Minelayers

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
uhm,

Only 3rd world countries use surface ships to lay mines.

The best minelayers are either aircraft or submarine. NATO countries use aircraft.

The B-52, Tu-142.. are really good minelayers.

Or U-212/U-214 can do it, Kilo can do it...

If the US was going to lay a minefield at sea, it would be done with a B-52, SSN, or maybe SSGN in the future.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
uhm,

Only 3rd world countries use surface ships to lay mines.

The best minelayers are either aircraft or submarine. NATO countries use aircraft.

The B-52, Tu-142.. are really good minelayers.

Or U-212/U-214 can do it, Kilo can do it...

If the US was going to lay a minefield at sea, it would be done with a B-52, SSN, or maybe SSGN in the future.
Not really. If you wish to lay them offensively ie mining enemy harbours, then yes. If you wish to control the access to the straits and belts of Denmark, then surface vessels are efficient - because you won't need anymore than that.

It's a Danish classic btw. Mine the Straits and protect them with coastal battleships and torpedo boats (WWI/WWII), later, during the Cold War, with missile torpedo boats and shore based cruise missiles. That makes it possible to control traffic entering or exiting the Baltic sea and as invasion defense of potential beachheads.

I don't expect any Danish surface vessel to mine Skt. Petersburg.

The Flyvefisken Class is eg easily adaptable for the minelaying role.
 
Last edited:

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Flyvefisken Class is eg easily adaptable for the minelaying role.
Wouldn't Denmark be the exception though?

The Flyvefisken Class entered service just as that cold war scenario became unnecessary, so the question is, how would they be an effective minelayer today absent some future war between Denmark and Russia?
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Wouldn't Denmark be the exception though?
Possibly.

The Flyvefisken Class entered service just as that cold war scenario became unnecessary, so the question is, how would they be an effective minelayer today absent some future war between Denmark and Russia?
There is a good chance that the minelaying capability will be deleted from the Danish Navy - so I guess you have your answer there. ;)
 

contedicavour

New Member
IMHO it would be a dangerous decision to delete minelaying capability...
it's one of the cheapest defensive weapons of all times !

cheers
 

Ths

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #46
Galrahn and Grand Danois.

1. The Absalon-class is - if You look through the obfuscation - probably the biggest minelayers ever build. In know they are pennanted with L; but corvettes have been pennanted with F, and frigattes have been called fisheries inspection vessels - so that is no clue.

2. I think the jury is still very much out on the disbanding of mines. I think very much depends on the result Rear-Admiral Wang arrives at, after the recce in Skt. Petersburg. It could be a ploy (the savings are not worth mentioning) to turn the heat on Putin - or to secure money for a new type of mines. I would not put it past the RDaNavy to lay mines that are not armed but could be armed with a simple command - as the cable mines. These cablemines seem outdated, as Lindormen has been donated to the Estonians.

3. The trick about mining is to dumbing them BEFORE hostilities break out: The succesfull mining of the Danish Straits in WW1 was it was done immidiately. Mining is very much a weapon "in being": Just think of the resources Baltiskaya Flot will have to dedicate for the eventuality.

4. The traditional drawback of minelayers is, that when the mines have been laid, they are pretty much out of a job. The minelayers in WW1 did nothing for the duration - apart from a minor adjustment of the minefields south of Copenhagen.

5. Effectiveness: The drawback of subs and planes is they lay few mines - we are talking thousands needed for an effective patch of prickly growths - They are fine for supplementing; but the basic work is best done by big ships. In fact the use of ferries in the cold war scenario point to the fact that the Falster class was to small.

6. The Danish Navy has always been peculiar: Vice-Admiral Tordenskiold never commanded more than 2 frigattes at the time - nicked from the enemy of course.
Vice-Admiral Kofoed Hansen had a background in mines - How many US admirals has had command of a minesweeper?
They are patrolling with cavalry - and dogsledges at that.
There was a wonderfull picture - I can locate it now unfortunately - circulating in the Danish press: A patrol cavalryman fighting off a charging polar bear (they are quite a nuisance in that area - hungry and all) in his skivvies (minus 20 centigrades) with a rifle, taking cover behind the dogsledge (armoured dogsledges??? that would be another first) and his mate taking pictures - unorthodoks to say the least.
They intend to use icebreakers to protect fish - where there are no fish.
They fight poach fishing from aircraft and submarines.
They used cover and concealment like infantry.
They sail where there is hardly any water.
They in fleets with a Home Guard cutter as flagship - and a potbellied second lieutenant as commander.

