Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Guys, I'm a Surface Warfare Officer. You won't see much on ASW because it is almost all classified Secret or better. Did the USN neglect ASW in the 90s? Yes. Is the D-E threat a concern? Yes. Are there tactics to mitigate the threat? Yes. Are there secret whamadine things out there to detect them? Like I'm going to answer that. But don't draw your conclusions from the Little Crappy Ship (LCS).

F-16.net Sponsor

shingen wrote:

lampshade111 wrote:

Shep1978, the lack of any suitable replacement for the S-3B Viking has concerned me a bit. How were they ineffective in the ASW role, and what has changed in recent years to remove the requirement for a fixed wing sub-hunter?

The issue with sub hunting is that long range passive detection with towed arrays is out. The latest Arleigh Burkes lose the array to pick up a hangar. The S-3 was tasked with prosecuting these long range contacts in the open ocean. The choppers are adequate to deal with DE subs in the littoral as the contacts will be at shorter range. Lose the S-3, gain SHornets.

Yes and no. The newest Burkes have both a tail and a helo. I think it was DDG-87 that first tested the new tail the SQR-20. The SQR-20 is hitting the fleet and during modernization the Burkes without the tail are supposed to get the -20, if funding holds out.

Your point about the S-3 is just about spot-on, IMO.

shingen wrote:

The way it works is that if the surface group is on a heading that takes it within range of the sub, the sub wins.

I would dispute that. ASW is a team sport. If you have a group of ships, I would place my money on the ships.

My point about LCS is that if the subs were a massive threat the LCS would be geared for it. I would agree that a good surface team could win against the subs but it's a lot tougher when they run over the sub than if the sub has to chase them. In neither scenario does any type of old or upgraded S-3 play a role.

I acknowledge this may be off topic, but it is a fascinating discussion. My question is, doesn't it still hold true that the greatest threat to a sub is another sub? US nuke boats can also run on batteries, just like their AIP cousins. Furthermore, with active signature cancellation hitting the fleet, UUVs, and laser thing-a-majigs beneath & above the water, the littorals shuldn't be as cloaked as they are made out to be.

Fun kind of thread going from Boeing's NG fighter to UUVs and underwater thing-a-mijig lasers. Wink

no worries..

But fwiw to play devils advocate - I'd just have to then propose reconsidering the value of ground-based P-3 and P-8 (as an unnecessary heavy project, one added to the cut list), if a hypothetical sea-based S-3-type replacement is unnecessary and incapable to perform any justified future role. And consider over the next 10 yrs, it will be more likely the threat of a stand-off SL CM capability (where faster responding, long endurance counter response to a point of launch might enable some relevance)? Of course, ASW is only one role and arguably not even the primary one justifying such a system.

shingen wrote:

My point about LCS is that if the subs were a massive threat the LCS would be geared for it. I would agree that a good surface team could win against the subs but it's a lot tougher when they run over the sub than if the sub has to chase them. In neither scenario does any type of old or upgraded S-3 play a role.

LCS has other sensors for ASW, mostly UUVs and helos. The idea was that you wouldn't have onboard sensors because it wouldn't be modular enough.

I agree about the S-3. It's time has passed.

geogen wrote:

Fun kind of thread going from Boeing's NG fighter to UUVs and underwater thing-a-mijig lasers. Wink

no worries..

But fwiw to play devils advocate - I'd just have to then propose reconsidering the value of ground-based P-3 and P-8 (as an unnecessary heavy project, one added to the cut list), if a hypothetical sea-based S-3-type replacement is unnecessary and incapable to perform any justified future role. And consider over the next 10 yrs, it will be more likely the threat of a stand-off SL CM capability (where faster responding, long endurance counter response to a point of launch might enable some relevance)? Of course, ASW is only one role and arguably not even the primary one justifying such a system.

The P-3 is in high demand even without a sub threat. They do far more than ASW and they need to be replaced because we're literally flying the wings off of them.

Hard to believe the wings are flying off the P-3's. Aren't they stressed for 30,000 hours already?

That's the whole point, dport. "They do far more than ASW". An S-3 replacement (rebuild, etc) would only make the cumulative operations that much cheaper, via reducing the P-3/P-8 increased demand in future and make the steadily increasing 'demand' more sustainable.

I understand your viewpoint, but have to differ. And salute to your surface warfare service/work. Salute

geogen, I'm missing your point, apparently.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Boeing Unveils Concepts for Next Generation Fighter