It has been some 80+ years since WWII and in that time we
have seen some truly remarkable advances in tank design, aircraft design,
missile development, sensors, etc. One
would think that ship design would have advanced at least as much and yet this
is clearly not the case. Not only has
ship design not advanced, in many respects it has regressed. Armor, weapon density, survivability,
redundancy, endurance, sailing range, etc. have all regressed. Well, at least we can say that surface ship
aviation has advanced with the development of the helicopter … right? Or has it?
Let’s look.
As a reminder, WWII US cruisers typically carried four
seaplanes operated from two catapults and recovered with one or two
cranes. The seaplanes they used included,
primarily, the OS2U Kingfisher and, at other times in the war, the Curtis SC-1
Seahawk and Curtis SOC Seagull. Today,
Burke class destroyers Flt IIa and beyond carry one SH-60 type helo
(theoretically capable of two but never done, as far as I know) and provision
for a small Fire Scout type UAV which have rarely been used and are being
phased out (see, “Fire Scout Status”). Flt I/II Burkes, have no hangar and carry no
helos. The Constellation class carries
one SH-60 type helo and one Fire Scout type UAV. The LCS carries one SH-60 type helo and one
Fire Scout or smaller UAV.
Aircraft
Just as the value of an aircraft carrier is wholly dependent
on the size and abilities of the air wing, so too is the surface ship aviation
value dependent on the aircraft they carry.
Following is a comparison of the primary aircraft from WWII surface ships
and today’s surface ships.
 |
| OS2U Kingfisher |
Discussion
The one area where an argument can be made that aircraft have
significantly improved is anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Helos have proven quite useful and effective
at this thanks to sonobuoys, dipping sonar, and air-dropped torpedoes. Unfortunately, the reduction in number of
embarked aircraft have rendered the ASW helo only marginally useful unless
several ships can pool their aircraft.
As the saying goes, if you have one helo, you have none. This is recognition of the very high
maintenance demands of helos and their inability to maintain a high readiness rate.
So, while ASW helos are theoretically significantly
improved, the reality of reduced numbers and readiness rates have rendered any
theoretical improvement only marginally useful.
As with so many other aspects of ship design, today’s
surface ship aviation capabilities have not significantly improved and have, in
many ways, regressed. Today’s ships
carry fewer (half or less) aircraft with significantly shorter ranges.
How can we address the shortcomings in surface ship
aviation? We have, potentially two
possible alternatives to today’s aviation problems:
1. Revert to shipboard seaplanes. With modern engines, enhanced aerodynamic
designs, stealth shaping, etc., we should be able to design a ship’s seaplane
with range in excess of a thousand miles and a reasonable degree of stealth for
survivability and the ability to scout without being instantly detected. Four (to use the historical number) such
aircraft would go a long ways towards providing ships with effective
situational awareness and target detection.
2. UAVs. We’ve
discussed the use of small, stealthy UAVs for shipboard surveillance many
times. Operated by the dozens at a time,
small UAVs can be quite effective while representing little financial risk if
some are lost (see, “UAV’s – Numbers Matter”).
I really like the seaplane idea. The big question to me is Armed or unarmed? If unarmed it could be really small and harder to spot, but obviously if it found something would be unable to kill it. Clive F
ReplyDeleteWell, the goal of scouting is to find the enemy without being seen yourself. That allows you to set up the most favorable engagement scenario. You can't do that if you immediately shoot something at the target. Of course, if you can destroy the target (and it's all by itself) then, sure, do it. That brings us to the weapons load. Modern ships with Aegis type defenses will require much more than one or two lightweight missiles to defeat and that's about all a small seaplane could carry. In other words, it couldn't effectively attack anything but a small, single patrol boat. So, now, ask yourself what the odds are of finding that kind of target versus the penalty of making every seaplane bigger, more complex, more expensive, and with reduced range and stealth?
DeleteDoes that answer your question?
WW2 ships had to STOP, to recover a seaplane, making them vulnerable. Before reintroducing seaplanes to shipboard service, the USN should develop, test, painstakingly debug, and then implement a way for a MOVING ship to recover seaplanes.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts here:
Delete1. To the best of my recollection, no ship was ever sunk (or even attacked) while recovering an aircraft. The ship checks out the area before undertaking recovery operations. Not a guarantee of safety but pretty safe. Everything in war is a risk.
2. Movement is not much of a protection today when the threats are 50+ kt torpedoes, supersonic and high subsonic missiles, hypersonic ballistic missiles, etc.
3. A ship can abort a recovery and be back up to full speed in about two minutes so, again, not much of a problem.
All that said, if someone can devise a way to recover seaplanes while moving at 20-30 kts, that's great IF IT DOESN'T ADD UNACCEPTABLE COST AND COMPLEXITY TO THE SHIP.
Re: Seaplane recovery, by 1944 a landing mat would
Deletebe streamed by the recovering ship, and the plane would
taxi onto the mat, allowing plane recovery at cruising speed. A helo with RAST can recover in a higher sea state, compared to a float plane on a landing mat.
#ComNavOps
ReplyDelete"It has been some 80+ years since WWII and in that time we have seen some truly remarkable advances in tank design, aircraft design, missile development, sensors, etc. One would think that ship design would have advanced at least as much and yet this is clearly not the case."
-> necessity is the mother of invention
List of Major Naval Vessels sunk in Military conflict after WW2
1) INS Eilat – Former British HMS Zealous, sunk on October 21, 1967, by Egyptian missile boats during the War of Attrition.
2) PNS Ghazi was a Pakistani submarine, a Tench-class diesel-electric submarine leased from the US Navy in 1963, the Indian Navy intercepted Ghazi's mission and ultimately sank it in the Bay of Bengal, near Visakhapatnam, on December 3-4, 1971
3) INS Khukri (F149) – Sunk by the Pakistan Navy submarine Hangor on December 9, 1971, during the Indo-Pakistani War.
4) HMS Sheffield (D80): A Royal Navy destroyer struck by an Argentine Exocet missile on May 4, 1982. The missile caused a devastating fire, leading to the deaths of 20 crew members. The ship was abandoned and sank on May 10, 1982.
Wikipedia
5) HMS Coventry (D118): A Royal Navy destroyer hit by three bombs from Argentine A-4 Skyhawk aircraft on May 25, 1982. The ship sank rapidly, resulting in the loss of 19 crew members.
Wikipedia
6) HMS Antelope (F170): A Royal Navy frigate struck by a 1,000-pound bomb on May 23, 1982. The bomb failed to detonate initially but exploded during a defusal attempt, causing the ship to sink. The explosion resulted in the deaths of 14 crew members.
7) ARA General Belgrano: An Argentine Navy cruiser sunk by the British submarine HMS Conqueror on May 2, 1982. The attack resulted in the loss of 323 Argentine crew members.
8) ARA Isla de los Estados: An Argentine Navy supply ship sunk by British forces on May 11, 1982, after being engaged by HMS Alacrity. The ship exploded after several hits ignited its cargo, resulting in the deaths of 22 crew members.
Since there is no major Naval conflict after WW2, ship designs are following the trends stated by you.
-------------------------
"we should be able to design a ship’s seaplane with range in excess of a thousand miles and a reasonable degree of stealth for survivability and the ability to scout without being instantly detected."
lets say if a scout seaplane detects enemy contact at 300 nmi from its surface ship how is it going to relay that information back to surface ship ?
how does current E2D or C2 Greyhound communicate with any surface ship if they are 300 nmi (assumption) away from nearest surface ship ?
do they need any intermediate network node or they can directly communicate ?
"how is it going to relay that information back to surface ship ?"
DeleteI'm not a comms expert but there are multiple methods: satellite, UAV relay, atmospheric reflection, line of sight (30,000 ft altitude provides around 300 mile LOS), etc.
Ham radios, for example, can transmit hundreds to thousands of miles.
For a better answer about military comm methods, you'll have to ask a comms expert.
"Ham radios, for example, can transmit hundreds to thousands of miles."
DeleteOften that requires a large antenna and the right weather conditions. However, with a handheld at 5 watts, I can talk to someone a thousand miles away via a satellite, but that would only be for a couple of minutes.
A few comments:
ReplyDelete1. Agree that a two aircraft complement should be the minimum. Helo, seaplane, UAV - doesn't matter. One will almost always been down for routine maintenance (although this can be planned so that both are available when you most want them to be). Yes, we should expect UAVs to also need some downtime; we've yet to develop a full maintenance free aviation system.
2. I think you may understate the room that was needed aboard ships to support WW2 seaplanes. Here's an excellent photo gallery of seaplane ops: https://imgur.com/a/eyes-of-fleet-ww2-american-seaplane-operations-cd3ma. As the photos show, many cruisers did indeed have hangers. Using my eyeball, the catapults look to be at least 60 feet long, and there's the matter of those giant cranes and other handling equipment, too. I get your point, just don't agree that aviation facilities are SO much a larger now. I think any aviation system other than a small, portable UAV will need more than de minimus deck and hanger space.
3. The equipment needed to support a helicopter also appears to be far less complex than seaplanes. Outside of the birds themselves, the only aviation mechanical system of note that needs to be maintained by the ship is the RAST, for which a couple of engineers keep the proper certifications to maintain. Speaking from experience, just keeping that one key system up and running is hard enough! I shudder at needing to maintain catapults, cranes, recovery sleds.... This would expand shipboard manning and skill requirements considerably. Sound expensive, complicated and less reliable to me!
Given all this, I'd be far more interested in seeing the Navy explore innovate UAV options and let the floatplanes stay in the dustbin.
"I think you may understate the room that was needed aboard ships to support WW2 seaplanes. ... cruisers did indeed have hangers. Using my eyeball, the catapults look to be at least 60 feet long, and there's the matter of those giant cranes"
DeleteYou fail to grasp the concept of usable space. The WWII catapults were placed wherever convenient. The ships were not enlarged to accommodate them and the space used was, generally, shared with other equipment such as on top of turrets. Contrast that to today's flight decks which require 100 feet of DEDICATED space that CANNOT be used for any other purpose. That's a hundred foot "plug" that must be added to every ship that operates a helo. Similarly, WWII hangars were placed where convenient and, while occupying space, did not require excessive amounts. They were placed below decks, wedged in gaps in the superstructure, etc. Contrast that with the Burke helo hangar which is something on the order of another hundred feet long and spans the entire width of the ship!!!! That's another hundred foot plug in every helo ship.
Not only am I not understating the WWII requirements, I may be overstating them!
"The equipment needed to support a helicopter also appears to be far less complex than seaplanes."
That's a highly debatable statement. A WWII catapult, while complex looking, was actually simplicity itself. Some air cylinders and a piston - that was about the extent of it. There was not complicated electronics, software, etc. Today's helos also require dedicated air traffic control radars and control personnel housed in their own compartment or station such as the back of the Perry class hangar. Further, the WWII seaplanes could be maintained by any backyard mechanic with a wrench as opposed to the entire departments of personnel required to maintain a helo. A helo detachment consists of some 20-30 people for, say, an LCS. They are separate from, and in addition to, the ship's crew. I'd say helos, their associated equipment, and manning are much more complex and large.
I agree completely with the need for longer range eyes on the modern surface warfare ship. I can tell you without violating any clearances that it is a major issue with the surface fleet today. One of the biggest issues with the modern Aegis fleet is that if you power up that radar, everyone within 500 miles knows where you are and who you are. I invite the audience to look up a program that I worked on that the navy still doesn't have an answer for.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Tern
https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/tern
I am aware of this program although I haven't heard anything about it in several years, now. My reaction back then, and unchanged today, is that there is a major weakness in the program and that is communications.
DeleteDARPA was focused on launch/recovery which is only half the problem. The other, more important half, is how to communicate with and control the UAV. A sensor UAV has to be able to transmit its sensor data back to the host ship without turning itself into a flying beacon saying, here I am. Likewise, the host ship has to be able to control the UAV without broadcasting its own location.
I have seen no good answer to this issue. Perhaps you have some insight to offer?
Several points:
Delete1. The Tern aircraft was autonomous. It did not require constant communication in order to perform its mission.
2. The communication challenge exists in all platforms, both manned and unmanned. I can not go into details about this, but there are many approaches to this and they are a constant challenge.
3. The biggest issue in the surface warfare challenge is to get the "targeting sensors" off of the ship and on to something that is something that is acceptable to loose. The weapons have enough reach already. It is the targeting solution that is hard.
Tern was not L.O. and was never going to be. L.O. is almost impossible with a prop or rotor. We can reduce signature some, but as long as you are using a prop or a rotor, there is only so much that can be done.
"there is only so much that can be done."
DeleteThere is quite a bit that can be done and it starts with recognizing what the mission is because that dictates what's needed in the way of stealth. Everyone automatically thinks stealth means radar stealth and, while that's certainly one aspect, it's not the only aspect of stealth and, depending on the mission, maybe not the most important aspect.
Consider what a surface ship's scouting UAV is supposed to do. It's supposed to provide situational awareness for a tactically relevant area around the host ship. It's NOT penetrating a full featured, layered defense with dozens of active radar sites. We just want to know if there's something there or not.
Now consider the target of the mission: presumably, it's a ship(s). What is this target doing? Well, it's wartime so it's NOT radiating. Thus, radar stealth is generally not an issue. The more likely need for stealth is in the optical and IR parts of the spectrum and THAT'S where we need to focus our stealth efforts for the UAV. If the enemy is using primarily optical and IR passive sensing then we need to make the UAV as optically difficult to spot as we can and we need to minimize the IR signature.
But what if the enemy IS using radar? Well, if they are, they've already given away their location and we don't really need the UAV, right? So, again, radar stealth is not that important.
Honestly, the most important stealth is communications stealth. Can we report back to the host ship without immediately alerting the target? I just don't have an answer to that. We need a combat comms person to address that.
