Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Well I feel type 31 should be a true GP frigate capable of singleton operations and for me this means it should be fitted with HMS 24 CAMM and 8 SSGW's plus as said before there should six of them this would allow the rest of the fleet to train and deploy as needed. In my mind we are so close with type 31 of striking a good balance for a GP frigate

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, and going back to making them also capable assets for littoral ASW, we could take a page from Saab's play book - or more literally, buy some of the nxt-gen torps that in littoral environments (while making their way towards the supposed target) can enhance the 'pinging' by acting as 'forward-deployed' sonars. CorporalFrisk.com has written a summary of what is on offer:

"Saab’s answer is the NLWT, which sports a number of niche features which combine to address the problems of subhunting in littoral waters. To begin with the torpedo is wire-guided, meaning that the operator aboard the ship can easily control the torpedo throughout its course. This also allows it to be used like a forward-deployed sensor, in that the operator can use its active sonar to look for targets, at different depths, as the torpedo is happily moving towards the suspected submarine location. The torpedo also has a very low slowest possible speed, allowing it to run very silently, further increasing the effectiveness of its sonars (the torpedo can be fired in both active and passive modes). One crucial difference is that the active sonar is operating at a somewhat higher frequency than usual for light torpedoes, giving it better resolution on the sonar picture as a trade-off for somewhat shorter viewing range. The torpedo also has a quick launch sequence and rapidly goes into stable running, to ensure that it doesn’t touch the bottom and can handle the earlier mentioned short engagement ranges efficiently."

[Repulse]

Well I feel type 31 should be a true GP frigate capable of singleton operations and for me this means it should be fitted with HMS 24 CAMM and 8 SSGW's plus as said before there should six of them this would allow the rest of the fleet to train and deploy as needed. In my mind we are so close with type 31 of striking a good balance for a GP frigate

The RN is not talking about Singleton operations any more as far as I understand- I not saying it won’t happen on occasion, but the whole thrust is it will either be forward based or CEPP.

The whole point (as I understand) is that the T31 is simple enough to be forward based, but capable enough to defend itself enough to operate in a non benign environment. Adding additional bells and whistles not only limits its ability to be forward based, but also costs money - what are you planning to cut?

[Ron5]

Here we go again with the same old myths (BS) that periodically crop up here:

1. Active sonar does NOT remove the requirement for the host to be as quite as possible. The bounce from a ping is very quiet so its signal to (host ship's generated) noise ratio has to be as high as possible to enable detection. Plus the other reason for quiet is to avoid being detected by the target.

2. The Type 23's & 26's don't need or use active sonar. Yes they do, low frequency pings that travel 100's of miles. Unfortunately they eff with whales etc.

3. All any ship (T31, fishing trawler, IOW ferry) needs to become an ASW asset is the "right sonar". No.

4. CAMM is no good because its never been tested plus its too short range. Troll stuff.

5. Some warships without air cover can remain safe operating within enemy air range. Nope. Hasn't been true since WW2.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Why does not quote work on this thread... err, the posting count will start to climb now (every cloud has a silver lining )
"The RN is not talking about Singleton operations any more as far as I understand- I not saying it won’t happen on occasion, but the whole thrust is it will either be forward based "

Singleton (as a warship... there might also be MCM tupperwares bobbing about) and being forward-based are in no way mutually exclusive.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a very low slowest possible speed, allowing it to run very silently, further increasing the effectiveness of its sonars (the torpedo can be fired in both active and passive modes). One crucial difference is that the active sonar is operating at a somewhat higher frequency than usual for light torpedoes, giving it better resolution on the sonar picture as a trade-off for somewhat shorter viewing range.

The bounce from a ping is very quiet so its signal to (host ship's generated) noise ratio has to be as high as possible to enable detection. Plus the other reason for quiet is to avoid being detected by the target.

yep-yep

[SW1]

I double were heading up into the barent and Kola Peninsula in anything but a submarine if things started to turn hot or short of the entire nato battle fleet.

