ComNavOps has pointed out the West’s tendency toward
individual, one-at-a-time mine hunting and neutralization and how utterly
impractical this would be in combat.
There’s no getting around the fact that large scale, large area, short
time frame mine clearance can only be accomplished by some type of sweeping
operation – the exact opposite of what the West is doing. There is, however, one example of a
minesweeping technology that is moving along the right path and that is the ThyssenKrupp
Marine Systems SAM3 unmanned minesweeping vessel. The vessel is described in a sales brochure
(1) as a small catamaran design ‘sled’ (I would describe it as a pontoon style
craft) that is remotely operated. The
sweep units are capable of being operated in tandem to simulate larger target
signals (like carriers or large commercial cargo/tankers?).
 |
| SAM 3 Minesweeper |
Specifications[2]:
Length 14.4
m
Beam 6.7 m
Draught 1.2 m
Displacement 14 tons
Speed, transit 10 knots
Sweep Speed 8 knots
Power Diesel 2x140 KW
Sweep Depth 3-60 m
Note that the sweep speed is a very low 8 kts. This is not going to clear large areas in a
short time unless many, many units are used simultaneously and it is unknown
whether this is even possible from a signal interference and command/control
perspective. A sales brochure claims
that four sweeper units can be operated together. Whether multiple groups of four can be
operated in the same general area is unknown.
The main feature of the unit is that the sweep signal is
programmable with “magnitude and shape
tuning of both magnetic and acoustic signatures”[1], making this a ‘smart’
sweeper which allows effects such as[1]:
It is this output signal manipulation capability that is the
key. Modern smart mines use a combination
of input signals to determine triggering and we have to have sweeps that can
simulate realistic, multi-aspect output signals in order to trigger a
mine. To the best of my knowledge, the
LCS unmanned influence sweep system (UISS) does not use dynamically
programmable signals and, if true, this will prove to be a major failure in
real world operations.
ComNavOps has also expressed doubt that current minesweeping
technology is capable of clearing (meaning triggering) modern mines which can
use a variety of magnetic, seismic, pressure, and electrical signatures to
distinguish real targets from sweep signals.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been very little research done on
modern sweeping and even less interest shown by the US Navy. This ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems minesweeping
unit would appear to be one of the few examples of ‘smart’ sweeping
technology. Of course, how well it works
is unknown.
I’m unaware of any minesweeping test, in modern times, that
has actually tested sweeping technology against real mines (remove the
explosive and just see if the mines were triggered or not), deployed in real
conditions.
The lack of real world testing should be extremely
worrisome. Combine this with the Navy’s
near absence of any functioning mine clearance assets (the MH-53E helos are
decades past scheduled retirement and only a handful are even flight worthy let
alone mission capable and the Avenger class minesweepers are long overdue for
retirement and most are not capable of sailing) and we have a major
vulnerability that can cripple and paralyze fleet operations.
______________________________
Beam 6.7 m
Draught 1.2 m
Displacement 14 tons
Speed, transit 10 knots
Sweep Speed 8 knots
Power Diesel 2x140 KW
Sweep Depth 3-60 m
- Correct signal levels, variation and duration for a specific target vessel type, size and speed
- Synchronization of magnetic and acoustic signature output
- “Ripple” effect for degaussing simulation
- Simulation of multiple passes for mines with ship-counting device
The German Navy operates the Seehund Class remotely operated Minesweeping Boats since 1980, they are specialised in defeating magnetic and acoustic mines. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seehund-Klasse (page available only in German but easily translated).
ReplyDeleteI can find no documentation of them being updated from their original 1980's era sweep technology (essentially WWII technology) and, if that's the case, would likely be ineffective against modern smart mines.
DeleteThe Seehund class uses a magnetic emitter in the hull to activate magnetic mikes while it has a towed acoustic emitter to activate acoustic mines. While not exactly the most modern systems around the proposed SAM3 system is not that different in capability, bbuut in the end it's capabilities are higher than most systems proposed today.
ReplyDelete"magnetic emitter in the hull to activate magnetic mikes while it has a towed acoustic emitter to activate acoustic mines."
DeleteThe point of the post was that old, single signal, one frequency emitters are not going to fool/trigger modern smart mines. The reason I featured the SAM 3 was because of its variable, programmable signal that can be altered to mimic the trigger signal of a given mine. Amplitude and wavelength can be dynamically altered. I'm unaware that the Seehund has this capability. Similarly, I've seen nothing to indicate that the US UISS sweep has this capability although I desperately hope it does.
I will admit the lack of mine-clearing capacity concerns me greatly. With such a glaring vulnerability, I am concerned that there might be a vast temptation for China to pull a Pearl Harbour 2024 by starting the ball rolling by dropping 2000 (or more) mines off San Diego from one or some of the many many cargo ships they control. Escalation through vulnerability.
ReplyDeleteIts so easy and low cost to do it too. Plus, could China do it to San Diego, LA, San Francisco and Seattle at the same time?....no immediate casualties and how long can they just deny it? With today climate of conspiracy theories and always people yelling "false flag", I doubt you could get a majority of Americans to belive China did it, with enough PR in advance and what not on social media to drive a wedge, you could create quite a lot of disbelief, how many Americans would believe the US gvt did it?!?!?
DeleteAbsolutely!!! Then, thow a few in around Yokosuka to keep the Reagan and its group bottled up, and before the USN can manage to sail again, Taiwan will already be holding new elections under PLA supervision...
Delete
DeleteJapan has 20 sweeps which would presumably be available to clear any such minefield fairly quickly, but the concern is still a valid one.
Just dump the mines off any old commercial ship in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and outside Kings Bay. It would probably only take 3 or 4 mines in or around the channel at 1SD to bottle up the ships in San Diego, ditto Hawaii and PACNW. We don't have the capability to find them, sweep them or neutralize them and our existing ships are too 'precious' to risk against a 200 year old weapon system.
DeleteMy proposed mine countermeasures force would consist of two types of ships--a minesweeper mother ship with drone and helo sweeps, and a minehunter/destroyer.
ReplyDeleteThe sweep mother ship would look like an LSD/LPD, smaller because there is no need for troop berthing or troop equipment spaces. The well deck would carry 4 Seehund or SAM3 or similar drones and 3-4 helo sweep sleds. The flight deck would carry 3-4 minesweeping helos, the successors to the MH-53s. The ship could launch and recover the drones, helos, and helo sweep sleds. The sweep mother ship would also carry 500-1000 of ComNavOps's mine destroyer torpedoes that I have called "wild walrus." You launch one down a channel with navigation data input. The first thing it sees on sonar that looks like it could be a mine, it goes over to it and blows up, destroying the mine or whatever. It doesn't care what it is, it destroys it, instead of the time-consuming classification process. Next one destroys the next mine-like object, and so forth. Has to be some mechanism to keep them from all going after the same object..
The hunter/destroyer could be an upgrade of existing hunters, or could be based on the current Dutch/Belgian hunters under construction. In addition to their hunt capability, they would also carry a few hundred wild walruses.
I would have 15 such two-ship divisions, deployed tentatively to Guam, Pearl, Puget Sound, San Francisco, LAX/San Diego, Brownsville/Corpus, Houston/Beaumont/Lake Charles, New Orleans/Pascagoula/Mobile/Pensacola, Tampa/St.Petersburg, Miami, Jacksonville/Kings Bay, Savannah/Charleston, Chesapeake Bay, New York, Boston.
The concept would be phase 1 wild weasels, phase 2 sweep with drones and helos until acceptable confidence level is reached, then conduct operation, then phase 3 come in and hunt to 100%.
That would be my basic approach. That would require a far greater commitment to mine warfare than the US Navy has ever shown, but a necessary one in my opinion.
Question regarding the "Wild Walrus".
DeleteWhen you explode a mine, it disturbs the surrounding water. Will that disturbed water affect sonar performance in detecting other mines until the water settles down again? How will that affect the speed of mine clearance?
Here's something to ponder ...
DeleteWe (the West) seem to be focused on one-at-a-time mine clearance more so than sweeping. That's fine for a small area when time is not a concern. However, combat clearance (like the Normandy channels, for example) requires fast, constant forward movement. Do you think the mothership-and-drone/helo approach is capable of that? Drones and helos need continuous returns to the mothership to download drone data, reload helo neutralizers, refuel helos, etc. This doesn't seem conducive to combat-type fast, continuously forward moving mine clearance. I'm wondering whether our entire conceptual approach to mine clearance might be wrong. Perhaps we need to return to small ships that do fast sweeping and abandon helos/drones? I don't have an answer (because I don't know the effectiveness of sweeping against modern mines) but I do have doubts about what we're doing today.
Something to think about.
"I would have 15 such two-ship divisions, deployed tentatively to ..."
DeleteI don't understand this fascination/obsession you have with nice, neat, uniform packages of ships evenly distributed about the world. There are no mines anywhere, at the moment, waiting to be cleared so why distribute minesweepers around the world? That just costs more money to maintain bases and operate the ships. It makes far more sense to keep the ships at one or two home ports, conducting maintenance and heavy training. In combat, we're going to sweep as a large group, not penny-packets of two, so why spend our peacetime distributed, unable to train the way we'd operate. ALL the minecraft should be in one location, working on tactics and procedures and practicing large scale clearance ops under every imaginable condition.
"Will that disturbed water affect sonar performance in detecting other mines until the water settles"
DeleteYes, but unlike radar clutter from an explosion, the effect is localized and brief and, more importantly, unlike aerial explosions, the assets are moving very slowly (as opposed to Mach+ missiles) so they have plenty of time to allow disturbed water to settle.
This exact phenomenon is what occurs when subs use noisemakers to fool a torpedo. The torpedo may be momentarily fooled but the torpedo quickly passes through the disturbed water and reacquires the sub if the sub hasn't managed to slip away. Fortunately, a mine isn't moving and won't slip away!
"I don't understand this fascination/obsession you have with nice, neat, uniform packages of ships evenly distributed about the world."
DeleteI'm not really fascinated. They just have to be somewhere, and I was throwing that out as a possible deployment to be ready to open up key ports if they were mined by an enemy.
I'm really more interested in comments about the concept--in particular the sweep first, hunt last approach--than discussion about where to put them, which I see as a secondary concern. Based on the way mine divisions operated in the 1950s and 1960s, probably the optimum group size is four--two of each. If we wanted to have some capability to clear 15 major domestic ports fairly quickly, we could build 30 of each ship type. They should not be super expensive.
"ALL the minecraft should be in one location, working on tactics and procedures and practicing large scale clearance ops under every imaginable condition."
I am fine with that, although I suppose it should probably be TWO places, one Lant and one Pac. These ships are going to be pretty slow, so moving them over a long distance will be very time-consuming.
"We (the West) seem to be focused on one-at-a-time mine clearance more so than sweeping."
DeleteThat's largely because NATO's primary mine countermeasures forces (except the Italians) are concentrated around the mouths of the Rhine and adjacent English Channel, and are mostly concerned with keeping those areas open for commercial shipping. Military commanders may have to take some risks to keep operations on schedule, but commercial shipowners don't want to do that. So their focus is on complete clearance rather that time.
I like the idea of the "wild walrus"... They don't need to be able to trigger mines all the various ways- just go after anything bobbing around, floating or tethered, and destroy it. Seems like a clever and relatively simple way to do it...
DeleteThe scary mines are the bottom influence mines and they probably need to actually be neutralized because they're damned hard to classify using something like a SQQ-32 and mines even more modern than those used in ODS and OIF are probably just about invisible to sonar. We really enjoyed reading about the Chinese rocket rising mines that could be laid on the bottom in DEEP water.
Delete"I don't understand this fascination/obsession you have with nice, neat, uniform packages of ships evenly distributed about the world."
DeleteIn the case of a mine countermeasures (MCM) force, that is driven somewhat by the number of ports that might be critical to reopen in a hurry. As suggested by someone above, I don't think an enemy would lay a huge minefield around any of our ports, but a few scattered around the sea buoy would be enough to stop us anywhere that didn't have MCM assets. So my thought would be to have at least rudimentary MCM assets around each pert that might need to be cleared. I
f a field is too massive to be cleared by the two ship sweeper-hunter combination, then we would sail units from nearby ports. Given how slow sweeps (or the alternative, loading them on a transporter) are, having them all in one location from which they could be deployed as needed runs a considerable risk of it being a month or two before you could get any mines removed.
As far as training, there's not really much group tactics that sweeps do. It's mostly about putting the sweep gear into and taking it out of the water, and that's basically am individual ship evolution. You could still do a couple of MINEXes annually in each region (Pacific, Gulf, Atlantic), bringing ships from all regional ports together.
You might want to keep a few divisions deployed. Japan has a strong enough mine force that they could probably keep Yokosuka open, but you might want some MCM assets around the south end of the first island chain, in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, in the Med (although Italy might be able to cover that), and in the Baltic.
"As far as training, there's not really much group tactics that sweeps do. ... basically am individual ship evolution."
DeleteNo, no, no! This illustrates my point about having forgotten what war is. You're thinking peacetime, remove a couple of pesky mines. What happens in war when you encounter extensive mining at a chokepoint or amphibious assault location? How many MCM assets do you need? How will they be coordinated? Who will coordinate them? Can we operate many dozens of unmanned MCM assets without signal interference? How do dozens of unmanned assets transit to and from their operating areas without interfering with each other? What do the host platforms do while waiting for their drones to come or go? The enemy isn't going to stand aside and let us sweep their fields. How do we clear under fire? What defensive tactics do we need? What happens when unmanned assets are lost, destroyed, lose comms? What happens when a host platform is lost? Will dozens of sonars operating simultaneously and in relatively close proximity confuse/interfere with each other? How do we refuel dozens of host platforms for an extended period without screwing up the overall operation?
I can go on all day with these kinds of questions. These questions can only be answered by conducting large exercises where the platforms are all tasked to operate together, in the same area, under some kind of overall control. Ask the Vincennes crew how simulation training worked out. As you frequently note, put two Navy ships in the same ocean and there's a good chance they'll collide. How do we train dozens of host platforms to operate in close confines without colliding without actually putting them in a large group exercise?
"individual ship evolution"?????? The farthest thing from it !
You home port your ships, concentrate in one or two locations, and train hard and often. If/when your intel indicates someone may be contemplating mining then, sure, go ahead and move some assets there. Worst case, as you say, if it takes a few weeks to get assets in position then some affected ships have to sit tight for a while, while you respond and, in the meantime, you can fire your intel people for being incompetent.
Individual???? No.
"I don't have an answer (because I don't know the effectiveness of sweeping against modern mines) but I do have doubts about what we're doing today."
ReplyDeleteThe advantage of helo and drone sweeps is that you don't have to put sailors on ships inside the minefields. As far as the need to return to the mother ship, this is offset to some extent by the use of numerous platforms and cycling them through. The big weakness of smaller platforms is lack of power to drive the acoustic/magnetic sweep simulators. The first helo sweeps had a swept path of a few yards width. That can potentially be remedied by scientific advances. One problem is that there hasn't really been a significant across-the-board concerted R&D effort in either mines or mine countermeasures. With a few exceptions, we are still going with WWII/Korea vintage technology.
The "wild walrus" (I really liked "wild weasel," but that has already been used for something very different) is a different technology, and one that I think justifies future investment. The future usefulness of drones and helos depends on giving them more power for their sweep gear.
"The future usefulness of drones and helos depends on giving them more power for their sweep gear."
DeleteThat's certainly one issue. However, a larger issue is the triggering signal, independent of power. We could have sweeps powered by nuclear reactors but if we can't output an appropriate trigger signal (or, more likely, combination of signals) it won't matter how much power the output signal has. I'm unaware of ANY research/development in trigger signal suitability in the US military. I've never even heard of an actual sweep test against a modern smart mine.
Have you worked through (calculated) the clearance rate when frequent returns to a mothership are required? The clearance/sweep rate drops drastically and becomes combat-ineffective. The LCS non-sweep clearance rate is around 1-2 mines per hour (and that's probably overly optimistic over an extended period!). The UISS sweep rate is unknown but likely not a whole lot better when returns are factored in and likely almost non-existent when the trigger signal issue is factored in.
I just flat out don't believe our sweep technology is going to be effective against modern mines.
So Im really trying to grasp how a WildWalrus would work, how to make it cheap (and plentiful), howd itd be used etc... Seemingly I missed it when CNO proposed it... Before I run off designing it, its CONOP, boats/ships thatll use it etc... Maybe I could please get a link to the original idea???
DeleteIn the old MSOs we had 7500 amps available to channel into the magtail and we could generate half a dozen different magnetic signatures but the key to that was to build and then collapse the EM field that would simulate a 'surface ship or submarine' making its closest point of approach and that this would both advance the counter on the mine if it was programmed to wait for 10 or 50 CPAs before going active and then alert the mine trigger that the CPA had been reached and detonate the mine.
DeleteThe acoutic sweep was relatively low power but consisted basically of beating an underwater drum, very very loudly.
The EM field for the magtail was calculated based on conditions but we never bothered since we based our sweep lanes on sonar conditions as measured each morning at the edge of the MDAs. They were usually 200 to 250 yards apart and yeah, we hunted at 3-6 knots. The Royal Navy and our reflagged KOTC tug would pull Oropesa gear and sweep at around 12 knots. I don't believe they ever found any mines but they very cleverly confined their activities well away from the MDAs.
There is NO WAY to speed it up. Even using helos is slow and in my experience was of very little to no value. In the Red Sea during Intense Look there were probably no remaining mines by the time we launched MCM helos and in the Persian Gulf the helos allowed their own ship to blunder into a minefield.
"I just flat out don't believe our sweep technology is going to be effective against modern mines."
ReplyDeleteThe really difficult influence to create artificially is pressure, so pressure mines are hardest to sweep. That was the purpose of the MSS-1 that I have mentioned previously. Fortunately, wave action tends to set a lot of them off, so they are not as effective as they could potentially be.
To your point, our sweep technology, like our mine technology for that matter, has simply not kept pace. The Europeans have done more than we have, but as noted above, they tend to think more in terms of keeping the Rhine and the Channel open for commercial traffic, so they prefer the one-at-a-time total clearance of hunting/destroying rather than probability-based sweeping. There is a place for both. Plus as an old sweep sailor, I really like ComNavOps's idea that I have called "wild walrus."
Wild walrus, then sweep to an acceptable risk and confidence level for the timing and importance of the mission, then conduct the mission, then hunt and destroy stragglers, seems to me to be a reasonable approach. And for goodness sake put the effort and resources into developing newer and better technologies for both mining and sweeping. With a few exceptions, we are still basicall going with WWII/Korea technology for both mining and countermeasures.
" our sweep technology, ... has simply not kept pace."
DeleteHave you ever even heard of a sweep test against modern mines under even slightly realistic conditions?
Until we do an actual test, I don't believe we have a sweep capability.
" our sweep technology, ... has simply not kept pace. "
DeleteFrom the FY22 DOT&E annual report,
"UISS is not operationally suitable. UISS reliability and availability do not support sustained mine sweeping operations. Operational availability demonstrated when
employing UISS from an LCS was 0.29, well below the Navydefined minimum threshold."
That's fairly damning.
"Have you ever even heard of a sweep test against modern mines under even slightly realistic conditions?"
DeleteThe last thing I have heard of resembling a sweep test against any mines under even slightly realistic conditions was an exercise conducted in preparation for Operation End Sweep in 1973, to determine the best method to sweep the destructors (DSTs) that comprised most of the minefields placed in North Vietnamese waters.
For a look at where the Brits think things are headed, check out "A 21st Century Short Story," by Rob Hoole, at https://www.mcdoa.org.uk/Dit_Box_Frames.htm.
ReplyDeleteAnd what observations/conclusions did you take from that story?
DeleteIll jump in and suggest a couple things-
DeleteFirst, the concept and level of tech in the story is mind-numbing. While the tech level might be someones dream, it feels like its at a "transformational" level. It might be in line with the European veiw of individual mine hunting and dealing with small fields. But for US purposes, its likely enemy, and the size of potential fields and the likely need for clearing large fields at a rapid, urgent pace, the conceptuals dont seem like a direction to follow.
Second, the amount of tech in not only the MCM gear, but the whole ship itself seems excessive, and likely to make them relatively expensive, and not somthing likely to be obtained in bulk. Even with the idea of them performing their work from the periphery of a minefield, the enemy gets a vote, so clever tricks and direct enemy action mean that uber-high end platforms are still going to face attrition, and therefore need to be purchased in large quantities. Gold plated platforms just dont seem like a good idea for MCM work.
Third, and this one just screamed out at me, is the terrifying idea that each individual mine would be reported to a higher authority off the ship. Thatd be inefficient and unnecessary micromanagement at its worst. In my mind, everyone would know their job, and the CO of an MCM vessel shouldnt even have to give authorization to neutralize a mine, those decisions could be made by an LPO or Chief. Sure, instantaneous burst transmissions, networks, and all that, yada yada yada... But unless this was a peacetime discovery of an active mine, there shouldnt be a need (or want) to involve anyone not aboard the ship.
Overall, interesting story, but to me, it gives multiple examples of ideas and directions not to go...
"Ill jump in and suggest a couple things-"
DeleteSpot on analysis!
The story smacks of technology for the sake of technology instead of solving a battlefield problem using the K.I.S.S. principle.
"And what observations/conclusions did you take from that story?"
ReplyDeleteSorry, I posted that when I was running short of time. Like JJAbatie I found it pretty disturbing on several fronts. It is not the direction that I would want to go.
I guess the question is whether the story represents actual policy or just one person's fantasy?
DeleteMy last visual of MCM was of Patriot and Guardian being micromanaged to death by the Mine Staff in the Bunker 200 miles away. The staff wouldn't even let them put zodiacs in the water without approval from the chief staff officer. It was kind of pathetic for me to watch. We did it the old fashioned way and I can't recall ever bothering the Mine staff on either the Coronado or LaSalle anything at any time. We got the coordinates they had for the MDA and it was pretty much up to the SMCM to lay out the plan. Until SBR found its mine we usually just hunted in pairs, 1 east coast and 1 west coast sweep would work the MDA. Sometimes we'd get all 6 together for things like Rustam and Shah Allum.
Delete"My last visual of MCM was of Patriot and Guardian being micromanaged to death by the Mine Staff in the Bunker 200 miles away. "
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention that. I very distinctly remember receiving a message from a mine staf 178 miles away, per Google maps, that stated, "I am on-scene commander." Mine countermeasures decisions cannot be made from afar.