Royal Navy SSK?

[Ron5]

French Rubis/Ametist class is what you all are talking about? Smaller SSN with smaller reactor (but add fuel cell) ?
They say it was not successful, and shifted for larger one, similar to Astute, I guess.

On regard the fuel cell, as a Japanese, I will just propose Li-Ion batteries. We will try it and see the result soon.

My limited understanding is that fuel cells are more power dense than even Li-Ion batteries so for an equal weight, would give longer endurance & range

[Spinflight]

I don't think maintenance would be an issue, the Astute's have a couple of MTU 600s anyway. As for other systems they are in production for the Astutes and there wouldn't be any great need to change them.

Yes SSNs are more useful, strategic assets. Trouble is those assets have to be used for training as well as ops. You have to train your sub skippers somewhere, as we just saw with Ambush off Gibraltar.

Obviously it is a lot better if your baby skipper bends an SSK rather than an SSN, also think about the manpower required to train everyone on board when you only have premium assets. Roughly 100 bodies for an SSN, more like 40 or less for an SSK. Provided the systems were common it already starts to make some sense.

Yes we have Nato partners with excellent SSKs, though I'm not sure you can have too many of them. The range of missions that SSNs partake in is vast though I'm not too sure you really want 7000t, 100m long SSNs operating in 20m of water. Yes I'm well aware that they can and do but that doesn't make it optimal or an ideal use of resources. we took HMS Onyx down to the Falklands despite having SSNs there because something was needed to land sneaky beakies and the thought of an SSN beaching was a bad one. Wouldn't be an option today and since we got rid of our SSKs I think every single one of our Nukes has run aground at one point or other. Astute famously but there have been others.

Nukes also have some limitations which noone ever talks about. Putting into port being a biggie as very few will allow them. None East of Suez that I know of, unless you could DG. Strategic mobility is great but so is going ashore to stretch your legs more than once every 9 months! This also translates to systems redundancy, likely there will be no help on hand to fix stuff. Also their speed, again great. Except if they are shallow, running above a few knots creates a bow wave on the surface which is easy to spot. Hence in the littoral they aren't necessarily operationally faster. Due to their propulsion system you can't wing it, you need to retain meticulously trained engineers who are willing not to see daylight for months on end just in case, though if there is a shortage you aren't going anywhere. Also they are noisier, you can make an electric boat all but silent whereas SSNs will always have to have systems running. Also there are areas of the world where you just wouldn't risk them. I remember asking a chap from Singapore's navy why they didn't have any subs ( at the time) and he said you'd be able to see them from the air due to the clarity and depth of the water. Some areas offer very poor sonar performance, or are sub optimally charted, hence an SSN would be blind, or just as blind and constrained as a cheap diesel.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Nukes also have some limitations which noone ever talks about

They can't sit quietly on the seabed, whereas an AIP SSK can... indeed the soon-to-come Swedish one is designed for that "ambush" mode.

[marktigger]

rather see the money invested in more Frigates & Merlins

[bobp]

Agree with Mark above, more Frigates and Merlins. But I would like to see also exactly what the so called Equipment Budget is being spent on. So a bit more openness from the Treasury and MOD as to how our money is being spent or not spent. Especially when the MOD are being told to make 8bn savings over the next year or two. 8bn is like a 20 percent cut.

[ArmChairCivvy]

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/major-pro ... 5-to-2025/

BTW, I agree, too. And let's not forget ship-to-shore connectors; e.g. France has in this respect left us behind in a cloud of dust.
- the only argument for SSKs that might (?) fly is training

[ArmChairCivvy]

In the equipment plan the highest expenditure is reached in 2020/21 and it will then flatten out; whereas the overall budget will continue with modest growth
=> running all the carriers and stealth fighters is an expensive business (will there be anything left for the Army?)

Well, there is the SDSR thread for all these musings. Even the date on the EP tallies with the SDSR.

[bobp]

Thanks for the Nao report finally I can see the problem, the report shows 6.9 billion for new equipment for this year, factor in the P8, and Apache and other big programs their is a shortfall of funds for anything else. So savings or needed or more cash from the treasury, or delay the frigates a bit until we have the cash. The rest of the equipment budget goes on maintaining assets some of which are sitting doing nothing such as RFA Diligence. So its a sad state we are in can only be rectified by a boost to defence spending.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We still have some of the folks around that took the credit for filling in the £38bn Black Hole
=> it will be interesting to see if the term "fully funded" will stay in circulation

[GibMariner]

None East of Suez that I know of

Fujairah, UAE seems to be visited quite frequently by RN submarines. Also seen Bahrain and Aqaba, Jordan mentioned before.

[shark bait]

Agree with Mark above, more Frigates and Merlins.

I would go the other way, I would say subs are way more relevant than frigates.

Unfortunately we don't have enough of either, I wouldn't advocate more frigates than the 2010 level, but I would certainly advocate more subs.

Right now we have a real shortage of escorts that needs addressing as the carrier's come online, after that long term though needs to address how we can I increase sub numbers, can SSK's be a part of that?

Fujairah, UAE seems to be visited quite frequently by RN submarines. Also seen Bahrain and Aqaba, Jordan mentioned before

Indeed there are some options. Do we think our new arrangements in that region helped with the desicion to chop diligence a little early?

[Spinflight]

Hmmm.... Depends which frigate?

An SSK everytime over a Type 31 - The SSK would be a force multiplier for the Astutes as well as a very handy training tool for the Type 26s.

You have to assume that there is an Astute or T boat always being used for training, hence even a single SSK quite dramatically increases the hulls for ops. It could take over the sneaky beaky insertion duties too.

Better ASW platform, better ASuW platform - hell if things did get fruity with Russia and an improved Kirov dashed around Norway it would be spearfish or harsh language now I come to think of it.

Would we really be better off with 5 yet to be designed light frigates or a few SSKs that would extend the availability of our Astutes?

[Engaging Strategy]

can SSK's be a part of that?

Still don't think it'd be a good idea. We're not ever going to buy foreign SSKs, so you can rule out the idea that it'd be a way of getting more boats during the Successor build. Once Successor is complete we'll be straight back into SSN production to replace the Astutes. The key will be getting the next-gen SSN programme spot-on in terms of funding and making the most of a tight build schedule. The UK should aim to get 10 SSNs out of it, no ifs, no buts. Anything that could interfere with the SSN replacement programme, such as an SSK programme that will eat up valuable time, money and industrial capacity, should be avoided at all costs.

[Spinflight]

" We're not ever going to buy foreign SSKs, so you can rule out the idea that it'd be a way of getting more boats during the Successor build."

You need Barrow for nuke boats, not diesel electrics. Hell large parts of the Astutes are built elsewhere and trucked in.

[Engaging Strategy]

You need Barrow for nuke boats, not diesel electrics. Hell large parts of the Astutes are built elsewhere and trucked in.

And that won't also be the case with Successor? Face it, during the SSBN build there will be no spare UK submarine building capacity going. Nuclear or otherwise.

[bobp]

And that won't also be the case with Successor? Face it, during the SSBN build there will be no spare UK submarine building capacity going. Nuclear or otherwise.

And as discussed many times no cash either.

[Engaging Strategy]

And as discussed many times no cash either.

Yup. Bin the SSK dreams and ensure we get the SSN right and in sufficient numbers for our needs.

[marktigger]

And as discussed many times no cash either.

Yup. Bin the SSK dreams and ensure we get the SSN right and in sufficient numbers for our needs.

bin the idea of going above 7+4 for a very long time
the surface fleet has to Come way ahead of SSK's

[Engaging Strategy]

bin the idea of going above 7+4 for a very long time, the surface fleet has to come way ahead of SSK's

Pretty much. It's a crappy situation, but there's little we can do about it now. The SSBN is just too important to put at risk by trying to build an eighth Astute (or more than that). All we can do now is make the best of a bad situation, squeeze every ounce of availability out of the Astutes, and plan to do much better with the SSN programme next time round.

As for prioritising the surface fleet I think that's probably the right move at present. If Russia were to ramp up the North Atlantic threat even more than at present I'd say the case for prioritising funds for submarines, not necessarily SSKs, over surface ships would strengthen. But due to successor and constraints on industrial capacity we can't build up sub numbers, even if we want to, for quite some time. However, at present that situation is still yet to fully develop and the RN needs to replace its current surface numbers.

[marktigger]

we have more operations that we need a surface presence for at present and for the fore seeable future

[Engaging Strategy]

we have more operations that we need a surface presence for at present and for the fore seeable future

If the Submarine service is required to go back under the ice in numbers to respond to increased Russian activity we'll absolutely need more submarines. That could happen in the foreseeable future. Surface ships aren't the solution to every problem the RN faces and likely not the most dangerous threats either.

I'd also add that we don't just need a surface presence, we need surface ships that deliver serious and meaningful combat power. But that's a debate for another thread.

[marktigger]

IF 2 letters but a big word.

And If the Navy has to intervene in Libya or Yemen or Somalia or help Protect Kenya we will need Surface Capability more than Submarine. We are at a huge crossroads from the defence point of view the Future predicted in the 1990's of only having to do peace enforcement at a push has been shot down in flames and government's have to get back into long term higher defence spending at a time when the west is strapped for cash.

[Engaging Strategy]

IF 2 letters but a big word.

The trend indicates the Russian navy is coming back in a serious way. It'd be a fool that prioritises distant threats over the one on his doorstep.

And If the Navy has to intervene in Libya or Yemen or Somalia or help Protect Kenya we will need Surface Capability more than Submarine.

For those tasks you'd want the carrier, likely operating with army ground forces or marines poised offshore in amphibious shipping. Frigates "on the line" doing NGFS have a role, but generally are less important.

We are at a huge crossroads from the defence point of view the Future predicted in the 1990's of only having to do peace enforcement at a push has been shot down in flames

If that's the case then submarines, the key platform for sea control, become much more important.

and government's have to get back into long term higher defence spending at a time when the west is strapped for cash.

Can't disagree with that.

[marktigger]

problem in short term we have to do both without the full resources to do either

[Engaging Strategy]

problem in short term we have to do both without the full resources to do either

Well we can't do one (build more submarines) because of the hard limits on useful snd useable build capacity. That sort of leaves us with building more surface ships.