# Fast Attack Tanker and Small Ship Airpower



## Underway (12 May 2018)

Recently reading an issue of the Canadian Naval Review and there was an article in there about improving the usage of AOR's through the increase of the number of helicopters that they carry.

The basic premise of the article was that with the great leap in capability of the to the Cyclones it would behove the navy to increase the number of helo's available on an AOR to three or four (and design them to carry these extra helo's).  As RCN AOR's deploy into the combat zones with the rest of the Task Group adding an extra helo or two would significantly increase the ASW capabilities, RMP and redundancy of a TG air dets.  The author called it a Fast Attack Tanker, a conceited name for sure but one that got my attention to read the article.

Taking this article a step further I was considering new developments in Remote Piloted Vehicles.  Adding space for RPV's that do different things then a Cyclone could be very useful depending on the circumstance.  An idea would be to combine an Airborne Early Warning (like Crowsnest) with an MQ-8C sized UAV.

With about 15hrs endurance you could (on paper) use two AEW helo's to provide 24hrs coverage over a TG, with AOR/frigate based aircraft.  Perhaps store two of them in the space where one Cyclone would normally be (as they could be designed to be much smaller).  By deploying them along the expected threat axis they can increase the sensor horizon by quite a bit.  AEW combined with Active homing shipboard missiles (like Aster 30 or SM-6) can engage incoming enemy missiles from beyond the horizon as long as the AEW can provide the location information through Link.

Based upon the expected future RCN TG organization that would be 1 AOR, 1 AAD/C2 Frigate, 3 GP frigates.   Each frigate with a Cyclone, the AOR with a Cyclone (5 total) and two AEW RPV's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> An idea would be to combine an Airborne Early Warning (like Crowsnest) with an MQ-8C sized UAV.



I'd never heard of them before.  Interesting piece of kit.



> With about 15hrs endurance you could (on paper) use two AEW helo's to provide 24hrs coverage over a TG, with AOR/frigate based aircraft.  Perhaps store two of them in the space where one Cyclone would normally be (as they could be designed to be much smaller).  By deploying them along the expected threat axis they can increase the sensor horizon by quite a bit.  AEW combined with Active homing shipboard missiles (like Aster 30 or SM-6) can engage incoming enemy missiles from beyond the horizon as long as the AEW can provide the location information through Link.



Service ceiling of 16,000 or 20,000 feet; that would give you a really nice RADAR horizon, and ESM if it was kitted out with a system.  Probably has a nice EO ball mounted on the front too.  ISR, ESM/RADAR picket, OTHT...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaG2EDPVBqc


----------



## Underway (12 May 2018)

Here's an old idea for using the Cyclone in a similar capacity, with a Lockheed Vigilance Pod (which were never built but were designed for the Crowsnest competition).
Innovation and Canadian Naval Aviation

I don't know the Cyclone's current sensor performance but I hear it's already pretty good for surface search with no blind spots like the Sea King used to have (second hand info).

*edit*

Interesting to note but all the AEW work for the Merlin Crowsnest modification is done in the helo itself, similar to a fixed wing AEW.  Is this a necessity in today's connected navy?  With LINK available perhaps it would be possible to do this extra work onboard ship and not require a crew over the water.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Here's an old idea for using the Cyclone in a similar capacity, with a Lockheed Vigilance Pod (which were never built but were designed for the Crowsnest competition).
> Innovation and Canadian Naval Aviation
> 
> I don't know the Cyclone's current sensor performance but I hear it's already pretty good for surface search with no blind spots like the Sea King used to have (second hand info).
> ...



http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_electronics.html

http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_aps143.pdf  360 scan - I envy the MH folks for that!  Nice system, though.  It would be cool if there were both a horizontal & vertical polarization capability for the SAR/iSAR piece but you can't have it all (I'm assuming its a horizontal blade...).  I'm not a huge fan of using Ant tilt for 'roll stab', but no other real option (limited by radome design).  It's hard(er) on the pedestal and pitch drive motors at higher RPM modes and can be a real serviceability issue if the AP, motors, etc aren't beefy enough.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Interesting to note but all the AEW work for the Merlin Crowsnest modification is done in the helo itself, similar to a fixed wing AEW.  Is this a necessity in today's connected navy?  With LINK available perhaps it would be possible to do this extra work onboard ship and not require a crew over the water.



Can you elaborate a little on what you mean specifically by *work*?  Do you mean button smashing/data assessment-management?


----------



## blacktriangle (12 May 2018)

I'm sure Underway will clarify, but that's how I took it. Remote collection funneled via TDL back to the operator on ship.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_aps143.pdf  360 scan - I envy the MH folks for that!  Nice system, though.  It would be cool if there were both a horizontal & vertical polarization capability for the SAR/iSAR piece but you can't have it all (I'm assuming its a horizontal blade...).  I'm not a huge fan of using Ant tilt for 'roll stab', but no other real option (limited by radome design).  It's hard(er) on the pedestal and pitch drive motors at higher RPM modes and can be a real serviceability issue if the AP, motors, etc aren't beefy enough.



For older technology, I suppose.  

Fixed multi-panel AESA is/will be the way to go on helos methinks.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 May 2018)

I'm a realist though;  I think in terms of 'what our political masters will spend' vice...the best technology or tool.  No designator - best example I can think of from the past several years.   rly:  *Sorry, we don't have a code...how about a talk-on?"   :not-again:

Link 11;  using yesterday's technology tomorrow! (literally) ;D

Our MH cap's will step into the modern age, however, and that is a good thing.  Our FWSAR birds will likely have some nicer kit as well.


----------



## Underway (12 May 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I'm sure Underway will clarify, but that's how I took it. Remote collection funneled via TDL back to the operator on ship.



Basically what I was thinking.  Essentially the idea is that that a UAV will be just an extension of the ships sensors and none of the "button smashing" would be done by a person in the bird.  The UAV pilot and sensor operators would be on the ship.


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Fixed multi-panel AESA is/will be the way to go on helos methinks



I agree. And the fact you can put sensors right into the "cabin" of the helo with a UAV really makes this idea work better, as crew do not need to be accommodated for.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Link 11;  using yesterday's technology tomorrow! (literally) ;D
> 
> Our MH cap's will step into the modern age, however, and that is a good thing.  Our FWSAR birds will likely have some nicer kit as well.



Yah Link 22 is the way of the future.  But we will still probably keep Link 11 around for a while longer because many other world navies use it.  The US doesn't just share Link 16 and 22 with everyone (and frankly cue to costs many won't even make the switch until they have too!).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Basically what I was thinking.  Essentially the idea is that that a UAV will be just an extension of the ships sensors and none of the "button smashing" would be done by a person in the bird.  The UAV pilot and sensor operators would be on the ship.



For sure;  who wants to hover for XX hours in a helicopter watching a RADAR or EO feed.  No galley, no bathroom...no thanks!   8).  Would your current Ops Rooms trades handle the extra sensor input or would you just have to install a few extra workstations (if there is room in the Ops Room for that).  Sorry, I was on a CPF once and it was 20ish years ago?



> I agree. And the fact you can put sensors right into the "cabin" of the helo with a UAV really makes this idea work better, as crew do not need to be accommodated for.



More available weight for payload or gas and could also benefit on the RL side too;  MEZ penetration to ID, that sorta stuff.



> Yah Link 22 is the way of the future.  But we will still probably keep Link 11 around for a while longer because many other world navies use it.  The US doesn't just share Link 16 and 22 with everyone (and frankly due to costs many won't even make the switch until they have too!).



 :cdnsalute:


----------



## Baz (13 May 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For older technology, I suppose.
> 
> Fixed multi-panel AESA is/will be the way to go on helos methinks.
> 
> ...



This idea, and this particular sensor, is already on the radar (no pun intended) of Canada.

It is also being trialed for Fire Scout, which by the way has a 14 hour endurance.  See https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/leonardo-reveals-details-of-osprey-sale-for-fire-sco-430436/.  It is the embarked surface surveillance platform of choice IMHOP.

An idea that should be considered: an AESA radar like that could also be used as a very high speed data link: put four arrays on the MPA (there's your 360 radar Eye In The Sky), four on the Cyclone (and get the dome off the bottom), and four on each ship.  Make sure you keep the software the same and the radars can not only share high bandwidth data (so no need for TCDL) buy can also coordinate coverage amongst themselves.

Remember, a true AESA radar, including the Osprey, is interleaved multimode... it doesn't have to be doing one thing at once.  If they are talking to each other, they can share that work around.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Yah Link 22 is the way of the future.  But we will still probably keep Link 11 around for a while longer because many other world navies use it.  The US doesn't just share Link 16 and 22 with everyone (and frankly cue to costs many won't even make the switch until they have too!).



Respectfully, I think Link-16 with range extension is the way of the future... Link-22 was conceived as a cheaper way to get Link-16 like capabilities; Link-16 has now become quite cheap.  Link-22 does make a good choice for HF range extension, but JREAP options are there as well.

CP-140 Link-16 is not far away... I wish they had used a MIDS to get better power, but it is what it is.  JREAP for range extension over SATCOM is in the same package.

The retirement of Link-11 is going to be forced... in the same way as Link-22 was delayed because the US was slow in providing crypto, when they turn the Link-11 crypto off it will push the issue.

The NATO roadmap was pretty clear when I was in SHAPE up until 2014... consolidate on J Series (ie Link-16) messages with range extension, and high bandwidth IP (ie TCDL) evolving into networked high bandwidth IP (ie something like Wideband Network Waveform - WNW).  This was briefed to the Commander through the SCAPDLM (Strategic Commander's Advisory Panel on Data Link Management).


----------



## Baz (13 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> The basic premise of the article was that with the great leap in capability of the to the Cyclones it would behove the navy to increase the number of helo's available on an AOR to three or four (and design them to carry these extra helo's).  As RCN AOR's deploy into the combat zones with the rest of the Task Group adding an extra helo or two would significantly increase the ASW capabilities, RMP and redundancy of a TG air dets.  The author called it a Fast Attack Tanker, a conceited name for sure but one that got my attention to read the article.



As an aside, the author didn't come up with it himself.  Around the time of Somalia the term Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker (read the resulting acronym) made the rounds as a less than complementary way of describing being forced to push the tanker beyond what it rightfully should be doing because the appropriate hulls to do what was being done weren't in the Canadian inventory.

I think we actually need to look back at the future.  The tanker used to be fat on airframes and techs, and thin on crews; at times just a maintenance test crew and LSO.  The idea was that you moved the inspections and recovery maintenance off the other decks.  Whenever the helo needed extra maintenance you swapped one off the tanker and carried on.  That was why all the workshop space; second line recovery (but not complete R&O) could be done.  For example, if you swapped a box that *may* be u/s you could bench check it on the tanker and if it was still good recover it back into spares instead of shipping it back and getting a replacement.

Using the tanker like this gets you *some* of the way to a carrier; a carrier, or large deck amphib, doesn't just have a *wide* number of airframes and crews, it has *depth* as well as it has complete second line maintenance capability up to and including engine bays.  But some of that capability can be replicated by having all the other ships in your TG provide the *wide* part and the tanker provide the *deep* part.  Up until the early 90's the entire air effort of the TG was dedicated to keeping two helos airborne *continuously*.  A legacy of that is how the number of Cyclones, 28, was determined; as another aside, that  number is why some people that don't understand tG ops think they can borrow Cyclones to do other things...

Alas, I'm afraid this thought process, which took so many years to develop, has been lost on the current organization think of both the RCN and RCAF, and may never come back again...  One of these though processes is if you are not considering airframe numbers, snag recovery, maintenance cycles, and operational cycling of hours you are not an aviation professional, you are playing at it.


Edited to add: I've never been a fan of CASR in it's various incarnations; they have some interesting ideas, but they never go into the depth to consider the very things I just mentioned...


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 May 2018)

And here l thought F.A.R T. was as a result PRE running over HMS PENELOPE.


