Joint Analysis System

There are two ways: UWSurv (Undersea Search & Surveillance) and LAMPS (Light Airborne Multipurpose System). And actually, LAMPS is a subset of UWSurv.

UWSurv. The UWSurv mission represents either a fixed wing (ex. P3) or helicopter on orbit (an airborne alert). They are scheduled at the request of maritime orders (ex. TOG 50.1 should conduct undersea warfare starting at hour 100 for 240 hours), and the air planning process will plan flights each day to fulfill the requirement by scheduling them to sequentially fill the orbit (much like DCA planning).

Once it arrives on orbit, it awaits direction from the subsurface commander (based on an acoustic sensor report--usually by towed or hull sonar from a surface ship--instrumented in MAR ASW SENSOR DETECTION) to vector to the reported position and search for the target. Upon arrival at the target area, the UWSurv aircraft will lay out a search sonobuoy pattern; upon detection of the target, the aircraft will move to the target’s location and either lay out a localization sonobuoy pattern or engage the target.

Limitations: The Air ATO Exec AME Arrival instrument shows the aircraft hopping from one orbit location to another as it “homes in on” the target. Unfortunately, it doesn’t give any indication of how the orbit location was determined, and it doesn’t show anything representing the target engagement (ex. AirToSubsurfaceStrike).

Unknowns: To what point will the aircraft vector--reported position of the target, or projected position? How does it decide how many aircraft to vector? How does the aircraft determine it needs to lay out a localization sonobuoy pattern, or that it’s “close enough” to engage? If one expends all its munitions, does it go home? Does it remain on orbit ready to deploy its sonobuoys? When it expends all, does another Flight launch to backfill the orbit?

LAMPS. The LAMPS mission represents a shipborne helicopter which is on alert awaiting to “pounce” on an ASW target. This initial implementation was not fully developed, so they are not formally scheduled on “alert”, and the user can’t require a certain number to be on alert. On the other hand, this process allows each aircraft to launch multiple times per day (unconstrained by launch blocks), representing the helo returning to the ship to quick-turn as needed for a new target. These sorties are not preplanned in ATO planning, but are generated during execution, with each of the launches using a new ATO Instruction ID in the ATO Gen (planned, instrumented, and executed all at the same time) in this ITO (Immediate Tasking Order) process.

The concept of LAMPS is analogous to HCAS, where a single aircraft (i.e. each sortie) can do multiple launches/strikes/landings all as part of the same mission. Currently each subsequent launch is issued a new ATO instruction. The typical air planning constraints on sorties per day (aircraft authorized/on hand, sortie rates, launch blocks, etc.) are not currently used; controls and constraints are provided through maritime orders.

Unfortunately, there’s not much else documented for LAMPS. The section below provides empirical observations about the behavior (if not the design) of LAMPS, and highlights many of the limitations or unknowns in the planning, execution, adjudication and instrumentation.

LAMPS Summary: What appears to be happening is:

• UWSurv missions are planned according to their apportionment
  • Exception: In some cases sorties are left unplanned for an undetermined reason; this indicates a fault in the planning process which is not instrumented
  • Many of those UWSurv sorties launch as planned
• Some of them don’t launch, usually for a reason such as “LaunchBaseAndOrTargetMovedOutOfRange”, indicating the ship moved further from the orbit than originally planned
  • This is a major error and must be fixed. At launch time the Flights should replan their flight plan and remain on orbit as long as possible
    • Note: A SAC overlay corrects this.
  • Since there are some unused (canceled) sorties available, they are nominated for LAMPS missions and launched when required
  • Though I have suspicions, I have been unable to verify a single case where there were more aircraft used (airborne) at one time than the squadron had available
    • It appears to limit the number of aircraft used to those actually on hand
    • Each platform spent about 10 minutes on the deck between “sorties”; even though the platform is flying a reasonably long day overall, there is adequate time between sorties to FARP
  • These new LAMPS sorties are then assigned their own ATO Instruction ID (in ATO Gen), making it seem that more sorties were planned than available in Allocation Inventory
  • Apparently, the LAMPS sorties are just replanning the unused (canceled) UWSurv sorties
  • There are lots of sorties designated as LAMPS in ATO Gen which do not launch; if LAMPS are only created and assigned as needed during execution, any LAMPS mission created should launch
• LAMPS Flights (single-ship) are able to engage and kill enemy subs as reported in Adj Surf ASW On Tgt
  • However, they can use more munitions than they have available in the SCL (verified in multiple cases)
    • One of the ships sent out a pair of LAMPS Flights which flew their whole flight almost in “formation” with each other for several vectors; not sure why
  • Finally, the ATO Gen shows the Launch BSE as the enemy sub BSE ID; this should be reported in the Target BSE ID field, with the launching ship as the Launch BSE

LAMPS issues for future design/development:

• What contact led to the decision to launch a LAMPS
• Sometimes MAR ASW SENSOR DETECTION shows a detection followed by “Helo On Station”, sometimes not
• The LAMPS orbit doesn’t occur at the same coordinates in the Air ATO Exec AME Arrival and the MAR ASW SENSOR DETECTION
• Why did sometimes a single LAMPS launch, but other times two launched
  • MAR COA Sum Combatants seems to indicate two detections? If so, why are two helos vectored to the same target / location?
  • What LAMPS were considered for the launch but rejected due to range, etc.
• What did the LAMPS do once it arrived on orbit
• Incomplete / unsuccessful engagements don’t seem to be instrumented in ADJ AIR SURF ASW ON TGT
• What munitions the helo expended is instrumented in Adj KVS even if no kills
  • There should be an “Engagement” or “Muns Expended” instrument instead
  • What prompted the LAMPS to move to a new orbit several times--without engaging
• MAR COA Subsurface Targets shows “Engage Subsurface target”, but usually shows “Not Complete” without indication of whether or how it failed (no aircraft, aircraft arrived on station but didn’t detect target, aircraft engaged unsuccessfully, etc)