Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irish trawler 'given order to move on' by Royal Navy frigate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not sure if any country has actually ordered it yet but SEA Krait Defence System is interesting

    Our sonar thin-line towed array gives operational advantage in Anti-Submarine Warfare and monitors underwater environmental conditions.

    Comment


    • A new containerised option for a Variable Depth Sonar - Sea Lancer 2



      some maybe familiar with “subbrief” on YouTube…. He says about the published specs and capabilities “…. Impressive….. Hell yea!”

      Comment


      • "Can be containerised into 20 foot mission module."
        EXCELLENT, those TEU spots will be useful after all.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          "Can be containerised into 20 foot mission module."
          EXCELLENT, those TEU spots will be useful after all.
          There is a few different containerised VDS available so imho yes

          they do need power, the deck needs to be able to take the weight, not all out self contained (some need external equipment, some need the display consoles etc to be external)…. But there are options

          of course you need a reference library and trained operators

          and host vessel signature needs to be considered
          Last edited by DeV; 18 January 2023, 14:59.

          Comment


          • Luca Peruzzi provides an overview of contemporary towed active sonar systems being offered by industry from all over the world.


            a few options on containerised VDS

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              A VDS system is not cheap, and given that several would be needed the investment would not be insignificant. There would also have to be a trdae with adding a MAD system to the C295MPA aircraft. They have the advantage of being able to cover a larger area faster. What should not be missed is that any underwater target could hear the hunter long before the hunter finds the target.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

                A VDS system is not cheap, and given that several would be needed the investment would not be insignificant. There would also have to be a trdae with adding a MAD system to the C295MPA aircraft. They have the advantage of being able to cover a larger area faster. What should not be missed is that any underwater target could hear the hunter long before the hunter finds the target.
                Not sure cost wise how the containerised options compare but my point is that the P50s and P60s could potentially carry them (no they wouldn’t have ASW armament but at least they could detect a threat).

                also potentially less more and more capability than a hull mounted sonars (which can’t be moved around the fleet like a containerised VDS ((not that you want to be doing that all the time either)). But like carrying the NSDS containers, it makes the vessel Multi-role.

                I always had an assumption that MAD was an ASW aircraft’s primary sensor. It isn’t normally. An ASW aircraft will generally use sonar bouys (and/or dipping sonar if a heli) to detect the presence and rough location of a submarine (normally a bit like triangulation). The MAD will generally be used once a potential submarine has been detected to “localise” (get a more accurate location (as it is shorter ranged) and to confirm that it is a metal object if not an obvious submarine (as opposed to say a whale).

                Absolutely but it would be a deterrent

                Comment


                • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

                  A VDS system is not cheap, and given that several would be needed the investment would not be insignificant. There would also have to be a trdae with adding a MAD system to the C295MPA aircraft. They have the advantage of being able to cover a larger area faster. What should not be missed is that any underwater target could hear the hunter long before the hunter finds the target.
                  My point is it provides at least a monitoring capability with little modification to existing vessels (obviously as I said doesn’t take into account manning, skills base, sonar library etc)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    A new containerised option for a Variable Depth Sonar - Sea Lancer 2



                    some maybe familiar with “subbrief” on YouTube…. He says about the published specs and capabilities “…. Impressive….. Hell yea!”
                    Quoting myself but to give the full “Subbrief” quote on Ultra Sea Lancer (2nd Gen) (which can be containerised):

                    Ultra Maritime publishes it's technical info on Sea Lancer 2 towed array and it's in impressive. 32 active channels per aperture. 1.5 KHz to 3.5 KHz, 16 sec. Active. Up to 190 KHz passive! WHUT! Auto Ambiguity resolution. 512 Hydrophones with 192 Quad passive channels. Hell Yea!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post

                      My point is it provides at least a monitoring capability with little modification to existing vessels (obviously as I said doesn’t take into account manning, skills base, sonar library etc)
                      I like you would welcome any improvement in the ability to monitor the underwater picture around our island. However adding a containerised VDS is IMHO not the best solution. We had the cash to be able to put a system on every P60 but we would find it almost impossible to train and retain enough crew to utilise the system. ASW operators require a long training period especially when it comes to the passive systems and we would need to have the system manned 24/7 for it to be of use.

                      Then the P60/50 is design as a OPV, not a submarine hunter, it is loud and slow. The P60 was designed for a speed of 23kts, a Russian SSN underwater could make 35kts, and that almost for an unlimited time. Also AFAIK neither the P50 or the P60 design has included acoustic measures needed to make them suitable boats to hunt subs. And then their is where is the information from the VDS used? Yes there can be two operators siting in a container on the fantail but the ship is commanded from the bridge. Most vessels that are designed for containerised sensors have a CMS. The information is passed directly to the command centre and can be used. How would it work on the P60 class?

                      As I said I think it would be more effiicent to give the new C295 aircraft the ASW ability, both MAD and sonar buoys. They have a CMS and the design has the provision for the integration of the necessary elements.

                      Here an interesting overview of the topic:
                      The submarines can hear a surface ship long before the surface ship can detect the submarine, and therefore it can take evasive action before its detected.
                      Last edited by EUFighter; 30 January 2023, 11:01.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

                        I like you would welcome any improvement in the ability to monitor the underwater picture around our island. However adding a containerised VDS is IMHO not the best solution. We had the cash to be able to put a system on every P60 but we would find it almost impossible to train and retain enough crew to utilise the system. ASW operators require a long training period especially when it comes to the passive systems and we would need to have the system manned 24/7 for it to be of use.

                        Then the P60/50 is design as a OPV, not a submarine hunter, it is loud and slow. The P60 was designed for a speed of 23kts, a Russian SSN underwater could make 35kts, and that almost for an unlimited time. Also AFAIK neither the P50 or the P60 design has included acoustic measures needed to make them suitable boats to hunt subs. And then their is where is the information from the VDS used? Yes there can be two operators siting in a container on the fantail but the ship is commanded from the bridge. Most vessels that are designed for containerised sensors have a CMS. The information is passed directly to the command centre and can be used. How would it work on the P60 class?

                        As I said I think it would be more effiicent to give the new C295 aircraft the ASW ability, both MAD and sonar buoys. They have a CMS and the design has the provision for the integration of the necessary elements.

                        Here an interesting overview of the topic:
                        https://navalpost.com/why-are-submar...-hard-to-find/
                        We aren’t going to getting ASW frigates and we need some capability extremely urgently.

                        The risk we really need to monitor is our sub surface infrastructure as opposed to submarines which are patrolling.

                        There is of course other options like USVs and/or UUVs and the like

                        Comment


                        • To be fair, this solution is designed with the mission bay as found on some in build multi role frigates. Not the TEU spot of an OPV. As EU fighter says without the corresponding C3 elements it is as much use as the coastal lookout posts were during the Emergency.
                          For any modern ASW work, you need a Mix of passive and active sonar, combined with an aerial ASW ability, either rotary or fixed wing. One system on its own will tell you yes "something" is there, but without the experienced operators and an integrated C3 system, you are still just feeling your way around in the dark, hoping what you find won't injure you.

                          On another platform, perhaps, but not OPVs built to commercial standards. Wait and see what the EPC project comes back with. They may be getting hulls in the water around the time we make a decision to replace the P50s.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            To be fair, this solution is designed with the mission bay as found on some in build multi role frigates. Not the TEU spot of an OPV. As EU fighter says without the corresponding C3 elements it is as much use as the coastal lookout posts were during the Emergency.
                            For any modern ASW work, you need a Mix of passive and active sonar, combined with an aerial ASW ability, either rotary or fixed wing. One system on its own will tell you yes "something" is there, but without the experienced operators and an integrated C3 system, you are still just feeling your way around in the dark, hoping what you find won't injure you.

                            On another platform, perhaps, but not OPVs built to commercial standards. Wait and see what the EPC project comes back with. They may be getting hulls in the water around the time we make a decision to replace the P50s.
                            Which is all absolutely true…. Except we don’t have time

                            Comment


                            • No, but a bad decision in this case is worse than no decision. This is something that should have been done back in 1971 when we scrapped the last of the Flower Class and in doing so got rid of the last evidence of an anti Submarine capability.
                              Lets not forget that at their peak these ships were manned by crews from all over, a mix of recruits, officers who loined as cadets, direct entrants from merchant service, and a mix of ex RN too.
                              The problem is not the lack of equipment, its the unwillingness by the DoD to consider the absence of such an issue. It would be as easy to get a fully equipped ASW frigate, as it would to purchase your containerised sensor off the shelf.
                              The desire to do so does not exist where it counts.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • We should not underestimate the difficulty of any form of ASW operations, we were onlookers during the First Cold War in which NATO expended a large amount of resources just on ASW in the North Atlantic. When we look at the waters around our island we find it is great for subs to operate, plenty of hiding places thanks to 2 World Wars littering the sea floor with metal boxes. And the task of finding and tracking underwater targets has only become harder with the introduction of long range AUVs. These AUVs are small compered with a full size sub and slow and quiet making them extremely difficult to detect.

                                And where do we want to conduct these operations the entire EEZ? Despite what some fishermen think the EEZ is not part of the State, we merely have rights over the commercial exploitation. So we are limited to the 12miles zone? To protecting the infrastructure located within those limits? Those are questions that need to be asked. With the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline we see the issue, the attacks were inside the EEZ zone but outside territorial waters. So ASW yes, but do it properly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X