International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
titash
BRFite
Posts: 648
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by titash »

Aditya G wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:How will the Azmat/Durjoy type vessels find our billion $ ship in the first place ? Shouldn't our billion$ frigate/destroyer be able to outrange as far as detection goes AND take them out before they become a threat or be in a position to launch missiles ?
Kolkata DDG vs Durjoy is one scenario. But another could be Durjoy attacking a BSF Floating BOP or our latest WJFACs. The latter will be seriously outgunned if this fight were to happen.

First of all, it is important to understand that corvettes, OPVs and minor warships continue to play a role in all navies. In '71 our corvettes had to be towed to Karachi due to lack of range, yet Navy Day is celebrated because of the their historic attack. In last 25 years Seaward Defence Boats have been used extensively in Palk Straits and Anti-Piracy Operations. Recently Japan, ROC and PRC sent their coast guard vessels to assert authority in the western pacific.

So the threat should not be dismissed and a strategy should be in place to counter other Navies' vessels. At the same time we need to appreciate their role in our security. Their expected role will define the armament levels, complexity and size. I found the Durjoy interesting due to its multi-role fit. Compare it to the Saryu class OPV (2300 Ton), Car Nicobar class FAC (325 Tons) or Azmat class FACM (same weight maybe even same hull) for example.
Aditya G, one needs to use a specific tools for a specific job. We lose sight of this and resort to a bean counting approach.

The increased submarine force for PN/PLAN does not need to be countered by an increased IN submarine force. For the same price (given our geography) it is more prudent to invest in 100+ ASW helicopters & MPAs plus a small SSN force to keep PN/PLAN ships at risk.

likewise,

The best way to take out opposing fast attack craft is not by using surface combatants, but by shipborne helicopters - classic case being the RN Lynx employed against Iragi FACs during the first gulf war. These small ships have rudimentary AA defences and will be overwhelmed by helicopters firing Sea Skua (or similar) missiles and pretty much any fast jet that can carry LGBs or rockets. There is no need to expose our larger ships just to give our opponents a level playing field.

Why would the BN attack a BSF flotilla given the threat of retaliation by a significantly superior airforce/fleet air arm. Taking pot shots at BSF sentries is one thing; sinking a patrol vessel is another.

Our patrol vessels exist to show the flag and scare away opportunistic pirates, terrorists, etc. At the same time, they save us the cost of deploying an expensive frigate/destroyer for low intensity conflicts.


Karan M...why waste BrahMos on FACs? or even employ Mig-29K? much cheaper to let helicopters fire from stand off distances.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by vasu raya »

titash wrote:The increased submarine force for PN/PLAN does not need to be countered by an increased IN submarine force. For the same price (given our geography) it is more prudent to invest in 100+ ASW helicopters & MPAs plus a small SSN force to keep PN/PLAN ships at risk.
Add some ISAR and IR sats too
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Russia's second Borei class SSBN.Check the link for puc of the intruiging sail shape.

http://rt.com/news/russia-nuclear-submarine-nevsky-613/
Russia’s second next-gen nuclear sub enters service

http://www.mizonews.net/world/china-sel ... ubmarines/
China to sell Bangladesh two submarines
angladesh has finalised a deal to purchase two Ming-class submarines, The New Age reported Saturday.

The submarines would strengthen the navy’s ability to protect the country’s resources, officials, who remained unidentified, were quoted as saying. They added that the deal would cost Bangladesh $203.3 million and awaits the finance ministry approval.

The type 035G diesel-electric run submarines are scheduled to be delivered in 2019, according to the daily.

Earlier in January this year, Armed Forces Division principal staff officer Lieutenant General Abu Belal Muhammad Shafiul Huq said the deal to procure the submarines was under negotiation.
Cinema Cover Ads!

Seventeen sailors are receiving training on how to operate submarines and the navy has acquired land in Kutubdia Island in Cox’s Bazaar to set up a submarine base, the report said.

Read more: http://www.mizonews.net/world/china-sel ... z2oImQUq63
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

I like this, I like this a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

This weapon would be a perfect complement to the new US shallow water navy ships being developed. All they carry is a 57mm cannon....WTF? What if there are no air assets available and somebody's big brother shows up? Now what skipper? With the joint strike missile on board the ship the skipper gots some options of whether he wants to fight or not. With a 57mm cannon and if an opponent shows up with a 76mm, the skipper is gonna lose his ship. I realize good tactics can mitagate this, but the fog of war has proven otherwise. This would also turn the US coast guard cutters into someting other than targets in the event of a war.

addendum: these missiles appear to be the right size and if we add some nice US electronics to it, it ought to be a real doozy.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

The Navy’s Amazing Ocean-Powered Underwater Drone
a fleet of “long endurance, transoceanic gliders harvesting all energy from the ocean thermocline.”

And you thought Jules Verne died in 1905.

Fact is, the Navy has been seeking—pretty much under the surface—a way to do underwater what the Air Force has been doing in the sky: prowl stealthily for long periods of time, and gather the kind of data that could turn the tide in war.

The Navy’s goal is to send an underwater drone, which it calls a “glider,” on a roller-coaster-like path for up to five years. A fleet of them could swarm an enemy coastline, helping the Navy hunt down minefields and target enemy submarines.
DF-21D-real-mini on the way?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

trawlers with fishing nets will do just fine to round up these critters and whack them with a stick.
china has a vast fleet of fishing trawlers :mrgreen:
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Here is what a former US Navy captain with 3000 hrs fly in a E-2c hawkeye thinks about the df-21d.

http://blog.usni.org/?s=DF-21
There is a school of thought that is quick to draw parallels between the emergence of the carrier and demise of the battleship as highlighted at Pearl Harbor, but I would point out that was as much to do with the inherent lack of adaptability of the ships on Battleship Row that Sunday morning in December as the added dimension to naval warfare demonstrated by the Kido Butai. I would also note, that the same capability brought to bear against the BBs was also applied at Coral Sea, Midway and Santa Cruz, but there were no calls for ceasing production of CVs after Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet and Wasp were lost to air- and submarine attacks. Indeed the carriers showed their adaptability and flexibility in the utility of their main battery, carrier-based air wings that were composited based on mission, in flexing from sea control to war at sea, to strike support and long-range AAW. And when a new weapon, the kamikaze appeared later in the war we changed tactics, adapted current and emerging technologies (networked fires, improved C2, long-range CAP, attack operations, airborne- and distant surface radar pickets) and even began looking at the potential of emerging technologies like surface to air missiles as a solution set. To be sure, we were still taking grievous losses (witness Okinawa and the beating the DDRs and USS Franklin endured), and the emergence of atomic weapons again proved a challenge. My intent isn’t to rehash the long history of carrier aviation and its adaptability in the face of emerging threats, that has been done much more ably elsewhere. It is rather, to thoughtfully consider the challenge presented, examine all avenues of countering, realizing that frankly, while the DF-21D presents a very high profile threat, the reality of the tactical scenario is that there are a great many more sub- and supersonic cruise missiles, launched from a variety of platforms that are increasingly proliferating around the world and present a far greater threat to all naval platforms.

And that demands a degree of perspective be employed by force planners and naval leaders.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

titash wrote:...The best way to take out opposing fast attack craft is not by using surface combatants, but by shipborne helicopters - classic case being the RN Lynx employed against Iragi FACs during the first gulf war. These small ships have rudimentary AA defences and will be overwhelmed by helicopters firing Sea Skua (or similar) missiles and pretty much any fast jet that can carry LGBs or rockets. There is no need to expose our larger ships just to give our opponents a level playing field.

Why would the BN attack a BSF flotilla given the threat of retaliation by a significantly superior airforce/fleet air arm. Taking pot shots at BSF sentries is one thing; sinking a patrol vessel is another.

Our patrol vessels exist to show the flag and scare away opportunistic pirates, terrorists, etc. At the same time, they save us the cost of deploying an expensive frigate/destroyer for low intensity conflicts.
You are right on how the helicopter will beat these small warships. But we do not possess any such capability now (unless the Sea Eagles are still active). But I note your scenario as an acknowledgement that induction of such types necessitates an appropriate measure from our side. Whether or not BN, PN and other IOR navies are a threat is a strategy level question.

I have explained my view in the other thread, that IN should look at having more numerous and multirole ships on fleet. A class that is cheaper, smaller than Talwar class FFG. Essentially a Project-28 design with ship borne missile armament. This type can replace around 20+ surface focussed corvettes like Veer and Kora classes.

The new naval MRH, once realized will add more power to all our ships. My concern is that we require too many (thus expensive) and the purchase process is going to be a long and complex one.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Now Indonesia wants to join the Kilo bandwagon,after Vietnam has done so.

Indonesia eyeing Russian submarines

Sun, December 29 2013 16:48 | 1471 Views

photo ilustration (military-today.com)

Makassar, South Sulawesi (ANTARA News) - The Indonesian military (TNI) chief Gen. Moeldoko, confirmed that TNI is studying the possibility of strengthening its submarine fleet with Russian Kilo Class submarines.

"Currently we are still studying and calculating the plan to strengthen our defense in the water territory.

"It would be great if we could acquire the Kilo Class submarines, which have a long firing range of guided missiles," Moeldoko said here on Sunday.

The type of Kilo Class submarine named Kiloklav could hit a target as long as 400 kilometers away from sub-surface to surface.

Earlier the Navy chief of staff Admiral Marsetio said a navy technical team would be sent to Russia to study a submarine offer.

Indonesia will also acquire three units of submarine from South Korea to add to the two units the navy already has at present.

One of the two units is the 209 class type from Germany and the other one was from South Korea with almost the same type as the one from Germany .

The two submarines have been modified into combat management, which has greater attacking capability.

Meanwhile, the TNI is also awaiting the arrival of Apache helicopters from the United states . This type of military helicopters have been used only by a number of countries including the United States itself and Singapore.

TNI has also ordered a number of Leopard tanks which are considered among the best in the world .

From France and Britain ,Indonesia plans to import equipment for air defense system .

Moeldoko said he also wants that the TNI could have Sukhoi 35, the latest series of Russian Sukhoi fighter aircraft.

He said most of the types of war equipment are expected to be displayed at the armed force day in Surabaya on Oct. 5.

"This is to send a message that the president has taken a progressive step toward modernization of the Indonesia defense system," he said, adding "in ASEAN standard our defense equipment would be promising."

Marsetio said a technical team would leave for Russia in January, 2014 to study the Russian offer to sell submarines to Indonesia.

"Indonesia still need more units of submarine to strengthen our navy and protect the countrys sovereignty from the sea," he said.

He said seas make up two third of the countrys territory, therefore, ideally the country would need at least 12 units of submarine.

"If Indonesia is to buy the Russian submarines, the country would be the first in Asia to have kilo class submarines," he said.

Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said currently negotiation is underway with Russia on the offer to sell kilo class submarines.

"We would prefer ones equipped with Club S guided missiles that could hit a target 400 kilometers away," Purnomo said.

Club S guided missile is launched from under the water surface to hit a floating target, he said.

"This type of war equipment is a killer missile which has a firing range of 400 kilometers," he added.

He said the units of submarine Indonesia wants to buy must be suitable for the countrys eastern regions, which have deep seas.

He said Indonesia plans to build up to 40 units of guided missile speed boat (KCR) measuring 40-60 meters until 2024 to meet the navys requirement in western part of the country.

(T.SYS/A/H-ASG/A014) 29-12-2013 16:18:45

Editor: Aditia Maruli
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Vietnam has recd. the first of 6 Kilo 636s at Cam Ranh Bay,the old US naval base during the Vietnam War.

Vietnam's First Submarine Docks at Military Base
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... 741&rank=5


While China's first carrier completes hers ea trials which included a J-15 take-off and landing.

China's Liaoning aircraft carrier completes sea trials
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34335.html
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

....the Polar Star is headed to the antarctic to rescue the chinese ice breaker Snow Dragon and the trapped russian ship. I don't know why the the US is getting involved because the russians have gigantic nuclear powered ice breakers to send. Any how, the Polar Star can cruise through 6 feet thick ice and when backing up and ramming 21 feet thick ice.

...here's )a wiki description of the Polar Star. The ship was almost scrapped at one point....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Polar_Star_(WAGB-10)

We've got another one the Polar Sea, that is still waiting to be re-built.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Polar Star is headed that a way to resupply a US base. A regular, planned trip. She is currently in Sidney, thus the closest one to the problem area. Russian ship is perhaps on station in the northern part of Russia.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1678
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by andy B »

GD this is for you.

http://i.imgur.com/iXaXtE0.jpg
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

andy B wrote:GD this is for you.

http://i.imgur.com/iXaXtE0.jpg
thanks. always good to see a upright, tall citizen of the seas, spreading peace and love.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Spending $650B before 2020 is a massive amount by any standards.That amounts to over $100B each year until 2020.At the rate of 3 new subs each year,one nuclear and two conventional,Russia will ad 18 new subs to its fleet.In addition,it is building at great speed,a number of conventional subs,mostly Kilos for Vietnam and other nations.At least 6-8 Borei class SSBNs are planned for with another equivalent batch of Yasen class SSGNs.

Russia's Navy To Buy 40 New Vessels
Jan. 6, 2014 -
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... ew-Vessels
he Russian Navy already operates two Borey-class nuclear submarines, including the Yuri Dolgorukiy, and will acquire at least one more in 2014, the service's deputy commander said. (Schekinov Alexey Victorovich / via Wikimedia Commo)

WARSAW — With the aim of modernizing and overhauling its fleet, the Russian Navy plans to acquire 40 new vessels in 2014, said Rear Adm. Viktor Bursuk, the Navy’s deputy commander.

The procured vessels will include a Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, a Varshavyanka diesel-electric submarine and the search-and-rescue ship Igor Belousov, Bursuk told local news agency RIA Novosti.

The admiral, who is responsible for the Navy’s arms procurements, said that at least two diesel-electric submarines are to be added to the Black Sea fleet. The Navy already operates two Borey-class submarines.

Bursuk did not disclose the value of the planned acquisitions.

The procurements will be part of Russia’s plan to spend US $650 billion on new arms and military equipment for its armed forces by 2020.

In December, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that strengthening the Navy’s presence in the Arctic is one of Russia’s top defense priorities for the future. The announcement was made at a meeting of the Russian Defense Ministry’s board.
Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1280
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Nikhil T »

Why Is There a US Naval Cruiser in the Middle of This Cornfield?

Image
If you're driving along the New Jersey turnpike just outside of Moorsetown and think you see the top of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer peeking above endless rows of corn, miles from the nearest ocean, don't worry—it's supposed to be there. It's just a full-size mock up that Lockheed uses to develop its AEGIS Combat System.

<snipped>
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

USN's CNO and assertion that future US wraships will have operational alser wepaons.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/admir ... s-navy?a=1
Admiral Greenert’s Vision For The U.S. Navy
Author:
Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Date:Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Since the position of Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) was created almost 100 years ago, 30 individuals have held the top spot in the Navy. Perhaps no single position in the U.S. military has proven so influential, not only with respect to the evolution of U.S. seapower but also the growth and transformation of America’s strategic position. Admirals such as Hughes, King, Nimitz, Burke, Moorer, Zumwalt, Trost, Mullen, Clark and Roughead provided the vision and leadership necessary to the creation of the modern Navy with its massive nuclear powered aircraft carriers and air wings, ballistic missile and attack submarines, multi-mission cruisers and destroyers, amphibious warships and supply vessels.

The current CNO, Admiral Jonathan Greenert is another in this long line of visionary leaders. In both word and deed, he is pushing not only his service but the entire U.S. military to think anew about the future of warfare and the kinds of programs and technologies needed for the challenges of this new century. Along with General Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, Admiral Greenert has championed the concept of AirSea Battle which seeks to develop integrated cross-service operations. He has argued for reconceptualizing the way the Pentagon thinks about force development in the digital age, stressing the importance of balancing investments in platforms with that devoted to new kinds of payloads.

Admiral Greenert has a vision of a future Navy that is based on exploiting a range of new technologies and capabilities. This vision was summarized in a single sentence in the speech he gave this week at the christening of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the first of a new class of nuclear powered aircraft carriers. The Ford is a revolution in aircraft carrier design and capabilities with an advanced nuclear power plant that will generate enormous amounts of energy, an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, a new radar suite, extensive automation and an innovative arresting gear system. In describing the role of the new Ford-class CVNs, Admiral Greenert provided his listeners with a vision of the future for his service, saying, “She will carry unmanned aircraft, joint strike fighters, and she will deploy lasers.” (Emphasis mine.)

Admiral Greenert has pushed the Navy to invest in carrier-based unmanned aerial systems (UASs) to extend both the reach and duration of naval air operations. UASs are a natural complement to the improved sortie generation capability inherent in the Ford class. They also open up a path towards a new carrier air wing that exploits the unique advantages of both manned and unmanned systems. Swarms of advanced UASs can counter prospective adversaries’ investments in integrated air defenses.

To this innovation Admiral Greenert now wants to add lasers. Ships such as the Ford and the Flight III variant of the Arleigh Burke destroyer will possess massive electric power generation capabilities that can serve as a nearly inexhaustible source of energy for naval lasers. This means that the Navy has in its hands the means to utterly upend the current anti-access threat to its forward deployed forces. Laser weapons will bend or even break the currently unfavorable cost exchange ratio between Navy defensive capabilities and hostile anti-ship missiles. With operational laser weapons deployed, the Navy can change both its defensive engagement doctrine and its weapons loadouts, enabling its destroyers and cruisers to carry more offensive missiles in their vertical launch tubes.

Under Admiral Greenert’s direction, the Navy created a program of record for an unmanned carrier-launched surveillance and strike system. The same needs to be done for naval lasers. At present, the laser program is an R&D activity. Before he leaves office in 18 months or so, Admiral Greenert can cement his legacy as a visionary and innovator by seeing his service transform its investment in lasers into a program of record.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Vietnam received the second submarine project 06361 and put into operation the first ( Pictures )

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/720227.html
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 674
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Brando »

Ctoss-posting from China Military Watch:
NRao wrote:Most "Coast Guard"s have that slanting band/s. I just checked Indian, ROK, Argentina, etc. Even on helos they have the band.
From Wiki :
The Racing Stripe, officially known as the Service Mark, was designed in 1964 by the industrial design office of Raymond Loewy Associates to give the Coast Guard a distinctive, modern image. Loewy had designed the colors for the Air Force One fleet for Jackie Kennedy. President Kennedy was so impressed with his work, he suggested that the entire Federal Government needed his make-over and suggested that he start with the Coast Guard. First used in 1967, it consists of a narrow blue stripe, a narrow white stripe between, and a broad CG red bar with the Coast Guard shield centered. The stripes are canted at a 64 degree angle, coincidentally the year the Racing Stripe was designed.

Similar Racing Stripe designs have been adopted for the use of other coast guards and maritime authorities and many other law enforcement and rescue agencies.
The United States Coast Guard Stripe History - PDF
Looking through the 2009/2010 edition of the world-renowned Jane ́s Fighting Ships, one can count sixty-one nations that have introduced slash symbols to law-enforcement ships.

USCGS tall-ship Eagle
Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Jan 28, 2014 :: The P-8 Poseidon adventure: Delivering a new-era of maritime aircraft

Image

The P-8A will be at the centre of a unique network of maritime capabilities - Photo courtesy of Boeing.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Thus far in recent exercises off Japan, the P-8 u=is failing to deliver the required capabilities.The fundamental drawbacks of a faster ,higher alt. jet platform as an ASW platform in comparison with a turboprop for prosecution of subs remains.

The US is facing a huge problem dealing with Iran's assymetrical mine warfare strategy in the Persian Gulf according to this report.The Iranians have been highly innovative building hundreds of small fast attack craft,mini-subs and acquiring a huge arsenal of mines and anti-ship missiles launched from mobile launchers on land,which can saturate the Gulf waters with offensive weaponry that will be extremely difficult to deal with.The IN could do well to look at Iran's interesting assymetric tactics,which may be emulated by China using its large fleet of subs to mine the entrances to Indian ports and naval bases in any future spat.

The delay in the MOD signing on the long delayed deal for Korean minesweepers fr the IN's rapidly dwindling mine countermeasure fleet,referred to by the visiting SoKo head himself, is scandalous.AKA it appears,is more interested in his personal political "secu5ity" than the nations.

http://groundreport.com/us-navy-unable- ... ne-threat/
US Navy unable to counter Iranian sea mine threat

Robert Tilford GroundReport | Author: Robert Tilford
Filed Under: Military, News | Posted: 02/04/2014 at 11:45AM

US Navy is unable to counter Iranian sea mine threat. US has only 14 minesweepers and two squadrons of helicopters are our nation's entire mine countermeasures capability.

US Navy is unable to counter Iranian sea mine threat. US has only 14 minesweepers and two squadrons of helicopters are our nation’s entire mine countermeasures capability.

It is a dark little secret in the Pentagon that nobody wants to admit, let alone deal with right now…namely that the United States is woefully incapable of countering the sea mine threat from Iran, which could virtually paralyze the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz for weeks if not months at a cost of trillions of dollars to the world economy and send gas prices through the roof.

The scary part is the US also has no real way to counter the threat either now or in the future and Iran knows it!

US NAVY WEAKNESS

The US Navy is “weak”, at least, when it comes to sea mine warfare, says one US Navy Admiral. See article: Sea Mines: An Explosive Problemhttp://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/ ... ntPage=all

When asked specifically whether he was “comfortable” with the Navy’s mine-clearing capabilities, the Chief of Naval Operations said bluntly, “No.” But, Adm. Jonathan Greenert went on in remarks at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space symposium last month, “I feel much better than I did six months ago. We’ve moved about a billion dollars total” from various accounts to weaponry for shallow-water warfare in places like the (Persian) Gulf, and “a lot of that was in mine warfare,” Greenert said. “But we have more work to do,” he said. Adding “It’s not just the near term issue.”

We’ve been doing mine countermeasures since 1917 and we still can’t get that package ready for production,” lamented naval historian and analyst Norman Polmar.

For now, “14 minesweepers and two squadrons of helicopters are our nation’s entire mine countermeasures capability.”


In March 2012, Adm. Greenert made a very public point of “ordering more mine-hunting helicopters and ships to the Persian Gulf”, noting that the deployment would double the number of Avenger-class minesweepers operating out of Bahrain from four to eight.

What he left unsaid was that’s more than half the nation’s entire minesweeper force, leaving just two ships for training in the States and four in Japan to keep an eye on China’s estimated arsenal of 100,000 naval mines.

At the moment, moreover, the reinforcements for the Persian Gulf are still en route (not under their own power) but hauled aboard heavy-lift ships, since the small minesweepers aren’t well-suited to cross oceans on their own. The Navy continues to upgrade the 1980s-vintage minesweepers, recently improving their sonar for example. Overall, however, the Avengers are slow, vulnerable, and increasingly difficult to maintain.

Another obstacle to the high-tech approach is that the LCS’s MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter is simply a lot smaller than the MH-53E Sea Dragon that makes up the US Navy’s existing airborne mine-hunting squadrons, which operate off big-deck amphibious warfare ships and carriers. Equipment optimized for the MH-53 needs to be resized for the MH-60, with inevitable losses in capability.

IRAN’S ABILITY TO WAGE UNIQUE ASYMMETRIC WARFARE

In a Sep. 11, 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy also said that in the two decades since the Iraqi imposed war on Iran, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.

According to the report, Iran’s Navy has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world’s oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran’s response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.

The Islamic Republic’s top military officials have repeatedly warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, the country would target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

40 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait waterway.

A recent study by a fellow at Harvard’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Caitlin Talmadge, warned that Iran could use mines as well as missiles to block the strait, and that “it could take many weeks, even months, to restore the full flow of commerce, and more time still for the oil markets to be convinced that stability had returned”.

NAVAL MINES

A naval mine is a self-contained explosive device placed in water to destroy surface ships or submarines. Unlike depth charges, mines are deposited and left to wait until they are triggered by the approach of, or contact with, an enemy vessel. Naval mines can be used offensively—to hamper enemy shipping movements or lock vessels into a harbour; or defensively—to protect friendly vessels and create “safe” zones.

Mines can be laid in many ways: by purpose-built minelayers, refitted ships, submarines, or aircraft —and even by dropping them into a harbour by hand. They can be inexpensive: some variants can cost as little as US $1000, though more sophisticated mines can cost millions of dollars, be equipped with several kinds of sensors, and deliver a warhead by rocket or torpedo.

THE PERFECT ASYMMETRIC WEAPON FOR A SMALL DEFENSIVE NAVY LIKE IRAN

Their flexibility and cost-effectiveness make mines attractive to the less powerful belligerent in asymmetric warfare.

The cost of producing and laying a mine is usually anywhere from 0.5% to 10% of the cost of removing it, and it can take up to 200 times as long to clear a minefield as to lay it. Parts of some World War II naval minefields still exist because they are too extensive and expensive to clear. It is possible for some of these 1940s-era mines to remain dangerous for many years to come.

Mines have been employed as offensive or defensive weapons in rivers, lakes, estuaries, seas, and oceans, but they can also be used as tools of psychological warfare. Offensive mines are placed in enemy waters, outside harbors and across important shipping routes with the aim of sinking both merchant and military vessels.

Defensive minefields safeguard key stretches of coast from enemy ships and submarines, forcing them into more easily-defended areas, or keeping them away from sensitive ones.

Minefields designed for psychological effect are usually placed on trade routes and are used to stop or completely arrest shipping reaching an enemy nation…

“At this point the US just can’t deal”, said one retired US Naval officer, who spoke on the condition of secrecy. He also pointed out that Iran could lace the water with hundreds or thousands of smaller dummy mines in with the real mines, which are hard to distinguish and would take time, effort, money to also deal with. These dummy mines will really slow you down…You also have different types of sea mines, including limpet mines, moored contact mines, drifting mines, bottom contact mines, remotely detonated mines, not to mention something people are not much aware of underwater improvised explosives (UIED’S)…influence mines, daisy chain mines…” he said.

DEALING WITH SEA MINES THE HARD WAY – BLOWING THEM UP!

See rare French Sea mine detonation to give you an idea of how navies deal with the problem of navel mines. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo5aLDsfoaw

See also a real video of a scuba diver blowing up a sea mine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR9sWqyA ... re=related

Iran will most likely close the strategic strait of Hormuz by implementing a asymmetrical naval warfare the US is ill prepared to deal with.

The fact is the US is years behind in anti mine warfare capability, it would take a massive expenditure of cash and resources to correct that. Here is the real frightening part – Iran knows that and if attacked or bombed will most likely retaliate by deploying thousands of active and dummy sea mines in the Strait. “No one is prepared to deal with the consequence of that”, said one analyst. See special report: Iranian Mining of the Strait of Hormuz –

Plausibility and Key Considerationshttp://www.inegma.com/reports/special%20report ... Hormuz.pdf

See also Youtube video : Saab Smart MCM – Naval Mine Counter Measureshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QITH-EJw3GY
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Though a little dated,t gives the details of the massive Russian naval rearmamaent plan upto 2020 where "24 subs and 54 warships" would be recd. by 2020!
Russian Navy to Receive 36 Warships in 2013
International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg

International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg
RIA Novosti. Igor Russak
07/07/2013
ST. PETERSBURG, July 7 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy will receive 36 warships in 2013, an unprecedented number in Russia’s history, Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov said on Sunday.

“During this year, 36 combat ships, fast attack crafts and support vessels will join the Russian Navy. This has never happened before,” Fedotenkov said at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg.

Russian Navy warships are now performing missions in all areas of the World Ocean, with over 60 combat ships currently at sea, he said.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in March the Russian Navy would receive 24 submarines and 54 warships of various classes by 2020.

“As a result of the implementation of the state rearmament program to 2020, the navy should receive eight nuclear-powered strategic submarines, 16 multirole submarines and 54 warships of various classes,” Shoigu said.

The eight strategic missile boats include three Borey and five Borey-A class vessels (SSBN) armed with Bulava ballistic missiles.

The 16 multi-purpose submarines include eight Graney class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) and improved Kilo and Lada class diesel-electric (SSK) boats.

In addition to submarines, the navy will receive Admiral Gorshkov class frigates and Steregushchy class corvettes, Buyan class corvettes and Ivan Gren Class large landing ships.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last year that the procurement of new warships and submarines for the Navy would be a priority over the next decade. The Russian government has allocated five trillion rubles ($166 bln) or a quarter of the entire armament procurement budget until 2020 for this purpose.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Austin »

Fifth-generation submarine will be provided the ability to integrate into a single information space of the Defense Ministry in real time
NEW DELHI, Feb. 8. (ARMS-TASS). Nuclear submarine (NPS) of the fifth generation will be provided the ability to integrate into a single information space of the Defense Ministry in real time. This was stated by ITAR-TASS during the exhibition "DefEkspo 2014" General Director of JSC "St. Petersburg Naval Machinery Bureau" Malachite "(SPMBM" Malachite ") Vladimir Dorofeev.

Responding to a question on what parameters will be different submarines 5th generation, he said: "The characteristics of the submarine perspective must be sought not in the high speed, depth, displacement, dimensions, and most other things that are imperceptible - the possibility of their integration into a single information space of the Defense Ministry, the interaction with surface ships and aircraft in real time, that is, the possibility of their participation in the network-centric warfare. "

"There are serious scientific research on problems that are not solved: underwater communication, performance, and information channels - said their opinion Dorofeev. - Prospective boats will be as black and sleek, but their" brains "are their main asset."

"The cost of the displacement of the ship is determined not by air, which he carries, and electronic equipment that is inside - said the expert. He cited the example of the car, the main value of which is" not the body and tires, and security systems, advanced multimedia systems, intelligent control engine. "

"The submarine - is no exception," - he stressed.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

NRao wrote:Jan 28, 2014 :: The P-8 Poseidon adventure: Delivering a new-era of maritime aircraft

Image

The P-8A will be at the centre of a unique network of maritime capabilities - Photo courtesy of Boeing.
the p-8's flying out of diego garcia, guam, okinawa, subic bay philippines, hawaii, along with high endurance drones will present a new feature for defense in-depth with the reduction in deployment of us carrier task groups. The US Airforce also has certain capabilities. Not to mention forwrd deployed US subs.

We don't have any military agreement with India so nobody is obligated, un like Japan, I still think these forward deployed P-8s and high endurance drones should give India (and also the US) some amount of mutual warm fuzzies despite reduced US carrier group deployments.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

just read this article which I think supports my post above.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/8bdc942d7ae7
member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by member_20292 »

TSJones wrote: We don't have any military agreement with India so nobody is obligated, un like Japan, I still think these forward deployed P-8s and high endurance drones should give India (and also the US) some amount of mutual warm fuzzies despite reduced US carrier group deployments.
Money, tech support, shared interests and values are the basis of our mutual warm fuzzies TSJ. Half of India knows some "uncle" in the US. Most Indian MNCs address America and vice versa.

Shared values also means that the US tries to learn some pro-social attitudes from its Asian friends and deals with problems in a nice fashion; dialog; rather than the slam bang thank you ma'am manner prevalent in some parts.

American exceptionalism/extreme individualism n independence/freedom type thinking, gets in the way of itself at times, in my opinion.

This is the failure of American foreign policy in general, in my opinion. And it is an outcrop of the attitudes in general on the ground. When society itself is isolated in sprawling cities with so many amenities at one's beck and call, that one does not need to interact with others much.

ADDED to this is the traditional freedom seeking+man, gun, farm and nature isolationism, and it will not exactly produce a type of people comfortable with socialising in general and dialoging things out when problems occur with other people. It breeds faux-"Alpha"-keep quiet-and take action macho-ism, and a legal system which believes in sudden precipitated action, blind-siding people, a sudden break up of relationships.

So, in all probability we are looking at a solidly transactional friendship between India and the US in the future.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Thanks for your repsonse mahadevbhu

Here is a link to an article with a nice video of what the US Navy's response to a hostile force could be:

http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/us-tests ... p-missile/

I think the video is a little optimistic in its use of satellite links for a response to a hostile entity. I don't think many satellites are going to survive an initial strike. The US will have to rely on high endurance drones, and direct links to a boss officer in a P-8 or Airforce electronic warfare plane. The boss officer will direct the attack w/o satellite links and can choose a number of weapon systems including direct links to US subs in the area via the drones while the boss officer lingers from a 1000 miles away. Or more. It will be interesting to see how if a potential hostile force can match high endurance drones direct linkage, sub wolf pack tactics with the subs also launching drones (although these won't be high endurance drones but they will also give the subs a monitoring ability). I think the US answer is indeed to swarm the enemy and to present themselevs as very elusive targets. And not to solely rely on satellite links.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

Provides a good picture of what it is all about:

Jan, 2014 :: Amphibious Warfare Program
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by TSJones »

^^^^NRao:

As wonderfully powerfully as these forces appear to be they are no match against a missile powered foe in a first strike situation. These gator forces are second responders except in a very localized situation or natural disaster.

As much as I hate to admit it, our forward deployed carrier task force based out of Japan is dead meat also in a first strike scenario. It'll be ugly. Ditto our forces in modern Okinawa. Guam could be on that list as well as Hawaii. After that first strike *everything* will scatter until the satellite situation can be brought under control. That could take a number of days. Then of course the area will be flooded with first responder P-8s, Air Force EW's, bomber squadrons from the mainlaind, US sub packs. After all of that intial response work, *then* finally, second responders will come calling such carrier task forces, gator forces, etc.

Truely, it will take a swarm of major proportions to deal with an a enemy such as China.
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3486
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

Aditya G wrote:...

I have explained my view in the other thread, that IN should look at having more numerous and multirole ships on fleet. A class that is cheaper, smaller than Talwar class FFG. Essentially a Project-28 design with ship borne missile armament. This type can replace around 20+ surface focussed corvettes like Veer and Kora classes.

....
Prayers answered? Well sort of ...

Image
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

The GOA shipyard design is a step in the right direction for a cost-effective escort,attractive to smaller navies,it is a compact design.However, it could do with some extra firepower,anti-sub,anti-air.The Russians have an improved corvette design 20380 that adds a BPDMS system to tackle incoming missiles,a heavier gun,all under 2000t,etc.These are ocean going vessels .The GOA design doesn't indicate what kind of sonars are provided.There's no bow sonar in the model and no indication of any TAS.The ASW helo without adequate targeting ,one usually requires 3 sonars for tracking a sub,would be more of a passenger aboard. A central funnel would've released space for 2 Barak SAM cells adjacent to the 30mm gatlings.No lightweight ASW TTs are also visible.The 8 missiles in "B" position,behind the main gun,appear to be Uran.One wonders whether Klub variants are possible too.It would be most interesting to see what the budgetary costs for this vessel is,which could be compared with other similar sized corvettes.

Increasingly,corvettes are becoming the platform of choice,and are being more heavily armed despite their small size.Our P-28s are actually the size off a frigate,comparable to the erstwhile Leander class.the IN's AOPVs too could have built-in but not-fitted,cabling,etc. for extra armament which could be v.quickly installed during a crisis.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Singha »

well if the idea is to sell to smaller navies for patrol duties, you do not need the expensive and complex weapons like RBU, HWT, sonars etc to keep costs down. some small ASM, a couple of remote control ak630 and a main gun is mostly adequate and 1 helicopter.

this is not intended to be a Talwar class Lite.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Philip »

Hilarious! Perfidious Albion,n'est-ce pas?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 24418.html

France sunk by Royal Navy again after paying €100m for UK warships
Two centuries after the Battle of Trafalgar, the French government took the first of a series of decisions that led accidentally to its taxpayers subsidising two British aircraft carriers
John Lichfield

Paris
Thursday 13 February 2014

The Emperor Napoleon would be spinning in his tomb. So might be Admiral Pierre-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Silvestre de Villeneuve, the man who lost the Battle of Trafalgar.

In 2005, precisely two centuries after the battle, the French government took the first of a series of decisions that led accidentally to the French taxpayer subsidising two giant warships for the Royal Navy.

The French government’s public spending watchdog protested this week that a defence co-operation agreement signed by Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair in 2006 led to “a French contribution pure and simple to the financing of [two] British aircraft carriers in their early development phase”.

The amount of the accidental cross-Channel subsidy to HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, now under construction on the Firth of Forth, is estimated as at least €100m (£82m) and possibly more than double that. The loss was buried at sea in the small print of the 2013 French defence estimates but dredged from its watery grave by the Cour des comptes, or court of auditors, in its annual report this week.

The saga began in 2005, two centuries after the British, under Nelson, defeated the French and Spanish, under Villeneuve, off Cape Trafalgar. President Chirac’s government decided to co-operate with Britain in building a new generation of aircraft carriers. France was to build one ship, to take the operational pressure off its solitary, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. The British were to build two vessels.

It was clear from the beginning, as the court of auditors points out, that the two countries were sailing in diverging directions. Britain wanted conventionally powered ships for vertical-take-off aircraft. France wanted a nuclear-powered ship which would possess a long deck and catapult equipment for take-off and landing by conventional warplanes.

Nonetheless, the French government signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Britain in 2006. France handed over €102m for the right to consult “off the shelf” the development work already undertaken by Britain. It contributed another €112m over the next two years for further studies. In 2008, under President Nicolas Sarkozy, Paris dropped its plans for the new aircraft carrier which would have cost around €3bn.

“Between 2006 and 2007, France spent €214 m – €102m handed over to London as an entry ticket and €112m in industrial contracts – whose results are now useless to us,” said the Cour des comptes.

Despite this experience, France and Britain are pushing ahead with ambitious plans for defence co-operation in other areas. David Cameron and President François Hollande signed another memorandum last month to develop a Franco-British pilotless fighter plane.

In the circumstances, the least the Government could do is rename the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. When they become fully operational in 2020, at an estimated cost of £6bn, they will be the largest, most expensive ships ever owned by the Royal Navy. They would have been even more expensive without a French subsidy.

How about the HMS Napoleon Bonaparte and the HMS Pierre-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Silvestre de Villeneuve?
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 363
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by Eric Leiderman »

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/17 ... ar-behind/
laser weapons deployment and imminent deployment of rail gun
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by NRao »

If When you have 50 minutes:

How to build a nuclear submarine
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Post by kmkraoind »

Self deleted - wrong thread.
Post Reply