Save Money and Get a Big Ship

[Fabius]

With regards to the two different types of helicopters that various other forces use, they seem to use one as an ASW asset and the other as an anti surface asset.  It seems from comments here and elsewhere that the Cyclone's sensor suite easily supports both roles but I have not seen anything about the weapons suite for the Cyclone.  Anyone know if the Cyclone's have the same sort of anti surface capabilities (specifically air to surface missiles/rockets etc) as say the Wildcats that the RN is using?

 

[Baz]

With regards to the two different types of helicopters that various other forces use, they seem to use one as an ASW asset and the other as an anti surface asset.  It seems from comments here and elsewhere that the Cyclone's sensor suite easily supports both roles but I have not seen anything about the weapons suite for the Cyclone.  Anyone know if the Cyclone's have the same sort of anti surface capabilities (specifically air to surface missiles/rockets etc) as say the Wildcats that the RN is using?

It doesn't; a Stand Off Surface Weapon has been *discussed* for quite some time but was not a requirement for the Cyclone.

The issues of storage, handling, and launch of an armed helicopter shouldn't be underestimated; they would need to be overcome regardless of whether it was a Cyclone or a second helo.

I echo the statements of other's regarding a second helo; 12 Wing has a challenge over the next few years to generate dets for one helo.  The requirements for the Cyclone were specifically set out in order that one helo would not just be able to conduct the three primary missions (ASW, ASuW, and supporting air operations ie SAR, utility, etc) without significant re-role, but to be able to concurrently do them or switch while airborne.  The only divergence from that is if the aircraft is in the utility config with the mission kit largely removed and 22 troop seats fitted; this config was not in the original requirements but was added afterwards to exploit the capabilities of the aircraft, including the fact it has a tail ramp which most (possibly all, but I'm not doing the research) Maritime Helicopters do not have (not to be confused with Littoral Maneuver or "Marine" helicopters).

 

[Fabius]

Do the issues and challenges surrounding the storage, handling, and launch of an armed helicopter change much based on the munitions load out?  If the airframe and ship and crews are setup to mange those issues for the Mk46 (as an example) is it a fairly easy process (conceptually/logistically perhaps not administratively) to manage those same issues for stand off surface weapons? 
Honestly at this point I am starting to think that flexibility (which is what I think most people are ultimately trying to achieve with talk of a second helo) with almost all our platforms comes from the munitions load outs that are possible, backed by the sensor and C2 capabilities to employ the different munitions types.  What's lacking seems to be the munitions diversity needed for that flexibility.

 

[Baz]

Do the issues and challenges surrounding the storage, handling, and launch of an armed helicopter change much based on the munitions load out?  If the airframe and ship and crews are setup to mange those issues for the Mk46 (as an example) is it a fairly easy process (conceptually/logistically perhaps not administratively) to manage those same issues for stand off surface weapons? 

Yes, they do.  At it's most basic (grossly oversimplified) a Mk-46 is going to go *clunk* onto the flight deck (we had one de-band, wasn't a warshot; the bands coming off can cause some serious damage, plus there is the nastiness known as otto fuel, and if it was a warshot...); a missile, if your flight deck procedures aren't right, goes right into the hangar (which, by the way, is between the two torp mags...)

A little bit apples to oranges, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

Honestly at this point I am starting to think that flexibility (which is what I think most people are ultimately trying to achieve with talk of a second helo) with almost all our platforms comes from the munitions load outs that are possible, backed by the sensor and C2 capabilities to employ the different munitions types.  What's lacking seems to be the munitions diversity needed for that flexibility.

Absolutely, and well understood by the right people.  The sensor capabilities are already there, the C2 is manageable, the flight deck procedures already exist amongst our allies; as always, what's missing is *will* and *money*.


To be honest, I agree that the Merlin / Wildcat or SH-60R / SH-60S pairings bring something extra to the fight; one as the sensor banging away and emitting, one as the shooter being really, really sneaky.  But, less *will* and less *money* for that exists in Canada, plus all of the issues already spoken to of building up, in effect, a whole new community.

Speaking of being sneaky... see https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-07-16/fire-scout-gains-osprey-radar  And from all accounts the Leonardo Osprey AESA radar puts the APS-143 to shame.  Right of the bat it is purported to be concurrent multi-mode...

Come to think of it, given the MQ-8C endurance is over 12 hours (amazing what getting rid 3 sets of self loading baggage plus their special needs, like seats, and replacing it with go-go juice will do), and the Osprey is the first real Airborne Surface Search AESA, plus Link-16 in addition to the existing TCDL, this is where the discussion logically goes next.  Give it an ESM and it could be the persistent surface search platform, plus fulfill the AEW role Underway speaks to, for countries that can't have either E-2Ds or Merlin Crowsnest.

Which then brings us back to the mission bay of the Type 26... these are the real discussions that happen around capability that is within the *will* and *money* of countries like Canada...

But I wouldn't know, because I've never been involved in discussions about embarked aviation requirements 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could even operate that off of the CCG ships that carry a similar helicopter

 

[Underway]

I'm sure there will be tons of discussions during the VDQ sail and "lessons learned" stuff both during and after they get back.

Even before they left I've heard some great things.  VDQ is doing some stuff combined with ships sensors and the Cyclone that no one in the RCN has done yet.  Not to mention they have a third MASS launcher.  They are really taking the ball down the field hard from what I can tell with my limited view.

The only negative reviews of the Cyclone I have heard come from breaking in the shinny new "Cyclone Aircrews".  The former Sea King folks are old hats but the newer never sailed before Cyclone crews are getting a nice education in how a ship on operations really works, as well as navy culture. (no we can't stop the pipes while you are on crew rest, learn to sleep through it ... if the helo is undergoing unplanned maintenance did you ever think to tell the PlansO before we piped flying stations?) 

Jokes aside, it's just the natural friction when elements who have never worked together start working out the kinks.

Come to think of it, given the MQ-8C endurance is over 12 hours (amazing what getting rid 3 sets of self loading baggage plus their special needs, like seats, and replacing it with go-go juice will do), and the Osprey is the first real Airborne Surface Search AESA, plus Link-16 in addition to the existing TCDL, this is where the discussion logically goes next.  Give it an ESM and it could be the persistent surface search platform, plus fulfill the AEW role Underway speaks to, for countries that can't have either E-2Ds or Merlin Crowsnest.

I drool at the potential this line of development is demonstrating.  The increase in SA could be in the orders of magnitude better just by adding two of these to a 4 ship TG.  An AEW variant could give a ship valuable minutes in dealing with a missile attack.  Given that the fastest missiles out there could conceivably allow a ship 30 seconds to respond from detection to impact, an extra 30 seconds lead time is gold for the ship to take countermeasures.

 

[Baz]

I drool at the potential this line of development is demonstrating.  The increase in SA could be in the orders of magnitude better just by adding two of these to a 4 ship TG.  An AEW variant could give a ship valuable minutes in dealing with a missile attack.  Given that the fastest missiles out there could conceivably allow a ship 30 seconds to respond from detection to impact, an extra 30 seconds lead time is gold for the ship to take countermeasures.

The Osprey is the first lightweight AESA maritime radar... I'm not sure that in the fullness of time you would need an AEW variant.  I think a muture concurrent multi-mode radar could probably manage both surface and air search and tracking at the same time... the trick would be operationally optimizing the dwell for each.

I am interested in the Link-16 on the MQ-8C... I wonder if it allows remoting of the Link via TCDL, and let the ship go silent?

 

[Underway]

The Osprey is the first lightweight AESA maritime radar... I'm not sure that in the fullness of time you would need an AEW variant.  I think a muture concurrent multi-mode radar could probably manage both surface and air search and tracking at the same time... the trick would be operationally optimizing the dwell for each.

I agree.  AESA are generally flexible enough.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Osprey radar can already detect sea skimming targets with software to look for that sort of thing.  Volume search AEW is probably not possible though.  But over the horizon sea skimming AEW is really where you want to look for ship defence, as the ships volume air search can generally get the range for air targets above the horizon, at least in a self defence capacity.

I am interested in the Link-16 on the MQ-8C... I wonder if it allows remoting of the Link via TCDL, and let the ship go silent?

Comms is not my strongest subject but Link 16 has its own Tx/Rx system.  I don't know if you can use the Link itself to remote into a UAV and access control functions of the Link.  I think it would most likely need the TCDL to do that, as that's the function of the TCDL.  You could most definitely set parameters before launch and just listen to Link tell you all it knows from the UAV, and the ship goes silent when she needs too.

 

[Baz]

Comms is not my strongest subject but Link 16 has its own Tx/Rx system.  I don't know if you can use the Link itself to remote into a UAV and access control functions of the Link.  I think it would most likely need the TCDL to do that, as that's the function of the TCDL.  You could most definitely set parameters before launch and just listen to Link tell you all it knows from the UAV, and the ship goes silent when she needs too.

I know TCDL quite well, and Link well enough... that's not what I was saying.  TCDL is just a UDP connection, so it is possible to completely control the Link-16 box via the directional TCDL connection.  Therefore it is *possible* that the ship could turn off it's Link-16 terminal completely and use the Fire Scout's terminal via TCDL.  It's possible, but I wonder if they are or intend to...

Editted to add: the same thing would be possible with the Block IV Aurora, but to my knowledge they aren't planning for it.  In that case you wouldn't use the Aurora as a remote terminal, it would be forwarding via JREAP over TCDL.  You *could* also use it's SATCOM data to provide a TCDL network connection for other users to the warfighter networks.

