Tag Archives: Air Defense

Capability Analysis

A Look at Corvettes and Air Defense

2 Comments

Corvettes, unlike offshore patrol vessels are meant for wartime use without major upgrades.  Their status as warships requires a satisfactory level of survivability against at the very least, common threats.

The design objectives for Corvettes, in regard to anti air warfare (AAW), is typically limited to self-defense. A typical self-defense suite as mounted on German K130 corvettes consist of a 76 mm rapid fire gun, rolling airframe missiles (RAM, short-range air defense / point defense), 27 mm auto-cannons and soft kill countermeasures. The shaping of the hull and superstructure indicates a moderate reduction in radar cross-section and some reduction in infra-red signatures was attempted as well.

This kind of defensive package can be effective against incoming missiles (preferably subsonic ones) and low-flying combat aircraft (threats similar to those the Royal Navy faced in the Falklands).

These aren’t the only common aerial threats, though: There are also guided bombs, specifically laser, TV and infrared guided bombs which cost so very little that a rolling airframe missile (of which only few dozen are on board anyway) costs more.

ASBThe U.S. Air Force demonstrated recently its ability to bomb a speedboat at speed with a laser guided bomb from high altitude, scoring a direct hit. Other munitions, meant for pinpoint attacks on land vehicles, could target and destroy the RAM launcher or the 76 mm gun from beyond their effective range, exposing the ships to almost unrestricted iron bomb attacks.

The proliferation of laser guided bombs since their invention during the Vietnam War leaves no choice but to consider them as a common threat munitions, and corvettes need to be survivable in face of this threat. This leaves but three options:

  • Avoid being targeted, for example by disguising as a civilian ship
  • Stay under the protective umbrella of a AAW frigate, AAW destroyer or a permanent and reliable combat air patrol
  • At the very least carry surface to air missiles with a high effective ceiling into a warzone, even if onboard electronics do not permit to exploit their full performance envelope without external support.

Point (3) deserves an elaboration: In theory a corvette in a picket role could serve as an area air defence missile launcher, cooperating with a separate search and fire control unit such as an AEW&C aircraft as long as the missile doesn’t require shipboard support during flight. The corvette itself does not need illumination systems if the missile seeker isn’t employing semi active radar homing and it doesn’t need an area radar search capability if it enjoys the benefits of a datalink to an AEW or AAW platform. Finally, it doesn’t need to possess a sophisticated AAW control centre, as its fire control can be done remotely, using cooperative engagement capability (CEC). If the Corvette and the controlling unit are equipped with this capability, the Corvette needs only a few vertical launch silos to be able to engage the attacking aircraft rather than weapons it drops.

Corvettes are of course not intended for employment as task force ships, but the destroyer escorts of 1944 weren’t intended to fight against battleships in defence of escort aircraft carriers either (Battle of Samar, ’44).

“Sven Ortmann is a German blogger. Since begun in 2007, his blog, “Defence and Freedom,” has covered a range of military, defence policy and economic topics, with more than a million page views. His personal military background is his service in the Luftwaffe. He has guest-blogged at the Small Wars Journal Blog and other blogs on military topics.  http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/“

Future Tech

Nextics: Flak is Back

3 Comments
Two should cut it, right? We’ve all got guns and the Germans are just rolling around in glorified trucks!

The tanks of the French 3rd Republic have become an unfortunate mascot of doctrinal stagnation. While the lessons of the Blitzkrieg are well taken, few note the incredible amount of time, the 25 years between the invention of the tank and WWII, during which tacticians could have developed new tactics. The real crime wasn’t ignoring the border with Belgium, it was ignoring technological developments for so long. By 1939, the Blitzkrieg concept should have been understood, countered, and re-developed by all sides. Tacticians must strive to provide their weapons with new tactics. Nextics, a combination of “next” and “tactics” is the development beyond that cutting edge: the weapons of tomorrow countered by the tactics of the day after. Drone swarms are a technology that, with a potential to be a near-term reality, we should prepare to counter as well as use.

The U.S. does not have a monopoly on the use of autonomous drone groups; a technology like drones using primarily open-source commercial and academic sources will soon be available to our competitors. Our technological advantage, experience, and know-how can keep us on the cutting edge, but we should be prepared to counter our own innovation before it is even brought into the field.

Traditional countermeasures will not work against drone swarms. Kinetic interceptors such as missiles and 20mm CIWS are designed to intercept single targets and groups of limited size. Drone swarms, numbering from dozens to hundreds of individual units, would overwhelm any kinetic system when attacking ships and aircraft. Typical chaff and electronic countermeasures will have difficulty countering drones using optical or infrared systems that recognize platform shapes, and chaff would not linger long enough to out-last a large drone cloud. The best countermeasure for a large formation of small, agile units is a weapon we have long left behind.

Same swarm, same problem, but processors instead of pilots.

Flak cannons and other aerial saturation systems are the day after’s countermeasures against the weapons of tomorrow. In the 1990s, Oerlikon designed the Millennium Gun, a close-in weapon system designed to intercept missiles with a shotgun-style area-effect blast. Such a system is a model for future drone-swarm countermeasure systems. Larger aircraft with the ball-turret style weapons of old could be deployed to protect high value units, or even drone swarms themselves from their opponent swarms. On land, soldiers could use a modified Trophy system to defend themselves from drones designed to combat men and vehicles. “Going stupid” saves on vital space that would be required for higher-level processors and detectors designed to combat individual miniature drones.

The urge to fight fire with fire is a strong one. Newer and better technologies are available to help us over-think problems. The coming age of automated warfare has us obsessed with hacking, spoofing, and otherwise electronic befuddlement. However, Gordian’s technological Knot does not always require complicated detection systems, guided weapons, or coded backdoors. On occasion, a really big Mossberg 500 will do.

Matt Hipple is a surface warfare officer in the U.S. Navy. The opinions and views expressed in this post are his alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. Navy.