We are talking about purchasing a US system that is to last for up to 40 years from now based upon the last 50 year of experience that the US systems are the best for the job. 

 

Whilst we rely on Trident we couldn't aford to break away from the US on matters of substance lest they shut down the supply of life limited components for our weapons.  Only the most senior of them and us would know how much of a paper tiger we were at any one time, not neccessarly our pressing enemies...but perhaps.

 

Must we accept this limitation on our foreign policy every day of every year?  I've just be told that the US cannot be relied upon, indeed some think us not even worth anything as allies.  I think the US likely to be capricious and unreliable over the 40 years the system will be in operation.  Our deterent will degrade in the years when we disaggree with them and we'll have to kow-tow when we want to bring back up to full readiness,

 

Look how they act now and you can see in the future a time where Britian may find its interests lie were the US prohibits us from working (China for instance).  I want an effective deterant when we stand up to the US for a lengthy period of time, so we can indeed threaten to nuke them back into the stone age if they threaten us with the same.

 

On SSBN vs. isolated silos the ultimate money saver would be mooring old SSBN midsections underwater in isolated lochs or such like and supplying them with power from on shore generators.....no we would never do that, I know!  Those sub nuclear reactors will be visible from orbit at some time in the future so relying on stealth for protection over the next 40 years is a hell of a gamble.  As space militarises the warning time for subs to clear off the block as incoming is due shortly will decrease.  At such a time the provision of active defense will come to the fore.  Who is too say when exactly that situation comes to pass?

As for lengthening attack subs...

I'm no expert on submarine design, but what little I know tells me that you can't just cut-and-shut a pressure hull, even on the drawing board, since modern subs are rather more complex that a submersible cylinder. That and the launch tubes are a bit more complicated than a hollow cylinder with a hatch. Plus retrofitting systems into an extant hull is a pain in the arris.

In any case it looks as though sanity shall prevail, with a new class of SSBN's.

 

I am rather disapointed though to see that the force may drop to three boats, and 180 warheads. 

 

Are we due to drop to 180 warheads by current treaties?  It is stupid to think otherwise that we should reduce our number of warheads and "champion nuclear non-proloferation", when nobody else is reducing their arsenal.

 

Watching some of these blind left-wing hippies argue for us to scrap our deterrent on the news really makes me angry to the core.

Lehgthening attack subs has been done before. The first US SSBNs, the George Washingtons were Skipjacks  cut in two with a sixteen missle segement inserted ahead of the reactor compartment and there's talk about doing the same with the current Virginia class to develop a successor to the Ohios. A number of the older classes of SSBNs  from a few countries had a raised deck behind and faired into the sail to provide the extra height necessary for the missles. So its been done a number of times before and easier today with CAD tools.

Flamingknives: "Out of interest, how are these space-based sensors going to track nuclear powered subs? Seeing as the reactors are shielded sufficiently to keep the crew safe and they're some distance under water. "

 

Significant shielding I assume is only in fore and aft bulkheads.  Thats why the crew have to pick which end they live in when they join... MeV rays emmited during fission....calculate properties (i.e. thickness, number density, Z) of the sub skin, water column ,  then the atmosphere column up to wherever the senosor is....then the attenuation due to incoherent scattter, perhaps use the following ref :  J. H. Hubbell, W. J. Veigele, E. A. Briggs, R. T. Brown, D. T. Cromer, and R. J. Howerton, “Atomic Form Factors, Incoherent Scattering Functions, and Photon Scattering Cross Sections,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 4, 471 (1975).

 

Up at several MeV energies your considering the attuation due to pair production in the nuclear field and pair production in the surrounding electric field.

 

Then go find a source of data on how many gamma rays the reactors emit,  do the solid angle calc and plug in the attenuation.

 

Then go look up the specs of the best gamma ray telescopes in the public domain....if there is a overlap (or even not quite but almost) you've just found your tool.  If not I am blowing bubbles out my arse.

 

I know you would not be able to scan the worlds oceans with this kind of tool but you might be able to track indefinately a nuclear powered sub which you found once through other means,  say when it left port.

 

With weapons in orbit the accuracy of the location may only need to be within several miles as even if the sub can dash at 30 knots he is only going to get 15min or so warning (if that) so I guess a pattern of active sonar buoys followed by a torp or even a multi-megaton monster bomb ought to get it.

At the cost of which RN programs?

It's like the early 80's all over again.

Significant shielding I assume is only in fore and aft bulkheads.  Thats why the crew have to pick which end they live in when they join...

 

Come again?

 

Have you seen the interior of an SSN?  The things are tiny, and you are trying to say you can't travel from bow to stern?

 

Yimmy, with my big mouth and high level (cough) of security clearance the RN hasn't yet invited me aboard a SSN or bomber/boomer.  However as the leader article on the strategypage homepage asserts the internet is an amazing place nowerdays and lots of info is flying around out there, you just have to know how to grab it! (I am para-phrasing a guy in the film HEAT there)

The reason the crew can't transfer fore and aft through the reactor compartment is the high level of radiation that may be present in the chamber and the risk they will then carry into the rest of the sub.  There are ways through but they are not used very often and generally then only by senior crew ....as I understand the situation at least.

 

I infer from this that most shielding is in the bulkheads not all around the reactor.  I may be wrong.

Yimmy, with my big mouth and high level (cough) of security clearance the RN hasn't yet invited me aboard a SSN or bomber/boomer.  However as the leader article on the strategypage homepage asserts the internet is an amazing place nowerdays and lots of info is flying around out there, you just have to know how to grab it! (I am para-phrasing a guy in the film HEAT there)

The reason the crew can't transfer fore and aft through the reactor compartment is the high level of radiation that may be present in the chamber and the risk they will then carry into the rest of the sub.  There are ways through but they are not used very often and generally then only by senior crew ....as I understand the situation at least.

 

I infer from this that most shielding is in the bulkheads not all around the reactor.  I may be wrong.

I spend my workday doing calculations and research, I'm not going to do yours in my free time. If you want to prove it (noting that "Prove" derives from "test") then go find that stuff from the wonderously diverse internet.

Although I'll point out that you also have to get your gamma-ray detector into orbit, sufficiently shielded that cosmic rays don't foul up its sensitivity and in an orbit that allows it to keep watch on whatever it's looking at.

Finally, you've got to get weapons into orbit and keep them there, or otherwise be able to engage a nuclear sub, wherever it is, without it being able to launch before being destroyed.

If the missiles are in a fixed location, you can make a really dedicated, and hence fast, system of engaging them.