Ultra Electronics have announced that Sonar 2150 successfully completed its first-of-class sea acceptance trial onboard HMS Portland.
According to a statement from the firm:
“This success represents further validation of a new world-leading hull-mounted sonar, that aims to provide improved capability and paves the way for further performance proving activities later in the year.”
The trial took place over a number of days at sea, operating the sonar, detecting and tracking the ‘target’.
Despite somewhat challenging weather conditions, the Ultra trials team say that they successfully proved both active and passive performance in conjunction with Royal Navy personnel.
The 2150 hull-mounted sonar, designed by Ultra, replaces the Sonar Type 2050, which has been in service with the Royal Navy since the 1990s. It incorporates a new user interface to “improve operator effectiveness and usability”.
Ultra add that the digital control of the outboard array minimises interference, reduces ship cabling requirements, aiming to maximise reliability, and extends array maintenance intervals. The sonar will be fitted to Royal Navy Type 23 frigates.
World class capability. Great news 🇬🇧
So how long are we going to have to hear the world class thing with everything related to the UK Navy
? Is this something for domestic consumption or who eats this up?
Why are you looking at this website then? The clue is in the title. The current 2050 sonar in service is one of if not the most capable in service. The 2150 will build on that already fantastic capability.
One would be well advised to not take every word from a defence contractor as gospel. It may or may not be. The people that really know are not talking.
Yes, but the current in service 2050 sonar is the current class leader. So if it’s safe to presume it’s replacement will be even better.
How do you know that? Try to think critically other than just believing what you heard on a website… It might be and I hope like hell it is…
Ultra took a page from BAE’s playbook with the “world leading” statement. Not sure there’s ever been a BAE press release that didn’t say something along those lines. lol
Lets see
T26*8
T31*5
T32*5
I’ll take 18 sets please.
Dream on, if T31 / T32 gat this I’ll eat my hat.
I was being a tad tongue in cheek 😉
They aren’t fitting it to T31, we can only hope that they fit it to T32, although since it probably won’t be an ASW vessel that’s unlikely to happen.
I still struggle to understand what the point of the T31 is… it has no ASuW armaments nor any ASW armaments. It does have 24 cells for Sea Ceptor… so doesn’t that just make it a really big corvette?
I totally agree. It’s supposed to be a general purpose frigate but there are better armed Corvettes out there! If I was a betting man, I’d say the weapons fit as is now may be a ploy by the RN to keep costs under/at the cap, with the aim of upgrading when in service. That said, if this is not the plan and they are intended to be armed as is right now, then using the term ‘frigate’ is more than generous! Very paltry weapons fit with just 12 Sea Ceptor, a 57mm and two 40mm cannons… Would our allies… Read more »
It’s based on the Iver Huidfeldt class frigate of the RDN, which costs ~350m USD so is around the same price. However, the IH is much more heavily armed than the T31. I know we’ve been saying for a long time we need more ships… perhaps we should first ask that the ships we have are adequately armed.
I have to agree! I’m really quite shocked at how lightly armed our fleet seem to be. I’m not surprised that they find recruitment so difficult. Who wants to be a cheap target that can’t respond.
Sorry to appear harsh, but we have Some T45’s that are not even armed with Harpoon. We sent HMS Defender into possible harms way without any ability to take on pursuing ships! It may have adequate Anti air assets but it needed an all round capability too.
Totally agree on this. So few ships, so arm them fully as possible. But also, any extra hulls on the water can be up armed….
Need to be a bit careful with that cost comparison. Not to take anything away from what the Danes achieved, but that IH cost is a decade old. It leveraged the earlier Absalon design to reduce costs and also had major cost saving approaches not viable for the UK. These included using low cost Lithuanian and Estonian yards for block builds, using Danish navy resources for outfitting and re-use of weapons.
I don’t really know much about the IH development, could you let me know about the “major saving approaches”? I’m quite interested 🙂
The major savings are what I outlined in the last sentence. However, the link below provides an interesting background to the IH programme.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf
That is a really useful presentation.
Thanks for the link.
The following is a slide presented to the USN in 2014. The presentation is on Scribd as “Danish Frigate Program Visit USN May 2014”
Thanks.
The vessel the Danish operate is Denmarks primary warship. The don’t have T45′ or T23’s or Astute class hunter killer’s . T31 is for a very different role, and it’s to a budget, to get them in service without big delays and cost overruns, and upgrade them once in service if we need to.
This is just the standard British design philosophy of taking weapons systems off ships.
It is a peaceful warship.
I like to see the T31 fitted with a sonar of intermediate capability, a waste to give it high end capability.
Think what they plan is T32 having containerised drone with sonar for anti sub work or containerised anti mine kit that way one ship many hats
That was the plan with the US Littoral Combat Ships. In practice it seems to have fallen on its proverbial.
Afraid latest renditions only show 12 cells for Sea Ceptor
It has SeaCeptors which have an ASuW mode and 8x ISSGW… not sure how that counts as “no ASuW armaments.”
Neither ISSGW nor FC/ASW will be fitted to Type 31 under current plans, and 12 Sea Ceptor is (apart from being insufficient) limited to engaging small naval vessels, definitely not something the size of a rival frigate or corvette.
So a M3+ missile high diving down onto you and hitting you with approx 32 Million Joules of energy and a warhead, (although small) is not going to cause any damage…. Because you are a frigate…
If Sea Ceptor was able to sink enemy warships no one would be developing AShMs. Firstly, CAMM’s range is too short to be used against anything armed with an actual AShM. Secondly, in the case that it did hit, which is questionable mainly due to the range, it would not, of course, “not cause any damage”, but it would not sink an enemy ship nor put it out of action.
GB has a point. 32 joules is about the heat delivered by 1000 red hot electric hotplates every second. Plus the energy from the warhead. All focussed in an instant in space and time. Something is going to melt, there will be a big hole and a lot of damage.
You don’t need to sink it. You want a mission kill.
Its the same principle with the Army on a battlefield. A casualty takes time, effort and manpower to evacuate and care for. Its callous but true that casualties are good because they tie up resources that could be used elsewhere. Someone who is dead needs nothing.
A damaged warship needs tug support, repairs, fire fighting assistance , spares delivery, crew evacuation. Any damage is going to degrade the operational capability of the vessel. Be that the loss or degradation of sensors, power, propulsion or habitability.
Um, yes it is. 5 sets of ISSGW are being procured for Type 23, to be moved onto Type 31 as they are retired.
Type 31 will not have any VLS except for Sea Ceptor.
Neither does Type 23, yet the interim missile is supposed to be fitted to five (interesting number) of them.
Indeed. But that appears to be the idea. Unfortunately.
Surely no corvette ever has been over 5,000tons. What we get is a dangerously under armed frigate just to make the numbers up. Most nations with major warships will have better weaponry than them. AShMs should arrive on them, eventually, but gapping them is idiotic.
We continue to sleep-walk towards disaster, the way we casually let basic kit lapse on our warships.
T26 certainly will get it, and maybe T32.
Very unlikely T31.
Well I mean. Type 26 is to replace the 8 ASW Type 23s. And I feel that will be much more capable. Type 31 is to replace the 8 GP Type 23s. For this one, I feel like the Type 23s are in fact more capable than what is replacing them.
Spot on. My only hope is the light build fit out for T31 reflects budgets as they were and the need to prove the concept of on budget on schedule under fixed price contracting. The platform itself has massive capacity for adding capability post commissioning. Add another 12 CAMM ex T23s and a set of bolt on cannister Ashm / land strike missiles you have a robust GP frigate.
Would love to see 2nd batch type 26′ come with 57mm and 5″ be fitted to the type 31 at some stage…won’t happen but would make purpose sense.
P
Isn’t this the same bow sonar that will be fitted to the T26? In which case, are these sets going to be removed from each T23 as it comes out of service in order to outfit the T26 ships, or is the RN procuring further sets for the T26?
I don’t believe it was fitted to the all of the T23s. They have just trialled it on one.
But the article says “The sonar will be fitted to Royal Navy Type 23 frigates”.
Oh. Um. Sorry, completely misread on that one. I didn’t realise they were planning on fitting it to the Type 23s right now. I dont see why they would buy 8 more new sets to fit the T26s though, the Type 23s are coming out of service as you said and we dont have (and won’t have) 16 ASW vessels to put them on.
