Thursday, September 5, 2024

Protecting the Sea Lanes?

The Navy is out there, every day, protecting the sea lanes.  That’s why we do deployments, right?  So, how’s that sea lane protection working out?  According to shipping giant, Maersk,
 
Attacks in the Red Sea by Iran-aligned Houthi militants have disrupted a route vital to east-west trade, with prolonged rerouting of shipments, pushing freight rates higher and causing congestion in Asian and European ports.
 
Maersk said recent data showed that the number of ships crossing through the canal has fallen 66% since carriers began diverting their vessels around Africa.
 
Maersk in July said disruption to its container shipping via the Red Sea had extended beyond trade routes between the Far East and Europe to its entire global network, and warned of a "cascading impact" causing congestion.[1]
 
So, what is the mightiest navy in the world doing about this threat to the sea lanes?  Well, we’ve shot down a few drones and missiles and bombed some suspected launch sites … to no effect.  Attacks on shipping continue and ships continue to get hit.
 
Similarly, Iran continues to harass shipping, attacking, seizing, and mining passing ships while our navy stands by and does nothing.
 
 
Conclusion
 
I know I’ve criticized our endless deployments but if we weren’t out there protecting the sea lanes, bad actors might attack shipping with drones and missiles so thank goodness we’re out there, continuously deployed.
 
Our presence is deterring nothing.  We’re clearly not effectively protecting the sea lanes.  Tell me again, why are we doing deployments?
 
 
 
___________________________
 
[1]Newsmax website, “Maersk: Impact From Red Sea Attacks Intensifying”, 5-Sep-2024,
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/maersk-red-sea/2024/09/05/id/1179157/
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

20 comments:

  1. AnonymousSeptember 5, 2024 at 11:22 AM

    Might not a more incisive question be, why is the USN doing a completely ineffective deployment in the Red Sea?

    Not a question to which I could provide an answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 5, 2024 at 1:50 PM

      That is the question I posed.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 6, 2024 at 11:38 AM

      And, with deep respect to you and appreciation of your very enlightening posts, is it a question to which you could provide an answer?

      I confess I'm puzzled. You have here, and in previous posts, explained that the USN is sending out ships on expensive, exhausting and futile deployments, and the USMC have abandoned almost all their heavy equipment so as to create a force of ship-borne light infantry that can accomplish very little.

      But why has that happened? It is hard to believe that high-ranking naval or marine personnel woke up one morning thinking gee, that seems like a good idea, let's go for it!

      I would have hoped that there was some sort of rational argument involved.

      Of course Conquest's Law may apply: "In any large organisation, there are senior people who behave as if they were in the pay of that organisation's worst enemy, without necessarily being so in fact".

      But that law is descriptive, not explanatory.

      Yours in respectful bemusement.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 5, 2024 at 1:41 PM

    We are shooting the arrow not the archer. We either lack the targeting intel or the willpower to strike the source of the drones and missiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 5, 2024 at 2:03 PM

      We lack the willpower. If we believe the Houthis are a problem, we should be max attacking manufacturing, storage, and operations of drones and missiles as well as targeting all shipments into Yemen and conducting a financial blockade and attack on banking transactions, among other actions.

      Delete
  3. BA 1959September 5, 2024 at 2:06 PM

    So, short of engaging Iran directly (if they're only source of the missiles and drones) seems like a blockade to cut off the supply would make sense (again, presuming the launch sites are difficult to find). Stop every ship or boat traveling to the shore and destroy the contents (first time, ship itself the second time, no third time...) Wouldn't that work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 5, 2024 at 2:25 PM

      What do you do to any enemy during war? You attempt to cut off their incoming resources ... completely ... totally ... to prevent them from making weapons or sustaining what they have.

      The Houthis are lobbing drones and missiles at us. That sounds like war to me so we should be fighting like it. If we don't think it's important enough to fight about, we should leave the area. If we stay and simply try to shoot down every drone/missile, sooner or later one will get through and hit one of our ships. The defender has to be 100% perfect. The attacker only needs to succeed once.

      Delete
  4. G2milSeptember 5, 2024 at 7:02 PM

    Our current situation shows the problem of keeping a high optempo in peacetime by sending ships on continuous 6-8 month deployments of mostly just steaming about aimlessly. Ships are broke down awaiting repair and undermanned because sailors leave the Navy due to senseless deployments. Now that we need our Navy for real world operations, very little is available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM

      This is why we need to take some LHAs and DDGs and create some locally based ARGs forward deployed in areas where we need to keep sea lanes open such as East Mediterranean, Suez, and South China Sea. Being based closed to the fight will minimize wear and tear and make the ships much more available when a mission arises.
      I would keep some separate ARGs made of only LPDs with forward deployed MEUs to augment these sea lane control ARGs in case there is a need for a landing party.

      Delete
    2. G2milSeptember 6, 2024 at 5:06 PM

      Another idea is that ARGs should spend half their deployment in ports. This saves fuel, wear and tear, and boosts morale.

      Delete
  5. NickSeptember 6, 2024 at 3:46 AM

    A few thoughts

    Why the failure of the destroyers and frigates Western Navies to protect the commercial ships, latest example the Greek tanker with 150,000 tons of crude oil blown up by the Houthi with fast attack boats, makes the Exxon Valdex spill of 37,000t look minor.

    Very surprised the Houthi with their Iranian ballistic missiles had success in targeting moving commercial ships

    Why Burke captains only used SM-2s to target the drones, no mention seen of ever firing the ESSMs, why, lack of confidence in the ESSM?, did see Phalanx was used once and speculating problems with Aegis on that Burke at that time. Fired SM-6s to target the ballistic missiles, presuming the Mk.72 booster required gave it the necessary speed to intercept a ballistic missiles.

    The result Navy has asked Congress for additional $billion to replace the SM-2s and 6s fired, it’s a major problem in the cost and number of the expensive defensive missiles fired in relation to the very low cost of the Iranian drones and ballistic missiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 6, 2024 at 7:32 AM

      "Very surprised the Houthi with their Iranian ballistic missiles had success in targeting moving commercial ships"

      From what I've read, the vast majority of Houthi launches have failed to hit anything so 'success' is a very relative term meaning, in this case, very little success.

      "only used SM-2s"

      Unless you have a source I haven't seen, I've been unable to find any accounting of weapons used, number/type of launches, success rate, etc. We saw a single mention of a CIWS engagement. A couple mentions of Standards and that's all the info I've seen.

      "major problem in the cost and number of the expensive defensive missiles"

      As I've constantly called for, we should be developing simple, basic, cheap missiles instead of exquisite missiles. This also points up the need to go after the manufacturing, parts, and finances of drones/missiles instead of sitting back and hoping to intercept incoming missiles.

      Delete
    2. NickSeptember 6, 2024 at 10:38 AM

      Some of the sources which prompted my comment and inclined to believe;

      "From what I've read, the vast majority of Houthi launches have failed to hit anything so 'success' is a very relative term meaning, in this case, very little success."
      http://www.hisutton.com/Iranian-Houthi-ASBM.html

      "Unless you have a source I haven't seen, I've been unable to find any accounting of weapons used, number/type of launches, success rate, etc. We saw a single mention of a CIWS engagement. A couple mentions of Standards and that's all the info I've seen."

      https://www.twz.com/sea/navy-has-fired-around-100-standard-series-missiles-at-houthi-drones-missiles-report
      https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-sm-6-missile-used-in-combat-report
      https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2024/04/mideast-missile-duels-have-cost-us-navy-nearly-1b-secretary-says/395791/

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsSeptember 6, 2024 at 12:22 PM

      I would be very cautious about using or believing those statistics. For example, in the first link you cite, the graphic claims EXACTLY 100 missiles and drones shot down by 'around 100' Standard missiles. Given that standard Navy doctrine calls for two missiles per engagement, one hundred kills in one hundred shots would seem patently incorrect. Further, even with one shot per engagement, that would require 100% success which is, again, patently absurd.

      The last reference you cite suggests the Navy has spent $1B in missiles. At, say, $4M per missile, that gives a usage of 250 missiles as opposed to the 'around 100' from the other reference.

      It also seems highly unlikely that the Navy would use Standard missiles against drones rather than the much cheaper ESSM and RAM/CIWS. Drones are very slow compared to missiles and do not warrant the use of Standard missiles.

