Without doubt in the futur, with newer ships much more reliable, the need to 4 SSBN were probably drop in favour of 3:
– 1 in patrol
– 1 in short maintenance, nearly to go to sea as the first ship ended her patrol
– 1 in harbor for much more heavy maintenance

And what happens when the French play chicken with one of them and it needs to quickly be withdrawn for repairs and replaced. And what about training crews? They can’t be expected to do all their training on a real deterrent patrol.

My view pretty much reflects Kev’s.

Until such a time as that happens the submarine community are happily telling everyone that killing ships is their bag and quoting the tired old analogy that this is achieved, most effectively, by letting water into the bottom of a target ship and not air into the top!. A view that still carries great weight in the mob I believe.

It’s a fair point for the sub boys to be fair. If we compare actions where surface forces have attempted to sink a boat with missiles and a sub has tried with torpedoes, one clearly performs better. Although it seems preferable these days to disable a boat by blowing up all the stuff on deck than actually sinking it and having public uproar at home (Belgrano much?)

So when an SSN plugs in a speed run to relocate at the rush we give away the location of some of our national deterrent?. Doesnt work that way I’m afraid Grim.

Not sure we are on the same wavelength. The subs in the SSN role would not be armed with SLBM’s. They’d have either TLAM fits in the launch tubes or even just empty tubes depending on the job. The boat on patrol and the reserve boat would be the only SLBM armed vessels. The rest would be in the SSN/SSGN role until it was there turn to play bomber.

It adds the bonus of making it harder for potential enemies to track which subs pose the threat to their cities and which are off to TLAM some mud huts in the middle east.

For deterrence you need to be able to provide the assured destruction of your target set. Otherwise what is deterrent about your capability?. There are nuclear targets out there that are protected by ABM’s and ABM technology is becoming ever more available and deployable. To assured-destroy a target so defended you need to be able to provide saturation fire.

Again, you haven’t quite got what I meant. The subs would be designed effectively as SSBN’s with say 12 tubes. These tubes would then be filled with SLBM’s for the boat on patrol (+ reserve boat). The rest of the fleet would use TLAM’s/empty tubes when not running deterrence missions.

Since our SSBN’s can do the jobs of an SSN, launch torpedoes and TLAMs already, it would be a massive stretch just to have one class doing all the jobs as necessary.

It is easily conceivable therefore that a, current, duty Vanguard class bomber might only hold at-risk one well protected city…if you drop the number of missiles per boat, in order to try for a one-size-fits-all ‘SSB(G)N’ you have to use multiple boats in a co-ordinated fashion. Complicated, risky and very likely expensive that one!.

Again, not what I was suggesting, it was another idea i’d thought about, with say 2 boats on patrol each with 4-6 SLBM’s aboard, making for more of an SSN/SSBN design hybrid, but I decided that it was, as you said, not really worth it. Since the next SSBN’s are likely to be stretched Astutes anyway, my assumption was that stretching a vessel doesn’t really cause a major issue anyway so there’d be no problem in SSBN sized vessels in the SSN role.

Ideally, I would actually like to see the UK re-orient its submarine strategy – go for commonality of components, without compromising on suitability. The RN would hopefully get the original target of 12 SSNs. We then replace the Vanguards with six boats, with enough Tridents for four boats, and SSGN kits (i.e. a plug-in Tomahawk/Scalp Naval multi-round launcher) for two or three boats. This would allow the UK to always have at least one deterrent boat on station, and a second boat either on its way, or returning from patrol; this should allow for at least one or two SSGNs to be surge deployed for ‘first day of war’ duties.

In addition to these, I would ideally like to see us joining a tripartite project, with Australia (Collins replacement) and Canada (Victoria replacement), to build a long range conventional sub. This would allow us to keep the SSNs assigned to the tougher tasks, while still filling in the more basic roles. For example, it would allow us to keep a sub stalking around in the South Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Oceans, at all times…

I know, all this is completely implausible, but I did say ideally!

I think that would be a very good idea, probably my favourite outcome for the sub force.

The joint sub project would be interesting, but we’d have to act soon to join with Australia. It’d give us back a sub for littoral operations and keeping an eye on the home front and med. without excessive costs of a whole new class to bear ourselves. I doubt the Canadians could bring much in the way of desgin, they still use our old boats and have never built any themselves. The extra numbers would be useful for costs and labour though (I take it the Canadians can’t build these things themselves anyway?)

Jonesy the reason for keeping a sub fleet active and working hard is training if we lose the edge now, when it matters we are in the muck. Fair point there is no target set ouy there at the moment but with the rate that other naval powers are developing China, India, Iran maybe and Brazil. The Russians are still there as well they have not died out completely.

A good point.

Say we got 10 SSN’s that means what 5 deployed at a push so where would you put them? One in the North Atlantic to keep an eye on any Russian boats, one in the Northern Indian Ocean, one somewhere off the malacca straights to watch for anything coming through and then tail it, one doing secret SF stuff and the last one preferably keeping a very close eye on the very shiny and expenisive carrier.

Don’t forget we are supposed to have a second task force on hand centred around an Amphib, so we’d need a sub for that. I think it is more likely that if a major deployment took place we’d need 2 subs in the carrier’s task force at least.

Furthermore Kev99 is right we wont be able to deploy more than maybe 2 subs to an active area. Ideally you would want the three, one to watch the coast, one to watch the task force and the other launching TLAM, being sneaky and sinking anything that it needs to. I know it’s not exactly accurate but gives an idea.

Nice but not strictly necessary, watching the coast could be performed by other assets like UAVs.

Ed, You are thinking along the same lines as me order another 2 boats as well as the 4 we need get the TLAM cannisters and then when needed go knock the colour out of someone. SSGN = Massive conventional firepower about 100 TLAM so bye bye infrastucture.

I like the idea of a 3-way project as long as we did not get too tied up with the workshare etc. Common design but each country builds them at home. The BMT Vidar with AIP and some added features would be an ideal choice. To me SSK’s have proved their worth with the Chinese popping up in a CBG and also carrier getting taken in excercises. Yes you have said ideally so i shall say it as well, Ideally this would be great.

I like those ideas.

Can’t see it happening to be honest and I’m probably too ingrained with the mentality to be entirely objective unfortunately. The RN doesnt like OTH guided missiles because of the vagueries they bring. You let loose a Harpoon and, realistically, there’s no telling where its going to go. You’re OK if there is only one ship out there or a flotilla of ships that you know are exclusively hostile. That happy situation doesnt extend to many realistic warfare scenarios these days though.

The kind of positive control offered by an SSN with a wire-guided HWT though means that not only are the chances of inadvertent targetting much lesser when you have a platform like an SSN target profiling before launch, but, you can actually steer-off the weapon post-launch until it breaks link.

I appreciate what you are saying about the numbers of subs being depleted, but, by the same margin the number of targets is depleting every bit as quickly. How many surface vessels are left in, for example, the Russian Northern fleet that are worth a Spearfish?. You’d be pushed to find ten deployable at any one time. Likewise for most other developed navies.

All very true. The missile situation could really be addressed but the money isn’t there. Single use drones could partly solve the problem, or enhanced sensors, but if the RN keeps to the mentality that you have to see it to kill it then they’re going to pay dearly if it ever comes to a real fight. The army and RAF don’t seem too bothered, and the sub force seems ok launching TLAMs, so why can’t the surface force deal with Harpoons?

The only part I must disagree with is the bit in bold. As a principle it is right, but the loss of subs has outstripped the loss of targets and dropped below the minimum number that we do actually still need as shown by the last SDR. I have a sneaky feeling that our SSNs get up to more these days than just following the Russians about too. The list of things I guess they do could include guarding SSBN on patrol, covert surveillance of ships and facilities, special forces deployment, possibly even use in SIGINT (I read it was possible to effectively wiretap the undersea cables used for telecoms and internet with a sub). There must be a reason for the number set that we are now below, even if we don’t know the specifics.

As a side note, I place no faith in the upcoming SDR as they’ll almost certainly only say that we need what we can afford on the current budget so they don’t look stupid when they break their own rules…again.

I stand corrected thank you Jonesy.

You remeber correctly Sea Skua 2 is tipped to be the FASGW(H) option the french are also a possible partner as they have a similar requirement. This i think makes things better for the beancounters. FASGW(L) is looking very likely to be the Thales LMM which seems like an excellent product.

Any idea when the 2 will be formally chosen?

There’s very little info on that, but I think that barring a major technical problem they will be chosen. The whole point of team complex weapons was to keep the capability, not choosing it would kind of defeat the point.

EDIT: Grim your right costs would be high maybe when the next SSBN’s are ordered an additional 2 could be ordered especially if they are based on the astute class many suspect they will. This is the better soloution in terms of strike power and coerciona that LAM’s on frigates. Ordering 6 SSBN hulls while being expensive would truly keep the RN on the list of most capable Navies. 4 could be roled as the normal SSBN and the other 2 fitted with TLAM for the SSGN role.

Im sure the hulls could be diffrent rather than identical, 4 full fat subs with all the Trident Launching kit and then the 2 SSGN hulls without all the Nuke stuff. In times of crisis these 2 hulls could be converted to full duty. Mind you if we were doing that it would be time to hide.

Grim the warhead of a Fireshadow is’nt anywhere near TLAM sized it’s mainly for Asymmetric warfare targets such as cars, trucks, buildings etc. I was thinking of employing them like the Army launch them over the thread zone and allow the troops to designate targets. Larger targets would be taken out by Anti-ship missiles in it’s alternate role. Justb done a quick google 50lb warhead dosent sound like much.

Final thing, Grim gd call on the logistics i wish i had thought of that:) standardise on 2 missiles would be genious. Simpler logiostics tail.

I was thinking along that idea too Flubba (great minds and all that :P). It might help drive down per unit costs for the new SSBNs a bit. As long as it was made clear that they would be SSGNs not SSBN’s then there shouldn’t be too much of a problem politically (can’t seen to be rearming our nukes). I think it would be an incredibly useful tool to have 2 extra hulls built in the SSGN role, maybe with some of the most advanced SSBN systems stripped out to reduce costs. Since they’d effectively be stretched Astutes they could add to the SSN fleet when needed and take the pressure off. We might end up getting the number of SSN hulls the govt. recommended then ignored!

Let’s hope that by the end of the SSBN build run more money is available or the need is there to justify being sensible for once.

I don’t really think Fire Shadow could work as a substitute Cruise Missile, its not really the role it was designed for its too slow and the warhead is not large enough, I definitely think it could have a role to play on the Frigates, particularly the C2 although I’d like to see it on the C1 as well.

You’re right, the warhead is 10X smaller than a TLAM or Storm Shadow. I suppose it could be employed against small boats or as part of an enhanced NGS package. Not really useful enough to warrant giving over precious VLS cells, perhaps an NLOS-LS type system we can whack on a flight deck to support ops when needed.

Kev thanks for the comment. Im not suggesting it could replace a cruise missile but it would be a better option for some scenarios such as Amphib assaults. I would like to see it deployed on C1 and C2 if it could be either quad or dual packed. (I’ve been looking at some pictures and it may just be possible but it would be tight)

I think that the Harpoon will be replaced in British service preferrably with the NSM as this has a solid land attack capability.

See above about Fireshadow.

Also, looking at NSM, I like it, but does it really add much compared to current Harpoons that we already have and know how to use? And will it cost much more being Norwegian not American?

Side question, are there any similar weapons to Fireshadow out there? I haven’t heard anything, seems like something the Americans would have a version of somewhere.

Grim my rational is with a higher Aster 30 load you could take shots at the incoming threat and then try and take it down with CAMM if that fails it’s CIWS time. Overall i think you would get more shots at taking the threat down from far away before it gets close to your fleet. The T45 was designed to provide a big bubble over a fleet and that’s what Aster 30 does and Aster 15 dosent. Im glad you agree with me:)

LAM equiped frigates in a task force are a good idea as it would allow the task force to eliminate enemy radar sites etc before aircraft are risked. I would like to see SSGN kits bought just in case they are needed. An SSGN lurking off your coast with a possible 112 TLAM’s onboard is a sobering thought for any nation. (Thats based on a full load 7 TLAM’s per tube)

Grim if you are aware of what fireshadow is then you may also be aware that there was serious talk of studies to see if this could be fitted into VLS systems. If you could get more than 1 per cell i would like to see it. Basically it should be cheap and during and Amphib assualt they could be ripple fired to give coverage of a large area.

Yes i’m aware of Fireshadow (basics anyway). What sort of warhead are we talking on those? And how long can they loiter/what’s the range? ould be an interesting weapon to have aboard for sure. Those questions would dictate its role though.

No, just things we are being told: 50% or so longer range, & probably higher ceiling, & higher speed. Maybe greater terminal agility. But at a higher cost, both in money & in shipboard space. And A15 is available now, unlike CAMM, which won’t be ready for years. “JAMM tomorrow”, & all that . . .

Interesting. Despite those facts, I think when it comes to a mix of A30’s and either A15 or CAMM, i’d go for the CAMM. More A30’s in the mix for those few targets that an A15 could have got that a CAMM couldn’t plus more CAMM for all other threats more than compensates for those factors I think. And as Flubba mentioned, we wouldn’t exactly waste stocks, we just add a booster to the A15’s to make the A30.

Nice idea, particularly if we don’t get enough Astutes. A good way to dramaticaly increase your submarine embarked TLAM count. Any idea how much these SSGN kits cost?

I always wondered about this as an idea for the RN, ever since I saw the USN convert their spare SSBN to SSGN’s. Mind you the RN have pitifully few TLAM’s as it is at the moment. Still as has been suggested earlier, in time of war perhaps the RN may be able to dip into the USN TLAM stock.

The only way we could get these SSGN’s would be if the Vanguards could be made useful beyond their life as an SSBN. It could be that they are no longer suitable for SSBN work but a refit and reactor update might be able to keep them afloat as SSGN’s.

The only other options would either be buying more future SSBN’s than we need (unlikely due to cost) or adding VLS/BM tubes to whatever sub class comes next in the SSN role. This has actually been talked about to cut costs of future nuclear deterrents.

As it is, we could take a Vanguard, put TLAMs in and send it off with a task force. We have 4 for a reason, the minimum we need to maintain C.A.S.D. If we started reroling 1 every so often it could screw up deterrence patrols + would wear them out that little bit faster.

It’s a shame because if we could get SSGNs it’d be incredibly useful. Our SSN’s are being used more and more for launching TLAMs and less and less for other roles, so a few may come in handy relieving pressure on the already too small SSN force.

Outsider the T45 hull design does indeed allow for quite a bit of growth potential another 16 VLS cells of the A70 variety for LAM’s can be fitted. Torps can be fitted, so can harpoon and so can CIWS.

Personally i would like to see the T45 armed with CAMM with it’s current 48 cells i would like to see 16 cells loaded with quad packed CAMM = 64 Missiles in the 20km+ range and the remaining 32 cells with Aster 30 in the 120km range this would allow the T45 to better perform it’s Area Air Defense role and if CEC is added to the fleet that would be a real bonus. The Aster 15’s could be converted to Aster 30 by retrofitting the bigger booster.

Some people might think this is a bit mad but you are losing 16 30km+ weapons for 64 20km+ weapons seems are very good deal to me. Much more effective AAW platform. If CIWS either Phalanx or Sea RAM is fitted the the T45 will truly be Europe’s best AAW platform.

I like that idea. Very interesting. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what the difference between CAMM and A15 is. There must be something or we wouldn’t be replicating capability to such an extent. A15 must have something we aren’t being told.