Future ASW

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

tomuk wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 05:55]
It isn't really a replacement for an SSK it won't have any offensive capability
This is much better than an SSK.

I used to support the idea of SSKs for the Royal Navy, but drone subs are a far better option. They'll likely wait for Gen2/3 before arming the drones, and that totally fine. Still lots to do in the intelligence gathering role, such as pointing out rare and very expensive crewed boats in the right direction.

The potential here is huge. After Tempest, this is the MODs most important R&D project.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
jedibeeftrix
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 13:44
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Dec 2022, 12:24
At 12 by 2.2 meters and 17 tons two of these could carried by and deployed by a River B2
How would it get such a heavy object on and off the ships safely?
By use of its crane from its waste points all be it in calm waters

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

The deck crane of an RB2 cannot safely lift 17t even in the lowest of sea states.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Great to see the progress and clearly this capability is destined for the T32 but is adding such a facility to a Frigate really the most effective way to deploy such a system?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dstl ... e-autonomy

At 9m and 9t in theory a XLUUV such as this could be launched/recovered by any 100m plus RN/RFA vessel.

If this is the future why the need for a new class of Frigates?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 13:43 Great to see the progress and clearly this capability is destined for the T32 but is adding such a facility to a Frigate really the most effective way to deploy such a system?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dstl ... e-autonomy

At 9m and 9t in theory a XLUUV such as this could be launched/recovered by any 100m plus RN/RFA vessel.

If this is the future why the need for a new class of Frigates?
The 9m version is just for trial, and the one to be operated, the first version Cetus will be 12 metres long – the length of a double decker bus – 2.2 metres in diameter and weigh 17 tonnes.

In other words, as large as an LCVP.

I'm not sure if they are good for "frigates"? These XLUUVs are considerably slower than a frigate. It is not good for escorting other vessels (typically 15-20 knots cruising), nor hunting subs, I guess. But, it will be more for "stationed patrol", choke point control, and "entrance clearance"? In this case, XLUUVs shall better be with MHC-OSV and LSVs?

Another options for ASW-drones are ARCIMS ASW SeaSense. They are 11m long, 10t FLD, and upto 40 knots top speed. At least, they can follow the frigate (if not in high rough sea).

Anyway, interesting to see the progress!!

Image

Cetus Main specifications
Length: 12 meters
Diameter: 2.2 meters
Weight: 17 tonnes
Range: 1,000 nautical miles
Operating depth: 400+ meters
Modular design
[/i]
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... tus-xluuv/
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
Poiuytrewqwargame_insomniachopper

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 15:10 These XLUUVs are considerably slower than a frigate.
How fast is Cetus?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

They more or less have to be slow.

I did some back of napkin calculations a while back and a container sized sub could last a month traveling at 3kts, and that falls off very quickly with just a small speed increase. Expect less than a day at 20.

I agree with Donalds comment above, it doesn't looks like a good for for a frigate. I expect it will mostly be deployed from the shore, perhaps with the occasional launch from an amphib or other big ship.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
Ron5
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

could say 6 of these working with the P8's take over TAPS freeing up the Tpye 26
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyojedibeeftrix

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Caribbean »

shark bait wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 05:07 They more or less have to be slow.

I did some back of napkin calculations a while back and a container sized sub could last a month traveling at 3kts, and that falls off very quickly with just a small speed increase. Expect less than a day at 20.

I agree with Donalds comment above, it doesn't looks like a good for for a frigate. I expect it will mostly be deployed from the shore, perhaps with the occasional launch from an amphib or other big ship.
I suspect that a frigate would only be used as transport for a larger version like Cetus. I.e. used to rapidly move a system to an area where it's needed, then handed over to others. That's if they can't be moved by air. Smaller versions might be appropriate for short-term missions (i.e. go somewhere, launch and lurk offshore for a few days while the UAVs do their stuff, then collect and move on)
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Ron5
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future ASW

Post by jedibeeftrix »

The XLUUV question is precisely why i am so keen on the inclusion of docks for future amphibs - above and beyond their utility for 3Cdo. And dismissive of LCVP/davits. Too small for amphibious operations, and likely future XLUUV's too.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 13:48 The XLUUV question is precisely why i am so keen on the inclusion of docks…
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Jan 2023, 15:10 Anyway, interesting to see the progress!!
The XLUUV trails and T32 has got me thoroughly confused!

If the XLUUV is approx 12m X 15t it can be launched and recovered by a T26…great! In which case is RN seriously going to introduce a new class of Frigate because the SWL of the T26 mission space crane cannot be increased by 15%. The T26 crane should really have a minimum SWL of 16t anyway, increasing that to 17t should not be difficult.

The T31 should be able to cope with a 12m XLUUV also, albeit with minor adaptions to allow access from above to the mission spaces.
The original Iver Huitfieldt design already includes an amidships deck crane which should be able to be strengthened to provide a SWL of 16t also. This again highlights the highly inefficient design of the five individual T31 mission spaces and their lack of interconnectivity. Easily fixed and certainly not enough to introduce a new class to remedy such shortcomings.

The RB2’s also have a deck crane with a SWL of 16t which could easily launch and recover a 12m XLUUV if required.

All things considered if these XLUUV become larger than 15m/20t then they are really outside of sensible limits for Frigate sized vessels. They really should be operated by a PSV or larger auxiliary vessel ideally with a floodable dock. However,such vessels will not be able reach much above 20knts which I suspect is an important consideration in certain circumstances.

If RN settled on a 11m/15t XLUUV then it could be operated by the T26, T31 and the RB2s, A single T26 could fit five such XLUUVs in its amidships mission space.

With money in sort supply it would appear a more pragmatic solution could be found and I would suggest the case to justify a new class of Frigate to operate these new off-board systems has not yet been satisfactorily made.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 21:23With money in sort supply it would appear a more pragmatic solution could be found and I would suggest the case to justify a new class of Frigate to operate these new off-board systems has not yet been satisfactorily made.
Thanks, good analysis, I think. Two comments.

1. To transfer XLUUV in 20 knots speed, I think River B2 is the best solution. I think they can carry two or three XLUUV on the flight deck. As a transporter, no need to use the flight deck.

2. On T32, I think its primary rationale is "5 more frigates". Modular/Pods etc is secondary. And, 3rd is "ship design capability". As such, there can be many options, if we ignore the 3rd item.

If there be £2.6Bn, many options can be there: 2 T26 and 3 T31-mod, 3 T26 and 2 OPVs, 5 T31-mod and use the remaining £1Bn for up-arming T45 and T26 etc...

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future ASW

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 21:23
jedibeeftrix wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 13:48 The XLUUV question is precisely why i am so keen on the inclusion of docks…
The XLUUV trails and T32 has got me thoroughly confused!
....
All things considered if these XLUUV become larger than 15m/20t then they are really outside of sensible limits for Frigate sized vessels. They really should be operated by a PSV or larger auxiliary vessel ideally with a floodable dock. However,such vessels will not be able reach much above 20knts which I suspect is an important consideration in certain circumstances.
...
If RN settled on a 11m/15t XLUUV then it could be operated by the T26, T31 and the RB2s, A single T26 could fit five such XLUUVs in its amidships mission space.
For ref: I am presuming they are only going to get larger, and this makes the MRSS amphibs a dual-use capability.

I may be entirely wrong on this, and the RN see's no requirement for the bulk of its XLUUV fleet to exceed the 12m/15tonne limit that can easily be accomodated by a frigate with a useful mission space.

p.s. why do you think the deployment vessel needs to achieve escort speeds rather than RFA speeds?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

The vessel your looking for is sisters to Topaz Tangaroa
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
shark bait

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 03 Feb 2023, 01:20 Two comments.

1. To transfer XLUUV in 20 knots speed, I think River B2 is the best solution. I think they can carry two or three XLUUV on the flight deck. As a transporter, no need to use the flight deck.

2. On T32, I think its primary rationale is "5 more frigates". Modular/Pods etc is secondary. And, 3rd is "ship design capability". As such, there can be many options, if we ignore the 3rd item.

If there be £2.6Bn, many options can be there: 2 T26 and 3 T31-mod, 3 T26 and 2 OPVs, 5 T31-mod and use the remaining £1Bn for up-arming T45 and T26 etc...
Interesting that none of your options include a new design T32!

If HMG had not of previously announced the T32 I would have suggested a third class of Frigate was the least likely option. It is certainly the most expensive.

Another expensive option was the extended design process of the T26, much of which was due to the dilemma of an aft vs amidships mission space. Happily, the ultimate outcome for the T26 was a great design, confirmed by the impressive export success.

My question would be….what off-board systems are going in the T26 mission space if the XLUUV is too large?

- Surely it isn’t credible to suggest an MCM role for one of the UKs eight ASW Frigates?
- Transporting disaster relief supplies on HADR deployments is not a good use of the worlds most advanced anti-submarine Frigates.
- A RB2 and T31 can carry four RHIBs and enough Marines to fill them so why the need for such an expensive capability on an ASW Frigate?

I think RN has to answer these questions before the case for a new class designed to operate autonomous off-board systems is made. A simple future-proofing argument is not enough IMO. Building more T26s will be much more cost effective than introducing an entirely new class.

If a new class really is needed and Rosyth is where these vessels are to be built then Babcock needs to be cutting steel in 2025/2026. I would suggest a decision needs to be made before the end of 2024. That’s a tight timeframe when a detailed specification hasn’t even been finalised to date. Hopefully Babcock is working a T31/Absalon hybrid behind the scenes the risk of a gap is huge.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

For me there are 2 things about keeping them to 15 tons

1) they can be air lifted around the world as needed to be operated from shore or ships
2) they can be operated from 90% of the fleet above 1700 tons including the River B1's

Now as for speed as a said they will plod about at 3-5 knots any higher and they will go from a month at sea to days. now I can see a few good things about them

1) as said they may when working with P-8's be able to free up the TAPS frigate
2) if MRSS ends up being a good sized flat top with a dock then 4 of these working with ASW drones and helicopters could work well for area denial of Subs
3) when working from frigates in the littoral area to close an area around force allowing the frigates to move about freely in defence on the force while still getting ASW info
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Feb 2023, 10:39 Interesting that none of your options include a new design T32!
Oh, sorry, I should have added,

- 5 T32 designed and built ad BAES Clyde, not Rosyth. :D
(because I really think Clyde will need a bit more work to fill the gap between T26-end and T26-replacement starts. It is a very long period the T83-class can bary fill, which will result in slow and in-efficient build.
My question would be….what off-board systems are going in the T26 mission space if the XLUUV is too large?

- Surely it isn’t credible to suggest an MCM role for one of the UKs eight ASW Frigates?
- Transporting disaster relief supplies on HADR deployments is not a good use of the worlds most advanced anti-submarine Frigates.
- A RB2 and T31 can carry four RHIBs and enough Marines to fill them so why the need for such an expensive capability on an ASW Frigate?
Many.

1: Helicopters:
- Carry 2nd Merlin. (if CVF is filled with F35 and/or Chinook and Apach)
- Carry 3rd and 4th Wildcats (in addition to the 2 in the hangar) for 24hr/7day Stingray torpedo delivery and/or anti-surface attacking capability (with 4 SeaVenoms each).
- Carry 1 Merlin in the hangar and 4 heavy-lift UAVs for 24/7 torpedo delivery and 4 patrol UAVs.

2: USVs:
- ARCIMS USV can steam at 40knots (in calm sea) and can be operational even in SeaState 4-5. Then, how about 2-3 ARCIMS USV with SeaSense ASW kits? I think this is the best option. In shallow water, even CAPTAS-4 cannot provide long enough detection range. ARCIMS SeaSense USVs can provide good "ping" and listening, while steaming around T26 (say, 10-30 km apart). T26's CAPTAS-4 passive TASS can join the multi-static ASW, provided a "big ear".
- 3-4 Patrolling surface USVs, like BAE "Pacific 24" USVs. The fleet will provide 24/7 barrier against incoming fast boat terrorists, so "escort" and "defend" the CV, RFA and even T45 and T26.

In emergency, XLUUV and MCM-USVs will be deployed. In case of MCM, when the theater is at high risk, a T26 shall be needed to proceed near the shore. Although unlikely to happen, this "possibility" will make enemy's effort on sea-mining much more difficult. Anti-USV-MCM mines shall be prepared, which directly means anti-ship mines will be reduced.
Building more T26s will be much more cost effective than introducing an entirely new class.
Exactly.
If a new class really is needed and Rosyth is where these vessels are to be built then Babcock needs to be cutting steel in 2025/2026. I would suggest a decision needs to be made before the end of 2024. That’s a tight timeframe when a detailed specification hasn’t even been finalised to date. Hopefully Babcock is working a T31/Absalon hybrid behind the scenes the risk of a gap is huge.
I really think Babcock shall build MRSS. It is critical for Rosyth. T32 after MRSS, or MRSS after T32. Anyway, needed.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Feb 2023, 10:39 Building more T26s will be much more cost effective than introducing an entirely new class.
Amen to that, just a shame that hadn’t been the outcome before the T31 decision. I’d still go with 10 T26s over 8+5 T31s.

I think there is a strong argument for an extended OPV/Sloop with a mission bay, but £150-£200mn per unit price brackets.

2 more T26s and five Sloops it is then :)
”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

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 03 Feb 2023, 19:10
Poiuytrewq wrote: 03 Feb 2023, 10:39 Building more T26s will be much more cost effective than introducing an entirely new class.
Amen to that, just a shame that hadn’t been the outcome before the T31 decision. I’d still go with 10 T26s over 8+5 T31s.

I think there is a strong argument for an extended OPV/Sloop with a mission bay, but £150-£200mn per unit price brackets.

2 more T26s and five Sloops it is then :)
No.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 2):
CaribbeanTempest414

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 21:23 If RN settled on a 11m/15t XLUUV then it could be operated by the T26, T31 and the RB2s, A single T26 could fit five such XLUUVs in its amidships mission space.
No chance. Any submarine that size is going to be heavy, even more so one that is 90% batteries.

The ISO container sized submarine offered by MSUB in Plymouth is twice that weight at 30tonnes and that's got empty space for humans onboard.

https://msubs.com/manned-submersibles/s361/

Launching and recovering large submarine drones is too specialist for frigates and patrol boats. It will need to be something closer to the vessels used in the offshore construction industry.

This is totally fine, there's little point using a fast frigate to operate a submarine that will operate at 3 knots, the sub will never be in a useful place.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 02 Feb 2023, 21:23 If RN settled on a 11m/15t XLUUV then it could be operated by the T26, T31 and the RB2s, A single T26 could fit five such XLUUVs in its amidships mission space.
No chance. Any submarine that size is going to be real heavy, especially a drone sub that will be 90% batteries.

The ISO container sized submarine offered by MSUB in Plymouth is twice that weight at 30 tonnes, and that's got empty space to keep humans onboard.

https://msubs.com/manned-submersibles/s361/

Launching and recovering large submarine drones is too specialist for frigates and patrol boats. It will need something closer to the vessels used in the offshore construction industry.

This is totally fine, there's little point using a fast frigate to operate a submarine that will travel at 3 knots, the sub will never be in a useful place.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoLord Jim
@LandSharkUK

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Future ASW

Post by Zeno »

Do the Astute class submarines have the ability to carry these types of long range unmanned submersibles like Cetus?
https://www.navysealmuseum.org/home-to- ... operations

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by tomuk »

Astute has deck shelter capability see below.
Image

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Fully expect they'll be able to carry a drone sub like that for an extra sneaky deployment.

Gets more interesting with the next generation of SSN that will feature electric propulsion, meaning they'll have the electrical capacity to charge drone subs while on station.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tiny numbers and a very modest investment but still welcome news.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... -vehicles/
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply