The LCS-MCM was supposed to replace the entire Avenger class
minesweepers, the two dozen MH-53E MCM helos, and the various MCM diver
units. Of course, after the endless
series of failures of both the ship and MCM module, we are left with a total of
6 deployable LCS-MCM ships – not a viable or effective MCM force by any
measure! However, the Navy has found
that some of the MCM module components can be effectively utilized as
individual elements (Swordfish/Kingfish, for example) by operators working from
land or small RHIBs. The Navy is now
looking to make the individual elements a permanent part of the diver units.
Today,
the Expeditionary Mine Countermeasures (ExMCM) companies
include an unmanned systems platoon to launch and recover these unmanned underwater vehicles from an
11-meter rigid-hull inflatable boat; a post-mission analysis cell to analyze
sonar and video data; and an EOD MCM platoon with divers who could reacquire a
threat, neutralize it, or remove it from the water for further study. (1)
Well, isn’t that resourceful and clever? Um, kind of, but it’s not a useful combat/war
capability. Reread the above quote and
take note of the use of small RHIBs to launch and recover the vehicles and the
‘post-mission analysis’ and the need to ‘reacquire’ and the use of divers. Does any of that sound like it will be
fast? Does any of that sound like
something that would be practical in combat?
You’ve got an amphibious assault force stacked up and waiting for a
minefield to be cleared and you’ve got individual divers having to ‘reacquire’ and
neutralize mines one at a time?
 |
| Does This Seem Like An Effective Large Scale, Combat Useful Way To Clear Mines? |
Obviously, this is a very low end, peace time capability
that could, at best, handle a few odd mines.
What kind of scenario that situation would apply to, I have no idea.
The Navy seems excited, though.
“ExMCM
was meant to be a bridging solution. Turned out to be a very viable, capable
system that we’ve now decided is going to be an enduring system. (1)
The Navy has a disconnect and acknowledges it while
simultaneously refusing to recognize it.
Here’s what Capt. Chris Merwin, director for mine warfare at the Naval
Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center, had to say about this ExMCM
capability:
Not
designed for large area search, per se, but certainly for very specific smaller
area searches, Q routes – very capable when you’re talking supporting Marines
for amphibious assault, very good in-shore capabilities. (1)
So, the Captain acknowledges the extremely limited
capability of individual vehicles and divers but then refuses to recognize what
that means in combat. To repeat, do you
really see individual divers trying to launch and recover vehicles in a small
RHIB, in the open ocean, waiting to conduct post-mission analysis, and then
having to go back into the water and reacquire individual mines to neutralize
them one at a time as a viable MCM support method for a Marine amphibious
assault???? The good Captain has clearly
not thought this through.
What all this demonstrates is the Navy’s utter refusal to
acknowledge the theat. Depending on what
source you choose, China has something on the order of hundreds of thousands of
mines.(2) To counter that, we have some
divers working off a RHIB. When war with
China comes, and it will, China has only to mine the various passages between
the islands of the first island chain and the US Navy will be effectively
locked out of the East and South China Seas.
Throw in some Chinese subs with mine laying capability and Guam could be
locked out as a naval base, too.
Mines have been proven throughout history to be one of the
most effective naval weapons and yet the Navy refuses to even recognize the
threat let alone deal with it.
(1)USNI News website, “ExMCM Companies, LCS Mission Package
Will Both Contribute to New Mine Countermeasures Triad”, Megan Eckstein,
6-Nov-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/11/06/exmcm-companies-lcs-mission-package-will-both-contribute-to-new-mine-countermeasures-triad
"Mines have been proven throughout history to be one of the most effective naval weapons and yet the Navy refuses to even recognize the threat let alone deal with it."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this ain't nothin' new.
I was in the Mine Force for the mining of the North Vietnamese harbors and the following End Sweep after the end of the war. I wish I knew what had been declassified, because there are an almost endless supply of simply amazing stories about how unprepared we were as a navy for mining and mine countermeasures operations.
We have now spent 75 years facing potential opponents who were basically land powers and who therefore relied on mines in a huge way to offset our naval capabilities, and yet we have done as little as humanly possible to address the threat.
I have always thought that I'd love to be director of a major fleet exercise, and on the day before COMEX I would send out a message that Norfolk (or Pearl, or San Diego, or wherever) had been mined by Orange and just sit and watch the consternation.
I don't know how much can ever be pried away from a Navy bent on building Fords to address an issue that threatens the Fords and every other Navy ship, but here is where I'd start.
I'd build two types of mine countermeasures ships:
1) A minehunter like the new Belgian-Dutch minehuters, see
https://adbr.com.au/pacific-2019-naval-group-to-offer-mine-countermeasures-vessels-for-sea-1905/.
Based on the reported cost of $2.3B for 12 ships, including onboard Toolboxes, I'm guessing we could build these for $200MM apiece.
2) A minesweeper mother ship. This would be like a smaller LSD/LPD, with no requirement for troop berthing or equipment. The well deck would be large enough to hold 4-6 minesweeping drone boats, like the German Seehund (82 feet, 99 tons) and 2-4 helicopter sweep sleds. The flight deck and hangar would be big enough for 2-3 MH-53 helicopters, or whatever is used to pull the sweep sleds. The ship could also launch drone vehicles, or something like what I call ComNavOps's Wild Walrus, a bunch of UUVs that would simply head up the channel and destroy anything they found. This ship could also control all except the Wild Walrus, which requires no controls. These ships would probably be a bit more expensive, since they will be bigger, althought their systems will be simpler, maybe $300MM each.
The operating concept would be that the sweep operations are quick and dirty to reduce the risk to acceptable levels, and the hunters then come in to clean up everything.
I would also have the mine hunters map and classify everything on the bottom of US (and as many foreign as possible) ports on departure and entry, as a reference point for future possible operations.
This does not address the minelaying capability. Right now we can do it with subs or aircraft, as we really don't have a surface ship minelaying capability. I don't know that we need or would use a surface ship capability, but I am fairly certain that our pilots and subs need a lot of practice to make sure they know how to do it right.
One other thought. I realize here that I'm talking exclusively about German, Dutch, and Belgian solutions. The countries around the English Channel and the mouths of the Rhine take mine warfare very seriously. We could do very well to partner with them on a lot of solutions. If we could eat some of the R&D costs, and amortize them over longer production runs, then they could afford more of them and we would all be better off.
Delete"here is where I'd start."
DeleteGreat start!
The only question/factor I have is about speed in combat. In a war, we're going to need to clear large areas very quickly. The Navy's efforts, such as they are, are focused on incredibly slow, precise, one-at-a-time type of clearance which is fine for a few stray peacetime mines but utterly useless in combat.
So, as a mine guy, what's your thoughts on high speed clearance? Currently, we have limited sweep capability and what we have is going away as the helos retire. Also, there is no evidence that our current sweeps are effective against the full spectrum of old style mines and up through modern 'smart' mines.
So, how will we clear large areas very quickly in combat and possibly under fire?
High resolution bottom maps could be done by a wide range of ships. We could even contract out to commercial companies to deliver us maps of key areas. They can just use civilian side scan sonars, like the Klein 5900, to do this. We could take that imagery and run it through classified algorithms to produce NOMBO databases for change detection. We should be doing this for all accessible ports of interest every few years.
Delete"So, as a mine guy, what's your thoughts on high speed clearance? Currently, we have limited sweep capability and what we have is going away as the helos retire. Also, there is no evidence that our current sweeps are effective against the full spectrum of old style mines and up through modern 'smart' mines."
DeleteHigh speed is a relative term. You can only go so fast. What I've proposed is the fastest available with current technology. As far as whether it works or not, there is only one way to find out. I posted a link below to a comment describing a Chinese mining and mine countermeasures operation with 60 units participating. We haven't done anything remotely approaching that size and scope since End Sweep, and that is pushing 50 years ago.
We can't be good until we train hard, and we can't train until we have something to train with.
I'm afraid the bottom line is that we are so hopelessly behind the curve in mine warfare that it's going to take some revolutionary change to get us there. I don't see it coming from the current confederation of dunces.
Delete"So, how will we clear large areas very quickly in combat and possibly under fire?"
