Russian Sub hit Towed Array 2020

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-submarine-collides-with-british-warships-sonar-dctz96xj5

Russian submarine collides with British warship’s sonar

A Russian submarine collided with a British warship’s sonar during a cat-and-mouse game in the North Atlantic, forcing the Royal Navy to abort its mission.

Television footage captures the moment crew onboard HMS Northumberland sound the alarm, shouting “what the hell was that”, “****”, “what the f*** have I just hit” as the boat crashes into its towed array sonar.

Towed array sonar uses hundreds of microphones attached to a cable, trailing behind a submarine, or in this particular case, a Type 23 frigate. The technology is designed to detect and track quiet submarines and is positioned hundreds of metres away from the ship.

HMS Northumberland was on a 48-hour hunt to find the Russian submarine in late 2020 amid concerns it could try and tap into undersea cables essential for communication and the internet.

It is believed to be the first time such an incident has been documented and made public.

Channel 5 documented the mission for its series Warship: Life At Sea, during which the crew launched a Merlin helicopter to try and find the submarine.

The footage shows the moment they spot what is believed to be a Russian submarine appearing above the surface of the water, an extremely rare event. Its periscope and a communication mast can be seen above the water level.

At one point during the mission Commander Thom Hobbs, the warship’s captain, says: “We are very close to the submarine — we are probably parallel. If they were on the surface we would definitely see faces.”

Shortly afterwards the Russian submarine appears to turn sharply in what is described by those onboard as an “aggressive move” and collides with the towed array sonar, which is the diameter of a fist.

At the time, it is believed the Russian submarine knew that HMS Northumberland was there.

Navy sources told The Times that finding the towed array sonar in the sea would have been like finding a “needle in a haystack” and said the collision must have been an accident.

The sonar, which was recovered in its entirety, was damaged to such an extent that the ship had to return to port and the sonar had to be replaced. The towed array sonar is believed to cost about £20million.

Navy sources believe the Russian submarine would also have likely been damaged in the incident.

Commander Ryan Ramsey, a former naval officer who was captain of hunter killer submarine HMS Turbulent, said that the collision was almost certainly accidental.

He said the interaction “shows the complexity and risk involved with the art of anti-submarine warfare”. He added: “What can start as in control can rapidly escalate, particularly against a capable adversary such as the Russian submarine force.”

Ramsey added that the Russian submarine would have probably been a Sierra, Akula or Yasen attack submarine, as these operate at the same depth as the frigate’s towed array.

Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy Commander who drove anti-submarine warfare frigate HMS St Albans, said: “The Russian threat to our undersea communications is real, on our doorstep and ever increasing. It’s hard to overstate the effect a major disruption of it would cause. Detecting and deterring Russian submarines that are doing this is a team effort that involves allies, aircraft, ships, submarines and sensors.”

He added: “Ship and submarine detection is not the exact science depicted in the movies. In other words, this could have been an accident — a close pass gone wrong. It could also have been deliberate.”

Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed the incident, saying: “In late 2020 a Russian submarine being tracked by HMS Northumberland came into contact with her towed array sonar. The Royal Navy regularly tracks foreign ships and submarines in order to ensure the defence of the United Kingdom.”

Warship: Life At Sea continues Monday at 9pm on Channel 5.

[oxenos]

Could it have been an attempt to grab the array?

[1771 DELETE]

Thats the only time a type 23 will ever get a CERTSUB

[SnowFella]

Just got to hope the sonar equipment has some quick auto mute or the tech manning it likely had his/her eardrums meet in the middle!

[Asturias56]

"Could it have been an attempt to grab the array?"

Doubt it - they stole one a few years back in a Spanish or Portuguese harbour IIRC

[oxenos]

they stole one a few years back in a Spanish or Portuguese harbour IIRC
I was not aware of that. Any details?

[bobward]

Didn't HMS Conqueror steal a Russian towed array many years ago, after the Falklands War?
I seem to remember reading that a few years ago.

[Davef68]

Didn't HMS Conqueror steal a Russian towed array many years ago, after the Falklands War?
I seem to remember reading that a few years ago.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28794/1982-uk-sub-stole-soviet-sonar-device/

[Just a spotter]

The technology is designed to detect and track quiet submarines
what the hell was that”, “****”, “what the f*** have I just hit” as the boat crashes into its towed array sonar.

:confused:

JAS

[brakedwell]

When I was in Coastal Command I remember a big Naval exercise in the North Sea when a new type of Sonar Buoy was dropped by a Shackleton and picked up by a Russian submarine not long after the buoy entered the water.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/raf_luton/status/1479463213200777216?s=21

[BFSGrad]

Another report indicates that the Type 23's helo had spotted the sub's periscope shortly before impact. Seems odd the Type 23 would allow the sub to collide with the towed array as the Type 23 has a considerable speed and maneuverability advantage over a sub at periscope depth.

[aw ditor]

Was told the the Norwegians put a destructive charge in their sonobuoys, thus if one was recovered' by a certain state, they went "pop".

[Bing]

Another report indicates that the Type 23's helo had spotted the sub's periscope shortly before impact. Seems odd the Type 23 would allow the sub to collide with the towed array as the Type 23 has a considerable speed and maneuverability advantage over a sub at periscope depth.

I believe the towed array takes away a lot of that advantage as for it to work you have to go at relatively slow speed and stay on a steady course. It's also quite a way behind the ship so any alteration of course would probably be too late to have an affect. Speeding up might work but might just damage the array.

[Foxxster]

So can we assume then that their towed array isn’t particularly effective in the mode for which it was designed however does work in a non conventional way when it actually comes into physical contact with a submarine.

perhaps they need to do away with sonar part and deploy a series of lines behind them with touch sensors instead.

[Addlepate]

Another report indicates that the Type 23's helo had spotted the sub's periscope shortly before impact. Seems odd the Type 23 would allow the sub to collide with the towed array as the Type 23 has a considerable speed and maneuverability advantage over a sub at periscope depth.I believe the towed array takes away a lot of that advantage as for it to work you have to go at relatively slow speed and stay on a steady course. It's also quite a way behind the ship so any alteration of course would probably be too late to have an affect. Speeding up might work but might just damage the array.

The array is hundreds of metres long, hanging on an even longer tow cable, so not really something you can easily manouevre out of the way of an imminent collision.

[Radley]

You’ve obviously not heard of the tactic of laying a line of balloons with magnets attached. When the sub gets close the magnets are drawn to the sub and you simply follow the balloons.

[Jetstream67]

So the array was deployed but did not 'see' the sub ? Did the Sub not detect the ship either ? Both seem unlikely

I wonder if Russians, fed up with being tracked around the Atlantic, decided to do a bit of vandalism to see what it takes to send an anti sub vessel home. Not a lot it seems

[Ninthace]

So the array was deployed but did not 'see' the sub ? Did the Sub not detect the ship either ? Both seem unlikely

I wonder if Russians, fed up with being tracked around the Atlantic, decided to do a bit of vandalism to see what it takes to send an anti sub vessel home. Not a lot it seems
In all likelihood the sub would be well aware of the ship but may not have known about the silent towed array when it elected to pass astern of the Northumberland. From my brief brush with these things, the stern arc is an area of weakness for passive sonar on both ships and submarines on account of the spinning bits, hence the need to clear stern arcs from time to time to make sure you are not being followed . Perhaps the submarine was trying to move into the trail?

[Asturias56]

I can't find a link t the Russian steal - IIRC the RN had parked up for the night and the next morning discovered the kit had disappeared overnight - and a Russian freighter had left about dawn

Vodka and medals all round I'd guess...................

