Let’s Support the USCG in Pacific Defense This Time

Following the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine warfare (ASW) capability declined because of the lack of threat once posed by the Soviet Navy. Since then, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) submarine force has steadily grown in quality and quantity over the past three decades and is now fielding modern submarines with more capabilities. Soon, the PLAN will be equipped with more submarines than any U.S. Navy. While many of China’s older submarines are less capable than their U.S. counterparts, the Navy must maintain a global presence while the PLAN can keep its focus closer to home. To counter the PLAN threat the Navy must revitalize its ASW capabilities through the use of new capabilities that are currently being tested and developed by the Marine Corps.

The Carrier Strike Group – A Penetrable Defense

The threat of submarines is not new. submarines sank 15 carriers. Modern ASW capabilities are vastly improved. However, modern submarines have also become more capable than their World War II predecessors. A single modern heavyweight torpedo detonating under a ship’s keel could cripple even a supercarrier. This threat was taken seriously by the Navy, which had originally planned to install an antitorpedo system on its supercarriers. Only a handful of carriers were able to resist the attack. were equipped with an antitorpedo device, and all have since been removed from service.

A carrier strike team has better anti-submarine defenses than a last ditch anti-torpedo system. A carrier strike group includes ASW aircraft, in addition to its ASW-capable surface maneuvers. They have since deteriorated. The S-3 Viking was the Navy’s last carrier-based fixed-wing ASW aircraft. In 2009, the last S-3 carrier squadron disbanded with no replacement. This left carrier strike groups with the MH-60R seahawk as the only organic ASW aircraft they had for the foreseeable future. The P-8A Poseidon maritime-patrol aircraft It is an extremely capable ASW platform that offers far more range, speed, endurance and payload than the Seahawk. It is however, land-based and has its disadvantages. In addition to the transit time required to reach enemy submarines, the Poseidon’s air bases would be lucrative targets for Chinese land-attack cruise missiles launched by ships, submarines, or the H-6 bomber, as well as conventional ballistic missiles.

As for surface escorts, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers They were specifically designed for the ASW mission and have bow-mounted and towed Sonar arrays. However, they have been shown to be ineffective during naval exercises. In addition, when escorting an aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship, surface ships’ primary concern likely will be air defense—especially considering the threats posed by Chinese weapons such as the DF-21D antiship balistic missile, Hypersonic missilesAnd Hypersonic gliders. The littoral combat ship (LCS), although it has more air-defense capabilities than the LCS, also has them. Arleigh Burke class), the ship’s ASW mission module This was just one of the many problems it had to face, which ultimately led to its cancellation. It is expected that the shortfall in its ASW capabilities will be covered by the Constellation-class frigate, However, this is as of August 20, 2222 Only one ship was currently under construction.

China’s Threat

A Chinese company was founded in 2006. Song-class submarines surfaced within five miles USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63). Nine years later, a Chinese Kilo class submarine shadowed USS. Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). Though the PLAN’s Kilo-class submarines were purchased from Russia, it has fielded its own modern conventionally powered submarines. The Type-039 Yuan class submarine is among the most powerful, along with the 039C variant. Public observation It was for the first year. According to open sources, it is estimated that the submarine will reach its final destination in December. It is possible to carry The Yu-6 dual-purpose heavyweight, heavyweight torpedo is also available as the YJ-18B ultrasonic antiship cruise ball missile. External targeting data can be used to increase the range of the latter’s missile to a maximum of 290 nautical mile. These missiles have a maximum range of approximately 290 nautical miles. Beyond the combat range for an MH-60R.

While the PLAN submarine force’s current inventory does not match the U.S. Navy’s number of nuclear-powered submarines, China has expanded its only shipyard capable of building nuclear submarines, which could (according to some estimates) Allow the construction of six more nuclear attack submarines By 2030. China is also continuing to build more powerful conventionally-powered submarines. Open-source estimates are not reliable, but they were accurate as of two years ago. The PLAN only had two submarines less The U.S. Navy. All in all, The PLAN was operated As of 2019, there were six nuclear attack submarines and four nuclear-missile submarines. There are also 50 diesel-electric attack submarines. These submarines can fire antiship missiles up to 120 miles from their ranges.

Chinese submarines can do more than simply attack surface ships. Eight of the PLAN’s 12 Russian-made Kilos are an improved variant of the class capable of firing antiship cruise missiles. Russia’s own improved Kilo submarines This has been done using land-attack cruise missiles During the Russo-Ukrainian WarIt is possible that the Chinese improved Kilo submarines can perform the same thing or can be retrofitted. This weapon could put U.S. naval bases in the Pacific—including runways for maritime patrol aircraft—in jeopardy. Also, the PLAN could be used to detect and destroy enemy aircraft. Try to develop land-attack missiles In a new possible variant of the Type 093 submarine.

Marines Fighting Submarines?

In General David Berger’s article, “Marines Will Help Fight Submarines,” the commandant explains how the Marine Corps’ expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) concept could align with ASW operations both in the Atlantic against Russian submarines and in the Pacific against Chinese submarines. General Berger’s article is largely conceptual, so it raises some questions as to how EABO will mesh with ASW. He writes that EABs could enable Marines to conduct ASW themselves and to support the Navy’s ASW efforts. This could be accomplished by providing logistical support to Navy ASW efforts, such as serving as rearming or refueling points of ASW aircraft. General Berger states that Marines would also be involved in ASW. “EABs could harass and potentially neutralize Russian submarines with ground-launched ASW missiles or light torpedoes from Marine aircraft.” Marines could provide logistic support for an aircraft like the MH-60R. Refuelling a Seahawk is no more difficult than refueling a Marine helicopter. Marine EABs could be stocked with sonobuoys or lightweight antisubmarine missile torpedoes in order to rearm and restock the MH-60R. Fuel also could increase a helicopter’s endurance by acting as a lily-pad: Rather than being limited by its combat radius when operating from a ship, being refueled by an EAB could extend a helicopter’s range or time on station. Aerial torpedoes can also be refueled by an EAB. Seahawk You can only have two, while the Viking Could carry up to four. Poseidon five.

While logistical support for Navy ASW helicopters might seem simple, there are significant obstacles that prevent Marines from carrying out ASW. The Marine Corps does not have the expertise or assets necessary to perform ASW. Each requires a lot of work. The easiest way to field ASW weapons and platforms is to use existing Navy equipment. If the Marine Corps bought its own Seahawks it would allow for the training of Marine aircrews using Navy personnel. This would also facilitate common maintenance between services. Seahawks are less agile than fixed-wing maritime patrol boats like the P-8 Poseidon in terms of speed, range, endurance and payload. EABO is not a good fit for land-based maritime surveillance aircraft. Most EABs don’t have runways. Even those that do, they are unlikely to be capable of supporting large aircraft like the Poseidon.

Two Marine Corps aircraft could be used to provide a baseline for ASW aircraft if the Marine Corps is planning on conducting it. The C-130 Hercules or the MV-22 Osprey could serve as a base. Lockheed Martin’s C-130J ASW variant includes magnetic anomaly detection, an audio processing system, and torpedoes and mines. It can also carry hellfire or harpoon missiles that can be used against surface targets. The C-130J The C-130 has endurance and range comparable to the P-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft, which was the predecessor to the P-8. The C-130 requires a runway to take off and land conventionally, but it can land on any surface that is not paved or paved. The ASW variant has a weight of 130,000 lbs., Its takeoff roll is at sea level Its takeoff roll would be approximately 1,900 feet, and its landing roll would reach 1,600 feet. A could reduce the takeoff roll by using a Jet-assisted Takeoff (JATO).However, production of the JATO system will need to be restarted since it is no longer in use in the United States.

A SW variant of Osprey would be a significant advantage for both the Navy as well as the Marines. Its speed and range is superior to the MH-60R. Additionally, it can land at EABs because of its vertical takeoff/ landing (VTOL). The Osprey can be refueled while in flight, which extends its range. Also unlike fixed-wing aircrafts, it can hover and can use a dipping sonar. An ASW version of the Osprey might be used to replace the S-3 in the carrier airwing, since the Navy has chosen the CMV-22 Osprey to replace the C-2 Greyhound. The Osprey is The Viking has a comparable combat radius (430 nm vertical takeoff, 525 Nm short takeoff, and 460 nm Viking). Payload capacity as well as payload capability (20,000 lbs versus 24,000 lbs). The Navy and Marine Corps could both field this variant. However, it would have minimal impact on logistics and maintenance since the airframe is already in use by both services.

Although an ASW Osprey variant has significant advantages, it will be difficult to develop, test and field. In the meantime, the Navy might consider bringing the S-3 Viking back from retirement. One Estimate claims The retired S-3s can fly 10,000 to 12,000 more hours. If this is correct, then the S-3 would be returned to service and carrier strike groups would have their long-range ASW capabilities restored until a new aircraft can fielded. Additionally, the S-3 can also serve as a tanker and can carry harpoon rockets to strike surface targets.

A Common Missile System

General Berger said that Marine EABs could also use ground-launched ASW rockets, in addition to having ASW-capable Marine aircraft. There are the same problems: The Marine Corps has not used ASW missiles and does not have the necessary expertise. There is precedent for the adoption of a new weapon system. The Marine Corps has never used antiship missiles before its formation. Adoption of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) last January. As with the NSM, it would be smart for the Marine Corps to adopt an existing missile instead of developing a new weapon. The RUM-139 Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket is in service with the U.S. Navy as well as the navies of allied countries. This weapon can carry either a Mark 46 light torpedo (or Mark 54) and is designed for firing from a vertical launch cell. Marine Corps has already reportedly Test fired a Tomahawk missile A land-based vertical launch platform based on the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), was used. It is possible that this system will also include the VL–ASROC, which was also designed to be fired using the Mark 41.

Ground-based vertical-launch missiles provide Marines with a significant range advantage. However, they also offer logistical advantages. The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ senior advisor Commented on the tests:

Our wargames revealed that NSM based on land was ineffective in almost all situations. The prewar restrictions on access and wartime Chinese defense bubble prevented the missiles reaching close enough to engage Chinese vessels. Land-based Tomahawk would allow the additional range needed to engage Chinese ships from more accessible bases. Additionally, the bases can be resupplied easily, meaning that launchers are not rendered useless after the first strike. Another advantage to containerized missiles are their ability to be attached to a wide range of vessels, unmanned or civilian cargo ships. This increases the potential number of platforms involved in a conflict.

The Marine Corps is attempting to transform itself into a force capable supporting naval campaigns through power projection from the air and sea. In These missiles, which are vertically-launched containerized missiles, will be crucial assets in the maritime domain. The Navy would share a weapon system, which would simplify production and logistical processes for both services. ASW missiles are also more accessible than aircraft because of the lower entry barrier in terms expertise. ASW missiles are not required to detect, classify and track submarines by Marines. They simply have to be available with their missile battery to launch at request of Naval platforms, manned by crews already trained and equipped.

Although the VL–ASROC is readily available, there are still options to revive the Sea Lance program. The Sea Lance was planned Supersonic antisubmarine Rocket With a greater range than the existing ASW missiles, it is intended to be used by VLS-armed submarines and surface ships. The program was cancelled by the United States after the end of the Cold War. India has created its own supersonic ASW Missile At least one was successfully tested. Launched from a transporter-erector-launcher, the missile has a datalink capability, meaning its course can be corrected in flight if the target location is updated by the searching ASW platform. It is claimed to have a range up to 650 kilometers. If this figure is correct and the United States purchases it or develops its own weapon, a Marine EAB would provide an ASW capability with its antiship capabilities from both the Tomahawk Missiles and Naval Strike Missiles. Its datalink also would enable a network of sensing platforms—including Unmanned and unarmed platforms in combination—to request such a weapon and guide it to a target. ASW aircrafts that have run out of their own torpedoes and are prosecuting multiple targets, but can’t deliver weapons simultaneously, could also be able to do this. This weapon would allow for an increase in antisubmarine weapon reach not only of land-based Marine Launchers but also of ships, submarines and other vessels.

The way forward

Chinese submarines demonstrated their maneuverability near U.S. carriers. This foreshadows that the PLAN submarine force could pose a threat U.S. warships as well as land bases in the event a war breaks out. The Sea Services should work to improve their ASW capabilities in order to counter this threat. The Marine Corps should take advantage of existing antisubmarine missiles that are compatible with current launchers and consider the possibility to develop longer-range guidable weapons. A long-range ship-based ASW aircraft would also be beneficial for the Navy and Marine Corps. Each service should look into the possibility of creating an ASW variant for the Osprey.