It is being reported that a US Navy ship, the USS Gravely, a
Burke class destroyer, was forced to use its CIWS to down a sea-skimming
anti-ship missile. If this continues,
there is only one possible outcome. No
defense is perfect and the Houthis only need to win once whereas the Navy has
to be 100% perfect.
This is an unsustainable, unwinnable situation. We’ve got to either leave the area before we
lost a ship or we have to engage with total force. There is no middle ground. The administration is hanging the Navy out to
dry.
It is also disturbing that a (apparently single) missile could get that close. Something failed.
Err that is a a strange dictate since we a nice example of just how counter productive the total force option is in Gaza. What exactly would your total force option be anyway?
ReplyDeleteWe're not going to get into a discussion of the political aspects for either side. From a military perspective, Israel is accomplishing everything it set out to do and it's long overdue from a security point of view.
DeleteThe use of force should always be an all-or-nothing endeavor. If something is worth fighting over, end it once and for all. If it's not worth that kind of effort then you shouldn't be involved.
I think our President and Congress need to be voted out- every last one of them, regardless of political affiliations. They're not taking care of business, here at home or abroad. There is no military solution if we're not allowing our military to do its job. It's pretty obvious that we're not, else there would be 24/7 strikes against the missile and artillery batteries until our enemies had none.
ReplyDeleteIf this is somehow being driven from within, by inept military leadership, then removing those involved is even easier to accomplish. Either way, something needs to change, and quickly, before lives and ships are lost.
kbd512
USAF and Coalition forces had complete mastery of the skies over Afghanistan, how well did that work out? Not saying its the exact same thing but reducing the place to rubble when it's already the poorest place on the planet accomplishes what exactly? Are we sure we can find every SSM battery and what not? Then what? Iran resupplies them and we do this again in 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? Sounds like just pushing the can down the road to me....
DeleteYes, we're poorly led in DC. Who's voting for all the muck brains, anyway?
DeleteVery good article on Constellation VLS and I think its relatable to situation today with Houthis.....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.twz.com/news-features/does-the-constellation-class-frigate-have-enough-vertical-launch-cells
LCS before and Constellation today to a certain extent has/have somewhat the same mission: low intensity, close to shore, not high threat, escorts,etc etc...but is that low threat environment realistic today?!? Afghanistan yesterday, Houthis and GAZA really are showing us that the days of "low threat" and not a lot of resources are gone or disappearing fast.
"showing us that the days of "low threat" and not a lot of resources are gone or disappearing fast."
DeleteNo, not at all. The Houthis have launched an unknown number (many dozens, at least) of missiles and drones at US warships with zero success. That's as low threat as it gets in combat.
It would seem, as I've stated multiple times on the blog, that drones are useless against an alerted, semi-capable defender.
As far as Gaza, from a military perspective, Hamas is a near-zero threat, IF ISRAEL WERE NOT HOLDING BACK. From a purely military perspective, Israel could carpet bomb Gaza with bunker busters and that would be the end of the threat with no Israeli lives risked. Instead, for various political reasons, Israel is holding back to a degree.
What many people fail to realize is that the perceived threats are generally of our own making. We allow low/no threats to become larger threats because we refuse/opt not to deal with them as purely military actions.
If this is low threat and USN has been using SM6s, has revealed they haved used a SM2 which is pretty high end missile and now Phalanx, I think we have a different definition of "low threat".....
Delete"If this is low threat and USN has been using SM6s"
DeleteThe use of high end weapons does not mean the threat is high end. It may just mean that we lack lower end weapons to deal with lower end threats. The focus by the US military on high end, bleeding edge technology for weapons at the expense of low end, affordable, reliable weapons has been a recurring theme on this blog and the failure to acquire lower end weapons may be rearing its head in this Houthi scenario.
We don't know what anti-ship missiles the Houthis are using. Presumably, their knockoffs of Chinese C-80x which are subsonic, 1970's era, missiles that lack terminal maneuvering and penetration aids. Further, they're apparently being launched in very small quantities (generally ones and twos, it seems). That's as low threat as it gets in the missile world.
Another successful live-fire test of our ships' defenses.
ReplyDeleteApparently CIWS worked to shoot down an incoming, sea-skimming missile in a realistic test environment.
I've spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about how I would construct a fleet and the ships to go in it. One of the assumptions that I have worked within is that CIWS actually works.
This is a piece of evidence that shows that it does work, at least some of the time.
Lutefisk
I just watched the video of the attack today? on another Russian corvette but 6? unmanned ships. Looks like at least 1 made it thru and detonated. Easy to make fun of Russian but you can see in the footage that the crew was firing at the USV and missed or just got overwhelmed. Are we so sure that USN can deal with that many USVs or if let's say Houthis send ASMs and USVs at the same time? Nice to know PHALANX works but are we sure it can't be overwhelmed or just run out of ammo?
DeleteI guess at least 1 USN ships near Yeman is getting serious "practice" at shooting down stuff.....
"can see in the footage that the crew was firing at the USV and missed"
DeleteYoutube has many videos of exercises where ships shoot at target boats. In every one, 90+% of the shots miss as estimated by the widely dispersed splashes. I've covered this in posts but we - and the Navy - tend to ignore that reality.
The situation is compounded by the paucity of close in defensive weapons on our ships. Burkes, for example, have a single CIWS, if even that. That's just not a realistic defensive weapons fit. That's a fantasy fit. That missile should have been engaged by 4-6 CIWS plus 2-4 SeaRAM! You don't leave the fate of a $3B ship in the hands of a single CIWS. That's insanity. If that gun jams (and all guns do), that ship is likely sunk.
As far as I know , this footage is recent about the latest Russian corvette that got hit today? I'll see if i can find vidoe again and post. It raises some interesting questions: at least 6 USV are attacking, footage from 3 different angles so 1 front, side and stern attack on both sides. You can see the gun fire but is the crew getting overwhelmed? Bad coordination in defense? I also noticed that the forward "big" gun, 76mm on a Russian corvette? isn't firing. Thought they were asleep, its night, but at that range, can they depress the gun that low??? Its easy to make fun of the Russians but are we so sure USN can survive a bunch of USVs and UAVS coordinated attack and more pointedly, do we the right weapons for that kind of fight? That SM2 or SM6 missile at $4 milliona pop doesn't do squat if drones or USVs get that close....
DeleteGood point. Sounds like Iran was sending us a warning rather than making a serious attempt to sink the ship. If they had used 5 or 6 missiles instead of just one the outcome could have been terminal.
Delete"One of the assumptions that I have worked within is that CIWS actually works."
DeleteI remember the early days of CIWS in the fleet when it was said that CIWS was an acronym for, "Christ, it won't shoot."
Been seeing lots of responses on blogs where I question how much Phalanx can help, not like it has an infinite amount of ammo to shoot at USVs and UAVs/drones and can it depress that low to shoot at targets barely above the water?
DeleteIts like people think it can shoot down or sink everything.....
"Been seeing lots of responses on blogs"
Delete???? You look elsewhere? All the answers are here!
" can it depress that low to shoot at targets barely above the water?"
DeleteEasily answered! We've all had high school trigonometry, right? Wiki cites a current CIWS as having a -25 deg lower limit elevation. Assuming the CIWS is mounted 60 ft above sea level, a simple right triangle calculation gives us a minimum sea level engagement distance of 129 ft. Thus, object at sea level and further than 129 ft from the ship can be engaged.
For those interested,
distance (opposite) = height (adjacent) * Tan(65 deg)
"not like it has an infinite amount of ammo to shoot at USVs and UAVs/drones"
That's why we should have several CIWS on every ship. That said, a UAV is an extremely slow and fragile target and I would expect that a single three second burst would suffice. A USV is a slightly larger and more robust target but not much. It might take two or three bursts to destroy the USV.
CIWS has 1550 rounds and fires at 75 rds/sec. This means it can fire continuously for 21 seconds or seven 3-second bursts before needing to be reloaded.
One of the more..... sphincter tightening aspects of the CWIS is the reloading process. The Block 0 took two men 10 to 30 minutes to change the magazine. Block 1 greatly reduced reload time to less than five minutes by using a pre-loaded ammunition cassette.
DeleteThe C-RAM served (and still does) serve well. Engaging incoming at the mortar round level.
"It is also disturbing that a (apparently single) missile could get that close. Something failed."
ReplyDeleteI don't intend to put words in CNO's mouth, but he has indicated that in future naval combat there will be incomplete information, incomplete situational awareness, and incomplete visibility of threats.
Here is a perfect example of that concept.
A low-tech adversary with some kind of high tech weaponry was able to get a missile in close enough to a Burke that it used its CIWS to destroy the missile.
I'm sure that the Burke had its systems all operating, no thoughts of EMCON in this situation, I'm sure.
Yet the missile was able to get close.
The navy is putting all its focus on the wrong scenarios.
Lutefisk
"I'm sure that the Burke had its systems all operating"
DeleteMy purely speculative interpretation is that the ship DID engage at distance (horizon or beyond depending on whether aerial assets were providing detection and targeting) but the engagement was unsuccessful until CIWS range. There is no reasonable expectation that we can achieve 100% successful interceptions.
One of the (many) things I want to know about these engagements is how many missiles have we expended per engagement. The reports merely state that x number of missiles/drones were shot down. We have no idea how many defending missiles were required to achieve that. If we're getting a one-shot, one-kill success rate, that's phenomenal and worthy of celebration. If we're expending 20 missiles to shoot down one target, we're in trouble. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the numbers are.
I wonder how far the Navy has come with EW. Not sure if SEWIP block three has been integrated into our ships or if this system is even viable .
DeleteIts the swarm that can make its own decisions that will remain the high end threat. Too many, and no way to sever the brain from the muscle. The Russian ship was using crew served weapons. Its cold, winter, night, and they don't have much for night vision. We could do better, but that doesn't mean there isn't a tipping point.
ReplyDeleteMISSIONSHIPCREW
ReplyDeleteI have an observation and a few questions tangentially related to your current post and your previous analysis in earlier posts. Recently the Ukrainians utilizing sea & air drone swarms, apparently sank a Russian missile ship (boat?).This started me thinking; are drones the game changer that they have been touted, or are they an evolution starting with the Whitehead torpedo?Even similar to the Turtle used in the American Revolution (put a power plant and electronic guidance/ targeting system in it), is this significantly different than a modern drone?They have evolved, noting the increasing range and sophistication of the targeting; WW1 systems vs WW2 torpedo systems. What I perceive as a few of the notable inflection points; Japanese Long Lance torpedo(unmanned and later the manned Kamakazi version), acoustic and magnetic targeting & triggering and modern wire-guided. Also, the 3 idjits in a speedboat attacking the Cole. As always, the counter-measures follow. Am I missing the big picture, or are the latest sea and air drones an evolution as opposed to a Revolution!!! ? Are Naval drones simply the latest iteration of torpedos and Flying drones close cousins of the Exocet and other ASM’s? Another parallel path are developments in modern sea-deployed mines, able to count passing ships, air-deliverable mines that lay in wait, detect a target and launch their own ordnance at said target, all without human intervention. We are already witnessing counter-measures, electronic and kinetic. Please forgive my run-on sentences and grammatical errors, as I am a carpenter, not a writer.
From previous parade videos, Houthi's antiship missiles have windows in front thus can either be IR homing or laser homing. Through analyses (google web yourself for reasons), likely, they are laser homing. They could use drones or manned small boats to project laser beams. Keep firing SM-2 will bankrupt Navy. Houthi is in a position of nothing to lose.
ReplyDeleteCurrent CIWS is outdated but still good to intercept these low tech missiles but even 1/100 penetration causes serious damage.
Upgrade CIWS failed (google web yourself) thus its firing rate is far lower than China's type 1130. Also, type 1130 use 30 mm ammunition vs 20 mm used by Navy's CIWS.
Navy now applies either CIWS or Sea Ram (install only one) but China adopts both CIWS (type 1130) and HQ-10 for ships close-in defense.
Have you seen the footage of the drone attack on the Russian Ivanonets yet, ComNavOPS?
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, the Houthis have similar capabilities and given that the USN mission in the Red sea seem ad-hoc and poorly executed, should the USN be concerned?
I have not.
DeleteThe footage is for, lack of a better word, impressive.
DeleteI don't know the circumstances under which the Ivanonet was operating, thou it was in what was supposedly guarded harbor.
The Ukrainians using the drones, systematically tore it apart, repeatedly hitting the stern and portside, particularly the portside after they realized they created a large hole, allowing them to detonate subsequent drones deeper into the interior of the ship.
The footage is publicly available, I recommend you watch it.
"The footage is for, lack of a better word, impressive."
DeleteThe footage is, for lack of a better word, highly edited. If you look carefully, you see that there are several segments of film that are reused, presumably to give the impression of an overwhelming attack by several (dozens?) USVs. Trying to filter out the editing, it appears that there were only one, maybe two, actual USVs and that they caught the Russian vessel unaware. This, again, highlights the Russian ineptitude that we've seen repeatedly from day one of this war.
I remain baffled by the fact that the Russians seem unable to detect these USVs. A simple lookout with night vision goggles or IR vision ought to be able to see these things a mile or two away. Of course, the US Navy fails to post lookouts and keeps crashing into giant cargo ships so the Russians aren't the only inept sailors.
What was impressive was the editing and photo-presentation of a video clearly designed as propaganda. That doesn't alter the results but it does alter the overall impression.
It is also unclear to me why Russia has these little boats roaming around. They aren't land attack ships and there are no Ukrainian ships to fight so what are they doing?
The Russians don't seem to have a coherent plan for their Naval assets except to on station as much as possible to launch the occasional missile strike.
Delete" launch the occasional missile strike."
DeleteI don't think they can even do that. The Ivanonets, for example, is a Tarantul class missile boat and only carriers anti-ship missiles, not land attack. With no Ukrainian ships, I don't know what its mission might be.
Both sides have occasionally used air-2-air and anti-ship missiles in the ground attack role.
DeleteIf I had to guess, the Ivanonets was moving about its anchorage not for any particular reason when it was attacked.
To thwart this attack, it could have went to its theoretical top speed but it did not.
I know the USN once had one of these ships in service briefly. I wonder if a USA evaluation report exists for the class.
It is kind of funny how these drone and missile attacks are further emphasizing the need for classical destroyers, which you’ve obviously advocated for. There a lot of similarities where the Ukrainian drones are like early torpedo boats and need fast, well armed destroyers to counter them. While the missiles are low turning into a kamikaze type situation where we need heavily armed and durable pickets.
ReplyDeleteI think it really brings home we need to develop FAST some cheap missiles and especially need to bring back more guns and ammo! Im sure some of those USN sailors wouldn't mind some heavy steel armor too!
Delete"emphasizing the need for classical destroyers"
DeleteYes. One also can't help but wonder about the electronic aspect. USVs are, presumably, being controlled via video and comm signals. One would think that relatively simple electronic counter-measures targeting the video and control signals ought to be highly effective. After all, these are not highly sophisticated USVs with extensive electronic shielding and Terminator level artificial intelligence. These are pretty 'dumb' USVs. The Russians appear to simply be totally unprepared and almost laughably ignorant of any effective counter-measures.
The "classic" destroyer would need an AAW and ASW escort for higher end missions BUT for this scenario, it would be the one providing the volume of fire power AND acting as a "sponge" for most of the ASM and USVs especially....would be hard to mission kill it since it would have more armor than the DDGs it's escorting and since it wouldn't have AEGIS or other super sophisticated systems, would still fight even after taking a hit.
DeleteThe Ukrainian drone boats are using StarLink terminals with phased array antennas so they are incredibly difficult to jam and SpaceX has been making adjustments to counter any Russian attempts to jam them. But yes, if they are using radio frequency for over the horizon it would be easy to jam.
Delete"The "classic" destroyer would need an AAW and ASW escort"
DeleteWell, the 'classic' destroyer - meaning the Fletcher, I assume - was a credible AAW and ASW asset in its own right. It provided the outer ship-borne layer of anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense. Thus, a modernized version of the 'classic' destroyer would, presumably, have a credible AAW and ASW capability.
"The Ukrainian drone boats are using StarLink terminals with phased array antennas so they are incredibly difficult to jam"
DeleteIndeed? I've seen nothing definitive on the Ukrainian control of USV drones. Do you have a link or reference? There are photos of the USVs on the Internet. Do you see satellite receivers on them? I've not seen anything I can readily identify as a satellite receiver but, to be honest, I'm not sure I'd recognize it for what it is even if I did see it.
My vague understanding is that the USVs are NOT receiving direct signals from satellites (which would require a receiver on the USV) but are being controlled from ground stations. Satellites may be involved in targeting.
It is also unclear to me that a signal from space, aimed at a USV yards from a target ship would not be susceptible to disruption by military grade electronic warfare. Again, perhaps you have some definitive references to share?
There was that very widespread story early on that the first drones had StarLink then Musk restricted usage around Crimea. The rumor was it might be turned back on or it is possible they are using another provider like OneWeb. The flat dish at back is very suggestive of a phased array dish for low earth orbit internet, and frankly it wouldn't work very well if trying to use the high orbit internet satellites because they have so much latency and the signal is weaker. The advantage against jamming the low earth orbit systems have is their signal is much stronger given how much closer the satellite is and it is highly directional because they are tracking the satellite across the sky. You must be very close, if not in-between them, and there are lots of signal hopping and filtering capabilities just from software.
DeleteHere is one article with a picture:
https://www.twz.com/ukrainian-drone-boat-scores-direct-hit-on-russian-warship
And an Economist article that is more general:
https://archive.is/vfVgn
Agree here with the 'classical destroyer' idea...somewhat. Not in the vein that its multirole capable like the WWII ships were with ASW and AAW cababilities though. More in the "its a gun-centric ship" vein. A ship with a Fletcher-esque fit of about six 5" (of course 8" would be better) guns, a heavy load of 4+CIWS plus a couple SeaRam, 4-6 of the 30mm remote/crewed weapons, the most powerful SEWIP suite, and some decent deck/citadel armor would be fantastic for this environment. Obviously theyd need to operate under an Aegis ships AAW umbrella in a higher end theatre, but would still have significant organic defensive capabilities against missiles, drones, and small boats. If we have significant faith in the CI systems, then this could be not only useful, but a significantly cheaper option than Burkes in a low threat scenario like this. I suppose we just need to find out how truly effective our CI systems are...(and give them deeper magazines!!)
DeleteThe 'classic destroyer' also needs significant self-defense capability. I would specify 2 SeaRAM (fore/aft) and 4 CIWS (2 port, 2 starboard), minimum.
DeleteA caveat on this discussion. Would a cruiser or battleship with 900 rounds and persistence be useful in this situation off the coast of Yemen? considering a 8-11 inch round with 200 mile range could absolutely wait and shoot for days make a difference in these conflicts vs a 1M tomahawk.
ReplyDeleteSorry to diverge from the discussion but we have no guns to shoot back with and are using million dollar missiles I think the Navy leadership is missing an important lesson. Not all conflicts need million dollar mission packages. They need persistence, accuracy and more or less, explosive packages large enough to destroy targeted.
afaik we don’t have a good take on Iran’s missile defenses, (well yeah - probably we do..) but I’d bet they’re a lot more advanced and sophisticated than whatever it was that these Houthi goat herders used when they came pretty close (like 8 seconds away) to taking out a Burke.
ReplyDeleteI hope there’s some cool heads in the Pentagon pushing back on the guys who’ve been calling for an attack on Iran - a bit of bad luck (or someone taking a snooze on midwatch) could lose us a carrier.
"a bit of bad luck (or someone taking a snooze on midwatch) could lose us a carrier."
DeleteIt would take a WHOLE LOT MORE than a C-80x type anti-ship missile to sink a carrier!
‘A whole lot more than a C-801 to sink a carrier..’
DeleteYes indeed Conops - absolutely it would, but the Iranians have developed some pretty sophisticated ASMs themselves, and who knows what help the Russians may have given them more recently.
In a war Iran would be no pushover and the outcome of any conflict would be very uncertain.
So I agree with you (I think) that if we think we’re going to reach the point where our bluff clearly isn't working and we’re not willing or able to follow through then better to fold our hand and get the hell out of Dodge than hang around and make even bigger fools of ourselves than we already have.
One major problem I see is reliance on 5-inch (or even smaller 57mm in the LCSs and Connies). The USN needs some larger and longer range guns.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to stand off further presumably reduces risk. Being able to land a heavier shell increases effectiveness. Yes, these are simplistic comments, but the USN seems to be ignoring them. The USN has virtually punted the NGFS mission, whereas here is a classical opportunity to use heavy guns instead of shooting off million dollar plus missiles.
With no 8-inch or 16-inch cruisers or battlewagons, and with the destroyer/frigate fleet largely downsizing from 5 inch to 57mm, the USN has made itself particularly ill-suited to this kind of mission.
We need a new class of cruisers with 8-inch guns as well as a Ticonderoga or greater missile capacity. That means a larger ship, as those capabilities cannot be fitted onto an already overloaded Sprucan hull.
And that classical destroyer needs to have at least 5-inch instead of the 57mm popguns on the LCSs and Connies.
Then get some of the longer range Vulcano or similar shells for all of them. A frigate with 30-40 km Vulcano 76mm/3 inch, a destroyer with 60-80 km Vulcano 127mm/5inch, and a cruiser with 50-70 km Vulcano 155 mm or longer range 8 inch would be excellent platforms for this kind of work.
One somewhat related question I have is why was the 155mm gun developed for the Zumwalt class not built to accommodate existing Army 155mm howitzer ammunition?
With the new Navy recruiting standards, the perfect sailors can now enlist who have strong backs perfect to parbuckle 8 and 16 inch rounds into the projectile hoists.
Deletehttps://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/01/26/navy-to-allow-those-without-high-school-diploma-or-ged-to-enlist/
"The Navy said Friday that it will allow those without a high school diploma to enlist as long as they score a 50 or higher on the Armed Forces Qualification Test that all prospects must take, the latest move to boost recruitment in the face of an historic recruiting crisis reverberating across the services.
Those without a General Educational Development, or GED, credential will also be able to enlist, as long as they hit that test score threshold, according to the Chief of Naval Personnel’s office."
These stalwart men with also be kept busy holystoning decks, striking down ammunition and powder, and forming the human chains necessary to bring stores down into the deep recesses of the ship where they are stored. Not to mention the huge numbers for the "Black Gang" necessary to run the boilers.
Pay no attention to the New Jersey going to drydock for the first time in 30 years!
:-)
I jest.... or am I?
"kept busy holystoning decks"
DeleteWould that we actually did hands one maintenance like rust removal and painting!
Looks like USAF struck at some Iran proxy targets tonight....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.twz.com/news-features/u-s-strikes-back-at-iranian-backed-militia-targets-in-iraq-syria