UK Defence Forum

Not sure if this thread is good, but interesting fact.

Surprisingly @USNavy has decided to remove hard-kill torpedo defence from aircraft carriers Navy Lookout.


For me, it is not surprising. Underwater detection is difficult. Hence, it is also difficult for torpedo to detect/aim a ship. Soft kill will always be the first choice, so the Ship Torpedo Defense System Sea Sentor of UK is a good approach.

We may need further development to get effective anti-torpedo torpedo.

From Gavin Williamson's speech at RUSI:

Can anyone shed any light on where this was spent or where it is due to be spent?

It's not a lot of money and it would be good to think that's it's five 2087 sets for the GP T23's but I suspect it's not that impressive.

Any ideas?

Could mean that the remaining 5 2050's get the upgraded transducers (around £250k a set), and/ or software and processor upgrades. Or maybe 2 - 3 2087 sets @ approx £10m per set (The first batch of 2087s was £340m for development and supply of 6 sets, batch 2 was £17m for supply of 2 extra sets in 2006). Please add a little for inflation. Perhaps a mix of CAPTAS-1 or -2 sets for some, plus 2050 upgrades etc. Really left-field? Blue Watcher or Kingklip and/ or Captas-1 for the RB2s Personally, I would like to see some of it spent on development of the first ASW USVs.

Even a hint from the DS for what it is due to be spent on would have been helpful.

Safe to say £33m isn't going to solve the North Atlantic Problem but every little helps

Other possibilities include a small increase in the number of Merlins upgraded to HM2 standard - but this unlikely.

A more likely option is to add some ASW capabilities to the future Protector drone, such as sea spray radar and sonar buoys.

Yeah, explaining why 2 yr delay to ISD would cost as much as £ 116 mln extra is difficult to explain by other means
- assuming the sqdrns the drones are destained for are not sitting around , twiddling their thumbs

Those mission bays might just need to get a bit bigger. Boeing Echo Voyager.
https://news.usni.org/2019/02/13/41119

Poiuytrewq wrote:Those mission bays might just need to get a bit bigger.

T25 seems to be far more 'future proofed' than its competitors, but have we future proofed it enough? I suspect the cranes/davits in the mission bay won't come close to handling anything like the Echo Voyager.

Was the BAE UXV Combatant more sense in the long run (the runways either side were probably overkill with the development of V/STOL drones but the moonpool looks increasingly like a very sensible move.)

Poiuytrewq wrote:Those mission bays might just need to get a bit bigger. ...Boeing Echo Voyager.
https://news.usni.org/2019/02/13/41119

Don't worry, they are "self deploying drones" because of their long range (although very slow). They will be carried on a ship as a cargo (Bay, Wave, and in particular Points), craned down to sea at safe water, and then self deploy.

They are 50t in weight (in air). See
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... _sheet.pdf

At least, T31/T26 are unrelated. But, these "self-deploying long range drones" will be very important asset. For example, how about North Atlantic ASW?

The linked article talks about the "unmanned wingman" for SSNs; carried by the SSN until needed.
- not too much smaller, but not self-deploying

Sign of times to come: can't be the active pinger (without getting 'killed')

I see this as a very positive development.

Just need to increase the speed now and it would open up a world of possibilities.

An SSN can not only carry the "wingman"
"the Navy is also exploring the possible use of Large Diameter Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (LDUUVs) as another rapid acquisition program. The LDUUV would be a vehicle launched from either a Virginia-class fast attack submarine or from a surface ship. LDUUVs could perform similar missions as the XLUUV, however, the LDUUV would need to remain relatively close to the mother ship instead of operating autonomously like the XLUUV."
but can also act as a petrol station, to recharge the batteries. An SSK might be more challenged.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:They will be carried on a ship as a cargo (Bay, Wave, and in particular Points), craned down to sea at safe water, and then self deploy.

+ the following FLSS wording on the RN site:

Littoral strike ships are vessels which can command an assault force from anywhere in the world – carrying everything from helicopters and fast boats to underwater automated vehicles and huge numbers of troops.

This, plus adding additional ASW sensors make a lot of sense. Early days but having 3-4 FLSS fulfilling this hybrid multi-role function, and spending money on these capabilities, would be higher up on my priority list, coupled with reducing the cost of the T31 (making it smaller and focused on being a Littoral Escort - e.g. no hangar) or just scrap the T31 and buy another T26.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: They are 50t in weight (in air)

What surface vessel does RN/RFA have that could actually deploy the voyager?

The Points/Bays/Waves cranes can't lift 50t.

Too big for Hunts/Sandowns.

I don't think Diligence had anything more than a 40t crane.

Of course the cranes could be upgraded but at present I can't think of any RN/RFA surface vessel with a deck crane that has a SWL high enough to lift it.

Poiuytrewq wrote:I don't think Diligence had anything more than a 40t crane.

Would this one do:

The service contract renews in 2022; "we" can always stipulate an addition/ upgrade, but the 93m vessel is equipped with a 50 ton crane plus a 20 ton knuckle boom deck feeder crane.

RNZN Canterbury (sea lift ship) carries TWO 50t cranes to handle her 2 LCMs. The 50t size is not prohibitively large. For example, Australian "round table" LSL, Tobruk, had a 70t crane. So, it is doable.

On the other hand, the UUV is of the first generation, and in many cases it will grow rapidly. For example, if we make it faster, the size will be easily doubled. May be a flo-flo ship better, which is also not so rare in civilian world. So, this is also doable.

If you were going to deploy something that size why not put it in the dock of a bay or Albion.

Are their docks deep enough to carry the Echo Voyager?

I suppose they could come up with some sort of launching cradle that is floated out.

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose they could come up with some sort of launching cradle that is floated out.

Creates complexity and adds risk. Doable, but debatable whether it's a superior solution to adding an adequate crane to an Amphib or building a UUV tender.

Halidon wrote:adding an adequate crane to an Amphib or building a UUV tender.

AKA submarine tender, of the old.
- now that the SSNs don't (in the main) need one

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Halidon wrote:adding an adequate crane to an Amphib or building a UUV tender.

AKA submarine tender, of the old.
- now that the SSNs don't (in the main) need one

"Need" no, though they sure could benefit from them. Technically, same with the UUVs. You could put a mobile crane on a sufficiently specc'ed pier and operate from there, but they'd certainly benefit from a support vessel.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... _sheet.pdf

This would suggest it has a total depth of 8.5ft.

AKA submarine tender, of the old.
- now that the SSNs don't (in the main) need one


"Need" no, though they sure could benefit from them.

I'll try to reword it: A less diminished need, that is now coming back?

How about a converted tanker like in the Spy who loved me!!