Article

2008-08-06 Home Front: WoT

Stealth Destroyer Largely Defenseless, Admiral Says

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2008-08-06 08:56|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 10:04|| Front Page Top

#2 Does the new "classified threat" come from Iran?

Posted by Danielle 2008-08-06 11:11|| 2008-08-06 11:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Danielle,
More likely from China.

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-08-06 11:19|| 2008-08-06 11:19|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 12:49|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:08|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:17|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:36|| Front Page Top

#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">FOTSGreg 2008-08-06 17:19|| 2008-08-06 17:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Nice going skimmers.

Posted by penguin 2008-08-06 18:01|| 2008-08-06 18:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 20:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 20:14|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 21:33|| Front Page Top

23:55 McZoid
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 McZoid
23:37 3dc
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:14 trailing wife
23:01 Raj
22:51 tu3031
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:39 ed
22:36 Frank G
22:34 ed
22:23 Jusose Darling of the Infinitesmal7029
22:16 Fred
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:02 Red Dawg
21:57 Angie Schultz
21:53 OldSpook
21:50 JosephMendiola
21:45 JosephMendiola
21:33 JosephMendiola