• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Sikorsky S-97 Raider Ground Tests Today

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
I would also say to broaden your idea of conops.

Which is a more capable ASW platform? A P-8 or an 60R?

If you had a Poseidon-type patrol capability that could take off from a DDG, would that not be worthwhile?
This. There's a lot of assumptions in here that 60R replacement will/should use the same sensors/type of sensors. Are their different ways to do ASW that could be employed by the 60R replacement? ASW isn't my jam so I cant speak to anything specific.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I get it, but I just don't have faith that the COCOMs are good with changing their requirements so that a new system can be developed in order to meet a new set of requirements that haven't been officially defined.

And yes, I'm being totally cynical.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
I get it, but I just don't have faith that the COCOMs are good with changing their requirements so that a new system can be developed in order to meet a new set of requirements that haven't been officially defined.

And yes, I'm being totally cynical.
Fair, but as with most things in life you don't know what you really want until you've thought hard about it, written it down, paid billions for it, fielded it, and then realize the other thing was the one you wanted. Oh, and the color is all wrong.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
I would also say to broaden your idea of conops.

Which is a more capable ASW platform? A P-8 or an 60R?

If you had a Poseidon-type patrol capability that could take off from a DDG, would that not be worthwhile?
Not to get snarky, but I'm actually ASW qualified, have been in two platforms, and have worked with MPRA and surface assets in ASW problems. It's not an either-or with MPRA/Helos for ASW. You want both. You want the endurance, wide-area search capabilities, and massive crew size of a P-8 (for specialization). But you also want a dipping sonar, low-speed/hover/precise attack platform capable of alert launching from and refueling/rearming on CRUDES. There is not, and won't soon be, a platform that can fill both roles. Since the long-range big wings can get to the problem from land, you want to ensure the bubba's launching from CRUDES can cover the things big wings can't do.
 

SynixMan

Space Cadet
pilot
Contributor
I meant to post it here the other day, but I still believe this FVL program doesn't make sense for the Navy. The gains the Army wants might not be strictly useful for Naval operations. I'd be interested to see what Bell/Sikorsky/AugustaWestland could do with some of the restrictions removed. -60R/S were short fuzed replacements that grew into something good (Romeo) and something meh (Sierra), but they still inherit the original design limitations of the -60A, namely transportability of two in a C-130.

I'd be interested in evolving the CH-148, but who knows. Big Navy is in the middle of the "New Helo Master Plan". Here's hoping they don't punt it into the stands for 2/3rd of the community again.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
I'm no longer in the know, but as I understood it, Navy and Army parted ways on FVL before I left Pax (2016). The reason I heard is very similar to what you're saying: shipboard/overwater requirements were too constraining for the Army and we weren't getting value out of their requirements.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
@IKE

I’m definitely not an ASW guy, but wouldn’t there be value in something that could cover large distances with MAD and sonobuoys but still able to dip and prosecute the target that way? If a platform was worth 25% of a P-8 and 100% of a 60, that’s a major increase in capability, and would open up a lot of new tactics.

The Navy is mostly along for the ride on the Army and Marines’ FVL efforts. Rest assured whatever the Corps buys off on will be capable of marinization.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
I'm no longer in the know, but as I understood it, Navy and Army parted ways on FVL before I left Pax (2016). The reason I heard is very similar to what you're saying: shipboard/overwater requirements were too constraining for the Army and we weren't getting value out of their requirements.
I've heard the same thing from casual conversation but I don't know what that officially means for 60 replacement. I think Pappy was/is pretty involved.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I’m definitely not an ASW guy, but wouldn’t there be value in something that could cover large distances with MAD and sonobuoys but still able to dip and prosecute the target that way? If a platform was worth 25% of a P-8 and 100% of a 60, that’s a major increase in capability, and would open up a lot of new tactics.
Buoy-wise, the -60 is already 25%-ish of a P-3, and less than that of a P-8, but a big issue is processing. While the Romeo was a big leap from the legacy -60 in processing, you still need the bodies to manage the data, which now requires more cube room in the airframe (along with more racks on the ship). For what the P-3/P-8 can do with all those buoys is scour an area. 25% of that just isn't super helpful for search and now we're back to localizing/tracking which is what the -60 already is capable of. Plus Romeo will have MAD soon enough.

That said, to maybe refine your overall thesis, what if we moved beyond acoustic sensors, and made that the primary search sensor? It wouldn't take up much room (it would already be a part of the turret) and the speed of FVL would help cover large search areas quickly. MAD is nice when you already know that someone is in the area and you've at least localized him (and gives you a super-warm fuzzy on the attack run), but otherwise isn't the search tool that the Shoes seem to think it is.

I get your overall point is to think bigger than what we've already been using. And naturally that leads to the obvious conclusion. A buoy truck with MAD and optical sensors. I give you, the S-3. You're welcome.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Buoy-wise, the -60 is already 25%-ish of a P-3, and less than that of a P-8, but a big issue is processing. While the Romeo was a big leap from the legacy -60 in processing, you still need the bodies to manage the data, which now requires more cube room in the airframe (along with more racks on the ship). For what the P-3/P-8 can do with all those buoys is scour an area. 25% of that just isn't super helpful for search and now we're back to localizing/tracking which is what the -60 already is capable of. Plus Romeo will have MAD soon enough.

That said, to maybe refine your overall thesis, what if we moved beyond acoustic sensors, and made that the primary search sensor? It wouldn't take up much room (it would already be a part of the turret) and the speed of FVL would help cover large search areas quickly. MAD is nice when you already know that someone is in the area and you've at least localized him (and gives you a super-warm fuzzy on the attack run), but otherwise isn't the search tool that the Shoes seem to think it is.

I get your overall point is to think bigger than what we've already been using. And naturally that leads to the obvious conclusion. A buoy truck with MAD and optical sensors. I give you, the S-3. You're welcome.
An S-3 that can take off of a small deck and dip? Not the worst capability

I don’t know much about ASW, but sometimes when a new tool becomes available, legacy operators don’t see all the new options.

A smartphone is a phone and a computer. We had both those things already. Why was it a a big deal? Because it allows you to do things neither one could do by itself
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
@IKE

I’m definitely not an ASW guy, but wouldn’t there be value in something that could cover large distances with MAD and sonobuoys but still able to dip and prosecute the target that way? If a platform was worth 25% of a P-8 and 100% of a 60, that’s a major increase in capability, and would open up a lot of new tactics.

The Navy is mostly along for the ride on the Army and Marines’ FVL efforts. Rest assured whatever the Corps buys off on will be capable of marinization.
If a platform were 25% P-8 and 100% H-60, I'd be all over it. I guess what I'm saying is I don't see any tiltrotor as 100% H-60 (from the Navy/CRUDES perspective).
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I don’t know much about ASW, but sometimes when a new tool becomes available, legacy operators don’t see all the new options.

A smartphone is a phone and a computer. We had both those things already. Why was it a a big deal? Because it allows you to do things neither one could do by itself
The S-3 thing was a joke, but did you read the rest of my post?

I was actually pointing out a way that something that's new could be useful (though there is the issue of weather, which is where buoys and P-8s would have to fill in). I was actually embracing your point. But as IKE is pointing out, and despite what aircraft manufacturers say, you can't have more than 100% of something.

Adding ASW to the equation makes things much more complicated because of how much of a crapshoot it is to detect anything (no really, there's actually a formula that all our tactics are based on). Coax/tilt could add capability, but finding that balance will be key.
 

SynixMan

Space Cadet
pilot
Contributor
@Gatordev I think that goes to the fact that the -60 is space limited. A bigger airframe might allow more buoys, sensors, maybe a second AWR, etc.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
@Gatordev I think that goes to the fact that the -60 is space limited. A bigger airframe might allow more buoys, sensors, maybe a second AWR, etc.
Bigger also means you're not gonna fit two of them in a DDG hangar. DDG-1000 is already having a problem fitting 2× H-60s.

Also, the 60F was crewed by 2 AWs. The 60R only has one because that's how the 60B was built/manned... no other reason that I'm aware of, since we regularly flew dual-crewmen in some AORs.

IMO, if you want an example of what Pags touched on (limited ideas/lack of outside-the-box thinking in acquisitions), look no further than the 60R being basically an updated 60B + dipping sonar.
 
Top