One can buy at commercial prices a drone that can lift 55 lbs and fly for 12 hours. (see https://www.jouav.com/products/cw-100.html and others). Could not one attach a sonobouy to this on a line, and fly it around under the direction of the asw commander?

I understand that it has no weapons, and could only be used to cue a real ASW asset. But detection is the hard part of ASW!

An SH60 costs something like $9000 / hour to fly. You could operate a drone at 1/100th the cost.

Is there any value in a thing like this? And is it being done?

I'm aware of the MQ-8C, which is a drone based on a real helicopter, and drops sonobouys. That has an operating cost much much more than what I imagine. (https://news.usni.org/2021/02/16/northr ... w-missions)

I'm also aware of the MQ-9C, which again drops litters the ocean floor with droped sonobouys, is tied to land, and again has a much higher operating cost. (https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unman ... -submarine)

When you understand how sonobuoys work~ well.......




StudeDave
USN (retired)

studedave wrote:

When you understand how sonobuoys work~ well.......




StudeDave
USN (retired)

I'm listening. It's OK if this is a dumb idea, but it might be helpful if you explain how.

kitplane01 wrote:

studedave wrote:

When you understand how sonobuoys work~ well.......




StudeDave
USN (retired)

I'm listening. It's OK if this is a dumb idea, but it might be helpful if you explain how.

I’m no sub driver, or sub finder , but I have read enough to have some idea about why this isn’t a good idea. When you’re prosecuting a contact, you don’t need one or two buoys, you might go through a dozen, possibly of mixed types. You need them quickly, so if you have to go back and get a new one every few minutes, the other guy is gonna disappear on you. Time in this situation is keeping you from getting blown up, so speed is critical. If your theoretical quad could carry several bouys, you might have something, especially for smaller boats that can’t launch a helo. But then you could just stick to a battle group with someone who can.

Given that detection is the hard part it seems to me having more platforms would be key so while this specific platform may not work the concept seems it has some merit.

After all look what the navy is doing w autonomous vessels.

The LAMPs helo is more than just a sonobuoy carrier. There is a lot of capability in the helo that a drone can’t replace.

The helo does and can do limited sonobuoy data processing independent of the ship. But the helo does offload the processing to the ship since the computer processing capabilities of the ship exceed the abilities of the helo…. modern gaming computers exceed the capabilities of the computers installed on the ships and helos, these days probably. So maybe give the drone sonobuoy processing capability? So maybe upgrading the computers using modern computers might alleviating the computing processing crunch limitation .?

the helo also serves as a MAD detector, surface search radar platform, an ES platform, a SSC platform. So there a lot of things we’ll be asking this drone, being a helo replacement to do.

Can it be done in the 55lb payload of this drone? A sonobuoy weighs around 12-20 lbs. so you’re carrying 2-3 sonobuoys tops? When I’m expending 20-30 sonobuoys while prosecuting a contact?

While I’ve always wished we could have two helos the ship was designed for, we never ever deployed with two helos, we only ever had one, with the other helo hangar converted into a gym.

Having drones that could duplicate the capabilities of the helo, would be a desirable asset. But when you start packing more and more sensors into a drone to make it as capable of the helo it’s replacing, does the drone increase in size to the point where it’s almost as big as a helo?

Maybe we are thinking this wrong. If you have a ship, using quadcooter drone to extend your sonar search may not be the optimal solution.

The quadcopter has speed but limited payload. A few subsurface drones with onboard sonar passive/active capability with peristant remote operation capability may be a better solution.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Maybe we are thinking this wrong. If you have a ship, using quadcooter drone to extend your sonar search may not be the optimal solution.

The quadcopter has speed but limited payload. A few subsurface drones with onboard sonar passive/active capability with peristant remote operation capability may be a better solution.

bt

How will the surface ship communicate with the subsurface drone?

AFineUsername wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

studedave wrote:

When you understand how sonobuoys work~ well.......




StudeDave
USN (retired)

I'm listening. It's OK if this is a dumb idea, but it might be helpful if you explain how.

I’m no sub driver, or sub finder , but I have read enough to have some idea about why this isn’t a good idea. When you’re prosecuting a contact, you don’t need one or two buoys, you might go through a dozen, possibly of mixed types. You need them quickly, so if you have to go back and get a new one every few minutes, the other guy is gonna disappear on you. Time in this situation is keeping you from getting blown up, so speed is critical. If your theoretical quad could carry several bouys, you might have something, especially for smaller boats that can’t launch a helo. But then you could just stick to a battle group with someone who can.

Two thoughts

1) The drone might be used just to keep the forward or most vulnerable quarter clear. Fly it ahead, have it dunk in a bunch of spots guided by an autopilot, and if anything interesting is detected alert a human to do a better analysis and possible call for a real helicopter to solve the problem. This is better than an MH-60 because that costs $8000/hour so you cannot cannot keep it in the air 24 hours per day, week after week.

2) If you do get a contact, one could drop a dozen sonobouys. Or one could drop some number of sonobouys AND have a moveable set of sonobouys carried by drones. Surely a drone carried moveable sononbouy has some value, even if it doesn't solve the whole problem?

kitplane01 wrote:

How will the surface ship communicate with the subsurface drone?

Antenatal mast? Or trailing antena cable?

It's being testing out.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unman ... gendurance

This model is designed for long endurance and is slow. But you can envision a shorter endurance, smaller model with faster speed which can patrol around the vicinity of the ship and have 2-3 days endurance.
It can be the size of a small torpedo, helo, or rocket deployable and retrievable.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

AFineUsername wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I'm listening. It's OK if this is a dumb idea, but it might be helpful if you explain how.

I’m no sub driver, or sub finder , but I have read enough to have some idea about why this isn’t a good idea. When you’re prosecuting a contact, you don’t need one or two buoys, you might go through a dozen, possibly of mixed types. You need them quickly, so if you have to go back and get a new one every few minutes, the other guy is gonna disappear on you. Time in this situation is keeping you from getting blown up, so speed is critical. If your theoretical quad could carry several bouys, you might have something, especially for smaller boats that can’t launch a helo. But then you could just stick to a battle group with someone who can.

Two thoughts

1) The drone might be used just to keep the forward or most vulnerable quarter clear. Fly it ahead, have it dunk in a bunch of spots guided by an autopilot, and if anything interesting is detected alert a human to do a better analysis and possible call for a real helicopter to solve the problem. This is better than an MH-60 because that costs $8000/hour so you cannot cannot keep it in the air 24 hours per day, week after week.

2) If you do get a contact, one could drop a dozen sonobouys. Or one could drop some number of sonobouys AND have a moveable set of sonobouys carried by drones. Surely a drone carried moveable sononbouy has some value, even if it doesn't solve the whole problem?

First, cost in the military sense is not as much of a concern. You manage costs in areas that are easy to allow looser strings in areas that are not. Think of the military in a business sense never makes any.

Second, a sonobuoy on a string that can be moved around is a great idea. It’s called a dipping sonar and it’s already deployed.

The quadcopter payload need not be limited to 55 lbs.

The Malloy TRV-400 carries 400 lbs
https://www.malloyaeronautics.com/t400.html

The Kaman Kargo is designed for 800 lbs
https://kaman.com/brands/kaman-air-vehicles/kargo/

AFineUsername wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

AFineUsername wrote:

I’m no sub driver, or sub finder , but I have read enough to have some idea about why this isn’t a good idea. When you’re prosecuting a contact, you don’t need one or two buoys, you might go through a dozen, possibly of mixed types. You need them quickly, so if you have to go back and get a new one every few minutes, the other guy is gonna disappear on you. Time in this situation is keeping you from getting blown up, so speed is critical. If your theoretical quad could carry several bouys, you might have something, especially for smaller boats that can’t launch a helo. But then you could just stick to a battle group with someone who can.

Two thoughts

1) The drone might be used just to keep the forward or most vulnerable quarter clear. Fly it ahead, have it dunk in a bunch of spots guided by an autopilot, and if anything interesting is detected alert a human to do a better analysis and possible call for a real helicopter to solve the problem. This is better than an MH-60 because that costs $8000/hour so you cannot cannot keep it in the air 24 hours per day, week after week.

2) If you do get a contact, one could drop a dozen sonobouys. Or one could drop some number of sonobouys AND have a moveable set of sonobouys carried by drones. Surely a drone carried moveable sononbouy has some value, even if it doesn't solve the whole problem?

First, cost in the military sense is not as much of a concern. You manage costs in areas that are easy to allow looser strings in areas that are not. Think of the military in a business sense never makes any.

Second, a sonobuoy on a string that can be moved around is a great idea. It’s called a dipping sonar and it’s already deployed.

I am arguing a dipping sonar attached to a large quad copter that costs $80 per hour to fly might sometimes be helpful. A dipping sonar attached to a helicopter cost $8000 an hour to fly

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

How will the surface ship communicate with the subsurface drone?

Antenatal mast? Or trailing antena cable?

It's being testing out.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unman ... gendurance

This model is designed for long endurance and is slow. But you can envision a shorter endurance, smaller model with faster speed which can patrol around the vicinity of the ship and have 2-3 days endurance.
It can be the size of a small torpedo, helo, or rocket deployable and retrievable.

bt

I’m super not against this. But they’re spending $11 million on studies, whereas a large quad copter might cost $50,000 to purchase.

kitplane01 wrote:

, whereas a large quad copter might cost $50,000 to purchase.

$50,000 won't get you the electronic box that drives the dipping sonar let alone the dipping sonar itself. Then you have to start thinking about the power generation the the sonar and the deployment mechanism for the dipping sonar require, you soon get into the realm of a small UAV helo which would probably be more efficient in terms of flying time than a quad copter.

So if you are to take advantage of the low cost of the quad copter to the point where it is expendable, then you need to make the sensor cheap enough to be expendable itself. If the sonar becomes expendable, then a more efficient deployment vehicle would be a winged UAV that can be vertical/catapult launched and captured like a Scan Eagle or similar.

bt

How many of these quadcopters would a ship need to make them a useful addition to an ASW helicopter?

What kind of winds and wave heighrs would these quadcopters be able to operate in?

As calling off a sub hunt with a quadcopter because it can't fly in a (say) 10 knot wind would be a no-go!

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

, whereas a large quad copter might cost $50,000 to purchase.

$50,000 won't get you the electronic box that drives the dipping sonar let alone the dipping sonar itself. Then you have to start thinking about the power generation the the sonar and the deployment mechanism for the dipping sonar require, you soon get into the realm of a small UAV helo which would probably be more efficient in terms of flying time than a quad copter.

So if you are to take advantage of the low cost of the quad copter to the point where it is expendable, then you need to make the sensor cheap enough to be expendable itself. If the sonar becomes expendable, then a more efficient deployment vehicle would be a winged UAV that can be vertical/catapult launched and captured like a Scan Eagle or similar.

bt

$50,000 will get me a sonar bouy and a quad copter to fly it around. I'd lose the sonar bouys battery and power it down the cable running from the quad copter. This might not be quite right (maybe the sonorbouy is built cheap and cannot be reused too much) but I'm in the neighborhood.

An MH060 is $45M and $8000/hour so if my $50,000 for the quadcopter and sonarbouy is not quite right it doesn't change the argument.

