The future of surface raiders?

[kilo]

With all the new ways to detect surface ships (recon satellites, patrol aircraft, OTH radar) are fast heavily armed surface raiders still a viable option in a modern guerrilla war at sea?:unknown

[Tasman]

With all the new ways to detect surface ships (recon satellites, patrol aircraft, OTH radar) are fast heavily armed surface raiders still a viable option in a modern guerrilla war at sea?:unknown

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]

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

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

[Tasman]

Australian special forces used fishing boats for commando raids on Japanese positions in WW2. Probably the most famous of these was Krait.

In September 1943 SRD operatives in small boats carried out Operation JAYWICK, successfully attacking Japanese shipping in Singapore Harbour. They had been transported there in a small captured fishing vessel, the KRAIT

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]

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]

Deleted

[kilo]

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.

[Tasman]

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.

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]

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.

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

[alexsa]

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.

[Manfred]

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.

[Galrahn]

With all the new ways to detect surface ships (recon satellites, patrol aircraft, OTH radar) are fast heavily armed surface raiders still a viable option in a modern guerrilla war at sea?:unknown

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.

[kilo]

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?

[Rich]

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.

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.

[Manfred]

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.

[B.Smitty]

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.


Why bother with a "surface ship" that runs mostly underwater?

If you want stealth, build a submarine.

[Waylander]

I also don't see the benefits of surface raiders.

With nuclear and AIP tech one should be able to use solely submarines to wreck havoc among merchant vessels with much less danger of being detected.

[contedicavour]

I also don't see the benefits of surface raiders.

With nuclear and AIP tech one should be able to use solely submarines to wreck havoc among merchant vessels with much less danger of being detected.

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

[Manfred]

What about shealth ships?

The concept looks a little silly, but ASW weapons don't work on surface ships.

[Rich]

Why bother with a "surface ship" that runs mostly underwater?

If you want stealth, build a submarine.

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.

[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! :D

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! :D

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? :D

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? :D

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

[Turk]

Fast Patrol Boats can see like guerilla warfare at sea

[contedicavour]

Fast Patrol Boats can see like guerilla warfare at sea

Yes but they have too short autonomy at sea to be comparable to the original WW2 surface raiders. Besides, they are very vulnerable to air attacks.

cheers

[Galrahn]

Fast Patrol Boats can see like guerilla warfare at sea

The flip side though is a boat swarm on radar looks like an armored division in the middle of a desert.

Also known as a shark feast after an air raid.

[contedicavour]

The flip side though is a boat swarm on radar looks like an armored division in the middle of a desert.

Also known as a shark feast after an air raid.

Oh yes just send up a couple of helos with 4 AS15TT or Skua or Marte Mk2A ASMs and they'll erase a whole fleet of FACs in a couple of minutes.
You don't even need to have an aircraft carrier around.

cheers

[Waylander]

Maybe not if the FACs are equipped with 76mm guns and RAM besides their AShMs.

Some helis might not be enough for saturating their defence.

[contedicavour]

Maybe not if the FACs are equipped with 76mm guns and RAM besides their AShMs.

Some helis might not be enough for saturating their defence.

Well RAM has 10km range and 76/62 12km in anti-aircraft mode.
A helo can just remain outside the 12km limit, fire off 4 ASMs, go back to the ship to rearm and come back and shoot another volley until the time the FACs cannot cope anymore. Marte Mk2A is a very impressive weapon capable of blowing up a 60-metre FAC with only one hit.
That's why I consider FACs without air cover as sitting ducks.

cheers

[Waylander]

For sure FACs used in open water are dead meat.

But if they use coastal lines and isles for cover they may have a chance to close in to the target.

And are the helicopters able fly back and rearm fast enough before some FACs close in to their motherships at high speed?
If the first helicopter attack failes you may not have enough time to rearm your helicopters.

[tphuang]

Well RAM has 10km range and 76/62 12km in anti-aircraft mode.
A helo can just remain outside the 12km limit, fire off 4 ASMs, go back to the ship to rearm and come back and shoot another volley until the time the FACs cannot cope anymore. Marte Mk2A is a very impressive weapon capable of blowing up a 60-metre FAC with only one hit.
That's why I consider FACs without air cover as sitting ducks.

cheers
some of the modern FACs are really stealthy, how close does a helo need to get to one before it can even detect it? And also, what helo actually carries 4 AShM?

[Galrahn]

Couple points.

There is no indication that stealthy FACs would ever be used in swarming attacks, they are better designed for covert strike. They are also very expensive and only available to certain nations.

Thinking about tactical and strategic use of motherships would imply they wouldn't be close to shore. The point for a mothership is to provide OTH standoff weapons support and OTH logistical support to smaller units deployed closer to shore. How many FACs would go off chasing motherships into blue water?

I think a very valid concern exists with helicopter assault against FACs that are armed with certain AAW weapons. The 2003 Iraq War exposed that even the heaviest helicopters like the Apache are highly vulnerable to "wall of steel" gun attacks, the most likely defensive weapon in a large a swarm of FACs. Alternatives would be CH-130 gunships or A-10s, both land based US Air Force platforms.

So a question I would raise is what suitable countermeasure other than attack helicopters exists or could be deployed from a mothership to strike against heavily armed littoral FAC squadrons with FAC based AAW defenses?

[B.Smitty]

Couple points.

There is no indication that stealthy FACs would ever be used in swarming attacks, they are better designed for covert strike. They are also very expensive and only available to certain nations.

Thinking about tactical and strategic use of motherships would imply they wouldn't be close to shore. The point for a mothership is to provide OTH standoff weapons support and OTH logistical support to smaller units deployed closer to shore. How many FACs would go off chasing motherships into blue water?


Well, I think incorporating OTH standoff weapons support into a mothership would be a design decision. I could just as easily see one who's sole purpose was OTH logistics and/or transport of smaller units and have let DDG/DD(X) provide the firepower.

I think a very valid concern exists with helicopter assault against FACs that are armed with certain AAW weapons. The 2003 Iraq War exposed that even the heaviest helicopters like the Apache are highly vulnerable to "wall of steel" gun attacks, the most likely defensive weapon in a large a swarm of FACs. Alternatives would be CH-130 gunships or A-10s, both land based US Air Force platforms.


The Apache vulnerability in OIF and Operation Anaconda was due to the decision to fly low-n-slow over enemy-held territory. This exposed them to all manner of 'trashfire' including AAA up to HMGs, RPGs, recoilless rifles and so on.

This wouldn't be the case with swarming FACs. Even stealthy ones could be detected at significant distances, and the number of targets would be orders of magnitude lower than during OIF/Anaconda (where a target might be one guy manning a DShK or packing an RPG).

Still, a 57mm or RAM launcher would pose a significant risk to a Helo launching Hellfires.

Helo-launched AShMs, OTOH, easily out-range anything short of a good-sized SAM. Targetting would have to be off board via BAMS GHawk, MMA or whatever.

So a question I would raise is what suitable countermeasure other than attack helicopters exists or could be deployed from a mothership to strike against heavily armed littoral FAC squadrons with FAC based AAW defenses?

Well, my guess fixed-wing NavAir would be employed first, if available.

Given that FACs have limited range and endurance, one could hit their ports and refueling points and just wait for them to run out of gas.

Personally, I'm less worried about large fleets of stealth FACs in our opponent's inventories than them using stolen or captured merchant vessels and other small civilian craft.

In crowded waters, we may have to search each ship and boat to determine friend from foe.

[contedicavour]

What matters most against a strong coastal force of FAC(M)s is ensuring air superiority and having enough helos and/or UAVs to locate those missile boats.
If the allied fleet has at least half a dozen ships with helo platforms and long range AAW cover (SM2 or Aster-30), then the FAC(M)s don't stand a chance.
Helos flying at minimum 250 km/h top speed vs the FACs' 30kn (60 km/h approx) have enough time to launch ASMs, go back and reload... and the AAW air cover ensures that no enemy jet can shoot down the attacking helos.

cheers