As we have previously discussed, the gunboat version of the WWII
PT boat was the most effective form of the PT Boat (“PTboat”) and, along with its surveillance (ISR) duties, were the most
useful functions. Interestingly, we have
modern PT boat equivalents in the Mk VI and, in a larger form, the Cyclone
class, although both are being eliminated from service. There have been other small boats, as well,
in recent decades. The Navy, although it
has toyed with small boats from time to time, has rejected all attempts at
establishing a persistent small boat naval component within the fleet.
Pivoting our thinking away from the ship-sinking role for
the PT-ish boat (we’ll use the term ‘PT boat’ in a generic sense for the rest
of the article) and keeping in mind that the most effective use was as
barge-busting gunboats and ISR, we could easily imagine a very useful PT boat
component in the Navy, today. For
example, we could flood the Persian Gulf with PT boats to monitor and eliminate
Iran’s maritime harassment, ship seizures, and ship mining. Of course, that would require us to have the will
to use force, as necessary, otherwise there would be no point.
Weapons
Consider the impressive density and types of weapons on PT
gunboats. As an example, listed below is
the weapons fit on PT-596 later in the war:
PT 596
In addition, many PT boats added various types of weapons as
desired and as availability allowed.
Such ad hoc weapons included the 37 mm anti-tank gun, depth charges,
mounted bazooka, .30 cal MG, 40 mm dual, 20 mm dual, 81 mm mortar, and so
forth.
All that weaponry was packed on an 80 ft boat! We struggle, today, to mount one CIWS on a 500+
ft Burke.
Now, consider modern equivalent PT boat weapons on a small
boat. With such a boat, what kinds of
missions could we effectively perform?
Missions
Here’s a partial list of missions that could be performed by
a modern PT gunboat:
Note: None of the
above missions are major war missions.
The PT boat is simply not suited for major combat, today. It would, however, offer benefits in the
pseudo-peacetime role as long as we’re willing to use them forcefully, when
necessary.
It’s also noteworthy that the missions we’ve discussed
generally occur at a useful level, meaning at the source of problems rather
than at the high end, geopolitical level where we wind up having Burkes
standing by watching bad actors instead of taking action because we’re too
afraid of escalation or international hurt feelings.
One argument against a modern PT boat is that they’re
rendered ineffective by the whole ‘don’t fire until fired upon’ philosophy that
so many people believe is some kind of ironclad, mandatory requirement that
prevents us from using force. This,
however, is complete bilgewater. There
is nothing in the law or the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that
prohibits US forces from firing first if they feel sufficiently
threatened. That a prohibition against
firing first appears in some Rules of Engagement is a purely self-imposed constraint
and, arguably, contradicts the military Code of Conduct.
For example, if an Iranian boat makes an attack run on a US
vessel, we should assume it’s real and fire first. We are not responsible for reading the
enemy’s mind. We cannot depend on past
behavior to know for certain that the attack run is just a bluff. Indeed, the local commander would be derelict
for not taking action if it did turn out to be a real attack. Most importantly, after a few Iranian boats
are destroyed while attempting reckless harassment, they would stop harassing
us, knowing that to do so is fatal. Iran
is responsible for the consequences of its own stupid acts. It’s not our job to be responsible for their
stupid behavior and to rescue them from the consequences of their own stupid
behavior.
Additional benefits of a PT gunboat, authorized to take
appropriate action, would be that it would provide low level command
opportunities and would be a great way to begin identifying personnel with
actual combat mindsets and promoting them into higher commands instead of the
cowering crap we have for captains and admirals today.
What do you think?
Are there useful missions for a modern PT gunboat?
______________________________
- 4x torpedo
- 1x M4 37 mm autocannon
- 2x Mk50 5” Rocket Launcher
- 2x Twin .50 cal MG
- 1x 20 mm single
- 1x 40 mm single
- Persian Gulf anti-Iranian maritime harassment
- Philippines anti-Chinese patrol
- Fishery anti-Chinese incursion patrol
- Africa and South America riverine patrol and raid
- Anti-terrorism
Not entirely sure about what weapons I'd want on this, but as long as the cost is reasonable I like the concept.
ReplyDeleteAn EW version could be interesting too.
"An EW version could be interesting too."
DeleteYes, I described something very close to this in the linked story. The caution here is figuring out a viable CONOPS for a EW version withing the constraints of the described missions. Is there a need for EW within those missions? If so, what type and to what degree? Keep in mind that an 80 ft (to pick a number for discussion) boat can't mount giant antennae, transmitters, receivers, and power generating units. Will the size and power constrained capabilities be useful within the mission context? Answer those questions and you'll know exactly what type of EW gunboat you need ... if any.
"Not entirely sure about what weapons I'd want on this"
The modern equivalent of the WWII weapons. Keep in mind the mission set which will place the gunboats in close combat so ... short range, high explosive, rapid fire, high volume weapons such as grenade launchers, mortars, 20 mm, 40 mm, small rocket launcher, and the like. Presumably, the weapons would be easily swappable to fit the mission.
Anti-ship weapons for island chains. Just have straps on the sides to carry two 400 lb guided torpedoes when desired. One could also carry 1-2 anti-ship missiles, or at least Hellfires missiles with a 20km range. Give them a small electric engine so they can go slow and silent at night, even if just an outboard engine.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.g2mil.com/LCS.htm
"Anti-ship weapons for island chains"
DeleteThe caution here is that before we begin assigning weapons we need to solve the targeting challenges. A small PT type boat isn't going to have sensors with more than horizon range (8-10 mile range given the low mounting) so a multi-hundred mile range weapon is useless. Even a torpedo with a 30-50 mile range needs targeting commensurate with the weapon.
Do you have any thoughts about targeting to go with the weapons?
I would suggest that some the 4 boats in the PT squadron be drone launchers, or you could put the otherwise useless LCS classes to use as PT motherships that could also launch drones. These could provide the initial target discovery.
DeleteDon't forget that small island chains themselves present detection challenges for the enemy trying to detect a PT boat. A low-radar boat can hug close to rocky islands to confuse their radar signature, can travel routes frequented by fishing vessels at night, and other tactics to get within range with having to engage in OTH attacks. Tactics can count for a lot. They would not be applicable for blue water but could be used in an ambush in green water.
"boats in the PT squadron be drone launchers"
DeleteIs there an existing UAV that you know of that would be right size and capable of operating from a small boat while providing long range surveillance?
I ask because a lot of people (not you, I'm sure!) casually throw out the 'use a drone' idea to solve all manner of problems without considering size, weight, and operating constraints along with launch and recovery.
If they just have a perisope mast or a tethered UAV above they can see out quite far. Sailing past the first island chain in the Pacific forces big ships to sail near shore. PT boats may hide in coves during the day and venture out at night on electric power to see what they find. PT boats are needed for CSAR. A big airbattle around Okinawa or Taiwan might leave dozens of naval aviators in the water. And unescorted supply ships would be easy targets.
Delete"a perisope mast"
DeleteBear in mind the physics behind this. The taller a mast is, the greater the stress at the base. This is why ship's masts are quite massively built and, generally, reinforced with some sort of tripod type support. In addition, any weight at the end of the mast magnifies the stress at teh base as a function of length. This is why a feather can break a steel beam if the beam is long enough. So many people think they can simply extend a mast hundreds of feet in the air with a big radar or something at the end. In reality, this is not possible. It would instantly snap the mast.
So, you either need a massively large and supported mast which a PT boat size craft can't support or you need a miniscule sensor with a microscopic field of view.
"PT boats may hide in coves"
This is a romantic notion that is unworkable. A PT boat would need to be refueled for every patrol. How would the logistics of that be accomplished. It won't be with a large, non-stealthy, defenseless mothership as so many would like to believe. It won't be with a secret, hidden base deep inside enemy territory as the Marines seem to believe. So, where and how are the boats refueled and rearmed?
People get caught up in the appeal of a ninja boat appearing out of nowhere but they ignore the practical realities of operating, maintaining, and supplying such a boat.
Teliscoping masts are used on Army vehicles and should be on ships and large boats. Here are examples:
Deletehttps://www.clarkmasts.com/products/military-masts/
They can be lightweight fiberglass and only extended when needed or practical. It's a low cost option that can double visual range.
https://www.clarkmasts.com/products/military-masts/
Yes, all naval forces need a method of resupply. PT boats needn't patrol, they may lurk for weeks. The idea is that with PT boats in an area, all ships must be escorted and a $3 billion destroyer may be sunk by a million dollar boat with no warning.
Masts for observation are not a new idea -- aka crowsnest.
Deletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/%281867%29_p184_I_SCORESBYS_TUNNA.jpg
My more detailed comment probably went to SPAM.
DeleteRegarding targeting: Why couldn't your PT boat be LINK 16 capable? Receive targeting info from any B-21, F-35, RQ-Whatever or satellite. Assume all you need is bearing to launch.
DeleteRegarding will to act: Houthi targeting info is provided by a single Iranian boat/ship. Get 'em.
"Here are examples:"
DeleteNote that the taller the mast, the smaller the top load. Also, note that all the masts are used only on unmoving, stable vehicles. In contrast, a boat is continuously pitching and rolling which increases the strain on the mount. I really don't think you can get a mast with a useful height and useful load on a small boat.
"double visual range"
The horizon is about 3 miles for a man at sea level. Here's a table with horizon distance as a function of height. Note that even at a height of 90 ft, the visible horizon is just 12 miles.
Ht (ft) Dist (miles)
1 1.31
2 1.87
3 2.29
5 2.96
6 3.24
10 4.18
15 5.12
20 5.92
25 6.61
30 7.25
40 8.37
50 9.35
65 10.25
70 11.07
80 11.83
90 12.25
This demonstrates the futility of mounting hundred+ mile weapons on a platform with a few mile targeting capability.
"a $3 billion destroyer may be sunk by a million dollar boat with no warning."
How does a destroyer not detect a boat that has to approach withing a few miles to target? Assuming they're not asleep like the Russians, the destroyer has much larger (more sensitive), and many more, sensors all mounted higher up than a PT type boat. How does the boat get close enough to target without being seen long before?
"Masts for observation are not a new idea -- aka crowsnest."
DeleteA sailing ship's mast is massively thick and heavy and is braced by an extensive series of support ropes. Totally impractical for a PT type boat.
"Why couldn't your PT boat be LINK 16 capable? Receive targeting info from any ..."
DeleteThat kind of targeting requires the persistent presence of a sensor platform in enemy air/water space. If the environment is permissive enough for a sensor platform to leisurely travel around the area then there aren't any enemy ship's in the area.
Satellites cannot be used for ship targeting, as the US space command has publicly noted.
We have around 19 B-21s (probably around a dozen operational) and they'll be used for missions much more important than looking for individual ships for a PT boat.
F-35's cannot provide persistent presence in enemy air and are not a maritime search platform.
Link 16 usage provides a fix on the transmitting platform. Not good in combat.
I know I have whined--I mean suggested--before that they could be use for coastal ASW within the US EEZ. What were called sub-chasers in WW2. We could have a smaller SOSUS style seabed network along the coasts that would feed initial bearing to the sub-chasers who would use a dipping or small hull mounted sonar for the final detection. Operating in packs they could cover a lot of area. And other than torpedoes and maybe a 25 or 30mm cannon, they wouldn’t need much armament as they would have the Air National Guard and air-force proving warning and air cover against enemy surface ships and aircraft. In fact a non-deck penetrating CIWS rescued from being mothballed would be sufficient for engaging small saboteur boats and drones that would be the only real theats so close to our shores.
