreadnought's hit the water, or the Astute are life extended. Both of those are difficult scenarios.
HMS Astute was designed with a 25 year service life, entering service in 2010, means she will be out by 2035. The Dreadnought schedule is;
From their I'd advocate a Dreadnought derivative to keep things ticking over whilst a clean sheet SSN is developed.
I forecast big challenges for the industry. Either the Astute are being replaced before the last Dreadnought's hit the water, or the Astute are life extended. Both of those are difficult scenarios.
HMS Astute was designed with a 25 year service life, entering service in 2010, means she will be out by 2035. The Dreadnought schedule is;
- Dreadnought - 2030
- S33 - 2033
- S34 - 2035
- S35 - 2037
From their I'd advocate a Dreadnought derivative to keep things ticking over whilst a clean sheet SSN is developed.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
It is now easy to see why swapping to PWR3 for the late in the series boat(s) was planned at one pointshark bait wrote:HMS Astute was designed with a 25 year service life
"The PWR3 reactors, while £50 million more expensive per ship to buy and operate, offer enhanced safety measures and a simplified control and operation scheme. Furthermore, the PWR3’s would eventually become equal or cheaper than the existing PWR2 due to their longer life spans (rated for 25yrs with an optional 5yr extension)."
as just one would have made a huge difference
- as said , the plan was not adopted (perhaps due to "events" surfacing, after forming that plan)
- initial numbers drop (HMS Astute itself) would not have been avoided, but the gap filled sooner (how many boats in 5 yrs?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
They'll be extended, Dreadnought boats won't keep to schedule (not due to lack of effort) and it'll move to the right and the Astutes will have to be extended.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Dreadnought design was completed before the Government would sign off on the build, and now they have 13 years and a shit load of money to build it with.
I have confidence the project can keep to its schedule, which is not ambitious. It's much like when they rebaseline the CVF project, with realistic time and resources, since then it's kept close to the plan.
Previous leadership tended to push things through budgets with massively unrealistic resources, just to get them through and worry about the fallout later. The current approach is much more pragmatic, but painfully slow.
I have confidence the project can keep to its schedule, which is not ambitious. It's much like when they rebaseline the CVF project, with realistic time and resources, since then it's kept close to the plan.
Previous leadership tended to push things through budgets with massively unrealistic resources, just to get them through and worry about the fallout later. The current approach is much more pragmatic, but painfully slow.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Yep, made worse by the services doing that "in competition". Only the "too big to fail" projects survived and the rest got thrashed (hence the FRES project, to play the same game).shark bait wrote: tended to push things through budgets with massively unrealistic resources, just to get them through and worry about the fallout later. The current approach is much more pragmatic
But back to the topic, has it been published whether this (from globalsecurity) is part of the final design?
"The Advanced Hull Form (AHF) concept was a much more ambitious design model. It featured a Y-shaped stern in place of a more traditional design. It used modular design techniques and advanced hydrodynamic ideas. The resulting external hull form offered advantages in signatures, maneuvering, and safety. It also provides large volumes of space for payloads and equipment outside the pressure hull. This gives exceptional flexibility in design and operation, with the maximum capability for rapid role change or upgrading. Safety is enhanced by the hydrodynamic design, which offers improved maneuvering and emergency recovery compared with current designs. It is further improved through the external payload and equipment locations, which minimize hull penetrations and improve watertight integrity. The AHF was designed for low cost fabrication using largely flat or single curvature surfaces. This approach allows rapid repair and modification, providing the basis for a flexible and economical platform throughout its useable life."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Unknown in the opensource.
2 models made it into the opensource, one looks a lot like that the description above, the other looks more traditional. They have been dubbed 'design-X' and 'design-Y', I think the reason is clear.
Did some digging a while back, and unsurprisingly there wasn't a whisper of which concept has developed into Dreadnought.
2 models made it into the opensource, one looks a lot like that the description above, the other looks more traditional. They have been dubbed 'design-X' and 'design-Y', I think the reason is clear.
Did some digging a while back, and unsurprisingly there wasn't a whisper of which concept has developed into Dreadnought.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Have you got a source for that?shark bait wrote:Dreadnought design was completed before the Government would sign off on the build, and now they have 13 years and a shit load of money to build it with.
You've got more confidence than I have, there are always areas people are seeking to improve, that don't work practically, that require new techniques and experiences which may not exist.
Not that it's the fault of the yard, but they'll be asking more of Dreadnought than they did of Astute, I personally don't believe it's unreasonable to see delays.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
money...
is well known as Parliament sits on it:
"In February 2016, HM Treasury agreed, as set out in SDSR15, the further investment of £642 million in the Assessment Phase, including further submarine design de-risking and buying essential long-lead items for the fourth submarine. This will take the total cost of the Assessment Phase for the Successor submarine program to £3.9 billion. It was intended to pursue an incremental approval approach to this program, in order to maintain better control of cost. The programme estimate published in SDSR is for a 35-year period and includes £10B for contingencies."
