UK Submersible Ship Nuclear (Replacement) or SSN(R) Program,

Forest Green said:
timmymagic said:
This should have happened on Astute but it looks like SSN(R) will be a proper SSGN...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1616005220038836231
View: https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status/1616005220038836231?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Click to expand...
Let's make some of the tubes 34.5" diameter please.
Click to expand...
Keeping development costs down would seem to favor an approach like the USN, use a variant of the 87" Trident tube for your PT.
 
Moose said:
Keeping development costs down would seem to favor an approach like the USN, use a variant of the 87" Trident tube for your PT.
Click to expand...
Fair comment, if the vessel is large enough for that. 6 Trident tubes would hold plenty of LRHWs or Tomahawks.
 
The Trident tubes for the next gen US/UK SSBNs come in four packs and are common to both navies. Presumably any future submarines will utilize those, since it seems the trend line is ever larger hulls anyway. Having a common reactor and propulsion plant between the SSBN and SSN would provide a lot of maintenance and training savings.
 
Moose said:
Keeping development costs down would seem to favor an approach like the USN, use a variant of the 87" Trident tube for your PT.
Click to expand...
I suspect the RN may go for the Virginian Payload Module instead of the Common Missile Compartment. Essentially they'll be able to piggyback on a lot of the work on integrating weapons and UUV's that the USN will be doing.

BKh3lAL.jpg
 
As this is the thread for SSN(R) here's a couple of resources for people who want to look into it a little more...there isn't a huge amount out there at present...

The always excellent Covert Shores site's article from HI Sutton (who also wrote the article in Naval News in the first post, and has written in Forbes).

http://www.hisutton.com/Royal_Navy_Submarine_SSN-R.html

NavyLookout's article

www.navylookout.com

The future of Royal Navy attack submarines | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

And a lookback on some of the studies that led to Astute and SSN(R) from Richard Beedall's excellent site, that is sadly no longer with us (just the site, Mr Beedall is still around). A great resource and a fascinating look at plans for the RN from around the turn of the century.

Navy Matters | Future Attack Submarine

Navy Matters
web.archive.org

Navy Matters | Maritime Underwater Future Capability

Navy Matters
web.archive.org

One of the few RN releases

 
My initial thoughts were that it would be VPM, although if the USN was going to develop something different for SSN(X) then it might make sense to go with that. For now I'd say its a notional placeholder and we can safely say a VLS of some sort will be fitted.
This is actually quite a big deal, the first UK SSN that actually emphasises its strike role as opposed to be being a stealthy anti-submarine asset with a secondary strike role.
If it's a cutdown Dreadnought in basic design it should speed up development too.
 
Hood said:
My initial thoughts were that it would be VPM, although if the USN was going to develop something different for SSN(X) then it might make sense to go with that. For now I'd say its a notional placeholder and we can safely say a VLS of some sort will be fitted.
This is actually quite a big deal, the first UK SSN that actually emphasises its strike role as opposed to be being a stealthy anti-submarine asset with a secondary strike role.
If it's a cutdown Dreadnought in basic design it should speed up development too.
Click to expand...
I think we'll know fairly soon (well in the next year or 2) if it will be CMC as we'd probably have to order it soon, as the Columbia and Dreadnought Class CMC are being manufactured at present, we'd definitely want to be tagged onto the end of that order to keep costs down rather than resurrecting it further down the line with all of the resultant costs.
 
Before we consign this thread to history.
We should recognise that SSN(R) is the current slated to move aeay from the Swiftsure legacy features and hopefully incorporate the best concepts appropriate to tbe RN's needs and domestic capacity/technologies.

It's a Singular Worry, that in the enthusiasm for AUKUS and sourcing more from the US, we are undermining ourselves and the RN's ability to execute UK national interests.
We must not compromise our needs and independence any further than necessary.
 
zen said:
It's a Singular Worry, that in the enthusiasm for AUKUS and sourcing more from the US, we are undermining ourselves and the RN's ability to execute UK national interests.
We must not compromise our needs and independence any further than necessary.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that it's possible these days.
Yes the Thales Type 2076 is labelled as the "best in the world" but the Church Crookham site that used to be part of Ferranti Thomson Sonar Systems, that developed 2076 and other submarine towed and flank arrays is closed. The former Plessey Marine Research Unit at Templecombe still exists, but whether it has acquired Church Crookham's submarine expertise I don't know. Either way I fear that designing a successor to 2076 on these shores is gone.

Actually, thinking about it has it been stated what suite is going into Dreadnought?
 
Australian and American information suggests AUKUS SSN will have a US produced Combat System.
Whether this is going to be adapted to UK systems Sonar and Torpedos is another question.

It's all deeply disturbing how far we are letting domestic solution provision slip away.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Whether this is going to be adapted to UK systems Sonar and Torpedos is another question.
Click to expand...

The Collins class has Thales/Thomson Sinatra sonars mated to the UA CCS Mk 2 combat system, so that's not a problem. Of course, the reason the RAN wanted CCS was to use US Mk 48 torpedoes.
 
TomS said:
zen said:
Whether this is going to be adapted to UK systems Sonar and Torpedos is another question.
Click to expand...

The Collins class has Thales/Thomson Sinatra sonars mated to the UA CCS Mk 2 combat system, so that's not a problem. Of course, the reason the RAN wanted CCS was to use US Mk 48 torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Yes but the UK has Spearfish, which has different connector locations and thus different arrangements in the torpedo tubes to USN practice and is operated from all current RN SSNs.
Fitting SSN(R) for mk48 isn't logical for the UK.
 
zen said:
TomS said:
zen said:
Whether this is going to be adapted to UK systems Sonar and Torpedos is another question.
Click to expand...

The Collins class has Thales/Thomson Sinatra sonars mated to the UA CCS Mk 2 combat system, so that's not a problem. Of course, the reason the RAN wanted CCS was to use US Mk 48 torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Yes but the UK has Spearfish, which has different connector locations and thus different arrangements in the torpedo tubes to USN practice and is operated from all current RN SSNs.
Fitting SSN(R) for mk48 isn't logical for the UK.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course. I sort of lost track here, was thinking about the RAN, who probably don't want Spearfish. There's no fundamental reason a US combat system can't be made to work with UK torpedoes instead of US ones, but I would suspect that it's more likely that the UK and AU versions of the AUKUS SSN will have different combat systems, and that the UK version will probably be related to the next iteration of combat system for surface ships as well.

On sonar, surely it will be some variation on whatever they are using for the new Dreadnoughts. And I'd expect the RAN to use the same as the RN, because the US approach probably isn't compatible to the same hulls.
 
zen said:
Yes but the UK has Spearfish, which has different connector locations and thus different arrangements in the torpedo tubes to USN practice and is operated from all current RN SSNs.
Fitting SSN(R) for mk48 isn't logical for the UK.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that there was a common NATO 65 pin connector (this is especially important for Spearfish, given it was marketed to NATO navies and was designed to fit in a NATO-standard 21-in torpedo tube (British torpedo tubes are/were slightly longer than NATO standard) a legacy of the Cold War, when it was expected that British SSNs would be using American weapons once UK weapon stocks had been used up.
 
Does VLS also mean that sub-hunting aircraft / helos become vulnerable to pop-ups ??
 
Nik said:
Does VLS also mean that sub-hunting aircraft / helos become vulnerable to pop-ups ??
Click to expand...

Hasn't so far. There's always talk about maybe, someday, putting a SAM in a buoyant capsule and giving MPA a bad day, but no one has publicly fielded such a thing. (And you could just as well put such a weapon in a horizontal tube anyway).

