UK's nuclear powered Super Submarine.

[aurvandil]

There is already existing and cheaper way for command and control; satellite links.

The fatal weakness of this is that these can be disrupted with satellite killing missle weapons. China recently tested such a weapon on an old satellite. US and Russia have long had such weapons.

A deep water nuclear powered sub on the other hand can operate very close to a theatre with almost no chance of disruption.

Plus if things get really hot, the conventional missles in the array can of course be changed to nuclear ones.

 

[longbow]

Agree that nuclear powered sub great for power projection. It is excellent for nuclear deterrance. But it has limited number of Tomahawks. If only conventional Tomahawks are used it is pretty useless.

For coastal defence, an equally deadly solution is the diesel electric sub. They need not project power and just need to protect coastal defence within a 1000 mile radius. When operating on electric mode they are next to impossible to detect. With rapid advances in battery technology (we all know how much better lithium based batteries are against lead acid)

So imagine 10 of these diesel electric subs sitting and listening running on battery power and going back to base every other week.

 

[Ramseth]

Diplomancy and allying with the right country can constitute good weapons too.

Singapore diplomacy? Trying to teach other countries lessons? Rubbishing countries? These are good weapons to make enemies!

 

[knightriderz]

Agree that nuclear powered sub great for power projection. It is excellent for nuclear deterrance. But it has limited number of Tomahawks. If only conventional Tomahawks are used it is pretty useless.

For coastal defence, an equally deadly solution is the diesel electric sub. They need not project power and just need to protect coastal defence within a 1000 mile radius. When operating on electric mode they are next to impossible to detect. With rapid advances in battery technology (we all know how much better lithium based batteries are against lead acid)

So imagine 10 of these diesel electric subs sitting and listening running on battery power and going back to base every other week.

they used to have a fleet of U class subs defending e GIUK gap.. Seems dat after e cold war, they were sold off..

 

[kukubird58]

The fatal weakness of this is that these can be disrupted with satellite killing missle weapons. China recently tested such a weapon on an old satellite. US and Russia have long had such weapons.

A deep water nuclear powered sub on the other hand can operate very close to a theatre with almost no chance of disruption.

Hahaha...Yes there are always counter measures.
But the greatest value of subs lie in stealthiness.
To use it otherwise is to create too big a signature for detection.

It may work but it would be very costly way for subs to be used for such command and control purposes.

 

[kukubird58]

UK to launch biggest ever nuclear submarine

The 'super-sub, called HMS Ambush, has a huge nuclear reactor that can power a city the size of Southampton and it will never need refuelling.

The killer submarine, which is more complex than the US space shuttles and able to circumnavigate the globe without surfacing, is also able to make oxygen and fresh water from seawater to keep the 98 crew alive in time of crisis.

The space shuttle is 1980s technology so it is joke to compare with the shuttles.
There may not be a need to refuel but unfortunately, the crew is not powered by nuclear energy. u can produce oxygen and water but can they produce basic food?

 

[Ramseth]

The Royal Navy do not have very good track record in submarine warfare.
In fact the Germans were the real masters during era of the U boats.

UK, US and even Japan weren't seriously interested in submarines during and before WW2. Only Germany was. The reason was simple. UK, US and Japan ran trans-ocean blue-water fleets. Submarine range and technology wasn't that advanced yet to be useful to such fleets. Semi-landlocked Germany never had such a big navy. Its concern was the North Sea gateway to North Atlantic only. The German U-Boats were quite useful in sabotaging the US-UK shipping lanes at first. But after US and UK figured out better technology to detect and depth charge them, U-Boat losses mount and became less effective. Germany, as innovative as ever, came up with something else, the V-Rockets, but a little too late.

US and UK became interested in submarines after new technology allowed them to build battleship-sized submarines instead of boat-sized, that can lurk around the oceans over limitless range for half a year or more without refuelling and supply reloading. They became even more interested when they discovered how to fire sea-to-land missiles from submarines instead of just sea-to-sea torpedoes. They became even more interested when they discovered, hey, let's power the engines with nuke and arm the missile warheads with nukes! Russia and France also figured out how to do that shortly later. These four countries can nuke any country at any point on earth. All held demo test firings regularly in the cold war era to convince each other they could destroy each other. PRC is supposed to have that capability by now, but I don't recall any convincing test firing.

 

[aurvandil]

Hahaha...Yes there are always counter measures.
But the greatest value of subs lie in stealthiness.
To use it otherwise is to create too big a signature for detection.

It may work but it would be very costly way for subs to be used for such command and control purposes.

If it is mainly a missle platform, why do they need so much power?

 

[kukubird58]

If it is mainly a missle platform, why do they need so much power?

Subs have many roles beside being a missile platform.
But command n control of unmanned assets is unlikely to be one of the roles because it will result in too much RF signature.
A sub that can be detected easily and tracked is as good as a diving coffin....