No worries! They could buy extra sets and fit some to the T31, I guess, but I suppose that’s too much to ask for….
T31 isn’t intended to be a high end ASW Frigate. That’s what T26 is for.
Sure, but the T45 has a bow sonar, and that isn’t a high-end ASW ship.
It has, but the sonar is a modified Mine avoidance set, better then nothing but only just! T42s were fitted with the same bow sonar as our ASW frigates back in the day (Sonar 2030), so from a active perspective on a par and effective.
A modified mine avoidance sonar? I didn’t know that – thanks!
Sorry, should be ST 2016, not ST 2030.
Bugger… Already commented.!
Wrong numbers.
T42 Fitted first with S184, then S2016 and then S2050 depending on the ship.
S2030…I need to check my Collingwood Hand outs but I think that was a Ray trace indicator or maybe a sea surface temperature bit of kit.
No mate, it was part of the SM TA fit (Spectrum analyser) back in the day, 2030/2035 etc, it was used to classify NB sources by placing a STAB down the threat BRG. A great bit of kit.
Got my numbering mixed, but. it’s what happens when you reply to posts when tired late at night!!!!!
My posts are mostly early morning …0530 here which is 0330 in UK…
No it’s a high end air defence Destroyer that costs 1Bn each. So it should have a basic sonar. T31 is a lower end general GP warship with a cost cap of 250M each. So we can actually afford them, and get them relatively quickly. Once in service we can upgrade as we see fit. It’s a business model we should have used years ago. And it’s also aimed at the export market.
Absolutely – the T31 is being built to a price tag, hence my earlier remark about it being too much to ask that it gets sonar as well.
So T31 is low end then? What happened to ‘credible frigate’?
It’s a 250M GP Frigate. The wording doesn’t really mater. It’s a new business model to get vessels into service relatively quickly and avoided the constant requirements changing and inevitable delays and cost overruns that have plagued past projects. They are modular and flexible in design, so we can update as we go along if we need to.
I know. It’s a bad morning. I’m trying to return an Amazon package. It’s a world of pain 🤣
😄👍
That’s probably what will happen.
Some new 2150 sets procured for the first three T26’s. And also to be fitted to some later build T23’s
It’s not clear at the moment.
For example it’s not widely known but the RN has 8 Sonar 2087 towed array on Type 23 and has ordered an additional 3 sets to be fitted on the first T26, for 11 total sets (plus presumably training systems and engineering systems). Obviously the 8 T26 will have 8 of these….but what of the other 3…no point in leaving them on the dock.
Hi Rudeboy1,
It might be for maintenance. If the array requires maintenance on a more regaular basis than the platform then the extra arrays would be required to keep the active platforms fully equipped – allowing to deployments schedules etc.
Just a guess on my part, but it would fit with the double crewing model the RN appears to be going with which is leading to higher platform availability rates.
Cheers CR
These are the full equipment sets, not just the Thales and Ultra Electronics array’s. They’re not a line replaceable item. Its going to be interesting to see what the RN does with them, they’re a hugely expensive piece of kit to be left on the shelf.
Besides having the best sonar systems, Ultra is also a takeover target of an American investment firm:
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2021/08/02/american-firm-to-take-over-britains-meggitt-in-88-billion-deal/
Self proclaimed best sonar systems. lol
I don’t think they’re being particularly disingenuous with those claims dan, there are reasons beyond just training and experience that the RN’s ASW capabilities are so highly regarded.
The US also buy sonar systems from them…
Obviously the T23’s and T26’s are optimised to be as quiet as possible but out of interest just how loud are the T31’s going to be?
Would a hull mounted sonar and for instance procuring some dipping sonars for the Wildcats provide a worthwhile, if not fantastic ASW capability, or would it just be a complete waste of time?
For the hull mounted sonar, I’m guessing the latter. The ship would just be too loud to pick up anything else… since we can be certain it would be louder than an SSN or AIP. Dipping sonars for the Wildcat I think might be feasible, since it may be able to move far away enough though I question the actual efficacy of this approach.
Didn’t the T42 destroyers have hull mounted sonars as well other surface vessels of that era? Is the modern T31 design really noisier than RN ships of the 70’s and 80’s?
Trying to think of budget ways of upping their capabilities. 24 rather than 12 Sea Ceptor won’t break the bank and their will be 5x canister launched AShM removed from the T23’s in the early-mid 2030’s. Procuring even a handful of dipping sonars for the Wildcat fleet would be another significant boost.
If the sonar is active own noise is much less important.
Of course in that case the enemy will get a sonar transmission.
T31 suits autonomous vehicles and weapons systems
You have to bear in mind that the submarines operated by potential RN adversaries have also become much quieter and harder to detect since the 70’s and 80’s.
Not really much point in dipping sonars for Wildcat, since Wildcat and Merlin are supposed to work in combination: Merlin finds the Submarine, Wildcat kills it.
Is that right? My understanding is that Merlin is the complete hunter-killer package; dipping sonar, 4 homing torpedos and depth charges.
Yes, using Wildcat’s paired with the Merlin’s seems double dipping and wasteful. No RN ships carry both as far as I know except the carriers and maybe the RFAs and Argus. If there’s not really enough Merlin’s to go around can we get some upgraded Wildcats transferred over from the Army? Having a lightweight dipping sonar (as with Korea) would surely be quite useful so long as it doesn’t degrade the overall performance of the helo. Same with sonar on RN ships. If you’ve got very good kit available put in on all the frontline high end ships. Quality in… Read more »
Except that a Merlin carrying FLASH plus a full load of sonobuoys plus four Stingrays would not go very far or stay on station for very long. I’m no expert but I would have thought that two torps would be the more usual loadout. That would allow for more fuel to be carried.
I’ve seen multiple posters on here who really should be in the know explain that Wildcat is often used as a weapons platform that can bring stingrays on station and expend them while Merlin stays to continue detection.
That is one of the roles the RN are looking at a UAS doing, i.e. supporting a Merlin delivering either sonobuoys or a lightweight torpedo.
Hi Sceptical Richard, You are right I believe. Most pictures of the Merlin that I have seen show 2 Stingrays. If you hit a sub at any kind of depth with a stingray you will very likely do sufficent damage for the sea pressure to do the rest. Especially if you hit the pressure hull. A hit on the prop, rudders etc. would at least slow the sub down and any serious damage to a prop would likely cuase vibrations which in turn would probably damage the shaft glands causing flooding. Furthermore, the Stingray is reportedly a very capable weapon… Read more »
Stingray is nnot going to damage the props or rudders.
Its Shaped Charge warhead and extremely accurate sonar go for the most vulnerable part of the subs hull and ensure that the warhead detonates at the optimum angle for a shaped charge to penetrate.
Thanks GB,
I knew it had a shaped charge, but I had no idea the sonar was that accurate. Sounds as if it is ‘visualising’ the sub. A bit like an underwater Brimstone! Although, I guess Stingray has been around a lot longer…
Cheers CR
Would it not be the case that if the Ship is Stationary or Sailing very slowly it doesn’t matter if it was optimised specifically for ASW or not – a good Sonar would still be a very effective Tool ?
This is a valid point… but I wonder if in a high- or medium-risk situation a stationary ship would be too much of a target?
Like I remember when the Russian hypersonic missile Zircon was being trialled the Russian Navy said it successfully and accurately hit a (stationary) target. In response, many said that hitting a stationary target with a hypersonic missile is very different to hitting a moving ship. Our best defence, I think, against hypersonic missiles remains movement, due to their lack of manoeuvrability. Would this not be literally providing a target that such a missile could easily hit?
Not a complete waste of time.
I don’t know whether T31 has better, worse, or the same noise signature as the Arrowhead 140, but “… Arrowhead 140 specifications already meet NATO noise requirements for an ASW vessel” per last paragraph https://www.arrowhead140.com/exportability
Its also worth observing that the Danes are re-classifying their Absalon support ships as ASW frigates, Absalon having the same hull shape as A140 but with only two diesels. I haven’t seen mention of any internal changes to improve noise signature, only the addition of TAS and helicopter dipping sonar in addition to the bow sonar already fitted.
Thanks, that sounds pretty encouraging if the RN did ever want to up their capabilities.
The IH class pass NATO standards for Noise Reduction/Quietness levels – whatever they are? T26’s being a high end ASW asset will exceed those standards – hence their cost. The IH/T31 is able to employing a bow sonar, its just that it wont be as capable as that on a T26 in certain scenarios. For a dedicated Bow system, Active wise it would broadly have similar capabilities, where it losses out is in its passive capabilities (due to hull form/engine configuration etc being far noisier, thus reducing passive detection ranges), which is also why it would limit the advantages of… Read more »
T22 B1 originally had S2016 which was keel mounted and stabilised against ships movement by hydraulic rams for moving the whole array. 2050 came along and the same array was used with new electronics and the stabilisation was no longer required because beam forming was used.. The hydraulics where removed and the array locked into position. B2 T22 got a tail but the ships where not ideal as TA ships. They did have Praire maker and agouti air systems but self noise was an issue. They still had 2016 or 2050 and it was keel mounted. 2050 is still a… Read more »
Back then, didn’t all RN ships (frigates/destroyers) had a decent sonar fit so could look after themselves to a certain degree when sailing alone.
Not the same with the T45s (poor man’s sonar) or the T31 (no sonar). It’s penny pinching pure and simple…..
On a different thread over on NL, it appears that T45 have lost their UW capability due to lack of UW ratings to operate the kit and this capability is currently gapped!!!
On a entirely different note, think my brother might of been on the Cornwall with you , he used to be a Seawolf maintainer!
T45 had the sonar put in hibernation a while ago to save manpower (and money) for where it was needed on T23s. That said some no tail equipped T23s in the 2010s where sailing around with MTLS and S2050 in hibernation because of manpower issues. So It is not a new thing. Couldnt have been me…I didnt do B3 T22 cruisers Frigates as a draft. I had T42, B1 and B2 T22s and then went onto T23s and LPDs with shore side stints doing, Underwater Weapons IPT, MCMV in Pompie, Oto Melara in Hong Kong, Computer Networks in NATO Southern… Read more »
Ah ok, was discussing something with @DM a while back and he mentioned you were on Cornwall, I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick tbf.
Enjoy the weather, it’s the usual summer rubbish here!!!
Just had a 47.5 degC day… That is a little to warm!
Personally tho it may be a bit legacy what’s to stop the RN from taking the old type 23’s sonars (2050?) as they get 2150 and putting them onto other ships (T45 & T31). Surely worth looking at?
The issue is parts.
Sets of that age will be filled with discrete components which are now increasingly hard to find – particularly transistors.
They would need a complete refurb. It would be cheaper to buy new. Early examples of S2050 if I remember correctly had a very specific type of Hard Drive fitted in the cabinets. As technology moved on and Moores Law took charge, getting bespoke circuit cards and these specific drives became a major issue. It was overcome by replacement of the legacy parts with newer technology items but it required some big reworks in the cabinets. Modern systems use COT to avoid this and are far more easily upgraded and it can be done for far less cost. As to… Read more »
Thanks GB an interesting and ‘real-world’ reply as always!
If this is to be fitted to T23 and T26, would it not perhaps make sense to retain the (presumably) still pretty capable 2050 sets to be fitted to T31 and T32?
Assuming they could easily be integrated that would be far too sensible a suggestion, but a very good one!
Probably not, see Gunbuster’s response to the same question from Oldschool above.
Apologies if you have already seen it.
Cheers CR
One small problem. The Type 23 may be able to detect a hostile sub but if their Wildcat cannot be launched, they can no longer sink it. The torpedoe tubes have been removed from T23’s.
The helo’s are very reliable. Gunbuster and RB has mentioned about this issue here before.
The helo is not always available though. Does not need to be sea state or essential maintance. When the Iranians seized the Stena Impero HMS Montrose could not get their helo up to protect the tanker even though the imminent and serious threat was registered.
Even somebody as limited as me can see there is there is usually no backup systems. No options.
As Gunbuster has pointed out in earlier threads, so far there hasn’t been an ASW patrol missed by a Helo due to weather (and if the weather was that bad it would raise serious questions about the Subs ability to engage).
Point on the Stena Impero being that Montrose was too far away, they got their Helo airborne but by the time they where on site it was all over, that’s not a “Helicopters are unreliable/not always available issue” that a “we weren’t there” issue.