The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
No weapon is invulnerable, maybe in 30 years time Trident missiles can be shot down easily. I personally think nuclear weapons are a purely political tool to the government of the day, it means they can act big, "punch above their weight" et cetera and maintain that seat at the top table. Its all about what the country can afford to maintain that pretense.

Ideally we'd have 5 SSBNs plus nuclear cruise missiles and air launched nukes too but obviously that would cost a lot more money and the overall political impact would be the same anyway.
If you have the three pillars of the triad it is at its most effective but the problem remains who is the justification as the Sovs are gone. especially when all the other big powers are cutting down on their arsenals (USA, France and im fairly sure so is Russia)
 

kev 99

Member
If you have the three pillars of the triad it is at its most effective but the problem remains who is the justification as the Sovs are gone. especially when all the other big powers are cutting down on their arsenals (USA, France and im fairly sure so is Russia)
We've yet to see any firm commitments from USA or Russia and these currently hold something like 95% of the worlds warheads between them, they would need to make pretty large cuts to match those that Brown is talking about (160 going to 120 warheads).

It just seem s a little ridiculous that we're talking about UK cutting its arsenal as if its even significant compared to that of USA or Russia.

I believe China is still building up a substantial SSBN force as well, although information on numbers appears to be a little sketchy.
 

outsider

New Member
I wonder if another possibility might be a hybrid SSBN/SSN. A submarine that is multirole, combines both roles.

If you had a stretched Astute fitted with say SIX missile tubes, carrying the equivalent of one Trident missile per tube. Each modified Astute would carry fewer missiles/warheads than the current VANGUARD but they would be cheaper, so you would build more of them.

Consequently your nuclear deterrent would be spread out amongst more submarines and therefore more survivable, and more effective than a SLCM based detterent.

You would still keep your existing Astute SSN's and build more of them, so for example:

7 Astute SSN's
plus
5 or 6 Astute Hybrid SSBN/SSN's
 

kev 99

Member
I wonder if another possibility might be a hybrid SSBN/SSN. A submarine that is multirole, combines both roles.

If you had a stretched Astute fitted with say SIX missile tubes, carrying the equivalent of one Trident missile per tube. Each modified Astute would carry fewer missiles/warheads than the current VANGUARD but they would be cheaper, so you would build more of them.

Consequently your nuclear deterrent would be spread out amongst more submarines and therefore more survivable, and more effective than a SLCM based detterent.

You would still keep your existing Astute SSN's and build more of them, so for example:

7 Astute SSN's
plus
5 or 6 Astute Hybrid SSBN/SSN's
There's suggestions of Navy matters that the idea has been mooted and has been thought about.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
We've yet to see any firm commitments from USA or Russia and these currently hold something like 95% of the worlds warheads between them, they would need to make pretty large cuts to match those that Brown is talking about (160 going to 120 warheads).

It just seem s a little ridiculous that we're talking about UK cutting its arsenal as if its even significant compared to that of USA or Russia.

I believe China is still building up a substantial SSBN force as well, although information on numbers appears to be a little sketchy.
To be honest if the UK was forced to fire 120 warheads, never mind 160, the world has basically ended. For her to fire that many we are talking about all out nuclear MAD. I would be happy with 100 warheads, more than enough to deal with your average run of the mill rouge state (NK has 10). The current duty Vanguard carries 48 warheads, even though she can pack in over 120.

Globalisation means economics not hardware determines power and influence. The military is there to protect and preserve the status quo. A 120 warheads maintains the deterrent, we don't need thousands to do that, so why spend the extra billions?

Britain building three not four hulls saves money and does not reduce the countries ability to maintain a 365 day sea presence. Currently we have one on patrol, one in maintenance, one training and one spare. Modern simulators can reproduce training and the ASTUTES are so large they can host training exercises for boomer crew commanders and senior officers to give them real time experience handling a large vessel.

I think the UK will go for 3 x stretched ASTUTES, each carrying between 8 & 12 missiles, each missile carrying between 4 & 8 warheads. So for example a boat armed with 8 missiles with 6 warheads each still gives you 48, same as today. Remember the ASTUTE is a very big sub, adding a hull plug behind the sail is not like building a new design from scratch.
 
Last edited:

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Has a move away from Trident or a Trident-follow-on to another carrier system (e.g. M51 or a domestically-developed system) ever been considered in this context?
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Has a move away from Trident or a Trident-follow-on to another carrier system (e.g. M51 or a domestically-developed system) ever been considered in this context?
This is a major issue, because the US will not develop the next generation missile until after the Vanguard Class is due to be retired. Critically the RN need to know the dimensions of the proposed firing tubes. We could of course work with the French and fit our own warhead.
 
