In this primer, we look at the plan to acquire floating dry docks for Royal Navy nuclear submarine maintenance at Faslane.
In late 2023 the MoD initiated the Additional Fleet Time Docking Capability (AFTDC) programme to acquire two floating docks and associated infrastructure at Faslane. Named ‘Programme EUSTON’ this is officially described as a pathway to “resilient out-of-water engineering capability”. In December 2024, the Defence Minister confirmed the project is ongoing, although it is still in the concept phase. Euston will likely be funded from the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE) budget that is now ringfenced within the MoD’s wider budget. This may give it some chance of surviving the round of cuts that looks likely in the coming defence review.
Clyde Infrastructure Programme
Euston is separate to the wider Clyde Infrastructure Programme (CIP) which is a major portfolio of works established in 2015 comprising 14 separate projects. This is primarily to upgrade facilities at Faslane and RNAD Coulport ready to support the Dreadnought-class and SSN AUKUS submarines.
The CIP will deliver a single integrated operating base “that is safe, secure, sustainable and resilient” for all the RN’s submarines out to until at least 2067. The CIP is supposedly on track to be completed in April 2032 but costs have risen from the initial forecast of £1.585bn to £1.869Bn and there is a struggle to attract enough qualified people to work on the project. The April 2032 date is a strong clue to the expected Dreadnought-class in-service date. So far, the MoD has refused to publicly commit to a Dreadnought ISD, on the dubious principle that you can’t miss a target you have not set.
CIP consists of the complex refurbishment of nuclear infrastructure within high-security operational areas at HMNB Clyde, which has to be carried out concurrently with ongoing operations from the base. The Submarine Centre of Specialisation (SMCoS) is a key element, comprising the 5-storey 13,000sq m Submarine Training Facility (SMTF) building which will be home to all RN submarine-specific training with classrooms and simulators. In addition, the adjacent Thetis building houses the £34m Submarine Escape, Rescue, Abandonment and Survival (SMERAS) facility, opened in July 2021.
The CIP also includes “berthing and docking facilities” within its scope. These are upgrades to the waterfront and the Shiplift to accommodate Dreadnought but the precise details of the projects are not public.
Shiplift conundrum
The shiplift is the only option if submarines needs to be taken out of the water at Faslane for hull, propellor and rudder maintenance or inspections. The construction of a graving dock from scratch at Faslane would be prohibitively expensive and a shiplift was the best solution. Completed in July 1993 at a cost of £314m, its safety has been a source of controversy amongst anti-nuclear campaigners who once labelled it “the most dangerous building in Britain”. These activists continually seek to exaggerate any risks associated with nuclear ownership, in order to frighten the public about the deterrent or further the Scottish Nationalist agenda.
Although designed for the Vanguard-class the shiplift is rated up to 25,000 tons and will theoretically be able to accommodate the heavier Dreadnought-class (including if loaded with a full outfit of Trident missiles). However, as a mechanical system that utilises almost 100 winches to raise the submarine on a platform out of the water, it requires regular maintenance and does have marginally more safety issues than a graving or floating dock. The shiplift was modified in 1997 to improve safety and in 2003 report identified further risks, mainly associated with the very low probability of earthquakes or terrorist attacks.
The shiplift was out of action for at least part of 2023-24 while unavoidable maintenance work was completed on the lift itself and Babcock struggled to source alternatives for components no longer being manufactured. This contributed to SSN unavailability as the SSBNs always have priority. From a user perspective, the shiplift is an ideal solution as a covered facility protects the boat and workers from the Scottish weather and satellite photography.
The ability to take boats out of the water at short notice has proved critical to the submarine service, especially for maintaining the deterrent force and keeping the early Astute class boats going. It is unclear if the plan is to retain and upgrade the structure for the long term to support the Dreadnought class or if it will be superseded by floating dry docks. For the foreseeable future, it remains a crucial component of RN submarine support, especially as the refurbishment of number 10 dry dock in Devonport will not be completed until 2027.
Capacity and speed
Floating docks are the quickest and cheapest route to add the maintenance capacity the RN needs. They can be built by a shipyard anywhere in the world and relocated if circumstances demand. If Euston is followed through as planned, it would double the availability of submarine docks at HMNB Clyde and triple them if the shiplift is retained. Provided there is an associated increase in the workforce, this could rapidly increase submarine availability, especially as Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS will be designed with far more attention given to through-life support solutions than their predecessors.
While probably unrealistic, there is an ambition in some quarters for the RN to eventually operate the number of SSNs it actually needs. This implies up to 12 boats, doing more than just replacing the 7 Astutes with SSN-AUKUS on a one-for-one basis. Should this be attainable, then additional docking infrastructure will be needed.
New docks could also be of benefit to US Navy which has increasingly helped carry the load while RN SSN activity has been so limited in recent years. The UK would be more likely to be able to offer a dry docking facility to American boats, should they suffer an emerging defect while deployed in the eastern Atlantic area, something that was done in the past.
In basic terms a floating dock has a ballast system that can be filled with water to allow the dock to submerge, enabling the ship or submarine to slide inside. Once the vessel is properly positioned, the dock is gradually de-ballasted and as it rises, the vessel rests on blocks placed on the dock’s floor, lifting it completely out of the water. The most complex aspect of the floating dock is the ballasting system comprising pumps and water tanks that must be managed carefully to ensure stability at all times.
The structure consists of two key components: the pontoon and the sidewalls. The pontoon bears the full weight of the vessel and the walls and is designed to withstand the transverse bending forces caused by the vessel’s weight and any pressure exerted by the movement of the water below. The sidewalls provide stability while the pontoon is submerged and offer shelter and workspace for engineers. They house essential equipment such as cranes, valves, and pumps used during maintenance operations. A significant portion of the sidewalls also contain ballast tanks which help regulate the dock’s draft and maintain structural rigidity.
Delivery considerations
Programme Euston has historical precedence, with an Admiralty Floating Dock (AFD60) having been used for SSN maintenance at Faslane until 1997. The dock was moored at the southern end of the base and was connected to the main waterfront via a permanent jetty. The exact location for new floating dry docks remains uncertain but they need deep water which may constrain positioning options in Gare Loch. They will also require the construction of a new jetty for access and the provision of electrical and cooling water supplies.
AFD60 was relatively small and could take boats displacing up to 6,000 tons. For Dreadnought-class boats of more than 17,200 tons, a much larger structure will be required, although a floating dry dock can accommodate vessels longer than its own length. No floating docks have been built in the UK since the 1960s and foreign design expertise may be needed for the project. Another important consideration is that the floating dry docks will need to go into a graving dock themselves for surveys and maintenance every 5-10 years. This could perhaps be done at the nearby Inchgreen Dock that was used to build the floating Valiant Jetty at Faslane in 2009 but is currently under-utilised.
Floating facilities are not subject to the same tight safety regulations as nuclear facilities ashore but any new docks will inevitably have to be built to a high standard. The regulatory bodies that dominate UK defence planning will doubtless be excited to rigorously update floating dock regulations to standards far beyond those applied to AFD60.
Overall, programme Euston would be an affordable and timely option to underpin future RN submarine support , however it still needs to be funded and there will be delivery challenges.
Don’t try and build it in the UK. The Koreans will knock one up in no time at a very modest cost.
As an example, the floating dock currently in use by HMAS Stirling in Western Australia is one of theirs and works fine. As well as just lifting a hull out of the water it is designed to marry up with the shore to allow the hull in question to be rolled ashore onto a handstand for maintenance work clearing the dock in the process.
Moving the vessel ashore was the original CONOPS for the Faslane ship lift, hence the large hard standing to the north of the building however, it was scuppered by nuclear licensing regulations. The use of floating dock in conjunction with a shore hard stand is likely to be similarly constrained
Phillip
Wrong.
HMAS Stirling one is far smaller in scale and – crucially – it is not nuclear licenced
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
True but I do think that @Philip Johnson is correct that this should be contracted out to SK.
Whilst there is a need for work pipeline in UK fabrication and shipbuilding we don’t have any recent experience of this kind of work and the biggest barrier to increasing shipbuilding capacity is a lack of highly skilled workers and supervisors.
So I am afraid the priority is to get this built and as it isn’t a complex warship of even really a ship buying it (them) in is the best option.
As @David P says moving a fuelled nuclear submarine into a hard stand would be a straight no. A hard stand provides no containment at all.
Although the reality of a naval reactor is that is is absolutely tiny compared to a civilian power station – with a commensurately tiny amount of fuel on board.
But the fuel, at least in British and American designs, is much more active.
They did try and get a safety case through though and I recall the work for the safety case for the ship lift being roundly cursed by those having to write the “Bloody thing”
Hi Phillip. Just a small correction to your statement regarding where the Western Australia dock was constructed. The Pontoon/Base was built in Vietnam (then transported by lift ship to AUS) and the side-walls were built and installed locally in Henderson which is where it operates. HMAS Stirling, or Fleet Base West as we call it here, is located on Garden Island which is just over Cockburn Sound and to the left in the background of the image you have posted. The vessel being launched is a Guardian Class PPBR (Pacific Patrol Boat Replacement) built by Austal Ships Australia. Their main Yard is located just a couple of Kilometres to the right of this picture.
Originally, there were plans to build another section that could be connected to this one when required, and option that still exists.
It is generally used for lifting the Collins Class Submarines out of the water, a vital capability which means that the RAN have an agreement that they have preferential use. To the point that no other vessel can have work done whilst on it which prevents it from being refloated within a three week timeframe.
Here is a little article on it:
http://ancr.com.au/AMC_Floating_Dock.pdf
Nigel
This will absolutely, without question, be a total f**kfest from start to finish – which will cost 50% more then quoted and never be finished. It will be organised over a 4* brunch with a tasty backhander under the dining table, and given to whomever the least viable candidate is.
!”This will absolutely, without question, be a total f**kfest from start to finish”
Dits McGee
AGREED !
The RN has decided to start the 2025 new yearr as it maens to continue: a total and Utter F****UP
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS You must have been reading my many earlier comments, made here on Navy Lookout, abou this subject (several postings under submarines and submarine infrastructuire)
Yep think your right there I worked on one made out of concrete in the 90s think it could take two subs massive thing way over budget
Ferguson Marine then.
Sean
Very Good
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Not funny, not funny indeed, especial if you were considering allowing the SNP to have their finger prints all over it.
“Round of cuts that looks likely in the coming defence review”
It is hard to see, given the recent deletion of Albions and frigates, what is left to cut that might free up significant funds. The only area that could deliver big savings, DNE, is effectively ring fenced.
DNE is already absorbing @40% of the equipment budget, leaving too little to fund new conventional equipment in sufficient numbers. At some point, a future government might feel compelled to reconsider whether the amount spent on nuclear platforms is really necessary.
In the meantime, I suspect the current government will be forced to increase defence expenditure, just to fund the programmes already committed to.
The amount that it would cost over and above what is budgeted to run a larger fleet is actually tiny.
The main cost is having the full establishment of all of the things that need to be nuclear certified for a a tiny fleet of boats which is realisably 3 x Vanguards and 5 x Astutes.
Increasing that to 4 x SSBN and 12 x SSN would be mainly a crewing issue.
As it is a lot of things are at or slightly below any sensible analysis of critical mass.
Indeed. Everything is pretty much below critical mass. You may be right that the cost of an increase in SSN numbers, likely under AUKUS, is small, relative to the total DNE budget, it isn’t nothing -4x £1.2b. It is also much larger than the amounts saved by recently announced cuts. With nothing else major to cut, the budget has to increase.
Crewing issues are a problem, however in today’s threat of armed conflict ( I call it as such because I do not consider we are at World War threat yet) Western nation need to offer cutting edge careers, with the opportunity of advancement on a fair basis across all branches (I served 30 years and saw ( in my considered opinion) unfair promotional opportunities where rosters in some categories were dry and others on excessive points, an example of this (and you will have all seen it) were electrical and mechanical engineers where submarine POMEM roster was dry and the general Service roster was on long stretched points. Some branches even longer. What motivation is there in “dead man’s shoes” and please excuse the description, not a good one in a military environment.
it will not take a rocket scientist to propose a fairer way to employ our people. ( just do not let CPO writers get involved, or the recommendations of any review would be the same as previous, that they deserved the highest pay. )
Agreed, the cuts have already been announced so that the politicians can talk about the positive stuff that comes out of the SDR.
Sorry to disappoint but the economy has been trashed by Reeves. They will issue white flags and cut defence to 2% of a downward GDP. This is old Labour on steroids.
Old labour had defence % GDP higher than what the Tories left it.
of course your claims of GDP downwards is another falsehood
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpfirstquarterlyestimateuk/julytoseptember2024
You look at the graph and tell us what those Tory “4 chancellors in 4 years” did for the economy….we can wait !
yes thats ONS graph
And check back 2015 to 2019 if you dare ?
You are wrong …just being a die-hard Communist doesn’t make your
People’s Daily cut and paste views right
Office of National Statistics
Its the official government department for statistics.
Now you are telling lies as well as using sock puppet names
Reeves has trashed the economy but they won’t cut defence to 2% as that would be such obvious bad optics if nothing else. No this isn’t “old Labour on steroids”, it’s simply a rehash of Blair’s New Labour, just more inept.
If need be, they’ll just hike taxes again and borrow more.
I imagine it’ll be slim pickings
I prefer to just wait and find out rather than get my knickers in a twist speculating over what might never happen.
You wear “knickers” how strange ?
Admin are busy I see !
HMS “Sinkey McBoatyfloater
Absolutely creased at that!
I see you are on the same wavelength ….. still…. Good to see you again and I hope we both stick around a bit longer.
Jim
Great one…..
However the RN is buying two….
So what dio you intend to name their second floating dock?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
OK then…. how about HMS Floater and HMS Sinker ?
Jim
If we follow Sean’s suggestion above, to build them at Ferguson Marine, then how about naming both of them after the “fishy” SNP politicins who awarded that ferry contrcta
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
It does pose the question of just how much this would cost to design and build given it’s rather expensive and strategically important intended cargo.
I do question if it would not be better/cheaper to build a new dry dock or better still just refurb a dock that already exists ?
KGV Southampton; its a no brainer and would start the regeneration of Shipbuilding in England.
I’m sure this must just be a random spouting. You can’t seriously be proposing to build a nuclear certified military dockyard in the middle of one of Britain’s biggest commercial ports, can you?
What like Devonport? Not only used for military purposes is it? The river is full of yachts, fishing boats, etc.
I’m pretty sure Southampton Water flushes out quicker than Gareloch does.
Much cheaper to fit new lock gates than to build two floating docks.
Only in Britain would a 20th century Dry Dock faciity be tied from development by grade 2 listing. Portsouth I can understand!
If there was a war on we’d do it…….
Southampton is the busiest port in the country, the amount of commercial traffic moving in and out is enormous.
It also opens into a narrow point of the busiest waterway in the world, along a winding and shallow channel.
The only reason Portsmouth is where it is is a hangover from the Napoleonic and Victorian days of the Channel fleet and wars with France.
Plymouth, on the other hand, carers largely for recreational traffic and Devonport is in one of the quieter rivers of the harbour. Instant access to deep waters and the navigational freedom of the Western Approaches.
Milford haven might work but apart from that, it has to be Scotland for Nuclear.
Barrow in Furness has tidal estuary- like Kings Bay GA for the USN. next door to BAE too
Below pic is Google map for Kings Bay
Yes, but submarines only tend to leave Barrow once.
What Jonno is suggesting would result in regular (probably annual or biannual) transits of nuclear submarines through one of the busiest coastal waterways in the country.
The US is handicapped by the eastern seaboard being mostly flat. There aren’t many good places to put a submarine base.
USN still has its east coast Submarine base at New London Connecticut across the river from the Electric Boat sub construction site Groton.
So have a sub base adjacent to the yard they are built is an advantage!
Previously there was nuclear sub base at Charleston SC and in Portsmouth NH- the new Hampshire location is now like Devonport UK, the USN east coast location for overhauling its subs.
So theres 3 locations they had sub bases.
Kings Bay Georgia was a new site for larger Trident subs where the are based and also overhauled probably due to its US senators politicking
A great place for Ship watching is Calshot Spit, a day spent fishing near the Castle is a day packed full of interesting vessels all up close and personal. You can see them on the horizon and follow them all the way past Portsmouth, zig zagging along eventually passing really close on the way to Southampton docks.
Except…
a) it no-longer has a caisson or keel blocks
b) it’s Grade 2 listed
c) it’s the wrong location
d) the floating docks are for submarine maintenance and not shipbuilding
On paper it’s an option but in reality it’s a non starter, It’s rather lacking in infrastructure and other factors just rule it out.
Just how would developing this dock specifically for SSN and SSBN maintenance work “Start the regeneration of ship building in England” ?
This recent refurb in Plymouth cost 236 million.
https://euro-sd.com/2024/09/major-news/40429/9-dock-re-opened-at-devonport/#:~:text=The%20biggest%20submarine%20dry%20dock,UK%20Ministry%20of%20Defence%20(MoD)
The USN are building this at the moment from 128 million dollars.
https://thedefensepost.com/2023/06/15/us-floating-dry-dock-austal/
so I view the floating dock as god value.
Pretty sure the picture of the carrier is in Dry dock 12 not in a floating one.
Try reading the article or scrolling down to the next picture if you are unable to read it.
I just read that you now use this handle instead of X or WIZ.
Another name but the same bad attitude.
Nope that might be what you do and deflecting from your failure to even scroll through the article is very strange.
Well that reply confirms it.
Imposter.
Yes, he always turns up with a different name Deepsixteen is the new Wale Island Zookeeper.
He has many different names I’m guessing.
I suspect that he is a skimmer so your are just wrong.
