Talk:Vanguard-class submarine

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Maritime / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force

"and are the third largest submarines ever built, by displacement when surfaced, after the Russian Typhoon and American Ohio classes"

Right I am no sub expert, but isn't the Borei class (new Russian nuclear submarine) also bigger than the Vanguard, making it 4th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Errlloyd (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct. The article has been subsequently changed to reflect this. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"each armed with 16 Trident II SLBMs, includes four boats:"

Is boats the correct term to use when reffering to a submarine? I know in the US navy it is, but in the UK I don't know this is nessessarily the case.

Boats is the correct term in the UK also.

Indeed, the Royal Navy does refer to its submarines as 'boats' Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that the official figures are obviously "classified" - but can anyone hazard a guess?

Classified certainly, and I wouldn't want to guess either. But you might want to consider what the depth limit is for a 21 inch active homing torpedo. That should be in the same ball park figure. For Spearfish and the US Mk-48 ADCAP the figure is probably classified, but the sad tale of development failures for Tigerfish is now declassified. Original spec called for 1'000ft, later increased to 1'600ft. Tigerfish Mod-0 acheived ~1'150ft, and later the Mod-2 acheived 1'450ft. By then, Soviet Alfa class SSNs were said to be acheiving 2'000ft, well beyond the reach of Tigerfish, leading to an approved crash-programme to arm Tigerfish with a nuclear warhead; a version of the WE.177A NDB. Brian.Burnell 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

200 - 250 m is aprroximately the max operating depth for military subs, according to the discovery channel. Aslapnatickle 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way! 250m is only 820ft! It'd be more in the neighbourhood of 1,800-2,000ft. Dominar_Rygel_XVI (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are limits to all things in life, and especially to objects that are man-made. So can you specify precisely what "unlimited range" means in this context. It surely cannot mean that the reactor fuel will never be exhausted. The laws of physics are not suspended for this class of submarine. If, as I suspect it was intended to mean, that the reactor was designed never to need re-fuelling during the vessels projected lifespan, then the article should say that more precisely. What would be the effect of a later decision to extend the lifespan beyond what was originally intended? Brian.Burnell 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A later decision to extend the lifespan would involve a completely new reactor being fitted, which I imagine would be extremely costly and difficult to do unless the submarines are designed with it in mind. As far as I know, the reactor running out of fuel would just not happen - the submarine will have been scrapped by that date, and the difficulty of replacing the reactor would mean it would be simpler to scrap the submarine and build a new one!

HawkerTyphoon 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Citations needed removal / UK nuclear policy

These requests for citations were inserted for the very good reason that without them non-specialist readers would be misled into believing that what was written here was truthful and verifiable. As matters stand, this information is still classified secret, and unless further information is released by the UK government the assertions made (especially about the three yields and sub-strategic warheads) are not verifiable. They are not compliant with wiki policy on verifiability. However, rather than merely erasing the offending words, a request for citations was inserted to give their author an opportunity to remove them or re-phase the passage, making clear that this was speculative without any hard evidence in support. In writing about issues that are bedevilled by official secrecy this is an acceptable technique that is sometimes necessary. But it has to be clear precisely what is verifiable fact, and what is opinion. Well-meaning speculation of this kind has bedevilled writing on UK nuclear history. In a polemical article speculation may be judged a worthwhile risk, necessary because of the lack of hard evidence, but in an encyclopaedia that seeks to present a balanced or neutral view, speculation is not acceptable unless clearly identified as such. Brian.Burnell 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known by anyone if the British *rent* the missiles because this saved them the cost of paying for their own missile reprocessing facilities and cost - or because the American government did not wish to transfer the technology?

• I don't have a source, but I understand it was a cost consideration. Having the UK missiles as part of the US stock means the UK does not have to shell out for a facility of its own to maintain the missiles, which is a huge saving. BobThePirate 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK brought 67 IIRC Trident D5 missiles, but you can't look at all the trident D5 and say those 67 are the British ones. They take 67 (minus a few test firing in the mid 90s) and swap them in for maintenance when the Vanguard subs visit Kings Bay Georgia (where the D5's are maintained). We did do our maintenance on the old Polaris A3's up in Scotland, but it was cost saving to get the Americans to the maintenance in one facility. 160.5.247.8 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (Pickle not logged in![reply]

http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0607/doc04.htm contains much useful information that could be used to update this page. For example the cost saving made by leasing missiles (but not warheads) from the US. Also, that there is only an official limit on the number of warheads carried. I don't think that it is that big a secret that the UK's subs generally only carry a small number of missiles (much less than a full load) as when on-board the missiles have a limited shelf life and must periodically be taken out for an (expensive) refurbishment.

Cost The calculations for cost do not currently make sense, 200m per annum for 30 years is 600m, which is not even half the acquisition cost alone, clearly therefore this figure must relate to operating costs, and not operating and capital costs, (which is actually what is implied by the commentary.) In this case the reference to 0.7% of the 29.6bn UK defence budget is inconsistent, because that budget includes both operational and capital acquisition costs. If you spread the 12bn cost over the lifetime of the 30 years, (ignoring any present value issues for simplicity) you would end up with a figure of c18bn / 870bn ( 29bn x 30) or 2% not 0.75%. I have amended this without requests as it appears obviously mathematically incorrect, but if i have made an erorr obviously do revert it, but do explain why it is incorrect.

£200m per year for 30 years is £6,000m, surely? Or £6bn if you prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.19.52 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved a great deal of material to

]

Warhead count

The article says the submarines carry up to 192 warheads, but only 16 missiles. As each missile can hold 8 warheads surely that should be 128 warheads? Maybe this is a confusion relating to Ohio carrying up to 24 missiles, which would give a total of 192 warheads. 213.55.27.154 02:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my inability (or someone to count), AFAIK the UK number is not in the public domain. It is known there are 16 Trident D-5 per sub and it is said that a Trident D-5 can take up to 8 W88 or W66 (US Warheads). What the UK warhead is not actually known (AFAIK a licenced copy of the W88 for all purposes). Also that may be the max, but in practise that probably harms performance / isn't desirable and numerous decoys are carried. Pickle 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had to edit Template:Vanguard class submarine armament, the sums add up to an Ohio, so simple mistake IMHO. Pickle 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the D5 missile can take upto 12 MIRVs, making the 192 possible warhead figure correct. In the current climate, the RN only maintains 48 in total however, while from 1996 additionally carrying sub-strategic low-yield nuclear warheads allowing greater targeting options. In a period of heightened tensions, the number of MIRVs per sub can be increased again. This is all in the public domain. The US Ohio class has 24 missiles, for a possible total of 288 warheads. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerplant data for this class is inaccurate. It specifies that the shaft pump jet is 27,500 hp (20.5 MW) and that the Paxman diesel alternators are rated at 2,700 hp (20.5 MW). One of these is wrong. Quick calculations with a conversion table yielded the Paxmans at 2.0142 MW or a combined 4.0284 MW, not 20.5 MW. The shaft pump appears to be correct.

This information seems to be entered in a data variable associated with the Infobox. I've spent about three hours scouring the Wikipedia help section for some clue how to access and/or edit this data with no success. If one of you can do it, I'd appreciate some help for future edits. --Mrintel (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now corrected. The infobox information for the boats' propulsion is contained in a template which can be found at: Template:Vanguard class submarine propulsion . Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand how the cited article supports the claim that the Vanguard's sonar is "obsolete". Just because the two submarines failed to detect each other does not mean the sonar on either is obsolete. It could be user error, or quieting technology outpacing that of sonar. croll (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can fault the sonar as obsolete from this article either. Only an investgation will tell. I'm removing the obsolete comment. Houghton11

There seems to be an inconsistency:

Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 5% research and development contribution.

Trident_(missile)#Development Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 10% research and development contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.12.176 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed. The 5% figure is sourced, whereas the 10% figure is not, so I have made the change so both show 5%. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for deletion group of unused templates, related to this article Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/vanguard/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—

]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—

]