Friday, October 3, 2025

This is Your Mine Countermeasures

The last Avenger class mine countermeasures (MCM) vessel, USS Devastator (MCM 6), has now been retired.[1]  Our surface MCM capability is now entirely in the hands of the Independence class LCS.  Yes, that LCS.  The ship and MCM module that has suffered years of delay, failure after failure, and no realistic operational testing.  That one.  That disaster.  No, this isn’t a Halloween horror story, although it should scare you to death.  This is our current naval MCM reality.
 
To briefly review, the LCS-MCM consists of a helo and an unmanned boat, each of which carry/tow various attachments as listed below.
 
MH-60S Seahawk mine warfare helicopters 
  • AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) shallow water laser mine detection
  • AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) suicide drones
 
Common Unmanned Surface Vessel (CUSV) tow boat 
  • AN/AQS-20C forward/side scan mine detection sonar
  • Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS) acoustic and influence sweep
 
Now, how is that all working?  Go read the annual GAO and DOT&E weapon assessments and you’ll get the history and status of the LCS MCM module.  It’s not pretty.  In addition, Naval News website offers a fantastic summary of the Independence-MCM.  Here’s some excerpts. 
Embarked helicopters also operate with the AN/ASQ-235 Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), offering a safer method to counter-mine potential threats compared to traditional mechanical minesweeping with EOD divers.[1]
Safer?  Yes.
Effective?  No.
Efficient?  No.
Fast?  No. 
The sonars on the CUSVs are not a high enough resolution to identify specific threats. The lasers used on MH-60S helicopters require water that is not too turbid to operate in.[1]
So, the system only works in clear water and even then can’t reliably identify the threats?  Good … good. 
… when it comes to the unmanned systems used for mine countermeasures. Each mission takes roughly four hours of maintenance pre-mission followed by one-and-a-half hours of calibration of GPS and sonar to reach acceptable accuracy for MCM missions. The rough estimate is six hours of pre-mission preparation before mine countermeasures can begin. In real-world scenarios, that time may not exist.[1]

So, the equipment may not be effective but it’s slow.  Agonizingly slow.  That might be okay for clearing a fifty foot wide channel over the course of a month but that’s useless for combat operations. 
These concerns do not address the single points of failure in the LCS and MCM package, which make the package an extremely risk-prone platform for operations.
 
The platform lift on the LCS that moves equipment from the mission bay to the flight deck is a major operational point for equipping the MH-60S with ALMDS or AMNS. If the lift fails, the helicopter is combat ineffective. If the tow hook on a CUSV breaks, it is combat ineffective and must be towed back or recovered another way. If the Twin Boom Extensible Frame, used to lower CUSVs into the water, breaks, the entire MCM platform is inoperable and USVs cannot be launched for missions.[1]

As an example, 
One test of the MCM package on USS Tulsa (LCS 16), a ship that arrived in Bahrain in May for MCM operations, resulted in a runaway USV, according to one U.S. Navy official familiar with the testing. During that test, part of the tow bracket used to recover the mine countermeasures CUSV broke, leaving it unrecoverable.[1]

But wait, there’s more! 
The components of the LCS MCM mission module were not originally designed to be loaded into the 30,000 square feet of mission bay space and shortcomings have been encountered in balancing the space between 11 meter CUSVs, four or five 12-foot CONEX boxes, a lift system for the CUSVs, and an independent berthing box for the operators of the MCM suite.[2]
 
Due to these space constraints, modularity of this platform is no longer offered or being pursued by the U.S. Navy to switch between mission modules, a sharp turn from the original planning of the LCS.[2]
 
According to Captain Scott B. Hattaway, Director of the SMWDC Mine Countermeasures Technical Division, the 11 meter CUSV is currently limited by form factor, limiting the endurance of the platform and the weight of the cable for towed sonar depth. The current form factor of the CUSV is limiting the maximum performance that can be extracted from the AN/AQS-20C sonar suite.[2]
 
Another limiting factor, according to Captain Hattaway, is the range offered by the CUSV. Line of sight between the LCS mothership and the CUSV is required. In heavy sea states, effectiveness is limited. Bandwidth is taxed by the amount of information that needs to be shared back and forth to the operator and the sensor suites. The U.S. Navy is working on methods to extend the range of deployed CUSVs, including the use of Starshield, the U.S. military’s arm of the Starlink satellite internet platform.[2]

Conclusion
 
Really?  Isn’t the conclusion pretty obvious?
 
 
 
____________________________________
 
[1]Naval News website, “Unproven Littoral Combat Ships are replacing retired MCM ships in Bahrain”, Carter Johnson, 26-Sep-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/09/combat-ineffective-littoral-combat-ships-are-replacing-mcm-ships-in-bahrain/
 
[2]Naval News website, “Update on the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Package”, Carter Johnson, 4-Jan-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/update-on-the-u-s-navys-littoral-combat-ship-mine-countermeasures-mission-package/

14 comments:

  1. I don't want to rehash the previous discussion, but I would have thought that if you convey your top military brass, you should have gone further than grooming and standards and ROE ... etc. to address these sort of issues which are not limited to the navy (many failed iterations on armour & fires since RMA , F35 maintenance costs and specs shortcomings ... ). And rather than threatening to fire "liberal" officers, announce that you are firing officers responsible for this mess !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without a doubt, there are many officers who should be fired for sheer incompetence. The failure to do so is one of my concerns and criticisms of Hegseth, so far.

      Delete
  2. Looking forward to the PLANS new class of submarine mine layers and even an unmanned drone sub mine layer, a dozen mines against the USN with near zero MCM capability is a worthwhile project. The Navy lacks representation from the MCM community, as the kids say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "a dozen mines against the USN"

      I'll paraphrase something a friend once said ... A dozen or so mines in a dozen of our major mainland ports and watch the Navy go into convulsions trying to rush back home and clear mines and protect the ports. That alone would nearly incapacitate the entire Navy. We would be surging our forces backward instead of forward ... and without the proper equipment to do the job!

      Delete
  3. Hmmm...how to phrase this politely?

    The Navy does not seem to have an appropriate sense of urgency to adequately address a shortcoming of this level of importance.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The previous Japanese Navy Chief came from a mine warfare background. Such a thing would be unthinkable in the US, where CNOs are dominated by Aviation, and then Surface Warfare.

      I'm reminded of someone on TV tropes blithely saying that Iceman's position as CINCPAC was unrealistic because aviators don't get major combat commands... meanwhile, out of the last 10 CINCPACs we've had IRL, 7 were from Aviation (6 Aviators, 1 NFO), 2 were from Surface Warfare, and only 1 was from submarines.

      It's kind of telling, IMO.

      Delete
  4. Uh? There are still four MCM in Sasebo:
    https://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvr/getHull.htm?shipId=2243

    ReplyDelete
  5. In Sasebo:
    MCM 1 MCM 7 PATRIOT
    MCM 1 MCM 9 PIONEER
    MCM 1 MCM 10 WARRIOR
    MCM 1 MCM 14 CHIEF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. It appears the article got that wrong although those have been announced for decommissioning by 2027 in the Navy 30-yr plan so perhaps that's what they meant. Thanks for pointing that out.

      Delete
  6. They should have always planned LCS as an experimental ship with wide gap prior to a production flight. Taiwan appeared to get this right with their Catamaran Corvette. The new Vestdavit used on later ESBs and Flt II EPFs is part of the needed solution. They also need to ditch the mobicon for anything other than moving containers pre mission. If you kept the aft crane and built in a port and starboard davit, you could lift and move the boats into launch position in the davit via a boat lift. You can probably up the number of boats. Of course, this would be a redesigned ship.

    Also, CUSV has had enough time to develop and Textron seems to have come up short. For the money we are peaying there is no reason it couldn't be a composite ship rather than aluminum and have a higher payload fraction. The fact the system remains line of sight is a disgrace. The LCS Mission Modules Interface Control Doc clearly specify the communications necessary of the ship and interfacing unmanned systems and it was not line of site.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Minesweeping is a very danger task thus should be done by unmanned MCM. China's type 312 was world's first remote controlled minesweeper. They were used during the Vietnam War to help the North Vietnam to counter US' blockade its ports.

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine-vn.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    Unlike today, China's technical capabilities were very weak then but, as reported, greatly helped then North Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Truly ignorant. These small wood and 'glass ships can't be that expensive to build. The fact that they aren't being replaced with some basic copies is absurd. The LCS sweeper is a joke at best. So now, the reality is we are down to four MC ships and the HM-15 helo sweeping squadron, which I understand doesn't have much time left either. Decomming the LCS (both variants) would likely free up the funds to build a few freshened minesweeper and the crews to man them.
    We knew this was coming, but now that it's actually happening... we can once again scream "criminal retardation" to the heavens... but until we get some intelligent and informed leadership, this spiral is going to keep pulling us down.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have many complaints about air travel today, but it sure beats travel by stage coach. Likewise, LCS falls short of its MCM requirements, which are only distantly related to those of an earlier generation. I'm no LCS apologist; LCS was conceptually unsound and deficient in execution across the board. Perhaps Navy was unrealistic in their attempt to raise the bar for MCM so dramatically; blame years of deprivation plus the lure of technology. And don't forget the CNO who demanded LCS "at the speed of heat." I urge you to think deeper than the shallow article you referenced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to have some disagreement with the article but I'm not sure what. Care to elaborate?

      Delete

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