Preparation work has started on HMS Victorious ahead of her planned major refit to ready her for future tasking.

The Royal Navy say in a news release that the maintenance programme on the Vanguard-class submarine, taking place in Babcock’s Devonport facility, will sustain more than 1,000 jobs in the south west region and will see the boat modernised and improved to continue operational patrols into the 2030s.

“The multi-million pound, long-term programme will involve 1,000 Babcock employees from those working directly on the boat to others working in production, design, commissioning and the wider supply chain.

HMS Victorious’ arrival is in tandem with significant investment in the naval base’s facilities, creating additional jobs for people in the region. As well as supporting the maintenance of existing and future classes of submarines, it will also enhance Devonport Dockyard’s ability to deliver major defence projects.”

Brigadier Mike Tanner, commander of HMNB Devonport, was quoted as saying:

“I am delighted to announce that the work has begun to prepare HMS Victorious as she commences her major refit. This activity will sustain jobs and key skills for the City of Plymouth and wider south-west region for the foreseeable future.”

Paul Watson, managing director of Babcock’s Devonport facility, added:

“As part of the UK’s critical continuous at sea deterrent, HMS Victorious represents one of the most complicated pieces of engineering there is. Work on the vessel has started and the capability, knowledge and experience our people have gained through the delivery of similar projects supporting the Royal Navy fleet, along with new and innovative and collaborative approaches with our customer, means we are well prepared to deliver this important overhaul project.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

72 COMMENTS

    • Hi Geoff, not really mate, she will have taken off all her weapons (Trident/Spearfish) at Coulport before sailing down to Guzz.

  2. Should not have downgraded Rosyth Boomers used too be refitted there the MOD even had the Bason enlarged too fit the V class I wonder if next there’ll be a peace camp springing up at Guzz dockyard

    • Royal Marine – after OF5 appointments blur and go off their board score / recommendations rather than their background. Same in the Army where they go into the ‘General Staff’.

      • No mate not been OF 7/8 since late 90’s, both Plymouth and Portsmouth changed from Flag officer ***** to Naval Base Commander with subsequent downgrade to OF 6 rank. Not sure but might have been part of the ‘Options for Change’ cuts.

        • Deep,
          I was having a Giraffe, if you followed the link, it will take you to what I feel is the best rendition of
          “”I am the very model of a modern major general!””
          From the Pirates of Penzance 

        • Exactly, though I think the change came much later. The NBCs come under DES, unless it’s all changed again.

          • Don’t think it’s changed again, but yes, all the Port Admiral posts including FOSNI and FONA were all downgraded to OF6 ranks. Bit of an Admiral cull happening, which has continued until now really. Makes sense as the Navy has shrunk markedly since the end of the cold war.

          • Yes it’s been happening for years with all 3 services. I often mention it when posters here keep on about “too many Admirals”

            There really aren’t.

  4. Hopefully it all goes smoothly with the lessons learned from HMS vanguard.
    Is this ship not getting a new reactor core?
    Any clue to the timescale of refit?

    • Hi mate,
      No she isn’t scheduled for a new core Vanguard wasn’t originally until they found some defects in the primary loop. The remains two aren’t either, so all being well, she should be out after 2 years or so.

      • That’s good then. At least they fixed vanguard properly instead of hoping it will all be ok. Back to the depths at sneaky speed.
        Did u serve on an SSBN? In one of subbrief videos he said he was lucky that he stayed off the Boomers. He said the more interesting missions were given to the boats that didn’t have VLS tubes. Seeing as he was a sonar guy boomers could of been a bit boring sonar wise.

        • Yes did 3 X SSBN and 4 X SSN drafts.

          Totally different mind set between the two SM types, as the two roles are vastly different. Life on a SSN was always manic, 500 mph type stuff, while life on a SSBN was more deckchair like. Horses for courses so to speak.

          • Hi Deep Would you mind if I asked you a couple of questions and nope I am not a Troll.

            Where is her Flank Array and why would they remove it before entering a refit ?
            .
            I do remember years ago that if we had built 5 Polaris Boats rather than just 4 we would have been able to have 2 deployed rather than just 1.

            So given the state of world affairs and that France also have just 4 SSBN’s would it be conceivable to merge our deployment / refit schedules so that there are 3 on station at any one time ?

            I was just thinking it may be possible if it alternated on a rolling schedule so effectively running an 8 boat fleet. Sometimes it would be 2 RN and 1 MN and sometimes the other way round. And I don’t think we would need to change targetting as it really isn’t relevant to a detterent its just 50% bigger.
            My reason for wondering was I just can’t think of a clearer message to Mr Putin of what a Muck up he has made of things.
            Getting the French and UK to agree on a joint deployment schedule would be something to really worry him.

          • Hi mate, yes I know Ur not a troll, you post too much good stuff for that.

            The Flank array on a V boat is the ‘raised’ hull structure which sits on the casing below the missile tubes both sides for basically the length of the missile compartment.

            If you look at the picture it’s the slightly brown looking tiles which run from where the last crew member is standing to just before the square ‘grating’ before the hull slopes down towards the stern.

            They don’t normally remove the array unless they are conducting maintenance on the array or changing some/all mof the hydrophones, as they sit on a metal trellis type structure. Another possibility is that they need to access the pressure hull to remove some piece of big kit, although that is probably unlikely.

            On an Astute the FlkA is located lower down on the hull, and runs from roughly the middle of the fin to the beginning of the RC, and has an additional array patch further aft (which you can clearly see on some of the pictures of A boats)

            Unlike what both countries are doing with their carriers, I can’t see the same happening with the respective fleets even though it would make sense if you needed to have more boates at sea.

            Between the three nations (US/UK/FR), we always have between 4/5 bombers at sea at any given time. 3 in the NA, and 1-2 in the Pacific. US Pacflt has more SSBNs than the Atlflt does for this very purpose. Even at a reduced capacity that’s at least 40-50 missiles with over 160-240 warheads. Do we really need any more?

            I think what is more telling is the US boats popping up in various locations letting themselves be seen which previously they wouldn’t have.

            Hope this answers some of your questions?

          • Sorry, ref Astute class, the flk array runs from just aft of the fore planes to just before the back part of the fin.

            Would also help if I spelt,’boats’ correctly!!

          • Good Morning Gents. I am early to bed ,early to rise so miss much of this debate. A question from a curious ignoramus-with a fleet of 4 Nuclear missile armed subs, how is it that we can in general only operate one at a time? Also the idea from Rodney above of having an 8 strong Anglo-French ‘force multiplier’ fleet might be impracticable(or impractical?) from the political standpoint. What if one party wishes to launch a Nuke but the other is not sure or ready? Would not joint control possibly fatal delay such a retaliatory strike or threat thereof ?

          • Morning geoff.

            One out at sea doing the job.
            One working up to take over from the 1st.
            One with crew on leave, training, boat in minor maintenance.
            One boat in refit.
            The 4 shuffle like musical chairs between the roles so the top one, CASD, is always covered.
            Interestingly, bombers also have 2 crews, port and starboard.

          • Only 2 of the 4 SSBNs have two crews, the other has a gold crew (supposedly has an uplift but in reality doesn’t). The boat in Devonport will have a reduced crew until about a year before its getting ready to go on sea trials.

          • Hello Daniele. Nice to hear from you and thanks for info! I am sure you remember the Force de Frappe instituted in France by De Gaulle-3 legs-land based missiles, Air Force Bombers and Submarines, all armed with Nuclear Warheads. It has since disappeared into the history books with only the 4 subs remaining(although I think they had 5 at one stage). It is perhaps a worry that both France and the UK now rely on only one active sub each to carry the nations Nuclear deterrent. There are many probably academic questions which arrive from this but notably if the active one is disabled….. which brings me to the next point. maybe the UK should have a second tier, possibly a small number of Nuclear armed Cruise missiles or Typhoons armed with nuclear warheads? All of this only applies to a UK only nuclear exchange, a highly unlikely scenario, but still, food for proverbial thought!
            We have just had a deluge in Durban-mini flood! Unusual for this our dry season. Next ten days or more noon temperatures in the low twenties. lovely African mid winter. i hear you are heading for the thirties plus.
            All the best my friend
            Geoff

          • We could do with some of that water mate! No floods mind, but a proper rain.

            On France, they do still have tactical nuclear capability in the air force to complement their SLBM.

            Given the finances there are other things I’d buy first, though a stand off tactical nuclear capability would be good to have if the money was there.

          • Hi Daniele. Didn’t know the French had retained some stand-off Nukes-a good second tier. As to floods the effects of ours are getting worse because of zero maintenance to Storm water system and spread of unplanned squatter camps. One thing about the UK and your water supply-it fascinates me how you run out so soon! When our dams are full we have water for a very long time despite the vagaries of the African climate. In the UK you seem to run out after even a short dry spell. Smaller reservoirs?
            Cheers
            Geoff

      • Ooh it’s a boat. Didn’t even notice I’d written it that way.
        Out of interest do u know why a sub is a boat?
        Or when a surface vessel turns from a boat into a ship?

        • It’s something to do with what was at the time the first submersible which was off loaded or launched from a parent ship like a boat.ie. submarines are boats.⛵

        • The IMO explanations for Boat vs Ship,
          a ship has multiple decks above the waterline,
          a boat has only its main deck and bridge above the waterline. Given Subs live underwater and very little above it when they do surface they be boats

          Hopefully Deep32 can confirm or deny

  5. Ironic that Babcock runs Plymouth now, after the Tory’s did the dirty on the submarine refit contract and pulled it out of Rosyth in the 90’s and tried to shut down Rosyth and Babcock. Blessing in disguise for Rosyth in the end but they still never filled in the £500 million hole in the ground dug to take the vanguard’s.

    • I think the point is more that mail naval strikes moves to T26 and T31 which will have Mk41 VLS and that secondary land strike is via NSM.

      Also with F35 and a reduced RCS missile, covert strike, is less of an issue than it was.

      I suspect that the Astute’s capability will be retained as it exists it won’t cost big bucks to keep in service and there is increased emphasis on submarine operations.

      The new system is unlikely to be integrated to Astute as it is a vertically launched missile and the AKAUS class subs will have vertical launch tubes for conventional weapons.

    • Astutes will keep torpedo launched Tomahawks, British AUKUS Class and French warships will get vertically launched FC/ASW while Australians will likely use an American missile. The French may develop a horizontal launched version for their submarines in which case a design would be available to the Astutes though Britain didnt adopt the torpedo launched Storm Shadow (MdCN) (it trades 450kg Broach for a 300kg HE and more fuel for longer range).

    • A lot will depend on the version the RN chooses. You can bet the French will want a torpedo-launched version. Especially as their newly in-service Barracuda class do not have VLS only 4 torpedo tubes. At present there are still two trains of thought, one being a sub-sonic stealthy cruise missile, whilst the other is a hypersonic missile. Of the two the subsonic one would be quicker and cheaper to build, but perhaps more significantly, cheaper for the Treasury to stomach.

      Range is a major factor, which will directly affect the missile’s size. To get anything over 1000km sub-sonically to reach a target at low level, you require at least a 5 to 7m long fuselage, which may then affect the mass of the warhead it carries, eg MDCN a derivative of Storm Shadow carries a lighter 300kg warhead and is 6.5m long, so it can carry more fuel to reach more than 1000km.

      Storm Shadow already has a pretty low radar cross section (RCS) due to its design. Including additional radar absorbent material (RAM), is easily doable, especially protecting against X-band and higher frequency radars. As the material’s depth and volume is a lot smaller. So making a stealthy Storm Shadow Mk2 can be done quite quickly.

      The hypersonic missile would be the problem child! There are many factors to consider. Will the missile follow a high altitude quasi-ballistic path? As this is much more fuel efficient and can give the missile the desired range. Will the missile still attack the target at hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase? As this will use up a tremendous amount of fuel to maintain the speed in steadily increasing denser atmosphere? How will the missile mitigate plasma generation? Will it need to slow down in the terminal phase, so it can find its target, thereby making it easier to intercept?

      But just as importantly, how will the missile be powered? It will need a tremendous rocket booster to push it past Mach 1.2 (preferably Mach 1.5) for a RAMJET to operate. But then if it’s going to be hypersonic, it will need a SCRAMJET. Which are notoriously difficult to get right. Then there’s the fuel burn problem. To give the missile a similar 1000km range, it will need to carry a shed load of fuel. Which means it needs to be big. If the booster can do most of the work by getting it above 80,000ft and Mach 4. Then the missile can “cruise” to a higher altitude (25km+) via the SCRAMJET. Thereby using less fuel to accelerate to a Mach 5+ due to the thinner atmosphere, which will then give it the range.

      The obvious example is the Russian 3M22 Zircon missile, which can purportedly travel at Mach8! A lot of public media states that the missile is 9m long, but does that include the booster, which I presume it does? For example Tomahawk is 6.25m long including the booster. Without officially released images of Zircon, it’s difficult to say exactly. But the size would preclude it from being carried by an aircraft except a large dedicated bomber or substitute transport (bomber) aircraft. Rather than a tactical aircraft, such as an Su-35 for example. Though the Mig-31 manages the Kinzhal, which is still 2m shorter than the Zircon.

      For the Astute, the question would be can the torpedo tube handle a missile, that could be around 9m long? Neither the strike length versions of the Mk41 or the Sylver V70 VLS are deep enough, to handle a 9m long missile. Which is one of the reasons why the USN are looking at a significantly deeper launcher, for the Zumwelts to house hypersonic missiles. For a torpedo tube launch. the sub-sonic version of FC/ASW is probably the only version an Astute class could use.

  7. Are the V class still carrying 8 D5 s limited to 48 warheads per boat. Would think that in the current situation we would up that and have a 2nd boat at sea.

    • They carry what the government decide they need after advice from the RN, so it could change on a patrol basis despite what has been declared.
      We don’t have enough boats to put two on CASD patrol, one is in refit, one at sea, one just back and Vanguard on sea trials/,workup before she rejoins the patrol cycle.

      • 48 buckets of sunshine is enough to ruin everyone’s day.
        Personally I would have 12-16 missiles even if the warheads stay the same. Fill them with decoys etc.
        How many targets, where they are, how long to assign targets to missiles is not something I want to think about.

        • Yes. The US SIOP gives one an idea, and ours are integrated with theirs. We have staff in the US specifically for that task.

          • Because the missiles are American. In the warheads were developed and tested in the United States. That’s kind of a thing.

          • Because a nuclear strike needs co ordinating, and targets allocated so a British SSBN does not hit a target allocated to a USN SSBN if it is not necessary to allocate more than one warhead to that target.

            Their testing regards the SIOP is irrelevant. As is their development, which, as you’ve been told before by posters who know, was developed at both LANL and Aldermaston. The British warhead is known as Holbrook, and is quite likely based on the original US design, with alterations. Does this get the tissues moist for you?

            Considering everything in your view is American, how come targeting and software for British MIRV are at another UK facility?

          • The United States you keep trying to climb into but the Border Force are catching and returning you every time, that United States?

    • Maybe why it is having a well earned refit.

      The outside is rubber tiles and they do get rust stained!

  10. It would be nice to see a life-ex on the youngest vanguard to turn it into a multi purpose sub that uses vls for cruise missile, and unmanned submersibles capabilities.

    • Interestingly, why this isn’t possible was explained by both Deep and ABC Rodney on an earlier thread, quite recently.

  11. I doubt it. To the best of my knowledge the reactor problems were confined to Vanguard. Even if they did find it. They know how to deal with it .

  14. Makes as much sense as anyone else on here, i’m not going to lie. At least he has only commented 28 times. 😎

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here