The first of Britain’s new nuclear deterrent submarines, HMS Dreadnought has now been under construction for over 4 years. Although still relatively early days and available information is inevitably limited, some further details of the boat’s design and progress on this vast project have emerged since our first article on the subject in 2017.
First steel was cut for HMS Dreadnought in October 2016 and work on the second boat, HMS Valiant, was begun in September 2019. The third boat will be named HMS Warspite and the final boat, HMS King George VI. The first 3 names echo famous battleships of the 20th Century, although Warspite and Valiant were also used for two of the RN’s first-generation SSNs. King George VI is new to the RN, being named after Queen Elizabeth’s father who served in the navy where he saw action at Jutland in WWI.
The programme is currently in Delivery Phase 2 (DP2), intended to run until March 2021 and had seen expenditure of around £7Bn on the concept, assessment, and early delivery phases up to April 2019. The next 5 years will be the most expensive phase of the programme but the NAO says so far the project “remains within budget and on track for the first of class, HMS Dreadnought, to enter service in the early 2030s”. Unfortunately this week it became clear that the disruption caused by the pandemic has delayed the project by around 5 months and DP2 has subsequently been extended until March 2022. Over such a long programme there may be opportunities for the lost time to be made up. BAE Systems has worked very hard to create a COVID-safe working environment, with 95% of employees now back at work in Barrow.
The Dreadnought class are designed from the outset to have a service life of 35-40 years. This is a significant increase over their predecessors which should reduce through-life support costs but has contributed to the high initial price tag of £31Bn for the four vessels. A further £10Bn contingency fund has sensibly been allocated and has already been drawn on to reduce long-term costs and future risk, primarily by supporting industry through advanced orders and investment.
Design indication
The Dreadnought will have a very clean hull form without the missile compartment ‘hump’ of the Vanguard-class and will feature a distinctive raked fin. The forward hydroplanes have been located in a lower position (similar to the Trafalgar class boats) and will almost certainly be retractable for berthing the boat alongside.
The X-tail plane arrangement is also new to the RN and is more complex to design and manufacture but has several advantages. It reduces noise caused by turbulence as the water flow from behind the fin meets the vertical rudder. The planes can be smaller for the same control effect, further reducing noise. At high speed, they are also more stable because when a submarine turns, it rolls and the vertical rudder can start to act as a stern plane.
Dreadnought-Class-Submarine-2Dreadnought is larger than the Vanguard-class, with a submerged displacement some 8% greater, totalling 17,200-tons. They will also be 3 metres longer than their predecessors, despite having fewer missile tubes. A bigger vessel allows for a larger and inherently safer reactor, further quieting technology and provides more room for improved crew comfort. This will be the first RN submarine designed from the outset to accommodate both male and female personnel and have a dedicated sickbay for the embarked doctor, a gym space, classroom and study areas on board as well as a new lighting system simulating day and night.
The boat will almost certainly have Integrated Electric Propulsion (IEP) and be driven by electric motor instead of the steam turbines used on RN nuclear submarines until now. The reactor provides steam for turbo generators that provide power for the motors and the rest of the boat’s requirements. Motors avoid the need for noisy reduction gears and allow more flexibility in the layout of the propulsion system. Most analysts assume that Dreadnought will not adopt a submarine shaftless drive (SSD) system or use Pseudo-magnetic Direct Drive (PDD) motors as the technology is not sufficiently mature and presents too much risk.
A multi-faceted industrial enterprise
Following on from its involvement in fabricating steel parts for the Astute-class boats, in October 2018 Cammell Laird was awarded a contract to manufacture items for the Dreadnoughts. The pressure hull itself is made entirely by BAES in Barrow as it demands specialist welders and processes to work with High Yield steel. CL will supply 29 non-pressure hull components for each boat including decks, bulkheads, ballast tanks and the fin structure. They will also make keels for the hull of sufficient strength to support the boat if resting on the seabed. Manufacturing has already begun, employing around 150 people for the next decade, with the last items due to be delivered by 2030. Completed components are transported by sea from Birkenhead direct to the yard at Barrow.
In a sensible move to reduce duplication of effort, the Dreadnought class share a common missile compartment design with the US Navy’s Columbia class SSBNs. Babcock in Rosyth and Bristol are involved in the manufacture of the Missile Tube Assemblies (MTAs) and since 2014, has won contracts for 57 MTAs. Another contract was secured in June 2020 for an additional 18, will bring the total made by Babcock to 75. The quad-pack of 4 tubes is about 80% fitted out with wiring and pipework before insertion into the pressure hull. Each Dreadnought boat will be fitted with 3 quad packs, giving 12 tubes while the USN Columbias will have 16 tubes.
Although procured together in a joint contract with General Dynamics Electrical Boat (GDEB), the initial tubes will mostly be supplied for the Dreadnought programme with later batches for Columbia. In June 2018 welding quality issues were identified with some of the tubes made by US contractor BWXT. The original technique for inspecting 100 inch-long welds was inadequate but later non-destructive testing by the USN inspectors identified the issue. This was not Babcock’s fault but it may delay supply of the MTAs to be installed in Dreadnought. As the heart of the ballistic missile submarine, this issue has demonstrated the wisdom of manufacturing the tubes well in advance of fitting to the boats.
The first 4 missile tubes were delivered to Barrow in April 2020 and welding into a Quad Pack is complete. Integration into a pressure hull section progressed well. is A further two tubes were delivered in July 2020.
The MTAs are far more complex than just metal tubes and Northrop Grumman is responsible for the complex launch system. The 58-tonne Trident missiles are ejected from the tubes by steam cannon. An explosive charge is used to vaporise a tank of water into steam. As the boat ‘hovers’ a few meters below the water, the expanding steam pressure forces the missile out of its launch tube with enough momentum for it to clear the water surface before the rockets ignite. Each tube has its own independent launch system that demands precision engineering to resist very high-pressure steam and safely eject a large nuclear-tipped rocket. The tubes must also allow maintenance access so the missiles can be inspected at sea.
Besides the launch tubes and their subsystems, an SSBN requires a sophisticated trim and compensation system to keep the boat stable during and after missile launch. As the missile leaves the tube, it has a substantial effect on the trim of the boat and water and air has to be rapidly moved between ballast tanks to ensure the submarine remains stationary in the hover position during successive launches. Consisting of a series of sensors and controls linked to valves, pipework, pumps, high-pressure air vessels and tanks, this is and one of many demanding engineering challenges. In 2018 it emerged the design and manufacture of this system for the Dreadnought class would cost £270m, more than 4 times the original estimate.
When companies are in the supply chain are faced with closure or financial difficulty, there is little alternative but for government to intervene to ensure continuity for the nuclear submarine programme. Funds have already been advanced have helped support Rolls Royce, the single most critical UK supplier to the project, who have a £480M contract to manufacturing the new-design PW3 reactor for the 4 boats.
Currently, the MoD is considering options for a take over of Sheffield Forgemasters who are specialist manufacturers of high-grade steel castings for use in submarines and are struggling. In November 2018 GE announced it plans to close its Power Conversion plant in Rugby and move operations to France but in May 2019 the MoD advanced its order for motors for the second batch of Type 26 frigates, averting the move. Not only did this make industrial and financial sense, but this may have been partly motivated by the fact that the Dreadnoughts are likely to be propelled by Advanced Induction Motors manufactured in Rugby.
In February 2020 it was not a surprise when Thales UK was awarded a £300M contract to supply the 2076 sonar system for the boats as well as and advanced optronic periscopes. 2076 is already at sea with the Astute-class boats and known to be one of the best submarine sonar systems in the world. It will be further developed and adapted for Dreadnought and comprises a suite of processors and underwater sensors including the active/passive bow sonar, a towed array, fire-control, environmental and obstacle avoidance sonars. It is unclear from the imagery if Dreadnought will have flank arrays like those carried by the Astutes.
Investment at Barrow
Constructing a ballistic missile submarine is considered to be an engineering project more demanding than building the space shuttle. Dreadnought is also the largest submarine ever built in Europe and to deliver the project, BAES needed to make a major £300M investment in supporting infrastructure. Work at Barrow has been on-going for several years and the main Central Yard Complex is complete and already in use. The pressure hull is constructed in sections or ‘rings’ which are delivered to the giant new Central Yard Facility. Here the rings are fitted out and will then be transported to the Devonshire Dock Hall (DDH) for assembly into a complete submarine.
BAES-BarrowThe DDH is currently completing the final 3 Astute-class boats and work is in an advanced stage to extend the hall for the needs of Dreadnought. The 260-metre DDH was completed in 1986 and covers 25,000m2. In 2021 a six-year project will begin to entirely re-clad the vast exterior and add new skylights to increase natural light in the workspace.
Once a boat is complete and watertight it will be rolled out of the DDH onto the shiplift to be lowered into the dock. BAES plan to upgrade and extend the existing ship lift for Dreadnought, although the work will have to fit around the Astute boat roll-out schedule. Once in the water, the boat comes alongside at the Quay where the test and commissioning of boats is conducted. The nuclear reactor is taken critical for the first time during Power Range Testing. A new purpose-built jetty and associated buildings are being constructed by Jacobs Engineering. Before putting to sea, the submarine is submerged in Devonshire Dock for its first trial dive.
Recognising the importance of the skills base that must be developed and maintained for submarine construction, BAES has also invested £25M in an 8,300m2 Central Training Facility to support around 1,000 craft and technical apprentices as well as the main workforce. The building houses replica submarine compartments, a VR training suite, 30 classrooms, 10 workshops and welfare facilities. A new 28,000m2 off-site logistics facility, named the ‘Resolution Building’, to handle delivery and storage and of materials and thousands of components for the submarines was opened in 2016.
Counting down
Despite being one of the largest public spending projects and involving some of the UK’s finest engineering and manufacturing talent, the Dreadnought project must remain largely out of sight. Some contractual milestone announcements and some limited imagery will continue to emerge but the scale of the achievement will probably not be appreciated until the completed hull of Dreadnought is rolled out of the DDH in the mid-late 2020s. HMS Vanguard is currently completing her much delayed major refit and refuelling in Devonport but will be 37 years old by 2030 and in desperate need of replacement. There is no specific commitment to HMS Dreadnought’s in-service date other than “the early 2030s” but head of the MoD, Stephen Lovegrove said this week that his department has a “relentless focus” on delivering her on time.
Interesting article, they will certainly be ‘very’ impressive boats indeed….
Was it a cost cutting or political idea to only have 12 tubes?
I think it was Conforming toTreaty Obligations.
Yes. The current boats only have a max of 12 missiles in their 16 tubes, but each missile can carry up to 12 warheads which later policy was downgraded to 3
Money saving no doubt… and we probably happily signed upto the treaty.. and does it have enough self defences? Heavyweight torpedoes can’t even go 15 miles can they. And I wonder what barrow will do after alll Astutes and dreadnoughts are built..
By the time all the Dreadnoughts are built, Barrow will have begun building SSN(R), Astute successor to all us mortals.
Everyone thinks Barrow will be very, very busy for the foreseeable future.
The one thing Dom was right about was that we do not have enough submarines for the threat environment we are now in.
HWT can go well beyond 15 miles…
“Heavyweight torpedoes can’t even go 15 miles can they”
Why is every comment you’ve posted here wrong Cam?
This sounds ridiculous. Our boats can only carry 12 missiles anyway due to treaty obligations, and it’s not like we’re going to have time to get our boomers back in port to add the 4 extra missiles in the case that nuclear war does start and the treaty collapses.
As for self defences?
I doubt anyone over a few miles away will even be able to detect Dreadnought, and that’s including our technologically advanced friends such as America… certainly our enemies wouldn’t be able to at even closer ranges. I might remind you Vanguard and Triomphant did not detect each other and had a minor accident.
Sonar 2076 is excellent and will spot any enemy boat before they spot us. The job of a boomer isn’t to eliminate other subs, it’s to stay concealed. At all costs.
Heavyweight torpedoes definitely can go 15 miles and longer; Spearfish is among the most advanced of these.
Barrow? I’d worry more about us not having enough build capacity as opposed to too few orders. That yard will have their hands full with Astute, then Dreadnought, then SSNR.
Outstanding article. Many thanks.
Hopefully the other tubes can carry perseus if needed
It’s generally thought to be a poor idea for your nuclear deterrent boats to carry anything other than self defence weapons in addition to their SLBM’s. You don’t want any confusion between a conventional sub attack and a strategic launch.
yanks have converted theirs to carry non nuclear land atack though..