ReplyDeleteMine countermeasures are basically a probability game. You do enough to reduce the risk to an acceptable level and then you go ahead. The strategic question is always how confident do I have to be versus how much can I delay for more sweeping/hunting?
The idea behind my thinking is that you do the sweeping in a hurry, then go back with hunting for 100% clearance. To take Normandy as an example, you would have done a sweep of the approaches before the landing, to get to an acceptable risk for the landing. Beachmasters and UDTs would clear as much as possible of the immediate beach area and direct boats toward cleared areas. Then you would hunt for complete clearance in the approaches to the interim port that you built. After capturing Cherbourg and LeHavre, you would hunt thoroughly in the approaches to both.
Obviously for the really quick and dirty answer, you would do your Wild Walrus (I so wanted to call it Wild Weasel, but that was already taken). The helos are faster than the Seehund's, obviously, but the swept path for the Seehund is wider than the swept path for the helo (again obviously, since the Seehunds can carry a bigger power source for accostinc and magnetic sweeps). And under fire, both are subject to being attacked and destroyed from the shore.
Of course, you can always go trolling for mines the way Sandy Woodward had HMS Alacrity do it in the Falklands--go through the area and if nothing sinks you, there are no mines.
It's an area that needs a lot of work. The Dutch and Belgians are heavily into hunting, because they are primarily worried about protecting merchant shipping in and out of the Rhine. The Germans have gone more the sweep route with the Seehunds, although they are now 40 years old and I'm not sure they have a replacement in mind.
Right now they have the mother ships controlling the Seehunds, as we do with the helos. That could be problematic in a jamming/ECM environment. Another idea would be to preprogram with GPS, but that could be a problem if somebody shoots down our satellites.
The Germans, Dutch, and Belgians do high resolution maps of the mouths of the Rhine, updated on a regular basis, and the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes do the same the Skagerrak and Kattegat. Any time a mine hunter goes out, it maps the bottom, and explores anything new. There was an unconfirmed rumor that the Swedes had remote control mines laid on the bottom of the Kattegat, that could be activated from shore in the event of war with Russia.
It's an area that needs a lot of work, and so far we have shown no interest. When we can't sail anybody into or out of Norfolk or Pearl, maybe we'll get interested then, but that will be a bit too late.
One quick note. The German mother ships for the Seehunds are converted minesweepers/minehunters, so they have no room to haul them around. My proposed mother ship would have a well deck for Seehund equivalents and helo sweep sleds, so it would basically have everything self contained.
DeleteIs there a certain number of mines or "density" per square mike that is required to close a port or reduce access? It really depends on that,no? Are we worried about 50 mines to remove to be "comfortable" with a loss or 2 to operate or are we talking 500, 5000 mines? The means to remove 50 or 5000 mines probably aren't the same....
Delete"you do the sweeping in a hurry"
DeleteThe practical problem is that there is no evidence that sweeping is effective against modern mines. I would hope that the Navy has conducted test sweeps against modern mines but I'm unaware of any actual tests. I've never even heard of a sweep exercise against modern mines under realistic conditions. I would hope the Navy has done that but I've hoped for a lot of things that the Navy has totally ignored.
"Is there a certain number of mines or "density" per square mike that is required to close a port"
DeleteOne. A single mine would close a port until the area could be surveyed and cleared. No ship will risk sailing if even a single mine has been found. A Chinese mine-laying sub could drop, say, a dozen mines in each of several US ports and bring our shipping to a virtual halt. Meanwhile, the US Navy would convulse trying to rush the few MCM assets we have back to the US, leaving our forward forces paralyzed with no MCM capability whatsoever. It would take months for us to clear our ports. I'm sure this thought has occurred to China.
,You do enough to reduce the risk to an acceptable level and then you go ahead"
DeleteMakes sense, but today, with a small fleet, minimal civilian freight hauling capacity, reduced prepositioned assets, no useful reserve fleet,and no real ability to mass produce replacements, acceptable risk is unfortunately near zero!! Almost any losses will severly impact operations. Our lack of ability to push forward through a suspected mine area, let alone the thought of being bottled up in our own harbors is terrifying!!
"One. A single mine would close a port until the area could be surveyed and cleared."
DeleteMy proposed fleet has 15 of the MHCs and 15 of the MCM mother ships. The idea would be to put one of each in each of 15 major US commercial/naval ports--Guam, Pearl, Seattle/Puget Sound, San Francisco, Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Diego, Houston, New Orleans, Mobile/Pensacola, Miami, Jacksonville/Mayport, Norfolk, Philadelphia, New York, Boston. Have them map the heck out of their home ports and be ready to go if and when needed.
Didn't we operate in the Gulf with the incongruous image of the tankers being protected by the destroyers behind them? Far from perfect but i think it would take more than 1 mine to close a US port, would be impractical as hell for sure but you could just have a ship open a lane for that few mines, obviously US ports should have some organic mine sweeping protection. Could be some reserve unit, probably surged for times of tensions. My worry is anything more 1 to 10 mines and we in a world of hurt, at that point, really only 2 bad options: shut everything down or decide to risk it and take the losses.
Delete"I've never even heard of a sweep exercise against modern mines under realistic conditions. I would hope the Navy has done that but I've hoped for a lot of things that the Navy has totally ignored."
DeleteI think we do them at some level from time to time. The last one I had any contact with was right after Nixon mined North Vietnam and we did one to make sure we knew how to sweep the DSTs. There are a bunch of funny stories about that one, but I don't know if they have been declassified yet. I'll try to find out, and share if they have been.
(Don McCollor)...One very effective minesweeping technique (In the WW2 "Three Corvettes"). Corvette signaling to (safely anchored) lightship "Did they lay any mines last night?" Lightship reply "We'll soon know. You're the first ship out"...
DeleteThe Swedes had numerous places where they had mines placed before the conflict and those would be activated in case of war. mostly around the Stockholm archipelago.
DeleteIf fast and easy mine clearance around the harbor and coast i would look at the Koster-class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koster-class_mine_countermeasures_vessel
For some more information about the ships look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsort-class_mine_countermeasures_vessel
I dont think they would work at "deep ocean" but they are not to expensive so it would not be a catastrophic event if one got blown up by a mine.
"The Swedes had numerous places where they had mines placed before the conflict and those would be activated in case of war. mostly around the Stockholm archipelago."
DeleteWe always heard that they had them in the Kattegat too. Do you know if that is true or not?
"If fast and easy mine clearance around the harbor and coast i would look at the Koster-class."
Interesting. They are described as having both sweep and hunt capability. On that small a ship, I wonder how big their sweep capability is. They probably have bigger and more powerful sweep gear than a helo or Seehund. But using them to sweep (or hunt for that matter) again puts humans in the minefield.
According to the book "Den Dodla Alliansen" there were no fixed mine-lines in Kattegat, Some protection of Gothenburg was mentioned, however the mine-plan that existed had a total overlay with the danish. Nothing would be able to pass in or out. And this was ofcourse by just "luck" since Sweden is not a NATO-member.
DeleteThe Danish was responsible for Kattegat and the West Germans for southern Baltic, Sweden for everything north of the line Karslkrona-Memel(Klaipeda).
It just dawned on me how the USAF would improvise clearing mines out of a river. Lots and lots of dumb bombs. If you blast the river enough that all mines have been destroyed, or thrown ashore, that would "work".
ReplyDeleteBut you have to get them on target.
Delete@CDR Chip- It sounds like looking at what the Europeans are doing would be a good start!! Not being very familiar with them, what is your assessment of the Avengers? Since theyre attritting/retiring, would a new batch of them (in larger numbers) get us anywhere, or do we NEED different tech/methods??
ReplyDelete"It sounds like looking at what the Europeans are doing would be a good start!!"
DeleteBear in mind that their operational needs differ greatly from ours. They're concerned with fairly limited areas of potential mining, likely in relatively limited quantities of mines, and located close to, or in, home waters. In contrast, the US is concerned with very large potential mine areas like straits, channels, seas, approaches to land (amphibious assaults), navigational chokepoints, etc. located worldwide. So, yes, European practice is a good starting point for information but we need to be cautious about assuming that their capabilities would meet our needs.
