Monday, July 13, 2020

Targets and Weapons - Mismatch?

The firepower rage in the US military is precision guided weapons (PGM).  It’s almost a religion.  Every target needs a PGM, the military would have us believe.  We’ve all but abandoned dumb bombs and area weapons.  Is this wise?  Let’s consider the type of targets we’ll encounter in war and peace and the types of weapons they require.

Broadly, there are two categories of targets:

Targets you can see – These are targets that can be sensed by some targeting-capable sensor.  This could be radar, optical, IR, or whatever.  The obvious caveat, here, is that the sensor has to be within sensing range of the target.  Those tanks that we know are moving around, exposed, somewhere in the enemy’s deep rear area may be ‘seeable’ but if we can’t get a sensor in range then they’re unseen, at least temporarily.

In a war, seeable targets will include fixed facilities such as buildings, factories, air bases, ports, missile silos, roads, bridges, and the like.  The notable feature of such targets is that most are far from the site of actual battles.  They tend to be more infrastructure and combat support facilities.  The remaining targets such as ships, aircraft, troops, vehicles, artillery, etc. will come and go – they’ll be seeable for brief periods and then vanish.  The challenge is to get a sensor and a weapon on them during the period they’re visible.

Targets you can’t see – No smart enemy is going to obligingly line up their forces out in the open for us to systematically destroy.  Instead, they’re going to hide their forces from our sensors as best they can.  This may include disguising targets, burying them, camouflaging them, using obscurants, etc.  Alternatively, making a target unseeable can also include destroying our sensors.  Again, we know there’s tanks moving around somewhere in front of us but all our targeting UAVs keep getting shot down before we can get actionable targeting data.


Let’s consider the characteristics of the two categories as they relate to weapon selection.


Targets you can see – If you can see the target then any weapon is a potentially viable choice and the specific selection will be decided on the basis of weapon availability, target ‘hardness’, range, etc.  In other words, the entire arsenal of weapons is possible and selection depends on fairly obvious factors.  This is where PGMs are useful and effective.

Cost, however, is a notable factor.  Using a multi-million dollar missile to destroy a thousand dollar mortar (I don’t know what mortars cost but this illustrates the concept) is not cost effective. 

Targets you can’t see – It is still possible to successfully engage targets you can’t see.  It’s called area bombardment.  If you place enough explosives in an area, you are statistically certain to kill troops and destroy equipment even if you can’t see them.  The important point, here, is that many/most of the weapons used in area bombardment will not hit anything.  While any weapon can be used for this, the obvious caveat is that PGMs are far too expensive and cost ineffective to be used in area bombardment.



Now, let’s take a graphical look at our target and weapon sets.

In the first graphic, shown below, we see a plot of the visibility of targets versus the likelihood of occurrence.




What this is telling us is that the most visible targets are the least likely (numerous) and, conversely, the most likely (numerous) targets are the least visible.  This is just common sense and is a graphical way of saying that the enemy is going to hide his assets in whatever manner he can.  This is not exactly a stunning revelation and yet so many military professionals seem to think the reverse will be true – that we’ll see and be able to target almost all the enemy’s assets.  Nothing could be further from the truth!

In the next graph, below, we see, simply, that unguided area bombardment weapons (effective area shown in yellow) are effective against ALL targets regardless of their visibility, or not.  Again, nothing new about this.




Finally, in the next graph, we see the subset of targets that PGMs are suited for (area in green).




As we see, PGMs are suited only for a small portion of the target set and yet, bizarrely, most of our weapon development and procurement is focused on PGMs.  We are most focused on the weapons that have the least general applicability!  Strange, isn’t it?

This is not to say that PGMs are not useful.  Of course they are!  The problem is that they are hideously expensive which leads to small inventories and they are of limited applicability.

Consider the Israeli situation.  They have access to PGMs in their fight against Palestine/Hamas/Hezbollah and yet their main problem is that they can’t find any targets to use their weapons against.  Since they’ve opted not to use area bombardment, they’ve created a situation for themselves in which their military is almost ineffective as witnessed by the fact that they keep fighting the same war over and over.

As we ponder what we’ve just learned, let’s take a glance at this table of typical weapons with cost and estimated inventories listed.  As you look at it, relate the costs and inventories to the target sets.



Weapon
Unit Cost
Inventorya
PGM Weapons:


Tomahawk
$2,000,000(1)
3,000
LRASM, AGM-158C
$3,500,000(1)
0
Hellfire, AGM-114
$45,000(1)
0
NSM (Naval Strike Missile)
$1,200,000(2)
200
ATACMS
$800,000(3)
1,000
JDAM Guidance Package
$22,000(1)
2,000
Small Diameter Bomb, GBU-53
$221,000(1)
3,000
Area Weapons:


5” Mk187 Mod 0 Shell
$4,631(6)
30,000
500 lb General Purpose Bomb, BLU-111
$6,000(4)
10,000
Unguided rockets, all types
$2,342(5)
10,000

a Inventory numbers are my own slightly semi-informed guesstimates based on monitoring yearly purchases over time.  They should be used as indicative of relative numbers rather than actual inventory quantities.



Our weapons are out of alignment with our target sets, budgets, and inventories.  We need to correct this imbalance by recalling the value of area weapons.  We need to refocus our research and development efforts and start seriously improving our area weapons. 




____________________________________

(1)The Drive website, “Here Is What Each Of The Pentagon's Air-Launched Missiles And Bombs Actually Cost”, Joseph Trevithick, 18-Feb-2020,
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32277/here-is-what-each-of-the-pentagons-air-launched-missiles-and-bombs-actually-cost

(2)Wikipedia, “Naval Strike Missile”, retrieved 3-May-2020,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

(3)Breaking Defense website, “Marines Seek Anti-Ship HIMARS: High Cost, Hard Mission ”, Sydney J Freedberg, Jr., 14-Nov-2017,
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/marines-seek-anti-ship-himars-high-cost-hard-mission/

(4)Department of Defense FY2020 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammo, Navy & MC, page vol 1-8, eyeball average of several similar entries,
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/PANMC_BOOK.pdf

(5)Department of Defense FY2020 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammo, Navy & MC, page vol 1-40, cost of rocket hardware (body) and HE warhead,
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/PANMC_BOOK.pdf

(6)Department of Defense FY2020 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammo, Navy & MC, page vol 1-119, total of propellant charge plus projectile
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/PANMC_BOOK.pdf

22 comments:

  1. From the JDAM Wikipedia page, “ Inventory: The tailkit is in full-rate production. Projected inventory is approximately 240,000 total, 158,000 for the US Air Force and 82,000 for the US Navy. (As of October 2005)”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thermobaric warheads. The Russians love them, they have TB warheads for just about everything from artillery, MRLs and even ATGMs. Great area bombardment weapons. Check out u tube footage of 240mm Tulip SPM using TB rounds, hate to get hit by a battery of those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The TOS-1A Buratino armored rocket launcher has 24 220mm rockets. The stated total destruction area for a full salvo of TB rockets is 200x400 meters.

      Delete
  3. We need to correct this imbalance by recalling the value of area weapons. We need to refocus our research and development efforts and start seriously improving our area weapons.

    The research has already been done, here:

    http://www.g2mil.com/NAVROC.htm

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm of the opinion that using unguided bombs for area bombardment is not the best way to deliver that. Area bombardment is logistics-intensive and needs sustained firing: you don't get that with an aircraft, short of a B-52, which is hilariously vulnerable in contested airspace. For that, you need artillery, lots of it, in both tube and rocket artillery flavors.

    I'm actually starting to come around to the Army's intent to pursue longer ranged tube artillery, because this allows an area bombardment ability beyond the present 24 mile range of the Army's 6" guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On one hand, an infantry squad firing a 100,000 dollar Javelin to destroy a 7,000 dollar mortar (2b14 Podnos cost) doesn't seem very cost effective. On the other hand, the squad was able to take out the threat without calling in for supporting fires: once you start bringing in helicopter gunships or fast air, the costs start going way higher. It all depends on how you calculate things, I suppose. I mean, as far back as WW2, people were using 44 thousand dollar M4 Shermans to throw HE at MG nests that didn't even hit 1,000 dollars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although if I'm not mistaken the over use of Javelin was rectified by the Army/Marines doing a facepalm and remembering hey we could we buy the Carl Gustaf again and have the fun of making some silly long name for it. And look it has some new nifty guided or timed rounds as well and its comparatively cheap and durable.

      Delete
    2. Added thought since all those navy tests of its lasers shooting a single small boat are in calm waters/sunny days... It would be interesting to see how a couple well trained sailors could do with the The guided Carl-Gustaf. Or go one better a stabilized remote launcher.

      Delete
  6. Hopefully we will get an enemy that decides to fight on some open ground outside the buildings of a populated area. Let me know when that happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've addressed this before. There is no military requirement for us to fight in cities during a war. These peacetime conflicts are a different - and mishandled - story. There are no military targets in cities that can't be simply destroyed and bypassed.

      If we do have to fight in a city for some unforeseeable reason, we need to relearn the WWII method which is to level the problem areas and move on.

      The closest legitimate reason to fight in a city during war would be the seizure of a port.

      Delete
    2. "I've addressed this before."

      Would you mind linking the relevant post(s)?
      I'd love to read them.

      Delete
  7. You still see modern Chinese fighters firing old fashion unguided rockets. If nothing else, its lot cheaper and provides good experience for all to practice handling and firing live rounds. Havent seem same on US or Euro jets, seems like everybody just hangs on PGMs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The problem is that they are hideously expensive which leads to small inventories and they are of limited applicability."

