5 ms·

Value of ships/projection platforms is how it mediates geography and technology and economy. Pacific/Atlantic ocean offering US 10,000km+ buffer on each side me

Value of ships/projection platforms is how it mediates geography and technology and economy. Pacific/Atlantic ocean offering US 10,000km+ buffer on each side means historically, US HAS to rely on mobile platforms (and forward basing) to hull sufficient munitions in theatre across the pond due to both technologic and economic limitations, i.e. there technologically was no accurate long range fire, no sufficient ISR (pre space / gps) that would enable medium / long range strikes, and economically to deliver accurate munitions at scale, shooters needed to be close / right there. But being "right there" is a consequence, of HAVING to be right there. Cruise missiles extended "right there" to standoff ranges of 1000-2000km, but we're also in age of meter level CEP 5000km IRBMs/AShMs, shooters don't have to be "right there" anymore. IMO important not to conflate with being able to shoot something, for needing to be "right there" to shoot something. If anything you want to be no where near where the shooting happens. Words like "persistence", "presence", "projection" gets abused as proxy for (sea) control, especially useful propaganda/signalling tool during peacetime (look, we're right there), but the actual coercive power during peacetime or control during shooting war is done by the munitions (and sensors to direct them). Modern day rocketry + persistent space ISR can like cover what historically needed carriers/subs to cover, especially for AU considerations (IRBM range) hence value proposition of SSGNs is different, which is why I question the AUKUS sales pitch from warfighting capability perspective. Land based rocketry also much more flexible than committing to SSGNs + cheaper shorter range cruise missiles ... that requires subs to operate closer to their target, using likely interceptable / defeatable munitions (since the subsurface gamble is stealth lets you shiv with ~100 smaller cruise missiles up close vs ~20 hypersonics from far away), but if munitions doesn't measure up, might as well not be in theatre in the first place, and chance of retrofitting subs around larger extended range munitions unlikely, so it's multi decade gamble. This is not to mention the complexity of subsurface kill chain / communicating underwater. Meanwhile a PLARF TEL popping out of a tunnel in Hainan to launch a mach10 missile can reach Darwin in 20 minutes. AKA no defense/offense dichotomy, rocketforce can also do anti area/access denial, i.e. when targetting Guam, forward bases in 1IC. 360B buys a lot of irbms, i.e. everything up to 1-2IC/Australia north coast might as well as be "right there" from PRC theatre/IRBM perspective. Recipriocally AU can also do this from upside down land. Is AU better served with risking forward positioned SSGN with 100 x 2000 km cruise missile sized cells or for same price, 400 x 5000km land based hypersonics that can cover the theatre, plus distributed for more survivablity. IMO Australia has options other than SSGN to bring the fight north 5000km versus US trying to bring the fight west 10000km. Especially considering the maritime choke points across 1IC. Question is: which options better for AU to spend 360B to have some sort of medium / long range fires into SCS / IndoPac theatre. Considering SSGNs will lock in procurement for 50+ years. Especially considering hulls won't be in water in meaningful numbers for 20+ years while PRC ASW capablities are growing. Meanwhile, PLA is also coordinating land, sea, air at likely greater relative scale than what US+co are projected to bring in theatre, which increases challenges of subsurface survivability with time. IMO all the trendlines are against locking in on eggs in basket of expensive subsurface. It's gamble on purely warfighting value, which cannot be seperated from procurement economics, as in opportunity cost of what other warfighting capabilities that 360B can buy, and sustainment economics, as in SSGNs are such big investments that it will constrain future procurement options. Decommissioning nuclear will make even divestment hard. My feeling is AU better off with some IAPs for near shore defense, and missiles / B21s for long range fires / cheaper per unit procurements that enables future pivot. But as expensive as AUKUS is, on paper it has more domestic $$$ potential, but strategically bad gamble.

ckozlowski 2y ago
I don't discount that long-range fires won't be useful, but I don't follow how on one hand, the complexity of a "subsurface kill chain" (which is limited to...the boat?) is a hindrance, but planning a fire mission across tens of thousands of kilometers against moving targets isn't a mention. Even hypersonics still take time to reach their target, and surface ship can cover a lot of distance in that time. That's why I'm still of the opinion that IRBMs/AShMs, while deserving of respect, are not a stand-in for an actual ship (or submarine) present on location. It takes time to go from detection (orbital, aircraft, other sensor) to command, to launcher, to waiting for the munition to get downrange and hoping that the thing you're shooting at is still there. If it isn't, they have to maintain contact, keep up communications with the munition in flight to steer it back on target, etc. That's a lot to juggle and quite challenge even for the U.S., and against an adversary who will be trying to disrupt anything along that path. (Something the U.S. has pointed out to "the carrier is dead" naysayers that they are actively planning.) Subsonic missiles are in theory (and I do think it's theory) harder to hit than hypersonic, but the killchain there can be far simpler and shorter, and much less able to be disrupted. This is more lethal the closer I can get before launch. Sure, there's 2000km cruise missiles from B21s, but if I have the option to get in to say, 200km, I'm going to take it and give my adversary far less time to detect and respond. That's the crux of my argument why persistent platforms won't be going away. To be clear, I don't think these long range (I'll call them strategic? theater?) fires don't have their place. Both sides are investing in them. But the need for being "there" remains. You ask if it's better for Australia to spend money on having medium/long range fires into the IndoPac theater, or a submarine. I'll agree with you in part that a nuclear sub, which would meet their aims to do so, might be out of their financial reach. But considering that those long-range fires require complex targeting and communications (note the killchain above!), that may not be cost effective either. The latter requires some pretty robust aerospace capabilities to detect and track targets that they do not possess and would be exorbitantly expensive to obtain. They can use the U.S.'s capabilities, and many NATO nations do so. But so goes their ability to fight independently then. And I'd argue, it can perform less missions than a submarine can. At the end of the day, I think Australia is hobbled by the fact that they want to project power that their current budget is going to be at pains to provide. I think nuclear fast-attack might indeed be their best option out of a host of painful options, short of ceding the field. * Addendum: There's a lot of noise made about hypersonics, and I think they're to some extent overblown. Not irrelevant, but overemphasized. For one, subsonic isn't dead. They can be relatively cheap, have long range, and stealthy. Launched low and flying low, they're hidden by the curvature of the earth. If their launch site can be hidden or hard to pinpoint prior (be it aircraft, mobile site, or submarine) then they can still be very effective. The challenge comes when they're launched from far away. Just because it has a 2000km range or so doesn't mean that's advantageous, as the target can move really far in that intervening time. (This is where submarines are dangerous, because they can potentially bring those fires in much closer without being detected than a surface ship or aircraft can, AI-powered ASW or not.) So hypersonics are attractive here. Just speed them up! Now that potential radius the target moved is much smaller. But it brings it own challenges. Engineering a vehicle to fly at that speed and at low level and deal with the effects on targeting and communications mach 5+ travel creates is no small feat. "But hypersonics are used today!" I hear some say. Yes. Anything traveling Mach 5+ is hypersonic. So that Iskander SRBM that the Russians bolt to the underside of a Sukhoi and release from 30k is technically a hypersonic missile. But in reality it's ballistic missile they dropped instead of launching from the ground, using internal guidance to hit a fixed target on the ground. Effective for that role perhaps, but not groundbreaking and certainly not going to hit a ship. So I think hypersonics are another possible weapon in the quiver, but part of a mix, not a replacement. They bring their own tradeoffs.

ckozlowski 2y ago

I don't discount that long-range fires won't be useful, but I don't follow how on one hand, the complexity of a "subsurface kill chain" (which is limited to...the boat?) is a hindrance, but planning a fire mission across tens of thousands of kilometers against moving targets isn't a mention. Even hypersonics still take time to reach their target, and surface ship can cover a lot of distance in that time. That's why I'm still of the opinion that IRBMs/AShMs, while deserving of respect, are not a stand-in for an actual ship (or submarine) present on location. It takes time to go from detection (orbital, aircraft, other sensor) to command, to launcher, to waiting for the munition to get downrange and hoping that the thing you're shooting at is still there. If it isn't, they have to maintain contact, keep up communications with the munition in flight to steer it back on target, etc. That's a lot to juggle and quite challenge even for the U.S., and against an adversary who will be trying to disrupt anything along that path. (Something the U.S. has pointed out to "the carrier is dead" naysayers that they are actively planning.) Subsonic missiles are in theory (and I do think it's theory) harder to hit than hypersonic, but the killchain there can be far simpler and shorter, and much less able to be disrupted. This is more lethal the closer I can get before launch. Sure, there's 2000km cruise missiles from B21s, but if I have the option to get in to say, 200km, I'm going to take it and give my adversary far less time to detect and respond. That's the crux of my argument why persistent platforms won't be going away. To be clear, I don't think these long range (I'll call them strategic? theater?) fires don't have their place. Both sides are investing in them. But the need for being "there" remains. You ask if it's better for Australia to spend money on having medium/long range fires into the IndoPac theater, or a submarine. I'll agree with you in part that a nuclear sub, which would meet their aims to do so, might be out of their financial reach. But considering that those long-range fires require complex targeting and communications (note the killchain above!), that may not be cost effective either. The latter requires some pretty robust aerospace capabilities to detect and track targets that they do not possess and would be exorbitantly expensive to obtain. They can use the U.S.'s capabilities, and many NATO nations do so. But so goes their ability to fight independently then. And I'd argue, it can perform less missions than a submarine can. At the end of the day, I think Australia is hobbled by the fact that they want to project power that their current budget is going to be at pains to provide. I think nuclear fast-attack might indeed be their best option out of a host of painful options, short of ceding the field. * Addendum: There's a lot of noise made about hypersonics, and I think they're to some extent overblown. Not irrelevant, but overemphasized. For one, subsonic isn't dead. They can be relatively cheap, have long range, and stealthy. Launched low and flying low, they're hidden by the curvature of the earth. If their launch site can be hidden or hard to pinpoint prior (be it aircraft, mobile site, or submarine) then they can still be very effective. The challenge comes when they're launched from far away. Just because it has a 2000km range or so doesn't mean that's advantageous, as the target can move really far in that intervening time. (This is where submarines are dangerous, because they can potentially bring those fires in much closer without being detected than a surface ship or aircraft can, AI-powered ASW or not.) So hypersonics are attractive here. Just speed them up! Now that potential radius the target moved is much smaller. But it brings it own challenges. Engineering a vehicle to fly at that speed and at low level and deal with the effects on targeting and communications mach 5+ travel creates is no small feat. "But hypersonics are used today!" I hear some say. Yes. Anything traveling Mach 5+ is hypersonic. So that Iskander SRBM that the Russians bolt to the underside of a Sukhoi and release from 30k is technically a hypersonic missile. But in reality it's ballistic missile they dropped instead of launching from the ground, using internal guidance to hit a fixed target on the ground. Effective for that role perhaps, but not groundbreaking and certainly not going to hit a ship. So I think hypersonics are another possible weapon in the quiver, but part of a mix, not a replacement. They bring their own tradeoffs.