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)

"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

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.

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

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.

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

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

"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

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.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...

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

I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
make a shadow like that.

But then again, I may be passing Balloon Gas.
(I won't talk about the time I called a T-39 as
an F-104)

--
Pete Stickney