    The exception is the Tomahawk cruise missile, which has been used to defeat high-value targets like air defenses, communication centers, and command and control facilities, at the start of every major conflict since Desert Storm. It's also been used in many limited, punitive strikes against Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Its been very successful and its about as close as you can get to one-shot/one-kill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The exception is the Tomahawk cruise missile"

      You missed the point of the post. No one is disputing the usefulness of precision guided weapons such as the Tomahawk. The issue is that they are only useful against known, fixed location targets. Sure, in peacetime we fling those Tomahawks around like they're candy but in a war, how many known, fixed location targets will there be? Sure, any enemy will have infrastructure that would be suitable targets BUT they will be defended. Tomahawk has been used against a peer-defended target. It's a slow, non-stealthy missile that is unlikely to be highly successful. We're going to have to expend hundreds to take out a single target. The example of the Syrian air base is a good one. We used around 70 missiles, as I recall, to partially damage one small, undefended air base.

      The point of the graphs in the post was to demonstrate that the vast majority of targets will be unseen and/or mobile which is not the ideal target set for precision guided weapons.

      Tomahawks cost $2M or so and the newer versions will likely cost closer to $3M. Our current inventory is a few thousand which will be consumed in the first month of a peer war. Then what? They're too expensive to maintain huge inventories. Even in war, you still have to pay for them although you may be willing to run up more debt.

      Tomahawk has its uses, without a doubt, but it's expensive, cannot be procured in large quantities, and is of limited applicability.

      Delete
    2. Wonder if US DoD has ever looked into realistically what it would take to increase rates during war and feasibility/speed of ramp up? With how much money US DoD gets, that would be a useful rapport! Not that they necessarily do anything about it....probably just bury it.

      Delete
    3. "It's a slow, non-stealthy missile that is unlikely to be highly successful. We're going to have to expend hundreds to take out a single target."

      Perhaps. But, short of a ballistic missile, there is nothing comparable to the Tomahawk in terms of range in our inventory. While non-stealthy, it does have the ability to fly and navigate low to the ground to avoid enemy defences. It is the best weapon, and one of the few that we have, that can strike deep into enemy territory, especially at the start of hostilities when you want to inflict as much damage as you can.

      But, some precision weapons are not limited to known, fixed location targets. The Hellfire, JDAM, and the GBU-53 can defeat a moving target. The latest version of the Hellfire, in lieu of a warhead, deploys a series of blades to defeat it' target to avoid collateral damage.

      And, as for area weapons, the Marines operate the HIMARS which can fire either a single ATACMS missile or 6 smaller Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) family of rockets. A volley of 12 GMLRS rockets could cover a square kilometer with submunitions. Other versions have a 200-lb unitary warhead. While listed on the PGM side, ATACMS, and the smaller GMLRS, could also be used for area bombardment as well.

      Delete
    4. "some precision weapons are not limited to known, fixed location targets."

      Depends on the definition. For example, it's technically true that a Hellfire can hit a moving target but only if that target has been spotted and fixed at very short range. In essence, the target IS fixed because the range is so short.

      Tomahawk is the best we have, at the moment, but that doesn't make it good, it just makes it available.

      Similarly, GBU-53 has to have a fixed target location to begin with. Once it reaches its terminal approach it has an ability to hit a moving target. A peer enemy is not going to give us those kinds of fixed targets and wait for us to leisurely hit them. The targets will be fleeting, at best.

      Delete
    5. "For example, it's technically true that a Hellfire can hit a moving target but only if that target has been spotted . . ."

      That notion applies to any target as you can't hit what you can't see. And, as you know, seeing a target doesn't mean that you can hit it either.

      "A peer enemy is not going to give us those kinds of fixed targets and wait for us to leisurely hit them."

      In some instances, we'll have troops nearby with the equipment that can pin the locations of fixed/mobile targets which can then be passed along to an aircraft. And, some aircraft have their own targeting pod to perform the same function. The real test is operating in less permissible environments compared to Iraq or Afghanistan.

      Delete
    6. "In some instances, we'll have troops nearby with the equipment that can pin the locations of fixed/mobile targets which can then be passed along to an aircraft."

      In some instances, yes. However, you're missing the point of the graphs in the post. The point is that the vast majority of targets will be unseen by us. Will there be an isolated instance of an identified target that we can call a precision guided munition in on? Sure there will but the vast majority of possible targets will be unseen. That's simply been the history of warfare. Sure, we have better detection methods today but, on the flip side, there are better 'hiding' methods, too. The net result is that the basic truth that most targets remain unseen still holds. Those targets require area munitions. Destroy everything in a grid square and it doesn't matter whether you knew there were targets there or not, whether the targets were fixed or mobile, or whether the targets were seen or unseen. That's the beauty of area munitions - they don't require complex, expensive sensors and targeting devices.

      Delete
  9. Just re-visit all those great "helo firing hellfire" or "FA-18 dropping JDAM on Toyata Hi-Lux" videos from you-tube over the last decade. a $70 million jet or $30 mil helo with 2 souls on board dropping a 6 or 7 figure munition on a $5000 Toyota with a machine gun. You can win the battle but still lose the war. Go back to WWII and look at ordnance expenditure reports from Leyte Gulf, Savo Island, D-Day, fire support for Okinawa. With today's inventory by day 10 we'd be Winchester.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (Don McCollor)...Not mentioned is the use of decoys (a [semi] visible target that is a dummy) to waste and deplete expensive ammunition on. Just real enough to let the opponent see what he expects to see, and let him draw his own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.