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.
HM-15 is the last remaining MC Squadron, and talk has it casing its colors in '28 or '29.
DeleteThe weird thing... theres been no orders for the Squadron to deploy or even prepare to. That info is 8 days old but still...
LCS is not a good platform for mine hunting/sweeping. Its metal hull (magnetic sensitive) and ultra high noise are contradict to a mine sweeper design. Although it uses unmanned MCM, it needs to be nearby to protect unmanned ships and helicopters of its MCM. Not to mention, if a mine drift through, just a classical mine, LCS can trigger it.
Delete"LCS is not a good platform for mine hunting/sweeping."
DeleteIt is not a good platform for MCM but not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. The hull is non-magnetic aluminum which makes it much less likely to trigger a magnetic mine. The noise is not the typical propellor beat that acoustic mines sense so I don't know how much of a trigger the LCS would be. In addition, during MCM operations, the LCS would likely be moving very slowly, if at all, to facilitate launching and retrieval of unmanned assets.
Unmanned assets do not need protecting and for UUVs it is not even possible.
"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?!?!?
It’s probably not the rock they’re concerned about, but rather the possibility of a rare and endangered barnacle being attached to it.
DeleteAccording 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.
DeleteLutefisk. I pondered the same thing but with ping pong balls, which are used to refloat sunk ships. One could throw bags of ping pong balls to fill a ship. I've also pondered the use of self-inflating rubber barrels for damage control, similar to self inflating life rafts. Shoe-boxes of these could be placed around the top of compartments that inflate if it fills with water.
DeleteThose are clever ideas.
DeleteI'd think that you would want to be very diligent about setting up the safety settings on the barrels, depending on how they are used. If it went off unexpectedly, you'd feel like your in the trash compactor on the Death Star.
But those seem like really good thoughts.
As far as CdrCHIP's minesweeping idea...I don't know why it wouldn't work, but that might be because I know almost nothing about how modern minesweeping is done.
Lutefisk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_L._Glucksman
DeleteThe US Navy has been there done that. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it wouldn't be useful as part of a larger effort.
trondude
Mines 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?
Oddly, there was a detachment of HM-15 in Bahrain until it was shuttered/ sent home last year. At some point, they actually "deployed" to a CVN ( I forget which it was ) that was in the same area the Lincoln is now. That's super uncommon, but also interesting. Never found much info for the reasoning or purpose... but perhaps someone was actually thinking ahead (?)
DeleteThe Marines have 12 CH-53Ks in service. There is a roll-on internal fuel tank to increase range, something the Navy would use. The Marines put out an excellent and very, very, very detailed aviation plan each year. Here is FY2026
Deletehttps://media.defense.gov/2026/Feb/10/2003873872/-1/-1/0/260210-USMC-2026-AVIATION-PLAN.PDF
Just bear in mind that the tow equipment for the Mk105 sled must fit in the helicopter cabin. It entails cable drums, pulleys and guides, etc.
DeleteJust 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.
DeleteFormer MCM sailor whom served as a first LT on one of the MCM's and deployed to the med and back and put every type of sweep gear MCMs' had in the water and also a qualified mine warfare evaluator. Later served as an exchange officer to a European navy where we actually hunted real mines left over from WWI and WWII (that blew up when targeted with ROV's) I also went through all of the mine warfare courses at the time.
ReplyDeleteIm very dated, but mine warfare really hasn't changed much
Mine Warfare boils down to hunt mines if you can and sweep if you must.
Ideally, if you have qualitative data on what the seafloor looks like, then you can compare a before mining picture with after mines have gone in and that makes the minehunting "easier"
First minehunting is tedious and with the old MCM's you have to get into the field and essentially mow the lawn for sections, and either mark the mines for later action or prosecute them
The sweep option becomes an option when you don't have the time to hunt. Its brute force and your going into the minefield. And in a place like SOH you are going to be exposed to enemy action
This is further complicated by the fact that no navy in the world deploys just one type of mine. there is going to be a mix of old school contact mines, influence mines, ect - just to make mine countermeasures harder
The U.S Navy has seldom taken mine warfare seriously starting from damn the torpedoes which was really a successful mine countermeasures effort that allowed the admiral to enter mobile bay following extensive intel ops where his teams marked, cleared or disabled mines to create a cleared area where there was no danger (little known history)
When we have it has been in fits and starts, we build a capable force, then allow it to attrite because the threat is no longer there
Ironically, the allies we have pushed aside earlier (the Europeans) actually have a respectable force that employs an effective mix of old and new tech and their forces specialize in minewarfare - both offensive and defensive. Where most of our officer corps that serves in the surface mine warfare forces do one tour and then back to the conventional navy
The europeans also train together, and actually deploy together in the form of NATO mine countermeasures forces north and south
They practice against real mines left over from both WW1 and 2 and constantly integrate new tech - or did
To be clear I have no operational knowledge of the SOH having retired way to long ago
But unless we have maintained a good picture of what the seafloor looks like, this is going to be a difficult (not impossible) task without the help of those navies whom retain functional mine warfare capabilities.
Im at this time reminded of afghanistan, where the afghans though all the crazy operational things we were doing must be part of some incredible plan - only to realize we were conducting strategic, operational and tactical adhocery
I sincerely hope that somewhere someone has a detailed plan and is executing it at the highest levels . If so great
If not stand by for 10 dollar a gallon gas as the oil reserves dry up and between 15 and 20 percent of the market supply remains off line
Do you have thoughts on the effectiveness of sweeping against modern smart mines? That's kind of the key to all of this. While we might (or might not) be able to sweep many/most of the older, more basic mines, even a few modern smart mines can cause havoc. On the other hand, if we can successfully sweep modern smart mines then the entire issue becomes manageable.
DeleteA separate issue is that we've lost our ability to accept a certain degree of risk and loss due to mines. We've unwisely adopted a zero tolerance for mine losses in combat and that paralyzes us and removes viable (and desirable) options. For example, we employed some 300 minesweepers for the Normandy assault but we accepted that our sweeping would not be perfect and we accepted that some losses might occur. We did not let the specter of losses to terminate the operation. We need to come to grips with the reality that some degree of losses are inevitable in combat and in mine warfare, in particular. That doesn't mean we ignore the mine threat; we just don't let it paralyze us. We need to remember how to balance losses against gain.
For example, if Iran mined the strait (and there's no evidence that has occurred) and we could keep shipping moving by accepting that one out of a hundred ships would suffer a mine strike, that would be well worth it to keep 99% of the shipping moving instead of accepting paralysis due to fear of even a single mine strike.
Looks like the Nimitz ain't done yet. Quietly heading to the Persian Gulf.
Deletehttps://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2026-03-19/uss-nimitz-aircraft-squadrons-21117259.html
I'll try and tackle your questions 1 by 1
DeleteSo, the our old surface sweep systems were effective against influence mines including combination. I saw this demonstrated in exercises close to 27 years ago.
Not easy, putting out gear and bringing it back in was multiple hours, and the systems that supported them had issues (engines, generators ect) because they were not that important to big navy in my opinion. A casrep on an aircraft carrier or DDG is going to get lots of love, and MCM - well maybe
The old MH-53 airborne sweep systems were effective as well but the MH-53 are old in the tooth and are I believe scheduled to retire
I am simply put not knowledgeable about how "good" the embarked unmanned surface vehicles (USV) on the LCS and their capabilities are. Ditto for the airborne systems on the MH-60's.
I don't know if they have been testing them out at our facilities and locations to see how well they work and have gotten the kinks out - i hope so - but hope is not a strategy
The real issue is that no one plants just one type of mine anymore. If they do it right.
A competent mine planner is going to employ a combination of types with ship counts and all sorts of other fun adjustments for pleasure and acoustics as well as dummy mines to tie you up. Just to make the problem more fun. And hopefully target your MCM force to make it even more of a fun ride
Witnessed European navy's do practice offensive mining and defensive mining. For context what the Iranians are doing in my opinion is essentially defensive whereas if we were to mine Iranian harbor Haiphong harbor style that would be offensive mining
In addition it looks like they have essentially created safe routes (or q routes ) near their coastline (looking at vessel trafficking ) that essentially allow the Iranians to pick and choose whom may pass.
For capability, I and the below is dated by nearly 20 years, the Germans had and I believe still maintain unmanned surface vehicles capable of influence sweeping and have had this capability since the late 1980's.
The European navy's have also heavily invested in unmanned underwater vehicles that are not tethered. Back in the early 2000's I got to operationally observe the Hugin 1000 on a Norwegian MCM an was part of several weapons trials using what the Europeans tend to call AUV (we call them UUV). Which was incredible and I am know the AUV/UUV tech has gotten a lot better on the civilian site (I try and keep current as a hobby) so I would hazard to make an assumption (always dangerous) that it has improved on the mil side as well. Think improvements in battery life, communications, navigation and AI enabled automated classification and detection (that last was in its infancy in my time)
USV and AUV/UUV integration has also gotten really good as has underwater intervention (think having a AUV/UUV with no cables be able to say close a valve in the oil and gas industry vice a diver or a ROV that has wires that might get tangled
Regarding ship numbers, this has always been an issue. For mechanical mine sweeping the reality is we could requisition deep sea trawlers to perform that function with a side of automation thrown in. People forget that the most WW1 and into WW2 sweepers were repurposed fishing trawlers.
If we are dealing with mechanical mines, that might be the best solution to buy a bunch of trawlers, hook up some time of autopilot and let loose. Might loose a few, and the gear, but would probably work
DeleteFor the influence ones, this may sound stupid, but I would find some mildy functional old double hulled oil tankers (bigger the better )clear out the tanks fill full of saltwater and run the SOH, These tankers can take damage a lot better than our navy ships when not full of explosive cargo. Its given the fact they are designed to try and keep the oil in and the water out
Regarding as to if Iran has mined the SOH, It kinda sorta doesnt matter. As if they say they have then you have to assume they have and then you have to verify by hard work at sea that their are no mines. Which is impossible. When a professional mine countermeasures officer reports a area is cleared that are actually giving you a percentage chance that a certain number of mines are still there but the risk is low enough for operational commanders to push through
All of the above being said, the real threat i think to the SOH are the more asymmetrical threats, drones, explosive unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles, IRGCN and limpet mines ect.
Remember you are talking about a challenging environment even for our top of the line DDG's. Given the land sea interface narrow SOH, that even our top of the line warships will face challenges from both conventional and unconventional threats. So its going to be even more risky to provide shotgun support to dedicated MCM assets (if we had them available) to allow the MCM assets to work
We can sink the entire Iranian regular navy, but remember a old school giligans island mine and many newer mines can easily fit on the back of a boston whaler or something similar
That's going to be the challenge, is it a fishermen with nets or a IRGCN member dressed as a fisherman - or a smuggler (lots of those in the gulf). Although we seem to have had good practice with taking these out in the Caribbean and wester pacific as of late
The other big challenge is something that is trying to be addressed which is the insurance market. Essentially, even if their are no mines yet the insurance folks have to assume that if iran says they have then they have and jack up insurance rates.
Even like a one percent raise in insurance rates can increase daily costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars per day.
So not only might you as ship operator be looking at loosing your ship to whatever , or extensive repairs but your daily costs have gone through the roof.
lastly, its not paralyzing us its doing that to the shipping industry whom is used to someone saying don't worry we got this and thats not happening right now
If we had the mine warfare assets there and a large force to protect them then the industry might feel better.
But right now the ships that appear to be trying to get through are not making it or are being attacked at anchorage
hope the above insight helps
If you're familiar with it, what's your assessment of a modern smart sweep such as the SAAB SAM3? Here's a link to a post on it: SAAB SAM3
DeleteThis looks like a pretty good solution.
Deleteagain the europeans have always taken mine warfare seriously
The only thing "missing" is a mechanical sweep for the old school mines, but depending on depth those a conditions detection of those is less problematic
but when used as a complete system with the koster class
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koster-class_mine_countermeasures_vessel
and Visbybhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSwMS_Visby_(K31)
also here is a pretty good clip (russian movie) that shows what it might be like to try and fight through in a minefield, just replace the german battleship with other more modern threats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_rNUH3hKzM&t=12s
tried to upload a image. but was not able to find that function so uploaded it here
https://swampyankeeofoz.substack.com/p/why-the-northern-europeans-care-about
But if you were to rotate the persian gulf a bit it looks alot like the baltic and you understand why the northern europeans take MCM seriously
There is another aspect to MCM that is usually neglected and that is the difference between clearing a few nuisance mines and clearing a major path for combat operations (time critical). European countries are not concerned with combat ops. Their concern is a small number of mines in their territorial waters. For that case, one-at-a-time hunting and clearing over an extended time period may be acceptable. For combat ops such as clearing transit lanes to an assault (Normandy channel clearing), clearing assault lanes to a beach, clearing transit lanes through chokepoints, etc. where speed is of the essence, leisurely one-at-a-time clearing is pointless. Sweeping is the ONLY way to do that. Europe devotes the vast majority of its effort to unmanned, one-at-a-time, snail's pace hunting/clearing. The US needs to focus much more on sweeping and, unwisely, we've totally ignored that.
Deleteyou are correct.
Deletebut I don't think anyone has done Normandy style in a while. simply put I'm not informed enough about what is or what is not in the water in the SOH.
I'm going to make a dangerous assumption in that the Iranians did not have enough time to conduct massive minelaying operations before we started attacking their naval infrastructure. A dangerous assumption albeit
If correct, then we are not looking a super large number of mines and the Europeans (or our LCS if works as advertised) could probably establish and maintain a safe channel. Ie "clear" a small lane and deal with the mines outside that lane
The Europeans do have unmanned surface vessels that can effectively sweep for influence mines. Not sure of the mechanical side. we also have something similar, but to my limited knowledge its only on 2 LCS
Also, if we were able to get a hold of the Iranian mine warfare plan it would make things easier. As most nations like to know where they put the mines in the water so they can retrieve them and make sure their shipping does not fall victim to their own mines.
Bear in mind that not all sweeps are equal. The sweep I cited is an advanced, smart sweep. The Navy's Mk105 (is that the current version?) is quite limited, as I understand it, and may be significantly ineffective against modern mines. Unfortunately, the Navy appears to be making almost no effort at developing an advanced sweep or even testing what they have against modern mines. Baffling.
Delete" I don't think anyone has done Normandy style in a while"
DeleteThe latest near-equivalent example I can think of is the Wonsan mine clearance attempt while under fire. That did not go well and revealed how inadequate our MCM of the time was.
Anticipating the future, I can see the possibility of large scale mine clearance ops around Taiwan, the Philippines, and the numerous "channels" between the first island chain islands. Thus, we should be establishing the capabilities required to do so, if not the full numbers of minesweepers. In other words, we need to develop effective sleds and develop effective doctrine and tactics for large scale, rapid clearance while potentially under fire. To the best of my knowledge, we are doing none of that.
By the way, your comments have been much appreciated and quite informative.
DeleteWhat are your thoughts about the use of unmanned MCM assets (incredibly slow) versus using a ship to conduct sweeps? In other words how do we balance risk versus accomplishment of military objectives?
To make a fairly obviously point about risk aversion, while I agree that this has gotten out of hand in the last couple of decades, we can’t afford to have a supertanker sunk by a mine in the Strait of Hormuz. This would be worse than having a bunch of uncleared mines in the Strait, so we do need to tread carefully here.
ReplyDelete"can’t afford to have a supertanker sunk by a mine in the Strait of Hormuz. This would be worse than having a bunch of uncleared mines in the Strait,"
DeleteSetting aside the fact that it is almost impossible to sink a modern tanker with a single mine, why is having even a single ship sunk so unthinkable?
Setting aside the ecological issues of oilspils, there's the tactical issue: a sunk supertanker leaking oil out into the strait is a pretty obvious problem. You don't even need to sink the supertanker, you just need to get it holed enough that the oil is spilling out. Ignite the oil, and it turns into a real fucking mess for navigation and tactical operations, with the heat of the fire fucking up IR cameras and the smoke obscuring EO cameras. It's a great way for the Iranians to degrade our ISR.
Delete"ecological issues"
DeleteWar is a dirty business in all respects. If ecology is more important than military objectives then we probably shouldn't be in the war.
"tactical issue: a sunk supertanker leaking oil out into the strait is a pretty obvious problem."
That would be a very localized issue. The strait is something like 100 miles x 50 miles.
"great way for the Iranians to degrade our ISR."
Would it not degrade the Iranians as well? Perhaps that would make the strait SAFER for ships to transit!
You do realize that wars tend to be messy, right? If we absolutely can't tolerate any smoke, fire, oil, or debris, we shouldn't be in the war.
The supertanker SS Bridgeton struck a mine in the Persian Gulf back in 1987: it maintained speed, and it not sink. Bridgeton, was rather typical of supertankers being approximately four times the size of CVAN: 413,000 Dead Weight Tons (DWT); 1,158.5 ft (353.1 m) long, and she had a beam of 229.9 ft (70.1 m).
DeleteWhile the mine was a fairly large one, did breach the outer hull, supertankers are double hulled and fairly tough so the damage (and leakage) were minimal. The lesson is that modern commercial hulls, particularly supertankers, are very difficult to put out of action, let alone sink.
This lesson is very much lost on the USN and strategic planners, but could be of critical importance in a potential war against the PRC. I am sure that a spread of submarine launched Mark 48 torpedoes will do the job; but the surface navy needs heavy weapons capable of sinking commercial ships with a single salvo.
GAB
"the surface navy needs heavy weapons capable of sinking commercial ships with a single salvo."
DeleteWhich, among other things, leads one to question the wisdom and effectiveness of the ubiquitous Mk54 lightweight type torpedoes. They are of questionable effectiveness against submarines and next to useless against large merchant ships. What effect they would have on modern, lightly built warships is unknown but that is also an unlikely scenario.
"Which, among other things, leads one to question the wisdom and effectiveness of the ubiquitous Mk54 lightweight type torpedoes."
DeleteThe last gasp of the 'old navy' envisioned a pair of fixed mount 21" torpedo tubes for ASW work in many ship designs through the late 1950s. See the descriptions in Norman Friedman's "Destroyers" and "Cruisers" books.
GAB
One of my favorites, the Forrest Sherman class, had 4x 21" torpedoes! I'm not sure, off the top of my head, what the last class was that was fitted with heavy torpedoes but we've clearly lost our focus on combat and firepower.
Delete"Would it not degrade the Iranians as well? Perhaps that would make the strait SAFER for ships to transit!"
DeleteYes and no. My background is in ground combat - I am a field grade officer - so I'll be speaking from that perspective.
We train to advance and maneuver under the cover of smokescreens, relying on our thermals to navigate and fight. Even without thermals, it's still possible to navigate blind through smoke. It's dicey, but it's doable and I've done it. The prerequisites are you need to know the terrain you're operating over, and your navigation systems need to be on point. (I've sucessfully navigated through smoke using both GPS, and map and stopwatch. The latter was a little dicier than the former.)
So, theoretically speaking, an oil tanker that's spilling oil and on fire could theoretically become both a smokescreen and obstacle in the strait, from all the oil spilled out, spreading in the water, that is on fire. I assume the calculus for a warship is a lot different than it is for a tank, but we would never attempt to navigate through terrain that was presently on fire. A buttoned-up Abrams tank still has combustibles externally mounted, and engine intakes don't deal very well with driving through smoke. I can only imagine that similar issues would affect warships - I'm given to understand that warships are constantly intaking seawater to use in the radiators as a cooling medium.
However, this is, I think, something of a worst case probability. There are a number of factors that would need to be in play:
- the amount of oil in said tanker
- location the tanker is sunk and leaking
- volume and flow of oil spill
- the tanker needs to be hit at a geographical location that allows the Iranians to deploy their fast boats to attack merchant shipping.
You'd have to get a tanker hit just right, damaged just right, and spilling out just right, in order to get this theoretical blaze with its theoretical smokescreen going, and I think that's just too many rolls of the dice. Besides, even assuming the worst case of an oil slick spreading out 30 miles, that still gives you enough space in strait to avoid the obstacle.
No, I think if any sunk tankers become obstacles in the strait, that would be merely a byproduct of the Iranians kinetically closing the strait by deliberate targeted attacks on merchant shipping.
Well we are already having ships attacked.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-war-hormuz-ships-attacks-b2937024.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/two-oil-tankers-explode-leaving-at-least-1-dead-after-suspected-iranian-attack-in-the-persian-gulf/ar-AA1YqKfL
The big risk is probably ecological and impact to desalination plants. And also psychological.
Remember ships crews can refuse to enter war zones or request more money to do so. Most Merchant sailors don't really make lots of money so is a is the juice worth the squeeze.
https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1156640/Strait-of-Hormuz-status-puts-seafarer-repatriation-obligations-on-shipowners
Also the middle east is really dry there and lots of the water people drink come from desalination plants. These plants do not react well to petroleum products in their intakes
Also people forget that modern supertankers are not their grandfathers supertankers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-hulled_tanker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdbWwP9X08
Most (not all) are now required to be double hulled.
This is following some pretty bad spills such as exon valdez and others in European waters
Which essentially makes them a lot more able to take damage. especially when there is ballast water in the double hull.
In fact they can certainly take more damage then most warships which long ago abandoned armor in favor of kinetic defenses such as missiles and mines
There is a great picture some here of a us navy ships following a tanker and interspersed with tankers with a helo providing visual search
https://negativecolors.com/exhibitions/dire-straits-front-lines-tanker-war/article-part-1/
Long gone are the days when battleships had feet of armor now most ships are constructed with steel plate that is measured in inches
A double hull will offer some level of protection against limpet mines and contact mines
Also realize that tankers have multiple tanks, and also have advanced fire suppression systems.
Also maybe a bit more reliance against the bubble pulse
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=mine+bubble+pulse&&mid=F51DA96466A4FD935C3AF51DA96466A4FD935C3A&mmscn=mtsc&aps=82&FORM=VRDGAR
I suggested that we need to tread carefully in regard to the potential sinking of a tanker because - as I understand it - the Strait of Hormuz is not just narrow but also relatively shallow, with an average depth of around 40 meters.
ReplyDeleteA sunk or partially sunk supertanker would constitute a physical blockage of the Strait that would be quite challenging to remove, especially during a hot war.
I realize that modern double hulled tankers are not easily sunk, but still….
The average depth of the transit lanes is 60-100 meters. A sunken ship is not going to physically block the strait. You appear to be trying to stake out an anti-war position using claims that are without foundation. Follow the data where it leads, not where you wish it would.
DeleteThank you for your reply.
ReplyDeleteI’m very much in favor of the actions that the President is taking in Iran and my principal concern is that we go home before the job is finished.
A typical VLCC has a draught of around 20 meters and a height above the waterline of around 65 meters, so if a VLCC were to be sunk in one of the navigation channels it would presumably create a pretty solid obstacle, although probably not an insuperable one.
I thought that was a reasonable comment to make.
Thank you for your blog and for sharing your expertise in these matters.
There is as close to zero chance of such a ship sinking from any weapon the Iranians have as can be. Such a ship would stick to the deeper channels. If anyone thought such a ridiculously unlikely event were to occur, one could always prohibit the largest ships from passing for the duration of the conflict. Absolutely absurd concern.
Delete"a pretty solid obstacle"
DeleteAnd if this literal one in a million event occurred, you can't imagine any way that ships, in a 30-60 mile wide strait, could somehow get past ... by, say, ever so slightly going around the tiny obstacle?
ReplyDeleteIran will not be mining the SOH as long as Trump allows them to ship out millions of tons of crude oil to China/Asia as it keeps the money flooding in - 89 ships crossed the SOH from March 1st to 15th and not attacked.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/iran-continues-exporting-millions-of-barrels-of-oil-as-around-90-ships-cross-the-strait-of-hormuz-despite-the-war
Re sweeping how can you counter seabed pressure mines that monitor the amount of water displaced, the Saab SAM3 only creates magnetic and noise signatures. Understand the Brits first introduced pressure mines in WWII as one counter to U-boats by laying them off U-boat pens in the Bay of Biscay.
Apropos of your previous comments about the value of alliances, reports suggest that Iran is offering Japan and other countries free passage through the Strait of Hormuz in return for a substantial payment, and a commitment not to take part in any mine clearance operations prior to a peace settlement.
ReplyDeleteHow they respond will be interesting to see.
"Iran is offering Japan and other countries free passage through the Strait of Hormuz in return for a substantial payment,"
DeleteThat would be called extortion.
The Strait of Hormuz is recognized as an international waterway with free passage, by the way. The rules governing this are laid out in the UNCLOS treaty.
Extortion indeed.
ReplyDeleteIran Confirms Introduction of Tariffs for Ships Passing Through the Strait of Hormuz, Euronews Reports
Transit fees could reach $2 million per vessel.
Tehran has reportedly already prepared a bill providing for the official collection of fees for "safe transit."
The Iranian Parliament noted that such a practice is common along a number of key shipping routes.
"A report from Marine Insight states that in at least one case, a tanker owner paid approximately $2 million to obtain permission to safely pass through the strait," the report states.
I don't think Iran really cares about international law, also remember that many countries that nominally receive oil from the gulf are going to probably this week stop receiving those shipments. Simple time distance from the Gulf to say China or Australia. And they are going to have to start burning down reserve stocks.
ReplyDeleteWhich means, those governments will tacitly permit the payment of tolls vice running dry - which may happen soon
So I was checking my traps and snares on the merchant marine side of the house to understand what is happening or is not happening.
Once again solid disclaimer no idea of what is or is not going on officially. so Monday morning quarterbacking on a Sunday.
First I suspect that some mines have been laid in the traditional transit routes of the SOH. Or Iran may have said they have done that. Either way this complicates both the merchant marine side of the house and the naval side of the house
As if there are mines on the SOH on the traditional route, we have to clear them before we can escort anything in, or risk basically transit within a mile or two of the Iranian shoreline
The reason, the traditional transit route for tankers is to the west pretty close to Oman. The new "tolled" route is pretty much hugging close to the Iranian side
Im guessing two reasons, one mines, two they can range anything trying to get into the gulf pretty easily with coastal artillery and other small stuff and it makes it easy for small speedboats to cover the area
At the end of the day gas supply situation for lots of folks is going to get interesting if this ceasefire / non ceasefire/ cessation of hostilities (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't result in the SOH being open
And remember even though we are a net petroleum exported remove LNG/LPG from the mix we are a net importer. Partially due to the fact that many of our refineries are economically configured to better refine oil from overseas vice what we produce.
Remember seeing a filled to the brim with US Oil heading overseas to get the oil refined and another passing it carrying refined gasoline from overseas to head back to the US