HIMARS … the unending miracle weapon system!
To briefly review, HIMARS is the single pod version of the
dual pod MLRS. The pod contains either
six 227 mm rockets or a single ATACMS missile.
The pod/launcher is mounted on a FMTV 5-ton truck. HIMARS was developed as a lighter weight,
lighter firepower version of the standard M270 MLRS.
Marines, naval observers and analysts, and blog commenters
have called for HIMARS to be mounted on all manner of ships for land attack and
anti-ship as well as for the Marine’s small unit, hidden bases to sink enemy
fleets and control the seas. Proponents
credit it with 120% accuracy. Truly, a
miracle weapon system.
Of course, HIMARS, as is, is totally unsuited for naval
mounting and would require a nearly new launcher/mount (materials of construction
to deal with corrosion, multi-axis stabilization, fire control integration with
existing ship’s systems, electronic signal deconfliction and interference
checks, etc.) and a significantly redesigned host vessel (magazines, ammo
storage and movement mechanisms, reload mechanism, magazine armor and
firefighting systems, etc.). As we’ve
noted in the past, there are very few examples of successful adaptation of land
weapons to naval use. However, let’s set
that issue aside.
An interesting data point has come to light from the recent US-Philippines
Balikatan 2023 SinkEx. It seems that the
HIMARS system missed all six of its shots.
As reported by Naval News website,
The
performance of the Army HIMARS was also questionable, with it being reported on
the SINKEX’s live stream that the system missed all six of its shots at the
World War II-era corvette. In previous SINKEXs, such as those held at RIMPAC
exercises, targets were relatively static which allowed for munitions that
struggle or cannot hit moving targets to participate. One of these systems that
cannot hit moving targets is HIMARS with its current set of rockets. Due to
unknown circumstances, BRP Pangasinan developed a drift that threw off the
HIMARS’ targeting.[1]
 |
| U.S. Army HIMARS “Tommy” from the 5-3 Long Range Fires Battalion of the 1st Multi-Domain Task Force fires at BRP Pangasinan. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Samuel Fletcher) |
So, it would appear that HIMARS has some challenges in the
anti-ship role due to target movement – assuming one classifies ‘drift’ as
target movement. If it can’t handle slow
drift, is it really the miracle weapon so many are claiming?
Here’s a worrisome thought:
if the target vessel hadn’t developed a drift and the HIMARS had hit the
target we’d be reading about how wonderful it is and no one would know it’s
useless against moving targets. Do the
Marines know about this shortcoming? Do
they care? Do proponents know or care?
HIMARS may be a useful, effective weapon on land – or it may
not - but it’s clearly not ready for naval combat and would require an enormous
effort to make it so.
Why do people keep calling for this?
This is yet another in the endless list of systems whose
claims far exceed their actual performance.
We have got to stop believing manufacturer’s and the military’s claims
about weapon performance. With 100%
certainty, they’re significantly overstated.
I keep hammering on this and yet people keep buying into claims.
We’ve already got multiple anti-ship weapons (Hellfire,
Naval Strike Missile, Harpoon, LRASM, Tomahawk, Standard, ESSM, etc.) that are
already adapted to naval use. Why do we
need another system, especially one that is not adapted to naval use?
In the land attack role, MLRS/HIMARS has some potential but,
again, would need an extensive and expensive development program to adapt it to
naval use. No, you can’t just bolt it to
the deck of a ship and call it a day.
While I like the idea of an MLRS-ish weapon as a suppressive
fire (area bombardment) system to support amphibious assaults and ground forces,
I would much rather spend development money on an 8” naval gun that could be
used against land and sea targets.
_________________________________
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/04/kill-chain-tested-at-first-ever-balikatan-sinkex/
I think everyone has been clear that this system would need modified to deal with moving targets. What people like is the size and range available for the price. Why keep trying to put multi billion dollar ships in range of shore fire to offer a small throw weight, short range solution? With an extended range variant, quad packed in a mk 41 we reduce maintenance, reduce billets for a gun crew, move the ship to a stand off distance while offering more rounds than any current cruise missile.
ReplyDelete"quad packed in a mk 41"
DeleteThis is the key stumbling point that I keep coming back to. What would be the use/purpose of such a system? Unless you're going to build an arsenal ship with multi-hundreds of VLS cells, a ship with, say, 32 cells would be limited to 128 shots even if every cell were dedicated to the MLRS. What can 128 shots do that is significant? For a relevant comparison, a WWII Iowa carried 1200+ 16" shells and thousands of 5" shells.
With that in mind, describe the specific purpose of this weapon/ship, as you envision it.
"Why keep trying to put multi billion dollar ships in range of shore fire"
DeleteWhen, and under what circumstances, do you envision shore fire being used? The most likely scenario is an amphibious assault which, by definition, means that the shore fire is needed AT OR NEAR THE SHORE. A battleship could stand twenty miles off shore and still be in range of targets. Even a 5" gun destroyer could stand 10-15 miles off.
Once the assault force is ashore and moving inland, their own artillery takes over the support fire role. I don't understand why so many people want to turn a ship into a water version of an air force bomber, attacking targets far inland.
"I think everyone has been clear that this system would need modified to deal with moving targets."
DeleteThe Marines seem to think they'll lay waste to the entire Chinese fleet. Are the Marines clear on what the system can and cannot do?
Defenses at shore, enemy arty behind shore. I draw pic:
DeleteBB
|
|
\|/
Shore
|
/|\
|
Enemy gun
BB and enemy gun in range of shore, but cannot hit each other. BB pound defense, LCAC unload Marine, enemy gun shell Marine, Marine HIMARS die while unloading.
How to supress? Enemy air force & AD suppress Navy Air wing. Tomahawk cannot target mobile launchers.
If ship have HIMARS, can shoot shore & enemy arty, because HIMARS range. Ofc, HIMARS not practical for ship, many problem that you say already.
Army working on 70 mile gun. Maybe see if can make work for navy gun for BB?
"I don't understand why so many people want to turn a ship into a water version of an air force bomber, attacking targets far inland."
The enemy fires is inland. Like you say before, BB should counterbattery enemy guns. Burke should can counterbattery. To counterbattery, must have CB radar, CB leaf, and gun must range the enemy.
Pity railgun no work.
