tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post8274288325936245950..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Unmanned Aerial ASWComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61364328316720267772017-11-14T13:09:31.655-08:002017-11-14T13:09:31.655-08:00Thank you for acknowledgement of the cold war DASH...Thank you for acknowledgement of the cold war DASH system. FYI & FWIW, the QH-50Cs we flew from Vogelgesang (DD 862) carried two homing torpedoes. The NDC was never released for service/deployment. An excellent source of valid DASH info is; http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/dash_history.htm. It is maintained by Peter Papadokis (sc?) son of the inventor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20092007550712550232016-01-31T15:03:04.615-08:002016-01-31T15:03:04.615-08:00You're thinking 2 dimensionally, your helo is ...You're thinking 2 dimensionally, your helo is 18 foot tall. The air mule is 7 foot tall with fans deployed. Even by your metric thats 4 vehicles in the space of one helo. And again, thats thinking latterly. <br />You could stack them on end, or vertically, etc. Unmanned just opens a lot of doors traditional aircraft simply don't.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4663450180351055032016-01-29T10:57:50.609-08:002016-01-29T10:57:50.609-08:00I think you need to closely consider the use case ...I think you need to closely consider the use case of ASW helos. An ASW doesn't really do the whole kill-chain. It's mainly used to react to cueing generated by is host ship's sonar.<br /><br />There is a report US Navy did on the Falklands which showed RN helo crews were run ragged just investigating all the contacts (real/false) being generated by their ASW destroyers.<br /><br />If you had a persistent UAV that could fill that contact investigation function, you could save a lot of wear and tear on the manned helo. Use the UAV to localize detections and confirm/deny presence of real targets. <br /><br />The upshot might be having more helos available for when you find a "real" target you need to kill. I'd imagine enemy subs don't like facing multiple dipping helos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32523894525413801592016-01-29T10:49:12.431-08:002016-01-29T10:49:12.431-08:00I am no sure you understand the difference between...I am no sure you understand the difference between detection and localization.<br /><br />Surface ship sonars are used for initial detection. Helo sensors (MAD, dipping sonar, buoys) are used to localize/confirm target. It's collaborative effort.<br /><br />If our surface ship sonars are as effective at detection as Navy says they are, they are going to generate a lot of contacts. Real ones and presumably a bunch of false ones too. <br /><br />We are going to need something which can be there quickly to investigate and confirm. Helos with dipping sonars are certainly effective, but they can only be airborne 2-3 hrs at a time.<br /><br />A long-dwell UAV with a localization sensor would be very useful. We're not talking about initial detection. We're talking about a pouncer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30943423250643106342016-01-29T05:42:55.089-08:002016-01-29T05:42:55.089-08:00A MAD detector is an extremely short ranged sensor...A MAD detector is an extremely short ranged sensor (tens to hundreds of feet, at best). It's not generally used for detection but for confirmation. MAD-UAVs would have no hope of finding subs as far as I understand the technology.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20834725270875932772016-01-29T05:39:24.486-08:002016-01-29T05:39:24.486-08:00I checked out the AirMule. An interesting vehicle...I checked out the AirMule. An interesting vehicle but the same problem exists. It's 20ft x 11ft which makes it half the size of a standard, full function helo. Thus, we could get two to fit in the hangar in place of a standard helo. Are two limited function UAVs going to offer an improvement in ASW performance over a single full function ASW helo? I don't see it. Unless we can get numbers up in the 6-8:1 replacement range we'll wind up decreasing our ASW capability instead of improving it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6125721301953018962016-01-28T16:38:57.956-08:002016-01-28T16:38:57.956-08:00I didn't miss that at all friend.
A. Im refer...I didn't miss that at all friend.<br /><br />A. Im referring to the smaller platforms sighted, not the full sized unmanned variants of existing designs. 300kg carrying capacity should be plenty, as regards carrying listening gear. <br /><br />Torpedoes, I'm talking about an ASROC plus system. Torp strapped to a rocket or turbojet engine to get it to where the UAV is. Range of a few hundred Kilometers. Not proposing the world, these are existing technology but yes, new platforms will need to be designed to make UAV's work as ASW platforms. <br />No, simply sticking an unmanned version of a currently manned helicopter wont do jack for ASW abilities of a ship.<br />Check out AirMule, its legs are too short but its in dev. Something like that, which already has the carrying capacity, and is very small, and can be carried in large numbers on even something as small as an ASW frigate, <br />That would be useful, provided you can get the surface combatant to be the launch point for the weapons and the Central hub for the ASW effort.<br />Central brain/ordnancestore to a web of detection platforms.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16470189224452917302016-01-27T17:25:30.738-08:002016-01-27T17:25:30.738-08:00Nate, you may have missed the main point from the ...Nate, you may have missed the main point from the post. The problem is that the UAVs can only carry a very limited amount of payload and yet will displace a full size, full function, standard SH-60 helo. This is a very bad trade unless you gain several UAVs per displaced helo and, as I pointed out in the post, this is not the case. There's only so much room in the hangar.<br /><br />As an aside, the Mk46/54 torpedoes, the Navy's standard anti-sub weapon, has a range of only 12,000 yds (~12 km) rather than hundreds of km.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33457916362068065102016-01-27T16:13:03.121-08:002016-01-27T16:13:03.121-08:00i think we're looking at this wrong.
Much like...i think we're looking at this wrong.<br />Much like UAV use by ground forces, the assets utility is primarily in intel gathering, not strike. Strike costs great weight, but for strike we already have plenty of delivery methods, its the intel gathering, loiter ability, which is where UAV's have revolutionised the ground war fighters ability.<br /><br />Transpose that to the naval assets. You dont need to carry whopping great torpedoes with you everywhere you go.<br />You need to carry detection gear. And not the full version either, not the processing unit, not the analysis hardware, merely the end point detection unit.<br />So a very basic endpoint dipping sonar system, light buoys, etc. Signal detected transmitted to parent/host vessel, which are all already configured for the signal interpretation, (they've got their own sonars) and processing, C&C is already done on those platforms, and they carry a great deal of ordinance. Anti Sub missile/torpedoes with range in the hundreds of kilometres already exist, i know the Eeuros and Russians use them, fairly sure US has similar assets?<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75751318273256738002016-01-27T07:15:08.633-08:002016-01-27T07:15:08.633-08:00Big Carambole, for your protection, I deleted your...Big Carambole, for your protection, I deleted your comment due to the personal information contained in it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6768585902850321252016-01-27T07:10:35.160-08:002016-01-27T07:10:35.160-08:00Big Carambole, check your email.Big Carambole, check your email.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52124060437629329522016-01-26T18:31:57.461-08:002016-01-26T18:31:57.461-08:00Cost may not matter to you, but it matters a lot t...Cost may not matter to you, but it matters a lot to the folks who make decisions.<br /><br />The way I see it: <br /><br />- If the Falklands are any guide, surface ship sonars are going to generate a large number of contacts. Both real and false.<br /><br />- Looking at a standard one helo det, there are probably going to be more contacts to investigate than manned helos has flight hours. <br /><br />- I could see a scenario where a manned helo and its crew are launched so frequently to investigate contacts that they are worn/broken before finding their first real contact.<br /><br />- A persistent UAV system which could be kept airborne to help localize and confirm/dismiss surface ship sonar contacts could be very useful.<br /><br />- Persistence is critical. You want to keep the VTUAV as light as possible to maximize endurance, so that is there when needed. <br /><br />- Example: a VTUAV with MAD and a passive buoy to localize and classify the contact before bringing in the (more capable) manned helo.<br /><br />- This would saves flight hours and aircrew wear on the manned helo for when it came time to complete the Kill-Chain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57431315218540430812016-01-26T18:14:10.133-08:002016-01-26T18:14:10.133-08:00A modern MAD is extremely light. On the order of ...A modern MAD is extremely light. On the order of 30 lbs. <br /><br />A Fire Scout with a MAD for investigation of ship sonar contacts actually makes a lot of sense.<br /><br />Would it be as effective as an MH-60R? Absolutely not. But maybe it doesn't need to be.<br /><br />It would provide a persistent localization capability, which is something we don't have with a single helicopter. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16256205680425624982016-01-26T16:53:51.345-08:002016-01-26T16:53:51.345-08:00Let’s not make the assumption that an ASW UAV to f...Let’s not make the assumption that an ASW UAV to fly from surface combatants must be a helicopter.<br /><br />Instead, I think an unmanned version of the Icon A5 light amphibious sport plane (or similar), with sonar (dipping or fixed) and comms added, could make an intriguing ASW asset.<br /><br />http://iconaircraft.com/a5/buy/specifications/<br /><br />Endurance could be very long, sitting on the surface and listening. (Maximum wave heights for takeoff and landing could be a limitation.)<br /><br />To keep things light and simple (and thus cheap and high-endurance), this UAV would be unarmed. Prosecution of detected contacts would be handled by firing off an ASROC from the nearest ship (another reason all Navy ships should have VLS, but that’s another topic), or calling in an MH-60 or P-8 to drop a torpedo.<br /><br />The A5 already has folding wings. It potentially could be deployed into the water from any surface combatant flight deck (with the addition of a lightweight crane), LCS stern ramp, amphib well deck, or remote minehunting system side door (on the Burkes so fitted). Or, sacrifice an RHIB and use its davits to store and deploy the UAV.<br /><br />If I understand C-Low correctly in the first comment, he is thinking along similar lines.<br /><br />BTLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64153948100112814202016-01-26T14:12:28.260-08:002016-01-26T14:12:28.260-08:00It doesn't matter if it's free to acquire ...It doesn't matter if it's free to acquire and operate a FS. My concern is that there is no arrangement in the specific scenario I postulated (surface ship ASW) in which the capabilities of a viable combination of UAVs exceeds or even equals the capabilities of two SH-60s. I can't make the premise any simpler than that. Until someone can make a case that the performance of some UAV combination is sufficient, costs don't matter. If someone can make a case for the performance then we'll look at costs. Costs don't matter if they can't do the job.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82334084251461369122016-01-26T14:00:37.238-08:002016-01-26T14:00:37.238-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24756363489919405452016-01-26T12:13:27.581-08:002016-01-26T12:13:27.581-08:00The cost in this issue is irrelevant to me. It...The cost in this issue is irrelevant to me. It's all about performance. For a surface ship that can carry an SH-60, we'd have to sacrifice one helo to gain two Fire Scouts, at best (I'm doubtful that a Burke hangar could accommodate two FS and a SH). Even if both FS could operate without ever returning to the ship, would their single function increase the overall ASW performance compared to two SHs? I'm doubtful.<br /><br />Also, I'm doubtful that a FS operating a dipping sonar could conduct 10-12 hour missions. The fuel usage in hover mode is high. My barely educated guess is that they'd be lucky to get half that endurance. Regardless, the point is that the overall impact on ASW is probably negative.<br /><br />I don't see UAV-ASW as being viable from surface ships. As I said, a small UAV-ASW carrier might be a useful thing to have.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23517467663921448322016-01-26T11:12:39.487-08:002016-01-26T11:12:39.487-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69421879346817470512016-01-26T10:58:15.188-08:002016-01-26T10:58:15.188-08:00Ah, OK. That's in the realm of plausible. Th...Ah, OK. That's in the realm of plausible. There's also some semblance of logic and scalability. The Fire Scout is "half" the size of the XH-60 and the cost is "half".<br /><br />Back to the main point ... I'm doubtful that we could get enough enhanced performance out of, say, two Fire Scouts to justify the loss of a single, full function SH-60.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62749496287754385722016-01-26T09:40:26.116-08:002016-01-26T09:40:26.116-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20177968679486005312016-01-26T09:34:56.201-08:002016-01-26T09:34:56.201-08:00Smitty, I've seen those sets of numbers and ne...Smitty, I've seen those sets of numbers and never understood what they were. $5284/yr (=$14/day) is not the amount it costs to operate and support an MH-60R. Nobody believes it costs only $14 per day to operate and support an MH-60!<br /><br />Do you understand exactly what that number means? If so, explain it to me.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1942427355280754782016-01-26T09:08:13.629-08:002016-01-26T09:08:13.629-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24268137190302772192016-01-26T08:33:05.762-08:002016-01-26T08:33:05.762-08:00Totally agree.
Though as both helicopters and UAV...Totally agree.<br /><br />Though as both helicopters and UAVs are constrained by weight and size, it is welcome news that progress is being made in payload numbers.<br /><br />Always think the tendency is to undervalue quantity over sophistication, and due to the high cost the loss of the limited numbers available may lead to total collapse, prime example being the 100,000 ton CVN Ford, for the same dollars you could procure three conventional 70,000 ton carriers based on cost of the RN QE2. <br /> Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154573875521240433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32141740061230773672016-01-26T08:13:01.636-08:002016-01-26T08:13:01.636-08:00This also suggests that a small ASW-UAV carrier mi...This also suggests that a small ASW-UAV carrier might be useful.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76529780083615544302016-01-26T08:03:24.579-08:002016-01-26T08:03:24.579-08:00UAVs are almost a zero sum game. If you add a UAV...UAVs are almost a zero sum game. If you add a UAV to a surface ship, you almost have to subtract a standard helo because the size difference isn't that great. Consider a ship with a capacity of two SH-60s. Now, we want to add a MQ-8B/C to do as you suggest. That means removing one SH-60 in order to have sufficient hangar space. Could we add a second MQ-8B/C? Maybe, maybe not but let's say yes. So, now we've moved from two fully capable SH-60s to one SH-60 and two MQ-8s capable of only a single, limited function. Has the overall ASW effort improved? Doesn't seem like it. In fact, it seems like that makes it worse.<br /><br />Your suggestion for the mode of use of the UAVs is not unreasonable but the size/hangar constraints don't work well. Now, if we could sacrifice one SH-60 and gain 6-8 UAVs that might well be a net gain but that's not currently feasible.<br /><br />Do you have any evidence to support your supposition that MQ-8B/Cs are significantly cheaper to operate? They're both helos. I'd be surprised if there was a significant difference but maybe there is.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com