A few comments in recent posts have suggested that the US
Navy buy minesweeper ships from foreign navies/yards. Japan has one of the more extensive fleets of
MCM vessels so let’s take a look at Japan’s minesweepers as a good example of a
possible MCM vessel for the US Navy.
Japan has MCM vessels of various types, size, and
function. We’ll look at the Awaji class
mine countermeasures ship. The Awaji is
classified as a mine sweeper as opposed to the larger mine warfare mother ships
that Japan also operates.
 |
| Awaji Class Minesweeper |
As a brief summary, the Awaji class has a displacement of
690 tons, a length of 219 ft, a width of 36 ft, and is powered by 2x 2,200 hp diesel
engines. Top speed is 14 kt. Crew size is around 50. The hull is a composite fiber-reinforced
plastic for weight and magnetic signature reduction. Service life is 30 years.[1]
The ship has LIDAR mine detection systems that use reflected
light to detect underwater mines. Note,
however, that this is similar to the ALMDS (Airborne Laser Mine Detection
System) the U.S. Navy attempted to develop for the LCS MCM module and which has
encountered significant problems and limitations in capability.
A variable depth sonar (VDS) system is also used to detect
mines. It also has a Remus 600
autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), known as OZZ-4 to detect deeper mines.
For mine destruction, the ship has the Mitsui expendable
mine disposal system (EMDS) which is fiber optic cable controlled and uses a
camera for detection and identification before blowing up itself and the mine.
Surface mines can also be engaged with a remote control 20 mm weapon station.
Discussion
It is clear that this is not a minesweeper in any sense of
the word but, rather, a one-at-a-time mine hunting/clearance vessel. Of course, this means that the clearance rate
is incredibly slow and is utterly unsuited for dynamic combat operations.
Unfortunately, the one-at-a-time mine clearance approach has
been adopted by all Western navies with only an occasional and minor nod to
actual sweeping operations. Again, this
approach is useless in combat is reflective of the West’s fixation on unmanned
and crippling dependence on technology as the solution to the brutal, hard
aspects of warfare.
We see, once again, that foreign MCM assets offer no value
to the US Navy although they might be of use to Coast Guard ships charged with
harbor defense. This is not to say that
glacially slow mine hunting is not without its uses for countries that are only
concerned with limited territorial waters but for a global US Navy that must be
able to fight anywhere and ensure vast areas are free of mines, mine hunting is
a non-starter.
_______________________________
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/japan-commissions-fourth-awaji-class-minesweeper/
Rather than minesweepers, what we really need to import from Japan is their focus. The previous JMSDF CNO came from a mine warefare background, which is unthinkable in America.
ReplyDeleteJust look at CINCPACFLT - out of the last 10 incumbents, we had 1 submariner, 2 surface warfare, 1 naval flight officer and 6 aviators. 7 admirals from aviation.
In wartime the focus for Japan would be to quickly open up relatively narrow mine-free channels through its shallow littoral waters to allow safe passage for escorted convoys of merchant ships and tankers.
ReplyDeleteIf that was their priority a methodical one mine at a time approach would likely be appropriate.
As I understand it, modern mines can be disguised as seabed rocks with the explosive charge inside a non/magnetic ceramic casing, and programmed to target individual ships via propeller signatures etc..
Potentially a very effective cheap and asymmetrical way of warfighting.
I think this is good news for our U.S. navy if it does as planned:
ReplyDeleteThe Strategic Capabilities Office has issued a new solicitation for the Rapid Affordable Producible Torpedo, or RAPTOR, a next-generation concept for a single-use heavyweight torpedo designed to be produced quickly and at far lower cost than the U.S. Navy’s current inventory.
The RAPTOR Solicitation, identified as SCO-PS-26-01, was released on November 17 and amended on November 21, with offers due by December 17.
According to the notice, the project seeks proposals for “an affordable, rapidly scalable and producible, single-use heavyweight torpedo.” The solicitation is being distributed through the classified Acquisition Research Center.
As noted by the Strategic Capabilities Office, RAPTOR is a prototype concept shaped around rapid acquisition timelines. The Department of War has directed several development efforts in recent years that focus on fast production of lower-cost munitions, and RAPTOR aligns with that approach for undersea warfare.
https://defence-blog.com/u-s-navy-eyes-quick-build-heavy-torpedo/
Although I think the "rapid acquisition timeline" is a mistake, if they do finish the development it would seem to be a very good weapon to have for the U.S. Navy.
If they are cheap enough we can just blast our way through future minefields using mass firing of RAPTOR.
DeleteAs I recall, this concept was first floated two or three years ago so "rapid" has already failed! That aside, the original concept was for a much more limited capability torpedo - a Mk48 with all the fancy, advanced technology stripped out; basically, a slightly modernized WWII torpedo. Of course, the Navy has proposed countless "cheap" weapons programs in the past and they ALL wind up ballooning in price because they can't help but immediately add back in all the tech they first wanted to strip out. Will this be the one project that defies all of the Navy's recent history and stays cheap but effective? Theoretically, yes but realistically, no. We'll see.
Delete"If they are cheap enough we can just blast our way through future minefields using mass firing of RAPTOR."
DeleteHave you done the arithmetic? The current Mk48 costs $4M+. This "cheap" torpedo is hoped to be $500K (of course, that cost will balloon). Do the math. How many mines do you think would be in a minefield? Assume perfect one-kills-one efficiency and multiply the number of mines by the cost and see what you get.
Separately, ask yourself how a reduced capability torpedo is going to find, classify, and guide to a mine.
Let me know what you come up with.
Well the "reduced capability torpedo" as you call it can network with other systems (the distributed lethality that the "networked navy of the future" that I always keep hearing about) like with "Pathmaster" below again if it works as advertised to find and hit those mines.
DeleteThe unique, sea-proven Pathmaster solution will enable the Navy to accurately detect, classify, and localise mines in one of the busiest maritime straits in the region, in real-time. The solution includes Towed Synthetic Aperture Sonar (TSAS), the MiMap sonar data analysis tool and the M-Cube mission management system.
The system will be supported by the Thales Singapore Defence Hub, established in 2023 to provide maintenance, support services, operational availabilities and local development, located in close proximity to the Singapore Armed Forces, and in partnership with ST Engineering.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/news-centre/press-releases/thales-provide-cyber-secured-and-ai-powered-autonomous-mine
They claimed it already worked for Singapore which has not been seriously mined as far as I know so the AI system at least has to somewhat work. As can be read in the "Thales to provide a cyber-secured and AI-powered autonomous mine countermeasures system to the Republic of Singapore Navy" article above which I admit is short on details. As for the math well a good ballpark seems to be below:
Mines and underwater IEDs are easy to acquire or build and are cheap, but
their low cost belies their potential for harm. With costs measured from a few
hundred to several thousands of dollars, they are the weapons of choice for a
“poor man’s navy,” providing an excellent return on investment: low cost but
high effects.
On 18 February 1991, for example, the billion-dollar Aegis cruiser
USS Princeton (CG 59) suffered a “mission kill” from an Iraqi-laid Italian Manta
multiple-influence bottom mine costing about $25,000
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1429&context=nwc-review
Statistically speaking, of 18 warships lost or seriously damaged since World War II due to hostile action, 14 were struck by sea mines. And they have been proven to be cheap. For example, the two mines that damaged US warships during Desert Storm in 1991 cost $1,500 and $10,000 but collectively inflicted $21.6 million in damage.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/taiwan-is-deploying-cheap-minelayers-their-mines-with-us-help-to-target-expensive-chinese-warships/
So in a navy minefield... well we just need to clear a path so maybe we can have inert torpedoes that just set off the mines so maybe even cheaper that the 500K (but as ComNavOps typed the cost will balloon) so maybe we can use the torpedoes like below and by being reusable we can save costs and unlike below we do not risk any crew just a cheap torpedo that may be data linked to an anti-naval-mine network and/or connected to a ship that is and just wire guide the torpedo to do the job:
DeleteVickers engineers then removed the bomb racks, bombsight, guns and all unnecessary equipment to reduce weight and free up space for a Ford V8 automobile engine driving a 35-kilowatt Mawdsley electric generator. The former gun positions were faired over to streamline the fuselage. Also, because the magnetic coil rendered normal compasses useless, the Wellington was fitted with a gyrocompass.
Testing in December 1939 against a disarmed German magnetic mine validated the concept. The prototype’s success led to three more Wellingtons being modified on the production line, bringing the inventory to four by January 1940. Vickers built another 11 from production lines at other plants. The 15 aircraft were designated as Mark Ia DWIs (Directional Wireless Installation) and assigned to General Reconnaissance Unit 1 (GRU 1) to hide their true mission. Operating out of RAF Manston, GRU 1 was responsible for keeping the Thames Estuary clear of magnetic mines.
With the modified Wellingtons now operational, the next challenge was to establish the required altitude and transit speed for the “influence sweep” simulating a ship’s magnetic signature. The planes had to fly low enough to ensure they could detonate the mines laying on the seabed. Speed was also an issue. Flying too fast would not allow the mines’ sensors to reach the detonation threshold. Flying too slow or too low put the aircraft in danger from the mine detonation. Testing revealed that 35 and 60 feet were the minimum and maximum altitudes, respectively. The aircraft’s speed was not to exceed 130 mph while sweeping. Those narrow flight parameters made aerial minesweeping a tense and dangerous operation.
https://www.historynet.com/aerial-minesweeping/
The cheap torpedo can simply data link as below to be an even cheaper way to clear mines by simply data linking with something that could detect the mines maybe a nearby swarm of drone or the host ships:
Deleteundersea drones can increasingly track and destroy mines, network to the surface and even send data in real time to undersea host ships
https://warriormaven.com/news/sea/us-navy-submarines-advance-wireless-undersea-data-transmission
""reduced capability torpedo" as you call it can network with other systems"
DeleteThen it's no longer reduced capability and it's most definitely no longer cheap or rapid to produce! You must work for the Navy, I'm guessing!
Do I need to list all the programs that promised miraculous performance and deliver something between abject failure and greatly reduced performance?
The people who write these kinds of glowing articles must have sore wrists from hand-waving away all the practical problems! Don't be one of them. A stripped down torpedo, by definition, can't do any of things you're suggesting.
"we just need to clear a path"
DeleteA path miles wide and many miles long! Read about the Normandy mine clearing operations, as an example of combat mine clearing issues and operations.
"maybe we can use the torpedoes like below"
These already exist (UUVs) and are what the Western world uses and is counting on for its MCM. Useful for clearing a very small area, they are utterly useless for any dynamic combat operation.
"Wellington"
No idea why you're describing this?
"The cheap torpedo can simply data link as below to be an even cheaper way to clear mines by simply data linking with something that could detect the mines maybe a nearby swarm of drone or the host ships:"
DeleteI get the distinct impression that you have no idea what the current state of MCM equipment and performance is. You need to come up to speed.
With the Wellington I was trying to describe a way to clear naval mines as per below that may or may not be modernized to deal with future Chinese mines:
DeleteTo do so, RAF engineers had Vickers strip one of their Wellington twin-engine long-range bombers of its armament and fit it with a 51-foot-diameter balsa wood ring that housed an aluminum coil. While the RAF called it the Directional Wireless Installation, the name was just a cover for the modified aircraft’s true purpose; instead of bombs, inside the DWI nestled a Ford flathead V-8 engine hooked up to a 35-kilowatt Mawdsley generator that in turn energized the aluminum coil to create a magnetic field that would trigger the dip needle detonators.
The RAF likely chose the Vickers Wellington due not only to its ability to lift the engine/generator/coil system with ease but also due to its ability to fly low and slow, necessary to trigger the mines, which it first did successfully on January 8. According to Martin Bowman’s “Voices in Flight: The Wellington Bomber,” the aerial minesweeper, designated Type 418, had to fly at an altitude of no more than 60 feet to trigger the mines and no less than 35 feet to avoid damage from the mines.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/how-fords-flathead-v-8-helped-save-lives-as-an-aerial-minesweeper-during-world-war-ii/
As much as I would like to work for the U.S. Navy, I do not. I do know that the U.S. Navy's mine countermeasures is now more or less centered on the LCS with the Avengers getting retired as below:
DeleteThe U.S. Navy has awarded a series of contracts to enhance its Mine Countermeasures (MCM) capabilities, focusing on the deployment of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) MCM Mission Package (MP). The contracts, issued under the Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants (PEO USC), aim to improve mine detection and neutralisation in littoral waters.
https://defence-industry.eu/u-s-navy-awards-contracts-for-future-mine-countermeasures-capabilities/
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-lcs-mcm-capabilities/
Yes, ComNavOps is right I am no expert I only know what I have read.
In order to comment effectively, you really need to come up to speed on current MCM methods and equipment. Everything you're suggesting already exists and has proven quite limited in applicability. You appear to be a few to several decades behind in your understanding.
DeleteInteresting that the Japanese built an almost identically sized ship, but yet it has no true "sweeping" ability. A waste that seems awful USN-ish.
ReplyDeleteDo we think that the Avengers and the towed sled capabilities of HM-15 are useful in today's environment? Are these "legacy" systems going to do the job? And do the job against modern mines, in the places we need them to? If so, then ( in spite of the premise of previous post about "repeats") we need to build new modern versions, and in bulk. The Avengers are being phased out due to their age, so why not just build an up to date version? And the same with the Helicopter MCM squadron. THE Marines are buying a bunch of brand new CH-53s, so getting some new MH-53s ( and some new sleds) trickling off the line shouldn't be too hard.
We're watching the last of the remotely capable "sweepers" being retired, with only "one mine at a time" systems being researched and built. It's likely going to be a costly mistake.
