navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Post Reply
magi
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:06 am

navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by magi »

I believe this is a very interesting and somewhat disconcerting naval AAW tactical notion being proposed.....
I think CMANO is a good platform to see if this is feasible.... if i was sharper guy i would design some scenarios around this proposal...

? Are a reduced number of long range SAM's able enough to prosecute with success ASM shooters before launch...
? Are a greatly increased number RIM's able to defeat salvos of incoming ASM's in a thirty plus NM prosecution envelope... defense and attrition in depth will be greatly reduced..... kind of scarry really....

What say you....

Check out this article from Navy Times:
http://militari.ly/1qQ3T5O

Why send an SM-6 missile to do a RIM-162 Sea Sparrow's job?
That's the principle behind a radical new strategy proposed by an influential D.C. think tank. If implemented, it would change the way the surface fleet fights by extending the ships' kill zone with longer-range missiles and new technologies.
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments report calls for surface combatants to use long-range missiles to shoot down aircraft and bombers before they are close enough to fire at the surface group, while concentrating air defenses on the zone within 30 miles of the ship or carrier strike group.
That's a big break from the current air defense strategy, which focuses on shooting down anything coming at the ship from as far as way as possible. If a missile comes at a ship today, the ship would fire the long-range SM-6 first, followed by the medium range SM-2. Sea Sparrows would be fired as a last resort.
Bryan Clark, a retired U.S. Navy commander and the study's author, argues the current shoot-often strategy is a waste of the Navy's big-ticket missiles and won't serve the Navy well against a foe such as China, whose ship-killing missiles reach beyond 1,000 nautical miles.
Clark argues that an advanced adversary could shoot flurries of missiles at a ship and force a destroyer or cruiser to empty its vertical launch magazines in a hurry, leaving the group undefended.
"I recommend going to one air defense layer that would begin at 30 nautical miles, and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile would be the primary air defense weapon," Clark said Monday during a brief to defense writers.
Waiting to shoot down an incoming missile until it's 30 nautical miles out means that on a clear day it could be seen by anyone standing on the bridge wing before the ship takes its first crack at shooting it down. But Clark says the new variant of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, known as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, is up to the task of becoming the Navy's go-to air defense weapon. That missile comes with the added bonus that you can pack four in each vertical launching system cell, meaning ships won't run out of them as quickly.
"Certainly the pucker factor is a lot higher," he acknowledged.
The concept Clark proposes, called "offensive sea control," takes the Navy off defense and on the offense through more advanced weaponry. The new missiles coming online, such as the SM-6, which ranges out to 130 miles, should be used to eliminate incoming threats at longer ranges before they can fire their anti-ship missiles.
"The Navy has to start thinking about the SM-6 as an offensive, not a defensive weapon," Clark said. "Shooting a cruise missile at 100 nautical miles is kind of silly when you look at the numbers. But shooting a bomber with an SM-6 makes a lot more sense."
Bringing the air defense window back to 30 nautical miles will also allow ships to take advantage of new technologies such as lasers and the electromagnetic rail gun, which would give the group multiple close-in options for killing the "vampire."
Clark also suggests that the railgun be mounted on the joint high-speed vessel and sent out with surface groups.
The principle of expanding the battle space to put the Navy's big payloads on offense also applies to anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.
For submarines, Clark recommends developing a long-range anti-submarine missile that can hit subs further away. Even if the targeting data is sketchy at 100 nautical miles, the sub will still be forced to maneuver and take it out of the fight if an anti-submarine missile is in the water.
On the surface side, Clark recommends discontinuing the Tomahawk cruise missile and creating a weapon that can equally function as a strike and anti-ship missile, which would give the ship greater offensive range than the Harpoon missile provides and save space in the VLS launcher by having the same missile do two jobs.
Clark plans to brief his findings on Capitol Hill in the coming days, and has already briefed the chief of naval operations on the ideas, he said.
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5880
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by Gunner98 »

IInitial thought is that this article does what a good 'think tank' article should do - stir up debate and get decision makers thinking about the issue. Either that or the author has stake in one of the systems he is touting.

In one way he is resurrecting an old tactic. The F-14 with the Aim-56 Phoenix was supposed to try and get the bomber - and if that failed, to thin out the missiles before they entered the SAM range of the group. The F-14 and the Aim-56 are gone so the problem of getting the bomber remains. And he has a point that VLS missiles will run low quickly so killing the bombers is important.

The argument of having a 'single layer' defence is both flawed and misleading. Misleading because, getting the bomber is a layer of defence - he seems to be spinning that as an offence, also there is no mention of CIWS's or local CAP - which add layers. Secondly, defence in 'non-depth' has rarely worked in the past, so I call that about as flawed as the Maginot Line.

Although I agree that there needs to be an anti-ship capability, the TLAM is a fairly critical offensive punch. It can take the bomber out at its base - which to me seems more offensive in nature than a SAM system taking out a bomber which is already attacking.

Just a couple nights ago I fired up 'Indian Ocean Brawl. Had to go in the editor to adjust a couple things but it is a great scenario. In the first hour or so, you have a flock of F-14's knocking down bears in an attempt to get them before they release, and at the same time a small SAG fending off 30 or so AS-6 Kingfishers. My contention is that you need both a bomber killer and a solid SAM defence to complement each other, and not rely on a single system.

Just my .02 CAD.


B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
DeSade
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:08 pm
Contact:

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by DeSade »

The argument of having a 'single layer' defence is both flawed and misleading. Misleading because, getting the bomber is a layer of defence - he seems to be spinning that as an offence, also there is no mention of CIWS's or local CAP - which add layers. Secondly, defence in 'non-depth' has rarely worked in the past, so I call that about as flawed as the Maginot Line.

source report has much more depth than cited aricle, they still advocate layered defence, difference is that they suggest dumping medium range SM-2 and use long range SM-6 only for platform intercept. Anti-missile defence would start at 30nm with ESSM block 2, then railguns, lasers and CIWS.
User avatar
jdkbph
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: CT, USA

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by jdkbph »

Wow. That's less than 2 minutes to engage and destroy what might be dozens (potentially hundreds?) of vampires. Not sure I'd like to try that without some sort of advanced CIWS for backup.

JD
JD
DeSade
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:08 pm
Contact:

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by DeSade »

its a trade off - you will get 64 extra ESSM and 16 extra SM-6 in place of 32 SM-2. Thats almost triple more and you got extra range too if you need it (in form of SM-6).
Considering that Navy unlikely drop SS-L-S policy (2 missiles per incoming threat), you got much better chance against dozens or hundreads of threats imho.

The key issue is how good will be ESSM block II.
User avatar
jdkbph
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: CT, USA

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by jdkbph »

I suppose. I wasn't so much concerned with the number of missiles available, but with the ability of a task group to track and engage many targets that quickly. Can, say, 3 state of the art ships (eg, Burkes) track and shoot at (lets just go with) 50 vampires in 2 minutes, allowing for reengaging after a miss?

JD
JD
poaw
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by poaw »

The answer is dependent on the underlying assumptions regarding crew and system performance.

50 missiles on a 3 unit SAG means 16 missiles per ship over 120 seconds. The pucker factor will be at the max, even if such an attack is survivable. The true answer may be "do not get into this position". Like when your Chess mentor tells you the game is over at checkmate, tacticians will simply have to avoid having a squadron of FAC(M) to empty their magazines on their commands.
batek688
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:49 am

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by batek688 »

As Gunner98 points out, this is a resurgence of an old tactic. Hit the launch platform first. The more launch platforms you eliminate, the lower the thread count is for the close in defense. Some of the arguments look like the vision is to just let the massive wave in and then try to engage in a short window ignoring the original premise which was to restrict the launch. To the argument about launching in a wave and overwhelming, I would anticipate that when operating in an area where the opposition has a large number of launchers from beyond range (China, 1000nm) that tactics would need to change as well. Those Chinese examples are ballistic with MIRV where the desire is to successfully engage before they separate warheads and penetration aids.

Of course, the current argument is a sales pitch for the new weapon system; however, synthesizing a couple of things that have been in the press recently: what about decoupling from the VLS? There was a report out about swarming nautical drones recently. If you put a CIWS type of system on a nautical drone (RC boat), couldn't they establish a ring around each ship or even the task group and spit out an awful lot of lead which is cheaper to produce? Targeting all of those RC boats in order to degrade that perimeter is also resource prohibitive.
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by Feltan »

I smell politics and funding.
 
"Please fund our system because it can do the job of these other two systems, and ...... "
 
It is such a poor idea from a tactical perspective, that the only reason I can see for advocating such rubbish is a dollar war in the halls of the Pentagon.
 
Regards,
Feltan 
magi
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:06 am

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by magi »

ORIGINAL: DeSade
The argument of having a 'single layer' defence is both flawed and misleading. Misleading because, getting the bomber is a layer of defence - he seems to be spinning that as an offence, also there is no mention of CIWS's or local CAP - which add layers. Secondly, defence in 'non-depth' has rarely worked in the past, so I call that about as flawed as the Maginot Line.

source report has much more depth than cited aricle, they still advocate layered defence, difference is that they suggest dumping medium range SM-2 and use long range SM-6 only for platform intercept. Anti-missile defence would start at 30nm with ESSM block 2, then railguns, lasers and CIWS.

i believe your right... but still kind of scary... these guys arnt stupid... i think they would get the balance right... a lot of numbers to crunch... and they would want some left in their back pocket... better to have to much than to little....
orca
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:59 pm

RE: navy times article.. considering different AAW tactics at sea

Post by orca »

This leads to a feature request so that the long range sam are only used against high value units such as aircraft. So they are not depleted going after ssm's.

Would like ability to specify type of units a particular missile engages.

For example
Shoot everything, shoot only aircraft, shoot only large aircraft (such as awacs), or shoot all aircraft.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”