Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/14/2005 4:56:40 PM EDT
Sea Power June2005

Boeing Eyes High-Flying Torpedo
Sea Power, Jun 2005 by Burgess, Richard R

Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is proposing a new weapon that would enable subhunting aircraft to fire at targets from high altitudes, reducing the time between target acquisition and attack.

Steven L. Wingfield, manager of JDAM Business Development for the Boeing unit, said the proposed antisubmarine warfare (ASW) weapon for the High-Altitude ASW Weapon Concept (HAAWC), would be launched from the P-8A Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) at an altitude of 30,000 feet and glide seven to 10 minutes to the water entry point, where it would shed its wings and activate a parachute to lower the torpedo into the water to begin its run toward the target.

Currently, ASW aircraft such as the P-3 have to make a time-consuming descent from their surveillance altitudes of 30,000 feet to a release altitude of 300-1,000 feet and release a torpedo, Wingfield said. "That descent down to the release point and then the climb back up to surveillance altitude uses a lot of [fuel], reducing orbit and surveillance time. While you are climbing, (it) reduces your ability to survive, as well."

The HAAWC would enable the P-8 to launch the weapon from a high altitude based on targeting information generated by its own sensors or the sensors of other platforms. This would save time in deploying a weapon, and obviate the need for the aircraft or other ASW platforms to enter threat zones.

"I don't know what the descent rate of MMA will be," said Steve Morrow, Boeing's manager for advanced development of naval weapons, "but it's intuitive that we can probably get a torpedo down from altitude faster than you can get the airplane down." That would be an advantage in "a fast-reaction attack based on a pop-up radar contact of a periscope," he said.

Wingfield said the HAAWC proposal is a derivative of the new Mk 54 antisubmarine torpedo that entered service in 2004. The Mk 54 is an all-digital lightweight torpedo that marries technology from the older Mk 46 and Mk 50 air- and surface-launched torpedoes with advanced software algorithms from the large submarine-launched Mk 48 torpedo.

Stephen G. Sherrick, manager of business development for Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, said that last fall "one of the Mk 54 torpedo guys asked us, 'Hey, can you put a wing on that thing and guide it for us?'"

The HAAWC comprises parts from other munitions. An Mk 54 would be fitted with the wings designed for a Standoff Land-Attack Missile-Expanded Response cruise missile to enable it to glide to the target area. The tail assembly would include the guidance kit designed for the Joint Direct-Attack Munition, which contains a Global Positioning System receiver for precision guidance.

The HAAWC also could be equipped with a data link to transmit target position updates while the weapon is in flight, further improving the weapon's accuracy, Wingfield said.

The HAAWC concept, with its standoff capability, may offer tactical collateral advantages to offset some of those submarines have in the cat-and-mouse game of ASW. When running silent underwater, a submarine's sensitive hull-mounted or towed-array hydrophones can detect a helicopter or patrol plane as it flies overhead. In addition, an attack on hostile submarines operating in the vicinity of enemy air-defense ships or shore-based air-defense networks currently would put the attacking aircraft at risk.

Boeing "has provided NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command) and the Naval Air Systems Command with a technical feasibility assessment and a [rough] cost assessment to conduct a high-altitude ASW weapon concept demonstration," Morrow said. The information was provided at the request of those commands, he said.

Spokespeople for the two systems commands and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center declined comment on the HAAWC because it is not a program of record.
.............

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

Copyright Navy League of the United States Jun 2005
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:02:13 PM EDT
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:04:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:04:34 PM EDT
Alternate article title:

How to make egg-drop soup from 30,000 feet.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:08:28 PM EDT
That's pretty cool! They should make it a nucular-tipped torpedo, it's the only way to mak sure.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:18:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn


Think Boeing P8 MMA...




Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:20:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:

Also keep them out of the range of submarine fired sub-surface to air missiles.




Never heard of those!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:20:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn


Think Boeing P8 MMA...
www.ausairpower.net/mma-boeing.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-726-2.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-842-2.jpg





An airliner with hard-points?


Whaaa?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:21:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By Paul:

Also keep them out of the range of submarine fired sub-surface to air missiles.




Never heard of those!



Yes...they do exist.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:23:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn



Deploying Sonabouy's would be a bitch too from 30,000 ft.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:25:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HK_Shooter_03:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn


Think Boeing P8 MMA...
www.ausairpower.net/mma-boeing.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-726-2.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-842-2.jpg





An airliner with hard-points?


Whaaa?


If that blows your mind...how 'bout them bomb bay doors?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:29:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn



Deploying Sonabouy's would be a bitch too from 30,000 ft.



I guess you could make them GPS guided. You know punch in GPS coords and then launch a sonobuoy with a guidance system. It could allow for more accurate placement. I'm not an ASW guy by any means, but maybe more accurate placement could mean less buoys required. That and better hydrophones.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:34:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 5:34:44 PM EDT by HK_Shooter_03]

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By HK_Shooter_03:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn


Think Boeing P8 MMA...
www.ausairpower.net/mma-boeing.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-726-2.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-842-2.jpg





An airliner with hard-points?


Whaaa?


If that blows your mind...how 'bout them bomb bay doors?




I guess you have to do something with this stuff since all of the airlines are going out of business...


How about an ejection seat? ?(SU-35)?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:37:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn



Deploying Sonabouy's would be a bitch too from 30,000 ft.



I guess you could make them GPS guided. You know punch in GPS coords and then launch a sonobuoy with a guidance system. It could allow for more accurate placement. I'm not an ASW guy by any means, but maybe more accurate placement could mean less buoys required. That and better hydrophones.



I am just curious about the 30,000 ft altitude, I always assumed (maybe wrongly) the MAD gear worked much better down low. I suspect the 30K altitude is more for radar and searching for diesel boats deploying their snorkel to recharge their batteries, can scan a larger area higher up.

Very similar to what late WWII B-24's and Sutherland's using centimeter radar detected German U-boats with their snorkels deployed.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:38:19 PM EDT
Something to think about, the P-3 was originally a Lockheed Electra airliner. IIRC the British Nimrod is a variant of an airliner. For some reason modern Maritime Patrol Aircraft have their roots in the airlline industry.

Don't airliners already have hardpoints for transporting spare engines? I thought I read that on arfcom a while back.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:41:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
I am just curious about the 30,000 ft altitude, I always assumed (maybe wrongly) the MAD gear worked much better down low. I suspect the 30K altitude is more for radar and searching for diesel boats deploying their snorkel to recharge their batteries, can scan a larger area higher up.

Very similar to what late WWII B-24's and Sutherland's using centimeter radar detected German U-boats with their snorkels deployed.


MAD, as I understand it has its limitations. With the aforementioned SAM threat, I can see a desire for alternate sensors.

IIRC the P-8 project also has a UAV componant to it.

I'll have to dig up the Proceedings article when I get back to the Old Dominion.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:53:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
I am just curious about the 30,000 ft altitude, I always assumed (maybe wrongly) the MAD gear worked much better down low. I suspect the 30K altitude is more for radar and searching for diesel boats deploying their snorkel to recharge their batteries, can scan a larger area higher up.

Very similar to what late WWII B-24's and Sutherland's using centimeter radar detected German U-boats with their snorkels deployed.


MAD, as I understand it has its limitations. With the aforementioned SAM threat, I can see a desire for alternate sensors.

IIRC the P-8 project also has a UAV componant to it.

I'll have to dig up the Proceedings article when I get back to the Old Dominion.



True, now we seemed gearing more for ASW work against Littoral diesel boats and not the fast, deep-diving nuke boats. Most of the Littoral boats have the disadvantage of having to replenish air and recharge batteries every couple of days. Having P-8's flying a continuous circuit over an area would give the diesel boat a couple of options;

1. deploy snorkel, get detected and die
2. run out of air and batteries, emergency surface and die
3. run out of air and batteries, die on the bottom.
4. Don't leave port
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:56:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
4. Don't leave port

That's how we are going to defeat future naval threats. We're going to kill 'em dockside. You just watch!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:57:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
I am just curious about the 30,000 ft altitude, I always assumed (maybe wrongly) the MAD gear worked much better down low. I suspect the 30K altitude is more for radar and searching for diesel boats deploying their snorkel to recharge their batteries, can scan a larger area higher up.

Very similar to what late WWII B-24's and Sutherland's using centimeter radar detected German U-boats with their snorkels deployed.


MAD, as I understand it has its limitations. With the aforementioned SAM threat, I can see a desire for alternate sensors.

IIRC the P-8 project also has a UAV componant to it.

I'll have to dig up the Proceedings article when I get back to the Old Dominion.



True, now we seemed gearing more for ASW work against Littoral diesel boats and not the fast, deep-diving nuke boats. Most of the Littoral boats have the disadvantage of having to replenish air and recharge batteries every couple of days. Having P-8's flying a continuous circuit over an area would give the diesel boat a couple of options;

1. deploy snorkel, get detected and die
2. run out of air and batteries, emergency surface and die
3. run out of air and batteries, die on the bottom.
4. Don't leave port



I like your thinking but the more advanced AIP diesels IIRC can go a couple weeks without resurfacing.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:58:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn



Deploying Sonabouy's would be a bitch too from 30,000 ft.



I guess you could make them GPS guided. You know punch in GPS coords and then launch a sonobuoy with a guidance system. It could allow for more accurate placement. I'm not an ASW guy by any means, but maybe more accurate placement could mean less buoys required. That and better hydrophones.



You don't have to worry on placement if you know their position. GPS receiver in each is sufficient as long as you have signal. Much cheaper than any guidance system.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
You don't have to worry on placement if you know their position. GPS receiver in each is sufficient as long as you have signal. Much cheaper than any guidance system.


I can see that. However, if you want to lay down a specific pattern in a specific geographic location...ah hell, they'd just drift anyway.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:01:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:02:08 PM EDT by -Absolut-]


Cool.

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:01:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 6:03:33 PM EDT by eodtech2000]

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:True, now we seemed gearing more for ASW work against Littoral diesel boats and not the fast, deep-diving nuke boats. Most of the Littoral boats have the disadvantage of having to replenish air and recharge batteries every couple of days. Having P-8's flying a continuous circuit over an area would give the diesel boat a couple of options;

1. deploy snorkel, get detected and die
2. run out of air and batteries, emergency surface and die
3. run out of air and batteries, die on the bottom.
4. Don't leave port



I like your thinking but the more advanced AIP diesels IIRC can go a couple weeks without resurfacing.




True on the AIP boats, but most of the convential boats are still diesel-electric. I believe the Chinese are mostly diesel electric boats as are the Iranians and N. Koreans.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:03:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

1. deploy snorkel, get detected and die
2. run out of air and batteries, emergency surface and die
3. run out of air and batteries, die on the bottom.
4. Don't leave port




I think im seeing a pattern



And i like it
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:05:43 PM EDT



An airliner with hard-points?


Whaaa?


If that blows your mind...how 'bout them bomb bay doors?


A-HA!!!

NOW
I know what Southwest did with my luggage on my return flight!!!

BIGGER_HAMMER
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:06:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
You don't have to worry on placement if you know their position. GPS receiver in each is sufficient as long as you have signal. Much cheaper than any guidance system.


I can see that. However, if you want to lay down a specific pattern in a specific geographic location...ah hell, they'd just drift anyway.



You see why GPS is so damn handy? Denial of area for as long as the batteries last. Of course they can be removed via trawler but that is minor...
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:08:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn



Deploying Sonabouy's would be a bitch too from 30,000 ft.




That's what I was trying to figure out. The only value I see is if we have a sub in the area that can give them the targeting info they need to pop the bad guy from a safe distance. Keeps our boat's position secret.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:11:32 PM EDT
With all the effort the ChiCom are putting into their space program, what makes you think we will have any GPS satellites available to target our weapons?

Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:11:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
You don't have to worry on placement if you know their position. GPS receiver in each is sufficient as long as you have signal. Much cheaper than any guidance system.


I can see that. However, if you want to lay down a specific pattern in a specific geographic location...ah hell, they'd just drift anyway.



You see why GPS is so damn handy? Denial of area for as long as the batteries last. Of course they can be removed via trawler but that is minor...


I agree GPS is handy. I was just brainstorming with the guidance system thing. I was thinking if you know your nominal sonar ranges given the condition and you wanted to cover a hole in your pattern without decending back down to deploy one accurately you could use one with a guidance system and place it smack dab in the center of your hole. Also if you deployed them to a specific set of coordinates you'd at least have a perfect, or as perfect as you could get, pattern before the wind and seas started moving them around.

