Posted on 08/13/2005 5:27:39 PM PDT by topher
The CBO States:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4130&sequence=4
Helicopter HangarsGenerally, the most effective weapon against quiet diesel-electric submarines and small, fast boats armed with torpedoes or cruise missiles is a helicopter equipped with missiles. Counting the number of helicopter hangars on surface ships reveals the number of helicopters that the Navy could have available to counter such threats. The more hangars available on-station during peacetime or in-theater during a war, the more flexible the surface combatant force is, and the better equipped it will be to perform its missions, particularly defeating antiaccess threats.
During both peacetime and wartime, Option I would outperform the other options through 2014 because it would retain Spruance class destroyers, which are capable of embarking two helicopters apiece. In peacetime, Option I would provide a substantially greater number of helicopter hangars on-station between 2003 and 2014 than any other force structure (see Figure 16). After 2014, the Navy's 160-ship plan and Option III would provide about the same amount of helicopter capability.
The above states a need for ships [or boats] with helicopter hangers [LAMPS].
However, it is my view [topher] that a platform like the V-22 Osprey might be fitted for this role.
It is already part of an amphibious assault group -- it could also provide ASW capabilities along with LAMPS helicopters.
A helicopter would not have the capacity to have extra equipment that the V-22 might have.
Additionally, the V-22 would have greater speed in getting to the target area (diesel subs). With in-air refueling, these platforms could continue the role of searching out subs on station for long periods of times.
Key to this is having sonar onboard the V-22 like the LAMPS platforms and dropping sonarbuoys.
The V-22 could be fitted with ASW torpedoes as well as other equipment that is too bulky to place on board existing LAMPS platforms.
Of interest are specs for V-22:
[The other link I was going to reference is a DOD link, which I prefer not to list here -- it is LAMPS related...]
A key ASW suite for Surface Ships was developed in the 1980's, and this suite might be modified as part of an amphibious assault ship force.
Applications of this could be in case of hostilities with Iran [Persian Gulf] or Red China [Taiwain].
This is not meant to replace the LAMPS systems, but rather augment them with an additional system as support.
The P3 Orion does not have the "Hover capability" of the V-22, but provides significant ASW capability.
In short the V-22 would provide an inbetween system for the future that would fill what I perceive is a gap between the LAMPS and the P3 Orion.
The V-22 has the advantage that it is will be deployed with amphibious assault units, and therefore, if it can be fitted with ASW suits similar to the LAMPS, then it could help provide ASW protection, as well as the LAMPS helicopters.
Both the LAMPS and V-22 would be vulnerable, but the V-22 has the ability to carry "more hardware" -- which might be an advantage...
"I guess I contend that a platform that can hover, is faster than a helicopter, and has more range, might be used as a long range ASW platform."
Blimps?
"I guess I contend that a platform that can hover, is faster than a helicopter, and has more range, might be used as a long range ASW platform."
Blimps?
If they can go 300 mph. The V-22 Osprey is faster than the LAMPS helicopter.
A blimp would have trouble with hovering. Plus they have a larger radar cross-section than the V-22. The LAMPS helicopter does have the advantage of a small radar cross section.
I saw the Osprey doing trials over Lexington Park, MD, back in '96. Patuxent River was the test facility at the time..
Don't forget the best ASW asset we've got - the B-52. Not only capable of monitoring huge tracts of open water, but capable of doing something if the enemy is spotted. Loiter times? Damn near measured in calendar days, not hours.
Two B-52s can monitor something like 140,000 square miles of water.
The LAMPS is a little bit different. It is meant to have a dipping sonar system and a sonobuoy system -- both would be effective with diesel subs. I can't see where a B52 could do such monitoring.
There are two issues with replacing LAMPS helos with V-22s:
First, there is some question about how long a loaded V-22 can maintain a hover.
Second, there's no way that a V-22 could fit inside the hangers of Ticos, SpruCans, Flight IIa Burkes or Perrys. Even with everything folded up it still hase a significantly larger footprint than an SH-60.
Speaking of which, I find it interesting that the document seems to propose extending SpruCans as a means preserving a certain number of hangers, without mentioning the smaller and cheaper Perrys (which have the same number of hangers). SpruCans have the added benefit of the 61-cell VLS, but if the big issue is hangers then the Perrys would be the better option.
I don't dispute either issue. But if one can provide in air refueling, then the V-22 can be land based or carrier based.
They would not replace the LAMPS, but in a hot spot might have more active hunter/searcher aircraft in the area.
Maybe the Navy has looked at this, and decided it is not practical.
But the speed of the V-22 versus the LAMPS might be attractive for ASW work, plus it can hover. It might have the negative of requiring too much support -- a large deck of a helicopter carrier or CVN or a land based airport. In addition, some sort of aircraft for in-air refueling (if that is a possiblility).
I may be totally wrong about this... Just an idea...
But if you limit the ASW load to sonobuoys, dipping sonar and a couple of MK46 torpedoes, it can't be that heavy of a load (compared to what it normally carries). It might be able to carry a couple of additional tons of fuel in such a configuration.
All of this is hypothetical...
I think both the Perrys and the SpruCans have the AN/SQQ89 suites, which is for ASW. But I guess if the Navy can get additional capability per platform (VLS), they might opt for that... I don't know...
a dipping sonar system
Have you ever seen bush pilots deliver messages in Africa?
They fly in a tight circle and trail a coke bottle tied to a long line, eventually the bottle comes to the center of the circle and can be lowered to whoever is waiting, kind of wierd to see, but this would work with a dipping system.
what are the maintenance hours per flight hour for each???
I think the LAMPS SH-60 is known pretty well because it has been in service for a while.
The V-22 has had problems in the past, and is a new platform. Some of the numbers for maintenance might be evolving, as this platform is in service longer...
Both might be classified, and I will not hazard any guesses.
i guess my question was more of a ratio or percentage one... true the SH-60 is a known entity, but if the V-22 takes 1.5 to 2 times the maintmanhrs per flight hr it's not a good selling point.
The LAMPS is about 21,000 to 24,000 lbs. The V-22 is 33,000 lbs empty and can be loaded to about 55,000 lbs.
It might possibly be modified with additional ASW equipment that the LAMPS might not be able to carry -- I don't know.
But maybe the V-22 will one day have applications to redeem itself [sone of the early losses of life because of crashes]...
It could literally be on-station for ASW for a long period of time -- one crew could relieve the other every x hours.
I wonder what a mil-standard port-o-potty looks like -- a bucket with toilet paper?
gone are the days of the relief tube...
My old man was a "bag man" (blimp pilot) and a nuke weapons officer (in fact I was born at Glynco Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Georgia) and he was involved in proving the nuke depth charge/blimp vulnerability,
He has a great series of photos, where a nuke depth charge explodes in the distance in the Utah/Nevada desert; the blimp is unmanned, but positioned by ropes (held by service men) so that the tail is pointed toward the blast as if the nuke had been dropped by the blimp and the blimp is engaged in beat feet time; the shock wave from the nuke hits the blimp and it begins to collapse; rope holders realize this and themselves beat feet from underneath the blimp as it plummets, like a lead zepplin, to Earth.
The Navy used to have big blimp fleets for ASW. When I was 3 years old, the old man was also based in Lakehurst, NJ where the Hindenburg crashed.
The sub hangers were huge. The ones in Brunswick are now used for a DEA training facility.
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.