Anti-Submarine Warfare

During the Cold War the greatest naval threat was from Soviet submarines.  As a result, the Navy was extremely focused on Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and developed a variety of platforms, sensors, and tactics to deal with it.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the Navy has allowed ASW to atrophy to an alarming extent.  Only recently has the Navy begun to attempt to reverse the trend and, even now, only with half-hearted measures.  Considering that the proliferation of foreign submarines, especially the modern non-nuclear SSKs, is the second leading threat (mines being the first), the current deplorable level of ASW capability represents a serious shortcoming.

The Navy’s Cold War ASW focus was enhanced due to the actual proximity of the threat and the ability to actively train against the real threat rather than simulations.  Soviet submarines were seemingly everywhere and constituted an ever-present and serious threat.  The threat level provided overwhelming motivation to become proficient at ASW and allowed for the most realistic hands-on training possible. 

Consider, though, what has become of our ASW capability since the Cold War.  The Spruance class, designed as a specialized ASW platform, has been pre-maturely retired and SinkEx’ed with no direct replacement.  The S-3 Viking which provided long range, high speed ASW was retired with no replacement.  Burke class DDGs are being built without towed arrays.  The 160 or so P-3 Orions are being replaced by 100-120, depending on the source, P-8 Poseidons, reducing coverage capacity.  SSN submarines, the most effective ASW platform, are being steadily reduced in number.  Worse, the Navy’s ASW focus has been lost and ASW has been relegated to a tactical afterthought.  We see, then, that the Navy has lost much of its specialized ASW platforms, equipment, and focus.

What does the Navy need to do to regain their ASW capability?



ASW - Atrophied



The Burke DDGs have ASW capability but were not designed with ASW as their primary focus.  In fact, many were built without towed arrays although the Navy seems to be retro-fitting arrays as availability and budget allows.  The Burkes are anti-air warfare (AAW) platforms that can also perform ASW to an extent.  As a result, their focus is AAW rather than ASW.  AAW is what they practice.  Because of this, the Navy needs a dedicated, specialized ASW surface ship to replace the Spruance.  Recall that the Spruance, possibly the best ASW surface ship ever built, was designed specifically for that purpose with noise-isolating machinery mounts, Prairie/Masker sound deadening systems, state of the art sonars, anti-submarine weapons, helos, etc.  We need to build the smallest and cheapest possible ship that can contain the necessary ASW equipment, a modest self-defense capability, and nothing more.  In other words, we don’t need another win-the-war-single-handed vessel.  Specifically, a dedicated ASW ship should not have Aegis.  It should have a minimal sensor suite sufficient for short range self-defense.  The ship should be the equivalent to the WWII corvette or destroyer escort.



The Burkes should continue to have their full ASW suite fitted and brought up to date to maximize the ASW capabilities that they do have.

The Navy needs a fixed wing, carrier aircraft replacement for the S-3 Viking.  By giving up the long range ASW capability of the Viking the Navy ensured that first detection of a sub would occur at close range where it’s already an immediate threat. 

Finally, and most importantly, the Navy needs to refocus its training and priorities.  ASW is one of the most perishable of naval skills.  It must be practiced constantly to maintain proficiency.  Simply having a sonar does not make an ASW platform.  In today’s Navy, ASW is not sexy.  AAW and ballistic missile defense (BMD) are the sexy activities and are what get the attention and training time.  The Navy needs to refocus on ASW.

A good start to this would be to purchase a few foreign non-nuclear subs to act as a dedicated OpFor similar to TopGun or any of the standing training commands.  We need a group that studies Iranian, North Korean, and Chinese submarine tactics and then operates non-nuclear subs using enemy tactics so as to provide the most realistic training possible.

Going further, one of the activities during the Cold War that really sharpened our ASW capability was the practice of having our subs trail Soviet subs.  It’s generally acknowledged that our subs fairly routinely violated Soviet territorial waters to conduct their ASW and intel missions.  We need to be doing this with Iran, North Korea, and China today.  We need to be tagging and trailing their subs constantly.  To be fair, we may well be doing this and it simply isn’t publicly acknowledged. 

As we discuss ASW platforms, remember that there are two ways to approach ASW.  One is to have super sophisticated, ultra-high end platforms which, by definition, cost an enormous amount of money and can be procured only in limited quantities.  The other is to overwhelm enemy submarines through sheer numbers of less capable platforms.  This was the approach taken during WWII.  Large numbers of corvettes, destroyer escorts, trawlers, and whatnot were pressed into service as ASW platforms.  Individually, none were all that capable but collectively they provided the required capability.  This approach also has the advantage of being able to afford individual losses in what is an inherently risky operation.  This is why we need to build the lower end dedicated ASW vessels as described above.  Plus, let’s face it, the modern submarine enjoys an enormous advantage over surface ships.  Numbers will be needed to compensate.

The Navy needs to recognize that mines and submarines are the major threats today and field platforms and equipment that can counter them, TODAY.  We need practical, ready to operate ships and aircraft that utilize currently available technology rather than the LCS, the Navy’s fantasy answer, that won’t have any useful capabilities for years to come, if ever.

FY2013-FY2017 Shipbuilding Plan

Here’s a quick update reminder about the Navy’s near-term shipbuilding plans.

For the five year period 2013-2017 inclusive, the Navy’s shipbuilding plan calls for 41 new vessels of all types.  Of the 41, only 19 are combat ships (carriers, subs, destroyers).  That’s an average of 3.8 new combat vessels per year.  For a 35 year lifespan, that translates to a combat fleet of 133 versus the 185 or so currently.  Our combat power is vanishing!

During the same period, the Navy plans to build 16 LCS which, even under the most optimistic wishing, will never be combat vessels.  That’s a lot of construction and budget devoted to an extremely marginally useful vessel!

The fleet’s numbers and combat power are shrinking and the current budget issues will only exacerbate the trend.

Cyclones Upgraded

My thanks to DJF for the heads-up on this item.

Two shipyards in Norfolk, VA, are being awarded separate contracts for dry-docking and miscellaneous structural, electrical, and mechanical repairs on two Cyclone class PCs, USS Hurricane (PC-3) and USS Monsoon (PC-4).  The contracts are for $14M and $18M, respectively.  By comparison, the original construction costs were around $11M each although that was 15-20 years ago with the ships being built in the 1990’s.  Still, to spend that kind of money on vessels that were supposed to be recalled from duty in 2010 due to hull fatigue damage is astounding.  The ships were designed for a 15 year life.  Recall that this is one of the classes of ship that were supposed to be replaced by the LCS.  That being the case, why are these ships being upgraded rather than retired?  Is this an admission that the LCS can’t fill the role?  Is it a simple recognition that the Navy has allowed the fleet size to shrink too far and more vessels, regardless of type, are needed?  Is it a statement that smaller patrol vessels fill a vital role and the Navy’s decades long neglect of, and contempt for, small patrol vessels was unwise?  Is the Navy getting back into the small patrol vessel business?  Who knows?!



Cyclone Class PC - A Longer Life Ahead?



Will the entire class be upgraded over time or is there some special reason why only these two are being attended to?  Again, who knows?

What’s clear is that someone in the Navy made an extraordinary decision in this time of severe budget constraints to pour money (a pittance by new construction standards, to be sure) into ships that are at or past their rated life, should have been replaced by the vaunted LCS, and have been all but ignored by the Navy for the class’ entire lifespan.  That’s saying something profound as regards Navy thinking.  I just don’t know what the official thinking is. 

Fact or Fiction?

Fact or Fiction?

Here’s a few interesting tidbits that I’ve heard but been unable to independently verify.

- The LCS started as an industrial technology and concept demonstrator.  The manufacturers never intended it as a functioning warship but the Navy insisted on pushing ahead with it.  This explains some of the puzzling design aspects.

- The Navy’s current lack of armor in warships stems from the immediate post-WWII belief that future combat would involve nuclear weapons and the subsequent recognition that no amount of armor would stand up against atomic bombs. 

- Cyclone class PCs were built for Special Operations forces who then rejected the ships after they were built for reasons not completely clear.  That left the Navy with a class of ship they didn’t want and tried repeatedly to get rid of.

- The Burke Flt III is going to have significantly improved passive armor protection.

- The Burke DDGs were originally intended to have remote mine hunting vehicles and, indeed, several were built with it.  That capability was then dropped.  Supposedly, the reason it was dropped was to prevent a threat to the procurement of the LCS from people who might ask why the LCS was needed if any Burke could conduct mine countermeasures.

- The entire Spruance class was SinkEx’ed to eliminate them as a threat to the then newly developing Aegis program.  At that time, the Spruance with a New Threat Upgrade (NTU) would have rivaled or surpassed the Aegis system in performance.  The Navy decisively eliminated the threat to the favored program.

More JHSV

Well, the JHSV topic generated more discussion than I anticipated!  Here’s a few follow up thoughts.

Relative to an amphibious transport or a cargo ship, the JHSV offers only a small capacity.  Its benefit lies in the ability to deliver its cargo to otherwise inaccessible ports and, debatably, its speed.  Whether there is a valid need to deliver cargo to marginally accessible ports in the rear of a combat zone is also debatable.  And, before anyone types out a response, whatever future uses the JHSV may be adapted for, the fact is that it cannot perform combat zone deliveries currently.

I can see a possible need for movement of cargo (men and equipment) from a larger ship to a marginally accessible port but it seems like a better option would be to design an actual cargo ship to do that.  In that regard, as a simple unloading vehicle, the need for high speed seems highly questionable.

Moving on, the origins of ship classes fascinate me.  Understanding the factors that lead to a ship class’ design is always highly informative and, yet, often lost in the subsequent discussions about the merits and costs of the class.

The LCS, for instance, originated not due to a perceived need for a littoral combat vessel but because the Navy was faced with the end of the Cold War, resulting budget cuts, and a perceived lack of mission.  In other words, the Navy was facing a very real possibility of becoming the neglected step-sister of the services.  In response, you may recall that the Navy commissioned several studies and papers to try to enumerate a role in the post-Cold War era and largely failed.  They then latched onto the concept of “littoral” (though that was a spurious concept as we’ve shown in previous posts) and used that to sell Congress on the need for a new vessel.  Hence, the LCS was born.  The Navy simply wanted hulls in the water (to ensure its slice of the budget pie) and didn’t really care what they looked like or could do.  They’d worry about that later.

By comparison, I have no idea what the origin of the JHSV was.  There was no compelling need spelled out by the Navy and I can see no other budgetary imperative.  If the need was so compelling, why did the Navy so readily downsize the class with little fuss or argument?  If the need wasn’t compelling, as I suspect, than what was the real impetus for the class?  If anyone has any thoughts on this, please share them.

JHSV

The Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) is beginning to join the fleet and ComNavOps is beginning to wonder what these vessels will be used for.  The stated purpose is intratheater high speed transport of troops and vehicles.  Does this make sense? 

First, let’s take a quick look at the few specs that are available.

Class Size = 10 ships

Speed = 35 kts – 45 kts

Range = 1200 nm

Troop Capacity = 300 seated airline style or 100 in berths

Weight Capacity = 600 tons

Crew = 22 civilian mariners

Cost = $250M each, $2.5B program

Aviation = flight deck for a single medium helo, no hangar

So, back to our question.  How will this vessel be used and does it make sense?  Clearly, this is a non-combat vessel, built to commercial standards, and crewed by civilians.  Thus, the JHSV is not an amphibious assault vessel of any kind.  That leaves peacetime transport.  Do we have a pressing need for high speed transport of a relatively small number of troops during peacetime operations?  I’d be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where that was required. 



JHSV - What Purpose?



I suppose we could also consider its use in a wartime scenario where it operated far in the rear of the naval front lines and acted as a shuttle.  Again, though, is there a pressing need to quickly move 100 – 300 troops far in the rear of a battle zone?

I can see a use for the JHSV as a humanitarian aid vessel but that’s not really a Navy mission.  OK, actually it is an official mission but it shouldn’t be.  I’ll make that a topic for another day.

In short, I don’t see the pressing need for this ship.  Help me out, readers.  What demonstrated need does this vessel fill?

Idled Carriers Update

We noted, here, that the Navy is planning to idle four air wings with the result that some carriers will be idled since they won’t have any air wings.  It appears that the affected carriers will be Stennis, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Roosevelt.  We’ll keep watching this.