Posted on 01/20/2015 12:22:10 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The U.S. Navy’s surface fleet is getting more aggressive, with new tactics and weapons.
The United States Navy plans to re-organize and re-equip its surface fleet by grouping ships into small surface action groups and increasing the number of anti-ship weapons on more platforms. The U.S. Navy calls this tactical shift “distributed lethality.”
Breaking Defense quotes, Rear Admiral Peter Fanta and his rough summary of the concept of “distributed lethality”: “If it floats, it fights, that’s ‘distributed lethality’ (…) Make every cruiser, destroyer, amphib, LCS, a thorn in somebody else’s side.” Fanta, the director for Surface Warfare on the Navy staff, spoke at the annual Surface Navy Association National Symposium, which took place in Arlington, Virginia this week.
Vice Admiral Thomas Rowden, commander of Naval Surface Forces, further elaborated on the tactical shift at the symposium, as military.com reports: “We’re going to up-gun as many existing platforms as we can to achieve more total lethality.” Speakers at the symposium noted that the Navy will overhaul ships in service with low-cost weapon and sensor upgrades including Aegis destroyers, cruisers, supply ships, and littoral combat ships. However, more details on the specifics of this reshuffle will only emerge when the president’s 2016 budget request comes out next month.
In 2014, the U.S. Navy had to endure politically motivated budget cuts and a hiring freeze delaying retrofits and maintenance of Navy vessels. This trend will likely continue in 2015. “Budget is coming down,” Fanta emphasized. This should be placed in perspective: In 2014, the U.S. Navy deployed tonnage equal to that of the sixteen next-largest navies combined.
The tactical “distributed lethality” shift is largely due to the increasing anti-access/area denial capabilities of the armed forces of China and Iran but also Russia. In an article in Proceedings Magazine, published by the U.S. Naval Institute, Vice Admiral Rowden, Rear Admiral Fanta, and Rear Admiral Peter Gumataotao, outlined the reasons behind the re-organization of the surface fleet by arguing that, “the shift to the offensive responds to the development of increasingly capable A2/AD weapons and sensors designed specifically to deny U.S. naval forces the freedom of maneuver necessary to project power.(…) Adversaries who counter this advantage diminish the deterrent value of forward-deployed forces and negatively impact the assurances we provide to friends and allies. A shift to the offensive is necessary to ‘spread the playing field,’ providing a more complex targeting problem while creating more favorable conditions to project power where required.”
As of now, the U.S. Navy still lacks an adequate long-range, anti-surface weapon to implement a re-organization of the surface fleet based on the “distributed lethality” idea. One possible future acquisition could be the Norwegian Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile, yet no decisions on the procurement of new weapon systems has been made as of now. The authors of the Proceeding Magazine article also outline additional requirements for their vision, such as improved intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance and data relay, low-cost medium range strike weapons, and new railguns.
This new tactical reorganization is a clear indication that the days when the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet just served as air defense elements for carrier strike groups, floating bastions for ballistic missile defense, and strike platforms for land attacks are over. It remains to be seen how the Chinese and Russian navies will respond to the shift.
Up gunning should always be an option. Look at how 20mm and 40mm AA guns multiplied on existing ships during WWII. Frankly, I think a suitable application of existing anti-tank missiles and quad-mount .50s would end the small boat threat. And we need a replacement for the Harpoon.
Finally, we should consider using armor again (real armor) for small combatants.
Because it isn't WWI anymore. Offensive weapon lethality has overtaken the ability of defensive measures to cope.
It’s about bloody time! Warships should look like warships and bristle with weapons. When you get into a fight at sea, you can’t have enough guns or missile to throw at the bad guys.
Because WW2 showed now matter how armored the ship, planes will sink it eventually. By the end of the war radio guided bombs were blasting the crud out of things. Even Kamikaze showed the potential of guided missiles. Basically they realized you CAN’T put enough armor on. If you can’t shoot it down before it hits, you are screwed. So defense is offense now. Again.
Several smaller carriers about the size of Marine assault ship. Obviously less capable, but an enemy would have to hit a lot more of them to reduce capacity.
Not true if a single .50 cal round in the right place can detonate all of your missiles.
Also, navalized Apache helos should be on coastal combatants, instead of SH-60s.
I’d go much smaller, fast CVAs carrying a mix of jets and attack helos. Keep the strike carriers, but they are overkill for most areas of the world.
Not exactly. The armored decks of British carriers stopped kamakazis. They got rid of armor because heavy guns went away. But stopping 20mm rounds, RPGs, and having an armored belt would negate the small craft threat. Excocet and Harpoon type ASCMs couldn’t penitrate 6” armor. The heavy Mach 2+ ASCMs are a different story, but they aren’t the coastal threat that is out there in most of the world.
Thanks - I have been emersed in war history and haven’t made it past WWI yet.
I have seen many vessels with combat damage and a .50 caliber hit on a missile would not cause a detonation because most ammunition of this caliber does not have an explosive filler. Also, the missile's Safe and Arming Fuze would prevent this kind of detonation.
However, take a direct hit from an anti-ship cruise missile and all bets are off. Several hundred pounds of high explosive WILL ruin your day. Sometimes you can take several hits and survive because your luck hasn't run out.
On 17 May 1987, USS STARK (FFG-31) was hit by two AM39 Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi F-1EQ “Mirage” fighter. Both missiles impacted at or just above the waterline, portside, below the bridge. Fortunately for STARK, neither missile resulted in a high order detonation of the 364 pound warheads. Major damage and fires were mostly from the mass of the missile airframe and burning rocket motor propellant. One of the missile warheads was found mostly intact 20 feet away from the forward Standard SM-1 missile magazine of 40 missiles. There were 37 crew killed and 21 wounded in the attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.