arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) (11/27/90)
From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) In article <1990Nov25.223324.14409@cbnews.att.com> writes: > > >From: uunet!sma2!fred (Fred Brooks) > > Why have a manned flight. If all you want is to drop supplies >a remote controlled helo or drone is the way to go. We have many devices >that can be guided over the embassy for a drop of goods. Some I would guess >have stealth features >-- >Defend your 2nd amendment rights. >Fred Brooks Portland Oregon >Life is too too short to live in California > didn't the US Navy have a remotely controlled ASW helo drone? i know that lots of older frigates still in commission have the small hangar designed for this drone (most have since been extended to support the manned ASW helos). as i understood it, the ASW drone was discontinued for "loss of control" problems. is this the full story, or was it a datalink limitation with the parent? or did the Navy find that a human "out there" was better? or was a helo that could carry more than torps more useful? -- arthur disclaimer: if i knew anything, why am i reading this newsgroup?
hmueller@wfsc4.tamu.edu (Hal Mueller) (11/29/90)
From: hmueller@wfsc4.tamu.edu (Hal Mueller) >didn't the US Navy have a remotely controlled ASW helo drone? i >know that lots of older frigates still in commission have the >small hangar designed for this drone (most have since been >extended to support the manned ASW helos). as i understood it, >the ASW drone was discontinued for "loss of control" problems. The system was called DASH--Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter. The BROOKE class FFG (originally DEG-1 through 6) was designed to carry two. They later operated with early versions of LAMPS (one LAMPS bird only). Since the BROOKE class was built on a GARCIA-class hull, it's plausible that the GARCIA class was originally meant to be a DASH platform as well. The GLOVER (a one-of-a-kind FF) was designed to carry one, and her JP-5 (jet fuel) system was designed to fuel only one; when I was aboard her I was told that that's the reason they weren't certified for in-flight refueling. GLOVER's flight deck was too small for any manned helo in service. I remember hearing, though I can't remember the source, that DASH's primary failing was that the operators liked to run the helos at the edge of their control range. When they flew out of range, they lost control. I've also seen a film of a DASH politely keeping station 100 yards abeam of the control ship and refusing all orders. -- Hal Mueller Remember that the only thing the USAF and USN have hmueller@wfsc4.tamu.edu ever agreed on is that the Army shouldn't have n270ca@tamunix.Bitnet fixed-wing aircraft. --Mary Shafer
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) (11/29/90)
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (jeffrey schweiger) In article <1990Nov27.043636.1845@cbnews.att.com> arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) writes: |didn't the US Navy have a remotely controlled ASW helo drone? i |know that lots of older frigates still in commission have the |small hangar designed for this drone (most have since been |extended to support the manned ASW helos). as i understood it, |the ASW drone was discontinued for "loss of control" problems. |is this the full story, or was it a datalink limitation with |the parent? or did the Navy find that a human "out there" |was better? or was a helo that could carry more than torps |more useful? The helicopter involved was the QH-50 DASH (Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter) built by Gyrodyne. They entered service in 1963 with over 300 built. It had a weapons load potential of two homing torpedoes. I don't have the details on why they were phased out. -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
aoki@hermes.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) (11/29/90)
From: aoki@hermes.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) >From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) >didn't the US Navy have a remotely controlled ASW helo drone? i >know that lots of older frigates still in commission have the >small hangar designed for this drone (most have since been >extended to support the manned ASW helos). as i understood it, >the ASW drone was discontinued for "loss of control" problems. >is this the full story, or was it a datalink limitation with >the parent? or did the Navy find that a human "out there" >was better? or was a helo that could carry more than torps >more useful? Some of the anecdotal problems with (sea stories about) DASH, the Drone ASw Helicopter, were: - The control freq(s) overlapped with certain US Navy radar freqs. - It carried two torpedos but tipped over when it carried one (with obvious and catastrophic results). - It was very difficult to control and recover. You can get a laugh out of a few old salts when you mention DASH.. The DASH ships still in the fleet have been refitted to support LAMPS Mk I (Kaman SH-2). -- Paul M. Aoki | aoki@postgres.Berkeley.EDU | ...!ucbvax!aoki