Exactly. (was playing the role of the devil's advocate there) So, if set to some kind of high threat mode of work, computer will shoot a SAM, perhaps two or three SAMs towards some target, without knowing what it really is. (once again, identification with long wave radars at top of their range is not possible) Who's to say it won't shoot at decoys? Those decoys can be pretty expensive too, even if they're like twice as expensive as the SAMs shot at them, just by partly depleting the SAM stock they would have done their job - as then just minutes later the real attack force could come in. Shooting at something without positive identification can prove to be a very costly thing.
Submarine first, Carrier second
- Thread starter Ryz05
- Start date
Adding humans to the loop does not do that much. When using a modern radar one is completely dependant upon computer-processed information which is displayed in convenient form. Visual identification in realistic major war conditions is, IMHO, not realistic.
I would imagine it would not take a Linus Torvald to program an air defence program into which several threat categories would be included under various conditions. Such as one condition, in which engaging a target would demand a human intervention.
Mvh,
Jon
Don't want to be unfriendly, but then again, to me that calculation seems somewhat meaningless anyway.
I do in no way believe that stealth(y) aircraft (especially such top priority ones like a B-2) will enganage high value vessels with longer range AAW capability just with PGM bombs (aka JDAM).
There the Joint-Strike-Missile (a follow on of the stealthy NSM) to be developed by LM and Kongsberg for the F-35. To be ready in 2010 with a range of over 150km. I could imagine it could fit in a F-22 as well. If I'm correct the JSOW fits also, and the latest variant is to get a naval-warfare capability.
The B-2 can carry the JSSAM, I'm not aware of a ASh capability yet. But I think it could be done, as the B-2 might carry the JSOW anyway.
All of wich might be launchen even without detection range.
Since it would be stupid IMO to use the most sophisticated aircraft against capable targets only to drop bombs.
And, though IIR seeker equiped missiles probably will over some usefullness against VLO targets, I don't think a long wave radar will generally produce data exact enough to get those missile close enough to the target to get a lock.
Jon K,
As I understand, SAM interception software for the Aegis shield is already programmed like that. I would be surprised if many air defense systems don't have a similar feature. Like you yourself said, all that does, though, is speeds up the process of firing. Imagine if the system was set to full auto mode - and firing SAMs left and right at every target whose limited data (collected by the long wave radars) points at a possible hostile attacker. History of war is filled with deceptions and decoys, no war goes without them. One can be sure the attacker would use that full auto mode as much as possible.
Now, yes, in a real war, it's very dangerous to actually get close for a better identification. But IF one wants to do the identification- that is more or less the only way. Thruthfully, in a very hostile war theater, versus a capable enemy, I would imagine the defender would just roll with the losses of SAMs versus the dummy targets and wouldn't bother too much with detailed identification of targets. As the alternative is probably even costlier. But then we get to the issue of resources. While the defender may have thousands of SAMs in stock - the REAL question is how many does he have that are ready to fire - at one time. Increasing that stock, with more firing platforms, would greatly increase the overall cost of the air defense system - perhaps prohibitively so.
In the end, the only viable long term tactic is NOT to rely on SAMs exclusively, letting the enemy play with them at their own leisure, but to use the air force to combat the incoming enemy. Naturally, if the enemy has high quality stealth planes and you don't - then you're pretty much screwed either way. SAMs can really just buy time - (granted, stheoretically that can be weeks, months or more) but they're not a defence to rely on. If we're talking about a ship- as soon as its limited SAM stock falls below a certain level - it has to leave the forward position and go back. And hope there will always be another ship to replace it.
Scratch,
The way I was informed, there would be no follow up to NSM (which is still in testing itself) but the actual NSM missile would be used in F-35c, only changes being the interface, so it can be integrated into F-35's fire control system. It is important to note that NSM is a snug fit on the F-35c, just like JSWOS is, and that F-35b can not carry either of those two weapons in its internal bay. Since F-22's bay is shallower, I would doubt it that either NSM, JSOW, JASSM (if it actually gets accepted into service after all the test failures. Personally I think it will, no matter how much extra money and time it will take - as US has no real alternative) could fit into it.
I see the SDB 2 as a pretty potent weapon in anti ship warfare. Lobbed from over a 100 km (you gotta leave some slack, in case the ship is sailing away), with a IIR seeker - it definitely could catch a large, not so manoverable vessel off guard. Not to mention that due to its size and cost - the target area could, if deemed cost effective, be literally peppered with dozens of SDB 2's.
As for long wave radars - what I keep reading is that the position errors are not that great - from several hundred meters to a few kilometers, even for the monsters with 3m wavelengths. Depending on the target, its flight profile, atmospheric conditions, even today's generation of IR missiles could easely get a lock on. Though, to be more sure it doesn't lock onto a drone decoy, IIR would probably be preffered.
As I understand, SAM interception software for the Aegis shield is already programmed like that. I would be surprised if many air defense systems don't have a similar feature. Like you yourself said, all that does, though, is speeds up the process of firing. Imagine if the system was set to full auto mode - and firing SAMs left and right at every target whose limited data (collected by the long wave radars) points at a possible hostile attacker. History of war is filled with deceptions and decoys, no war goes without them. One can be sure the attacker would use that full auto mode as much as possible.
Now, yes, in a real war, it's very dangerous to actually get close for a better identification. But IF one wants to do the identification- that is more or less the only way. Thruthfully, in a very hostile war theater, versus a capable enemy, I would imagine the defender would just roll with the losses of SAMs versus the dummy targets and wouldn't bother too much with detailed identification of targets. As the alternative is probably even costlier. But then we get to the issue of resources. While the defender may have thousands of SAMs in stock - the REAL question is how many does he have that are ready to fire - at one time. Increasing that stock, with more firing platforms, would greatly increase the overall cost of the air defense system - perhaps prohibitively so.
In the end, the only viable long term tactic is NOT to rely on SAMs exclusively, letting the enemy play with them at their own leisure, but to use the air force to combat the incoming enemy. Naturally, if the enemy has high quality stealth planes and you don't - then you're pretty much screwed either way. SAMs can really just buy time - (granted, stheoretically that can be weeks, months or more) but they're not a defence to rely on. If we're talking about a ship- as soon as its limited SAM stock falls below a certain level - it has to leave the forward position and go back. And hope there will always be another ship to replace it.
Scratch,
The way I was informed, there would be no follow up to NSM (which is still in testing itself) but the actual NSM missile would be used in F-35c, only changes being the interface, so it can be integrated into F-35's fire control system. It is important to note that NSM is a snug fit on the F-35c, just like JSWOS is, and that F-35b can not carry either of those two weapons in its internal bay. Since F-22's bay is shallower, I would doubt it that either NSM, JSOW, JASSM (if it actually gets accepted into service after all the test failures. Personally I think it will, no matter how much extra money and time it will take - as US has no real alternative) could fit into it.
I see the SDB 2 as a pretty potent weapon in anti ship warfare. Lobbed from over a 100 km (you gotta leave some slack, in case the ship is sailing away), with a IIR seeker - it definitely could catch a large, not so manoverable vessel off guard. Not to mention that due to its size and cost - the target area could, if deemed cost effective, be literally peppered with dozens of SDB 2's.
As for long wave radars - what I keep reading is that the position errors are not that great - from several hundred meters to a few kilometers, even for the monsters with 3m wavelengths. Depending on the target, its flight profile, atmospheric conditions, even today's generation of IR missiles could easely get a lock on. Though, to be more sure it doesn't lock onto a drone decoy, IIR would probably be preffered.
Actually, I bothered to calculate how much equipment it would cost to replace carriers air defence, and strike capability for sustained time and I don't think the costs would be excessive. It's my last post on the issue how carriers are obsolete, as I recognise my own writings are starting to resemble each other.
Equipment losses are considered in neither scenario, as they're hard to model. First, let's make a scenario: All-round China vs. USA over Taiwan slugfest, nuclear weapons excluded. US has use of Guam, but not Japan and South Korean bases due to political considerations. The mission for US forces is to defend Taiwan against air strikes and to conduct strikes against Chinese forces. Length of the operation is 30 days. For calculation purchases, the strike point in China is Hangchuan, in Fujian, China, situated some 400nm's from potential carrier deployment area. For calculation purchases, carriers are deployed at point 24.30 N, 122.25 E
Now, a carrier force available includes 5 carrier strike groups with Nimitz-class carriers. Each has pimped up air wing of 32 F/A-18E/F and 32 JSF + assorted AEW etc. aircraft. A total of 160 Super Hornets and 160 JSF's. What carriers have for escort is not relevant, as these elements can be also used with alternate force displayed below.
For the course of 30 days of action let's presume each carrier can operate 5 days continuosly, after which one day is reserved for resupply. Total carrier operating days are thus 125. Each carrier can fly 140 sorties a day, of which perhaps 20 should be reserved for AEW and housekeeping duties. So let's make it a total of 15 000 operational sorties, or some 1/3rd more effective sortie rates than historically during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Keeping in line with historical data from OIF, some 1/3 of the sorties will be tanker sorties. That leaves some 10 000 sorties to go, divided equally between 30 days of operations some 333 sorties per day.
Considering China's powerful air force and air defence let's presume 1/3 will be anti-air sorties, 1/3 SEAD sorties and 1/3 strike sorties. Of strike sorties, half are JDAM and other half are SDB sorties. Of SEAD sorties a half are HARM sorties, other half JDAM equivalent sorties. Every anti-air sortie lifts up 4 AMRAAM's to air.
Total ordnance delivered per day: 444 AMRAAM's in the air, 222 HARM's, 444 JDAM's, 888 SDB's.
Maximum Alpha Strike delivered by CVW (meaning full armament load on every strike fighter): 640 JDAM's.
----
Now, let's make a replacement force, capable of delivering and sustaining a similar punch. Used elements are Ticonderoga's, SSGN's, B-2's, E-3's and KC-10's, although better elements would be available if pressed. Particularly, Arsenal Ships or Ticos might be used instead of SSGN's, which would make the whole replacement effort a lot cheaper. Additionally, if non-carrier option was really sought, a technique of practical underway replenishment for VLS launchers would be developed. But even with these calculations the non-carrier option would not seem enormously expensive.
How many B-2's would be needed? 16. How many SSGN's? 10. How many E-3's? 15. How many KC-10's? 30. How many Ticonderoga's? 40. (12 kept continuosly on station)
Naval crew requirements: 1530 for SSGN's, 14 400 for Tico's.
Air force personnel requirements: Roughly 5000.
Total of: 21 000 (contra 28500 of carriers)
Personnel put in harms way on daily basis: About 4500 (contra 28500 of carriers)
Maximum Alpha Strike effort delivered by non-carrier force: 1280 JDAM's, 1410 Tomahawks.
And here's the case if 500 VLS Arsenal Ships were used to replace SSGN's and 4 of the 12 Tico's continuosly on station. Tico's needed: 8 Arsenal ships needed: 12. Naval crew requirement 3480. Total personnel required: 8480 (contra 28500 of carriers. 50 person crew of Arsenal Ship assumed).
-----
How this is calculated, the boring part is below.
First, let's replace strike elements: For house rules, we may presume that SEAD sorties can be replaced with cruise missiles and strike sorties with bomber sorties. Cruise missiles needed daily: 444. SSGN's needed daily: 3,15.
B-2 sorties needed daily to deliver 222 JDAM's and 888 SDB: 6,5. Total sorties needed: 195
To deliver the needed number of B-2 sorties let's base them in Northern Australia and Hawai instead, farther from combat area but more convenient for our purposes, as during Operation Iraqi Freedom B-2's flew half of their sorties from Diego Garcia and half from Whiteman AFB, Missouri, about similar distance from Iraq. Four B-2's used flew a total of 49 sorties during OIF. To use this as a yardstick, 16 B-2's would be needed. As sorties from Hawai would require one aerial refuelling, let's allocate 20 KC-10's for the task.
SSGN's could launch their missiles 1350 miles away from impact point, some 400nm's from Guam. Transit at leisurely 20kts would require 20h's to both directions. Assuming they don't need any other repairs than Tomahawk fill-up during this 30 day period, the fill-up might be made in few hours. To get carriers some headway, let's say it takes a day. So, between every SSGN launch extravaganza 64 hours is required. Just to aid carriers, let's make it simpler and say a SSGN is available every fourth day. So, a total of 9,6 or 10 SSGN's.
Now, for next, let's consider AEW coverage. Each carrier can hold an E2C up in the air continuosly, so that makes 5 E2's. Let's replace them with E-3's on one-on-one basis, although E-3 is more capable aircraft. Let's fly them from Guam, some 1500nm away. Transit flight of 3h's each way, or total of 6h's for transit. With maximum of 24h missions that means 18h of time at station. Using lavish maintenance time, some 15 E-3's might hold that tempo leisurely for 30 days.
This of course, would require tankers. For air refuelling needs, I'd calculate the need is 2 refuellings for every 24h sorties. A KC-10 holds enough fuel for 2 E-3 refills, so 7 KC-10 sorties would be needed daily. Make it 10 KC-10's to keep the sortie rate down.
Finally, the air part. 111 sorties, so 444 AMRAAM's in the air, daily. This is controversial, as it's unlikely that 444 AMRAAM's would be used any given day. On the other hand, a surge day for China would mean all sorties might be air-to-air sorties. So, let's replace this with demand that for all times there must be 1332 SAM's ready, but still, 444 are used every day. How big a Tico fleet would this require?
To maintain 1332 SAM's on station the requirement is out for 11 Tico's. For convenience, let's round it up to 12. If 4 Tico's load is expended every day, transit to Guam is at 20kts and reloading takes 24h's, the round trip takes some 170 hours, or that it takes 7 days to make that round trip. So, a total requirement would be 40 Ticonderogas. The amount of SAM's required is in excess of any realistic consumption, but to give carriers some headway I decided to keep it that way.
Last edited:
@Totoro:
Yea follow on was the wrong expression. LM will, as I see it, just partner with Kongsberg at integrating the NSM into the F-35 and call the missile JSM.
Just a good one week ago, the NSM was succesfully testfired in Ca/USA, getting the final norwegian navy go-ahead for the development phase.
With it's stealth characterisitcs and other high-end features, I'm pretty sure the USN will do anything to get it in the F-35s weapons bay.
SDB II is a nice thing with that range and moving target aqquisition capability. But probably something for use against rather small ships, or to just damage the superstructure/deck of bigger ones. And since it's not prepelled, would have to take a high approach.
Yea follow on was the wrong expression. LM will, as I see it, just partner with Kongsberg at integrating the NSM into the F-35 and call the missile JSM.
Just a good one week ago, the NSM was succesfully testfired in Ca/USA, getting the final norwegian navy go-ahead for the development phase.
With it's stealth characterisitcs and other high-end features, I'm pretty sure the USN will do anything to get it in the F-35s weapons bay.
SDB II is a nice thing with that range and moving target aqquisition capability. But probably something for use against rather small ships, or to just damage the superstructure/deck of bigger ones. And since it's not prepelled, would have to take a high approach.
Jon K,
It seems we've had a misunderstanding there. I thought you were a proponent of china using only sams for defense, but your post is geared towards the US using them. Anyhow, that doesn't really matter as I was talking in general terms. In the real world, US today happens to have the necesarry extra firing platforms and the strong economy and military industry to support a long SAM war against the likes of today's china. The same can't be said for the vice-versa situation. Again, that is a specific case.
When talking about a hypothetical case where two sides have the same starting resources - I believe SAMs will lose out in the long term. The problem is actually very much accentuated in naval SAMs. While one could make additional SAM firing platforms on the land for - paying more or less just for that - in the ocean one has to pay for the whole ship, and pay for all the manpower.
The resources that go into building and fielding just 2 Burkes are enough to build and field dozens of land based aircraft. Situation gets more expensive for carrier based aircraft but we're not even talking bout that situation here.
Scratch,
I agree, NSM is one mother of a weapon, perhaps the top dog in its size/range class. Sadly for the USN, I fear the politics will not let that weapon be actually used by USN. All the articles i've read about the integration of it on the f-35 read like Lockmart is doing it only so it makes the f-35 look better on the export market. I fear USN will stick to US designed and made systems - the new, powered, variant of the JSOW seems to be the USN's weapon of choice for the f-35. I'm sure it can be modified enough so it becomes a decent antiship missile - but NSM looks even better.
SDB 2s would definitely be detected, fired upon, and shot down as they approach the target. That's not debatable. But since they're so small and cheap, there would be many of them. Ship's systems will not always be able to cope with so many targets coming in at the same time. A flight of 12 Superhornet could carry 96 of them a long, long way, with 3 external tanks. On a closer mission, with just one external tank, that figure could be doubled to 192 guided bombs. The ship would have start shooting from a far, if it is to survive that, using the bigger, heavier missiles. Cause if it waits to use cheaper solutions - there'd just be too many targets too close to the ship to deal with all of them. Basically, with 12 sorties, one would render the ship more or less defenceless, even if it survives. At the cost of couple dozen tons of payload, costing under 4 million dollars altogether. (of course, that doesn't count in the fuel, etc) That ship would either have to retreat or would be dead when the next strike comes.
It seems we've had a misunderstanding there. I thought you were a proponent of china using only sams for defense, but your post is geared towards the US using them. Anyhow, that doesn't really matter as I was talking in general terms. In the real world, US today happens to have the necesarry extra firing platforms and the strong economy and military industry to support a long SAM war against the likes of today's china. The same can't be said for the vice-versa situation. Again, that is a specific case.
When talking about a hypothetical case where two sides have the same starting resources - I believe SAMs will lose out in the long term. The problem is actually very much accentuated in naval SAMs. While one could make additional SAM firing platforms on the land for - paying more or less just for that - in the ocean one has to pay for the whole ship, and pay for all the manpower.
The resources that go into building and fielding just 2 Burkes are enough to build and field dozens of land based aircraft. Situation gets more expensive for carrier based aircraft but we're not even talking bout that situation here.
Scratch,
I agree, NSM is one mother of a weapon, perhaps the top dog in its size/range class. Sadly for the USN, I fear the politics will not let that weapon be actually used by USN. All the articles i've read about the integration of it on the f-35 read like Lockmart is doing it only so it makes the f-35 look better on the export market. I fear USN will stick to US designed and made systems - the new, powered, variant of the JSOW seems to be the USN's weapon of choice for the f-35. I'm sure it can be modified enough so it becomes a decent antiship missile - but NSM looks even better.
SDB 2s would definitely be detected, fired upon, and shot down as they approach the target. That's not debatable. But since they're so small and cheap, there would be many of them. Ship's systems will not always be able to cope with so many targets coming in at the same time. A flight of 12 Superhornet could carry 96 of them a long, long way, with 3 external tanks. On a closer mission, with just one external tank, that figure could be doubled to 192 guided bombs. The ship would have start shooting from a far, if it is to survive that, using the bigger, heavier missiles. Cause if it waits to use cheaper solutions - there'd just be too many targets too close to the ship to deal with all of them. Basically, with 12 sorties, one would render the ship more or less defenceless, even if it survives. At the cost of couple dozen tons of payload, costing under 4 million dollars altogether. (of course, that doesn't count in the fuel, etc) That ship would either have to retreat or would be dead when the next strike comes.
Not much chance for a Chinese CV group to stand USNY attack in the open sea, if it doesn't sail into ocean, then not much use for such an expensive system.
Interesting that we now see Chinese new SSBN, but haven't seen 093. If China is really geared up against US, the lethal way should be to equip enough number of new SSNs with long range cruise missiles. That will put high pressure on US since it will be the only creditable Chinese platform that can hit continent of America with conventional weapons. To defend the continent USNY needs to draw significant resource to East Pacific, that's a very cost effect method for Chinese.
So CV or SSN, will be an very interesting test point, to measure the present situation.
Interesting that we now see Chinese new SSBN, but haven't seen 093. If China is really geared up against US, the lethal way should be to equip enough number of new SSNs with long range cruise missiles. That will put high pressure on US since it will be the only creditable Chinese platform that can hit continent of America with conventional weapons. To defend the continent USNY needs to draw significant resource to East Pacific, that's a very cost effect method for Chinese.
So CV or SSN, will be an very interesting test point, to measure the present situation.
Roger604
Senior Member
It's been posted on Chinese websites. It's not a formal offer, just a casual comment by a visiting USN Admiral that US is willing to "assist" on a PLAN carrier.
The "offer" has been described as not being official, so completely useless, or just a scheme to get more information on the intention behind the Chinese carrier. Or (IMO) it's a way to suggest to China that USN intelligence has confirmed China is on the brink of constructing it's carrier.
PM me if you really want to see a Chinese language article on it. There's not much more to it than what I've described.
why would the U.S. help china build a carrier, arn't we in an arms race will them or something. :coffee: