Comments on: Attack submarine force: sinking below critical mass?

By: 4th watch

4th watch — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:55:56 +0000

Am I correct the problem is part political, part financial and part construction or resource.
Difficult to deal with the first but the finance part could surely assisted and dealt with if we exported some to very friendly nations?
It seems inevitable this would mean a bottleneck with construction. Could it not be assisted by using the same techniques we have seen used for the aircraft carriers ie dispersing the making of the parts and assembling them in one place?

By: Jiesheng

Jiesheng — Tue, 29 May 2012 10:56:38 +0000

Ideally, one of the Vanguard boats should be converted into an SSGN like the Americans did with their Ohio class submarines

By: NavyLookout

NavyLookout — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:29:22 +0000

Charles. I fully agree the nuclear submarine is superior in most ways and I dont think anyone is advocating replacing SSNs with SSKs. In an ideal world The RN would have SSKs in addition to its nuclear fleet. The SSK is actually better for shallow water operations, being smaller and quieter. They are considerably cheaper to operate and would make sense for training roles, special forces operations and protecting the SSBNs, thus freeing up the SSNs for their main roles. Of course in the current climate obtaining SSKs are unrealistic as the RN has other ore pressing things to spend its shrinking budget on.

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:52:01 +0000

I’m not a naval professional, nor a UK national, but I too am interested in seeing a strong RN submarine service. That said, I’m not convinced that bemoaning the lack of SSKs is worth the time. If the SSK is any good at all, the sensor and weapons fit would have to be just as good as an SSN’s–and cost as much. The only cost savings comes from not having the nuclear plant. But having a diesel plant means that the SSK is forced for life into being only a training submarine, or staying mostly close to home, or deploying very slowly. From an engineering perspective, putting all that top-flight kit–sonars, Tomahawks, etc.–into a diesel submarine is a bit like fitting modern air-to-air missiles to a piston-engined aircraft rather than a Typhoon or a Gripen. Sure a Spitfire with Sidewinders would have its uses–and be far cheaper–but would it really be a sound long-term defence investment? Other navies buy SSKs not because they really want them, but because they can’t possibly get SSNs.

By: NavyLookout

NavyLookout — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:46:10 +0000

I broadly agree Eds, in major state-on-state naval war the safest place to be is on a submarine and as stated in the post they are really the most potent and important capital ships of the RN. However surface forces have not yet had their day and submarines cant do everything that the skimmers do. A balanced fleet is needed.

By: Eds

Eds — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:51:58 +0000

Shouldn’t the main thrust of any future naval procurement be on submarines for all the reasons in this post and the additional one: surface ship operation in littoral waters anywhere near potential enemies like Iran or China is now impossible because of masses of shore based anti ship missile of every shape and size easily concealed and dispersed in commercial containers. Or am I missing something? Submarines are also best for blocking others sea lanes and as mentioned SSKs are the best anti-sub asset along with helicopters, frigates being too damn noisy and vulnerable. What do you think?

By: NavyLookout

NavyLookout — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:54:48 +0000

Thanks for your comments Richard. I totally agree that the lack of submarines is the result of long-term problems and poor decisions by a succession of governments. It is also true that sadly there is little that could be done in the short-term, even in the unlikely event that government woke up and provided new funds. However some of these problems could be avoided in future if government committed to a regular drumbeat of orders so that industry could plan and prepare. The taxpayer would get better value for money and the RN would get the subs its so badly needs.

“Defence planning” maybe for 7 SSNs with around 4 operational – this is all that is realistically achievable under current conditions but really the RN needs 8-10 SSNs to avoid chronic over-strech and lack of reserves for unforeseen events. Personally I consider this issue of higher priority for the RN and of even greater concern then the carrier programme and Type 26s etc.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:26:55 +0000

I hope to offer a view beyond arguing to arrest the tide of a shrinking navy. The government has chosen to make Defence cuts on behalf of the taxpayer. Cuts result from a review of national ambition, and a structured force to meet that (reduced) national ambition.

The shortfalls in SSN availability are widely understood in Defence and are the compound impact of:

- Shipbuilder’s delays to Asute class – predominantly resulting from industrial impact of not buidling any boats for a number of years & loss of skills.
- Defence delaying delivery drumbeat to: make savings and also to avoid the industrial impact above biting again (for Successor SSBN).
- Inability to significantly further extend in-service boats.

UKDP is for a class of 7 Astute Class SSNs, this was confirmed (for the first time) in SDSR. Current shortfalls are recognised, the impact is the long deployments highlighted in this article. However, it is not budgetarily possible to: build more SSNs (nor is there time before Successor SSBN), extend the current class further (beyond a few months here or there) or go back to an expensive mixed flotilla of SSKs & SSNs. The trouble with the submarine & nuclear programmes is that they must be fixed and steady to allow the best value for money (in a very big ticket programe anyway); change costs money (either delay, growth or shrinkage).

Helpful to highlight the plight of the programme but sadly not much to be done.

By: NavyLookout

NavyLookout — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:20:58 +0000

Totally agree Brian. The RN was forced by John Major’s government to make a choice between SSNs and SSKs and understandably got rid of the Upholders. Ideally the RN would be buying around 6 of the excellent AIP SSKs maybe from Sweden or Germany but unfortunately in the current financial and political climate that is pie-in the-sky wishful thinking. SSKs are much better for shallow water operations, special forces ops and ideal to use in training – running persisher courses or ASW practice for the surface fleet. Much cheaper and simpler to operate they could really take alot of pressure of the SSNs and it is a real shame the RN was forced out of the SSK business.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:36:04 +0000

I often wonder why the UK went all nuclear with the sub force.I know you can’t beat a SSN for versatility but for an SSK would be no handicap for most deploments and would i’d imagine cost a lot less with cheaper running costs as well.