Military Aviation News and Discussion

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
"the lack of direction from a gov't with experience in ASW operations"
I wish you'd stop doing this. You're putting forward solid arguments then you throw in something like this. Sweden had a gap in airborne ASW capability after retiring its ASW helicopters in 2008 (replacement began in 2015 with the delivery of the first of nine new ASW helicopters), but it has plenty of experience in ASW operations, & in unusually difficult conditions.
On re-reading the line which was apparently causing an issue, I can see how the some would miss what I was implying since I failed to state it clearly, even though the discussion has been about MPA in a military aviation thread, in an Aviation category.

To clarify, what I should have posted is;

"the lack of direction from a gov't with experience in ASW aircraft operations"

Now, even within ASW aircraft operations, there are some similarities and quite a few differences in capabilities between fixed-wing and helicopter ASW aircraft which also impacts how the ASW aircraft would be operated.

Please also keep in mind that I am not out to promote a particular company or platform, nor denigrate a competing company, platform or aircraft concept. Rather I am trying to convey that aircraft which carry out such technically challenging tasks like ISR, ASW or MPA operations complex pieces of kit which are difficult to design, assemble and integrate so that the various mission systems provide the functions as required. In specific case of Saab and the Swordfish/Global 6000 MPA concept, Saab lacks history and experience designing MPA aircraft, so I therefore automatically consider any capability claims from the manufacturer suspect until an actual full prototype is assembled and able to undergo testing. In point of fact, I would consider claims and computer-generated images from companies with experience designing MPA questionable until a unit was available to start testing and proving those claims correct.

Now from perspective, Sweden is not a country I would consider at this point to be particularly skilled in airbourne ASW operations. ASW operations of all types (rotary, fixed-wing, surface and subsurface) requires specialist skills which are perishable and IIRC the ADF noticed a decline in the ASW effectiveness of the Orion crews after a few years of lesser emphasis on sub-hunting in training and exercises. For a country like Sweden, which has had ASW-capable helicopters for less than three years after a hiatus of seven years, it will likely be several more years before the helicopter crews are really proficient in sub-hunting. The potential value to Saab of any input from current/former Swedish Armed Forces fixed-wing MPA crew would IMO be even less than that of the current ASW helicopter crews, since it has been about 13 years since Sweden retired their SH 89 MPA, which was a version of the CASA C-212-300 Aviocar that Sweden retired in 2005.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
That's all reasonable, at least to me.

I can see how I might be coming across as excessively pedantic, but it's just because I care about accuracy. I want to learn things here.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
That's all reasonable, at least to me.

I can see how I might be coming across as excessively pedantic, but it's just because I care about accuracy. I want to learn things here.
My assumption that the comments regarding ASW operations experience would be understood to specifically refer to how aircraft carry out ASW operations, is what triggered the issue and the misunderstandings which sprung from that assumption.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #164
My assumption that the comments regarding ASW operations experience would be understood to specifically refer to how aircraft carry out ASW operations, is what triggered the issue and the misunderstandings which sprung from that assumption.
Yep, but if there was only a hiatus of seven years on airborne ASW ops, the institutional knowledge hasn't been totally lost because there will still be crew with in the services who are conversant with the required skills.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yep, but if there was only a hiatus of seven years on airborne ASW ops, the institutional knowledge hasn't been totally lost because there will still be crew with in the services who are conversant with the required skills.
The knowledge might not have been completely lost, but certainly enough so that the capability cannot just be reactivated, never mind having proficiency in that capability.

In my experience, technical capabilities and expertise tends to fade rather quickly if it is not maintained and used on a regular basis. Using EMS as an example, a span of two years (which is also the frequency requiring CPR re-certification) to three years (max span for EMT re-certification) without utilizing the EMS skill sets or undergoing refresher training would leave a prospective EMS crew member in virtually all cases, unable to perform their duties in EMS. They would likely know or remember most of their skills, but they would have forgotten important details about patient care, and they would have not been keeping up with changes and new developments.

While I do not know this for a fact, but given how technical and secretive ASW operations are, I suspect there would be many easily forgotten details involved which would be important in determining mission success or failure. Seven years is quite a bit for time for old skills to have been largely forgotten.

Now to specifically address Sweden's likely situation...

Having looked through the old aircraft registries, it appears that a dozen helicopters served in ASW configurations, though I have not been able to determine if Sweden ever had a dozen ASW helicopters in service at the same time, since there were eight Hkp4C ASW variants, and four Hkp4D ASW variants upgraded and built from Hkp4A helicopters. Similarly, I have not been able to discover what the actual ASW configuration was for these helicopters, so I do not know how many crew they had, or how many operator consoles they would have supported. However, I suspect that Sweden would have had enough personnel with the proper experience to assemble perhaps 20 ASW helicopter crews at the time the last ASW helicopter was retired in 2008.

From that pool of perhaps 20 helicopter crews, over the ensuing seven years I would expect some personnel to have left the service either after the completion of their required conscription service (up to 15 months after completion of training for naval personnel) which was still going on in 2008, or on completion of their service period if they had joined as a volunteer. For those personnel who stayed in the service over the course of those seven years without ASW helicopters, I would expect that their military careers would have progressed to the point where they would have duties which they could not easily be replaced and sent back to doing what they did seven years ago, even if they still knew how.

In many armed forces, a seven year span of time would be long enough for a junior ranking pilot in a squadron to get promoted high enough to become a senior ranking pilot or perhaps even squadron commander, or for a squadron commander to potentially get promoted to wing commander.

IMO the length of time the capability was allowed to lapse for, coupled with the likely small pool of personnel with experience in the first place, would most likely mean that Sweden did not have meaningful experience to draw upon when it started to get back in the ASW helicopter operations.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The knowledge might not have been completely lost, but certainly enough so that the capability cannot just be reactivated, never mind having proficiency in that capability.

In my experience, technical capabilities and expertise tends to fade rather quickly if it is not maintained and used on a regular basis. Using EMS as an example, a span of two years (which is also the frequency requiring CPR re-certification) to three years (max span for EMT re-certification) without utilizing the EMS skill sets or undergoing refresher training would leave a prospective EMS crew member in virtually all cases, unable to perform their duties in EMS. They would likely know or remember most of their skills, but they would have forgotten important details about patient care, and they would have not been keeping up with changes and new developments.

While I do not know this for a fact, but given how technical and secretive ASW operations are, I suspect there would be many easily forgotten details involved which would be important in determining mission success or failure. Seven years is quite a bit for time for old skills to have been largely forgotten.

Now to specifically address Sweden's likely situation...

Having looked through the old aircraft registries, it appears that a dozen helicopters served in ASW configurations, though I have not been able to determine if Sweden ever had a dozen ASW helicopters in service at the same time, since there were eight Hkp4C ASW variants, and four Hkp4D ASW variants upgraded and built from Hkp4A helicopters. Similarly, I have not been able to discover what the actual ASW configuration was for these helicopters, so I do not know how many crew they had, or how many operator consoles they would have supported. However, I suspect that Sweden would have had enough personnel with the proper experience to assemble perhaps 20 ASW helicopter crews at the time the last ASW helicopter was retired in 2008.

From that pool of perhaps 20 helicopter crews, over the ensuing seven years I would expect some personnel to have left the service either after the completion of their required conscription service (up to 15 months after completion of training for naval personnel) which was still going on in 2008, or on completion of their service period if they had joined as a volunteer. For those personnel who stayed in the service over the course of those seven years without ASW helicopters, I would expect that their military careers would have progressed to the point where they would have duties which they could not easily be replaced and sent back to doing what they did seven years ago, even if they still knew how.

In many armed forces, a seven year span of time would be long enough for a junior ranking pilot in a squadron to get promoted high enough to become a senior ranking pilot or perhaps even squadron commander, or for a squadron commander to potentially get promoted to wing commander.

IMO the length of time the capability was allowed to lapse for, coupled with the likely small pool of personnel with experience in the first place, would most likely mean that Sweden did not have meaningful experience to draw upon when it started to get back in the ASW helicopter operations.
I agree, an hiatus of 8 years is very significant as ASW is a complicated business, far more so than AAW or ASuW.
ASW is multi domain where cooperation between combined forces is critical. There are no absolutes. Sea bathymetry constantly changes, not only between geographical areas but also within the same area and between seasons and a good sub Commander plays them like a five fingered fiddler.

The whole point of the CASEX (Combined Anti Submarine Exercises ) system is to gradually work up a ships team with clockwork mouse scenarios with a sub through to the more complex C series involving ships subs rotary and fixed wing ASW assets.
These are executed during Work Up or Sea Training until the platforms involved reach competency and then are regularly practiced throughout a ships or aircrafts operational cycle. The skills culminate with large scale exercises such as RIMPAC where the skills gained by platforms are tested thoroughly.

The command teams going through this process, both at sea and in the air have a currency of only a few years as their careers progress from hands on prosecution through to Command and on to a desk, there is a constant stream and the very reason why the process repeats constantly.

Any break in this constancy results in skills quickly atrophying and this is the very reason why the RAF has sent aircrew on exchange with the USN, RAAF and RCAF, starting from zero was not an option for them.
 

Xthenaki

Active Member

Xthenaki

Active Member
Boeing and Embraer have agreed to US production of the KC-390. This should enhance the odds for its success and provide an opportunity for sales to the US military. The LM C-130J finally has a competitor in the US.

Boeing, Embraer to build KC-390 military cargo jet in U.S.: newspaper | Reuters
This brings Boeing and Lockheed Martin Head to head for the USAF Hercules replacements/upgrades. Lockheed Martin will want to protect their existing role in the transport market. Digressing to the RNZAF Hercules replacement the options are expanding but the big IF is the short time frame required to upgrade the fleet.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yep, the timing is not in the KC-390's favour. There needs to be some working examples demonstrating reliable performance and this is not in the cards soon enough for NZ. Of course there is always the chance pollies will delay things which might provide an opening for Embraer.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #173
Yep, the timing is not in the KC-390's favour. There needs to be some working examples demonstrating reliable performance and this is not in the cards soon enough for NZ. Of course there is always the chance pollies will delay things which might provide an opening for Embraer.
Don't think the pollies will delay because the crunch time is speeding at their face fast.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #174

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #176
Video of Chinese new AG600 four engined turboprop amphibious aircraft

 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Boeing is testing some new features for improving the Apache helicopter's performance. The link suggests Boeing is hoping for significant performance improvements.

Boeing testing high-speed Apache concept | Jane's 360
Well, it certainly took them long enough to consider (at least publicly) adding some AH-56 Cheyenne like modifications/concepts to the Apache.
Here's an additional article on it:
Boeing Is Developing A New High-Speed Apache Gunship With a Pusher Prop On Its Tail
It included a tweet with a much cleared image that the Janes article
Compound Apache.jpg
 
Top