Royal Navy SSK?

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

They royal navy should aquire a fleet of conventionally powerd submarines. Discuss.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

rec wrote: But if there is the additional money for the RN then the rebuilding coventional powered submarines capabaility ought to be considered too.
90inFIRST wrote: Why rebuild conventional subs? Their only good for protecting your own shore line or sculking around some one else's shore line hoping something will blunder by, why put a huge amount of resources into building maintaining, crewing, training a small number of surprisingly expensive low capability subs?
I think it's interesting point, the sub force could definitely do with more, unfortunately our build schedule won't allow for much more, so an SSK would be the only option for expansion.

The Germans new type 212, powered by fuel cells, appears to be a very impressive machine on paper surviving 3 weeks submerged. Such a machine could prove useful for working out of Clyde into the GUIC gap. They are also nice and cheap!

However as you say it is another class, and one that can only stay close to home. They could be useful, but the money is defiantly needed elsewhere. It's an interesy interesting topic and im not sure which side the fence I sit on yet.

I think its very similar to the 2 tier frigate and corvette structure discussed for the royal navy. The differenc with a 2 tier sub concept is that sub's only have one task, so they can be small and still succeed.
@LandSharkUK

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2293
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:
Niue

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7232
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 10 times
England

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by SKB »

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?

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

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

arfah wrote: Q1: How many will you sacrifice for how many SSK's?
None. I am proposing an increase in submarine numbers. We don't have time for more astutes so an SSK would be the only option.
arfah wrote: Q2: How many SSK's would you like in addition to 7x Astute Class SSN's? How many additional Astute class SSN's could we have with that budget?
8? 4 out of Bahrain, 4 out of Clyde. That money would probably buy you 3 more astutes. I working off the type 212 £300m unit cost.
arfah wrote: Q3: What capabilities will the SSK's better serve over the Astute class SSN's?
Non, the astuste and SSN's in general are far more capable machines. However they are far more expensive to build and maintain to an SSK will bring cheapness and numbers, where as the astute brings quality.

Modern SSK are extremely advanced, being smaller and possibly quieter than an astute makes them extremely hard to detect. I think they could be valuable assets.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

SKB wrote: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?

Diesel electric subs may be cheaper, but the advantages of nuclear powered submarines over diesel-electric far outweigh the cost.
No I dont. The astutes are one of the most valuable assets we have. I would advocate more astutes, but budgets and build schedules make that pretty much impossible, so the SSK concept then becomes and interesting one.

I think a supplementary fleet could have its uses. The Gotland-class submarines have a great reputation, imagine having some of those as well as astutes. Its the 2 tier fleet thing again, possibility of using SSK for UK and gulf missions so the astutes can go further afield perhaps into asia where it would be good to have a token presence.

I appreciate this is fantasy fleet stuff but I think the concept is interesting, and as I said im still 50/50 on the idea.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by RetroSicotte »

Just for interest, a design by BMT, the same British company who designed the QE and Tide Classes.

BMT Defence Services SSGT High Mobilikty Submarine

A conventionally powered submarine with an innovative gas turbine propulsion system in the mast, to permit semi-surfaced rapid long range sprinting that normal SSKs cannot accomplish, giving the strategic mobility of an SSN in an SSK platform. This is one of the most innovative British designs I've seen lately. Very interesting!

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5141143/S ... 4_SSGT.pdf

Image

And for something a little more conventional...

BMT Defence Services SSK Vidar 36 Submarine

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5141143/S ... idar36.pdf

Also available in a smaller variant, the Vidar 7:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5141143/S ... idar36.pdf

Image

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2293
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:
Niue

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

RetroSicotte wrote: A conventionally powered submarine with an innovative gas turbine propulsion system in the mast, to permit semi-surfaced rapid long range sprinting that normal SSKs cannot accomplish, giving the strategic mobility of an SSN in an SSK platform. This is one of the most innovative British designs I've seen lately. Very interesting!
Have not seen that before, I have to agree that is a remarkable design!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

S M H wrote:If the M.O.D. has any spare cash for the navy stuffed down the mythical sofa rather than spending it new class of S.S.K. The money should be spent on expanding existing equipment planned. Additional Type 26s would be prudent, If cash was there and M.O.D. could get past the Treasury an additional S.S.N.
With SSN the problem isn't just the money, its the build schedule, we need to start building successor soon.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by marktigger »

and how many submariners are we loosing to the RAN?

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by rec »

I think 6-7 SSKs would make sense for the follwoing reasons:
1) There would be a a sensiblecareer path for submariners, more would get to command level and the quality of the submarine service would improve.
2) SSKs add numerical bulk can perform costal ops and patrol UK waters, they are hard to detect, and would add to the Astutes and not detract from them..
3) Interms of dealing with Rusisa of Norway or in the Baltic, they would add another layer of deterrant.
4) Buying a Sweedish?German/Japanise design of the shelf, would make sense.
5) They are not second tier but a different underwater naval system to SSNs

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1758
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
Australia

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by seaspear »

non nuclear submarines with lithium batteries have the ability to perform long range patrols ,stay under water for weeks at a time ,certainly excercises with the U.S.N have shown these submarines have been able to successfully attack their targets including nuclear submarines .

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

Indeed. The new generation have made big advances in terms of endurance, and therefore their usefulness. Still no where near the range or ability of an Astute, but much closer than pasg generation.

The way I look at it is we have 7 SSN, with the aim of having 4 available. We know there will be 1 near the UK, and 1 east of the Suez, leaving two available for deployments doing the super sneaky secret stuff they excell at. My though is a fleet of SSK could work out of the UK and barhain, and do that well. That effectively doubbles the number of SSN we can have heading off on sneaky business, perhaps off into asia where the RN rarely tread. Then it might be worth it.
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by Ron5 »

Doesn't anybody remember the Upholders?????

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by marktigger »

I think the Canadians won't forget them in a hurry

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well said; and those boats in their design were as close to an SSN that a conventionally powered sub can get
- Collins class, stretched from another design, is another, even sadder story as it did not involve disruptions in maintenance but simply just the brief was overambitious relative to what the design could deliver
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1758
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
Australia

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by seaspear »

An ssk class could be complimentary to the Atute class and used for roles a large submarine could find difficult performing allowing the Astute class to perform those roles of a strategic nature

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

seaspear, that is very similar to my thinking, I think they could complement each other well.

Those older designs mentioned are clearly of little use to the Royal Navy, but modern air independent propulsions systems could be.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

European shores have plenty of friendly SSKs. A we do not need any around "here". where would be deploy them (and would it even be practical without a fixed base)?
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:European shores have plenty of friendly SSKs. A we do not need any around "here". where would be deploy them (and would it even be practical without a fixed base)?
I think the limitations of an SSK would require a fixed base. However we have a few of them, uk, Gibraltar, Falklands, deago Garcia, barhain.

The way I look at it is we have 7 SSN, with the aim of having 4 available. We know there will be 1 near the UK, and 1 east of the Suez, leaving two available for deployments doing the super sneaky secret stuff they excell at. My though is a fleet of SSK could work out of the UK and barhain, and do that well. That effectively doubbles the number of SSN we can have heading off on sneaky business, perhaps off into asia where the RN rarely tread.

Then perhaps it might be worth it.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:The way I look at it is we have 7 SSN, with the aim of having 4 available.
That's a good goal (also the minimum?). I think I read from an official source (or interview) that the current combo of As and Ts gives 2.5, though.
- and the refuelling of the boomers is a possibility (availability based on 3 rather than 4... but we did have the 3 vs 4 argument thoroughly x-rayed in the study commissioned for the previous Parliament).
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:That's a good goal (also the minimum?). I think I read from an official source (or interview) that the current combo of As and Ts gives 2.5, though.
2.5?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:2.5?
Today the world is run on statistics (lies, damn lies, ...)

It is a startling number, though.
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)

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Royal Navy SSK?

Post by rec »

shark bait wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:European shores have plenty of friendly SSKs. A we do not need any around "here". where would be deploy them (and would it even be practical without a fixed base)?
I think the limitations of an SSK would require a fixed base. However we have a few of them, uk, Gibraltar, Falklands, deago Garcia, barhain.

The way I look at it is we have 7 SSN, with the aim of having 4 available. We know there will be 1 near the UK, and 1 east of the Suez, leaving two available for deployments doing the super sneaky secret stuff they excell at. My though is a fleet of SSK could work out of the UK and barhain, and do that well. That effectively doubbles the number of SSN we can have heading off on sneaky business, perhaps off into asia where the RN rarely tread.

I have long thought the same and 6-7 Gothlands for example would be force mulitpliers freeing SSNs for tasks that only they can do. They are efefctive weapons and not second rate as some have impleid. Independent air Submarines are hard to detect, and are a threat to surface and submarine units. 2 could be builtnin Sweeden and 5 under licsense in the UK.

Post Reply