To be or not to be? USN Carrier Based Fixed Wing ASW...

[gf0012-aust]

"Its a whole lot harder - and the advantage doesn't lie with the sub."

If there is a "prescribed training area" and a limited (time frame" the advantage will always fall to the diesel submarine.

but that to some extent will also be defined by the size of the training area and the locale. eg RIMPAC as opposed to the Aust sub training area. two very different locales in both size and scope.

So in essence it is "scripted" by those limitations alone. Because both mobility and limited time before they have to become indiscrestionate. Those are the "achille heels" of diesel submarines.

I agree, but there is also a vast difference between a Kilo and a 214 - or an Oyashio.

Remember also that there are:

"Only two kinds of ships:

Submarines

AND

Targets"

This sits on a wall in my office. Right next to a photo of Torrens being cut in half by an ADCAP, and a photo of Sheehan under construction.

 

[DarthAmerica]

and that ignores the reality of what others in the trade think. we've had this discussion before. believe me, there are people who are far better versed and experienced in this who have some very different views.

I clearly qualified my comment as personal opinion. Its an opinion I can back up too! But to be honest we have never really had that debate. I've never laid out in any detail why and how that opinion was formed. And believe me, there is a lot more to it that what I write here. Bottom line is I disagree with the magnitude of the threat. Not that it exist. As far as better versed and experienced. I'd be real careful making a statement like that without going into minute detail with me first but I respect your opinion.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd be real careful making a statement like that without going into minute detail with me first but I respect your opinion.

Go offline for further discussion on this with me.

 

[Big-E]

several jumpjet airframes that are available in good/fair supply are yak-38, GR.Mk 3, FA.Mk 2, and GR.Mk 5 all these air craft would be suitable for the ASW jumpjet i described.

Yak-38? That thing barely had enough fuel to get off the deck much less carry an ASW loadout. The other Harriers still would be VERY poor choices.

 

[sidishus]

All I was saying is the results of that engagement during the RIMPAC exercise doesnt by itself mean that there are capability gaps.

What the Onslow/Vinson vignette does show fairly vividly is that diesels in the littorals are a tough nut to crack, and also just how vulnerable carriers are in that battlespace. Just because the Soviet Blue Water USW juggeranught is no more does not mean ASW is any easier. Indeed, in many ways, its much more difficult.
And according to the recently departed CAG CVW-11 (see the USNI Proceedings Sept 2005 article entitled Creatively Bridging the Gap. Today, Captain Cropper states-Every Aircraft In CVW-11 is an ASW aircraft.) , capability gaps do in fact exist in the current CVW structure caused by the loss of mission capability in the S-3. It is forcing the employment of limited TACAIR assets to cover as much of that gap as possible.
Point is that even though the S-3 is gone (as an ASW contributor), much of its mission is alive and well, and now still has to be covered by assets ill suited for the job and that have other chores to do.
This has two downsides. The first is the dilution of limited TACAIR assets into force protection roles at a time they may be more needed for offensive operations. The other is mission training shortfalls. VFA pilots already have enough on their plate trying to stay proficient in their core mission areas.

I personally doubt an SSK would get a shot at a carrier at all

An unlocalized sub threat, even one possessing modest capability, is a significant threat that must be planned against. Adm. Woodward struggled with just this issue off the Falklands and this point was discussed at length in the SSK thread.
What organic fixed-wing ASW assets (optimized for Littoral ASW which the S-3 ASW suite really wasnt before retirement) bring to the table is the ability to reach ahead-well ahead of what helo assets can ever hope to reach-and put pressure on those diesel threats.

 

[sidishus]

is the USN dominant? - absolutely. will they lose a carrier? - quite possibly - and in some sectors they argue "certainly". and the concern has gone up with every passing year and becomes worse with every passing year.

One need not sink a carrier to neutralize her. All you need to do is limit her ability to conduct flight ops and you have an effective kill. Furthermore, you will likely tie up what is left of the offensive assets in the subsequent recovery operation.
A hole in the side of the hull from a torpedo hit which limits her speed(not to mention disrupting steam for the cats and wires-or power for the EMALS and cats) will go a long way in achieving that.

One of the basic tenents of effective ASW is a layered defense. The loss of organic fixed wing assets is a loss of one significant layer in that defense.

 

[Big-E]

One need not sink a carrier to neutralize her. All you need to do is limit her ability to conduct flight ops and you have an effective kill. Furthermore, you will likely tie up what is left of the offensive assets in the subsequent recovery operation.
A hole in the side of the hull from a torpedo hit which limits her speed(not to mention disrupting steam for the cats and wires-or power for the EMALS and cats) will go a long way in achieving that.

1 torpedo... I think not! It takes many more than that. If she can turn with a strong wind she need not move much at all. Considering Enterprise has eight nuclear reactors I think she will have plenty of steam to run catapults unless she is at the bottom already. This carrier will not be crippled with 1 shot.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sidishus/Big-E

yes I agree that the capacity to induce a mobility kill on the carrier is just as effective as sinking the carrier - and to some extent is actually more beneficial as it then requires continued protection whilst attempting to get back. It becomes a logistics and force parasite.

I also agree with the fact that 1 torpedo shot (unless its the gold BB) isn't going to do it.

I'm assuming that you both roughly "know" how many ADCAP sized weapons have been estimated are needed to slot a CVN.

 

[sidishus]

1 torpedo... I think not! It takes many more than that. If she can turn with a strong wind she need not move much at all. Considering Enterprise has eight nuclear reactors I think she will have plenty of steam to run catapults unless she is at the bottom already. This carrier will not be crippled with 1 shot.

Given the lethality of modern torpedoes, I beg to differ:

http://navysite.de/dd/dd-images/dd938_sink.jpg

Also, I didnt say DIW necessarily, but even one torpedo hit will -with near certainty- keep a carrier from continuing on the present cycle of flight ops, and probably more than that. A big hole in the right spot may well spell the end of flight ops until after a yard period.

Yes I realize that if there is enough wind the ability to make high speed (although I am sure all involved would sure like to retire from the area as quicly as possible) may be moot. However, littoral areas are inherently light wind regions (how far off Pensacola Pass will you have to be today to get enough wind across for a carrier to conduct flight ops DIW?).

A hit forward with a torpedo packing that kind of punch that is cutting the Jonas Ingram in half above will be a significant speed limiter without question. If its a lucky day critical infrastructure such as the JP-5 fuel system may not be compromised (to the point of complete failure anyway).

A hit amidships-again from one torpedo-probably wont sink her, but that kind of hit is going to be tearing up more than CHT tanks. What gets knocked off line and for how long is a big question. And again the large hole will limit her speed severely.

A hit aft and its a done deal entirely. She will be needing a tow. Shaft misalignment, bent rudders, missing screws, all do not augur well for continued flight ops.

 

[Big-E]

Enterprise can outpace Mk48 ADCAPS at a relatively close range, I could tell you how close but I'd have to... well you know.:sniper

 

[sidishus]

Thats IF She Knows Its Coming

Enterprise can outpace Mk48 ADCAPS at a relatively close range, I could tell you how close but I'd have to... well you know.:sniper

And that is the essence of the quiet diesel threat in the Littorals. The Vinson would not have escaped what the Onslow threw her way....
We could discuss this more over beers Peg Leg Petes

 

[Big-E]

We could discuss this more over beers Peg Leg Petes

I'm not too big on oysters. If you go there and don't order it they give you a queer look.:nono

 

[rickusn]

"I agree, but there is also a vast difference between a Kilo and a 214 - or an Oyashio."

Well I can surley see some obvious differences.

But if you have a list I would surely like to see it.

Thanks Rick

 

[sidishus]

Actually I Am A Shaker Denizen

I'm not too big on oysters. If you go there and don't order it they give you a queer look.:nono

...But that establishment has had its share of troubles of late.
besides, its not the right month to be eating oysters anyway....

But back to the thread and the whole issue of the need for fixed wing ASW assets. For better or worse the USN is now firmly commited to helo only airborne ASW (or Maritme Dominance in the current lexicon).
This is being driven largely by Adm. Nathman, who has made several significant-and fateful- decisions over the last few years that will affect the course of Naval Aviation for years to come.



http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/natham.htm
But helicopters are more costly to operate and maintain than fixed-wing aircraft. Is an increased reliance on rotorcraft going to end up costing the Navy more money?
Actually, financial considerations are a significant reason we’re moving away from a dedicated S-3 Viking fixed-wing aircraft and toward a fleet of two-type, multi-mission helicopters, the MH-60R and the MH-60S.
Look, we could put a lot of money into the S-3s, but we’ve examined the tradeoffs involved in keeping them in lieu of a force of MH-60Rs and the MH-60S. We will be getting a more effective warfighting capability by modernizing our helicopter force.


It will be interesting to see if there are some significant course changes after his retirement.

 

[Magpie2005]

flat-top size versus vstol

There once was a design called "skyhook". This enabled ships that didn't have dedicated launch/recovery to perform asw/strike/cap, whatever. Now that robotics, optic recognition systems and JSF are getting better, this system is being put forward by stategic thinkers...namely, DONALD RUMSFELD. Personally, I think the era of gigantic, FRONT-LINE, assault groups is a bad idea...(stealthy cruise missiles our good french allies produce for our good friends(enemies))...such that more modular, faster, mission-specific battle groups can arrive and assemble as needed...and then haul-ass to the next cluster of time-critical targets.

...on another point..

I know a lot of people really like the awesome-ness of gigantic targets...battleships, aircraft carriers, mega-airports etc,...but you have to realize that there's an awful lot of attention being payed to just how vulnerable these giants are, and just how cluster-fu**ed these places can be.

Also, the entire era of not "seeing" through the ocean is coming to an end. Slowly revealed capabilities of blue-green lasers and high-energy/subtle-energy are rendering "traditional" search patterns completely obsolete. Above all else, you must remember that the technology in this time is exponentially increasing...what's new today becomes a piece of shi* sooner...

 

[sidishus]

Personally, I think the era of gigantic, FRONT-LINE, assault groups is a bad idea...(stealthy cruise missiles our good french allies produce for our good friends(enemies))...such that more modular, faster, mission-specific battle groups can arrive and assemble as needed...and then haul-ass to the next cluster of time-critical targets.

You are right. FRP and ESGs are proof of evolution in that direction. That kind of agility needs the inherently longer range, quicker response time, and better survivability of organic fixed-wing "Maritime Dominance" assets even more. Helos simply cannot reach far enough, soon enough.

 

[Magpie2005]

Bell Eagle Eye VSTOL UAV

Sidishus,

One of the most capable asw-possible vehicles that I've seen is the Bell Eagle Eye VSTOL UAV. Although the payload isn't in the tens of thousands, it does have the speed. Combine the Eagle Eye with tiny torpedo-like underwater UAV's and...

--Separately, it seems to me that one of the capabilities of a ~40,000-ton amphibious flat-top could be better suited for mass-ingress for amphibious assaults. Instead of each plane of a ~16 plane strike group to wait for the rest of the strike group to assemble at altitude,...have them all line up on the deck and all leave at once perpendicularly to the ship. (like a broadside of old) I'm talking about the V-22 and JSF here. Most tactical thinkers now are leaning towards "feet on the ground" concepts for the war on terror, and being able to put 150 marines 75 miles inland in 20 minutes should rout most 3rd-world dic*heads.

 

[sidishus]

One of the most capable asw-possible vehicles that I've seen is the Bell Eagle Eye VSTOL UAV. Although the payload isn't in the tens of thousands, it does have the speed.

While UAVs show promise in ISR, the problem is the USN does not see unmanned platforms as viable for ASW. "Awfully Slow Warfare" still requires the Mk1 Mod0 Brain on scene. Here is a piece of an interview with Rear Adm. Michael L. Holmes Commander Patrol & Reconnaissance Group:

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/aug_05_36.php

The majority of the ISR that we’re picking up with the P-3 and the EP-3 can be transitioned to [a UAV]. But you can’t relegate ASW to an unmanned aerial vehicle, it’s too dynamic and manpower-intensive. You have to be able to make decisions relative to an enemy submarine rather quickly.

 

[Big-E]

Leaving ASW to UAVs... Whoever suggested that doesn't realize the amount of training and human skill invovled in tracking a submarine.:shudder

 

[DarthAmerica]

Leaving ASW to UAVs... Whoever suggested that doesn't realize the amount of training and human skill invovled in tracking a submarine.:shudder

I'd say the best solution would be to use the uav/uuv with in coordination with humans. Humans dont have to be physically located inside the hunter-killer platform if there exist a way to get the data from the sensors to the sensor operator at some distant point. Thats all thats happening anyway except that the distances are shorter and transported via wire. Remove the human and you almost double your ASW coverage.