The Navy – and, I suspect, many naval observers – have a completely unrealistic idea about mine clearance (MCM, mine countermeasures) and the speed with which it occurs. The Navy would have us believe that half dozen LCS-MCM vessels are all we need. On a particularly honest day, you might get a Navy admiral to grudgingly admit that a few MCM operators in a RHIB might also lend a hand but that’s the extent of the clearance assets that the Navy is developing.
The problem (well, one of many!) with the Navy’s MCM vision is that it is excruciatingly slow and I’ve pointed this out many times. I won’t rehash the overall discussion. Instead, I’d like to take a deeper look at the heart of the MCM system, the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS, AN/ASQ-235).
 |
Airborne Mine Neutralization System - Empty Carrier Being Recovered |
As enumerated by the Navy, mine clearance consists of three basic steps:
Detect possible mines with a broad area search
Identify mines with small AQS-20A towed sonar
Destroy mines with AMNS/Archerfish
This already sounds slow, doesn’t it? Searching an area twice before you can neutralize the first mine is not a process designed for speed. But, I digress …
The AMNS is the neutralizer which is the Navy’s less-violent euphemism for the destructor system. The system consists of a helicopter (MH-60S or MH-53E) which mounts a carrying cradle (Launch and Handling System, LHS) for four mini-unmanned ‘torpedoes’ which are individually guided to a mine and then blow themselves up, destroying the mine in the process. Thus, each helo can destroy a maximum of four mines before it has to return to the host ship to reload or replace the cradle.
Archerfish is the destructor for the AMNS. It is a small, lightweight (34 lb), expendable, remote controlled, underwater vehicle which carries a small shaped charge to destroy mines one at a time. It is a suicide vehicle since it is destroyed each time it is used. Each Archerfish contains a sonar, video camera, and light to assist the operator in reacquiring the mine.
 |
| Archerfish |
Unfortunately – and repetitively inefficiently - , AMNS has to reacquire the previously detected mines and the Archerfish is then guided to the mine by a sonar sensor operator on the helo, using a fiber optic communication cable, positive identification is established, and the destructor is command detonated.
The destructor reacquisition and approach phase is not a lightning fast operation as some might imagine. The destructor doesn’t approach the target at 50 kts, ram into it, and explode. Instead, the approach is slow and time-consuming. From the BAE Archerfish data sheet we get a sense of the slow, deliberate approach process,
Excellent maneuvering characteristics enable Archerfish to traverse the target to obtain pictures and sonar images from a variety of angles. Archerfish approaches the target under command guidance. In the final stages of the approach, the Archerfish sonar and video also acquire the target and transmit more detailed information to the operator via the fibre optic link.(1)
Shown below is the launch system with four destructors.
 |
| AMNS with Four Archerfish Loaded |
 |
| AMNS - Note the Size of the LHS Mounting System |
Setting aside the first two steps of the MCM process which are the initial survey and subsequent sonar identification, the speed of the AMNS portion is determined by the steps below. The time estimates are just ballpark figures and would depend on a multitude of factors but they offer a decent approximation.
|
AMNS Speed of Operation |
|
|
Step |
Time |
|
Configure helo for LHS carry |
Hours?(a) |
|
Load LHS |
1 hr |
|
Transit to operation area |
30 min |
|
Lower LHS |
10 min |
|
Launch destructor |
10 min |
|
Locate and identify target mine |
15 min |
|
Detonate |
instantaneous |
|
Repeat until four destructors have been consumed |
- |
|
Return to ship |
30 min |
|
Reload LHS |
30 min |
|
Repeat cycle |
- |
(a)demonstrated on an LCS video; very lengthy process
The overall time for a single cycle with the helo already configured for the AMNS and with the LHS already loaded is on the order of 2h:20m. That equates to a mine clearance rate of 4 mines per 2h:20m or 1 mine every 35 min or, roughly, 2 mines per hour. This is the best case clearance rate but the actual rate is lower since the helo has to return for maintenance, crew changes, fuel, etc., multiple times over the course of a day so the actual clearance rate is less than 2 mines per hour.
It is also important to note that the helo is also used for the initial broad area detection sweep, using the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) and that time has to be included in the overall mine clearance rate so the effective clearance rate is further reduced to around 1 mine per hour on a sustained basis.
The AMNS system, assuming it works as advertised – and they never do - , is decisively effective, in that it blows up the mine, while also being utterly inefficient. Clearing minefields one at a time is the worst possible approach especially in combat where speed of clearance is vital. Ships waiting for passage through a chokepoint or amphibious forces waiting to land can’t wait while mines are cleared one at a time and yet this is the system that the Navy has decided on for its future mine clearance capability.
We should note that the Navy is also working on a rapid sweep technique using the Common Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV), however, the effectiveness of sweeps against modern smart mines is highly questionable. As with so many other weapon systems, we desperately need to test the sweep system under realistic conditions against actual smart mines to determine whether the system can work, at all.
AMNS is fine for peacetime or very limited mine clearance operations but in war mines are likely to be laid by the thousands and AMNS will be completely unsuited for the task. We need to develop highly efficient, wide area sweeping and neutralization capabilities.
AMNS is yet another example of the Navy developing peacetime capabilities instead of large scale war capabilities. We must break out of this peacetime mentality that the Navy is married to and start preparing for real war.
___________________________________
(1)https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/archerfish-mine-neutralisation-system
"We need to develop highly efficient, wide area sweeping and neutralization capabilities."
ReplyDeleteConsidering that old WW2 mines are still found in European waters the detection problem seems to be quite difficult to solve. So my question is : has anybody anywhere actually developed a fast mine detection and clearance system ? As far as I am aware the answer is no but I'd be glad to be contradicted.
Yep, they're called "capital ships".
DeleteAnon 1026 7:15, Well think of the upside, at least the Navy didn't buy the mine warfare equivalent of the Zumwalt.
ReplyDeleteThis article reminds us that mine hunting is a time-consuming, dangerous and very difficult task. There doesn't seem to be a futuristic way of doing it that will actually be affective anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteThus, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. We can also use mines. China would have fun clearing Hammerhead Mines laid in the waters between the land parts of the "First Island Chain" with us picking them off as they try.
Mining is a nasty business that we should be ready to utilize in a war.
"Mining is a nasty business that we should be ready to utilize in a war."
DeleteAbsolutely. We have ignored mining almost as much, if not more, than we have ignored mine countermeasures. Our inattention to both almost bit us in the mining and clearance of North Vietnam. We need significant upgrades to capability on both sides.
Remember that mining is the end all solution to keeping attackers at bay even without MCM. If the attackers are able and willing to take losses, the mines might not stop them. A case in point, the Yankees would never taken Mobile Bay if they were deterred by mines.
Delete"Damn the torpedoes"
@Promethus: Quickstrike-ER mines are a thing. Basically, you take a Mark 80 series bomb, put a Quickstrike mine fuse on it and JDAM fins, and then have a bomber drop them. The Air Force has been testing and demonstrating this capability since 2018.
DeleteRather than having to fly a bombing pattern and hope that the mines go where you want, your bomber can stay at altitude and drop the mines precisely where it wants without needing to do all sorts of funny maneuvers - and G-52s, B-2s and B-1s can carry a lot more mines than P-1s can.
This is an article about countering Remote and Autonomous Systems mine hunting using false sonar (like EW). See https://theforge.defence.gov.au/publications/countering-robotics-and-autonomous-systems-through-maritime-area-denial
ReplyDeleteAs an aside he notes "Argument could be made that a simple fishing net placed in the probable path of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) could delay the MCM effort."
EG
"The UUV proceeds along the clearance route, actively searching for anomalies that may indicate a possible mine, providing a visual representation of the acoustic return to the operator through a mission interface on the surface. The mine lays dormant until the acoustic signal from the UUV reaches it. A module within the mine identifies the frequency of the signal and triangulates the position of the UUV. Instantaneously the mine emits an acoustic signature that is received by the UUV’s receivers. This acoustic signal has been created by the sea mine, using the position and movement of the UUV, to alter the acoustic return of the UUV transponder, altering any possible return signal identifying an anomaly. The UUV continues receiving acoustic signals consistent with known sea bottom types, displaying a flat sea bottom with no contacts of interest, or a signal that represents a large submerged wreck that does not present a hazard to surface navigation, back to the operator."
And I'll add in the Army only defensed mine fields are used. If they are not defended they offer little obstacle to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways to get rid of mines--sweep them or hunt them. Sweeping is faster but doesn’t guarantee 100% success. You can hunt them to 100% success (assuming you have competent mine location sonar), but that takes a long time.
ReplyDeleteThe Europeans (particularly Dutch, Belgians, Germans, British, French, and Italians) emphasize mine warfare more than we do. One of the really bizarre things about NATO is that to assuage national pride, the English Channel area is totally cobbled up between areas of responsibility for each bordering nation, and the internal squabbles over who takes care of what can be incredibly ferocious.
Sweeping is statistical. You do so many passes to get to a 70% or 80% or 90% confidence level (assuming you know what mines are out there). The problem with sweeping is the danger of putting the minesweeper into the minefield. Every mine warrior has seen the photo of the Wonsan mine explosion with what appears to be the 1st Lieutenant about 150 feet in the air (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1mlhBnyZ8qw/XTi-iQ_Q6qI/AAAAAAAACYs/OHZKf7JEV-U5Kf4Uer-Gj2wtv8FuuyUgwCLcBGAs/s400/Wonsan%2BMinesweeping.jpg). To minimize the risk, various navies have gone to drone (primarily Germany) or helo (primarily USA) sweeps. Those lack the power and consequently swept path of a manned sweeper, but at least they avoid putting humans into the minefield.
