The future of surface raiders?

[B.Smitty]

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.

Stealthy ships aren't like stealthy aircraft. You may get down from destroyer-sized RCS to fishing boat RCS, but you'll still be visible to surface search radars at significant distances.

Submarines, OTOH, are directly analogous to stealthy aircraft. Modern subs are very difficult to detect by any means.

Subs generally don't need air defenses or gunnery. Some Russian subs can mount small SAMs.

Subs have mounted guns in the past. There was a fairly recent proposal called CVGS that would mount twin 5" vertical guns with retractable barrels that permitted firing from periscope depth on US subs.

If the mission is ASuW, the next best thing to an aircraft is a sub.

Remember the proverb, "there are two kinds of ships - subs and targets."

 

[Tasman]

Remember the proverb, "there are two kinds of ships - subs and targets."

Highly appropriate quote!

Having read the arguments in favour of the fast surface raider for open ocean commerce raiding I still can't see anything it could achieve that couldn't be done better, or at the very least as well, as a submarine.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

Yeah, imagine that? A 14,000 ton DD with the return of a fishing boat. And they aint even saying how big a fishing boat either, "dont think we'll be selling any of these either".

I dont think stealth ships are any different then aircraft. Whats the difference? "Obviously one flies". The concept is the same. To be able to allow your enemy into your kill range without him being able to do the same. A stealth ship that can see and kill an enemy from 100 nm, and is invisible up to 30 nm, is worth the money. Anyhoo the entire shebang is networked anyway where'as subs are mostly lone hunters.

If SSNs could do it all we wouldn't be building surface ships with stealth, and stealth characteristics. Only a handful of countries operate silent boats with both range and ample quietness. And they aint bullet proof either.

Yeah give me 2,000 ton stealth raiders zipping around at 60 knots, networked into the HAL-9000, launching missiles, raising hell, forcing an enemy to commit disproportionate resources in defense, and most of all getting into shallows and choke points to blow up gun boats, corvettes, Dhows with Al Qaeda, and whomever else who wants it.

By next generation, and hopefully before I croak, we'll hopefully see such a ship that has the radar return of my favorite rubber Duckey.

 

[Tasman]

Yeah give me 2,000 ton stealth raiders zipping around at 60 knots, networked into the HAL-9000, launching missiles, raising hell, forcing an enemy to commit disproportionate resources in defense, and most of all getting into shallows and choke points to blow up gun boats, corvettes, Dhows with Al Qaeda, and whomever else who wants it.

I like the scenario you describe Rich. Operating in littoral environments and especially in the shallows is where I believe that the high speed stealth ship will one day come into its own! Out in the open ocean give me an SSN or even a Collins type SSK!

Cheers

 

[B.Smitty]

Yeah, imagine that? A 14,000 ton DD with the return of a fishing boat. And they aint even saying how big a fishing boat either, "dont think we'll be selling any of these either".

I dont think stealth ships are any different then aircraft. Whats the difference? "Obviously one flies". The concept is the same. To be able to allow your enemy into your kill range without him being able to do the same. A stealth ship that can see and kill an enemy from 100 nm, and is invisible up to 30 nm, is worth the money. Anyhoo the entire shebang is networked anyway where'as subs are mostly lone hunters.

The concept is the same, but the order of magnitude is different. A B-2 is virtually undetectable and untargettable at any useful range. A fishing boat may still be seen a long ways off.

If SSNs could do it all we wouldn't be building surface ships with stealth, and stealth characteristics. Only a handful of countries operate silent boats with both range and ample quietness. And they aint bullet proof either.

This thread is about a notional future surface raider.

Of course surface combatants are important. But as lone wolf raiders hunting down an enemy's merchant fleet, no.

A carrier can sink EVERY surface ship within a 3-500nm radius or more in a few hours.

A submarine's mere presence is enough to drive off merchant traffic.

Adding stealth features to warships is certainly useful, but surface combatants ceased being primary ASuW assets way back in WWII. There are just faster and more effective ways of destroying shipping.