FYI: HM-15 is due to be deactivated in FY '27. It's Det in Bahrain just did its final flights and is shuttered. It still has a Det in South Korea, although oddly, they spend most of their time moving troops and doing Marine things.
DeleteThe entire MCM capability hinges on whether modern sweeps are actually effective. I've seen no evidence that they are and I've seen no evidence that anyone is even testing/developing sweeps on any useful or even slightly realistic scale. Until we understand sweep performance, we're dead in the water, much like a ship that suffers a mine strike.
DeleteNot having that information is a crime... I found this- and while not very informative, it did have some availibility/reliability numbers that are rather damning, as well as mentioning the Navys lack of testing.
DeleteDon’t Sweep Minesweepers Under the Rug: America’s Critical Naval Vulnerability - Center for Maritime Strategy https://share.google/6HckHXNSTV4vCb9MN
In other news...Im actually happy.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy just announced that the Constellations are cancelled!!!
The first two will be completed, but the rest are canceled. This is the first smart move regarding shipbuilding and procurement I've seen in a while!!!
CNO, moving a bit OT, and wondering about offensive mining of enemy waters, and letting them figure out the challenges of MCM.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if we’ve ever built a fast minelayer like the British Abdiel class of WW2. A destroyer sized ship with the power plants of a heavy cruiser giving it a speed of 45 knots and a capacity of laying up to 180 moored mines in an afternoon (ie a blocking minefield).
Wondering if the Independence class LCSs - which for all their faults and problems - have a good turn of speed and a lot of internal carrying capacity could be used as minelayers to make things harder for a Chinese amphibious attack on Taiwan.
I know sunk cost fallacy and all, but still it would be good to find a use for them.
The US Navy has built/converted fast minelayers in the past. The Robert H. Smith class in WWII comes to mind. I don't recall any dedicated minelayers in recent times. The LCS would theoretically make a potentially effective minelayer but the practical problems with maintenance, reliability, crew size, endurance, basing, range, etc. make them suspect for any role very far from a US home port.
DeleteThe Air Force is getting in on the fast minelayer game, as a way of staying relevant in the pacific fight. They've adapted JDAM guidance to Quickstrike mines, and are now working on extended range glide bomb variants so that bombers and other tactical.aircraft can deploy mines at standoff.
DeleteIf the LCSs were attached to the 7th Fleet and home ported in Yokasuko maybe the Japanese could sort out the maintenance and reliability issues and generally knock them into shape.
Delete"Air Force is getting in on the fast minelayer game"
DeleteThat's a technically true statement though with many qualifiers. Effective mine fields are laid in the many hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands. A plane just can't carry many and would require large numbers of sorties to lay an effective field. Will an enemy stand back and allow flight after flight of mine laying planes to operate unhindered? Not likely.
Standoff is a very relative term. Given current sensor and missile ranges, in order for a minelaying plane to be safe, it would have to be well out of laying range.
The Air Force has been using bombers to deploy their mines, and the Quickstrike ER glide kit allows deployment in ranges in excess of 50 miles. Depending on where you're trying to plant a minefield, that may be survivable enough, especially if using a stealth bomber - a B-2 can carry 80 pieces of 500 lbs class bombs in a single flight.
Delete"bombers to deploy their mines"
DeleteAt a quick glance, I can't find any evidence that the B-2 is rated for mines. Do you have documentation that indicates it can?
At present, the Air Force's aerial mining efforts are focused on the B-52 Stratofortress and B-1B Lancer bombers. There has been no news of Quickstrike integration with the B-2; however, the B-2 has demonstrated test drops of the QuickSINK weapon, which might be the source of other Anon's confusion, what with the similar names.
DeleteConceptually, there's nothing really stopping Quickstrike from being integrated with the B-2, as Quickstrike mines still fit in the same form factor as Mark 80 series bombs. Given the age of the B-2 platform, however, I believe it's more likely that any stealth bomber aerial mining efforts would be directed to the B-21 Raider instead, given that it will be the replacement bomber for recapitalising the B-2 and B-1 fleet (the B-52 will never be sucessfully replaced, it will continue to soldier on).
The other major factor in considering the use of B-2/B-21 bombers for mine laying is that we don't have many of them. We have a maximum of 19 flyable B-2 and I suspect that the actual number is more like 15. Those stealth bombers are going to be in incredibly high demand for the most important and dangerous missions and dropping mines are unlikely to be on the priority mission list.
DeleteB-1/52 bombers could be used but, being non-stealthy, can only be used in peripheral warzone areas. Useful but limited.
I disgress but I can't wait to see your next post about the termination of the Constellation program, stopped after the first 2 ships.
ReplyDelete