ReplyDeleteYou could have a squadron for the price a single Burke. They could be cranked out by smaller yards on the Gulf coast instead of the usual overpriced Navy ship-builders. They could even be shared hulls with them operating as CG patrol boats in peacetime for fisheries duty, anti-smuggling, etc. and in wartime add Navy personnel for the sonar and torpedoes in ASW mode.
PT boats could also act as surface escorts for merchant ships to and from the port to the EEZ border where larger vessels could then take over for escorting a convoy. That would provide escort for the merchant marine as they report to their gathering spot for joining a convoy.
I know I have whined--I mean suggested--before that they could be use for coastal ASW within the US EEZ. What were called sub-chasers in WW2. We could have a smaller SOSUS style seabed network along the coasts that would feed initial bearing to the sub-chasers who would use a dipping or small hull mounted sonar for the final detection. Operating in packs they could cover a lot of area. And other than torpedoes and maybe a 25 or 30mm cannon, they wouldn’t need much armament as they would have the Air National Guard and air-force proving warning and air cover against enemy surface ships and aircraft. In fact a non-deck penetrating CIWS rescued from being mothballed would be sufficient for engaging small saboteur boats and drones that would be the only real theats so close to our shores.
ReplyDeleteYou could have a squadron for the price a single Burke. They could be cranked out by smaller yards on the Gulf coast instead of the usual overpriced Navy ship-builders. They could even be shared hulls with them operating as CG patrol boats in peacetime for fisheries duty, anti-smuggling, etc. and in wartime add Navy personnel for the sonar and torpedoes in ASW mode.
PT boats could also act as surface escorts for merchant ships to and from the port to the EEZ border where larger vessels could then take over for escorting a convoy. That would provide escort for the merchant marine as they report to their gathering spot for joining a convoy.
Your comments went to the spam folder - an uncommon but recurring problem. As always, I monitor the folder several times a day and transfer legitimate comments as soon as I see them. I wish there was something more I could do.
DeleteHave you thought about moving your blog from Google to Substack? Much better platform imo.
DeleteI don't know that much about Substack but what I do know suggests that it is not appropriate for a simple blog. The benefit of Blogger is that it is dirt simple and free. Of course, the flip side of that is that I have almost no control over it.
DeleteFor the time being I'll stick with this although I'll continue to examine alternatives.
I think your best modern equivalent is the Philippine Acero-class patrol gunboat which is based on Israeli Shaldag. The first thing to not do is focus on a design with traditional VBSS in mind. Don't waste space and weight on a RHIB launch like most patrol boats. there is also a a gravitation between the 28m Mk VI like size and the 35M size. I'd go for the 35M which is actually the length of the German Schnellboats and British Dog boats. That little difference in size can allow for some actual endurance since we aren't very well prepared for providing the forward basing for anything. They could sense with tube launched UAVs like Coyote and fire loitering munitions the same way.
ReplyDeleteI also think a new 55M like Cyclone would be a great next step for Bollinger and possibly some yacht yards if we get a real shipbuilding plan going. That one could have a Vertrp station with a real UAV for ISR.
The grab bag of in service weapons:
Mk 38 mod IV w M2 coax
XM914 w 7.62 coax and Javelin or 2 Stinger
The Vampire 4 x APKWS pods
Switchblade 300/600
Spike NLOS/Hellfire
Griffin (No really seeing the need here unless you mount a RAM launcher (They can load Griffin in RAM cells)
"Philippine Acero-class patrol gunboat"
DeleteAnd even that is nearly 30 ft longer than a WWII PT boat! The idea behind this concept is to use a SMALL, cheap, heavily armed, EXPENDABLE craft. Every foot of length we add and every weapon/sensor just adds cost and detectability which violates the underlying criteria.
I get the impression that you have in mind a true WWII PT boat type to use as an anti-ship platform. You'll note that in the post I listed potential missions and NONE were anti-ship. This is mission creep, already!
DeleteWe have many ways to kill ships and a PT boat would be the least feasible/effective due to logistics, targeting, salvo density, etc.
