Future ASW

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

How is it distinct from the T26? Isn't the mission bay also "glorified boat storage"?
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:How is it distinct from the T26? Isn't the mission bay also "glorified boat storage"?
It all depends on UK/MOD/RN's strategy.

If RN are really going ahead with drones, then those drones must be "standardized". If RN decide "we shall standardize any future drone to be compatible with T26 mission bay = 11.5m long", that's it.

There is no reason ISO container is 20ft long, and not 24ft or 30ft, other than standardization. I think now is the time to do it.

In that case, 9.5m (Arrowhead 140 boat-bay compatible) is not good. Many of the USVs are 11-12m long, and it must have some reasons.

Larger will be more capable, but will also be more costy and more difficult to handle. A 11-12 m boat is not that bad considering the boat/USV handling, because it is actually the typical largest "boat" we see in many ships. Don't worry, anything larger shall go into Bay-class LSD.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
shark bait wrote:How is it distinct from the T26? Isn't the mission bay also "glorified boat storage"?
It all depends on UK/MOD/RN's strategy.

If RN are really going ahead with drones, then those drones must be "standardized". If RN decide "we shall standardize any future drone to be compatible with T26 mission bay = 11.5m long", that's it.

There is no reason ISO container is 20ft long, and not 24ft or 30ft, other than standardization. I think now is the time to do it.

In that case, 9.5m (Arrowhead 140 boat-bay compatible) is not good. Many of the USVs are 11-12m long, and it must have some reasons.

Larger will be more capable, but will also be more costy and more difficult to handle. A 11-12 m boat is not that bad considering the boat/USV handling, because it is actually the typical largest "boat" we see in many ships. Don't worry, anything larger shall go into Bay-class LSD.
This is why I asked up thread if the A140 2 side by side boat bays in the future could be replaced with 1 larger bay. From the CGI they look like separate compartments not integral to the structure.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote: Until technology advances I can see little use for USVs by the T-26 when they are operating with the Carriers.
Why? CVTF cannot always be within deep water. For example, when the CVTF is within Persian Gulf, USV-based shallow water ASW tactics may be critically important. T26 providing it from its mission bay is not surprise, I think.

Around Falklands island, also it is not that deep. How about North Sea and southern half of South China sea (around Singapore)? CVTF will never go to these area?

There is not reason limiting T26's ASW to be only provided directly from her hull. ASW multi-static tactics combining ship's TASS and a few USV's TASS and pinger, will be highly computational power needing job, best done with high-end ASW warships (= T26), I guess.

If T31 is to ever carry ASW-oriented USV, it will be more modest computational power because the highly capable CAPTAS-4CI TASS, and highly capable signal processing capability are not there. No problem, T31 is a GP frigate, not ASW specialist.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jake1992 wrote:This is why I asked up thread if the A140 2 side by side boat bays in the future could be replaced with 1 larger bay. From the CGI they look like separate compartments not integral to the structure.
I also think this will be important.
But, it will surely cost. Looks like boat alcoves are within the Arrowhead 140's hull module size (fire fighting, water tight compartments etc). In this case, simply enlarging the bay or connecting the two will require re-design of fire-fighting/counter-flooding systems design.

But, I think this is worth doing. To get this cost, I can even propose to omit CAMM system from hull-1 of T31. As T31 will be forward deployed and crew will be rotating, having 1 ship tide-up in training around Britain water is acceptable. "An Arrowhead 140 without CAMM" can do Russian ship escorting (one of the FRE tasks), as well as any training/drills, including "the Thursday war" with FOST. As there will be 5 T31, rotating crew needing for basic and advanced training around Britain water is anyway be there. (CAMM handling can be "simulated" within the CMS, no problem).

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:This is why I asked up thread if the A140 2 side by side boat bays in the future could be replaced with 1 larger bay. From the CGI they look like separate compartments not integral to the structure.
I also think this will be important.
But, it will surely cost. Looks like boat alcoves are within the Arrowhead 140's hull module size (fire fighting, water tight compartments etc). In this case, simply enlarging the bay or connecting the two will require re-design of fire-fighting/counter-flooding systems design.
The extra two boat bays have been added using the space taken up by the stanflex modules. The weapons deck has also been moved up a deck.

