The Marines missile shooting concept involves having small, platoon size units in hidden locations inside enemy territory/waters who will then rain death and destruction down on the hapless Chinese, thereby controlling the Pacific theater and relieving the Navy of the need to deal with the Chinese navy. Setting aside all the disqualifiers and fantasy aspects of the concept that we’ve talked about at length, have you ever thought about the area that could actually be covered by the kind of missiles the Marines will be using? The map below shows the coverage area for the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) which is the only viable anti-ship missile available to the Marines, at the moment. The coverage area is shown as red circles which represent the approximate 100 mile effective range of the missile (200 mile diameter circle). I’ve shown coverages for several likely locations such as artificial islands in the South China Sea, the Philippines, a Japanese island to the east of Taiwan, and Japan, itself.
What jumps out is how sparse and limited the coverage is and how irrelevant it would be to the combat actions that we can reasonably anticipate. There are no locations that would assist in a Taiwan action. There is little impact on a battle for the South China Sea. And so on. I’m at a loss as to what operational benefit this kind of limited coverage would provide.
As I’ve stated repeatedly, a million mile missile is useless if all you have is horizon (12 mile) targeting and, thus far, no one has offered any viable means for the Marines to obtain over-the-horizon targeting. Thus, the 100 mile radius red circles should actually be shown as 12 mile, horizon radius circles.
The Marine’s missile shooting concept falls apart for many reasons and this lack of range/coverage is just one more aspect that is totally lacking in relevance and viability.
If a peer war in the Pacific actually happens (I don't think so, but let's suppose), range is going to be a major issue.
ReplyDeleteF-35? Not much range.
(The C is even worse.)
Targeting sensors? Not much range.
NSM? Not much range.
See a pattern yet?
The LCS have no legs either, but by now even the Navy understand that those aren't warships so they won't matter much.
DeleteThe Marines should ditch the truck idea and get US Navy Mark VI patrol boats for this mission that already use UAVs.
ReplyDeletehttps://firstaerosquadron.com/2018/05/20/usn-mark-vi-patrol-boats-now-launch-platforms-for-uavs/
They could hide near shore and easily relocate, even to other islands. Each could carry two old/free Harpoon antiship missiles, rather than new $3 million NSMs that Marines are likely to damage before they can fire them. These boats are useful for all types of missions, like pilot rescue.
The Chinese could hunt down these boats, but that would require lots of resources. Hitting missiles ashore is easy as they must use roads and can't move fast and a nearby hit will damage them. Boats are fast and can zig zag and require a direct hit since near misses will just splash.
McHale's Navy just sprung to mind.
Delete"Mark VI patrol boats for this mission that already use UAVs."
DeleteThe UAV in the photo in the referenced article is a Group 1 (<20 lb) RQ-20 Puma.with, depending on the model, a range of 9+ miles, battery limited endurance of 2-5 hrs, and control limited line-of-sight. The UAV's sensors are optimal/IR with a very limited field of view. This is NOT a wide area, maritime patrol asset in any sense of the word. This is just a step beyond 'look over the next hill' sensing. The Marines need a 100 mile sensor to support their Naval Strike Missile and this isn't it.
The MkVI is not capable of carrying missiles. It has no surveillance/targeting sensors. It has a couple hundred mile combat radius and requires frequent refueling and maintenance.
"Boats are fast and can zig zag"
Boats are nearly fixed targets compared to a missile. A thirty or forty knot boat is not going to outrun or outmaneuver a 500-600 mph missile.
It's certainly a better idea than the one Commandant Berger has. It's harder to hit a moving boat than an immobile island.
DeleteThese patrol boats have operated much larger Scan Eagle UAVs with up to 22 hours of endurance.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Insitu_ScanEagle
The system might take up too much space and weight, so a four boat section may have one UAV and three Harpoon shooters.
Harpoons have their own sensors so I assume the boat only need launch it at a GPS coordinate or even just a heading.
Patrolling fighters with expensive anti-aircraft and antiship missiles would be forced to attack the boat with their gun via strafing. The boats also have guns and can fire back. Or give them a shoulder fired Stinger missile.
Where do you get the notion that a Mk VI can launch Harpoons?
DeleteA Mk VI, while it might contrive to launch a Scan Eagle as a publicity stunt, is not sized to regularly launch, recover, or maintain Scan Eagle size UAVs.
