Future ASW

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:the sonobuoy(s) are located apart. The [boats can "hunt" SSKs "towards the buoy", waiting as an ambush.] Existence of such tool will significantly restrict the maneuver of the SSKs, I guess.
A good find, but I read the purpose to be against Spetsnaz infiltration (the navy SF has some other name, but they are basically for the same duties, just assuming a frogman op to be part of the overall mission).

Ruskies have been running around the Swedes in circles for decades when they have been practising how to get through, to the navy bases (not quite all the way, exc. for the famous Whisky on the rocks).
- this will put an end to it (even the bottom crawling insertion craft make a sound) when you have, as pointed out, a quickly deployable buoyo network and boats that can go everywhere, over shallows
- even if this happens after detection, the vehicle will not be taking anyone back to the sub that originally transported them for deployment

Ruskies themselves are v aware of different types of threats to naval bases, but do the defence (detection) differently, as can be seen here: http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Navy-In ... Syria.html
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The new point here is, the sonobuoy(s) are located apart. The boats can "hunt" SSKs "towards the buoy", waiting as an ambush. Existence of such tool will significantly restrict the maneuver of the SSKs, I guess.
Ok, I see the difference there. I suppose that's a much simpler approach than putting the sensors on a USV like others are trying.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Very impressive trial of French Marine National

- using CAPTAS-1 containerized system on Offshore Support Vessel.
- I new the Lafayette upgrade included KingKlip hull sonar, but I first know here that "Surcouf, has been fitted with a BlueWatcher hull mounted sonar since early 2018". BlueWatcher is a hull-mounted FLASH sonar.

Although it is all in trial phase, and they state they need the outcome of the experiment to say anything about its usefulness, it is very interesting approach,
- CAPTAS-1 is relatively cheap,
- being containerized, can be carried "on demand", like RFA vessels "sometimes" carrying CIWS
- being small, it could be carried on either T31, River B2 or B1. And what is more, can be added easily on T45 as well (with added door). (compared to CAPTAS-1 system, T45's stern is "huge" enough)
- of course, any MHC hull or HMS Echo/Enterprise can carry it, as well.

Looking forward to see the results. May or may not work. But, if it works, it will be very helpful approach.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rt-vessel/

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Very impressive trial of French Marine National

- using CAPTAS-1 containerized system on Offshore Support Vessel.
- I new the Lafayette upgrade included KingKlip hull sonar, but I first know here that "Surcouf, has been fitted with a BlueWatcher hull mounted sonar since early 2018". BlueWatcher is a hull-mounted FLASH sonar.

Although it is all in trial phase, and they state they need the outcome of the experiment to say anything about its usefulness, it is very interesting approach,
- CAPTAS-1 is relatively cheap,
- being containerized, can be carried "on demand", like RFA vessels "sometimes" carrying CIWS
- being small, it could be carried on either T31, River B2 or B1. And what is more, can be added easily on T45 as well (with added door). (compared to CAPTAS-1 system, T45's stern is "huge" enough)
- of course, any MHC hull or HMS Echo/Enterprise can carry it, as well.

Looking forward to see the results. May or may not work. But, if it works, it will be very helpful approach.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rt-vessel/
Next chapter of the continuing saga to prove that putting a VDS on the IOW ferry converts it to a feared submarine killer. Loved by all.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

With the French carrying out these trials and the Danish navy carrying out fitting and trials of a TAS on the IH class there is a lot for the RN to keep a eye on

This said if the French get good feed back from this then it could be a good idea for the RN to buy say 10 sets pooled for the T-31 the River class and future MHC program

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:Next chapter of the continuing saga to prove that putting a VDS on the IOW ferry converts it to a feared submarine killer. Loved by all.
Is this more about having a lot of sonars in a given area in a effort to put off sub commanders i.e instead of having only a Type 26 you also have 2 River's also tugging a VDS it could increase detection. We know they are far from sub killers however it does force a sub commander to give them a much wider berth

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Interesting.

Nowadays, air-born MAD is how efficient? Yes, it can detect SSK/SSN, but with what range? And, how deep?

Reconfirming the contact (by Sonobuoy array, now are multi-static) with MAD makes sense. So, this system shall be combined with P-8A?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Interesting.

Nowadays, air-born MAD is how efficient? Yes, it can detect SSK/SSN, but with what range? And, how deep?

Reconfirming the contact (by Sonobuoy array, now are multi-static) with MAD makes sense. So, this system shall be combined with P-8A?
I don't know about the P-8 but the USN recently announced that its Seahawk Helo's were to be fitted with an advanced MAD system.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

I’d put it in a pod and integrate on an MQ-9 protector

Along with the sono bouy pod

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:I’d put it in a pod and integrate on an MQ-9 protector

Along with the sono bouy pod
On the RAF thread you admonish the posters for their unrealistic chatter about air force stuff. Yet here you are spouting unrealistic crap about turning Protector into some kind of mini P-8 or Merlin.

Am I allowed to admonish you?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’d put it in a pod and integrate on an MQ-9 protector

Along with the sono bouy pod
On the RAF thread you admonish the posters for their unrealistic chatter about air force stuff. Yet here you are spouting unrealistic crap about turning Protector into some kind of mini P-8 or Merlin.

Am I allowed to admonish you?
You say unrealistic? Yet here it is

https://www.harris.com/solution/next-ge ... ch-systems

Or perhaps a concept demonstration

https://defense-update.com/20171114_mq9_asw.html

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’d put it in a pod and integrate on an MQ-9 protector

Along with the sono bouy pod
On the RAF thread you admonish the posters for their unrealistic chatter about air force stuff. Yet here you are spouting unrealistic crap about turning Protector into some kind of mini P-8 or Merlin.

Am I allowed to admonish you?
You say unrealistic? Yet here it is

https://www.harris.com/solution/next-ge ... ch-systems

Or perhaps a concept demonstration

https://defense-update.com/20171114_mq9_asw.html
Puleeze. Just chat to one of your mates about the realities of airborne ASW.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future ASW

Post by seaspear »

This article suggests practical air launches of u.u.v in asw operations,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6113000204

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

May be Adm. (Ret) Z has asked the RN to ask the USN to run a test on the 'ins and outs' of Faslane?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... 242c63541f

If that turns out to be the case, the I suggest they ask the Swedish navy to have one of their AIP subs to sit quietly on the seabed, as a test if that will go unnoticed.

Another 'pearl' in the article is that the RN is confirmed to have some of these unmanned little fellas of their own.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:I don't know about the P-8 but the USN recently announced that its Seahawk Helo's were to be fitted with an advanced MAD system.
RN is also trialling one on Merlin. It's the same system as the USN MH-60R trials from CAE Systems in Canada, the MAD-XR (also seen in the tweet from Icarus). AFAIK its not been trialed on P-8...yet. But a towed version (rather than the MAD boom seen on the P-8I) could be fairly easy to integrate to already built airframes if there is seen to be a need.

https://www.cae.com/news-events/press-r ... roduction/

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Timmymagic »

seaspear wrote:This article suggests practical air launches of u.u.v in asw operations,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6113000204
Given all of the work on HAAWC, high altitude drops of torpedoes dating back to WW2, years of dropping sonobuoys and LWT's from helicopters and MPA etc. it should be fairly easy but this bit caught my eye in the article...

"Most of the existing air-deployed AUVs only permit to be dropped at low altitude and speed, or launched at high hover above the survey water field and decelerated by parachute, which lack controllability and flexibility. And for military purpose the carrier aircraft of AUV or torpedo is easy to be detected and attacked. Hence, the high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapon conception (HAAWC) was proposed in 2006 by American Navy and experimented by Lockheed Martin manufactured with MK54 torpedo and a LongShot wing unit, launched at 20000 ft (1 ft = 304.8 mm), proving the feasibility and advantage of this conception.5, 6, 7, 8 Meanwhile, the British developed similar high altitude air-launched technology.9, 10"

Never heard anything about that before...

One criticism of HAAWC I feel (and the overall concept has a lot of merit) is that it is unpowered. The wing kits are too cheap. The LongShot kit makes a lot of sense on a 1,000lb JDAM but not a LWT. The reason why I say this is that modern homing torpedoes are amongst the most costly guided weapons that we possess, and ones that are in short supply. They're worth £1m and upwards. We should be giving them every chance they can get to get to a target in the right place AND the ability to loiter so that the best time possible, angle of attack etc. can be chosen to employ them on target. For an example of a sensible powered wing kit (and the performance difference compared to a standard wing kit) see the below JDAM pic. As a bonus...stick it in a canister with a booster and you have an ASROC replacement....with massively superior range and loiter ability....hell you could even just put JDAM's on the end and have a cheap shipborne land attack capability.....or a long range mining capability with the JDAM based Quickstrike mine family.

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I don't know about the P-8 but the USN recently announced that its Seahawk Helo's were to be fitted with an advanced MAD system.
RN is also trialling one on Merlin. It's the same system as the USN MH-60R trials from CAE Systems in Canada, the MAD-XR (also seen in the tweet from Icarus). AFAIK its not been trialed on P-8...yet. But a towed version (rather than the MAD boom seen on the P-8I) could be fairly easy to integrate to already built airframes if there is seen to be a need.

https://www.cae.com/news-events/press-r ... roduction/
Interesting, thanks for posting this. I didn't see any mention that the RN is trialling this system. Did that news come from someplace else?

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Aethulwulf »

MAD systems normal require quite low flight altitudes. This could be the reason why it is not a standard feature on the P8, which has a high altitude concept of operations.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Interesting, thanks for posting this. I didn't see any mention that the RN is trilling this system. Did that news come from someplace else?
There was a press release/contracts award in the last year from the UK to CAE for MAD-XR trials on Merlin. Can't find it though..

Interestingly...guess who makes the MAD sensor in the boom on P-8I....CAE Systems....(it's an earlier model than XR though).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future ASW

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Interesting, thanks for posting this. I didn't see any mention that the RN is trilling this system. Did that news come from someplace else?
There was a press release/contracts award in the last year from the UK to CAE for MAD-XR trials on Merlin. Can't find it though..

Interestingly...guess who makes the MAD sensor in the boom on P-8I....CAE Systems....(it's an earlier model than XR though).
Thank you Timmy.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Info from SavetheRoyalnavy site, thales has released CAPTAS-1 trial movie. Great to see.

Apparently, system design has been improved compared to that used in the test onboard LCAT last year.

Sonar reel and deploy system is in a 10ft container size, with another 20ft container presumably used for control and analysis. Surely the system can be added to
- River B1 and B2 OPVs
- T31 frigates
- T45 destroyers
- Echo-class survey ships
- and may be Mk.10 or future (say, Caimen90) LCUs

I understand the next step is verification of its performance against real SSK/SSNs. As the system is "not so powerful", setting up good tactics will be also very important. Stay tuned! :D


Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sonar reel and deploy system is in a 10ft container size, with another 20ft container presumably used for control and analysis. Surely the system can be added to
- River B1 and B2 OPVs
- T31 frigates
- T45 destroyers
- Echo-class survey ships
- and may be Mk.10 or future (say, Caimen90) LCUs
I still want to know what we're doing with the 3 spare sets of Sonar 2087 that we're buying....
But Captas 1 could make sense, what I'd be intrigued about is how much cheaper it would be than Captas-2. If it was a choice of 10 sets of Captas-1 or 5 of Captas-2 for permanent fittings on T31 I know what I'd go for...

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future ASW

Post by shark bait »

Image

With the PM putting a focus on using defence spending to create technology and jobs now sounds like the perfect time for the RN to push through its XLUUV.

The Royal Navy needs more subs, and that's never going to happen with nuke boats, or even following the European SSK's, they need to be more creative. Initially an uncrewed boat will be fully capable navigating the North as a recon drone, and as confidence grows in the systems the Navy can begin to flesh out it's capabilities.

Time to press on with this moonshot?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future ASW

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Image

With the PM putting a focus on using defence spending to create technology and jobs now sounds like the perfect time for the RN to push through its XLUUV.

The Royal Navy needs more subs, and that's never going to happen with nuke boats, or even following the European SSK's, they need to be more creative. Initially an uncrewed boat will be fully capable navigating the North as a recon drone, and as confidence grows in the systems the Navy can begin to flesh out it's capabilities.

Time to press on with this moonshot?
At one time I was a big fan of getting 6 or so SSK's but now I agree this is the way forward maybe some boats in the future could have a option for a 10 man weapons team but first we need to push on and get unmanned boats in the water. what would be a good end point would be something like loyal wingman for the SSBN's

Post Reply