Shipbucket

As the newer class subs are more multifunctional, and therefore much larger than what is required for pure blue ocean patrol duties, do any of you see the US bringing back a smaller more cost effective SSN say of the Skipjack class size range?

With fewer boats in the water, and just as much range to cover, then I would say 'no.'
Range is extremely important for U.S. Navy ships- they are expected to operate all over the world for extended periods of time. The Skipjack class wasn't a 'small' nuclear submarine, either- they are 3500 tons submerged, and 250 feet long... they were an evolutionary design and large for their time. And, believe it or not, they would only represent a 30% manpower savings over the 7000+ ton Virginia class- while representing a giant step backward in capability (as far as weapons carried) and endurance.

If newer subs are capable of more missions, and the total force size is dropping, would it not make more sense to move to a force consisting for larger, more capable boats?

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

and if they need a little submarine for one or another operation, they ask for sure countries that have small submarines (Norway, Sweden, etc.) for help. Sweden and Norway have after all, one of the quietest Conventional submarines, so why not.

The USN seems to be betting on UUVs to take over those missions.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Not to mention stealth. One of the most important aspects in American subs.

Keeping in line with cost effective SSN's for blue water service, I see the French Amethyst is only 2600t displacement with a crew of under 70. It would seem to me that the US would have no problem spitting out subs in this size range at a significant reduction in both capital as well as operating costs on a per/hull basis if the critical metric is hulls in the water. That is a over a 30% reduction in size to a Skipjack class and about a third the size of the new boats and double the size of these smaller SSK's that only have a crew compliment of 27.

As a foot note to my previous post, the French Amethyst is also almost identical size in submerged displacement to the Barbel. I find that pretty interesting and starts placing the discussion right back to the original post that started this particular forum. Back in the late 90's before Canada "Nuked" the idea of nuclear submarines, this French design was a serious contender in the process. Unfortunately with a left leaning Liberal government we got stuck with some corroded out mothballed British boats That still aren't even capable of firing the MK 48 torpedoes that we have in inventory.

French SSNs are indeed the smallest SSN in the world, but at what cost?

Even if the Amethyste refit on the original Ruby class improved their stealth abilities, they still are far less stealth than British or US counterparts. They also are among the slowest SSN in the world, maybe the slowest. And if their size allow them to be perfect SSN for Mediterranean and littoral operations, as seen during the Kosovo war in 1999, they also have a very poor weapon load with only 14 weapons.
But the major problem is that the subs are so small that even if they can't carry enough food for more than 45 days in normal mission...


The new Barracuda/Suffren class will correct most of this problems. The Amethyste refit of the Ruby class already improved their stealthiness, but the new class will benefit from all the experience of our new SSBN class. The ships will also be longer and therefor faster underwater with a better operational endurance, but will still be "thin" ships, allowing the Marine Nationale to keep its expertise over Med and littoral combat operations.
The main problems for this new design is that we were cheap when it comes to carry heavy loads of weapons. The subs will only carry 21 weapons, not very better than the Amethyste when you take in consideration than we'll had the MDCN cruise missile in inventory (and of course no VLS...)
And the ships will still cost the same price than a Virginia Class, overall (actually the Virginia is probably cheaper), and no one can say that we French don't know how to build cost-efficient ships!

Of course, that's mainly because we'll only have 6 ships, when the Navy already ordered 16 Virginia subs...

But what I wanted to say is that it won't be necessary cheaper to develop, build and commissioned a new smallest class of SSN in the US. A small class of small ships could cost as much as larger ships from a larger class, moreover if we're talking about SSN.


The only reason I could see the US building a smallest class of subs is if they really want to export them, they could buy some SSK in order to reassure potential customers (that's what we did with the Lafayette stealth frigates, that's kinda what US and French did with F-104 and Mirage 2000-5 etc.)

I would also imagine that since the largest expense of a nuclear submarine is that it is nuclear, the savings of a 'small' nuclear submarine would be marginal over a larger and more capable 'big' nuclear submarine. I figure that whether it is a big or small reactor, the operating expenses will likely be pretty similar... and if anything, the smaller one might be more expensive.