A Scan Eagle could be operated by a land based, platoon size Marine unit but it would require more large equipment, maintenance capabilities, catapult transporter, etc. which further negates the desired 'stealth' of the unit.
"Patrolling fighters with expensive anti-aircraft and antiship missiles would be forced to attack the boat with their gun via strafing. The boats also have guns and can fire back. Or give them a shoulder fired Stinger missile."
DeleteWhy do you think enemy aircraft will limit themselves this way? If the enemy aircraft carrier thinks the boats are a threat, her captain will certainly authorize the use of full-sized antiship missiles against the boats- missiles that will outrange any antiaircaft gun of 40mm or smaller caliber, thanks to gravity and the law of physics granting air-launched munitions greater speed and range. The enemy can also do as the US Navy does, and have helicopters fire analogues of Hellfire antitank missiles at the boats- again, missiles that'll outrange any air defenses we can fit on a small boat.
I don't expect any satellites including all the GPS-like satellites to survive more than a few days of a peer war. A combination of Kessler Syndrome and deliberate ASAT activity pretty much guarantees that.
DeleteGeorge
The UAV itself is only 40 lbs. Navy SpecOps used them for years. Picture on a Mark V here.
Deletehttps://navyseals.com/4653/tech-gear-scaneagle-uav-unmanned-ariel-vehicle/
They are welcome to fire a $2 million anti-ship missile at a boat and try to hit it. Its small size among white caps and swells makes tracking small boats difficult as we learned in the Persian Gulf.
DeleteHelicopters are much better, but far less range and those from mainland China could not reach far. A Stinger can down those too.
"Its small size among white caps and swells makes tracking small boats difficult as we learned in the Persian Gulf."
DeleteIts small size also denies them endurance- time on station due to limited supplies for the onboard crew, time on patrol due to limited fuel, time on Earth due to limited defenses and lack of redundant systems in the event it sustains battle damage. The waves will also have a greater impact on the a small boat's momentum- remember Newton's Three Laws- meaning they won't be able to reach designed speeds due to the waves acting the way rough terrain does to ground vehicles, as well as ruining the accuracy of the boat's mounted weapons. John F. Kennedy himself commented the torpedo boat he served on was useless, due to these aforementioned limitations.
This is a ridiculous discussion. Small patrol boats can't get to an operational area, lack the combat radius to do anything worthwhile, have no sensors, can't be maintained, carry no useful weapons, and have no defense beyond manpads.
Delete"This is a ridiculous discussion."
DeleteThank you.
Lutefisk
Sure, but turning the Marines into boat crews and sailors... That begs the question of why even have Marines??
ReplyDeleteBecause the Navy needs every seaman it can get, to man the ships it already has- there are none left to spare for little patrol boats, when the big destroyers necessary to fight a peer war, are rotting in their piers because we don't have enough seamen to scrub the rust off their hulls!
DeleteThe Marines had their own small boat company until 2005.
Deletehttps://mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Small-Boats.pdf
The answer is the Navy has no interest in small boats as they don't generate big profits for contractors. They are always recreated during wars, Vietnam, Iraq ect. And as you suggest, we have far too many Marines for their limited role so have them do some Navy jobs.
Boats also help solve the sustainment problem. After a four boat section has launched its missiles, it can journey several hundred miles away from the enemy to link up with a ship for resupply, mostly fuel and new missiles. Simple LCUs can do this.
Deletehttps://www.dvidshub.net/image/6784649/us-marines-and-sailors-conduct-sea-live-fuel-transfer
"The answer is the Navy has no interest in small boats as they don't generate big profits for contractors."
DeleteThere's also the fact small boats have too limited a range, forcing the Navy to deploy them from local marinas, instead of from Pearl Harbor and other well-defended bases. Defending the marinas will be difficult in a war with China, whose missiles can put them under threat, as well as intimidate local allies into declaring neutrality and denying us basing rights.
"it can journey several hundred miles away"
DeleteYou need to research small patrol boat ranges.
Two Navy Mark VI Patrol Boats recently completed a 500 nautical mile transit from Guam, showing Navy planners in the region that the boats could reach nearby island groups to conduct maritime security patrols and disaster relief efforts.
