Will Super Anti Ship Missile change who controls the oceans?

[Abraham Gubler]

Lets face it, the real power of the supercarriers has never been against "first rate" nations, which china has pretty much become, rather, its a weapon to go around an beat up / bully weaklings like IRAQ, IRAN, North Korea and similar. They will continue to be useful to the US in that role, regardless of their limitations against more challenging opponents (who likely, would never pick a fight anyway). It would be a mistake of the US to waste money trying to make invincible, a mistake that some American politicians in the pocket of military contractors would like to push the US into doing (hence the "panic" over this weapon).

That’s the worst statement I’ve read on the internet in the past 24 hours and there has been a new Chinese fighter so some pretty stiff competition.

The US Navy does not build and train a fighter force just to push around third world light weights. They are there to fight and defeat the biggest enemies. Be it the Soviet Navy in the Kola Peninsula or the heaviest concentration of air defences in the world around North VietNam.

The US Government spends every spare dollar on making their carrier battle groups invincible because they need them to achieve serious strategic aims not suffer defeats. Also they aren’t interested in send 5,500 Americans around the world just to die.

 

[moahunter]

The US Navy does not build and train a fighter force just to push around third world light weights. They are there to fight and defeat the biggest enemies. Be it the Soviet Navy in the Kola Peninsula or the heaviest concentration of air defences in the world around North VietNam.

I never wrote that they did, clearly the U.S. is the leader in airpower, the F22 was designed to match anything produced in the world for the foreseeable future.

What I wrote, was that aircraft carriers themselves, against a first rate opponent, wouldn't stand much chance. I believe that, even without considering the tactical nuke possibility, and the U.S. recognizes it as well. Take for example these quotes from the washingtontimes:

China has carrier-killer missile, U.S. admiral says - Washington Times

Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, disclosed to a Japanese newspaper on Sunday that the new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) is now in the early stages of deployment after having undergone extensive testing.

"An analogy using a Western term would be 'initial operational capability (IOC),' whereby I think China would perceive that it has an operational capability now, but they continue to develop it," Adm. Willard told the Asahi Shimbun. "I would gauge it as about the equivalent of a U.S. system that has achieved IOC."

Adm. Willard said he did not view the new missile as a greater threat to U.S. and allied forces than China's submarine forces, which also have been expanded greatly in the past decade.

"Anti-access/area denial, which is a term that was relatively recently coined, is attempting to represent an entire range of capabilities that China has developed and that other countries have developed," he said.

"It´s not exclusively China that has what is now being referred to as A2/AD capability. But in China´s case, it´s a combination of integrated air-defense systems; advanced naval systems, such as the submarine; advanced ballistic-missile systems, such as the anti-ship ballistic missile, as well as power-projection systems into the region," he said.

I realize its easy to look at a big carrier group with its AEGIS ships and escorting subs and be impressed, for it is impressive. It has to be recognized though from a technical standpoint, a carrier is a sitting duck today, and has been for some time against the few first rate military nations there are in the world. Even a conventional sub could just sit on the sea bed, engines turned off, and wait for the carrier to come close in absolute silence.

It's still an incredibly useful political tool to project power against weaker nations. The reality is though, that China is not one of those weaker nations anymore. Sure, the U.S. would still win a conventional war against China, but it wouldn't risk the carriers in doing it, it would use more modern weapons, like the true rulers of the oceans today, nuclear powered submarines. This is also why land military bases in Asia are so incredibly important to the U.S. for air operations.

 

[AegisFC]

Too late. Aegis BMD has been around for a few years now. 21 vessels now and a working ASBM fits nicely to justify more.

Aegis BMD isn't that expensive (the ship and combat system are already paid for) and the plan was always to eventually make alt the SPY-1D Aegis ships BMD capable this has nothing to do with ASBM's it was a natural upgrade.

^I think Aegis was more a response to the likes of the Falklands war, where a puny nation like Argentina could pose a real threat with exorcets. That had to be stopped.

You couldn't be more wrong. As the others have said the time line is way off, it is an off shoot of the abortive Typhon. Aegis actually existed without a hull to put in for almost a decade before the USS Ticonderoga put to sea.

You could probably take it all the way back to the early 60's when the USN first fielded planar arrays on the Enterprise - basically this is where the CONOPs for AEGIS started its gestation. It was a rotten system, but its intent was established and mueled.

SCANFAR provided the base for what eventually became SPY-1A but most of the development for the rest of the system came from the equally rotten Typhon (ok, maybe not rotten but overly complicated and ambitious).

Notwithstanding it was used as a test ship, the official designation of the Norton Sound in the naval register which I just checked was still "guided missile ship" which pretty much classified it as a warship.

Agree with gf that scanfar was the pre-cursor or formed the tech basis for aegis. Most people don't refer to it as "aegis" cos the latter is associated with the SPY-1 radar but its just nomenclature.

Norton Sound was a converted sea plane tender never really a warship. Her Aegis syste was only one SPY-1 array and one illuminator (the other array was a cosmetic mockup).

 

[moahunter]

You couldn't be more wrong. As the others have said the time line is way off, it is an off shoot of the abortive Typhon. Aegis actually existed without a hull to put in for almost a decade before the USS Ticonderoga put to sea.

The Falklands illustrated the threat of anti-ship missiles that any puny nation could fire. Of course the US realized this threat before the Falklands war (although it was proven then) - AEGIS ships counter that threat. To suggest that a carrier is invincible, or can be made invincible, against multiple missiles, submarine and now the threat of this new weapon, is farcicle though.

People on here lack a fundamental understanding of what supercarriers do today. They project power into hot spots in the world, those hot spots being hot because of unbalanced / third world powers. They aren't the perfect weapon to go up against a first world military power though, they weren't perfect for the cold war if WWIII had occurred (which is why the USSR chose anti-ship technology as their doctrine for navy).

This new weapon doesn't change that, it won't be in the hands of an Iran or similar anytime soon, its doesn't change the value of a carrier group at all, which is still very valuable, just not against nations like China or the Russia, which can counter them.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Falklands illustrated the threat of anti-ship missiles that any puny nation could fire. Of course the US realized this threat before the Falklands war (although it was proven then) - AEGIS ships counter that threat. To suggest that a carrier is invincible, or can be made invincible, against multiple missiles, submarine and now the threat of this new weapon, is farcicle though.

People on here lack a fundamental understanding of what supercarriers do today. They project power into hot spots in the world, those hot spots being hot because of unbalanced / third world powers. They aren't the perfect weapon to go up against a first world military power though, they weren't perfect for the cold war if WWIII had occurred (which is why the USSR chose anti-ship technology as their doctrine for navy).

This new weapon doesn't change that, it won't be in the hands of an Iran or similar anytime soon, its doesn't change the value of a carrier group at all, which is still very valuable, just not against nations like China or the Russia, which can counter them.

You do realise people whom have disagreed with you are ex-USN, right?

And yes, carriers are indeed for power projection, that is as true now as it was 50 years ago. Given the current geopolitical situation, where the US chooses to project a portion of its power happens to be international 'hotspots' in the 3rd World/Developing World. That absolutely does not mean (as you seem to be asserting) that carriers cannot project power into other areas and/or against Developed Nations instead of just Developing Nations.

As for why the USSR went with such an emphasis on AShM instead of other sea control options... Look at the size of the Soviet Navy and type of vessels operated during the height of the Cold War and compare that to what the USN and allied nations operated. There is rather a large difference between the two.

-Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

The Falklands illustrated the threat of anti-ship missiles that any puny nation could fire. Of course the US realized this threat before the Falklands war (although it was proven then) - AEGIS ships counter that threat. To suggest that a carrier is invincible, or can be made invincible, against multiple missiles, submarine and now the threat of this new weapon, is farcicle though.

The major powers understood and started to try to counter the threat of antiship missiles back in the late 1940's the Falklands didn't show anyting new nor did it really prove anything as far as ASM is concerned.
The first sucessful ASM attack happened in 1943, the first modern ASM was used in 1967. The USN and its allies have been developing ever evolving countermeasures since project Bumblebee. During the cold war they practiced and experimented with how to deal with large scale saturation attacks (which is how Aegis came to be, not piddly little Exocets) .

No one here is saying a carrier is invincible, the group can be defeated but it will be a damned hard nut to crack and with new technologies like CEC, various tactical links, SM-6, ESSM, Nulka, F-18 Growlers and other EW tech and techniques coming either on-line or in the pipe it will just get even harder. Too say other say or imply otherwise is just idiotic.

People on here lack a fundamental understanding of what supercarriers do today. They project power into hot spots in the world, those hot spots being hot because of unbalanced / third world powers. They aren't the perfect weapon to go up against a first world military power though, they weren't perfect for the cold war if WWIII had occurred (which is why the USSR chose anti-ship technology as their doctrine for navy).

I think you are the one with the fundamental lack of understanding. Go look at the way the Soviets planned on cracking the carrier problem back at their height, they expected to have to fire hundreds of missiles for just a few to get through, not many nations (especially "puny" ones) have the launchers, the ability to track a carrier group in open ocean or the assets to even think about taking on a carrier group.

 

[godbody]

That’s the worst statement I’ve read on the internet in the past 24 hours and there has been a new Chinese fighter so some pretty stiff competition.

The US Navy does not build and train a fighter force just to push around third world light weights. They are there to fight and defeat the biggest enemies. Be it the Soviet Navy in the Kola Peninsula or the heaviest concentration of air defences in the world around North VietNam.

The US Government spends every spare dollar on making their carrier battle groups invincible because they need them to achieve serious strategic aims not suffer defeats. Also they aren’t interested in send 5,500 Americans around the world just to die.

You could'nt have said it better. That why a CBG is a serious threat to any navy. I don't think people know what a CBG have with it. I don't want to go into detail about what a CBG defenses are but they are very good and I mean good and they do have anti-submarine forces and dont forget you have U.S. subs with the CBG so that take submarine threat off the books. The U.S. already know the threats to the CBG and already took measure to endure it safety against any navy. I'm not going to sit here and said that the U.S. not going lose some ships but I will said this the opposite force will be destroyed that a fact. Before any nation make this decision and it big decision to face U.S. Navy there will be a price to paid in lives and ships. That with any NAVY right now "technology " my friend is with the U.S. The U.S. lead the world in technology in the military field. All this Chinese anti-ship stuff will only make U.S. come with a better plan in protecting its navy. If or when this Chinese ASBM become operational it will change the U.S. battle plan that for sure.

 

[Todjaeger]

The major powers understood and started to try to counter the threat of antiship missiles back in the late 1940's the Falklands didn't show anyting new nor did it really prove anything as far as ASM is concerned.
The first sucessful ASM attack happened in 1943, the first modern ASM was used in 1967. The USN and its allies have been developing ever evolving countermeasures since project Bumblebee. During the cold war they practiced and experimented with how to deal with large scale saturation attacks (which is how Aegis came to be, not piddly little Exocets) .

If memory serves (and those whom know better, please correct me if I have this wrong...) but the Sea Dart area air defence system equipping many of the RN vessels around the Falklands was specifically designed to counter/engage Soviet-style AShM saturation attacks. Argentina was familiar with the Sea Dart system capabilities (having some of their own from the UK) and therefore the Argentinian Air Force conducted largely low-level bombing attacks against the RN. This was done because Sea Dart was primarily designed to mid to high altitude targets like strike/bombers and AShM, not sea-skimming AShM, since the Soviets did not typically field that kind of missile.

-Cheers

 

[My2Cents]

The Falklands illustrated the threat of anti-ship missiles that any puny nation could fire. Of course the US realized this threat before the Falklands war (although it was proven then) - AEGIS ships counter that threat. To suggest that a carrier is invincible, or can be made invincible, against multiple missiles, submarine and now the threat of this new weapon, is farcicle though.

The Falklands only illustrates that you need AEW aircraft and long range fighter cover, both of which require a real carrier, not a through-deck-cruiser like the Invincible class. Given both of those the Argentinean Air Force would probably not have gotten into Exocet range of the British fleet, and never by surprise.

No, carriers are not invincible, but a carrier inside a carrier group is an extremely hard target to take out. Carriers are a massive force multiplier, without them you automatically cede air supremacy to a defending force with land based airpower. That is a good way to get hurt – very badly - as the British campaign in the Falklands abundantly illustrates. Going up against a fleet with a carrier when you do not have one is just as bad.

Lastly the USSR did not have shipyards that could build something as large as a fleet carrier until nearly the end. So they designed a fleet with BIG AShM to try and take out the US carriers on the outset of a war in a mass attack, and tried to keep track of the carriers using their spy trawlers. The whole point was to protect ‘Das Rodina’ from attack by the carrier based aircraft, not sea control, if they failed none of the early vessel designs had capable backup weapons for thier few AShM..

 

[My2Cents]

If memory serves (and those whom know better, please correct me if I have this wrong...) but the Sea Dart area air defence system equipping many of the RN vessels around the Falklands was specifically designed to counter/engage Soviet-style AShM saturation attacks. Argentina was familiar with the Sea Dart system capabilities (having some of their own from the UK) and therefore the Argentinian Air Force conducted largely low-level bombing attacks against the RN. This was done because Sea Dart was primarily designed to mid to high altitude targets like strike/bombers and AShM, not sea-skimming AShM, since the Soviets did not typically field that kind of missile.

They came in low mainly to avoid British early warning radar.

Bombing runs were only used close to the shore where the aircraft could approach taking advantage of blocking terrain. At sea they mainly used Exocet missiles, coming in below the radar horizon, then popping up above it to acquire targets and launch.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Falklands only illustrates that you need AEW aircraft and long range fighter cover, both of which require a real carrier, not a through-deck-cruiser like the Invincible class. Given both of those the Argentinean Air Force would probably not have gotten into Exocet range of the British fleet, and never by surprise.

That’s actually not true. AEW would have provided a lot better situational awareness but the Sea Harrier if used properly proved itself more than capable of defeating everything the Argentine air forces could throw at it. Unfortunately for the RN one out of two Sea Harrier squadrons deployed to the Falklands didn’t trust the aircraft’s avionics and neither did the Flag. The Flag’s interference in Sea Harrier operations was frankly criminal. In the case of the Sheffield attack even through an ESM warning of the threat radar had been detected they ordered the Sea Harrier CAP in the area where the Exocet armed fighters penetrated to leave the CAP and carry out visual sea surface surveillance of in another direction. If both squadrons were fully trained on the aircraft and lead by a Flag aviation officer qualified on the Sea Harrier then things would have been very different. The Argentines would have struggled to sink anything other than the odd British ship caught outside the layered defences.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It has to be recognized though from a technical standpoint, a carrier is a sitting duck today, and has been for some time against the few first rate military nations there are in the world. Even a conventional sub could just sit on the sea bed, engines turned off, and wait for the carrier to come close in absolute silence.

If this is the level of analysis you are providing then you have less than zero credibility. Apart from the fact that a grounded submarine is actually extremely easy to detect and vulnerable how do you sit on the ocean floor outside the continental shelf. It’s a deep sea out there…

 

[Belesari]

IMHO the three biggest external threats to a CBG are subs in the littorals, airsupremacy fighters when used to attack land targets-i just dont see the F-35 as able to do the job in the near nevermind next 20 years as far as airsuperiority-, and enemies ussing massive swarms of cheap missiles and ships.

The Subs are the only real worry for me as far as near future goes. From what i've seen With all the discussions on the net and offical sources the Navy seems to be taking the missiles threat seriously. The proposed flight III burkes are supposed to have more defenses in the form of more VLS for more SM-3 etc, CRAM and CIWS. Not to mention more powerful sensor systems.

That said i do worry about the F-35 in air to air. The dependence on strike fighters worries me. Would really rather sea a dedicated fighter craft.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

MOA,
I think you might be onto something with your asertion that Carriers are useless against anything other than 3rd world countries.

After all besides us who has carriers, is building carriers or wants to operate carriers besides, France, GB, Spain, Italy, China, Japan, Brazil, South Korea...................

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Aegis BMD isn't that expensive (the ship and combat system are already paid for) and the plan was always to eventually make alt the SPY-1D Aegis ships BMD capable this has nothing to do with ASBM's it was a natural upgrade.

this has nothing to do with ASBMs.....yet.

Adm willard's comments clearly set the stage for more investment into ship-borne ABM defenses.

Aegis BMD isn't that expensive yet cos its primarily blk 3.6 at this time. USN needs funds to get it to blk 5. And they're facing compete from other platforms/procurement/ship replacement. Seen by itself, no one program (with probably the exception of the F-35) is expensive vis a vis the entire defense budget. But any added investment still needs justification.

ASBMs provide a nice justification for added navy BMD investment, if it actually exists...

As to nomenclature, the Norton Sound is legally a warship (even if its not used as one which is irrelevant. A ship in naval reserve is unused, doesn't make it legally a non-warship). The term as used is factually accurate.

 

[moahunter]

If this is the level of analysis you are providing then you have less than zero credibility. Apart from the fact that a grounded submarine is actually extremely easy to detect and vulnerable how do you sit on the ocean floor outside the continental shelf. It’s a deep sea out there…

This was always part of soviet tactics for when ships approached closer to land, it is why they kept investing in Kilos. Whether a carrier group needs to get that close / pass through such shallow water to get to China in the event of an unlikely war with China, I don't know. Given the potential loss of lives if a carrier was knocked out, I doubt it would ever happen. Chinese submarines already pose a real threat to carriers though in all waters, as the Admiral pointed out in the article I quoted. Only one has to slip through. The carriers will be kept well away from the action if such a war ever breaks out with China, they are too important for projecting power (not to mention the potential loss of lives) to risk losing against a more credible navy than most potential opponents have.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This was always part of soviet tactics for when ships approached closer to land, it is why they kept investing in Kilos.

Not quite. Soviet strategy was to form ASW bastions in enclosed waters to protect their SSBNs from USN SSNs. The Swedes practised bottom sitting but like the Soviets it was in very shallow water. This is a tactic for use to block channels and frankly is probably less effective than other options. But if you have a crap submarine perhaps it is the way to go…

Whether a carrier group needs to get that close / pass through such shallow water to get to China in the event of an unlikely war with China, I don't know. Given the potential loss of lives if a carrier was knocked out, I doubt it would ever happen.

They don’t. Yet on the other side of the world the US Navy sends carriers through the Straits of Hormuz all the time… Because unlike a SSBN hunting SSN they have the option of using active sonar to clear the sea floor. Bottom sitting submarine because sitting duck in such a circumstance.

Chinese submarines already pose a real threat to carriers though in all waters, as the Admiral pointed out in the article I quoted. Only one has to slip through.

Everything is a threat in one way or another. And with most weapons all it takes is one to get through. Though USN CVNs are far more robust than a lot of people assume. Anyway this is all pretty facetious. There isn’t anything at sea as well defended as a USN CVN. Its defences are layered providing lots of opportunities to catch leakers. In the air side there are six active hard kill layers.

The carriers will be kept well away from the action if such a war ever breaks out with China, they are too important for projecting power (not to mention the potential loss of lives) to risk losing against a more credible navy than most potential opponents have.

Total nonsense. The risk is manageable and the carriers provide such lethality and tie up so much of the enemy’s force trying to counter them they are hugely important. The USN sending 4-8 carriers into your backyard would have smashed the Soviets on Kola and China is less of a threat.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

This was always part of soviet tactics for when ships approached closer to land, it is why they kept investing in Kilos. Whether a carrier group needs to get that close / pass through such shallow water to get to China in the event of an unlikely war with China, I don't know. Given the potential loss of lives if a carrier was knocked out, I doubt it would ever happen. Chinese submarines already pose a real threat to carriers though in all waters, as the Admiral pointed out in the article I quoted. Only one has to slip through. The carriers will be kept well away from the action if such a war ever breaks out with China, they are too important for projecting power (not to mention the potential loss of lives) to risk losing against a more credible navy than most potential opponents have.

Actually, the primary Soviet sub-weapon vs US carrier was the sub-launched missile starting with the P70 ametist for the charlies and which gradually progressed to the Oscars equipped with 550km ranged P700 granit cruise missiles.

The premise was simple. The longer the missile range, the greater the search area of the carrier-borne ASW. 2 times the range = 4 times the search area. Search can focus at circumference but no one can cover 3455 km of circumference with just 1 CBG at 550km. Worse at 550km range, you're talking about 1 million sq km of seach area if the sub gets past the searches at circumference. You can't cover that same area with 2 defensive SSNs either.

Of course the further the missile, the more reaction time for SAM defenses. So missile research focussed on speed. The faster the missile, the less reaction time. In the 80s it was far worse for US CBGs as escorting SAMs had very limited range. Hence the development of standard SAMs to its current range today.

At the same time, since one or more SAM can probably take out one ASM, you need to fire enough ASMs to overwhelm SAM defences, the idea was to put as many into a sub as possible, hence the large oscars which carry 24. The attacker had the benefit as the CBG had to dilute its escorts to cover 360 whereas the attacker can concentrate its forces in a standard direction of attack/attack vector, conduct decoy in other directions or conduct simultaneous multiple attacks eg in coordination with air aviation. Hence the development of aegis to coordinate defences.

China's sub-launched missile capability is in its infancy. YJs don't have the same reach as the russkis yet, Kilos only carry 4 missiles and SSKs don't operate as well in open ocean as the SSNs due to endurance limitations. SSKs works well in the littorals which has been discussed many times before.

Even in the air, the same principle applies. The further out from the CBG, the more tanker support required. CBG can ill afford to send its entire air wing out to a single vector when there is a possibility of attack from another.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Seen in the context of the above, the biggest threat is actually not the ASBM but the introduction of the 2,000+km ranged DH-10.

If the chinese can develop sub, sea and air-launch anti-ship versions of the missile (where there is no reason not to be able to), then the possibility of overwhelming CBG defences is always there esp with sat mid-course guidance updates and the ability to track CBGs.

The US on the other hand is not doing nothing. Besides existing softkill options eg jamming, decoys etc, directed energy weapons, once deployed, will remove the issue of SAM inventory being insufficient to counter ASMs. DE has been tested to kill missiles. Since DE weapons don't need to be reloaded, in theory, there is no limit on the number of times it can be used (assuming unlimited power supply eg with nuke reactor). ALTB has already been successfully tested and its value in ABM is recognised.

See last para under "development"
Airborne Laser Test Bed

 

[Wall83]

Not quite. Soviet strategy was to form ASW bastions in enclosed waters to protect their SSBNs from USN SSNs. The Swedes practised bottom sitting but like the Soviets it was in very shallow water. This is a tactic for use to block channels and frankly is probably less effective than other options. But if you have a crap submarine perhaps it is the way to go….

So the Sweds has crappy submarines?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So the Sweds has crappy submarines?

I think he was referring to Whiskey, Foxtrots and Romeos... having been inside a Whiskey class I reckon the Russians should have issued medals just for getting onboard..... the quality compared to even a US Guppy left a lot to be desired.

Their build quality was not much better on the Typhoons as well - again compared to an equiv US, UK, French nuke, the build quality was chalk and cheese....