ASW without puke?! Not in my Navy!!

[picklesuit]

http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/02/navys-p-8-sub-hunter-bets-on-high-altitude-high-tech-barf-bag/
Interesting that the Captain actually understands the concerns of my Sensor Operators, I have had several sign their page in the last year due to airsickness issues. I do like how they threw in some technical details towards the end about MAC and the lack of a MAD boom (still a mistake in my book) but the head fake about airsickness was nice.

All the noise about CAD smoke and turbulence notwithstanding, I still think I can get 'em to barf...G's are still G's and you still have to lay a localization pattern in a reasonable amount of time...Ipso-Facto tight turns....challenge accepted.
Pickle

 

[Gatordev]

So the Navy is developing a new kind of buoy called MAC (Multistatic Active Coherent), which generates sound electronically, allowing it to emit multiple, precise pulses before its battery runs down.

Kind of amusing. I think they've had something like this for a while... (yeah, I know it's a different animal).

Serious question though... I understand this might be hard to answer here, but what exactly makes the sensors able to detect things better than before? I understand the processing will be substantially better, but on the helo side, actual MDRs and PRDs aren't all that much more impressive than they were before with legacy equipment.

 

[BACONATOR]

So dumb question: Why the hell did they redesign an aircraft which had a MISSION at low-altitude with turbofans, which are only fuel-efficient at high-altitude? I read the part in the article where the mission profile is high-altitude with dips down low, but was this the intent? The shifting mission will allow mostly high altitude flying with short stints down low? It seems like ASW NEEDS low-altitude (at least with the MAD, it did), but is this not the case with the P-8? It just reads like a fundamental design flaw for the mission requirements.

 

[Gatordev]

So dumb question: Why the hell did they redesign an aircraft which had a MISSION at low-altitude with turbofans, which are only fuel-efficient at high-altitude? I read the part in the article where the mission profile is high-altitude with dips down low, but was this the intent? The shifting mission will allow mostly high altitude flying with short stints down low? It seems like ASW NEEDS low-altitude (at least with the MAD, it did), but is this not the case with the P-8? It just reads like a fundamental design flaw for the mission requirements.

The MAD doesn't actually HAVE to be low. Also, with GPS-embedded buoys, being low isn't quite as necessary. In the past, the reason to be low was for minimizing ballistic error of both sensors and weapons as well as it helps maintain a more accurate PlotStab. With an INS and GPS buoys, sensor ballistics and PlotStab could theoretically be less of an issue at high(er) altitudes. Weapon placement will still benefit from being lower.

All that said, I don't know if VP has GPS sensors yet. The helo guys don't.

 

[HAL Pilot]

We tracked plenty of Soviet subs from FL250. It was actually more convert and was the case in 95% of our prosecutions. The only thing that really required low was MAD and attacks. On the Soviets, the only time we tracked them low was when they were really close to the battle group and we wanted them to know we had them.

Of course, the expertise gained during the cold war sub fest has all since retired.

 

[picklesuit]

I think Gatordev is on the right path here. HAL, I can see tracking up high in blue water, but in a littoral environment, I figure all you'd get are taxi's and hand-held radios, kinda like the environment around KNUC. Not sure how that problem will be solved, but also haven't been in the P-8, surely someone smarter than my redneck self has thought of that. "They" keep saying we can do all the ASW down low as we do currently, but "they" also took MAD away. Go figure.
Pickle

 

[picklesuit]

Of course, the expertise gained during the cold war sub fest has all since retired.

And been replaced by expertise gained in green and blue water, on quieter and more capable subs. We have some damn good operators out there. These ain't yer grandpa's subs...damn old men, thinking they were the best.
Pickle

 

[HAL Pilot]

And been replaced by expertise gained in green and blue water, on quieter and more capable subs. We have some damn good operators out there. These ain't yer grandpa's subs...damn old men, thinking they were the best.
Pickle

I'm not saying there is no expertise in today's VP, I'm saying that there was a great deal more that was lost. I probably tracked at least 60 Soviet subs during my first tour with an additional couple of U.S. boats a month. There wasn't a week that went by without at least 1 ASW flight on someone's sub except for my Persian Gulf deployment during the Iran-Iraq war. Even then we managed at least 1 a month to keep our quals. Ever track 2 subs simultaneously? It wasn't uncommon. While not simultaneously, my record was 5 different Victor IIIs in one 8 hour onsta when the Soviets did a huge anti-boomer op off Wanda Fuca in the late 80s.

We had some extremely low MDRs, many times in the very low 3 digits. If tracking extremely low MDRs from altitude, it was a matter of plot stab. Plot stab was beat into us from day one. And we did plenty of littoral work, sometimes high and sometimes low. Taxi cabs etc. were always a challenge but we managed to overcome it. Yes subs are quieter today but your equipment is also better. I think it is probably a wash here.

I respect you guys and you have newer stuff in your tube then we did but the emphasis on ASW is just not there in today's Navy. It wasn't close to being there during my DH tour at the level it was during my JO tour just 5 years before. We saw the effects of this during my DH tour and I still have 3 friends on active duty from my JO tour time frame. Although they are very senior and haven't flown ASW in years, they all believe the Navy is lacking in ASW emphasis and desire.

I know your post was tongue-in-check but there really isn't the expertise there was early in my career. There wasn't that level of expertise during my DH tour and from the outside, it looks like the Navy is just putting enough emphasis on ASW to keep it alive. The battle group doesn't even have any organic dedicated ASW assets any more. I have no doubt given the money, time and assets today's VP could kick the ass of my VP. But it is more than just equipment and training, it's also experience on real-world targets.

 

[Gatordev]

Yes subs are quieter today but your equipment is also better. I think it is probably a wash here.

I can't speak to the P-3, but until recently, this was not the case on the helo side. The subs got quieter to the point of those 3-digit MDRs but the systems didn't really get updated. Dippers would do their thing, of course, but passively, it got pretty damn hard to localize. I think the fact that you could track 3-digit MDRs back then had a lot to do with your gear, which was and is better than a lot of the legacy helo stuff.

That's not to say we can't improve the focus, but as I have mentioned before, from what I've personally seen, one coast has more focus than another.

The battle group doesn't even have any organic dedicated ASW assets any more.

Just curious what you mean here. "Wet" organic assets or airborne? They definitely have airborne assets, but they're for localization and not detection. But I may be misunderstanding what you were saying.

 

[Renegade One]

The MAD doesn't actually HAVE to be low..

Certainly doesn't...especially if it's not installed.

C'mon, guys...y'all can say it...we know: "We wanted a commercial airliner-type jet and we got what we wanted."

This is surely the war fighting pipeline you would want to go into for easy entry into "the show".

 

[Renegade One]

The subs got quieter to the point of those 3-digit MDRs but the systems didn't really get updated. Dippers would do their thing, of course, but passively, it got pretty damn hard to localize.

Passive, passive, passive...doesn't anyone go active anymore? Don't you want the bad guys to KNOW you know where they are? Ping the crap out of them. They're all still built out of steel, yes?

 

[Brett327]

Sounds like a great tactic.

 

[Gatordev]

Passive, passive, passive...doesn't anyone go active anymore? Don't you want the bad guys to KNOW you know where they are? Ping the crap out of them. They're all still built out of steel, yes?

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but no to your second and third question. When it's tactically wise to do so, we go active (sensor, contact, environmentals, etc), but there's plenty of times where passive is the better play, for many of the same reasons.

 

[Renegade One]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but no to your second and third question. When it's tactically wise to do so, we go active (sensor, contact, environmentals, etc), but there's plenty of times where passive is the better play, for many of the same reasons.

Certainly partly facetious...and admittedly a whole lot "uninformed", but I always shook my internal head when hearing "they're so quiet...we can't find them" when other tools have always been avail. I understand the trade-offs a bit better when it's "sub on sub"...but never really got it from airborne folks. Unless it's the old "well, we don't want them to know that we kinda-sorta even know where to look". Fine, I guess.

No need to respond...I'm paddling back into my own swim lane. You guys know best, and this forum isn't the best place to go "open kimono" on all that I don't know about ASW...

 

[Flugelman]

Passive, passive, passive...doesn't anyone go active anymore? Don't you want the bad guys to KNOW you know where they are? Ping the crap out of them. They're all still built out of steel, yes?

Just an old P3 guy's perception here, but it seemed like when we were "playing" with one of our newer boats we could track them all day. That is, until they got tired of playing and would sometimes just disappear. They could get real quiet real quick. I think our side was better at this than the "other guys", but if you are tracking them, why tip them off?