I’m no Skimmer, It’s obvious you are using another name.
Maybe you have many other ones ?
No it wouldn’t be cheaper.
I’ve been thinking about floating docks for a while, and something occurred to me:
Why does nobody cross the floating dock with submersible lift ships?
A ship somewhat like the yacht transport ships, with an open door at the stern, but able to flood down and take on a frigate or OPV for routine maintenance or recovery to a home port.
All of the cranes and work stations from a floating dock, but with mobility to self deploy to any deep water on earth and carry ships from home waters. You might even be able to conduct maintenance en route, and I daresay we would find a use in amphibious warfare, depending on what types of landing craft are developed in future.
Put it in the RFA, FFBNW Phalanx and with a helicopter above the well. The USN makes use of heavy lift ships regularly, and with larger and larger USVs coming along we may well need a means of moving such vessels securely across oceans and through busy seaways.
You have a brilliant Idea there, I would go a stage further and build a roof that could be used to launch F35’s. Maybe even a few Tempest’s if equipped with Cat’s and Traps.
Great vision young man.
Back at school yet ?
Not yet, inset day means school starts on a Tuesday.
Something like what I mean already exists, albeit not optimised for long transits.
BOKA Vanguard is a heavy lift ship that has equipment to allow it to be used as a floating dock for repairs, mainly for oil rigs with no port facilities nearby but also occasionally where dry docks are damaged and ships (they did a cruise liner once) need repairs.
It looks awful, but something more shaped around frigates and small warships could probably be more seaworthy and still include more comprehensive equipment such as cranes and rail systems on the dock floor.
A bit more cover for workers would probably also be helpful:
Looks a perfect fit, I’m not going to lie.
Wasn’t that in a Bond film already?
“Nobody does it better” so on and so forth… Yes it was done in the “Spy who loved me”….. Stromberg was the baddy.
The USN has done that in the past kind of I seem to recall and if you start adding decks landing pads and other good stuff it creates more problems than it solves and you’ll find the cost spirals. The really big USN ones in the pacific war were built in sections and could be towed around in said sections.
I know, the Chinese have some self propelled floating docks as well. But none of them are remotely “ship-shaped” or have the facilities to conduct repairs and maintenance independently.
I meant something that can maintain a reasonable transit speed across oceans independently, it doesn’t need to be huge.
The Landing pad thing isn’t massive, it could be just on the bow like RFA Proteus.
Surely it wouldn’t be more expensive than maintaining dry docks across the world or relying on contractors for heavy lift ships?
blob:https://www.navylookout.com/31d37ceb-95ba-4bad-9a78-c914837b5e5a
They did put a pointy end on this but towed it.
I’m getting a “page not found”, sorry.
Towing doesn’t really work as a routine deployment method, if you always need to assign a tug you might as well just put the engines inside the dock.
Quite who will get to build this is a rather interesting question. H & W perhaps.
It would be a Titanic undertaking.
These will be impressive sights if built. A couple of years ago I saw the floating dry dock – originally called the “Hughes Mining Barge” – that the CIA had built in the 70s to recover a lost Russian submarine K-129. That dock could only handle up to around 6,000 tonnes, whereas the Project Euston ones will need to be much bigger.
Sean
Project Arizon was a great achievement.
However, not to be forgotten = they dropped most of the submarine whilst lifting it….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Project Azorian – The front section which they were lifting broke in 2 during the left, which meant they lost the fin/sail. But they did recover the bow section, which included nuclear armed torpedoes.
Odd looking thing, I had to look it up but not sure if it would be even remotely viable for this requirement even if upscaled.
It’s a floating dry dock, so in theory an upscale could be theoretically viable, though I wouldn’t recommend it.
The point being, that was impressive piece of floating engineering, but the ones for Euston will be on a bigger, more impressive scale again.
Austral in US is already building a nuclear sub specific floating dock for USN.
It comes under urgent operational requirements to order an exact copy to build right away using existing design- keep it as far away as possible from the RN ‘staff’ and MoD Denizens
If this was actually built, It would be massive and maintenance intensive for decades, I just can’t see it ever happening.
Editor
Just to pick up on key two sentences (pun intended) in this article:
Whosoever in the RN chain of command told you these two sentences needs to be immediately relieved off their command and then urgently sentenced, at the 1SL’s own table, to twenty years hard labour off in a remote island penal colony – whilst wearing a straightjacket (no remand).
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
——————
Sailor32
I looked up this morning the figures for old Admiraly Floating Drydck AFD60 – which is shown in some of the B&W photos (above).
This was mainly used for the SSN boats: however it did occasionally see the Polaris R class in them
(Note 1. The correct term is manning…..as I do not belive any females served on AFD 60 before it was decommissioned in the mid 1990’s: mainly becuase AFD 60 was’nt exactly a prized command posting….if you know what I mean…..
—————-
I am not sure whether the youngsters running the RN today quite appreciate what they are getting itself into here with Project Euston.
The Dreadnought class are approximately three times the displacement of the old R boats
Thus these Eustom drydocks will be the approximately the same size as the Dutch “Mighty Servant” semi-submerssible ship – which is frequently seen on that TV prigramme “Massive Engineering”
I am not even sure that submerged, the Euston class will even float in the Clyde!”
(Project Euston will certainly not float in Devonport = far too shallow!)
We simply don’t have anybody in the UK capable of desiging these (Old Len retired last year. His excellent marketing strapline upon meeting a new customer was “i design ships which always sink” – very long pause – “however pleaase be assured that they always come back up again..)
And that is all before it is “nuclear certified”
————–
Project Euston
This harebraiined RN project has obviously been named by the RN after the proposed HS2 station, of the very same name, planned to located in central London.
That HS2 Project Euston is several years late = and is also whoppingly overbudget.
protester with white elephant at hs 2 euston – Search Images
————–
Trust me lads (and ladies).
A very large block of heavily reinforced concrete with a pair of dock gates at one end: something usually called APD (A Proper Drydock) will be much quicker and cheaper and easier to build tham this fairytale “Project Euston”
Action this day:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
For those of you interested in Ballistic Missile Tracking = please see the attached Wikipedia entry for one similar sized semi-submersible ship, Blue Martin. This was the same US submersible ship once used to transport the heavily damaged USS Cole back from Yeman (i.e. the first US warhship the Yemani’s ever sunk, back in 1999)
This Wiki entry shows it carrying the USAF range finding “radar rig platform” the one used for the tracking of Minuteman CBM on the Pacific Iisland testing range (the radar rig is routinely operated by the US MSC)
MV Blue Marlin – Wikipedia
Hmm.. about that radar rig.
Isn’t it a major problem with the new slew of wind farms that our Early Warning Radar systems aren’t as effective against low targets?
Would it be legal to have floating, unmanned radar stations anchored in the North Sea, outside the ring of turbine farms?
Obviously not on that scale, but worth looking in to, perhaps.
At least a couple of decades back it was thought that radar would struggle to detect incoming threats due to the rotation of the blades but some bright spark came up with a great Idea copied from WW1 fighters…. it was called the fire control interrupter gear (AKA Synchronization Gear).
TLDNR
Can you read ? … just asking.
That you’re asking shows you’re either stupid or have the worst sense of humour on planet. Which is it?
Ouch.
Which is correct and your surmises are wrong .
A quick look at the geology for a steep sided loch gouged out by glaciers and the actual issues for the shiplift option chosen show why a graving dock is totally out of the question
maybe even reread this article
https://www.navylookout.com/trouble-in-the-docks-fixing-the-infrastructure-issues-impacting-royal-navy-submarine-availability/
Duker
I know this very well = mainly because I was on the design team for the Sh***ift (back in the early late 1980’s / early1990’s)
The simple fact of the matter is that your own digram (posted above) shows there is sufficent depth at Falsane to build a proper drydock for Dreadnought – and also that, with a bit dredging= the seabed can, quite easily, be levelled out
As you are a such a fan of such stupid engineering I believe that you are well qualified to get the project manager’s job running Project Euston.!. Do you want me to recommend you for the key post?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Please do, he’ll smash it I’m sure.
Depth wasnt the problem !
Who builds a graving dock in ‘deep water’ ?
Its normally built on firm ground excavated out and the entrance opens to the water.
A massive concrete graving dock at Falsane would be a colossal weight for the foundations to bear. Rubble left over from the last ice age
As its not an overhaul base – thats the drydocks at Devonports job, a ship lift or a mobile ship lift -known as a floating dock is fine.
The USN Atlantic uses Kings bay GA as a combined base and overhaul site.
While their non missile subs are based at New London Connecticut ( with a floating dock only) up the river from EB Groton, their overhaul is elsewhere Portsmouth New Hampshire- with dry docks
Your idea for a concrete graving dock at Falsane isnt sound , which is why they didnt do it when you were ‘involved in the design’ of the ship lift, nor is it now.
This is an ideal opportunity for Methil. These floating docks are critical to the needs of the CASD/SSN AUKUS and therefore MUST be built in the UK.
Can we all at least agree that we’re not going to get the Russians to build them…..
Well, I’m going with a yes but there are a couple of other posters who regularly contribute here who might just disagree.
Jim
Most of the heavy lift submersible ships operating in the world today have been built by the Red Chinese
10 Biggest Heavy Lift Ships In The World – Maritime Page
However we might – just – prefer to go with the Dutch: who did most of the rest
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
But Russian floating dry-docks have been so useful in overhauling and returning to service so rapidly the Russian flagship, the Admiral Kuznetsov….
So, obvious question:
Where should the UK put a fixed dry dock for submarines? And whilst we are at, where would be the best place for a new skimmer shipyard?
I’ve read (and for the record am convinced by) the arguments that:
a) we should just by OTS from S Korea for the floaters
b) we need a decent, modern, efficient, full-sized build hall for boats
c) we could really do with a new build hall for skimmers in a better location
I’m just trying to get my head around a fantasy infrastructure wishlist
Now
Build Five Dreadnoughts in current build hall
Start building a new build hall for AUKUS
Start building a new submarine dry dock
Order two floating dry docks for submarines
Medium term
Build AUKUS in a new hall
Start building a new surface ship yard
But…….
Once we’ve found the money, where do we build them?
“Just for Men” is the answer to your question…..
Or he could dye it white and get a side-gig as Santa Claus…
There also another small issue.
A singular anything isn’t a good thing.
So if you took all of the pennies in the jar labelled nuclear infrastructure and by some miracle got the clearances to build a nuclear certified dry dock then you only have one.
Why is this a problem?
When you lift boat A out of the water and remove the casing you discover then in addition to parts X & Y you knew you needed part Z needs to be replaced. Part Z requires special forging and heat treatments and so is long lead.
So your singular precious lift has a boat stuck in it unless you put her back together again so she can be certified to go back in the water. Unfortunately you cannot because Part Z is deemed nuclear critical – so out of the water she sits.
And the other boats all sit waiting for the singular service location.
Part Z could, hypothetically, be a a heat exchanger….
It is just a thought process….
Milford Haven.
Jon
I have posted it before here; and will post it again now….
There needs to be one proper RN submarine drydock on the Clyde and one down in the South West. Both should be the same and thus both capable of taking any submarine in the fleet
Unfortunately – Milford Haven is far too remote and the West Wlaes area does not have enough skilled workforce: nor any the infratstructure around it, that is essential to recruit, develop and maintain that skilled workforce (i.e. exactly the same fundamental issue as Barrow and nearby Sellafield have always had)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Milford Haven is often mentioned as a potential site for various military uses but always dismissed due to it’s current industry.
Rosyth has dry docks and at times they are occupied by Subs as well as the Carriers. Another large Carrier capable dry dock in the South would surely be the best option.
Portsmouth has a lot of empty space now given the dire state of the numbers of ships. A quick Google Maps search shows all we need to see.
Peter…. I’ll throw in another idea just for you…. “”Pykrete” would be interesting to see your reply !!!
