We were discussing some of the older deep strike/FOAS (click here for a good background and images) concepts that used a transport aircraft launched payload, a cruise missile for example.
Most of these studies have been consigned to the round filing cabinet but I thought this was an amusing video!
is that the air launched Minuteman? This one is a little more descriptive
Cracking stuff Rupert, just thought it was a funny video
Supremely useless TD, but one hell of a sight. I still think the Credible Sport emergency mod of the C130 was the best “insane shit with rockets” project
When you said deep strike, you really mean deep strike.
I wasn’t expecting an ICBM.
On a more serious note, what’s wrong with just using Harpoons and Tomahawks instead of pouring money into more projects which will end up delivering the same end result? The ground target isn’t going to run away. Where we’re lacking is modern anti-ship missiles. Look at the Russian Onix/Mosquito or the Indian Brahamos. I won’t want to be targetted by one of those, they even have a chance of outrunning counter-missiles.
Observer, one of the RN lessons learned from Libya was a lack of precision strike and ISTAR.
I think the reason that we don’t tend to put much effort into anti ship missiles is because of ROE. Lobbing off missiles over the horizon at unidentified contacts could result is a spectacular mistake, instead of an en warship we might sink a super tanker or some such.
Wasn’t there plans for missile – ‘instant sun’ missile – carrying VC-10′s? (I’m talking like, 1960/70ies!)
Yes there were, VC10s carrying Skybolt.
Well, TD, that’s not the fault of the missiles then is it? ICBM or Tomahawk, shortage of precision strike is a shortage of logistics, not a failure of equipment, and ISTAR shortage is, well, lack of information. Every strategic commander’s bane. The old stuff still works well for ground attack.
As for the sea stuff, I get your point, but against supersonic cruise missiles, it’s going to be cold comfort to the Navy seamen when they are the ones who have to bear the brunt of any equipment overmatch. Maybe buying some Brahamos from India may not be that bad an idea. It sticks in the craw not to buy “home made” but beats getting yourself killed due to equipment inferiority.
Rupert,
Absobloodylutely Credible Sport wins the door prize. Thanks for bringing it up and the beautiful video. And they damn near made the thing work (would’ve been better off pursuing that avenue from the start rather than the whole Health Robinson business with helicopters that lacked legs to get all the way there, probably.) Even the codename was untypically literate for US military types: they wanted a working mutation, a “credible sport.” The Seventies were a pretty fecund time for American tech (British tech too, really — Chobham, anyone? And Sea Wolf, and working Harriers, etc., etc.) From the bugfeck crazy like air-launched Minuteman to the likes of the F-15, Aegis radar, the Abrams. Enough to make all us English-speakers cry in our beer at things like the flaming packet of canine poo that is the F-35 R&D cycle.
Ian,
VC-10 with Skybolt? Don’t talk about well-made British milporn like that at this time of night (here in the foggy northwest reaches of North America anyway.) Next thing I’ll be humming Dusty Springfield and pining for proper football played on the floor of a muddy pitch.
On VC10 and Skybolt
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57686
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8819.0/all.html
…and 688 class subs, GPS, KH-11, and this thing called t’internet. Jimmy Carter was the architect of the modern US defence establishment, ‘tho you wouldn’t believe it to listen to them.
That said, Her Majesty sent her first e-mail in 1976 in Blandford Forum!
Alex,
It is remarkable how much Carter (and Harold Brown, his underrated SecDef) did in their span of time. What actually started under Reagan was mostly either vanity projects or things like the dark genesis of F-35 — his lot just spent money like water on the generation of gear built up in the Seventies. (This extends to training and doctrine as well, pioneered in the Army and Air Force in particular under Ford and Carter. Reached its apogee under Reagan and Bush Sr. used it as his sledgehammer in the Gulf, but the real institutional work was done c. 1975-78.)
Lovely catch on Betsy and email. Never had any idea. Ha! Blandford Forum, interesting place to send a first email, from a punning point of view ….
Her Maj was well before me then, a whole 21 years. But I did send my first one from Ulan Baatar
Ref: VC10/Skybolt link,
Many thanks, boss. You know I play for Deep Blue FC (with a transfer arrangement with Capbadge United
but something like that is, for a nation with the combined population and GDP of the UK, a fundamental argument for an independent air service. God that VC10/Skybolt makes you come over all funny. One of those today, please, frankly it’s a broader spectrum of real use than Dave-A, B, or C and a big, flexible airframe like that, well, look at the service life of the B-52. Better a few squadrons of that than all the low-and-fast airwings of the Cold War. And speaking of low and fast, that “nuclear Concorde,” that’s just pure, erm … aircraft-waving. Looks like TSR.2′s cousin who went into porn….
RF,
Ulan Bataar? That’s brilliant. All I managed, in lousy t-shirt fashion, was Bristol Uni’s old green-screen computer lab ….
Hi Jackstaff, good to see you again.
I know you said you have been lurking in and out but knowing the kind of posts you like have you seen these multi part posts
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/a-ship-that-is-not-a-frigate-%E2%80%93-part-1-introduction/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/11/uk-military-bridging-%E2%80%93-introduction/
fleets win wars not ships.
A british fleets killers will be carrier air and hunter/killer submarines.
I think we need at least a quad harpoon pack for ‘just in case’ stuff, but a t45 isnt going to be trading shots with a russian cruiser. it might need to smack a south american meko for getting uppity, for which a harpoon should be enough
RN ships do not need anti-ship missiles to fight some Trafalgar fleet to fleet battle. They need ASMs to stop that happening. If hostile fleets are armed with them, but our ships are not, then it creates an incentive for enemy ships to get within missile range of ours, knowing ours cannot shoot back.
I don’t think there’d be much of a problem with long range ASM hitting the wrong unidentified target. A helicopter or UAV can fly off low, then pop up from time to time to acquire targets while the weighty weapon load remains onboard the ship. Or in an information networked battlespace, the target could be spotted by any number of means – rather than just shooting in the dark.
Brian Black immediately above,
This. Both UAVs and UUVs can act as spotters much more effectively now than even a decade ago. That never guarantees against blue-on-blue, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Vincennes mess (where the technology was not up to raining in a CO who was considered far too aggressive even by his colleagues of like rank.) Likewise Harpoon is cheap and here already (the blog mantra, I know) but tapping into Bofors’ next make of RBS-15, scheduled to have a basic land-attack function — BAE still has shares, yes? — or Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile mk. 2 (supposedly designed to steer safely through “cluttered” environments) which promises same, might be a good transition. Put them on the big boats as an insurance policy for combat and a means of micro-strike on patrol (single targets like a leadership compound, weapons factory, or the like.)
I like the layering concept I can see in your approach. Frigates, or even sloops, deploy UAV “beaters” ahead of the force, and backchat to line warships (GP frigates/T45s) or carrier aircraft about target ID and discrimination. Of course even shooting in the dark isn’t always “shooting in the dark.” Just as the gunners at the North Cape who popped that turret of Scharnhorst (no, that’s not me going Colonel Blimp. The range calculation and pattern accuracy under appalling weather conditions was bloody impressive for ‘wetware.’ Nice to see utility-level tech like UAVs offering the chance to restore that “eyes on” approach.)
Besides, in hostile conditions, I suspect any merchant shipping would want to stay clear of any naval vessel. If they had a choice, granted. This would allow for a fairly largish free fire zone for missiles. Link up with a spotting satalite + UAVs/AWACs radar should give some fairly solid targetting information.
As for the “Fleet win battles” mantra, it’s exactly that, a slogan, nothing more. A single highly capable ship or pair of ships can give even a fleet a good showing, case in point the Bismarck. It may have lost in the end, but when it was around, even a fleet had trouble with it.
I was always a fan of the old US SC21 program, with a semi-submersible missile cruiser, a single ship can really mess up even a fleet. Faced with a fleet killing ship, the best option is strategic/tactical dispersal to avoid giving a concentrated target. This is similar to the effect of arty and MGs on the evolution of infantry formations. So, no, given the right counter, I don’t believe a fleet will ALWAYS win. In a scenario like this, concentrating ships will be a liability.
Pity no one has the funds or desire to see the project through to completion though.
Hi Jackstaff,
RE “or Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile mk. 2 (supposedly designed to steer safely through “cluttered” environments) which promises same, might be a good transition.”
- learn something new every day: I knew of the RBS-15s range being hugely extended, but not of the land-attack
- Edition 2 of the Kongsberg thingy has been named JSM (J, instead of N, for being launchable from ships or aircraft, against ships or land targets). Indeed, it is (at least for now) the only anti-ship missile to fit into the F-35 internal weapons bay. Australia is that keen that they have co-funded the F-35 integration studies (whereas LM is dragging their feet on the software integration)
- if the missile is ordered, some should go onto RN ships as well (the carrier can’t be everywhere, especially if we end up with a 270/365 capability)
Just remembered that someone ob this blog site informed the 2020 being time expiry for the current batch of Harpoons in the RN
- so, if a replacement is called for, nicely coincides with CVF/JSF ISD (operational, not trials)
270/365? Days per year in deployment?
CVF, well, it’s (self)built, so I guess you can control the construction time, but to be honest, the JSF really is the wild card in the deck. Not only is there still the potential for overruns, it’s developed by another country, so development/deployment speed is dependent on them.
Not to mention with all the hype, I have a very sneaky suspicion that the F-35 is going to underperform.
How many can we fit in to a ISO container?
Hi Observer, sorry for the joke: not two, not one, but that fraction of one is the likeliest outcome all the way out to mid ’20s at least
I’m not too worried about f-35; the biggest risk for us is that the Americans open the throttle to get the A’s into service plenty quick and in numbers, and then the rest of the programme pays the “price” (which is measured in years to ISD)
observer
i dont believe a british fleet will turn to line astern a open fire on an enemy cruiser, i believe said cruiser will sink 400 miles out when the aew directs a fighter unit at it to pummel the cruiser with anti ship missiles and a follow on strike to blow it apart with 2000lb bombs.
Either that or a submarine will break it in half with a spread of spearfish.
I’m a big fan of the arsenal ship, stealth, semi submersable or fully submersable, but its not a one ship fleet.
It needs support ships to find targets for its long range fast missiles and to protect it
Dom. That is why I am .. annoyed, by western neglect of AShMs. Harpoons only have a 170-180 km range. The Brahamos that I quoted has a 300km range. It’s going to be the British fleet that gets pounded. Speed of Harpoon? Mach 0.8. Speed of Brahamos? Mach 3. Brahamos X-perimental? Mach 5. That is a serious mismatch. And most ships nowadays have a heavy anti-air configuration, it’s not going to be easy getting planes close. In short, the mismatch against western style navies is fairly serious and worrying.
ACC, got it.
I’m fine with fractions, the most important question is “Does the fraction float”?
Edit: my mistake, the Brahamos 2 travels at Mach 7, it was the American Waverider that did Mach 5.
Observer
To exploit that range the British ships have to be detected and then tracked both of which are no easy task at all if they don’t want to be found. Then those missiles have to get through passive and active defences.
The missiles might have a longer range but the problems are exactly the same of us as them.
It’s all a game of chess out there. RN vessels and USN vessels, indeed entire battle groups, have been known to operate in complete EMCON silence and essentially been invisible and being very cunning about it all.
The biggest threat any group of surface ships face is submarine attack. Has been since 1916 or so.
Thanks for pointing out ” Brahamos 2 travels at Mach 7, it was the American Waverider that did Mach 5″
- I agree that the threat should be taken seriously as it might blunt the current defences (where do we buy drones that do such speed, to test and be sure?)
- luckily Brahmos 2 is still on the drawing board, and I would not be too worried as long as only Indian and Russian navies have it
Observer
What Phil said
Its all well and good having a 300km range, or even a 1500km range, but its useless unless you can get targetting information 300km (or 1500km) out.
I suppose in theory, a massive ship, like Carrier Sized, with a huge Sampson plus Radar on top could get that, but any hope of ambushing a fleet is pretty much out of the window.
“And most ships nowadays have a heavy anti-air configuration,”
Really?
I thought our air defences were woeful to be honest.
I’m not convinced a T45, attacked from 4 directions by 4 F35′s each launching 4 harpoons or some such would come out well, and it only takes one hit to mission kill a ship, and then your down to eye guided 20mm cannons to drive away supersonic strike jets trying to drop laser guided 2000lbers.
The Russians fit more launchers and more missiles, but they’re still stuck with just the one big search radar.
“I’m not convinced a T45, attacked from 4 directions by 4 F35′s each launching 4 harpoons or some such would come out well”
On its own it might be pressed but in that high threat environment its not going to be on its own. And everyone discounts the passive defensive suite. Nobody knows how good it is, and anybody who does would be damn foolish to even hint that they know, but we seem to have a lot of confidence in it.
The thing with searching for a fleet with radar is that it broadcasts exactly where you are, your course, your speed thus allowing you not only to maneouvre but also to direct a strike.
Naval combat is a lot like two men with pistols and a torch in a completely dark room.
Who is going to switch on their torch first to find the other guy?
It really is a cunning game of chess. Lots of scope for some good old Master and Commander type bluffs and tricks.
Actually, it all depends on what threat you’re facing. If it’s African or Iranian milita, a T45 is overkill on them, numbers providing, but against China who have recon satelites, how do you hide a CVBG or even a fleet of escorts? It’s still going to show up on an overhead pass or even thermal (which is how they detect subs).
Phil is right on the networked fleet and the radar usage, but shore based systems? Or even a sacrificial gambit? Or MPA? Or even the UAV/USVs? Lots of detection tools in the kitbag.
But I agree on the passives, they ARE the ship’s best bet.
Dom, a Harpoon on a DD won’t “mission kill” the ship. It’ll blow it right up. Escorts are fairly thin skinned. And even if it had it’s defences blown out, I won’t close in. Why risk lives? Even a 30mm can get lucky. Fire one more harpoon and finish him off.
@Phil: a T45 might well be on it’s own. Falklands/Gulf guardship anyone?
If T45 can’t cope with 16 subsonic targets at once, I’d be worried….
“Phil is right on the networked fleet and the radar usage, but shore based systems? Or even a sacrificial gambit? Or MPA? Or even the UAV/USVs? Lots of detection tools in the kitbag.”
Both sides will be using them.
But thats the point.
Nothing exists in isolation, the detected ships targeting information could be passed to a destroyer that fires a heavy anti ship missile, or a submarine, that fires a torpedo.
Since the submarine is much more survivable, and the destroyer has a more important task, protecting the carrier, its the better asset to advance.
Idealy of course, we’d have both, but sticking a 16 cell brahmos 2+ launcher on every ship would be an expensive ask.
Quick factoid on subs, they’re slower than surface ships, you can’t use one to chase a ship, conventional usage is to use them as “mobile minefields”. Once you move them at speed, you get cavitation that makes them detectable. So, no. They are not the best asset to use to go chasing ships.
Best is, of course, an air strike package, but as I already pointed out, they can “do unto you” more than you can “do unto them”.
Observer
But a fleet would have its subs at the front, its destroyers behind and its carrier even further back.
A submarine doesnt have to chase at 30knts, it can chase at 10, the enemy ship doesnt know where it is, so doesnt know if its running away or into it, and the friendly fleet can move to pull the enemy ship onto the submarine.
At the end of the day, the enemy wants to sink our carrier. To do so, it has to get within 300kms. If the carrier has a submarine 250kms in front, well, thats a hard job.
They are also surprisingly fast when they want to be, although as you say, not overly quiet. But even that can be used as a weapon.
Imagine you get a UAV picture of my carrier 400km away, I shoot your UAV down, my carrier turns tail and runs, and you pick up two distant submarines sprinting to intercept. “I’ve got him now” you cry, knowing you can run down my carrier before the submarines get in range, “full speed ahead” ten minutes later, submarine number three which was silently in between hits your cruiser with 6 torpedos.
The UK has decided its ship killing funds are going into submarines and aircraft. Its not perfect, but it provides a good balance of capability at an affordable cost.
… at 250km, you can’t communicate with your sub. Radio doesn’t work at long ranges underwater, you have to surface or work close to your task force. Or end up using super low pulse repetition radio, but that’s for strategic subs.
And you are right, the bait tactic works sometimes, but you must plan that WAY in advance, com gap as I mentioned.
And I won’t use a ship to chase a carrier either. I’ll vector a Brahamos armed flight of MiGs and escorts in to ruin your day.
@ Observer re radio silence
Not for nothing do the navies of the world still use lamps and flags and day shapes.
“And I won’t use a ship to chase a carrier either. I’ll vector a Brahamos armed flight of MiGs and escorts in to ruin your day.”
Which sounds a lot like you’ve both added in a fleet and taken out ship based missiles
Unless that was your point all along, that the carrier air should have better anti ship missiles?
Personaly, still not sure I trust anything moving at Mach 7 is going to turn all that well, but thats just me
I’ve always wondered about the usefulness of those. I can see some advantages during replenishment ops, saves you a trip to the bridge each time you want to send a message, but in war?
Maybe it’s just different strategic methodology, it’s mostly meaningless for my country’s navy (RSN) to do radio silence as there would still be fairly heavy radio traffic between the UAV/USVs and the mothership unless they want to pull back all their assets. Not to mention the huge amount of background radar noise by the ground stations and air force and civillian sets as well means that it’s pretty much redundant anyway, anyone trying to listen in would go deaf, but in deep ocean? Interesting to see how environment shapes tactics and operating procedure.
Solomon, I never said anything about attacking ships in my original post, just ships being attacked. It was Dom who assumes AShMs can only be fired by other ships. I would have just pounded the fleet to rubble from the air.
And yes, the original point WAS better anti-ship missiles, regardless of service.