How Useful Is Classical Maritime Strategy in an Age of Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles?

[fatman17]

How Useful Is Classical Maritime Strategy in an Age of Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles? | @redunley via @ASPI_org https://t.co/j5BMgKznCu

 

[Philosopher]

A very prudent question. The arrival of anti-ship ballistic missiles in past decade and the more recent arrival of hypersonic systems have made surface fleets extremely vulnerable. The reality is, unless you can suppress the ability of adversaries to impose these A2/AD, then any vessels you have in that zone is a "sitting duck". The air/missile defence of naval assets today are inadequate qualitatively and quantitatively speaking.

The good news for those advocating classical naval warfare is that although it is very difficult to defeat the actual kinetic systems themselves, it is much easier to "blind" the adversaries prior to launch. Take Iran for example. Iran has anti-ship ballistic missiles with 2000-3000 km range. Suppose it had the satellite capability to detect, track and guide these long range ballistic missiles to a moving surface fleet (It does not currently have this capability, although are other ways it can be done), one could in theory reduce this effective A2/AD area by "blinding" them i.e destroying the satellites. Here I agree with the article of the relative vulnerabilities of the overall kill chain. However this is still a very difficult issue to solve.

I do not agree with the article's comment: "High-end anti-ship missiles themselves are extremely expensive". This is not necessarily correct, Iran has produced anti-ship ballistic missiles in the 300km range for over a decade at a very economical cost.

Ultimately, there is always a cat and mouse game in defence sector. Technologies will develop over time to help defend against emerging and emerged threats, but in this case, I am personally not a proponent of large surface fleets. Too large, too costly and too vulnerable.

 

[fatman17]

Some suggest that carriers are the new battleships.

A very prudent question. The arrival of anti-ship ballistic missiles in past decade and the more recent arrival of hypersonic systems have made surface fleets extremely vulnerable. The reality is, unless you can suppress the ability of adversaries to impose these A2/AD, then any vessels you have in that zone is a "sitting duck". The air/missile defence of naval assets today are inadequate qualitatively and quantitatively speaking.

The good news for those advocating classical naval warfare is that although it is very difficult to defeat the actual kinetic systems themselves, it is much easier to "blind" the adversaries prior to launch. Take Iran for example. Iran has anti-ship ballistic missiles with 2000-3000 km range. Suppose it had the satellite capability to detect, track and guide these long range ballistic missiles to a moving surface fleet (It does not currently have this capability, although are other ways it can be done), one could in theory reduce this effective A2/AD area by "blinding" them i.e destroying the satellites. Here I agree with the article of the relative vulnerabilities of the overall kill chain. However this is still a very difficult issue to solve.

I do not agree with the article's comment: "High-end anti-ship missiles themselves are extremely expensive". This is not necessarily correct, Iran has produced anti-ship ballistic missiles in the 300km range for over a decade at a very economical cost.

Ultimately, there is always a cat and mouse game in defence sector. Technologies will develop over time to help defend against emerging and emerged threats, but in this case, I am personally not a proponent of large surface fleets. Too large, too costly and too vulnerable.

 

[truthseeker2010]

A very prudent question. The arrival of anti-ship ballistic missiles in past decade and the more recent arrival of hypersonic systems have made surface fleets extremely vulnerable. The reality is, unless you can suppress the ability of adversaries to impose these A2/AD, then any vessels you have in that zone is a "sitting duck". The air/missile defence of naval assets today are inadequate qualitatively and quantitatively speaking.

The good news for those advocating classical naval warfare is that although it is very difficult to defeat the actual kinetic systems themselves, it is much easier to "blind" the adversaries prior to launch. Take Iran for example. Iran has anti-ship ballistic missiles with 2000-3000 km range. Suppose it had the satellite capability to detect, track and guide these long range ballistic missiles to a moving surface fleet (It does not currently have this capability, although are other ways it can be done), one could in theory reduce this effective A2/AD area by "blinding" them i.e destroying the satellites. Here I agree with the article of the relative vulnerabilities of the overall kill chain. However this is still a very difficult issue to solve.

I do not agree with the article's comment: "High-end anti-ship missiles themselves are extremely expensive". This is not necessarily correct, Iran has produced anti-ship ballistic missiles in the 300km range for over a decade at a very economical cost.

Ultimately, there is always a cat and mouse game in defence sector. Technologies will develop over time to help defend against emerging and emerged threats, but in this case, I am personally not a proponent of large surface fleets. Too large, too costly and too vulnerable.

Add these missiles in subs, and your difficulty gets to a whole new level.

Some suggest that carriers are the new battleships.

At least in SCS, they will be sitting ducks.

 

[Zarvan]

A Ship vs Ship dogfight is never going to take place. In modern times Missile Range will keep getting increased and Ships which can fire long range Missiles can fire Missiles on other Ships from a massive distance plus same Missiles which can hit target on land are the future. Plus in Submarines the Subs with VLS for Cruise Missiles along with several Torpedoes tubes w become future.