[Asturias56]

The technology is similar to the seismic boats used in oil exploration - they often stream cables 2-3 km long - and maybe 6-8 at a time

In the second pic the streamers are the white feathered marks on the left - the gun arrays are nearer the ship

and they are a real sod to keep straight , and you don't turn any sharp corners either.............

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/610x340/ramform_b2831ccce88b7f3a48e79cdc72d073fe415d05e0.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/321x150/konngsberg_488ee27c896f75e1bc82c45be7dbc2113c0c2555.jpg

[Union Jack]

Oh! Look....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGyPV-xTbZ4

Jack

[Donkey497]

It does sort of puzzle me that [despite the unit cost] there wasn't a full spare or enough bits 'n' tiffs on board to diagnose & repair any damage rather than (as was reported) have to head for the coast once more for a complete new one.
Doesn't really seem to me to demonstrate resilience for extended operation in austere locations......

[Not_a_boffin]

It does sort of puzzle me that [despite the unit cost] there wasn't a full spare or enough bits 'n' tiffs on board to diagnose & repair any damage rather than (as was reported) have to head for the coast once more for a complete new one.
Doesn't really seem to me to demonstrate resilience for extended operation in austere locations......
The unit cost is the whole system, including winches and inboard processors. The array itself is only a smallish part of the cost.

There simply isn't room to carry a spare - let alone move it around to the winch compartment to fit it.

[Donkey497]

There simply isn't room to carry a spare - let alone move it around to the winch compartment to fit it.

Seems a fairly major oversight to me if the only option is to scuttle off back to base for a new one whilst there's even a remote chance of having to operate this kit at risk of damage somewhere in the southern reaches of the Atlantic, northern/western parts of the Pacific or areas of the Indian Ocean. Then again, my views are coloured by having to have a minimum of four back up plans for things going wrong in all field operations despite this plug & play/nothing ever breaks down world in which we live.....

Should anyone be interested in BAE, General Dynamics or the like, I have a cunning idea for a new Naval "toy" for submarines to defeat towed array sonar.


It feels good to be back on PPrune after 16 months.

[Ninthace]

Defeating a trailing submarine is easy.
Spray the wake with a biodegradable oil dyed green.
Submarine pops up attack scope for a quick shufti. Oil coats scope with oil so all the skipper sees is green.
Skipper smacks ship control officer round the back of the head and demands periscope depth
Ship control officer knows better than to argue and brings the boat up a bit more.
Skipper has another peek, still green, smack round head, repeat.
Eventually the submarine gets high enough for the trailed ship to shoot it down with a/a fire or missile.

I leave the details to you, my cut is 50%.

[Not_a_boffin]

Seems a fairly major oversight to me if the only option is to scuttle off back to base for a new one whilst there's even a remote chance of having to operate this kit at risk of damage somewhere in the southern reaches of the Atlantic, northern/western parts of the Pacific or areas of the Indian Ocean. Then again, my views are coloured by having to have a minimum of four back up plans for things going wrong in all field operations despite this plug & play/nothing ever breaks down world in which we live.....

Should anyone be interested in BAE, General Dynamics or the like, I have a cunning idea for a new Naval "toy" for submarines to defeat towed array sonar.


It feels good to be back on PPrune after 16 months.
Does an aircraft carry a spare radar, engine or wing? Or an infanteer a spare leg?

You can fly a spare reel out to theatre and fit there if necessary. What you can't do is manhandle a couple of tonnes / several cubic metres of cable and array inside a ship.

[oxenos]

Ninthace Eventually the submarine gets high enough for the trailed ship to shoot it down with a/a fire or missile.

That was the purpose of the guns in the nose of the Shackleton

[Ninthace]

Ninthace
That was the purpose of the guns in the nose of the Shackleton
Do you know, I always wondered. I mean what else could it catch up to?

[oxenos]

Do you know, I always wondered. I mean what else could it catch up to?

The Vipers were added to enable us to keep up with the faster submarines.

[Asturias56]

"There simply isn't room to carry a spare - let alone move it around to the winch compartment to fit it."

These aren't just lengths of cable - the hydrophones are pretty delicate electronic instruments in themselves and the wiring......... isn't very robust. You have to be very careful how you handle it - the vessels were never designed to carry a spare reel which would probably take up a space the size of a helicopter hanger.

[cynicalint]

Ssshhh! Their real use is the undersea chemtrail dispenser!

[Ninthace]

I bet deploying a towed array is almost as much fun as unravelling Christmas tree lights.

[Donkey497]

For clarity [& speaking as someone used to the type of kit used for oil & gas surveys shown in the ramform pic]- I never meant the dumb [cable, towing wire etc.] part of the array but the active & semi-active parts like the connectors, sensor heads & other "interesting bits" that you could use to effect a field repair.

[Bergerie1]

I don't think I would have wanted to be a submariner but I admire their guts! There are some interesting insights here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s2DKjtnL2U

[Mogwi]

TBH, I always found that fighter pilots and submariners got on very well. I guess it was something to do with the fact that both operate in peacetime with much the same hazards as they would have in wartime. Get it wrong and there are no second chances.

Mog

[Bengo]

For clarity [& speaking as someone used to the type of kit used for oil & gas surveys shown in the ramform pic]- I never meant the dumb [cable, towing wire etc.] part of the array but the active & semi-active parts like the connectors, sensor heads & other "interesting bits" that you could use to effect a field repair.

Ignoring the tow cable, and the connecting cable, the working part of the array is huge. It also does not like being bent round sharp corners, which is why the reel is large diameter. You might manage to lay it out round the upper deck, if you had a hundred or so spare sailors and were not worried about damaging it further.à

Even if you could hand the array you then have to get at a few hydrophones or whatever halfway down a drain pipe sized tube several hundred meters long , filled with special goo. After you are finished you need to refill the tube with goo ( no bubbles allowed) and reseal it so it stays watertight at great depth. All this is difficult enough in a factory, near impossible on a warship.

Finally you have to get your "mended" array back in the water without breaking it again. After that you can see if it now works.

The skipper of the T23 no doubt asked his WEO for options and then did the only practical thing and went home for a new array.

N

[Addlepate]

Supposedly the relevant episode of 'Warship - life at sea' is on Channel 5 at 9 tonight

[Asturias56]

Bengo & Donkey are correct - these are not bits of kit you can repair at sea

[MG]

Did I miss this incident? It looks like it'll be on next week, not last night. That's good spin from Ch5 to make us watch more than one episode!

[lightonthewater]

Most of the Navy comments seemed to indicate that the Russian sub hit the tower sonar array by accident. Nonetheless, accident or not, it did stop HMS Northumberland from continuing to track the sub, and allow the Russians to go on doing whatever they were doing without interference or detection. Not ideal and certainly not what you would want in a fighting war.

[Video Mixdown]

Most of the Navy comments seemed to indicate that the Russian sub hit the tower sonar array by accident. Nonetheless, accident or not, it did stop HMS Northumberland from continuing to track the sub, and allow the Russians to go on doing whatever they were doing without interference or detection. Not ideal and certainly not what you would want in a fighting war.
You are assuming that the ship was alone and no other UK or NATO ASW assets were involved. I think that is very unlikely.

[lightonthewater]

Video Mix:
True, but still not ideal: neutralising the anti-sub capability of a major warship has to be a win for any opponent, however well supported she might be by other assets and allies. Taking out a towed sonar array now has to be in the tactical playbook for any submarine, however risky.

[Navaleye]

Video Mix:
True, but still not ideal: neutralising the anti-sub capability of a major warship has to be a win for any opponent, however well supported she might be by other assets and allies. Taking out a towed sonar array now has to be in the tactical playbook for any submarine, however risky.
It happens more than you think on both sides. Northumberland had a breakdown on her towed array just prior to the incident. What does surprise me is that her Merlin wasn't up tracking the sub during the outage. Dipping sonar and buoys should up to the task, especially when you know you have a CERTSUB 6 miles off your port quarter

[pasta]

True, but still not ideal: neutralising the anti-sub capability of a major warship has to be a win for any opponent, however well supported she might be by other assets and allies. Taking out a towed sonar array now has to be in the tactical playbook for any submarine, however risky.
Only if you can convincingly make it look like an accident. Doing it on purpose (in peacetime) would presumably be construed as an act of aggression, potentially inviting consequences. In wartime, if you can get close enough to make physical contact with its sonar array, it probably wasn't that much of a threat anyway...

[lightonthewater]

I seem to have read somewhere that the ship's helicopter had in fact seen a periscope, so presumably it was available. The TV programme is obviously heavily edited, and I am sure many events are omitted, or shown out of sequence, for reasons of security, brevity or good storytelling. Nonetheless, a towed array, however useful, does seem rather vulnerable. But probably that is a price you pay for effectiveness. And it makes for a very good TV programme...

[Derfred]

In the event of a fighting war, if you can get close enough to an ASW ship take out its towed array, wouldn’t a torpedo or missile be your preferred tactic?

Unless of course you’ve run out of them.

[Video Mixdown]

I was wondering about the nature of the threat to undersea cables posed by Russian submarines and how it can be countered short of sinking the sub. Presumably such an attack would require the use of a submersible launched from a mother-sub, which would then have to loiter on station to support the submersible and recover it when the deed was done. Defensive tactics are no doubt highly classified, but maybe in peacetime it'd be something like using disruptive ASW tactics to either prevent the submersible from being launched or to shepherd the mother-sub off-station leaving the deployed submersible and its crew stuffed.

[Dryce]

In the event of a fighting war, if you can get close enough to an ASW ship take out its towed array, wouldn’t a torpedo or missile be your preferred tactic?

Unless of course you’ve run out of them.

I think this misses the fundamental that the submarine was compromised once it was detected and tracked.

[MightyGem]

The programme was showing a fast rotating PPI display while talking about the Sonar. Does the Sonar have a PPI display as well as the "waterfall" screens?

[etudiant]

I was wondering about the nature of the threat to undersea cables posed by Russian submarines and how it can be countered short of sinking the sub. Presumably such an attack would require the use of a submersible launched from a mother-sub, which would then have to loiter on station to support the submersible and recover it when the deed was done. Defensive tactics are no doubt highly classified, but maybe in peacetime it'd be something like using disruptive ASW tactics to either prevent the submersible from being launched or to shepherd the mother-sub off-station leaving the deployed submersible and its crew stuffed.

Surely the preferred option is to tap the cables, rather than to break them. A bomb will break any cable efficiently, no need for mini subs to do that.
Both the US as well as Russia have specialized bottom crawling subs whose most plausible routine use is to place and maintain cable tap installations.

[Asturias56]

Its much easier to hack into the machines at either end of a cable than use an SSN to do it - but it gives the navies something to do

[unmanned_droid]

Surely the preferred option is to tap the cables, rather than to break them. A bomb will break any cable efficiently, no need for mini subs to do that.
Both the US as well as Russia have specialized bottom crawling subs whose most plausible routine use is to place and maintain cable tap installations.

Norway seems to have had some 'unfortunate' problems with its undersea cables over the past year.

[sycamore]

"Give me a ping`,Taz.One ping only".......

[FODPlod]

Surely the preferred option is to tap the cables, rather than to break them. A bomb will break any cable efficiently, no need for mini subs to do that.
Both the US as well as Russia have specialized bottom crawling subs whose most plausible routine use is to place and maintain cable tap installations.

The Royal Navy has form using X-Craft miniature submarines. They were required to bring back severed sections of the cables to prove the success of their missions:
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/495274
Operations "Sabre" and "Foil"

These were a pair of operations to cut [Japanese] undersea telephone cables connecting Singapore, Saigon, Hong Kong and Tokyo during the Second World War. The intention was to oblige the Japanese to use radio and render themselves open to message interception.

Operation "Sabre" was carried out by "XE4", which was towed to within 40 miles of the Mekong Delta by the submarine HMS "Spearhead", where she looked for the two telephone cables by using a towed grapnel. She eventually snagged the first cable, and managed to haul it about 10 ft off the seabed. "XE4's" diver, Sub-Lieutenant K.M. Briggs, used the net/cable cutter to sever it. The second cable was soon found as well, and was severed by the second diver, Sub-Lieutenant A. Bergius. Two divers were carried due to the operating rule that a diver should not spend more than 20 minutes in depths over 33 ft and no more than 10 minutes over 40ft.

Operation "Foil" was carried out by "XE5", against the Hong Kong end of the cable, after being towed into position by the submarine HMS "Selene". Operating close inshore near to Lamma Island, working conditions were poor, "XE5's" divers having to work in thick mud under the constant threat of oxygen poisoning. Despite this, the operation was successful.

[falcon900]

Having just managed to watch the latest episode of Warship - Life at sea, I am again struck by what an omnishambles the whole thing makes the Navy look. Leaving aside the now obligatory fire , and extraction of crew members by Merlin for drug taking, this episode's drama of the flooding caused by a torn seal around the base of the gun barrel and the consequent hand bailing out exercise verged on the comical. Given how vital the mission was said to be, with the attendant and inevitable for channel 5 race against time, the 50% reduction in speed did seem like an obvious handicap, Why did they not rotate the gun to move the seal out of the way on the onrushing waves? On planet earth in 2022. there must surely be a better understanding of how to design ships than this, and better and more effective ways to remove flooding.
Returning to the main event, it is surely not without relevance that while the sub was at close quarters, and before any damage to the towed array, the system went U/S. The Merlin was still not deployed . When the circuit boards had been shuffled to restore the system, the sub was nowhere to be found.
Are Channel 5 documentary makers a Jinx on any vessel they are aboard, or is it really as bad as it seems?
Next episode awaited with baited breath and a deep sense of foreboding......

[alfred_the_great]

You can’t turn a 4.5 360 degrees on a T23; despite the seal being split, the forward aspect is still the strongest to face heavy seas. Turning the gun would’ve risked damaging the entire turret.

[sycamore]

a-t-g,turning it 360 would not resolve the problem.....! "For a ha`pennyth of tar,the ship was compromised"....

[falcon900]

A-T-G I find it hard to imagine that the gun mounting would have an asymetrical ability to withstand the force of the waves, not least as they need to be able to withstand the recoil of the gun in any potential firing position. Turning it 90 degrees would have done the trick. If you are saying the gun mountings can only withstand waves breaking over the bow if it is pointing straight ahead, it makes the design of the gaiter even more lamentable.

[Ninthace]

A-T-G I find it hard to imagine that the gun mounting would have an asymetrical ability to withstand the force of the waves, not least as they need to be able to withstand the recoil of the gun in any potential firing position. Turning it 90 degrees would have done the trick. If you are saying the gun mountings can only withstand waves breaking over the bow if it is pointing straight ahead, it makes the design of the gaiter even more lamentable.
Have you included the shape of the turret in your thinking? I have never seen a turret faced anything other that forward in heavy seas, and that includes a typhoon that bent the gun director located on the upper deck in the lee of the bridge.

[alfred_the_great]

A-T-G I find it hard to imagine that the gun mounting would have an asymetrical ability to withstand the force of the waves, not least as they need to be able to withstand the recoil of the gun in any potential firing position. Turning it 90 degrees would have done the trick. If you are saying the gun mountings can only withstand waves breaking over the bow if it is pointing straight ahead, it makes the design of the gaiter even more lamentable.

But the mounting is not the weak point, the GRP turret is.

There is - somewhere - a fairly interesting photo from a T23 who did what you suggested, and it was entirely stoved in.

[falcon900]

Im happy to admit that I am no naval architect, but would the GRP not have been a better solution than the hole in the gaiter? Would speed have needed to be reduced by so much?
My principal question remains: surely there must be a way to have designed around this issue? The scenario of waves breaking over the bow in heavy seas is hardly a black swan event.

[alfred_the_great]

Having just managed to watch the latest episode of Warship - Life at sea, I am again struck by what an omnishambles the whole thing makes the Navy look. Leaving aside the now obligatory fire , and extraction of crew members by Merlin for drug taking, this episode's drama of the flooding caused by a torn seal around the base of the gun barrel and the consequent hand bailing out exercise verged on the comical. Given how vital the mission was said to be, with the attendant and inevitable for channel 5 race against time, the 50% reduction in speed did seem like an obvious handicap, Why did they not rotate the gun to move the seal out of the way on the onrushing waves? On planet earth in 2022. there must surely be a better understanding of how to design ships than this, and better and more effective ways to remove flooding.
Returning to the main event, it is surely not without relevance that while the sub was at close quarters, and before any damage to the towed array, the system went U/S. The Merlin was still not deployed . When the circuit boards had been shuffled to restore the system, the sub was nowhere to be found.
Are Channel 5 documentary makers a Jinx on any vessel they are aboard, or is it really as bad as it seems?
Next episode awaited with baited breath and a deep sense of foreboding......

23s are nearly 40 year old designs, you deal with what you’ve got!

[Union Jack]

A-T-G I find it hard to imagine that the gun mounting would have an asymetrical ability to withstand the force of the waves, not least as they need to be able to withstand the recoil of the gun in any potential firing position. Turning it 90 degrees would have done the trick. If you are saying the gun mountings can only withstand waves breaking over the bow if it is pointing straight ahead, it makes the design of the gaiter even more lamentable.
Whilst you're waiting "with baited (sic) breath and a deep sense of foreboding", you might like to have a look at https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/hms-northumberland-and-russian-sub-have-a-coming-together.307721/page-10 onwards which I hope will give you a fuller explanation of the problem, which is actually with a turret, rather than a mounting.

Jack

[falcon900]

Thanks Jack, that was an interesting read, from which I would deduce that the leaking barrel shroud is a common, known problem, and that rotating the turret is a known mitigant of the water ingress, albeit it may not have been possible without sending someone on deck, which looked quite precarious.

[Navaleye]

Im happy to admit that I am no naval architect, but would the GRP not have been a better solution than the hole in the gaiter? Would speed have needed to be reduced by so much?
My principal question remains: surely there must be a way to have designed around this issue? The scenario of waves breaking over the bow in heavy seas is hardly a black swan event.
Its common in rough seas to traverse the mounting to avoid water ingress. To be honest, I've seen much worse weather than that.
It doesn't always work though. HMS Sheffield had the armoured roof of her foremost turret ripped off in a storm in WW2!

[Addlepate]

I can't find a link t the Russian steal - IIRC the RN had parked up for the night and the next morning discovered the kit had disappeared overnight - and a Russian freighter had left about dawn

Can't find a reference, but I'd have thought it'd be pretty difficult to steal a TA given size, weight, reeled up in winch, etc. - might have been a towed body?


The programme was showing a fast rotating PPI display while talking about the Sonar. Does the Sonar have a PPI display as well as the "waterfall" screens?

Very little of what was shown was TA.

[Asturias56]

"Can't find a reference, but I'd have thought it'd be pretty difficult to steal a TA given size, weight, reeled up in winch, etc. - might have been a towed body?"

IIRC you're right - they got some of the cable and maybe the paravane type steering body at the end of the cable.