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

P8 With AAS Radar

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
Making it harder for enemy subs to hide.What a great idea.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34716703/navy-detect-submarines-with-airborne-radar-p8-poseidon/

The U.S. Navy, in a break with traditional submarine detection, is working to replace sonar and magnetic detection with radar. The AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) will spot the invisible wakes left by submarines underwater, telltale clues that something large is lurking beneath the waves. The AAS will be carried by the P-8 Poseidon aircraft (shown above), which can then engage submarines with air-dropped anti-submarine torpedoes.
 
Sea State 4...how's that RADAR work then?  8)

The submerged target is deep...making turns for 5 kts into a 3kt current, just hanging around on-station/picket...steerage and min maneuvering to move it's tail around some...

How do you tell if it is a Fndly/Non-Fndly sub?  Usually that is from visual or noise...



 
Eye In The Sky said:
Sea State 4...how's that RADAR work then?  8)

The submerged target is deep...making turns for 5 kts into a 3kt current, just hanging around on-station/picket...steerage and min maneuvering to move it's tail around some...

How do you tell if it is a Fndly/Non-Fndly sub?  Usually that is from visual or noise...

Are you seriously asking that question? There is a much simpler method.

Go find a TACCO. They will explain it to you.
 
To a non SME here, using radar instead of sonar/MAD seems...questionable?



I doubt they would invest the time or money to do this if it didn't make sense to at least someone.  Can anybody with some experience in this field give their 2 cents worth on whether this is a wise idea or not?
 
Maybe the aircraft avoids detection until the point it is dropping weapons ?
 
I'm pretty certain that a decent ESM mast suite is going to pick up that RADAR and identify the platform long before the RADAR detects the sub. 

Interesting though, I'm excited to learn more. 
 
From the article :
According to Forbes, the downward-mounted pod features an advanced electronically scanning array (AESA) radar. Unlike traditional dish radars that use one large, powerful radar module, AESA radars use many smaller modules. These modules can collectively operate over multiple frequencies, which means they can overcome jamming or broaden or focus their field of detection, especially against small objects and those invisible to the human eye.
 
Yes a Little harder to jam but they can be detected if they radiate so much as a mouse fart.
 
I wonder if Canada would be interested in having this tech onboard its maritime patrol planes ?
 
Anything is possible.  We are the country that has extremely modern systems on ancient airframes, so who knows.


That being said, I think it's best we let the USN test this idea in some real world situations before making any kind of decision when it comes time for the next upgrade/replacement of the 140' fleet.


I'm curious to hear from some of our local SME's who have quite a bit of experience on whether this idea has any merit or not.
 
CBH99 said:
Anything is possible.  We are the country that has extremely modern systems on ancient airframes, so who knows.


That being said, I think it's best we let the USN test this idea in some real world situations before making any kind of decision when it comes time for the next upgrade/replacement of the 140' fleet.


I'm curious to hear from some of our local SME's who have quite a bit of experience on whether this idea has any merit or not.

The idea has merit. It has been worked on for decades. It seems the USN has finally cracked the code on how to do it. I would be curious to see if there are sea state/weather limits to this method.
 
To clarify, AESA radars aren't new.  Modern fighters have them, but having them on a maritime patrol aircraft is different.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Are you seriously asking that question? There is a much simpler method.

Which 'question' ?  I think I was making some observations about how subs and the environment they exist in can make this "sole-solution RADAR" a bad idea. 

If you read the article (dated 19 Nov 2020...), maybe these statements jumped out for you as well:

- The Navy's Next Mission: Detect Invisible Submarines From the Sky ["Next mission" that has been ongoing since 19XX?]

- The U.S. Navy, in a break with traditional submarine detection, is working to replace sonar and magnetic detection with radar. [I'd suggest 'augment' vice replace...]

- Subs create wakes as they displace water in their path, which are barely visible on the surface. A radar like the AAS can pick out these wakes from the pattern of regular ocean waves, betraying a submarine’s location.  [ what is that sub is deep (max depth)?  what if that sub is maintaining steerage, patrolling around at 2-3kts?  Is that author suggesting Sea State doesn't affect RADAR and this 'wake' will be visible in SS4+? ]

- Aircraft like the Navy’s P-3C Orion would often drop sonobuoys in waters suspected of harboring enemy submarines. The sonobuoys, pinging away with sonar, transmit their data to the circling P-3C.  [that's a good Grade 3-level idea of who it works...)

The P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft is fairly new in U.S. Navy service. Unlike older planes, it retains the ability to drop sonobuoys, but wasn't built with a telltale MAD boom, suggesting the Navy is confident radar submarine detection will work.  [*cough cough* https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unmanned/article/14034795/antisubmarine-warfare-asw-uav-magnetic-anomaly-detector-mad]

Go find a TACCO. They will explain it to you.

:rofl:

You made me wonder now, how many current serving TACCOs have XX or XXX hours logged with crews tracking the latest, or even later gen, foreign subs/non-Allied subs (the 'non-exercise' stuff)?  Just curious...I've done a decent amount of it with some great crews, and even did MPA-MH ops but never with a Cdn MH.  :dunno:



 
CBH99 said:
To a non SME here, using radar instead of sonar/MAD seems...questionable?

You're likely to encounter differing opinions...but the key wording is "instead of" to me.  A good ASW platform isn't a one-trick pony.  Example:

- on Ex in the Med.  Our basic tasking was to screen a small naval force from a sub trying to close it.  We had a sonobuoy field out, wet guys are doing their thing, us dry sensor (RADAR, MAD, EOIR, ESM) types were doing our thing.  The Acoustic system goes unserviceable (temporarily...everything is computer based right?) and needs 'a reboot'...this takes X amount of time.  We still have a task to complete...so we drop down low and fly a "MAD barrier" between the force and the sub.  A *system of systems* can do that...a one-trick pony can't.

RADAR has it's very good, useful functions with ASW (the goal of ASW being "to deny the enemy effective use of their submarines").  Submarines have to stick things at/above the surface for various reasons as an example. 

I doubt they would invest the time or money to do this if it didn't make sense to at least someone.  Can anybody with some experience in this field give their 2 cents worth on whether this is a wise idea or not?

Doing R & D, testing is never a bad thing to me (unless the idea is so obviously ridiculous).  As submarine technology advances, so must the system's a nation uses to detect and, if necessary, kill them.  Canada has units, and people, who continue to push the envelope, improving 'what we have now' and looking for 'what we need in the future' in our airborne ASW-capable fleets.

The USN happens to have a little bit of a bigger budget than we do...but, despite the wording in the article, I doubt you'll ever see the USN make the P-8 fleet a one-trick pony for...any of it's mission types, including ASW.  You are basically 'turning gas into noise' if your sole sensor goes U/S and are left with the Mk1 eyeball. 
 
CBH99 said:
Anything is possible.  We are the country that has extremely modern systems on ancient airframes, so who knows.

$2000 stereo's in $500 cars, just like in high school!

That being said, I think it's best we let the USN test this idea in some real world situations before making any kind of decision when it comes time for the next upgrade/replacement of the 140' fleet.

Block 4 isn't rolled out yet.  My own  :2c: is this would never be something the 140 would never see;  Cdn Multi-Mission Aircraft/Aurora replacement?  Maybe.  We tend to have a history of getting the "4 cylinder, 4 speed" model when other, more serious people are getting the "6 or 8 cylinder, 5 speed with overdrive" model.  ;D

I'm curious to hear from some of our local SME's who have quite a bit of experience on whether this idea has any merit or not.

Disclaimer - I have no experience operating AESA RADAR sets; my opinion is based solely on theory and reading. 

With the current state of advances in (1) RADAR systems (2) computing hardware/software [processing power], and with the budgetary abilities the USN has...well, it appears this has potential to them and they are putting some $ and YFR into exploring it. 

Honestly...the RCAF should send a few folks (NCMs...) down south for 3-4 years who have knowledge and experience in 'VP' RADAR stuff.  :nod:
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Which 'question' ?  I think I was making some observations about how subs and the environment they exist in can make this "sole-solution RADAR" a bad idea. 

If you read the article (dated 19 Nov 2020...), maybe these statements jumped out for you as well:

- The Navy's Next Mission: Detect Invisible Submarines From the Sky ["Next mission" that has been ongoing since 19XX?]

- The U.S. Navy, in a break with traditional submarine detection, is working to replace sonar and magnetic detection with radar. [I'd suggest 'augment' vice replace...]

- Subs create wakes as they displace water in their path, which are barely visible on the surface. A radar like the AAS can pick out these wakes from the pattern of regular ocean waves, betraying a submarine’s location.  [ what is that sub is deep (max depth)?  what if that sub is maintaining steerage, patrolling around at 2-3kts?  Is that author suggesting Sea State doesn't affect RADAR and this 'wake' will be visible in SS4+? ]

- Aircraft like the Navy’s P-3C Orion would often drop sonobuoys in waters suspected of harboring enemy submarines. The sonobuoys, pinging away with sonar, transmit their data to the circling P-3C.  [that's a good Grade 3-level idea of who it works...)

The P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft is fairly new in U.S. Navy service. Unlike older planes, it retains the ability to drop sonobuoys, but wasn't built with a telltale MAD boom, suggesting the Navy is confident radar submarine detection will work.  [*cough cough* https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unmanned/article/14034795/antisubmarine-warfare-asw-uav-magnetic-anomaly-detector-mad]

:rofl:

You made me wonder now, how many current serving TACCOs have XX or XXX hours logged with crews tracking the latest, or even later gen, foreign subs/non-Allied subs (the 'non-exercise' stuff)?  Just curious...I've done a decent amount of it with some great crews, and even did MPA-MH ops but never with a Cdn MH.  :dunno:

Do not get me wrong- I like MAD as a sensor. The greatest thing going for it is that it passive. But this radar idea has merit.

The thing I was reacting to was your assertion that you “need” wet sensors to tell enemy from friendly subs. I disagreed with that assertion, in that I believe that any TACCO worth their title will tell you that there are easier Measures in place to tell the difference- if you catch my drift.

And if you ever happen upon two submarines, close aboard, and cannot figure out which is friendly- let them sort it out. You can classify the survivor and take appropriate action...
 
Back
Top