Pages

Monday, November 20, 2023

DDH Hayler

Helicopters have long been recognized as one of the most effective anti-submarine (ASW) assets and ASW surface ships have routinely carried one or two helos for that specific purpose.  The problem with ship based helos is that the limited number (1 or, at most, 2) guarantees very limited coverage.  Helos are notorious for maintenance challenges and a ship with, say, two helos can be expected to have perhaps six to eight hours of airborne ASW coverage per day, on average.  One potential solution is to increase the number of helos on a ship thereby creating the aviation (helo) destroyer (DDH).  One such effort was the Spruance DDH 997 derivative, the USS Hayler.
 
Litton, the designer and manufacturer of the Spruance class, proposed a DDH 997 Spruance derivative with a hangar lengthened by 40 ft and widened to the full beam of the ship thereby allowing it to accommodate 4 SH-60B Seahawks.  Curiously, the flight deck remained sized for a single helo and precluded simultaneous flight deck operations by multiple helos.
 
In the event, the DDH version of the Hayler was never built.
 
DDH Hayler Design

Image from www.shipbucket.com,
MhoshiK, Mconrads, Hood, J. Scholtens

 
Destroyer Helo ASW Operations
 
Just as the value of an aircraft carrier is wholly dependent on the abilities of the air wing, so too is the value of a DDH dependent on the abilities of the helos.  With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at small number helo ASW.
 
Four helos might seem an ideal solution to providing helos for ASW as one might assume that a 4-helo ship could maintain one helo in the air continuously.  However, even if that were possible, that’s not really the way helos would be used in ASW operations.  More typically, helos would surge to a suspected contact which, regardless of the outcome, would then result in multiple helos being ‘down’ for some significant period of time and result in gaps in the desired 24 hour coverage.  Of course, this assumes that multiple helos were available to surge.
 
One also needs to recognize that a single helo, assuming one could keep one helo in the air continuously, is only marginally effective at detection.  The helo’s sonobuoys (whether dropped or dipping) are short range and the area/volume of ocean to be covered around a ship or surface group is immense and ever changing due to the movement of the surface ship/group.  Helos are highly effective at prosecuting contacts but much less effective at detecting submarines in a ‘cold’ search effort.  Ideally, one would like to detect possible contacts with surface ships, at long range, and then use helos to prosecute the contact.
 
As we consider the operation of ASW helos, we need to bear in mind what the definition of an ‘available’ helo is.  First, and foremost, it is a helo that can fly;  no easy task given helo maintenance needs!  Second, the helo needs to have the requisite weapons to be effective.  For example, a helo that drops both its torpedoes is, instantly, toothless.  Yes, it can still search and track a contact but it can’t do anything about it.  Two lightweight torpedoes is not a lot when dealing with a submarine.  In other words, in combat, when torpedoes will be dropped at a profligate rate at any marginal contact, four helos with just 8 torpedoes is not going to provide much effective coverage.  Helos will have to spend much of their time shuttling back and forth to a ship to reload torpedoes.
 
Of course, helicopter ASW is a numbers game.  To be ridiculous, if one had forty helos continuously searching the surrounding area/volume, they would likely be fairly effective.  However, that’s unrealistic.  What would be realistic is a squadron of, say, four DDH vessels with, in that case, 16 helos.  In the case of a convoy or task force, there might well be several to dozens of DDH escorts which would, indeed, provide useful numbers of helos, in the aggregate.
 
Recognizing the importance of numbers in the ASW helo game, this leads us to the true ASW helicopter carrier of which there are, have been, many examples.  The main characteristic of the helicopter carrier is, of course, the capacity to carry and operate large numbers of helos.
 
 
 
Other Examples
 
The Japanese developed two 2-ship DDH classes, the Haruna and Shirane, which could carry three SH-60 type helos while retaining conventional destroyer weapons and sensors.  I’m unaware of any other examples by any other countries.  It is interesting to note that the Japanese produced the two mini-classes and then abandoned the DDH for helicopter carriers in the form of the succeeding Hyuga class.  I do not know what the rationale was but it suggests that the DDH was found to be less effective and efficient than a true helicopter carrier.
 
There have been numerous examples of ASW helicopter carriers but that’s not what we’re looking at in this post. 
 
 
Conclusion
 
It seems clear that the DDH concept has limited value due to the limited number of helos unless the ships are grouped in fairly large numbers.  That being the case, one has to wonder whether the cost of fielding several to dozens of DDH’s could be better spent on a true ASW helicopter carrier.  A helicopter carrier with, say, 18-24 helos would be the equivalent of 4-6 DDH’s.  At a very optimistic $1B per DDH, that would equate to $4B-$6B available for a helicopter carrier.  At a more realistic cost of, say, $2B per DDH, that would equate to $8B-$12B which would allow two to several helicopter carriers for the price of the DDH’s, depending on the degree of commercial adaptation incorporated into the carrier design (a large merchant ship with a flat deck would suffice!).
 
It is also clear that the tactical use of ASW helos is not so much searching as fixing and attacking.  This suggests that if one did want to build a DDH, the ship’s ASW sensors would be just as important as the helos, themselves, as they would be counted on to provide the initial detection.  This means that the DDH design should be a highly specialized, intimately integrated ASW design, as opposed to a mere flight deck on a hull as was the case for the LCS.
 
The lack of actual DDH designs in naval history suggests that the navies who considered the concept found it wanting for whatever reasons.  Our analysis suggests this is the case.  A DDH could, under the right circumstances and with a carefully considered CONOPS, be useful.  Unfortunately, carefully considered CONOPS are not a characteristic of the US Navy.
 
The DDH would seem to have some potential but, overall, the resources would be better spent on ASW helicopter carriers.
 
 
 
______________________________
 
[1]Capt. Michael C. Potter, USNR, Electronic Greyhounds, The Spruance-Class Destroyers, Naval Institute Press, 1995, ISBN 1-55750-682-5

88 comments:

  1. A Hayler type ship wouldn't operate alone though would it? it would have to be in a hunter killer group like those used in WW2 during the battle of the Atlantic.

    So wouldn't something in the style of the Hayler work carrying 4 helo's the size of the AgustaWestland AW101? according to Wikipedia they carry 4 lightweight torpedoes each? or if you want a dedicated anti submarine helo carrier an Iwo Jima-class sized ship with 2 or 3 Hayler's in support make a good HK group?

    The Mk 57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System would be a great weapon fit since it leaves the centreline free for the enlarged hanger and flight deck while being armoured so 4 or 6 VLS launchers can be dotted around the hull leaving just needing the Mark 32 triple torp launcher and some CIWS point defence weapons needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An improved Iwo Jima would be a great starting place for a ASW carrier. They were based on the Charleston class LKAs, so only had a single screw (20kts). Having served on the Charleston, there is a lot of extra space for an updated twin screw plant, or better yet podded propulsion. During NATO exercise team work 80, we were part of the amphib group in Norway. The Iwo that was with us had 6-8 AV-8 on board (first time I believe).An ASW carrier/command ship could be used with a DESRON as a hunter killer group assigned to convey or amphib operations. Last westpac on Fanning (Knox), we carried a single SH-2. We operated single from Sasebo as far as Singapore tracking Russian subs out of Vlad. We always operated with some kind of P3 support, the helo was usually vectored to an area by the airborne asset , and shipboard sensors.

      Delete
    2. Yes, an Iwo Jima would be a good starting point for a modern ASW carrier. Fascinating notes about your experience. Thanks for sharing!

      Delete
  2. How would the Moskva class fit into this?

    18 ASW helicopters plus a decent built-in ASW armament.

    Stick one of them at the heart of a convoy or ASW Hunter-Killer group, supported by a cluster of more 'traditional' ASW escorts. The ships (either the escorts or the 'Moskva') can detect subs and then the Moskva can surge a helicopter force to attack (or toss some ASROC-type weapons that way), whilst retaining enough helicopters for the next (and the next) detection.

    Lofty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Moskva was some 60 ft longer and twice the displacement of a Spruance/Hayler but, that aside, it was an interesting hybrid of a cruiser and a helo carrier. The Soviets found it operationally unsuited and abandoned the line of development. Supposedly, among other issues, the large superstructure caused severe turbulence issues for the flight deck.

      Still, if one wanted to form H/K groups, something similar wouldn't be a bad choice.

      Delete
    2. Would be interesting to see what a modernised Moskva would look like with the kinks worked out.

      The Russians use their heavy torpedo tubes for their 'ASROCs', so that could potentially free up the space used by the SUW-N-1 for something else. Replace the SA-N-3s with something more appropriate, etc.

      Perhaps a topic for a future post?

      Lofty.

      Delete
  3. Over this side of the pond we planned to buy the HMS Fort Victoria Class as a solid / liquid resupply vessel that could accommodate 5 helicopters. This was suppose to work with a new class of small ASW frigates as their mother ship. As I understand it, following "The Falklands" the idea was scrapped and the Type 23 frigate was redesigned with a helicopter on board. To me it sounded a good idea although it has the disadvantage of putting all you Helo's together (Eggs and Basket)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it interesting that several countries have examined and/or built helicopter carriers for ASW but none have continued down that path although the Japanese may be continuing to pursue a scaled down version. Apparently, operators have found it to be a less than satisfactory development although I've found no documentation about the shortcomings and decisions made.

      Delete
    2. @ComNavOps:

      In the case of the Japanese DDHs and Italian helicopter cruisers, these were compromise warships. The Japanese always wanted flattop ASW carriers but money and political optics made that non-viable, so they got DDHs instead of CVHs (and then kept the DDH hullcode for their CVHs, go figure :V). The Italian Navy brass wanted carriers, but Regia Aeronautica, the fleet air arm, was not on board with that (and only finally got on board with Harrier and Giuseppe Garibaldi).

      Delete
  4. I haven't known about the Halyer DDH concept for very long. This is the most significant analysis of its vices and virtues I've seen thus far.

    "...four helos with just 8 torpedoes is not going to provide much effective coverage."

    Perhaps developing a longer range version of the VL-ASROC or reviving the Sea Lance program, along with developing a surface-launched, 21-inch torpedo with long range would significantly improve the surface fleet's ASW capabilities for a lot less money than an a DDH.

    (To give credit where credit is due, my ideas follow from a discussion in which CNO told me enhancing the VL-ASROC missile's range would be more cost effective than developing new DASH helicopter drones as a cheap torpedo delivery system.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I’m unaware of any other examples by any other countries."

    France's Jeanne d'Arc, Italy's Vittorio Veneto, and Russia's Moskva-class come to mind. The first two were one-off designs and, though more were planned, only 2 of the Moskva-class were built.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good reminders. It is interesting that the development paths of each were abandoned. Apparently, each operator found the designs insufficiently effective to continue the line.

      Delete
    2. Probably too expensive for a single purpose asset.

      The UK converted two Tiger class cruisers into helo carriers with 4 helo's each but where just too expensive to use for port of call or fly the flag missions and if your not using it all the time why is the government paying for it?

      Delete
    3. It's worth noting that as early as the 1960s, the JMSDF was already studying flattop ASW carriers (CVH-A and CVH-B were the design studies drawn up), before politics and finances put a kibosh on that. In that light, the Shirane and Haruna DDHs can be considered compromises on the way to the Hyuga and Izumo, which the JMSDF has always wanted.

      Delete
  6. Another version of the concept is the helicopter cruiser. Many of these were built in Europe and also the Soviet Union, generally with ASW ops in the Med in mind:

    France built the Jeanne d'Arc. Mostly used as a training vessel, she had a secondary ASW role. 10,575 tonnes, 10 helos

    Italy built the Andrea Doria and Vittorio Veneto classes. The Doria was 5,000 tonnes and carried 4 helos. The Veneto was 7,500 tonnes and carried up to 9 helos.

    Britain converted two WW2 vintage cruisers (the Lion and Tiger) into helo carrying cruisers. 12,000 tonnes with 4 large Sea King helos.

    Finally, the USSR had the Moskva class cruisers designed to hunt Polaris SSBNs. 11,900 tonnes with 18 helos.

    Assuming the Hayler had the same displacement as a standard Spruance, interesting question if it's worth adding say 2,000 tonnes to significantly increase the size of the air group.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, these are all examples of hybrids between the DDH and a true helo carrier. Interesting that all have been abandoned in terms of further development.

      Delete
    2. The Soviet Moskva's included a long range asw weapon FRAS-1, 24km range. That would be worth gaming out th utility of a such a weapon. Keeping more helos on station during an attack, by having the ship launch the weapon. Notice the IJN DDHs have a much larger deck, maybe to speed rearms vs. the small Hayler deck ?

      Delete
    3. "24km range" (15 miles)

      Ideally, you want to be engaging submarines 25-50 miles out from whatever you're protecting. Any closer and the submarine is in effective attack range.

      The idea of a long range, stand off anti-sub weapon is good but we would need to upgrade it to much, much longer range.

      Delete
  7. The Canadians had a very successful DDH class in their Tribals. They operated in pairs or threes with VP partnering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tribal class was not a DDH. It was a standard destroyer with the fairly standard two helos. A DDH is generally thought to be around the 4-helo mark.

      Delete
    2. Well, OK, but the RCN called them DDHs. I was on exchange to them at the time. Very interesting (and successful) "Bear Trap" heavy weather landing assist apparatus too. Their SQS 505 was an excellent sonar to boot.

      Delete
    3. The Burke can carry two helos but it isn't considered a DDH. The commonly accepted definition of a DDH is a destroyer carrying 4 helos.

      Delete
  8. Just spitballing but, for convoy duties, might an ESB prove effective?

    Assuming space, pack on 8 sh-60 (2x parked, 4x flight deck, 2x hanger).

    Add some SeaRAM, Mk38s, link16 radios, an AN/SPS 77 & SURTASS-E; it might still squeak in under $1b/ship.

    Sure it's slow & probably loud but are those critical issues for helo-based ASW convoy escort?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could only escort other tankers and would be as easy to target.

      Delete
  9. If I recall during Falkland war, after a few days of dropping torpedoes left and right, the Brits had to slow down on dropping them and start to pause a little because they were starting to run out, plus,
    how many contacts were really submarines and not whales ....also, top of my head can't remember, has anyone fired a light weight torpedo at a real submarine? I'm sure they test them a little but how sure are we that little torpedo will sink a Russian double hulled titanium sub?

    Its all nice that USN and other navies say we need ASW helicopters and I agree we need them but apart from Falkland war, there's no real war experience with them, Brits did a crazy good job of keeping them flying for so many hours but how long would that had been sustainable, by the end of that war, Brits were pretty much running out of time, will war with China be that short? I doubt it , do we have enough helicopters, spare parts and torpedoes?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was generally acknowledged that a lightweight torpedo would not sink a Soviet sub and that it would require several hits to incapacitate one.

      " there's no real war experience with them"

      Well, the entire Cold War was real ASW operations - just short of actual weapon release.

      Delete
    2. If I understand correctly, the Mk 32 triple-tube torpedo launcher is not considered to be reloadable when the ship is underway. That's why I like CDR Chip's idea of a new launcher capable of shooting 12.75- and 21-inch torpedoes, with a torpedo room so sailors can reload and otherwise work without exposure to the elements.

      Delete
  10. Also HMS Invincible class "Through Deck Cruisers" were ASW, with 9 Sea Kings and 4 Sea Harriers for protection. They also originally had a "Sea Dart" missile system fitted. Obviously they were also used as "mini aircraft carriers" and Commando Carriers in later life. From Wiki - "Prior to 1982, Invincible's air group consisted purely of Sea King HAS.5 anti-submarine helicopters and Sea Harrier FRS.1 aircraft. Typically, nine Sea Kings, and four or five Sea Harriers were embarked. This was due to the fact that the originally envisioned mission for the ships was to provide the heart of ASW hunter-killer groups in the North Atlantic during a war against the Soviet Union. In that context, the main weapon of the carrier would not be its fighter aircraft, but its ASW helicopters. The fighters were on board to shoot down the occasional Soviet maritime patrol aircraft nosing around the ship and its escorts."

    ReplyDelete
  11. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/april/resurrect-hunter-killer-group
    By Captain Stephen J. Ilteris and Commander Michael E. Ilteris, U.S. Navy
    "An LPD can operate eight or more MH-60R helicopters, including the helicopters from attached ships, making the new formation a game changer for antisubmarine warfare. "
    "The ASW commander will have access to feeds from U.S., allied, and theater ASW sensors, giving him or her the best situational awareness possible. "
    "The LPD has the necessary command-and-control infrastructure, intelligence-gathering capability, planning spaces to direct the fight, and aircraft capacity to hunt down and prosecute submarines. With its large flight deck and hangar and the ability to operate large numbers of helicopters and unmanned air vehicles, it is an incredibly capable, multi mission ship with untapped potential to contribute to the fleet’s lethality."
    My take : This concept of repurposing an amphib seems good but it is important to have facilities & crew to maintain these ASW helicopters. Other ;potential benefits of utilizing this ship are mentioned on the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What drawbacks were presented? Every concept has drawbacks! For example, an amphib is, by definition, highly trained in amphibious operations and spends almost all of its training time on that. Where/how/when would they become ASW experts?

      Delete
    2. The authors admit that the LPD would need to be converted for the ASW function Not sure if there will be enough room for the ASW staff, with specialized equipment and the amphibious staff. (Authors did not get into changing crews depending on the mission )
      Also trained crews would be needed for ASW helicopter handling, maintenance, & weapon storage. Goal would be to have the LPD as a command & control ship for an ASW DESRON hunter killer group.

      Delete
    3. Per the authors :" The LPD has the necessary command-and-control infrastructure, intelligence-gathering capability, planning spaces to direct the fight, and aircraft capacity to hunt down and prosecute submarines.

      Delete
    4. Per Authors :" An LPD does not have sonar or prairie/masker air systems, but neither does an aircraft carrier. Although not necessary for the LPD to be a command-and-control platform, adding an organic sonar capability would not be difficult or expensive. The technology already is available. The Towed Reelable Active Passive Sonar (TRAPS) comes in a standard shipping container and can be landed in the LPD’s well deck. The system is modular and transportable. Because it is in a container, it can be easily removed when the HUK21 mission is complete. The TRAPS module would give the ship an organic submarine and torpedo detection capability it does not currently have and give the ASW commander an additional variable-depth sonar, with active and passive capability, to increase overall battlespace awareness."

      Delete
    5. " adding an organic sonar capability would not be difficult or expensive." That's not nessesarily so. The equipment itself may be relatively inexpensive and installation easy. However, that doesn't take into account the noise of the ship itself. In addition to making itsef a target the ship noise may deafen itself. LPD' are not designed to the quieting standards of an ASW ship.

      Drink every time you read 'itself'.

      Delete
    6. "The TRAPS module would give the ship an organic submarine and torpedo detection capability"

      This would unwise in the extreme. The LAST ship you want anywhere near a submarine is the ASW helo carrier! If the carrier is close enough to a submarine to detect it, the carrier is probably already dead.

      Detection is what the accompanying escorts are for. They're smaller, cheaper, and expendable. They provide the detection and the ASW carrier stands far off and provides the helos. This is also an argument for small, cheap, single purpose ASW escorts instead of $2B+ Burkes. You're going to lose some! Better to lose a simpe, cheap corvette or frigate than a Burke. Our force structure is badly unbalanced.

      Delete
    7. "However, that doesn't take into account the noise of the ship itself."

      Despite the Navy's wishful thinking, you can't just load a sonar module on any available vessel and call it an ASW ship. As you correctly note, the ship's self-noise is an important - and limiting - factor in sonar performance. The LCS lacks the bow sonar that most ships have exactly because of its own self-noise. It would drown out signals for the sonar. There's a reason why the Navy dropped the LCS ASW mission (well, there's many reasons but this is one of them). You can't make an effective ASW vessel using modules. The entire ASW ship has to optimized and tightly integrated with the ASW function and equipment. Otherwise, you're just kidding yourself, as the Navy has done for decades with the LCS.

      Delete
    8. So then an ASW command & control ship should have a proper acoustic signature ? This being a helo carrier.

      Delete
    9. This article, written by a navy captain, showed how little he knows about ASW platforms. ( with some suggestion that putting a sonar on s LPD could work ) Thanks for the info guys, I did not know enough to catch the bad advice from the Captain. ! This concept of developing a modern ASW hunter killer group is a interesting one

      Delete
    10. Essex-Class Aircraft Carriers 1945-91 by Mark Stille includes a discussion of the ships that got the ASW (CVS) conversion, including a bow-mounted SQS-26 sonar. This sonar was more effective in a carrier than a frigate or destroyer because it sat deeper in the water. The carrier's sonar "was primarily used for self-defense" and "was useful for vectoring in other platforms to engage the target."

      This is not to suggest that a bow-mounted sonar should be installed in an LPD. But if a purpose-built ASW carrier is ever developed again, that equipment might be worth serious consideration.

      Normal Polmar's Aircraft Carriers Volume 2 1945-2006 says back in the day, a CVS air wing included 16 SH-3A Sea Kings, and this helicopter could carry up to four lightweight torpedoes. The air wing also included 20 S-2D or S-2E Trackers, three E-1B Tracer radar aircraft.

      Stille's book says by the 1970s the Essex-class CVSs were getting old and less effective. I don't think the book says why they were less effective, but I've read elsewhere that the S-2 Tracker had difficulty keeping up with the Soviet Union's newest, fastest submarines.

      If other countries have found the ASW helicopter carrier to not be all that effective, could it be the lack of fixed-wing aircraft in the air wing?

      If Japan is happy with its ASW helicopter carriers, could it be because those carriers coordinate operations with land-based, fixed-wing ASW aircraft?

      (This may work fine when defending your coast against hostile submarines, but land-based support may not always be available in expeditionary operations.)

      I noticed that old escort ships may have had a single helicopter, but the Perrys, Spruances, Ticonderogas, and Burkes (that is, the newer Burkes) have hangar facilities for two helicopters. I always wondered if this was intended to make up for the ASW helicopters lost from the fleet when the CVS carriers were removed from service. Good idea or not, perhaps the Halyer DDH proposal was intended to further make up for the deficiency.

      I've read elsewhere that the Halyer DDH was supposed to accommodate four Seasprite or four Seahawk or two Sea King helicopters.

      I wonder, back in the day, would two Sea Kings have been worth four Seasprites?

      This information is 15+ years old and things may have changed, but I read the Seahawk was at a disadvantage compared to some other, larger ASW helicopters that had greater on-board data processing capability. Above, Steven mentions the AgustaWestland AW101 can carry four torpedoes. It also has more room for equipment. If and when the navy needs a replacement for the Seahawk for the ASW role, should the AW101 or something similar be considered?

      Delete
  12. If you have a big deck we should be shooting for a fixed wing UAV for ASW at this point. I think the question is how to get the most out of a surface combatant detachment, The LCS FFG model is junk. 1 MQ-8C and 1 MH-60R gets s nowhere. The UAV is too small. A 2 MH-60R CRUDES detachment could be changed to 1 MH-60R and 2 UAVs based on the same single engine from MH-60R. As a UAV a vehicle that size could do a lot of what the manned MH-60 can do. Key with 1 manned helo is it can always get back on board and fly the UAVs same time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " fixed wing UAV "

      What would this UAV carry in the way of ASW sensors and weapons?

      Delete
    2. I'm really fine with what we have seen from the STOL concept of the MQ-9B. Surface Search Radar, 2 x 10 Sonobuoy pods and instead of the 2 AIM-9s they have in some of the promo material I'd se to of the CVLWTs. It puts us far ahead of where we are at.

      Delete
    3. The MQ-9 requires some 2000 ft of runway for takeoff and landing and the AF requires it to operate on 5000 ft runways. How big a deck were you envisioning?

      Delete
    4. GA is pitching a STOL using a wing kit similar to Mojave.

      Delete
    5. From Wiki, regarding the Mojave take off requirements,

      "It is able to take off from austere runways as little as 152 m (500 ft) in length.[7] In a surveillance mode it can take off from a 300 m (1,000 ft) runway and stay aloft for over 20 hours, and it can perform armed ISR from a 488 m (1,600 ft) runway ..."

      This is simply not possible for anything less than a full size supercarrier and even that has only 1000 ft of total deck length. Of course, carriers have catapults and arresting gear but, then again, a supercarrier has no need for UAVs as they have plenty of other aircraft.

      Delete
    6. "This is simply not possible for anything less than a full size supercarrier and even that has only 1000 ft of total deck length"

      Keep in mind that takeoff distances from a moving ship are shorter than from land. The takeoff distance goes like the square of the takeoff speed, and the speed of the ship (and of any headwind) is subtracted from the takeoff airspeed when determining the necessary speed relative to the ship (which determines the required runway length). This is why aircraft carriers turn into the wind when launching planes.

      Ski ramps reduce the required ground run further, which is why navies without catapults use them.

      Delete
    7. We're talking about trying to launch from a surface ship with a flight deck, not a supercarrier with catapults.

      Delete

    8. "We're talking about trying to launch from a surface ship with a flight deck, not a supercarrier with catapults."

      I know. Everything I said still holds. Remember, in World War 2, aircraft routinely took off from surface ships with flight decks and no catapults. Even B25 bombers! Remember the raid on Tokyo? And those ships were shorter than supercarriers too.

      And remember that in the 1960's, a C130 cargo plane landed and took off from the USS Forrestal without catapults or arresting gear. While the C130 does have some high lift enhancements, and I'm sure it was light at the time, it certainly isn't optimized for STOL.

      And remember that, even today, high performance jets routinely take off from ships with flight decks and ski jumps without catapults.

      The speed of the carrier reduces the net takeoff speed of the plane, which dramatically shortens the takeoff run on deck. That's one reason carriers are fast.

      Delete
    9. Now, this doesn't prove that the particular drone under discussion can do it, but the speed of the ship dramatically reduces the takeoff run, since the takeoff run is determined by the speed relative to the ship, not the air.

      Again, the takeoff run goes like the SQUARE of the speed relative to the ship. So, as an example:

      Suppose the takeoff airspeed is 120 knots (actually kinda high for a STOL drone).

      If ship is moving at 30 knots, that reduces takeoff speed relative to the ship by 30 knots, or about 25 %.

      That reduces the ground run (on deck) by almost half. Since it goes like the square.

      Delete
    10. You're belaboring the incredibly obvious while simultaneously ignoring the fact that this thread is NOT about carriers. It's about DDH type ships. Those ships have very short flight decks (60 ft, perhaps up to 100 ft if someone were to purpose design a DDH vessel). No ship of that type can launch into the wind unless the steam astern at 30+ kts and I find that highly unlikely. Even the LPD which was mentioned elsewhere cannot launch into the wind.

      Although the original author of the comment in question didn't cite a specific UAV size, it's clear he's thinking about near-Reaper size (Mojave is near-Reaper) which could not be stored in any hangar without significant redesign of the aircraft. Also, to belabor the obvious, bear in mind that a 36 ft x 65 ft aircraft doesn't get to use the entire flight deck. By the time it's moved out of a hangar and spotted for launch, it's already some forty feet down the 'runway'.

      To continue the trend of belaboring the obvious, the Essex class had around an 880 ft deck!

      Delete
    11. Ah, now I understand

      When he started his comment with "If you have a big deck", I assumed that this part of the conversation was about a flat deck helicopter carrier, not a DDH. Since when we use the term "big deck", that's my understanding of what we usually mean.

      Obviously you are correct that nothing the size of a Reaper can be launched from a DDH without some sort of super rocket assist or a catapult. And even with those, it's not at all clear to me how it could possibly land again.

      Delete
    12. "I assumed that this part of the conversation was about a flat deck helicopter carrier"

      This discussion leads into an interesting topic. What if we wanted a 'carrier' that could operate large UAVs such as the MQ-9 Reaper? For discussion purposes, let's assume the 'carrier' would be something akin to a Wasp class LHD which has a [roughly] 104 ft wide flight deck.

      I'm moderately sure that a 1000 ft x 104 ft flight deck would allow a Reaper to take off. The caveat is that, unlike the C-130 experiment, the Reaper does not have an immensely powerful engine so the acceleration might, actually, turn out to be insufficient. That would have to be tested but let's assume it could take off.

      The Wasp island extends close to half way across the flight deck amidships. That reduces the usable flight deck width to around 50 ft. The Reaper has a wingspan of 65 ft. which puts the nose wheel at 33 ft from either wing tip. Allowing for, say, 10 ft of wing tip clearance from the island, that would put the nose wheel 43 ft away from the island which would be withing 10 ft or so of the deck edge. That, in turn, puts the wing wheels within a few feet of the deck edge. The slightest deviation and the aircraft is off the edge! In short, it would seem that the full length of the deck cannot be safely used. That leaves only a few hundred feet forward of the island for takeoffs. Now, I'm really not sure a takeoff is possible!

      Then, there's the issue of storing/hangaring a 36 ft long x 65 ft wide aircraft. It would need some serious wing folding (probably multiple folds per wing) to get an acceptable spot factor so that we could operate more than one UAV.

      I've just been ballparking numbers, here, although they're pretty close. You seem to have an interest in this. Perhaps you'd care to pin down some more exact numbers and see if we can or cannot operate larger UAVs? Maybe you could estimate the maximum size UAV that could operate from a Wasp-type ship? How many such UAVs could the ship carry and operate? How would recovery occur? As we add equipment, such as beefed up landing gear and arresting hooks, the weight goes up and takeoffs and payloads are impacted.

      This would be a fascinating post topic. Perhaps you'd be interested in authoring a post on this?

      Delete
    13. "Perhaps you'd care to pin down some more exact numbers and see if we can or cannot operate larger UAVs?"

      I will look into this. In fact, I have been looking into it.

      I should point out a couple of my limitations so that you'll know in advance and so won't be disappointed.

      (1) While I do have technical training (I majored in physics in college and graduate school) and I had a career in software development, I don't have specific training or experience in military technology. I'm an interested and curious amateur.

      (2) I don't have access to many of the authoritative sources. I'm limited to what I can find with Google and Wikipedia. For example, in my searches to date I have not found specific information about things like:

      - takeoff speed of the Reaper
      - dimensions of the Wasp Island, or of how much flight deck is available forward of it, or of the height of the ceilings in the hangar deck (probably inadequate if the Reaper's wings are folded vertically), or of the dimensions of the hangar deck (interestingly, I HAVE found dimensions for the WELL deck).

      I also question whether the Reaper is the right UAV, even if the size, range, and payload are appropriate, and whether the Wasp class is the right ship. Obviously both of these depend on the CONOPS.

      I don't have a staff of naval staff officers available to develop a detailed CONOPS, but I do have some ideas about general use cases for these types of drones.

      I was thinking about briefly discussing the use cases and why I believe these two platforms may not be ideal for this mission.

      But primarily it would be, just as an example, to investigate whether a Wasp class ship could launch a Reaper type drone and how many it could carry. Since both of these are real platforms that are in service, it gives us some specificity.

      I'm a little more optimistic about carrying more than one than you are. Obviously the wings need to fold for storage. But rather than folding up, like in our current fighters, I'd consider using the folding mechanism from the e2 Hawkeye, which twists the wing and then folds it back along the length of the fuselage. Obviously the rear wheels would have to handle the rearward shift in center of gravity when the wings are folded.

      If we did this, then it's actually the size of the tail stabilizer that determines the width of the plane rather than the wingspan. Or perhaps the diameter of the propeller, if we also fold the rear stabilizer. My initial guess is that if we folded that way, the Reaper like drone would have a folded length similar to a folded V22 Osprey, and would probably be narrower than a folded V22 Osprey.

      And Wikipedia tells us how many V22 Ospreys can be carried by a Wasp. The number is different depending on what other aircraft (helicopters and STOVL fighters) are carried, but there is one mode ("assault mode") that is "all Osprey". In assault mode, Wikipedia says that the Wasp can carry 22 Ospreys. So, at least 22 Reapers with the wings folded as I describe.

      The reason I believe the Wasp may not be the idea ship is that most of its internal volume is taken up by amphibious stuff, including housing 1500 or so marines and all their equipment, supplies, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, spare parts, fuel, and the associated hotel services. Plus the well deck and all the surface connectors contained therein. A purpose built ship could of course reuse much of that space for much larger hangar decks, thereby significantly increasing the number of drones carried. Plus there's your concern (probably valid) that a drone with a large wingspan like the Reaper may not be able to take off past the island, thereby drastically reducing the available runway. The exception to this argument would be if the use case for the drone involves supporting an amphibious landing, in which case all that amphibious stuff is necessary too.

      Delete
    14. "dimensions of the Wasp Island, or of how much flight deck is available forward of it"

      You can estimate dimensions closely enough for our purposes by using geometric proportionality. Knowing the overall length of the ship (the flight deck, essentially), one can easily establish proportional dimensions in a profile view. If the procedure is not clear to you, let me know and I'll guide you through it.

      "Reaper's wings are folded vertically"

      I would assume the wings would fold similar to the E-2 which has an 80 ft wingspan!

      "CONOPS, but I do have some ideas about general use cases"

      Sufficient for our purposes.

      "I was thinking about briefly discussing the use cases and why I believe these two platforms may not be ideal for this mission."

      An outstanding topic for a post!

      "I'm a little more optimistic about carrying more than one than you are."

      Of course a Wasp type ship could carry more than one Reaper type UAV! The question is how many can it operate. For example, it might be possible to spot 20 aircraft on deck (to make up a number) but if it requires the entire deck be cleared to facilitate a takeoff, then the practical operational limit for aircraft is just one (neglecting hangaring, of course - I'm illustrating the point).

      "Wikipedia tells us how many V22 Ospreys can be carried by a Wasp."

      Caution! An amphibious ship can carry AND OPERATE many V-22s BECAUSE THE TAKEOFF AND LAND VERTICALLY. A Reaper type takes off and lands horizontally which impacts flight deck spots. Somewhat illustrating the issue, recall that the WWII aircraft carriers had to completely respot their aircraft forward or aft depending on whether they wanted to launch or recover aircraft.

      "Wasp may not be the idea ship"

      Of course it's not! However, we have very few options if we want a drone carrier. The best option is probably to convert a merchant ship.

      "in which case all that amphibious stuff is necessary too."

      Which is why we need a dedicated drone carrier if we want one at all. This is further evidence supporting my constant call for SINGLE purpose ships.

      If you can flesh this out and fill in the gaps, I think you've got a great topic that everyone can benefit from.

      Of course, the question that ought to be asked before we focus on what the drone carrier looks like is whether drones even have any use in high end combat. If they don't (and I'm highly dubious that they do), then it's pointless to worry about the carrier for them. However, for this discussion, we're simply stipulating that we want drones and a drone carrier so that solves that problem!

      I encourage you to continue with this!

      Delete
  13. A new trend has emerged, use drones to replace helicopters or aircrafts like P-8A in search submarines. Drones can search sea surface and launch sonobuoy just like P-8A, once a submarine is identified, a rocket assisted torpedo can be fired from far away, for instance, 200km away as new Chinese strategy of search and hunt submarines.

    Use drones have many advantages as they can stay over sea far longer than manned aircrafts and helicopters. Pentagon should learn this from China and do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "they can stay over sea far longer than manned aircrafts and helicopters."

      No, not really. Once they expend their sonobuoys, they serve no purpose. The limiting factor for manned or unmanned aircraft is the expendables, not the aircraft's endurance.

      No one has a fully operational ASW drone that I'm aware of but the notional versions all seem to share a common characteristic which is a very limited supply on sonobuoys and/or weapons. The drone proponents fail to take the expendables limitation into account in their enthusiastic embrace of drones.

      Another drawback to drones is their inability to perform on-board analysis and interpretation of sensor readings as a manned helo does. This requires the drone to continuously broadcast the raw sensor data back to the host ship for analysis. In combat, continually broadcasting is a death sentence.

      There may be a valid use for an ASW drone but I have yet to hear it.

      Delete
  14. "Hyuga class"

    I always assumed in addition these were intended to work with one more of the Abukuma class DEs. But I admit I know of no particular white paper or discussion of how the Japaneses navy plans for anti sub warfare. I does strike me as logical to have the Helicopter stand back while DEs and helicopters closely try and pin down a sub. But I have to admit I always been fascinated by the Abukuma. Its depressing after a lot searching to find out just how inexpensive they were say compared to an LCS they were in adjusted dollars. When set to build a simple purpose built ship that has one primary job anti sub, and one secondary job anti surface - you get a good deal.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is it really possible to operate a drone or uav under emcom. Wouldn't it be possible for enemy locate a near continuous emissions, especially so in the oceans where other sources of signals are absent.

    -BM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A drawback to drones is their inability to perform on-board analysis and interpretation of sensor readings as a manned helo does. This requires the drone to continuously broadcast the raw sensor data back to the host ship for analysis. In combat, continually broadcasting is a death sentence.

      Delete
    2. "A drawback to drones is their inability to perform on-board analysis and interpretation of sensor readings as a manned helo does. This requires the drone to continuously broadcast the raw sensor data back to the host ship for analysis. In combat, continually broadcasting is a death sentence."

      Which is exactly why I don't understand the USN's fascination with drones. Even if they work perfectly, that comes at a terrible cost in an EMCON environment.

      While I am at it, a related question, have we ever gotten any straight answers about the electromagnetic signature of EMALS?

      CDR Chip (don't know why it wants to sign me in as anonymous; the comment below about the success of Japanese DDHs is also mine)

      Delete
  16. Perhaps since the Navy continues to buy new ESB's (formally known as MLP, also called ESD, or whatever new name they come up with this week0 and have no idea what to actually do with them, perhaps they could act as motherships for ASW helos. They have ample space and can run heavier helos than the SH-60. They would NOT go sub hunting themselves, but work in conjunction with our new overpriced frigates or older burkes. I see them less helping protecting carrier groups and instead doing convoy escort.
    (I will not speak of the ideal world of new low cost DE's that the procurement would charge 5x )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I see them less helping protecting carrier groups and instead doing convoy escort."

      They have a claimed speed of around 15 kts so they definitely cannot work tactically with a carrier group and, indeed, would be hard pressed to work with a convoy.

      Delete
  17. A couple of thoughts.

    Helicopter Reliability - How about analyzing the failure issues and remediating them. The redesign of the Osprey was able to make it reliable (if still not affordable).

    Torpedo Load Out - How many subs do you think would be encountered in a single engagement? Before having a chance to refuel and rearm? Will anyone use such high value nuclear attack boats as wolfpacks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its about either missing the target or false contacts wasting ammo. If one hit doesn't kill it, it will be making a lot more noise and the final hunt should be easier.

      Delete
    2. "How many subs do you think would be encountered in a single engagement?"

      One per engagement! The problem is that there would be several dozen possible contacts for each real one and you would have no way of knowing real or false without fully prosecuting the contact. That will result in many, many torpedo drops on false targets. If you're a commander are you going to limit drops to only 100% sure contacts? Of course not! You're going to drop on anything remotely suspicious. As noted in another comment, the British blew through their ASW sensors/weapons during the Falklands, dropping on many false contacts. That's the reality of war. If there's a suspicion, you shoot first. Waiting and shooting second is how you die.

      Every war in history has absolutely blown through all pre-war munitions expenditure estimates and yet we persist in underestimating expenditures!

      Delete
  18. It has been my understanding that it was the success of the DDH concept, rather than the failure, that led the Japanese to build the large helo carriers.

    I've understood it as a cost decision. If you have a $1B DDH with two $100MM helos, your cost/helo is $600MM. If you have a $1.5B helo carrier with 9 helos, then your cost/helo is betweem $250-300MM..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very possible, although Ive always thought that those carriers were built with an eye towards them becoming F-35 capable ships. Although to be honest, the Japanese are probably well aware of our lack of seriousness about ASW, and might feel the need to act accordingly...

      Delete
  19. So while the post and examples seem to show theres a consensus on ASW carriers over DDH type ships... What about the concept on a non-multirole ship?? What about somthing more like an "FFH" to get costs down and build larger numbers?? An ASW ship thats nothing more than a 4-space hanger, towed array, and sonar dome, on somthing more Perry sized?? I see the merits of pooled assets. But a plentiful smaller ship class gives the ability to give adequate but not overkill escort assets to small groups like an oiler convoy, or maybe a crippled ship heading home for repair....
    So to me, I think the DDH still has merit, but only when we shrink it down to just ASW capability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I think the DDH still has merit"

      I do, too. HOWEVER, it all depends on having a well thought out concept of operations. There's that pesky old CONOPS, again. It seems to be at the bottom of every problem the Navy faces, doesn't it? :)

      If we can develop a useful, effective CONOPS for a DDH (of whatever form) then we've got a viable vessel. If we just build something and hope it can be useful someday ... it won't.

      After we think through the CONOPS and come up with something we think is good, then we have to exercise it to death and find out whether it's as brilliant as we thought.

      By the way, if you have a CONOPS, it will tell you the type of ship you need! You don't have to wonder about DDH versus FFH or whatever. The CONOPS will dictate the ship.

      So ... DDH? Depends on the CONOPS. Amazing how often that's the answer to a question!

      Delete
    2. But maybe no merit? Would a better concept be one or two simple carriers (I would vote for two) with around 8 helicopters supporting a 4-6 corvettes (w/o helicopters) that are pursuing contacts? The number of corvettes provides for triangulation of their sonar contacts even with some attrition. Seems like you could build this whole group for about the price of a Burke.

      Delete
    3. "After we think through the CONOPS and come up with something we think is good, then we have to exercise it to death and find out whether it's as brilliant as we thought."

      It would seem that we should have a pretty good source of operational information about a DDH ship from:
      - the 25 years that we operated the Knox class (1 helo) and the 38 years that we operated the Perry class (2 helos);
      - the 34 years that Canada operated the Mackenzie class (1 helo) and the 45 years that they operated the tribal class (2 helos); and
      - any information we can get from the Japanese about their DDHs.

      I particular we should get a lot of data on the effectiveness of 1 versus 2 (perhaps versus more from the Japanese data).

      -CDR Chip

      Delete
    4. Now letting me comment as CDR Chip again.

      Of course, whether the fairly substantial amount of operational data will actually be used to develop CONOPS and from that design, or whether the architects/engineers will be given a design and told to fit a CONOPS to it (if a CONOPS is even given a thought) remains to be seen. Given that it is USN, there would seem to be little room for optimism.

      Delete
  20. CNO think a comment went to spam(??)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It did. I check the spam folder several times a day but, inevitably, there's sometimes a lag between submission and posting if it goes to spam. Sorry!

      Delete
    2. Not a problem or complaint at all CNO!!

      Delete
  21. I've always thought the seaplane would have great utility in the ASW role. With a hull mounted sonar it can loiter much longer on the surface than helicopter, reposition as fast, and carry a much heavier payload.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A seaplane is, of course, not survivable in contested air space. A sonar would, essentially, be on the surface of the water and susceptible to the surface wave noise. Also, sea planes have limits on sea state operating conditions. In short, I see only a limited, peripheral use for an ASW sea plane.

      An example of a possible use would be patrolling the waters around Guam although, in that case, an actual P-8 would be far better suited. I'm just not seeing the usefulness or applicability. Perhaps you can offer a specific example of a suitable scenario?

      Delete
  22. Your post indicates helos are the primary constraint when you're talking surface ship ASW. Size and space. Let's think this through a little further. Because there are other (yes, yes; future-) options.

    At first I thought, "Let's stick a sonobuoy in a 5-inch gun. Yeah, that requires sono redesign but maybe that's doable. And maybe not. Excalibur-type GPS precision. BTW, Excalibur 155mm is 6 inches so we're not too far away from being able to handle same CEP from a 5-inch gun. Has the novelty of not having been considered before. Is current sono design driven by function (finding subs) or launcher diameters standardized over multiple platforms (P-3C, P-80, SH-60, etc.)?"

    I JUST bought a 2024 car that's light-years more advanced than my 2006 trade-in. Current sonobuoy dimensions go back to, at minimum, the 1980s. Be cautious telling me we can't do better. That flys in the face of every single product produced/improved over the last 40 years.

    Light research indicates 5-inch gun range is 13nm (yes, assumes sono is no heavier than explosive charge) but MK-48 torpedo range is 21.6nm. So let's rule out the gun-approach. BTW, would have used a drone to link the mini-sono(s) to the shipboard ASWOC.

    So how about multiple drones on each destroyer? How many drones can you store in the helo hangar? Existing sonobuoys weigh less than 39 lbs. each. 39lbs is doable via drone but cut size and weight and now you have a force multiplier. BTW, we'll use a drone (why not more than one to cover diff areas?) to link the mini-sono(s) to the shipboard ASWOC.

    Death from above via VLS ASROC per Phils' comment (above).

    The future of warfare is clearly SMALLER, CHEAPER, NUMEROUS vs. our current FEW and EXPENSIVE.

    Let's not plan, entirely, to fight the last war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 10 a-type launcher GA has devised for their mq-9b ends up weighing up to 750 lbs. ulta? Had advertised a sustem for mq-8c that uses smaller buoys and topped iut at like 470lb. You could launch some from Srboc and have them go further w rocket or small turbine.

      Delete
    2. "39lbs is doable via drone"

      In combat, sonobouys would be used by the dozens/hundreds per day. A drone the size that can operate off a destroyer could carry only a very few (1-4?). That would be of no tactical benefit when many dozens at a time are needed.

      As an example, a Scan Eagle, which is the size that could be operated off a destroyer, has a payload capacity of 11 lbs which is not even one sonobuoy.

      If we can, indeed, develop a sonobuoy that weighs next to nothing and has no size then, yes, the concept of a destroyer sonobuoy drone is viable but, until then, it isn't practical.

      Give this some more thought and research and let me know if there are real world examples of the kind of drone and payload that could make this work.

      Delete
    3. "launcher GA has devised for their mq-9b ends up weighing up to 750 lbs"

      Given the practical payload capacity of 1593 lb for a Reaper (from Wiki weight specs), how is this of any practical use?

      Delete
    4. I've figured out a flaw in my thinking: Sonobuoys MIGHT be so big today BECAUSE they have large batteries.

      So I researched battery energy density improvements over the years. There's lots of data out there; and charts. But looks like, at minimum, that lithium ion batteries today have triple the energy density they did in the mid-80s. At min; there's much larger numbers (improvement) depending on what you look at.

      Does that mean the current < 39lbs. could get chopped to < 10 lbs? Dunno. But I've reasonably bounded a lower limit (materials and miniaturized electronics contributing, also).

      Lack of imagination in weapons manufacturing industry is likely a combination of service(s) inertia and crushing procurement regulations. No vision, no leadership and no organization explicitly dedicated to future design(s). DARPA seems a bit scattershot. Something else for me to get started on fixing when I become SECNAV.

      BTW, PATWINGSPAC recognized, in the 80s, war reserve sono stocks were woefully inadequate given utilization rates. I was there. I don't imagine anything has changed since (cf current difficulties sourcing 155mm).

      Delete
    5. Got another problem: 30kn+ winds on the open ocean.

      Maybe I can't get away from big-assed helicopters- Sure would like to, though.

      Delete
    6. MQ-9B has 4750lb external payload.

      Delete
    7. "MQ-9B has 4750lb external payload"

      I was citing the MQ-9A.

      The -9B payload seems suspect. From militaryfactory.com,

      empty wt. = 3858 lb (GA has no listing)
      max take off wt. = 11023 lb (GA lists 12500 lb)
      wt difference = 7165 lb
      fuel = 6000 lb (from GA)

      subtracting 6000 lb fuel from the 7165 lb available weight gives 1165 lb available payload with full fuel load.

      The claimed 4750 lb payload may be the theoretical max if the aircraft has a minimal fuel load of 2415 lb or less. Of course, then it loses a great deal of endurance.

      The MQ-9A specs undergo a similar calculation to yield 1593 lb payload versus the claimed 3800 lb.

      The manufacturer appears to be engaging in some creative, though technically correct, specification spin.

      Perhaps you have more consistent, authoritative specs?

      Delete
  23. Hello CNO. Make a post about naval washdown systems for surface warships, their function, role and possibilities. Is this system able to reduce the range of detection from radar and infrared search systems? Does she contribute stealth abilities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Washdown systems would be an excellent topic, however, there is very little information publicly available. Washdown systems are credited with reducing IR signature although to what degree is unknown. I've long called for washdown systems as an integral part of a ship's defense. I'm unaware of any impact on radar signature.

      Delete
  24. To me it seems that an ASW focused helo carrier is one of the best solutions, but it also seems that in our modern world of mostly asymmetric warfare it has little to no right of existence. Considering how specialized such a vessel would be it is a lot of money and resources to spend on something that will likely never see use. ASW H/K groups only make sense in a near peer war, where the opponent has significant submarine forces, but any such matchup would also be a nuclear match up. As such I think that might be one of the reasons why this seemingly obvious solution isn't being pursued by anyone.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.