# Using the Army to sink ships?



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

The US is looking at tasking the US army with ship sinking (aka Coastal defense artillery) If Canada wanted to contribute to a mission without being in the frontline, it might be a task that would fit the political mindset of the current government? The equipment could be owned by the US  and operated by Canadians similar to the Honest John batteries.  https://sofrep.com/75573/pacom-commanders-wants-army-start-sinking-ships-thats-just-beginning/


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Feb 2017)

I would like to know what motivated the admiral to come up with what on first blush seems hare-brained. It would be within the capability of technology, but what is the threat?

And we owned our Honest John launchers, handling and transport equipment along with the rockets. The warheads were under US control, although I am pretty sure we had purchased a certain number of a certain yield.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I would like to know what motivated the admiral to come up with what on first blush seems hare-brained. It would be within the capability of technology, but what is the threat?
> 
> ...



I'm inclined to think of places like Baltic, the Black Sea and the South China Seas and the associated choke points.

These days common launchers with common missiles and multi-function seekers means that a lot more can be expected, in my opinion, out of a missile unit.

I used to wonder about conflating GBAD with LRPRs.   But then I looked at Her Majesty's Canadian Ships.  Which also use missiles to sink ships.  Just like the Air Force can use missiles to blow up things that fly, float and crawl.  Only they can move them from the warehouse to the target faster.

Maybe the RRCA wants to reconsider the Stone Frigate concept?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2017)

I believe this article in the Telegraph could be arguably related:  The Fallon Doctrine - 



> It is possible that the age of migrant interventionism is just beginning
> 
> We need to know more about the ‘Fallon doctrine’
> RT HOWARD
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/need-know-fallon-doctrine/

This is related to the much bally-hooed Responsibility To Protect doctrine - but on a more limited scale.

It is also related to the historical impulse that saw Britain establish the Regiment of Tangiers and the French invade Algeria: self-interested actions designed to control lawless regions whose inhabitants were disturbing the peace in England and France by taking slaves.

The Fallon Doctrine (or variant) seems to consist of the following:

Migrants are a problem
Migrants leave because they are pushed as much as they are pulled
Reduce the push and you reduce the Migrants.

It is in enlightened self-interest to act to reduce the push.

To reduce the push do the following:

Find a local to support who will help to make the homeland more attractive
If the local is willing but not able then supply training to make him able
If training is insufficient create a bubble 
   The characteristics of the bubble are: a secure space of limited size, in which economic activity can thrive, and outside which a cordon sanitaire can be created working with locals
Act in concert with other self-interested allies (US, China, EU - il n'y a pas de quoi - principles be damned)

The historic models for this are Calcutta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai and every Royal Burgh and Freistadt in Europe.

This would suggest that a focus on the Canadian Surface Combatant - GBAD - LRPRs to create Iron Dome type structures would be a useful diplomatic tool of intervention.

A Libyan case might be the establishment of a safe haven at the cove by Ayn al Ulaymah outside of Tobruk.   Far enough away to buy some time to set up the base.  Close enough to be accessible to migrants.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

I was thinking more along the lines of what the Liberals would like to see as politically acceptable missions. Providing security to US naval installation from hostile ships might well be within that zone. Scoring minor brownie points with the US with a small battery worth of personal and equipment. 

Old Sweat, thanks for the clarification, I thought it was all provided.


----------



## jeffb (23 Feb 2017)

I'm all for this if I get to be a Battery Commander at the Halifax Citadel or Victoria guarding the harbours. Time to bring back the Garrison Artillery!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

I suspect you be spending most of your time looking at a radar screen, making coffee on a Colman stove and using a outhouse


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Old Sweat, thanks for the clarification, I thought it was all provided.



And despite having our own SSM training organization, the Brits insisted that officers posted to 1 SSM in Germany take something called the Honest John Change of Category Course in Larkhill. They of course charged us a lot for the course, including the cost of the rocket fired a the end of the course. This went on for a number of years, Ottawa apparently being under the impression that every student fired a rocket. A Canadian officer on his course discovered we were paying for the rocket for the course, and he demanded he fire it. The Brits refused, at which point CDLS(L) asked for our rocket back. He, and subsequent Canadian students fired the rockets the Canadian taxpayer had payed for.

As for the return of coast artillery, it seems to me things would have to have gone rather pear-shaped, if enemy naval units are able to approach our coasts, "our" not necessarily meaning North American territory. At one stage, just for fun I did a bit of research into the development of coast artillery tactics and equipment. In its final form, it was layered with different calibre's having different roles. As ranges and our ability to hit a moving target a long away from shore increased the numbers of guns were reduced because we could achieve the desired effect.

As I say again, show me a real threat, and no, I don't think it is a low risk role that would get us a lot of brownie points. The only time I heard anything that had a little merit and the operative term word was little, and not merit, was a suggestion circa 1970 we establish batteries at choke points on the North West Passage and conduct enough firing practices to deter unauthorized use of it by foreign flags. 

Air defence is a different matter.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2017)

Mortars.  It's mortars you need.   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Feb 2017)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm all for this if I get to be a Battery Commander at the Halifax Citadel or Victoria guarding the harbours. Time to bring back the Garrison Artillery!



Not the way the CAF works: You'll get stuck at the Georges Island or Albert Head batteries.  [


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not the way the CAF works: You'll get stuck at the Georges Island or Albert Head batteries.  [



Why not St. John's or Prince George....... >


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2017)

Let us not forget the north coast!


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Feb 2017)

The Argentinian's land based Exocet batteries were pretty nasty, as the HMS Glamorgan discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glamorgan_(D19)


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Feb 2017)

From the Canadian perspective, why would we do this?

What choke points are we defending, and from whom?

If these are offensive tools, then what nation is going to allow us to emplace them overseas?

If they are defensive tools, who are we defending Canada from?  The handful of Russian 'Trawlers' that have been seen off the east coast?

The vulnerability of fixed defences on a modern battlefield has been proven time and again, particularly if facing near peer enemies.  

I see in the article that the intent is to have an army-centric ground-based ASM capability in the Pacific Theatre.  How much capability are they looking for?  Are they looking to stave off small attacks (a la ARA Guerrico - South Georgia - Les Malvinas) in which case, existing ATGM's may suffice, but it appears that the intent is to provide the ability to defend a bubble around an island and enable the Navy to worry about other areas.

That's a LOT of capability being sought...that's more than just shoulder-fired local defence capability, that's a RADAR station for detection, with long-range Anti-Ship Missiles.  (Truck mounted Harpoons at least.)

In the environment that seems to be proposed, facing a potential Chinese threat, does it make sense to invest in fixed ground installations instead of moving seaborne platforms?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2017)

NavyShooter

Such a system, for the Army, would likely be very similar to Russian Anti-Aircraft units with dedicated mobile Radar, Control and Erector systems.  All segments of it would be portable.


----------



## GR66 (24 Feb 2017)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have mobile launchers on the ground and airborne radar units to do the detecting?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Feb 2017)

I think the US plan is to have the army to provide defense to forward supply hubs, freeing up ships. Also places like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
or any of the choke points in the Pacific. I suspect it's also a political move to force the PLA to realize their ships would also be at risk and do area denial.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2017)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it make more sense to have mobile launchers on the ground and airborne radar units to do the detecting?



Airborne radar units to do the detecting?  How long would they be "on station"?  How would their coverage be affected by weather? 

If they are to be employed, they would just be an additional/interlocking resource.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2017)

Actually George, airborne radar degrades less than fixed surface radar when used over the ocean, so the weather would affect the shore base radar more than the airborne one. As for time on station, a LRMPA operating from the "hub" it is defending should have no trouble remaining on station for 10 to 12 hours at a time.


----------



## Ostrozac (24 Feb 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> From the Canadian perspective, why would we do this?



That's a good point. You would think that if the Canadian Forces wanted to sink some ships that we would do it with Harpoon fired from CF-18. And given that Canada never developed the anti shipping role for the Hornet (a role it was designed for in USN service), and no one has really missed the capability, you'd think that it is a mission that doesn't come up that often.

Now for the US ground based anti ship missiles might have a role in defence of far flung islands like Diego Garcia and Guam -- it might be a better option than defending them with fighters, but Canada lacks such outposts. (CFB Turks and Caicos never did get established).


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2017)

We might get more bang for the buck with a slightly different approach.

Using long range fiber optic guided missiles as regular artillery, we would be able to attack high value targets at ranges of up to 60 km (using something like the Polyphem Fibre-Optic-Guided Missile System). If the truck happens to drive to the shoreline and launch a missile at a target at sea, the same effect can be achieved, so long as the truck/battery has access to targeting data from an external source which is tracking the enemy ship. Since the Polyphem is a FOG-M, the operator can actually identify the target and guide it in on the final approach, if required.

LR guided missile artillery should be able to deal with lots of targets at ranges that are infeasible for conventional artillery, and also to deal with high value targets in complex terrain which other weapons systems are not able to attack, and even have the ability to threaten helicopters in rotor defilade, so this is not a "one trick pony".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Feb 2017)

60km fiber optic cable, man I don't want to wrap that around my shaft!!


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2017)

Not to mention that 60 km is not that great a distance in these instances.


----------



## jeffb (24 Feb 2017)

As an Army officer it almost pains me to say this but I have to agree that a better investment in the Canadian context would be in more ships. Our interests are better served in projecting power from our shores rather then meeting threats in the last 60km or so. The only possible area I could see deploying this would be in a future North-West passage scenario but this is better served through a combination of naval power cued by long-endurance UAV's mixed in with an air platform that can deliver some type of anti-ship missile (manned or unmanned). 

I get why the Americans, with an already robust rocket capability, would want to extend this to free up their high-value, low-quantity (given their requirements) naval assets from littoral defence; it just doesn't make sense in Canada to me. The US also has the added challenge of numerous small "outposts" all over the world or a future scenario in which they might be facing an adversary who could deny them, at least for a short period of time, access to certain areas (Persian Gulf for example) using shore based systems. The ability to reciprocate with our own shore based missiles based in friendly locations might be helpful.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2017)

I have to agree with you jeffb.

The US has the "numbers" to have such "luxuries".  We do not.  

The other thing to remember is that this suggestion in a Canadian scenario, is not to have a "stand alone" system as the be all/end all.  It would have to be one system within a number of systems that would only work if they are integrated.  The requirement for Air and Naval elements would not be diminished, as this would only be a system to compliment them.


----------



## Underway (25 Feb 2017)

Why would we even want or need a capability like this?  Every Canadian capability should be at a minimum very mobile.  The local geography is large and we are far away from trouble spots.  If you want to sink ships invest in the air/naval capability to do it.  Air launched anti-ship missiles would be a great start before you even thought about land-based missiles.  You could change requirements for the  Long-Range Precision Rocket System (which may have died a bureaucratic death by now...).

Personally, if you want the army to have missiles how about a return of a Multi-mission effects vehicle type concept a SHORAD system.  Or maybe just more anti-tank missile capability.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Feb 2017)

Coastal defence was the excuse the US Army Air Corps gave for initially acquiring the B-17 though of course they wanted it for Douhet-type strategice bombing:



> ...Headlines on the following day [17 July 1935] announced the new'15-ton Flying Fortress', and seizing upon the name the company had it registered as the official name of its Model 299. Contrary to popular belief, this was not because of its defensive armament, but because it was procured as an aircraft which would be operated as a mobile flying fortress to protect America's coastline, a concept which needs some explanation.
> 
> USAAC protagonists of air power were still compelled to step warily, despite procurement of the B-10 bomber, for the US Navy had the most prestigious support in the corridors of power and was determined to keep the upstart US Army in its place. Even if strategic bombers were required, efforts must be made to prevent the US Army acquiring such machines. The USAAC was, however, quite astute when needs be and so, with tongue in cheek, succeeded in procuring 13 YB-17s, the original service designation of the Fortress, for coastal defence...
> 
> ...



More:



> Rendezvous With the Rex
> ...
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2017)

WRT shore based artillery, a FOG-M with a 60km capability would be somewhat short ranged for that mission, but since this would be a secondary purpose for the battery, a range of 60km is almost double the range of a 155mm cannon shell, so sufficient for the primary tasking. Also since Polyphem was a project from the early 2000's, it seems pretty straightforward to extrapolate a much longer range from that technology today.

As far as the primary anti shipping task, if we were to settle on a FOG-M, a missile such as Polyphem can also be carried and fired from ships and helicopters as well. This actually plays into one of my other arguments in procurement: buying in bulk to gain economies of scale. Using a long range FOG-M (or indeed any) missile which can be carried and fired from vehicles, ships and aircraft against a multitude of targets means you can not only buy more of the munitions, but can also have some complimentary effects (a battery on shore can fire at a ship, but a Canadian ship can also support forces on land as well).


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Feb 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> Why would we even want or need a capability like this?  Every Canadian capability should be at a minimum very mobile.  The local geography is large and we are far away from trouble spots.  If you want to sink ships invest in the air/naval capability to do it.  Air launched anti-ship missiles would be a great start before you even thought about land-based missiles.  You could change requirements for the  Long-Range Precision Rocket System (which may have died a bureaucratic death by now...).
> 
> Personally, if you want the army to have missiles how about a return of a Multi-mission effects vehicle type concept a SHORAD system.  Or maybe just more anti-tank missile capability.



Our defensive positions around Riga might find them useful one day: 

Latvia’s National Armed Forces (NBS) patrol vessel P-05 Skrunda reported spotting two Russian navy vessels maneuvering close to Latvia’s territorial waters Monday.

http://www.lsm.lv/en/article/politics/russian-navy-sub-and-warship-edge-by-latvian-waters.a95014/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2017)

Even a system with a  60km range basically can secure all of the Gulf of Riga from Latvian shore and almost halfway to Gotland.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (28 Feb 2017)

Given the growing importance of the Northwest Passage, and the fact that many nations do not recognize this passage as Canadian internal waters, there might be something to this concept for the Arctic theater of operations. 

The Northwest Passage is quite narrow so environment challenges aside it might not take a very complex system to cover the passage. Perhaps a system at Resolute (and/or Cambridge Bay) and another at Kugluktuk (sp?) would due the trick.

If nothing else it would be a good posting to motivate/ demotivate the artillery. 

However if we are spending money on missiles I would say we have more pressing needs... man-portable ATGMs for the infantry, HIMARS, an AA capability of any kind... the list goes on.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2017)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> Given the growing importance of the Northwest Passage, and the fact that many nations do not recognize this passage as Canadian internal waters, there might be something to this concept for the Arctic theater of operations.
> 
> The Northwest Passage is quite narrow so environment challenges aside it might not take a very complex system to cover the passage. Perhaps a system at Resolute (and/or Cambridge Bay) and another at Kugluktuk (sp?) would due the trick.
> 
> ...



Man-portable missiles are one thing - AT, AA, A-Pers, A-Structure.

But HIMARS is something else again - It is essentially just a box on a truck.  And so far the original truck carries boxes of all the original rockets as well as the precision rockets and has the capacity to launch the 250 lb class guided bombs - and - it can carry the ATACMS family of rockets.  Concurrently, as has been noted, there is the Common Launcher push capable of launching all manner of missiles for all manner of targets.  And there is the NASAMs Multi Missile Launcher - another box to put on the back of the truck.

It seems to me that one truck, with a variety of boxes, with a variety of missiles, with a variety of warheads, with a variety of seekers and nav systems covers a lot of capability gaps.  Especially when allied with a broad spectrum ISTAR capability.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (28 Feb 2017)

> It seems to me that one truck, with a variety of boxes, with a variety of missiles, with a variety of warheads, with a variety of seekers and nav systems covers a lot of capability gaps.  Especially when allied with a broad spectrum ISTAR capability.



I couldn't agree more. Something like HIMARS could theoretically cover a big air-defence gap in the CAF (as I understand it we currently have no ground based air-defence... which strikes me as appallingly short sighted) and would also give us the ability to destroy a grid square from 300km away... sounds good to me. I would be surprised if there isn't also potential to do shore based anti-shipping tasks too.

As for the ATGM plug, as a dirty faced mudfoot I couldn't help but throw in a comment from the peanut gallery for a weapons system that everyone acknowledges we sorely lack at the moment. Having said that I believe that there have been some use of these weapons against ships in Egypt and Yemen. Also if it was Spike instead of Javelin the Finnish coastal Jaegers intentionally deploy them in the anti ship role.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2017)

The rationale for the initiative:

They are available
They are proven
They are numerous
They are small
They are cheap
They have lots of reloads
Compared to carriers and cruisers they can relocate quickly after launch.
They have growth potential
They can be supplied to allies (at a deep Trump negotiated discount).




> AUTHOR: JEREMY HSU. DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03.01.17.
> 
> THE ARMY GETS BACK IN THE SHIP-KILLING BUSINESS
> 
> ...



https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-converting-missiles-ship-killers-china/


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Mar 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The rationale for the initiative:
> 
> They are available
> They are proven
> ...



I like the idea of killing things 200kms away with a Mach 3 missile. 

And then... the Satellite laser batteries will be deployed to nail the counter-battery action!


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2017)

Missiles in a box might be a viable solution to many of our own artillery woes. This proposal uses a 15 round launcher box o the back of an medium truck as a SHORAD launcher, but the article states that Hellfire missiles can be launched from it as well. It really doesn't take much to start thinking about what other rockets or missiles can be fired from this, so in the ideal world, several hundred trucks with boxes could be purchased, and distributed among the various artillery regiments.

Some would fire SAMs, some might carry guided missiles to attack ground targets and some might just carry dumb rockets for saturating area targets. Long range guided missiles would be a good compliment for tube artillery.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Mar 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Some would fire SAMs, some might carry guided missiles to attack ground targets and some might just carry *dumb rockets for saturating area targets*. Long range guided missiles would be a good compliment for tube artillery.



Whoa, whoa, whoa... now you're encroaching on my job: Paratroopers


----------



## EricBoss (1 Apr 2017)

Lucky for us, the countries we are fighting right now don't even have proper weapons, let alone any ships


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Apr 2017)

EricBoss said:
			
		

> Lucky for us, the countries we are fighting right now don't even have proper weapons, let alone any ships



Not really. Good enemies make us stronger. 

If you want to see what weaker third world enemies do to first world armies study the opening phases of the Boer War and see how well the British did in the face of some first world like opposition following decades of 'golly bashing' in the colonies.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2017)

> LM Canada planned a land-based test site (LBTS) to
> be constructed in the Dartmouth area of Nova Scotia that
> would support the validation of the combat system design
> prior to setting to work on the first refitted ship. The LBTS
> ...



I saw this in the Maritime Engineering Journal as posted here.

http://navy.ca/forums/threads/76442/post-1483531.html#msg1483531  

Page 37.

In line with Gunners sinking ships and discussions of GBAD/LRPRS integration with the RCN -  

Did this facility get built?  
Is it still standing?
Have the RCA considered playing with it to see whether or not the same architecture can accommodate some of the kit they are considering?

It seems to me that it would a useful platform to explore commonalities and differences and how to bridge or exploit differences.


----------



## NavyShooter (12 Apr 2017)

> Did this facility get built?
> Is it still standing?
> Have the RCA considered playing with it to see whether or not the same architecture can accommodate some of the kit they are considering?



Yes,
Yes.

BUT.

The LBTS was assembled in Dartmouth, and was used to validate and test the operational software, with the eventual understanding/plan being that it would be shut down and moved to Halifax for installation at the Pullen Building.

I haven't been in the Pullen Building much since this whole move was in progress....so I'm not sure how that's going.

As for getting access to it....well...the RCN was supposed to be going to multiple shifts per day to stagger the access to the systems.  Techs, Operators, and developers all need a chance to play with it.

NS


----------



## sunrayRnfldR (12 Apr 2017)

The Lockheed facility has had the various antennae removed for some months so one assumes the equipment has been relocated to the Pullen Building or elsewhere within Stadacona.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2017)

Thanks to both for the info.

I can understand the need for the facility as a training fixture and why it might be getting a lot of use.  

But

I still think it could also serve as an interesting experimental facility as well, or at least, as the basis of an experimental facility.

And I know people react to the word "play" but I use it advisedly.  Its all very well to see if a thing does what it is supposed to do but it can also be instructive to see what else might happen when doing things it's not supposed to do.  

I would like to see what would happen if you plugged in the RCA's MRR radar and perhaps a NASAMS launcher and  a pair of Millenium guns.


----------

