VMF vs. USN scenarios

Hole wrote:From Moon of Alabma:

Finally some folks at the  U.S. Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey have also done the appropriate math. Here are their results (pg 57):

The literature review section describes the manner in which [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)] cruise missiles must be launched in salvos as large as 16 missiles to defeat a target with active defense. Due to its exceptional speed, maneuverability, and low flight path, a single hypersonic glide body missile is likely to be able to overcome an active defensive system that could defeat even a salvo attack of TLAMs.
An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is equipped with 96 TLAMs, or six salvo attacks of 16 missiles each. This means that a vessel equipped with 12 hypersonic missiles can attack as many actively defended targets as two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers firing 16-missile salvos. 12 [All-Up-Rounds (AURs)] was chosen as the highest rating for this attribute because it represents the offensive equivalent of two entire vessels in the scenario where an actively defended target is being attacked.

One Russian Admiral Gorshov class corvette of some 5,000 tons with 16 hypersonic missiles and costing some $150 $500 million has MORE firepower than two U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyers with 9,000 tons each, 192 missiles and costing a total of some $3.2 billions.

There´s only a "little" mistake. One Gorshkov is the equivalent of 4 or even 6 Burkes, because besides 16 silos for offensive weapons the Gorshkov has another 24 for SAM´s. And no Burke will carry 96 LACM´s against countries like Russia, China or even Iran. In that case they will need any air defence that they can get, therefore at least half the silos will be filled with SAM´s. Or even two thirds of them as planned in the good, old 1980´s.

Isos wrote:Stupid comparison. Arleigh burkes are there for protecting the carriers.

US real strike plateforms are the f-18, f-35 and all the b-1, b-2 and b-52 and submarines.

It's just a matter of time before they come with their own hypersonic weapons.

A flying plateform like f-18 will add another 800km in range to the missile.

And russian ships are even less protected against such weapons because they rely more on corvettes or light frigates, at least until now. Don't expect the Tor on Udaloy, the 9m96 or the Shtil to intercept mach 7-10 missiles.

Burkes VLS are better suited to carry bigger missiles that have a chance against hypersonic missiles if they somehow design such missile. Russian AD vls are too small for bigger missiles and we can see S-500 missiles are much bigger than s-400 missiles which can't even be carried by russian ships.

The first to shoot will be the first to hit and to win. US have lot of awacs and a carrier based aviation that gives lot of stand off range. They also have submarines that will be able to fire such missiles.

LMFS wrote:@Mindstorm

consider what future unmanned platforms like Helios-RLD or similar could do for the maritime surveillance and targeting, with 30+ hours on station, relatively low cost and a minimal footprint onboard a carrier. Space based assets are known, predictable, and eventually easy to neutralize so alternatives are needed.

Mindstorm wrote:

Isos wrote:Stupid comparison. Arleigh burkes are there for protecting the carriers.

US real strike plateforms are the f-18, f-35 and all the b-1, b-2 and b-52 and submarines.

It's just a matter of time before they come with their own hypersonic weapons.

A flying plateform like f-18 will add another 800km in range to the missile.

And russian ships are even less protected against such weapons because they rely more on corvettes or light frigates, at least until now. Don't expect the Tor on Udaloy, the 9m96 or the Shtil to intercept mach 7-10 missiles.

Burkes VLS are better suited to carry bigger missiles that have a chance against hypersonic missiles if they somehow design such missile. Russian AD vls are too small for bigger missiles and we can see S-500 missiles are much bigger than s-400 missiles which can't even be carried by russian ships.

The first to shoot will be the first to hit and to win. US have lot of awacs and a carrier based aviation that gives lot of stand off range. They also have submarines that will be able to fire such missiles.

This is true Isos, but the question is the profitability of naval based aviation armed with hypersonic missiles.

Hypersonic weapons are surely revolutionary offensive means ,that however on average increase of over an order of magnitude the cost of the single missile.

In the maritime domain, in order to capitalise the introduction of similar armament on board of the tactical aviation (the unique trasportable on naval units) to obtain some increased stamd-off range of delivery, you need to concentrate both those very high cost ammunitions, modified tactical aircraft of enormous cost ,at example F/A-18 and F-35 B/C purposely modified for delivery of miniaturized hypersonic missiles, on board of a single ships of immense high cost - aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers -, this render the aircraft carrier an even more paying target the loss of a which ,even only one, can mean the distruption of 3-4 years of national investements and production capabilities in shipyard output, naval weapons and naval aviation equipment.


The other big problem reside in the nature of target tracking, discrimination and designation in the era of naval mounted hypersonic missiles with range of 1000-1200 or at brief more than 1500 km:

- The primary target tracking and designation mean for targets at similar or greater range are constellation of space based systems.

- The primary mean of discovery and discrimination of surface units for those space based systems are satellite-mounted radar arrays and IR/optical sensors, while the secondary ones are satellite based ELINT systems collecting and crossing selected emission data

- The ships that forcefully must host naval aviation at sea -flat-top dozen million tonnage ships- are today 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more easy to track and designate from space-based radar arrays (cause just theirs enormous flat-top area) space based IR sensors (cause the cyclical take-off, with ample use of afterburning of F/A-18, F-35 and E-2 and landing with enormous amount of dispersed thermal friction at the arrest) and space based ELINT sensors (cause the necessary emissions for aircraft control and from E-2 radars ) in comparison to purposely developed low-observables ,low-emissions, low-tonnage and dispersed surface ships of corvette and frigate class.

This mean that one or more low observable frigates/corvettes will be capable to independently receive exact position and updates about a big flat-top units and theirs aircraft operation and come within engagement range of theirs weapons much before those ships could receive the same information from theirs space-based echelon.

Us Navy are perfectly aware of that ,in facts theirs reorientation toward big scale war against peer enemies envisioned the urgent introduction of "distributed lethality" concept, exactly responding to the problems highlighted, now terribly worsened by completion of tests and near introduction of hypersonic missiles by part of Federation Navy.

 

Isos wrote:

Warheads of ICBM are already hypersonic and if the don't maneuver, they are easy to intercept. The problem is the maneuverability of modern warheads. 

No they are not easy to intercept. Even today it is impossible to counter ICBM attacks.

They are hypersonic meaning they produce plasma when entering atmosphere making radar detection very hard. They are big missiles carrying tens of decoys but also tens of warheads. Tracking so many targets and trying to discriminate the real from the fake ones in the same time will consume your radar's computer.

To intercept them you need big missiles (see S-500) which means less missile per launchers and per systems.

An attack from only one Borei, 16 bulava, each carrying 6-10 warheads and some (probably?) 20-40 decoys means 96-160 real nuks and 360-600 decoys coming at you all at mach 15-20.

How do you intercept that easily ?

Isos wrote:To intercept them you need big missiles (see S-500) which means less missile per launchers and per systems.

Isos wrote:Pif-paf, radar, IR... that would cost 5 million per missiles.

Like I said a ballistic missile carries ten warhead and plenty of decoys.

If I'm a general and you come to me with a system that can intercept 1 or 2 warhead at once, knowing that most ballistic missiles carry 10 warheads, i will tell you "no thanks" and build my own IVBM for assured mutual destruction which is the best defence against ICBMs.

No one cares if an AD missile can intercept one hypersonic warhead. What matters is a combat scenario involving a real number of missiles.

Isos wrote:

Maybe for you it's no difference between losing 20 cities due to nuclear strikes and 40 million deaths or losing only 10 cities and 20 million deaths?! But it is an issue for politics and the army...that's why S-550 is in development and systems like A-135, S-500, GBI and THAAD etc. were developed.

No difference. A nuclear attack is Russia and USA launching thousands of nuks at the same time.

Intercepting 10 of them won't save anyone. I wouldn't want to live in a radioactive world anyway.

S-500 is to counter smaller countries mayvbe but rather useless against US arsenal.

By the way...the Aster family is a system with a PIF-PAF system. The cost range is from 1,7 to 2 million per missile and thus below a PAC-2 or PAC-3 missile.

Even France with 50 billion annual spending can't afford enough of them... with radar and IR sensor plus very long range, such missile would cost 4-5 million.

Arkanghelsk wrote:Azi I believe the closest real world concept implemented in this regard was the SDI project called brilliant pebbles.

The program was proposed to incorporate a system of thousands of missiles that could be placed into orbit over enemy space, maybe more than 200km above, and from orbiting shells, the missile would he deployed and equipped with UV and Lidar camera receivers, propellant nozzles, batteries, cryocoolers and other systems including processors and computers that meant to take down an interceptor you would need 1 ASAT missile per floating " pebble".

This is an artist's rendition of the initial concept


And then the advanced GPALS or global protection against limited strikes concept, so it evolved to be used with other interception techniques like ground based interceptors of terminal and midcourse interception, space based interception, they tried a laser concept and many others. soviet union also looked into various BMD programs and I think they're being pulled out of the dust bin especially with testing of Kosmos 2499 and other potential killer sats which were coined istrebitel sputnik by USSR.

Ultimately I think its retarded to consider yourself ever safe from retaliation of ICBM. Even US scrapped the program full well knowing it was cost prohibitive and the USSR had ways to punch through the pebbles and get icbms through the gap.

I think ultimately these capabilities are coupled with political demands to get the enemy to sign off on surrender,  sort of like ABM treaty which came after the development of SDI when USSR was at point of no return internally , and signed off on suicide.

Russia having first strike advantage and potential ABM capabilities will force the enemy to oblige to an agreement rather than actually fielding the capability ever,  because it is not actually feasible, although maybe in distant future it will be when RF is rolling in galactic battle cruisers

Here is rendition of GPALS