Jackonicko
23rd Aug 2017, 14:59
Since my exchange with ‘Bloodhound Loose’ on the Calling Kipper Fleet Veterans thread, I've been pondering his comment:
"You are correct that multi-statics is a broad term and not unique to P8; however, the P8's multi-static capability will be unique."
Bloodhound clearly knows his onions, and I feel very hesitant about raising any question, but………
Reading Clive Radley's book "Sonobuoy History from a UK Perspective", it would seem counter-intuitive that the US would enjoy a really significant or meaningful lead in Multistatics at the moment.
Obviously the RN's Merlins have a Multistatic Active Coherent capability in service, while the US Navy's Multistatic Active capability still rests (or has until VERY recently rested) on the use of impulsive, 'two-bang' SSQ-110 buoys - something the UK trialled (and rejected) in 1998 on the Nimrod MR2, before the 2001 UK decision to concentrate on coherent electro-acoustic active buoys. This eventually led to an MSA trial on Nimrod MR2 in early 2010 using ALFEA in conjunction with BARRA/HIDAR and to an initial MSA search capability on the Nimrod as it left service in early 2010.
In the meantime, under the UK ASSS/MSA (Active Search Sonobuoy System/Multistatic Active) programme, Multistatic data gathering trials took place in 2004, leading to the development of ALFEA by 2006, and the provision of an MSA-capable operational flight programme on the MR.Mk 2’s new ASQ-971 processor in 2008.
By contrast until SSQ-125 is in full frontline operational service (and I’m not certain as to whether that’s the case yet?), and until P-8 Increment 3, it looks as though the US Navy and the Poseidon won't have a coherent active source buoy, even if a basic MAC processing capability was provided with Increment 2. At Increment 2, however, MAC was assessed thus: “the P-8A’s detection capability with the MAC Phase 1 sensor system is strongly dependent on the environmental conditions present in the search area and the actions taken by adversaries to avoid detection. Although the MAC Phase 1 sensor system provides an effective capability in some environments and scenarios, it fails to deliver the full capability described by the Navy P-8A ASW concept of operations and MAC operational requirement documents.”
Not quite working as intended, then!
I understand that the US Navy will eventually have buoys operating at a slightly lower Frequency than ALFEA, which implies a longer range and a larger search area, but with a lower Pd (probability of detection). And that is, of course, assuming that Ultra have not made any progress at all in the last seven years.
I'd love to understand how all of this translates to a 'unique' and superior active multistatic capability, and what I'm missing?
"You are correct that multi-statics is a broad term and not unique to P8; however, the P8's multi-static capability will be unique."
Bloodhound clearly knows his onions, and I feel very hesitant about raising any question, but………
Reading Clive Radley's book "Sonobuoy History from a UK Perspective", it would seem counter-intuitive that the US would enjoy a really significant or meaningful lead in Multistatics at the moment.
Obviously the RN's Merlins have a Multistatic Active Coherent capability in service, while the US Navy's Multistatic Active capability still rests (or has until VERY recently rested) on the use of impulsive, 'two-bang' SSQ-110 buoys - something the UK trialled (and rejected) in 1998 on the Nimrod MR2, before the 2001 UK decision to concentrate on coherent electro-acoustic active buoys. This eventually led to an MSA trial on Nimrod MR2 in early 2010 using ALFEA in conjunction with BARRA/HIDAR and to an initial MSA search capability on the Nimrod as it left service in early 2010.
In the meantime, under the UK ASSS/MSA (Active Search Sonobuoy System/Multistatic Active) programme, Multistatic data gathering trials took place in 2004, leading to the development of ALFEA by 2006, and the provision of an MSA-capable operational flight programme on the MR.Mk 2’s new ASQ-971 processor in 2008.
By contrast until SSQ-125 is in full frontline operational service (and I’m not certain as to whether that’s the case yet?), and until P-8 Increment 3, it looks as though the US Navy and the Poseidon won't have a coherent active source buoy, even if a basic MAC processing capability was provided with Increment 2. At Increment 2, however, MAC was assessed thus: “the P-8A’s detection capability with the MAC Phase 1 sensor system is strongly dependent on the environmental conditions present in the search area and the actions taken by adversaries to avoid detection. Although the MAC Phase 1 sensor system provides an effective capability in some environments and scenarios, it fails to deliver the full capability described by the Navy P-8A ASW concept of operations and MAC operational requirement documents.”
Not quite working as intended, then!
I understand that the US Navy will eventually have buoys operating at a slightly lower Frequency than ALFEA, which implies a longer range and a larger search area, but with a lower Pd (probability of detection). And that is, of course, assuming that Ultra have not made any progress at all in the last seven years.
I'd love to understand how all of this translates to a 'unique' and superior active multistatic capability, and what I'm missing?