This is a discussion on The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by ASSAIL
There's ample discussion in the RAN thread about why we won't be getting SSN's and you ...
There's ample discussion in the RAN thread about why we won't be getting SSN's and you should read that.
The most compelling reason is however, that we do not and will not have an industrial nuclear capability or expertise. The irony is though, that if we ever battled climate change with our heads and not our hearts, we should be a major player.
The Collins class combat system is almost identical to the Virginia SSGN's and our relationship in subs is so close that it would be insane to even think about Astutes.
There are plenty of supporters for leasing Virginias on the thread with very cogent arguments for it if the RAN ever chose to ease into the Nuc sub business.
I think others here have called it correctly, the cooperation spoken of by our respective ministers is most likely to involve planning, design and manufacturing assistance for our next generation of SSG's.
Hi Assail
Seems the Smile inserted at the end of the line has gone AWOL new someone would bite.
Been reading the site for years and yes read all the comments but not bothered to comment on RAN problems (we have enough of our own) it just seems more than a little daft to continue pretending that you can adequately cover the vast area you need to with conventional SM’s IMHO. Not saying the RAN would buy Astute or any SSN just saying that it is one of very few countries we would sell to and yes I had noticed you buy American and suspect they have SSN's like Astute that come with reactors that do not need refuelling.
Deepsixteen
Last edited by deepsixteen; January 20th, 2013 at 02:22 PM.
Reason: Curses smiles disappear and leave a red cross when posting!
There is an intense debate going on the future of RN SSBN.
My own idea would be why not build 11 boats alike each carrying 8 ICBM's and the rest being conventional missiles like Tomahawk.The advantages are:
1. Since it is 11 instead of 4 the chances of hunting down All 11 wil be considerably less
2. Uniform design means fewer design constraints as opposed to having two separate designs and also the procurement and throughlife support costs can be calculated more realistically
3. 11 hulls intead of 4 may also reduce the procurement and maintenance costs
On the down side we need more security since compromising even 1 will have serious consequences.But then again even trying to sabotage an astute class submarine is close to impossible.
The whole fleet becomes nuclear armed or potentially nuclear armed. This has considerable implications for crewing, security, & deployment.
I would imagine the cost of procurement would massively increase as well because instead of 7 large hunter killers and 4 Massive SSBNs you have 11 SSBNs that are smaller than the 4 you would be buying, but 7 hulls that are much larger than the hunter killer hulls they would replace. Overall the displacement of the fleet would almost certainly be much larger for the same number of hulls.
With the recent publicity that the USN SSBNs won't be multi-rolled on cost grounds I would imagine the unit cost of these 11 SSBN/SSNs would be eye-wateringly expensive.
Last edited by kev 99; January 23rd, 2013 at 08:20 AM.
Total non-starter, as you'd have to build a fleet of 16Kt size boats, all equipped with common missile compartments. SSBN's are very different beasties than attack boats and there's no way I'd fancy taking a Successor inshore with Chalfont attached for instance.
Add to which, there are several large areas of the world where it's poor form to take a nuclear armed submarine (the entire South Atlantic for one) so there'd have to be some protocol to demonstrate they weren't so armed for those places.
There is an intense debate going on the future of RN SSBN.
My own idea would be why not build 11 boats alike each carrying 8 ICBM's and the rest being conventional missiles like Tomahawk.The advantages are:
1. Since it is 11 instead of 4 the chances of hunting down All 11 wil be considerably less
2. Uniform design means fewer design constraints as opposed to having two separate designs and also the procurement and throughlife support costs can be calculated more realistically
3. 11 hulls intead of 4 may also reduce the procurement and maintenance costs
On the down side we need more security since compromising even 1 will have serious consequences.But then again even trying to sabotage an astute class submarine is close to impossible.
Hi Resolute, just to give some context to what the guys are saying and help you understand the costs just two of the additional systems required on an SSBN are the hover and missile compensation systems.
Hovering a 16000 ton boat at launch depth in any weather is a none trivial task which has a system all of its own, computers sensors tanks control valves hull valves pump etc.Missile compensation systems are similar and imagine a system sized to cope with ripple firing trident missiles.
Remember it’s not just about purchasing the systems it’s the whole life cost of maintaining them you should also think about the cost of propelling the extra tonnage around with respect to getting the balance right between reactor life/size/power.
Finally BN’s stay out of harms way as far as possible but from an SSN point of view you have massively increased the number of hull valves many very much larger than critical whole size.
Deepsixteen
Last edited by deepsixteen; January 23rd, 2013 at 05:51 PM.
Reason: formatting
Total non-starter, as you'd have to build a fleet of 16Kt size boats, all equipped with common missile compartments.
I am not suggesting building 11 16000 ton boats.
My suggestion is try and build 11 boats no greater than 10000 tons and push the design as much so that each boat carries only 8 icbms and the rest being conventionals.
I am not suggesting building 11 16000 ton boats.
My suggestion is try and build 11 boats no greater than 10000 tons and push the design as much so that each boat carries only 8 icbms and the rest being conventionals.
Think of it this way.
A submarine is a cylinder, that cylinder needs a much larger diameter if it is going to be carrying vertically launched SLBM's than it would if it was launching (for example) either vertically or horizontally (torpedo tube) launched Tomahawk missiles and Torpedoes.
SSBN's tend to run larger reactors than SSN's, whether that is due to increased generation requirements or the ability to run the reactor at reduced load to reduce cooling pump requirements I don't know.
Now lets say that we are starting with an Astute class submarine, and lets assume that its PWR2 will have sufficient generating capacity to handle additional load. An Astute class Submarine has a surfaced displacement of 7,000t to start with, with a length of approximately 97metres. The Vanguard class are approximately 150 metres (~15,000). Since the Vanguards have 16 tubes, lets split the difference and give the astute class a 25 metre hull plug in the middle. thats a 25% increase in length, the submarine *might* just displace less than 10,000t surfaced, however it wont move as quick, it wont accelerate at the same rate, it cannot dive, surface or maneuver at the same rate.
The increase in price per submarine is going to be over 25% however, due to the cost of the electronics required to control the missiles. You also put the deterent at risk everytime you send the submarine somewhere visible, limit the number of ports at which it can be docked and raise the spectre of nuclear war whenever it is deployed operationally.
The current SSBN's on the other hand, are kept carefully tucked away in the middle of nowhere out of site and out of mind, but always available should it ever be necessary to remind an enemy power of their existance. (i'm sure its amazing the kind of response the showing of stock footage of a Vanguard leaving port could do.....as long as they believe you would use it if needed)
Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has this week successfully completed the installation of the first MT30 gas turbine into the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, at Babcock’s Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.
The MT30, at 36 megawatts (around 50,000 horsepower), is the world’s most powerful marine gas turbine. Two MT30s will be installed in each ship and will provide two thirds of the 109 megawatts needed to power the 65,000 tonne ships – enough energy to power a town the size of Swindon.
The MT30s are installed as part of a Gas Turbine Alternator (GTA) which also includes an alternator and gas turbine enclosure, weighing a total of 120 tonnes.
The foreward island is due to be shipped up next month and due to be integrated the month after that, she'll be looking more like a proper aircraft carrier then.
The bow picture particularly emphasises the size, good picture, never properly understood just the sheer size of her.
Just a nice bit of speculation, HMS Edinburgh is due to come back from the South Atlantic on her final deployment in March. HMS Dragon's first deployment is down to happen in March, I reckon she's going down south too personally.
Just think, by the end of the year HMS Queen Elizabeth will be structurally complete.
EDIT: Nice link about Ambush and Westminster conducting ASW trials
Quote:
HMS Ambush left the Fleet’s No.1 submarine hunters in awe as HMS Westminster tested her mettle against the newest boat in the Royal Navy’s arsenal.
Ambush was joined by the Portsmouth-based frigate for the latest stage of her trials: speed runs on and below the surface.
While Ambush was being thrown around, Westminster was doing her utmost to track her – tricky on the surface because of Ambush’s speed, much trickier below because of her innate stealthiness.
With her gas turbines at full power, Westminster gave chase – and for good measure sent her Lynx Mk8, ‘Rosie’, from 815 Naval Air Squadron, into the air to keep pace with Ambush.
“Ambush proved to be a truly invisible adversary and a swift one at that,” said Lt Cdr ‘Mickey’ Rooney, Westminster’s weapon engineer officer.
“Under the waves Ambush came into her own. With an impressive turn of speed and her signature proving to be whisper-quiet, she is living up to the investment made in this next generation of technology.”
In the NAO major projects report released some time ago, it accepts that Astute boats 1 - 3 won't meet a "key performance measure". If that measure is speed, then I totally can't see how a Type 23 frigate had trouble tracking Ambush on the surface because of her speed? Looking at Wiki (I know, I know) the 'top speed' (Although another made one +30knots but IIRC it was favourable conditions) of a Type 23 is 28knots.
I dunno, could all easily be over emphasised rubbish, could just be an attempt to try get it put out that the first 3 won't be as slow as people think. But there's a remarkable lot about how decent Ambush performs in terms of speed.
EDIT#2: Should also note that at the time of writing, HMS Astute hadn't yet conducted full power speed trials and the particular label is the speed trials had been "deliberately constrained", so the problem may not be as bad as the RN quoted speed of 29+kts to 20+kts may suggest.
Last edited by RobWilliams; January 31st, 2013 at 07:24 PM.
Reason: forgot link
Nice picture from the ACA showing the fwd island on the barge getting ready for the voyage up to Scotland, IIRC it'll take 4 days to get up there & she's due to be lifted in early March.
Also as a side note it's interesting to note that HMS Dragon has her Phalanx CIWS fitted, so that's 3 Type 45's we know for sure that have Phalanx - Daring, Diamond & Dragon. They seemed to skip over Dauntless for her South Atlantic deployment a while back.
