HMS GLASGOW, the first Type 26 Frigate in build for the Royal Navy on the Clyde, is starting to look shipshape.
The Type 26 represents the future backbone of the Royal Navy and eight of the class are planned, starting with HMS Glasgow.
The construction of #HMSGlasgow for the @RoyalNavy continues to develop at pace. With all units of HMS Glasgow in build, we’re sharing the progress on our forward block which continues to take shape with the recent addition of the lower bow unit #26on26 #type26 pic.twitter.com/GScra61VHk
— BAE Systems Maritime (@BAES_Maritime) October 26, 2020
The forward block will be joined with the other half of the ship later this year.
According to the Royal Navy:
“Just over half of HMS Glasgow is now complete or under construction, out of eight planned vessels in the class (all are named, three have been ordered, two are in build at Govan – HMS Cardiff is No.2).
Once the fore and aft sections are complete they will be joined on the hard in front of the block hall, before the bridge/main mast are craned into place. The completed ship will then be ‘launched’ by being lowered into the Clyde via a barge, then towed downstream to BAE’s yard at Scotstoun to complete fitting out.
The 26s replace the ‘souped-up’ anti-submarine Type 23s which will begin retiring from service later this decade after more than 30 years on patrol, while still to come are five Type 31 general duty frigates which have yet to be ordered/named and will replace their five Type 26 counterparts like for like.”
The eight ships will replace the eight dedicated anti-submarine Type 23 frigates which will reach the end of their active lives by the mid 2030s. In addition to the Clyde build Type 26, five Rosyth built Type 31 general purpose frigates are intended to replace the general-purpose Type 23s currently in service and also coming towards the end of their long careers.
3 operatives doing a fine job ……no rush here……haha
I was going to say!
Its interesting Babcock are saying they will build the T31 without scaffolding and join section undercover as I understand. Some difference in approach and seems the lower value contract of the T31 appears to be driving more efficient working practices and investment.
If we had ordered the original 13 type 26 BAe would have built a covered hall to build and assemble the vessels but it made no sense to invest the money for just 8 ships built over 15 years .
8 Ships is still a significant order,they should have been Built with Practices and Efficiencies in the same way they would have used if they were Building 13.
It made no economic sense to do so , BAe is a private company it is not in the business of doing what is good long term it is only interested in the bottom line .
It is typical uk government procurement no long term commitment.
Read in my Sunday Times this week that Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson are battling over funding for Defence. Boris wants a 3-year funding plan and Rishi a rolling 12-month funding. Clearly, funding Defence on a 12-monthly basis is incredibly stupid – Defence can’t run like that. But Sunak says he can’t afford long-term funding due to the huge amounts of dosh being splashed out during the current virus situation.
When they are elected for a 4 year term they should spend the first year getting the house in order from the previous administration then have a 3 year budget for all of their priorities and limits on how much they can borrow so they can’t pass their liabilities onto future governments and generations.
Exceptions can be made for things like Covid but that is it.
Great in theory however all capital expenditure is by definition a commitment for the long term. There would be no ships, aircraft, hospitals, Schools or in fact anything very much it were not for long term expenditure.
As I understand it 12 month budgets have been roundly criticised and have led to short term savings that end up costing more in the long term. The gov have created many billions to fund COVID rescues properly funding defence shouldn’t be beyond them. If anyone wants to talk about government borrowing please first ask from where has it been borrowed.
Thanks, BB85 and Nicholas. You know that. I know that. They know that. But politics and common sense have never comfortably side by side, whatever the government. I despair sometimes…
‘never sat…’
But Babcock is a private company and has a 1.25b order for just 5 ships and is investing in covered hall for 2 ships, digital dock yard and pulse lines. BAe has 8 ship at a 1b a pop. Go figure.
You are mistaken, only 3 Type 26 have been ordered.
Still 3 billion quid worth compare to 1.25 for the T31. imo different companies different outlooks.
Not different outlooks by the company. BAe put a bid in with their Leander concept for type 31.
Simply different design requirements being put out by the RN.
Well my opinion is BAe have always looked at the MoD funding RnD and in this case a Frigate Factory. Babcock on the other hand have decide to invest and with the efficiency it bring win more orders. Babcock have partnered with OMT who don’t just design ships but help yards build efficiently. Lastly BAe never really wanted T31 to go ahead, their original comments were they would not get involved in a race to the bottom. T31 has turned out to far from that imo.
