Helicopters are generally recognized as the best ASW
platform above the surface; another submarine being the best ASW platform below
the surface, of course. Unfortunately,
this leads to the widespread mindset that every ship must have helos
embarked for ASW.
The problem with the concept of helos on every ship is that
the aviation element of a ship is shockingly expensive. A helo needs a flight deck (something on the
order of 80ft x 50ft), hangar (another 80ft x 50 ft), dedicated weapon
magazines, fuel storage, maintenance shops and parts storage, pilot and
maintainer berthing (and food, water, etc.).
The extra 160ft x 50ft of ship size means more power is needed to move
the ship which means bigger engines which requires more ship size which … You get the idea.
Another problem is that helos are only sporadically available, being notorious for needing maintenance at inconvenient times.
Sure, there’s a penalty to be paid for putting helos on
every ship but, really, what’s the alternative since we need ASW? Well, one alternative is ASROC
(anti-submarine rocket). ASROC began
back when submarines still had to get fairly close to their target in order to
attack. Today, submarines can attack
with torpedoes or missiles from far beyond ASROC range (vertical launch ASROC
has a range of around 12 nm). What’s needed is a much longer range ASROC,
perhaps on the order of a hundred miles.
Given that we have thousand mile cruise missiles I can’t see any problem
with developing a hundred mile ASROC.
In the past, ASROC used arm launchers, box launchers, and
common VLS cells. The flexibility in
launch mechanism means that some kind of suitable launcher can be placed on any
ship tasked with ASW.
I totally agree. The helo has 2 roles 1) dipping sonar and sonobuoys 2) launching torpedoes. I question the usefulness of role §1 if the ship has a good enough towed array and can triangulate with other ships.
ReplyDeletetowed arrays are useful for general detection. Helo sonobuoys and dipping sonar are needed for final targeting.
DeleteShip launched anti-submarine torpedoes lack the range to be useful against modern submarines with very long range torpedoes and missiles. If a sub is within range of a ship's torpedoes, the ship is already sinking.
modern towed arrays / sonars such as Captas 4 from Thales can triangulate quite precisely a submarine - and the Milas (Asroc equivalent) has a range of 35km, which could be extended relatively easily.
DeleteYou're the first person I've met who had actual performance data for Captas sonar. We'll have to discuss it.
DeleteThat aside, there are no US Navy Milas systems or Captas 4 installations that I'm aware of. If there ever are, we can revisit the issue.
and I question also the usefulness of role §2 since the Asroc can launch the torpedoe
ReplyDeleteRussian Yasen M Class boats carry Tsirkon, Onicks and Kalibr ASMs which each have a theoretical range of several hundred miles (not sure how they target at that distance, but nevertheless).
ReplyDeleteWake homing torpedoes similarly.
Both China and Russia are out-building us in submarines, and even the North Koreans are building very capable destroyers at a faster pace than we can build Burkes.
Time is not on our side.
"even the North Koreans are building very capable destroyers at a faster pace than we can build Burkes."
DeleteI don't know where you're getting your information but you need a better source. Wiki lists the current NK navy as 2 destroyers and 3 frigates. There is no evidence that NK ships are of any decent quality and the failed launch attempt that resulted in a sunken ship would strongly indicate the ships are substandard.
If we take the helicopter off a burke then we have more space for many of the things that we think the it lacks: power generation, guns, addtional VLS cells.
ReplyDeleteIf you take the helo off a Burke, you get a Flight I Burke. No extra anything.
Delete"No extra anything."
DeleteNot quite true. The Flt IIa added several feet to the length of the ship and the flight deck adds 80 or so extra feet of hull and deck which can either be removed from construction of a flightless Burke or, if retained, frees up helo magazine space, weapons elevator, helo maintenance shops, helo parts storage, helo fuel storage, etc. depending on what specific equipment and capabilities the Flt I had. The Flt I was designed as a helo "service center".
Have you done a piece on defining a "true destroyer?" I know you've written about the swiss-knife master of none approach to the Burkes for example.
ReplyDeleteI've done several posts on variations of a true destroyer and the "Fleet Structure" tab at the top of the page gives a thumbnail sketch of one possible destroyer concept.
DeleteWhen you consider what a "true" destroyer is or should be, the first thing you have to do is define its role. What is its primary purpose? If you answer that, the rest falls into place fairly easily.
So, what do you think the primary role of a modern destroyer should be?
Here's one example of a destroyer concept from a post: The Missing Destroyer
DeleteVLA has a range of 12nm and the typical lightweight torp payload has an additional 5nm range, for a total of 17nm for the whole system package.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the problems with range, blast radius and weak warheads wiuld go away if we reverted to tactical nuclear warheads. We could easily fit a 20kt warhead in place of the typical LWT's warhead.
Wr don't even have to worry about environmental concerns because the blast is underwater! Yes nuke tiros would be more expensive, but it'll.still be cheaper than an enemy sub.
There are so many problems with using tactical nukes.
Delete1. We would lose any moral high ground on the world stage and almost certainly alienate potential allies.
2. Escalation would be impossible to control. China would target our carriers, bases, troop concentrations, etc. using bigger and bigger weapons.
3. There's no getting around the radioactive issue. Any ground target and the area around it would become radioactive. Ocean water and sea life would become radioactive, impacting global fishing. Places like Guam, Taiwan, Philippines, Pacific islands, Pearl Harbor, etc. would become uninhabitable radioactive wastelands.
4. Security would become a thousand-fold more difficult and costly. We can't keep track of basic weapons as it is (check on any military audit!). Trying to keep track of thousands of small tactical nukes would be impossible and certainly result in terrorists obtaining tactical nukes in a relatively short time period.
5. Shipboard (or land based) radiation safety programs would become a thousand times more onerous than they already are.
And so on. It's a very bad idea.