"Does US Need Dedicated Mine Warfare Ships?" Topic

Since the end of WWII, naval mines have sunk or damaged more U.S. ships than any other form of armament.

With the Avenger-class mine-countermeasures ships retiring in 2024, the official plan is to replace them with the littoral combat ship (LCS) with a mission-specific module.

Should the U.S. continue with this plan, or should it design a new, dedicated mine warfare vessel?

Depends on whether the MCM capability slated for LCS can work effectively at extended range from the ship so that the ship's signature isn't an issue. If not then dedicated ships are still required. If yes then the capability should, being modular, be deployable from a range if ships not just LCS.

I preface this by saying that I am no expert. So, speaking as a not-too-well informed layman, what are the risks and benefits of fitting a Mine Warfare Module ($$) to a Littoral Combat Ship ($$$$) and then sending her into harm's way? If the system works, all will be well--until it isn't. "Well" is not synonymous with "perfectly"; things tend to get harmed in harm's way, and then you can't just spit out a couple more tincans to replace the one you lost. For want of a nail…

Ron

Well, this is one area where the Royal Navy considers having dedicated vessels is important – we have about 15 or 16 of the things, depending on which Wikipaedia article you look at:

link
link

That's a hefty proportion of our remaining fleet.

As to how useful they are:

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12374262

Small, specialist ships – I think that the US needs them, not just as modular add-ons to other vessels.

Part of the problem the US has is deployment speed. My regular shooting buddy served on a minesweeper during Vietnam, and I think he said his minesweeper made 12 knots across the Pacific.

Slow-to-deploy vessels means you need more of them and need to forward-deploy them. This means that the cost of a specialist vessel is higher than the straight hull costs.

Yes.

I don't have the article here, but didn't the LCS just drop the MCM from a major role to minor? FYI the LCS is now designated a frigate. Modular mission packs, not going to be so modular anymore.

Can anyone name a single design parameter promised by the builders that has been delivered as promised in the LCS program?

What!!!

I thought we were in the middle of a period of a systematic dismantling of our defense and space travel capabilities!

Dan

Can anyone name a single design parameter promised by the builders that has been delivered as promised in the LCS program?

The trimaran hulls do keep out water.

They float, apparently.

News Flash!!! They are now getting requirements together for a small combatant that can handle the role of AAW, ASW, and act as a "street fighter" for the fleet. Not calling the new LCS an LCS at least.

The Independence-class trimaran at least has decent aviation capabilities (hangar for 1x SH-60, flight deck can support 2xSH-60 or 1x CH-53). Combined with it's large cargo/mission module area, it's probably the cheapest platform for the air insertion of a spec ops team, with plenty of toys and intel analysts/C2 on the ship.

I'd really like to see some equipped to carry HIMARs/MLRS launchers on the deck. That would make it the cheapest and most expendable amphibious fire support platform in the Navy's inventory.

The Freedom-class however…..I have NO idea why we split the contract and agreed to buy any of those.

The US Navy really does especially when you look at the doctrine and capability of Iran, China, India….

They float, apparently.

Not the Freedom-class monohulls. They have a hellacious problem with corroded holes in the hull!