U.S. Navy Considering Adding Anti-Ship Missiles Back to Submarine Force

[Onkel Neal]

U.S. Navy Considering Adding Anti-Ship Missiles Back to Submarine Force (http://news.usni.org/2015/10/21/u-s-navy-considering-adding-anti-ship-missiles-back-to-submarine-force)

http://i1.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SSGN-Missile-8x10.gif





“For this audience, I’ll tell you we are considering that and we are taking some some steps to delivering that kind of capability to our submarine force and I can’t really say anymore than that,” he said.
The U.S. submarine fleet did use the UGM-84A Harpoon anti-ship missile but that Harpoon variant was retired in 1997. The current primary attack submarines is the anti-ship weapon is Mk 48 heavy torpedo and is limited in its range relative to anti-ship missiles developed and deployed with foreign navies.
In particular, Russian and Chinese submarines field a variety of anti-ship missiles with ranges that far exceed the Mk-48s.
For example, the emerging Chinese YJ-18 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, capable of launching from a People Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) attack boat has an estimated range in excess of 300 miles. Likewise, Russia’s newer Oscar-class attack boats field the supersonic P-700 Granit — known by NATO as the SS-N-19 Shipwreck — with a more than 300-mile range.

Never understood why they did away with them, seems like anything to make a platform for flexible and capable is a good thing.

[ikalugin]

Tamahawk block IV (which should give you sub launch) should give you that capability.

[mapuc]

OK I could be wrong, but doesn't the enemy see where you are, as soon the missile break the surface ?

If so, then I have an idea.

Let the missile be fired as a torpedo, let it, with help of some kind of propulsion, get some distance from the sub, then the rocket propulsion start and it turns up, so it can enter the surface and the air.

By this the enemy can't see where the sub is.

Just an idea

Markus

[nohouan]

I think the LRASM with booster would do the trick. Dual mode TASM with a modified Block IV would be working in no time, but both weapons have evolutionnary designs capabilities of their own.

Since I like testing scenarios, I've had a heavily modded fleet command with NWP & database editor for years, and there always is a challenge for a battle, even in modern times and the characteristics of those weaps.

To answer your idea : It's a good idea, but a weapon like that would have to be extremely expensive in current environments (a long range silent guided and close range missile "swarm" is an old concept, but it can only be filed with the wartech requirement of certain times. For now, I say wait & see).

[Mike Abberton]

I think the reasons for removing the Harpoons from submarines were generally:

1. Salvo Size - Using torpedo tubes, a submarine is severely restricted in the number of missiles it can launch at one time. When the TASM was still around, the 688 VLS subs could increase the salvo size (while accounting for different flight times and Time-On-Target), but without VLS you're limited to 4 Harpoons. Against modern anti-missile defenses, those kind of salvos are generally inadequate unless you catch them completely off-guard and unprepared. Add in the fact that the Harpoon is relatively slow (i.e. subsonic), and it's generally just not that effective. The target of Oscars/Charlies were as much lightly guarded merchant shipping as they were carrier strike groups, and against CSGs, the 65 cm wake homing torpedoes would probably have been better weapons in a lot of ways.

2. Targetting - A submarine just can't really generate reliable targetting solutions at anything like 300 miles. Even with convergence zones, they probably can't even sense something on the surface much more than a third of that distance, and I doubt CZ detections could generate anything other than blind fire solutions. A missile with a 300-mile range really needs some form of mid-course/near-terminal guidance. For a ship-launched ASM, some form of airborne platform (organic/friendly helicopter/airplane) provides that guidance. For a sub, they would need a way to coordinate with that friendly platform to confirm that their 300-mile missile gets the targetting and guidance that's needed. Because the US Navy didn't really have the targets (the Soviets were never really a blue-water force), they never really developed the airborne guidance force/doctrine that would be required. Having a slow, subsonic missile just makes it worse because the flight time is just that much longer. I think the USN went with all-torpedoes because torps better match the targetting abilities of the average sub.

So I think some of the debate around US anti-ship missiles misses the point, and revolves more around the idea that other navies have something that we don't rather than it does about tactical needs.

However, I do think the US Navy needs a supersonic replacement for the Harpoon, although I'm not sure that 300 miles is the magic number for range. And I think it's actually a much, more critical need for the surface fleet than for the subs.

When they do get around to building a new anti-ship missile out for subs, I like Mapuc's idea on a torp/missile, sort of like a reverse ASROC, to get some standoff from the launch point.

[Mike Abberton]

A note on targetting, one other option to mid-course/near-terminal guidance for a long-range missile is a high-low flight pattern where the missile can use it's own radar at a high altitude for the mid-course correction, then dip down to sea-skimming for the terminal run. The downside to that method is that while it's flying high and emitting, the target gets much more warning that it is coming and can take more effective measures to defeat the missile, possibly even beginning counter-fire while the incoming missile still at high altitude.

Mike

[nohouan]

Sorry,

For the question of detectability, it depend on so much environmental factors regarding the type of sensor network that it can invalidate any scenario, but,

Perfect conditions for a submurged attacking plateform launches are beyond line-of-sight horizon range, in order to evade attackers. No sane commander, even close to target would launch cruise missile within 12 to 20nm of a surface plateform above private combatant size today without some brushout.

[ikalugin]

About the long range AShMs. The problem of targeting is indeed there, but it can be solved by:
- using supersonic (or hypersonic even) weapon, this reduces the time between the launch and lock on, thus reducing the initial targeting data requirements.
- using mid course updates from airborne or spaceborne platform. This was done by the Soviets with the radar satelites, present day Russia tries to rebuild this system.
Alternatively you could use long endurance patrol UAVs to detect maritime targets, there were programs to operate such UAVs from submerged platforms in the US.
- using some missiles within the attacking wolf pack to rise up and provide midcourse update data (again done since Soviet era).

Ofcourse for the USN which did not use subs (or non aircraft carrying surface platforms for that matter) for heavy ASh strike duties (USN had carrier based aviation to do that) did not have requirements for all those satelites, supersonic long range AShMs and network centric datalinks the way Soviets had.

Post Soviet dissolution there was no longer an enemy with a blue water Navy and ASW capabilities. Now, with rising PRC and other actors there is a requirement for improved AShMs.

[nohouan]

Mike has goods and clear points.
Personnally, I'm just curious about seeing if they can remove the nuclear fear of the use of ballistic missiles (not that I would be happy about any shift for those weapons).

[ikalugin]

Well, British are developing a Tamahawk sized supersonic cruise missiles with the magic range, so that may do the trick (post 2020).

We on the other hand keep going around 2 sizes for the missiles:
- torpedo tube compatable subsonic (with optional terminal supersonic stage) AShM/long range CM (the Kalibr series).
- larger, VLS only supersonic (with possible hypersonic version) AShM/tactical land attack missile.

[nohouan]

For Ikagulin :

Any dream weapons design that I see for the future : You're right. No future design that I can imagine will miss passive networked homing.

[nohouan]

(Don't hesitate to tell me if I talk too much)

I remember coming accross subsim.com in 98, I was amazed and it openend a myryad of extremely good simultators. Two things I remember learning most from it were the facts that the Tomahawk Anti-Ship variant were no longer produced, and that the Phoenix missile was to be retired (along with the F-14...).

It was a time of heavy fluctuation, wich are now very much over.

I mean to say that I don't think War of the Futures will be determined by the best weapon, but by the best warfare investment (that's how it is, and I hate it).

What the next battlefield will be composed of ?
Every asset that we have now, but swarms of it.

[ikalugin]

How far into the future are we looking? What kind of conflict scenario are we discussing?

[nohouan]

Some 20 years into the future for me. Anything beyond can be very hard to predict :hmmm:.

[ikalugin]

3K22 weapon is confirmed for ther ЗS-14-11442М and modified 3S-14-22350 launchers. My guess is that it would be integrated to all 3S-14 (aka UKSK) launchers.

The integration assumes tests with the 3М22GММ mock ups complete by the end of December, 2016. This implies that the desighn is fairly advanced.
Double posting, as those news appear to be relevant to this topic.