| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Naval Mines Loom Larger |
| 2006-11-12 |
| The growing potential for naval mine warfare by China, North Korea or Iran, or even terrorists, has caused the U.S. Navy to rethink its plan to retire its 14 Avenger-class minesweepers. These 1,400 ton ships are to be replaced by mine clearing equipped LCS ships, and similar gear carried on some destroyers. The current schedule called for the first Avenger to retire in 2017 (after 30 years of service), and all of them to be gone by 2025. Now the thinking is more towards keeping the Avengers for as long as they are serviceable, and increasing the use of special mine clearing kits for the LCS and other ships. In a decade, it is believed hostile nations will have a lot of very capable naval mines. Elsewhere I've read of anti-sea-mine robots, some designed just to locate sea mines, and others to neutralize them. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #8 Minesweepers are where careers go to die. Yer tellin' me! |
| Posted by: Phil Queeg 2006-11-12 14:25 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |
| #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 |