# High Altitude, Stand Off Torpedoes for P3s



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

GPS guided glider wings for Mk54 torpedoes.  Stand off ranges.

Couple that with similarly equipped bombs and a CP-140 could launch a coordinated "dive-bomb" and torpedo attack on a surface target on its own and never go near the target.  If the glide ratios on these are similar to those of 500 and 1000 lb bombs then ranges in excess of 100 km might be possible.

What would it mean for the CF18s? Could they be used to hustle out similarly equipped torpedoes?

If the CP-140 were equipped to handle these types of torpedoes presumably they could handle the "glide-bombs" as well which would reduce the need for Harpoon capability.  It would also make the CP-140 considerably more valuable as an "overwatch" asset for land forces.




> U.S. Navy Selects Lockheed Martin to Provide High Altitude Launch Capability to Mk-54 Torpedoes
> 
> 
> (Source: Lockheed Martin; issued June 13, 2006)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jun 2006)

How will the CF18s detect a submerged submarine?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

The CF-18s won't detect a submerged submarine.  But once a CP-140, or a Frigate and its Cyclone (thinking ahead here), or even a sub, detect a contact couldn't a CF-18 prosecute the attack?

The sub wouldn't have to unmask and none of the detecting platforms need to use their own weapons.  The CP-140 could trade weapons for fuel (minimize not eliminate weapons) and stay on station longer.  The CF-18, especially with in flight refuelling could run a shuttle run over a long distance keeping up a virtually unlimited supply of ordnance from shore.  The frigate would benefit from being able to keep its own weapons load for when aircover is not available. The sub would benefit not only from not having to use its own weapons but not having to unmask to launch.

Having said the last - I am aware that the article talks about the lightweight Mk 54 and not the heavyweights like the Mk 48s more commonly associated with subs.
I am also aware that what I am suggesting is more appropriate to a lengthy engagement than a snap engagement.  In that case the frigates, subs and CP140s would continue to rely on their available onboard weapons.

Think of the CF-18 as a high speed courier delivering a package to a set of GPS coordinates - whether that package is a torpedo, bomb, depth bomb, sensor or even SKAD kit shouldn't make any difference.  It has the advantage that it can park close to the warehouse.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jun 2006)

Would we want to use a fighter as an ASW platform though? With torpedoes onboard  that is 1 or more less hardpoints for other missiles or bombs(AAM/AGM-which you might need to defend other assets) and fuel tanks?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

Gravyboat and Ex-Dragoon:

Maxflex thinking for the day the hordes show up off the shores of Newfoundland.  ;D

It may never happen.  But.......

I believe that the critical issues are twofold.  One is that the weapon systems are now autonomous in large part.  Strap on a pair of wings and a GPS/INS/DAMASK unit and any payload can deliver itself the last mile (or 60 miles).  The second is that the key to that capability is being able to relay coordinates from the pilot of the parent aircraft to the GPS system on the weapon and that has to do with the stores management system that has just been/is being fitted to the CF-18s as well as the hard points that are wired with data-buses.  This AFAIK creates a "Universal" hard point that works with a large variety of weapons.

So....

If the aircraft, management systems, data-buses, hard-points, payloads, glider wings and targeting systems all exist, and can all be plugged together like lego blocks (as seems to be the trend) then it becomes a "low cost" capability that doesn't impinge on other capabilities.  (Low Cost only in that most of the costs have already been paid for).

If we ran into a target rich environment where there were more targets than shooters then of course somebody is still going to have to make decisions as to who gets left out on the limb.  But the more scenarios that can be covered with existing kit, modified with what is currently available at reasonable prices, then I have to believe we would only be better off.

Cheers.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

Actually, I have a serious question.  Where do you plan on stationing these CF 18's?  I am sure that the current locations at Cold Lake and Bagotville are too far inland and would seriously put a crimp on the range they could cover at sea.  They are not capable of landing on aircraft carriers, which we don't have anyway.  With the amount of fuel they would burn 'On Station', I don't think that they would have much of in the way of time to remain 'On Station', nor would they be able to scramble fast enough from their inland bases to attack a contact at sea.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jun 2006)

All I am all for universal hardpoints but disagree with putting a a torp on such a fast mover.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jun 2006)

How low does an a/c have to go before dropping a torpedo and if really low do we want a CF18 to be that low to do so?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jun 2006)

OPSEC gents........


