Nuclear missile arsenal of the Royal Navy: present and prospects

Babcock announces a contract for the In-depth Maintenance and Life Extension (LIFEX) process for the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) HMS Victorious.

The £560 million ($707 million) LIFEX program is in partnership with the UK Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA). The cost of servicing HMS Victorious significantly exceeds the work carried out on HMS Vengeance, which underwent a £2012 million refurbishment between March 2016 and February 322, which included reactor refueling
boats and updating its electronics and equipment.

It is expected that the repair will take about 4 years, but considering that the previous Vengard SSBN spent 7 years under repair, this time frame seems a little optimistic.

After it, the Vigilant will undergo repairs, and it will finish its capital work closer to the mid-30s, somewhere around the beginning of the entry into service of the new Dreadnought SSBN. At least, this is what is planned; what will happen in reality is unknown.

Here I would like to add on my own behalf: it seemed strange to me how the Admiralty draws up a schedule for overhauls of its SSBNs. In theory, if no serious accidents occur, then large ships undergo major repairs and modernization, according to the timing of entry into service.

However, the first to enter the capital in 2008 was “Vigilant”, which at that time was 14 years old. After him in 2012, also for four years, became “Vengence”, which turned 13 years old.

The repair of Vengard in 2002–2004 will be mentioned, but not as a major one. And the ship was only 9 years old, which is still a bit early for a capital ship. The seven-year repair of the Vengard made significant adjustments to the schedules of BS and inter-cruise repairs of the remaining three boats and their crews. Initially, 5 crews were formed on the basis that
one of the SSBNs is being repaired. It is difficult to guess what the situation is now, given the sex scandals and cocaine on board.

The second unsuccessful launch of the Trident SLBM does not add optimism. If in 2016
the rocket launched, but flew in the wrong direction, then the current launch suggests that either something is wrong with the Tridents, or with the British crews.

There is no information on major repairs at all about Victorius. However, if we take into account that it has already been announced that recharging of the core reactor will not be carried out on it, then it has undergone such a procedure before.

Perhaps this leapfrog is due to the fact that the timing of the entry into service of new SSBNs is shifting more and more to the right.

According to official information, the formation of the Dreadnought SSBN hull has already been completed or is close to completion, but the launching position in the boathouse is occupied by the Agamemnon, the penultimate MPLA of the Estute class.

After it, the launching position will be taken by the Agincourt, expected to be launched in 2026, unless any further force majeure occurs. When she is launched, the Dreadnought will be moved to the launch position. However, when this will happen is still not clear.

So far it has been stated that the new British SSBNs will have 12 missile silos instead of 16 on the Vengards, which, in general, is quite expected and reasonable, since in recent years British SSBNs have been going on combat patrols with 8 Trident missiles. What caused this decision, alas, is unknown.

At one time, the topic was discussed about converting some of the mines to accommodate Tomahawks, like on the American Ohio. But then somehow everything faded away. It must be understood that the cost of such work turned out to be unacceptable.

In addition to new SSBNs, it became known about an increase in the number of special warheads and their modernization.

In 2021, it is announced that the number of available “operably available” nuclear warheads will increase from about 225 to about 260. The standard British Mk4/A Holbrook with a yield of up to 100 kt will either be modified or created anew.

The new British special warhead will be designed, developed and manufactured in the UK and housed in the US Air Corps Mk7, which was created
for the new American warhead W93.

“The Mk7 body will be purchased from the US, along with certain other non-nuclear components, in accordance with existing nuclear materials treaties,” a 2023 report to the UK Parliament said.

Although relatively little is known about the potential costs of developing a new nuclear warhead, it is believed that the UK could spend up to £4 billion on the programme.

PS

The image on the splash screen is purely illustrative.

Comments

[tralflot1832]

Nikolay, a very strange leapfrog with launching positions - the lead "Dreadnought" can generally get into the water last. Have English "shipbuilders" appeared who are not allowed to sleep by the laurels of English "scientists"?

[TermNachTer]

Who knows. In general, if you believe what is written, then there are three positions in the boathouse - side assembly positions, the central one - launching. Theoretically, any of the boats can be moved from the assembly positions to the launching position, depending on the circumstances.

[Doccor18]

since in recent years British SSBNs have been going on combat patrols with 8 Trident missiles. What caused this decision, alas, is unknown.

Mrs. Savings...
The fleet is becoming too expensive even for the first echelon of countries. In the near future, we may see a reduction in the number of combat fleets in the world to five or six... A very significant and rarely covered forecast. Even wealthy developed countries are planning 4-5 ships in future series, which means that only one, or maximum two pennants will be able to go to sea. It looks like we are witnessing the most serious crisis of the navy in its entire existence...

[paul3390]

Not only is it very expensive, but the combat survivability of all modern ships raises more and more doubts... If in the old days, say, a Seydlitz, having taken a dozen hits with its main caliber, albeit a wreck, had a chance of returning to base, then for today’s expensive copies, just one is enough... Why then spend so much money?

[Doccor18]

Quote: paul3390

having scored a dozen hits with the main caliber, although it was a wreck, but had a chance to return to base, then for the current expensive copies, one would be enough...

Of course that’s enough, there’s no one to deal with the fight for survivability. The crews of some ultra-modern large ships, up to a hundred or so people, have shrunk...

[paul3390]

So there is no armor, and flammable materials are above the roof..

[Alexey RA]

In general, everything is as Mr. Lem wrote 40 years ago.

At the same time, new generations of weapons rose exponentially in price. A World War I aircraft, consisting mainly of canvas, wooden slats, piano wire and a few machine guns, cost, including landing wheels, no more than a good car. An airplane from the Second World War era was already worth the cost of thirty cars, and by the end of the century the cost of a missile interceptor fighter or a radar-invisible stealth bomber of the Stealth type reached hundreds of millions of dollars. The missile fighters planned for 2000 were expected to cost a billion dollars each. If this continued, then in eighty years each of the superpowers could afford no more than 20–25 aircraft. Tanks were a little cheaper. And a nuclear aircraft carrier, defenseless against a single super-missile of the FiF type (over the target it disintegrated into a whole fan of warheads, each of which struck one of the nerve nodes of this sea mass), although it was, in fact, something like a brontosaurus under artillery fire, was worth many billions.

© S. Lem. Weapon systems of the twenty-first century, or evolution upside down.

[Mustached Kok]

The crisis is caused by the fact that during the second half of the twentieth century there was a sharp jump in the cost of ships per unit due to a significant increase in the number of electronics on board. At the same time, its placement and adaptation to the most universal seaworthiness characteristics (high speeds, but at the same time low draft) led to the fact that the growth of electronic equipment was ensured by the weakening of passive protection systems (armor) and the strength of the hull itself. And the dynamics of deterioration in education in many advanced countries, in turn, has led to the problem that there are also fewer qualified personnel for the fleet. This process is also accelerated by widespread automation. It is good for the fleet in peacetime, as it requires fewer specialists in the fleet for service. But it will have an extremely negative effect during combat operations - there is not enough crew to fight for survivability!
It seems to me that the reason for this is the idea of ​​​​"multifunctionality" in the fleet. Now technology makes it possible to create truly multifunctional ships, it’s true. And there are gorgeous representatives of such ships. BUT!!! But then the price of each individual ship is so high that it is impossible to make many ships. As a result, he receives perfect ships, but in a number of them incapable of influencing the situation at sea. And the loss of one such ship will be a significant weakening of the fleet as a whole. And if SEVERAL such ships are destroyed, then this can already be regarded as a catastrophic blow to the strength and combat effectiveness of the fleet.
It is possible to create multifunctional fleet ships - cruisers - as flagships. With a displacement of about 20 thousand tons and more (with a smaller displacement, for implementation you will have to make tricks and unfavorable compromises on protection, autonomy, seaworthiness, etc.). And partly large aircraft carriers (due to their fleet, which will be capable of performing many tasks). Anything less than 20 thousand. i.e. WE ARE NOT EVEN TRYING to make displacement multifunctional. Maybe make ships with dual tasks. For example, one destroyer will be able to perform both air defense and strike missions (since cruise missiles, air defense and anti-ship missiles can be launched from the same type of cells and use the same type of radars for target designation). The other destroyer is the PLO-Udarny ship. Since its complex of systems will allow you to search, identify, lead and destroy enemy submarines and surface ships. Ships with a displacement of less than 10 thousand tons should AT ALL be engaged in one task. The only expensive thing that ALL ships should have is a data exchange system. So that if one ship saw the target, all the ships on the order saw it. In this case, if one ASW ship sees an enemy boat, then other ASW ships will also see it on their radars. And the ships are NOT PLO, also seeing it on their radars, they will understand how to maneuver in order to stay at a safe distance.

[Kostadinov]

If in 2016
the rocket launched, but flew in the wrong direction, then the current launch suggests that either something is wrong with the Tridents, or with the British crews.

What's not to like? The missile did this - either a 2,5 or a triple loop, which not all missiles can do for air combat. All you need to do is add a homing head.

[TermNachTer]

I, too, am very pleased with the test results, both current and 2016. It’s interesting - simply, purely from a technical point of view - what is it?

[Simple]

Compare videos of successful launches with this (2016) unsuccessful one.
It came out of the water, judging by the video, with a “five”, but the rocket did not stabilize after the launch stage was ignited. IMHO of course.

[TermNachTer]

I watched both the first and 2016 videos. With that, everything is clear. But with the last one, it’s interesting. Is it the Lockheed company that has gone so crazy that outright marriage is driving them away, or is it that the British sailors have clumsy paws?

[Simple]

The nozzle of the first accelerating stage is controlled using mechanical rods.
Some videos of the launches show the consequences of their work.
In 2016, the rocket had not even begun to stabilize. I think this is a consequence of non-standard work (more likely non-work) of one of the thrusts.