The helicopter-dropped torpedo is the primary method employed by navies to prosecute submarine contacts. As underwater threats are increasing and diversifying, at the same time new technology offers alternative ways to counter the submarine. Here we examine some of the options for the Royal Navy.
The evolving threat
Anti-submarine doctrine is having to be revised as the capability of underwater platforms and weapons are developing fast. Manned submarines: SSBNs SSNs, SSGNs and SSKs continue to become quieter but will also able to deploy their own UUVs that complicate the picture with additional sensing, deception and attack capabilities. Particularly in shallower littoral waters other short-range platforms; midget submarines, UUVs, swimmer deliver vehicles and semi-submersibles also threaten surface ships forced to operate or transit closer to the shore or through choke points. Underwater weapons are also improving with increased range and AI-enhanced sensing/homing and counter-countermeasures logic.
In the littoral, the slower submerged speeds of older submarines allowed protection of High-value Units (HVU) to be conducted using a multi-layered screen that was forward-looking. It could be assumed the submarine had limited lines of approach and would probably be lying in wait for the task group. Theoretically, the MPA or frigate with towed array sonar would detect the threat and a helicopter would be set to localise and destroy the adversary submarine. The RN lacks ASROC or an equivalent and its ability to prosecute submarines is heavily dependent on the time taken to launch the helicopter, its speed and range. MPAs are not always available and locating the threat with sufficient accuracy to cue the helicopter may be limited to what can be provided by the active towed array sonar. Alternatively, multiple dipping sonar-equipped helicopters must be expensively kept airborne for extended periods.
Modern underwater threats may present on any bearing and from longer ranges. Increased situational awareness and area denial techniques are needed to sanitise wider areas. Clearly, additional detection methods are desirable and other ways to neutralise submarines are needed.
Maritime Protector
The RN’s vision for its Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) of the 2030s includes the provision for MARITIME PROTECTOR playing a role in underwater warfare. The RAF will take delivery of its first PROTECTOR, a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) Remotely Piloted Air System (RPAS) this year. Protector is a modified MQ-9B SkyGuardian UAV made by General Atomics and used for armed ISTAR, carrying Brimstone missiles and Paveway IV Laser Guided Bombs. The Integrated Review confirmed the RAF will receive 16 Protectors to replace its legacy Reaper fleet and the UK contract with GA includes the option for a further 13, probably with a view to buying the maritime variant.
GA has developed the SeaGuardian derivative of the MQ-9B with a range of 6,000nm, able to stay on station for up to 25 hours, it has nine hard-points for a sensor or weapon payload of up to 2,100 kg. SeaGuardian can be equipped with a variety of maritime radar and EO sensors, being able to conduct many of the same ISR missions as SkyGuardian.
The future development path includes the ability to drop sonobuoys and lightweight torpedos (main image above). Four podded sonobuoy dispenser systems (SDS) hold 10 A-size or 20 G-size buoys in each pod, run by a dedicated sonobuoy management and control system (SMCS). SeaGuardian could act as a communications node sharing sonobuoy and other sensor data with other platforms in including Poseidon and Merlin. Maritime Protector/SeaGuardian would be limited to flying from land but the RN sees it as a potential ASW force multiplier, supplementing the stretched Poseidon fleet, especially in the North Atlantic.
-
An MQ-8C Fire-Scout RWUAS equipped with Ultra Electronics sonobuoy dispenser. (Image: Ultra Electronics) -
-
The first demonstration Protector aircraft will arrive at RAF Waddington this year and the system will achieve Full Operating Capability by 2024. -
Mockup showing the Sea Guardian MQ-9B dropping sonobuoys in Arctic waters. (Photo and main image above: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems) -
The Brtish-made Malloy Aeronautics T-150 UAV seen with a mock-up of the Future Lightweight Torpedo slung beneath. The T-150 is built to military standards and has been successfully tested in all weather conditions, operated in the deserts and in the arctic. (HMS Tamar, London, July 2020) -
Another view of the ‘low budget torpedo delivery system’ concept. The T-150 was originally designed for civilian cargo transportation or as a military Joint Tactical Aerial Resupply Vehicle (JTARV). The Royal Marines have also conducted battlefield logistics trials with this UAV, carrying loads of ammunition and supplies. (RFA Mounts Bay, March 2021) -
A fleet of T-150 UAVs on display on board HMS Prince of Wales during an FMAF industry Accelerator Day. (Portsmouth, July 2020) -
The larger T-400 can could comfortably carry a Sting Ray Torpedo, other munitions or heavy stores payload. (Photo: Malloy Aeronautics)
Proteus
The FMAF vision also includes PROTEUS – a medium Rotary Wing UAS for use in the ASW ‘find’ role. Essentially the RN is seeking proposals from industry for a mid-sized RWAS capable of hunting submarines via sonobuoy and dipping sonar to supplement the Merlin Mk2. Proteus will need to be a sizeable aircraft as is also intended to provide surface search functions and contribute Maritime Intra-Theatre Lift (MITL). The requirement is only an outline at this stage, but there are already projects underway that might provide an RWUAS ASW ‘find’ solution.
