Best warships that should have been built

5 Resolution class SSBN were built instead of 4. The fifth boat was ordered in 1963 along with the other four boats. It was laid down in 1965 at Vickers, Barrow or Cammel Laird and completed before the end of 1969. Furthermore, all five boats were refitted with Poseidon immediately after the USN finishes rearming its SSBNs with Poseidon. Consideration was given to rearming them with Trident 1, but it was decided that Poseidon would be adequate until the Vanguard class entered service.

5 Vanguard class SSBN were built to replace the Resolution class. They were also built at a faster rate than the OTL boats. IOTL the 4 boats were laid down 1986-93 and completed 1993-99. ITTL the 5 boats were laid down 1986-90 at a rate of one per year and completed 1993-97 at an average rate of one per year.
What would be the use in building 5 submarines instead of 4? The purchases of four submarines were made because that many submarines are needed to maintain one on station at all times. What does that fifth submarine get you in terms of deterrent capability?
 
That barely gives you a submarine to account for transit time to and from station, much less any shipyard maintenance that has to be done. The US Navy maintains 4 submarines on station with a total fleet of 14 submarines.
My understanding was that the 5th boat would be in dry dock or undergoing more intensive repair freeing the 4th boat to be more active. That put two boats deployed with one always in transit, either going to or returning from station, and that 4th boat undergoing minor repair, crew change, resupply and training pre-deployment.

I would guess patrol areas are a shorter distance away to cut transit times, that allows for more deployed time and only one boat needed to cover transit. Again that might mean a more frequent repair schedule on each boat so only one is fully out of service and to cut necessity for the shorter refits after or before each deployment. Another hull might ease training time for active boats too. But I think the idea was that 5 boats can assure two are deployable not necessarily two will be deployed. I believe there were times when the RN had effectively no boat deployable. And as mentioned it eases the burden to get any surge capability.
 
What would be the use in building 5 submarines instead of 4? The purchases of four submarines were made because that many submarines are needed to maintain one on station at all times. What does that fifth submarine get you in terms of deterrent capability?
Have you never heard of the old saying . . . "Never put all your eggs in one basket"?

What if the 'one on station' happens to me incapacitated for some reason?
 
Have you never heard of the old saying . . . "Never put all your eggs in one basket"?

What if the 'one on station' happens to me incapacitated for some reason?
It's possible to maintain an at-sea deterrent with only two submarines, one on station and one either in transit or in port. A 90-day patrol with 10-day transits and 70 days on station gives the off-duty ship 50 days in port on the other end. Of course, this is only possible over the short-term, because it does not consider intensive maintenance concerns. The third and fourth submarines are the backups. The US deterrent system maintains 3.5 submarines for each submarine on station (4 out of 14 on station).
 
Top