{"id":19808,"date":"2015-04-22T06:00:26","date_gmt":"2015-04-21T20:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=19808"},"modified":"2015-04-22T11:03:11","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T01:03:11","slug":"stand-back-the-perils-of-longer-ranged-sensors-and-weapons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/stand-back-the-perils-of-longer-ranged-sensors-and-weapons\/","title":{"rendered":"Stand back: the perils of longer-ranged sensors and weapons"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n The Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) recently released a couple of reports that should be required reading for anyone thinking about future force structures. Although looking at different domains\u2014one concerns itself with air combat and the other sea power\u2014there are some common threads that are worth understanding before committing tens of billions of dollars on future forces.<\/p>\n John Stillion\u2019s Trends in air-to-air combat<\/a> looks at air combat in \u2018the missile age\u2019. From trends in air-to-air kills since the 1960s, Stillion shows that the \u2018traditional\u2019 strengths of manoeuvrability and speed required for air-to-air combat are increasingly being trumped by long-range sensors and weapons. Instead, he argues that a combination of low observability, situational awareness through powerful sensors and long-range weapons that can take advantage of that sensor range will be decisive factors in the future.<\/p>\n In one way that ought to comfort Australian air power planners because those are exactly the attributes designed into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (although it should also be a handy aerodynamic performer). But the F-35 isn\u2019t a long-range, high endurance platform. The CSBA study describes a possible convergent evolution of future \u2018fighter\u2019 and \u2018bomber\u2019 aircraft<\/a>, in which both are large enough to be able to traverse large distances (to keep their bases safe) and to carry large weapon and sensor payloads in order to deliver their terminal effects from stand-off ranges. By so doing, the need for supersonic performance and high manoeuvrability could disappear, with considerable benefits for designers\u2014and maybe even a step back down the historical cost curves<\/a> that have been relentlessly driving down fleet sizes and increasing fleet ages<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the maritime environment, CSBA\u2019s Andrew Krepinevich has a look at the impact of long-range sensors and weapons for surface fleet operations in his report Maritime competition in a mature precision-strike regime<\/a>. As we contemplate Australia\u2019s future surface fleet, it should be sobering reading. Krepinevich takes the view that the recent past\u2014\u2018an aberration since the Cold War\u2019s end\u2019\u2014in which the US had almost uncontested control of the seas and a near-monopoly on high-precision weapons was unrepresentative of the future:<\/p>\n \u2018For over two decades, the U.S. military has enjoyed a near-monopoly in precision-guided weaponry and their associated battle networks. Recently, however, the proliferation of these capabilities to other militaries and non-state entities is gathering momentum.<\/p>\n The extended period during which the U.S. military has enjoyed a major advantage in this aspect of the military competition suggests it may be slow to appreciate the progressive loss of this advantage.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He suggests that \u2018anti-access\/area denial\u2019 systems, including land- and littoral-based missile systems are simply becoming too effective for surface ships to safely operate in their vicinity, creating a maritime \u2018no man\u2019s land\u2019. I\u2019ve made similar points<\/a>, and in talks I\u2019ve referred to future \u2018bubbles of maritime hegemony\u2019 around any technically proficient power. Krepenevich calls them \u2018bastions\u2019, but it\u2019s the same idea.<\/p>\n