johne%hpvcfs1 (John Eaton) (05/12/89)
From: John Eaton <johne%hpvcfs1> A recent poster asked about replacing ASROC's with a non-nuclear rocket launched weapon. The Navy used to have DASH which stood for "Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter". It was a ship launched robot that could carry two torpedoes out and drop them away from the ship and hopefully on top of an approaching sub. The torpedoes were attached to the ends of a center pivoted bar so that after the first one dropped the other would swing down in line with the copter's center of gravity. That assumes of course that someone had remembered to remove the locking pin that held the bar rigid during loading. Otherwise the copter and remaining torpedoe would find a new center of gravity that was not very conducive to remaining airborne. Takeoff's consisted of starting it up and giving it an order to fly at the same speed and course as the ship until it could be vectored away. If the OSC (own ships course) signal from the gyros was not working then there was a risk that it would take off very quickly in a randon direction. Not the time to be on the flight deck. John Eaton !hpvcfs1!johne
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (05/13/89)
From: Jan Wolitzky (mhuxd!wolit) From: nuucp > The Navy used to have DASH which stood for "Drone > Anti-Submarine Helicopter". It was a ship launched robot that could carry > two torpedoes out and drop them away from the ship and hopefully on top > of an approaching sub. Readers in the NY area can see one of these (or something that, from the description, is the same idea) at the Cradle of Aviation Museum at Mitchell Field, in Uniondale, in the shadow of the Nassau Coliseum. The museum specializes in aviation and space artifacts that were manufactured on, or bear some other relationship to, Long Island, NY. Lots of Grumman and Republic warplanes, missiles, spacecraft, early planes, etc. Was the DASH ever operational? The one I saw looked pretty flaky. ----- Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/15/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>Was the DASH ever operational? The one I saw looked pretty flaky.
It depends on whether you mean "officially operational" or "operationally
useful in a realistic sense"! :-) The idea was okay but the technology
was not up to making it reliable.
Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.educharette@eds.com (Mark A. Charette) (05/18/89)
From: charette@eds.com (Mark A. Charette) > From: Jan Wolitzky (mhuxd!wolit) > > Was the DASH ever operational? The one I saw looked pretty flaky. On a tin can I was stationed on (DD-786, USS Richard B. Anderson) years back we had DASH. If you mean by operational that it took off in some direction, I guess it was operational. If you mean by flaky that it took off in a random direction, I guess it was flaky. I still have fond memories of the DASH heading over the horizon, towards a beautiful sunset, never to be heard from or seen again ;^) Mark Charette "People only like me when I'm dumb!", he said. Electronic Data Systems "I like you a lot." was the reply. 750 Tower Drive Voice: (313)265-7006 FAX: (313)265-5770 Troy, MI 48007-7019 charette@edsews.eds.com uunet!edsews!charette -- Mark Charette "People only like me when I'm dumb!", he said. Electronic Data Systems "I like you a lot." was the reply. 750 Tower Drive Voice: (313)265-7006 FAX: (313)265-5770 Troy, MI 48007-7019 charette@edsews.eds.com uunet!edsews!charette
dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) (05/20/89)
From: dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) : > The Navy used to have DASH which stood for "Drone : > Anti-Submarine Helicopter". It was a ship launched robot that could carry : > two torpedoes out and drop them away from the ship and hopefully on top : > of an approaching sub. : : Readers in the NY area can see one of these ....... There is also one at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.
wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) (05/19/91)
From: wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) I am looking for information about the DASH(Drone AntiSUb Helicopter) program. Iam was what the main motivation for its cancellation, awhy the JMSDF use after it was cancelled in the USN? Also were the performence specs for the DASH, similar to Seaprite or lesser/greater? Thanks in advance Alex Klaus <wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca>
cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) (05/21/91)
From: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) > From: wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) > I am looking for information about the DASH(Drone AntiSUb Helicopter) > program. As I recall it was never as controllable as was desired. Judging by its looks, I'd say that it was quite a bit LESS capable than a Seasprite. It seems more along the lines of a Hughes light training helicopter. The last I heard the survivors were bein used as target drones, in the defunct Sgt. York program, I believe. -- Christopher Morton {uunet|backbone}!ncoast.org!cmort cmort@ncoast.org "These opinions are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!"
anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) (05/23/91)
From: anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) wcsswag@ccs.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) writes: >I am looking for information about the DASH(Drone AntiSUb Helicopter) Norman Friedman has a good discussion about DASH in his NAVAL WEAPONS book. DASH was designed solely to transport one or two lightweight torpedos (Mk44's) out to convergence zone ranges. There were some design problems, such as lack of control feedback to the operator which made landings difficult, especially in rough weather. Load carrying capacity was unacceptable in very hot weather. And it required deck and hangar stowage nearly as great as for a "real" helicopter. DASH had an operational lifetime of roughly 150 hours. This would be quite enough for wartime operations, but was unacceptable for use in a peacetime training environment. None of the above faults were showstoppers. However, as NF points out, the programmatics of the vehicle doomed it to failure. DASH itself was designed and produced under BuAer (now NavAirSysCom), while it was required to function entirely in a BuShips (NavSea) environment. Never the twain shall meet! DASH was a single purpose platform, and can't really be compared with a true helicopter. By the way, Norman Friedman is coming out with a book on the Gulf War in August, to be called DESERT VICTORY. Copies can be reserved by calling the Naval Institute Press at 800-233-8764. It cost $21.95 HB, $14.95 (paper). Based on his previous work, I expect this to be an excellent treatment. Rod Anderson |Environmental Research Institute of Michigan Email: anderson@osl475a.erim.org | Voice/voicemail: 313-994-1200 x2725 randerson@vaxb.erim.org | Fax: 313-994-0944/3890
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (05/27/91)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) According to some Navy helo pilots at GTMO some years ago, the DASH had a multitude of technical problems: - They tended to fly off and never come back when the control link failed. - The pilot had to maintain visual contact with the drone - You still had to have an air crew to maintain the mechanical and electronic systems - Lots of down time - Landing was a thrill for all concerned. - The "pilots" weren't always the best, and generally hated the assignments. - they were hard to fly and there were many crashes. The above adds up to only marginal cost effectiveness. Plus the political problem: Navy aviation types didn't like the system because it brought into question, if only indirectly, the need for carriers, pilots, and more aircraft. One (apocryphal?) story is of a destroyer CO who wanted to go for a ride on the DASH. The crew rigged a sling where the torpedo normally went, and went up, under remote control. During the flight, there was a mishap ... total loss. (The paperwork must have been fun.)