Royal Navy SSK?

[seaspear]

In the eighties a R.A.N submarine followed a victor closely enough to take photos/film of its propellor as it entered a harbour belonging to a major asian nation, visited for a while then left ,not the activity a large nuclear submarine could do.
Then P.M Bob Hawke took the film to the U.S who were entertained by this film . this story has been reported before not widely though.

[R686]

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.

Nope RAN as far as I am awere till won't be going down the AIP route, they have an AIP sitting on a pallet down in ASC with the RAN veiw is we want endurance which means higher capacity batteries and faster recharge capabilty. RAN veiw is AIP is just dead weight once the oxident is depleted as it cannot be replenished as a limited amount can only be carried. That's why RAN has a need for large long endurance and low indiscreation rates that it outweighs the cost benifit.


Nuc boats have the advantage in speed electrical power and have no fear of a hold down, also the Collins class are power hogs using the same combat systems as the Virginia Class boats

[desertswo]

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.

Nope RAN as far as I am awere till won't be going down the AIP route, they have an AIP sitting on a pallet down in ASC with the RAN veiw is we want endurance which means higher capacity batteries and faster recharge capabilty. RAN veiw is AIP is just dead weight once the oxident is depleted as it cannot be replenished as a limited amount can only be carried. That's why RAN has a need for large long endurance and low indiscreation rates that it outweighs the cost benifit.


Nuc boats have the advantage in speed electrical power and have no fear of a hold down, also the Collins class are power hogs using the same combat systems as the Virginia Class boats

Yes; been there, done that.

That said, the RAN expressing interest in procuring the Japanese Soryu-class certainly shows me that they aren't entirely averse to the idea of AIP. Personally, having had command of a frigate (OK, so it was a target more often than not), the expressed purpose of which was blue water ASW, I believe failure to seriously consider AIP would be short sighted indeed. I've said it here before, but I'll say it again, "Gotland scares the living shit out me." I spent a lot of time working with 1200 PSI superheated steam (same plants as those found in the retired Perth-class) that can snuff a man out in a nanosecond (I personally inspected Iwo Jima in Bahrain when a valve carried away and killed 11 men. The photographs of those bodies are something I never want to see again), and played a lot of shoot 'em up with the Iranians during Earnest Will and Praying Mantis, so I don't scare easily. I'm sitting in the Sonoran Desert, 400 miles from San Diego, and Gotland still scares the hell out of me way out here. They are a nightmare straight out of hell.

[R686]

Desertswo

Indeed one of the options is the Japanese Soryu Class boats, but all infomation in the public domain points to a modified design without AIP.Also Japan has decided to power its new batch of Soryu-class submarines with Lithium-ion batteries instead of air-independent propulsion (AIP) technology

[shark bait]

It is true the Australians fancy big range and fast recharge so want to squeeze as many batteries in where the sterling engine's are.

Are they still interested in the German design?. It's fuel cells can still be considered air independent propulsion, just the latest generation.

[seaspear]

A problem Australia has with the use of German and French companies is that Australia has access to some very advanced U.S.technology and if either of these companies are chosen to build these submarines then they may have the access to this technology which they may pass on in future submarines for other countries.
Both the german and French submarines proposed have not been built before, the Soryu proposed is an advanced version of the present vessel which does not have the range of the present Colins .

[shark bait]

Recent think defence article suggesting there is "still £2.6 billion uncommitted" in the navy's equipment budget. Couldn't help but think that would go nicely spread across some extra T26 and T212 SSK's.

[rec]

6-8 asks built under licence or as part of a type 26 export deal would be a serious asset for the RN. They are not second rate compared to ssns. An additional 3-5 type 26 would be good too.

[Pseudo]

If it were entirely the RN's decision on what the money was allocated to and I was in charge of it, I'd be tempted to say say "Screw it, where's Boeing's phone number? We'll own and operate the MPA's!"

This not to say I don't think that the RN would benefit from operating a four AIP subs for the North Atlantic patrol, but I can't see us importing them and £2.6bn would be better spent on two more Astute's and two or three more Type 26's.

[shark bait]

£2.6bn would be better spent on two more Astute's and two or three more Type 26's.