You can see in this video how the modules penetrate the deck.
https://youtu.be/0lRLJbofrxc

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

What speed can the current generation of USVs operate, and how fast can the launching vessel be going to conduct launch and recovery? This is why I see possible difficulties operating as part of the CSG. As technology advances we will see the speed of USV probably increase as well as having specialised platform from which to operate them from. Then again if it is possible for a T-26 to both launch and recover a USV whist at cruising speed and for the USV to keep up with the T-26 at that speed then I will be happy to withdraw my reservations.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Not sure, but is shallow water ASW so easy so that CVTF can cruise always?

T26 with good ASW capability proceeding to the theater before the TF, deploying 3 or 4 ASW USVs to “clean up” the area from SSK in ambush. This was my image.

Slow moving PSV will only come later, not capable of doing highly specialized multi-static ASW analysis, and could be sunken easily. As it will expose the SSK location, sinking is not totally bad, but precious crew will be lost. So not acceptable, I guess.

Not sure this is practical, but ASW USV onboard T26 looks useful or even critically important option for me.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Any unmanned boat in the carrier group will have to be big. The small unmanned boats in the RN's inventory are too slow, and/or too short legged to keep up with a carrier group.

One can envisage a sonar equipped T31 launching and operating a couple of small ASW boats to monitor a static point of interest, but it will be of little use to a carrier group.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In that case, 9.5m (Arrowhead 140 boat-bay compatible) is not good
Also note the mission bay under the flight deck, that is similarly sized to the T26 mission bay
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:Also note the mission bay under the flight deck, that is similarly sized to the T26 mission bay
Without a deck crane how do you deploy anything from this space?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
shark bait wrote:Also note the mission bay under the flight deck, that is similarly sized to the T26 mission bay
Without a deck crane how do you deploy anything from this space?
This image (released by RR in 2015) suggests that the alternative "crane" can not only lift quite a bit, but also has a good reach:
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... m-2015.jpg
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In that case, 9.5m (Arrowhead 140 boat-bay compatible) is not good.
Can I ask were your referencing this size from, I havent seen anything that quotes it.


In general if you have to keep manned ribs ready for quick deployment man overboard etc does type 26 have any other means of deploying it other than from the mission bay? If not will this reduce flexibility.

I don’t think you’d be deploying big item from iso containers but it it may hold things like scan eagle or the smaller uuv we’re seeing coming thru. Not to mention unmanned control units or potentially containerised command units for much large unmanned systems deployed from land.

Not mention useful storage or many things.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Also note the mission bay under the flight deck, that is similarly sized to the T26 mission bay
And if this space had a stern ramp it could be very useful

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: And if this space had a stern ramp it could be very useful
Would that not take us onto the slippery slope of making it an ASW-ship (next: dampen the propulsion, make the hull quiet...and double the unit cost!)?

With the "crane" I linked (it had all the different aspects in one image; NB that it has been improved since) we've already got boats and MCM covered
- talking about "boats" can anyone comment on the feasibility of the smaller CB90, ie. SB90E:
Length: 10.8m
Beam: 2.90m
Draft: 0.7m
Displacement: 7.2t
Range: Approx. 200 nm
Max. speed: Approx. 42 knots
Now we would be talking about inserting "beach parties" as they are called, not RM platoons (or halves) for any type of assault (which would have to originate from a completely different type of vessel)
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote:In general if you have to keep manned ribs ready for quick deployment man overboard etc does type 26 have any other means of deploying it other than from the mission bay? If not will this reduce flexibility.
The T26 has a separate boat bay on the port side of the hanger with a davit mounted RHIB.
Tempest414 wrote:And if this space had a stern ramp it could be very useful
STRN report that a stern ramp is an option on the A140.

