Royal Navy SSK?

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Spinflight wrote:Don't assume the underarmed t26 would be hit, theres more to this than merely missiles and guns.
Soft-kill? Good, why not equip it on a light frigate, if it is critical? Of course you need to take off other equipments in place (anyway it is small). But, if it is critical, worth doing it. No one is saying a light frigate can work as much as T26 (at least I do not). I am also not saying a LFF can do better than a SSK in pier-2-pier war. They are just different.

You are saying LFF is pimped up OPV (it is not) and cannot fight (they are fighting), zero. I do not agree. See T21, a typical light frigate we talk about as a bad example. Yes 2 were lost in Falkland war. It was too lightly armed, as the same as many of other frigates in 1982. They were just the most hard worked ships, placed at the highest threat, and has many battle honer, as well. A typical light frigate, one of the ANZACs, did their job on 2nd Gulf war. An easy job it was, but ANZAC did it. And it cannot be covered with a SSK. Of course this is not because LFF is better. Just because they differ.

So, first define a task, and then let's talk about which ship to get. I hope you understand I never said SSK is not good. I just said SSK is not good for many of the standing tasks. If RN is happy to abandon it, SSK will be the right answer.

By the way, what kind of SSK are you thinking about? 4000t FLD ocean going one, or German Type-212 like 1800t one?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, what kind of SSK are you thinking about? 4000t FLD ocean going one, or German Type-212 like 1800t one?
If the main roles would be freeing the SSNs in training and in GIUK gap, I would say that something like Type 212/214 is enough...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Spinflight »

I'd say even smaller. Bmt's Vidar 7 is probably a tadge too small but what's not to like about a crew of 15?

Training, fisheries, surveillance, pottering around the giuk gap, shadowing kilos, landing sneaky beaky types, operating uuvs in the future, mine laying ( something we used to be very good at and have completely abandoned), mine clearance most likely with a bit of tech, tlam delivery, sinking shit, choke point patrol, keeping the bastards guessing, baltic shenanigans, port monitoring etc.

I know I somewhat started it with my ssks better than T31 rant, but the two types might be very complimentary given the right design. Merge T31 with mhc, use the ssks active sonar along with something akin to the type 26 mission bay in unison to deal with minefields. Allow the T31 to retain a modicum of aa ability and leave the asuw to the ssk. T31 provides the eyes through uavs and wildcat, ssk closes to engage. T31 keeps mpas and pesky helicopters at bay, ssk has fun. T31 goes all active and suspicious to divert attention, ssk does sneaky stuff.

I suspect things are about to change with regards to budgets, especially for the Royal Navy. Brexit and other factors point to a change of focus. Quite right too.

Left to the RN, if it happened, we'd end up with ssn lite designs like the Upholders. Given a similar approach to the T31 ie producing a relatively cheap and cheerful design (no aip or gucciness, just a cheap to operate design buildable in a small yard ) then I'd bet that an RN ssk would be a far bigger export success than its skimmer cousin, particularly given the endless problems our previous warship exports have caused.

To build the Astutes we had to design and produce everything from periscopes to the software. Utilising and reusing this makes sense on many levels.

I've probably gone a bit overboard in the ffl being pointless, my point however is that a handful of ssks would be far more use than a handful of Ffls.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I disagree with the ending statement (of Spinflight), but good discussion to get there, anyway:

About this storm in the tea cup: lectrrickery played a part as well as complacency. They were so far out that they put the kettle on, switched off the active defences (which does not mean that they switched off search, just automatic engaging). The good luck in this was that the missile actually hit a crane head or something (and the crew was all under protection, deep in the hull... now we internet warriors of course bemoan that the hull std did not get a proper test :) )
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not like those corvettes heavily armed, and never proposed it for RN. But, getting hit by ASM is unrelated to their hull standard. It is only AFTER they got hit, the hull standard matters. Got hitting is determined by the tactics, training, sensor/armaments, and the captain's personal skill.
Spinflight wrote:The saar 5 for instance was blatted due to emc issues with all the high powered lectrickery packed into it's hull. It's defensive systems rendered useless.
And the story continues:
Spinflight wrote:Don't assume the underarmed t26 would be hit, theres more to this than merely missiles and guns.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Soft-kill?
Funny that, the USCG NSC has the full EMC suite of DDG51 on it. So a bit more than spouting chaff or firing flares when the search radar finds something coming in fast...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Spinflight wrote:...Left to the RN, if it happened, we'd end up with ssn lite designs like the Upholders. Given a similar approach to the T31 ie producing a relatively cheap and cheerful design (no aip or gucciness, just a cheap to operate design buildable in a small yard ) then I'd bet that an RN ssk would be a far bigger export success than its skimmer cousin, particularly given the endless problems our previous warship exports have caused.
To build the Astutes we had to design and produce everything from periscopes to the software. Utilising and reusing this makes sense on many levels.
I've probably gone a bit overboard in the ffl being pointless, my point however is that a handful of ssks would be far more use than a handful of Ffls.
SSK is a powerful asset, I agree. On small SSKs, it cannot be a powerful ASW asset because the sensor and analysis power they have will be limited. I am rather thinking of making it much smaller (say 200t) and design a fleet of long-range UUVs (may be about 6) to patrol around UK waters. Work as an active pinger, and as passive lister using frank array. The main aim is to release 2 T26 from TAPS.

It could go surface every 2 hours, and transfer every signal they accumulated in the 2 hours using sat-com. A data-center in UK can accumulate these informations to do cross-correlation analysis, including information from SOSUS, to find enemy subs. Yes it will be 2 hours later. But if you can locate a 5 kt AIP sub within 6 hours, it means it is within < 10 km. Very nice.

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Spinflight »

I'm not so sure about midget submarines, traditionally very useful for infiltration of ports though not a lot else. Saying that India is looking for a couple and Iran and North Korea seem rather keen on them.

Also I'm not convinced that the sensor and analysis power massively limits a small ssk. Would have to read up on the physics behind acoustic propagation though from memory it is a fourth power law hence you can still get decent range from relatively low powered systems.

On the analysis side, the limit certainly isn't the processing as Moore's law advances, but rather the quality of combat system. Merely getting the expensively developed software from our nukes into more platforms is a huge win here.

The first requirement, other than training use, would be a design large enough to take a dds. Freeing up the astutes both from training with these and potentially having to go close in shore in conflict or near conflict conditions would be a big win. The astutes that appear in Gibraltar always seem to have a dds, most likely for wet jump training with sbs and 148 sneaky beaky types, who probably have to jump yearly to remain current.

Also think about the nineteen sea areas defined and think which of those we would like a presence in. Some are clearly unsuitable for an ssk, others only an ssk would really do.

The arctic for instance is a source of increasing interest. The Baltics would require a very capable and even specialist surface ship. Given China has recently opened a naval base in Djibouti I suspect we'd quite like to keep close tabs on it. Also the Arabian gulf, where we already have a permanent presence is rather more suited to ssks than nukes.

The training and quality of life for submariners issues ( giving them a break from excessively long patrols) are the most important aspects, though as lightly crewed and flexible assets ( a dds could be flown in by c17, or a few tlam for instance) I think they'd add for more than a new design of light frigate for similar money or less.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Spinflight wrote:Also I'm not convinced that the sensor and analysis power massively limits a small ssk. Would have to read up on the physics behind acoustic propagation though from memory it is a fourth power law hence you can still get decent range from relatively low powered systems.
On the analysis side, the limit certainly isn't the processing as Moore's law advances, but rather the quality of combat system. Merely getting the expensively developed software from our nukes into more platforms is a huge win here.
All the merit you said is common also to large SSK, SSN and also for escorts and Helo. In all cases, 700t surfaced small SSK will be vastly inferior in sensor capability.

I do not have any objection that the small SSK will be good at special forces operations.
The training and quality of life for submariners issues ( giving them a break from excessively long patrols) are the most important aspects, though as lightly crewed and flexible assets ( a dds could be flown in by c17, or a few tlam for instance) I think they'd add for more than a new design of light frigate for similar money or less.
May be you are right. But, it does not mean the 5-6 light frigates are not needed. The latter issue comes from other requirements. For me, it is not much different from proposing to buy Reaper UAV to replace MBTs.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by abc123 »

About SSKs- more concretly, about Japanese Soryu class: does anybody knows what's her range underwater while using AIP ( crawl speed )?

I'm asking because I have found the number of 6100+ nm at ( 6,5 kts ), but I doubt that's her AIP submerged range, it's more likely her schnorkel range... And considering that German Type 212 managed to cross about 1500 nm at about 4 kts speed, 6100+ seems as far too big number...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Spinflight »

I think the latter Soryu class have ditched aip, cramming in more lithium batteries instead.

Well, I assume lithium but the Japanese are rather good at this so it wouldn't surprise me if they have developed something new and gucci.

I doubt you'll ever find open source info on submerged ranges, a closely guarded secret and Donald's friends are less inclined to blab about capabilities than most.

There were some documents leaked regarding the scorpene class though I don't recall any mention of submerged range. Even if you knew the maximum duration, likely at a knot above steerage, that doesn't mean the maximum submerged range.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

WhiteWhale
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Somalia

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by WhiteWhale »

Spinflight wrote:a closely guarded secret and Donald's friends are less inclined to blab about capabilities than most.
Send Trump a tweet, he will probably be happy to spill the beans himself.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by abc123 »

Spinflight wrote:I think the latter Soryu class have ditched aip, cramming in more lithium batteries instead.

Well, I assume lithium but the Japanese are rather good at this so it wouldn't surprise me if they have developed something new and gucci.

I doubt you'll ever find open source info on submerged ranges, a closely guarded secret and Donald's friends are less inclined to blab about capabilities than most.

There were some documents leaked regarding the scorpene class though I don't recall any mention of submerged range. Even if you knew the maximum duration, likely at a knot above steerage, that doesn't mean the maximum submerged range.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Of course, that's highly classified information, just I wanted to say that 6000+ nm number seems as way too big to me...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Soryu's specification (other than their size and weight) is not disclosed. I think we will know it 20 years from now.

Batch2's decision to ban AIP and make it all lithium-ion battery is very impressive, I think. It will make the system design much simple (= less maintenance and less crew, in principle), provide longer time for sprint in addition to the long submerged endurance (for which AIP was there), and I also understand that the battery getting "tired" will be less. We all know that lead-battery SSK is powerful right after the replacement of the batteries, but not so much before the replacement. I guess lithium-ion battery is much better also in this issue.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

LordJim wrote:Though not an expert on submarines, would having a number of SSKs available for use in home waters at least be a big improvement in hat areas ASW capability and allow our CASD to be covered whist exiting and returning to port plus the training benefits. Having say 6 would allow this as have one available for the Med or Gulf if needed. Surely there are enough designs out their for us to near as possible buy a number of the shelf, with my money being of the latest German designs, which seem to be popular with many navies. We could even work with say the Dutch, whose own SSKs are getting old and so on.
With the UK being an island on the edge of a big island an SSN will easily outmaneuver an SSK, so they're not useful for defending home waters. Aircraft are best for that because they can cover huge areas and use active sonar all the time.

The only bit they may be useful for is protecting the deterrent, where we would certainly not want to go active.

The SSK's real value to the UK is for training purpose, to try and increase the availability of our excellent but small SSN fleet. As we know SSK's are useful limiting access to seas, so there may be a secondary use for them in the RN controlling access to areas like their Persian Gulf for example.

As it stands all European SSK's would be useless in a carrier group. The new Australian SSK's sound like they could be used in a group, but at the cost of a nuke boat who cares.....
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Phil R »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Mainly defensive in nature!

Tell that to the guys on the USS Ronald Regan!
Yes, defensive forces often engage offensive forces, and vice versa.
Also good training should never be a totally one sided affair.

It is not plausible to expect a SSK to actively locate, stalk and then engage an active CVBG.
However a luckily positioned (or well informed) SSK may well be able to successfully engage a passing an active CVBG.

I do concede that SSKs have some advantages over SSNs, but SSKs also have some very serious limitations when compared to SSNs.
shark bait wrote:The SSK's real value to the UK is for training purpose
Training with SSKs is very valuable, luckily we have close allies with SSKs who like to train with the RN.

Phil R

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

Regarding the usefulness of SSKs compared to SSNs we have to be careful about differentiating what only an SSN can do compared to what we have them do because we only have SSNs, like the USN. Also the two types have different operational doctrines defined by their strengths and weaknesses. For example, in the Atlantic, a SSN has the advantage where as in say the Baltic the SSK has the upper hand. The level of sensors etc. between top end boats of both types is negligible as is the variety of weapons carried with some SSKs even carrying TLAM equivalents.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: The level of sensors etc. between top end boats of both types is negligible
Seriously??

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes, the sonar suites and CMS of the latest generation of top end SSKs matches most current SSNs, though may be the Veirginias and Astute still retain a certain advantage.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Yes, the sonar suites and CMS of the latest generation of top end SSKs matches most current SSNs, though may be the Veirginias and Astute still retain a certain advantage.
No.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Old RN »

Lord Jim wrote:Yes, the sonar suites and CMS of the latest generation of top end SSKs matches most current SSNs, though may be the Veirginias and Astute still retain a certain advantage.
Given the sheer size of the flank arrays on the Astutes I do not think they would fit on a medium sized SSK.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

Again it comes down to where and how the two operate. An SSN obviously has the sensors optimised for blue water operations where as those of the SSK are aimed at shallower more congested areas. I am not suggesting SSKs replace SSNs by any means but they supplement them very well. If SSKs were of no real combat use and SSNs were the only effective game in town a lot more nations would be trying to get on the band wagon, but SSKs are becoming more and more effective and the cost of SSNs is rising faster unless you buy them in large number and have a rolling programme. There have been numerous accounts of SSKs really embarrassing the opposition on exercises, and not all have been simple lying in wait and ambushing their target. The problem with comparison is that few Navies operate both SSKs and SSNs. France, Russia and China are the main ones that have both in reasonable numbers. The RNs Upholder class had a sensor suite based on that of the Trafalgars but sized to fit. In a nut shell you cannot make sweeping statement that one is better then the other. There are caveats by the bucket load for such a statement.

User avatar
Phil R
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:10
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Phil R »

Lord Jim wrote:If SSKs were of no real combat use and SSNs were the only effective game in town a lot more nations would be trying to get on the band wagon
Effective SSNs are extremely resource and expertise intensive. Most nations realise that effective SSNs are beyond their capability to sustain.
China and to a lesser extent India are expending vast resources to gain expertise.

Phil R

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:France, Russia and China are the main ones that have both in reasonable numbers
France don't
Lord Jim wrote:I am not suggesting SSKs replace SSNs by any means but they supplement them very well.
They do. Nuke boats are hunter killers, and conventional boats are ambush predators, both are very successful tactics if applied in the right environment.

The environments the RN operate in requires nuke boat performance, with little demand for the ambush predators. I'll suggest the RN wouldn't get much use out of SSKs in combat operations, their value is as an enabler for the rest of the fleet
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

Phil R wrote:China and to a lesser extent India are expending vast resources to gain expertise.
Even Brazil are having a go a Nuke boats!
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A little fantasy, again to take a breath. :D

For a RN SSK, I suppose it shall be a midget sub, if it is ever going to happen.

Like this http://www.hisutton.com/News%20-%20Kore ... arine.html

Specification
Length: 37 meters
Beam: 4.5 meter
Displacement: 510 tons surfaced
Speed: Maximum 20 kt submerged, 7 kt cruising
Operating depth: 250 meters
Endurance : 21 days, 2,000 nautical miles
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21") heavyweight torpedoes and 4 x 324mm (12.75") lightweight torpedoes.
Crew: 10 plus 4 combat swimmers


Why midget sub?
- Con:
-- It has small sensor, short range and endurance and less firepower. But,
- Pro:
-- it can work well as a ASW training target, and for special force. Small hull makes it more stealthy than SSN or large SSKs.
-- because it is small and cheap, can be build "along with" Astute. To keep the technology on-going, I guess at least 12, better be 15 units shall be needed to be built within 25 years.
-- This approach will provide evolution paths to include a family of "unmanned midget SSK" = UUV. Say, 5 for manned ASW target + special-force operations, and 10 for ASW-UUV sneaking around North Sea, Irish Sea, Channel, G-I-UK gap, and even Persian Gulf.
-- The technology can be lithium battery based, as we do in Japan. It is much more simple (although not cheap) than AIP. For long-range unmanned operations, "being simple" will be important.

Just as a fantasy.... :D

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Poiuytrewq »

I am not sure it will be fantasy forever Donald, it's hard to see how RN can increase sub numbers without introducing a class of SSK's.

The lithium tech is very interesting and could be the way forward.

Let's see what happens in the MDP.

Post Reply