Jim
“Pykrte” – you are definiting now baiting me (i.e. by going off topic)
I am not going to bite…..
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Wasn’t really, I was just giving you subject material and hoping you would come up with some more funny stuff. Pykrete was a WW2 product intended to build a one Million Ton Aircraft carrier, just thought it could be used to build these.
Jim
As I said earlier today = I am not going to bite on your Pykrete
This being a free country (mind you: only just) = you are still at liberty to keep laying out more and more bait…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Where would we put a carrier drydock in Portsmouth?
Replacing Gosport marina or the ferry port? There’s probably space along the north wall of the naval base, but I doubt the depth is there.
Considering the width of the harbour, getting the carrier sideways to enter any dock is going to be a massive challenge.
The most feasible option navigationally speaking could be to slap the thing on its own island between the main channel and Portchester castle/Port Solent.
Straight line from there to the harbour entrance and it opens up a whole new area for dockyard expansion.
Bit of dredging and alterations to Basin no 2. Not much else goes on in there now.
Blah, blah, blah. Why are we still messing about? This is simple. Why make a big performance? Should be halfway done by now.
There’s no money, also not simple as regulations have to be updated
there is money.
Asking for more information. How many shiplifts/dry docks do the French and Americans have each.
Because i bet number of subs = shiplift/dry dock for maintenance etc.
I bet also we offer capability to US navy subs as and when a need arises.
I know the US have two active floating dry-docks
• USS Shippingpoint
• USS Arco
both of which are now exclusively used for submarines.
https://thedefensepost.com/2023/06/15/us-floating-dry-dock-austal/
Next one under construction
Each dock has a lifting capacity of 18,000 long tons and a clear deck working area of around 8,435 square meters (91,000 square feet).
Thats a $128mill design build contract.
RN could get them to build a 2nd when first is done
In the article above, it clearly states a lifting capacity of 25,000 tns is required for the ship lift so these are not suitable.
The Dreadnought class are not even 18,000 tons displ.
The Ship Lift has to lift the dock the sub sits on as well as the sub
Thats why floating docks are mobile ship lifts but they only count the displacement of the vessel raised as the water supports the weight of the floating dock.
Check the NL plan view of the shiplift operation Look what lifts the sub
Don’t worry, I did read the article in great detail when it was published.
My point is that they are very close to that 18 thousand Ton figure (17200 published) and I would expect this designed limit would be deemed insufficient but you]re the expert. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this.
Thats not your point at all You said because the ship lift is 25k that the new floating dock needs 25k lift as well.
Theres a ‘9k deadweight’ in the shiplift you forgot to account for.
A bump in lift capacity to 20k is a minor issue as its a Rennie type the pontoons have a bit larger volume or are longer
background on types of floating dock
Sorry, I can’t help you to understand. I did try though.
These are your words , no ?
That explains why you cant understand what you wrote yourself.
Archimedes worked it all out 2000 yrs ago and yet you cant follow his principles .
Troll someone else creep.
Is that before or after the 4.5inch gun software upgrade for AA mode?
Having been in and out of AFD60 many times in the eighties on assorted boats this is a simple and deliverable solution it isn’t like it hasn’t been done before at scale.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/the-massive-floating-dry-docks-of-the-pacific-fleet-that-could-carry-battleships-and-aircraft-carriers-
and the USA still builds and uses them.
Zookeeper, welcome back.
Nope I am not prone to multiple names I am either myself or deepsixteen I did serve from 79 to 2004
I recall that TH also said he served around those dates. TH used to be prolific on a couple of sites, he disappeared abruptly from both and seemed to get replaced by a Twitter, or was it an X…. then X disappeared and a Zoo keeper turned up all of them had attitude towards fellow posters. TH was originally posting under his actual name for years, can’t recall what it was but I’m sure it’ll come to me.
IR expert too as I seem to recall.
Not sure I even recall TH never got on with Twitter.
The quoted max for AFD sixty at 6000 ton and SSN only is incorrect as UK SSBN’s routinely docked in it and the article shows a USN SSBN docking in it.
Deepsixteen
= which is why I believe a floating dock is inherently the wrong solution
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Its worked before!
There were two nuclear sub floating dry docks built AFD59 and 60
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/archive/april-1960-the-admiralty-floating-dock/
this says they had there own barracks for the subs crew
Duker
Probably because AFD was nothing like big enough…..
What you are suggesting is bit like trying to get a doubke decker bus into your domestic-sized car garage at home!
Peter (irate taxpayer)
Theres NO problem for floating docks at Falsane- for obvious reasons.
Its your graving dock idea that is literally impossible because deep water-high ground close to the waters edge.
The ship lift- by avoiding the weight of the graving dock sides and walls by lifting the sub out of the water- was the next best possible solution back in 80s-90. That wont be tried again.
A floating dock by definition has no foundations but still lifts a boat out of the water – a mobile ship lift if you like, plus can be built at a distant ship yard where its labour force is.
Yes I know I worked on boats in AFD 60, my earlier post with links to an appropriate replacement for it by Austel which is being built at the moment for 128 million. The safety case for which is somewhat easier than that for the ship lift which I have also worked in, it is a good solution and also like the Astute jetty and EHJ could be moved to another location.
Let’s get the holy loch up and running again with a Los alamos,type floating dock . The Americans made this work for years.we could have ssn,s at faslane and bombers at dunoon ..
As a 55 year old I watched the USS Ethan Allen SSBN etc al ..cruising down the upper Clyde in the 70’s & 80’s & I totally agree with you. However UK nowadays is ‘Salt take large pinch of..Rinse & repeat .Just cos. Technology has slightly improved..? I fear our kids are not as talented as our skilled military inventors were in the past . I mean we are still using Harpoon for Gods sake . Why are we intent in putting all our fragile eggs In to 1 basket? Why not the Humber the Wash .the Severn .the Thames?? Why is always Scotland that gets English Nukes parked here ? When its not us Scots who are poking the Big Bad Bear . Yep put All our new overpriced . limited hardware in a tiny Faslane area ? Just to make it easier to destroy the lot in 1 go.!? Remember USS Madison anyone ?
Scott
Scotland
The key reason why Scotland was orginally choosen back in the 1960s’ is very simple.
The highly-effective local HVM (note 1) air defence system deters any attempts at attack
US Floating Docks
I reckon that, according to this USN annnoucement, the USN now only has one floating dock actually in service
The Navy’s Second Oldest Vessel Changes Command > United States Navy > display-pressreleases
Can anybody shed any more light on how many are actually operational in 2025?
Proper Dry Docks
It is not only the RN that is having issues with nuclear submarine drydocks….
Navy Closes 4 Dry Docks, Putting Fleet, Budget And AUKUS At Risk
Navy Starts $80M Project to Reinforce Four Puget Sound Dry Docks – USNI News
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. HVM – Hostile Venomous Midges
IRL a proper graving/dry dock would never get built.
The planning enquiry would go on forever and a day. There would be some real environmental issues up there too – not of the made up kind.
It would cost an unbelievable amount to build given the hard stone and total incompetence/lack of basic skills in UK civil engineering.
Sub overhaul dockyard is Devonport !
That makes you 100. Congratulations.
British company Tugdock could have a solution for this endeavour.
http://www.tugdock.com
Apparently this is your company, can you share a bit more info on how your solution can be adapted for the purpose and specifications in relation to 18,000 tn SSBN’s ?
Inflatable drydock?
Like a huge version of that Steller thing for recovering USVs?
I’m rather hoping he will enlighten us further, however I would doubt any real info would be forth coming.
Didn’t Steller go bust late last year ?
Yes, they did.
It’s a great pity, because sooner or later they would have produced a design concept for T83 and no doubt they would have had a really interesting solution to the problems associated with that project.
A 15000 tonne cruiser based on the Fearless MRSS, perhaps?
Now you are talking Son. 15,000 tn cruisers with a superior weapons fit to anything else afloat including the PLAN’s 055.
Just imagine all the conversations we would all have on here and the DJ site.
What does interest me is the radar fit that T83 will end up with.
CEAFAR, perhaps? You could probably fit extra panels to exceed the already considerable capabilities aboard the Hunter class.
Or we just buy American with SPY7.
Or hopefully BAE are cooking up some new wonder radar to replace SAMPSON.
I would guess that a Son of Sampson would be the likely development given it’s ground breaking cutting edge and still top notch history.
Please bare in mind our new collaborations with Italy and Japan though and not forgetting Thales.
Let’s hope that this latest bunch of Downing Street incumbents wake up and smell the Coffee soon though.
Not too sure how long they will last given the disastrous few months so far.
Respectfully that is never going to pass a nuclear safety case when a guy with an air rifle could sink the sub being worked on….
Supportive Bloke
Totally agree!
Many people posting on this site seem not to be aware of nuclear safey engineering regulations
Therefore they are still talking about working practices that once upon a time used to be allowed – i.e. back in the pre-historic era called “BC”
BC = Before Chernobyl
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I think they all hark back to the era when you said in a deep and authoritative voice:-
‘This is RN – we know what we are doing’;
and if that didn’t work
‘Top Secret, Nuclear Hush Hush, Old Boy;
and if that didn’t work
‘Defence of The Realm Act – send MoD Plod to shake them up – troublemakers’.
Slam Bakelite phone down in old office not decorated since WW2 where in spite of the windows and the ‘heating’ the temperature inside isn’t noticeably different to outside.
Used to work – not any more!
Supprtive Bloke
However
“Top Secret: Very Embarrassing If Anybody Finds Out”
…..is still in regular use
Just think of
“BAE’s fire at Barrow last October “
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Did you find the saboteurs ? Its amazing you could pin point the nefarious origin by just looking at it.
Ha ha, As a bit of an Airgun collector myself, I would very much doubt the truth of that claim given the short effective range and minimal projectile penetration. Great for Rats though.
Sure.
My fundamental point is that you could sink a submarine and make it beyond repair with a magazine in a cheapo sighted rifle – never mind a sniper.
Mind you a Russian sniper would probably manage to hit…..
Doesn’t the retirement of Bulwark / Albion actually free up another dry dock berth at Plymouth which could be converted for this use? As their retirement also reduces the relevance of the base… perhaps move the SSNs back to Plymouth and keep faslane focused on the bombers?
Would surely be more cost effective (maybe even free up some cash for a replacement for RFA Diligence?)
Ongoing but soon to be rectified SSN maintenance issues at Devonport have been reported on here and other sites.
There is no drydock at Faslane for the SSBNs, also no the Albion dock is not nuclear certified
The Ladybird book of Marine Engineering doing a lot of heavy lifting in the article.
All in all looks pretty basic stuff that should be pretty mainstream.
Surprised that the new “boomers” are bigger than the current lot.
Do we have enough missiles to go round?
Floating drydocks are a commodity system for the rest of the world although history suggests that if it can be made more expensive / more complicated / more specialised the RN/MOD will find a way.
Regarding innovation — number of elements should be looked at.
Roof on the drydock would be a help — 60M clearspan is run of the mill.
Use the floating drydock as a means of getting the sub out of the water and into the existing shed.
Graving dock — missed a trick the last time.
The shiplift project reeks of new tech syndrome which the RN is susceptible too.
Hopefully we go cheap and simple and quick.
New here ? Ref Missile numbers, The V boats have 16 Tubes, the D boats just the 12. BJ issued orders to increase our Warhead numbers from the then current 225.
Each D5 can carry multiple Warheads but seldom are a full load of delivery systems carried on the current V’s so it’s all a bit blurry to be honest.
In theory 4 V Boats could carry the full quota but only 1 is constantly at sea with a maximum of 3 possible (no one actually knows for sure though)
Either way if we had to launch them, we’d all be doomed.
Johnson spoke of ( Global Britain- 2021) increase to 260 from around 200. His Tory predecessors were talking about 180
I bet that Johnson ‘pledge’ was unfunded then and now.
Jim
You could try looking on the Internet.for the information you need…….
One published last summer
Nuclear weapons at a glance: United Kingdom – House of Commons Library
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I was just going by memory but thanks for the link as it confirms my figure of 225 and the intention to increase to 260.
psst,
(Don’t send it to Duker though, he’ll only get pi**y)
Wrong . 2021 defence review
It was being reduced to 180 by mid 2020s so was around 200 when it was reversed.
225 was the number around 2010!
In 2010 the Government stated an intent to reduce our overall nuclear warhead stockpile ceiling from not more than 225 to not more than 180 by the mid-2020s.
So you have skipped the 10 years- Rip Van Winkel like- from 2010 to 2021 during which was being reduced slowly
So thats 45 reduction in warheads over say 15 years period means around 25 reduction from 2010 to 2021.
And 25 less from the 2010 ceiling is ….??
I know its primary school arithmetic, so its all greek to you
I just replied but it disappeared again. Anyway looks like I was right in remembering the 225 warhead figures.
Thanks for the copy and paste info to confirm it.
Your link just confirms what I said
and of course the 2021 Global Britain- Defence Review also is the source for what I said
Floating drydocks are a commodity system for the rest of the world
Fat Bloke on Tour
YOU ARE WRONG
= Because not in the nuclear certified world are floating drydocks a commodity!
As I said in my earlier post = Project Euston was drawn up by a RN ?MOD cartoonist
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Fat Bloke on Tour
I nearly forgot…
This is a photo of what can (very easily) happen when a semi-submissible lifting operation goes a tiny weeny little bit wrong
This link shows what happened to one of the world’s largest semi-submersible ships, , the Dutch Mighty Servant 3, off the coast of Africa a few years.ago
Salvage operation, Mighty Servant 3
Please note that MS3 was approximately the same size as Project Euston:
The front end (note 1) of the almost entirely submerged ship (MS3) is shown just to the left of one of the largest floating cranes (right) to be found anywhere in the world today….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. Sorry. I am posting on Navy Lookout.
Accordingly = I must get into the habit of calling the front (pointed) end of a ship “the bow“. .. …………..After all, this is not the ladybird book of marine engineering………
You should tell the US navy that floating docks for nuclear sub maintenance ( not overhaul) isnt even possible. As they have one and are building another for their SSN fleet.
meanwhile at Kings Bay GA where maintenance and overhaul are done at same base but only for SSBN, theres one graving dock and 2 floating docks, all ‘covered’
Id hate to think how your engineering consulting ‘firm’ survives when they ignore your solutions
Nuclear certified — make work scheme for clipboard aficionados.
Drydocks are a commodity — semi submersibles will become a commodity.
One day.
Fat Bloke on Tour
Unfortunately the horrendous results of world’s two worst nuclear accidents – at Chernobyl and Fukushima – means that nuclear enginering safety standards are always going to be a lot higher than for other applications
i.e. One serious RN reactor accident would bring down the UK government
So can you please leave the nuclear engineering to us grown ups (i.e.The Responsible Adults)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Done nuclear engineering — interesting stuff.
Awkward engineering is good engineering for the contractor.
Adults not involved — student lunch was the vibe I got.
Five letter acronyms — is this now the going rate?
I remember the kerfuffle when we moved from 3 to 4.
“Kerfuffle” is a word I haven’t seen on here for at least 3 days now.
Funny how it appears again.
Word for today is “stramash”.
Heavily used to describe in the SPL to describe a goal mouth scramble with added attitude — anything was allowed as long as it got through a metal detector.
VAR has a lot to answer for.
New’ish — in and out.
Used to follow the container guy’s stuff — Think Defence?
Think Defence is one of my go to’s. Up the Gers !
Govan FC — in any one of their forms / versions — not really my cup of tea.
Ex egg chaser who prays on occasion towards G40.
Currently waiting for the flounce.
He has history.
I have read this 6 times but still have no Idea what you are saying, other than Govan FC.
Please enlighten this thick southerner !
Govan FC — play their football at Ibrox.
Chequered tax history.
They owed HMRC half of a F35.
G40 — Parkhead aka Paradise aka hame of the good guys.
Flouncer — Brendan Rodgers / upset recently / fans getting on to his players.
Flounce 1 — Left for Leicester in 2019. Under a cloud.
Came back in 2023 under a cloud.
Current season — the odd ray of sunshine but currently low energy mode.
Very basic question — what makes a dry dock nuclear certified?
What percentages / probabilities are they working too?
How low — Spurs winning the league or Spurs winning anything?
Plus floating docks at Faslane — not unknown.
Anything that docks or is associated with a nuclear reactor has to have a safety case to “prove” that it is safe to carry out the specific task that it is to be used for. These have become ever more intricate as time and experience has shown a need, it is just a fact that such things are complex expensive and difficult to write as SQEP are hard to come by. It then falls to DNSR approve or otherwise.
% no idea been out to long to remember
Spurs wining nothing will upset the daughter in-laws family so I say no chance
It has been done AFD was a quicker docking operation than the ship lift as I recall
Thanks for that FB.
many are forgetting that Graving docks or fixed site ship lifts are subject to risks form earthquakes damaging the structure – thats what nuclear certified is mostly about Floating docks are not the same extent
eg for Devonport
Devonport Royal Dockyard in Plymouth, UK, was built to withstand large earthquakes. The dockyard was built to seismic standards set during the Cold War.
.
This photo shows USS Oak ridge at Kings Bay in 1994 . Notice barrack ship alongside
https://cdn-nuclearcomp.pressidium.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/USS-OAK-RIDGE-ARDM-1-moored-at-Naval-Submarine-Base-Kings-Bay-768×614.webp
A slight mishap in Darwin, Australia a few years ago.
HMAS Gawler, a Fremantle Class Patrol Boat, had been on the Shiplift overnight when a Cyclone went through. I dread to think what an “uncontrolled lowering method” would look like…….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UJNLjAKFaU
Nigel
Hire one, there are plenty to rent world wide