Royal Navy SSK?

[Pseudo]

If we were to procure SSK's, I'd think that the reason to do it would be to free up the Astute that patrols our vicinity. We'd also want to minimise the cost as much as possible, so my first thought would be some sort of deal with Australia whereby they buy the Type 26 and we co-operate on SEA1000. Though I think they're probably looking for something a little bigger and more capable than we'd probably need for the purpose (I was thinking that Type 212 or A26 would suit our needs pretty well) it'd tie them in to the Type 26, which would probably work out quite well. Although I'm not sure how many Type 26's we'd be able to build here since we'd probably only want three or four SSK's at most.

[seaspear]

The Collins class has a range of something like seven thousand milesgiving it the ability to cover areas of interest ,the type16 proposed by Germany for the R.A.N and the Barracuda class proposed by the French also have merits ,another candidate is the newer Soryu class under development , is there any reason you wouldnt base submarines out of north Scotland for patrols considering some of the visitors of late

[shark bait]

If we were to procure SSK's, I'd think that the reason to do it would be to free up the Astute that patrols our vicinity. We'd also want to minimise the cost as much as possible, so my first thought would be some sort of deal with Australia whereby they buy the Type 26 and we co-operate on SEA1000. Though I think they're probably looking for something a little bigger and more capable than we'd probably need for the purpose (I was thinking that Type 212 or A26 would suit our needs pretty well) it'd tie them in to the Type 26, which would probably work out quite well. Although I'm not sure how many Type 26's we'd be able to build here since we'd probably only want three or four SSK's at most.

Thats a great point. A hypothetical deal like that would be a win win for both sides. However I think a partnership with Germany would be much better. They have a requirement for six 7,000 tonne frigates, and they also have the excellent type 212. In that situation a bit of design and experience sharing would save us both a tonne of time and money.

is there any reason you wouldnt base submarines out of north Scotland for patrols considering some of the visitors of late

I cant see why not. That's good territory for an SSK as they cant stray too far from home. The reason I started this discussion is with those visitors I think there will be a renewed interest in subs and SSK could fit the bill very well.

[Pseudo]

If we were to procure SSK's, I'd think that the reason to do it would be to free up the Astute that patrols our vicinity. We'd also want to minimise the cost as much as possible, so my first thought would be some sort of deal with Australia whereby they buy the Type 26 and we co-operate on SEA1000. Though I think they're probably looking for something a little bigger and more capable than we'd probably need for the purpose (I was thinking that Type 212 or A26 would suit our needs pretty well) it'd tie them in to the Type 26, which would probably work out quite well. Although I'm not sure how many Type 26's we'd be able to build here since we'd probably only want three or four SSK's at most.

Thats a great point.

Thanks.

A hypothetical deal like that would be a win win for both sides. However I think a partnership with Germany would be much better. They have a requirement for six 7,000 tonne frigates, and they also have the excellent type 212. In that situation a bit of design and experience sharing would save us both a tonne of time and money.

That's a perfectly good idea, but I was hoping to leverage BAe's work on the Hobart's. Now I wonder if bringing our expertise from the Astute's might have some use on the Type 216? In which case (in some admittedly likely fantasy land) we might be able to do a deal for Type 26's to fulfil the needs of Germany and Australia, if not Canada as well.

is there any reason you wouldnt base submarines out of north Scotland for patrols considering some of the visitors of late

I cant see why not. That's good territory for an SSK as they cant stray too far from home. The reason I started this discussion is with those visitors I think there will be a renewed interest in subs and SSK could fit the bill very well.

Given that I would assume that their primary role would be GIUK gap/Home waters patrol, would there any good reason why they couldn't operate out of Faslane?

[shark bait]

Given that I would assume that their primary role would be GIUK gap/Home waters patrol, would there any good reason why they couldn't operate out of Faslane?

I dont see why not.

A 212 can travel 1700 miles without surfacing which is a fair distance from the Clyde as shown on the map. This first dot represents an 18 day patrol and return to the Clyde without surfacing.

That's a perfectly good idea, but I was hoping to leverage BAe's work on the Hobart's. Now I wonder if bringing our expertise from the Astute's might have some use on the Type 216? In which case (in some admittedly likely fantasy land) we might be able to do a deal for Type 26's to fulfil the needs of Germany and Australia, if not Canada as well.

Well in that fantasy land there are 4 countries that want the same frigate, and the same sub as well. That would all just be too perfect!

[Pseudo]

Given that I would assume that their primary role would be GIUK gap/Home waters patrol, would there any good reason why they couldn't operate out of Faslane?

I dont see why not.

A 212 can travel 1700 miles without surfacing which is a fair distance from the Clyde as shown on the map. This first dot represents an 18 day patrol and return to the Clyde without surfacing.

That's great, but I'm not entirely sure that you can sail through the Isle of Skye and the west coast of Scotland, a slightly more circuitous route might be necessary.

That's a perfectly good idea, but I was hoping to leverage BAe's work on the Hobart's. Now I wonder if bringing our expertise from the Astute's might have some use on the Type 216? In which case (in some admittedly likely fantasy land) we might be able to do a deal for Type 26's to fulfil the needs of Germany and Australia, if not Canada as well.

Well in that fantasy land there are 4 countries that want the same frigate, and the same sub as well. That would all just be too perfect!

Ah yes, but someone would fuck it up. Probably the Germans or us. Yep, it'd probably be us.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[Pseudo]

I've not seen any advantages for an SSK other than cheaper to build.

The savings would be lost through training, maintaining and operating two types of boat.

Absolutely, I don't think anyone thinks that this would be a serious proposal. We're just monkeying around.

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[seaspear]

On that argument you would not have both the type 26 and 45 it would be one or the other

[ArmChairCivvy]

On that argument you would not have both the type 26 and 45 it would be one or the other

... as it will be, but not soon. Calculate 13 x 1.5-2 years (no keel laid yet) and the T45s will be at least a third of a century old when we get there.

This is not to say that the T26 hull could not get modifications; just think back to how the T42s shrank at first, and then grew again

[R686]

So you want to swap nuclear powered subs which can stay underwater for three months in silence (they are only limited by food supply), for subs which are noisier diesel-electric powered which can stay underwater for only as long as the batteries have electrical charge in them?

I think you will find that once submerged the conventional submarine is quieter by a fair margin which will be operating on electrical power only. Whilst a nuc boat will always be operating her power generation plant with water cooling pumps etc. What you are referring to is the Indiscretion Ratio which is the time when a submarine must broach the surface to raise the snorkel to run the diesels to recharge the batteries

Indiscretion Ratio will come under OPSPEC but a majority of time it depends on your capacity to produce the required electrical generation in the quickest amount of time. For this a large hull volume also helps, for it provides the space and ease of layout for large diesel engines and generator sets as well as high capacity battery storage. In the case of the Collins class the combination of large battery storage and high generator capacity was shown to allow the submarine to maintain an energy cycle under patrol conditions which required it to snort for less than a few minutes in every 24 hours or when compared to the previous O boats is said to be able recharge its batteries almost four times the rate.

Diesel electric subs may be cheaper, but the advantages of nuclear powered submarines over diesel-electric far outweigh the cost.

CONOPS play a large part of whether a nuc boat or conventional is the most appropriate for the cost

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[Tony Williams]

On that argument you would not have both the type 26 and 45 it would be one or the other

Seeing as a Daring Class is a Anti Air Warfare "Destroyer" and the Type 26 will be 8x Anti Submarine Warfare, 5x Multirole "Frigate" they are clearly not the same.

By your reasoning a Sandown class does the same as an Albion class.

I assumed he meant that the Type 26 design would be modified to incorporate the AAW system from T45 instead of the ASW stuff. Given that the ships will be of similar size, that would presumably be possible (although not cheap - but perhaps cheaper than any other way of getting new AAW destroyers).

[seaspear]

The missions performed by the Daring class now may in future be performed by the type 26 .
I am not suggesting that there are less Astutes built just that a number of ssk,s be built for other roles that you would not normally send a large nuclear submarine into .
I have read that some of the nuclear submarines have another system of quite power generation and are able to "turn down" the nuclear generation for short periods when the needs arise

[ArmChairCivvy]

On that argument you would not have both the type 26 and 45 it would be one or the other

Seeing as a Daring Class is a Anti Air Warfare "Destroyer" and the Type 26 will be 8x Anti Submarine Warfare, 5x Multirole "Frigate" they are clearly not the same.

By your reasoning a Sandown class does the same as an Albion class.

You may want to look up what the Capability Line Manager "Surface something... for the RN, anyway", said:

There will be no more destroyers or frigates; they will all be surface combatants.

Well said, I have tried to make the point here by saying that the T26 has grown into a cruiser (vs. the AAW destroyers that - surely? - should out-scale them by a clear margin).

[Tony Williams]

You may want to look up what the Capability Line Manager "Surface something... for the RN, anyway", said:

There will be no more destroyers or frigates; they will all be surface combatants.

Now there's a nice snappy title to stir the martial soul!

Never mind, the press will continue to call them all "battleships" anyway, in their usual endearing fashion...

[ArmChairCivvy]

the press will continue to call them all "battleships" anyway

Peter The Great has been dry-docked (is coming back) and the Zumwalts might become 2, not 3, so the press might just as well run a feature on the few remaining contenders to the title
- the impressive S. Korean wannabees could then claim the Monitor title
- the RN wants their sloops back (the Black Swan Concept Paper)

And when some one like the GlobalFirePowerIndex does their yearly, the RN will end up n:o 18 or something in the tables... all good fun

[desertswo]

I continue to see comments here that sort of gainsay the reality of these AIP boats. Those with Stirling engines don't need to snort in order to recharge their batteries. They can simply hide below a layer or above the deep sound channel, or even better, near the mouth of the many navigable rivers where turbidity totally screws up passive location ability (God, I'd hate to operate anywhere near the Amazon ), and you have trouble. Big trouble.

The RAN certainly gets it. Their next class of boats will be AIP, and more than capable of fulfilling the agreed upon CONOPS of the allied RIMPAC nations as the first line of defense against China. The RAN boats are the tripwire and they very, very good at what they do. The new AIP boats will make them incredibly scary.

[seaspear]

And possibly using lithium ion batteries

[shark bait]

I've not seen any advantages for an SSK other than cheaper to build.

I think they will also be cheaper to operate, taking the type 212 as an example they have almost one quarter of the crew and are much much smaller so I'm sure they are cheaper to run.

The savings would be lost through training, maintaining and operating two types of boat.

I understand the point but I think it would still end up in the positive. The main reason I started the discussion is because if we wanted more sub's we can't afford more Astutes, both in terms of time on the build schedule, and money, so an SSK could then be an attractive solution.

I also don't think their vastly inferier to the Astutes, just different, and as such could complement the force well. desertswo, amongst others have strong endorsement for the type.

[shark bait]

I continue to see comments here that sort of gainsay the reality of these AIP boats. Those with Stirling engines don't need to snort in order to recharge their batteries. They can simply hide below a layer or above the deep sound channel, or even better, near the mouth of the many navigable rivers where turbidity totally screws up passive location ability (God, I'd hate to operate anywhere near the Amazon ), and you have trouble. Big trouble.

The RAN certainly gets it. Their next class of boats will be AIP, and more than capable of fulfilling the agreed upon CONOPS of the allied RIMPAC nations as the first line of defense against China. The RAN boats are the tripwire and they very, very good at what they do. The new AIP boats will make them incredibly scary.

I also read your endorsement of the Gotland class. In your experience how does such a sub compare its nuclear powered counterparts.

[desertswo]

I continue to see comments here that sort of gainsay the reality of these AIP boats. Those with Stirling engines don't need to snort in order to recharge their batteries. They can simply hide below a layer or above the deep sound channel, or even better, near the mouth of the many navigable rivers where turbidity totally screws up passive location ability (God, I'd hate to operate anywhere near the Amazon ), and you have trouble. Big trouble.

The RAN certainly gets it. Their next class of boats will be AIP, and more than capable of fulfilling the agreed upon CONOPS of the allied RIMPAC nations as the first line of defense against China. The RAN boats are the tripwire and they very, very good at what they do. The new AIP boats will make them incredibly scary.

I also read your endorsement of the Gotland class. In your experience how does such a sub compare its nuclear powered counterparts.

The lone advantages of the nuclear boats are range, endurance, and strategic speed of advance. The AIP boats on battery, or fuel cell, or Stirling engines are far stealthier, therefore in my view, more dangerous. Put them in SLOCs like the GIUK gap, Malacca, Hormuz, Suez, Tokyo Wan and there will be hell to pay.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

I continue to see comments here that sort of gainsay the reality of these AIP boats. Those with Stirling engines don't need to snort in order to recharge their batteries. They can simply hide below a layer or above the deep sound channel, or even better, near the mouth of the many navigable rivers where turbidity totally screws up passive location ability (God, I'd hate to operate anywhere near the Amazon ), and you have trouble. Big trouble.

The RAN certainly gets it. Their next class of boats will be AIP, and more than capable of fulfilling the agreed upon CONOPS of the allied RIMPAC nations as the first line of defense against China. The RAN boats are the tripwire and they very, very good at what they do. The new AIP boats will make them incredibly scary.

I also read your endorsement of the Gotland class. In your experience how does such a sub compare its nuclear powered counterparts.

The lone advantages of the nuclear boats are range, endurance, and strategic speed of advance. The AIP boats on battery, or fuel cell, or Stirling engines are far stealthier, therefore in my view, more dangerous. Put them in SLOCs like the GIUK gap, Malacca, Hormuz, Suez, Tokyo Wan and there will be hell to pay.

Is it not the case however that the newest SSN's emerging, particularly those from the West over the past couple of years in the form of the likes of the Astute and Virginian classes etc, have been touted as having closed the gap quite considerably in that respect?

[desertswo]

I continue to see comments here that sort of gainsay the reality of these AIP boats. Those with Stirling engines don't need to snort in order to recharge their batteries. They can simply hide below a layer or above the deep sound channel, or even better, near the mouth of the many navigable rivers where turbidity totally screws up passive location ability (God, I'd hate to operate anywhere near the Amazon ), and you have trouble. Big trouble.

The RAN certainly gets it. Their next class of boats will be AIP, and more than capable of fulfilling the agreed upon CONOPS of the allied RIMPAC nations as the first line of defense against China. The RAN boats are the tripwire and they very, very good at what they do. The new AIP boats will make them incredibly scary.

I also read your endorsement of the Gotland class. In your experience how does such a sub compare its nuclear powered counterparts.

The lone advantages of the nuclear boats are range, endurance, and strategic speed of advance. The AIP boats on battery, or fuel cell, or Stirling engines are far stealthier, therefore in my view, more dangerous. Put them in SLOCs like the GIUK gap, Malacca, Hormuz, Suez, Tokyo Wan and there will be hell to pay.

Is it not the case however that the newest SSN's emerging, particularly those from the West over the past couple of years in the form of the likes of the Astute and Virginian classes etc, have been touted as having closed the gap quite considerably in that respect?

"Closed" is one of those loaded words when it comes to operational art. What does it REALLY mean? All I know is that I've heard a Seawolf and I've heard what we believed to be a Romeo-class in the South China Sea. We kept her down for 17 hours before we broke off to continue our track home to San Diego. There is no doubt in my mind that we could have killed it had we wanted to. Seawolf not so much. AIP not at all. See what I'm saying? Those boats compared to that Romeo aren't even Granny Smiths vs. Golden Delicious, but true apples and oranges.