Lower than I would have thought.
China’s entire fleet of approximately 55 general-purpose submarines conducted a total of six patrols during 2007, slightly better than the two patrols conducted in 2006 and zero in 2005.
The 2007 performance matches China’s all-time high of six patrols conducted in 2000, the only two years since 1981 that Chinese submarines conducted more than five patrols in a single year.
Of course, viewing this from a USN perspective – it seems we are always either preparing to deploy, on deployment or returning from a deployment – is probably an example of conformation bias. A coastal defense force has little need to charge all over hell and gone for months at a time.
All they need to do if “flood the zone” when push comes to shove. Fifty-five submarines should make that relatively sporty.
Flat,
Innovation must see implementation. Certain innovations 10-20 years later remain as such, is all.
Hard to discuss the leaves when we have to keep going back to the tree trunk!
b2
b2, roger.
BB, do you agree (all concerns about getting there aside for a moment) that having “S-3 like” capability off a destroyer would be fundamentally superior to having that capability off a CV? Do you not see that as a sea control game changer? Because if you don’t see that, then the rest of the discussion is pointless.
Finally, Innovation IS implementation. Most successful innovations are just moving a proven product (capability) from one context into another. We have plenty of proven UAV capability ( in other contexts). And we were launching fixed wing off catapults from surface ships 70 years ago. We ought to be able to figure it out again. It’s largely a matter of being able to use capability we have and investments we have already made (sensors, weapons, UAV technology, training) in a new context.
A forward looking ASW discussion is what I’d like to see my Navy having, instead off rehashing sour grapes over old airframes.
Flat,
?1-
Yes, of course, but does your UAV variant give gas, carry heavy ordnance and shoot PGMs or MK-50 torps?
“proven product (capability) from one context into another”
I work in this business. What you pass off in a sentence is much harder said than done. Especially on air vehicles that don’t start with a lot of onboard real estate to begin with. Vehicles so SW dependent it’ll take decades to develop ASW variants.
“A forward looking ASW discussion is what I’d like to see my Navy having, instead off rehashing sour grapes over old airframes.”
Sometimes forward-looking simply means putting things off that need attention today.
Just because my ideas aren’t based on your “Universal-UAV vision” doesn’t mean they are invalid. Rather my view is unconventional from the status quo and are based on legitimate and proven capabilites designed in from scratch. Designing requirements for Multi-purpose use to me is just more of the same convention. As a result we see less capability more tradeooffs, more NRE and more developement time. What we have now is sorts like a whole bunch of Robert McNamaras’ designing a rehashed F-111 type vehicle for all the services x 10 with a little A-12 like emergent technology issue not yet in sight…..
Didn’t work then, won’t work now. Rather, I want robust and tangible capability based on proven concepts during this time of war and uncertainty. We had that during the 1980′s during the Reagan years and that robustness won the Cold War, GW-1 and every engagement since. And we’re still using the stuff! I am not encouraged by what I see on the horizon for Navy procurement.- shipbuilding in disarray, total # of aircraft/ type and a pathetic # of VA class SSNs.
re – “old airframes” Are you just baiting me on purpose? I’ve told you the S-3 has another service life left in it’s airframe (avg S-3 has 12000, total airframe certified to 23,000 flight hours). Don’t you believe me? Do you think the ‘official Navy’ who decided to “retire” the S-3 would go out of it’s way to publisize that fact? Why should they? Did you know the S-3 has the same propulsion as the A-10 (recently recapped to go to 2030) and that Regional Jet you probably fly on several times a year? Just what is old about the Viking from a technical standpoint, other than that you, Flatlander, say it is?
Some of us oldies are lucky (knock on wood). We don’t need Viagras, we still climb trees to bushwack bucks and we can walk all day on the prarie hunting birds. Beware the old fast dude! Like I said before not all legacy is created equal!
b2
Not sure this is getting anywhere, b2. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s not.
What do we agree on?
1. Both of us are protagonists for improving ASW capability.
2. Both of us agree the pre-gutted S-3B had excellent sensors and weapons.
3. The NATOPS max airspeed of the S-3.
4. TF-34. Fine engine for the platform.
What do we disagree on?
1. CV-based versus DD-based. You argue that S-3s off the CV have other capabilities (eg tanking) that are valuable. I argue that the main value of the weapons system(s) is sea control and taking it off the CV-tether changes it from an incremental contributor in the current environment to a sea control game-changer against a much wider range of potential future threats.
2. Timing of the Threat. You say we have an urgent immediate ASW need. I don’t see it. I’d rather invest a dollar toward a better, broader capability that could be ready in 2020 than a dollar in a 1970s airframe that we could have extended.
3. Innovation. You say stick to the proven platform as development is too risky. I say not investing in future ideas for ASW that exploit our technology advantages is the bigger risk.
4. Oh, and the actual time to datum speed of a tactically loaded and employed S-3. A minor point, to be sure, as the Warhoover is still faster than any of the current alternatives, as far as I know, but don’t you think that throwing around 450 knots is a bit misleading. (smile)
Flat-
1- If development is as far along as you claim (from my vantage not even close or in the requirements stage), I say deploy both..one until yours is operational. IMO, yours is more likely 2030-ish + from any type of IOC.
2- You don’t see the ASW threat because you think we can avoid it until your ‘vision’ could be in place. We’ve already wasted 15 years doing just that. From my vantage I say the threat is out there, it is real and if I’ve learned anything in my past 35 years association with Naval Aviation is it’ll come at you at the worst possible time. DDG based OTH UAV ASW ready in 2020? Again, you either must believe the glossies, or you work for the vendor or subsidiary…
3- IMO, we need a balance of both during a time of war. Never throw an old tool out of your toolbox I say, especially if it works. You may need it.
re your version of risk- There’s risk in procurement expressed in dollars and there is risk in war- (Belgrano) expressed in lives. A balance is what is needed. This Rummy-esque transformational talk of skipping generations of technology is what drives this discussion. I live in the now. I want defense now.
4- 360 kts is easy to maintain at 200′ for several hours at a time in the S-3. 450 is a dive, no doubt, like all fixed wing top ends as published. What we are talking about here is 7.5 miles a minute vs. 6 ? Duhhhhh. Should I mention that it can also fly around at max endurance at 180 kts with 2.5 g’s avalable and 60 degrees aob. That’s performance. That’s a performance envelope. That’s a design worthy of the mission an engineer or a test pilot can appreciate..and all from a CV.
And, OBTW, it’s still a helluva lot faster than a 1.8 mile per minute helo or even a 300Kt restricted P-3C at 240 kts and 4 miles a minute. No, the S-3 cannot hover but it gets pretty slow to deliver ASW torpedoes.
In essence, it’s perfectly designed for all it’s missions- yesterday, today or the future if so called upon.
re weapons- you really need to read about exactly what is on todays Viking below the top line from big Navy website:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1500&ct=1
I know all this is not going to convince you but you must understand that we have little or nothing viable for ASW today, 15 January 2008, and I say 15-20 years is a long time to wait to field what you think we need to buy.
Recommend we continue this, when or if, Lex brings up a related topic in the future. I hate having to painfully fat finger in these comments on page 2 of the blog, unread, where it’ll all be forgotten electrons as soon as I write it.
b2
Sounds good, and thanks for the link b2.
Disclaimer: I do not work in defense industry in any capacity, neither for the government nor any contractors. I am a retired Navy reservist.
I left active duty after my JO tour as an S-3 Mission Commander NFO with about 1000 hours/200 traps, nothing particularly special around here, but enough to understand ASW operations as practiced at its peak. As a reservist I had a couple of years in the P-3 and then later back to S-3 where I qualed in the S-3B before the plug was pulled. It was a pretty good run of continuous flight duty orders while it lasted. At this point I am pretty much an arm chair quarterback, but still at heart very much a Navy guy.