Carrier-borne mid-range ASW revival?

[robav8r]

I know next to nothing about ASW tactics. I do wonder if a UAV could fill the gap between close in and long range ASW - but the funny part is that if we were to ask for a clean sheet design for a mid-range airborne ASW asset we’d pretty much get…well…an S-3.

There are lots of "Pie in the Sky" possibilities out there, not the least of which are space based. But, having a manned platform, or "systems of systems" than can offer REAL middle-zone ASW coverage for seaborne HVU's including effective weapon delivery is missing. It's a big, big problem (my opinion). Lots of capability in the Space/MPR/Sub-Surface arena, but we still have gaps in coverage for the deployed CSG.

 

[Articuno]

@robav8r appreciate it lol, he's normally pretty snarky so I'm used to it. And for the record guru, my package was at Monday's selection board so I'm just trying to keep my mind occupied from this awful wait and learn or thing or two along the way.

@IKE @Griz882 Appreciate the insight! I was an ESM operator on a sub for four years and always enjoyed exercises with the Seahawks and MPAs. If all goes well I of course would love to get on an MPA myself. I grew up in Pensacola and thought that Navy One outside Blue Angel Atrium was the coolest plane at the museum aside from the all-time-classic Corsair, and the all-too-cool Spruce Goose. I totally forgot about the Hoovers existing until this forum reminded me, and that's when the gears started turning.

Thanks for the FVL cueing! Kind looks like if an SH-60 successor is anything like the SB-1 it still would hardly scratch that monster combat radius on the S-3. Though that bird is pretty bad ass looking. Definitely curious to see what they go with. It seems like most pilots hate plopters so I wonder if they'll take that into account and not follow in the Army's footsteps.

General Berger also authored his own proceeding on the USMC ASW matter which is pretty interesting. But like @robav8r said, in a Battle of the Atlantic (or Pacific) part 2 scenario the big threat is submarines in the blue water, and I don't really know how much of a role an expeditionary USMC ASW battalion could have in that. The prospects of expeditionary ASW is pretty cool in and of itself, though. As far as I know that's a novel concept that our adversaries that don't have as many friends as us will never be able to use. Thanks for sharing that! I wonder what kind of MOS/designator those guys are gonna get.

I'm probably (definitely) biased to the nostalgia of the Viking, but it definitely seems like as good a time as ever to bring that mission back. I'm kinda surprised the idea hasn't been thrown around more. I honestly don't think I have heard anyone mention it once in my career which is pretty wild to me. Though I have heard plenty an NFO O6 reminisce on their RIO days. Did the other platforms just hate the S-3 cadre or something? ?

 

[Articuno]

There are lots of "Pie in the Sky" possibilities out there, not the least of which are space based. But, having a manned platform, or "systems of systems" than can offer REAL middle-zone ASW coverage for seaborne HVU's including effective weapon delivery is missing. It's a big, big problem (my opinion). Lots of capability in the Space/MPR/Sub-Surface arena, but we still have gaps in coverage for the deployed CSG.

Guess that's where the MISRs will get to shine. I did some MISR assistance a while back and honestly it wasn't a bad gig. The no flying thing will probably deter recruiting efforts a bit, though. Honestly, one of the big reasons I'm hating on unmanned systems is that exact notion.

The Coming of MISR to the Fleet: The Perspective of the First Deployed MISR Officer - Second Line of Defense

By Robbin Laird Earlier this year, in a visit with Vice Admiral Miller, the US Navy’s Air Boss, I was introduced to the coming of MISR, or the Maritime ISR Officer. MISR officers are trained as ISR subject matter experts to operate at the fleet or CSG level and to work the sensor fusion for […]

sldinfo.com

 

[Llarry]

One of the problems with addressing this is the shortage of space on an aircraft carrier. We've gone from 76 strike/fighter aircraft (28 VF, 36 VA, 12 VAH) per carrier in 1963 to 49 admittedly larger and much more capable strike/fighter aircraft (if including the EA-18G) today. If you bring back VS, what do you take off to make space?

 

[Mos]

Guess that's where the MISRs will get to shine. I did some MISR assistance a while back and honestly it wasn't a bad gig. The no flying thing will probably deter recruiting efforts a bit, though. Honestly, one of the big reasons I'm hating on unmanned systems is that exact notion.

The Coming of MISR to the Fleet: The Perspective of the First Deployed MISR Officer - Second Line of Defense

By Robbin Laird Earlier this year, in a visit with Vice Admiral Miller, the US Navy’s Air Boss, I was introduced to the coming of MISR, or the Maritime ISR Officer. MISR officers are trained as ISR subject matter experts to operate at the fleet or CSG level and to work the sensor fusion for […]

sldinfo.com

MISR isn't really an ASW area, it's a broader initiative to improve the intelligence cycle as it relates to the CSG and CVW.

 

[Articuno]

One of the problems with addressing this is the shortage of space on an aircraft carrier. We've gone from 76 strike/fighter aircraft (28 VF, 36 VA, 12 VAH) per carrier in 1963 to 49 admittedly larger and much more capable strike/fighter aircraft (if including the EA-18G) today. If you bring back VS, what do you take off to make space?

Hadn’t thought about that. I don’t know jack all about CVW requirements then or now, nor do I know how accurate Wikipedia is lol. But it says that during the VS days there would be 8 on board, and that HSM squadrons replaced them in modern loadouts. I’d spitball sacrificing half the HSM for four VS birds to increase the defense range. Maybe even just two. Again, no clue what I’m talking about but 8 seems like a ton for a mission that isn’t always active. I’m guessing since they used to act as refueler that’s why there were so many. Then that of course brings in the matter of where to put the Stingrays.

 

[Articuno]

MISR isn't really an ASW area, it's a broader initiative to improve the intelligence cycle as it relates to the CSG and CVW.

Ah, gotcha. I was assuming if an ASW UAV became a reality they would leverage their whole dynamic targeting expertise in that realm.

 

[Gatordev]

But it says that during the VS days there would be 8 on board, and that HSM squadrons replaced them in modern loadouts. I’d spitball sacrificing half the HSM for four VS birds to increase the defense range.

About half of those HSM birds aren't on the carrier already, though, so you're still crunched for space.

I'd take a look through these two threads. The second one isn't about FVL exactly, but there's some cross-pollination between the two.

 

[taxi1]

I'm probably (definitely) biased to the nostalgia of the Viking, but it definitely seems like as good a time as ever to bring that mission back. I'm kinda surprised the idea hasn't been thrown around more.

Waxing nostalgic, but I grew up near Quonset Point, RI for time, when they had a couple of ASW-specific carriers homeported there. From Wikipedia...

Tasked and fitted out as an ASW carrier (CVS), the air wing of an Essex such as Bennington in the 1960s consisted of two squadrons of S2F Trackers and one squadron of SH-34 Seabat ASW helicopters (replaced in 1964 by SH-3A Sea Kings). Airborne early warning was first provided by modified EA-1Es; these were upgraded in 1965 to E-1Bs. A small detachment of A-4Bs or A-4Cs (4 aircraft) were also embarked to provide daylight fighter protection for the ASW aircraft.[25][27]

Imagine if you had an aircraft carrier just for S-3s! Oh the joy.

 

[Articuno]

About half of those HSM birds aren't on the carrier already, though, so you're still crunched for space.

I'd take a look through these two threads. The second one isn't about FVL exactly, but there's some cross-pollination between the two.

With that in mind, my next stupid idea would be to outfit some of the Constellation-class frigates with depth charge racks and/or hedgehogs, keep the Romeos on those and other small decks, and hopefully that would be sufficient for short range ASW. Or honestly just keep an SSN with the CSG as an escort, no one is better at ASW than another sub. If long range and a revived midrange ASW does its job effectively you wouldn’t need the short range to be so robust. The closest alligator to the boat might also not be the biggest.

Following what @taxi1 said, and I had no clue CVS was a thing, we could always go down the carrier cruiser route lol. No plans for a CG replacement yet so why not hybridize the concepts.Throw the HSM on there and voila. At the very least we will appease the ghost of Rickover with this newly minted CGSN.

On a serious note, has the idea of modular payloads to hybridize the two mission sets of the MH-60s ever been tossed around? Reading through those threads I see a lot of y’all that dislike the amount of stuff they retrospectively strapped on to the skin of birds so I’m curious to see how that affects the FVL program. Also saw a few mentions of modularity in concern of FVL. With that being said I’m sure it’s too late to try that with the current gen, but I’m hoping that would be a pretty critical factor for FVL. I know the ruskies have been working on the concept with the KA-226. Seems like a great way to save space, though the different missions would still require separate aircrew I’m guessing.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Next new thread will be making new SF-14's.........

FIFY...

 

[Griz882]

One of the problems with addressing this is the shortage of space on an aircraft carrier. We've gone from 76 strike/fighter aircraft (28 VF, 36 VA, 12 VAH) per carrier in 1963 to 49 admittedly larger and much more capable strike/fighter aircraft (if including the EA-18G) today. If you bring back VS, what do you take off to make space?

Just to play devils advocate…what will all those -18’s land on if the carrier is sunk by a single sub?

 

[Griz882]

Waxing nostalgic, but I grew up near Quonset Point, RI for time, when they had a couple of ASW-specific carriers homeported there. From Wikipedia...

Tasked and fitted out as an ASW carrier (CVS), the air wing of an Essex such as Bennington in the 1960s consisted of two squadrons of S2F Trackers and one squadron of SH-34 Seabat ASW helicopters (replaced in 1964 by SH-3A Sea Kings). Airborne early warning was first provided by modified EA-1Es; these were upgraded in 1965 to E-1Bs. A small detachment of A-4Bs or A-4Cs (4 aircraft) were also embarked to provide daylight fighter protection for the ASW aircraft.[25][27]

Imagine if you had an aircraft carrier just for S-3s! Oh the joy.

With reference to this bit of history, the creator of the ASW Carrier (hunter-killer groups) was a fight pilot; John Thatch, creator of the “Tatch Weave” and WWII fighter ace.

 

[IKE]

...

On a serious note, has the idea of modular payloads to hybridize the two mission sets of the MH-60s ever been tossed around?

OMG, please don't start another "Bring Back HS" threadjack...

Kidding. Seriously, yes. But also realize the R & S are very different. The R is an evolution of the B with some parts from the F. The S is an Army 60L painted gray with auto blade fold added.

Both Seahawks are already modular-ish. The Sierra can remove FLIR, wings, fuel tanks, seats, and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting. Romeo can remove dipping sonar, sonobuoy launcher, extended pylons, and seats as required. Weapons and supporting racks for both are only slapped on as necessary. The Romeo can VERTREP, but you'd want a Sierra pilot to do it efficiently.

I think if there's real value to gain from increased modularity, it's in two ways:

1. The ability to go full "truck." Blackhawks can be ~2k lb lighter than most unladen Seahawks. This would provide more fuel/cargo trade space.
2. The ability to rapidly (in big-Navy acquisition time) replace obsolete weapons/sensors. A lot of our current stuff is baked into the airframe, because we didn't plan to replace it, meaning it's prohibitively costly and slow to replace certain antennas and sensors.

 

[wink]

Sorry to miss most of this. Am on vacation with limited internet. One person or another has mentioned thoughts I have. But the highlights are money, deck space, money, no strong advocates, and willful ignorance. It may cost us dearly. Oh and pointy nose guys didn't really hate on S-3s. We were new to "their world" . The Viking ended the CVS concept and was first to integrate with a CVA airwing, creating the CV. It got better over the years. I guarantee, they will miss the War Hoover when the big one happens.