UK Defence Forum

Cameron tells the party conference that we will be building four (4) in number successor submarines !

jonas wrote:Cameron tells the party conference that we will be building four (4) in number successor submarines !

David Cameron also said the government will spend 2% of GDP on defence and will order four new Trident submarines.

"Our independent nuclear deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy – this Government will order four new Trident submarines."

– DAVID CAMERON

Corbyn's done Cameron one heck of a favour with his stance on Trident. The cost argument has gone right out of the window and now it's a simple matter of standing up for the defence of the country or being a Hamas loving national security risk.

Well done Jeremy. Well done. <<slow handclap>>

Well I thought it might be nice to bring back some names that haven't been used. So thought of a Trafalgar class chosen from ship names that were there. But of course we recently had a Trafalgar class.

So how about a Falklands class populated by ships that were there:

Fearless, Intrepid, Brilliant, Broadsword (help keep the Scots on side?); Avenger (good name for an SSBN); Argonaut; Conqueror; Courageous;
etc

Plenty of good names there

Since we won't be building any additional T45s, how about we use some great names beginning with 'D' such as Defiant, Dreadnought, Devastation, Destruction or perhaps even Desperate!

Enigmatically wrote:Well I thought it might be nice to bring back some names that haven't been used. So thought of a Trafalgar class chosen from ship names that were there. But of course we recently had a Trafalgar class.

So how about a Falklands class populated by ships that were there:

Fearless, Intrepid, Brilliant, Broadsword (help keep the Scots on side?); Avenger (good name for an SSBN); Argonaut; Conqueror; Courageous;
etc

Plenty of good names there

OMG, you will have Christina screaming and shouting in the UN if we did that.

TPC1975 wrote:Since we won't be building any additional T45s, how about we use some great names beginning with 'D' such as Defiant, Dreadnought, Devastation, Destruction or perhaps even Desperate!

Sorry those names are quite out of the question, far to aggressive for this day and age. There would be an outcry from the 'Corbynistas' 'LibDems' 'Greens' 'SNP' 'CND' and any other of the numerous 'anti anything violent' brigade.

"S" for submarine names (S coincides with S Nato code for submarine), coincidently, S for Successor
"A" for the Astute class submarines
"D" for T45 destroyers (D coincides with D Nato code for Destroyer)
"E" for Echo Class survey ships
"F" for T26 frigates (F coincides with F Nato code for Frigate)

SKB wrote:"S" for submarine names (S coincides with S Nato code for submarine), coincidently, S for Successor

You could reuse some names from the Swiftsure class. How about the Sovereign class made up of Sovereign, Superb, Sceptre and Spartan?

It has to be politically correct, the S class could have flower names like saffron sage salal and sandwort

seaspear wrote:It has to be politically correct, the S class could have flower names like saffron sage salal and sandwort

I'm not sure that your idea of political correctness entirely matches the reality of it in our nation.

The speculation is on Mr Corbyns idea of political corectness

Work starts on Barow complex :-

http://www.bfbs.com/news/articles/navy/4829

Barrow yard video

I wonder what it was I posted at 0843

............... .....

How long has it been known that Successor will be 16,000 tonnes, or is this new info?
The Vanguards were 15,900 tonnes submerged.

CMC will give new options in arranging it (as it is more modular). So the common speculation is that we will get a slightly fatter Astute... nothing's been published (try to look up the names of the people on the programme, and they have been withheld, too, unlike on all other major defence procurement prgrms... reminds me of the fact that the gvmnt website people have not answered my question whether the blanks are for security purposes, or indicate vacancies).

The Armchair Soldier wrote: How long has it been known that Successor will be 16,000 tonnes, or is this new info?
The Vanguards were 19,500 tonnes submerged.

I can't recall it being mentioned before.
Just a note, the vanguard displacement is listed as 16,000 tonnes on wiki. Perhaps it isn't beyond the work experience PR of the MOD to just cut and paste that figure.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:CMC will give new options in arranging it (as it is more modular). So the common speculation is that we will get a slightly fatter Astute...

There is alot of that speculation, but I'm not sure where it comes form. I have read nothing official that suggests this. It would seem silly to base your most sensitive and important weapon system on last decades technology.

The vague indications for the design I have seen surround 2 concepts that where being analysed. The first radical hull form that is a 'Y' shape. The second is a traditional shaped sub. Both are incorporating lessons learned from Astute, adopting the same modular desigw philosophy, but will ultimately be a brand new design.

shark bait wrote:

The Armchair Soldier wrote: How long has it been known that Successor will be 16,000 tonnes, or is this new info?
The Vanguards were 19,500 tonnes submerged.

I can't recall it being mentioned before.
Just a note, the vanguard displacement is listed as 16,000 tonnes on wiki. Perhaps it isn't beyond the work experience PR of the MOD to just cut and paste that figure.

Sorry, I'm half asleep, you're right. The Wiki figure is 15,900 not 19,500. I amended my post.

Can't recall which document it was, but the 16.000+ tons figure is official and has indeed been known for a while. Surprisingly enough, the Successor will be somewhat larger and heavier than Vanguard despite having 4 less Trident tubes and, probably, a smaller crew.

The dimensional and weight limits have anyway been set to avoid having to do too much infrastructure work in Faslane, Coulport etcetera, though. It will fit where a Vanguard fits, that's the idea.

The front will be, if not Astute-like, very much an Astute derivative. Same number of torpedo tubes, same weapons capability, same sonar, same "conventional" part of the combat system (at least so said the document back at the time) to allow crewmen to move without difficulty from Astute to Successor and vice versa.

The rear, CMC aside, will be quite different due to PWR3, X control surfaces and other upgrades.

Defence secretary's speech @-

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon: Keeping Our Future Afloat Campaign

From:
Ministry of Defence and The Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP
Delivered on:
21 October 2015 (Original script, may differ from delivered version)
Location:
House of Commons
First published:
21 October 2015

The Defence Secretary affirmed the Government's commitment to the Successor submarine programme at a reception in the House of Commons today.
The Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP

[Check against delivery]

My first speech as Defence Secretary was at this event last year and I’m delighted to be back.

And to see many familiar faces united by a belief in the value of our shipbuilding industry and the importance of our deterrent.

This great capability is kept afloat by people whether operating above or beneath the oceans, whether procuring our ships and submarines, or whether maintaining them at peak performance.

Thank you all for what you’re doing to keep our country safe.

For our part, we’ve committed to building four successor ballistic missile submarines to replace the four Vanguard boats and retain the continuous at sea nuclear deterrent patrols.

And not a moment too soon.

Cold war certainties have been replaced by an unpredictable new nuclear age defined by weapons proliferation, more nuclear states, and rogue nations wanting nuclear weapons and the technology to develop them.

An expansionist Russia is commissioning a new class of eight ballistic missile submarines. We’ve watched North Korea carry out nuclear tests and ballistic missiles tests.

When there are 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world we can’t wish away threats that may emerge in the 2030s, 2040s, and 2050s.

As the threats multiply, two risks to our delivery remain.

First, the prospect of the collective resolve that has sustained our deterrent for 60 years weakening.

In recent weeks we’ve heard worrying challenges to the nuclear consensus.

The Government’s first duty is protection of the UK and we know complacency is the enemy of security.

There has been a consensus by governments of all colours for over 60 years. It was Attlee and Bevin who argued for a nuclear deterrent with ‘a Union Jack’ on the top of it.

Former NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson and others – including John Woodcock who we heard from earlier - champion it.

Today I appeal to all moderate MPs, to put our national security first and to support building four new Trident submarines.

I want to ensure that Parliament will stand full square behind the deterrent as they did in the votes in January this year and back in 2007.

That needs us restate the case for this industry and the value of the deterrent – making the arguments to people who may be hearing them for the first time.

The case is three-fold:

First and foremost, it’s about deterrence.

It is not designed to stop a 9/11 type tragedy – its purpose is to deter state-sponsored terror and to counter nuclear blackmail.

Those threats have not gone away.

Just as we didn’t predict the rise of a revanchist Russia it would be folly to assume that nuclear danger will disappear in 2030s, 2040s, or 2050s. The UK must have a credible, operationally independent, continuous-at-sea deterrent.

Secondly, it’s about realism.

Our challenge is to create the conditions where nuclear weapons are no longer considered essential for our security or that of our NATO allies.

Yet despite taking our nuclear non-proliferation obligations seriously; despite reducing our stockpile by over half from the height of the cold war; and despite reducing the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, emerging states have not stopped seeking nuclear capability.

Thirdly, it’s about reinforcing our supply chain.

From Barrow to Berkshire, from the North of Scotland to the South of England thousands owe their livelihoods to this industry.

Let’s be clear about the scale of this undertaking.

Building four 16,000 tonnes submarines is a national endeavour. It is a project that is around nearly twice the budget of Crossrail. It is around three times the budget of the London Olympics.

Spread across the 30 year life of the new boats, this represents an annual insurance premium of around 0.13 per cent of total Government spending.

And we get a lot out for what we put in.

I was struck by a map I saw at the party conference showing companies, large and small, criss-crossing the country, which I see is on display here.

Yet our investment does more than support our supply chain.

It strengthens our world-class advanced manufacturing skills base by keeping our Royal Navy at the cutting edge and inspiring the future brains of Britain - the next generation of engineers, technicians, software developers and designers.

But what of the other risk to our deterrent?

The prospect of industry failing to deliver.

For 46 years our deterrent has been used every day to keep Britain safe. If we are to continue that there is no room for delay.

Be in no doubt – our new conventional submarines are late but our new ballistic submarines can’t be.

There can be …no failure to meet build times …no overrunning costs …no excuses.

Our adversaries are certainly not going to wait

So our shipbuilding industry and our deterrent have never been more vital.

We’ve committed to this programme and now we must press on.

That requires nationwide effort. Politicians, unions, and the business community putting aside politics in the national interest.

Let’s work together to strengthen the consensus, to strengthen our industry and to deliver not just world-class submarines but the security and prosperity that follow in their wake.

"30 year life"

Does that suggest the new reactors will be longer lived than the current gen?

shark bait wrote:"30 year life"

Does that suggest the new reactors will be longer lived than the current gen?

It is one of the promises of PWR3.