Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Undersea cables

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

  • #16
    LIMBO was 1950s technology

    Saab have a more modern version but it is really designed for Baltic conditions

    https://youtu.be/6rXc9FUGfEU




    no point in thinking about lethal ASW weapons though when we can’t even detect a submarine and in a most likely scenario, it would be an operation that would be below the threshold of conflict (ie the grey zone)
    Last edited by DeV; 24 October 2021, 10:58.

    Comment


    • #17
      We should say that NSDS does have some useful capabilities with regard to protection of submarine cables with their UUVs, ROVs and SSS.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        LIMBO was 1950s technology

        Saab have a more modern version but it is really designed for Baltic conditions

        https://youtu.be/6rXc9FUGfEU




        no point in thinking about lethal ASW weapons though when we can’t even detect a submarine and in a most likely scenario, it would be an operation that would be below the threshold of conflict (ie the grey zone)
        We could with the Plessy PMS sonar installed in the Ops Room on P31 which also included a Captains Table with Multi radar displays and ability to fire the 57mm blind by radar . We also had the ability to engage with two weapon systems on our old craft. Limbo remained in use up to 1990. It's replacement works on the same remote principle.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post

          Our main problem as a cable terminal is that in our Naval ship acquisitions we have avoided the ASW component and undersea surveillance in general. I'm not fully aware of added on equipment to the the newer vessels but they need at least side scan sonar's and an audible means of knocking on intruder doors. Obviously MAP with MAD capability is also a requirement. In the long run we must consider ASW units with up to date response. Due to the lack of our capability others are using our sea areas for ongoing peacetime actions against intruders. The only justifiable response is join the action and coord with partners.
          A cost effective anti access autonomous ASW/ISR platforms like Sea Hunter will probably be released over the next decade and would give the ability to deter illegal underwater intrusions into territorial seas and patrol SLOC in co-ordination with NATO partners.

          Comment


          • #20
            In the meantime all naval vessels should be competent ISR platforms as are PC12's. If we had flight decks we could equip with a suitable drone controlling by ship link and or satellite. The use of autonomous surface craft will need a mother adding to technical requirements and eventual recovery.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Anzac View Post

              A cost effective anti access autonomous ASW/ISR platforms like Sea Hunter will probably be released over the next decade and would give the ability to deter illegal underwater intrusions into territorial seas and patrol SLOC in co-ordination with NATO partners.
              *cough* Ireland is not a NATO member. *cough* I could see EU however.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Graylion View Post

                *cough* Ireland is not a NATO member. *cough* I could see EU however.
                But we are a partner nation (PfP)

                even if we aren’t a member and have no desire to be and are neutral what happens in the waters around use doesn’t just impact our security it impacts NATO, EU and others (positively and negatively).

                also it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have completely shared aims

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Graylion View Post

                  *cough* Ireland is not a NATO member. *cough* I could see EU however.
                  There is a difference between membership and partnership. Japan, South Korea, NZ and Australia are formal NATO partners in that they work and coordinate with them. Ireland is already a semi-formal partner as DeV pointed out with PfP.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DeV View Post

                    But we are a partner nation (PfP)

                    even if we aren’t a member and have no desire to be and are neutral what happens in the waters around use doesn’t just impact our security it impacts NATO, EU and others (positively and negatively).
                    It does, which is why our insistence on neutrality is a silly joke.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Graylion View Post

                      It does, which is why our insistence on neutrality is a silly joke.
                      Only because our neutrality isn’t resourced


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DeV View Post

                        Only because our neutrality isn’t resourced

                        even resourced Neutrality can't stand on its own. Sweden's strategy is holding until NATO arrives. Standing alone is a delusion.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Graylion View Post

                          even resourced Neutrality can't stand on its own. Sweden's strategy is holding until NATO arrives. Standing alone is a delusion.
                          And why would NATO arrive …. Because their interests were being threatened

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DeV View Post

                            And why would NATO arrive …. Because their interests were being threatened
                            Resourcing is step one to any form of Defence. Sweden hinges it's stance on an "Armed Neutrality" and is also a " Partner of enhanced Opportunity" with it's flank Allies in NATO. While Sweden is a Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons country, it accepts that the time is not yet ripe to shut down deterrents, and continues to strengthen it's Baltic conventional capabilities.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              PfP is an interesting one. When was that last time we have a major joint exercise with NATO? We did do some co-operation training with the RN FPS but that was outside of the PfP framework. When we are honest we like signing big declarations that have nothing to back them up.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                PfP is an interesting one. When was that last time we have a major joint exercise with NATO? We did do some co-operation training with the RN FPS but that was outside of the PfP framework. When we are honest we like signing big declarations that have nothing to back them up.
                                Ex Viking ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X