.jpg)
via War on the rocks blog...
A realistic future scenario is an attack on two or more axes by two Chinese Flanker regiments (totaling 48 Su-30 MKK or J-11B Flanker fighter-bomber variants). These Flankers (roughly corresponding to U.S. Air Force F-15E fighter-bombers, capable of supersonic speeds, and possessing a combat radius of 1,500 kilometers) could each be armed with two to four YJ-12 ASCMs. Although the carrier strike group’s combat air patrol could shoot down a few of the Flankers before they launched their missiles, the strike group would still face the prospect of defending against over a hundred supersonic ASCMs approaching from several directions at a wave-top height. The group’s close-in air defenses would have less than 45 seconds to engage the missiles after they appeared on the horizon. The YJ-12s would employ a variety of sensor types to find their targets and execute dramatic cork-screw turns to evade final defenses. A study from the Naval Postgraduate School concluded that in past engagements of anti-ship missiles against alerted surface warships, 32 percent of the attacking missiles scored hits. If only five percent of such a saturation YJ-12 attack impacted targets, it would still be a bad day for the carrier strike group.As I've said before.
The 100 mile launch point that the current Commandant is talking about is simply a sad joke. Land based versions of this missile will go out 300 miles.
Like Navy Matters Blog has said...We're going to have to fight our way to the beach.
World War 2 scenarios of creating corridors for our amphibs to make runs into launch positions for our Amtracs; then protecting the Amtracs while they swim to the beach and the amphibs dash back out to sea; and then fighting our way to the objective is the only way that forcible entry will be done.
The fantasy that we can get far enough offshore to make things safe is a fantasy.
But its worse than that.
The sea base concept is in doubt now. You set up a sea base 200 miles off shore and you're still vulnerable to attack with these missiles in service.
There is no easy way.
The US Navy and Marine Corps needs to steel themselves to reality. If we're called to make an amphibious assault, its gonna be bloody, its gonna be messy and its gonna be risky as hell.
Its exactly this kind of ammo that F-35 supporters are going to use in their defence.
ReplyDeleteHow about we send in an aircraft that they cant even detect, let alone take a firing solution and and actually fire ate. Our F-35s can take out chinese Airfields and radars and then the navy can role in.
i disagree. if anything it points to using UAVs like the X47 in the anti-air role. why? because the aircraft carrier can setup persistent orbits 1000 miles from the carrier and keep them up there. additionally it makes the need for real life lasers and electronic weapons with much greater range a necessity.
Deletelast the F-35 can't solve this problem. its too slow, doesn't have the necessary range and doesn't carry enough weapons to make it viable.
Exactly. Future drones like the X47 will allow a persistent multi-shift CAP around a carrier. Which will have to include the interception of incoming ASMs and their launchers. Laser based CIWS will have to take down whatever gets past them.
DeleteI don't know about the long-term prospects of drones for deep-strike missions inside enemy territory. Because we haven't yet had to contend with a major power that can deploy jamming/takeover ability against our drones. But the F-35 seems very ill-suited to this (or pretty much any) role.
I also disagree, does the X47 have an A2A radar (you just need one look at what fighter-plane radars look like, their size and how they are mounted to answer this), is it fully autonomous or is it dependent upon sattelites, does it have a cannon, every fighter plane has a cannon, what about speed and manueverability. It fails there also. I suspect very much that the endurance is not great enough either to keep these things circling 1,000 miles out from the carrier.
DeleteThere is no easy answer, but obviously keeping more AWACs and Sea-patrol (preferably a hybrid) probably armed and with ECM, in the air, and do so further away from CTF, possibly escorted by some kind of fully capable drone would be a start. And planes need to be kept ready to sortie at a moments notice.
Other answer is to operate further away from the coast, out of range of their coastal defences, and launch longer range planes 2000KM+ vs Around 1,000KM of many of the existing planes under combat load, this requires miniturization of engines and higher power-to-weight ratios, improved fuel efficiencies, and larger fuel fractions to maintain reasonable size planes. The engine designed for japanese demonstrator would be a good start. Then moving in closer happens only under war conditions, is simply a matter of mobilizing air assets (including bombers) for SEAD and sinking the enemy air-defences and bombing there airbases.
Having missiles is one thing. but targeting and then getting through the enemy's defenses another. The USMC won't be going ashore until USN/USMC/USAF fast air and USN missiles have bombarded the beach and the immediate hinterland. The USN then needs PGM for its 5in. And it needs more 5in mounts. USN needs a simpler frigate in numbers. USN needs a modern PDMS like the RN's soon to be fielded SeaCeptor. If the US can't land a force then we might as well as all give up.
