tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7277690421354926395..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Fire Scout ASW - Promise and ChallengesComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36404501625218450852021-04-17T10:01:26.015-07:002021-04-17T10:01:26.015-07:00The Chinese concept is closer to what you describe...The Chinese concept is closer to what you describe. They have a 1100 lbs unmanned ASW helicopter that will supplement manned ASW helicopters.<br />https://armynow.net/avic-flight-ar500b-shipborne-vtol-uav-china/<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39856126336350617242021-03-02T07:04:06.040-08:002021-03-02T07:04:06.040-08:00 and purchase cost and maintenance costs. and purchase cost and maintenance costs.WMillardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12561616098371488685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59386909681133859542021-02-28T19:19:11.008-08:002021-02-28T19:19:11.008-08:00Sonobuoys can find, locate, and track submarines. ...Sonobuoys can find, locate, and track submarines. They are very effective in shallow waters (roughly say, less than 800 feet deep). Unlike sonar mounted on ships which provide background noise, sonobuoys are quiet. While use active mode, they act like radars. They use GPS or Beidou to locate themselves and report suspected objects' locations. <br /><br />Advanced sonovbuoys have made submarines unable to survive in shallow waters. This means submarines cannot approach coast with large body of shallow water next to it.<br /><br />Downside is that they are one-use consumable. Also, there are not many nations have this kind of technologies. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11501968533602485362021-02-28T12:36:31.061-08:002021-02-28T12:36:31.061-08:00"Navy dislike F-35C because it is a single en..."Navy dislike F-35C because it is a single engine fighter."<br /><br />I don't think that's the reason. While safety may be a factor, I think it's a fairly minor one. The Navy has operated single engine aircraft before. The A-4 and A-7, come to mind. Dual engines probably has more to do with obtaining the requisite thrust in a manageable package than redundant engine safety.<br /><br />The Navy's ambivalence towards the F-35 likely stems more from not seeing it as an ideal fit for the anticipated role and recognizing that it's a very expensive option for a marginally adequate role fit.<br /><br />In addition to the immense direct costs of purchase price and operating costs of the F-35, the Navy is also incurring massive secondary costs to modify carriers and amphibious ships to operate the F-35. It is apparently costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to modify flight decks, rearrange underlying compartments, add additional soundproofing and thermal protection, add new communications and data processing capabilities, add a second parts storage and workshop facililties. etc. Finally, there's the tertiary logistics cost in establishing a new parts train, depot support services, etc.<br /><br />Cost and suitability are the Navy's concerns far more than the safety aspect.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7969553982873147112021-02-28T02:30:04.263-08:002021-02-28T02:30:04.263-08:00After the Gulf War and Soviet Union collapse, US N...After the Gulf War and Soviet Union collapse, US Navy thought that they will not face any enemy in open sea. What they need to do is to support land invasion. Under this thinking, LCS, DDG-1000, ... etc. were made to suit this strategy.<br /><br />As China rises, the whole thinking has become strategic mistake. Navy has found that it overlooked fighting another capable fleet in open sea. This makes Navy re-think on what next. Constellation and DDG(x) are proposed but already too late. Weapons work on weak nations usually don't work while face China.<br /><br />However, how to react to Chinese navy is another topic which cannot be written in such a short comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7482508497873239142021-02-28T01:51:13.079-08:002021-02-28T01:51:13.079-08:00Navy dislike F-35C because it is a single engine f...Navy dislike F-35C because it is a single engine fighter. Navy usually choose twin engine fighters for safety because there is no back up landing platform in open sea.<br /><br />Other issues both Air Force and Navy have concern:<br /><br />F-35 is stealthy thus can carry much less weapons - internal weapon bay has limited capacity. <br /><br />F-35 is the slowest air superiority fighter in US. Initially, F-35 was designed as attacking fighter to compliment F-22 but heaps of problems of F-22 itself caused that program ended. Do you believe the official reason as "too expensive"? think about DDG-1000.<br /><br />F-35 fails to deliver low running cost. Maintenance costs are much higher than planned. Businesses can usually tolerate high capital investments but not high running cost.<br /><br />Ironically, Air Force moves toward Chinese model - J-20 supported by advanced 4th generation fighters (J-16 and J-10). J-20 has no gun. Its mission is to use its stealth to open up enemies' line and then J-16 conduct following attacks. <br /><br />Now, Air Force wants more F-15 and Navy actually wants to maintain F/A-18, both can load lots of weapons. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3532649146637329752021-02-27T17:38:57.728-08:002021-02-27T17:38:57.728-08:00Effective at finding submarines, or effective in l...Effective at finding submarines, or effective in localizing submarines?<br /><br />GABGABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580029460978121408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42138409849448973272021-02-27T03:00:23.740-08:002021-02-27T03:00:23.740-08:00Another iteration of unmanned fad. What I see is a...Another iteration of unmanned fad. What I see is an inferior platform in everything except endurance. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12802775908767728232021-02-25T22:50:47.757-08:002021-02-25T22:50:47.757-08:00" Now, a very small, UAV carrier with a bunc..." Now, a very small, UAV carrier with a bunch of Fire Scouts might well be a useful addition to any naval group and this is the developmental direction I’d explore. "<br /><br /><br />Another area the LCS failed. Imagine a robustly built Indy Class. Could handle....3 UAVs? And there are so many LCS.<br /><br /><br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57907829267735175162021-02-25T20:43:05.281-08:002021-02-25T20:43:05.281-08:00Sonobuoys are very effective of finding submarines...Sonobuoys are very effective of finding submarines, especially in shallow waters. Active sonobuoys can "torture" crews in submarines as their sounds are really really really anointing. Place large number of sonobuoys in shallow waters (say, less than 200 meter deep) can make submarines unable to operate in very large areas. Downside of sonobuoys is they are one-use consumable.<br /><br />UAV and P-8 can only operate in areas where enemies have no control of skies. In war time, this means that if an enemy has local air superiority, than neither UAV nor P-8 can safely launch sonobuoys and stay nearby to listen signals from these sonobuoys. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9987301315026198282021-02-25T20:01:30.829-08:002021-02-25T20:01:30.829-08:00Per The Drive, the "new VLWT is based is only...Per The Drive, the "new VLWT is based is only six and three-quarters inches in diameter, around 85 inches long, and at just around 220 pounds." Compared to the Mk 54, the VLWT is about half the diameter (6.75 vs 12.75 inches), about 20 percent shorter (85 vs 107), and about 1/3rd the weight (220 vs 608). If diameter and weight are the primary factors, the warhead is likely smaller, maybe in the 30 lb range. <br /><br />But, the VLWT were designed to defeat other torpedoes, an underwater version of SeaRAM, as it were. They probably have decent speed, but I can't imagine they have much range if they're only trying to hit a torpedo coming at you. You might hit a sub if you dropped one right over it, but I think you need a bigger torpedo.<br />Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89442185379041950402021-02-25T16:06:25.861-08:002021-02-25T16:06:25.861-08:00"“Technical talent is at a premium,” he said...."“Technical talent is at a premium,” he said. “If the design opportunities are so few and far between that joining a defense company means you may get to design one thing in your career ... — and that's if you're lucky — that that talent will go elsewhere into commercial innovation where the opportunities are more plentiful.”<br /><br />Roper’s project envisions developing and buying plans at a much quicker rate than traditional tactical fighters which often take a decade before they are produced in large quantities. By that time, technology is already dated and brand new planes must undergo costly and time consuming upgrade projects."<br /><br />At least this Roper guy understands the situation!<br />Good for the Air Force, if they listen to him.Lonfonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48033735890305319332021-02-25T12:16:38.089-08:002021-02-25T12:16:38.089-08:00Good reminder comparison!Good reminder comparison!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23138007394001932152021-02-25T12:15:04.729-08:002021-02-25T12:15:04.729-08:00"It was more a question than an answer."..."It was more a question than an answer."<br /><br />Fair enough. Nothing wrong with a good question!<br /><br />I note the problems the Navy had trying to get the Zumwalt's LRLAP munition out to 100 km (they never did!) so this would be a challenge!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56598359672024557652021-02-25T12:07:46.589-08:002021-02-25T12:07:46.589-08:00I really think a carrier based sea Guardian if the...I really think a carrier based sea Guardian if the fastest path to useful at this point. Or better yet, Navair really gets a game plan for UAVs on deck aside from a gas tank. In the world of vertical UAV, what the world could use from the logistics vantage point is a single engine platform that uses a T700-GE-401CAndyMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176205300516191412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44438198714249289162021-02-25T12:03:05.007-08:002021-02-25T12:03:05.007-08:00RBU-6000 has a 43 lb warhead.RBU-6000 has a 43 lb warhead.AndyMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176205300516191412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37036302670607141002021-02-25T11:59:07.587-08:002021-02-25T11:59:07.587-08:00Current sonobouys are fairly lightweight and cheap...Current sonobouys are fairly lightweight and cheap, which is just as well, since they get used in large numbers. <br /><br />Making a machine whose job is to detect faint sounds robust enough to survive being shot from a gun and then falling from a high trajectory into water sounds hard. I bet some contractor would be willing to try, but it sounds like a fine way to make them far more expensive, less reliable and less sensitive. John Dallmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184719865727491672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38924435620631150042021-02-25T11:52:48.874-08:002021-02-25T11:52:48.874-08:00Don't no if we could. It was more a question ...Don't no if we could. It was more a question than an answer.Trondude 5952https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625187976091596494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59384564424042323462021-02-25T11:25:27.506-08:002021-02-25T11:25:27.506-08:00"The F-35 was intended to replace the F-16, s..."The F-35 was intended to replace the F-16, so this new airplane will replace unbuilt F-35s."<br /><br />Ah, that's stretching and twisting the logic a bit. Yes, the AF is looking into the possibility of building a new, lower end (hence, F-16-ish) aircraft. You have to go through some logical gymnastics to get to a new F-16-ish replacing the F-35. That's not at all what the articles or the AF thoughts suggest. The new F-16-ish seems to be more of a complement or addition to the F-35 buy rather than a replacement for it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37183165718895727762021-02-25T11:21:46.518-08:002021-02-25T11:21:46.518-08:00Given that submarines are effective out to a hundr...Given that submarines are effective out to a hundred miles or more, depending on weapons and circumstances, what do you think a 'useful distance' would be? Passive sonar operates with convergence zone distances which means something on the order of 20-100 miles so 'useful distances' would seem to be the same. Do you think we're going to get 20-100 miles ranges from a 5" gun?<br /><br />Also, the usefulness of sonobuoys depends on laying them in fairly precise patterns. Do you think we can produce such precise patterns by firing from a 5" gun over 'useful distances'?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30497627042791250762021-02-25T10:38:50.401-08:002021-02-25T10:38:50.401-08:00Do you think it would be possible to lob a sonobou...Do you think it would be possible to lob a sonobouy out of a mortar to a useful distance? Or better yet out of a 5 inch gun. If you can punch out sonobouys to useful distances that should help no matter whether you are using manned or unmanned systems.Trondude 5952https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625187976091596494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90365677602054285962021-02-25T09:55:25.449-08:002021-02-25T09:55:25.449-08:00"nationalizing"
Okay, thanks for the li..."nationalizing"<br /><br />Okay, thanks for the link. It's not quite a case of the Air Force talking about it … it's one guy, in the procurement side of things, warning what the extreme outcome might be if the existing industry further contracts. Here's the relevant quote from the article:<br /><br />“If our industrial base collapses any more, we'll have to nationalize advanced aviation and maybe other parts of the Air Force that currently are competitive,” Roper said."<br /><br />That does not sound, in the least, like any active, sanctioned, discussion of nationalization. That said, the guy's warning is perfectly valid and I've already addressed how to maintain the industry with more competition and producing cheaper aircraft, faster.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26083965189477815452021-02-25T09:47:22.534-08:002021-02-25T09:47:22.534-08:00And my apologies for not seeing your question!
I ...And my apologies for not seeing your question!<br /><br />I see the USAF's moves to nationalizing the military aircraft industry as a disaster waiting to happen. The government can make small successes in-house: think of how influential China Lake has been in terms of military technology.<br /><br />When it comes to widespread military procurement, it'll be slower, more expensive, more corrupt, and 100% politicized.<br /><br />As you said, the military can't keep its own existing infrastructure running effectively. There's no reason to think that the USAF suddenly had an epiphany and will somehow not screw us all over.<br /><br />As I read through that article in horror I couldn't help but think of the Mark 14 disaster from WW2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18830280576253176932021-02-25T09:36:16.158-08:002021-02-25T09:36:16.158-08:00Well, *replace* is perhaps too strong a word. What...Well, *replace* is perhaps too strong a word. What the USAF is looking to do is replace the F-16 with another plane that is not the F-35. The F-35 was intended to replace the F-16, so this new airplane will replace unbuilt F-35s.<br /><br />Source:<br /><br />https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/<br /><br />And:<br /><br /><br />https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39316/air-force-boss-wants-clean-sheet-fighter-thats-less-advanced-than-f-35-to-replace-f-16<br /><br />(if you do a search for "F-35 replacement" you'll find a bunch of reporting on the subject)<br /><br /><br />Nationalizing the military plane industry:<br /><br />https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-nationalize-military-aircraft-industry-usaf-says/166894/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22977310375392888412021-02-25T09:25:21.123-08:002021-02-25T09:25:21.123-08:00"nationalizing the military plane industry.&q..."nationalizing the military plane industry."<br /><br />As I said in the previous comment, I've seen no such announcement. That aside, what do you think of the concept? Would a nationalized aircraft industry be a good thing? Given the decrepit, deplorable state of the Navy public shipyards and the immense backlogs of maintenance work associated with them, is there any reason to believe that a military aircraft industry would perform well?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com