Under the missile-toe

So many pieces are moving across the west Pacific chessboard nowadays that it’s hard to keep up with them. One item of note is that Australia’s navy is cranking up its efforts to defend against anti-ship cruise missiles. Last month the Australian Department of Defense issued a statement saying that eight of their frigates will be upgraded for this purpose. This is just one small piece of a big puzzle: Cruise missiles are going to play a very big role, maybe even a decisive one, in the west Pacific’s big game.

And it’s not just a concern for advanced navies. In fact, I think the day is coming when anti-ship firepower can be had by places that don’t even have meaningful navies at all. How’s that for stirring the pot? But before I entertain my notions on that note, let’s take a look at just how potent cruise missiles can be.

For example, the United Kingdom’s HMS Sheffield, a destroyer, was sunk by Argentina in the Falklands war in 1982. It was an air-launched Exocet anti-ship cruise missile that did the deed. Lesson learned? Possibly not. A few years later, in 1987, the USS Stark, a frigate, was hit by two Exocets fired from an Iraqi jet, and although the Stark didn’t sink, 37 sailors were killed.

Well, the ’80s are an ancient epoch when it comes to technology, and anti-ship cruise missiles have come a long way since then.

Anti-ship cruise missiles don’t have to be launched from jets. They can be launched by just about anything large enough to bolt the missile canister to. For example, you’ve heard of Mitsubishi, the guys who make cars? Saipan had a Mitsubishi car dealer up until the late ’90s. They also make a sporty little anti-ship cruise missile that’s launched from a truck not much bigger than my Ford.

Meanwhile, Russia’s potent Klub anti-ship missile has been offered in essentially a disguised launch package that looks like a shipping container. I think this story rated more than a mere footnote in the news, not just because of that missile system in specific, but because it illustrates that stealthy deployment of land-based anti-ship missiles is an idea with a lot of merit.

And there are a lot of players in the missile business now. India has a fire-breathing monster of a missile called the BrahMos, which is a joint project with the Russians.

Taiwan and South Korea have developed and deployed anti-ship cruise missiles, and they reportedly have more potent models on the drafting boards. I don’t know if South Korea deploys any on land, but I think that Taiwan does.

I haven’t done an impressive study on this, or even unimpressive one, but as I take command of my beach chair, waving around my plastic sword as master of all the Pacific waters that I survey, here’s what I think: Even a pipsqueak nation, if it’s smart enough, could salt its coastal region with enough cruise missiles to give a painful stiff-arm to encroaching ships. This would be more a function of brains, resourcefulness, and diligence than of money.

As for the necessary over-the-horizon targeting of the ships, there are lots of options that anyone could dream up, even for a place that doesn’t have a navy at all. Fishing boats, or an ally with satellites, or, these days, maybe some cheap little drones as spotters, could do the trick. It’s just a ballpark targeting gig anyway; cruise missiles employ their own terminal guidance radar when it’s time for the money shot.

Keep in mind that I’m not saying that cruise missiles are going to make the concept of surface naval forces obsolete. And I’m not asserting that any rag-tag place with a few missiles can keep a large enemy fleet at bay for a week, or even for a day.

But I do think that modern land-based anti-ship cruise missiles are small enough, cheap enough and effective enough to provide unprecedented bang for the buck if they are deployed intelligently. Some of the west Pacific’s situations seem tailor-made for this sort of creative approach.

I don’t read much history, but a book on military matters that made an impression on me was about the battle of Dien Bien Phu, in which the Vietnamese defeated the French (1954). It was the Vietnamese ability to stealthily deploy firepower against a nominally superior enemy that was the crux of the whole affair.

The nautical realm used to hold itself aloof from the muddy indignities of such land-based hi-jinx. But will that always be the case? Sure, the naval advantage still goes to the big, heavy-iron players, but cruise missiles are little and light and that can give them a heck of a sting.