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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1589
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future ASW

Postby Tempest414 » 26 Sep 2019, 09:13

well then the way round this is for A-140 is to have the stern ramp fitted to the below deck mission space this would also allow RM to deploy something like CB-90

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Sep 2019, 09:25

Poiuytrewq wrote:the current configuration uses the available space very inefficiently.
Weapon deck (as on IHs, the originals) was already mentioned. What has been done with that space in the modified design?
- Each of the four stanflex positions on the missile deck...
- before allowing for the connector ducting and spacing between the modules, it only adds to a 6x7 mtrs ( plus 2.5 vertically)
but surely the whole width of the ship could be made available for boat/ USV handling?

As per Tempest above
Tempest414 wrote:this would also allow RM to deploy something like CB-90
"something like" being its lighter version at 10.8 mtrs (ARCIMS being 11m /10 t).

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2019, 09:27

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Arrowhead 140 in its T31 guise continues to be a superbly capable design completely hamstrung by a woefully inadequate budget.
I guess it is upside-down. Arrowhead 140 as a T31 is adopting very large hull, which is incompatible with its cost. I hope RN knows it. To be upgraded for normal escort, Arrowhead 140 is a good design. But, for multi-purpose role, it is not (Absalon-design should have been better). I still think Leander has no shortage compared to Arrowhead 140 (because of very low cost attributed), but the decision has been already done.

A bit off-topic....

If more money is needed to put some improvements in Arrowhead 140 design, I can propose to "degrade" 2 of the 5 T31 hulls. Building 2 "Floreal-like" glorified OPV without CAMM, and 3 "GP frigate" with CAMM, both with adequate boat-bay design, as well as SSM and hull-sonar added. Use 2 of the "GP frigate" version to be forward deployed (while 1 in maintenance), and use 1 of the "Floreal-like" version for training of "rotating crew" at British home water (while 1 in maintenance).

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Sep 2019, 10:32

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140 as a T31 is adopting very large hull, which is incompatible with its cost.
Agreed. RN is spending almost the entire budget on the very best hull that can be acquired for that price. The problem is I don't believe it will be optimised for RN use. Costly re-fits down the line are the inevitable outcome.

It stands to reason that, IF the T31's future ASW capability is to be achieved by USV's or UUV's then the platform must be able to deploy them. This ability must be at least as important if not more important as the ability to embark and deploy four RHIB's.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Weapon deck (as on IHs, the originals) was already mentioned. What has been done with that space in the modified design?
Very little. Two extra boat bays added to meet requirements.

One of the main problems with the A140 design IMO stems from the fact that none of the boat bays are adequately interconnected with either each other or the hanger. An ISO may contain the command module for a davit deployed offboard system but if the ISO's are part of the same package as the off-board systems is it really credible to split them up, half a ships length apart from the boats bays and bury them under a flight deck?

It's hardly the model of effectively and certainly not optimised for RN use.
Tempest414 wrote:...for A-140 is to have the stern ramp fitted to the below deck mission space....
An under flight deck misson area would be a great addition for any GP Frigate especially if the stern ramp was capable of deploying large off-board systems and/or a containerised towed array.

If the flight deck hatch was maintained, this misson area could be loaded and unloaded at sea to exchange modules and containers quickly, enabling the vessel or wider task group to rapidly react to events. This level of adaptability is what the T31 should be all be about.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Sep 2019, 10:33

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:The Arrowhead 140 in its T31 guise continues to be a superbly capable design completely hamstrung by a woefully inadequate budget.
I guess it is upside-down. Arrowhead 140 as a T31 is adopting very large hull, which is incompatible with its cost. I hope RN knows it. To be upgraded for normal escort, Arrowhead 140 is a good design. But, for multi-purpose role, it is not (Absalon-design should have been better). I still think Leander has no shortage compared to Arrowhead 140 (because of very low cost attributed), but the decision has been already done.

A bit off-topic....

If more money is needed to put some improvements in Arrowhead 140 design, I can propose to "degrade" 2 of the 5 T31 hulls. Building 2 "Floreal-like" glorified OPV without CAMM, and 3 "GP frigate" with CAMM, both with adequate boat-bay design, as well as SSM and hull-sonar added. Use 2 of the "GP frigate" version to be forward deployed (while 1 in maintenance), and use 1 of the "Floreal-like" version for training of "rotating crew" at British home water (while 1 in maintenance).


