Latest news with #ArleighBurke
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Korea's New Frigate Has Ballistic Missile Launchers
North Korea has officially unveiled the Choi Hyon, its air defense-capable frigate that we previously had seen under construction. The warship, which was supposedly built in just over a year, carries the hull number 51, likely to emulate the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer that it bears a minor resemblance to. You can read our previous analysis on the vessel when it was under construction here, but now that we are seeing it in full, one thing is very clear, it intends to pack more weaponry than any ship of its size. As for that size, a displacement of 5,000 tons is being circulated, but it's unclear if it actually hits that figure. Clearly visible on its bow is a large deck gun, possibly in the 127mm class. Then we also see a primary close-in weapon system (CIWS) towards the rear of the ship's superstructure. This looks very similar to Russia's navalized Pantsir-ME system that features both cannons and highly maneuverable short-range missiles. This could be a North Korean knock-off, or it could be from Russia directly as part of reimbursement for North Korea's support of Russia's war in Ukraine. Giving the ship a credible CIWS capability would be very important, as the rest of its anti-air capabilities will take time to develop and may never reach the point of a highly reliable defense. A pair of AK-630 turreted six-barrel 30mm rotary cannons are also visible on each side of the ship, which can engage air and surface targets over very close ranges. We also see two countermeasures dispensers arrayed on both sides of the ship, along the outer edge of the superstructure, as well as what appear to be the same number turreted four-cell launchers. These are most likely capable of firing loitering munitions and short-range guided missiles, as well as possibly anti-submarine charges. What could be an enclosure that houses angle-launched anti-ship cruise missiles is seen amidships, although it's inconclusive as to what this structure is for. This enclosure does look broadly similar, but also appears to be thinner, than one that conceals angled cruise missile launchers on North Korea's new Amnok class corvette. When it comes to armament, the sheer number of vertical launch system (VLS) cells on this ship is remarkable. Not just that, but there appear to be at least four (possibly even five) distinct sizes of VLS cells that make up its two VLS arrays. This is of particular interest because it would maximize magazine depth for a given loadout and is capable of hosting a wide range of different weapon sizes. It is and more complex than having one or even two VLS cell sizes only. In total, the ship features 32 small cells, 12 medium-sized cells, 20 large cells (although these could also be different sized, with 12 forward cells being different than the eight aft) and 10 very large cells, for a total of a whopping 74 cells. That is a remarkable number for a ship this size, which looks larger than it actually is. This is especially true considering some of those cells are quite large. For comparison, thep upcoming Constellation class frigate will feature 32 cells, for instance, although, like all Mk41 VLS cells, they can be quad-packed with Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer has between 90 and 96 cells, depending on the variant, and like the Constellation class, all the cells have the same aperture dimensions. It's very likely that the Choi Hyon's large cells will be able to accommodate long-range cruise missiles and the extra large ones will be able to launch ballistic missiles. North Korea has previously test-launched its Hwasal-2 long-range cruise missile, which is supposed to have strategic (nuclear) capability, from its new Amnok class corvette. Other cruise missiles and adapted guided artillery rockets could also fill the large cells. North Korea has a dizzying array of ballistic missiles in its weapons catalog, with short-range ballistic missile types (such as the Hwasong-11 family) being suited to fit inside the ship's extra-large VLS cells. The adoption of ballistic missiles, both in a land attack and anti-ship capacity, aboard surface warships is an emerging trend. North Korea's arch nemesis and neighbor, South Korea, is adopting exactly this weapons capability for its far more capable top-of-the-line warships. So, when you consider this and Pyongyang's affinity to ballistic missiles, as well as the odd dual-role of this ship (which we will get to in a moment), it is unsurprising that North Korea is following suit. The smaller VLS cells would primarily support the ship's stated anti-air warfare mission, carrying various surface-to-air missiles. In the new imagery, we also see the four-sided phased array radar system that will provide the ship's primary sensor capability, as well as ancillary sensor and communications systems festooned atop its superstructure. A flight deck is also present on the ship's stern, but with no hangar facility to house a rotary-wing asset. Overall, it is clear that this frigate was designed to absolutely maximize its weapons-carrying capabilities. While this ship should be capable as a launch platform for longer-range strike missiles, its other primary role as an air warfare asset is highly debatable. As with other new high-profile North Korean weapon systems, while they may offer advanced capabilities in relation to what the country already has, in a wartime scenario, they would be the first to be targeted and destroyed. Having a ship that looks loosely like more advanced foreign ones and packed with weapons is one thing, actually making it a survivable asset, with all the technology and training that goes with it, is a far higher bar to reach. Infusion of Russian technologies and assistance could help in this regard, but only to a degree. It is unlikely that Pyongyang will ever be able to build these ships in large enough numbers to give their fleet true depth and resiliency in combat, assuming they even stand a shot in a combat scenario at all. Even if multiple frigates are built, they would be tracked and sunk quickly during the opening stages of a conflict. This is especially true considering they could carry standoff weapons with nuclear warheads. Still, they may have enough time to send their long-range weaponry on its way before they reach their demise. Considering the unique weapons configuration we are seeing, that could very well be their point. An ambiguously assured second-strike deterrent. In that framing, this ship is certainly similar to what we have seen as of late from the nuclear-armed Hermit Kingdom. They may be token capabilities, but the fact that they could deliver strategic attacks makes them a threat that must be dealt with. Even the possibility of them getting a single nuclear armed weapon fired off works as its own deterrent value, although a relatively dubious one. Contact the author: Tyler@
Epoch Times
22-04-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Defense Finance Lessons from the Napoleonic Wars
Commentary When discussing American military spending and defense industrial base policy in the context of great power competition with the Chinese Communist Party, it has become common to Various defense professionals have already Britain's In terms of actual military spending, Britain not only focused on maintaining a strong military of its own, but also on bolstering its allies, who could offset areas in which Britain was militarily weak. This was especially true on land. The British Army remained relatively small throughout the wars, While the British Army remained small throughout the war, the Royal Navy grew to become the largest and most capable in Europe, securing command of the seas after Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson Related Stories 4/12/2025 4/10/2025 What lessons do these hold for the United States in its own great power rivalry with the CCP? As noted above, Britain's command of the sea was essential to its victory over France. It therefore sacrificed some degree of capability in its Army to ensure the Royal Navy was properly organized, manned, trained, and equipped, with the shortfall in British land forces made up for by subsidizing the armies of its allies. This could be an especially important guide for the United States. Modern day 'command of the sea' must include both traditional control over the maritime domain (or at least relative dominance in it), but also extends into the air, space, and cyberspace, given their importance to both global commerce and power projection. In a resource-constrained defense environment, the United States may have to take a page from Britain's example and accept reductions in landpower in order to pay for a larger Navy, and more capable air, space, and cyber forces. The corresponding reduction in landpower could be offset by the U.S.'s allies. While the overall U.S. Army is significantly larger than any allied land force in the Indo-Pacific, with over a million soldiers, it only fields around 106,000 in the theater itself, under U.S. Army Pacific. This is significantly smaller than the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, Republic of Korea Army, and Philippine Army with 150,700, 365,000, and 150,000 active soldiers respectively, and only slightly larger than the Taiwanese Army with 94,000 soldiers. U.S. Army Pacific would undoubtedly surge forces in the event of conflict, but allied armies will always remain closer to the fight than a surge American land force. Allied armies could represent a better way of carrying out land operations in a protracted war with the PLA. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army's maneuver elements could be reduced in size in order to pay for a more capable Navy and Marine Corps (as well as Air Force and Space Force). An American armored brigade combat team Arleigh Burke -class Flight III destroyers or 2.3 Virginia -class submarines. Difficult military choices must be made if the United States hopes to finance long-term competition with the Chinese Communist Party. Great Britain's ability to fund a protracted series of conflicts against France from 1793 to 1815 offers lessons in wartime financing that U.S. policymakers would do well to heed. Power projection capabilities at sea and in the air, space, and cyberspace are critical to Indo-Pacific security, demanding reductions in land capabilities in order to properly finance them. This disadvantage in landpower could be offset by the armies of the U.S.'s allies in the Indo-Pacific. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Telegraph
16-04-2025
- Science
- Telegraph
The US Navy could use oil platforms as mobile missile reloading bases in the Pacific
Warily eyeing a Chinese fleet that's growing and modernising faster than ever, the US Navy is casting about for any and all ideas for preserving its naval edge. Now one American marine engineering company is proposing something creative and new: floating arsenals for rearming American warships at sea. Engineering firm Leidos Gibbs and Cox has identified around a dozen surplus oil platforms – and has drawn up plans to convert them into self-propelled sea bases with space for nearly 450 missiles plus cranes and other equipment to load those missiles into the vertical launch cells of frigates, destroyers and cruisers. A single Arleigh Burke -class destroyer – the Navy has more than 70 of these ships – packs 96 cells, each 14 feet tall. The missile canister which slots into the cell weighs more than four tons. Fleet commanders are worried that, in a major war with China, American ships would quickly run out of missiles as they swat down Chinese rockets and aircraft and also target Chinese ships. At present, all but one USN vessel – a recently and specially outfitted cruiser – must return to a safe port for the painstaking process of loading fresh missiles, a port that might be hundreds or thousands of miles from the maritime line of contact. A ship with no missiles, idle for days or even weeks as it labours through the reloading process, is worthless to a fast-moving naval campaign. The arsenal platforms Leidos Gibbs and Cox is pitching could motor across the open ocean at a top speed of 11 knots and, using a new crane system, slide fresh missiles into warships tied up alongside them at a rate of eight rounds per hour – an eightfold improvement over existing fleet reloading methods at large ports. They'd use special frames to slot in missiles in batches rather than individually. If the sea was too rough for safe reloading, the platforms could move inside the coral reefs of remote atolls, if necessary flooding their pontoons down to rest firmly on the sea bed as they might during oil operations. The converted platforms could solve a longstanding problem. 'Deterring or defeating our competitors will demand more than new platforms and new aircraft,' then-US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro said in 2023. 'It will demand that we make maximum use of our impressive arsenal, even as we fire missiles or take damage.' 'We must pay attention to the logistics side for our fleet in the Pacific in particular,' Del Toro added. The first initiative to result from Del Toro's demand for reform was the so-called 'Transferable Reloading Mechanism,' a crane the fleet installed on the cruiser USS Chosin last year. The TRAM does allow the vessel to receive fresh missile cells via taut cables from logistics ships sailing alongside, but the process of moving the cells into position is still as slow as it would be in port – and even more awkward given the inevitable rocking of a ship ploughing through potentially high sea states. The mobile platforms could meet ships midway between the front line and safe ports and reload them while stationary using cranes with much greater capacity. As a bonus, the platforms would have plenty of excess space, which the fleet could fill with 3D printers capable of churning out small attack drones. 'The platforms are so large and flexible that most of these missions can coexist,' Leidos says. The concept is promising, but it may also be a non-starter as the new administration of US president Donald Trump swings a wrecking ball at existing US strategy and force structure. Seeking to reprogram tens of billions of dollars a year in order to spend more on border patrols, a border wall and deportations, the Trump White House has reportedly ordered the armed services to cut current programs by eight percent a year for five years.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Considering Buying Foreign Ships To Make Up Gap With China