Finally, bear in mind that we aren't trying to create the world's most invisible UAV. That would cost hundreds of millions for a simple UAV. We just want enough stealth to enable the UAV to survive long enough to spot a target and report back. In other words, just enough stealth to allow the UAV to get a little closer without being spotted. Ideally, we'll see the target without the target seeing us but that's the best case, not the design case.
Hmm ... I may have to turn this into a post because I'm pretty sure most people haven't thought this through.
"The Tern aircraft was autonomous."
DeleteTo what extent? The term autonomous can refer to anything from simple waypoints to Terminator level artificial intelligence. Enlighten me.
I agree with much of what you said. However, you will notice, that I used the term low observable and not stealth. I am very aware that applies to many aspects. I was not specific about how low observable and in what spectrums.
DeleteThe job of the Tern aircraft was to launch from the DDG and go fly an orbit over the area for which you are concerned. It could do that for up to several hours and could be rotated for the second one on the same DDG. Two aircraft could fit in a single DDG hanger.
Being wing borne, the aircraft has significant range and endurance and can fly at altitudes that make it challenging to detect optically and in the IR spectrum.
With respect to the RADAR spectrums, I am sure that you are aware that there are many capabilities, not the least of which is that the guy that is transmitting may not be the guy that you are interested or may not be transmitting at the time that you want him to.
As for the communications issue. There are solutions and I will not address them here.
Tern as a program was ended due to a lack of funding. I am not saying that that aircraft is the solution. I can tell you that in ending it there are many things that we could possibly have done better and if given the same task we would approach differently. I would like to think we all learn from our mistakes. I believe that you have touched on a fundamental problem that we have in the fleet today. There are multiple ways to skin this cat, but it is something that absolutely needs to be addressed moving forward.
"can fly at altitudes that make it challenging to detect optically and in the IR spectrum."
DeleteIf you have experience with this then maybe you can tell me how that would work, that a tiny optical and/or IR sensor can fly so high that it can still see a target ship but the ship's much larger, more sensitive optical/IR sensors can't see the UAV? This is not an argumentative challenge. This is a sincere request for knowledge because that situation would make no sense (pardon the pun) to me. Educate me!
Regarding comms, I've had comments from many people who claimed that we have all kinds of comm methods (a true statement, I'm sure) and we won't have any problem communicating (a highly dubious statement, I'm sure). Conversely, I've had discussions with people claiming to be signal intel experts who claim that NO comm method is undetectable and that our supposed secure comms are not secure and are easily detected (I suspect this is true but have no absolute proof). Detection being different than breaking an encryption, of course. Detection, however, is usually adequate for combat purposes.
In your work, did you exercise with/against SigInt people who were trying to detect your comm signals?
It is well documented that, as a general statement, our military refuses to exercise against even our own unleashed EW and SigInt capabilities. Thus, there are very few in the military who have any actual, correct understanding of comm-countercomm issues. I've talked to people who claim to know about comm security but when you pin them down they admit they've never exercised/tested against full countermeasures which, of course, invalidates their claims.
Answers:
Delete1. What I mean by autonomous is that it is mission planned in advance and flies the plan. It can be rerouted in flight but does not require input. It has some ability to contingency planned based upon various factors. I do not mean crazy terminator decision making.
2. Tern had a 60 ft wingspan and was powered by a GE T700 Turboshaft engine. It was not a tiny IR/Optical sensor. It would have had no issue flying above 30k ft. I would invite you to look at the MTS ball on the MQ-4C Triton. I did not say it was undetectable, only that it was challenging.
3. Yes, we spent quite a bit of time wargaming against our sensors and those of our adversaries. Tern never flew so, no we never flew exercises against our own fleet.
4. I'm not going to talk about comms.
"What I mean by autonomous is that it is mission planned in advance and flies the plan. It can be rerouted in flight but does not require input."
DeleteThis sounds a lot like a 21st century version of the PBYs in the 1975 "Midway" movie that were sent out to fly search patterns to find the Japanese task forces...Strawberry 8, Strawberry 9 etc.
Lutefisk
"Today, Burke class destroyers Flt IIa and beyond carry one SH-60 type helo (theoretically capable of two but never done, as far as I know."
ReplyDeleteThe standard loadout for a DDG-51 Flight II is two MH-60Rs. Not one. And SH-60 was phased out 10+ years ago.
No, the Burke is theoretically capable of carrying 2 SH-60 type helos but I've only ever seen one and most docs list one helo plus a Fire Scout type UAV.
DeleteThe phrase 'SH-60 type' means some variant of the SH-60 family. That could be the MH-60R, MH-60S, HH-60H, SH-60F, or any of the Army Blackhawk or derivatives as they have done on occasion.
The phrase 'xxxxx type' tells everyone that I'm referring to the family of whatever xxxxx is and saves me having to list each individual member of the family. Only a lawyer would fail to grasp this.
A DDG does not embark an MQ-8 Fire Scout excpet as a one-time photo op. It doesn't have the appropriate C2 gear for launch and recovery. The MQ-8 was only deployed on OHPs frigates and LCS.
DeleteThe standard loadout for a DDG is two MH-60Rs. There are plenty of sources that state this. Try Naval Surface Forces webpage for one.
Or this article, which states the Navy routinely deployed two helo detachments on DDGs. One helo is the exception.
Deletehttps://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/august/challenges-single-helicopter-detachments
The very first sentence of your link is,
Delete"MH-60R Seahawk squadrons routinely deploy one- and two-helicopter detachments on single-landing-spot, air-capable ships."
The article does not say that 2-helo detachments are the standard. Again, I've only ever seen 1-helo.
That's enough of this waste of time.
The linked article clearly states: "The Navy routinely deploys two-aircraft detachments, but there are circumstances (scheduling, current operations, aircraft availability, etc.) that require single-aircraft detachments".
DeleteThe MQ-8 Fire Scout never (to my knowledte) deployed on a DDG-51. DDG don't carry the C2 equipment. Nor the correct crew. MQ-8s were flown by Sierra pilots which don't embark on DDGs.
Where are you getting your information?!?
Speaking from first hand experience, Burkes (and cruisers) definitely will embark both one- and two-helo detachments. It's not that one or the other is "standard." It's that several factors will drive a particular loadout, including the nature of the underway period and availability of aircraft.
DeleteI'd say embarking a single helo is more common, but again, it entirely depends on the tasking, which is important context: Training operations off VaCapes? More likely one. Deploying overseas in a hot zone? More likely two.
(I will add: I've found that a two-helo detachment is a significant multiplier over one airframe.)
"'Standard"
DeleteComment deleted. I said this was enough of a waste of time. Move on.
I can understand the need and location for helicopters on a DDG or CG BUT with the advent of UAVs and all these super smart drones, do we still need to lose 100 feet at the rear of the ship? You think we could figure out if that's still the best location or if possible, to "squeeze" in the UAVs in a different location?
ReplyDeleteNot sure any one has looked at different locations and operations on a modern ship....
It all depends on the specific UAV being operated. The MQ-8C, for example, needs pretty much the full flight deck area. A Scan Eagle or Blackjack, for example, can be launched from any open deck space with a small, portable catapult.
DeleteHow about this, it is large with a cruise speed larger than 300 miles per hour. Although it is targeted for civilian use now, there is good potential for military use. It can go side by side with ships (refuel & supply food/water)
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIC_AG600
We're talking about operating from a surface ship. This would be a challenge to operate from a carrier!
DeleteAfter looked AG600, I think that it can fly with ships, a companion with ships. Once it doesn't fly, just stay on water. It can then be refueled and supplied. It can also be towed by a ship on water.
DeleteA few points:
ReplyDeleteIf we assume the sea plane is for reconnaissance only it can be made small and relatively slow. If it can land on water, can it not take off from water? That way it has a limitless length runway. I know there is the sea state (waves etc) which may limit take off, someone better than me can say if that is feasible. Also, only extra space required is a small crane and a “hut” to keep them in
Assuming they are kept simple (thus cheap) extra manpower required would be minimal, but give (in my opinion) a lot of extra benefit
How easy is it to make a seaplane stealthy?
Should it have a radar? (makes it a beacon) for either search or general navigation? What passive sensors should it have? The less it has the cheaper and smaller it can be.
My main point is this is a whole area with possibilities that could be explored with little cost (compared to how the navy spends money elsewhere). It however has had no experimentation on for decades. I think the last take off was 1948. If you compare a car for example in 1948 compared to now, there is no comparison. Materials available are completely different. However, the Navy will want it to do everything and cost a fortune so it will not be feasible cost wise.
End of my Ramblings Clive F
"can it not take off from water?"
DeleteAs you note, that limits the use to calm sea states which might be acceptable in peacetime but is unacceptable in combat.
"How easy is it to make a seaplane stealthy?"
We're talking simple stealth shaping not exotic coatings or materials of construction. We're not trying to produce an F-22 floatplane!
"My main point is this is a whole area with possibilities that could be explored with little cost"
Exactly!
I think that CNO's idea for the simple and 'affordable' passive surveillance drone is a winning idea.
ReplyDeleteBut that float plane idea is also pretty interesting.
One of the ideas tossed around on this blog is the value of bringing back the ES-3A for sigint passive surveillance, which should prove to be pretty valuable.
Would that role be able to be filled by variations of that float plane?
Lutefisk
RE: the drone solution.
ReplyDeleteJust want to expand on the concern with communications that was alluded to in an earlier comment in this thread.
Even if the drones themselves are completely autonomous, they need to broadcast in order to get the information back to the ship. This will be detected by the enemy and of course targeted. But these signals can also be jammed and spoofed by various forms of electronic warfare.
But, to my knowledge, our technology does not currently permit totally autonomous drones, especially small and cheap ones. Semi-autonomous, flying by way of waypoints, sure, but not fully autonomous. So the ship will need to send them instructions. At least in the vicinity of the target, about what to look at. If the ship is managing dozens, or even A dozen, of drones, I suspect these signals will be quite frequent. And they will probably be fairly powerful if they can be detected by the small antennas in the drones over several hundred miles. These signals will likely be detected by the enemy and used to target the ship. So the question might be asked: What's the point of worrying about EMCON or passive sensors if the ship is constantly broadcasting a "here I am, come kill me" signal?
You might not be quite viewing this properly. Let me explain my take on this, assuming we can't execute totally secure comms.
DeleteThe concept is not to have the ship continually (or semi-frequently) broadcast instructions to the drone. Instead, the drone is sent out on a pre-determined path (waypoints) to search a sector or area of interest. No comms needed. The drone also does not continually send sensor data back. If, and only if, the drone detects something does it broadcast back to the host ship and, even then, it only broadcasts a momentary 'squeak' that indicates a target has been detected. Depending on the sophistication of the software, perhaps it could include a tentative target type ID in its momentary burst. At that point, the ship knows there's a potential target and approximately where. The ship would then, likely, send additional drones to further pin down the target and the target area in preparation for a strike or whatever action is appropriate. The ship never broadcasts, thereby preserving their unknown location.
The likelihood of the momentary burst broadcasts being detected and localized to pinpoint the drone location is poor and, worse case, we lose a drone. No big deal.
To sum up, the host ship stays silent and hidden. The drones limit themselves to momentary bursts and likely stay hidden. The drawback to this approach is that we don't get the full color, three dimensional, multi-spectral, holographic drone sensor imaging that the modern military seems hooked on.
If you recall your WWII history, this is almost exactly what the morning carrier searches did. The aircraft (typically SBDs) would be assigned a search sector and would broadcast only if they found a target and then only a momentary burst transmission giving the location and target course/speed and type/composition. The host carrier would not normally broadcast and would remain hidden.
Does that make sense to you?
"Does that make sense to you?"
DeleteIt does, although I do have one question.
Regarding this:
"The ship would then, likely, send additional drones to further pin down the target and the target area in preparation for a strike or whatever action is appropriate."
Recall that the drones we're talking about are fairly slow. If the ship needs to send more drones from the ship, that will probably take a fair amount of time. I imagine things would happen faster if the ship could redirect drones that were already airborne. But that of course would required transmitting.
Will the slower approach (which might require several additional hours, if the drone flies at, say, 60 knots and the target is a couple hundred miles away) really meet the need?
"But that of course would required transmitting."
DeleteCommunications most certainly can give away one's location, however, let's not get so spooked by this that we think we can't even squirt out a single microburst transmission without a swarm of enemy missiles appearing overhead a few seconds later. Sending a momentary new waypoint to an airborne drone is likely quite safe.
"probably take a fair amount of time."
Developing total situational awareness takes time. There's no getting around it. If you've spotted the enemy and they haven't yet found you then you have some time.
It's also possible that a drone's initial contact might be sufficient to shoot with. I would have to have detailed data on an individual sensor's capabilities and software to know.
There is no system or procedure that is 100% perfect. We have to be careful that we don't paralyze ourselves worrying about the 1% 'what if' problems and reject the system/procedure because it isn't 100% perfect.
What we want is the system/procedure that gives us the biggest possibility of success at the best 'cost'.
The Royal Navy appears to have abandoned sea planes in the early 1950s as soon as helicopters became a viable alternative. Wondering if sea states were the reason, I found, courtesy of ChatGPT, that landing in sea state 3 is challenging but possible for larger sea planes. I asked how often sea states reach 4 or more in the North Atlantic and was informed that those sea states are reached most days in winter. During my 2 years as a volunteer in the Philippines, the only time I saw waves as big as the Scottish average was during a typhoon so in warmer waters sea planes might be a lot more usable than they are up here.
ReplyDeleteOne other reason for switching to helicopters is that they can, again according to ChatGPT, be used from smaller vessels. If a carrier is close enough for its fixed wing aircraft to cover the area, then one helicopter might be enough for a relatively small ship.
However, “ Unfortunately, the reduction in number of embarked aircraft have rendered the ASW helo only marginally useful unless several ships can pool their aircraft. As the saying goes, if you have one helo, you have none. This is recognition of the very high maintenance demands of helos and their inability to maintain a high readiness rate.”
During my few days aboard a Batch 2 Type 22 in Teamwork 88, I heard a helicopter pilot talking about a trip to a supply vessel to swap a faulty Sea King. I vaguely recall him making such a trip more than once so your comment on readiness rates was confirmed. That 30,000 ton supply vessel was, I think, capable of carrying 8 Sea Kings and had a comprehensive maintenance set up. So, helicopters were pooled and, apart from the time wasted swapping them, there was usually one available.
I was told, and I’m aware that sailors enjoy kidding civilians, that a Sea King can fly in conditions when the Harriers on HMS Illustrious could not. I will not disagree if you say that I was misinformed as I have no other source, but, for foul conditions and for smaller vessels, helicopters might be the best option.
Thinking about catapults, though, might there be some value in having a supply of loitering munitions on board. They would be on a one way mission so recovering them would not be an issue. They could provide some information and they could do some damage to anything they found in conditions rough enough to lull an enemy into thinking that attack was unlikely.
A problem with a Sea King, just like the civilian S-61 is that you can get blade blow-over if you try to start one up in high gusts. I've actually seen that happen offshore and we were picking up pieces of rotor blade for a week. I imagine the big problem with Sea Harriers is going to be balancing on the jet thrust when taking off or landing. Again, high gust conditions would make life interesting. I haven't seen the operational numbers though. IIRC the S-61 was 70 knots but I wouldn't swear to it.
DeleteThere are other rotor systems that would be far more forgiving.
Regarding the seaplanes: With the drones, we assume there will be significant attrition among the drones and we rely on the large numbers (and low cost) of the drones to make that feasible.
ReplyDeleteBut is there any reason to expect that seaplanes, given the same mission (scouting) as the drones, won't also suffer significant attrition? After all, a seaplane is much larger than a drone, so if the enemy can see the drone, surely they can also see the seaplane?
Plus, of course, the seaplane also costs much more than the drone and has a human pilot, so a level of attrition that would be totally acceptable for drones is probably unacceptable for seaplanes.
First, significant attrition of drones is not my assumption. For one thing, if you are losing a lot of drones then the enemy is clearly aware of your presence in the area. The goal of scouting is to find the enemy without him spotting you.
DeleteFor another, the CONOPS for operating scout drones should not be to fly right up to the enemy and knock on their door. Instead, it should be to detect the enemy passively (and unseen) from a distance, thereby preventing attrition of the drone and while staying undetected.
A scout plane should be even better at this than a drone due to carrying more and better sensors enabling detection at a greater distance. The plane, being faster, can also cover much more area. Knowing where the enemy isn't is almost as good as knowing where he is. Finally, human pilots can, hopefully better analyze the sensor data and adjust their search patterns to maximize detection and survival.
Where attrition comes in is when the enemy has been located and the time has come to 'ride herd' on the enemy as a strike is being delivered. Attrition may also come from one-way search trips in order to double the search range.
I found this fascinating.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/DpZB3P_cJmY?si=s5hOvPnO1sLzEXIZ
A 2nd rank at best export fighter equipped with Chinese export-level BVR missiles just kicked the butt of a Western equipped adversary several times their size. No dog-fighting. Just an ISR and command & control system guiding BVR missiles in response to an attack. I don't care about who was right or wrong, the realities in the air are really, really interesting.
I'm not sure if such a BVR air battle has ever occurred before, or at least on this scale. In general, the rules have been that you have to close to identify visually before you can fire...
I found it uninformative and unauthoritative. I've seen no authoritative description of the air battle or the results. The general thrust of the reports I've read seem to suggest that the two sides stayed on their own side of the border and simply tossed long range air-to-air missiles back and forth. In that scenario, it would be inevitable, statistically, that an occasional aircraft would more or less wander into an enemy missile. Therefore, I see no possible conclusions from this, at the moment. For example, to make a point, if Pak had shot one hundred missiles at many dozens of Indian aircraft and achieved one hit, that would not signify Chinese missiles 'kicking butt'. It would, in fact, be very poor performance. Until we have some actual information, no conclusion is possible.
DeleteAt the moment, the available UAV solution seems to be leading with the Insitu Integrator Extended Range with the VTOL launch kit. Advertising range up to 2000nm but it looks like the plan would be orbits at 500nm. Using its own published mission interval and cruise speed it only comes out to just over 1500nm. https://www.insitu.com/products/integrator-extended-range
ReplyDeleteI like where pterodynamics is headed with their solution, but they are cargo transport focused. Aeroenvironment (Now just AV?) Doesn't seem to have improved on their Jump-20 since acquiring it.
A slightly larger Integrator solution would likely get the job done for surface ISR. I still want the helos for subs and small boats.
I hope I haven't given the wrong impression. Helos are still the preferred choice for ASW work. This post is about the search/scout function. There is no reason why the two couldn't co-exist on the same host ship.
DeleteOff topic but the Navy's biggest problem is getting worse. The USS Truman remains in the Red Sea now almost 8 months deployed.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2025/05/12/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-may-12-2025
I wondered why the USS Ford has yet to deploy to replace her, so I googled around.
Delays in the delivery and production of the Ford-class carriers led to delays in retirement dates for the two Nimitz-class carriers, each pushed back a full year, according to a 2023 Navy announcement. The plan was for the Nimitz to leave service in 2026, and the Eisenhower would retire in 2028.
The Navy’s fiscal 2025 budget shows the first of the service’s class of supercarriers, the USS Gerald R. Ford, will go to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for a $182.2 million electrical upgrade.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2024-03-13/eisenhower-aircraft-carriers-navy-13310197.html
In todays news feed.
The US Navy’s Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier Nightmare Is Back
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-us-navy-s-ford-class-aircraft-carrier-nightmare-is-back/ar-AA1EM6Km?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=7e67ae6de6304d1d818fded0a88a7ec6&ei=13
Geez, so much for FORD will be so much more efficient than the old carriers.....
DeleteIf we're looking for a strictly scout plane, why not go with a VTOL manned/unmanned aircraft. Something akin to a smaller AV-8. A Burke has a flight deck of roughly 100x 66 ft, an AV-8B is 46ft long with a wing span of 30 ft. Something half that size should be able to launch and recover on something that size. You might even be able to install a small deck cat to help launch the aircraft of the fantail. We don't care about weapons load out, its main mission is stealthy scouting. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteSome day, likely hundreds of years from now, we may stop building Burkes. When that day comes, it would be nice to be able to operate a scout aircraft that is small and doesn't require a 100 ft flight deck and hundred foot hangar. Wouldn't it be nice to reduce the size, lower costs, and decrease construction time by building smaller ships?
DeleteA VTOL UAV would be fine but I'd shy away from a Harrier-ish size aircraft if for no other reason than it limits you to just a one or two aircraft as is the case with helos, today. We need to send out dozens of scout planes, not one or two and we need to be able to absorb combat losses. Think about a destroyer today. If it loses its helo (or two helos), it's out of the ASW business for all practical purposes. Is that a good idea in combat?
The Navy remains committed to using the H-60 for its ships. I've wondered if something much smaller like the common MD-500 could do the roles nearly as well. It could carry four MD-500s with less space than two H-60s. I googled for a comparison and AI produced this:
DeleteThe MD-500 and the H-60 (UH-60 Black Hawk) are very different helicopters, primarily due to their size and intended roles. The MD-500 is a light, multi-role helicopter, while the H-60 is a large utility helicopter.
Here's a more detailed comparison:
Size and Weight: The H-60 is significantly larger and heavier than the MD-500. The H-60 can carry a larger crew and payload.
Roles: The MD-500 is often used for surveillance, reconnaissance, and light utility tasks. The H-60 is used for troop transport, casualty evacuation, and search and rescue.
Payload Capacity: The H-60 can carry more weight and personnel than the MD-500.
Speed: The H-60 is generally faster than the MD-500 due to its more powerful engines and larger size.
Cost: The MD-500 is generally less expensive than the H-60.
Pilots: While both helicopters have a crew of two, the MD-500 is typically flown by one pilot and one door gunner, while the H-60 typically requires two pilots.
In short, the MD-500 is a smaller, lighter, more agile helicopter suitable for a variety of missions, while the H-60 is a larger, heavier, and more powerful helicopter better suited for transport and larger-scale operations.
I see the Spanish Navy used MD-500s for decades.
Deletehttps://www.key.aero/article/inside-final-days-spanish-navys-hughes-500m-helicopter-fleet
"I've wondered if something much smaller like the common MD-500 could do the roles nearly as well."
DeleteThe problem with a smaller helo is that you lose most of the advantages of a larger helo and gain none of the advantages of small UAVs. It's kind of the worst of both worlds, combined.
The MD-500, for example, loses the ability to carry torpedoes and sonobuoys (is that correct?) so it can't perform ASW. It loses range and endurance although it could perform the scout mission reasonably well.
Unfortunately, it gains none of the UAV advantages. Small UAVs could be carried in the dozens, crated in storage, and doesn't require a flight deck or much of a hangar. In contrast, the MD-500 still needs a flight deck and hangar and, as you note, could only fit around four on a ship.
The aviation benefit curve goes up for a large helo, drops drastically as you go down to a small helo, and then rises again for UAVs.
Wouldn't it be nice to reduce the size, lower cost and reduce construction time by building smaller ships.
DeleteCouldn't agree more.Single purpose warships. I personally don't like aircraft on any thing that's not purpose built to carry them. (CV/CVE/DDH etc.) last ship I was on was a Knox FF, we always carried an SH-2. It was always available when needed, but the weather conditions were not always such that you could fly. Our most valuable air asset that we had pretty much 24/7 were P3s out of Japan/Okinawa/Subic. We would data link with them and use the helo for shorter range search. We hated the damn thing every two hours you have to mess with flight ops.
Australia operated AS350B from FFG for several decades from mid 1980s and when the S70B2 variant of the Seahawk was introduced the two types occasionally embarked together. The AS350 could operate day/night SS4 with occasional excursions of motion above that without constraining bridge FOM too much and offered good reliability with an operational rate of effort. As far as i know we never sought to optimise effectiveness with micro sensors which became available instead pursuing the uncrewed route which seems to have offered very patchy and limited results eg Firescout and a couple similar programs in Europe and UK. The payload range capability of AS350B descendants are greatly increased but i shant make any extravagant claims without proof of trial. Single engine seems fine . Not room to compare different ship integration aspects between say USN and RN embarked helicopters . Suffice to say some medium helicopters do not require RAST. But Seahawk does in upper states. Although i note Constitution is going with the less capable ASIST which does not offer same recovery assist and immediate securing facility of RAST. Be interesting to see how that goes. Bottom line is I do not believe we have really investigated what an optimised crewed small helicopter can do embarked . I do not dismiss the potential.
DeleteConstellation
Delete"Australia operated AS350B"
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong but I'm not aware of the AS350 ever carrying any significant weapons or sensors. That would limit its combat use to visual scouting which is next to useless in the naval arena.
Passive search/ recce not always useless even today. I won't waste time arguing that . My point is that the small crewed helicopter has useful payload and range and was/is able to operate off a small flight deck in most sea states experienced my part of the world. It's potential with a sensor fit has not to my knowledge been investigated and therefore remains limited. I am agreeing with you . It is that potential which has been investigated only in uncrewed configuration which is of enduring interest .
Delete"able to operate off a small flight deck"
DeleteSetting aside the unproven nature of that statement, the value of a helo (of any size) is not whether it can operate off a surface ship but what weapons and sensors can it bring to the fight. From what I can see at a quick Internet scan, the AS350 offers no useful weapons or sensor capability. It that is true then it has no value for a ship.
"Passive search/ recce not always useless even today. I won't waste time arguing that ."
DeleteWho's arguing? Passive search will be the primary search method in combat!
The ability of a particular helicopter to operate off a particular ship is an essential question. Once that is established sensor fit is key . One without the other is not best . Thus my comment "able to operate etc" It is an essential capability. The AS350 could operate off a small flight deck but it's sensor fit was never developed . It remained potential. That is my point. I believe it is worth further consideration.
DeleteI don't understand your positions re passive search . You state as a fact that passive recce is "next to useless" and also that "passive search is primary search method in combat". I agree with your second position. That is also proven.
"You state as a fact that passive recce is "next to useless"
DeleteI've never said that. Have you been following this blog long? Passive sensing is the heart of combat. Now, passive sensing has its limits, due to the limited field of view, especially when it involves tiny passive sensors such as would fit on a missile, small UAV, or small helo. There's nothing contradictory or confusing about that.
If someone wants to try to develop a useful sensor and weapon package for a small helo or UAV, that's great. Until then, however, small UAVs and helos are nearly useless in ASW and are useful in scouting only if employed in large numbers, not a couple at a time.
I have nothing further to add.
DeleteGo back to twin armed launchers. You could develop a whole range of rail launched cruise missile type air vehicles (Scout/EW/loitering munition) that could be kept as part of the magazine inventory. They could be expendable or recovered via a retractable net on the fantail. (something like a cargo net between a goal post). The Army had a recovery system like this years ago for the Aquilla artillery drone. No flight deck, no hanger, minimum area for recovery. ( I would add a workshop to refurbish recovered vehicles though.) Just mussing.
ReplyDelete"rail launched cruise missile type air vehicles"
DeleteYou recognize that a cruise missile type platform has a very limited sensor capacity and no ASW use, right? Also, even if you could recover a 'missile' it couldn't be reused because it can't be refueled in the field. I don't think you can recover a 'missile' flying several hundred miles per hour in a net. How would you envision that working?
Give the concept some more thought and then expand on it a bit if you still think it's viable.
#ComNavOps
ReplyDeletehere is my say
New X-22A with today's tech: carry 2 x Mk 46 or Mk 54 Torpedoes
V/STOL plane
Crew: two + six passengers
Capacity: 1,200 lb (544 kg) max. payload
Length: 39.57 ft (12.06 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 3 in (11.96 m)
Wingspan (front wing): 22.916 ft (6.98 m)
Height: 20.69 ft (6.31 m)
Empty weight: 10,478 lb (4,753 kg)
Gross weight: 15,287 lb (6,934 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 17,644 lb (8,003 kg) Maximum landing weight of 15,287 lbs
Fuel capacity: 465 US gal (387 imp gal; 1,760 L) in single fuselage tank JP-4 or JP-5
Powerplant: 4 × General Electric-YT58-GE-8D turboshaft engines, 1,250 shp (930 kW) each
Propellers: Three-bladed Hamilton Standard propellers mounted in wingtip swiveling ducts
Maximum speed: 278 kn (320 mph, 515 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,048 m)
Cruise speed: 185 kn (213 mph, 343 km/h)
Stall speed: 98.2 kn (113.0 mph, 181.9 km/h)
Range: 386 nmi (444 mi, 715 km)
Combat range: 186 nmi (214 mi, 344 km)
Service ceiling: 27,800 ft (8,500 m)
Hover ceiling in ground effect : 12,000 ft (3,700 m)
Hover ceiling out of ground effect : 6,000 ft (1,800 m)
wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-22#
------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli IAI Arava 201: to carry 1 x Mk 48 Torpedoes
to be used as cats and traps plane
Crew: 2
Capacity:
24 fully equipped troops or
16 paratroopers or
2,351 kg (5,183 lb) payload
Length: 13.03 m (42 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 20.96 m (68 ft 9 in)
Height: 5.21 m (17 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 43.68 m2 (470.2 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 10:1
Airfoil: NACA 63(215)A 417
Empty weight: 3,999 kg (8,816 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,804 kg (15,000 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,663 L (439 US gal; 366 imp gal) (normal)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-34 turboprops, 560 kW (750 shp) each
Propellers: 3-bladed Hartzell HC-B3TN fully-feathering reversible pitch propellers
Maximum speed: 326 km/h (203 mph, 176 kn) at 3,050 m (10,000 ft)
Cruise speed: 311 km/h (193 mph, 168 kn) at 3,050 m (10,000 ft) (econ. cruise)
Stall speed: 115 km/h (71 mph, 62 kn) (54% flaps)
Never exceed speed: 397 km/h (247 mph, 214 kn)
Range: 1,056 km (656 mi, 570 nmi) with maximum fuel
Service ceiling: 7,620 m (25,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 6.6 m/s (1,290 ft/min)
Takeoff distance to 15 m (50 ft): 463 m (1,520 ft)
Landing run from 15 m (50 ft): 469 m (1,540 ft)
wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Arava#
I intent both of these be operating from Capital Surface ships
DeleteThe X-22 does have vertical take off and landing although I don't know what kind of payload it can carry in those modes. The Arava requires a runway for take off and landing, as far as I know.
DeleteBoth are larger and heavier than a Kingfisher, as a comparison.
The X-22 would require a large flight deck which, ideally, we'd like to eliminate.
The X-22 would have possible potential. The Arava would not seem suited to the purpose.
"The X-22 would require a large flight deck which, ideally, we'd like to eliminate."
Deletein that case we have to use UAVs, or Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo, here is what I found
A) UAVs
1) Iranian HESA_Karrar can carry one Mark 46 torpedo
Crew: none
Capacity: 227 kg (500 lb) payload
Length: 4 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in)
Max takeoff weight: 700 kg (1,543 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tolloue 5 or Microturbo TRI 60-5 turbojet , 4.2–4.4 kN (940–990 lbf) thrust (est.)
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (560 mph, 490 kn)
Range: 1,000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi)
Combat range: 500 km (310 mi, 270 nmi)
Armament
Hardpoints: 3 , with provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles:
2 × Kowsar
2 x Nasr-1
Bombs:
1 × Mk 82 PGM on centerline
2 × 250 pound bomb
Other:
1 × Mark 46 torpedo
2) Highly modified MQ-8C Fire Scout
Crew: 0
Capacity: 2,950 lb (1,338 kg)
Length: 34 ft 8 in (10.6 m)
Height: 10 ft 11 in (3.3 m)
Max takeoff weight: 6,000 lb (2,721 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce 250-C47B , 813 shp (606 kW)
Main rotor diameter: 36 ft 7 in (11.2 m)
Performance
Maximum speed: 140 kn (160 mph, 260 km/h)
Endurance: 15 hours maximum
Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
------------------------------------
Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo
Eg:
United States: RUR‑5 ASROC, RUM‑139 VL‑ASROC
United Kingdom / Australia: Ikara
France: Malafon
Italy: MILAS
India: SMART
Japan: Type 07 VLS ASW rocket
China: CJ‑1, CY series
South Korea: K745A1 Red Shark
Soviet Union / Russia: RPK‑2 Vyuga (SS‑N‑15 Starfish), RPK‑6 Vodopad / RPK‑7 Veter (SS‑N‑16 Stallion), plus earlier Metel (“SS‑N‑14” family), Vikhr (85RU), Medvedka (RPK‑9)
Please do not wholesale copy Wikipedia specification listings. If there are a few key specs you'd like to point out, by all means, do so. Your extensive listing of specs obscures whatever point(s) you're trying to make. Just state your point(s) in plain language and, if useful, note a supporting spec. You'll make your point much more effectively that way. Thanks!
DeleteA) UAVs
Delete1) Iranian HESA_Karrar can carry one Mark 46 torpedo
Dimensions: 4m x 2.5 m (small footprint)
Payload: 227 kg (can carry 1 × Mark 46 torpedo)
Range: 1,000 km (540 nmi)
Combat range: 500 km (270 nmi)
2) Highly modified MQ-8C Fire Scout
Payload: 1,338 kg
can carry at least 2 Light Torpedoes
Maximum speed: 140 kn (260 km/h)
Endurance: 15 hours maximum
or we can use Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo as stated above
You're listing specs but what's your point? Are you suggesting replacing SH-60s with these? I'm lost as to what your point is.
Delete"Are you suggesting replacing SH-60s with these?"
Deletefor ASW role, partially yes
today's non-carrier surface ship lacks number of aircraft that they use to carry
they can carry one or two Helos at max
SH-60 is much capable then these UAVs but it can only be at one location at a time.
these drones can augment SH-60, by carrying the Torpedoes and Sonar buoys, conduct ISR missions
while SH-60 carry out more important/critical missions.
These are all very small helos and I can find no evidence that any of them are ASW capable or can carry any significant sensor package. Give me a link to an article or photo showing one of these in something approaching the configuration you think would be useful for a ship.
DeletePhoto of Iranian drone and various payload it can carry April 2023
Deletehttps://militarnyi.com/en/news/iran-s-military-receives-hundreds-of-new-uavs/
Scroll to the bottom you will see the image
Shipborne aviation will be revolutionized with a naval variant of the Army's Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA), now designated the MV-75, which will have twice the speed and much greater range than the Sea Hawk.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy has 500+ Sea Hawks in service and they will eventually need to be replaced.
"Shipborne aviation will be revolutionized with a naval variant"
DeleteIn what way? It's an enormous aircraft that is non-stealthy (meaning, easily detected and non-survivable). While it can hover, it is not optimized for that like a helo is (the V-22 has the same problem and that is one reason it was rejected for the ASW role).
"twice the speed and much greater range"
Not really that important. Speed and range mean little in ASW. Might be helpful in scouting but the lack of stealth makes that a low odds of success mission.
Have you checked whether a V-280 can even fit in any existing ship's hangar? Is there enough room for it to safely operate off a Burke flight deck?
I'm not seeing the revolution. Explain it to me.
I think this will help.
DeleteNavy MH-60 Seahawk Replacement Will Leverage Army’s Future Vertical Lift Tiltrotor Plans.
Thank you for the link. It pretty much confirmed by skepticism about the V-280 in the naval, surface ship role as evidenced by the quotes below from the article.
DeleteThis first quote pretty much confirms that the V-280 can't fit in a Burke's hangar.
"... V-280 Valor, the same aircraft that is serving as the basis of the Army’s Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA), as well as the related V-247 Vigilant drone concept that has been adapted to the Navy’s needs. At least for the latter, this includes fitting in a destroyer’s hangar."
The next quote again notes the space issue for the V-280.
"In addition to needing to account for limited physical space, designing aircraft for protracted operations from sea-based platforms brings along other inherent requirements, including measures to mitigate saltwater corrosion."
The next quote notes the complexities of tilt rotor aircraft that contribute to it being unsuited for hovering operations such as landing, take off, and ASW ops. Again, I repeat, the Navy looked at the V-22 in the ASW role and rejected it in large measure because of the hovering problems.
"Tiltrotors, in general, offer substantial advantages in terms of speed, range, and maximum operating altitude over traditional helicopters. However, they have not seen widespread adoption globally by armed forces or in the commercial sector due to historically high costs and complexities associated with the designs. The V-22, though currently in service with the Navy, Marines, and U.S. Air Force, has been and remains a very controversial aircraft with a checkered service record punctuated by numerous fatal crashes."
Following is yet another quote addressing the space concerns. The V-280 height, in particular, is problematic. While it might be possible to develop some sort of folding wing, there's not a lot that can be done about the height issue.
"It is worth noting that tilt-rotors do also present particular challenges for shipboard operations when it comes to the aforementioned space requirements. The Osprey features a folding main wing and rotors to help reduce its physical footprint. Adding such features to a design that does not include them from the start could be a complicated proposition. Models of the V-247 have been shown with a similar folding main wing and rotor arrangement to the V-22."
You've confirmed my skepticism is well founded. Thank you for the link.
The Blackhawk wasn't initially designed for ship use either, but they seem to have worked things out.
DeleteThere is a need to replace the Sea Hawk and this looks to be a good fit. Being heavier than the Sea Hawk, the flight decks on the Burkes and other ships might have to be reinforced. And, I think Bell and the Navy are smart enough to get it to fit in the hanger of a Burke.
You're most welcome for the link and enjoy your skepticism.
Major problems:
Delete1. I'm highly skeptical that any amount of folding can get a single V-280 in a hangar let alone two of them.
2. Hover challenges make the V-280, like the V-22, unsuited for ASW.
3. Lack of stealth makes the V-280 unsuited for scouting.
It's unlikely but possible that 1. can be solved, however, no amount of engineering can change 2. or 3.
The V-280's best qualities, speed and range, are likely quite useful to the Army in the transport role but are of little use in surface ship aviation.
My skepticism is well founded.
"The Blackhawk wasn't initially designed for ship use either, but they seem to have worked things out."
DeleteThe Blackhawk wasn't a tiltrotor which is inherently unstable in hover and it wasn't enormous relative to a ship's flight deck and hangar.
"1. I'm highly skeptical that any amount of folding can get a single V-280 in a hangar let alone two of them."
DeleteThere's been mockups with the tail inverted to allow the wing to fold over the fuselage like the Osprey. Maybe it means reworking the hanger to make it fit. I think they can figure this out.
"2. Hover challenges make the V-280, like the V-22, unsuited for ASW."
From what I've read, disc loading is about percent halfway between the Blackhawk and MV-22. I would think flight control software has improved since the Osprey was introduced.
"3. Lack of stealth makes the V-280 unsuited for scouting."
My guess is an MV-75 is stealthlier than a seaplane with it's sponsons sticking out.
Hovering performance IMO is the wrong metric to look at with an ASW V-22 variant. It shouldn't be treated as a Seahawk replacement, it should be treated as an S-3 replacement. It's got higher speed and altitude than a Seahawk, so leverage that to do the further out ASW patrols that S-3s did. The S-3 Viking wasn't a bad ASW aircraft because it couldn't hover or take off from DD flight decks.
DeleteAbsolutely partially correct! Well done. You are absolutely correct that it is invalid to compare the V-22, which operates in a complete different flight regime, to a helo. What we should be doing is comparing the task performance efficiency REGARDLESS OF THE PLATFORM'S METHODOLOGY. In other words, it doesn't matter how the V-22 accomplishes the ASW task, only that can (or cannot). That it does it differently than a helo is irrelevant.
DeleteHOWEVER, this brings us to the partially correct portion. The Navy, for various reasons, some good, some bad, has decided that the 'INSTRUMENT' for ASW is the dipping sonar more so than sonobuoys. Dipping sonar REQUIRES hovering. Thus, given the Navy's preferred methodology, the V-22 is NOT SUITABLE for ASW. At this point, there are two options: 1. rule out the V-22 or, 2. change the methodology. Changing the methodology would, presumably, mean returning to the S-3 Viking approach of sonobuoys. If we opt for 2. then the V-22 becomes potentially viable. If we do not opt for 2. then the V-22 is not suitable.
Overall, good comment and good recognition of the separation of methodology from performance. Well done.
One advantage dipping sonar has over sonobouys is that it can be deployed to depths of 100+ meters. Another is that it's available after you've deployed your last sonobouy. I believe the Seahawk carries 25 sonobouys.
DeleteAs for an SV-22, with all the equipment (e.g., sonobouys, proccesing equipment, etc) you would have to carry, where do you put the torpedoes? Wing pylons, one of which would have to be removed to allow the wing to fold over the fuselage. Clunky. There doesn't seem to be enough clearance to mount them under the fuselage. If you put them on the side of the fuselage, you have to launch them so as to clear the landing gear sponsons. Sounds challenging.
A disadvantage of dipping sonar is that it covers only one point. In contrast, sonobuoys can be laid in patterns over large areas covering many multiple points at once.
DeleteAs with most things, a mix of the two is preferred over a one-or-the-other solution.
There are problems with the v-22 in a ASW role. There's a reason(s) why the Navy rejected the V-22 for ASW.