Works for me. You could host that just as easily on a Typhoon. Wonder if one would fit in the internal bay of an F35B?
JSOW barely fits (except F-35B), ASMP-A is mor than one metre longer than JSOW.
You don't really need internal carriage for a 500+ km standoff munition anyway.
As mentioned, I think of ASMP-A as a deterrent against the use of nukes on 'tactical' land targets. ASMP-A can easily be brought to action against equivalent "tactical" 'red' land targets.
Thanks for that. I was just idly wondering what we could use if we ever decide we need a capability on the QE carriers.
How could basing a nuclear deterrent on aircraft carriers, of which we'll ever have, at most, two, and will be heavily tasked elsewhere, ever make sense?
Because its cool?
And besides, dropping a 10 kiloton weapon on the submarine pens at Murmansk is a MUCH better counterforce solution than sending one 3000 miles on the end of a Trident. And a reasonable response if the Kremlin throws around buckets of sunshine in a deescalatory strike.
For that to work:
1. The carrier would have to be in the right place at the right time and not itself have been sunk.
2. The launch aircraft and missile would have to make it to the target.
3. I'm not sure how many "pens" a single cruise missile could take out, but it would indeed be strange if they contained submarines that you might think would have better places to be at the outset of a conflict.
4. The payback would take out our only SSBN base, probably kill at least two SSBNs and eliminate the sustainability of our deterrent.
Other than that, I think it's a great idea.
1 F35B has a range of 900NM. So lets halve that for combat range, 450miles. Then say we have a weapon of over 300nm range, like stormshadow. Then throw in middair refueling, say via buddy pack. Thats a hell of a lot of sea room, particularly if you arent expecting them. Even a superhornet has only 390nm combat radius, and they hang B61's on that.
It takes off from a ship. The Russians are entitled to shadow our surface ships, quite openly, and often used to do so. It would be unlikely to survive to the point where such an attack took off, but, should it do so, whether or not it survived from that point on would be moot.
2 If its a stand off weapon, I cant see a problem, particularly if you launch from the land side where you can exploit terrain masking.
ASMP is quite a fast missile - I'm not sure how much it can use terrain masking. If you are now coming up with a nuclear Storm Shadow, that would be an entirely new weapon and could have way over 300nm range.
3 If they deploy, we would sink them. Far better for them to keep them in the barn or a boomer bastion.
They would have deployed prior to the outset of a conflict. If, and it's a big if (have you counted our SSNs recently?), we sank them, it would be a bit of phyrric victory having sunk an SSGN that had just launched 72 cruise missiles at the UK
4 But that would be a strategic weapon attack, requiring an appropriate response! And if that sounds ropy logic, that is precisely the logic the Russian General staff has been thinking of employing, in attacking US strategic targets with tactical weapoins, because they figure it wont cross the strategic threshold. If it works for them, maybe they will see it the same way?
The trouble is we are a lot more vulnerable than they are. Better to deter a conflict from getting to the point where we each start lobbing hypersonics at command centres etc. by at least making the areas they might seek to invade a lot less appetising (not that they are particularly tasty at the moment.)
Its not a particularly useful idea, I grant you, but neither is INF, except in purely political terms. But it increases the threat calculation, and makes it impossible for Russia to take carriers off its shore without anything but alarm. I find that a useful idea, in some circumstances at least.
And how would this be better than simply putting a few nuclear TLAMs on our SSNs?