The future of surface raiders?
- Thread starter kilo
- Start date
I think the fast heavily armed surface raider probably disappeared halfway through WW2. The submarine and even armed auxilary cruisers (converted merchantmen) enjoyed far greater success in terms of shipping sunk. The German Tirpitz did demonstrate though that a powerful ship could tie down enemy naval forces simply by being a threat in being and without ever actually sailing on a sortie.
For guerrilla war at sea I would see the small, fast explosive laden motor boat (suicide crew or remote control), or the fast RHIB with a boarding party of commandos, as being the weapons of choice today.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Agreed. Keep in mind though, in guerilla warfare part of successful operations is being able to strike where your enemy is weak, and avoiding them where they are strong. Large vessels were never a real option for "guerilla" style naval warfare, though I believe the reference is supposed to be more of commerce-raiding, where something like a Q-ship might still work. With large vessels, it is just too difficult currently to avoid detection in them, though it might be possible to disguise them as something else, hence the Q-ship reference. Still, given the advances in communications, it might be difficult for a large surface vessel to close and sink another ship without being detected or identified. I'm not sure something smaller like a local fishing vessel would be large enough to threaten ocean going vessels and remain small or indistinctive enough to blend in (as a guerilla would) with the normal fishing or other small boat fleet.
-Cheers
Australian special forces used fishing boats for commando raids on Japanese positions in WW2. Probably the most famous of these was Krait.
http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~lenshome/auxilliaries.htm#raiders
I guess it would be more difficult today than was the case over 60 years ago but illegal fishing vessels seem to be able to penetrate Australian waters despite intensive patrolling so it may still be feasible if the vessels are able to blend in with commercial fishing vessels. Once in position they could perhaps launch an RHIB to seize a ship or carry out a raid on a coastal installation or in a port. Such vessels may also be able to carry out covert minelaying operations. Such activities would at least tie up a proportion of an enemy's patrol vessels and aircraft.
Cheers
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/pacific.html
http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~lenshome/auxilliaries.htm#raiders
I guess it would be more difficult today than was the case over 60 years ago but illegal fishing vessels seem to be able to penetrate Australian waters despite intensive patrolling so it may still be feasible if the vessels are able to blend in with commercial fishing vessels. Once in position they could perhaps launch an RHIB to seize a ship or carry out a raid on a coastal installation or in a port. Such vessels may also be able to carry out covert minelaying operations. Such activities would at least tie up a proportion of an enemy's patrol vessels and aircraft.
Cheers
Super Nimrod
New Member
I think fast small possibly disposable vessels close to shore are the only thing that would work today. The days of the classic raiders like the Emden are long gone. Such a a ship today would probably have a very short career.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
Just to clarify i was thinking more of open ocean commerce raiding when i started this thread. I was thinking more of large surface vessels.
Personally, I think surface-action vessels like the kirov, slava, sovremenny,luhai,
and luyang classes with proper reconnaissance could be very effective at breaking up convoys and tying up resources.
Personally, I think surface-action vessels like the kirov, slava, sovremenny,luhai,
and luyang classes with proper reconnaissance could be very effective at breaking up convoys and tying up resources.
I think Todjaeger is on the right track when he talks about the use of Q ships (disguised merchantmen) as an effective commerce raider. To be really effective, though, ships of this type would probably need to be on station at the outbreak of a conflict and strike before convoys could be organised.
Once convoys have been organised I think a Q ship would be fairly useless as it should be easy pickings for any warship. The threat of a powerful surface warfare vessel could, I suppose, tie up surface combatants to assist any ASW escorts assigned to a convoy, though most escorts these days are capable of carrying anti ship missiles or helicopters with an anti ship capability.
I think that history demonstrates that by far the most successful vessel in commerce warfare is the submarine and that is where I would be putting my resources.
I see the roles of the powerful surface combatant as:
1. Anti Air Warfare.
2. Land attack.
3. Escort of carrier or amphibious groups.
4. Attacks against ASW groups (in conjunction with submarines and aircraft).
5. Attacks against carrier or amphibious groups (in conjunction with submarines and aircraft).
I believe it would be an unnecessary risk of a valuable asset to use it for commerce warfare when a submarine could do the job better.
Cheers.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would tend to agree. There are also a few other factors to consider as well though.
In this time period, most conflicts between nations tend to be of rather short duration or are limited in scope. Part of this I suppose is the increased potential lethality of current weapons as well as potential military, economic and political pressure from world bodies (UN, NATO, neutral nations, etc.) As a result there are fewer military attacks on economic assets like a nations shipping fleet. Instead, the attention of a nations' navy is directed at the opposing nation's military/naval assets, where the effects can be felt immediately, rather than a gradual effect from loss of economic assets like a merchant marine.
Having said that, aside from perhaps some attack of opportunity raids in the opening stage (initial days or perhaps only hours) I would say the use of surface warships as commerce raiders is of limited utility. In order for nation A to attack enemy shipping, it would need to be either in the home waters of nation B (nation at war) or in international waters. Also, nation A needs to verify that the vessel to be attacked belongs to nation B and not nation C, otherwise nation C might be drawn in. If the idea is for a naval vessel to damage the enemy, a single surface vessel is limited because it cannot safely operate within the home waters of an enemy nation (unless there is a significant imbalance in power between the two)
On the other hand, a sub could do so, being harder to detect or target than a surface ship in an anti-shipping role. Now for surface vessels in a task force, the mutual support allows a task force to accomplish many goals, but due to both cost of a task force as well as better areas of use, a task force most likely wouldn't be sent commerce raiding anymore.
