tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post6603416098745272805..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS and Distributed LethalityComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6689284264846781172020-05-24T16:44:04.091-07:002020-05-24T16:44:04.091-07:00You know I missed this the Tuo Chiang-class corvet...You know I missed this the Tuo Chiang-class corvette out of Taiwan. <br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuo_Chiang-class_corvette<br /><br />At what something like real cost of 600+ million per ship for the LCS the USN could have licensed 35 of these and still had money to spare to build 35 Italian upgraded Gaeta class type ships as well for Mine warfare. For something like half of the pointless waste that is the LCS covering 2 of 3 missions with a dedicated ship and crew. Use the savings to buy more SSNs for anti sub.<br /><br />Sure they have to helped to actual operational zones, but they can do their jobs. And it not like Iran has a blue water fleet that going anywhere but the Persian gulf and surrounds, nor is it going to mine San Fransisco Bay.<br /><br /><br />Kathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09782968433043931011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82678783275476723182019-12-06T05:27:40.077-08:002019-12-06T05:27:40.077-08:00There are small, stealthy, missile boat designs th...There are small, stealthy, missile boat designs that would be somewhat preferred. However, the main flaw(s) in DL is not the stealth of the individual vessels, it's the lack of effective organic sensors, the lack of self defense capability on small vessels, and the questionability of the data sharing network that is the foundation of the entire scheme.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14875204847841960122019-12-06T04:09:03.035-08:002019-12-06T04:09:03.035-08:00CNOps, what do you think about some sort of stealt...CNOps, what do you think about some sort of stealth-based DL concept?<br />Using something like that new Swedish corvette (see https://i.imgur.com/Yd1seqh.png) it might be feasible, I think.Lonfonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72390801476827525282019-12-05T17:05:13.914-08:002019-12-05T17:05:13.914-08:00I mean, the soviets did their own OR and they had ...I mean, the soviets did their own OR and they had different assumptions in play, it wouldn't surprise me that they had different conclusions. One only needs to look at NATO vs Soviet tanks to see an example of two parties pursuing differejt solutions to the same problem because their operating assumptions are different.<br /><br />I would be willing to agree that deck space can also be a factor, with how cramped warships tend to be. JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18457131145282638652019-12-05T16:06:39.753-08:002019-12-05T16:06:39.753-08:00Gentlemen, I believe you're both missing the p...Gentlemen, I believe you're both missing the point of stealth. It's not to become invisible (although modern ECM can no-sell pulse-doppler radars, as we saw in Cope Thunder), it's to reduce your radar cross section enough that it stymies detection.<br /><br />Is X radar sensitive enough to detect Y stealth on radar, maybe. But if Y stealth's rcs is at the size that X filters out as noise, then it's practically invisible, isn't it? Aegis, for example, is.claimed to be able to track bird sized objects, but nobody's gonna tune the gain that high and see a screen full of contacts.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55443804762197843092019-12-05T16:01:17.659-08:002019-12-05T16:01:17.659-08:00"The logical inference is they run with 8 bec..."The logical inference is they run with 8 because that's what their OR told them was the optimal number."<br /><br />That's one possible logical inference. Another equally logical inference is that 8 was simply a convenient number. It wasn't too big physically to mount. It didn't take up too much space. It didn't consume too much ships utilities.<br /><br />Yet another logical inference is that the number was driven by cost. Eight was an affordable quantity.<br /><br />I note that the Soviet Navy, for example, didn't settle on 8 as the magic number. Their main anti-ship vessels, the Kirov and Slava classes mounted many more than 8. The Sovremenny did mount 8 but that was a space limitation due to the size of the missiles.<br /><br />It does not seem to me that 8 was derived from any operation analysis. Cost or space seem more likely explanations. I suspect 8 is an after the fact rationalization that we're attempting to apply today. For example, the number of actual Harpoons on Burkes is drive by inventory constraints rather optimal combat loads.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23940812740836289402019-12-05T15:55:31.486-08:002019-12-05T15:55:31.486-08:00It's a further evolution of what the Soviets h...It's a further evolution of what the Soviets had, yes. To go into a little more detail for Nick, what they did was they'd have a missile in the salvo climb up to see picture now (Hi, Granit!) and send that picture back to the other missiles. <br /><br />The US, meanwhile, has no such ability, because it seems the USN's assumption is that the fighter will always get through.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70442551445076235272019-12-05T15:38:43.007-08:002019-12-05T15:38:43.007-08:00@Andrew:
You can make some guesses. Plenty of Wes...@Andrew:<br /><br />You can make some guesses. Plenty of Western designs originating from the cold war have 8 missiles -why? The logical inference is they run with 8 because that's what their OR told them was the optimal number. Wild Goose wasn't wrong when he said that ships in that era expected to fight other ships with their own sensors - that puts limits into your combat lifespan.<br /><br />You mentioned a soldier, think of it this way: the average GI Joe carries maybe 210 rounds of ammo. Could he carry more, sure, but thats pointlessmif he's not gonna live.long enough to use all his ammo.<br /><br />Navies now seem to be assuming that offboard sensors are going to give them a.longer engagement time/combat.lifespan, so you might well see missile counts increase. JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8638062467402261202019-12-05T15:31:36.164-08:002019-12-05T15:31:36.164-08:00Fellas, dial it down a little and try not to aggro...Fellas, dial it down a little and try not to aggro so much, okay? We're all here to learn from each other, but thats not gonna happen if y'all keep looking for excuses to have tiffs.<br /><br />Let's just admit that all have fallen short of the glory and try to do a bit better next time, okay?JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12815416269953785612019-12-05T15:24:04.081-08:002019-12-05T15:24:04.081-08:00"If the Burke is that stealthy, why did we sp..."If the Burke is that stealthy, why did we spend billions to build the DDG 1000s with their tumblehome hull and extreme attention to RCS reduction?"<br /><br />And if the F-35/APG-81 is so powerful and undetectable, why haven't we scrapped our AWACS, P-8, Triton, BAMS, E-2 Hawkeyes? We'd save billions!<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36152280585097354382019-12-05T15:22:12.722-08:002019-12-05T15:22:12.722-08:00As I said, anecdotal evidence that's unverifie...As I said, anecdotal evidence that's unverified. As far as I know, there is not even that degree of evidence for the performance of the APG-81 in surface mode. Hence, your suggestions for its performance are pure speculation.<br /><br />Visby is claimed to have a detection range of 8-13 miles, as I documented in my post on it. A Burke-ish ship is, of course, larger and less stealthy but I seriously doubt it pushes the detection range out to 180 miles! China's recent Burke-ish classes appear, visually, to be more stealthy than the US Navy's Burkes.<br /><br />Again, to believe that an F-35 will detect stealth ships at 180 miles defies what circumstantial evidence we have.<br /><br />As far as the Zumwalts, they were NOT built for 'all scenario' stealth and I have serious doubts about how stealthy they are in normal operations. I've got a post coming on this. They were built for a very specific scenario: close to shore fire support where the detection radars would be land based as opposed to aerial radar detection. I don't think the Zumwalts are particularly stealthy when viewed from altitude. They're 'stealth shaping' was influenced as much by construction economies (long, flat 'planks') as stealth. You'll have to wait a bit but you'll find the post interesting.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66838141774939148462019-12-05T14:59:41.001-08:002019-12-05T14:59:41.001-08:00That sounds like a sea story.
If the Burke is tha...That sounds like a sea story.<br /><br />If the Burke is that stealthy, why did we spend billions to build the DDG 1000s with their tumblehome hull and extreme attention to RCS reduction? <br /><br />Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88482446999949952362019-12-05T12:06:30.263-08:002019-12-05T12:06:30.263-08:00"destroyer look like a frigate."
From a..."destroyer look like a frigate."<br /><br />From a Quora discussion,<br /><br />"I was Navigator on a Spruance-class destroyer when the first Arleigh Burke arrived in Pearl Harbor. The ships are similar length and tonnage, though the newer Burke got an upgrade with angular construction and radar absorbing coating. I remember coming into Pearl as the stealth ship was exiting. I looked out the bridge window, saw the large ship, looked at the radar, and only saw a tiny blip that faded in and out with the Pacific swell. I was astonished. The tech had turned a 500 foot, 8000 ton warship into a mere 12 foot, 100 pound fishing skiff. Missiles “see” in the electromagnetic spectrum, so the Burke had practically disappeared."<br /><br />Based on many similar anecdotal statements, I think your assessment of the ship stealth is significantly underestimated. Of course, none of the statements can be independently verified.<br /><br />Given the absence of public domain data, I can't definitively say you're wrong (but you are!) so you're welcome to your opinion. I think your overall scenario is way too optimistic. We've laid out the arguments so I'll drop it at this point. Feel free to have the last word.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46432925791495293272019-12-05T11:08:33.276-08:002019-12-05T11:08:33.276-08:00No enemy ships are stealthy to the degree you ment...No enemy ships are stealthy to the degree you mention (that I'm aware of). Really only the Visby and DDG-1000 go to the extent required to appear like a fishing boat or smaller. And both have walked back from their extreme promise of stealth with the addition of external blisters, antennas and other non-stealthy features.<br /><br />At best, the stealth features on most warships just reduce the RCS a modest degree. Maybe they make a cruiser look like a destroyer, or a destroyer look like a frigate. But large combatants will still have large RCS (thousands of square meters). Carriers will still have huge RCS (100,000 square meters). <br /><br />So even if APG-81 can't detect every frigate and corvette at long range, it probably will still detect carriers, cruisers, amphibious ships, and large commercial ships that far out. <br /><br />"This blog is based on data and logic and this kind of statement lacks both."<br /><br />I'm sorry. I used imprecise language. How about this?<br /><br />If the enemy task force is radiating at all (radars or jamming), they _may_ be detected even sooner. <br /><br />I believe APG-81 is roughly a 20-30kw peak power radar.<br /><br />A large phased array on a Chinese destroyer or cruiser will be in the megawatt class. While the same LPI techniques could be used, it will still be dumping out orders of magnitude more energy, and it will need that energy if it wants to detect a stealth aircraft.<br /><br />Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13680807132818611422019-12-05T09:43:28.900-08:002019-12-05T09:43:28.900-08:00" it's an example of thinking outside the..." it's an example of thinking outside the box."<br /><br />The Soviets had this decades ago.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55839223799214971582019-12-05T09:39:40.605-08:002019-12-05T09:39:40.605-08:00"It's kinda hard to provide an actual ref..."It's kinda hard to provide an actual reference when all the relevant workings are classified and there's nothing out on the open sources as to specific assumptions"<br /><br />THEN YOU DON'T PRESENT IT AS FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Instead, if you choose to present it at all, you make it clear that you are engaged in unsupported speculation.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35062825315239063852019-12-05T08:25:00.645-08:002019-12-05T08:25:00.645-08:00@Nick: The Chinese recently unveiled a new UAV dur...@Nick: The Chinese recently unveiled a new UAV during their National Day parade, which is meant to operate in concert with bomber-launched ALCMs. Essentially it's a missile that replaces the warhead with sensors and datalink: the idea is that it's fired immediately ahead of the ALCM salvo, arrives minutes before to the target point, and sends picture back to the ALCMs in its wake - and if it's destroyed, well, it'll have soaked up some of the interception fire that would have been aimed at the ALCM salvo.<br /><br />To be sure, it's very immediate, very limited ISR, but it's an example of thinking outside the box.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1520585164006293612019-12-05T07:51:35.422-08:002019-12-05T07:51:35.422-08:00"If the enemy task force is radiating at all ..."If the enemy task force is radiating at all (radars or jamming), they'll be detected even sooner."<br /><br />Here it is again - that tendency to believe that everything we do will work and nothing they do will work. Our F-35 can radiate freely and detect anything within a 180 mile radius without being spotted but if the Chinese radiate 'at all (radars or jamming), they'll be detected even sooner'. We have magic and they're deaf, dumb, and blind. Awesome! Seriously, this is just wishful thinking with a heavy dose of fantasy thrown in.<br /><br />This blog is based on data and logic and this kind of statement lacks both.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1201114034864624902019-12-05T07:45:29.560-08:002019-12-05T07:45:29.560-08:00"APG-81 should be able to detect a formation ..."APG-81 should be able to detect a formation of large ships out to its radar horizon. ... At 20,000ft that would be around 180nmi."<br /><br />Unless you have classified information, let's be very clear that this is speculation and not fully informed speculation, either.<br /><br />The only claim I've seen for the APG-81 is 150 km (93 miles) with some citings indicating that's for a 1 sq.m target which suggests that range is for an aerial target. I've seen no mention of range for a surface target.<br /><br />When you factor in wave clutter, weather, and the fact that any enemy warship will be stealthy, any claimed range (of which there are none for the APG-81) will be greatly reduced. Manufacturer's claims for stealth ships all say things like 'size of a fishing boat at 15 miles' or some such. How do we reconcile the radar manufacturer's claims of spotting a pinhead size target at a million miles with the stealth ship manufacturer's claims of invisible at ten feet? They can't both be right. The reality is that both are vastly overclaiming. An APG-81 isn't going to see a stealth warship at 180 miles. What range is it going to be able to positively identify a 'fishing boat' size return as a stealth warship and not an actual fishing boat? No one knows but it's going to be WAY less than 180 miles. My only very slightly informed speculation is around 30 miles. You're free to believe that bit of speculation or not but to suggest 180 mile detection range is not realistic.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36291529218938160652019-12-05T07:31:52.084-08:002019-12-05T07:31:52.084-08:00"It came up in a conversation"
Let me k..."It came up in a conversation"<br /><br />Let me know when you have an actual reference.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77365887430460794952019-12-05T07:03:34.536-08:002019-12-05T07:03:34.536-08:00WIId Goose said, "For the same reasons I outl...WIId Goose said, "For the same reasons I outline above, I do not consider Tomahawk at 1000 miles to be an effective strike weapon against maneuvering warships. DF-21 is already a difficult proposition at 8 minuites flight time, DF-26 at 16 minutes is even more so, Tomahawk takes TWO HOURS to fly 1000 miles. No, if you're having a subsonic stealthy AShM fired from DDGs to support an F-35 strike that means NSM or LRASM, which have a much shorter range than Tomahawk but won't take two hours to arrive at the target zone."<br /><br />It's not doable if they are fired and forgotten. It only works if you can generate reasonably frequent target course and speed updates and communicate them to the missiles in flight. <br /><br />That's where the F-35s (plural) come in. They don't just generate the initial track. They also refresh the track throughout the fly-out.<br /><br />Now I say F-35, but it can really be any asset with the requisite capability. Bombers, P-8s, Tritons, UAVs, satellites, or submarines could also contribute. The source doesn't really matter that much. A submarine might gain the initial track, then satellites might provide an update, followed by F-35s vectored to gain subsequent and final tracks. <br /><br />The F-35 just happens to be stealthy, has decent range, can defend itself if needed, and has a capable sensor suite.<br /><br />I wouldn't expect to be able to use this tactic a out to the full range of the Tomahawk. But I think It could be done out to maybe 5-700nmi. This is within the natural combat radius of the F-35, and allows for some leeway for missile course changes, or temporary loitering of missiles while the final target track is regained. <br /><br />Even though 5-700nmi isn't out to the full range of MST, it's still much further than NSM or surface-launched LRASM. And it means you only have to deal with an 1-1.5 hour flyout. With a 1 hour flyout, a 30kt task force can only be within a radius of 30nmi from the initial track. 1.5 hours yields a 45nmi circle.<br /><br />A radar like APG-81 should be able to detect a formation of large ships out to its radar horizon. (identification of specific ships may require it to get closer) At 20,000ft that would be around 180nmi. So an F-35 could see the entire 45nmi circle from 90nmi away. <br /><br />If the enemy task force is radiating at all (radars or jamming), they'll be detected even sooner. <br /><br />Communicating to the missiles is another potential complication, especially if SATCOM is dead.<br /><br />Obviously this is a more complex method than just flying missiles out on aircraft. But generating a strike of 50+ anti-ship missiles (which might be needed to deal with a heavily defended target like a carrier) would require an alpha-strike level commitment from a carrier. <br /><br />This way, the carrier air wing can just act as eyes, and let a distributed group of shooters launch the strike. <br /><br />Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69685485109570013652019-12-05T04:23:18.609-08:002019-12-05T04:23:18.609-08:00"That's a legacy of Cold War operational ..."That's a legacy of Cold War operational research,"<br /><br />Never heard that. Provide a reference.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70508099360752486692019-12-04T20:52:21.198-08:002019-12-04T20:52:21.198-08:00I'm late to the party, but want to through out...I'm late to the party, but want to through out something.<br /><br />Why is the LCS (and most warships, it seems) limited to just 8 ASM's? But filled with Phalnx/SeaRam/ESSM/SM2?<br /><br />It's like sending a soldier out with 20 layers of kevlar, but only a single magazine for their rifle.<br /><br />Although the LCS flight deck is not strong, you can still put another 8-16 ASM's on there, given a total of 16-24 ASM's. Using CEC, that's a reasonable distributed lethality tactic. Add another 1-2 SeaRam for defence.<br /><br />I can see this working. Hide near an island, moving close to enemy fleet, fire everything, and use that vaunted 40 knot speed to get away. <br /><br />AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7892164589494186852019-12-04T16:10:01.678-08:002019-12-04T16:10:01.678-08:00@Anon2:
For the same reasons I outline above, I d...@Anon2:<br /><br />For the same reasons I outline above, I do not consider Tomahawk at 1000 miles to be an effective strike weapon against maneuvering warships. DF-21 is already a difficult proposition at 8 minuites flight time, DF-26 at 16 minutes is even more so, Tomahawk takes TWO HOURS to fly 1000 miles. No, if you're having a subsonic stealthy AShM fired from DDGs to support an F-35 strike that means NSM or LRASM, which have a much shorter range than Tomahawk but won't take two hours to arrive at the target zone.<br /><br />A Two hour flight time is perfectly viable for attacking a stationary target that isn't moving: it is unacceptable for attacking a maneuvering target on the high seas. This is before getting into the unsubtle unstealthy nature of Tomahawk, and how it is inferior in the sensor department to NSM and LRASM's multimode guidance.<br /><br />That said...<br /><br />Japanese R&D is developing a VLS-launched hypersonic AShM. The US currently does not (officially) have such a program under devenlopment; I would argue that it would be worthwhile to get in on that, and if the missile works out, buy it COTS from our allies (or at least see what mistakes are being made so we don't repeat them). What hypersonic missiles give up in stealth they do gain in lower time to target over the same distance...WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8934150564559924972019-12-04T12:42:50.354-08:002019-12-04T12:42:50.354-08:00The armament is not the new concept (although, for...The armament is not the new concept (although, for the LCS it is!). The new part is the fantasy idea of ships skulking deep inside enemy waters, hidden by islands (not sure how islands hide a ship), and connected in a vast regional network, all waiting to swarm their weapons in a magical coordinated attack, wiping the seas clear of enemy ships. Makes for a good story, doesn't it?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com