Future ASW

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:Much ASW work done while cruising at 20knts?

Though it was more like 6-10 and quietly.
I guess this is the reason ASW escorts "dash at speed, and listen in slow"? And these USV drones can follow it for only a short period.
The escort vessel asw element is surely covered by type 23 at present and will be replaced with type 26. These would not replace that. There is much wider role for under water surveillance beyond that specific job.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

Having a mobile SOSUS sonar barrier which you can take to which ever region you need and deploy out of the back of an LSD or LPD seems a pretty good idea. Said LSD/LPD could also have the control nexus on board, possibly containerised, allow the data form the unmanned platforms to be co ordinated with that from other ASW platforms to locate and prosecute contacts. Maybe this should be a NATO project to allow mobile barriers to be set up and taken down dependant on the level of tension and where the need is.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Why use such a specialist ship for such a simple task? Any ship with a deck and a crane and even a small harbour could do the job, so it makes little sense to eat into precious combat resources to do the same thing.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

Fair point, I was just offering an example not a full in depth proposal.

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: Future ASW

Post by xav »

Video on the SEADRiX.
We will likely learn more at DSEI in September

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

thanks for the video it good to see how the fin retracts into the sail and how it can be deployed from a davit meaning something like type 31 or a B2 River could deploy up to 3 at time using the davits or crane it was also interesting to here they are working with the RN

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote:thanks for the video it good to see how the fin retracts into the sail and how it can be deployed from a davit meaning something like type 31 or a B2 River could deploy up to 3 at time using the davits or crane it was also interesting to here they are working with the RN
Thats the most interesting and, in my mind, credible USV for ASW that I've seen to date. Really clever concept, with some real utility in deep water ASW. To me any modern ASW vessel without a mission bay and large helideck to be able to deploy unmanned vehicles s going to be obsolete or fatally compromised in the next 5 years. The US FFG(X) competition looks a little archaic as a result. The F100 and FREMM (and an NSC based platform if HII propose it) are all compromised as designs for that future. With T26 not going to be in the competition the only credible proposal to date is the Independence Class derivative. Never thought I'd recommend an LCS derivative.... (and it very much depends on the proposal delivered, if it retains large flight deck, hangarage and stern ramp)

The Krait towed array is made by SEA. Who are a UK company, part of the Cohort Group. I must say I'd only heard of them in relation to their ongong maintenance of the T23 torpedo launch system that was announced recently.. But small towed array's for USV's is definitely going to be a growth market.

https://www.sea.co.uk/maritime/products ... ce-system/

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:Thats the most interesting and, in my mind, credible USV for ASW that I've seen to date. Really clever concept, with some real utility in deep water ASW. To me any modern ASW vessel without a mission bay and large helideck to be able to deploy unmanned vehicles s going to be obsolete or fatally compromised in the next 5 years.
Totally agree the DriX USV is pretty well designed.

But, its small size of 7.5m long means "endurance 1 day with 14 knots". Their fin only goes down to 2 m, and says "at least up to SeaState 5", which is not so impressive. The dome under the fin id also small, cannot even host CAPTAS-1's VDS part.

I think it shall be at least 11 m long. I also think it shall carry VDS pinger, so that the USV can ping elsewhere while the T26 steam silent listening with TASS.

Naturally, it may grow up to 16m long, LCVP size, the maximum a david can handle. This exceeds the T26's mission bay size.

If operated from well-dock, it may grow to 20 m, or even up to 30 m long, the length of LCU.

Of course, the tasks a 7.5m version, 11m, 16m, 20 or 30m version can do may differ. No one knows what is the best size. But we all know it will continue to grow. USV-ASW tactics has just started.

In short, I agree T26 has a good hope, but do not agree FREMM or FFGX is "out-dated", because the "right answer" could be "accompanying a PSV".

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Repulse »

Must admit, often wondered why the BAE Leander design never had a T26 Bay slotted amidships - could have been modularised reducing unit costs all round.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Is there much difference between fremm, f100, or type 26 in terms of boat or aviation capacity?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Repulse »

The FREMM can operate a 7m plus a 11m Rhib, plus another 11m on the Italian GP version. With the T26 capable of carrying 4 x 11m Rhibs out of a mission bay capable of maintenance then I’d say the T26 wins hands down.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

Not knowing the capacity of the RHIBs we use, how many Royal Marines could say four of them transport at any one time, and are the RHIBs of a similar size to the small craft already in use with the Royal Marines?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Repulse »

The existing RM ORC is just over 9m and can carry 12 RMs.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Timmymagic wrote:Really clever concept, with some real utility in deep water ASW.
It's the other way around. It's too small with too little endurance to operate across the huge search area in the open ocean. However a handful of these could easily be deployed from a pier to patrol a coastal region around sensitive infrastructure.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

You could consider them larger more powerful and persistent sonobuoys that are recoverable that you deploy in numbers to get a better picture of an area.

Where the ability to deploy numbers becomes of benefit.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... ng-system/

It is also highly deployable. SeaDrix™ is 7.7m long x 3m high, meaning that it can be transported globally in an ISO container. It has its own deployment system (DDS) that can launch, recover and refuel SeaDrix™ at sea from a single point crane or davit either onboard or on a jetty. SeaDrix™ can self-deploy at up to 14 kts and multiple SeaDrix™ systems can be shipped globally to form a multi-static system as and where required.
SEA is now able to offer complete modular ASW solutions – ‘ASW in a box’ – delivering packages to suit operational needs, built from the following elements:

Lightweight ship’s (or dockside) passive sonar system (reel-able array complete with standalone sonar processing and displays)
Lightweight active sonar solution to enhance the passive capability above
Autonomous ASW system (SeaDrix™)
Lightweight UW decoy launcher system, complete with control system and interfaces with any/all of the above
Lightweight torpedo launcher system, complete with control system and interfaces with any/all of the above

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: Future ASW

Post by xav »

Another unmanned ASW system:

Autonomous ARCIMS USV Can Now Hunt Submarines with ASW Payload
Image
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/

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by tomuk »

Will it fit in the T31 boat bay?

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

No. At least in current design, Arrowhead 140's boat bays are only 9.5m long each.

I think this must be improved to be capable of 11-12 m, the same length as T26's mission bay is.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:No. At least in current design, Arrowhead 140's boat bays are only 9.5m long each.

I think this must be improved to be capable of 11-12 m, the same length as T26's mission bay is.
This this one thing I never understood with this design, they have 2 boat bays side by side why not have one larger bat there that can launch and recover 1 large system or 2 small ?

It makes no sense for me it seems a wast

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Has it ever been disclosed what can be fitted in the boat bays I’ve seen it mentioned that they can deploy the largest RN ribs at 9.5 tonnes but I’ve not seen a size mentioned.

I assume the spec would be made public until the contract is signed.

I think deploying USVs is probably better done from vessels like bays because you would want to deploy a lot say 10 to get a large swarm coverage.

The bays on frigates probably better for RM security teams for boarding and the like. I assume the 4 bays allows for greater redundancy and a simpler ship layout. It maybe better in this regard than type 26.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:...why not have one larger bat there that can launch and recover 1 large system or 2 small ?
Simply cost.

There is zero money to change anything if Babcock want to hit the £250m target. Up the budget and lots of things become possible.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:...why not have one larger bat there that can launch and recover 1 large system or 2 small ?
Simply cost.

There is zero money to change anything if Babcock want to hit the £250m target. Up the budget and lots of things become possible.
Am I right in thinking this could be easily changed in an upgrade as the CGI seems to show the bays are self contained units ?

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote: have 2 boat bays side by side why not have one larger bat there that can launch and recover 1 large system or 2 small ?
Poiuytrewq wrote:There is zero money to change anything if Babcock want to hit the £250m target.
Yep, there is probably no strong logic to it? IH derived from Absalon; the earlier design for "flag waving" and being able to land half of an army recce bn, with Leopards and all. But only where a pier could be found... send a few boats out, to search for one?
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)

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

It is interesting that the one naval platform we will have that is ideal for the operation of USVs will be operated in a way that makes there use extremely difficult. Until technology advances I can see little use for USVs by the T-26 when they are operating with the Carriers. We will have to see if the bays on the T-31 are truly multirole and be able to effectively operate USV or that they are simply glorified boat storage.

Post Reply