User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 9:26:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My question is… Why? Two or three smaller subs would be superior, and cost about the same. Big enough to sink an aircraft carrier, or launch an ICBM, is big enough. One ICBM? Just one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 9:33:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Clicked on this expecting to see a massive battleship. Nope, a sub. Weird.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 9:40:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't understand why go physically big on sub? Wouldn't a bunch of tinier distributed fire power platforms be more advantageous with automation to replace/supplement crew? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 9:42:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thought they were building a new battleship. Not sure I'd name a sub Dreadnaught. That name's taken. Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite, King George VI. Those are good names. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 9:43:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kind of my thought as well. But what I don't know anything about naval warfare. Just seems like putting all your eggs in one basket seems like a bad idea, or limited baskets. Seems incredibly easy to track a small number when they are in port and have a limited number of a gigantic sub to track at sea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 9:55:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if the RR reactors leak as much as ever other RR engine I’ve seen or owned? Different companies |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 4:25:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Anybody want to bet they end up with three instead of four due to cost overruns and budget stuff?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 4:31:23 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But can it launch an ICBM horizontally? Yeah, but why would you want to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 4:44:37 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thing is going to shoot the D5 Trident missile. Each missile is about 45 feet long and weighs 130,000 lbs, and she's gonna carry a dozen of them. Remember the UK has no land based nuclear deterrent either, their nuclear weapons package is all on submarines. The UK needs these boats. These boats will be prioritized over every other ship in the fleet. The real bitching I have is about AUKUS. There was zero way to get Australia into SSNs to replace the obsolete Collins class they keep cobbling together. The USN is going to lose three new Virginia SSNs to start AUKUS. England never was going to be able to provide Australia any SSNs within the decade. The Dreadnought class is taking up their yard space and their Astute replacements will follow their SSBNs. Yes the French were ripping off the Australians but the Australians were dumb. They should have inked the deal with the Japanese for a bunch of their Soryu or Taigei SSPs. They probably would be closed to having two boats in service by now and a bunch of cash in their pocket to finish the project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 5:02:40 AM EDT
[#10]
Oz needs SSNs. SSKs aren’t fast enough and/or don’t have the endurance for the Pacific.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 5:14:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, the British Dreadnought won't be "tiny" in comparison. A Typhoon-class sub is only approx 70 feet longer in length, and about 30 more feet longer in beam (displacement isn't the only metric here). Draught is about the same. Smaller, perhaps. But then again, that's why the article clearly stated it's the biggest Great Britain has ever produced, not Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Soviet Typhoon class displaced 48k tons when submerged. The new Dreadnought is tiny by comparison. She displaces more than a WW II Treaty Cruiser (limited to 10k tons) and about as much as a late war WW II cruiser (Baltimore class CA 13,000 tons light and 17,000 tons full load). BTW, that image of the Dreadnought reminds me of a capsized surfboard. No, the British Dreadnought won't be "tiny" in comparison. A Typhoon-class sub is only approx 70 feet longer in length, and about 30 more feet longer in beam (displacement isn't the only metric here). Draught is about the same. Smaller, perhaps. But then again, that's why the article clearly stated it's the biggest Great Britain has ever produced, not Russia. I thought at 17k tons displacement it was huge and bigger than our boats, but just read the Columbia class will be over 21K tons. Makes sense since our boats will carry an extra Trident module. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 5:26:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t understand why go physically big on sub? Wouldn’t a bunch of tinier distributed fire power platforms be more advantageous with automation to replace/supplement crew? I’m no expert, but nowadays naval architecture favors bigger boats. Each boat needs a nuclear reactor, all of the expensive sonar and other systems. Those are very large, basically fixed costs. By the time you pay for all that, scaling up the boat to be larger is small potatoes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:17:39 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But why? The technology of 1930 doesn't have much use. There are better ways to sink ships and kill people now. It’s not about offensive capability, it’s about surviving the first wave if Chinese missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:24:33 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They probably wanted to keep the multi billion pound purchases in their own shipyards for political and industrial base reasons so the common missile compartment was the best compromise they could make. They already buy the Trident missiles from us so buying the launch tube section was justifiable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Don't see why they don't just buy Columbia subs. They'd be the one country we would sell them too They probably wanted to keep the multi billion pound purchases in their own shipyards for political and industrial base reasons so the common missile compartment was the best compromise they could make. They already buy the Trident missiles from us so buying the launch tube section was justifiable. I don’t think they actually buy individual missiles. They buy the right to use of missiles from USN stocks. Their subs take in missiles in Georgia and then go back to the UK to install the British warheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:37:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anybody want to bet they end up with three instead of four due to cost overruns and budget stuff? I expect they would cut somewhere else. This is their nuclear deterrent and four seems to be the minimum to ensure one on station at all times when accounting for unplanned maintenance or extended down time like nuclear refueling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:13:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These boats will be prioritized over every other ship in the fleet. The real bitching I have is about AUKUS. There was zero way to get Australia into SSNs to replace the obsolete Collins class they keep cobbling together. The USN is going to lose three new Virginia SSNs to start AUKUS. England never was going to be able to provide Australia any SSNs within the decade. The Dreadnought class is taking up their yard space and their Astute replacements will follow their SSBNs. Yes the French were ripping off the Australians but the Australians were dumb. They should have inked the deal with the Japanese for a bunch of their Soryu or Taigei SSPs. They probably would be closed to having two boats in service by now and a bunch of cash in their pocket to finish the project. That said I agree, they absolutely should have bought Soryus or the German 214 over that stupid thing the French were trying to sell them. If you think about it, the French ripping the Aussies off ultimately sold them on an SSN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:19:29 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anybody want to bet they end up with three instead of four due to cost overruns and budget stuff? ETA - the newest Vanguard class SSBN is 30 years old. The British need a new boomer as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:21:42 AM EDT
[#18]
Rolls royce reactor? Yea that'll never break down
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:33:39 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m no expert, but nowadays naval architecture favors bigger boats. Each boat needs a nuclear reactor, all of the expensive sonar and other systems. Those are very large, basically fixed costs. By the time you pay for all that, scaling up the boat to be larger is small potatoes. To everyone’s same line of thinking, That makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:35:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a fitting name for a doomsday ship. The last active HMS Dreadnought was a submarine too. Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite, King George VI. Those are good names. We need to return to the tradition of giving our warships cool names instead of naming them after shitbag politicians and geography. Which would you rather serve on: the USS Wazoo or the USS Nancy Pelosi? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:35:58 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just learned that Rolls-Royce builds nuclear reactors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:48:14 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We need to return to the tradition of giving our warships cool names instead of naming them after shitbag politicians and geography. Which would you rather serve on: the USS Wazoo or the USS Nancy Pelosi? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 8:57:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. No faked up photo there - the subs wake is smaller than the RIB boats wake. You don’t say? They don’t have a real photo of their yet to be laid down sub at sea? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 9:01:06 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Arleigh Burkes for the most part are alright, and the latest batch of Virginias are awesome. SSN-804 through 807 are going to be Barb, Tang, Wahoo and Silversides. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We need to return to the tradition of giving our warships cool names instead of naming them after shitbag politicians and geography. Which would you rather serve on: the USS Wazoo or the USS Nancy Pelosi? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 9:18:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Going back to the OG fish names! That's the way it should have stayed in the first place. It irks me that one of our most badass subs is named after peanut man. I don't think it'll happen in my life time, but I hope some day they write a book on the missions SSN-23 performed. Like a modern day Blind Man's Bluff. That would be awesome to read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 11:25:01 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don’t say? They don’t have a real photo of their yet to be laid down sub at sea? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lol. No faked up photo there - the subs wake is smaller than the RIB boats wake. You don’t say? They don’t have a real photo of their yet to be laid down sub at sea? No, but they have the tech to easily make a much better fake |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 11:29:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, but they have the tech to easily make a much better fake Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol. No faked up photo there - the subs wake is smaller than the RIB boats wake. You don’t say? They don’t have a real photo of their yet to be laid down sub at sea? No, but they have the tech to easily make a much better fake The computer leaked too much oil on the good screen shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:18:11 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The computer leaked too much oil on the good screen shot. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lol. No faked up photo there - the subs wake is smaller than the RIB boats wake. You don’t say? They don’t have a real photo of their yet to be laid down sub at sea? No, but they have the tech to easily make a much better fake The computer leaked too much oil on the good screen shot. Probably blew a gasket rendering the AI beauty 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:27:46 PM EDT
[#29]
What are those doors?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:31:55 PM EDT
[#30]
I approve with this military expenditure.
With all our military might IMO the reason no one screws with the US and it’s Allie’s are boomer submarines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:37:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have VERY little faith that the Brit Navy will ever actually put them out to sea. [unless the US actually builds them and pays for a huge part of the cost] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:39:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Came to post this. WTF does England even need this for? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have VERY little faith that the Brit Navy will ever actually put them out to sea. [unless the US actually builds them and pays for a huge part of the cost] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:44:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Thought they were bringing back the arsenal ship.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:44:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We need to return to the tradition of giving our warships cool names instead of naming them after shitbag politicians and geography. Which would you rather serve on: the USS Wazoo or the USS Nancy Pelosi? There are some in GD who would service Nacy Pelosi's wazoo. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:48:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just learned that Rolls-Royce builds nuclear reactors. The west are the only ones who can do anything. Ching Chong and Vodka drunks can't even make the fans on a jet engine correctly. They are horribly lucky we've temporarily paused killing each other as is western tradition for thousands of years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:49:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Also I love orders of last resort
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 6:45:21 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File