Is the way forward for the UK’s hard-pressed Submarine Service a case of going back to the future and buying in German technology?

In 1910, the intrepid Captain Roger Keyes, who had as a young naval officer participated in operations against slave traders off east Africa and helped quell the notorious Boxer Rebellion in China, found himself in command of the Submarine Service of the Royal Navy.

A surface fleet outsider with no specific technical skills or even sea-going experience related to submarines, Keyes nonetheless delegated well. He also quickly assessed that development of Britain’s submarines was being hampered by the monopoly that Vickers held over construction of the vessels and provision of their equipment, including periscopes and engines.

Keyes went overseas for better periscopes and diesel engines and even bought in French and Italian submarine designs. The off-the-shelf engines and designs were not necessarily a success. The procurement of French and German retractable periscopes – soon copied and improved on by British firms – represented a huge step forward. Rather than a fixed scope on the outside of the hull – elevated via a knuckle pivot, with the submarine porpoising to poke it above the waves or withdraw it – the new style periscope could be extended and retracted mechanically from inside the submarine (which could keep a steady depth). Keyes’ efforts were not the first, nor would they be the last instances of the British fleet copying and improving on German technology.

1903-A-Class-HMS-A3

An early A Class submarine of the Royal Navy, which did not have a German or French origin retractable periscope at the time (1903). Photo: Used by kind permission of BAE Systems.

The three prime protagonists in the undersea contest at the core of the Cold War – the USA, Russia and Britain – all based their 1950s and 1960s diesel-electric patrol submarines on advanced technology U-boats produced for the Nazi regime during WW2.

The Royal Navy also had to move into nuclear-powered submarines to stand a chance of competing, even in a minor way, with the immense efforts of the Soviet Union. Ironically, the massive nuclear submarine fleet Moscow built played a key role in bankrupting the USSR and handing victory to the West.

Today nuclear-powered submarines are more expensive and complex than ever – a bigger challenge than the Space Shuttle to manufacture – with the Royal Navy’s new Astute Class attack submarines costing between £1.6 billion and £747million each (they get cheaper the more you build). The latest comparable Russian vessels cost well in excess of that.

As a consequence, any nation without deep pockets (or a willingness to bypass state provision of Social Welfare and universal healthcare) finds it really hard to afford more than a few nuclear-powered submarines, if any.

In an age of economic austerity, with the UK’s Conservative government beginning its new term of office with an instant £500 million sliced off the defence budget, can the UK afford to stay in the business of nuclear-powered submarines? Does building just seven Astutes offer value for money in terms of global presence and operational capability?

There have been claims the Astutes are too slow to keep up with the new aircraft carriers they are meant to protect and have suffered from other technical problems, though the Navy insists the teething problems are being ironed out.

AstuteStateside

The Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine HMS Astute arrives at Naval Station Norfolk in the USA for combat exercises against an American attack boat. Photo: Todd A. Schaffer/US Navy.

At the moment – with the older generation Trafalgar Class submarines based at Devonport being decommissioned and the Astutes slow to come on line – the UK is lucky if it can get two attack submarines on deployment.

Yet there are a wide variety of jobs for British submarines to do around the world, including intelligence gathering, protecting the UK’s Trident submarines and hunting other vessels. Last year, at the Undersea Defence Technology (UDT 2014) conference in Liverpool, the current head of the Submarine Service, Rear Admiral Matt Parr, suggested modern navies are perhaps pushing their people too far and destroying their quality of life. It is no secret that fewer British boats are spending more (and longer) periods away from home and it is placing a huge strain on the home lives of the submariners.

Rear Admiral Parr, who in the 1990s commanded a Devonport-based submarine and is a former deputy boss of Plymouth-based Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST), last week told the UDT 2015 conference in Rotterdam there is increased demand for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and Special Forces operations. Rear Admiral Parr revealed the Prime Minister himself decides the nature of modern British submarine operations.

Even so, there is a feeling that the current government is afflicted with incoherence in foreign and defence policy and it doesn’t really know what the Navy is for (or it wouldn’t cut defence spending, drive down warship numbers and make highly skilled sailors redundant).

With the strain on submariners and the mission portfolio for the smaller numbers of vessels as broad as ever, is it time for a revolutionary idea to be considered? Is it time to buy German again?

Having gone all-nuclear in the early 1990s, by abandoning diesel-electric ‘conventional’ submarines, might Britain be better off ditching the nukes and going back to the cheaper, greener and much-easier-to-build diesels?

Should it buy lots of U-boats? The Germans make excellent submarines that offer capabilities undreamed off during the Cold War. Their Type 212A U-boats are cutting edge and proven – quieter than a nuclear-powered submarine, small enough to more easily carry out Special Forces operations in shallow waters and with powerful submarine-detecting sonar. Their weapons load is impressive, though it does not currently include cruise missiles or Anti-Shipping Missiles (ASM). 

U35-Trials

The new Type 212 U-boat U35 undergoing tests and trials. Photo: Björn Wilke/German Navy.

TYPE-212-SURFACING

The Type 212 German submarine U32 surfacing. Photo: Björn Wilke/German Navy.

The Type 212A’s Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) means it can stay submerged (and hidden) for up to three weeks. It is capable of crossing the Atlantic without once surfacing, or even using its snorkel system, to take in fresh air and expel fumes. The Achilles Heel of previous generation conventional submarines was potential exposure to an enemy when expelling fumes or sucking in fresh air.

Each Type 212A costs 370 Euros (£260 million, around a third of the cost of a single Astute). If even bankrupt Greece can build a variant of the most modern U-boat (the Type 214 export version), could the Type 212A not be built at Devonport, the UK’s primary submarine refit yard? Babcock does still construct small surface warships, although at Appledore rather than in Plymouth, so why not conventional submarines? Submariners with long and deep experience of submarine operations will tell you that if the UK wants to remain a serious global player it does need the sheer power, huge endurance and reach of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

They are many times more capable and better armed than any diesel, the battleships of today. Why not save the Astutes for the long-range missions and use the U-boats closer to home and for specialist missions such as landing Special Forces?

That way submariners could be rotated through a less gruelling work routine and Britain would have the force levels necessary to counter the rising Russian threat and handle a lot more besides. This would include the job of training warships receiving ASW training with FOST, a task currently undertaken by the diesels of the German and Dutch navies. The new British U-boats could even be based at Devonport. It will have empty submarine berths once the last Trafalgar Class submarine has been decommissioned in 2022.

 

For more news and analysis of modern naval issues see WARSHIPS International Fleet Review . In addition to being the founding and current editor of WARSHIPS IFR, Iain Ballantyne is the author of the true-life thriller ‘Hunter Killers’ (Orion), which tells the dramatic story of British submarines and submariners in the Cold War, including how the two sides in that long confrontation developed submarines from WW2 German technology.
An edited version of this article was published a commentary in the Western Morning News on June 15.

 

 

Dangerous Cold War days rise again at Exeter Phoenix

Thanks to a great crew of engineers for inviting me onto the menu at the Exeter Phoenix to headline Wednesday night's event – they did a wonderful job and it was packed out!  Daunting to see all those faces young and old – a superb generational mix – and hopefully I kept them awake with ‘Hunter Killers: From Hitler’s Fall to Putin’s Rise’. It was amusing for me as a 70s and 80s kid to take the stage at the same venue a couple of nights after Alexei Sayle – 'allo John, got a new talk? I used to really enjoy his Sunday Mirror column… I wonder which event did more business at the Phoenix bar?

Exeter Phoenix

This way for the IMechE ‘Hunter Killers’ talk: An exterior view of the Exeter Phoenix. Photo: Iain Ballantyne.

It was all in aid of an expansion drive by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) in Devon and Cornwall, trying to bust the myth that the South West of England is just cream teas and pasties and sunburned tourists flocking to ‘the English Riviera’. It is in fact home to dynamic engineering enterprises, some of them (such as Devonport Dockyard) host to work that is of strategic importance in the defence of the UK, supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the region and further afield. Much of the engineering work in the South West also has global significance.

Certainly Will Newby and his Devon and Cornwall Area Committee of IMechE pushed out the boat (pun intended) with support from other young IMechE members – they were all energetic and enthusiastic, but in a cool way. Will did a stand-up job (pun intended, again) as MC for the Exeter Phoenix event.

After my bit, Rob Forsyth, retired Royal Navy submarine captain and a onetime ‘Teacher’ on the prestigious 'Perisher' command course, provided insight into his naval adventures. Rob’s exploits feature in a major way in my book ‘Hunter Killers’ , hence his presence. Upon leaving the Royal Navy, Rob became a director of Westland Group plc, so another engineering angle there. Rob Forsyth's segment had better jokes than mine I suspect. I especially enjoyed his asides on runs ashore in New York following the Cuban Missile Crisis and how he made history by taking female sailors to sea for a few days in his nuclear-powered submarine during the late 1970s.

For more on all that and also how Rob and his crew rode out a terrifying storm in HMS Alliance (his first command in the early 1970s) and a few years later, (while captain of HMS Sceptre) how he pursued a Russian aircraft carrier across the Mediterranean – read the book! Rob’s exploits when training future submarine captains as ‘Teacher’ on Perisher are, of course, also in there. It’s worth noting that he has been a keen supporter of preserving HMS Alliance at the Royal Navy Submarine Museum (RNSM) for many years. These days a visit to HMS Alliance is a multi-sensory immersive experience.

Yankee Class submarine explosion

Dangerous days: As touched on in the Exeter talk, the Soviet ballistic missile submarine K-219 in late 1986, with smoke issuing from a ruptured missile silo aft of her fin. It was one of the most dangerous episodes in the Cold War when disaster was only narrowly avoided. Photo: US DoD. 

The other speaker at the Phoenix was Mike Homer, Managing Director of Submarines for Babcock Marine and Technology, who explained how the world’s most complicated machines (submarines) are maintained at HMNB Devonport. As someone who reported in depth on the epic ‘battle of the dockyards’ for the multi-billion pound Trident submarine refit contract in the 1990s, it was fascinating to hear how the dockyard has evolved since.

Also met some great people at the book signing element afterwards – thanks also owed to them for showing an interest in my efforts to bring the hidden history of the Cold War to light.  Meeting members of generations not even born during those (sometimes) terrifying years was most enjoyable and I was impressed with their interest and knowledge.  I hope ‘Hunter Killers’ entertains and educates them further…and in a thrilling style.

As I stressed during the talk, it is important we know more about what really went on under the sea during those dangerous days. Knowing at least some of what actually happened between the late 1940s and 1991 will, hopefully, help us to ensure cataclysmic mistakes are not made as a new East-West confrontation intensifies. That, after all, is a major (and deeply serious) challenge confronting the younger generations, not least my own children.

Trafalgar class submarine

Still holding the line in the defence of Britain: The nuclear-powered submarine HMS Triumph returning to Devonport from a deployment. Photo: Royal Navy.

The Best Answer to Russian submarines intruding in the UK’s backyard is… a hunter-killer submarine

It is with reluctance that I cast myself as ‘outraged of somewhere’ or ‘disgusted of another place’ and write to a national newspaper. I am not, after all (yet) a crusty old Colonel Blimp type character, fond of firing off a blunderbuss of outrage from my winged armchair by a crackling fire. Sometimes, though, you read a commentary or news report in a paper and cannot help but launch something at the relevant letters page. Such was the case with Con Coughlin’s commentary on UK defence matters, published in the Daily Telegraph on March 2. It issued a warning against further defence cutbacks and was entitled ‘US fears that Britain’s defence cuts will diminish Army on world stage’, the usual land-centric headline to be expected from the Daily Telegraph.

In his commentary Coughlin rightly highlighted a recently exposed gap in the UK’s maritime defences. He wrote: ‘For example, following the Coalition’s decision to scrap the RAF’s Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, we no longer have the ability to track the activities of Russian nuclear attack submarines [SSNs] in the North Sea. A simple, cost-effective replacement would be to purchase the Boeing P8 Poseidon, with similar capabilities, which the RAF estimates would cost around £200 million a year – a reasonable investment, you might think, given the state of tensions between London and Moscow.’

Aside from quibbling about whether or not the vulnerability is in the North Sea – comparatively shallow and not the prime operational area of Russian nukes (that’s the Atlantic and off the main British submarine base on the Clyde) – the idea that an airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability will fill the gap is contentious. Hence my letter to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph:

DailyTelLetterMar

Nobody would suggest that a Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) is not an important layer of defence capability (and one that Britain sorely lacks thanks to the UK government getting rid of the Nimrod MPA in 2010). In leading maritime nations it is the Navy that operates such aircraft to ensure they are properly integrated with other maritime assets to gain the best defence.

It is not, though, the primary – nor by any means the most effective – ASW capability to safeguard territorial waters. As my letter published in the Daily Telegraph – all credit to them for using it to balance the debate – points out, Royal Navy frigates, helicopters and submarines provide the most effective means of countering intruding submarines. It is just that in today’s RN they are now too few in number and do not even have the back-up of MPAs.

A Cold War submarine captain I know once suggested to me that he feels the only way a MPA could find a properly operated SSN was if it bumped into it. “MPA radar is a good deterrent, which makes you keep your head down,” he explained, “but the only time one SNN I commanded was detected by a sonobuoy was when we passed about 20 feet away from it and the contact was fleeting.”

Cold War-era British MPAs fared better against the Russians, however. “Nimrods used to get away with it when tracking earlier Soviet submarines,” the SSN captain also observed, “but they were pretty hopeless against a Victor III. Against an Akula, I would have given them hardly any chance at all.”

RussianProwling

A Cold War era artist’s depiction of a Russian submarine prowling the deep – the Kremlin's submarines are back nosing around UK waters. Image: US DoD. 

While MPA sensor technology will have advanced greatly since the Cold War, nothing can compete with a nuclear-powered submarine fitted with powerful sonar and other sensors when it comes to finding, trailing and – should it ever be needed – destroying an intruding (potentially hostile) submarine.

That is not to say aircraft can’t be useful. During WW2, when utilised properly they were almost as effective as ASW escort groups of warships and even more so when the Allies turned the tide in the Battle of the Atlantic. That was against diesel-electric submarines, which usually preferred to make passage to their hunting grounds on the surface and also liked to attack convoys surfaced. A nuclear-powered attack submarine – submerged throughout a deployment – is not so easy to find, deter or destroy using aircraft.

Where MPAs can also prove decisive is in working with SSNs, feeding reconnaissance data and other intelligence to friendly hunter-killer submarines. As detailed in my book ‘Hunter Killers’ MPAs were important in the hunt for the Soviet carrier Kiev undertaken by HMS Sceptre (during late 1970s), the latter then under the command of Commander Rob Forsyth. In the end the Kiev got away, because the contemporary communications links could not feed the information to Sceptre quickly enough and she was a single submarine operating across the entire Mediterranean.

Back then, as now, when it comes to the undersea warfare game, the only sure way of effectively protecting your home waters against a potentially hostile submarine is to send out an SSN, with the fallback of other capabilities to close the net if need be.

P8 Poseidon Torpedo Drop
As US Navy Boeing P-8 Poseidon drops an exercise torpedo

The UK should invest in a new MPA and the Royal Navy should operate it. The Boeing P-8 Poseidon is one possibility, though the candidate list should also include the Kawasaki P-1, offered by Japan.

HMS Sceptre

The best answer to intruding Russian submarines: A British nuclear-powered attack submarine, in this case the Cold War veteran boat HMS Sceptre (here seen paying off in 2010). Photo: Nigel Andrews.

Archive by month

Archive by year