Reason for writing: the world of technology is changing and it seemed to
be a good place to start looking at unmanned systems.
Key Words/Phrases:
·
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – Britain’s
principle strategic alliance,
·
Type 26 Global Combat Ship: no not a British version
of the USN’s Littoral Combat Ship, but a Frigate successor to the Type 22 class
·
TLAM: Tactical Land Attack Missile more commonly
called a Cruise missile
·
SSM: Surface to Surface Missile
·
SAM: Surface to Air Missile
·
ASM: Anti-Submarine Missile
·
UCAV: Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle, in this work is
mainly used to refer to the X-47 - The
currently under development, but conducting carrier deck operations and flying,
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle, the X-47 is the future of stealth strike &
reconnaissance; hence there is no coincidence that it looks like a mini B-2
bomber.
·
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – Britain’s
principle strategic alliance,
·
Surface Combatants: Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers
and Cruisers…the back bone of any navy these are the vessels which provide the
presence/patrolling in peace, the task group fire power in war time and are
essential to pretty much everything a fleet can be required by its government
to do – sometimes is divided into Minor & Major surface combatants with the
size split at ~5000tons.
·
Aircraft Carrier: as defined by a paraphrasing of
Admiral Caspar John (1st Sea Lord) -
o
An air
field operating anything from thirty sixty to eighty aircraft; with the fuel,
stores, fire-fighting equipment and so on which go with it.
o
A couple
of batteries of heavy anti-aircraft defences with ammunition and control gear.
o
A minor
Battersea Power Station.
o
A big
radio transmitting and receiving station.
o
The radar,
communications and other ancillaries equivalent to an RAF fighter sector
controller.
o
Consider
all the personnel (about two thousand) and accommodation wanted for these
functions, then issue them all with three month’s provisions
o
Now put
the whole lot inside a metal box eight hundred feet long by ninety feet wide,
by about ninety feet high, make the box self-propelled and operate aircraft
from the top of the lid.
·
LPH: Landing Platform Helicopter – like an aircraft
carrier in terms of having a large flight deck/island configuration, but
doesn’t carry fighter aircraft and concentrates on troop transport.
·
LHA: Landing Platform Helicopter/Attack – basically an
LPH but with the ability to operate fighter aircraft of the VSTOL type.
·
LHD: aviation wise similar to an LHA usually, but as
well as flight deck it also has a stern ‘dock’ that landing craft can operate
out of allowing troops & heavy equipment to be sent ashore
·
Aviation ship: generic term used to cover any vessel
where the primary method of functioning within it’s role is the support of
aviation, i.e. aircraft carrier, LHA or LHD.
·
Radar Horizon = the distance at which an
aircraft/ship can be detected on or traveling as close as makes no difference
to the surface of the earth = √(2xHx(4Re/3))
[2]
o
The radius
of the Earth used is 20,925,524.9ft, and is represented by Re.
o
Height of
the radar above the surface is represented by H.
o
While
every attempt is made to make the figures given as accurate as possible they
are only general guides as there are some factors such as the transmitting
radar's power, pulse length and Pulse Repetition Frequency, PRF, and the target
echoing area are either protected information or unknown.
·
Carrier Strike: strike aircraft launching from
carriers
·
ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare
·
AEW: Airborne Early Warning – flying radar, what the
RN was missing in the Falklands war, and the one change which would have made a
big difference to every operation.
·
Suppression of Enemy Air Defences: otherwise called
SEAD, this is a primary Day 1 task, and if a force is not capable of carrying
it out then the country that deploys it does not possess an expeditionary
capability.
·
‘Land Strike’: strike aircraft flying from airbases
·
Fleet Air Defence: this is a layered thing like an
onion[3],
the aircraft from the carrier provide the outermost layer air defence – if an
attack can be stopped at the ranges of this it represents by far the safest
course of action.
·
Close Air Support (sometimes called Combat Air
Support): it’s when aircraft act as artillery and provide direct fire in
support of ground forces.
·
UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
·
Rotary Wing: Helicopter
·
Fixed Wing: planes
·
Tilt Rotor: aircraft like V-22 Osprey where they can
fly as either fixed wing or helicopter depending upon the ‘attitude’ of the
engines.
Context:
Automation is no longer coming it’s
here; unmanned aviation has become a constant and pervasive feature of modern,
whilst cruise missiles are seeming to have become an almost ubiquitous item
with every country seemingly wishing to announce itself by developing its own.
However, some of the developments around these systems present a problem for
those seeking to evaluate programs and divine enough of the likely future to
make smart decisions on procurement in these stringent times.
The main problem is one of
similarity; with cruise missiles now developing loitering capability and some
UAVs carrying a ‘suicide’ capability the differences between them are seemingly
starting to narrow; even some cruise missiles now carry multiple warheads,
meaning that distinction is no longer really valid. Therefore when deciding
between the two, the definition that has to be worked to is: a cruise missile
is that which is planned to be used & expended and UAV is that which is
planned to be used & reused.
The use of cruise missiles and UAVs
are now ubiquitous in modern warfare, although they haven’t been the public
conscious for that long. The Cruise Missiles came of age in the public eye
during the 1991 Gulf War, where 290 were launched/ 242 hit their targets[4]:
since then it has become the benchmark by which cruise missiles are measured,
whilst it sub-sonic, it has a variety of warheads/versions available, and Block
II generation had a range of 1,350nmi/2,500km[5]
(in comparison the range of Block IV is 700nmi/1,300km[6]). In
comparison to the use of the Tomahawk other cruise missiles have been used
almost sparingly; perhaps a result of the range of platforms it works, but also
more than likely due to the countries which use it and their approach to
warfare.
The 1991 Gulf War also saw the
first major use of UAVs, although on a less visible scale; the RQ-2 Pioneer
UAVs operated from the US Navy’s Iowa class
battleships to provide those ships with targeting data for their main guns
during the conflict[7].
Of course since then UAVs have accelerated rapidly, to the point where they are
taking off from & landing on aircraft carriers (Northrop Grumman X-47B[8]),
some have been miniaturised to the point they serve the individual infantryman
(Prox Dynamics AS Black Hornet Nano[9]),
and traverse the world in single flights (Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk[10]);
let alone being utilised to a growing extent in conflicts all over that world (General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper[11]).
The trouble for navies is how are
these going to be used in the future? A recently it has been postulated by some
that all ships are aircraft carriers now, whilst this is not true in anything
more than the broadest sense (carrying a helicopter and/or a couple of small
UAVs does not an aircraft carrier make): there is a change taking place, not a
revolution but an evolution, the range of engagement of individual vessels is
increasing. When Roman & Greek ships fought, their engagement range was
limited to that of bows & arrows, by the time of Nelson it was still
limited visual range but the ordinance that was being thrown was far weightier;
it was not until the aircraft carrier came of age that a true beyond visual
range engagement capability was available. Now with UAVs and long range
missiles the range of engagement of a warship is far in excess of that dictated
by the Mk.1 Eyeball. The trouble is for all this potential to be in a warship,
it has to be big… there is no point having the ability to launch one cruise
missile such a vessel would be woefully limited in its operational potential.
Now with the growth in UAVs and
cruise missiles reaching a level of development which means they can now feed
off each other, surface combatants now have the ability to monitor, locate and
strike without ever coming within 500miles of the target; increasing the area
an enemy needs to monitor by over 1700x[12].
Of this increases safety of the crew, and is an effect magnifier if not a force
multiplier[13].
But for this to happen it requires joined up thinking in the planning stage,
with follow through in the building and operating stages; designing the Type 45
Area Air Defence Destroyers (AADs) with the capacity for a Mk 41 VLS that could
launch Tomahawk, SM-3s[14]
or Asters is not the same as actually fitting it with it[15]. The
same as whilst the Boeing Insitu ScanEagle UAV is a step in the right direction,
each escort would need to carry multiple (at least three) to be able to
maintain a permanent over watch; furthermore ScanEagle is a limited function
UAV, it’s capable of providing infra-red video surveillance[16]
only. A problem accentuated by the limitations of it’s launch/recovery system;
it’s launched using a pneumatic catapult, but recovered via net, not a sensible
system if it was carrying weapons or very sensitive instruments. However, as a cheap surveillance tool they’re
excellent so are still useful. There is though is another option, which in fact
the USN is already proceeding at pace with it, rotary wing UAVs or unmanned
helicopters. The MQ-8 Fire Scout has been developed as a multi-role platform,
it carries sensors to enable it’s ship to mount beyond visual range strikes, it
can also carry its own weapons, and be used as a logistical support unit
ferrying loads[17].
It is not though a panacea, and therefore perhaps another similarity will
emerge between cruise missiles and UAVs, multiple types will be carried; cheap
& cheerful surveillance tools and more costly multi-role capability
extending units as well – rather like many ships carry both SSM and TLAM
systems.
Key Points:
·
Missiles
Figure 1. A Royal Navy Submarine launched Tomahawk TLAM in flight[18]
|
o New TLAM
§
The replacement for the Tomahawk has big shoes to
fill, not because the Tomahawk is particularly spectacular (although certainly
very capable) system, but because it has achieved such a status that any
successor will have to be not only very good, but faultless upon service entry
otherwise it will face colossal criticism and be trumpeted as a failure, no
matter what the reality. The biggest problem though is designing for forty+
years, the Tomahawk by the time it leaves service (probably in 2020s) will have
done that, and is still a capable system. The current program hoping to answer
these questions is the Cruise Missile XR (Extended Rang), and despite the
rather childlike desire to stick an X in its name it looks good; it will be
heavier (2.2 tons), have a longer range (1,000nautical miles + /2,000 Km+), and
a larger (1 ton) warhead. It will also be of course stealthier (the new buzz
requirement) thanks to the use of new materials and design practices; and will
make use of a combination of guidance and targeting systems to improve it’s
chances of successful penetration of enemy air space. Price wise will be the
problem, as with 6,000 Tomahawks providing a guideline on how many might have
to be bought, a cost of 3x as much is going to probably hit rate of
introduction hard[19].
 |
Figure 2. One of the Royal Navy's 13 Type 23 Frigates, HMS
Montrose, firing a Harpoon SSM[20]
|
o New SSM
§ There
hasn’t been a really new purpose designed SSM since the Harpoon which entered
service in 1977 and the Exocet which had entered service four years earlier in
1973. These are vital weapon systems and they are out of date, and just as
important as the longer range TLAMs; in the age where naval air and stealthy
subs are seeming to take all the anti-surface missions it might seem strange,
but ships need the ability to engage other ships – because sometimes they will
be on their own (a problem especially as fleets have grown smaller), and
sometimes events will conspire that they are the only ones who can do it. Therefore
it’s not surprising that successor is being developed, in the US the Defence
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has lead the way, by developing the
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)[21]. It
began with two options, a high risk but potentially high reward ramjet-powered
supersonic missile capable of setting the world on fire with it’s new
technologies, this was LRASM-B; and DARPA, the agency which gave the world the
internet, decided to focus on the safer option. The LRASM-A is being developed
by Lockheed Martin, the makers of the F-35, and is being based on their already
in existence, in service stealthy, subsonic, turbofan-powered AGM-158 Joint
Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) cruise missile – to be correct its
based on the AGM-158B or Extended Range (ER – no pointless X) version. This
version will double the AGM-158 JASSM’s range to over 500 miles/434 nautical
miles…there is a problem though with this, in that whilst the TLAM market has
few contenders, there are a range of options available for SSM replacements,
Boeing for example is producing a new stealth harpoon[22],
and also make the Joint Stand Off Weapon – Extended Range (JSOW-ER)[23].
Further to this there is the possibility that the programs of LRASM &
Cruise Missile XR could be combined, although that would mean a program
replacing around about 13,000missiles.
Figure 3. AN X-47b aboard
the USS Truman[24]
|
o Competition
from UAVs[25]
§ Is not as
big as some think, the reasons being these missiles can be used by UAVs,
certainly the smaller SSM, and perhaps with the UCAVs such as the X-47B
bringing back the potential of strategic strike aircraft being part of an
Aircraft Carrier’s air group, even the new TLAM would be able to be deployed.
Finally, UAVs as more is expected from them, as more redundancy &
reliability is built into them will get more expensive, but also more useful –
this means the value of sacrificing them will be higher, whereas missiles are
there to be sacrificed. UAV’s are not meant to be sacrificed, they’re utility
is directly related to the fact they are re-usable. This is not to say that the
balance might shift between the two system sets, but like most technology in warfare
one will not erase the other; there will ‘merely’ be evolution.
·
UAVs
o AEW
§ UAVs could
offer a unique capability where Airborne Early Warning is concerned,
unencumbered by the need for a pressurised cabin to go to high altitude they
really do offer individual ships the chance to really ‘see’ all around them.
Further to this is the cost, numbers and safety of personnel advantages are
clear… the AEW is the big, necessary, squawking siren of the battlefield – the
number one target, and the surely the most perfect role for a UAV. It terms of
numbers, UAVs are cheaper and as a rule smaller than the helicopters/planes
used as AEW aircraft at the moment, they would also need to carry less
equipment as the actual control could be done from the ship (which has all the
appropriate facilities already) so it actually needs to take up less weight of
equipment.[26]
o Reconnaissance/Over-watch
§ Modern
warfare is about information, it’s about finding out what is going on around
you and making sure you keep up to date on what’s going on after it’s been
found. This is a role which UAVs have already to a large extent made their own,
and is arguably the reason why the ScanEagle is proving so popular, because
this is what it does.
o Communications
§ Satellites
are not as secure/cost effect as they once were, ASAT weapons are proliferating[27]
and some countries have (part) privatised or reduced their number of
satellites; making secure tactical/theatre communication a premium. There are
many attachment systems now coming available, and soon such a role might well
be combined with other functions to provide a one stop electronic support
aircraft (i.e. radar and communications). Furthermore the development in laser
based communications means that such a system[28],
could make task group/force communications for all intents and purposes
un-interceptable by enemy systems; with the extra benefit of the satellite
communication systems that UAVs are usually fitted with anyway being able to be
used to relay communications to the national headquarters/back home without
having to turn on the ship’s own transmitters.
 |
Figure 4. UAVs which look
very similar to the MQ-8 Fire Scout acting as communication relays[29]
|
o Persistent
Strike/Combat Air Support/Helicopter Escort
§ Persistent
Strike is one of the phrases which UAVs have given depth to, loitering on
station for hours without risk of pilot fatigue leading to a crash or needing a
large enough aircraft to carry multiple crews. Combat Air Support is not a new
mission, and whilst the relative benefits of Unmanned vs Manned for the role is
currently still open for debate[30],
basically though it’s sensors & safety of UAVs vs the luck, moral and
operational reliability of manned[31].
Helicopter escort is something deployed navies have to think about, with the
proliferation of man portable SAMs, using helicopters to transport personnel
without providing them with some sort of cover is becoming increasingly
dangerous.
Figure 5. K-Max, two of
which are in service with the USMC in Afghanistan proving their worth[32]
|
o Logistics
§ Helicopters
are used to help with re-supply at sea, UAVs have just as much capability; in
fact more so, whilst flying with passengers might not be a likelihood in the
immediate future, there is no reason why the USN’s future Carrier On-board Delivery
(COD) aircraft could not routinely fly missions with just stores & spares
aboard[33].
It’s not just about ship re-supply though, it’s also about ship-to-shore
manoeuvres, supplying the troops ashore with the equipment they need, UAVs do
not get tired, they don’t get scared, whilst it will be a fine balance between
their roles; supplying the troops ashore will be a key force enabler for
maximising capability… especially in smaller operations, such as raids where
there might not be aviation ship loaded with helicopters available.
Points of Interest:
·
First
use of V1, arguably the first cruise missile was on the 13 June
1944
·
First
use of Tomahawk missile in anger took place January 17,
1991, when USS San Jacinto, a Ticonderoga class cruiser,
launched the opening salvo of desert storm.
·
First
use of a remote control weapon was by the Luftwaffe when they used the Fritz-X
on 21 July 1943 during a raid on Augusta harbour in Sicily
·
First use of a UAV is a debatable topic, there were
attempts made in 1916, but in reality it’s sometime in the 1960s after Gary
Powers had the accident with his U-2,that they start to become the systems that
would be recognised by current standards as UAVs.
·
Whilst they are often associated with submarines, it
is surface ships which are the key to their operability, the RN has been
strange though is that it has neither fitted ships nor subs with a VLS system
to launch them – instead carrying the missiles in place of torpedo’s and firing
them from tubes, in contrast the USN:
“Although the number of ships (including attack
submarines) capable of firing the Tomahawk grew only slightly--from 112 to
119--between 1991 and 1996, the Navy's overall ability to fire these
land-attack missiles has grown considerably. This is because a greater number
of the ships capable of firing the missile are now surface ships and surface
ships are able to carry more Tomahawks than submarines. As of the beginning of
1996 the US Navy had 140 Tomahawk-capable ships with 6,266 launchers), of which
there are 72 SSN's (696 launchers) and 70 surface ships (5,570 launchers).
There were over 4,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the inventory in 1996.”[34]
Today the
number is even larger, despite now having only 53 SSNs (50 boats have 12
launchers for a total of 600, the Seawolf
class uses the British style torpedo tube launch), they also have 4 SSGNs (616
launchers), and only 84 surface ships (8,510 launchers split between the 21 Arleigh Burke Flight I, 90, the 7 Flight
II, 96 & the 34 Flight IIA, 96 and the 22 Ticonderoga class, 122) the USN now has a total launcher capability
of up to 9,726 – although launchers in surface ships also provide for SAMs and
ASMs, so it’s more limited than that, it still represents a spectacular
capability.
Summary:
Missiles and UAVs are so similar in
so many ways, the longer the range they operate the more self-sufficient their
command coding and sensors need to be; the more human intervention has to be minimalized.
However, it’s the differences which will define them and their future; no they
are not going to turn every warship into an aircraft carrier, although they are
if properly employed going to bestow some of the capabilities that have
here-to-fore been the property of aircraft carriers. As far as the replacement
missiles are concerned it all depends upon the programs that are pursued,
whether in light of the cuts experienced many NATO countries the replacement
program becomes a joint multi-nation effort is something which could be
attractive, as unlike fighter aircraft, missiles with their more limited
functions and more standardised requirements make ideal candidates for such
programs.
The future looks good, but it’s
going to be tough; a march has been stolen by other countries in the field of
cruise missiles and anti-ship systems, and it is difficult in times of
financial stringency to muster the resolve necessary to push forward a project.
However, it has to be done, if a new system is needed in 2020s[35],
then development must start now; the UAVs are fine, so much work is being done
already on them that they are set in many ways for the next 30 years; missiles
though are just as important and they have been allowed to slip, something
which must change.
Further Reading:
http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/june-2013-notes-possibilities-of.html
[1] (John 1987, 162-3)
[2] (Varshney 2002, Wolff 2011)
[3]
Read this post on theorists to learn more: http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/june-2013-notes-some-examples-of.html
[6] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bgm-109-specs.htm
(21/08/2013) / Still a respectable range when considering that comparatively
more recently development (service entry was in 2006) Brahmos cruise missile
developed by India & Russia, has a range of 500km – but is capable of Mach
3 at sea skimming heights (as low as 3-4m) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/brahmos-specs.htm
(21/08/2013)
[7] https://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/pioneer.htm
(22/08/2013) - although the RN has in 2013 just brought into service it’s first
UAV to do a similar role, http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/June/20/130620-Royal-Navy-gets-Eagle-eyes
(22/08/2013)
[12]
Theoretical strike/monitor range (∏5002 = 785,398.2nm2 )dived
by visual range (∏122 = 452.4nm2) = 1736
[13] it
can still only be in one place at a time, and a greater range is excellent but
when it runs out of missiles, then saying it’s 6x better than it’s predecessor
so we only built half as many is not going to make anyone feel anywhere near as
good as if there’s a second ship of equivalent capability available nearby
[16] http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/June/20/130620-Royal-Navy-gets-Eagle-eyes
(23/08/2013), the version with synthetic apertures radar wasn’t selected http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080318a_nr.html
(23/08/2013)
[26]
Put up this month (August/September 2013) will be another set of notes on AEW,
for more information please look to it.
[30]
This debate is gone into more detail in this paper on the Auxiliary Combat
Aircraft paper: http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/june-2013-notes-possibilities-of.html,
but from a British Naval Perspective at the moment the options would be limited
to Rotary UAVs.
[31]
UAVs, even the best designs are still crashing, sometimes due to pilot error,
but also due to random coding/communication problems.
[33]
This would especially be true if an inherently stable design was chosen, http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=100&ct=1
(25/08/2013) / http://defensetech.org/2013/08/20/northrop-bullish-on-building-navy-drone-fleet/
(25/08/2013) & http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/lockheed-unmanned-helicopter-idUSL1N0C603420130318
(01/09/2013)
[35] A
case made rather well here, http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/type-26-type-45-anti-ship-missiles.html
(25/08/2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thankyou for taking the time to comment, I endeavour to reply to every comment that I can within the constraints of time