I know I have whined--I mean suggested--before that they could be use for coastal ASW within the US EEZ. What were called sub-chasers in WW2. We could have a smaller SOSUS style seabed network along the coasts that would feed initial bearing to the sub-chasers who would use a dipping or small hull mounted sonar for the final detection. Operating in packs they could cover a lot of area. And other than torpedoes and maybe a 25 or 30mm cannon, they wouldn’t need much armament as they would have the Air National Guard and air-force providing warning and air cover against enemy surface combatant and aircraft. In fact a non-deck penetrating CIWS rescued from being mothballed would be sufficient for engaging small saboteur boats and drones that would be the the main se/air threats so close to our shores. It could also provide a last-ditch defense against sub-launched anti-shipping missiles.
ReplyDeleteYou could have a squadron for the price a single Burke. They could be cranked out by smaller yards on the Gulf coast instead of the usual overpriced Navy ship-builders. They could even be shared hulls with them operating as CG patrol boats in peacetime for fisheries duty, anti-smuggling, etc. and in wartime add Navy personnel for the sonar and torpedoes in ASW mode.
PT boats could also act as surface escorts for merchant ships to and from the port to the EEZ border where larger vessels could then take over for escorting a convoy. That would provide escort for the merchant marine as they report to their gathering spot for joining a convoy.
It's an excellent idea for peace enforcement, piracy suppression and the like.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it fails utterly in the primary mission of modern USN shipbuilding: giving vast quantities of money to specialist shipbuilders, to the political benefit of the relevant Representatives and Senators. If you try to make it expensive enough for that mission, you end up with the LCS.
The US Navy flew sizable UAVs from patrol boats 20 years ago!
ReplyDeletehttps://navyseals.com/4653/tech-gear-scaneagle-uav-unmanned-ariel-vehicle/
And used them for mine hunting more recently.
http://www.navaldrones.com/MK-VI.html
"The US Navy flew sizable UAVs from patrol boats 20 years ago!"
DeleteOperating a single UAV is next to pointless in combat. UAVs will have a lifespan of minutes in enemy air space. A Scan Eagle is emphatically not a wide area maritime search platform. Scan Eagle also requires a control signal which pinpoints the controlling boat's location.
I am all for small UAVs as search assets but they have to be employed in large numbers (high attrition rate in combat) and must operate autonomously.
Check this article out (in spanish so, use a tranlator)-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/5038784/-posible-lunes-arriba-uruguay-patrullera-rou-10-huracan-donada-corea-sur
The Uruguayan navy purchase this boat from South Korea, which happens to have many such units. Not a 'PT' but still a patrol boat that serves to do the very missions you outlined.
Going 'smaller and practical' isn't within the USN' MO. It is 'unbecoming' of a 'blue water navy'. Just like the fact that they ignore going with diesel-electric submarines...
Anyways, you have a great idea...but it needs to address the profit margins for the MIC company that will build them.
"needs to address the profit margins for the MIC company that will build them."
DeleteThey wouldn't be built by the large shipbuilding companies. They would be built by the small companies like Bollinger who builds exactly this type of small craft routinely for 'free' relative to the cost of a Navy ship.
I have been advocating this for a very long time. The US Navy should get in on the USCG's FRC and the soon Heritage class OPC. I can see the US Navy using the USCG's FRC and soon heritage class OPC for Persian Gulf anti-Iranian maritime harassment, Philippines anti-Chinese patrol,Fishery anti-Chinese incursion patrol, Africa and South America riverine patrol and raid Anti-terrorism. It would also be great platform for the US Navy to evaluate LT's and LTCDR's for future command of DDG's and Amphib ships.
ReplyDelete"I have been advocating this for a very long time. The US Navy should get in on the USCG's FRC and the soon Heritage class OPC."
DeleteDo not conflate two separate missions. A tiny PT gunboat is NOT a general purpose patrol ship.
I would take both of those and add manned copies of OUSV-3 Vanguard.