It would be also interesting to see how the Nordic countries and the Baltic coast countries start to respond to such asw challenges, its there back yard after all and know what works, like with acc Swedish example.

Type 31 is an attempt to change or break the current procurement cycle/trend for a sophisticated and capable vessel and in so much it is arguably the most important program for some time. If successful it could become a very important vessel for quite some time.

[Tempest414]

The RN is not talking about Singleton operations any more as far as I understand- I not saying it won’t happen on occasion, but the whole thrust is it will either be forward based or CEPP.

The whole point (as I understand) is that the T31 is simple enough to be forward based, but capable enough to defend itself enough to operate in a non benign environment. Adding additional bells and whistles not only limits its ability to be forward based, but also costs money - what are you planning to cut?

Firstly any ship operating on it own be it from the UK or a forward base is a singleton in my book. Next adding 12 extra CAMM and a hull mounted sonar is not going to effect it being forward based and nor is SSGW as we see with the type 23 in the Gulf as for cost I am not planning on cut a dam thing more telling HMG to pull it head out of it ass

[Repulse]

... I am not planning on cut a dam thing more telling HMG to pull it head out of it ass

And what if it doesn’t (given the massive economic shock and focus on NHS caused by Coronavirus), which is very likely?

[dmereifield]

Well I feel type 31 should be a true GP frigate capable of singleton operations and for me this means it should be fitted with HMS 24 CAMM and 8 SSGW's plus as said before there should six of them this would allow the rest of the fleet to train and deploy as needed. In my mind we are so close with type 31 of striking a good balance for a GP frigate

The RN is not talking about Singleton operations any more as far as I understand- I not saying it won’t happen on occasion, but the whole thrust is it will either be forward based or CEPP.

The whole point (as I understand) is that the T31 is simple enough to be forward based, but capable enough to defend itself enough to operate in a non benign environment. Adding additional bells and whistles not only limits its ability to be forward based, but also costs money - what are you planning to cut?

Is 12 CAMM sufficient to defend itself to any meaningful extent in a non-binding environment? Isnt that basically enough (maybe) to hold off one salvo from either 1 aircraft or maybe 1 surface combatant (if you're lucky)?

[Repulse]

Is 12 CAMM sufficient to defend itself to any meaningful extent in a non-binding environment? Isnt that basically enough (maybe) to hold off one salvo from either 1 aircraft or maybe 1 surface combatant (if you're lucky)?

Probably not by itself, but with other countermeasures and closer self defence weapons it’s a good start. However, it’s not good enough for a war fighting platform, it’s ok for a MHC platform or a ASW platform mid Atlantic (or under UK based umbrella).

[donald_of_tokyo]

Here we go again with the same old myths (BS) that periodically crop up here:

1. Active sonar does NOT remove the requirement for the host to be as quite as possible. The bounce from a ping is very quiet so its signal to (host ship's generated) noise ratio has to be as high as possible to enable detection. Plus the other reason for quiet is to avoid being detected by the target.

2. The Type 23's & 26's don't need or use active sonar. Yes they do, low frequency pings that travel 100's of miles. Unfortunately they eff with whales etc.

3. All any ship (T31, fishing trawler, IOW ferry) needs to become an ASW asset is the "right sonar". No.

4. CAMM is no good because its never been tested plus its too short range. Troll stuff.

5. Some warships without air cover can remain safe operating within enemy air range. Nope. Hasn't been true since WW2.

Good lists/summary, thanks!

One thing to add, on active sonar tactics.

A: "a ship with x2 pinging power" and "a ship with 1/2 a noise" will have the same capability in active mode. Just a logical thinking.

In general, "doubling the pinging power" is cheaper than "halving the hull noise". To make a relatively cheap escort with 2nd-rate-ASW capability, this is a good solution. And this is the reason French FTI adopts CAPTAS-4CI with "not so quiet hull (with CODAD propulsion)", DCNS guy (now Naval group) clearly states so. (I understand CAPTAS-4 CI is basically a combination of CAPTAS-2 TASS with CAPTAS-4 pinger.) On the other hand, this escort will be very bad at passive mode, and will never be as capable as T26 = a quiet hull with largest pinger (VDS) and largest TASS, even in active mode.

