|
AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR Sonobuoy
The AN/SSQ-53F is a NATO A-size sonobuoy manufactured for the U.S. Navy which combines a passive directional and calibrated wide band omni capability into a single multi-functional sonobuoy. This advanced sonobuoy combines the capabilities of both the AN/SSQ-53D and AN/ SSQ-57 sonobuoys. http://www.sonobuoytechsystems.com/pdfs/Q53F2-2-10.pdf Sonobuoy and Advancing Underwater Technologies The 1.2kbps data rate suggested by iRAVEN is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun!) compared to video feed. If this is representative, then he is right that 100 sonobuoys is achievable within extant datalinks and 25 sonobuoys in a pod under 4 underwing hardpoints is also achievable. I have heard nothing but bleating about "RPAS not being able to LRMPA" but I have seen no well reasoned argument to say why it is not possible. Let's look at what's in open source on General Atomics Predator B then: http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircr...Predator_B.pdf Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK Comms Relay - CHECK Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK 22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK Range over 3,000nm - CHECK On Jan 3/08, the US DSCA announced the United Kingdom’s official request for: “10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B/AAS-52), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.071 billion.” Standing by for incoming from, to quote MFC_Fly, "those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days" LJ :ok: |
All sorted now - we will be using the French MPA resources - P3 Orion anyone?
|
Davejb
Thanks for the link, but even at 256kbps (256000) then if digitally multiplexed you could get 12 sonobuoys back to a ground station within existing architecture for a single aircraft. Also, I notice that this is the maximum data rate in the article so I'm surmising that if a string of 50 or so is dropped not every buoy would be tx'g at 256kpbs (don't know...). For the rest of you SOBs, what don't you understand by... OK, I'm no sonobuoy expert iRaven |
Grimweasel
we will be using the French MPA resources - P3 Orion anyone? iRaven |
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
(Post 6034578)
Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK Comms Relay - CHECK Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK 22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK Range over 3,000nm - CHECK Tracking a submarine with expendable air dropped sonobouys, as opposed to a dipping sonor, requires a number of bouys to be dropped around the submarine. As the submarine moves so more sonobouys must dropped around the submarine. Now I am well out of date on detection ability (just as well) but in the past we would need a minimum of 6 buoys per hour but against a quiet submarine in poor conditions this was at least 10 per hour. If the submarine was sneakier than many some of these 10 would be malplaced so more would need to be dropped raising the consumption to 15 per hour. On the Mk 1 with 63 buoys we frequently dropped a full load in 5-6 hours. With a 30 hours endurance, say 20 hours on task, a load of 200-300 buoys would be needed. Put another way, if you can't increase the load to match the endurance then you would need many more UAV. Then there is the balance between Art and Science. The equipment used in ASW and SSW is incredibility advanced but it is employed by humans. Humans can do unpredictable things (as far as the machine is concerned) but can be predicted by experienced opponents. To double guess one's opponent is the art. |
And with more than 1 UAV you hold the ability to drop multiple sonoboys in patterns, simultaneously, with hight accuracy based on software.
The "wets" could still be in the loop; they just would be away from the aircraft. |
Does this Satelitte uplink/downlink thingy drop out as frequently as my Sky does everytime a dirty big cloud sits over ma hoose?
|
If ASW was easy from a UAV why aren't the Americans doing it?
I've dropped more than 200 buoys in 5 hours on task - but that might say more about my ability! |
SFO
Does this Satelitte uplink/downlink thingy drop out as frequently as my Sky does everytime a dirty big cloud sits over ma hoose? So if you aren't doing everything on the cheap like Sky (cheap dishes and LNBs as well) then you cannot compare your satellite TV experiences to RPAS flying; apart from the physics of the techniques involved. iRaven |
"The estimated cost is $1.071 billion.”
Wrong, the estimated cost is the figure quoted + the wasted £3.6 Bn by cancelling MRA4 + the cancellation and disposal costs + the additional, as yet unquantified, cost of another manned platform (+ training costs + support costs).
Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many). So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better. Wanna take any bets? |
StratoQ
If ASW was easy from a UAV why aren't the Americans doing it? Northrop Grumman "Lays the Keel" for U.S. Navy's First BAMS UAS Fuselage MOSS POINT, Miss., Sept. 1, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and U.S. Navy officials celebrated the start of the first MQ-4 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) fuselage at the company's Moss Point, Miss. manufacturing facility today. Construction of the first BAMS UAS aircraft introduces another variant of Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk High Altitude, Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft system platform. "We are no longer a paper tiger as we begin construction on the jig load today," said Capt. Bob Dishman, BAMS UAS program manager, during the event. "As we continue with the airframe critical design review, we will be focusing on the production of this hardware. Our goal is to continue making early design decisions that will allow us to maintain schedule and deliver this capability to the warfighter as quickly as possible." "With the start of this first BAMS UAS fuselage, Northrop Grumman renews its ongoing commitment to the U.S. Navy to provide our sailors with an unprecedented capability to deliver world-wide, wide-area, persistent, maritime ISR data in real-time," said Steve Enewold, Northrop Grumman vice president for BAMS UAS. "The strong relationship we've enjoyed with the Navy on this program has been instrumental in its successes," said Enewold. "Facing our challenges openly as a team continues to be critical as we move the program forward." The Northrop Grumman BAMS UAS is a multi-mission maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system that will support a variety of missions while operating independently or in direct collaboration with fleet assets. The BAMS UAS will be able to provide a continuous on-station presence while conducting open-ocean and littoral surveillance of targets. When operational, BAMS will play a key role in providing commanders with a persistent, reliable picture of surface threats, covering vast areas of open-ocean and littoral regions, minimizing the need to utilize other manned assets to execute surveillance and reconnaissance tasks. The BAMS UAS program is managed by the U.S. Navy's Program Executive Office, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons' (PEO U&W) Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office (PMA-262), located at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. BAMS UAS is the latest addition to a growing family of unmanned systems developed by Northrop Grumman. The BAMS UAS system builds on the company's extensive experience with autonomous flight control that includes thousands of flight hours by the combat-proven RQ-4 Global Hawk, the MQ-5B Hunter, the MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tactical unmanned system ─ the first completely autonomous VTOL aircraft to land aboard a Navy vessel underway ─ and the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System, the first unmanned air vehicle scheduled to perform carrier landings. Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit Northrop Grumman Corporation - A Leader in Global Security for more information. CONTACT: Jim Stratford Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems (321) 726-7526 [email protected] UAV For ASW Oct 7, 2010 Posted by John Keller LAKEHURST NAS, N.J., 7 Oct. 2010. Unmanned aircraft specialist AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, Md., will design airborne sensor technology that may enable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to detect and attack submerged enemy submarines and surface warships, as well as attack ground targets and participate in electronic warfare operations, as part of a $30.2 million U.S. Navy research contract awarded Wednesday. For these kinds of missions, AAI Corp. researchers are seeking to improve acoustic, electro-optical, radar, magnetics, and other sensors primarily for manned and unmanned aircraft, but which also could be applicable to ground, surface, and undersea deployable uses, as well as to anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Awarding the contract are officials of the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Md. AAI will develop sensor technology to support Navy undersea warfare, airborne strike, air warfare, counter-air warfare, close-air support and interdiction, defense suppression, electronic attack, naval warfare and amphibious, strike, and anti-surface warfare as part of the Navy research contract. AAI Corp. specializes in unmanned aircraft and ground-control technologies; high-fidelity training and simulation systems; automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment; armament systems; and logistical support, and is an operating unit of Textron Systems in Providence, R.I. In recent years AAI has enhanced its capabilities in electronic warfare of ESL Defence Limited of the United Kingdom. LJ |
SFO
Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many). So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better. LJ |
iRaven
Thanks for the informative response. What I am driving at is that, by definition, a LRMPA tends to spend a lot of its time flying around in some pretty grotty weather, in the North Atlantic, in the middle of winter.
The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things. We would also have to work out new methods of setting buoys electronically (currently done manually by a crew member), not insurmounatble I guess but adds to the cost. Finally, on the back of LJ's obvious enthusiasm to spend his RAF career sitting in a tin box playing with his joystick;), MRA4 with a full rack fit could carry in excess of 200 buoys, plus additional buoys boxed up if required. I could do that and carry 9 torpedoes in the Bomb-bay and I haven't even used the 4 wing hard points yet. |
SFO
Mate, the days of "drivers airframe" in aircraft will slowly get limited and load carrying by RPAS/UAS are getting bigger and bigger. Here's one you might see if you go "southside": http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/displ...e.cgi?69863265 And if you're really hung up about having a bomb-bay then there's this that will even operate of a carrier: http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/v...nger_small.jpg Times are changing, take a look at SDSR and the direction towards RPAS/UAS is clear. LJ |
ShortFatOne
The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things. As part of the technology demonstration phase of the programme, the services put a Predator B in the environmental testing chambers at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida for one month in March 2008 to detemine the effects of humdity, moisture, ice and snow on the aircraft. Upgrades to the aircraft as a result of testing include gaps and seals for the airframe. To handle the power needs for the de-icing system, General Atomics will upgrade the aircaft's 10kV alternator to 45kV. |
LJ -
I take it you are up to speed with maritime procedures and have spent many years on the MR2/4 or equivalent. If the answer is yes, could you confirm that operating one of your new fangled UAV's is basically the same as being in the sim? I take it we would just replicate the MRA4 (go with me here) mission system and just make sure that all the sensors had the appropriate inputs. That would be brill! I take it you know what i mean? Its all very well operating a UAV at medium/high altitude doing orbits and then targeting a benign environment to one which is hostile (weather, sea state) at low level and takes multiple sensor inputs/human inputs to search, track and prosecute an enemy submarine. A pred B uses a camera (whooooooo), radios (whooooo) some form of targeting, a weapon system and thats about it. UK Reaper consists of what 3 operators per crew? (yes i am sure there are all sorts of sneaky beaky sensor pods but this is unclass) I know that some day this will be possible. But is that the right solution today? You quote google/BAE etc but I don't really feel you understand the human aspect of maritime operations and lack the knowledge to back up your persistence that it was a) right to cancel MRA4 and b) we have the capability now and soon to replace it. (my views on the project put to one side) |
Grousehunter
No, I am not current or ex-Kipper, but the arguments being thrown back seem a little on the weak side to me. To be quite honest they are they same type (save for the actual capability) as those thrown up by the FJ community and other manned ISTAR assets. I agree that a force mix of manned and unmanned is what we need to field for now for the more dynamic tasks. But let's face it, if the MPA mission involved dynamic manoeuvring then we wouldn't have chosen a converted Comet airliner to do it, would we? Flying a Beyond Line Of Sight RPAS at low-level is simples because the satellite signal reaches down to sea level anywhere within the transponder's very big footprint. Why do we fly them at medium altitude right now in Afghanistan - simples, so the bad men with big beards can't hear us watching them! :ugh: You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub. How's that for coverage? You have to stop thinking about how we operate MALE UAS in Afghanistan versus how we would operate in a MPA UAS role. Also, there are way more than 3 crew operating a single RPAS when you consider all the exploit task done on the SAR/GMTI and EO/IR (keeping it unclass) - all you do is swap out the IAs for "wet and dry" men. Ever heard of General Ludd or the George Corrie Society? Try Google and see what it means to progress. Plus remember that "One person’s technological outrage is another’s miraculous salvation". LJ :ok: PS. Pontius, I'm not ignoring you but VinRouge answered your point for me! |
|
Glad Rag
That was a near-earth orbit ASAT shot (865km away), the Ku sats are in geo-stationary (35,000km away). To shoot down a geo-stationary you would need to perform a Hohmann Transfer Orbit - that would give the defending satellite about 1/2 a days' notice that it's coming. You then just manoeuvre the satellite after the ASAT missile is on its way and it misses by miles. By the way, most ASAT missions will commit fraticide of one's own capability as well. Also, if you go for an exo-atmospheric nuke then it would probably quickly escalate to about 20-30 minutes of "exchanges" and then the Cockroaches would inherit the Earth. :ugh: ASAT against anything above LEO just isn't a viable tactic in my opinion without risking all-out war. The B Word |
Not to mention you will pretty quickly frag everything at geostationary altitude with the resulting debris field.
That includes the bad guys sats too... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.