Small Surface Combatant Task Force concepts

shin_getter said:
I'd think the USN's role in a Taiwan scenario would work similar to the Royal Navy's role would have been in if sealion progressed to later stages: Trade the fleet to sink the amphib force. It should be noted that a Taiwan invasion scenario would only proceed only when local superiority is ensured on the Chinese side.

In this case the USN would have to fight "soviet" thinking: with the focus on offensive power as opposed to survivability. Carrier long range low volume standoff attack might not defeat the Chinese, and the "correct" course of action may be to use air power to protect the fleet to enable it to close to shipboard ASM range at which point the mother of all saturation attack gets launched with the war decided on whether the salvo worked.
---------------------
That is a very expensive way of doing though. Prepositioned land launchers, float upward missile containers, a working air power strategy (massed hardened bases + dispersed assets in japan and more) and potentially space/starship based attack could render the Chinese fleet indefensible and thus deterred from warring.

The "dull" job for the navy would be a distant blockade which it can do fairly comfortably unless space warfare escalation constraints makes countering space sensors impractical.
Click to expand...
believe DE/KE from space onto the earth surface is prohibited by treayt/agreement and for good readon. If there are unconventional trans atmospheric vehicles, using them for combat can well mean losing them.
 
Nuclear weapons from space are restricted, KE, DE, or conventional weapons are not.
 
for a country to claim that KE and DE from space would not be a WMD is not realistic and would appear to be splitting hairs.

given the energy necessary for a DE to effect the ground it would become a WMD likewise any KE delivered from space would need to survive reentry (Rods from God) would also be a WMD.

from wiki
Outer Space Treaty
Main article: Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee[clarify] in 1966. Later that year, agreement was reached in the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty included the following principles:

  • the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
  • outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
  • outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
  • States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
  • the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
  • Astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
  • States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
  • States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
  • States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
In summary, the treaty initiated the banning of signatories' placing of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the treaty and it entered into effect on October 10, 1967. As of January 1, 2005, 98 States have ratified, and an additional 27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty.
 
There is no clear definition of WMD either in the treaty or current international law.

It would be entirely realistic for a country to claim non-nuclear space weapons were allowed under the treaty even if you weren't overestimating their destructive potential.
 
drejr said:
There is no clear definition of WMD either in the treaty or current international law.

It would be entirely realistic for a country to claim non-nuclear space weapons were allowed under the treaty even if you weren't overestimating their destructive potential.
Click to expand...
space weapons are not necessarily always space to ground..Space to ground requires the very high energy so...

It is well known what the Nazi sun gun would have done and building it small has all kinds of impracticality issues rendering such implausible.. Rods from God were described as Nuclear like effects. An ability to precisily target something smaller is itself so potentially so destructive so as to easily be described as a WMD.. Global sniper etc.. ie is by anyone's defin...a WMD.
 
No it's not. If "anyone" all had the same idea of WMD meant it would have a clear definition in international law. Instead definitions range from exclusively nuclear weapons at one extreme to handguns at the other. There's certainly no definition that involves "high energy," and most involve the opposite of precise targeting.

It's pretty clear that the Outer Space Treaty is an inadequate legal framework for the future and that the laws of warfare in space are in the early stages of their evolution, Nazi sun guns notwithstanding.

What constitutes a "WMD in space" will eventually be governed by future treaties and the customary laws of war. As always, nations will attempt to define and shape international law in their best interest.
 
A legal framework inadequate yes, but a quiet consensous likely keeps 'atk the earth' at bay as stated from the beginning they do know any iteration is a WMD. No major power wants this an escalation path especially if rogue countries attempted R from G for instance, it appears to not be that expensive. Major powers also dont want a real law either.

No such thing as low energy KE able survive re-entry. No such thing as low energy DE able to penetrate from space to the ground.
 
And yet the only confirmed injury caused by a meteorite was a bad bruise, not vaporization.
 
drejr said:
And yet the only confirmed injury caused by a meteorite was a bad bruise, not vaporization.
Click to expand...

Actually there have been a few confirmed fatalities over the centuries, including one case in the late 16th Century IIRC where a meteorite ignited a gunpowder magazine and blew up a castle! Though a precise death toll was never established in that case I believe. Came across that little tidbit in a book on Special Forces of all things, many moons ago.
 
Unrestricted submarine warfare didn't happen until it did happen. Aerial Bombardment of cities was claimed to be limited by existing treaty which was broken soon after leaders figured that it is possible to angle for an advantage.

A Chinese-America war involves power blocks too significant to be punished much by treaty. The likely cause for restraint is the perception the escalation is worst than tactical advantages: which may very not hold as the space domain is not necessary to human life (no humanitarian concerns) and tactical advantage can be very significant with American edge in space technology or just plain necessary to win the war. Once significant capability has been built up, a change in policy can have shocking effects on a ill prepared opponent that figures treaty would protect them.

-----
If I'm the Chinese, the question I'd be asking is how to survive day 1 massed satellite targeted mass strike on my amphib forces before it even leaves port in 2035. The counter to anti-access is to be in range before the shooting starts. If the assets gets blown up after emptying, it doesn't change the outcome of the war.

The question shifts to the old nuclear problem of how to conduct a first strike and wipe out enough of opposition. Surprise attack is hard with dense satellite observation unmatched in history and attempts to defeat observation can trigger launch.

I'd think the USN trying to fight into the field of battle (after taking weeks to mass from other oceans) with pitiful throw-weight to cost is one of those problems that can be dealt with by spending less money than the USN.
 
thinkin we are way off subject... current nuclear weapons developments or a theory thread maybe..
 
seapowermagazine.org

ONR Chief Unveils New Vision to Reimagine Naval Power - Seapower

ONR Chief Unveils New Vision to Reimagine Naval Power Front Page
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org

A critical important component of future naval success, he said, is incorporating advanced cyberphysical technologies found in the “small, the agile, and the many” — small unmanned, autonomous platforms that have the agility to be built and adapted quickly, in large numbers, and at far lower costs compared to larger platforms. These unmanned air, surface and subsurface vehicles will carry an array of sensors and modern payloads, and perform multiple missions.

Sponsored by ONR, in conjunction with Program Executive Office (PEO) C41, PEO Integrated Warfare Systems, PEO Unmanned and Small Combatants, the Navy’s Cybersecurity Office (PMW-130) and industry partners like Fathom5 and Booz Allen Hamilton, HACKtheMACHINE Unmanned is one of the ways ONR is working to support the Navy’s 2021 Unmanned Task Force and integrate unmanned and autonomous technology at scale.
Click to expand...
 
I might want very wide but short-robot dogs built like crabs with metal storm tubes at a shallow angle to stay just under the water-line.
 
Grey Havoc said:
You mean the ALMDS? Not only has that program been highly problematic, but If I'm not mistaken it can't track (nor reliably detect for that matter) moving objects. Not to mention that a Sea Hawk using the system has to make itself very vulnerable to operate it (fixed flight pattern, no manoeuvring) nor can it carry any weapons such as torpedoes or depth charges. Oh, and it can't be used in deeper waters. You might be able to catch a sub playing possum on the seabed near a port or anchorage, if local sonar conditions prevent them from hearing the Sea Hawk on passives and they don't have some sort of sensor buoy (or worse) deployed. But that's all assuming you have a spare Sea Hawk to prosecute the actual attack.

So trying to use ALMDS against, say a SSK about to blow your ship to smithereens would definitely be a bust, and no mistake.
Click to expand...
ALMDS stands for Airborne Laser Mine Detection System. It's purpose is in its name, "mine detection." It was never designed to detect or identify moving targets. It was also never designed to detect or identify deep targets. It was never intended to be an Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) sensor.

See https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact...1-airborne-laser-mine-detection-system-almds/ which states, "The AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) detects, classifies and localizes near-surface, moored sea mines, utilizing Streak Tube Imaging Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR). The ALMDS is integrated with the MH-60S helicopter to provide rapid, wide-area reconnaissance and assessment of mine threats in littoral zones, confined straits, choke points and amphibious objective areas."

See also this May 12, 2023 article https://news.usni.org/2023/05/12/navy-talks-details-on-lcs-mine-countermeaures-mission-package which states "After several years of delays, the Navy’s mine countermeasures mission package for the Littoral Combat Ship has finally reached its initial operating capability.

Last year, the Navy tested the mission package and its systems aboard Independence-class LCS USS Cincinnati (LCS-20), leading the service to announce last week that the MCM mission package achieved the IOC milestone.

The mission package includes unmanned aviation and surface systems, like the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) and the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) for aviation."
 
I wish they'd stop giving Bartlett ink. Repairing nuke boats in Ohio would have been a silly fantasy in the 60s, today it's pure nonsense. He talks a good game about being in it to for patriotic reasons and blah blah, but his actual proposal is just a machine to make his company money facilitating a shipyard which won't ever do the job the Navy needs.
 
Moose said:
I wish they'd stop giving Bartlett ink. Repairing nuke boats in Ohio would have been a silly fantasy in the 60s, today it's pure nonsense. He talks a good game about being in it to for patriotic reasons and blah blah, but his actual proposal is just a machine to make his company money facilitating a shipyard which won't ever do the job the Navy needs.
Click to expand...
Any new naval shipyard needs to be on the west coast, not in the Great Lakes/East Coast.


jsport said:
No such thing as low energy KE able survive re-entry. No such thing as low energy DE able to penetrate from space to the ground.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Smallest possible RFG is about 4.5kg, anything lighter burns up. That's roughly 1/5 of a 120mm sabot.
 
Pardon me, binged the whole thread again and have replies:

TomS said:
I don't think anyone seriously should have expected a new hull design out of SSC. I'm a bit surprised they still aren't fitting VLS of any sort, though. That is going to keep LCS from carrying antiaircraft missiles other than RAM. I hope RAM Block 2 is really, really good.

It's also really odd that at least some of these ships will apparently have both 25mm guns AND 30mm guns (the 25mm being permanent and the 30mm being part of the ASuW mission equipment.)
Click to expand...
That's an odd artifact of the USN using 25mm guns as the big "kamikaze USV countermeasures" on (almost) all ships. Because the only ships in the USN that use 30x173mm are the LCS and Zumwalts (which also got the 30mm guns in place of 25mm, because the Zs needed fully enclosed turrets). IIRC, the idea was to use the same ammunition as the USMC. And the Marines had 20mm and 25mm Vulcan guns or 25mm chain guns, so the USN went with 25mm chain guns.

If the Marines had gotten the EFV produced, the USN would almost certainly be using the 30mm Mk44 30x173 chain gun on all ships, not the 25mm Mk38.


TomS said:
Those foredeck .50 caliber mounts seem like a terrible place to be standing when stuff starts happening.
Click to expand...
Those are only manned in port and in waters with lots of small craft around.

The gun crew would have a front row seat to the excitement, however.



Volkodav said:
Reading some of the comments on various websites it is often as if a single comment has two distinct authors. For example some are seriously suggesting the way forward is to convert the Legend class high endurance cutter into an AEGIS FFG, restart FFG production because they are such powerful warships, or licence build Navantia F-100 FFGs because the LCS are so poorly armed and can't defend themselves, then when you ask about the other missions, i.e. mine warfare, the response is to keep building single role, difficult to deploy and support Avenger Class mine hunters, Cyclone class PBs etc.

Not every ship can be a high end DDG, but then again they don't need to be, but when talking global patrol and sea control missions, expeditionary mine warfare, special forces support, inshore (as opposed to open ocean) ASW, something able to self deploy, operate with minimal support and survive against unexpected low to mid level threats is needed, otherwise the USN ends up having to use a DDG or Amphib.
Click to expand...
Particularly for mine warfare, you really do want dedicated ships for that. Minehunting is a highly perishable skill, like sub hunting. You want the ships that would be doing that job to concentrate pretty heavily on that mission. Maybe not to the complete exclusion of all other missions, but close to that. Like spending ~90% of their time on mine warfare, 10% on anti air.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's an odd artifact of the USN using 25mm guns as the big "kamikaze USV countermeasures" on (almost) all ships. Because the only ships in the USN that use 30x173mm are the LCS and Zumwalts (which also got the 30mm guns in place of 25mm, because the Zs needed fully enclosed turrets). IIRC, the idea was to use the same ammunition as the USMC. And the Marines had 20mm and 25mm Vulcan guns or 25mm chain guns, so the USN went with 25mm chain guns.

If the Marines had gotten the EFV produced, the USN would almost certainly be using the 30mm Mk44 30x173 chain gun on all ships, not the 25mm Mk38.
Click to expand...
US Navy is shifting to the Mk 38 Mod 4, a derivative of MSI-Defence Systems’ Seahawk DS30M, with a 30mm Mk 44 Bushmaster.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom