Closing the GIUK Gap now

DWG

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
11 February 2007
Messages
2,413
Reaction score
3,851
FighterJock said:
Too true Scott Kenny, we need far more ASW ships.
Click to expand...
See https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-autonomous-asw-screen-in-the-north-atlantic/

TLDR: Project Cabot proposes as Phase 1 "Atlantic NET" coverage of GIUK gap using a COCONO (contractor owned, contractor operated, naval oversight) “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” deployed within two years, followed by Phase 2 "Bastion Atlantic", which transitions to a government owned, government operated RN force of unmanned Type 92 ASW sloops and Type 93 Chariots (I'd expect this latter to be a derivative of the CETUS XLUUV)
 
DWG said:
See https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-autonomous-asw-screen-in-the-north-atlantic/

TLDR: Project Cabot proposes as Phase 1 "Atlantic NET" coverage of GIUK gap using a COCONO (contractor owned, contractor operated, naval oversight) “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” deployed within two years, followed by Phase 2 "Bastion Atlantic", which transitions to a government owned, government operated RN force of unmanned Type 92 ASW sloops and Type 93 Chariots (I'd expect this latter to be a derivative of the CETUS XLUUV)
Click to expand...
Oh, they're being funny!

Gonna be interesting if any of those COCONO ships need to have weapons onboard.
 
DWG said:
using a COCONO (contractor owned, contractor operated, naval oversight) “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” deployed within two years
Click to expand...
That sort of arrangement tends not to end well at all.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Gonna be interesting if any of those COCONO ships need to have weapons onboard.
Click to expand...
My read is that Phase 1 is intended to deliver something akin to the USN's SURTASS ships, rather than combatant vessels.
Hood said:
If it works, good luck convincing the Treasury to proceed to Phase 2 with "government owned, government operated" assets.
Click to expand...
Nothing so permanent as a temporary solution....
 
Yellow Palace said:
My read is that Phase 1 is intended to deliver something akin to the USN's SURTASS ships, rather than combatant vessels.
Click to expand...
Okay, that might work. Still gonna really suck for whoever is on them due to the "lean manning."

I mean, you need 6-8 people to stand helm/lookout and engineroom watches 24/7. Then you need however many bodies your sonar needs. And I'd really rather have a separate radar watch and physical lookout, so now we're up to 12-16 bodies just to have the ship out at sea, not counting the sonar nerds.

Helm/OOD
Radar
Lookout
Engineer of the Watch

However many sonar nerds you need to work the system, times 3-4.

Captain/Master
Cook or three
Medic


Yellow Palace said:
Nothing so permanent as a temporary solution....
Click to expand...
So true.
 
Sonar feed is likely bounced by satellite to heavy duty processing on land. No need for anything but maintenance to keep the electronics running.
Plus with this is with accurate GPS a very good picture can be built up in 3D.

Might invest in LoS feed to a Type 26 or MPA if it's available. For local prosecution if need be.

UUV could extend coverage in 3D and maybe in future provide prosecution of a target.

So essentially a minimum crew to handle the ship and keep the basic system working.
Major breakdown of technology and you head into port.

Could do this with a civilian crew.
 
zen said:
Sonar feed is likely bounced by satellite to heavy duty processing on land. No need for anything but maintenance to keep the electronics running.
Plus with this is with accurate GPS a very good picture can be built up in 3D.
Click to expand...

Given that GPS and other satellites would likely to be targets in a major war, that would be a potential point failure in itself.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Given that GPS and other satellites would likely to be targets in a major war, that would be a potential point failure in itself.
Click to expand...
Yes but if the new technology on navigation works (trialled in Patrick Blackett) and is affordable.... We'll see a move over to this and away from GPS.
But what this 'peacetime' system in GPS gives us is the means to build up the capability now. While the new technology is believed to be very secure being dependent on a form of inertial navigation.

The system of systems as a whole might be trialled in the North Atlantic, but nothing precludes it from being deployed elsewhere.....such as parts of the Pacific or South China Sea for example.
 
DWG said:
See https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-autonomous-asw-screen-in-the-north-atlantic/

TLDR: Project Cabot proposes as Phase 1 "Atlantic NET" coverage of GIUK gap using a COCONO (contractor owned, contractor operated, naval oversight) “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” deployed within two years, followed by Phase 2 "Bastion Atlantic", which transitions to a government owned, government operated RN force of unmanned Type 92 ASW sloops and Type 93 Chariots (I'd expect this latter to be a derivative of the CETUS XLUUV)
Click to expand...
Impressively, the reporting on this has spun out a single powerpoint slide to several times its length. I've downloaded that single slide and attached it as a PDF.

It looks like Phase 1 is expected to become operational in the 2027-2028 timeframe, which is the COCONO element. Literally all that's specified about Types 92 and 93 is 'ASW USV' and 'ASW UUV'. More detail might come out publicly after the industry briefing on 5th March.
 

