The Royal Navy has awarded a contract for a large autonomous submarine.
Plymouth-based MSubs Ltd are to provide the Royal Navy with a 30-metre underwater vehicle with a range of up to 3,000 nautical miles.
According to a Royal Navy news release the XLUUV (Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle), known as Manta, has been designed and built in just 14 months.
A Ministry of Defence statement said:
“An initial £1 million contract has been awarded to Plymouth-based MSubs Ltd to build a test submarine that will be used to explore the potential capabilities of larger uncrewed underwater vehicles in the future. Measuring about 30m in length, this extra-large autonomous submarine is significantly larger than autonomous submarines used for beach reconnaissance, allowing it to operate at a range of 3000 nautical miles.
XLUUV submarines are especially adept at covert intelligence gathering. They can leave their dock autonomously and secretly move to the operational area without any embarked crew for up to three months. They are also able to sense hostile targets and report their findings back to the station, making them an important barrier for anti-submarine warfare.”
For more imagery and specifications, see the MSubs website here.
“I am really excited by the possibilities that this offers to increase our reach and lethality, improve our efficiency and reduce the number of people we have to put in harm’s way,” Admiral Radakin was quoted as saying.
Paddy Dowsett from MSubs said in a news release:
“We are thrilled to be awarded this contract through DASA, and have the opportunity to work with defence scientists and experts to develop new and advanced capabilities for the Royal Navy. This funding will allow the Royal Navy to better understand their future roles and for us to remain at the forefront of Extra Large Uncrewed Underwater Vehicles (XLUUV) design and manufacture in Europe.”
What could the submarine look like?
MSubs say that ‘XLUUV/Manta/S201’ is “a 9 metre, 8.9 tonne vehicle intended for 48hr operation at depths up to 305m”, it is likely however to be modified to fit the 30 metre and 3,000 nautical mile range detailed by the First Sea Lord.
“XLUUV/Manta/S201 is an 8.9 tonne vehicle intended for 48hr operation at depths up to 305m. This project is an example of our rapid prototyping capabilities. From outline specification to launch took just 14 months. Dived performance is maximised by attention to streamlining of the outer hull and by the use of advanced motor technology to directly drive the main propeller. Surface running is possible with one crew member on deck and hatch closed, at speeds up to 6kn in modest sea states, but the vessel’s primary mode of deployment is by crane-in.”
What are the next steps?
The first phase of DASA’s Developing the Royal Navy’s Autonomous Underwater Capability programme will see an existing crewed submersible refitted with autonomous control systems, say the Ministry of Defence.
“If initial testing is successful, up to a further £1.5 million is available to further test the new capability.”
On other recent threads, it has been pointed out that the replacement for the Astutes will be large for SSNs, so having a smaller UUV to carry out some of the tasks makes a lot of sense. It would still be a brave commander who would order one into shallow, restricted waters, with the risk that it could become stranded and fall into the wrong hands.
A couple of these could be used to make sure the Faslane channel is clear to deep water for SSN and SSBN. Could cover for TAPS.
The ARCIMs unmanned MCM system is being used for that. These have 3,000km range – for deep ocean work – could be used to increase surveillance and also provide a ‘loyal wingman’ type force multiplier capability for the Astutes.
MCM isn’t being used for that. It doesn’t go far enough out. The exit for subs from Faslane is much farther out. TAPS is deployed specifically to sanitise the channel.
An XLUUV cannot be a loyal wingman. It doesn’t have the speed or range, but it does have its uses.
Looks great if this is what we are getting.
Having read the Navy press release, it is clear that the contract that has been issued is for one of the smaller, shorter range vessels, of a type that already exists. Experience gained through trials work with this vessel will then lead, hopefully, at some time in the future to the larger 3000km range boat. Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I suspect this will be a long time off.
Ed. I notice that the MOD press release has been corrected. For example, where, as per your quote, it said ‘ Measuring about 30m in length, this extra-large autonomous submarine is significantly larger than autonomous submarines used for beach reconnaissance,’ this has now been altered to 30′ long.
Where is the money to pay for this?
Defence budget where else ?
From the rapid capabilities office – a fund designed to support rapid acquisition of new technologies. The intention to acquire an experimental XLUUV was announced middle of last year. I think Boeing and a couple of others were in the running too (Boeing are making one for the USN).
It would appear that the sums involved are tiny in relation to the cost of bigger RN assets so would imagine the existing Defence budgets can accomodate.
Torpedo tubes?
More likely some means of launching and recovering smaller UUVs.
Maybe a payload module? Spearfish (heavyweight) is 7 m long and Stingray (lightweight) is 2.5 m long. To fit either one of those and the launching mechanisms into the ~25 m long hull, along with the AIP system, batteries, ballast system, sensors and comms would be tricky. They should definitely have one though!
Would you really need a compressed air launch tube or could they not be carried externally? (either on arms or a cannister tube)
I’m not an expert, so don’t know for sure. But I don’t think you could carry them internally without a compressed air launch system. External carriage of a torpedo would have hydrodynamic and acoustic consequences, which may not be the best plan. That’s why I suggested a payload bay; I had in mind a hydrodynamically efficient form that could be bolted to the outside of the hull (similar to a conformal fuel tank on a fighter jet), that can carry anything from a torpedo, to an ASM, to some other sensor load. Basically, fancy external carriage!
It’s autonomous, presumably by necessity because aren’t high bandwidth communications with underwater vessels pretty much impossible with today’s technology? (Someone with more knowledge of the comms issues, if indeed they exist, please correct/expand as necessary on that last bit.)
Assuming my understanding of the comms issues is correct then the use of torpedoes would likely need to be autonomous without a human in the loop so probably essentially unusable under current rules of engagement.
I suppose that maybe if an armed sub had selected a target that it thought appropriate to attack it could pop up a comms buoy and transmit a burst of real-time sensor data to a control station and await human permission to fire but at that point it would presumably lose the element of surprise so not an ideal solution.
Just gives the bean counters in the treasury an excuse to argue for less ‘full fat’ SSN’s and more of these, if you ask me.
No reduction in planned building of Astutes and Dreadnoughts.
No doubt these vessels have their uses, but can we really afford to be going there right now? Get the A boats and Type 31s sorted, then think about spending money elsewhere. Spend money where it needs to be spent right now…..
These are a rounding error in the Sub budget.
Contracts are being signed for Type 31’s and the Astutes are getting built as we speak. So it isn’t either or.
https://securitynewsdesk.com/babcock-team-31-awards-supply-chain-contracts-for-type-31-frigate-programme/
The Astutes have stalled at Boat 4 and the Type in it’s current form – armaments wise will be a laughing stock, in addition to the fact our surface vessels need a modern anti-ship missile! Let’s deal with one thing at a time before we start pouring money into something else.
The Astute delay has got nothing to do with this autonomous vessel. Has the Type 31 final configuration been confirmed yet ?
In what sense are the armaments a laughing stock? The fact that they don’t have VLS for strike missiles? They still have TLAM and heavyweight torpedoes that are top class for ASW and killing ships.
Last I heard, the plan was still to have the remainder of the class in the water by the end of the decade, and the funding is confirmed…
I think Paul was referring to the armament of the Type 31.
Ah, thank you, that makes some more sense! I still wouldn’t completely agree, but certainly there’s a discussion to be had.
TLAM? The Type 31 in it’s current form will only have 2 x 50mm, 1 x 57mm and 12 Sea Ceptors (that’s only 6 shots). The hull is a good one, but it’s just an oversized OPV- because of COST.
Sorry, your comment missed off the “31” out, so I thought the Type you were referring to was Astute. You’re quite right, no TLAM on the T31.
Ridiculous to me.
Ideal Type 31 armament would be 57mm gun, 2 x 50mm, 24 Sea Ceptors and 8 x either NSM or LRASM in a pair of quad canister launchers bolted onto the deck. Relatively cheap and gives the ship enough armament to defend itself in a fight and also be of some use if joining our carrier fleet.
Steve – Was “2 x 50mm” supposed to be “2 x 40mm” i.e. gun-wise are you saying OK as planned or proposing a change there.
On the missile load out I agree, and as you say relatively cheap especially if we introduce NSM/JSM for F-35, P-8A or both so there is some commonality.
On Sea Ceptor I still think introducing a modular adapter would at least be worth costing out. 8 x T26 plus even only 5 T31 probably means about 16 modular units needed vs 21 fixed silos across that fleet (2 per T26 & 1 per T31). By removing silos from the 3 or 4 ships that are likely in deep maintenance at any given time that should still be enough to make sure that every ship on deployment or work-up always sails with all Sea Ceptor silos installed (i.e. not like the Phalanx depends-on-deployment policy).
If we got a second batch of T31 the savings from not having a silo sitting in a vessel that is in deep maintenance increases further since those extra 5 T31 would probably only require the procurement of an extra 4 Sea Ceptor modular silos. Would this be enough to bump the T31 Sea Ceptor load from 12 to 24 at virtually no extra cost I wonder.
It also opens the opportunities for adding modular receivers to other vessels such as T45, next generation MCM motherships etc.
We aren’t that skint. And we don’t spend money on somthing we don’t need. There will be a requirement for this.
Sadly we are that skint! The fact that our surface escorts are still sailing with an obsolete version of Harpoon and we sold our only LPH to Brazil is living proof of that.
Yes, but we now have 2x 70k ton aircraft carriers, instead of a 21k ton helicopter carrier that only had a 20 year design life span. And nobody has fired an anti ship missile at anyone since the Falklands war, 38 years ago. so I wouldn’t loose any sleep over it.
Ocean came about as a direct result of the Fslklands, which demonstrated a dire need for a Littoral LPH – a role which our new carriers cannot take on. Iran doesn’t patrol the straits of Hormuz with small fast, lightly armed speed boats, they also have larger, genuine patrol vessels with rapid fire guns and anti ship missiles……..
We have been dealing with the Iranians for the last 30 years, with great success. Having served in those waters myself, the RN is more than capable of dealing with any threat, in the gulf region, Iranian or other.
The vessels we have in the Gulf at the moment – notably HMS Montrose – a Type 23 and on occasions Type 45s including HMS Duncan are all equipped with anti-ship missiles in the form.of the ageing Harppon 1C, but the Type 31 will be no match for the Iranian vessels equipped with Anti ship cruise Missiles. At the end of the day we wish to avoid conflict, but as the temperturs ramp up on occasions, we have to be ready for anything that might transpire……
Except you have no idea what is going to be fitted to a T31 yet, and the T26 will be a world better. and the Iranian navy is of very limited capabilities. The RN knows way more about the threats faced then some blokes on the internet.
Serious question: If blokes on the internet cannot contribute anything to defence, and probably aren’t much of a threat either, what is the point of coming here and enlightening them on how things really are? Isn’t that a waste of time?
Nobody said blokes on the Internet can’t contribute to defence. My point is many people have some pretty unrealistic views on defence. Be it over estimating the threats, un-relistictic idea about the cost of defence equipment, and also those who seem to think they know more about the threats we face from the comfort of there smart phone sat at home, then the RN does.
“Nobody said blokes on the Internet can’t contribute to defence.”
I do. Having tried not to be a fantasy fleeter, and seen people elsewhere argue and argue and not accomplish anything, it would be nice to know what those of use who are too cowardly, fat, and stupid to join up (I grudgingly admit I am all three) could do to help defence.
That depends on who those ‘bloles’ are…….where they’ve been and done and the simple fact that they might actually be actively involved with the Defence of the UK in one role or another.
The Iranian Navy has a number of well equipped patrol vessels carrying anti-ship cruise missiles. They recognise that smaller vessels are far better suited to the waters in and around the straits of Hormuz. They are faster and more manouverable than larger western vessels and able to engage those vessels at close range in surprise attacks that could actually cripple one.
Never, ever, underestimate the capabilities of your potential enemies, just ensure your are ready for any eventuality.
And the RN is ready for any eventuality, particularly in the gulf.
At present with the Type 23s & 45s we have the capability to engage potential adversaries with anti-ship missiles at range, and if martlet is fitted to the 30mm mounts that would enhance the said capabilities further. A very recent successful third test firing of Sea Venom brings more to the party in the near future.
In its currently proposed configuration, Type 31 would struggle and be vulnerable. If on the other hand, someone sees sense and outs a couple of 30mm with martlet, plus an anti ship capability it might be a different story………
The RN wouldn’t send a warship into a operational theatre if it didn’t have the capabilities to meet the threat, they train for this type of threat daily. The T31 is 7 years away from the first vessel entering service, alot can change in 7 years.
In 1982 we sailed to the Falklands with vessels that lacked the capabilities we required. We had always assumed if we went to war it would be with NATO…..our Sea Dart system was designed to engage high flying aircraft – not low flying jets. Sea cat was obsolete, Sea Wolf was designed to engage aircraft flying over open sea and actually switched itself off to re-boot when it got confused with targets suddenly dipping down behind hills. Plus of course we knew our vessels had no close in weapon systems to deal with a skimming anti-ship missiles, but then of course we didn’t need them…….
That is all true, but it was also 38 years ago. We have come a very long way since then.
We did, but we’re heading back down the same road going from 32 Sea Ceptor to 12 is a very bad idea, in reality it means just 6 shots……no sonar in a world where submarine activity is increasing rapidly……..no ciwis…..no anti- ship missiles….. let’s hope things do change over the next 7 years and somebody wakes up and remembers what we went through in 82
Every article I have seen about the T31,says it will carry a 24 cell sea ceptor, and carry the RN’s interm anti ship missile that replaces the harpoon in the short term, and will be fitted with a sonar similar to that fitted to the T45. At the end of the day the RN needs a more low cost option, instead of every ship we buy costing over a billion. The T31 will have a price tag of around 250 million, and is our only real hope of expanding the size of the fleet. It isn’t designed to be a very high end warship like the T45 and T26, it will be used for the more day to day engagements the RN is heavily dependent on, anti piracy, drug smuggling ect. It will be modular in design, so it can be easily upgraded over the course of it’s life. It won’t be sent out to face down Chinese hypersonic missiles on day one, ( not that anyone has proven one to actually work or hit anything, let alone an advanced western warship)
The thought behind the Type 31 is a good one, no doubt, we need to curb costs and we’ve had a real problem with procurement, but at the end of the day, if you need a Corvette, build a corvette, but if you need a General purpose Frigate – build a General Purpise Frigate. Don’t mix up the two……..
Let’s see how it all plays out over the coming years, least the project is going ahead. Have a good one Paul.
Check out the very latest Tupe 31 cgi from Babcock at Save the Royal Navy
Thanks, I’ll check it out. ?
Ah yes, I see what you mean, the cgi does show only 12 sea captors, that is abit pants. Hopefully, like the article says, it’s just a day one fit to help get the vessels out of the yard and into service on time, and more weapons will be fitted later as needed.
Like you say though, hopefully a lot can change in 7 years, and hopefully the Type 31 will be a greatly enhanced vessel
Not true. The RN last fired Sea Skua during the Gulf war to take out patrol vessel up near the Al-Faw peninsular. Also an anti ship missile was fired at a Saudi ship off operating off Yemen. Then there were the USN ships attacked with missiles whilst passing Yemen.
Actually that isn’t as much proof as you think.
Money may be a factor but the biggest factor is the War on Terror. For almost 20 years we have tailored the armed forces to fight against the Taliban and similar enemies: ground bound, no naval or air assets, and no vehicles more potent than a Toyota Hilux with a mounted machine gun.
The government and analysts the world over thought that was between states would become a thing of the past and that non-state actors e.g. insurgents, Taliban etc would be the main threat and focus. Hence, all assets became about that.
We retired Sea Eagle and made no effort to upgrade or replace Harpoon. Because no one saw any serious threat coming from there. All urgent operational purchases were for things like MRAPS as they contributed to the war on terror, whereas anti ship missiles contributed nothing.
Same with our aircraft. Typhoon and Tornado – an air superiority fighter and a deep strike aircraft, respectively – were used as basically CAS for ours and allied ground troops, or for bombing IS compounds. F35 has been used in similar. Neither Typhoon nor ourcF35s currently have an anti ship weapon because all the effort and money has gone into weapons designed to kill Jihadis with minimal collateral damage.
Forward looking decision and buying British? How uncharacteristically competent of the MoD
Quite…
It is odd.
These look great. Substantial and with extended range and capable of a variety of roles.
This is great, we need more ASW coverage around UK. These vessels ability to loiter for very prolonged periods on station is just what uk armed forces need. Covering key access routes for ballistic subs, stealthy intelligence as well as possibly special forces insertion.
I would hope this order is followed up, once proof of concept, with an order for several more.
It will be interesting to see how they manage the communications and data handling?
The Moray XLUUV on their website, which is a 25M long AIP/Lithium powered sub, offers up …
Submerged: ACOMMS
Surfaced: RF / WiFi / SATCOM
… so presumably similar for Manta. Surfaced in this context I take to mean minimal above surface exposure.
Yes, I can imagine they’ll be using satellite burst transmission when surfaced or at least when an aerial broaches the surface. The ACOMMS (accoustic communications) that has been used before has a max data rate of 5700 bauds per second, i.e. the same speed as loading an old ZX Spectrum using a tape player – very slow.
Hey, I’m old enough to have designed with 300 baud modems for telemetry, 5700 baud is in the fast lane 😉
Interesting. I wonder whether the concept of a messenger sub might be useful. When the sub wants to transmit data back to HQ it stays where it is and instead of broaching one of its aerials, or even worse surfacing, it has a little 1m (or whatever) sub with lots of storage onboard. The sub then downloads the data to its messenger sub and programs that to sail off many nautical miles away from where the main sub is, broach its aerial (or surface), burst-transmit the data back to HQ and wait for confirmation of successful receipt, then submerge again and make its way back to the main sub. That would make it far less likely for the position of the main sub to be compromised – even if the messenger sub only goes 10nm and is detected when it transmits that leaves a huge possible search area for the enemy trying to detect the main sub.
Hopefully this will end up with something usefull in service and not just another exercise in wasting money developing something we can’t afford to buy.The submarine force is to small so if a low cost “relatively” vehicle can be developed to add combat mass just like the RAF is looking at then, this will be good for the RN.
MoD also ordered some experimental UGVs this week too https://www.janes.com/article/94714/uk-mod-orders-ugvs-from-mcl
UGVs are just not going to work for a myriad of reasons. Possibly in the future we could develop autonomous vehicles but having a chap control this monstrosity from a few km away is just ridiculous. But wait, unmanned systems are so on trend right now!!!!!
BV
Already being used operationally in Mali by both France and Estonia
https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2019/october/Estonian_infantry_platoon_deploys_Milrem_Robotics_THeMIS_UGV_for_first_time_in_Mali_3.jpg
They are autonomous, so can be given quite general orders. Most of the ones coming into use, like the excellent Milrem Themis, are used to enable light infantry to stay light – by carrying a section’s equipment, packs, ammo and stores (a kind of 21st century pack horse). Great in difficult country (imagine how those coudl have helped in the Falklands), and enables a section to carry a lot of additional weapons (e.g. an option of GPMGs and L129s + NLAW and ASMs etc.). This is how they are used in Mali. Secondly they can be fitted with weapons – either as a scouting asset (with an optical system plus a 12.7mm or Javelin for example for self-protection), or and this is most exciting, as a series of ‘loyal wingman’ operating with a networked vehicle ‘mother ship’ like Ajax/Athena – all armed with Brimstone or a similar long range ATGM. A Milrem Themis with Brimstone has been demonstrated. This created a formidable anti armour cluster commanded by a single manned platform.
That article that JF posted was an unmanned ground vehicle carrying a medic and 2 casualties, not autonomous but controlled by an operator. I dont get what this system brings over a tried and tested quad bike at a fraction of the cost.
Counter insurgency operations where a small vehicle is being controlled by another vehicle in close proximity has been going on for years, counter IED teams for example. This system in Mali works because there is no complex enemy to DF the radio signal, no jamming, in modern warfare if you transmit you die. It just seems like a gimmick, a trailer being towed by a radio signal that costs a thousand times more than a trailer but can be pushed forward to set off an IED, great if your enemy is a few chaps with an AK.
I’m struggling to see a practical use for this in a high intensity conflict.
BV
“An autonomous controlled system installed in the UGV provides autonomous real-time control and obstacle avoidance capabilities. It automatically directs the vehicle to reach a target along the desired path.” A quad bike can carry bugger all and needs to place an operator in danger – who is them diverted from section duties. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/themis-hybrid-unmanned-ground-vehicle/
TheMis Brimstone concept https://milremrobotics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/THeMIS-MBDA-650×650.jpg
First of all, how the hell do you post pictures????
“An autonomous controlled system installed in the UGV provides autonomous real-time control and obstacle avoidance capabilities. It automatically directs the vehicle to reach a target along the desired path.”
So moving from one point to another autonomously, using GPS? (jammable) Inertial reference system? (not accurate in a ground vehicle) This method of navigation works well for UAVs, high up, benign environment, ground vehicles struggle with the ground clutter, look at self driving cars dealing with flat roads. The UGV in the article has no other sensors such as LADAR, meaning in complex terrain it needs to be manually controlled.
Then there is the armed or ISTAR UGVs. An Armed UGV will need to have a man in the loop, this means transmitting two way data, the further away the more powerful the signal. This transmission can be detected, identified and located to within a few metres, this gives the position away of not only the UGV but the operator. Best case scenario, the enemy jam the signal rendering the entire system useless, these jammers are commercially available, as are GPS jammers so even in a counter insurgency environment could be neutralised. Worst case scenario, you get DFed and a SMERCH deletes your grid square or better still they manage to hack the signal, drive back to the operator and it goes full on T-1000.
“A quad bike can carry bugger all and needs to place an operator in danger – who is them diverted from section duties”
500Kg in a trailer is not bugger all, the system you describe can only carry 750kg. 1 man diverted from section duties? Who do you think resupplies the company/platoon with ammunition during a prolonged contact now? Company SM/Plt Sgt. A chap on a quad, able to operate on his own, self thinking, dynamic, can get stuck in if he needs to, and committed to sustaining the firefight, he wont be replaced by a robot (not yet)
What would be useful would be a small box on a 4 wheel drive diesel vehicle about the size of a land rover trailer with a very short range radio control (20m) and a manual cable control. This could have a basic Bluetooth follow me system to plod along with the patrol carrying a few slabs of 7.62 and a stack of NLAWS. Most importantly, it had to be dirt cheap so denying it with a phos grenade wont be a problem, this means no fancy electronics, nothing classified, just a box on wheels.
This reply is getting massive.
BV
Deploying SF from an unmanned submarine? Think about that for a minute…
One of the missions discussed was as a cargo carrier. Essentially it could be used to re-supply teams already landed.
Of course if it carries SF, it could also carry a small crew…
I suspect his point was if a submarine is unmanned, what type of beings are the SF being deployed 😉
Will they have the HMS prefix?
Good question. HMS Automaton?
The future is un-manned. I’m glad to see we are developing this key future capability for ourselves instead of buying off the shelf from a foreign country. I’ll be watching this with interest.
This report seems too good to be true, it’s not April fool’s day yet. These EXLUUVs look ideal for surveillance and offshore ASW in home waters that would take some of the load off our tiny SSN force. I wonder if anyone knows, if it isn’t restricted (don’t answer if it is), how these vehicles are controlled? Are they programmed? Do they surface and receive instruction?
If the spec is for a 3000nm range, surely the 200km submerged range of the moray is going to need a bit of work unless it’s going to travel everywhere on the surface?
I imagine 200nm is a system with batteries only. To get 3,000nm will need power generator batteries (i.e a diesel electric powerplant). I believe this is similar to the Boeing Orca. So perhaps an enlarged Moray with a diesel-electric powertrain.
The batteries are backed up with an air independent propulsion system powered from a Stirling engine, bit like the Swedish Gotland class submarines.
Could this sort of thing relieve the SSN task east of Suez? Perfect for SIGINT.
And if deployed so far would it need some sort of mother vessel?
Editor: This article has been changed since it was first put online. It would be a good idea to make this clear so that pre-change comments are read in that context.
Agree. I was going to mention the 200km vs 3000km range myself.
I’m excited by this, seems ambitious which we need to be. If we can get them to work then they could be the answer to those of us who have called for smaller AIP subs, but these could be even more versatile and built in greater numbers. I see them acting as trip wires in vital strategic routes, but if we could find a way to ship launch these they could act as outer defence to a carrier or amphibious task group or launched near enemy ports to cage their fleets in. This would require a large mothership, something which I feel we should be looking at next, designing a 20-30000 tonne bespoke vessel that can launch air, surface and sub autonomous vehicles. These could be tasked individually for roles such as mine clearance with a large array of off board platforms, providing long range aerial search capabilities, suppression of enemy forces within a geographic area without putting manned platforms into harms way, or even assigned to the carrier group to enhance its capabilities and protection.
On re reading the article I had missed this bit
“will see an existing crewed submersible refitted with autonomous control systems, say the Ministry of Defence.”
What submersible? One of our Astutes?
I’d have thought it would more likely be an SSK purchased from another navy. If it’s going to be 30 metres long and have a 3,000 mile range then that’s smaller and shorter range than anything we have.
Cheaper to buy some SSKs to use as a test platform.
This is great news and hopefully the 9m version will be launchable from the T26 and T31 escorts to provide enhanced carrier security.
Perhaps the T31 could benefit from a rear ramp or moon pool to accommodate this asset.
Way to go RN.