Royal Navy SSK?

[donald_of_tokyo]

how can it cleanse an SSBN route if it can barely move and has no sensors ?

Why you need to kill enemy sub directly with these UUVs? For exmaple,

A- What if these UUV "pretend" being an SSBN for a week. Enemy sub will spend very tough one week to keep contact with it but still not get found, and finally find it is just an UUV. Since the decoy will "attract" enemy sub, hunting them with other assets gets more easy. Even when the enemy sub is tracking the real SSBN, they may think it is a decoy. (note this is exactly the same maneuver for this midget sub or UUV, when required to act in ASW training job).

B- What if we equip these UUVs with an active sonar, with small float data-link, swimming slowly at the choke point. Locate a T23/26 or a SURTASS ship in the vicinity, and ping from these UUVs to perform multi-static ASW. If these UUV "ping, hide and swim", with random period, it will be a very uncomfortable place for enemy subs.

C- What if we equip the UUV with a frank-array on the hull, and forward deploy it to be located near the enemy fleet base, waiting for something coming out for months? (UUV do not need to "breath"). Only when it detects a specified target, such as SSK/SSN, the UUV can send a report. It will get sunk, but it does not matter. Enemy will need to "sweep around the port" with ASW assets. (They may want to use MCM kits, but moving target is not easy to be detected with MCM kits.)

PS For the escort thread, I think item-C means RN may need to add CAPTAS-4/4CI/2 or even CAPTAS-1 on T31e, or River OPVs, to counter these kinds of threats in future.

[shark bait]

If its an autonomous boat then its different, but I thought we we're discussing a manned boat, in which case anything under 50m is useless.

The best role for a autonomous boat at the moment is as a decoy, its easy and achievable, forcing the enemy to dedicate resources ton counter nothing of value, brilliant.

One day I assume they will be linked into a multi-static network, but this is much more difficult so further away, and in any case why not just use and MPA which already exists?

[Repulse]

how can it cleanse an SSBN route if it can barely move and has no sensors ?

Of course add sensors... a passive TAS and hull mounted sonar. The US UUVRON-1 squadron is looking interesting.

[Repulse]

shark bait, I'm thinking hybrid, unmanned and sometimes manned, as the technology develops and depending on the mission.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm liking the midget sub (say, 20-30m long) with UUV because;
- manned midget sub can at least cover training part and SF operations in many sense, releasing the tension on SSNs. They cannot contribute to ASW directly, no, but yes, they are far from useless (compared to their cost).
- for a moment, we need to develop a new AI (control logics) for UUV, and to do that, manned midget sub will be one of the best test-bed.
- also I think the long-ranged UUV will be as large as a midget sub, and its build technology can be similar.

I admit I am saying something new, so I may miss something. So, any arguments, counter or support, is very much welcome.

[donald_of_tokyo]

One day I assume they will be linked into a multi-static network, but this is much more difficult so further away, and in any case why not just use and MPA which already exists?

Good point. But, sustained deployment will be better with UUVs. Also, the sonobuoys cannot stay (flows/drifts), and anyway it does not have long battery life and less powerful as a sensor.

MPA and ASW-UUV differ, I think. I'm thinking of
- UUV will
-- restricting the enemy sub maneuver by positioning in a chork point for weeks
-- perform "early warning"
-- be a decoy, in turn, if needed.
- MPA will
-- re-confirm the "suspicious target" (it may be a decoy, actually) in hours
-- focus on actually hunting the enemy sub.

Not clear, but I guess this way...

[shark bait]

I don't expect many personnel are willing to spend weeks inside a cylinder less than 10m long on a regular basis. That's the biggest reason why such a small manned boat wont work.

An unmanned decoy boat is easy, but as soon as we put people in there, no way.

The use of a autonomous boat as a trip wire is perhaps the most interesting, with greater persistence than other methods it could be useful to direct our precious MPA's into the correct region. I suppose it would be a modern SOSUS system.

[Repulse]

When you are talking about a crew of 6 or less, then even with double crewing we would be looking for less than 100 for a fleet of 8.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't expect many personnel are willing to spend weeks inside a cylinder less than 10m long on a regular basis. That's the biggest reason why such a small manned boat wont work.

Agreed. ASW exercise will be only a few days long, so a midget sub can handle it. SF force operation is for SF. They are trained to live in much harsh condition for much longer period.

UUV for ASW needs long technical investments. This is why I propose "to start with" ~4 manned midget subs, focusing on ASW training and working as a UUV-test-bed, use it for 2-3 years. Then "modify" 1 or 2 of them to be a trial UUV, and test if for 2-3 years again. I think it is a 10 year program, step-by-step.

In the "manned midget sub" phase, it is ASW training and UUV-test-bed. Nothing more.

In later phases, the UUV or even the manned midget sub version will be more versatile.

If it weighs less than ~50 tonnes, an PSV with 50t crane can become a mother ship for them. Thus, making it not much large will be important, especially for deployment.

[Ron5]

Under today's constraints it is clearly far too difficult to expect, but I'll suggest those missions are worth doing, it's not too difficult to justify a handful for training and special missions, to make sure the Nuke Boats are doing what they do best.

Those missions are already being done so what on earth would the argument to the Treasury for 100's of millions more money, be exactly?

Dear Mr Hammond, we want to buy some inferior submarines so that we can train to operate these inferior submarines, here's the bill. They will only cost more than your Type 31 program.

[shark bait]

We want more Nuke Boats, but we cant build more Nuke Boats, so can we have some normal boats to take the low performance jobs away from the Nuke Boats. Its all about getting better use out of the Nuke Boats.

Also heard from a few there may be a welfare argument to help boost the case for conventional boat's.

[Repulse]

IMO it’s the same principle as is happening with the surface fleet. The SSNs are part of the “big stick” and what is needed are smaller / simplistic vessels to act as surveillance and presence in the UK / BOT EEZ. With the Russians and the Chinese strengthening their underwater capability it would be foolish to assume everything will be done via SSN vs SSN/SSK action.

I’d personally go for something smaller than 20m so it can be deployed from OPVs / Sloops. Looking to partnership with Sweden who have a strong track record in the area.

- USV-1300 Malen: http://crashdive.se/technical-info.php
- Sea Dagger: https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dagger/

The only thing that is different is that the SSBNs are also part of the “big stick”, so would expect them to be supported where needed by an SSN also. Reality is that 7 would still be far too few, it is criminal that the UK government gave up the chance for an 8th when the Dreadnought class was delayed and it would have cost less than a billion to fit within the build schedule.

[shark bait]

Submarines exist because they are stealthy. Build a tiny boat that is dependent on a patrol boat for day to day operations and that removes the reason for them to exist.

[Repulse]

Submarines exist because they are stealthy. Build a tiny boat that is dependent on a patrol boat for day to day operations and that removes the reason for them to exist.

These have an endurance of a week, so not a big deal. Plus being able to drop them off close to an area of patrol and then bring them back on board for maintenance / recharge from our future patrol ships makes sense. It would also be small enough to be transportable by air.

[Poiuytrewq]

What size of a sub could you fit in C17 globemaster?

[Scimitar54]

And perhaps the next Repulse should be a Patrol Boat? Stop playing into the hands of the empty headed politicians who would like to abolish defence altogether so they could then have an excuse to do nothing about anything!

[shark bait]

These have an endurance of a week

Its not a week. A top class fuel cell sub over 10 times the size will manage 2 weeks in good conditions.

Something so small cannot be deployed, and does not simulate a realistic treat, making it useless for both operations and training. Maybe there's a reason why they don't exist anymore....

[Ron5]

We want more Nuke Boats, but we cant build more Nuke Boats, so can we have some normal boats to take the low performance jobs away from the Nuke Boats. Its all about getting better use out of the Nuke Boats.

Also heard from a few there may be a welfare argument to help boost the case for conventional boat's.

There are no low level tasks for the SSN's. You are kidding yourself if you think there are.

[shark bait]

Training is the main one.

[Ron5]

Training is the main one.

Don't be silly, you can't train a nuke crew on a conventional sub.

Or if you are thinking about training ASW forces: a) the UK uses other NATO subs as practice targets and b) to train to hunt an SSN requires an SSN.

Spending scarce UK pounds on SSK's instead of first rate boats, just concedes more to Russia & China. Dumb. Beyond dumb.

[shark bait]

Not 100%, but it is an intermediate step which is still important, especially for command, which was part of the justification for the Upholder class. If it stops the RN crashing nuke boats it's a good thing.

The second argument I have heard coming from service personnel is to boost welfare in the silent service and boost crew retention. Some have suggested a stint on a conventional boat, with shorter periods at sea, leading to more structured time at home, which would help create a better balance. There are also opportunities for more jollies, port visits and PR, all of which would be good for the service as a whole. Many leave the service because they are bored.

If a strong case can be developed to boost Nuke Boat availability, and increase retention, then a handful of SSK's may be a worth while investment.

[Ron5]

Not sure of the logic there. If the SSK's were so much nicer, wouldn't the guys just quit if posted to a nuke?

[Lord Jim]

I am not sure why a submarine with 38 crew, that has a range of 8000 miles, can stay submerged for two weeks straight, can do 20 kts submerged and has top of the line sonar systems being able to track basically anything within 100 miles including coastal areas and is as near to silent as you can get is such a bad thing?

[Caribbean]

That is a good point. Many people have commented on here how modern SSKs are so stealthy that they are making ASW very difficult for the RN. During the Falklands, two old diesel subs caused us a lot of anguish - imagine how much trouble half-a-dozen modern AIP subs could give an enemy fleet approaching UK waters, while our SSNs are off hunting down their subs. The Dutch demonstrated only last year that they were able to keep tabs on the Russian carrier in the Med for a week (that's all they claimed - personally I wouldn't be surprised if they trailed them all the way from the Channel). The record for an AIP boat staying submerged is now three weeks as well. These are relatively cheap systems that would readily find tasks that they are capable of doing in outright war. The training and retention issues are very important, but so is the ability to harass an enemy fleet or to sneak in special forces or intelligence agents.

[Poiuytrewq]

An addition to the fleet of 5 to 6 SSK's would be good news and is the only realistic way to increase sub numbers in the near future. In my opinion it would probably cost around £2bn to £2.5bn to get them built if they were something like a 212/214 displacement especially if BAE is involved and probably more if any groundbreaking tech was going to added such as a lithium power source.

I am not convinced RN is going to go down the midget sub route in the near future but I could be wrong.

Obviously that would require new money as further places to cut seem to be in short supply. New money may come especially as 'what to do with the North Atlantic' seems to be a hot topic in the MDP. New money would have to be on top of what is needed to plug the budget gaps that already exist but as the pound/dollar exchange rate recovers things are probably starting to look a little better on that front.

£2bn still buys a lot of capability but would a sum this large be better spent elsewhere if it became available?

Would an extra 5 or 6 extra P8 Poseidon aircraft actually be more useful in deterring enemy sub incursions as well as helping with SAR and helping with monitoring the UK EEZ fishery after Brexit?

Would an Ocean replacement full of sub hunting Merlin's be a useful addition to work in conjunction with an Astute and maybe a frigate or 2. For £2bn+ you could probably build 2 LPH's and add a few extra Merlin's as well.

It's all a question of priorities, is a new class of SSK's the priority?

If any new money is linked to 'tightening up' the North Atlantic how and where should it be spent?