The coming Independent Missile Age

[lucklucky]

In my definition the Independent Missile Age is the birth of widespread use of Independent Missiles. Independent Missiles are those that don't need anymore to be dependent from an expensive  complex vector to be launched from. Like an aircraft or to a less extent a ship.

The missile can now operate almost by himself needing only a target designator.

Recent Israeli-Hamas conflict show partially the future, in 10 years those rockets will be guided by most combatants.

Technological advance, promote cheap guidance packages that effectively can turn any rocket into a guided missile. This mean there is no more need of investment into very expensive aircraft, training... to deliver a payload up to 500km, there is also no need for airbases, fixed structures easily attacked like we saw in Iraq an airbase attacked by Iranian missiles. A missile plus a stealth drone, satellite and/or GPS tools to designate the target can do the job. 

There are  important consequences to the inter service current equilibrium: that  Land Forces got an huge boost at expense of the Air Forces,  less so of the Navy with a caveat further below.

USAF is already feeling the pinch:

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/03/joint-world-warms-up-to-army-long-range-missiles/

Another advantage for the missile are technological cycles. Being less complex because much near unidimensionality, it is much easier for the Independent Missile to follow technology closely than complex assets like aircraft and ship, that need huge lead times and cost.

A significant issue to the Naval Forces might be the direct threat to the viability of surface ships up to a couple hundred of km from coast if huge quantities of land based Independent  Missiles are feasible. Adding to that the hypersonic threat.

 

Against this, we have only the contemporary war romanticism, the widespread love that complex permanent, reusable machines like aircraft and ships get from their human creators.

[KV7]

The limit here is that air breathing engines are still quite expensive and rockets have comparatively poor performance in terms of range and payload for a given missile mass. For quite a few targets (i.e those that are not heavily defended by AA assets) UAV using relatively short range munitions are the most cost effective solution. And the same technology which can bring down the cost of sensors and guidance on e.g. cruise missiles can also bring down the cost of UAV. 

Edited July 26, 2021 by KV7

[JasonJ]

The Iranian BM strike on the US bases in Iraq still (pending any possible declassifiction of documents) caused very little human loss because the BMs were detected early in their launch, given time to respond. Space based observation probably can detect long range missile launches, even low altitude ones like Iskandar. Having the missile launcher closer to the target gives less possible reaction time, or having missiles launched from less expected vectors can make defending more difficult so air or naval platforms can still expand the operational sphere of missiles. A purely independent missile based structure would be easier to predict and easier to design a counter force, either as defensive or counter reaction, as it would have less possible vectors to launch from.

Edited July 26, 2021 by JasonJ

[KV7]

They seemingly caused little loss of life because Iran deliberately targeted structures expected to have no or few personnel in them, likely as a means to reduce the risk of retaliation. If you look at the post strike analysis the accuracy of fire was very good - individual structures were hit in a way that is best described by them being deliberately targeted, but the targets chosen were storage yards etc. and not barracks or offices.

Edited July 26, 2021 by KV7

[Stuart Galbraith]

Without knowing how good Iranian accuracy or Intelligence is, that is an uncertain conclusion.

[KV7]

It is partially a statistically derived conclusion, via the following:

(1) if the pattern of impacts was a result of inaccurate fire, there would almost certainly be more misses, because there is a considerable amount of open ground. Spray and pray with CEP of 150 m or so will get you ~ 3/4 or more of rounds falling in a field or road or parking lot etc.

(2) if the targets were chosen at random or with the intention of causing casualties, there would almost certainly not be such a high concentration of hits on typically non-populated structures.

 

[bojan]

35 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Without knowing how good Iranian accuracy or Intelligence is, that is an uncertain conclusion.

Being able to hit large buildings is early 1980s tech and available to practically everyone today.

[KV7]

They seemed to have good accuracy but some problem with reliability. If we restrict the analysis to the 6 hits on small hangers, the CEP is ~< 10m.

[lucklucky]

13 hours ago, KV7 said:

The limit here is that air breathing engines are still quite expensive and rockets have comparatively poor performance in terms of range and payload for a given missile mass. For quite a few targets (i.e those that are not heavily defended by AA assets) UAV using relatively short range munitions are the most cost effective solution. And the same technology which can bring down the cost of sensors and guidance on e.g. cruise missiles can also bring down the cost of UAV. 

I am seeing missiles getting at least double range  from 80's for same mass. A 99kg CAMM anti aircraft missile is said to have 25km the range of a 220kg Sea Sparrow for example. Heavy anti tank missile like spike is now in 30km range.

One of drivers is that the vectors are keeping more and more expensive, take too much time to develop. This inevitably forces a decoupling and a vector devaluation.

I might also include the vector of vectors = the aircraft carrier.

[KV7]

10 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

I am seeing missiles getting at least double range  from 80's for same mass. A 99kg CAMM anti aircraft missile is said to have 25km the range of a 220kg Sea Sparrow for example. Heavy anti tank missile like spike is now in 30km range.

One of drivers is that the vectors are keeping more and more expensive, take too much time to develop. This inevitably forces a decoupling and a vector devaluation.

I might also include the vector of vectors = the aircraft carrier.

There is some scope for improvement here but there is a sharp upper bound given by the specific energy of the fuel and oxidiser. Improved accuracy can permit smaller warheads, and lighter and more compact electronics and improved structures can cut mass as well.

Edited July 26, 2021 by KV7

[bojan]

2 hours ago, KV7 said:

They seemed to have good accuracy but some problem with reliability. If we restrict the analysis to the 6 hits on small hangers, the CEP is ~< 10m.

CEP taken by itself is a meaningless metric, because managing 10m CEP on high-contrast targets like buildings is not same as managing 10m CEO on the naked field. Second one is much, much harder.

[KV7]

7 hours ago, bojan said:

CEP taken by itself is a meaningless metric, because managing 10m CEP on high-contrast targets like buildings is not same as managing 10m CEO on the naked field. Second one is much, much harder.

It depends on the guidance system. A <10m CEP purely from inertial and GPS is impressive, because that can be replicated anywhere. If there was also terminal EO guidance then the high contrast structure may have been a prerequisite to achieving that level of accuracy.

AFAICT we are still not sure if Fateh-313 which achieved the high accuracy has EO terminal guidance, though it seems to be necessary as the accuracy appears to be very good, not just <10m but possibly even <5m.

The follow on Dezful missile on paper appears quite impressive, with a claimed 1000 km range, 5m CEP, composite structure etc. and the ability to fit two on a TEL.

[DB]

17 hours ago, bojan said:

CEP taken by itself is a meaningless metric, because managing 10m CEP on high-contrast targets like buildings is not same as managing 10m CEO on the naked field. Second one is much, much harder.

Whilst this is true in a "real" war, hitting any building on that site was plenty for the Iranians.

If they hit one set of buildings or another, or even if they scattered things about, it was a demonstration of (some) capability and increased the reputational and actual cost of dealing with them militarily.

Also, we don't actually know which buildings they intended to hit. I doubt that they'd tell us that they missed.

[KV7]

6 minutes ago, DB said:

Whilst this is true in a "real" war, hitting any building on that site was plenty for the Iranians.

If they hit one set of buildings or another, or even if they scattered things about, it was a demonstration of (some) capability and increased the reputational and actual cost of dealing with them militarily.

Also, we don't actually know which buildings they intended to hit. I doubt that they'd tell us that they missed.

We can under some perhaps strong assumptions reject the hypothesis that the true targets were other structures with high confidence, because in order for that to happen the CEP needs to be much larger and then we will then expect more misses.

The complications here is if there is EO guidance that will lock on to any similar shaped structure, in which case we can explain the pattern  by mediocre midcourse accuracy, decent terminal guidance, but not excellent target discrimination.

[lucklucky]

If  the Houthis missile were fired against Israel this further validates the theory.

[lucklucky]

Houthis can attack Israel without risking any lives  but Israel will have to use  very expensive and complex vectors with humans to hit Houthis.

Edited October 31, 2023 by lucklucky

[lucklucky]

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/the-indo-pacifics-new-missile-age-demands-washingtons-attention/

Quote

 

The ability to strike deep into the territory of an adversary during a conflict may seem like a no-brainer strategic advantage for any nation. But in the op-ed below, analyst Ankit Panda shares the conclusions of a new report that warns, in short, more missiles equals more problems.

The Indo-Pacific region has entered a new missile age as more and more countries in the region develop more and more long-range strike capabilities: each nation individually seeking deterrence while as a whole steering the region into ever-more dangerous waters.

 

 

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/12/lockheed-begins-delivering-prsm-inc-1-to-army/

Quote

 

Regardless of just how far that first iteration missile can fly, US Army Pacific commander Gen. Charles Flynn told reporters last month he can’t wait to have the “crucial capability” in his arsenal and to provide soldiers in the region with the new capability.

As the Army prepares for PrSM Inc 1 fielding, it is also working on enhanced versions of the weapon, including an Increment 2 with a multimode seeker, known as the Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) seeker, and a PrSM Inc 3 which would seek to add in enhanced lethality payloads.

The service also tapped a Lockheed team and a Raytheon Technologies-Northrop Grumman team this year to work on competing PrSM Inc 4 designs that can fly more than 1,000 km, possibly double the range of the current version.

 

 

[lucklucky]

France will develop with Ariane Group, and Thales  land based long range missiles from 100km to more than 500km range for deep attack into enemy forces, function that upon now was restricted to the air force.

https://www.lalettre.fr/fr/entreprises_defense-et-aeronautique/2024/05/13/thales-s-allie-a-arianegroup-dans-l-artillerie-longue-portee,110224748-gra

 

Edited May 13 by lucklucky

[Josh]

The proliferation of precision ballistic and cruise missiles basically means the country with the greatest advantage is 1). who strikes first 2). who has greater ISR capability to attack relocatable targets and 3). who has the least to lose, infrastructure wise.

[lucklucky]

Good points,

- effective anti missiles defence can deny some. 

- infrastructure dispersal is an advantage but also problem since air defence cover most be dispersed. Unless you have a large enough country where a part of it is outside enemy missile range.

- A long range missile force can saturate base by base in sequence. Lets say you have 200 launchers - send 200 missiles to one base , then 200 to other etc.

- Air bases and the whole air force is very vulnerable to missiles attacks, you can get a 1967 air base widespread destruction result with missiles now. And air forces are very expensive.

- All of this forces the other side to retaliate very fast to where it hurts more as a measure of deterrence. Trying to only pinpoint mobile launchers is impossible.. So you need strong attack capability.

Result of ATACMS attack in Crimea air base. There was no need of complex aircraft, airbases and pilot training to do it. And without US developing ATACMS  Ukraine would be unable to do anything like this.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/mig-31-foxhounds-confirmed-destroyed-in-new-imagery-of-belbek-air-base

https://www.twz.com/news-features/russias-belbek-airbase-in-crimea-hammered-by-ukrainian-long-range-strike

 

 

 

Edited May 17 by lucklucky

[bojan]

Whole thing in Crimea would have been reduced by use of revetments and overhead cover for planes, but for some reason Russians invested zero effort in that direction.

[DB]

9 minutes ago, bojan said:

Whole thing in Crimea would have been reduced by use of revetments and overhead cover for planes, but for some reason Russians invested zero effort in that direction.

It's almost as if they didn't expect any serious resistance.

[urbanoid]

The war is in its third year and Crimea has already been hit by the Ukrainians, one could think that they would at least improvise something.

[TrustMe]

It's just Russian complacency.

[bojan]

21 minutes ago, DB said:

It's almost as if they didn't expect any serious resistance.

It is not current thing, even in the '70/80s only minority of their airbases had those, while locally even tertiary, reserve based had them.

Ukrainians also, from drone and missile attacks on parked planes that we have seen and what is visible on google earth they also have made no any attempt to make overhead cover or any other form of protection other than eventually low walls for planes.

Edited May 17 by bojan