JonesyA few questions:
Why has the USN stuck with those dinky Mk32 tubes over all these years? Would they even be useful for hunting subs (they surely wouldn’t outrange a decent 21″ torp that just about every submarine carries)? What would their utility be against an incoming 21″ torpedo? Do Burkes and Ticos routinely carry VL-Asroc? Why hasn’t the USN come up with a standoff ASW missile along the lines of the cancelled Sea Lance?
Simply because the Mk32’s dont take up much space and they keep the submarines back a bit. If you are firing a 35knt torpedo at an escort that can do 30knts, and get there quickly, then all you have is a 5knt advantage to play with. If you shoot from 10000yds (5nm) it’ll take the torpedo an hour to catch up – if your fish can run for 30nm!!!.
Firing torpedoes then, unless your target is slow or stupid, is something best done very close in. Mk32 coupled to even a modest MF ship-mount set is a good way of encouraging a submarine driver to hesitate before getting too close for very modest expense and ship impact. The newer magazine-fed STWS systems are even better than the venerable Mk32’s though as they feed off the same torpedoes as the ships flight uses. Nice and efficient solution that one.
Why hasnt some latter-day Sea Lance been developed….I’d imagine that there is no requirement for one. RoE’s are going to be strict about dropping live homing torpedoes tens of miles away without a very positive ID before launch. Plus choppers are already embarked that can do the job plus do the hunting as well?. Personally I think that putting the torpedoes on rockets about the ship and letting the choppers do their hunting without being weighed down with ordnance is smarter, but, thats just a personal opinion!!!.
JonesyThe question is what would the required data rate be for a AEW radar uplink? I guess the lower end of TCDL.
To compare: The JSTARS’ SCDL has 1.9Mbit/s for *processed* user data. TCDL UAV command link has 200kbit/s, the return data link uses between 10Mbit/s and 45Mbit/s. The Common High Bandwidth Data Link standard used for “global persistant ISR” has up to 274Mbit/s.
A Skynet 5 with 4×9(?) MDR channels gives a total combined data rate of no more than what Wi-Fi gives you on your notebook, meaning one spot for one Radar-Mantis.
As I understand Skynet 5B is doing good business with the U.S. forces in south-west Asia. Any idea why they chose to park 5C in a spot that is way off any intersting area, even if they say it’s spare? Relocating him 60 or more degrees eastwards will cost quite some fuel.
I think you are under-estimating the throughput potential of the Skynet platforms. From a quick scan there are at least a dozen channels capable of 10Mbps data transmission or higher – and thats just whats been identified by amateurs with RF spectrum analysers!. 8PSK tx’s capable up to STM-1/OC3 speeds are advertised commercially so 10Mbps transponders are anything but unusual.
Obviously the bandwidth requirement for streaming radar data is going to exceed the 200kbps signalling channel required for platform control. Like you say though it cant get close to the requirements for video transmission. I would make the estimate of some multiple of the 2Mb downlink from the J-STARS stopping short of the entry point into the current UAV downlink range. It is possible also, particularly with raw statistical data such as a radar feed, to implement compression and acceleration techniques to minimise bandwidth utilisation.
I think you would be looking at a good few more simultaneous UAV downlinks than just the one. With low subscriber load, i.e prior to Army/RAF lodgement in theatre, we could see half a dozen simultaneous feeds with relative comfort. Even with an established subscriber base to support you would still expect 3-4 which, with UAV’s supporting fleet ops as described by Swerve using air-relay or direct-path LoS back to the ships, would be quite sufficient for the kinds of operations we would be able to mount.
As to 5C its parked somewhere in the median of the two operating birds so it can be positioned to cover either relatively quickly in event of a fail. It would use a significant quantity of fuel to re-position I agree, but, once positioned there shouldnt be much call to move it again. Presumably if we used the reserve it would be replaced by converting the option for the 4th unit into a build.
JonesyYF,
Yep it is and I’ve seen a piece from LockMart saying that they were awarded the production contract for the array. I’ve not heard anything about a production array being completed and installed though?. You have anything?
Cheers,
Steve
JonesyThe problem with the Burkes is that the ASW is largely geared to blue-water. Where still fitted the Burke tail, TACTAS, is a VLF passive job thats just great for detecting Vic-III’s at three CZ’s in the Atlantic (tongue-in-cheek!). Its not so good for facing off against a well handled SSK in the shallows.
The 53C hull sonar is a powerful MF set that has, allegedly, had some tweaks for better shallow water performance, but, it has the limits all such ship-mount sets have.
Then you have the issue that the Burke design is a big GT propelled destroyer and accoustically presents a profile as such. Contrasted against a design optimised for ASW, like Type 23, the Burke would be a very much easier target for counter detection and tracking from the submarine.
JonesyDont forget though Distiller the load on those sats is relatively modest compared to the number of subscribers that participate in the US satcom environment.
The new Reacher Med terminals the Army has in the field are only 2Mbps links – Reacher-L can do E2 speeds but there are only 6 terminals last I heard!. SCOT-5 doesnt step up that much and, obviously, with the decline in escort numbers there is a decline in terminals in any particular theatre.
The number of UAV’s we would be deploying in theatre, even in a mythical Sea Mantis equipped future, would be modest to the extent you would be pushed to see bandwidth requirements to support more than, perhaps, 6-8 UAV’s operating simultaneously relying exclusively on satcoms. Granted that throughput to support that kind of streaming data is significant but there really wont be too many dataflows to contend with.
Then there is the observation that there is extra capability built into the Skynet 5 system with the 5C bird. It is listed as an in-orbit spare, but, its also an in-orbit augmentation capability at the issue of a suitably-sized purchase order. Where the need to provide additional channels to arise the only delay in its provision would be the Treasury-lag and the time required to re-position the satellite.
JonesyOff-board processing has clear limitations in what it can do and what it cannot do. And its use is to some degree depending on the enemies cooperation not to jam the datalink. Weather and cosmic effects also play a role.
You can’t use it as a stand-alone system, you always need the ground station nearby (and if not it’s getting real complicated with airborne or orbital relays – neither of which the Europeans really have), which can be max 100, maybe 150nm LOS off, and a high data rate downlink, preferrably pencil beam LPI.
I think the limitations in regard offboard processing are a bit overstated. The Erieye doesnt seem to have much of a problem and, in the naval environment, the Ka-31 would appear to be at least serviceable. Both of those are offboard processing platforms last I heard.
As to jamming name one ASaC platform that wouldnt have a problem if its datalinks were taken down. The only difference between a ‘raw data’ feed and a processed data feed back over TDL is the amount of bandwidth necessary in the link. If you can jam one you can jam the other to equally detrimental effect.
Airborne relay would be very much the optimal technique for exploitation of this system. Merlin AEW as the hub to a number of Mantis AEW.Mk1 ‘spokes’ would seem to be a smart move to me. Having the Merlin compile the air picture, with a couple of operators at that point in the loop, would offer the obvious advantages of keeping the carrier totally emissions silent if necessary. Plus communicating over a much shorter LoS TDL with the local chopper instead of with a number of distant UAV’s when it does need to transmit. The LoS advantages of the chopper to distant UAV’s are of course obvious too.
I like the seaplane & tender idea!
Me too!. Would’ve been far more impressed with the RAF if they selected a license-built Be200 or A40, with the RR engine option, for replacement MPA instead of this mess that is the MRA4!.
JonesyMaybe even thinkable to use an lighter-than-air system. An aerostat with AESA radar dishes, sufficient power to fly 150kts TAS and the ability to climb to 15km.
Aerostats would be tethered to the carrying vessel and would be dangerous to use as even a modestly equipped opponent would be able to get a passive fix on that ships location.
Conventional blimps etc have been looked at, and I believe trialled by the USN, as radar platforms but they have significant problems with adverse weather conditions. They would also be seriously difficult platforms to handle, launch and recover afloat.
As land-based strategic radar platforms perhaps vehicles like the SkyCat220/1000 could be lofting a theatre-range radar array for, on-station, mission durations of several weeks at a time. Any number of services and agencies could find that kind of asset useful to take a LINK feed off. As an organic solution to Fleet ASaC/ISTAR though I dont think lighter-than-air is a great solution though.
If you were going for the non-organic solution to the AEW issue one possibility, even European, that GarryB put forward some years ago now was the Beriev A-40. Bolt an Erieye style array over the forward fuselage and you likely get a decent AEW capability!. Designate one unrep vessel attached to the fleet as a, good old-fashioned, seaplane tender carrying fuel, replacement crew and spares/technical support and, severe malfunctions and conducive sea-states allowing, you could, theoretically, keep a couple of aircraft alongside the Fleet for extended periods!.
JonesyKev
It would need a STOL capability for that, does it have one?
Why would it need STOL?.
Remember the kind of flight endurances we are talking about here – 24hrs plus. At maximum you might be looking at 3 slots in the daily flying programme – use RATO gear if you need to for that few evolutions. Cant imagine that you’d need arresting gear for a vehicle that will be looking at a landing speed of, what, 100knts or so?. Less when you knock off the carriers speed!.
If RATO is a put off a modest hydraulic cat on the port deck edge cutback angled slighty offboard should do the job at, possibly, a slightly higher cost in whole-life terms.
What you get, for relatively modest outlay, is an organic, high-endurance combined ISTAR/AEW platform perhaps even adding ELINT type roles. Potentially even an ability to deploy the ‘conventional’ armed-recce variant which could be useful for traditional Force Protection, light ASuW and loiter-CAS support ashore offloading the F-35B’s.
Considering General Atomics allegedly stated they could get a carrier capability out of their single-engined Mariner vehicle, a ‘Sea Mantis’ couldn’t be considered wildly outlandish and its a platform that would offer revolutionary capabilities to a STOVL or STOBAR carrier airwing. Capabilities, in some areas, outstripping that on offer by more conventional manned platforms.
JonesyNo, the terrain is too difficult. Something below a full scale atomar war did last less than 30 days, before both sides did run into resupply problems.
The political change in the SU in the 80s did not allow a real war at all.
Concur.
In reality they have to take Norway and reduce Iceland before the first convoys get across. They need to rush the GIUK to do that before any other campaigns are going to be completed.
Perhaps preceded by a couple of Oscar vs Iceland airbase.
Firing P-700’s at Keflavik would take their principle ‘carrier-killers’ out just when they would be needed most. Remember that regiments of Tu-16’s and Tu-22’s swarming all over the Atlantic were Clancy fantasies. Those squadrons were the prime antiship theatre-entry prevention for the whole Northern Fleet oparea. The Oscars represented about the only hope the Soviets had to engage carriers in ‘NATO waters’.
JonesyInvincible class would not have survived long in GIUK gap, they would have been put to better use as ASW hunter groups between USA-UK.
I’d suggest 2 US super carriers had been commited for the defence of Iceland, along with land based AWAC’s and fighter wings on Iceland, and eventually been used offensive towards Kola.
The CVS’s would’ve served perfectly well as barrier ASW force components to assist with the prevention of an SSN/SSGN breakout into the Atlantic. What threat would you suggest would hit them?.
Submarines?. With two HAS6 sqdns and SOSUS support, plus MR2’s and P-3’s out of Iceland, Red Banner Fleet submarines would have had difficult lives. That is without figuring in the other attendent surface vessels and friendly subs.
Aircraft?. AV-MF against targets in the GIUK gap?. It would be hoped that – that close to UK – the RAF would be able to put up some kind of air coverage. Long-range bomber interception being the whole reason for the development of Tonka F3 and the Sentries!.
Surface vessels?. With NATO SSN’s a regular feature north of GIUK I’d rate the Red Banner surface-fleet breakout into the Atlantic as a far lower percentage operation than the sub fleet breakout!.
To be honest I fail to see what would have caused the Invincible to be such easy meat?.
JonesyA post with an oddly familiar ring to it. Much the same as another poster recently, apparently, departed.
Whether or not the UK has the highest defence spend after the US is a debateable point. Chinese expenditure being difficult to quantify in any wholly accurate sense. Media reports indicating $70bn for 09 being commonplace though.
All this when there has never been less of a formed military threat to the UK in history.
Which is a meaningless soundbyte at best and an attempt to deliberately mislead at worst. The military capability of the UK is defined by its foreign policy and alliance commitments and not solely to the defence of the home islands.
You are SO deluded in your opinion of the SHAR that it is almost laughable!.It’s ability to deliver precision guided munitions was virtually nil and it’s performance in academic range exercises in comparison with the RAF has absolutely NO relevance to it’s ability to deliver CAS in theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan where it would be a totally inept performer compared to the aircraft currently in use.
Perhaps, before accusing others of delusion, you should check the combat loads that GR Harriers operating out of Kandahar in support of Op Herrick typically fly. A recce pod and a 500lb LGB would’ve been quite within FA2’s abilities….plus the SHAR wouldve brought a useful strafing capability that was glaringly missing from the GRs offerings.
FA2 had issues with h’n’h environments, as did Jag GR3, and the GR’s were definitely the correct platform for that one specific environment. The swingrole capability set of the FA2 made it the correct choice for routine embarkation on CVS’s though.
JonesyEuropean fixed wing AEW?. BAE Mantis with Searchwater AEW. Manned or unmanned you need a datalink back to a surface platform for dissemination.
How much value is there in having 2 operators airborne compared to a UAV that could be on station 24hrs+ at a time?.
Plus you have the advantage of deploying the Mantis as an ISTAR asset if you arent worried about the Backfires sweeping down from the north today!. Find an airgroup commander willing to do that with one of the 3 E-2’s in his group!.
JonesyAnd even frogs have started to realise the errors in their logic.. Why would RAF go down that path is beyond me.
The ‘why’ is simple DJ. They want out of Joint Force Harrier and they want the billions saved on the carriers to be redirected to them. The tactics even understandable if you are preapared to think in such devious fashion. :rolleyes:
Joint Force Harrier has been a double-edged sword for the RAF. They signed on to it as they knew all they had to do was bide their time until it put Sea Harrier FA2 under Strike Commands remit. As soon as it was they could start to undermine it and get rid of a capability that was no small embarrassment to them and who’s dismissal could reinforce their Harrier GR.x capability.
They got that through as a big win, but, the law of unintended consequence jumped up and bit them on their backsides. Suddenly there was a serious requirement to send their people to sea on the big grey boats. Not suprisingly those in the RAF joined that organisation and had little interest in being in the Navy.
In my experience the average RAF chappie is very enamoured with his routine 9-5 lifestyle, long weekends, and stand-downs for public holidays. Being stuck out on a 20,000ton carrier getting the worst of the chop in the Bay of Biscay, in the persisting-down rain, 24hrs a day is a bit of a culture shock after that!. Having done it I can tell you that it does take some getting used to and, if you are used to a very much easier life, you could be a bit upset finding yourself in such a position!. Life at sea isnt for everyone.
Having got what they wanted out of Joint Force Harrier, the skids under the fastjet Fleet Air Arm and the elimination of FA2, their air-marshallships were, and are, now faced with many hundreds of disgruntled personnel of all ranks during a period already difficult in retention terms. Something having to be done about this.
Obvious answer is that, having been successful in ridding themselves of the Sea Harrier and community, they now attempt to target the JFH structure itself and the carrier capability underpinning it. Problem is that they cant shift Australia this time, as everyone is wise to that, and they cant try the old ‘we can protect the fleet’ routine as the lie of that statement is written on the headstones of too many RN sailors that didnt come back from the South Atlantic.
So what they try is the ‘slippery slope’ approach. They advocate modest and ‘reasonable’ savings ‘just building the one carrier’ this time – knowing full well its pointless to have just one. That way a few years down the track they can complain that the Navy doesnt even have a full-time carrier capability and so there is little to no point continuing the practice of deploying their aircraft to sea. Get a Defence Minister impressed by a check ride in a Typhoon and a Treasury anxious for military cutbacks and it could even come off for them.
Luckily the RN have chosen this point in time to let the ‘silent service’ mantle slip a little and are fighting their corner quite ably.
JonesyThis is a complicated issue demanding a thorough and detailed solution… which is that RN should tell RAF to “go ******* it self ” 😡
Succint, to the point and accurate…….I like it!.
As it turns out this ‘news’ is pretty old hat and the above comment was almost precisely what the RN did tell the RAF to do. Last anyone heard of it the Army were being drafted in to referee things!. Which, RN’s strategic role aside, is appropriate seeings its mostly supporting them that the other two services are primarily tasked for today anyway!.
The technical side of it has done the RAF no favours, unfortunately for them, as they have been shown to advocate the worst possible and most stupid solution of all – that of a part-time carrier capability. This is the one where large sums of money are spent for no guarantee of the carrier availability.
No-one, except the French general public, thinks thats particularly bright and by advocating it the RAF have shown themselves either to be irrationally biased or blindingly stupid. Neither being qualities that reflect well!.
JonesyExtreme conclusion of the bastion theory I guess!. Put the missiles where they are mobile and concealed – to an extent – so avoiding the problems with fixed silo’s but where it would be very hard to get at them.
You’d need some kind of lake to do this sort of thing with and you wouldnt build an SSBN. Perhaps something more like a UUV sled with AIP-fed steerable propulsors. Imagine the LR5 design writ large etc. Mobile submerged silo’s then more than SSBN’s…an idea to send in to someone maybe!;)
Sign In
