Surprisingly, two of the Navy’s MCM configured LCS have been
moved from the Middle East to a port in Malaysia despite the obvious
possibility of Iranian mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The ships were relocated about a week or so
before the US strikes began. If the
Iranians do lay mines (there are no confirmed reports yet), we’ll desperately
miss the LCS MCM capabilities … or will we?
From a Hunterbrooks website report, we learn that the LCS
MCM capability is even more problematic and limited than we already knew. The report provides information from a US
Navy briefing.[1]
As you read it, bear in mind that the summarized information
presented below is the Navy’s information, not mine. If you want to dispute anything, you’ll have
to take it up with the Navy.
By trying to be multi-mission, training time available for
mine countermeasures is being significantly reduced to support ASuW, VBSS, and
other missions.
The entire MCM package is pretty minimal and consists of just:
- 1x MH-60S Seahawk
- Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS)
- mine neutralization system (underwater suicide drone)
- AN/AQS-20 side-scan and volume-search sonar
- Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS)
- 4+ hrs pre-mission maintenance
- 1.5 hrs post-launch sonar calibration
AQS-20 sonar has a habit of failing to record data which is
not detectable until after the mission, during the post-mission analysis.
CUSV still has a tendency to “runaway”, out of control.
CUSV comms are unacceptably short range requiring the LCS to
operate in or near the minefield.
Navy MCM doctrine requires a visual ID of mines and the
camera fails even in relatively clear waters.
The single CUSV crane is a single point of failure and is
prone to failure.
https://hntrbrk.com/demining-hormuz/
How many dedicated mine sweeper/mine hunter US have?
ReplyDeleteAnswer is FOUR - Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships
This is why Trump asked European allies for mine sweepers. Navy thought LCS can replace dedicated mine sweeper/mine hunter.
Besides mine sweep module, LCS is made of metal plus very high noise - a combination to trigger classical mines (no need smart mine which Iran doesn't have).
Well, not really even four. The Avengers have been allowed to, literally, rot. It is doubtful that the remaining Avengers are even seaworthy for any extended period of time.
DeleteOur only other MCM asset, the MH-53E Sea Dragon MCM helos are over 40 yrs old, having entered service in the mid-1980's and are long overdue for retirement and are being phased out.
"Surprisingly, two of the Navy’s MCM configured LCS have been moved from the Middle East to a port in Malaysia despite the obvious possibility of Iranian mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The ships were relocated about a week or so before the US strikes began."
ReplyDeleteThe relocation makes sense if viewed from a casualty-adverse, force protection angle. Minesweeping, particularly given the constraints the MCM LCS has to operate under, is a painfully slow process, and these boats will be sitting ducks for Iranian attack if they try to do slow one by one minesweeping in the Strait.
On the other hand, I can remember a time when the thinking behind LCS was that it was given a measure of self defense ability in order to perform minesweeping under fire. RAM is definitely a clear improvement over the Avengers, which had no self defense ability beyond a 50 cal and would require escort. Alas, it seems that thinking has been forgotten.
Then again, given the level of air superiority we have over Iran, where we're able to fly surveillance drones unmolested, we damn well ought have enough eyes in the sky to halt Iranian attempts at mining.
"remember a time when the thinking behind LCS was that it was given a measure of self defense ability in order to perform minesweeping under fire."
DeleteAnd THAT is the fundamental disconnect that the Navy has never come to terms with. How do you perform a painfully slow, one-at-a-time mine clearance and still survive if you're not a battleship? The West's fixation on unmanned, one-at-a-time mine clearance is combat-ineffective and stupid.
Beyond that, yes, the LCS was envisioned as being able to stand in shallow waters and fight. Of course, none of the capabilities required to do that ever materialized.
Finally, you correctly recognize that with air power we should be able to PREVENT mining and thus render the LCS MCM issue very nearly moot.
Excellent comment!
Only answer I got, recently BTW and I'm not saying I buy it, don't shoot the messenger!, to paraphrase: well, modern mines are completely different from old style ww2 CONTACT MINES, they have computers and can recognize which ship to let go and which to attack, they are more tamper proof, you supposedly can't use old fashion anti mine technology and finally, not sure if true or not, supposedly, USN doesn't allow divers anymore AND I was told USN needs positive ID on every mine to be destroyed....
DeleteI can see USN not wanting to risk divers BUT then why do you require a positive ID on everything in the water?!? Seriously, is that the reason we going down this crazy path of USV, drones, AI,etc etc so we can identify each mine before blowing it up?!?!?? Can you imagine the US Army doing that? Let's check every mine in the ground to make sure before blowing it up? NOOOO, you just plow whatever's in the dirt or just use more explosives to create a lane for vehicles, you don't bother identifying everything!!!! I hope that is fake new because that's insane if USN does that.