Attachments

  • CABOT technical slide.pdf
    672.2 KB · Views: 10
Yellow Palace said:
Literally all that's specified about Types 92 and 93 is 'ASW USV' and 'ASW UUV'.
Click to expand...
There's some interesting possibilities in where they're shown in the graphic, with a line of Type 93s off the North Cape, but no Type 92s north of the GIUK gap. Which suggests the Type 93 has a much longer range than I'd anticipated.
 
zen said:
Sonar feed is likely bounced by satellite to heavy duty processing on land. No need for anything but maintenance to keep the electronics running.
Click to expand...
Which is at least one body per watch section, if you're doing all the heavy lifting off-board. Not counting however many deck folks you need to stream the towed arrays.

Those people will still likely be military, since they'd need to be cleared and trained on systems of military significance.



zen said:
So essentially a minimum crew to handle the ship and keep the basic system working.
Major breakdown of technology and you head into port.

Could do this with a civilian crew.
Click to expand...
Sonar nerds are very likely to be military, due to knowing how to keep the fancy sonars working. Though I suppose they could be civilian employees of the MoD instead of enlisted.

Edit: The USN SURTASS ships carry 5-25 military, and have a crew of 19-25.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Which is at least one body per watch section, if you're doing all the heavy lifting off-board. Not counting however many deck folks you need to stream the towed arrays.
Click to expand...
Definitely, but we can be certain you don't need a crew of 140.
Scott Kenny said:
Those people will still likely be military, since they'd need to be cleared and trained on systems of military significance.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with a small command.
I think to prove this the work can be done by civilian contractors, though security clearances mean staff have to be under the eye of the state. Corporate "any contractor we employ" is going to hit state security concerns too much.
But operational use means security and anti-piracy, which is best left to actual Navy people.
Scott Kenny said:
Sonar nerds are very likely to be military, due to knowing how to keep the fancy sonars working. Though I suppose they could be civilian employees of the MoD instead of enlisted.
Click to expand...
Sonar is actually being done on land, the raw product is being gathered by the ships and sent back via datalink. That of over to Type 26 nearby.
 
zen said:
Sonar is actually being done on land, the raw product is being gathered by the ships and sent back via datalink. That of over to Type 26 nearby.
Click to expand...
I don't mean looking at tracks, I mean making sure the systems keep working. Which at least in the USN is part of the Sonar Tech training.

And I think you missed my edit. USN SURTASS ships have a civilian crew of 19-25, and a military crew of 5-25 (depending on class). The bigger crew belongs to USNS Impeccable, TAGOS-23. The Victorious-class has 19+5. But those are not small ships, the Victorious class are 3100 tons and Impeccable is 5300.
 
I would suspect Patrick Blackett (Damen ...I forget which) is probably the sort of size of vessel in contention here.
 
DWG said:
There's some interesting possibilities in where they're shown in the graphic, with a line of Type 93s off the North Cape, but no Type 92s north of the GIUK gap. Which suggests the Type 93 has a much longer range than I'd anticipated.
Click to expand...
I'd be wary about reading too much into that graphic – it may just depict a general concept of a dense GIUK barrier with less intensive patrols elsewhere in the Atlantic Bastion. Also worth bearing in mind that the Russians have been doing A²/AD since before it was cool – the life expectancy of a Type 92 in the Norwegian Sea is likely to be very short if things go hot.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't mean looking at tracks, I mean making sure the systems keep working. Which at least in the USN is part of the Sonar Tech training.

And I think you missed my edit. USN SURTASS ships have a civilian crew of 19-25, and a military crew of 5-25 (depending on class). The bigger crew belongs to USNS Impeccable, TAGOS-23. The Victorious-class has 19+5. But those are not small ships, the Victorious class are 3100 tons and Impeccable is 5300.
Click to expand...

SURTASS is interesting, and I actually wonder about the "naval" crew. I have found an unofficial program history that says the naval personnel are all ashore. My guess is that if there are naval folks embarked, they are mostly CTs, not sonar people.


And a Leidos fact sheet that talks about contractors both maintaining and operating the system afloat.

 
TomS said:
SURTASS is interesting, and I actually wonder about the "naval" crew. I have found an unofficial program history that says the naval personnel are all ashore. My guess is that if there are naval folks embarked, they are mostly CTs, not sonar people.


And a Leidos fact sheet that talks about contractors both maintaining and operating the system afloat.

Click to expand...
Impeccable sounds like she has both a security detachment and a military sonar detachment onboard, as well as some contractors, at least when they were talking about a rescue operation in 2015:
On July 19, 2015 while en route for a scheduled port visit to Subic Bay, USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS 23) rescued 11 fishermen. Impeccable sailors spotted personnel on a partially submerged ship and noted debris in the water. "They [Impeccable crew] initially spotted only eight people on the partially submerged vessel," said Lt. Cory Hilgart, the theater anti-submarine watch officer at Commander, Task Force 74. "They then realized that it was actually 11 and made the call to commence the rescue effort." Impeccable's master immediately deemed assistance was required and began preparations to deploy their rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) to rescue the personnel. "This was a team effort with civilian mariners, SECDET [security detachment], MILDET [military detachment] and Lockheed Martin working together to achieve an efficient rescue of all 11 fishermen," said Robert Wiechert, Master of Impeccable. The RHIB made three trips to the distressed vessel and recovered all eleven individuals. "One of the crew members spoke English," said Hilgart. "He told the Impeccable crew that they were fishermen from the Subic Bay region. He confirmed that there were only 11 on board." Once the mariners were brought aboard Impeccable, they were examined by medical personnel and given food and water. No serious injuries or illnesses were reported. Shortly after Impeccable arrived in port in Subic Bay, July 20, the mariners were turned over to the Philippine Coast Guard.
Click to expand...
From the wiki entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Impeccable#2015_rescue_at_sea

But again, that's the monster sized, 5300 ton SURTASS ship.

I would recommend a SWATH catamaran design like the Victorious-class for the UK's Type 92 USVs. It makes a more stable deck in bad weather, which means it would be easier to land maintainers onto the USVs if needed emergently.

I'm sure the US would be willing to sell the data package of the Victorious-class not counting the towed array, and they were designed for operations in the North Atlantic.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Impeccable sounds like she has both a security detachment and a military sonar detachment onboard, as well as some contractors, at least when they were talking about a rescue operation in 2015:

From the wiki entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Impeccable#2015_rescue_at_sea

But again, that's the monster sized, 5300 ton SURTASS ship.

I would recommend a SWATH catamaran design like the Victorious-class for the UK's Type 92 USVs. It makes a more stable deck in bad weather, which means it would be easier to land maintainers onto the USVs if needed emergently.

I'm sure the US would be willing to sell the data package of the Victorious-class not counting the towed array, and they were designed for operations in the North Atlantic.
Click to expand...

I think that's far, far too big for what the RN has described. They describe the USV as 40mm vessel, but I think something in the vein of Abeking and Rasmussen's 25mm SWATH USV might also work..
 
Moved from the „ Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier class ( Program CVF ) on active duty“ thread, as having gone into another direction.
Feel free to come up with another title …
 
In this day and age, with all the changes in climate, technologies, politics, alliances, strategies, and tactics, is that mythical gap even a thing anymore to worry about? Just asking for a dear close old friend who inherently distrusts the military industrial complex...
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I'm sure the US would be willing to sell the data package of the Victorious-class not counting the towed array, and they were designed for operations in the North Atlantic.
Click to expand...
The RN did get fairly well down the line of designing a SWATH ocean surveillance ship in the 1980s. IIRC plans were to build three of them, but the end of the Cold War put paid to those plans.
martinbayer said:
In this day and age, with all the changes in climate, technologies, politics, alliances, strategies, and tactics, is that mythical gap even a thing anymore to worry about?
Click to expand...
If one is concerned about Russia, it's probably the best choke point to keep the Northern Fleet out of the Atlantic.
 
Jemiba said:
Feel free to come up with another title …
Click to expand...
Maybe add "Type 92 and 93" to the title, so we can corral discussion about those two systems here as well?


martinbayer said:
In this day and age, with all the changes in climate, technologies, politics, alliances, strategies, and tactics, is that mythical gap even a thing anymore to worry about? Just asking for a dear close old friend who inherently distrusts the military industrial complex...
Click to expand...
It's the only way to keep unfriendlies out of the larger North Atlantic, whether they fly Russian or Chinese flags. Russia is pretty self-explanatory, though I doubt they will continue to be a problem after Putin dies of old age. Assuming that the Arctic does actually clear off, that would allow the Chinese difficult-but-not-impossible access into the North Atlantic over the pole instead of going via the Panama Canal or Straits of Magellan.
 
martinbayer said:
In this day and age, with all the changes in climate, technologies, politics, alliances, strategies, and tactics, is that mythical gap even a thing anymore to worry about?
Click to expand...
With a resurgent Russia, it's definitely an area that merits watching. It forces transiting subs into a geographically confined space, enhancing the chance of detecting and engaging them.
 
'Close the GIUK Gap Now' (why now perchance ?) belligerent and clickbait titles such as this just lead to further kneejerk reactionary posting.
As far as i am aware everything subsurface passing through the GIUK gap is noted and monitored
 
Monitoring (under)sea traffic in that area is all well and fine, but that at a time even a hypersonic GIUK gap interceptor (huh???) was bandied about smacks just a little too much like military-industrial complex to me...
 
TsrJoe said:
As far as i am aware everything subsurface passing through the GIUK gap is noted and monitored
Click to expand...
The RN, acting as NATO lead on this, seems to feel that system needs enhancing. As for the thread title, that didn't come from any of the participants.
 
martinbayer said:
Monitoring (under)sea traffic in that area is all well and fine, but that at a time even a hypersonic GIUK gap interceptor (huh???) was bandied about smacks just a little too much like military-industrial complex to me...
Click to expand...
That was a 1960s proposal from McDonnell Douglas and has nothing whatsoever to do with the RN's current proposals.
 
DWG said:
As for the thread title, that didn't come from any of the participants.
Click to expand...
The obvious title would be Project CABOT, at least to my mind, given that this forum tends to prefer naming threads for the projects they discuss. Perhaps Project CABOT: Type 92 UUV, Type 93 USV, and associated infrastructure to capture the platforms involved.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom