Fox wants new reactors for Trident

HAVE YOUR SAY

15 March 2011

BAE have come up with an advanced design for a modular ballistic submarine system. It would have a lot of external stowage (outside of the main pressure hull), which would give it a lot of flexibility in terms of mission & weapons/items carried...It looks like an awesome design.

The problem is that is you have a multirole submarine, which also carries your Nation's nuclear deterrent, you are possibly deploying your main asset into a warzone or dangerous area in support of it's multirole mission. What happens if it is attacked and is lost? not only have you seriously depleted your ability to launch a first strike/counter strike (I recall that the UK government has never officially stated that it will not use nuclear weapons as a first strike option), but you also have the legacy of potential environmental damage & recovery and/or your highly secret & dangerous technology being stolen...

Of course this could happen to a dedicated sub-but probably far less likely to as unlike a multirole option, the dedicated sub need not be placed in potential danger & can still launch its missiles...
Laskovar - UK

15 March 2011

We need to keep our nuclear reactor technology up to date for military & civil applications.
That means advanced PWR . It also means high temperature gas reactors running on a Uranium/Thorium mix, plus ALMR fast reactors to "eat" nuclear waste.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

15 March 2011

Doubtless the US will have extracted many concessions from the UK for access to PWR3 technology, such as scrapping the Nimrods, the Invincible class carriers and the Harriers and mindless support of the F35 program at the expense of the Typhoon and Taranis.

PWR2 could probably be modified to be 'as good' but no doubt the arch transtlantisist Fox would block that.

I see they are targeting William Hague to deflect criticism from Fox over the defence cuts & Libya. Fox is pro US to the exclusion f common sense. So the US friendly UK media will protect him if they can. A pity, because Hague was more realistic about the limitations of the 'special relationship'. Which is why they want him out.

Macmillan should never have scrapped the British H-bomb, it has been all down hill since them. See France for how it should have been done, as usual. The US genuinly respects France.

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

16 March 2011

Trident will never be replaced. The UK is too broke to afford it and the public have no desire to waste money on nuclear weapons when their local services are being cut.
Steve - London

17 March 2011

Along with choosing the safest reactor model for the Vanguard-successor class subs, the UK coalition govt ought to re-evaluate the decision made, apparently unilaterally, by the previous Labour govt in 2009 to have these new, Trident missile-carrying vessels each reduced in missile-carrying capacity by 25%, compared to the current Vanguard class subs- IE: 16 missile-tubes to 12:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jmr/jmr090420_1_n.shtml

In order to retain a credible and functional nuclear deterrent, the UK's new Vanguard-successor class subs are needed to be 'full-sized', IE: at least 16 missile-tubes per sub (similar to the US's planned Ohio class-successor, Trident missile-carrying subs):

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110315_1583.php
http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-news/ohio-class-replacement-moving-forward.html
http://world-navy.blogspot.com/2011/02/ohio-class-replacement-will-carry-re.html
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=58368:

"The Defense Acquisition Board endorsed replacing the (US Navy's) current 14 Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines as they reach the end of their service life with 12 Ohio replacement submarines, each comprising 16, 87-inch missile tubes,..."

Even France's 4 newly built nuclear powered ballistic missile armed SSBNs are16-missile-tube subs...

And, unlike the United Kingdom- France and the US both deliver their nuclear weapons by land-based aircraft, sea-based aircraft and (in the US's case) land-based ICBMs...

http://www.dcnsgroup.com/download.php?file=/files/succesStory/pdf/ss_leterrible_en.pdf (opens in new window)

Since 2001 the UK has reduced its deployable nuclear warheads by over 50% (over 300 to under 160), and has the least nuclear weapons of all the 'world's 5 major nuclear powers', IE- the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK:

- http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

Would a measly 3, pint-sized- Vanguard (Trident) successor-class subs deter potential antagonists & enable the UK to serve its international interests?? (of which only 1- in the most irrationally optimistic scenarios- could be counted on to be seaworthy and available at any given time)
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

17 March 2011

Martin Bayliss,
How could the US extract concession from the UK for PWR3 technology,it is not a defence asset but a commercial design.
Built and designed by 'Westinghouse'in the US this type of reactor has already been sold abroad by them without any problems from the US government.
Also for your information although the missiles are of US origin the warheads are British designed and built,so what are you on about.
Your obvious anti American feelings seem to be somewhat clouding your judgement.
michael - notts

17 March 2011

P.s.
the BAE design only has 4 missile tubes per sub...
Laskovar - UK

17 March 2011

michael - notts

All UK nuclear warhead development and R&D facilities are now under US ownership thanks to the previous administrations decisions. Plus even when the AWE was UK owned it manufactured license built US war heads, the British H-bomb being made a thing of history way back in the mid 60's (not long after the cancelation of the TSR2 and the East of Suez policy, no coincidence I think).

