Posted on 08/24/2016 6:58:43 AM PDT by Lower Deck
The U.S. Navy will need to develop an organic carrier-based fixed-wing anti-submarine warfare capability to counter the resurgent threat from enemy submarines.
The Navy simply does not have enough attack submarines, cruisers, destroyers or helicopters to adequately protect the its deployed forces from subsurface threats because its ASW capability has atrophied since the end of the Cold War.
“It’s a growing threat that will almost certainly influence the relevance of the carrier,” said retired U.S. Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix, director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security. “The Navy will need a new platform to replace the retired S-3 Viking.”
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
Stationed in Moffett 73-75, VP 31. P3’s can stay aloft for 22 hours. Can fly with just one engine.
It's been a number of years for me, but I understood S-3s to have MAD booms as well...probably not as large as the P-3, but probably capable.
As to the mapping point, P-3s were certainly designed with more of a "patrol" mission in mind, where S-3s were more for "on-the-spot" surveillance. An S-3 might get a sonobuoy hit, make a MAD detection, and then drop a torpedo. Their range is much less, but missions were similar.
Understood. My thoughts are just that a good careful histological mapping of extant anomalies allowed a better sensitivity.
On the other hand a communication with a closer waterborne sonobuoy or other MAD capable sensor had its advantages too.
The navy canceled the p-7 as too expensive at $57 million a pop, to go with the P-8 at 3 times that.
I think S-3’s were replaced with helicopters with dipping sonar. But there are fewer “enemy” subs going around these days. There has been talk about using Osprey’s for ASW. The nice thing is you don’t need a full sized carrier.
2. ASW was tossed in the dumpster after the USSR fell in 1991. The Navy knows ASW is just as important as anti-mine warfare (AMW), but VF and VA admirals run the Navy and so it's CVNs all the way.
3. The P-8 replacement for the P-3 doesn't do low-level, in your face ASW. Low-level is how you localize and attack submarines. The Navy chose the P-8 737 variant to do ASW from 20,000 feet. Theory was that better sensors and faster on top speed would rule and, hey! Anyway, VP is now overland, over the horizon targeting, anyway.
4. ASW skills are highly perishable. When I was doing it in P-3s, we flew on average 100 hours per month doing it. Since 1991 it has been allowed to atrophy, with P-8 crews now doing perhaps 20 hours per month and half of that launching missiles over the horizon. Our ships -- and cities -- are going to get their asses kicked by Chinese SSKs and SSBNs at the next war. JMHO.
Well, that depends on the delivery platform. African or European Swallows? (We presume both “laden”)
ASW is extremely unromantic. And labor intensive. And expensive. It takes a fusion of technology and tactics in this day and age, and as you said pabianice, it is a orchestra of skills, tactics, communications and deployments that have to be practiced all the time, or it doesn’t work.
In general, I believe most upper brass USN line officers understand the importance and necessity of ASW even if they don’t like it, but, like kids with a shiny toy, they are easily distracted by bigger and shinier toys. You never, ever see video or images of ships doing ASW, because...it doesn’t look like anything to an outsider. You always see them launching missiles, firing their guns, etc.
And ASW likely wasn’t viewed as being necessary “at this time” by those same people, which is a flaw. We all do it, administering to the fire that is burning our ass the hottest, but ASW needed to be maintained and it wasn’t.
And the problem is, civilians with power and purse strings need to be explained to and convinced ASW is important and necessary, or they are going to do what they want.
FWIW, I loved the S-3 from an aviation perspective. I thought it was a beautiful aircraft, made an interesting sound, and those wings seemed elegant, especially when unfolded. I have no idea how good they were from an ASW perspective, but they sure did seem like very cool planes to me. I always thought that if I could have a private plane to fly around, I wanted a C-1 Cod (Trader) or an S-3 Viking, assuming I would be taking people, luggage and equipment to places! One night in a storm, I climbed into the wheel well of one of those things and took a nap while my buddy kept a lookout. (There was no flying in that storm, so I wasn’t concerned I was going to wake up to the sound of the gear being retracted after a cat shot!) I felt like you could almost put a couch in there...
I even found a couple of them the other day. There are actually places known as submarine bases where they are known to graze.
All together now:
Bring back SOSUS, Bring back SOSUS
Being a sonar technician on a fancy, guided-missile cruiser in the late-1980s, I understand completely. Although there are some very capable surface platforms from which to conduct ASW ops, ASW is not their primary mission.
I think for the most part, the brass has resigned itself to allowing the sub force to conduct ASW; subs are far more capable than the surface for finding and tracking other subs, anyway.
The surface fleet, along with IUSS, SOSUS, satellite, and whatever other sensors they have will all provide auxiliary ASW functions to the sub fleet.
When were you at Lajes? I was there 85-89 and 95-96. Weather station
We may have already had this conversation ... LOL
Exactly. I think the captain of a carrier knows full well the importance of ASW, but...I think they pooh-pooh it with “Well, that is the responsibility of my screens and the subs underneath me. I’ll let them do their job” and that is it.
They KNOW, but it is a lazy way out.
What we will find out in a future war with countries that have subs, is that our ships may have two choices: Get sunk, or hightail it out of areas where there is known or suspected sub activity.
We saw how well that strategy worked for us in the Guadalcanal campaign back in WWII when our larger ships had to run for it, leaving damaged ships to fend for themselves (or not) or leave the troops on the beach to their own devices.
Better if we didn’t go down that road, but...well...human nature being what it is, I am not hopeful.
1971-1972.
Pull some S3s out of the boneyard until they can come up with an updated platform.
Thank you for your service, sir.
I am an aviation enthusiast, always have been since I was a little kid watching the navy aircraft operating from Cubi Point in Subic, and I have long believed in the adage that if a plane looks good, it will perform good. I always thought the S-3 was a very beautiful and graceful looking craft, and it just looked like it knew how to fly. They always seemed to me to perform well as they came in and crossed the ramp.
You know what really put a smile on my face about the S-3? When they used to do the mini-air shows for the benefit of the ship’s crew...seeing an S-3 come in and perform a barrel roll for the first time. I don’t know why, I just didn’t expect it. I actually remember saying “Hey, I didn’t know they could do that!”
Funny...one of the things I loved, and I know everyone else did too, was the very last contributor to the little air show. Last plane in was a Hawkeye, engines wide open, diving at a pretty steep angle (for the Hawkeye) with faint black exhaust, so you could tell it was really cooking! As it bore in, you could almost imagine the radome quivering and shaking with the stress.
Everyone likes a nice supersonic pass at low altitude by a Tomcat or Crusader, but there was something endearing about that Hawkeye diving in. Like watching an elephant perform some feat of agility...:)
I have a buddy who joined the navy in the early 80’s. Before the Regan buildup took hold. Assigned to the Nimitz, elinsisted, worked on S-3s.
They had MAD - I remember him mentioning it.
He didn’t last more than two years. Old civilian habits had him fail a wiz quiz.
S3s were also used as tankers.
Most of my cruises featured F-4s. I gotta hand it to their pilots and Rios. That damn thing was dangerous on most placid days at sea. Every peacetime cruise featured at least one F-4 mishap, typically ramp strikes. Brass clangers all around.
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.