The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

From "The Engineer"

Government announces funds for future nuclear-armed subs | News | The Engineer

how much of an issue is this at the moment?

I wouldn't advise reading the comments, full of the usual "Should be spent on infrastructure" or "Why not use cruise missiles from an Astute?"

I'm not 100% on what you mean by it being an issue? The only real repercussions from this is some essentially minor political backlash from some sectors of the UK Govt (the Yellow sector)

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wouldn't advise reading the comments, full of the usual "Should be spent on infrastructure" or "Why not use cruise missiles from an Astute?"

I'm not 100% on what you mean by it being an issue? The only real repercussions from this is some essentially minor political backlash from some sectors of the UK Govt (the Yellow sector)

Unfamiliar with the term "Yellow Sector" - ie does that refer to anti-yellowcake etc...?

 

[RobWilliams]

Unfamiliar with the term "Yellow Sector" - ie does that refer to anti-yellowcake etc...?

It's just a jab at the LibDems (whose party colour is yellow) who aren't happy with Hammond dishing out contracts about a direct Vanguard replacement (+ therefore eventually Trident replacement) because they're gunning for a cheaper solution in some form - something like smaller/fewer subs with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

Sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs by the way

 

[StobieWan]

Unfamiliar with the term "Yellow Sector" - ie does that refer to anti-yellowcake etc...?

The lib-dem's party colour is yellow and they're the other half of the coalition - with long expressed anti nuclear views, who've give up peddling the "give up nukes" line in favour of weakening the deterrent to something like cruise missiles etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks fellas, wasn't aware of party colours etc.... here, its just red blue, green and then the motley crews with whatever they think looks good on the day

 

[RobWilliams]

If anything, any sort of published figures of defence spending in the UK ultimately ends up with comments on how wasteful it is and how much better it'd be if we just - essentially - didn't operate an Armed Forces because of how many schools, hospitals or whatever that could be built.

But the Vanguard successor isn't going to be cancelled or anything, it was initially started up by the previous government in the UK (the only other party with any real chance of election) so there's not much risk there but the only thing is the reduction of the fleet of boats from 4 to 3.

I'm a bit on the fence to be honest. If it can be proved that 3 boats could provide CASD then that's something, but the flipside is that we know 4 boats can do it (with room for unforseen incidents) and who's to say the assessment that 3 could manage it is correct + take everything into account?

Ultimately, for me the only REAL reason they could justify dropping the number from 4 to 3 is that those funds get redirected for a couple more Astutes (considering the rapid decline in SSN numbers) or more Type 26 frigates.

 

[StobieWan]

From "The Engineer"

Government announces funds for future nuclear-armed subs | News | The Engineer

how much of an issue is this at the moment?

From a UK perspective, the SNP (the Scottish Nationalist Party) who have a majority in the part of the world Hadrian threw away are inherently anti nuclear.

In the rest of the UK, the nuclear deterrent is a bi-partisan affair - when Polaris was acquired, both sides of the house were consulted and everyone involved apart from a few gibbering half wits agreed that structurally they were in bed with the idea.

So, Conservatives (Blue ties) and Labour (Red ties) are both broadly committed to a nuclear deterrent. The Lib-Dem's aren't but since no-one will ever vote for them ever again after the current coalition, it's not a big deal.

In terms of the population, there are large chunks of the country with low employment that are supported by the deterrent in various ways and I think as a nation, after almost a generation of continued commitment to international deployment, there's a broad sense that we do our bit, we at a grass roots level support our armed forces more than ever and that a nuclear deterrent is a chunk of that process.

Guardian readers may differ in a squeaky way but ah...f*ck 'em.

(I'm not trying to take this to a political discussion, just summarising the dimensions other than military in the equation!)

At the moment the money is being distributed in a series of fairly forward thinking measures (the steel for the entire successor fleet was bought two years ago for instance, money was allocated for the PWR3 reactor earlier this year, now we're into sub design)

There's no broad movement to terminate the nuclear deterrent - I think there might be if there were a firm commitment to put that money into conventional forces but every one is way too cynical to believe that might happen. Over the life of Successor, we'll probably spend more money on foreign aid for India at the current rate we're going (India having it's own space program, nuclear weapons program etc, hence my reason for singling it out)

Better yet, Successor keeps the nuclear infrastructure primed and in operation to keep building nuclear attack boats in the future (I know you know this GF, apols for appearing to do an "as you know" speech)


That's the 1 minute whistle stop tour of where we are according to me, corrections anticipated and accepted.


Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

Accurate summation IMO. Like i've said previously work on Vanguard replacement will keep that sector ticking over nicely until the initial Astutes will need replacing.

As far as key components go it seems to be going along quite nicely, IIRC we're using the same combat systems + suites from the Astutes then we've got the PWR3 and CMC coming along. I've been reading about the USS SSBN(X) program and it's actually been quite depressing reading how their conventional attack capability will be cut back to a minimum + pretty much only defensive measures, I hope the Vanguard replacement doesn't go the same way (the best defence is a good offence after all)

Still, i'm quite interested to see what the performance of HMS Ajax will be.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, if I knew, I'd have to kill you...it'd be interesting - Ajax will apparently be getting the PWR3 core - but she might be limited by the steam turbines or shafts as opposed to the reactor ?


She might be the quickest, or just the most expensive...

 

[RobWilliams]

It'll be pretty much impossible to actually work it out because the MOD doesn't comment at all about what the performance of the reactors is, the main difference being reported about PWR2 and PWR3 is that the latter has 'enhanced safety factors' but that means jack sh*t on it's own.

 

[StobieWan]

She should be quieter I think - the PWR3 is supposed to rely rather more on natural recirculation than powered pumps - which means a) a bit safer in extremis and b) a bit quieter through a useful chunk of her performance curve.

 

[1805]

There is a much better age spread on the Vs than the previous Rs, 7 years v only 2 years. With the delay in ordering last time, it was really difficult maintaining numbers, I think they were down to 2 boats at one point. I am glad we do not seem to be making the same mistake again. In fact in general there seems little debate about the subject, which must help.

 

[StobieWan]

If anything, any sort of published figures of defence spending in the UK ultimately ends up with comments on how wasteful it is and how much better it'd be if we just - essentially - didn't operate an Armed Forces because of how many schools, hospitals or whatever that could be built.

But the Vanguard successor isn't going to be cancelled or anything, it was initially started up by the previous government in the UK (the only other party with any real chance of election) so there's not much risk there but the only thing is the reduction of the fleet of boats from 4 to 3.

I'm a bit on the fence to be honest. If it can be proved that 3 boats could provide CASD then that's something, but the flipside is that we know 4 boats can do it (with room for unforseen incidents) and who's to say the assessment that 3 could manage it is correct + take everything into account?

Ultimately, for me the only REAL reason they could justify dropping the number from 4 to 3 is that those funds get redirected for a couple more Astutes (considering the rapid decline in SSN numbers) or more Type 26 frigates.

One possibility coming from using the common missile compartment is that it will potentially be easy to re-role an SSBN to an SSGN quite rapidly - if the four boats are bought and they have high enough availability, it's possible we might have periods where a nuclear alert could be held up while a second boat was out doing SSGN work (leaving two boats, one possibly down for refit, one working up) You need to leave room for FOST and other duties but it's a possibility.

 

[RobWilliams]

One possibility coming from using the common missile compartment is that it will potentially be easy to re-role an SSBN to an SSGN quite rapidly - if the four boats are bought and they have high enough availability, it's possible we might have periods where a nuclear alert could be held up while a second boat was out doing SSGN work (leaving two boats, one possibly down for refit, one working up) You need to leave room for FOST and other duties but it's a possibility.

It's a possibility but I doubt it'll ever happen, the MOD is a bit jittery about increasing stocks of torpedo launched TLAM so I don't see them buying a very small stock of VL TLAM just for the potential use for a single SSGN.

I'd like to see it happen, because I'd like to think that the MOD are using that extra SSBN sat in Faslane ready to go to act like a crutch in a crisis.

The general trend with the RN now is that (especially with low numbers) that high availability is very highly sought after so IMO that's easily possible.

 

[StobieWan]

It's a possibility but I doubt it'll ever happen, the MOD is a bit jittery about increasing stocks of torpedo launched TLAM so I don't see them buying a very small stock of VL TLAM just for the potential use for a single SSGN.

I'd like to see it happen, because I'd like to think that the MOD are using that extra SSBN sat in Faslane ready to go to act like a crutch in a crisis.

The general trend with the RN now is that (especially with low numbers) that high availability is very highly sought after so IMO that's easily possible.

We *might* be seeing more VL TLAM in the future however - if Type 26 gets strike length cells. Bit of an "if" in terms of "if" they will take TLAM and if TLAM is the selected land attack option for T26.

It's all pie in the sky however

 

[RobWilliams]

Y'know what, I forgot about the Type 26 completely!

I'm still completely up in the air with that whole thing, I think they're going to go with Sylver to keep up commonality (eye on Perseus in the future - MBDA are good sellers like that) aaaaaand they might even fund TLAM intergration IMO.

I'm not 100% sure they'd go with "SCALP Naval" because it's name now "Missile de Croisière Naval" unless they tried to sell it as a navalised Storm Shadow idea.

Meh, we won't know really until "middle of the decade" is the copy'n'paste line. I really hope they stick with TLAM

 

[StobieWan]

We get TLAM on good terms - in that we can economically buy in small amounts as we need them, piggy backing onto US orders, and also draw on US war stocks during most conflicts short of WW III. Stormshadow on the other hand, we had to buy in a large quantity and if we want more, it'd be a further large order.

TLAM Block IV is a mean ol' missile too.

 

[AndrewMI]

For a whole variety of reasons - which i will try and explain later (bit short on time now) the concept of an SSGN is a poor (and potentially dangerous) one.

The UK should stick to an SSBN and SSN fleet only.

 

[RobWilliams]

We get TLAM on good terms - in that we can economically buy in small amounts as we need them, piggy backing onto US orders, and also draw on US war stocks during most conflicts short of WW III. Stormshadow on the other hand, we had to buy in a large quantity and if we want more, it'd be a further large order.

TLAM Block IV is a mean ol' missile too.

Very true, I expect - if the cause was serious enough - the US would be tripping over themselves to sell us cheap TLAM units ready to go.

It'd certainly do until the 2030s when Perseus is more than a concept

 

[RobWilliams]

For a whole variety of reasons - which i will try and explain later (bit short on time now) the concept of an SSGN is a poor (and potentially dangerous) one.

The UK should stick to an SSBN and SSN fleet only.

I'm not 100% sure you're understanding what we mean, we're not talking about operating a dedicated SSGN but having an SSBN with the CMC which can operate as an SSGN if/when the circumstances require it.

I can't see how if you swap out the missile load for VL TLAM rather than Trident D-5 that any potential patrol will be any more dangerous, certainly not any great deal of danger than a regular SSN experiences in theatre.