The RN interest in medium-sized RWUAS goes back as far as 2013 when a Capability Concept Demonstrator (CCD) contract was awarded to Leonardo. A CCD Phase 2 contract was let in 2017 and flying trials and experimental work was conducted with an SW-4 Solo demonstrator. Development seems to have petered out but Proteus may provide new momentum. (Incidentally, why the RN has not already bought a few small, affordable RWUAVs for reconnaissance work, such as the Leonardo AW Hero or Schiebel’s Camcopter S-100 is difficult to understand).
UK-based specialist sonobuoy manufacturer Ultra electronics is looking at ways of conducting uncrewed ASW using an MQ-8C Fire-Scout RWAS equipped with a sonobuoy dispenser. There are similarities with the SeaGuardian concept, but for shorter range ASW missions launched from the flight deck of a frigate. Northrop Grumman in partnership with Ultra Electronics conducted a trial in Feb 2021 with a manned Bell 407 (acting as a Fire Scout surrogate) and successfully completed a large area multi-static acoustic search with the system.
To successfully hunt submarines using a field of sonobuoys requires considerable computing power and, for now at least, experienced human operators to make sense of the data. This is the key component of an expensive MPA such as the P-8A Poseidon. Like many autonomous systems, a potential vulnerability of Protector and Proteus would be their reliance on available satellite bandwidth in order to pass the raw data back for processing to the controlling platform.
Budget torpedo delivery
Recent exhibitions held by the RN to showcase future technology have featured the Malloy Aeronautics T-150 UAV carrying the BAE Systems Future Lightweight Torpedo (FLWT). For now this is just a concept and does not actually feature in the FMAF plan. However, this simple idea could be a very cheap force multiplier for the Merlin as well as a budget alternative to ASROC. The T-150 has a carrying capacity of up to 68kg so even if FLWT is considerably lighter than the 267 kg Sting Ray it will eventually replace, is likely to be too heavy for this particular aircraft.
In December 2020 the MoD issued a Request for Information (RFI) to Industry for an autonomous, UAV capable of carrying interchangeable payloads up to 200 kg and able to operate over the horizon. Malloy Aeronautics already have their T-400, with a 370kg payload and a range of 12 miles available to customers.
As discussed in our previous article, there are no firm plans to fit the Type 26 frigate with a Torpedo Launch System. (The Australians and Canadians have, however, selected TLS for their Type 26 derivatives, the Hunter and CSC respectively). Lacking the 24/7 availability of the TLS and speed of response, a simple UAV could still be highly effective when delivering a torpedo at short or medium range. Although slower to reach its target, the UAV offers much of the capability of the US Navy’s RUM-139 Vertically-Launched Anti Submarine Missile (VLA) at a fraction of the cost.
By its nature, TLS is a close-in weapon of last resort, the UAV-delivered torpedo would allow the submarine to be engaged at a much safer range. Being small and compact, the system would have a minimal shipboard footprint and several systems could be held at readiness in high threat areas, freeing the Merlin to focus on the ‘find’ mission.
-
Type 26 frigate firing a Kingfisher depth charge round from its Mk45 5-inch gun. The Mk45 is capable of firing bursts of 20 rounds per minute out to a range of around 24 km. (Image: BAE Systems) -
Simplified diagram of Kingfisher depth charge round. The main payload of around 3kg of HE is pushed out of the shell by a small expulsion charge when it hits the water. The charge deploys folding fins to control the angle of entry into the water and begins to sink. A depth fuze, housed in the rear of the submunition, then explodes the charge at the pre-set depth. (Image: BAE Systems) -
A single Kingfisher depth charge is unlikely to sink a large submarine but can be used as a warning shot or to deafen sonars (Image: BAE Systems) -
BAE Systems Future Lightweight torpedo mock up. (Photo: Navy Lookout)
Kingfisher
In 2019 BAE Systems revealed their KINGFISHER concept for a naval gun-launched modular carrier system. Essentially the frigate can use its 5inch/127mm gun to fire an ASW payload that could include small depth charges, sonobuoys, hydrographic sensors or acoustic decoys. The most promising, simple and affordable option appears to be the depth charge payload. Anti-submarine mortars delivering depth charges to short-range date back to World War II but gun-launching is a new concept, enabled by the accuracy of modern naval guns. Kingfisher could quickly lay a barrage of charges in response to fleeting sonar contacts out to several Kilometers, without the need for airborne delivery of expensive homing torpedoes. Small and affordable depth charges may also be an ideal antidote to UUVs and several ships could fire patterns to cover a wide area relatively quickly. Multiple small underwater explosions would also temporarily deafen submarine or torpedo guidance sonars. Kingfisher could also be used as a ‘hard kill’ anti-torpedo defence system.
