Tag Archive for: anti-ship missiles

Lessons from Ukraine war for Indo-Pacific navies

The war in Ukraine looks set to become protracted. Russia’s expected rapid victory has failed to materialise and the conflict is now well into a second phase of a Donbas campaign that is likely to last weeks if not longer.

One of the most dramatic moments of the conflict so far has been the sinking of the Russian Black Sea Fleet flagship, the Slava-class cruiser Moskva, most likely by two Ukrainian shore-launched Neptune anti-ship missiles. The use of a TB-2 drone to distract the ship’s air-defence systems from the approaching missiles likely proved vital, but it’s also highly likely that the Moskva’s air-defence systems were not well suited to countering low-flying, fast-moving anti-ship missiles.

It’s not surprising that the remaining Russian Navy units have redeployed further out to sea, beyond the range of the shore-based coastal defence cruise missiles operated by Ukraine.

It’s important not to read too much into the sinking of the Moskva in terms of implying that naval surface combatants are now obsolete in the face of advanced missile systems. That’s certainly not the case. Naval surface combatants have been sunk in past conflicts by such weapons—the use of Exocet anti-ship missiles against the Royal Navy’s HMS Sheffield during the 1982 Falklands War for example.

However, there should be some warning signs flashing at least amber for a business-as-usual approach to naval capability development, particularly for Indo-Pacific navies. Anti-ship missile systems are evolving to the point where a large attack on a naval taskforce will be increasingly difficult to defend against.

Because of that increasing threat, the trend in the development of naval surface forces seems to be heading towards larger, more complex and more expensive naval vessels, designed primarily to defend against such attacks, and defend a major capital asset such as an aircraft carrier, rather than deliver long-range offensive firepower. Their armament is in vertical launch system cells that can’t be reloaded at sea, so once the cells are empty, a warship is effectively defenceless and might as well return to port.

The use of lethal autonomous weapons and loitering munitions adds to the challenge facing naval surface forces. Advanced drones have comparable ranges to anti-ship missile systems, and can identify targets, deliver munitions, attack the target directly or even coordinate attacks by anti-ship missiles.

The combination of advanced drones and anti-ship missiles highlights the growing challenge for naval forces to survive in highly contested environments, such as that which would confront naval forces operating close to China.

For Indo-Pacific states, the combination of advanced anti-surface-warfare weapons comprising anti-ship missiles and loitering munitions, and a sophisticated sensor-to-shooter ‘kill chain’ is going to make it increasingly risky for naval forces to go in harm’s way in the western Pacific.

Rather than trying to defend a taskforce comprising a small number of large, complex and costly naval surface combatants, each with limited firepower against massed missile and drone swarms, a better solution for Indo-Pacific naval forces is to emphasise the development of larger numbers of smaller missile-armed naval vessels. These would operate either independently or in small squadrons, in a distributed and dispersed manner, taking full advantage of the archipelagic nature of the region’s geography, while relying on resilient and survivable sensor-to-shooter links to detect and attack an adversary.

This approach would also see Indo-Pacific navies invest in their own swarms of sensors on low-cost expendable drones and utilise loitering munitions as well as anti-ship missile systems that would be suitable for corvette-class vessels and, significantly, for autonomous surface vessels that could act as small arsenal ships that could launch missiles and loitering munitions. This approach recognises that quantity has a quality all its own.

Going from a navy that emphasises the large, few and expensive to the small, many and cheap is just part of the solution. The adversary’s sensor-to-shooter kill chain must be severed quickly in order to reduce the effectiveness of its anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, including its long-range systems such as anti-ship ballistic missiles.

By collapsing the adversary’s counter-intervention capability, more traditional naval forces, including large naval surface combatants, could then be deployed closer to allow for planned land-attack and anti-ship missile systems to be employed without risking the loss of the launching platform.

The Russians have demonstrated the ability to launch long-range land-attack missiles against Ukraine such as Kalibr, and this suggests a third lesson, with naval land-attack missions exploiting long-range fires, and in particular, hypersonic weapons.

But taking out an opponent’s ability to detect, track and target naval forces at sea is a crucial step. Had Ukraine not been able to target the Moskva, it would still be afloat. Therefore, a battle of the first salvo in 21st century naval terms that could occur in space, in cyberspace and across the electromagnetic spectrum is the vital enabler for everything that follows.

This approach replicates at sea what Ukrainian forces are employing on land—small teams of fighters, using low-cost intelligence capabilities and rapid attacks that employ surprise and concentration of force at the right time and place to deliver lethal effect, and quick dispersal to avoid retaliation. It’s an asymmetric approach to naval operations in the Indo-Pacific that makes more sense than charging into the dragon’s domain and suffering the loss of major surface combatants.

Getting Australia’s defence capability right in time to deter a future enemy

The 2020s have begun a period of rapid change for Australian defence planners. The government’s 2020 defence strategic update and accompanying force structure plan refocused strategic and operational priorities to the Indo-Pacific. They highlighted the growing risk of major-power war and the outdated assumption that we would have 10 years of strategic warning time for a major power conflict. The AUKUS agreement followed and further upended our traditional policy settings. Suddenly Australia was getting nuclear-powered submarines. These changes have come fast and the defence organisation must keep up.

So, what might 2022 bring? Hopefully, a concerted effort to close the yawning disconnect between the government’s recognition of a rapidly worsening strategic outlook characterised by a rising challenge from a hegemonic China and the Defence Department’s relatively relaxed approach to major capability acquisition.

A fast and meaningful review of key projects is required to ensure they’ll be fit for purpose in a much more dangerous future. We also need new thinking on how to get major capabilities quickly—in years, rather than decades.

Sailing on an assumption of calm waters and accepting a two-decade acquisition cycle are no longer appropriate. While it’s undeniable that major defence projects take time—a frigate can be built only so fast—a parallel approach is needed to rapidly acquire new capabilities concurrently with slower projects.

The first step must be to identify capabilities to be acquired quickly, through collaborative development under AUKUS or via military off-the-shelf acquisition, to bulk up the Australian Defence Force’s long-range strike capabilities. That’s where the greatest capability gap lies.

The process must begin by ensuring that capabilities match our strategic and operational priorities. A good start would be for Defence to review its capability context scenarios to ensure they’re relevant to the ADF’s future defence strategy, capability development and force posture.

There should be a debate over an expanded approach to the traditional ‘defence of Australia’ task that embraces long-range power projection and prioritises advanced long-range strike weapons at the centre of ADF capability. Projecting forward defence in depth based on long-range strike and emphasising advanced space, ‘near space’ and cyber operations should be our next step in getting ADF capability right to deter a possible aggressor.

It’s here that we run into some challenges. Now, there’s a mismatch between the capabilities we acquire and the likely nature of operations in which they’ll be employed.

In August 2021, the ADF announced that it intended to join the US-led Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) program to develop new land-based missiles that can strike surface targets and ships up to 500 kilometres away. These missiles would be launched from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). As I noted in an earlier article:

A 500-kilometre-range precision strike missile could form an inner layer for an anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) system along Australia’s north and northwest coasts into the sea–air gap. Given that the system is based on HIMARS, a forward-deployed capability would enable the army to contribute to sea denial in support of expeditionary operations.

This sits well alongside decisions reannounced under AUKUS for Defence’s acquisition of AGM-158C long range, precision-guided anti-ship missiles (LRASMs) and AGM-158B joint air-to-surface standoff missiles—extended range (JASSM-ER) for the air force and BGM-109E Block V Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs) for the navy’s Hobart-class destroyers. This is in addition to Australia’s involvement with the US in the SCIFiRE Program to develop hypersonic weapons.

Yet, for Australia’s operational requirements, 500-kilometre-range missiles are limited. If based in northern Australia, near key defence facilities such as Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal, a 500-kilometre-range PrSM system could only respond to threats immediately offshore from Darwin. That’s fine for a last-ditch defence against a force off Australia’s northern coastline, but it does little to hold at risk an adversary within maritime chokepoints like the Makassar Strait, or to contribute to coalition operations in a Taiwan conflict scenario.

The PrSM capability represents a significant boost in long-range firepower for the army, compared to outdated towed artillery, or even the new K-9 Huntsman self-propelled artillery pieces. But it represents in microcosm a macro challenge for the ADF in that all the planned long-range strike capabilities fall short of the vast geographic scale of the Indo-Pacific region. And they could not penetrate deeply into China’s A2/AD envelope.

Given the serious strategic challenges Australia faces, it’s sensible to develop the ability to strike an adversary’s naval forces a long way away.

New antiship systems such as air-launched LRASMs and ship-based Block V TLAMs enhance our ability to achieve this, but only in an environment in which aircraft and naval vessels can penetrate and survive. As ASPI senior fellow Andrew Davies notes, it will become increasingly challenging for large and complex naval surface combatants to survive advanced A2/AD. In the air, platforms such as the RAAF’s F/A-18Fs carrying LRASMs may not have the luxury of support from airborne refuellers inside an adversary’s A2/AD envelope that continues to expand.

A potential solution to the ADF’s long-range strike gap is to use AUKUS to acquire B-21 bombers from the US—what ASPI’s executive director Peter Jennings refers to as ‘Plan B-21’—in lieu of acquiring nuclear-powered submarines that probably won’t appear until the late 2030s. A B-21 solution, if it could be realised quickly enough, would give Australia the ability to deliver advanced missiles such as LRASMs and JASSM-ERs, and ultimately hypersonic weapons.

Another option would be sea-based antiship ballistic missiles based on a navalised PrSM, launched from the navy’s Hobart-class air warfare destroyer or the planned Hunter-class frigate. That would emulate, ironically, China’s approach to the development of a sea-based anti-ship missile that can be launched from its Renhai-class cruiser. The challenge is that the navy doesn’t have enough ships, and the Hobarts and Hunters have too few vertical launch system cells to accommodate what would likely be a new and quite large missile system.

Also, the Hunter class is unlikely to appear before the mid-2030s. ASPI’s Marcus Hellyer has highlighted the possibility of new offshore patrol vessels that are missile armed and additional Hobart-class destroyers that could carry missiles including TLAMs and an antiship ballistic missiles.

The third option would be reconsideration of PrSM from a capability with a range of 500 kilometres to a high-end medium-range or low-end intermediate-range capability of around 3,000 kilometres. That could enable the army to deploy advanced land-strike and antiship ballistic missiles from the Northern Territory, dramatically extending the ADF’s ability to strike an enemy at much greater range.

Regulating autonomous weapons

This week, the UN is meeting for a fourth time to discuss how ‘lethal autonomous weapons systems’ (LAWS) should be governed within the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. NGOs such as the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots have continued to press for a ban such weapons. NATO-aligned powers (the UK and Australia) have resisted a ban as premature due to lack of agreed definitions. Many nations have repeated requests for clear definitions as to what exactly they’re being asked to ban.

Given the absence of agreed definitions, the Dutch in their working paper suggested that people propose working definitions. Here are mine. First, I agree with the definition of ‘autonomy’ that George Bekey offers in his book Autonomous robots: ‘Autonomy refers to systems capable of operating in a real-world environment without any form of external control for an extended period of time.’

Second, the ‘critical functions’ of LAWS are defined as the three components of lethal targeting—defining a target class, selecting a target and engaging a target. Other functions such as take-off and landing, as well as navigation, may be autonomous, but no one argues that autonomy in those functions should be banned.

Given those working definitions, a LAWS is ‘fully autonomous’ if it can define, select and engage its targets with no external control. The ‘meaningful human control’ of LAWS that’s frequently called for should be interpreted to entail the involvement of a human operator. There are debates as to whether that requires a human being to be in the loop, on the loop or off the loop, and indeed how wide the loop should be.

Patriot anti-missile systems aren’t fully autonomous. Human programmers define their targeting criteria. Patriot systems can select targets autonomously, but by design require a human to press a ‘Confirm’ button before the system will engage. Patriot systems are thus one-third autonomous according to my working definitions.

For the purposes of drafting a ban, this ‘human in the loop’ line is very clear. However, it has the problem of excluding many weapons already in use.

Phalanx and C-RAM anti-artillery systems aren’t fully autonomous. They don’t define targeting criteria. However, once activated they can select and engage targets without human intervention. Humans can deactivate the system and hit an ‘Abort’ button to stop it firing, but if they do nothing the system is effectively two-thirds autonomous. That ‘human on the loop’ architecture gives the option—but not the guarantee—of ‘meaningful human control’ because the humans monitoring the system may be distracted, killed at their posts or flooded by data and unable to make sound decisions in the available time. In all of those situations, they wouldn’t be to stop the system.

Existing naval mines and anti-tank mines aren’t fully autonomous. They don’t define what to attack. Human programmers define acoustic signatures to which the systems respond. However, once deployed, the weapons select and engage targets without human operators. Some say that that makes such systems ‘fully autonomous’. On my working definitions, however, they are two-thirds autonomous.

The fictional Skynet in the Terminator films is fully autonomous. According to the apocalyptic story, Skynet decides to target humanity shortly after it becomes ‘self-aware’, and it does so without any human direction. It defines, selects and engages its targets with no human in or on the wider loop.

The Dutch argue that meaningful human control can be exercised within ‘the wider loop’—that is, within the defined critical functions on my working definitions. They claim that a LAWS can be under meaningful human control if humans retain control of the system’s targeting criteria. Assuming that the machine is well-designed and tested, on many missions it could then be trusted to select and engage without real-time human monitoring. There would be no ‘Confirm’ or ‘Abort’ buttons. Once activated, the LAWS would select and engage its targets with two-thirds autonomy.

Others argue that such a ‘set and forget’ approach falls outside the definition of meaningful human control.

So, which definition of meaningful human control should be adopted?

Mandating a human in the loop would effectively ban systems like Phalanx and C-RAM. It also would ban long-existing and widely deployed systems like anti-ship and anti-tank mines. One could bite the bullet and accept that ‘meaningful human control’ demands that those types of systems be withdrawn. Alternatively, one could exempt such ‘defensive’ systems from the ban.

An alternative is to agree that meaningful human control can be exercised in the wider loop, and to mandate that at least one human be involved in the wider loop. That would permit systems to autonomously select and engage targets without the delays caused by human cognition. As that would confer strategic advantage on technologically advanced states, they’ll be more likely to support it. Opposition from the AI community will be brushed off.

In practice, however, it would be prudent to have more than one human in the wider loop. If operational tempo permits, having two or three humans in the loop—one who defines the targeting criteria, one who confirms a decision to engage, and perhaps one who confirms a target selection—is preferable to having only one person involved. Human–robot teams are less likely to make egregious targeting errors than purely robot or purely human teams.

Filling the gap: Anti-ship missiles and the Royal Australian Navy

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile (SM) 6 during a live-fire test of the ship's aegis weapons system.

On 4 February, US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the US Navy had developed a new anti-ship missile (ASM)—the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6). But that ‘new’ missile isn’t as new as it might seem. The SM-6 has been in limited service with the US Navy as its most capable long range anti-air and anti-missile weapons system since 2013. The SM-6 is estimated to have a range of over 200 nautical miles (370km) and flies at Mach 3.5, giving it the ability to hit an adversary at a long range with little to no warning from defensive radars.

That news comes at a welcome time for many around the world lamenting the US Navy’s lack of a long-range ASM capability. Since retiring the anti-ship variant of the venerable RGM-109 Tomahawk in 1994, the US Navy has been in want of a long range supersonic ASM and has relied upon the slower and shorter ranged RGM-84 Harpoon and SM-2 (the SM-6’s predecessor which had a limited anti-ship capability) missiles to satisfy its surface-to-surface requirements. However, the US Navy isn’t the only state with this capability gap. Years of disinterest in surface warfare, caused by a lack of credible adversaries, have left many western navies (including Australia) far behind the likes of China and Russia in the development of those types of missiles.

Since the 1980s, RAN has relied upon the Harpoon for its ASM capabilities. While extremely versatile (it can be launched from aircraft, ships, and submarines), the Harpoon is capable of only subsonic speeds and has a range of approximately 70 nautical miles (130km). By comparison, China’s newest ASM, the YJ-18, is supersonic and is estimated to have a range of 290 nautical miles (537km). That means that RAN vessels equipped with the Harpoon are not only out-ranged by many potential adversaries, but also have less time to react if fired upon.

That leads to some potentially deadly scenarios for RAN vessels, especially in a contested area of operations. To compensate for the Harpoon’s short range and lower speed, RAN has typically relied upon satellites, submarines, and long range patrol or strike aircraft to find and defeat potential surface threats long before they can target RAN vessels. In an area of operations where access by friendly ships or aircraft (and the targeting data they provide) may be limited or denied—as is increasingly the case in the South and East China seas—RAN vessels can be ‘out sticked’ by the longer ranged and speedier ASMs of their adversaries.

The new anti-ship variant of the SM-6 is good news, then, for Australia as well. A future acquisition of the SM-6 would provide RAN with a means to partially remedy that capability gap. The incoming three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers (AWDs) incorporate the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) which allows them to be equipped with the SM-6. In fact, the Department of Defence’s SEA 1360  project intends to do just that. Under SEA 1360’s timeline, the SM-6’s on the AWDs would reach initial operating capability between FY 2021 and FY 2024.

However, relying on the SM-6 as the AWD’s primary means of long-range attack and defence in the long term could see ship commanders face a worrying dilemma. Using a SM-6 against an enemy surface vessel means that one less that can be used for the AWD’s primary task of air defence. The Mark 41 VLS on the AWD can hold up to 48 individual SM-6 missiles but once its missile supply is exhausted, it can’t replenish stocks until it returns to port. Ship commanders would have to use the SM-6 sparingly in some instances, which isn’t exactly ideal in combat situations.

Part of the long term solution to that problem is a dedicated long range, supersonic ASM capable of destroying enemy vessels. Absent this, RAN still possesses several options that would be compatible with the Mark 41 VLS fitted to most current and future RAN vessels. One is the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) under development by the US Navy. While the LRASM’s subsonic speed isn’t ideal, it makes up for it with a range of over 500 nautical miles (926km) and stealth features. It’s designed to use its low observability design and anti-jamming capabilities to get in the ‘kill box’ where it can autonomously identify and attack its target.

Another option is the new anti-ship variant of the Tomahawk, which, in a recent test, was able to hit a moving ship. The Tomahawk is a proven design and boasts a range of 1,000 nautical miles (1,852km), which would give any RAN vessel the ability to target an enemy well before they know it’s there. However, while the Tomahawk is also subsonic, it lacks the stealth features of the LRASM, leaving it more vulnerable to enemy air defences.

Targeting must also be taken into consideration with any potential acquisition. ASMs are guided by over-the-horizon systems using data transmitted from intelligence gathering platforms (such as satellites, submarines, and electronic intelligence aircraft) in order to get the missile close enough to its target for its terminal seeker to find and attack it. This ‘kill chain’ can be disrupted at each ‘link’, causing the missile to miss its target. It’s therefore critical that RAN ensures it has the networking capabilities (platforms such as the E-7A Wedgetail help in this regard) necessary to give a future ASM the best chance to strike its target.

Whether the US Navy will choose the LRASM or the anti-ship Tomahawk as its primary ASM remains to be seen until the US Navy’s competition for its new anti-ship missile in 2017. Acquiring the US’ winner (and the accompanying sensors required for targeting) would help RAN to fill its capability gap by the mid to late 2020s. Until then, the SM-6 will have to do.

Land-based strike capability: a force multiplier for the ADF?

The Australian Army Landing Craft Medium is another capability that links land and sea.

Jan Gleiman and Harry White’s latest post argues that regional militaries should consider land-based anti-ship missiles within their modernisation programs. That discussion’s both timely and relevant. And, indeed, the Australian Army has recently been looking at the role that land-based capabilities could have in contributing to a discussion of Joint Archipelagic Manoeuvre (PDF), thereby helping to ensure free and unfettered access to the maritime global commons. But Gleiman and White gloss over both the complexity of adopting such missile systems and the strategic implications that such a purchase could have within the region.

The authors did a good job of stating the case for the operational utility of land-based anti-shipping missiles. What they didn’t do was articulate a wider strategy which made best use of that weapon system. A basic case isn’t too hard to make. Because the geography north of Australia is archipelagic, the ADF needs a coherent vision for how it might operate in that environment. While it has been the custom to talk in terms of an ‘air-sea gap’ to the north, we really should think of the land elements as well—the ‘gap’ is actually filled with an extensive array of land masses of various sizes.

That’s where the strength of Gleiman and White’s argument lies—it links the land with the maritime environment. Being able to deny the sea from the land is a powerful capability, which in turn would help enable maritime operations, especially in the littoral. In this view, it’s not just the Air Force and Navy that operate in the ‘gap’, it’s the whole of the ADF that operates jointly in an ‘air-sea-land environment’. That’s why the Army has been thinking about the role it could play in such an approach. Read more