• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Forces Track Russian Subs as New Cold War Brews Under the Atlantic

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,042
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
Actually a fleet of small AUV's operating in the choke points would be better, they patrol those areas using passive and active means , pop to the surface and announce a suspicious contact. You can have local communities service the AUV's for the basic bits like fuel or batteries.

Or crowd source the equivalent of modern day 'pirates', who'd jump at the chance of engaging in some sub-hunting fun ;)
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
219
Points
680
Colin P said:
Actually a fleet of small AUV's operating in the choke points would be better, they patrol those areas using passive and active means , pop to the surface and announce a suspicious contact. You can have local communities service the AUV's for the basic bits like fuel or batteries.

Negative, Colin.

You detect, track and identify in advance of, though near,  getting to the actual choke point. The actual choke point, where sea room is minimized and escape routes more limited is kept for the actual hunt and kill box.

Actually, I just re-read your post and ... double negative on that.

Simply, here's why. In the air, wether a MPA or a UAV, the idea is pinpoint locate then hunt to kill. The AUV's you propose are for early detection and general tracking. We already have that, from WWII and with improvements ever since: It's called SOSUS nets. And you don't have to have anything pop up and announce: there are human operators monitoring the actual system directly and in real-time.

And they happen to be located in small communities, like Shelburne, where they do help the economy with their "basic bits" purchases such as fuel, food and board.  ;D
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
194
Points
710
SOSUS (called something else now), like all things I'll lump into "TASW assets" have been scaled back because the Cold War ended and the *threat* 'went away'...IMO, it didn't just like the nuclear threat didn't go away (the weapons were still there, afterall).

Now...Russia (and others possibly) are increasing their fleets and capabilities..and the overall question is "can NATO respond".  ASW is an expensive game, and politicians control the pursue strings.

How many Virgina's were built, how old are the 688Is...how many P-8s are replacing the US P-3 fleet...these are fairly important questions to think about.  Our caps are (not sure how many serviceable)CPFs with AirDets and tails, 14 MPAs and 3 snorters.  We are miniscule compared to the US, but we still bring those assets to the table.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Eye In The Sky said:
How many Virgina's were built, how old are the 688Is...how many P-8s are replacing the US P-3 fleet...these are fairly important questions to think about.  Our caps are (not sure how many serviceable)CPFs with AirDets and tails, 14 MPAs and 3 snorters.  We are miniscule compared to the US, but we still bring those assets to the table.

The plan for the P8 was never to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the P3, they are utilizing the Triton as well.  I read an article recently on how the P8 was going to be used primarily for ASW whereas the Triton would most likely be used for all other tasks.  Which makes sense when you think about it. 

As for the using a UAV for ASW, it’s a good idea, however it won’t replace the manned aircraft (not in the near future).  At best it’ll augment the MPA.

How does the UAV handle active processing?  Odds are that we will be using active. Could it handle 32+ DICASS?  The extended passive ranges with newer processor tends to be against older targets.  Active is the sensor of choice.  I may be off in my thinking, but I feel that if anything significant kicked off we’d most likely lose satellite communications. 

The primary task of ASW is to find submarines and send them to the bottom.  That’s it.  We are a few years away from a UAV lobbing sonos and dropping torps.

daftandbarmy said:
Or crowd source the equivalent of modern day 'pirates', who'd jump at the chance of engaging in some sub-hunting fun ;)

With the amount of fully trained Acoustic operators in the CP-140 fleet, this might be an option.  We’ve (jokingly of course) threw this idea around, retire and setup our own “acoustics for hire” business. 

 

GK .Dundas

Full Member
Reaction score
14
Points
180
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Sadly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law
There's always someone ruining our fun . :'(
   
The plan for the P8 was never to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the P3, they are utilizing the Triton as well.  I read an article recently on how the P8 was going to be used primarily for ASW whereas the Triton would most likely be used for all other tasks.  Which makes sense when you think about it. 

As for the using a UAV for ASW, it’s a good idea, however it won’t replace the manned aircraft (not in the near future).  At best it’ll augment the MPA.

How does the UAV handle active processing?  Odds are that we will be using active. Could it handle 32+ DICASS?  The extended passive ranges with newer processor tends to be against older targets.  Active is the sensor of choice.  I may be off in my thinking, but I feel that if anything significant kicked off we’d most likely lose satellite communications. 

The primary task of ASW is to find submarines and send them to the bottom.  That’s it.  We are a few years away from a UAV lobbing sonos and dropping torps.

With the amount of fully trained Acoustic operators in the CP-140 fleet, this might be an option.  We’ve (jokingly of course) threw this idea around, retire and setup our own “acoustics for hire” business.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,042
Points
1,060
Dolphin_Hunter said:
With the amount of fully trained Acoustic operators in the CP-140 fleet, this might be an option.  We’ve (jokingly of course) threw this idea around, retire and setup our own “acoustics for hire” business.

Why not? Lots of 'knuckle dragging door kicker' types have already done that and, for arguably much less strategically important duties.

 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
981
Points
940
daftandbarmy said:
Why not? Lots of 'knuckle dragging door kicker' types have already done that and, for arguably much less strategically important duties.

Well, they'd also need to get some Pilots, NASOs, Navs, FEs and Techs to....hey, wait a minute....  ;)
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
194
Points
710
Dimsum said:
Well, they'd also need to get some Pilots, NASOs, Navs, FEs and Techs to....hey, wait a minute....  ;)

:nod:

something like this...https://army.ca/forums/threads/126791/post-1507636.html#msg1507636
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
23
Points
460
If there is a serious proposal to use UAVs for sub hunting or ASW in the current environment, I suspect it would be as a sort of wingman for the manned aircraft, carrying extra sensors and possibly weapons to augment the manned airframe, cover a larger search box or provide triangulation by seeking the target from different angles to more closely pinpoint the position.

The manned aircraft might need an extra operator to manage the data and provide the shoot/don't shoot decision making if it is armed. I don't see autonomous sub hunters in this generation of UAV's
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,758
Points
1,160
Eye In The Sky said:
Please...no.  Let's get *real* MPAs.  Not baby ones. 

Not that this *really* will matter to me...I'll be CRA when the SGOD is put to rest.

Develop a system-of-systems, which could include some slower/lower eyes, but ensure you have some of these (Canadian Aerospace-friendly) bad boys! (I counted 4 x Mk.54s on it + 2 Harpoons)  Then you could change your username to Eyes and Fists in the Sky (EITS > EFITS).  :nod:

Regards
G2G
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
194
Points
710
My concern with torps on wings relates to temps.  The 54 uses otto like the 46, and our bombbay is temp controlled.

I just think our fleet is and will be so small, we need it to be "all singing and dancing". 
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,042
Points
1,060
Tangent: Argentina could use a little sub-tracking help right now:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/19/missing-argentina-submarine-sent-seven-failed-satellite-calls-search
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
194
Points
710
Re: the article..there's a sub lost at sea with all hands right now and they take the time in the article to post the picture/mention the "1st female officer in their fleet" on the boat stuff?  WTF about the rest of the crew?

This PC crap is really starting to go way fuckin' too far.

 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
981
Points
940
Thucydides said:
If there is a serious proposal to use UAVs for sub hunting or ASW in the current environment, I suspect it would be as a sort of wingman for the manned aircraft, carrying extra sensors and possibly weapons to augment the manned airframe, cover a larger search box or provide triangulation by seeking the target from different angles to more closely pinpoint the position.

The manned aircraft might need an extra operator to manage the data and provide the shoot/don't shoot decision making if it is armed. I don't see autonomous sub hunters in this generation of UAV's

I can't see the powers that be allowing autonomous release of weapons.  Too much political fallout, loss of positive control, etc. 
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
23
Points
460
Plan "B" seems to be the deployment of swarms of small sensor vehicles like undersea "gliders"

Long article here: http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/BASIC_Hambling_ASW_Feb2016_final_0.pdf
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,197
Points
940
Eye In The Sky said:
SOSUS (called something else now), like all things I'll lump into "TASW assets" have been scaled back because the Cold War ended and the *threat* 'went away'...IMO, it didn't just like the nuclear threat didn't go away (the weapons were still there, afterall).

Now...Russia (and others possibly) are increasing their fleets and capabilities..and the overall question is "can NATO respond".  ASW is an expensive game, and politicians control the pursue strings.

How many Virgina's were built, how old are the 688Is...how many P-8s are replacing the US P-3 fleet...these are fairly important questions to think about.  Our caps are (not sure how many serviceable)CPFs with AirDets and tails, 14 MPAs and 3 snorters.  We are miniscule compared to the US, but we still bring those assets to the table.

They tried recently putting some into the arctic recently to track mammals, the ice took them out, I don't think people appreciate how deep some of the ice goes.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
219
Points
680
True enough Colin. But submarines in the Arctic are only a strategic problem, not a tactical threat.

So long as there is ice in the Arctic, only nuclear subs can go there. Boomers can use it as a hiding/staging ground, and they can only be taken out by hunter-killer nuclear boats.

As for Russian hunter-killer nuclear subs, they may transit through the Arctic to get where they may, but while up there, pose no threat to the SLOC's. The place to intercept them remains where they can come out of the Arctic, namely the GIUK gap or the Labrador basin where barrier ops can be set up.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
194
Points
710
Oldgateboatdriver said:
As for Russian hunter-killer nuclear subs, they may transit through the Arctic to get where they may, but while up there, pose no threat to the SLOC's.

With things like the NWP opening up at least part of the year and all that...this may change in the future...

We do not have the ability to track 'stuff' under ice and we 'own' lots of places covered in ice.  *scratches head*.  That makes sense.  :whistle:
 
Top