There has been a good deal of discussion in the naval
observer camp lately about some form of supplemental weapons vessel; an arsenal ship/barge, as it was called in
earlier times. The vessel, by whatever
name, would act as a supplemental magazine for manned ships thereby allowing …
well … I’m not really sure what it allows.
Let’s take a look at the latest country to latch onto the fad and see
what’s good about their design and concept and what isn’t.
The Royal Netherlands Navy is going to acquire two-low
manned surface vessels which are euphemistically and optimistically referred to
as ‘The Rapidly Increased Firepower Capability’ (TRIFIC, ‘terrific’? one
assumes they’ll be called in a tortured acronym that some staffer probably
received a promotion for coming up with) and, in some articles, Modular
Integrated Capability for ACDF and North Sea (MICAN) and Multifunctional
Support Ship (pick a name and stick with it!).
The vessel is 170-200 ft long and is based on a commercial
offshore supply vessel. It will carry up
to 4 containers on the aft deck.
 |
| TRIFIC Low-manned Surface Vessel |
- increase front-line firepower
- support surveillance efforts
- containerized weapon packages
- electronic warfare (EW) packages combining both intercept and jamming functionality
- operate as an ‘offboard’ magazine for RNLN air defence and command frigates (ADCFs)
- fire support/precision strike for the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps
- provide additional long-range surface-to-air missile capacity for the four De Zeven Provinciën-class ADCFs
- employ long-range precision-guided munitions against coastal targets in support of amphibious operations
- provide protection for infrastructure in the North Sea
- deploy the Harop long-range loitering munition
- precision strike capability against critical targets such as headquarters, artillery or rocket installations, and supply areas
- EW suite to collect information on radar emitters, jam threat radars, and disrupt control links associated with hostile drones
- deploy underwater vehicles/sensors to support surveillance and protection of North Sea infrastructures
- deploy above-water sensors to record the activities of suspicious ships for evidence
The requirement for additional long-range anti-air missiles has been shaped by operational analysis which has determined that a massive and simultaneous attack with anti-ship missiles or swarming drones could rapidly exhaust existing ACDF [air defence and command frigates] magazine capacity. According to Tuinman [Dutch state secretary for defense Gijs Tuinman], the concept of ‘distributed operations’ developed by the RNLN will see a De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate operating in close company with a multifunction support vessel with additional missiles housed in containers on the aft deck.[1]Will a couple of containers of missiles (2? maybe 4 missiles per container?) make the difference to a frigate facing “a massive and simultaneous attack with anti-ship missiles or swarming drones”? Of course not! A massive and simultaneous attack with anti-ship missiles or swarming drones is not a winnable scenario for a single frigate … not even close. To believe that a few extra missile containers will enable a frigate to defeat “a massive and simultaneous attack with anti-ship missiles or swarming drones” is pure fantasy.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/09/netherlands-firms-up-plans-for-multifunction-support-vessels/
There's speculation that this is really a rush job to increase magazine depth because the Dutch Navy's ships are real short on missile cells, and because of certain choices they made with their radara and combat software, can't use SM-2ER or ESSM. But they can work with the Israeli Barak missiles.
ReplyDeleteSo rather than a refit to replace the radars on a bunch of ships that are already midway in their service lives, they buy these ships to mount Barak ER.
32 additional defensive missiles isn't much, but it's better than what they alrrady have.
The De Zeven Provinciën class currently has ESSM and earlier SM-2. It would seem easier to upgrade the software to use later SM-2 than to build new vessels and create new software for remote control/command but, who knows?
DeleteThe frigates have 40 Mk41 VLS which is actually a very respectable amount by modern standards. The US Constellation, by comparison, has only 32.
To clarify, I meant the newer blocks of SM-2 and ESSM Blk 2, with the active radar seekers. The current APAR radar on the De Zeven Provinciën class ships can't talk to the later missiles, only the older SARH SM-2 and ESSM. There are plans to upgrade other ships to APAR Blk 2, which can communicate with these newer missiles, but given the average age of the De Zevens is 22 years old...
DeleteTo repeat CNO's previous comment, I suspect it would be cheaper to upgrade, or perhaps even replace, the radar than to build a whole new ship for a comparative handful of missiles. Especially if the cost ends up near the higher end of the estimated range.
DeleteThe bigger issue is the radar availability. APAR Blk 2 has had schedule slips and is now anticipated to be delivered in 2028, 4 years from now, which means that it won't be economically feasible or viable to spend the time and money to refit all the ships - the lead ship will be 28 years old at that point. There's further speculation that Barak ER was chosen because it can be containerised, which is faster than getting it certified for Mk41 (if it can even fit the cells), and because the Dutch have concerns about American missile supply given our low procurement rates and the refusal of Congress to commit to multi-year buys in advance.