----------



## Baz (13 May 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And here l thought F.A.R T. was as a result PRE running over HMS PENELOPE.
> [/quqote]
> 
> Quite possibly true... I only remember the context I heard it in...


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 May 2018)

Same here, Baz.  Moot points now as she's gone.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 May 2018)

Baz said:
			
		

> ...Remember, a true AESA radar, including the Osprey, is interleaved multimode... it doesn't have to be doing one thing at once.  If they are talking to each other, they can share that work around...



:nod:

And Leonardo isn't the only radar OEM that interleaves.  No names, no pack drill, but I saw a very impressive interleaved Search/Track/FireControl/TDL radar many years ago that would water an EWO's eyes (it certainly did mine).  Add in laser-based comms in the near-future, and you have quite the system(s). 

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...  Add in laser-based comms in the near-future, ....
> 
> Cheers,
> G2G



I sez: Pardon?  

Beware mods - Tangent alert.

Assuming laser comms and swarm technolog: could an "atmospheric" GPS network be established?  If all nodes in the "Swarm" - to include troops, tanks, aircraft and ships - know where they are in relation to some parts of the swarm - and if some parts of the swarm know where they are with respect to fixed landmarks - (mountains, headlands, islands, river junctions, road junctions, city hall) - then does it follow that all parts of the swarm can precisely locate themselves and communicate that location without the use of radios (conventional RF) and GPS?    Add in some INS capability and to what degrees of precision and accuracy could you navigate?  ???


----------



## Underway (13 May 2018)

Baz said:
			
		

> Edited to add: I've never been a fan of CASR in it's various incarnations; they have some interesting ideas, but they never go into the depth to consider the very things I just mentioned...



It wasn't in CASR it was the Canadian Naval Review, but it may have had an overlap with them.  Don't think the author was the same.  I'd post the article here but its behind a paywall.

Here's the link to see if it works for non-subscribers as some of the content of the magazine if free.  http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/plugins/s2member-files/vol13num2/vol13num2waves.pdf  It will download a pdf.

As for the Fire Scout having the potential of being an excellent surface picture aircraft of that I have no doubt.  I was more thinking about AEW for missile attack, thus maximizing the long ranges of the Aster and SM family of missiles.  Its great you have these to defend a TG but the horizon is 25nm away on a good day.  With a range in excess of 100nm for both of these missiles you could use them before a ship in the TG "sees" a contact itself.  Using a Fire Scout with sensors optimized for finding low flying aircraft and sea skimming anti-ship missiles the TG could engage them before the enemy might be able to even find and target.  High flying aircraft and missiles would most likely be detected by TG air volume search radar, as the horizons are much further with higher altitudes.  

That being said dual purpose and software optimized radars exist.


----------



## Baz (14 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> It wasn't in CASR it was the Canadian Naval Review, but it may have had an overlap with them.  Don't think the author was the same.  I'd post the article here but its behind a paywall.



I know, I was responding to a following post:



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Here's an old idea for using the Cyclone in a similar capacity, with a Lockheed Vigilance Pod (which were never built but were designed for the Crowsnest competition).
> Innovation and Canadian Naval Aviation



The real issue always comes back to the same thing, airframe number and training capacity.  Even if you went with an unmanned platform, there stills needs to be someone added to the ops room to fly them and run the sensors, and added to the AirDet to maintain them.


As well, I just noticed:



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_electronics.html
> 
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_aps143.pdf  360 scan - I envy the MH folks for that!  Nice system, though...



I'd be careful basing sensor performance on the information available there (even though I am quoted by name for some Sea King stuff at that website).  The second link is for a company sales brochure dated 2007.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 May 2018)

Is this a new ship category ,Fast Attack tanker ? Never heard of this before.


----------



## FSTO (14 May 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is this a new ship category ,Fast Attack tanker ? Never heard of this before.



For some of us its a sarcastic take on the armament capabilities (or lack there of) of our AOR's. This type of AOR is usually described as a Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker (FART).


