UK Defence Forum

Absalon is a bit slow isn't it? I seem to remember it loses two diesels and maxes out at 24 knots. making it a bit useless as a frigate.

Designed for a rather unique Danish requirement not sure it travels well.

By the way, that stern launch is for calm water use. Next to useless in the NA.

Jake1992 wrote:It’s platforms like this and other unmanned systems that make me think Absalon would of been a better choice for T31 than IH

I am sure OMT (who designed both) stands ready to help the RN to get a mongrel, by the time we are ready for the production of Batch 2

Ron5 wrote:Absalon is a bit slow isn't it? I seem to remember it loses two diesels and maxes out at 24 knots. making it a bit useless as a frigate.

Designed for a rather unique Danish requirement not sure it travels well.

By the way, that stern launch is for calm water use. Next to useless in the NA.

24 knots is that same speed as a RB2 and only 2 knots slower than the “stated” speed of a T26. It’s not like we’ll be sending a T31 as part of CSG but more for singleton roles.
What difference would 2 knots make in these roles ?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:It’s platforms like this and other unmanned systems that make me think Absalon would of been a better choice for T31 than IH

I am sure OMT (who designed both) stands ready to help the RN to get a mongrel, by the time we are ready for the production of Batch 2

That’s assuming there is a batch 2 I personally wouldn’t hold my breath on this.
I just think it’s a bit of a missed opportunity due the focus being almost a pidgin hole view of a cheap GP frigate and not an over all view of where the whole fleet is heading in regard to unmanned.

SW1 wrote:Would of course mean reducing traditional frigate numbers, marine numbers, mcm vessels to invest in the payload systems because in a finite budget choices have to be made

Spot on - marine numbers are already reducing and the MCM fleet looks destined for a slow terminal decline over the next 10 years. If the T31 does end up being the MHPC for solo medium threat deployments then okay, but as you say overall numbers of traditional frigates need to decline to pay for the new off board systems.

Repulse wrote:If the T31 does end up being the MHPC

Not likely, the MCM boats don't fit in the T31's bays.

Repulse wrote:https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/manta- ... submarine/

Glad to see the MOD getting back to giving things a go, rather than burring ideas in study after study.

shark bait wrote:

Repulse wrote:If the T31 does end up being the MHPC

Not likely, the MCM boats don't fit in the T31's bays.

What I would like to see is the new unmanned MCM kit trialled on a B2 River

Or from the Hunts, which seemed to be the plan a very long time ago;

Probably stupid questions:

Is the idea with an autonomous sub that you program it for it's mission before launch and that is it?

Or is it being constantly 'piloted' à la airborne drones by a person in Portsmouth or on a future T26?

How does any data stream from the sub get back to the controlling party?

If it's being piloted 'live' can it be 'hacked'? Controlled by an opponent with more leet haxxor skills than the MoD?

An interesting article from Xavier about BMT's new concept for unmanned:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

By the way Xavier, it's immersed not immerged

Immerge is fine. It's the opposite concept of emerge (and yes, I did have to look it up to confirm it). Immersed is more common, I agree

verb (used without object), im·merged, im·merg·ing.
to plunge, as into a fluid.
to disappear by entering into any medium, as the moon into the shadow of the sun.

verb (used with object), im·merged, im·merg·ing.
Archaic. to immerse.

Not where I live

BMT launches next gen hull-form for autonomous operations – the ‘Pentamaran’

Designed to meet the specific challenges of long range autonomous operations, the ‘Pentamaran’ design has been optimised by BMT to reduce fuel consumption and increase its adaptability across multiple applications

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... entamaran/

don't get me wrong, i love all this multi-hull jazz and think we should have more of it, but....

Q. how practical is launch and recovery from davits?
Q. how small can it shrink? is this a situation where we look at the davits on T31 and groan; "doh!"

jedibeeftrix wrote:don't get me wrong, i love all this multi-hull jazz and think we should have more of it, but....

Q. how practical is launch and recovery from davits?
Q. how small can it shrink? is this a situation where we look at the davits on T31 and groan; "doh!"

At least looking into the image of BMT, I understand these USVs are for self deploy, not for davit operation.

A boat based on RHIB (e.g. Elbit Seagull), trimaran (e.g. Atlas ARCIMS), or wave piercing (e.g. DRiX of iXblue) are some of the options for small boat-like USV. Also this hull shape may work.

But the size of the hull is an independent issue.

Mission system's size of davit-carried boats will be pretty much limited, because of its small capacity. Too small to be useful in high-end war. But, tasks such as
- patrol and intercept of anti-small boat swarm
- very shallow water ASW
- side-scan sonar operations for mine detection
will be good options.

What to do in davit-based boats, well-dock deployed boats, and self-deployed vessel naturally differ.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Mission system's size of davit-carried boats will be pretty much limited, because of its small capacity.

This is why using the LPDs as unmanned / Multirole motherships is a concept the RN needs to explore more, rather than be consigned pointlessly to the scrap heap.

I agree, just look at what the Dutch have been doing with Rotterdam and Johan de Witt.

One solution, I agree. But, Bays (LSDs) may do well.

The problem is, if RN are to re-activate 2nd-LPD (Bulwark, as for now), it needs substantial man power. A fleet of USV/UUV which are so large in size-and-number so that they need LPDs not LSDs' well-dock also costs a lot. RN will surely need to cut something else to enable it.

If it is for MCM: One idea is to completely ban the "hull-part" of the MHC program, and use LPD/LSDs as the "hulls". In this case, the "USV/UUV-mission part" of the MHC shall be "carried" on those LPD/LSDs.

If it is for ASW: Another idea is to ban some frigates and/or Merlin helicopters to "man" these LPDs and "purchase" those USV/UUV/UAVs.

If we keep the system simple and small, maybe there will no big "exchange (or sacrifice)" to enable it. But if it is large, no way.

Be practical. Adding new capability does not come without appropriate money. And money will not increase. So, USV/UUV/UAV systems are "replacements" of current equipments, and never "an addition".

This is what I mean here.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:One solution, I agree. But, Bays (LSDs) may do well.

Maybe, but my argument for LPDs over LSDs (though both would be fine), is that the former can operate in a higher threat environment, operate more, and is more of a multi-role vessel as it will have a mixture of unmanned craft plus numbers of landing craft and RMs.

The LSDs are great / affordable ships and good for HADR and acting as MCM motherships, but given that their primary role of logistical support to brigade level ops has diminished (if not removed), we need to prioritise.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:A fleet of USV/UUV which are so large in size-and-number so that they need LPDs not LSDs' well-dock also costs a lot.

Yes, if the Navy need a lot of new infrastructure to work unmanned vehicles it's a pointless exercise. Luckily there is a cheap solution, just operate them from the shore!

Repulse wrote:

It’s a gd video and I have seen it before, what I would point is the number of unmanned used and how they get there and the roll of the frigate in it. While this is theory and I’m sure various things will change but worth considering none the less

New Zealand navy is using the DriX iXblue USV for charting the waters around Tonga and Fiji. Interesting to see the DriX drones working. DriX is the non-military version of its family.

# It looks like around Nomuka island of Tonga.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/n ... fU8YqcuOWY

A bit more detailed info on "Pacific 24 USV".

“While initial tasks are likely to be familiar to those who already operate a Pacific 24, the autonomous nature of this craft adds huge capability and flexibility.
“Additionally, this capability can be constantly improved, allowing continuous updates and capability upgrades, resulting in regular additions to the toolbox of operational planners.”
Trials with the new craft begin this month, followed by integrating it into a front-line warship’s combat and navigation systems later in the year. The trials will determine whether the UK invests in a fleet of such craft or a few for specific missions.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/crewless- ... e-systems/