RN SSG

If the UK tommorow said they intended to procure a new SSG design would they go foreign or design their own?

If going foreign who would they go with?

Spain S-80
France Scopens
German U212/214

maybe joint with Australia?

and am i missing anyone?

Design their own, BMT even did a concept of a AIP sub. UK has most, if not all, of the technology required, so there’s no real need to import a foreign design. That said, there is no use for such a system with the RN.

There are some pics on Tango’s Navies News thread which illustrate some of the problems facing an SSN in the littorals. Here’s one of them:

If the RN’s going to be operating subs that close to the shore, they’d be better off buying a few SSKs from the Germans or the Swedes. Even if it’s just to save money on training, (and the embarassment :dev2:).

Oh you’re so funny.

Which is a good illustration of what is being stated here. If we take the abstract value of an additional A class boat as £1bn and look at a ‘cheap but comprehensive’ SSK design as an alternate we arrive at something like the 209PN that the Portuguese are inducting. Perhaps we get 3 of those plus support costs for the price of building the extra Astute. What gives us more capability in contrast to our taskings – the A class or the 3 patrol subs?.

The only good thing would be using an SSK as a cheap training submarine, though another simulator might arguably be a better investment.

Its looking increasingly likely that the RN will get an extra Astute anyway to keep Barrow busy due to the further planned delay on the Missile Boats.

Which is a good illustration of what is being stated here. If we take the abstract value of an additional A class boat as £1bn and look at a ‘cheap but comprehensive’ SSK design as an alternate we arrive at something like the 209PN that the Portuguese are inducting. Perhaps we get 3 of those plus support costs for the price of building the extra Astute. What gives us more capability in contrast to our taskings – the A class or the 3 patrol subs?.

Even if the money was there for 4(for example) patrol subs it’d be spent on 1 more Astute(and quite rightly, assuming every other issue has been dealt with).

Its looking increasingly likely that the RN will get an extra Astute anyway to keep Barrow busy due to the further planned delay on the Missile Boats.

There are some pics on Tango’s Navies News thread which illustrate some of the problems facing an SSN in the littorals. Here’s one of them:

If the RN’s going to be operating subs that close to the shore, they’d be better off buying a few SSKs from the Germans or the Swedes. Even if it’s just to save money on training, (and the embarassment :dev2:).

If the RAF can’t afford Nimrod the RN don’t need SSKs, full stop. Even if the money was there for 4(for example) patrol subs it’d be spent on 1 more Astute(and quite rightly, assuming every other issue has been dealt with). For what the RN need submarines for the value of an SSK is a false economy.

Hypothetically if a cold war scenario returns tomorrow and for whatever reason there becomes a requirement for patrol submarines then it’s certain that DC would be on the phone to BAE discussing it whilst writing them blank cheques and littoral capability wouldn’t even be a secondary consideration in the design

Summary: the MoD have opened the windows in their local branch of Barclays and shovelled enough money out before, no need to repeat

Both German and Swedish SSKs draw a lot less water than Astute; both also have X-shaped rudders, which might have helped in this case, since according to reports it was Astute’s rudder that got stuck on the shingle bank.

There are some pics on Tango’s Navies News thread which illustrate some of the problems facing an SSN in the littorals.

If the RN’s going to be operating subs that close to the shore, they’d be better off buying a few SSKs from the Germans or the Swedes. Even if it’s just to save money on training, (and the embarassment :dev2:).

You can ground a surface ship just as easily that close inshore!. I’m not sure that trying to make out the Astute grounded because she’s an SSN is quite a valid claim?.

There are some pics on Tango’s Navies News thread which illustrate some of the problems facing an SSN in the littorals. Here’s one of them:

If the RN’s going to be operating subs that close to the shore, they’d be better off buying a few SSKs from the Germans or the Swedes. Even if it’s just to save money on training, (and the embarassment :dev2:).

Flanker,

Does this mean that SSNs have no role in expeditionary operations in littoral areas?

Not at all. It means that trying to use an SSN as an SSK stalking through the other guy’s littoral waters trying to hunt SSK’s might not be all that good an idea depending on hydrography and circumstance. It very definitely doesnt mean that the SSN has no value in exped ops.

The SSN has the prime virtues of speed, sustainability and stealth (prior to theatre entry of surface/amphib forces this counts) so its on scene first, can stay on scene long enough to discern operating patterns, observe deployment schedules and develop the picture on the deployed electronic order of battle and can do this, potentially, with the enemy unaware of its presence. In the initial phases of an exped operation SSNs can be absolutely crucial to a successful theatre entry. SSK’s cant do this reliably owing to the need for refueling support and the need to snort.

After theatre entry of surface forces SSN’s can offer deep precision strike at high value targets ashore, using their speed and reach to make surgical strikes from multiple attack vectors, if they carry a theatre range LAM of any description. They will perform seaward sea denial – screening any approaches to the ops area from deeper water and support operations in the wider combat zone ie blockading deep water ports, interdicting maritime trade and, again, rapid-reaction covert intel support. SSK’s just dont have the weapon load, sensor fit or the inter/intra theatre mobility or unsupported persistence on station to provide these capabilities.

The only role for SSKs I can see in the RN is as a training tool. Before you could operate as a high ranking officer on a nuke you used to have to do some time on one of the old Oberons. Might avoid so many bumps, scrapes and groundings…..

A surprisingly entry-level article for Proceedings. Swerve’s comments accurately take most of the core premise of the article apart. SSK’s were termed ‘Patrol Subs’ in the RN for a reason….thats about all they are good for…tooling along in local waters seeking to gain position to launch ambushes on passing targets.

In support of expeditionary warfare it is not required to patrol the other guys littoral!. Most of the time he’ll know his own waters better than you do anyway and home advantage counts big in sub ops. Even with a modest qualitative advantage in ‘your SSK’ over his you could very well come off a distinct second best to someone who knows the currents, shoals, salinity gradients….even wreck locations better than you do. SSK’s are cheapish, compared to SSNs, but hardly disposable!.

What you need to do is to deny the use of his littoral to him for the duration of the time you need to use it, to sit your amphibs and carriers in, to complete the process of breaking his stuff ashore. For that you dont need stealth you need netted persistent sensors, Spartan ASW USV’s, high endurance multistatic LF Active sonobuoy fields, discrete ASW frigates/corvettes with LFA tails and lots of high-end pinger choppers. These all coupled to rapid engagement shooter capability to create a no-go-zone around your operational areas for his SSK’s. That is the capability that is being pursued now.

Does this mean that SSNs have no role in expeditionary operations in littoral areas?

Hi Jonesy, I take some of your points, but a lot of the focus these days is on the so-called ‘littorals’ – relatively shallow coastal waters – which is where expeditionary operations usually take place. There is an argument that SSKs are more suited to operations in that environment than SSNs. For example, this is from a recent article in the US Naval Institute Proceedings

The Right Submarine for Lurking in the Littorals
Issue: Proceedings Magazine – June 2010 Vol. 136/6/1,288
By Milan Vego

SSKs are better designed for narrow, shallow seas than fast attack submarines. Nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) are capable of operating in shallow, confined waters-but the smaller, quieter, more maneuverable antisubmarine subs (SSKs) are better suited for operations in such waters. The U.S. Navy should acquire a relatively small number of SSKs for operations in the littorals. SSNs, which can conduct long-range operations submerged and at high sustained speed, should be used primarily in deep water……

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-06/right-submarine-lurking-littorals

A surprisingly entry-level article for Proceedings. Swerve’s comments accurately take most of the core premise of the article apart. SSK’s were termed ‘Patrol Subs’ in the RN for a reason….thats about all they are good for…tooling along in local waters seeking to gain position to launch ambushes on passing targets.

In support of expeditionary warfare it is not required to patrol the other guys littoral!. Most of the time he’ll know his own waters better than you do anyway and home advantage counts big in sub ops. Even with a modest qualitative advantage in ‘your SSK’ over his you could very well come off a distinct second best to someone who knows the currents, shoals, salinity gradients….even wreck locations better than you do. SSK’s are cheapish, compared to SSNs, but hardly disposable!.

What you need to do is to deny the use of his littoral to him for the duration of the time you need to use it, to sit your amphibs and carriers in, to complete the process of breaking his stuff ashore. For that you dont need stealth you need netted persistent sensors, Spartan ASW USV’s, high endurance multistatic LF Active sonobuoy fields, discrete ASW frigates/corvettes with LFA tails and lots of high-end pinger choppers. These all coupled to rapid engagement shooter capability to create a no-go-zone around your operational areas for his SSK’s. That is the capability that is being pursued now.

The problem with SSKs in littoral waters is that first, they have to get there. Then, they have to be supported in order to operate there. Look at the transit speed, range, & endurance of an SSK, then compare it with an SSN.

For defending your own littoral waters, SSKs are ideal, but we don’t need them for that. Our allies are kindly doing it for us, as a by-product of defending their own waters.

….. SSK’s are not suitable in any way for fast-paced expeditionary operations…

Hi Jonesy, I take some of your points, but a lot of the focus these days is on the so-called ‘littorals’ – relatively shallow coastal waters – which is where expeditionary operations usually take place. There is an argument that SSKs are more suited to operations in that environment than SSNs. For example, this is from a recent article in the US Naval Institute Proceedings

The Right Submarine for Lurking in the Littorals
Issue: Proceedings Magazine – June 2010 Vol. 136/6/1,288
By Milan Vego

SSKs are better designed for narrow, shallow seas than fast attack submarines. Nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) are capable of operating in shallow, confined waters-but the smaller, quieter, more maneuverable antisubmarine subs (SSKs) are better suited for operations in such waters. The U.S. Navy should acquire a relatively small number of SSKs for operations in the littorals. SSNs, which can conduct long-range operations submerged and at high sustained speed, should be used primarily in deep water……

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-06/right-submarine-lurking-littorals

Yup.

Local waters between the UK & potentially hostile navies are patrolled by SSKs belonging to allies.

Why does the UK not have a requirement for an SSK?

For example, an SSK would be more suitable than an SSN for patrol and defence of home waters, and for operations in European waters generally, including the Mediterranean. SSKs would also be more suitable for expeditionary operations in littoral areas, such as the Gulf.

Given that SSKs are much cheaper to acquire and operate than SSNs, and smaller, quieter and therefore more effective in a number of relevant operational scenarios, why does the RN not have such a requirement?

The RN doesnt face a significant threat in home waters that an SSK is needed to address. It doesnt patrol near-European waters and distant European waters would require logistics support for an SSK. SSK’s are not suitable in any way for fast-paced expeditionary operations.

SSK’s are cheaper to buy than SSN’s but, when you try to misuse an SSK as an SSN you have a lot of additional ops costs from the UNREP infrastructure needed to support the capability up to and including additional supply ships to act as tenders. Bottom line if you have SSN’s already its cheaper to buy another SSN or two than add a handful of ‘cheap’ diesels.

Why does the UK not have a requirement for an SSK?

For example, an SSK would be more suitable than an SSN for patrol and defence of home waters, and for operations in European waters generally, including the Mediterranean. SSKs would also be more suitable for expeditionary operations in littoral areas, such as the Gulf.

Given that SSKs are much cheaper to acquire and operate than SSNs, and smaller, quieter and therefore more effective in a number of relevant operational scenarios, why does the RN not have such a requirement?

We haven’t needed a patrol submarine since we stopped routinely patrolling the GIUK. An SSK/SSG does nothing that we need so we wouldn’t look at one period.

If you want to know who’s conventional designs would be best matched to UK needs it would be the Japanese boats. Big shame for the Aussies that the Japanese dont share!