It certainly would, but it is just economically infeasible to build another two, thus an import of an SSK is the only option if we did indeed wish to expand our sub fleet

[Pseudo]

£2.6bn would be better spent on two more Astute's and two or three more Type 26's.

It certainly would, but it is just economically infeasible to build another two, thus an import of an SSK is the only option if we did indeed wish to expand our sub fleet

Is it? I don't know what problems it would cause logistically for Barrow-in-Furness with regards to the Successor programme, but long lead items for Ajax were only ordered a couple of years ago but I don't think that an order for the boat itself has actually been made. I think that it'd certainly work out better and cheaper in the long run for the RN to have the logistics train for one class of submarine rather than two.

[shark bait]

Is it?.

Quite simply yes.
Successor is approaching and is unstoppable. The factory needs to be ready to start that in a few years. You could speed up production and just squeeze an extra astute in, but that would be a terrible idea from and economical perspective. we need to be turning out subs to a nice steady drum beat.

I think that it'd certainly work out better and cheaper in the long run for the RN to have the logistics train for one class of submarine rather than two.

Another logistic chain is not favorable, but at least SSK's are cheaper, and crew is only a third of an SSN, so logistical disadvantage and financial advantage possibly level out.

One thing that is never mention when talking costs of SSN's is end of life costs. Right now they float there costing us money for them to do nothing. One day they are going to cost us a fortune to dismantle and dispose of, something you just don't have with conventionally powered kit.

One figure I like to quote is the price to decommission Sellafield. Just one single site, out of the UK's numerous nuclear sites, it going to cost the tax payer £70,000,000,000 to decommission. That means every individual in the UK has to pay over £1,000 to clean up a field in Cumbria. SSN's will be a similar nightmare to dispose of.

[shark bait]

The discussion on the light frigate thread got me thinking, could an SSK like the type 212 make a suitable escort for the carriers?

[jimthelad]

Not unless you can increase it's sprint speed by 10 knots and keep it there for weeks at end. The only thing that can keep up with CBG is an SSN. That said, the only thing can interdict a CBG underwater in open ocean is an SSN, that's why if the the CV go out the so will one or even 2 Astutes. SSK are good at littoral ops and picket line/ static defence but they have a long way to go for sustained high speed open ocean ops.

Keep the carriers in deep water and let the Astute/Merlin/T23/26 machine running then there is much less of a problem. Take them near the noisy littoral with horrendous acoustic heterogenicity and you are asking for a torpedo up the butt from a modern SSK. They are much more of a problem for the LSD/LPH that ventures inshore with their associated escorts. We nearly found that out the hard way in 1982.

[shark bait]

That said, the only thing can interdict a CBG underwater in open ocean is an SSN,

You think? A well placed SSK could prove to be very dangerous.

that's why if the the CV go out the so will one or even 2 Astutes.

Do you think we have enough for 2 astutes with a carrier group? That's half of the available fleet. That would be the ideal case, but I don't see us having enough assets to make it happen.

Not unless you can increase it's sprint speed by 10 knots and keep it there for weeks at end.

Well this was my reason for asking the questions. If it is traveling with the fleet does it really need to stay under, traveling quickly for weeks on end? Surely it can surface under the protection of a T45, and then disappear for a few days, and repeat.

I not sure weeks at a time is a necessity when traveling within a fleet is it?

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[shark bait]

Only if the skipper was inept. I thought the SSK was supposed to be escorting the CBG?

[jimthelad]

It's all about transients: run on the surface and you have unique wave interface noise, only a sub makes it. The diesels are noisy at speed but I guess you may lose some in the escort and auxillary propulsion noise. That said with all electric drive and raft isolation you might find this would show up.
If you then need to go tactical then there is the characteristic ballasting noise and hull transients associated with depth change. All audible to the bad guy.

A good sub driver finds a nice depth just below the thermocline, drifts the tail up for surface contacts, and stooges. No contact, drift the array down, listen below for other subs and convergence zone contacts, no joy there, hit the gas for 30kt sprint for a matter of minutes the drift, repeat ad nauseum.