ReplyDeleteAh steve aircraft carrier is not very stealthy, unless you don't launch any planes, with regular AWAC patrols and the very large land based naval and aerial radars, as well as satellite reconnaissance and submarine reconnaissance (an important role for submarines), it is indeed possible to determine the presence and location of US CTFs, then direct the hundreds of fighter planes, missile boats, submarines, warships and other assets including their clearly NUCLEAR ARMED Intermediate ranged ballistic missiles in the killzone towards there target. Currently I believe there is no US destroyer that has been upgraded to ABM standard, equipped with ABMs and assigned to a CTF.
DeleteWith modern very high supersonic sea-skimming cruise missiles Close-in Interception times are a few seconds at best, they need to be interecepted at higher altitudes, before entering sea-skimming phases upon which detection becomes very dificult. Once in close-in range, it is entirely plausible that because of the great speed, the remnants of the missile will still collide and destroy or severely damage the ship. This is compounded by the fact that modern missiles like the Perseus are designed to discharge multiple terminal warheads, which can individually target sections of the ship (such as engine and magazines).
It is entirely plausible that terminal velocities of missiles within the close-in range will continue to increase reaching hypersonic speeds in the near-future, and it is also plausible that to decrease interception effectiveness they will switch entirely to discharging multiple guided, terminal warheads. And no ammount of light being shot at it is going to stop it. So these missiles need to be intercepted before reaching sea-skimming status, weapon designers will probably react or pre-act by designing missiles that fly-lower to the ground, further away, possibly by increasing size of the missile and/or decreasing skimming speed.
Either way navies that want to remain effective need to put armed AWAC and sea-patrol patrolls further out, they probably need faster, longer range planes to intercept and patrol too.
You can't fight to the beach in that environment. The missiles are too much in the scenario you describe.
ReplyDeleteThe solution lies in not fighting where the enemy is strong, you don't have to fight against the missiles, only the missile guidance systems. Somewhere there is a nerdy Electronic Warfare geek explaining how mounting Mk 36 chaff dispensers to a large number of small craft could create a layer of diversionary protection around the fleet, along with how a DRFM jamming system can confuse the missile guidance system into nothingness. I bet there is some crazy brass balled submarine skipper pitching an idea along with him to convert old boomers into a BN size landing platform. Drive the boat up as close to the beach as need be and watch the boys swim, slog, or row to shore.
Think about that, a BN of dismounted Marines coming up from the sea onto the beach while the Flankers are off sending anti-ship missiles at a cloud of chaff and jamming decoys. Something straight out of a sci-fi novel.
We'll have to invent a new mini propulsion belt for those marines to make their swin/slog faster. It will be worth it. I guess thats where bio/mechanical future soldier suits come on to their own.
DeleteAbout those diversionary aircraft filled with flares and chaffs................think about it. USA has thousands of aircraft and helicoptors which are not in front line military use. All those Kiowas, Iroqouis and other aircrafts with old airframes being phased out of service along with civilian requisitioned aircraft/choppers. Suddenly now, USA has more aircraft than china has missiles.
Equipe them with some remote control system to allow pilots to control them from afar. Stuff them with flares and chaffs and jammers, then have them form the outer core of your assault force.
You can even fit them with transponders which give out the signal of any other aircraft for deception purposes.
Then for once USA will feel like USSR of WW2, soooooo many T-34's.
Back in the old days a swarm attack by Bears would swamp the CBG with K missiles, missiles from other launch points would join in for a ToT.
ReplyDeleteThe only defense workable and with a chance was small tactical nukes detonated just in front of the missile swarms.
I know that mat not be politicaly feasible during these times of kinder gentler war, but keep in mind the K missiles were going to carry Nukes. Bears would come in low at the nape and bounce high enough to ID then launch, turn away the wave hopping, vertical attack missiles would do the rest. In the era before Phalanx all that was around to stop this was the MiG Cap/Bar Cap, the 5"/54 gun mounts, Chaff Rocs and the Talos missiles of the CG.
Ya got to go nuke to stop a missile swarm.
Acceptable during WW3 it was, now?
The best way to get a K kill on a carrier in Blue water is with a nuke, or at dock with a swimmer in the water and a limpet mine.
Ya want to kick in a door and make an Amphib assault? That works?
Nuke the beach, the area behind the beach and roll right through the debris and the radioactive landscape as fast as possible under cover of strike aircraft, drones and missiles..
A forced and contested landing means Total war.
It really seens like a very difficult problem to solve...if you are fighting the chinese or russians in Africa ,then it is easy to find and destroy their assets and push the Marines to the beach...in their on backyard? not gonna happen!
ReplyDeleteBy the way Solomon,that picture you have on the front page of the Harrier II ...the plane looks new!very good looking
The same holds true for China. While the US itself doesn't have supersonic antiship missiles, US's allies Japan, Korea, and Taiwan do, some even more destructive than the YJ-12.
ReplyDeleteAll navies of Asia has to live with thoughts that their enemies too have supersonic antiship missiles, only the US Navy doesn't.
The Navy has actually been developing lazers and I think they're doing this specifically for combating these types of missiles.
ReplyDeleteOverall, it looks like the Chinese copied the typical Russian cruise missile design.
The laser CIWS doesn't actually work against something like this, because the laser CIWS has to fire at the target for several seconds before it detonates, and the supersonic missile would have reached the ship by then.
DeleteTo deal with supersonic antiship missiles, interceptor missiles and kinetic guns are a must.
low power lasers require several seconds but they're working on getting more powerful ones into active service. the race between missiles is a fool errand. they'll always be able to launch more missiles than you can shoot down with missiles. vertical launch tubes can only carry so many. in the mythical launch scenario you're talking about 100 enemy missiles in bound. that would drain 3 Burkes with standard loadouts.
Deleteadditionally CIWS has limited rounds too and can only engage so many targets before they're overwhelmed.
lasers are the solution.
Well , look at Israel, clearly missile/rocket/mortar defence is more important to them. They've got Irondome.
DeleteSo until the next technological 'enabler' comes around be it lasers or railguns, the most logical solution would be to build a totally new CIWS system, maybe based on the RIM-116 but with longer ranged and more missiles in the pack.
Isn't it about time also to relplace the 20mm phalanx, i mean compare that thing with some european and russian ciws just in firepower.
And that YJ-12 looks it has been 'influenced' a lot by the SSN-22 Sunburn.
DeleteKeeping in mind how chineese like to copy things i would not be surprised if the characteristics of the chineese missile are inferior to the Sunburn.
the next step is to obviously neutralize missiles, which is really in its infancy (with only the recent introduction of Arena and other such kinetic-type systems) compared to missile technology.
DeleteActually it would be more Kh-31 equivalent rather then sunburns. Since both are high altitude AShM primarily as opposed to sunburn (which are mid-low type). Not to say that YJ-12 or the Kh-31 can't go low. They can do that but their range would be more reduced then say of a sunburns going low.
ReplyDeleteToo bad we cant give you the BrahMos, as the latter part of the name (Mos) suggests, Moskva.....Russia. They will cancel out all Indo-Russian joint programs if we were to give you the BrahMos missile. Regarding exports, that missile is a complete Lemon. We just cant export it to anyone. Any western country shows interest, Russia Objects. Any Russia friendly country expresses interest, USA objects and puts pressure on both Russia and India. Russia itself doesnt seem that interested in large scale using that missile.
ReplyDeleteVietnam remains the only country that is acceptable by all to have such a missile. But they wont buy a lot and they'll ask for a deep discount. And our commercial powers are quiet limited compared to the Exocet/Harpoon salesmen out there.
Its a shame for a missile that is close to upgrading its range from 300 to 500 kilometers. And also come up with lighter versions so that they can be launched from other lighter aircraft. In its original state, it weighs 2.5 tons.
DeleteWhen has any western country shown interest ? Russia itself isn't interested in BrahMos on account of it being basically downgraded Onix with racing stripes and tacked on land attack capability. Mini BrahMos on the other hand might find the use in Russian inventory especially if it's going to start rebuilding it's mosquito fleet.(fast attack boats). Since the Kh-35 was solely meant for export When has any western country shown interest ? Russia itself isn't interested in BrahMos on account of it being basically downgraded Onix with racing stripes and tacked on land attack capability. Mini BrahMos on the other hand might find the use in Russian inventory especially if it's going to start rebuilding it's mosquito fleet.(fast attack boats).
DeleteBit late to this one, but catching up
ReplyDeleteArsenal Ships x2
Firstly as a defence, given CEC and such, theres little reason escorts cant carry their missile batteries off ship, on another vessel. Cost of course, would be an issue, simply filling the batteries.
Secondly, as an offence, an opening day strike of several thousand missiles goes a long long way to clearing the way to the beach.
How many B-'s can air launch Tomahawk and how many air launchable missiles are there?