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 wrote: never seen this before, any body have any ideas?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rexit.htmlFrench 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.
xav wrote:France to Continue to Assist UK for SSBN Hydrodynamic Testing Despite Brexithttp://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rexit.htmlFrench 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.
matt00773 wrote:doesn't surprise me in the slightest given that the EU has nothing to do with defence
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"
matt00773 wrote:clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). ... to aid and assist it by all the means in their power"
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”
matt00773 wrote:as this is done through NATO and other agreements - e.g. Sweden.
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?
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
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
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.
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
87 The first new boat is to be delivered by 2028, or about four years later than
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
(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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: dwardt7270 and 11 guests