Future ASW

[Poiuytrewq]

I've been banging on about this for years....and finally someone is looking to do it...and its BAE of all people...

The Ukrainian War has shown us all how important stockpiles are...and production. The Falklands also demonstrated just how much consumables, like Sonobuoys and Torpedoes, can get expended in a fairly small ASW campaign...and we don't have enough. And they're also getting increasingly expensive as Active Buoys and Multi-Static systems are used more for modern stealthy subs...

It's all good having an MQ-9B Sea Guardian or P-8 Poseidon spamming Sonobuoys all over the place...but if you run out by the end of Week 2 you have a problem...

The solution on ships is a Merlin with dipping sonar...but you might still have to drop some buoys to find a sub and localise it...but what if you could retrieve and re-use that very expensive Sonobuoy, by using an unmanned system to dip it like a FLASH system from a winch...and work in concert with Merlin from a T26 deck (or T31, T32 or River Class etc).

A constantly moving sonobuoy field...a sub skippers nightmare. And far less vulnerable to a sub launched UAV/missile for attack...

Fits in a 20ft ISO...
Will carry Sea Venom
Will carry Brimstone
Will carry RAZER, a 155mm artillery shell with wing kit to support forces on land..
Could carry iMaster with ease...or Osprey 30 AESA

A couple of these in their containers in the mission bay on T26, with Merlin and a couple of Malloy T650....and we've got the whole range of missions covered.

We need to tell Leonardo that they've missed the boat with Proteus...

Dipping Sonar Strix at 3.49

[Poiuytrewq]

Interesting.


RN needs more flat tops!

[Dahedd]

Brief video of a trial of a development version.

[serge750]

I've been banging on about this for years....and finally someone is looking to do it...and its BAE of all people...

The Ukrainian War has shown us all how important stockpiles are...and production. The Falklands also demonstrated just how much consumables, like Sonobuoys and Torpedoes, can get expended in a fairly small ASW campaign...and we don't have enough. And they're also getting increasingly expensive as Active Buoys and Multi-Static systems are used more for modern stealthy subs....even the USN would struggle after a medium sized ASW campaign.

It's all good having an MQ-9B Sea Guardian or P-8 Poseidon spamming Sonobuoys all over the place...but if you run out by the end of Week 2 you have a problem...

The solution on ships is a Merlin with dipping sonar...but you might still have to drop some buoys to find a sub and localise it...but what if you could retrieve and re-use that very expensive Sonobuoy, by using an unmanned system to dip it like a FLASH system from a winch...and work in concert with Merlin from a T26 deck (or T31, T32 or River Class etc).

A constantly moving sonobuoy field...a sub skippers nightmare. And far less vulnerable to a sub launched UAV/missile for attack...

Fits in a 20ft ISO...
Will carry Sea Venom
Will carry Brimstone
Will carry RAZER, a 155mm artillery shell with wing kit to support forces on land..
Could carry iMaster with ease...or Osprey 30 AESA
Dramatically cheaper operating costs, and better reliability, than a helicopter based UAV
Faster and longer ranged than a helo based UAV...

A couple of these in their containers in the mission bay on T26, with Merlin and a couple of Malloy T650....and we've got the whole range of missions covered.

We need to tell Leonardo that they've missed the boat with Proteus....this is like the late lamented TERN concept...only actually affordable by the RN...

Dipping Sonar Strix at 3.49

[donald_of_tokyo]

The SkyGuardian configuration can fly for 40 hours. And SeaGuardian configuration can sly for 25-30 hours. If the latter includes not only the radar, but also the sonobuoy pods, it is a very very significant enabler.

Just imagine you are operating SeaGuardian with dozens of sonobuoys in some area (say within a radius of > 100 km, defined by sonobuoy's data-link radio power) for 20 hours on station. Your UAV can take 5 hrs to reach the area (can reach 700 nm away, e.g. from Scotland to Iceland) and come back.

[wargame_insomniac]

The SkyGuardian configuration can fly for 40 hours. And SeaGuardian configuration can sly for 25-30 hours. If the latter includes not only the radar, but also the sonobuoy pods, it is a very very significant enabler.

Just imagine you are operating SeaGuardian with dozens of sonobuoys in some area (say within a radius of > 100 km, defined by sonobuoy's data-link radio power) for 20 hours on station. Your UAV can take 5 hrs to reach the area (can reach 700 nm away, e.g. from Scotland to Iceland) and come back.

If funds allow, then I would love to see a mixture of land based Sea Guardian and sea based Sea Guardian with VTOL kit, to work with in tandem with naval ships and Wildcat / Merlin and also P8 Poseidon.

If the Sea Guardian is fitted with Mojave's VTOL kit then I think in the video they said it was designed to take off and land within 100m, i.e. the length of a football field. In the video it explicitly mentioned that designed to work without cats and traps and can use ski ramp. So I am hoping that the current tests of Mojave on HMS Queen Elizabeth go well.

