If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MAD about the Strikehawk
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote: Fred J. McCall wrote: The real issue is if you only have one aircraft to prosecute with. MADVEC is a decent way to release a weapon from the same vehicle while dipping sonar is not. Fly the cloverleaf and on the last inbound leg dump the fish. There is no equivalently accurate and convenient way for a dipping helo to deliver a torpedo. That seems logical. But I've seen a couple of shots of SH-60s dropping torpedos with some sort of cable trailing vertically from the fuselage clearly not a MAD tow). I can't think of anything it might be other than a dipping sonar tether, but if someone can offer a better suggestion, I'm all ears (metaphorically speaking). I can't imagine dropping a fish at the dip. The odds would seem to be significantly non-zero that you would hit your own sonar. There are a couple of shots that show what I mean. (the cable is very faint in the second one) Are you sure that isn't a MAD bird? Pretty sure. The location is wrong, and these are supose to be Seahawk Foxtrots, which never had MAD (for much the same reason the Romeo won't) From the hang of the cable I would have said it wasn't one, either, but the apparent backward angle seems to indicate that the helo is moving forward, which you wouldn't typically do while at the dip. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/SH-60F_cable 5.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/SH-60F_sonar -cable4.jpg The position doesn't look quite right for the MAD bird, though. They may have been at the dip and pulled it up to drop a fish. That would explain why there's some forward motion. Pull the sonar out of the water and start toward datum to drop a fish. I thought they might be sideslipping to get some seperation between the sonar head and the torpedo. It would be easier to do this if the head were still in the water, with some extra drag to slow it down and keep it from swinging like a pendulum. But the load on the cable could be scary, so perhaps not. I thought omni CASS was pretty old technology. Anyone know when it was introduced? The P-3 had them earlier, but surface ships (who did the processing for helo-dropped buoys) didn't have gear that would handle it until SQR-17 was fielded (mid-70s). Even then, they were viewed as a lot more expensive than passive buoys so typically weren't carried. And of course nobody wanted to drop straight pingers unless they were trying to herd the contact in some direction. SH-2 predated all that by just a bit. :-) Does it really? The LAMPS I contract was awarded in 1970, and the initial batch of 20 SH-2Ds was completed in 1972. This site at least says active buoys were part of the kit. http://members.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/heloasw2.html [Crossposted to rec.aviation.military.naval, where some AW types have been known to hang out. Gordon?] -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : : I thought omni CASS was pretty old technology. Anyone know when it : was introduced? : : The P-3 had them earlier, but surface ships (who did the processing : for helo-dropped buoys) didn't have gear that would handle it until : SQR-17 was fielded (mid-70s). Even then, they were viewed as a lot : more expensive than passive buoys so typically weren't carried. And : of course nobody wanted to drop straight pingers unless they were : trying to herd the contact in some direction. : : SH-2 predated all that by just a bit. :-) : oes it really? The LAMPS I contract was awarded in 1970, and the initial :batch of 20 SH-2Ds was completed in 1972. This site at least says active :buoys were part of the kit. Active buoys, yes. CASS buoys, no. And nobody wanted to drop pure pingers unless they were trying to herd the submarine away from them. The SH-2 just didn't carry enough buoys to lay a big active field (there were typically only a handful (fewer than 5) of pingers on board), so an active buoy was only useful for final targeting. :http://members.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/heloasw2.html The original receiver equipment for the sonobuoys on board ship (I don't remember the name offhand) had only a wet paper display, so it was a bit of a PITA to try to use with active buoys in any case. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Are you sure that isn't a MAD bird?
Pretty sure. The location is wrong, and these are supose to be Seahawk Foxtrots, which never had MAD (for much the same reason the Romeo won't) From the hang of the cable I would have said it wasn't one, either, but the apparent backward angle seems to indicate that the helo is moving forward, which you wouldn't typically do while at the dip. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/SH-60F_cable 5.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/SH-60F_sonar -cable4.jpg The position doesn't look quite right for the MAD bird, though. They may have been at the dip and pulled it up to drop a fish. That would explain why there's some forward motion. Pull the sonar out of the water and start toward datum to drop a fish. I thought they might be sideslipping to get some seperation between the sonar head and the torpedo. It would be easier to do this if the head were still in the water, with some extra drag to slow it down and keep it from swinging like a pendulum. But the load on the cable could be scary, so perhaps not. I thought omni CASS was pretty old technology. Anyone know when it was introduced? The P-3 had them earlier, but surface ships (who did the processing for helo-dropped buoys) didn't have gear that would handle it until SQR-17 was fielded (mid-70s). Even then, they were viewed as a lot more expensive than passive buoys so typically weren't carried. CASS and DICASS were generally saved for dedicated ASW missions against a known target. For much of my career, we didn't even carry them. For frigate-based ops, we usually had just SSQ-41s and 47s available, some from ancient contracts. Three to five buoy patterns of LOFAR passive buoys for getting a general track on the target, then one or two pingers to pin him to the wall prior to dropping the torp. As for dropping them from a hover, that was not the normal way, but we certainly did it on occasion. I used to have a photo of an H-3 in a dip, dropping a Mk 46. Personally, I think it would be silly to do it that way unless you were pinging on a target at close range and had him dead to rights. And of course nobody wanted to drop straight pingers unless they were trying to herd the contact in some direction. Dropping active buoys is like playing RAP music on a boombox in your hunting blind. I forget the math, but counterdetection ranges for active sonar was multiples of the range for the pinger itself. So if you didn't get the first active buoy damn close to the target, all you accomplish is to cause him to melt away into the depths. LOFAR was always the way to go, until the DIFAR upgrades came along. Instead of drawing circles on a plotting board and using "comparitive lofargram analysis" (cof), DIFAR could actually give you a fix. But, most SH-2Fs didn't get that gear until the Mark I was already being replaced. The last thing I accomplished in the Navy was to help convince them to purchase Computing Devices (Ottawa, CA) UYS 503 acoustic processers for the SH-2G. Magnificent sensor suite - should have given the mighty 'Sprite' another ten years of active service, but by then, the Seahawk Mafia had taken over... SH-2 predated all that by just a bit. :-) Does it really? The LAMPS I contract was awarded in 1970, and the initial batch of 20 SH-2Ds was completed in 1972. This site at least says active buoys were part of the kit. http://members.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/heloasw2.html Bobby Wickes' site is sort of the repository for guys in my former field. He and Devo do a great job and I keep meaning to forward a stack of photos to them - a couple of friends and I run a companion SH-2F site called "SeaspriteCentral.com", for those of you that are interested. [Crossposted to rec.aviation.military.naval, where some AW types have been known to hang out. Gordon?] Right here - sorry, never saw the start of the thread, or the image that y'all were discussing, so I was trying to catch up by lurking on the thread. In the image, can you see if the arming wire on the torp has pulled out, or if a parachute has been deployed? Before I get into a torpedo thread, you should understand that I had terrible luck with them myself - I'm nooo expert. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Krztalizer wrote:
[Crossposted to rec.aviation.military.naval, where some AW types have been known to hang out. Gordon?] Right here - sorry, never saw the start of the thread, or the image that y'all were discussing, so I was trying to catch up by lurking on the thread. In the image, can you see if the arming wire on the torp has pulled out, or if a parachute has been deployed? Before I get into a torpedo thread, you should understand that I had terrible luck with them myself - I'm nooo expert. The photos are from globalsecurity.org See the second and third rows under SH-60F at http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...sh-60-pics.htm -HJC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
See the second and third rows under SH-60F at http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...sh-60-pics.htm -HJC Now I get it, thanks, Henry. What you see there is the parachute being pulled out, and yes, this is a hover drop and in at least one of the images, he has his dipping sonar in the water. An arming wire comes out first, that's about four feet long I guess, and that releases the parachute, which is what you see coming out in these images. The pilot has a little left drift dialed in to keep the torp clear of the sonar cable. That is one _long_ sonar cable (in comparison to earlier designs) and its possible to have your dome down many hundreds of feet deeper than the torpedo's search depth. Bigger problem here is that if the torpedo goes rogue on you, its likely to try and strike the helo while its hovering and unable to break its dip. Torpedos have attempted to strike the drop helos, and I'd rather not be sitting still at 40', waiting to see if the Mk 46 is coming back at me or not. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...sh-60-pics.htm
In that website's H-2 page, they have a couple photos of birds I flew in. That spiffy image towards the bottom of a helo's shadow within a rainbow is obviously not an H-2 (its another SH-60). That image of TF-22 brings back memories. It crashed, killing two. I had gotten ~ 20 hours in it before it went down; notice the disco balls on the upper spine, marking this as approximately the same time as Operation Preying Mantis. v/r Gordon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Krztalizer wrote:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...sh-60-pics.htm In that website's H-2 page, they have a couple photos of birds I flew in. That spiffy image towards the bottom of a helo's shadow within a rainbow is obviously not an H-2 (its another SH-60). snip Are you sure? It appears to only have a stabilizer on the port side, and the stab seems to small in any case to be an SH-60. It could just be the sun angle, but I don't think so. Guy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Krztalizer wrote: http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...sh-60-pics.htm In that website's H-2 page, they have a couple photos of birds I flew in. That spiffy image towards the bottom of a helo's shadow within a rainbow is obviously not an H-2 (its another SH-60). snip Are you sure? It appears to only have a stabilizer on the port side, and the stab seems to small in any case to be an SH-60. It could just be the sun angle, but I don't think so. Guy If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly, a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long. Michael E. Fenyes AW HSL-33 '83-'86 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly, a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long. ....and there is no smoke trail :1 Michael E. Fenyes AW HSL-33 '83-'86 ---my former room mate and flying partner v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|