Deletehttps://news.usni.org/2019/01/10/mark-vi-patrol-boats-conduct-long-pacific-transit
"Two Navy Mark VI Patrol Boats recently completed a 500 nautical mile transit"
DeleteThat's a one-way trip. A patrol boat would have to go out and back which cuts the range in half. That's the difference between range and combat radius. Range is generally irrelevant. Combat radius is what matters.
The distance from Guam to the South China Sea is something on the order of 2000 miles depending on the exact destination.
This is a ridiculous discussion. Small patrol boats can't get to an operational area, lack the combat radius to do anything worthwhile, have no sensors, can't be maintained, carry no useful weapons, and have no defense beyond manpads.
A more viable option (in the not too distant future) is using MLRS/HIMARS with a (4/2) Deepstrike missile capable of (independent) targeting of naval targets.
ReplyDeleteThat will have a range of likely more than 500km although obviously will not solve the OTH targeting in any way.
"Deepstrike"
DeleteI don't follow land combat developments that closely but my understanding is that Deepstrike was cancelled when Raytheon dropped out of the Army's Precision Strike Missile competition due to technical difficulties. The missile was only capable of attacking fixed, land targets although the ability to attack naval targets was a vague, somewhere in the future plan.
Are you, perhaps, referring generically to the Army's PrSM missile? If so, again, I'm not aware of a naval target capability.
As you note, even if the missile existed, it would have no targeting to support it.
Someone from the Commandant's office needs to explain how OTH targeting will take place from a platoon of Marines with no long range surveillance/targeting assets or capabilities. I hope they're not counting on some magical, regional, networked, all-seeing, nodal, surveillance system because, like most myths, it doesn't exist and it's difficult to imagine the Chinese cooperating in allowing us to set up some kind of regional, networked surveillance system.
Yes sorry, meaning the PrSM program (not always easy to follow the current program name). It seems that the goal is to add an active seeker on the missile to be able to engage moving targets:
Deletehttps://warriormaven.com/land/precision-strike-missile
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/08/precision-strike-missile-prsm-information-update/
As for OTH targeting the most logical tool will be the F-35 acting as mini-AWACS, taking advantage of its stealth capabilities and advanced sensors/situational awareness.
One of the main advantages of PrSM/ASBM is their speed (compared to say LRASM) which will not allow their target to move a large distance while they are in the air (especially for the PrSM range).
Presumably someone in the USN has considered how to use land-based missiles to close the Straits of Malacca and the Sunda Strait to Chinese ships? Your map shows lots of islands that would permit closure of almost any other trade routes for China even if slightly longer range missiles might be needed in a few places.
ReplyDeleteHow to keep the missile men alive and replenished with food and materiel is a different matter.
"to close the Straits of Malacca and the Sunda Strait"
DeleteAnd which sovereign nation are we going to invade to establish these missile shooting locations on since we don't own or have basing rights to any useful location?
"Your map shows lots of islands that would permit closure of almost any other trade routes for China even if slightly longer range missiles might be needed in a few places."
DeleteRemember, China is also a CONTINENTAL power. How will missiles on these islands close trade routes between China and Russia, including OIL PIPELINES? How will they close trade routes between China and Pakistan, through which China can trade with Iran in turn? Between China and Afghanistan, the latter a source of rare earths critical to the production of electronic devices, like those found in precision guided munitions?
These straits are almost exclusively with in the territorial limits of one or the other nation. What makes the US think that they would allow closure of their straits. These countries have trade relations with China. Are any of these countries hostile to China that they would let US close the straits.
DeleteThe only territory in the high seas are the deck of a country's naval ships or submarine.
-BM
"Am I to understand"
DeleteComment deleted. This is not a political blog.
ComNavOps,
ReplyDeleteCherry picking a few examples doesn't demonstrate anything. All your map example shows is that IF we put the missile launchers in the locations (and only in those locations) that you proposed, then they wouldn't be of much use. To take the further step of arguing that the entire concept of land based NSM is therefore bunk is not warranted, however. To actually take that step, you would have to show that there exist little to no locations where the 100nm range might be effective.
But I can find plenty of locations where they might serve of some use, so it seems you just weren't trying hard enough. For example, it is possible to station these launchers so as to provide complete overlapping coverage of the first island chain between the Philippines and Korea. Don't believe me? All you have to do is to grant me the same country access rights (The Philippines and Japan) which you already allowed in your hypothetical example. Follow me on a map: Babuyan islands> Batanes Archipelago >Yonaguni Island >Miyako > South Okinawa >Anami > Yakushima >North Kyushu. From Yonaguni Island for example, you can completely cut off access between the Ryukyu islands and north Taiwan.
Contrary to your assertion, it is possible to influence operations near Taiwan with the NSM, you just need to pick your spots strategically. In fact, it would be impossible to pass the first island chain near Taiwan, either south or north of the island, without entering into the A2/AD zone of the NSM, using the locations I proposed. Meaning the marines would be capable of preventing a total blockade of the island as well as de-contesting the waters east of the Taiwan island.
This is just a consequence of prepositioning. If we could move NSM launchers to Taiwan during times of conflict, then you could form a complete A2/AD bubble around the entire mainland (e.g. from the west coast of Taiwan, you can basically reach across the entire Taiwan strait with the NSM range). Of course, the ability to establish a complete A2/AD anti-surface bubble across the Philippines-Korea first island chain section would also be useful outside of operations relating to Taiwan. Finally, none of this is to mention the long-range strike missiles (e.g. Tomahawks) which the marines are interested in acquiring.
The purpose of this comment was not to rebut all of your criticisms (like ally unreliability and targeting) for that would be way too long of a post. Rather, I simply intended to point out that your logic of "I can't find any useful places on a map for the NSM launchers, so there must be little to no useful places on a map" is faulty.
"where they might serve of some use"
DeleteEven if we assume that statement to be correct, that would mean that the entire USMC is converted into a limited force which "might be" of "some use".
If this is not a downgrade, I do not know what is ...
@Sorites, the entire concept is complete fantasy.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that you can insert these groups undetected, that they could remain undetected, that they could survive in the face of a determined enemy, that they could locate targets without some kind of search equipment, that they could launch missiles without being noticed, and that they could be resupplied without being detected is complete and utter folly.
It appears to me that CNO putting the range circles on the map is just another way of demonstrating the sheer ridiculousness of this entire concept.
Frankly speaking, none of this is worthy of debate on even civilian blogs.
The fact that the marine corps is actually talking about it is truly incomprehensible to people that take the national security of this country seriously.
Lutefisk
I think your range circles are a bit too small. It's only 86 nmi from Yonaguni Island (Japan) to Taipei and 90nmi from Itbayat Isl. (Philippines) to the Taiwanese coast.
ReplyDeleteNSM's published min range of ~100nmi is a bit too short, I agree. But NSMs on these islands could threaten ships blockading the East and Northern Coasts of Taiwan.
Also, both NSM and JSM advertise ">100nmi" range, even up to 300nmi, flight profile dependent. So it could be quite a bit more.
"I think your range circles are a bit too small."
DeleteLook at the map. They're scaled.
"even up to 300nmi"
I'm using the range that is published on the manufacturer's website: https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-do/defence-and-security/missile-systems/nsm-naval-strike-missile-nsm
If you have more authoritative data than the manufacturer, let me know.
As you know (so why are you commenting?), EFFECTIVE ranges are always substantially less than published ranges.
A 100nmi radius circle centered on Yonaguni would cover all of Taipei.
Delete"A 100nmi radius circle centered on Yonaguni would cover all of Taipei."
DeleteIF Japan lets the US station missiles there- if Japan declares neutrality and forbids us from using THEIR island as a site from which to attack CHINESE warships, then it doesn't matter if missiles there can cover Taipei.
And what of other parts of Taiwan? Missiles on Yonaguni might not stop an attack on Tainan.
Sure. The entire concept is based on the idea that allies will allow us to use their territory. We don't own any islands in the region.
DeleteBasing missiles on Yonaguni doesn't suddenly solve all the region's problems. But it would be something else for the Chinese to worry about if they wished to invade from the north, or execute a blockade around the entire island.
In any case, I wasn't commenting on the value of doing so. I was just commenting on the size of the range circles on CNO's map.
FWIW, I use Google Earth Pro and the Range Rings plugin for maps like this.
Many get a bit tied up with Mk VI. Even if you really picked a boat with range in that size class you only end up at 900 miles like the USCG Protector class. If you could get 2 NSMs and a Jump 20 or Vbat on one you might have something for certain parts of the world, say maybe the Baltic.
ReplyDeleteIn playing with what the Marines are doing, LAW is too big and too slow. Why not have the option to position on islands or combine as an at sea comabt force? You would'nt deploy with one, but could do inter theater transport or conduct a fire mission on a manned MUSV. Put a roll on roll off ramp off the back to get NMESIS or Himars on and off. Leave enough room on deck for your vertrep station such it can launch and recover VBAT or Jump 20. Now you have speed, range and options so long as you can interface to a pier or ideally a beach.
One wonders if the Navy ever considered procuring AIP diesel electric subs with anti-ship missile capability.
DeleteI think its cost benefit. The AIP is pricey and is a good home team platform. You can buy a lot of shooters and flexibility for the cost of one AIP.
Delete"You can buy a lot of shooters and flexibility for the cost of one AIP."
DeleteCost is not - or should not be - an issue. The only factor that matters is combat efficiency. You can buy hundreds of millions of combat canoes for the cost of one AIP but that won't gain you any combat advantage. Will Marine missile shooting units provide a gain in combat effectiveness over an SSK? That all depends on how you intend to use them and what their combat effectiveness and survivability is. Since the military refuses to run realistic exercises, we have no idea.
It would seem that AIP subs would make a good coastal defense platform.
Delete"Cost is not - or should not be - an issue." Is counter to the major premise the success of our nation is based on. Unlimited spending did nothing for Afghanistan and sure isn't the defining factor of the current Ukraine conflict.
Delete"Unlimited spending"
DeleteWho, aside from you, has mentioned unlimited spending? That seems reckless. Why would you even suggest that?
"You can buy hundreds of millions of combat canoes for the cost of one AIP but that won't gain you any combat advantage."
ReplyDeleteThe USS Constitution cost about $300k to build, a huge sum at the time. The US built 3 of those 44 gun frigates; USS Constitution, USS President, and USS United States.
President Thomas Jefferson then spent about $1.5 million on worthless gunboats carrying a single heavy cannon.
Imagine the War of 1812 if that money had instead been spent on the Constitution class ships, and the US Navy had 8 of the 44 gun frigates instead of three.
Lutefisk
As a matter of historical interest, 8 frigates would not have appreciably changed the course of the war. The US frigates achieved some notable SINGLE victories but would have been useless against invasion fleets. Jefferson envisioned a defensive war for which fleets of gunboats would, theoretically, be potentially effective. The theory had numerous problems in the execution, however, and failed completely. Frigates might have gained a few more single ship victories but would, in the end, have been trapped in harbors or destroyed by fleets of British ships. They would have had no material impact on the war.
DeleteOne could speculate on what effect a combined fleet of half a dozen or so frigates could have achieved but that was not the way the US used their frigates. Even so, faced with a fleet battle against British 100-gun ships of the line, the frigates would have been summarily dispatched. Yes, they could have used superior speed and run away from a fleet engagement but then that would be a failure to stop a British invasion force.
The brigs, schooners, sloops, corvettes and gunboats are what won the battles of Lake Erie and Champlain. Many of those being built during the war and some of them crewed by sailors off the frigates. The frigate actions were good for morale and pride, the others were exactly where they needed to be when they were needed. The ability to quickly create the correct naval influence where required has always been relevant.
Delete"As a matter of historical interest, 8 frigates would not have appreciably changed the course of the war. "
ReplyDeleteAgreed that it certainly wouldn't have changed the US Navy's approach to the conflict.
The extra frigates would not have been enough to allow the navy to challenge the Royal Navy on their terms.
However, I do think that it would have had a substantial impact.
The Royal Navy of the day ruled the waves. They had an enormous fleet, but they also had enormous commitments.
They were stretched thin to amass the number of ships needed to successfully blockade the American ports...but they did manage to do it.
The US 44-gun frigates were a conundrum for them though. They found that their own frigates could not stand up to the US frigates in single combat, and the proud British navy had to send the humiliating order that one-on-one battles with the American heavy frigates was not permitted.
The US Navy, for its part, did not use their ships to defend the ports or try to keep the shipping lanes open...they did not have the resources for that.
What they did was merchant raiding.
This drew off large numbers of British warships trying to chase them down (think of 1812 versions of the pursuit of the Bismarck).
This kept the US ports from being blockaded for a time and allowed US shipping to continue (providing badly needed tariff revenue to the US Treasury).
Eight of those 44-gun frigates working as merchant raiders would have been an extremely difficult challenge for the Royal Navy. Imagine a pair of them running loose in the Indian Ocean, for example.
How much longer would the American ports stayed un-blockaded? Six more months? A year? Not at all?
I don't know, but its fun to think about.
I think the navy's problem would have been outfitting and manning eight of those big ships at the outbreak of the war.
Lutefisk
The only places where this might work would appear to be through the Philippines and around the Sunda and Malacca Straits, where the choke points are narrow enough to permit a "Guns of Navarone" type scenario. That would pretty much restrict access to the open seas for PLAN and exports and oil imports bound from/to China to the area between the Philippines and Japan, where the 7th Fleet could be strong enough to impose an effective blockade.
ReplyDeleteBut those would almost certainly depend on having friendly alliances with the host countries and being invited to put Marine units ashore. We have a lot of ground to cover before we can seriously challenge PLAN or deny China the use of the seas.
"That would pretty much restrict access to the open seas for PLAN and exports and oil imports bound from/to China to the area between the Philippines and Japan, where the 7th Fleet could be strong enough to impose an effective blockade."
DeleteAnd how is the 7th Fleet going to restrict access for the pipeline supplying China with Russian oil? Remember, China is also a CONTINENTAL power. How is the 7th Fleet going to stop Pakistan from serving as a middleman through which China can import Iranian oil? Can the 7th Fleet stop KOREA and JAPAN from trading with China? Remember, Japan imports a lot of rare earths from China.
THINK MORE. A lot of the problems you describe, require DIPLOMATIC and INDUSTRIAL solutions, for which military actions are actually counterproductive.
Agree totally that diplomatic and economic/industrial solutions are required. The limitation on both the Russian pipeline and any imports through Pakistan are that the quantities are limited to levels below which the Chinese economy needs to function and grow. Yes, they can restrict use by measures similar to what the USA used during WWII. But a big difference is that a lot of USA use is personal travel, which can absorb considerable constriction, whereas Chinese consumption is much more directly related to economic output--there aren't a lot of Chinese families taking off for two weeks for a family vacation in the station wagon, and there is generally less voluntary automobile travel across the economy. So any restriction hurts the economy. Military action would be, for me, only a last resort in an effort that will be hugely diplomatic and economic, with a much greater effort in those areas than we see today, supported of course by the military.
DeleteThe big problem with the so-called Pacific Pivot is that we really did not pivot. We need to, and now.
Truman bribed up an alliance to stop the Soviet Union in Cold War I, and four decades later Reagan put the Soviet economy under enough pressure to bring the Evil Empire down. I believe a similar strategy can work to defeat China in Cold War II, but we need to get high behind it, and so far we have basically stood idly by and watched China increase its influence. If we don't get started soon, it will be too late--if it is not already. I believe we still have time, but not much to spare, and our present posture won't get us there.
DeleteCDR Chip, I agree with your Cold War II idea wholeheartedly.
DeleteThe obstacle to overcome is that many US elites benefit personally from the Chinese. They are getting rich from the US's lopsided relationship with China.
That's a pretty tough knot to unravel.
Lutefisk
"Truman bribed up an alliance to stop the Soviet Union in Cold War I, and four decades later Reagan put the Soviet economy under enough pressure to bring the Evil Empire down. I believe a similar strategy can work to defeat China in Cold War II..."
DeleteNo, it won't, because China is NOT the Soviet Union. You need to THINK up different strategies to defeat a very different enemy. For one thing, the Soviet economy was NEVER as closely integrated with the world economy as China's is, such that a boycott of Chinese imports will hurt the ALSO inflict severe damage upon the US economy.
You highlight a real problem. China's exports to the US are only in the 3% of GDP range, and a US boycott of Chinese imports won't hurt much. A lot of that is high tech or specialized natural resources like rare earths that can't be readily replaced by other global sources.
DeleteOTOH, losing access to Chinese imports will have a huge impact on the US, particularly as there are a vast array of products that depend on Chinese components.
Its easy to argue that this level of dependency on China is a big mistake, but fixing it is going to require determination and long term planning. Not something we seem to be very good at these days.
China does rely on US semi-conductors, but that reliance is reducing every year as China catches up on the own manufacturing capability and capacity. If the do take over Taiwan, the also get TSMC as part of the prize, and suddenly they gain something like three generations of capability overnight. Not good.
George
https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/us-and-china-2021-trade-numbers/
DeleteGeorge
The Army SRBM PrSM Spiral 1 planned for 2025 will include a multi-mission multi-mode seeker which "initially listens for radio-frequency emissions from the enemy’s communications and radar. As the missile homes in on the target, the seeker turns on its infrared imaging mode to refine the precise point to strike"
ReplyDeleteIt would appear the seeker development dates back to 2015 for use in the proposed Army Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) an initiative strongly supported by Congress to place offensive missiles on Army shore batteries to give an anti-ship capability, might say creating a modern day Coastal Artillery Corps.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/army-tests-prsm-seeker-to-hunt-ships-sams/
If the PrSM Spiral 1 successful thought Navy might adopt it as an option to the subsonic Maritime Strike Tomahawk, Introducing the PrSM would require the Chinese/Russian ships need to defend against ballistic missile as well as the slow Tomahawk. Question whether Spiral 1 seeker large area coverage would be effective, similar in concept to the Chinese DF-21D ballistic anti-carrier missile.
CNO emphasizes targeting is the big problem, Elon Musk has launched a constellation of ~ 3,000 small Starlink satellites to date, presume on a much smaller scale what the Canadian company using small surveillance satellites to monitor the Chinese fleet’s illegal fishing around the Galápagos Islands, in June 2022, they detected 180 Chinese vessels near the islands’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), envisage similar tech could be used to provide targeting info for long range anti-ship missiles especially when you have high numbers as Starlink to give near instantaneous update of positions (if not jammed:)
PrSM is 17" dia x 156"/13 foot length missile so would fit in a Mk41 VLS cell, the Army with Spiral 3 looking to extend range to ~500 miles, the basic PrSM is $1.8 million each in FY23 budget and expect Spiral 1 cost to be higher with its seeker, not too different to the cost of a MST.
""initially listens for radio-frequency emissions from the enemy’s communications and radar."
DeleteAnd if the enemy practices EMCON?
My understanding the Finish company ICEYE a pioneer of nano radar satellites, the size of a shoebox, operates 21 synthetic aperture, SAR, satellites, sure you would need a constellation of a larger number to give near continuous coverage to be effective. Space X with a single Falcon 9 rocket launches 50+ Starlink satellites simultaneously and they are larger/heavier the ICEYE satellites.
DeleteWhether good enough targeting info possible for the ballistic PrSM missile infra red section of seeker in the limited time before ship moves out of the basket target range or possibly require new PrSM seeker to be fitted with active RF seeker to compliment the IR seeker don't know, but think there are future possibilities for targeting ships operating in EMCOM mode, expect the comms of the data from the satellites and analysis of targeting info to ship will be a big ask.
Your absolutely right that the current plans for the Marine units doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you consider them as mobile defensive units to provide close in defense of important anchorages and airstrips? That can be deployed fairly quickly as things heat up?
ReplyDeleteI have to throw this out there:
ReplyDeleteAll of the targeting issues will be solved with JADC2!
Now what is that? Well it's Joint All-Domain Command and Control.
And how will it work?
Well.......magic. It's doesn't accually exist yet.
But don't worry.....It's all in the "PLAN".
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2970094/dod-announces-release-of-jadc2-implementation-plan/
I have never thought that platoon sized units made much sense for this purpose, but the overall strategy of locking the Chinese behind the first Island chain has merit, and light anti-ship missile batteries are a good way to do it. Not coincidentally, the Japanese are moving SSMs, Air-defense units and EW units to the major islands of the Ryukyus. That means that any Marines units cooperating on those islands will be able to take advantage of air defense. It also seems clear that the Japanese have realized that a threat to Taiwan is a serious threat to the Ryukyus as well. I expect in a Taiwan scenario the Japanese will be on board with closing the straits.
ReplyDeleteThat means that the diplomatic challenge is with the Philippines. Should be get permission to base missiles on Batanes, for example, I think you are going to need to something more along the lines of several companies to a battalion to do air recon via UAV, provide air defense, and protect the SSM batteries. We should be figuring out how to move forces on that scale quickly into key locations, and making arrangement to cache fuel and supplies for that purpose.