 

[Underway]

I know TCDL quite well, and Link well enough... that's not what I was saying.  TCDL is just a UDP connection, so it is possible to completely control the Link-16 box via the directional TCDL connection.  Therefore it is *possible* that the ship could turn off it's Link-16 terminal completely and use the Fire Scout's terminal via TCDL.  It's possible, but I wonder if they are or intend to...

Editted to add: the same thing would be possible with the Block IV Aurora, but to my knowledge they aren't planning for it.  In that case you wouldn't use the Aurora as a remote terminal, it would be forwarding via JREAP over TCDL.  You *could* also use it's SATCOM data to provide a TCDL network connection for other users to the warfighter networks.

Ah! I demonstrate my ignorance!  I understand what you are saying.  I could only speculate as to whether or not they intend to do such a thing, I suppose it depends on the tactical application of the Fire Scout and the LCS.  It seems like that's one of those things that gets looked at perhaps later for future models of the Fire Scout.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering how fast a task group likely moves, I wonder if a large part solar powered UAV managed from elsewhere might be able to sit far above the task force and provide information?

 

[dimsum]

Editted to add: the same thing would be possible with the Block IV Aurora, but to my knowledge they aren't planning for it.  In that case you wouldn't use the Aurora as a remote terminal, it would be forwarding via JREAP over TCDL.  You *could* also use it's SATCOM data to provide a TCDL network connection for other users to the warfighter networks.

Don't give them any ideas!  Next thing you know, the Block 4 will be "BACN-lite"  :not-again:

 

[Swampbuggy]

Out of curiosity, since this thread has become fairly drone centric, does anyone know what made PUMA a more desirable fit than the S-100? I thought the VTOL characteristics of a rotary would’ve made it ideal to operate off any vessel, but particularly one with low deck space like an MCDV. And also, did the CCG proceed with a procurement for it after their trial?

 

[dimsum]

Out of curiosity, since this thread has become fairly drone centric, does anyone know what made PUMA a more desirable fit than the S-100? I thought the VTOL characteristics of a rotary would’ve made it ideal to operate off any vessel, but particularly one with low deck space like an MCDV. And also, did the CCG proceed with a procurement for it after their trial?

Mods - perhaps a thread split? 

 

[Baz]

Considering how fast a task group likely moves, I wonder if a large part solar powered UAV managed from elsewhere might be able to sit far above the task force and provide information?

Or maybe something lighter than air?

However, instead of reinventing the wheel, is it better to use the already existing MQ-4C Triton (which is what the Aussies decided); it already has all the core sensors for a high altitude (50,000 feet +) platform: MFAS AESA Radar, multi-spectral EO, ESM, and AIS plus the SATCOM, TCDL (for sensor download to cooperating units) and Link-16 (harder to get info for but implied) https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Triton/Documents/pageDocuments/Triton_data_sheet.pdf.  Instead of trying to support the 24/7 persistent capability afloat you provide it from ashore... does need FOBs so might be more difficult for deployed ops for Canada?

The potential of the radar is eye-watering (https://slideplayer.com/slide/1460197/).

 

[dimsum]

Or maybe something lighter than air?

However, instead of reinventing the wheel, is it better to use the already existing MQ-4C Triton (which is what the Aussies decided); it already has all the core sensors for a high altitude (50,000 feet +) platform: MFAS AESA Radar, multi-spectral EO, ESM, and AIS plus the SATCOM, TCDL (for sensor download to cooperating units) and Link-16 (harder to get info for but implied) https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/Triton/Documents/pageDocuments/Triton_data_sheet.pdf.  Instead of trying to support the 24/7 persistent capability afloat you provide it from ashore... does need FOBs so might be more difficult for deployed ops for Canada?

The potential of the radar is eye-watering (https://slideplayer.com/slide/1460197/).

The range of the Triton is such that for Australia at least, they're looking at the MOB in Adelaide and a FOB in Tindal, NT to cover their entire AOR. 

 

[tomahawk6]

The Border Patrol still operates the Tethered Aerostat Radar System for air interdiction of drug planes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am underwhelmed by the continued unfulfilled promises of lighter than air ships. They are to affected by winds and weather

 

[Underway]

Out of curiosity, since this thread has become fairly drone centric, does anyone know what made PUMA a more desirable fit than the S-100? I thought the VTOL characteristics of a rotary would’ve made it ideal to operate off any vessel, but particularly one with low deck space like an MCDV. And also, did the CCG proceed with a procurement for it after their trial?

Have you seen a Puma launch?  You throw it into the wind.  With the Mk 1 Arm launching system. Deck space isn't an issue.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Have you seen a Puma launch?  You throw it into the wind.  With the Mk 1 Arm launching system. Deck space isn't an issue.

No, I get that. It was the recovery I was wondering about.