The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

It did use to be a Treasury item rather than a defence budget item but that got moved many years ago.

 

[Todjaeger]

2500km wont reach very far into either Russia or China, the 2 most likely Countries that the UK deterent is aimed at.

No, it would not. A nuclear-armed LACM fired from just south of Svalbard in the Barents Sea would be just about within the max 2,500 km range to reach the Red Square in Moscow. It would also be comparatively close to Murmansk and the Russian coastline. If there were targets of strategic importance further south, the hypothetical sub would need to come even closer to the Russian coast. To hit a target city like Rostov, the sub would need to close within ~70 km of part of the Russian coastline, and be in an approach area to the White Sea before being close enough to launch.

While that could possibly work, that is entirely too close IMO, as the launching sub would be risking detection on the way in.

 

[Volkodav]

I was on exchange and a few of my PWO class mates were posted to T21s.
I have to say they were more yachtlike than warlike and once fitted with Exocet there would have been little room for extra weapons. Something would have to be sacrificed to fit Seawolf,
In 1978/9 Seawolf was having very severe problems with serviceability. The first T22 s, Broadsword IIRC couldn’t get the thing to work once all the boffins left. The missile was relatively simple but the shipborne systems were hugely complex. They were becoming very cynical. Early days were not easy.
But back to T21. They were very suitable for sovereignty patrols but had some severe limitations as high end war fighters and I ardently hope the RN has learned that lesson when the final iteration of T31 is rolled out

The Type 21 was intended for precisely that, sovereignty patrols, replacing the tribal class frigates/sloops.

Seawolf was planned initially before it became apparent it would be too big for the design, that's when the Batch II, or Broad Beam version was developed but dropped before detail design phase. It was to be armed with a new version of the Seawolf system using four twin launchers with below deck loading, situated with one launcher each side or the forecastle and one each side of the hangar.

Brown mentions in his book "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" that Australia was involved in the initial design of the Type 21, specifically a larger 40kt version with US weapons but dropped out when the UK refused to incorporate the desired US systems. (a very interesting book, it also mentions that Australia was looking at tartar conversions of not only the Darings, but the Battles as well).

Lastly, my wife and the other pissed idiots had a great time with the drag queens on your boat last Friday.

 

[Stampede]

It is fair that people ask whether the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence or not. However, if it is deemed that the UK should maintain a nuclear deterrence, then it should be a proper deterrence, which would mean a SSBN force, SLBM's and the option for MIRV's.

There is a significant difference between how a SSBN carries out a nuclear deterrence patrol, and how an SSN carries out a patrol.

When comparing the nuclear warhead delivery capabilities of a Tomahawk cruise missile and a Trident II SLBM, they are orders of magnitude different, to the point that MAD is not guaranteed if attempting to deter an adversary armed with ICBM's or SLBM's using cruise missiles.

A single Astute-class SSN can carry a maximum of 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles, at the expense of all other ordnance (like torpedoes) an SSN would normally carry. These 38 Tomahawks could each have a single nuclear warhead, and had a max range of perhaps 2,500 km. That comparatively short range would require nuclear deterrence patrols be conducted fairly close to the shores of some potential adversary nations. OTOH a single Vanguard-class SSBN, even only carrying half the max number of potential SLBM's, and each SLBM having less than half the max number of MIRV's (five out of a possible dozen) would still be carrying two more nuclear warheads, but more importantly, can launch those SLBM's from a comparatively 'safe' distance where the SSBN would be unlikely to be detected prior to launch. IMO just as important is that a warhead from a SLBM can be on target thousands of km's away within about 20 minutes, while a Tomahawk cruise missile would take over two hours to reach a target 2,000 km away and provide an adversary a significant window of opportunity to respond/intercept the cruise missiles.

Thanks Todjaeger and others for your reply on this subject.
Not to make light on the subject of MAD, but I often think of an old British sitcom 'Yes Minister"
For those unfamiliar it was a comical look at politics viewed with a few key players in the art of governance, one of which was a rather bumbling Prime Minister. One episode relates to the prime Ministers character being shown his new responsibilities as PM, one of which is his responsibilities for the Nuclear response. Set in the cold war days he is hesitant with his new responsibility and asks for advice as to when it's appropriate to "push the button". Scenarios are played out such as when the Soviets cross the Wall...... He says No..........They invade Western Europe........... I don,t think so!....................Invade England?...........I don't think so again............... How about marching up to Whitehall, would you push it then.....................? Its a black comedy
A difficult answer for a difficult question.

As has being stated you either have a nuclear deterrence or you don't.
If Ukraine didn't hand back it's legacy cold war nuclear arsenal would Russia have claimed back Crimea?
Who knows.
But salami tactics of small grabs of real estate will increasingly be apart of the future and will require a political and conventional military approach.
This will be a big challenge for the future if not resourced, requiring conventional manpower and equipment.
So I trust the Royal Navy is sufficiently equipped to play its part for this new future.
After all there will only be so much dosh to go round for defence


Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

The Type 21 was intended for precisely that, sovereignty patrols, replacing the tribal class frigates/sloops.

Lastly, my wife and the other pissed idiots had a great time with the drag queens on your boat last Friday.

The first point really illustrates the folly of the T31, no matter what the intent they will inevitably be used in hot situations particularly given the dearth of escorts available to RN planners.

As to the second, of course no one was “confused” our policy of Responsiblr Service of Alcohol” would never let that happen now would it But the drag queens are good for an interesting cruise, I never drive for these ones for obvious reasons.

 

[StobieWan]

Thanks Todjaeger and others for your reply on this subject.
Not to make light on the subject of MAD, but I often think of an old British sitcom 'Yes Minister"


Regards S

The actual conditions for launch are traditionally decided on years before, and revolve around the total annihilation of the UK so that's pretty straight forward in real life - there is no "button to push" as such - the sub is sent off on patrol and if the world burns while it's in it's box, a set of procedures are followed which leave the final actions of the sub to the Captain, subject to a letter of last resort.

There's probably some sketchy procedures for a limited launch against a target without WWIII happening but in the main, it's as outlined.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm perfectly open to having the discussion but a cruise missile would require a new warhead design and that's a billion plus in change already, then there's no missile in production (the US scrapped all their nuclear tipped TLAM) So, more production effort. That added to the fact that a cruise missile can't do the job of anything other than a first strike reliably means it's not an option for a deterrent, neither is it cheap.

I'm saying either do away with nuclear attack or do it right - I am not saying there's no room for discussion - instead I'm contributing to that discussion by pointing out that the option of using cruise missiles has already been considered and ruled out as not cost effective in a prior study.

Right now, we've got all the expensive bits already worked out - ie, a working and proven SLBM, warheads to match. Scrapping Trident is roughly cost neutral as if you choose to do away with it, you then have to face the costs of decommissioning a ton of stuff related to the supply chain and you'd not see any savings for thirty or more years (again, this has been studied)

Scrapping Trident = saving money isn't as straight forward as that I'm afraid and bringing a new cruise missile warhead into being will cost about the same as a Successor sub. We've already got leases on Trident missiles so there's no need to factor in replacements for them at this time -we just need to design and test Successor with the CMC - and from that we get a more modern reactor design which would feed forward into replacements for Astute in the future.

Either do it right (CASD) or give up on nuclear weapons - the half way house of a cruise missile tipped with a warhead is just wasted money.

I think your point of either yes and do it right or no and ditch nukes altogether is probably on the money. Nuclear cruise missiles might be effective against tier two nuclear powers but not against Russia certainly and probably not China either. I am not certain on China's nuclear strike capability for taking out either the US or Russia totally. Certainly any confrontation between two of these tier one players leaves the third on top (assuming the fallout is survivable. Lets face it, if the nukes are launched, the deterrent/MAD concept didn't work! With regard to the UK, I think a strong conventional force is more important including a properly funded RN. This certainly was true up to very recently. Can Trump be counted on to have your back given his performance in Helsinki? He may be the best reason for the UK retaining a nuclear deterrent.

Speaking of SSBNs, this article expresses some concerns about new missile tubes for the UK and US future boomers. The Virginia VPM tubes may also have weld defects. Apparently the UK needs the tubes prior to the US for their SSBNs.

Nuke Sub Launch Tube Problems Found: ‘Warning Flags Are Up’

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks Todjaeger and others for your reply on this subject.
Not to make light on the subject of MAD, but I often think of an old British sitcom 'Yes Minister"
For those unfamiliar it was a comical look at politics viewed with a few key players in the art of governance, one of which was a rather bumbling Prime Minister. One episode relates to the prime Ministers character being shown his new responsibilities as PM, one of which is his responsibilities for the Nuclear response. Set in the cold war days he is hesitant with his new responsibility and asks for advice as to when it's appropriate to "push the button". Scenarios are played out such as when the Soviets cross the Wall...... He says No..........They invade Western Europe........... I don,t think so!....................Invade England?...........I don't think so again............... How about marching up to Whitehall, would you push it then.....................? Its a black comedy
A difficult answer for a difficult question.

Regards S

Two Yes Minister videos that are very pertinent to this tropic.

Enjoy

 

[ASSAIL]

Two Yes Minister videos that are very pertinent to this tropic.

Enjoy

Now don’t get all snooty that the NZ High Commissioner is not worth a 72 hr meeting, it’s just the Brits being Brits with us poor colonials

 

[ngatimozart]

Now don’t get all snooty that the NZ High Commissioner is not worth a 72 hr meeting, it’s just the Brits being Brits with us poor colonials

Mate I wouldn't give the NZ High Commissioner a 72 hr meeting, well maybe of a big barrel of pure unadulterated squirt

 

[MrConservative]

Now don’t get all snooty that the NZ High Commissioner is not worth a 72 hr meeting, it’s just the Brits being Brits with us poor colonials

Funny how they are now having to load up on NZ and OZ senior trade officials to try and sort out their Brexit mess.

 

[Redlands18]

Two Yes Minister videos that are very pertinent to this tropic.

Enjoy

Don't make TV like that anymore, now more likely to be "the PM wants a Celebrety Wife"

 

[Stampede]

Two Yes Minister videos that are very pertinent to this tropic.

Enjoy

Thanks for the homework.

Regards S

 

[StobieWan]

I think your point of either yes and do it right or no and ditch nukes altogether is probably on the money. Nuclear cruise missiles might be effective against tier two nuclear powers but not against Russia certainly and probably not China either. I am not certain on China's nuclear strike capability for taking out either the US or Russia totally. Certainly any confrontation between two of these tier one players leaves the third on top (assuming the fallout is survivable. Lets face it, if the nukes are launched, the deterrent/MAD concept didn't work! With regard to the UK, I think a strong conventional force is more important including a properly funded RN. This certainly was true up to very recently. Can Trump be counted on to have your back given his performance in Helsinki? He may be the best reason for the UK retaining a nuclear deterrent.

Speaking of SSBNs, this article expresses some concerns about new missile tubes for the UK and US future boomers. The Virginia VPM tubes may also have weld defects. Apparently the UK needs the tubes prior to the US for their SSBNs.

Nuke Sub Launch Tube Problems Found: ‘Warning Flags Are Up’

The entire reasoning behind both France and the UK pursuing a nuclear deterrent was to make sure that any US leader wouldn't be able to decouple from either country in the event of a limited strike against Europe, say, if the Soviet Union were to strike at a single British city and demand that the US stay out of things or face an all out war. So, yeah, more relevant today with an isolationist president at the wheel.

I'd sooner we just chuck 2.5 or 3% at the problem and resolve most of the budgeting issues. Overall,. I'm of the opinion it's better to have a nuclear deterrent and not need one than *need* a nuclear deterrent and not have one.

 

[John Fedup]

I guess it depends on political will. Junior is content at a hair over 1%. I am guessing it might be easier for a U.K. PM to try for 3.5% than for a future Canadian PM to manage 2.0%. Certainly there is no way junior ever will unless it is by faking the numbers!

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm perfectly open to having the discussion but a cruise missile would require a new warhead design and that's a billion plus in change already, then there's no missile in production (the US scrapped all their nuclear tipped TLAM) So, more production effort. That added to the fact that a cruise missile can't do the job of anything other than a first strike reliably means it's not an option for a deterrent, neither is it cheap.

I'm saying either do away with nuclear attack or do it right - I am not saying there's no room for discussion - instead I'm contributing to that discussion by pointing out that the option of using cruise missiles has already been considered and ruled out as not cost effective in a prior study.

Right now, we've got all the expensive bits already worked out - ie, a working and proven SLBM, warheads to match. Scrapping Trident is roughly cost neutral as if you choose to do away with it, you then have to face the costs of decommissioning a ton of stuff related to the supply chain and you'd not see any savings for thirty or more years (again, this has been studied)

Scrapping Trident = saving money isn't as straight forward as that I'm afraid and bringing a new cruise missile warhead into being will cost about the same as a Successor sub. We've already got leases on Trident missiles so there's no need to factor in replacements for them at this time -we just need to design and test Successor with the CMC - and from that we get a more modern reactor design which would feed forward into replacements for Astute in the future.

Either do it right (CASD) or give up on nuclear weapons - the half way house of a cruise missile tipped with a warhead is just wasted money.

It is worth noting that while the USN retired the Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads in 2013, it was recommended in the Nuclear Posture Review released by Dep DefSec Patrick Shanahan on 2 February 2018 that "nuclear sea-based launched cruise missiles" be brought back. Whether or not this will actually happen or not is still in question, as is what cruise missile would be fitted with a nuclear warhead. It might be re-fitting Tomahawks with nuclear warheads again, or the intention could be to fit an existing nuclear warhead design onto a newer/upcoming US cruise missiles. In terms of weight, the AGM-158C LRASM can be fitted a 450 kg warhead (same as a Tomahawk) so could bear the weight of a W80 or W84 nuclear warhead. OTOH a DoD contract announcement from 23 August, 2017 awarded LockMart a USD$900 mil. contract to develop a Long Range Standoff weapon for the USAF as a replacement for the AGM-86B ALCM which had been armed with the W80 nuclear warhead.

While I certainly do not advocate for the UK to replace the CASD with a nuclear-armed cruise missiles, the USN does have a programme underway (pun, hah!) to reintroduce that capability, as does the USAF. Depending on the programme terms and costs, as well as the NPT there might be some merit in the UK joining to add such cruise missiles (or at least the ability and option to use them) to the UK arsenal, but not at the expense of either the current SLBM nuclear deterrent, or the UK's conventional forces, at least IMO.

 

[swerve]

The entire reasoning behind both France and the UK pursuing a nuclear deterrent was to make sure that any US leader wouldn't be able to decouple from either country in the event of a limited strike against Europe, say, if the Soviet Union were to strike at a single British city and demand that the US stay out of things or face an all out war. So, yeah, more relevant today with an isolationist president at the wheel.....

I remember 40 years ago when the USA wanted to deploy so-called neutron bombs in Europe, & more precise 'theatre' nuclear missiles. I was a lad visiting the IISS library (they were quite happy with that in those days) & reading US military staff magazines, stuffed with articles by quite senior officers on how these weapons gave a great opportunity to achieve the long-desired aim of decoupling a nuclear war in Europe from a general nuclear war in which the USA & USSR would nuke each other . . . . made me shudder.

There've always been some American politicians & military who'd like that sort of decoupling. We need to ensure that if (as now) they elect a president who might agree, we're in a position to make sure they can't do it.

 

[FORBIN]

Operating with a couple of assumptions, namely that (according to some US documentation) some ground-based missile interceptors can reach approximately 97% accuracy if fired in volleys of four missiles at a BMD target, and therefore 180 warheads would require 720 interceptors and leaves 5 to 6 warheads to slip through, which do you think is more achievable?

Increasing the number of warheads available for use/in inventory, so that all 48 SLBM's can be fitted with five warheads on average (raising the warhead total to 240 or increasing by 60) or increasing the number of interceptors by 240+, which would then likely permit 7 leakers.

.

In relation with SSBNs and missiles how many modules with 4 SLBMs can host futur Dreadnought to maximum ?

I see 12 missiles in 3 modules but surely possible 4 with 16 missiles make sense there are room for one module in more it is obligatorily an even number 2 by 2 in the hull same for Columbia ?

 

[StobieWan]

In relation with SSBNs and missiles how many modules with 4 SLBMs can host futur Dreadnought to maximum ?

I see 12 missiles in 3 modules but surely possible 4 with 16 missiles make sense there are room for one module in more it is obligatorily an even number 2 by 2 in the hull same for Columbia ?

The current load out just doesn't require 16 tubes so why go to the expense of building a longer sub to accommodate something we won't use ? The program is already very expensive so going with a layout of 12 tubes seems sensible.

Edit - I know historically the Vanguards were built around 16 tubes but the warhead stock has been run down to save money and currently I believe the job can be done with 12 tubes.

 

[ngatimozart]

The current load out just doesn't require 16 tubes so why go to the expense of building a longer sub to accommodate something we won't use ? The program is already very expensive so going with a layout of 12 tubes seems sensible.

Edit - I know historically the Vanguards were built around 16 tubes but the warhead stock has been run down to save money and currently I believe the job can be done with 12 tubes.

Yep, 12 tubes with MIRV warheads is still a significant amount of potential death and destruction. Definitely not to be taken lightly.