Hunting is precise. The Dutch and Belgian primary concern is defensive, keeping the mouths of the Rhine open for commercial shipping, so they focus more on hunting. They are more concerned about 100% clearance than about the timing of a military operation. The 12 new minehunters that they have ordered (6 Dutch, 6 Belgians) will come with about 100 drones (8 per ship) for mine destruction (https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/july/7266-belgium-and-netherlands-sign-contract-to-purchase-twelve-mine-hunters.html).
I propose a combined approach:
1) First, sweep the area with helo and drone sweeps, to get a “quick and dirty” confidence level consistent with the amount of risk that the operational commander is willing to take. It would be useful if either the drones or the helo sleds had some sort of underwater object location sonar, from which data could be transmitted and stored for phase 2 hunting.
2) Second, hunt and destroy any remaining mines.
In an amphibious assault, since you are always making tradeoffs, you would probably send the initial assault in at the completion of phase 1), and then conduct phase 2) to sanitize approach lanes for further logistics supply loads.
For this approach, I propose two ship types:
1) MCM helo/drone mother ship, basically be a small LPD/LSD, with no need for troops or troop equipment. The helo deck would support 2-3 MCM helos, and the well deck would house several helo sleds and minesweeping drones (like German Seehund, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensdorf-class_minesweeper). The mother ship would launch the sweeps and then control them to the extent needed for phase 1).
2) MHC, along the lines of the new Dutch/Belgian ship, to conduct phase 2).
I would include on both ships some of what I call the “wild walrus” anti-mine seek-and-destroy weapons that ComNavOps has suggested, and send a bunch through before/after phase 1).
The Dutch/Belgian ships, including drones, are running about 175MM Euros each, so maybe US$225-250MM each. The MCM mother ships would probably run about US$300-350MM each.
I would have 15 squadrons including one ship of each type, placed at major US/USN ports around the country—Guam, Pearl, Anchorage, Puget Sound, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston/Corpus, New Orleans/Mobile, Tampa Bay, Miami, Jacksonville, Chesapeake Bay, New York, Boston. Their primary mission would be to ensure access to/from their respective ports, and secondary to deploy (probably on heavy lift ships, at least for the MHCs) to support expeditionary operations.
Just another example of something I read in an article the other day. It was about the dilemma of the future of Marine Infantry. Apparently, while current force structure is okay for conflict, its not right for Great Power COMPETITION, which apparently what strategic planning thinks is in the future. IE, while they may be good a killing stuff, they aren't good enough a detering stuff.
ReplyDeleteFor me to understand, are we talking about mines that are floating on the sea or are they submerged?
ReplyDeleteMines that are difficult to deal with are on sea bottom. Floating mines are low tech.
DeleteFor practical purposes, there are no floating mines today although countries like Iran or NKorea might have leftover inventory from the WWII era. Today's mines are generally bottom sitting or moored at various depths.
DeleteSo why not just use two or more Destroyers with active sonars that triangular the echo-return and use depth-charges do destroy the mines, or something similarly simple and low cost? I think I have missed something about this be course it can not be this simple.
DeleteBasically its about software and information sharing between two platforms, the aeronautical side has done this for 50 years so it should not be that difficult?
A couple of problems to keep in mind. Ship sonars are not optimized for mine detection. Most ships that might have to deal with mines have specialized sonar.
DeleteThe larger problem, aside from the US Navy not having 'depth charges' is that mines are typically laid in fields of thousands to tens of thousands.
Beyond that, the destructive area of a depth charge (or any underwater explosive) is quite limited. This is why submarines require a direct hit to damage/sink rather than just a general area explosion. Shrapnel doesn't occur underwater and blast waves (pressure waves) are fairly quickly mitigated with distance. So, it would required one depth charge per mine which is not a trade that's worth making. Aside from not having depth charges, we also have no guidance system and would be dropping near blind, in terms of achieving a direct (or close enough) hit.
Destroyer sonars would probably not detect mines very reliably. And they would lack the classification capability necessary to identify a mine as opposed to something else. Plus triangulation from two destroyer sonars would not be accurate enough to put a charge down to destroy the mine. Finally, you wouldn't want a destroyer running around in or near a mine field.
DeleteWell then there could be a purpose build mine hunter. But designing a sonar that is optimized for detection of mines and using data links to utilize triangulation is easy. Developing something low cost and easy to manufacture to destroy this should not be to hard.
DeleteCNO, how would you clear mines in large numbers?
Wouldn't all of this be completely ineffective against basic drift mines? The mine won't be were it was detected or identified by the time the AMNS is deployed to kill it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, we've designed a system that works almost perfectly against the kind of mine field we would deploy. (A small number of high tech CAPTOR style smart-mines) but is completely useless against what our enemies are most likely to deploy. (Hundreds of cheap moored and drifting dumb mine, plus simple magnetic influence bottom mines.)
"Wouldn't all of this be completely ineffective against basic drift mines?"
DeleteIt would be useless but drift mines are not generally used because they pose just as much of a threat to the user as the target and they're ineffective since they won't stay where you want them.
Just a hundred drift mines in any West Coast port would create an unbelievable mess, but you can't "defend" well with them.
Delete"We should note that the Navy is also working on a rapid sweep technique using the Common Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV), however, the effectiveness of sweeps against modern smart mines is highly questionable."
ReplyDeleteI'm researching; trying to get up-to-speed on mine warfare and mine countermeasures. Is your statement above referring to the AQS-24?
In the story in the link, it describes this system which uses both sonar and laser to find and identify mines (it does not destroy them) and can be towed by USV and helicopters:
'“Think of it as being able to double the speed you can operate at, because we are pinging at the same rate but we go twice as fast. We figured out how to do that. We still get the benefits of synthetic aperture sonar. We get the benefit of going 18 knots and we maintain the benefit of high resolution. We maintain the same resolution over the full speed range of the vehicle,” Gene Cumm, Director of International Mine Warfare Programs, Northrop Grumman, told Warrior.'
"Is your statement above referring to the AQS-24?"
DeleteNo, the -24 is a sonar/optical mine identification sensor, not a sweep. The sweep is the towed 'sled' with acoustic and magnetic trigger signals to explode mines.
"The sweep is the towed 'sled' with acoustic and magnetic trigger signals to explode mines."
DeleteThat strikes me as the obvious way to get rid of mines quickly. This is very difficult to get specific information on. I even ended up spending nearly an hour playing "Minesweeper" when it came up in the search...
I did find some WWII info, which was interesting but want some modern info as well. Any suggestions?
This is probably it:
Delete"The Mk-105, or sled as it is known, is an airborne mine clearance system, which is towed through the water by a U.S. Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter. The twin magnetic tails, consisting of open-electrode magnetic sweeps, are towed behind the sled, detonating mines to clear the water for safe shipping."
"In early 1972, the MK-105 Magnetic Minesweeping Sys¬tem was introduced into the Fleet, and from February to June 1973, the MK-105 system was called into action to sweep the minefields in the principal ports and harbors, associated waters, and some shipping channels in North Vietnam, during Operation End Sweep. Approxi¬mately 11,000 destructor series mines were swept by the U.S. forces and the MK-105 magnetic sweep system was a big part of that effort."
Sounds awesome! Is the MK-105 now outdated?
"This is very difficult to get specific information on."
DeleteSweeping hasn't changed much since WWII despite the fact that modern smart mines have advanced quite a bit. It is highly doubtful that smart mines will allow themselves to be triggered by a sweep.
The West desperately needs to run some real world sweep tests against modern mines. Unfortunately, I'm unaware of any such test ever having been conducted - hence, the lack of information.
Regarding minesweeping in Vietnam, more detailed reports suggest that almost no mines were neutralized via sweeping. The vast majority (all?) self-neutralized when they timed out, as I recall.
"The vast majority (all?) self-neutralized when they timed out, as I recall."
DeleteLooks like you recall correctly:
"On 9 March at 1240 local, the first and only mine swept, a MK-52, detonated behind in the vicinity of a MK-105 being towed behind a CH-53D. Most of the deployed mines by the time of OES had already self-sterilized."
https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/operation-end-sweep-part-2/
I found stories about training with the MK-105 but (frustratingly) no results or information is given. Sounds like a practicing towing it around with allies present:
Delete“During the exercise, HM-14 used the MK-105 Mod 4 Magnetic Minesweeping System, commonly referred to as a sled. The sled, towed by one of HM-14’s MH-53E helicopters, is used because it provides a reliable and safe way to detect and detonate mines.”
https://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130002
MK-105 Test Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-YDixf9zHM
Sounds like we’ll have a serious downgrade in five years:
“The MH-53E has a maximum range of 885 miles and a top speed of 172 miles per hour. These helicopters tow a mine-sweeping sled and can operate from any aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship. These helicopters are slated to retire in 2025.”
“This helicopter has a top speed of 180 knots and a maximum range of 245 nautical miles. While the 256 MH-60S helicopters purchased by the Navy offer a lot of versatility, the range and endurance are a significant step down from the Sea Dragon.”
https://www.wearethemighty.com/naval-mine-countermeasures
I found a (somewhat vague) story about the U.S., Royal Navy and Australian forces removing mines from the port at Umm Qasr, Iraq, beginning around March 24, 2003. Iraqi mines were both modern and simple:
Delete“The LUGM is a conventional buoyant contact mine with the familiar Hertz horns and 200kg explosive filler. The Italian made (Now Rheinmetall) Manta mines were much more dangerous as they are both acoustic and magnetic triggered with a 140kg warhead.”
Multiple systems and divers were used:
“…even the US Navy dolphins played a part.”
“The SWIMS payload consisted of multiple towed bodies in an array that was designed to simulate the acoustic and magnetic signature of a ship, and would thus, fool the mine into detonating, possibly destroying the unmanned system rather than a real ship. In addition to floats and connecting equipment, the payload array consisted of two towed bodies, a Pipe Noise Maker and Mini Dyad. Pipe Noise Makers are simple and robust systems that do pretty much as the name suggests, make noise. Mini Dyads sound small, at 7.7m long and weighing in at 1.6 tonnes, they are not. They are simply a steel tube containing multiple steel and ferrite disc magnets with multiple Mini Dyads arranged to simulate different magnetic signatures”
“The MoD selected the ADI system because it was the only one available that did not need additional power and could operate in shallow waters. The system was ordered in late December 2002 and delivered in late January, they were hired for 12 months and the acoustic generators purchased outright. One complete array comprised 2 Mini Dyads and 2 Pipe Noise Makers.”
“The US Navy Mk 105 minesweeping sled is towed by a Sea Dragon MH53 helicopter and these were used, although with mixed results.”
“The Royal Navy also used the Seafox one shot disposal system and over this initial period 450 contacts were detected and investigated, 15 of which were mines.”
A channel was opened and the first ships arrived in the port 4 days later.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/ship-to-shore-logistics/opening-the-port-at-umm-qasr-iraq-2003/
"The vast majority (all?) self-neutralized when they timed out, as I recall."
DeleteI looked more deeply into this and, while they did self-neutralize, it was not due to timing out.
Please see my post farther down.
The one mine that was swept was from a sled pulled by Skip Yates's helicopter. Skip was the brother-in-law of my boss, and he sent us photos. Most of the mines had long since timed out or otherwise self-neutralized. The Mk52s and the DSTs did that slightly differently.
DeleteIt is wonderful to hear from someone with personal info about it and to learn more about this event. Thank you!
DeleteI also read about some WWII mined areas that are avoided to this day, since it would be such a chore to clear them out. Now that I know that some of these did time-out, I guess that many of those are still there as well. I'm guessing that they are not dangerous at this point?
I forgot to put the link, sorry:
ReplyDeletehttps://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/sea/advanced-navy-undersea-sonar-and-laser-sensor-finds-enemy-mines-fast-pt5bC5BO3EWNc7hA0zjyeg
Today, mine sweep on high tech smart mines is close to impossible. They won’t be triggered by conventional US navy mine sweeping tech. Let’s not be confused with conventional mines deployed by nations have no capabilities of advanced smart mines. AMNS, actually has some chance on high tech smart mines if they are floating (detectable by active sonar, not sink at sea floor (only work on shallow waters).
ReplyDeleteThere are 3 types of mine sweeping –
Mine sweep near US coast: nations deposit mines near US coast. Unlikely any nation has this intention and capabilities.
Mine sweep on other nation’s defense line – best solution is to give up invasion other nations and tell warmongers to shut up and humiliate these American hawks. Stop meddling other nations’ internal affairs.
Mine sweep to clear international passage ways – international cooperation on mine sweeping as they all want to use these passages for commercial reasons.
Let's stick to naval matters and leave the international politics out of it. Thank you.
DeleteI have read this part of your other blog post regarding ways that the CUSV is looking to sweep mines. You explained this part which I find interesting "emphasizes speed by foregoing the location and identification of the individual mines in favor of an area wide attempt to simply trigger the mines into exploding by putting out a signal (acoustic, magnetic, etc.) that mimics a ship’s signature and tricks the mines into exploding...... Sweeping is much more efficient. It’s the ‘many’ versus ‘individual’ approach."
ReplyDeleteI find its interesting that it is always mimicking it but is it possible to build a unnamed drone which has the acoustic signal of a ship? There is at least proof of a system somewhat exists, the German Ensdorf-class minesweepers carry the Seehund drones. Which reported by Wikipedia [2] are small unmanned boats that can simulate the acoustic and magnetic signatures of bigger ships to trigger mines. Of course, I hardly believe manufacturer claims but I find the idea worth it to look into. I find no traces of exercises or pictures of the drone so I can't comment more on the validity of it.
Is it possible for depth charges to activate mines? I am reminded of the fact that sometimes, you can initiate a large explosion to activate the pressure plate on the mine, there by destroying it. I do see some caveats with the explosion might have less destructive effect being in the water and create a smaller boom. I am not aware of any research regarding this so if anyone find any information, I would greatly appreciated if you could share it.
Last but not the least interesting is the AN/SLQ-48 Mine Neutralization System method. It is reported that [3] it is supposedly "If the object is identified as a mine, the vehicle can deploy an explosive charge on the bottom mine, or the explosive cutter on the mooring cable of the moored mine." is it possible that we can develop vast and cheap amount of unmanned drones that can explode? Can we then also add an updated version of the AN/SLQ-38 and use it for cutting the moored mine? It doesn't seem all that complicated (I am probably wrong) and quite quick if we do this way.
[1]:https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/07/influence-sweeping-and-lcs.html
[2]:https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ensdorf-class_minesweeper
[3]:https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-slq-48.htm
Ipnam,
DeleteMy responses to some of your comments.
“Sweeping is much more efficient. It’s the ‘many’ versus ‘individual’ approach."
I’m suggesting a two-pronged approach, and you’ve kind of hit on both prongs—sweep first to get a general level of confidence, and then hunt limited areas for precision.
“I find it’s interesting that it is always mimicking it but is it possible to build a unnamed drone which has the acoustic signal of a ship? There is at least proof of a system somewhat exists, the German Ensdorf-class minesweepers carry the Seehund drones. “
I have proposed a mother ship, basically like a small LSD/LPD, since it wouldn’t need to carry troops or their equipment. It would have a helo deck to hold 3 MCM helicopters, and a well deck to hold something like Seehunds (the Ensdorf can’t carry them onboard) and the helo sweep sleds. You could then operate and control both drone and helo sweeps off of them. I believe the Seehunds stream a magnetic sweep and then have the acoustic devices onboard.
“Is it possible for depth charges to activate mines? I am reminded of the fact that sometimes, you can initiate a large explosion to activate the pressure plate on the mine, there by destroying it. I do see some caveats with the explosion might have less destructive effect being in the water and create a smaller boom. I am not aware of any research regarding this so if anyone find any information, I would greatly appreciate if you could share it.”
The problem is that you’d really have to get them in close proximity to set off mines. Very commonly, mines have a device that shuts them off momentarily when there is an explosion elsewhere in the field, so that they don’t go off when a ship detonates another mine.
“Last but not the least interesting is the AN/SLQ-48 Mine Neutralization System method.”
My second prong would be MHC’s like the new Dutch/Belgian ones that would carry a couple of these or similar systems.
“It is reported that ‘If the object is identified as a mine, the vehicle can deploy an explosive charge on the bottom mine, or the explosive cutter on the mooring cable of the moored mine.’ is it possible that we can develop vast and cheap amount of unmanned drones that can explode?”
This is kind of what I’ve called ComNavOps’s “wild walrus” approach. His idea is that they seek and destroy anything that might be a mine, and that saves having to put expensive classification sonars on them. They still need a basic search sonar, so I’m not sure how cheaply they can be made. But it’s an idea worth exploring. I would send them through before and after the sweep phase.
I am just noting that the part I was referring to is not my comment [1]. CNO did propose the idea of combined sweeping (general and later limited). I somehow forgot to add the citation, even though I did reference it.
Delete"I have proposed a mother ship, basically like a small LSD/LPD, since it wouldn’t need to carry troops or their equipment. It would have a helo deck to hold 3 MCM helicopters, and a well deck to hold something like Seehunds (the Ensdorf can’t carry them onboard) and the helo sweep sleds. You could then operate and control both drone and helo sweeps off of them...."
The problem with me of your idea is the system is woefully undefended, even WW2 Navy do a destroyer minesweeper combo that provide it with some self defense. While I certainly don't like the idea of the Navy adding necessary stuff, I find it necessary to be as much armored as a destroyer, analogue to how land minesweepers tend to be converted tank chassis.
"I believe the Seehunds stream a magnetic sweep and then have the acoustic devices onboard. " Assuming you are right, the Seehund is probably not what I am proposing then. I am looking for a drone ship that can generate the same the acoustic and magnetic signatures, not simulating it
"Very commonly, mines have a device that shuts them off momentarily when there is an explosion elsewhere in the field, so that they don’t go off when a ship detonates another mine."
That's interesting, is it possible that you can initiate a barrage of explosions to overwhelm the fail-safe? A series of small continuous explosions with enough pressure to trigger the plate over and over again?
Just to clarify a little bit, are you referring to the CH-53 as the MCM helicopter? If so, do you think we could find something faster than that? The issue here is still the slow paced nature of AMCM and the hunting mission [1] that can last up to hours before a ship is guaranteed safe passage.
"Both the MOP and MK-105 generate a magnetic field that is designed to detonate a magnetic influence mine while the MK-104 generates an acoustic field which is designed to detonate an acoustic influence mine. The MK-104 can be connected to the MK-105 (called the MK-106) to create a combined magnetic/acoustic field. The purpose of magnetic or acoustic field generating devices is to produce a magnetic and/or acoustic environment similar to a surface ship thus tricking the mine into thinking that a surface ship, a mine’s primary target, is passing overhead. The MK-103 mechanical minesweeping system is a complex series of sweep cables with explosive cutters designed to cut the cable of the moored mine. A moored mine (Appendix, Figure A-35) is a mine that is typically positioned just below the surface and is held in place with a cable attached to an anchor on the sea floor as opposed to a bottom mine (Appendix, Figure A-36) which simply rests on the “bottom” of the sea floor. The AN/AQS-24 mine hunting system is a towed sonar device that searches for bottom mines primarily but can also detect moored mines in the water volume under certain conditions." [2]
I am just citing the relevant part but you can see how lengthy and complicated it might be. While it is okay in peacetime, I don't see this viable in wartime until a significant option presented itself to solve the hopefully small amount of surviving mines.
Do you mind explaining the mechanism of how these mines detect explosion from other mines? I feel like there is more to learn from this aspect that can apply to a lot other systems.
"This is kind of what I’ve called ComNavOps’s “wild walrus” approach. His idea is that they seek and destroy anything that might be a mine, and that saves having to put expensive classification sonars on them. They still need a basic search sonar, so I’m not sure how cheaply they can be made. But it’s an idea worth exploring. I would send them through before and after the sweep phase."
DeleteThis is probably a post from him that I missed ;). I assume it won't be that expensive, probably 1/10 the cost of a torpedo! I have always advocate for the idea of MIRV torpedo which can separate itself into multiple torpedoes. Imagine a similarly priced drone that we have right now is designed to carry 4 of these torpedoes with 10 MIRV torpedoes in each of them. That would be a force to be reckoned with!
Oh and look forward to the next CNO post, I will post a proposal that might be right up your alley. Thanks for the reply!
[1]:https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/07/influence-sweeping-and-lcs.html
[2]:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjyjNjF8tjsAhXMFIgKHdADBr0QFjAPegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrace.tennessee.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4970%26context%3Dutk_gradthes&usg=AOvVaw0peO7k-Wtlql10FKZeHn-q
Just as I was settling into the idea of “Mines suck, so good luck” a blurb in one of the articles that I read came to mind. I hope putting my thoughts out here won’t be too annoying. Feel free to roll the eyes and ignore at will!
ReplyDeleteThe mine that comes to my mind when I think of naval mines, is the Hertz Horn Mine. These were used as recently as 2003 in Iraq, so I’m guessing they are still being built and stored for future use. They work as follows:
“The mine's upper half is studded with hollow lead protuberances, each containing a glass vial filled with sulfuric acid. When a ship's hull crushes the metal horn, it cracks the vial inside it, allowing the acid to run down a tube and into a lead-acid battery which until then contains no acid electrolyte. This energizes the battery, which detonates the explosive.”
http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/Hertz_horn_mine
Another mine I read about was the magnetic mine. Specifically, those used in 1972, when the U.S. mined Hai Phong harbor, North Vietnam. The mines used were the Mk-52 Mod 2, magnetic mines. As we know, these use a change in the Earth’s magnetic field to spark detonation.
https://www.historynet.com/the-daring-plan-to-mine-haiphong-harbor.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_Mines.php
I read about the other variety of naval mines, and the common theme that I seem to see in sea mines is that they use some queue, such as sound or whatever, to set off an electric spark. This, and how magnetic mines work, is what got me thinking.
On August 4th of 1972, many of the magnetic mines that we placed in Hai Phong simply detonated on their own:
"The extreme space weather events of early August 1972 had signicant impact on the U.S. Navy, which have not been widely reported. These effects, long buried in the Vietnam War archives, add credence to the severity of the storm: a nearly instantaneous, unintended detonation of dozens of sea mines south of Hai Phong, North Vietnam on 4 August 1972. This event occurred near the end of the Vietnam War. The U.S. Navy attributed the dramatic event to magnetic perturbations of solar storms."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018SW002024
I wonder if a device could be created to focus an electromagnetic pulse into a specific area of water which would detonate sea mines. Hopefully small enough to be carried by aircraft but if not, towed by USV.
Prometheus,
DeleteGood questions, I’ll try to supply a few answers.
“The mine that comes to my mind when I think of naval mines, is the Hertz Horn Mine. These were used as recently as 2003 in Iraq, so I’m guessing they are still being built and stored for future use.”
These are considered outmoded today and have been replaced by magnetic, acoustic, and pressure influence mines. There are still a bunch left over in inventories, primarily in less developed countries.
“Another mine I read about was the magnetic mine. Specifically, those used in 1972, when the U.S. mined Hai Phong harbor, North Vietnam. The mines used were the Mk-52 Mod 2, magnetic mines.”
We also used about 6,500 DST Mk 36 destructors, because we didn’t have enough Mk-52s. These were an adaptation of the Snakeyes weapon.
“the common theme that I seem to see in sea mines is that they use some cue, such as sound or whatever, to set off an electric spark.”
And what you try to do to sweep them is to simulate the acoustic or magnetic cue with the sweep gear. We really don’t have a sweep for pressure mines, that was the objective of the MSS-1, but wave action tends to set them off.
“On August 4th of 1972, many of the magnetic mines that we placed in Hai Phong simply detonated on their own:”
There is a bit more to this, and it’s a funny story, but I’m not sure it has been declassified.
“I wonder if a device could be created to focus an electromagnetic pulse into a specific area of water which would detonate sea mines. Hopefully small enough to be carried by aircraft but if not, towed by USV.”
That’s basically what a magnetic sweep does. But even ship-sized sweeps can’t generate enough of a pulse to do what you are suggesting. It would take a huge power supply, certainly not one that could be towed by an aircraft or USV.
"There is a bit more to this, and it’s a funny story, but I’m not sure it has been declassified."
DeleteIf your ever can tell me, I am sooo anxious to know! I find the whole story so fascinating.
Declassified a couple of years ago, posted at many sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pocket_Money
DeleteThat's not the funny parts I'm talking about.
DeleteOT with just a vague bit relation to the topic mine clearing. Looks like NATO just lost a mine sweeper.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37293/a-greek-navy-minehunting-vessel-got-sliced-in-two-by-a-container-ship
Given the list of collisions in the story across NATO and Russia seems to me maybe navigation/deck watch needs be on training menu for a lot of navies. But the Greeks seem to have manged some really good damage control to keep the hulk from sinking (or the UK built a really good ship that had working bulkheads before it got sold).
Notable that for a ship so much smaller than a LCS its base crew is nearly the same size - wonder if that helped with damage control.
Considering the fate of some modern warships that collide with cargo ships, the crew did really well to keep the hull afloat after it had been completely transected. But I agree with you about the design being sturdy. A little 750 tonne ship, launched all the way back in 1986 for the RN, with a hull and bulkheads made of fibreglass. And it stayed (sufficiently) watertight with it's stern sheared off. Perhaps they don't make them like they used to. But it is perhaps an object lesson that if you can pack some resilience in 750 tonnes, there's room in a bigger ship, too.
DeleteThis article points to a real problem (mine hunting is Really Slow (tm)) but fails to propose a better solution. I suspect that's because there simply isn't one.
ReplyDeleteCertainly using conventional minehunters will be even slower, as they transit much more slowly than a helo or even an LCS. I think that the problem of reacquiring the mine from the LHS is overstated here: We've gotten very good at precision location of undersea objects.
I don't know of any system that can realistically prosecute sophisticated mines (i.e. ones immune to sweeping) _faster_ than Archerfish. Do you?
"fails to propose a better solution"
DeleteThe purpose of the post was to describe and discuss the AMNS, not propose alternative solutions. That aside, I'll discuss some general solution possibilities momentarily.
" I suspect that's because there simply isn't one."
Right and wrong. See below.
"the problem of reacquiring the mine from the LHS is overstated here:"
No, that's the Navy's assessment, not mine.
"We've gotten very good at precision location of undersea objects."
No. If we were that good at it, we wouldn't have to reacquire at all. We could simply send a 'blind' torpedo unerringly at the target mine. The fact that we don't do that - and knowingly and willingly take on, and accept, the resultant time penalty to reacquire - demonstrates beyond any doubt that our location capabilities aren't that good. Again, this is the Navy saying this, not me.
"I don't know of any system that can realistically prosecute sophisticated mines (i.e. ones immune to sweeping) _faster_ than Archerfish. Do you?"
Yes and no. Here's the discussion of alternative(s). To begin, we have to recognize that one-at-a-time hunting, which is the path the West has chosen, is not viable in any combat scenario. It is a dead end developmental path. It can work for leisurely, peacetime clearance of a handful of mines but is totally unsuited for large scale, combat removal. Why we've chose this path is a mystery (as are so many other unexplainably incorrect Navy policy decisions).
Sweeping is the ONLY viable combat-efficient, combat-effective mine clearance procedure since time is the key parameter and only sweeping can meet the time requirement. There's no such thing as a mine that is immune to sweeping. If there were, the mine could not be triggered by a real target. Since it can be triggered, the trigger characteristics can be duplicated by a sweep mechanism. It only remains to construct a sweep with the requisite characteristics and capabilities. Such a sweep does not yet exist although in a later post I have described one that is approaching that level with variable electromagnetic frequency and waveform outputs.
Instead of focusing on hunting individual mines with incredibly slow underwater robotic mini-torpedoes, we need to focus our research on improved sweep technology. The elements and components of such a sweep already exist. They just haven't been packaged as a coherent system, yet. So, the capability of producing an effective sweep exists but the finished product does not.