The LCS mine clearance capability was a very marginal capability from day one, even if it had worked perfectly. The fundamental, inherent, problem was – and still is – that the MCM module simply could not clear mines efficiently or quickly and in combat mine clearance, speed is everything. An amphibious assault that has to stand offshore for days or weeks while mines are slowly cleared is a disaster. A carrier group that is forced to drift in one spot for days while a navigational chokepoint is cleared of mines is a disaster.
As an example, the WWII Normandy D-Day landing accomplished its mine clearance ‘in stride’ as the invasion fleet crossed the channel. There was no delay and there was no pre-sweeping to give away the element of surprise. The mine clearance was an ‘instantaneous’ event that occurred as the assault began.
So, what do we know about LCS mine clearance?
From LT Roxanne Sumanga (MCM Naval Mine Warfare school) commenting at the Surface Navy Association (SNA 2021) Virtual Symposium held in mid-January 2021,
“The
time piece is a little bit more tricky. So generally as MCM Officers,
we’re always working against time. So regardless of platform, regardless
of systems, we can always finish faster. The question is how much risk are you
willing to inter? [Example] So we can take a channel [and] clear it in 10
days, [and do it] by 7 [days]. Are you willing to sail through a channel
with 40% risk? So the time piece is relative.
Compare the LCS to the MCM Avengers. If the Avenger acquires a mine via sonar, it can do a run to detonate the mine. With an LCS using unmanned systems, the LCS sends out the drone, gathers the data, analyzes it, and if questionable, sends out the drone again, do a different pattern to gather more data and then analyzes it again, and then send out a system to neutralize the mine. So, for an Avenger that can detect and destroy a mine in four hours, it might take the LCS an entire day and that is because the LCS cannot do a single sortie to detect and engage and relies on unmanned systems.” (1)
Let’s repeat … Combat clearance is all about speed.
Speed can be achieved via individual speed from a single platform, cumulative speed by using a lot of platforms, or a combination of both. The worst situation would be what the Navy currently has which is neither individual platform speed nor numbers of platforms.
The Navy currently has 8 active Avenger class MCM. There are no LCS with functional MCM modules and only 6 LCS – 3 on each coast – are designated as future deployable MCM vessels. The Navy has discussed various MCM module procurement plans but it is unclear where any additional modules beyond the designated 6 would go. Regardless, it leaves the MCM numbers woefully short of any useful speed and capacity.
In previous posts and comments, I’ve analyzed the LCS clearance process and estimated the LCS can clear one mine per hour. Based on Lt. Sumanga’s comment, that estimate may be wildly optimistic.
In combat mine clearance, speed is everything and we have nothing.
_____________________________________
(1)Naval News website, “Update on the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Program”, Peter Ong, 4-Feb-2021,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/02/update-on-the-u-s-navys-littoral-combat-ship-program/
This is just sad.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that instead of minesweeping which has risk they want to do MCM with very low risk but also far too slow.
Looking at how minesweeping was done back in WW2 through the 1960's
Sweeping proper, with an underwater cable cutting the mooring cables of moored mines. The mines then come to the surface and are destroyed by gunfire.
Acoustic sweeping, with a towed device producing noise to trigger acoustic mines.
Magnetic sweeping, with a towed device producing a magnetic field to trigger magnetic mines.
As well as the use of Paravane's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paravane_(weapon)
The USN needs small cheap minesweepers in numbers doing all of the above to reduce the risk of mines. It may not be 100% but spending a day per mine is not just unacceptably slow but also increases the risk from other forms of attack.
"but also increases the risk from other forms of attack."
DeleteThat's the key recognition. Waiting around for mine clearance exposes the host MCM ship and the rest of the ships that are trying to pass through to huge risk. In naval combat, if you stay in one place, you sink.
The navy worked the ship as the problem and that is where the money went. The money should have been spent on the mission gear with KPI and Conops on the gear, not the ship. The ship just needed to be able to defend itself, self deploy, move faster than the current MCM ship. One could even debate organic aviation.
