Advanced Tactical Support Aircraft (ATSA) US Navy

dauby09

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
10 June 2024
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Late 80s (88-90) US Navy Program to replace the E-3C, S-3B and EA-6B carrier-based AEW, ASW and EW aircraft. I believe it evolved into the E-X program to replace the E-2, this is why i’m attaching the image of the Boeing E-X proposal, which is seen here in ASW markings. (VS-24 scouts was an S-3 viking squadron). That seems to have the same advanced antenna arrays as proposed for ATSA.

The plan at some point (around 1990) seems to have been for the future air wing to feature 3 fixed wing aircraft : an air superiority fighter with F-14 or NATF ; a strike/attack jet with the A-12 Avenger II from the ATA program ; and ATSA. This leaves room for COD and SIGINT, which could have been incorporated into ATSA. Furthermore ATSA could have been merged with ATA (the A-12 program) with a stretched A-12 for more crew.

I have found little more information.
are all i’ve found so far.

Here is a relevant extract :
It was reported in September that the U. S. Defense Resources Board had approved development of a new Advanced Tactical Support Aircraft (ATSA), to replace the EA-6B electronic warfare, S-3 antisubmarine, and E-2C airborne early warning aircraft. In theory, then, the future carrier air wing might consist of only three types of fixed-wing aircraft: fighters (either F-14 or Advanced Tactical Fighter [ATF]), strike (Advanced Tactical Aircraft [ATA]), and ATSA. The ATSA likely would shift missions more by changing software than by changing internal configuration. It would employ “smart skin” antennas capable of operating over a very broad frequency range, and very-high-capacity, general- purpose computers. In its E-2C mode, an ATSA might use conformal antennas along the leading edges of its wings and around its nose. The same antennas might perform surface search and inverse synthetic aperture radar ship identification when the aircraft was in its S-3 mode. Some of them would be used to monitor sonobuoys. In the EA-6B mode, the same antennas would be used to transmit jamming signals.

The great appeal of the ATSA is that it would drastically reduce the range of spare parts and maintenance equipment required to be carried on board a carrier. Moreover, it would allow the carrier air wing to be tailored instantly to changing conditions. For example, of three carriers operating together, one might function as an antiair warfare (AAW) ship, one as an ASW ship, and one as a strike carrier. If the ATSA were fully flexible, then the ATSAs on board the AAW ship would function as E-2Cs and EA-6Bs; those on board the strike ship would be EA-6B escort jammers; and those on board the ASW ship would function as S-3s do now. Carriers currently accommodate about five E-2Cs, five EA-6Bs, and ten S-3s, an overhead that cuts into their strike complements. In theory, then, a truly flexible ATSA could drastically reduce this overhead and increase striking power.

There are, of course, some important caveats. The ideal ATSA would serve for all three missions, changing only its software (i.e., changing on board the carrier). This might be extended to adding some underwing pods, as in the case of a jammer. The next best thing would be a common airframe, which would cut acquisition costs without adding the sort of operational flexibility suggested here.

Some earlier projects suggest that these goals are not as farfetched as they may appear. In about 1960, Grumman proposed an electronic warfare conversion of the A-6 Intruder, in which jamming pods would be hung from the underwing hard points and new avionics essentially snapped in, replacing the standard cockpit panels. Some special antennas (particularly the tail crown) were still needed, but the proposal was a true dual-purpose aircraft. It failed because electronic warfare required two more operators and a big computer. But computer power is now more easily packaged than in 1960, and both of the alternative ATSA missions need extra crewmen. They presumably would be supplied with general- purpose displays that could function as electronic warfare terminals-

Similarly, during the 1970s the A-6E was proposed for ASW use, carrying sonobuoys in underwing pods and communicating its data back to the carrier, much as LAMPS Mk-I helicopters communicate back to their frigates. This was not as attractive as an S-3, but it had the advantage of using existing carrier aircraft and thus increasing the carrier s potential striking force of A-6s.

Several aircraft have been proposed as the bases for the ATSA: the Lockheed S-3 (with new wings and canard surfaces), the ATA, and even the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor. For example, the ATSA might be an ATA with a stretched fuselage (for more crew members) and a “smarter skin. Using a derivative of the ATA might be attractive politically because Congress has pressed the services to cut the total number of new aircraft programs by collaboration. The ATA is a mandated collaborative effort (to replace the A-6 and the Air Force’s F-l 11); the ATSA would be a Navy-only airplane, at least initially.

Two other carrier roles might be filled by ATSA variants: the electronic intelligence role—to be filled by ES-3s and currently filled by EA-3s—and the carrier-on-board delivery role.

Whatever design is chosen for the ATSA, it and the ATA are likely 10 consume much of the naval aviation budget in the next five to ten years- That probably explains recently reported decisions to cease production ot new A-6s and EA-6Bs after 1990. The prospective cost of these aircraft may also affect the Navy’s participation in the Air Force’s ATF program, which is envisaged as a stealthy follow-on to the F-l5; the program also is designed to produce a naval version to replace the F-14.

I hope someone has more, renders, more info on these multi band array antennas that sound very novel for the time.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5563.png
    IMG_5563.png
    334.3 KB · Views: 104
There was a zoo of programs. In your searches note that ATS often being used without _A
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20241202_003629_ReadEra.jpg
    Screenshot_20241202_003629_ReadEra.jpg
    200.3 KB · Views: 77
So that's three programs that we have very little on. One on a couple of Grumman designs for MMVX, one on a possible Northrop design for AMSS with a couple posts on Lockheed or Grumman or a collaboration of the two on another AMSS design, and this thread. That isn't a lot for three programs that were obviously a Navy priority, and they were followed by CSA which was similarly unsuccessful, though I thought that was more a matter of post cold war procurement malaise.

Speaking to the attachment above in post 5, both ASW and AEW require long loiter times and high endurance, but one involves low altitude search at slow speeds and the other high altitude loiter at longest endurace cruising speed. That isn't as big a challenge as combining the F6D and F-111 in one aircraft, but is it really so big a challenge that no one in the 80s could manage a solution and come up with a aircraft to satisfy the Navy?
 
Visually, I really like the E-X. Radar arrays integrated into the wings were pretty trippy as an idea then, but look at the F-35 and B-21, with not just conformal arrays, but arrays baked into the wing skins!

Speaking to the attachment above in post 5, both ASW and AEW require long loiter times and high endurance, but one involves low altitude search at slow speeds and the other high altitude loiter at longest endurace cruising speed. That isn't as big a challenge as combining the F6D and F-111 in one aircraft, but is it really so big a challenge that no one in the 80s could manage a solution and come up with a aircraft to satisfy the Navy?
I think the idea died out due to the collapse of the USSR, not due to any technical challenges.
 
I think the idea died out due to the collapse of the USSR, not due to any technical challenges.

That was pretty much the primary reason that the "CSA" (Common Support Aircraft) program was cancelled - along with a bunch of other things.
 
It's the "bunch of other things" that interests me.
The list is endless. It's why we have 20 B-2's in service instead of 200. It's why the F-22 was cut off at under 190 airframes. It's why we have 3 Seawolf subs instead of 30. A bunch of stuff that was designed to beat top-flight Soviet gear was basically cast aside when those great fleets of Soviet gear were left to rust in some field or pier. The other decisions are also numerous. For example, if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, there's no way in the fires of Hell that the US Navy would have relied on the Super Hornet as it's primary tactical airframe after the Cold War. It wasn't bought for it's capabilities. It was bought because it was considered a safe, cheap choice in a low-threat world environment where the Navy's biggest competitor was the US Air Force. And the Army killed Comanche because it was designed to take on fleets of Hinds and T-72's and we ended up with a world whose biggest threat for decades was a bunch of fanatics with AK's on horseback. It was way cheaper to use things like old Kiowas or Little Birds in such a threat environment.
 
The list is endless.
Those are all political reasons. I'm familiar with those. It's the technical reasons I'm curious about. Why three separate three year long programs during the 80s? And MPSNA, And then CSA. It was a high priority, second to the A-12 but ahead of NATF, and each time the effort fizzled out. There weren't any contract awards to challenge, so that implies to me there were technical issues that couldn't be resolved.

This one I can understand, the desire for one set of sensors to do everything was beyond the state of the art as recently as the abortive E-10, it was clearly beyond 80s tech. But a common airframe? On paper they could have done that with the S-3. Or E-2. Or this Boeing design, which is a really attractive aircraft in my opinion.
 
Late 80s (88-90) US Navy Program to replace the E-3C, S-3B and EA-6B carrier-based AEW, ASW and EW aircraft. I believe it evolved into the E-X program to replace the E-2, this is why i’m attaching the image of the Boeing E-X proposal, which is seen here in ASW markings. (VS-24 scouts was an S-3 viking squadron). That seems to have the same advanced antenna arrays as proposed for ATSA.

The plan at some point (around 1990) seems to have been for the future air wing to feature 3 fixed wing aircraft : an air superiority fighter with F-14 or NATF ; a strike/attack jet with the A-12 Avenger II from the ATA program ; and ATSA. This leaves room for COD and SIGINT, which could have been incorporated into ATSA. Furthermore ATSA could have been merged with ATA (the A-12 program) with a stretched A-12 for more crew.

I have found little more information.
are all i’ve found so far.

Here is a relevant extract :


I hope someone has more, renders, more info on these multi band array antennas that sound very novel for the time.
It's a beautiful model!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
It's a beautiful model!!

Regards
Pioneer

I just have serious reservations over the placement of the engines... the aircraft attitude while landing will be slightly nose-high... meaning that disturbed air from the wing will be entering the intakes - as well as the wing partially blanking the intakes right when it is absolutely critical to have max power available instantly.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom