The Future of the Royal Navy and the 'Hybrid Navy' Initiative - News, Platforms, Development and Speculation

Stellerfella said:
You mean the sonar 2176 made by Thales?
Click to expand...
In this case it's Thales UK, who are entirely British. The Flash dipping sonar is a mixture, CAPTAS-4 is French but our version has been adapted by Thales UK and their hull sonars and the rest of the CAPTAS line are French.

European conglomerates are an absolute mess to try to work out who does what and who has access to what information, but the RN's submarine sonars are one of the easier things to identify as being UK only.
 
TorpedoJ said:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/09/chinas-new-giant-submarine-drone-mothership/
Never seen anything like this before. Like a floating shiplift. Wonder if Atlantic Bastion demands something similar?
View attachment 823861
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I do think we'll need new auxiliaries going forward, and I reckon you could use something like this for the same role as RFA Proteus.

That said, the four amphibious transport ships could fit a couple of smaller unmanned submarines instead of their landing craft.

Rather than investing in Norwegian Standard Vessels, as Kongsberg reports the UK as doing, we should be looking at something between those ships and this Chinese vessel.
 
News on RN nuclear submarines:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/steel-to-be-cut-on-first-new-generation-british-attack-sub/

Steel to be cut for the first SSN-AUKUS next year, but a decision on numbers will not be made until 2028.

https://www.navylookout.com/foundat...on-of-the-royal-navy-nuclear-submarine-fleet/

More material here, with a link to the annual update report to parliament. There's stuff on which bits will be coming from where and so on.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...-057_DNE_2026_Annual_Update_to_Parliament.pdf

The 2026 report is the most specific statement of intent yet for SSN-AUKUS, with dates, money and named facilities. The decisions that will determine whether the RN gets the size of fleet it has been promised have been delayed. Sustaining the 18-month drumbeat over the long term will require joined-up planning across SSN-AUKUS, Dreadnought and the eventual Dreadnought successor.

The article outlines how the management of the interrelated Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS programmes and industrial strategy should avoid the long delays of the Astute programme.

The first AUKUS-SSN will be entering service in the late 30s. The first Astutes will begin retiring years before the first of the new boats are in service, leading to a shrinking fleet, though they promise an increased production rate, with a new boat every 18 months.

The figure of “up to 12” SSNs promised in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) of June 2025, and reaffirmed in the Defence Investment Plan on 30 June, does not appear in the DNE report. The document refers only to an expanded SSN fleet, with decisions on the total number of submarines expected before D2L2 ends. Ministers restated the 12-boat ambition to the Defence Committee in June, so the omission may reflect drafting rather than policy.

Less time running the reactor at sea means less fuel burned from the PWR2’s Core H, which is designed to last the life of the boat. How long each Astute can serve will depend on both the condition of the hull and the fuel left in the core, and both may be in better shape than the boats’ ages suggest.

<sarc> If none are at sea, then they'll last a lot longer, won't they? </sarc>
 
Reuben James said:
Very nice, hopefully we can clear this up then. I'm prepared to eat my words :)
Click to expand...
Seems I was right
In response to your question, the Minister’s use of the term ‘augment’ referred to the potential procurement of complete Australian radar systems to enhance UK capability. As part of this work MOD will consider how any future procurement could leverage advanced technology already developed in Australia while creating opportunities for UK industry through co-development, co-production, component manufacture, integration and through-life support; providing a significant growth opportunity for the UK.
Click to expand...
 
Stellerfella said:
So is there anything to suggest that the companies and their technologies are "siloed"?
Click to expand...
That there are individual French and British sites which are descended from different companies, and that nuclear submarine construction is one of the things countries are most secretive about.
Any form of cross dependence would be bad for both parties, and the French in particular are prickly about having an entirely independent deterrent.
 
Just releasing that amount of weight from a small submarine is not a trivial issue.
 
What worries me is that if the AUKUS nuclear submarines use American systems and can't use Spearfish torpedoes, that would be a real pain.
 
TorpedoJ said:
That there are individual French and British sites which are descended from different companies, and that nuclear submarine construction is one of the things countries are most secretive about.
Any form of cross dependence would be bad for both parties, and the French in particular are prickly about having an entirely independent deterrent.
Click to expand...
So that would be a no then.
TorpedoJ said:
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-n...ine-fires-heavyweight-torpedo-in-aukus-trial/
I didn't know Excalibur was going to be used for this sort of thing. Mk48 was used, and must have been carried externally somehow as it's too big for the cubic payload bay.
Click to expand...
You can clearly see it in the video attached underneath Excalibur
 
zww11455 said:
What worries me is that if the AUKUS nuclear submarines use American systems and can't use Spearfish torpedoes, that would be a real pain.
Click to expand...
Primarily it's down to the plug interface location in the tube. It's fairly trivial to produce adaptors and extensions.

Nothing beats good design.
 
zen said:
Primarily it's down to the plug interface location in the tube. It's fairly trivial to produce adaptors and extensions.

Nothing beats good design.
Click to expand...
Always good to have both options as well, so that a submarine can be easily rearmed.

We should also be looking at lightweight torpedoes for knocking out drone submarines, or cheaper heavyweight torps for merchant ships.
 
Reuben James said:
Always good to have both options as well, so that a submarine can be easily rearmed.

We should also be looking at lightweight torpedoes for knocking out drone submarines, or cheaper heavyweight torps for merchant ships.
Click to expand...
Might be worth going for a brakestop-esque weapon as you describe, slower and less refined against advanced countermeasures to save money relative to Spearfish. Torpedo room space might be a concern but even in an absolute best case 'happy time' scenario would an SSN fitted with VLS be able to fire 20 torpedoes at difficult targets in a single cruise?

If it's too big a problem might torpedo storage be arranged so that a half-length weapon be possible? Or perhaps in the least dangerous scenarios VLS could be used for extra torpedo stowage.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Might be worth going for a brakestop-esque weapon as you describe, slower and less refined against advanced countermeasures to save money relative to Spearfish. Torpedo room space might be a concern but even in an absolute best case 'happy time' scenario would an SSN fitted with VLS be able to fire 20 torpedoes at difficult targets in a single cruise?

If it's too big a problem might torpedo storage be arranged so that a half-length weapon be possible? Or perhaps in the least dangerous scenarios VLS could be used for extra torpedo stowage.
Click to expand...
I mean, twenty heavyweights is enough to task two to every active submarine in the Northern Fleet. I'm sure they could drop a few in exchange for something equivalent to the American RaPTor.

I reckon twenty is pretty conservative, as well. Virginias are about 8000t and equipped for 25 tube-launched weapons. SSN-A will likely be >10,000t, so I wouldn't be surprised if 30 or more weapons could be packed.

Northrop Grumman claim their Very Lightweight Torpedo (VLWT) could be packed in numbers of up to 10 per torpedo tube. Those are already integrated into AN/BYG-1 and can also function as a hard-kill countermeasure, which is very cool. I know the Russians have a similar system on their Gorshkovs, but I don't know about Western systems.
 
Reuben James said:
I reckon twenty is pretty conservative, as well. Virginias are about 8000t and equipped for 25 tube-launched weapons. SSN-A will likely be >10,000t, so I wouldn't be surprised if 30 or more weapons could be packed.
Click to expand...
The Seawolf class doesn't displace much more than the Virginias but has 8 tubes with 50 weapons. I don't know if that many would be necessary if the submarine also has VLS for Tomahawks (or some other cruise missile).
 
Not James Stockdale said:
The Seawolf class doesn't displace much more than the Virginias but has 8 tubes with 50 weapons. I don't know if that many would be necessary if the submarine also has VLS for Tomahawks (or some other cruise missile).
Click to expand...
The Astutes can carry 38 weapons with a mix of Tomahawks. It would seem reasonable to drop down only to 30ish with the renewed focus on ASW, plus 28 Tomahawk or equivalent in the VLS. That leaves a reasonable set for North Atlantic ASW missions- I don't know what policy is for the expected number of torpedoes per engagement is but by SSN-AUKUS we ought to be able to surge two in a hot Atlantic war and that's a lot of kills.

Reuben James said:
I'm sure they could drop a few in exchange for something equivalent to the American RaPTor.
Click to expand...
Another interesting American development is Anduril's Copperhead, which are designed to be much cheaper than conventional torpedoes and have a wider range of possible roles. An all-electric propulsion weapon might be interesting as it would be able to stop and loiter for extended periods unlike Spearfish, which is gas turbine powered.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Are the torpedoes not themselves buoyancy neutral? So a cradle release wouldn't do anything.
Click to expand...
IIRC they're just slightly positively buoyant, actually. At least the Extorps are, and IIRC extorps are absolutely identical in weight and balance to warshots.

At least once the fuel burns off.


Not James Stockdale said:
The Seawolf class doesn't displace much more than the Virginias but has 8 tubes with 50 weapons. I don't know if that many would be necessary if the submarine also has VLS for Tomahawks (or some other cruise missile).
Click to expand...
The Seawolf class was designed when people weren't sure about the VLS.

But then again, 4 tubes and ~24 weapons is the same stows-per-tube as 8 tubes and 50 weapons.

These days, I wouldn't expect more than 6 tubes and ~36 weapons in the torpedo room, plus VLS.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The Seawolf class was designed when people weren't sure about the VLS.

But then again, 4 tubes and ~24 weapons is the same stows-per-tube as 8 tubes and 50 weapons.

These days, I wouldn't expect more than 6 tubes and ~36 weapons in the torpedo room, plus VLS.
Click to expand...
There's a pretty significant difference between target density in a place like the Norwegian Sea, where the RN SSN-AUKUS might be fighting, and somewhere like the South China Sea, where the Australian SSN-AUKUS would be. Electric swim-out ROV torpedoes like the Anduril Copperhead family would be safer to use (no torpedo tube launch transients) and could provide more options against smaller surface targets, so there's more chance of actually working through the entire magazine before being sunk by Chinese ASW. If you're deep into the SCS, ECS, or TST, missiles would be the last thing you would want to shoot. The Astute has plenty of capacity to play tag with the Northern Fleet, but in the Pacific there are going to be thousands of Chinese ships and boats to sink. That being said, a VLS would be extremely useful in less contested areas or in other wars that the SSN-AUKUS might be involved in.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
There's a pretty significant difference between target density in a place like the Norwegian Sea, where the RN SSN-AUKUS might be fighting, and somewhere like the South China Sea, where the Australian SSN-AUKUS would be. Electric swim-out ROV torpedoes like the Anduril Copperhead family would be safer to use (no torpedo tube launch transients) and could provide more options against smaller surface targets, so there's more chance of actually working through the entire magazine before being sunk by Chinese ASW. If you're deep into the SCS, ECS, or TST, missiles would be the last thing you would want to shoot. The Astute has plenty of capacity to play tag with the Northern Fleet, but in the Pacific there are going to be thousands of Chinese ships and boats to sink. That being said, a VLS would be extremely useful in less contested areas or in other wars that the SSN-AUKUS might be involved in.
Click to expand...
We're still talking 6 weapons per tube. Maybe 7, if you load the tubes first and then fill the torpedo room. Note that filling the tubes for more stows doesn't leave you a lot of room to swap around what's in the tubes.

Because we are still talking about needing to engage a variety of targets.

For example.
  • A missile sub has a dozen ish torpedoes and only torpedoes, the only threat to an SSBN is an SSN (edit) and SSBNs aren't supposed to go hunting. Self defense only.
  • The Cold War loadouts for a Fast Attack were a couple of SUBROCs, ~4 Harpoons, ~4 Tomahawks, and ~10-14 Torpedoes.
  • The VLS boats would gain more torpedoes in exchange for the Tomahawks. The reason for the low number of Tomahawks is because a boat with 4 torpedo tubes can only volley 3 Tomahawks at a time. The last tube is saved for a torpedo as an emergency warshot because you got surprised during the launch.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about the masts but a lot of the discussion seems to mix systems in the same I-MAST (integrated mast) solutions. Sea Master 100 goes on I-MAST 100 which is for corvettes. Sea Master 400 goes on I-MAST 400, for large OPVs. Sea Fire goes on I-MAST 500, for destroyers and frigates. There is also a tiny I-MAST 50 version. The competing products is SLIM by Saab and PSIM by Naval Group. Japan and India have UNICORN (Unified Complex Radio Antenna)/NORA 50. South Korea has another that I cannot remember the name.. China has something equivalent. But these syatems are extremely long lead times to build and manufacture. I don't see much variation in any orders by country except when it comes to ship class, because maintenance and support is not for the feint of heart.

While ARTISAN is old, it works and they can recoop them from retired ships. It seems odd to criticize them for various models going into MLUs and new builds, as they are not exactly obsolete.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom