Araner
Posts: 50
Joined: 10/27/2014
Status: offline
|
Now that it seems"Offset" has replaced 'Air-Sea Battle" as the term du-jour amidst Pentagon City think tank circle,s I thought I would modelsome of the concepts behind the buzz words play out in a simulated battle. Specifically, I'll be examining two studies published by the influential CSBA which focus on how to defeat the growing threat of "Anti-Access/Aerial Denial" weaponry like smarter IADs and ASuW systems.
The first study entitled "Commanding the Sea: A Plan to Reinvigorate Surface US Navy Warfare" argues for retooling existing surface ships with better long-range offensive capabilities. Recommendations include replacing the Tomahawk Cruise Missile with a land/sea attack variant of the new LRASM.
The second study entitled "Toward a New Offset Strategy" argues that the navy needs to "offset" A2/AD threats by doubling down in areas where the U.S retains a clear technological edge. So less focus on the F-35 and more on combining stealth with unmanned assets like the UCLASS. They also strongly advocate prioritizing research in the undersea domain including more capable UUVs and sub-launched recon UAVs. Perhaps the most ambitious recommendation envisions underwater missile trucks spread all over the ocean either as "undersea payload modules" deployed on the seafloor or as a kind of "missile trailer" that can be towed into place by manned or unmanned SSNs.
Scenarios
I chose to simulate two common scenarios involving hostilities between the US Navy/Air Force and the PLA/PLA Navy. The first modified the existing "Play the Fool" scenario which takes place in the South China Sea, while the second was created from scratch and took place in the East China Sea. Both scenarios were set in 2020 and assumed platforms like the DDG 51 (Flight III), LCS (Small Surface Combatant), Ford Class Carrier,UCLASS, F-35s, Virginia Payload Modules, Naval Strike Missile, LRASM and MMT Tomahawk were operational along with various sea and sub launched ISR-UAVs. The only developmental combat system I left out was the Long Range Bomber, as not enough information exists to model it accurately.
Deployment of PLA/PLAN weaponry assumed legacy platforms like the older Type 053 frigates and J7 fighter had been replaced by modern J-10s and 052D Destroyers. It also assumed a fully functioning ASBM kill chain, including the launcher vehicles themselves, multiple OTH-SW radar installations and long endurance naval UAVs. High profile technologies like the J-20 Stealth fighter were included in smaller numbers.
Obviously, not all the recommended technologies are available in the CMANO database, but a reasonable representation can usually be substituted. This was generally the case with the "Undersea Payload Modules" for which I just used all four SSGNs instead. The toughest piece to model was the need for persistent tactical aerial ISR in the form of small sub-launched UAVs about the same size as a Scan Eagle.
Layout and Loadouts
In both scenarios, I replaced every version of the Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) with the land and sea "Multi-Mission" Tomahawk (MMT). In some cases, the total number of MMTs was cut to allow space for the long range LRASM missiles, but there was usually enough space to accommodate all of them. Every version of the LCS came equipped with a complement of Naval Strike Missiles as a Mission Package and one LCS even added a small MK54 VLS with ESSM missiles for extra air protection.
I also replaced many of the Super-Hornets with Growlers as they were all used in the SEAD role.
Outcomes
Scenario results generally aligned with the reports'recommendations in that manned strike aircraft were generally useless in the SEAD role and UAV technology has not been optimized with either the speed or stealth to be used as an effectiv first strike platform. That leaves long range cruise missiles as our front line. While the supersonic LRASM-B is in the database, in reality it was cancelled meaning the LRASM remains a subsonic weapon, albeit a very smart subsonic weapon. The MMT has less range than the preceding TACTOM as it had to sacrifice fuel for extra sensory equipment. Lacking a missile with sufficient speed to hit the enemy first, from a distance, I had to shorten the distance traveled by locating launch platforms as close to enemy targets as possible. That means forward deploying submarines with as many strike missiles as possible. In this regard, the SSGN with it 156 missile tubes (vs a current Virginia Class SSN with 12) made the critical difference. One SSGN positioned relatively near the enemies littoral, was enough to sufficiently degrade enemy IADs AND surface assets to allow manned aircraft a chance to take on the enemy in the air.
The MMT performed sufficiently well enough as a naval weapon to take on vessels like the Type 054A Frigate and Type 056 Corvette but did seem to be easily spoofed by higher-end 052C+052D Destroyers. The LRASM on the other hand might have to circle around a few times but always managed to avoid enemy defenses and find its target without fail. Coupled with the fact that the MMT can also give submarines a long range ASuW option, I see the MMT emerging as the workhorse weapon of the future, with the LRASMbeing reserved for high value targets like future CBGs and escorting Destroyers. Much depends on the MMTs ability to get targeting updates in mid-flight. Thus far the LRASMs autonomous targeting capability seems to make it a better "fire and forget' weapon. Nevertheless, I could envision a scenario where the early battle phases are solely made up of two or three missile types fired en-masse wherein they can linger until targets meeting a certain criteria are all located.
In my modified version of the South China Sea-based "Play the Fool" scenario, one SSGN/undersea payload module and three Virginia Class subs (with VPNs) carrying a mixture of MMTs and LRASMs were sufficient to completely degrade enemy aerial defense capabilities before carrier craft could even get half way there.
The East China Sea scenario was somewhat different, as the priority targets were the mobile ASBMs and the OTH targeting capabilities. The OTH radars are large static installations, so they were relatively easy to eliminate, but the mobile launchers are always tough to find. This outcome exposes a major gap in the Pentagon's anti-A2AD strategy as currently envisioned... The lack of a long endurance, low-altitude, tactical ISR platform. Over blue water the navy has its choice of Triton/Global Hawk/E2D Hawkeyes for broad area search and the P8 Poseidon for taking a closer look. No such option currently exists over enemy territory, where mobile missile launchers form a crucial piece of any A2/AD system. The RQ-170 stealth UAV is currently the only option with any reasonable expectation of survivability available for ISR over mainland China in both scenarios, but this is likely insufficient for targets like mobile launchers. What is really required is something akin to the fuel-cell powered "Sea Robin XFC" which was fired underwater using a Tomahawk launcher before unfolding an x-wing shape and staying in flight for up to six hours. Various methods of recovery are also being tested.
I could also envision a UAV element being incorporated into the missile itself in lieu of the current submunition payload. Such payloads could be a single, Scan Eagle-sized vehicle, a swarm of microcopters or a more practical implementation of DARPAs "Perch and Stare" project. DARPA's current "Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node" (TERN) program is attempting to develop more options in the "Medium-Altitude Long Endurance"(MALE) category but an undersea capability is only envisioned as a possible follow-on upgrade. Relying on surface vessels for launch and recovery would either require the vessels put themselves in considerable risk in range of costal weapons systems, or it would require the UAV spend most of its fuel transiting to station. A sub launched version would have much shorter distance to station and therefore could be considerably smaller.
|
Printable Version
Modelling future A2/AD offset strategies. - 
RE: Modelling future A2/AD offset strategies. - 
"ECM/EMP" 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread