How effective is RN's ASaC?

[Scott]

My understanding is that the RN uses Sea Kings for ASaC instead of fixed wing aircraft. My expertise is very limited, but it occurs to me that helos would be much more vulnerable and much less effective due to speed, loiter time, altitude ceiling, etc. Please enlighten.

 

[Tasman]

My understanding is that the RN uses Sea Kings for ASaC instead of fixed wing aircraft. My expertise is very limited, but it occurs to me that helos would be much more vulnerable and much less effective due to speed, loiter time, altitude ceiling, etc. Please enlighten.

I'm certain the RN would prefer a fixed wing aircraft for the reasons you describe but a helo platform was necessary for operations from the small Invincible class carriers. During the Falklands Campaign the absence of AEW as it was then called was demonstrated to be a glaring weakness and the Sea King was quickly adapted as a stop gap measure. AFAIK it has proven reasonably successful and is certainly better than nothing. As the new CVFs are also planned without catapults operations of aircraft like the E2D Hawkeye would be problematic.

An interesting article re Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) which incorporates the ASaC role can be found in Richard Beedall's Navy Matters via the following link:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/masc.htm


Cheers

 

[Scott]

Thanks for the info & the link-lots of helpful info. If I understand correctly the range of most ASaC systems is primarily a function of the altitude and size of the radar, both limited on a helo & reducing effective range.

If helo ops are also limited in heavy weather then task force vulnerability to ASM increases. While it would seem that spreading out ships in defensive perimeter would help to address this, it takes a long time at < 30 knots.

Is this an oversimplification of the issue?