Sea Control

The term, ‘Sea Control’, is an oft cited phrase that is used to justify all manner of ships and operations.  The problem with ‘Sea Control’, however, is that everyone who discusses it has a different idea of what it is.  Is it any wonder, then, that no two ‘Sea Control’ discussions draw the same conclusions?

 

Note:  This post is inspired by comments from many people, most recently reader ‘Lazarus’ who offered this comment that prompted me to think about ‘Sea Control’ definitions and what that might mean for ship/carrier designs.(2)  My thanks to all of you!

 

Here’s a few of the more common definitions/descriptions of Sea Control (SC):

 

ASW – This view sees SC as more akin to an anti-submarine, hunter-killer function.  It is an undersea, sea control concept and, as such depends on uncontested aerial dominance to be successful.  This concept typically envisions a helo-centric carrier with a few fixed wing aircraft added in for supposed air supremacy.  As a pure ASW task force, this has validity but the broader view of an ASW sea control group that also engages in other naval dominance activities is highly suspect given the lack of firepower.

 

Anti-Surface – This view envisions SC groups sweeping the oceans, looking for enemy naval forces and engaging them to eliminate the enemy’s navy.  This concept typically envisions a converted amphibious ship operating a fixed wing group of 1-2 dozen AV-8/F-35B aircraft.  Alternatively, a full Nimitz/Ford carrier has been mentioned as the SC element although this would seem to be simply a carrier task force.

 

Patrol – This view has the SC group ‘patrolling’ (whatever that means) around an area and presumably attacking whatever it comes across thereby establishing local dominance.  There is a suggestion in most such descriptions that the SC group would operate around the periphery of a conflict which, in turn, suggests that the main function would be almost tantamount to blockading and would be largely focused on anti-merchant shipping.  This concept typically envisions some kind of hybrid cruiser-carrier and requires total air control to be successful.

 

Convoy – This view envisions a small carrier operating as a convoy escort providing ASW and AAW protection.  This concept typically envisions using a WWII escort type carrier.

 

Nebulous – This is, honestly, the most prevalent view and is characterized by a lack of any specifics beyond the vague notion of establishing some sort of local naval dominance.  Proponents tend to be much more concerned with the type of sea control ship (usually a smaller, specialized carrier of some sort) rather than the actual use/mission.

 

 

SC enthusiasts have put forth ideas for ship designs and group compositions that cover a range of concepts including small, specialized escort carriers, dedicated ASW carriers, modified LHA amphibious ships, hybrid cruiser/carriers, and full size Nimitz/Fords.  Quite a range!  The range of ship concepts reflects the lack of a standardized definition of Sea Control and lack of a concrete mission/role.

 

How does the military define SC?  From Joint Publication 3-32,

 

Sea control may include naval cooperation and guidance for shipping, protection of sea lines of communications, air lines of communications, blockades, embargoes against economic or military shipping, and maritime interception operations (MIO). (1)

 

Well, that’s not very helpful.  That’s just a very vague definition of what a navy does and is much more focused on peacetime patrol operations than actual war.

 

 

 

Honestly, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no such thing as sea control and that the phrase is just a buzzword used to justify someone’s idea of a hybrid carrier or small naval group – in other words, the phrase ‘sea control’ is used to describe equipment rather than a role or mission.

 

Well, before we give up on sea control, let’s give it some more thought.

 

If ‘sea control’ is legitimate then what are we controlling?  Most of the sea, most of the time, is empty.  There aren’t that many naval forces around.  Even in the Pacific in WWII, how many actual naval battles were fought?  Not that many.  That suggests that having a standing sea control group patrolling around a given area is generally pointless.

 

Of the entire Pacific Ocean in WWII, how often was any given square mile of water occupied by an enemy vessel?  I’d guess somewhere around 0.000000001% of the time.  Again, that suggests that having a standing sea control group patrolling around a given area is generally pointless.

 

Consider the WWII naval battles that did occur.  How many were a total surprise to both sides?  I’m guessing around none.  Given the highly predictable strategies on both sides and the intel from various sources (scouting, code breaking, coast watching, signal analysis, etc.), both sides were generally aware of where and when the other’s naval forces would appear.  On those occasions, task forces were assembled and sent to engage but, of course, that’s a short, specific mission, not sea control, at least not as the term is being discussed here.  Again, that suggests that having a standing sea control group patrolling around a given area is generally pointless.