Whatever source you're getting your information from is woefully ignorant. Yes, modern mines have grown smarter but so, too, have modern sweeps. I did a post on a modern sweep that featured variable frequency signal outputs intended specifically to fool modern mines. Of course, I have not see any actual realistic exercise data so it remains unknown who well the sweep works but that is what we should be focusing on.
DeleteYou're not going to like this but, yes, Navy doctrine requires visual ID of each mine prior to destruction. I don't know why? Perhaps the Navy is afraid of inadvertently blowing up an occasional rock?
OMG! Not only freaking insanity but why do you need to ID everything?!?!?! That's beyond stupid!
DeleteOnly reason I can think of: someone inside MIC convinced USN they needed that capability. Why else would you bother?!?!?
According to TWZ, the last four Avenger-class MCM left the Persian Gulf Region via a heavy-lift vessel'
ReplyDeletelink: https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-avenger-class-mine-hunters-have-left-the-middle-east-for-good
The 13th MCPON Mike Stevens suggested using the CH-53K King Stallion.
link: https://centerformaritimestrategy.org/publications/a-case-for-airborne-mine-warfare/
Can any of the surface bubbas explain to me why the Navy could not or did not opt to build a new, modern incarnation of the Avenger-class Mine Hunters as well as a modern version of the Osprey-class Coastal Mine-hunters? Wouldn't either of these two options be considerably less costly than LCS-MCM package?
Isn't minesweeping conducted at slower speeds?
The Navy became enamored of the magical LCS that could perform all missions, one of which being MCM. Of course, that was pure fantasy and now we have no surface MCM capability.
Delete"why the Navy could not or did not opt to build a new, modern incarnation of the Avenger"
You follow this blog. The litany of questions about the Navy's idiotic decisions is endless.
"Isn't minesweeping conducted at slower speeds?"
Speed is a relative term. Certainly, the modern, unmanned, one-at-a-time mine clearance is glacially slow as well as being combat-useless. Sweeping, on the other hand, is conducted at high speed, by comparison, though still nowhere near the LCS speed (as pared down as that now is!). Combat sweeping is what we need to focus on with one-at-a-time clearance as a niche case supplement.
Thank you for the response.
DeleteA new Avenger was too simple and too basic for a Navy that was looking, at the time, for a "transformational" vessel that they could sell to Congress to ensure budget slice. If you recall, the LCS was born out of the post-Soviet fear that peace would mean reduced budget for the Navy. The LCS was seen as the way to ensure budget slice: new, exciting, sexy, shiny, futuristic! A new Avenger would be more of the same old basic, unexciting, workhorse stuff that the Soviet collapse reduced the need for. Or so the Navy mistakenly thought.
DeleteI'm reminded of an idea that CdrCHIP had posted here on the blog.
ReplyDeleteParaphrasing him; Take a big container ship, fill all the compartments with styrofoam, weld the watertight doors shut, and sail it up and down the strait.
You could have a helicopter sitting on deck to take the crew off when the ship has had enough...then fill out the environmental impact statement.
Lutefisk
Modern mines (and I don't know to what extent, if any, Iran has those) can be programmed for (or to ignore) specific acoustic signatures, number of passes, etc. Just something to keep in mind. I suspect that the vast majority of Iranian mines are pretty basic.
DeleteTo add to your comment, the more sophisticated the mine, the greater investment of time to set program, position, and anchor them... which the Iranians did not do before hostilities broke out and probably don't have the resources now to do effectively.
DeleteMines have become too sophisticated to risk minesweeping ships, they are smart and can attack like torpedoes. We need minesweeping tenders. New LPDs are perfect for this since they are far to big to risk near shore for amphib ops and the Marines need to cut their MEUs to one flattop backed by airmobile elements.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, an LPD can carry the Navy's MH-53 minesweep helos. Those are too old but the Marines can donate a squadron of their new MH-53Ks. These are far too big and expensive to risk in modern combat areas due to drones and should only do rear area logistics lift and minesweeping. The LPD can carry an assortment of minesweeping boats or unmanned boats in its well deck to operate far away. I'd also include a couple LCUs that can refuel and support the boats so they don't have to return to the distant LPD.
All this can be organized in a few weeks with zero funding!
I honestly hadn't ever thought about a LPD+MH-53K pairing. At first glance it seems perfectly doable. However, I am not aware that a MH-53K currently exists. The Marine's CH-53K are not MCM rated, as far as I know. One would think that such a version ought to be feasible with relatively little effort, though.
DeleteAre you aware of an actual MH-53K in service?
Just a guess but surely the Iranians are unlikely to mine the Strait while they are still using it for their own oil exports? Could that be why the US still allows them to export?
ReplyDeleteThat is a distinct possibility. The US wants to calm the oil markets and they believe allowing some Iranian oil to pass will do that. I'm doubtful about the validity of that idea but I think it's what the administration is thinking.
DeleteThe Saudis are exporting 5 million barrels of oil a day via a pipeline to the Red Sea. I suspect the Iranians could target that port or pipeline, so a secret deal was made.
Delete