In surface actions there is a flexible ladder of escalation that can be used before opening fire; hailing by radio, illumination by fire-control radar, aggressive positioning or a warning shot across the bows. In undersea warfare there a very few options to discourage or deter an adversary without sinking them. Sending a burst of active sonar reveals the position of the emitter and may involve sacrificing the tactical advantage. Kingfisher offers a scaleable response to warn an adversary by laying small depth charges close by without sinking the target. As the line between war and conflict becomes increasingly blurred, having non-lethal response options assumes greater importance.
Other types of payload for Kingfisher would appear to present many more technical problems. A Sonobuoy would require re-engineering to fit into a 5-inch shell and withstand the huge G-forces created when fired from a gun barrel.
Work on Kingfisher has been underway since 2018, self-financed through BAE Systems’ own innovation fund but there has been some coordination with DTSL and the Maritime Capability (MARCAP) staff at NCHQ. The RN has not issued a formal requirement for the system but purchase of the depth charge version would seem like a very sensible low-cost option to equip the Type 26 frigates.
Future Lightweight Torpedo
The Sting Ray MOD 1 anti-submarine torpedo currently in service with RN is still recognised as a highly effective weapon for use against manned submarines. Diversifying threats and new methods of ASW mean a complete re-design and the Future Lightweight Torpedo entered the pre-concept phase in 2019. BAES is evaluating the options and aspirations for the FLWT include better target detection, AI-enabled discrimination against decoys and the ability to counter UUVs, small submersibles and torpedoes. Improved open architecture and interoperability with a much wider variety of launch platforms will also be desirable.
A significant reduction in weight would also be helpful allowing it to be delivered by small UAVs, although it is likely to retain the same dimensions and form factor as Sting Ray for backwards compatibility with existing launch systems. The ability to accept wing-kits would allow extended-range launch from altitude and compatibility with Poseidon/Maritime Protector. New more power-dense batteries could also increase speed or range and active sonar capability.
I’ve kept returning to the ‘anti-torpedo torpedo’ as a logical point defence concept.
I’m aware that Stingray and other LWT can evidently be confused by the radiated noise from your fleet units, etc., if directly launched from a surface vessel trying to locate a quiet / closing submarine or anti-ship torpedo. But as a last resort counter free to use active sonar against incoming threats, the concept always seemed sound enough to eventually form a useful addition to surface ships’ inventory.
It is strange that TLS is not part of UK T26 & our other replacement vessels. By the time they’re in service, something along the lines of BAE FLT could well be maturing.
I imagine its probably down to cost, ie its not really a cost effective solution.
The problem is a Heavyweight torpedo has some 3-4 times range over a lightweight one, and you also need a firing solution to stand any chance of actually getting said weapon anywhere near a submarine.
Hi Deep, There is an interesting new Russian Torpedo called Poseidon or Status 6, being developed which might just have a fair bit longer range, not to mention destructive power. it was dismissed as a hoax a few years back but looks like a goer now.
Cheers matey, wasn’t aware, so will have a dig around.👍
That’s not a very sporting torpedo at all! Not very nice people are they!!😂😂
Rather Dastardly if you ask me mate………… Imagine one of them in the Solent or Clyde.
its more likely to cause some environmental hazard when it goes wrong…. a nuclear propelled nuclear armed torpedo drone with supposedly infinite range…. i mean it is a literal doomsday weapon! its almost supervillain weapon kind of lunacy… stuff like this makes me laugh at the whole “we must save the planet” thing going on…. just goes to show world leaders and geopolitics really couldn’t give a f*ck…. now ww3 can irradiate massive portions of the oceans too! yaaaaay…/sarcasm
plus its not really comparable to the stuff in the article as its effectively a strategic weapon….
For shipboard launch, was thinking more about taking out the inbound torpedo, Deep. I do note though that, after the first sentence, I failed to highlight torpedo again, mentioning only ‘threats’ midway through post. I’m sure I’ll keep on cherishing the notion, at least on websites.
Regarding other concepts mentioned, being a great fan of guns as cost-effective launch plarforms for increasingly smart munitions, I’d support any new ideas on their use.
Not so bought on land-based support. As indicated, I like things a lot closer.
Cheers.
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer!!!! I expect that would keep you on your toes! I much prefer to keep them at range, preferably several miles given the choice.
Back in the day, the USSR had RBU 1000/6000 mounted on ASW Corvettes and frigates. They could throw out some 12 asw bombs per launcher in less then a minute to 1 or 6 km. If memory serves had a 20kg warhead, bit like our ww2 hedgehog system, enough of a bang to scare the pants off you I imagine. Sort of going full circle with Kingfisher, just not sure how effective a 3kg warhead would be!!! Still a interesting idea perhaps.
“I imagine its probably down to cost, ie its not really a cost effective solution”
Already exists
“At six and three-quarters inches in diameter and approximately 85 inches long, the CVLWT is significantly smaller than the latest variants of the Navy’s Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo“
I’m assuming that’s a Yank ship! We don’t appear to be going down this route at the moment, reason why, no idea, but just could be cost! Just a guess mind.
One thing to bear in mind about that particular system is that they ended up removing it because it wasn’t doing its job!
I agree with you, it’s a good concept, but it’s got a way to go before it’s fit for active duty.
They are being added to US carriers in turn during their deep overhauls.
Its already in service and they are adding an offensive version to the defensive one in service
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/12/23/navy-to-field-first-new-torpedo-in-decades
With respect, that’s not what your article says. It says that a previous version of the system (the one I was aware of) had been fitted to carriers, but was cancelled. You can read more about that here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26347/the-navy-is-ripping-out-underperforming-anti-torpedo-torpedoes-from-its-supercarriers
The rest of the article you posted talks about the potential uses of the new design weapon, primarily on submarines (defensive and offensive versions) and aircraft (presumably only offensive). This new type is still in development, as the USN hasn’t even released an RFP for it yet.
So, at present, the USN does not have a reliable anti-torpedo system fitted to its carriers, according to the information the you and I both have. I didn’t realise that they didn’t remove them from all the carriers though, so thanks for that.
The only place in the story that says ‘rip out’ is the headline.
the body of the story says
‘At present, three of the Navy’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers – USS George H.W. Bush, USS Harry S. Truman, and USS Nimitz – have prototype engineering and development models of the ATTDS installed. Bush was the first to receive the ATTDS in 2013. Two more Nimitz class carriers, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Theodore Roosevelt, initially had earlier interim roll-on/roll-off versions of the system, but the Navy eventually added full prototypes to those ships.”
I understand its to yet ‘perfect’ and the wording of the test reports paints a dire picture , but that applies to everything new in the last 15 years or so.
For obvious reasons getting high reliability for a system of this type may be a double edged sword, especially when a certain country has massive resources in ‘borrowing new tech’
Fair point, I think they were probably going off the DOT&E 2018 annual report that says: “In September 2018, the Navy suspended its effort to develop the SSTD system. The Navy plans to restore all carriers to their normal configurations during maintenance availabilities between FY19 and FY23. DOT&E removed the SSTD system from DOT&E oversight.” The systems may well still be on the carriers, but they’re no longer pursuing the programme.
I fully agree with you though, fundamentally we need a system like this. I think they’ve cancelled this one because it’s too far away from even being suitable for operational testing on active ships, but that only means they’ll be developing it on test vessels instead.
Link to the full DOT&E report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5720819/2018DOTEAnnualReport.pdf
I’ve read that article before and it makes no sense at all.
It starts off by saying “The U.S. Navy halted development of an anti-torpedo defense system for its ships last year due to poor performance…”
But later in the article it says “The problem, according to DOT&E, is that after more than five years in development, the ATTDS’s demonstrated capabilities were improving, but not fast enough.”
Not fast enough for what exactly?
If the system’s capabilities were improving, that’s a reason to keep the system and to continue improving it, not to remove it. After all, being able to take out torpedoes would make surface ships much more survivable and is therefore vital capability to have. (Along with better anti-missile defences.)
I think this is part of their ATTDS system, which they have removed from their Nimitz class as they encountered too many difficulties with it!!!
Yes, I thought the same with this US one. But, you know me, Keep on Keeping on.
Early on, we invested in anti-air missiles, which were sort of ‘not’, until 2nd/3rd generation.
Still, good to see BAE appear keen to examine the future potential of last resort LWT.
It is far from “well developed”, sadly. Not sure but some difficulty remained.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26347/the-navy-is-ripping-out-underperforming-anti-torpedo-torpedoes-from-its-supercarriers
Everything they have developed in the last 15 years has problems big and small. You would never had carrier aviation at all if they waited till it was ‘just right’. USS Ford might be a decade before its ‘nearly right’
It has a small footprint so there really isnt anything to get rid off, just ongoing testing and development required.
I looked up the USN 2020 budget, $100 mill for lightweight torpedo development, $40 mill more than previous year.
Some really good stuff thanks for writing the article.
Could the FLWT be fitted to CAMM? Or use CAMM technology in cannister? Also there are now pneumatic launchers in use could it be launched by these as a last ditch defence?
It is an interesting idea using CAMM in that way for the FLWT. But it uses up silo slots.
It does, however, give the ability to put a couple on board each T31/T32/T45 so it gives the air of mystery mix to the opposition of “they might well have a couple on board let’s not go there.”
Nothing worse than being in a sub with munitions chasing from multiple vectors.
I **suspect** that the the gun on the T32 will end up being the same so that it can use the common ASW ordinance.
Fit the Type 26 with something like Thales RAPIDFire and/or the BAE 57mm gun firing 3P and MAD-FIRES that can take out missiles and you could afford to sacrifice a few CAMMs for this proposed (and very useful) capability.
Using the CAMM booster is a good question, no idea if the diameters would match up but worth checking.
For my money, I’d start at the quad-packing of more normal VLS tubes- either Sylver or Mk41. You’ll get more bang for your buck that way and most fleet escorts will be able to carry them. If you’re using the form factor of CAMM (or ER, with the bigger booster?), then your lighter ships like T31 that don’t have big-boy VLS could also single load them into their CAMM farm.
It’s strange that the RN seems to be sticking with the mushroom launchers for CAAM instead of going for additional MK 41 considering the added versatility they provide. There must have been significant cost savings.
Yes, I know what you mean. I think it has something to do with needing to penetrate the deck for a more traditional VLS like Mk41- I don’t think the mushroom farms need that. They may also be cold launch, whereas Mk41 is hot launch (I think), so there’s some added simplicity and cost reduciton there. Basically cost saving and easier to retrofit to older vessels like T23. Less of an argument for new-builds like the T31 though, although I think some cannister-launched ASMs would be sufficient to round out their armament, they probably don’t need proper VLS. T32 should definitely get some though!
For my money, I’d go with Sylver- aside from maybe TLAM there aren’t any Mk41-integrated weapons systems that we’re using or may use. But we’re developing a number of weapons with France/MBDA, so sharing integration costs onto Sylver makes more sense to me.
The mushroom shape launchers on T23’s, are old Sea Wolf tubes, that have been extended.
CAMM installed on T26 are in a silo with a cover.
The CAMM installed on Type 31 needn’t be mushroom shape either.
T31 has enough depth to accommodate Sea Ceptor in silos.
Sea Ceptor diameter is 166mm.
What’s the diameter of the FLWT? The same as Sting Ray (324mm)?
I like this idea, especially if the FLWT could be given a booster, wings and a range of 100+km.
Really interesting. Kingfisher particularly fired my imagination
The Kingfisher is very small, sleek and deadly, launching itself into the water and striking it’s prey with deadly precision. Seems like a great name for a great concept.
Lots of really interesting options to beef up ASW in ways other than getting more T26 or Merlin.
Sea Guardian to supplement Poseidon around The UK seems like a complete no brainer.
Kingfisher is something i wasn’t previously aware of and sounds like a great idea!
I used to think that ASROC would be a logical choice to equip T26 but i’m now having second thoughts. A combination of small UAV’s feeding data back for then either Merlin with a torpedo or the main gun with depth charges/decoys to engage would add up to a much more flexible capability.
Where possible we need to try and get away from bespoke, single use systems – hence why it may be better to look at these other ways of adding relatively low cost additions to existing kit – leaving 24 VLS that can be filled with dual mode Perseus rather than procuring dedicated anti sub and anti ship missiles that then sit in their cells likely to never be used.
The Russian Poseidon around the UK might not be so good though.
Designed to attack underwater infrastructure in my opinion like fibre optic cables. If it ever works.
I think the idea is to attack the Coasts and ports using a Nuclear powered Nuclear war head Torpedo to create giant Tsunami’s and to contaminate those areas with Radioactivity. It’s certainly a nasty little weapon…. 20 metres long and talk of 100 knots. There was some scepticism at the time, when a picture was shown in a Russian meeting. I Recently read that it was actually being developed.
http://www.hisutton.com/images/Ru_Poseidon-updatedFeb2019_940.jpg
And this is why T26 should have been built to operate 4 Merlin size cabs.
I still think there is room for a amphibious UAV.
Give it another 10 years and the PLAN will be operating from the Kola.
Not much point in the extra hangar space if you aren’t also planning to buy enough Merlins to fill it. By amphibious UAV, do you mean an unmanned seaplane?
Easy to build more helicopters or UAV than build a whole ship.
Yes I mean a seaplane.
Blimey X, you dont want much do you!!! Only another £120ish mill per T26, you will have the MOD bean counters falling off their very expensive chairs!🤣🤣
I knows…… 🙂
Ship launcher for a drone which carries a lightweight torpedo out some distance to vicinity of submarine…. what a fantastic idea. But wait …..
Yes. Imagine it with a boat like hull so it could be landed and recovered.
I will now start suffering nightmares again! I hated that system.
Well it was a first generation attempt that was put into service and only 1 ships install was designed around it. All the others were a ‘ how do we fit it in’.
1970s hydraulic-mechanical systems must have diabolical for the magazine and loading to the launcher.
It did seem to have a supplementary roll to give the weapons engineers something to do. In that roll it was replaced by the Mk 8 Mod 0……..another diabolical hydraulic-mechanical system…..
What is this system?
Why the Navy is not using gun-launched sonobuoys is a mystery – there was a successful trial of a prototype by what was then the Guns Dept. of DERA (DSTL/QinetiQ now) in the 1990’s. It would have given them the chance to launch a string of sonobuoys 10’s of km long in a matter of minutes.
The 4″ Shark round, developed at the end of WWII, shows that there’s very little new under the sun.
During high end hostilities, there will be many conflicting demands for ASW resources, and large numbers, or mass in the current phraseology, will take on added importance. To this end, the RCN have developed along with Geospectrum, a towed array sonar that fits into a 20′ container so that it can be installed on their opvs or stuft such as offshore supply vessels. An oil rig supply vessel, fitted with this and carrying a drone that can spread sonobuoys and drop torpedos would provide a very useful boost to the fleet.
TRAPS – Towed Reelable Active/Passive Sonar – GeoSpectrum Technologies Inc
A lightweight version is also available that can fit on usvs.
Thales Captas 1 also supports ISO mission modules. Captas 2 used to show it as an option but its not in the latest sales sheets.
SEA also addressing smaller manned vessels and USVs with KraitSense and KraitSearch with KraitArray. Demo’ed with 2-day install onto a host OPV back in 2019 as an example. Looks to be so small its not worth putting in an ISO.
https://www.sea.co.uk/news/seas-anti-submarine-warfare-solution-triumphs-in-portuguese-nato-trial/
Surely if you’re firing a 5″ gun barrage then you might as well use active sonar as well given that any enemy submarine would surely hear the gun firing?
Good point. And especially since the article says that the depth charges couldn’t even take out a large sub anyway, so what’s the point of them? A better solution would be a depth charge launcher with a soft launch feature like Sea Ceptor has firing larger depth charges that CAN take out large subs.
Far from convinced about the Kingfisher.
Depth charges get their effect from the size of explosive charge. A 5″ round weighs only a fraction that of a Mk11DC. The 5″ round weight is also primarily the shell casing with an small bursting charge. A Mk 11 contains a relatively high fraction of HE by comparison.
Essentially, you’re delivering a far smaller charge – and multiple charges do not cumulatively recreate the shock effect of a single large charge – with a less accurate delivery system. As shock effect varies with both size of charge and square of distance from target, those numbers don’t look good.
I would agree with you on this, can’t see where this is really going! Small charge, no real accuracy in the delivery system as you say, a bit of a 2nd rate RBU system. I don’t even think it would work as a Sonobuoy delivery system, far to inaccurate even if they resolve the discharge pressure/force problem.
Isn’t the primary role to delivery the Sonar Buoys: looking at the blurb?
Small depth charges are usually used to ‘heard’ subs away by essentially saying ‘we know where you are’ with the implicit ‘something bigger may be on its way’.
Fairly sure that using an explosive device to “herd a submarine away” is likely to end in tears (aka casus belli). Last I looked we only have one type of DC and its not small…..
If you have contact with a boat, you hold on to it wherever possible so you can kill it when you need to.
Perhaps, but BAES is certainly advocating the depth charges as the Fix component of a layered ASW Find-Fix-Finish system, per “Layered ASW” video at bottom of web page linked below.
They are also illustrating a VLA using the FLWT, in addition to helicopter and TLS launch options. Whether its accurate or not, they also show the VLA launching from Sea Ceptor cells rather than Mk41.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/productfamily/underwater-weapons
“Small depth charges are usually used to ‘heard’ subs away by essentially saying ‘we know where you are’ with the implicit ‘something bigger may be on its way’.”
Well if you have something bigger, use that first! All this does though is confirm your presence to a sub, plus you have nothing bigger to use anyway. It’s an absolutely insane approach to take.
That said, if it can take out torpedoes that would be very useful.