For clarity, the canisters for submarine VLS are NOT the same as the ones for surface ships, so just having a VLS won't allow a sub to fire surface ship SAMs or anything like that.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
zen said:
Yes but the UK has Spearfish, which has different connector locations and thus different arrangements in the torpedo tubes to USN practice and is operated from all current RN SSNs.
Fitting SSN(R) for mk48 isn't logical for the UK.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that there was a common NATO 65 pin connector (this is especially important for Spearfish, given it was marketed to NATO navies and was designed to fit in a NATO-standard 21-in torpedo tube (British torpedo tubes are/were slightly longer than NATO standard) a legacy of the Cold War, when it was expected that British SSNs would be using American weapons once UK weapon stocks had been used up.
Click to expand...
I like your point and it raises a good question about the real world compatibility of such systems.

But it also raises other issues.
Reliance on supply from others, exposes you to their priorities. Which may not be yours.

So it is always better to rely on yourself. Having a domestic provision, ensures that however limited it might seem. At least it's ultimately under your control and your priorities.
 
Nik said:
Does VLS also mean that sub-hunting aircraft / helos become vulnerable to pop-ups ??
Click to expand...
The German IDAS system is torpedo launched.

But dipping helos are far more vulnerable than MPA, which may follow the P-8 trend of staying up high.

The ideal counter, and nightmare, for a dipping helo is something like the Aerovironment Blackwing UAS. It's been developed for the USN and is essentially a Switchblade 300 that is dispensed via the Subs existing countermeasure tubes. It's role is for recon....but imagine a Switchblade with the ability to search for a helo target using AI visual recognistion via the existing EO/IR sensor...

As soon as you hear a dipping helo in close, drop a Blackwing out and off you go...the helo will either get killed or have to disengage to run from the Blackwing.
 
Last edited:
Well Spearfish MOD1 has only just entered service/trials, so its highly likely they will be used on SSN(R). There seems no reason not to use it at this stage - the only caveat being that by the time SSN(R) enters service, probably nearer 2040, MOD1 will be 15 years old. You would hope for a MOD2 for then.

Mk 48 Technical Insertion 1 is meant to have IOC in 2027 but no idea if that will be made available under FMS. But again by 2040 it will be over a decade old and another improved exportable 'Mk 48 Mk 8' would be possible by then.

Who knows maybe there will be a new tri-national torpedo programme of larger diameter for these new generation subs?
 
timmymagic said:
Nik said:
Does VLS also mean that sub-hunting aircraft / helos become vulnerable to pop-ups ??
Click to expand...
The German IDAS system is torpedo launched.

But dipping helos are far more vulnerable than MPA, which may follow the P-8 trend of staying up high.

The ideal counter, and nightmare, for a dipping helo is something like the Aerovironment Blackwing UAS. It's been developed for the USN and is essentially a Switchblade 300 that is dispensed via the Subs existing countermeasure tubes. It's role is for recon....but imagine a Switchblade with the ability to search for a helo target using AI visual recognistion via the existing EO/IR sensor...

As soon as you hear a diping helo in close, drop a Blackwing out and off you go...the helo will either get killed or have to disengage to run from the Blackwing.
Click to expand...
But you've confirmed you are there in the area. Now the opposition can surge ASW into that area and your life gets harder.
 
Hood said:
Well Spearfish MOD1 has only just entered service/trials, so its highly likely they will be used on SSN(R). There seems no reason not to use it at this stage - the only caveat being that by the time SSN(R) enters service, probably nearer 2040, MOD1 will be 15 years old. You would hope for a MOD2 for then.

Mk 48 Technical Insertion 1 is meant to have IOC in 2027 but no idea if that will be made available under FMS. But again by 2040 it will be over a decade old and another improved exportable 'Mk 48 Mk 8' would be possible by then.

Who knows maybe there will be a new tri-national torpedo programme of larger diameter for these new generation subs?
Click to expand...
Attractive but ideally we need production lines in each member of AUKUS for that.
 
zen said:
But you've confirmed you are there in the area. Now the opposition can surge ASW into that area and your life gets harder.
Click to expand...
If you've got someone dipping in close proximity to you you're going to have a torp dropped on you very soon. If you can break contact thats very useful. Same story with IDAS..
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom