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.
User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby hovematlot » 22 May 2017, 09:19

Coming from the SOSUS community I would say that would be a massive undertaking. The USN has dabbled with 'deployable SOSUS', the Advanced Deployable System (ADS) since the 1990s with mixed results. It can't just be dropped on the seabed and involves pre-surveys etc. The gulf with it's shallow waters and unusual water column isn't a good environment to deploy a SOSUS type system.

The SURTASS system with it's combined Active / Passive combination would be a better option but this is hugely expensive and again not really ideal for the shallow warm waters of the Arabian Gulf.

I'm not sure using remote vehicles would be an option either. These Towed Arrays are many many 100s of metres long. You'd need a rather big ROV to tow it.

LordJim wrote: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.

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

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 22 May 2017, 11:29

LordJim wrote: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.


we have used NGFS in support of special forces ashore in Libya! so much less than company sized ops.

In the future the support of the CVF will be one of the many roles surface escorts will carry out

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

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 22 May 2017, 11:29

LordJim wrote: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.


we have used NGFS in support of special forces ashore in Libya! so much less than company sized ops.

In the future the support of the CVF will be one of the many roles surface escorts will carry out

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 25 May 2017, 18:01

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ce=twitter

Thoughts??

I certainly agree things need to step up, and not just as a countermeasure against Russia.

Aviation and submarines are the areas where the RN needs to turn around years of decline, and of course the RAF also plays a big part in that.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 26 May 2017, 18:43

well the Taliban didn't have submarines and you couldn't deploy frigates in Afghan was the mantra for most of the last 10 years so with to limited a budget it was inevitable.
Wonder will future generations of staff officers and civil servants be given UK defence policy of the early 21stC as a case study in what happens when you get a tunnel vision in government policy

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: Future ASW

Postby xav » 04 Jul 2017, 09:37

Successful First Test Firing for MBDA Sea Venom / ANL Anti-ship Missile
Image
French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) and MBDA teams successfully completed the first launch of the Antinavire Léger (ANL / Sea Venom ) missile on 21 June 2017 on the Mediterranean site of the DGA Missile Testing Center. The test was conducted from the DGA's Panther test helicopter.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ssile.html

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 04 Jul 2017, 12:02

just need a bigger one now...
@LandSharkUK


User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 20 Jul 2017, 18:59

Very interesting, sounds good if it can work without giving away the host subs position.

There are also wave gliders that look appealing for aiding sub's, the RN demoed that at unmanned warrior.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Jul 2017, 01:04

Thanks Ron5-san.

Anyone thinking about future ASW drones shall read this article, at least the first one. It is clear and very logical.

We are living in a world that subs cannot be a good ASW node anymore. Subs are getting more quiet, and thus ASW tactics is shifting toward active multi-static. Sub cannot ping, because its only defensive measure is stealth. Thus, looking for a UUV to, at least decouple the "pinger" off board is critically important.

Type-A: Bi-static ASW needs coordination of "pinger" and "listener". If pinger pings at specified time, position and direction, the listener can analyze the reflection. Not much different from S2087 having VDS and TASS separated. This is listed as the first option as ASW UUV in the 1st article.

Type-B: In addition to this, multi-static ASW needs to transfer the accumulated acoustic signal to an analysis node (mother sub), to perform cross correlation analysis of the data, which I believe is the heart of multi-static ASW. This is listed as the second option, and clearly noted technically not easy to do.

By the way, the second issue is largely solved in surface vessel. You just need to use data link. (If need to be stealthy, you can use sat-com, laser communication, or even acoustic, all much easier than those underwater.)

I think the 1st step will be the UUV or USV of type-A. Since it needs power (pinging requires electricity), making it small is not easy (especially for sub-deployed UUV). Making its deploy speed fast is also not easy, not to say about its endurance.

In the surface vessel world, if you want to survey a certain area of sea (say, 100x100km2), you shall deploy slow, long range USVs. For calm water, a 10m-class USV with FLASH dipping sonar is already there. But, it cannot be used for TF escort for sure. For TF escort, I think there is a need for ocean-going pinger to keep the quiet T26 silent. The pinger can be either type-A or B, but need to be ocean going. It could be either manned or unmanned.

- one option is to make it, "snorting small SSK".
- another option is to make a modern version of Flower-class ASW Corvettes. Relatively simple OPV-sized ship to taw (at least) VDS part of multi-static ASW sonar (type-A), or also passive TASS (type-B).

This could be MHPC, or even T31e-ASW capable version.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10656
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Jul 2017, 07:36

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ASW tactics is shifting toward active multi-static.

and in air defence towards passive multi-static
- then, the plane having stealth or not doesn't make much of a difference... but a different thread for that

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 21 Jul 2017, 08:04

There is also the option to use aircraft, possibly drones, to deploy sonobuoys with the frigates part of that multi static network. I guess once they have properly nailed multi static on the P8 we will start to see its tricks come across to frigates and subs.

Another use for 'Torpedo Drones' is as decoys. Can't be difficult to send out a noisy little sub that complicates the already very difficult job of ASW. I expect as soon as drones start to improve detection ability they will offset any gains by cluttering the environment.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10656
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Jul 2017, 08:23

shark bait wrote:use aircraft, possibly drones, to deploy sonobuoys

What we are currently purchasing http://navaltoday.com/2017/01/04/royal- ... sonobuoys/
as in the piccie behind the link has become so small (and affordable) that drones - with their endurance when the kettle and the toilet can be deleted from the spec - are an increasingly attractive option to deliver them, to a fair distance from the listening unit (frigate) afloat

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5832
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 21 Jul 2017, 08:49

also mooted was the idea to rocket or mortar launch sonobuoys
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10656
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Jul 2017, 08:56

shark bait wrote: rocket or mortar launch sonobuoys


Yeah, but there is a difference in magnitude as for the distances involved. If we can free up the Merlins from being the primary dispensers, then they can be more effective in investigating and pursuit (can carry more fuel and weapons, instead) - there is only one carried, per frigate, so by no means a 24/7 thing (when not in the context of a carrier task force and all those extra Merlins).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Jul 2017, 11:49

With improved battery technology, modern sonobuoy's "life time" has increased? If yes, they can be good "distributed pinger/listener" to "control" specified area. If "multi-static sonobuoy ASW tactics" is established to be good enough, sonobuoy will be a good option.

But, because over-the-horizon coverage is needed, air-born assets such as P-8A and Merlin will be the key enabler now, rather than ship itself. If the "24hr/7days on-the-air sonobuoy transducers" become available as UAV, then using rocket launched sonobuoy, or just using Wildcat to distribute them will be nice.

Since sonobuoy operation do not require the air assets to hover, the air asset can enjoy better fuel efficiency. They do not even need to be a helicopter. A candidate will be something like RQ-21, but it has only 18 kg of payload, and I am not sure if it is enough to carry the transducers (while their endurance and simple design = less maintenance load are good enough to cover 24/7).

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

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 22 Jul 2017, 19:37

intereting for/against P8 article in airforces monthly..........is the P8 all its cracked up to be?

andrew98
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby andrew98 » 22 Jul 2017, 21:09

I'd rather have had kawasaki p-1 :)

WhiteWhale
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Location: Somalia

Re: Future ASW

Postby WhiteWhale » 22 Jul 2017, 21:16

marktigger wrote:intereting for/against P8 article in airforces monthly..........is the P8 all its cracked up to be?


Can't be worse then the P3, there's an ex US Sonar man that streams Q+A's on youtube and while much he can't say due to many things still being classified he will quite happily call the P3 a piece of junk that only ever caught a sub when the sub did something to deliberately get caught. Have heard elsewhere for a long time.


JiveTurkey if anyone is curious.

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

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 22 Jul 2017, 21:18

WhiteWhale wrote:
marktigger wrote:intereting for/against P8 article in airforces monthly..........is the P8 all its cracked up to be?


Can't be worse then the P3, there's an ex US Sonar man that streams Q+A's on youtube and while much he can't say due to many things still being classified he will quite happily call the P3 a piece of junk that only ever caught a sub when the sub did something to deliberately get caught. Have heard elsewhere for a long time.


JiveTurkey if anyone is curious.

article says some of the foreign modified P3's are allot better than the P3 it singles out the aussie and canadian variants

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

Re: Future ASW

Postby marktigger » 22 Jul 2017, 21:29

andrew98 wrote:I'd rather have had kawasaki p-1 :)


it has its advantages.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10656
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Jul 2017, 14:19

Sonobuoys - meh, old hat.

You will need some of these, to sail as your outer screen (or just leisurely crossing those parts of the oceans that we want to keep free of subs): https://www.info.liquid-robotics.com/wa ... data-sheet

Ex First SL advising on strategic direction (and Boeing backing the venture with Big Bucks).

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Spinflight » 26 Jul 2017, 08:15

I'm quite curious to know what it is about the p8 that makes it effective.

The older style of mpas are pretty much obsolete. As Borei, Yasen and Lada classes roll out the effectiveness of passive sonobuoys decreases markedly. Which means you need much denser fields, and frankly there aren't enough sonobuoys in Nato's inventory to make it really viable.

Hence why p3s, atlantiques etc are becoming rarer and don't have an obvious replacement for those countries that can't afford p8. Frankly those still flying are probably maintenance nightmares and hangar Queens.

Also the longer ranged nukes on the Borei pose a problem. Rather than bumbling around east of Bermuda they bring the south Atlantic into play too.

Low frequency active and other gucciness may or may not be a solution though the number of Russian subs going walkabout appears to be on the increase.

Also their armament. Kilos blatting Syrian stuff with kalibres brings a precision strike ability to the table. Whilst they currently have to run on the surface or snorkel the latter 636 kilos and Lada class potentially provide some headaches.

I'm not sure I agree that a t45 with a Merlin would be useless. The latter Akulas etc are unlikely to give a cz contact so whilst a tas tail is still clearly useful it probably depends upon the sophistication of said tail. Seems that the primary effort with the t26 has gone into quietening the hull.

The USN for instance had only the R models using active sonar until relatively recently and only aboard carriers. Now they're on destroyers and up.

Also see their recent rfp for twenty frigates. A year ago it was thought a certainty that it would call for an lcs with a tail. Instead their spec sounds awfully like a t26.

Especially as it took top billing at the nato Newport conference a few years back you get the impression that nato is playing catchup with ASW again. Also with the recent trend towards gp hulls and capabilities it does make you wonder how effective the current supposedly modern escorts actually are.

T26 design for instance, I offer a conjecture, was only finished after the requirements were finalised. Which likely was shaped by the first of the newer Russian classes becoming operational.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10656
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Jul 2017, 09:05

Spinflight wrote:the impression that nato is playing catchup with ASW again.


Yes, that impression is there... is there some one to catch up with?

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby PAUL MARSAY » 28 Jul 2017, 13:01

I don't like the idea of using type 26 as TAPS escort are their any other options ? Even if we have to build 2 or 3 separate ships for this role , thing along the lines of the Blackwood class ASW and not much else .


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992 and 14 guests