Am I alone in my thoughts.......bring back the SSK....cut the costs!!

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by Bearing Rate, Jan 27, 2013.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. After some very sad web browsing, I am looking for an intelligent response (lol), why oh why do we need 7(?) A class submarines. 1.5 billion for the first three, 200-300 million for a jetty. Compared to an off the shelf diesel for about £160 million. Ok for some operations a duration of 60 days or more is needed, the majority isnt.

    So is it to support a fragile submarine/nuclear build industry? Is there some other point i am missing?

    And i wont even start the pros of a modern AIP SSK over an SSN in the current climate.
     
  2. As it stands SSK's can't produce enough power to maintain modern sonar sets and associated computing systems. All the RN's submarine commitments aren't (and unlikely to be) in home waters.

    Taking the present global scenario, if you keep an SSK (AIP or not) out the Gulf for any length of time you need a lot more support than an SSN. Ex-Diesel people are always banging on about this (not a pop at you BTW) but seem to forget we don't have any foreign bases to run out of anymore.

    As long as the UK wants to play on the world scene, we need assets that can get to wherever and stay there unsupported.

    That's my take on it. Unicorn did the last SSK patrol out the Gulf and had to have Diligence with it as support ship, I know this as I was on Dillipig as part of the RN support team.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Good response, if our pm and top brass want a seat at the big boys table, they need the right calling card to get an invite. To play world wide we need more than a coastal navy that needs help to go on big jollies.
    Once in service they will be cycled through maintenance and refits, so not all available at one time, so 7 is best guess to meet commitments.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Both valid points thanks. I am suprised that a SSK requires increased support to a SSN. Never been on an SSK however in certain operational areas i never ever spent more than 60 days in area without something breaking :)
    Surely an SSK could frequent the current ports used by SSNs in operational areas.
    In regard to power/sonar performance, i think the SSK would bring its own advantages to the fight. I understand we need a bat to play with the rest of the team, however 2 or 3 diesels in addition to say 5 A class would be imo a welcome and useful addition.Even one could release the SSN from Perisher duties!!
     
  5. In any event, to switch to ssk from where we are now would need considerable investment in addition to the cost of the units themselves.
     
  6. If we have a requirement to build new SSKs, perhaps we could call them the Upholder class?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    We only have the Alliance now, as far as A class go, or do you mean Astute class?
     
  8. I meant whichever one is outboard of HMS Pendantic, Fwd of HMS Pasty eater, and aft of HMS Vainglorious.
     
  9. You jest surely?
    When I was the 'bender' on P & Os we had 6 valve sets pulling power like no tomorrow. Plus the radars plus the WT pinkie crap.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Negative, you've been out the loop too long Fred, modern bow and flank arrays need a lot of wiggly's. The sonar cab space, computer room and sound room would drain an SSK's batteries in no time.
     
  11. Sorry but bolloxs!
    Do you not think before they put anything on to a boat they assess its capabilities and whether its capable of doing its job.
    After my illustrious career in Britians finest I worked for Plessey Naval Systems on the Tridents 2054 fit so I think I know about bow, flank and towed arrays etc.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2013
  12. Then you'll know your P&O boats and successors wouldn't be able to sustain long dived patrols without coming up to snort all the time. This is a tired old argument that goes round and round in circles.
     
  13. I think a key point is that SSNs don't need to frequent any ports in operational areas.
     
  14. Thats what diesel boats do my friend !!! snort a lot or run for sustained periods on the surface!
     
  15. I think Bearing Rates comment needs some clarifying. What do mean BR? SSKs and SSNs used to use the same bases, Ports etc. Elucidate
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2013
  16. I think what Bearing Rate is saying is that an SSK needs more support than an SSN, such as refuelling etc and as we don't have any foreign bases or depot ships you have to rely on a friendly state to assist. I also know that diesel boats snort a lot or run on the surface but thanks for reminding me!, something SSN's don't need to do which is yet another major advantage of an SSN over an SSK, plus an SSN is a helluva lot faster underwater, which, although speed degades your sonar, does get you into area a lot quicker.
     
  17. Snorting in roughers can not be much fun
     
  18. fails_as_is

    fails_as_is Badgeman Book Reviewer

    Added to that, the size of boat we expect now to carry enough weapons into an area to have influence as well as the power draw from all the sensors we'll want to use once we get there isn't currently feasible without the megawatts available from a reactor.
     
  19. Yea faster maybe but bloody nosier!! DBF!!!
     
  20. A Mk 8 up the chuff hurts!
    Ask the crew of the Belgrano!
     

Share This Page