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.
User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Postby Halidon » 15 Feb 2019, 20:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
AKA submarine tender, of the old.
- now that the SSNs don't (in the main) need one


"Need" no, though they sure could benefit from them.


I'll try to reword it: A less diminished need, that is now coming back?

Sorry I didn't mean for my reply to seem sharp. An nuke can operate effectively without a tender thanks to it's reactor, unlike an SSK/P which is operationally crippled if it has to be tied to accessible ports. However, the crew and payload of a nuke have limits which a tender can extend and thus make the best even better. There's increasing calls in the USN for new tenders to replace the last 2 Land class, part of the hesitation has been that it's a lot of money for a specialized class. It's possible the RN and USN might have similar lines of thinking going forward: that if sub tenders take on UUV-tending as well as their SSN/SSBN tending role, it makes the investment a lot more attractive.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Feb 2019, 22:13

Would having tenders also open the way for the possible use of high endurance SSKs as well?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1381
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Feb 2019, 22:40

Lord Jim wrote:How about a converted tanker like in the Spy who loved me!! :D
Do you mean this one?


I take it the moon pool on the RRS Sir David Attenborough isn't going to be this big :lol:
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2880
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Feb 2019, 00:26

SW1 wrote:https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/defense/autonomous-systems/echo-voyager/echo_voyager_product_sheet.pdf

This would suggest it has a total depth of 8.5ft.
Yes, in total it is 2.6 x2.6 m in width and total depth. I understand NATO standard well dock depth is 1.5 m? (might be 1.25 m?).

I guess the top yellow part, which will be above water, is not as high as 1.1 m.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9898
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 08:30

I totally agree with your conclusion. As for our Diligence
Halidon wrote:However, the crew and payload of a nuke have limits which a tender can extend and thus make the best even better. There's increasing calls in the USN for new tenders to replace the last 2 Land class, part of the hesitation has been that it's a lot of money for a specialized class.
in my books a big reason for keeping it for so long (it is not exactly a tender) was that should something, even minor, happen to our SSNs while East of Suez, then...
- now we have Duqm, where both dock dimensions and security can be provided/ arranged to suit the occasion

SW1
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 16 Feb 2019, 10:02

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/defense/autonomous-systems/echo-voyager/echo_voyager_product_sheet.pdf

This would suggest it has a total depth of 8.5ft.
Yes, in total it is 2.6 x2.6 m in width and total depth. I understand NATO standard well dock depth is 1.5 m? (might be 1.25 m?).

I guess the top yellow part, which will be above water, is not as high as 1.1 m.


I thought landing craft full loaded had a draft of about 1.5ms. Not sure how deep the yellow part is other than gauging from the bloke standing in that part in the picture a few comments back.

It appears the way future asw is going is different to what gone before to achieve the same thing. Only problem is our ships entering service in 10 years time are configure to fight that battle the same way as we did In 1980.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2880
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Feb 2019, 12:27

SW1 wrote:It appears the way future asw is going is different to what gone before to achieve the same thing. Only problem is our ships entering service in 10 years time are configure to fight that battle the same way as we did In 1980.
Not sure. These drones are designed to self deploy from forward base. No problem I see. ASW is a system. Not just a CAPTAS-4, or UUV carried on escorts and Merlin and P-8.

I personally think those self-deploying UUV are replacing the SOSUS and SURTASS which were both very effective, and centerpiece of ASW tactics in 1990s.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Feb 2019, 17:28

I wonder if NATO should build a UUV support facility on Iceland, would seem a logical location and allow a screen of UUV to be maintained in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap as a sort of mobile SOSUS net.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Postby Halidon » 16 Feb 2019, 18:19

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if NATO should build a UUV support facility on Iceland, would seem a logical location and allow a screen of UUV to be maintained in the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap as a sort of mobile SOSUS net.

Might well make sense, but we're a ways out yet. There won't be a sizable NATO ASW UUV fleet for some time.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 9898
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Feb 2019, 18:57

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if NATO should build a UUV support facility on Iceland, would seem a logical location


Something like this https://qz.com/376743/how-norway-lost-c ... navy-base/
- cost a cool half bn at the time (in today's money?)

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1137
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Timmymagic » 17 Apr 2019, 07:22

Looks like the RN are finally looking to get in the XLUUV game...

Unless QinetiQ, James Fisher, Ultra, Atlas, Thales and BAE get their skates on now this one is only going to one place...Boeing Orca. It would be nice to not have a direct award to Boeing for once...



https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... capability

ASW Barrier operations (TAPS?) specifically mentioned, sounds almost like an unmanned Upholder role protecting the northern channel. US focus with Orca is primarily MCM.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5614
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 17 Apr 2019, 07:56

Sounds exciting, if the RN are ever going to reintroduce SSK's this is probably the best way to do it. A small fleet of these operating in the north could be a great addition if they can find away round the communication problem, how are the US navy thinking they can work around it?

By the way its written it sounds like they already have a vehicle in mind, and they want to have a play.
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1137
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Timmymagic » 17 Apr 2019, 08:15

shark bait wrote: A small fleet of these operating in the north could be a great addition if they can find away round the communication problem


There was some mention of improved underwater comms (what was journalistically termed an 'underwater internet'..) a while ago, not sure what could be expected of those though. The sensible option would be a towed comms buoy with aerial protruding above the surface if regular comms capability was required without the UUV having to return to the surface to raise its comms mast.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2880
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 17 Apr 2019, 14:12

Interesting investment.

It is trial, and not intended to do anything to be purchased. Just trial. Also, the budget is very low. With 1.5m GBP for 1 year, the team can hire only 6-7 person at most, very small team. The real output will be several years away, but, I totally agree this is the way to go.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests