In connection with the conflict over Taiwan, the potential of the American Naval Forces (Navy) in a possible local naval conflict with the Chinese armed forces in this area is becoming a topical topic.
US military experts believe that the Chinese military is capable of creating a “restricted access” zone around Taiwan for the US surface fleet. “Restricted access” is a modern American military doctrine designated by the abbreviation A2 / AD from the English anti-access and area denial – that is, a kind of space with “restriction and denial of access and maneuver.”
This problem was realized by the American naval sailors not now, but much earlier. The surface ships of the US Navy have the means of defense against attack by surface ships, unmanned aerial vehicles and anti-ship missiles of the enemy.
However, American military experts fear that these funds will not be enough on board the ships, given the available Chinese offensive means capable of creating an A2 / AD zone around Taiwan for the American fleet.
In a possible naval war, the US Navy will face a technologically advanced adversary such as China.
The PLA is armed with large numbers of unmanned aerial vehicles and anti-ship missiles. Naval experts admit that the US Navy will have to enter the “restricted” reach of these Chinese weapons.
American experts see two key problems in the problem of American naval defensive weapons:
1) limited ammunition;2) the ratio of the price of one’s own means of defense and the price of the means of attack of the enemy.
The limited ammunition means that surface ships of the US Navy use anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) and rapid-fire multi-barreled guns according to the Gatling scheme as their means of defense.
For example, the 6-barreled 20-mm Falanx anti-aircraft artillery mount, which is in service with the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, has a rate of fire of 3 thousand rounds per minute. Having quickly fired at its defensive ammunition at this rate of fire, the ship will be forced to withdraw from the battle and head to a safe supply base, which may be hundreds of miles from the scene of the battle.
The situation is similar with the air defense systems of surface ships of the US Navy. The URO cruisers of the Ticonderoga type have 122 missile compartments, and the Arlie Burke destroyers have 90–96 missile compartments. Only a part of these cells can be occupied by several dozen air defense systems. To confidently defeat enemy missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles, it may sometimes be necessary to fire two or more air defense systems at a target. As a result, it turns out that there is a very limited anti-missile ammunition on board. An enemy attack by several swarms of dozens of cruise missiles could quickly deplete the air defense system on American surface ships. Once the defensive arsenal has been emptied, an American warship will either be sunk or forced out of action.
Again, the ammunition stock of missiles for the vertical launch system of the Aegis universal complex of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer can only be replenished at a specialized base.
Second point. The value for money means that a defensive weapon can cost immeasurably more than the price of an enemy attacking weapon – a cheap UAV or a fairly simple anti-ship missile.
An air defense / missile defense missile on US surface ships can cost from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars per missile, depending on their type. Shooting such missiles at cheap Chinese UAVs is too expensive. In combat scenarios with a limited attack on a ship, it may make sense to use an expensive missile to destroy a cheap drone to save the ship and the lives of the sailors. But in a situation of large-scale conflict, this approach is already becoming unacceptable.
In the situation described, American sailors are looking for means to multiply the defensive capabilities of their surface ships. Possible solutions to the problem are jamming sensors or blinding the guidance system of an enemy missile or unmanned aerial vehicle; the use of various types of traps to divert enemy missiles from the target; use of means of direct destruction of enemy missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
In this regard, until recently, three naval programs for the creation of the latest naval weapons for surface ships were involved. All of these naval programs have an obvious bias in the development of the defensive capabilities of surface ships of the US Navy:
1) a “solid-state technology” combat laser (SSLS);
2) electromagnetic rail gun (EMRG);
3) guided projectile (GLGP), fired both from a rail gun and from conventional standard ship guns.
Combat lasers. The first prototype of a combat laser capable of striking enemy ships and unmanned aerial vehicles, was installed on a US Navy ship in 2014. Further improvement of this experimental system is aimed at hitting enemy anti-ship cruise missiles with a laser, that is, to perform the function of a ship missile defense system.
The SSL laser is electrically powered from the ship’s general power plant. It can be used multiple times as long as the ship has fuel to generate electricity. It is argued that the resource of one laser “shot” can be equal to one gallon of diesel fuel. The laser installation, even if it operates only against UAVs or small surface vessels of the enemy, will retain the potential of the ship’s air defense system for action on more serious targets, such as anti-ship missiles.
High energy lasers usually have a radiation power of at least 10 kilowatts. Between 2009 and 2012, the US Navy successfully tested a prototype combat laser. The beam power of this installation was reported to be about 30 kilowatts. They intend to use the installation of such power against enemy unmanned aerial vehicles. Its power is enough to blind the UAV. A laser of this power has a short range – from one mile and possibly up to several. The state of the atmosphere imposes serious restrictions on its use. Lasers in general, and not just low power, cannot be an all-weather weapon. This is their basic disadvantage.
In August 2014, a combat laser with a capacity of about 30 kilowatts was installed for testing in normal situations at the Pons landing transport dock (LPD-15). This allowed in the period until 2017 to assess the operation of the ship’s laser in the operational environment of the Persian Gulf to counter boats and UAVs.
As a follow-up to the project, two industry development teams from BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman partnered with Raytheon to develop a combat laser with a beam power of up to 150 kW. On October 22, 2015, the Pentagon announced that it had selected Northrop Grumman as the winner of the SSL-TM-type combat laser competition. In the fall of 2019, the Portland amphibious landing dock (LPD 27) was equipped with a new 150-kilowatt laser developed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Northrop Grumman. In addition, the system was tested in 2020 at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
On May 22, 2020, the US Navy announced that the landing craft Portland had used its laser during sea trials to successfully disable an unmanned aerial vehicle.
In November 2020, this system was installed aboard the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Dewey (DDG 105).
In a February 21, 2020 press release, the Navy reported that there is another laser in the US Navy’s arsenal that can blind and block the operation of enemy drones that threaten surface ships. From 2010 to 2011, a prototype laser was tested in the USA – a high-energy laser with a built-in optical dazzler and an observation system (HELIOS).
Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) HELIOS system has a 60-150 kW laser beam setup that can be aimed at unmanned aerial vehicles and small ships. In early 2018, the Navy signed a $ 150 million contract with Lockheed Martin to develop two HELIOS systems, one of which was to be installed on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and the other to be used in ground tests. The 2019 budget then limited the Navy’s request to only one device. But the project was further developed. The Lockheed Martin system has already been installed on three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and will be installed on two more this year, and three more in the coming years – a total of eight destroyers.
The HELIOS system is capable of withstanding only enemy reconnaissance actions.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is pushing to double the output of combat lasers to more than 300 kilowatts. With similar power, lasers can be used against attacks by anti-ship missiles. The use of a laser against anti-ship missiles has the following tactical feature. The laser can hit an anti-ship missile not directly along the course, but perpendicular to the side. The nose cones of cruise missiles are reinforced to move in supersonic airflow, so they are immune to laser beams. Consequently, the ship – the carrier of the laser must hit the cruise missile in the side when it goes to the target on the other ship. With this tactic, the laser carrier ship performs the escort function. Mutual support of a group of ships with laser installations installed on them is possible.
The light from the laser beam reaches the target instantly. This eliminates the need to calculate an intercept course, as is the case with interceptor missiles. After hitting one target, the laser can be redirected to a new target within a few seconds. Lasers can hit maneuvering missiles.
Currently, the use of laser weapons in the ship missile defense system is hampered by a number of technical problems that need to be addressed, for example, a high turbine atmosphere tapeness, target detection and identification, target tracking and tracking, aiming point maintenance, automatic aiming point placement, etc.
Thus, the experimental laser systems available on US surface ships with their low power can only be used against enemy UAVs, and then only to a limited extent.
There is another problem. The light emitted by the SSLS combat laser has a frequency that can cause irreparable damage to a person’s vision, including blindness. The United States, in 1995, ratified the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons that May Be Excessively Injurious or Indiscriminate. An international review of the convention began in 1994 and culminated in May 1996 with the adoption, inter alia, of a new Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons. The protocol prohibits the use of lasers specially designed to cause permanent blindness. The United States ratified Protocol IV on December 23, 2008, and it entered into force for the United States on July 21, 2009.
Railgun (EMRG) and Guided Projectile (GLGP). The US Navy has been developing the rail gun since 2005. A rail gun uses electricity, not a powder charge, to fire its projectiles. The rail cannon is powered by the ship’s general electrical supply, launching a projectile at approximately Mach 5.9. Therefore, the projectile for the rail gun was named “hyperspeed projectile”, abbreviated as HVP.
One of the prototypes of the rail gun was developed by BAE Systems and the other by General Atomics. The system is intended for fire support from a ship of a landing Marine Corps, as well as for anti-aircraft and missile defense of the ship. But in the course of the development of the project, the military developers found that the HVP guided projectile being developed for the rail gun could also be fired with a conventional powder charge from a conventional ship’s 127-mm gun, which is in service with destroyers of the Arlie Burke class and URO cruisers of the Ticonderoga class. This guided projectile can also be used in the 155-mm ground artillery systems of the US Army.Guided projectiles for the rail cannon and for the ship’s 127-mm cannon can be stored by the hundreds in the cellars of a surface ship. The estimated cost in the project of a guided projectile at prices of 2018 was $ 85 thousand, which is several times less than the cost of missiles for missiles.
The guided projectile weighs approximately 28 pounds (12.7 kg). The defeat of the target is carried out due to the high kinetic energy of the projectile flight. BAE Systems Corporation reported that the maximum rate of fire for HVP projectiles from 127-mm Mk 45 naval guns is 20 rounds per minute. For 155 mm guns mounted on Zumvolt destroyers (DDG-1000) – 10 rounds per minute.
According to BAE Systems, when firing from a 127-mm gun, an HVP projectile flies 40-50 nautical miles, and when firing 155-mm guns of a DDG-1000 class destroyer – more than 70 nautical miles.
By reducing the cost of high-speed high-energy projectiles to $25 thousand apiece, it would be possible to radically improve the protection capabilities of the ships of the fleet. Heavy fire from such projectiles can become an insurmountable obstacle for more expensive enemy anti-ship missiles.
igh-velocity HVP projectiles can also be used against the heads of attacking anti-ship ballistic missiles in service with the Chinese. The Aegis bius takes only 300 seconds to determine the trajectory of a launched ballistic missile. Next, you should shoot at the approaching warhead with an HVP projectile, equipped with five hundred three-gram tungsten pellets. The force of their impact – the mass multiplied by the square of the velocity – will destroy the costly warhead of the enemy ballistic missile with kinetic energy.
Still, it looks like the alluring and promising naval rail gun (EMRG) and guided projectile (GLGP) programs in the US are winding down. The U.S. Navy’s draft fiscal 2022 budget proposes to suspend further work on the EMRG rail gun and GLGP hyperspeed projectile programs and does not request research and development funding for them. In a press release from the US Navy on July 2, 2021, it is argued that the Navy is going to transfer monetary resources to hypersonic missiles and other high-tech weapons. Thus, it can be stated that at the end of 2021, the problem of increasing the defensive potential of American surface ships has not yet been resolved with all the ensuing consequences.
Dmitry Semushin, EADaily