tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3844002950167341457..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LRASM UpdateComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91377707448642300082014-10-19T05:58:24.090-07:002014-10-19T05:58:24.090-07:00"b", the current standard for public nav..."b", the current standard for public naval computer wargames is "Command" which can be found at warfaresims.comComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84597203120985048882014-10-19T01:02:27.816-07:002014-10-19T01:02:27.816-07:00just curios commy, do you ever play Harpoon the bo...just curios commy, do you ever play Harpoon the boardgame or the computer game ? what wargame (outside the military) for public consumption do you think best potraying modern naval warfare ?buntalanlucuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02058846205282464955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78841231704226130832013-10-28T18:31:07.209-07:002013-10-28T18:31:07.209-07:00john, to be fair, Jim expressed the word frigate a...john, to be fair, Jim expressed the word frigate as 'frigate' in recognition of the fact that most frigates are much closer to destroyers or even cruisers, as you point out.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90295984012782687462013-10-28T18:06:46.071-07:002013-10-28T18:06:46.071-07:00Your comment about other nations frigates with SPY...Your comment about other nations frigates with SPY3, large hello decks and good computer system is misleading. Most foreign navies classify most of there surface warfare ships as frigates when in fact there more inline with destroyers. As an example take the German F125 frigate at 7,200 tons, Turkish TF2000 at 6,000+ tons, French/Italian HORIZON Class at 7,050 tons,the French/Italian FREMM Class at 6,670 tons, and my favorite class the Danish Absalon support ships and there frigate derivatives the Iver Huitfeldt class both in ths 6,500+ ton class.john907442001https://www.blogger.com/profile/01124210123946123619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60795925693804522962013-09-16T12:49:01.128-07:002013-09-16T12:49:01.128-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72874433997490108442013-09-16T10:35:30.592-07:002013-09-16T10:35:30.592-07:00B.Smitty, I've not yet heard anything about ex...B.Smitty, I've not yet heard anything about exercise results involving Coyote or anything similar, have you? Of course, given the highly scripted and unrealistic training scenarios I'm not sure any results would mean much but, hey, it's a starting point.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62958875730453559982013-09-16T07:21:33.571-07:002013-09-16T07:21:33.571-07:00"Thus, their choice probably has little to do..."Thus, their choice probably has little to do with tactical usefulness and everything to do with money!"<br /><br />Very true. What was the old Roman saying about the sinews of war being money? <br /><br />I think this is why I like the LRASM so much (assuming it works, and that we can get it to the fleet). <br /><br />Again, I think this dovetails nicely with the frigate argument. I'd love to have 50 frigates with SPY3, AShM's, a sweet tail and computer systems, and a nice big flight deck for helo's. Kind of like some of the other nations 'frigates' that have been mentioned. But we cant afford it, and it doesn't fit our force structure. <br /><br />hypersonic AShM's are kind of the same way. I'd love to be able to have a Sunburn analog that we could put on 'Burkes. I wish RATTLRS or the hypersonic LRASM had worked out. But the development cost on such things is out of this world; especially with our currently broken procurement system. And they might require extensive modifications to our ships. <br /><br />If (and given that procuerment system, this is sadly a big if) we can use the existing JASSM-ER platform to make a nice long range subsonic cruise missile, and do it on the cheap, its a win for us.<br /><br />Right now the Harpoon is old. For whatever reason the Navy chose not to go with a VLS version or the Block III buys. So we have a fleet effectively without AShM's. <br /><br />Develop a VLS capable, and/or deck mount capable subsonic missle that we can put on our existing ships and we have a weapon we can distribute to the fleet quickly and economically. Even if its only 70% effective as a SS AShM we can make it work given that we generally have more ships. Or we can use sub's to sneak in closer for a strike. Or hang a butt load of them off of carrier aircraft. Heck, if this thing is as autonomous as they say, put a 'LRASM' module (essentially a launcher) on an LCS and viola! A missile boat!<br /><br />We wont' have to have the mega development time (and money)for a brand new missile type with which we don't have much experience. We won't have to design a ship around a missile. We can use it right away. <br /><br />Just my $0.02JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37663455771403815482013-09-16T04:38:54.620-07:002013-09-16T04:38:54.620-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26973035139697643912013-09-15T16:53:40.996-07:002013-09-15T16:53:40.996-07:00ats, I'm not sure our likely enemies (Iran, NK...ats, I'm not sure our likely enemies (Iran, NKorea, China) have much experience intercepting supersonic missiles. That aside, though, there's a world of difference between intercepting a ballistic missile, which is what I think you're referring to, versus intercepting a sea-skimming supersonic missile. As you undoubtedly know, the Navy's ballistic missile intercept tests are highly staged affairs designed to succeed. They bear little similarity to a combat scenario! I don't think we or our enemies have much experience with trying to stop sea-skimming supersonic missiles. The incredibly short engagement window available to stop a supersonic sea-skimmer is just a very difficult challenge. <br /><br />You say that missile survivability is less with speed. What do you base that on aside from your own conclusions (every bit as valid as my own!)? There is no public domain data on any of this, as far as I know.<br /><br />Unless you can point to some data, you've looked at the same public info I have and come to a different conclusion. Fair enough! You may be right. On the other hand, I may be right.<br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51493734046068370782013-09-15T15:20:02.146-07:002013-09-15T15:20:02.146-07:00Except that Speed isn't as effective as you be...Except that Speed isn't as effective as you believe or hope either. Remember that both the US and Russia have experience with SS AShM dating back decades, far longer than either have with stealth(and both have long been working on an succeeded at intercepting high mach hypersonic re-entry vehicles). Intercepting SS AShM is something both have far more practice with than either have with stealth. The only thing speed is giving you is time to target at this point. Engagement window is generally greater with speed. Missile survivability is generally less with speed. And then you factor in the size and weight costs for SS AShM vs stealth AShM. <br /><br />Don't know about you, but 4-1 or better ratios of stealth AShM are advantageous to me.atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65509828373674465822013-09-15T09:03:53.727-07:002013-09-15T09:03:53.727-07:00ShockwaveLover, I agree completely. Stealth isn&#...ShockwaveLover, I agree completely. Stealth isn't a magic answer. It's an aid in accomplishing a role or mission, as you stated. For me, the inference from this as it relates to our current topic is that subsonic, stealthy ASMs will not be as effective as we hope. Given a choice between emphasizing speed or stealth in a missile design, I'd opt for speed.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28261677907675286322013-09-15T08:24:05.540-07:002013-09-15T08:24:05.540-07:00Well, yes. I imagine stealth is designed around pa...Well, yes. I imagine stealth is designed around particular classes of threats, like most other equipment. Given enough time and access to a representative aircraft, it's not terribly surprising that even comparatively old equipment can be changed and modified in such a way as to fall outside the expected classes and take advantage of the inherent weaknesses that making something strong against a particular type of threat usually generates. <br /><br />That it happened is not a shock. It would have been more surprising, considering the circumstances, if the battery hadn't found some way of targeting the F-117.<br /><br />Stealth isn't foolproof. It's not a 100% solution - it just gives you a starting advantage. Caught at the wrong angle, or by a certain type of radar, or with open bay doors or in other conditions, it will more than likely fail, much like any other form of protection. And the more that you expose your aircraft to enemy sensors, and allow them the freedom to test, modify and then test again over long periods of time, the more the chances that your advantage will be degraded increase, slowly trending towards 1.<br /><br />Given how many decades (and generations of technology) we are after the F-117 was introduced, and the time and energy that has no doubt been invested in countering it and its descendants, yes, the value of stealth has decreased. It's no longer a silver bullet, and given a motivated enemy who has invested the requisite amount of effort, will likely have markedly less effectiveness than it has had when deployed in the past. That's to be expected. But I would wager that it still gives opposing air defence commanders a headache. Because just as stealth tech isn't perfect, the tech for defeating it isn't either. Neither is a guaranteed solution, despite manufacturer claims on both sides to the contrary.ShockwaveLoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10235665758729806494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85889214639032110102013-09-14T13:34:36.490-07:002013-09-14T13:34:36.490-07:00ShockwaveLover, your observations, while valid, sh...ShockwaveLover, your observations, while valid, should cause us great concern. That a third world adversary, using antiquated technology could "refine" a radar system to detect our state of the art stealth aircraft should make us wonder what a more advanced enemy, like China, could do. I'm sure China has all the technical specs and performance data on our aircraft and missiles plus they have actual stealth aircraft of their own to practice against. <br /><br />If the mere opening of the bay doors rendered the F-117 that vulnerable, what does that suggest for the B-2, F-22, and F-35? I suspect that the bay doors were a minor factor, if at all. Either the radars were on for an extended period just waiting for someone's door to open or it was a billion to one chance occurrence or, far more likely, they were tracking the aircraft regardless of bay doors being open.<br /><br />This incident should suggest much to us about the value of stealth and may help explain why several military officials have publicly downplayed the value of stealth in future aircraft.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6464912989627238762013-09-14T12:01:40.406-07:002013-09-14T12:01:40.406-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71203589608227477722013-09-14T10:51:44.698-07:002013-09-14T10:51:44.698-07:00Best choice for a smaller AShM is probably NSM/JSM...Best choice for a smaller AShM is probably NSM/JSM. Its basically half the weight, half the range, half the warhead of the LRASM. It is small enough for internal carry in the F35 (2) and another 2 can fit on each wing for a total of 6 missiles per plane. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17924223460640324432013-09-14T09:24:19.993-07:002013-09-14T09:24:19.993-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19423505755564670872013-09-14T09:11:20.651-07:002013-09-14T09:11:20.651-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64903331560509873422013-09-14T05:53:18.993-07:002013-09-14T05:53:18.993-07:00Well, there were a number of factors there:
a) Th...Well, there were a number of factors there:<br /><br />a) The Serbian battery had plenty of human intelligence assets. They knew when the F-117s were leaving, how many there were and roughly what route they travelled. This was helped enormously by the lack of variation in flightpaths.<br /><br />b) Because this took place over a long time period (weeks) with multiple sorties per day, the battery commander had the chance to try different wavelengths and modifications to his radar. As long as he only radiated minimally each time, it was unlikely he'd be detected, so he could continually refine his solution and test it until he hit on the right combination.<br /><br />c) The bomb bay doors were apparently open when they got the lock, raising the radar signature significantly.<br /><br />d) They launched at close range - the whole engagement was only about 17-18 seconds, at 13km. Once the doors were open, the radar return was there, the missiles were in the air and there was pretty much nowhere for the pilot to go. By all accounts, the F-117 wasn't particularly manoeuvrable at the best of times, and factoring in the time it would take to process the fact you're under attack and react, you're really out of time. Nowhere to turn, basically naked and with a pair of mach 3+ telephone poles heading your way.ShockwaveLoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10235665758729806494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63728661549567253822013-09-14T05:00:44.551-07:002013-09-14T05:00:44.551-07:00The key point about the F-117 shootdown is not the...The key point about the F-117 shootdown is not the poor mission planning - it's the fact that an SA-3 missile system was able to get a sufficient return to establish a target lock. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60347801438868782762013-09-14T04:57:22.648-07:002013-09-14T04:57:22.648-07:00The Russians already have supersonic missiles so t...The Russians already have supersonic missiles so that only leaves subsonic for them to develop. More importantly, I suspect, is that they are extremely short on budget. We're developing the subsonic version largely due to budget pressures and they are in far worse shape. Plus, they're undoubtedly looking ahead to foreign sales which pretty much dictates a small subsonic missile. Thus, their choice probably has little to do with tactical usefulness and everything to do with money!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40573187871522450382013-09-13T22:40:18.063-07:002013-09-13T22:40:18.063-07:00The damage effects are also very much dependent on...The damage effects are also very much dependent on the warhead as well. As I've pointed out, the LRASM is designed with a significantly larger warhead than all but the Shipwreck AShM. And the problem with a missile the size of the Shipwreck is that it requires a very big ship to carry it. Currently there are only 4 ships in the world big enough to carry the Shipwreck.<br /><br />Also, it should be pointed out that Russia, with all its advanced SS AShM, designed sub-sonic AShM with the latest AShM design by russia being sub-sonic. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64958594699811519382013-09-13T22:20:17.831-07:002013-09-13T22:20:17.831-07:00Oh, certainly stealth doesn't make you invisib...Oh, certainly stealth doesn't make you invisible, it never has, it simply reduces the range and likely hood of being detected. The effects are compounded in an ECM/jamming/EW scenario as well. <br /><br />And there certainly are trade-offs to be had with reduced observability technologies. But the reality is that Stealth SS AShM are a basic impossibility. For various reasons even in their sea skimming phases, they have to have higher flight levels, they are bigger, heavier, and have IR signatures that can easily be seen from over 100nm away. <br /><br />Now the IDEAL AShM, would be stealth subsonic until roughly 30-40nm away from target and then drop the turbine, kick in the solid rocket and scream into the target going Mach 3-4. But that's a fairly complicated and expensive missile. <br /><br />As far as the F-117 shootdown, as B.Smitty says, that was a case of horrible mission planning. We were sending F-117s along the exact same route multiple times per day for weeks. All they had to do was get the same right under the route and win. Proper planning would of had the F-117s taking multiple different and psuedo random routes. <br /><br />One thing we haven't even touched on with LRASM btw is autonomous flight navigation and target selection/rejection. LRASM and NSM/JSM are the first of a new breed of missiles which are extremely hardened against electronic counter measures by using imaging sensors and image recognition such that the the existing counter measures against missiles are basically useless. Jamming doesn't work, IR/EM decoys don't work, they can see through smoke, etc. They are pretty nice systems. One aspect of LRASM that uses its stealth well is that it detects radar emissions and navigates around them. <br /><br />Also another aspect of SS AShM is they are more vulnerable to damage due to their speed. aka, damage effects their flight envelope more than it effects sub-sonic cruise missiles.atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71022970079602740272013-09-13T20:07:47.336-07:002013-09-13T20:07:47.336-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91622624452736220902013-09-13T19:03:19.617-07:002013-09-13T19:03:19.617-07:00B.Smitty, you suggest that one needs a big, powerf...B.Smitty, you suggest that one needs a big, powerful radar to counter stealth. Notwithstanding my previous example of the SA-3 shootdown of the F-117, various reports and articles have suggested that radar optimized to other wavelengths can detect stealth objects. I've also read articles describing linked radar systems that can defeat stealth via detecting backscatter off the target at sites other than the transmitting site.<br /><br />For these reasons I lean towards speed over stealth. Stealth can be degraded and negated by the defense. Speed is unaffected by the defense.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24701507209203926262013-09-13T18:57:07.301-07:002013-09-13T18:57:07.301-07:00I am totally unqualified to offer technical analys...I am totally unqualified to offer technical analysis of stealth airframes or radar performance. I do note, however, that during the Serbian conflict, one F-117 was detected and shot down by an SA-3 system - hardly state of the art technology. Stories have circulated that a second F-117 was hit and damaged but returned to its base. What that means for our present discussion, I don't know, but it suggests that stealth isn't a guarantee of invisibility.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com