The Avengers were kind of an elephant--a mouse designed by a committee. Not the first--nor unfortunately the last--time the Navy did that. It was an attempt to put hunting and sweeping on one ship, and there were a few compromises as a result. We had kind of gotten there with the old MSOs, as sonars improved, but the Avenger was a bridge too far. At this point I would say that the lack of training and maintenance probably makes them pretty useless at this point.
DeleteI don't think we will ever go back to putting a ship with humans onboard into a minefield to sweep it. The photo from Wonsan, with the 1st Lieutenant about 150 feet in the air, was very familiar to all sweep sailors and kind of puts a damper on that.
One interesting thing about sweeps. Because of the magnetic mine threat, sweeps are built of non-magnetic materials--wooden ships were kind of neat, they creak like in the old pirate movies, but aluminum Diesels are not a lot of fun to maintain. Being one of the iron men on wooden ships is definitely a challenge. ComNavOps talked about stripping ships. Sweeps do it to an extraordinary extent. Before going into a field you get rid of everything magnetic, or everything you can that puts out an electromagnetic field, and put anything you can't as far away from the waterline as possible--spare radar magnetrons were stored on the signal bridge. Then you activate your degaussing system, which is not like conventional ship degaussing. It's solid state, driven from two sensors on the ends of the yardarms that sense ambient earth's magnetic field and adjust. So you go through a degaussing range and tweak your system based on results of that. And when you open a can of something in the galley, you take the empty can, wash it out, and put it back on the shelf where you got it, because that's how you were when you were degaussed. I always thought that putting empty cans back on the shelf was an interesting action. After years of neglect, I doubt that the Avengers' degaussing would be up to snuff.
Fascinating that the magnetic field procedures are so precise!! Went aboard one of the Avengers, the Champion, years ago on a tour, got splinters from a wooden handrail!!
DeleteAlso found it interesting that the Avengers arent the only ones with attrition issues. 10% of the Agressive class fell victim to accidents!!
So do we feel that sweeping with ships holds unacceptable risk? Is that the basis for the unmanned vehicle use? Is the need driving the tech, or is it tech for tech's sake like so many other military debacles?? Obviously I dont want to see ships and crews lost, but if theres no other functional, reliable option but to send ships to clear a path... What to do??
Realistically and sadly, I can see how after a few days of trying to use worthless unmanned crap that doesn't work and completely overwhelmed by the number of mines and false contacts, USN will just grab a few civilian ships and put them in front and hope they soak the mines. What options you have when the war has started and you're not prepared? Not sure what else is left, not like you can build that capabilty overnight.
Delete"USN will just grab a few civilian ships and put them in front and hope they soak the mines."
DeleteAs of 2019, the US flagged merchant fleet consisted of 182 ocean-going, cargo carrying ships of 1000 gross tons or greater - and you want to sacrifice some of them to mine clearance????!
In a war, cargo ships are going to be precious commodities! I'd rather use LCSes to soak up mines. Unfortunately, each LCS can only absorb one mine before it sinks so that won't work for long.
"I'd rather use LCSes to soak up mines. Unfortunately, each LCS can only absorb one mine before it sinks so that won't work for long."
DeleteActually, that might be the best use for them, although with an aluminum hull I'm not sure they create enough magnetic signature to set off magnetic mines. Plus you'd have to get them out of the channel once they were hit, to avoid blocking the channel, and probably right when the engines would die.
Sandy Woodward has an interesting comment in his book about talking to Chris Craig before sending HMS Alacrity on its "mine hunting" run. He said that he just laid out the route he wanted the ship to sail without further comment, but it was obvious to both that what he meant was, "Go out, and if you come back, we will know there aren't any mines."
It wouldn't be possible for USA to buy or requisition foreign civilian ships during a war? Nobody in the world would sell us old ships? I didn't know that.
DeleteDoes make you wonder how Falkland war would have turned out if Argies had laid down a few mines? Didn't they have any?!?
Delete"It wouldn't be possible for USA to buy or requisition foreign civilian ships during a war? Nobody in the world would sell us old ships? I didn't know that."
DeleteWe don't have the same legal situation as the Brits. Remember they had the feudal system, where the king owned everything and gave you the right to use some of his land in exchange for your agreeing to pay taxes and provide him with so many knights in case of war. There STUFT (ships taken up from trade) provisions are a legacy of that. Government just says, "We want that ship," and you basically have to turn it over to them. My understanding is that QE2 was built with gun tubs built in, just add the guns for a warship.
We threw all that out with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
As far as where we stand with respect to US-owned foreign flags of convenience, that's an area that has not been litigated. Again, the UK precedent would put them in a stronger position to do so.
In a war, couldn't the USA grab Chinese ships in US ports? Not saying would be easy to find a crew but it wouldn't be legal to do that in a war situation?
Delete"USN will just grab a few civilian ships and put them in front and hope they soak the mines."
DeleteSetting aside that the idea is a horrible one for many reasons, not just any ship would work. You don't want the ship to instantly sink from one mine hit. That means you need a certain type of ship: a very large one with lots of compartments and reserve buoyancy. That means a large tanker, essentially, which is what the USN did during the Gulf mining incidents. The large tankers led the way.
As of 2019, there are only 63 US-flagged tankers. You don't want to use one of them for mine clearance during a war when tankers will be worth their weight in gold! Whether you could buy a tanker from someone is an open question. Besides, you'd need dozens and dozens of them to 'clear' any significant minefield!
"In a war, couldn't the USA grab Chinese ships in US ports?"
DeleteWell that would sure be considerate of the Chinese, wouldn't it?
Wars don't just spontaneously happen. The occur after protracted lead in periods. There won't be any Chinese ships in US ports when a war starts. They'll all have been recalled.
"Does make you wonder how Falkland war would have turned out if Argies had laid down a few mines? Didn't they have any?!?"
DeleteThey had some and may have mined certain areas, but they apparently did not mine San Carlos Water and the approaches from Falkland Sound. Lots of "what ifs" about that war.
"We don't have the same legal situation as the Brits."
DeleteYou don't, but you do have programmes to make merchant ships available in time of war:
https://www.maritime.dot.gov/national-security/strategic-sealift/voluntary-intermodal-sealift-agreement-visa
https://www.maritime.dot.gov/national-security/strategic-sealift/maritime-security-program-msp
Of course, these may have degenerated into a subsidy program that won't be of much help in wartime, but if so, that's the politicans' doing.
"you do have programmes to make merchant ships available in time of war:"
DeleteThe problem for the US is not obtaining the legal authority to take/use merchant ships but, rather, the fact that there aren't many ships to take! The entire US Merchant fleet over 1000 gross tons is around 180 ships. In terms of war needs and expected attrition, that's not many. In fact, it's hardly any!
The second part of the problem is that we have very little shipbuilding capacity to produce new ships in time of war. In WWII, we built 2700 Liberty ships, alone, during the four years of the war. Today, we'd have a hard time buiding 27 ships in four years.
"Lots of "what ifs" about that war."
DeleteLike, what if either side had been prepared for war like a standing military is supposed to be?
A huge lesson there for the US military. Of course, we've ignored it!
"Standing military" is interesting wording in this context.
DeleteHistorically, UK did not have a huge standing army. The British Army had a cadre that they augmented with reservists, conscripts, and mercenaries when needed. You would belong to a regiment, but if the country was not at war you would become a civilian, until called up in case of another war. It was kind of a legacy of the feudal system, where the king owned all the land, and you became a lord by promising to pay taxes and to provide so many knights in time of war (they would work for you in peacetime). Interestingly, this concept also applied to seafarers, who agreed to turn over so many ships in time of war, and this is the legal background for the ships taken up from trade (STUFT) used in the Falklands.
The large force was the Royal Navy. As long as they could control the seas, they felt confident that nobody could invade them across the Channel.
This started to change after WWII. As in the US, there was a big battle between bombers and carriers. The Navy won the battle for the nuclear deterrent with SSBNs over bombers, but the RAF convinced the politicians that they had overseas airfields within 3000 miles of anywhere, so they could cover the world without carriers. Interestingly, in making presentations on this, they fudged the maps a bit. The Falklands exposed those arguments, because they were 3800 miles from the closest base (Ascension) and the RAF really couldn't do much except several bombing runs that required 17 inflight refuelings each to accomplish (counting refuelings of the Vulcan bombers and refuelings of the Victor tankers). One bomber missed a refueling and had to make an emergency landing in Brazil, which got very complicated diplmaticallly.
