FlubbaGuys,
the reduction from 4 to 3 british SSBN take NUMEROUS advantages if (& when) technological developments allow it! (and have optimized the design)
– If the next generation of nuclear reactor allows a life of 30/35 years without refueling (same as us SSN virginia or CVN 78 design)
– If other equipment is modular, or easely “improved/changeable”
then, may have from 4 to 3 submarine !
– One on patrol
– One in harbor, nearly ready to begin seas patrols
– One in dock, for maintenance routine & reparationA fourth ships were a BIG mistake
– One in sea patrol
– One ready to depart for patrol
– One in harbor, for light maintenance
– One in dock, for heavy maintenace(Dramaticaly expensive solution to take a fourth ships and ensure a doubtfully deterrance patrol)
I preferred to have 3 ultra-modern SSBN to provide a nearly continue deterrent to have 4 ships and be sure of nearly anything (Without doubt, by 2020/2030, the cost of 4 SSBN is A S T R O N O M I C A L for royal navy and extremely huge)!
What happens when the Marine Nationale and the Royal Navy decide to play chicken “Oh! ****” Ooops! no CASD. 4 is the best way and the safest way to get the job done. Build modern modular subs all you want just give me 4 of them. Things happen with 3 subs ur up $hit creek with 4 you have options and could still run a deterrent.
Matt im Pro nukes and Pro CASD but i want 4 subs thats where my vote would sit.
FlubbaThats 2 any more folks for Defence Minister Beedall?
Im not a big fan of anyone really, the tories are the lesser of two evils and they cant promise anything. As i have said before it’s going to a drop into an ocean of paper, papertrails and blood it’ll take them a while to fully appreciate how much of a mess they have to clean up. Im afraid im one of those people that see the UK political cycle of labour fu(k up’s and tory clean up’s. Labour always seems to make an **** of things then the tories come in and clean up only for the people to vote labour back in to make another mess. I think this time though the mess might be a bit too much.
Personally im hoping the that the British public have a hairy fit if defence is cut no matter who gets in. People hopefully have realised that there are real people coming home in boxes thanks to penny pinching by the Government. I know that is asking too much of most people that just want their benefits, methadone and whatever else they think they are entitled to. The Unions moan about their low pay and rubbish conditions but forget about the armed forces getting paid less than them to put their lives on the line while sleeping on a camp bed in the middle of a Hostile country.
I pray that the people and the politicians wake up to human nature and sort out the bloody MoD and Armed Forces before we really need them.
FlubbaYeah things have not been moving much recently after the election i would expect things to be more active. Richard Beedall for defence minister anyone? He’d get my vote no problem. (
Flubbapjhydro Welcome back, they are some very good points you have pointed out about the Questions related to the trident program.
F-35b our Hercs are old and need an extensive refurb before being sold to someone, furthermore for us the more capable J model is the better bet. The main thing with old airframes is manpower something short in the RAF but not short in Indonesia or wherever they may go.
Personally if it were me the RAF would fly a mix of C-17 and Herks but if the A-400M finally arrives then it would be C-17 and A-400M’s plus maybe a fleet of C-295 to do the lighter transport jobs and some Mar Pat.
On the issue of the SSBN i like the second option as well seems like it should be a quiet beast with impellers buried in the casing. It looks like it is also a proper double hull like Russian subs rather than the normal western single hull design. The concern is it’s a new design so more costly but i would say it might be worth the risk.
Swerve is correct Mr. Beedall is a very intelligent and resourceful researcher and well known although he is less active recently. I cant blame him though spend more time with your kids and family or report the latest depressing news about the Senior Service. The cancellations archive is one of the best and most intresting reads, amazing the things that were thought and dreamed of only to be shot down.
FlubbaYeah the cost per unit will not be much but as total program costs then it’s not much. Your right astute is not the best idea but hey we are talking about the Government, it is designed for different tasks but would be a cost effective way of doing the job.
The CASD is the thing that i would most vocally support, i agree if a sub suddenly goes to sea e.g. Iran launches a long range missile as a test or another nation says something not too nice in a public forum. A whole number of situations could cause a sub launch so it’s better to have one out there all the time so it cannot be dragged up and used against us.
Im a nutter i would like SSGN’s as i always think about the what if situations that the UK might need to take someone out. With the proliferation of advanced air defence systems then the F-35 is not going to be a viable way of kicking in the front door, with SSGN’s it allows you to take air defences down with LAM’s from a safe distance and without ships in danger. SSGN’s also have a massive deterrence capability as we would not hesitate to saturate a nation with LAM’s.
SSN’s can carry LAM’s but with a Astute class carrying a load out of 38 weapons then maybe 20 or above will always be torps with the rest LAM’s. So that’s maybe 18 or less per sub not enough in my opinion to strike targets and deter someone for carrying on. The other problem is the fact that we dont want to use SSN’s that should be protecting a strike group peeling off and making itself vulnerable to fire LAM’s. Also i would have 12 SSN minimum as this is the ideal number for production and deployment. 4 SSBN’s in my mind is non-negotiable.
The SDR-98 had some sound ideas but it was never backed up with money, no money nothing done. The UK armed forces is still a cold war force as the money was just stripped away so fast that we had no time to think about what we were doing. So the future SDR needs to be done in my opinion with funding ready to be provided, if that means more money then so be it. I would rather spend money than have to watch more people come home in boxes. But i think the SDR coming up will be purely budget driven not thinking about what is happening and what will happen.
Im not a huge fan of any party at the present time, but i realise the tories cant say anything as when they are likely to get elected the UK will be in the worst state it has ever been in. Finances will be be like jumping into an ocean of paper that is not complete and still running with things that the current bunch have signed the nation upto. I will hint at the A400M that looks to be a major problem for us, we need aircraft soon or birds start falling and people die.
The Doc, nice thoughts hopefully they have some great names there are plenty around. I think that we will have to wait years for them to have an idea of names though.
FlubbaHello! Flubba is back.
Having only 3 subs is moronic sending one out on patrol will be a massive deal hence another reason for CASD. I would prefer to keep CASD as it’s the better way of doing the deterrence job much safer. Not building one sub wont save that much money IMHO.
The Common Missile Compartment is already under design so this will be ready in time for the OSD’s of the Vanguards. So that solves the problem of timing between us and the US, the missile compartment will be the same and will be ready before the US needs it. Fair enough they might update it etc and if they do we should apply the updates as well in due course.
Distiller, Cost seems to suggest that the new SSBN will be a cut and shut job using the Astute class, this makes some sense but i would rather a new design that incorporates all the lessons learned. Something ultra quiet and deep diving with a long reactor life, long patrol endurance and a comfortable enviroment for the crew. Same kinda thinking behind the Typhoon class a retaliatory strike sub rather than a first strike sub.
Thanks Al i missed it as i didnt come online till later:( but i’ll find it. Joker in the pack is intresting go start a war between powers. Hmm! drop one on pakistan and watch them have a fight with India.
Personal note from me is i want more subs not less:( gimme my SSGN:)
FlubbaLovely history lesson but anyhow, to what F-35b said i dont think anyone has a clue as to what they are to be called. I dont think they know what the FSC classes will be called.
Names the people would choose Hmmm! Britain Bankrupted By Broon, How about them truth enough.
FlubbaThanks for the Article posting Grim im gonna give that a read.
The Doc intresting notes.
The RAF likes to talk bull**** even now i doubt they could drop people onto the Falklands we would need every tanker available and most of the J herky birds to get people down there. C-17’s dont have AAR woops.
The RAF likes to big itself up but the simple fact is if you want global strike you need carriers hence why we are getting 2 CVF mind you we could still have a better capability with C model F-35. Not just for the range but also the fact that other aircraft could be carried like E-2D’s etc.
If the RN had TLAM in 1982 things would have been intresting, I know TLAM was not in service but it did exist.
FlubbaThe Rolls Royce UT-527 is an ugly ship but it is also very practical does what it says on the Tin basically. Can do almost any job the RAN would need it to do and more.
My vote for a Patrol ship for Australia would be the OPV’s being built by BVT for Trinidad and Tobago. They are large ships that can operate medium helicopters although they do not have a hangar, they have a fairly good range. The ships also can carry TEU containers to store additional equipment. They seem like a great OPV suitable for the Australian specification. The only thing missing is a medium caliber gun, but that should not be of great difficulty to fix.
If the money was avaliable then the BMT Venator would make the perfect choice as it is designed for this role in response to the British C3 specification.
I have no idea about the LCT replacement, the french will replace the BATRAL’s soon so getting the same would not be that bad of an idea.
The German Berlin class is an excellent ship but is more of a multipurpose vessel than a pure supply ship. The hospital facilities on board would maybe not be needed as the canberra class should have similar facilities? However it still should fit the bill fine. The Aegir 18R would not be too shabby and could be built for peanuts in a South Korean yard.
FlubbaFingers crossed Grim that would seem the ideal thing to do. The problem is that it would require whoever is in power at the time to realise it.
Im thinking that work needs to start on Vanguard replacments in 2016-2018 under a possible tory government and then it’ll be upto whoever is after them to get the job done and order the boats. Then they will need to start on the SSN replacement in 2024 roughly after the first 2 SSBN’s have been built.
VANGUARD 1993 2022
VICTORIOUS 1995 2024
VIGILANT 1996 2025
VENGEANCE 1999 2028
Thats the in-service and out of servce dates taken from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/59/5905.htm
FlubbaKev, thats the problem they are politicians they know there in for a few years and after that it’s not their problem. It would be better if these things were set by a parlimentary vote for the long term.
Doing some simple maths we need 16 boats if we want to keep a rolling production line going. That works out at a new boat every 18.75 months the .75 could be added up and used for SSBN building since they should take a bit longer.
FlubbaYes Electric Boat introduced quite a few new ideas as the way we still built subs was quite outdated. The main ideas was building the subs in smaller sections, building them and fitting them out vertically. The new project manager also brought it psychologists etc as well to get people to work better together.
Thats one guy who knows about the Tories but i have some hope that they will keep things rolling and then whoever gets in after the tories are gone. The problem is keeping things rolling through diffrent governments with differning priorities and opinions.
Even with 7 Astute and 4 Next gen SSBN that’s only 11 subs not enough for a rolling production line. Say a 25 year service life which is 300 months divide that by 11 you get 27 odd months so you need to order a new sub every 27 months. I would say at the max you want to spend 18 months building a sub.
FlubbaI know that they built the vessels during sub-building ‘down time’ but what im saying is that they should have pressure applied to become as efficient as they can in submarine production. They can do this by looking at other submarine yards to gain knowledge, i know the USA would be ok with us learning as we could never be in competition with their yards and we could hopefully teach them a thing or two.
Barrow would likely stick to sub building as that would be the best way to go. To do this though they need to establish a building drum beat and governments need to commit to a solid schedule of ordering new subs. When is that going to happen we are talking about politicians and politics after all. Thats what im trying to get at.
FlubbaObilgatory nice to see someone agree’s with me here very good points you have added. Im for the NHS etc but not for the use as a Job’s program. You are also right in pointing out the fact that it can affect the economy by taking up skilled labour and affects the finances of a nation by diverting so much money into such a wasteful organisation for the purposes of job creation or sustainment.
Kev, Yes i agree with that barrow should expand to enable more subs to be built there. Also the last i checked barrow in the recent years also made ships other than subs. I am aware of them becoming an all sub yard but the simple fact is that they could do both if needed and as they are a large shipyard.
They may not do skimmers anymore but then we should look to the USA and France to see how they do things and also to the Germans and incorporate anything that would be beneficial. I seem to remember BAE having to seek help from GE Electric Boat so we could continue to co-operate with both US yards to improve efficiency at our one yard.
It is still comparable to other yards in the EU in some ways, even if there are few to compare it to.
Al you suggest we may be the Joker in the pack as we bought into deterrence but what do you mean by that?
Im thinking you said that because we dont have an independant system unlike every other nation. If so i agree with you ours is more of a token but with any NATO nation even the French we will consult with each other before a launch. I think though any nuclear use will escalate into a MAD situation in most cases. If the UK is attacked then as a member of NATO we will have help from the other members.
In some ways i feel the US allowed us to buy Trident to keep us at the Top table alongside them as someone they could trust totally within the circle. The French will sometimes side with the US but sometimes not so with us there it provides more leverage. Another reason why we should have some SSGN’s as it would be usable by us and maintainable by us.
Al i’ll also try and remember to listen to that broadcast. Any idea of date and time?
Oh! and any war in europe would not stay conventional for long, it would soon go to NBC options.
FlubbaI agree job creation are important and so is maintaining manufacturing but they should come far down the list of priorities for both the NHS and Armed Forces.
Barrow is important as it is one of the UK’s last shipyards but money should be put into it to make it as efficient as possible if that means some job losses so be it. But it should be offset by the fact that if it becomes more efficient it should be cheaper to build ships therefore more ships will be ordered it would also be more competitive to other European yards.
Filton makes Airbus wings IIRC and has a RR plant as well? thats fine RR makes aero engines for the world market so is not wholly dependant on UK subsidy same with Airbus. Im happy for the government to fund R&D on new technology etc as this is what we can have an edge at. So i have no problem with those particular places as they are beneficial to the UK in major ways.
Augusta Westland is ok as well as long as it can be sustainable as a business selling to the commercial market as well as military. R&D funding here as well i would like for commercial projects and military but with the conditions of efficiency. The gripes i have with the UK governement related to AW is due to high costs of buying UK, little gets bought so prices cant improve. AW has license built many Sikorsky products to great effect when the UK was offered the S-70 when we first got into the current wars we should have taken the offer up. We would have got some airframes straight away and then AW could have built the rest.
Sign In
