Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

If one takes a step back, the best solution for the UK that meets the needs of the RAN would be for the SSN(r) to be an evolution of the Astute design rather than one from a clean sheet. Similar to how the Trafalgars evolves from the Swiftsure class. This would speed up the design process and hopefully allow much of the existing tooling to be used. designing the boat to be able to take whatever CMS, Sonar etc. the customer wants should the a high priority and this would also increase commonality between say RN and RAN boats.

Barrow should be more than capable now of building submarines to a drumbeat, well as long as the problems encountered at the beginning of the Astute programme do not some how resurface with the Dreadnought programme. In an ideal world after an initial surge to get the first two Dreadnoughts built construction should start begin. to concurrently build both Dreadnoughts and evolved Astutes simultaneously. In RN service, the Evolves Astutes would be operated along with the last four Astutes, with six of the former being built. The last three would replace the first three Astutes giving the RN an SSN fleet of ten boats, and design work for the replacements for the remaining Astutes would be begin before the last Evolved Astute was delivered.

Once the last two Dreadnought are built along with the first two Evolved Astutes, the next four boats would be two for the RN and two for the RAN, the design now being mature. At the same time a solid core of engineers would have been trained during the build of the last two Dreadnoughts and first Evolved Astutes, and this would be further expanded with these next four boats. At the same time the construction hall for construction of the remaining four RAN boats would have been completed as would that of the tooling and rigs needed. This Australian work force would gradually move to Australian over the building of the second RAN boat in Britain and begin building the third boat at the Australian yard, as well as training the first apprentices. Work at teh Australian Yard could theoretically be accelerated if the UK built boats had their final fitting out also in Australian. Could an SSN sail without its CMS for example, or its torpedo handling system if the RAN wanted a US designed one for the weapons they have chosen?

I am no expert of submarine construction so some of the above suggestions may not be realistic or feasible, but it is a senario I would like to see. (I often type teh in stead of the, i apologise)

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Out of interest, how long were the Resolution Class SSBNs in service for?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by tomuk »

Not that one should be discussing submarine/deterrence matters but we've only had at most three SSBN for the last six years as Vanguard has been at Devonport having a glowup and a vajazzle. :lol:

On building more Ozstute Flight XXXX after Agincourt in parallel with the SSBNs it might not be as difficult as one thinks there has been investments at BAE Barrow and Rolls Derby, there is the efficiencies from the a pipeline of work building Astute, the DNA of the SSN and SSBN has definitely become mixed, is an Astute not a Vanguard without the missile compartment, and is a Dreadnought not an Astute with a Missile compartment, PWR3 and CMC have a varying amount of US support, there is a nice shipyard in Oz and an apparent barrowful of cash.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Caribbean »

Bring Deeps wrote:To be known as the 'Beach Class'.
And hopefully not the "On the Beach" class
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Cameron’s 5 year delay was a stinker of a decision and is going to put a lot of pressure on CASD in the early 2030s.

Trying think this through, it doesn’t actually affect Barrow, it adds work to Devonport where HMS Vanguard deep refit has become much more extensive than normal - effectively a Lifex. Likewise the Collins class were going to get a Lifex whatever happened, Shofin Barracuda wasn’t going to hit the water much before 2040 either.

Barrow manufacturing capacity should be freed up by the mid 2030s as the last Dreadnought/s by then will be in the commissioning phase which takes a different class of labour than cutting metal. There’ll be a large trained workforce by then who will have just built 4 x 18,000 t boats in 10 years. Logically it shouldn’t be difficult to then build 10 x 8,000 t boats including two for the ozzies.

Likewise BAE design capacity should be available right now as design work in Dreadnought should be basically done.

The other question is reactor core. But the PWR3 is supposedly easier to mass produce,, and Dreadnought only has one each so there should be spare capacity.

I’m not sure there’s an insurmountable problem the jigsaw pieces may fit quite nicely

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Defiance »

tomuk wrote:is an Astute not a Vanguard without the missile compartment, and is a Dreadnought not an Astute with a Missile compartment,
No.

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote:adds work to Devonport where HMS Vanguard deep refit has become much more extensive than normal - effectively a Lifex.
This is what I was coming at; there is only one dock for this. Will the other three get similar, prolonged 'treatments' and hence will there be three available when the first retirement comes around - around 2030
SD67 wrote:the PWR3 is supposedly easier to mass produce,, and Dreadnought only has one each so there should be spare capacity.
Yes, it has 30% fewer parts, but the whole build facility is under reconstruction/ reconfiguring, under a 10-yr budget of £ 1.5bn
- the last cumulative figure I saw was 1.9, up from the above
- a yearly max so far close to £ 200 mln

As it is a close variant of the US one, I come back to my latest hobby horse: British (designed) boats, with US reactors in them
- I am not so close to industry as to being able to say anything about (transfer of) tooling, after the first two ozzie boats will have sailed out of Rosyth

May I add :) that this bright future for Astutes part in the post is PURE speculation...
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)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote:If one takes a step back, the best solution for the UK that meets the needs of the RAN would be for the SSN(r) to be an evolution of the Astute design rather than one from a clean sheet. Similar to how the Trafalgars evolves from the Swiftsure class.
I can see the attraction, if the Ossies really are in a hurry. Astute Boat 7 is scheduled to hit the water around 2026, just keep production going with a boat 8 and 9 involving Australian contractors, then move the whole line to Adelaide.

The problem/challenge is that Astute is built around PWR2 and PWR2 is dead. How much effort is required shove a PWR3/ the US equivalent in an Astute? I'm guessing that's what the next 18mnths is about - figuring that out.

If this OzTute has a US reactor and US CMS then Biden will be getting plenty out of the deal I'm guessing at least 10billion +

All pure speculation of course.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

If the Aussies do select the Astute as the starting point - then while it would be good news for the UK defence - it will be even better if that causes Macron to choke on the large frog that will undoubtly jump down his throat.

That has to be worth something just on it's own!! :clap: :clap:

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote: How much effort is required shove a PWR3/ the US equivalent in an Astute? I'm guessing that's what the next 18mnths is about - figuring that out.
One 1/8th for that?

For those who have gone metric, that's 12.5 %.
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)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by SD67 »

Well going back to my old PRINCE 2 notes the recommendation is 10-15% of project spend should be on scoping / risk reduction activity.

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

If the PWR3 is a version of a US reactor, could any common UK/Oz core submarine design be such that it could take either, the same with the CMS?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:If the PWR3 is a version of a US reactor, could any common UK/Oz core submarine design be such that it could take either
The reality is only people with very high clearance would know how close the UK version is.

PWR1/PWR2 were based on the general arrangement of the US reactor but always contained a UK designed core. The overall design evolving over time and moving away from the original.

With PWR3 have the US given us a copy of the 'blueprints' allowing us to build copies or have they just provided the design principles/outline allowing us to design a broadly similar but not identical reactor.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Have created a new Future Astute Replacement thread.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by SKB »

These users liked the author SKB for the post:
TheLoneRanger

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

TLAM modernization is £4M each for 65 missiles?

1: very expensive, even including all support, looks like.
2: only, just only, 65 missiles?

Iitem-1's most problematic point is NOT on TLAM's cost. It means, if TLAM upgrade cost this much (of course, including supports), how expensive introducing the FC/ASWs will be?.


Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Jdam »

And the sub lunched missiles are not currently in production, makes you wonder what the stock of other missiles are like :wtf:
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jdam wrote: 31 May 2022, 17:43 And the sub lunched missiles are not currently in production, makes you wonder what the stock of other missiles are like :wtf:
Does this mean it is special development for "Tube-launched blk IV, upgraded into blkV standard?".

If yes,
- can UK purchase a dozen of "Tube-launched blk IV" and do the same?
- as the money includes all the "initial" costs, adding numbers will be significantly cheaper...
Just guess...

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Jdam wrote: 31 May 2022, 17:43 And the sub lunched missiles are not currently in production, makes you wonder what the stock of other missiles are like
Actually pretty healthy. We've got well over 2,000 Brimstone (probably over 3,000), very good numbers of Storm Shadow (initial buy of 900 c100 expended, at least 400 through MLU), Asraam stocks are good, BVR AAM's as well. The change to Aster 30 exclusively on re-life, with CAMM doing short to medium range (and hopefully CAMM-ER) means the Navy's SAM stockpile will be better optimised (that is of course assuming that we buy more CAMM, hopefully we increase the shared stockpile with the Army with an additional buy of CAMM-ER). We've got thousands of Hellfire and Javelin (c7,000) in stock as well.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 00:39
Jdam wrote: 31 May 2022, 17:43 And the sub lunched missiles are not currently in production, makes you wonder what the stock of other missiles are like :wtf:
Does this mean it is special development for "Tube-launched blk IV, upgraded into blkV standard?".

If yes,
- can UK purchase a dozen of "Tube-launched blk IV" and do the same?
- as the money includes all the "initial" costs, adding numbers will be significantly cheaper...
Just guess...
Yes we could. In fact there is a bit of an opportunity to do so at present as the USN has retired all of the Los Angeles Class Flight 1 subs. These were the last USN SSN's without vertical launch tubes or VPM (with the exception of the 3 Seawolf Class). Consequently the US has a lot of the Tomahawk encapsulation kits available.

But...The Dutch have just announced that they will be looking to get cruise missiles for their subs, presumably Tomahawks, as will the Australian's for their Collins Class. Those encapsulation kits might get scarce soon...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Roberto

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

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

In an ideal world we would already have ordered the next class of SSNs to supplement the Astutes and eventually increase teh fleet to between twelve and fourteen. The follow on class could have a number of the Virginia payload modules fitted to enable VLS Tomahawk firings or a future hypersonic weapon. We do not want to be ordering the next class to simple replace the Astutes in teh 2040/50s.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Dobbo

Online
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well that is what will almost certainly happen, if we have to wait for the Dreadnoughts to be almost completed before SSNR can get underway! UNLESS:-

a) Design and Development work can be (and are) carried out in tandem with Dreadnought.
b) The Timescales for SSNR build can be (and are) dramatically reduced.
c) Production Facilities at Barrow are once again expanded, or better still a second production
facility elsewhere.
d) The workforce at Barrow or elsewhere, can be (and is) further expanded.
e) Reactor Production can be (and is) increased.

I too would feel far happier with the “State of the RN” if there were still 12 to 14 SSN in commission.

Despite Dreadnought, NOW is the time that the necessary steps need to be taken to redress the current woeful lack of SSNs. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
Dobbo

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by bobp »

Scimitar54 wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 20:07 Well that is what will almost certainly happen, if we have to wait for the Dreadnoughts to be almost completed before SSNR can get underway! UNLESS:-

a) Design and Development work can be (and are) carried out in tandem with Dreadnought.
b) The Timescales for SSNR build can be (and are) dramatically reduced.
c) Production Facilities at Barrow are once again expanded, or better still a second production
facility elsewhere.
d) The workforce at Barrow or elsewhere, can be (and is) further expanded.
e) Reactor Production can be (and is) increased.

I too would feel far happier with the “State of the RN” if there were still 12 to 14 SSN in commission.

Despite Dreadnought, NOW is the time that the necessary steps need to be taken to redress the current woeful lack of SSNs. :mrgreen:
Agree with your statements we need more SSN's
These users liked the author bobp for the post:
Dobbo

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 01 Jun 2022, 20:07 Well that is what will almost certainly happen, if we have to wait for the Dreadnoughts to be almost completed before SSNR can get underway! UNLESS:-

a) Design and Development work can be (and are) carried out in tandem with Dreadnought.
b) The Timescales for SSNR build can be (and are) dramatically reduced.
c) Production Facilities at Barrow are once again expanded, or better still a second production
facility elsewhere.
d) The workforce at Barrow or elsewhere, can be (and is) further expanded.
e) Reactor Production can be (and is) increased.

I too would feel far happier with the “State of the RN” if there were still 12 to 14 SSN in commission.

Despite Dreadnought, NOW is the time that the necessary steps need to be taken to redress the current woeful lack of SSNs. :mrgreen:
We had better start recruiting more and better retention policies if we want to crew them.

The sad fact is that we were struggling 7 SSN resulting in Talent and Trenchant being decommissioned on the same day last month.

I agree with you that we need more SSN but we first need to crew the boats we currently have before long build time of new SSN.

Online
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Astute Class Attack Submarine (SSN) (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Crewing is bviously a “Given”, but HMG need to demonstrate a medium and long term commitment to the expansion of th RN, before both retention issues and difficulties in recruitment issues ease.

It is HMG cuts to defence that have driven (and are still driving) these difficulties.

Aficionados might still seek to join, but many people will not choose demanding jobs that are likely to put a strain on Family life, which because of inadequate force numbers is increasing. At the end of it, HMG has in recent years told a good number of people in mid-career that they are “No longer wanted”. What message do they think that this sends to others in the Armed Forces and to Potential Recruits?

I have specifically used the phrase “No longer wanted” above, because there is a HUGE difference between that phrase and “No longer needed”, which we all know was never the case! :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 3):
serge750Lord Jimwargame_insomniac

Post Reply