Thread by @tshugart3

Lots of discussion has kicked off about the naval force structure proposed yesterday by @EsperDoD, which will include a significant proportion of unmanned (or minimally-manned) ships in an effort to reduce costs, distribute the naval firepower among more & smaller platforms, etc.

https://twitter.com/EsperDoD/status/1313581286699798530

This alternative naval force structure sounds to me like an interesting opportunity for a simulation, to see how something like the proposed construct - specifically the use of small and/or unmanned platforms - might perform against a more traditional naval force.

The tool we can use to see what it might look like is Command: Modern Operations (CMO), a commercially-available air/naval warfare sim. Using its scenario editor, we can set up opposing forces and unleash them on each other to see what happens. matrixgames.com/game/command-m…

I'll be using the consumer-grade version of the game, so take the results with a good hunk of salt. There's a pro version also, but it comes with a hefty price tag that I'm not ready to pay out of my own pocket. warfaresims.com/?page_id=3822

In going through this, I plan to mostly focus on surface platforms, as they're the ones that seem to be the scene of the biggest planned changes

I'd love to hear inputs from folks who are smarter than me about the details as I set up, as I have no surface warfare experience.

In terms of publicly-released material, it seems like the @HudsonInstitute's recently-released naval force structure study is probably the best starting point, as it was one of the inputs into DoD's process: hudson.org/research/16406…

Going further back, Bryan Clark and @timothyawalton, two of the Hudson report's authors, provided specific proposed (and I imagine, related) surface action group constructs in a @CSBA_ report at the end of 2019: csbaonline.org/research/publi…

The Hudson report recommends the deployment of Anti-surface warfare (ASUW)/strike surface action groups (SAGs), consisting of 2 destroyers (DDGs), 2 minimally-manned corvettes (DDCs) and 5 medium unmanned surface vehicles (MUSVs).

The older CSBA report provides for comparison a fairly similar new-construct SAG (with 2 DDGs and 6 DDCs), posited as better-than-replacing 3 traditional DDGs. This seems to me like a decent starting point for the simulation.

Ok, let's fire up the sim.

To be clear folks, this is live, not some canned messaging or point-making. I haven't run this comparison yet, and have no idea how it'll turn out.

To set up the DDG's loadout, I'll use the one proposed by Bryan Clark and Mark Gunziger in their previous CSBA report on air and missile defenses: csbaonline.org/research/publi…

For a DDG, they recommended a loadout of 10% SM-3 BMD interceptors, 20% SM-6 SAMs, 15% SM-2, 25% ESSM (short range SAM), 25% Tomahawk (in the future, land-attack and anti-surface capable), and 5% vertical launch ASROC (an ASW missile).

Using the scenario editor, we can take a generic Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG and modify the loadout to approximate the proposed one.

Here is the resulting DDG weapon and sensor loadout.

I added 8 LRASM ASCMs in place of 4 of the Tomahawks and 4 of the SM-2s, since LRASM should be in the fleet in a few years. If you know more about DDGs than I do and think something should be different, please let me know!

For the corvette (aka DDC), the CSBA fleet report proposed something on the order of 2000 tons, perhaps derived from an offshore support vessel, and armed with 24-32 VLS cells and perhaps a short-range SAM (like SeaRAM).

The database has a 1900 ton Offshore Patrol Vessel deployed by New Zealand that might be a rough stand-in, in terms of hull shape, damage capacity, detectability, etc. I am happy, of course, to hear any other suggestions for classes /types to use as a base to add the VLS to.

Here is a potential loadout for the DDC: in place of the OPV's 25mm cannon, a SeaRAM launcher. And in place of its flight deck, a 32-cell VLS with the following: 10 multi-mission Tomahawks (MMT), 16 ESSM, 10 SM-6s, and 8 LRASMs. With the crew limited, so are the sensors.

For the MUSV, the CSBA study envisioned something sort of like the DARPA ACTUV prototype, unarmed for most missions but carrying sensors or decoys, and perhaps a UAV.

Fortunately, the game database actually has the ACTUV. I can also add a ScanEagle UAV, as well as some basic ESM sensors.

Ok, continuing on. Time to put this sim in run and see what happens. To the east is the proposed (I'll just call it "new"), and to the west the legacy (3 DDG) fleet.

They are about 240 NM apart, both assigned a naval anti-surface mission within a patrol box in the center.

Both sides are in EMCON (not transmitting radar, etc.) with the exception of an MQ-4 maritime patrol UAV that each side has just behind its DDGs, and which has a surface-search radar). The yellow arc shows the radar's horizon.

Initially, the only contact held is the other side's MQ-4, which is also transmitting. Both sides send out helos to patrol the box, and the new fleet's MUSV's launch Scan Eagle UAVs as well.

First contact: the MQ-4 spots one of the legacy DDGs on the horizon, but it remains unclassified.

All 3 DDGs have now been spotted, but remain unclassified. We can assume the reverse is true as well, given the other fleet's MQ-4 operating similarly.

We'll send UAVs and helos over to try to ID the contacts, and I'll tell the other side to do the same.

Our MQ-4 has now classified one of the DDGs as such, so it looks like our northern task group launched a volley of Tomahawks. Of course, there may be inbounds on the way, too.

One of our DDCs just spotted an enemy helo pretty close by, so they may have classification on us, and may have seen our missiles go by.

Yes, it looks like one of the legacy DDGs has lit off it's radar - and we appear to have an inbound missile.

*its* radar

The missiles are flying now - one of our DDGs has lit off its AMDR radar due to the inbound missiles, and it now looks like there are SM-6s inbound as well.

Just lost one of our Scan Eagles to an enemy SAM.

Inbound ASCM to one of our DDCs.

It was shot down by the nearby DDG, but now that DDG is under attack.

A successful defense, and now we have a heap of ASCMs going the other way.

Uh oh, one of our DDCs just got hit, and is sinking. Didn't even see what hit it.

There goes another DDC, again didn't catch what hit it, since it doesn't have its own air search radar.

Here's a bunch of LRASMs in endgame on a DDG, which managed to get them all.

Taking a peek at the inventories of the legacy DDGs, it looks like they're down to just a handful of long-range SM-2/6 SAMs, and otherwise only have ESSMs left.

More importantly, it looks like they're now completely out of long-range antiship missiles (ranges in red), though we wouldn't know that. They have nothing now that can hit us from that range.

Here's one of our tomahawk salvos on the center DDG. Looks like they got em.

Looks like there was an inbound salvo still in the air. But out southern DDG got them all.

Looks like we did some damage to the southernmost legacy DDG, I must have missed that engagement.

Our northern DDG is now lobbing SM-6s at its counterpart.

Looks like the southern legacy DDG is about to have a bad day...and yes, that's it for them.

Looks like the last DDG just took at hit from an SM-6.

And that's it - they're wiped out.

Here's the tale of the tape: the proposed fleet lost 2 DDCs, and in exchange sank all three "legacy" fleet DDGs.

It looks like the key factor was just the greater number of ASCMs carried on the larger number of platforms; once the DDGs got short on SAMs, that was pretty much it.

Now, the usual caveats apply:
- I'm not a surface warfare / missile defense expert
- this is a consumer-grade sim
- we're building a fleet to be able to fight our competitors, not our own ships
- this is a simplistic scenario
- etc.

So, caveat emptor. 🤷‍♂️Fin.