Home » News & Analysis » Navy Finding Offensive Uses For Defensive Systems to Support Distributed Lethality

Navy Finding Offensive Uses For Defensive Systems to Support Distributed Lethality

USS Preble (DDG-88) conduct an operational tomahawk missile launch while underway in a training area off the coast of California in 2010. US Navy photo.

USS Preble (DDG-88) conducts an operational Tomahawk missile launch while underway in a training area off the coast of California in 2010. US Navy photo.

The Navy is finding new uses for old defensive systems in an effort to both add offensive lethality to its ships and to better protect ships against evolving global threats, several admirals said Tuesday.

The surface navy in January unveiled a “distributed lethality” concept that would guide its operational thinking going forward: if every ship on the ocean has lethal offensive capabilities, no ship can be overlooked by the enemy, changing the enemy’s behavior. Many ships have strictly defensive missions – such as a cruiser protecting the aircraft carrier – but the Navy is now looking at how to put offensive systems onto those ships.

Vice Adm. Tom Rowden, commander of naval surface forces, said during a panel presentation at the America Society of Naval Engineers’ Combat Systems Symposium on Dec. 1 that he hopes engineers in Navy and industry will feel a greater urgency to explore “what the art of the possible is with respect to the weapons systems and weapons we have and how we might be able to use them in new and innovative ways to change the rules in the middle of the game.”

One recent example of this is taking a proven defensive system – the Standard Missile 6 air defense missile – and giving it offensive capabilities as well.

“There are systems that we’re using that we’re moving from defensive capability into a very aggressive offensive capability,” Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) Rear Adm. Jon Hill said during the panel discussion, referring to the SM-6.

Surface Ship Weapons Office Program Manager Capt. Michael Ladner told USNI News in November that he was pursuing software-only upgrades to the missile that would allow it to take on other missions, which he said he could not discuss. But he said the new missions “focus on distributed lethality and shifting to an offensive capability to counter our adversaries’ [anti-access/area-denial] capabilities.”

Hill said the Navy was looking for additional over-the-horizon missiles, and “we’re going to start with what we can pull out of industry today and we’re going to extend that in the future.”

Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) Rear Adm. Peter Fanta said during the panel discussion that he is similarly looking at new uses for the Tomahawk land attack cruise missile.

“We still have a requirement for a Tomahawk cruise missile to attack surface ships sitting on the books – in fact, it’s been reiterated for the past 15 years that we still have that requirement,” he said.
“It’s amazing what you do when you dust off an old requirement and say I’m going to do this again. Let me put it this way: we know what the Tomahawk is capable of – the reason we got rid of it was because our sensors were not long-range enough to keep up with the range of the Tomahawk. Our sensors have evolved to the position now where we can track and target things out to the range of a Tomahawk, so now we have a need for something Tomahawk-esque to go out and reach out that far.”

Speaking to how this reuse of the Tomahawk missile would fit into the distributed lethality concept, Fanta said, “so imagine what happens when I’m carrying 3,000 Tomahawks at sea at any one time and they become dual-mission or multi-mission weapons. I don’t care which adversary you are on the face of the earth, 3,000 missiles coming at you at the same time is a really bad day. That’s the idea behind, can we make this thing do more than one [mission]. That’s what we’re talking about, evolving the capabilities that we have. I’ve got a great truck, it’s a big missile sitting inside my [vertical launching system] cells right now. What else can we do with it? How else can we make it work? What other things could we put on it or make it do?”

Fanta added that the Tomahawk missile will be in the fleet until the 2040s, so “I think I better figure out more things to do with it than just hit a spot on a beach.”

In addition to repurposing defensive systems to support the distributed lethality concept, the Navy is also finding new uses for defensive systems to further protect the fleet in a constrained budget environment.

In one example from earlier this year, the Navy needed a way to better protect its four Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) destroyers forward stationed in the Mediterranean Sea. Since the ships are so focused upward on searching for missile threats, they became vulnerable themselves to cruise missiles and other incoming munitions, Hill told USNI News in September. Rather than station another ship nearby to protect the BMD destroyer, Navy engineers realized they could install Raytheon’s Sea Rolling Airframe Missile (SeaRAM) anti-ship missile defense system onto the ships – even though SeaRAM had never been integrated with a destroyer or its Aegis Combat System before.

Without naming the specific new threat, Fanta said during the discussion that “a new threat pops up in the Eastern Mediterranean, we have a very low probability of kill against that new threat. Within six months, we had moved over $50 million. Jon Hill had found a contractor that was building a new asset. We redirected new mounts and new systems out to those destroyers. His testing folks decided how it could actually be done better, faster, cheaper and smarter. We shipped the mounts to the Mediterranean – never been done to do an install in the Mediterranean. And now we’re testing it in the Mediterranean in the Spanish ranges.

“We went from a probability of kill of very low to a probability of kill of pretty damn high,” Fanta continued.
“That’s engineers, money folks, training folks from [Rear Adm.] Jim Kilby – Jim Kilby set up a training regiment that actually taught them how to use it. That’s Tom Rowden talking about what we need where and how to get the ships actually in the fight and allow them to survive up to a coast that now gets a little more unfriendly.”

Fanta said that whole process would normally take seven or eight years, but instead the Navy responded quickly to a February urgent operational need and is now testing the solution at sea. If the Navy continues to respond to new threats in that same manner, he said, the service can outpace any threat in the world.

Kilby, commander of the recently stood-up Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center, said during the panel presentation that one of his warfare tactics instructors, a lieutenant, went out with the fleet to understand the new SeaRAM/Aegis destroyer combination and write the doctrine behind operating this new capability. Kilby signed the new doctrine two weeks ago, so as soon as the ships complete their testing the fleet will be ready to teach sailors how to operate this new combination.

  • Curtis Conway

    “…they could install Raytheon’s Sea Rolling Airframe Missile (SeaRAM) anti-ship missile defense system onto the ships –…”

    This, and reading that last paragraph, makes one wonder what happened to Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD)! The ultimate Anti-Ship Missile Defense (ASMD) capability is SPY tracking dwells and at least an ESSM. A 25 lb blast fragmentation warhead does not impress me, when trying to take down a Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) heading for MY location.

    • Pat Patterson

      Well, you don’t really to make a hard kill which would be nice. Doing enough damage to knock it off trajectory, damage guidance components, or taking out a fin/wing might be all you need.

      • Curtis Conway

        The operative term in your sentence is “might” . . . want to bet your life on that?

        • Pat Patterson

          Happens all the time like blind luck. Well, you might be able to make a hard kill, if ……

          • Curtis Conway

            Us Aegis Troops are used to a robust defense in depth. The LCS sailors are just going to have to carry dice with them everywhere, and hope they don’t roll ‘snake eyes’.

    • DJC

      RAM has destroyed many maneuvering supersonic missiles in operational test. Most of them with a direct hit with combined velocity of Mach 4 -5 due to IR end game guidance. Once the warhead tears apart the airframe they do slam into the sea. Always better to do it farther from the ship but raid density, radar horizon and minimum range of interceptors will prevent many long range intercepts. Sea skimming SSM have to be within line of site and if maneuvering at high G’s makes intercepts less likely from long range missiles in most circumstances. RAM RF & IR guidance give it an ability to home on the SSM RF emissions with out a radar track. For the first time the surface navy has a system to destroy threats not dependent on only one spectrum. Just remember when one depends on the fully integrated Aegis system if something makes it go stupid you need a recourse. Big radar guided missiles interceptor do not maneuver as well small IR missiles. All are good have their advantages and the layered defense is critical. However having them all operate in the one spectrums with the same sensors and airframes is missing the point of a layered defense. Layered range and layered capabilities is true layered defense.
      Surface Navy should review the air war lessons of VN where we learned to handle the big SAMs and utilized ECM, Radar Warning Receivers, eyeballs Active and Semi-active RF as well as IR. All that was in our cockpits and heads sets when being engaged. Aegis will never see, track or engage every threat the enemy understands this single system approach is a weak spot and our surface warriors also need to understand.

      • Curtis Conway

        I, at least, would want Directed Energy scoped in on the target with finger on the trigger just in case, and monitoring the progress of the advance of the threat. The DE weapons are quite an optical surveillance tool, as well as a weapon. Good idea for our surface combatants (DDG-1000, LCS/FF, DDG-51 Flt III and any upgraded/backfit with LM500 GTGs).

  • Mike Radecki

    New use for tomahawk. Load them up with sensor fused weapons and take out multiple Isis tanker trucks, or what ever else you want

    • Michael Rich

      That is not dual use, thats single use. What are sensor fused weapons going to do to a ship? Tickle it?

      • Mike Radecki

        I was thinking over the beach, targeting launch sites for the DF-21, truck, tanker, and tank parks. Possibly material in the field. In short turn a TLAM into a drone with various software updates, and data links. You could fly it around, take out multiple targets. Against ship, a top down attack dumping molten copper into missile launch cells, or boxes amidships, radar gear topside, the bridge or possibly CIC if it in the superstructure, and when you are done fly it into the side of your target. Would this be idea against another ship, maybe not, but more that a tickle.

        • Michael Rich

          Only problem with that is it surviving, it’s a big stretch that a Tomahawk would even be able to hit a modern ship, let alone fly over it dropping munitions then turning around to hit it.

          But I do understand your point, just unrealistic for the Tomahawk to survive long enough to achieve such a thing.

          • Mike Radecki

            I did think about the defensive counter measures, that is true.

          • adaptus primus

            A single missile maybe vulnerable. But to stop a salvo of 10 or more missiles? I don’t think so. The same argument can be made either way. Ship borne AMD system is capable of stopping one or a few DF-21/26 ASBM. But not saturated attacks from a determined enemy.

          • Michael Rich

            What are you trying to say? Your post is all over the place, we are talking about the enemy defensive systems, not ours.

          • Pat Patterson

            Then give the Tomahawks some kind of supersonic terminal boost capability with different countermeasure sensors.

          • Michael Rich

            Going supersonic does not solve the issue, it only makes detection time less. The tomahawk can’t maneuver to avoid defenses and it’s not very difficult to detect coming.

          • Pat Patterson

            OK, so why are Russian-Indian and supposed Chinese supersonic missiles such a big deal? They have limited range albeit on shipborne versions and they can still be detected. What maneuver capabilities do they have. Newer types of Tomahawks supposedly will have an ability to maneuver.

          • Michael Rich

            There is a difference between being able to maneuver and pull evasive maneuvers. Trying to dodge enemy defenses with a Tomahawk is like a B-52 trying to pull F-22 maneuvers to avoid enemy missiles.

          • Secundius

            @ Pat Patterson.

            There’s a Joint U-SUK (US/UK) TLAM Missile in the Works called “Perseus”, Mach 3 capable but range limited to ~300-kilometers. The USAF also have a TLAM replacement project ongoing. Very Little Detail’s on that project…

  • Pingback: Alert 5 » U.S. Navy modifying defensive weapons to give them offensive capability - Military Aviation News()

  • Secundius

    The Fire Control System of the SeaRam is the same as the CIWS. If CIWS can be integrated with SPY, So Can SeaRam…

  • Hugh

    In the 1990s the RAN trialled the damage caused to the steel superstructure of a decommissioned frigate by several explosives several days apart, each with a similar power to that of Tartar missile warheads.

    • Michael Rich

      Care posting the source? Not doubting you, I would just like to read the results.

      • Hugh

        The trials were done on ex-HMAS STUART (a Type 12 frigate also designed and built around lessons learnt in WW2) in Western Australia by our DSTO (Defence Science and Technical Organisation) in the mid 1990s. As the local Defence naval architect I had access to the ship afterwards. As much flammable material as possible had been removed. In and around each compartment where the explosions were set off was severely charred. In one case, the whole superstructure side of that compartment had unzipped along 3 edges and had hinged outboard around the 4th. Interestingly, while there was such blast damage, in one compartment there was an ordinary unprotected light globe still intact in its socket.

      • Pat Patterson

        Search on Google. Here is an excerpt:

        As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to
        indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence
        of standard terminology, it was failed to appreciate the significance
        of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target
        Acquisition System operator issued the command “arm and tune”,
        terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the
        missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the
        drill did not realize that “arm and tune” signified a live firing and
        ignored two separate requests from the missile system operator to
        clarify whether the launch order was an exercise. As a result, shortly
        after midnight on the morning of 2 October, Saratoga fired two Sea Sparrow missiles at Muavenet.
        The first missile struck in the bridge, destroying it and the Combat
        Information Center. The second missile struck in the aft magazine but
        did not detonate. The explosion and resulting fires killed five of the
        ship’s officers and injured 22. Nearby US Navy ships responded in aid to
        the Turkish ship which was now without leadership. Fire and rescue
        teams boarded the ship and put out the fires in the bridge and the aft
        magazine preventing any secondary explosions.

    • tom

      Can’t remember what warheads were utilized on Tartar missiles in comparison to Sea Sparrow (adapted medium range missiles), but I personally observed what two Sea Sparrows did to an old Fletcher class destroyer in 1992 when the Sara launched a salvo at the TCG Mauvenet accidently during a NATO exercise. 1 missile duded, but both hit and those two missiles wiped out the bridge team and caused a MASS CONFLAG that required the R&A detail from the Saratoga 4 hours to extinguish. That ship was built with the lessons of WW II in mind so I shudder to think what an SM2 or even an SM6 would have done to that ship, let alone a Harpoon or Exocet, or Sunburn for that matter. That experience made a DC zealot out of me for the rest of my career. Long story short – it doesn’t take much of a missile to do serious damage to a ship to include some mission kills.

      • Pat Patterson

        I remember that one too!

      • Curtis Conway

        Water tight integrity and compartmentalization kept them afloat.

    • Secundius

      @ Hugh.

      I think you’re referring to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects (rina . com) of 1990 and 1991. 1990, 20 Bulk Carriers “broke up” and sank killing 94. And, then again in 1991 involving 24 Bulk Carriers killing 154. In both cases it was found that Bulk Carriers sank because of “Shoddy” Shipbuilding Practices by the Bulk Carriers Manufacturers…

      • Hugh

        No, this was an official navy trial.

  • Bill

    Excuse my ignorance, but much of this seems simple common sense.

    • gunnerv1

      You’re dealing with the Government where “Common Sense” is always in a critically short supply.

    • Secundius

      @ Bill.

      That’s because it is Common Sense! It you can us the SM-1 SAM in a SSM “Wild Weasel” Role, you can do the Same with the SM-6 or any OTHER Ordnance System in USE…

  • adaptus primus

    Why is SM-6’s Anti Surface Warfare effort still treated as classified?

  • Pingback: USNI Blog » Blog Archive » Fanta’s Elephant()

  • Rob C.

    It makes sense to use everything you have to take out enemy. I always though US Navy was kinda under armed these days with Harpoon missiles not always carried.

    Making a big deal using SM-6 as a anti-ship missile seems to be…odd. Standard Missiles were used during the Tanker Wars in the late 1980s, it was one first times US Navy sunk a opposing warship with exclusively missiles. SM-6 is extended range, but i’d think would be good idea in pinch but waste money if it’s no used for it’s intended role of knocking out ballistic missiles, aircraft.

  • Pingback: The US Navy Is Slowly Realizing It May Have to Sink Ships Again in the Future – Popular Mechanics | American Veteran Coalition()

  • Pingback: Contractor Spot System | index - contractor index()

  • Oh boy….

    This is exactly what should be happening.

  • Pingback: How To Become A Weapons Contractor | info - quick contractor quote()