 |
| Avenger Class MCM |
As we all know, the Navy’s vision was for the LCS to replace
both the Avengers and the MH-53E Sea Dragon helos and that plan has failed
spectacularly. There are currently no
MCM-capable LCS ships and the MCM module is still years away from functional deployment,
if ever. Further, the module swapping
concept that would have allowed for surges of MCM LCSes has also been abandoned
in favor of two 4-ship squadrons of dedicated MCM-LCS, one on each coast
(actually, only 3 of the 4 ships in each squadron are deployable with the
fourth being a training ship). Given
that colossal failure, you’d think the Navy would be caring for the Avengers as
if they precious, newborn babies, right?
So, what is the Navy doing? They’ve
retired three Avengers (1):
- USS Champion
- USS Scout
- USS Ardent
We’re down, now, to 8 Avengers and probably around 12
flyable MH-53E helos. That’s our entire,
global mine countermeasures force.
Note that the helo fleet became operational in 1986 is now
around 35 years old and the Avengers are around 30 years old. Both are long past retirement age and both
are substantially unsafe to operate.
We’re headed right down to ZERO mine countermeasure assets.
I assume the 3 are needed for parts to even keep the residual Avengers sailing.
ReplyDeleteYou know the Navy could just cancel the LCS and buy/license the Awaji-class from Japan. Looks a lot less expensive than the LCS and probably works.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/japan-launches-third-awaji-class-minesweeper/
A sudden insight. The British Army's regimental system makes it difficult for the that Army to take action as a whole, because it's a whole bunch of small and insular communities, rather than one large one.
ReplyDeleteIs the USN "community" system part of the MCM problem? Is the MCM community so small and weak that the larger communities just pick budget from its bones, not worrying about the Navy as a whole if their faction gains?
Yes
DeleteThere should be a "Stupidity" tag for decisions like this one.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, retiring 30 yr old wooden minesweepers that weren't properly cared for and are now unsafe to sail is not a bad decision. The stupid decision was betting all-in on the LCS. The stupid was then compounded when it became obvious early in the LCS program that there wouldn't be any functional MCM module ready in the foreseeable future and the Navy chose to do nothing about it - no alternative, no Plan B, no other options … nothing. THAT was the really stupid decision.
DeleteEven now, when everyone, including the Navy, sees that we won't have a useful LCS-based MCM capability, the Navy is still refusing to develop an alternative. Stupid piled on top of stupid.
A good chunk of the "less sexy" Navy assets are quite old should be retired by now, if they had an actual replacement besides "nothing" or "USS Non-functioning", so you do have a point.
DeleteThe LCS does one thing--go fast. The last place in the world that you want to go fast is a minefield.
DeleteIt does not "go fast" very well nor for very long.
DeleteThere's a number of European Mine warfare programmes underway - why not just join one of those and licence build?
ReplyDeleteOne the face of it, that's a fine idea. Considering a little deeper, though, we have different needs than the European countries who are looking, primarily, at relatively limited MCM in home waters. The US, on the other hand, needs to be able to conduct MASSIVE MCM for global waterways and for large scale, rapid combat clearance in support of amphibious operations. Would any European MCM program fill those needs? I truly don't know but from what I've seen, I suspect not.
DeleteIs there a particular European MCM program you'd suggest as the basis for a US effort and, if so, how would it meet the US needs?
The difference in scale between European and US needs is immense and problematic.
Belgium has the most notable I can think of at present. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/05/this-is-what-the-future-belgian-dutch-mcm-motherships-will-look-like/
DeleteThis appears to be a mothership which carries two RHIBS (not sure what use they are in MCM) and two USVs which are, in turn, motherships to individual UUV MCM components which appear to be individual mine hunters as opposed to large area, high speed sweeps. Thus, the overall system appears to be a one-at-a-time mine hunting and neutralizing system which is fine for limited, non-combat areas but wholly unsuited for large scale, rapid mine clearing or combat clearing.
DeleteAgain, this illustrates the difference in needs between European countries and the US.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Belgian concept or even this https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bmt-introduces-venari-85-candidate-for-future-rn-mine-warfare-vessel/
DeleteThese seem to be able to offer detection but what is missing is rapid disposal. It's difficult to see how this could be done quietly without a fleet of UUVs so I would tie it into a hard-kill anti-torpedo system (there are several in development) and go fast and loud.
"These seem to be able to offer detection but what is missing is rapid disposal."
DeleteAbsolutely! For combat clearing, speed is of the essence. The West has gone to individual, one-at-a-time, clearance which is thorough but PAINFULLY slow. The LCS, for example, has a clearance rate of around 2 mines per hour. That's just not going to cut it in combat. The European systems seem similar.
What's needed is a modern sweep system that can get the bulk of the mines and then use slower methods to clean up the misses. Unfortunately, no one seems to be researching and developing a modern sweep system. Maybe you know of one?
This is a perfect example of transformationalism vs intelligent management. Rather than have 30+ year old ships with no replacements in the pipeline, the Avengers should be in mothballs. There should be a replacement class in the water (ideally in greater numbers) that is an incrementally improved version, and their replacement should be on the drawing board... Looking back at the build history of FFs and DDs, we used to do things quite intelligently. I do have to note that we had the luxury of experimenting and building small classes due to having a huge amount of WWII era ships that we modernized and kept for quite a while though, and that comfortable period ended with the Perrys and Spruances. With their appearance, and the elimination of the WWII gen ships, we entered the 'midern' era and its all been downhill since then...
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the 'midern' era is.... I think author meant 'modern'... ;)
DeleteOPNAV N95 has something in mind for MCM....
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2020/08/28/opnav-n95-expeditionary-sea-bases-ideal-ships-to-operate-mine-countermeasure-mission-packages
They do. It's utterly useless for rapid combat clearing. It's just a giant size LCS, in that role. One-at-a-time clearing just isn't combat-useful.
DeleteAgree, I think the USN just wants to look away from MCM and pawn it off an allied Navy or just fly over.around and wait for a contractor to clean up the minefields, ASSuming the USA prevails in that conflict.
Delete"wait for a contractor"
DeleteThat's fine, I guess, but the problem is how do you clear minefields rapidly in combat? When that task force is waiting to sail through a chokepoint or that amphibious assault fleet is waiting to land, you can't call on contractors!
Although CNO I think you are doing a bit of bait and switch. By citing
ReplyDelete"but wholly unsuited for large scale, rapid mine clearing or combat clearing."
Who has that on a D-Day scale at all?
I rather sure the US and UK did not have the 350 or more ships committed mine clearing at D-Day (and the others no doubt in the Pacific) in August of 1939.
Considering the state of the Avengers the US is already effectively without any MCM ability. Killing them all off would probably be a mercy to crews who have to try and make them work.
A fleet of 20-30 of the best in class types out of Europe or Japan or South Korea would be an improvement. Would that be a fleet ready to spearhead another Inchon no. But it would be something that could creditably be put in the Gulf or on hand in Japan to get ships and troops and supplies to an embattled Taiwan - with confidence
Deterrence requires the belief you have the capacity to act. Right now anyone with mines can more or less be sure we have nothing in our bag at all. I be all for reckless R and D on things to use in a real no holds bared peer war and demonstrate a few especially if cheap and easy to make... But a solid fleet of whatever the best MCM ship is that is not an overpriced techno wonder would be useful to make the point that say Iran cannot expect one quick trip with a few mines will not be countered in some game of escalation.
"I rather sure the US and UK did not have the 350 or more ships committed mine clearing at D-Day (and the others no doubt in the Pacific) in August of 1939."
DeleteOf course not! I've never called for a full scale minesweeping fleet. In fact, I've posted that our entire amphibious fleet and capability does not need to be, nor should it be, a D-Day size fleet during peacetime. What we need is a core capability and that's what's lacking.
The European (or LCS, if it worked) type of one-at-a-time MCM is NOT a combat core capability. That kind of clearing is suited only for small, peacetime clearing. What we need is to build a handful of high-capacity minesweepers that can be rapidly built up when war comes. During peacetime, they would be occupied developing tactics, refining procedures, and testing new equipment.
Mine clearing equipment fits into a container.
ReplyDelete"The SEA 1778 package is relatively small. The entire system can be containerized, shipped to a task group such as the RAN’s amphibious ships, the new Arafura-class OPV or the Hunter-class future frigate. It can then be dispatched to another location if necessary."
https://www.marinelink.com/news/royal-australian-navy-technological-leap-479672
It goes on
5 x 38 foot launches - 2 remote piloted for Australian Minesweeping System (AMAS) sweep
4 x Bluefin 9 UUV
3 x Bluefin 12 UUV
Atlas Elektronik SeaFox expendable mine neutralization system
Rotinor Black Shadow diver delivery vehicle
The article also says this is its purpose
"“We need an organic MCM capability that’s designed to burst out of the back of the Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) and clear a lane to the beach so the landing force can go ashore,” said Cmdr. Mick Parker, the operational requirements sponsor for mine warfare at the Navy Strategic Command. “SEA 1778 provides an initial interim MCM effect for a single task group.”"
This is a nicer sounding system than anything the US has, however, it is still quite limited. The UUVs, like Bluefin, are excruciatingly slow and have to return to the host ship for data retrieval and processing followed by subsequent individual mine neutralization - an incredibly slow, one-at-a-time process. Bluefin appears to have a max speed of 6 kts and an operational speed of 2-4 kts or so. Again, not a rapid process!
DeleteSimilarly, the diver delivery boats are one-at-a-time.
On the plus side, USVs can tow a minesweeping system (AMASS) although I did not see any specs on speed or coverage area per sweep.
All in all, it's not a bad effort, and certainly shames the US LCS, but falls woefully short of being combat useful.
"burst out of the back of the Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) and clear a lane to the beach"
That's an utterly unrealistic assessment that is as amusing as it is fraudulent! When you're clearing mines one-at-a-time, you're not 'bursting' out and clearing anything. Unless someone is willing to accept the results of a single, small, slow sweep, no one is going to be storming ashore in any useful time frame!
For reasons I don't understand, the West has chosen to pursue one-at-a-time mine hunting and neutralization which has no combat utility. It's fine for leisurely peacetime clearance of a handful of mines but nothing else. We desperately need to pursue rapid, large coverage area sweeping technology. I'm far from convinced that modern mines can even be swept effectively! Someone needs to do some tests and find out.
DeleteWe also have a fleet of 4 mine hunters.
Delete"The Huon Class feature a unique hull design, outstanding shock resistance and an inherently low magnetic signature, allowing the ships to operate in hostile mine environments. Each single skin monocoque hull has been designed with no ribs, frames or stiffeners, avoiding local stress points that could separate under shock conditions.
For their mine countermeasure operations the ships are fitted with a Variable Depth Sonar capable of detection ranges in excess of 1,000 metres ahead of the ship. When a mine is detected in a water column or on the seabed, the ship will 'hover' about 200 metres from the contact. A mine disposal vehicle or clearance divers will then be sent to investigate and neutralise the mine threat.
Each ship is fitted with a pair of electrically powered Bofors Underwater Systems Double Eagle mine disposal vehicles equipped with a searchlight, closed-circuit low light television camera and an on-board close range identification sonar. Commands are relayed via a fibre optic link inside the vehicle's tether, which also relays sensor images for display on the ship's multifunction console in the operations room.
Each Double Eagle vehicle is fitted with either a disposal charge slung beneath or an explosive or mechanical cutter designed to sever the wire rope or chain holding moored mines."
https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/mhc
We used to have 6 but needed more patrol boats crewed. Two were put into high readiness, then stripped of everything of value and were unrepairable.
"A mine disposal vehicle or clearance divers will then be sent to investigate and neutralise the mine threat."
DeleteAgain, one-at-a-time methodology which is not combat-useful.
But with cheap vehicles you can use mass. Send 50 bluefins in.
DeleteMines use mass. The answer to mass is to out mass.
DeleteThe US - Mass – Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_war]
The Bluefin is an advanced search tool, isn´t it? Sending in 50 of them might be a bit complicated.
DeleteI would suggest something like the SAM3 by SAAB. Any ship that can hold a 40 ft container and a crane can use them and they come with their own control system. Easy to use en masse. Seems to emulate acoustic and magnetic signatures and was used by the USN in desert storm although they only had two of them. Would be interesting to see if there was any evaluation made back then.
IED
"But with cheap vehicles you can use mass. Send 50 bluefins in."
DeleteConceptually, yes. Practically, very difficult to do. Control, overlap, data deconfliction, data meshing, etc. all become problems when you 'flood' an area with sensors. It also requires more ships to carry, launch, operate, recover, data analyze, and act on the data.
So, your suggestion is conceptually viable but has immense practical problems to overcome.
"mass"
DeleteMassing combat power is a well established and valid concept. HOWEVER, massing has to be useful mass. Consider the simplistic analogy of a single person having a hard time opening a heavy door. We could mass a thousand people to help with the task but all they'd do is get in each other's way. It wouldn't be useful mass.
The same applies to sensors. At some point, they just get in each other's way and interfere. We need USEFUL mass, not just mass. I explained the potential over-massing problems in another comment. It's not just a simple matter of flooding the area with Bluefins.
"SAM3 by SAAB"
DeleteThis is a step in the right direction. What I don't see is any spec's on speed and coverage area. I also don't see any real world test results.
The concept is good. The performance is unknown. I may have to do a post on this as an example of the right direction in mine clearance. Thanks for mentioning this one.
I'm not sure C&C is a problem. The containerised mine hunting equipment is integrated into our Australianised SAAB 9LV combat system which is on all our ships including our Aegis ships (Australian sailors only have one interface to learn for all ships incl tankers).
DeleteSo every ship can do mine hunting C&C. It's built in.
The Bluefin 9 is two man portable, so can be used by light infantry.
With current technology, there are only two ways to get rid of mines--sweep them or hunt them. I kind of like what I call ComNavOps's wild walrus approach, but that will take some development. We should be pursuing that, and something like the MSS-1, and any other innovative ideas.
ReplyDeleteI have proposed two types of mine countermeasures (MCM) ships. One would be like a small LSD, with a well deck big enough for 4 German Seehund-type drone sweepers, and 2 helicopter sweeps sleds, and a helo deck and hangar for two minesweeping helicopters. This would be a mother ship that would launch and direct the drones and the helo sweeps. The other ship would be a mine hunter, maybe one of the recent European designs.
The sweepers would do quick and dirty to get to a level where a commander was willing to accept the risk level to go into or through the mine field. The hunters would come along after the sweeps and clean up anything left behind. Hunting would go a whole lot faster if we had accurate seabed charts to show us where things that predated the mining were.
Mine sweeping is a very difficult and very very danger task. Just check during the 1990 Gulf War, how Iraq's outdated mines did and how long to sweep them. You have ships called mine sweepers don't mean that you can sweep mines.
ReplyDeleteToday, likely, best way to sweep mines is to use drone and modules from helicopters so no manned ship will be sunken in a mission. Therefore, there is no longer need ships which are called mine sweepers.
Some of today's smart mine is very very difficult to sweep (if not impossible) because it can "sleep" for a long time and be "waken up" later. It could also let certain ships to pass but explode only while certain ships pass. US and China both invest a lot in this area.
I think it's pretty commonly understood that what we call minesweepers are not really sweepers - they're mother ships to largely unmanned components.
DeleteMany things about mine warfare are not clear to me. Among them is the ability to control mines remotely. Most (all?) descriptions of remote control mines mention acoustic signals. It is not clear to me that such signals would be viable in a combat scenario where the water would be filled with extraneous acoustic signals. Again, someone needs to do realistic testing.
The acoustic signal would also seem to be a point of vulnerability as jamming, destroying, or disrupting the signal and/or signal generator would seem to be a good way to defeat a large number of mines in one action.
My view is that many ships can launch drones or use its helicopter to do mine sweep, not necessarily a mine sweeper.
DeleteAcoustic signal is not electromagnetic wave but vibration wave. Instrument with good sensitivity can "listen" desired acoustic signal with lots of background noises.
I believe SMART mines can be programmed for particular ships. How sonar normally identifies ships is by listening on really narrow audio bands for noises a particular ship makes. If it hits all it bands then there is a high confidence it the right ship. Note it requires a submarine to have previously recorded that ship.
DeleteAttempting to find a brochure on a specific smart mine shows nothing publicly available.
An influence sweep would have to mimic, the sounds, of all potential targets. The mines are supposed to be hard to fool.
So 1 x UUV per expected mine would clear a path to the beach. The one semi smart mine I could find uses a LWT as the warhead. (1 x LWT vs a carrier the carrier mightn't notice being hit.) They have a range of 8 km. So a path to the beach may need to be 16 km wide.
Gallipoli started as battleships and minesweepers took on a fort/minefield. Guns sunk minesweepers and mines sunk battleships (they were old ones from late 1800s).
Armies know that minefields HAVE to be defended, else the enemy removes them and use them against you.
An obvious counter would be to use a decoy to broadcast ship signatures to detonate acoustic mines. The other thing to mention is that vast numbers of today's mines are still using WW2 technology because it is cheap and simple. Many are still contact mines and a China-focussed USA might well get beaten up by a WW2 technology Iranian mine if it assumes that all mines are modern and electronic.
Delete"Instrument with good sensitivity can "listen" desired acoustic signal with lots of background noises."
DeleteAre you aware of any real world tests that have been done? Bear in mind that our best sonar receivers have very limited ability to pick out specific noises from the background, especially in shallower waters, so I'm dubious that large scale acoustic signaling is practical in a noisy background.
"I believe SMART mines can be programmed for particular ships. How sonar normally identifies ships is by listening on really narrow audio bands for noises a particular ship makes. If it hits all it bands then there is a high confidence it the right ship. Note it requires a submarine to have previously recorded that ship."
DeleteThat is pretty much correct. During my time in the mine force, there were some limitations as to just how precise the mine firing mechanisms could be. With developments in solid state over the last 40 years, if funds have been allocated to the mine force to keep up with technology (and I do not know whether they have or not) then today's mines could have pretty sophisticated firing mechanisms. The acoustic and magnetic signatures are relatively easy to simulate with influence sweep gear. The mine that was impossible with conventional gear was the pressure mine. That was the reason for the MSS-1. But we have learned that tidal fluctuations and wave action set off a lot of pressure mines.
ReplyDelete"Note that the helo fleet became operational in 1986 is now around 35 years old and the Avengers are around 30 years old. Both are long past retirement age and both are substantially unsafe to operate."
Hey Skip? I'm not sure when the H53 came about to begin with. but the H-53s aboard Nimitz for the Iranian Hostage Not-Rescue were old-ass Bureau Numbers from Vietnam. The Not-Rescue was April 1980. Bet bottom-dollar (although I'm sure we were charged top-dollar) your H53s discussed here were those same choppers with some add-ons.
So, Skipper, the entire LCS system was rotten with bad ideas and big spending, no? You were on the warpath agin' the LCS, but it seems you keep finding new ways the LCS was an utter fail. Minesweeps seem to be yet another. Good takes, per protocol. Keep em coming..
The minesweeping (MCM) version of the MH-53E became operational as stated in the post. I suspect you're remembering the CH-53 base version. The MH-53E's were derived from CH-53's. First flight occurred in 1981 and they became operational in 1986.
DeleteFurther confusing the issue is that there were MH-53H and J versions, among others, but those were for completely different missions.
The first minesweeping H-53s came in around 1970 or so. They were H-53s that had their airframes strengthened to handle the stress of pulling the sweep sleds. They were the primary (virtually the only) sweep mechanism used in clearing the North Vietnamese harbors for End Sweep. I used to have a photo taken from Skip Yates's helo of a mine that they blew up.
DeleteIIRC, they were used in the Iranian hostage rescue attempt because it was felt that the strengthened airframes would better handle the rigors of the long flights required. They would have been about 10 years old with a lot of stressful hours on their air frames.
The hostage rescue operation used 8 RH-53D Sea Stallions rather than MH-53Es.
DeleteH-53s may have been used in minesweeping around 1970 but they weren't MH-53Es. Possibly CH-53 Sea Stallions or, less likely time wise, CH-53E Super Stallions?
Not really relevant to anything. Just a point of curiosity?
My -vague- understanding is that modern smart mines use several or all of the various trigger signals in combination to determine whether a potential target is real or a sweep. While any one signal might be easy to simulate in sweeping, trying to duplicate all the signals in the proper pattern has to be difficult. As I've said, I'm not aware of any real world sweep testing against smart mines so I remain dubious about sweep effectiveness. Of course, sweeps may still be effective against the large inventory of older mines. Again, though, no real world testing.
DeleteOperation End Sweep, in 1973, is instructive. According to Wiki, only one mine was exploded using sweep. Whether that was due to failure of the sweeping (the Magnetic Orange Pipe!) or the self-neutralization of the mines, I don't know. Wiki, suggests that the operation was a marginal success from a technical perspective.
DeleteWiki shows a photo of a CH-53 towing a sled and a mine exploding which it says was the only explosion during sweeping.
On the other hand, a ship was damaged and helos lost so some other explosions must have occurred. I'd do a post if I could find more information.
"The hostage rescue operation used 8 RH-53D Sea Stallions rather than MH-53Es.
DeleteH-53s may have been used in minesweeping around 1970 but they weren't MH-53Es. Possibly CH-53 Sea Stallions or, less likely time wise, CH-53E Super Stallions?"
We didn't have MH-53s in 1980, as you noted. We had converted several (15, IIRC) CH-53s for the minesweeping role by giving them more powerful engines and strengthening their airframes to handle the stress of pulling the sleds. I believe RH-53 was the designation for CH-53s so strengthened, and Wikipedia supports that. The MH-53s were purpose-built as replacements for the original modified RH-53 minesweeping helos.
The helos used for the failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt were pulled from those that had been converted for minesweeping duty, because they thought the additional power and strengthened airframes were needed.
"Operation End Sweep, in 1973, is instructive. According to Wiki, only one mine was exploded using sweep. Whether that was due to failure of the sweeping (the Magnetic Orange Pipe!) or the self-neutralization of the mines, I don't know. Wiki, suggests that the operation was a marginal success from a technical perspective.
Wiki shows a photo of a CH-53 towing a sled and a mine exploding which it says was the only explosion during sweeping. "
That photo was the one I got from Skip Yates, and as far as I know that was the only mine we swept in the entire operation. Skip was the brother-in-law of my boss at the time. Most of them were set to self-neutralize earlier (there is a funny story there, but I'm not sure whether it has ever been declassified), so there were probably very few left by the time the sweep operation started. That mine was swept with the MK-105 sled and magtail gear, not the MOP. You can see the sled clearly in the photo. The MOP and the RAP (rotating acoustic pipe), had swept paths about 4 feet wide.
"Among them is the ability to control mines remotely. Most (all?) descriptions of remote control mines mention acoustic signals."
ReplyDeleteThe Swedes and Danes, who have remote-controlled mine systems for use in the Baltic Narrows, appear to use cables to control their mines. That's going to be a lot more reliable than acoustics, as well as cheaper, and allows for providing power to the mines. An acoustic-controlled mine will have a limited battery life.
Cables are excellent for controlling a handful of mines but during war mines will be laid in the thousands and tens of thousands (recall WWII mine usage!).
DeleteI don't see why a large industrial country would have trouble laying thousands of cabled mines, at least in areas where they have sea control, wartime or not?
DeleteMaybe not for offensive mine laying, but I'm sure it would be easy enough in defensive contexts.