Royal Navy SSK?

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

To add up 3 SSNs, what are you going to sacrifice? I'm sorry to say but, if there are surplus resource, everything is better. The real Royal Navy is fighting for resource. That's why they only have 7 SSNs with 4 SSBNs.

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.

I agree. SSK is good at homeland defense. But it totally lacks capability of long-distance transit. RAN is trying to do it with SSK, but not with enough speed nor range. RN should stick to SSN.

[shark bait]

Of course I would also like to see more SSN's, but we lack the money, the crew, and the industrial capability which will be fully focused on successor.

If we did want to expand the sub fleet, SSK's are the only way mid term.

[Engaging Strategy]

That's sort of what I was saying, if money was available for SSKs I'd choose to make a long-term investment in boosting industrial capacity, to the point where we can sustain a continuous drumbeat of nuclear submarine manufacturing that will produce 10 SSN and 4 SSBN rather than buy foreign built SSKs.

This is the fleet the RN needs, as others have stated SSKs will come from our allies when necessary.

[shark bait]

I agree that is the fleet the RN needs, and after the successor build there will be the opportunity to increase the build rate and increase the fleet size. Unfortunately that increase wont come into effect until 30+ years away, which is off the charts of even the longest long term plans. That's why I like a small fleet of SSK's as an interim until we can reach that stage, although you are correct to be cautions of the effect that may have on the politicians, at least admiralty will be aware an SSK is no substitute for an SSN.

However perhaps an SSK is a substitute for a light frigate?

[rec]

I agree that is the fleet the RN needs, and after the successor build there will be the opportunity to increase the build rate and increase the fleet size. Unfortunately that increase wont come into effect until 30+ years away, which is off the charts of even the longest long term plans. That's why I like a small fleet of SSK's as an interim until we can reach that stage, although you are correct to be cautions of the effect that may have on the politicians, at least admiralty will be aware an SSK is no substitute for an SSN.

However perhaps an SSK is a substitute for a light frigate?

Certainly SSKs along withna light frigate,both out to comprtive tender,allwoing for danish and Sweedish designs to be considered for llight frigate and SSk respectively.

[R686]

That's why I like a small fleet of SSK's as an interim until we can reach that stage,

As an interim to what long range patrol or as a aggressor training/ littoral waters capabilty?

at least admiralty will be aware an SSK is no substitute for an SSN.

They would be awere of the pros and cons of each, a mixed fleet would be advantageous for a variety of reason but long range patrol would not be one of them.

I doubt a SSK/G in the RN will need to have the capabilty of Collins that's why you have Astute.

An SSK/G in RN colours to be effective would need the same critical mass as Astute to low a number and they become a drain on the resources of the RN to large a number and they take away resources which could be used to gain an advantage in fleet submarine capabilty. For the cost of 6 small SSK/G I'd rather see an increase in Astute numbers to 9 boats

However perhaps an SSK is a substitute for a light frigate?

How so?
A submarine job is power projection covertly which is diffrent from the surface ship which has an overt display of power projection

[seaspear]

The Japanese Soryu class has been considered by some superior to the European subs of non nuclear capability, the next advanced Soryu class should be considered. The U.K government was more recently involved in military technology exchanges with Japan so this may not be out of the question

[shark bait]

As an interim to what long range patrol or as a aggressor training/ littoral waters capabilty?

Litoral, if we wanted aggressor training we would play with the Swedes like the Americans did.

They would be awere of the pros and cons of each, a mixed fleet would be advantageous for a variety of reason but long range patrol would not be one of them.

I am not suggesting for one moment an SSK should be a long ranged battle ship, rather it does the short ranged tasks where they will possibly be better than an Astute, as well a freeing up the Astutes to focus on the long ranged patrols.

How so?
A submarine job is power projection covertly which is diffrent from the surface ship which has an overt display of power projection

Come wartime an SSK will be much more valuable than a showy light frigate.

[R686]

Litoral, if we wanted aggressor training we would play with the Swedes like the Americans did.