I would much rather have a ship moving 9 mk 41 cells around a theater of operation to do any work that Himars battery would be doing within range of the coast. I'd even spend more on the rounds in those cells to do it. That would be easier logistics. Need some reloads for that battery? All I need are another 9 cells. I can be doing this while sailing circles around Catilina island and lobbing rounds from San Diego Bay to Port Hueneme. Develop a gun that can do that great. They have failed to do so yet. China is even trying to do it now. I'll take my 1 in the hand right now.
Delete"I would much rather have a ship moving 9 mk 41 cells around a theater of operation"
Delete????????
1 Marine Himars battery has 6 launchers, 6 rounds each = 36. 36/4=9
DeleteThe exact same technological and manufacturing advances that have been applied to 6" land artillery since WW2, applied to a battleship caliber gun would yield a range of 80-100km. Inertial navigation chips and sensors are super cheap, and can be purchased for model rockets for about $100. Pot them to withstand the Gs of a gun and stick em in a shell to course correct over such a long distance to maintain accuracy
DeleteMLRS and HIMARS are ground support weapons period. The Russians are already jamming the GPS round in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain the Marine's apparent commitment to using HIMARS in an anti-ship role? Here's a link: "HIMARS"
DeleteSome time ago there was a post on the vulnerability of GPS guidance. It has been reported that the HIMARS GPS guidance system is less effective due to Russian EW jamming. ( CNN ). I Do not understand why the Marines would consider using HIMARS in an anti ship role. Also you describe moving ships being missed by the rockets.
DeleteThe new GMLRS-ER and precision strike missile will be easier to adapt for sensors that can hit moving targets, but that obviously won’t be ready for a few years. The GPS/INS versions are going into production first. We can update our priors if that ever goes through halfway realistic testing.
ReplyDeleteYou have convinced me that adapting the land MLRS launchers for ships is a bad idea. When looking at the LSM-R you can see the logic of only loading one or two rockets at a time because they were able to use existing Navy mounts and loading systems with less changes than trying to heft a 16 pack of rockets up would require.
"You have convinced me that adapting the land MLRS launchers for ships is a bad idea."
DeleteIt all depends on what the CONOPS is. What do you want the weapon to do? How will it be used? Against what targets? How likely is it to be used?
If the CONOPS shows a need and shows that MLRS is a good fit to that need then it's worth the effort to make a ship version of MLRS. If not ...
So many people focus on the allure of the weapon without bothering to figure out whether there's an actual need for it AND WHETHER THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES (like an 8" naval gun, for example).
What do you think? Do you have a CONOPS for an MLRS that makes sense?
I'll be a little more verbose than usual to organize my thoughts.
DeleteThe main advantages of rocket systems on land is low upfront cost, the ability to deliver large amounts of munitions in short periods of time, and high mobility/firepower ratios. That makes them great for counter battery fire and targeting command posts when using the traditional ammo with submunitions.
HIMARS was a terrible system before GMLRS because it did not shoot enough unguided rockets to reliably kill the previously mentioned targets. Its popularity increased after because it now became a cheap way to have precision artillery against static targets. Though as we can see in the Ukrainian War there is an ammo shortage. and each HIMARS we sent over might shoot a few rockets per day. We don't want to send them DPICM ammo and even if we did, HIMARS isn't a great platform for that.
In the public war-game that released a few months ago I found it fascinating that China always managed to land troops (mostly because the distance across the strait is tiny) and the US/Taiwan usually won by whittling down Chinese ships until they couldn't support the landings. If that is the case then Taiwan is probably making a mistake by buying HIMARS instead of true MLRS because they will want to be removing grid squares of light infantry, mortars, and vehicles rather than plinking one static target. Most of China's transport capacity will be RoRo's or container ships with their new vehicle racks, which will be most vulnerable when unloading. It will be critical for Taiwan to deny port infrastructure (traditional or Mulberry-style) and hit the ships/their equipment while unloading which would best be done with traditional artillery and MLRS instead of GMLRS. China's front line warships manning a blockade could operate outside of GMLRS-ER range and wouldn't be threatened. So Taiwan should be investing in something like their Tornado MLRS instead of HIMARS with guided missiles.
On naval ships the upfront cost advantage deteriorates because you can't have random caches of rocket containers stored around. It has to be in the ships hold. And the cost of a ship and firing mounts is so much more than a vehicle that the extra cost of an 8" gun is insubstantial. Mobility is the same because ships are great at carrying large, heavy objects. It is also easier to armor a gun mount than a rocket mount. That leaves the only possible advantage as the high impulse barrage.
You only need that barrage if you actually plan to do things like amphibious landings, but as you point out that isn't the US anymore. Another possible advantage is speed of production, the US built LSM-Rs faster than destroyer-class ships. So if you got into a war where you suddenly needed shore barrages and needed it fast then you might build it then. But in peace time you could build destroyers, cruisers, etc. We have PGK, Excalibur, Copperhead, and BONUS guided shells as examples that precision guided munitions are more than possible for artillery shells if you want to use extended range shells like planned for the 16" guns.
So overall, Taiwan should be buying M270-style MLRS instead of HIMARS and the use cases for Naval versions are more emergency use cases rather than everyday capabilities.
I would also note that a naval MLRS is viable only if you have a rapid reload mechanism. Launching a pod or two and then having to wait an hour or so while you manually reload is combat-ineffective. Of course, an automated, rapid reload system is very expensive, requires extended development time, and necessitates a formal magazine structure and associated systems so you're back to asking, is there a better way to achieve fire support ... like a conventional battleship or cruiser with large caliber naval guns?
DeleteYes, definitely. The rocket dimensions have a big impact on how hard that is. The LSM-R could be rapidly loaded because the rockets were relatively small and the mechanism was similar to how shells get loaded into guns. That is trickier for a 227 mm diameter, 12' long rocket. If you were rapidly building these because you were desperate for area bombardment firepower then you'd shoot simple, unguided rockets that made manufacturing the systems easy rather than reusing inappropriate sizes or making guided versions. Basically what the Navy did in WW2 with their small, spin guided rockets.
Delete"So Taiwan should be investing in something like their Tornado MLRS..."
DeleteI've often thought that MLRS would be perfect for the Taiwanese to repel a Chinese invasion force.
I would think that submunition MLRS would be very effective against landing craft in the water and troops on the beach.
Lutefisk
It should be noted that the Army has been working on developing an antiship capability for the ATACMS tactical ballistic missile that HIMARS and MRLS carries. Rather than the unguided 70km MRLS rocket, the more relevant weapon could be this guided 300km antiship ATACMS - if, that is, the Army's procurement programs work and a working product is delivered, because the Army has a tendency of fucking up it's missile programs (and procurement programs in general).
ReplyDeleteTruly, the Army is trying to revive Coastal Artillery (albeit as TBM units, not tube artillery units).
"antiship capability for the ATACMS"
DeleteAnd that drops us to one shot/round per pod. That's woefully insufficient for anti-ship use which requires saturation quantities of missiles.
As far as I know, ATACMS is a true ballistic missile in that it flies a predictable ballistic path as opposed to a cruise missile that can maneuver and conduct terminal evasive maneuvers to avoid defensive fire. I would assume that ship defenses would be fairly successful in shooting it down which, if correct, leads back to the salvo density (saturation) issue.
For sure, but Big Army already has ATACMS and doesn't want to be buying newer missiles. It is what it is. Meanwhile if you were to get dedicated SSM trucks, you could easily fit 6 missiles onto a TEL truck, such as the 5 tonner the Japanese use for their J-Harpoon.,
DeleteOf course, like I said, the bigger question is whether Big Army can actually accomplish it's procurement programs. The last 25 years of Army procurement have been one failed program after another.
What’s the point of a MLRS/ATACMS anti-ship missile? Between harpoons/JDAM/JASSM/JASSMER/Tomahawk//NASM there are more than enough weapons to strike shipping and reduce it to artificial reefs. I’m really confused on this drive to put aMLRS on a ship when we have so many other and better weapons systems to use.
ReplyDeleteNow if we want to talk about shore strikes then it’s almost easier to use barges towed into position with HIMARS on board for short duration missions. Otherwise it’s another DoD program creep where the goal is dollars for contractors.
Price and quantity. Area under threat. A battery on an island can have a stable circle drawn around it for where it is a threat. The ship moves, the area under threat with it.
Delete??????????
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The solution is for the Navy to modernize the proven Mk-71 8-inch (203mm) gun. This gun was successfully tested aboard the USS Hull in the 1970s (below). Although the shock and the weight of the MK-71 strained that ship, the newer DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers are twice its size. A Navy study determined they can fit a modernized MK-71 on the Burkes, but the Navy shelved this opportunity in favor of a 155mm missile launcher called a gun."
Deletehttps://www.g2mil.com/8inchguns.htm
"So tell me again how adapting a cheap MLRS mount for naval use will be more expensive?"
DeleteThis is an example of an almost utterly irrelevant consideration. The only consideration that matters is combat effectiveness which ties directly into CONOPS. A secondary consideration is whether there's a better alternative that can fill the CONOPS, if there's a viable CONOPS. Cost is a distant third, if even that.
So many people focus on the weapon and ignore the CONOPS and this is yet another graphic example of that.
The lack of CONOPS, by the way, is where the recent fascination/obsession with ever greater range comes from. Lacking any valid CONOPS, we just latch onto random characteristics of a weapon system, such as range. We're focused on ever greater range despite no CONOPS that requires it.
As an example, the original Zumwalt concept (there was no CONOPS) called for a ship that could provide fire support for amphibious assaults. That only requires horizon type ranges and yet we instantly jumped onto gun-launched rockets with a hundred mile range. The fire support needs are within arm's length not a galaxy away.
"Although the shock and the weight of the MK-71 strained that ship,"
DeleteThis is an oft-repeated story that appears to be false. Here's a detailed description at the Navweaps site:
"Mk 71 / 8"
Do you know what warheads GMLRS/ATACMS uses? Besides the "under development" SBD inclusion into a missile most warheads are not designed for striking or sinking ships.
DeleteThe Navy would be better served by updating and upgrading their EW weapons and countermeasures with as much enthusiasm as integrating irrelevant missiles onto ships
1. See if HIMARS can be modified to also fire Harpoons. If not buy the launchers now in production and train HIMARS crew to fire them. Store the launchers and missiles on Okinawa, Guam ect. Give the Marines older Harpoons the Navy plans to retire so they cost nothing. Targeting? If they see an enemy ship approaching, fire at it!
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2022/06/15/u-s-sending-vehicle-mounted-harpoon-launchers-for-ukraine-coastal-defense
2. Test fire HIMARS from LCUs. They have a stabilization system because of rocking between firings, but the LCU may bob too much so maybe have to wait a minute between firings. So a three billion dollar destroyer is not sent near shore, whereas an LCU can cruise up to the shore and even go up rivers and inlets.
3. Procure ten "heavy cruisers" with two 8-inch guns and armor and lots of CWIS. No helo hangar, no dangerous aviation fuel or big explosive missiles inside the hull (MK-41s). Add two NAVROC mounts. No AAW or AWS, just shore attack.
https://www.g2mil.com/NAVROC.htm
" Targeting? If they see an enemy ship approaching, fire at it!"
DeleteVisual detection is a horizon (12 miles or so) range event. Is it really worth building a fleet of light amphibious warfare (LAW) transports, organizing Marine littoral regiments, establishing an extensive and complex logistics train to support platoon size units, and fighting air and naval battles to support those units just so they can try to establish a 12 mile denial zone?
"Test fire HIMARS from LCUs"
DeleteAssuming you envision a reload system, what kind of magazine and reload system do you envision on an LCU?
"Procure ten "heavy cruisers"
DeleteNow you're getting somewhere!
What do we have defending Okinawa and Guam from invasion? We need something to fend off an invasion force. The US Navy surface fleet will remain east of Guam until at least four carriers arrive, which will be 4-6 months. So we just have subs and Air Force bombers that must fly all the way from Hawaii. Our bases on mainland Japan will be shot up and busy defending themselves.
DeleteYou might do a war game blog post about this. If the USA says it will defend Taiwan, it makes no sense to invade that fortified island with two million defenders. Quickly seize mostly undefended Okinawa and Guam after their airfields and aircraft are destroyed the first few days with air and missile attacks.
Once Okinawa and Guam are captured by D+60, Taiwan might give up after a blockade, and no Chinese are killed on either side. I know this shocks those stuck in a Cold War mentality, but its the logical strategy for China.
HIMARS can reload itself. Its quick and simple. Several reloads could be carried on an LCU.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnUk4n7BElE
"HIMARS can reload itself. Its quick and simple. "
DeleteNo, not really. As the video shows, it's a manual reload using cranes/pulleys powered by the launcher unit. There's a lot of manual actions. You'll also note that the reload has to be positioned properly for the launcher unit. In the field (ground unit), that's accomplished by a fork lift or crane of some sort. On a ship/LCU, that would be problematic.
Unless one fully automated the reload process it would require sailors on deck, out in the open, during combat which would violate Navy safety and combat requirements.
There would also need to be a magazine with safeguards unless you envision missiles lying around deck which would violate every Navy protocol.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Swiftships showed a notional FSV load "
DeleteAs you undoubtedly noted, the picture shows non-existent, generic 'launchers'. Assuming the vessel has a 25' beam, the launchers are approximately 4-5 ft wide. At best, that would be a single MLRS pod. As you also know, a pod contains six rockets so the actual capacity is 8x6=48 rockets.
I know you wouldn't intentionally try to deceive so you just made an arithmetic mistake. Don't worry about it. I'm here to help people.
I also note from the picture that there would be no room to reload the pod from behind using extendable crane/pulley systems as is currently done.
"rate of fire."
As a comparison, a 5" gun can deliver a sustained rate of fire of 16-20 rds/min. By your own estimate of an 'hour or more' for reloading an FSV/MLRS, that would be a sustained rate of fire of 0.8 rds/min or less.
"The beam is actually 10.3m (34ft)."
DeleteThe beam for Riley Claire/Nomad is 25' (see,
Riley Claire / Nomad
)
Swiftship makes multiple types of vessels so perhaps you have a different one in mind.
You seem to be tying yourself in knots trying to make this into a capability that a naval gun inherently has and executes effortlessly.
And an FSV-MLRS that doesn't exist does nothing.
DeleteSwiftships concept art has been pretty deceptive in the past and I don't really consider them an American yard. Plenty of problems with that concept,
DeleteThis isn't a rounds per minute thing. Depending on wrhead variant an MLRS can send many rounds woth of 155mm effect down range in 1 round.
"Depending on wrhead variant an MLRS can send many rounds woth of 155mm effect down range in 1 round."
DeleteI'm guessing you're referring to one of the submunition variants that dispense one pound, anti-personnel 'bomblets'? Many (all?) of those have been retired in response to unexploded cluster bomb munition concerns. There was also a fragmentation round, I think.
"This isn't a rounds per minute thing. "
To a large extent, it is. For example, suppressive fire is all about rds/min over the suppression period. In high end combat, there will be endless calls for fire and that's a sustained rds/min requirement. Only when you get into the realm of occasional targets (fighting terrorists, for example) does rds/min become unimportant. As we've seen in Ukraine-Russia, artillery is a never-ending, rds/min requirement. Yes, there will be pauses as objectives are accomplished and forces are repositioned for the next objective but when firing starts, sustained fire is a requirement.
Sustained fire is one of the issues I've seen with the shoot-and-scoot concept. You may survive by shooting and then hauling butt to some new location but that's not going to provide sustained fires. I'm not deeply knowledgeable about ground combat issues but that seems like a potential problem. Perhaps you have a better understanding of this issue?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete" We could drive a couple HIMARS onto an FSV and test fire them tomorrow, if we wanted."
DeleteThat's absurd. That would be no different than test firing from a parking lot. It wouldn't be integrated into the ship's fire control. It wouldn't have stabilization. It wouldn't prove anything, whatsoever.
"The munitions for large caliber guns don't exist."
There's lots of weapons that don't exist, including HIMARS on ships. If we want them, we'll manufacture them. Of all the reasons to not implement large caliber naval guns, that's the least relevant. I note that despite no FSV-MLRS existing you don't seem to think that's a problem. A bit inconsistent with your logic, there.
"Ships designed to carry large caliber guns don't exist"
You mean other than the Burkes which have already been demonstrated to be capable of accommodating the Mk71 8" gun?
"There's not even a strong reason to choose 8" or 16""
Other than their unmatched destructive firepower, unmatched mobility, unmatched defenses protecting them, unmatched magazine depth, unmatched rate of fire, etc.?
"resulted in the failed $100+M per gun AGS system."
The AGS failed because the LRLAP failed, not the gun. We already know how to manufacture large caliber projectiles and we know EXACTLY how they perform. There's no mystery left.
"I can only imagine how much a 16" gun would cost."
Unlike a naval MLRS, you don't have to imagine what a large caliber naval gun would cost. We know EXACTLY what they cost because we manufactured them for years.
"I suspect you could build an entire FSV/MLRS ship plus launchers for less than the price of one 8" gun"
And you'd get less the performance of one 8" gun! You get what you pay for.
"And before you say "cost doesn't matter", of course it does. "
This is your most ridiculous statement on the subject. Cost is immaterial as demonstrated by our unhesitating willingness to spend ungodly sums on Zumwalts that have no main weapon, Fords that don't work, F-35s that are now concurrency orphans as well as being unsuited to current needs, LCS that we retire almost brand new, AFSB that we retire almost brand new, and hundreds of other weapon programs. There are arguments to be made but cost isn't one of them!
The only use case for a naval MLRS that makes sense is amphibious assault fire support and 1., we're out of the amphibious assault business according to the Marines and, 2., large caliber naval guns can do that job much better.
I am talking the tungsten ball rounds.
Delete155m 50m kill radius = 1963.5m area
M30A1 MLRS round 85m kill radius = 5674.5m area
1 MLRS round covers 290% of the area of a 155 and can deliver more rounds faster. There a re trade offs, but this is the easiest thing that exists the Navy could pick up and run with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm not convinced that any rocket system is the ultimate answer for fire support.
DeleteThe army has had MLRS for decades, but they still have tube artillery.
Lutefisk
"There's not even a strong reason to choose 8" or 16" or whatever, other than that's what we did 50 years ago."
DeleteThe equivalent question of 'why 8" or 16" guns" is, why not?
We have a ton of experience with those rounds, we know exactly what they do and how they can be improved.
I believe part of it is, also, that when you say 8" or 16" guns, everyone knows exactly what you're talking about.
I do a similar thing when I talk about a Des Moines, or a Gehring, or a Perry. Everyone has an immediate general understanding of what type of ship I'm talking about.
It doesn't mean that you'd take the old blueprints, dust them off, and build the exact same thing again.
Respectfully, I think your analysis is well thought out, but I also think you need to open up to a little bit of out-of-the-box thinking.
Try not to think only about the limitations that those weapons had in the past, but think creatively about how they could be used going forward.
Lutefisk
Lutefisk
"Why not 9" or 14"?"
DeleteYou've become tedious and unproductive. I'm tempted to remove your comment per the Comment Policy but I'll leave it. Time to move on.
"Try not to think only about the limitations that those weapons had in the past, but think creatively about how they could be used going forward."
DeleteQuite right! We don't hesitate to imagine new seekers/sensors, adding moving target capability, increasing range, developing alternate warheads, etc. and we use those imaginings to justify a weapon. Why do so many people refuse to imagine any improvement, whatsoever, for large caliber naval guns? It's a paradigm issue, I suspect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe army and Marines need mobility via helo and thre navy doesn't.
Delete"My implicit requirement is that we have enough situations where ships needs to destroy a point or area target on land relatively close to shore to warrant a _modest_ (sub-$1B program cost) investment. Adapting MLRS to naval use could do that."
DeleteI think that you're playing a version of Jeopardy; you already know the answer you want so you're making up the question to match it.
Lutefisk
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"What are the requirements for NSFS then?"
DeleteIf you can't elucidate the naval fire missions then what have you been arguing about?
"Am I missing something?"
DeleteFor a naval MLRS, you're not missing much. For naval large caliber guns, you're missing a lot but I know you know the missions as well as I do.
Even for MLRS, you're missing the operational concept and derived ship design. A one-shot MLRS that requires the ship to retire for a couple of hours to reload for its next shot is not a viable, combat-effective design. The only way an MLRS ship is combat-effective is if it can stay and provide continuous fire. That requires an auto-reload mechanism and an inventory of many hundreds/thousands of rounds - you know, just like a real battleship, cruiser, destroyer, or LSM(R).
"There was no huge volumes of fire."
DeleteDid someone say there was?
"What are the requirements for NSFS then? Amphibious assault was the major driver in the past. That mission is gone. What Navy missions require NSFS and what shortfalls do we have?"
DeleteJust off the top of my head and in no particular order, these are some thoughts that I have on this usage.
Firstly, the Marines can say that they are out of the amphibious business, but whose to say that will stay that way during wartime.
It's hard to conceive of a modern Normandy landing, but who knows for sure?
And major amphibious landings are not the only amphibious operations that are done. For example, look at the small amphibious landings done along the coast of Sicily to end-run fierce German resistance.
Or even look at all the landings done in the Pacific against an enemy who was, locally, not a peer.
Look at all the Army and Marine operations that take place during wartime along the coasts. NGFS is a great option to have available.
Think about all of the non-peer operations that we have done. There is no reason to think those will never happen again. NGFS with large caliber guns are a preferred artillery that can move in, perform the mission, and then move out independently.
If you want to bombard basically anything along a coast, then these are a great option. They can wreck docks, piers, fuel storage, warehouses, rail yards, repair facilities, airfields, ammo dumps, pipelines, oil terminals, etc, etc.
They have the capability of sitting off a coast and persistently hammering targets.
In an EMCON, or other, environment in which engagement ranges are shorter than expected those big guns would be highly effective against un-armored enemy ships. And wouldn't even need pinpoint accuracy when using DPICM (my thought on a great first round to knock out enemy ships' radars and sensors).
In peacetime they are an impressive way to show the flag in foreign ports.
They are also extremely intimidating and can prevent conflict just by their mere presence.
I'm sure that people can creatively come up with quite a few more uses, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind for me.
Lutefisk
"Fighting China will involve almost entirely long-range fires."
DeletePerhaps ... or perhaps not.
After the first month of war when both sides have expended their inventory of long range missiles, combat may well devolve into close up engagements. When you have no missiles left, close up is the only remaining option if you wish to continue fighting.
Perhaps we'll want to bombard China's foreign bases.
Perhaps we'll want to sink merchant ships.
Perhaps we'll want to provide fire support for ground actions in the Indian Ocean, Africa, Guam, the Philippines, and elsewhere.
Perhaps we'll encounter Chinese surface groups up close because both sides are operating under EMCON.
Perhaps we'll want to destroy bases and facilities even if we lack cruise missiles.
Perhaps China will attack Guam and we'll face an amphibious assault ... up close.
Perhaps we'll need to attack Chinese bases in the Philippines.
Perhaps our industry won't be able to manufacture the hundreds/thousands of long range missiles we'll expend every WEEK when we're currently struggle to manufacture a hundred missiles per YEAR.
Do I really need to go on?
Believing a war will be a purely long range affair is naive.
"The Navy doesn't plan to fight extended near shore battles"
DeleteWe should tell China that just to be sure they don't upset our plans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Note, we also have large stocks of JDAMs, LGBs and even dumb bombs, if it comes to that. They will take the lion's share of the land attack targets outside of the Chinese A2/AD."
DeleteThe delivery systems for those systems is pretty extensive, and hardly free.
Lutefisk
" large stocks of JDAMs, LGBs and even dumb bombs"
DeleteAnd those are all very to fairly short range, requiring the delivery asset to get well within range of defensive systems. Once we're talking short ranges, not much can match large caliber naval guns as demonstrated in the recent throw weight post.
"The delivery systems for those systems is pretty extensive, and hardly free."
DeleteAnd already factored into the military's budget and planning.
"And those are all very to fairly short range, requiring the delivery asset to get well within range of defensive systems. Once we're talking short ranges, not much can match large caliber naval guns as demonstrated in the recent throw weight post."
DeleteAfter dumping thousands of anti ship missiles at them (the missile cost equivalent of your large gun and warship program), there won't be any major warships left afloat. The rest of their navy can be dealt with by the 400,000+ JDAM and LGBs we've bought.
"there won't be any major warships left"
DeleteThat's thinking that's worthy of the Pentagon!
I'm not sure where you're getting 'thousands of anti- ship missiles'. Rounding, we currently have zero NSM, zero LRASM, zero anti-ship Tomahawks, and perhaps a few hundred refurbished Harpoons.
Of course, that also leaves hundreds/thousands of Chinese bases, ports, airfields, industrial facilities, etc. all defended by aircraft and SAMs. We cannot deliver short range weapons without unacceptable attrition of aircraft that we lack the industrial capacity to replace.
You need to either get a better recognition of reality or join the Pentagon!
"(the missile cost equivalent of your large gun and warship program),"
Delete"And already factored into the military's budget..."
DeleteIt requires the carriers to be everywhere and do everything.
"...and planning..."
The navy seriously needs to expand their thinking in this department anyway.
Lutefisk
Apparently GLSDB has moving target capability when used with a laser seeker. While not operationally tested yet, that's the manufacturer’s claim. If we were to believe this claim, HIMARS + GLSDB + drones could be useful against smaller, less well protected marine targets (landing crafts, FACs, etc), as a cheaper alternative to NSM.
ReplyDeleteTinTin
"could be useful against smaller, less well protected marine targets"
DeleteI'm glad you noted the limitation that it would only be effective against small, poorly defended targets. Any actual warship would shoot down a drone long before it could provide laser designation.
I guess it could be useful not only at repelling the landing party by sinking the smaller crafts (sort of a modern equivalent to Sea Skua) but troops that still make it on the beach will also be highly vulnerable to "classic" GMLRS, before they have a chance to take cover.
DeleteOn the other hand, vs a well protected marine target, say a Burke, the designating drone is likely to be destroyed. But do we know that for sure? As you have noted before, USN hasn't done much testing on their AAW systems against difficult targets, like LO ones. At the end of the day it's a numbers game: can a drone be designed with a low enough radar/IR signature to allow it to creep to a distance close enough to laser paint a destroyer but not close enough for its radars to reliably detect it? Especially if the drone flies just high enough to optically acquire its target while the ship has to rely on radar for detection.
And what if the next iteration of GLSDB will feature the SDB II with IIR/MMW seeker, that one won't need a laser designating drone. How would a salvo of 3-4x GLSDBII fare against a target like Burke or the Chinese equivalent?
TinTin
I don't disagree with you at all on the lack of feasibility/utility of navalized Himars systems, every time a weapon system with an easy to remember name makes headlines people start demanding that this newest "gift from god" they only barely remember the name of be employed everywhere and to do everything.
ReplyDeleteI will say though that the Himars performance in the Sinkex test shouldn't be used to pass judgement on the systems capabilities as a whole- but only because the "test" was a total of six shots. Six shots is literally just one pods worth of munitions. For all we know it could've been a batch problem, or user error, or something not indicative of the systems capability as a whole.
Really all this does is highlight how the Sinkex tests don't really tell us much of value, as they don't even function as tests of basic functionality of a weapon when the sample sizes for each munition only occasionally reach double digits.
Anyway, thanks for the post.
"the Sinkex test shouldn't be used to pass judgement on the systems capabilities as a whole"
DeleteOf course not! HOWEVER, it should serve as a wake up and pause in our rush to employment. As you know, a SINKEX is the ultimate in scripted, perfect conditions testing. If a weapon fails in a SINKEX, there are potentially serious problems because it doesn't get any more 'stacked' for success than that.
100%! I know it's not a true ASM but the fact that such a scripted exercise failed because of such a small change (drift) should make USN pause and think about it. We all know they won't but for us observers, this is serious problem. Real combat is far more messy than a target drifting a little, what about sea state? Fog? Bad weather? Active jamming? Decoys? etc etc.....if USN can't even hit 100% of the time a static non functional no crew decommissioned ship, what exactly is going to be it's success rate against a real combat ship in war time??? And that includes true ASM like Harpoon or NSM!!!
DeleteGMRLS and ATACMS are not old style MRLS but practically, they are land to land missile. They fly to preset GPS positions. So far, they don't have capabilities to hit moving targets. However, in recent drill in Philippine, the target ship did not move but ... they need more training.
ReplyDeleteNavy has its own missiles LRASM/NSM/Harpoon to attack moving ships. Cruise missiles for land attack.
Of course, tech competent nations can modify their armies' GMRLS to hit moving target over sea. They also need target locating capabilities (radar, etc.).
One example was reported in early 2021 as Chinese Army used their GMRLS to destroy a moving ship in a drill
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_january_2021_global_security_army_industry/chinese_phl03a_long_range_rocket_system_destroys_ship_target.html
Why do you ne3ed to redesign HIMARS for corrosion? Sadly, tThe newest Navy ships are not around long enough to get corrosion.
ReplyDeleteMounting Himars, which is really the box launcher for the GMLRS rockets, since Himars is a truck system of the M270 Tracked system, is just not a needed idea. If they can shoot out of a VLS that would be "handy" but reloading is a PITA for our navy these days on VLS. You'd want big guns to do shore beatings. What HIMARS as a system could do is have a small footprint vehicle that either could launch naval missiles rather than GMLRS rockets, which I believe they've already tested, or eventually use the new seeker heads the Army is working on to hit moving targets. These warheads are not going to be large enough to sink major fighting ships but could be very good at smaller coastal craft or missile ships. But again, if the purpose is for the Marines to lay in wait and shoot longer range ASM's at major chinese ships, just take the Himars trucks, load them with stealthy NSM's and be done with it for the Marines' use. On ships? No big reason to have them, and it would be a wasted divert of needed bucks which should be spent on procuring more missiles and on ship maintenance.
ReplyDelete"load them with stealthy NSM's and be done with it for the Marines' use"
DeleteAnd targeting? The Marine's targeting range is the 12 mile or so horizon unless they have some kind of survivable, long range targeting and no one has yet explained what that would be.
The Japanese seem to have radar jeeps to provide targeting to there J-Harpoon trucks. Your mileage may vary as to how effective you think these jeeps will be tho.
DeleteOther than the giant OTH radars, a radar can only see to the horizon. It doesn't matter whether you mount it on a ship or jeep, it can only see to the horizon.
DeleteSo for this to work, Id think that maybe SSNs could be dedicated surveillance and targeting data providers for the Marines. Of course then they could just score the kills themselves, although NOT revealing themselves could be productive. But I hafta ask: WHAT islands are the Marines going to be on, where Chinese ships will be sailing nearby?? I hear all the buzzwords about chokepoints...but really...which ones?? Point to them on a map!! Ill wait...
Delete"Of course then they could just score the kills themselves"
DeleteEXACTLY!
"although NOT revealing themselves could be productive."
Of course, transmitting targeting would likely reveal themselves!
"Other than the giant OTH radars, a radar can only see to the horizon. It doesn't matter whether you mount it on a ship or jeep, it can only see to the horizon"
DeleteMakes you really wonder why so many of our allies and adversaries are investing in shore based antiship missiles then...
"Makes you really wonder why so many of our allies and adversaries are investing in shore based antiship missiles then"
DeleteThey have their own needs and requirements. For example, a country like Sweden may be concerned about countering amphibious assaults from Russia. In that case, the assault force MUST come to the land, making the anti-ship missile quite effective. In contrast, a Marine 'hidden' unit on some island may never see an enemy ship because there is no need for any enemy to approach the island.
It is also noteworthy that the countries you're likely referring to deploy the missiles on their homeland as opposed to a far away, isolated island as our Marines seem to want. On one's homeland, targeting can come from a variety of land based aviation assets as well as a network of land based passive sensors. For example, an aircraft could fly straight up and extend the radar/targeting range hundreds of miles without ever leaving the protection of its home defenses.
You knew this already, didn't you?
Do you have any other questions?
I think the Marines targeting is all going to be from other sources, such as spy drones or how they pass Navy targeting from say an E-2 to f-18's that are not targeting with their own radar but yet are using data links. If an LCS can shoot a NSM that is really targeted using another craft, then an NSM with data links for the Marines can do this as well. Premise though still suggests if I'm china, I'm either going past islands in force to take on the threat or I simply leapfrog out of range of the islands.
DeleteBut then why not use a heavier longer range missile for shore batteries and ships? NSM should be most at home helo launched and JSM from fixed wing.
Delete"targeting is all going to be from other sources, such as spy drones or how they pass Navy targeting "
DeleteBe careful not to 'hand wave' away problems. For example, in enemy air/water where the Marines anticipate operating, where will these 'spy drones' come from? Large drones from, say, Guam (which won't last an hour into a war), are not survivable and small drones have a very limited coverage and will pinpoint the location of the Marine's unit for the enemy. Similarly, the Navy has no survivable targeting assets.
Targeting is an issue I've harped on for years and there has been no solution, as yet.
"why not use a heavier longer range missile"
DeleteThe Marines are considering using longer range missiles such as maritime Tomahawk but, setting salvo density problems aside, there is no targeting. A million mile missile is useless if the targeting is the 12 mile horizon.
it sounds then like what the Marines need to invest in to your point is targeting; Satellite targeting is one, but the air force is the one with drones that are far stealthier than anything "officially" on the Navy and Marine corps ledger books. Satellites can be blinded and shot down too, but the Army is probably onto a good idea that deploying fleets of cube sats make it very hard to stop all of them, albeit right now they admit that the capability is more limited on such small sats, but if you need to pinpoint the where of a ship asset, and the missile itself is to acquire the target on its own afterwards, that seems to be the only way if you don't have an airborne asset. Course, the Chinese can be blinded too, this could become a visual range spectacle with all the electronic interference that will be going on. And in that case, best weapon is a sub with torpedoes underwater.
Delete"For example, an aircraft could fly straight up and extend the radar/targeting range hundreds of miles without ever leaving the protection of its home defenses."
DeleteWouldn't that take too long for the aircraft to find and transmit targeting data, leading to its destruction before firing solutions could be sent? I recall you discussed this idea some years ago and were skeptical that it could be viable in combat, because of the delays in coordination. Or do you mean aircraft as the sensor and shooter?
The Japanese also have been observed doing excercises deploying their SSM trucks on ro-ros to their outlying islands, outside of the range of land-based aviation. It's conceptually the same thing as the marines are doing, which makes me wonder if they were hoping America-sempai would notice them, or did the Marine weebs just copy Japan without considering things.
"Other than the giant OTH radars, a radar can only see to the horizon. It doesn't matter whether you mount it on a ship or jeep, it can only see to the horizon"
The Spook Nine gun radar is claimed to be able to detect targets beyond the horizon, and there were beyond the horizon radar sets in WW2 on battleships, which is something I don't understand: how do they see past the horizon in that case? it makes no sense.
"Spook Nine gun radar is claimed to be able to detect targets beyond the horizon"
DeleteI don't know where you're getting your information. It's a horizon radar. If you have a reference that states otherwise, please provide it.
"Wouldn't that take too long for the aircraft to find and transmit targeting data"
We're talking about an AWACS-ish type aircraft. It flies at altitude, OVER HOME TERRITORY, to provide surveillance and targeting.
Federation of American Scientists and Wikipedia: https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-spq-9.htm
Delete"We're talking about an AWACS-ish type aircraft. It flies at altitude, OVER HOME TERRITORY, to provide surveillance and targeting."
Now I understand, ok. But wouldn't that still keep the AWACS in range of enemy ships' fire? My understanding is that AWACS has to enter well within a surface radar's range in order to detect the warship.
"AWACS has to enter well within a surface radar's range in order to detect the warship."
DeleteCome on, now. Think this through operationally. You have search aircraft aloft continuously. You'll see enemy ships approaching before they see you unless they use their own radar and, if they do that, you'll have their position pinpointed long before they're a threat.
"SPQ-9"
From the reference you cited,
"The AN/SPQ-9B detects sea skimming missiles at the horizon"
and,
"The AN/SPQ-9B scans the air and surface space near the horizon"
What are you unclear on?
From the link: "The Surface Mode generates a separate surface frequency and an independent pulse with a Pulse Repetition Interval (PRI) commensurate with a range of 40,000 yds, not including radar dead time. The AN/SPQ-9B radar has a 360-degree scan coverage for surface targets. The radar displays raw and clear plot video. The AN/SPQ-9B Radar Surface mode has a submode called Surface-Moving Target Indicator (MTI), and operates concurrently with the Air mode. While in the radiate state, the Surface Mode is enabled continuously."
Deletethat's 22 miles, which is further than the radar horizon. Unless that range is derived from a super tall battleship mount?
"Come on, now. Think this through operationally. You have search aircraft aloft continuously. You'll see enemy ships approaching before they see you unless they use their own radar and, if they do that, you'll have their position pinpointed long before they're a threat."
DeleteI think there's little chance of that happening. AWACS are air-battle space managers and in a China war will be FULLY occupied in the desperate struggle for aerial parity as well as their own survival (very long range A2A missiles - the Chinese have already 'marked' the USN's E-2s as prime targets and A2A missiles with several hundred mile range are being developed to service them). E-2s are simply not going to have the time to coordinate sea battles.
Even if an AWACS detects a sea target it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to communicate directly with a land-based SSM battery. Comms require more than just a radio. Both ends of the transmission must be a specific match. I'm unaware of any specific linkups betwen AWACS and SSM radars.
So, an AWACS would have to send a message to headquarters which would have to circuitously route the message to SSM batteries. By the time that happens, the targets have either moved on, or the AWACS has been shot down - either by the warships SAMs, or by enemy fighters - because China has 3 carriers in the water now and is building up to a fleet of 6 carriers.
"commensurate with a range of 40,000 yds"
DeleteThat's a theoretical maximum if the radar were mounted high enough. It's not an over-the-horizon radar.
"I think there's little chance of that happening."
DeleteWe were talking about land based, coastal defence batteries and search aircraft operating over their own territory. We were not talking about open ocean, carrier (E-2) operations which are completely different.
Look, I get the impression that you don't have a working knowledge of naval operations. That's fine but as noted in the Comment Policy page, a basic level of naval operations, equipment, and tactics are a requirement to comment. I don't mind answering an occasional basic level question but I simply don't have the time to conduct educational forays about basic concepts. There are many sites and books you can use to come up to speed on the fundamentals and I encourage you to do so.
I use E-2 and AWACS interchangeably for a reason: the USN is not the only operator of E-2 - Japan, Singapore, and other nations operate E-2 as a land-based AWACS. China has developed very long range A2A missiles to swat USN at sea E-2s: the same missiles can obviously be used on Japanese E-2s or Australian E-7s or any other land-based AWACS that's operating over it's own territory.
DeleteI mention Chinese fighters and their carriers because ultimately, the way I see it, any nation that's worth the Chinese sending their SAGs against is also worth them sending a CVBG against.
Delete@ComNavOps: didn't you talk about using AWACS for targeting truck missiles a few years ago?
Delete/Terry
" using AWACS for targeting truck missiles a few years ago?"
DeleteWhat's a 'truck missile'? Are you talking about a truck/trailer mounted missile?
I rarely discuss Air Force matters so it's unlikely I would have discussed AWACS. If you're referring to E-2 Hawkeyes, they would have no mission (or ability?) to target ground targets.
I'm guessing you're either confusing something you read elsewhere or you're incorrectly recalling something.
What would be the point of trying to use an aerial detection and control aircraft to look for ground targets? The Air Force has (or used to have) dedicated ground target detection aircraft (JSTARS, I think it was, and maybe a couple others) but I can't recall ever discussing those.
I recall you talked about using E-2s to provide targeting data for truck-mounted antiship missiles to shoot, some years ago. I feel like you've had this conversation before.
Delete/Terry
"I recall you talked about using E-2s to provide targeting data for truck-mounted antiship missiles "
DeleteI'll repeat, I doubt you're remembering correctly as that would be a highly unlikely scenario. Do you have a specific post or comment where you think it was discussed?
Finally found the post, from 2018. It was a discussion in the comments. My mistake, I remembered wrongly: you were skeptical that AWACS could provide targeting for truck SSMs.
Deletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2018/09/zumwalt-and-lcs-main-batteries.html
/Terry
"you were skeptical that AWACS could provide targeting for truck SSMs."
DeleteWell, at least I'm consistent!
That was some pretty impressive searching on your part, by the way!
I'm just wondering tho - that dude up above was skeptical that AWACS could provide targeting for missile trucks, and back then you were also skeptical that AWACS could do that, but as you commented above:
Delete"For example, an aircraft could fly straight up and extend the radar/targeting range hundreds of miles without ever leaving the protection of its home defenses."
Did something change with the technology to allow this?
/Terry
As far as i know the propellant used in the M270/M142 rockets is extremely corrosive and it could cause serious problems during shipboard use.
ReplyDeleteLately the system has been overhyped by the conflict in Ukraine, without considering that the ukrainians often use them against low value targets.
There is no perfect weapon system that fits all needs, you will always need a flexible weapons mix.
Himars would be most i the Pacigic AO useful attacking port infrastructure and landing zones. For antiship use there are other more efficient weapon systems.
Using the 227mm rockets against ports, landing zones and ships will mean that due to the range of these weapons the launcher could be exposed to enemy counterbattery fire by similar systems and some sorts of air attack.
While the marines are acquiring offensive missiles they are seriously lacking in defensive missiles to cover said offensive capabilities. I consider the USMCs plan 2030 mostly a pipe dreambased on whishful thinking with very glaring and very big holes in it.
"While the marines are acquiring offensive missiles they are seriously lacking in defensive missiles to cover said offensive capabilities."
DeleteThis is one of the key problems associated with the Marine's concept and, so far, they've simply hand waved the problem away.
Spin stabilized rockets of a larger size than the 5 inch rockets used in the LSM(R) could also be developed. 8 or 16 inch spin stabilized rockets would have greater reach and destructive effects than the 5 inch rockets used in the past. Terminal guidance should be possible.
ReplyDeleteWell armored ships designed to fight while damaged would be a threat to infrastructure that would require an adversary to devote resources to counter.
Larger (16 inch) shore based spin stabilized rockets with terminal guidance might be useful to prevent amphibious landings by sinking any ship that crosses the horizon.
The value of artillery is its destructive power. Guided projectiles have show utility in limiting damage to unintended targets. The downside is the cost of guided projectiles. I worry that there is too much consideration for collateral damage and we are underfunding artillery systems that are inexpensive and used for area suppression.
HIMARS have become less and less effective. One hard indicator is less and less news reports on this weapon.
ReplyDeletehttps://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/himars-less-effective-uimproving-russian-cntrmsrs#:~:text=The%20American%20HIMARS%20rocket%20artillery,the%20matter%20cited%20by%20CNN.
CNO, could a reconfigured tomahawk serve as a long range sensor? Launched in advance of a larger strike of missiles? It appears to me that the missile has roughly a two hour flight time at max speed. Assuming a slower speed, it might have more flight time, and be able to supply target data for the following wave. Rather than a warhead, a sensor package? Presumably it could also perform damage assessment. Or am I missing something obvious?
ReplyDelete"could a reconfigured tomahawk serve as a long range sensor?"
DeleteSure, IF YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE THE TARGET IS. Of course, if you already know where the target is, you don't need a sensor!
A missile is physically limited in the size of sensor it can carry, the field of view the sensor has, the power output of the sensor, the communications power and bandwidth to transmit data, etc. It's a short range 'soda straw' sensor. If you already know where the target is then the missile-sensor can be sent there and may find it. If you don't know where the target is (the classic search mission) then the missile-sensor is a very poor and ineffective means of searching and an expensive one since it's a one-way, one-time use.
It is well known that GMLRS cannot engage moving targets, it's really apparent once you look into it. It's a GPS and INS guided weapon, you input coordinates, you fire it, it strikes the coordinates, simple as. It can't hit mobile targets and wasn't designed to do so. In this sense it's similar to most Tomahawk variants, as both are meant to strike static targets locaded in given coordinates. GMLRS's "failure" to hit moving targets is nothing more than some people realising that weapons usually can't do what they were not designed to do.
ReplyDelete