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

George first. 

Bagotville to Gander is about 1.8 hours, to Goose Bay about 1.4 hours and to Iqaluit 2.1 hours.
Cold Lake to Comox is about 1.5 hours, to Inuvik about 2.5 hours.

In about 2 hours the Air Force can reset its forces to a forward defence from any direction.  How far will a ship or sub move in two hours? 30 to 50 km?  
Even a CP-140 with 11 hours endurance is likely to be able to hold contact for two hours.

With forward positioning of the CC-150 tankers, or even the existing CC-130Tankers, then the Air Force could either deploy a weapon in support of a surface force virtually anywhere between Attu on the Aleutians and Bristol in the UK, or else it could keep a pair of CF18s orbiting until the pilots wore out.

The thing is that wrt surface threats, they are relatively large and slow to develop. Improving sensors make it harder for them to approach unobserved. IMO that means that threats will tend to show up as individual units and not en masse.   By putting the weapon on a fast mover which, as I said, can park close to the warehouse and make a speedy delivery means that the sensing platform doesn't have to carry a variety of weapons suitable for a variety of contacts.  The can trade some of those weapons for fuel and staying power only keeping what they need for personal defence and, perhaps, immediate prosecution.

Ex-Dragoon: 

What is the difference between putting torpedo on a fast mover and a bomb or a missile?

Again, I want to stress here, I am proposing this as a solution for anything.  There may not be a problem for this solution.  However it demonstrates to me how the evolving technologies are increasing the envelope of capabilities available to all sorts of platforms.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jun 2006)

> What is the difference between putting torpedo on a fast mover and a bomb or a missile?



Well for one thing the new role you are giving the CF18. Like I said, ASW is not a fighter role. You don't see Sparrows on C130s.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

> How low does an a/c have to go before dropping a torpedo and if really low do we want a CF18 to be that low to do so?



Ex-Dragoon, that was the point of the article.  With this latest gizmo, 



> Lockheed Martin's HAAWC concept employs the Lockheed Martin LongShot Wing Adapter Kit to allow the launch of torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. This technology enables P-3C aircrews to launch from outside the range of enemy air defenses.





> The program will demonstrate delivery of the MK-54 lightweight torpedo from a P-3C aircraft operating at high altitudes (approximately 20,000) feet.





> "Currently, P-3s must descend to a low altitude to deliver the MK54. The HAAWC concept improves the delivery accuracy and shortens the engagement time of the MK54 torpedo. This new capability will also increase the survivability of both of the aircrew and the aircraft by providing safe standoff. The standoff capability could potentially opens up the possibility for future of using MK-54s against surface targets by allowing the aircraft to launch from outside the range of a ship's air defenses."



aesop81.

If I am straying over the line on OPSEC let me know and I will cheerfully take this down.    But keep in mind that I am a civilian working from open source data. If I can come up with this stuff other folks can as well.  

Ex-Dragoon reference your last - just want to make sure that the fighter jocks don't run out of things to do. ;D  

And as to the Sparrows on C130s - anybody asked the C130 drivers if they wouldn't mind taking a couple of Sparrows along for the ride?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon, that was the point of the article.  With this latest gizmo,
> 
> aesop81.
> 
> If I am straying over the line on OPSEC let me know and I will cheerfully take this down.    But keep in mind that I am a civilian working from open source data. If I can come up with this stuff other folks can as well.



i understand that you are working from open source and thats fine.....but some members of this site have knowledge that IS NOT open source...just a reminded for people to keep it that way.  I already PM'ed you as to why i'm staying out of this one.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2006)

I got your PM aesop81.

I accept that there are other realities that will intrude and not only make this scenario not only highly improbable but also unnecessary.  But, again, it is not about whether this is a real or likely application.  It is more about my fascination with how technology seems to be laying open all sorts of new approaches to problems.  In the course of that I freely admit they are opening up solutions to problems that don't exist.  But, by the same token, they are not only supplying solutions to actual problems, they are taking away opportunities for others to create problems where they don't currently exist.


