UK Defence Forum

PAUL MARSAY wrote:I don't like the idea of using type 26 as TAPS escort are their any other options ? Even if we have to build 2 or 3 separate ships for this role , thing along the lines of the Blackwood class ASW and not much else .

By the time you've designed an alternative it would be cheaper to buy a couple more T26s, both construction and running costs.

PAUL MARSAY wrote:I don't like the idea of using type 26 as TAPS escort are their any other options ? Even if we have to build 2 or 3 separate ships for this role , thing along the lines of the Blackwood class ASW and not much else .

Repulse wrote:By the time you've designed an alternative it would be cheaper to buy a couple more T26s, both construction and running costs.

I like PAUL-san's idea. Actually, that is what I proposed in the escort thread. Repulse-san's comment is also reasonable, so it needs some premise.

A- ASW is shifting to active multi-static. So, "super quiet" hull is not critical, but yes it shall be "so so quiet", as FFG7 level.
B- A ship can be quiet, always when she go slow. TAPS is not going along with TF, so she can go slow.
C- 6 T31 shall be built to the same hull design, 3-4 for GP-LFF, and 2-3 for TAPS, but with different equipments.

So I proposed a T31 with rafted CODAD. For GL-LFF go as it is, with CAMM around the hangar and a gun on the bow. For TAPS, add Praily/Masker, add CAPTAS-4 (or -4CI), and remove gun to make space for it, and move CAMM at the bow, in place.

Spinflight wrote:Especially as it took top billing at the nato Newport conference a few years back you get the impression that nato is playing catchup with ASW again. Also with the recent trend towards gp hulls and capabilities it does make you wonder how effective the current supposedly modern escorts actually are.

Yep, NATO sub hunting practices where solid during the cold war, but with that activity falling off the focus transferred to AAW. Now the Russians are apparently building much better subs, and they Chinese are publicly putting an emphasis on developing nuclear submarine capabilities as an “assassin's mace”, there appears to be a race to return to the old time ASW focus.

If we produce a modular venator in sufficient numbers we could have an ASW Blackwood, a GP Tibal and a patrol Black Swan . Only equip each one with the needs of its role should keep the cost down . In its ASW role it could be a level of hull silencing with HMS and Captas , helicopter , hull mounted torpedoes and self defense weapons for example.

PAUL MARSAY wrote: a GP Tibal and a patrol Black Swan .

How are patrol and GP different?

Sorry I meant tribal ie type 81 for gp for which I was thinking the full on venator and patrol something along the lines of a river batch 2 or the basic venator .

My Blackwood venator would be more specialised for ASW.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

PAUL MARSAY wrote: a GP Tibal and a patrol Black Swan .

How are patrol and GP different?

FWIW: I was just reading a paper with definitions of OPV, Patrol, GP etc. Don't know if they are generally accepted but their patrol meant short of high end conflict, GP is not. So GP would have full compartmentalization/zoning etc. Patrol is more toward constabulary tasks i.e. long range OPV with weapons, lesser protection.

Ron5 wrote:OPV, Patrol, GP etc. Don't know if they are generally accepted but their patrol meant short of high end conflict, GP is not. So GP would have full compartmentalization/zoning etc

I fully agree:
OPV; River 1s
Patrol; River 2s, National Security cutters of the USCG (90 % to warship stds)
GP: not cutting corners, even to 90% but not a specialist (ASW, AAW -or whatever - it is just that those two tend to come with very expensive "extras" to be in the game at all)

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I fully agree:
OPV; River 1s
Patrol; River 2s, National Security cutters of the USCG (90 % to warship stds)
GP: not cutting corners, even to 90% but not a specialist (ASW, AAW -or whatever - it is just that those two tend to come with very expensive "extras" to be in the game at all)

Definitely agree with this, which is why we should stop the T31 pretence. Also, I think GP is a bit of a red herring - the difference between the T23 ASW and T23 GP is purely the TAS, and we've just bought 3 more. Getting 11 full-fat ASW T26s should be the aim. 4 to escort the CBGs and 7 to deploy in TAPS/FRE role plus 2 further afield.

I have a distinct feeling these 3 new ones will have absolutely nothing to do with gaining any new ASW escorts.

Me too. It is in line with buying "new" for the first 3 T26s (without rapidly decommissioning any T23s with a tail... as the plan is that the GPs will go first).

They would have to be really stupid to not put those three extra tails on some T31.

The equipment will already be paid for, so it just makes sense. Sure the equipment wont perform as well as it does on the T26, but thats still acceptable, the T31 will just have to patrol a little slower.

shark bait wrote:those three extra tails on some T31.

- they will become "extra" in the mid '30s
- that is not to say that there would not be a good number of T31s on patrol by then

Do actually RN getting 3 more full set?
As you know, the sonar itself is only a part of the multi static ASW system. I do hope they are 3 full set.

I thought I would open up a discussion I was having over the weekend (in real life! )

Above is an image of Israel's Seagull drone, initially being developed as an unmanned mine hunter, with the next step being an unmanned sub hunter, hence the torpedoes. It will search for subs with a dipping sonar, similar to what the RN use on its helicopter, so presumably it has to stop to use its sonar, than resume its travels.

So the question is, would an unmanned fast boat, equipped with a dipping sonar be useful to the RN? Perhaps in the mission bay to assist a T26?

The Russians have been using dipping sonars on their small ASW vessels for decades. Should be feasible to mount the actual sonar on an unmanned platform together with a secure datalink to allow it to communicate to the T-26 mothership.

What have the Russians used it on?

Notice the surface of the sea in the photo?

shark bait wrote:Above is an image of Israel's Seagull drone, initially being developed as an unmanned mine hunter, with the next step being an unmanned sub hunter, hence the torpedoes. It will search for subs with a dipping sonar, similar to what the RN use on its helicopter, so presumably it has to stop to use its sonar, than resume its travels.

So the question is, would an unmanned fast boat, equipped with a dipping sonar be useful to the RN? Perhaps in the mission bay to assist a T26?

For shallow water ASW, and in "area controlling" mode, it will be nice to have. However, if the sea-states goes bad, I guess its VDS will move around, and not that effective. Also its small hull will not be able to cruise along with TF. So, it has nothing to do with blue-water ASW, but will be good at very shallow water.

Let 2-3 of Seagull drone wandering around a silent T26, and conducting Multi-static ASW operation: the drones as a pinger and T26 with CAPTASS4 in passive mode as a listener.

Another option: How about using some in Falkland island, monitoring around Falkland straits, around Mare-harbor, Port Stanly and so on.

Of course, in Persian Gulf.

But all will depend on its cost.

The Russians/Soviets fitted actual Helicopter dipping sonar to the following classes of frigates (we would call them corvettes);

Petya I, II and III Classes - 37 vessels
Mirka Class - 18 vessels
Parchim II Class - 11 vessels
Koni Class - 1 vessels
Grisha I, II and V Classes - 64 vessels.

The4 Krivak I and II Classes and the Neustrashimy Classes are what we would call actual Frigates and carry a more conventional VDS,

I think Donald makes a good point, it could work well being the active pingger node in a Multi-static network.

The obvious operating environment is in the shallows, and this is a good thing, its a very challenging environment that requires high intensity aircraft operation, so if some drone boats can take some of that strain, at a much lower cost, it may increase effectiveness in the littorals.

I wouldn't totally write a dipping sonar drone boat off for carrier group operations either. If the sonar platform was a bit larger, possibly a CB90 or Jurmo-class it could handle its self much better, and still have the speed to sprint ahead of the group, stop and use its dipping sonar. When the sea is real bad operations will have to fall back to the Merlin.

I think you need to spend some time in the North Atlantic.

Not required there. That's what P8 is for.

Ron5 wrote:I think you need to spend some time in the North Atlantic.

And the south Atlantic