The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Bonza]

I wasn't suggesting the Indians would buy Collins, I doubt they could get them to work if the RAN can't. The whole suggestion on RAN looking at Astutes was based on cutting its losses with then Collins. India already operates 16 boats has 3 SSBNs under construction an I think to SSNs on order from the Russians. My suggestion was to work with the Indian's in either a JV or export Astutes.

I am not to sure about the US support for the Astutes but thought it was about a design contract rather than systems. They may own the IP, however BAe might own that. either way I am not sure the US is keen on unsetting the Indians.

in 1998 the West tried the naughty school boy sactions on India and it backfired, they just moved to buying elsewhere Israel/Russian. The UK/RN needs to forge very close links with India in 50 years this is probably going to be 2-3rd Navy? For the RN this could be a way to kill 2-3 birds with one stone.

I wasn't suggesting anything to do with the Indians buying Collins, it was an example of the degree of US involvement on a foreign sub design as an analogy of why the US may not be happy about the Astute going export. Nothing to do with the Collins except by way of example.

The US assistance with the ASTUTE had nothing to do with the over all design, but related to CadCam failures (new system overwhelmed by the complexity of the ASTUTE design), loss of technical expertise (construction processes) and the change in manufacturing techniques (vertical sub-sections completed first, rotated and welded into a final cigar shape). The weapons systems, sonar array et al are proprietary to the UK, not American buy-ins (with the exception of actual weapons themselves - Tomahawk and Sub-Harpoon). The critical relationship if anything is between BAE Submarine Solutions and Thales for the 2076 stage 4/5 sonar system.

Thanks for the clarification mate.

 

[AndrewMI]

Fail to concur: the Septics have already bent the NPT to sell nuclear technology to our Indian cousins. With the Frenchies selling technology to all-and-sundry I can imagine the US being benignly co-operative with the Commonwealth.

On C1/C2, I have read some questioing the case for the latter. Many of our Dukes are not kitted-out with towed-arrays. That is the difference between roles.

C1 should focus on ASW and should not be fitted with TacTom. C2 is an away-day back-up; the C1s will sail with the fleet (with at least one C2 in-tow) whilst the C2 will guard the choke-points outside the field-of-combat.

So the SSNs attached with the fleet and the carriers can carry the offensive-strike weapons whilst the C1s hunt for below-water hazards. At the choke-points the C2 carry TacTom as a warning to others that we still carry a big-stick.

Of course C1/C2 will most likely be based in the same hull-form, but the navy needs to convince the Treasury about numbers. If we end up we a multi-role platform (like FREMM, now that [IIRC] FREDA is dead) then the bean-counters will cut numbers and capability.

[And no, unfortunately it won't be based upon the [8,250 tonne] Type 45.] hwell

Interesting thoughts. I doubt they would go for the "low-end" ship with the "high-end" weapon and the "high-end " ship without. that is if they are even working on this premise any more! It does seem as though TacTom will be fitted to a surface ship. Although we thought that would be the T-45 (and i suspect in time this will be the case) and we know how that tirned out.

So long as the ships can look after themselves, pack an offensive punch and remain flexible thay will be good ships.

The selling of Astute to Australia is an interesting proposition. Doubt it it could be fitted into the production schedules before the SSBN comes into production, even if a deal could be agreed. On a more general note, working more closely with the Aussies makes a great deal of practical and strategic sence as out main ally in the rapidly growing pacific rim.

 

[LancasterBomber]

working more closely with the Aussies makes a great deal of practical and strategic sence as out main ally in the rapidly growing pacific rim.

Which is part of point regarding export sales. You cant just look at the upfront financial returns and have a simplistic view of 'if its good for our shipyard its good no matter what'.

I would be very shocked if Great Britain even considered selling Astute to India.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Great Britain decided 3 Astutes in the hands of Australia was 'worth considering'.

India and Australia represent very different risk profiles from a global security perspective.

Anyway food for thought. I will shut up about the issue.

 

[kev 99]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Great Britain decided 3 Astutes in the hands of Australia was 'worth considering'.

If the prospect of selling 3 Astutes to Australia ever came up (even if it was just the design for local build), I would be pretty surprised if the state of mind was anything other than absolutely delighted.

Other thoughts running through collective heads might also feature: Bite their hands off, yes please and kerching!!

 

[AndrewMI]

Which is part of point regarding export sales. You cant just look at the upfront financial returns and have a simplistic view of 'if its good for our shipyard its good no matter what'.

Exactly - it is not purely financial return. It is not a commercial business after all!

The boat could be sold to Australia, and certain systems such as the sonar would not necesaraly have to form part of the package. If it allows for a total production run of over 10 then it would be a mutually beneficial excercise.

It is important to remember that with Astute we are dealing with timelines where the main cost implications of ordering boats 8-10 (potentially) will not pall under the current economic climate - unless it is a real mess that lasts for a decade!

The current climare seems to suggest that we will be fairly tied up in a land based comflict in the middle east for the next few years, and will be busy with a naval and air deterrant in the south atlantic protecting a peotential oilfield (and an aid to ecomomic recovery). We cannot afford to get drawn in too much to China's political agenda (south china sea, the Taiwan question etc) at the moment. So why not help our key ally in the region?

 

[swerve]

...C1 should focus on ASW and should not be fitted with TacTom. C2 is an away-day back-up; the C1s will sail with the fleet (with at least one C2 in-tow) whilst the C2 will guard the choke-points outside the field-of-combat.

So the SSNs attached with the fleet and the carriers can carry the offensive-strike weapons whilst the C1s hunt for below-water hazards. At the choke-points the C2 carry TacTom as a warning to others that we still carry a big-stick.

Of course C1/C2 will most likely be based in the same hull-form, but the navy needs to convince the Treasury about numbers....

All agreed, in general. Couple of minor points. I have no inside knowledge, of course, but the public stuff I've read seems to be drifting in the direction of C1 & C2 becoming more & more alike, distinguished largely by equipment fit. Also, if Fireshadow enters service, it could find its way onto C2, as a cheaper land-attack missile for use against softer targets.

 

[swerve]

If the prospect of selling 3 Astutes to Australia ever came up (even if it was just the design for local build), I would be pretty surprised if the state of mind was anything other than absolutely delighted.

Other thoughts running through collective heads might also feature: Bite their hands off, yes please and kerching!!

Er . . . yes. The Barrow-in-Furness MP would be lobbying like mad, & rounding up every MP with a supplier in his or her constituency (plenty of them!) to help. Big political donors would be calling on ministers. Trade union leaders & large corporations would be getting together to co-ordinate their lobbying. Party lines would go out of the window.

Even the design for local build would mean lots of work in the UK, not just licence fees.

 

[AndrewMI]

if Fireshadow enters service, it could find its way onto C2, as a cheaper land-attack missile for use against softer targets.

I.e. TacTom on "C1" and Fireshadow on "C2"?

It will be interesting to see how these ships get kitted out. I had imagined the C2 being akin to a more modern T23, with perhaps a small land attack capacity reflecting a more flexible mission. With C1 being an "up-kitted" T-23 with a long range strike capability - essentialy similar quality of vessel to the T45, optimised for Land attack, and surface and sub-surface warfare.

 

[AndrewMI]

Er . . . yes. The Barrow-in-Furness MP would be lobbying like mad, & rounding up every MP with a supplier in his or her constituency (plenty of them!) to help. Big political donors would be calling on ministers. Trade union leaders & large corporations would be getting together to co-ordinate their lobbying. Party lines would go out of the window.

Even the design for local build would mean lots of work in the UK, not just licence fees.

If such a deal became possible it seems to make sense to all concerned. It would drive UK unit costs down, making an 8th, 9th and even 10th boat more likely in the future.

I would have thought that it would need to be built down under (unless Barrow could up-production rates) due to the tight turnaround between the "final" Astite and the first new SSBN (however many there may be).

Asissting the Aussies is a good political, strategical and commercial path in this context.

 

[1805]

I would love to see the RAN buying Astutes, but if you look at the comments in the RAN room they all seem very of the view it would be an up hill political battle.

If there are production issues, I would have thought they could have our 2nd-3rd boats and we could wait this would help funding now. I'm sure we could do a really competitive deal inview of the employment angle of building replacements in the UK. But then it depends on the state of the Ts? However we could go down to a fleet of 6 boats while production caught up.

I think the Indian Navy represents a better bet, they have ambitions in this area. A JV with them could politically be very advantagous to the UK/RN and maybe secure 8-9 boats for the RN. I think once the Astute is fully worked up she should be sent ASAP on a sales trip to Astralia and India, maybe via Brazil/Canda.

 

[Hambo]

I would love to see the RAN buying Astutes, but if you look at the comments in the RAN room they all seem very of the view it would be an up hill political battle.

If there are production issues, I would have thought they could have our 2nd-3rd boats and we could wait this would help funding now. I'm sure we could do a really competitive deal inview of the employment angle of building replacements in the UK. But then it depends on the state of the Ts? However we could go down to a fleet of 6 boats while production caught up.

I think the Indian Navy represents a better bet, they have ambitions in this area. A JV with them could politically be very advantagous to the UK/RN and maybe secure 8-9 boats for the RN. I think once the Astute is fully worked up she should be sent ASAP on a sales trip to Astralia and India, maybe via Brazil/Canda.

I cant see how handing over some of the most advanced submarine technology to India would make any sense to us in anyway shape or form. From the advanced steel, nuclear propulsion system, quietning measures to the sonar, all we would do would be to advance Indian technology, they would be soon producing export subs to potential rivals using our own technology. Imagine the scenario in 2028, the QE sunk in the South Atlantic by an indigenously designed Indian SSN, based on access to Astute , flogged to Argentina by an Indian Government that had just fallen out with the British Government.

The Astute gives the RN the edge, I dont think you can share that, even for a couple of modest (in real terms) financial gains. I cant see the US sharing advanced sub tech wih anyone other than the Aussies, and I think that is sensible. We will stay in the SSN game in any case without any form of "give away" to India.

As to a joint missile boat,if we buy Trident E6, we would be buying missile compartment elements and electronics from the US. There is no way they would let us have that if we were going to share it with India, so we would be left with designing or own, not getting access to Trident and having to buy or build an alternative missile, very dubious in these financial times.

There are certain things not for sale.

 

[1805]

I cant see how handing over some of the most advanced submarine technology to India would make any sense to us in anyway shape or form. From the advanced steel, nuclear propulsion system, quietning measures to the sonar, all we would do would be to advance Indian technology, they would be soon producing export subs to potential rivals using our own technology. Imagine the scenario in 2028, the QE sunk in the South Atlantic by an indigenously designed Indian SSN, based on access to Astute , flogged to Argentina by an Indian Government that had just fallen out with the British Government.

The Astute gives the RN the edge, I dont think you can share that, even for a couple of modest (in real terms) financial gains. I cant see the US sharing advanced sub tech wih anyone other than the Aussies, and I think that is sensible. We will stay in the SSN game in any case without any form of "give away" to India.

As to a joint missile boat,if we buy Trident E6, we would be buying missile compartment elements and electronics from the US. There is no way they would let us have that if we were going to share it with India, so we would be left with designing or own, not getting access to Trident and having to buy or build an alternative missile, very dubious in these financial times.

There are certain things not for sale.

We maybe not the Trident missile compartment, but the India would I guess have to use their own as I doubt their missiles are compatable! I think the rest of your argument could be used for any system and we would never export anything. The Russian/Israelis don't share you view and have been exporting to India like mad. I strongly suspect we will be moving to 6-7 boats without export, which with 3-4 SSBNs is probably near subcritical for maintain a boat building business?

I think the value of a close relationship with India and the benefits that could bring are under rated. I think the US sees India as an ally against Muslin extremism and a bulwark against China.

 

[Hambo]

We maybe not the Trident missile compartment, but the India would I guess have to use their own as I doubt their missiles are compatable! I think the rest of your argument could be used for any system and we would never export anything. The Russian/Israelis don't share you view and have been exporting to India like mad. I strongly suspect we will be moving to 6-7 boats without export, which with 3-4 SSBNs is probably near subcritical for maintain a boat building business?

I think the value of a close relationship with India and the benefits that could bring are under rated. I think the US sees India as an ally against Muslin extremism and a bulwark against China.

Isnt building a joint missile sub based on two completely different missile systems, both in size and associated systems going to make any potential cost saving disappear. What hull dimensions do you use, what are the power requirements etc.? You cant just mix and match on a sub, we dont need a joint venture, we have a plan if needed, we are likely to adapt an Astute to fit a few Trident tubes with a hump or extended sail, and wont design anything until we know what the dimensions of Trident E6 will be.

Competing to sell Typhoons in the MRCA competition is one thing (a big IF to win it) with maybe sized or tech down AESA etc, but fighters are not in the league of an SSN, a top class SSN wins a conflict, or in the hands of an enemy could force us to lose a conflict or not engage in a conflict. I recall the C5 programme on the Ark Royal last year , the T class boat commander was suggesting He had to "let" the Merlins find him during an excercise, the capabilities are that good. The Astute is as good as we can get, not quite maybe as good as the USA, but good enough to keep our Navy, with small numbers in the lead. Selling it, or giving the tech to India is IMO about as bad an idea as you can get. Market subystems etc, some aspects (but not your cutting edge secrets).

In the coming decades India will strive to become dominant in its region, our policy goals might not match the UK's

A further point, the UK gives over a three year period 850m in aid to India, I know this is linked to trade deals etc,but India can afford carriers, SU30MKI's and nuclear weapons etc and I suspect 850m would pay quite nicely for an extra RN Astute. We should not fund Indias poor, they should.

The critical state of our sub industry is a political choice and mismangment, there are ample funds to pay for the Navy if the politcal will was there. 0.25% of GDP would solve many problems. The Aussies I would trust, the Indians Im afraid I wouldnt, the nuclear standoff with Pakistan is always going to bubble.

Prostituting our remaining advantage IMO is mad, but I have no tech knowlege, I would be interested to see how many of the more in the know posters on here would agree with you.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You cant just mix and match on a sub, we dont need a joint venture, we have a plan if needed, we are likely to adapt an Astute to fit a few Trident tubes with a hump or extended sail, and wont design anything until we know what the dimensions of Trident E6 will be.

absolutely. just adding a plug for special warfare taskings is significant redesign work and would take an extant asset offline for a min 12 months and quite probably 18months.

subs aren't skimmers, balance, buoyancy, handling are all effected by just shifting machinery into other locs- let alone complete weapons systems migrations

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would love to see the RAN buying Astutes, but if you look at the comments in the RAN room they all seem very of the view it would be an up hill political battle..

Its less political than the reality that they aren't a tactical fit. they have less technology than what we can get from the USN/USG even if they were a "fit" and the technology that would come with them is not as significant as what we already get from the USN/USG

platforms have to meet tactical and strategic requirements first - then the political considerations get injected.

 

[1805]

Isnt building a joint missile sub based on two completely different missile systems, both in size and associated systems going to make any potential cost saving disappear. What hull dimensions do you use, what are the power requirements etc.? You cant just mix and match on a sub, we dont need a joint venture, we have a plan if needed, we are likely to adapt an Astute to fit a few Trident tubes with a hump or extended sail, and wont design anything until we know what the dimensions of Trident E6 will be.

Competing to sell Typhoons in the MRCA competition is one thing (a big IF to win it) with maybe sized or tech down AESA etc, but fighters are not in the league of an SSN, a top class SSN wins a conflict, or in the hands of an enemy could force us to lose a conflict or not engage in a conflict. I recall the C5 programme on the Ark Royal last year , the T class boat commander was suggesting He had to "let" the Merlins find him during an excercise, the capabilities are that good. The Astute is as good as we can get, not quite maybe as good as the USA, but good enough to keep our Navy, with small numbers in the lead. Selling it, or giving the tech to India is IMO about as bad an idea as you can get. Market subystems etc, some aspects (but not your cutting edge secrets).

In the coming decades India will strive to become dominant in its region, our policy goals might not match the UK's

A further point, the UK gives over a three year period 850m in aid to India, I know this is linked to trade deals etc,but India can afford carriers, SU30MKI's and nuclear weapons etc and I suspect 850m would pay quite nicely for an extra RN Astute. We should not fund Indias poor, they should.

The critical state of our sub industry is a political choice and mismangment, there are ample funds to pay for the Navy if the politcal will was there. 0.25% of GDP would solve many problems. The Aussies I would trust, the Indians Im afraid I wouldnt, the nuclear standoff with Pakistan is always going to bubble.

Prostituting our remaining advantage IMO is mad, but I have no tech knowlege, I would be interested to see how many of the more in the know posters on here would agree with you.

To be honest I can't think of to many conflicts a SSN will win on it's own. They obviously have great detection and range capability but, but the anti sub side have a few tools in the box aswell, more than just Merlins. I have always wondered the capability of a SSN v SSK with AIP such as U212a. I have heard (I don't know enough about subs either way) that if a sub travel much over 5 knots the water resistance noise, even over a smooth shaped hull is enough to give the position away.

Also there is such a limited market for SSNs I doubt India would find a customer, certainly not the one you're implying. By achieving some exports we would be improving our chances of retaining a credible independent industrial capability. There are much more precious technologies the West has to fear falling into hostile hands (S300 & C802 top of the list?)

I can't comment on aid to India or Indian policy on spending policy, but I agree it does seem wrong that they chose such expense toys, but then they have fought 3 hot border wars since independence and security is important.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have heard (I don't know enough about subs either way) that if a sub travel much over 5 knots the water resistance noise, even over a smooth shaped hull is enough to give the position away..

acoustic and signature detection is not just about speed and hull shape.

eg I attended a USN sponsored UDT in hawai'i a few years back and the (then) CINCPAC made a pointed comment that the Seawolf "at speed" was acoustically quieter than a 688 at pier and static.

hull shape and potential flow irregularity at nn speed has a part to play - but its by no means "the" telegraphing event.

 

[1805]

acoustic and signature detection is not just about speed and hull shape.

eg I attended a USN sponsored UDT in hawai'i a few years back and the (then) CINCPAC made a pointed comment that the Seawolf "at speed" was acoustically quieter than a 688 at pier and static.

hull shape and potential flow irregularity at nn speed has a part to play - but its by no means "the" telegraphing event.

Interesting, I thought the LAs where surposed to be very quiet, but I guess everything can be improved upon. BTW by flow irregularities do you mean sea growths etc or design issues?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting, I thought the LAs where surposed to be very quiet,

688

but I guess everything can be improved upon.

688I

BTW by flow irregularities do you mean sea growths etc or design issues?

Design. external and internal

 

[Hambo]

To be honest I can't think of to many conflicts a SSN will win on it's own. They obviously have great detection and range capability but, but the anti sub side have a few tools in the box aswell, more than just Merlins. I have always wondered the capability of a SSN v SSK with AIP such as U212a. I have heard (I don't know enough about subs either way) that if a sub travel much over 5 knots the water resistance noise, even over a smooth shaped hull is enough to give the position away.

Also there is such a limited market for SSNs I doubt India would find a customer, certainly not the one you're implying. By achieving some exports we would be improving our chances of retaining a credible independent industrial capability. There are much more precious technologies the West has to fear falling into hostile hands (S300 & C802 top of the list?)

I can't comment on aid to India or Indian policy on spending policy, but I agree it does seem wrong that they chose such expense toys, but then they have fought 3 hot border wars since independence and security is important.

1805, the Falklands War demonstrated that in the face of SSN's even a relatively decent naval power fled back to port. An RN sub even had a bead on the Ventecinco De Mayo, and had it been cleared to attack it would have sunk Her. If we had lost a carrier I doubt the war would have been won and the RN expended a hell of a lot of munitions chasing Argentinian diesel electics and whales, had they had a comparable SSN to ours I dread to think what they would have done to our 8000mile supply line, so I think it is a war winning weapon. In the era of shrinking fleets, lose a capital ship and many hundred casualties, its game over, public outcry would lead to political demise.

The RN in the face of budgetary constraint ditched SSK's for a reason, SSN's are far better, unlimited range, they can charge full pelt to any warzone in the world, or creep along in silence for far longer than any SSK could. It would take an extremely advanced navy to counter one, a navy with top rate sensors, Maritime patrol craft and lots of escorts. U212 may be a fine sentry, a hole in the water listening in the Batic but if it wants to go further it does so at a far slower speed than an SSN and would at intervals need to surface for fueling, so that and the tanker gives the clue, an SSN on the other hand can get there and no one will know, it worked in 1976 , just the mere mention that one was heading south had a political effect on the Argentinians. I would assume, and I hope an expert can help here but an SSN Captain is far more able to choose his fight if facing an SSK even AIP equipped, He would have far higher underwater speed, to get in and out of engagement and detection ranges, could run deeper and faster for much longer, wearing down the energy of the diesel electric. Of course the fight would be joined by surface vessels and aircraft so it would be far more comlicated, would the SSK have a better chance as an ambush hunter, sitting and waiting? but once its trap is sprung, does it become bait?. Its probably significant that the USN has also ditched them.