I keep getting calls from commenters for ‘warships’ to be disguised as civilian ships and hide in plain sight, lost among the throngs of commercial shipping. These unidentifiable ships will rain destruction on the enemy who will have no clue where and what the disguised ships are. Hey, does this sound a lot like the Marine’s idiotic notion of small, hidden, missile-shooting units raining destruction on the hapless enemy who cannot find them? But, I digress …
I didn’t want to do this post because, frankly, the concept is so obviously bereft of intelligence as to be a worthless exercise. Unfortunately, this ridiculous notion has gotten so prevalent that I’m forced to do a post and lay this idiotic idea to rest, once and for all.
Let’s start with the obvious. In a war, there won’t be any commercial shipping anywhere near a war zone. Commercial ships will avoid war zones like the plague because they know they’ll be sunk on sight. Both sides will assume that any unidentified ship belongs to, or is aiding, the enemy and they’ll sink it without a second thought.
I mean, think about it. If you’re the owner of a commercial ship are you going to sail your ship through the middle of a war zone infested with mines, submarines, trigger happy missile-shooters, etc.? Of course not!
So, since there won’t be any commercial traffic anywhere near a war zone, what’s the point of trying to disguise a warship as a commercial ship? If it stayed in commercial shipping lanes, it wouldn’t be anywhere near a war zone where it could do any good and, if it did venture into a war zone, it would be conspicuous for being the only supposed commercial vessel in the area and would be automatically assumed to be a disguised enemy ship and sunk on sight.
All right, let’s talk about the fabled Q-ships so many people are enamored with. As a reminder, Q-ships were designed to combat submarines which, at that time, generally came to the surface, at some point, during attacks. Today, submarines never surface during an attack so Q-ships are useless in that role.
Q-ships have been occasionally used against merchant ships but the overall record is almost utterly ineffective and any losses inflicted are utterly insignificant.
Modern satellites and other surveillance and tracking will very quickly detect a Q-ship and modern, long range weapons will quickly sink it. We have computerized tracking of all civilian shipping (and naval ships that opt to signal their location). No Q-ship will stay hidden. The Q-ship will be the one who turned off their transponder. If they leave it on, they’ll be sunk. If they turn it off, they’ll be sunk. Same result, regardless.
I feel like I’m writing a post about the foolishness of trying to cross a crowded highway blindfolded. Is it really necessary to construct an argument against it or is it just so incredibly obvious that it’s a bad idea that it’s a waste of time to even discuss it?
I don’t want to discuss this again.
Add to that the fact that no insurer will want to cover a commercial vessel who plans to sail near a war zone, just see how difficult it was to get agreement to move grain out of Ukraine ...
ReplyDeleteAnd yet it is happening
DeleteGrain ships are there ONLY because Ukraine and Russia have agreed to allow them.
DeleteNot mention the many instances of commercial shipping hitting mines or being hit by missiles continously throughout this war when every the stray to close the contested areas... despite one side not having a navy.
DeleteObviously the Chinese are (probably) not going to try to use a commercial container ship as a warship, although who knows? Maybe they will try something like that, and have it fly a neutral flag.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese fishing fleet is something else again. The Chinese don’t have to ‘disguise’ a fishing boat as a warship, they just have to add a couple of PLAN or Coastguard to the crew, and give them each a few MANPADS - absolutely nothing to lose.
And they’re obviously not going to keep their fishing fleet in port but rather send every one of the hundreds of thousands of boats they’ve got to sea - what are we going to about it? Sink them all?
You need to be a bit more open minded about these matters, and not be so heavy on the sarcasm and belittling of those who disagree with you.
The original point that led to this post was the proposition that China could arm (or sensor) fishing vessels and use them against US naval forces and we would be helpless to prevent it because we wouldn't know whether they were enemy, friendly, or neutral. That's a ridiculous notion. Any vessel that is close enough to constitute a weapon or sensor threat will be destroyed out of hand.
DeleteLegitimate Chinese fishing vessels, while not a priority target on day one, will be destroyed eventually as part of a program to 'starve' the enemy of raw materials, fuel, oil, food, etc. just as every warring country has attempted to do throughout history.
"You need to be a bit more open minded about these matters"
I'm open minded about things that are debatable. This is not one of those things. Destroying enemy - or unidentified vessels is a simple statement of fact supported by logic and history. One does not strive to be open minded about foolishness.
"The Chinese fishing fleet is something else again. The Chinese don’t have to ‘disguise’ a fishing boat as a warship, they just have to add a couple of PLAN or Coastguard to the crew, and give them each a few MANPADS - absolutely nothing to lose."
DeleteMANPADS are expensive, and may be in short supply, as we see NOW, with Raytheon having difficulty manufacturing enough FIM-92 Stingers to replace those donated to Ukraine. Why would the Chinese military issue their Stinger analogues to fishing boats, when their Army and Naval Infantry units will need them more?
And even if China has MANPADS to spare, what makes you think they'll do any good on a fishing boats? An antitank missile- like the AGM-114 Hellfire the USN fits to its MH-60S Knighthawk helicopters- usually outranges a MANPADS. Add to the fact a naval helicopter's sensors will also outrange a MANPADS operator's eyes, unless the latter's fishing boat is equipped with radar and/or infrared sensors that'll practically be a red flag to signal, "I'm a military vessel! Go ahead and shoot me!" to any competent naval officer...
So many people seem to think that hordes of Chinese fishing vessels will be sailing into and through US naval groups. Nothing could be further from the truth. US warships will go nowhere near Chinese fishing vessels which will operate mainly inside the E/S China Seas for protection. Any that venture out further than that will be presumed a threat and sunk out of hand.
DeletePeople need to apply a little logic and think this through.
What is the opposite of a Q-Ship, meaning a ship that looks
ReplyDeletelike a warship but isn't?
Seems we have a lot of those.
:)
DeleteThat would be the LSC.
Delete"What is the opposite of a Q-Ship"
DeleteOkay, that's pretty good. I'm chuckling over that one!
"That would be the LSC."
DeleteThe LSC is the Large Surface Combatant, which is supposed to replace the Arleigh Burke class DDGs. Is this a criticism of the program, or did you confuse the acronym for that of the LCS, Littoral Combat Ship?
That was a typo, but considering the Navy's track record...
Delete"Modern satellites and other surveillance and tracking will very quickly detect a Q-ship and modern, long range weapons will quickly sink it".
ReplyDeleteThank God modern satellites and other surveillance and tracking cannot quickly detect an aircraft carrier, otherwise, long range weapons would quickly sink it.
Valid commercial shipping uses the Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) system, among other transponders and reporting systems and normal shipping lanes are monitored. Warships don't, generally, participate in automated tracking and don't sail in commercial traffic lanes during war. Of course, you know that.
DeleteQ-ships also also unintentionally resulted in more dead merchant marines in WW1. At the beginning of the war, German submarines would often attack on the surface with their deck gun, giving the merchant crews chance to abandon ship. The Q-ships ended that very short chivalrous period of submarine warfare by attacking surfaced German subs.
ReplyDeleteSo Q-ships in a Grey Zone conflict but not a declared war? The Chinese try restricting trade with a form of blockade of Taiwan. Chinese Coast Guard ships fire warning shots on a Q-ship that was bringing cargo to Taiwan. The Q-ship to the Chinese's surprise return fire severely damaging the Chinese ship. Result; one Q-ship gets into port, but the Chinese will now justify their flat out attacking any non-Chinese flagged merchant ships. Q-ships now have lost any advantage.
The ONLY ways Q-ships have any use is in covert operations--where they really won't be shooting just inserting Seals--and for counter-piracy operations. And even for counter-piracy, we are only talking hidden .50 cals, not 5" guns.
I dunno, hiding in plain sight works for my wallet or car keys.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to say that doesn't directly translate to a several thousand ton warship?
Lutefisk
Agreed there will be no hiding, but there will be commercial ships nearby to start and potentially through the conflict. Exactly as it is in the current Ukraine war.
ReplyDeleteThe Ukraine-Russia war is a very limited conflict as opposed to a global war which is what a China-West war would be. Even in the context of the Uk-Ru war, there are only a very few commercial ships which are, mainly, dealing with grain shipments and are allowed by a Uk-Rus agreement.
DeleteI keep telling people not to try to draw conclusions from the Uk-Rus war because it is so atypical of what peer war with China would be.
If China wants t fight out of East Asia its going to be all gray zone. Cyber, little green and blue men. Intelligence assets not in uniform.
Delete"I keep getting calls from commenters for ‘warships’ to be disguised as civilian ships and hide in plain sight, lost among the throngs of commercial shipping."
