New SSBN for the RN

[mark22w]

The following white paper in outlining the British Governments intent to build three or four replacement SSBN's rather than extend the Vanguards is of interest, however it also includes the alternative options including three 30,000 ton Trident D5 missile surface ships complete with additional air warfare destroyers and three new support ships! So that's where the additional two Type 45's are hiding...

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00...56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

 

[Big-E]

Thanks for the up-to-date info. What do you think about it?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for the up-to-date info. What do you think about it?

They should keep the deterrent in subs I reckon. At least that way, there's less chance ANYONE will know where they are. A major advantage to a primarily "deterrent" based capability.

Perhaps a Tomahawk capability could be added to extend the usefulness of these new subs, but I'm not sure the RN would want the subs in "harms way" unless necessary, so maybe it is not such a good idea...

 

[RubiconNZ]

If the US goes ahead with a conventional Trident does anyone suppose the UK might go along a similar track?

 

[Big-E]

If the US goes ahead with a conventional Trident does anyone suppose the UK might go along a similar track?

Considering the UK needs a rather large amount of US assitance in their sub builds already I don't think joining the US on Trident replacements would be a bad idea. Saves 100s of millions in redundancy costs, if they do it in one yard they could save both of us a boat load.

 

[Big-E]

Perhaps a Tomahawk capability could be added to extend the usefulness of these new subs, but I'm not sure the RN would want the subs in "harms way" unless necessary, so maybe it is not such a good idea...

Giving them TLAMs doesn't necessarily put them in harms way. I think it would be a good idea. You might as well get a dual use out of your platforms.

 

[harryriedl]

or you could build 4 boats and make ssbn out of three of them and convert the otheR one to an ssgn if the gov dosn't exept a 4th trident boat.

would it make sence for the UK to do that

 

[contedicavour]

or you could build 4 boats and make ssbn out of three of them and convert the otheR one to an ssgn if the gov dosn't exept a 4th trident boat.

would it make sence for the UK to do that

Given the unlikely use of any SSBN, I'd rather make sure ALL SSBNs have the capability to launch Tomahawk...
I've read somewhere that the French SSBNs should be able to launch SCALP Naval (besides SM39 and ECAN F17P), though I'm not sure it's true.

cheers

 

[froggb]

Given the unlikely use of any SSBN, I'd rather make sure ALL SSBNs have the capability to launch Tomahawk...
I've read somewhere that the French SSBNs should be able to launch SCALP Naval (besides SM39 and ECAN F17P), though I'm not sure it's true.

cheers

I've often wondered what it would be like fitting an SSBN say to carry a mixture of Trident D5 and Cruise Missiles along similar lines to the Ohio SSGN, or even perhaps a Special Force's mod even. It would allow for a 6-12 month re-roll if we ever needed more on Nukes on our Sub's.

 

[Big-E]

I've often wondered what it would be like fitting an SSBN say to carry a mixture of Trident D5 and Cruise Missiles along similar lines to the Ohio SSGN, or even perhaps a Special Force's mod even. It would allow for a 6-12 month re-roll if we ever needed more on Nukes on our Sub's.

If your keeping SEAL teams on board how do you expect to have room for Tridents and Tomahawks. They already reduced the missle shafts by placing the UUVs on top of it and crew compartments expanded replacing Sherwood forest.

 

[Galrahn]

I think it is interesting that options and even alternatives are being discussed for RN SSBN replacements.

In the US there hasn't been a word about the SSBN(X) Ohio replacements, in fact SSBNs were barely mentioned in the USN's own 313-ship plan last year.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've often wondered what it would be like fitting an SSBN say to carry a mixture of Trident D5 and Cruise Missiles along similar lines to the Ohio SSGN, or even perhaps a Special Force's mod even. It would allow for a 6-12 month re-roll if we ever needed more on Nukes on our Sub's.

There's already room to do it. Apart from the cruise and UAV/UCAV silos the balance are catering for 60+ specwarries and 24 "other" personnel..

The bulk of the half shafts are used for "other" storage"

 

[Big-E]

There's already room to do it. Apart from the cruise and UAV/UCAV silos the balance are catering for 60+ specwarries and 24 "other" personnel..

The bulk of the half shafts are used for "other" storage"

The new silos are only half the height of the hull. The old Trident silos were the entire length. You would be cutting twice the area you would expect to if you re-installed Tridents. Besides sticking a boomer in a special-ops role is not very smart.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The new silos are only half the height of the hull. The old Trident silos were the entire length. You would be cutting twice the area you would expect to if you re-installed Tridents. Besides sticking a boomer in a special-ops role is not very smart.

At least 4 of the silos can be converted back with minimal disruption.

 

[Big-E]

At least 4 of the silos can be converted back with minimal disruption.

Would you advocate this? Note that the UUV has to be dismounted to fire all weapons.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would you advocate this? Note that the UUV has to be dismounted to fire all weapons.

Are you sure? USS Florida didn't have to.

I wouldn't advocate an SSBN hybrid with the SSGN fitout. A waste of capability

 

[Big-E]

Are you sure? USS Florida didn't have to.

Observe the UUV, its over the silo.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm talking about a dedicated silo launch - not a stack and pack.

the UAV's are autonomous and don't need to be dismounted as they're dedicated to a half silo.

wrt to an SSBN style weapon the silo would have to be dedicated. stack packing isn't possible.

you can't use a double stack to fire the UAV and a weapon. As it is the config is weapon or load on top, and storage or special ops utility on the lower half of the casing

Observe the UUV, its over the silo.

 

[Big-E]

I'm talking about a dedicated silo launch - not a stack and pack.

the UAV's are autonomous and don't need to be dismounted as they're dedicated to a half silo.

wrt to an SSBN style weapon the silo would have to be dedicated. stack packing isn't possible.

you can't use a double stack to fire the UAV and a weapon. As it is the config is weapon or load on top, and storage or special ops utility on the lower half of the casing

Whose talking about a UAV?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Whose talking about a UAV?

I'm using it as an example of load out opportunity.

currently the SSGN's can silo launch various weaps including UAV's (and they have done this approx 15 months ago)

half pack silos are designed for weaps on top and storage and prep on the lower half.

maybe we're talking at cross purposes here.....,