DeleteTaking aside the supposed usefulness of that ship, is there any reason for being unmanned? It would much more easy, technologically speaking, that this kind of ship would have some crew even if only a handful of people. It would be also much cheaper.
ReplyDeleteMaybe after so much years of "peace" this "unmanned" thing is really not something that the Dutch Navy wants but only a way of supporting some industries using the current IA hype.
Maybe western navies (and armies and air forces) have become only a tool of industrial policy instead of a defence force.
Finally, how is possible that high ranking officers of the armed forces don't denounce that policy? Probably any officer with some decision power knows that if he opposes that it will be the end of his career and also the end of prospects of a well paid job in the industry after retirement.
JM
The post and article noted that the vessels were low-manned rather than unmanned.
DeleteThe Dutch are probably facing a manpower crunch.
DeleteI imagine one could add a couple of dozen missiles to any ship for less that $250 million.
ReplyDeleteIf they buy their pictured ship, it won't cost 250 million even in today's money. Their wording somewhat separates the cost from the specific ship used to convey the concept.
Delete"If they buy their pictured ship, it won't cost 250 million"
DeleteYou'd like to think not but consider the nearest data point I can think of in the Navy which is the JHSV - a glorified ferry. It's built to commercial standards, made of aluminum, has no weapons, has only rudimentary sensors. It's a stripped down ferry and it costs around $200M. Now, add weapons, ?steel? construction, secure comms and data links, satellite antenna and links, fire control, multiple functions, some survival features (greater compartmentation, greater fire fighting, etc.), somewhat better than rudimentary sensors, etc. and ponder what will happen to the cost.
214 million for 4 manned patrol 5009 ships in 2014 with spare, logistics and support included for 5 years. Steel is cheaper than aluminum in terms of shipbuilding. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2018/03/18/how-the-spa-was-chosen-the-trinidad-and-tobago-coast-guards-damen-spa-5009-fleet/#:~:text=The%20total%20cost%20of%20the,inclusive%20of%20spares%20and%20training.&text=The%20Damen%20SPa%205009%20is,FCS%205009%20crew%2Dsupply%20vessel.
DeleteI think that in the end, if the programm has a positive outcome, these shios will be mostly used for the defence of dutch airspace and EEZ, with or without other naval units.
ReplyDelete"with or without other naval units."
DeleteAs noted in the article, they're incapable of operating alone. They must be paired with a controlling frigate since they lack sensors, targeting, missile guidance, etc.
People can have "great ideas" but if they don't work in battle fields, these great ideas are jokes.
ReplyDeleteThere is a question on this ship's self defense capability, especially ability to intercept incoming anti ship missiles.
If you have high technical competency, you can even make unmanned ships carrying lots of missiles waiting firing commands from other ships.
On the other hand, if enemy missiles hit this ship after it's emptied its cells, is that really that much of a loss? It's acted as a sacrificial decoy. Far better to lose one of these boats with a dozen crew than a full on frigate or destroyer.
DeleteQuestion is if they identify, locate, and fire on the ship, what next?
DeleteThere are many cheap ways to make decoys and many are deployed already.
I don't see how the De Zeven Provinciens are any worse off. They're AAW frigates firing SARH missiles: their radars have to be turned on and constantly radiating when they're in combat. That's just the cost of doing business.
Delete"Looking at that list, this vessel is a true miracle. The only capability it doesn’t seem to have is the ability to operate an air wing while submerged. Perhaps that’s coming?"
ReplyDeleteScheduled for Block 4e.
While the idea of an expensive ship just to carry spare missiles due to poor naval planning looks somewhat foolish, the idea of adapting an offshore service vessel design for naval use might not be.
ReplyDeleteConsider something ComNavOps has been decrying the lack of for a decade or so: a cheap Destroyer Escort for ASW escort of supply convoys. Assume it is 4 containers plus a bit of deck space. A pair of containers filled with ASW processing equipment, a small hull mounted sonar (based on an existing dipping sonar system), a container with a passive sonar array, and the space and weight of the other two containers would be two triple-tube torpedo launcers and one above deck launcher holding 2 x Mk 41 cells with VLA-asroc and a non-penetrating CIWS for defensive AA. If it was based on the right crew service vessel, it could support more bunks since we learned with the LCS debacle that more crew is better. It doesn’t need ridiculous speed, just enough to keep up with a merchant convoy. A CG-like 25 knots max instead of a Navy-like 30+ Knots fleet speed would be fine. They could even be manned by reservists cultivated from the offshore oil/wind industry so they would be keeping up their sailing skills without charging the government for more than a two week training where they practice the ASW aspects not the sailing aspects of the job.
The key to making it keep on time and on budget is to park cost responsibility on the career of the Navy personnel tasked with overseeing the program. That way instead of adding on an idiotic number of changes like they have for the Constellation class, they would be more likely to stay on target.
"a cheap Destroyer Escort for ASW escort"
DeleteOne caution, here. The DE I envision is a true, ASW optimized vessel, built from the keel up for the task. Such a ship would incorporate total acoustic silencing with every piece of equipment rafted for isolation from the hull, wake suppression, Prairie/Masker, specially selected quiet equipment rather than any old off-the-shelf piece of equipment, special cavitation suppression props, etc.
The various ASW weapons would have sufficient reloads to stay engaged for the duration of a convoy or mission.
Sensors would include a multi-frequency hull sonar and dipping sonar or VDS.
Thus, the ship would be exquisitely optimized for ASW. Subs have enough advantages, already, we don't want to cede anything to them. In contrast, the vessel you describe is a poor man's version, at best. It might have some value as a filler/supplement to a true DE but could never be a replacement.
RE: properties of ASW ship. You mention "wake suppression". Can you describe a little more what that is? Are you somehow suppressing the waves that the hull makes when it pushes the water out of the way? Or are you doing something about the bubbles that some of the wake following torpedoes follow?
Delete" "wake suppression". Can you describe a little more what that is?"
DeleteYou're answered much of your own question!
There are various characteristics of a ship's wake that can be used to find and track the ship: bubbles, waves, visibility, phosphoresence, etc. There are several wake suppression technologies that have been explored on ships including hull and stern shaping to minimize the width and spread of the wake, bubble (macro and micro) suppression, alternative prop designs, and so on.
I'm tempted to do a post on this except that it may too much of a niche interest and, therefore, not appealing to a wide enough audience. I'm still thinking about it.
Well, I'd be interested at least, for what it's worth.
DeleteIf I recall correctly, I did try doing a Google search (not this time but some time ago) but didn't find much. Guess I didn't look hard enough.
One thing that puzzles me is that I recall reading that many, at least, of the wake homing torpedoes actually look for bubbles that are dragged under the hull and then left behind. But I don't understand why those should be so hard to decoy (I've heard that wake homing torpedoes are hard to decoy, except by having another ship run across the wake and have them follow the escort instead of the carrier). It seems, crudely at least, that it ought to be possible to have some sort of decoy drone make bubbles to do the decoy job, so I must not really understand it.
Made a comment but it disappeared. So I either forgot to press "PUBLISH" or it went into SPAM.
DeleteJust in case I forgot to press "PUBLISH", let me briefly mention that I would be interested in such a post about wake suppression, for what it's worth. Of course, the niche might just be me!!
As an example, here's an abstract from an old patent.
Delete"A method is presented to reduce the quantity of microbubbles having diameters of approximately 1000 microns or less in seawater as a means of ship wake signature suppression. Ultrasonic acoustic energy is projected into a volume of seawater in which the microbubbles reside, e.g., a ship's wake. The ultrasonic acoustic energy has a constant frequency selected from the range of approximately 0.5-2.5 MHz."
It takes a bit of diligent searching but there is information out there.
Here's an abstract from a Chinese research article.
Delete"The countermeasures of surface ship is based on ship wake signature suppression or making false wakes. Ship wake signature suppression includes wake bubble coalescing and wake energy absorbing. For producing a good degree of bubble coalescence, ultrasonic transducer (or array) must be towed to the join region of the bow wake, the turbulent boundary layer wake, and the initial spreading end of the propeller wake. Wake energy absorber mounted on the ship aft of the propulsor weakens the wake and renders the wake less pronounced acoustically. These two methods reduce the quantity of microbubbles in the wakes, so current wake-homing torpedoes are not able to counter these measures."
Here's a reference about hull design modifications to reduce wake. It's geared at commercial vessels.
Deletehttps://www.brighthubengineering.com/naval-architecture/81960-minimizing-wake-by-hull-design/#:~:text=Hull%20designs%20that%20minimize%20wake%20are%20very%20efficient.
The hull design looks like some kind of WW1 destroyer throw back.
DeleteI would like to see CNO's Destroyer Escort built on a Gearing class hull.
DeleteI wonder what kind of changes would need to be made to that hull to incorporate the characteristics that he is recommending?
Lutefisk
I'd settle for a Gearing built on a Gearing class hull !
Delete"The hull design looks like some kind of WW1 destroyer throw back."
DeleteThe hull design uses what is referred to as an axe bow. It is designed to pierce through waves rather than riding up and down on the wave. There are associated drawbacks, as well. You can research the type on the Internet using the search term "axe bow".
Thanks! I'll take a look.
DeleteLutefisk
RE: the wake information.
DeleteHey thanks. That's helpful and interesting.
The reason I'm interested in wake suppression has to do with some thoughts I have on a simplified quasi-CONOPS for an alternative use for USV's. It seems obvious but I haven't seen it discussed by the Navy, so maybe it's not useful. Whatever.
The idea is to use USV's (smaller and cheaper than the ones proposed by the Navy) as decoys for merchant ship convoys.
If/when we fight China, the war will likely be long, unless of course WE lose quickly and give up. I suspect the Chinese, once they roll the dice and start a war over Taiwan, won't give up any more easily than Russia has over Ukraine.
Which means we'll need lots of cargo ships to support the fight in WestPac.
But we don't have any escorts for the merchant convoys. You've said we'll build them during the war, but of course that does take time. Ships aren't toasters and can't be built in a day. And there are also long lead-time things that require a start up time before the first one can be built. And of course we don't have a surplus of merchant ships either, so by the time the escorts are there, they could all be sunk!
So in the meantime, how about having a bunch of USV's traveling spread out, with a few actual merchant ships embedded randomly in the swarm.
The key point about a decoy is that it needs to be very hard (preferably impossible) to distinguish from the actual ship to as many sensors as possible. Especially the ones most commonly used for wide area search.
The major threat in much of the ocean is submarines whose major sensor is passive sonar. It ought to be fairly straightforward to spoof that by broadcasting the sound of a larger ship into the ocean.
Active sonar would be harder, but on the other hand it has shorter range and is also risky to use, since it announces the presence of the submarine. In any case, it may be possible, with some additional R&D, to produce an acoustic analog of the Air Force's MALD decoy that can make the decoy look like a freighter to active sonar.
For radar, the Air Force has the MALD decoy that can look like any aircraft you choose to at least most types of radar. Maybe not high resolution radar like synthetic aperture, although maybe that as well. Not sure. Perhaps some additional R&D could improve that.
So it ought to be fairly straightforward to adapt the MALD electronics to a USV.
For imaging sensors (for example overhead ones in satellites or high flying aircraft) there are potentially inflatable decoys (although I suspect they'd have problems in this context since a large inflated object connected to a small light drone would no doubt get blown all over the place by the wind). But there are also obscurants in visible and infrared, so if both the drone and the freighter both emitted the obscurants, the enemy wouldn't know which cloud had the prize inside.
What I can't figure out is how to handle the wake, specifically the waves created by pushing aside the water as the ship passes through. The wake spreads out over a considerable distance, probably bigger than can be covered by obscurants. And I can't think of a way to spoof a sensor to think that the wake of a small, light drone is actually like the wake of a large freighter. So that's why I'm interested in wakes.
"The major threat in much of the ocean is submarines"
DeleteOh my goodness, no! You may not be grasping the immenseness of the ocean. The chance of a random encounter with a submarine is near zero. Of course, if we use repeatable and, therefore, predictable convoy routes, the odds of an encounter go up. As a comparison, the U-boats had to work quite hard at finding convoys and that was with utterly predictable routes.
Of course, one doesn't have to send one's subs to the middle of the ocean. Regardless of what route the convoy takes, it has only one destination (Guam, for example) and every ship in the convoy must, eventually, arrive there. An enemy sub can just sit off the harbor and wait for convoys to obligingly show up. Then again, that also greatly shrinks the search area for ASW.
China has only around four or so nuclear SSNs so they're not going to be much of a threat in the open ocean. They have dozens of SSKs but those are not, currently, considered open ocean going. In short, Chinese subs are lesser threat in the open ocean compared to aircraft/missiles, I would think. Honestly, convoys are fairly safe in the open ocean. They're vulnerable when they begin to near land because that's when they're most predictable. Look at WWII US sub sinkings of Japanese ships. 99% took place very near land.
This is a long winded way of saying that decoy convoys are a waste of effort until the convoy nears its destination and then enemy eyeballs and imaging become major sensors and can't really be fooled by a relatively tiny drone vessel.
