{"id":22191,"date":"2015-08-26T06:00:17","date_gmt":"2015-08-25T20:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=22191"},"modified":"2015-08-25T14:09:34","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T04:09:34","slug":"surface-warships-its-not-all-plain-sailing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/surface-warships-its-not-all-plain-sailing\/","title":{"rendered":"Surface warships: it’s not all plain sailing"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Once again, Hugh White has put the cat among the pigeons; this time, by questioning the wisdom of the government\u2019s shipbuilding plans<\/a>. Within days, we had responses from a retired admiral<\/a> and no less than the defence minister<\/a>. More recently, David Feeney<\/a> has \u00a0entered the fray in defence of warships here at The Strategist<\/em>.<\/p>\n Space prohibits us from canvassing all the arguments and counterarguments that have emerged\u2014though it must be said that some of Hugh\u2019s detractors make the mistake of confusing desirability with feasibility. There are many valuable tasks that warships can perform, but that doesn\u2019t help them stay afloat. And it\u2019s the ability of warships to stay afloat\u2014or rather to avoid being sunk\u2014that\u2019s sparked the most controversy following Hugh\u2019s intervention.<\/p>\n The question is all the more acute because it appears that the additional costs associated with a rolling production program<\/a> of surface combatants may come at the expense of submarines numbers. At the heart of the issue is the survivability of warships and submarines in future naval combat. Ultimately, the answers depend upon the future evolution of military technology above and below the surface of the sea.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s start topside. The survival of warships depends on its ability to defeat incoming missiles and torpedoes. Most defensive systems will have some efficacy, but none will be 100% effective. So each weapon has some probability of striking the target. And for each hit, there will be a probability of achieving a \u2018mission kill\u2019\u2014i.e. the ship will no longer be effective in its role\u2014or it will be sunk.<\/p>\n The critical observation is that each incoming weapon succeeds or fails on a case-by-case basis, and is an ephemeral participant on the battlefield. But the ship has to defend itself against all<\/em> incoming weapons if it wishes to be able to remain effective, and is therefore subject to the cumulative probability of being hit.<\/p>\n To see how this works, let’s be generous and say that a vessel has defences that are 90% effective on any given incoming weapon. That might be optimistic in a world of precision targeting, supersonic and multi-trajectory weapons with counter-counter measures, but let\u2019s give the proponents of defensive systems the benefit of the doubt. Then the odds of avoiding a hit when facing multiple weapons looks like this:<\/p>\n