Naval Coastal Defense Cruise Missiles?

Started by bayonetbrant, June 20, 2017, 08:16:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bayonetbrant

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-06/nobody-asked-me-navy-needs-coastal-defense-cruise-missiles


Interesting concept.

Shore defense has traditionally been the purview of the US Army, but a joint acquisition might make sense.

Not sure how those organizations would look, and where they might be deployed, but there's a compelling case for the capability.  I'd be interested to hear what the counterargument to the "need" would be?  Would someone argue that we have a sufficient existing standoff capability with USAF-launched missiles?  That might work for CONUS/Alaska, but would they have sufficient runways in Hawaii if there's an attack?  What about offshore partner nations?

If nothing else, it's an interesting thought exercise.
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

mirth

Makes sense as a system for export to allies. If West Pac were rimmed with nations armed with coastal defense missiles, it could seriously limit the PLAN's freedom of action.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

trailrunner

This is not a new idea.  Some countries already have shore-based ASCMs, such as the RBS-15 and the Spike ER. 

For the U.S., I don't think this idea makes sense, except maybe for Taiwan.  Which coast are we trying to protect?  California?  Hawaii?  Another problem with a shore-based system is initial target acquisition, and it's not clear how we would get that from this concept.  Shore based radars?  Sure, that can be done, but now you have a bunch of fixed sites that can readily be taken out on day one.  And that's getting pretty expensive.  Airborne assets?  Then may as well launch a LRASM from the same plane.

The Navy is having trouble settling on an ASCM acquisition strategy so it's a little confusing, but I think the author of the article is getting the OASuW program confused with the OTH-WS program.  Not sure why he brings up the SM-6 at the end of the fourth paragraph; even he acknowledges that it's not an ASCM.


mirth

Quote from: trailrunner on June 20, 2017, 06:08:31 PM
Not sure why he brings up the SM-6 at the end of the fourth paragraph; even he acknowledges that it's not an ASCM.

It does have anti-ship capability though and respectable range. And it can be bundle with AEGIS Ashore.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

trailrunner

Quote from: mirth on June 20, 2017, 06:28:15 PM
Quote from: trailrunner on June 20, 2017, 06:08:31 PM
Not sure why he brings up the SM-6 at the end of the fourth paragraph; even he acknowledges that it's not an ASCM.

It does have anti-ship capability though and respectable range. And it can be bundle with AEGIS Ashore.

Maybe it can hit a ship, but it's not a big part of the current program, and it's not part of the Navy's long-range anti-ship missile roadmap.

mirth

Quote from: trailrunner on June 20, 2017, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: mirth on June 20, 2017, 06:28:15 PM
Quote from: trailrunner on June 20, 2017, 06:08:31 PM
Not sure why he brings up the SM-6 at the end of the fourth paragraph; even he acknowledges that it's not an ASCM.

It does have anti-ship capability though and respectable range. And it can be bundle with AEGIS Ashore.

Maybe it can hit a ship, but it's not a big part of the current program, and it's not part of the Navy's long-range anti-ship missile roadmap.

There is no current road map for coastal defense missile systems. The article is talking about possible options. It's an existing system.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

trailrunner

Quote from: mirth on June 20, 2017, 07:24:10 PM

There is no current road map for coastal defense missile systems. The article is talking about possible options. It's an existing system.

Yes, you're right.  It is an option.

My point was that the SM-6 has two other missions that are much higher priority than the anti-ship role.  And in the Navy's long-term view, the SM-6 is not a primary anti-ship weapon.

My other point, which I didn't make very clearly, was that I thought that the author got sidetracked talking about the various anti-ship missiles (LRASM, Norwegian Naval Strike Missile) that could be adapted to the coastal defense role.  There's not a lot of debate about this.  But then he got further sidetracked by bringing up SM-6, which although is perhaps a possible potential option, didn't really further his case.  Instead, the real issue worth discussing is whether or not coastal defense missiles make sense in the first place.

mirth

I guess I'm not looking at it as something the USN would really employ in the CONUS. It's something we could develop for use by allies in West Pac. That would be the utility of it for the forseeable future.

I get that SM-6 isn't really a ship killer, but it does have some anti-ship capability and works with an existing system that also has an ABM capability. It's off the shelf and could have appeal to allies. I think the Japanese are already considering AEGIS Ashore for missile defense.
"45 minutes of pooping Tribbles being juggled by a drunken Horta would be better than Season 1 of TNG." - SirAndrewD

"you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire" - Bawb

"Can't 'un' until you 'pre', son." - Gus

bayonetbrant

I took it as "we need something now, so let's pull it off the shelf while we figure out the long-term acquisition plan"
The key to surviving this site is to not say something which ends up as someone's tag line - Steelgrave

"their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights'...and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure." Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

bbmike

Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 20, 2017, 09:33:47 PM
I took it as "we need something now, so let's pull it off the shelf while we figure out the long-term acquisition plan"

Yep, that's the first rule of government acquisition.  \m/
"My life is spent in one long effort to escape from the commonplace of existence."
-Sherlock Holmes

"You know, just once I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets."
-Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart

"There's a horror movie called Alien? That's really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you!"
-The Doctor

"Before Man goes to the stars he should learn how to live on Earth."
-Clifford D. Simak