tomuk wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 08:19
It isn't an obsession it is realty five are on order to replace the five T23 GP.
The T31 isn't mediocre it provides a platform that is inherently easy to maintain, requires lower crewing and provides great range and capability cost effectively. It can scale from a more than competent light frigate all the way up to a small but potent AAW destroyer.
The RN does not need a GP frigate - it needs more AAW and ASW first rate assets to meet the requirement to counter Russia as part of NATO and meaningfully contribute globally.
Yes, you can spend more money on the T31 to add this and that, but the design will always be compromised as it was ordered for a different requirement.
What claptrap. A ship based on a NATO AAW frigate will be compromised because it was ordered with a lesser weapons fit but the ability to upgrade it was retained in its design?
It is flawed completely - the T45 is designed as a AAW ship, it allows the radar to be situated high up - not possible with a T31. The T23 (whichever variant) and T26 are ASW ships with a hull design and rafting for quiet operations - not something you can bolt on. You can try and dress it up as you want, you can even invest hundred of millions to make them second rate AAW ships, but doesn’t change the facts.
Are you just trying to make yourself look more foolish?
A ship that is 6500t full load, a length of over 138m and a beam of 19.75m can't be fitted with radar to act as a AAW ship? Am I imagining the Iver Huitfeldts with APAR and SMART-L?
And as to ASW there are plenty of navies using ships without the extensive quietening and non electric drive that T23 and T26 have to carry out ASW.
Are you making yourself look stupid by not understanding the phrase “compromised design”?
Was it you or somebody else who suggested adding a tail in a shipping container to the River B2s?
I mentioned it in the context of a new MHPC design yes - when it comes to near UK shore ASW operations especially against UUVs. Not sure on what is your point, different requirement.
”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
Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 18:34
That's a purist argument, driven by the excellence of T45s optimised wide area AAW design, radar fit, etc.
Maybe, but when we map it against priorities - wide area sea skimming, hypersonic and ballistic missile defence for the UK, CSG and allied shipping it’s what’s needed and we do not have enough of them.
I am a firm believer that the RN needs to be about quality not mass when it comes to major warships - even if we stick at 16 escorts for example.
The UK remains relevant by pitching up with world beating assets not just by making up numbers. This is at odds with others who believe mass is more important, but cannot explain for what purpose.
Doesn't mean to say that a Tier 1-/Tier 2+ AAW can't contribute significantly to CSG/LRG/Escort local area defence by adding missile magazine mass.
It could, it just doesn’t have these things and it will cost money and crew to add a contribution that could be better done by other platforms. Why not spend the £2-3bn for the five upgraded T31s on three T26s with additional VLS in place of their mission bays? Atleast that would free up three others for ASW duties.
A T31+ doesn't need a S1850m radar like IH (QEC and T45 have them). Would be better with NS200 rather than NS110 but then QEC/Albion/T26//T23 'make do' with Artisan
This only works if you have CEC like inter connectivity, and there is no sign of this - it is definitely not a justification for a class however IMO.
So how are the GP T23s contributing to any of the wide area AAW ABM/hypersonic seakimmers/Darth Vadar light sabre threats?
They're not.
Fact is the T31s are on contract. Lump it. I'm advocating upspeccing them so they can be a rather useful asset in several hotpot and task group scenarios without having to junk them (i.e. sell them asap as some halfwits are suggesting) or upgrade the expensive bits such as duplicating radars.
Somewhere here (or elsewhere maybe UKDJ) somebody made the point that the RN didn't go for US CEC, but have implemented similar (maybe via datalink) allowing equivalent effect...viz multinational anti-ABM experiments/exercises at recent Joint Warriors, for example.
Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑22 Feb 2024, 19:41
So how are the GP T23s contributing to any of the wide area AAW ABM/hypersonic seakimmers/Darth Vadar light sabre threats?
They're not.
Fact is the T31s are on contract. Lump it. I'm advocating upspeccing them so they can be a rather useful asset in several hotpot and task group scenarios without having to junk them (i.e. sell them asap as some halfwits are suggesting) or upgrade the expensive bits such as duplicating radars.
Somewhere here (or elsewhere maybe UKDJ) somebody made the point that the RN didn't go for US CEC, but have implemented similar (maybe via datalink) allowing equivalent effect...viz multinational anti-ABM experiments/exercises at recent Joint Warriors, for example.
If you are buying new ships you look at what you need, not what you’ve got. It’s also a very valid option to sell the T31s to countries that have a requirement for low spec frigates, not only would it provide money but also crew.
Anyhow - we’ve got to the point of name calling, so this halfwit is going to call it a day.
I look forward with interest to read where this money for upgrades is coming from, be disappointed as world beating T45/T26s lack numbers, cash and crew and smile as people suggest again it all ok if half the fleet is left alongside without crew rusting away. I won’t hold my breath though waiting for someone to explain what this mass over quality is for, gave up on that one a while ago.
”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
I think he is talking about Sea Lancer and its 2nd-Gen. As it is "single tow", it is very simple. May be not as capable as CAPTAS-4 (independent tow), but handling-system simplicity will be essential in "man-power limited" navy. For example, I think this system can be a candidate for T31 if we want to add a sonar. Technical commonality with S2087 will not be met, but Ultra is the company producing S2150, so it is NOT un-familier to RN.
I think he is talking about Sea Lancer and its 2nd-Gen. As it is "single tow", it is very simple. May be not as capable as CAPTAS-4 (independent tow), but handling-system simplicity will be essential in "man-power limited" navy. For example, I think this system can be a candidate for T31 if we want to add a sonar. Technical commonality with S2087 will not be met, but Ultra is the company producing S2150, so it is NOT un-familier to RN.
I think he is talking about Sea Lancer and its 2nd-Gen. As it is "single tow", it is very simple. May be not as capable as CAPTAS-4 (independent tow), but handling-system simplicity will be essential in "man-power limited" navy. For example, I think this system can be a candidate for T31 if we want to add a sonar. Technical commonality with S2087 will not be met, but Ultra is the company producing S2150, so it is NOT un-familier to RN.
So it looks like this could just drop straight in place of the Type 31's S2170 SSTD with very little or no extra work
Maybe, maybe not. Actually, I have a different view. T31 shall keep the S2170 SSTD, as torpedo defense is very important for those forward deployed assets. T31 has a place for 4 (or 6?) 20ft-container (so called mission space). In the attached image, a 20ft-container sized opening can be seen on the flight deck.
Locate this ASW container there and place a corridor to the stern. Add a 20m of wire in the winch to compensate the corridor length. Then, T31 can be "optionally" added with this ASW kit in rotation. The simpleness is the key. The same will not happen for CAPTAS-4CI, because you need a swell-compensation arm to handle the active-VDS to be located at the stern.
Another idea is, of course, not using the container but equip it permanently. The system only needs the winch and the corridor. So, Sea Lancer is much simpler to be added compared to CAPTAS4. Actually, the same applies to T45.
Adding some ASW capability to T31 and T45 will be a good "addition" to supplement the lack of number in ASW hull. This will free up Merlins onboard CVF to handle the near-zone ASW. 24/7 coverage with Sea Lancer sonar will be a good addition, and the Merlin (4-5 needed to fly one in 24/7 basis) can be placed elsewhere to improve long-range ASW search. (Also, T26 will be handling outer-zone ASW, with her own Merlin, because locating her quiet hull near the noisy task force is not a good idea).
As Merlin of CVF + T26 with Merlin combo is good enough, this additional sonar will not be a high priority in peace time. But, in war time, having extra 4-5 Merlin relieved will make a big difference in other theaters.
CAPTAS-4 compact also has their own option which simultaneously replaces CAPTAS-2 because it is the same size.
I believe CAPTAS-4 Compact has the same capability as old CAPTAS-4 and as such normal CAPTAS-4 production has ended.
Here it is containerised:
It also has the benefit of RN-USN-MN-e.c.t commonality.
But what is the cost and capability different's in these systems if I remember rightly we came up with a cost of 30 million a pop for CAPTAS 4 C what could Sea Lancer 2nd Gen bring to the table and what is the cost
new guy wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 17:20
CAPTAS-4 compact also has their own option which simultaneously replaces CAPTAS-2 because it is the same size.
I believe CAPTAS-4 Compact has the same capability as old CAPTAS-4 and as such normal CAPTAS-4 production has ended.
Here it is containerised:
It also has the benefit of RN-USN-MN-e.c.t commonality.
That video shows the Cubedin based solution that potentially is going on the Absalons.
Cubedin is JV between a Danish software company and OMT designers of Absalon and IH parent design of T31.
The wider programme is not just to fit Captas but is the next gen Stanflex. Cubedin are responsible for the software and interfaces with the ship and SH defence supply the handling equipment and mechanical equipment i.e. to get the module on and off the ship and the modules themselves.
They have also demonstrated a dockside module that can load and replace a davit and boat into an IH boat bay. So you could swap between a standard rib and it's davit and a USV and its handling gear.
They also have 20ft container based mine launch system which can go either below deck on Absalon or on the flight deck of IH and a system for stern launched boats.
Cubedin and SH defence have MOUs with Thales and Babcock
Tempest414 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 17:31
But what is the cost and capability different's in these systems if I remember rightly we came up with a cost of 30 million a pop for CAPTAS 4 C what could Sea Lancer 2nd Gen bring to the table and what is the cost
If it was me due to the relationships between Babcock, Thales, Cubein and SH defence and the likely roles of the ships I would put Captas 4C (or 2) on T31 (with BlueHunter\KingklipMk2 HMS that the Polish Swordfish are getting) with T45 to have un upgrade of Ultra based systems i.e. Sea Sabre\Sea Lancer
new guy wrote: ↑23 Feb 2024, 17:20
CAPTAS-4 compact also has their own option which simultaneously replaces CAPTAS-2 because it is the same size.
I believe CAPTAS-4 Compact has the same capability as old CAPTAS-4 and as such normal CAPTAS-4 production has ended.
Here it is containerised:
It also has the benefit of RN-USN-MN-e.c.t commonality.
Thanks for pointing out that solution. Three comments I have:
1: CAPTAS-4 CI is good, I agree. The Absalon solution (adding a passive TASS reel independently, and locating the VDS with arm at the stern boat slot) looks interesting. But, T31 cannot adopt the same solution, because Iver Huitfeldt class has lowered flight deck and no space for container with direct access to the stern. To add CAPTAS-4 CI to T31, RN needs structural modernization = permanent fit.
I am interested in the Ultra's SeaLance as a a "shared", "containerised" system. (not saying this is the best solution, just as a candidate).
2: Towing TASS put big stress to the hull. It was a big problem for Leander Batch-2TA. Will the Absalon approach work or not, is something I wonder. Compared to permanent holding, containerised holding is surely weaker mechanically.
3: Merit of the Ultra solution is,
- its "active" part is with much less drag --> much less stress than CAPTAS-4.
- can be applied to vessels which do not have a container space with direct stern access, but just located near the stern. The SeaLance can be handled by adding simplistic corridor/tube connected to the stern. (T23's passive TASS has similar but shorter corridor astern).
I am not a supporter to add TASS to ALL T31. But, I do think adding it to 2 of the 5 T31 is good. This is simply because KIPION task does not need sonar (because there are many ASW assets there. Sonar on non-quiet hull does not add much), while torpedo-defense is essential. There are also many many theaters requiring no ASW kit (SSK is very expensive, and nations having SSK normally has a good air-force and navy, at which anyway T31 will never confront in singleton). But, this operation needs only 3 hulls in rotation.
The other 2 hulls can be a "test bed" for up-arming from GP (or a sloop) to a level of light-multi-purpose escort = many escorts NATO navies' have. This is also very good for export promotion. Adding permanent sonar kit to 2 of the hulls are one option. Adding the corridor to all 5 hulls, and buy 2-kits of this SeaLancer might be another choice.
Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2024, 10:31
I would say a buy of say 6 to 8 Sea Lancer could be a good thing they could be deployed across the RB1 , RB2 & T-31 classes
Having all 5 T-31's capable of deploying SL would be useful
Even a RB1 pulling a Sea Lancer in the the North Sea or Baltic would give Russian Sub commanders another thing to avoid
Agreed but in addition:
How will UUVs, LUUVs and XLUUVs proliferate in the next 20-30 years and what will be needed to counter them?
Contrary to what many believed at the time, will the MCMVs need to be replaced almost hull for hull albeit with much lower crews allocations?
Alternatively, will larger motherships perhaps with a well dock full of USVs be required?
A containerised TAS for the T31s and OPVs would be useful in modest numbers but how it fits into the wider picture of MCM, ASW and countering the emerging surface and sub-surface drone threat really requires some urgent and detailed explanation by RN.
Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2024, 10:31
I would say a buy of say 6 to 8 Sea Lancer could be a good thing they could be deployed across the RB1 , RB2 & T-31 classes
Having all 5 T-31's capable of deploying SL would be useful
Even a RB1 pulling a Sea Lancer in the the North Sea or Baltic would give Russian Sub commanders another thing to avoid
Agreed but in addition:
How will UUVs, LUUVs and XLUUVs proliferate in the next 20-30 years and what will be needed to counter them?
Contrary to what many believed at the time, will the MCMVs need to be replaced almost hull for hull albeit with much lower crews allocations?
Alternatively, will larger motherships perhaps with a well dock full of USVs be required?
A containerised TAS for the T31s and OPVs would be useful in modest numbers but how it fits into the wider picture of MCM, ASW and countering the emerging surface and sub-surface drone threat really requires some urgent and detailed explanation by RN.
Are they just bigger torpedoes with a fancy name? If they are sensors how do we currently deal with underwater sensor systems?
Why would u need to replace mcm hulls like for like if there primary objective during the Cold War was keep allied ports and harbours open, can that not be done with unmanned systems from land now? There other role being clearing mined areas for amphibious operations that we are apparently not doing anymore for reasons ( or because we don’t want the spend the money on it).
People who have done asw will tell u that quite hull’s benefit passive operations the most. They will tell you in shallower water and against ssk submarines active sonar is what required where a quite hull benefits you less. They’ll also tell you, you can do asw from any ship really and most navy’s do if you have the trained operators to do it. Mind you a submariner will tell you the only thing to hunt a submarine with is another submarine.
Actually, they are my favorite choice. There is Pros and Cons.
Cons:
- Apparently, the sonar capability looks lower than CAPTAS-4 and Ultra Sea Lance.
- different from RN's existing sonar family, Ultra and Thales.
Pros: Many
- Will be cheaper, so that numbers can be purchased
Not-knonws:
- Can this system detect XLUUVs? I think yes, but in not long range. In other words, we need numbers of them.
Then, how about buying 10-sets for RN ships, and 10-sets for ARCIMS USVs?
RN has at least 5 ARCIMS USVs already; RNMB HYDRA, HUSSAR, HALCYON, HARRIER and HAZARD. Also I understand Sea class utility boats (from AEUK) can be converted into ARCIMS family of USVs, with small modification. Also, the MCM team can have this task as a part-time job, when ASW is needed more. 10 SeaSense USV systems will be covering 5 important ports/channels 24/7.
10-sets for manned ships can be used onboard
- 6 T45
- 5 T31
- 3 River B1
- 5 River B2
in other words, 19 candidate hulls are there.
What is nice here is that, from enemy SSK/XLUUV, of course the first "sense of RN coming" is the sonar pinging. It can be detected from very far distance. But, until it reaches near the USV or ships so that the SSK can "listen" to the hull noise, it will not able to know what the enemy is.
PS Actually, I prefer about a half of the Archer class replacement being Sea 15 class boats, with USV options. 8 or 9 such addition will give a lot to RN in wartime.
SW1 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2024, 11:57
Are they just bigger torpedoes with a fancy name? If they are sensors how do we currently deal with underwater sensor systems?
I am not disagreeing with any of that, simply that the technology is changing, the threat level is rising and the MoD is dithering with the future of MCM. There is no clear plan and adding a couple of PSVs is desperation rather than forward looking especially when struggling to crew them.
The second MROSS is showing no signs of progress, the LSV program is also seemingly going nowhere. MCM may be a lower priority for many but it won’t be when it’s needed.
The threat in choke points from ASuW is clear but what about subsurface drones? What about mines that lay dormant for months and then activate and instantly prosecute an attack?
Are these confined, swallow waterways going to need to sanitised before major vessels pass through? If so what will that require?
Although RN has always been regarded as a world leader in MCM, under funding and a complete lack of prioritisation appears to have resulted in very little progress in recent years to stay ahead of the emerging threats.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
SW1 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2024, 11:57
Are they just bigger torpedoes with a fancy name? If they are sensors how do we currently deal with underwater sensor systems?
I am not disagreeing with any of that, simply that the technology is changing, the threat level is rising and the MoD is dithering with the future of MCM. There is no clear plan and adding a couple of PSVs is desperation rather than forward looking especially when struggling to crew them.
The second MROSS is showing no signs of progress, the LSV program is also seemingly going nowhere. MCM may be a lower priority for many but it won’t be when it’s needed.
The threat in choke points from ASuW is clear but what about subsurface drones? What about mines that lay dormant for months and then activate and instantly prosecute an attack?
Are these confined, swallow waterways going to need to sanitised before major vessels pass through? If so what will that require?
Although RN has always been regarded as a world leader in MCM, under funding and a complete lack of prioritisation appears to have resulted in very little progress in recent years to stay ahead of the emerging threats.
I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels but you didn’t like that idea.
MCM and survey are essential parts of maritime security but the navy has stopped being interested in many thing it was considered a leader in to chase off in another direction.
SW1 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2024, 11:57
Are they just bigger torpedoes with a fancy name? If they are sensors how do we currently deal with underwater sensor systems?
I am not disagreeing with any of that, simply that the technology is changing, the threat level is rising and the MoD is dithering with the future of MCM. There is no clear plan and adding a couple of PSVs is desperation rather than forward looking especially when struggling to crew them.
The second MROSS is showing no signs of progress, the LSV program is also seemingly going nowhere. MCM may be a lower priority for many but it won’t be when it’s needed.
The threat in choke points from ASuW is clear but what about subsurface drones? What about mines that lay dormant for months and then activate and instantly prosecute an attack?
Are these confined, swallow waterways going to need to sanitised before major vessels pass through? If so what will that require?
Although RN has always been regarded as a world leader in MCM, under funding and a complete lack of prioritisation appears to have resulted in very little progress in recent years to stay ahead of the emerging threats.
I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels but you didn’t like that idea.
MCM and survey are essential parts of maritime security but the navy has stopped being interested in many thing it was considered a leader in to chase off in another direction.
We are already going for a 3- boat per system here, and the Naval group design only has 2 boat bays. Now add on an ARCIMS system or othe stuff like the Command POD and ROV's then what??
SW1 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2024, 11:57
Are they just bigger torpedoes with a fancy name? If they are sensors how do we currently deal with underwater sensor systems?
I am not disagreeing with any of that, simply that the technology is changing, the threat level is rising and the MoD is dithering with the future of MCM. There is no clear plan and adding a couple of PSVs is desperation rather than forward looking especially when struggling to crew them.
The second MROSS is showing no signs of progress, the LSV program is also seemingly going nowhere. MCM may be a lower priority for many but it won’t be when it’s needed.
The threat in choke points from ASuW is clear but what about subsurface drones? What about mines that lay dormant for months and then activate and instantly prosecute an attack?
Are these confined, swallow waterways going to need to sanitised before major vessels pass through? If so what will that require?
Although RN has always been regarded as a world leader in MCM, under funding and a complete lack of prioritisation appears to have resulted in very little progress in recent years to stay ahead of the emerging threats.
I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels but you didn’t like that idea.
MCM and survey are essential parts of maritime security but the navy has stopped being interested in many thing it was considered a leader in to chase off in another direction.
We are already going for a 3- boat per system here, and the Naval group design only has 2 boat bays. Now add on an ARCIMS system or othe stuff like the Command POD and ROV's then what??
We developed the system with France so what do we see that they don’t. The Dutch and Belgians was very close to UK MCM in the cold war much the same way as the Dutch marines were with 3 commando so what has changed.
We developed the system with France so what do we see that they don’t. The Dutch and Belgians was very close to UK MCM in the cold war much the same way as the Dutch marines were with 3 commando so what has changed.
Wouldn’t be like us to add bespoke.
Just because the french don't have the capability to have 1 more boat doesn't at all mean that the french would want it. They very much could see 'it'. Using the PSV/LSV's isn't bespoke, quite the opposite, nor is adding 1 more boat, the system can accommodate more boats it is merely an operating choice whether or not to do it.
We developed the system with France so what do we see that they don’t. The Dutch and Belgians was very close to UK MCM in the cold war much the same way as the Dutch marines were with 3 commando so what has changed.
Wouldn’t be like us to add bespoke.
Just because the french don't have the capability to have 1 more boat doesn't at all mean that the french would want it. They very much could see 'it'. Using the PSV/LSV's isn't bespoke, quite the opposite, nor is adding 1 more boat, the system can accommodate more boats it is merely an operating choice whether or not to do it.
They selected the mothership design after the unmanned systems were developed in full knowledge of what was required. The Dutch, Belgians in particular have spend quite a bit developing the system that gets the unmanned systems on and off the mothership though.
We do seem to attach the latest buzz words to our route though.
We developed the system with France so what do we see that they don’t. The Dutch and Belgians was very close to UK MCM in the cold war much the same way as the Dutch marines were with 3 commando so what has changed.
Wouldn’t be like us to add bespoke.
Just because the french don't have the capability to have 1 more boat doesn't at all mean that the french would want it. They very much could see 'it'. Using the PSV/LSV's isn't bespoke, quite the opposite, nor is adding 1 more boat, the system can accommodate more boats it is merely an operating choice whether or not to do it.
They selected the mothership design after the unmanned systems were developed in full knowledge of what was required. The Dutch, Belgians in particular have spend quite a bit developing the system that gets the unmanned systems on and off the mothership though.
We do seem to attach the latest buzz words to our route though.
What buzz word can you find for either 3 vs boats or the LSV's?
The french picked the city class was logical for them;
. Existing design
. Naval Group support
. Shipyard support
. In production
LSV route is also equally desirable for us;
. Quick introduction
. Open Market
. 3x cheaper
. Very adaptable
We developed the system with France so what do we see that they don’t. The Dutch and Belgians was very close to UK MCM in the cold war much the same way as the Dutch marines were with 3 commando so what has changed.
Wouldn’t be like us to add bespoke.
Just because the french don't have the capability to have 1 more boat doesn't at all mean that the french would want it. They very much could see 'it'. Using the PSV/LSV's isn't bespoke, quite the opposite, nor is adding 1 more boat, the system can accommodate more boats it is merely an operating choice whether or not to do it.
They selected the mothership design after the unmanned systems were developed in full knowledge of what was required. The Dutch, Belgians in particular have spend quite a bit developing the system that gets the unmanned systems on and off the mothership though.
We do seem to attach the latest buzz words to our route though.
What buzz word can you find for either 3 vs boats or the LSV's?
The french picked the city class was logical for them;
. Existing design
. Naval Group support
. Shipyard support
. In production
LSV route is also equally desirable for us;
. Quick introduction
. Open Market
. 3x cheaper
. Very adaptable
What? I believe this paper just argues for a mother ship; That is what LSV is. Give me a few minutes to read it.
unmanned systems offer a revolutionary change to the concept of operations for naval minewarfare. Extensive research
led BMT to conclude, that given the current rate of development of autonomous systems, a need shall remain for the
foreseeable future for a specialist mine counter-measures (MCM) platform from which the autonomous systems can be
hosted and operated. These ships shall form an integral element of a nation’s maritime MCM capability and the new
operating concept requires a very different platform to the existing ships.
