07:11 GMT18 February 2020
Listen Live
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL

    Needing more money for wars in the Middle East, the Pentagon's 2017 fiscal year budget proposes cutting spending on fighter jets, helicopters, warships, and armored vehicles, but not anti-ship missiles. On the contrary, citing Russian and Chinese advances, Reuters military analyst David Axe suggests that the Pentagon is now rushing to catch up.

    Earlier this month, the Defense Department proposed a $582.7 billion budget for the 2017 fiscal year, up from $573 billion this year. Nevertheless, Axe notes, the proposed spending also included cuts in new equipment for all three branches of service. 

    The reduced allocations for new equipment, the analyst explained, "would help pay for the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan," and "cover US troop deployments in the Western Pacific and Europe to counter an increasingly aggressive China and Russia, respectively."

    "But on examination it's clear that the Pentagon is not cutting back on one particular type of weapon –indeed, it's doubling down with hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment:" anti-ship missiles. "All of a sudden, it seems, destroying enemy warships is a top Pentagon priority."

    In contrast to other areas," Axe writes, "the US Navy proposes to buy no fewer than three different kinds of new munitions specifically designed to sink enemy warships at great distance. The new anti-ship weapons in the budget are stealthier, fly farther and faster and pack more destructive power than the Navy's current arsenal."

    Why the sudden rush? According to the analyst, "the Navy's crash acquisition of hundreds of long-range, ship-killing missiles reflects the sailing branch's determination to outgun what Robert Work, the deputy defense secretary, described as 'a resurgent Russia and a rising China' on the high seas."

    "Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Work's boss, laid out the argument," Axe explained. "We face competitors who are challenging us in the open ocean, and we need to balance investment in those capabilities –advanced capabilities –in a way that we haven't had to do for quite a while," Carter said, speaking to sailors at Naval Base San Diego earlier this month.

    Back during the Cold War, Axe recalled, "the Navy excelled at sinking enemy ships. It possessed two of the world's best anti-ship missiles – the Harpoon and the Tomahawk…With these two weapons, the US Navy was prepared to engage Soviet warships if the Cold War had ever turned hot."

    "But after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US fleet shifted its attention to land," launching "missile and air raids on Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya and Syria, among others."

    "The result," Axe noted, is "a gap in American naval power. US ships were adept at hitting targets on land but on the high seas they were all but powerless."

    And "when the Chinese navy began its build-up in the early 2000s, and, a few years later, Russia began restoring its own neglected fleet, both countries exploited the American gap. Moscow and Beijing equipped their ships, subs and planes with a wide range of highly capable anti-ship missiles with greater range and destructive power than the aging Harpoon."

    ​"Russia's 27-foot-long Klub missile [launched from the Kalibr-PL and Kalibr-NK platforms], for example, can travel as far as 400 miles [about 640 km] and, during the final moments of its flight, can boost to supersonic speeds to maximize the damage it inflicts on its target. China's YJ-18 is roughly equivalent to the Klub and might even be an illicit copy of the Russian munition," the military analyst alleged.

    ​Worryingly, Axe explained, "Russian and Chinese ships armed with the far-reaching Klubs or YJ-18s can shoot at American warships before the US vessels within range can fire their older Harpoons, which puts the Americans at a serious disadvantage."

    As a result, the analyst noted, military engineers have "devised a wide range of new anti-ship weapons," with the 2017 budget proposal paying "for the first significant production of the three new munitions."

    These include a 14-foot, 2,100 pound ship or plane-launched missile developed by Lockheed Martin, with a range of over 200 miles, [about 320 km], a new iteration of the Tomahawk featuring a more sensitive tracker/seeker, promising to turn it into a "1,000 mile anti-ship cruise missile", and the SM-6, a 21-foot-long, 3,300 pound missile interceptor, also capable of targeting ships, manufactured by Raytheon.

    "Together," Axe suggested, "the three new weapons should begin to tilt the at-sea balance of power back in the US Navy's favor."


    Pentagon’s Multi-Billion Dollar Radar Blimps Can’t Track Targets
    Poland to Spend $7.9Mln on US-Made Cruise Missiles
    Playing Catch-Up: US Navy Lags Behind Russia, China by a Decade
    No-Fly Shield: Why Do ‘Putin’s Missiles’ Concern the West and NATO so Much?
    Russian Ships With Kalibr Cruise Missiles to Be on Permanent Med Sea Duty
    New Fuel Increases Range of Russian Cruise Missiles by 185 Miles
    Russia Sends Warship With Kalibr Cruise Missiles to Syria
    analysis, Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), anti-ship missile, cruise missiles, Kalibr-NK, US Department of Defense (DoD), Pentagon, Ashton Carter, United States, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via SputnikComment via Facebook