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

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

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

Post by Spinflight »

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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.
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

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.
@LandSharkUK

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

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

Post by Spinflight »

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

This will cost billions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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 :roll: .
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

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.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

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. :P

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

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.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

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. :P

Seconded.
:thumbup:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

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?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

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.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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 :)
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

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.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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?
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply