On Phasers and Photon Torpedoes

-



Multiple, recent papers from the Navy think tank community1 has espoused the benefits of solid state lasers (SSLs), electromagnetic rail guns and hyper velocity projectiles (HVPs) to increase the magazine depth of Navy ships when defending against cruise and ballistic missile strikes.

Laser Weapon System aboard USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) in November 2014 (05).JPG
LaWS on Ponce


However none of these technologies has come close to shooting down even simulated cruise missiles.  At best SSLs have shot down small, light weight UAVs.

BAE HVP


Current HVP programs haven't even done this.  They are still heavily in the research phase.

The one exception is the OTO Melara Strales/DART program, which appears to be far closer to production.  However, it is purely a Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) replacement.   It's unclear to me how many successful tests of this system have occurred.

Image result for strales dart
OTO Melara Strales 76mm gun

Image result for strales dart
OTO Melara DART munition


Before we "bet the farm" on the transformational power of SSLs and HVPs to allow our ships to penetrate the peer A2/AD zone, maybe we should ask them to shoot down a few representative threats first.  And then do so under operational conditions, with multiple inbounds and inclement weather.  

Until then, they're just science fiction.

Image result for phasers pew pew

1 "Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress", https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf.

 "WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION: REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES",  http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6173-PGM2_Report_WEB_2.pdf
 ↩

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IAFM - Fleet Architecture (Battle Force 2045 Edition)

-
Image
Table of Contents Introduction Fleet Architecture Key Concepts Bimodal Presence and Maneuver Forces New Task Force Types Ship Types Aviation CV55 CVL-150 Subsurface Combatant SSK Large Combatants SC-150 FPD-150 FMG-150 Small Combatants LCK Logistics &Auxiliary This version of the IAFM is sized to correspond to the Navy's Battle Force 2045 and "355" fleet designs.  As such, it is more expensive than our existing fleet design, or the recent Hudson fleet design. The IAFM is broken down into categories of ships: Aviation, Subsurface Combatants, Large Combatants, Small Combatants, and Logistics & Auxiliaries.  Each section lists the steady-state count of each ship type, a notional "First In Class" cost, a discounted unit cost that applies a learn factor and build rate discount to generate an average cost, a service life of each ship in the class, and the resulting build rate.  I also include a notes column that describes roughly what each type of ship is.   A...
Read more

IAFM - Ship Types - Frigate Platform Dock (FPD-150)

-
Image
Introduction The Frigate Platform Dock (FPD-150) is the most flexible ship in the IAFM.  It came about when I was mulling over how to provide enough escorts for SAGCOMs and CVCOMs, while still supporting forward deployed Marine forces.   The existing US Navy force model splits amphibious vessels (LPD, LSD, LHD/A) and escorts into distinct pools. However you still have to provide escorts for ESGs as well as CVBGs.  But if you look at a modern amphibious ship, like the LPD-17, the systems aboard aren't that far off from those on a frigate.  It has an air defense radar, short-range SAM systems and C4ISR.   So my thought was, why not smash together the capabilities of a guided-missile frigate and a modest-sized LPD and make a self-escorting "Frigate Platform Dock"?  This way, every ESG is always self-escorting.  Also, an ability to perform strike with VLS-based munitions, and Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) with Multiple Launched Rocket System ...
Read more

Pimp My S/IBCT - Round 2 - Bring Back the Independent Tank Battalion

-
Image
M1A2 SEPv3 In the previous Pimp My IBCT, I suggested using a combination of refurbished M-ATVs to achieve full vehicular mobility for some IBCTs.  This would give them a degree of tactical and operational mobility near that of the Stryker BCTs.   They would suffer off-road, in comparison to the SBCT, but would be at least as mobile on roads, with lower logistics overhead. However both SBCTs and mounted IBCTs are still severely hamstrung if used offensively.  The Stryker ICV is protected against 14.5mm HMGs organically, and partially protected against RPG-7s with slat armor.   It is not protected against heavier RPGs (e.g. RPG-29) or any ATGMs. M-ATV is protected against 7.62mm rounds only.  So even this guy would ruin its day. Source: Wikipedia Aggressive, offensive use of either BCT type against foes with anti-armor systems, or in built-up areas, would likely result in heavy casualties.  Both BCT types will be stuck either dis...
Read more