Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Tories call for new nuclear subs

The issue today is the various Third world mentalists and their low kT range nukes. By the time we have to replace the V-boats it will probably be someone else - quite possibly Ivan again. Although the V-boat / D5 combo appears excessive at the minute, it may not do in 20 yrs time. The problem is always guessing what the future may hold but having to make the decision now.

IMHO you can't beat the capability offered by the current system (or a re-engineered missile compartment mated to Astute bow / aft ends, still with the D5 which the US have decided to re-manufacture for life out towards 2050). It would probably be cheaper than virtually all other options - TACTOM is not nuclear-capable, nor is Storm Shadow and in any case we'd need to design and manufacture completely new warheads to fit on them.

Lets just try not to have the thing coming off the naval EP this time, joint capability should be paid for out of the overall MoD EP.
 
I read somewhere that an extended A-boat option was being considered for any V-boat replacement as their larger hulls and simlar power plants would make the technological transfer easier. Any ideas?
 
Chalky said:
I read somewhere that an extended A-boat option was being considered for any V-boat replacement as their larger hulls and simlar power plants would make the technological transfer easier. Any ideas?

heard a similar dit, proposal was as above but not as many muzzle loaded tubes as on the V Boats, could be used in SSN role as well if required. Given the time it takes from proposal to in service who knows what the threat will be, by then the countries with low yield theatre devices could have the technology we have now.
 
spearfish said:
What about doing an ssgn conversion on the v boats as the USN has done on some of the Ohio's or will they be fit for nothing by then?

V-boats, as far as I'm aware, have a 25 year hull life, so by the time any replacement came in they would be reaching that point and some would already be over it, methinks.

Still stranger, supposedly cost-effective things have happened.

edited to add:

There's an article on extending Trident's life here. Not read it yet.

http://www.banthebomb.org/archives/news/2003/sep/trilifx.shtml
 
At the moment, our strategic nuclear deterent guarantees our seat on the UNSC. I don't believe those who endorse the non-repacement of the V boats full understand the implications of Britain becoming a non-nuclear power in an incresingly unstable world. Don't forget, once we bin our SLICBM capablity, we won't be able to get it back.
As a question for the crabmariners, could a SSBN be converted to deploy TLAM?
 
Sunshine, my only sunshine.
You make me happy when skies are grey
You'll never know dear how much we miss you
please don't take my IC BM away
 
clanky said:
At the moment, our strategic nuclear deterent guarantees our seat on the UNSC. I don't believe those who endorse the non-repacement of the V boats full understand the implications of Britain becoming a non-nuclear power in an incresingly unstable world. Don't forget, once we bin our SLICBM capablity, we won't be able to get it back.
As a question for the crabmariners, could a SSBN be converted to deploy TLAM?

That is to say that the UK's Deterrent has to be Trident, but I don't think it does. I'm just saying that, for the foreseeable future - probably the life of the V Class - our potential enemies are not in Russia but are in various other parts of Asia, out of Trident's range if we continue to operate the boats in their current areas. IF we need a deterrent, it should, for the time being, be operating in the Indian Ocean. Are we going to operate our Trident boats that far from the UK? I don't think so. And if they don't, what's the point of having them? Also, we mustn't automatically think that our four V-Class will necessarily operate for the whole of their life-cycle -
don't forget the R Class had many problems before being replaced and the hulls of the operational boats were flogged to death.

I feel that the TLAM is more adaptable, as it can be surface OR submarine launched and nuclear capable, and can therefore arrive in the right areas to suit any potential adversary. A TLAM-capable surface unit would need a very tight screen and we may not have enough capability of successfully defending them. So the submarine-launched version is, for the UK, the way to go. ALL submarines are capable of launching TLAM, both conventionally or nuclear armed, though the number of re-loads is limited. If we NEED to have a nuclear deterrent, then we NEED to be able to support it locally.... a base in the Indian Ocean? Starting to get silly now isn't it.....

If the only reward for running a hugley expensive nuclear deterrent force is having a seat on the Security Council, perhaps it's time we had a reality check and stopped trying to be the power that we were 100 years ago.
 
Geoff_Wessex said:
clanky said:
At the moment, our strategic nuclear deterent guarantees our seat on the UNSC. I don't believe those who endorse the non-repacement of the V boats full understand the implications of Britain becoming a non-nuclear power in an incresingly unstable world. Don't forget, once we bin our SLICBM capablity, we won't be able to get it back.
As a question for the crabmariners, could a SSBN be converted to deploy TLAM?

That is to say that the UK's Deterrent has to be Trident, but I don't think it does. I'm just saying that, for the foreseeable future - probably the life of the V Class - our potential enemies are not in Russia but are in various other parts of Asia, out of Trident's range if we continue to operate the boats in their current areas. IF we need a deterrent, it should, for the time being, be operating in the Indian Ocean. Are we going to operate our Trident boats that far from the UK? I don't think so. And if they don't, what's the point of having them? Also, we mustn't automatically think that our four V-Class will necessarily operate for the whole of their life-cycle -
don't forget the R Class had many problems before being replaced and the hulls of the operational boats were flogged to death.

I feel that the TLAM is more adaptable, as it can be surface OR submarine launched and nuclear capable, and can therefore arrive in the right areas to suit any potential adversary. A TLAM-capable surface unit would need a very tight screen and we may not have enough capability of successfully defending them. So the submarine-launched version is, for the UK, the way to go. ALL submarines are capable of launching TLAM, both conventionally or nuclear armed, though the number of re-loads is limited. If we NEED to have a nuclear deterrent, then we NEED to be able to support it locally.... a base in the Indian Ocean? Starting to get silly now isn't it.....

If the only reward for running a hugley expensive nuclear deterrent force is having a seat on the Security Council, perhaps it's time we had a reality check and stopped trying to be the power that we were 100 years ago.

Couldn't agree more mate. Superpower we are not. Not any more. In days of NHS and education reform, do we really want to spend billions on another nuclear deterrent. I for one can think of several better ways of spending the public purse.

I agree that we do need something nuclear - I said so earlier. I just feel that it has to be flexible, reasonably cheap and probably not submarine launched this being a very expensive option unless it can be loaded and fired from any submarine.

IMHO what the navy needs now is more flexible fighting units, more people and a lot less politics
 
CheefTiff said:
I agree that we do need something nuclear - I said so earlier. I just feel that it has to be flexible, reasonably cheap and probably not submarine launched this being a very expensive option unless it can be loaded and fired from any submarine.

Well a TLAM with a nuclear warhead CAN be launched from the torpedo tubes of ANY submarine, while some USN boats have the Vertical Launch System mounted externally. It has to be cheaper than a surface-launched system when you take into account the extra protection force required for a ship-launched version. That ship would become a very high value unit, even more than a carrier, which would also be required for CAP.
 
Not sure if discussing the operating range of the V boats is that good an idea either. I will say that if we need to hit to hit a target east of Russia then we just send the boat further east! This would,nt neccesarily require a base in the Far East(tho it would be nice).Its not like they need refuelling!

As an aside, is this the longest a thread has gone without anyone mentioning a certain training establshment? If it is, congratulations gentlemen!
 
The Arctic Circle and its Ice cap are the obvious place for Sm launched
ICBM . Why go round when you can go over the top.


As for the Uk and its seat on the Security Council well if it depends on Nuc capability we've already qualified with the various delivery systems that have been around for quite a while ---------not necessarily the MAD types either.

What this country should be concentrating on is building an efficient anti missile system . The US is apparently concentrating on an airborne laser weapon to combat incomers.

Bad news for Submarines in general is the Nuc Depth bomb!!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top