Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

[Repulse]

Agree, but it all needs to be matched to a strategic plan. Given the size of the UK Army, it’s strategic maritime location, global aspirations and alliances with countries with larger standing armies, then the RN should be prioritised ahead of a 2nd BOAR.

[Tempest414]

I feel an off the self buy of 4 type 214 would be the best option right now these boats would be good for the next 20 years and would work well for SSBN cover in home waters and patrols in the North sea and Med freeing up the Astute's for longer patrols globally this would also allow the UK time to sort out its time table for SSBN - SSN build program. the cost of Type 214 was said to be $330 million in 2008 so £2 billion should be a ball park figure for 4 boats plus support and training

[abc123]

a) I'm not Russian nor from Russia

Thats what a Russian would say.

a) I'm not a Russian

b) 2 + 2 are 4, even if Russian said that.

[Caribbean]

I must say that I agree with you on the SSKs. Unfortunately it's another case of acquiring Tier 2 equipment to fix problems with under-investment in the past, not from a deliberate "high-low" philosophy (with which I have no fundamental issue, as long as its part of a properly thought-out plan). Fortunately, in the case of the 212/214 boats, they are top-end Tier 2

[Lord Jim]

We don't need a larger army, just one that is properly equipped.

I am starting to think we need to seriously look at SSKs as we are unable to have sufficient SSNs to meet our needs. We need 5 or 6 additional hulls, and if these were SSKs they could carry out many of the tasks in home water, the Med and Gulf. There are plenty of good designs available over the counter and I would recommend that they are not built in the UK, as we would probably end up in the same mess we were with the Astutes after the large gap we had in SSN design and manufacture.

The ideal solution would still be to build 3 or 4 more Astutes to possibly an evolves design.

[Tempest414]

As said I think with in the next 20 year our only hope of attack subs is off the self SSK's built over seas and to this end I would go for 4 to 5 type 214 as it is operated by a number of NATO countries and South Korea maybe we could have 3 built in Germany and 2 built in South Korea

[Poiuytrewq]

I firmly believe that RN are missing a trick not getting involved in AIP technology which appears to be becoming more and more effective as the years pass.

If an AIP Sub is good enough to penetrate an American Carrier Battlegroup on multiple occasions without being detected then in my opinion it must be good enough to at least have a very serious look at.

I would look to add 5 hulls to the fleet, based on a proven foreign design but built in Barrow. If we need more capacity then build it. Only 7 SSN's is simply not enough to protect our national interest in an uncertain world.

Another 5 hulls would surely be a massive boost to RN capability for a relatively modest outlay. This would allow our Astutes to go and play the game of cat and mouse in someone else's back yard.

Virtually doubling the size of the Submarine fleet for less than £2bn could be one of the best procurement decisions HMG would have made for a long long time. An easy win for HMG, it could honestly claim that in numbers as well as in tonnage the Royal Navy really is growing.

[Lord Jim]

I agree though for them to be built a Barrow would have to involve zero cost increase for their procurement.

[dmereifield]

Although it appears that the 7th A-boat is about to be signed off, in an alternate reality, would it have been more use to the RN to have cancelled it and used the ca. £1.5bn to fund an SSK programme of say 4 or 5 boats? Or indeed, would it be better now to can the T31 programme and spend the £1.25bn on 4/5 SSK?
Forgetting the politics and logistical difficulties of doing so, what is more valuable to the RN: 1 astute, 5 T31 or 4/5 SSK?

[R686]

Although it appears that the 7th A-boat is about to be signed off, in an alternate reality, would it have been more use to the RN to have cancelled it and used the ca. £1.5bn to fund an SSK programme of say 4 or 5 boats? Or indeed, would it be better now to can the T31 programme and spend the £1.25bn on 4/5 SSK?
Forgetting the politics and logistical difficulties of doing so, what is more valuable to the RN: 1 astute, 5 T31 or 4/5 SSK?

That depends on what you actually want the SSK to do, as a local asset and training aid 3/4 boats are all that's needed, but if your expecting a boat for long endurance and capability just look at the numbers for Sea 1000 project.

But the more value project T31 hands down ( even tho I don't like it more t26 please)

Edit

Miss read the bit about 1x extra Astute ill go for additional SSN, and drop a Sosus net around home ports at your 12 mile limit or greater

[Ron5]

That's easy: 1 Astute. An SSK, no matter how good, can only do a minute part of what an RN SSN is asked to do.

Suggested reading: A Silent Deep by Hennessy & Jinks.

Oh, and Type 31's are rubbish.

[dmereifield]

Thanks for the responses. In my limited understanding, I had thought that 4-5 additional SSK's might have been a better option. A fleet of 6 SSN and 5 SSK would increase mass and availability, with the SSKs able to patrol home waters and undertake a lot of the training exercises freeing up the 2 available SSNs to go on longer global patrols.
Another hypothetical (and I guess I already know Ron's answer), would it be more useful (theoretically) for the RN to can the T31 and use the budget for an 8th Astute?

[Phil R]

If an AIP Sub is good enough to penetrate an American Carrier Battlegroup on multiple occasions without being detected then in my opinion it must be good enough to at least have a very serious look at.

AIP boats have their uses, but they are mainly defensive in nature. AIP simply lacks energy density when compared to nuclear as my favourite xkcd nicely demonstrates:

https://xkcd.com/1162/

Phil R

[Poiuytrewq]

Mainly defensive in nature!

Tell that to the guys on the USS Ronald Regan!

I take your point but would you not agree that a small number SSK's would be a benefit to a modern Royal Navy for patrols in the North Sea, Irish Sea, GIUK and the Med for example?

[Tempest414]

For me there are few points to the case for 4 to 5 SSK's

1) due to the time it takes to build a Astute we can not fit them before the SSBN's
2) I feel these boats should be programmed in to operate 250 days of the year each and only be used in home waters - North sea - and the Med to carry out patrols and escort the SSBN's this will free up the SSN's to undertake patrols globally. also having our own SSK's will help with training our MPA- ASW & SSN units
3) We should buy any SSK's off the shelf and have them built over seas to keep the cost down ( However if a SSK -SSN combo works then they replacement should be built in the UK)
4) At a program cost of around £2 billion 5 SSK's would be a lot of bang for the money

[Jake1992]

I like the idea of SSKs for home waters and train and understand the rational of an off the self design built abroad ( I'd go with Japan's Soryu class ) but the question I have is will they be allowed to be built abroad or would they fall under the RN war ships built only in the UK ??

[Tempest414]

This is something that needs to be addressed however in this case it could be argued that it is not cost effective to set up and build 5 SSK however if BAE could do it for the same money and in the same time on a fix price well ok but is dose add another stress to SSN SSBN program as people would have to be pull off to work on this project

[SKB]

SSK thread here: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=383

[shark bait]

only be used in home waters - North sea - and the Med to carry out patrols and escort the SSBN's this will free up the SSN's to undertake patrols globally. also having our own SSK's will help with training our MPA- ASW & SSN units

That's the top 2 justifications. I'll also add in 'special missions' which would be one off missions such as a special forces raid, or intelligence gathering.

I've heard they're being informally considered by the RN, with the proposal also including retention and recruitment benefits for the submarine service. The idea is the RN would then have submarines that can do port visits for flag flying, and more jollies on shore for the crew, something nuke boat crews rarely get. These is also a welfare benefit with conventional boats mostly operating in UK waters, allowing for much quicker rotation cycles, giving more structured time at home, compared to the nuke boats.

This welfare argument is often undersold, a stint on in a conventional boa could make a nice change from the 'boring' nuke boats, and help retention in the silent service.

[Tempest414]

very good point which also could lead to that if we had SSK's carrying out the tasks above this could leaving the Astute's to do something like 4 months on 1 month off this could also help as crews can plan there life and also mean that the SSN's and SSK's could support carrier & amphlb group operations

[Poiuytrewq]

Seems like most are in agreement on the benefits of an SSK programme, why the reluctance from RN and HMG to make it happen?

[abc123]

Seems like most are in agreement on the benefits of an SSK programme, why the reluctance from RN and HMG to make it happen?

Lack of money and lack of will to increase defence spending.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I am negative to RN building SSK. Keeping SSN building, SSN crewing, and also building SSK is a pipe-dream I think. In near history, optimism made big damage to RN many times.

Seven SSN and four SSBN = 11 boats are even less than minimum to keep the industry running. By adding SSK, you also need to keep SSK industry running. Yes, these two partly overlaps, but also significant difference there is.

Or, UK will import SSKs from Germany, France, or even Japan?

[shark bait]

The only feasible option would be an import

[Caribbean]

I suspect the RN wants Astute 7 irrevocably committed to and the Dreadnoughts well in build, before they will even think of raising the "since we aren't going to be able to build more SSNs for x years, maybe we can buy/ build some cheap SSKs to cover the gaps/ training/ improve retention etc." argument. Their difficulty would then be the prospect of losing SSN hulls when the Astute replacement comes up in the future, so the more they push and demonstrate the "non combat specific" benefits, the better. Ideally it would be coupled with an extention of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to cover building non-nuclear submarines, but that is highly unlikely unless the NSS is emphatically successful (though a license build in a UK yard might get some traction).
Edit

Lack of money and lack of will to increase defence spending.

... and what abc123 said.