Royal Navy SSK?

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 19:18 With PWR3 coming in and steam boilers going out,
Do you mean swapping steam turbine direct drive for turbo electric? A reactor can't work without generating steam.

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

The Russians developed a reactor that used liquid metal to transfer heat but even then they still used steam to drive the turbines. The PWR3 will still rely on heat transferred from the closed pressurised water systems that is part of the reactor to a separate closed cycle that forms steam to drive the turbines. The latter is cooled and recycled. The PWR3 is a self contained unit that is designed to last the life of whatever boat it is installed in, negating the need for costly and time consuming refuelings.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Can we just rename this thread "Royal Navy XLUSV?" already?

There is no future for SSK's in the RN.
These users liked the author jedibeeftrix for the post (total 3):
Repulsedonald_of_tokyoJohnM

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Another idea of mini-SSK. Turkish STM-500. 42 m long, 540t dived. 4 heavy torpedo tubes, with 4 reloads. Crew of 18 + upto 6 Special Force.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... anger.html
https://www.stm.com.tr/uploads/docs/162 ... erieng.pdf

In comparison, BMT's Wyvern and Vidar-7 concepts. 46 m long, 950t/860t dived.

https://quwa.org/2017/07/12/profile-bmt ... ubmarines/

Both design and associated documents stresses on low-cost. The most famous "500t dived" submarine is Type-206 of Geremany and Type-205mod of Norway.

================
I agree SSK for RN is a dead idea. But, a small possibility may exist in such smallish SSKs.

1: Relieve the SSN and NATO SSKs (~2000t) from training target duties of ASW escorts.
2: Contribute to SF operations, like HMS Onyx did with SBS. and Laying seabed sensors and/or mines near enemy's base. Smaller is better here.
These three items are clear merits. In addition, they
3: Can be forward deployed from some base (or mother ship), to be used to torpedoing surface ships?
4: Apparently lacking good sonar/sensor-suits because of small hull, may not be good at ASW?

Even submerged, using a towed buoy, getting target-info from Satellite and/or surveillance aircrafts will be doable. Nowadays, ASW tasks relies on active-pining again. HVU is noisy, logistic support ships are noisy, and ASW escorts are pinging, so a smallish sensor-kit will work to identify them. Smallish hull make the mini-SSK difficult to be detected, as well.

The point is, "possibility of their existence" is a big burden for your enemy in the district. They need huge efforts to suppress mini-SSK's threat, draining huge resource from the enemy's fleet.

For ASW, I cannot see good merit here. Enemy SSN/SSK is silent, and not using active pinging. These mini-SSK cannot have good sonar nor analysis power, so it will be not easy to detect enemy submarine, if not impossible.

Larger Li-ion battery for silent and long underwater maneuver, and comprehensive kits of decoys (even self-propelled) will be essential. Smallish hull is for survival. Lack of strategic maneuver capability must be supplemented by forward basing or new type of Logistic Support Vessel (mother ship), shared with MCM USV fleet.

Still this is just "a thought". I myself is not convinced.

But, I think XLUUV is a technology needed by UK/RN. And, if these mini-SSK is of ~500 tonnes level, it may be able to share production lines with XLUUVs (which could be of 100-250t class)?

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by SD67 »

Where would it deploy to?

The Straits of Malacca would seem to be well covered by the Singapore and Malaysian Navies, likewise the Baltic you have Germany and Sweden. The Black Sea is likely too far for small SSKs. Hormuz maybe? I'd have thought drones would be better suited there.

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Scimitar54 »

Continental Shelf and Mediterranean.

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 08:38Where would it deploy to?

The Straits of Malacca would seem to be well covered by the Singapore and Malaysian Navies, likewise the Baltic you have Germany and Sweden. The Black Sea is likely too far for small SSKs. Hormuz maybe? I'd have thought drones would be better suited there.
Thanks. Drones and mini-SSK differs. Drones are good for continuous monitoring, but will never be able to attack/torpedoing anything (RoE).

miniSSK can do
- torpedoing
- special forces delivery/recovery
but cannot stay there for longer than ~2 weeks.

