Are Diesel-Powered Submarines Better Than America’s Leading Nuclear Fleet?

[ikalugin]

I (and some RN officers that I happen to know) strongly disagree.


2 SSNs on station do not cover all the RN's global responsibilities.


And while the budget and crew problems exist, they are not insurmountable, especially considering small SSK/SSP crews and low prices, with around 3-4 SSKs/SSPs available per SSN in terms of both funding and crew.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I (and some RN officers that I happen to know) strongly disagree.


2 SSNs on station do not cover all the RN's global responsibilities.


And while the budget and crew problems exist, they are not insurmountable, especially considering small SSK/SSP crews and low prices, with around 3-4 SSKs/SSPs available per SSN in terms of both funding and crew.

For one not to put a block on their opinion, but I have dealt with the navy for many years (was my job i dealt with Logistics for most of NATO as a contractor), their bosses do not see the need for SSK's even some high Admirals don't want them in the fleet as they see no real use for them.

Having spoke myself to people like Admiral Chris Parry they don't see what a SSK will bring to the table right now except as a force multiplier, forwardly deploying into for example the Gulf for 5 years would be a huge logistical task because the facilities would need to be modified (i've been to the Bahrain facilities they are somewhat lacking in some ways).

This is much the same argument we are having with the rest of the fleet, the should we have built 12 type 45's and why are we building just 8 type 26's and were going to build 5 type 31's, its a dam mess.

The governments since SDSR 2010 with their creative accounting have undermined the Navy and the RFA capability, they have destroyed a lot of our capabilities in the process of re-structuring.

However with that in mind and the current build programs re the Dreadnought, type 26 and 31 plus the remaining Astutes and F35B acquisitions, we currently do not have the budget to simply go and buy off the shelf conventional submarines, let alone crew the things.

For Example right now an AIP equipped type 214 is sitting on the 800 million (once we Finnish with it) Euro mark, if we were to buy 4 of those we could have simply just have purchased 1 or 2 more astute's which are far more capable and flexible than the 212.
You also have to think about training, SSK operations differ to Nuclear operations it is why we run 2 types of Perisher the course has diversified over the years.
on top of that where do you propose these submarines carry out their operations?

Since the 90's the RN has done without conventional's we retired our Upholder class early and sold them to Canada because they no longer fitted any doctrine we had, on top of that we only built them because we could, the real issue is what we perceive the threat is and what we do to counter it.

Our navy made a choice and we chose nuclear, right now i just cant see how it would fit into any doctrine we have, our operational deployment areas are:

Carribbean - Anti drug smuggling and humanitarian
Falklands - Routine patrol areas British Territory
Gulf of Aden - Anti Piracy (something we sometimes drop out of due to lack of surface fleet)
Persian Gulf - Escort duties mainly right now

None of which could really use a SSK, unless you want to send it to eavesdrop on Russia but with the limitations we know about it wouldn't take long for us to be embarrassed.

I'm all for fleet increasement but i certainly don't think SSK's are the way to go as i cant see what value they would bring to the RN right now.

As for 2 on station SSN's thats the minimum number but it is adequate for what the UK does in reality we could put 4 to sea so its not a major issue.

[ikalugin]

He is a submariner, so he was thinking from pure mil perspective I guess and he really wanted surface and subsurface assets forward deployed.

I guess yes, UK is a bit constrained with resources seeing how the new programs are going. For the basing argument I think that it could be packaged nicely into the overall program, like we did with Kilos for the Black Sea.

3-4 submarines provide better coverage than 1-2 submarines, even if the two are more capable, particularly when selecting between the mixes.

Note how you have omitted the Arctic and how many of those areas would benefit from having in theatre submarines in general (recon and spec ops, threat of SLCMs etc) without them needing SSNs specifically.
A small number of them can be offloaded to UUVs though I guess.


p.s. are there tables for the RN technical readiness on the lines of Shishkin's work?

 

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

He is a submariner, so he was thinking from pure mil perspective I guess and he really wanted surface and subsurface assets forward deployed.

I guess yes, UK is a bit constrained with resources seeing how the new programs are going. For the basing argument I think that it could be packaged nicely into the overall program, like we did with Kilos for the Black Sea.

3-4 submarines provide better coverage than 1-2 submarines, even if the two are more capable, particularly when selecting between the mixes.

Note how you have omitted the Arctic and how many of those areas would benefit from having in theatre submarines in general (recon and spec ops, threat of SLCMs etc) without them needing SSNs specifically.
A small number of them can be offloaded to UUVs though I guess.


p.s. are there tables for the RN technical readiness on the lines of Shishkin's work?

 

To answer your last question first: I do not and cannot comment on the technical or operational readiness be it a comment in the form of the Past, Present or Future of the RN, RFA or any of our NATO Partners fleets.
Any such disclosure remains at the discretion of the UK MOD and NATO.
I therefore never comment or reveal sources that may include this information, however open sources are available using the RN website .

The current UK is tied right now with this Brexit dilemma and as such funding for the MOD is not of major concern, depending on which government gets into or remains in power will depend which way funding will go. (i have my own views)

I agree 3-4 submarines do provide better operational capabilities and allows more on station at one time that we cannot deny.

But we have a serious issue with crewing right now, specifically with submarines and its why we have switched to lean manning.

The Officer your talking too looks at it from the Operational stand point and to a degree he is correct, however i have to look at it from the non operational stand point using budgets, crewing capability, and standing doctrine. (therefore in reality neither side is incorrect in their thinking or view and i for one would like to see more surface ships and submarines)

I deliberately omitted from commenting on the UUV and the arctic.

[ikalugin]

Shishkin is an OSINTer, who compiles such open sources. What I was asking about - if you know about such sources for the RN rather than RuN and if you do, if you could (please) reference such sources. Don't worry, I don't think that we have anyone who would be asking you to disclose anything proprietary.

The crewing I think is not going to be such a big issue - just to use the above example, Type-214 uses just over a quarter of Astute crew.

Why did you omit them?

[Kapitan]

I use a variety of sources for open source including the USNI and both Canadian and UK government websites.

Are you meaning something like this ?

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedP..._Version_3.pdf

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Shishkin is an OSINTer, who compiles such open sources. What I was asking about - if you know about such sources for the RN rather than RuN and if you do, if you could (please) reference such sources. Don't worry, I don't think that we have anyone who would be asking you to disclose anything proprietary.

The crewing I think is not going to be such a big issue - just to use the above example, Type-214 uses just over a quarter of Astute crew.

Why did you omit them?

As for Omit i have reasons to not discuss this area il just say too risky for me and dont wish to be embroiled in anything.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

I use a variety of sources for open source including the USNI and both Canadian and UK government websites.

Are you meaning something like this ?

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedP..._Version_3.pdf

Not quite. What Shishkin does for the Russian Navy is to take such goverment sources, add in media reports and so on, then compile them to make a table every month or so as to what the state of the ships are (in the above example he colour codes them, yellow = repairs and modernisation, green = available and so on). You can see an example of the table for this month previously in this thread.

I guess the closest equivalent I know of would be the "where are the carriers?" project for the USN, found here: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm


So I was wondering if such a handy (compilation) source is available for the RN. This would help to see the real state of the readiness so to speak.

[Kapitan]

only thing i have used is this:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...ity/operations

There is a list that is published on one of the sites i think its save the royal navy that give you a ship by ship status but i cant right now remember the link.

The USNI publishes the carriers positions