      As I've said, I've seen no authoritative accounting of missile usage and those references, while interesting, do not come across as authoritative given the obvious, major discrepancies in the numbers.

      Delete
    4. NickSeptember 7, 2024 at 4:47 AM

      Take onboard your comments but think "the two missiles per engagement" would not apply to the slow drones with the ~100 mile long range of the SM-2s as the Burkes would have ample time to fire second SM-2 missile if it was confirmed the first missile failed to take out the drone.

      Think why the Burke Captains fired the SM-2s instead of the cheaper ESSM and RAM/CIWS was the mindset in thinking they would never be court-martialed if drone hit ship when they had the capability of fire the longer range SM-2s before the drone came anywhere near threatening the ship.

      When Carlos Del Toro saying Red Sea missile duels cost nearly $1billion he said "We've been firing SM-2s, we've been firing SM-6s, and—just over the weekend—SM-3s to actually counter the ballistic missile threat that's coming from Iran", it could have been an oversite no mention was made of ESSMs but don't think so, but as comment infers only fired only SM-2s and 6s in the Red Sea against the Houthi attacks.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousSeptember 6, 2024 at 9:10 AM

    Carriers are worn out by deployments and they are overkill for a Houthi type situation. MEUs are usually disaggregated with the LHAs doing sea control. Why not separate the LHAs from the MEU / ARG and create an ARGSCA (ARG Sea Control Aggregation) that can be stationed year round in the Sea Control hotspots (Eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf/Red Sea, South China Sea)?

    ReplyDelete
  7. G2milSeptember 6, 2024 at 5:10 PM

    I just checked and there is nothing about this at USNI News. I have to stumble across it in "Business Insider". Probably because it makes Navy leadership look bad.

    "The US Navy sacked the captain of a deployed warship after an unresolved steering problem resulted in a near-miss incident in the Middle East, according to a command investigation reviewed by Business Insider."

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-sacked-destroyer-captain-205450987.html

    Throw the ship's captain under the bus rather than Admirals who failed to fix this serious issue or send the ship home.

    ReplyDelete
  8. greywolfSeptember 7, 2024 at 9:04 AM

    Could it be that most military operations since 1945 have failed because there was no clear objective behind a lot of political gibberish. The mission in the Red Sea started to protect Israel, then it became about protecting shipping lanes, then about hitting an iranian proxy, then it shifted again to protect Israel. After that with the turnover from one carrier to the other it all shifted to Iran, at the moment there is probably no US ship in the Red Sea.
    How do you pretend to reach a mission objective when the mission is very unclear and shifts continuously? It’s simply impossible.
    Let’s not forget that today Yemen is a country split in 3-4 client states that aside come from the iranian backed one are supposed US allies like the saudis and the UAE. Funny thing is that it seems that Oman is favouring the Houthis as they don’t like the UAE backed militia at it’s border, and many weapons seizures made by Oman EEZ are for this militas while it seems that iranian good are at least tollerated. The Houthis have learned the need for dispersion of forces the hard way against the saudis (that had overt and covert US support) in a really long war so it should not come as a surprise that it’s really difficult to hit them hard and seriously degrade their capabilities.
    Who is feeling the squeeze (rising costs, lowered shipping availability) the most, due to the Houthis? Europe, Africa, India and the PRC, not the US. None of those hit more or less hard by this squeeze have done anything about it. It was never about sea lanes but about hurting supposed allies and probable enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ComNavOpsSeptember 7, 2024 at 4:28 PM

    "Still wonder why Saudi doesn't "seize the opportunity" to launch another air and land attack? They had enough."

    I'm going to be blunt. These comments are not up to the standards of this blog and are being deleted as such. Most of the information is factually incorrect. For example, the Saudis never lost a warship that I'm aware of. The supposed citations of ship sinkings seem to involve UAE vessels, one of which was not a warship.

    Another example is that the China-mediated talks have not produced a 'long lasting truce' and hostilities continue.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousSeptember 9, 2024 at 6:06 AM

    I think what we're seeing is that the Middle East and the Suez Canal is not the highest priority for the USA.
    There is already a lot of tension and unrest in the region as the US draws down its forces from early 2000's.
    Rapidly withdrawing US naval engagement from that region would probably be catastrophic for the region itself and have major implications for globalization and the world order.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)