In NATO the RN's primary roles became MCM in the English Channel (with France) and ASW in the GIUK gap. As an aside, between the Brits and the French fighting over who would control MCM in the Channel, and the Dutch, Belgians, and Germans fighting over who would control MCM at the mouths of the Rhine, the NATO chain of command for MCM in the area was absolutely Byzantine. The idea was that they would count on the US for the power projection pieces (carriers and amphibs) and the RN would focus on ASW and MCM.
Between the focus on these missions and the fact that the Army and RAF were winning most of the political battles, the Navy pretty continuously lost stroke.
- They gave up east of Suez in mid-1971. We were in the Indian Ocean in 1970-71, and until the end they had a pretty formidable force in the area, generally with a carrier, submarines, several destroyers and amphibs, and minesweepers, much more than we had there at the time.
- In 1979 they retired their last CATOBAR carrier (Ark Royal), and for a while had no naval air until Invincible in 1980, the first of a class of STOVL “through-deck cruisers” (called that to avoid the term carriers, for political reasons). At the time of the Falklands, they had Invincible and the 1950s era Hermes (which had been converted to a helo carrier in 1970-73 and then had a ski jump added in 1980-81). Hermes was due to be decommissioned in 1982, and Invincible was to be sold to Australia.
- In 1981, the government announced that the last two amphibs, Fearless and Intrepid, would be decommissioned. Intrepid was starting the process of being broken up with the Falklands broke out, and had to go south without a lot of communications gear that had been removed. As I understand it, they were unable to talk to their Marines ashore.
If Argentina had waited 6 months until the following spring (in southern hemisphere) before invading, the islands would be Las Malvinas today, because without Hermes, Invincible, Fearless, and Intrepid, the Royal Navy would have had no way to retake them. Reminds me of an instructor at counterinsurgency school 50+ years ago who, when asked what kind of war the next one would be, replied, “The one we don’t prepare for.”
"Bear in mind that their operational needs differ greatly from ours."
ReplyDeleteTheir main concern is keeping the Rhine open for commercial traffic. So they want to get rid of every single mine, and are not overly concerned about the timing of an amphibious assault. That makes hunting them, one at a time, the right solution for them. And keep in mind that they have every square foot of the approaches to the Rhine detail mapped, and they update the maps every time a mine hunter enters or leaves port, and if they find anything new they hunt it and classify it. So their hunting proposition is limited to new stuff, and that is a lot faster than if you don't know what's there to begin with.
NATO Mine Warfare Committee meetings were always fun. The Germans are worried because the Rhine is their commercial lifeline, the Dutch are also concerned because of Rotterdam, and the Belgians just want to keep reminding everybody that we are meeting in Brussels.
There was a case where the Belgian representative was complaining about everything. Finally, this Royal Navy captain had enough and asked, "Jean-Francois, please refresh my memory, how many wars have Belgium won?"
I find that much, much funnier than I should for some reason - brilliant haha!
DeleteOne thing that we actually tried was the MSS-1, a cargo ship that was basically filled with styrofoam, all hull penetrations were welded shut, and it was powered by 5 diesels with outboard shafts and propellors. It was called "the world's biggest outboard" and "Mississippi one." The small crew operated everything from a small bridge mounted on shock absorbers.
ReplyDeleteThe idea was to sail it through a minefield and set off the mines without sinking the ship. It was underpowered, as I recall it could only make about 10 knots. It went into service in 1969 with Gene Cate as OIC, and operated out of Charleston through early 1973.
Great description/reminder of a truly unique ship!
DeleteWith the drone capabilities we have now this would be a good use for naval drones, say made of Pykrete with a small independent section for the controls and propulsion. Add a magnetic field generator and noise maker and your in business.
DeleteYou say you tried it - but it was a one-off, did it not work in practise?
DeleteSeems like a relatively low-cost & low-tech concept, would it solve the need to (relatively) fast minefield clearing if employed in numbers?
In our 2020 Force Structure Review it says -
ReplyDelete4.12 To support further advanced operations throughout the ADF’s strategic operating environment, the Government will improve its capability options through:
• Mine warfare capabilities to secure Australia’s maritime approaches, focused on modern, smart sea mine systems.
• Enhancements to mine countermeasures and hydrographic capabilities through the acquisition of up to eight additional vessels, built in Australia – potentially based on the Arafura class Offshore Patrol Vessel design.
• Clearance diving and therapeutic hyperbaric systems to support ship and clearance diving capabilities across the spectrum of operations
This will allow us to close various SE Asian straits only to Chinese warships.
What mine laying systems, if any, does Australia have?
DeleteWhile trying to find an answer to that question, other than "not a lot," I came across this interesting tidbit:
Delete"In mid-2018, the Chinese navy conducted one of the largest mine warfare exercises in living memory, involving some 60 minelayers and minesweepers, aircraft and submarines practising laying and countering live mines. This unprecedented exercise, supported by some of China’s top scientists and mine development specialists, increased the already growing unease about China’s expansion into the South China Sea"
https://www.bairdmaritime.com/work-boat-world/maritime-security-world/naval/feature-the-looming-threat-of-sea-mines-an-australian-view/
As it would be covertly mining other people's countries our subs would do it.
DeletePS we have P-8s and super hornets that can lay mines.
DeleteBut how will they get close enough to do so in any meaningful location and/or quantity??
DeleteOne of two Australian overseas bases are in Malaysia. And for smart mines you don't need a lot. P3/P8s have the range and so do our subs. Hornets and Super Hornets with refueling can also mine. There are a few straits.
DeleteRemember its not a blockade, but to stop military forces.
Like the Monroe doctrine, no Chinese bases near Australia.
As you recall from WWII history, mines were laid in the thousands to tens of thousands per field. Hornets with a couple of mines or P-8s with a handful of mines just can't accomplish that type of mining. Does Australia have any high volume, rapid, mine-laying capability? The US doesn't!
DeleteAlso, what is Australia's mine inventory? China reportedly has 100,000+ mines of various types.
We have none at the moment, maybe WW2 stocks. Our coastline is 20,000 km - we can't mine all that.
DeleteWe wouldn't be doing a commercial blockade (the ships have our cargos and our allies cargos on them as well).
We are using smart mines, and current ones have an 8km range so you don't need 10,000s. They would only attack Chinese warships.
Consider a Chinese base in Samoa. We could mine the harbour.
LCS, together with DDG-1000 are strategic blunder designed to fight nations without strong military strength. LCS has little usefulness in mine sweeping in confronting China which has a powerful navy.
ReplyDeleteYes, LCS do have mine sweep module but they have very poor self defence capability. This means that they must sail together with a large fleet in order to perform mine sweeping. It is very inefficient to use a near 3000 ton ship to do mine sweeping. There are many other cheaper yet safer choices.
Not to mention, China has sophisticated smart mines developed in recent years. They are very difficult to sweep and can be ignited from many controlled ways, include while they spot a ~3,000 ton ship tries to sweep one.
"After each of these experiments, the Army will decide "is the technology where we thought it would be, should we continue to spend money on this effort or should we cease effort?" Coffman said."
ReplyDeleteThis is a comment being made by an Army officer concerning recent robotic vehicle operational testing. Found it refreshing, and the kind of comment we should have been hearing from the Navy over the last couple decades...!!
"and then having to go back into the water and reacquire individual mines to neutralize them one at a time as a viable MCM support method for a Marine amphibious assault???? The good Captain has clearly not thought this through."
ReplyDeleteA more honest statement would well we really have no plan for rapid large area mine clearance at this time. However this promising and (seemingly) inexpensive way to add some mine clearing ability to our capital ships for dealing with small scale issues in peace or war.
A useful test might seeing if deployed to a DD and some cargo ships could this system get a convoy into a friendly port were that was mined by single sub or a couple aircraft as an irritant. I guess what I mean this seems like a defensive system at best, not a system to break trough a defensive mine system that would obviously be far larger and dense and layered.