Lately, the blog has been getting a number of commenters repeating claims from various sources that, upon analysis, turn out to be highly suspect.
This blog rarely reports news. Instead, it analyzes news. This analysis takes the form of intelligent questioning of the news, asking whether what has been reported actually makes sense and agrees with other bits of data. Far too often, the naval news of the day fails to withstand the scrutiny of intelligent analysis. Manufacturer’s claims, Navy claims, and naval observer/analyst claims are almost invariably overstated or just flat out wrong. Blog readers/commenters are, likewise, encouraged to read with analytical and questioning intelligence rather than just accepting what they read out in the wild – it’s safe on this blog to accept what you read but everywhere else …
Let’s hammer this home with a very recent example.
From a Naval News website article comes this breathless report of ‘Sea Breaker’, a new cruise missile from Rafael that will revolutionize warfare (that’s what, the five thousandth reported ‘revolutionary’ weapon development just this year?). After citing an endless list of amazing capabilities, the article closes with this statement about the missile:
… ensuring a high probability of mission success, with a 250 lb. penetration, blast and fragmentation warhead, making a single hit effective enough to neutralize a frigate-sized ship. (1)
Wow! One hit neutralizes a frigate size ship. That’s tremendous. … … Or is it? Is a 250 lb warhead really enough to ‘neutralize’ (whatever that means) a frigate size ship? Let’s briefly step through the analytical examination.
What do we know?
Well, it’s a given that the manufacturer didn’t actually shoot any missiles at a frigate so there’s no actual data. That alone casts doubt on the claim.
Since there is no actual data, what about historical evidence that could shed light on the claim? What about the Perry class frigate, the USS Stark, that was hit by not one but two Exocet missiles on 17-May of 1987. Let’s look up the Exocet missile warhead size … Hmmm … Wiki gives an Exocet missile warhead size of 364 lbs which is 114 lb greater than the Sea Breaker. Reports suggest that the first Exocet did not explode but did deposit several hundred lbs of burning fuel (very short missile travel time) causing fires at 3500 degF.(2) The second missile did explode and also contributed burning fuel.
Having read the book, ‘Missile Inbound’ (see, the post “Missile Inbound” for a review of the book), which tells the story of the attack and the subsequent damage control efforts, we know that the ship was ‘neutralized’ to a degree, depending on the definition of ‘neutralized’. Fires were extinguished within 20 hrs and the ship arrived in Bahrain the day after the attack.
So, we can now ask ourselves, does it seem likely that a single 250 lb warhead can ‘neutralize’ a frigate given the example of the Stark surviving two significantly larger missiles plus well over a thousand lbs of burning fuel? Or, is the manufacturer’s claim overstated?
 |
| USS Stark Damage |
I’m not going to offer an opinion since the purpose of the post is to illustrate the analytical process and encourage readers to do the same in their own reading. The point is that we have to stop accepting claims at face value and start analyzing them intelligently.
_____________________________________
(1)Naval News website, “Rafael Unveils A New Long Range Guided Missile System, ‘Sea Breaker’”, Martin Manaranche, 30-Jun-2021,
(2)https://news.usni.org/2017/05/17/the-attack-uss-stark-at-30
Shouldn't there be a disclaimer that they are publishing a press release? That is what that piece clearly is. As an aside, this press release demonstrates a problem that I have with most military writing, present company excepted. It is filled with business school speak about how "All-Domain Operations Shape The Joint Battlespace For Decision Dominance" and "leveraging advances in multi-domain layers" and such. But when all of that is stripped out, you get what CNO is getting at - a subpar system that can't do what is asked of it. Further, quite often, the people using the language don't understand what it actually means - like "iterative design." The idea behind iterative design is that you build a little, test a lot, likely break the thing you built in order to figure out how to make it better. It does not mean build a $13 billion aircraft carrier with systems that don't work and figure it out as you go.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHA!!!
