UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future ASW

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 26 Jan 2017, 19:40

there was no bang I think the crew of the type 21 would have noticed

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Repulse » 29 Jan 2017, 18:42

Given one of the areas highlighted in the UK Industry Strategy was Battery Technology and given the concern about ASW/ ASUW, how about killing 2 birds with one stone by building a fleet of small Battery only Submarines?

I'm thinking about something like the Korean HDS-400. A 14 day endurance would allow it to patrol UK EEZ (and further afield) and also could escort the CBG, supported by a RFA mothership.

Would free up the SSNs to patrol globally as needed.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 30 Jan 2017, 13:12

A battery powered sub is certainty of interest, it removes all the volatile substances associated with air independent propulsion. I was investigating the idea for my own amusement a while back, and I think 14 day endurance is a bit optimistic for a while.

Utility scale batteries are coming along rapidly, with 2MWh batteries available inside a shipping container, so I assume a 20MWh capacity is feasible inside a sub. The power can actually be a bit denser on a sub because cooling becomes easier underwater.

The German Type 212 has a 2MW electric motor, so going at full pace the battery would last 10 hours, so not much good for carrier ops. Creeping around at a few knots might improve endurance to 2-4 days, which may be ok for other uses.

The main use I can find for such a sub is for training, to extend the on station time of our in demand SSN fleet through double crew's on the Astute's
  • One crew is in the UK training in the electric boat,
  • The other is deployed in the nuke boat,
  • After 6 months fly the crews out to a forward base and swap.

It's difficult to get around the speed limitations of an electric sub, so the best use I can find for them is as a training aid.
@LandSharkUK

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby PAUL MARSAY » 08 May 2017, 12:32

We need a long range stand off ASW missile ala ASROC we no longer have enough helicopters to conduct large scale ASW operations . So
A) can ASROC be extended and can its range be increased?
B) could tomahawk be adapted to carry a torpedo ?
C) is there any other option ?

Defiance
Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52

Re: Future ASW

Postby Defiance » 08 May 2017, 13:11

shark bait wrote:A battery powered sub is certainty of interest, it removes all the volatile substances associated with air independent propulsion. I was investigating the idea for my own amusement a while back, and I think 14 day endurance is a bit optimistic for a while.

Utility scale batteries are coming along rapidly, with 2MWh batteries available inside a shipping container, so I assume a 20MWh capacity is feasible inside a sub. The power can actually be a bit denser on a sub because cooling becomes easier underwater.

The German Type 212 has a 2MW electric motor, so going at full pace the battery would last 10 hours, so not much good for carrier ops. Creeping around at a few knots might improve endurance to 2-4 days, which may be ok for other uses.


Fascinating idea, wonder what the market would be on that sort of vessel.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 08 May 2017, 13:28

PAUL MARSAY wrote:We need a long range stand off ASW missile ala ASROC we no longer have enough helicopters to conduct large scale ASW operations . So
A) can ASROC be extended and can its range be increased?
B) could tomahawk be adapted to carry a torpedo ?
C) is there any other option ?


Thing is, once you get over 30km the effectiveness of the frigates sensors is vastly reduced, fine for directing a helicopter, not really good enough for guiding a torpedo to a moving target.

A helicopter is needed to get close to the suspect, blast the environment with an active dipping sonar, pin point the sub, and respond instantly with a torpedo. Nothing else can do that, the helicopter is the ASW operators ace card.

The answer is not more rocket assisted torpedo's, the answer is more helicopters.



Defiance wrote:Fascinating idea, wonder what the market would be on that sort of vessel.

The AIP market is big. Full battery power removes all the horrible oxide chemicals from the process, so could be an improvement on AIP and at the same time as costing less.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3074
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 May 2017, 13:57

PAUL MARSAY wrote:We need a long range stand off ASW missile ala ASROC we no longer have enough helicopters to conduct large scale ASW operations . So
A) can ASROC be extended and can its range be increased?
Japan has it. type-07 ASROC. Said to have ~40 km range, super sonic. Is it really effective or not is another issue, though.

shark bait wrote: Thing is, once you get over 30km the effectiveness of the frigates sensors is vastly reduced, fine for directing a helicopter, not really good enough for guiding a torpedo to a moving target.
Partly agreed. But, with ASROC, your helicopter can be free of torpedo, and carry full fuel to extend its range. In other words, maybe a Wildcat carrying FLASH may come in.

shark bait wrote:
Defiance wrote:Fascinating idea, wonder what the market would be on that sort of vessel.

The AIP market is big. Full battery power removes all the horrible oxide chemicals from the process, so could be an improvement on AIP and at the same time as costing less.
Japan's new Soryu-class (kind of Batch 2) omitted AIP in favor of Li-battery. I guess it means total power condensed in the battery exceeded that of the AIP. What if you totally omit diesel engine, and make all your power relying on Li-battery? Maybe coastal SSK of all electric drive (E-SSK?) will be possible.

# Let's locate fast-recharge system on many small ports. Or on RFA vessels.

For ASW drones, this will be a good choice. They cannot be small (range, size of sonar, electric power etc.) and they will deploy for 1-2 weeks, not in the CVTF's cruising phase but in the loiter phase will be fine.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 08 May 2017, 17:42

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Partly agreed. But, with ASROC, your helicopter can be free of torpedo, and carry full fuel to extend its range. In other words, maybe a Wildcat carrying FLASH may come in.


Perhaps, though I feel that is adding complication for little gain.

Using wild cat in the role could be interesting, but I again feel the money would be better invested on upgrading mothballed merlin, or converting commando merlin for CrowsNest.

The RN have been toying it stingray on wildcat, not sure what for though?

Image
Image

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Japan's new Soryu-class (kind of Batch 2) omitted AIP in favor of Li-battery. I guess it means total power condensed in the battery exceeded that of the AIP. What if you totally omit diesel engine, and make all your power relying on Li-battery? Maybe coastal SSK of all electric drive (E-SSK?) will be possible.


From what little there is available in english on the latest Soryu bath they are by far the most interesting subs in production. A single moving part that can be totally isolated from the hull. Nice! If the RN wanted SSK, they should start with the Soryu.

Im not convinced the range is greater than a modern fuel cell sub, unless your navy had a breakthrough with energy density and kept it to them self, the maths doesn't work in its favour.

All electric drive sounds way too limiting for the time being. BMT's gas turbine sub looks good to me. Battery powered for stealth mode, then surface and rapidly recharge with the GT.
@LandSharkUK

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby cyrilranch » 08 May 2017, 18:00

converting commando merlin for CrowsNest.
I think this was mooted by Leonardo as part of CrowsNest/Mk2 upgrade discussion, it could be carried out as the Mk4,s are refitted with Mk2 cockpit electronics,.and foldind tail,so fittedwithbutnot bits could be done ,if the money was there.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby PAUL MARSAY » 11 May 2017, 13:32

Then we are back to the through decked cruiser being the best form of surface of ASW escort . This leaves type 26 as unnecessary and a surface fleet based around AAW and a GP frigate being the optimum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 11 May 2017, 14:28

If we're escorting carriers why do we need through decked cruiser's? The carrier has a big enough deck.

The carrier can supply aircraft, it can't supply a towed array 20km away, so an ASW escort is never going to go away, but it will change.

The T26 is not the optimum ASW escort, because it is also a General Purpose Global Combat ship at the same time.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Future ASW

Postby Dahedd » 12 May 2017, 09:02

Looking at the above picture of the Wildcat dropping a torpedo. Why is it that the South Korean navy have a dipping sonar & lightweight torpedo but the RN has never bothered?

Is it a fear of losing Merlins or purely cost. Surely if S Korea has paid for development it wouldn't cost the RN too much & in today's world of expanding submarine use more aircraft carrying sonar the better.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 12 May 2017, 10:16

They also have a data link, which criminally ours don't, and Spike NLOS.

It has to be because of cost, if they couldn't afford to put a data link on our off-board ISTAR node, they certainly couldnt afford a sonar
@LandSharkUK

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby LordJim » 12 May 2017, 14:46

I think it also has to do with how we use our FAA assets. The Merlin was the prime ASW assets with a small secondary ASuW role with the door mounted HMG on the HM2. The Lynx and Wildcat are primarily ASuW assets though they can carry ASW Torpedoes to lengthen the parent ships reach, more so on the T-26 as it doesn't seem to have on board Torpedo launchers.

In a nutshell the RN seems to be basing its capability needs on the last three decades of operations and reducing its ASW needs to second or even third in the priority list. Given the limited funding etc. it is sort of understandable, and in Merlin it has a world leading platform, but it could come back to bite us especially as the T-26 is not going to help improve ASW unless its load out is dramatically altered, including having Merlins on board most of the time.

This is why the T-31 should be ASW focused, forget the 5", give it a TAS, Merlin operating capability and at a minimum ASW torpedo launchers. Whatever else gets fitted depends on available funding, then the T-26 can go of and showboat flying the RN Ensign and Union Jack.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 21 May 2017, 11:14

lord Jim the 5in gun is more likely to be used than any of the ASW systems.
The whole Type 31 program needs to be looked at Bae want a cheap exportable frigate fine.....Let them pay for the development of it!
Paying for it from savings in the Type 26 program will hamper both vessels. There needs to be long term planning agree's by both political parties so there is consistency. The Navy budget needs expanding. As does the Army's. To sort out in the first case years of under investiment and in the Later to reorientate it back to high end warfighting.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 21 May 2017, 11:26

marktigger wrote:lord Jim the 5in gun is more likely to be used than any of the ASW systems.


Justify that.

In the past 20 years the RN has fired less than 300 rounds for NGFS. On the contrary ASW is used every day to protect trident and will be used every time the carrier is deployed.

The 8 big guns on the T26 are more than capable of laying down 300 shells, we have it covered already.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 21 May 2017, 11:45

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:lord Jim the 5in gun is more likely to be used than any of the ASW systems.


Justify that.

In the past 20 years the RN has fired less than 300 rounds for NGFS. On the contrary ASW is used every day to protect trident and will be used every time the carrier is deployed.

The 8 big guns on the T26 are more than capable of laying down 300 shells, we have it covered already.


How many torpedoes expended? how many seawolf/seadart/aster missiles fired?

the Type 26 is being mooted as THE carrier escort/principle surface ASW platform so will they be available for NGFS? no they will be to busy as there isn't enough of them to protect the CVF and Amphib forces to release them to support roles.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby LordJim » 21 May 2017, 14:04

But to use say the T-31 for NGFS it will need to be escorted but either a T-45 or a T-26 anyhow so if you cannot release them from the CVBG, then do you bring the whole lot in close to provide support or do you release one of the latter or drop NGFS as a role relying on fixed and rotary assets and deploy 105mm LG for direct support of the troops.

This is why the T-31 should become the RN's primary ASW assets, and the T-26 reverting to what its name implies. If we were still building the 13 or more T-26 the argument would be moot but we are not so we have to look at the priorities. Yes the T-26 will be effective at ASW but it can also do so much more. The cheaper T-31 will provide the ASW for the CVBG/ARG, backed up but the CV and T-45. The T-26 will supplement the escort group but also operate on its own when needed.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 21 May 2017, 14:21

LordJim wrote:But to use say the T-31 for NGFS it will need to be escorted but either a T-45 or a T-26 anyhow so if you cannot release them from the CVBG, then do you bring the whole lot in close to provide support or do you release one of the latter or drop NGFS as a role relying on fixed and rotary assets and deploy 105mm LG for direct support of the troops.
.



CAS can't hang around long and it takes to to establish a light gun troop ashore including gaining enough real estate for it to occupy. In the inital phase of a landing it may not feasible to Land Light guns same in case of a raid look at fanning head & pebble island operations

Online
dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1841
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby dmereifield » 21 May 2017, 14:25

LordJim wrote:But to use say the T-31 for NGFS it will need to be escorted but either a T-45 or a T-26 anyhow so if you cannot release them from the CVBG, then do you bring the whole lot in close to provide support or do you release one of the latter or drop NGFS as a role relying on fixed and rotary assets and deploy 105mm LG for direct support of the troops.

This is why the T-31 should become the RN's primary ASW assets, and the T-26 reverting to what its name implies. If we were still building the 13 or more T-26 the argument would be moot but we are not so we have to look at the priorities. Yes the T-26 will be effective at ASW but it can also do so much more. The cheaper T-31 will provide the ASW for the CVBG/ARG, backed up but the CV and T-45. The T-26 will supplement the escort group but also operate on its own when needed.


So, in this scenario, would the following apply:

1) Cutting noise reduction efforts to make the T26 more affordable?
2) presumably the T31 would need all the fancy noise reduction efforts (making them more expensive)?
3) giving the TASs to the T31 ASW specialist? Or would they be shared with the T26?
4) changes to the numbers of T26 and T31, if so, instead of the 8+5, how many of each would you suggest?

I like the sound of what you are proposing, but I'm not sure how it would work in practice....

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 21 May 2017, 16:58

marktigger wrote:How many torpedoes expended? how many seawolf/seadart/aster missiles fired?

the Type 26 is being mooted as THE carrier escort/principle surface ASW platform so will they be available for NGFS? no they will be to busy as there isn't enough of them to protect the CVF and Amphib forces to release them to support roles.


That does't justify your original comment. How is a big gun "more likely to be used than any of the ASW systems"?

The T26 is almost perfectly suited to the GP and NGFS role, and will almost certainly be more capable in those areas than our little T31 is ever going to be. In which case it makes sense to swap the roles. An ASW T31 will release the T26 from the carrier group, which can head into a much more vulnerable position, and support a landing force.
@LandSharkUK

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby LordJim » 21 May 2017, 21:00

Oh dear we seem to be having the "Royal Marines storm the beached" scenario again. If and it is a very big if, we try to land more than a company of marines on a hostile coast, with the aim of invading the county that owns said coast then our Politicians have finally lost the plot. Ignoring the Falklands conflict and that leads to too many dead ends and red herrings, the times we have used NGFS since then have been because the ships were there for other reasons, not part of some grand strategy. Next we will be told we have to turn a squadron of Challenger 2s into DD Tanks so the Royal Marines can have armoured support when they hit the beach! We do NOT need to conduct or support opposed amphibious landings, we don't do that nor are we equipped to do so. GWII in no way falls in to this category, yes we took a port but it was defended in name only. But all of this has been covered under another topic.

Turning to the roles of the T-26 and T-31. Having ultra quiet platforms goes back to ASW in the deep blue (sort of) Atlantic where crawling along listening to the TASS was the name of the game. As has been mentioned else where in coastal and other shallow areas, active means are going to be the main source of detection, with background noise affecting more passive means. It doesn't have to be the warship that use its active sensors, these could be remote such as existing helos or some future remote underwater system. So I would argue the T-31 doe not have to be some ultra silent platform, some measure would be beneficial but not to the extent of major cost increases. Coming from the other end, the design of the T-26 is near enough set and costs established hence we are only buying 8. We could leave the design as is and the RN will have a very good deep water ASW platform, or we can adjust the design, reducing its quietness and shave a few pennies off the cost per unit.

In the future the RN is going to revolve around operating the CVFs and protecting them. Hopefully they will never leave port without at least 1 T-45 and 2 T-26/31 and most importantly an Astute SSN. All other deployments should be secondary when a CVF is at sea. Ships need to train together and relearn how to operate as formed task groups on a semi-permanent basis. This means that if the on duty CVF is in port so are its escorts ready to sail when it does. Built as such a Royal Navy CVBG will have excellent ASW capabilities, it is just a shame its other offensive and defensive capabilities will take a while to catch up.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Future ASW

Postby seaspear » 22 May 2017, 04:58

It can be easily possible that for asw in littoral regions the future deployment of unmanned remote controlled vessels from the type 26 into those areas as a low risk alternative ,such vessels may be of a size to have a sufficient sensor and range and other abilities to alert other sensors

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby LordJim » 22 May 2017, 07:39

I wonder is a deployable, 21st century version of SOSUS could be developed utilising both active and passive components. Major operations in the Gulf, deploy the net and when you are finished or lowering the tempo, pack it up. maybe the initial components could be deployed by subs, launching the sensors like mines then recover them later with MCVs.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 22 May 2017, 09:11

Helicopters are the Kings of littoral ASW at the moment, thanks to their combination of speed, Sonobuoy and active dipping sonar make them champions in such a cluttered environment. New systems will come along which will assist the ASW helo in the littorals, but I doubt it will replace them.

A "deployable, 21st century version of SOSUS" is an interesting idea. Liquid Robotics tested their Wave Glider at unmanned warrior to see how it could work in the ASW domain, apparently it was successful tracking a submarine. It's pretty much a solar powered Sonobuoy that can be geo fenced. Perhaps they could from a big array of hydrophones as a modern deployable SOSUS.

SOSUS was always highly geographically dependent, finding deep sound propagation paths in that avoided bottom and surface bounce, so replicating it exactly would be challenging.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dmereifield and 11 guests