Your post has certainly given me food for thought, ORAC. I hadn’t seriously considered the SSN(R) as an option as I thought that it was so far in the future that it would create a lengthy capability gap.
The first thought is that making the SSN(R) a cutdown version of the Dreadnought would mean less risk than a clean sheet design as the early Dreadnoughts would be used to debug the systems as well as provide experience with operation of the new PWR3 reactor. As the PWR3 is heavily based on the Virginia’s S9G reactor, I hope it has the S9G’s convective cooling capability and 33 year fuel endurance rather than the 25 years of the PWR2.
The Dreadnought & Columbia SSBN classes will share a Common Missile Compartment (CMC) consisting of 4 missile launch tubes in each section. The Dreadnought will have 3 CMC’s providing 12 missile silos (16 in Columbia). As was shown when 4 Ohio class SSBN’s were converted to SSGN’s, the 87” diameter silos can store and launch 7 Tomahawk missiles in each one. When hypersonic missiles become available, these silos are expected to house 3 in each of them. There have also been suggestions of UUV’s to deliver Special Forces, Mines, ISR, expendable decoys (AURAS project), etc that would be housed in these silos. Thus, it would be highly desirable that the SSN(R) retain at least one CMC (4 silos) to have a very flexible vertical launch capability. The lack of vertical launch capability in the Astute was one of the reasons why there’s been a stronger preference for the Virginia class.
The British plans to maximise automation throughout these vessels and thus reduce the manning requirements would be highly desirable for RAN operations. The structure of RAN submarine operations have been based on RN procedures so it would be an easier transition to stick with a British design rather than having to adjust to USN required procedures.
The main negative to this plan is the amount of extra design work to fit these vessels with US combat systems and weapons - doable (especially because of the extra room in the larger diameter hull) but, how much extra time would be required for the design changes to be incorporated. Any extra time delay in getting these vessels in the water will create major problems for the RAN.
With the heavy workload at Barrow finishing the last of the Astute’s and building the 4 Dreadnought’s, as well as the RAN’s need for the SSN’s to be in service as quickly as possible, is there a chance that construction of the first SSN(R) will be at Osborne, SA (with a lot of UK assistance)? The first UK SSN(R) could commence construction a couple of years later when Dreadnought assembly permits.
Last edited by Going Boeing; 21st Sep 2022 at 23:06.