The Future of the Royal Navy and the 'Hybrid Navy' Initiative - News, Platforms, Development and Speculation

TorpedoJ said:
You mean AH140?
AH160 is a throwaway comment in an interview with Babcock and has never been referred to again.
Click to expand...
Yes, I want to know if AH140 becomes the template for CCV, should the CMS be from the UK or other countries
 
https://www.navylookout.com/should-...l-drone-flotilla-to-monitor-russian-warships/

https://www.hisutton.com/Free-World-USV.html

Sutton and the unnamed Navy Lookout author are advocating for a similar concept: replacing the role of the escort, or offshore patrol vessel, in monitoring coastal activity with a flotilla of uncrewed surface vessels.

It's an interesting concept, but one I think works far more effectively when the coastal drone swarm is operated in conjunction with a offshore support vessel in the vein of a Norwegian Standard Vessel.

The OSV could provide support for not just multiple vessels, but multiple swarms. Control does not necessarily have to be onboard the OSV. Instead, drawing inspiration from the Ukrainian battlefield, it could serve as a relay node, securing the connection between the coastal stations and the swarms themselves.

If equipped with a medium-range AShM (NSM most likely), the ship could hold an interloping vessel at risk, whilst leaving the monitoring and close escort role to the USVs.

Monitoring the frigate Grigorovich required a pair of OPVs. Seizing the tanker Smyrtos required a frigate and a mine hunter, with a destroyer lurking in the Channel. All in all, that's five warships to monitor two vessels.

A coastal mothership could provide the local support to the tanker seizure whilst escorting the frigate with the USVs.
 
zww11455 said:
Yes, I want to know if AH140 becomes the template for CCV, should the CMS be from the UK or other countries
Click to expand...
Yeah, it seems likely that the CCV would use a UK CMS. BAE makes halfway decent systems.

As an aside more broadly, the CCV and T32 seem to be one and the same. The T32 was intended to be an Arrowhead-derived frigate designed to operate multiple unmanned surface vessels. Anti-air warfare was one of the rumoured tasks.

The CCV is likely an Arrowhead-derived frigate designed to operate multiple unmanned surface vessels, with the anti-air warfare being the primary task.

The DIP didn't cancel T32 and T83, it cancelled T83, and renamed T32.
 
TorpedoJ said:
I can't tell how tongue in cheek that is.
Click to expand...
Sort of tongue in cheek

BAE-built systems are decent for what they do. That said, I don't believe they've ever independently built a system with Aegis-level capability.

Their submarine CMS, and their ASW-specific elements are probably very good.
 
Reuben James said:
Sutton and the unnamed Navy Lookout author are advocating for a similar concept: replacing the role of the escort, or offshore patrol vessel, in monitoring coastal activity with a flotilla of uncrewed surface vessels.

It's an interesting concept, but one I think works far more effectively when the coastal drone swarm is operated in conjunction with a offshore support vessel in the vein of a Norwegian Standard Vessel. The OSV could provide support for not just multiple vessels, but multiple swarms.

If equipped with a medium-range AShM (NSM most likely), the ship could hold an interloping vessel at risk, whilst leaving the monitoring and close escort role to the USVs.
Click to expand...
I'm skeptical... For coastal coverage the equation heavily favors land-based air (UAVs) in terms of coverage area, speed, and ability to redeploy along a long coastline. Likewise, launching JSMs or guided bombs from land-based fighters that are already paid for is much cheaper than buying a new dedicated mothership platform and arming it with NSMs.

The role of patrol vessels has always been centered on things that require human intervention, such as boarding vessels or conducting SAR. That role doesn't go away with USV swarms which are useless for the intervention role and questionable for patrol if you need endurance and seakeeping. On top of that patrol vessels can greatly enhance their own coverage with organic UAVs, with a marginal cost per flight hour of basically zero for the newest electric UAVs... making small USVs redundant for surface coverage.

IMHO there's a better argument for long-range oceanic USVs (e.g. Atlantic Bastion), but that's not what is being suggested here.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
For coastal coverage the equation heavily favors land-based air (UAVs) in terms of coverage area, speed, and ability to redeploy along a long coastline. Likewise, launching JSMs or guided bombs from land-based fighters that are already paid for is much cheaper than buying a new dedicated mothership platform and arming it.

The role of patrol vessels has always been centered on things that require human intervention, such as boarding vessels or conducting SAR. That role doesn't go away with USV swarms which are useless for the intervention role and questionable for patrol if you need endurance and seakeeping. On top of that patrol vessels can greatly enhance their own coverage with organic UAVs, with a marginal cost per flight hour of basically zero for the newest electric UAVs... making small USVs redundant for surface coverage.

IMHO there's a better argument for long-range oceanic USVs (e.g. Atlantic Bastion), but that's not what is being suggested here.
Click to expand...
Do aircraft not struggle with intervening at a threshold below hostilities?

Like, if your Russian frigate is encroaching into British waters, or conducting sabotage operations, you're not going to sink it.

A surface asset can block, or herd a frigate, instead.
 
Reuben James said:
Do aircraft not struggle with intervening at a threshold below hostilities?

Like, if your Russian frigate is encroaching into British waters, or conducting sabotage operations, you're not going to sink it.

A surface asset can block, or herd a frigate, instead.
Click to expand...
Can't see how a USV swarm helps with herding or blocking a frigate... they'd just bounce off the steel hull and sink. Unfortunately that's a job for a real ship.

Fortunately the number of Russian vessels encroaching is small enough that it shouldn't be hard to dispatch a patrol vessel or warship.
 
Reuben James said:
https://www.navylookout.com/should-...l-drone-flotilla-to-monitor-russian-warships/

https://www.hisutton.com/Free-World-USV.html

Sutton and the unnamed Navy Lookout author are advocating for a similar concept: replacing the role of the escort, or offshore patrol vessel, in monitoring coastal activity with a flotilla of uncrewed surface vessels.

It's an interesting concept, but one I think works far more effectively when the coastal drone swarm is operated in conjunction with a offshore support vessel in the vein of a Norwegian Standard Vessel.

The OSV could provide support for not just multiple vessels, but multiple swarms. Control does not necessarily have to be onboard the OSV. Instead, drawing inspiration from the Ukrainian battlefield, it could serve as a relay node, securing the connection between the coastal stations and the swarms themselves.

If equipped with a medium-range AShM (NSM most likely), the ship could hold an interloping vessel at risk, whilst leaving the monitoring and close escort role to the USVs.

Monitoring the frigate Grigorovich required a pair of OPVs. Seizing the tanker Smyrtos required a frigate and a mine hunter, with a destroyer lurking in the Channel. All in all, that's five warships to monitor two vessels.

A coastal mothership could provide the local support to the tanker seizure whilst escorting the frigate with the USVs.
Click to expand...
Can the OPVs take a NSM installation? And probably borrow a Bofors from the Type 31.

The suggestion that small speedboat sized drones could hold a Russian frigate at risk is plausible "if its ambiguous whether it carries a 600kg explosive payload"...
 
DJK said:
Can the OPVs take a NSM installation? And probably borrow a Bofors from the Type 31.
Click to expand...
Just about anything with the topweight available can take NSM racks.

I'd want to step up to the Bofors 57mm over the 40mm.


DJK said:
The suggestion that small speedboat sized drones could hold a Russian frigate at risk is plausible "if its ambiguous whether it carries a 600kg explosive payload"...
Click to expand...
You're still going to want a bigger speedboat hull. Not a 9m hull but more like a 20m hull. Offshore powerboats, like a Wellcraft Scarab or Cigarette boat.

Then you stick a couple NSMs on it, a navalized LMM launcher or two for targets too small for NSMs, and a 600kg explosive payload forward. For extra fun, you want something like the Italian semi-submersible boats, so you can dive under that Russian or Chinese frigate and snap the keel.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're still going to want a bigger speedboat hull. Not a 9m hull but more like a 20m hull. Offshore powerboats, like a Wellcraft Scarab or Cigarette boat.

Then you stick a couple NSMs on it, a navalized LMM launcher or two for targets too small for NSMs, and a 600kg explosive payload forward.
Click to expand...

Or just use a Seababy.

Scott Kenny said:
For extra fun, you want something like the Italian semi-submersible boats
Click to expand...
Sort of like a Boom Patrol Boat, you mean? (Designed to blow large holes in Tirpitz)

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060008091
 
DWG said:
Or just use a Seababy.
Click to expand...
Too specific a threat. Seababy is essentially a very long range torpedo with more targeting options.

A 20+m Cigarette boat hull makes for a viable patrolling USV due to the other missiles on it.

Even a modified Class 1 Powerboat is a little too small for what I want.


DWG said:
Sort of like a Boom Patrol Boat, you mean? (Designed to blow large holes in Tirpitz)

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060008091
Click to expand...
Yes!
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd want to step up to the Bofors 57mm over the 40mm.
Click to expand...
If the below deck space wasnt designed for a 57mm gun, you may be back with the 40mm. I would prefer both if they would fit, maybe fore and aft.
Scott Kenny said:
Then you stick a couple NSMs on it, a navalized LMM launcher or two for targets too small for NSMs, and a 600kg explosive payload forward.
Click to expand...
If you have NSM on a drone, don't go and make ita suicide drone. Build a more expendable version for that.
 
DJK said:
If the below deck space wasnt designed for a 57mm gun, you may be back with the 40mm. I would prefer both if they would fit, maybe fore and aft.

If you have NSM on a drone, don't go and make ita suicide drone. Build a more expendable version for that.
Click to expand...
Assumption is that the NSMs would be expended before the drone turns into a torpedo.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Assumption is that the NSMs would be expended before the drone turns into a torpedo.
Click to expand...
Anything with an NSM launcher is not stealthy or streamlined enough to get close to the target. I think a more stealthy version can at least get close enough to launch a torpedo. Alternatively a semi submersible could have the bulk of its fuel on a "trailer" that gets dropped before submerging.
 
H_K said:
Can't see how a USV swarm helps with herding or blocking a frigate... they'd just bounce off the steel hull and sink. Unfortunately that's a job for a real ship.

Fortunately the number of Russian vessels encroaching is small enough that it shouldn't be hard to dispatch a patrol vessel or warship.
Click to expand...
I doubt the Russians want to plow their frigate into a medium-sized USV anyway, though. Especially since there's a non-zero chance that those USVs might just explode.

But I agree, the current number of encroaching vessels is too small to warrant dedicated escort groups.
 
Last edited:
Reuben James said:
I doubt the Russians want to plow their frigate into a medium-sized USV anyway, though. Especially since there's a non-zero chance that those USVs might just explode.

But I agree, the current number of encroaching vessels is to small to warrant dedicated escort groups.
Click to expand...
But then again, a pack of Ukrainian USVs that somehow slipped into the Channel would get taken seriously.
 
If it's got a decent radar - it's good in my book.

As for the LPD-size, maybe it'd be cheaper to build a large hull that can be easily maintained, with lots of space for future upgrades, lots of power generation, et cetera. Maybe we could even call it something new...
 
Reuben James said:
If it's got a decent radar - it's good in my book.

As for the LPD-size, maybe it'd be cheaper to build a large hull that can be easily maintained, with lots of space for future upgrades, lots of power generation, et cetera. Maybe we could even call it something new...
Click to expand...
That's the SMART LPD, not a CCV candidate. Navantia always seem to show it with a substantial radar setup.
What they showed as their CCV option was the Alfa 4000, which is not a path we want to go down.
 
Like what the Qataris have done? Though that's on a San Giorgio mini-LPD, teamed with corvettes with Aster 30.
 
A paper on the hybrid navy cites risks in committing so much to untested uncrewed systems and also the tightness of the deadlines.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/six-common-combat-vessels-no-design-yet-a-2035-deadline/

https://878institute.org/wp-content...ains-Military-Deterrence-Gaps-August-2026.pdf

Robert Clark’s fifth recommendation is to reduce that risk by not starting from scratch. The existing Type 31 frigate design should be the template for the CCVs, he writes, because “a proven platform would minimise production risk, utilise existing supply chains” and maintain shipbuilding at Rosyth once the Type 31 programme finishes in the early 2030s, just as CCV production is expected to begin. Elsewhere he argues the yards at Rosyth “should be utilised for the incoming CCVs”.
...

