Hypersonic Weapons

[BigRed389]

Spoken like a true IWC guy.

Hey, no need for insults.

Why bother with ships then? When you've got a missile covering one mile per second the hard kill is going to matter. Will lasers have enough time to heat up and destroy seekers? How long doe the applied energy need to be there? At 30 ft above the deck that's what, 13 miles of LOS? which gives you less than 13 seconds for DTE. Hell, the easiest ship in the fleet to get a mission kill on is the CG, can do that one with a couple RPGs from a dhow.

Hard kill matters, I'm just saying we'll never win a straight up battle there on cost/technology alone. We're not going to develop dirt cheap interceptor missiles, and probability is a bitch when even a single leaker is a failure.

Hard kill has a place in stopping the rounds actually headed towards your assets...but if the enemy gets a free hand to employ high volume saturation attacks against you, you're not likely to engineer your way out of that problem.
Better if you can complicate the task of achieving the saturation attack, and your hard kill only needs to stop a few leakers.
Roughly speaking, I'd imagine it's what you try to accomplish with Airborne EA...just flipped around.

Unmanned systems and networked platforms should be used to change the cost ratio. The threat already does that with systems like the Harpy UAV.
EW (really anything EMS related) should be used to complicate the enemy's targeting problem, and degrade the effectiveness of their weapons. Even super duper fast wavetop skimming missiles need a lot of things to go right before going from a launcher to killing a a target. More so in some ways than slower ones.

Like sevenhelmet pointed out, the threat missile will be a valuable asset for the bad guys.
Making them worry about their high tech silver bullets squirreling off after unintended targets or low value assets is probably a much more feasible solution, particularly in the near term, rather than praying rail guns or lasers work themselves out into field-ready systems in time.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Hey, no need for insults.


Hard kill matters, I'm just saying we'll never win a straight up battle there on cost/technology alone. We're not going to develop dirt cheap interceptor missiles, and probability is a bitch when even a single leaker is a failure.

Hard kill has a place in stopping the rounds actually headed towards your assets...but if the enemy gets a free hand to employ high volume saturation attacks against you, you're not likely to engineer your way out of that problem.
Better if you can complicate the task of achieving the saturation attack, and your hard kill only needs to stop a few leakers.
Roughly speaking, I'd imagine it's what you try to accomplish with Airborne EA...just flipped around.

Unmanned systems and networked platforms should be used to change the cost ratio. The threat already does that with systems like the Harpy UAV.
EW (really anything EMS related) should be used to complicate the enemy's targeting problem, and degrade the effectiveness of their weapons. Even super duper fast wavetop skimming missiles need a lot of things to go right before going from a launcher to killing a a target. More so in some ways than slower ones.

Like sevenhelmet pointed out, the threat missile will be a valuable asset for the bad guys.
Making them worry about their high tech silver bullets squirreling off after unintended targets or low value assets is probably a much more feasible solution, particularly in the near term, rather than praying rail guns or lasers work themselves out into field-ready systems in time.

This is part of the reason I brought up the sword vs shield question in the ship of the day thread. Ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons are a formidable threat - will the tide turn in the other direction when anti-missile defense is not a limited number of interceptor missiles and the short ranged CIWS but rather directed energy weapons and railguns. It may be a generation or 2 away, but it might provide an effective defense.

As for the a possible upcoming naval engagement, a few observations. The battleship was replaced by the aircraft carrier because of the longer ranged striking power of aircraft over guns - will the new missiles being discussed have a similar advantage over carrier aircraft? Will it be a naval vs naval engagement - or a naval vs land forces engagement as China builds airbases for land based aircraft in the Spratlys much like the Romans used the corvus against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War? Finally, as someone observed, both Russia and China are more interested in sea denial of specific areas rather than control over the oceans at large - which leads back to the ability to use land based long range missiles to force fleets to stay further and further offshore.

 

[BigRed389]

This is part of the reason I brought up the sword vs shield question in the ship of the day thread. Ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons are a formidable threat - will the tide turn in the other direction when anti-missile defense is not a limited number of interceptor missiles and the short ranged CIWS but rather directed energy weapons and railguns. It may be a generation or 2 away, but it might provide an effective defense.

As for the a possible upcoming naval engagement, a few observations. The battleship was replaced by the aircraft carrier because of the longer ranged striking power of aircraft over guns - will the new missiles being discussed have a similar advantage over carrier aircraft? Will it be a naval vs naval engagement - or a naval vs land forces engagement as China builds airbases for land based aircraft in the Spratlys much like the Romans used the corvus against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War? Finally, as someone observed, both Russia and China are more interested in sea denial of specific areas rather than control over the oceans at large - which leads back to the ability to use land based long range missiles to force fleets to stay further and further offshore.

I don't think the fundamentals will change.

Lasers and railguns are still going to be vulnerable to being overwhelmed through high volume attacks.
You can still challenge the sensors that guide/cue defensive systems.
UASs are also continuing to evolve, not just for us, but for the threat too.

It'll be more about trying to stay ahead of the threat rather than some massive improvement in the defense that lets a new generation battleship return IMO.

 

[Griz882]

After some research I see the US already has what they call a "Prompt Global Strike" capability that has air, submarine, and land-based systems. US and UK tests seem to be more realistic as our systems are "endo-atmospheric" in that they fly in earth's atmosphere but not sea-skimming. Ours can cover 2300 miles in 22 minutes and deliver a pizza. And, of course, we have the AGM-158C coming out soon. In the end, I imagine the Russian system will be much like the MIG-25 Foxbat. Really big, really fast, well advertised...but equally junky and prone to failure.

 

[Flash]

After some research I see the US already has what they call a "Prompt Global Strike" capability that has air, submarine, and land-based systems. US and UK tests seem to be more realistic as our systems are "endo-atmospheric" in that they fly in earth's atmosphere but not sea-skimming. Ours can cover 2300 miles in 22 minutes and deliver a pizza. And, of course, we have the AGM-158C coming out soon. In the end, I imagine the Russian system will be much like the MIG-25 Foxbat. Really big, really fast, well advertised...but equally junky and prone to failure.

'Prompt Global Strike' is not a capability but a proposal for one, one that has some serious political as well as practical hurdles to overcome before becoming operational.

Again, I would be wary to discount Russian capabilities. While some of their weapon systems have serious limitations or shortcomings many are much more capable and reliable than their best known failures. It is also worth noting that while their weapons systems may not be as good as western ones that doesn't mean they aren't a significant threat, while we might have a standard of 95% success for one weapon system that doesn't mean that an enemy one with a 65% success rate is not a threat.

 

[sevenhelmet]

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

Plenty of our weapons systems have failed, too.

 

[Griz882]

'Prompt Global Strike' is not a capability but a proposal for one, one that has some serious political as well as practical hurdles to overcome before becoming operational.

Again, I would be wary to discount Russian capabilities. While some of their weapon systems have serious limitations or shortcomings many are much more capable and reliable than their best known failures. It is also worth noting that while their weapons systems may not be as good as western ones that doesn't mean they aren't a significant threat, while we might have a standard of 95% success for one weapon system that doesn't mean that an enemy one with a 65% success rate is not a threat.

Thus my comment about delivering a pizza. All kidding aside, my reading of the recent Defense Budget gives the USAF a 50% increase in Block 1 LRSAM purchases in FY17 (a hyper-sonic anti-ship missile and why the Navy is letting the USAF get in the ship-killing game I can't explain). . Moreover, I don't discount the capabilities of any enemy, I just don't hyperventilate over certain developments. All sides seem to be escalating this technology rather equally.

Hyper-sonic systems are just the next step in unmanned warfare. You invent a missile that can travel at Mach 7, I'll create a navy of ten-thousand 100 foot unmanned ships (already under development) that can each launch 100 micro-fighters (already under development) that can operate either in swarms or as individuals. I will add to that another 10,000 unmanned submarines (already under development) that will simply lay along the bottom of your littoral defense concept and when their sensors detect your launches they will in turn destroy every launch site you have. Just over two weeks ago I was at a Pentagon conference where a USAF general mentioned that he was looking to 2050 for a manned hyper-sonic jet fighter...people in the audience actually laughed out loud - the plane might be really fast, but it won't be manned. Warfare is changing and it is changing exponentially. We already know the last fighter pilot has already been born...and is likely in high school right now, the question is when will the last naval warship commander be born? Likely sooner than we think.

 

[Flash]

...Hyper-sonic systems are just the next step in unmanned warfare. You invent a missile that can travel at Mach 7, I'll create a navy of ten-thousand 100 foot unmanned ships (already under development) that can each launch 100 micro-fighters (already under development) that can operate either in swarms or as individuals. I will add to that another 10,000 unmanned submarines (already under development) that will simply lay along the bottom of your littoral defense concept and when their sensors detect your launches they will in turn destroy every launch site you have. Just over two weeks ago I was at a Pentagon conference where a USAF general mentioned that he was looking to 2050 for a manned hyper-sonic jet fighter...people in the audience actually laughed out loud - the plane might be really fast, but it won't be manned. Warfare is changing and it is changing exponentially. We already know the last fighter pilot has already been born...and is likely in high school right now, the question is when will the last naval warship commander be born? Likely sooner than we think.

Those statements undercut most of what else you said, manned aerial combat aircraft are here to stay for quite a long time and UAV disciples are overestimating the capabilities of current and future unmanned systems. Because of the inherent limitations of unmanned systems I doubt the last fighter-attack pilot will be born for another 50 years, if not longer. To claim that he or she is a high school student now is simply absurd.

 

[Griz882]

Those statements undercut most of what else you said, manned aerial combat aircraft are here to stay for quite a long time and UAV disciples are overestimating the capabilities of current and future unmanned systems. Because of the inherent limitations of unmanned systems I doubt the last fighter-attack pilot will be born for another 50 years, if not longer. To claim that he or she is a high school student now is simply absurd.

No under-cutting at all.

As for the future of manned military systems. I'll bet I'm closer to correct. If you need it, I can provide about several sources wherein great naval thinkers were certain, absolutely certain, that in 1850 steam engines were a good 100 years away from being capable of propelling warship effectively. I can provide an equal number of down-right genius thinkers who said, in 1935, that the battleship would be the dominate vessel for the next....yep...100 years. Twenty years ago a cell phone was almost the size of my head and ten years ago we could watch a documentary called "Who Killed the electric Car?" we both know how those things turned out. According to USNI, in only three years the Navy plans on having the MQ-25 Stingray conduct all aerial refueling missions at sea. Change is coming and while it might not be five years off, it surely isn't 50 years away.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Thus my comment about delivering a pizza. All kidding aside, my reading of the recent Defense Budget gives the USAF a 50% increase in Block 1 LRSAM purchases in FY17 (a hyper-sonic anti-ship missile and why the Navy is letting the USAF get in the ship-killing game I can't explain...)

OK, first of all LRASM is not hypersonic. It is being developed as a high subsonic anti-ship cruise missile. Also, it's being developed as a "fleet rapid response" program which is joint USN/USAF weapon to be carried on F/A-18 and B-1 aircraft. The joint-ness of it allows resources to be shared (e.g. more money to make this thing happen.) Also, given the range of B-1 aircraft and the USAF's big wing tanking assets, it makes sense to me to have more than one platform which can employ it. Think of LRASM as an "in case of emergency" weapon for a maritime conflict against a nation with a capable Navy. Training assets and CATMs are also in development for the fleet to train to it. Expect mission planning to be a royal bastard.

Hypersonic systems are a niche of warfare, but not necessarily the "next logical step" for unmanned systems. There are a lot of drawbacks and limitations of something moving at Mach 5+, as the term "hypersonic" is typically defined. Maneuverability, practical operating envelope restrictions, time on station, weapons carriage and employment, and stealth, just to name a few. It may have its place, but it's far from a panacea for future weapons.

Finally, I've been hearing for literally 20 years that UAVs would be doing all the fighting within 5-10 years. Guys seem quick to jump on the "everything will be unmanned by this time tomorrow" bandwagon, but I wouldn't be so hasty. Based on everything currently in development (or forecast to be in development), I see a mix of manned and unmanned systems going a lot farther into the future than many think, certainly at least another generation. Mission requirements and development lead times being what they are, if the last US fighter pilot is already in high school, that bodes very poorly for our military, and probably the country.

 

[Flash]

....As for the future of manned military systems. I'll bet I'm closer to correct. If you need it, I can provide about several sources wherein great naval thinkers were certain, absolutely certain, that in 1850 steam engines were a good 100 years away from being capable of propelling warship effectively. I can provide an equal number of down-right genius thinkers who said, in 1935, that the battleship would be the dominate vessel for the next....yep...100 years. Twenty years ago a cell phone was almost the size of my head and ten years ago we could watch a documentary called "Who Killed the electric Car?" we both know how those things turned out. According to USNI, in only three years the Navy plans on having the MQ-25 Stingray conduct all aerial refueling missions at sea. Change is coming and while it might not be five years off, it surely isn't 50 years away.

We have debated the future of UAV's on this board several times and I think you, along with most UAV advocates, vastly underestimate the vulnerabilities and weaknesses inherent in UAV's. Our current wars have allowed us to operate in a very permissive environment for aircraft and that will not always be the case. Utilizing a UAV for one of the most benign aerial duties, burning holes in the sky and sticking out a hose to occasionally pass gas, does not even come close to challenges presented to a combat aircraft in a contested environment. Simply cutting the link to UAV's, something that can be done in a myriad of ways, would make them nothing more than dead weight in the sky or a dark spot on the ground. And that is just one of countless ways that UAV's are more vulnerable than manned platforms. Just ask the OSCE how well their drone surveillance in Ukraine has worked out for them, not so well since they had to shut it down. For every advantage that UAV's have I can come easily up with a vulnerability that can be exploited.

It'll be a very long time, if ever, before our military leaders will allow all armed aircraft do their missions without a 'man in the loop' and the easiest way to ensure that is to keep the aircraft manned.

 

[Griz882]

My apologies about the LRASM, you are correct.

As for the unmanned stuff...I look at it this way. I did 30 years in uniform. Most importantly, I did five years of up-front, ground combat crap in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2002 and 2011, and those were the only true transformative years. The first unmanned strike was in October 2001 and was a miss from a CIA operated drone. SF guys on the ground even asked "Who fired that?" When I got to Afghanistan the military had a fleet of less than 60 drones (primarily surveillance), when I retired there were over 6000 conducting all types of missions - including strikes. Between 1995 and 2005 the USAF conducted 250,000 hours of unmanned airborne time...they reached 500,000 hours by the end of 2008 and they have added another 500,000 hours since then. In 2010 the USAF trained more RPA pilots than conventional pilots and recently admitted that most of the problems associated with the F-35 are related to serving the human in the cockpit. Shall we compare all of that to the discussion of flight hours USMC Hornet drivers are getting per month? The Navy is fully operational with the Triton and the Firescout. In just three years they plan on having the Stingray fly aerial refueling missions. The future is now. Indeed, even looking to the ground side, I need only turn around in my office chair to look at Marcbot #1...the very first IED finding robot in service. Fielded in 2004, it is crude and nearly comical in appearance. By 2012, when I left, it's "children" are advanced, fast, and everywhere. In just eight years the very concept of EOD was forever changed...by a $75 toy.

Hell, even Hollywood is against you. Since the start of GWOT I haven't seen a single movie like "30 Seconds Over Baghdad!" or "The Bridges at Lashkar Gah" but I have seen "Good Kill" and "Eye in the Sky."

It is not the last 20 years you need to worry about, it is the next 5. Technology is building on existing platforms at a rate never before envisioned. Manned aviation, and I love flying, is a by-product of the industrial age - evidence that humans could push to the next best thing. why would we stop now? The industrial age is over and we are in a new era. As I noted above. It might not be 5 years away...but it sure isn't going to be as long as 50.

 

[Griz882]

It'll be a very long time, if ever, before our military leaders will allow all armed aircraft do their missions without a 'man in the loop' and the easiest way to ensure that is to keep the aircraft manned.

There is a "man in the loop." He sits in an air-conditioned Conex box in Nevada. His intel guy sits in a massive, converted hangar in Massachusetts. His strike coordinator sits at a desk in London. By "unmanned" I mean the time for a need of a human in the cockpit is quickly closing.

Tell me this isn't happening now and I'll shut up.

 

[Brett327]

in only three years the Navy plans on having the MQ-25 Stingray conduct all aerial refueling missions at sea.

So, by the end of 2019, no more ARS on the Rhinos? Did anyone ask NAVAIR or OPNAV about this? Most of the stuff I've read indicates a mid-2020's IOC.

Color me highly skeptical.

 

[Griz882]

So, by the end of 2019, no more ARS on the Rhinos? Did anyone ask NAVAIR or OPNAV about this? Most of the stuff I've read indicates a mid-2020's IOC.

Color me highly skeptical.

I won't fight you on this. I based my comment on a USNI report. Nevertheless, the mid-2020's is still a lot closer than 50 years away.