A reader (username = ‘cheezit’) recently posed an insightful
question about mine countermeasures (MCM):
I
wonder what sort of advancements might have been made in combat sweeping had we
(anybody?) bothered for the last thirty-five years or so.[1]
In a sense, the user is asking what the opportunity cost has
been resulting from the Navy’s focus on areas other than MCM. For those who may not be familiar with the
term, ‘opportunity cost’ refers to the ‘things’ that might have been procured/developed
instead of whatever actually was procured/developed. In simplistic terms, if I spent a dollar on
something, the opportunity cost refers to all the things that I might,
alternatively, have purchased with that dollar if I had spent it on something
other than what I did. There is an
opportunity cost associated with every purchase/development because there are
always alternatives. Opportunity cost is
not inherently good or bad; it’s just
alternatives. What one wants to do is
ensure that the opportunity cost doesn’t have greater value than whatever is
actually procured/developed.
If I may rephrase the reader’s question, what advancements
in MCM could have been achieved if the Navy had not been so myopically focused
on new hulls, regardless of their usefulness … or lack thereof?
It only takes a moment’s consideration to realize that this
excellent question could be applied to so many other areas besides MCM. Let’s consider some of those other areas and
engage in a bit of speculation about what might have been achieved (the
opportunity cost) if the Navy had not been so focused on new hulls (the shiny,
sexy toys).
Here is the reader’s question applied to other areas along
with some speculative answers: Note, the
proposed alternatives are by no means intended as a comprehensive list. There could be an almost limitless number of
opportunity cost alternatives. Feel free
to offer your own in the comments.
"I wonder what sort of advancements might have been
made in combat sweeping"
Modern Avenger MCM Vessel – A modern,
affordable minesweeper would be invaluable.
Instead, we opted to spend our money on the LCS which we’re now retiring
almost as fast as we build them!
MCM Mothership – A mothership
would immensely improve our MCM capabilities and capacities by bringing large
numbers of helos, surface drones, underwater drones, and centralized command,
control, data analysis, and coordination to MCM instead of the haphazard assets
we currently have.
Intelligent Sweep Capability with Signal
Modulation – The biggest weakness in our MCM efforts (aside from the lack
of numbers!) is the inability to conduct effective, large area, rapid sweeps. We need sweeps with programmable, variable
signal outputs to mimic actual target ships.
This capability exists, to some degree, in the naval world but not in
the US naval MCM world.
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on offensive mine warfare?
Mobile Mines – We’ve almost
abandoned the Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM) and we could have done much
more with that: longer range,
waypoints/navigation, etc.
Intelligent Mines – We could use
a mine with sophisticated target discrimination and the ability to regulate its
own actions (skip a target, choose the optimum target, sense and shut down in
the face of sweeping, etc.).
Autonomous Limpet Mines – How
about a mobile, self-attaching mine?
Cruise Missile Mines – Perhaps
we could have developed a simplified cruise missile mine that simply travels to
a coordinate and then dives into the sea to become a mine.
Mine Inventory – Simply building
tens of thousands of basic mines would have been a huge step in the right
direction of cheap, incredibly effective firepower. The US Navy is terrified of mines – and
rightly so – so imagine what kind of offensive mine warfare capabilities we
could have now if we had put some effort into it.
What kind of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on ship armor?
Reactive Armor – Reactive armor,
among many other types of land vehicle armor, could have been adapted to ship
use, providing a significant degree of protection. While it might not be possible to adapt every
type of land vehicle armor to ships, it is certain that many types could have
been. Reactive armor, composite armor,
bubble armor, spaced armor, layered armor, etc. would all have been worth
investigating.
Missile Immunity – Proper armor
design could have provided a degree of immunity to the most common anti-ship
missiles and provided damage mitigation in the face of any missile.
Fight Hurt – The ability to
absorb damage, stay in the fight, and fight hurt effectively is an ability
totally absent in the fleet despite being self-evidently invaluable. We should have been developing ships that
could absorb damage as was routinely done in WWII. Imagine a Burke with armored VLS and capable
of shrugging off Exocet/C80x type anti-ship missiles.
Torpedo Armor – Torpedoes, along
with mines, are major threats to ships and yet torpedo armor development has
been totally ignored. New concepts of
armor, armor shaping (slanted lower hull and keel armor), structural
optimization (flex versus rigid, shock absorption, etc.), and void usage could
have been developed to provide much greater protection from underwater
explosions.
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on large caliber gun support?
8” Gun - The Navy could have
adapted a modern version of the Des Moines 8”/55 Rapid Fire Mk16 gun, the best
8” gun ever developed. The gun was
capable of a sustained rate of fire of 10 rds/min and, in the Des Moines class,
had magazines of 150 rds per gun for a total of 1350 rds per ship. These triple gun turrets could have provided
the Navy with an overwhelming anti-surface and land attack shell capability.
The Zumwalt, in particular, could have
been provided with a full 9-gun fit of three triple turrets which would have
gone a long way towards providing effective naval gun support.
Alternatively, the 8”/55 Mk71
lightweight gun could have been fully developed, providing a large caliber gun
capable of being mounted in the Burke and Zumwalt classes.
These options would have provided true
amphibious assault gun support as opposed to the total absence of any such
effective support today.
Imagine a fleet of large caliber-gunned
ships capable of supporting an amphibious assault, decimating an enemy fleet in
close range combat, or laying waste to enemy shore facilities and doing so with
cheap shells instead of multi-million dollar missiles which will be in vanishingly
short supply by the second week of a peer war.