Type 31 is currently in build at Rosyth. The paper’s related recommendations cover the Type 26 as an export platform and extending the Type 45 to cover the air defence gap left by the Type 83’s cancellation. The Ministry of Defence has not yet responded to the report.
 
DJK said:
They never seem to answer the question of how and what will carry the big radars.
Click to expand...
I noticed that as well.


DJK said:
Maybe adjust Type-31 a smidge so it becomes a tumblehome hull with BMD radar at the waterline.
Click to expand...
Not that low, the waves will intermittently block the radar, but it might be viable to sit at the level of the weather deck. Though that also means you have troubles with BMD radar coverage fore and aft during turns. Grrr. One level above the weather deck?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not that low, the waves will intermittently block the radar, but it might be viable to sit at the level of the weather deck. Though that also means you have troubles with BMD radar coverage fore and aft during turns. Grrr.
Click to expand...
As long as you arent cooking the sailors... and I still think you can't realistically get BMD radars with sufficient power generation, seakeeping and range onto a hull that size.
 
DJK said:
As long as you arent cooking the sailors... and I still think you can't realistically get BMD radars with sufficient power generation, seakeeping and range onto a hull that size.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly.

I mean, the Constellation was only carrying the 3x9RMA version of SPY6 and it ended up as 7000tons. The 4x24RMA fits onto ~9500 tons, and the 4x37RMA needs 10,000. All with active stabilizers.
 
Seems like the next generation radars might be smaller and maybe even multistatic. And not ready in time.
 
DJK said:
Seems like the next generation radars might be smaller and maybe even multistatic. And not ready in time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, apparently BAE's new AESA family are focusing on enhancing performance by boosting component sensitivity, rather than just the raw power throughput. Not sure if that's a genuine improvement, or an innovation forced upon them due to costs and space.
 
Reuben James said:
Yeah, apparently BAE's new AESA family are focusing on enhancing performance by boosting component sensitivity, rather than just the raw power throughput. Not sure if that's a genuine improvement, or an innovation forced upon them due to costs and space.
Click to expand...
Their demonstrator is designed to fit in the same space as Artisan, which is a huge constraint. It is however very much larger and from the NL article has at least 200 and possibly as many as 600 of BAE's future TRM, which is described as more sensitive but with no mention of being more powerful than current radar, though it likely is with GaN.

The indicated panels on FAWCS being slightly smaller than SPY-6 v1 would also support that.
 
Reuben James said:
That's not too far from a single Sampson array, right? They have about 600-700 T/RM per face.
Click to expand...
It's an absolute upper limit, using the numbers from the NL article of a maximum of 75 TRMs per subarray and taking the extra trapezoidal spaces on the sides to be subarrays as well for 8x75=600 TRMs.
1785932226404.png
Sampson is supposed to have 640 TRMs a side.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Their demonstrator is designed to fit in the same space as Artisan, which is a huge constraint. It is however very much larger and from the NL article has at least 200 and possibly as many as 600 of BAE's future TRM, which is described as more sensitive but with no mention of being more powerful than current radar, though it likely is with GaN.

The indicated panels on FAWCS being slightly smaller than SPY-6 v1 would also support that.
Click to expand...
You're still looking at a ~9500 ton ship with USN hull and bulkhead thickness in that case, and I would not recommend going thinner for a ship intended to hang out in the winter North Atlantic!
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're still looking at a ~9500 ton ship with USN hull and bulkhead thickness in that case, and I would not recommend going thinner for a ship intended to hang out in the winter North Atlantic!
Click to expand...
The 160m version of FAWCS as publicised was given as ~10000T so Burke flt3 dimensions but there was also a (more likely IMO) 150m version which wasn't any thinner.
RN historically has pretty decent build quality- the T23s lasted even with deliberately thinner hull plating as Atlantic ASW frigates- so I think we'd be fine on that front.
 
TorpedoJ said:
The 160m version of FAWCS as publicised was given as ~10000T so Burke flt3 dimensions but there was also a (more likely IMO) 150m version which wasn't any thinner.
RN historically has pretty decent build quality- the T23s lasted even with deliberately thinner hull plating as Atlantic ASW frigates- so I think we'd be fine on that front.
Click to expand...
Build knowledge is not the problem for the Brits, it's funding. It's allways about the money. Or lack thereof.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom