Viking for the next generation of anti submarine warfare (Carrier based).

[Foo Fighter]

Just reading the alternate history thread for this aircraft, considering the original aircraft was retired way before it's usefulness was at an end.

What can replace it and will it be manned or robot?

I know rotary winged assets have been around for a long time now but for a bit of range the S-3 was a bit of a monster and imho, still relevant today.

 

[uk 75]

The Russian Navy operates an ageing force of submarines and new boats are hard to build.
China is still only operating submarines equivalent to Western designs from 1965.
The US Navy has more than enough submarines to take care of these opponents. True the US numbers are also declining.
The US carriers could certainly do with new generation ASW and AEW platforms. Not sure how much deck space should be taken up by them.

 

[GTX]

As hinted here, maybe a MQ-25 derivativ?

Navy Weighing How to Include More Capabilities on MQ-25A Beyond Tanking - USNI News

Lawmakers are asking the Navy to start adding capabilities to the emerging MQ-25A Stingray unmanned carrier tankers that are set to join the fleet in the next few years, service officials said. While lawmakers have pushed the service to slow down their planned unmanned surface vessels with a...

news.usni.org

 

[kaiserd]

The Viking gave up its sub-hunting role well before it’s retirement (it was for a large chunk of its career a air-to-air tanker with secondary anti-ship/ sea control roles). The helicopters took over the carrier task forces anti-submarine role well before the S-3 retired.

Apart from potentially very specific contexts (i.e. at particular geographic choke points) are fixed wing aircraft even particularly suited to locating and tracking modern nuclear submarines in deep oceans (subs that never have to snorkel and seldom will even be presenting a periscope)?

Given the ubiquity of helicopters in this role using dipping sonars and the like are they just better suited to the role while not competing in the same way as their fixed wing equivalents for space etc. with the rest of the carrier air wing?

Hence helicopter or similar VTOL UCAVs or equivalents appear most likely in the ant-sub role, with the MQ-25 or equivalent fixed wing unmanned “drones” having a more general “sea-control” role (more focused on surface ships) .

 

[that_person]

Let us not forget that we tried to develop a Viking replacement, arguably 2 actually. The Common Support Aircraft (CSA) and the SV-22 ASW Osprey. Relevant links here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-nsa-and-csa-projects.3909/ and https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...sprey-development-and-proposed-variants.1309/ , both obviously fell threw.

With the current environment, I would very much support a new, carrier-borne, long-range ASW asset. While Russia obviously isn't the threat we thought it was, that doesn't mean the PLAN isn't. At some point, it is a numbers game, as seen with the Battle of the Atlantic, and you do need something to monitor the surrounding sea and stop unwanted guests. I don't think the MH-60 has the range for that. Let's also remember that China is making progress in submarine development, and even if they aren't on par with that of Western navies, is still a threat that can't be ignored. Because of this, I would like to see the CSA program resurrected, or perhaps even better, an ASW version of the V-280 Valor, that could also theoretically be used by large surface combatants. That offers both the range, speed, and payload of a fixed-wing aircraft (too some respects at least).

 

[publiusr]

We may soon be able to flood the seas with eyes:

MIT Engineers Build Wireless Underwater Camera That Doesn’t Need Batteries!

 

[Hood]

I guess some of it may come down to the effectiveness of active and passive sonobuoys compared with dipping sonar.
The latter is cheaper but it subject to surface noise from the helicopter's rotors. Sonobuoys are expensive disposable objects, but don't have ambient noise issues and can loiter longer than a helicopter can hover and can cover wider areas at the same time. ASW helicopters began switching to sonobuoys back in the 80s, so the dipping sonar seems to be rarer these days.
Fixed wing MAD coverage is probably better in terms of area and speed compared to a helicopter towed MAD.

I do think ultimately the UAV solution is the best as a companion to ASW helicopters, long loiter to process and transmit sonobuoy data, long MAD presence. However you do lose on-the-spot human evaluation and snap reaction to engage a target so the ASW helicopter would be the ideal pairing for rapid reaction and close-in screening with UAVs undertaking the barrier work.

 

[Dilandu]

The Russian Navy operates an ageing force of submarines and new boats are hard to build.

Erm... Black Sea Fleet: 7 submarines, of which 6 are comissioned in 2014-2016.

 

[timmymagic]

I guess some of it may come down to the effectiveness of active and passive sonobuoys compared with dipping sonar.
The latter is cheaper but it subject to surface noise from the helicopter's rotors. Sonobuoys are expensive disposable objects, but don't have ambient noise issues and can loiter longer than a helicopter can hover and can cover wider areas at the same time. ASW helicopters began switching to sonobuoys back in the 80s, so the dipping sonar seems to be rarer these days.
Fixed wing MAD coverage is probably better in terms of area and speed compared to a helicopter towed MAD.

I do think ultimately the UAV solution is the best as a companion to ASW helicopters, long loiter to process and transmit sonobuoy data, long MAD presence. However you do lose on-the-spot human evaluation and snap reaction to engage a target so the ASW helicopter would be the ideal pairing for rapid reaction and close-in screening with UAVs undertaking the barrier work.

I agree with some of this. But not the bit on Sonobuoys.

As Ukraine has shown you need all sorts of consumables on hand. And I don't believe for a second that we in the West have enough Sonobuoys to undertake a campaign for any real duration. The only intense ASW campaign since WW2, the Royal Navy's search for the Argentinian Type 209 sub in the Falklands, showed just how quickly you burn through consumables...

But dipping Sonar's are still the main sensor for ASW helo's. The western standard appears to be Thales FLASH these days. The addition of sonobuoys in the 80's was to cope with new generations of Soviet boats that were inherently quieter than before.

The best solution I can see is going to be a very capable manned ASW helo, like the Merlin HM.2, operating with a couple of RUAS and USV's (in this regard the Type 26 with its flex deck, hangarage and large flight deck is head and shoulders over other platforms). The RUAS could carry a winch and deploy their own Sonarbuoy derived 'dipping sonar'. Essentially you create a mobile sonarbuoy field controlled via the manned helo or Ops room in a MUM-T arrangement. This would dramatically reduce the amount of sonarbuoys you would be forced to employ and massively complicate any sub drivers job. The new generation Multistatic buoys are hugely expensive, likely to be in short supply and need multiple buoys/platforms to really operate effectively. You'd still have the Merlin's capability to deploy Sonarbuoys to 'thicken' a field as well. USV's with small towed sonars like the KraitArray from SEA culd be used to patrol choke points or provide a continuous presence in a likely route of advance for the sub.

As for MAD it still seems to be regarded as a marginal system by the West. P-8 doesn't carry it (apart from the P-8I). But the RN and USN have recently gone for the CAE MAD-XR system for the Merlin and MH-60R. The MAD-XR has also been trialled on the Nebula UAV, which is a similar size to the ScanEye UAV. I suspect it could be fitted on one of the VTOL fixed wing UAV's like V-BAT and provide some MAD coverage.

 

[Hood]

As Ukraine has shown you need all sorts of consumables on hand. And I don't believe for a second that we in the West have enough Sonobuoys to undertake a campaign for any real duration. The only intense ASW campaign since WW2, the Royal Navy's search for the Argentinian Type 209 sub in the Falklands, showed just how quickly you burn through consumables...

Yes they are expensive and in short supply. I agree you need a mix of buoys and dipping but there probably are performance tradeoffs.

Yes MAD has fallen out of fashion, perhaps because its only really effective against SSKs nearer the surface (which is why I'm guessing it remains a tool for helicopters) or perhaps because of improved degaussing methods?

I like your mix. I just wonder what Merlin will be replaced with during the 2030s - right now I'm not seeing any viable options other than Seahawk off-the-shelf. A new-build buy of improved Merlin airframes or a rebuild to extend fatigue life would be my favoured choice.

 

[riggerrob]

a second reason for helicopters to move away from dipping sonar in favor of disposable sonabuoys is the cost of hovering. Helicopters burn 40 percent more fuel in the hover than when cruising. They are also difficult to keep centered over a dipping sonar, hence the need for sophisticated auto-pilots incorporating cable angle sensors.

 

[timmymagic]

As Ukraine has shown you need all sorts of consumables on hand. And I don't believe for a second that we in the West have enough Sonobuoys to undertake a campaign for any real duration. The only intense ASW campaign since WW2, the Royal Navy's search for the Argentinian Type 209 sub in the Falklands, showed just how quickly you burn through consumables...

Yes they are expensive and in short supply. I agree you need a mix of buoys and dipping but there probably are performance tradeoffs.

Yes MAD has fallen out of fashion, perhaps because its only really effective against SSKs nearer the surface (which is why I'm guessing it remains a tool for helicopters) or perhaps because of improved degaussing methods?

I like your mix. I just wonder what Merlin will be replaced with during the 2030s - right now I'm not seeing any viable options other than Seahawk off-the-shelf. A new-build buy of improved Merlin airframes or a rebuild to extend fatigue life would be my favoured choice.

The MAD one is an interesting thing. Went out of fashion completely, then suddenly the CAE unit got the RN and USN interested. It might be something as simple that its so small and reasonably cheap that they'd be crazy not to. Or it might be sensitive enough to detect previously masked targets, or useful against other targets like UUV's.

I think Merlin will be extended in service. FVL will have arrived in the 2030's. But given the progress in the e-VTOL space at the moment even that might be overshadowed...

One other thing I didn't mention was the potential for recoverable Sonarbuoys....plenty of Quadcopters out there with significant lifting capability right now. In the future we might see Sonarbuoys that are dropped and then when their mission is complete, take off and return to the mother ship. Cost wise that would make an awful lot of sense...

But also the unmanned future could mean that expensive, very capable, manned platforms dipping on a contact could be a thing of the past. You only have to look at the Aerovironment Blackwing (a sub launched Switchblade) to see the possibilities. Automated target identification via AI in a sub launched loitering munition could make ASW helo's survivable questionable...

 

[Maro.Kyo]

The Viking gave up its sub-hunting role well before it’s retirement (it was for a large chunk of its career a air-to-air tanker with secondary anti-ship/ sea control roles). The helicopters took over the carrier task forces anti-submarine role well before the S-3 retired.

Not to forget, for almost two~three decades the USN SSN/SSGN fleet gave up the long range ASuW capabilities, ie sub-launched Harpoon because there wasn't a threat that required it. It is only recent that they started refitting those subs with sub-Harpoons. I'd say a carrier-borne fixed wing ASW aircraft is the same story. There just wasn't enough need for them to develop a replacement for the S-3 and the more correct question would be if the need rearose. I'd say yes, though then the follow-up question is if a fixed wing ASW aircraft could safely operate within the vicinity of China.

 

[Hood]

One other thing I didn't mention was the potential for recoverable Sonarbuoys....plenty of Quadcopters out there with significant lifting capability right now. In the future we might see Sonarbuoys that are dropped and then when their mission is complete, take off and return to the mother ship. Cost wise that would make an awful lot of sense...

Or even more sci-fi, a VTOL-capable UAV that drops recoverable sonar-equipped mini-UUVs that can conduct its own search pattern.

Automated pick-ups from water would be challenging I think but doubtless it is doable with development or human assistance via camera.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One of the wishes from the 1970s was basically a recoverable sonobuoy, but with something closer to helicopter dipping sonar or even surface ship VDS capabilities.

Tech wasn't there in the 1970s. Tech is just about there now.

You have some number of those per ship to drop off and then collect later (or have someone else pick up for you!), you may not need a fast ASW patrol plane in inventory.

A wicked idea I had was to return to the old XF5U design, but as the DARPA TERN aircraft. The XF5U could fly vertically, hanging off the props, and had a very short takeoff roll. Short enough that I think an Independence class could actually launch one with about 30knots deck wind. Now you have a 500knot potential flier that can slow way down to drop things where someone hears a noise.