DeleteGreat post!! There are so many extremely dubious claims out there today, and thats nothing new. I recall when I served in the 90s how the Exocet had gotten nearly mythical status as a ship killer wonder weapon. Many conversations decried that the USN should've been using them. This, in spite of the Stark incident we had to deflate it, and the fact that the antiship Tomahawks we had at the time (and were just phasing out) carried a bigger punch.
ReplyDeleteAs to this new "sea breaker", Im intrigued.
"penetration, blast and fragmentation warhead..."
Has Rafael been reading the Navy Matters posts about armor?? "Penetration"??? Are missles now being tipped with an AP cap of some sort?? Does it have some hardening that adds to the "penetration"?? Or did they just add that word because it sounds good?? We all know that today's ships can be ventilated by small arms fire, so its generally unnecessary. Therefore, what's the point??
I'd assume its press release word salad....
"Are missles now being tipped with an AP cap of some sort??"
DeleteYes. I've read the NSM has a titanium cap meant to penetrate the hulls we typically see today on surface combatants. Doubt it goes through actual armor.Not that that is an issue as I'm not aware of extant armor on any extant warships besides maybe a carrier/LHA size ship, maybe.
I was a Midshipman on the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry during my Freshman Cruise in the Summer of 1985. When the Stark was hit a year or two later, I was dismayed it impacted the ship EXACTLY where my rack was in Enlisted Berthing. "That could have been me" Gulp! ha ha ha
ReplyDeleteDoes the he captain answer why his CIWS was in standby mode? In the book that is. Navies seem to justify no armor via CIWS over and over but on the briny commanders seem to to not trust the systems.
ReplyDeleteCIWS is normally in a standby/manual mode to preclude the possibility of an unintended shootdown of a friendly/neutral aircraft. The problem was that no one in the CIC recognized the attack for what it was. As the book explains, the CIC watchstanders exhibited a remarkable lack of knowledge about the ship's sensing and weapon systems. Many wrong assumptions were made. Layered on top of this woeful lack of training and proficiency was a nonchalant attitude that didn't even acknowledge the possibility of an attack. The US naval forces in the area had become desensitized by the constant tanker war attacks and believed themselves 'immune'. The book lays all of this out in detail.
DeleteIf you have any interest in the incident, the book is an excellent read.
Thanks for the reply. I can see all the secondary stuff but your fist sentence screams engineering problem. If the ship is designed to use the CIWS. But over and over crews fail to trust it there is a glaring design problem. I mean if soldiers get shot because they empty their magazines because the risk accidental discharge is in their minds so high they accept grasping around to load under fire... maybe you have a bad gun maybe CIWS is just working right.
DeleteMy guess we could do with a few less ships a ton more real life training for the crews we have. Load blanks and simulate different attacks and or innocent fly by and see if the CIWS works and do it often enough that crews do it what at least once twice a year in a non scripted situation (obviously you need to do in a secure place yes they will know something is going to happen but what?). Cost money but I am pretty sure the Fords, Zumwalts and LCS could have paid for a lot more training and testing.
CIWS works just fine. In the past, there were a few unintentional, friendly fire incidents but I haven't heard of any recently. The standby mode on CIWS is sort of the equivalent of the safety on a gun. If you don't anticipate using the gun, you engage the safety just to be extra safe. If you anticipate the possibility of using it, you disengage the safety.
DeleteIn the actual attack, the CIWS was placed in manual mode, ready to fire, but not in auto. This was because no one in CIC recognized that an attack was occurring. They saw the incoming aircraft, eventually (slowly and too late) came to realize that it was on a suspicious flight profile, but they never received any missile launch indication THAT THEY RECOGNIZED and therefore had no reason to put the CIWS in automatic mode especially because the approaching aircraft was, nominally, an ally. IN THEIR MINDS, Had they placed the CIWS in auto mode, they risked a friendly fire incident. The reality was that the very short range of the CIWS precluded a friendly fire incident because the attacking aircraft was 20 miles out or so - well beyond the range of CIWS. This was one of many examples of poor understanding of their own weapon capabilities/limitations and poor training.
The upshot is that there was nothing wrong with CIWS.
The critical failure was the crew's inability to recognize a missile launch and this was due to a combination of the SLQ-32 failing to provide a definitive warning and the crew failing to recognize the warning it did provide. For example, the -32 audible warning had been turned off for much of the incident. Again, this was a lack of understanding of what the -32 could and could not do and how to work with it.
A final, complicating factor was that the Captain did not go to CIC to deal with approaching aircraft as he had what he believed to be a higher priority task which was preparing for a propulsion plant exam in a few days. This demonstrates the inappropriate priorities that the peacetime Navy creates for its ships and crew.
If you want more information than this, get a copy of the book. It's incredibly informative and eye-opening.
I think I saw that article about Sea Breaker and did wonder if it was "legit" or just another paid infomercial....sadly, I just see it getting worse. No manufacturer out there is going to risk doing real trials when you can just run a million simulations that give you the end result you want....
ReplyDeleteDo the Russian/Chinese supersonic/hypersonic missiles actually work? How do we/they know that they do? How did they manage to build them when we are still piddling around with the concept?
ReplyDelete"Do the Russian/Chinese supersonic/hypersonic missiles actually work?"
DeleteWe don't know, they might know but sure as hell they're not talking.
"How did they manage to build them when we are still piddling around with the concept?"
A military focused on actual war-fighting capabilities instead of gender seminaries and racial sensitivity might have played a role there.
The Russians and Chinese are also highly motivated to ensure that we don't really know what they are capable of. In the Chinese case, they want the US to believe they have potentially sufficient military capability to make any US military response to their internal, regional and international plans too risky. It's similar to the German WWI Risk Strategy.
DeleteThere is also a repeating pattern of one power believing that a potential enemy is developing a new technology or capability and developing a counter to it, which then can prompt the original power to develop a counter to the counter.
For example, the Mig-25 was designed as a response to the B-70. The B-70 was cancelled but the Mig-25 went into production. The Mig-25's supposed capabilities scared the US enough that they pushed through the F-15.
I'm guilty of posting links to articles myself, but mostly articles that came to light (my light, that is) that backs the Skipper's contentions (LCS and Ford Class being main ones). I like it when the procurement class in the Congress and military come to realizations about these debacles billions of dollars and years after our Skipper HERE reached HIS conclusions. Fact is, Skip's entitled to his vindication.
ReplyDeleteHappy Fourth, all. As always, regards to the Skip!
"I'm guilty of posting links to articles myself,"
DeleteBoy, I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't want people to offer links. Doing so is perfectly fine. All I ask is that people add some value to the link by highlighting something of interest or offering a bit of opinion/analysis. With that in mind, link away!
People tend to believe news which reflect their pre-existing thoughts without basic analysis. For instance, they see a report of a foreign "super battle ship" - a small ship loaded with most advanced radar, move in a speed close to helicopter, loaded with lots of weapons, helicopters, very long range, ... without thinking how could you put so many things in such a small ship?
ReplyDeleteSome insist China cannot build an equivalent naval ship at a fraction of US without looking in commercial products around him. Because China can build them at low cost, Americans lose their high pay jobs.
This is actually a well-known psychological principle. It's called "confirmation bias". We tend to believe news that matches our preconceptions, and be much more skeptical about information that conflicts with our preconceptions. It's built in to the wiring of our brains. It affects all kinds of information, not just naval stuff.
DeleteFor example, confirmation bias is probably a major part of the intelligence failure that led us to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion in 2003. Intelligence information is often ambiguous, and US leaders expected there to be weapons, since Iraq had them (and in fact used them) in the past and was being uncooperative in the present. So they treated positive interpretations more seriously than negative.
"confirmation bias"
DeleteExcellent comment. So … what bias leads us to accept manufacturer's claims so readily even when they're patently ridiculous and fly in the face of all known history?
"Some insist China cannot build an equivalent naval ship at a fraction of US without looking in commercial products around him. Because China can build them at low cost, Americans lose their high pay jobs."
DeleteIsn't it kind of difficult to directly compare costs with a communist operation?
Lutefisk
"what bias leads us to accept manufacturer's claims so readily even when they're patently ridiculous and fly in the face of all known history?"
DeleteHmmm ... That's beyond my knowledge of psychology. Sorry. Maybe it has something to do with our worship of "experts"?
" accept manufacturer's claims so readily"
DeleteAnother thought just occurred to me. We Americans do seem to quite often have a blind faith in computerized things. Just as an example, when I was a teaching assistant in the Freshman physics course at Cornell University in 1977 or so (when pocket calculators were still a new thing) I noticed that in lab reports, students would frequently measure a distance with a meter stick, and a time with their wristwatch, and compute a velocity (distance over time) to 13 decimal places, since that's what the calculator said. And it's a calculator, so it must be correct, right? In fact, given the two measurement techniques, the answer was really only accurate to one or two decimal places at best.
"So … what bias leads us to accept manufacturer's claims so readily even when they're patently ridiculous and fly in the face of all known history?"
DeleteTechnology worship?
"Some insist China cannot build an equivalent naval ship at a fraction of US without looking in commercial products around him. Because China can build them at low cost, Americans lose their high pay jobs."
DeleteSolar panels are good examples. Commercial cargo ships are another examples.
A good chunk of modern "journalism" is copy-pasting press releases without any kind of due diligence or even basic reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAnother example to consider is the HMS Glamorgan, which suffered an Exocet missile attack during the Falkland War. Glamorgan, aware of the incoming missile, executed a turn away from the Exocet which struck her port side near the hanger. Thirteen died in the resulting damage and were buried at sea. A fourteenth sailor later died from his wounds. Due to the damage, HMS Glamorgan ceased combat operations and eventually returned to Portsmouth to complete repairs. And, at 6,200 tons and 505 feet, Glamorgan was a good bit bigger than the USS Stark.
ReplyDeleteI submit Glamorgan was neutralized.
From Wiki,
DeleteGlamorgan was hit by the missile at around 06:37. The ship was underway again, at 20+ kts, with all fires extinguished by 10:00.
Both the ship and its aircraft pursued no combat operations for the remainder of the conflict. On the following day, repairs were made at sea and, after the Argentinean surrender on 14 June, more extensive repairs were undertaken in the sheltered bay of San Carlos Water. She sailed for home on 21 June …
In about 3 hrs, the ship had resumed operations and was combat capable - hardly neutralized.
Regardless, what's your point?
That a single missile took the HMS Glamorgan out of the game.
DeleteAs you cited, "Both the ship and its aircraft pursued no combat operations for the remainder of the conflict."
Her diary of events includes the following, "Hit by Exocet missile. Hole blown in deck outside hanger, Aircraft and Port Seacat destroyed. Hanger and main galley burnt out. Serious flooding in Magazine and other compartments below. Thirteen men dead with fourteen wounded. Casualties evacuated to HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible."
With all due respect, saying she was "combat capable" right after the strike is a huge assumption on your part.
"As you cited, "Both the ship and its aircraft pursued no combat operations for the remainder of the conflict."
Delete??????? You do know that the Falklands conflict ended less than two days after the ship was hit, right? THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMBAT OPERATIONS!!!!!!!!!
As far as damage that would impact combat capability, the ship lost a Seacat launcher and the hangar. All the rest of its capability was intact.
No one has ever claimed that a hit from an anti-ship missile would cause no damage. The question - LEFT UNANSWERED IN THE POST - was whether the Sea Breaker claim to 'neutralize' a frigate size ship with a single hit was valid. As noted, the Exocet is nearly 50% larger than Sea Breaker and failed to neutralize the Glamorgan.
Here is a partial list of the combat capabilities that remained intact:
2× Fore-mounted twin-gunned turret with 4.5-inch (114 mm) guns (B turret may have been replaced with Exocet)
2× mountings for Oerlikon 20 mm cannon
1× Aft-mounted Seaslug GWS.2 SAM (24 missiles)
2× mountings (port & starboard) for Seacat GWS-22 SAM
2× triple-tube launchers
Type 965 long-range air-search radar
Type 278 height-finding radar
Type 992Q navigation radar
ESM aerials
Type 901 fire control radar for the Seaslug missile
Type 184 sonar
The ship suffered some damage but was hardly neutralized. Again, the conflict ended two days after the attack! You've got to do at least a little research before you comment.
@ComNavOps @FightingIrish
DeleteWith respect to Glamorgan surviving an Excocet, it wasn't a direct hit to the ship. Quoting from a discussion elsewhere:
"When fired at by a land launched Exocet off the coast of the Falklands, the destroyer HMS Glamorgan immediately fired one of her obsolescent Seacat SAMs in defense, but the Exocet was already under the Seacat's minimum range and the SAM failed to arm as it passed the Exocet. Glamorgan then put her helm hard over, resulting in the missile striking her a glancing blow to the stern, skidding along the deck before exploding, with the missile body carrying on through the hangar door which destroyed her helicopter, but probably saved the ship. The theory is that if you can angle the hull just right, you can "bounce" an incoming missile and have it vent most of its explosive force in the air as opposed to inside the ship. Glamorgan just managed to pull this off, and had her hangar not been in the way would have escaped the hit with minor damage.
"Post attack findings determined that if Glamorgan had heeled over one degree more the Exocet would likely have punched through her hangar deck, rather than skidding along it, and done her very serious damage. Alternately, had the captain ordered the turn a little slower or used five degrees less rudder (as was common in the RN at the time to avoid throwing the rudder to the stops and risk it jamming) the missile would have punched through the side hull and exploded in the Seacat magazine, likely dooming the destroyer. As it was, the destroyer was still seconds away from fully completing her evasive turn when the missile hit, which is why it went over the deck as opposed to down the side. "Bouncing" a missile off a ships hull is very much a defensive measure of last resort and it requires superb timing and ship handling to pull off - as much or moreso than dodging a torpedo."
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/what-era-of-naval-history-interests-you-the-most.945830/post-76852120
There are lessons that can be learned from that, but we need to be mindful of the context that Glamorgan suffered a glancing blow where the missile did not penetrate into the hull. Explosive blast follows the path of least resistance; an explosion outside the ship by the hangar is not going to have the same result as an explosion inside the ship, even if the warhead is the same.
"missile striking her a glancing blow"
DeleteA single example proves nothing. HOWEVER, the history of missiles and shells is that 'glancing' (meaning non-perfect geometry) strikes are the norm, not the exception. Whether the glancing (angled) hits are just random geometry/chance or intentionally contrived by the defender, the reality is most hits are geometrically sub-optimal. To discard the results of a strike just because it was not a perfect strike is to discard reality.
We could also look at the C-80x missile strike against the Israeli INS Hanit (Sa'ar 5). It, too, struck a glancing blow and did relatively little damage.
If we only consider perfect strikes under the most advantageous conditions for the missile then we're back to the realm of manufacturer's claims which are unrealistic in large measure because they ONLY consider the absolutely perfect scenario (and then exaggerate it!).
"A single example proves nothing. (...) To discard the results of a strike just because it was not a perfect strike is to discard reality."
DeleteI merely wanted to remind both yourself and Fighting Irish of HMS Glamorgan's circumstances. It was a glancing blow where most of the blast went into the air and the helicopter. All that we can really say with any certainty from that incident, is that IF the ship is able to bounce the missile, and IF the missile's blast goes mostly into the air, the ship's chances of survival are improved, because it is not taking the full force of the blast.
My own learning from this is that as with humans, shot placement counts just as much as bullet caliber (warhead size).
What we learn from this is that missile performance is not the perfect occurrence that manufacturers would have us believe and that claims based on some perfect scenario are not realistic.
DeleteI think both our lessons learned are hardly contradictory or mutually exclusive. Your learning is on missile performance - that manufacturer claims are not borne out in reality. My learning is that warship survivability versus missile attack depends on where and how the missile impacts. We learn different things, and the sum of our knowledge increases.
DeleteBut well, it's your blog, and you are, ultimately, acting as arbiter of fact here.
You'll note that the post offered no conclusion so there isn't anything to agree or disagree about, as far as that goes. One reason I didn't want to offer a definitive conclusion was to prevent an endless series of people offering isolated examples of a ship that did or did not suffer the undefined 'neutralization' that the manufacturer claimed. As I said, single examples mean nothing. Hood and Arizona blew up and sank from single bomb/shell hits but that hardly means that every battleship will be sunk by a single hit. Conversely, the Yamato absorbed dozens of bomb and torpedo hits before sinking. The various ships in the Guadalcanal naval campaign absorbed unbelievable amounts of shellfire and torpedoes - some sank, some did not. And so on.
Delete'Learning' that warship survivability is highly dependent on circumstances is neither new nor surprising and that degree of variability alone renders the manufacturer's claim invalid. To make the claim the manufacturer did is misleading, at best.
The point of the post was to analyze and I offered an example of one way to do so. There was nothing more to this post than that. There is no arbitration of fact to be had, here, unless you're seeing something I'm not!
https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/2021/07/israelis-to-offer-us-long-range-naval-strike-missile-sea-breaker/
ReplyDeleteIt really just reads like an infomercial or BD is being the outlet for Rafael to show USN or USAF:"buy our missile and not theirs!".
I don't particularly mind but I really do believe if BD and other news outlets want to be taken seriously in the coming years and not lose whatever little reputation they have left, they need to have a rebuttal section to push back or explain to the readership whats going on here.....
Once upon a time, reporting the news meant asking questions - intelligent questions … skeptical questions - and not just accepting what you were being fed. Of course, the key to asking intelligent questions is subject matter knowledge by the questioner. I don't know if you've noticed but the bylines on these site's articles change just about yearly or more often. That means that the authors are just junior writers (not reporters) who are checking a box on their way up their own career ladder. They are clearly not knowledgeable about the subject matter.
DeletePick a website, say Breaking Defense, and go back through its archived articles and look at the author names. You'll see that every several months the name changes.
No expertise means no intelligent questions. That puts the onus on the reader to analyze the information. Hence, this post.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner there. What's worse is when we hand them the questions in the comments section and do no follow up. Even at USNI, they aren't even providing a good propaganda arm most of the time.
DeleteUSNI is one of the worst offenders because they purport to be one of the best and yet they fail to meet their own standards. They have an editorial board that, over the last decade, has abandoned their responsibility. I terminated my decades long membership because their Proceedings magazine had become an admiral's mouthpiece. Their editorial board had ceased analyzing and questioning and was just blindly publishing whatever tripe the flag officers wanted to put out.
DeleteOne basic to analyze naval ship is from its displacement. It is total loads, include its hull, power system, sensors, weapons, ammunitions, people, fresh water, fuel, ..., etc. can be added into. If a small ship is loaded with very high fire power, than, others need to give. For instance Israel's Saa6 carries dream amount of fire powers of many of its class. This comes at expense of its range and speed. Israel doesn't need a 1900 ton battle ship to sale far away not need it sails at very high speed. Saar is an excellent coastal defense ship for many nations. However, US Navy is not a defensive force but an offensive one thus it has little use.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with the post and offers nothing that isn't common knowledge. Offer something of value or refrain from commenting.
DeleteJust had a thought about a potential cause for the decline in the quality of writing and analysis by journalists. Note that the internet has caused a massive blow to the business model of magazines and other content creators. For example, siphoning off large amounts of ad revenue to the likes of Google and Facebook.
ReplyDeleteSo MANY journalistic organizations have had major revenue shortfalls in the last decade or two and have had to respond by cutting costs. Often by laying off writers and shifting to "on demand" writers (buying individual articles rather than full time employment). Since experienced journalists cost more than inexperienced ones, it's reasonable to assume that they get laid off first, at least at some organizations.
Maybe it's a "you get what you pay for" thing?