But it did go ahead, and they did bid on it.
Arguements of whether it turned out to be a race to the bottom can be turned either way. Personally I’d agree that it didn’t, but I know a lot of people who are outraged by the idea of a Frigate with 12 CAMM, 2x 40mm and 1x 57mm… and lets face it, had BAe won the contract, and make no mistake, Leander was a viable candiadate, there would have had to be investment into Cammel Lairds facility to get them in on time.
Again, the 2 orders are just very different requirements, rather than 2 very different outlooks from companies.
Three in the first batch. Then five more.
Maybe, no guarantees.
Given that the long order items for the next 5 ships have been already ordered, I think it’s pretty safe that we’ll get more than 3.
It has to do with the footprint of the shipyard there is more space at Rosyth than Govan and BAe wanted to build it at Scotstoun which is more suited to a covered yard than Govan .
It is all down to the money and the fact the MoD has failed to commit to at least 8 type 26 , they might have named them all but they have only committed to 3 so far with cold hard taxpayers cash .
The covered hall at Appledore could have built the type 26 using modern build practices but Appledore is not Scottish.
I am sure that the Appledore shed is not big enough.
The Appledore shed is big enough they have built ships as big as 11,000 tonnes in it .
Just more political to build the type 26 in Govan even when it dose not make financial sense .
For me just appears Babcock with a smaller value order are investing and want to secure future orders through efficiencies and a competitive product. BAe wanted more money before committing to any investment. BAe have very rarely invested back into product and looked to the government to fund RnD.
I imagine Babcock is planning for international orders to build more ships and/or follow-on UK orders.
Looking that way they have 30+ expressions of interest from foreign Navies, if they can get the build productivity to the target level they’ll should secure that drum beat of orders that is so often talked about and not rely on the UK government for the yards future.
Let’s hope so.
You might be interested to see this, It’s an animation of the expansion to the Osborne South Shipyard here in Oz for the construction of the Hunter FFGs:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=obZ6hTMnHlE
The expanded facilities shown in the animation have just been completed and significantly add to the existing facilities that were used for the Hobart DDGs and currently being used for construction of two OPVs.
To the north of the shiplift is the Osborne North Shipyard that was used for building the Collins class subs (now used for their full cycle docking), construction should also start soon on new expanded facilities for the Attack class subs.
One more thing, the whole site is owned by the Oz Government, not by the ship and sub builders, in effect the facilities are leased to the builders for their respective projects.
Cheers,
Ian, our politicians here in Oz aren’t much better in many respects, but Defence policy and Defence spending is pretty much a bipartisan approach these days by the two major political parties.
In recent times it’s become ‘electorally smart’ for the Government to support two major shipbuilding sites, plus other local defence manufacturing projects. Defence spending continues to increase, despite CV.
Jobs, jobs, jobs! Wins elections these days, or keeps you in power.
Cheers,
John N….fantastic facility you’ve got there…..we’ve got Steve , Bill and Mac …..and some scaffolding……..and the sun shines……
Looks like they are building the T31 not the T26 in the video!
Waddi, the video was created in 2017, about a year before the T26 was selected as the design for the Hunter class.
It’s just a CGI animation to show the new infrastructure.
Aha thanks very much.
Incredible, if we are to keep up with China this is what we need.
It is more the toxic mix of political consideration in location of build, treasury cash flow shaping that lead to a very strange shaped ‘commercial’ contracts.
I too don’t understand why a relatively cheap building, that is my day job putting up very big sheds, isn’t put up to do the whole thing indoors. For all it’s virtues Scotland isn’t known for long warm dry days in winter! The efficiency gain would pay for it in spades.
Don’t underestimate how much a penny pinching civil service mentality still pervades parts of BAe.
If you look at press releases from 2012 there was ‘talk’ of building 18 T26!!
The T26 will be built in two halves completely under cover. The halves will then be wheeled outside for joining and superstructure added.
The reason for the two halves are that the Govan sheds are not long enough for the full ship and the sheds cannot be extended due to site limitations.
For 200 million, Bae would have redeveloped Scotstoun to include a full length shed and other facilities to create a modern “frigate factory”. However the Treasury refused to fund in the first contract even though the “factory” would have saved enough money in the follow on contract to pay for itself. Bae were confident enough offer to build 8 ships for the price of 7 if they were ordered in one contract.
Yet another case where the Treasury placed short term cheapness over long term financial efficiency. In contrast to other warship building countries which do exactly the opposite.
Sorry why should the government fund and private companies expansion? BAe could have cut the dividend by a small fraction and funded the 200m themselves and had a more efficient yard. BAe now have a problem their will be a competition for the T45 replacement imo, they could be heading into that competition with far less efficient yard.
Who do you think is funding Babcock’s Type 31 shed? Comes out of the 1.25 billion contract. Same for Bae, was a line in their Type 26 contract that the Treasury refused to sign off.
No such thing as a free lunch. Money isn’t magicked out of thin air.
I don’t think that can be said for sure unless your privy to Babcock contracts. There’s several ways to fund investment. Right issues, debt, divided cuts or re invest profits.
Sure you can borrow money to build infrastructure but what do you think pays off the loan? No such thing as a free lunch.
Seem they are planning to drop out of the T46 contract almost by default. Screwing up warship building since Vospers innit?
They are actively working with the MoD on a contract for the remaining 5 T26. I assume your T46 was a typo.
Since when have the Government built infrastructure for a capital & profit rich entity like BAE? My goodness such entitlement.
No such thing as a free lunch.
I have asked this before but didn’t get a reply… has the contract for the final 5 of these ships been given to BAE, or will it go out for tender?
Neither. BAe owns the design so they will be building the last 5, but the contract isnt finalised until the first 3 are well under way. That way any tweaks needed can be made to the design and contract after lessons are learned.
That’s too bad, given what a good job Babcock seem to be doing I wish they could also get a crack at the Type 26.
Why? It’s not their design, they have no experience building the things. Ignoring the fact that if they wanted to build type 26 they’d either have to licensce the design off BAe or design their own type 26, why stop midway through a production and give it to a team that doesnt have 5+ years experience building the thing?
If the Government wanted to put it out to tender, who says they wont. They can declare a Covid emergency and just do it. Probably save 200m per ship which goes a long way to paying the legal costs or damages to BAE
Now you’re just being silly
I think you’d find that since we live under a country that prides itself on the rule of law we’d rapidly be giving back the designs…. and good luck doing buisness with BAe, one of the biggest defence companies in the world, after that.
Both UK Govt and Industry are not that clued up in regards to Infrastructure.
Look at the link to the Rheinmetall facility that has just opened in Australia.
When I left Oz in March 2015, it was a thought to built a facility to service the vehicles delivered under the L121 contract. They then got awarded the L400 contract and have built an amazing facility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKIBqLdj9b4
Servicing vehicles is a tad different to building £1bn + Frigates
Robert, the new Rheinmetall facility in Queensland is not just a ‘servicing’ facility (it will eventually be used for sustainment and fleet upgrades), it’s current ‘primary’ purpose is for the manufacture and assembly of the Australian Army’s new Boxer CRV fleet, it’s also being used for the manufacture and assembly of the new heavy truck fleet, both multi billion dollar projects.
And if Rheinmetall wins the IFV competition against the South Korean offering, it will be used for the manufacture and of assembly of the Lynx KF41 IFV fleet, again another multi billion dollar project.
Cheers,
“Type 31 general duty frigates which have yet to be ordered/named and will replace their five Type 26 counterparts like for like.”
Is this correct? Has T31 not been ordered? Genuine question.
AFAIK the Contract for the T31 was signed last November.
T26 is a BIG ship. Lots of welding, sanding and painting to be done.
Might need more than 3 people to finish though…
I do wonder if these pictures are taken at the end of shifts rather than in the middle of the working day.
80-90% of the work is inside the visible hull or in other workshops dealing with stuff to be installed or added. The pic may have been taken during a break or just when few were visible.
There is really any need for lots of people to be crawling around on the outside of the blocks.
When making up blocks all the fitting out is done elsewhere . So the internal compartment structure is in place. Pipework, electrical cable trays, bulkhead connectors, door frames are all done at the initial panel, and unit build.
The cost of installing and fitting out increases dramatically when you try to do installation works after panels turn to units and units to blocks. Its something like a 25% cost increase between each stage hence you fit out panels and units as much as possible before they become blocks and blocks become super blocks..
Access on panels is easy, no staging required you can walk around it and if necessary you turn the panel with a crane to gain access to hard to reach areas. A crane is far cheaper and quicker than getting in a crew of stagers and a few hundred cubic meters of staging to acheive a short 1 meter weld or cut a hole for a cable run. Fitting out units sometimes needs staging but usually not a lot as most of the work has already been done on the panels.
When you marry up blocks thats when the welders turn up to stick them together and you see lots of people crawling around. Even when they finish you will have NDT bombing the welds for days afterwards. You wont see many people around then either X rays and dockies dont mix.
Regarding the external staging…its horses for courses. .Either use staging or mobile platforms/scissor lifts for access. Its worth noting that no blasting or painting has been done yet. it looks like they are using weld through primer on the steel so you dont remove it before welding…just weld directly on it and then put a holding primer paint over it until final painting begins. Again thats a big saving in man hours and material costs.
I suspect final painting will happen outside when both parts fore and aft are finally stuck together. On a vessel of that size final blasting and say a 5 coat paint system should take 10-14 days to complete max.
By and large for a nation of our size we do have sufficient surface warship build capability taking into account current infrastructure projects and future potential sites.
By a significant margin, however, we do not have adequate attack submarine construction facilities, with just Barrow fulfilling that role whilst also having to take on the deterrent boat program. The RN is conceding that, whilst the Astutes in particular are a match for any peer, the number of boats that Russia is fielding in the North Atlantic and close to our shores can currently run rings around us. Russia, of course, is not the sole significant adversary on the horizon, notwithstanding factoring in the US which needs to cover the Pacific as well. We’re going to need another construction hub, in my opinion. That or buy in elsewhere – if there is such an option with other NATO yards facing similar constraints soon, presumably.
Full marks to the effort by the Australians who not only fully recognise their near neighbour risk but are committed to addressing it so impressively. No doubt it helps to have what appears to be adequate development land readily to hand. I keep referring back to the H&W site, Belfast, for the long term. The assumed need for more subs would no doubt go a long way towards assuring the investment justification. That, coupled with relatively close proximity to Barrow could enhance the allure.
Regards.
How many subs can Russia actually deploy, there are an additional 50 hunter killers from the US plus 6 from France. I know the US will have to deploy additional numbers to the Pacific but we are still bound to out number Russia. I do agree the UK strategy seems to be to maintain a steady build of 4 ssbn and ideally 8 ssn in a continuous 25 year loop. So around 1 delivery every 2 years.
Russia has something like 10 attack subs Sierras, akulas and Victor’s . They are all over 20 years old. The Victor’s are at the end of their lives.
5 Cruise missile chuckers… Oscar boats again 20 + years old.
The bombers are mostly 20-30 year old delta boats. You can count maybe 6 kilo boats for the SSK s.
They are modernising with something like 5 new builds coming on line.
Worried? Hardly… The Russian subs and surface forces are configured for Bastion deployments in the Kara and Barents sea. In a real world conflict they wouldn’t last long in the North Atlantic.
Sosus is back up. Astute, Seawolf and Virginia boats along with French boats and SSKs from everyone else would make short work of anyone that came outside of the Bastion… And that’s not countingASW aircraft and surface units that would also come out to play wack a sub in the GIUK gap.
Russia has more SMs then you quote, so suspect that you are referring to available units across both North and PAC Flts. To be fair, its difficult to know even roughly how many are front line ready units.
Think you are being a tad unkind as to their capabilities, weo V3 which are at end of their lives, the A/S and O class are good boats with highly competent drivers. Agree that they are probably not now in the same LGE as NATO units, but that’s more down to age not lack of capabilities.
WEO S class they all conduct extended OOA deployments, money permitting, always cause a headache when they do, fortunately it’s not that often, but the ocean is big, were not at our cold war level of preparation, so lots of places to hide.
.
Gav my man ,not sure what you’ve been reading but Australia and submarines isn’t exactly a Mary Poppins success story ? . The Collins class has been beset with issues from the get go.
‘Full marks to the effort by the Australians who not only fully recognise their near neighbour risk but are committed to addressing it so impressively.”
Whether Australia recognises it or not no matter how linguistically supercalifragilisticexpialdocious the language and rhetoric employed to tell everyone this is what they are going to do …eh well it’s just some words Until converted into actions i:e operational subs it’s meaningless. As public enemy stated on several occasions “ Don’t believe the hype”
The programme costs for replacement subs has gone from 50 billion ASD to 80 billion It’s now 14- 15 years behind schedule this is beyond the Collins class existing lifecycle , the French design is for nuclear and Australia has asked for diesel so nobody is even sure they will work out as intended.
I’m not knocking Australia the dithering and problems they are experiencing is no different to any nation when it comes to procurement and delivery. Every military suffers from it including Russia.
The RN sub programme is sufficient in my armchair opinion. Astute seems to be over the worst of the initial problems and is going in right direction. Slow and steady wins the race.
Mate, what you’ve said about the problems with the Collins class subs is completely out of date.
Yes there were a lot of problems in the early days, no doubt about that, but they’ve been long resolved, there were also problems with sustainment and availability, also resolved for most of the last decade.
As for extending their lives, they are in good material state and will be able to have an extra full docking cycle performed.
As for the alleged blowout in cost from A$50b to A$80b (it makes a good news headline), the fact is it’s not a blowout, it’s a different accounting method that the Government has applied.
The A$50b project cost was at the time expressed in ‘then year’ 2016 dollars, the A$80b is in ‘out-turned’ dollars when the project is completed in the 2050s. A 2016 dollar has to inflated to equal the buying power of a 2050s dollar.
As for the design of the Attack class, a lot of assumptions have been made that the Oz Government has asked for the nuclear bits to be chopped off and replaced with diesel bits and batteries, this is not true.
The French boat is a ‘reference’ design for the Attack class boats, in effect the design will be a new design, still complicated obviously, but compared to the German and Japanese offerings, which were both significant ‘upscaling’ of existing smaller boats, the French boats is of the approx same size and dimensions.
Cheers,
Yeah man I know the Collins issues are historic my point simplified was defence ministers/politicians making bold statements is just that “statements” no matter how good sounding.
That was all , I’m not knocking Australia .Hopefully your right the new design selection criticisms are incorrect . I suppose only the DOD really know the truth of where it’s at??
Hi Gavin……nearly finished reading the book Hunter Killers by Iain Ballantine …. there was a time when we had a really powerful submarine force…. I wonder who was responsible for its demise……such brave sailors…it is well worth a read
Demise?? Maybe you should read about the Astute class before making that kind of statement.
Hi Robert….. numbers of boats…..
Major then Blair. Wasn’t it 15 down to 10, then 8, then 7?
Fascinating book, Ian. Doesn’t seem that things are any less intent nowadays. On a wider front, are you aware of Ballantyne’s Warships IFR monthly mags?
Currently awaiting Norman Friedman’s British Cold War Subs for the technical input, but that’s got to be my combined birthday/Christmas present at fifty quid. Appears Covid has finally outmanoeuvered these submarines publication.
But what’s the point of building a 2nd submarine factory at huge cost l, when we don’t plan on ordering anymore boat’s. beyond 7 Attack boat’s and 4 Trident subs. And I’d bet serious money the amount of subs Russia can safely put to sea is a very limited number.
VSEL Barrow is the only yard licensed to install nuclear reactors in SMs in the UK, that’s why all the Nucs get built in Barrow. DDH is massive and can hold 2 building boats simultaneously, they just take a long time to construct.
Only other UK yard that has built SMs in the UK recently was Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, when they built the Upholders back in the early 90s, but the 1st one was built in Barrow I believe. So, we do have a yard that can build boats, allbeit only SSKs, but not the skilled workforce required to do so. Expect the facilities would also need an upgrade first, if HMG ever decided to go down the SSK route again.
Barrow can build more subs as it has in the past, the issue is a people shortage, not facilities which are actually impressive and could be enhanced further, unfortunately this is us reaping decisions sown 20+ years ago.
I personally don’t think astute replacement should be nuclear, if we have a suitable Alternative power plant, but that’s another discussion.
Barrow is the right place to build subs and I would like to see us get to 10 -14 astute replacements which can be done if we can get the pricing and scheduling committed to. Certainly won’t happen overnight wherever you build them
Agree Barrow is the place to build them, just saying that we could build elsewhere if required, with all that would entail.
RN are not going to move away from Nuc power anytime soon, as there is no alternative power source on the horizon which gives the same output as a Nuc plant, despite its cost.
Whilst a combination of Die/AIP/Battery, is the alternative route, despite being cheaper, the SM by and large quieter than Nuc vessels, they have nowhere near the required power output to conduct the tasks SSNs are given, or indeed to sustain them.
