UK Defence Forum

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 15:29 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!

And that is why I was disagreeing with you in the escorts thread about "double crewing" for overseas deployed ships. From memory Montrose does have double crew whilst Tamar / Spey have effectively crew and a half (please correct me if I remembered incorrectly) - so 3 shifts rotating with two shifts on active service at a time (so after any shift rotation there will be 1 old and 1 new shift).

That will be appealing to some potential recruits, especially those with young families, as their pattern of leave is more predictable and can therefore plan family life around that.

Now I do take on board your point that crewing model is more appropriate to a peacetime Navy rather than one aiming towards a more warfighting stance. But I do think there is space for both going forward - we want the high intensity warfighting core to face off vs Russia in the North Atlantic / High North with RN force comprising carriers, T45, T26 and Astutes etc. Then we have the lower intensity peacekeeping / patrolling force in Caribbean / Mediterranean / South Atlantic / EoS (allowing that the likes of East Med or Persian Gulf might hit medium intensity if tensions with the likes of Iran etc) with RN force comprising T31 and OPV.

Yes the first priority is high intensity tier one warfighting capability versus Russia. But the other areas are still going to be important as the RN is mainly involved in either protecting British Overseas Territories and also patrolling the major global shipping lanes. And trying to get back onto the direct topic in hand, it is shameful that RN could nt keep Talent / Trenchant in active service until the (admitedly delayed) last two Astutes were ready to enter service. So the first priority would have to be able to crew all 7 Astute boats simulataneously by the time that the last two are completed.

Beyond that it would be grat if the RN could build additional SSN to supplement the Astutes and not just eventually replace them. But I fear that prospect is a long way off both financially (unless the RN gets significant increases in budget spending) and oprationally (as the focus is on completely the Dreadnought SSBN).

Exactly …. (HMG needing to demonstrate Medium and Long term commitment to the expansion of the RN).
Regarding your comment re: Far East River B2s ……. Enough crew for 3 x Vessels, but only 2 (actual) Vessels. A third Vessel, would have added to our capabilities.

Let me re-make the point in its most basic form! You have 200 infantry Soldiers (say a company), but so that you can boast that you have 100 Infantry Soldiers (say 2 x Platoons) on patrol continuously, you only provide Armaments for 2 x Platoons. This more or less inevitably leads to three outcomes.

a) The Infantry Company cannot function as a company, in essence it’s strength is halved !
b) At some point, some overpaid and too clever by half beancounter will suggest that there
needs to be a rationalisation of Infantry companies, so that they all conform to the same
pattern, which would offer considerable savings in Arms & Equipment !
c) At the same time, or perhaps later, the same overpaid, probably promoted and still too
clever by half beancounter will suggest that their is a surplus of personnel in the said
“Infantry Company” and that the number of “Effective Infantry” is only 100 ! Their warped
sense of logic may then lead them to suggest that the number of Infantry Companies can
be reduced by c. 50%, so that there can once again be 4 x ,”Armed” Platoons in a
“Company”. Sound Familiar ?

Then, the whole downward spiral can start all over again !

What would really be unforgivable about all of this, is for any Serving Officer to
assist in any way whatsoever in lending credence to this Faulty and Dangerous nonsense.

Although not an article soley on Astute, I couldn't make up my mind where it needed posting. Please move if you think necessary.
Doesn't make for good reading.

https://www.navylookout.com/getting-boa ... ilability/

Full Commissioning Ceremony video:

(BAE Systems) 31st August 2022

Boris Johnson attended (1:16:16), along with Australian Deputy PM, Richard Marles. (AUKUS?)

Not sure what to make of this, TBH...One of those I'll believe it when i see it kind of things.

There may be the opportunity to move quickly towards the construction phase of the SSN(R) in conjunction with Australia so as to maximise the AUKUS industrial base.

From the US perspective, if there is no industrial capacity there is no capacity.

From the Australian perspective they might need to accept that some or all of the work on their first class of SSN (especially without a civil nuke sector) will have to be undertaken overseas.

From the U.K. perspective, increasing the number of SSN and SSBNs constructed in a life cycle above the 11 it has been in the current cycle is imperative. Whilst I’d expect between 8-10 SSN(R) for the RN increasing the build rate to between 16-20 for the RN and RAN might be realistic for the next build cycle.

Some interesting comments here from The DS.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ys-future/

So is he going to double our fleet, invest in large numbers of tomahawk kits and heavily invest in decommissioning our old fleet tied up in docks across the UK. (I dont think)

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑02 Sep 2022, 06:58 Some interesting comments here from The DS.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ys-future/

Ben Wallace: Submarines rather than ships could be the Royal Navy's future

"Mr Wallace pointed to the emerging threat of surveillance technology and long-range weapons in nations such as China and Russia as a cause for concern."

Wondering if tech similar to that used by Ecuador reported on Chuck Hill's CG blog Aug 21st driving Ben Wallace/RN thinking.
"The Ecuadorian government is using Canadian technology to monitor the Chinese fleet’s illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing around the Galápagos Islands. In early June 2022, the government detected 180 Chinese vessels near the islands’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), fishing for large Humboldt squid and threatening the region’s biodiversity and economy" The space technology company MDA, based in Brampton, Ontario, Canada used satellite based data fusion and analytics to pinpoint the 180 Chinese vessels.

With Space X launching 50+ Starlink satellites per rocket launch you can see future possibilities of launching hundreds of LEO reconnaissance satellites similar to the ICEYE SAR satellites to create constellations that give near instantaneous coverage of all ships at sea to give the necessary targeting info to long range missiles eg DF-21D

A few of the downsides of RN submarines there is only one shipyard capable of building nuclear submarines and time to build, HMS Anson, contract placed March 2010 and just commissioned last Wednesday, twelve years in build.

I thought that when they did a review early 2000’s following the initial Astute build issues the report stated the optimal build cycle for subs was one launched every 20 months with a single factory. Appreciate that funding needs to be in place, but I assume it still stands?

With a projected life span of 25yrs per sub, that would be a fleet of 15 - 11 SSN + 4 SSBN

Repulse wrote: ↑02 Sep 2022, 11:18 With a projected life span of 25yrs per sub, that would be a fleet of 15 - 11 SSN + 4 SSBN

Sounds reasonable but how does AUKUS change the dynamic?

What could a combined build schedule between Britain and Australia actually achieve over the next 30yrs?

how practical is is for Aus to build front and UK back (with nuclear bit) and put both bits together in UK. As it would be less work per sub in UK, more subs could be produced in same time frame.

The dynamic change would be a more productionised design more in keeping with the Virginia class design easing the build process than the bespoke Prototype nature of each astute boat.

That requires more effort in the design and manufacturing development and tooling investment up front of starting production and what spreading cost across the three nations would allow.

Submarines will be the principle naval asset to deter and strike Russia and China so would be prudent to prioritise them over all other naval procurement if they are considered the principle enemy.

A more modular design overall would be good, allowing each country to effectively "pick and mix" common modules for their own requirements

Anson must be about ready to depart.

Informative article on background of Astute class SSN, detailing their development issues.
Makes sad reading of the (numerical) decline of RN Submarine service.

https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-n ... -delivery/

This may have been covered previously but I understand the reactors of the Astute class have a twenty five year life and cannot be refueled and the reactor types of this submarine are no longer in production ,The first boat of its class will reach end of service life in 2035 .My question is being a novice can a new reactor be developed to fit in this boat at this point to extend service life perhaps for export purposes?

Zeno wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 12:46 This may have been covered previously but I understand the reactors of the Astute class have a twenty five year life and cannot be refueled and the reactor types of this submarine are no longer in production ,The first boat of its class will reach end of service life in 2035 .My question is being a novice can a new reactor be developed to fit in this boat at this point to extend service life perhaps for export purposes?

Interesting question indeed

I have been led to believe that PW3 will not fit in Astute as designed, but PWR3 is based on the equivalent US GE design but using UK parts.

Astute beam 11.3 m
Virginia 10m

But Dreadnought has a beam of 12.8 and using PWR3.
Also, S9G has a 33-year design life.

https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/dre ... al-reactor

No, astute will be decommissioned once its reactor life is expired.

Zeno wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 12:46 This may have been covered previously but I understand the reactors of the Astute class have a twenty five year life and cannot be refueled and the reactor types of this submarine are no longer in production ,The first boat of its class will reach end of service life in 2035 .My question is being a novice can a new reactor be developed to fit in this boat at this point to extend service life perhaps for export purposes?

The reactor is designed not to need refuelling over the nominal 25 year life of the submarine it can be refuelled though if required but like any refuelling this would be v expensive.

It may just be possible, that 1 or more additional PWR2 reactors have been built for further Vanguard SSBN refits which, IIRC may, due to progress on “Dreadnoughts” not now be needed. This may make them potentially available for 1 or more additional “Astutes”, (or Astute class SLEs).

After the shambles that has been HMS vanguards refuelling someone would need to have a serious screw lose to try that again.

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 21:40 It may just be possible, that 1 or more additional PWR2 reactors have been built for further Vanguard SSBN refits which, IIRC may, due to progress on “Dreadnoughts” not now be needed. This may make them potentially available for 1 or more additional “Astutes”, (or Astute class SLEs).

The reactor and the 'core' are two different things. It is the core that can be replaced during a refuelling not the reactor. The whole nuclear sub enterprise is hush hush so anything maybe possible but based on what has been publicly said regards Rolls Royce and reactors etc. I would say it is 99.9% certain that we aren't getting any more PWR2 powered Astutes.

Could they do a pwr3 astute as an interim?