Jeesh, Brown can make whatever statements he wants; he is not in the position of implementing them. :cool:

A number of points come to mind:

# If you go down the SLCM route, how would Russia act if it saw a cruise-missile launched in it's direction? Has someone designed a radar system that can differentiate between a uranium-tipped TacTom and a conventional unit?

# MIRV systems are expensive and complex solution. These criteria actually act as a deterrent and - ironically - peace-enforcing answer to global annihilation. Switching to a cheaper unitary warhead could lead to the proliferation of weapons platforms: StormShadow, free-fall, etc. [According to the BBC the UK has enough plutonium stocks to build 7000 warheads.]

# If Beedall is correct MUFC will replace Vanguard and Astute; there will be no direct replacement for the Trafalgars. If each boat is a common design then the Royal Navy will have up to 12 ICBM-capable subs, so there goes Brown's promise. :sniper

# A Vanguard replacement is likely to be huge. [Compare the size of the Vanguard to it's Trafalgar original.] Cutting the numbers from four to three is unlikely to save much money (c.f. Type 45) as the design and engineering skills are one-off costs. If you add in the multiplier effect, the fourth boat is probably self-financing.

So - in an ideal world - the Royal Navy is probably best served with building her Astutes and then building 4 + 2 Astute+ vessels. The two extra vessels should act as a transition from the Astute to the Warspite class of SSBN, allowing the design to add plug-ins over a number of drumbeats. This will allow the UK to retain it's sub-building infrastructure.

Once the SSBN design is finalised, the spare boats can be converted to SSGNs a'la the USS Carter. Ain't gonna' 'appen though.... :tomato
 

kev 99

Member
Britain building three not four hulls saves money and does not reduce the countries ability to maintain a 365 day sea presence. Currently we have one on patrol, one in maintenance, one training and one spare. Modern simulators can reproduce training and the ASTUTES are so large they can host training exercises for boomer crew commanders and senior officers to give them real time experience handling a large vessel
It's 2 in maintenance right now, remember Vanguards game of chicken with the French SSBN?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
This is a major issue, because the US will not develop the next generation missile until after the Vanguard Class is due to be retired. Critically the RN need to know the dimensions of the proposed firing tubes. We could of course work with the French and fit our own warhead.
Supposedly, the UK & USA have an agreement to build their subs with a common missile compartment.
 

luca28

New Member
Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com

UK Government Ponders nuclear submarine fleet reduction

defpro.com | Yesterday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown confirmed to reporters that he will use today’s speech before the United Nations Security Council to signal his willingness to reduce his nation’s fleet of ballistic nuclear missile submarines as part of a new global pact on nuclear weapons. According to the Prime Minister, one quarter of the entire fleet of nuclear submarines (that is, one out of four boats) could be cancelled which, as a signal, should motivate other countries to also cut their respective inventories.

In detail, Brown indicates that the British SSBN programme, intended to eventually replace the Vanguard-class submarines, may be reduced from four to three vessels, reducing the entire programme costs by over $33 billion (20 billion pounds). The Royal Navy’s 20-year submarine replacement programme forecast schedules the first new vessel to enter service by 2024, with the fourth being commissioned in 2026.

The Vanguard-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines of the Royal Navy are each armed with up to 16 Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The class was introduced in 1994 as part of the UK government's Trident nuclear weapons programme. The four boats in service are the sole carriers of all the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons, since the Army and Air Force eliminated their nuclear weapons in 1998.

Britain now possesses some 160 Trident nuclear warheads on its four Vanguards. It is expected that a reduction of the SSBN fleet will also result in a 20 percent reduction in the number of warheads.

Towards a nuclear-free world…

The timing of the Prime Minister’s announcement is extremely surprising, and it might have implications that escapes a first analysis. The whole question as to whether or not to launch the Vanguard-class replacement programme, and thus whether or not to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent, is expected to be at the very core of the upcoming Strategic Defence Review. Although some preparatory work is already underway, the SDR will be formulated and implemented by the next government, to be formed after general election are held in May 2010. In this framework, for Mr. Brown to effectively come out and state the Great Britain will maintain its SSBN fleet, albeit in a reduced form would seem to amount to an attempt at establishing a diplomatic and foreign policy fait accompli, that any future government would find pretty difficult to renege.

Beyond these issues, the Prime Minister’s announced move for Great Britain to reduce its own nuclear forces, while pushing other nations to follow this example towards a nuclear-free world, is very much on tune with the approach which US President Barack Obama introduced in his speech yesterday, saying that Washington would review its nuclear posture and make deep cuts in its nuclear arsenal.

The Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, also stated during the 64th session of the UN General Assembly that his country vows to continue transparent and irreversible cuts in nuclear arms, calling it "an important element in the 'new start' of our relations with the U.S."

In a BBC interview, Mr. Brown said that nuclear armed powers, including Britain, “have to make some contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons” as part of the process of revising and extending the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Non-nuclear country that signed the NPT did so, amongst other considerations, in view of a solemn promise by the nuclear powers to progressively reduce their respective arsenals. This did not take place, however – which has been one of the main reasons for several countries wanting to acquire nuclear capabilities of their own. Against this background, a perceivable move by the nuclear powers towards substantial reductions is seen as a key factor to prevent nuclear proliferation.


…or taming Britain’s soaring budget deficit?

However, the move could also be interpreted as a logical and necessary step, since expensive defence programmes, such as the SSBN replacement, are put on trial. Brown is seriously seeking to reduce government spending to tame Britain’s soaring budget deficit - and the prime Minister understood that axing defence projects would save money.

Indeed, as already achieved in the Eurofighter Typhoon programme, a reduction of the fleet of new submarines will also save costs. But in contrast to the four-nation Eurofighter programme, the Vanguard-class replacement is purely national, involving companies such as BAE Systems, Babcock International Group, and Rolls-Royce Group. A reduction of the fleet could save less than $4 billion, analysts say, since the research and development costs of the programme will be the same as for four vessels. Officials in the Navy, however, said that a fewer number of submarines in service would automatically mean that the vessels in service would need to be on patrol more often, which would increase the operational as well as maintenance costs. Beyond that, these cuts would deeply affect the work force at the Barrow-in-Furness shipyards where the vessels are to be built.

In order to control the surging budget deficit, advisers to the Prime Minister have not only proposed to entirely scrap the submarine programme, but in addition not to purchase the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft and, thereby, saving another $36 billion (22 billion pounds).
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Taken directly from BAE's website (www.baesystems.com)

BAE SYSTEMS TO PURCHASE VT GROUP'S SHARES IN
BVT SURFACE FLEET LIMITED

BAE Systems and VT Group today signed the agreement under which VT Group has
exercised its option to sell its 45% shareholding in BVT Surface Fleet Limited
(BVT) to BAE Systems (the "Transaction"). The consideration for the Transaction
is approximately £346 million to be satisfied in cash.

VT Group will also inject £43 million of capital into BVT in settlement of
certain other matters, including claims in respect of certain export contracts
which were contributed by VT Group into the BVT business. In addition, VT Group
will pay a further £4.7 million to BVT in respect of certain inter-company
balances. The capital injection and the inter-company payment will take place at
completion of the Transaction.

BAE Systems will receive from VT Group in cash at completion of the Transaction
approximately £70 million (comprising £65 million plus accrued interest) in
deferred payment for the sale on 1 July 2008 to VT Group of BAE Systems' 50 per
cent. shareholding in Flagship Training Limited.

The Transaction is subject to regulatory approval and to VT Group shareholder
approval. Completion is expected to take place in the fourth quarter.


If / when approved, the UK Govt / RN will have a single source supplier for all its shipbuilding needs.

Lets hope that the up & coming Strategic Defence Review (SDR), doesn't look to make any further savings by cutting MORE ships....

SA
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Taken directly from BAE's website (www.baesystems.com)

BAE SYSTEMS TO PURCHASE VT GROUP'S SHARES IN
BVT SURFACE FLEET LIMITED

BAE Systems and VT Group today signed the agreement under which VT Group has
exercised its option to sell its 45% shareholding in BVT Surface Fleet Limited
(BVT) to BAE Systems (the "Transaction"). The consideration for the Transaction
is approximately £346 million to be satisfied in cash.

VT Group will also inject £43 million of capital into BVT in settlement of
certain other matters, including claims in respect of certain export contracts
which were contributed by VT Group into the BVT business. In addition, VT Group
will pay a further £4.7 million to BVT in respect of certain inter-company
balances. The capital injection and the inter-company payment will take place at
completion of the Transaction.

BAE Systems will receive from VT Group in cash at completion of the Transaction
approximately £70 million (comprising £65 million plus accrued interest) in
deferred payment for the sale on 1 July 2008 to VT Group of BAE Systems' 50 per
cent. shareholding in Flagship Training Limited.

The Transaction is subject to regulatory approval and to VT Group shareholder
approval. Completion is expected to take place in the fourth quarter.


If / when approved, the UK Govt / RN will have a single source supplier for all its shipbuilding needs.

Lets hope that the up & coming Strategic Defence Review (SDR), doesn't look to make any further savings by cutting MORE ships....

SA
It is going to be brutal. Rumour now is that Warrior upgrade will be cancelled, FRES recce will proceed (tracked plus 40mm) then migrate over as a Warrior replacement down the line 600 recce followed by 450 odd AFV???? 2.5 billion tanker replacement could now be switched to a lease agreement.
 
Last edited:

turin

New Member
Britain building three not four hulls saves money and does not reduce the countries ability to maintain a 365 day sea presence.
I respect your opinion here but that theory does not hold water in my POV. There is a very real reason why there is a fourth boat available as a spare. As kev99 points out, there just needs to be one unfortunate incident, and another boat is out of action. And no technological advance in the world will have a say, if a boat runs aground, into something else etc. Its like with politicians saying "We can reduce our fleet by 50 %, because the new ships are twice as capable." Total numbers do count, especially if they are as low as Britains (not just for their subs).

Its bad enough with a conventional asset like a destroyer these days, but a strategic component supposed to guarantee 24/7 strike capability? The whole idea starts to get ridiculous there.

Regardless of wether or not cost savings can be achieved with such a decision, this is going to be the tipping point for the UKs continuous nuclear deterrence. As Galrahn writes on "Information Dissemination": if they want to build three boats, they can just as well build none at all. Always under the assumption of course that Mr. Brown and others continue to claim that there will be no reduction in UKs deterrence capability. If they want to switch to a deterrence cap. that just "exists", but not on a permanent basis, fair enough. Of course one has to consider where the priorities are in this regard but this discussion does not seem to take place at the moment.

Now with all this cost-saving going on, and I am sure, the US Ohio-replacement will be affected by this as well, I really wonder wether its not time for the US and UK to integrate their deterrence assets even more than before. It makes sense from a strategic point of view, and considering the past relations between the two countries, also from a politicial one. But with nuclear weapons it seems these discussions are considered so sensible that no one starts to talk about it until said assets are gone (in case of the UK).
 
Last edited:

Blue Streak

Banned Member
Lets hope that the up & coming Strategic Defence Review (SDR), doesn't look to make any further savings by cutting MORE ships....

SA
I hope not too. But I guess another two or three Type 23s will be put up for sale. Chile may order them, but Pakistan may also be a possibility in my opinion.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Janes is reporting the C3 design is maturing and will be larger than the existing MCM platform and will be designed to fulfil the MCM, survey and general patrol role thus replacing Sanddown, Hunt and Falklands / coastal vessels.

I doubt we will see anymore T23’s go, they are scheduled for the CAMM upgrade, more likely to see the T22 go once all six T45’s arrive.
 
Janes is reporting the C3 design is maturing and will be larger than the existing MCM platform and will be designed to fulfil the MCM, survey and general patrol role thus replacing Sanddown, Hunt and Falklands / coastal vessels.

I doubt we will see anymore T23’s go, they are scheduled for the CAMM upgrade, more likely to see the T22 go once all six T45’s arrive.
So if another cut is made to the escort force what would be the minimum number in 20 years, 10 ,maybe 15 hulls ??
 

swerve

Super Moderator
So if another cut is made to the escort force what would be the minimum number in 20 years, 10 ,maybe 15 hulls ??
Overlander, when was the last time you posted anything which was not doom & gloom & running down the RN? Have you ever done so? I would like to see some evidence from you that you have any purpose in posting here other than to mock the Royal Navy.

It's a long time since 1588. Get over it.
 

Jon K

New Member
As to the carriers, well, the Navy has sacrificed just about everything to get them and now it seems they might not arrive.
Umm, hasn't that been rather clear from Day One when CV(F)'s were announced? CV(F)'s were a clever way for a Labour cabinet to ensure that RN would disarm itself. This is more advanced technique than during 1960's when British Cabinets played RAF and RN against each other, one might call this new technique a true Judo approach.

What I'd be really interested about is that where the CV(F)'s will be sold? Would India be interested about two top-of-the-line medium carriers?
 
Top