The likely replacement for UKs nuclear deterrant

odonnell

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6625477.stm

nice sub actually - can stay submerged for 3 months, no periscope, makes its own air and water supply....etc.

Nice.

Its catching a LOT of flak back home though...

OS119

Astute isn't part of the UK's nuclear deterent, its a nuclear powered SSN - a submarine that uses conventional weapons (Torpedo, Tommahawk LAM and Sub-Harpoon) to attack submerged, surface and land targets.

being submerged for 3 months and making you own air and water has been standard practice for every nuclear sub for the last 40 years. their submerged patrol endurance is limited only by how much food and ordnance that can cram aboard.

the replacement for Trident/Vanguard will be Trident/Vanguard mk2. both systems are so far ahead of their respective 'enemies' that they are only being replaced due to metal fatigue rather than any real need to have a new system because the old one is obsolete.

some change will take place, hopefully both will be less maintainence heavy, possibly allowing for 3 SSBN's instead of the current 4 required to have one at sea at all times and a second available to put to sea at short notice. they will probably be quieter (though noise doesn't appear to be an issue with the current Vanguard fleet), they may well have a smaller crew and therefore longer endurance - making the 3 boat fleet instead of 4 easier to operate.

currently UK trident missiles have between one and eight warheads each so that a graduated response can be used for widely differing targets from 'counter-force' - the elimination of an enemies missile firing sites which means having lots of warheads landing similtainiously, to the use of a single warhead in a tactical battlefield environment.

the warheads on UK trident subs are of a 'dial-a-yeild' variety, this means that you choose the amount of explosive power you wish to use on a particular target. the range of options is believed to be about 0.2kt - 1kt, 10kt - 15kt and 100kt.

given that the missile is unlikely to change much its believed that the warheads will be similar, they may become marginally more accurate and have increased abilities to avoid anti-ballistic missile defences, but because their mission remains the same - the ability to hit a wide variety of targets with a variety of explosive power while remaining undetected prior to launch and immune to interception after lauch, no radical departures are forcast.

odonnell

OS119 wrote:

Astute isn't part of the UK's nuclear deterent, its a nuclear powered SSN - a submarine that uses conventional weapons (Torpedo, Tommahawk LAM and Sub-Harpoon) to attack submerged, surface and land targets.

being submerged for 3 months and making you own air and water has been standard practice for every nuclear sub for the last 40 years. their submerged patrol endurance is limited only by how much food and ordnance that can cram aboard.

the replacement for Trident/Vanguard will be Trident/Vanguard mk2. both systems are so far ahead of their respective 'enemies' that they are only being replaced due to metal fatigue rather than any real need to have a new system because the old one is obsolete.

some change will take place, hopefully both will be less maintainence heavy, possibly allowing for 3 SSBN's instead of the current 4 required to have one at sea at all times and a second available to put to sea at short notice. they will probably be quieter (though noise doesn't appear to be an issue with the current Vanguard fleet), they may well have a smaller crew and therefore longer endurance - making the 3 boat fleet instead of 4 easier to operate.

currently UK trident missiles have between one and eight warheads each so that a graduated response can be used for widely differing targets from 'counter-force' - the elimination of an enemies missile firing sites which means having lots of warheads landing similtainiously, to the use of a single warhead in a tactical battlefield environment.

the warheads on UK trident subs are of a 'dial-a-yeild' variety, this means that you choose the amount of explosive power you wish to use on a particular target. the range of options is believed to be about 0.2kt - 1kt, 10kt - 15kt and 100kt.

given that the missile is unlikely to change much its believed that the warheads will be similar, they may become marginally more accurate and have increased abilities to avoid anti-ballistic missile defences, but because their mission remains the same - the ability to hit a wide variety of targets with a variety of explosive power while remaining undetected prior to launch and immune to interception after lauch, no radical departures are forcast.

cheers for that, im just believing what i read on bbc.

OS119

don't. when it comes to anything military they don't know their arrse from their elbow.

their ignorance of the difference between a Chinook and a Hercules never fails to astound me. i often wonder how such people can cross the road or tie shoelaces...

odonnell

OS119 wrote:

don't. when it comes to anything military they don't know their arrse from their elbow.

their ignorance of the difference between a Chinook and a Hercules never fails to astound me. i often wonder how such people can cross the road or tie shoelaces...

theyre a bunch of eejits for sure, i just thought theyd have done a bit more homework.

ach im more an aviation / RAF man anyway!

Fratton Fred

An old employer of mine used the engineering plant in Barrow for a lot of sub contract work.

There is no way I would want to put to sea in anything they produced, impressive though they may be;)

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

An old employer of mine used the engineering plant in Barrow for a lot of sub contract work.

There is no way I would want to put to sea in anything they produced, impressive though they may be;)

yae cannae beat the clyde!

Judt

The BBC and most of the British media just wave the flag on defence. BAE Systems is a travesty - everything they make is over budget, behind schedule and either doesn't work or isn't fit for service half of the time. This sub program has a cost overrun higher than the original projected cost of the entire project, and the first ships were supposed to go operational in 2005. The hell?