Successor/Dreadnought Class SSBN

Foo Fighter said:
Sorry mate, I was talking about the graphic, different views and I might have a go at a CAD visual/3d model.
Click to expand...
Ah I get you now!
Yes, I was wondering if it was an official drawing or something mocked up by an artist.
 
PMN1 said:
Something that i've noticed on the French SSBN is there is a gap between two sets of 8 missiles, what do the French have in that gap that the RN and USN dont have on their SSBN?
Click to expand...

It's some kind of auxiliary engineering section: https://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/.../les-sous-marins-nucleaires-lanceurs-d-engins

Another inboard arrangement drawing that I saw a long time ago (but can't find any more) was more specific, calling it the "verticale électrique". So it's likely a centralized electrical system compartment, the idea apparently being silencing, as indicated by this oblique reference in an article on safety: https://www.academiedemarine.com/documents/MINERVE et EURYDICE.pdf

(it is described as being insulated from the hull)
 

Attachments

  • snle.jpg
    snle.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 284
Last edited:
The review indicates that the stockpile will be allowed to rise from 180 to a maximum of 260 (pending parliamentary approval of course).
The rationale seems to be “in recognition of the evolving security environment” and is “A minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, assigned to the defence of Nato, remains essential in order to guarantee our security and that of our allies.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ear-warhead-stockpile-to-rise-by-more-than-40

Of course everyone will soon pipe up doubting whether a US silo, US missile and US warhead can ever be truly independent. I suppose it will count towards our 2% contribution to NATO too so will beef up the contribution considerably in cash value.
 
Hood said:
Of course everyone will soon pipe up doubting whether a US silo, US missile and US warhead can ever be truly independent. I suppose it will count towards our 2% contribution to NATO too so will beef up the contribution considerably in cash value.
Click to expand...
That bit at least, will be British, although it will share a design with the US warhead.

Of course the same was true of Polaris.
 
Hmmmm..... I'm not sure I trust the Guardian on this topic one bit.

Sustainment of warheads means the headline figures are not the numbers available for fitting to Trident.
 
Out of the 180 stockpile now around 120 are operational (so they say), so its likely out of 260 they should have around 200 operational, that's 40 Tridents with 5 warheads each, enough for 3 boat loads.

Let's be honest though, the government is raising the cap by 40%, its not actually committing to the maximum number (and Johnson seems to have indicated the govenrment will stop publicly reporting stockpile and operational figures).
 
While the photograph that we have seen of one Dreadnought hull section is circular (duh!), what are the changes that it will be double-hulled with an outer hull configured for sonar stealth? The official renderings seem to hint at that - note the rather sharp shadow line in the second image. The same may apply for the Columbia class. I also include a BAE Systems model of an advanced SSN from a few years back (I suspect that any sub with internal ducting for its propulsion is going to spend a lot of time in dry dock having various marine life scraped out of it). There's also the bow of an Astute class, showing the chines that first appeared on the Trafalgars and in simpler form on the Swiftsures. Likely they were introduced for hydrodynamic reasons initially, but offer advantages in stealth when applied for the full length of the hull.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5CcknGMiE
 

Attachments

  • HMS Dreadnought Production.jpg
    HMS Dreadnought Production.jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 161
  • CvRebiEWEAIuIdf.jpg
    CvRebiEWEAIuIdf.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 110
  • DSCN0581 copy.jpg
    DSCN0581 copy.jpg
    135.1 KB · Views: 113
  • U9L.jpg
    U9L.jpg
    134.5 KB · Views: 159
Last edited:
www.spacewar.com

UK govt to unveil 200mn nuclear investment

London (AFP) Mar 24, 2024 - Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will on Monday announce GBP200 million ($252 million) of public investment to boost the UK's nuclear deterrent programme and its civil nuclear industry, which the government says will support 40,000 expected new jobs.
www.spacewar.com

www.twz.com

How The U.K. Will Test Its New Nuclear Warhead Without Setting One Off

The UK says it will use lasers, supercomputers, and new technological advances to ensure its A21 nuclear warheads work without as intended.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain developing new nuclear warhead

The United Kingdom has confirmed that it is developing a 'replacement UK sovereign nuclear warhead' for its Trident missiles.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The Replacement Warhead Programme has been designated the A21/Mk7 (also known as Astraea). It is being delivered in parallel with the US W93/Mk7 warhead and each nation is developing a sovereign design. This will be the first UK warhead developed in an era where we no longer test our weapons underground, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not gonna lie, I think both the US and UK should do a test shot to confirm their modeling.
 
Resuming nuclear testing would be a no-no for a Starmer government in the UK. Elements of his Labour party are already opposed to Trident.
 
uk 75 said:
Resuming nuclear testing would be a no-no for a Starmer government in the UK. Elements of his Labour party are already opposed to Trident.
Click to expand...
Understandable, but you still gotta make sure your models are accurate...

Or else you have people laughing at you when there's a 500ft crater instead of a 500m crater.
 
TBH, she cannot string a sentence together either, or manage to hold a train of thought for more than five seconds at a time.

Perhaps ideal qualifications to be in the idiot house?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not gonna lie, I think both the US and UK should do a test shot to confirm their modeling.
Click to expand...
The global political consequences of nuclear testing are too dire for any non-rogue regime to consider. I would argue that only America has the ability to justify a return to testing if the Russians test first. Even that would be hugely problematic, as the Indians are still very angry about how they were sanctioned in the late 1990s. The fallout of those sanctions continues to the present day. If Clinton had simply ignored the 1998 tests, the United States would have replaced Russia as India’s main defense supplier and India would have been firmly in our camp regarding the current ongoing conflict, not neutral or ambivalent.

A return to testing also might signal the beginning of an unprecedented proliferation. The South Koreans have been very publicly debating the issue, which is perfectly acceptable, as long as it’s just a debate. US testing would likely be interpreted as tacit approval for a South Korean program and for Taiwan and Japan as well. After that, you might as well throw away the entire NPT. I could name every country that could afford a deterrent and might pursue one. It’s quite a long list.
 
uk 75 said:
Resuming nuclear testing would be a no-no for a Starmer government in the UK. Elements of his Labour party are already opposed to Trident.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Understandable, but you still gotta make sure your models are accurate...

Or else you have people laughing at you when there's a 500ft crater instead of a 500m crater.
Click to expand...
An above ground test would essentially turn a responsible 2nd tier nuclear power into a pariah state. Even the North Koreans didn’t intentionally do above ground testing. Most people don’t fully understand the dire consequences of the above ground testing of the early nuclear era. We’re literally still living with the fallout (especially in the far North of Canada) and global background radiation.
 
What would the benefit be, of firing a unit with an inert load? Could they learn enough about seperation, fusing and reentry etc? Fire it as some harmless sea creatures and make sure we can locate the deployed loads. No, I get that though. Perhaps fire at Dagenham east and remodel the place..........

It does need it since Ford left.
 
TinWing said:
An above ground test would essentially turn a responsible 2nd tier nuclear power into a pariah state. Even the North Koreans didn’t intentionally do above ground testing. Most people don’t fully understand the dire consequences of the above ground testing of the early nuclear era. We’re literally still living with the fallout (especially in the far North of Canada) and global background radiation.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm not talking about an above ground test. You test underground. Probably two tests, one of just the fission primary if it's a new design and a second one with the fusion secondary included.

The snark about the crater was when you launch a live Trident in war and expect a 500m crater and if you're lucky you get a 500ft crater from the impact velocity plus the conventional explosives when your bomb doesn't work. Otherwise you get about a 50ft crater from the RV impacting, no explosives at all.
 
TinWing said:
The global political consequences of nuclear testing are too dire for any non-rogue regime to consider. I would argue that only America has the ability to justify a return to testing if the Russians test first. Even that would be hugely problematic, as the Indians are still very angry about how they were sanctioned in the late 1990s. The fallout of those sanctions continues to the present day. If Clinton had simply ignored the 1998 tests, the United States would have replaced Russia as India’s main defense supplier and India would have been firmly in our camp regarding the current ongoing conflict, not neutral or ambivalent.

A return to testing also might signal the beginning of an unprecedented proliferation. The South Koreans have been very publicly debating the issue, which is perfectly acceptable, as long as it’s just a debate. US testing would likely be interpreted as tacit approval for a South Korean program and for Taiwan and Japan as well. After that, you might as well throw away the entire NPT. I could name every country that could afford a deterrent and might pursue one. It’s quite a long list.
Click to expand...
2022 proved that every country that can afford it NEEDS a nuclear deterrent. As well as those countries that can't really afford it but are going to have to do it anyway.
 
www.twz.com

Our Best Look Yet At Britain’s New Dreadnought Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Design

A highly streamlined hull, x-shaped stern, pumpjet propulsion, and conformal missile carriage are all features of the Royal Navy’s forthcoming Dreadnought class SSBN. A highly streamlined hull, x-shaped stern, pumpjet propulsion, and conformal missile carriage are all features of the Royal...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
1738354127330.png

@GTX, @Grey Havoc - It might be useful to put 'Dreadnought Class' in the title of this thread now that we know the name. It would make it easier to find on a search.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit puzzled as to why this model has gotten so much traction online given that it looks just the same as most of the renders that have been released.

In any case, it is possible that the final submarine will look quite different than this model as official drawings and models have a quite different sail and control surface shape. I believe these are more recent than the early renders which showed a sail shape similar to the model above, but it's been a while since I looked into it.
 

Attachments

  • image-017.jpg
    image-017.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 56
  • 09-8126333-krv6xsuut-c.jpg
    09-8126333-krv6xsuut-c.jpg
    64.3 KB · Views: 55
  • 17-9396249-12345.jpg
    17-9396249-12345.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 45
  • image.png
    image.png
    51.3 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
Vepr157 said:
I'm a bit puzzled as to why this model has gotten so much traction online given that it looks just the same as most of the renders that have been released.

In any case, it is possible that the final submarine will look quite different than this model as official drawings and models have a quite different sail and control surface shape. I believe these are more recent than the early renders which showed a sail shape similar to the model above, but it's been a while since I looked into it.
Click to expand...
Huh. I was not expecting two different diameters for the pressure hull... And therefore a partial double hull.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh. I was not expecting two different diameters for the pressure hull... And therefore a partial double hull.
Click to expand...

Missile compartment is going to be driven by tube size/length, and is shared with US, hence is a 43 ft hull. Step to smaller fwd/aft hull may indicate these sections are either reused from, or intended for reuse in a SSN. Also possible this is due to length limitations - large diameter hull would push ballast tank volume to the ends, which means a shorter pressure hull or longer overall length. Shorter pressure may not be possible based on internal arrangement constraints which would drive the design to a configuration like this.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh. I was not expecting two different diameters for the pressure hull... And therefore a partial double hull.
Click to expand...
The same was true for the Vanguard as well: bigger missile compartment with smaller diameter fore and aft ends.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom