Undersea cables

[DeV]

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)

[DeV]

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

[ancientmariner]

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.

[Anzac]

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.

[ancientmariner]

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.

[Graylion]

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.

[DeV]

*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

[Anzac]

*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.

[Graylion]

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.

[DeV]

It does, which is why our insistence on neutrality is a silly joke.

Only because our neutrality isn’t resourced

[Graylion]

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.

[DeV]

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

[ancientmariner]

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.

[EUFighter]

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.

[DeV]

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 ?