B: Netherlands navy, when adopting LFAPS sonar (made of TASS and VDS pinger, as well), was reported to be NOT interested in passive mode, but only on active mode. Their M-class frigate (CODOG) is a typical 2nd-tier ASW frigate, but, one of the best ones in that class. So the frigate shall be relatively quiet. Even so, they look like "seeing little hope" in passive mode.

This is also reasonable. M-class frigates are designed to be "good" ASW frigate in 1990s operating passive TASS. It must have been "a quiet hull" in 1990s standard. But, improvements in SSN/SSK now make them not quite enough, at least for passive ASW. This marks big difference to T26 (and FREMM) concept of sticking to be a quiet hull and still thinking of passive (in addition to active) modes.

I think this is the modern definition of 1st-tier and 2nd-tier ASW frigates. As such, a normal hull (= "quiet" hull in NATO frigate standard) with hull-sonar will be a kind of 3rd-tier ASW asset.

[NickC]

The suggestion "a ship with x2 pinging power" and "a ship with 1/2 a noise" sounds logical to offset the URN of a low cost unsilenced ship though would like to know if any trials ever conducted to confirm the theory and if it works in operation, questions, how much larger sonar array, would it need a larger displacement ship so as not to affect ships handling and at what additional cost of the more powerful sonar.

Fincantieri have asked the same question and conducted a study to investigate the optimal cost vs performance trade-off to fulfill the noise requirement needed for operation of the Thales Kingklip HMS for the 1,620t/88 m Abu Dahbi corvettes, Fincantieri ASNE Paper

"The solution defined in the simulation study for the propulsion train, led to installing the propulsion engines upon resilient mounts – single stage – with proper associated rigidity. The reduction gears are rigidly mounted on foundations carefully treated by means of appropriate visco-elastic materials and doubling plates, aimed to dampen frequencies considered critical to the sonar’s performance. 
The more classic alternative would have been to install the engines and reduction gears upon a first stage of resilient mounts on a common base, coupled to the ship’s lower hull by means of a second stage of resilient mount. 
This alternative would have cost more, been more difficult to implement in the ship and decreased maintenance space access for workers."

PS The new Fincantieri USN FFG reported to use a Fixed Pitch Propeller (as T23 & T26) not a Controllable Pitch Propeller as in the parent FREMM-IT. (URN- Worst case Diesel/gearbox/Controllable Pitch Propeller, Best case Diesel Electric (AC or DC?) fixed pitch propeller?)

[Tempest414]

And what if it doesn’t (given the massive economic shock and focus on NHS caused by Coronavirus), which is very likely?

Then we to be realistic and we need to start moving kit around to even out what we have and use what money there is to the best effect and people are not going to like it but here its

1) reduce CAMM from 48 to 36 on Type 26 and place the 12 CAMM on Type 31 to give it 24 reason type 26 will spend most of its time attached to the carrier groups or conducting TAPS while type 31 will be acting as a singleton

2) take the 200 million talked about for I-SSGW and buy 10 sets of NSM and spilt them 5 sets on Type 45 and and 5 sets on Type 31

3) double down on efforts to find the money within the Type 31 budget for a HMS system if this can't be done then we have to face facts and look at what programs need to be cut or budgets reduced to make this happen

[Repulse]

Then we to be realistic and we need to start moving kit around to even out what we have and use what money there is to the best effect...

I agree to the principle, but it’s more than just moving kit around it’s about focused procurement on the new kit that fits a strategy that fits the budget.

What we have in front of us is only three classes of significant surface ships being built in 2020s; T26, T31 and FSS. It was clear the budget was already over stretched so at best (though very uncertain) we will be able to afford all.

Out of the three, the T31 comes bottom for me for priority for numbers and weapons.

[Caribbean]

1. Active sonar does NOT remove the requirement for the host to be as quite as possible. The bounce from a ping is very quiet so its signal to (host ship's generated) noise ratio has to be as high as possible to enable detection. Plus the other reason for quiet is to avoid being detected by the target.

