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

  • DeV
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X