UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Dreadnought Class SSBN

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Jul 2017, 09:43

shark bait wrote:the design is ready to be shortened for a follow on hunter killer class.


A bit fat for that? More would need to be done, but certainly: what is inside will be directly applicable

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Timmymagic » 07 Jul 2017, 11:42

"Reports on the Royal Navy Dreadnought-class submarine (i.e., the class that will replace the Vanguard class SSBNs) state that the submarines may have submarine shaftless drive (SSD) with an electric motor mounted outside the pressure hull.[51] SSD was evaluated by the U.S. Navy as well but it remains unknown whether the Ohio class replacement will feature it"

This is from the Wiki on the Columbia Class. Which looks to be roughly the same size as Dreadnought. I've never seen this before, any body have any ideas?

sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby sea_eagle » 13 Jul 2017, 18:01

While we wait for the new SSBN's to arrive I thought this was of interest. The boats need weapons and these are made and maintained at Atomic Weapons Establishment.
Over the last few years a substantial modernisation programme is underway. Although details are scarce I understand that so far £4bn has been spent and another £1bn is in progress upgrading the production facility. This budget is separate from the SSBN programme.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-announces-investment-in-nuclear-facilities

This site used to be RAF Aldermaston until 1950 when the AWE was established.

Here is a pic from 1964 and 2014 to see how the site has grown over the original airfield:
5-Aldermaston-1964.jpg

5b-Aldermaston-2014.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Jul 2017, 18:21

Timmymagic wrote: never seen this before, any body have any ideas?


Did the Red October have it? The idea replicating some worm species has been around for a long time.
- cooling inside the sub's body and the propeller generated noises; those are the two that need the attention

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5295
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby SKB » 13 Jul 2017, 18:42


'Engage the shilent drive!'

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1052
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby xav » 31 Jul 2017, 16:49

France to Continue to Assist UK for SSBN Hydrodynamic Testing Despite Brexit
French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly said that despite Brexit, France will continue to assist the United Kingdom for the hydrodynamic tests of the Successor SSBN program. The minister made the declaration last week during a visit to French defense procurement agency (DGA) "Techniques Hydrodynamiques", a hydrodynamic test facility in Normandy with the largest towing tank in Europe.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rexit.html

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby matt00773 » 31 Jul 2017, 17:06

xav wrote:France to Continue to Assist UK for SSBN Hydrodynamic Testing Despite Brexit
French Minister of the Armed Forces Florence Parly said that despite Brexit, France will continue to assist the United Kingdom for the hydrodynamic tests of the Successor SSBN program. The minister made the declaration last week during a visit to French defense procurement agency (DGA) "Techniques Hydrodynamiques", a hydrodynamic test facility in Normandy with the largest towing tank in Europe.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rexit.html


This doesn't surprise me in the slightest given that the EU has nothing to do with defence and exiting such an organisation would have zero impact on any military arrangements made between its members/ex-members.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Jul 2017, 17:32

matt00773 wrote:doesn't surprise me in the slightest given that the EU has nothing to do with defence


Heh-heh [sorry, not meaning to be personal, but a widely held misperception:}
"The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between EU countries in dealing with ... a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). ... to aid and assist it by all the means in their power"

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby matt00773 » 31 Jul 2017, 18:27

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
matt00773 wrote:doesn't surprise me in the slightest given that the EU has nothing to do with defence


Heh-heh [sorry, not meaning to be personal, but a widely held misperception:}
"The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between EU countries in dealing with ... a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). ... to aid and assist it by all the means in their power"


Assisting in aid is not the same as coordinating the development of weapons between member states nor acting as a controlling entity for defence across the EU. It effectively reiterates the UN charter...

“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter”

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Jul 2017, 18:47

matt00773 wrote:clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). ... to aid and assist it by all the means in their power"


France evoked this one

matt00773 wrote:the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter”


whereas it was left to the powers of UN SecGenerals to try to evoke this one ... when the Cold War was about to get hot, any time

How do you compare... or is that too much of a pop song?

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby matt00773 » 31 Jul 2017, 20:21

I'll make it easier for you: defence and aid are two different things. In giving aid however, a state may be utilising their defence resources and capabilities - depending on what aid is required. The UK would go to the aid of France in any case and as it has done so through the ages.

The EU has no joint defence arrangement between member states as this is done through NATO and other agreements - e.g. Sweden. It is not part of what the EU is responsible for. It does seem though that the remaining EU states may implement such a defence function when the UK leaves...

In relation to the article, its just another "despite Brexit" load of nonsense which creates a false viewpoint of the EU other than what it is.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Jul 2017, 20:39

matt00773 wrote:as this is done through NATO and other agreements - e.g. Sweden.


You were very kind with your leading in words "I'll make it easier for you"; I wonder what you mean with the substance... if anything at all?

matt00773
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby matt00773 » 31 Jul 2017, 21:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
matt00773 wrote:as this is done through NATO and other agreements - e.g. Sweden.


You were very kind with your leading in words "I'll make it easier for you"; I wonder what you mean with the substance... if anything at all?


I'll leave this to you to figure out...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Jul 2017, 21:19

matt00773 wrote:I'll leave this to you to figure out...


So, none there...

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1475
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 31 Jul 2017, 22:21

Yeah, let's leave it now. Back to discussing the SSBNs.

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Zealot » 25 Sep 2017, 19:40

A rather interesting insight into the ongoing co-operation between the UK and the US on past, current and future nuclear tech for both ICBMs and SSN/SSBN.

Appendix B. U.S.-UK Cooperation on SLBMs and
the New UK SSBN
This appendix provides background information on U.S.-UK cooperation on SLBMs and the
UK’s next-generation SSBN, previously called the Successor-class SSBN and now called the
Dreadnought-class SSBN.
The UK’s four Vanguard-class SSBNs, which entered service in 1993-1999, each carry 16 Trident
II D-5 SLBMs. Previous classes of UK SSBNs similarly carried earlier-generation U.S. SLBMs.83
The UK’s use of U.S.-made SLBMs on its SSBNs is one element of a long-standing close
cooperation between the two countries on nuclear-related issues that is carried out under the 1958
Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes (also
known as the Mutual Defense Agreement). Within the framework established by the 1958
agreement, cooperation on SLBMs in particular is carried out under the 1963 Polaris Sales
Agreement and a 1982 Exchange of Letters between the two governments.84 The Navy testified in

83 Although the SLBMs on UK SSBNs are U.S.-made, the nuclear warheads on the missiles are of UK design and
manufacture.
84 A March 18, 2010, report by the UK Parliament’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee stated:
During the Cold War, the UK’s nuclear co-operation with the United States was considered to be at
the heart of the [UK-U.S.] ‘special relationship’. This included the 1958 Mutual Defence
Agreement, the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (PSA) (subsequently amended for Trident), and the
UK’s use of the US nuclear test site in Nevada from 1962 to 1992. The co-operation also
encompassed agreements for the United States to use bases in Britain, with the right to store
nuclear weapons, and agreements for two bases in Yorkshire (Fylingdales and Menwith Hill) to be
upgraded to support US missile defence plans.
In 1958, the UK and US signed the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA). Although some of the
appendices, amendments and Memoranda of Understanding remain classified, it is known that the
agreement provides for extensive co-operation on nuclear warhead and reactor technologies, in
particular the exchange of classified information concerning nuclear weapons to improve design,
development and fabrication capability. The agreement also provides for the transfer of nuclear
warhead-related materials. The agreement was renewed in 2004 for another ten years.
The other major UK-US agreement in this field is the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (PSA) which
allows the UK to acquire, support and operate the US Trident missile system. Originally signed to
allow the UK to acquire the Polaris Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) system in the
1960s, it was amended in 1980 to facilitate purchase of the Trident I (C4) missile and again in 1982
to authorise purchase of the more advanced Trident II (D5) in place of the C4. In return, the UK
agreed to formally assign its nuclear forces to the defence of NATO, except in an extreme national
emergency, under the terms of the 1962 Nassau Agreement reached between President John F.
Kennedy and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to facilitate negotiation of the PSA.
Current nuclear co-operation takes the form of leasing arrangements of around 60 Trident II D5
missiles from the US for the UK’s independent deterrent, and long-standing collaboration on the
design of the W76 nuclear warhead carried on UK missiles. In 2006 it was revealed that the US and
the UK had been working jointly on a new ‘Reliable Replacement Warhead’ (RRW) that would
modernise existing W76-style designs. In 2009 it emerged that simulation testing at Aldermaston
on dual axis hydrodynamics experiments had provided the US with scientific data it did not
otherwise possess on this RRW programme.
The level of co-operation between the two countries on highly sensitive military technology is,
according to the written submission from Ian Kearns, “well above the norm, even for a close
alliance relationship”. He quoted Admiral William Crowe, the former US Ambassador to London,
who likened the UK-US nuclear relationship to that of an iceberg, “with a small tip of it sticking
out, but beneath the water there is quite a bit of everyday business that goes on between our two
governments in a fashion that’s unprecedented in the world.” Dr Kearns also commented that the
personal bonds between the US/UK scientific and technical establishments were deeply rooted.
(continued...)
Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Program
Congressional Research Service 45
March 2010 that “the United States and the United Kingdom have maintained a shared
commitment to nuclear deterrence through the Polaris Sales Agreement since April 1963. The
U.S. will continue to maintain its strong strategic relationship with the UK for our respective
follow-on platforms, based upon the Polaris Sales Agreement.”85
The first Vanguard-class SSBN was originally projected to reach the end of its service life in
2024, but an October 2010 UK defense and security review report states that the lives of the
Vanguard class ships will now be extended by a few years, so that the four boats will remain in
service into the late 2020s and early 2030s.86
The UK plans to replace the four Vanguard-class boats with three or four next-generation
Dreadnought-class boats are to be equipped with 12 missile launch tubes, but current UK plans
call for each boat to carry eight D-5 SLBMs, with the other four tubes not being used for SLBMs.
The report states that “‘Main Gate’—the decision to start building the submarines—is required
around 2016.”
87 The first new boat is to be delivered by 2028, or about four years later than
previously planned.88
The United States is assisting the UK with certain aspects of the Dreadnought SSBN program. In
addition to the modular Common Missile Compartment (CMC), the United States is assisting the
UK with the new PWR-3 reactor plant89 to be used by the Dreadnought SSBN. A December 2011
press report states that “there has been strong [UK] collaboration with the US [on the
Dreadnought program], particularly with regard to the CMC, the PWR, and other propulsion
technology,” and that the design concept selected for the Dreadnought class employs “a new
propulsion plant based on a US design, but using next-generation UK reactor technology (PWR-
3) and modern secondary propulsion systems.”90 The U.S. Navy states that
Naval Reactors, a joint Department of Energy/Department of Navy organization
responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion, has an ongoing technical
exchange with the UK Ministry of Defence under the US/UK 1958 Mutual Defence

(...continued)
(House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report Global Security: UK-US Relations,
March 18, 2010, paragraphs 131-135; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/
cmselect/cmfaff/114/11402.htm; paragraphs 131-135 are included in the section of the report
available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11406.htm.)
See also “U.K. Stays Silent on Nuclear-Arms Pact Extension with United States,” Global Security Newswire
(www.nti.org/gsn), July 30, 2014.
85 Statement of Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, Before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee [on] FY2011 Strategic Systems, March 17, 2010, p. 6.
86 Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, October 2010, p. 39.
87 Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, October 2010, pp. 5, 38-39. For more on the UK’s Dreadnought
SSBN program as it existed prior to the October 2010 UK defense and security review report, see Richard Scott,
“Deterrence At A Discount?” Jane’s Defence Weekly, December 23, 2009: 26-31.
88 Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, October 2010, p. 39.
89 PWR3 means pressurized water reactor, design number 3. U.S. and UK nuclear-powered submarines employ
pressurized water reactors. Earlier UK nuclear-powered submarines are powered by reactor designs that the UK
designated PWR-2 and PWR-1. For an article discussing the PWR3 plant, see Richard Scott, “Critical Mass: ReEnergising
the UK’s Naval Nuclear Programme,” Jane’s International Defence Review, July 2014: 42-45, 47.
90 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets: Deterrent Plans Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy
International, December 2011: 17 and 18.
Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Program
Congressional Research Service 46
Agreement. The US/UK 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement is a Government to
Government Atomic Energy Act agreement that allows the exchange of naval nuclear
propulsion technology between the US and UK.
Under this agreement, Naval Reactors is providing the UK Ministry of Defence with US
naval nuclear propulsion technology to facilitate development of the naval nuclear
propulsion plant for the UK’s next generation SUCCESSOR ballistic missile submarine.
The technology exchange is managed and led by the US and UK Governments, with
participation from Naval Reactors prime contractors, private nuclear capable
shipbuilders, and several suppliers. A UK based office comprised of about 40 US
personnel provide full-time engineering support for the exchange, with additional support
from key US suppliers and other US based program personnel as needed.
The relationship between the US and UK under the 1958 mutual defence agreement is an
ongoing relationship and the level of support varies depending on the nature of the
support being provided. Naval Reactors work supporting the SUCCESSOR submarine is
reimbursed by the UK Ministry of Defence.91
U.S. assistance to the UK on naval nuclear propulsion technology first occurred many years ago:
To help jumpstart the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine program, the United States transferred to
the UK a complete nuclear propulsion plant (plus technical data, spares, and training) of the kind
installed on the U.S. Navy’s six Skipjack (SSN-585) class nuclear-powered attack submarines
(SSNs), which entered service between 1959 and 1961. The plant was installed on the UK Navy’s
first nuclear-powered ship, the attack submarine Dreadnought, which entered service in 1963.
The December 2011 press report states that “the UK is also looking at other areas of cooperation
between Dreadnought and the Ohio Replacement Programme. For example, a collaboration
agreement has been signed off regarding the platform integration of sonar arrays with the
respective combat systems.”92
A June 24, 2016, press report states:
The [U.S. Navy] admiral responsible for the nuclear weapons component of ballistic
missile submarines today praised the “truly unique” relationship with the British naval
officers who have similar responsibilities, and said that historic cooperation would not be
affected by Thursday’s vote to have the United Kingdom leave the European Union.
Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, said that
based on a telephone exchange Thursday morning with his Royal Navy counterpart, “I
have no concern.” The so-called Brexit vote—for British exit—“was a decision based on
its relationship with Europe, not with us. I see yesterday’s vote having no effect.”93

91 Source: Email to CRS from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, June 25, 2012. See also Jon Rosamond, “Next
Generation U.K. Boomers Benefit from U.S. Relationship,” USNI News (http://news.usni.org), December 17, 2014.
92 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets: Deterrent Plans Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy
International, December 2011: 19. See also Jake Wallis Simons, “Brits Keep Mum on US Involvement in Trident
Nuclear Program,” Politico, April 30, 2015.
93 Otto Kreisher, “Benedict: UK Exit From European Union Won’t Hinder Nuclear Sub Collaboration,” USNI News,
June 24, 2016.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 26 Sep 2017, 08:32

The agreement certainly buys our way into lots of things, it’s well worth it just to keep our nuclear industry on life support, never mind the rest.

It’s amazing how the UK has gone from leader of the pack to having to modify a friends design to scrape by on reactor design. That’s not to discredit the Nuclear Engineers in Derby, the UK now has its own design that has diverged from the American design, with certain elements still developed in parallel.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Dahedd » 26 Sep 2017, 11:23

I'm starting to think we need to ditch the Trident boats. Maybe look at a minimal land based deterrent instead. Funnel the cash into the conventional navy. Let's face it we are never going to use the bloody things.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 26 Sep 2017, 11:28

A land based deterrent, is no deterrent at all. Its either an under water deterrent, or no deterrent.

We should also never cut the deterrent.
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1181
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Sep 2017, 12:01

We Defo need to keep the SSBN deterent as to be honest it's one of the few things that keeps our seat on the UN sercurity council.
But it does at least needs to be part funded ( I'd say 50% ) by other departments, simply it is more of a political tool than any thing else it serves no real military purpose for the RN. This is where the foreign office should be picking up the bill.

If I read it right the SSBNs are going to cost around the £8bn mark, if so and other departments picked up half that bill that's £4bn extra the RN gets to spend else where they could do a lot with that money

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 26 Sep 2017, 12:16

That's clutching at straws now, the deterrent should definitely be under the MOD budget.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Dahedd » 26 Sep 2017, 13:05

Sharkbait, why is a land based deterrent not a deterrent? Either way it's still a big fuck off missile with a nuclear warhead.

I'd rather keep the Dreadnoughts but if it was a choice between them & a better, bigger navy then the subs should go. The funding for the deterrent should never have been brought into the core navy budget in the first place.

Defiance
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Defiance » 26 Sep 2017, 13:13

Dahedd wrote:Sharkbait, why is a land based deterrent not a deterrent? Either way it's still a big fuck off missile with a nuclear warhead.


NIMBYs (you think people kick up a stink about wind turbines? . . . . ) and vulnerabilities of having a limited number of missiles in extremely well documented locations.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby Dahedd » 26 Sep 2017, 13:21

Lol stick on an island in the Thames. Was never a problem being so close to Glasgow ;)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Dreadnought Class SSBN

Postby shark bait » 26 Sep 2017, 13:22

Where in the UK can you hide a "big fuck off missile with a nuclear warhead"?

If it can be seen its vulnerable.
If its vulnerable it isn't a credible deterrent.

Not to mention land based is also much less safe. A land based deterrent must respond before an impact, opening it up to the possibility of responding to false positives, and unnecessarily ending civilization. A sub launched deterrent has time on its side because, submarines are invulnerable to a first strike, giving command time to properly verify and respond.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo, Jdam and 18 guests