| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Stealth Destroyer Largely Defenseless, Admiral Says |
| 2008-08-06 |
| Two weeks ago, the Navy canceled plans to build the rest of its hulking stealth destroyers. At first, it looked like the DDG-1000s' $5-billion-a-copy price tag was to blame. Now, it appears the real reason has slipped out: The Navy's most advanced warship is all but defenseless against one of its best-known threats. We already knew that the older, cheaper, Burke-class destroyers (pictured) are better able to fight off anti-ship missiles -- widely considered the most deadly (and most obvious) hazard to the American fleet. Specifically, the old Burkes can shoot down those missiles using special SM-3 interceptors; the new DDG-1000 cannot. But now, a leading figure in the Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (and Vice-Admiral) Barry McCullough, is saying that the DDG-1000 "cannot perform area air defense" at all. Never mind the SM-3; the ship isn't designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile, whatsoever. It's presumably limited to the same last-ditch "point defense" systems (think Phalanx guns and short-range interceptors, like the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) that cargo ships, aircraft carriers and even Coast Guard cutters carry in case a missile slips past their screening Burkes. Those point defenses can't intercept ballistic missiles at all -- and when they destroy sea-skimming missiles, the debris can still strike and severely damage the ship. In other words, the world's most expensive surface warship can't properly defend itself or other ships from an extremely widespread threat. That, needless to say, is a problem. Not only is the DDG-1000 vulnerable to the ballistic anti-ship missiles that countries such as China are developing, it wouldn't even be particularly effective at protecting fleets against common weapons in the arsenals of everyone from Russia to Iran. And it's not like this was some kind of new threat; these missiles have been around, in one form or another, since World War II. If that wasn't bad enough, the Navy has been saying all along that the DDG-1000 can fire at least some of Raytheon's missile-killing Standard Missiles. In other words, according to the inestimable Galrahn over at Information Dissemination, "the Navy has been delivering a lunch bag of bullshit to Congress regarding surface combatants for three years." In a 2005 presentation, for instance, the Navy claimed the ship would have a "3X survivability rate" against anti-ship missiles and other threats. The service asserted that the destroyer's new SPY-3 radar would give it a "15X greater detection capability against sea-skimming targets," a "10X increase in maximum track capacity," and a "20 percent greater firm track range against all anti-ship cruise missiles (improves survivability)." Of course, the fanciest radar in the world doesn't do much good, if there's no way to respond to the threat. A Navy source tells Defense News that the new destroyers "could carry and launch Standard missiles, but the DDG 1000 combat system cant guide those missiles onward to a target." And that's not the only flim-flam going on here. For years, the Navy insisted that the DDG-1000 was absolutely crucial, because it could whack targets on land, from far-off at sea. It always seemed like an odd argument; could planes hit those targets just as effectively? But the Navy stuck to it -- repeatedly. Now: Never mind. "With the accelerated advancement of precision munitions and targeting, excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation," Adm. McCullough says. Tell us something we didn't already know. There may be additional threats, as well. Defense News is reporting that the Navy has announced that there's a new "classified threat" against which older Burke-class destroyers are better defended. One source familiar with the classified briefing said that while anti-ship cruise missiles and other threats were known to exist, those aren't the worst. The new threat, which didn't exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile. Other sources confirmed that a new, classified missile threat is being briefed at very high levels. One admiral, said another source, was told his ships should simply Âstay away. There are no options. Information on the new threat remains closely held. In light of this, Galrahn says, the DDG-1000 is little more than a renamed, gold-plated version of a shipbuilding scheme that seemingly died more than a decade ago. That would be the 1990s "Arsenal Ship" concept (pictured), which would have put hundreds of land-attack missiles in a simple, cheap, mostly defenseless hull -- perhaps based on a cargo ship. The Arsenal Ship idea eventually was replaced by the Navy's four new SSGN submarines that each carry more than 100 cruise missiles and don't need anti-air missiles, since they can submerge. "The Navy has not only kept the Arsenal Ship concept alive and well, but they evolved the program from six small dependent combatants into a class of seven independent stealth battleships, then had the program funded and pushed through Congress in plain sight under the pretext of a more capable program," Galrahn writes. That's insider-speak for a simple truth: The Navy screwed up its premiere ship-building project, big-time. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #14 CHINESE MIL FORUM > DEFENSETALK - MISSLE THREAT [Chinese]FORCES [USA/USN]DDG CUT. * "Land-based Ballistic Missle which converts into a Cruise Missle" > REVENGE OF SKHVAL. DDG-1000 ZUMWALTS > a large percentage-ration of ship energies is taken up by afloat pro-Stealth EM Systems in complementary wid its naval design. Also from CMF > RUSSIA TESTS DELTA-3's ]FBM Sub] SS-X-26 MRBMS [SLBMS] in KAMCHATKA. ARTICLE - strongly infers or hints that Russ may be following CHINA's = PLAN's lead in USING AIRCARFT CARRIERS AS POST-COLD WAR SURFACE WARFARE AREA DEFENSE FOR STRATEGIC MISSLE-ATTACK SUBS, AS OPPOS TO SUBS DEFENDING THE CARRIERS VV COLD WAR. Russia is also indic as desiring to build MARITIME CARRIER SYSTEMS = SRATWAR + ANTI-GMD "ARSENAL SHIPS"??? The latter will undoubtedly be deployed in international waters = patrol zones just off the Major US = CANUS/NORAM Coasts. ASYMMETRIC NAVAL BATTLESPACE WARFARE > Arsenal Ships + Subs, etc. are now "MOTHER SHIPS" TO "FIRE-AND-FORGET" PUSHBUTTON MISSLES, + REMOTE-CONTROLLED ANDOR INDEPENDENT MANEUVER SURFACE- AND UNDERWATER SRATEGIC ATTACK WEAPONS, INCLUD STRATWAR UVS FOR NUCLEAR ATTACKS. Looks like those offshore MERCHANT SHIPS often seen or viewed by US beachcombers AREN'T CARRYING TRADE CARGO/GOODIES ANYMORE??? Dare the LONGSHOREMEN become part of the USDOD Stalin/MarxReich GosBureau of Amerika? D *** NG IT, "USSA, USSA, USSA........."! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-06 21:33 |
| #13 Also bear in mind that one major reason the USN is deliber sinking many of its best, albeit older, warships is becuz its too risque for these to sold or given to international customers, vv ANTI-US TECHS TRANSFERS + UTILITY IN WAR [resale to hostile nations]. US CONGRESS SAYS NO $$$ = BUDGET TO PUT IN [protective]INACTIVE RESERVE FOR YEARS OR DECADES, NAVY HQ SAYS "SINK 'EM"! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-06 20:14 |
| #12 I'm interpreting this artic as the USDOD-Navy trying hard NOT to say that the DDG-1000's ARE TOO STEALTHY FOR ITS OWN GOOD, i.e. that the ships' stealth capabils LIMITS HOW MUCH FIREPOWER IT CAN CARRY FOR OFFENSIVE + DEFENSIVE MISSIONS AS PER MAJOR OCEAN-GOING READY CARRIER-AMPHIB TASK GROUPS/FORCES. Think AEGIS MISSLE-ARMED SUPERSTEALTHY COAST GUARD CUTTER/LIGHT COASTAL DEFENSE SHIP [LCS], which is NOT the preferred traditional mission scope of the USN, espec now vee proposed "OWG GLOBAL TASK FORCE". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-06 20:06 |
| #11 Nice going skimmers. |
| Posted by: penguin 2008-08-06 18:01 |
| #10 It's long been rumored that the SM2, especially the extended range version has anti-ship capability rather than just anti-missile and anti-air. In light of the fact that the vertically-launched missile platforms already in or going into service carry dozens of the things, it's quite likely true. Harpoon and Tomahawk has long been the designated anti-ship and anti-land missiles in the USN's arsenal, but even a CGN can only carry so many of those. If one takes into account the probability that US fleets would likely be engaged by a large number aircraft firing a large number of standoff anti-ship missiles and only have to engage a small number of actual naval vessels firing a limited number of anti-ship missiles of their own, the need for air and anti-missile defense seems a clear reason to stick with a limited number of real ship-killers and a much larger number of air and missile defense weapons onboard. Single-shot kill missiles are extremely rare these days and despite what the Chinese claim, I doubt the Silkworm could kill a carrier with a single hit. The old Russian Kangaroo had more punch to it, but doesn't stand a chance of getting through modern US air defenses unless somebody royally screws the pooch somewhere along the line (the Kangaroo's one helluva' big missile). |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-08-06 17:19 |
| #9 RAM has an IR seeker, as do versions of the SM-2 missile. I suspect the warhead on a SRBM would be fairly visible in the IR. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-06 13:36 |
| #8 China is working on a ballistic missile with with a maneuvering reentry warhead to attack our carriers. Think Pershing 2, maybe even including an infrared seeker. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-08-06 13:17 |
| #7 A Navy source tells Defense News that the new destroyers "could carry and launch Standard missiles, but the DDG 1000 combat system cant guide those missiles onward to a target." It's called 'extended magazine' and has been around at least a decade. Essentially it allows an Ageis equipped warship to remotely fire missiles from another platform. The Arsenal Ship idea eventually was replaced by the Navy's four new SSGN submarines that each carry more than 100 cruise missiles and don't need anti-air missiles, since they can submerge. The Arsenal Ship was also to be a fire-support vessel for the Marines. That kind of rapid response is a bit hard to do with a submerged SSN. Sounds like we have a bit of intramural warfare being played out in the press. I'm no fan of the Zumwalt-class, but Galrahn ain't no Alfred Thayer Mahan, and 'Wired' sure isn't where I'd go for informed news on ships. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-08-06 13:08 |
| #6 Things like this come from the services trying to make program management a separate career track. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-08-06 13:08 |
| #5 OS: I'm not certain whoever wrote this knows what he's talking about. The SM-3 is purpose-built for anti-ballistic missile use, with only a few per ship thanks to its expense... it's not cheap or plentiful enough to be used to shoot down wave-skimming missiles. I could also point out that the ESSM (which I think he's confused with RAM) has an alleged operational range of 25 miles, which is probably more than enough range to blow up a missile without worrying about the debris from the explosion. I know of no coast guard cutters that carry it currently. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-08-06 13:06 |
| #4 Someone really hosed this - heads shoudl roll, especially at the top. Liek happened in the USAF. Wanna fix things and shake them up at the same time? Promote a USMC General as the Boss of the Navy. As for a solution, why not modernize the Burke's design like the way the carriers are being redesigned with EM launchers instead of steam cats, etc. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-08-06 12:49 |
| #3 Danielle, More likely from China. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-08-06 11:19 |
| #2 Does the new "classified threat" come from Iran? |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-08-06 11:11 |
| #1 The bigger picture seems to be that there is a need for a weapons system that can detect and engage sea-skimming missiles when they are still over the horizon. |
| Posted by: Elmavirong Johnson3058 2008-08-06 10:04 |