Upset by the pace of domestic shipbuilding, President Donald Trump said he may look to foreign companies to produce vessels for the U.S. His comments came after his sweeping executive order seeking to revamp the American shipbuilding industry that pales in comparison to China's, which has been assessed to have a whopping 200-times larger capacity than the United States. Trump didn't spell out whether he was talking about commercial ships, naval vessels or both. However, this makes particular sense for expanding the U.S. Navy and is an option we have repeatedly highlighted in the past, given the litany of issues the service is facing. 'We may order, would have to go to Congress for this, but we may buy some ships from other countries that we're close to and do great jobs with ships,' Trump told reporters on Thursday. 'But we're going to start the process of rebuilding. We don't really essentially build ships anymore, which is ridiculous. It's going to be very big business for us in the not-too-distant future. But in the meantime, we have countries that do very well at building ships, and we'll be dealing with those countries. So we may be ordering top-of-the-line ships from those countries. And within a fairly short period of time, we'll be building our own ships. So we'll probably have to go to Congress for that, but we're not going to have a problem.' .@MikeWaltz47: "Last year, the Chinese received 1700 orders for new ships. American shipyards received 5. Under your leadership… we are going to revitalize and make shipbuilding and maritime great again." — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 10, 2025 We reached out to the White House for clarification about what kinds of ships sparked Trump's interest. However, his remarks come amid concerns about the growth of the Chinese Navy in both mass and capability. You can read more about that yawning gap here. As we have explained in past reporting, both South Korea and Japan are building vessels now that are related to the Arleigh Burke class that currently serves as the backbone of the U.S. Navy. This puts both countries in a unique position to build U.S.-spec Burke destroyers, or at least substantial parts of them. They also have other models that are unlike those currently in the fleet, including smaller warships. Logistics ships and sea bases are also well within their capabilities. South Korea has already made inroads into the U.S. shipbuilding industry. The Hanwha Ocean Co. recently purchased the Navy shipyard in Philadelphia and secured Korea's first contract to overhaul a U.S. Navy ship. Hanwha's main Korean competitor, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, recently pitched a shipbuilding plan to the U.S. government, according to a report from the South Korean Chosun news outlet in March. 'If maritime defense cooperation with the U.S. becomes full-fledged, we can build up to five ships per year, and there is room for further expansion,' Woo-man Jeong, managing director of the Specialized Ship Business Unit at HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, told the publication last month. 'We have over 250 engineers who can design and build Aegis ships with the same performance as the U.S. HD Hyundai Heavy Industries is the only shipbuilder in Korea that directly designs and builds Aegis ships. It is also directly building five of the six Aegis ships that the Korean Navy will possess.' Woo-man likened the Aegis ships to the Arleigh Burke class U.S. guided missile destroyers. Last year, the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) commissioned the first of its new KDX-III Batch 2 destroyers, ROKS Jeongjo the Great. The service's largest ship, among the many advanced features incorporated in this class is the latest version of the Korean Vertical Launch System. #HyundaiHeavyIndustries has successfully delivered ROKS Jeongjo the Great, the first KDX-III Batch II AEGIS destroyer, to the #ROKNavy. It is recognized as the most advanced next-generation AEGIS destroyer in service. #KDXIII #AEGIS #AdvancedWarships — Hwarang (@KDefenseInsight) November 27, 2024 Japan builds a large array of warships, including three classes of destroyers that are related to the Arleigh Burke class. In terms of unique designs, two years ago, Japan launched its eighth Mogami class frigate, JS Yūbetsu. The stealthy Mogami class 30FFM Multi-Function Frigates will have the ability to perform various mission sets for the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. There is also the possibility that the U.S. could plug into its AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and leverage its conventional shipbuilding capacity for its needs. Trump's suggestion about purchasing foreign ships was a response to statements by National Security Director Mike Waltz about how China was vastly outproducing the United States in total shipbuilding capacity. 'Mr. President, last year, the Chinese received 1,700 orders from new ships. American shipyards received five,' Waltz said. 'Under your leadership, like so many other industries, we are going to revitalize and make shipbuilding and maritime great again with these blue-collar jobs. These are the cranes, the ports, opportunity zones, and drive that investment back in. And we have, under that executive order, and also one to streamline foreign military sales, for people that want to buy our equipment, and, of course, acquisition reform, all just this week.' Those concerns are the crux of 'Restoring America's Maritime Dominance,' the executive order Trump signed on Wednesday seeking to boost domestic shipbuilding capacity. 'Recent data shows that the United States constructs less than one percent of commercial ships globally, while the People's Republic of China (PRC) is responsible for producing approximately half,' the executive order states. 'Rectifying these issues requires a comprehensive approach that includes securing consistent, predictable, and durable Federal funding, making United States-flagged and built vessels commercially competitive in international commerce, rebuilding America's maritime manufacturing capabilities (the Maritime Industrial Base), and expanding and strengthening the recruitment, training, and retention of the relevant workforce.' The order calls for the 'Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) the APNSA deems appropriate,' to shall submit a Maritime Action Plan (MAP) within 210 days. BREAKING:Trump signs an executive order to restore American maritime dominance and boost U.S. shipbuilding@johnkonrad @mercoglianos @cdrsalamander — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 9, 2025 That plan includes a requirement for a six-month 'assessment of options both for the use of available authorities and resources, such as Defense Production Act Title III authorities, and for the use of private capital to the maximum extent possible to invest in and expand the Maritime Industrial Base.' Among the options to be considered are the 'investment and expansion of commercial and defense shipbuilding capabilities, component supply chains, ship repair and marine transportation capabilities, port infrastructure, and the adjacent workforce.' The Secretary of Defense 'shall pursue using the Office of Strategic Capital loan program to improve the shipbuilding industrial base,' the order continues. The executive order calls for the U.S. Army, Navy, and Coast Guard to list their top recommendations for new vessels. 'Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a review of shipbuilding for United States Government use and submit a report to the President with recommendations to increase the number of participants and competitors within United States shipbuilding, and to reduce cost overruns and production delays for surface, subsurface, and unmanned programs,' the executive order explains. 'This report must include separate itemized and prioritized lists of recommendations for the United States Army, Navy, and Coast Guard and shall be included in the MAP. Trump's executive order is similar to the bipartisan SHIPS Act proposed last year, which you can read about here, but it appears to go farther in some aspects, and there may be significant push back as a result. Building ships overseas, especially naval warships, would be a major change for the U.S. government. Shipbuilding is extremely politicized and special interest driven as it is. Industrial base protectionism is a huge driver in any discussion about shipbuilding domestically, let alone overseas. But what is clear is that the Navy's demand for warships outpaces the potential supply, and just keeping the ships it already has serviced with the existing industrial base is becoming increasingly challenging, which impacts combat readiness. Expanding shipbuilding to close allies would certainly help in these regards, as would further increasing foreign yards that can service American warships. This is especially critical in a time when China's fleet size is ballooning. While capacity could be leveraged now to build American naval ships in foreign yards, those same companies could invest in the U.S., building new infrastructure, which could help increase domestic capacity in the long term. But once again, no matter how logical this all sounds, doing so is going to probably stoke a fight in congress. Any dollars moving away from key U.S. shipyards will be challenged. But if Trump's budget were to call for a major expansion in shipbuilding, even if the money was there, doing it would be very problematic using existing infrastructure in the U.S. alone. Contact the author: howard@
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Yahoo
Coyote, Roadrunner Loitering Drone Interceptors To Arm U.S. Navy Destroyers
When the U.S. Navy's supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford deploys later this year, its strike group will include Arleigh Burke class destroyers armed with Raytheon Coyote and Anduril Roadrunner-M counter-drone loitering interceptors. Last year, TWZ laid out a detailed case for arming American warships with swarms of drones to provide a valuable additional layer of defense, as well as enhance their strike, intelligence-gathering, and networking capabilities. You can read that in-depth exclusive feature here. was the first to report on the planned integration of the combat-proven Coyote and the Roadrunner-M, which the U.S. military is buying steadily more of, onto Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyers. This has come in response, at least in part, to lessons learned from U.S. operations against Iranian-backed Houthi militants in and around the Red Sea. Since October 2023, the Houthis have been launching long-range kamikaze drones, as well as cruise and ballistic missiles, at foreign warships and commercial vessels, as well as targets in Israel. 'We're going to be deploying the Ford Strike Group with two additional missile systems on our destroyers – the Roadrunner system and the Coyote system – both specifically designed to go after UAVs [uncrewed aerial vehicles],' Navy Adm. Daryl Caudle, head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, told reporters last week, according to The counter-drone version of Coyote, also known as the Coyote Block 2, and the Roadrunner-M are both jet-powered drone-like loitering interceptors. Roadrunner-M has the additional ability to return to its point of launch to be refueled and reused if it is not expended in the course of a mission. When it comes to both Coyote and Roadrunner-M, a mixture of sensors are used to cue them to their targets, or at least the general target area, before their onboard seekers kick in. The U.S. Army currently fields Coyote Block 2 as part of the mobile and fixed-site versions of its Low, Slow, Unmanned Aircraft Integrated Defeat System (LIDS). Versions of LIDS have been deployed to sites in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe and have seen combat use in at least some of those locales. The U.S. special operations community is known to have fielded Roadrunner-M in a land-based configuration, though details of its use to date are limited. What exactly the integration of counter-drone systems using Coyote or Roadrunner-M onto the Arleigh Burke will consist of, including whether or not they will be tied in with the Aegis Combat Systems on those ships, is unclear. When reached for more information, a spokesperson for Raytheon (now formally RTX) directed TWZ to contact Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). TWZ has also reached out to NAVSEA and Anduril for more details. The Navy currently has a total of 74 Arleigh Burke class destroyers in service, a fleet that includes multiple subvariants. They are all equipped with Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays (though with differing numbers of total launch cells) that can fire various kinds of missiles, including Standard-series and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) surface-to-air types, as well as Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. Some versions also have additional launchers for Harpoon or Naval Strike Missile (NSM) anti-ship cruise missiles. Depending on the particular subvariant, the Arleigh Burkes also have either launchers for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) or 20mm Vulcan cannon-armed Mk 15 Phalanx Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) for close-in defense against aerial threats, including drones. Those in the 'Rota' configuration have both. The Navy is now moving to replace the Phalanxes on all of its destroyers with RAM launchers. The Arleigh Burkes also have 5-inch main gun in a turret on the bow, which can be used to engage aerial targets, along with ones at sea and on land, as you can read more about here. Coyote and Roadrunner 'are part of that attempt to get after the cost curve, give our commanding officers more options to engage the threat and ultimately be more effective in defending the high-value unit,' Navy Capt. Mark Lawrence, commander of Destroyer Squadron Two (DESRON 2), also told reporters earlier this month per In January, the Navy said its warships operating in and around the Red Sea had fired 120 Standard Missile-2s (SM-2), 80 SM-6s, a combined total of 20 ESSMs and SM-3s, as well as 160 5-inch rounds against aerial threats launched by the Houthis (and likely by Iran), over the preceding 15 months. SM-2s each cost around $2.5 million, while more capable SM-6s have price tags of around $4.27 million. The price for each ESSM is around $1.5 million. SM-3 variants, which are higher-end interceptors capable of knocking ballistic missiles during the midcourse portion of their flight, cost between $12.5 million and $28.7 million depending on variant. The RIM-116s that Arleigh Burke class destroyers are also armed with run just under $1 million apiece. You can read more about these missiles and their costs here. For comparison, the cost of a single Block 2 Coyote is reportedly around $100,000. Anduril has previously said that Roadrunner-M's unit cost is in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition to offering a valuable lower-cost-per-intercept option, especially against long-range kamikaze drones that might cost as little as $50,000, arming Arleigh Burkes with Coyote and/or Roadrunner-M will also give the destroyers valuable additional magazine depth. As TWZ wrote in the feature about adding various types of drones to the arsenal of American warships last year: 'When used in large numbers, these drones, cooperatively swarming or not, can deplete a ship's defensive arsenal, attacking from multiple vectors. Close-in weapon systems can quickly run out of ammunition and need reloading, leaving the ship's inner point defense layer degraded and thus making the vessel more vulnerable. Even American and allied warships facing off against the Houthi drones have had to use close-in weapon systems to take them down.' 'Now, sending a flock after a ship, with many dozens of drones to defend against, could quickly become an impossible task, with the ship's defenses rapidly becoming overwhelmed and its magazines running dry. Considering the quantities involved, a ship may be able to readily defend itself against a limited number of drones, but many attacking at the same time from different vectors would be a different story, especially as some of the drones could be used as electronic warfare platforms and decoys, further challenging a ship's defenses.' That piece also more specifically noted: 'Higher-performance jet-powered anti-drone drones, like Raytheon's Coyote Block II or Anduril's new Roadrunner, are specifically designed to make faster intercepts of drones, including swarms. In the case of Coyote Block II, they have been successful in doing so. It's possible that these same drones could share launcher boxes with lower-performance, propeller-powered types. There are propeller-driven counter-drone configured drones, as well, for lower-performing threats that can be launched from CLTs [common launch tubes] and other similar systems. Any of these types, jet or propeller-powered, can also be equipped with electronic warfare payloads capable of 'soft kills' against drones, allowing a single drone to take down multiple threats.' While costing less than typical effectors, such as SAMs, Coyote and Roadrunner also offer something these weapons don't — the ability to loiter. This is a big deal as they can be dynamically tasked in real time and they can even be launched preemptively against potential threats. This offers a lot of flexibility for warship crews that don't currently have such an option beyond employing the ship's rotary-wing assets, if available. In the case of Roadrunner-M, it can be recovered and quickly used again. There is also the potential that these systems could be used to hit small surface targets, as well. The threats posed by uncrewed aerial systems to Navy ships, as well as U.S. military assets and critical civilian infrastructure on land, even far from traditional battlefields, are not new, as TWZ has long highlighted. Those dangers are only set to grow in scale and scope, thanks in large part to advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, and to keep proliferating among state and non-state actors. That the Navy is only adding Coyote and Roadrunner-M to at least some Arleigh Burke class destroyers now highlights how the U.S. military continues to lag in addressing drone threats. TWZ also highlighted this in February 2024, when NAVSEA put out a broad call for potential new counter-drone capabilities that could be added to various Navy ships within 12 months, which may have contributed to the work being done now. The Navy is also pursuing new directed energy weapons, electronic warfare suites, advanced networked decoys, and other tools to help further expand the air and missile defenses on its ships. Other interceptors could also be on the horizon, including using the multi-mode AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) in the air-to-surface role. JAGM's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has also been doing other work to demonstrate the missile's abilities in the counter-drone role, whether launched from the air or the surface. The company notably showed a model earlier this year of an Areligh Burke class destroy equipped with four-round launchers for JAGMs. The Navy's Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships also just recently gained the ability to fire radar-guided AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles, which are no longer in production and that JAGM looks set to supplant, at incoming drones. All this also ties into larger concerns about the adequacy of U.S. stockpiles of surface-to-air missiles and other key munitions and the ability to readily replenish them, especially in the event a large-scale conflict against China breaks out in the Pacific. Last year, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) explicitly warned that operations in and around the Red Sea, as well as ongoing support to Ukraine in its fight against Russia, were creating readiness risks in his part of the world. At the same time, top service officials have stressed that captains and crews should not worry about taking whatever steps are necessary to defend their ships and the lives onboard, as well as other friendly forces. 'They have other things to worry about, like what's for breakfast,' Vice Adm. Brendan McLane, head of Naval Surface Forces, told TWZ and other attendees at the annual Surface Navy Association conference in January. 'The cost of the missile that they are going to shoot is not one of the things that they are worried about.' Still, Coyotes and Roadrunners are now set to give at least some Arleigh Burke class destroyers important added defenses against incoming drones, and could be a step toward fielding those capabilities more broadly across the Navy's fleets. Contact the author: joe@