----------



## childs56 (16 Jun 2006)

Another idea that is being thought up at a higher level and once again people on here bash the heck out of it. 
I think the mounting of 500lb bombs under the wing of the Aurora's and deploying them to Afghanistan is a good idea. Do we have all the equipment at this point to make it happen no. Does our current doctrine and or abilities perceived or other wise limit us yes.  Can we if needed YES.

The nice thing about the F18 is it's ability to fullfill many roles. Most will claim it is a air to air only, while others say air to ground, others say a/g and or a/a. 
I say it is a/a and a/g along with Recce, target designator, ew, ecw, search and rescue if need be ,morale booster, and possible a anti submarine. Do we or any other FA18 in the world carry out all of these roles at the same time no. They need to be rerolled for specific missions if possible due to fleet restrictions.  
That is the reason for the US designed the FA18 G/H model. This model is suppose to be able to be very quickly re configed  into any of these missions and a whole lot more. Some say it isn't so, but it is working and as more time goes on more of the new F18's systems are working. This coupled with the ability of newer and better weapons systems to be added to the already lethal fleet and we have ourselves a real nice multipurpose fleet of A/C. 

I seen pictures of a C130 from the US with laser designator pods underneath it. They were talking about modifying the hard points for 500lb bombs. 

The Aurora's were designed originally to mount torps under the wings, not sure if Canada's have this option or not or even if it is usable. Not implausible that 500lb bombs could be mounted their also. The US has been looking at better ways to employ it's fleet of long loiter A/C over the past few years as has Canada and other NATO country's. 

I like it when a person on here reads an intersting article some where decides to post it and maybe add some suggestions to it. Only to have every expert on here come forth and add their expert opinion as to why it will in NO way ever work.

The US, Canada and Britain have in the last few years approached a new level of unplayability with in their fleets of A/C. Research into the effectiveness of such things as Defensive missile mounts on transport A/C, offensive weapons stations, re rolling of predominately maritime A/C to a land aspect due to the level of surveillance gear already employed. The use of UAVs, the single drop B52 bomber, the use of artillery rds as surveillance devices, and or extremely long range projectile out wards of 100 km or more that are laser guided into their targets. 

Most if not all of these projects are being worked on as we speak (type) some are already employed while others may never be due to numerous factors.

All of my info has come from the free internet Not the DIN or any other military source that has not or was not availible to the public.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2006)

The High Altitude release torpedo programme continues.



> Lockheed Martin HAAWC Successful In Wind Tunnel, Wing Separation Tests
> 
> 
> (Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Sept. 26, 2006)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2007)

> Longshot: A Swooping HAAWC for Torpedos
> Posted 31-May-2007 08:09
> 
> American maritime patrol aircraft currently carry torpedos as part of their armament, which serve as key weapons against enemy submarines. As any high-diver of cliff-jumper knows first hand, however, water can feel surprisingly solid after a long fall. Torpedos still have to be released from low altitude, typically 100 feet or less above the waves. Two recent developments, however, are making this approach less practical for the US military. One is tests of sub-launched anti-air missile systems, using modified short-range air-air missiles that do not require radar guidance. The other is its selection of the 737-based P-8A Poseidon as its next maritime patrol and surface surveillance aircraft. The P-8A can perform low swoops if necessary, but its airframe is really optimized for cruising at altitude.
> ...



So this adds range and precision to any platform/weapon combination.  It requires no mods to the platform.  It can work with any platform.  

Adds capabilities over land and over water.  The CP-140 could be loaded up as a bomber or a recce-bomber for Afghanistan.  The CF-18 could be used as a bomb/mine/torpedo delivery system.  

Presumably, if the programming is done by UHF, then the CF-18 pilot would only have to get within radio range of someone with a programming module for the weapon to be effective.  Back to the notion of the Observer Platform being lightly armed and the CF-18s lined up at the warehouse to hustle out the necessary ordnance.


----------

