In
September 2018, the Navy suspended its efforts to develop the SSTD system. The Navy plans to restore all carriers to
their normal configurations during maintenance
availabilities between FY19 and FY23.
DOT&E removed the SSTD system from DOT&E oversight. (1)
The SSTD, you’ll recall, was the result of a Fifth Fleet Urgent
Operational Needs request after the sinking of the South Korean ROKS Cheonan in
Mar 2010. Prototype units were to be
installed for deployment on carriers in a rapid fielding procedure concurrent
with development and testing. In the
event, systems were installed on three carriers over a several year period (so
much for urgent, huh?). DOT&E has a
good writeup on the overall system for those interested (2).
Despite investing $760M in development efforts, the system
was unable to perform acceptably. (3)
This leaves the Navy with the same torpedo defense capability gap they
had ten years ago! What do you call an
urgent need that, several years later, still hasn’t been filled? Is it now a super duper urgent need? But, I digress …
It’s not all that surprising that the technology failed -
most new technologies do. They require
years or decades of development. The
Navy should have been working on this all along. It’s not as if torpedoes magically appeared
as a threat just ten years ago.
Torpedoes have been a threat since ships first took to the seas (all
right, not quite that long but almost).
Further, the principle threat, the Soviet wake homing torpedo has been
around since the 1960’s. Why the Navy
hadn’t been working on an active torpedo defense system for decades is a
mystery and reflects the Navy’s utter lack of focus on combat.
We eagerly invest $15B on a new carrier but neglect things
like torpedo defense and weapon elevators, to name just a couple of items. As the DOT&E reports have pointed out for
many years, the Navy refuses to even develop a realistic torpedo threat
surrogate for testing!
The threat still exists.
What now, Navy?
(1)DOT&E 2018 Annual Report, p. 164
(3)The Drive website, Joseph Trevithick, 5-Feb-2019,
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26347/the-navy-is-ripping-out-underperforming-anti-torpedo-torpedoes-from-its-supercarriers
Two words: Torpedo Bulges
ReplyDeleteWe need passive protection along with active systems.
Your heart's in the right place but remember that modern torpedoes are directed and fused to explode under the hull or, in the case of wake homing, at or under the stern. A traditional WWII torpedo bulge is of somewhat limited value in these cases.
DeleteYou're right that we absolutely need passive protection but it has to take the form of keel voids, shock and stress absorbing structural materials, collapsible panels, shaped hulls, intelligent compartmentation, etc.
True.
DeleteThere still could be older surface runners that explode like classic torpedos that need to be considered as well. Especially in the Arsenal’s of countries not having access to modern torpedos. Something like that could help with preventing another Cole bombing.
DeleteIt's possible, yes.
DeleteThe passive system is more than bulges, it involves a series of air/liquid /air compartments with strengthened bulkheads to absorb the torpedo blast. Only capital type ships have enough width to do this properly and its likely modern torpedoes have higher strength explosive and can explode under the hull. As well wave skimming missiles can target above the waterline or dive onto deck.
DeleteCole sized ships are too small overall to have any passive defenses like this - that would work.
Does the USN still deploy the Nixie SLQ25 towed torpedo decoy which are soft kill defence with acoustic countermeasures against wake-homing, acoustic homing, and wire-guided torpedoes.
Seems to still be in service and a few variant upgrades are in the works between the US and UK. Problem is they reduce speed to deploy and you sort of have to have a heads up I would think. Unless the whole group is going to move at something less than 15 knots.
DeleteA very good overview by ComNavOps on torpedo defences in a previous post
Deletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/06/torpedo-defense.html
As for wake detection, as far as I can see its not a passive method, and requires high frequency signals to detect the tiny bubbles in the wake of a large ship. High frequency suggest short range, so thats where the difficulty might arise in interfering with those by a decoy. Then again the torpedo must literally approach the ship from the rear , exactly where its towed decoy is deployed.
Off-topic ... Here's a link to a reporting of the many things that went wrong (because of basic incompetence) and ultimately resulted in the Fitzgerald collision:
ReplyDeletehttps://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Read it yesterday, the animations are stunning! Everybody even mildly interested in military affairs should read it.
DeleteI did, pretty much made me sick. Not much has come from Navy "leadership" going back to pre-9/11 timeframe.
DeleteThat is just beyond bad. The earlier reporting was shocking enough. Congress needs to fire all current admirals. They need to stop worrying about their budget and fleet numbers and focus on running an effective fleet they have before they get new toys.
DeleteWould it be accurate to call the concept of Arsenal ships floating magazines? As in a single hit could blow ships into a million pieces?
ReplyDeleteYes, although I have no idea how sympathetically explosive modern missiles are. Many explosives are actually somewhat difficult to initiate. But, to answer your question in simplest terms, yes.
DeleteYou think some defense for our carriers even if limited would be better than no defense....plus this sounds like they have learned a few lessons here using the system, it needs to be worked on some more, evolved or updated but just to rip it out without replacement seems kind of weird...
ReplyDeleteFrom my readings over the last several years of development, it basically just didn't work. The false alarm rate was exceedingly high and the failed detection rate was also unacceptable. It sounds like it couldn't even be classified as 'limited'.
DeleteI would hope they relegate it to R&D and continue to work on it, as they should have been doing all along.
On a related note, the Soviet/Russian RBU is supposed to have an anti-torpedo capability. Dropping mini-depth charges in a pattern in from of an oncoming torpedo seems plausible. I don't know why we have no interest in an RBU type system.
Always fascinated by Soviet RBUs, I think they put those things on everything during Cold War.
DeleteThe concept of using depth charges to destroy incoming torpedoes also has historical precedent. You can scan through this article to find the story of what I believe is the first use of depth charges to counter torpedoes. https://www.historynet.com/captain-frederick-john-walker-royal-navys-german-u-boat-menance.htm
DeleteMichael, great link. I had never heard that. Thanks!
DeleteI've theorized that putting a barrage of HE shells in a ship's wake in front of the torpedo would be a simple way to disguise/break up the wake enough to defeat the wake-homing capability. I was on an OHP 20 years ago but could not find someone to discuss my theory with. Would this be plausible?
DeleteI don't know but it seems plausible enough to be worth an experiment. We've also speculated about criss-crossing wakes as a defensive measure.
DeleteI shared your articles with the tag of battleship to some anti battleship person. What would be your response to this?
ReplyDeleteHere’s the quote.
“Also that article is fundamentally unsound. Carriers exist in larger numbers than battleships now, and were more numerous during WWII as well. The author is blind to the utility of a battleship in terms of immediate availability. He also cites wiki as his source for the Iowa’s endurance - not a scholarly source. Whether wiki is right or wrong is inconsequential, but the pure reference to it indicates a lack of understanding on the actual source material available for building a case with battleships. His statement that a battleship dominates anything within reach also ignores historical evidence, where 20% accuracy was considered the pinnacle of gunnery performance and rarely actually dominated the entire battlefield on its own. Also, amphibious assaults are largely a thing of the past as well - there are better ways of inserting combat teams and the chances of needing to frontally assault a strongheld beach is gone in the missile era, to say nothing of nuclear deterrence to invasions. Lastly, he does state there is no compelling reason to build new ones, which is the most sensible thing said in the entire opinion-piece, since that is what it is. In terms of presence, US destroyers and a carrier are more than enough physical presence to bully some other country around, and that doesn’t even take the submarines into account. They are stationed off hot spots already, and have surfaced to fire missiles after a crisis before. The psychological impact of not knowing where the nuke boat is hiding off your coast is far greater than seeing some floating gun platform swilling away offshore, protected by carrier aircraft and missile destroyers.”
Thank you.
I don't debate second hand.
DeleteI share the authors reasoning regarding battleships but think the reply is off topic. The topic is about torpedo defense against wake homing torpedos which are difficult to detect ,decoy or destroy. Trying to detect an acoustically quiet torpedo in the acoustically noisy wake of a 100000 ton ship moving at 35 knots was always going to be difficult. I think offense is actually the best defense. Having a better asw system to pick up threats entering the lethal arc of the ship and targeting them is the better option. It really calls out for a better anti submarine defense.
Delete" I think offense is actually the best defense. "
DeleteWhat you're really (and correctly!) calling for is a layered ASW system which includes attacks on submarine manufacturing facilities, supply facilities, ports, transit routes, open ocean searches, and, yes, point defense by the target ships. Most people tend to focus on just the individual sub versus individual ship battle and miss/ignore the rest which is more important.
I'd like the Navy to continue to work on point torpedo defense but also start working on how to strike submarine facilities and ports.
How would you go about striking Chinese submarine ports and facilities?
Good comment.
"The author is blind to the utility of a battleship in terms of immediate availability."
DeleteWhat?
This person sounds a lot like the guys that YEARS ago told me the LCS was going to be amazing and would be working fine by 2016, that if the Navy needed a Frigate it would Build a frigate! and dozens of other things.
They have been wrong a awful lot.
I am replying to the offense is the best defense strategy. My response would start with captor mines placed off all the ports. After the ROKS Cheonan sinking, I was surprised that this was not already contemplated. The second option would be to put a stealthy submarine camped off each port. The modern western submarines with aip are almost impossible to detect. The nuclear subs are just as quiet when stationary. The problem for the US navy is the underinvestment in smaller diesel electric subs that can dominate the littoral area around each port.
DeleteCloser to the carrier it becomes more difficult both for the carrier and for that matter the enemy. Being able to place good quality acoustic sensors in threat arc ahead of the likely path of the carrier as well as making the position of the carrier unpredictable. The problem for the navy is that antisubmarine systems,require large numbers of antisubmarine helicopters on continuous action. I think there really needs to be a ship that can keep pace with a carrier that can also conduct around the clock asw actions. To do that requires around 3 or 4 helos covering a 40km wide arc in front of the ship at all times. Given maintenance issues crew fatigue etc this is going to require at least 12 helos. The next issue is the mk54 torpedo. Is it really good enough to do the job.
"My response would start with captor mines placed off all the ports."
DeleteOops! The Captor mine has been retired without replacement. We have only the converted aerial bombs as mines (Quickstrike) and a handful of sub launched torpedo mines (SLLM).
"The second option would be to put a stealthy submarine camped off each port."
Nothing wrong with that. In fact, this is exactly what was done during the Cold War. We had subs camped outside (sometimes inside!) Soviet ports/waters and whenever a Soviet sub ventured out it was trailed by a US sub. One hopes we're doing this with Chinese subs today.
"3 or 4 helos covering a 40km wide arc in front of the ship at all times."
This is what the carrier S-3 Viking did, in part. The Spruance class also provided the best ASW in the world, at the time, but both the Viking and Spruance were retired without replacement.
"Mk 54"
The Mk 54 is considered inadequate for a variety of reasons which have been somewhat described by DOT&E reports - most of the specifics are classified but the issues have been hinted at.
Just a thought,maybe they at last have a role for the lcs. It can sale immediately in the wake of the carrier and take the torp meant for the carrier.
ReplyDeleteSail not sale.
DeleteOr motor even.....that said, maybe a sail would improve LCS endurance!
DeleteI find the navys' lack of effective minesweepers (vs minehunters) to be more concerning than it's lack of anti-torpedo devices.
ReplyDeleteImagine if the LCS concept and conop had been for a Minesweeper with a moderate ASW and ASuW capability, and AA self-defense capabilities instead of WTFever the LCS was supposed to be, but isn't and never will be?
After having this blog ignite my interest in warship designs and doing lots of reading... I have to mistly agree with COMNAVOPS on ship and fleet structures.... Multi-purpose ships are killing us. Single purpose ships with competent point defense in other areas are the best and cheapest way to go. I thought a common ship but built for different missions would simplify and cheapen them, but that doesnt really even work!! The modularity concept is only workable at system component level... Otherwise you end up with a compromised platform to put modules in... Ala' LCS... We need ASW ships that sail under an AAW umbrella, AAW ships that sail on an ASW screened piece of ocean, and carriers that are protected by both...
DeleteTruth!
DeleteI guess its a good idea to have a last ditch point defense for carriers, but really, shouldnt they be relying on their escorts for that?? I understand point defense against missles, considering the saturation scenario, but why put that amount of money into somthing that SHOULDNT be an issue if the rest of the CVBG is doing its job??? Or is this a case of the Navy knowing that they need an ASW safety net/backup plan because nobody trains hard at ASW???
ReplyDeleteTorpedo detection.
ReplyDeleteThere appear to be 2 major issues with torpedo defenses: detecting torpedoes while traveling at high ship speed, and intercepting torpedoes in the turbulent wake of a carrier.
It may not be possible to detect torpedoes at 35 knots, but maybe at 15 to 20 knots by a Frigate doing a modified sprint & drift. Six to 8 Frigates would be needed to continuously monitor both sides and a couple of miles to the rear of a CVN. Two Frigates, one port and one starboard, would be drifting at whatever speed the system worked well, while the other FF's sprinted forward to begin the cycle over. Helicopters are weather dependent and require high maintenance for reliability.
Also, getting the sensor away from the CVN should increase its effectiveness and decrease the false alarms. Having ATTs on the FF would allow the FF to engage torpedoes away from the CVN for torpedoes approaching from the sides. The Navy will have to test the ability of the ATTs to intercept wake homing torpedoes from the FF and from the CVN using data generated by the FF for targeting i.e. incoming torpedo speed, depth and distance relayed to the CVN for optimum launch and interception from the CVN.
All the Navy needs are a few Frigates...
I think the Navy had what they needed, with ASW ships, tactics, and training from the cold war... But theyve list their way. The multipurpose high dollar ships are destroying that capability by absorbing the shipbuilding dollars, and focusing on AAW dulls the edge of the ASW sword.
DeleteThe new frigates should be ASW escorts with only point defence for AAW... Stopping the silly LCS production lines and retooling to build somewhat modernized Spruances and /or OHPs with muture systems would be much more useful, and would save enough $$$ to probably create a freshened class of minesweepers as well...
"create a freshened class of minesweepers"
DeleteThis is, arguably, our single biggest need.
I didnt realize our mine clearing capability was in such a sorry state...so yes!! Or at least a close second to dedicated ASW ships!!!
DeleteOur MCM helos are being retired without replacement. We're shortly going to be down to 6 LCS, assuming the MCM module is ever finished with development. Six ships. That's our entire MCM capability.
DeleteD-Day used 250 minesweepers.
Somthing thats been on my mind since my "modernized Aegis equipped Cleveland cruiser" project.... While there is theoretical merit to building ships with cutting edge tech (thats still developing as the keel is being laid)... It just isnt working!! I think that to fix out fleet structure/capability/size crisis, we need to look backwards, not forwards. I mentioned in earlier comment retooling to build Spruances and OHPs.... And I actually meant it. I feel the Navy should request that industry take current, or even slightly dated, off the shelf, mature systems and modernize them. Give em 6 months to insert the newest chips or whatever... Dust off the blueprints for proven hulls, and spend 6 months applying historical lessons and fixes. Deviate from the original by maybe 10% max. Dont rethink, just adjust and optimize.
ReplyDeleteSystems and tech that hasnt matured and fired a few thousand rounds before even being considered for shipboard inclusion is just foolish...
I understand your motivation and frustration but a more reasonable approach is to build one-off prototypes rather than commit to an entire class before the first one is even designed (LCS, Zumwalt, Ford). That way, if the prototype has problems - and it will - you make changes and build the next one. When you've got it right, go to production.
DeleteOf course, avoiding non-existent technology, as you suggest, is also a wise policy.
"I understand your motivation and frustration"
DeleteI am truly frustrated!!! Im completely in awe of the ignorance that is running my Navy!!! The ideas and decisions would be comical if it wasnt so tragic.
The prototype building concept makes sense, although do we truly even need a hull built to validate weapons and sensors adequately. Im not saying computer modeling is adequate at all, but that sensors can sense and weapons can be fired (again thousands of times, not a half dozen) at a proving ground. Now have we ever built combat ship prototypes?? I know hydrofoils and smaller vessels had experimental variants, but...?????
But to be fair, if that was the path we took, we couldve avoided the gunless Zumwalt, exhorbitantly expensive and flawed Ford, and a gaggle of worthless LCS. Right now wed have more Nimitzs on the ways, and be designing/building different classes of single role destroyers/cruiser...
DeleteSo in retrospect, maybe we DO need an actual hull in the water to determine ACTUAL cost and functionality...
"Now have we ever built combat ship prototypes??"
DeleteTime to learn your naval history! Prototypes abound throughout history, including the US Navy. A few examples include:
Nautilus
Wasp
Albacore
Long Beach
Enterprise
In addition, the Navy has often converted existing ships into prototypes. For example, the old WWII Essex class carriers were converted into prototype ASW and amphibious ships to try out the concepts. More recently, Ponce was converted to try out the AFSB and MCM concepts.
You might also want to check out this post: see, "Prototypes"
Wow.. How dumb do i feel about now??😕 I dont know why those ships didnt occur to me!! Especially since my father did some time on Albacore, and i built models of Long Beach and Enterprise as a kid...
DeleteAnyway, your prototype point is well taken!!!
We've got to stop pursuing cutting edge tech for the sake of cutting edge tech.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need new Spru-cans and OHPs, we need to start with their specs/blueprints ama tell the builders
"Give us 10% percent better capabilities in the following critical metrics. The non-critical metrics need not improve, but cannot degrade. Here is your budget. Any increases to the budget must be justified; what will be gained(capabilities/efficiencies/faster delivery?) by spending more money? Your incompetence and/or inefficiency is not an excuse for a budget increase."
I'm mostly with you. However, rather than running decisions through the budget filter, all decisions and design attributes should be run through the combat filter: will this attribute significantly enhance combat ability. To be fair, this may well be what you meant by "justify". Budget certainly enters into the equation but it cannot be the driving force. Ruthless focus on the one primary mission of the ship (defined by the CONOPS) will take care of the cost concerns. This will eliminate the multi-function, useless-function type of unaffordable ship we build now.
DeleteBudget increases and cost overruns are not due to the builder. Let's be clear about that. They are due to the Navy accepting them. The builder can't arbitrarily and unilaterally impose design changes and cost increases on the Navy. The Navy has to knowingly and willingly accept every one. Cost overruns are 100% the Navy's fault and responsibility.
If we think a builder is incompetent or inefficient then we shouldn't be using them in the first place. Again, the Navy's fault for issuing a contract to a builder known to be unacceptable. We need to start promoting and encouraging smaller builders to become larger builders to provide some competition and choice. Bollinger, for example, has built missile ships (Ambassador class) and there is no reason why they couldn't be brought along to the point of building destroyers or dedicated mine warfare vessels. There are commercial tanker/cargo builders who could be phased into destroyers and amphibs.
As I said, I'm with you - just expanding a bit.
Are there any specific cutting edge techs you see being pursued right now that you think should be dropped?
Electromagnetic weapon elevators!!
Delete"Why the Navy hadn’t been working on an active torpedo defense system for decades is a mystery" - development of the anti-torpedo torpedo was initiated in 1992 (the other subsystems probably later on) - triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_291277.html
DeleteOngoing lack of the TAAS in the currently deployed TWS's may have been a big factor in the decision to remove. I think active would be critical for real-world false alarm reduction (based on Doppler and comparison with the surface radar picture) and ranging (to drive CAT launch timing) - "Like previous carrier deployments, the Towed
Active Acoustic Source (TAAS) engineering developmental
model was not reliable and the [carriers] deployed with a passive-only TWS array." - http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2017/pdf/navy/2017sstd_tws_cat.pdf
"anti-torpedo torpedo was initiated in 1992"
DeleteGood find. I wasn't aware of that one. Apparently nothing came of it and it was shelved until the recent push, if it's even the same ATT.
Not to get off track again, but I just read about the Navy purchasing 4 unmanned subs from Boeing... Ok so maybe theyre doing some prototype work(?) Only thing being, it sounds like theyre buying somthing that again, they have no idea what to do with them since the article stated they could be used for ASW, minesweeping, AAW, or strike missions...
ReplyDelete"it sounds like theyre buying somthing that again, they have no idea what to do with them"
DeleteYou cut to the heart of the matter. A single one would have sufficed as a prototype. We don't need four until we figure out what they do. Look at all the LCS sitting around doing, literally, nothing.
There's another aspect to this. These subs do not contribute any firepower. Yes, things like MCM are vital but, eventually, you have to break the enemy's toys and that takes firepower.
Consider the Navy's recent acquisitions. The Zumwalt has very limited firepower and none of its main, intended firepower. The LCS has no firepower. These subs offer no firepower. The Navy had to be arm-twisted into pursuing a Harpoon replacement. The F-35 has very limited firepower payload. The Navy seems to have forgotten that war means destroying the enemy's stuff and that requires firepower. We seem to think that data is somehow going to make up for the lack of firepower.
See https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2156361/china-developing-unmanned-ai-submarines-launch-new-era-sea-power
DeleteThe South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) report might be mostly propaganda. But their report does suggest some possible additional roles for a large autonomous submarine.
Exactly. I watched the Sea Hunter built here in Portland with some interest, and I understand that they immediately started testing it for MCM, although then they started talking about modularity and using it for every mission under the sun and while sure, to a point a new platform is a clean sheet of paper, it too seems like another "ok now lets let the sailors play with it" kind of scenario... Maybe the new NavalX forum is where we need to re-sell the Navy in CONOPs first!!!
ReplyDelete