SW1 wrote:They are not and should not be expected to conduct any sort of shooting war on there own
On Russia's insistence the GMLRS planned were left behind; they could have rained on Putin's parade in St. Pete
Poiuytrewq wrote:What would a maritime surveillance sub look like rather than a hunter killer? If we accept that any ASW capability east of Suez is to deter rather than confront in an aggressive way, would an inexpensive SSK with a high level sensor suite
Not a new discussion. Someone who worked with the Submarine Naval Architecture Cell in what was then the Sea Technology Group at the time when do-it-all-in-one Oberons needed replacing has condensed for our benefit, from the archives:
"The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) looked at a range of conventional submarine options from a 500-tonne basic surveillance submarine to a large 2500-tonne ocean-going submarine. The MOD settled on a design displacing around 2250 tonnes as the answer for the Staff Target. Around the same time, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., UK (VSEL), was developing a comparable conventional submarine design for the export market
with a slightly more capable weapons fit, a greater range, and displacing around 2800 tonnes. The MOD and VSEL, after discussions (and no doubt some political manoeuvring) merged their initiatives into a new 2400-tonne design"
that was still required to do the same things, and thus became overly complicated (tightly packed= complicated in both design and maintenance) and called the Upholder (subsequently Victoria) classhttp://www.navalreview.ca/2012/05/some- ... ubmarines/
Note: should we desire to buy something small (in numbers) then we would need to get a submarine tender
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)