-Cheers
Last edited:
Life would be a lot more difficult given satelite survelance and wide area radar networks. Large independednt Surfact Action Groups (SAG) with ships like Kirov will stand out like dogs balls.
Even if you went for a disguised vessel (assuming it si not a global conflict) the mandatory sytems like AIS and comprehesive vessel data bases employed for SAR and GMDSS purposes will make hiding you identity quite difficult.
The IMO have been progressively upgrading security in respect of ships due to piracy and terrorism concnersn and features such as with long range tracking coming into effect in the near future.
Even if you went for a disguised vessel (assuming it si not a global conflict) the mandatory sytems like AIS and comprehesive vessel data bases employed for SAR and GMDSS purposes will make hiding you identity quite difficult.
The IMO have been progressively upgrading security in respect of ships due to piracy and terrorism concnersn and features such as with long range tracking coming into effect in the near future.
Surface raiders died out in 1942, but there several uses for Q-ships that has not been addressed here; Anti-Aircraft Ambush and missle bases.
As you all know, commercial ships have become much larger recently. The PRC has many of these huge container ships. how difficult would it be to instal missle silos in one of them? ICBMs could be loaded into a dummy stack or mack and fired when the ship is 1000 miles from any land or other ship.
Hundreds of SAMs could be deployed from a ship, and this would play havoc in commercial air-traffic lanes, especialy as a first strike surprise.
Once again, they become sitting ducks after the opening rounds. With a massive radar signature and lack of multi-role escorts, you had better convert the suvivors back to cargo ships once it becomes obvious that you are in for a long war.
BTW; the Japanese also tried to use auxialliary cruisers in WW2, and it was a fiasco.
As you all know, commercial ships have become much larger recently. The PRC has many of these huge container ships. how difficult would it be to instal missle silos in one of them? ICBMs could be loaded into a dummy stack or mack and fired when the ship is 1000 miles from any land or other ship.
Hundreds of SAMs could be deployed from a ship, and this would play havoc in commercial air-traffic lanes, especialy as a first strike surprise.
Once again, they become sitting ducks after the opening rounds. With a massive radar signature and lack of multi-role escorts, you had better convert the suvivors back to cargo ships once it becomes obvious that you are in for a long war.
BTW; the Japanese also tried to use auxialliary cruisers in WW2, and it was a fiasco.
My first instinct in this thread was to say it is not a viable option, however I do think there is a role in the future for a variation of the 'fast heavily armed surface raiders" under a new doctrine of deployment and sustainment.
If by 'fast heavily armed surface raiders" you are referring to the pocket battleships or even modern missile frigates striking commercial ships or harassing Navies in blue water, then my answer is no, I don't see them being a factor in the future.
However, if you are talking about the vast majority of modern naval roles in the littorals, from VBSS of commercial shipping to coastal mine sweeping to SOF operations to surveillance then my answer is yes, there is still a viable role for "fast heavily armed surface raiders" in the future. While I am in the minority, I believe motherships able to support manned and unmanned offboard assets under, on, and over the sea will be central to the future of modern naval warfare, and 'fast heavily armed surface raiders" will make up part of the mix of offboard platforms deployed.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
I like the idea of using q-ships as anti air traps they wouldn't necessarily have to be disguised (enemy merchant ships would probably be attacked anyway) they would just have to look like low-priority targets. Also would it be feasible to turn a tanker into VTOL carrier kind of like escort carriers of WWII just for air defense?
I wouldn't be so sure of that. With the introduction of new propulsion, stealth, UAVs, longer range weapons...ect The future surface raiders might run while mostly underwater but they will still be surface ships.
And if such a 2,00 ton something ship is fast enough, stealthy enough, networked enough, and armed enough, it would be an interesting proposition, and quite possibly a very dangerous adversary.
I agree it wouldn't fit the specs of the armored surface raider/PBBs remembered by history. More like the Visby, DDX, or type 45. The technology behind these three ships might eventually launch the design of a high tech commerce raider armed with electro-weapons. Such a ship, with a powerful BVR/stealth ability, could indeed be a powerful weapon.
Now that nuclear power is available, a dedicated surface raider seems feasable. The cruising range would be a great asset for independant deployment.
However, the problem of satelite detection remains no matter what else changes. A lone ship isolated from support would be destroyed in short order.
However, the problem of satelite detection remains no matter what else changes. A lone ship isolated from support would be destroyed in short order.
Why bother with a "surface ship" that runs mostly underwater?
If you want stealth, build a submarine.
contedicavour
New Member
Fully agree. Surface raiders survived as long as radar coverage wasn't complete and as long as they stood a chance of disappearing after each attack. With today's satellites and long range air patrollers no big surface ship can hide anymore.
cheers
Speed #1, and assuming next gen propulsion systems do what we hope they do. More weapons systems available including air defense and gunnery, #2. #3, The bigger the better equipped generally. #4, They can go into shallow water.
If the thing is capable of detecting and destroying threats before the enemy can do the same then its worth its $$ and its wave piercing "stealth" configuration and materials "work".
Wave piercing, stealth, DDX, the future.