Drones can do
- stationary monitoring
- mine laying (not sure)
- pretending miniSSK / SSK / SSN, to force enemy ASW assets to be exhausted.
But the third part must be coupled with "possible existence of miniSSK / SSK / SSN".

And introducing cheap miniSSK will dramatically increase this "possibility". Because a single heavy torpedo can (almost) sink HVU, "possible miniSSK" is a serious issue.

Note I am not proposing dozens of miniSSK, may be just 4 to 6. But, 2 of the 7 SSN will be "around UK" and "with CSG", so there is only 1 or zero remaining to be "unknown".

But, 4 to 6 miniSSK will make it x2 or x3 the "number of RN submarines capable of heavy torpedo attack".
Scimitar54 wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 09:39 Continental Shelf and Mediterranean.
North sea and Norway coast (operated from UK), Red sea, Gulf of Aden and Oman (from Omani base), Persian gulf (from Baharain)?
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Repulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Repulse »

A mini modular submarine is exactly what the RN needs IMO - as @Donald-san points out it will be a very long time before RoE allow an attack to take place without a human making the decision.

One design that I always liked was the Sea Dagger concept:

Image

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dagger/

With modern battery technology the endurance and speeds of the late 1990 design will be able to be improved significantly.

Now if with a "displacement in the range of 55t to 72t, a length of between 16 and 20m, a height of 3.6m and a diameter of 2.5m" wouldn't it be great if it could also be ship launched. Too heavy for a T26 mission bay, but perhaps something a future MROSS could do? At least warships / RFAs could act as supply ships.

Also at that size though it could be transported via a C17 anywhere in the world...
”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

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

Such a platform would be very useful once it is in theatre, the issue is getting it there. I suppose you could use a LPD or similar vessels or have one piggy backing on an Astute. Having an optionally manned platform that could be used in littoral areas with a possible land attack role would also be very welcome. Imagine such a craft/boat with say 24 VLS for FC/ASW able to be carried in theatre stealthily and then have it wait on the sea bed ready to fire, or acting as a underwater base of operation for SF.

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote: 02 Feb 2022, 04:29 Such a platform would be very useful once it is in theatre, the issue is getting it there. I suppose you could use a LPD or similar vessels or have one piggy backing on an Astute. Having an optionally manned platform that could be used in littoral areas with a possible land attack role would also be very welcome. Imagine such a craft/boat with say 24 VLS for FC/ASW able to be carried in theatre stealthily and then have it wait on the sea bed ready to fire, or acting as a underwater base of operation for SF.
Thanks. But I think
- SSK with "24 VLS for FC/ASW" will already be a large SSK, not miniSSK.
- Corvette with "24 VLS for FC/ASW" will not be good, too limited sea-keeping and too weak to defend themselves.

Also, forward basing such asset with enough "survivablity" might even cost as much as buying new IRBM?

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 17:14 A mini modular submarine is exactly what the RN needs IMO - as @Donald-san points out it will be a very long time before RoE allow an attack to take place without a human making the decision.

One design that I always liked was the Sea Dagger concept:
Good point. Optimum size of BOTH XLUUV and miniSSK will be a good thing to discuss.

"Volume vs surface area" ratio becomes small in smaller submarines, which means shorter endurance. This is the same to surface vessel. From that point, we know from Type-206 and Type-207 class SSKs that a ~500t SSK can do something in Norway coast and North sea and Baltic.

I guess ~100t SeaDagger is too small if torpedoing is considered. If only SF operations, may be. Thus, I would suggest 300-500t miniSSK here? 300t with 4 torpedo (no reload) or 500t with 6. If a forward located lockout chamber can be configures as "also capable to handle 4 to 5 swim-out heavy torpedoes", then a 300t design, tasked either for SF or torpedoing, may work?

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

But if the Boat was unmanned it would free up a lot of space for VLS, maybe not 24 but how about 16. The RN is looking at stealthy/submersible magazine vessels to support the LRG at some point in the future, to hide the strength of said Group in times of tension for example. A simpler version may carry the Army's planned Precision Strike Weapon, launched when the boat/vessel surfaces.

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by tomuk »

VLS is only practical because the sub is already 'tall' enough due to fitting the other equipment in. You wouldn't make the sub 5m tall just to fit a VLS. For a miniSSK or XLUUV tube horizontal tubes would be most practical also they don't all need to be torpedo diameter either.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Repulse

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Lord Jim »

I suppose any launch tubes could be angled in Russian fashion.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Feb 2022, 12:35 I guess ~100t SeaDagger is too small if torpedoing is considered.
Possibly, but "mini torpedoes" are becoming a thing... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... submarines
”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

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 04 Feb 2022, 10:30
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Feb 2022, 12:35 I guess ~100t SeaDagger is too small if torpedoing is considered.
Possibly, but "mini torpedoes" are becoming a thing...
Uhmm. I think those small torpedoes are "new smaller version" of the light anti-submarine torpedoes, or even anti-torpedo torpedo.

Main task of miniSSK (other than SF operation and/or laying sensors/mines) = for torpedoing, for me, is "threatening" HVU and enemy logistic shipings. The main aim is to accumulate enemy ASW capabilities to "free" our/allie's main punch = CSG. Also, miniSSK is mini, and cannot walk around long when submerged (even with Li-ion batteries). Thus, "swim-out" heavy torpedoes with long cruise will be my choice of tactics. It increases survivability of the miniSSKs, while keep on threatening the enemy.

Just a bit "fantasy" tactics, but using short-range torpedo will mean miniSSK being killed. Also, small torpedoes cannot sink enemy HVU.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 03:45
Main task of miniSSK (other than SF operation and/or laying sensors/mines) = for torpedoing, for me, is "threatening" HVU and enemy logistic shipings. The main aim is to accumulate enemy ASW capabilities to "free" our/allie's main punch = CSG. Also, miniSSK is mini, and cannot walk around long when submerged (even with Li-ion batteries). Thus, "swim-out" heavy torpedoes with long cruise will be my choice of tactics. It increases survivability of the miniSSKs, while keep on threatening the enemy.

Just a bit "fantasy" tactics, but using short-range torpedo will mean miniSSK being killed. Also, small torpedoes cannot sink enemy HVU.
But, small torpedoes could disable a HVU.

I definitely see a mini-sub as being capable of SF operations, but I’d say the current SDVs carried by the Astute class is sufficient for UK requirements.

Mine laying is another, but would require a change in UK policy on the use of mines and I think again a larger SSN would be required to be able to carry enough mines to make it worth while.

For me a mini-sub is all about Surveillance and ASW / ASuW sea control - it should be the Wildcat of subsurface. And in that vain, I would say it needs the ability to carry a mixture of small / “large” Torpedos.

In terms of endurance, SPIGGEN II which is half the length of the SEA DAGGER had a reported endurance of 14 days.
”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

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 08:17But, small torpedoes could disable a HVU.
Not sure.
I definitely see a mini-sub as being capable of SF operations, but I’d say the current SDVs carried by the Astute class is sufficient for UK requirements.
Thanks.

My whole point is "freeing up Astutes from the theater". One Astute will be around Britain supporting SSBN, and another will be with CSG (when it is deployed). As RN has only 6 SSN now, that's all. Even with 7th coming, the third SSN will be only sometimes available.

So we are talking about two different tactics, "miniSSK with Astute" and "miniSSK alone". I think it is interesting comparison.
For me a mini-sub is all about Surveillance and ASW / ASuW sea control - it should be the Wildcat of subsurface. And in that vain, I would say it needs the ability to carry a mixture of small / “large” Torpedos.
Following is my assessment.

1: miniSSK is mini, and cannot carry large sensor. So, it will not detect any modern SSK/SSN, I'm afraid.

"Linking multiple-small sensors" = multi-static ASW is another powerful approach, but this needs data-link to be connected. Using a data-link will "kill" the miniSSK, so this is not an option, I guess.

So, I shall omit ASW, and thus focus only on heavy torpedo for ASuW.

2: Size is a problem. In medium/slow speed, surface skin drag force (sheer stress/boundary layer issues) are dominant. (ref: https://www.alexlascelles.com/src/drag_project.pdf)

When moving on battery, its total energy is proportional to its weight. Weight is proportional to volume (scale^3), while surface area is proportional to scale^2. So, total-power vs surface-area ratio is proportional to the scale. In other words, with the same scalable technology, submerged range with the same speed shall be proportional to the boat length = cube-root of volume = cube-root of weight.

So, a 200t miniSSK only has underwater range of a half of that of 2000t SSK, if everything (crew compartment, sensors, deisel-gens, batteries and weapons) are all scaled to 1/10.

Type-212 is 1800t dived, carries 13 torpedos, 27-men crew, with AIP, deisel, and battery. 200t miniSSK will need at least 2 torpedoes (if scaled, x1.3), 6 crew (if scaled, ~3) and others. Already the crew compartments must be doubled in size, torpedo carriage is x1.5 increased, all means lessor sensor space and/or battery/AIP/diesel ratio.

How about a 400t miniSSK? Scaled torpedo is 2.6, crew is 5.4. So, even if I propose a 400t miniSSK with 3 heavy torpedoes and 6 crew, it will have about 60% of range of Type-212 SSK (cube-root of 1/5 is 0.6). Better be with 4 torpedoes and 9 crew, which may lead to 40~50% range of Type-212 SSK. Not bad?
In terms of endurance, SPIGGEN II which is half the length of the SEA DAGGER had a reported endurance of 14 days.
Thanks for the info.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 12:45
Repulse wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 08:17But, small torpedoes could disable a HVU.
Not sure.
I would say that a surgical strike to hit the rudder or propellers could easily disable a HVU.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 12:45 My whole point is "freeing up Astutes from the theater". One Astute will be around Britain supporting SSBN, and another will be with CSG (when it is deployed). As RN has only 6 SSN now, that's all. Even with 7th coming, the third SSN will be only sometimes available.

Anything to do with landing SFs on a hostile shore will be an exception, and done at distance so a SSN is required IMO. The aim should primarily be to free the SSNs up from is from day-to-day duties in the North Atlantic including CASD.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 12:45 1: miniSSK is mini, and cannot carry large sensor. So, it will not detect any modern SSK/SSN, I'm afraid.

"Linking multiple-small sensors" = multi-static ASW is another powerful approach, but this needs data-link to be connected. Using a data-link will "kill" the miniSSK, so this is not an option, I guess. So, I shall omit ASW, and thus focus only on heavy torpedo for ASuW.
If a Wildcat can have a dipping sonar, then I can't see that ASW is beyond the realms of a mini-sub. Of course it will be limited in the range of it's sensors, but it would be sufficient for "choke-points" and ultimately with an integrated / diverse system of underwater sensors and other platforms can in numbers cover larger areas such as the GIUK gap.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 12:45 2: Size is a problem. In medium/slow speed, surface skin drag force (sheer stress/boundary layer issues) are dominant. (ref: https://www.alexlascelles.com/src/drag_project.pdf)

When moving on battery, its total energy is proportional to its weight. Weight is proportional to volume (scale^3), while surface area is proportional to scale^2. So, total-power vs surface-area ratio is proportional to the scale. In other words, with the same scalable technology, submerged range with the same speed shall be proportional to the boat length = cube-root of volume = cube-root of weight.

So, a 200t miniSSK only has underwater range of a half of that of 2000t SSK, if everything (crew compartment, sensors, deisel-gens, batteries and weapons) are all scaled to 1/10.

Type-212 is 1800t dived, carries 13 torpedos, 27-men crew, with AIP, deisel, and battery. 200t miniSSK will need at least 2 torpedoes (if scaled, x1.3), 6 crew (if scaled, ~3) and others. Already the crew compartments must be doubled in size, torpedo carriage is x1.5 increased, all means lessor sensor space and/or battery/AIP/diesel ratio.
Agree with this, a mini-sub would have to be built in larger numbers as it would rely primarily on navigating to an area of patrol and lying in wait, not chasing targets.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Feb 2022, 12:45 How about a 400t miniSSK? Scaled torpedo is 2.6, crew is 5.4. So, even if I propose a 400t miniSSK with 3 heavy torpedoes and 6 crew, it will have about 60% of range of Type-212 SSK (cube-root of 1/5 is 0.6). Better be with 4 torpedoes and 9 crew, which may lead to 40~50% range of Type-212 SSK. Not bad?
Possibly, but I would see <30m length as being the optimal size, and ideally even then something <20m so it can be more easily transported via a surface platform. This way there is synergy with unmanned submarines based on a common hull / components. If the RN wants more "larger" submarines, I'd still be putting my money in more SSNs rather than trying to get into another specialist area.
”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

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse-san, overall, I think a good discussion is held.
Repulse wrote: 06 Feb 2022, 13:09...Anything to do with landing SFs on a hostile shore will be an exception, and done at distance so a SSN is required IMO. The aim should primarily be to free the SSNs up from is from day-to-day duties in the North Atlantic including CASD.
If landing SF in Red sea, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, or somewhere in Norway (after Russian invasion), do we really need SSN to support the operation? Its near enough from available bases, I guess?
If a Wildcat can have a dipping sonar, then I can't see that ASW is beyond the realms of a mini-sub. Of course it will be limited in the range of it's sensors, but it would be sufficient for "choke-points" and ultimately with an integrated / diverse system of underwater sensors and other platforms can in numbers cover larger areas such as the GIUK gap.
Modern dipping sonar like FLASH is large and primarily "active", which is a tactics miniSSK shall never take (location known to enemy). And, to be effective, dipping sonar is to be used as a pinging node in multi-static ASW, which is again a tactics miniSSK shall not take (data-link will be detected via ESM). When above water is "safe", so that datalink can be freely enjoyed, ASW shall be better covered by ASW USVs, like ARCIMS SEASENSE system. Keeping/joining network connection with UAV/P-8A with sonobuoys and other ASW assets, is must, and that can be done much better and even cheaper by USVs, not miniSSK, I guess.
Possibly, but I would see <30m length as being the optimal size, and ideally even then something <20m so it can be more easily transported via a surface platform. This way there is synergy with unmanned submarines based on a common hull / components. If the RN wants more "larger" submarines, I'd still be putting my money in more SSNs rather than trying to get into another specialist area.
I share your "smaller is better" idea.

I just think, if it is "miniSSK", 400t may be the smallest, just following the German Type-201, 205, and 206 history. Final conclusion for "coastal SSK" was ~500t. With modern technology, ~400t may be doable, but not sure if with 200t or 100t. For example, accommodation for 6-9 crew is non-negligible? Also, being cheap is essential (not to cut SSN anymore) so making it simple is also important. No AIP but only with Li-ion battery. No large sonar (hence no ASW) and not many weapons (3 or 4 heavy weight torpedo is enough).

But, I will also try thinking of "what a 200t sub can do"? How limited it will be? (limited does not mean useless. Just there are thing can be done and things cannot) :D

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Feb 2022, 15:37 Repulse-san, overall, I think a good discussion is held.
Agree - it’s a fascinating area and one I believe the RN should be focusing on more.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Feb 2022, 15:37 If landing SF in Red sea, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, or somewhere in Norway (after Russian invasion), do we really need SSN to support the operation? Its near enough from available bases, I guess?


