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.
Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Aethulwulf » 30 Sep 2019, 12:24

The T26 isn't just a credible ASW, it was designed to over-match likely tier 1 submarine opposition in terms of detection range. This is partly why it is so expensive.

No way T31 could achieve this level.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future ASW

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Sep 2019, 13:23

agreed and I would not be looking to replace any T-26s just improve any second batch of T-31 to level some where on a par FTI

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 Sep 2019, 14:10

As par the future ASW, I am for drone-based ASW capability. I will rather invest in such assets, than making Arrowhead 140's ASW capability to be FTI-equivalent (normal noisy hull with CAPTAS4-CI, which is different from CAPTAS-4).

On drones, there are two approached to my understanding.

Survey- (mainly) Continuous monitoring of the ocean, like SURTASS in cold war. SeaDriX ASW is iXblue looks like this way. Also, Boeing ECHO VOYAGER UUV looks like in this task.

Shallow water- (mainly) Shallow water SSK hunting, with USV common to MCM tasks. ARCIMS ASW, SeaGull if Israel are both looks like on this line.

But, anyway these drones needs money. If the latter drones are "common" with MCM drones, its logistic will be more easy. The former drones may have different hull-form, has different operation endurance and range, so might be different design. I think the latter drone has overlap with hypothetical "ASW-capable Arrowhead 140". And, this is why I want to see 11-m drones to be carried on T31. As it is off-board systems, it is not fixed to Arrowhead 140. Both type of drones could be carried also on T26, enabling rapid deployment to the front line. It can also penetrate enemy SSK barrier.

If the threat is low, Arrowhead 140 can deploy it, or even a PSV can. Flexible, it will be. :D

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Postby Ron5 » 30 Sep 2019, 16:47

Not sure pointing at FTI is a great answer to turning the Type 31 into a useful ASW asset. Won't the FTI's cost about $800 million each?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Sep 2019, 21:42

If we are going to be using the T-1 as our forward based assets, and given that these locations are close to major shipping bottlenecks, equipping them with USVs for various tasks seems to be a sensible idea. I cannot see them being a serious ASW asset in the North Atlantic, but USVs, Wildcat and hopefully a bow sonar would make them quite useful for ASW in restricted waters.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 01 Oct 2019, 07:56

The Navy would have a very hard time turning arrowhead into a passive deep-sea sub hunter, and what would be the point? that is what the T26 is for.

If there's an opportunity to add coastal ASW to the T31 would that be a more valuable option?

It would put more sensors in a very challenging environment, and doesn't step on the T26's toes. Furthermore in the coastal environment active sonar is required, which lessens the need for super quiet propulsion, which is convenient for the container ship propulsion on the T31.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 Oct 2019, 08:59

Ron5 wrote:Won't the FTI's cost about $800 million each?
How much of the total cost is due to the FTI's AAW capability with the 16x ASTER 15/30 as opposed to the KingKlip and CAPTAS 4 Compact? If the ASTER was dropped for Mica, the price would probably reduce considerably. Perhaps a more even comparison with the T31 and CAMM?
shark bait wrote:The Navy would have a very hard time turning arrowhead into a passive deep-sea sub hunter, and what would be the point? that is what the T26 is for.
In that case, what is the point of the FTI?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future ASW

Postby abc123 » 01 Oct 2019, 10:09

Poiuytrewq wrote: In that case, what is the point of the FTI?


New export product for DCN?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 01 Oct 2019, 14:37

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Won't the FTI's cost about $800 million each?
How much of the total cost is due to the FTI's AAW capability with the 16x ASTER 15/30 as opposed to the KingKlip and CAPTAS 4 Compact? If the ASTER was dropped for Mica, the price would probably reduce considerably. Perhaps a more even comparison with the T31 and CAMM?
I understand, many of the FTI cost resides on;
- completely new hull form,
- designed with brand new radar system,
- coupled with ASTER-30 based long-range AAW system
- added with CAPTAS4CI based ASW system (with modest hull sonar).

On the contrary, Arrowhead 140 as T31 is
- as mush as reused exiting hull design
- with basic 3D radar system (it is new, but designed as its infamous SMART-S Mk.2's replacement)
- with CAMM-based local-area/self-defense AAW system
- with no ASW capability
shark bait wrote:The Navy would have a very hard time turning arrowhead into a passive deep-sea sub hunter, and what would be the point? that is what the T26 is for.
In that case, what is the point of the FTI?
CODAD normal-noise hull, added with CAPTAS-4 CI is a new idea. CAPTAS-4CI has much shorter TASS than CAPTAS-4, while has the same VDS pinger.

I guess it means CAPTAS-4CI is much more oriented on active ASW, and not much on passive. FTI normal hull also emphasis this approach.

A 2nd-tier ASW escort concept itself is not new = common world-wide. Good examples are, Dutch M-class frigate (some are now added with LFAS), Norwayian Nansen-class frigates (with CAPTAS-2) and German F123-class frigates (also some with LFAS). I think FTI is looking at that position. Not brilliant in ASW, but non-negligible, I guess.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Oct 2019, 01:05

If we are going to try to increase the T-31s ASW capability, I strongly believe we should aim to make them optimised of littoral ASW operations.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Future ASW

Postby seaspear » 04 Oct 2019, 12:17

This might be a litttle off in the usual posts but as its suggests future ASW why not
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-04/ ... s/11570886
I can appreciate that media claims can be to a high degree inaccurate and the restrictions on work carried out in this field that would be made available to the public even allies is likely to prevent any qualified response to this , I was wondering if this article had consideration for submarine development in countering this

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Oct 2019, 07:13

Any space based laser that can reach 500m down to detect a submarine would have to be classed as a space based weapon, as its power would mean if used against land targets it would probably inflict damage/wounds. I believe there are still international treaties against space based weapons but then again Chins doesn't give a damn about such insignificant things.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Oct 2019, 07:20

"The fact that [China] has gone to the extent of issuing a photograph of [the test] suggests that they're saying, 'Hey look, don't assume we can't do this'." straight from the linked article
- whereas wake detection, by using satellites is reality today

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 05 Oct 2019, 16:40

There is relatively few ssn compared to ssk submarines in the world and fewer still that we need to concern ourselves with being that the UK, France and US operate by far the most. Russian ssn numbers probably less than a dozen split between the Pacific and Atlantic and the Chinese a similar number. We end up being asked to concentrate on the Atlantic and european areas to allow US assets to concentrate on the Pacific.

Since then end of the Cold War the game has changed somewhat in that due to improvements in Russian missile technology there ssbns do not need to move into the North Atlantic to launch they can now stay way up in the high north which is not were surface warships are going.

SSK will predominantly be the submarines we are hunting especially as technology advances allows them to expand there capabilities. They also cost less and being non nuclear allow many more nations to avail of such systems.

This may lead to more of a bias to active than passive systems, as well development of other tech so the article seaspear linked is interesting to that regard. With miniaturisation of sonobuoys and better battery longevity allowing more launch platform options and the transfer of helicopter sonars to unmanned craft maybe a trend that sees the frigate become more of the information analysts than main sensor provider.

https://www.harris.com/solution/next-ge ... ampaign=es

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 07 Oct 2019, 11:17

That does makes sense.

With the introduction of P8 and the T26 the UK should largely consider open ocean sub hunting satisfied. That does leave a gap finding SSK's in coastal environments, which is probably where any new funding should be directed.

Back in 82 the RN were better quipped for the times, and still expended a lot of energy hunting SSK's. The result was they pretty much got lucky (a similar thing happened in Libya I hear). I'm not sure the Navy should count on getting lucky again, and with SSK's proliferating around the globe its somewhere that could really do with extra focus.

If only there was a new class of frigate on the way with a big stern mission bay.....
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Postby Ron5 » 08 Oct 2019, 07:25

shark bait wrote:With the introduction of P8 and the T26 the UK should largely consider open ocean sub hunting satisfied.


Say what?

All those poor Russian & Chinese SSN drivers must be quaking in their boots.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Postby Ron5 » 08 Oct 2019, 07:31

I fear folks are slipping, I've not seen any mention of this for the Type 31s:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/elbit-systems-tests-sonar-system-with-the-royal-canadian-navy/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 08 Oct 2019, 07:49

I did mention it on twitter :lol:



Something like the above would be a worthwhile addition on the T31, and there are quite a few sonars in this class now, so plenty of choice.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 15 Apr 2020, 20:05

https://www.janes.com/article/95487/elb ... ia=twitter

Developed by Elbit's naval systems business, Seagull is a modular 12 m aluminium-hulled USV capable of operation from either a mother ship or shore station. Designed for a mission endurance in excess of 96 hours, the system marries a highly autonomous core command and control/situational awareness suite with modular payload packages tailored to specific missions including mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), hydrography, electronic warfare, and maritime security.

Elbit has previously integrated the L3Harris Ocean Systems Helicopter Long-Range Active Sonar (HELRAS) active dipping sonar on Seagull and performed a sea acceptance test with the Israeli Navy.

The TRAPS-USV system is intended to provide an alternative ASW sonar option for customers with mission profiles – such as ASW escort or convoy protection – requiring a sensing capability while operating at speed.

TRAPS-USV is a scaled-down variant of the containerised TRAPS previously demonstrated by GeoSpectrum Technologies on Royal Canadian Navy Kingston-class coastal defence vessels.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 18 Apr 2020, 01:49

Good youtube movie.



Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gpage, Jake1992 and 18 guests