US SSM capacity/capability

buffy9

Active Member
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has released a study entitled "Leveling the Playiny Field: Reintroduxing U.S. Theater-Range Missiles in a Post-INF World." It covers a wide variety of topics, though most notably is it's analysis that it would be relatively cheap for the US to develop and produce capable SSM capabilities.

https://csbaonline.org/research/pub...us-theater-range-missiles-in-a-post-INF-world

Breaking Defence gives a good breakdown of this, noting that the cost of modifying Tomahawk LAM to carry out different kind of operations (i.e. ship tracking) can be done for a low cost. It also notes that one of the more expensive options (a hypersonic platform) could also be relatively cheap to produce, particularly when compared to procuring large numbers of air/sea assets.

Beyond INF: An Affordable Arsenal Of Long-Range Missiles?

Would this be a more cost effective capability if batteries would to be established at forward bases such as Guam or Okinawa? Whilst it would not help to intercept threats such as the PLARF (as noted, interceptors are not nearly as cost effective) - it could deter PLA actions on Taiwan or create the US' own A2/AD bubble to operate in around Micronesia and the East China Sea.

Additionally, could American allies (such as Australia, NATO, the Philippines) potentially make use of such supply chains to form their own A2/AD capabilities? Could placing such SSM batteries within the East Asia region drastically raise tensions with unfriendly nation-states (i.e. North Korea, China)?
 
Last edited:
Top