A SSK cant do that,,if it runs on the surface and dives it becomes a target for aggressor SSN. SSK are truly awesome in littoral ops but no real use in open ocean against SSN. All navies with SSK utilise them in a defensive role allowing the prey to come to them and utilising superior quiet running and local knowledge of the sonographic environment to their advantage. This is counter the operational doctrine of strike carrier or fleet carrier ops.

[shark bait]

A SSK cant do that,,if it runs on the surface and dives it becomes a target for aggressor SSN. SSK are truly awesome in littoral ops but no real use in open ocean against SSN. All navies with SSK utilise them in a defensive role allowing the prey to come to them and utilising superior quiet running and local knowledge of the sonographic environment to their advantage. This is counter the operational doctrine of strike carrier or fleet carrier ops.

Thanks for the input.

My thinking was perhaps it could overcome some of those short falls under the cover of a T26.

[Wern Pennant]

The answer is simple: the Royal Navy has transferred the tasks to be carried out by conventional subs to Norway and in particular to the Netherlands. The latter has a real 'blue water' fleet of conventional submarines, so there is little point in doubling up those capacities. To each his own. Specialisation is the future for the European contingent of NATO anyway.

[ArmChairCivvy]

e answer is simple: the Royal Navy has transferred the tasks to be carried out by conventional subs to Norway and in particular to the Netherlands. The latter has a real 'blue water' fleet of conventional submarines, so there is little point in doubling up those capacities. To each his own. Specialisation is the future for the European contingent of NATO anyway.

Excellent contribution, and Churchill is back: forays into the Baltic
- not exactly that, but trying to say that between those two mentioned and Poland, they are currently trying to figure out how to renew their SSK fleets (in co-operation)
- Poland wants land attack, too. No wonder, look at the map, as to where Kaliningrad is... with a dagger pointing both to them and to Lithuania

[shark bait]

Resuming the discussion from the FLF thread

Building subs in the UK would be a piece of cake, except for the fact that it would upset the v carefully balanced drumbeat for the nuclear boats. The equipment for building those pressure domes is v specialised (=expensive) and they stand idle for most of the time.

The subs could be built in the UK yes, and I agree it would upset the nuclear sub program.

I could not recommend building the subs in the UK, a parallel build program of SSKs and successor is going to add to the risk, and on a £30 billion program we do not want to increase the risk unnecessarily.

I do think an SSK could have a place in the royal navy, after all the best way to hunt subs is with a sub, and the best way to hunt a ship is also with sub. However we don't have the budget for the 15 Astutes we probably need. So, perhaps some SSK's could fill in the gaps for littoral tasks, access denial and supporting trident. They are all tasks that don't take advantage of the huge capabilities nuclear give you, and could be deferred to an SSK without much compromise to capability, which then frees up the SSN's for long range open ocean tasks they excel at.

However I don't believe we could build them in the UK. Instead the Germans should build us some T212's, and in return we should build them some T26 hulls for their frigate program. All fantasy I know, but I like the idea.

[seaspear]

An ssk may be useful the requirements the R.A.N have for their next generation sub may be more useful though for the R.N with increased range and size

[shark bait]

perhaps, but the Australian subs are forecast to be 1 Billion GBP each, in which instance we many times better off with more Astute's. The european SSK's are much much cheaper.

Subs are the only time I support a 2 tier fleet split between SSK's and SSN's, and that because unlike a 2 surface fleet, SSK's are still highly credible in certain environments. For the environments where SSK's are crap, we have a fleet of the best SSN's in the world. That is a very compact fleet of the worlds best SSN's, so my concept is to use the SSK to allow the SSN to be long range 21st century battleships 100% of the time.

[Engaging Strategy]

Honestly I'd rather see the expansion of industrial capacity to produce 10 SSN & 4 SSBN on a rolling basis than the adoption of a handful of foreign-built SSKs. A long-term investment in the expansion of industrial capacity would be a much more worthwhile way of spending money.

My greatest concern is that if the RN had a number of cheap SSKs the politicians would just see them and the SSNs as two equivalent classes of submarines in spite of sound military logic (one of which is much cheaper) and eventually phase out the SSNs to save money, which would be a disaster for the RN's ability to project power globally.