Hacker News Reader

Comment by yread | Hacker News Reader

So they will be 112/12 = 9B$ per boat?

Ohio class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine cost 2B$....

10 times more expensive then Russian Borey-class? If they are a strategic deterrent why don't they just a build a sub around say 2 ICBM shafts and call it a day

View on HN

Ohio class cost $2bn when it started being built in 1976. That's $8.5bn today.

(Russia's $890MM Borey class subs started being built in 1996. That's $1.4bn today.)

The UK Trident replacements are estimated to be about 15-20 billion GBP for 4 boats - and given that there is every chance that the cost would be a fair bit higher they look roughly comparable to the US costs.

The UK boats will presumably be smaller but won't have the benefits of scale of the US fleet.

Not to mention that the UK is then dependent on the US for servicing and parts. It's not like you can shop around for a cheaper servicing contract.

As far as I know the only parts the UK has a dependency on the US for are the missiles themselves and re-entry vehicles - everything else (including the warheads) are manufactured in the UK but to designs that are, to various extents, "influenced" by US designs.

Edit: I just noticed that the new UK subs are to be called the "Dreadnought" class - so they will probably all start with D and re-use old RN names - so we might end up with an HMS Devastation and HMS Destruction...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_of_the_Roya...

Or "Dainty" or "Desperate"!

Also the "Dark" class of patrol boats is missing - could have a "Dark Avenger" or "Dark Hero":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-class_fast_patrol_boat

Edit: No coincidence that Iain Banks' father was in the RN - hence the Culture's use of Cool Ship Names.

Unit motto: I AM THE NIGHT

I vote they call them Daisy, Dainty, Doily, and Floaty McNukeface

Sinky McNukeface surely?

I suspect that with submarines there is an important difference between "submerge" and "sink" :-)

Well, the sub part is pretty expensive, since you have to accomodate 100+ people, with a nuclear reactor/diesel engine + batteries and all the supplies for a long trip. And they need to be able to move undetected, that's the point of the nuclear missile sub as a strategic deterrent.

You should use constant dollars when you compare currency values from one period to another.

The cost per boat is really meaningless. What matters is the total lifecycle cost of the entire system including R&D, construction, operations, shore support, and eventual decommissioning. The total for that will be much more than $112B.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com