BLACK SWAN Sloop

[rampant]

Think of it as a modern version of an oropesa sweep. When introduced even battleships were going to be able to sweep mines and we know where that led.

They found them didn't they?

 

[BONNACON]

yep

They found them didn't they?

Yep.

 

[Guns]

All ships are minehunters, some are one shot but still can give it a go.

 

[Yokel]

You're missing the point. There will be sophisticated, dedicated minehunting sonars. Just instead of on the bottom of an expensive ship, of which you have very few, you stick it on a remote vehicle. That way you don't put expensive ships and people into the minefield, where a sophisticated enemy can specifically target you. Killing the minehunters early on in a war makes your real or fake minefields totally effective.

Would protecting MCMVs not be a FF/DD/carrier based aircraft task?

Surely your cheap metal ship then becomes a target, with all the eggs in one basket? I think my idea is not a million miles away from yours, but I worry about how you communicate with remote vehicles, particuly in noisy seas. I worry even more about how all that informtion is integrated in real time. These are fragile technologies. Also where do you deploy the Seafox (or whatever) from?

I think that minehunting sonar is a reasonable back up (use demagnetised steel for the hull), and allows other tasks to be performed, such as survey or looking for shipwrecks/lost aircraft. I think I gave my thoughts on this on page one.

My knowledge of sonar is limited, but surely a larger transducer and high power gives greater resolution that a small one with limited power? Clever mines (Manta?) are intended to look like the seabed.

The BLACK SWAN concept seems to be an attempt to square the circle. It say that the declining number of hulls flying the White Ensign is an issue, then proposes a reduced number of hulls. It proposes the use of remote systems, but proposes a ship with very austere communications - surely communications are what make the remote systems work.

 

[Yokel]

Single-Purpose Warships for the Littorals - from the US Naval Institute Proceedings

 

[SOI]

Single-Purpose Targets for the Littorals - from the US Naval Institute Proceedings

Edited to reflect a conversation with a GWI Lynx pilot

 

[Yeoman_dai]

Yeah but where do you deploy them from?

[snip] Build class of vessels larger than Hunt/Sandown size (small frigate size?) from demagnetised steel. [snip]

Gadzooks, how much money do you think we have? The German MCM's are extortionate, and they're smaller than a Hunt in footprint (good ships though)

Plans for future developments such as a longer range version of Sea Fox,

Seafox breaks and goes rogue enough without sending it even further from the ship.

[snip]

You make some good points, that could work. But remote systems using Remus and Seafox heading into the danger area are where it's at, and the sooner we achieve it the better. If the ship isn't going into the area then there is no need for it to be magnetised.

And don't call divers weapons. They're bad enough as it is.

 

[rampant]

3 Days until the final decision on options for Black Swan Sloop (laid down 1941)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...-save-last-Battle-of-the-Atlantic-escort.html

 

[Yeoman_dai]

Information Dissemination: Strength in Numbers: The Remarkable Potential of (really) Small Combatants

But surely small means short range, unstable in heavy seas, and vulnerable to damage?

Not Freedom/Independance or Visby sized. Beyond the latter.

That cost analysis is a load of steaming sh!t though. He's conveniently forgetting that the cost of one Zumwalt (which is what he;s referring to) is around the 200 mark. The crews of 8 smaller combatants would be around twice that, plus all the stores and logistical issues with running them. Totally and utterly not worth it for a +.6% improvement.

This is why you shouldn't let Lieutenants do staffwork. F*cking Lieutenants....

 

[Yeoman_dai]

Our birds sir!

Ha.

PWO Banter.

 

[Yeoman_dai]

Would protecting MCMVs not be a FF/DD/carrier based aircraft task?

Surely your cheap metal ship then becomes a target, with all the eggs in one basket? I think my idea is not a million miles away from yours, but I worry about how you communicate with remote vehicles, particuly in noisy seas. I worry even more about how all that informtion is integrated in real time. These are fragile technologies. Also where do you deploy the Seafox (or whatever) from?

I think that minehunting sonar is a reasonable back up (use demagnetised steel for the hull), and allows other tasks to be performed, such as survey or looking for shipwrecks/lost aircraft. I think I gave my thoughts on this on page one.

My knowledge of sonar is limited, but surely a larger transducer and high power gives greater resolution that a small one with limited power? Clever mines (Manta?) are intended to look like the seabed.

The BLACK SWAN concept seems to be an attempt to square the circle. It say that the declining number of hulls flying the White Ensign is an issue, then proposes a reduced number of hulls. It proposes the use of remote systems, but proposes a ship with very austere communications - surely communications are what make the remote systems work.

You do not need to mount a M/H sonar on the hull. You can get some very good results with various autonomous results out there. Please stop talking about de-magnetised steel, it's a non-starter RN ships do not want to drive into the minefield. That isn't to say you can't put personnel into the field, just avoid putting the big metal thing in, so it can send smaller non-metal remus/seafox carrying boats with a smaller mission crew. That, from (limited but current) experience, is where we need to go. Thankfully, we are.

Can I just point out manning? For any of the concepts currently bouncing around this thread, from the T26, to the BS.. sorry Black Sloop Class stuff, we do NOT have the people. We don't even have the people to man the current shps we have let alone a new class, or 'more cheap warships'.

We leave it as it is, and as i've mentioned in the T26 thread, the current haemorrhage of people will just get worse. This is a harsh truth that the fantasy fleet types on here are forgetting.

 

[seaweed]

Yet another round of the ever-recurring delusion that naval power can be done on the cheap.

 

[Dunservin]

I can't resist a sad smile when people talk confidently about keeping ships 'outside' the minefield. The concept didn't work too well in GW1.

A bit like towing a ship 'outside' the environment: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXfWfJz59pk

 

[Yeoman_dai]

With respect Dun, technology has moved on a phenomenal amount in 13 years. To try compare results then with the technology now is a non-starter, and at best ridiculous and at worst foolish.

It is the way forwards.

 

[SOI]

Manpower?

One problem the RN still refuses to grasp is its very poor 'bang for buck' on manning.

A starter for ten? Stop forcing people onto the 'career progression' ladder and off ships into desk jobs they hate. There are people who are quite happy to just drive grey things yet, in the career progession driven model that is seen as a black mark, a lack of ambition, surely everyone wants a desk/staff job chaps?

The number of people actually driving ships on any given day is very small.

 

[Awesomo_2000]

Put the desks on the ships?

In this 21st century with the comms available that should be possible.

 

[seaweed]

The number of ships per potential driver is what is small. The RN has been wrestling with this for fifty years. On experiment was the 'wet' and 'dry' list concept whereby fish head promotion to cdr went one way or the other with the supposed most bright-eyed and bushy-tailed going 'wet' and the also-rans going 'dry' i.e.debarred from further sea service and thus unlikely to make flag. Another was reducing the length of a drive so that more could have a turn, resulting in a big mental gear change for everyone else half-way through a commission. There was also in the 60s and 70s the survival of the Captain(F) (or (D) which gave a junior 4-ringer a drive and a test run before something bigger, but at the expense of a drive for a commander. The actual function was completely irrelevant as the Leader hardly saw the other ships which were odd-jobbing all over the place and it was a major feat just to cram in the annual inspections. Then staff merely added a layer of ill-informed paperwork and delay between the private ship and FO2 and repeated in a second tour what they had already done once already. There is another factor, mentioned in a talk I went to some years ago, which is that the RAF was better at producing Whitehall Warriors and the RN needed to find a way of bringing forward future admirals who had political nous and were good at staffwork, whereas (my inference) the whole of one's early training was geared to produce captains of ships and this effectively filtered much other but different talent out of the flag list.

I have no idea what the answer is.

 

[instinct]

The number of ships per potential driver is what is small. The RN has been wrestling with this for fifty years. On experiment was the 'wet' and 'dry' list concept whereby fish head promotion to cdr went one way or the other with the supposed most bright-eyed and bushy-tailed going 'wet' and the also-rans going 'dry' i.e.debarred from further sea service and thus unlikely to make flag. Another was reducing the length of a drive so that more could have a turn, resulting in a big mental gear change for everyone else half-way through a commission. There is another factor, mentioned in a talk I went to some years ago, which is that the RAF was better at producing Whitehall Warriors and the RN needed to find a way of bringing forward future admirals who had political nous and were good at staffwork, whereas (my inference) the whole of one's early training was geared to produce captains of ships and this effectively filtered much other but different talent out of the flag list. I have no idea what the answer is.

Well the navy is pretty stuck in the idea that the only the gods of the executive warfare branch ever get any where.

As for manning. I know the RN has looked at the idea but copying the RFA way of rotating manning. Not the whole ships company rotates at once sort of thing. As I feel that does lead to "problems" being left for the next team.

Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

 

[seaweed]

Catch is, you work up one set of people and then when the ship has to do something serious she's got a different set of people who haven't worked up together.

 

[Awesomo_2000]

Don't you guys trickle feed?