Congress, Sea

Aegis Ambivalence: Navy, Hill Grapple Over Missile Defense Mission

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on June 30, 2015 at 4:27 PM

Navy cruiser Lake Erie launches SM-3 IB missile 575519537757ad8b1368733557

Navy cruiser Lake Erie launches a SM-3 IB missile.

WASHINGTON: Sometimes success is its own punishment. Shooting down ballistic missiles is one of the Navy’s most high-tech, high-profile capabilities — and it’s one of the most popular with Congress as well. But as demand for missile defense increases at what the Chief of Naval Operations has called an “unsustainable” pace, it’s an ever-greater burden on a fleet that has plenty of other missions. If the Navy met every theater commander’s requests for ballistic missile defense, it would take 77 Aegis cruisers and destroyers — out of a total fleet of 84.

[Click here for Part II of this story]

“Would I love to give this to somebody else?” Rear Adm. Peter Fanta, the Navy’s director of surface warfare, asked rhetorically in a recent conversation with reporters. “It would greatly alleviate the pressures on my budget — but I also understand everybody is under those same pressures.”

Rear Adm. Peter Fanta

Within that tightening budget, the Navy has set priorities that put it at odds with powerful players on the Hill. Now ballistic missile defense has gotten entangled with one of the most contentious naval questions before Congress: the Navy’s plan to take 11 of its 22 aging Aegis cruisers out of service (temporarily) for a multi-year modernization. Five of those ships have BMD capability now — but they won’t have it when the upgrade’s done.

“That’s purely a fiscal decision,” Fanta said: The Navy can’t afford BMD on those ships.

“The Navy is all about cutting dollars,” Rep. Randy Forbes told me. The HASC seapower subcommittee chairman has been the bitterest opponent of the cruiser plan, which he sees as short-sighted and even disingenuous. The BMD cutback only makes him madder. At a recent hearing, Forbes told me, “you heard Admiral Fanta be very clear, [and] he said this is just about money.”

“If they reduce by five ships the BMD capabilities that they have now, that is going to make it much more difficult for them to reach the goals that the Navy has laid forth,” Forbes said.

For high-intensity, high-tech warfare — say, with China — the Navy says it needs 40 warships with the most advanced version of the Aegis system. That “Baseline 9” lets a ship shoot down enemy aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles simultaneously. The Navy currently has 33 Aegis BMD ships, but most of them can only engage either cruise missiles or ballistic missiles at any given moment, not both at once. A well-armed enemy can exploit that by launching a mix of weapons.

So how many ships have the full-up capability? Three, according to a Navy spokesman.

“What you really heard the other day was, ‘I need 40 apples, and by the way I have 33 oranges,'” Forbes told me. That 33 ships have some form of Aegis BMD isn’t really relevant to the 40-ship requirement for full Aegis BMD, he argued. The Navy expects to not reach that number until 2026, or 2024 at the earliest.

Rep. Randy Forbes

The “early twenties” is also when Fanta expects the cruiser and destroyer fleet to get back to a sustainable, stable cycle for training and maintenance. Deployments have been averaging 9.2 months, he told Congress, well above the goal of seven.

“Not obtaining those goals [is] going to impact recruitment, going to impact recruitment and retention, going to impact the life cycles of the ships that we have,” Forbes told me. Is there any way to get to seven month deployments sooner? “I’m not sure that you can get it stabilized faster,” he replied. “I think our bigger worry, Sydney, is whether they can do it on the timeline they were talking about…because that’s assuming everything hits perfectly.”

BMD missions are hardly the only driver of these long deployments, but they’re an ever-growing one. “On any given day, at least four to six destroyers or cruisers are tied up on this mission,” said Bryan Clark, a former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Because keeping one ship on station requires two or three others in transit, in repairs, or training, Clark continued, BMD overall can take up 16 to 18 ships.

“The tension is, the Navy is trying to do all these different missions with budgets and a fleet that are too small,” said Thomas Karako, head of the missile defense program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The Navy wants to strip missile defense interceptors from some cruisers, and that’s understandable, but I suspect Congress may disagree.”

It may seem backwards to upgrade a warship by removing some of the capabilities it already has. It’s not clear how much money this would actually save, either. But the Navy has arguably been ambivalent about Aegis BMD since the beginning.

“The Navy was not enthusiastic in taking my money to begin the program,” said Amb. Hank Cooper. Cooper was director of the Strategic Defense Initiative — later renamed the Missile Defense Agency — when work on Aegis BMD began back in 1991-1992. It was an uphill battle for years after, he told me.

“Without support from Capitol Hill,” said Cooper, “the Pentagon would have killed the program in its cradle” or at any number of points “throughout its development.”

When the Navy did embrace Aegis BMD, it arguably did so less as an end in itself than as a means to expand the destroyer fleet in general. The real driver, said Clark, “was mostly to protect large surface combatant procurement in the 2000s when wars in the Middle East were taking an increasing share of the budget and attention.”

“What backfired was [that] in the end, the Navy probably created more of a demand for cruisers and destroyers,” Clark told me, “leaving an even larger gap than had they not advocated for the BMD mission in the first place.”

Modernizing cruisers faster would help close that gap — in the short term. In the long term, returning the ships to service sooner means they wear out sooner and must retire sooner as well. Adding new ships would help across the board, but the Navy probably can’t buy destroyers faster than the two-per-year in the current block-buy contract.

So are there ways to shift the BMD burden to someone else besides the cruiser and destroyer fleet? It turns out there are, within tactical, technological, and political limits. We’ll discuss those in our next story.

Comments

J_kies

BMD tethers a multiple mission asset to a geographic point associated with the BMD mission. Such tethered ships cannot support all the other missions they were developed and acquired to support. Launch on Remote (LOR) and Engage on Remote (EOR) are the tactical drivers that make SM3 missiles potentially effective over useful areas. For EOR that ship becomes nothing but a missile magazine and a radio.
BMD deserves a dedicated magazine that doesn’t detract from the Aegis Combatants multiple mission utility in support of CBGs etc. Using Desert Ship C2, a VLS equipped barge could serve that magazine role. Similarly, such barges could be moved up navigable rivers to address geographic postings that ships cannot.
- Marauder 2048
  
  Putting a large number of the most expensive missiles in the Navy’s inventory on a defenseless, blind, slow and unmanueverable platform would be the height of folly.
  - J_kies
    
    If you are describing Aegis Ashore that might be considered an unkind but plausible description.
    
    The present approach effectively reduces the number of effective Aegis combatants to support CBGs and other jobs without compensation.
    - Marauder 2048
      
      Aegis Ashore has latent AAW capability. A barge has none. You can’t sink Aegis Ashore with a torpedo or a Fast Attack Craft. You can’t cripple Aegis Ashore with mines.
      - J_kies
        
        Au contraire – not as designed/integrated and planned for operations. Could you stuff some SM2s or SM6s in the VLS, yes. Could those SM2/6s be effective in land based terrain clutter against real air threats, sorry that’s a no.
      - Marauder 2048
        
        Better tell that to the surface fleet since they are going to be relying on SM-6 to be effective in land based terrain clutter against real air threats.
      - J_kies
        
        Nice – the fleet operates on land against low flyers?
        
        If the fleet parks against the land where sea-skimmer equivalents are viewed in land based clutter by AN/SPY or AMDR for intercept prosecution – well we clearly didn’t need a ‘littoral combat ship’ as the Aegis combatants are in danger of beaching themselves during combat operations.
        
        Blue water AAW on the other hand has significant environmental differences that Aegis properly exploits.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        You ignore clutter mapping which happens in real time. There was so much capability that was ‘surmised’ in the 80’s (my generation) . . . and since, handled in software algorithms and hardware capability. Then stack the AMDR 30db better reception quality . ? . I’m not worried. Aegis Ashore needs a software delivery, more VLS modules properly populated, and some Mk99 Illuninators.
      - J_kies
        
        Curtis; Aegis Ashore has the AN/SPY for its communications capabilities for talking to the SM3. I am not stating that a radar could not be procured to address ground clutter for SAM support against low flyers; I am stating that radar isn’t the SPY or the AMDR in its present incarnations.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        I’m perfectly happy with AN/SPY-1B(V) [cruisers] & AN/SPY-1D(V) [destroyers] capabilities as they exist today. With respect to ground clutter, check out the SPY-1D(V), and I’m sure the patches went into
        the SPY-1B(V). If not, I would be highly surprised. It would have to be some hardware incompatibility issues or something.
        
        With respect to AMDR, it is still in development. Hell, it just completed CDR. However, everything that SPY can do, AMDR will be able to do, and more. That additional 30db on the receive side will provide a lot. This radar will look into space the way SPY has covered airspace, and now terrestrial space at ground level. I’m very optimistic, and look forward to the 9-module setup for smaller platforms that don’t need to produce all the power and cooling. Until someone comes out with a non-rotating 3D AESA AN/SPS-10 replacement I’m going to keep screaming “If I never see a rotating radar again, it will be too soon”! One should exist already and look a lot like a three sided cap on the top of the mast, and have a lot of F-16/F-18 parts in it.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        If the radar components are there, the capability is inherent in the software. Am I wrong? What did they do to my SPY radar?
      - Frank Langham
        
        It is a few back-plane modules and a software upgrade. …
        … Load the VLS cells and you are done.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Heck, Phalanx Ashore is fully automated and independent (a simple bolt-on option) … Not a perfect solution but would probably obliterate most inbound threats, with aplomb (it is proven on land).
      - Frank Langham
        
        Imagine when you are parallaxing several AMDRs and JLENS into a master-fused model. … I would hate to be a wayward humming-bird.
      - Marauder 2048
        
        How did you make such a silly inference? SM-6 is designed (and been demonstrated) to operate, at range, against overland against reduced RCS targets. Big aperture, high power, high frequency seeker attached to a big missile with a big warhead and a datalink is a good thing; the spiral upgrades to enable Terminal Missile defense and land attack are also very encouraging.
        
        Glad to see that we’ve established down thread that Aegis Ashore does indeed have latent AAW capability.
      - J_kies
        
        Testing to date has demonstrated conclusively that Desert Ship C2 can fire SM6 into the test engagement basket. WSMR by practice provides a benign clutter environment wihout target or standoff EW.
        
        ‘Establish’ what ever you want; its not operationally representative, its developmental testing. Desert Ship does not have either AN/SPY or AMDR so claims as to AA AN/SPY AAW relevance are pure marketing.
      - Marauder 2048
        
        In other words, SM-6 has been tested under conditions that are as operationally realistic as conditions under which SM-3 LOR/EOR has been tested. You premised your blind barge VL magazine on the latter which opened up discussions on the former. As has been pointed out by others discussants, Aegis Ashore does growth potential. The blind barge has none.
      - Frank Langham
        
        We are VERY rapidly moving toward total theater (and global) tomographic sensor fusion … All friendly sensors tied into one large picture. … It is much easier to filter clutter and chaff when you have sensors in many locations, facing all directions and can “parallax” the data.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        Show me the test data on that conclusion. On cruise missiles at low altitude maybe. anything over several hundred feet ? . . . no way . . .their dead, just need the tracking dwells and illumination, except for the SM-6. It has its own seeker.
      - J_kies
        
        Curtis – its safe to assume that anyone lobbing low flying cruise missiles at your facility (or a Cessna 172) is going to make it hard as they can as compared to the Blue water AAW engagements. Data would have some ‘sensitivities’ associated when talking to things like performance under attack.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        I’m familiar. Unless you just botch the radar completely it can handle it.
- Curtis Conway
  
  Without the multi-warfare capability of the Aegis platforms (cruiser or destroyer) they would be easy prey to adversary submarines and surface craft. No . .Without the multi-warfare capability of the Aegis platforms
  (cruiser or destroyer) they would be easy prey to adversary submarines and
  surface craft, given the locations they would be sent to in the Med and other places. No . . . Aegis conversions is the way to go, it’s just those that have the vision don’t have the budget for procurement, installation, test and deployment, and yes, that deployment is restricted to a BMD defensive box (geographically limited).
  
  I’m with you on the BMD Ship idea to the extent they would have two patrol stations in the Pacific and the Atlantic, and employ something of the SM-3 IIB capability that was cancelled. That could have plugged the capability hole for a while, but that path would have to have been embarked upon some time ago, and that idea was rejected. Those BMD Ships are needed on station today, and they would need a capable multi-platform escort and protection.
  
  Since we are not in a ‘healthy growing economy’ environment I suspect this is going to get worse (much worse) before it begins to get better, because of the lack of vision, poor planning, and execution to date.
  
  The United States navy NEEDS USS America (LHA-6) Light Carrier Battle Groups, a multi-warfare Aegis FFGs based upon the NSC hull, and an EV-22 Osprey AEW&C for the CVLGBs. If we start now with earnest, we can still save this . . . in my humble opinion. Or . . . we can wait for another article like this!? Who knows what will transpire in the mean time given Russia acting the way it has (and is).
  - NavySubNuke
    
    Keep in mind this barge would be relieve current ships being used against regional allies. I find it hard to imagine an Iranian ship, submarine, or aircraft being able to reach out and hit this barge if it is camped in the Med. While it is possible they could use a softpower strike to go after it we could always use a few small patrol boats to deter/defeat that kind of threat.
    Same goes with the boats off the Japanese coast – I am fairly certain they are on the opposite side of Japan from North Korea. It is just hard to imagine the North Koreans being able to strike over Japan and hit the barge.
    Now, against China or Russia it is likely the barge would be toast – but against China or Russia the tethered SM-3 ships wouldn’t be doing very much either and would likely be destroyed by a submarine attack.
    - Curtis Conway
      
      That is why you need ASW on board, and that long dark underwater insurance policy.
      - NavySubNuke
        
        I don’t think you need ASW on board – you are already going to be implementing a theater ASW operation at that point. i’m not sure how much – if anything – a dedicated ASW capability on the barge would buy you. It might be useful in a “bolt from the blue” attack against the barge — but if it really is a bolt from the blue with no intel heads up to alert you you are unlikely to survive even if you have a dedicated ASW capability.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        This LPD-17 (vice barge) would be operating at low speeds most of the time in its launch basket. Depending on the propulsion system and how quiet it is, this would be an ideal platform for an SQS-53 transducer on the bow. A variable depth towed array sonar system completes the coverage. If an MH-60R is on board, all you will need is an occasional P-8A and perhaps an ASW configured LCS/FF in company. What the underwater insurance policy looks like I will leave to your imagination.
      - NavySubNuke
        
        I don’t know – I’d rather see it in something built to commercial specs like the afloat forward staging bases (AFSB) and the rather than an LPD-17 hull form. What you are talking about — even if it was just a skeleton except for the anti-missile and ASW capabilities would cost hundreds of millions (if not a billion) more.
        If you used a modified AFSB you could still have the helo capability for self defense and if you build it right you might even be able to integrate a towed array.
        But I would still argue that adding an ASW capability that is actually sufficient to protect the ship in a bolt out of the blue scenario is an extra unnecessary expense.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        One time cost up front is expensive for procurement, but when you consider the long term operational cost of multiple platforms that must accompany to provide the coverage, it pays for itself rather quickly. Operations and Maintenance over the long term is something that always must be considered. Let us not build another LCS.
      - NavySubNuke
        
        I really don’t see how an LPD type design ever beats an AFSB/MLP type design but I haven’t fully thought through all the implications. The AFSB program has been quite impressive so far though.
      - Frank Langham
        
        I propose that TWO THIRDS of our Marine (USMC) SeaLift should be AFSB while one third should be LPD. … The LHDs and LPDs go in as the “tip of the spear”, along with other faster, armored attack and battle platforms … THEN, Once a more permissive air-cap and beach-head are established, the AFSBs come in from the rear and bolster and expand the initial landing with reinforcements and additional “LIFT” … I mean … You cannot send D8 Bull-Dozers in ahead of the tanks, anyway, right ? … But you NEED Dozers and SEA-BEES and all manner of “follow-on” Mess Kitchens and Field Hospitals and even Field Barracks, replenishment, refer-units, the works … WELL … You do NOT need an LPD or and LHD to haul all that follow-on crap ashore !! … It is typical SEALIFT but you need most of it ASAP, on DAY TWO. … FURTHERMORE … Do you REALLY need an LPD or an LHD to offer relief after a hurricane or a tsunami ?? … **NO** !! … Half or more of what the USN/USMC does is RELIEF … Another fourth is SPEC-OPS BASING, off-shore, and well out of reach of guerilla or asymmetrical operatives. … What do we need LPDs and LHDs for ?? … For Invasions and for Imposing Influence (Presence). … And, Even IF our AFSB and Commercial platforms WERE to be pressed into all-out combat? … Given a modicum of peripheral support ? … I think that they would fare VERY well, given that our enemies are less networked and less well-trained and are not as reflexive or “informed” as we are. It is not just how big your “dink” is … It is how you use it. … Coordination is, of itself, a force multiplier.
      - J_kies
        
        Frank – many things are possible and I am glad to see people are discussing how missile magazines can be accomplished without the Aegis combatant take-aways. Budgets / funding are currently insufficient for the planned combatants much less pasting radars and complex FC systems onto commercial conversions. The minimum bid is still VLS + Desert ship C2 to let you use anyone’s track of the threat.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Either I did not explain this clearly enough or (respectfully) you are not calculating the math “properly” … I am offering you MORE for LESS … I am talking bout RELEASING mired combatants back into more aggressive and mobile roles, via spending a FEW bucks, holding down the fort with “limited purpose” commercial conversions. .. This will NOT cost more. … It will cost LESS (both in terms of Acquisition AND in terms of mandated operations … On a fixed budget).
      - J_kies
        
        Frank; The US Navy has a topline defined by Congress; under this topline they have the entire shipbuilding budget. Independent from the Navy the Missile Defense Agency is footing the bill for Aegis Ashore (a few crates and repackaging of Aegis C2 for a cost that would make you bleed from the eyes).
        
        The Navy cannot currently afford their present shipbuilding program even if they had zero needs for ORP. Adding ships to that bill even if slapping electronics and radars onto commercial ships was cheap isn’t in the cards. Recall the cheapest things the US Navy buys are steel and empty space.
        
        The barge idea could be sold as a non-shipbuilding issue and let MDA foot the bill – arguing for MDA to buy dedicated BMD commercial conversions wont fly.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Well, at the cost-per-copy for one Plan-9 Burke, I can probably give you several ALASKA AFSBs with PAC3+ Theater Defense, tacked on … This means that you could BUILD LESS BURKES and backfit the freed-up Burkes with whatever battle-kit that might seem appropriate. … What I am proposing is to shunt the STATIC (or temporary, semi-static) missions (postings) to Commercial platforms (even used or mothballed hulls). … I guess you understand that. … Also … Some of these barges could VERY WELL come out of theater operations budgets, considering how much in demand that theater/area terminal BMD is in demand. … If commanders really want this capability so badly then maybe they are willing to pay for it ? … The point is that theater defenses do not require Burke Speed or Burke Armor and commercial platforms obviate the need for sticky leasing and basing costs, as well as red-tape and political “winds”. … YOU decide if you could use an Commercial Conversion and YOU decide where the monies might come from … MY point is that the speed and armor and even a full military crew are NOT REQUIRED for MANY of the missions that Burkes and LPDs and LHDs are tasked with … Anti-Piracy … Anti-Smuggling … Disaster Relief … Picket Duty … Area BMD … even area AAW and Area ASW can most often (in many cases) be effectively accomplished by commercial conversions (fast or slow, large or small) rather than a fully armored, fully armed combatant vessel that can cruise in excess of 32 knots. … Heck … Pirates are attacking shipping using WHAT boats and guns ? … Who is shooting at us during disaster relief ?? … Burkes, LPDs and LHDs can always RUSH IN (with all haste) and establish a permissive zone … THEN, specialized commercial conversions can move in and RELIEVE our most expensive combat vessels. … If we TRADE HALF of our combat hulls for conversions, we can have triple the operational platforms for THE SAME FIXED COST. … Even in an all-out strategic furr-ball, Armor and Speed are NOT going to make a huge difference against SWARMS of MODERN ASCMs and ASBMs or modern torpedoes and Sub-Launched Ordnance. … You do not agree ?
      - J_kies
        
        Frank- my views are immaterial – the shipbuilding plan of the US Navy disagrees. If you want a dedicated BMD magazine; buy a barge and tie it up where the geography and timelines like it. Up the Danube instead of Aegis Ashore in Romania or up the Oder instead of Aegis Ashore in Poland. For the northern tier how about a barge in Scotland or Iceland or for the NMD fan-boys a barge in Maine for the US east coast.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Said plan changes more frequently than the weather in Texas and “we” are looking hard for creative solutions, in these austere times. … I can hardly keep up with how many times and ways that the Burke schedules have changed. … I see plenty of flexibility and willingness to get out from under the Area BMD yoke and set them Berkies free.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        Like I was telling someone in another post, one could put GBI silos in this thing you describe. May D5s with a LEAP?
      - NavySubNuke
        
        I don’t have it at my fingertips but I am pretty sure that actually violates an arms limitation treaty.
        Also, the security problem is probably too expensive and too hard to solve never mind the suitability implications. Also your average ship can’t handle a series of 100,000+ lb missiles launching off of them – especially when you don’t have water inrushing through the top of the tube to refill it. Having valves in the bottom to help fill it helps to some extent but not completely.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Regardless … Even without the guidance package (and the other stuff that *might* be in the nose-cone), the D5 boosters are in an whole other price range. … SM3 Advanced Block is the way to go … Accelerate the development spiral, if need-be.
      - Frank Langham
        
        D5s would fit but why not just accelerate SMx advanced block options ? … We are probably further along than we let on.
      - J_kies
        
        SM3 2b was quashed because it was at the level of bad powerpoint cartoons and did not serve an architecture niche.
      - J_kies
        
        LEAP is very dead as a technology effort and never conducted a successful intercept. The SM3 KW is a far different beast.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        I suspect the new one for GBI is another leap (pun intended) ahead of that? Of course without LEAP development, most of this would not be happening.
      - J_kies
        
        Respectfully – twaddle. LEAP was an exercise in the provenance of viewfoil BS over sound engineering. The only worse fantasy was ‘Brilliant Pebbles’ where Livermore showed that personality was allowed to trump physics and engineering when it came to politically directed programs.
        
        The folk history of SDIO, BMDO and MDA’s technology work as portrayed by marketing departments of the companies responsible for the worst test records of uncancelled programs in the DOD has a lot of departures from fact.
        
        A level of skepticism as to AMDR, SM3 and SM6 performance v your stated expectations is necessary. Perhaps in the future with a lot of diligent work some of those expectations could be realized but the majority of such work isn’t planned or funded.
        
        AMDR has to backfit the deckhouse AN/SPY spaces, the PAG isn’t what you hope it is due to prime power and size constraints. If xx dB was showing on the RX side, that could be backfit onto SPY as a kit.
      - Curtis Conway
        
        Support equipment to the configuration probably does not change from a 9-module, 39-module, or 69 module unit (supposition on my part, I’m not a part of the Program). However the units that will definitely need lots of power and cooling is the modules in the antennas themselves. If I only have 9 modules I gotta believe that this [advertised to have the same capability of a SPY-1] radar can fit on something smaller than a DDG-51 Flt III. Am I wrong?
      - J_kies
        
        Ignore advertising and apply your knowledge of the constraints. Its hard to get better Aperture or Gain given the size of the hole it fits in and the carrier frequency. If SPY really sucked on the RX side someone would have fixed that a long time ago.
        Detailed engineering estimates are not Blogosphere comment fodder.
      - Frank Langham
        
        EXACTLY … AFSB (Container Ships or Tankers) commercial conversions. … And if we can bring NAVAL systems ASHORE, then we can certainly bring LAND-SYSTEMS AFLOAT …
        PACx and THAAD can easily be bolted onto a container ship … The advantage is that they are not a purely fixed target and that we do not need a political host country to grant permission or to charge us rent or taxes. … SOUTH KOREA is a prime example and so is TURKEY … Both are either playing us or are intimidated by other neighbors … Problem solved … We can park PACx or THAAD just about anywhere we want and they are more difficult to target if they are drifting around.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Totally agree … You can have a net of sono-bouys and P-8s and any number of SSNs and Helos, making the rounds. … ASW is “zone-intensive” … Curtis really likes every platform to be fully independent and fully self-defending but that is just not feasible. … We do have BUNCHES of Burkes and these barges and commercial AFSB-Type conversions will free up the BMD Burkes for ASW and AAW and for Surface Warfare … Just park your missiles where you want them and float lots of tethered LTA/OTH sensors … Drones and stratospheric LTA can also take up a lot of slack. … Commercial conversions and CHEAP arsenal barges are SO inexpensive that missiles and tethered aerostats can be distributed far and wide. … MORE TARGETS and they look like commercial ships. … This also spreads out the sensor footprint and the parallax while putting more “Best Shooters” over a much wider range. … They can be arranged (topographically configured) as a picket (fence) or as a perimeter or even as a choke-funnel … On a smaller scale, a triangular terminal defense perimeter can be established to provide a defensive rally-zone (patrol box) for a task or battle group.
      - Frank Langham
        
        YOU HAVE SSNs for ASW … You can include a few deck-side torpedo launchers and a “keel array” or, since the installation is semi-permanent, why not just set out a small network of sono-bouys ?? … And, BTW, Where the heck is your P-8 ??
      - Curtis Conway
        
        It’ll be overhead, just can’t land on the ice. Several USAF bases and Coast Guard Stations will probably have to be upgraded.
    - J_kies
      
      I like the question of parking a barge in port at dockside or up a navigable river. That ASW thing is different when the point is to have persistent coverage within a geographic range of the ideal tether.
  - Frank Langham
    
    I would rather see LHDs than LHAs …
    They are much more flexible.
- Curtis Conway
  
  To expand on the BMD ship idea, it would/could look a lot like LPD-17, but it would necessarily need a real hull mounted sonar and probably a tail, and a gun, not just a bunch of missiles. The aviation facilities (and MH-60R) should be large and capable with a hangar deck and elevator. That flight deck should be able to provide an F-35B in trouble a Ready Deck of Opportunity, instead of just putting $100 million dollars in the ocean, as should every other flight deck in the US Navy. Thermion and 70 ton capacity should be standard equipment.
  - Frank Langham
    
    No, Curtis … All you need is an AFSB with an appropriate combination of THAAD, PACx and AEGIS/SMx (with SEARAM/PHALANX) … DONE !! … This assumes a reasonably permissive AAW/ASW zone. … Use the BMD-Burke to hold the fort until the AFSB/BMD-BARGE shows up and then cut the Burke loose. … Half of the BMD Burkes could be re-fitted and re-tasked with more aggressive missions.
  - B-Sabre
    
    http://aviationweek.com/blog/introducing-ballistic-missile-defense-ship
    
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lyT8m4-ry8U/U0VAIzLoGVI/AAAAAAAARLw/zeOH5O7T8dM/s1600/Huntington_Ingalls_Industries_BMD_ship_Sea-Air-Space_2014_1.JPG
- NavySubNuke
  
  You and I certainly don’t agree on everything but on this idea we are definitely in alignment. The notion of wasting a multi-billion dollar warship capable of carrying out all kinds of missions by tethering it to a single point just doesn’t make sense —- not when we have the time and methods to develop a better and less wasteful solution.
  - Frank Langham
    
    Commercial platform conversions …
    Just Weld your PACx and THADD to the weather-deck of any container ship. … You can back-fit AEGIS SPY and MK44 VLS if you want to … Use a BMD Burke to pin down the zone until the BMD “Barge” shows up. … Pennies on the dollar to acquire and to operate. … The crew is UNION SEALIFT (Merchant Marines) … It’s a no-brainer.
- Frank Langham
  
  Read my reply to Curtis, above.
Herbert

This is one of the biggest ongoing scams in the US military. Navy Aegis BMD only works against short range missiles. Intermediate and ICBM range missiles fly twice as high overhead than the small SM-3 missile can reach. This scandal was revealed several years ago here http://g2mil.com/deveselu.htm

yet nothing has happened. This is why one finds no official data on the max ceiling of these future SM-3s that salesmen claim will triple in range with the use of unknown and undeveloped “technology”. Meanwhile, Admirals run around demanding more destroyers for a mission they cannot perform. A disgusting situation.
- jeffrey exposito
  
  The latest Block IIb variant variant of the SM3 jointly developed with Japan and recently tested successfully has a ceiling of approximately 900 Km and a range of approximately 2500 Km. For all intense and purposes the SM3 is fully capable of shooting down ICBMs.
  - Herbert
    
    Do you have a link to that? There is nothing on the Internet about those stats. You’d think the PR people would be bragging that they suddenly tripled the range. Or is this another covert attempt at misinformation to fool everyone? If you are unable to cite real sources, we know.
    
    I just googled SM-3 and Japan. It was a Block IIA that was just tested, not a B, which is still on the drawing boards. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/08/us-usa-japan-missiledefense-idUSKBN0ON0M520150608 There is no mention of range or even a target.
    
    So Mr. Esposito just made up those ranges. Why?
    - jeffrey exposito
      
      Yes I do. It can be found on Wikipedia. The stats for the SM3 Block IIA are as follows:. Range 2500KM and Ceiling 1500KM. Actually I underestimated the ceiling. It is almost twice as high. I sense you are a paid Russian troll or part of Putins 30 Rouble troll army who lurks around blogs and discussion boards spreading all kinds of lies and disinformation designed for the uneducated and mentally weak. It aint working so give it up.
      - Water_the_tree
        
        Wikipedia is not a source document. Just sayin’.
        And I may be a jerk (there are such opinions floating around) but I am not a troll. IMO, oft stated, some admiral’s post retirement job depends on his ANSWER to the congress.
        Not that congress is any better.
      - jeffrey exposito
        
        Well those are the stats on the SM3Block2A. It seems that you are disappointed at the superlative performance parameters of the SM3. Thats just too bad.
      - Michael Rich
        
        Wikipedia is not a valid source. Find the actual source of information before you go posting.
      - jeffrey exposito
        
        The source comes from Breaking Defense October 17 2013 in an article titled Why Russia Keeps Moving the Football on European BMD. Essentially the Russians are scared to death of the SM3 and its wide reaching anti ICBM potential. BTW stop using American names. You Russian trolls dont fool anyone.
      - Michael Rich
        
        I’m not even a Russian troll? Go look at my previous points you will obviously see I am not very fond of the Russians. All I did was tell you Wikipedia is not a valid source.
      - Roger
        
        The “sources” are two non-experts who don’t cite sources, one living in Holland. As for the lady, having a degree in international relations does not make one a rocket expert, but passing lies from Admirals as facts does make one popular and successful in the Navy. They just wrote down what some salesman told them. Search reports at gao.gov, cbo.gov, and DoD website including the NMD website, and even check Raytheon. No mention of max SM-3 ranges, and nothing on the net, except some non-expert outsourced claims at this defense contractor sponsored blog. The best demonstrated so far is just 130 miles high.
        
        And now I saw a new spin. A poster claims they can’t tell us they actually demonstrated what they say they can do in the sales pitches. And click Mr. Eposito’s link. He’s never read about a military program that is not great and he loves them all, and he hates anyone critical of them. I wonder why?
      - Jawaralal_Schwartz
        
        Oh, thank you, sir.
      - 10579
        
        In years gone by there was a saying, “loose lips, sink ships “. I guess that that does not matter to you guys just so you could prove a point.When people start saying ,How did they find out ,that we had that weapon,and what it is capable of.You loose lip guys can look in the mirror and see the guy who gave away the farm.
      - Michael Rich
        
        What are you talking about?
      - Curtis Conway
        
        Hey, wake up. You are now in the 21st Century. You can find the answer to most of these question on your phone walking down main street.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Actually, much of what is said here literally enhances our deterrent capability, even when it is absolutely true and accurate. … The other thing is that everything discussed here is “proposed”, as an academic construct and, at the very rapid pace of R&D and Deployment, our enemies are not capable of manifesting a response before the threat is already obsolete. … I will not give examples but I can assure you that an enemy would run themselves ragged and blow their fiscal wad if they took most or any of what is “proposed” here to heart. … Congress and The Joint Chief are the biggest “leaksters” of all.
        … Lastly, this forum is moderated and I have even had one post redacted, this day, because of a slight bit too much ethereal
        detail … Good to know … I’ll be much more careful, in future.
      - Jawaralal_Schwartz
        
        Yes, er, and always have Trust In Wikipedia, right? Not that it matters–though it would for millions of consumers in government and the taxpayers–has Wikipedia been hacked lately?
      - Frank Langham
        
        LoL … I can spot a Russian “career troll” a mile away.
    - NavySubNuke
      
      A breaking defense article lists the ranges as 2500KM and 1500KM — max burn out speed of 4.5 km/s. I’m not sure of how accurate those numbers are but it is the best I could find from an actual source (not Wikipedia!)
      
      source: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/why-russia-keeps-moving-the-football-on-european-missile-defense-politics/
      - J_kies
        
        Chatted with both authors; its a model that incorporates some reasonable estimates of Isp and flight profiles with time-marching altitude dependent drag. They gave the ‘benefit of the doubt’ and assumed slightly on the high side of SM3 performance in terms of Vbo. When academics chat about coverage those numbers are assumed within the error tolerance of what is known.
      - NavySubNuke
        
        Good to know – thanks! It will be interesting to see how much the Navy actually releases as far as system capabilities once testing is complete and it is declared operational. Sometimes it is good to hide things – sometimes it is good to tell things — this seems like something that could go either way.
- Frank Langham
  
  The Russians are surely fooled by these false capabilities.
PolicyWonk

“The Navy is all about cutting dollars,” Rep. Randy Forbes told me.

=================================
Lip service is one thing – actually executing on that statement is something else. Our entire procurement system should be extirpated and replaced with one similar to that used by the British, or failing that – put under receivership.

If the nation wants the navy to be spread out to cover the BMD function that the USAF can’t seem to warp its head around, then cancel the USAF program completely and invest in navy assets, which has a comparatively functional platform.
originalone

When does the time come for serious mature decision making, instead of this continuous feel good/finger pointing posturing we-as taxpayers-are subjected to on a continual basis? Define exactly what the mission is, exactly what types of “Toys” are needed, then perhaps we might have a clearer picture of where we’re going? Let’s not forget the financial picture in this either. When will this or any Congress get real and secure the money, instead of using the plastic? Raising the income to meet the needs, instead of-to use a known term-“robbing Peter to pay Paul”? It may feel good to those who make the rules, but kicking the costs down the road for another generation to pay, has been the downfall of every world super power to date. There was a “War Tax” in “WW 2” to help pay the way, but has been all but forgotten today. Game on, when it comes to the U.S.Military being financed in a way that should be sustainable to support the missions demanded of it and the equipment to do the job. Too many “left handed monkey wrenches” have been allowed into the mix, causing the “point of diminishing returns” to hold sway front and center.
- Curtis Conway
  
  Point taken on budgeting priorities. My reference to “robbing Peter to pay Paul” was concerning ‘existing’ budgeted priorities, if one can call it that, given the current economic equation. So if we are going to get real in the future, operational budget will have to be addressed given ‘presence’ requirements bound by treaty, and COCOM requirements. Less expensive presence makes a whole lot of sense given the dollars and cents concerned, now and in the future.
Fred G.

Who is charged with the defense of the United States? How can there be accountability when there is this kind of parochial arguing with the Congress getting into the “tactical management” of the people charged with the defense of the nation?
- Joe smith
  
  Congress exists to bring federal money home to contractors in their states. Defending the country is a secondary priority.
- Jawaralal_Schwartz
  
  If you are saying, “Well, just believe the admirals….blah, blah,” that’s a joke. We have had for decades too few truth-tellers when it comes to many Naval requirements for new systems. When it comes to submarines, one tends to trust them, but not when it comes to CVs, the F-35, the LCS (Lord help us), and raft of other systems. So, when it comes to the “defense of the United States,” we need to (at our peril) the Congress, the White House, the admirals, the career civilians, and the always-self-interested think tankers. We should not listen to the system builders at any time. Builders’ views of requirements are always predictable, and way too expensive and naive.
- Frank Langham
  
  Well … Part of the blame goes to the Defense Industry Culture of waste, greed and corruption. … When you run way over budget and way behind schedule, only to deliver sub-standard crap when it is already obsolete, you really cannot fully blame Congress for being distrustful. … The Russians and the Chinese and India get WAY more and WAY better stuff, for WAY less money. … We spend more than all of them combined and, yet … What do we have to show ? … Half million dollar “Jeeps”.
vincedc

The bottom line is that they cut the budget but did not cut the requirements or mission. Maybe congress needs to decide which assets to put at risk and use the fleet to defend higher priority targets. Sooner or later someone is going to have to make the really hard decisions.
- Ineluctable
  
  I think the welfare recipient should be at risk rather than the nation.
- Frank Langham
  
  75%+ of the USN/USMC mission requirements do not dictate excessive speed or armor. … Everything that floats does not need to be able to fight alone, either.
ycplum

I want a nuclear Aegis PT Boat that can do 60kts, can shoot down ICBMs and hypervelocity missiles, has countermine capabilities and can launch F-35s.

PS. Please do it cheap.

/sarcasm/
- Curtis Conway
  
  I like it! LOL!
- Foton
  
  What would you think of a Littoral Combat Submarine (LCS)? It can be a supercavitating submarine able to get in and out rapidly. The LCS could really help out the nuclear Aegis PT Boat.
  - ycplum
    
    What we really need is something along the lines of Gotengo (google image or wiki).
    ; -)
    - Foton
      
      Brilliant idea! Best to patent that idea before someone else swoops in and steals the intellectual property.
      😉
    - Frank Langham
      
      That reminds me of one time when my uncle and I were on a two-man post-hole digger. … We hit a large tree-root and, suddenly, we were flying a helicopter.
      - ycplum
        
        LOL
        .
        Only post hole diggers I ever used was the manual ones, like tongs.
      - Frank Langham
        
        I swung a set of 18 pound “tong-type” post-hole diggers, for 6 months, in Texas, in the summer … The handles were made of two-inch, sched-40 galvanized pipe and they were over a foot taller than I was … The baked clay was as hard as rock … I used to pour water into each hole and dig them in rotation to remove whatever I could. … I have never, in my life, been in better shape than when I left that ranch. … Like Conan, pushing that mill-stone. … Day-in and day-out for months on end. … Pinto Beans and corn-bread were consumed in copious quantities, I assure you.
      - ycplum
        
        Did some stunningly attractive young ladies passing through stop to admire your physique like the TV shows? lol
Robert Warner

Randy – The Navy did not “‘cut dollars”. A low information Congress (not you included) did. It was/is called sequestration.
Frank Langham

In terms of a mostly (semi) permanent, theater SeaBased (Sea Shield) Terminal BMD capability, the implementation of COMMERCIAL CONVERSIONS, as with the AFSB paltforms may be fiscally prudent, given a robust and “permissive” AAW/ASW rally-zone. … So … Call it AEGIS AFLOAT, as a sea based commercial conversion where AEGIS (or Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)) plus an arsenal of AAW and TBMD (MK44-VLS) can be expediently backfitted onto an appropriate commercial platform (small tanker or container ship, etc.) … This does not need to be a fast platform and the compartmentalized ballasting and double hull design of typical modern tankers would make the platform inherently resilient, especially with a proper mix of CIDS and AAW. … An additional benefit would be permanent SeaBasing of Tethered LTA (OTH Over-the-Horizon Aerostat) sensor platforms. … Faster and Cheaper, if not even better, than more Burkes.
- Curtis Conway
  
  Something with a hull that deep one could probably SEA BASE GBI. How about we just modify a Trident D5 to do the intercept mission? Those cells are smaller.
  - Frank Langham
    
    Well, D5s are not inexpensive but most of the money probably goes into the Maneuverable Equipment Package and into various specialized guidance components. … I think that the D5s boosters (being designed as SLBMs) are probably over-built for the task of exoatmospheric intercept). … SMx Advanced Block with AMDR and automated CIDS should prove adequate. … Cost per shot and number of shots are important, as well as the effective range of the footprint. … But anything that floats can be expediently converted to host just about any combination of systems and ordnance in our arsenal. … Lots of sealed compartments are nearly as effective as armor, especially when the crew density is very low. … When it comes to semi-permanent theater basing, even an arsenal barge can be considered as a viable option. A semi-submersible arsenal barge is also an option … A snorkeling barge can launch or deploy any ordnance that an SSN or a SSBN can, for pennies on the dollar. … Just circle the wagons and keep your powder dry.
    - Frank Langham
      
      If you see redundant posts, it is because they did not register, on my screen, when I posted them, so I re-wrote and re-posted a few of my posts.
  - Frank Langham
    
    ADDENDUM: … NOW you really have me thinking … Heck, Curtis, How much would it cost to weld a THAAD and/or PACx Battery to the weather-deck of a container ship ? … DUH !!!! TOO CHEAP AND EASY !!! (Could have 5 ships ready in 3 months).
    … Very Cheap … Very Fast … Very Easy … ZERO Technical Risk … Zero Political Risk … Chump Change to field it and chump change to operate it. … ALL those burkes can go back to more aggressive roles and missions. … TWO birds with one small stone.
  - Frank Langham
    
    The D5 is too expensive but a snorkeling arsenal barge could easily deploy anything that an SSN or a Boomer/SSGN can. …
    HERE IS A NO-BRAINER, for you, Curtis. … I can weld one or more PACx and/or THAAD Batteries (and/or Phalanx) to the weather-deck of a container ship … I could give you FIVE SUCH SHIPS IN 90 DAYS, BAM !!, for chump change and I can use new or used surplus ships and have them on station, in the Med or off the coast of South Korea, as quick as you please. …
    … But, yeah … Anything “large and flat”, that floats, can be quickly back-fitted with any combination of systems and ordnance in our arsenal and, with a decent AAW/ASW defense perimeter, can stay on-station, indefinitely (just rotate the crews but not the platforms).
    - Foton
      
      You should look up the prices of D5’s and GBI’s. The GBI’s are more expensive per missile. Having a barge ship is a great idea. The sea state might damage certain missile designs though. I’d suggest doing some basic testing before deploying THAAD or GBI on an arsenal ship/barge.
      - Frank Langham
        
        Whatever works. … Realistically, I would just surmise (off the cuff) that the SM3 Block 2x is going to be MUCH Wieldier and, please do keep in mind that we REALLY DO WANT an ISO CONTAINERIZED FORM FACTOR because it is possible to adapt the SMx Missile to other platforms (including but not limited to Trucks/Lorries and Rail-Cars) … And it would be nice to be able to transport them via C17, C5, C-130J/H cargo aircraft, so that various launch platforms can be replenished, in theater. … You really cannot do that with GBI but you could probably do it with a modded D% Booster … I know that you can fit at least FOUR MK-44 VLS CELLS into a Modded ISO Container (including all support electrics and hydro-pneumatics).
      - Frank Langham
        
        If you get rid of the wheels and WELD THAAD and/or PACx to the center-line of the weather-deck, you should be just fine in the SEA of JAPAN or THE MED.
anon

gonna need many missises..many. A thank you, to the allies, and what they do.
Those things unknown by many. Great courage, is in play. To all our allies, from an American, together, we will succeed.
http://manojambat.blogspot.in/ Adv Manoj Ambat

The United States Navy need to be ready for the future when it will come in direct contention with the Chinese navy. With the pace that the Chinese navy is expanding, it will not wise for the Americans to cut size at this time. But America can compensate this fall by shifting some burden on it’s allies like, Australia and Japan and emerging allies like India who have very capable fleet of their own. In the end American navy cannot be every where. It is the emerging alliance between the United States, Japan, Australia and India that will dictate maritime strategy and security at least in the Asian context. That is the way of the future.

Breaking Defense

Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Aegis Ambivalence: Navy, Hill Grapple Over Missile Defense Mission

Comments

Editorial Staff

Our Sites

Aegis Ambivalence: Navy, Hill Grapple Over Missile Defense Mission

Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox.

Comments

Editorial Staff

Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox.