Nowhere, but lets not pretend we're discussing Astute-sized SSKs. Australia looked at something like that and threw it in the bin.
Royal Navy SSK?
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
- These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
Nowhere. I'm just against large SSK, because I see no merit (actually, negative merit) for RN. And, of course, if someone wants to push for large SSK, it is not a problem here. This is forum = thread for discussion.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
- Defiance • jedibeeftrix
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
the way forward now will be say 10 x 30 meter unmanned UUSV all fuel and seniors with say 2 tenders for re fuelling light maintenance plus a flight of P-8s one aircraft each from the US , Norway and UK based in Iceland
I am guessing that the UK will set up the two P-8 Sqn's with 4 flights of 1 aircraft and 2 crews
I am guessing that the UK will set up the two P-8 Sqn's with 4 flights of 1 aircraft and 2 crews
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
I did not say what size SSK either. It is just that this thread seems to becoming derailed into “Miniature SSK” or nothing.
In this day and age, just tell me who it is would wish to (or be able to) serve on such a Midget vessel and for how long. It would be different (for us) in a long period of hostilities, but that is the only scenario (for us) where such a vessel MIGHT be used.
If the RN were to re-acquire SSKs, then they need to be suitably sized vessels.
If it were up to me, I would double the number of current SSN, AND have the same number of SSK, for all of the obvious reasons.
In this day and age, just tell me who it is would wish to (or be able to) serve on such a Midget vessel and for how long. It would be different (for us) in a long period of hostilities, but that is the only scenario (for us) where such a vessel MIGHT be used.
If the RN were to re-acquire SSKs, then they need to be suitably sized vessels.
If it were up to me, I would double the number of current SSN, AND have the same number of SSK, for all of the obvious reasons.
- These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
Good point. As a miniSSK, it will not be able to deploy for long period, say, up to 3 weeks. If it is SSN, deployment will be for a month or longer.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 12:05...
In this day and age, just tell me who it is would wish to (or be able to) serve on such a Midget vessel and for how long. It would be different (for us) in a long period of hostilities, but that is the only scenario (for us) where such a vessel MIGHT be used.
Canned in a small miniSSK, but able to meet your family every 2 weeks, vs living in a relatively large boat but away from your family for longer than a month?
Which will be better?
I do not know. I just think it will depend.
Note I am just trying to "see" if miniSSK can do something. Personally I think full-fat SSK will not do any good in RN. Just personally.
So, 14 SSN and 14 SSK? Great. But, in that case, how about 19 SSN? (assuming "proper sized SSK" may cost 1/3 of Astute SSN). If mass production help there, even 21 SSNs?If the RN were to re-acquire SSKs, then they need to be suitably sized vessels. If it were up to me, I would double the number of current SSN, AND have the same number of SSK, for all of the obvious reasons.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
I derailed it , but only because any talk of a "full fat" SSK is pure fantasy and will cripple the SSN fleet both in terms of numbers and also crew of which there aren't enough. The RN can only afford to focus on two significant submarine platforms - one being for CASD, and the other having to be nuclear to give overall synergies. If the budget was there the RN should go for more SSNs everytime.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 12:05 I did not say what size SSK either. It is just that this thread seems to becoming derailed into “Miniature SSK” or nothing.
In this day and age, just tell me who it is would wish to (or be able to) serve on such a Midget vessel and for how long. It would be different (for us) in a long period of hostilities, but that is the only scenario (for us) where such a vessel MIGHT be used.
If the RN were to re-acquire SSKs, then they need to be suitably sized vessels.
If it were up to me, I would double the number of current SSN, AND have the same number of SSK, for all of the obvious reasons.
However, alongside SSNs/ SSBNS, UUVs will play a key part in future warfare and are funded (and crewed) separately for the rest of the sub-surface fleet. The reality is though that the technology is still limited and it will be a while (if ever) before we get "attack" UUVs without interaction from human decision makers. Decision makers could be sat in Portsmouth or elsewhere, but again the technology isn't there to support it. To effectively and significantly take over some of the roles from the SSNs I believe they have to be able to threaten and attack the enemy.
Hence having optionally manned "UUVs", or manned "control and command" mini-submarines (to other UUVs) is where my mind is at. It gives options in the short to medium term whilst the technology matures and complex topics like "should robots be able to independently decide to take life" get decided, without impacting the critical SSBN/SSN fleet already in place.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
Well they used to be able to do SSBN, SSN and SSK. Are you suggesting that today’s RN personnel are less capable? If it is lack of a resource which may be needed, then it should be provided.
Perhaps you think that 24 x SSN are more likely to be provided by HMG than 12 x SSN and 12 x SSK. If so, then I hope that you are correct, I happen to think that the SSN/SSK route is the more likely of the two!
Perhaps you think that 24 x SSN are more likely to be provided by HMG than 12 x SSN and 12 x SSK. If so, then I hope that you are correct, I happen to think that the SSN/SSK route is the more likely of the two!
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
"Are you suggesting that today’s RN personnel are less capable?" - absolutely not. However recruiting new submariners is notoriously difficult, and numbers are a challenge. Whilst information is rightly kept tightly guarded there have been enough comments said about difficulties manning the existing submarines to know that something isn't right.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 13:53 Well they used to be able to do SSBN, SSN and SSK. Are you suggesting that today’s RN personnel are less capable? If it is lack of a resource which may be needed, then it should be provided.
Perhaps you think that 24 x SSN are more likely to be provided by HMG than 12 x SSN and 12 x SSK. If so, then I hope that you are correct, I happen to think that the SSN/SSK route is the more likely of the two!
24 SSN is pure fantasy also, but SSKs are complex and require new skills and technology and also investment and training to build a capable platform and fleet. I'd rather get back up to 11 SSNs than waste money of fixed costs supporting multiple platforms. However, even this will take funds and forward planning and looks beyond the appetite of the government.
Lastly, with the exception of the 4 Upholder class built in the 1980's all the SSKs were built in the 1960's or earlier prior to when the SSNs came of maturity. The UK's experience of building SSNs and SSKs at the same time is very limited.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
For the RN?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
If we started building a SSK fleet, we would probably do a deal with the Germans where the first few were built there and then production could move to the UK. Never going to happen with current funding levels though.
-
- Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
that would result in carrying 90% of the acquisition cost of a full-fat SSK for all those life-support systems, which operationally would never be used because RN would never prioritise the manning of optional berths when there are so many other priorities.
i'm still not persuaded that SSK's offer any value in an age of ULUSV's.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
Optionally manned is not a good idea, as you said. But, how about having a "command" miniSSK to say "fire torpedo" to XLUUVs, for decision making?jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑08 Feb 2022, 08:45...
that would result in carrying 90% of the acquisition cost of a full-fat SSK for all those life-support systems, which operationally would never be used because RN would never prioritise the manning of optional berths when there are so many other priorities.
But, if a network is available, say,
1: XLUUV sending a que to UK base, with simple report attached, proposing options-A, B and C.
2: man in the UK base sending a simple go/no-go code to XLUUV within a minute, selecting option-B, for example
3: XLUUV firing torpedo according to option-B
will be one tactics. Of course, before "1", satellite observation and/or long-rage radar scan is locating enemy fleet. If XLUUV happen to stay near the enemy HVU, it may "call for command" as "1". This requires at least SatCom is available, but basically similar to UAV firing Helfire missiles to enemy, so RoE may allow this.
It will all depend on mini-SSK -- XLUUV mutual silent communication reliability vs satcom reliability...
The way forward XLUUV is not clear yet.i'm still not persuaded that SSK's offer any value in an age of ULUSV's.
If alone, small XLUUV cannot be a powerful ASW node (sensor is too small, only passive, and hence not good against modern SSK/SSN). So, not ASW, or just limited ASW.
On ASuW, many can be done, all depend on RoE and commanding system design.
Intelligence gathering is always good.
SF operation is inherently "manned", which will need SSN wide diver-minisub, or miniSSK.
Lots of options are there, but not clear future yet, I agree.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
Satcom in fact any radio comms don't work in deep water. If a XLUUV found a target it would need to come to at least periscope depth if not higher to establish a link back to base thus opening itself up for detection and attack. It can't work like a UAV.
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
This is where the MoD believes in the level of AI it will be able to attain over the next decade or so. Whether they are being unrealistic is a matter for discussion but they are betting the future of the Armed Forces on such a break through, not realising their will be few if ay real savings.
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
I think we are way off of AI being able to decide life and death decisions under a ROE. Hence the need for human interaction at least in the foreseeable future, and my proposal of semi-manned or command & control platform to enable offensive capabilities.Lord Jim wrote: ↑10 Feb 2022, 15:42 This is where the MoD believes in the level of AI it will be able to attain over the next decade or so. Whether they are being unrealistic is a matter for discussion but they are betting the future of the Armed Forces on such a break through, not realising their will be few if ay real savings.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
Is there a reason why an SSN couldn't be the command & control platform?
I know we don't have many of them, but i think any cost savings from not double-hatting SSN's would be eaten by the cost of a small bespoke class of C&C SSK's.
I know we don't have many of them, but i think any cost savings from not double-hatting SSN's would be eaten by the cost of a small bespoke class of C&C SSK's.
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
I would think it would be also, the concern as you point out is numbers. If you need a SSN you aren't freeing one up.jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑11 Feb 2022, 11:36 Is there a reason why an SSN couldn't be the command & control platform?
I agree with your concerns on diverting budgets, but my view is that done in the right way (utilizing COTS, lessons from previous platforms such as Spiggen II and synergies with the XLUUVs etc), then building a "mini C&C sub" should be a rounding issue in comparison to a SSN cost.
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
- jedibeeftrix
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
The biggest problem with an ssk now is there is no infrastructure or knowledge to build and support them in the U.K. that has all been lost and will be expensive to regenerate.
Upholder we’re a highly capable sub, one spent 6 months east of suez before they were laid up. it is a shame they weren’t continued and exported.
If the RN want more subs and if it’s interested in being relevant in a conflict against a Russia level threat then it probably should be its priority area, then it has to make the ssn replacement a priority with it being as productionised as possible and with as many shared sub systems with US and AUS
Upholder we’re a highly capable sub, one spent 6 months east of suez before they were laid up. it is a shame they weren’t continued and exported.
If the RN want more subs and if it’s interested in being relevant in a conflict against a Russia level threat then it probably should be its priority area, then it has to make the ssn replacement a priority with it being as productionised as possible and with as many shared sub systems with US and AUS
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
If the xluuv can't communicate with base due to the lack of radio comms underwater how is it meant to communicate with a C&C Sub whether SSK or SSN?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
If the C&C SSK (or SSN) has to be in very close proximity in order to communicate with an XLUUV, what is the point of having it ? Next thing you know, someone will be suggesting unarmed SSKs (or SSNs) to reduce cost and size, with all weapons fired from a flotilla of accompanying XLUUV. No substitute for sufficient SSK and SSN, but we have to try them, so that potential opponents do not steal a march on us !
Re: Royal Navy SSK?
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
- Caribbean • jedibeeftrix
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston