# ASW & UAVs



## Bill22108131 (16 May 2005)

This topic is generated from a couple other threads WRT the new "proposed" Goose Bay, Labrador units and the carrier/UAV thoughts.  It will be a couple decades before a ship or land based control centre can effectively operate UAVs in a dedicated ASW role using conventional weapons.  As an Aurora aircrewman, I have conducted co-ordinated ops with several countries in conjunction with MPA/dippers/LAMPs/Tailships/DDGs/S3s/SSKs/SSNs/shore based assets et al.  Realistic success against a moderately worked up sub crew was only possible with the on station reactions and co-operation amongst all the hunters.  UAVs are wonderful surveillance platforms, but are less capable than an MPA or helo when it comes to the phases of ASW - search, localize, track, attack, & re-attack.  A single UAV will not be able to accomplish the teamwork results of dedicated ASW teams involving highly trained operators and motivated tactical leadership.  This is not my opinion, these are facts I have gathered in my 16 years of ASW experience against Russian and ROW subs.  In the same threads I read that the advent of sub-launched AAW weapons will make the ASW helo obsolete.  This is another fallacy.  To effectively track her outbound missile, the sub will have to show a launch platform which will be the case with the Polyphem (actually a stationary/slow target weapon) http://www.army-technology.com/projects/polyphem/ mentioned in a previous thread.  In the case of an IR missiles, it has a very reduced range and with a launch also provide a datum (last known sub position).  The very last thing a sub will do is visually give away her position.  Her target is never the MPA or helo, because that will be replaced.  It is always the high value unit - the flat tops or the AOR.  Should the sub give away her position by counter attacking air assets during a multi platform prosecution, she will have signed her own death warrant and will feel a warm Bloodhound or Cobra in her bowels. 

UAVs will not replace shipborne helos or land based surveillance aircraft.  They will complement traditional platforms by increasing surveillance coverage and effectiveness, and they can assume high risk missions.  Canada still remains potent as an ASW hunter punching well above her weight.  The blood let during WWII in ASW action and the skills honed during the Cold War have left us with proven doctrine and high experience levels with lessons passed on from generation to generation.  To the ASW teams on our ships/subs and to my fellow aviators in the Sea King community - stand on guard - stay sharp.  We work together and have been conducting joint warfare for 65 years - long before it became a current buzz word.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 May 2005)

Geez Bill, I almost cried when I read your post 

I concur completely especially WRT the Polyphem issue.  

On the UAV front, I could easily see the day where we have, say, a dipping UAV (kind of an expensive, relocatable, reusable DICASS buoy) that an MPA, ship, or helo could move around on command.  I could also see a UAV flopping around the AOR with FLIR and Radar doing hundreds of ID runs of vessels under control of a ship's Ops Room while you and I get on with other things that require human intervention on a more regular basis (ie tracking, attacking and blowing things up).

Keep the humans doing complex stuff and the robots doing the boring or REALLY dangerous stuff.

Cheers!


----------



## Bill22108131 (17 May 2005)

Tacco,

Glad to help you with an emotional outlet.    Some of the UAV/carrier posts were getting absurd, so I figured instead of replying I would start a new thread and hopefully get some informed or inquisitive responses.  I hope that the politicians and brass aren't overwhelmed with UAVs as the final solution for all of our tactical/strategic problems, or we will be in for some tough times over the coming decades.  

Cheers


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2005)

Bill22108131 said:
			
		

> Tacco,
> 
> Glad to help you with an emotional outlet.      Some of the UAV/carrier posts were getting absurd, so I figured instead of replying I would start a new thread and hopefully get some informed or inquisitive responses.   I hope that the politicians and brass aren't overwhelmed with UAVs as the final solution for all of our tactical/strategic problems, or we will be in for some tough times over the coming decades.
> 
> Cheers



Agreed.  I have never seen UAVs as the "be-all, end-all" solution.  They do have their uses ( as tacco said, a relocatable DICASS) but i dont see them as being the primary prosecuting element is an ASW mission.  I dont beleive that UAVs offer the flexibility afforded by an MH or MPA manned with a well-trained crew.  I could see them flying high-level creating a surface plot but the actual low-down investigation is still, IMHO, better done by MPAs.


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

Agree, the Army gets this to with "Virtual Solder", Objective Force and Robots as well - some actually expect that we'll never have uncertainty ever again.   Nothing will ever replace "Human Being, Mk 1" - as Boyd would say, you need humans to fight.

That being said, I'll cling to this until a droid army whips my ass - hopefully by then I'll have a lightsaber....

Infanteer (who can't wait until Thursday)


----------