And PWR3 is not a commercial design and the UK has only gained access (with who knows what strategic cost) in recent years:

'In another written answer Mr Fox revealed that a total of £905 million was allocated for the Concept Phase of the new submarine, from 2007 until 2011. This included £254 million to extend the Concept Phase (the newly released report gives a similar figure of £261 million), and £59 million for "United States High Steam Generators and technology" allocated in April 2009 (this should probably be High Pressure Steam Generators). The latter is a further indication that the PWR3 option is dependent on US technology.'

I suspect recent criticism of PWR2 and Fox's preference for PWR3 are no coincidence. So if Fox gets his way we will have US armed, and powered Subs and yet another capability lost to the UK.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

18 March 2011

Martin Bayliss,
Whilst I concede that Westinghouse originaly designed PWR3 for the military it then turned it into a commercial reactor,the design of which is used by at least three other countries i.e. France,Germany and Japan.
So I still contend that your claim that we somehow had to give concessions etc to the USA for its design is totaly incorrect.
Or are you saying that these other countries are also under obligations to the US for its use.
As far as AWE is concerned although co owned by Lockheed Martin and Serco the nuclear materials and design are most definately British.
With research,development and maintenance as well as co-operation on new warhead design conducted by both countries.
PWR3 is obviously NOT dependant on US technology,but why are you so adamant that we have lost another capability.
The RAF and RN have both used US aircraft in the past and still do,the Army uses US armour and missiles today and all three services are committed to using them in the future.
The UK as a small country can never be completely independent as far as weapons production is concerned and that is a fact.
All your seeming conspiracy theories do not hold water when looked at historicaly.
michael - notts

05 April 2011

The Pressurised Water Reactor has some fundamental limitations. The need to keep the pressure in the primary cooling circuit within reasonable limits means that the maximum working temperature cannot be higher than about 350 degrees Centigrade, meaning that the turbine inlet temperature- this being the factor that principally determines the efficiency of the power cycle as a whole- will be less than that. Typical efficiency of a PWR power plant is about 20 to 25 per cent.
Other, more advanced types of reactor can operate at far higher temperatures, giving much higher efficiencies and power densities. There are workable concepts for Molten Salt Reactors with operating temperatures of 700 to 900 degrees Centigrade, with corresponding efficiencies of up to 50 per cent in terms of the proportion of the heat produced in the reactor that is converted into useful power output from the turbines. Even higher operating temperatures may well be possible with MSRs. The Liquid Metal Fuel Reactor is another interesting concept with potential for ship and submarine propulsion.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

08 April 2011

The problem with quoting figures from memory is that you tend to make mistakes! 40 per cent rather than 50 per cent would be the efficiency that might be expected in a power cycle using a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) operating at 900 degrees Centigrade. This would still be a big improvement over the figures of under 20 per cent typical for present day naval nuclear propulsion systems. For example, the system used in the Nimitz class aircraft carrier produces 193,000 kw or 260,000 shaft horsepower from two 500 MW Pressurised Water Reactors, representing an efficiency of 19.3 per cent.
Research is currently taking place into the possibilities of MSRs using Plutonium Fluoride and/or Plutonium Chloride fuel, with operating temperatures up to around 1500 degrees Centigrade, which would acheive 50 per cent efficiency, in a commercial power plant anyway. The development of new materials like reinforced carbon-carbon and carbon-silicon-carbon composites is making high temperature reactor operation more practicable.
Estimating power density is more difficult, however a figure of 1900 MW has been quoted for an 8 ft diameter MSR, which would equate to 1,274,000 shaft horsepower at 50 per cent efficiency or 1,019,000 shp at 40 per cent efficiency. Another advantage of the MSR is that it can react quickly to changes in the power demand, typically in less than one minute.
An MSR is also considered safer than a PWR, partly because it does not operate under high pressure. If the circulation pumps in the primary circuit fail, thermal expansion will push the fuel solution out of the reactor vessel, stopping the chain reaction, but if the system is properly designed there should be no risk of any radioactive material escaping, whereas a PWR in the same situation would explode and/or melt down.
What do you need a million horsepower for? Well you could propel an aircraft carrier sized ship at 45-50 knots.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

11 April 2011

The most obvious difference between a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) or Liquid Metal Fuel Reactor (LMFR) and the Pressurised Water Reactor is that in the first two types, the fuel is in a liquid state. This is the key to the operational and safety advantage of these types of reactor over the PWR, because it allows fuel to be added, and waste products removed, as a continuous rather than intermittent process.
This means, on the one hand, that the concentration of fissile material in the reactor can be maintained at a level only slightly above that needed to sustain the chain reaction, in contrast to the PWR which is loaded with enough fuel to sustain several years of operation. Because of this, a Chernobyl style event, a runaway chain reaction and explosion, is impossible in an MSR. This lack of excess reactivity in the core also makes it possible to adjust the power output quickly since there is no need to spend long periods waiting for the reactor to stabilise at a given power level as with the PWR.
The continuous reprocessing of the liquid fuel stream is also crucial to power output as it enables the removal of fission by-products which would otherwise "poison" the chain reaction.
J, Southworth - University of Hull

18 May 2011

I recommend the moltensalt.org website as a useful source of information for anyone interested in the future possibilities of advanced forms of nuclear propulsion for ships and submarines.
J. Southworth - University of Hull