UK Subs

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Nemesis1 RE: Link 7/24/2004 10:40:15 AM

sorry here is the link link Nemesis

Quote Reply

Ad RE:UK Subs 7/24/2004 11:06:25 AM

The Astute order, to the best of my knowledge hasn?t been cut, it?s the current SSN fleet that has been. Don?t fall into the trap of believing because our force of SSN?s will be slightly smaller, that it will reduce in power and effectiveness. What will happen is that the Royal Navy?s sub-surface firepower will drastically increase. As I understand it, these boats wont need to have there reactors topped up at all in their service life-time. This means that a costly and time consuming, but currently necessary procedure will be cut out (Five years in some cases), meaning that re-fits will be shorter and for cheaper general maintenance. Therefore, the numbers available for active service won?t change at all, so any fears about platform distribution, are misguided. Also these will be designed to carry and use the Tomahawk block III cruise missile, unlike the Swiftures and the Trafalgra?s which needed a re-fit to make them TLAM capable. I shouldn?t think that the Tomahawk block IV will require much work to install into the Astutes armoury; I should imagine that it will be its CMS that will see the changes. Also, the Astutes will require less Submariners to operate them, freeing up crews and hopefully giving them more time for R&R. In global terms, In my opinion the Astute will only be bettered by the USN next generation SSN, the Virginia Class NSSN. In Britain?s position, this will only cement the Royal Navy?s dominance over anything Europe has, as the Astute will be far bigger, have far more firepower and be far more advanced than anything any other European navy has. Which when you consider the quality of the British submariner crews, suggests that Royal Navy isn?t missing out. I hope I?ve helped you out, Rule Britannia may no more, as its his facility that there being built at, although I don?t think he has much to do with the design for British Subs.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:UK Subs 7/24/2004 11:06:26 AM

Quote Reply

Nemesis1 RE:UK Subs 7/24/2004 2:54:46 PM

I havent seen any posts from him for a while. However in a war of attrition the UK will be at disadvantage with the cuts. Any additional info would be helpful Nemesis

Quote Reply

elcid RE:UK Subs 7/25/2004 7:52:52 AM

The only problem with the argument about numbers - which may be valid in terms of number on station in peacetime - is that there are not enough to begin with. And big is not always better in submarine warfare. While it does tend to make a boat easier to quiet, more habitable and able to carry more weapons and electronics, it also makes it harder to accelerate, unable to operate in a greater number of areas, and more expensive. RN seems to imitate USN in this regard. But it may not result in greater combat effectiveness. I for one classify the French SSNs as potentially superior in a real fight. They have taken a radical step neither the USN nor RN have chosen to do - one that means the boats are much quieter in combat: French submarines fight with reactors shut down. Smaller boats and greater relative battery size means they can maneuver better on batteries. Smaller boats mean they are able to be effective in significantly shallower water. And nuclear propulsion still gives them unlimited range. RN may have been wiser to adopt the French solution, with US weapons, than this one.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust French Subs 7/25/2004 8:46:33 AM

A smaller hull generally acts as a more ready attenuator, so, there are pros and cons for this, and it all gets down to the intentioned tasking and deployment issues. On another note, I would rate a Brit sub driver (in a larger boat), a golden league ahead of a French sub driver in a smaller sized vessel. In fact IMHO, I'd rate them as the best in the world at SSK work.

Quote Reply

Nemesis1 RE:Uk Subs 7/25/2004 12:33:03 PM

So would most. UK divers are trained to a hyigher standard than any other crews in the world. Doe any1 have any info on the numbers and types of subs by 2008, 2010 Thanx Nemesis

Quote Reply

elcid I'd rate them as the best in the world at SSK work. 7/26/2004 2:44:01 AM

This is not good. The Brits are the NATO ASW specialists. And they did fight a modern naval war against - count them - ONE modern submarine. They expended practically all ASW ordnance in the RN (of the surface ship variety) in aproximately 200 attacks. Only ONE of those attacks actually had the sub as an object (a bad year for whales no doubt). And that attack failed to damage the sub or prevent it shooting - only good luck in the form of broken wires saved the target. But while several RN SSNs were present - and while the force was commanded by a former sub driver (presumably meaning he used his submarine assets competantly) - not one time did a British sub detect the elusive enemy - even if its target was well understood. IF the RN is the best, and they came up with such a dismal score over two months of operations, what chance have we, now we have got rid of all ASW systems on the S-2s, cut the S-3 force, and gotten rid of almost all our ASW destroyers (the last pays off in 2006). There is also no replacement for our ASW frigates, going away rapidly, and almost no ASW helos on a CVN any more (typically 4). I won't go into the decline in our ASW training - see the Proceedings for the depressing details. Modern submarines are very very hard to find when they do not want to be found/

Quote Reply

Nemesis1 RE:I'd rate them as the best in the world at SSK work. 7/26/2004 2:47:39 AM

Although it is terrible (the cuts) they are only getting rid of 3 type 23 ASWs not the whole fleet Nemesis

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust I'd rate them as the best in the world at SSK work. 7/26/2004 3:10:31 AM

The decline in core ASW competency is well known, various black shoes have articulated their concern within Proceedings etc... If anything the rapid growth of Chinese sub builds has raised the lantern. I don't think it will be a continuing problem. The US has various choices, increase sub builds to top and tail the principle chinese sub threats (and that means to operate in pairs as the Chinese have this vision of using one as the bait and the other as the shooter), increase the airborne long range fixed wing ASW footprint, increase the CSF endemic assets, re-focus on building competent ASW capability back into the skimmers or meet them on a head count (which would require a 2-3:1 leverage opportunity - and that is highly unlikely unless there is a Sino-US conflict of irreversible and snowballing proportions. Simplistically speaking (to draw a broad brush picture), the US and it's allies have made some pretty daft decisions re the fleet and warfighting composition since the decline of a Soviet threat - and it's pretty close to the stuff ups that many nations made in the aftermath of WW1 and the League. As a word of caution, the ASW results and Sub training results don't get aired in public. The USN/RAN/RN/SN results of Western Australia in Australias sub warfare/training area never get aired. - The other fundamental issue of change is that the willingness for the USN to undertake perisher is a monumental step - as it shows that warfighting and tactics has taken priority over engineering. That can only be a good thing. Small steps still complete the longest journey.

Quote Reply

1 2