SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 9 times
England

SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

Image

Introduction
The Submersible Ship Nuclear (Replacement) or SSN(R) (also known as the Maritime Underwater Future Capability (MUFC)) is a planned class of nuclear-powered fleet submarine (SSN) intended to enter service with the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy in the 2040s as a replacement for the current Astute class, the last of which will be delivered in 2026.


Development
The initial concept phase of the programme was scheduled to last for three years. This phase had begun in early 2018 but was suspended for two years due to delays in the Astute-class and Dreadnought-class delivery programmes. In 2020, the Ministry of Defence recruited for a Submarine Delivery Agency Project Manager to work on the SSN(R) design and development process.

In March 2021, the government’s defence paper Defence in a Competitive Age committed to funding the SSN(R) project. This was followed in September 2021 by an investment of £170 million by the government in the form of two £85 million contracts to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce Holdings for early design work on the SSN(R). The investment will support 350 jobs for the UK economy.

The SSN(R) is likely to be delivered in the 2040s or 2050s.


User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 32 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Jensy »

Judging by the silhouette, it looks like my dream of 'Shortfin Dreadnought' (Dreadless Class) might yet have a chance of coming to pass!

Not sure what to make of us exporting Astute, considering the DefSec's rather scathing remarks in the Summer about trying to build any more for the UK.

I suppose the final two Trafalgars will be completely knackered by their OSD, PWR-1 obsolescence aside?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:I suppose the final two Trafalgars will be completely knackered by their OSD
3-strong fleet over those years is a distinct possibility; but then again, how long did Vanguard stay 'in dock'?
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Well as there will be little actual news on the SSN(R) programme for a while I thought I might highjack it for an idea that popped into my head. It is often stated that we cannot build any more Astutes as the Dreadnought programme is to supersede it at Barrow. This is true and then the RAN SSN programme began. What do people think of the idea that if the Astute design won, the UK helps fund the infrastructure that Australia want to build to allow the construction of its own SSNs. If this produced a slight increase in capacity, could the RN purchase a number of improved Astutes similar to what the Australians would be building, calling them the Astute Batch 2. Yes the construction would be carried out in Australia but Barrow would be flat out building and finishing the Dreadnought class and when finished could then take over building the Astute Batch 2 or building its successor to replace the Astute Batch 1s. Rolls Royce would be producing the Nuclear powerplants for both RN and RAN boats and if a open architecture CMS etc. were used the RAN could use its preferred US system and the RN could use a development of that used in the Astute or Dreadnought. Australia could even able to accelerate its programme later with the capacity that was being used to build the RN boats, and everybody saves as components would be being purchased in larger quantities than if both we stand alone, even more so if common with some of those being purchased for the Dreadnought class reducing the risk of obsolescence. Everybody wins. Just a few ideas out of the box.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacserge750TheLoneRanger

serge750
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by serge750 »

Sounds like a good approach, Oz gets more experience building more boats, UK gets more boats - even 1 more Astute for the RN would be good, as usual all comes down to the funding.....
These users liked the author serge750 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by inch »

All sounds good in theory but sorry to bust bubbles but I think in my opinion that Australia Will Go with the US design over the astute for lots of reasons , although I would love them to choose otherwise and be secretly fingers crossed right up to the actual announcement which one they are going for ,but the US option has too many pluses compared to the astute ,and uk capacity ,lack of numbers compared to Virginia class , ongoing developments thru program life, sticking to the big player's design not the low numbers bit player' , although that's no reflection on how good the astute is ,just the numbers game ,plus Virginia already regularly operations and to some extent facilities in the area compared to astute , etc etc etc ,

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by wargame_insomniac »

inch wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 20:24 All sounds good in theory but sorry to bust bubbles but I think in my opinion that Australia Will Go with the US design over the astute for lots of reasons , although I would love them to choose otherwise and be secretly fingers crossed right up to the actual announcement which one they are going for ,but the US option has too many pluses compared to the astute ,and uk capacity ,lack of numbers compared to Virginia class , ongoing developments thru program life, sticking to the big player's design not the low numbers bit player' , although that's no reflection on how good the astute is ,just the numbers game ,plus Virginia already regularly operations and to some extent facilities in the area compared to astute , etc etc etc ,
I think Australia going for mainly US subs seems most likely. I hope that Australia might buy some UK systems so that we benefit too, but I think the bulk of the deal will be with US. The US is planning on building 66 Virginia Class versus just 7 Astutes for UK, and then Barrow switching to the Dreadnought SSBN.

Firstly the US still has a load of Los Angeles class that they are slowly retiring, so they could easily give /sell several to Australia. Even if low on remaining uranium, RAN could still use one as a moored training boat and others for service at sea.

Secondly if US shipyards are able to consistently start building 3 new Virginia Class subs every year, they can build two for the USN and one for RAN.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

So you think that 27 years to build both the USN SSNs and the RAN SSNs would be ok then?
This would add 5 years to the last USN boats. The USN cannot get its own Virginia class boats fast enough. So US yards could not build the RAN boats, even if Australia was happy for them to do so. Both US & UK would face challenges if their design was chosen.

Fortunately however, Australia wants to be able to build, operate and maintain (as far as possible) their own SSN.
The questions are:-
- Which design would best suit the Australians ? (Size & Crewing requirements)
- Will the required deliverables for both US & UK designs be deliverable both on cost and in the
required timeframes ?

The UK production facilities do not provide the RN with the number of SSN needed, whereas the US facilities do provide the USN with what they require. If we need to upgrade our manufacturing facilities to produce sufficient PWR3 for the RAN boats, then it makes sense to ensure that we upgrade our facilities to enable the production of additional SSNs for us as well.
I am sure that the US (and the USN) would greatly welcome us gaining the potential to provide something in the order of 5 additional RN SSNs (The Australian requirement giving the impetus to the required investment and infrastructure) which would also benefit the UK and RN strategically. :mrgreen:

tomuk
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Scimitar54 wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 00:33 The USN cannot get its own Virginia class boats fast enough.
The UK production facilities do not provide the RN with the number of SSN needed, whereas the US facilities do provide the USN with what they require.
Um I thinks that's a bit of a contradiction. It is my understanding that the USN want more SSN than are currently being built and better boats than the Virginias too.

For proliferation/ITAR reasons I think the answer to/reason for AUKUS will be PWR3 powered Astute Batch 2 (or 3 or 4 :) )/SSN(R) Batch 0. Boats built in Australia fitted with UK built reactors. The Australians\Americans will bank roll the necessary expansion at Rolls Royce/Barrow

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

The issues I see is that the version the RAN will want of the Virginia Class will be substantially different from what will be being built for the USN at the same time. I do still see the operation of SSNs being mainly an aspiration for the RAN rather than a definite result.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 362
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Since where talking about AUKUS and the Ozzie sub-gap in the 2035-45 timeframe - could they lease a few Tagai subs as Collins class start to shuffle off this mortal coil?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taigei-class_submarine

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SD67 »

Replying to Jim above - the problem with Astute batch 2 is that PWR2 is finished and PWR3 is fatter than the hull. Astute with PWR3 is no longer Astute. It would be easier to make Australia into the SSN(R) program. The timelines actually such quite well, build starting mid 2030s,

In terms of Australia going Virginia - I’m sceptical. It’s a completely different manufacturing process, all set up for mass production. Then there’s the crewing issue, and the sheer size of the thing.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
Scimitar54

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2334
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 13 Jan 2022, 13:33 Since where talking about AUKUS and the Ozzie sub-gap in the 2035-45 timeframe - could they lease a few Tagai subs as Collins class start to shuffle off this mortal coil?
The Collins Class MLU should get them through that period. They weren't worked that hard in their early years, like the Upholder Class in Canada they're not as old as their years suggest.
SD67 wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 07:52 Replying to Jim above - the problem with Astute batch 2 is that PWR2 is finished and PWR3 is fatter than the hull. Astute with PWR3 is no longer Astute. It would be easier to make Australia into the SSN(R) program. The timelines actually such quite well, build starting mid 2030s,
I think SSN(R) works perfectly for Australia. Lower crew, large capable sub focused on ASW and intel gathering. Timings work well as well. If we husband our Astute fleet (which the delays in build have meant has happened by default) there's no reason that we couldn't work together.
SD67 wrote: 14 Jan 2022, 07:52 Then there’s the crewing issue, and the sheer size of the thing.
Regarding the Virginia Class, the manning issue would be problematic, but I don't think the Australian's would be interested in the Block V with the extra VPM. If they were getting anything it would be a Block VI or VII, which will probably be shorter than Block V with just the forward VPM, but with additional 'seabed engineering' and UUV support built in. Outside of the US and China no-one can really afford to fill all of those VL tubes anyway, and the UUV support and 'seabed engineering' will be a requirement of the Australian's as thats definitely more in their mode of operations than operating as an SSGN. To be competitive the SSN(R) will need those capabilities to interest the Australian's.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

I’d imagine that the U.K. Submarine building industry should aim for a fairly straightforward build cycle. Over a 30-35 year period they should aim to design, build and deliver 4x SSBN and 10-12x SSN for the RN.

Anything less than that would likely mean disruption on the scale we saw with Astute and anything faster than that would likely mean major investment in capacity.

From the perspective of industry, the question is whether, if the Aussies want in on SSN(R), they want the U.K. to build all 8 boats or part of the boats, or just the reactor or all of some boats but parts of others. It’s all very complex.

Say the U.K. orders 10x SSN(R) and the Australians order 8, it would be difficult for the U.K. to build 10 complete boats but only parts of 8 more. There are a lot of moving parts.

It’s a different beast from collaboration on the T26 and possibly the T83 programme… building SSNs is not really the sort of thing you can easily drag work home for some pork barrelling…

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

I remember reading that the review after the issues with the Astute programme recommended the optimal drumbeat of submarine production to be one every 18mths for the UK (balanced by skills, facility capacity, supply chain etc). If a nuclear reactor is designed to run 24 years without refuelling then that would suggest an optimal fleet size of 16 (SSN & SSBN) subs.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 3):
DobboScimitar54SD67
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SD67
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 6 times
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SD67 »

IMHO that’s the “natural” state of the fleet. Last T class was commissioned 1991, HMS Astute 2010. We missed at least 5 SSN worth of construction, while skilled tradesmen were driving taxis around Barrow or (lucky ones) lining up lucrative gigs in the North Sea

Post Reply