Round figures, but you can guess what the long-lead items stretching out all the way to the 4th boat might be.
Design-wise: never seen anything more than what SB just put up. Number of tubes reduced (though bigger, each... coming in more divisible modules... a more compact (? I think this was contradicted) reactor design); it all sums up in lots of options.
is well known as Parliament sits on it:
"In February 2016, HM Treasury agreed, as set out in SDSR15, the further investment of £642 million in the Assessment Phase, including further submarine design de-risking and buying essential long-lead items for the fourth submarine. This will take the total cost of the Assessment Phase for the Successor submarine program to £3.9 billion. It was intended to pursue an incremental approval approach to this program, in order to maintain better control of cost. The programme estimate published in SDSR is for a 35-year period and includes £10B for contingencies."
Round figures, but you can guess what the long-lead items stretching out all the way to the 4th boat might be.
Design-wise: never seen anything more than what SB just put up. Number of tubes reduced (though bigger, each... coming in more divisible modules... a more compact (? I think this was contradicted) reactor design); it all sums up in lots of options.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Agreed, there is plenty of money on the table, it's the other two bits I took issue with. Astute took 10 years which granted had issues getting going, but Dreadnought is more than twice the size, is expected to do what Astute can do and more, as well as being more advanced, more stealthy, more efficient etcArmChairCivvy wrote:money...
is well known as Parliament sits on it:
{snip}
Round figures, but you can guess what the long-lead items stretching out all the way to the 4th boat might be.
Just feels like 3 years doesn't seem like a lot of leeway, it'd be less than that if Vanguard leaves on schedule and they want to keep the 4 boats.
Didn't mean specifics, wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't public until she's together enough for some publicity snaps in the DDH, more about that the design was complete. Signed off with a level of confidence is one thing, complete is another.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Design-wise: never seen anything more than what SB just put up. Number of tubes reduced (though bigger, each... coming in more divisible modules... a more compact (? I think this was contradicted) reactor design); it all sums up in lots of options.
It might've been me taking away the wrong message from SB (apologies in advance if so), but it read as though she was designed and now it's just an assembly exercise, i simply do not believe that is the case.
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
Got some specifications for the new Dreadnought class SSBN's off Wikipedia:
Now Building: 1
Planned: 4
Completed: 0
Type: Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement: 17,200 t (16,900 long tons; 19,000 short tons)
Length: 152.9 metres (502 ft)
Propulsion: Nuclear reactor, turbo-electric drive, pump-jet
Range: Unlimited
Complement: 130
Armament: 12 × ballistic missile tubes for 12 Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each). Torpedo tubes and torpedo type and numbers not specified as yet.
The current Vanguard Class SSBN's for comparison:
Now Building: 0
Planned: 4
Completed: 4
Type: Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement: 15,900 t (15,600 long tons; 17,500 short tons)
Length: 149.9 m (491 ft 10 inches)
Propulsion: 1 × Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, 2 × GEC turbines; 27,500 shp (20.5 MW), 1 × shaft, pump jet propulsor, 2 × auxiliary retractable propulsion motors, 2 × WH Allen turbo generators (6 MW), 2 × Paxman diesel alternators; 2,700 shp (2.0 MW)
Range: Unlimited
Complement: 135
Armament: 4 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes for: Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes. 16 × ballistic missile tubes for: 16 Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each)
Now Building: 1
Planned: 4
Completed: 0
Type: Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement: 17,200 t (16,900 long tons; 19,000 short tons)
Length: 152.9 metres (502 ft)
Propulsion: Nuclear reactor, turbo-electric drive, pump-jet
Range: Unlimited
Complement: 130
Armament: 12 × ballistic missile tubes for 12 Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each). Torpedo tubes and torpedo type and numbers not specified as yet.
The current Vanguard Class SSBN's for comparison:
Now Building: 0
Planned: 4
Completed: 4
Type: Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement: 15,900 t (15,600 long tons; 17,500 short tons)
Length: 149.9 m (491 ft 10 inches)
Propulsion: 1 × Rolls-Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, 2 × GEC turbines; 27,500 shp (20.5 MW), 1 × shaft, pump jet propulsor, 2 × auxiliary retractable propulsion motors, 2 × WH Allen turbo generators (6 MW), 2 × Paxman diesel alternators; 2,700 shp (2.0 MW)
Range: Unlimited
Complement: 135
Armament: 4 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes for: Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes. 16 × ballistic missile tubes for: 16 Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
It's Wiki, what do we expectdmereifield wrote:So the dreadnought class will not be armed with torpedos?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN
It will almost certainly have torpedo tubes.
Better to go with 6 tubes like the Astute, rather than the 4 on the Vanguard to the design is ready to be shortened for a follow on hunter killer class.
Better to go with 6 tubes like the Astute, rather than the 4 on the Vanguard to the design is ready to be shortened for a follow on hunter killer class.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29