Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Jimmo952 said:
I thought NSM was the lower-end missile?

What happened with that? Too expensive? Too hard to scale production? Too sensitive to widely export?
Click to expand...

No idea. The requirements in terms of money and performance do not seem to exclude something like NSM or JSM. There’s a lot of movement in the industry to create a truly inexpensive missile en mass; having 1.5 million, even as a ceiling, seems like a step backwards.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Things are rather chaotic in the Biden Administration and the Pentagon at the moment.
Click to expand...

The administration has nothing to do with individual weapons RFIs. Though why the U.S. is simultaneously courting industry for AShMs for hundreds of thousands of dollars while separately having an initiative capped at 1.5 million is a little baffling. Perhaps this is a fallback position if none of the new fangled 3D printed digital twin modeled $200,000 cruise missiles pan out. Alternatively, perhaps weapons in that cost bracket were always meant to be paired with higher end weapons (LRASM, MST) and the U.S. wants a more accessible top end weapon for allied counties in addition to cheaper, lighter ordnance that it would also provide. LRASM and Tomahawk are not widely exported.
 
Not to mention that Tactical Tomahawk, aka Block IV, still has reliability, not to mention capability, issues. And LRASM is rather lacklusture, IMHO.
 
If tactical tomahawk isn't right some office chairs should their rollers removed.
 
Not supersonic for one thing. Pretty much a must have for any new shipkiller missile that wants to remain viable beyond the short term (and maybe not even that much margin).
 
Grey Havoc said:
Not supersonic for one thing. Pretty much a must have for any new shipkiller missile that wants to remain viable beyond the short term (and maybe not even that much margin).
Click to expand...

Supersonic comes with range and weight limitations. I’ll note that the PLAN does not have a fully supersonic missile either, just the YJ-18 with supersonic terminal mode. For the rest of its flight it’s a shitty tomahawk. There are large bomber sized weapons that are purely supersonic, but few with more range and none light enough for tactical aircraft. YJ-12 is ok if you want the same range at high altitude restricted to H-6 as a launch platform. There are hypersonic options too, but that limits the warload of an H-6 even more.

I think there’s a place for an F-18 strike armed with 6-8 MALD-Ns and a pair of AGM-158Cs, especially the later versions with more range.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Not supersonic for one thing. Pretty much a must have for any new shipkiller missile that wants to remain viable beyond the short term (and maybe not even that much margin).
Click to expand...
You don't gain a whole lot by making an AShM supersonic. And frankly you lose a hell of a lot of range in the process, which usually puts the launcher into the target's engagement envelope.

Subsonic and stealthy means that it's got long range and is hard to detect even once it clears the radar horizon at ~30km.

Yes, the ideal would be something like Kalibr, subsonic cruise stage for long range with a 1km/s terminal sprint stage to minimize the defense time available.

Let's say for argument sake that LRASM is detected at 15km. That's roughly 45sec before impact. Using shoot-look-shoot interception methods, that gives you one shot with an ESSM-equivalent (interception at ~10km taking ~10sec), one shot with a RAM equivalent (interception at ~7km taking ~7sec, ~25sec till impact), maybe a second RAM shot (interception at ~4km with ~20sec till impact) and then CIWS.

But I don't think that LRASM has half the detection range of a Harpoon. I think it's only going to be detected on radar at about 3km and ~10sec till impact. If RAM-equivalent is fast you might get one shot off (interception at ~2km and 8 sec till impact), then it's CIWS time (starting the engagement at ~1750m and ~5sec till impact, ending at about 500m with ammo exhaustion).

Having a supersonic sprint and stealthy missile means that you detect it at 3km and it's 3sec to impact. CIWS will still try to get it, but it won't have enough time to put enough rounds on the missile. Even if it does manage to detonate the missile away from the ship, it'll still be close enough to severely damage radars etc and mission-kill the ship.
 
I think it likely that LRASM is detected as soon as it crosses the radar horizon. Radar energy increases to the forth power with range. If LRASM was hard to detect at the radar horizon, it would not bother with a radar altimeter or sea skimming at all. That said, if you compare YJ-18 to Tomahawk, they have similar launch weights but one has three times the range and a satellite link. There are clearly downsides to the terminal solid rocket mode; it is not the best of all worlds. TINSTAAFL
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it likely that LRASM is detected as soon as it crosses the radar horizon. Radar energy increases to the forth power with range. If LRASM was hard to detect at the radar horizon, it would not bother with a radar altimeter or sea skimming at all.
Click to expand...
I think that's unlikely, since they even added a stealth chine to the nose of the newest Tomahawks. There's no reason to add that unless the chine reduces detection range from "crossing the radar horizon" to something notably less than that.

The overall LRASM shape is largely that of the TACIT BLUE/alien school bus, so it's stealthy versus a lot of angles and not just head-on. So they're hard to detect from above (so much for AEW planes or helos giving warning), and they have a much sharper nose than TACIT BLUE for even better head-on stealth.


Josh_TN said:
That said, if you compare YJ-18 to Tomahawk, they have similar launch weights but one has three times the range and a satellite link. There are clearly downsides to the terminal solid rocket mode; it is not the best of all worlds. TINSTAAFL
Click to expand...
Yes. I'd be willing to sacrifice 1000nmi of range to have a stealthy approach for 500nmi and then supersonic sprint for the last ~30-50km.
 
Josh_TN said:
Supersonic comes with range and weight limitations. I’ll note that the PLAN does not have a fully supersonic missile either, just the YJ-18 with supersonic terminal mode. For the rest of its flight it’s a shitty tomahawk. There are large bomber sized weapons that are purely supersonic, but few with more range and none light enough for tactical aircraft. YJ-12 is ok if you want the same range at high altitude restricted to H-6 as a launch platform. There are hypersonic options too, but that limits the warload of an H-6 even more.
Click to expand...

There are ship-launched versions of YJ-12 in service as well, replacing the Moskits on the Sovremennys and YJ-83s on the sole Type 051B. I expect similar work will be carried out over the next decade replacing the YJ-83s of the Type 052s, 052Bs, and 051Cs, and possibly the YJ-62s of the 052Cs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think that's unlikely, since they even added a stealth chine to the nose of the newest Tomahawks. There's no reason to add that unless the chine reduces detection range from "crossing the radar horizon" to something notably less than that.

The overall LRASM shape is largely that of the TACIT BLUE/alien school bus, so it's stealthy versus a lot of angles and not just head-on. So they're hard to detect from above (so much for AEW planes or helos giving warning), and they have a much sharper nose than TACIT BLUE for even better head-on stealth.



Yes. I'd be willing to sacrifice 1000nmi of range to have a stealthy approach for 500nmi and then supersonic sprint for the last ~30-50km.
Click to expand...

Sure there is: airborne radar. Delaying detection always has value. I just do not think anything is going to delay detection at 20 nm/ 35 km.

Trim that down to 300 mi and that would be closer to reality. As a thought exercise, draw a thousand mile circle centered on the Taiwan strait. Any U.S. ship or sub inside that circle could strike a landing force, and the missiles from multiple task forces could be coordinated to arrive at the same time. There is a lot of value to that range and flexibility.

IMO the best solution will eventually be scramjet all the way to the target. That is fast and fuel efficient.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
There are ship-launched versions of YJ-12 in service as well, replacing the Moskits on the Sovremennys and YJ-83s on the sole Type 051B. I expect similar work will be carried out over the next decade replacing the YJ-83s of the Type 052s, 052Bs, and 051Cs, and possibly the YJ-62s of the 052Cs.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, there are five specialized destroyers with oversized launch tubes. I do not expect YJ-12 to be installed anywhere else though.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fair enough, there are five specialized destroyers with oversized launch tubes. I do not expect YJ-12 to be installed anywhere else though.
Click to expand...
The Chinese are pretty much treating it as a one-to-one replacement for YJ-83, if it fits aboard the Type 051B, then it will fit aboard all of the 051Cs, 052s, 052Bs and 052Cs.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The Chinese are pretty much treating it as a one-to-one replacement for YJ-83, if it fits aboard the Type 051B, then it will fit aboard all of the 051Cs, 052s, 052Bs and 052Cs.
Click to expand...