The SBS SDVs have a stated range of 12nm and are of a size that they could be deployed from a T26, Albion, RFA, or even possibly a River Class as well as a SSN and land base. TBH I think operating these (or similar craft) from a land base would be unlikely.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Feb 2022, 15:37Modern dipping sonar like FLASH is large and primarily "active", which is a tactics miniSSK shall never take (location known to enemy). And, to be effective, dipping sonar is to be used as a pinging node in multi-static ASW, which is again a tactics miniSSK shall not take (data-link will be detected via ESM). When above water is "safe", so that datalink can be freely enjoyed, ASW shall be better covered by ASW USVs, like ARCIMS SEASENSE system. Keeping/joining network connection with UAV/P-8A with sonobuoys and other ASW assets, is must, and that can be done much better and even cheaper by USVs, not miniSSK, I guess.


Good points and I can see how limited it is with current technologies and challenges for future R&D. However, a lot of investment is going into this area so who knows.

One alternative, is for the manned sub to operate in partnership with other UUVs - effectively acting as the control and command ship for deciding on offensive action and analysing data?
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Feb 2022, 15:37 I share your "smaller is better" idea.

I just think, if it is "miniSSK", 400t may be the smallest, just following the German Type-201, 205, and 206 history. Final conclusion for "coastal SSK" was ~500t. With modern technology, ~400t may be doable, but not sure if with 200t or 100t. For example, accommodation for 6-9 crew is non-negligible? Also, being cheap is essential (not to cut SSN anymore) so making it simple is also important. No AIP but only with Li-ion battery. No large sonar (hence no ASW) and not many weapons (3 or 4 heavy weight torpedo is enough).

But, I will also try thinking of "what a 200t sub can do"? How limited it will be? (limited does not mean useless. Just there are thing can be done and things cannot) :D
I do accept that a “larger” mini submarine is an option, and one worth discussing. My view though is that it is better to remain smaller to get synergies with other planned UUVs and allowing it to be easily forward deployed by ship or transport aircraft.

Edit: I keep using the XE-craft as a point of reference which was 16m long with a underwater displacement of 30 tonnes, capable of diving to 300ft and carry a charge of 1.7 tonnes. It had a crew of 4 and could operate up to 10 days.
”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

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Dahedd »

Surely a fleet of small SSK makes sense for covering the GIUK gap, Baltic exit point & providing cover for the SSBN fleet in UK waters.

This frees up the limited number of Astutes to range further afield. Getting shot of the Upholders seems to have been an error.
These users liked the author Dahedd for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Defiance »

Dahedd wrote: 07 Feb 2022, 00:35 Surely a fleet of small SSK makes sense for covering the GIUK gap, Baltic exit point & providing cover for the SSBN fleet in UK waters.

This frees up the limited number of Astutes to range further afield. Getting shot of the Upholders seems to have been an error.
They make sense in a world of Fantasy Fleet, the reality is a bit different. The end result would be an SSK chugging around GUIK gap (which is a lot bigger than you think with fewer choke points) and a reduced SSN fleet which can't be tasked beyond CASD and CSG escort.

Sounds like a poor outcome to me.
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Dahedd wrote: 07 Feb 2022, 00:35 Surely a fleet of small SSK makes sense for covering the GIUK gap, Baltic exit point & providing cover for the SSBN fleet in UK waters.

This frees up the limited number of Astutes to range further afield. Getting shot of the Upholders seems to have been an error.
SSK capable of doing ASW in GIUK gap will never be small nor cheap. SSN/SSK now is very very quiet and active ASW is must. It must be even coupled with multi-static listening nodes, sharing information by datalink.

- Active pinger
- need for real-time datalink
all means it is not a "small" SSK, if ASW is the aim.

SSK is good at ASW, only if it is heavily equipped with ASW sensors. And, such SSK will cost as much as 1/4-1/3 of an SSN. Building a fleet of such SSKs (say 6 hulls?) fleet will mean cutting 2 (or even more) SSNs. Not good, I think.

This is why I am NOT thinking of ASW when discussing about miniSSK. ASW USV will be much much better.

[EDIT] On the other hand, ASW being all active is good for ASuW with miniSSK. Enemy position is well known from hundreds of miles away (because enemy ASW assets are "laudly" advocating their position), and "mini" SSK is less detectable than full-fat SSK.

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

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Scimitar54 »

Where does it say “Small” in the title of this thread ?

Post Reply