When I engage in naval tactical discussions that include technology discussion, I usually start with a single question. Have you ever read
Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat by Wayne P. Hughes? In the industry, the answer is usually no, but when it is yes I usually find myself talking to a retired officer or someone who truly understands which technologies in naval warfare matter, and which are simply hype. The reason Captain Hughes book applies is simple, the fusion between tactics and technology Hughes lays out applies as well today as it does when the first edition was written, and the second edition is even better. Bottom line, the utilization of technology in naval tactics requires understanding the conditions, and without that type of objective context to the application of technology in tactics, a technology discussion alone is ultimately futile.
Lets discuss it anyway.
On Sunday DefenseReview.com ran an article called "
U.S. Aircraft Carriers Vulnerable to Attack?: The Ticking Time Bomb" which basically claims carrier air power in the form of large carriers has been made by weapons like anti-ship missiles and the Shkval torpedo. The article propagates a number of myths common on the internet about naval weapon systems, and emphasizes the wrong technologies critical in naval tactical discussions.
When you talk about anti-ship missiles you are ultimately weighing factors in performance, specifically speed vs stealth plus range, guidance, and countermeasures. The debate some attempt to exercise is in determination of which weapons are better and why. What is ironic about the naval weapon technology debate is usually the metrics used by some in their proclamation of a weapon system being better is also the reason why it isn't. When you apply the wrong metrics, that can happen. Lets start by comparing supersonic vs subsonic missiles.
The advantage supersonic missiles have over subsonic missiles is speed. The greater the speed of the missile the less the engagement window exists to intercept the missile. The disadvantage of speed is that detection is made much easier, particularly via IR (although there are other methods). In other words, the advantage of supersonic missiles to reduce the engagement window ends up ultimately being negated because the missiles are easier to detect, thus easier to intercept.
The advantage subsonic missiles have over supersonic missiles is stealth. The greater the stealth of a missile the more difficult it is to detect and intercept. The disadvantage of subsonic missiles is that the engagement window is bigger due to its reduced speed. It is noteworthy that since 1982 that most subsonic anti-ship missiles that weren't detected at launch have effectively hit its target, and oh btw, most were not detected at launch. Unfortunately for supersonic missiles, modern detection systems are very apt in detecting the enormous signature generated when launching a supersonic weapon at sea.
Guidance is also critical. The best weapon systems utilize multiple options for guidance in a weapon system, whether it is IR, radar, GPS, Inertial, etc.., the more options for guidance the more effective the weapon system. There are various decoys and electronic warfare options for non kinetic defense against simplistic guidance systems, which is why it is becoming more common to see more complicated guidance capabilities on weapons.
Applying these basics, it becomes easy to debunk myths propagated in articles like the defense update article. For example, the
SS-N-22 Sunburn (a.k.a. 3M-82 Moskit a.k.a. P270 Moskit) is the most overrated anti-ship missile you will ever read about. First, it is easily detected not only via IR but by its radar system. The missile has virtually no stealth at all. The missile only has radar guidance, making it easier to defeat without kinetic intercept, and finally the Sunburn has a very limited range and has no countermeasures. In other words, in the various technical categories that determine whether the weapon used to evaluate the capability of a weapon technology, the Sunburn ranks kindof low in each category but speed.
Compare the Sunburn to the latest
Exocet missiles. The Exocet has inertial guidance that helps prevent jamming, the missile has protection from EW, it has more than twice the range of the Sunburn, and it has excellent stealth.
The
VA-111 Shkval Supercavitating Rocket Torpedo can be judged by the same criteria. The super fast underwater weapon has terrible range, no guidance at all, no stealth at all, and no countermeasures at all. When ranking torpedo's, the Shkval belongs in the same category as the Mk 8 used in the Falklands by the Royal Navy.. better speed, same guidance, smaller warhead.
The Shkval is overrated, a use once weapon that does physical impact to a warship with a WWII era navy mine warhead. In other words, it is an effective weapon against smaller ships, the ships most likely to be able to avoid a hit from an unguided torpedo. It will take multiple hits to sink a larger vessel, and a larger vessel is likely to have escorts guaranteed to know the submarines position and kill it. Sorry, but if using a weapon gets you killed, the weapon might be overrated.
Future anti-ship missiles, and in fact future supercavitation weapon technologies, are attempting to find balance in all of the advantages without the disadvantages. Example, slower approach for stealth, inertial guidance in transit, EW protection, but will be fast (supercavitation or supersonic) in the terminal phase with multiple terminal guidance options.
Needless to say, I disagree with the defense update assessment that large carriers are obsolete solely because of technology advancements in anti-ship weapon technology. Technology has never been and still isn't the primary deciding factor in naval warfare, tactics is that factor.
I expect to see myths in naval weapons technology hit a fever pitch over the next few months as more and more people believe a war with Iran may become reality. The threat of the Sunburn or Shkval may frighten some as their characteristics are touted as overwhelming capabilities to which the US Navy has no counter, but those technologies don't rank in the top concerns I have regarding the threats facing the US Navy from Iran.
The disproportionate effect of mines (both dumb and smart) and submarines simply by their presence alone in naval warfare, combined with the relative simplicity to transport and deploy smaller weapons like the small and simple C-701 from truck sized mobile vehicles near the Iraqi Oil Terminals highlights how a focus on strengths and weaknesses in technology are irrelevant to the wise application of tactics to the battlefield.
As you may or may not have heard, last week the Greek frigate Bouboulina (F 463) responded to an SOS by a Russian Navy repair ship, the PM 138, when the repair ship lost power during a heavy storm. The rescue by all accounts was a success, involving a tug and the frigate, the Russian ship was towed to port where repairs were made. The Russian Naval vessel has departed port and is back to sea.
