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

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    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.
    Absolutely

    also requires legal opinion on UNCLOS as they are under the Irish Continental Shelf claim

    could be intelligence led as we have “friends”, could be general random / targeted maritime security patrols

    of course we should know more or less exactly where the cables are
    Last edited by DeV; 1 February 2023, 14:50.

    Comment


    • Finland has equipped their 268 tonne, 167 foot Hamina / Rauma 2000​ class with (among other upgrades) Kongsberg ST-2400 variable-depth sonar.



      Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	675
Size:	350.1 KB
ID:	741549

      Comment


      • Bearing in mind the recent revelations about RN investigation off the Cork coast.

        A few interesting articles:
        The two sabotage events which hit the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea on 26 September 2022 have accelerated the plans throughout NATO and European countries for the protection of underwater infrastructure of national interest such as communications cables, oil and gas pipelines, and extraction sites in Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) waters, due to the increasing risk of confrontation.


        Underwater operations, ranging from the simpler hull inspection to the mine and improvised explosive device countermeasures, in addition to war ordnance disposal, have always represented a dangerous business for divers and boat operators.


        Given the heightened likelihood of inter-state conflicts and the proliferation of submarines around the world, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) has returned to the minds of military planners and decision-makers.


        Comment


        • My 2 cents, we have an extremely urgent capability gap which makes us extremely vulnerable, we don’t have time to wait for new vessel/aircraft, we don’t have sufficient personnel resources, we are financially constrained, we can’t put sufficient vessels to sea, those we can put to sea would be classed as “vessels of opportunity” with regard to sub-surface capability, we have some of the roughest waters in the world, we need to capability in shallow to potentially very deep waters, potentially out to 200 nm+

          really it points to UUVs/AUVs, potentially shore rather than vessel launched

          to me they are potentially vulnerable though

          from a financial and political point of view they would really need IMHO to be multi role (eg survey, MCM (at least recce capable), ASW)

          obviously that would only provide a detection and surveillance capability, doing something about actions being undertaken against our interests is a different kettle of fish

          obviously big choices to be made between being able to go 12nm and 200nm, down to 100m and 3000m, endurance of a few hours versus a month

          should add that we probably shouldn’t (based on experience be a launch customer and should be a proven system), although we could potentially leverage EDA and PESCO projects/funding to reduce our own costs



          why not C295 MPAs (ie with sonarbouys and MAD)?
          - lack of personnel
          - lead time
          - cost of sonarbouys (which is primary ASW detection capability, MAD is only used for localisation and confirmation)

          - not saying that MPAs (rather than MSAs) aren’t required
          - not saying that more capable NS vessels with HMS and TAS aren’t required (be it new or existing vessels)

          we are where we are
          Last edited by DeV; 23 December 2023, 14:35.

          Comment


          • For the full sensor suite to be of any use, you need a ship who's hull and propulsion is designed around the sonar. The P50s and 60s are noisy. Not as noisy as the P20s, but still noisy enough to make hull mounted sonar next to useless, and towed array only useful at great depths, which impacts on the speed the already slow vessels are capable of.
            I'd be slow to buy a 2nd hand frigate, they are crew heavy and much of the technology we are buying into would be approaching obsolescence anyway.
            I'm inclined to suggest the PESCO EPC project is where our future lies.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
              For the full sensor suite to be of any use, you need a ship who's hull and propulsion is designed around the sonar. The P50s and 60s are noisy. Not as noisy as the P20s, but still noisy enough to make hull mounted sonar next to useless, and towed array only useful at great depths, which impacts on the speed the already slow vessels are capable of.
              I'd be slow to buy a 2nd hand frigate, they are crew heavy and much of the technology we are buying into would be approaching obsolescence anyway.
              I'm inclined to suggest the PESCO EPC project is where our future lies.
              Absolutely

              it would be interesting to see how trials of containerised VDS/TAS on (noisy) “vessels of opportunity” have gone

              with processing power can some of the noisy be filtered out?

              Where VDS/TDS have a big advantage, apart from getting below “the layer” is range

              however, the sonar as I said doesn’t have to be on the vessel itself, can be on a UUV, USV or deployed from a USV

              Comment


              • USV is an interesting option, and a workable one, as the P50 and P60s are fitted with a hydraulic crane to deploy such a craft. Recovery will be challenging, but not impossible.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  My 2 cents, we have an extremely urgent capability gap which makes us extremely vulnerable, we don’t have time to wait for new vessel/aircraft, we don’t have sufficient personnel resources, we are financially constrained, we can’t put sufficient vessels to sea, those we can put to sea would be classed as “vessels of opportunity” with regard to sub-surface capability, we have some of the roughest waters in the world, we need to capability in shallow to potentially very deep waters, potentially out to 200 nm+

                  really it points to UUVs/AUVs, potentially shore rather than vessel launched

                  to me they are potentially vulnerable though

                  from a financial and political point of view they would really need IMHO to be multi role (eg survey, MCM (at least recce capable), ASW)

                  obviously that would only provide a detection and surveillance capability, doing something about actions being undertaken against our interests is a different kettle of fish

                  obviously big choices to be made between being able to go 12nm and 200nm, down to 100m and 3000m, endurance of a few hours versus a month

                  should add that we probably shouldn’t (based on experience be a launch customer and should be a proven system), although we could potentially leverage EDA and PESCO projects/funding to reduce our own costs



                  why not C295 MPAs (ie with sonarbouys and MAD)?
                  - lack of personnel
                  - lead time
                  - cost of sonarbouys (which is primary ASW detection capability, MAD is only used for localisation and confirmation)

                  - not saying that MPAs (rather than MSAs) aren’t required
                  - not saying that more capable NS vessels with HMS and TAS aren’t required (be it new or existing vessels)

                  we are where we are
                  UUVs/AUVs are a new technology which the big boys are only now starting to explore and so will be at least a decade before any workable solution is available. But there will still be the issue of the sonar catalogue, even if there is a working UUV/AUV it will be useless without the accompanying sonar contact catalogue and as we are not in an alliance with such a catalogue no-one is going to give us their one. Without that it is not possible to identify and classify any contact. The seas off our coasts are noisy, lots of propellor noises and how to sort them. That takes years of experience for a sonar operator.

                  What is missing is the political will to do anything about it. Just again we had a government minister saying that there is no risk, and even if most think he is a tw-t, the message will sit with the public. Even if MM says something different the mixed messaging does not convince the public there is an issue and without that there is no political driver to do anything serious. Being part of NATO would help but if we stay outside then it needs serious investment in equipment and a new plan how to crew that equipment.

                  Comment


                  • 1000% on the catalogue (which possibly with the right assistance could be partially offset by AI (which would need a catalogue) and will

                    there are plenty of AUVs/USVs with the capability but possibly the big boys aren’t playing as they have many fully fledged vessels with the capability and therefore don’t need to

                    it could provide up a basic entry level capability

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X