NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

V.interesting…

”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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Ron5 »

What was the missile?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

Ron5 wrote:What was the missile?
Gabriele on Twitter suggested SwitchBlade loitering munition, I agree that’s most likely.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

Interesting write up on Madfox, didn’t realise it’s top speed was 40kts. Able to operate 20nm (38km) from fhe controller. When can we get some on the B2 Rivers :P

https://www.bairdmaritime.com/work-boat ... -missions/
”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: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Lord Jim »

I just imagine one being used to monitor the English Channel in conjunction with a B2, but when it comes home it will have passengers in life jackets who hopped aboard. Does look a promising platform thought.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Scimitar54 »

Perhaps we could have it’s “Home” Port as Calais. :mrgreen:

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Timmymagic »

Some rather unexpected but very good news....spotted by HI Sutton. Looks the RN may have another, more advanced XLUUV to play with shortly....if we're really lucky we might see an order for the Moray in due course...



https://msubs.com/unmanned-submersibles/xluuv/

https://msubs.com/unmanned-submersibles/moray/

http://www.hisutton.com/Royal-Navy-Manta-XLUUV.html

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

The Moray is a very interesting concept. Personally, I would be prioritizing getting something like this in service to ease the pressure on the SSN fleet in home and Atlantic waters, even if in the short term it had to be semi-manned.
”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: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by SW1 »

What ships or ship systems do the RN have to deploy recover such systems. Even some of the mcmv unmanned vessels are now coming in 15m length.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:What ships or ship systems do the RN have to deploy recover such systems. Even some of the mcmv unmanned vessels are now coming in 15m length.
The T26 mission bay springs to mind. The capability that folks on here are dying to scrap :roll:

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:The T26 mission bay springs to mind. The capability that folks on here are dying to scrap
The Mission Bay is the crowning glory of T26. It makes all other surface combatants out there look horrifically unprepared for the unmanned future (apart from the Independence Class LCS...USN had the right idea but badly executed it). My only concern is that it might be too small....

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Lord Jim »

I don't think people want to scrap the Mission Bay on the eight T-26 on order as it is already part of a set design and uses will be found for it, most likely ones that weren't even considered when the design was accepted. The space for the Mission Bay would be a main area for the expansion of the platforms weapon loadout if a variant of the T-26 was chosen as the successor to the T-45 and possibly RAN Hobart.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:What ships or ship systems do the RN have to deploy recover such systems. Even some of the mcmv unmanned vessels are now coming in 15m length.
The B1 Rivers flat deck with 25t crane can accommodate something of the size of the LCVP. Not sure about the B2s - definitely has the deck space, not sure about the crane.

I’m sure HMS Protector can do something similar, along with the amphibious ships and future T26 of course.

Would say however a future mothership (MHPC) Sloop designed for these sized boats would be a good purchase.
”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: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:What ships or ship systems do the RN have to deploy recover such systems. Even some of the mcmv unmanned vessels are now coming in 15m length.
The T26 mission bay springs to mind. The capability that folks on here are dying to scrap :roll:
There too big for the type 26 mission bay

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Caribbean »

Repulse wrote: a future mothership (MHPC) Sloop
I think it's already been designated the T32
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Lord Jim »

The T-32 needs to be a genuine multi purpose warship, which can also handle unmanned platforms. We are not talking another T-26 but more a T-31, tooled up and with a true mission bay, and one sized to cope with the platforms being designed around 15m in length.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:The T-32 needs to be a genuine multi purpose warship, which can also handle unmanned platforms. We are not talking another T-26 but more a T-31, tooled up and with a true mission bay, and one sized to cope with the platforms being designed around 15m in length.
Wouldn’t a larger version of the Absalon class for this bill ?

Say a Absalon style set but closer in size to a T26 so around the 150m by 21m mark.
Something with the large multi mission deck that can launch and recover a CB90 ( 16m odds ) and a twin merlin hanger abd chinook flight deck along with acomidation for 100 extra above the crew and helo crew.

5 vessels like this would not only be good for unmanned assets but also could be flexible enough to be a good addition for the LSGs as escorts and additional troops / assets.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Timmymagic »

Plenty of BMT designs that can carry unmanned platforms...ranging from cheap and cheerful to more complex. 4 each of these and the RN would be set for decades...

Salvas - Diving support, USV and UUV support, Minehunting, Surveying...what more could you want. Could even do heavy repair on it like Diligence...(although an ex-oil rig support vessel would be cheaper and arguably better).

Image

Venari 85 - Replacement for Sandown's, Hunts and River Batch 1's. Has the potential to replace Echo Class as well.

Image

Venator 90 - Would make an ideal MHPC ship, stick a 4.5 or 5 inch on it and you have a ship you could risk inshore for NGFS. With a decent Gun and Sea Ceptor and you don't need to worry about having to escort MCM forces...would make perfect ships for the Gulf in particular...

Image

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

Caribbean wrote:I think it's already been designated the T32
Lord Jim wrote:The T-32 needs to be a genuine multi purpose warship, which can also handle unmanned platforms. We are not talking another T-26 but more a T-31, tooled up and with a true mission bay, and one sized to cope with the platforms being designed around 15m in length.
If the T32 is a follow on T31 it is the wrong platform, 5 is not enough and the navy will never afford enough - it will stuck in a death spiral of fewer hulls. As Timmymagic rightly points out there are plenty of alternatives to pick up the MHPC role that can be built of a third of the cost of a T31. We should be aiming for 12-16 to replace the B1/B2 Rivers, Echos and some of the Hunts.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:Some rather unexpected but very good news....spotted by HI Sutton. Looks the RN may have another, more advanced XLUUV to play with shortly....if we're really lucky we might see an order for the Moray in due course...
..
https://msubs.com/unmanned-submersibles/xluuv/
https://msubs.com/unmanned-submersibles/moray/
http://www.hisutton.com/Royal-Navy-Manta-XLUUV.html
Repulse wrote:The Moray is a very interesting concept. Personally, I would be prioritizing getting something like this in service to ease the pressure on the SSN fleet in home and Atlantic waters, even if in the short term it had to be semi-manned.
I agree. Many of the "RN needs SSK" discussion/needs must be filled with Moray. It may be sneaking around Irish sea and North Atlantic for ASW, even covering part of TAPS tasks. But, I do no think it is related to T26.

10-12m class USV can do many tasks (e.g. Drix USVs), which is completely in different class to these extra-large UUVs. Discussing deploying these XLUUV from T26 or T32 (T31 cannot for sure) is not much different from discussing deploying LCU from T26 = pointless.


Anyway, "UUV/USV/UAV" has wide range of "classes". It is equivalent to (manned) "Submarine/Vessel/Aircraft". Of course, the "vessel" includes from RHIB/LCVP, OPVs, Escorts, LSDs, CV to huge tankers. As such, how large a UUV/USV/UAV is, how complex it is, what capability it has, have large diversity.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: If the T32 is a follow on T31 it is the wrong platform, 5 is not enough and the navy will never afford enough - it will stuck in a death spiral of fewer hulls. As Timmymagic rightly points out there are plenty of alternatives to pick up the MHPC role that can be built of a third of the cost of a T31. We should be aiming for 12-16 to replace the B1/B2 Rivers, Echos and some of the Hunts.
I understand your point of view, by I personally think replacement for 12 MHPC could be 4-5 LSD-level ships.

One such ship can replace 3-4 MCMVs in MCM tasks (I understand MCMVs are rarely operated in singleton). Its capacity can be diverted to amphibious operation, HADR operations, blue water patrol, shallow water patrol with a fleet of USVs, in addition to MCM tasks.

River B2 like OPVs can be in different league. It is a commodity worldwide = many good design exists (many benchmark can be easily found) and easy to build. With some mission deck (like those on River B2), OPVs can cover some of the USV tasks such as those done using T26's mission deck.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Lord Jim »

I still think we need to split mine warfare into two categories. Firstly there would be the use of unmanned vessels operating off either an LSD or even a T-26 to locate and clear mines that are impeding the operations of the above and other RN assets. Secondly would be the use of smaller platforms that are still able to carry and operate multiple unmanned vessels to protect fixed locations like harbours and choke points. Both will use the same unmanned vessels and of course these could also be operated from shore in some cases.

The development of very large unmanned submersible vessels opens up a whole host of new operational possibilities. The size of some of these planned unmanned submersibles is more akin to a SSK, though without crew they would be capable of carrying considerable weapon and sensor loadouts. I littoral waters such vessels would be of great use in countering an opponents area denial tactics for example.

If these ambitious capabilities are realised the Royal Navy will be able to grow in size and capability without needing substantial additional personnel. But this should not be at the cost of conventional Warships of which we already have too few.

With the T-31 and T-32 I would like to see them as basically one class, with the former initially a patrol vessels whilst the latter would be a genuine multipurpose escort. However the former would be modified during planned maintenance to eventually roughly match the latter in capability, providing a class of ten vessels possibly able to act as escorts in the Carrier Group. What actually happen with the T-32 is anyone's guess at the moment though.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Repulse wrote: If the T32 is a follow on T31 it is the wrong platform, 5 is not enough and the navy will never afford enough - it will stuck in a death spiral of fewer hulls. As Timmymagic rightly points out there are plenty of alternatives to pick up the MHPC role that can be built of a third of the cost of a T31. We should be aiming for 12-16 to replace the B1/B2 Rivers, Echos and some of the Hunts.
I understand your point of view, by I personally think replacement for 12 MHPC could be 4-5 LSD-level ships.

One such ship can replace 3-4 MCMVs in MCM tasks (I understand MCMVs are rarely operated in singleton). Its capacity can be diverted to amphibious operation, HADR operations, blue water patrol, shallow water patrol with a fleet of USVs, in addition to MCM tasks.

River B2 like OPVs can be in different league. It is a commodity worldwide = many good design exists (many benchmark can be easily found) and easy to build. With some mission deck (like those on River B2), OPVs can cover some of the USV tasks such as those done using T26's mission deck.
We need to remember the T32 is meant to also be seen as an increase to escort numbers so having them be 100m odd vessels or also having them replace mcm dicrectly will be hard to pass off as increasing escort numbers. This is why I believe a UK version of the Absalon would be ideal as it’d be flexible enough while having the size to fill the “escort” role and be able to under take maybe roles in regard the unmanned.


When it comes to replacing the mcm with unmanned mother ships it all depends what roles are required to fill. If we want these need vessels to under take the low end piritcy tasks and guard task then a 100m odd MHPC would be better, but if we want them to solely be unmanned mother ships with room for ever larger umanned systems then yes I agree an LSD style ship would be best.


It’s all depends on defining the roles said vessel will be ask to do, but I do believe the T32 and mcm mother ship replacement should be kept separate.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, larger LSDs (and other amphibious ships) definitely have a role, and as Lord Jim points out, where there is a specific choke point like the Gulf this would seem more appropriate than individual ships. Equally would be operating them from a port - this flexibility will be important.

However, it feels like we will be heading towards a fleet of small (5-6) fleet of larger ships to effectively replace 15 MCMs and 2 Survey ships. People will also say that there could be 10 T31s/T32s also - however all these platforms will have day jobs, and physically ships cannot do multiple roles if they need to be in different places to do them. Hence, I would focus the T31 on being a real escort, and make sure you have enough “T32” mothership platforms (10+) to complement them - to get the numbers you have to remove the word frigate.
”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: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: NavyX - the Royal Navy’s new Autonomy and Lethality Accelerator

Post by SW1 »

It’s the payload not the ships that will increase in importance from here. The NSRS I guess being a gd example. Systems that can Operated from a port somewhere possibly even air dropped in some cases. HMS protector or similar vessels maybe a gd example of a vessel to deploy and support such things or indeed a number of the RFA which have large cranes and open spaces as the idea would be to deploy a number of systems over an area.

Escorts may have the command modules added in containers or data processing of there information

Post Reply