Bring on the Sea Gryphon!

-

(aka Land-based Maritime Strike Tomahawk)

BGM-109 Gryphon GLCM (fas.org)

With the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the US Army and/or Marine Corps should immediately reconstitute the USAF BGM-109 Gryphon GLCM system using the modern Maritime Strike Tomahawk.   They should stand up independently deployable Gryphon companies and battalions that can be deployed to Europe and the Pacific to greatly bolster anti-ship and land attack capabilities in the region.

The Marines and Army have made noises about developing land-based maritime strike capabilities, but the weapons considered to date are just too short-ranged (e.g. 115 mile range NSM, 190 mile range ATACMS) to have a major impact, given the limited number and location of potential bases.

Maritime Strike Tomahawk's 1,000 mile range can cover large portions of the theater from a handful of friendly operating areas.

Forward-deployed Gryphon battalions in Thailand and Japan can hit targets throughout most of the China Seas and significant portions of the Chinese mainland from dispersed, survivable locations.   Stockpiles of additional missiles could be stored in hidden, hardened locations nearby.



A Gryphon company could be notionally similar to the USAF Gryphon "Flight", with four TELs each carrying four missiles, 22 vehicles total carrying 16 additional missiles with 69 personnel total, including a 44 soldier infantry platoon. (Source: Wikipedia)

A Gryphon battalion would consist of three Gryphon companies, an Air Defense platoon (Stinger or NASAM), an HQ, and supply section carrying another full set of reloads.  Perhaps a total of 3-400 personnel.

Raytheon NASMS


A battalion has 48 ready missiles and 96 reloads.

Obviously Gryphon's two hour flight time causes targeting problems when attacking moving ships, so mid-course guidance updates would have to come from sea or airborne surveillance assets such as MQ-4C Tritons, P-8s, or tactical aircraft such as the F-35.

Gryphon (aka Tomahawk) is not stealthy like LRASM, and isn't hypersonic, but it does have a low-altitude flight profile, which can't be detected by surface ships until it crosses their radar horizon.

Numbers can make up for individual missile survivability.  A battalion-sized salvo of 48 missiles would stress even AEGIS-level air defenses.  At minimum, such a salvo would force air defense ships to expend multiple interceptors per Gryphon.  Even if individual missiles don't have top-tier survivablity, multiple salvos can beat down any air defenses.  You just have to fire more missiles than the enemy has interceptors.

Obviously, Maritime Strike Tomahawks (aka Sea Gryphons) retain all of their land-attack capabilities.  Commanders can decide whether they want to use them against mainland or sea targets.

If the Army wants to regain relevance in the Pacific theater, this is the way to do it.





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