Future ASW

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by NickC »

Repulse wrote:Interesting read re T45 ASW technologies

https://www.ultra-electronics.com/uploa ... ure_uk.pdf
Copied from T45 news

As understand similar type systems used in integrating sonar data eg as fitted to the P-8A, the Lockheed Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) System processing the active sonar system data of the sonobuoys (source and receiver). Used in both P-3Cs and P-8As to search for and locate threat submarines in a variety of ocean conditions, in the past DOT&E reported problematic results in P-8A tests, when Korea upgraded their P-3Cs they chose to go with General Dynamics Canada acoustic processing system, Multi-static (VENOM) sonobuoy processors, assuming same system used in the mid-life Halifax FELEX programme with GDC prime for the Underwater Warfare Suite Upgrade.

Leonardo Farnborough 2018 PR
 Leonardo confirmed partnerships with L3 Technologies and Ultra Electronics Command & Sonar Systems in order to offer a complete anti-submarine warfare (ASW) acoustic system based on Leonardo’s new lightweight Ultra-LIght SonicS Enhanced System, ULISSES. // able to deliver multistatic functionality, where the processor collects data from multiple sonobuoys and combines the information to develop an in-depth picture of the under-sea environment, including detailed location data of any potentially threatening vessels. Multistatic functionality, invented and developed by Ultra, is embedded in the ULISSES sonobuoy processor. Currently, Ultra is the only company to provide miniaturised sonobuoys fitted for multistatic operation, which are suitable for small UAV applications and Leonardo will be the first company to offer a system which makes use of them. The ULISSES system can also use the very-low-frequency L3 HELRAS dipping sonar as an active source, improving its multistatic performance and delivering the best possible information to operators

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Applicable to the U.K. future rotorcraft mix perhaps


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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder could we team up a Fire Scout and Wildcat as a hunter killer team?

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jensy »

RFA Mounts Bay showing off some impressive toys:



Particularly interesting are:

- The TRV-100, from Berkshire based Malloy Aeronautics, fitted with BAE's Future Lightweight Torpedo, as previously seen:

Image

- First glimpse of MSubs's prototype Manta XLUUV alongside the Mast-13 from ASV Ltd:

Image

Gives a rather good glimpse into the future roles that the Bays (and Albions) can perform with larger uninhabited vehicles.

Also, once again, highlights the shortsightedness of selling a Bay Class to the RAN post-2010.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

So what should we call a vessel that could carry out such a variety of missions using such subsystems.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A frigate (being of frigate shape and speed)?
- not a support ship
- maybe FF(S)?
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
Jensy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote:So what should we call a vessel that could carry out such a variety of missions using such subsystems.
Owned by Serco Defence...? :D

In all seriousness though, this demonstration makes me think that pretty much every RN/RFA vessel should have the capacity for unmanned systems moving forward, with a set of size and weight categories established for compatibility with different platforms.

Unconvinced that a single class of RFA mothership, 'Type XX frigate', OPV, corvette or contractor vessel is going to provide a satisfactory solution on its own.

Also, particularly with larger USVs and XLUUVs, at some point on the growth spectrum it's going to make far more sense for then to self-deploy. Perhaps from regional bases/'support facilities'?

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote:
SW1 wrote:So what should we call a vessel that could carry out such a variety of missions using such subsystems.
Owned by Serco Defence...? :D

In all seriousness though, this demonstration makes me think that pretty much every RN/RFA vessel should have the capacity for unmanned systems moving forward, with a set of size and weight categories established for compatibility with different platforms.

Unconvinced that a single class of RFA mothership, 'Type XX frigate', OPV, corvette or contractor vessel is going to provide a satisfactory solution on its own.

Also, particularly with larger USVs and XLUUVs, at some point on the growth spectrum it's going to make far more sense for then to self-deploy, perhaps from regional bases/ 'support facilities'.
How about a fwd deployed depot ship.

Add a chinook or two and a squadron on RM or mcm command team to the above as well it doesn’t all have to be unmanned.

But the question is just how specialist does the actual ship have to be if the specialist bits can be a delivered using the some of the above. What if we teamed a bay class with a type 31.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote:What if we teamed a bay class with a type 31.
Seems eminently sensible.

However, at some point (rightly or wrongly), I can see the question being asked: "why not combine them into one vessel?" Whether that's a 'FF(S) Support Frigate', as AAC suggests above, or a slightly fighty RFA, like Think Defence's old Auxiliary Cruiser concept (possibly using a converted civilian hull or Point class equivalent).

I can see pros and cons either way.

Time for a cuppa before I bring up the UXV Combatant again...

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote:
SW1 wrote:What if we teamed a bay class with a type 31.
Seems eminently sensible.

However, at some point (rightly or wrongly), I can see the question being asked: "why not combine them into one vessel? Whether that's a 'FF(S) Support Frigate', as AAC suggests above, or a slightly fighty RFA, like Think Defence's old Auxiliary Cruiser concept, I can see pros and cons either way.

Time for a cuppa before I bring up the UXV Combatant again...
I would say that is correct question to ask to.

But for now I would say the bay vessel isn’t particularly expensive and it is hoped that the type 31 isn’t particularly expensive.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote:
Jensy wrote:
SW1 wrote:What if we teamed a bay class with a type 31.
Seems eminently sensible.

However, at some point (rightly or wrongly), I can see the question being asked: "why not combine them into one vessel? Whether that's a 'FF(S) Support Frigate', as AAC suggests above, or a slightly fighty RFA, like Think Defence's old Auxiliary Cruiser concept, I can see pros and cons either way.

Time for a cuppa before I bring up the UXV Combatant again...
I would say that is correct question to ask to.

But for now I would say the bay vessel isn’t particularly expensive and it is hoped that the type 31 isn’t particularly expensive.
What I like about your suggestion, is that you could (for the time being) swap out either vessel for higher/lower capability or capacity, with say a River or Albion class depending on the circumstances. With Type 26 this would only improve.

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

iXblue Drix-USV. "USV with stability and balance, even in rough seas" (6:20)



Very impressive... If 14knot for 24 hours is doable, and looking at its good sea keeping capability, adding a "hull sonar" at the 2m deep gondola of this USV, added with a towed-sonar array, will be very attractive for both shallow and even deep water ASW.

As far as endurance is concerned, DriX can sail for 7 days at 7 knots. At its top speed (14 knots), DriX can maintain continuous operations for 24 hours, while a speed of 4 knots will be required for a 10-day mission

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Another step forward.

Is increasing numbers of specialised ASW UAV's now more important for the UK than additional P8's?

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

13 more MQ-9B Guardian (Protector RG Mk1) are obtained with £193M for RAF.

Can, adding 12 sonobuoy dispenser pods, adopting on-ground ASW center, with ~6 more MQ-9B Guardian dedicated for ASW tasks, can be added with another £200M or so? If so, it will be a very good option to pursue. Although limited to a bit shorter distance theater, and with much limited sonobuoy carriage, 6 MQ-9B will be able to provide much longer presence than the 9 P-8As can do? = significant contribution to a limited area ASW tasks? £200M is very cheap, isn't it?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-orde ... or-drones/

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Future ASW

Post by Dahedd »

By the comments made by my RAF mate over the weekend an additional batch to support my local P8s would be most welcome. He's still hopeful of 3 more P8s at Lossie but dedicated MPA drones would be a nice addition.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future ASW

Post by abc123 »

Is it just me being suspicios about how well will UAVs fly over the North Atlantic?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by Timmymagic »

abc123 wrote:Is it just me being suspicios about how well will UAVs fly over the North Atlantic?
Propellor driven aircraft have been flying over the N Atlantic for 100 years...it's not an issue. Personally I think the failure to develop the larger, twin engined, UK built BAE Mantis was a massive error. It's capabilities would have been far greater than Reaper or Protector, but its in the past now.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2323
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote:So what should we call a vessel that could carry out such a variety of missions using such subsystems.
T32
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future ASW

Post by abc123 »

Timmymagic wrote:
abc123 wrote:Is it just me being suspicios about how well will UAVs fly over the North Atlantic?
Propellor driven aircraft have been flying over the N Atlantic for 100 years...it's not an issue. Personally I think the failure to develop the larger, twin engined, UK built BAE Mantis was a massive error. It's capabilities would have been far greater than Reaper or Protector, but its in the past now.
Not saying that because of propellor but because lack of crew.
I agree about Mantis.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

For an exercise this summer a Sea Guardian UAV, the maritime sibling of the Protector, is going to be used by the RAF to together with the latter in a maritime/ASW exercise. It will be equipped to drop sonar buoys as act as a relay between them and other platform, to show what the UAV is capable of. If our Protectors could be fitted with a modular payload after some fettling it would be a good way to maximise out maritime patrol capability not just ASW, and it is the former that the MoD seem to be most interested in.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future ASW

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:For an exercise this summer a Sea Guardian UAV, the maritime sibling of the Protector, is going to be used by the RAF to together with the latter in a maritime/ASW exercise. It will be equipped to drop sonar buoys as act as a relay between them and other platform, to show what the UAV is capable of. If our Protectors could be fitted with a modular payload after some fettling it would be a good way to maximise out maritime patrol capability not just ASW, and it is the former that the MoD seem to be most interested in.

How about having an exercise this winter?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by Lord Jim »

The exercise the Sea Guardian was to be used in by the RAF, was the UK led exercise "Joint Warrior" this summer. Cannot confirm it was used to deploy sonobouys but it can carry 80 G-size sonobouys in the pods it can carry, process the data form these and pass it on to other air and sea platforms.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future ASW

Post by tomuk »

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc Sea Guardian test press releases.

https://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-participa ... le-problem
https://www.ga-asi.com/ga-asi-completes ... processing

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SeaGuardian UAV is coming to UK for trial.

Not with Sonobuoy dispensers at this time, but will be a good trial to see how it works. Impressive capability, it has.

...the MQ-9B with a range of 6,000nm and impressive endurance (non-role specific, the SkyGuardian is said to be capable of 40+ hrs).

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uavs-vs-subs/

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

Re: Future ASW

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Very impressive movie by Atlas Electric UK, for ARCIM ASW autonomous system.

Can imagine
- operated from shore bases (as shown in the movie)
- from LSDs or even PSVs
- from T26's mission bays (cannot be accommodated in T31's boat alcove, unfortunately)
- and even from River B2s. Its weight and size means can be handled by RB2's crane and deck.


Post Reply