Anyway, IIRC the P-8 is going to carry a massive load of buoys, so they lay down a serious pattern. Go up to an efficient cruising altitude and wait. Get a nibble and drop the torp without wasting time getting down to the deck and without exposing yourself to possible surface to air attack.

OT: why doesn't the USAF use this airframe for a tanker?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:11:56 PM EDT
What is that they say?

When we hear about it, that means they've already been using it for 10 years and they've already been working on its replacement for just as long?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:13:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TIMMAH:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

1. deploy snorkel, get detected and die
2. run out of air and batteries, emergency surface and die
3. run out of air and batteries, die on the bottom.
4. Don't leave port




I think im seeing a pattern



And i like it



That is exactly what happened to the German U-boats from 1943 till the end. There is a shitload of dead U-boats in the Bay of Biscay (Bay of Death). B-24's, PBY's, and Sutherlands with Radar just farking obliterated the short winded U-boats, the centimeter wave radars could even pick up the snorkels. Most U-boats didn't have a radar detector on the snorkel till near the end that could detect the centimeter wave radar, thus they never knew what hit them when a shitload of depth bombs came down right on them.

Now put this P-8 in concert with our Fast Attack subs or other surface assets, you have a very formidable team. The more I think about it, the more I like it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:19:11 PM EDT


True, now we seemed gearing more for ASW work against Littoral diesel boats and not the fast, deep-diving nuke boats. Most of the Littoral boats have the disadvantage of having to replenish air and recharge batteries every couple of days. Having P-8's flying a continuous circuit over an area would give the diesel boat a couple of options;

1. deploy snorkel, get detected and die
2. run out of air and batteries, emergency surface and die
3. run out of air and batteries, die on the bottom.
4. Don't leave port and be killed by a smart bomb
5. Dont start shit with the USA in the first place



Fixed it for ya!
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:23:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By Paul:

Also keep them out of the range of submarine fired sub-surface to air missiles.




Never heard of those!



Yes...they do exist.



Well, they may have... at one point, one model of Soviet sub had a launcher in the periscope. Last I heard, the Sovs tossed the idea 'cause they couldn't get it to work, but that was 15 years back.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:35:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidC:
With all the effort the ChiCom are putting into their space program, what makes you think we will have any GPS satellites available to target our weapons?




I'm not too worried about the chi-com space threat, nor should anyone else.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:16:09 PM EDT
Just FYI, the P-3's haven't used MAD in the last 10 years. The ASQ-10 in the P-3B was a serious POS. We used to test it by walking underneath the boom with a big metal toolbox. The ASQ-81 in the P-3C was a lot better being solid state but required a ton of maintenance hours to keep it in good shape. That being, when everything went to littoral areas the MAD became useless.
The P-8A will have a new digital MAD system that is computer controlled for littoral application. It still requires low attitude <5000 ft so I don't envision it being used as a prime sensor.
Dump a bunch of buoys in a wide area, find a nipple and drop a few more. Then go up and drink coffee until something pops up. For closeup views the P-8A will be a UAV control station. No sense risking a U$150 million plane and 15 crew.

Fritz

P-3/C-130 ResTycom in exile at NSA Millington
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:43:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
I thought the P3s had to fly at 300-1k feet anyway, to use the MAD gear while firming up the target. High altitude drops would be cool, though.

Kharn


Think Boeing P8 MMA...
www.ausairpower.net/mma-boeing.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-726-2.jpg

www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/mma/images/DVD-842-2.jpg



that thing looks uber cool.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:54:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
Something to think about, the P-3 was originally a Lockheed Electra airliner. IIRC the British Nimrod is a variant of an airliner. For some reason modern Maritime Patrol Aircraft have their roots in the airlline industry.

Don't airliners already have hardpoints for transporting spare engines? I thought I read that on arfcom a while back.



Like these?

www.airliners.net/open.file/783444/M/
Photo 2

Nope, never been done.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:27:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

OT: why doesn't the USAF use this airframe for a tanker?



Too small. The P8 is a derivative of a 737. A decent tanker would be based on a widebody airframe, like a 767.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 9:33:11 AM EDT
That's really cool.
Top Top