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

[sidishus]

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.

While feasible...eventually...the advent of carrier capapble UAVs is slipping farther into the furure.
In the article entitled "For Navy, More Unmanned Aircraft on the Horizon", in the June 2006 National Defense magazine, Naval Analyst David R. Cote says:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/June/ForNavyMovt.htm

An unmanned combat aircraft that can operate from carrier decks would be of great utility to the Navy, but it appears to be unaffordable, at least for the time being

This dawning realization, coupled with the recent upheaval in the J-UCAS progarm, suggests it will be an increasingly long time before even basic UCAS aircraft make it aboard.

Also, a carrier born unmanned platform that would be capable of prosecuting ASW will not be any cheaper than a manned aircraft. First off, it will still be "flown" by winged aviators around the boat, and probably throughout the entire mission, you will still have to employ a like number of AW's regardless if they are in the airplane or in Omaha. An ASW UCAS will not be "unmanned" at all. Finally, the technologies to provide the requisite reachback will be both risky and expensive in their own right.
Since the UAV aircraft will be risky and expensive to build, and will in fact still be "manned", I don't see how you can say that a UAV ASW system will "double" anything since the human will not be removed at all.

Now that said, the Navy is purusing BAMS to supplement the P-8. In that role it can assume the ISR and borad area surveillance missions, in that role they will be a welcome force multiplier...if it gets built. Rear Adm. Bruce Clingan, deputy director for air warfare, has put industry on notice that, "There's no fluff anywhere." If BAMS slips, the Navy's two options will be to sacrifice another program, or to kill BAMS. "And there is a willingness to do so." (Aerosapce Daily & Defense Report)

The last part of his comment is telling. It won't take much and BAMS will die. Given that kind of do or die atmosphere in NavAir, it will be a long while before a tailhook equipped UCAS is flying off the boat.

Carrier capable UAVs do hold much promise in helping alleviate shorfalls in the current CVW quiver. Just as the BAMS will do, it can provide area surveillance to supplement the E-2s, and also provide many strike support functions, but the only way to bring viable organic fixed wing ASW back aboard in the next two decades is with a manned aircraft.

 

[DarthAmerica]

This dawning realization, coupled with the recent upheaval in the J-UCAS progarm, suggests it will be an increasingly long time before even basic UCAS aircraft make it aboard.

The J-UCAS program isnt in upheaval. The DoD just realised the needs of the USN and USAF are fundamentally different and decoupled the program so that the serviced could pursue designs more suitible to their requirements. The most important parts though will be cross compatible and the J-UCAS program will help both services as a result of its technology.

It's going to be approximately 2010 when ae start flying prototypes off of the deck. Within 5 to 10 years based on need we will see the first generation of carrier capable UCAVs approaching IOC.

Also, a carrier born unmanned platform that would be capable of prosecuting ASW will not be any cheaper than a manned aircraft. First off, it will still be "flown" by winged aviators around the boat(if not throughout the entire mission) so it really won't be "unmanned". The mission will still be labor intensive so you will still have to employ a like number of AW's. The technologies to provide the requisite reachback will be both risky and expensive in its own right.

Its without question that its going to be cheaper. Especially in the long run.

1. No traditional currency training. Something thats costing nearly 10 billion annually

2. No need for all the maintenance associated with that currency training.

3. One "Aviator" can control multiple platforms. Simultaneously if necessary.

4. Yes, its certainly unmanned because there is no human inside the platform. Otherwise every cruise missile with a data link would be "manned" by your definition.

5. Operating cost will be lower probably in the $1,000-$3,000 per flight hour range.

6. One of the requirements of ASW can be long loiter times. Its necessary to remain on station long enough to collect, evaluate and use data collected from sensors if there is a suspected submarine present. Humans in G-Suits several hundred km away from the boat in the seated position are going to have a decline in performance past 4 hours and even more rapid fatigue from 4 to 8 hours. Also, a good percentage of the time for a human pilot is actually spent flying to and from the target or patrol area. A UCAV with its operator/controller safely and comfortably on the ship or elsewhere can work in shifts and the UCAV would only be limited by its design tolerances. Want to stay out there 24 hours? No sweat for a UCAV. No fatigue, no decline in performance. The operator doesnt have any cues from sensors yet in one zone but is getting spurious signals in another? Hit the ALT+TAB button and take level V control of that platform for a closer look while the other platforms AI takes over and runs through its pre-programed intelligent cooperative search pattern. Bang!!! We have just effectively doubled our coverage. These two UCAVs are being operated by the same amount of people it used to take to fly and fight one S-3. Since the UCAV isnt limited by fatigue and can stay out lets say 12 hours for example, Bang!!! Another doubling compared to S-3. So these two UCAVs are in reality the equivilent of 4 or more S-3's. But interms of man power we have actually quadrupled the coverage.

Is this expensive and risky? Yes. But so was the U-2, SR-71, F-117, B-2, F-22, G-Hawk or just about any of our break through technologies. When you are on top, you have to do things to stay there. Sometimes that involves risk. The DoD has to remain hungry for dominance. The enemy certainly is. As far as the AI, communications technology, bandwidth and security. It already exist. At this point its only going to take the funding, which we have in abundance based on percieved need, to refine it and bring it all together in a package thats capable of meeting the requirement. That requires someone to be a visionary leader and push for these systems.

Summary:

Not only is this doable within the 2015-2025 timeframe. Its likely to at least double our capabilities. If this was the Cold War and we faced a competent large blue water threat. I would say that there would be an immediate need for the types of capabilities offered by the S-3. But because most of our likely threats are going to be land based, littoral or asymetric and all in regions where we have significant allied support or basing rights. Long range fixed wing ASW is a nice and well balanced capability. But its not an urgent priority compared to other issues. So in this interm period, we can focus our efforts on the areas that need attention and redirect some of the operating cost of platforms we no longer need into R&D related to platforms that will be needed in the not too distant future.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Related to...

My question is whats the space like now on a Aircraft Carrier, they are carrying much less aircrfat than they use to and smaller ones, i mean according to Naval tech, common airwing is :

12 Super Hornets
36 Hornets
4 E2c's
4 Prowlers
6 Helos

now they used to quote the carrers capable of carrying 90 aircraft now that is at 80, now they carry 52, talk about under utilisation of capability or for safety are they trying to keep the decks cleared, feel free to correct my thinking as I really don't know about carrier ops and space I just see the numbers.

 

[Big-E]

My question is whats the space like now on a Aircraft Carrier, they are carrying much less aircrfat than they use to and smaller ones, i mean according to Naval tech, common airwing is :

12 Super Hornets
36 Hornets
4 E2c's
4 Prowlers
6 Helos

now they used to quote the carrers capable of carrying 90 aircraft now that is at 80, now they carry 52, talk about under utilisation of capability or for safety are they trying to keep the decks cleared, feel free to correct my thinking as I really don't know about carrier ops and space I just see the numbers.

Once they finish testing the MH-60R/S two full squadrons will be placed on CVNs. The Hornet squadrons are quickly being replaced with Super Bugs which take up a little more storage space. The Growlers should be added soon. The 4 Hawkeyes take up alot of space, they used to only carry two. I'm curious to see what configs we'll have once JSF joins the fleet. I guess there just waiting to fill them up with the new program builds.