The United States Navy’s recent and ongoing experiences in the Red Sea highlight successful doctrine, training, and weapons systems. Woven throughout the US Navy, the deployments of US warships to the region have informed commanders and war planners with new tactics, concepts of operation, and doctrinal approaches that may be needed to counter enemy drones and cruise missiles.
Interestingly, these experiences might offer essential insights into the Pentagon’s plan to strengthen air defenses to protect the US homeland. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has asked the Pentagon to generate a tentative plan for developing and deploying wide-reaching, precision air defenses to protect the continental US from long-range missile strikes.
The US Navy’s defensive efforts against the Houthis in the Red Sea involved using an ability to track and destroy incoming Houthi ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles. Analysis emerging from this combat experience could be leveraged to assess possibilities for better defending the continental US from a wide range of air attacks.
There were several key lessons fundamental to these experiences, which Navy and Pentagon experts continue to analyze closely because maritime warfighters and commanders in the Red Sea established enterprising ways to track and destroy enemy drones and cruise missiles.
One key takeaway, according to the Commanding Officer of Carrier Strike Group 2 in the Red Sea, Rear Adm. Kavon Hakimsadeh, is that fighter jets and air assets can be used to great effect as aerial sensor nodes and points of attack against incoming enemy cruise missiles. Multiple instances in the Red Sea where the US Navy intercepted Houthi cruise missiles relied upon carrier-launched aircraft for targeting and kinetic destruction.
“Hak,” as Rear Adm. Hakimsadeh is known by fellow servicemembers, told Warrior Maven that another key lesson learned related to the need for the Navy to operate a large enough “magazine” of ammunition sufficient to counter drone swarms and multiple drone threats. Part of the added effectiveness of kinetic intercepts relates to the potential use of ship-fired and air-launched “air burst” weapons and proximity fuses that reach a specific target area and then detonate or generate fragmentation designed to destroy several targets. This tactical approach can increase the potential for defensive effectiveness against drone swarms.
Non-Kinetic Countermeasures
Part of the modern threat environment has also led ground, air, and ship commanders to recognize the growing importance of “non-kinetic” countermeasures. Interceptor weapons such as deck-launched SM-3s and SM-6s proved effective at destroying approaching enemy attacks. However, “Hak” explained that Navy commanders increasingly used fewer interceptor missiles and deployed other methods against threats.
The service also recognized a need to reduce costs associated with using a high volume of interceptor missiles. Therefore, it leveraged the advantages of non-kinetic countermeasures and defenses such as electronic warfare (EW). Advanced EW can help identify a “line of bearing” and potentially jam a group of electronic signals simultaneously, offering additional defenses against drone swarms.
US Missile Shield
While considering all variables, the Pentagon is now working with the Trump administration to help devise a comprehensive US missile defense system capable of defending the homeland against large-scale foreign missile attacks. Many have raised the possibility that the Pentagon could help architect a nationwide network of Iron Dome-like missile defenses. This interceptor weapon, proven effective in the Middle East, might add dimension to homeland security protections, particularly if fortified by Patriot and THAAD air defense missile batteries and US-made air defenses such as NASAMs. Advanced networking could create an integrated, meshed system of air defense nodes capable of tracking and destroying groups of incoming missiles.
Why Not Use IBCS?
The US Army has, in recent years, broken through with various kinds of networked sensor-radar-interceptor technologies, such as the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS). IBCS is a suite of radar systems, sensor nodes, and interceptor weapons that are networked together so that target details can transfer communication and hand-off from one node to another. Most recently, IBCS has been expanded to incorporate the use of air nodes such as an F-35 and maritime surface nodes such as Aegis radar. While primarily designed to operate in a forward hostile location, IBCS could also be deployed within the homeland. Home protection is particularly critical given that growing numbers of potential adversaries continue to develop and acquire long-range, precision-guided missiles designed to reach the continental US from thousands of miles away.
Any large-scale defensive missile shield protecting the US would need a wide range of kinetic interceptor systems to identify, track, and destroy an incoming missile or group of missiles. However, large scale use of kinetic interceptor missiles could encounter cost challenges as well as tactical challenges. Systems such as THAAD, Patriot, and NASAMS can effectively track incoming enemy aircraft and missiles, yet they might struggle to track a group or salvo of incoming missiles. Advanced Patriot radar and interceptor systems have shown they can simultaneously track and destroy two maneuvering cruise missiles.
Patriot missiles have also reportedly been successful shooting down aircraft in Ukraine, according to Ukrainian accounts. Success in the field is significant as it indicates breakthrough progress of Patriot missile radar and target tracking, as it is capable of moving beyond pure missile intercept and potentially tracking moving air targets as well.
Integrated Defenses
The Pentagon is working intensely to expand its envelope of air defense weapons, including the use of EW, high-powered microwaves, and laser countermeasures. Innovations in energy storage and allocation, along with new types of gateway technologies able to “translate” incoming sensor data between different transport layer communication modes, are likely increasing the ability for these countermeasures to network together.
PACIFIC OCEAN (Sept. 14, 2020) The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54) moves in formation during exercise Valiant Shield 2020. Valiant Shield is a U.S. only, biennial field training exercise (FTX) with a focus on integration of joint training in a blue-water environment among U.S. forces. This training enables real-world proficiency in sustaining joint forces through detecting, locating, tracking, and engaging units at sea, in the air, on land, and in cyberspace in response to a range of mission areas. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Nick Bauer)
There are certain threat scenarios in which a number of interceptors might prove ineffective against a major attack involving a salvo of missiles. Even advanced radar and precision-guided interceptors, which have proven effective against multiple kinds of missile attacks, might not be able to stop 10 ballistic missiles simultaneously.
This is why a layered, integrated system using a variety of coordinated countermeasures would likely prove to be an optimal approach.
Use AI
Finally, any use of a wide-envelope missile shield would significantly fortify the use of cutting-edge AI, an evolving technology increasingly capable of instantly analyzing ISR and sensor-provided threat data. Modern applications of AI can organize incoming sensor data from a wide range of sources, perform near real-time analytics to verify threats, discern margins of difference between threats, and recommend an ideal shooter or countermeasure for a given threat scenario.
This capability has been demonstrated with success at the Army’s Project Convergence and experiments with the other services as well. This kind of technological infrastructure and concept of operation likely informs the foundation of the Pentagon’s Joint All Domain Command and Control.
About the Author: Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