In a perfect world having both would be ideal but I believe money spent would be better invested in 2 extra Astute SSGN. I think the problem is when people think of littoral operating environment you are operating in the 12 mile area one, but under the British Maritime Doctrine operating in the littoral environment is anything up to 260nm from the coast ample room for a SSGN.

SECTION II – THE STRATEGIC MARITIME ENVIRONMENT
"This means that a substantial proportion of the world’s economic and political activity is being conducted in a narrow strip of land and sea on average no wider than 300 miles. This narrow band, referred to as the littoral and is defined as those land areas (and their adjacent sea and associated air space) that are predominantly susceptible to engagement and influence from the sea."

I am not suggesting for one moment an SSK should be a long ranged battle ship, rather it does the short ranged tasks where they will possibly be better than an Astute, as well a freeing up the Astutes to focus on the long ranged patrols.

that's where being part of NATO comes into play, others bring capability that you don't have to the table.

Come wartime an SSK will be much more valuable than a showy light frigate.

The surface and subsurface assets have a role to play in sea control and sea denial operations in the maritime battle space. Astute SSGN's have a power projection capability not only in the deep blue but also for deterrence and insert and recover special forces littoral operating environment. They can also operate independently or with surface forces and vice versa I don't see a need to duplicate the roles when clearly

[shark bait]

continuing from t31 thread...

In addition why not 6 SSKs, to help Submarine force opportunites and progression as well as given costal and shallow water submarine capability? Put this out to open tender.(Sweeden/Germany/Japan/BMT being tenders)

SSK's would be nice, and our submarine fleet is too small.

The thing is they are so very slow, which reduces the use cases for them. I think there still could be some though, mainly for local work depending on the demand there, which seems to be increasing.

[donald_of_tokyo]

In addition why not 6 SSKs, to help Submarine force opportunites and progression as well as given costal and shallow water submarine capability? Put this out to open tender.(Sweeden/Germany/Japan/BMT being tenders)

6 SSK? By sacrificing what? There are only three candidates I can imagine.
1: Sell PoW CV to India
2: Abandon Successor (no SLBM)
3: Abandon T31 and be happy with only 6 T45 and 8 T26.
Nothing else.

All three there is a possibility, but I am not sure you all are happy with it. Common to all these three options is, reduced global power, and improved local ASW capability. Six SSKs will "greatly" improve your home-water ASW capability, more than double, I guess.

[marktigger]

"John Nott wanted a bloody subsurface navy looks like the Argentine airforce are giving him one" Lt Col H Jones 2 Para.

thats what happens shark bait when you try that idea

[Repulse]

I agree no need for full sized SSKs for the RN though I'd like to see the RN invest in smaller surveillance / attack Submarines that can be launched and supported from DDs/FFs/Patrol Sloops/RFAs. Something like the following, or a modern version of the Spiggen II:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JitTB-zM6Zo/S ... _ce460.jpg

[Ron5]

How about a Collins sized nuke (half the size of an Astute) with a fuel cell AIP instead of diesel for emergency power? The UK has ample capacity to design & build. Might even sell a couple or three.

The fuel cell could also be used as SOP during littoral ops to make the sub as silent as an SSK. Nuke for transit, Fuel Cell for patrol. The reactor produced electricity could be used to produce hydrogen & oxygen for the fuel cell so range would be unlimited.

Not my idea, suggested by UCL's Pawling & Andrews some years ago.

[Halidon]

I have a lot of problems with that sort of concept. For one, there's essentially no cost savings versus just building a nuke unless you build a very cheap, very loud reactor compartment. So now your in-transit subs are screaming "hey there's a Brit Boat headed this-a-way." Once arrived at its mission area, the sub then has to shut it's reactor down cold because it's just too damned noisy. So now you have an SSK lugging around a whole lot of extra dead tonnage, compromising endurance and manuevering, and if there's a "go fast, NOW" type of emergency you're f***ed waiting around for the reactor to go through a cold start-up.

Also, the stealthiest bit of an AIP boat is the same as an SSK: the battery. The AIP boats are sexy because you don't have to surface or snorkel to recharge the battery, which in modern warfare is a bit suicidal, but operating a fuel cell is not without noise. If you can afford to put a reactor in your boat, you're better off figuring out how to make the pumps quieter.

[Ron5]

I have a lot of problems with that sort of concept. For one, there's essentially no cost savings versus just building a nuke unless you build a very cheap, very loud reactor compartment. So now your in-transit subs are screaming "hey there's a Brit Boat headed this-a-way." Once arrived at its mission area, the sub then has to shut it's reactor down cold because it's just too damned noisy. So now you have an SSK lugging around a whole lot of extra dead tonnage, compromising endurance and manuevering, and if there's a "go fast, NOW" type of emergency you're f***ed waiting around for the reactor to go through a cold start-up.

Also, the stealthiest bit of an AIP boat is the same as an SSK: the battery. The AIP boats are sexy because you don't have to surface or snorkel to recharge the battery, which in modern warfare is a bit suicidal, but operating a fuel cell is not without noise. If you can afford to put a reactor in your boat, you're better off figuring out how to make the pumps quieter.

1. Building a nuke half the size of an Astute would be cheaper, we can argue about how much cheaper but to say it would be more expensive is silly. I agree, development/design could be too expensive and maybe (probably?) even be a showstopper.

2. Small reactors could be built as quiet as large ones. There's no technological or scientific reason why not. Yes that would be more expensive than designing & building a noisy one but I would remind you that an SSK transits using a big old noisy diesel which also loudly proclaims "here I come".

3. Yes, the reactor would be closed down once on station, just like the SSK's diesel. And the SSK lugs around a big heavy useless diesel while on patrol.

4. Not sure what would make noise in a fuel cell. The German's claim theirs is silent. Yes, they are sexy, and quieter than the quietest nuke.

5. Nukes like Astute have a diesel for occasions when the reactor fails, at which point the sub has to climb to snorkel which is dangerous if the bad guys are lurking, and impossible if under ice. The suggestion is that this diesel is replaced with a fuel cell and then extends it's function beyond emergency use to become normal use is situations when absolute silence would be a virtue.

6. A bigger problem would be that a half sized Astute would have a half sized sonar array and a limited weapons load. But no such thing as a free lunch. The upside might, might, be that the smaller sub is cheap enough that more could be bought. And bought by nations that don't have nuclear boats at the moment. Might. I said might.

[Pseudo]

This is an interesting discussion and makes me think that the best solution in the long term would be for the Vanguard and eventual Astute replacements to ditch the diesels and replace them with fuel cells. It'd seem to offer big tactical advantages as well as fulfilling the emergency power requirement.

[shark bait]

Doesn't a 'turned off reactor' still require coolant? And therefore the same pumps?

Fuel cells are very nice, but they make for a very slow sub.

[Ron5]

Doesn't a 'turned off reactor' still require coolant? And therefore the same pumps?

Fuel cells are very nice, but they make for a very slow sub.

I understand that in theory coolant could circulate using its own thermal currents but I have no idea if that's in use anywhere or even practical.

P.S. softly, softly, catchee monkey

[Pseudo]

Doesn't a 'turned off reactor' still require coolant? And therefore the same pumps?

Clearly the only solution is to adopt liquid metal cooled reactors and electromagnetic pumps. That should massively reduce the noise from the pumps.

Fuel cells are very nice, but they make for a very slow sub.

Which in fairness would be perfect for an SSBN or an SSN conducting littoral operations or just trying to avoid detection.

[shark bait]

Nuclear submarines have a bloody big heat sink very close which they could use to there advantage. It should be possible to use this as a passive cooling system to run the reactor at very low load and creep around, just like a fuel cell sub. Use natural circulation, with sea water forced down an orifice by the movement of the sub, no pumps required. I know something like this has been tested but has it ever been deployed?

Passive reactors are suppose to be the next generation, perhaps this is what we are getting with the new super safe PWR3?

It should be possible to get the same slow silent SSK effect out of a modern reactor.

The current British nuclear subs do have a passive cooling system, but it requires trashing the reactor first, it couldnt restart from passive and go back to full speed again.

P.S. softly, softly, catchee monkey

I think that's exactly how they teach it submariner school!

There is of course a use for SSK tactics, but they are used very differently to an SSN. A hybrid could be interesting though.

[Halidon]

The US Navy uses natural circulation reactors to rather good effect. It's part of the reason the Ohio class is so damned hard to find "despite" being nukes.

[Halidon]

1. Building a nuke half the size of an Astute would be cheaper, we can argue about how much cheaper but to say it would be more expensive is silly.

Sorry, i worded my response poorly. Naturally, a smaller nuke costs less than a larger one, all else equal, I was pointing out that the hybrid Nuke-AIP boat would have no cost advantage versus a similarly-sized nuke, unless it severely compromised on the quality of the reactor compartment in the name of saving money. If you're willing to spend in the same ballpark (or indeed, more) for the hybrid as you would for the "plain" nuke, that's another matter.

I agree, development/design could be too expensive and maybe (probably?) even be a showstopper.

2. Small reactors could be built as quiet as large ones. There's no technological or scientific reason why not. Yes that would be more expensive than designing & building a noisy one but I would remind you that an SSK transits using a big old noisy diesel which also loudly proclaims "here I come".

Again I thought the reason for the muted hybrid was cost, and I was pointing out that versus a similarly sized/equipped nuke you're not saving anything unless you make big compromises to the design.

3. Yes, the reactor would be closed down once on station, just like the SSK's diesel. And the SSK lugs around a big heavy useless diesel while on patrol.

Two problems here, first is that the hybrid is in all likelihood also going to be carting around a backup diesel. Submariners tend to like having an oil burner around for those "oh s***" contingencies. Second is that a modern submarine reactor compartment masses one whole hell of a lot more than a typical SSK diesel engine room and fuel tank do.

4. Not sure what would make noise in a fuel cell. The German's claim theirs is silent. Yes, they are sexy, and quieter than the quietest nuke.

I imagine they would have a little harder time selling a submarine powerplant they didn't claim was "silent." Fuel cells, particularly at the scale of submarine propulsion, have pumps and recirculators which make noise moving gasses and liquids. They can be made exceptionally quiet, but so can the coolant plant for a reactor when you know what you're doing.
[/quote]

5. Nukes like Astute have a diesel for occasions when the reactor fails, at which point the sub has to climb to snorkel which is dangerous if the bad guys are lurking, and impossible if under ice. The suggestion is that this diesel is replaced with a fuel cell and then extends it's function beyond emergency use to become normal use is situations when absolute silence would be a virtue.

When your emergency backup is used regularly, it's no longer your emergency backup. So either you have to add an additional backup or cross your fingers that you don't use all the go juice before the emergency starts. I'd also add that you could probably teleport into a nuke in nearly any situation and ask "hey, if you could would you turn off the reactor right now?" and the reaction would most likely be to flush you out the TDU.

6. A bigger problem would be that a half sized Astute would have a half sized sonar array and a limited weapons load. But no such thing as a free lunch. The upside might, might, be that the smaller sub is cheap enough that more could be bought. And bought by nations that don't have nuclear boats at the moment. Might. I said might.

No argument from me. These are the sorts of decisions that bring the (not all that) big bucks.

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

[Ron5]

@Halidon

Thank you for the nice reply. My only quibble would be querying the need for a diesel in my (Pawlings/Andrews) hybrid. Three forms of propulsion (4 if you count batteries on their own) seems mighty overkill.

And yes, a much smaller reactor than the Astutes would be a pre-req. I would not expect the hybrid to have the speed of Astute.

The point of the hybrid would be a) cheaper than Astute (build & crew) b) SSK quiet on patrol c) SSN unlimited range d) SSK quiet and air independent backup propulsion system d) SSK smaller/more manouverable for littoral ops . i.e. like all hybrids, an attempt to cherry pick the best of both worlds without dragging along too many disadvantages.