In this guest article, Lee Pilgrim highlights the work of the Towed Array Patrol Ship (TAPS), the RN’s frigate specifically assigned to the anti-submarine task in UK waters and beyond.
The mission
TAPS duty is allocated to one of the RN’s ASW frigates, typically for periods that can last up to about 2 months. The main aim is to detect adversary submarines and sanitise the waters around the UK. This is to protect the movement of the deterrent-carrying SSBNs but more broadly to counter Russian submarine activity in waters further afield. Operating primarily out of Devonport Naval Base, the six remaining Type 23 frigates (HMS Somerset, Richmond, Portland, St Albans, and Sutherland and Kent) equipped with the Type 2087 Towed Array Sonar ‘tail’ rotate in and out of TAPS duty, one maintaining a constant vigil against submarine threats.
Until recently the TAPS tasking was not even acknowledged publicly and has a much lower profile than the Fleet Ready Escort (FRE) missions such as monitoring Russian surface ships close to the UK. A rare exception was the 2022 Channel 5 documentary Warship – Life at Sea that featured HMS Northumberland on patrol inside the Arctic Circle and although heavily edited, showed the moment a Russian SSN collided with her towed array sonar.
ASW (or Awfully Slow Warfare) requires persistent concentration and can be a mundane task, with occasional excitement but often spent operating independently in the North Atlantic, GIUK Gap, North Sea and the Norwegian Sea in poor weather. Consequently, this duty is not especially popular with crews and opportunities for attractive runs ashore are limited. However, TAPS can be professionally rewarding, being foundational to national security and offers the opportunity to get up close with the adversary and contribute directly to the defence of the UK.
TAPS is tasked from Northwood in coordination with the US and other NATO partners that manage water space for allied submarines and surface units. (Another example of how deeply US forces are embedded within highly sensitive aspects of UK defence.) The TAPS will be cued into position, perhaps using the approximate location of the submarine initially detected by underwater arrays of Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).
TAPS is part of an ecosystem that extends beyond the ship itself, including a network of platforms and personnel. NATO submarines, Merlin helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft and other assets form a layered defence system. This collaborative approach amplifies the TAPS capabilities, integrating real-time intelligence and multi-domain awareness to counter increasingly quiet and sophisticated adversary submarines.
The platform
Conceived in the late 1970s during the Cold War, the Type 23 frigate was specifically designed to counter Soviet nuclear submarines in the North Atlantic. Despite their age the platform is still a highly effective submarine hunter, having been substantially upgraded over time.
The unique propulsion system — a Combined Diesel-Electric and Gas (CODLAG) configuration is optimised for stealth. The system employs electric motors for low-speed, silent running, minimising acoustic signatures during submarine hunting. Two of the Type 23’s four diesel generators are sited on the upper deck, level further reducing noise radiated into the sea. Two, much nosier, Rolls Royce Spey gas turbines can be used to provide sprint speeds when needed. This adaptability ensures the Type 23 can operate stealthily, a critical advantage when deploying its towed array sonar.
The Sonar 2087, a low-frequency active/passive towed array system developed by Thales, is the Type 23’s primary ASW sensor. Unlike traditional hull-mounted sonars, the towed array is streamed from a winch system, trailing up to one and a half kilometres behind the ship, reducing interference from the vessel’s self-generated noise and allowing variable depth deployment to exploit oceanographic conditions like thermoclines. The active component emits low-frequency pulses, capable of detecting submarines at significant distances, while the passive array listens for faint acoustic signatures, providing a dual-mode capability that far outranges submarine-launched torpedoes.
The detection capabilities of S2087 are highly classified but it is regarded as being one of the best sensors of its type in the world. In the hands of experienced operators and in the right conditions, it can detect submarines at great distances and has been proven on many occasions. The frigates also have a bow-mounted active/passive Type 2150 sonar (recently upgraded from the S2050) useful for closer range detection and warning of torpedoes and mines. A shortage of specialist Torpedo and Sonar operators (‘TAS apes’) has been an issue for the RN and occasionally frigates have deployed without enough watchkeepers needed to operate the towed array.
Complementing the Sonar 2087 is the Merlin HM2 helicopter, an integral part of the Type 23’s ASW arsenal. Equipped with Thales FLASH dipping sonar, sonobuoys, and Sting Ray torpedoes, the Merlin extends the frigate’s sensor and strike range. Its ability to hover and deploy dipping sonar into specific water layers enhances detection in complex underwater environments, while its onboard processing allows rapid target classification. The synergy between the towed array and the Merlin’s reach is formidable and capable of prosecuting targets beyond the horizon.
The frigate typically deploys its Sonar 2087 in a patrol pattern, streaming the arrays and listening for the acoustic footprint of the adversary boat. When the array is deployed, the ship’s manoeuvrability is considerably constrained and the system is best suited to the deep ocean rather than more confined, shallower waters.
Once a possible contact is found, the Merlin helicopter is launched and localises the target, using its dipping sonar or sonobuoys to refine the submarine’s position, and classify the target before delivering torpedoes if necessary. Data-sharing networks like the Multi-static Sonar Data Network (MSSDNA) integrate acoustic intelligence across platforms, allowing the frigate and helicopter to work with MPAs and other allied assets.
In future, the Type 26 may be able to complement the Merlin’s capabilities with uncrewed RWUAS (such as PROTEUS) that can add endurance and another means to prosecute the submarine. Detection ranges could potentially be extended by deploying UUVs or XLUAVs up threat. The RN is also exploring the purchase of an ASROC-type weapon to provide a 24/7 capability to deliver torpedoes onto fleeting targets at medium-range.
The thin grey line
The 2021 Defence White Paper expected the RN to maintain a force of least 17 escorts (six Type 45 destroyers and 11 frigates), yet delays to the Type 26 programme have reduced this margin. Frigate numbers are bottoming out with the premature retirements of two S2087-equipped frigates, HMS Westminster and Northumberland, compounding the pressure on ASW resources. Maintenance cycles, crew shortages, and concurrent commitments limit the availability of the ageing Type 23s. The surface fleet is tasked with multiple operational demands while the RN must also prepare for the transition to the Type 26 and Type 31s.
The impending CSG25 deployment will further tax the fleet, requiring at least one, ideally, two Type 23s acting as the primary ASW pickets for the carrier strike group working with the carrier-based Merlin’s. This demand risks operational overstretch, potentially compromising the TAPS mission at a time when Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic is resurgent.
The RN was primarily an ASW navy for much of the Cold War period and this specialist skill set must be preserved. It encompasses not just technology but operational expertise in underwater acoustics, tactics, and inter-platform coordination. This institutional knowledge cannot be reconstituted quickly if lost, making the smooth introduction of the Type 26s a key priority.
Conclusion
Arguably, the Russian submarine threat and the vast geographical area suggest the RN needs significantly more than 6 towed array-equipped ships (This should rise to 8 when the final Type 26, HMS London commissions around 2035).
The frigates assigned to the unsung TAPS role quietly help ensure CASD’s viability and, by extension, the UK’s nuclear credibility. Any further weakening of the protective ring around the SSBNs would undermine deterrence, embolden adversaries, and weaken NATO’s collective defence. More broadly, effective ASW is the first line of maritime defence for the UK which was nearly brought to its knees by the submarine threat twice in the 20th Century.
There is no question that the RN needs more frigates and delivery of the Type 26 frigates cannot come fast enough. Even if there was more funding and construction could be accelerated slightly, other means must be found to add ASW mass as soon as possible.
Whilst the article is interesting, it is as usual myopic, lacking contextual references. We don’t do these patrols on our own and presumably the abilities and quantity of our allies have also increased since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And recent issues should show we can rely 100% on no one but ourselves
No one?
Despite Brexit GB and Europe are still firm allies in military matters and that could grow even closer.
But I get what you mean..
We are defending much of the same backyard as many European countries e.g. Norway and France, both of whom have useful capabilities.
So whatever the politics, our closest neighbors are likely to stay onside purely out of self interest.
I agree about our closest neighbours supporting in these efforts but let’s be clear we would expect the heavy lifting in Central Europe to be done by France and Germany with the likes of Poland and Italy but at sea we need to be doing the same and at the current time we are simply not.
Being an island has been our strength and weakness over the centuries and it is no different now with our dependence on energy imports and undersea data perhaps heightening our vulnerability. SDR will have failed if it doesn’t focus on this and anti ballistic missile defence.
8 type Type 26 is not enough, nor is 9 P8s or 30 Merlins. Certainly another 2 Type 26s would be a wise move particularly if Norway places an order and unit prices are reduced as construction times come down. At least another 6 P8s would be on my list but the best sub hunter is another sub so long term an uplift from 7 (currently 5) to 10 SSNs is required.
Ideally I would add 4 SSKs but I think that may well be beyond our reach.
Short term we should focus on bringing into service cheaper UUVs, XLUAVs and long range aerial drones.
Our politicians have over time successfully conditioned many to except cuts in numbers as part of the normal state of things so 16 Type 23s eventually turn into 8 Type 26 or 12 Type 42s become 6 Type 45s. This is of course masked with statements about how far superior they are than the ships they replace, which is only part of the story and leads to the current dire situation we face.
This kind of comment is typical of those living in the past, unable to see that the world has moved on, together with a penchant for believing assets are like toy soldiers that you can buy, without consideration of tasks to be performed or resources required to support. We are entering a world of drones, more of the same will not prepare us for the future of warfare.
is that why Ukraine has 750,000 boots on the ground and Russia over 1000,000. All trained in trench warfare.
A lot of eggs are being placed in the drones basket with little deployable evidence that they are as effective for missions such as ASW as T23/6 / Merlin / P8 combo.
So, I do think that more P8 are in order as they are a relatively quick fix compared to SSNs.
You obviously didn’t read the bit about the need to order in the short term cheap UUVs, XLUAVs and long range aerial drones. They are certainly the future but have to be blended with proven capabilities that match those of our adversaries. Nothing too complex to understand and easily within reach of a nation that spends 3% of GDP on defence allowing a modest uptick in numbers (both in equipment and personnel).
Dude, its not myopic, its targeted. The title is the clue, its not called “Alliance ASW strategy and operations in the North Atlantic and Arctic”.
As ever it sounds as if people will be the critical factor SQEP are gold and should be prioritised is as true for Skimmers as it is for Submarines.
I guess that the type 31 could have one of a number of different systems that are available to be added after all they are supposed to have a mission bay and it would make sense to have some mission systems available if required but the bean counters will not fund it.
If the Norwegian’s buy some type 26 perhaps we could get a couple of extras out of the deal?
Unlikely we’ll get anymore T26 with the T83 timeline
There has been discussion about stepping up production to accommodate a Norwegian buy so I would hope that it is possible and indeed desirable to be able to do so.
T31 and drones would seem the most available ways to add mass. Perhaps more T31s, but also retrofit of hull sonar and torpedo tubes to these and the T45s, further Wildcat order (and option for 5 RN versions exists) and dipping sonar for these and some existing Wildcats.
Was thinking of the containerised towed array systems that are available as well as the assorted UAS.
Potential use for AI ?
Not until it passes the Turing test and is certified as AI which none have yet.
Hang on, can you explain this for me? Why does AI need to be a GenAI that passes the Turing test to be useful for ASW? You do know what the test is, right?
I would presume we have been using classified AI processing for ASW for a long time, Machine Learning models are great at certain things, as are deep reinforcement learning and other AI tools and concepts. I guess those which can be applied to acoustic processing, to assist operators, and maybe automate some functions (track classification?) already have been… they just don’t tell us. Maybe we can get US SECDEF to share details on Signal ?
Why do it that way. There’s been enormous computing resources put into frequency analysis of the sonar returns since the late 1950s. The computing capability has expanded as everyone knows with modern chip types. better to use the $20k each so called AI chip, or dozens of them in a cabinet, to run ‘software’ as we know it.
“ There’s been enormous computing resources put into frequency analysis of the sonar returns since the late 1950s.”
In the 1950’s digitising anything and processing it was a big deal even into the early 1980’s.
Things then changed quite rapidly as sonar was able to leverage A->D conversion from other technologies.
Processing sound and using lookup libraries was well within desktop PC/Mac capabilities from the early 90’s.
“The computing capability has expanded as everyone knows with modern chip types. better to use the $20k each so called AI chip, or dozens of them in a cabinet, to run ‘software’ as we know it.”
I’m not sure that is true for sonar. The data volume and frequency ranges are not so big. HF doesn’t travel far.
Picking out data is something AI might be useful for but noise is noise is noise: and noise is inherently random so you can’t remove it in that way and AI can’t get a handle on that.
I suspect that decent COTS graphics cards will give you all the computer you need for sonar.
It is much more about getting a good GUI so that operators can pick out what matters and action it to figure out the whole picture.
AI will be good for tracks, alerts and changes.
Very well said. I agree those high end commercial ‘graphics and AI’ chips, while expensive will be the real leap in technology for the sonar algorithms
Does trying up a limited number of frigates on TAPS duty really make sense?
During the cold war the US successfully operated towed arrays on what were a converted oil rig support vessel design using largely civilian crews.
With satellite links the data can be processed far more completely ashore and aircraft dispatched from shore bases.
The problem you have is that the submarines are also listening and a converted oil rig support vessel is far noisier than the sub it is looking for so the sub will be able to hear it and give it a wide berth. The Type-23s and Type-26s when they arrive are almost silent in comparison so they sit like a hole in the water waiting for a sub to enter it’s web and then just like a trapdoor spider they pounce.
And as far as having one on station, it is critical that the CASD boats be able to slip away without having an enemy HK in their baffles. To do this you either need a TAPS or another of our attack subs doing the same job.they are even more of a limited number at the moment because of delays to maintenance.
Self generated noise is the issue.
Deafen yourself if moving and no ability to prosecute the target?
So you can only listen when the ship is drifting. Then you can control the towed array depth as a minimum amount of way is required.
The original SURTASS ships were a slightly different concept – and replaced fairly quickly by specialist SWATH ships (T-AGOS 19).
Ocean Surveillance Ship
There’s a programme underway (TAGOS-25) to replace these ships now. At one point a relatively recent 2SL was very keen on the RN having something similar.
The difference is that these are supposed to provide a wide area surveillance capability augmenting IUSS, whereas something like the TAPS is to provide a localisation and – if necessary – deterrence capability. Nothing quite like telling a threat boat its been detected by holding it on the dipping sonar.
TAGOS aren’t warships, and probably have a hybrid civilian build at about $500m for the first TAGOS-25. They also don’t hold the sub to hazard; I haven’t even read about them hosting helicopters. The very much bigger T25s might be different in some ways from their predecessors, but I don’t think the philosophy has changed them to become in any way a fighting ship.
The main reason I can think of to spend on these over frigates is that we could get them built abroad, bringing down the delivery timeframe and filling in some of the TAS capability gap over the first half of next decade. Another reason might be that we could use budget and timeslots for MROSS-2.
AGOS (later T-AGOS) were never intended to be fighting ships – purely surveillance assets. They don’t have helidecks.
That’s why I contrasted them with the TAPS role.
I suspect the RN is pinning a lot of their hopes on the Type 91 sloop.
The T26 fully equipped frigate – 8 on order- is the next towed array escort
Not quite getting the T26 build economics / powertrain complexity for a TAS tug deployment.
Not quite sure how a COTS / PSV boat is much more noisy than said hyper expensive / specialised naval vessel if they share the same diesel engines and the GT element of the frigate is noisier still.
If 50% of the worlds ships use Wartsila diesels — how do you know what is civvy and what is Navy blue?
Plus COTS allows the introduction of a much more capable battery element to the fully electrified powertrain of the PSV. Great how all the focus on emissions has delivered huge progress in the field of marine electrified powertrains.
10MWh of batteries would be interesting.
COTS / much reduced crews / remote analysis dimension — more hulls in the water and a more complete service compared to todays threadbare situation.
2011 — supposed to be 19 escorts.
2021 — seemingly 17 is the magic number.
2031 — ???
Outsider looking in — naval tactics malarkey.
If the TAPS workload really does include support for the CASD boat …
Surely you just need to follow the TAPS boat to workout where the CASD patrol is going to visit in the coming hours / days / weeks?
Finally new way of doing things — Bay class with extra kit in its well deck
.
Surely the ASW kit of a Merlin could fit inside a 40′ container? A floating version of an ASW helicopter would have a lot more stamina than the aircraft itself — extend the search line and provide extra warning to the Bay plus it would be cheaper.
Also a bigger ship would mean bigger machinery to work a bigger TAS line or two as the article suggests — although if you have extra help / hulls in the water the need for a towed system reduces as they just use a dipping sonar well away from the main vessel.
Would start to deliver a full 3D picture rather than the 2.5D / multiple 2D slices of the current arrangement.
Big Auto analogy — C3P vs PDGS if you like.
Main point — we need more hulls in the water.
WRT noise emissions of diesels:
The T26 diesel trawling setup doesn’t just include the diesels themselves being quiet. They are also rafted on some very expensive vibration dampening mounts, and then part of the hull itself also has quietening around the diesels.
Pipes carrying water and air are mounted on rubber brackets to prevent noise from them reaching the water.
PS the GT gets turned off when operating in super quiet mode, but it still has a special gearbox to reduce noise.
I would suggest reading the article on this site ‘Powering the stealthy submarine hunter- T26 frigate propulsion system in focus’, which is pretty comprehensive.
Thanks for the pointer — had a read of the article.
No batteries seem to be involved — 90 years behind the Italians.
Not a good look — technical marvel or no technical marvel.
Very inefficient powertrain — volumetric efficiency in the main.
Not sure why we need a GT that needs a very complex gearbox.
Plus we have long shafts and very trad propellers.
High speed diesels as well and pretty anaemic ones at that.
All adds up to being very expensive and resource intensive and for what?
Looks to be a very expensive system that we can ill afford.
Sprint and drift job profile — is that what we do?
Then we will need 2 at least for any CSG work.
And that limits the fleet transit speed to 20 knots approx.
Or do we use the GT to run away from an incoming torpedo?
Any traction in using a small torpedo to take out a big torpedo?
Active defence — might even work with the subs as well.
Simpler vessel for the TAS tug donkey work would be a better bet.
Medium speed diesels / add batteries at scale / podded propulsion.
Bigger / simpler / cheaper — with an ability to launch floating Merlins.
Then improve continuously and build on a regular basis.
Sell some at 10 years old with export spec ASW gear.
If manpower is the issue then upgrade the job and cast your net wider.
T26 looks to be a Leander done in the style of a student lunch.
Why do so many “experts” with no maritime engineering background embarrass themselves with schoolboy solutions to complex problems. And presumably believe that those with years of experience don’t know what they’re doing.
Okamrazor
You bar steward = you beat me to saying exactly the same thing to fat bloke on Tour (by 52 minutes)!!!
Peter (Irate Txapayer)
Fortunately some of those complaining have a Naval Architecture qualification and some real world build experience.
Design vibe on the T26 — primary school football tactics of everyone running after the ball.
Simple solutions are out there.
You just have to know where to look.
“Design vibe on the T26 — primary school football tactics of everyone running after the ball.”
How to say something that is utter nonsense but says a lot about the person posting… 😆
No idea. Seems to be the think at the moment to publicly embarrass yourself by
• firing off lots of questions that Google can answer, or
• coming up with ‘superior solutions’ the experts in the field with years of experience and training haven’t…
🤦🏻♂️
Current RN / MOD to do list points to some / quite a few issues in the UK Naval design / build / maintain sphere.
Just saying like.
Plus the costs are radio rental.
Sean
Fat Bloke on Tour has yet to explain his quite-amazing comment, one made yesterday afternoon
So can I ask you…what does he really mean ????
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
All – I think FBOT is smoking something from one of those powdery white shipments i.e. one of the ones which our frigates has failed to intecept (see NL last week)…… that is the only possible rexplanation for why he keeps making such a HASH of all of his numerous comments …
The pareto frontier — what Henry knew and what Austin / BMC / BL didn’t.
You can add Jag to the list — last 10 years.
Interesting concept — worth a bit of study.
T45 to T26 — it might have come in handy.
T83 — I think the T26’s powertrain will not make the jump.
Good morning Irate Taxpayer (Peter),
I thought you and others on here might find this interesting reading.
Note the part which refers to UK Eligibility!
LINK
Only countries with a security and defence pact with the EU are eligible, so Japan is eligible with its recent pact. Soon as the U.K. signs one then we’re eligible.
Seems perfectly reasonable 🤷🏻♂️
Thats because the EU still wants British fish and wont agree – especially France
Who knew the screws would come on over on something so unimportant for security
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-eu-defense-pact-really-does-depend-on-fish-european-minister-warns/
At some point reality will need to enter the room.
How much fish — tonnes / Euros — do the EU as in French / Spanish want?
Why is it worth so much to them?
Appreciate the French national characteristic that every penny is a prisoner / every battle must be won or be seen to be won / fight tooth and nail for everything / what we have now we must have until past infinity.
OK we get it that France has a need to be heard / seen / used by a world that it tried to control but failed due to its lack of ability / capability / humility — but why fish?
Will they ever learn the lesson that the world pats them on the head and then ignores them?
This isnt the place to discuss the details of fish quotas in british economic waters.
The only relevant point is a Security and Defence pact between Britain and EU is hung up on black mail by french fisherman and Paris
Unfortunately it is.
Know what is at stake for all the main actors.
Work your offer to shake up the Yetis on the other side.
Recent figures for fish / fishing point to the UK taking £750mill out of UK waters with the EU at £575mill.
The EU exit deal has the EU number falling — 25% over 5 years..
We seem to take £50 / 60mill out of EU waters.
I think the French / Spanish need to make a decision.
Help us to bash lots of metal vs a few fish that might disappear.
Nickel and diming for local audiences is what got us into this mess.
Half of what he posts isn’t even in the King’s English so who knows 🤷🏻♂️
Type 23 is the result of binning the ideas you have espoused which were planned as a cost cutting exercise which had these “sloops” operating with fort class which were to provide air defence for them with VL Seawolf as well as stores & fuel. Post Falklands the very good type 23 was selected and it has served us very well, most ships can be identified by class if not name from the sound signature all diesels are not the same.
Fort Class — big ship missing a roof.
If it had been a “Ocean” style vessel it would have been so much better.
T23 in its original no gun / TAS tug spec was just so much Treasury penny pinching. Pennywise and pound foolish plus a few other fails to add to the list.
T23 as built was a big improvement as you say but it should have been the start of a new journey rather than a forty year band aid.
Going forward — the crew was too big / the hull was too small.
Steel is cheap and air is free — we had already paid for the expensive kit.
Our back to square one design process is wasteful and glacial in equal measure plus we fill the ship with what UK PLC can build rather than what it needs to fulfil its mission.
The years in service took their toll — stealth was pushed back in the day but now they look like a marine bog brush.
Good design needs to include its service life as well.
Diesels — sound signature can be changed.
Big plus from common rail — injection sequence can be changed at will.
Different engine maps are commonplace now.
And not in a VW beat the emissions rules type of way.
It is the reason that common rail won out over HPDI.
HPDI could do higher pressures but did not have the injection timing flexibility.
Plus if you have batteries you can go off grid for “60 minutes” and spook the sub if the sub has managed to spot and track your noise trail.
System of system approach — the floating Merlins can add a new dimension.
Plus the 42″ / 63″ / 84″ torpedo you can set off on sniffer mode.
The world’s quietest gearbox is one that isn’t there.
HPDI — unit injectors.
High Pressure Diesel Injection — Unit injectors.
VW were like a dog with a bone with this tech.
Obsessed with it to the point they had to cheat.
Left themselves no time to develop an improved system / arrangement.
Other diesel pauchling was different.
It was to stop the engine using DEF so that theAd Blue tank could be kept small’ish — inventing excuses as they went.
I don’t see how useful batteries actually are for subhunters. Yes, you can run slightly more quietly for a short period, but then you need to spend extra power and time recharging them and you become limited in the fuel you can carry, which impacts operations anyway. Perhaps the Italians went down a dead end, and that’s why nobody does it any more? Perhaps?
The purpose of the GT is that is has immense power density. One MT30 takes the ship up to 28 knots, and the gearbox makes sure that the ship is still quieter than most frigates even at those speeds.
Hard-kill torpedo countermeasures are still a very imprecise art. The USN devoted a lot of resources to developing an anti-torpedo torpedo for their carriers and then gave up because it didn’t work very well.
I’m not sure quite what you are advocating for? A super simple ship is going to be easy meat for a modern Russian SSN.
Main angle — cheaper resources / more hulls in the water.
Current trends are fewer and fewer ships in the escort fleet.
And those we do have seem to spend far too much time in a dock.
MOD / RN design trends appear to be more of the same just fewer of them at double the price — not sure it can last.
Where are we in the Global ASW league table?
Current Russian standards vs RN now / RN future vs USN.
TAS system is nearly 20 years old and will be second hand in the T26’s — software updates and processing power is good but is it enough?
*****
*****
Batteries are cheap now — 10MWh install would be a couple of containers worth. If you have a big hull you would not notice them.
Recharging — run two diesels instead of one.
MT30 — power density in tonnes possibly but not in cubic metres and vessel layout.
Why do you need it?
Sprint and drift?
Torpedo evasion?
Batteries do two jobs.
Help the ship go off grid / very quiet.
Add in some extra boost when you need acceleration.
Anti torpedo torpedo — I think it is worth more work.
40 knots in water should not be a difficult target at 10km out.
Small rotary contraptions on all Soviet vessels — 70’s and 80’s.
Rocket powered hedgehog style weapons — 4 on most ships.
Never thought they were a credible ASW weapon.
Although that is how they seemed to be described at the time.
Anti torpedo looked much more their scale.
Then why has no one else built one.
The French and Italians the two biggest fleets in Europe have gone down the expensive route.
Herd instinct / national willi waving / show pony syndrome.
Real world gives them a smack in the face — they will change PDQ.
😂
You have produced no evidence of any naval expertise, unlike many other commentators, or any evidence that anyone of note shares your “I know better than everyone else views”. Experienced service personnel have opined that the T23s are currently the best ASW frigates in service and that the T26s will be next generation. Other than silly comments about batteries, which no other mainstream navy has pursued, you have produced no evidence to substantiate either your experience in these realms or a valid “critique” based on evidence and physics.
This is why T31 without ASW is just a waste of money. For the same money we could have built 6 of the Absalon-variant with a TAS. Ideal for plodding about, no real need for speed. Nice big flight deck with two door hangar. To do a job we know that needs to be done.
If we built a customised Abaslon we could give them superb accommodation to the point of one cabin each.
.
So on that basis then, we should not have splashed Billions on the 8 T26’s, just buy 24 for the same money ?
I never said that did I? On your basis maybe. But I never said it did I? Underline it. Show me.
Absalon variant is getting a containerises ASW setup. It wasn’t purpose built for it.
We could obviously design it in from the start but there’s clearly limits on either the number of ASW crews we can train or just the amount of ships with ASW gear we’re allowed to field
There are limits on personnel across the board. We could have saved 5 crews by not building the T31’s. We could keep the carriers alongside the wall. All I was saying 6 mechanically simpler ships built for a certain task, an important task, is better than 5 mechanically more complicated but deficient ships in terms of systems build for what exactly? As I have said many times here I would have had a 9th T26 instead of T31.
Keep the carriers alongside the wall and further shrink our frigate fleet? Sounds like you can’t be bothered with deploying beyond the UK
Love the Absalom – don’t the Danish IVH on which T31 is based have a TAS and torpedo too ,couldn’t we simply add a CAPTAS 4 or something similar or have our ships been cunningly reversed engineered in a very British way to be much noisier than the Danes?
There is no space reserved for Sonars or Towed arrays.
Also noise dampening is an expensive piece of kit so may well not be included
Navy Lookout disagrees with you
“ There is plenty of space in the stern to fit a towed array, possibly the Thales CAPTAS 2 which is smaller and cheaper than the CAPTAS-4 / Type 2087 fitted to the Type 23/26.”
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-arrowhead-140-type-31e-frigate-candidate/
That is not the Type 31 we have today.
There is no rear hatch built into the current design. The only towed system on it is the Torpedo defense system and that leave very little room for anything else with the small stern area between the 2 line handling spaces
Oh no rear hatch? Really? Is that the problem? Wow………..
You just plonking down words aren’t you? You have no knowledge or understanding of anything to do with Type 31’s internal arrangements at all do you?
And you do? In fact what even is your point in this comment other than starting an argument
This is only a graphic , like yours, but does show a towed array outlet
https://www.navylookout.com/keel-laid-for-second-type-31-frigate-hms-active/
That’s the Torpedo Defense System
Describe this TDS, im intrigued that it operates through a small round hole in the stern
Well that’s the same as many systems before it such as nixie and so on, it’s a far smaller sensor device.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSTD
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contract-placed-for-type-31-frigate-torpedo-defence-system/
That’s the Steller T31 concept, not AH140.
In many ways it was a neater design, but had no industrial backing.
Good questions the TDS is there, the mission space is further forward and not connected where the TDS is presumably mounted.
It’ll be very obvious when the ships are floated off whether we get any sonars are not. Either they’ll have to cut large sections out of the back or dry dock to install a hull mount. If they do neither then it’s pretty certain they’re blind
The hull mount goes on a hulking thick heavy steel plate – if it is to be of any real use – mass damping and all that……not a lot of use if in active transmit the surrounding hull plates start to resonate and emit too?
So what have the Poles ripped out from under the flight deck to install a Captas2 ?
https://www.navylookout.com/miecznik-polands-ambitious-adaptation-of-the-arrowhead-140-frigate/
Why is T31 a waste of money ? we have ordered 8 replacements for the 8 T23 ASW Ships and 5 T31’s to replace the 5 T23’s that had no real ASW. These 5 T31’s are larger, better in almost every way and way more adaptable in the future. I don’t get why you think your thoughts are any better than anyone else’s on here…. Can you enlighten us please ?
No arguably there are some major issues with the T31.
Zero ASW sensors being a prominent one. T23 GP may lack a towed array but they still have an excellent bow sonar and can at least respond to an attack rather than being completely unaware of it
No ASW. Simple as that. If you don’t think that is a problem for an escort then I humbly suggest there are gaps in your understanding of the subject.
Perhaps it is you that doesn’t understand the difference between “specialist” ships to do ASW/AAW and GP frigates. Perhaps you don’t understand what the navy actually spends most of its time doing. Maybe if you looked across the Atlantic and review the travails of the USN, it would give you a better take on “all ships should do everything” poorly view.
Having no sonar is inexcusable. You can’t just hope you won’t run into a sub
Or an ISO or whatever is in the way…..
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Perhaps it is simple Treasury penny pinching and the Admiralty would love sonars on the T31. It’s not about doing something, or everything poorly, it’s about bringing some level of capability to the game.
Perhaps, you don’t understand the difference between having a specialism and a base level of multi-role capability.
During the Cold War the Soviet submarine threat was acknowledged. So my first ship in 84, HMS Hermione was the equivalent of a T31 – a broad beamed Exocet & Seawolf Leander, a GP frigate whose main role was Surface Action Group, and yet part of her rebuild was the hull mounted 2016 sonar, stage of the art at the time, designed for the T22’s.
My last ship in 92 was HMS Glasgow, T42 air defence “specialist” that had also been fitted with T2016 sonar during her mid-life refit!
The ASW specialists of the day were the T22’s with their expensive, sophisticated towed arrays, and yet we found the will and the money to equip other ships dedicated to other “specialisms” with a bare minimum competent active sonar – because it was useful!
Oh and Hermione once involved in clearing a Soviet SSN from Clyde areas, and Glasgow only ever used her sonar during ASW exercises in the Indian Ocean with USN (quite successfully though!) _ both ships spent the majority of my time onboard them in the gulf doing “general purpose” tastings. So perhaps some of us do understand the difference between peace time running, and war time tasking…….
Taskings….. not tastings 🙂
Very well expressed.
Hopefully the ‘sole’ plate for the sonar has been fitted to T31 in build.
I’m even more ‘hopeful’ that post PiP, when they should be quieter running on diesel IEP, T45’s sonar is upgraded.
I suspect this won’t be shouted about until a T45 is used to find a sneaky Russian SSN playing around…..
Yeah, but I’m not still living in the Cold War. By the time these ships are active, all ships will have drone escorts.
The type 31 is there to relieve the type 26 of the mundane patrol duties, for example in the Red sea Indian Ocean, the West Indies etc and allow them to concentrate on the ASW role. If any thing we need more type 31’s.
Not without sonars, also we haven’t had T23s forward deployed apart from Bahrain for years
.
Odd article. The RN has had towed array frigates in service since the early 1980s, Leander class conversions among them. Nothing secret about that.
Just a thought, but couldn’t we do some of the TAPS work with a smaller surface vessel than a full-fat frigate (or even a low-fat one like T31)?
Support for CASD, unless I’m mistaken, generally involves checking that the routes in and out of Faslane and into the Atlantic/North Sea are clear of loitering Russian subs; Surely this could be done by a vessel that doesn’t have all the teeth that a frigate does, nor all the self-defence capabilities. Potentially, especially if paired with “overwatch” provided by Protector/Sea Guardian with Stingray, they could even do some of the other home waters areas, where they’re unlikely to be taking hits from Russian surface warships or aviation.
Freeing up our TAS frigates for places where they actually need the self-defence suites and offensive teeth makes sense to me, and gives routes of progression through the service / training opportunities at a lower rank.
That’s almost exactly what Project Cabot is aiming for, but with unmanned vessels rather than cheaper warships.
Not against using unmanned ones, by any stretch. Just seemed like a T23/T26 was a bit wasted steaming up and down around the Scottish coast trailing an array, which can be described as a very low threat environment.
Polish Type 31s have both towed sonar and bow mounted sonar arrays.
I wouldn’t be against using the T31s if augmented. But, again, it seems like quite the waste of a large warship to just be sailing around Faslane looking for Russian subs that are waiting to trail SSBNs. It’s a really low-threat environment, covered completely from air and surface attack by other assets a lot further out.
Type 92 unmanned sloop
Thanks, I’ll take a look!
We had towed array sonar in the early 60’s
Could we not adapt some of the River B2s with some form of TAS to provide protection for the CASD? In a similar way to how the French are planning to use the new Patrouilleur Hauturier OPVs they are currently building?
It’s not an ideal fix but would reduce pressure on the frigate numbers until they are back to full strength. They would not be able to take offensive action but that could be provided via the P8 possiden if required.
Not easily. These are simple diesel ships and will have a lot of transmitted noise. There’s not a lot of space around the back and you’d have to scarifice the flight deck for a containerised TAS, and the marine space for the extra crew and control systems. Then once you’d sacrificed the flight deck, you couldn’t land a helicopter, not that landing something the size of a Merlin is an easy task in the middle of the North Atlantic even when you have the flight deck available.
I know the French are adding a hull mounted sonar, but that’s a far cry from TAS operations.
What modern frigate isn’t diesel powered for lower speeds. The GT is for occasional use
Sure a diesel generator method is used , but its still a large diesel running in the engine room below the water line.
the T26 use an acoustic cladding on the hull exterior around the engine room spaces. That can be added , whenever
No that cannot just be slapped into existing ships. And the Rivers are Busy as is
Adding a usable sonar of any type is doable if the design allowed for the possibility. If RB2 was ever going to used for even sub par ASW work, it needed to include a hangar & aviation magazine at the start. Doesn’t matter if it’s filled or not in the interim, but if it doesn’t exist, don’t bother.
New ASW ‘Mass’ tech is already available, making the 6 frigates virtually redundant and assignable elsewhere.
See JornMar ASW at marineandindustrial.nz
The website appears to be fake, and JornMar is unknown to Google.
It was posted on Breaking Defence, so it should be legit.
By Tim Martin.
What is interesting about that is the claimed noise cancellation between the two rubidium clouds.
As ever it won’t be as tractable as announced because it is lab tech but you’d need a gravitational map of the sea to compare your measurements to…..
And that is no small task in itself.
What does our survey ship do now that sonar aided depth surveys are so high productivity?
Gravitational maps — ???!!!??? — start with boxes and map the perimeter.
Then do a 30’s style radio football commentary on what you find.
Large unknown submerged object — back to square one.
Clunky but would be a start.
TAS / TAPS tugs — how low can you go?
Interesting stuff happening in the US,
Austal are now getting big into steel.
This was their first but they are also getting into floating docks.
Bashing steel would appear to be where they want to be.
And they are delivering at lower cost.
$144mill for the vessel x 2 — pretty good price.
For an AHTS fit out rather than a base PSV spec.
Interesting start point — powerful ship with lots of desk space for growth.
Medium speed diesels not your RN spec high speed diesels.
Extra 20M of length wouldn’t go amiss.
More efficient hull form / faster speed.
Plus space for some defence.
Bashing steel level change.
Austal USA awarded US$144 million contract for multiple Towing, Salvage and Rescue (T-ATS) ships for US Navy | Austal: Corporate
No. You want something with a better hull form and layout than that.
EDIT: Just because something is being towed doesn’t mean you need a tug. You need a good seaboat with good lines and a cruiser stern or very narrow transom.
Not for nothing do the USN and Japanese use SWATH.
What do we use?
We don’t do ocean surveillance do we?
USN tug / support vessel — starter for 10.
Narrow transom — the pictures of the T31 show a full fat transom.
Good sea boat — oil industry PSVs take some beating.
Speed is an issue but 22 knots should be well within the vessel architecture of the PSV / support / AHTS family.
Extra 20M at the point end will help with sea keeping / hydrodynamic efficiency and provide some room for defence.
Main point — Austal is giving steel a good go and their civil productivity is transformational in a defence setting.
Oh……..
How do the Poseidon MRA1s fit in here? I would think one or two are flying daily patrols in support of the CASD mission too.
That’s under the RAF and too few of them.
At their peak the RAF had 46 Nimrods. Today’s RAF has 9 Poseidon, just about enough to keep two in the air if push came to shove. We need twice as many. And probably three times as many so we can detachments abroad to say the Falklands or Gib or to follow the duty carrier. The Japanese alternative would have been a better buy.
How would it have been better. We wouldn’t have got any more
So you are equating worth with numbers then?
What significant advantage does the airframe have exactly
Well its designed for ASW and not to carry passengers across the Atlantic.
What nonsense, with no analysis of capabilities, how can you state that the current 9 Poseidons don’t exceed the capabilities of the previous 46 Nimrods. Did it even occur that the coverage provided by Nimrods of 50 years ago (??) might no longer be necessary (Satellite/Drone/Allies). Why be proud to post unthinking posts?
The US Navy seems to think large numbers of P-8 ( 125) are still required. Maybe 1/3 or more of those P-3C it had in operation at one time in Cold war period.
That would be roughly up to 15 for the RAF
A plane can only be in one place at a time and for every one in the air its 2-3 times number on ground. That hasnt changed
Hasn’t changed according to who. Are you saying that modern aircraft need as much manual maintenance as those of 50 years ago? That’s certainly not the case in the commercial world. I love how so many of the old boys on this site seem to think that technology hasn’t changed since WW2!
Still maintenance intensive if you want to do lots of hours , airliner style. Mostly overnight checks for airliners but I bet the RAF doesnt do it that way ‘day shift only’
The engines are the major item what has incredible TBO now.
I already refuted your claim by the USN evidence that around 1/3 of its previous Cold War P-3C operational fleet is now P-8 ( 125).
Same situation applies to RAF with a need of up to 13-15, so its not ‘old guys’.
Your ideas of ‘doing more with less’ is in reality just newspeak rubbish.
The problem seems to be emotion vs. Analysis. No factual analysis of the problem and the resources available just “more must be better”. Unfortunately that’s not how we do it in risk management, especially with 50 year old solutions. But hey this is a free forum, stick with what works for you, I still use valves in my hi-fi system, although I’ve moved on from Quad!
Risk management ???!!!??? …
I hope you don’t work for Heathrow.
No it seems to be a question of your arrogance and ignorance vs knowledge and experience of those who don’t live in their mother’s basement.
Its not as even the RAF was using a slow plane like the P-3C , they were already doing airliner jet speeds from the early 60s with the Nimrod. The 737 based P-8 isnt any faster.
Its like the transport wing , route flying for a Nimrod or P-8 takes the same time as it always did.
Maintenance load is less but its still a levers and pulleys for flight controls as the 737 always had.
The other side is the RAF Lossiemouth maintenance crew is probably minimal and low skills , while they use Boeing as a contractor – good luck with that
Rubbish. Things can and still do go wrong. I don’t think you have ever worked on really high end IT systems or you would know better.
So you think an aeroplane can be in more than one place and you think modern kit doesn’t go wrong.
I would shut up if I were you unless you like embarrassment.
I have actually worked on IT systems of 2 tier 1 banks, how about you? I don’t happen to live in the past and know that current generation IT systems are a 1000 times better than those of 50 years ago and 100 times better than 30 years ago.
The hardware is much more reliable for banks and P-8.
But the software for military side in large number of separate systems that supposedly talk to each other far more complex now. They dont always use commercial processors or servers – often special builds with their possible issues
And variable software bugs that dont affect the whole fleet at same time can can a mission. Wheres the backup plane the crew can transfer too ?
Banks have much more backup systems than what they might have in a P-8 plus they dont fly!.
You are too focused in the high end commercial world which doesnt apply in military.
What nonsense? Well BluntRazor I do know an airframe can only be in one place at one time before it can detect anything…………
And you say I am stupid………
Poseidon fleet sorry squadron.
Seemingly we own / use 9 of then.
Ryanair usage model has been introduced.
Starting with the basics — do we have 5 or 6 crews per aircraft?
So as of now — do we have 4 in the air at 10.30 / 29th March?
If we don’t then we still have some way to go.
yes. Thats the other side. The aircrew training system for RAF is broken also. If its affecting the F35B it would almost certainly be affecting P-8 ‘pipeline’
Is there anything in MOD-Land that isn’t broken?
As an outsider looking in it looks as if Potemkin is in charge.
Lots of shiny breathless PR / window dressing and little else.
The top brass titles get longer as the capabilities get smaller.
We exist so we must be good / brilliant no matter the reality.
Plus the hand me down TAS into the T26’s — not a good look.
Cottage industry status beckons to keep them maintained.
Software updates / new hardware integration — not a tough gig.
TAS / both styles — active + passive — piece of cake for an AHTS.
Otterboard / steerable tail / sensor orchestra / 2000m of dumb cable.
Then there would be the floating Merlin.
Team game now.
What is the active depth in ASW at the moment — 600m?
Anybody looking for a brave pill and 900m?
Reply to Jon that JornMar ASW is fake as google doesn’t show it: WRONG, NOT FAKE (and in any case who would want to rely on a single company for high tech AI identification)?
Very sad, when I read all the below comments, from distinguished persons, who all are still wedded to 400 year old platform technology. Pull yourself out of the 400 year hole folks, and think.
The smartest comment I thought was ‘Fat Bloke on Tour’ 2 days ago who wrote ‘the quietest gearboxes are when there is no gearbox’.
Bless.
Nimrod AEW — what did we learn?
How can it be used to help us with TAS?
Filters / Filters / Filters as Blair would have said.
The issue is not silence — the issue is understanding the noise you are making vs the noise that something else unknown is making.
Current drive for silence is self defeating.
Up there with the 50’s drive for brass engines for mine hunters.
Might be a shaggy dog story / other metals might have been involved.
But ultimately a one golf club mindset that failed.
No matter how quiet the ASW unit wants to be.
It still can be seen from space / fancy OTH radars / aircraft / BBC news.
Lidl spec TAS — 2087 in containers sitting on the back of a PSV.
TAS / Passive side — how much of the tail is active and how much is dumb cable?
PSV cargo deck is big so you can double the length of a T23 unit with more dumb cable.
Silence of said PSV — 80 / 20 rule comes into play for the basics.
Big diesel noise characteristics — cruise spec mountings?
Then add traction batteries to spice things up — tactical play for 1-3 hours.
Floating Merlins to extend the search line.
Real Merlins to scout ahead.
ASW needs terriers not foxhounds — it is not sport.
How many of the RN brains trust want to ride with the hounds.
Outsider looking in — might be tarring the RN with a RAF brush.
But …
A super article, Lee. Well done! Very informative but gentle flag waving. No doubt, the Cold War history of the TAPS is undeniable, as is the fear that it engenders of the crews of the boats caught in the net. I particularly agree in the importance of the system for the CASD continued operational independence. I have no doubt that the T26 will be a formidable ASW Platform. It has been designed specifically for the role. T31 will be well able to hold up to the demands of a general purpose frigate. The biggest worry is the ‘soft loss’ – the trickle away of the skilled personel to run the system. We need a new sign up campaign to ensure we can train up enough skilled operators to run the system on the T26.
Outdated I’m afraid;
Details of Project CABOT were communicated to industry in an early market engagement notice published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 13 February. According to the notice, the aim of the project – which builds on outputs from Project Charybdis and the NATO ASW Barrier SDI – is to develop and field “a portfolio of lean crewed, remote operated and uncrewed/autonomous airborne, surface and sub-surface vehicles, sensors and nodes to provide a deployable and persistent wide area ASW search capability”.
Speaking at the Navy Tech 2025 conference in Helsinki on the same day that the engagement notice was published, Commodore David Burton (rtd), Director ASW SDI in Navy Command’s Maritime Capability team, said that Project CABOT constituted “the UK’s transformational main effort for the next five years”.
It is envisaged that delivery will be split into two phases. Phase 1 – designated ATLANTIC NET – would deliver ‘ASW as a service’ through a Contractor Owned, Contractor Operated, Naval Oversight (COCONO) model using lean crewed, remotely operated or autonomous uncrewed systems operated by an industry mission partner. “ATLANTIC NET would see acoustic data, triaged by AI/ML algorithms, supplied to a secure Remote Operations Centre for analysis by RN staff,” said the MoD engagement notice.
Current planning assumes ATLANTIC NET being operationalised within the next two years. According to the RN, the use of the COCONO model would significantly increase “mass and persistence at sea whilst releasing traditional RN platforms for other tasking”.
Phase 2 – known as BASTION ATLANTIC – would see a transition to an RN-owned and operated force of uncrewed platforms, alongside a host of other sensors, to deliver mass and persistence in the North Atlantic via a more traditional government owned, government operated model. The RN has identified two projected platforms: an ASW uncrewed surface vessel designated as the Type 92 sloop; and an extra large UUV known as the Type 93 chariot. BASTION ATLANTIC would also consider the use of undisclosed UK-developed underwater battlespace area denial capabilities.
According to Burton, the aim is to deliver BASTION ATLANTIC, and transition to the GOGO model, by 2030. “That would be a heterogenous mix of assets, not just surface assets but underwater and airborne assets,” he said, adding that the full scope of delivery for Project CABOT would encompass multiple strands of activity. “The assets is one. The service delivery is another [and] data and AI is right at the heart of this.”
Just mostly business jargon from military people who aren’t skilled in the business ways , but are captured by contractor ‘influencers/priesthood’ who operate by saying newspeak to cover what is confusing and inconsistent. Hat tip to AI ‘du jour’.
Word salad of business technobabble — would be a good game of buzzword bingo though.
Project Cabot / Phase 1 — how much is it going to cost?
PFI squared vibe — and not in a good way — that needs a lot of managing.
Mass and persistence at sea — has the RN lost the ability to do this?
Contactor owned active front line defence assets?
When do they start owning / managing / using the weapon systems?
All too much “Jeremy” for me.
Sorry if this is not the best place to mention it again, but due to present threats we need to get back to 6% of gdp on defense like in the cold war. I admit that all govt spending is less desirable than private enterprise, but in this case it has to be done.
Spending on social programmes and government regulations has got way out of control in EU and UK, time to reign that in. It suffocates the economy, which really needs the lower tax approach to catch up again with US and even Australia. As a small example, UK has a fleet of 9 Poseidens, big deal, Australia with a quarter of the population has 14 and even pathetic NZ where I was born has 4 with less than a twelfth the pop of UK ie more than 4 times as many per capita. NZ is woefully deficient in defense but UK is much closer to the immediate threats and needs to wake up its act big time.
Cheers
John
I would re-check your maths.
Aus is a big country as they are always telling everyone they meet.
Biggest issue for UK PLC / UK security eco system — Value for money / productivity.
Little use in spending more money if it keeps delivering the same poor quality outcomes.
I get this is a Navy website and defense spending is important, but as most of the country has come to realise, the government doesn’t have an infinite budget and it does have at least equally important things to spend money on. Welfare is important – what is the point in defending a country with no citizens.
Yet when the UK had no welfare state it had the world’s largest global trading empire and was a military superpower.
Italy spends a lot less as percentage of their budget and has far better equipped forces.
Consider Spain has more FJ pilots.
Nonsense, Italy has even more problems than we do and not even half our capabilities.
Utter rubbish again.
Does all this point to the MOD / RN / RAF being very wasteful / low productivity?
Have memories from 30 years ago about how wasteful the MOD was in comparison USAF / IDF / Uncle Tom Cobbly and all — some SPAD / friend of a SPAD for a Tory defence minister was never out of the Sunday Times shouting the odds about it.
His other hobby horse was the Typhoon was a dollar short and a decade late and how we didn’t need it.
You got the impression that an agenda was being worked.
Although that seems to be the consistent thread now / then / forever.
I well recall serving on HMS Iron Duke— Old Dukey to the crew—meant wrangling the Type 2031Z towed array: over a kilometer of low-frequency hydrophones, trailing deep to catch subs’ faintest sighs. She needed a gentle hand—push too hard, and she’d tie herself in knots tighter than a honeymooner’s bedsheet. Dukey’s reach and sensitivity left the Americans’ stubby setups red-faced, slipping in to eavesdrop where others couldn’t. Long, tense watches in the ops room, eyes glued to the sonar, tracking whispers while the array purred steady—serious kit wrapped in cheeky banter. After all, Dukey’s tail could probe deeper and longer than most dared to dream. Happy days.
I don’t think many here grasp that as you handling a TAS is far from simple. It isn’t a substitute for a HMS just another tool. The two technologies complement each other.