As Monty Python said: Allways expect the Spanish Inquisition!!!

Actually it is not a bad strategy for a small navy to sail where others cannot.
 

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
well seems that intresting conversation has passed by me...

As for our new minesweepers, i think they eventually are bad deal to us. The ships themsleves seems rather fine, and I dont doupt their effectivety and state of the art desing in general MCM role, also they come handy multipurpose enveriomental protection vessels to face the growing oil trafic in the gulf of finland and imporves our oil-sweeping capacity...BUT few things speaks for their unfavor
1) Their size. Those would biggest minesweepers ever fielded by our navy, in fact biggest ships currently after the minelayers. They seem to be rather well suited for oceaninc MCM, but our coastline comes whit complex hydrological and oceangraphical conditions and I seriously doupt the purposefullness of such large ships whit relatively large draugth (3.1 meter) if compared to our current sweepers (2.3m) or to the FACs (<2.3 meter). They wont be able to go into all parts of our archipegalo and also, i believe that best possiple solution would have achieved, if the MCM system with its sonar suite should have been desing expecially work in our domestic waters. All of their capacity smells like NATO led distant deployment to foreing waters:dodgy

2) They pretty much opens the door for foreing, cheaper bidders to build our possiple other future naval units and in the modern competition enverioment, our domestic shipyards cannot compete whit the bigger ones and that would eventually lead into disapear of our domestic warship shipbuilding. Not only that would be a pride issue, it will mean that the century old know-how to answer most effictively towards our special needs will also be lost in same pace...

Ps. the third ship would be only fitted out in here, not entirely build, or at least thats the impression our yardworkers concerns have left me....

___________________________________________________

But to the actual topic, In modern times (during cold war and beyond) also, Romanian navy had build minelayers, Soviets did have the Alesha class, China has currently one or two, Japan had two quite large ones, and I belive that their still have dual use MCM support ship that can lay mines... and most recent addition have been the South Korean navy, with their single unit (cannot remember its name thought)...
I think Minelayers will keep their place as long as the mines will keep and having dedicated minelayers are highly important to the smaller navyes with favorable coastline. Modern minelayers also come handy as dual purpose units, as the mines need lot of storage space, and cleverly desing can turn that same space act also as stowage for class rooms for school ships, supply for other vessels, transport troops and cargo or house MCM support facilityes...So minelayers wouldn't be useless outside the minelaying trips...far from it. Air crafts and submarines cannot carry that much mine that they would be effective in other than percission minings of offensive nature

...of course USN will drop them from satelites if nessery, but...:D :D :D
 

contedicavour

New Member
If it can reassure you, the Lerici/Gaeta class was conceived for the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic Sea, which has similar features to the Baltic (winter ice apart of course). It's the Osprey/Huon versions that had more in mind ocean navigation.
Draught isn't a problem, because most of the minehunting would be done by drones that have quite a good autonomy from the mothership, and that can thus reach even the shallowest of coastal areas.
Regarding their potential use in NATO-led foreign expeditions, it's actually a plus to have suitable vessels, why does that seem to bother you ? Finland already helps in UN overseas missions after all...
Last but not least, the point on shipyards, the whole point is about lowering acquisition costs so that Finland can have more and better for less cost ;) and this acquisition programme, since it involves heavily local shipyards, might be a way to create and/or preserve niche shipbuilding capability (for example, you specialize on FACs and MCMs) especially in the face of larger Swedish or Polish shipyards.

cheers
 

Ths

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #49
Gollevainen:

I guess the Finnish consideration is that they will not be held hostage to Russian pressure - not if they can avoid it - and mines are an effective means to apply pressure.

Secondly - as You pointed out - there is the multipurpose aspect: Many weapons systems are relatively easy to install - given you have the volume.

Finally there is the long term prospect of a Nato membership. At the moment it isn't considered; but thing can change rapidly, as Russia has by no means given up their aspiration to be a superpower - realism has never been the long suit in Russian foreign policy; but it can still hurt small nations.
 

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
well Not that I want to venture too deeply into to the NATO question, but I call it bad sign as these ships are much more suited for NATO navy than independent navy using its own requirments to be best possiple fit for our own speciallised needs...But unfortuanetly our Defence forces are currently led by bunch of NATO groupies that would do practically everything to get laid from the military alliance (bardon my brute metaphore;) ) As while as the politicans still keep promising that no decissions to go for NATO would not be made, secretly those warpigs are adjusting our forces to the NATO comparability like we would have allready joined in...and the Big money branch keeps on advocating whit it, they have given their silent green ligth for it, so liked we or not, its NATO for us in the next ten years....same buggers did the excatly same thing with the EU back in the 80's:lul :mad


....or I just need to take bit nap and look it when Im not that grumpy:sleepy2
 

Ths

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #51
Seems like I put the finger on the sore spot in Finnish defence policy.

I can only say Denmark has had huge advantages from our membership. Of course you lose some independence; but it is definately possible to maintain the crucial aspects of independence.
And Finland has been known to have a Russian problem that needs to be adressed - so we can concentrate on the real enemy: Sweden.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
There it is again. The Swedish enemy. ;) :unknown
Especially for smaller countried NATO is a uge plus. No smaller country is able to cover every important defense field but within NATO this is more possible.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think there is still a place for mines in warfare at sea, but I think the number of places it is smart to use mines defensively, as in near your own coastal waters, is slowly deminishing for industrial nations.

There are few nations that are truly self sufficient anymore, and most of the trade nations rely upon is transported by sea. Blocking entry to your own ports made sense when a country was defending itself from a large superpower, and I think that remains true today.

Examples would be Taiwan from China, Denmark from Russia, and North Korea or Iran from the US.

Offensively I think there are several applications for sea mines, but in those cases the mines are unlikely to be laid by ships at sea.
 

Ths

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #54
Galrahn: I would be very surprised if there wasn't plans for a quick conversion of an Ohio-class or two into a minelayer - just somewhere in the deep vaults of Pentagon.

And I would not be surprised if the proposal to disband the mines in Denmark is caused by Uncle Sam asking if these mines we have lots of in our depots were for sale - as the USA had a problem with a communist fossile selling nukes. Mines are not cheap - not in that amount - and production take time. A possible result would be that we sell some of our stock - or export them for destruction at proper facilities in the USA - where one loud boom (to confirm they are in working order) will illustrate that these nasty contraptions are meeting their end. After 2 months the USA will say that they dump them on the bottom of the sea - very far from shipping lines - to be more precise: In North Korean ports.
I think we'll keep enough to raise unemployment in the ports of Skt. Petersburg and Königsberg - that should make a 1000 mines for each.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Galrahn: I would be very surprised if there wasn't plans for a quick conversion of an Ohio-class or two into a minelayer - just somewhere in the deep vaults of Pentagon.
Any weapon that can be deployed via torpedo tube, which a mine would qualify, can be deployed as a mission module.

The SSGN already has a mine clearance mission module, I would agree it probably has a mine laying mission module as well.
 

Ths

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #57
Grand Danois and others:

"Minevæsnet" or the ability to lay mines is not going to be disbanded. There are no plans for it.
What is happening is that the preparedness is stepped down - which is natural - as during the cold war mining the belts was the first thing to be undertaken.

I've checked. Can we put this to rest?
 

contedicavour

New Member
Grand Danois and others:

"Minevæsnet" or the ability to lay mines is not going to be disbanded. There are no plans for it.
What is happening is that the preparedness is stepped down - which is natural - as during the cold war mining the belts was the first thing to be undertaken.

I've checked. Can we put this to rest?
Aaah good news :) disbanding the most cost effective capability would have been outlandish...

cheers
 

Ths

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #59
It is also an important indicator. As long as Russia stay put - well fine. If they get obnoxious it is relatively simple to step up. Which will give everybody time to think again.
That is one thing You can be sure of the KGB (or whatever they are called this week) monitors: Activities at mine depots, major overhauls of tanks - bringing some out of mothballs. Bringing back forces deployed abroad.

We had a big exercise in the beginning of the 1980'ies that was cancelled at very short notice, as Gordievsky reported that senile dinosaurs in Kremlin thought it was a preparation for an attack.

The enemy's spies are a great asset, as it allows you to raise an eyebrow without disasterous consequences.
 
Top