----------



## Baz (14 May 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is this a new ship category ,Fast Attack tanker ? Never heard of this before.





			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> For some of us its a sarcastic take on the armament capabilities (or lack there of) of our AOR's. This type of AOR is usually described as a Fast Attack Replenishment Tanker (FART).



In this case it seems it was also the term used in an article in the Canadian Naval Review (http://www.navalreview.ca/), a magazine roughly equivalent to the USNI Proceedings (https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings).


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 May 2018)

Thanks  8)


----------



## Underway (14 May 2018)

Over lunch today workshopped a few ideas with my boss (CSE as well) who is the local radar expert.  Went to the whiteboard and goofed around with a few concepts for an AEW UAV sensor system.  His design solution was that using IR would be a better idea for AEW of a missile attack.  The UAV could be smaller, wide area IR sensors are cheaper and easier to maintain, and with a top down look a missile or aircraft exhaust plume and skin friction would be relatively easy to spot on the neutral cool of the ocean.  

This would give the ship more time to be ready to defend itself even with current sensors and weapons.  

Loss of the UAV wouldn't be as expensive as putting an AESA on it and smaller UAV could mean a ship could carry more than one.  

The drawback is that it is harder to fix the missiles position with EO/IR.  Radar gives you bearing, range and doppler info very rapidly.  EO/IR needs a bit more processing power and perhaps a laser to do the same thing.

Different take on the same thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 May 2018)

Baz said:
			
		

> I'd be careful basing sensor performance on the information available there (even though I am quoted by name for some Sea King stuff at that website).  The second link is for a company sales brochure dated 2007.



Copy that;  it was one of the only things I could find open source, which is the level that should be discussed here really.  Everything else would be CG at a minimum.  The only things I know well about MHs are what they look like on EO/IR (and their runways and hotels aren't that great).   8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Over lunch today workshopped a few ideas with my boss (CSE as well) who is the local radar expert.  Went to the whiteboard and goofed around with a few concepts for an AEW UAV sensor system.  He design solution was that using IR would be a better idea for AEW of a missile attack.  The UAV could be smaller, wide area IR sensors are cheaper and easier to maintain, and with a top down look a missile or aircraft exhaust plume and skin friction would be relatively easy to spot on the neutral cool of the ocean.
> 
> This would give the ship more time to be ready to defend itself even with current sensors and weapons.
> 
> ...



How about consideration for a combo of both?  Put an undercast layer between the IR sensor and target into the equation and your IR is, well, fairly useless really.  RADAR sees thru the slop (or at least, it does better).


----------



## Underway (14 May 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How about consideration for a combo of both?  Put an undercast layer between the IR sensor and target into the equation and your IR is, well, fairly useless really.  RADAR sees thru the slop (or at least, it does better).



We discussed that a bit.  Weather would be an issue for IR.  I fell one really needs to get to the calculations to look at designs and their trade offs.

I personally think a AESA built into UAV's skin with a ball mounted EO/IR for RMP would be the best way to go.  Multitask AEW and RMP UAV.  You get the best of both and free up the Cyclone to do its main job and protect the TG from subs.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 May 2018)

6 inch or 12 inch?  Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> We discussed that a bit.  Weather would be an issue for IR.  I fell one really needs to get to the calculations to look at designs and their trade offs.
> 
> I personally think a AESA built into UAV's skin with a ball mounted EO/IR for RMP would be the best way to go.  Multitask AEW and RMP UAV.  You get the best of both and free up the Cyclone to do its main job and protect the TG from subs.



If there was room/weight to spare, you could also put an ESM suite on it and really increase the ESM horizon...

How hard/easy is it to incorporate the 'feeds' into already exists 'stations' on a modern frigate?


----------



## AirDet (28 May 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> Here's an old idea for using the Cyclone in a similar capacity, with a Lockheed Vigilance Pod (which were never built but were designed for the Crowsnest competition).



For Cyclones deployed on the new CSC that's an interesting idea. However, I doubt a modded Helo would fit thru the hangar doors on a CPF. There isn't much room between the sponson and the door rail.


----------

