Anti-shipping Tactics...

[RETAC21]

Against a CV you'll have to be closer because 1). the target is bigger 2). CV's have a TDS 3). the craft would be above water, and the reason mines have such damage potential is due to the gas bubble and mechanical wave they generate specifically because they are submerged.

 

In any case, I doubt you'll be able to position a craft near a CV even in peacetime, and it wartime it would likely be impossible even inside a port. I do think you'll find the USN is fairly proactive vis-a-vis the security of CV's, especially after the Cole incident.

127163[/snapback]

 

If you want to be really creative about it, you can outfit a medium sized fishing ship with torpedo tubes and let loose at the CV when it passes by.

[Gavin Phillips]

I agree with air superiority (defenders). If anything, the recent conflicts have shown that a war cannot be "won" by airpower alone but airpower can seriously reduce the ability of a mechanised enemy to wage war.

 

However.........if you have a coastline country with many rock outcrops, try a typical anti-ship missile like the AS-12 "Kegler", fitted with a nuclear warhead. Perhaps a new missile that flies very close to the surface of the water to avoid radar?

 

The nuclear idea would certainly give a big enough bang to cripple and/or destroy a carrier or other major ship.

 

I'm no expert on what ships carry to detect inbound missiles or how close to the sea surface radar works, but surely it has to be above wave height?

 

I remember something about the Russian's looking at rocket powered torpedos too......... Would they be a major threat against a major ship?

[Corinthian]

I remember something about the Russian's looking at rocket powered torpedos too.........   Would they be a major threat against a major ship?

127352[/snapback]

 

Not the SUBROC variety? Re: rocket torps, well we now know that if treated without respect they are a threat to the launcher itself (Kursk IIRC was sunk by such a torpedo).

 

If you want to be really creative about it, you can outfit a medium sized fishing ship with torpedo tubes and let loose at the CV when it passes by.

 

To be more creative, why not torpedo armed dolphins and sharks with freakin' lasers on their heads!

[Josh]

Not the SUBROC variety?  Re: rocket torps, well we now know that if treated without respect they are a threat to the launcher itself (Kursk IIRC was sunk by such a torpedo).

127399[/snapback]

 

The Soviets have an underwater rocket torpedo thats a nuke. AFAIK Kursk's sinking was attributed to a 533mm hydrogen peroxide fish, not a rocket one.

[RETAC21]

To be more creative, why not torpedo armed dolphins and sharks with freakin' lasers on their heads!

127399[/snapback]

 

I thought about that, but PETA will freak out and sharks might turn on their masters. I'd rather have my terrorist cells killed by JDAMs and Harpoons that eaten by their own weapons, bad for morale, you know...

[UN-Interested Observer]

aevans "Any small country that thinks it has a giant killer -- and relies on it as a certain defense -- is in for a nasty surprise in the end, even if they get a few licks in in the process. "

 

Would you be referring to the use of helicopters by the Soviets to subdue Afghanistan, or the use of Stingers by the Mujihadeen to subdue the helicopters? The use of rapid-fire artillery in WW1, or aircraft carriers in WW2? The term "Giant Killer" seems egotistic. In the past exceptional technologies were referred to as 'battle winners' or 'war winners'.

 

Assuming that no technology can or will exist that could in any way hinder American forces seems, egotistic. America is stronger if we retain humility.

 

"Pride is a powerful narcotic, but it doesn't do much for the auto-immune system."

Stuart Stevens, Northern Exposure, Brains, Know-How, and Native Intelligence, 1990

[PCallahan]

The term "Giant Killer" seems egotistic. In the past exceptional technologies were referred to as 'battle winners' or 'war winners'.

 

Assuming that no technology can or will exist that could in any way hinder American forces seems, egotistic. America is stronger if we retain humility.

 

127693[/snapback]

 

I think you are either missing Tony's point or deliberately altering it. His point was that no single technology is going to negate the advantages that the US military would have over a smaller military in a conflict, although he readily admits it might cause problems. The US Navy has the advantage of having vast financial, technological and intellectual resources -- it can survive an unexpected surprise, adjust and prosecute its mission. That is a luxury a smaller military without the massive financial backing of the US Navy would not have.

 

Just out of curiousity, do you consider any of the three examples you cited to be "war winning," and if so, for whom?

 

Pat Callahan

[Guest goldie fish]

Naval warfare is all about area denial. You cannot hold a piece of water indefinitely,you an only prevent others from using it. The weakness for all naval forces is during the time they are closest to shore.

 

As mentioned earlier,mine countermeasures have suffered greatly worldwide,the RN are in the process of retiring most of its hi tech minehunting fleet,while others have been converted for use in fisheries protection around the Northern Ireland coast. The fact that the tripartite minesweeping fleet spend most of its time disposing of mines resurfacing from WW2 and before,is a demonstration of their effectiveness,and user unfriendlyness.

 

So you deny access to ports or landing areas,forcing the Amphibs to operate from further offshore. Air superiority may be all well and good,if you(The US attacking force ) have opfor targets to strike at,but if it assymetric,then you can only strike at targets which have struck at you first. Mine warfare offers no such target.

 

Once you have forced the amphibs close to shore,preferably choke points,harassing attacks from shoulder launched missiles and fast boats can give the US assault forces a major headache. Sinking other ships,be they tankers,or cargo vessels in these chokepoints can increase the effectiveness of these chokepoints,allowing use of heavier mobile anti ship weapons,which can strike at the major combatants. Consider that most ambhibs are armed only with CIWS and Chaff,multiple attacks from sea level by simple weapons such as anti armour and heavy mackine gun can quickly remove the effectiveness of such weapons.

 

But it all hinges on forcing these ships into a choke point where electronic countermeasures such as AEGIS defence can have little effect.

 

The USS Cole attack still plays heavily on the collective memories of the USN. They will revise their tactics to prevent this happening again. They will do everything in their power to prevent getting into that situation again,and that could easily be their downfall.

[Josh]

Naval warfare is all about area denial. You cannot hold a piece of water indefinitely,you an only prevent others from using it. The weakness for all naval forces is during the time they are closest to shore.

 

127765[/snapback]

 

I would say naval warfare has two aspects: naval denial and sea control. The first just involves engaging enemy ships so as they can't use an area of sea. The second involves protecting an area of sea so that you can use it safely. You are right in as much as the US mission will have to be sea control where as the defender can fall back (and for any other country really, will have to) to denial.

 

Mines are the cheap way of denying territory, and the US has neglected its MCM force. That said, the USN has AFAIK the largest force of MCM ships going, both ocean going mine sweepers and smaller regional mine hunters. The USN also is trying to add MCM capability to its standard blue water ships using mine hunting helicopters equiped with new mine hunting sensors, as well as giving the new LCS type ship mine hunting sonar and UUV's to detonate them with. I would agree that mines still are the main threat for the USN because any nation can aford them or even produce them (I'm sure I could make a magnetic mine given a few hundred dollars, a trip to radio shack, a 55 gallon drum, and few hundred pounds of HE). Also they require no specialize naval craft; any barge, LST, or other relatively open decked ship makes a great mine layer.

[Guest aevans]

aevans "Any small country that thinks it has a giant killer -- and relies on it as a certain defense -- is in for a nasty surprise in the end, even if they get a few licks in in the process. "

 

Would you be referring to the use of helicopters by the Soviets to subdue Afghanistan, or the use of Stingers by the Mujihadeen to subdue the helicopters? The use of rapid-fire artillery in WW1, or aircraft carriers in WW2? The term "Giant Killer" seems egotistic. In the past exceptional technologies were referred to as 'battle winners' or 'war winners'.

127693[/snapback]

 

And war winning exceptional technologies have always belonged to the side with more resources to develop and manufacture them. A very interesting book that you should read is A Radar History of World War II: Technical and Military Imperatives. It tells how every major combatant had people within their respective scientific and industrial communities that knew all there was to know about radar. (The Japanese even developed the cavity magnetron idependently.) But the relative level of development of radar as a technological application, vice theoretical science, was most closely correlated to a nation's economic resources.

 

IOW, giant killers don't exist in the real world, because the giants can be counted on to have the most effective stuff. If we are to be beaten, it has to be by exploiting our own unwillingness to win in a given situation. There are no technological solutions to fighting the US.

 

Assuming that no technology can or will exist that could in any way hinder American forces seems, egotistic. America is stronger if we retain humility.

 

As we are still the technological 800 pound gorilla of the world, especially where it comes to military application. Any technology that is likely to be of more than momentary inconvenience is going to be one that we developed ourselves, or one that we know enough about to figure out a counter for. And while we have some pretty big problems with our strategic intelligence and make some silly policy assumptions based on bad information or analysis, we have reasonably effective order of battle analysis capabilities at the operational level, especially when it comes to high end technological systems. It would be foolish to say "never", but it remains so unlikely that a small to medium sized state could either develop or acquire an effective counter to our naval power without our knowing about it and taking countermeasures that I would honestly rate such a development as being among the very least of our worries.

[UN-Interested Observer]

That does make more sense, thanks.

[Benjamin Etxaburu]

my bet is mines too. in pizza fashion:

i believe pressure mines are very simple, and very hard to counter (although going very slow avoids their detonation. however that can complicate defense against other collaborative threats, if any)

the sensor is the difficult mine part. if you get few quality sensors, attach them to the biggest warheads (something like an iso container, 45 ton of high explosive will have an higher success probability).

use lots of dummies. make 55gal drums conical in shape, so they can nest one within the next like plastic drinking glasses. try to get one hundred dummies within the weight, bulk and cost of one single true mine.

use drifting mines to replenish fieldmines. tides can be known years in advance, you place a clock within mine, each week or so clock releases sink, then mine floats then changes position because tide, etc, then goes bottom again. if buoyance is almost neutral, you can provide many sinkers and floaters for repeated position change and minefield leaking-blotting

micromines. one torpedo tube could release 24 drifting mines of about 50kg; if you arent going to kill the ship, then it is logical to stick to the smallest warhead that can kill mission (like deleting big bow sonar)

mines with liquid explosive. if sonic impedance is same than seawater, sonar will find it difficult to locate, and plain hollow dummy will look the same.

 

bring war to source port. place a few 45ton bottom mines in port channel (container ship cranes container to just underwater at night, container is hung from cable, once ship is in channel cable is cut. so preparation is withot witness, actual placement is stealthy. mine could be command detonated from a rented home in shore).

take bulkcarrier to galveston, and load 20000ton of ammonium nitrate (on credit). now go as close as possible to military target port, and detonate.

 

bottom line is that, the closer enemy is to a giant (with a clearly defined head), the easier will be for him to win a battle against usn, and the easier to lose war.

while the closer enemy is to an ant army (without queen), a lot of independent mobs with one purpose but without targetable head, the difficulter to win battle (will not be naval battle at all) but the easier (comparatively) to win war.

 

you do not box a boxer, you do not wrestle a wrestler. you wrestle a boxer, you box a wrestler. there is an american way of waging war, avoid it. you can not win (in a military sense) against murricans. make them expend too much blood and/or money and they may go, specially if their motives arent too strong (no petrol, no revenge, etc), call that a victory.

[Dan Robertson]

When contending with a larger and more powerful adversary the chief objective for the smaller side isn't to win the war but to deter it.

 

Thus unless you have a comparable economy and military to the US you cannot engage them in a war. If they throw their full military capability against you they will defeat you.

 

What you can do however is create a military deterrent to the US great enough that you have the freedom to oppose the US to a degree. As a case in point Iran and North Korea are both oppressive dictatorships that that are currently developing weapons of mass destruction including atomic weapons, just like Iraq. However the US hasn’t invaded them because the cost of doing so is not justified. They both have large militaries that are significantly more powerful than the depleted forces of Iraq.

 

Were they to invade their neighbours or to attack the US this equation would change and the US would attack either of these countries.

 

The Falklands was a case in point, the Argentines believed that their military while not as powerful as the British would provide a sufficient deterrent to the UK to prevent them from launching an invasion to retake the Falkland Islands. Even though both sides knew that in the event of a full scale war the UK would be victorious.

 

The miscalculation was that they did not understand how important the recapture of the islands was to the British and that their military was no sufficient deterrent to put the British off invading.

 

Likewise Argentine success in the war would have further dented UK pride and resulted in more extreme methods by the UK potentially including the bombing of the Argentine mainland. In the end the UK had more resources and the economy to buy more weapons from other countries. Once the war was begun the balance shifts greatly in the favour of the stronger country.

 

The question is not how does one defeat the US but what weapons should a country invests in to gain the freedom to oppose US interests.

 

1. Any nuclear weapon: Possessing any form of nuclear weapon will defiantly put the US off so long as you don't directly attack them. Especially as you will probably be looking at using unconventional means to deliver is against a civilian target in on the mainland of the US. You could probably get away with a hostile invasion of another country if you processed nuclear weapons.

 

2. Hostages, plenty of them, one of the reasons the US would go out of its way to avoid war with North Korea is that there are thousands of artillery pieces within range of Seoul. Civilian casualties would be huge in the event of the US attacking. In this situation you have to attack the US or an ally before you would get a response.

 

3. Submarines, always a leveller against a powerful surface fleet SSN's give you the ability to make all US navy vessels at risk no matter where they are. They also allow you to make surprise strike with cruise missiles if your subs carry them. One aspect of all of the recent US campaigns is that the US had had a free hand to build up its forces prior to the invasion, a proactive use of decent submarines can make the build up much longer and more difficult.

 

4. A well trained and large army capable of causing significant US casualties in the event of an invasion, operating like an organised and trained version of the current Iraqi insurgency. This will put the US off invading you however it won’t stop them trying to decimate your country from the air.

 

5. Double digit SAM's creatively used, the US hasn't yet faced an opponent with these so this would be likely to put the US quite a lot. It won’t stop them launching cruise missiles at you but it will put them off the sort of air superiority campaign required for invasion.

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. Any nuclear weapon:

2. Hostages,

3. Submarines,

4. A well trained and large army

5. Double digit SAM's

 

That's a good list. I agree naval capability isn't likely to be the key to deterring the US; I'd put subs lower than that on that particular list.

 

Limiting it to naval though, two ways to look are bang for buck and total bang. Mine warfare has the greatest bang for buck by a long ways, costs and overall capability to practice it far lower than for subs. However the total capability that can be delivered by mines tends IMO to be exaggerated off a conventional wisdom that the USN neglects MCM, true to some degree. This is relatively much less true in thrust of current programs and force structure though than previously. But even to the extent still true, the conclusion doesn't always follow.

 

Simple mines can only deny shallow waters, ground influence mines only quite shallow ones. Mines than can function in deep water exist but bring us far away from simple/cheap. How much you can hamstring the USN with mines, lets assume inadequate MCS even, depends a lot on what it is trying to do. "Operate off the coast" as in carrier air/CM strikes, mines can't do much in most places in the world. Amphib landings or using ports for resupply once captured overland (as in Um Qasr in Iraq, Wonsan and Nampo in 1950) mines can accomplish more but not win wars militarily or politically (undermine US morale). And again on horizon is substantially increased USN MCM capability (organic systems on warships and their helo's besides dedicated MCM ships, the first of these systems now operational on DDG's in USN, no other navy).

 

Subs as mentioned are much further up the scale, but what they can potentially do what mines are very unlikely to: sink a large ship, perhaps even CV, with heavy loss of US life. If a CV was ever sunk and in situation where almost all crew couldn't be rescued, several 1,000 dead at a stroke, that could change US public opinion. Iraq shows the public's and even US military's endurance for casualties is permanently extremely low by past standards. Sinking a CV with third world subs or ASM's is hard, but the USN simply isn't going to run a CV over a bunch of shallow water moored contact or influence mines, so that weapon can never be decisive. But back to Dan's list, killing the requisite number of Americans to undermine US morale is much easier to do on land.

 

Joe

[InfantryGrunt]

If you want to be really creative about it, you can outfit a medium sized fishing ship with torpedo tubes and let loose at the CV when it passes by.

127336[/snapback]

 

I dont think this is such a bad idea, or even what you could do was generate information which would lead the USN to believe that there were these kinds of ships in a certain fishing zone which may contain hundreds of fishing ships.

 

This wont stop them, but might give them pause and may also move them into an area which is more advantageous for you.

 

Which is where your mines and possibly sub's might come in, and depending on geography possibly other types of air launched munitions.

 

Also it might be possible to use some kind of converted airliner, depending on the use of the airspace at the time.

 

[Gavin Phillips]

Not sure if it could be done, but in Dale Brown's "Fatal Terrain" book, the Chinese used a Yanshuji 8C cargo plane to carry and launch a Chinese M-9 (?) rocket. The rocket/missile was air dropped by parachute and the rocket motor fired when it was a distance away from an aircraft.

 

I dont know just how effective such a weapons guidence system is, but is this method of launching such weapons actually possible?

If it really is possible, InfantryGrunt has a very good idea.

 

Fill the airspace with a mix of conventional aircraft carrying passengers and others fitted with these missiles.......

 

If you hit the wrong one, its very much a colateral damage thing and will certainly cause the Government some unfriendly attention at least.

 

What I'm more interested in though, is can such weapons be "delivered" in this way?

[Guest aevans]

1. Any nuclear weapon: Possessing any form of nuclear weapon will defiantly put the US off so long as you don't directly attack them. Especially as you will probably be looking at using unconventional means to deliver is against a civilian target in on the mainland of the US. You could probably get away with a hostile invasion of another country if you processed nuclear weapons.

 

2. Hostages, plenty of them, one of the reasons the US would go out of its way to avoid war with North Korea is that there are thousands of artillery pieces within range of Seoul. Civilian casualties would be huge in the event of the US attacking. In this situation you have to attack the US or an ally before you would get a response.

127878[/snapback]

 

Try using the possession of nukes as a cover for invasion of a neighbor or blatant harboring of significant terrorist interests and see how long it takes the US to do something about it. Same-same civilian hostages in a US ally. These are regime survival insurance only -- and only as long as all you are trying to do is stay safe within your own borders. Any aggression on your part, or subsidizing of terrorism, will get you thumped.

 

3. Submarines, always a leveller against a powerful surface fleet SSN's give you the ability to make all US navy vessels at risk no matter where they are. They also allow you to make surprise strike with cruise missiles if your subs carry them. One aspect of all of the recent US campaigns is that the US had had a free hand to build up its forces prior to the invasion, a proactive use of decent submarines can make the build up much longer and more difficult.

Subs are nuisance, not decisive.

 

4. A well trained and large army capable of causing significant US casualties in the event of an invasion, operating like an organised and trained version of the current Iraqi insurgency. This will put the US off invading you however it won’t stop them trying to decimate your country from the air.

 

Once again, regime survival insurance only.

 

5. Double digit SAM's creatively used, the US hasn't yet faced an opponent with these so this would be likely to put the US quite a lot. It won’t stop them launching cruise missiles at you but it will put them off the sort of air superiority campaign required for invasion.

 

Ever heard of the Linebacker campaigns? Give us a good enough reason, and we'll fight your SAM defenses to get at other targets, even in a politically unpopular war.

[RETAC21]

Not sure if it could be done, but in Dale Brown's "Fatal Terrain" book, the Chinese used a Yanshuji 8C cargo plane to carry and launch a Chinese M-9 (?) rocket.  The rocket/missile was air dropped by parachute and the rocket motor fired when it was a distance away from an aircraft.

 

I dont know just how effective such a weapons guidence system is, but is this method of launching such weapons actually possible?

 

What I'm more interested in though, is can such weapons be "delivered" in this way?

127921[/snapback]

 

Been there, done that since 1974

 

http://www.siloworld.com/MINUTEMAN/Airmobile/airmobile.htm

[RETAC21]

Try using the possession of nukes as a cover for invasion of a neighbor or blatant harboring of significant terrorist interests and see how long it takes the US to do something about it.

 

Say with me: PAKISTAN

 

Subs are nuisance, not decisive.

 

No, until they kill a carrier,

[Guest aevans]

Say with me: PAKISTAN 

128035[/snapback]

 

Say with me: Cooperation, however imperfect, is still cooperation.

 

No, until they kill a carrier,

 

Boy, I'd love to play a game of poker with you...

[jakec]

A ballistic missile with a warhead that can maneuver and has terminal guidance of some sort (maybe optical). The Russians tested one during the Cold War but I don't think it ever entered service. If you could perfect it and link it to a recce-strike complex you could go carrier hunting. No need for expensive strike aircraft, submarines or mines.

[Guest Lurch]

Try using the possession of nukes as a cover for invasion of a neighbor or blatant harboring of significant terrorist interests and see how long it takes the US to do something about it. Same-same civilian hostages in a US ally.

 

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

China invaded Tibet and Vietnam.

Israel invaded Lebanon.

North Korea has had numerous hostages (taken from US allies) for decades.

 

In each case presumably we're still waiting for devastating US retribution.

[Guest aevans]

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

China invaded Tibet and Vietnam.

128557[/snapback]

 

Cold War strategic environment, therefor not applicable. Also, there's a difference between major nuclear powers and minor ones.

 

Israel invaded Lebanon.

Cold War strategic environment and Israel was an ally engaged in preemptive war against terrorists -- something we approve of.

 

North Korea has had numerous hostages (taken from US allies) for decades.

 

The reference was to holding an ally's population hostage to military action, not to the taking of individual hostages, which is troublesome, but not worth going to war over.

 

In each case presumably we're still waiting for devastating US retribution.

 

In each case presumably you're not very well educated to the realities of strategy.

[UN-Interested Observer]

"In each case presumably you're not very well educated to the realities of strategy. "

 

Now THAT was a low blow. You could say that to Anyone! Most people still think we went to Iraq to catch OBL, or find WMDs, or for Regime Change. Strategy is as simple as you want it to be, or conversely as complicated as you desire.

 

Just because some events happened during a bi-polar reign doesn't mean they should be discounted. If that is your belief, then how about this one - Germany invades Poland, no American reaction. It is not a cold-war environment, so we can count it then? If you wish to discount arguments you must announce the rules by which you will do so ahead of time. When you nullify the arguments you can not counter as they appear, for what appear to be arbitrary reasons, it reflects badly.

[Guest aevans]

"In each case presumably you're not very well educated to the realities of strategy. "

 

Now THAT was a low blow. You could say that to Anyone! Most people still think we went to Iraq to catch OBL, or find WMDs, or for Regime Change. Strategy is as simple as you want it to be, or conversely as complicated as you desire.

 

Just because some events happened during a bi-polar reign doesn't mean they should be discounted. If that is your belief, then how about this one - Germany invades Poland, no American reaction. It is not a cold-war environment, so we can count it then? If you wish to discount arguments you must announce the rules by which you will do so ahead of time. When you nullify the arguments you can not counter as they appear, for what appear to be arbitrary reasons, it reflects badly.

128591[/snapback]

 

Bullshit. The current strategic environment was the explicit context, and the use of nukes or threatened military action against civilians to cover international aggression or safeguard terrorist strategic sanctuaries explicitly the specific case. The "low blow", if there was any, was in attempting to get my goat by making comparisons of some apparent surface validity, but which are obviously apples and oranges to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the issues involved. Which is entirely beside the point, since I'm not accountable for others' lack of clarity and/or disingenuosity anyway.