Yeah give me 2,000 ton stealth raiders zipping around at 60 knots, networked into the HAL-9000, launching missiles, raising hell, forcing an enemy to commit disproportionate resources in defense, and most of all getting into shallows and choke points to blow up gun boats, corvettes, Dhows with Al Qaeda, and whomever else who wants it.

Fighting gunboats, go-fasts, suicide boats and other small vessels and policing the littorals is a mission receiving renewed attention. It's a mission slated to be filled by the LCS in the USN.

 

[Galrahn]

Adding stealth features to warships is certainly useful, but surface combatants ceased being primary ASuW assets way back in WWII. There are just faster and more effective ways of destroying shipping.

I also remain skeptical of the concept of 'stealth' at sea on a surface vessel. There is no evidence that stealth on the sea is even remotely in the league of stealth in a submarine. Even if the DD(X) achieves every promise, which many even in the Navy consider "very unlikely", it comes with the price tag of 2 Virginia class submarines. In a shooting war against competitors with formidable A2D2 capabilities what evidence is there a single DD(X) would be more capable than 2 Virginia's in any mission other than massive strike, perhaps the area of the US Navy needing the least amount of attention?

Stealth makes a ton of sense for small, high speed vessels operating in the littorals, but 14,000 ton warships don't operate in littorals!

Low RCS is not unique, the LPD-17 at over 20,000 tons has less RCS than the DDG-51 class, which in turn registers low RCS. Achieving low RCS is not stealth, and only one criteria to measure stealth by.

Fighting gunboats, go-fasts, suicide boats and other small vessels and policing the littorals is a mission receiving renewed attention. It's a mission slated to be filled by the LCS in the USN.

True, but I'd put the LCS, regardless of any planned mission module, at the lowest end of capability as a surface raider, and it would be one of the worst warships to ever deploy to a A2D2 contested littoral. The LCS is the rare combination of being both too big for some tasks and too small for other tasks to deal with the threats most likely to be deployed in those areas.

The LCS is nothing more than a high speed lightly armed floating truck with a helicopter pad, and I think it remains to be seen whether the platform will be capable of performing any of its planned single mission roles effectively, including dealing with a swarming boat attack. Until the final product is deployed and evaluated, it's a powerpoint presentation platform with a lot of theoretical capability.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yeah, imagine that? A 14,000 ton DD with the return of a fishing boat. And they aint even saying how big a fishing boat either, "dont think we'll be selling any of these either".

I dont think stealth ships are any different then aircraft. Whats the difference? "Obviously one flies". The concept is the same. To be able to allow your enemy into your kill range without him being able to do the same. A stealth ship that can see and kill an enemy from 100 nm, and is invisible up to 30 nm, is worth the money. Anyhoo the entire shebang is networked anyway where'as subs are mostly lone hunters.

If SSNs could do it all we wouldn't be building surface ships with stealth, and stealth characteristics. Only a handful of countries operate silent boats with both range and ample quietness. And they aint bullet proof either.

Yeah give me 2,000 ton stealth raiders zipping around at 60 knots, networked into the HAL-9000, launching missiles, raising hell, forcing an enemy to commit disproportionate resources in defense, and most of all getting into shallows and choke points to blow up gun boats, corvettes, Dhows with Al Qaeda, and whomever else who wants it.

By next generation, and hopefully before I croak, we'll hopefully see such a ship that has the radar return of my favorite rubber Duckey.

As I understood the scenario, the raiding vessel was to target an enemy merchant marine, in much the same way the Graf Spee and other vessels did against Allied shipping in WWII. Single, lone wolf commerce raiders tasked to destroy a merchant fleet away from enemy or allied bases.

Given the advances in communications and ISR, the ability of a surface commerce raider to sink enemy shipping while evading detection is questionable. With satellite networks tracking shipping, it is now possible to detect the last known surface coordinates and relay them quickly. Also, satellite assets can then show images of what vessels were in a given area.

Stealth features are good for naval vessels, increasing survivability and making more difficult to locate/target. With a commerce raider, it is not enough to be difficult to locate the exact location, the goal is to not have anyone know where the vessel is until it attacks. With the proper assets, a stealthy ship can be tracked the moment it leaves dock.

Hence the preference for subs, which disappear once submerged. Surface vessels have a place in attacking enemy assets and operating in the littorals, but aren't available for prolonged use against shipping, unless there is a significant imbalance in the naval forces of the two adversaries.

-Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Stealth ships like Sweden's Visby has proven it can be very hard to track when it crossed the English Channel between UK and France without being detected. It had to put some metallic elements on its mast in order to facilitate tracking by coastal radars.
However the radars that had trouble tracking the Visby were coast guard basic coastal surveillance radars. A mix of Atlantique-2, Super Etendard and Lynx plus a couple of FFGs would have tracked it down without problems.
Another big caveat : the vessel is relatively small and suitable for enclosed seas such as the Baltic for short missions. Build an oceangoing equivalent of the Visby and inevitably it will have a harder time disappearing from the enemy's radar screens...
So I agree that the one asset coming close to resembling WW2's surface raiders would be a SSN with cruise missiles. Or eventually an AIP-SSK.

cheers

 

[Rich]

Submarines have limitations too. Only a few nations operate true ocean going boats with meaningful weapons loads/range. Of the SSKs I would probably only include the Collins, "I love that boat".

Even still these 7,000+ ton monsters are at a disadvantage in the shallows and choke points that dont have the depth and good layers to get under. My 2,000 ton fantasy boat, like the ones we are building now only better, will have the same kind of weapons/systems package transferability. Pull the thing into dock, change the packages, and out goes a different boat for a different mission.

But I admit the submarine is still king as far as commerce interdiction is concerned. How many navies really have the available platforms for meaningful convoy systems against 1st world submarines?

 

[B.Smitty]

Submarines have limitations too. Only a few nations operate true ocean going boats with meaningful weapons loads/range. Of the SSKs I would probably only include the Collins, "I love that boat".

How much range will this 2000 ton, 60kt raider have? Not much at 60kts. It will need to rely on an exotic hull form and possibly composites or other lightweight materials that haven't been proven on warships, and will use a significant amount of its payload fraction on propulsion and fuel.

Will it be able to protect itself from air-launched cruise missiles or even LGBs? Can it fit anything larger than a RAM launcher and lightweight air search radar and still carry a useful mission load?

The larger, slower LCS still relies on AEGIS and tacair for air defense.

 

[B.Smitty]

I also remain skeptical of the concept of 'stealth' at sea on a surface vessel. There is no evidence that stealth on the sea is even remotely in the league of stealth in a submarine. Even if the DD(X) achieves every promise, which many even in the Navy consider "very unlikely", it comes with the price tag of 2 Virginia class submarines. In a shooting war against competitors with formidable A2D2 capabilities what evidence is there a single DD(X) would be more capable than 2 Virginia's in any mission other than massive strike, perhaps the area of the US Navy needing the least amount of attention?

DD(X) can provide area air defense - something a Virginia can't do.

Stealth makes a ton of sense for small, high speed vessels operating in the littorals, but 14,000 ton warships don't operate in littorals!

Well it CAN operate in the littorals, but what admiral in their right mind will want to risk a $3 billion warship near enough to shore to take a lucky AShM or hit a mine?

True, but I'd put the LCS, regardless of any planned mission module, at the lowest end of capability as a surface raider, and it would be one of the worst warships to ever deploy to a A2D2 contested littoral. The LCS is the rare combination of being both too big for some tasks and too small for other tasks to deal with the threats most likely to be deployed in those areas.

The LCS is nothing more than a high speed lightly armed floating truck with a helicopter pad, and I think it remains to be seen whether the platform will be capable of performing any of its planned single mission roles effectively, including dealing with a swarming boat attack. Until the final product is deployed and evaluated, it's a powerpoint presentation platform with a lot of theoretical capability.

I basically agree.

The LCS size appears to be constrained by the requirements to safely operate and hangar helos and for transoceanic self-deployments.

We've talked about this on other threads (and other forums ).

Smaller combatants will have to give up operating MH-60 sized helos and, as you slide down the scale, will eventually have open ocean seakeeping and self-deployment issues.

At some point you'll be better off chartering cargo ships or developing a tender/transport to move the combatants to/from the theater of operations.

If you give up the small combatant helo capability, then you have to replace it somewhere else.

Since most LCS missions appear to require a helo, the USN probably made a good decision to make it an organic capability.

Now it's arguable, to me, whether the LCS should have such a wide range of missions.

We may be better off splitting out the policing the waterways and other low-threat missions into a separate class or classes of combatants, or even give those missions (and budget) to the USCG.

Just MHO.

 

[contedicavour]

How much range will this 2000 ton, 60kt raider have? Not much at 60kts. It will need to rely on an exotic hull form and possibly composites or other lightweight materials that haven't been proven on warships, and will use a significant amount of its payload fraction on propulsion and fuel.

Will it be able to protect itself from air-launched cruise missiles or even LGBs? Can it fit anything larger than a RAM launcher and lightweight air search radar and still carry a useful mission load?

The larger, slower LCS still relies on AEGIS and tacair for air defense.

A coastal SSK-AIP would be a good raider in some specific geographies, such as the Caribbean or Indonesia, hopping around small islands, relatively shallow seas, and plenty of shipping going around without sufficient escort ships.
If we are looking for something that could do the job of the German WW2 surface raiders, then you need a big SSN who can move from an ocean to another with 60+ days of supplies aboard. Since no need to refuel, just buying food and water from civilian ships here and there from time to time shouldn't be difficult.

cheers

 

[Tasman]

A coastal SSK-AIP would be a good raider in some specific geographies, such as the Caribbean or Indonesia, hopping around small islands, relatively shallow seas, and plenty of shipping going around without sufficient escort ships.
If we are looking for something that could do the job of the German WW2 surface raiders, then you need a big SSN who can move from an ocean to another with 60+ days of supplies aboard. Since no need to refuel, just buying food and water from civilian ships here and there from time to time shouldn't be difficult.

cheers

I wonder if a raider would 'buy' food and water from civilian ships or just take it?

Would a nuclear submarine, used for this purpose, benefit from having a gun fitted? WW2 submarines carried guns and used them to sink many merchant victims in order to save torpedoes. I know this would affect underwater speed but perhaps a gun could be mounted on a retractable platform.

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

I wonder if a raider would 'buy' food and water from civilian ships or just take it?

Would a nuclear submarine, used for this purpose, benefit from having a gun fitted? WW2 submarines carried guns and used them to sink many merchant victims in order to save torpedoes. I know this would affect underwater speed but perhaps a gun could be mounted on a retractable platform.

Cheers

Wow it has been ages since the last gun-equipped SS was decommissioned. Nowadays the weapons array from Sub-Harpoon to torpedoes to cruise missiles are all focused on target destruction. Lighter weaponry designed to threaten a ship without sinking it is almost absent... so provided the capability interests a government, the request for a gun does make sense !

cheers

 

[Rich]

How much range will this 2000 ton, 60kt raider have? Not much at 60kts. It will need to rely on an exotic hull form and possibly composites or other lightweight materials that haven't been proven on warships, and will use a significant amount of its payload fraction on propulsion and fuel.

Will it be able to protect itself from air-launched cruise missiles or even LGBs? Can it fit anything larger than a RAM launcher and lightweight air search radar and still carry a useful mission load?

The larger, slower LCS still relies on AEGIS and tacair for air defense.

I dont consider networked redundancy to be a weakness. And since we would win air dominance in short order, or so we hope, the environment for the raider would be favorable. Besides my raider would have VLS and SM/ESS/SeaRam and would not be helpless against an air threat.

The LCS has a range of over 4,000 nm, "tho I agree it will probably be forward deployed". 4,000 nm is more then useful as a range for a ship of this type. And it can sustain men in combat for 21 days.

