Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

Quite simply it has a big mission bay for larger “drones” than just a 7m Rhib davit - including space for maintenance. A flat working deck like the Venator 90/Venari would be an alternative.

I see this comment repeated over and over but no where in any official documents or configurations for a140 is it stated that it can only handle a 7m rib. I have seen hints in official documents it can handle much bigger vessels than that. Perhaps it would be worth waiting until official specifications are released.

The best place for multiple unmanned vessels or ribs to be transported to an area is on a RFA not a couple on a frigate or sloop or what ever else.

It maybe interesting to see an unmanned/optionally manned vessel around the size of an archer class patrol vessel for the mcm/asw type mission long term. Looking from the outside at present the Israeli seagull offering appears to be further ahead than most in trial and demonstrations.

[Repulse]

Perhaps it would be worth waiting until official specifications are released.

Happy to be proved wrong, but it would need to be serious design changes from what we’ve seen to date to make a difference.

The best place for multiple unmanned vessels or ribs to be transported to an area is on a RFA not a couple on a frigate or sloop or what ever else.

No it’s not. It’s one place, but not the only place and definitely in my view not the “best”. Even a modified Bay class would cost as much as a T31 or more, would require an escort / protective bubble any more than a benign environment and would be easily to track (and counter). A specialised “Drone Sloop” in the @100m range could be a 1/4 of the cost, both to build and operate, meaning more hulls, meaning more bang per buck.

[Caribbean]

I see this comment repeated over and over but no where in any official documents or configurations for a140 is it stated that it can only handle a 7m rib.

Indeed - the only time I have ever seen a size hinted at, was on STRN (who seems to have reasonable sources) and he was talking about the bays handling four of the RNs largest RHIBs (currently the 9.5m Pacific 950, I believe, even the Pacific 28 is nearly 9m) with room to spare "to add bigger davits capable of deploying heavier loads in future". Significantly, BAE is putting a lot of effort into developing offboard systems based on the Pacific 950 (including removable kits to make them optionally manned).

[Repulse]

talking about the bays handling four of the RNs largest RHIBs (currently the 9.5m Pacific 950, I believe, even the Pacific 28 is nearly 9m) with room to spare "to add bigger davits capable of deploying heavier loads in future".

The ECA Group’s Inspector 125 USV going on the new Belgium/ Dutch mine hunting vessels is 12.5m. BAE Mast is 9.8m. They are only going to get bigger and more capable over the next 20 years, so we need something capable of handling USVs and USuVs up to 20m minimum. Even the T26 mission bay can handle something towards the 13m mark.

[tomuk]

Mark Harvey, Babcock’s Business Development Manager – Warships

“It’s hugely configurable this ship,” said Harvey “The four boat bays, for instance, are big enough to take the largest, 9.5 metres RIB used by the Royal Navy today, in all four positions.

[shark bait]

A bit of guestimating from Babcocks images puts the doors at about 10m wide on the T31, vs about 14m wide on the T26.

For comparison ARCIMS is 11m long.

[Tempest414]

so if the stay between the starboard doors could be removed it would be a 20 metre boat bay

[Caribbean]

Since the Pacific 950 can carry a payload of 2 tonnes at 45kts (or 3 tonnes at 40kts), which is sufficient to carry Flash-type dipping sonar (306kg including cable and console) plus sonobuouy dispenser or a couple of LWTs (267kg each), I suspect that we may well see an ASW variant developed at some point. The floating equivalent of a Wildcat with dipping sonar - slower, but more persistent. No real need for anything bigger on a GP platform, I would have said, particularly one that is more likely to concentrate on littoral ASW. For MCM operations, there are a number of lightweight sonar and mine neutralisation systems that could be deployed from or on a 9.5m RHIB
Larger offboard systems would be better for blue-water operations, where sea-keeping in higher sea-states is more of an issue or for dedicated MCM systems, where more/ larger equipment may need to be carried.

[Tempest414]

it is also said by BAE it has a endurance of up to 10 days in patrol and 300 nm in pursuit mode could be interesting if there patrol speed is say 16 knots type 31 could operate say 3 behind the ships spread along 9 km's in a ASW mode or 3 up front in a mine sweep pattern

[donald_of_tokyo]

Most of the USVs now under development for MCM is 12m class (Thales, Atlas, Elbit). Thus, USV-MCM will be based on 12m class boats. There will be an ASW-module, as "one of the module kits" for them. MHC-hull will surely handle the 12m USV. T26 can handle it, as well. But, current T31 design cannot.

In view of sea keeping, different between 9m vs 12m can be compared to 90m (River B2) to 120m (ANZAC frigate). Big difference.

Why develop another 9m class system, inferior in everything? Big waste of money.

A 9m class USV will be there. For example, harbor patrol and intercepting highly mobile fast attack boats. But, it will not be good for MCM or ASW, on which stability of sensor systems is essential.

[Repulse]

so if the stay between the starboard doors could be removed it would be a 20 metre boat bay

If they did that I’d start to see the potential; however it would still be difficult to do maintenance and also still relatively expensive to build and run (and therefore fewer hulls).

[Tempest414]

Most of the USVs now under development for MCM is 12m class (Thales, Atlas, Elbit). Thus, USV-MCM will be based on 12m class boats. There will be an ASW-module, as "one of the module kits" for them. MHC-hull will surely handle the 12m USV. T26 can handle it, as well. But, current T31 design cannot.

In view of sea keeping, different between 9m vs 12m can be compared to 90m (River B2) to 120m (ANZAC frigate). Big difference.

Why develop another 9m class system, inferior in everything? Big waste of money.

A 9m class USV will be there. For example, harbor patrol and intercepting highly mobile fast attack boats. But, it will not be good for MCM or ASW, on which stability of sensor systems is essential.

Hang on to your pants Donald I think you are wrong and 9 meter USV might prove popular with navy's with older ships that can not handle 12 meter USV's time will tell

[Repulse]

with older ships

Perhaps add “design” at the end and you’ve summed up the T31 IMO. We are building a ship for yesterday’s requirements all for the sake to say we have X+ Frigates/Destroyers (X being how many the the French have).

[donald_of_tokyo]

... time will tell

Yes and no.

At least for MCM, "12m" is already coming in as a standard. Little chance to change it anytime soon = at least for a decade.
- Dutch and Belgium selection of Thales system (12m) is already a firm contract.
- RN already has Atlas-UK ARCIMS (11m) influence sweeping system.
- USN Fleet-class USV (12m) is in initial low-rate production phase.

And, I understand, to date, there are only two USV-based ASW system proposed, Elbit SeaGull (12m), and Atlas-UK ARCIMS. I see no 9m-class USV proposing to do any ASW.

BAE's approach to USV differs. BAE Systems P950 USV is deigned to be able to be "retrofitted" to existing RHIBs. I understand T31 team, when talking about "USV capable", is pointing at this program. Surely, this is a "unmanned sentry" very good against terrorists and even fast attack boats. It is just a RHIB with robotic control and a small RMS attached, which means very cost effective and easy to handle. But, has no relation to MCM nor ASW.

So yes, 9.5m class USV boat is coming. But no, none is for ASW nor MCM, at least till now.

[Repulse]

Feels like the right time to remind ourselves what the T26 Mission Bay can do...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-ty ... -contents/

[Tempest414]

So yes, 9.5m class USV boat is coming. But no, none is for ASW nor MCM, at least till now.

As I say hang on to pants

Also I find it interesting that we bang on about type 31 not having a mission bay or boat bays that are to small however the navy has pick it it also had a opportunity to mandate it at the start. So what I see coming is two or all four of the boat bays being enlarged to take the 12m boats

[SW1]

Given who uses the Pacific 95 and the type of roles a type 31 maybe assigned around littoral operations it would make an interesting proposition for an optionally manned variant.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/pacific-950

[Caribbean]

It is just a RHIB with robotic control and a small RMS attached

The system is more than that. It's also a track-based mounting ssytem for other equipment. Just because it's only been demonstrated in one application doesn't mean that's all its capable of, as it has clearly been designed to allow the future development of other modules/ applications.

The Pacific 950 is an optionally manned rigid inflatable boat (RIB) developed jointly by BAE Systems and ASV Global to meet the special mission requirements of naval forces worldwide.

The unmanned maritime operational capabilities of the Pacific 950 were presented at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2017 exhibition held in London, UK, in September 2017.

The vessel demonstrated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities during the Royal Navy’s Unmanned Warrior exercise held in October 2016.

[Tempest414]

It is just a RHIB with robotic control and a small RMS attached

The system is more than that. It's also a track-based mounting ssytem for other equipment. Just because it's only been demonstrated in one application doesn't mean that's all its capable of, as it has clearly been designed to allow the future development of other modules/ applications.

The Pacific 950 is an optionally manned rigid inflatable boat (RIB) developed jointly by BAE Systems and ASV Global to meet the special mission requirements of naval forces worldwide.

The unmanned maritime operational capabilities of the Pacific 950 were presented at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2017 exhibition held in London, UK, in September 2017.

The vessel demonstrated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities during the Royal Navy’s Unmanned Warrior exercise held in October 2016.

This was the L3 Harris site ? interesting that this 9.5 rib has already demoed ASW and ISTAR but I was told up thread that no 9.5 meter had done ASW or was going to

[ArmChairCivvy]

The survey of what is already there, in unmanned ASW, much appreciated. I wonder if there is anything from the 2017 (referenced) DSEI to be added, in the way of detail?

Namely, the already acquired (20 of them?) larger Pacifics boast a midships engine location for optimised use of the aft deck and enables lowering stern ramp access to the water to launch and recover specialist equipment.
- so taking 3 tons (includes crew, may be even fuel) @ 40 knots to where it is needed is nothing to be sniffed at
- furthermore, what might be

coming is two or all four of the boat bays being enlarged to take the 12m boats

... could that be a trade off between numbers and the max size as well? Without remembering the layout details, in the original IH midship has a lot of space reserved for silos. As we are installing "very little" in that respects, is there space reserved for flexibility? Just like on T45s: strike length silos, no... lets have a big mag for an army type of gun for NFGS. Ohh, that one didn't work, so let's have a gym (while we wait )

[donald_of_tokyo]

This was the L3 Harris site ? interesting that this 9.5 rib has already demoed ASW and ISTAR but I was told up thread that no 9.5 meter had done ASW or was going to

Yes, interesting info.

What kind of ASW? What type of sensor? It will be very interesting to know.

My comment was, on network, Seagull and ARCIMS has an ASW-version model clearly presented (ARCIMS with SeaSense VDS+TASS sonar, and Seagull with Canadian TRAPS-USV TASS active-passive sonar).
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... w-payload/
https://seapowermagazine.org/elbit-inte ... agull-usv/

BAE RIB does not (yet). I will be a dipping sonar, or dispensing some sonobuoys, or just using its radar to watch for periscope? Anyway, as the boats is significantly smaller, it will be less capable than Seagull and ACRIMS. Let's see how it goes.

And, yes, I still think 12m is the way to go, so that it can use common USV with MCM = big merit. But, happy to be corrected. And I still think T31 shall better be able to carry 12m USV. Of course, I am NOT complaining it CANNOT, because the detailed design phase is on-going = we are talking about future. I am strongly pushing that it is MUST, because the preliminary design does NOT accept 12m, judging from the newest CG image, BUT STILL the detailed design phase is on-going.

[Tempest414]

https://www.udt-global.com/__media/libr ... -Paper.pdf

In the paper that Atlas delivered to UDT in 2019 in part 2.4 they concluded that


Considering these available options and the current state
of the art, we conclude that a medium sized USV (10m to
13m) with an endurance of 12 to 48 hours fitted with an
active towed sonar system offers the optimum trade-off of
unmanned vehicle and sensor system combination for
utility in ASW. This solution will provide continuous
detection, classification and localisation (DCL). Further
trade-offs within the sonar solution space are covered in
the following sections.

so at 9.5 meters and 2 to 3 ton load pacific 950 is in the running

[ArmChairCivvy]

so at 9.5 meters and 2 to 3 ton load pacific 950 is in the running

Would like to think so, but not sure we can conclude that. As only the space aft of the midship engines location is available to fit these payloads (rather than having a built-to-spec USV where all parts of the hull are available and other 'bits' can then be (re)located accordingly.

[Tempest414]

Would like to think so, but not sure we can conclude that. As only the space aft of the midship engines location is available to fit these payloads

Not so BAE have said that floor rails can be fitted in front on top and aft of the engines allowing a flexible lay out

[ArmChairCivvy]

floor rails can be fitted in front on top and aft of the engines allowing a flexible lay out

Yes, I did read that too, but tell me what useful things can you do from the "foredeck'? As opposed to
" boasts a a midships engine location for optimised use of the aft deck and enables lowering stern ramp access to the water to launch and recover specialist equipment."