It would be a useful addition but with 4 boat bays already included it's not surprising that a stern ramp hasn't been deemed enough of a priority to warrant extra expenditure.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:Any unmanned boat in the carrier group will have to be big. The small unmanned boats in the RN's inventory are too slow, and/or too short legged to keep up with a carrier group.
How large? And from where to be deployed? Anyway it will be expensive and even kill a T26, not adding. Only if it is small, ASW USV can exist, I’m afraid.

As I said, I think it do not need to steam with carrier. On cruise in blue water, can be carried onboard. On station in shallow water, can be forward deployed, specialized in hunting SSK in ambush. And to do that, using T26 has no problem, I think. No need to deploy ASW incapable T31 into a theater SSK threat is high.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:In that case, 9.5m (Arrowhead 140 boat-bay compatible) is not good.
Can I ask were your referencing this size from, I havent seen anything that quotes it.
Just scaled the CG image, using ruler and calculator. As it is CG, it is accurate. Only if the actual design be different from CG, it will differ.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

An ocean crossing carrier group USV would probably sit between the US Sea Hunter and the TX Ship concept from Tales. It has to be big to maintain speed and endurance, and it would likely deploy from bases in the UK.

Then there's the other end of spectrum, small ones that will be held in the mission bay and only operate across a small area. Yes the T26 will be capable of this, and I'd argue so should the T31 because the city class will be very busy, and its time to end the ASW decline in the Navy.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The T26 has a separate boat bay on the port side of the hanger with a davit mounted RHIB.
Thank you


“Just scaled the CG image, using ruler and calculator. As it is CG, it is accurate. Only if the actual design be different from CG, it will differ.”

Donald while that gives a rough idea I think we would need to wait for the spec to be released before being so definitive in what is or isn’t able to be carried.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote: “Just scaled the CG image, using ruler and calculator. As it is CG, it is accurate. Only if the actual design be different from CG, it will differ.”

Donald while that gives a rough idea I think we would need to wait for the spec to be released before being so definitive in what is or isn’t able to be carried.
You mean they are changing the design from current CG?

For example, the boat bay size of Leander design CG can be measure to be, 9.5m and 11.5m, which is very consistent to what they said. My point is, Arrowhead 140 boat bays, all four of them, are exactly the same size and much smaller than 11 m, about 9-9.5 m long.

As we all hope the T31 boat bay to be capable of 11-12m USVs, let’s hope for design modification.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

"The mission bay can hold four 12m boats for troop insertion". There is a drawing with a scale attached that shows the boat bay opening to be of roughly the same dimension, and if you look at the doors used, of exactly the same dimension: here https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-ty ... velopment/
and this would have been correct as of Feb, this year.

ASW aside (we could try to pre-guess sizes of what will be chosen as the French have already announced most things coming out of the joint MCM prgrm, on their part), looks like the feasibility of the smaller CB90, ie. SB90E of 10.8m length is not down to length - unable to comment on weight (loaded?).
- let's face it, the large order that went out for RHIBs makes the use of them across many ship types very flexible, but by no means 'means' that they will be the only show in town.
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Thanks. As have been said, T26’s mission bay can hold boats up to 12m long, and can carry 11m long ARCIMS USV, while T31 Arrowhead 140’s all boat bays cannot carry it.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

That sounds like a huge mistake. The Navy is developing a modular unmanned system that will be shared between platforms, however the boat bays on the new GP frigates are too small! The lack of coherent thinking is maddening.

Also;
Autonomous ARCIMS USV Can Now Hunt Submarines With ASW Payload

The latest Autonomous ARCIMS USVs to be ordered from ATLAS ELEKTRONIK UK (AEUK) have completed Acceptance Testing and are ready for the ASW payload installation.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... w-payload/

Does anyone know where this has come from? Is it from the RN?
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3960
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:As have been said, T26’s mission bay can hold boats up to 12m long, and can carry 11m long ARCIMS USV, while T31 Arrowhead 140’s all boat bays cannot carry it.
In this regard the Leander concept was better as it could embark three such craft.

It is interesting that although the A140 is regularly described as having a high future growth margin, the current configuration uses the available space very inefficiently.

The Arrowhead 140 in its T31 guise continues to be a superbly capable design completely hamstrung by a woefully inadequate budget.

Post Reply