A couple of things that affect the generic assertion (and relate to your point 3, as well)

1. Signal processing. Modern sonar systems use signal processing to (amongst many other things) remove self-noise from the incoming signal. It's not perfect, so physical noise reduction is desirable, but the capability does compensate for some of the failings of the hull. Extreme quietness is to hide from your intended target, not such a consideration when you are actively pinging.

2. Tactics. Eg "Sprint and Drift", though more accurately high-speed maneouver and low-speed listening. A hull does not have to be quiet at all speeds, just at some. Each hull in a design will be quietest at slightly different speeds (Engine RPM, to be more accurate). Identifying those conditions will be part of sea trials for a naval platform. The T23ASW is said to use these tactics, though I don't know if that is true. Again, not so much of a consideration in active mode, but certainly important in passive mode (which even HMS' are capable of)

3. Tuning. A hull does not have to be silent at all frequencies - it can be tuned to be quietest at specific speeds (or more specifically quiet at particular frequencies at designated engine RPM). Clearly cheaper to acheive than at all frequencies and all engine RPM. I believe that T26 design goal is to be extremely quiet through most of it's speed range (certainly up to fleet maneouver speeds), removing the need to sprint and drift (and one of the reasons that it is so expensive).

A: "a ship with x2 pinging power" and "a ship with 1/2 a noise" will have the same capability in active mode. Just a logical thinking.

I'm not sure that that is correct. However, accepting it as being so, I would point to signal processing as distorting that simple equation significantly . Twice as much power will certainly have an impact, but I would have said that how you handle that signal is far more important that the noise level of the platform. Obviously you will get to a point where even the best signal processing will be unable to pick out the signal from the noise (that's how jamming works), but my point is more that it can compensate hugely for self-noise.

I think that you may be correct in ascribing 3rd-Tier status to a standard hull with HMS (perhaps that is what the RN meant by "entry-level" ASW capability), however, it looks to me as if the hull selected for the T31 is a 2nd-tier capable hull. The suggestion is that the T31 may yet get the Thales UMS 4110 or Kingklip sonar, but that won't be known until actual contract details are released. Perhaps, when they are in the water, we may yet see the RN leasing a containerised Captas system or two to conduct trials.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm not sure that that is correct. However, accepting it as being so, I would point to signal processing as distorting that simple equation significantly . Twice as much power will certainly have an impact, but I would have said that how you handle that signal is far more important that the noise level of the platform. Obviously you will get to a point where even the best signal processing will be unable to pick out the signal from the noise (that's how jamming works), but my point is more that it can compensate hugely for self-noise.

No objection. SSK quietness is so "severe", so that good signal processing is by default MUST. Your point of avoiding noisy frequency is also important, I agree. If it is active ASW, what you need is just to cancel out (by both processing and noise reduction) the "noise in useful frequency band" to maximize your signal.

Active ASW has an advantage that the pinger can use the "best mix of a few frequencies" to enable better signal processing and thus less noise. And anyway, as you know, it will always be limited by noise at last (but this case, the residual noise after "noise canceling"). If the pinger power is doubled, it is equivalent to "halving" the noise. This is what I mean.

Buy, anyway there is a limit defined by sea-water characteristics and the size of the pinger. (I think cavitation may take place if you "shake" it too strong: fact). And, I understand CAPTAS-4 pinger is at the limit, using the maximum sound power can be send from a VDS of that size (although a guess).

I think that you may be correct in ascribing 3rd-Tier status to a standard hull with HMS (perhaps that is what the RN meant by "entry-level" ASW capability), however, it looks to me as if the hull selected for the T31 is a 2nd-tier capable hull. The suggestion is that the T31 may yet get the Thales UMS 4110 or Kingklip sonar, but that won't be known until actual contract details are released. Perhaps, when they are in the water, we may yet see the RN leasing a containerised Captas system or two to conduct trials.

Not sure. As you yourself has pointed out, good signal processing is the key. This means, the ASW analysis software is expensive. So, it is not just putting a hull sonar, small or large. It is having an ASW analysis kit or not, which is limited by the cost, I guess. Cost of sonar itself is, of course, sharing some big fraction of the total cost, but not the majority, I understand.

[Ron5]

Thank you guys for the considered responses to my list. In reply:

1. It's not the "ping" that is the issue, it's the echo of that ping. Detecting that echo raises identical issues as passive detection i.e. detecting a very faint noise from a background of a lot of other noise. Most of that other noise coming from the closest noise generator. Your own ship.

2. Yes, it's the signal to noise ratio that matters. Either reduce the noise or increase the signal (echo). Or both.

3. Doubling the "ping" does not double the echo. It's a 3 dimensional world. More importantly for this discussion, doubling the ping does not double the signal to noise ratio.

4. Good descriptions of various ways to do this from you guys by manipulating frequencies, employing VDS etc. The best way, of course, to reduce self-noise is for the ASW ship to turn everything off and just sit. This unfortunately has tactical disadvantages, as does moving at relatively slow speeds. Drift and sprint works but isn't ideal by any means.

5. Employees of DCN and Financantieri are not necessarily the best analyst of their own products (esp the French)

6. A pinger still needs to move quietly between pings just as a submarine does, to avoid detection.

7. The use of a pinger and a silent partner doesn't avoid the issue of detection by the target because, of course, the ping is reflected off the partner. Unless it's a helicopter!

8. Nothing I have written was meant to imply the Type 31's should not be equipped with a HMS. They should, as a matter of priority.

9. Carribbean is absolutely correct that these days it's all about signal processing. Sonars have not really advanced for some time, the type 26 will have essentially the same sonar as the T23's they are replacing. But the T26's computer & signal processing power will be many more times more powerful and effective. Donald-san's suggestion of increasing sonar power is not really happening to any degree.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thank you guys for the considered responses to my list. In reply:

1. It's not the "ping" that is the issue, it's the echo of that ping. Detecting that echo raises identical issues as passive detection i.e. detecting a very faint noise from a background of a lot of other noise. Most of that other noise coming from the closest noise generator. Your own ship.

2. Yes, it's the signal to noise ratio that matters. Either reduce the noise or increase the signal (echo). Or both.

3. Doubling the "ping" does not double the echo. It's a 3 dimensional world. More importantly for this discussion, doubling the ping does not double the signal to noise ratio.

4. Good descriptions of various ways to do this from you guys by manipulating frequencies, employing VDS etc. The best way, of course, to reduce self-noise is for the ASW ship to turn everything off and just sit. This unfortunately has tactical disadvantages, as does moving at relatively slow speeds. Drift and sprint works but isn't ideal by any means.

5. Employees of DCN and Financantieri are not necessarily the best analyst of their own products (esp the French)

6. A pinger still needs to move quietly between pings just as a submarine does, to avoid detection.

7. The use of a pinger and a silent partner doesn't avoid the issue of detection by the target because, of course, the ping is reflected off the partner. Unless it's a helicopter!

8. Nothing I have written was meant to imply the Type 31's should not be equipped with a HMS. They should, as a matter of priority.

9. Carribbean is absolutely correct that these days it's all about signal processing. Sonars have not really advanced for some time, the type 26 will have essentially the same sonar as the T23's they are replacing. But the T26's computer & signal processing power will be many more times more powerful and effective. Donald-san's suggestion of increasing sonar power is not really happening to any degree.

Thanks Ron5-san. Although we might not agree/converse, let me just point out a few issues I understand differently, just for clarity.

Items-1,2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. No objection. Great summary. Item-8 is your issue, so not related to my point.

My "different point of view" is only on items-3 and 9.

3. Doubling the "ping" does not double the echo. It's a 3 dimensional world. More importantly for this discussion, doubling the ping does not double the signal to noise ratio.

Doubling the "ping" DOES double the echo. Of course, it does double the signal to noise ratio.

But, it will never mean doubling the range nor analysis power. These things are, as you said, multi-dimensional issue. Doubling the ping just doubles the signal to noise ratio, if operated in completely the same condition. I mean, when a T26 is pinging with "AA" watt, and in a few seconds later with "2x AA" watt, the latter ping gives you twice the signal-to-noise ratio to the same target. Just a matter of physics.

9. .. Donald-san's suggestion of increasing sonar power is not really happening to any degree.

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. Here I am (or DCNS guy was) talking about using "CAPTAS-4 VDS + CAPTAS-2 TASS", and compared it with "CAPTAS-2 VDS + CAPTAS-2 TASS". I understand the former is the CAPTAS-4CI (of course with some addition).

As the hull noise is there, French FTI frigate, even with full-CAPTAS-4, will never compete with T26. And, with smaller TASS than CAPTAS-4, "FTI with CAPTAS-4CI" will be even inferior. But, it will be surely better than FTI with CAPTAS-2.

The trade-off they did is, FTI with CAPTAS-4CI vs another hull "twice more quiet" with CAPTAS-2. It is clearly not an easy comparison. And their choice then was the former. That's it. With improving noise dumping technology, digital data processing technology, and changing the frequency band used in the sonar, the conclusion can change.

But, it was one solution, on which French navy is investing 3.3B GBP to realize it. So, at least, it is one solution (if not the only one).

--------
P.S. Again and again, I NEVER intended to say FTI with CAPTAS-4 CI is comparable, in any way, with T26 with CAPTAS-4. FTI is clearly a 2nd-tier ASW ship, comparing it with 1st-tier ASW ships is pointless.

If T31 be equipped with CAPTAS-4CI, it will be a similar class as ASW vessel as FTI? May be, may not be.

T31 with hull-mounted-sonar (what I "named" 3rd-tier ASW) can do ASW as good as FTI? Of course, NOT.

Adding hull-mounted-sonar to T31 will be easy/cheap? I do not think so. HMS itself may be not so expensive, but its analysis system will surely be a big monster in computational power and analysis software cost (compared to such a simple CMS onboard T31). Also, ASW crew training will be a big issue.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Adding hull-mounted-sonar to T31 will be easy/cheap?

+

one solution, on which French navy is investing 3.3B GBP to realize it

+

8. Nothing I have written was meant to imply the Type 31's should not be equipped with a HMS. They should, as a matter of priority.

Ron's point stands, without saying. So what can be done with the first batch - see what I did there - without doubling the investment cost upfront, as per figures above? The assertation was made that sonars have not advanced much (only the processing that backs up the "physical process") and whether that is true or not might need a closer look. We always (only) talk about the Thales family, so let's see what Kongsberg says:

Starting with the option favoured for T31... in order to move it up in the league tables
SS 2030 – A hull mounted active anti-submarine warfare sonar specially designed for operations in shallow water. Design focus has been on creating a light weight, compact size and multiple frequencies designed for shallow water ASW that can be installed on virtually any ship types and sizes. The operating frequency is ranging from 20 to 30 kHz and the built in features are suited for shallow water operation. A passive mode where transmission is turned off is also available. Special features as computer aided target acquisition and sound propagation model are included. The beams are electronically steered in both vertical and horizontal direction and stabilised for ships roll and pitch.

The same tech can be acquired also in the VDS disguise:
ST 2400 - A towed variable depth active sonar for anti-submarine warfare specially designed for operations in shallow water

7. The use of a pinger and a silent partner doesn't avoid the issue of detection by the target because, of course, the ping is reflected off the partner. Unless it's a helicopter!

- now we go back to the relative strength of the ping vs. the echo

Assume the pair stalking, without knowing about the target, but then it is acquired. The pair's relative position could be anything, seen from the target, but let's assume that they are equally distanced from it
- the pinger will certainly make itself known, whereas the echo from the 'listener' being picked up is down to distance, angle from the target's sensor (nothing is 360 degrees, though a lot of this stuff is getting distributed into the sub's skin, rather than being a lump of hardware sitting in a given location)... in one word: much more down to chance. So don't chance it - but rather pull the trigger for the torp, range permitting, ASAP

[shark bait]

It's not the "ping" that is the issue, it's the echo of that ping. Detecting that echo raises identical issues as passive detection i.e. detecting a very faint noise from a background of a lot of other noise.

At least with a "ping" the frequency band is known, which makes the filtering much more effective. This is unlike listening for broadband noise of similar frequency to the ships self noise. Reduced self noise is always important, its just more important for a passive search

[jonas]

Parliamentary written answers 11th May 2020 :-

Asked by Lord West of Spithead
Asked on: 28 April 2020
Ministry of Defence
Warships: Shipbuilding
HL3566
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether surface warship and submarine shipbuilding is continuing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A
Answered by: Baroness Goldie
Answered on: 11 May 2020

It is crucial that defence operations and programmes, on which our national security relies, continue uninterrupted. We are working closely with our industry partners to ensure that essential work in the shipyards continues while adhering to the latest safety guidelines to protect the workforce.

Where specific work is required, instructions have been implemented locally by management to confirm that due consideration and briefing has been put in place to manage the risk in an appropriate way, protect employees and ensure priority activities are still undertaken as far as is possible.
Q
Asked by Lord West of Spithead
Asked on: 29 April 2020
Ministry of Defence
Shipbuilding: Coronavirus
HL3734
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to accelerating shipbuilding programmes in the UK to assist with economic revival following the COVID-19 pandemic.
A
Answered by: Baroness Goldie
Answered on: 11 May 2020

The Secretary of State for Defence continues to work closely with the maritime industry in his capacity as Shipbuilding Tsar. Current Government shipbuilding programmes are progressing, with the shipbuilding industry following Government social distancing guidance. Future shipbuilding plans remain under close review.

[Ron5]

Although we might not agree/converse,

That is why I enjoy discussing things with you so much Donald-san

Doubling the "ping" DOES double the echo.

To double the amount of energy the target receives, the ping must be made 8 times more powerful. Or in other words, doubling the ping will result in an increase of energy at the target of the cube root of 2 (approx 1.3).

Adding hull-mounted-sonar to T31 will be easy/cheap? I do not think so. HMS itself may be not so expensive, but its analysis system will surely be a big monster in computational power and analysis software cost (compared to such a simple CMS onboard T31). Also, ASW crew training will be a big issue.

No not that cheap but not that expensive either. The design is supposed to have the ability to fit a hull sonar at a later date according the the RFI. I assume that would imply the space & power for computers/consoles would also be there. Ships complement might have to go up by a couple or 3. Don't forget sonars have utility other than for ASW.

[Ron5]

Assume the pair stalking, without knowing about the target, but then it is acquired. The pair's relative position could be anything, seen from the target, but let's assume that they are equally distanced from it
- the pinger will certainly make itself known, whereas the echo from the 'listener' being picked up is down to distance, angle from the target's sensor (nothing is 360 degrees, though a lot of this stuff is getting distributed into the sub's skin, rather than being a lump of hardware sitting in a given location)... in one word: much more down to chance. So don't chance it - but rather pull the trigger for the torp, range permitting, ASAP

Yes you are correct that I was assuming the pinger & partner were close to each other. A bad assumption.

[Ron5]

Q
Asked by Lord West of Spithead
Asked on: 29 April 2020
Ministry of Defence
Shipbuilding: Coronavirus
HL3734
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to accelerating shipbuilding programmes in the UK to assist with economic revival following the COVID-19 pandemic.
A
Answered by: Baroness Goldie
Answered on: 11 May 2020

The Secretary of State for Defence continues to work closely with the maritime industry in his capacity as Shipbuilding Tsar. Current Government shipbuilding programmes are progressing, with the shipbuilding industry following Government social distancing guidance. Future shipbuilding plans remain under close review.

That is sooo depressing. Of course the rest of the world is accelerating locally produced programs at the expense of offshore acquisitions. South Korea was in the news today doing exactly that. Doesn't cost the host country anything extra, just increases home employment/economic well being.

But Britain knows best!! Despite the worst kung flu record in Europe.