SSN-AUKUS Future Astute Replacement (2030s) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Sep 2022, 16:42 I don't know if there were other specific reasons that both Trenchant and Talent needed to be decommissioned at the same time?
Because they are both knackered?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

NEWS of SSN(R) only please.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

Unfortunately there is not a “General” thread for RN Submarines, but the surplus crew may be unlikely to be available for either Astute Class SSNs or SSN(R), if as I suspect they may be required to facilitate the return of Vanguard. :mrgreen:

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 03 Sep 2022, 15:55
Dobbo wrote: 03 Sep 2022, 13:00 Some comments from the RUSI paper on what might be deliverable with a 3% of GDP defence budget. Irrespective of whether you think 3% is right or deliverable it provides interesting benchmarking.

https://static.rusi.org/354-OP-from-fam ... nal1_0.pdf


Comments on SSN(R)

“Accelerate next-gen SSN, improved weapon systems, aim at 10 submarines”

“Carrier + FCAS long-range missiles, prompt-strike hypersonic for SSN”

“• In announcing to NATO’s June summit that the UK was now on track to be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, Boris Johnson referred to the additional costs of AUKUS for the UK. This is a reference to the need for serious extra spending on a new generation of SSN to replace the Astute class – the SSN-R. Depending on the extent to which Australia decides to develop its own new SSN in cooperation with the UK, it is possible that large parts of this programme could be a joint venture, potentially including production, weapon systems, training and infrastructure. The added funding included here would allow the MoD to proceed at pace to build this new generation of SSN. It could also be used to increase the size of the SSN fleet from 7 (the current level) to 10. This would increase the UK’s ability to deploy worldwide, including in the Indo-Pacific, while maintaining the levels necessary to counter Russian threats in the North Atlantic and the Arctic.”
10 SSN for RN sounds great but first RN will need to increase number of crew, whether improved cres recruitment or retention). At the moment the RN can only crew six boats, with Trenchant and Talent decommissioned in May before Anson was commissioned this week.
I suppose the bad news is you are absolutely correct - more submariners will be needed if the RN wishes to expand its fleet to 10 SSN.

The good news is that: (1) the Australians and Americans will (or likely are) face the same issues on crewing so there is an incentive to reduce the number of crew needed; and (2) when the design of SSN(R) is fairly mature - this has to be quite soon to keep up the build rate post SSBN - there is a reasonable period of time to take steps to resolve the issue.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Zeno »

We can speculate till the cows come home but until the review for Australia comes in next year we won't know ,Im not sure if a submarine can be produced in some similar fashion to the f35 program in a basic form and modified for customers
These users liked the author Zeno for the post:
serge750

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by serge750 »

i spose it all comes down to how disimiler the requirements are... maybe if they can agree on 80% inc hull form thenfingers crossed ...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 12 Oct 2022, 16:38
I note ot says "new" jobs and "majority" at Barrow. That means that over 600 new jobs at Barrow, possibly more.

Lets us hope that these additional workers enables BAE to build the remaining Astutes and then the Dreabdought SSBN's quicker so that hopefully when they switch focus back to SSNR, that they can build more than seven......
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
serge750

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

... and potentially more in surface ship building as well
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

Far more than seven, if they really want to live up to their name.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

This is great news. Should have happened with Astute Class. Free's the RN from the extra costs of encapsulated weapons that the US would no longer be funding (as all USN SSN's have VL, with the exception of the 3 Seawolf which do not require it for their role).

These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 10):
SKBwargame_insomniacRon5Phil Rdonald_of_tokyojonasserge750mrclark303JensyHalidon

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Clive F »

My prediction is a modified boomer to keep costs low.
These users liked the author Clive F for the post (total 2):
mrclark303jedibeeftrix

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

Clive F wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 15:12 My prediction is a modified boomer to keep costs low.
I'm sure you're right, probably using PWR3 backend and much of Dreadnought, with a new section added to replace the D5 tubes.

It would make sense and not only substantially reduce costs of the attack boats, but also reduce the costs of the last two Dreadnoughts, if additional long lead orders for PWR3 and associated equipment can be made, leading seamlessly into SSN(R) production.

The RN clearly needs an active fleet of 12 SSN's.

If we can reduce manning on the new generations of boats, (allowing for the obvious 24 hour operational requirements, that keep crewing relatively high), and order the expensive long lead items in sufficient quantity to keep the unit cost down, then it might just be possible.

If SSN(R) is based on Dreadnought, with a VLS module, then we will be looking at a 9,000/10,000 ton attack boat... Quite the fearsome sea monster!

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Jake1992 »

mrclark303 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:21
Clive F wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 15:12 My prediction is a modified boomer to keep costs low.
I'm sure you're right, probably using PWR3 backend and much of Dreadnought, with a new section added to replace the D5 tubes.

It would make sense and not only substantially reduce costs of the attack boats, but also reduce the costs of the last two Dreadnoughts, if additional long lead orders for PWR3 and associated equipment can be made, leading seamlessly into SSN(R) production.

The RN clearly needs an active fleet of 12 SSN's.

If we can reduce manning on the new generations of boats, (allowing for the obvious 24 hour operational requirements, that keep crewing relatively high), and order the expensive long lead items in sufficient quantity to keep the unit cost down, then it might just be possible.

If SSN(R) is based on Dreadnought, with a VLS module, then we will be looking at a 9,000/10,000 ton attack boat... Quite the fearsome sea monster!
Wouldn’t it make sense to have 2-4 of the new multi role tubes being used on the Dreadnoughts in place of standard MK41s, they’ve been stated to each be capable of housing up to 7 Tomahawks or be used for unmanned systems. It’d give greater future proofing along with reducing cost over the 2 fleets of boats.
These users liked the author Jake1992 for the post (total 2):
mrclark303jedibeeftrix

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

Jake1992 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:43
mrclark303 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:21
Clive F wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 15:12 My prediction is a modified boomer to keep costs low.
I'm sure you're right, probably using PWR3 backend and much of Dreadnought, with a new section added to replace the D5 tubes.

It would make sense and not only substantially reduce costs of the attack boats, but also reduce the costs of the last two Dreadnoughts, if additional long lead orders for PWR3 and associated equipment can be made, leading seamlessly into SSN(R) production.

The RN clearly needs an active fleet of 12 SSN's.

If we can reduce manning on the new generations of boats, (allowing for the obvious 24 hour operational requirements, that keep crewing relatively high), and order the expensive long lead items in sufficient quantity to keep the unit cost down, then it might just be possible.

If SSN(R) is based on Dreadnought, with a VLS module, then we will be looking at a 9,000/10,000 ton attack boat... Quite the fearsome sea monster!
Wouldn’t it make sense to have 2-4 of the new multi role tubes being used on the Dreadnoughts in place of standard MK41s, they’ve been stated to each be capable of housing up to 7 Tomahawks or be used for unmanned systems. It’d give greater future proofing along with reducing cost over the 2 fleets of boats.
Great idea Jake, hypothesising further on your idea, I wonder if we could perhaps have them re-rolled on occasion to carry four D5 on as mini bombers.

It would give tremendous flexibility and keep our potential enemies guessing.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Dobbo »

I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.

That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.

That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.

Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
These users liked the author Dobbo for the post (total 2):
mrclark303Nimonic

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

Dobbo wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 23:40 I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.

That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.

That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.

Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
Excellent points, just hypothesising regarding the flexibility of using re-configurable D5 tubes.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Dobbo

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

The SSBNs will use the Common Missile Compartment (CMC), which is designed to take Trident D5 and it's (probably larger) successor. 22 missile tubes for the CMC have already been ordered from Babcocks. It looks like the SSN(R)s will get the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes. Each tube can carry up to seven cruise missiles in a carousel-style launcher. The infographic implies two tubes, which would give it a decent level of firepower
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Dobbo wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 23:40 I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.

That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.

That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.

Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
If it was off it’s coast how would Russia know if it was a ssgn or ssbn?

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 08:17
Dobbo wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 23:40 I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint.

That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the opposition with minimal room for misunderstanding.

That is at least partially undermined if you have a fleet of boats carrying potentially strategic nuclear weapons performing tactical operations. For example a Trident capable SSGN operating off the coast of Russia could (emphasis on “could”) be interpreted as a prelude to a first strike - irrespective of whether it was carrying them or not. However an SSGN that cannot carry nuclear weapons could not be interpreted in that way at all.

Also - if you keep the SSBN’s and believe they are effective, what’s the point of carrying around more ICBMs?
If it was off it’s coast how would Russia know if it was a ssgn or ssbn?
I suppose the main point is they don't know it's there anyway.....

The Americans use converted Ohio Class SSBN's as 'Tomahawk battleships' , each able to deliver large numbers of Tomahawk to their potential targets.

I would guess these old bombers might conceivably have to get uncomfortably close to the shore if they were launching against deep targets in a country like China or Russia.

How quiet these really old boats are is debatable, but if detected, an enemy has no way of knowing if it's belly is full of Tomahawks or buckets of sunshine....

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

Caribbean wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 08:12 The SSBNs will use the Common Missile Compartment (CMC), which is designed to take Trident D5 and it's (probably larger) successor. 22 missile tubes for the CMC have already been ordered from Babcocks. It looks like the SSN(R)s will get the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes. Each tube can carry up to seven cruise missiles in a carousel-style launcher. The infographic implies two tubes, which would give it a decent level of firepower
I think you can guarantee that it will be the VPM. The USN is doing a lot of work on it and will be integrating weapons, UUV's etc to it. The RN will be able to piggyback on their work and save a lot of time and money.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Caribbean

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

Yes - agreed. Though I suspect that a large diameter bow tube might creep into the design, to allow SDVs and larger UUVs to be deployed.

Another intriguing suggestion that I saw elsewhere was that NSM might be packaged for launching from a torpedo tube - has anyone else seen anything on that, or is it just someone's imagination running away with them?
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
mrclark303
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

Caribbean wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 10:32 Another intriguing suggestion that I saw elsewhere was that NSM might be packaged for launching from a torpedo tube - has anyone else seen anything on that, or is it just someone's imagination running away with them?
It's not NSM. It's JSM. The work to re-package NSM into the JSM form factor to fit in F-35 has, as a byproduct, made it small enough to be encapsulated and fired from a 21 inch torpedo tube. Kongsberg were showing it around for a few years with little interest. But the recent Germany and Norway purchase of the Type 212CD submarine class has brought it back. It's apparently going to be developed to arm those subs.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Caribbean

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

Thanks for the info - appreciated. Something that we should checkout at the appropriate time, perhaps?
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
mrclark303
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: SSN(R) Future Astute Replacement (2040s) (RN) [News Only]

Post by mrclark303 »

Caribbean wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 13:06 Thanks for the info - appreciated. Something that we should checkout at the appropriate time, perhaps?
It certainly is, certainly considerably cheaper than Tomahawk (or it's successor) and there will be missions that require precision strike on shore target, but Tomahawk would be overkill.

Having a few of these in the bomb shop, as well as 14 long range missiles siloed in the back would give great flexibility.

If they end up being around 9,000/ 10,000 tons mark, then perhaps upwards of 50 torpedo/ missile spaces in the torp room might be possible?

A mix of drones / torpedoes and two flavours of land attack missiles will produce a supremely capable SSN that our enemies would truly fear.

Post Reply