 |
| BrahMos Anti-Ship Missile. Range 300-500 Km with a speed of up to Mach 3. Supposedly a hypersonic version is already in development that will operate at Mach 7 or better. |
It doesn't appear that the US Navy is interested in sinking ships.Besides the long serving and small Harpoon anti-ship missile (that is slow speed and short legged) name the other anti-ship missile in US service (the Penguin doesn't count...even smaller...even shorter legged).
I can't think of one.
Meanwhile the Russians, the S. Koreans, the Japanese and the Taiwanese just to name a few (besides India) are all putting into service large, fast weapons.
What does this all point too?
It tells me that while the Marines have been called a second "land army" the Navy has played the "joint" game far too well. Its neglected its primary responsibility of being able to win a war on the high seas. Using Small Diameter Bombs, Long Range Air to Surface Missiles or Joint Direct Attack Missiles as adhoc anti-ship devices is unacceptable.
As much as I've praised the CNO for keeping his options open on the F-35, it appears that he and his predecessors have dropped the ball on a basic function--fighting and winning a pure naval battle.
Side-note: I understand that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Navy had a grace period and naturally turned its focus...but the rise of China has been slow and steady. A reorientation back to pure naval warfare should have mirrored that rise.
Sol, Tomahawk is still in the inventory. USED to be, had an anti-ship variation (TASM), but those were retired from service. I have heard or read that a new Tomahawk anti-ship variant is at least under consideration. (I think that was Raytheon's proposal, and it's been a couple or even a few years; not sure of current status).
ReplyDeleteyeah but the anti-ship version (like you said) was retired long ago and i haven't seen anything on a new version. the Raytheon proposal would make sense especially because the US Navy has a glut of Tomahawks but time will tell.
DeleteUSN has never really gotten its head our of their 1945 worldview: only aircraft and submarines sink ships. This logically means that the only role of surface combatants is to protect against enemy submarines and enemy aircraft (with the anti-ship missile being viewed as a Kamikaze aircraft). Look at the design of almost all USN surface ships and the relative space/effort/tonnage being spent on either anti-air or anti-sub vs. anti-ship.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, as long as you are in fleet actions with your carriers intact, this is not just a winning strategy, it's a kick ass strategy. As long as the combined anti-missile tech of CAP, AEGIS, ECM etc. can defeat the anti-ship missiles it stays a winning formula but if the anti-ship missiles get an edge, or get lucky, and take out a carrier it puts the surface navy in a very bad spot.
It is also problematic for any ships operating outside the range of carrier air and makes employing cruisers and destroyers independently foolish against peer opponents.
"only aircraft and submarines sink ships."
DeleteWhat US aircraft can sink a ship?
LRASM is coming up in the next few years. It supposed to be small enough to be carried buy Super Hornets, but also will fill Mk 41 VLS cells, and possibly a sub launched version as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Long_Range_Anti-Ship_Missile_%28LRASM%29.aspx
Subsonic antiship missiles cannot defeat the infrared based interceptor systems alone, because there is no stealth againt heat seeking missiles.
DeleteIt is the speed that is hard to defeat(Because the momentum will still allow the missile to strike the ship even if hit with an interceptor missile or a CIWS gun), and a mix of supersonic and subsonic antiship missiles can defeat any defense system and strike US carriers.
Depends on the amount of heat exposed to the IR sensor of the interceptor / fire control system.
DeleteFor the LRASM the Navy would have to adopt it as a program of record. As of right now with it is a DARPA program only and therefore not eligible to enter production.
ReplyDeleteI am not convinced that anti-ship missile capable of over the horizon shots are that crucial anyway. You have targetting information to fire on and that requires a long range sensor and a data link. So to shoot 500 km likes the Brahmos you need something that can find the target, pass that information to the shooter, have the missile fly that distance, find the target that will have moved and will be jamming and firing chaff, flares and possibly smoke, and not be shot down. Yes all that can be done but not necessarily that easily or well.
In 2006 Hezbollah fired two Chinese C-802 missiles at an Israeli Corvette that had zero counter measures on and only one hit and only damaged the ship.
Honestly i think the Naval Strike Missile from Norway and adopted by Poland is a much better answer. Smaller and capable of being volley fired with roughly the damage capability of a 8in shell maybe even better. It is deployed on the Skjold small patrol boat class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class_patrol_boat
The really long range missiles are going to struggle to find their targets. Too many moving pieces to make it all work.
300km Brahmos is a long way but that doesn't mean its a long duration flight at mach 2.8 its round 6minutes how far will carrier group move in 6min, 6-7km how long into the attack will carrier group figure out it actually happening. Its easy to spot carrier group on radar at 300-500km ,but much harder to spot a missile at any useful range. Why would jamming deter the missile its ,chaf and flares hardly work anymore in air to air why would it bi different in air to surface missiles against huge barely moving targets . As ve mentioned in falkland brits lost ships to duds brahmos due to its impacts( even with a damaged or dud warhead) impacts at 30+x times kinetic energy of Tomahawk .
DeleteIf you chose to attack carrier group you can bet plan is to use as many missiles and points of attack as possible even supersonic missiles act as a force multiplier as more will get trough than with subsonics like harpoon.
Yes and everything turns into the giant game of cat and mouse. Turn on the radar or keep the radar off? Keep the ECM in passive only or allow it to jam certain signals. The ocean is still a big place and finding ships is not always that easy. I am still willing to bet on the US Navy against any foe in a deep water shooting match.
DeleteJust look at that H-6G. Is that radar going to see a carrier strike group at 300 km? Probably not. Yes China has other aircraft that can track and CSG at farther ranges but not on air craft that can carry that missile. So you need a data link. Then you need a data link between the missile and the sensor. All of which can be jammed and leave the missile going the wrong direction.
ReplyDeleteEven if that H-6G radar could range that far, curve of the earth would put it very high where a E-2C or E-2D would easily spot it. The Aegis systems would spot it as soon as it established LOS between the two anyway.
China does have many satellites for guidance and communication.
DeleteDo not get me wrong; I am not saying that it cannot be done. I am saying that it is hard and therefore success rates will plummet when the shooting starts. War is a giant game of paper rock scissors and probabilities.
DeleteThere's a lot of cat mouse between platforms and radar coverage envelopes and long range target acquisition is a tough problem, but there are always options.
DeleteOne of the most obvious would be to pop up, use ESM to spot the Aegis cruisers, and just salvo missiles towards them, then drop back down out of the Aegis radar coverage. E-2s will also be easy to spot via ESM and they could be a J-20 target as a lead in for the H-6s. There are counter-tactics to these of course, just as there will be counter-counter tactics to those but long range aircraft and high speed missiles will push the US to go active for fleet defense (via whatever combination of AEGIS and E-2) which is a big help for passive target acquisition.
Maybe that particular plane can't detect a carrier battle group at this time, but what about a replacement or upgraded version, and does it need to see it? What about all of Chinas other sensor assets, their OTH Radar, their AWACS, their Sattelites, Submarines, their thousands of fighter planes, I am sure that they could do this, then they create a killzone sending in large numbers of assets into the area which will fire missiles outside the CBGs SAM range.
DeleteAs a member of the Navy, every time the subject of killing enemy ships comes up I get the feeling that the Navy intends on relying mostly on attack submarines for that role. Super Hornet pilots have said that killing ships from long range with JSOW is the first resort, but JSOW isn't super sonic. They then say that the AGM-84 is an option, but it's not preferable because it's radar tracker is pretty outdated and it's also not super sonic.
ReplyDeleteI think the CNO (who is a submariner by the way) has put the role of anti-ship warfare development almost entirely in attack submarines. I hope there are some classified systems in the Virginia-class that make killing ships quickly a breeze. When the Syria crisis was going on it was quite embarrassing that the Navy had to move in an aircraft carrier in order for its six escorts to face off toe-to-toe with two Russian missile escorts.
Hmm...
ReplyDeleteBlog: Navy Matters
Friday, September 6, 2013
VLS - Are More Better?
"...The example of Harpoon missiles is instructive. While we technically have an inventory of thousands of Harpoons, relatively few of them are serviceable. They’ve all exceeded their official shelf lives and are being rotated into storage as they fail their diagnostic checks. We have very few usable Harpoons left. I don’t know the situation as it applies to Tomahawks but I suspect that shelf life is a serious issue..."
http://navy-matters.blogspot.jp/2013/09/vls-are-more-better.html
There is all this fret over supersonic. its only Mach 3 lol. lol we've already retired a manned airplane that can outrun the darn thing. USN can see that missile flying from its launch point.
ReplyDeleteMost folks that buy these fancier missiles don't really have that many of them.
I totally agree that we need better a ASM capability at this point but I'm not peeing down my leg over this silliness.
well the brits might disagree with you on this. a subsonic exocet played the devil with their systems and yes i know that was many years ago but you get the point. a sea skimming high speed missile at wave top height is going to be difficult to stop. additionally all those CIWS aren't going to stop the missile, just ensure that the ship gets hit with fragments going at mach speed. that still sounds like bad news to me.
Delete