Interesting presentation on upgrading USN DDG and CG

[thewood1]

http://www.ndia.org/Resources/OnlinePro ... MBlake.pdf

Just thought it had some interesting info on delivery of various capabilities.

Kind of an update to it from 2015...

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014IAMD/Horn.pdf

[kevinkins]

Thank you, great stuff. I never saw such a concentration of abbreviations. In the Horn.pdf there is a slide the simply asks: "Questions?"
That made me laugh out load. The "military - industrial complex" certainly is.

Kevin

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Just thought it had some interesting info on delivery of various capabilities.

Yes, interesting. Interesting that among several missile tests there is no any test with a supersonic target at the low altitude.
This is to the discussion about ability of the Arleigh Burke class ships to repel supersonic missile attacks. Experimenting with the 5nm mount-arc-limit limit

[thewood1]

Actually, the first ppt is six years old. A number of tests were conducted a few years ago. In fact, I thought I heard they had reverse-engineered missile that the Ukraine had sold the USN. They use it as a test target. I'll have to see if I can track that down.

[thewood1]

In 20 seconds of looking the second ppt, they specifically list a low alt sup test for both SM-2 and -6. Read it again.

[thewood1]

I know I read that Aegis has been tested and confirmed against the GQM-163 drone in several scenarios. The GQM-163 was built to operate like the Klub, including emissions. It is just a rumor that it was based on an actual Klub sold to the US by Ukraine. But it sure looks like it after the booster drops off.

[Filitch]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

In 20 seconds of looking the second ppt, they specifically list a low alt sup test for both SM-2 and -6. Read it again.

You mean tests with EOR on the page 6? I confused by lack (absence) of results.

[thewood1]

I have no idea what you are asking at this point. Did you want to see the test reports? I think your expectations are running a little high. I also think maybe you are smart enough to make some assumptions.

[Filitch]

At the page 6 in second document there are small pictures - symbols of SAM tests. On the same pictures at the page 5 there is green check marks, which signifies test is passed. On the pictures at the page 6 there are no check marks. Their absence confuses me. I read many about flight tests of the SM-2 and SM-6.
I do not sure that CQM-163 was developed basing on Klub. Please, look at Klub's photos http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-818.html As far I know the program Threat D should create target system with characteristics like 3M54.

[ExNusquam]

There's no checkmarks because those tests are scheduled for a future date. The PPT is dated June 12, 2014 and all of those tests are scheduled to take place at a later date.

[ExNusquam]

Additionally, here's links showing the successful completion of most of the remaining events. I didn't find anything for the last two (CG-62 BL 9A OT and DDG-53 SM-6).

DDG 53 CSSQT (Jun 2014): http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81929

CG 62 BL 9A IT (Aug-Sept 2014): http://navaltoday.com/2014/09/19/uss-ch ... seline-9a/

DDG 53 FTM-25 (Oct 2014): http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/rms14_ftm25.html
and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDMaYp86Jh8

DDG 65 CSSQT (Dec 2014): http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/Articl ... px?id=5865

[thewood1]

I suspect unless there is direct video evidence, someone won't believe it.

[Filitch]

I have no doubt in the capabilities of AEGIS (AN\SPY-1 + SPG-62 + SM-2, 6) to intercept low-flying supersonic targets. I am confident that AEGIS intercepts a single or group target even with a large ground range (or cross range). All my doubts - the ability to repel a massive attack.

[Zaslon]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
... It is just a rumor that it was based on an actual Klub sold to the US by Ukraine. But it sure looks like it after the booster drops off.

Yeap, only a rumour. Ukraine never had a modern Klub missile...It's more plausible a deal about X-55 (KH-55).

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Filitch

I have no doubt in the capabilities of AEGIS (AN\SPY-1 + SPG-62 + SM-2, 6) to intercept low-flying supersonic targets. I am confident that AEGIS intercepts a single or group target even with a large ground range (or cross range). All my doubts - the ability to repel a massive attack.

Yes salvo sizes are a huge concern as potential adversaries have more SSM's and VLS tubes to launch them.

Mike

[thewood1]

Again, missile attrition raises its head. A couple of those reports focus on that. In fact, one of them felt loading up with ESSM was the way to go for fleet defense. It kind of makes sense.

[kevinkins]

Much of what I have read or viewed this past few months points to saturation on offense and defense. There are cool videos online that illustrate this. The other trend is increased engagement ranges and the nervousness over exposed forward positioning. It makes one think whether innovation in surface and air warfare will level off and the give way to sub-surface and outer space as the environment for future innovation in weapons and tactics. These environments are hostile to humans (lack of air and extreme pressures) and might become the domain of drone warfare. Maintaining an overwhelming lead in surface and air combat ("decisive" is not enough) might become a dead end arms race. Even minor nations will make approaching their territories too costly.

The military is banning A2AD jargon:

Adm. Richardson (Chief of Naval Operations) also complained in October that “the A2AD threat is already pretty well understood, but to my mind the more vexing challenges are right around the corner.” He cited more powerful enemy missiles and improved intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. “These systems are spreading, but the essential military problem they represent is largely the same,” Richardson said. “It doesn’t mean they don’t present a challenge, but if we fixate on [the term] we could miss the boat that’s just around the corner.”

[ExNusquam]

Again, missile attrition raises its head. A couple of those reports focus on that. In fact, one of them felt loading up with ESSM was the way to go for fleet defense. It kind of makes sense.

Yep, it was CSBA's report on rethinking VLS loadouts. Link

Basically it called for getting rid of mid-range AAW (and ditching the SM-2), to carry more offensive AAW weapons (SM-6) and higher numbers of short-range defensive weapons (ESSM). This has the advantage of increasing organic area-AAW (and not relying on CAP), and also allowing decoys and ECM to be more effective against ASCMs (i.e. if a vampire is going after a Nulka you don't need to waste an interceptor on it).

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening anytime soon. The USN has pretty large stocks of SM-2s, and they just proved their worth off the coast of Yemen.

[thewood1]

I thought I posted that just the other day.

[thewood1]

The solution might be either loading VLSs on more ships with CEC capabilities or finding ways to reload VLS in the open sea.