 

Now, let’s consider the idea of a SC group lounging around some area in the general vicinity of, say, the first island chain during a war with China.  Given the ranges of today’s various anti-ship weapons, the density of various ISR sources, and the presumed weakness of a sea control group’s AAW defenses, is it really safe/wise for a lightly armed group to be loitering around a war zone?  There are many naval observers who doubt that even a full-fledged carrier group can survive in a modern war zone (they’re wrong but, I digress …).  If that’s true, what chance would a SC group have of surviving long enough to be effective?  Logically, then, a SC group would either have to operate so far from the active war zone as to be irrelevant or would be quickly detected and destroyed if operating near an active war zone.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Sea control, as a phrase, appears to be much like ‘littoral’ which was used to justify new ships for the Navy despite there not actually being any such thing as littoral naval requirements (see, “Littoral Warfare – Is There Such A Thing?”).  The phrase ‘sea control’ has no useful, valid definition and has no specific mission associated with it.  It is used to justify fanciful ship designs rather than describing a viable, bona fide mission or role.  In fact, there does not appear to be any readily identifiable and relevant mission or role that we could label sea control.  Further, historical evidence from WWII strongly suggests that there is no justification for a SC group regardless of what mission/role it would be attempting.

 

I just can’t give the concept any credence.

 

 

 

__________________________________

 

(1)Joint Publication 3-32, “Joint Maritime Operations”, 16-Dec-2020

 

(2)https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/09/so-much-wrong-here.html?showComment=1631901113856#c9136375796920066069

Sea Control Ship

One of the common suggestions that I encounter is the need for a sea control ship.  This is one of those concepts whose definition, and therefore capabilities and requirements, depends on the person bringing it up.  Everyone seems to have a different definition.

The original sea control concept was derived from the convoy escort mission and consisted of a helo carrier which would provide continuous ASW presence.  Around 14 helos on the ship would ensure that a couple were always airborne.

Sea control as often discussed today has evolved to include anti-surface and medium range anti-air in addition to the original ASW role.  Some even credit a sea control ship with a Marine complement for limited land operations.  The sea control ship most commonly described is a small hybrid carrier with a combination of fixed wing aircraft (Harriers, originally, and now F-35Bs) and helos with, perhaps, some AEW aircraft depending on who’s proposing the idea.

The Navy has experimented with the idea in the past.  The USS Guam was set up as a sea control vessel for a time.  Other countries have also experimented with the concept.  Notably, the Japanese have developed the helicopter destroyer (DDH) and the Soviets developed the Moskva class which combined a bit of a cruiser with an ASW helo carrier.

A sea control ship is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but may not be worth it in reality. 

Let’s consider its function.  All sea control concepts seem to have ASW as the core function with the major capability being provided by helos.  Fair enough.  Now let’s think through the ship’s usage in a war against a peer. 

A helo carrier is not going to have much in the way of AAW protection other than RAM type short range self-defense weapons.  That means that in combat it would either need to be defended by more capable ships (a Burke, presumably) or relegated to peripheral combat areas that would not expect to see major enemy activity.

An escort is feasible but removes a highly capable vessel from other duty.  On the other hand, a Burke is, theoretically, ASW capable.  I say theoretically because Navy destroyers do not practice ASW enough to be proficient.  Still, a helo carrier and a Burke or two acting as a hunter-killer group is not a bad idea if we have enough Burkes to devote to this.  Presumably, this kind of group would be effective protecting approaches to other naval groups or attempting to deny known enemy submarine transit routes or operational areas.

Without an escort, a helo carrier would be relegated to peripheral activities such as protecting distant sea lanes or sitting on chokepoints.  Is this a worthwhile activity?  A carrier, even a smaller helo carrier is still very expensive to build, man, and operate.  If we think we can get enough benefit for the low risk then it would be worth it.  On the other hand, if the risk is low it’s probably because the possibility of reward is also low.

Finally, let’s look at the more modern definition of sea control.  Some people advocate a sea control vessel that is a jack of all trades.  It would have fixed wing aircraft (F-35B) and helos, anti-ship missiles, and at least medium range area AAW.  Frankly, I’m not sure what role such a ship would play in major combat.  It would be like an aviation frigate:  capable of lots of tasks but incapable of anything serious on its own.  It could operate with a carrier group but would be redundant since a carrier has its own ASW helos.  It could operate with an amphibious group but an amphibious group would always have a carrier supporting it so, again, it would be redundant.  It might be useful as a convoy escort which, of course, is what the modern frigate was intended to be.

Notional Sea Control Ship

Considering the various options and scenarios, it seems as if the Japanese DDH might be the best implementation of this concept.  If so, that’s not exactly the sea control concept.  Instead, it’s more of a focused ASW vessel.

The very idea of a sea control ship during war is on of those concepts that is appealing when considered in isolation but fails to stand up to rigorous analysis.  Proponents envision a sea control ship staking out a patch of ocean and then destroying enemy patrol craft and submarines.  Voila, a secured patch of ocean at a fraction of the cost of a carrier group! 

Now, let’s apply some analytical thinking to that concept.  Can a sea control ship fight an enemy destroyer similar to a Burke?  No.  That’s not even remotely realistic.  Can it fight fast attack craft (anti-ship missile boats/FAC)?  Under the right circumstances, possibly.  A helo, armed for anti-ship missions, can certainly defeat a FAC since very few FACs have any significant AAW capability.  However, the FACs generally far outrange the detection limits of a sea control ship’s sensors.  For example, the Chinese Type 022 (Houbei) missile boat carries C-80X anti-ship missiles that have a range of 60-200 miles, depending on the missile type.  A sea control ship’s onboard sensors would have an effective range out to the horizon (20 miles, say).  Of course, the ship’s helos could extend that range but every helo dedicated to surveillance is a helo subtracted from the ASW mission.

So, yes, if a sea control ship were willing to partially or completely sacrifice its ASW mission, it could detect and effectively attack FACs.  Of course, ASW is the foundation mission for a sea control ship so detracting from that mission is a risky proposition.

Now, what about when the sea control ship is detected by the enemy and faces aerial attack from aircraft and/or missiles.  The ship’s defenses would be limited to short range or point defense (RAM, most likely).  This is completely inadequate for AAW.  Some people argue for a sea control ship with a sizable fixed wing aviation component (F-35B, presumably).  Of course, once you upsize the ship to carry both a large helo and fixed wing component, you’re no longer talking about a sea control ship – you’re now talking about a nearly full size carrier which has been proven to be almost as costly to build, man, and operate as a supercarrier but without the full size carrier’s capacities and capabilities.  So, sticking with a small to moderate size sea control vessel, we see that it is completely vulnerable to air attack.  An escort, such as a Burke, could be provided but, again, that takes the Burkes away from their other high end tasks and negates the very rationale of the sea control ship which is that it can free up high end ships for high end tasks.  We could add VLS cells to provide a medium range AAW capability but, again, that increases the size of the ship for what would be a very modest increase in AAW.

What about ASW, the foundation mission for a sea control ship?  A sea control ship with a handful of ASW helos would be as effective as a surface ship can be and, in the right scenario, could be a useful and effective asset.  The problem is that helos are notoriously unreliable and high maintenance.  Thus, you need several helos in order to maintain a few in continuous operation.  That’s fine – inefficient but fine.  Such a sea control ship sitting atop chokepoints or transit routes could prove highly effective at controlling enemy submarine activity.  Recall, though, that in order to protect itself from enemy FACs the ship would have to dedicate several helos to surveillance which would not leave enough helos available for effective ASW.  Unless we postulate a very much larger ship (America class size), a sea control ship just can’t carry enough helos for both the surveillance/counter FAC mission and ASW, simultaneously.

All of this leads us to the conclusion that a sea control ship is not an effective or efficient concept for war unless we’re willing to dedicate one or more high end Burke escorts for its protection.  If we have sufficient Burkes then this becomes a viable concept.  If not, it isn’t.  This also suggests that a lesser Burke, say a modern frigate, might be a viable escort although the Navy currently has no plans to acquire a frigate.

Thus, the sea control ship, with ASW as its primary mission, is appealing in concept but fails when one considers the details of wartime employment unless a high end escort is provided.