Fictional Defiance Class SSNR

[Forest Green]

Well....maybe.....maybe not.

But 27 leaves would allow 2 more Dreadnought SSBN for a total of 6...

or ...

Considering these might be used in SSN-AUKUS (SSN-R) which looks like only 4 tubes in the design recently shown (spread alone the center line, 1 for'd of the Fin, 3 aft) and can accommodate a number of VL Tomahawk type weapons per tube......would allow for 6 such submarines.

I think the future UK SSN also has the tubes now that I think about it.

SSN-AUKUS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zen]

I think the future UK SSN also has the tubes now that I think about it.

Makes a lot of sense, since such things be a known quality we're already committed to supporting.
Also gives considerable options for load out.

 

[TomS]

I think the future UK SSN also has the tubes now that I think about it.

View attachment 764134

That graphic is fictional. Note the reference to Phoenix missiles, which are not real current/future weapons. Also note that the list of names given exceeds the planned number of next-generation subs (SSNR/AUKUS-SSN) for the RN.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Just musing here. If the AUKUS subs are going to have vertical missile tubes and are certain to share a lot of systems with the Dreadnoughts, what is the likelihood that for manufacturing economy they'd be 'Dreadnought coupés' with a single four-pack of tubes and the same diameter hull section?

 

[TinWing]

Just musing here. If the AUKUS subs are going to have vertical missile tubes and are certain to share a lot of systems with the Dreadnoughts, what is the likelihood that for manufacturing economy they'd be 'Dreadnought coupés' with a single four-pack of tubes and the same diameter hull section?

The shorter, single file tubes in the modified Virginia class minimize any potential arms control or proliferation controversy. Exporting a dual use SSBN/SSGN is a potential proliferation issue. Keep in mind that the Virginia class tubes are the correct diameter but are too short for Trident. Arms control seems dormant at the moment but is bound to resurface before the AUKUS class hits the water. Basically, all of the nuclear powers are facing debt crisies of varying severity, hence the inevitable return of nuclear arms control.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Note the reference to Phoenix missiles, which are not real current/future weapons.

Is Phoenix perhaps the Royal Navy's codename (or possibly even a company one) for MBDA's so-called 'RJ10' supersonic missile for the FC / ASW program, though?

 

[TomS]

Is Phoenix perhaps the Royal Navy's codename (or possibly even a company one) for MBDA's so-called 'RJ10' supersonic missile for the FC / ASW program, though?

The image comes from an artist on Deviantart. There are many things that don't line up with reality, starting with the list of names, none of which have been announced by MoD. Also, the numbers don't match (11 names, 10 ships claimed to be planned. MoD has not defined a total number for SSNR, but 10 is very unlikely, IMO. And then the statement that 2 are already under construction, which we know is not the case.

https://www.deviantart.com/scifi-shipyards/art/Defiance-Class-Submarine-SSNR-X-911756172

 

[TomS]

More info on sourcing:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/replacement-of-australias-collins-class-submarines.22752/page-37

 

[Yellow Palace]

The image comes from an artist on Deviantart. There are many things that don't line up with reality, starting with the list of names, none of which have been announced by MoD. Also, the numbers don't match (11 names, 10 ships claimed to be planned. MoD has not defined a total number for SSNR, but 10 is very unlikely, IMO. And then the statement that 2 are already under construction, which we know is not the case.

https://www.deviantart.com/scifi-shipyards/art/Defiance-Class-Submarine-SSNR-X-911756172

Even just looking at it... where does the reactor go?

The fact that one of the names is 'Donnager' tells you everything. The word was made up for a spaceship in the 'The Expanse' series, and has clearly been attached to this submarine-shaped object on the grounds of 'it sounded cool'.

 

[Dilandu]

The upper hull should be more angular, pyramide-shaped - to provide stealth against sonar beams.

 

[TomS]

The upper hull should be more angular, pyramide-shaped - to provide stealth against sonar beams.

I know they are doing this with the new Type 212CD subs, but I don't really see the point.

1) Most ASW is done with passive sonar, so silencing beats shaping. And at speed every sharp edge is a vortex generator that can create turbulence and noise.

2) Much of the rest is done with low-frequency active sonar, for which shaping will have very little effect

3) Many sonars are variable depth (Helo dipping sonars, VDS, many sonobuoys) so they won't always be seeing the top of the sub anyway

4) Even surface-mounted active sonars may be working on bottom bounce mode, so they again won't necessarily be seeing the top of the sub.

 

[Dilandu]

1) Most ASW is done with passive sonar, so silencing beats shaping. And at speed every sharp edge is a vortex generator that can create turbulence and noise.

Apparently the silencing against passive sonar hit the point of diminishing return - while active sonars improved greatly. So hiding from active beams became increasingly more important, even at the cost of somewhat decreased silencing.

 

[Croatian Sailor]

The upper hull should be more angular, pyramide-shaped - to provide stealth against sonar beams.

Agreed. Not only the top.