I cannot find launch weights for either missile but surely the YJ-12 is significantly heavier and produces a lot more topside weight? They have similar ranges and warhead mass, but the supersonic missile must burn more fuel.
 
Josh_TN said:
I cannot find launch weights for either missile but surely the YJ-12 is significantly heavier and produces a lot more topside weight? They have similar ranges and warhead mass, but the supersonic missile must burn more fuel.
Click to expand...
All of the later destroyers have larger displacements than the Type 051B, if the latter can accommodate sixteen YJ-12s, then I would expect the later destroyer classes to be capable of as well.

Type 052Ds and 055s will of course rely upon YJ-18, but that still has the main advantage of a supersonic missile, minimum travel time in the terminal phase.
 
On the other hand retiring her and the rest of the Ticos without a proper replacement is not a good idea.
 
Grey Havoc said:
On the other hand retiring her and the rest of the Ticos without a proper replacement is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but keeping those things running does not solve the problem. They are ridden rough and obsolescence. I do not have a solution for declining hull numbers; the U.S. has just dug itself a deep hole that will take decades to get out of.
 
Josh_TN said:
Sure there is: airborne radar. Delaying detection always has value. I just do not think anything is going to delay detection at 20 nm/ 35 km.
Click to expand...
The LRASM has pretty much the same shape as the TACIT BLUE, which was intended to operate inside the A2AD zone of the soviet era SAM systems to provide radar/GMTI data. And be undetectable while doing so.

Therefore I doubt that any airborne radar will track an LRASM unless it's very close to the plane.



Josh_TN said:
IMO the best solution will eventually be scramjet all the way to the target. That is fast and fuel efficient.
Click to expand...
Fast yes, but detectable from space. Let alone the radar horizon to a target at 100kft. Which despite the speed of the incoming, means a long time to respond to the incoming. "This missile closes the range at 3km per second!" "That's great, because it gets detected at over 1000km, 5 minutes before it hits!"
 
Scott Kenny said:
The LRASM has pretty much the same shape as the TACIT BLUE, which was intended to operate inside the A2AD zone of the soviet era SAM systems to provide radar/GMTI data. And be undetectable while doing so.

Therefore I doubt that any airborne radar will track an LRASM unless it's very close to the plane.




Fast yes, but detectable from space. Let alone the radar horizon to a target at 100kft. Which despite the speed of the incoming, means a long time to respond to the incoming. "This missile closes the range at 3km per second!" "That's great, because it gets detected at over 1000km, 5 minutes before it hits!"
Click to expand...

I would not think anything is invisible to a CB modern ship board AESA radar to the horizon, but I do not have the data.

I do not see why missiles like HACM would need to have a large RCS. Using X-51 as a model, it seems like the chine and tiny control surfaces would make for a very small reflection. The air intake is very prominent, but presumably a weapon would do something to alter the shape or materials to attenuate the reflection. This doesn’t need to be truly stealthy; just delay detection until maybe 100 mi / 150 km. At that point, there’s probably only a single engagement cycle possible by long range high altitude SAM.

The issue with orbital observation of scramjets is noted, though currently no one is known to have such a capability. The U.S. is orbiting its first increment of tracking satellites in the next year.
 
Josh_TN said:
I would not think anything is invisible to a CB modern ship board AESA radar to the horizon, but I do not have the data.
Click to expand...
I suspect that data would be classified pretty heavily.

But I'd certainly make it my goal for a stealthy cruise missile to be undetectable at the radar horizon and ideally something less than 30 seconds from impact, ~10km.



Josh_TN said:
I do not see why missiles like HACM would need to have a large RCS. Using X-51 as a model, it seems like the chine and tiny control surfaces would make for a very small reflection. The air intake is very prominent, but presumably a weapon would do something to alter the shape or materials to attenuate the reflection. This doesn’t need to be truly stealthy; just delay detection until maybe 100 mi / 150 km. At that point, there’s probably only a single engagement cycle possible by long range high altitude SAM.

The issue with orbital observation of scramjets is noted, though currently no one is known to have such a capability. The U.S. is orbiting its first increment of tracking satellites in the next year.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that the strategic DSP etc satellites can see a ~5000lb solid rocket light off. And once up to speed, the friction heat alone would be enough to be detectable from ludicrous distances. Probably even from 36,000km up, though IIRC the strategic monitoring satellites aren't anywhere near that high.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that data would be classified pretty heavily.

But I'd certainly make it my goal for a stealthy cruise missile to be undetectable at the radar horizon and ideally something less than 30 seconds from impact, ~10km.

I'm assuming that the strategic DSP etc satellites can see a ~5000lb solid rocket light off. And once up to speed, the friction heat alone would be enough to be detectable from ludicrous distances. Probably even from 36,000km up, though IIRC the strategic monitoring satellites aren't anywhere near that high.
Click to expand...

Goals might run up against physical and financial limitations. 30 seconds would be a half dozen miles out. That seems…ambitious. But I will leave be.

There is a huge difference between a satellite providing warning and a satellite providing a weapons grade track. AFAIK the latter cannot be done by anyone yet, though the U.S. should have some capability shortly.
 
asia.nikkei.com

Pentagon to set up military repair hubs in 5 Indo-Pacific countries

U.S. eyes global network of sustainment, expanding to Europe and Latin America
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com
September 4, 2024
The U.S. Department of Defense will launch military repair hubs in the Indo-Pacific countries of Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines, sources told Nikkei Asia, as it envisions a global network of repair hubs for key warfighting platforms.

The Pentagon's new Regional Sustainment Framework (RSF) envisions utilizing existing industrial capabilities of its allies and partners so that it can conduct maintenance, repairs and overhauls of its ships, planes and vehicles closer to their area of operation instead of bringing them back to the continental U.S.

The plan is to launch pilot programs in five Indo-Pacific countries this year, then expand it to NATO partners in the European Command's area in 2025 and to Latin American partners under the Southern Command in 2026.
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
Not supersonic for one thing. Pretty much a must have for any new shipkiller missile that wants to remain viable beyond the short term (and maybe not even that much margin).
Click to expand...
It's about how much time the other guy has to react. If you're twice as fast but can be seen from four times the distance the defender will have twice the time to react.
 
That assumes for example that the missile isn't employing deception ECM, or even making use of computer exploits or other weak spots in your radar and battle management systems.
 
Grey Havoc said:
maritime-executive.com

Canadian Shipbuilders Calls for 100 Percent Tariff on Chinese-Built Ships

The Canadian Marine Industries and Shipbuilding Association (CMISA) this week issued a call for the Canadian government to impose a 100 percent tarif...
maritime-executive.com maritime-executive.com
Click to expand...
There is nothing left to protect with tariffs as far as Canadian shipbuilding. The Canadian merchant marine has been fairly well recapitalized in recent years with foreign built ships - Canada thankfully doesn’t suffer from the stupidity of the America’s disastrous Jones Act. As far as productivity, just look at the costs and glacial pace of the two German designed replenishment ships being built in Canada. Canada would be better off concentrating on natural resources than attempting to protect an atrophied, irrelevant and incompetent industrial sector.
 
sferrin said:
It's about how much time the other guy has to react. If you're twice as fast but can be seen from four times the distance the defender will have twice the time to react.
Click to expand...

Reaction time is not the only metric. Consider a hypersonic high altitude scramjet: first of all, what defensive weapons can reach that altitude? Second, how long does it take for them to get to that altitude and is there a loss of velocity due to reaching it? I could easily see a detection at 100 miles allowing only a single long range engagement cycle due to the performance limitations of defensive missiles. There would likely be a window of opportunity when the missile cuts it’s engine and dives through thicker air for a short range engagement, but it would be brief and the incoming still supersonic.
 
nationalinterest.org

The U.S. Navy Has a New Warship That Could be Better Than Aircraft Carriers

The U.S. Navy's San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks (LPDs) offer a versatile alternative to large nuclear-powered supercarriers. These 684-foot vessels can carry 66 officers, 633 Marines, and various aircraft and vehicles, providing a flexible platform for expeditionary warfare.
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom