Some broad-brush thoughts:
Block V Virginias and I suspect future UK SSN(R)s (aka Astute Successors) available in the 2040s will boast around 4 VPMs. Each could host one SLBM.
The current Astute SSNs have a beam/diameter of 11.3m (which increased by 1.5m from the preceding Trafalgar SSNs). This suggests the SSN(R)s may have a diameter of 11.3 + 1.5 = 12.8m.
Where I'm going is that a 12.8m diameter should allow a missile 12m tall. Even a Trident I C4 missile was only 10.2m tall. It sported 8 MIRVs with a range of 7,400km.
Adding 2m of booster(s), with lighter booster casings and more energy/kg propellant should permit a Trident I* range around 10,000km.
A SECOND THOUGHT
Australia's intention to build 8 or more (10?) SSNs could be rationalised to 6 SSNs protecting 4 full sized SSBNs. These SSBNs could sport full sized Trident IIs D5 (or D6 or D7 by the 2040s) of around 13.58m tall.
With some pushing by the US and UK
the good Burghers at IAEA
might let Australia have its way
to the legal NPT “nuke haves” list, OK!
Simple? Elegant? What could ever go wrong?
7 comments:
Pete
You are probably right about the next UK SSN(R) having a VLS capability. as you say the increase in hull diameter to accommodate a PWR3 reactor makes it straightforward.
Interestingly BAE has been awarded the contract to supply VLS payload tubes to the Virginia Class program for the USN. So it shouldn't be very hard for BAE to do the same for the RN.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/u-s--navy-using-bae-systems-payload-tubes-to-increase-virginia-class-strike-capability
Hi Anonymous [at Jul 8, 2022, 4:19:00 PM]
Yes PWR3 reactor accommodation is another reason UK SSN(R)s are likely to be larger and therefore more useful for VLS.
BAE certainly gets around, what with Astutes, SSN(R)s, Dreadnought SSBNs, UK and Canadian Type 26s, Australia's Hunter Future Frigates and Virginia VLS.
In having such exceessive(?) market footprints in the UK, Aus and US I hope BAE doesn't have the types of problems seen with its:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Construction,_cost_overruns_and_delays and
- and now problems with the Type 26 with a knockon effects to "Hunter-class frigate report indicates Australian naval shipbuilding in disarray"
Feb 2, 2022
see https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/hunter-class-frigate-report-indicates-australian-naval-shipbuilding-in-disarray/
Like the Attack-class windup Australia might do better in the end shelving the problematic under-develpoed Hunter-class (even though about A$3 Billion is already sunk into it)
and joining the closer to off the shelf successful US Constellation-class project . Australia will always be inter-operating closer with US Constellations than with UK/Canadian Type 26s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate
This of course would be another huge, expensive, complex, change in direction...
But all of these things are typical of Australia's near Trillion dollar acquisitions program over the next 20 years.
Regards Pete
Pete
I have been having the same thought re BAE and the Hunter frigates. BAE might have the capability to do all those things, but whether they have the human resources to do all of them at once is a good question. As you probably know the Type 26s have been late for both the RN and RCN as well.
Relative to any A2/AD strategy ASW frigates are not the highest priority and the cost $45 billion for nine frigates, is very high. The AWDs could be built for $2 to $3 billion each or $25 to $30 billion.
If the SSN build contract is negotiated and not tendered, it might be prudent to negotiate to give BAE the sub build only on condition that they surrender the Hunter contract without financial penalty. Then Navantia’s offer to build another 3 AWDs could be accepted and extended from 3 to 9 units. This would give Australia a total of 12 AWDs.
This would have many advantages :
Faster - the design is complete and AWD construction could start immediately. Avoids a capability gap.
Cheaper to build - as above, this would save $15+ billion, which would help greatly with SSNs budget.
Cheaper to operate - one single design fleet of all rounder ships is easier to maintain and equip. Fewer different parts.
Good all rounder - the AWDs have a towed array sonar and good helicopter and will get Tomahawks, so good ASW, AA and ASurf balance. Not as good ASW as Hunters, but better AA and ASurf. The USN has taken this approach with their Arleigh Burkes, and we should learn from them.
Construction employment starts now, which would placate the new government too.
Pete
Further to my previous comments switching from Hunters to Constellations would be an equally good move as switching to AWDs.
I suggested AWDs because all the supporting industry is already in place and they already carry the Cephir radar.
No the AWD don’t carry the CEAFAR radar. There is talk of doing so, but the Hobart class currently has US radars. The stupid idea of “build to print”, which doesn’t work when the printed plans don’t match reality (something which the likes a of ASC & others raised repeatedly, only to be ignored by uninformed idiots that “know better”), was based on minimal changes to the Spanish ships as designed. The AWD contracts were drawn up by amateurs. There was plenty of quality advice available (including from government owned ASC), but totally ignored.
Hi Anonymous [at Jul 9, 2022, 6:14:00 PM and Jul 9, 2022, 6:17:00 PM]
There's an avoiding uncompetitive over-reliance in one company irony that Aus DoD/RAN in the 2010s perhaps didn't choose:
Well developed baseline FREMM Frigates because our DoD wanted to avoid over reliance on Naval Group which was in alliance with Italy's Fincantieri in building FREMMs
and of course Naval Group were to build the Attack class.
BAE may have been chosen through Aus PM's perceptions that the UK would give Australia a discount and other benefits for the Type 26 (becomming Hunter-class). This is because the Brexiting UK was leavingthe EU and would therefore be overjoyed to have big new export customer Australia.
Also Aus had misplaced trust in UK BAE assurances that the Type 26s were a mature design.
Also Australia wanted to underwrite its strategic alliance with the UK by buying a big ticket UK Frigate type.
++++++++++=+++++++++++++
But now that Aus has dumped the Attacks the IRONY is that:
BAE is helping build the Type 26 Hunters
and
BAE has a 50% chance of helping build SSN(R)'s (if chosen) for Australia with the UKs 2026-2040s "no new SSN completed gap" probably meaning the first Aus SSN(R) would only be operational from the 2050s.
unless
Logic wins, and Dutton's leak is true, that Aus has chosen Virginia's. Only the Taskforce's March (or panning out later?) 2023 report will tell.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous [at Jul 11, 2022, 10:58:00 PM]
Thanks for advice that Aus Hobart-class AWDs aren't carring the CEAFAR radar but instead US radars.
Multi 10s of $Billions Defence acquisitions and building programs shouldn't be left to some.
Why Australia didn't choose Navantia Future Frigates after Aus working hard to become efficient Navantia AWD builders is a $40? Billion mystery
that perhaps PM's Abbott and Turnbull and RAN Brass? (over forelock tugging to the UK) are perhaps responsible for.
Regards Pete
Post a Comment