Not really if the small charges are on a drone or being fired from the 5” gun with range extended rounds they will be coming from far away.
Apparently the Italians have developed a drone that can be fired out of an MBT’s main gun. I am still trying to figure out why.
They’ve run out of Pasta Shells !
B’dum tish!
I was quite pleased with that one truth be known !!!!
Your taxi is here…….. 🙂
Got a link? I’d like to read up on it.
So from my brief reading of Kingfisher is, it’s job isn’t intended to be killing SSNs, but stuff below that:
The smaller stuff in particular. Swarms of underwater drones etc.
Saab ASW-601 antisubmarine grenade launcher. Although the system is for short-range, shallow water ASW, its depth-charge detonation scheme and penetration power is interesting.
But, I guess the system will NOT be efficient in blue-water ASW. Also, the system is designed to launch 36 granades at once. For a 5in gun to do it with 25 rounds/min firing rate, it needs more than a minute.
Overall, I have no idea what kind of usefulness Kingfisher may have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rXc9FUGfEU
I agree as far as taking out subs is concerned, but if Kingfisher depth charges can take out torpedoes that would make surface ships far more survivable than they are at present.
The Ultra Electronics sonobuoy dispenser for MQ-8C, and/or the sonobuoy dispenser systems (SDS) for Maritime Protector, could also be carried onboard Wildcat helicopter? If so, UK can start trying such use right now.
With improving SSK, sonobuoy once became less effective. There is a saying that “to detect a modern SSK, you need to deploy your (passive) sonobuoy right on top of the SSK. If placed farther, no signal can be detected”. So, low-frequency dipping sonar became major.
Effectiveness of sonobuoy in multi-static mode is the new trend. It looks promising, but not yet “common”. I think trial with Wildcat will tell us how efficient it will be?
“… why the RN has not already bought a few small, affordable RWUAVs for reconnaissance work, such as the Leonardo AW Hero or Schiebel’s Camcopter S-100 is difficult to understand” is a good point. I also had the same impression.
But, reluctance of adopting S-100 or AW Hero in number is seen world-wide, and there seems to be some reason.
Although not sure, I guess either not-enough reliability and/or low operational availability due to rough weather might be the issue? Note that ship-based ScanEagle did not become common, because of “not enough” reliability. I do not have statistical data, but in many ScanEagel trials, loss of air-frame is frequently reported.
I suspect its because of the rapid rate of change/improvement in UAS over the last few years.
If the need is short range/lower endurance then there is higher reliability, easier support and maintenance and lower cost from platforms like Malloy T-150/400, also greater deck safety with the smaller blades. And they pack up into a large suitcase. Much easier to deploy on small vessels and in multiples on larger vessels.
If the need is longer range and/or speed, then the development of vertical take off UAS that transition to winged horizontal flight, provide greater range, endurance and probably payload.
Why wait for the development of an unmanned tiltrotor, when deploying a couple of AWHeros somewhere like HMS Medway or Trent could transform the sensory capability of the OPV through height alone and give the RN real world operational experience? There will always be “something better” just around the corner.
Thanks. I think both is true.
But, when the requirement is there, they buy it. See Wasp helicopter. Far from the best, but worked well.
So, need (or requirements) for RWAS might be not yet clear; what size, what range, what cost and how many man-powers. As such, trial and testing is very important.
RN already trying Puma small UAV. T-150 follows. There small and cheap ones will be a good introduction.
It doesn’t have to be tiltrotor if by that you mean something like Bell V-247. Many different types are already flying, or about to, which do the vertical to horizontal transition; ranging from smaller to larger payloads.
Why waste time and money developing operational concepts on legacy rotary wing platforms with legacy performance constraints?
Examples
https://martinuav.com/v-bat/#vbat128
https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/hybrid-quadrotortm-technology
https://www.textronsystems.com/sites/default/files/_documents/AerosondeHQ_Nov20_0.pdf
https://www.samadaerospace.com/timeline-2/
https://www.sabrewingaircraft.com/cargo-uav/
Thanks. Very impressive, but in two ways.
Good models are designed,
But, the most attractive ones are more premature (in some cases, there is even no “news” within 2 years)
I think starting with T-150 or alike = whatever available NOW, will be a better way to go. The technology will rapidly grow at least in these 10 years. If we wait until it being “so so mature”, it will be 2030, I’m afraid.
The RN UAS programs seem to be on a fast track for operational high end fixed and rotary wing UAS by 2030 according to the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) slides, so I don’t think we need to be concerned.
The MoD and RN issued RFI006 in December 2020 for Maritime Heavy Lift UAS, the target specs seem a very good fit for Malloy solutions. This is likely to be the “Small UAS Light LOGISTICS (AW & Land)” illustrated in the FMAF.
They also issued RFI009 in February 2021 for maritime airborne un-crewed or autonomous UAS for use within the Royal Navy for threat simulation, “… with potential for spiral development to assist the creation of the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF), the rapid transformation of crewed aviation roles (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Communications, Lift and Strike) to uncrewed.” The ideal requirements for this are specified as max altitude 35,000 feet, speed >460kts, High G capable and Low Observable so this would potentially spiral into the Vixen fixed wing UAS in the FMAF.
I haven’t seen a RFI that would relate to the FMAF rotary wing Proteus platform, intended to find underwater threats. This might use platforms like Hero or Camcopter, but is likely to be better served with a hybrid fixed/rotary platforms I outlined earlier.
I’m not clear on which platforms have no news for 2 years? For me the most impressive are those of Sabrewing’s and Samad’s, because they address large platform needs, and both have been in the news recently.
Cool. I was thinking of the Sabrewing Rhaegal, which I know is being militarized. But that’s a great list. Thanks for posting.
Nice to see a tailsitter!
Another option, which I think would be ideal for ASW and AEW for carrier groups is airships, either manned or unmanned. They have endurance measured in days or weeks, possibly even months. And High-Altitude Airships (HAAs) can reach far higher altitudes than any other aircraft, which is ideal for AEW.
Also, if fitted with laser and microwave weapons and if flying in the stratosphere (where AIUI there’s little wind, plus little moisture that would degrade the performance of lasers and microwaves) they could presumably be used to shoot down ballistic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles, greatly increasing the survivability of a carrier group.
I appreciate power would be an issue though. Possibly Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) would be an option? Plus chemical lasers could possibly be used instead of solid state lasers? Or in addition to them?
My guess is they can’t afford to train and pay the extra crew to operate them.
A few additional P8s would be a good start.
Yes. We need two for home and one to follow the carrier. Fifteen seems a nice round number.
But you know how the RAF works, 2-3 would be in storage to be a long term attrition reserve, another 2 for maintenance balancing and that only leaves 4-5 for every day use. Its a commercial airframe so its designed to be 8-10 hours a day every day but they dont think like that. That massive hangar that Boeing has built under their maintenance contract means they will utilise it.
Exactly.
The RN used to be better with its nuclear submarine operations/maintenance balance. Im wondering if a 50:50 is still achievable?
This House of Commons question and answer to the nuclear submarine ‘availabilty’ back in 2000 when there were 12 in the fleet seems to suggest that half or 6 were available
Mr. Hoon: (a) Of the Royal Navy’s seven Trafalgar Class submarines, three are operationally available and four are in refit, extended maintenance or repair.
(b) Of the RN’s five Swiftsure Class, three are operationally available and two are in refit, extended maintenance or repair.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000711/text/00711w02.htm
3 for 1 at a push. But submarines aren’t getting simpler. No best purchased in 4’s for 1. More availability is a bonus. But you can’t build a safe system for such complicated (and dangerous) machines pushing things to a limit; there shouldn’t be a risk. See HMS Vanguard.
Availability for aeroplanes has always been a mystery to me.
In the Naval Technology report on “Atlantis” a RN graphic refers to underwater gliders feeding back data to other underwater assets. Does anyone know what what the status of remote underwater communications is like?
Not good enough for some of these science-fiction systems. What makes submarines work is the crew because the platform is very isolated in terms of communications. Machines in controlled aren’t that bright. Machines tossed out into the harsh of the sea would struggle.
Fair enough. But the navies seem to want them and merely collecting intel is an important task and do the other side know you are a drone or proper sub until they spend some listening to your sounds or actually paint you with active sonar.
Are you familiar with the 1957 Defence White Paper?
Anyone seen a once prolific defence forum ?
Have you lost one? What’s its name?
Well It was called “Save the Royal Navy” This place only seems to have one article a week.
There’s not much happening really.
What torpedoes has the FLWT been tested against?
And Kingfisher depth carges too – what torpedoes have they been tested against? How effective are these weapons as anti-torpedo weapons?
To what extent do acoustic tiles covering subs affect the effectiveness of sonobuoys using active sonar? I ask because surely the ping has to pass through the tiles twice, once on the way in and again on the way out after being reflected off the sub’s metal hull. I’m thinking that this must surely degrade the strength of the sonar return, possibly to the point of being useless.
Also I read the other day that the new Type 212 will have a stealthy shape so that active sonar pings will be directed away from the source.
I’d have thought that the combination of acoustic tiles AND a stealthy shape will render active sonobuoys (and all active sonar) pretty much useless. Any thoughts?