The RN, Polaris, Chevaline and Poseidon

[PMN1]

Anyone have any estimates on what moving to Poseidon would have cost compared to developing Chevaline and continuing to support Polaris by ourselves?

 

[fredgell]

My memory is not hot on this any more but weren't the Polaris and Poseidon missiles of considerably different size? - in particular the diameter changed from 54in to 83in - or something along those lines.

This would have meant building 4 new submarines.

Even given the money spent all over the place on Chevaline it wouldn't come to the cost of even 1 new sub.

 

[PMN1]

My memory is not hot on this any more but weren't the Polaris and Poseidon missiles of considerably different size? - in particular the diameter changed from 54in to 83in - or something along those lines.

This would have meant building 4 new submarines.

Even given the money spent all over the place on Chevaline it wouldn't come to the cost of even 1 new sub.

Didn't seem to stop the USN backfitting it to existing SSBN's - they apparently just removed the liners in the tubes.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-73.html

The was made possible by a redesign of the shock-attenuation systems in the launch tubes, allowing the removal of the liner in the tube.

 

[fredgell]

No - you must be right there. The trees in Sherwood Forrest were all supplied as part of the package from US - so presumably the same refits must have been possible and quite cheap. My mistake.

 

[alertken]

(memory, so...Your source is the HMSO History of Polaris Project, which is mainly on management/organisation).
USN moved up to Poseidon for range. In 1969 Wilson (you know, the "traitor") chose enhanced penetration, as the only target for RN's 1 SSBN on station at any one time was Moscow, behind its coming ABM belt, and accessible from our Polaris Arctic launch locations. Chevaline was a cheap penaid (but it ended up >£1Bn! and a decade! Go to Kemble and stare at it. Looming marvellous).