Tweet
Originally posted by Turkey
View Post
-
We may not need to consider NATO but we do need to consider our responsibilities within EU Defence obligations. As part of the latter we are brain storming our overall fleet needs and how to enhance potential, particularily in support of assigned military tasks at home or overseas. In thinking and planning boldly we must look at our island status and protection of our seaways. In looking at our fleet, we have to consider supporting them at sea, and adding capabilities not yet acquired. There is a case as an Island nation, on the Atlantic ,for us to establish a small submarine force of at least 3 vessels. I would imagine JP Holland would find the idea quite rational since we were no small part in it's invention and development. Finally in supporting ships at sea, of whatever type, we need an afloat logistics capability. -
I was hinting at "off thread", now that's seriously "under thread", but I can see the rational for it, a submarine underway, is a serious asset(seriously expensive) but with an ability to stay hidden for days(even conventional ones), and the ability to hear at phenomenal ranges(given the right equipment), illegal trawling would be deafening, for example."We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
Illegitimi non carborundum -
Originally posted by Turkey View Post
More importantly, what as asset for Narcotic Surveilance!!.Comment
-
if sub-surface is a genuine issue, surely remote sensing - effectively SOSUS - is the way ahead?
expensive certainly, but compared to the costs of a submarine (or 3 or 4, in order to have one at sea and trained up..), and compared to the learning curve required, cheap at 50 times the price, and several orders of manitude easier to do...
i can understand the requirement, but the truth is that a genuine submarine sub-surface capability to not just know whats in your waters, but to - if neccesary - do something about it isn't four DE subs, its 4 DE subs, and a SOSUS network, and perhaps 4 ASW frigates, and ASW helicopters, and ASW fixed wing.
realistically, unless someone is seriously talking about an NS budget alone of €1bn+ annual and perhaps €5bn capital, sub-surface has got to be first on the 'too hard' pile. air defence, CAS, and rotary wing battlefield mobility are all far cheaper, and far easier to do. i also wouldn't be surprised if, unlike the other three, you'd be looking at the best part of a decade lead-in time. you could spend the best part of €15bn over 10 years before the system was up and running. try selling that to the media...Comment
-
Seriously, I could see some sense on us having a modest network of fixed sonar stations on the continental shelf, but since we don't even have active radar...who are we kidding?
I feel a thread split coming."We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
Illegitimi non carborundumComment
-
I think coupling the acquisition of a sub-surface capability with an Undersea Sound Surveillance System ( SOSUS ) is not technically necessary. SOSUS is a worldwide deep ocean monitoring system which existed as part of the Cold War and still exists as an available system to it's owners.
In our case we could couple our training with, say Sweden ,and as part of a package ,lease two on line submarines for operational use and supervised training. The package should run for at least 10 years or until we can stand alone as operators. Having submarine availability may encourage other ASW skills but the two are not interdependent as all ships are "Targets " to a submarine. We would have to retain a connection with the submarine school of choice and expediency from an neutrality point of view. I note Peru and Pakistan use Germany. While the USN use a Swedish submarine and crew to sharpen their ASW capability, although they have lost against Swedish attacks during a recent 6 month attachment, including one CVN.
Other than one dimensional ships the only naval way to go is to develop a Navy with peacetime roles but with conflict response teeth.Comment
-
Could SOSUS etc not be sold to the tree-gutters as a Whale Tracking System under our obligations to protect the Marie envoirnment, or some such? Lateral thinking...'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.htmlComment
-
no reason why not - SOSUS is after all just (in the widest sense of the word..) a series of long lines of microphones plugged into a listening station. they, i assume, also take, and then transmit, readings on water temperature, salinity, pressure etc.. as that all effects the way sound moves through the water...Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
if SOSUS can detect, and then work out the rough position of, a submarine trying very hard to be quiet, then its probably safe to assume that it can detect, and work out the rough position of, a rusty old Spanish fishing boat trailing nets and jangling metalwork about the place.Comment
-
Potential CASA replacement as well, then?Originally posted by ropebag View Post
'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.htmlComment
-
Knowing some of the Tree-gutters, they would then start screaming about us killing Whales with the system...Originally posted by Flamingo View PostComment
-
When we built an advanced OPV with Flight Deck, full flight facilities, Air warning radar with IFF, sonar, FCS, and fire by radar system, it opened the service to a new range of Naval experiences and became a third level Naval asset which we unfortunately failed to cherish. It did provide a boost to our electronic/IT knowledge bank and gave us an enhanced electrical/electronic branch. We need to plan boldly or remain a one trick pony churning out ships with suppressed potential. You may not like submarines but they are a key Defence/ Offence asset which should be on our developmental shopping list. It is a short step from ROV's to manned units.Originally posted by Laners View PostComment
-
Yep SOSUS type technology is absolutely dual use:
Although officially declassified in 1991, by that time IUSS and SOSUS had long been an open secret.[3]
Alternate or dual-use partnerships exist with the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory[4] for Ocean Acoustic Tomography, NOAA VENTS,[5] Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,[6] Texas ARL,[7] and several other organizations.
Commander, Undersea Surveillance (CUS), operates as the immediate superior in command (ISIC) for all IUSS sites, whereas operational command of those same sites is held by COMSUBPAC.
Up to recently the Germans had PALAOA hydropone live stream from the Antarctic (which made for some interesting background noises) - also had a waterfall display, not too unlike the passive sonar display you'd see on a sub. You could hear and see boats trundling along, ice coliding, whales chatting etc.
On a tangential note NUIG utilizes CODAR technology for some of their research, again it's not a billion miles from that to SWOTHR technology like:
Again dual use.
Probably due a thread split at this stage - beyond the EPV, discussing potential (in our lifetime) upgradess & capabilities for NS and DF as a whole - and how that can leverage IMERC and 3rd level and local industry know how.
Not saying that any of the above is needed btw, but worth exploring the concepts at least. And again I see the parallels with the fighter discussion - detection capability first and foremost, then you can make an educated decision on whether you want to counter the targets identified.Last edited by pym; 1 March 2016, 14:29.Comment
-
i don't think i'd agree with that - and certainly not in cost terms!Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
sub-surface doesn't have to mean submarines, and let us be frank, a modern submarine - not three, or four in order to have a single, trained up vessel at sea - but a single modern DE submarine will cost more than all the other NS vessels put together. (Type 212/214..)
without a single ASW helicopter.
without a single ASW MPA aircraft.
without a single remote sensing unit to tell the sub what to go and have a look at.
Submarines really are fairy dust and unicorns for this discussion - there is almost no capability within the the whole DF spectrum that it would not be cheaper, easier and quicker to buy into.Comment
-
-
Spot on Dev.....We should have submarines, especially as the modern sub was invented by that great Fenian Mr. Holland, to sink the Royal Navy.Originally posted by DeV View PostComment
Comment