DeleteThe Heritage class OPC, if armed correctly like the ADA class Corvettes would be perfect for the US Navy's Low end missions and if you armed it properly, it can be used for all the low end missions including supporting special operations, Anti piracy, anti terrorism missions, presence missions and show the flag. If you Pair if with the USCG's FRC for guarding the islands and key areas on top of that it would provide the US Navy ample opportunity to evaluate LT(jg)'s and LCDR's for future command of a Frigate, DDG or Amphibious assault ship. Plus it would cut cost on designing a ship when the US has a ship in production. Plus the FRC would be a great ship for the US Naval Academy to use to train Midshipmen on ship handling and would give operational experience including getting all those qualifications including underway and port OOD. As for guarding Key Islands like Guam, American Samoa, the Heritage class OPC and FRC would a great option.
DeleteI do know swiftship has a 75 MM OPV design that is one option the Us Navy can use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xilYlZgqZl4
DeleteI like this idea, this boat's job would be eliminate lines of communication/supply by an enemy in contested waters (like the Philippines for example).
ReplyDeleteI could see it using weapons like 40mm Bofors or the 25mm Bushmaster along with 20 Vulcan guns. All things that allow the PT boat to quickly gain firepower superiority over the adversary.
I would also think that an EO/IR sensor would make the most sense for this.
Along with that I would have an OH-58D type of sight that incorporates telephoto magnification, thermal imaging, laser rangefinding and laser designating.
The laser designator would be used along with a Hellfire missile launcher.
I would think these would be pretty good at busting up enemy boats and barges in coastal waters.
Lutefisk
^ 20mm Vulcan guns, not 20 Vulcan guns (talk about firepower superiority!!!)
ReplyDeleteIs there any reason that a WW2 PT boat couldn't be used?
DeleteUse aluminum for the hull
put a 20mm vulcan gun on the foredeck
keep the two twin .50's amidships
the EO/IR on the mast
the targeting sight on the roof
the Hellfire launcher behind the cabin
and the 40mm Bofors on the fantail?
Lutefisk
"the Hellfire launcher"
DeleteYou're falling prey to the same paradigm as everyone else. You want to turn this into a ship-killing boat. Take another look at the mission list in the post. It's more about near shore troop support and anti-small boat not ship killing. The premise was a GUNboat not an anti-ship boat.
Of course, if you want to explore a ship killing PT boat and can solve the targeting (while not being targeted!) and salvo density issues then go ahead.
The Hellfire missile is pretty small. The warhead is only about 18 lbs of explosive compared to the naval strike missile that has 260 lbs of explosive.
DeleteI was thinking of the Hellfire as a complementary boat killer, not enough missile to kill a ship.
I think the biggest challenge for the Hellfire in this application is having the laser designator stabilized so you can keep it on the target.
Lutefisk
@Lutefisk: Alternatively, we could use Longbow Hellfire, which is radar-guided. Might work out better than the normal laser Hellfire.
DeleteThe Longbow idea for the Hellfire is probably the right solution.
DeleteHowever, I wonder if it gets to be more trouble than it's worth?
I was thinking of it being a bit of a niche weapon to add another capability...but the targeting requires targeting systems that will add cost, complexity and weight.
It might be better to upgrade the 40mm on the fantail to a twin 40mm. The 40mm has a similar range to the Hellfire.
Or maybe add another autocannon of some sort to the space behind the cabin (I'm picturing a modern version of the classic WW2 PT boat)?
Lutefisk
China seems like this idea:
ReplyDeleteEarly this year, China promoted to export in WDS 2024:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/wds-2024/2024/02/china-unveils-next-gen-attack-usv-thunderer-a2000-at-wds-2024/
But, almost 4 years ago, they had this already (also promoted for export):
https://maritime-executive.com/article/china-s-unmanned-mini-destroyer-out-on-sea-trials
"Early this year, China promoted to export"
DeleteThere's a world of difference between what a country is willing to build for export (a money making business venture) versus what the country thinks is actually appropriate and useful for their own military. To the best of my knowledge, China is not procuring this for their own use.
These are gimmicks for the export market trying to take advantage of the unmanned craze (craziness?).
There is a developing discussion on tapatalk about a potential request for a micro escort squadron w tender to get ships through the Red Sea to Straits of Hormuz. No conops, very limited specs, like no larger than 25mm gun.
ReplyDeleteCould these be useful for “testing” Chinese interests just as they use aircraft to probe Taiwanese airspace. Maybe they could frequent Taiwanese waters and some could frequent various reefs unexpectedly. Who know where or how many might pop up. Maybe the weapons set even changes from time to time.
ReplyDeleteCal
"Could these be useful for “testing” Chinese interests just as they use aircraft to probe Taiwanese airspace. "
DeleteThe Chinese probe Taiwan to intimidate, send a political message, map Taiwan defensive responses, and to attempt to normalize illegal acts. Are you suggesting we do the same in Chinese territorial waters?
"Maybe they could frequent Taiwanese waters"
What good would sailing in Taiwan waters do? Taiwan already has ships and boats in their own waters. If you want to emulate the Chinese, you have to do it in China's air and water.
"some could frequent various reefs unexpectedly."
We already do this in the form of Freedom of Navigation exercises. How would this add anything of value?
"Who know where or how many might pop up."
We have ships and aircraft 'pop up' all over the E/S China Seas and that's achieved ... nothing. Unless you're willing to use force to accomplish your goals, you're just wasting time and resources.
If we were to forcefully counter illegal islands, fishery violations, territorial water incursions, etc. then something like you're proposing might be of value. Otherwise, we're just engaging in appeasement.
"What do you think? Are there useful missions for a modern PT gunboat?"
ReplyDeleteThe Koreans have the Patrol Killer Medium Rocket class of PT boats, with a respectable armament: 76mm foredeck gun, 12-cell 5 inch rocket laucher on the afterdeck. The boats are intended to do close shore patrol to interdict North Korean fast boats and hovercraft, with a secondary role of shore bombardment.
I would like to propose we build and sell a very SLIGHTLY modified version of the Ambassador Class Mk 3 Fast Attack Craft. 600 tons, 41kts, crew of about 35-40, weapons 76mm, 8 Harpoon, SEARAM and CIWS. Also the US built 4 of them for Egypt for a little more than 240mil per ship (figure probably includes parts and spares). The only thing I would add to is a deck just big enough to launch smaller drones (think Scan Eagle or smaller). I like the mention of the rocket launcher. The only modularity I would seek would be to replace the Harpoon Launcher with a GLMR like launcher or NSM. Changing out missile launchers is vastly easier than switching out major systems.
ReplyDeleteThey actually cost well more than that and with inflation even more. The engines are also now out of production. That aside a US spec:
DeleteMk 110
SRBOC
SEWIP Lite
2 x 4 NSM
Searam
7m RHIB
Now that aft deck is open for Vertrep and UAVs
But this ain't no PT boat.
Check out the Antasena class combat boats being built for the Indonesian Navy. This looks like a modern version of the PT boat concept. CONOPS for this boat I think would be ISR / Spec Ops. I would also add a mine laying capacity as well (Captors). This is more of a Naval sniper role in taking advantage of choke points or intel on ship movements through restricted waters. Google "Tank Boats" for info online.
ReplyDeleteTank boat is just a concept w prototype. Not yet adopted.
DeleteWe could go like the Vietnam green water fleet and up gun MSV(L) once they are in full production.
wait, were they a success in WW2? My understanding is that, even back then, they were kind of a failure. Lots of losses to bad weather and even the slightest kind of defense. If they did have success, it was only because the Japanese were completely overwhelmed at sea.
ReplyDeleteAs explained in the linked post, PT boats were almost completely unsuccessful in the anti-ship role but were quite effective in the gunboat and ISR roles.
DeleteAdd some small drone capability.
ReplyDelete