Royal Navy SSK?

[donald_of_tokyo]

My point is, even though we might want SSK, the building capability will not allow it easy. But, as Astute are "intentionally" slowly build to keep to workforce active, it must have a "surplus workforce" which need to stay at the VSEL dock, but have some time to do part-time job.

In other words, if the workload is small enough, the man power cost is already payed within the Astute program, and this "small additional something" can be build much cheaper.

Also, if it is midget sub, RN can say it is a prototype of ASW-UUV (and actually it is), not SSK. Actually, I prefer more smaller midget sub, so that the UUV version can be built in number.

[Caribbean]

Perhaps an opportunity to build one of the BMT designs, Vidar 7 or Wyvern
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5141143/S ... Vidar7.pdf
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6740041/S ... WYVERN.pdf

[Poiuytrewq]

Have any of these BMT sub designs ever been built yet?

[Tempest414]

as much as I like these designs I still feel that the navy should and could request a off the shelf design like Type 214 with no little British mods apart from a secure comms unit under a UOR with the argument put forward that by having 5 of these SSK's operating within Europe it would allow the SSN to deploy globally i.e sending a SSN on a visit to Japan and South Korea showing support and intent to be more of a global player. as said 5 type 214's at around £2 billion could give a lot of capability and flexibility for the money with low risk to other home projects

[abc123]

Perhaps an opportunity to build one of the BMT designs, Vidar 7 or Wyvern
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5141143/S ... Vidar7.pdf
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6740041/S ... WYVERN.pdf

Paper projects.

[Caribbean]

Have any of these BMT sub designs ever been built yet?

Unfortunately, no

Paper projects.

National Shipbuilding Strategy Phase 2?

the navy should and could request a off the shelf design like Type 214

Oh, alright - if you insist

[donald_of_tokyo]

as much as I like these designs I still feel that the navy should and could request a off the shelf design like Type 214 with no little British mods apart from a secure comms unit under a UOR with the argument put forward that by having 5 of these SSK's operating within Europe it would allow the SSN to deploy globally i.e sending a SSN on a visit to Japan and South Korea showing support and intent to be more of a global player. as said 5 type 214's at around £2 billion could give a lot of capability and flexibility for the money with low risk to other home projects

Sorry, but there will be not enough money to build (£2 billion?), and what is more, maintain and man those SSK. My point is,
- to utilize the "surplus" building capability on Barrow-in-Furness (not existing in the hot phase of SSBN-R, but in the later period, the "fixed pace" build will inevitably generate it, I guess).
- RN needs to invest on UUV-drones, good for North sea, Baltic, Irish, Channel, and G-I-UK lines, and even Persian gulf, if needed.
Then, why not mix these two? It will need less building man-power, less (for midget sub) or zero (for UUV) number of crew. Because the base industry man-power cost is already covered by SSN/SSBN-R projects, its building can be cheap.

Perhaps an opportunity to build one of the BMT designs, Vidar 7 or Wyvern
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5141143/S ... Vidar7.pdf
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6740041/S ... WYVERN.pdf

Paper projects.

I would like to see more smaller ones. The H500 Hyundai is already too large. Even something like this https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dagger/
It is too small for manned operation, but can do training target tasks, and SF operations supported from a mother ship. If it is UUV, much more battery can be added and their underwater range/endurance will improve significantly. But, UUV version is new and need development works, the reason I propose to start from "a midget sub for training and SF ops".

[shark bait]

The technology can be lithium battery based, as we do in Japan.

What kind of performance do the Li-ion variants have versus the stirling engine variants? I haven't found any good detail in English...

From my own math it looks as though the endurance is not as good as the fuel cell option from the Germans, but still good overall. The German subs can manage 14 days submerged at a slow patrol speed, I believe a battery should manage 5 - 7 days.

Big battery SSK's are the nicest option, very simple with only one moving part removing many sources of noise, and does not require any of the nasty chemicals other air independent propulsion systems need, so its easy to service anywhere in the world. The question for me is do those benefits offset the performance penalties?

[Pseudo]

Big battery SSK's are the nicest option, very simple with only one moving part removing many sources of noise, and does not require any of the nasty chemicals other air independent propulsion systems need, so its easy to service anywhere in the world. The question for me is do those benefits offset the performance penalties?

It sounds to me like Li-ion batteries are probably the ideal solution for UUV's.

[Luke jones]

If the Navy could in theory find 2 Billion to buy 5 SSK off the shelf somewhere, does anyone have an idea how much the operating cost of said fleet would be each year??? How about manning requirements???
Is this idea super Fantasy Fleets or in any way doable??

[Tempest414]

manning for 5 boats is 125-150 crew so 300 could see 2 crews per boat working 1 month on 1 month off with boats at sea 300 days a year as for operating costs a free of information request for 2015/16 highlighted the Astute class was 9,9 million per boat per year and a Echo class was 5.5 million per ship a year so I would say a safe guess would be 6 million per boat so for 5 boats around 30 -35 million a year for the class

[Luke jones]

@Tempest
Thanks

[indeid]

manning for 5 boats is 125-150 crew so 300 could see 2 crews per boat working 1 month on 1 month off with boats at sea 300 days a year as for operating costs a free of information request for 2015/16 highlighted the Astute class was 9,9 million per boat per year and a Echo class was 5.5 million per ship a year so I would say a safe guess would be 6 million per boat so for 5 boats around 30 -35 million a year for the class

Aren't those figures just the UIN attributable costs? If so that would exclude any maintenance, central, port or training costs. No idea what that does to the numbers but all that sounds expensive. Wonder if submarine pay is included?.....

In terms of the manning you would need more to cover the support network/functions and expand the training pipeline. It isn't just the crew that needs to be generated.

[abc123]

UK hasn't built SSK for allmost 30 years, so IMHO, it's better to buy them off the shelf, from Germany, France or Sweden, never mind... And frankly, considering all the problems Canadians had with Upholders, rather buy something from Germany, France or Sweden.

[donald_of_tokyo]

If my memory serves, Babcock was building some part of the German built Israeli (?) SSK. Also UK is building Astute SSNs in Barrow-in-Fearness. So, UK can build the hull.

Importing SSK from Germany, French or Sweden will just destroy what is kept in Barrow-in-Fearness, because anyway there is no "2-3 B GBPs + its maintenance cost (in general the same amount as the build cost)" available for 5 full-fat SSKs. Only if RN bans Astute-7, it can happen, although the "nuclear propulsion" industry will require large amount of money to "survive until the next project".

This is why I think, the only way for UK to get non-nuclear submersible boats is going for midget-sub and UUV combined project. Actually, "midget-sub and UUV fleet" can do plenty of things.
- ASW training for sure, which is one of the big burden for SSNs, as I imagine.
- SF operations, on which large-hull SSN are never good at.
- mine laying, reconnaissance, or wire-cutting can be also done.
And, if UUV version was successful, can become a good "sniffer" for enemy SSK. I'm not saying these UUV drones can hunt SSKs. But, it can ambush (with 2-4 torpedoes), keep a certain area "clean", or pretend as an SSN or SSBN.

SharkBait-san, I also have no good idea of how the Lithium Battery design compares with sterling AIPs. There is not much information even in Japanese. But, I see some comment from ex-submariner of JMSDF expecting "similar" range/endurance. Anyway, as you've pointed out, for midget sub or large-UUV, simple is the best. A diesel engine and a generator for charge and long-range transit, and large amount of lithium battery for "so-so long" submerged operation, will be a good choice.

[shark bait]

I believe BAE in barrow are also building/built hull sections for the Spanish SSK's.

I agree with Donald, that if the UK ever found the will to operate SSK's again, it would be important to keep them small and simple, which would be fine as they'd be intended for a very different mission set to our nuke boats.

[abc123]

SharkBait-san, I also have no good idea of how the Lithium Battery design compares with sterling AIPs. There is not much information even in Japanese. But, I see some comment from ex-submariner of JMSDF expecting "similar" range/endurance. Anyway, as you've pointed out, for midget sub or large-UUV, simple is the best. A diesel engine and a generator for charge and long-range transit, and large amount of lithium battery for "so-so long" submerged operation, will be a good choice.

If so, then why the change by the JMSDF?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Not sure, but as an engineer, a single risk of Lithium ion battery is much easier to handle than the chemical, thermal, material difficulties of AIPs, I think. Also, in near future, the cost of Lithium ion battery will decrease in pace because it is very wide-spead technology now, but guess not in case of AIP, which is very special technology.

[Ron5]

I believe BAE in barrow are also building/built hull sections for the Spanish SSK's.

I agree with Donald, that if the UK ever found the will to operate SSK's again, it would be important to keep them small and simple, which would be fine as they'd be intended for a very different mission set to our nuke boats.

A mission set that's not worth doing when you're critically short of resources.

IOW, what SSK would be able to hunt and kill a Russian nuke?

[Poiuytrewq]

Maybe the same one that was able to hunt and 'kill' an American carrier?

[Ron5]

Maybe the same one that was able to hunt and 'kill' an American carrier?

Nope. Russian SSN's don't cruise on the surface. Unlike SSK's I might add.

[Repulse]

This is why I think, the only way for UK to get non-nuclear submersible boats is going for midget-sub and UUV combined project.

Completely agreed with this statement, and would add that they should be purely battery driven also. The reason being is thst they should be simple to maintain so can be forward operated from UK overseas bases and RFAs / Patrol ships. Something the size of old Spiggen 2.

Whilst there would be a few roles, I would focus these in defensive roles - survelliance and ASW.

[shark bait]

Maybe the same one that was able to hunt and 'kill' an American carrier?

SSK's don't hunt, they ambush.

A mission set that's not worth doing when you're critically short of resources.

Under today's constraints it is clearly far too difficult to expect, but I'll suggest those missions are worth doing, it's not too difficult to justify a handful for training and special missions, to make sure the Nuke Boats are doing what they do best.

Something the size of old Spiggen 2.

Anything that small is effectively a mine with a crew, it's useless to the RN.

[Repulse]

Anything that small is effectively a mine with a crew, it's useless to the RN.

Disagree, it's a step prior to a UUV. With passive sonar and a bunch of small torpedoes would be great for protecting coastal waters or cleansing the SSBN route.

[shark bait]

how can it cleanse an SSBN route if it can barely move and has no sensors ?