"Strength in Numbers: The Remarkable Potential of ... " Topic

…(really) Small Combatants.

"You are a tactical commander tasked with a mission to seek out and destroy one of the enemy's premier capital ships in his home waters. You have two potential striking forces at your disposal: a world class surface combatant of your own with a 99% probability of mission success (Ps = 0.99) or a squadron of eight independently operating, missile carrying small combatants – each with a chance of successfully completing the mission no better than a coin flip (Ps = 0.5). Do you go with the almost sure thing and choose to send in your large combatant? As it turns out, the squadron of small combatants has an even higher overall Ps. But let's assume now that you've advanced to operational commander. You might have more concerns than just overall Ps. What are the defensive and logistical requirements for each option? How much fleet investment am I risking with each option? What will it cost to replace the asset(s) if it is lost? What capability does the striking force have after successful enemy action (i.e. resilience)? An analysis of these factors, intentionally designed to disadvantage the small combatants, actually comes out overwhelmingly in their favor over the large combatant. The results verify what naval strategists and tacticians have long known: for certain offensive missions, an independently operating group of even marginally capable platforms can outperform a single large combatant at lower cost and less risk to the mission…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

The calculations do depend on the values assigned for Ps in each case. Giving a small missile boat a 50/50 chance of taking out a major naval asset seems on the optimistic side.

Players of Seastrike figured this out decades ago. One hugely expensive cruiser or a swarm of missile frigates?

Of course, the small boats have to be able to get there, wherever 'there' is; it's more of a balancing act that the headline suggests.

And the small boats are going on a suicide mission, so you need really motivated crews… or drones… or just long range missiles. Which is what navies have been going for recently.

It all depends on the overall threat environment. Really small boats don't work any real distance from a friendly shore and are simply lunch meat for aircraft and helicopters. The small missile armed MTB such as an Osa or the Saar boats are big enough to play in deeper waters but not capable of surviving in a robust environment and are falling out of favor with many navies. The slightly bigger Corvette/Frigate type that can mount a decent weapons and electronic suite without costing a mint seems to be gaining fans.

I always think of Star Wars when I hear this argument. I then think of the torpedo boat – a new tactic for the twentieth century, then of the missile boats that could sink destroyers in the 60s…

I am not sure why this theory keeps being re discovered, but then there may be one or two sayings about it.

A well balanced navy should not be a mono class navy, unless that class is an aircraft carrier.

A well balanced navy should not be a mono class navy, unless that class is an aircraft carrier

Maddaz, there is a reason aircraft carriers don't go around on their own: they are no exception to your main point.

Though the Royal Navy is having a go at it, with politicians believing that the aircraft carrier itself is enough, without the aircraft :(

Though the Royal Navy is having a go at it, with politicians believing that the aircraft carrier itself is enough, without the aircraft :(

You have to admit, they'll make great ferries without all those unsightly planes cluttering the ship. :)

If they went into the ferrying service they might be able to save up for some aeroplanes.

Quantity has a quality all of it's own.
Send in the little s.

I read a briefing some years ago, written by an analyst, based on data from the American government, that the best vessel to support a CVN, was another CVN, or CV. I accept that a couple of close in frigates might be needed in some circumstances for close in escort, but the ultimate queen of the seas is (and is likely to remain for some time) an aircraft carrier. I will accept that accurate long range ballistic missiles might be the new foe that renders them less capable, but without accurate target information how will these missiles work, and for that you need another ship or an aircraft.

Of course – the aircraft carrier must have capable long range aircraft able to perform the multiple roles they will be tasked, so antisub helicopters, tilt wing aircraft for longer range antisub, and then strike and anti air roles for faster jets.

I hope that the current UK government has the foresight to use quality aircraft to fulfil all of these roles.

A large number of smaller combatants has a larger maintenance footprint than one or two big frigates. The smaller combatants can also cost a lot more, once you get all the milspec electronics installed. When every ship needs 3x $10 USDmil pieces of equipment, those 8 smaller combatants rapidly become hellaciously expensive.

And all of that is irrelevant in the real world where the political ramifications of procurement, gun-boat diplomacy, and losses reign supreme.

This appears to explain very nicely why battleships were mostly sunk by planes rather than by other battleships in WW2.

Torpedo boats are all very well but the above neglects to inform us how they are expected to cross oceans….