Following
developments in the area of mine countermeasures (MCM) is challenging, to say
the least. Equipment seems to come and
go on an almost daily basis. A new piece
of equipment is tested, proclaimed the future of MCM, and then dropped with the
entire process occurring, seemingly, overnight.
The LCS MCM module development has epitomized this.
As we
consider future MCM developments, it is helpful to understand the current and
legacy systems. To that end, let’s take
a look at the current (soon to be legacy) MCM workhorse, the MH-53E helo.
A major
portion of our current MCM capability is aviation based from the MH-53E
helicopter. The MH-53E was produced in
the early 1980’s and is suffering age-related maintenance problems, spare parts
shortages, and extensive maintenance times.
These helos, of which there are only 28 in inventory, are aging rapidly
and there are no plans to provide direct replacements for them. Instead, the Navy has decided to transition their
MCM capabilities to the LCS.
“…current plans involve
transitioning the MH-53E airborne mine countermeasures capability to the
Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Package …” (1)
The sundown
path for the MH-53E is now tied to the LCS MCM reaching full operational
capability which is tentatively scheduled for 2025.
 |
| MH-53E |
The MH-53E
helos are organized into two active squadrons, HM-14 (10 helos) and HM-15 (13
Helos), and a Fleet Replacement Squadron, HM-12 (5 helos).
Here’s a
few specifications with a comparison to the SH-60 series Seahawk just for some
perspective.
MH-53E SH-60B
Length, ft 100 65
Empty Weight, lbs
33000 15000
Internal Payload, lbs 30000
6700
External Payload, lbs 36000
N/A
Unrefueled Endurance, hrs 5 3.5?
As the
specs demonstrate, the MH-53E is massively larger, more powerful, and with
longer endurance. In other words, ideal
for the aerial MCM role. The SH-60, as
has been well documented, was found to be underpowered for safe MCM equipment
towing, in what is one of the most bewildering blunders of the LCS module
program.
MH-53E MCM capabilities
and systems include the following:
Influence Sweep Systems
- AN/SPU-1W (Magnetic orange
Pipe)
- Mk-104 Acoustic Sweep System
- Mk-105 Magnetic Sweep System
- Mk-103 Mechanical Sweep System
(Mk-17 cutters)
Neutralization System
- AN/ASQ-232 SEAFOX Airborne Mine
Neutralization System
Mine Hunting
- AN/AQS-24 Side Scan Sonar with
Laser detection/ID capability
Future
Upgrades include:
- AQS-24B – Technical refresh of
the Q-24A which addresses obsolescence and reliability issues and adds
High Speed Synthetic Aperture Sonar (HSSAS) side scan arrays
- AQS-24C – Provides expanded
volume search capability to B-variant through the addition of iPUMA sonar
to the tail of the towed body
Vertical
website offers a nice, basic writeup on the MH-53E. (5)
One of the
notable issues related to transitioning from aviation centric MCM to ship MCM
is the loss of speed. Helos operate much
faster than the unmanned underwater vehicles planned for the LCS MCM module. Even if it works, the LCS clearance rate will
be very slow – too slow for combat clearance.
For
example, the AQS-24B side scan sonar can be helo-towed at 18 kts and still be
effective, according to manufacturer, Northrop Grumman. (2) By comparison, the sonar-equipped, mine detecting,
Knifefish UUV for the LCS has a speed of 4.5 kts.(3) Even that speed is misleading because the
Knifefish has to wait to return to its host vessel to upload its data which
must then be analyzed to actually “detect” a mine. That process takes significant additional
time. The Navy is attempting to adapt
the AQS-24 towed sonar to an unmanned surface vessel to address the speed
issue.
Here’s a
telling quote,
"We're funding these new
systems that, when you look behind the curtain, are not as capable as the
systems that they are replacing," said Bob O'Donnell, a retired Navy
captain who directed the service's program office for mine warfare in the years
following the first Gulf War. "Even if the new systems meet all their
operational targets, they won't be as good as the ships and helicopters we've
had in service for decades." (4)
Clearly,
the MH-53E MCM helos have capabilities that have yet to be duplicated by the
LCS MCM module. It is unclear how the
planned 6-10 or so LCS MCM vessels, each individually less capable than current
equipment, will replace 12 Avenger ships and 28 MH-53E helos.
 |
| Mk105 Magnetic Minesweeping Sled |
Potentially,
the new CH-53K in a dedicated MCM version offers the ability to replace the
MH-53E although I have heard of no such plan by the Navy.
The larger
question that looms over any discussion of MCM is whether mine countermeasures
should be aviation focused or surface/subsurface. The Navy has opted for the surface/subsurface
path by going all-in on the LCS and unmanned surface/subsurface vehicles and by
retiring the MH-53E without replacement.
However, it is not at all clear to me that this is a wise path.
As always,
a combination of assets and capabilities is probably the best approach but
allowing the MH-53E to retire without replacement is knowingly accepting a
significant decrease in MCM capabilities.
_________________________________________
(1)US Navy
N98 / Mine Warfare Association, “The Future of Airborne Mine Countermeasures”, 3-Nov-2015,
(2)Northrop
Grumman website, retrieved 1-Apr-2018,
(5)Vertical
website, “Clearing The Way”, 22-Aug-2012,