You're also overlooking the acoustic signature. I don't know how a tiny drone would simulate the signature of a heavy ship/prop beat. China has known sonar arrays (think SOSUS) around the first island chain. How far those can sense out into the open ocean is unknown but our own arrays can detect sounds across an ocean (see, Scorpion and Thresher incidents).
Point taken about the low density of submarines in mid-Pacific. Of course, as you mentioned they can always congregate around the destination ports. And also around the origin ports. Remember the Germans sank a lot of ships just off the US East Coast during World War 2.
DeleteI'd be a little nervous about writing off the SSK's. Remember both we and the Germans operated diesel submarines at considerable distance from their bases during WW2. And I doubt that modern subs are significantly less capable than those.
I did address the imaging and "eyeball" sensors. I suggested that the decoys and also the freighters could emit obscurants. Assuming that it's possible to produce a cloud pattern that is similar between the two (I don't know that) then the eyeball would see the clouds, but wouldn't know which clouds contain the prize (the freighter) and which just contain decoys.
I also addressed the acoustic issue. Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. I'm not suggesting that the drone would somehow mechanically make noises that sound like a freighter. My suggestion is that the drone itself would be acoustically relatively quiet. Then, beforehand, we would record the actual sound from the actual freighter. Since the sound probably varies with speed, we should probably record the sounds for a cluster of speeds very close to several separated actual transit speeds. After all, memory is quite cheap these days.
Then, during the voyage, we would broadcast the recorded sounds from all the decoys. Using good quality speakers, either through the hull, or through some sort of blister on the hull, or from some sort of towed sled or something. In order to avoid the risk of a slight mismatch between the sound of the actual freighter and the decoys, I'd suggest broadcasting the sounds for marginally different speeds from each decoy so that a passive sonar would detect a whole bunch of very similar (but not quite identical) sounds from different places.
Plus the US Navy instead of retiring the LCS has decided to keep them around. Is there a command term for double minded
ReplyDeleteDuring recent engagements with the Houthis HMS Diamond had to put back to Gibraltar for rearmament. She was rotated off and replaced by another ship in an ordered fashion, but it still removed a very capable asset from the front line.
ReplyDeleteI know the US is perusing rearmament at sea with some success, but not everyone has large "sea lift" type vessels. Even if the tech works out.
Using a central capable asset for its sensors \ computing power \ skilled crew etc.
Then rotating offboard "magazines" keeps the AAW ship in the fight longer.
Just a thought ?
Ben
"She was rotated off and replaced by another ship in an ordered fashion, but it still removed a very capable asset from the front line."
DeleteThat's why you have a navy with more than just one or two ships!
According to Wiki, there are currently only three Daring class ships in service with three others in some kind of prolonged refit.
I know nothing about HMS Diamond's length of deployment but you can't just keep a ship in a combat deployment indefinitely, anyway. The crew needs a break and the ship needs maintenance. Unless the ship was firing dozens of missiles per day, the end of the missile inventory is probably a good time to rotate off, anyway.
I note that the Diamond has only 48 cells compared to the Burke's 96 and, as far as I know (I could well be wrong), uses Aster missiles which are not quad-packed. If not all the cells were filled to begin with (UK has severe weapon shortages), the on-board inventory may have only been a dozen or two missiles? Do you know how many missiles were actually expended?
No exact details seem public on all the engagements and missiles expended. She destroyed 7 targets in 1 night though, so we can assume quite a few missiles were expended over the month on station.
DeleteDaring class are currently being upgraded with 24 additional Sea-Ceptor cells. HMS Defender is undergoing the refit right now.
But at 7 intercepts per night. the proliferation of cheap drones and a (US) shoot-shoot-look policy. 96 doesn't sound that many any more right ?
96 / (7*2) = a little bit under a week before a Burke has to rearm, (assuming 100% AA missiles, 100% hit rate and a willingness to stay until ship is completely defenceless)
That was really my point about "magazine" ships. Which might be what the Dutch are thinking ?
"destroyed 7 targets in 1 night though, so we can assume quite a few missiles were expended over the month on station."
DeleteNo, no we can't make that assumption. In fact, as you note, we have almost no information of attack frequency and missile usage. Seven targets in one night is far more likely a one-time anomaly than a routine occurrence. Public reports suggest that attacks are a relatively infrequent occurrence with an attack once every couple weeks, on average. Further the attacks appear to be scattered across a vast area so it is highly unlikely that any single ship would see more than an occasional attack within range.
"96 doesn't sound that many any more right ?"
Your calculation is based on utterly absurd, unsupported assumptions. If your scenario was true, the addition of perhaps 4-12 additional missiles would be insignificant. It would provide one or two extra days of missiles.