ReplyDeleteA big problem with MCM is the constant desire for perfection. Attempted perfection takes time as the article points out. MCM perfection has always been impossible because there is not infinite time nor can we afford perfect MCM systems. And as technology has gotten better, the mines have gotten even more difficult to defeat. We have to be able to accept losses. Remember Admiral Farragut at Mobile - Damn the Torpedoes (mines), full speed ahead. Crank down the required probability of detection as a function of time as CNO points out.
ReplyDelete"We have to be able to accept losses."
DeleteAnd you've cut to the heart of the problem. We're building nothing but several billion+ dollar ships that we can't afford to risk either in terms of cost or replacement time. We've priced ourselves out of naval combat which is, inherently, risky. We need to return to smaller, cheaper, single function ships … as I keep harping on!
Today, it's, "Damn those mines. 180 degrees about."
A modern-day Admiral Farragut would be fired for foul language and non-PC attitudes.
DeleteThe U.S. Navy, Inc. mindset is a big problem.
That's a national problem, just not the navy. We've taken a need to adapt and taken so far it empowers those who only advance by creating chaos. As with all things the pendulum will swing as nature continues its pursuit of balance.
DeleteI know the industry prefers these fancy UUV and other robots to do the job BUT spending 1 entire day to get rid of a few mines at best just makes no sense from a military point of view....maybe for some weird scenario it works BUT for true war scenario you not going to waste your time IDing, checking, IDing again, think about it, take a 10 minute smoke break, ID it again, ask for permission to destroy it, take another hour before that happens....we need something far faster and if we blow something up that wasn't supposed to be blown up.....they shouldn't have been there!!!
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental LCS MCM concept is so slow that it should have been eliminated from consideration when it was still a back-of-the-napkin drawing. Why the Navy can't see this magnitude of uselessness at the start of a program is beyond me.
DeleteHere in Australia we are making the same mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThey once had 6 minesweepers (insufficient for a 34000 km coastline).
Now there's only 4 operational with 2 withdrawn.
Those 4 will be replaced with a measly 2 MCMs in the future.
All the nuke subs in the world aren't going to help if they're hitting mines!
I wonder if it would make sense to take some old, retired ships of the right size, fill them with foam, and run them through the minefield first? They'd probably match the magnetic and pressure signature of our actual ships, and I would imagine it ought to be possible to match the acoustic signature by broadcasting pre-recorded sound into the ocean. We might even do this with aircraft carriers. Rather than scrap Kitty Hawk, John F. Kennedy, and even Enterprise (now that the reactors have been removed), maybe get some use out of them for mine warfare.
ReplyDeleteI believe something vaguely similar to this was tried out during Vietnam. Anyone know how it turned out?
We had the MSS-1 ("Mississippi One") that was an old merchant ship that we did that with. It was the only way to sweep pressure mines.
DeleteMaybe you have come up with a use for the Fords.
Can you tell me how the MSS-1 experiment turned out? Or is it classified? If it worked, why haven't we done any more of it? Not high tech enough? :-)
DeleteAs far as I recall, it was pretty effective. It had a small crew in a deckhouse mounted on shock absorbers, and the engineering plant consisted of five diesels mounted on the main deck with five outboard propeller arrangements, "the world's largest outboard." IIRC it was pretty slow, with a max speed around 3 knots. But I think it was at least effective enough to prove a concept.
DeleteShock tests were performed on the vessel but I can find no record of MSS-1 (Harry Glucksman, a converted liberty ship) ever detonating a mine.
DeleteApparently, a second such ship, the Washtenaw County, MSS-2, was converted from an LST but was retired shortly after and does not appear to have served as a minesweeper or, if it did, it was for a very short period. Again, I can find no record of a detonated mine.
The MSS-1 never detonated a live mine to my knowledge. It did detonate drill mines. It had the ability to create acoustic and magnetic signatures with onboard noisemakers and magnetic current loops.
DeleteOne problem with the MSS-1 was speed. IIRC it was capable of only about 3 knots. Given the way it was just a jury-rigged adaptation for trial purposes, that could probably be addressed pretty easily in a purpose-built version.
DeleteI wonder if perhaps the situation might not be QUITE as bad as it looks (although still bad). Could it be that the various separate processes that have to happen (scan, analysis, destroy, etc) could be done as BATCH processes? BY which I mean, perhaps the pre-analysis phase could identify a bunch of mines, not just one. And then a bunch could be destroyed (not just one)? Kind of in parallel? Obviously each destruction would require a separate "torpedo", or whatever is used.
ReplyDelete"perhaps the pre-analysis phase could identify a bunch of mines, not just one. And then a bunch could be destroyed (not just one)?"
DeleteThis is exactly how the process works. The 'scanning' UUV/sonar executes a search pattern, stores the data, returns to the host ship, and uploads the data for analysis. A second pass occurs to resolve questionable detections. Finally, the neutralization process begins but, unfortunately, only four mines can be neutralized by the helo before it has to return to the host ship for reloading of the neutralizers.
So, yes, it's a batch process to an extent but it still includes some very time consuming steps. The dual pass scan/search, in particular, is illogical and should not have made it into production. Similarly, the 4-neutralizer helo limit is equally baffling.
See "Airborne Mine Neutralization System" for a description of some of the process.
The thought that crossed my mind when I read this was that we need a naval version of the mine-clearing line charge. Something that can rapidly brute force blast a lane.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if a beefed up version of the Russian RBU-6000 could do it, or a ship set up like the USS Carronade with a deck full of something like the Mk105 rocket launchers. Warheads could be built for pressure, magnetic or timed detonation. Saturate the area with warheads.
A side benefit of such a ship would be shore bombardment with mass quantities of old fashioned dumb HE rockets.
The challenge is the medium. On land, air doesn't do much to impede the shockwave, so it can travel far and clear a lane. Underwater, water pressure will compress the blast wave and localise its effect. You'd basically need to be dropping mortars right on the mines, you can't just rely on the shockwave tossing them about and setting them off.
DeleteYou're going to need a lot more boom to do explosive clearing of naval mines.
The Russians have apparently developed an active warhead for the RBU-6000 for ASW and anti-torpedo use.
Delete@MAT.Agree, what we really need is a down and dirty,fast demining system that goes for volume! Some kind of underwater Iron dome or Active seeker guided RBU, pretty cheap, doenst need to move at 50 knots an hour, maybe 5 to 10 knots, expendable and not worry too much about collateral damage, if you kill a whale or waste it on some floating debris, very sorry for the whale and oh well, you wasted some debris BUT you didn't waste YOUR FREAKING ENTIRE DAY!!! Have no clue what should be the rate of clearing but what ever it is today is by far insufficient. If we can "clear" 5 mines a day with LCS, it should be in the order of 50 a day with a unmanned volume killer.
Delete"Have no clue what should be the rate of clearing"
DeleteWell, consider this: China (and NK and Russia and Iran) have mine inventories of tens to hundreds of thousands of mines. If you were China and wanted to mine an area, how many would you use? The number 'thousands' comes to mind! So even clearing 50 per day is pointless.
If you're not familiar with it, check out WWI and WWII mine warfare history on Wiki. Minefields were laid in the many thousands at a time/area. Again, that should suggest what kind of clearance rate is needed.
Now, depending on what you're trying to do (passage, amphib assault, etc.) you may not need to clear the entire field but, at the very least, you'll need to clear large passages/lanes. That suggests the ability to clear multiple hundreds of mines per hour, at least.
Our LCS handful of mines cleared per day is simply pointless. On top of that, with the imminent retirement of the helos and Avengers, we've only got 6 official MCM-LCS although we'll eventually have a few extra MCM modules that could be used. That's our entire MCM force: 6+ LCS each of which can clear a handful of mines per day.
Is this painting a picture for you?
Mine sweeping is a very difficult task. German didn't lay lots of mines around Normandy as they made wrong judgement of allies' landing place. I read articles on this and said if German had laid mines in "right" place, then, ... you know. US did very successful mine warfare during WWII, especially against Japan. However, mines had laid during WWII haunted us for decades after WWII as navies unable to sweep them away. Even during the 90-91 Gulf War, LHA USS Tripoli and Ticonderoga USS Princeton were hit and damaged by Iraqi mines. Rare story of success mine sweep action was during the Vietnam War but was against the nation's interest:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine.htm
Today, nations are making "smart" mines which are even more difficult to sweep. Smart mine is an important topic but many naval experts don't want to talk them. Worse, they are so called - "poor men's nuke".
During the cold war, the US was supposedly developing a submunition that would drift down on parachutes and be attracted to tanks by magnetism, land on the tanks, and blow through the thin top armor of the tanks.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that ever got beyond the drawing board, but could it work for mine clearing?
In an area with mines, drop the bomblets and let them guide to metal objects. When they contact the object a shaped charge blasts into it.
Could the seekers detect mines?
Could the guidance overcome currents?
Would there be enough bomblets to destroy the mines?
Would the shape charge be powerful enough?
Is this too crazy?
Just an idea.
Lutefisk
Mines not only a threat to surface ships, the Type VIIC U480 the first stealth sub, coated with rubber, successful operational history until it hit a mine.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia
"On its first patrol, the boat was attacked by a Canadian PBY Catalina flying boat of 162 Squadron RCAF, piloted by Laurance Sherman. The aircraft was shot down.
On the second patrol, Förster departed from Brest in occupied France on 3 August 1944, and sank two warships and two merchantmen:
• the Canadian Flower-class corvette HMCS Alberni (925 tons) on 21 August
• the British Algerine-class minesweeper HMS Loyalty (850 tons) on 22 August
• the Fort Yale (7,134 GRT), sailing in convoy ETC-72, on 23 August
• the Orminister (5,712 GRT) on 25 August"
Final mission January 1945 sent to the English Channel, rich in targets, as a stealth sub it would be unlikely to be detected by the sonars of the time on the no doubt hundreds of allied frigates/destroyers operating as escorts to the convoys supporting the invasion, never returned "established that it had fallen victim to the secret minefield 'Brazier D2' off the south coast of England some time between 29 January and 20 February. A mine had damaged the stern of U-480, sending it to the bottom 55 metres (180 ft) down. The entire crew of 48 was lost."
Minehunting in a military operation context is extremely hard. As CNO points out if you take too long the enemy knows you are doing something. If you are on the surface they really know you are there getting ready. UUVs although not very detectable have to blast away with sonar to search. Well that will give the operation away. And if you solve the problem of putting deployable explosives on an expensive search UUV, you still have to get them placed close enough to detonate the mine. Furthermore putting intelligence in a mine is cheap and underwater Acoustic Communications allow for remote control. So a Mine that is not turned on until after your ships transit (and make it look like the path is clear) can be turned on. The same receiver can hear your UUV sonar and can either go quiet or detonate destroying a million dollar UUV. It is becoming like trying to defeat a machine gun. You don't fight the bullets. You attack the "system" with fire suppression, maneuver, and take acceptable losses. No US ship was lost to any mines in the Persian Gulf, we might be able to learn from that.
ReplyDelete"You attack the "system"
DeleteI like where you're going. How would you attack the system?
If you're Australia you buy US SSNs that can operate far from your coast, you operate them in the choke points between you and the ChiComs before war breaks out, and you sink the Chinese "fishing boats" that stray past the 9-dash line before you find out if they traded their nets for mines for a pay raise.
DeleteIf you're the U.S. then it goes pretty similarly but you build the subs.
As for assaulting an enemy's coastal waters... Yeah that's tough... But the discussion about Normandy coupled with the Marines' current doctrine suggest it could (and maybe should) be a moot point.
Attacking a system of smart mines is a lot like attacking any land or sea based command. You can attack the ACOMMs communications by jamming or spoofing or even hacking into the network. You can deceive the sensors with a sonar that is not really searching. Lastly you can go for the command node controlling the mines. If all of these smarts are in the mines there is probably a command node to control them.
DeleteFor the "dumb" mines within the "system" the acoustic, and magnetic influencers allow "quick" sweeping. Lastly for old style moored contact mines, we need a sweep cable system.
That is how I would tackle this problem.
"Apparently, the reporter here …"
ReplyDeleteI've deleted your comments because they're mostly just repeating the post. If you have some new perspective or information, feel free to post a comment.