Advantages of the quadcopter-bouy compared to a helicopter
1) Can operate from ships to small to fly a real helicopter
2) Can be on alert much quicker than a helicopter
3) Costs maybe 1/100 or 1/50 of a helicopter

Advantages of a quadcopter-bouy over a stationary sonar-bouy
1) Can move to the best spot to learn the most
2) Doesn't litter the ocean floor

Even if there are only some times that a quadcopter-bouy is the best solution, it's so cheap and the alternatives are so expensive that it might be worth it

Do we know if any navy has tried something like this?

ReverseFlow wrote:

What kind of winds and wave heighrs would these quadcopters be able to operate in?

As calling off a sub hunt with a quadcopter because it can't fly in a (say) 10 knot wind would be a no-go!

I'm thinking of this as an addition to the toolbox. I'm not saying we should remove any asw-helicopters. So if it's bad ... you are back where you were.

A quadcopter can fly 60 knots (I'm guessing) but I doubt it could land in such winds.

Wave height need not matter. You're hovering well above the waves.

kitplane01 wrote:

(maybe the sonorbouy is built cheap and cannot be reused too much) but I'm in the neighborhood.

A commercial sonar will definitely be cheap. A military grade sonar is definitely not. Perun can probably explore that better than I.

kitplane01 wrote:

1) Can operate from ships to small to fly a real helicopter

Not talking about a real helo. I'm thinking a UAV helo the size of a small compact car. Although I admit the technology is yet to be developed.

https://www.flightglobal.com/phantom-wo ... 74.article

bt

A small drone could easily carry say 1 to 4 standard sono bouys plus an arrangement that could deploy the bouy as a dipping bouy then drop it later. The bouys are standardized, have amazing good sonar units, batteries, communications etc and would cost far less to use a standard vs a custom unit. Akin to drones dropping small mortar shells as their bomb, it works and they are available.

There is a big difference between detection and tracking, US nuclear subs have a huge sonar array in the bow, but their most sensitive is the towed array sonar. The computing power of these is flat huge, someone above noted some gaming computers have more. It would be the rare gamer that has even 1/10 of that. The attack center trainer server room draws over 100 kW, and needs 60 tons of cooling. One rack has over a dozen of IBM's best blade servers that cost over $ 100K each. How good are they, they don't say. I've heard rumor that the sonar man qualifications require recognizing a male verses female dolphin at 20 miles. It's quite real, the sailors walk out drenched in sweat with the room 68F.

That is the detection work, sono bouys are for the chase, passive systems get what the sound is and the direction, but rarely any distance information. They must go active to get that, but it takes 5 or 6 bouys to accurately spot, locate, and identify the target before pursuing the attack.

Drone submarines (ROV's) that can cruise underwater ahead of the Carrier Group, probably 5 in a V 50 miles in front to 10 miles off to each side with a duration at cruise speed for a week. The tender for these would have an arrangement similar to what is on the USS Carter for its ROV's to enter via chamber with storage for six subs, so one is in charging ready to replace the next one. It would be great if each of these ROV's had a cluster of small drones to investigate any contacts. Not sure how its done but it is certain that there is good communication between the ROV's and their mother ships.

The Malloy drones first sent by the UK to Ukraine in May, for logistics support, might have other applications. The Ukrainians have been adapting far less sophisticated ones for weapons delivery, while I doubt they'll be going after Kilo class subs in the Black Sea with sonar buoys, if they are carrying Brimstone, it could be used in that maritime role;
https://eurasiantimes.com/challenge-for ... -can-fire/

Drones may have a real benefit for littoral ASW. An SH-60 might have to operate within MANPADS range of shore. Sending a smaller-target drone to drop that part of the sonobuoy pattern could preserve the expensive, high-capability helo and its crew.

I think this is the drone you are looking for:
https://umsskeldar.aero/
Is developed close to where I live and I almost applied for a job once there...

JayinKitsap wrote:

Drone submarines (ROV's) that can cruise underwater ahead of the Carrier Group, probably 5 in a V 50 miles in front to 10 miles off to each side with a duration at cruise speed for a week. The tender for these would have an arrangement similar to what is on the USS Carter for its ROV's to enter via chamber with storage for six subs, so one is in charging ready to replace the next one. It would be great if each of these ROV's had a cluster of small drones to investigate any contacts. Not sure how its done but it is certain that there is good communication between the ROV's and their mother ships.

I note that a full sized electric sub could never cruise under water for a week at fleet speed. Probably not even a day. So unless you want to tube to the surface to bring in air (and communication) I don't think that works. Nor do I think you can make a light weight, flexible, hollow tube that works at depth. Think of the pressure.

rheinwaldner wrote:

I think this is the drone you are looking for:
https://umsskeldar.aero/
Is developed close to where I live and I almost applied for a job once there...

Fits in 1m x 1m x 4m box. Has a five hour endurance. Runs on jet fuel. Already in production.

Yep, that works.

kitplane01 wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Drone submarines (ROV's) that can cruise underwater ahead of the Carrier Group, probably 5 in a V 50 miles in front to 10 miles off to each side with a duration at cruise speed for a week. The tender for these would have an arrangement similar to what is on the USS Carter for its ROV's to enter via chamber with storage for six subs, so one is in charging ready to replace the next one. It would be great if each of these ROV's had a cluster of small drones to investigate any contacts. Not sure how its done but it is certain that there is good communication between the ROV's and their mother ships.

I note that a full sized electric sub could never cruise under water for a week at fleet speed. Probably not even a day. So unless you want to tube to the surface to bring in air (and communication) I don't think that works. Nor do I think you can make a light weight, flexible, hollow tube that works at depth. Think of the pressure.

A slender snorkel as well as an antennae cluster plus possibly cameras would probably work fine. To be quiet enough to effectively use a towed array as well as the bow dome it needs to be a rather clean cylinder with minimal surface exposure. Even then the flow noise will be difficult to overcome. Current subs once surfaced and at fleet speed retract the towed array, still use the dome but far less effective. Communication in air is far easier than in water, having the exposed snorkel and antennae would make good sense in this case.

I did not ever say it was light weight or flexible. A design depth of 1,000 feet has a hull pressure of 433 PSI. An 8 foot diameter cylinder would need a 1" hull of HY80 steel. The USN already have ROV's that operate out of the existing Trident missile tubes. I agree subs being electric battery have the same charge life as electric airplanes, it is very hard to store that quantity of energy yet in batteries. At least in the water the weight is far less an issue.

I guess what we are talking about is just the next step from this.
https://dronedj.com/2022/12/28/us-navy- ... rom-ships/

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

One can buy at commercial prices a drone that can lift 55 lbs and fly for 12 hours. (see https://www.jouav.com/products/cw-100.html and others). Could not one attach a sonobouy to this on a line, and fly it around under the direction of the asw commander?

I understand that it has no weapons, and could only be used to cue a real ASW asset. But detection is the hard part of ASW!

An SH60 costs something like $9000 / hour to fly. You could operate a drone at 1/100th the cost.

Is there any value in a thing like this? And is it being done?

I'm aware of the MQ-8C, which is a drone based on a real helicopter, and drops sonobouys. That has an operating cost much much more than what I imagine. (https://news.usni.org/2021/02/16/northr ... w-missions)

I'm also aware of the MQ-9C, which again drops litters the ocean floor with droped sonobouys, is tied to land, and again has a much higher operating cost. (https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unman ... -submarine)

I have no clue about sonobouys. Years ago I was sonar operator and not only was detection difficult but accurate identification also. I presume this has improved although still difficult. Will be interesting to see if airborne drones have a role to play in future ASW scenarios.

would you be talking about a shallow LOFAR bouy a DIFAR bouy or a deep DIFAR bouy? many times a helicopter is used to localize a contact already known in the area.by other means like the SOSUS arrays when I was in the navy we would get assigned to harass a Russian BOOMER in an area 200 miles west of the Faralon islands. We knew the subs by name. Designation and Blade rate. Once we even call the soviet embassy and told them their sub had a failing main cooling turbine bearing on their reactor. they cursed us out but later in the week the USCG rolled out on them while they were under tow of one of their Ocean going TUG Boats. Gotta admit. the soviet navy Had some TOP Notch tug boats! on the order of Crowley Marine..

