Originally Posted by
SASless
Back in the October 2021 there was an article entitled "Use Emerging Technology for ASW" in the Proceedings Magazine that discussed some ideas about using F-35's in a limited ASW role.
The Soviets and Chinese are including long range missile and even perhaps hyper-sonic missiles into their array of offensive weapons.
All can be fired from beyond the operating radius of ASW Helicopters flying from surface vessels.
The article notedt deficiencies of current assets and strategy asserting that rethinking the threat, surveying current assets and strategy....then developing much more effective systems and procedures must be done in light of the growing capabilities of Peer Level Navies.
It describes the short comings of current assets....an example was a Russian Sub fires a missile from two hundred nautical miles from the Task Force....and the question is how does the Task Force protect itself...and then prosecute the destruction of the Sub that fired the missile.
The Helicopter would take about an hour to reach the Datum Point....where the Sub was thought to be but surely is not any longer....and air dropped sonobuoys are stationary and cannot move with the Target should one be detected by the buoy.
The writer envisioned equipping F-35's and even some F/A 18's for quick reaction ASW to include air defense of the Task Force and some limited ASW capability mentioning the L3 Harris Sonobuoy Dispenser System (SDS) and Drone Wingman weapons.
What I got from the article was we face a changing threat that is growing....not decreasing and legacy assets and strategy are failing to meet the challenges.
Under Commandant Berger, the US Marine Corps has undertaken a major shift in its defining its core Mission....and there is much concern that it has defined the correct strategy.
Precision Weapons, information warfare, and going to a defense oriented posture versus the traditional offensive posture and the assets that will be part of that strategy remains a topic of debate.
Amongst that shift was inclusion of some but limited role in ASW involving land based assets (The Navy no doubt cares not to. shift any such responsibility to the USMC for any shipboard ASW operations).
We got a some relief from the Russian threat due to their Ukraine Invasion....but the Chinese are still growing their capabilities apace.
The old adage of militaries always preparing to fight the last War must not be how we do approach the near peer Nation threats.
Thank you for your reply. I thought that you had forgotten about the ASW helicopters.
I did hear of the idea of using the F-35B to deliver homing torpedoes or sonobouys and considered it similar to ideas of using the A-6 Intruder or A-7 Corsair II for a similar role back in the 1970s - which came to nothing. In the 1980s someone even suggested that the Royal Navy could do the same with the Sea Harrier! As I understand the idea was (and is) to
augment the ASW helicopters with a faster moving option. However, the trick is to use the various assets to make sure that the task group knows where the enemy submarines are - which modern towed array sonars are invaluable for. The ASW helicopter with dipping sonar works with the towed array and provides capability up threat from the carrier and other high value units - such as amphibious assault ships or crisis response shipping. As the CSG21 deployment proved, the combination of frigates, ASW helicopters with dipping sonar, (and SSN) allows you to keep tabs on hostile submarines.
With respect to Russia, NATO puts considerable efforts into keeping tabs on their submarines - such as that
described by a now retired RN Officer in 2016.
Welllll
Using 5 Eyes Intel we would know when a sub is working up, when it is about to patrol and when it sails. We can then track it using "things" as it makes its way south.
In the meantime we send out the best sub hunting platform there is - a SSN. It gets vectored in using a collection of allied sources and then follows - quietly.
As our Russian sub approaches the UK it would have been tracked from space, by SIGINT and by stuff underwater. Fellow NATO countries would have used their ASW assets to track and pass on the next country.
Finally it arrives in the UK AOR, to be pinged to **** by Merlin and followed by a SSN and the Duty TAPS.
In the future we will send out a P8 and add to the picture.
I once played this game from a location in Cornwall. In the years I was there we knew the location of every Russian submarine. Every one. I know some don't fully understand this maritime warfare stuff but the Royal Navy is rather good at it.
Long range missiles will depend on third party assets such as aircraft for targeting, so dealing with these aircraft interrupts the kill chain.
Kamikazes - The Soviet Legacy
SSGNs were evidently considered in the West to be the safest asset of the Soviet Navy during an attack, but it was not the case. The problem was hiding in the radio communications required: two hours prior to the launch, all the submarines of the PAD were forced to hold periscope depth and lift their high frequency-radio and satellite communication antennas up into the air, just to get the detailed targeting data from reconnaissance assets directly (not via the staffs ashore or afloat); targeting via low- or very-low-frequency cable antennas took too much time and necessarily involved shore transmitting installations, which could be destroyed at any moment. There was little attention paid to buoy communication systems (because of the considerable time under Arctic ice usual for Soviet submarines). Thus the telescoping antennas in a row with the periscopes at the top of the conning tower were the submarine’s only communication means with the proper radio bandwidth. Having all ten or fifteen boats in a PAD at shallow depth long before the salvo was not the best way to keep them secure. Also, the salvo itself had to be carried out in close coordination with the surface fleet and MRA divisions.
So that was two hours in which the Bear could be intercepted, and two hours in which the submarines were at periscope depth with masts up, and vulnerable to detection by airborne radars. The late Professor Eric Grove mentioned airborne radar keeping the Soviet boats down in his talk to the IISS. He even mentioned the AEW Sea King, as well as dedicated ASW aircraft. The fighters would also have protected ASW helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in places such as the Norwegian Sea. I think that the Tomcat's Phoenix missile was also meant to be able to splash missiles fired from submarines and surface warships as well as from aircraft - in one of his interviews, former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman refers to trials to see if the Tomcat and its weapons could shoot down Exocet. The air defence and ASW missions were related, as was the anti ship role.