[new guy]

The SkyGuardian configuration can fly for 40 hours. And SeaGuardian configuration can sly for 25-30 hours. If the latter includes not only the radar, but also the sonobuoy pods, it is a very very significant enabler.

Just imagine you are operating SeaGuardian with dozens of sonobuoys in some area (say within a radius of > 100 km, defined by sonobuoy's data-link radio power) for 20 hours on station. Your UAV can take 5 hrs to reach the area (can reach 700 nm away, e.g. from Scotland to Iceland) and come back.

If funds allow, then I would love to see a mixture of land based Sea Guardian and sea based Sea Guardian with VTOL kit, to work with in tandem with naval ships and Wildcat / Merlin and also P8 Poseidon.

If the Sea Guardian is fitted with Mojave's VTOL kit then I think in the video they said it was designed to take off and land within 100m, i.e. the length of a football field. In the video it explicitly mentioned that designed to work without cats and traps and can use ski ramp. So I am hoping that the current tests of Mojave on HMS Queen Elizabeth go well.

Expansion of numbers of P-8, E-7, RAF MQ-9B
New fleets of 1 or so dozen each for Sea Guardian and FCAF (CSG).
Or sea Guardian instead of additional P-8.

[wargame_insomniac]

The SkyGuardian configuration can fly for 40 hours. And SeaGuardian configuration can sly for 25-30 hours. If the latter includes not only the radar, but also the sonobuoy pods, it is a very very significant enabler.

Just imagine you are operating SeaGuardian with dozens of sonobuoys in some area (say within a radius of > 100 km, defined by sonobuoy's data-link radio power) for 20 hours on station. Your UAV can take 5 hrs to reach the area (can reach 700 nm away, e.g. from Scotland to Iceland) and come back.

If funds allow, then I would love to see a mixture of land based Sea Guardian and sea based Sea Guardian with VTOL kit, to work with in tandem with naval ships and Wildcat / Merlin and also P8 Poseidon.

If the Sea Guardian is fitted with Mojave's VTOL kit then I think in the video they said it was designed to take off and land within 100m, i.e. the length of a football field. In the video it explicitly mentioned that designed to work without cats and traps and can use ski ramp. So I am hoping that the current tests of Mojave on HMS Queen Elizabeth go well.

Expansion of numbers of P-8, E-7, RAF MQ-9B
New fleets of 1 or so dozen each for Sea Guardian and FCAF (CSG).
Or sea Guardian instead of additional P-8.

True - they are all competing for limited funds both now and for the near future.

For P-8 I ideally want at least 3 more (to give 12-strong fleet) and for E-7 I think we need at least one more to give a 4-strong fleet (ideally both of the dropped E-7 could be added back in but beggars can't be choosers). IMO these are the bare minimum fleets we would need to have 24 hour coverage without straining the current airframes / aircrew.

Maybe drones are the answer to work in tandem with these manned aircraft to provide ISTAR.

[Ian Hall]

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think it is CAPTAS-4 CI (Compact Independent-tow), not CAPTAS-4. TASS array is twice smaller, while the VDS is the same.

[new guy]

I think it is CAPTAS-4 CI (Compact Independent-tow), not CAPTAS-4. TASS array is twice smaller, while the VDS is the same.

As in the reel?

[xav]

I think it is CAPTAS-4 CI (Compact Independent-tow), not CAPTAS-4. TASS array is twice smaller, while the VDS is the same.

Thales is not marketing the legacy CAPTAS-4 anymore and it is only in production still for "legacy" ship designs (Italian Navy's two additional FREMM and Type 26 series, including CSC and Hunter class)

Moving forward Thales will only market, sell and therefore produce CAPTAS-4 compact variant. That's their official line at least. And because of this, soon, they'll stop making the difference between legacy CAPTAS-4 and the newer CAPTAS-4C (despite the compact variant having a shorter tow line, therefore the active sonar can't dive as deep by a few meters)...


Unrelated to the above, but related to CAPTAS-4:

Story by Richard Scott
Capability Insertion Package For Sonar 2087

The Royal Navy (RN) is starting to roll out a series of enhancements to the Thales Sonar 2087 low frequency active/passive variable depth sonar equipping its eight anti-submarine warfare (ASW)-optimised Type 23 frigates.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... onar-2087/

[Poiuytrewq]

All kinds of possibilities here.

https://www.navylookout.com/killing-sub ... -by-drone/

[SD67]

I sincerely hope that all this interesting UAV news doesn't turn into another never ending development project, pick the 2 or 3 most promising options and put in purchase order

[donald_of_tokyo]

Moved across from MRSS thread....

... How capable will unmanned ASW be by 2040 and what systems will be required ...

I think this is a very good point to discuss.

We know MQ-9B is now promoted with ASW-pods options. With so-so good surface radar (like SeaSpreay), the 5t-class UAV can surely do some ASW in the next decade. But, "to what extent?" is still not clear.

We know Wildcat is 6t. Adding ASW dipping sonar and/or Sonobuoy dispenser (and its transponder) make the Wildcat's range significantly limited. Thus, RN/FAA Wildcat do not carry such sonar.

Merlin is 15t. It can do good dipping sonar operation, deploy Sonobuoy barrier (with good transponder) and still can be in the sky for hours.

They are helicopters, so its flight envelope is much much limited than a fixed-wing aircrafts of the same weight. So, may be MQ-9B, a MALE drone only 4.5t in its full load, can deploy "meaningful numbers" of Sonobuoy AND trandpond their signal to the mother ship, AND stay on air (to detect the radio signals from Sonobuoys, which needs line of sight communication). In other words, even though the MQ-9Bs are so expensive, it is nearly the minimum size of UAVs to be used for ASW, I'm afraid.

Note I am not talking about torpedo deploying drones, which does not need endurance in the sky.

But, a 0.7t-Bayraktar TB2 class UAVs, what can be done? They can deploy a few Sonobuoys yes, but the transponder could be too heavy for them? Without a "flying transponder", even a modest level of swell and wave can make Sonobuoys "useless" in more than a few km distance, I guess? Within line of sight of the ship's mast, say, 10 km in calm sea, and a few 100 m in a bit rough sea, the deployed Sonobuoys will be "usable", but not further out.

Will it make a "good enough" contribution to ASW, so that MRSS design shall be based on using them? I think NOT. (Note I am not saying MRSS MUST NOT do any ASW. But I think ARCIMS USVs with SEASENSE will be the good answer there).

Not saying not, but, I think it is very much on future. For coming decades or two, I think a 0.7t-class UAV cannot be a major ASW asset.

VTOL dipping sonar UAVs might. But, it is also far in the future.

This is just my personal view, and I agree it is far from firm conclusion.

Thoughts?

[shark bait]

ASW is a long game, also known as Awfully Slow Warfare. It is also a very difficult game, so Donald is correct, the big high endurance drones are the only useful drones for sub hunting.

[Tempest414]

So when talking about MQ-9B what makes it so costly would taking the airframe and fitting a line of sight control system in place of SATCOM system reduce the cost as in real terms what are we looking at in terms of ship based ASW is it the ability to operate at say 100 kms from the ships for 30+ hours with the right kit fitted

[shark bait]

Simply put, no. The MQ-9B is a big and highly instrumented aircraft that can fly in all airspace and all weather. Swapping an upwards pointing transmitter for a downwards facing one does little to reduce the complexity of the system.

Cheaper options exist because they do less.

[Tempest414]

Simply put, no. The MQ-9B is a big and highly instrumented aircraft that can fly in all airspace and all weather. Swapping an upwards pointing transmitter for a downwards facing one does little to reduce the complexity of the system.

Cheaper options exist because they do less.

So is there any reason that we can't build a larger more powerful airframe with cheaper control systems capable of carrying asw Kit at say 100 Kms for 30 hours

[shark bait]

The UK couldn't build an MQ-9B clone cheaper than GA who have a two decade headstart. A Bayraktar TB2 clone would be cheaper, and with that less capable.

[Tempest414]

I am not looking to build a MQ-9 what I am looking for is a UAV with the size and lift capability of MQ-9 and the control system of TB2 the airframe and power unit can't cost that much what I am thinking is something that can carry Sonarbuoys and a receiver/ Transmitter in ASW and 4 x Brimstone in armed overwatch at a range of between 100 and 300 Km's for 25+ hours with a cost point of say 10 million per unit

[new guy]

Air frame cost of MQ-9B is £15m, so no point really.

[Tempest414]

Air frame cost of MQ-9B is £15m, so no point really.

Well someone some where is being fucked over

[donald_of_tokyo]

Air frame cost of MQ-9B is £15m, so no point really.

So we need to understand what makes it system cost nearing $100M per unit.
- Operation cost included? Then it is typically twice the purchase cost
- control system is expensive? Maybe.
- Software is expensive? Maybe.
- Verification is expensive? Sure. It is a system "with" well-trained pilot (in software).
- Certification is expensive? Sure. Flying in civilian sky needs huge certification effort which will be surely very expensive.
But, we need more info, anyway here?

[new guy]

Air frame cost of MQ-9B is £15m, so no point really.

So we need to understand what makes it system cost nearing $100M per unit.
- Operation cost included? Then it is typically twice the purchase cost
- control system is expensive? Maybe.
- Software is expensive? Maybe.
- Verification is expensive? Sure. It is a system "with" well-trained pilot (in software).
- Certification is expensive? Sure. Flying in civilian sky needs huge certification effort which will be surely very expensive.
But, we need more info, anyway here?

Agreed, all needed,

But officially speaking,

The unit cost is £15m,

And we could sign a contract with GA for +25 or whatever for ~£400m

theoretically.


Also: