News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/
Because they are both knackered?wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022, 16:42 I don't know if there were other specific reasons that both Trenchant and Talent needed to be decommissioned at the same time?
I suppose the bad news is you are absolutely correct - more submariners will be needed if the RN wishes to expand its fleet to 10 SSN.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022, 15:5510 SSN for RN sounds great but first RN will need to increase number of crew, whether improved cres recruitment or retention). At the moment the RN can only crew six boats, with Trenchant and Talent decommissioned in May before Anson was commissioned this week.Dobbo wrote: ↑03 Sep 2022, 13:00 Some comments from the RUSI paper on what might be deliverable with a 3% of GDP defence budget. Irrespective of whether you think 3% is right or deliverable it provides interesting benchmarking.
https://static.rusi.org/354-OP-from-fam ... nal1_0.pdf
Comments on SSN(R)
“Accelerate next-gen SSN, improved weapon systems, aim at 10 submarines”
“Carrier + FCAS long-range missiles, prompt-strike hypersonic for SSN”
“• In announcing to NATO’s June summit that the UK was now on track to be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, Boris Johnson referred to the additional costs of AUKUS for the UK. This is a reference to the need for serious extra spending on a new generation of SSN to replace the Astute class – the SSN-R. Depending on the extent to which Australia decides to develop its own new SSN in cooperation with the UK, it is possible that large parts of this programme could be a joint venture, potentially including production, weapon systems, training and infrastructure. The added funding included here would allow the MoD to proceed at pace to build this new generation of SSN. It could also be used to increase the size of the SSN fleet from 7 (the current level) to 10. This would increase the UK’s ability to deploy worldwide, including in the Indo-Pacific, while maintaining the levels necessary to counter Russian threats in the North Atlantic and the Arctic.”
I note ot says "new" jobs and "majority" at Barrow. That means that over 600 new jobs at Barrow, possibly more.
I'm sure you're right, probably using PWR3 backend and much of Dreadnought, with a new section added to replace the D5 tubes.
Wouldn’t it make sense to have 2-4 of the new multi role tubes being used on the Dreadnoughts in place of standard MK41s, they’ve been stated to each be capable of housing up to 7 Tomahawks or be used for unmanned systems. It’d give greater future proofing along with reducing cost over the 2 fleets of boats.mrclark303 wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 20:21I'm sure you're right, probably using PWR3 backend and much of Dreadnought, with a new section added to replace the D5 tubes.
It would make sense and not only substantially reduce costs of the attack boats, but also reduce the costs of the last two Dreadnoughts, if additional long lead orders for PWR3 and associated equipment can be made, leading seamlessly into SSN(R) production.
The RN clearly needs an active fleet of 12 SSN's.
If we can reduce manning on the new generations of boats, (allowing for the obvious 24 hour operational requirements, that keep crewing relatively high), and order the expensive long lead items in sufficient quantity to keep the unit cost down, then it might just be possible.
If SSN(R) is based on Dreadnought, with a VLS module, then we will be looking at a 9,000/10,000 ton attack boat... Quite the fearsome sea monster!
Great idea Jake, hypothesising further on your idea, I wonder if we could perhaps have them re-rolled on occasion to carry four D5 on as mini bombers.Jake1992 wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 20:43Wouldn’t it make sense to have 2-4 of the new multi role tubes being used on the Dreadnoughts in place of standard MK41s, they’ve been stated to each be capable of housing up to 7 Tomahawks or be used for unmanned systems. It’d give greater future proofing along with reducing cost over the 2 fleets of boats.mrclark303 wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 20:21I'm sure you're right, probably using PWR3 backend and much of Dreadnought, with a new section added to replace the D5 tubes.
It would make sense and not only substantially reduce costs of the attack boats, but also reduce the costs of the last two Dreadnoughts, if additional long lead orders for PWR3 and associated equipment can be made, leading seamlessly into SSN(R) production.
The RN clearly needs an active fleet of 12 SSN's.
If we can reduce manning on the new generations of boats, (allowing for the obvious 24 hour operational requirements, that keep crewing relatively high), and order the expensive long lead items in sufficient quantity to keep the unit cost down, then it might just be possible.
If SSN(R) is based on Dreadnought, with a VLS module, then we will be looking at a 9,000/10,000 ton attack boat... Quite the fearsome sea monster!
Excellent points, just hypothesising regarding the flexibility of using re-configurable D5 tubes.Dobbo wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 23:40 I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.
That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.
That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.
Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
If it was off it’s coast how would Russia know if it was a ssgn or ssbn?Dobbo wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 23:40 I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.
That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.
That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.
Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
I suppose the main point is they don't know it's there anyway.....SW1 wrote: ↑20 Jan 2023, 08:17If it was off it’s coast how would Russia know if it was a ssgn or ssbn?Dobbo wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 23:40 I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.
That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.
That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.
Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
I think you can guarantee that it will be the VPM. The USN is doing a lot of work on it and will be integrating weapons, UUV's etc to it. The RN will be able to piggyback on their work and save a lot of time and money.Caribbean wrote: ↑20 Jan 2023, 08:12 The SSBNs will use the Common Missile Compartment (CMC), which is designed to take Trident D5 and it's (probably larger) successor. 22 missile tubes for the CMC have already been ordered from Babcocks. It looks like the SSN(R)s will get the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes. Each tube can carry up to seven cruise missiles in a carousel-style launcher. The infographic implies two tubes, which would give it a decent level of firepower
It's not NSM. It's JSM. The work to re-package NSM into the JSM form factor to fit in F-35 has, as a byproduct, made it small enough to be encapsulated and fired from a 21 inch torpedo tube. Kongsberg were showing it around for a few years with little interest. But the recent Germany and Norway purchase of the Type 212CD submarine class has brought it back. It's apparently going to be developed to arm those subs.
It certainly is, certainly considerably cheaper than Tomahawk (or it's successor) and there will be missions that require precision strike on shore target, but Tomahawk would be overkill.