The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

it worked in 1976

1982

In principle, re the rest of your statements, there is a high degree of "yes"

however, sub warfare is about training before its about technology (persistence issues aside)

an example of the grief a conventional can cause was off the west coast of africa a few years back - a couple of crappy NorK Romeos caused a US fleet a bit of grief while they tried to sanitise their area of ops.

 

[kev 99]

1982

In principle, re the rest of your statements, there is a high degree of "yes"

however, sub warfare is about training before its about technology (persistence issues aside)

an example of the grief a conventional can cause was off the west coast of africa a few years back - a couple of crappy NorK Romeos caused a US fleet a bit of grief while they tried to sanitise their area of ops.

He's talking about the previous standoff over the Falklands that did happen in 1976, not the Falklands war itself.

 

[1805]

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.

I knew you would mention the Falkands, and I agree with you on the usefulness of submarines, but not so much exclusively SSNs, because in todays money we are not talking about an SSN v SSK we would be talking about a SSN v 6-8 SSK, Had ARA deployed agressively 10-12 209 boats I think the RN would have more concerned than 1-2 SSN and been even more severly tested. The value of keeping the ARA in port was probably minimal as it had little strike capability which was not deployed from land bases. The real advantages of SSN seem to be great speed (but this must increase the likelihood of detection) and the ability to remain submerged. In a battle of Atlantic enviroment with constant air patrol, huge numbers of escorts yes this is a must. But in a localised tactical battle the 2 weeks a U212a can manage far smaller size and faction of the cost $250m v £1.3bn of and Astute (I know first 3 so say £1bn for 6). Also its a very different game attacking convoys v protected battle groups.

I think India is mad to buy SSN when she could build a great SSK industry and operate an awsome 20-30 boat fleet but if they want to buy we should be rushing to help. I think India orders would be as welcome in Barrow, Westminster and the RN as Australian orders

 

[LancasterBomber]

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

Platforms need to be operational.

I just forsee a real potential clusterf%$k in the transition from Collins to Sea 1000. I just dont want to spend the next 10 years of my professional life building and supporting the personnel capability in the sub fleet only to see the hard work crumble in front of my eyes when guys leave on mass because we have complex 'end of useful life' issues with these assets and the new platform experiences development delays or production setbacks.

The Collins is a world class platform that not a lot of people understand however the issues we have had could be seen in a very different light if these issues raise their head towards the end of expected asset life. If guys cant go to sea they lose interest. If guys cant drive forward their careers they lose interest. If guys feel like the platform they are serving on isnt being invested in they lose morale.

If 12 is the magic number (debatable) then the question becomes is it such a severe reduction in tactical ability/versatility to split the sub branch 8SSK and 4SSN as opposed to 12SSK? Or is it in fact a broadening of our strategic strike capacity and defensive 'deterrence'? Debatable.

Like you say time and again - it isnt just about 'technological widgets' its about training and personnel capabilities. Keeping our boys together is also about having continuity in our ability to go to sea. Morale demands it. You probably understand better than most just how fragile the whole branch can get if the mining boom kicks off again at the wrong time for us.

Then there is the broader issue of the Brits. Even with an economy on its knees they wouldnt think twice spending billions of pounds steaming the RN to the defense of Australia's sovereignty. Although its an unbreakable bond between nations its still a relationship to be fostered and nurtured.

Putting 10 billion dollars on the table isnt really that hard for us right now. If we take 2 or 3 or 4 Astutes ourselves we then make it feasible for the RN to carry on and expand their own production run of the platform. In effect we (Australia) would be 'doubling down'. We know that a deep erosion of the RN is an indirect erosion of our national security. Equally the obvious corollary is true. The ROI becomes fairly compelling.

The Sea 1000 design is the RAN's main game. The Astutes would represent a mitigation of risk
pertaining to potential personnel losses if we get bogged down transitioning from Collins to Collins Mark II in 2025. I am not saying that will happen but we all know just how fragile our sub fleet is. It isnt a robust unit. There is a real need for a sound road map and platform pathway so as not to undermine confidence.

The worst 'tactical fit' is the tactical fit that involves our human intellectual capital (our best strategic military asset) walking away from the fleet. That is the primary premise behind my argument for the acquisition of the Astute as a 'supporting' platform to Sea 1000 and Collins during the next few decades.

OK I really need to shut up about this issue before Icelord cracks it at me for spinning too much crap once again!! hehe

Footnote: I wonder how the sea trials are going on Astute? I would love to be there right now!

 

[LancasterBomber]

I think India would be made to buy SSN when she could build a great SSK industry and operate an awsome 20-30 boat fleet but if they want to buy we should be rushing to help. I think India orders would be as welcome in Barrow, Westminster and the RN as Australian orders

Well that rules out Australia then. We would only touch Astute if it was held tight in British/US/Australian alliance. It is too easy to infiltrate India from an intelligence perspective. (note: pure speculation)

Australia wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole if you alluded to selling into India.

 

[1805]

Well that rules out Australia then. We would only touch Astute if it was held tight in British/US/Australian alliance. It is too easy to infiltrate India from an intelligence perspective. (note: pure speculation)

Australia wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole if you alluded to selling into India.

India is a growing a powerful power in the region and well aligned to the West/US agenda. I think RAN/RN/USN would have much in common. The US has been developing much closer links with her. I think after the little falling out over price on the carrier refit with Russia, Israeli has taken over as the largest defence supplier? It is interesting that since German got luke warn in 1998 India has not returned to them for subs and has brought French

 

[Hambo]

I knew you would mention the Falkands, and I agree with you on the usefulness of submarines, but not so much exclusively SSNs, because in todays money we are not talking about an SSN v SSK we would be talking about a SSN v 6-8 SSK, Had ARA deployed agressively 10-12 209 boats I think the RN would have more concerned than 1-2 SSN and been even more severly tested. The value of keeping the ARA in port was probably minimal as it had little strike capability which was not deployed from land bases. The real advantages of SSN seem to be great speed (but this must increase the likelihood of detection) and the ability to remain submerged. In a battle of Atlantic enviroment with constant air patrol, huge numbers of escorts yes this is a must. But in a localised tactical battle the 2 weeks a U212a can manage far smaller size and faction of the cost $250m v £1.3bn of and Astute (I know first 3 so say £1bn for 6). Also its a very different game attacking convoys v protected battle groups.

I think India is mad to buy SSN when she could build a great SSK industry and operate an awsome 20-30 boat fleet but if they want to buy we should be rushing to help. I think India orders would be as welcome in Barrow, Westminster and the RN as Australian orders

1805, you cant but have noticed that the UK is positioned in the North Atlantic , if we are engaged in any operation it is likely to be at huge distances from the UK, that is why the RN has significant differences in doctrine to some other navies, we have significant amphibious capabilities, RFA numbers and have demonstrated an ability to sustain high intensity operations a long way from home.

Also battlegroups, or task forces, would in the face of a serious threat zig zag about at a high speed, 15 knots or so , would they not? Could an SSK keep up with the carriers and amphibs, 1000's of miles from home, could an SSK actually protect your major units, can you refuel a sub at sea in heavy seas or do they need a sheltered area? I dont know?

As to a force deploying 10-12 SSK against us,Im not sure many nations could afford that at £300-350m a go, India is managing 6 Scorpenes, Spain 4 or maybe 6 S80. Our SSN force stacks up very well IMO., could do with more but its good, and will be similr sized than France who also have gone the SSN route.

Our SSN force at 6-8 boats, maybe 3-4 Trident replacement is just about sustainable. When the RN faced the choice of keeping 4 Upholders or lose SSN they chose the latter. 4 Upholders was a small but expensive luxury in a climate of cuts. Im not against SSK's but in the current climate, would you cut the SSN force further to pay for them? 4 Upholders cost £900 back in the 1980's, Add anoher level of fleet support, propulsion, engineering support, training and refit costs then you lumber the RN further. We cant afford them , what would you cut.?

I would also suggest selling a cutting edge reactor plant to India, that uses technology far in excess of their own could potentially unlock another level in their nuclear programme. Also add that you are allowing another nation to know exactly what your noise signature and performance is of both your SSN fleet and future SSBN fleet is, and will be, because Asute will likely form the basis of Vanguard replacement, if that leaked, wouldnt that make our deterrent more vulnerable, if you dont think Russian or Chinese experts wouldnt get a chance to nose, I think you are very niaive.

BAe supply pressure domes to navantia and other components, by all means sell sonar and other products to sustain an industry but not the crown jewell.

 

[1805]

1805, you cant but have noticed that the UK is positioned in the North Atlantic , if we are engaged in any operation it is likely to be at huge distances from the UK, that is why the RN has significant differences in doctrine to some other navies, we have significant amphibious capabilities, RFA numbers and have demonstrated an ability to sustain high intensity operations a long way from home.

Also battlegroups, or task forces, would in the face of a serious threat zig zag about at a high speed, 15 knots or so , would they not? Could an SSK keep up with the carriers and amphibs, 1000's of miles from home, could an SSK actually protect your major units, can you refuel a sub at sea in heavy seas or do they need a sheltered area? I dont know?

I don't know but would zig zaging work against homing torpedos and sub launched sea skimming missiles do navies still do this? If we acting with USN they would have SSNs if we need them.

As to a force deploying 10-12 SSK against us,Im not sure many nations could afford that at £300-350m a go, India is managing 6 Scorpenes, Spain 4 or maybe 6 S80. Our SSN force stacks up very well IMO., could do with more but its good, and will be similr sized than France who also have gone the SSN route.

India operates 16 SSKs, France operates SSN & SSKs

Our SSN force at 6-8 boats, maybe 3-4 Trident replacement is just about sustainable. When the RN faced the choice of keeping 4 Upholders or lose SSN they chose the latter. 4 Upholders was a small but expensive luxury in a climate of cuts. Im not against SSK's but in the current climate, would you cut the SSN force further to pay for them? 4 Upholders cost £900 back in the 1980's, Add anoher level of fleet support, propulsion, engineering support, training and refit costs then you lumber the RN further. We cant afford them , what would you cut.?

The current U212a which is probably the best in class is c280 Euros. The RN was lukewarm about SSKs and offered them up as soon as it faced a challenge. I look at the exports of Oberons and compare with the 70 boats German has exported over the last 35 years.

I would also suggest selling a cutting edge reactor plant to India, that uses technology far in excess of their own could potentially unlock another level in their nuclear programme. Also add that you are allowing another nation to know exactly what your noise signature and performance is of both your SSN fleet and future SSBN fleet is, and will be, because Asute will likely form the basis of Vanguard replacement, if that leaked, wouldnt that make our deterrent more vulnerable, if you dont think Russian or Chinese experts wouldnt get a chance to nose, I think you are very niaive.

We are never going to war with Russia, China or India

BAe supply pressure domes to navantia and other components, by all means sell sonar and other products to sustain an industry but not the crown jewell.

I would think sonar technology was more sensitive, than nuclear reactors. With no serious export orders I see a very dark time for the RN. We are building very small production runs the most expensive way to procure. Where will we be in 20 years, 6 SSN, 3 SSBN, 6 T45, 8-12 C1/2, something has to give, I would rather forgo SSN for SSK?

 

[LancasterBomber]

We are never going to war with Russia, China or India

Do you always deal in 'absolutes'? You seem to view the world through an incredibly narrow minded prism.

Of course no one wants to go to war with Russia, China or India yet it becomes very difficult to deal with any foreign entity when you have no ability to project a credible threat either unilaterally or via your extended alliances. .

Not everything is an exercise in the probability of a future war. Not everything is about the upfront project cost efficiencies. The 'value proposition' of organically designed and produced military technology is far more extensive and complex than that (i.e difficult to put a $ value on it). Its worth protecting.

Scale isn't everything IMO.

 

[StevoJH]

We are never going to war with Russia, China or India

Very big call. Never is a very long time. World War One was the "War to end all wars", what happened 20 years later?

 

[ASFC]

As to a force deploying 10-12 SSK against us,Im not sure many nations could afford that at £300-350m a go, India is managing 6 Scorpenes, Spain 4 or maybe 6 S80. Our SSN force stacks up very well IMO., could do with more but its good, and will be similr sized than France who also have gone the SSN route.

India operates 16 SSKs, France operates SSN & SSKs

France dosen't operate SSKs-they have gone the same way as us.

I think the point he was making was not how many they operate, but how many modern SSKs that they can afford to buy, which is highly likely to affact the size of their sub forces in future.

I notice that despite having 'exported' (either directly or indirectly via licenses) 70-odd subs, the Germans have still only committed to 6 U212a's!

 

[1805]

France dosen't operate SSKs-they have gone the same way as us.

I think the point he was making was not how many they operate, but how many modern SSKs that they can afford to buy, which is highly likely to affact the size of their sub forces in future.

I notice that despite having 'exported' (either directly or indirectly via licenses) 70-odd subs, the Germans have still only committed to 6 U212a's!

That is true and for a long time they never even operated anything other than small costal boats, and still achieved huge exports

 

[1805]

Very big call. Never is a very long time. World War One was the "War to end all wars", what happened 20 years later?

It is a big call saying we will never go to war with those three, but it is unlikely any current of forseeable RN kit would see service against them. We are all to interdependent, and actually on a fairly common agenda. Even Taiwain is really an internal issue?

 

[StevoJH]

It is a big call saying we will never go to war with those three, but it is unlikely any current of forseeable RN kit would see service against them. We are all to interdependent, and actually on a fairly common agenda. Even Taiwain is really an internal issue?

Darings will be in service until at least the 2040's, and the last of the 23's wont go until the 2030's. I wouldn't be so sure about that. China is probably the one most likely to cause conflict due to their actions in Africa and the Middle East.

Companies they have interest in are also buying up parts of Western NSW (Australia) to farm food for export to china. And personally, that annoys me. I disagree about Taiwan being an internal matter. Taiwan has been its own individual country now for 61 years. I don't see that changing in a hurry. It would be like Australia claiming that New Zealand was an Australian state because they were involved in the original talks regarding federation (personally I think they should join us, but thats just me).

 

[MrQuintus]

Darings will be in service until at least the 2040's, and the last of the 23's wont go until the 2030's. I wouldn't be so sure about that. China is probably the one most likely to cause conflict due to their actions in Africa and the Middle East.

Companies they have interest in are also buying up parts of Western NSW (Australia) to farm food for export to china. And personally, that annoys me. I disagree about Taiwan being an internal matter. Taiwan has been its own individual country now for 61 years. I don't see that changing in a hurry. It would be like Australia claiming that New Zealand was an Australian state because they were involved in the original talks regarding federation (personally I think they should join us, but thats just me).

I think we should pull out of the EU and form one economic/military union of the UK, Oz, NZ and Canada, but then I'm an old Imperialist at heart

 

[StevoJH]

I think we should pull out of the EU and form one economic/military union of the UK, Oz, NZ and Canada, but then I'm an old Imperialist at heart

Got to be commonwealth all the way.:ar15

Maybe then we wouldn't get dragged in after the US in conflicts.

 

[1805]

Darings will be in service until at least the 2040's, and the last of the 23's wont go until the 2030's. I wouldn't be so sure about that. China is probably the one most likely to cause conflict due to their actions in Africa and the Middle East.

Companies they have interest in are also buying up parts of Western NSW (Australia) to farm food for export to china. And personally, that annoys me. I disagree about Taiwan being an internal matter. Taiwan has been its own individual country now for 61 years. I don't see that changing in a hurry. It would be like Australia claiming that New Zealand was an Australian state because they were involved in the original talks regarding federation (personally I think they should join us, but thats just me).

I think the Chinese view on history is measured in 1000s of years, even Taiwan has said in the past that if China becomes a democratic is will come back into the fold. I personally can't see any Brits wanting to die for Taiwan, you can't see any countries even wanting to sell weapons to them because of Chinese pressure. Remember we pulled out of Hong Kong and we had been their 100 years?

 

[riksavage]

I think the Chinese view on history is measured in 1000s of years, even Taiwan has said in the past that if China becomes a democratic is will come back into the fold. I personally can't see any Brits wanting to die for Taiwan, you can't see any countries even wanting to sell weapons to them because of Chinese pressure. Remember we pulled out of Hong Kong and we had been their 100 years?

The UK pulled out of HK in-line with the agreed treaty, whilst the UK held HK Island in perpetuity, they had to return the Kowloon and the New Territories back in 1997. HK today remains as free as it did under UK rule, the rule of law is still largely based on UK common law. You actually see less evidence of the PLA or PSB than you did UK troops under British rule (10,000 Gurkha Brigade in the NT plus the resident UK Battalion based at Stanley Fort) I lived in HK from 1988 until 2000, you used to see Brit Plover Class vessels (sold to Ireland and the Philippines) moored at the 'gin bottle'(Military HQ right in front of the CBD). Now Chinese Warships are moored out of sight.

 

[AndrewMI]

Any action by the UK against China would not be without substantial US assistance. TBH, the most likely scenario is for the status quo to remain i.e. one nation in legal terms, but two nations in reality.

SSN/SSK - no real comparison. They ae completely different kinds of vessels with completely different capabilities. SSN suits the UK far far more. TBH given affordability CVN would suit the UK but this was rejected on cost grounds, not the ebhanced ability it gives.

I do not see how selling to India would help in the slightest. We should only sonsider selling/trading tech with our closest allies, those being USA, Australia, and Western European countries (i.e. France, Germany, Italy, Spain et al).

 

[swerve]

The current U212a which is probably the best in class is c280 Euros..[/B]

280 euros? I'll take half a dozen!