Desperate Times, Desperate Measures, Or Should I Say Fantasies?

OK, I already stated a number of times that, bar some very few exceptions, The National Interest magazine is primarily a teenager-oriented publication and its military "experts" (apart from few real ones who contribute once in a while) are mostly products of "humanities" education who, for some unknown reason, think that they have faculties and backgrounds to comment on military "stuff". Such "experts" as Michael Peck (who is no expert) continue to "deliver". Here is the latest (cough...face-palm) from Peck based on some fantasy from DOD:

The U.S. Air Force has an idea: send out robot boats to detect sea-skimming missiles and give manned warships time to defend themselves.

He (Peck) bases his upbeat piece on this:

OBJECTIVE: Develop technologies to detect and track low radar cross section, high speed, low altitude weapons with unmanned surface vehicles over a large area of water.

DESCRIPTION: This SBIR topic seeks to identify and demonstrate technologies that can detect and track low radar cross section, high speed, low altitude weapons over a large area of water. Tracking on water ranges is limited by the inability of conventional radars to track over-the-horizon. This SBIR would address that limitation by utilizing unmanned surface vehicles. The system would need to be optimized for an unmanned surface vehicle that is approximately 10 feet long and 2 feet wide. The system must weigh less than 100 pounds and fit within a 6 inch by 12 inch by 12 inch payload box.

Obviously Peck lacks understanding of what is this all about and makes this hilarious statement: 

Sea-skimming missiles have been the nemesis of surface warships since the 1970s. Weapons such as France’s legendary Exocet, America’s Harpoon or Russia’s Zircon threaten even the most powerful warships with destruction.  

I would have called upon either Sir Patrick Stewart or Sergei Lavrov's "Fail" meme but I'll spend some time explaining (I doubt he will learn or even will be aware of my futile effort) to him why this statement of his (above) is preposterous.

1. Placing subsonic and fairly easy targets for advanced air defense such as Exocet or Harpoon in the same sentence with 3M22 Zircon, which is completing its trials and already reached speed in excess of M=8 is akin to putting 1960-s Volkswagen Beetle on the speed track of Formula-1 and asking to compete with team Ferrari or McLaren. And here is some basic physics, see below:

2. Since the times of high supersonic (M=3) SS-N-22 Sunburn (aka P-270 Moskit) anti-shipping missile, which is designed to conduct violent maneuvers on terminal, some teeny-weeny problem appeared with anti-missile defense of the fleet, any fleet. If my Alzheimer doesn't fail me, the ratio in terms of dynamic loads (aka g-forces) required for air-defense missile to intercept ANY anti-shipping missile are supposed to be 3 (three) to 1 (one), that is three times larger than that of the anti-shipping missile. Thus the issue was and is not just in early detection of an attacker (I am talking only about SINGLE missile now, for the clarity of picture, reality is--those fly in salvos), however crucially important in terms of time for developing firing solution this is, it is also about ability of air-defense missiles to guide themselves to the point of intercept of the ASM. 

3. If we are talking specifically about Moskit, the rumor has it that this missile can withstand sustained g-forces well in excess of 30g. Under this scenario, very-very roughly speaking, the intercepting missile must have the ability to maneuver with 30x3=90g loads sustained. Good luck doing this with short-burning AD missiles. As an example, superb Russian Tor air-defense complex' missile can maneuver with loads of up to 30g and take out targets flying with up to M=2. M=3 Onyx or M=2.9 3M54 Kalibr also maneuver violently at terminal. In general, the higher the speed is, the more g-loads maneuvering missile experiences.

4. Now comes this M=8+ maneuvering (look at air-ballistic Kinzhal which also maneuvers at M=10) Zircon and, if to omit a funny scenario when someone will try to shoot at it from behind Zircon's traverse course angles (+90 degrees from perpendicular to the missile, roughly speaking--a catch up mode) trying to catch it, which is impossible, even in the impossible scenario of literally shooting straight-ahead at approaching Zircon, one has to ask a question what are g-loads in this situation? Mind you, I am talking about grossly primitive, bordering on vulgar scenarios.

5. Of course, they in TNI do not know that AD missile do not fly in straight line and even in the case of straight flying M=8 target while shooting in a front sector of the approaching ASM the trajectory of the AD missile(s) will represent a curve towards point of intercept. Again, I underscore that these are vulgar scenarios, in real life, however, things will look very different because g-loads and approach trajectories of modern very high supersonic or hyper-sonic anti-shipping missiles are enormously complex and impose practically insurmountable limitation on existing Air Defense systems. 

Recall what numbers (I tend to support at least the order of magnitude of those numbers) circulate about key characteristic for 3M22. I quote myself:

If to believe probability of a single Zircon intercept by the latest US-NATO missiles such as SM-6 as P=0.02 through 0.03 (0.012-0.005 for distributed targeting), we get dismal numbers for a defending side. Even if we assume that those numbers are wrong (or do not consider all necessary coefficients) and we increase these numbers by the order of magnitude--we still end up with the death sentence for defending side even with the salvo of 2-3 missiles.  

While early detection is important, under present and foreseeable level of intercept means it becomes an absolute impossibility to intercept modern true hyper-sonic weapons. I'll explain it with the numbers in hand. Let us assume that modern and best US Naval air defense system's single missile has a probability of intercept of a single 3M22 Zircon 10 times (10!!! I deliberately change the actual order of magnitude) better than it is known to really be. Let this probability of intercept of single missile Ps=0.3. How many air-defense missiles then will be needed to intercept a single (again, unrealistic scenario)  3M22 with reliable probability of kill (defeat) Pdefeat=0.95. Let's write formula:

Now we plug our numbers:

                            0.95= 1- (1- 0.3)^n

                            0.95=1-0.7^n

                            0.05 = 0.7^n

We logarithmize both sides:

                       ln0.05=ln0.7^n

                      ln0.05=n*ln0.7   

Using calculator's ln function we get simplest linear equation:

                 -2.995732= n*(-0.356675)

                   n= -2.995732/-0.356675=8.4

So, it takes roughly 8 missiles to defeat a single 3M22 under the ideal imaginary conditions and with capability of an air defense complex increased 10 fold--way in excess what even the most advanced (and non-existent, I may add) means may provide. Considering even this fantastically ludicrous scenario it comes as no surprise that the salvo of say 10 hyper-sonic missiles on CBG will require pretty much a whole Arleigh Burke-class Flight III DDG having nothing but AD missiles in its MK-41 90 cells, granted that this too is impossible scenario since all ships, other than CVN, in CBG carry other means, such as TLAM, in their MK-41s. Plus, no one puts AD missiles (you may check times required for their salvo on you own) on a single platform--those are distributed between escort ships and that in itself imposes other limitations. But, as I stated from the beginning--these calculations were done based on simply ludicrously favorable for defending side scenario. 

Let us now try way more realistic numbers for Ps=0.05 and see where this whole thing takes us in first approximation. 

 0.95= 1- (1- 0.05)^n

                            0.95=1-0.95^n

                            0.05 = 0.95^n

We logarithmize both sides:

                       ln0.05=ln0.95^n

                      ln0.05=n*ln0.95  

Using calculator's ln function we get simplest linear equation:

                 -2.995732= n*(-0.051293)

    

                  n= -2.995732/-0.051293=58.4

So, as you can see it would take (again, under ideal conditions) roughly 58 AD missiles to defeat a single Zircon. Judging by a huge wave of alarmist pieces in US mass-media about hyper-sonic weapons, the level which I never encountered in my long years in the US, the message is definitely sinking in. This is not to mention that one is really pressed hard trying to imagine simultaneous launch of even 25 AD missiles from all escort ships in CBG, let alone 58 or even more (in hundreds) required to defeat a salvo of hyper-sonic attackers on CBG. It is all simple fantasy having no relation to actual real life and combat.

Even in this simplest model (distributed salvo is calculated with a more complex formula--not the point here) it is clear that even under the most favorable conditions, Michael Peck's grasping for the last exceptionalist straw:         

But radar robot boats would give their targets a little more time to prepare.  

Is nothing more than hack's delusion in a desperate attempt (a feeble one) to put a lipstick on a pig of a new warfare paradigm and now very real Revolution in Military Affairs which is sweeping the globe, changing with it the whole balance of geopolitical power. But I wrote one book about it and am writing another one (should be done by Summer, otherwise my publisher will strangle me) precisely on this topic. Let's hope that this Revolution will serve as a starting point for new, much calmer and much saner world without bullies and where great powers can find a new equilibrium, a peaceful one. 

Why Michael Peck Is Not A Military Historian.

He surely portrays himself, and I quote from his biography, as:

I'm a defense writer, avid gamer and history buff. I'm currently a contributing editor for Foreign Policy Magazine, a writer for the War is Boring defense blog and of course a contributor at Forbes. My work has also appeared in the Washingon Post,Slate, Defense News, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer and other fine publications. I'm a contrarian, an iconoclast, and I know that not everyone will agree with me. That means I must be doing something right. 

He holds some degree, in what else--Political Science--and that is about the extent to which his actual competencies stretch.  Obviously, if being a "contrarian" and "history buff" are qualities required for speaking out on some serious military issues, then, as I pointed out not for once in this blog--there should be no surprise with US "achievements" in geopolitical and military spheres. This is not to mention that someone who thinks WaPo or Slate to be "fine publications" has to really create an immediate alertness to a possible BS. And BS Mr. Peck produced aplenty in his, yet another, ignorant piece titled:

Why the Battle of Kursk Might Just Be the Most Misunderstood World War II Battle

And here is the issue immediately--there is nothing misunderstood about that Battle. It was studied in so much detail by now that no amount of Peck's BS can obfuscate the fact of him lacking even remote knowledge of the basic facts. Of course, he covers his BS with this:

Pointing this out takes nothing away from the bravery and skill of the Red Army, any more that it disparages the Western Allies to point out that the Soviets fought and destroyed the bulk of the German army. But today, as America and Russia confront one another, it is worth remembering there was a time when both nations cooperated to save the world from a new Dark Ages.

It is a load of patronizing BS not because it takes anything away from the Red Army, which Peck does exactly(I'll show it below)  but because, most likely, he knows it. If he doesn't--then he should stick to writing for Papua-New Guinea's (nothing personal per se against this fine country) publications. Here is a first "bomb":

On July 10, Anglo-American troops landed on the beaches of Sicily. Two days later Hitler informed his generals that he was canceling the offensive and transferring the SS Panzer divisions to Italy, to repel any Allied landings on the Italian peninsula.

Obviously it is a complete crap since WW II has NO recorded facts of transfer of SS or Wehrmacht combat units from the Eastern Front to the Western one, the other direction? All the time. But here is what really happened:

Western historiography would continue to quote in unison Mainstein's assertion that allied Operation Husky, as Sicily landing was known, would force Hitler to shift some of his crack divisions from Kursk area to Italy. What was omitted, of course, was the fact that the only division which actually made it to Italy, completely without its heavy equipment which was transferred to Das Reich and Totenkopf SS Panzer Divisions, was Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler Division. Both Das Reich and Totenkopf were never transferred to Italy and were redeployed to the so called Mius-Front, which was a heavily fortified German defensive line along the river Mius in Southern Russia. There they would face another Red Army offensive. Moreover, Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler Division was deployed to and then remained stationed in Northern Italy mostly for garrison and punitive functions, which could hardly be called combat tasks. This Division would find its end on the Eastern Front, with some remnants of once crack unit surrendering to the US Army in the West.

Damn facts!! Oh am I being a "contrarian" or an "iconoclast"? The offensive was stopped because a Husky? Dir Mr. Contrarian even take a look at what Mius-front was, or what was transpiring there and why those 2 crack SS Divisions were sent namely there? Then, of course, our "iconoclast" comes up with another trivia.

Military theory holds that the attacker should outnumber the defender three-to-one, and that fighting through dense fortifications will render an attack ever more costly

Well, military "theory" holds that one calculates a required force and "designs" its structure often with the use of serious staffs and long and tedious calculations and "modelling" which was done even in WW II times and in reality was about same ol', same ol' ability to mass (concentrate) its forces on a key axes. Obviously Mr. Peck never learned that at proverbial Schwerpunkts the ratio of forces could reach sometimes 20 to 1 but here we are getting ahead ourselves and getting into serious operational issues which even for WW II could be fitted into C3ISR. But the real wowser from Peck comes here:

7. Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one:

Just as the SS Panzers were about to achieve a decisive breakthrough -- or so Von Manstein claimed -- an Anglo-American amphibious force landed on Sicily. Hitler called off Operation Citadel and transferred the SS Panzer divisions to Italy. The timing was coincidental. The Anglo-Americans didn't land on Sicily to support the Soviets at Kursk, nor could they have mounted a large amphibious invasion on such short notice. But the practical effect was to draw German troops from the Eastern Front at a critical time.

You see, friends, what was a real contribution of the US 7th Army of 66,000 men lead by Patton or Montgomery's 115,000 men facing about 60,000 German troops in Sicily, most of them later successfully evacuated, to a titanic struggle on the Eastern Front is difficult to comprehend. Of course, those crack SS divisions factually never fought Allies in Italy, but that, as you can see, doesn't bother Mr. Peck in the least. In this case, I agree with Peck's assertion--Battle of Kursk is the most misunderstood battle by Michael Peck. In fact, I have reasons to suspect that he knows shit about it, as well as about Eastern Front, as well as about WW II in general.  Highlighted in yellow is a completely contrived, counter-factual BS. I guess that is what one gets when one becomes a military history "buff", or maybe it is a buffoon?