Is there a case for a US production SSK/SSP?

[jlvfr]

kato,

Taiwan comes to mind, but Indonesia, Brazil and Austraila among others have demonstrated interest. The Japanese can build their own, of course, but perhaps there are technology transfer possibilities to get some of their know how on a joint program. Singapore could be shopping at least a half a dozen hulls by the time a clean sheet US SSK/SSP was in the water. Several navies operate small numbers of relatively obsolete SSKs and will no doubt be shopping replacements as time goes by. India and Pakistan may represent opportunities to pry some business away from the Europeans in time. As political and economic fortunes of various actors evolve, there will likely be new opportunities as time goes by.

After reading Jane's pretty much every week for the last couple of years, I perceive that there is quite a bit of interest in cruise missiles and submarines, both of which US manufacturers can build in quantity and quality. I understand that there are very established vendors for SSK/SSP boats but I also understand that a lot of people with the wherewithal prefer to buy US weapons. I figure it might be worth considering trying to get more of their money pointed in our direction instead of another. Just because other people are doing it well does not mean we might not be able to do it just as good or better or different enough or friendly enough to generate customer interest.

Regards,

William

You're ignoring severall points:
-the US does not have modern SSK technology. Period. Air-independent propulsion systems are the key tech for the future, and all of it is non-US. Developing it from scratch would take years;
-cruise missiles are for (relatively) big boats. I doubt the average SSK would be able to carry any, at least in significant numbers;
-US construction costs; US-built equipment is expensive. And you're proposing designing, developing and building a completely new type of boat, of which the US has no experience/knowledge; and, unlike a larger class of surface ships, you wouldn't able to spread the costs over the class: the typical SSK client buys 2-4 boats.

If the US had stayed in the SSK race years ago then, sure, it might be able to compete in the open market. Now?

[Swift Sword]

US defense exports are a great way to help defray production costs, but only if there is already a domestic market for the product. Without strong interest or actual orders from the USN, nobody is going to throw down the kind of investment required to get into SSK production, particularly with the already competitive market.

SDP,

Agreed. We all remember the F20 program and a few others.

Pitching SSN exports to countries that could make use of their unique strengths (and that can afford to operate them) makes a lot more sense. The US has more experience building and operating SSNs than anyone else, and should play to that strength as more countries on the world stage acquire the resources to actually put them to use.

Basically agree and that makes sense. However, there are people that want to stand up submarine programs and raise cadre to make make the whole shtick stick. For them, we could offer an SSK/SSP to meet their current budgets and technical skills with the offer of providing SSNs at a future date when their economies can afford them and their navies have competent, proficient crews to sail them. We could have it both ways, perhaps.

William

[SteveDaPirate]

One of the biggest reasons US hardware is popular for export is because the US military tends to buy in HUGE quantities. If you buy 12 F-35s from the US, you know that you'll have access to spares, support, and upgrades for decades to come because the US military is buying 2,500 of them. This ensures that Lockheed/Northrop/P&W etc. will be staying in the F-35 business for a long time because there is already a large established market that will be profitable for them to support.

How long does a US-built SSK stay relevant when General Dynamics decides it's no longer worth their time to provide support or upgrades since only 5 were built? This is something you don't have to worry about if you buy a handful of Type 212s, since Germany and Italy have already committed to buying and supporting them regardless.

[jrb1537]

Not to mention the fact that the US hasn't sold new warships to anyone in decades. What were the last ones, the Perrys for Australia? The EU has cornered the market on export warships...

The Ambassador Mk IIIs for Egypt are the last I'm aware of. I believe Egypt took delivery on the last one only a few years ago.

[jlvfr]

The Ambassador Mk IIIs for Egypt are the last I'm aware of. I believe Egypt took delivery on the last one only a few years ago.

Forgot those. But are just small missile boats, almost anyone can build those...

[Swift Sword]

You're ignoring severall points:

jvfr,

Don't think of it so much as me ignoring them, rather you are illuminating them! :-)

-the US does not have modern SSK technology. Period. Air-independent propulsion systems are the key tech for the future, and all of it is non-US. Developing it from scratch would take years;

Yup on the SSK tech. Yes on AIP stuff. However, years are years. Lets drop SSK from the scope of the argument. It is hard to quantify but not unreasonable to assume that a US AIP power plant might be coughed up indigenously or in concert with an ally.

-cruise missiles are for (relatively) big boats. I doubt the average SSK would be able to carry any, at least in significant numbers;

When I was talking about cruise missiles, I was thinking generically. There is indeed a big difference between an Exocet, Harpoon and TLAM Block IV.

US construction costs; US-built equipment is expensive.

Those are parts of several problems bigger than the issue at hand.

And you're proposing designing, developing and building a completely new type of boat, of which the US has no experience/knowledge; and, unlike a larger class of surface ships, you wouldn't able to spread the costs over the class: the typical SSK client buys 2-4 boats.

I understand your apprehension before the semi-colon and believe that such is surmountable; after your semi-colon, it would break down to multiple interestd and customer commitments and that is harder to predict far enough out front.

If the US had stayed in the SSK race years ago then, sure, it might be able to compete in the open market. Now?

Yes. Possibly maybe. Will keep thinking along SSP lines per your observation.

William

[JRT]

Its not just the cost of designing and building a new class of SSKs, but also all of the other costs associated with that (training, logistics, support, etc.). All of that would pull resources away from SSNs because it would be in competition with SSNs in funding. Because of economies of scale, more might be gained from increasing the build rate on new SSNs, optimizing toward a lower unit cost, expanding multiyear buys, etc.

Also... Significant effort is going into unmanned systems. Funding is well separated from submarines. It started with smaller UUVs, but size is becoming more widely varied. Capability of those has improved, and more is being learned about autonomous and cooperative operation. Its not a big stretch of the imagination to envision autonomous unmanned platforms as large as SSKs within a few decades if advantage is found in pursuing that. I suspect that will be.

[YellowFever]

Just what I was thinking.

Americans will probably get into the SSK market sooner or later but with autonomous designs.

Doesn't have to be as big as a "standard" SSK with all the space saved on storage of food, cots, living spaces, life support systems..etc....

[kato]

This is something you don't have to worry about if you buy a handful of Type 212s, since Germany and Italy have already committed to buying and supporting them regardless.

Technically, Germany only sells Type 214 as a Type 212A derivative for export, but yeah. The SSK market is currently dominated by just three lines, German Type 209 (59 in service!), German Type 214 (12 in service, up to 11 ordered) and French Scorpenes (4 in service, up to 15 ordered). The only other line with significant export customers are Russian Pr.636 and - new on the market - Chinese S20.

[JRT]

Just what I was thinking.

Americans will probably get into the SSK market sooner or later but with autonomous designs.

Doesn't have to be as big as a "standard" SSK with all the space saved on storage of food, cots, living spaces, life support systems..etc....

A very big part of advancing the ball on that field of play (autonomous operation, and cooperative operation among autonomous platforms) is in the algorithm(s), computer science. A small team of very smart people anywhere on the planet can move that ball further and more quickly than a very large team working on a big defense project bogged down in process and mediocrity. Much depends on the individuals involved.

[Albany Rifles]

The US Navy is built for away games, not home games. SSK/SSP are more for home defense.

Maybe a few for intel work....but if needed that is why we always fight as part of a coalition.

[jlvfr]

A very big part of advancing the ball on that field of play (autonomous operation, and cooperative operation among autonomous platforms) is in the algorithm(s), computer science. A small team of very smart people anywhere on the planet can move that ball further and more quickly than a very large team working on a big defense project bogged down in process and mediocrity. Much depends on the individuals involved.

Software and off-the-shelf tech is well and good, but you're still stuck with having to develop an air-independent propulsion system, or be stuck with bateries+diesel&snorkel... which no one wants to buy anymore. Even an underwater drone would need this, if it wants to stay underwater for any significant amount of time and carry a good number of weapons.

[SteveDaPirate]

Even an underwater drone would need this, if it wants to stay underwater for any significant amount of time and carry a good number of weapons.

I think AUV's will stay in the ISR realm much longer than their UAV counterparts. UAVs can be weaponized because a human is actively driving it despite being 3000 miles away.

I don't foresee this with AUVs because of the difficulties in passing high bandwidth communications through sea water. VLF radio can penetrate enough to communication with antennas towed just beneath the surface, but the bandwidth is extremely poor. ELF can reach deeply submerged boats but is terribly slow at sending meaningful information with frequencies down to 3 Hz.

Without a human in the loop in real time to make a decision on weapons release (and hang out to dry if they screw up), I don't know that arming AUVs is politically possible.

[JRT]

Without a human in the loop in real time to make a decision on weapons release (and hang out to dry if they screw up), I don't know that arming AUVs is politically possible.

Autonomy exists in primitive mines. The human decision input exists in the design and deployment.

There is significant autonomy in a CAPTOR, a torpedo encapsulated in a tethered launcher serving as a mine. It is smarter than a primitive mine, but human input exists in the design of the control algorithm, and whatever facility may have been included for remote activation/deactivation, etc.

The armed AUV would have more ability to maneuver, but likewise the human input exists in the design of the algorithm as well as in any facility for a remote human to activate/deactivate and/or communicate other mission commands.

Delays associated with communicating with a remote human decision maker within the OODA loop slows the speed of that loop, so most tactical decision making needs to exist in the human designed control algorithm rather than in communications received from a human involved in real time decision making.

In deeper water, VLF audio might be useful in very low bandwidth encrypted communication from a sender not requiring stealth to a receiver at significant distance. It works for whales. That might be adequate for activation and for selections among a set of pre-programmed missions.

[JRT]

...more hulls than could be produced in the active shipyards would require bringing secondary yards on line to produce lower tech surface combatants, could also result in the possibility of US built SSK's.

Virginia SSN uses modular construction. And while few shipyards can currently work with nuclear reactors, the nuclear reactor and related components are within a modular section. Perhaps some of the other non-nuke related modules or significant portions of same could be built in some of the various non-nuke shipyards (eg. at BIW).

Columbia SSBN is also modular, and likewise the possible future SSGN(X)/SSN(X) if based on reusing much of the design of the Columbia platform. Similar considerations of where to build various modules including the non-nuke modules could apply.