I personally would like us to supplement the Astutes with 5/6 SSKs with Lithium -ion battery’s using NCA technology, much like the Japanese have done with their remaining 2 Soryu boats and their followon class (SS 29).
This would free up the Astutes to do what they were designed for, and provide some much needed capabilities that the RN can not get anywhere else.
Your SSK’s would deliver 5% of the capability at 50% of the price of a nuke plus they would soak up more crew than is available.
Not gonna happen nor should it. Japan and Australia would love nukes but for different reasons are not able to acquire them.
Not right on capability or price, you’d get 3 for the price of one on price and approx 2-3 crews for one in Manning depending on size. As for capabilities, 50/60% is closer to the mark, and in the littoral SSKs are far more effective then SSNs, unless you have experience to the contrary!!
Absolutely right in one respect, it’s not going to happen. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t though, as both would complement each other?
You clearly do not know the cost of the Soryu class subs. Neither are you allowing for the first of class costs that would be incurred building a new class in the Uk. 3 for 1, gimme a break.
As for capabilty, call me back when your SSK can circle the world submerged, can operate for weeks under ice and can manage more than 20 knots for a couple hours. I won’t be holding my breath.
Imagine an SSK escorting a carrier group. The carrier would have to cruise at 4 knots so the sub could keep up and stop and wait for a replacement boat every 3 or 4 weeks. Laughable.
Germans already have air independent that can do what your noisy , loud , self targeting steam powered leviathans are capable of . Plus if you ever wondered why the P-8 does not have MAD and the US Navy is talking of other than Nuclear propulsion you might just see both program’s coincide . Seems Nuclear doth protest too….or should that read project too much Neutrinos .
I’m for both classes of sub, depending on what your priorities are, Sean. However, there is probably too much made of the noise of modern nuclear boats, especially. Clearly, the faster they go the noisier they become, but at stalking speeds there is little to choose. As I understand it, the only time a conventional sub will very likely be quieter is when it’s floating dead in the water, operationally, since the nuclear must use pumps to circulate the reactor coolant – but the pumps are not loud, even so.
I agree Gavin. Both have their strengths. If it comes to one or the other though then always the SSN for me. I’m very proud that we are amongst the select few nations to be able to field them.
I guess that the SSK is most useful for SIGINT and landing SBS? The RN’s SSN’s have this capability.
In accord, Danielle. Nuclear first choice. I feel any mix with SSK would come down to adequate numbers for national security in the event of aggression versus build cost / time constraints. Conventional possibly around third/half cost, reasonably?
Regards
@GG
@DM
Hi fellas, when in Battery or AIP mode, a SSK is significantly quieter then an SSN at any given speed, as you increase speed so does your noise signature. It’s purely down to the fact that an SSN has more moving parts to propel it through the water.
A reactor is basically a big kettle, Steam Generators convert water into Steam, driving the turbines which via a gearbox turns the prop shaft. Lots of noisy moving parts.
In Batt/AIP power is provided to a Electric propulsion motor which drives the shaft, much quieter to operate.
Both types can, broadly speaking do the same job, just that they do some better than others. Basically you are always trading capability against risk.
From a purely personal perspective, I believe we need both types 7-8 SSNs, and 5-6 SSKs, alas, too many issues will prevent this from happening.
Apologies in advance, it’s not meant to be condescending in any fashion.
@Deep32, you kinda glossed over there how AIP SSK’s generate the electricity that is “provided to an electric propulsion motor”. All the methods of doing that today involve making noise. “Lots of noisy moving parts”. And then there’s the need for theSSK to surface or snorkel every so often. That’s kinda noisy too.
SSK’s are submersibles. SSN’s are submarines.
Sorry forgot to add,
Pre nuclear power SS designator for submarines is Ship Submersible, which still applies to all SMs today.
Americans use this designator to imply the unit is a Submarine, then added N-nuclear, K- conventional and BN- ballistic nuclear. The GN designator infers that the vessel is guided missile nuclear. Hope that helps.
I was always under the impression that Ship Submersible is a backronym, and that the SS designator was the product of the duplication that occured during the 1920’s when the cruiser C was divided into CA and CL, resulting in the switch from D to DD and B to BB.
I’ve now heard both the Ship Submersible, and the doubling of letters explanation from multiple sources so… no idea which one to believe XD
Hi Dern, you are not wrong, in that you are referring to the American Hull naming convention, which changed things in the late 1920s with the proliferation of steel hulled warships- they apparently need an acronym for everything, and there are lots of them, basically covering everything that floats!!
The new acronym used by the USN for a AIP SM is SSP. The RN convention is still SSK, with no reference to AIP mode insofar that they are still SSK – Ship Submersible Conventional. We have adopted the latter convention of N- Nuc etc, all pretty confusing I agree, but we all like our own terms it appears.
Morning D32.
Not taken that way at all, no need to apologise for knowledge. My earlier conversations with you clearly show you know what you’re on about!
I myself see the SSN as a strategic asset.
I see a SSK as a nice to have as a supplement to the SSN, if funds were available, allowing what few SSN we have to stick to their main tasks and letting the SSK snoop around the littoral or land SF. We have Chalfont, but with so few Astute ideally they should be elsewhere.
Yes, in total agreement ref SSNs, they should remain the priority, but unfortunately we have too few, and now supplying one for CBG ops, they are stretched v thinly for all the tasking.
Realistically we will only have 5 available at best, poss only 4, with refit/maintenance requirements.
A small force of SSKs would reduce those pressures immensely, wouldn’t cost a terrific amount and potentially de-risk the Astute successor programme. Unfortunately other priorities will ensure this won’t happen. I can but dream……
Forgot to say in case it might be of interest, 04/11, 2100 on Chan 5 documentry about Trident and Op Resolute.
Obviously required viewing for sundogers like myself.?
I read a post from someone here that CG escort is a new role for the submarine service, and that previously our SSN were not used in conjunction with our Invincibles and their ASW groups, but in more of a lone wolf role operating in the far north vs Red SSN.
So as vital as protection of the QEC Group is, having one committed to the carrier isn’t ideal with so few. Plus the rumoured regular east of Suez deployment.
Need more boats!
In a nutshell yes! SMs have been deployed in all the last wars FI to GW, they were often the first to arrive, certainly in FI conflict, arrived way ahead of the TG, operating independently but in support of. No TG can keep pace with an SSN over long distances, they would shake themselves to bits.
These long/frequent deployments are what effectively killed the core life of the T boats early and is partially responsible for the mess we find ourselves in WRT numbers of SSNs.
Keeping one SSN in area effectively requires 3 units, 1 on station, 1 returning, 1 preparing to deploy. That’s why normal deployments 3-4 months went to 6, then 9 then finally to 1year deployments, to conserve Core Hours, or life if you will. Your last comment of first para is also correct.
Ron5, sorry for late reply, but just finished picking myself up off the floor and putting my ribs back into place after reading your post!!!
Clearly your knowledge in this area is severely limited, which, I don’t have a problem with, all you have to do is ask if you don’t know things, it’s called being polite!!!
Several years ago during a NATO exercise a SSK with only 5% – your words, of a SSNs capabilities, penetrated the ASW screen of an American Carrier BG and sank it!!! That includes getting past the US SSN riding shotgun. So clearly some capability then!!!
Where SMs are concerned, its horses for courses as to how they are employed, usually to their respective strengths and capabilities. An SSK wouldn’t be used in that way, any more then a SSBN would!
You might want to refrain from posting stuff where you are so clearly lacking in knowledge or experience! People would probably be less inclined to write you off as a total Delta Hotel. Just a thought.
Lots of insults, no facts.
Come back to me when your SSK is capable of catching a Russian SSN mid Atlantic. That’s assuming it has the range to get there which isn’t guaranteed.
No real need too fella, your experience of this is precisely zero, as has already been established on other sites you frequent. I don’t have a problem with you posting nor, for your lack of experience/actual knowledge on any subject either, whereas other people just might do! The fact that you may or may not agree is also irrelevant, as people who do know/have knowledge of the subject just try to help by adding pertinent information, unlike the views you post. Just something to consider perhaps!!
Hi Deep32, before you write Ron5 off. He does make a good point. The SSK when operating on batteries alone can be significantly quieter than a SSN. The incident with the Swedish Gotland class “sinking” the USS Ronald Reagan is a very good case in point.
However, the SSK will need to top up the batteries, otherwise it will be dead in the water. Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) can be broken down into a number of routes. The first as used by the Gotland’s is where you use a Stirling engine. The Swedes use stored liquid oxygen and burn it with Diesel to produce power. However, the exhaust is spent overboard, which generates noise. The second method is with hydrogen fuel cells. The German Type 212 series use these. It uses stored hydrogen gas and oxygen to feed the fuel cell. The only real noise are the pumps used for the gas. The water exhaust product is then spent overboard or used to for washing facilities. The Type 212 is technically the quieter of the two when “topping up” the batteries. With both systems, it allows the sub to remain submerged for up to 18 days. With duration being limited to the amount of stored liquid gasses.
I do admit however, the SSK even with AIP is not really suited to blue water long duration patrolling as carried out by SSNs. When operating close to shore or just beyond is where it is best suited, especially as they are generally a lot smaller. Although, as battery technology steadily improves, maybe we will see a combination of power production methods, i.e. nuclear + fuel cell + battery driving an electric propulsion motor. Though there is still the issue of making sure the “kettle” can still be cooled on just a convection circuit rather than running the pumps.
Hi Daveyb, yes you are correct in the way the two different AIP approaches work, I just didn’t want to get into writing an essay on the subject, as my original post was long enough.
Clearly both have moving parts, one more than the other as you point out, but both still have less moving parts and are significantly quieter then a engine room on a SSN, which was my point.
The other issue of AIP propulsion is that they can only recharge/top up the battery at a given rate, whereas the SSK can drain said battery at a greater rate then its ability to recharge it, limiting its capabilities to some extent.
Apologies for late reply, been busy with kids off school etc.
Worth remember that in both WWs and the Cold War we had different classes of subs. Why? because they were optimised for operations in different seas – home patrol to Med to Asia/Pacific, generally, with appropriate investment and capability levels. Hence my view that, if the security situation continues to deteriorate, we’ll need to follow a similar pathway to combine cost with numbers for a complementary subfleet.
Regards
Yes and now it’s 2020, the UK has two types of submarine and so does the US. If SSK’s had significant value, don’t you think the USN would have some?
That’s some pushback. I agree with BB that Russia cannot currently deploy more than around three attack boats in the North Atlantic, whilst surging up to ten periodically – probably what Radakin was referring to. Unfortunately, we can likely only deploy around three, reasonably, at any time barring a last resort. Can accept Deep/Pacman’s view that Barrow has sufficient capacity, but ‘slow’ is certainly the word for four boats over ten years.
All of the above is lamentable considering the rate at which the security situation appears to be deteriorating, and our previous Cold War credibility? A reversion to the Yanks can cover it does not seem sufficient for incursions around our own shores, though they seem to be trying judging by recent sub arrivals. No delusions over TAFK….’s remarks, but the JohnN forwarded video of a yard owned and developed by the Australian Government illustrates a commendable intent, to my mind.
Anyway, regards for the perspectives.
Concerning ships. Just seen a tweet that HMS Bristol is going.
Yep, is she not the last of the class of 82? Seems a shame that she was not considered to be a museum ship to commemorate the Falklands.
Fort Rosalie ( Grange ) and Fort Austin, I think they were there?
The most important Falklands vet for me is not a ship, but a helicopter!
And its still flying!
I know! It worries me, she has done her bit.
There was only one Type 82: Bristol. She played no significant part in the Falklands conflict.
That’s a bit harsh, as didn’t she fulfil her original role as being the guardship for the two carriers and then became the flagship?
Sad to see Bristol go.
In many ways it was the signpost for the ‘modernisation’ of the RN. Last vestige I’d what might have been with the CVA01 project.
Would we have learned the lessons we have now learned if CvA01 had been built and Corporate never happened?
Her hull must have been in the water for 50 years now so not surprised.
I joined her at 21 and am 70 today. Started to think we’d both go through the pearly gates at the same time.
On the image at the BAES Marine twitter feed, there is the next block to be welded. I understand it is the middle block hosting the 24-cell Mk.41 VLS, as the strike length cell will penetrate at least 3 decks.
Looking at the holes (which is partly covered by some soft bands), the VLS ends is very near the sidewall of the hull at their bottom. So, Mk41 is tightly packed.
I’m waiting for the photo of next-next block, which shall include holes for CAMM launcher. As it is as short as 3-4 m, just penetrating one and a half decks, it can be more easily packed elsewhere. So CAMM is not much tightly packed.
There,s an Elephant Elephant in the Room called “SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE”
Lots of scaffolding which seems difficult to justify as being necessary for the build process. Could it be there to deliberately obscure sight of the quiet hull form?