Very true, and apparently very useful practical tools they are too. I just don’t think we have enough dreadnaughts to be splitting their tasking though, unfortunately…
US under treaty requirements was obliged to reduce the number of boomers or missile tubes ( or both)
Thus the conversion to SSNG for a small number . They are no longer classified as ‘strategic’ capable.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/navy-trident-submarine-conversion-ssgn-program-background-and-issues-for-congress.html
Vanguard should be kept, as its being refuelled with new Core-H, as a conventional SSN following its final SSBN duties.
It could hold 64 Tomahawks VLS. it would relieve pressure on our Astutes (a little bit). But what a power-projector it could be!
The US have done that with the older Ohio class subs. A 7 round VLS was inserted into the Trident tube. Some of the Trident tubes were converted to lockout chambers for special forces. If we did the same to our Vangaurds that would give 14 tubes each with a 7 round VLS and two lockout chambers. I just do not know how much life is left inthe Vanguards.
They be clapped out.
They are clapped out, some pictures are shocking, tiles missing everywhere and we can barely keep a constant deterant, I wonder if in recent years if we have slipped on The constant at sea stuff…
Nail on the head — the MOD and its shocking attitude to maintenance.
Too much money spent on offices / in offices and not enough on the ships / vessels.
I wouldn’t pay to much store in the pictures, missing tiles are cosmetic, they are glued on, so constant compression and expansion eventually loosens them, and are repaired when back in harbour. Although that is highly weather dependent as the glue needs time to cure.
Clapped out is a tad strong, yes they have covered some miles, but a rigourous maintenance routine ensures they can sail and keep CASD, despite what some might think.
Taiwan has two WW2 ex-USN submarines that are still operational at over 70 years old. Granted, they don’t do much more than training, and in war would be used strictly in the littoral, but it’s an interesting example of what’s achievable.
So long as the pressure hull is metalurgically sound and the reactor can be safely operated, the problem with the Vanguards would be in their components. You would have to decide whether stripping out one or two of the hulls and rebuilding the interior with new equipment would be, A. possible without compromising reactor safety and, B. cost-effective.
One could argue for cost-effective based on the fact that these are capital assets, long paid for, and that making the hulls is one of the more expensive processes, so there might be money saved converting them to SSGNs over building a brand new one.
However, could you rebuild it without cutting holes in the hull to move stuff in and out?
And remember, time and technology don’t stand still. Vanguard’s basic hull design and propulsion system, including the tail planes, will be 40 years old. This won’t be a littoral combat/training sub. This will be a front line unit. Would this design be competitive/survivable in the modern world?
The core may be quite new but what of the rest of the boat?
“HMS Vanguard is currently completing her much delayed major refit and refuelling in Devonport but will be 37 years old by 2030 and in desperate need of replacement”
And how old will the Ohio’s be by then?
Wiki says the USS Ohio will be just Shy of 50 years Old in 2030.
Exactly, so why does our kit seem to not be able to last as long?
The USN spent considerable money converting and upgrading Ohio and 3 sisters to the SSGN role instead of retiring them from 2003.
Other SSN have been retired around 20 yrs or less.
The oldest actual SSBN in service is USS Henry Jackson , currently 36 yrs old, the youngest is USS Louisiana at 23 yrs.
Vanguard is currently 27 yrs since commission.
The USS Columbia , named for the District of Columbia is followed by USS Wisconsin is under construction with large new buildings for final assembly at Groton and Newport News to be built as well
For submarines its all about the number of dives and time spent at depth. The RN runs its boats hard, particularly the V Boats. No difference in quality between RN and USN subs.
It’s the B-52 paradigm. Why are there still B-52s flying? Similar reasons to why some of the Ohios were worth keeping and converting. The USN built 18 Ohios so, individually, they have had slightly less stressful lives with much more slack in the deployment rotation for things like breakdowns, maintenance and refit than the RN boats, even allowing for the fact that several were on deployment simultaneously.
In the first decade of C21 Ohio class patrols were cut by half (source: Federation of American Scientists) because the Russian threat wasn’t there, and the Chinese threat hadn’t yet emerged. That alone saved a lot of hull life and reduced component fatigue.
The Vanguards had no such luxury because there were only four of them.
I would love to visit a vanguard after decommissioning, a museum would be amazing but if we can’t save basic destroyers or frigates what hope of a vanguard.
Submarines are pretty much of a muchness to be honest. A big tube full of lots little tubes. There isn’t much difference between a diesel-electric boat and a nuclear one. And the bit that is interesting, the kettle, you will never see.
Those who have designed them say there were new technologies almost as difficult as the reactor core . Like having a steam driven turbine which has to be condensed using outside sea water all done at greater depths than electric conventional subs which are more or less sealed while underwater. If its not perfect you end up like the Thresher. as well A battery array and diesel generators was provided as backup.
From the literature , its said the air purification for the much longer under water times was a challenge.
It seems the Australians are having considerable challenges, even with French technical lead with a back conversion of the nuclear Barracuda ( or Suffren) type to a conventional power.
Saying the two types ‘arent much difference’ is uninformed speculation.
To the casual museum visitor, who this point is about, they would be though I suspect. Even the informed museum visitor probably wouldn’t be able see much of anything.
Exactly. There isn’t much to see really.
You would be surprised to discover just how little there is to actually see. People would be very disappointed I imagine.
Tunnel – passes over the RC links fwd with aft, a view port (in the floor) into the RC, some stainless steel pipework, and the plug – door into the RC.
Missile compartment – 2 rows of white painted tubes some 7 1/2 ft in width, with bunkspaces and washrooms on one level, access hatches and monitoring panels on the others, so pretty uneventful really.
Engine room is an engine room with lots of kit, but visitors rent allowed back there, so visits are restricted to the front end.
Why are you telling me there isn’t much to see when I said it my original reply to Cam?
I have been in O, S, and T boats. I know there isn’t much to see.
Wasn’t actually aimed at you, just joined bottom of the thread instead of replying specifically to Cam. I know you have been on boats, my apologies.
ive also been in subs, but never a nuclear armed submarine, just like mist in here, the atmosphere in One must be amazing
“Saying the two types ‘arent much difference’ is uninformed speculation.”
Came here to say this. What a divvie.
Why can’t we export submarines like other nations… we have the tech and brains..
Very few nations operate nuclear subs and those that do tend to build their own due to the sensitivity of the tech and the need to keep it sovereign.
I never meant export nuclear submarines I meant non nuclear.
Never mentioned non-nuclear either. Are you thick?
I never heard, that any nation importet nuclear-powered submarines. They need a complex industrial support for their duties. The import-nation would always be dependet on the UK. For the most nations it would be a problem. And look at the price for nuclear-powered submarines, who would want to spend that much money abroad?
And to be honest, die last diesel-electric submarine class in for the royal navy was introduced nearly 30 years ago. When you look at the evolution of diesel-electric subs, than it’s a long periode of time…
I meant diesel electric ect not nuclear, if we can build nuclear we can build non.
As much as I’d like to agree, I don’t think it’s that simple. We’ve been out of the SSK game since we retired the Upholders in the early 90’s. So, we have very little recent SSK design/build experience, which our neighbour’s across the channel have loads of, so we would be at a huge disadvantage if we tried to build some to sell.
I’m only guessing, but I think we would have to buy some before we stood any chance of selling any, so probably a non starter just for that.
Hi, just because the ROYAL NAVY haven’t had non nuclear doesn’t mean our nations company’s are out of the game… on the contrary….
Yes it does , what a stupid lazy comment.
India ‘leased’ a russian nuclear submarine for a while
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Nerpa_(K-152)
Yes, what they did to train their personal on nuclear Submarines before the first domestic produced submarines will be put into service.
French sold Australia a diesel-electric version of their Suffren Class (build under license in Australia much like the plan with with T26s)
The whole article reeks of MOD / RN unworldliness and supply chain troughing and in-efficiency.
All we seem to have is a glacial design and build process — where else in the world would it take 6 years to re-clad a shed and put in new skylights?
Surely it would have been cheaper to build a new ship lift and building hall frowm scratch?
And then you have the naming issues — surely KGVI was a politically inspired doppelganger put on the throne because the establishment couldn’t put up with a american divorcee in the Royal family.
The issue is 84 years old and now he gets his name on a ship.
Says a lot about the state of the nation that he gets a ship now rather than WW2.
Huge project but also a huge overspend.
A politically inspired doppelganger who took upon himself the responsibilities and challenges that his brother wouldn’t? One that garnered much admiration for leading the country through a world war?
As to not getting a ship named after him during WW2 it has always been British practice to wait a long while before naming ships after people unlike the American practice.
Hey, fat bloke, stay on tour. You don’t ‘put someone on the throne’. Succession dictates the next in line and KG VI stood up and was counted when he was called (regardless of the context). I’m not holding my breath that you ever would!
Tell that to his father — KGV No.1 into the water 3 years after he got the big job.
For various reasons KGVI has been returned to the shadows.
The turkey baster jibe was unfair but it has stuck around.
No matter we should not be naming a ship / sub after him.
The names of the first 3 battleship class were originally KGV, King Edward VIII and Duke of York.
After the abdication the new King George VI had the second in class changed to PoW.
All HMS names require pre-approval from the sovereign. I would think the new KGVI was the Queens idea. Personally I would preferred Duke of Edinburgh if a suitable modern royal name was wanted, or even Alfred the Great. Its a while away till construction starts so it could still change when a new King arrives ?
So Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth are named after who then?
I would imagine the DDH will be going through an upgrade package bigger than mentioned in the article. At the same time it needs to be lengthened to the road at the rear and can’t at any stage get in the way of production of the last A class and first ‘BN.
Throw in there is not enough space to build an entirely new hall, which is one of the largest assembly halls in the whole of Europe and timings begin to make more sense. Still if you would rather believe the Daily Mail or your crab fat mates then carry on.
Resting on the seabed — surely that is giving away too much information regarding its patroling habits?
Seriously ????????
I wouldn’t read to much into that little revelation, RN Nuc SM’s do not rest on the seabed, I’d be very surprised given their size that these will either.
I think the point is that it **can** rest on the sea bed if certain things happen or need to happen.
The vast majority of worlds oceans will be too deep for a RN nuc to be anywhere near the seabed. The maximum operational depth isnt known to us but we can assume around the 300m for our purposes. Shallow seas like the North and Irish Sea are too vulnerable for operational work but are Ok for transit.
Then there is those pumps for the condenser cooling, getting them full of mud would be a nono. Many years back wasnt it was a UK first to have the forward motion to provide water impulse into the cooling system and avoid the distinctive long range noise transmission of cooling pumps
Interesting Russian exercise just yesterday. Salvo launch of 4 SLBM from a boat in the Far East. The You tube video shows at least 3 in the air at once from one vantage point
I vaguely remember decades ago one of the Typhoons did a 12 missile test salvo launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEZunVJbvZM
Still not getting the £36bill budget — bit on the high side for 2.5G tech.
Could we not have built to print another set of Vanguards?
Missile tubes are nothing new or special.
Also what is the buget for the pwertrain / reactor?
Surely RR has some level of ingrained corporate knowledge?
Or failing that could we not have asked the French?
We could have paid for it in fish.
Big issue not getting much traction — do we still have a continuous / on patrol nuclear capability or since the days of the ConDemNation cuts have we been winging it a bit?
JC was never going to put up a fuss.
Should have been named HMS Margaret Thatcher.
Nah, She can’t do “U Turns” ……….
Just want to say the articles on here are really top notch. Not just the information, but the page layout, photos, etc…
What a pity we could not build more Astute subs,
we surely need at least another 12-15 subs do we not…
Submarines don’t roll away from a turn as mentioned in the article. They roll into the turn. Alter to port and the boat will roll to port much like a plane banks the way it alters.
It’s to do with the centre of gravity thus a ships rolls away from a turn as it COG is higher up and a boat rolls into its turn as its COG is very low.
Good point. Amended
Being aware of 1st class MOD the C O of all involved need to be 101% confirmed ,C P N for our safety in design. Your facts to date re, engineering fantastic ,great to read G B supporting the world .
Australia should request to co-build dreadnought & supply workforce to live & be educated, skilled up & trained in & by U.K. Australian replica construction facilities to be built in parallel under U.K. oversight & construction of aus dreadnought to be overseen by U.K. teams as required.
The once trained & skilled up etc. Australian construction facilities would be built replicating U.K.s exactly. Australia would then be able to build its own in country dreadnoughts & could also enable a U.K./Aus workforce inerchangeprogram.
Australia needs to request inclusion & incorporation in the dreadnought build program !!!!!!
Great article. I really didn’t know much about the shipyard, so this was very helpful.
I hope that the tooling for the Astutes can be shipped off to Australia for their SSNs, as I’m sure that the RAN will not be able to afford any version of the Virginia class SSNs.
Just curious if the quadpack missile tubes can be repurposed for launching Tomahawks or even other ordnance?