Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
It shouldn't too much. The STINGRAY fit standard loading lugs and umbilical connectors and was trial fitted for the Indian models. There needs to be some changes in the software for telemetry handoff to the weapon butnthe mission computers are virtually the same as the MRA4 due to the same company building the precursor for the P3 and MR2. ELINT however would be difficult due to the common modular workstation software architecture. This would need a major rewrite and might 'invalidate warranty'!! The wing kits being trialled for high altitude delivery would fit the STINGRAY but would need a validation, both this and the Mark 54 are similar weight and have identical water entry parameters, the only difference is in the motor immersion time: STING is quicker off the mark but very slightly slower but far more manouverable especially at depth.
-
- Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 23 May 2015, 21:45
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Any MARPAT needs to allow for anti ship capability as this is a major gap.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Patrol and interdiction are different capabilities.laurencechris wrote:Any MARPAT needs to allow for anti ship capability as this is a major gap.
-
- Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 23 May 2015, 21:45
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
would say typhoons with harpoon or another Antiship missile would be a better option
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
I disagree. There's no point spending a huge amount on fuel and air man hours to run lots of Poseidons just for surveillance. Makes more sense to run cheap efficient drones for that capability and relay anything of actual interest to Poseidons for interdiction/rescue/whatever.laurencechris wrote:Capabilities that should be deployed on the same platform.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Thanks alot for that Jim, I guess the next question would be what sort of anti ship missiles do we have, I know the Navy has harpoon for our ships but I'm not too sure about the air force.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Brimstone would put you in engagement zones for Naval SAM's but yes a p8 should be able to carry an Antiship missile or storm shadow?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Put the range and SS together = an intercontinental bomber
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
P8 can and defiantly should carry and anti ship missiles.
It would also be nice to see something like MBDA spear integrated in the future, for both land and sea targets.
Its likely the P8 will be used in littoral and land surveillance, it would be a nice extra if it could also hit the targets by its self. Cheaper than calling out a typhoon or lightning, and also massive loiter times near areas of conflict. The thing could carry 12 cruise missiles in support of ground operations.
It would also be nice to see something like MBDA spear integrated in the future, for both land and sea targets.
Its likely the P8 will be used in littoral and land surveillance, it would be a nice extra if it could also hit the targets by its self. Cheaper than calling out a typhoon or lightning, and also massive loiter times near areas of conflict. The thing could carry 12 cruise missiles in support of ground operations.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
More absolute codswallop from the MOD's PR system. Now we know that according to a 'spokesperson' lack of MPA doesn't constitute a problem. He/She forgets to mention our cry for help from Nato and other friendly forces to try and track these submarines, due to the fact we never have an asset available ourselves. Not to mention the last sighting was made by a fishing trawler. How pathetic.
"
Nato Exercise
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued May 25, 2015)
On this morning’s BBC Today Programme and reflected on BBC News, Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Beale, reported from Exercise Dynamic Mongoose, Nato’s largest ever anti-submarines warfare exercise currently taking place in the North Sea.
Jonathan suggested that the exercise has been seen as a response to increasing activity by Russian Submarines following recent reports of Russian submarines operating off the coast of Scotland as well as Sweden and Finland.
He also suggests that the exercise has highlighted limitations in Britain’s lack of maritime patrol aircraft.
An MOD spokesperson said:
“We are using a range of UK assets for maritime patrol and the protection of UK waters including UK submarines, Sentry E-3D aircraft, the Sonar 2087-fitted Type 23 frigates and state-of-the-art Type 45 Destroyers working alongside our allies as part of a multi layered approach to maritime surveillance.
“We are examining the maritime surveillance threats and potential solutions, however, there has been no decision to procure a Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Future decisions on Military requirements and therefore, roles and equipment will be reviewed in the forthcoming SDSR.”
"
Nato Exercise
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued May 25, 2015)
On this morning’s BBC Today Programme and reflected on BBC News, Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Beale, reported from Exercise Dynamic Mongoose, Nato’s largest ever anti-submarines warfare exercise currently taking place in the North Sea.
Jonathan suggested that the exercise has been seen as a response to increasing activity by Russian Submarines following recent reports of Russian submarines operating off the coast of Scotland as well as Sweden and Finland.
He also suggests that the exercise has highlighted limitations in Britain’s lack of maritime patrol aircraft.
An MOD spokesperson said:
“We are using a range of UK assets for maritime patrol and the protection of UK waters including UK submarines, Sentry E-3D aircraft, the Sonar 2087-fitted Type 23 frigates and state-of-the-art Type 45 Destroyers working alongside our allies as part of a multi layered approach to maritime surveillance.
“We are examining the maritime surveillance threats and potential solutions, however, there has been no decision to procure a Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Future decisions on Military requirements and therefore, roles and equipment will be reviewed in the forthcoming SDSR.”
-
- Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
- Contact:
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Does anyone else see a slight disconnect in describing T45s as being "state of the art" in the context of anti-submarine warfare?jonas wrote: On this morning’s BBC Today Programme and reflected on BBC News, Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Beale, reported from Exercise Dynamic Mongoose, Nato’s largest ever anti-submarines warfare exercise currently taking place in the North Sea.
Jonathan suggested that the exercise has been seen as a response to increasing activity by Russian Submarines following recent reports of Russian submarines operating off the coast of Scotland as well as Sweden and Finland.....
...state-of-the-art Type 45 Destroyers working alongside our allies as part of a multi layered approach to maritime surveillance.
- GibMariner
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Yeah, I also thought the same thing. Also how it mentions "Type 23 frigates" - plural - as if we have more than one 2087 towed array sonar-equipped frigate available for this kind of task.Tony Williams wrote:Does anyone else see a slight disconnect in describing T45s as being "state of the art" in the context of anti-submarine warfare?jonas wrote: On this morning’s BBC Today Programme and reflected on BBC News, Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Beale, reported from Exercise Dynamic Mongoose, Nato’s largest ever anti-submarines warfare exercise currently taking place in the North Sea.
Jonathan suggested that the exercise has been seen as a response to increasing activity by Russian Submarines following recent reports of Russian submarines operating off the coast of Scotland as well as Sweden and Finland.....
...state-of-the-art Type 45 Destroyers working alongside our allies as part of a multi layered approach to maritime surveillance.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Its not just Russian Subs, the Type 45 will be tracking the Russian Bears that will be snooping too
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
I really don't see why you need a frigate at all for this task. For the new US Navy MFTA they are planning to have a UUV on one end anyway in order to stop it kinking. Why not just have the minimum required to move it at both ends - manned or unmanned - and send all the results to the mainland for analysis and response?GibMariner wrote:Also how it mentions "Type 23 frigates" - plural - as if we have more than one 2087 towed array sonar-equipped frigate available for this kind of task.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Well, I did say it was pathetic and by that I meant the whole standard quotes, rolled out by the MOD time after time in these situations. I don't think even the media believe it nowadays, and some of the things they come out with are even more crass than the MOD.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Sorry but I have to ask, are you serious. Send the results ashore and wait for analysis and response !!Tiny Toy wrote:I really don't see why you need a frigate at all for this task. For the new US Navy MFTA they are planning to have a UUV on one end anyway in order to stop it kinking. Why not just have the minimum required to move it at both ends - manned or unmanned - and send all the results to the mainland for analysis and response?GibMariner wrote:Also how it mentions "Type 23 frigates" - plural - as if we have more than one 2087 towed array sonar-equipped frigate available for this kind of task.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
You can scramble something that can drop depth charges within a few minutes - the sub can't get far from wherever you detected it. Plus, aircraft will be harder for the sub to detect and kill, whereas the frigate is vulnerable.jonas wrote:Sorry but I have to ask, are you serious.
Alternatively have some separate armed UUVs or USVs escorting the array for this purpose, if you don't like the delay between detection and interdiction. With the TB-37 they are looking at separate USV escorts (RMMV) for mine countermeasures, but the platform is sophisticated enough for a wide variety of ASW measures.
Or is it where the analysis is performed that you find objectionable?
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
You are historically in time of hostilities going to most likely have your assets covering the GIUK Gap, to say that you can get a contact,send it ashore for analysis, and scramble an asset to the scene in a few minutes is I think optimistic in the extreme. Also some of the action will take place even further from shore. Depth charges ??Tiny Toy wrote:You can scramble something that can drop depth charges within a few minutes - the sub can't get far from wherever you detected it. Plus, aircraft will be harder for the sub to detect and kill, whereas the frigate is vulnerable.jonas wrote:Sorry but I have to ask, are you serious.
Alternatively have some separate armed UUVs or USVs escorting the array for this purpose, if you don't like the delay between detection and interdiction. With the TB-37 they are looking at separate USV escorts (RMMV) for mine countermeasures, but the platform is sophisticated enough for a wide variety of ASW measures.
Or is it where the analysis is performed that you find objectionable?
The whole idea of the ASW frigate/T2087/Merlin is that you contact and prosecute ASAP. Surface ships will always be vulnerable,that's a given.
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
I can easily imagine a future, not even too far away, in which a frigate like Type 26 carries a couple of unmanned vehicles with towed variable depth sonar curtains, to work in team with them to achieve multi-static sonar coverage, massively increasing the chances of detecting enemy submarines.
Ping with the frigate's hull sonar, listen with the (multiple) towed arrays in passive. And using coherent signal too. That seems the direction of travel.
But the sole unmanned vehicle doing the job unsupported? Not really, no. It could have a role (in France the ESPADON unmanned surface vehicle developed for unmanned MCM demonstration might end up towing a sonar to serve as a replacement for the Antares class manned boats which the french use to make sure there are no obstacles on the route the SSBNs follow to move out of Brest. Even if it does, it will probably have a few men on board: it is actually optionally manned, and sonar ops will most likely require people on board, at least for some more years) in some precise circumstances, but it won't do ASW "proper" on its own for obvious reasons, and will not replace the frigate per se.
Ping with the frigate's hull sonar, listen with the (multiple) towed arrays in passive. And using coherent signal too. That seems the direction of travel.
But the sole unmanned vehicle doing the job unsupported? Not really, no. It could have a role (in France the ESPADON unmanned surface vehicle developed for unmanned MCM demonstration might end up towing a sonar to serve as a replacement for the Antares class manned boats which the french use to make sure there are no obstacles on the route the SSBNs follow to move out of Brest. Even if it does, it will probably have a few men on board: it is actually optionally manned, and sonar ops will most likely require people on board, at least for some more years) in some precise circumstances, but it won't do ASW "proper" on its own for obvious reasons, and will not replace the frigate per se.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Or torpedoes or whatever. Sending messages is near instantaneous with satellite communications or airborne C3I. You say "in time of hostilities" but right at the moment we are not at war, this is simply ordinary surveillance. Acting on the intelligence might well be an act of war and would need authority, which would be a delay no matter what. I agree with you that if we were at war we should have minimum response times.jonas wrote:You are historically in time of hostilities going to most likely have your assets covering the GIUK Gap, to say that you can get a contact,send it ashore for analysis, and scramble an asset to the scene in a few minutes is I think optimistic in the extreme. Also some of the action will take place even further from shore. Depth charges ??
Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
All the training the armed forces do is to prepare for hostiliities, so to say that at the moment we are not at war,and this is simply ordinary surveilance has no bearing on the matter. We need to train on the equipment and the organisation that we will be fighting with. You need minimum response times also in peactime.Tiny Toy wrote:Or torpedoes or whatever. Sending messages is near instantaneous with satellite communications or airborne C3I. You say "in time of hostilities" but right at the moment we are not at war, this is simply ordinary surveillance. Acting on the intelligence might well be an act of war and would need authority, which would be a delay no matter what. I agree with you that if we were at war we should have minimum response times.jonas wrote:You are historically in time of hostilities going to most likely have your assets covering the GIUK Gap, to say that you can get a contact,send it ashore for analysis, and scramble an asset to the scene in a few minutes is I think optimistic in the extreme. Also some of the action will take place even further from shore. Depth charges ??
Why do you think we scramble QRA to every 'Bear' and 'Badger' that nears our airspace, they are testing our reactions just as in the cold war, and we are showing them we are ready. That also applies to the maritime scenario as well.