ReplyDeleteBet you a hundred bucks they'd collide with a real commercial ship within a week.
Considering the state of USN recruitment, manning, and training- particularly in damage control, as seen with the Bonhomme Richard burning down IN PORT? That's a sucker's bet.
DeleteBonnie Dick loss was the result of complete and utter failure at all levels of leadership. From the OOD, to the Fire Marshall, to the Captain of the ship to the Admiral. Every single level of leadership failed.
DeleteIn a protracted conflict, I'd assume the US will declare exclusion zones around China, and shut off inbound trade, but oil most specifically. I did some quickie reading, and depending on the amount of military activity, and measures like rationing fuel, an oil blockade could take months to years to have a serious effect. With China being the massive economy it is, Id think taking voyages to/from China off the itinerary would hurt many ship owners. Im wondering if companies might try to continue?
ReplyDeleteAlso wondering if companies like Lloyds would upcharge or cancel insurance, if crews would refuse or quit, or if China might pay extra for shippers to take the risk?? Not disputing that most shipping would dry up, but just wondering about the mechanics/economics of it happening. The scenario seems much different from WWII where merchant fleets were flagged to the combatant countries of US/UK, and took the risks of the Atlantic crossing out of contract, govt pay, (i imagine there were some that did, not because of specific mandate, but out of sense of duty or patriotism, although Id imagine the voyages were well compensated).
"took the risks of the Atlantic crossing"
DeleteNo, they didn't. At least, not as commercial ships. They were sailing as 'conscripted' wartime logistics support ships. That's a world different from pure commercial shipping.
Straightforward commercial shipping took place along the US coasts and other locations well away from high risk war zones. It did not take place, to any appreciable extent, in war zones such as the Atlantic crossings to England and Russia.
"In a protracted conflict, I'd assume the US will declare exclusion zones around China, and shut off inbound trade, but oil most specifically."
DeleteDon't forget, China is a continental nation, with many overland trade routes, including oil pipelines to Russia. A naval blockade will do NOTHING on its own; it must be linked to other military and diplomatic efforts, e.g., convincing Russia to shutoff the oil pipelines from their end, or having B-21 stealth bombers attack the pipelines if Russia refuses, to work.
China is nearing completion of two major Russian-Chinese natural gas pipelines. China seems to clearly recognize its raw material vulnerabilities and is working diligently to mitigate them. We, on the other hand, seem to be exacerbating our vulnerabilities.
Delete"it must be linked to other military and diplomatic efforts, e.g., convincing Russia to shutoff the oil pipelines from their end"
DeleteWhich is why the attitude towards Russia is something America might pay a major price for, if a peer war with China happens (I do not believe it will anytime soon.)
When the Soviet Union fell, we had an opportunity to befriend Russia and establish fair trading relations with them. They might not have become our best buddies but they didn't have to become bitter enemies again. We blew that opportunity.
DeleteEven now, I'd attempt to negotiate with Russia to get them to leave Ukraine in exchange for trade arrangements and, perhaps, the US exiting NATO. With a little creative thought, there has to be areas we can collaborate on.
"the US exiting NATO"
DeleteBrilliant out-of-the-box thinking.
It could also be suggested that Russia can sell all the gas she wants to the EU and other US allies again as long as they stop selling it to China, even though it'd be a long shot.
We didn't need to make Russia an enemy and, even now, we could salvage a relationship although it would be much harder and take longer since we've screwed it up so badly.
DeleteThe goal is to make Russia a friend although, realistically, I'd settle for 'not enemy' so when we go to war with China, Russia doesn't automatically jump into it on China's side. If we could get to the point where Russia remains neutral (and maybe shuts down oil/gas pipelines to China?), that would be a major diplomatic win.
We talk about deterrence a lot but think about what it would mean to China if they knew Russia wasn't going to help them and might even hinder them. That might give China pause as they consider when to start their war with the US.
"..China is a continental nation, with many overland trade routes, including oil..."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but a rather in-depth, detailed paper on the subject of an oil-specific blocade I read recently (ill try to find link) shows that it COULD have significant (but admittedly not crippling for some time) effects, depending on the steps the CCP did or didnt take, such as rationing. But for any relatively quick effects to happen, yes, the pipelines from Russia, as well as transfer stations in other nations would have to be shut down...
The conventional war with China would be, as Commander Eddinton said in the book (and movie In Harms Way) "Old Rock of Ages, we've got ourselves another war. A gut bustin', mother-lovin' Navy war." But it has been almost eighty years since our last major Navy war, and it seems the memory of what that means has become lost on most. Perhaps insurgency wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, with the "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." (Mao Zedong) is clouding peoples thoughts on war... especially Naval war.
DeleteOur two biggest global rivals, the PRC and the Russian Federation, the PRC in particular: use of nontraditional forces and methods to pursue security objectives without triggering armed conflict—are unavoidable in military professional literature. This is particularly true for commentary about Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
ReplyDeleteThese states’ embrace of gray-zone operations is unsurprising since such operations are an attractive means for relatively disadvantaged powers to challenge a stronger rival like the United States. Among the most important of China’s gray-zone forces and actors is its maritime militia. In addition, China’s overtly civilian distant-water fishing (DWF) fleets, which are affiliated to varying degrees with Chinese government agencies, have been subject to growing international scrutiny. Vessels in both groups help China rewrite the rules of freedom of navigation, buttress its maritime claims, secure vital resources, and extend its economic reach across the globe. In the coming years, U.S. Department of Defense civilians and military personnel throughout the joint force will encounter these nontraditional maritime forces engaged in a variety of operations across several geographic combatant commands."
Of the 3.1 million fishing vessels in Asia, the PRC operates 864,000 of them.
I think the PRC took a page out of the former Soviet Union, which used trawlers as AGI's (Auxiliary General Intelligence) ships. The PRC's fishing fleet is responsible for about 90% of the global IUU ( Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) Fishing. The Chinese Maritime Militia: By “defending” China’s maritime claims from foreign interference, the PRC leverages its maritime militia in support of policies that form the core of a grand strategy of “rejuvenation” and also comprise the basis for the CCP’s domestic legitimacy. At the same time, as previously suggested, the maritime militia is among the least-funded, least-organized, and often least-professional of the forces that could be employed for these purposes. The same factors that make the maritime militia a deniable force (its civilian crews and dual-use technology) also raise the risk of accidents and escalations. This is a toxic mix: due to the maritime militia’s deniability and the core interests at stake, the PRC has a high incentive to employ it, but the more frequent its operations, the greater the likelihood of interactions with U.S. vessels that could spin out of control.
I think what needs to happen is that United States and the PRC need to enact an incidents at sea agreement similar to what the U.S. and the USSR agreed to in 1972 (Incidents At Sea).
This risk of an incident at sea with the PRC escalating into something more intense is not going to be just limited to the Indo-Pacific but in the Arctic as the sea ice melts and more sea opens up for maritime traffic.
I think fishing will be the cause of the next at sea conflict. Whether it is the Cod Wars over fishing rights in the North Atlantic between the UK and Iceland, or the PRC with Vietnam and the Philippines fishing clashes.
Its a bit long-winded but I believe most of what I posted here is relevant.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4791.htm
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2021/Panter-Maritime-Militia/
Submarines are better for this function.
ReplyDelete"Both sides will assume that any unidentified ship belongs to, or is aiding, the enemy and they’ll sink it without a second thought."
ReplyDeleteThere's an obverse to this that nobody talks about - using contracted merchant shipping as decoy warships to deceive the enemy as to fleet movements and intentions. From orbit, a tanker looks a lot like a carrier. On long range MPA radar, a container ship and a warship are both blips on a screen.
It's ruthless and doesn't make for good PR, but it's something to consider in a total war scenario.
The only possible use I can see for this concept is as an initial alpha strike in the opening stages of a conflict. Use container ships or some sort of mini arsenal ship to strike airfields, refineries, etc. The issue of course is managing to do this without the potential enemy knowing you have loaded weapons containers on a civilian ship which is hard to do. If you could do it the payoff would be big.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that the concept has no real value.
Wars don't just spontaneously happen. There's ALWAYS a protracted run up to war during which accusations and threats are traded, forces are built up and positioned, and war warnings are issued. During such a period, both sides would be keeping a close eye on the other's preparations. If, for example, with war seeming inevitable, we saw Chinese merchant ships being loaded with unknown containers and positioning themselves in likely firing locations, we'd presumable take action. Of course, we had plenty of warning about Pearl Harbor and did nothing effective so ...
Deletethis is why the Marines cannot have their tiny transports, because they will be sunk second one. Use a real warship or one that can fight or at least be fast as hell to move them out of harm's way prior to the pain.
ReplyDelete