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on torpedoes?
Wake Homing – It’s inexplicable
that we don’t yet have a wake homing torpedo like our enemies. The Japanese Long Lance torpedo was
devastating in WWII and a wake homing version would be many times more
effective if ship combat reaches that range.
Range – We could have had a much
longer range torpedo which, combined with various forms of guidance and homing,
would make both surface ship and submarine torpedo attacks frighteningly
effective.
Larger Warhead – WWII Japanese
Long Lance torpedoes had a warhead weight of 1080 lbs. Our biggest Mk48 torpedo, today, has a
warhead of 647 lb. We need a true
ship-sinker warhead.
Supercavitating – The underwater
equivalent of hypersonic missiles is the supercavitating torpedo which Russia
has developed. It would be nice to for
us to have an unstoppable, supercavitating torpedo.
AI – Artificial intelligence
could have been applied to torpedoes.
Just as missiles have been given the ability to sense and self-allocate
targets using rudimentary AI, so could torpedoes do the same. With AI self-targeting, salvos of torpedoes
could be fired at general target clusters and the torpedoes could self-target.
These kinds of advances could have made
surface ship torpedo use extremely effective.
Instead, we are left with no anti-surface ship torpedo capability.
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on long range COMBAT surveillance?
UAV Surveillance Swarms – We’ve
discussed the need for small, cheap, numerous UAVS for surveillance,
situational awareness, and targeting.
Cruise Missile Based Surveillance
– Imagine a surveillance asset based on a stealthy cruise missile. Instead of a warhead, the payload would be
sensors and communications. We could
have thousand mile surveillance capability today, thus solving the long range
surveillance/targeting problem!
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on electronic warfare?
Dedicated EW Ships – We could
have dedicated offensive and defensive electronic warfare ships similar, in
concept, to Burke AAW escorts but for EW instead of AAW.
Aegis-like EW Capability – We could
have total EW capability controlled by an Aegis-like, master software
system.
Cooperative EW Engagement -
Imagine a networked, integrated EW capability using a system analogous to our
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) that would link and integrate the EW
efforts of an entire task force.
Offensive EW – We could have
offensive ‘attack’ EW capability using high power output signals for truly
effective jamming or signal disruption.
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on supersonic cruise missiles?
Heavyweight Supersonic ASM – We
could have a serious, credible, anti-ship capability using supersonic,
heavyweight anti-ship missiles instead of the lightweight Naval Strike Missile
(NSM).
Penetrating Missile – We could
have a missile with a realistic chance of penetrating enemy defenses instead of
the obsolete Tomahawk. Such a missile
would use supersonic speed and stealth and include versions that would disperse
decoys and generate jamming signals.
Heavyweight Missile – We could
have a true heavyweight missile (BrahMos or similar) capable of inflicting
serious damage on Chinese carriers including the coming supercarriers.
What sort of advances could have been made if the Navy had
focused some effort on aerial tanking?
Tanker – We could have a dedicated
strike tanker which would extend the useful combat range of the air wing. This would give us greater numbers of combat
aircraft since they wouldn’t be allocated to tanking. A tanker would give us less cumulative wear
and tear on our front line combat aircraft which are currently being forced to
fly endless hours of tanker duty.
And so on.
Instead, the Navy was totally focused on new hulls in the
water no matter how useless they were (LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, MLP/AFSB, JHSV). The opportunity cost has been enormous and
demonstrates just how unwisely we have spent our money.
________________________________
It has just occurred to me that the armour on a tank ( one might say the battleship of the army - tongue in cheek) has had decades of development since WW2. It is assumed it will get hit. The punishment a modern tank can take compared to one 40 plus years ago is no comparison. Why not a ship?
ReplyDeleteExactly !!!!
Delete"has had decades of development "
And, inexplicably, we've made no attempt to develop ship armor over that same time period.
You may hate it, but PVLS was/is a reasonable attempt. Scale an M-1 up to cruiser size and its a 100 billion dollar ship.
Delete" PVLS was/is a reasonable attempt."
DeleteNot sure what you're trying to say, here. PVLS was not an attempt at armor. It appears to have been an attempt at dispersing and isolating explosive risk.
No idea what you're talking about M-1 and 100 billion dollar ship. Try again.
"It is assumed it will get hit."
DeleteThe tank's main gun is a direct fire weapon: it has to be in line of sight of the enemy to engage. The armor is concentrated on the turret face and frontal arc, because the tank has a better than even chance of forcing the enemy to fire at it from those most protected arcs (i.e. when the tank is advancing to breakthrough, or when it is dug in and defending). Otherwise, tanks can get pretty vulnerable in the sides and the rear, let alone the top - no tank has what can be called credible armor protection for the turret roof.
It's not quite the same for ships, because with ships, we can't guarantee that we're going to be able to take the impact on the most armored section of the ship. Also, because missiles are fired at ships, the defense against those missiles is to use softkill ECM and hardkill interceptor SAMs and point defenses to protect the ship. Tanks have armor and some active protection systems, ships go fully into active protection in lieu of armor.
I'm not saying that armor is useless - armoring compartments and bulkheads to contain damage and limit fragmentation effects is something bigger ships are doing, and that's pretty useful; the compartment itself acts as spaced armor for the whole ship. But that's not quite the same thing as tanks and how they fight.
Great stuff, and it would have all been revolutionary. Very sobering indeed, thanks for that.
ReplyDeletePS, maybe those mobile expeditionary dock ships could be the MCM motherships. They are huge, they are slow anyway (will have to trail the fleet a negative) but have a large deck space to hold the choppers to do the sweeps as well as the underneath spaces from where they could arrange in some way to launch smaller vessels, manned or unmanned. If not fully developed to do some things, still more cost effective to do some development work on an EXISTING class than giving out 2 billion in contracts to make a digital drawing and then knowing us about 2 billion a pop for a mother ship.
and while at it, we have a huge fleet of dedicated tankers sitting at AMARG right now with not a ton of hours, aka our S-3 Vikings that will carry more than our new drones will and if made into a dedicated platform, which Lockheed showed years ago, will truly bring alot more fueld to the fight. Let Lockheed put their drone software on the S-3 if it has to be unmanned, they can land an F-18 today basically close to being on its own, same could apply to an S-3, but manned to start is just fine.
Delete"maybe those mobile expeditionary dock ships could be the MCM motherships"
DeleteWe're early retiring them so why not?
"S-3 Vikings"
Again, I'm with you !
I always thought that the expeditionary ships, especially with the 'floodable' option, might have acted as heavy transport ships to carry a flotilla (squadron?) of MCM ships and act as a mobile base for them. Even without the ability to carry other vessels, I would think theres lots of potential for their use as 'motherships', or backwater resupply/rearming platforms.
DeleteYou are onto a good idea there. Get Westport yacht to build 50m fiberglass manned or unmanned sweeping boats and use ESD to move them in theatre and act as tender.
DeleteYes!! Id think that if there are any US flagged heavy haul ships, theyll get federalized to haul damaged ships home, but they could also be used to get small ASW/MCM vessels into theatre and possibly act as bases. At least until the DDGs start needing rides home. Which brings another question: what do we have for oceangoing tug/salvage vessels these days?? Getting a hurt destroyer back to Pearl might be tough enough, let alone a carrier thats missing her rudders or somesuch. Oh, so another question: are we thinking about mobile drydocks and repair facilities west of Oahu??
DeleteSo many questions... But my (new) point is that we excelled in the Pacific for many reasons, but a big one was that our supply and repair facilities moved west as we did, and we eventually had some very comprehensive capabilities relatively near the "front". These are different days, and weapons ranges have increased a lot. But having repair and supply capabilities beyond Pearl (tenders, floating drydocks, seagoing tugs/salvage) could be one of the keys to success in a future conflict.
They are building the new tugs. They have to pull a CVN, so they will do fine unless someone needs to move a 400m container ship or something.
DeleteWhat if the Navy took rocket artillery seriously!
ReplyDeleteWell, they did. That's what the LRLAP was. Or, did you mean a naval variant of MLRS?
DeleteIs the 227mm MLRS rocket's 92 km maximum range sufficient to suppress enemy defenses without putting the launching ship in unacceptable risk? And how difficult will it be to design a ship with a dedicated elevator to move reloads from a below deck armory to the launcher, without letting this elevator become an "I win!" button for an enemy to push via a direct hit or near miss sending forth a spark to ignite the munitions in the armory? The hatches a battleship used to move shells and propellants to the guns, were far less vulnerable than this elevator will be, because they were far smaller than this elevator will have to be.
DeleteI meant naval MLRS, I should have been more specific.
DeleteAim9snake,
The nice thing about the 227mm is you can choose a lot of options. Cheap, Cold War designs for area bombardment. Or you can use the fancier GMLRS-ER with 150 km range if you know where your target is. And there are even fancier options for the launchers like the 500+ km Precision Strike Missile.
MLRS launcher also have a lot of flexibility because of their low cost and containerized reload systems. HIMARS and M270 (when it was still in production) cost $3-$5 million, less than M109 and about the same as a fancy towed gun like M-777. A naval variant will have differences that cost more (extra corrosion protection, stabilization, ammo storage area) and some that cost less (no need for a vehicle). You should watch a video of a reload, they have their own winch that easily pulls it into place. You just have something like an ammo tunnel where reloads move forward on dollies. It'd be relatively close to the deck but VLS tubes are already that way and you could design it to have blow out panels and fire suppression like all of our tanks do.
Really MRLS is a low upfront cost, high marginal cost system. It lets you concentrate a lot of firepower in a short period of time. But for basic fire missions artillery shells are cheaper. You could put these systems on cheaper platforms like an LST to support landings or take over the helipad area on modern ship designs.
The DPICM munitions would absolutely shred modern warships with minimal armor. Those submunitions release at 750-1000m of altitude, making CIWS less useful. And their area effect means they don't need sensors and have nothing to jam or confuse. The Navy needs DPICM in rockets and in their regular shells. The ~180 km shell for the 16" guns would have used DPICM.
So should clarify by saying "what if the Navy developed MRLS with naval optimized sub munitions?"
Something that you need to take into account is that DPICM submunitions are predicated on the idea that they're being fired at a tank. Tanks are real small: you punch through the roof, you're into the fighting compartment, setting it on fire, igniting ready ammo, turning the crew into giblets. But that effect happens all in that one compartment.
Deleteships are made of lots and lots of compartments, which means that those compartments, especially when sealed for combat, will be acting like spaced armor. It'll probably fuck the bridge, but the enemy will have aux steering and they can still fight the ship from CIC. It's not a wonderweapon.
What sensors will they have left to fight with? Or weapons since VLS and turrets will be compromised?
DeleteI agree it’s not a wonder weapon, but the Navy still needs it for shore bombardment. Until the Chinese armor their ships it’s great for mission kills and possibly full on kills if a fire gets out of control. Our regular anti-ship missiles will be more effective if many of the enemy ships are damaged.
I'm all for a MLRS type system on ships, however, there are significant challenges in doing so that you're hand waving away.
Delete"A naval variant will have differences that cost more"
Much more! An entire development effort would have to occur and those are ALWAYS hideously expensive no matter how simple they seem. Seemingly simple corrosion control is a major challenge. Every seal, gasket, and mating surface has to be redesigned and/or substituted with non-corroding materials. Salt water will penetrate EVERYWHERE. Stabilization is a major problem. The entire launcher mechanism would have to be redesigned to provide multi-axis stabilization to account for the ship's continuous pitch and roll. A complete magazine storage area with fire suppression, armor, and munition handling would have to be designed and constructed. A munition handling, strikedown, and loading mechanism would have to be designed and constructed. A fire control system would have to be designed, programmed, and integrated into the ship's fire control software. As we've seen, repeatedly, software development and implementation is a major challenge and source of failure. And so on.
Two notable attempts at converting land weapon systems to naval use have not gone well. The German MONARC system attempted it and failed. The US 30 mm gun attempted it and it did not go well. I don't know whether they've ironed out those problems yet, or not.
The point is that It can be done but it's not the simple, cheap 'bolt on' effort that you seem to imagine. It will be very, very expensive, difficult, and require many years to do so.
Yes, those are fair points. It might be cheaper to spend more on rocket models that have INS already and forgo the need for stabilization.
DeleteOr maybe an intermediate step would be to quad pack GMLRS rockets like ESSMs into vertical launch tubes. Then it'd be useful if the Navy ever makes their vertical launch systems less fragile.
"quad pack GMLRS rockets like ESSMs into vertical launch tubes."
DeleteWe have a constant tendency to want to develop new methods to address problems even if we've long ago solved the problem. Why apply a bunch of new, expensive, technically challenging solutions to a problem we solved in WWII? See, "LSM(R) Fire Support Ship"
Nice, thanks. This is close to what I was imagining for mounting on an LST-like ship. As always, there are rarely new ideas. Amazing that they could go from lay down to commissioning in two months.
DeleteThese links are great for anyone with further interest in the rockets or their launchers:
Deletehttps://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/5in-hvsr.html
https://eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-11-B.html
I think we also need to develop a small MCM and a small ASW for an inshore fleet to protect our ports on both coasts.
ReplyDeleteWho is to say Russian subs aren't already deployed off our major harbors, ready to lay mines? Even one mine hit on a tanker or a container ship would shut a major seaport down for weeks while we looked for more of them.
"small MCM and a small ASW for an inshore fleet to protect our ports"
DeleteYes!
We may need vessels with low acoustic signatures for prosecuting ASW and MCM missions. Not sure if using the LCS for MCM work is right for the mission .Supposedly the navy has a fix for the MCM module
Delete(With trepidation), Would the concept of a generic cruise missile "booster" (like NASA rockets) that would fly to a specific place carrying whatever autonomous payload that could be mated to it (within size and weight limits) like drones, a mine, or a sensor package be viable?
DeleteDon,
DeleteThe XQ-58 is basically a stealthy cruise missile drone that could do the recon mission. It has a combat radius in the thousands of kilometers. The Navy is testing a few.
"Heavyweight Supersonic ASM – We could have a serious, credible, anti-ship capability using supersonic, heavyweight anti-ship missiles instead of the lightweight Naval Strike Missile (NSM)."
ReplyDeleteOn one hand yes, this is true. On the other hand, it's only been within the last decade that the USN has had a need for these missiles. Heavyweight supersonic AShMs are the weapon for surface action groups that lack fighters and need to kill a carrier as fast as possible, because when you are in range to fire AShMs at a carrier, the carrier's air wing and its escorts are in range to fire back missiles at you. And until a decade ago, we were the only people in the world with carriers. We didn't need carrier killing missiles because we didn't have enemy carriers to kill.
That said, the Japanese are developing on a VLS-launched supersonic cruse missile and the British are working on an air-launched hypersonic missile. We could probably continue to observe their research and partner with them (they ARE our allies, afterall), or just let them do the hard work and then lisence their missiles (like what we're doing with NSM).
For sure, we should probably have started looking into carrier killer missiles a decade ago. But then again, how many carriers do the ChiComs have 3? Say they eventually get to 6 carriers, we still outnumber them 2:1. The Chinese have more ships than just their carriers. NSM is a still viable option against their destroyers and frigates, of which they have an entire order of magnitude more than their carriers: BrahMos, Moskit, Granit, these missiles are overkill for those sort of targets.
"how many carriers do the ChiComs have"
DeleteI think you're overlooking lots of other targets suitable for heavy, supersonic missiles: 13,000 ton Type 055 (bigger than a Burke), supertankers, giant cargo ships, giant bulk carriers, 25,000 ton Type 071 LPD, 40,000 ton Type 072 LHD, the planned Type 076 super-LHD, 45,000 ton Type 901 Fast Combat Support Ship, 24,000 ton Type 903 stores ship, and others.
Sure, but this comes into a matter of doctrine and the question of which do you think will have the better chance of getting past the enemy defenses: a larger salvo of smaller stealthy subsonic missiles, or a smaller salvo of heavy unstealthy supersonic missiles.
DeleteAlso, while they're big, merchant ships are built to civ standards - they're inherently less survivable than warships. Consider how Atlantic Conveyor was a write off after eating two Excocets.
Besides, it's not like warships are that survivable anyway; as you yourself have noted, warships afloat today aren't built to take a pounding. So what if the Type 055 is 13000 tons? We can just fire more missiles at them. And the Bonhomme Richard fire says bad things about how well ships will deal with fire damage.
"which do you think will have the better chance of getting past the enemy defenses"
DeleteThis isn't even a debatable question. Speed equals survivability which is why we're so fearful of hypersonics. A supersonic missile is far more likely to get through a defense than a subsonic one.
"they're inherently less survivable than warships."
False. While not built to the same standards, large commercial ships of the type we're talking about are inherently survivable just due to their size, numerous void spaces, large weight and stability margins, etc. Recall that the US Navy used commercial tankers to lead the way through minefields in the Middle East specifically because of their inherent survivability. Atlantic Conveyor was a small (14,000 ton) vessel that was improperly and unwisely loaded with fuel and munitions that the ship was not designed to store. The resulting fires doomed the ship.
"We can just fire more missiles at them. "
Assuming China's 'Aegis' system works as well as we claim ours does, we can't 'just fire more missiles at them'. They won't get through. Smaller missiles also require the launch platform to get closer which risks the launch platform.
" the Bonhomme Richard fire says bad things about how well ships will deal with fire damage."
No. The BR demonstrates that a ship undergoing overhaul, with its crew largely unavailable, flammable materials improperly accumulated and stored, and firefighting systems shut down, is highly vulnerable to fire.
"This isn't even a debatable question. Speed equals survivability which is why we're so fearful of hypersonics. A supersonic missile is far more likely to get through a defense than a subsonic one."
DeleteA high subsonic stealthy missile, like NSM on the smaller end or LRASM on the large end, is still traveling at a decent speed. Even assuming in the worst case that NSM is detected at the radar horizon, 25km away, traveling at Mach 0.93 means we've got 78 seconds from detection to time of impact - and as you have yourself noted, even if the missile is detected instantly, there is still a moment of decisionmaking lag time in the human officer managing the shoot. Like you said in your analysis last February, this is not much time for a missile shoot: at best, you have three engagements.
(https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2022/02/missile-attack-analysis.html
With subsonic stealthy missiles, the missile is under observation for a longer period of time, but it also has more time to keep the target under observation, and can use multiple seekers to mitigate the effects of softkill ECM - NSM and LRASM have IIR seekers to visually see the target in addition to radar seekers, plus the VLO shaping gives us another diceroll at sea level. With supersonic unstealthy missiles, where the airframe is optimised for aerodynamics, there's less time to observe the target, you only have the radar seeker, and you will be detected crossing the horizon.
On the other hand, it's impacting in less than 45 seconds, which is about half the flight time of a high subsonic ASCM.
Personally, I'd split the difference. Attacks should not be made in isolation: we can and should set up multidomain shots. Have the air wing launch NSM, have the DDGs launch supersonic ASCMs, arrange the math so that the missiles are coming about the same time, from different axis.
"Assuming China's 'Aegis' system works as well as we claim ours does, we can't 'just fire more missiles at them'. They won't get through. Smaller missiles also require the launch platform to get closer which risks the launch platform."
NSM/JSM in a hi-hi-lo flight path can achieve 555 km range, which exceeds the range of Chinese and American SAMs. More realistically, I'd expect a launch at 300 km, which is still at the outer ballistic range of enemy SAMs; the air wing can climb above the radar horizon altitude (which is something like 20k feet or so), salvo their JSMs, and then go evasive and duck below the radar horizon. It'd be difficult but doable, especially with EW Growler support for the strike package. Also, smaller missiles mean that the launch aircraft can carry more missiles (and JSM is small enough to fit into the F-35's missile bay).
Basically, there's two ways to skin this cat: fire fewer supersonic missiles, gambling on speed to defeat defenses, or fire more stealthy missiles, gambling on stealth and greater numbers to overwhelm defenses (because as you pointed out, they've got a lot of stealthy targets to intercept, and intercepted missiles will create debris clutter). Supersonic ASCMs are going to be big, heavy things, and I'd be very surprised if you could carry more than 2 per fighter. Assuming a full air wing of 48 fighters, that'd be 96 supersonic ASCMs. On the other hand, you can carry more JSMs - Super Hornets can carry 4 JSMs with drop tanks, F-35s can carry 6 JSMs. Call it 4 apiece, that's 192 missiles being generated.
"we've got 78 seconds from detection to time of impact"
DeleteAnd with hypersonics we've got, essentially, zero time. Shooting down subsonic missiles is difficult but shooting down hypersonics borders on impossible. Hence, my statement that speed equals survivability for missiles. It's not even debatable although you seem to be trying.
"Have the air wing launch NSM, have the DDGs launch supersonic ASCMs, "
That's an obliging enemy you've got there, to allow us to leisurely set up a textbook attack without interference and without, ourselves, being detected and attacked!
"Supersonic ASCMs are going to be big, heavy things, and I'd be very surprised if you could carry more than 2 per fighter."
You seem to be locked in on launching missiles from fighter planes. Think ship launches (Kirov, for example) or B-1/2/52 bombers.
"Hence, my statement that speed equals survivability for missiles. It's not even debatable although you seem to be trying."
DeleteYou're focused entirely on the speed aspect because it's easily quantifiable. You're ignoring that supersonic radar-guided ASCMs are potentially more vulnerable to softkill ECM because they only have radar seekers, while subsonic ASCMs can carry multiple seekers - ECM doesn't work on IIR, y'know. You're also ignoring that a stealthy seaskimmer is harder to detect on radar, and so while the missile is slower, it has a better chance of getting closer before detected, especially with sea clutter and radar clutter from intercepted missiles mucking up the radar picture.
Both approaches are valid choices to make, and this isn't some binary option: America can afford both options. We're not a poor country like Russia.
"That's an obliging enemy you've got there, to allow us to leisurely set up a textbook attack without interference and without, ourselves, being detected and attacked!"
I mean, there was NORPAC 82, where two carrier groups operated in Soviet waters within strike range of strategic targets, and the Soviets didn't find them despite active searching: at best, the Soviets knew that there was a carrier group out there somewhere, but didn't find the Midway group until the Midway group revealed themselves... and then the Enterprise group revealed themselves and the Soviets went concern.jpg even harder.
Surely we have not degenerated so hard in the last 40 years?
"You seem to be locked in on launching missiles from fighter planes. Think ship launches (Kirov, for example) or B-1/2/52 bombers."
The problem with ships launching missiles is that if your ships are in range to detect and launch at the enemy, the enemy is in range to detect and launch against you. The whole point of fighters was that you could attack from further out at an offset; you might lose the whole air wing, but it's easier and faster to replace an air wing than it is to replace a DDG squadron.
You also seem to have missed the part where I said the DDGs should be launching the supersonic ASCMs. And while bombers would be able to carry more large supersonic ASCMs, we have far more fighters than we have bombers - at best, in the next 10-20 years, the B-21 fleet will only be some 120 aircraft, recapitalising the B-1 and B-2 fleet and replacing some of the oldest B-52s. On the other hand, bombers can also carry more JSMs in their launch bays than they could carry large supersonic ASCMs...
I'm also skeptical that the bombers will be tactically relevant for a naval fight. Flight time from Guam and regional airbases means that they just won't be as responsive as the carrier's air wing operating in concert with the DDGs, hunting the enemy fleets on the high seas in a constantly-evolving battlespace. The bombers would be more useful for more static targets, like the Chinese artificial island bases, or ships at port that are rearming/repairing.
"a stealthy seaskimmer is harder to detect"
DeleteAnd a stealthy supersonic seaskimmer is even harder to detect. You've made my point for me! Thanks!
" and the Soviets didn't find them"
Are you extrapolating from that to conclude that we'll blithely sail up to a Chinese group, undetected and unhindered, and launch leisurely attacks? Isn't it equally theoretically possible that they may do the same to us?
"I said the DDGs should be launching the supersonic ASCMs. "
Rather than counter that statement, I'll let you counter yourself. Here's your own quote:
"The problem with ships launching missiles is that if your ships are in range to detect and launch at the enemy, the enemy is in range to detect and launch against you."
"And a stealthy supersonic seaskimmer is even harder to detect. You've made my point for me! Thanks!"
DeleteYou're arguing to win. Don't be Berger, you're better than that.
A stealthy supersonic seaskimmer would be the best of both worlds, BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST. We either have the big non-stealth supersonic ASCMs, or the small stealth subsonic ASCMs (setting aside legacy ASCMs - Harpoon, Exocet, etc), because in order to go supersonic at sea level, where the air is denser, your missile airframe has to be designed wholly for going fast, which means zero VLO shaping. Note the designs of Oniks, Brahmos, Granit, the myriad of Chinese supersonic missiles out there.
It's fine to say "This doesn't exist, and we have to develop this so the premise can work" but if you're not careful, that way lies Berger and the Marine vision.
"Rather than counter that statement, I'll let you counter yourself. Here's your own quote:"
My brother in christ, let's look at what you said, yes?
"Think ship launches (Kirov, for example)"
We have a point of agreement here - that surface combatants should carry supersonic ASCMs - and you're picking at it because you're arguing to win.
I was acknowledging the facts of life with ship missile launches. Hell, that's been the fact of life since goddamn WW2: if your ship is in range to shoot the enemy, the enemy is in range to shoot back. That's why the Soviets went so hard on supersonic missiles, because even if both our ships are in range and we fire at the same time, the Soviets have a chance to kill us before we kill them.
"Oniks, Brahmos, Granit"
DeleteThose were designed decades ago! Besides, a super/hypersonic missile doesn't even need stealth for survivability! If we did want to develop a supersonic sea skimming missile, it can certainly be done. The two decades old GQM-163 Coyote is a supersonic sea skimming target drone, demonstrating that supersonic sea skimming missiles are quite feasible.
Something like a Chinese JY-18 is quite likely to be a handful. Extremely low altitude sea-skimmer with a subsonic cruise and a Mach 2.5 - 3 terminal attack phase. Not being detected until the last minute with a high rate of closing is not a recipe for a fun day. A 300Kg warhead is also not to be sneezed at.
DeleteA lot will depend on whether the EW environment allows comms to work reliably, and whether AEW assets can survive. Otherwise targeting at the radar horizon is going to be miserable.
"A lot will depend on whether the EW environment allows comms to work reliably, and whether AEW assets can survive. Otherwise targeting at the radar horizon is going to be miserable."
DeleteWhat does that suggest for the viability of non-carrier surface groups who have no AEW?
"What does that suggest for the viability of non-carrier surface groups who have no AEW?"
DeletePretty much non-viable if you are within range of Chinese AEW, and there is a pretty good chance that is going to be land-based and very well protected. Unfortunately that also translates to carrier groups as well, as the kinds of missiles we are talking about have at least a 500km range. I believe there are at least 4 variants of a JY-18, sea-launched anti ship and land attack, and their air launched equivalent. There is even discussion of a submarine launched variant which brings even more complication to the fight. Carrier AEW is going to have to deal with Chinese PL-15s which are pretty much designed to take out high value assets like AEW and tankers are very long ranges. And you can expect large salvos of them to make life even more miserable.
I happen to agree completely that a supersonic sea-skimmer is the worst nightmare, but primarily because the angularity problem with getting a VLS-launched defensive missile turned downward in time is going to be a huge problem when you figure how close the attacking missile will be when you start shooting. At that point you are left with point defense, and good luck with that.
With a ballistic missile attack like YJ21s you can see them coming, you don't have the same angularity problem and you have a couple of existing missiles that may be able to hit them despite the higher attack velocity.
"Besides, a super/hypersonic missile doesn't even need stealth for survivability!"
DeleteWill hypersonic antiship missile happen? I don't think ship is a valid weapon for hypersonic missile, especially with price - LRHW was quoted at 43 million apiece.
Anti-ship ballistic missiles like the YJ-21 are hypersonic almost by definition. However, because they gain so much altitude they are easier to track. Aegis should be able to hit them. Supersonic sea-skimmers can be quite a bit more dangerous as you won't get enough reaction time.
Delete"I don't think ship is a valid weapon for hypersonic missile"
DeleteWhy? The only thing that really matters is combat effectiveness. Is there a reason why you don't think hypersonic weapons on a ship are not combat effective?
Bullet through paper. Will pass through. Ship is soft, no resistance. No energy transfer. No guidance, pure KE head. Valid target set must be fixed, must be hardened, must be high value and less defended to make the cost of shot worthwhile.
DeleteWarship doesn't meet this criteria.
Are you talking about a ship as a target or as a firing platform?
DeleteShip as target. Ship as firing platform for hypersonic makes more sense than fighter or bomber, because ship not so volume & weight limit.
DeleteI don't kno of any MBA school (or any) that give more than lip service to talking about opportunity or missed opportunity costs. So the managers in the services are not going to be given a textbook to follow, so until we start promoting leaders with vision and that art of seeing what can work in a combat environment it will be very bleak. But Industry has the same problem, Xerox, Motorola, IBM, and the Swiss watch makers are recent examples of companies that could not see what things could be, even when they invented most of it.
ReplyDeleteWith opportunity cost in mind, I have been wondering what a US fleet without super carriers (or any carriers) might look like. How much capability would we really lose in a peer war? Would a new doctrine overcome the loss of capability inherent in such a fleet? How badly do you need carriers when you can fly bombers from Missouri to anywhere in the world and back? I could go on, but you probably get the point.
ReplyDeleteThe questions are good, now how about offering some answers?! What would a fleet without carriers look like and what combat capability would it lose/gain?
DeleteYou've asked a fascinating question, now give us a fascinating answer!
What a seriously interesting question!!! I think there would be three distinct possibilities. Theyd each be based around when in history the Navy abandoned, or stopped pursuing them. Those certain time periods would be a fuctional derative of pre-WWII, the historical period when Navy and AF were super competitive for funding (think Revolt of the Admirals, USS United States, etc), or a fictional period post cold war where we took a different path and went all in on long range missiles to replace airwings and manned assets...
Delete"there would be three distinct possibilities."
DeleteExpand on that!
Apologies, my thoughts arent condensing well today...
DeleteSo first, in the fictional pre-WWII period, what if we misread ALL the potential of carrier aviation? If Billy Mitchell had the stomach flu and couldnt hit Ostfriesland? What if the Lex vs Sara Fleet Problem gun duel was completely misunderstood? What if the battleship admirals were able to thouroughly squash the aviation lobby through political maneuvering, misdiagnosing wargame results, etc, and keep their battle line at the forefront? Maybe the Japanese didnt get quite so aviation focused either due to the observation and absorption of American conclusions? Even if Pearl Harbor happened much as it historically did, what if the already underway naval buildup was still gunship-centric, and all those Essexs were SoDaks and Iowas and Baltimores instead? Submarines, while still used offensively, reverted to their early roles as fleet scouts, giving the battle line their "eyes". The handful of prewar existing US carriers are tasked with scouting duties and are squandered/lost without much accomplishment, further reinforcing the battleship focus. The war wouldve been very different and much longer. BUT, our war production still wouldve overwhelmed the Japanese, and massive attritive surface battles would have decided the issue eventually, with the same ultimate conclusion.
So at wars end, you have a victorious fleet built of armor and guns. Regardless of aviation advances, the surface ship proponents have a World War victory and massive institutional inertia behind them, which keeps any carrier fans silenced, at least til the late 50s. By that point, missile development comes to the forefront, and battleships shed guns to become giant arsenal ships, conventional and nuclear alike. Submarines become a major force as well, gaining missile striking power, but as their stealth increases, they continue to act as sensors for the fleet. As things progress through the decades, carrier aviation tries but fails to ever become mainstream. It never outgrows its early focus as anything more than a surveillance asset, and later, local defense for the fleet, never being more than escort carriers....
Well, that's just downright fascinating! One would think that, even if those initial events transpired, the inevitable development of the ship's scout planes would inexorably lead to the recognition that scout planes would make good bombers which would lead to fighters for escort and defense and ... eventually ... ... carriers! Still, a remarkable alternative train of development.
DeleteHow would/could the Japanese have conducted Pearl Harbor without a significant emphasis on carrier aviation?
"Maybe the Japanese didnt get quite so aviation focused either"
There's the most interesting aspect of this, for me.
Utterly fascinating alternate history path. I see it leading to carrier aviation eventually, though, but what a different path it might have taken!
Great comment!
From a tactics perspective, consider how many tomahawks you could buy for one F-18, F-35, or the NGAD? Gives you even more depth of strike and almost as much warhead and damage as any of the F-18 dropped weapons. Remember you do not win wars by airpower, it is a faciltator only. If missiles can do the same thing and cheaper AND your tactics can get a boost by being able to strike deeper then time to consider it. I do not mean to get rid of all manned aircraft, there are times you need eyeballs on the presumed target. But do you need to have manned air be the only spearpoint you consider?
DeleteFurthermore condider the cost of recoverable aircraft, to get ahead to the UAV proponents, vs one way ordinance. The Germans while their economy was starting to fail, built 1000s of rocket to reach England becuase it was the only thing that could get through with out totally unacceptable losses.
So I perceived the Japanese as having accepted carriers, but still with more of an emphasis on scouting and preliminary damage before their "decisive battle". So as such, the Pearl Harbor attack wouldve been done with fewer carriers and less planes, as a precursor to bringing in the battle line to sink escaping ships and/or ultimately shell whatever remained to destruction, much like in one of your fiction posts.
DeleteAs far as the progression from scout planes to bombers to fighters etc... The failed testing, along with misinterpreted or intentionally false conclusions pushed by the battleship mafia in both navies, along with the rapid development of AA weapons stunted that progresion, never allowing it to evolve as it did historically.
I added the nefarious Admirals clique because it had basis in today's steadfast mismanagement. All the seemingly nonsensical ideas and expenditures have been pushed through, crushing or ignoring opposition, including Congress. So retrofitting some mismanagement to the scenario was easy!!
The second no-or minimal-carrier scenario would sprout from the historical Navy/Air Force fight surrounding the USS United States. In the alternate, not only is the new supercarrier torpedoed, but future ones are as well, when the Air Force achieves a much larger victory in their push for primacy with their bombers. Long range bombing is somehow pushed through and overwhelmingly accepted as the nations primary system of conventional and nuclear attack. The Navy is punished/penalized for the fight and loses a massive percentage of their funding. Most of the Essexs dont get upgrades, angled decks, etc. New jet aircraft development lags behind for the Navy, as they have neither the funding to stay current, nor the platforms capable of carrying them. It becomes circular, as later cries for supercarriers are countered by the lack of capable aircraft needing such a platform, and requests for new aircraft and ships are dismissed. The missile age solidifies the Air Forces budgetary grip, as they hold all the nuclear forces. They conspire with the Army to massively expand airlift capabilities, yet another way to deprive the Navy of a mission and funding, by claiming theyve replaced sealift. SSBNs do arrive, but nearly a decade later than in actual history, again due to budgetary constraints and opposition to the need for a triad from the Air Force dominated Pentagon. SSGNs become the naval strike arm, and become the USNs most numerous platform. As the Vietnam era comes and goes, the Essexs start to age out. The handful of angled deck conversions have become CAS platforms, the unaltered ones, helicopter platforms to support Marine Corps operations- precursors to the LH platforms that eventually appear as the Navys newest, largest warships in the 70s...
DeleteWhile the scenarios might seem.far fetched, I think history occuring as it did isnt as set in stone as we might think. Tiny what ifs could thoroughly rewrite history. Think butterflies and hurricanes! Today we're sold idiocy like LCS, the Fords, minimal manning, F-18/35 airwings, Aegis frigates, and island hopping Marine squads. If these clowns had been the Admiralty of the 1920s, or 50s. Or the Air Force leadership had a few more friends on Capitol Hill... Some of the alternate historys could be very different!!! Fun, but sometimes terrifying food for thought!!
DeleteThis question leads to a plethora of interesting possible outcomes. I am going to enjoy your analysis because I can guarantee that this isn't a one issue post.
ReplyDeletePeruse the archives. Much of this blog has been a discussion of alternatives we could have pursued (the opportunity cost)!
Delete"Instead, the Navy was totally focused on new hulls in the water no matter how useless they were (LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, MLP/AFSB, JHSV). The opportunity cost has been enormous "
ReplyDeleteIf all of them had been fully successful, then, people would have praised navy. Problem is that they failed, not just one or two but almost all.
This reflects a serious problem -- this nation's defense R&D capability is .... too sad to say.
China has introduced many new weapons, include ships, why don't they have similar failure rate?
Maybe they do. We don't get reports from China like we do here. It would be naive and unrealistic to believe that China does everything perfectly.
DeleteChina's military lies even more than fedgov.
DeleteI'm sure they screwed up at least some weapons, but the actual failure rate is anyone's guess.