Posted on 05/22/2016 4:21:54 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Adding range and smart guidance to existing munitions, via a kit, is the backbone of America’s “smart weapon” revolution. Laser guided bombs, GPS guided JDAMs, and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers are all bolt-on kits that drastically increase the capability of existing air-dropped weapons.
Now, the Mark 54 light-weight torpedo is getting this same treatment via the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC for short).
The HAAWC concept is relatively straightforward. The folding-wing kit contains a flight control computer and GPS, and attaches via a set of collars to a Mark 54 torpedo. Once launched, HAAWC's wings spring out and it heads for its target many miles away. When it arrives at its assigned target area, the wing kit jettisons the torpedo, with a parachute gently lowering it into the water. Once in the water, the Mark 54 torpedo then activates to autonomously hunt for and kill a submarine—just as it would if it were dropped close to the target directly by a launch aircraft or ship.
Without the HAAWC kit, a Mark 54 Torpedo has to be dropped from an aircraft at low altitude, usually no higher than 100 feet. As such, the concept represents a massive increase in flexibility when it comes to engagement tactics and capabilities for aerial anti-submarine warfare platforms, and especially for the Navy’s all-star export success and flying Swiss Army knife, the P-8 Poseidon.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedrive.com ...
When you can’t fly low like your predecessor then you have to develop costly new weapons to make up for the shortfall. HAAWC has been in development for about 9 - 10 years now and still has a ways to go.
Totally relying on ‘smart’ weapons is a dumb idea. Just sayin’.
Totally relying on ‘smart’ weapons is a dumb idea. Just sayin’.
So let me see if I understand this...
...they have to be close to the sub to detect it, but they want to attack it from far away?
So what range do they release the weapon? I know, that answer is classified. But consider this:
1. The travel time from time of release to the time the weapon hits the water.
2. The target is moving.
3. The sonar on the torpedo has a limited range, so
4. The torpedo goes into a search pattern to acquire the target, but has only a given amount of fuel on board.
Now, if the aircraft crew still has a fix on the target via the sonobuoy pattern, and can guide the package, that may improve things a bit. That was the advantage that the Ikara had over the older RUR-5 ASROC. But it depends on maintaining that contact with the target.
Now given that a good submarine sonar operator will here a P-3 at low altitude coming in for a drop, the P-8 is doing the work at high altitude. (The operator would hear a TU-142 at altitude though)
Thanks.
Hmmm. An eeeevil person would scatter thousands of buoys across the sea that would broadcast the sound of a low P-3 at random...
Seems strange. But with network-centric warfare the sensing platform is often not the “shooter”. Just another tool in the toolkit. It sounds like the winged version of the small diameter bomb used in precision, high-altitude land-attack. Putting wings and a guidance system are like putting a scope on a hunting rifle — not a huge expense to add a capability.
Then came the 737 variant P-8. Turboprops? We don't need no stinkin' turboprops. It's all jets all the time! Of course jets burn two or three times as much fuel at low levels as turboprops. Hmmm. Can't fly at low level. So, can't use MAD or any other low-level tactic. No problem! We'll drop torps from 20,000 feet, glide them down to where we guess the sub will be in 5 or 10 minutes and ... oops! Where'd it go?
The P-8 story is one of basically abandoning ASW in favor of ASuW or over-the-horizon stuff. Enemy subs are going to wipe-out our carriers quickly in the next shooting war.
This is huge, most submarines attempt to evade by detecting low flying aircraft over the water.
No warning with this sucker. Spooky.....
Surface ASW is standoff so why shouldn't airborne ASW be? Especially if the new generation of sensors makes MAD unnecessary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.