Article

2006-11-12 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-12 10:22|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mine-hunting/clearing USVs have been around for nearly twenty years.

Of course, this 'looming danger' drum has been beaten for over thirty years...

Posted by Pappy 2006-11-12 10:45|| 2006-11-12 10:45|| Front Page Top

#2 Naval mines are a very underdeveloped technology that soon could exclude traditional naval vessels from contended waters. Ultimately, the entire minefield could rest on the ocean floor until an enemy vessel approached its area.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-12 10:53|| 2006-11-12 10:53|| Front Page Top

#3 Already here, Moose. Been here from some time. They're called combination-influence mines. There are also bottom-laid rocket-launched mines*

*That doesn't include CAPTOR. Totally different target and purpose.

Posted by Pappy 2006-11-12 11:26|| 2006-11-12 11:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Couldn't Taiwan tool up with these babies and the ChiComs any hope of a sea crossing? A few seeded around Hong Kong, etc. would also do wonders for short-circuiting the mainland's economy if it came down to it.

Posted by Excalibur 2006-11-12 12:27|| 2006-11-12 12:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Couldn't Taiwan tool up with these babies and the ChiComs any hope of a sea crossing? A few seeded around Hong Kong, etc. would also do wonders for short-circuiting the mainland's economy if it came down to it.

I would be surprised if there hasn't been a few highly classified staff studys here and in Tiwan, complete with generated op-plans, con-plans, and warehouses stocked with some interesting purchases.

I further suspect that naval mines will turn out to be the IED of the seas.

Big difference tho- naval mines are easier to trace to the state sponsors that provided them, and ultimately they hurt the defender who deplys them the most.

Posted by N guard 2006-11-12 13:23|| 2006-11-12 13:23|| Front Page Top

#6 It seems to me to be a bad idea to stray far from the plate on this one. If for some reason the US Navy can't afford a few minesweepers, they had better be able to put some together at a moment's notice. It's going to bite big time if you have a dollar waiting on a dime and you can't get rid of the dime.

Posted by gorb 2006-11-12 13:41|| 2006-11-12 13:41|| Front Page Top

#7 Mines are cheap. Warships are expensive. I think it's pretty clear where this is heading. It just hasn't gotten there yet, or it's gotten there but hasn't been put to the test.

Minesweepers are where careers go to die.

Posted by gromky 2006-11-12 14:12|| 2006-11-12 14:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Minesweepers are where careers go to die.

Yer tellin' me!

Posted by Phil Queeg 2006-11-12 14:25|| 2006-11-12 14:25|| Front Page Top

#9 I first read that as "Minesweepers are where carrIers go to die." That didn't make sense, but the LACK of minesweepers could be the cause of death for a flattop or two.....
The navy used to have minesweeping H-53's but they were retired ( i think) for budgetary reasons. One of those could clear a lot more water quicker than a boat, and the benefit is that the paltform would be available for other uses (vertrep, combat SAR, etc) perhaps a quick-change kit for the current helo inventory could be put together with existing technology, to get assets in the fleet and then go for the upgrades.

Posted by USN,Ret 2006-11-12 16:48|| 2006-11-12 16:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Four UK troops die in patrol boat attack.

Excerpt:

The routine patrol was caught in an explosion caused by an improvised bomb, a spokesman said.

Captain Tane Dunlop, the Multi-National forces spokesman in south Iraq, told the BBC: "The use of improvised explosive devices is very common in Iraq. It is slightly unusual in that this time it was targeting a boat."

Hmmm...

Posted by mrp 2006-11-12 19:15|| 2006-11-12 19:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Minesweepers are where careers go to die.

Not as dramatic as that, but it certainly isn't career enhancing to stay in the mine-countermeasures community. There is also little chance of getting an early command; most of the MCMs command-slots seem to have gone to EOD/Diver officers.

Posted by Pappy 2006-11-12 21:20|| 2006-11-12 21:20|| Front Page Top

#12 The navy used to have minesweeping H-53's but they were retired ( i think) for budgetary reasons. One of those could clear a lot more water quicker than a boat

Yes, and no. They were good at fast sweeps of known areas. They were also good at losing their sweep-gear.

Posted by Pappy 2006-11-12 21:22|| 2006-11-12 21:22|| Front Page Top

#13 It seems like saving entire ships and many if not all of the lives on them is under-appreciated. If I were the US Navy, I would find a way to set this right immediately.

Posted by gorb 2006-11-12 21:31|| 2006-11-12 21:31|| Front Page Top

#14 The Navy is going ahead full throttle wid using hi/space-tech that can penetrate the oceans blue like a mirror, as iff like air. Unmanned LR UAVS will one day possess OTH anti-mine clearing capabilities.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-11-12 22:14|| 2006-11-12 22:14|| Front Page Top

21:39 anonymous2u
17:32 BUSHISMORON
19:53 Hibjobol Abjub
19:56 Rasta
19:05 Hibjobol Abjub
19:01 Hibjobol Abjub
18:53 Hibjobol Abjub
18:44 Hibjobol Abjub
19:41 Rasta
19:38 Rasta
19:20 Rasta
18:14 Rasta
10:31 .com
09:21 Excalibur
10:27 Mick Dundee
23:53 Zenster
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:34 Crairong Omomotch6492
23:32 Crairong Omomotch6492
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:24 C
23:23 JosephMendiola