Royal Navy SSK?

[Spinflight]

How about, unmanned SSK = UUV. Say, 40m long, 1000t FL, with TASS, with very long endurance snorkeling, but no torpedoes.

That's pretty much the current thinking, the only realistic way to find SSKs is to trail them right from their base with an UUV.

[donald_of_tokyo]

How about, unmanned SSK = UUV. Say, 40m long, 1000t FL, with TASS, with very long endurance snorkeling, but no torpedoes.

That's pretty much the current thinking, the only realistic way to find SSKs is to trail them right from their base with an UUV.

It will depend on how far the SSK shall go. If it exceeds the AIP range, SSK needs to snorkel, and there is a good chance detecting it. This is why SSN is there = no need to snorkel. When SSK become silent, it will be difficult to detect without using active sonars, even if you local a UUV nearby.

This is rather a speculation, but for me
- Submersible UUV, using active sonar in many cases, with P-8 air cover will be good to "secure" an area. (hunting)
- Submersible long-endurance UUV, using passive sonar swimming slowly in the deep ocean, will be good to "detect" SSK in snorkel and SSN in transit. (in many case, surveillance)
Without crew, it can be very long-ranged. Many of the surveillance tasks are "routine" = can be done unmanned. Hunting task need human in the loop, but P-8 (or SatCom) can provide it.

[Spinflight]

Trouble is you can buy 5 SSKs for every SSN, you can't assume there is going to be a nuke close by.

Also you might get lucky and detect one snorkelling, though it is hardly a given. What do you do then?

the yanks even launched a computer game where gamers would devise ways of tracking SSKs through a UUV or semi submersible. Can't remember then name of it but it was fun. All the data from the gamers was uploaded to DARPA.

[shark bait]

An unmanned submersible would have to surface oftern for communication and desicion making which would ruin it's stealthy advantage.

Perhaps why the Americans choose a surface vehicle?

Trouble is you can buy 5 SSKs for every SSN, you can't assume there is going to be a nuke close by.

That is a big deal, and they are perfect for access denial, does the Royal Navy have a big requirement for this?

[Engaging Strategy]

That is a big deal, and they are perfect for access denial, does the Royal Navy have a big requirement for this?

You could argue the toss over theirbsuitability for the GIUK gap but i'd say SSKs have major disadvantages for UK use. To my mind there are two broad categories of non-nuclear submarine: small-ish "coastal" boats and larger "oceanic" boats. In my view both pose problemsfor the UK.

Frankly, we don't have much need for the coastal types, while they make perfect sense for countries bordering the Baltic, Mediterranean and other similar bodies of water the UK doesn't need them. We would have to forward-base them in order to get much out of them beyond training and knocking about the Irish Sea "delousing" the SSBNs.

As for bigger oceanic boats I think you'd run a serious risk of the Treasury looking at a boat that costs 1/3 to 1/2 that of an SSN and judging that they can do the same job but far more cheaply when (obviously) they can't. As we all know if the key industrial capacity for building SSNs were to be lost, it would be nigh-impossible to regenerate. IMO it's just too much of a risk.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a serious risk of the Treasury looking at a boat that costs 1/3 to 1/2 that of an SSN and judging that they can do the same job but far more cheaply when (obviously) they can't

Isn't that the story behind the boats that we ended up flocking to Canada?
- great boats as such
- but could not do what was being asked of them; they were still bought as a "cheaper" alternative

[Spinflight]

The Upholders were good on paper, I don't think anyone thought too highly of them in actual service though. Seems to have taken the Canadians years to fix them, though with restrictions on diving depth. They love them for fisheries patrol oddly enough, the difference being that they actually catch illegal fishing rather than merely being a deterrent. They reckon each sub can patrol about three times the area of a surface ship, though I don't entirely understand the mechanism.

Frankly, we don't have much need for the coastal types, while they make perfect sense for countries bordering the Baltic, Mediterranean and other similar bodies of water the UK doesn't need them. We would have to forward-base them in order to get much out of them beyond training and knocking about the Irish Sea "delousing" the SSBNs.

We do border the Baltic, Norwegians Fjords and the Med with sovereign territory on Cyprus don't forget. I always find it curious that SSKs are held to the standards of their nuke brethren when surface ships aren't. Yes an SSN has excellent advantages in transit times though if you think frigates and destroyers transit to theatre at 20 knots... Also the SSKs are happily allowed into most ports, Z berths on the other hand are rare.

Training an delousing the SSBNs are rather important roles! At present every training mission conducted by an SSK would free up an SSN. Same too the delousing, having to schedule your SSNs to have at least two or three ready to meet and greet any visitors must make the schedules pretty tight.

As for bigger oceanic boats I think you'd run a serious risk of the Treasury looking at a boat that costs 1/3 to 1/2 that of an SSN and judging that they can do the same job but far more cheaply when (obviously) they can't. As we all know if the key industrial capacity for building SSNs were to be lost, it would be nigh-impossible to regenerate. IMO it's just too much of a risk.

And this is the real reason the Royal Navy won't entertain the idea. Fear of Sir Humphrey's capability axe.

[shark bait]

To my mind there are two broad categories of non-nuclear submarine: small-ish "coastal" boats and larger "oceanic" boats. In my view both pose problemsfor the UK.

I think that's a reasonable assessment.

I would say there is zero use for the ocean going version's, which are just cheaper, worse SSN's.

However perhaps there are uses for the smaller coastal SSK which are great at controlling access to certain coastal areas. I think they would possibility find limited use in the UK, only around the Clyde springs to mind. However they could be deployed all over the world at choke points to to either ensure pasage for our vessels, or deny access to others.

I suppose it depends how much value we place on controlling these areas?

I don't suppose they are fast enough to be of value in a carrier group?

[Engaging Strategy]

The Upholders were good on paper, I don't think anyone thought too highly of them in actual service though. Seems to have taken the Canadians years to fix them, though with restrictions on diving depth. They love them for fisheries patrol oddly enough, the difference being that they actually catch illegal fishing rather than merely being a deterrent. They reckon each sub can patrol about three times the area of a surface ship, though I don't entirely understand the mechanism.

Presumably they do what subs do best: gather actionable intelligence for other forces to act upon. From what I've heard from RN accounts the Upholders were great little boats, very capable. I think many of their problems can be attributed to how they were stored for ~5yrs in preparation for sale after they retired from RN service. I may be wrong but that's where I've heard a lot of the subsequent problems stem from.

We do border the Baltic,

Technical point, the UK doesn't border the Baltic.

Norwegians Fjords and the Med with sovereign territory on Cyprus don't forget.

There are plenty of friendly countries with masses of conventional submarines in the Med, a few UK SSKs would make little difference there. As for Norway, they have 6 SSKs of their own (likely concentrated in and around Norwegian waters) and the other Atlantic-facing NATO countries have a further nine. I don't really see a great dearth of friendly SSKs on NATO's Atlantic flank either.

I always find it curious that SSKs are held to the standards of their nuke brethren when surface ships aren't.

In my view it's because a nuclear-powered surface ship isn't radically different from a conventionally powered one when it comes down to it. Sure the USN's nuclear Cruisers could sustain a high speed transit for prolonged periods of time, which is useful, but nuclear power didn't radically improve their combat capabilities.

The California class CGN (pictured below)



was broadly analogous in its fighting power with contemporary conventionally powered Cruisers like the Belknap class (below)



Simply put, nuclear power has (historically) done little to fundamentally change the nature of the surface ships it is used to propel. The same cannot be said of submarines. Their capacity for sustained high speeds not only gives the SSN an advantage when transiting to an operational theater but it also gives them tactical advantages over their conventionally powered cousins. To put it very simply, nuclear propulsion changes the submarine from an ambush predator to a hunter.

Yes an SSN has excellent advantages in transit times though if you think frigates and destroyers transit to theatre at 20 knots... Also the SSKs are happily allowed into most ports, Z berths on the other hand are rare.

But the berths are rarely needed for SSNs. So long as they've got food they can remain on patrol for very long periods of time, the same cannot be said of SSKs.

Training an delousing the SSBNs are rather important roles! At present every training mission conducted by an SSK would free up an SSN. Same too the delousing, having to schedule your SSNs to have at least two or three ready to meet and greet any visitors must make the schedules pretty tight.

They're vital roles, but ones which don't justify the class of 6-8 conventional boats you'd need to build to justify re-introducing all the attendant support and training chains. Otherwise we're just back to "we need three more SSNs".

And this is the real reason the Royal Navy won't entertain the idea. Fear of Sir Humphrey's capability axe.

At this point I think we can all agree that it's a justified fear. Nuclear attack submarines are critically important, SSKs are "nice to have".

However perhaps there are uses for the smaller coastal SSK which are great at controlling access to certain coastal areas. I think they would possibility find limited use in the UK, only around the Clyde springs to mind.

IMO the training and delousing roles don't adequately justify regenerating complex support structures and the skill-sets necessary to operate SSKs (at significant cost)

However they could be deployed all over the world at choke points to to either ensure pasage for our vessels, or deny access to others.

I suppose it depends how much value we place on controlling these areas?

That's what allies are for.

I don't suppose they are fast enough to be of value in a carrier group?

Not really, no.

[shark bait]

In my view it'seems because a nuclear-powered surface ship isn't radically differentfrom a conventionally powered one when it comes down to it.

So true.

The only advantage of nuclear is it doesn't require oxygen, when there is oxygen on demand there is little to justify a nuclear ship.

[Engaging Strategy]

So true.

The only advantage of nuclear is it doesn't require oxygen, when there is oxygen on demand there is little to justify a nuclear ship.

The only place where it arguably makes a real difference is with aircraft carriers, because the ship can devote 100% of its bunkers to aviation fuel. The quick bursts of speed nuclear propulsion allows you to achieve are also quite useful for flying off heavy aircraft. That said, unless you're the USN it doesn't really make much sense. *sideways look at Charles de Gaulle*

[Spinflight]

But the berths are rarely needed for SSNs. So long as they've got food they can remain on patrol for very long periods of time, the same cannot be said of SSKs.

A fact which is thoroughly abused by de management. Over the last decade the SSN force has been deploying for 10 months at a time, that won't include any jaunts ashore.

Now from an armchair this is a brilliant thing.. Hell, it means SSNs are better right?

Wrong, unfortunately.

I mentioned in a previous post that you aren't putting to sea without meticulously trained nuke engineers did I not? Well it is old news that manning is a bit of an issue in the RN, though it is particularly acute for the engineers who, oddly, are a bit sick of long deployments, undermanning, general piss taking and being massively underpaid when engineers salaries in civvy street are going through the roof.

So those wonderful long ranged, so clearly superior we can dismiss anything else SSNs, it turns out, are rather dependant upon having a crew. They say that 5% casualties are unsustainable in wartime, well the RN has been losing more than 5% of it's engineers for quite a few years now.

but nuclear power didn't radically improve their combat capabilities.

Oh yes it did! There are very good reasons why Rickover wanted an all nuclear fleet! I'll give you a hint here, it is very similar to the differences between an SSN and an SSK! Do you really think the US carriers would be as effective if conventionally powered?

They're vital roles, but ones which don't justify the class of 6-8 conventional boats you'd need to build to justify re-introducing all the attendant support and training chains. Otherwise we're just back to "we need three more SSNs".

Support and training costs are there for the SSN fleet anyway, and an SSK would surely use the same equipment barring reactor. I keep on telling you we can't get more SSNs. There isn't any room in the build schedule and they are seriously expensive beasties.

Unfortunately the need to use the PWR2 resulted in a huge boat, far bigger than was envisaged, which is expensive. The Americans manage to build theirs in a couple of years, ours take several years longer. Simply can't fit extra SSNs into the build schedule so all ( pretty much the totality ) of your spurious arguments comparing SSKs to SSNs are moot. It is a straw man at the best of times.

At this point I think we can all agree that it's a justified fear. Nuclear attack submarines are critically important, SSKs are "nice to have".

*sigh*

Maybe I'm not explaining it properly... Yes SSNs are brilliant and I'm not criticising your favourite pet. I know they are faster, I know they are more capable. We also don't have enough.

It is also nice to have a submarine fleet, though when completely reliant upon SSNs with their rather unsociable operating characteristics it turns out that.

A) You have to use precious nuke hulls for all manner of training
B) Sometimes those hulls get bent
C) The most important tasks occur locally and require several assets
D) You have to schedule those tasks in an around your 10 month long sneaky beaky worldwide stuff
E) You aren't putting to sea unless fully manned.
F) Jacks get a bit sick of being without their family and facebook for 10 months at a time

Lets put it this way, consider two forces of equal $ value ( I'm being very generous) and roughly equal manpower. Say 7 SSNs versus 6 SSNs + 3 SSKs. The former probably gives you about 2.5 hulls for ops with the normal training and maintenance ratios, whilst the government doesn't comment on movements this seems to about right from open sources. Could be lower if the shortage of engineers is as acute as claimed.

The latter however should give you 3 SSNs on ops, as the training aspect is greatly taken care of, plus the option of using your SSKs operationally in the near abroad and the option of not disappearing into the waves for the best part of a year..

We will however have 7 SSNs so lets consider an SSK versus a cheap frigate. Lower manning, better ASW, far superior ASuW, similar procurement cost. More importantly though it frees up some taskings from

Just to reiterate, I am not criticising SSNS, I like SSNs. If an SSN were living next door I would be a happy man and would hug it regularly. I am not arguing for SSKs in preference. They are complimentary.

[ArmChairCivvy]

From what I've heard from RN accounts the Upholders were great little boats, very capable. I think many of their problems can be attributed to how they were stored for ~5yrs in preparation for sale after they retired from RN service. I may be wrong but that's where I've heard a lot of the subsequent problems stem from.

The first part tallies up with what I was told by someone who served on them (and the second, where the problems stem from, tallies up with what I have read on this topic).

Good follow-on post by Spin, btw, just to add to the engineers aspect:
- RFA has vessels not grounded but tied up for that reason
- the last time there were statistics released about nuclear safety engineers (not all of them are on boats) the shortfall was 32%!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Popped over to TD's, to see if there were any interesting comments... and indeed, someone in the know (APATS) had contributed this snippet, which might be useful in us looking at how the RN will slot into the
A) picture for countering threats in and around Europe, and
B) what else might be required from the point of view of Power Projection.

The comment is focussed on A):

"The Northern Fleet has on its books 8 SSBNs 3SSGNs 14SSns and 7SSks. How many are actually running is slightly different. Still a formidable force. NATO without Greece and Turkey but including US Fleet Forces Command Atlantic assets can muster 14 SSBns 34 SSNs and 25 SSKs. The US has 8 MPA squadrons based on the east coast, NATO Europe minus Greece and Turkey can muster 60 plus MPA. With no US assets at all NATO minus Greece and Turkey have around 60 FF assets suitable for ASW work."

[GibMariner]

A fact which is thoroughly abused by de management. Over the last decade the SSN force has been deploying for 10 months at a time, that won't include any jaunts ashore.

Says who? There are many ports available to RN SSNs, which they do often make use of.

Support and training costs are there for the SSN fleet anyway, and an SSK would surely use the same equipment barring reactor. I keep on telling you we can't get more SSNs. There isn't any room in the build schedule and they are seriously expensive beasties.

And there is room to build SSKs? Would the costs of reconfiguring the entire British military shipbuilding industry to design and build a handful of conventional submarines (the last British-designed and built SSK was HMS Unicorn in 1992 - think about all the problems early on in the Astute programme), not to mention the additional strain on the Navy's budget and manpower be worth it compared to increasing the capacity to build more Astute SSNs?

At this point I think we can all agree that it's a justified fear. Nuclear attack submarines are critically important, SSKs are "nice to have".

Agreed.

On the Upholder-class: While there were quite serious problems early on, the torpedo compartments flooding due to problems with the automatic weapon discharge system and issues with the engines, which caused considerable delays while these problems were identified and rectified, they were said to be quite liked by their commanding officers and were generally highly regarded, especially for their quietness. The intended follow-on batch(es) would have included several improvements, such as increases in bunks and fuel capacity and reducing snorting time.

In peacetime, the new SSKs would largely conduct training, freeing up the nuclear boats for their routine surveillance and intelligence-gathering missions, and during times of high tension or in the event of a war, they would move north for ASW patrols. Other duties would have included protection of the deterrent, coastal & special operations, including minelaying.

In designing the Upholder-class, one of the major constraints was its cost - i.e. it had to be cheaper to buy and operate than an SSN, but still a capable submarine. Not so capable that it undermined or duplicated the the nuclear boats, and not so expensive that it weakened its own position as a cost-effective solution. For these reasons, and the always out of reach desire to export the submarine, several compromises had to be reached, such as reduced endurance and speed and the lack of anti-ship capability other than torpedoes (I believe they could have been fitted with Sub-Harpoon, but they never were on cost grounds).

They were designed almost exclusively to operate close to home, the GIUK gap and Western Approaches and compared to the veteran Oberon-class, they didn't have the range and endurance for out of area operations. With the end of the Cold War, their primary reason for existence was gone and despite the sound reasons for retaining them, they were decommissioned. It might seem short-sighted to us, but we have the benefit of hindsight.

There are parallels between the situation in the 70s-80s which led to the creation of the Upholder-class to the situation the RN currently faces and the issues being discussed here now. By the 70s it had been envisioned that the Royal Navy would at some point transition to an all-nuclear fleet, but due to industrial constraints, the maximum number of nuclear fleet submarines the RN could build and support was less than would be required to meet its commitments and so a new class of SSK would be required to supplement the nuclear fleet.

Now we face a similar situation, where UK industry can only provide the bare minimum number of submarines required and the RN cannot afford or support any more, except now we don't have old diesel-electric boats to fall back on and we don't have the capacity to build new ones.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

On the point of using SSKs for training purposes, i think most here have forgotten that the Dutch already, very kindly provide us with their SSKs during the Perisher course.

[Ron5]

The Upholder's sensor suite was also highly regarded. Reckoned to be the finest SSK outfit.

[Spinflight]

And there is room to build SSKs?

Yes plenty. Sheffield Forgemasters are even building sections of the Virginias. There's several other yards that could stitch the sections together.
All of the bits and bobs are currently in production for the Astutes, quite a few good designs which could be had for the cost a of license. Take the Soryu and increase the headroom a bit, the Gotland an remove the sauna and porn theatre.

On the point of using SSKs for training purposes, i think most here have forgotten that the Dutch already, very kindly provide us with their SSKs during the Perisher course.

Useful for training our subs and frigate crews against SSKs but I don't think you are talking about the Dutch Navy actually training our submariners? As in our chaps borrowing their subs and joy riding them for a few weeks? Not that I know of anyway...

The Upholder's sensor suite was also highly regarded. Reckoned to be the finest SSK outfit.

Same as that fitted to the Trafalgars IIRC.

[Ron5]

Popped over to TD's, to see if there were any interesting comments... and indeed, someone in the know (APATS) had contributed this snippet, which might be useful in us looking at how the RN will slot into the
A) picture for countering threats in and around Europe, and
B) what else might be required from the point of view of Power Projection.

The comment is focussed on A):

"The Northern Fleet has on its books 8 SSBNs 3SSGNs 14SSns and 7SSks. How many are actually running is slightly different. Still a formidable force. NATO without Greece and Turkey but including US Fleet Forces Command Atlantic assets can muster 14 SSBns 34 SSNs and 25 SSKs. The US has 8 MPA squadrons based on the east coast, NATO Europe minus Greece and Turkey can muster 60 plus MPA. With no US assets at all NATO minus Greece and Turkey have around 60 FF assets suitable for ASW work."

Without the US & UK, the chances of that lot finding, let alone sinking, a Russian SSN would be next to zero.

Even with, it would be a tough job. Submarines are hard. In the Falklands, NATO's #1 ASW fleet couldn't catch two small SSK's. Didn't even know they were there.

[Caribbean]

the Gotland an remove the sauna and porn theatre

Trust the Swedes to come up with the concept of a submarine with mixed-sex crews, a severe overheating problem, and standing watches in your underwear!

In the Falklands, NATO's #1 ASW fleet couldn't catch two small SSK's. Didn't even know they were there.

Well, one got caught on the surface 23 days into the war and only avoided being sunk by beaching itself and the other attempted to announce it's presence quite a few times, but never managed to hit anything (and not because the torpedos were faulty, either. It helps if you know how to use your equipment). On the one occasion that they seem to have got it all right, Arrow's decoys did their job. But yes, they were a major distraction and operated by more competent crews, they might have been far more effective.

[rec]

I think that SSKs are more than nice to have for the following reason's.
Given that we only have 7 SSNs ,that are large and not at their best in shallow waters.
Only having 7 SSNs limits training and command opportunities.
A fleet of 6-7 SSKs would supplement the SSN fleet well, freeing them for what they are best at. In all honesty an Astute class should not be doing training in the Mediterranean.
It would make huge sense to have SSKs as well as SSNs.

[Spinflight]

It wasn't that the torpedos were faulty, they were over maintained and polished daily, which resulted in some numpty putting a connector on the wrong way around.

Still we did find USS Catfish almost 40 years after she was launched. The 60's technology Santa Fe on the other hand claims to have got shots off on both carriers.

The number of whales killed probably tells you more about their effectiveness, sandy Woodward was worried about us running out of torpedos so many of them were mistaken for the 209.

[GibMariner]

Yes plenty. Sheffield Forgemasters are even building sections of the Virginias. There's several other yards that could stitch the sections together.

According to the reports, they're building castings for weapons launch systems for the Ohio replacement submarines - not quite the same as "building sections". It should be noted that BAE at Barrow did build pressure domes for the first of Spain's long-suffering S-80 submarines. Even if there was spare capacity to build various components, where would the submarines be put together? How much money would need to be invested in Cammell Laird (for example, as the last builder of diesel-electric submarines in the UK) to make this happen?

All of the bits and bobs are currently in production for the Astutes, quite a few good designs which could be had for the cost a of license. Take the Soryu and increase the headroom a bit, the Gotland an remove the sauna and porn theatre.

And what benefit would that be for the British design industry? Surely the cost of buying and adapting foreign designs to RN standards would outweigh the benefits.

Useful for training our subs and frigate crews against SSKs but I don't think you are talking about the Dutch Navy actually training our submariners? As in our chaps borrowing their subs and joy riding them for a few weeks? Not that I know of anyway...

The Dutch partnered with the RN during the Cold War to help run the Submarine Command Course for conventional submarines, with the withdrawal of the British diesel-electric submarine fleet, the Royal Netherlands Navy took over the responsibility for Perisher courses on conventional submarines, known as the Netherlands Submarine Command Course, IIRC.

Same as that fitted to the Trafalgars IIRC.

Could be, but I'm not sure whether everything was the same. Ron5 is right that at the time, they had kit only seen on SSNs before. I believe Upholder was fitted with a different towed array sonar but the following 3 submarines were completed with the newer Type 2046 which was fitted to the Trafalgar & Vanguard classes IIRC.

[rec]

There are so many arguments in favor of SSKs as well as SSNS, and to have a build of SSKs in a national shipbuilding strategy.
1) Greater numbers of Submarines avaialble
2) Better career and tainigng opportunites for Submariners
3) An oppotunity for Submariners not always to be on 9 months deploymenty, it might help with retention of submariners. (man power shortages are an issue, and no matter how great SSNs might be, they still need human crew)
4)Disposal of them is chepaer than SSNS
5) They are useful and lethal in choke points, shallow waters, and open sea
6) They are hard to detect
7)They are cheaper to build and to run.

An RN Submarine force of 6 SSKS and & 7SSNS would be an effective conventional deterrent and worth lobbying for.
(add 8XT26 and 8XT31, plus the 6XT45, would give a useful surface fleet)

[shark bait]

4)Disposal of them is chepaer than SSNS

A huge deal that is always overlooked.

An RN Submarine force of 6 SSKS and & 7SSNS would be an effective conventional deterrent and worth lobbying for.

Agreed.

However making it work may be impossible, there is nothing to cut to pay for it, and building them will be a big challenge.