I complete agree here the A140 is a good design that has lots of potential if money is forth coming but so is the absalon design which also offers greater flexibility.
Could it be though that the fear could of been absalon would of be rejected out of fear of it putting the Albion’s at risk ?

I could get on board with your 2 3 split if the hopes of more money are completely dashed. What order to build in though ? IMO I’d build the 3 GP version first, this would allow the time for extra money up turn the final 2 in to full GPs if not you don’t lose anything. If done the other way round there’s no chance of that extra money as they’d be in the water so too late.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Aethulwulf » 26 Sep 2019, 10:58

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:The Arrowhead 140 in its T31 guise continues to be a superbly capable design completely hamstrung by a woefully inadequate budget.
I guess it is upside-down. Arrowhead 140 as a T31 is adopting very large hull, which is incompatible with its cost. I hope RN knows it. To be upgraded for normal escort, Arrowhead 140 is a good design. But, for multi-purpose role, it is not (Absalon-design should have been better). I still think Leander has no shortage compared to Arrowhead 140 (because of very low cost attributed), but the decision has been already done.

A bit off-topic....

If more money is needed to put some improvements in Arrowhead 140 design, I can propose to "degrade" 2 of the 5 T31 hulls. Building 2 "Floreal-like" glorified OPV without CAMM, and 3 "GP frigate" with CAMM, both with adequate boat-bay design, as well as SSM and hull-sonar added. Use 2 of the "GP frigate" version to be forward deployed (while 1 in maintenance), and use 1 of the "Floreal-like" version for training of "rotating crew" at British home water (while 1 in maintenance).
Yet again you are off on one of your little fantasies.

"Arrowhead 140 as a T31 is adopting very large hull, which is incompatible with its cost."

Rubbish.

Do you have any real evidence to back this up? All the evidence there is points to the fact that the hull is a very good design that is exceptionally cheap to construct. Just because it is bigger than Leander does NOT mean it is more expensive.

As to the boat bays, if the RN wants a bigger boat bay they only have ask. The change from 4 equal sized bays to 2 large and 2 small could be done at almost zero cost at this stage. However, there is a good reason why the RN wants to be able to use 4 good sized RHIBs. The RNs definition of an adequate size for a boat bay may not be the same as yours, particularly given that yours appears to be based on one example of an unmanned system performing a role not currently required of the T31.

There is zero chance that the RN is going to sacrifice ship survival by removing CAMM. Please stay real.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2019, 13:53

Aethulwulf wrote:Do you have any real evidence to back this up? All the evidence there is points to the fact that the hull is a very good design that is exceptionally cheap to construct. Just because it is bigger than Leander does NOT mean it is more expensive.
No evidence I have. My first point is, many growth margin = FFBNW places left, is all designed to be so, and there is no “opportunity lost”. Nothing.
As to the boat bays, if the RN wants a bigger boat bay they only have ask. The change from 4 equal sized bays to 2 large and 2 small could be done at almost zero cost at this stage. However, there is a good reason why the RN wants to be able to use 4 good sized RHIBs. The RNs definition of an adequate size for a boat bay may not be the same as yours, particularly given that yours appears to be based on one example of an unmanned system performing a role not currently required of the T31.
Agreed. And it means, RN is not at all thinking of adding USV based ASW capability to T31.
There is zero chance that the RN is going to sacrifice ship survival by removing CAMM. Please stay real.
No objection. There is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31, as you say.

As this is future ASW thread, and many here (including me) think adding shallow water ASW is meaningful, my proposal comes in.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 26 Sep 2019, 14:40

donald_of_tokyo wrote:No objection. There is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31, as you say.


I don’t believe that is necessarily correct this is a product that has developed out of a mod dstl program

“ It is also highly deployable. SeaDrix™ is 7.7m long x 3m high, meaning that it can be transported globally in an ISO container. It has its own deployment system (DDS) that can launch, recover and refuel SeaDrix™ at sea from a single point crane or davit either onboard or on a jetty. SeaDrix™ can self-deploy at up to 14 kts and multiple SeaDrix™ systems can be shipped globally to form a multi-static system as and where required.”

We simply do not know sizing and shapes of the final design and as I’ve said previously if on only deploying one or two is a good use of boat bays on a frigate when Martinez security roles which uses ribs maybe more useful.

A logistics vessel able to deploy unmanned systems in numbers would perhaps be a better host

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 26 Sep 2019, 14:43

Poiuytrewq wrote:An ISO may contain the command module for a davit deployed offboard system but if the ISO's are part of the same package as the off-board systems is it really credible to split them up, half a ships length apart from the boats bays and bury them under a flight deck?


Well there sure as heck split when the off board system is deployed! There certainly not connected by command wire.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2019, 15:51

SW1 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:No objection. There is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31, as you say.


I don’t believe that is necessarily correct this is a product that has developed out of a mod dstl program ...
We simply do not know sizing and shapes of the final design and as I’ve said previously if on only deploying one or two is a good use of boat bays on a frigate when Martinez security roles which uses ribs maybe more useful.
I think you missed my point. "The same size" = standardization is the key.

It is no problem if ASW drones were kept within ~9.5m. But, if so, why T26 has such a large mission bay? It is very clear the larger the drone is, the better its endurance and speed.

I like "SeaDrix" very much. But, its range and speed is not that good. This can be easily solved by increasing its size to 9.5 m, or 11m. If it is 11m long, it will be 3 times bulky than the original SeaDrix. With this size, increasing it top-speed to 20kts, and its range in 16kt to be doubled will be easy. At the same time, automatic guidance system, sensor and weapon system can be the same as the original 7.7m version. So, making it 3 times heavier will not mean it being 3 times more expensive.

This is one example, but history tells us a newly introduced weapon system quickly evolves in its size. See ScanEagle evolving into Blackjack. Yes, at some point in future, it stops growing. Where? In this case, T26's mission bay size will be one threshold. (If more larger, it will be PSVs or Bay-class LSD to carry them.) This is "standardization". I am just pushing for it, and I think it has its own rationale.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 919
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Aethulwulf » 26 Sep 2019, 16:44

donald_of_tokyo wrote:There is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31, as you say.

As this is future ASW thread, and many here (including me) think adding shallow water ASW is meaningful, my proposal comes in.
I did not say there is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31.

What I said is that if the RN wanted to alter the design of T31 to have 2 large boat bays (to match the T26 size) and 2 small boat bays they could, probably at almost zero cost. We will have to wait to see the final design to know if they go for this.

But if they do, the T31 would no longer be able to support four Pacific 28 RHIBs. There is an assessment that this is the number required for certain maritime interdiction tasks.

So do they choose one capability, but loose another? I don't know.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Sep 2019, 17:14

Aethulwulf wrote:do they choose one capability, but loose another? I don't know.


... or, "blow" a hole through the whole width of the ship, using the void for the weapons deck (and below). Two boats suddenly grow to 4;
- and they are not the only ones?
- Don't know, how, along the longitude (that axis of the ship arrangement) the current boats arrangement overlaps, or not, with the said space.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 26 Sep 2019, 17:21

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:No objection. There is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31, as you say.


I don’t believe that is necessarily correct this is a product that has developed out of a mod dstl program ...
We simply do not know sizing and shapes of the final design and as I’ve said previously if on only deploying one or two is a good use of boat bays on a frigate when Martinez security roles which uses ribs maybe more useful.
I think you missed my point. "The same size" = standardization is the key.

It is no problem if ASW drones were kept within ~9.5m. But, if so, why T26 has such a large mission bay? It is very clear the larger the drone is, the better its endurance and speed.

I like "SeaDrix" very much. But, its range and speed is not that good. This can be easily solved by increasing its size to 9.5 m, or 11m. If it is 11m long, it will be 3 times bulky than the original SeaDrix. With this size, increasing it top-speed to 20kts, and its range in 16kt to be doubled will be easy. At the same time, automatic guidance system, sensor and weapon system can be the same as the original 7.7m version. So, making it 3 times heavier will not mean it being 3 times more expensive.

This is one example, but history tells us a newly introduced weapon system quickly evolves in its size. See ScanEagle evolving into Blackjack. Yes, at some point in future, it stops growing. Where? In this case, T26's mission bay size will be one threshold. (If more larger, it will be PSVs or Bay-class LSD to carry them.) This is "standardization". I am just pushing for it, and I think it has its own rationale.


A USV doing up to 14kts with a 10 day endurance isn’t bad specially as it can be refuelled at sea. If your looking for standardisation then would it perhaps make sense to start with a platform that replicates current RN ribs as standard for your first go a unmanned USVs? The RN currently doesn’t have any USVs in service so it has yet to standardise on anything, the MAST program has resulted in a number of configurations and sizes, the current one is MAST-13 which is 13m long too big for type 26. Perhaps we will see a variety of platforms all using a common c&c system that can be bolted on any boat.

All we have to go on so far for the ship is this statement “ Four large dedicated Boat Bays with flexible launch and recovery capability to operate a variety of different offboard assets, such as RHIBs, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs); able to deliver a range of roles from interdiction missions to Special Forces operations and littoral manoeuvre exploitation.”

The beauty of a reconfigurable ship design as pioneered by the Danes is that it can be changes to suit changing circumstances. But future asw is more than simply what fits in a boat bay. Traditional frigates may not be the optimal vessels to carry and deploy such systems. The frigate may be the asset that processes the data and monitors the systems and acts on the information.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11719
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Sep 2019, 18:07

SW1 wrote: the current one is MAST-13 which is 13m long too big for type 26


Well, the A-frame on Hunts can, hopefully, still manage one (instead of the two ARCIMs) http://navyrecognition.com/images/stori ... Navy_3.jpg

SW1 wrote: The frigate may be the asset that processes the data and monitors the systems and acts on the information.
and whatever number of USVs are released, they are the screen: a helo from the frigate can prosecute a fleeting/ fleeing contact that the 'screen' came into contact with
- a system of systems may sound tired... but that's what it is/ will be

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Sep 2019, 18:40

Aethulwulf wrote:So do they choose one capability, but loose another?
If a bit more use was made of the under flight deck space then maybe it would be possible to do both.

STRN suggests that a stern ramp/misson area is a viable option but I suspect it will be be cost prohibitive, at least for the initial batch.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:"The same size" = standardization is the key.
Thats logical but the correct capability must be established first. Only then can the standardised dimensions follow.
SW1 wrote:Well there sure as heck split when the off board system is deployed! There certainly not connected by command wire.
Obviously no 'command wires' but is it ideal to have either end of the system so far apart?

The Leander design did things very differently with a space reserved in the misson area big enough for an ISO. This space was directly adjacent to the davit and below a hatch in the deck head. A 16 ton deck mounted crane could load and unload the command module through the hatch if necessary ensuring that systems could be transferred from other vessels if necessary.

Conversely the under flight deck area on the A140 has no crane to service it and the hanger does not appear to have ISO sized passageways to move containers between the 4 boat bays. That rather large plug designed to fit the amidships STANFLEX module is taking up a lot of space that could be much better utilised, especially if it is only to contain 24 CAMM.

The current configuration on the A140 might be the cheapest way to achieve the 4 RHIB requirement but IMO the Leander misson area setup looked more versatile.

It will be very interesting to see what 'RN optimised' looks like in the final design.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1187
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 26 Sep 2019, 19:00

Poiuytrewq wrote:Obviously no 'command wires' but is it ideal to have either end of the system so far apart?

The Leander design did things very differently with a space reserved in the misson area big enough for an ISO. This space was directly adjacent to the davit and below a hatch in the deck head. A 16 ton deck mounted crane could load and unload the command module through the hatch if necessary ensuring that systems could be transferred from other vessels if necessary.


There designed to be completely separate that’s the whole point. Operator in one place boat in another. Operator in room somewhere boat tied up at harbour, iso container in Nevada uav over Iraq.

The only benefit I see is Leander had a crane.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Poiuytrewq » 26 Sep 2019, 19:38

SW1 wrote:The only benefit I see is Leander had a crane.
The Iver Huitfeldt's have a crane, as does some of the A140 models.

The only problem is the IH crane is designed and situated to reload the amidships StanFlex module not service the under flight deck misson area.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2019, 19:45

Aethulwulf wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:There is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31, as you say.

As this is future ASW thread, and many here (including me) think adding shallow water ASW is meaningful, my proposal comes in.
I did not say there is zero chance of adding USV based ASW capability to T31.

What I said is that if the RN wanted to alter the design of T31 to have 2 large boat bays (to match the T26 size) and 2 small boat bays they could, probably at almost zero cost. We will have to wait to see the final design to know if they go for this.

But if they do, the T31 would no longer be able to support four Pacific 28 RHIBs. There is an assessment that this is the number required for certain maritime interdiction tasks.

So do they choose one capability, but loose another? I don't know.
Leander like boat bay configuration loses nothing. Sometimes 4 RHIBs, sometimes 2 and 2 11-m USVs.

Enlarging the boat bay design may be cheap, may be not. If it is within the hull, and already existing firewall unit size is smaller than 12m, “adding a 12m long alcove” means moving the firewall.

Doable, but not sure it is almost free. T31 cost is very tight. Small modification cost is relatively not small. May be.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2019, 19:55

SW1 wrote:All we have to go on so far for the ship is this statement “ Four large dedicated Boat Bays with flexible launch and recovery capability to operate a variety of different offboard assets, such as RHIBs, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs); able to deliver a range of roles from interdiction missions to Special Forces operations and littoral manoeuvre exploitation.”
And, Leander design included ARCIMS USV, but Arrowhead 140 did not. And looks like ARCIMS-like sized USV is considered in T26 as well.
The beauty of a reconfigurable ship design as pioneered by the Danes is that it can be changes to suit changing circumstances. But future asw is more than simply what fits in a boat bay. Traditional frigates may not be the optimal vessels to carry and deploy such systems. The frigate may be the asset that processes the data and monitors the systems and acts on the information.
Then, it means T26 mission bay is too large?

May be, may be not.

All my point is, Leander’s interpretation of boat bays requirement looks better, and just proposing to also adopt it in Arrowhead 140. Simple.

Not saying it must be. But, if not, it will limit the future use of T31 in some aspects. As T31 cost is very tight, and “versatility in USV operation” might not be that important, then it might not be a problem, just out of scope.

[edit] All this discussion started from ARCIMS USV’s ASW version development news. That is why ARCIMS size is discussed here.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby PAUL MARSAY » 29 Sep 2019, 15:33

what would it take for the A140 to become the fleet ASW escort ? Basically HMS, Captas4 and hull quieting. Could it be done for 400m ?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3977
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Postby Ron5 » 29 Sep 2019, 17:05

PAUL MARSAY wrote:what would it take for the A140 to become the fleet ASW escort ? Basically HMS, Captas4 and hull quieting. Could it be done for 400m ?


The equipment & its install has fixed prices (well near enough), but hull quietening cost all depends on how quiet you want to go. I suppose the high end would be converting to hybrid diesel electric/direct diesel drive, rafting everything, isolating noise makers from hull, reducing hull extrusions, selected active noise suppressors & a bubble screening. Low end could just be rafting two of the four diesels for low speed and isolating just the minimum of kit and rely on turning off the rest. Hard to cost but traditionally, ASW escorts have been 25% higher.

So maybe a range: (250 mill plus HMS & Captas) + 10% to 50%. How about a guess: 330 mill to 450 mill.

Plus cost overruns of course :-)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 30 Sep 2019, 08:10

Or take the French approach, do none of that and buy a really good off-board sonar.

A while back when the FTI was in it's infancy the designers had to make a decision, a high performance hull, or a high performance sonar, doing both was deemed unaffordable. They have opted for the latter.

I think this is an interesting one; is there much value turning the T31 into a slightly smaller T26? Or should the navy aim to tackle the sub hunter issue from a different angle?
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby RetroSicotte » 30 Sep 2019, 08:40

shark bait wrote:Or take the French approach, do none of that and buy a really good off-board sonar.

A while back when the FTI was in it's infancy the designers had to make a decision, a high performance hull, or a high performance sonar, doing both was deemed unaffordable. They have opted for the latter.

I think this is an interesting one; is there much value turning the T31 into a slightly smaller T26? Or should the navy aim to tackle the sub hunter issue from a different angle?

They clearly have the right idea. Keeping good systems in there.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1589
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future ASW

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Sep 2019, 11:14

shark bait wrote:Or take the French approach, do none of that and buy a really good off-board sonar.

A while back when the FTI was in it's infancy the designers had to make a decision, a high performance hull, or a high performance sonar, doing both was deemed unaffordable. They have opted for the latter.

I think this is an interesting one; is there much value turning the T31 into a slightly smaller T26? Or should the navy aim to tackle the sub hunter issue from a different angle?


If the RN / MOD are really thinking of building 8 type 31 then maybe they should split the build into 2 batches of 4 the first batch built as is with a HMS the second go a little bit more and raft one engine room and fit a CAPTAS-4. We know A-140 can make 18 knots on one engine 25 knots on two and 30 knots on four so rafting one engine room would be good enough

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby PAUL MARSAY » 30 Sep 2019, 11:59

If we could make A140 into credible ASW escort then I would cap type 26 and move to T4x straight away .


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests