Britain advised to order Dreadnought sub for cruise missiles

Won’t happen. But if we did fund another Dreadnought, we’d be better off with a 5th SSBN, allowing two permanently on patrol and so doubling our firepower at sea.

argument better put if saying 5th nuclear bomber sub can be produced at GOOD value price. 5 subs gives option of 2nd sub deployed with conventional cruise missiles at heightened crisis.

I can see the argument why, you essentially have a spare that could be converted back to a boomer if required at relatively short notice by swapping out the vertical tubes and it improves the logistics chain. On the other hand the AUKUS will likely share a lot in common with the Dreadnought, and each will likely have two or four Virginia Payload Tubes carrying 7 VLS missiles each (in 2×2 blocks these are known as the Common Missile Compartment that will house Trident on Dreadnought/Columbia class). So they will have plenty of VLS capacity in the AUKUS fleet already.

Seems like a platinum plated solution. Surely better to build strike capabilities into all future subs & escorts rather than chosing to stick them all on an extra horrendeously expensive Dreadnaughts.

Not that an SSGN based on a dreadnought is a bad idea, but one is platform not really worth while, 2 would be better as you have the likelihood of always having one available…and a capability that is only available 50% of the time is not a capability it’s a gamble.

it would certainly make for a very effective conventional deterrent…being able to hit with 100+ tomahawk type cruise missiles in one attack from one platform..is a significant deterrent and would be a suitable answer to someone doing something we really really don’t like.

H I Sutton has a great image of a Vanguard ‘vanguard ssgan concept 940‘—this, but with the Dreadnought.

Quite simply the most uniformed bit of garbage I have read in ages. It seems some group is issuing reports that are either stating the blooming obvious such as we need more of X, Y & Z or fantasy land.
Let’s start with the idea of a capability gap between Astute going out of service and SSN(A) entering it. Why would that happen ? We can refuel them if required just like the Vanguards.
Then let’s consider the whole idea of building a 5th Dreadnought, yes I love the idea as that’s 5 is the optimum minimum number required for a robust and efficient CASD. However although both ourselves and France came to the same conclusion neither managed to afford 5 as each one cost @2.5 times the cost of an SSN.
Plus no country not even the USA with an annual defence budget of over $800 billion has ever built an SSBN just to use it as an SSGN. Hence there are no like for like replacements for the Ohio SSGN conversions. They were a direct result of START so the USN either scrapped them or converted them.
Then we we get the sharp end a Dreadnought is a huge boat it designed to go out, go deep and stay there with the ability to unleash the Fury of Gods own Thunder from 000’s of miles away.
Only a complete idiot would load one up with TLAM put it near an enemies coast, to launch a barrage of conventional weapons. Against a tier 1 power it would be suicide plain and simple.

A single sub is pointless, we’d need at least 3, ideally 4, to make sure the capability is available when needed.

The question then becomes, for the money it would cost to make another 3 or 4 dreadnoughts, why not increases the SSN-A order instead.

If we assume the minimum Royal Navy order would be 7 (here’s hoping), why not use any extra money to aim for 12 instead?

Aren’t the Aus/UK SSNR-A subs being equipped with 2*7 round VLS and the US subs have 3 VLS? Isn’t that enough if you have a decent quantity of these subs and as a priority rather than focusing on getting a singular arsenal sub?

Given the time needed to build a Dreadnought class submarine and when available yard space and work force will be freed up at Barrow even if ordered this year we would not see this in service till 2040 to 2045. Plus we also need the space and work force for the Astute replacement. Better to increase the strike power through more Type 31 frigates given the speed of their builds and when they could start production would be available early to mid 2030’s.

Would we all like to see an extra bomber, yes, would we all like to see 12 new SSN-A’s, yes. By the way boomer is the Americian term bomber is the RN term for the SSBN’s. What I do not want to see is 12 SSN-A’s stretched with 2-4 Virginia Payload Modules (VPM). What would be a good concept would be 8-9 SSN-A’s in the pure hunter killer role and 4 stretched SSN-A’s with 4 VPM. To be honest 5 stretched SSN-A’s would be better. Technically they would be the same subs one just has a VPM section inserted.

Now for the reasoning.

The reason for 5 SSN-A’s with VPM’s is that one would become the escort for the carrier group, able to strike coastal air defence systems thereby protecting a the carrier strike going in. She would also defend the carrier group against possible enemy submarines. I would think that we would have a carrier group at sea for about 6-9 months per year. A second stretched SSN-A could then be on patrol.

The main reason for not having all SSN-A’s with VPM’s is that they would be big subs and size does matter. The North Sea, Baltic and Med are not ideal places for big subs. It is my opinion that even an Astute class is to big to operate in the Med. Nuclear subs are open water, deep water predators able to disappear into the depths and pounce when needed.

Putting an SSN into the Med is like having a tiger in a safari park, not quite sure where it is but you know it is there and in a confined area. Also when I look at history the RN in WW2 had real trouble in the Med with their larger subs. Even the French SSN’s that are based in Toulon are several thousand tons smaller that the Astutes. So what is the ideal sub for the North Sea, Baltic, Med a good AIP sub, I disagree with the French basing of their SSNs as I think Brest would be better.

Then comes cost, I am not sure on submarine costs but I could assume that a stretched SSN-A with 4 VPM’s would cost about £150-£200 million more, possibly even in the £300 million range than a pure SSN-A.

Now for the final thinking, I am in favour of nuclear capable cruise missiles. Well not in favour but see the need for Europe to have this capability. The reason is simple if our potential enemies have nuclear capable cruise missiles then we need to have the capability. Russia as an example has Kalibr, Zorcon, then IRBM’s etc whilst Europe have either free fall nuclear bombs or ICBMs. Russia can threaten with a limited nuclear strike possibly below the strategic responce level. With a strategic responce level not being reached then Europe has no way to respond in kind. Would the US respond with a nuclear armed cruise missile if the Russians were mad enough to launch a limited nuclear attack in Europe, I don’t know, especially if Trump was re-elected. This could encourge idiots like Putin to think he might get away with it.

or you could add more VLS to the Type 31s for the fraction of the price of a SSN.

Would it be that easy to modify Dreadnaught for cruise missiles anyway?

It’s one of the best ideas I’ve seen in a long time for the Royal Navy. In fact it makes so much logical sense I am convinced it will never happen.