Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

1977 US Congress Report: The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW - due to Maths/Physics/Geography)

Wiki suggests a multi-mode guidance package to include Radar, infrared and laser homing.

It does appear that SPEAR3 can be used against maritime targets:



I was thinking of another missile coming into service that has an IR seeker, but can also be steered via a microwave link from the aircraft. It made me reflect on the miniaturisation of things as semiconductors have advanced.
 
Last edited:
Since we were talking about anti ship weaponry, I seem to recall a post on here stating this it is better to hit an enemy warship with multiple supersonic missiles with small warheads than a slow big one.

What about SPEAR3 - soon to be fitted to the F-35B in UK service?

It seems to lack a radar though....
Here are the specs


cheer’s
 
There were no less than eight US Navy carriers assigned to the Atlantic in the event of general war against the Warsaw Pact, but I assume that this did not prevent them from being deployed elsewhere such as the Mediterranean or Middle East in normal times?
 
There were no less than eight US Navy carriers assigned to the Atlantic in the event of general war against the Warsaw Pact, but I assume that this did not prevent them from being deployed elsewhere such as the Mediterranean or Middle East in normal times?

Off the top of my head, think there were two for Med sixth fleet, two across the Atlantic 2nd fleet , plus several homeported at both Norfolk and Mayport, one around Persian Gulf, one in Indian Ocean. Several in Pacific region, including one permanently assigned to Osaka , Japan ..in the 80s it predominantly was USS Midway, with its air wing at NAF Atsugi. Of course not forgetting one or two homeported at then Alameda, San Diego.

cheers
 
USN is only able to man and operate 8 CVNs full stop now, the other 3 are in the extended wash to keep them on the books to keep Congress happy.
 
Back on topic, this documentary features the carrier based S-3 Vikings working with the carrier based Hawkeyes and SH-3 Sea Kings. Surely it would have normally operated and communicated with the ASW warships and their helicopters up threat?

The carrier group's ASW exercise starts at 38 min 40 sec. It seems to suggest dipping sonar is needed to get a fix.



Why does the US Navy not put Naval Flight Officers in helicopters?
 
Last edited:
Back on topic, this documentary features the carrier based S-3 Vikings working with the carrier based Hawkeyes and SH-3 Sea Kings. Surely it would have normally operated and communicated with the ASW warships and their helicopters up threat?

The carrier group's ASW exercise starts at 38 min 40 sec. It seems to suggest dipping sonar is needed to get a fix.




Why does the US Navy not put Naval Flight Officers in helicopters?

The Sensor operator in the back is enlisted and theirs two pilots up front.

The guy in the back of the MH-60R Seahawk reads off the info and the crew up front make decisions.

Dont forget their shipborne helos are extensions of the cruiser, destroyer frigate and carrier at best not quite autonomous like our Merlin, and now Wildcat.

We have to do a lot more and make decisions Up there where As they work Hard, it’s different concept to us.

The RAN fly a Seahawk with pilot, observer up front and think PO/CPO sensor operator in the back.

cheers
 
The Sensor operator in the back is enlisted and theirs two pilots up front.

The guy in the back of the MH-60R Seahawk reads off the info and the crew up front make decisions.

Dont forget their shipborne helos are extensions of the cruiser, destroyer frigate and carrier at best not quite autonomous like our Merlin, and now Wildcat.

We have to do a lot more and make decisions Up there where As they work Hard, it’s different concept to us.

The RAN fly a Seahawk with pilot, observer up front and think PO/CPO sensor operator in the back.

cheers

@alfred_the_great has commented on this on the Carrier Strike thread. He, and others like @Guns and @Not a Boffin may or may not be amused by this part of a chat I had with an RN Observer:

Yokel: So an Observer is a bit like a PWO then?
Observer: No! I am able to make my own decisions.
 
@alfred_the_great has commented on this on the Carrier Strike thread. He, and others like @Guns and @Not a Boffin may or may not be amused by this part of a chat I had with an RN Observer:

Yokel: So an Observer is a bit like a PWO then?
Observer: No! I am able to make my own decisions.
Also with USN the Air Warfare Specialsit AwSt sailor in the back he’s also the crewman and at times the SAR crewman for winching up those in distress if they get the call. Oh and also a gunner.

Here even the good old days of the RAF SAR Sea King even the commissioned Nav and NCo aircrew winchman (both known as WSO) be pitching in.

cheers
 
Also with USN the Air Warfare Specialsit AwSt sailor in the back he’s also the crewman and at times the SAR crewman for winching up those in distress if they get the call. Oh and also a gunner.

Here even the good old days of the RAF SAR Sea King even the commissioned Nav and NCo aircrew winchman (both known as WSO) be pitching in.

cheers

Does that difference, and being controlled by the parent ship, explain the lower range and endurance of the MH-60 (various models) compared with the Merlin which was designed from the outset as an ASW aircraft for the Royal Navy and the Italian Navy?

The WG34 picture in this archived article from 1978 looks very Merlin like - with three engines, a radome under the nose, and so on. Perhaps this could stop some contributors insisting that the RN did not want it? By pure coincidence, the Sea Harrier and its role against Soviet Bears doing long range targeting for submarine launched missiles is also mentioned.

Anyone would think that naval AAW and ASW are connected....

@Not a Boffin is that link of an interest to you?
 
Does that difference, and being controlled by the parent ship, explain the lower range and endurance of the MH-60 (various models) compared with the Merlin which was designed from the outset as an ASW aircraft for the Royal Navy and the Italian Navy?

The WG34 picture in this archived article from 1978 looks very Merlin like - with three engines, a radome under the nose, and so on. Perhaps this could stop some contributors insisting that the RN did not want it? By pure coincidence, the Sea Harrier and its role against Soviet Bears doing long range targeting for submarine launched missiles is also mentioned.

Anyone would think that naval AAW and ASW are connected....

@Not a Boffin is that link of an interest to you?

Merlin was designed by both Westlands and Agusta for the RN and Italian Marina from the outset. Both companies formed EH Industries. Merlin was derived from WG34 from what my little grey cells determine (oops faux pas went Belgian lol)

W.RT USN MH-60R ops you have to look back at the original LAMPS (Light Airborne Multipurpose Shipborne) program and requirments form late 60s which ended up as the SH-2 SEasprite in 1970s to the entry of the SH-60B Seahawk of the late 1980S ONwards.

Bizarrley enough the new Sikorsky was going with Westland WG13 Lynx was marketed to the USN as LAMPS platform,

sikorsky_westland_sealynx.JPG




to the old Hughes Aircraft & Tooling Corporation (now Boeing and MD Helicopters) promoted the H369 'Loaach' as anti sub platform to USN albeit unrecognizable fuselage onwards.

Hughes LAMPS III proposal.jpg




Of note ROC Navy, Spanish Armada have used the MD369/MD500 helo as a shipborne anti sub helo.
Hughes 500M-D ASW.jpg





Bell also marketed the Bell 206 to the USN as LAMPS (there was already TH-57 SEa Ranger used for Basic and Advanced rotary wing with the navy),

6312672189_f33d65fd16_b.jpg


Belll 608.jpg


Boeing offered inconjucntion with then MBB fort he BO105

Boeing (MBB) LAMPS II mock-up.jpg


Boeing also offered their navalised version of UTTAS (loser against the Blackhawk)

Boeing LAMPS III Mock-up.jpg



and Kaman offered two types, Seasprite (single engine UH-2A already in service as SAR, CSAR )and Sealite

sealite-small.jpg



I dont think its range here its talking how their tactics historically work.

cheers
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this old film from 1969 explains how the Royal Navy intended to operate the ASW Sea King. Note the way the Observer is described as an Operations Officer, and mention is made of things such as dipping sonar, radar, and flight controls for dipping.



Clearly the RN would want an even more capable aircraft to replace it - with led to Merlin. This older film of the first trials of a helicopter aboard a frigate is also interesting.



Even the Wasp was intended to deliver ASW weapons at a combat radius of 100 nautical miles. Would it be fair to say the Royal Navy gave helicopters roles that the US Navy left to carrierborne fixed wing aircraft?

@Not a Boffin feel free to educate a certain person who insists shorter range and less time on station are preferable.

Edited to add: Here are both parts of the 1978 article:

1978 RN aviation article part 1

1978 RN aviation article part 2
 
Last edited:
I know that HOSTAC agreements and arrangements exist, but was there much cross deck amongst naval forces during the Cold War? Somewhere I have a picture of Royal Navy helicopters (Wessex?) next to USMC Harriers aboard ship during a NATO exercise in Norway. I assume the British aircraft were embarked for the whole exercise.

Is there enough commonality in NATO to say embark ASW helicopters from another navy aboard the RN carriers to augment our own Merlins? I am sure I have suggested this before, as has @ThunderBox - here on the Carrier Strike and CVF thread.
 
Last edited:
Talking of cross deck and temporary embarkations of other nations' helicopters - watch this space? I imagine that the CSG21 deployment will start in the NATO theatre so a few MH-60R/NH-90 might appear on HMS Queen Elizabeth's deck, and the same elsewhere.

I should have mentioned that on the CV thread. But hey - watch this space!
 
Last edited:

New posts

Top