Helicopters are generally recognized as the best ASW
platform above the surface; another submarine being the best ASW platform below
the surface, of course. Unfortunately,
this leads to the widespread mindset that every ship must have helos
embarked for ASW.
The problem with the concept of helos on every ship is that
the aviation element of a ship is shockingly expensive. A helo needs a flight deck (something on the
order of 80ft x 50ft), hangar (another 80ft x 50 ft), dedicated weapon
magazines, fuel storage, maintenance shops and parts storage, pilot and
maintainer berthing (and food, water, etc.).
The extra 160ft x 50ft of ship size means more power is needed to move
the ship which means bigger engines which requires more ship size which … You get the idea.
Another problem is that helos are only sporadically available, being notorious for needing maintenance at inconvenient times.
Sure, there’s a penalty to be paid for putting helos on
every ship but, really, what’s the alternative since we need ASW? Well, one alternative is ASROC
(anti-submarine rocket). ASROC began
back when submarines still had to get fairly close to their target in order to
attack. Today, submarines can attack
with torpedoes or missiles from far beyond ASROC range (vertical launch ASROC
has a range of around 12 nm). What’s needed is a much longer range ASROC,
perhaps on the order of a hundred miles.
Given that we have thousand mile cruise missiles I can’t see any problem
with developing a hundred mile ASROC.
In the past, ASROC used arm launchers, box launchers, and
common VLS cells. The flexibility in
launch mechanism means that some kind of suitable launcher can be placed on any
ship tasked with ASW.
I totally agree. The helo has 2 roles 1) dipping sonar and sonobuoys 2) launching torpedoes. I question the usefulness of role §1 if the ship has a good enough towed array and can triangulate with other ships.
ReplyDeletetowed arrays are useful for general detection. Helo sonobuoys and dipping sonar are needed for final targeting.
DeleteShip launched anti-submarine torpedoes lack the range to be useful against modern submarines with very long range torpedoes and missiles. If a sub is within range of a ship's torpedoes, the ship is already sinking.
modern towed arrays / sonars such as Captas 4 from Thales can triangulate quite precisely a submarine - and the Milas (Asroc equivalent) has a range of 35km, which could be extended relatively easily.
DeleteYou're the first person I've met who had actual performance data for Captas sonar. We'll have to discuss it.
DeleteThat aside, there are no US Navy Milas systems or Captas 4 installations that I'm aware of. If there ever are, we can revisit the issue.
Milas is big and only box launched, no VLS. Very limited for a smidge more range. Using our own toolbox, develop a Tactical Tomahawk variant based on TLAM-D (700nm) that can loiter and drop a depth charge spread. The old variant had 24 sections filled with bomblets. 24 depth charges should have a similar warhead size to a Russian RBU-6000 rocket. Stick a MAD sensor on it.
DeleteAs for triangulation, the MCM USVs could instead deploy with the MH-60R dipping sonar. Meanwhile, nothing says a deck launched UAV couldn't take up the MH-60R role with less footprint or greater numbers. MQ-8C or an H-125 derivative could carry the Osprey radar with sonobuoy launcher and or CRAW sized torpedoes.
Yes, all of that is not yet ready for prime time, but it picks a path forward.
"24 depth charges should have a similar warhead size to a Russian RBU-6000 rocket. Stick a MAD sensor on it."
DeleteHave you checked dimensions to know that an RBU-ish warhead, sensor, and body can fit in a Tomahawk? I'm dubious that it can. What are the dimensions of the Tomahawk storage/carry space and the RBU-ish? This is called doing the homework. Please check and report.
"USVs could instead deploy with the MH-60R dipping sonar."
Do you have any idea what the speed of MCM UUV and USV vehicles are and how that impacts tactical usage? Again, do the homework.
"nothing says a deck launched UAV couldn't take up the MH-60R role"
Nothing except the utter lack of capability of a deck launched size UAV.
Frankly, all of your suggestions seem heavy on wishful thinking and light on reality. Do the homework and give us some actual data.
MCM USV (Textron CUSV) is rated for 30+ knots. The new multi-mission CUSV is rated for 35 knots. I pick these as they have high electrical generating power for the MCM sonar (120kw). There are a growing number of USVs that could take the weight and move faster. I'm just not sure on their electrical generating capacity. Obviously, they can't get around as fast as the H-60, but they can range 500-1000nm and loiter for 3-7 days.
DeleteThe TLAM-D with a 20.4 inch diameter takes up about 4 feet of the missile for the submunitions. RBU-6000 munitions are 213mm and about 1.8m / 6 feet. Fuze length of the Indian version is 361mm, 14+ inches. Just doing a circle in circle calculation you would likely be able to load 4 RBU-6000 in the TLAM. Taking that further, the 7.5inch diameter of small diameter bomb would allow 5. Get to the 6 inch of say a Stormbreaker and you are looking at 7 or 8. 6.75" like a CRAW torpedo could fit 6 or 7. That assumes you need the whole 4 feet.
For the UAV, we have over 30 MQ-8C sitting around doing nothing. It's a shame no one is using them to learn and try new things. If Northrop Grumman can't get it done, give Leonardo a chance with a UAV version of the new helo trainer.
and I question also the usefulness of role §2 since the Asroc can launch the torpedoe
ReplyDeleteRussian Yasen M Class boats carry Tsirkon, Onicks and Kalibr ASMs which each have a theoretical range of several hundred miles (not sure how they target at that distance, but nevertheless).
ReplyDeleteWake homing torpedoes similarly.
Both China and Russia are out-building us in submarines, and even the North Koreans are building very capable destroyers at a faster pace than we can build Burkes.
Time is not on our side.
"even the North Koreans are building very capable destroyers at a faster pace than we can build Burkes."
DeleteI don't know where you're getting your information but you need a better source. Wiki lists the current NK navy as 2 destroyers and 3 frigates. There is no evidence that NK ships are of any decent quality and the failed launch attempt that resulted in a sunken ship would strongly indicate the ships are substandard.
"Military Watch Magazine"
DeleteI've deleted your comment because the link it's based on does not link to any specific article, only the general website. My attempt to search for relevant articles failed. Feel free to repost if you can offer a specific link.
You also misspoke about production rates. The US Burke production rate went through a near stoppage as alternatives were considered and has only recently resumed with the Flt III. From May '23 to Nov '24, the US laid down 8 ships of which 5 have been launched or delivered. That's 8 ships laid down in 1.5 yrs and 5 launched/delivered. That rate dwarfs any NK production. Since Nov '24, a further 16 Burkes have been ordered, laid, or authorized. That's a further 16 ships in just over 1.5 yrs.
Even your link's "title" is incorrect or, at best, misleading as NK has yet to build an 8000 ton vessel let alone a 10,000 ton one which is purely conceptual, at this point. NK's so-called destroyers are very low level capability by today's standards. Their existing destroyers have 74 VLS of various sizes as opposed to 96 full size VLS on a Burke.
NK's second destroyer tipped and sank on launching and may or may not be operational, as yet.
You can see why your comment was substantially incorrect and poor quality. Feel free to correct the various issues and repost, if you wish.
I did not write the orginal post and did not read it before you deleted it.
DeleteBut I looked at Mltary Watch and saw the articles about north korean navy destroyer production schedule.
I found the article no problem whatsoever and thought it was interesting to see how North Korea has built a navy shipbuilding industry from scratch. I don’t know if this is true but is interesting to research.
I think with greatest respect to your knowledge that you should maybe always not censure people and delete whose narratives and opinion disagree with yours.
I wanted to post link but this is probable with iPhone.
Suggestion that you Look at Chinese submarines production forecast and maybe give your opinions.
Thank you
"north korean navy destroyer production schedule."
DeleteDid you happen to see the original production schedule for the LCS? Did you see the original production schedule for the Zumwalt? Did you see the production projection for the Trump battleship? Did you see ... I can list these all day but you get the point. Anyone can produce any production schedule they want. It's just wishful thinking and fiction writing.
Did you research the ACTUAL production rate for NK ships? It's one every few years, assuming they don't sink upon launch! I deal in reality not wishful thinking.
I deleted the comment not because I disagreed with it but because it contained numerous factually incorrect statements.
I never delete comments because I disagree with them. I delete comments that fail to meet the blog standards for facts and logic. For example, if you try to tell me that NK's destroyer production rate is ten over the next few years, I'd delete that because it's factually false. Their wishful thinking production schedule is that but their actual production rate is currently around one every few years. They've produced two in the last ten years or so.
In your research, I assume you've also noted that they have yet to produce an actual, modern destroyer. What they call a destroyer is, by modern convention, a corvette or frigate at 5000 tons. A modern destroyer, such as the Burke, is around 10,000 tons. The Constellation frigate was going to be 7,300 tons.
I suggest that you do your homework before commenting again and I'll take care of managing the blog. Thank you.
If we take the helicopter off a burke then we have more space for many of the things that we think the it lacks: power generation, guns, addtional VLS cells.
ReplyDeleteIf you take the helo off a Burke, you get a Flight I Burke. No extra anything.
Delete"No extra anything."
DeleteNot quite true. The Flt IIa added several feet to the length of the ship and the flight deck adds 80 or so extra feet of hull and deck which can either be removed from construction of a flightless Burke or, if retained, frees up helo magazine space, weapons elevator, helo maintenance shops, helo parts storage, helo fuel storage, etc. depending on what specific equipment and capabilities the Flt I had. The Flt I was designed as a helo "service center".
Have you done a piece on defining a "true destroyer?" I know you've written about the swiss-knife master of none approach to the Burkes for example.
ReplyDeleteI've done several posts on variations of a true destroyer and the "Fleet Structure" tab at the top of the page gives a thumbnail sketch of one possible destroyer concept.
DeleteWhen you consider what a "true" destroyer is or should be, the first thing you have to do is define its role. What is its primary purpose? If you answer that, the rest falls into place fairly easily.
So, what do you think the primary role of a modern destroyer should be?
Here's one example of a destroyer concept from a post: The Missing Destroyer
DeleteI think that piece answers my question, thanks.
DeleteVLA has a range of 12nm and the typical lightweight torp payload has an additional 5nm range, for a total of 17nm for the whole system package.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the problems with range, blast radius and weak warheads wiuld go away if we reverted to tactical nuclear warheads. We could easily fit a 20kt warhead in place of the typical LWT's warhead.
Wr don't even have to worry about environmental concerns because the blast is underwater! Yes nuke tiros would be more expensive, but it'll.still be cheaper than an enemy sub.
There are so many problems with using tactical nukes.
Delete1. We would lose any moral high ground on the world stage and almost certainly alienate potential allies.
2. Escalation would be impossible to control. China would target our carriers, bases, troop concentrations, etc. using bigger and bigger weapons.
3. There's no getting around the radioactive issue. Any ground target and the area around it would become radioactive. Ocean water and sea life would become radioactive, impacting global fishing. Places like Guam, Taiwan, Philippines, Pacific islands, Pearl Harbor, etc. would become uninhabitable radioactive wastelands.
4. Security would become a thousand-fold more difficult and costly. We can't keep track of basic weapons as it is (check on any military audit!). Trying to keep track of thousands of small tactical nukes would be impossible and certainly result in terrorists obtaining tactical nukes in a relatively short time period.
5. Shipboard (or land based) radiation safety programs would become a thousand times more onerous than they already are.
And so on. It's a very bad idea.
1. How so? This is a tactical weapon, employed against tactical targets, underwater. At most, it would have a secondary use against surface warships. I'm not sure how alienating it would be to our allies - this is a weapon that can only be employed against valid military targets. It cannot be used on the land. It cannot be used for countervalue or counterforce attacks. It can only be employed, tactically, in ASW or ASuW.
Delete2. China SAYS they are No First Use, but their posture and the way they behave shows otherwise. They are already targeting us.
Anyhow even at the most optimistic estimates, China has some 400 warheads versus our 4000 warheads, we have a 10:1 advantage in nuclear warheads versus them. They have more short range delivery platforms, I'll grant that, but we have them beat in missiles and warheads.
3. As you've said in the past, we cannot let environmental issues dictate our warfighting efforts. The EPA cannot supersede the Department of War. Water also is quite effective as a radioation barrier and diluter. Yes, a 20 kiloton tacnuke spreads a lot of radioactive material, but the ocean is vast, and all that stuff will get diluted into harmlessness fairly quickly, especially with an underwater nuclear detonation.
Again, this is a nuclear warhead for ASROC, to be employed against enemy submarines, and ships. Ground targets are not a valid target set for this weapon.
4. I can't imagine this would be appreciably harder than the Cold War, when we regularly deployed with tactical nuclear weapons on our warships - we had nuke warheads for Talos SAMs, the first ASROC carried a nuclear depth charge for its warhead, and we had nuke Tomahawks propagated to the fleet, to say nothing of the nuclear gravity bombs in the air wings.
I'd argue that we'd see less Empty Quiver incidents with nuke VL ASROC because the missile is in a container which is loaded into the VLS and then left alone. Most of the Empty Quiver incidents with lost nuclear weapons involve bombs that got misplaced while handling, or were on aircraft that crashed due to mechanical issues.
Sorry, I realise I've made a typo in my post. I meant to say 20 TONS, not 20 KILOtons warhead. 20kt would be quite problematic, that's the yield of Little Boy, but a 20 ton yield is significantly smaller and poses significantly less risks to the environment and friendly fire, while being a devastating weapon against its target.
DeleteRemember, the Mark 48 ADCAP has a 750 lbs warhead. A 20 ton warhead gives us an explosive yield 60 times that of the Mark 48 warhead.
" I'm not sure how alienating it would be to our allies"
DeleteYou have got to be kidding me. Our "allies" are morally offended by our conventional actions. You can't possibly believe, for a minute, that they wouldn't be alienated by nuclear weapons. Half the countries in the world currently ban our ships and aircraft from entering their territories now if they just carry nuclear weapons. You think they won't be outraged if we actually use them????! Wow, that's some serious delusion you've got going there!
"we cannot let environmental issues dictate our warfighting efforts"
You've got to be kidding me. You don't see the difference between some highly localized, minor environmental concern that's mostly just a political public relations issue and the wholesale rendering of hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable????!
"all that stuff will get diluted into harmlessness fairly quickly"
Do you understand how bioaccumulation in the food chain works? There's no such thing as harmless dilution. The radiation gets accumulated in the food chain. Go read about DDT pesticide and learn about bioaccumulation in the food chain.
"Ground targets are not a valid target set for this weapon."
You've got to be kidding me. You can't possibly, for even an instant, believe China won't use nuclear weapons against our surface ships and land bases/forces.
"I can't imagine this would be appreciably harder than the Cold War"
LOL! You're cracking me up! With all the terrorists and organized criminal groups that exist today and all the evidence of regular penetrations of military sites by foreign agents and our audit-proven inability to account for the whereabouts of millions of pieces of military equipment, you can't possibly believe that tactical nukes wouldn't fall into the hands of bad people???! LOL Stop! You're making me laugh so hard I pee'd a little!
I try to be as polite as I can even towards people with silly opinions but the level of delusion you're exhibiting is off the scale.
"You have got to be kidding me. Our "allies" are morally offended by our conventional actions."
DeleteAs you've pointed out in the past, there is no point dealing with our allies. There is no point training with our allies. There is no point appeasing and constraining ourselves to fit the weakness of our allies.
We are the strongest nation in the world, and we can and should act independantly of our allies. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
And let's not forget that our ally France's policy towards nuclear weapons is "If you cross the border into France, we will nuke you."
"You don't see the difference between some highly localized, minor environmental concern that's mostly just a political public relations issue and the wholesale rendering of hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable????!"
But it's not going to render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable. A 20 ton detonation has a surface fireball radius of 60 FEET. This is a yield one thousand times WEAKER than the Hiroshima blast - and note that they rebuilt Hiroshima and it was radiation free just a decade after WW2. That blast radius is going to be even more constrained because it's UNDERWATER.
This IS in fact a highly localised, minor environmental concern. To get the same yield as Hiroshima, you would need to fire a thousand of these nuke ASROCs. I can't imagine a scenario where you're firing a thousand nuke ASROCs. (I don't think we even have a thousand normal ASROCs in inventory!)
"You've got to be kidding me. You can't possibly, for even an instant, believe China won't use nuclear weapons against our surface ships and land bases/forces."
My dude, you're arguing to win. I am talking about a specific, low-yield, tactical weapon for ASW and ASuW, and you're immediately equating that with counterforce and countervalue ICBMs with yields thousands of times greater, because they both are nuclear weapons.
AN ASROC CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY FIRED AGAINST GROUND TARGETS.
It is a toolbox of options. We already have counterforce and countervalue weapons: B-61, Minuteman, Trident. We don't need to use a 20 ton ASROC to attack land targets when we have other hundred kiloton weapons to do the job.
You might as well equate a .308 with a 16" shell, since they're both fired by rifles.
Anyway, as I have pointed out, this does not change the status quo. The Chinese are already targeting nuclear weapons at our ships and land bases. Their public trumpeting of their ASBMs was a smokescreen for the recapitalisation of their SRBM and MRBM force. They are, in fact, working to build their nuclear arsenal and gain parity with us because they are well aware that we hold a 10:1 advantage in warheads and we still hold the advantage in strategic delivery platforms (ICBMs, SLBMs) and ballistic missile defense.
"you can't possibly believe that tactical nukes wouldn't fall into the hands of bad people???! LOL Stop! You're making me laugh so hard I pee'd a little!"
DeleteBro, you gotta make your mind up. When people raised the issue of the Chinese pulling off Ukraine-style drone attacks against airbases, you laughed that away and said that the security was so strong and measures were taken to prevent that. Now you're saying that the military is so weak and easily penetrated that we're going to lose track of our nuclear weapons. I'm confused, which is which?
Again, look at the Cold War. Look at the 90s. For decades, terrorist groups and bad actors were, in fact, trying to get their hands on nuclear material. Nuclear terrorism was the primary focus of JSOC before 9/11 and the GWOT. And yet, somehow, for 60 years, we were so lucky that nobody managed to sucessfully penetrate us and steal nuclear material? Were we really lucky, or did we have security measures that worked because we enforced them?
Like you've always said: We have done these things before. We have achieved excellence before. We can do it again if there is the will.
We sucessfully maintained and accounted for tactical nuclear warheads in the surface and submarine fleets for decades. Yes, the air force has had public Empty Quiver incidents. Yes, our naval air wings have had Empty Quiver. These are bombs that were on aircraft that suffered mechanical failures and crashed.
We have had zero incidents of lost Talos, Tomahawk, or ASROC within the surface fleet.
We should not be crippling ourselves by refusing to use the full capabilities we possess.
"there is no point dealing with our allies."
DeleteThat is not even remotely what I've said. I've said that there is no point to cross-training with allies or depending on them for military support. There is every reason to "deal" with allies in trade, finances, research, culture, politics, etc. and using nuclear weapons would most certainly alienate them. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.
"because it's UNDERWATER."
You seem to want to discuss only isolated, underwater blasts without recognizing that our use of nukes would trigger widespread undersea, surface, and land usage by China.
"A 20 ton detonation has a surface fireball radius of 60 FEET."
I don't know where you're getting your information but it's not from any factual source! Here's an AI assembled summary of effects for a 1 kt weapon, 20 times LESS than what you cite.
General Blast Radius: The blast radius of tactical nuclear weapons can vary widely, but for a weapon with a yield of around 1 kiloton, the following effects can be expected:
Severe Damage Zone: Up to approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) from ground zero, where buildings may be destroyed, and fatalities are likely.
Moderate Damage Zone: Extending out to about 1 mile (1.6 km), where significant structural damage occurs, and injuries from flying debris are common
Thermal Radiation: The thermal radiation from a tactical nuclear explosion can cause burns and ignite fires at distances of several kilometers. For example, third-degree burns can occur up to 6 miles (9.7 km) away from a 1 megaton explosion
Lethal Radius: The lethal radius for a tactical nuclear weapon can be significantly affected by the weapon's design and yield. For instance, a 10 kiloton explosion may have a lethal radius of about 1 mile (1.6 km), while a 1 megaton explosion could extend this radius considerably
"To get the same yield as Hiroshima, you would need to fire a thousand of these nuke ASROCs."
DeleteHave you done any research, whatsoever, on this topic? The Hiroshima bomb was 15 kt. The W55 nuclear ASROC was a 10 kt weapon. You are simply, factually wrong.
"it's not going to render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable."
Seriously, where are you getting your information? Here's some information on tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) effects:
"Applying only to TNW detonations at or near the ground, the extended zone affected by nuclear fallout is highly dependent on local conditions. Though a surface detonation means a great deal of debris will be sucked into the nuclear fireball and lifted high into the mushroom cloud, the lower comparative strength of a TNW blast means the cloud itself will be constrained to the mid-troposphere—subject to surface winds and weather, but not the stronger currents of the stratosphere. This means radioactive material and other hazardous fire-related fallout will be scattered along an irregular pattern stretching from the blast site to areas up to 150 km away.61
The impact of this contamination will depend greatly upon where it falls. Fallout in urban settings can pose an immediate radiation risk to people and animals, which requires shelter and/or evacuations until the contamination decays to safe levels or can be removed. In more rural contexts, the area affected may impact important agricultural lands or key transportation infrastructure, necessitating frequent and detailed measurements in the field for authorities to provide proper guidance to residents and workers. And in places where the fallout crosses shallow waters, currents can take hazardous particles far from the predicted bounds of the initial affected area."
I encourage contrary opinions but I forbid factually incorrect statements which is what you appear to be providing. Please note that I will not allow another comment from you that contains false statements. Do your research before you comment again and save me the trouble of deleting it.
DeleteI'll be replying in detail, but first I want to clarify some things, because I think we're on the wrong pages.
Delete- I am assuming that VL-ASROC's payload remains a lightweight torpedo, rather than being a unitary warhead.
- The lightweight torpedo's explosive warhead has been replaced with the W54 nuclear warhead.
- The W54 warhead variant chosen is the yield of 20 tons only, not 20 THOUSAND tons. That was a typo that I left in early on, which has caused much confusion.
"That was a typo that I left in early on, which has caused much confusion."
DeleteConfusion for you, perhaps, but none for me. I took what you wrote and worked with it. The onus is on you, the commenter, to ensure the accuracy of your writing.
Before you comment further, do your research. I'll give you a hint: Little Feller. You'll instantly see the enormous effects of even that tiny explosion with the photo showing the detonation cloud rising to over 11,000 feet and then dispersing downwind. That's an enormous radiological impact.
Go research.
My friend, look above, at June 23 at 9.29pm, I had in fact already acknowledged the mistake and made a correction in an immediate follow up post.
DeletePerhaps you did not see my post?
As late as 1982, Sea Lance was being conceptualised with a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, although this was eventually walked back to what we got, VL-ASROC, an unambitious program for a stopgap interim ranged ASW weapon. (There is nothing more permanent than an interim solution.)
DeleteWidespread nuclear weapons use was envisioned for the battlefields of the Cold War, even into the 80s; it was only once the Assault Breaker program came to fruition in the late 80s, with widespread PGM deployment, that you started to see DOD pulling back on tactical nuclear weapons use, because conventional weapons have now caught up to and are more effective than nuclear weapons.
Tactical nuclear weapons are essentially frontloading massive firepower to compensate for the inability of conventional weapons to deliver effective effects. In effect, we're using massive firepower to compensate for inaccuraccy.
We don't use nuke artillery anymore because we now have GMLRS and ATACMS. We don't have nuke Talos anymore because we now have Aegis, VLS SAMs (ESSM, SM-2, SM-6), and RAM, which can give us equivalent effectiveness.
There's an argument to be had that the use of any nuclear weapon, even super low yield tactical weapons like Davy Crockett, raises the stakes and turns the conflict into an existential conflict. This was a moot point in WW3, because if the Cold War had gone hot, it would undoubtedly be an existential conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I'm not convinced that a war between America and China should be an existential conflict.
Honestly, I stopped reading the thread, but just for clarity, I think SUBROC used a 1-5 kiloton warhead and ASROC has the option for a 10 kiloton warhead. I think the lowest yield on a nuke was 10 tons variable even then to 1 kiloton.
DeleteSUBROC and ASROC had kiloton warheads because they were carrying nuclear depth charges, and they wanted to have a sufficiently large blast zone to cripple the enemy sub, accounting for the deviation from the last plotted location, since it'd take a couple of minutes for the depth charge to arrive on target.
DeleteIt seems to me that nuke LWT guy's position is that since we're still using a lightweight torp, we can get by with a significantly smaller warhead because the torp can get that warhead onto target with a direct impact.
I recall nuke LWT guy arguing for W54 warheads on lightweight torps a few months ago, as a way of making them viable ASuW weapons against large ships. Your mileage may vary as to how escalatory you think that is; we know that the Russians and Chinese have fielded nuclear torpedoes, most famously on the Shkval supercavitating torp.
That's correct, A different Anon. We can mitigate the issues of radiation contamination and fallout by going to a significantly smaller warhead than other tactical nuclear weapons, because we're swapping the explosive warhead of a lightweight torpedo with a nuclear warhead in the same class as the W54 warhead. This is not an area target weapon, this is a point target weapon.
Delete@ComNavOpinions:
"I don't know where you're getting your information but it's not from any factual source! Here's an AI assembled summary of effects for a 1 kt weapon, 20 times LESS than what you cite."
Note that the figures in your AI summary are mixing up the effects of a 1 kiloton and a 1 megaton detonation, by the way.
Here's a summary of effects for a 20 ton weapon, 50 times LESS than the 1kt you cite, from the Nukemap simulator created by Alex Wellerstein. (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
Fireball radius: 18.5m
Heavy blast damage radius (20 psi): 59.1m
Moderate blast damage radius: 124m
Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 136m
Light Blast damage radius: 319m
Lethal Radiation radius (500 rem): 428m
Note also the comparison images of the effects of a surface blast of a 0.02kt weapon and a 200kt weapon detonating at sea in the Taiwan strait.
20t: https://imgur.com/t9GqBRH
200kt: https://imgur.com/jyp5rZN
We're detonating a 0.02 kiloton weapon. It's a literal fraction of the Hiroshima bomb or the original SUBROC warhead. This is very much a point target. I don't deny that there will be radiation contamination, but that's why we're using a miniscule warhead.
"Little Feller. You'll instantly see the enormous effects of even that tiny explosion with the photo showing the detonation cloud rising to over 11,000 feet and then dispersing downwind."
Little Feller was a surface burst test at ground level, with no obstructions or contaiment for the blast. A subsurface burst significantly reduces the effects of detonation cloud and fallout becuase the burst is being physically contained by matter. I quote from FM 5-26, the Army's manual on employing the Atomic Detonation Munition (itself another W54 variant):
"...at optimum depths of burial for cratering (para 2-22), thermal radiation is eliminated, initual nuclear radiation and blast are greatly curtailed, and downwind distance of zones I, IA, and II for fallout are reduced to approximately 10 to 25 percent of that from a surface burst; moreover, in the case of subsidence craters, nuclear effects on the surface are virtually eliminated."
Is an underwater detonation as effective as soil in contraining the blast? Of course not. But it will be far more contained than the Little Feller test, especially the deeper we go underwater.
"You seem to want to discuss only isolated, underwater blasts without recognizing that our use of nukes would trigger widespread undersea, surface, and land usage by China."
DeleteThe Chinese and Russians have deployed nuclear torpedos on their submarines for decades. They have been recapitalising their IRBM and MRBM inventory under the guise of buying Antiship Ballistic Missiles. They are already targeting us. Their nuclear posture and the procurement decisions they are making show that while they SAY they are No First Use, they are in fact preparing themselves for nuclear first strikes, especially given the historical vulnerability of US bases in the region to ICBMs, of which very little has been done to harden them.
We are always fearful that we will provoke the Chinese, but the fact of the matter is that when the war has been declared, they are already provoked. They will attack us with every weapon in their arsenal. They will make every effort to defeat us. They will escalate to nuclear weapons because this war will be an existential war for them, because this is also an existential war for us. As you yourself noted years ago, this is a total war where the entirety of the nation is being marshaled towards victory.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/05/war-with-china-part-1.html
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/02/what-war-is.html
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/03/civilians.html
I've taken your past writings on the matter to heart.
And if the Chinese choose to respond to our use of TACTICAL ASW weapons by escalating to STRATEGIC counterforce and countervalue strikes with ICBMs, so what? They're going to fire nukes at our carrier groups and bases? They were already going to do that anyway! The strategic calculus hasn't changed at all!
We hold a 10:1 advantage in warheads versus them - 4000 American warheads vs 400 Chinese warheads. We still have more ICBMs and SLBMs than they do. We have more ballistic missile defense assets than they do, in the form of THAAD and Aegis. The Chinese themselves believe that we have enough missile defense interceptors that we can blunt their ICBM strikes on us to a survivable degree, that's why they've been recapitalising their ballistic missile inventory and are increasing the size of their missile farms.
Back in the cold war, we didn't have these worries about tactical nuclear weapons. We fielded nuclear SAMs, nuclear artillery, nuclear cruise missiles, nuclar torpedoes, nuclear depth charges. The Russians did the same. Both of us knew we had nukes and were targeting them against each other.
"Note that the figures in your AI summary are mixing up the effects"
DeleteNo, they're clearly delineating the different sizes.
"I don't deny that there will be radiation contamination"
And that's the key point you seem unable to grasp. This is not a case of one weapon usage and that's it. Once the precedent is set and we use the first one, thousands will follow by us and China. While each individual weapon will cause a "lesser" radioactive event (that's a very relative term since there is not such thing as a good amount of radiation), multiply that "lesser" event by thousands and you have a global contamination scenario with vast land areas rendered uninhabitable and the global seafood supply rendered inedible.
"obstructions or contaiment for the blast"
The physical blast effect is irrelevant. The issue is the radiation fallout and no amount of obstruction or containment can prevent that. Radioactive particles (those that don't simply pass through materials) will be disbursed for miles by wind, ocean currents, rivers, animals, etc.
"underwater detonation as effective as soil in contraining the blast?"
Do you not understand how underwater dispersion of radioactive particles works?
" they are in fact preparing themselves for nuclear first strikes"
DeleteAnd if they do, we can respond. Initiating first use, however, is insane.
"They will attack us with every weapon in their arsenal."
Every CONVENTIONAL weapon. They will not initiate nuclear weapons for all the reasons cited. They have no desire to wind up as radioactive dust any more than we do. That's what MAD is. China is evil but not insane. Their leaders don't want to die.
"I've taken your past writings on the matter to heart."
As well you should! Don't ruin it by stopping, now.
Sigh. The Navy figured out about fifty years ago that ASROCs alone weren't good for much other than making noise and making a warships crew feel a little less like a target.
ReplyDeleteYou are not thinking through the kill-chain. Antisubmarine warfare (ASW) is not the same as above surface warfare. Sound doesn't travel in straight lines underwater due to variations in temperature, salinity and pressure.
As a result, the area of uncertainly (AOU) of a possible submarine (POSSUB) contact varies greatly based on distance from the detecting sensor. You can have an initial POSSUB detection and still not know where the target is well enough to deliver an accurate torpedo attack.
That is why localization is such a critical step in the ASW kill-chain. The value of a helicopter or an MPA isn't solely in its ability to deliver a torpedo: its the ability to get a sensor (dipping sonar, sonobuoy) in direct path contact and reduce the AOU so that a torpedo can be effectively delivered.
I think an argument could be made that a helo could be used to localize and hold the contact for an ASROC delivery. Maybe the helo doesn't need to carry the torpedo. But you still need something to localize the target.
Sigh. Did you grasp the post? Your comment suggests that you did not. Hint: re-read the last paragraph of the post.
Delete"You are not thinking through the kill-chain. "
DeleteYou need to carefully read through comments before posting your own. This was clearly addressed in a previous comment: "towed arrays are useful for general detection. Helo sonobuoys and dipping sonar are needed for final targeting."
I thoroughly understand the ASW methodology. What I don't understand is why you commented without first reading other comments?
I do wonder if what is really needed is a lineal successor to Ikara rather than ASROC. A high speed system with enough range to take advantage of modern sensors (say 50-75 nm), the ability to loiter while dropping miniature sonobuoys for target localization, a datalink back to the launch vessel and other linked platforms for a drop decision, and AI to make a decision in difficult conditions could prove very useful. Add vertical launch, probably from a dedicated launcher, and an ability to swap a lightweight torpedo for a nuclear depth bomb and you have a formidable threat to submarines that may be intending to launch anti-ship missiles at over the horizon ranges.
ReplyDeleteSo, you're suggesting a loitering, sonobuoy dispensing, datalinked, high speed (supersonic?), AI enabled, vertical launch, long range, nuclear capable "ASROC"? Is that all? That should cost around ten billion dollars apiece and only require a couple of decades to develop and give us a production rate of one per year!
DeleteIs there a reason why we can't just make a longer range ASROC and keep it simple, affordable, and producible? Is there a reason why we have to gold plate everything?
Didn't there used to be a Sea Lance missile project to replace ASROC? It was one of those things that was cancelled with the end of the Cold War. These days the preference may be for a loitering munitions type.
ReplyDeleteYes, the UUM-125. Is there a reason why a loitering capability (which adds cost and complexity) is necessary for ASW?
DeleteNote that the original concept for Sea Lance called for it to be fitted with a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, which was expected to have an effective lethal kill radius of 5 nautical miles against submarines.
DeleteI would argue that a loitering capability is not required if the missile can receive midcourse updates from other sensors, or, in the case of Sea Lance, travels fast enough that the target is not able to affect meaningful deviation. Sure, you could ramp up to 30 knots flank speed; Sea Lance is a supersonic missile.
A loitering capability makes some sense for a seaskimming cruise missile - Harpoon and Tomahawk had loitering capability because in bearing only mode, they would be fired at a specific heading and would then loiter while independantly seeking their own targets. This isn't the case for ASW missiles, which are only fired at confirmed targets that have been identified and fixed.
DeleteCould a ship fire two missiles at a sub, the first equipped with a sonobuoy to acquire the target (a loitering munition might allow OTH communication with the ship), the second with a torpedo?
Delete"the first equipped with a sonobuoy to acquire the target"
DeleteNo. Barring one-in-a-million luck, that's not how sub detection and localization works. It takes hours of effort and dozens of sonobuoys to pin down a sub's location well enough for a torpedo shot. A single sonobuoy is almost pointless.
Ah, sorry Commander, I wasn't clear. If we are already at the stage of firing missiles at a sub, we already have a reasonably good idea where the sub is from the ship's towed array, the sonobouy is more to get an exact location before the second missile drops the torpedo, ideally as close as possible to the sub.
Delete"already have a reasonably good idea where the sub is from the ship's towed array, the sonobouy is more to get an exact location before the second missile drops the torpedo"
DeleteAgain, no, that's not how it works. A sub is localized ("fixed") using a "grid" (generically, not literally) of sonobuoys. These essentially allow triangulation of the sub using very short range sonobuoy sensors. When the sub's location is sufficiently fixed, a torpedo(s) is launched. So, if you've reached the firing stage, as you say, the sub is already fixed and one more sonobuoy is not needed. If the sub is not sufficiently fixed, one more sonobuoy is not going to make the difference, barring dumb luck. Either way, a single sonobuoy is of no real use.
Also, consider that you're using a million dollar missile to delivery a single sonobuoy! That's a million dollar sonobuoy! Yikes!
You need to research ASW methodology. Unfortunately, that requires reading a LOT of reports and picking up tidbits and assembling a coherent picture because there is no single, fully descriptive documentation of real world ASW methodology, that I'm aware of.
They advantage of long range ASROC is that helos don't need to carry torpedoes? Is that the primary reason? If a helo needs to be there for final targeting that seems to be it.
ReplyDelete"They advantage of long range ASROC is that helos don't need to carry torpedoes?"
DeleteNo, not exactly. A helo, onsite, is still the preferred option because it's able to instantly drop a torpedo on a target without having to wait for an ASROC. Every minute of waiting is a chance for the sub to evade and vanish. The problem is that helos carry only one or two torpedoes and those will often miss or be insufficient to achieve a kill. Then, the helo is out of torpedoes and impotent. In that case, ASROC acts as an infinite magazine for the helo albeit with a short delay between request for fire and arrival of the torpedo. This is somewhat analogous to the arsenal ship acting as an extended magazine for an AAW surface ship.
In addition, helos are notorious for being unavailable due to maintenance and there will be situations where a ship detects a submarine and no helo is available. ASROC will be vital then.
There is something to be said for keeping the sub evading. Lots of ammo can enable that. Quad packed VLA using the 6.75" torpedo ,ight help. In either the case of the CRAW or traditional VLA, adding a wing kit seems to be one path to longer range.
DeletePerhaps we need to explore whether it's worthwhile to use cluster ASW mortar payloads? the RBU ASW mortars seem effective enough, but they're limited by short range. We've designed missiles in the past that had cluster dispensers instead of unitary warheads (the cluster payloads of GMLRS and Tomahawk come to mind) - perhaps we should study whether an ASW cluster missile might be a worthwhile weapon?
DeleteAnon, we are on the same page. Get a cruise missile over the target that can use a mortar spread of some kind.
DeleteWouldn't this be a great use/need for an unmanned asset?
ReplyDeleteIf a helos biggest strength in ASW is for dipping sonor and dropping sonobuoys then surely that can be done with a drone.
You could cut down greatly on the size of a flight deck/hanger by utilizing a couple of drones.
And if the ship has ASROC then no need to carry/store torpedoes for the helo/drone.
A drone can't analyze data. It must transmit data back to the host vessel which amounts to a continuous broadcast signal and offers the enemy a pinpoint location for the drone and host vessel which must also broadcast control signals. Most commanders in combat would consider that a bad situation. EMCON is the preferred emissions state.
DeleteAfter serving as an AW/acoustic operator on P-3s I worked on a seismic oil exploration ship in the 80’s. We deployed a towed array ( we used a steam gun for the sound source). It took a couple of hours to deploy the array and a bit longer to reel it in; it was a bit of an evolution. Of course I would imagine the current towed arrays can be deployed and reeling in much more quickly, Given CZ detection in deep water something longer range would be called for (I’m aware of the ultra quiet subs but processing and hydrophone technology may have evened things out). Perhaps a tomahawk modified to carry a MK 54 and a couple of CRAW ultra weight torpedos (the weight would be right but the adding the CRAW might have problems with the dimensions). The tomahawk could trade space used for fuel (don’t need as long a range) and sensors (it would just need an inertial guidance system ( with updates) to make it fit. I talk about using the tomahawk because developing a missile from scratch would probably take the Navy 10 years. Obviously the VL Asroc and the Tomahawk both take up a mark 41 canister so magazine depth wouldn’t be an issue.
ReplyDeleteI've always wanted the ASW tomahawk to drop a Torpedo, but I think it would need to be an al new missiles to work that way. A depth charge spread like a modified TLAM-D might be the less complicated path.
DeleteGreat ideas in this article and comments . Without a hanger and embarked Helos (and space for the aviation detachment) a Burke could carry more guns (and directed energy weapons). Of course, the ship could have a simplified Aegis system to have power margin for directed energy weapons.
ReplyDelete