Flower Class Corvette

The Flower class corvette was the epitome of a single purpose vessel (to be fair, most ships were in WWII).  It was designed and built to provide coastal convoy escort, specifically, anti-U-boat protection although it later proved adaptable to open ocean convoy escort thanks to its impressive range for its size.  While not designed or intended to hunt and kill U-boats, the class nevertheless managed to sink some fifty U-boats. 
 
 
Design Concept
 
It’s important to understand the ship’s intended role.  It was a convoy ASW escort.  Its responsibility was to deliver convoy ships not sink U-boats.  In other words, was designed to ensure that convoy ships arrived safely.  It was not designed to go hunt and kill U-boats.  The designers recognized that a mission kill, meaning forcing a U-boat to break off an attack, was just as good as a kill in that it delivered convoy ships safely to port.  Thus, the designers, wisely, didn’t try to load every known ASW weapon and sensor onto the ship.  That would have increased the size, cost, and complexity of the ship resulting in far fewer vessels being built which would have defeated the purpose of the class.  It is vitally important to recognize this concept:  greater individual ship capability would have negatively impacted the overarching goal of getting convoys safely to port.  We have completely lost sight of this balance between mission intent and individual ship design.  By insisting on building uber-capable Burkes (to the dubious extent that they still are) we’ve been forced to give up building true destroyers, frigates, and corvettes thus hurting our overall naval capability.
 

 
Another vital consideration for the designers was that trying to fit the ultimate, top-of-the-line ASW gear on every ship would have resulted in ASW equipment shortages for every other ship class.  In a time of war, resources (meaning weapons and sensors) are limited.  Maximum ASW fits for Flower class ships would have been a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  We have completely lost sight of this concept today.  By only building high end Burkes we have ensured that we will be unable to outfit any other ship type (of which we have none!) in a time of war.
 
 
Design Specifics
 

• ASW fit sufficient for its task but no more than that which contributed to its affordability
• Buildable at small shipyards
• Affordable in large numbers (394 ships built)
• Good range at 3,500 nm at its cruising speed of 12 kts;  compare to a Burke with a range of 4,400 nm at its cruising speed of 20 kts
• Commercial machinery operable by reserve and merchant sailors
• Sufficient speed (16 kts) for its purpose
• Built to the minimum requirements not the maximum

 
What would a modern Flower class ship look like?  In other words, what would a modern, low end, affordable in numbers, minimally capable ASW corvette look like without advanced radars, high speed, helo hangar/flight deck, dozens of VLS, etc. look like?  Well, here’s a few characteristics:
 

• Moderate stealth shaping (no exotic coatings)
• 1x 76 mm Super Rapid STRALES/DART
• 2x Mk32 Triple Torpedo Launchers
• 2x RBU
• VDS
• Hull mounted, small, multi-frequency sonar
• SQR-20 Multi-function towed array
• Acoustic isolation
• Low end radar
• 18 kt top speed
• 5,000 nm range
• 1x CIWS/SeaRAM/RAM

 
Discussion
 
The Flower class was built not to kill submarines (though they managed to kill some fifty U-boats!) but to accomplish a mission which was the safe delivery of merchant ships to port and it filled that purpose admirably.  Given the mission, the designers recognized that a mission kill was just as good as an actual kill and cost a lot less money thus allowing the class to be built in large numbers across numerous yards.  The large numbers of vessels contributed to the mission success.  Mere presence achieved mission kills since submarines will go far out their way to avoid detection and this occurs whether the surface ship even knows the submarine is present or not.  In other words, presence equals mission kill which makes simple presence (numbers) a weapon in itself!  We need to re-learn those design lessons and re-embrace the low end, single purpose ship suitably updated and adapted to modern warfare. 

ASROC or Helicopters?

Helicopters are generally recognized as the best ASW platform above the surface; another submarine being the best ASW platform below the surface, of course.  Unfortunately, this leads to the widespread mindset that every ship must have helos embarked for ASW.
 
The problem with the concept of helos on every ship is that the aviation element of a ship is shockingly expensive.  A helo needs a flight deck (something on the order of 80ft x 50ft), hangar (another 80ft x 50 ft), dedicated weapon magazines, fuel storage, maintenance shops and parts storage, pilot and maintainer berthing (and food, water, etc.).  The extra 160ft x 50ft of ship size means more power is needed to move the ship which means bigger engines which requires more ship size which …  You get the idea.

Another problem is that helos are only sporadically available, being notorious for needing maintenance at inconvenient times.
 
Sure, there’s a penalty to be paid for putting helos on every ship but, really, what’s the alternative since we need ASW?  Well, one alternative is ASROC (anti-submarine rocket).  ASROC began back when submarines still had to get fairly close to their target in order to attack.  Today, submarines can attack with torpedoes or missiles from far beyond ASROC range (vertical launch ASROC has a range of around 12 nm). What’s needed is a much longer range ASROC, perhaps on the order of a hundred miles.  Given that we have thousand mile cruise missiles I can’t see any problem with developing a hundred mile ASROC. 
 
In the past, ASROC used arm launchers, box launchers, and common VLS cells.  The flexibility in launch mechanism means that some kind of suitable launcher can be placed on any ship tasked with ASW.
 

A long range ASROC would offer a viable alternative to the incredibly expensive helicopter on every ship.  Note that this does not mean we don’t need ASW helicopters.  We do!  We just don’t need them on every ASW ship.  Helicopters should be reserved for true destroyers (of which there are none in the world), ASW carriers, and, perhaps, a specialized convoy escort frigate.  They should not be on corvettes, general purpose frigates, and cruisers (meaning Burke/Zumwalt “destroyers”).  Want to build a cheaper Burke?  Eliminate the helicopter!

ASW Drones

Unmanned is the fad of the day and using drones for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) is an idea that keeps cropping up.  So many people seem enamored with the idea and yet no one has examined the actual use.  Typically, proponents enthusiastically cite the usual drone characteristics, such as extended endurance, without understanding what that means … or doesn’t.  Let’s take a closer look and see if ASW drones are a good idea or not.
 
Let’s examine the characteristics, claimed and actual, of an ASW drone.
 
Endurance.  Proponents claim that the greater endurance of drones will revolutionize ASW, however, that ignores the reality that once any ASW aircraft, drones included, have expended their weapons/sensors they become useless regardless of their remaining endurance.  A drone with a month’s worth of flight time is finished as soon as its sonobuoys and/or weapons are expended.  It doesn’t matter how much longer it can fly.  ASW aircraft are sensor/weapon limited, not endurance limited.  Thus, drones offer no advantage and, in fact, depending on the exact drone, would very likely have fewer sensors/weapons than a manned aircraft and would, thus, have LESS effective endurance than a manned aircraft!
 
Signal Processing.  Manned ASW aircraft such as the S-3 Viking, P-3/8, and helos carry on-board computers and analysts to interpret the sensor signals.  Drones have no on-board analysis capability and must continuously communicate with the host ship.  This is a continuous, broad band transmission which is highly susceptible to detection and localization by the enemy.  The host ship, in turn, has to broadcast control signals to the drone.  Elementary analysis of the locations of drones performing ASW reveals the likely location of the host ship to the enemy.
 
Size and Operation.  Proponents never quite specify the size of the drone they’re calling for.  There are only two possible drone platforms, currently:  Burkes and amphibious ships.
 
The reality is that destroyer size ships (like a DDH) have no large flight deck or recovery area and are limited to something in the Scan Eagle size (5 ft long, 10 ft wing span, 30-40 lb empty weight, 11 lb payload) or the somewhat larger helo-type UAV such as Fire Scout.
 
Helicopter carriers could operate larger drones but even they have limits.  For example, the Wasp class LHD has a [roughly] 104 ft wide flight deck.  A commonly cited drone is the MQ-9 Reaper and I'm moderately sure that, in theory, a 1000 ft x 104 ft flight deck would allow a Reaper to take off. The caveat is that the Reaper does not have an immensely powerful engine so the acceleration might, actually, turn out to be insufficient. That would have to be tested but, for the sake of further discussion, let's assume it could take off.
 
More problematic is that the Wasp island extends close to half way across the flight deck amidships. That reduces the usable flight deck width to around 50 ft, at that point. The Reaper has a wingspan of 65 ft. which puts the nose wheel at 33 ft from either wing tip. Allowing for, say, 10 ft of wing tip clearance from the island (the Navy would probably insist on a greater safety margin than that), that would put the nose wheel 43 ft away from the island which would be within 10 ft or so of the deck edge. That, in turn, puts the wing wheels within a few feet of the deck edge. The slightest deviation and the aircraft is off the edge! In short, it would seem that the full length of the deck cannot be safely used. That leaves only a few hundred feet forward of the island for takeoffs. Now, I'm really not sure an unassisted takeoff is possible!  In fact, it seems unlikely.
 

Wasp Class - note the island extending into the flight deck

So, a Reaper would be the maximum size drone that could operate off a big deck amphibious ship with catapults and arresting gear and it’s likely even that is too big. 
 
Of course, we could purpose design a drone carrier that could operate large UAVs but that would be decades down the road and, likely, unaffordable if we continue buying $20B Fords.
 
Then, there's the issue of storing/hangaring large UAVs (Reaper is 36 ft long x 65 ft wide, for example). It would need some serious wing folding to get an acceptable spot factor so that we could operate more than one UAV.
 
Carrier Adaptation.  Adaptations such as beefed up landing gear, arresting hooks, folding wing mechanisms, etc. all add weight to the aircraft and negatively impact already limited payload capacities as well as unaided takeoff and landing distances.
 
Payload.  To give some frame of reference as we talk about drone payload capacities, here are some relevant sensor/weapon weights:
 
Sonobuoy - 35-40 lbs, depending on specific type
Torpedo - The Mk54 lightweight torpedo weighs a little over 600 lbs.
 
What is a useful payload size and composition?  A reasonable minimum would be something on the order of 40 sonobuoys and 2 lightweight torpedoes.  Thus, a payload of two torpedoes plus 40 sonobuoys = 2800 lbs without launchers, pylons, and associated equipment.
 
Drone payload capacities vary widely, depending on the size of the aircraft.
 
Drone Types.  With the characteristics we just discussed in mind, let’s now review the basic drone types and see how they mesh with the characteristics.
 
Small.  Small UAVs, such as Scan Eagle or RQ-21 Blackjack size, can operate off destroyers.  The drawback is that they have a very small payload to the point of being incapable of effective ASW work.
 
Scan Eagle, as an example, is very small and has a mere 11 lb payload capacity.  A standard A-size sonobuoy is around 5” diameter x 36” long and weighs 39 lb.  A Scan Eagle size drone couldn’t even carry one sonobuoy! 
 
Medium.  Intermediate size UAVs such as the vertical takeoff and landing MQ-8B Fire Scout has a theoretical maximum payload of around 500 lbs, however, the practical payload is around 100 lbs.  Thus, it could not carry even a single torpedo and only a few sonobuoys.  This is simply not an effective payload. 
 
The larger MQ-8C Fire Scout has a maximum theoretical payload capacity of around 700 lbs with a practical payload of around 300 lbs. 
 
These drones are capable of operating off a destroyer but cannot carry a combat-useful payload.

Fire Scout

Large.  Larger UAVs such as the MQ-9 Reaper, Predator, Global Hawk, etc. have payload capacities that begin to be useful but they require actual aircraft carriers with catapults and arresting gear to operate from.  The MQ-9 Reaper, for example, has a theoretical maximum payload of 3800 lbs and a practical capacity of around 1000 lbs on a wingspan of 65 ft and a length of 36 ft. 

 
 
Land Based
 
So far, we’ve limited our discussion to ship based drones but land based drones are also an option.  While concerns about takeoff/recovery are not an issue, payloads, effective endurance, and signal processing communications are and still impose limitations.
 
Presumably, most naval operations will occur well out to sea (thousands of miles) which is certainly within reach of large UAVs (noting, of course, the inverse relationship between payload and range/endurance!) but is not a tactically responsive situation.  For example, a surface group that requests drone ASW support will have to wait many hours for a response under even the best of circumstances.  Land based ASW aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, are best employed as a base defense rather than as a task force support asset. 
 
Attempting to supply a constant ASW presence using land based aircraft would require a constant stream of aircraft flying to and from the operating area.  It would require something on the order of a dozen aircraft to maintain one continuously – and effectively – on station.  Remember, that in a war, sonobuoy and weapon usage will be staggering and all the endurance of an aircraft will be rendered moot as the aircraft quickly empties its payload and is rendered ineffective.
 
 
Conclusions
 
1. Very small drones can operate off destroyers but are incapable of performing any effective ASW due to payload limitations.
 
2.  Larger, vertical takeoff UAVs can operate from destroyers but, again, their payloads are so limited as to render them nearly useless and not worth the support and operating effort.
 
3. A big deck amphibious ship for moderate size UAVs is feasible although they would likely need to have catapults and arresting gear.  Again, there are payload concerns although they begin to approach a somewhat useful load.  This is an expensive option.
 
4. Land based ASW drones could possibly carry a useful payload but are tactically inefficient and are best relegated to patrolling around their base.
 
5. A reasonable alternative would be to modify a large commercial vessel to operate large UAVs by eliminating/minimizing superstructure and adding a long flight deck.  This would likely be the cheapest and best option.
 
 
Considering the above conclusions, it is hard to visualize effective, efficient ASW drones.  They simply don’t have the characteristics necessary to perform combat-effective ASW.  In other words, there is no viable CONOPS for ASW drones.  Further, given that we have existing ASW helos and P-8 Poseidons, one has to wonder why so many people want to force fit drones into a task they are clearly not suited for.

DDH Hayler

Helicopters have long been recognized as one of the most effective anti-submarine (ASW) assets and ASW surface ships have routinely carried one or two helos for that specific purpose.  The problem with ship based helos is that the limited number (1 or, at most, 2) guarantees very limited coverage.  Helos are notorious for maintenance challenges and a ship with, say, two helos can be expected to have perhaps six to eight hours of airborne ASW coverage per day, on average.  One potential solution is to increase the number of helos on a ship thereby creating the aviation (helo) destroyer (DDH).  One such effort was the Spruance DDH 997 derivative, the USS Hayler.
 
Litton, the designer and manufacturer of the Spruance class, proposed a DDH 997 Spruance derivative with a hangar lengthened by 40 ft and widened to the full beam of the ship thereby allowing it to accommodate 4 SH-60B Seahawks.  Curiously, the flight deck remained sized for a single helo and precluded simultaneous flight deck operations by multiple helos.
 
In the event, the DDH version of the Hayler was never built.
 

DDH Hayler Design

Image from www.shipbucket.com,

MhoshiK, Mconrads, Hood, J. Scholtens

 
Destroyer Helo ASW Operations
 
Just as the value of an aircraft carrier is wholly dependent on the abilities of the air wing, so too is the value of a DDH dependent on the abilities of the helos.  With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at small number helo ASW.
 
Four helos might seem an ideal solution to providing helos for ASW as one might assume that a 4-helo ship could maintain one helo in the air continuously.  However, even if that were possible, that’s not really the way helos would be used in ASW operations.  More typically, helos would surge to a suspected contact which, regardless of the outcome, would then result in multiple helos being ‘down’ for some significant period of time and result in gaps in the desired 24 hour coverage.  Of course, this assumes that multiple helos were available to surge.
 
One also needs to recognize that a single helo, assuming one could keep one helo in the air continuously, is only marginally effective at detection.  The helo’s sonobuoys (whether dropped or dipping) are short range and the area/volume of ocean to be covered around a ship or surface group is immense and ever changing due to the movement of the surface ship/group.  Helos are highly effective at prosecuting contacts but much less effective at detecting submarines in a ‘cold’ search effort.  Ideally, one would like to detect possible contacts with surface ships, at long range, and then use helos to prosecute the contact.
 
As we consider the operation of ASW helos, we need to bear in mind what the definition of an ‘available’ helo is.  First, and foremost, it is a helo that can fly;  no easy task given helo maintenance needs!  Second, the helo needs to have the requisite weapons to be effective.  For example, a helo that drops both its torpedoes is, instantly, toothless.  Yes, it can still search and track a contact but it can’t do anything about it.  Two lightweight torpedoes is not a lot when dealing with a submarine.  In other words, in combat, when torpedoes will be dropped at a profligate rate at any marginal contact, four helos with just 8 torpedoes is not going to provide much effective coverage.  Helos will have to spend much of their time shuttling back and forth to a ship to reload torpedoes.
 
Of course, helicopter ASW is a numbers game.  To be ridiculous, if one had forty helos continuously searching the surrounding area/volume, they would likely be fairly effective.  However, that’s unrealistic.  What would be realistic is a squadron of, say, four DDH vessels with, in that case, 16 helos.  In the case of a convoy or task force, there might well be several to dozens of DDH escorts which would, indeed, provide useful numbers of helos, in the aggregate.
 
Recognizing the importance of numbers in the ASW helo game, this leads us to the true ASW helicopter carrier of which there are, have been, many examples.  The main characteristic of the helicopter carrier is, of course, the capacity to carry and operate large numbers of helos.
 
 
 
Other Examples
 
The Japanese developed two 2-ship DDH classes, the Haruna and Shirane, which could carry three SH-60 type helos while retaining conventional destroyer weapons and sensors.  I’m unaware of any other examples by any other countries.  It is interesting to note that the Japanese produced the two mini-classes and then abandoned the DDH for helicopter carriers in the form of the succeeding Hyuga class.  I do not know what the rationale was but it suggests that the DDH was found to be less effective and efficient than a true helicopter carrier.
 
There have been numerous examples of ASW helicopter carriers but that’s not what we’re looking at in this post. 
 
 
Conclusion
 
It seems clear that the DDH concept has limited value due to the limited number of helos unless the ships are grouped in fairly large numbers.  That being the case, one has to wonder whether the cost of fielding several to dozens of DDH’s could be better spent on a true ASW helicopter carrier.  A helicopter carrier with, say, 18-24 helos would be the equivalent of 4-6 DDH’s.  At a very optimistic $1B per DDH, that would equate to $4B-$6B available for a helicopter carrier.  At a more realistic cost of, say, $2B per DDH, that would equate to $8B-$12B which would allow two to several helicopter carriers for the price of the DDH’s, depending on the degree of commercial adaptation incorporated into the carrier design (a large merchant ship with a flat deck would suffice!).
 
It is also clear that the tactical use of ASW helos is not so much searching as fixing and attacking.  This suggests that if one did want to build a DDH, the ship’s ASW sensors would be just as important as the helos, themselves, as they would be counted on to provide the initial detection.  This means that the DDH design should be a highly specialized, intimately integrated ASW design, as opposed to a mere flight deck on a hull as was the case for the LCS.
 
The lack of actual DDH designs in naval history suggests that the navies who considered the concept found it wanting for whatever reasons.  Our analysis suggests this is the case.  A DDH could, under the right circumstances and with a carefully considered CONOPS, be useful.  Unfortunately, carefully considered CONOPS are not a characteristic of the US Navy.
 
The DDH would seem to have some potential but, overall, the resources would be better spent on ASW helicopter carriers.
 
 
 
______________________________

 
[1]Capt. Michael C. Potter, USNR, Electronic Greyhounds, The Spruance-Class Destroyers, Naval Institute Press, 1995, ISBN 1-55750-682-5

US Submarine Losses in the Pacific

I generally avoid simply repeating information from other sources but I occasionally make an exception for truly amazing works.  One such is this link[1] to a brief summary of the numbers and causes of US submarine losses in WWII.  The Navy lost 52 submarines, almost all of them in the Pacific.  Amazingly, only one was lost in the open ocean of the central Pacific.  The rest were lost near land.

 

Below is a map showing the location of each loss.

 

Please follow the link and check out the site.  You’ll find it fascinating and informative.

 

 

Here’s a few open questions you might want to ponder or comment on:

 

• What does this suggest about future submarine actions against the Chinese?  
• What does this suggest about likely operating areas in future actions?
• What does this suggest about mid-ocean enemy submarine threats?
• What does this suggest about submarine support and basing requirements?
• What does this suggest about where our ASW resources should go in a war with China and how will we support and protect those resources?
• What does this suggest about the number of submarines we’ll need to prosecute a war relative to the number of submarines we have or are capable of building (2 per year)?

 

 

 

______________________________

 

[1]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/SubLosses/SS_losses-Intro.html

Submarines and ASW in the China War

The US military recognizes that the geography of the Pacific region dictates that a war with China will be a naval and air war.  What’s more, an astute - or just semi-literate – naval analyst will recognize that the war will be, substantially, a submarine war.  Of course, US Navy admirals do not qualify even for the semi-literate classification so who knows whether they recognize this or not?  Regardless, the rest of us recognize the primacy of the submarine in this conflict.  With that understanding, let’s take a closer look at  submarine warfare and its counter, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), in a war with China.

 

 

Numbers

 

The obvious starting point is numbers and both sides have submarines – something the US Navy seems to forget/ignore so let’s check each side’s respective submarine numbers.

 

China

 

China has around 64 submarines of all types with the majority being SSKs.  Excluding the SSBNs, the total is 56.  Obviously, it is very difficult to know exact numbers and there is some uncertainty about the active/inactive status of some vessels.  Acknowledging that, the numbers break down as follows:

 

 

Type	Class	Qty.
SSN	Han class (may be inactive/reserve)	3
SSN	Shang I class (Type-093)	2
SSN	Shang II class (Type-093A)	4
SSBN	Jin class (Type-094)	8
SSK	Ming class (Type-035)	4
SSK	Song class (Type-039)	13
SSK	Yuan class (Type-039A/B)	18
SSK	Kilo class (Project 877/Project 636/Project 636M)	12
	Total	64

 

 

In addition, China maintains many older SSKs in reserve status and these could play a pivotal role in a sustained war after both sides lose many of the front line submarines.

 

United States

 

The US currently has 68 active submarines that break down as follows:

 

SSBN 14

SSGN 4

SSN 50

 

Of course, unless we enter a nuclear war with China, the 14 SSBN are of no combat use which leaves us with 54 combat submarines compared to China’s 56. 

 

In addition, the US is still on the long anticipated downward trend which is projected by the Navy’s latest 30 year plan to bottom out at a low of 46 SSN in 2028 and will not reached a sustained 50+ level again until 2034.  This also assumes no additional early retirements – not a bet I’d care to take.

 

So, at the moment, the US and China have equal numbers of submarines with China being mostly an SSK force and the US being exclusively nuclear. 

 

 

SSK

 

United States naval observers keep clamoring for SSKs because they are so quiet and effective.  Turning it around, that must mean that Chinese SSKs are a major threat to us. 

 

Given the geography of the East and South China Seas, where combat can be reasonably anticipated to take place, China’s conventional submarines have significant advantages related to acoustics and stealth.  The traditional disadvantages of SSKs – range, endurance, low speed, etc. don’t really apply when operating so close to home ports.  Therefore, China, with a fleet of 47 SSKs enjoys a potentially significant tactical advantage, being able to saturate chokepoints and operating areas with extremely quiet, nearly undetectable submarines that suffer few of the SSK disadvantages.

 

Should the Chinese submarines attempt to venture out from the first island chain, the advantage would flip to the US with its nuclear subs.

Chinese Yuan Class SSK 

 

 

SOSUS

 

China has established a network of SOSUS-like listening arrays throughout the first island chain.[1, 2]  US submarines will have a difficult time penetrating the first island chain and operating undetected. 

 

On a related note, China has acknowledged having listening stations monitoring undersea activity around Guam.

 

The Chinese government has revealed the existence of two underwater sensors situated between the United States island of Guam and the South China Sea. …

 

The state-run Chinese Academy of Sciences only disclosed the pair of acoustic sensors earlier in January 2018, but had been operating them since 2016, according to a report from the South China Morning Post. One of them is in the Challenger Deep, located at the southern end of the Marianas Trench and the deepest known point on earth, and the other is situated further west near the island of Yap, part of the Federated States of Micronesia. Both reportedly can pick up acoustic signatures more than 620 miles away, putting them within range of Guam and the major strategic U.S. naval base at Apra Harbor.[3]

 

Similarly, the US and Japan have reportedly established a network of listening arrays throughout the first island chain and extending into the Indian Ocean.[4]  Chinese subs will have a difficult time operating undetected.

 

Since both sides operate listening arrays, this would seem to favor neither side.  However, the extreme quiet of the SSKs might seem to offer an advantage to China.

 

 

ASW

 

The US has much greater experience and institutional knowledge about ASW although the Navy seems intent on squandering that advantage by refusing to produce combat-effective ASW assets.  For example, the P-3 Orion was not suited to operating in contested areas and replacing it with the nearly identical P-8 Poseidon was foolish.  The LCS-ASW variant has been officially abandoned, leaving the Navy with no dedicated ASW surface vessel.  The Burkes, while ASW-capable, in theory, are woefully deficient in training and are far too expensive to risk playing tag with Chinese SSKs.

 

To compensate, the US needs to focus its submarine force o on ASW, dropping strike, ISR, special ops, and any other non-ASW mission.  This singular focus is necessary to produce maximum competency and thereby negate China’s SSK advantages.  New submarine designs and construction with this singular focus would have the effect of making subs cheaper (no VLS) and, therefore, more numerous.  It also makes them smaller and quieter.  All else being equal, smaller is harder to detect than larger.  VLS serves no purpose for the submarine’s main mission of ASW or even its secondary mission of anti-surface warfare.  If we want land attack subs then we should build dedicated SSGNs.

 

The US desperately needs to begin realistic, intensive ASW training using actual SSKs as enemy surrogates.  Some time ago we leased the services of an SSK for such training but we ended that practice and no longer have dedicated training against SSKs, as far as I know. 

 

Where is our Top Gun for submarines where dedicated enemy sub simulators and surrogates operated by exquisitely trained instructors specializing in enemy tactics teach submariners how the enemy will fight and how to defeat them?  We don’t have such training.  The Navy has made noises about establishing such an organization but has, thus far, failed to provide actual SSKs and dedicated OPFOR crews to man them.  Without that, any minor training efforts are just paper exercises.

 

Closely related to ASW training is the practice of anti-ASW, meaning the evasion and escape from, and defeat of, enemy ASW forces?  To the best of my knowledge we do not practice that at all.

 

 

Confined Waters

 

Confined, often shallower waters present unique characteristics when compared to the open ocean, deep sea waters that US submarines are used to operating in.  Salinity, density, thermoclines, depth, conductivity, acoustic propagation, etc. are all different inside the East and South China Seas.  This confers a familiarity that gives Chinese submarines a ‘home field’ advantage.  Are we actively and aggressively collecting data on the physical characteristics of the waters inside the first island chain?  I would hope so but I’m not aware of any sustained program along those lines.

 

The differing physical characteristics dictate different submarine tactics than those used in open ocean scenarios.  Are we practicing confined water (E/S China Sea) submarine tactics?  Again, I would hope so but there are no programs that I’m aware of.  While there may well be physical characteristics data collection that I’m not aware of, it is far less likely that there are tactics programs that I’m unaware of.  I know for a certainty that there is no equivalent to Top Gun.

 

 

 

Summary

 

Both sides have equal numbers of submarines with China leaning heavily towards SSKs while the US favors nuclear subs.  Both sides have listening arrays which possibly confers a slight advantage to the Chinese SSKs.

 

One would hope that we are diligently working on locating Chinese SOSUS arrays and have lans to destroy them at the outset of war.  Finding and planning/training for the Chinese SOSUS destruction would be a worthy mission for SEALS instead of being a land combat force in the Middle East.

 

Neither side possesses useful, tactically relevant ASW forces.  P-8s cannot survive in the anticipated operating area.  US surface forces are nearly inoperable as regards ASW.  When war comes we will not risk Burkes conducting ASW and, indeed, would be foolish to do so.  Burkes are nearly non-functional due to lack of training.  The LCS has been eliminated as an ASW asset. 

 

On the other hand, China is completely without submarine or ASW experience and likely has little acoustic data on US submarines.

 

The winner of the submarine/ASW fight will win the war and the winner will be the side that trains the hardest and most realistically.  While I have no knowledge about Chinese submarine warfare training, I can say that the US is not training hard, is not training productively, and is not training realistically.  That doesn’t bode well for us.

 

We just don’t seem to be serious about war.

 

__________________________________

 

[1]Forbes website, “China Builds Surveillance Network In South China Sea”, H. I. Sutton, 5-Aug-2020,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/05/china-builds-surveillance-network-in-international-waters-of-south-china-sea/?sh=68ef686d74f3

 

[2]http://www.hisutton.com/Cn_Underwater_Great_Wall.html

 

[3]Drive website, “China Reveals It Has Two Underwater Listening Devices Within Range of Guam”, Joseph Trevithick, 30-Jun-2019,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17903/china-reveals-it-has-two-underwater-listening-devices-within-range-of-guam

 

[4]https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/fish-hook-sea-bed-sosus-network.448398/

Another Nail In The LCS Coffin

The LCS has failed on so many levels that it’s no longer even noteworthy when new failures are identified.  However, I’d like to document one more new failure, not because of the failure itself, but because of lessons behind it.

 

 

The Failure :   It’s Loud !

 

The failure is the ASW capability of the LCS.  As you know, the Navy has officially abandoned the LCS ASW effort (see, “Stunning LCS News”).  Without revisiting the entire sordid history of the LCS ASW module development effort, suffice it to say that the initial ASW module concept was totally abandoned and then subsequent versions attempted to fill the void, with no success.  Now, we hear that LCS ASW efforts were doomed to failure by an inherent characteristic of the LCS ship, itself.  From CNO Gilday,

 

First of all, the ASW Modules just didn’t pan out; the VDS [Variable Depth Sonar] didn’t work as it should.  LCS is as noisy as an aircraft carrier and so there are some big challenges there that we should have [picked] up on way earlier.[1]

 

This is saying that the LCS self-noise is so loud that it negated the successful use of ship sonars, whether towed, hull mounted, or variable depth (VDS).  Where is the noise coming from?  The water jets, of course!  This is not something new.  I’ve been pointing out that the LCS is a deafening acoustic beacon for years.

 

What did you say?  I can't hear you!

Was this really a surprise to Admiral Gilday?  Apparently so.  He says that the Navy should have picked up on this ‘way earlier’.  Come on, admiral.  Are you really so ignorant about ASW that you didn’t realize that deafening water jets would be a detriment to ASW operations?  You and all the CNOs before you should be ashamed that you allowed this pile of hot, steaming LCS to continue.  You knew better and yet you went right along with it.  You’re complicit along with the rest.  If you had any integrity, you’d resign in shame.  But you don’t … and you won’t.

 

 

Lessons

 

Okay, so much for beating up the LCS about yet another problem.  I mentioned that I wanted to highlight this because of the lessons underlying the problem.  Those lessons are:

 

Foresight / Hindsight – It’s far too easy to excuse the LCS personnel for not seeing the various problems except in hindsight.  This, however, is completely false.  Almost every LCS problem was readily recognizable from day one.  In this specific case, anyone contemplating ASW operations for the LCS should have stopped the development effort on day one and pointed out that water jets were problematic.  Hindsight is not an excuse.  Foresight was readily available and there was no end of naval analysts pointing out these problems. 

 

The lesson is that we need to listen to foresight.  Again, almost every LCS problem was readily apparent on day one of the program.  If the Navy is too inept to see the problems with foresight then they should listen to the crowd … the large, deafening crowd that saw all this from the start.

 

Modularity Versus Optimization – ComNavOps has long decried the concept of modularity (see “The Myth of Modularity”), as attempted by the LCS.  The very concept is fundamentally and foundationally flawed.  Modules cannot compensate for a platform that is not exquisitely integrated and optimized for whatever the function is and this is a perfect example.  No ASW module can compensate for a host ship that is, inherently, a deafening acoustic beacon.  Modularity, by definition, produces sub-optimal, mediocre platforms.  Modularity is a fool’s dream born of a business case rather than a combat case.

 

 

The LCS should have died at the napkin stage.

 

 

_____________________________________

 

[1]Naval News website, “Admiral Gilday Explains LCS ASW And MCM Module Decisions”, Peter Ong, 5-May-2022,

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/

Buckley vs. Constellation

As naval observers and analysts, we need a solid grounding in naval history.  The Navy is currently in the process of designing and building an ?ASW? frigate, the Constellation class.  Functionally, the WWII analog to the Constellation would be the Buckley class destroyer escort (DE), the iconic DE of WWII.  Let’s refresh our memory about the Buckley class DE and see how it compares to the Constellation.

 

The Buckley was an ocean going, anti-submarine (ASW) vessel.  As such, it was optimized for ASW and, more importantly, minimized for ASW.  Huh?  Minimized for ASW?  Yes!  This is another way of saying that it had a single, primary purpose as opposed to being a multi-function design.  It was built for ASW and nothing else (hence, the minimized statement!).

 

Here’s a brief comparison of the Buckley and the Constellation FFG.

 

	Buckley	Constellation
Length, ft	306	496
Displacement, tons	1740	7291
Speed, kts	26	26
Range, nm	5500 @ 15 kts	6000 @ 16 kts

 

 

USS Buckley

Role - DE’s were intended to be ocean-going ASW vessels, providing escort for convoys and acting as dedicated submarine hunters (often as part of escort carrier hunter-killer groups).  Notably, they were not normally carrier and battleship group escorts – that role being generally filled by destroyers.

 

Constellation is, presumably, intended to be the Navy’s main ASW surface ship although the limited numbers render that intent nearly irrelevant barring a massive wartime construction program.  Unfortunately, the Constellation design also attempts to be an area anti-air warfare (AAW) ship with VLS, Standard SM-2 Blk IIIC missiles, and SPY-6 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) and an ASuW ship … in other words, it’s a do-everything, mini-Burke that is not specialized or optimized for anything.

 

Design Focus - As mentioned, the DE was a very focused, limited design.  Nothing was added to the design that was not absolutely required for the role.  One of the key aspects of the design was the recognition that the DE’s combat risk was limited due to the role’s reduced likelihood of combat.  The reduced combat risk allowed for reduced armor, reduced armament, and reduced sensors.  Contrast that with today’s attempts to include every capability, sensor, and weapon on every ship which, automatically, makes every ship over-spec’ed and over-priced.

 

Numbers – Because the DE was a focused, limited design, they were cheap and several hundred were built in WWII.  Enemy submarines will go to great lengths to avoid detection (translate:  mission kill) and the DE’s large numbers allowed them to be everywhere and hindered submarine operations by their mere presence as much or more than their actual combat actions.  In contrast, there are only 20 Constellations planned and they’re likely to cost $1B+.  History suggests that even this meager number of ships will be reduced.  Twenty ships – if that – are not going to be much of a hindrance. 

 

Range – It is noteworthy that the Buckley is half the size of the Constellation and has the same range.  We’ve forgotten what we were once capable of designing in a ship! 

 

Size – Buckley’s focused and minimized design allowed a much smaller size;  compare the Buckley to the Constellation’s much greater size which equates to much greater relative cost for what ought to be the same mission as Buckley.

 

Armament – A direct comparison between the Buckley and Constellation is meaningless as the weapons are from different eras but it is interesting to note the weapon density of the Buckley: 

• 3x 3"/50 guns
• 1x Bofors twin 40 mm gun
• 8x 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns
• 1x Hedgehog, 24 round, 144 rounds total
• 200x depth charges in stern racks and eight K-gun depth charge throwers
• 3x 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes in a triple mount

 

While we can’t directly compare the weapons of the two classes, it is, as we said, worth noting the weapon density of the Buckley and that density is hammered home by examining photos of the ship which show weapons mounted in almost every available space.  WWII ship designers understood that numbers of weapons mattered and Buckley had every weapon it needed and in sufficient numbers.  In contrast, the Constellation lacks one of the main ASW weapons, the VL-ASROC, and has only a single close in weapon, the RAM, with only 21 rounds per use.  The Buckley’s 3x 3”/50 guns (76 mm) put the Constellation’s single 57 mm gun armament to shame.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Buckley class had the same speed, range, and role as the Constellation but was half the size, or less.  What’s wrong with this picture?

 

What’s wrong is that the Constellation is unfocused and, therefore, large and expensive (only building 20!).  Yeah, but it can fill multiple roles!  No, not really.  The area AAW role, for example, will be filled by the Burkes, not the Constellations so what’s the point of giving them an area AAW role?  It just increases the size, complexity, and cost of the Constellation.

 

The Buckley was an example of a focused design that was optimized for its intended role of ASW and, as a result, was cheap enough to risk in battle and cheap enough to procure in large numbers.  In short, the Buckley was an excellent example of intelligent naval force structure design.  It was everything it needed to be and nothing it didn’t.  We would do well to take that lesson to heart.