Course everything comes down to what we call a "surface raider". If you want to call the USN PT boats of WW-ll such then you also have to commend the ship design and purpose as "useful". They would have been far, far more useful had they had a bloody torpedo that worked earlier in the war but they did share characteristics of my fantasy surface raider in this thread. They were small, very fast, were made of wood so their signature was reduced. And they were lethal as "barge busters" and in the interdiction of supply barges so desperately needed for the island garrisoned Japanese army, whom btw called the PTs, "the monster that roars, flaps it wings, and shoots torpedoes in all directions".

The PTs were flexible as well and were able to carry out a wide variety of missions.

Or we can classify them as the Lutzow, Graf Spee, and Hipper sized, comparatively armed ships of which there is really no equivalent in modern times. Or, the armed merchant ships. Which makes little sense today except maybe against pirating.

 

[B.Smitty]

I dont consider networked redundancy to be a weakness. And since we would win air dominance in short order, or so we hope, the environment for the raider would be favorable. Besides my raider would have VLS and SM/ESS/SeaRam and would not be helpless against an air threat.

The LCS has a range of over 4,000 nm, "tho I agree it will probably be forward deployed". 4,000 nm is more then useful as a range for a ship of this type. And it can sustain men in combat for 21 days.

The LCS is also 50% larger than your ship, can't hit 60kts, and doesn't have the capability to carry SM or ESSM. And that 4000nm is at a leisurely patrol speed, not 40+ kts.

While I do believe small combatants have an vital (and neglected by the USN) role in the littorals, it isn't commerce raiding.

If we have air dominance, then airpower can shut down an area to shipping far faster and more effectively than small warships.

Your small surface raider hunts at 60kts at best, with a 10-20 nm radar horizon.

A P8 MMA hunts at 440kts with a 200+ nm radar horizon.

Small combatants like the LCS will perform mine warfare, ASW, maritime security and interdiction, countering small boat threats, and so on.

Outright hunting down and destroying merchant shipping probably won't be a significant role, IMHO.

 

[Galrahn]

DD(X) can provide area air defense - something a Virginia can't do.

ESSM isn't area defense. DD(X) won't have area defense.

Virginia doesn't need area air defense, and if current projects get purchased may soon deploy point air defense.

 

[Galrahn]

I dont consider networked redundancy to be a weakness. And since we would win air dominance in short order, or so we hope, the environment for the raider would be favorable. Besides my raider would have VLS and SM/ESS/SeaRam and would not be helpless against an air threat.

You raider will have VLS/SM?ESSM etc..? Your raider is going to be a lot bigger than you think.

The assumption of air dominance is unwise. The point of a surface raider is independence, but you just added dependency for air protection, which means you just presented aircraft platforms more likely to operate in a raiding role than a warship. Te assumption of air dominance is a major point of contention regarding the current LCS project and its role in the future fleet.

 

[B.Smitty]

ESSM isn't area defense. DD(X) won't have area defense.

Virginia doesn't need area air defense, and if current projects get purchased may soon deploy point air defense.

I was under the impression DD(X) would have SM-2 (and maybe SM-6) as well.

It will certainly have the radar horsepower and VLS cells (especially if they develop the SM-2 dual packs for PVLS).

Virginias don't need area air defense because they don't have that mission.

Area air defense may not be a primary mission of the DD(X), but it should be completely capable of performing it.

 

[Tasman]

I was under the impression DD(X) would have SM-2 (and maybe SM-6) as well.

It will certainly have the radar horsepower and VLS cells (especially if they develop the SM-2 dual packs for PVLS).

Virginias don't need area air defense because they don't have that mission.

Area air defense may not be a primary mission of the DD(X), but it should be completely capable of performing it.

According to GlobalSecurity.org the DD(X) will have:

An Advanced Vertical Launch System (AVLS) with 80 cells will host Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, Standard Missiles (SM2-MR) for local air defense, Evolved Seasparrow Missiles for engagement of both airborne and seaborne threats, and Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rockets for engagement of submarine threats.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x.htm

Naval Technology reports:

Missile systems under consideration include Tactical Tomahawk (intended to succeed Tomahawk TLAM), Standard Missile SM-3 and the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) for air defence.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/

Cheers