strfyr51 wrote:

would you be talking about a shallow LOFAR bouy a DIFAR bouy or a deep DIFAR bouy? many times a helicopter is used to localize a contact already known in the area.by other means like the SOSUS arrays when I was in the navy we would get assigned to harass a Russian BOOMER in an area 200 miles west of the Faralon islands. We knew the subs by name. Designation and Blade rate. Once we even call the soviet embassy and told them their sub had a failing main cooling turbine bearing on their reactor. they cursed us out but later in the week the USCG rolled out on them while they were under tow of one of their Ocean going TUG Boats. Gotta admit. the soviet navy Had some TOP Notch tug boats! on the order of Crowley Marine..

I dunno. What would you suggest? And cannot one pick and chose as the moment requires?

There is a difference between sonobuoys and a dipping sonar. Sonobuoys are not all the same. All sonobuoy types are needed depending on what you’re trying to do.

I can see value in a drone that carries 30-50 sonobuoys that can go out and seed my sonobuoy field and then loiter to relay the sonobuoy data back to the mother ship for processing. I’d love to have that capability. I already have a 737 that goes out and can drop a lot of sonobuoys for me, but having more sonobuoys never hurts. I don’t remember helos dropping XBTs, but having the ability to drop XBTs would be good.

The dipping sonar I’d rather have on a helo, where the helo has a sensor operator that can work the dipping sonar instead of tying up my ASTAC on the ship with the details of operating the dipping sonar.

Id also like to have a drone that can go out and seed my chaff clouds…. Instead of carrying sonobuoys it carries the different seduction and distraction chaff canisters. Maybe the drone can do either. Chaff launchers are great, but when it’s time to launch chaff there aren’t enough launchers to go around, or I need to take time to turn the ship to point them in the right direction… having drones to send out to put out my chaff clouds and also be able to reseed the chaff cloud pattern that I’m trying to achieve would be great…

If it can also carry a ES gear set that would be an ideal drone…. XBT/Sonobuoy/chaff dispenser, hawk and jtids data relay, and ES sensor set. Maybe a jammer to force certain missiles to switch from terminal weave to terminal sprint so that after my attempts at soft kill fail, it gives me a tiny chance for hard kill. I’d be happy to have two to four drones that had that capability in addition to the 2 helos and 737 MPA.

After rereading the thread, a sonobuoy is not the same thing as a dipping sonar. And it appears you’re using the terms interchangeably. But are asking whether a quadcopter can carry a dipping sonar at less cost than a helo.

Sonobuoys are expendable, one time use items, that contain their own battery. You can’t replace sonobuoys with a dipping sonar, and while you can use a dipping sonar to act as a sonobuoy, it’s a waste of a sonar to use it as one.

A dipping sonar is something different and is used to confirm something you’ve already developed from the sonobuoys.

Putting a dipping sonar on a quadcopter you still need an operator to work the dipping sonar. Since that person is not on a quadcopter, you’d need to put that dipping sonar operator somewhere.

It’ll continue the trend that as technology has advanced, the CIC that was designed in the 1990s they keep bolting more adhoc consoles in to CIC to keep up with all this tech that’s developed over the last 30 years and you’ve already run out of space to cram more consoles and people. We had to add a sailor seated at a computer strapped down to a table next to the TAO just to monitor the six million Microsoft chat rooms that we didn’t have time to monitor but got added... The sailor would read every new messge would come in the many group chats that we were now required to monitor, and if I had to respond or make a report in the group chat, dictate what to type in chat and which chat.

Woodreau wrote:

After rereading the thread, a sonobuoy is not the same thing as a dipping sonar. And it appears you’re using the terms interchangeably. But are asking whether a quadcopter can carry a dipping sonar at less cost than a helo.

Sonobuoys are expendable, one time use items, that contain their own battery. You can’t replace sonobuoys with a dipping sonar, and while you can use a dipping sonar to act as a sonobuoy, it’s a waste of a sonar to use it as one.

A dipping sonar is something different and is used to confirm something you’ve already developed from the sonobuoys.

Putting a dipping sonar on a quadcopter you still need an operator to work the dipping sonar. Since that person is not on a quadcopter, you’d need to put that dipping sonar operator somewhere.

It’ll continue the trend that as technology has advanced, the CIC that was designed in the 1990s they keep bolting more adhoc consoles in to CIC to keep up with all this tech that’s developed over the last 30 years and you’ve already run out of space to cram more consoles and people. We had to add a sailor seated at a computer strapped down to a table next to the TAO just to monitor the six million Microsoft chat rooms that we didn’t have time to monitor but got added... The sailor would read every new messge would come in the many group chats that we were now required to monitor, and if I had to respond or make a report in the group chat, dictate what to type in chat and which chat.

Maybe you can educate me.

I understood a dipping sonar to be rather similar to a sonobouy, except tht it was powered by the cable and made rather less one-use. But why does a dipping sonar require more operator attention than a sonobouy?

Could one not have the quad copter just hold the dipping sonar in one place for a half hour, and the operator treat it as a sonobouy that he can move if he wants but does not have to move if it's in the right place. Just returning the sonar to the ship when done saves something like $10,000 or so.

Could one not have a dipping sonar attached to a quad copter, and have it fly around some preprogrammed or random pattern, and alert the operator only when it found something worth human attention?

A dipping sonar is nothing like a sonobuoy. - there is nothing “disposable” about a dipping sonar. The sonar transducer that’s “dipped” in the water weighs a few hundred pounds. it does “everything” active, passive, etc.

Sonobuoys are a onetime use expendable with a limited lifespan. They’re specialized for a specific purpose and only perform a limited subset of the functions of a sonar. There are passive sonobuoys (DIFAR, LOFAR), active sonobuoys (DICASS, VLAD), and a few other types. They dont weigh any more than 35lbs maybe. While the number of sonobuoys you can have in operation is limited to the number of processing channels in your signal processor, you’ll have more sonobuoys available than dipping sonars.. A dipping sonar is a much more limited resource, because there just aren’t very many of them.

Sonobuoys aren’t anywhere as good as a dipping sonar. They’re just good enough to do what they need to do.

Maybe putting a sonar on a quadcopter makes it a less scarce resource. Having more sonars available would be great.

Cost is the last thing on our mind. If you lose a dipping sonar, it’ll cost way more than $10000. A dipping sonar is not something you’d “jettison” when youre done. Losing a dipping sonar transducer would be akin to losing a helo.

kitplane01 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

would you be talking about a shallow LOFAR bouy a DIFAR bouy or a deep DIFAR bouy? many times a helicopter is used to localize a contact already known in the area.by other means like the SOSUS arrays when I was in the navy we would get assigned to harass a Russian BOOMER in an area 200 miles west of the Faralon islands. We knew the subs by name. Designation and Blade rate. Once we even call the soviet embassy and told them their sub had a failing main cooling turbine bearing on their reactor. they cursed us out but later in the week the USCG rolled out on them while they were under tow of one of their Ocean going TUG Boats. Gotta admit. the soviet navy Had some TOP Notch tug boats! on the order of Crowley Marine..

nno. What would you suggest? And cannot one pick and chose as the moment requires?

Bouys for the Navy
For a Drone? A Difar bouy might be best as it can gage distance and blade rate. A deep Difar bouy cannot be dipped nor recoverered but I'm sure the newer bouys can do much more than my 1977 era knowledge of them Vast Corp. up in Brunswick Maine probably still tests and builds bouys for the Navy