The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

True, True.

That's something, I wonder what's going to happen with all this 'pull through' stuff. I mean if - for example - the tubes are being pulled through, then frigate numbers drop to 12 so they can be gutted and installed on the ship it's replacing.

Presumably numbers would probably go 12 - 13 - 12 -13 for a while when one leaves service to have all the usable kit like Artisan, CAMM & 2087 pulled out.

ASROC would be cool, one trouble would come from the torp. Would we pay to get some sort of Stingray based solution or ditch Stingray for what comes with ASROC or have two types in service. More problems than solutions.

 

[Lindermyer]

I may have been (defiantly was) a bit simplistic with my reply.
I agree that the advantage is with the submarine, but ships can be very quiet too - anecdotally and I agree it may be hyperbole but subs do not like the type 23 it is a very quiet opponent so mutual detection at close quarters is not impossibe.
The other factors are rules of engagement and or what your target is. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that a submarine pierces the screen and is detected at v short range by the HVUs goalkeeper (to coin a phrase). A snap shot by the escort at this point probably wont hit anything but may distract the submarine long enough for the helos to arrive.

This is how it was put to me, or at least how I understood it.

I would prefer a modern Ikara to ASROC but yes VLS asroc would be nice.

P.S As an aircraft engineer with a big interest in ASW but limited knowledge I concede I may be spouting Bolox because a friend has seen me coming.

 

[swerve]

True, True.

That's something, I wonder what's going to happen with all this 'pull through' stuff. I mean if - for example - the tubes are being pulled through, then frigate numbers drop to 12 so they can be gutted and installed on the ship it's replacing.

Presumably numbers would probably go 12 - 13 - 12 -13 for a while when one leaves service to have all the usable kit like Artisan, CAMM & 2087 pulled out....

There should be at least one spare set of everything except the sonar, so it should not be necessary to pull a ship out of service just to get the kit to be pulled through. I can imagine us being one short of 2087-fitted ships every now & then, though.

 

[StobieWan]

True, True.

That's something, I wonder what's going to happen with all this 'pull through' stuff. I mean if - for example - the tubes are being pulled through, then frigate numbers drop to 12 so they can be gutted and installed on the ship it's replacing.

Presumably numbers would probably go 12 - 13 - 12 -13 for a while when one leaves service to have all the usable kit like Artisan, CAMM & 2087 pulled out.

ASROC would be cool, one trouble would come from the torp. Would we pay to get some sort of Stingray based solution or ditch Stingray for what comes with ASROC or have two types in service. More problems than solutions.

Asroc is Mk46 and we sold our surplus Mk46 back to the manufacturer when Stingray came into service. I don't think there's any remote possibility of ASROC or the DCNS equivalent entering service however

 

[CB90]

I may have been (defiantly was) a bit simplistic with my reply.
I agree that the advantage is with the submarine, but ships can be very quiet too - anecdotally and I agree it may be hyperbole but subs do not like the type 23 it is a very quiet opponent so mutual detection at close quarters is not impossibe.
The other factors are rules of engagement and or what your target is. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that a submarine pierces the screen and is detected at v short range by the HVUs goalkeeper (to coin a phrase). A snap shot by the escort at this point probably wont hit anything but may distract the submarine long enough for the helos to arrive.

This is how it was put to me, or at least how I understood it.

I would prefer a modern Ikara to ASROC but yes VLS asroc would be nice.

That's pretty much it. A well run and maintained (that's the really difficult part to keep up in the long haul) modern warship can be pretty dang quiet. A lot of effort goes into quieting high end warship designs (Prairie/Masker, dampening material with machinery, etc). Combine that with how extreme environmentals can be (variances are comparable to having unrestricted visibility and hitting a fogbank depending on where you are in the world, and when), and the possibility of having those close encounters can be significant. In congested waters with white shipping about, it may even be a requirement for the sub with good environmentals to ensure you hit the target.
The distraction effect probably sounds silly out of context, but it's sort of like throwing a knife while you reach for a gun. If it makes the other guy blink, it serves its purpose. At the very minimum, you've put the sub on the defensive, he won't be maintaining useful track data or updates, headed in the other direction, etc.

Considering risk/reward and how cheap/easy it would be to recycle that capability, it would be penny wise pound foolish to not do so.

Asroc is Mk46 and we sold our surplus Mk46 back to the manufacturer when Stingray came into service. I don't think there's any remote possibility of ASROC or the DCNS equivalent entering service however

Well, it's not like the VLA incurs an additional maintenance penalty for the MK46...they're maintained as a single unit. Also, the VLA's have been/are being retrofitted with MK54's.

 

[Volkodav]

Canister launched MILAS? The guidance system and a lot of the internals are based in the cancelled Super Ikara. Interestingly one of the reasons Super Ikara was canned was the UK dropped it from consideration for the Type 23 for cost reasons during the design (or rather the post Falklands redesign) phase, it was seen as a nice to have not a must have. Australia didn't actually have anything suitable in service or planned that would be a suitable platform so it was killed off. Italy was involved in the development and went on to develop MILAS on their own after.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, it's not like the VLA incurs an additional maintenance penalty for the MK46...they're maintained as a single unit. Also, the VLA's have been/are being retrofitted with MK54's.

We use Stingray however - so we'd have to buy in Mk46/54's and either run them alongside Stingray or bin Stingray, hence my suggestion that it wouldn't be happening. Too expensive to do.

 

[CB90]

We use Stingray however - so we'd have to buy in Mk46/54's and either run them alongside Stingray or bin Stingray, hence my suggestion that it wouldn't be happening. Too expensive to do.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I would look at a MK54 VLA as an offensive complement to the defensive oriented SVTT, ie a totally separate program, keeping SVTT launched Stingray.

Expensive? Sure. But right now it's a gap. And gap that would be relatively easy to fill. Torpedoes/VLAs aren't data needy little bastards like networked SAMs and ASCMs. Just tell them where you want them to drop, search depth, search pattern, and send them on their way. Should be easy to integrate into a new combat system if you plan for it from the start.

Put it another way. Why bother to put a MFAS on the T45 or T26 if you won't give it a VLA? If you're close enough to pick up a sub by going active, you probably want to shoot NOW, not wait for the helo to set up a weapons drop.

Either way, since the RN (if I'm not mistaken) is going to T45 and T26 for surface combatants, and T45 is not really configured for the ASW fight, I would want the T26 to have the total package when it comes to ASW, including SVTTs.

 

[Volkodav]

I imagine VLA would be a stand alone round, i.e. sealed in its container/launcher and would not ever need to be disassembled or removed from the rocket. Effectively it doesn't really matter which torpedo is carried as it will never be handled, stowed or serviced in the same way as the Stingrays. Interestingly with the selection of the MH-60R for the RAN FAA the RAN has found its self in the situation of having mk-54s in the torpedo magazine for the helos, stowed with MU-90s for the ships own tubes. So while not ideal it can be done.

 

[StobieWan]

There'll be depot level maintenance at the least so the cannisters will periodically have to be pulled apart and the weapons worked on, we'd need weapons courses, parts, spares line, the usual rigmarole so it's money I'd sooner spend on CEC

A rocket boosted torpedo would be nice but it's a bit Gucci given the budget (£0:00p)

 

[RobWilliams]

Either way, since the RN (if I'm not mistaken) is going to T45 and T26 for surface combatants, and T45 is not really configured for the ASW fight, I would want the T26 to have the total package when it comes to ASW, including SVTTs.

That's what makes me laugh, I usually see people complain about the FFBNW problems with the Type 45 and they include the lack of torpedoes.

Never mind that the hull form isn't great for sub hunting and the fact it has a bow mounted sonar doesn't help either acoustically nor practically. At least, I've read that it can be a PITA and that's why - for example - on the Type 23 the sonar array is towed rather than bow mounted.

I do agree with what you said earlier about it being foolish not to recycle them, my gripe would be more about if it turned out to be far more expensive than we thought to install them. Considering we're talking about the UK I wouldn't be surprised but that sort of prep has been well done in the past (space for +16 cells on the Type 45)

 

[CB90]

That's what makes me laugh, I usually see people complain about the FFBNW problems with the Type 45 and they include the lack of torpedoes.

Never mind that the hull form isn't great for sub hunting and the fact it has a bow mounted sonar doesn't help either acoustically nor practically. At least, I've read that it can be a PITA and that's why - for example - on the Type 23 the sonar array is towed rather than bow mounted.

I do agree with what you said earlier about it being foolish not to recycle them, my gripe would be more about if it turned out to be far more expensive than we thought to install them. Considering we're talking about the UK I wouldn't be surprised but that sort of prep has been well done in the past (space for +16 cells on the Type 45)

Eh, towed arrays tend to be more of a PITA than HMS. The towed arrays tend to bring some PITA maneuvering restrictions, particularly when deploying/recovering, and deployment time is a #####. When making course changes, a HMS is usable right away, it takes quite a bit for the towed array to steady up after a turn to become capable of any accuracy. Always hated that wait period. But yes, without a shipbased weapon to go with it...it's kinda pointless.

What's the hull form issues that limit it in ASW? Unless there are serious flow noise issues, I generally don't see hull form being much of an issue one way or another.

If BAE can't efficiently recycle SVTTs I would fire that design team. Hardest thing hardware end would probably be getting a good HP air system to charge the tubes (assuming yours work the same way ours do). Software end, like I said, torpedoes are relatively simple minded animals. Hardest bit there is probably getting a modern programming language based combat system to dumb down to a primitive language.

 

[RobWilliams]

Depends on the circumstance like if it's operating as part of a task group doing "sprint and drift" style movements, definitely optimal conditions are straight and level. In a RN context, there are absolute performance advantages with the TSA compared to the hull mounted sonar on the Type 23 and the natural advantageous position of the TSA too (baffles)

The HMS on the Type 45 isn't particularly great for detecting submarines anyway, it's mainly for finding mines, so the ship probably wouldn't be able to detect a submarine particularly well anyway so to bung in torp tubes wouldn't offer a particularly useful capability even if it was cheap.

Wouldn't be surprised, there's plenty of projects in the past that just spiralled out of control financially. But like I say, there's a couple of cases recently where they've done a stirling job and by all accounts the Type 26 should be rather well designed for plenty eventualities.

 

[Systems Adict]

... for example - on the Type 23 the sonar array is towed rather than bow mounted.

Small error. T23 DOES have a Bow sonar (2050). The ships were designed to have a towed array, but for many of them it was a retro-fit, rather than a full install during build.

I KNOW this was the case for the last 6, having worked on all of them during build....

Type 23 Duke Class Frigate - Naval Technology

SA

 

[StobieWan]

Depends on the circumstance like if it's operating as part of a task group doing "sprint and drift" style movements, definitely optimal conditions are straight and level. In a RN context, there are absolute performance advantages with the TSA compared to the hull mounted sonar on the Type 23 and the natural advantageous position of the TSA too (baffles)

The HMS on the Type 45 isn't particularly great for detecting submarines anyway, it's mainly for finding mines, so the ship probably wouldn't be able to detect a submarine particularly well anyway so to bung in torp tubes wouldn't offer a particularly useful capability even if it was cheap.

Wouldn't be surprised, there's plenty of projects in the past that just spiralled out of control financially. But like I say, there's a couple of cases recently where they've done a stirling job and by all accounts the Type 26 should be rather well designed for plenty eventualities.

I understand that when it came to the Type 45 deleting the sonar entirely was seriously considered on the simple grounds that any capability it'd grant would be minimal. It's one of those "well, we'll never see it, so why plan on shooting at it.." decisions. I think for type 45, that was probably sensible - if there'd been more money, I'd have spent it on a lot of other stuff before I shelled out for ASW.

I get the impression that IFEP is a bit noisy in comparison at least to the rafted CODLOG layout of Type 23 and 22, I don't know if Type 45 has "quiet" propellers for instance - or if the Type 45 has the air blown system that helps mask emissions for other ASW designs.

I think it's worth being realistic about what can be done with this stuff and if you make the decision to drop a capability, then the ASW end of a dedicated AWD design is more expensive to achieve than turning an AWD into a GP escort.

In the future, stick a OM 127mm turret with 300 ish rounds of ammo on the front, with some precision rounds and that would help a lot. Stick those spare harpoon launchers on four of the six and we're getting some place. Put quad CAMM into some of the cells, better yet. Strike length cells...oh, I'm off for a cold shower..

Thing is, most of the RN fleet is blindingly good at ASW - we can let some of that slip for 45 if it'd mean better GP/AWD capability, I'm good with that. Ideally, you'd get everything. I can't remember the RN ever living in ideal times.

 

[Systems Adict]

If BAE can't efficiently recycle SVTTs I would fire that design team. Hardest thing hardware end would probably be getting a good HP air system to charge the tubes (assuming yours work the same way ours do). Software end, like I said, torpedoes are relatively simple minded animals. Hardest bit there is probably getting a modern programming language based combat system to dumb down to a primitive language.

While I can 'understand' your comments, I don't 100% subscribe to them.

While MTLS is a proven system that works well with the Stingray Torpedo, you have to remember that Norfolk was the 1st T23 & was commissioned into the navy in 1990. That means the equipment has been there for over 25 years !

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be dragged thru to T26, but It would make more sense to find something 'new'. That way, the interface / software issues aren't as difficult to deal with.

Cost wise, it may seem credible to drag thru (due to spares / training costs, sustainability, etc), but the unit cost of taking the system, stripping it to component level, refurbing it & rebuilding & 'proofing' it are probably just as expensive as buying new.

Then, there's the space/weight aspect. MTLS is x4 single tubes (IIRC), that take up a reasonable amount of space and are reasonably heavy. While T26 is still effectively a piece of paper, every time the design is changed to accommodate the latest 'super weapon addition', it will add cost, it will add weight, it will reduce the infinite amount of space that's available for capability expansion or growth, and it will effectively jam the ship up worse than a swiss army knife with 200 attachments, trying to be so flexible that it can be all things to all men !

Add this onto the fact that the design programme has been running since 2010, so any major change will likely delay the completion of the design, probably adding additional costs.

To put it bluntly, quoting a piece of phrase-ology I picked up from a sailor recently
"Lemonade wage, Champange lifestyle".

In otherwords, looking at a Gold plated Rolls-Royce, when you only really have the cash to buy a mini.

In the meantime, until HM Govt step up to the plate & put ink on a contract, declaring how many ships will be built, of which type, for how long & where in the UK, it's all still literally a pipe dream that the government can consign to the annals of history, to join the likes of the TSR-2, Type 43's & Nimrod.

But I'm not bitter or twisted...... :nutkick

Rant over

SA

 

[RobWilliams]

Small error. T23 DOES have a Bow sonar (2050). The ships were designed to have a towed array, but for many of them it was a retro-fit, rather than a full install during build.

I KNOW this was the case for the last 6, having worked on all of them during build....

Learn something new every day.

So they've really got all bases covered, but either way the primary method for sub hunting on the Type 23 would be the TSA (ignoring the HM2 for a minute) as IIRC the 2050 is primarily active at medium frequency and has passive capabilities at lower freqs.

 

[CB90]

Learn something new every day.

So they've really got all bases covered, but either way the primary method for sub hunting on the Type 23 would be the TSA (ignoring the HM2 for a minute) as IIRC the 2050 is primarily active at medium frequency and has passive capabilities at lower freqs.

Yes, in general, the towed array is the primary sensor. When things start to get dicey in confined or shallower waters, where more frequent maneuvering may be required for contact management, to avoid dragging bottom, etc. the hull mounted sonar can become more useful.

 

[Indigo]

If BAE can't efficiently recycle SVTTs I would fire that design team. Hardest thing hardware end would probably be getting a good HP air system to charge the tubes (assuming yours work the same way ours do). Software end, like I said, torpedoes are relatively simple minded animals. Hardest bit there is probably getting a modern programming language based combat system to dumb down to a primitive language.

As has been said, there is more to it than just extracting and fitting the systems. Also of note is that, because of the affordability issue, everything is being lookaed at on Type 26 with a cost v benefit eye - if the system is seen as being something that will not be used, then it is likely to get binned, or stuck in the old 'fitted for but not with' category.

Type 45 is certainly not the best ship to go sub hunting with - it was designed first and foremost as an AWD, with Type 26 always being in the plan to take over sub hunting duties from Type 23. Type 45 hullform was made mostly for seakeeping, space and to accomodate the propulsion system, which is made up of purely gas turbine powerplants (no idling diesels for slow speeds). The electrical turning motors are quiet, of course, but the GT's more than overcome this.

N&V is something that often cannot be fully calculated until the ship is in the water and running - you can do all you can in design to minimise emitted noise, but it's how everything works together that is difficult to calculate. For an ASW ship you may not need to raft anything - but you really have to have a raft design ready to be implemented in case it doesn't work out. You can, of course, just be sure and raft the P&P system and other things, but that adds expense which may be wasted.

 

[CB90]

As has been said, there is more to it than just extracting and fitting the systems.

Yup, and I accounted for that. Is it going to cost money? Yup. Might it be cheaper to modernize components or even start from scratch? Maybe, depends on how you define the cost horizon. Point I am making is that on the scale of hard to Tinker Toys, topside torpedo tubes are going to fall toward the "easy" side of the scale with costs that by now should be very well understood.

Type 45 is certainly not the best ship to go sub hunting with - it was designed first and foremost as an AWD, with Type 26 always being in the plan to take over sub hunting duties from Type 23.

Which is fine and has been done successfully before...but then I would think you wouldn't want to compromise the organic ASW capabilities in the T23.

Type 45 hullform was made mostly for seakeeping, space and to accomodate the propulsion system, which is made up of purely gas turbine powerplants (no idling diesels for slow speeds). The electrical turning motors are quiet, of course, but the GT's more than overcome this.

OK this doesn't make sense to me. What are you basing that off of? I've seen acoustic data and GT's aren't necessarily "loud." Taking out the reduction gears to go to electric drive is a bigger offset IMO. A big marine diesel DEFINITELY is not quiet, though more fuel efficient, and running them at low RPMs is not good for their lifespan.

N&V is something that often cannot be fully calculated until the ship is in the water and running - you can do all you can in design to minimise emitted noise, but it's how everything works together that is difficult to calculate. For an ASW ship you may not need to raft anything - but you really have to have a raft design ready to be implemented in case it doesn't work out. You can, of course, just be sure and raft the P&P system and other things, but that adds expense which may be wasted.

I don't think you're using "raft" the way I understand it...care to dumb it down?