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: 491
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.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3500
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: 1657
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: 3305
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.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10911
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: 990
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: 3305
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.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3500
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: 491
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.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10911
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: 1423
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: 5861
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: 1423
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: 3305
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.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3305
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Jun 2019, 10:51

"IXblue Unveils SEADRiX USV For Persistent ASW Missions" by Naval News. (Xav-san)

Supported by UK, it is a very promising approach. I like it.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ma ... -missions/

DRiX is a 8m long, 10 days endurance USV, to be equipped with SEA's KraitArray TASS.

There are however a number of ideas, chief amongst which:
The use of a pack of DriXes, launched from a low-tech mother vessel (from a military stand point) such as a supply vessel. They are launched, form a line with a spacing between each dictated by the mission and local propagation conditions, and they cover a wide area for a long time (many days, including replenishment if needed).
The use of DriX+Krait Array individually, amongst a larger force. Launched from an escort vessel, it allows one to put extra sensors in the water, to clear a choke point or protect a given area (a CVOA for instance).
Multi static is quite complicated to achieve, but since it relies on multi platforms, yes, it could be an option in the future.


https://www.ixblue.com/sites/default/fi ... asheet.pdf
Also note
• A sea-proven USV able to operate in high sea states (at least SS5);
• Very low radiated noise;
• Endurance of up to 10 days at 4 knots, one day at 14 knots
(depending on sea state and environment);
• Fitted with a LARS which can be installed in place of a
traditional RHIB on any naval asset (also deployable using a
deckcrane or an A-frame);



https://hiveminer.com/Tags/drix/Timeline
Image

SW1
Member
Posts: 990
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 19 Jun 2019, 20:12

Donald

Yet more evidence of path to sensors not platforms, like carriers have a variety of aircraft so the future will be a ship that carries lots of small craft.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Repulse » 19 Jun 2019, 20:48

Linking to my comment on the RM post, are we potentially getting to the stage that getting the 2nd LPD back into active service, which is capable of operating these off board systems (and smaller RM craft) in higher threat environments, more important than the two new FLSSs and even worth sacrificing a few MCMs?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 990
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 19 Jun 2019, 20:59

Repulse wrote:Linking to my comment on the RM post, are we potentially getting to the stage that getting the 2nd LPD back into active service, which is capable of operating these off board systems (and smaller RM craft) in higher threat environments, more important than the two new FLSSs and even worth sacrificing a few MCMs?


Yes the whole theme and strategy is connected imo. But I wouldn’t be doing half measures I’d be binning type 31 and spending whatever’s left of the budget on such craft an air systems.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Repulse » 19 Jun 2019, 22:21

SW1 wrote:I wouldn’t be doing half measures I’d be binning type 31 and spending whatever’s left of the budget on such craft an air systems.


Not an outlandish proposal, but I would go for another T26, keep the 4 B1/B1.5 Rivers, and some modest upgrades to the B2 Rivers in addition to freeing up some cash.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3500
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Jun 2019, 22:26

I agree we should bring the second Albion back into full service, even if only to operate as a trials vessels for different small craft and operating techniques. We have a very capable and flexible platform just sitting around doing nothing.

I also agree with spending the T-31e budget elsewhere and I would say the same for the LSS. The only exception to the former would be for the current RFI to be torn up and the platform cast as an escort sized mothership for various small craft, manned or unmanned. This would allow the platform to be tailored to the type of mission it is currently assigned and could also dovetail into the replacement mine warfare programme, allow technologies to mature in service prior to their possible use in this,

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5861
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 20 Jun 2019, 08:03

Look at the speed though, that makes operating with a manned fleet almost impossible.

Where Sea Glider's do pose an interesting opportunity is protecting fixed infrastructure, because the low speed doesn't matter in this application.

The probability of a sea glider detecting a sub is small, so to off-set this lots are needed, requiring a cheap & easy production line. If they can be mass produced could a shoal of glider's act as a trip wire to direct the humans?
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3305
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 20 Jun 2019, 14:23

shark bait wrote:Look at the speed though, that makes operating with a manned fleet almost impossible.

Where Sea Glider's do pose an interesting opportunity is protecting fixed infrastructure, because the low speed doesn't matter in this application.

The probability of a sea glider detecting a sub is small, so to off-set this lots are needed, requiring a cheap & easy production line. If they can be mass produced could a shoal of glider's act as a trip wire to direct the humans?
I see no problem here. These ASW-USV are replacement for SURTASS, not TACATASS of escorts. SURTASS was not escorting task force, but steaming independently.

Also, being USV = surface vessel is very important, because they can join multi-static ASW. UUV = submerged drones cannot join it.

Another good thing about SEADRiX USV is that it is "only" 8m long. Making it 11m long is doable, and this will make its endurance a few times longer.

However, I agree they will not be escorting CVTF. Steaming a long distance with 16-20 kt cruise speed cannot be done with small vessel. To do this, the vessel will need to be 1500-2000 t large, at least.

SW1
Member
Posts: 990
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Postby SW1 » 20 Jun 2019, 14:35

Much ASW work done while cruising at 20knts?

Though it was more like 6-10 and quietly.

These typ of things maybe deployed at choke points a day or 2 prior to a high value asset arriving or transiting an area or maybe used to monitor a large area of water where a constant patrol is taking place.

It doesn’t have to replace ever single part of every single likely mission.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3305
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future ASW

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 20 Jun 2019, 14:46

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.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5861
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Postby shark bait » 20 Jun 2019, 15:25

donald_of_tokyo wrote:These ASW-USV are replacement for SURTASS

Exactly, a network of these could become mobile SURTASS. This is distinct from the rest of the Navys operations, and there's no need to start changing the rest of the fleet to accommodate them.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dwardt7270, Google [Bot], Lord Jim, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 28 guests