Challenge for naval warfare fans

Khanzeer

Banned
Its 1985
You are the admiral of the navy of a mid size military power ( like Iraq Turkey Italy pakistan etc)

Your main opponents are major maritime powers with much superior surface naval forces and with submarine forces also more advanced than yours.
In airpower shore based you are only slightly inferior to enemies airforce but can hold your own

You are tasked to develop state of the art mine warfare capabilities as a way to balance the naval odds against a superior power.How will you go about doing that ?

What kind of mines would you employ ?

What kind of defensive offensive strategies you will use to maximize the effect of your arsenal of mines ?

What kind of mine laying platforms would you use and why?

Your goals are simple

1 prevent blockade of your ports
2 inflict disproportionate attrition on enemy naval forces
3 interdict enemy shipping lanes

Thanks for any replies
 
1 prevent blockade of your ports
You'll be able to prevent a close blockade of your ports with land-based anti-ship missiles, so mines wouldn't really be necessary. Defensive mine usage around your own ports would be there to slow down an enemy naval assault until your response (probably air or ground forces) is in place. Here, the goal of the minefield is not to sink enemy ships, but to halt the enemy fleet under the guns of your coastal defenses, which would then inflict casualties. You would still be able to utilize coastal commerce, especially on small ships or barges too small to reasonably target with torpedoes, and your inshore fishing fleets would still be able to work under the air and missile umbrella. A distant blockade (>100 miles offshore) cannot be stopped by mines and would be effective against international trade. Since the enemy has the advantage in surface and subsurface forces, you would have to press your comparative advantage (the smallest disadvantage) in the air to periodically break up the blockade and get your blockade runners out to sea or in to port.

2 inflict disproportionate attrition on enemy naval forces
The only way mines would do this is if you are able to mine enemy naval ports or if they are conducting ground-support operations in very constricted waters where you can easily predict their presence (Port Arthur and the Dardanelles are some of the very few instances in which this actually worked on a large scale). The best way to go after enemy naval forces, unless you have completely conceded sea access, would be an active offense, again with your own aircraft rather than ships or submarines.

3 interdict enemy shipping lanes
The enemy ships and submarines are going to be able to find you laying mines with your own ships and submarines, so your only serious options would be aircraft-laid mines or using neutral-flagged civilian vessels to lay your mines.
 
I don't know much about the mines themselves, however great power expeditions usually rely heavily on forward bases and anchorages like Ascension Island or Diego Garcia. If the little guy can successfully deny the key forward base anchorage to the great power they can close the gap in other areas.
 
If you actually have the expertise to develop your own mines, deploy a whole range, bottom based pressure mines, moored contact mines, moored/bottom magnetic mines, CAPTOR/Rocket Mines, cheap drift mines ETC whatever you can afford, some airborne, some ship laid, you want a range to make sweeping as difficult as possible

#1 Lay a mix of mines with small boats, moored, bottom mines, CAPTOR/Rocket mines, whatever you can get

#2 Buy air dropped mines for your air force and a bunch of broken down old freighters and have them play Lloyds Looper until war breaks out. Once war breaks out your freighters go to likely approaches for enemy fleet elements and lay minefields there. Later your air force takes over in terms of closer approaches. Your freighters are probably doomed, so should be ordered to surrender when asked, if possible once dumping mines intern themselves in neutral ports

#3 See #2's freighters, but use cheaper, crappier mines, you don't need the best to wreak havoc on commerce. Just have your freighters go to the areas where most of your enemy commerce passes and lay them there. The big effects will be from the panic and disruption, not any sinking you cause. Of course this won't last forever, might want to lay a few good mines with them to make the panic last longer




Off the wall option. Nuclear Sea Mine, detonate one upon start of war to show that you are a nuclear power. If the war is defensive, this should be enough to get them to back off, if not it should at least make them more likely to not completely destroy you
 
Basically you want to do a Vietnam only at sea.

I’d have bought a couple of Oberon class subs and a couple of Exocet armed Leanders.

Mine the entrance to the Gulf, sink a few tankers.

Somewhere in the Indian Ocean, obviously near the gulf. I’d do a Sandy Woodward. A Leander with skeleton crew, all light up like a cruise ship and slap four Exocets into a Nimitz class as it approaches as a show of force.

This would really piss the Americans off.

The desire for revenge for the loss of such a prestige target the American would come charging like John Wayne and the 7th Cavalry.

An Oberon lying in wait, as in the novel Nimitz class puts six fish into a second carrier.

All the while ‘pirate ships’ would attack any American flagged cargo ships in the area. Sinking the ships but saving the crews would get you brownie points with the liberal press.

David slays Goilath. The loss of two multi-billion dollar carriers and freighters the public would turn as Vietnam style demos take over again. It’s all about freedom and the big bully USA being in breach of the constitution, etc.

Mean while do some serious ass kissing to the Russians.

These actual scenarios happened to American CVBG’s many times in war games in the ‘70’s.
 
IMHO they would keep your Frigate outside a security radius. As soon as you turn on any targeting radar they are going to respond. A 1985 CBG would have a lot of firepower. Exocets are sub sonic with a 160 kg (?) warhead. Not sure if all of them would hit. Also not sure if 4 would sink a Nimitz class.

I know the Americans would not “charge” in. They would send in SSNs to destroy any subs before going near your country. They would then send in the carrier strike. This is what they did with the Gulf of Sidra in 1986. This is also 1985. Giving RR a chance to destroy your country is a big risk to take.
 
1985? I would recommend that a diplomatic solution be considered that would draw in one or the other superpower. To that end, my military would stand ready to conduct whatever joint training and operations, investments in the superpower's preferred equipment (ideally with interoperability), etc. that could be used to support that diplomatic mission.

If this option was not available for some reason, then I would recommend the indigenous development of nuclear weapons for strategic deterrence.

I would stress to civilian government that this was very possibly an either-or situation and therefore not to abandon option A without giving it very serious thought.

Any conventional (or for that matter unconventional) approaches to actually defending against an attack would be a second-order consideration.
 

SsgtC

Banned
IMHO they would keep your Frigate outside a security radius. As soon as you turn on any targeting radar they are going to respond. A 1985 CBG would have a lot of firepower. Exocets are sub sonic with a 160 kg (?) warhead. Not sure if all of them would hit. Also not sure if 4 would sink a Nimitz class.
Four would just piss it off. There's a reason the Russians built so many Nuclear tipped cruise missiles. They figured it was the only reliable way to sink a super carrier. Four Exocets probably wouldn't even take it out of combat operations.
 
Its 1985
You are the admiral of the navy of a mid size military power ( like Iraq Turkey Italy pakistan etc)

Your main opponents are major maritime powers with much superior surface naval forces and with submarine forces also more advanced than yours.
In airpower shore based you are only slightly inferior to enemies airforce but can hold your own

You are tasked to develop state of the art mine warfare capabilities as a way to balance the naval odds against a superior power.How will you go about doing that ?

What kind of mines would you employ ?

What kind of defensive offensive strategies you will use to maximize the effect of your arsenal of mines ?

What kind of mine laying platforms would you use and why?

Your goals are simple

1 prevent blockade of your ports
2 inflict disproportionate attrition on enemy naval forces
3 interdict enemy shipping lanes

Thanks for any replies

If we're focusing on mines, in defense mines are weapons which work in concert with other weapons forming an interlocking defense system, as you need the means to prevent their sweeping. To prevent sweeping you need to be able to cover minefields with coastal artillery (missiles included), surface ships, airpower or SAM's or some combination of the means mentioned.

For offensive mining, it depends greatly whether you're operating in shallow or deep waters. For offensive minelaying merchants, LRMPA, cargo aircraft for less challenged areas, fighters and submarines for more contested areas. For submarines, self-propelled mines are especially tempting.

By 1980's for a country willing to invest in them various kind of torpedo mines, influence mines etc. are available. If there's lack of actual influence mines, I would suggest deployment of decoys too to confuse enemy operations.
 
If there's lack of actual influence mines, I would suggest deployment of decoys too to confuse enemy operations.

This is a very good point. Every mine that's detected has to be treated as if it's real and dangerous. If only 10% of them are real, though, then 90% of the enemy's mine warfare capabilities are tied up sweeping decoys. Meanwhile, you get most of the effect of a 100% real minefield.
 
This is a very good point. Every mine that's detected has to be treated as if it's real and dangerous. If only 10% of them are real, though, then 90% of the enemy's mine warfare capabilities are tied up sweeping decoys. Meanwhile, you get most of the effect of a 100% real minefield.

Combination of contact and influence mine works great too, if the enemy depends on helo / aerial influence sweeping (AFAIK only US deployed this method in 1980's), as helo sweeping cannot sweep contact mines. When minesweepers arrive, it's time to employ light craft and coastal artillery / missiles as they're slow and soft targets...

But as for OP, this will not prevent blockade, as by 1980's a major naval power has helos, MPA's and sufficiently fast surface combatants to intercept cargo ships even at long distance.
 
Scenario of the frigate and ss attacks were conducted in OTL and umpires did classify targets as sunk. In both cases the attacking vessel even managed to escape undetected by the carriers escort.
The frigate incident was in the Indian Ocean approaches to the gulf. The SS incident occurred east of Gibraltar. The 2 SSN’s accompanying the CVBG failed to detect the SS which again managed to slip away at 3 knots, too slow for the SSN,s and ASW escorts to detect.
 
Basically you want to do a Vietnam only at sea.

I’d have bought a couple of Oberon class subs and a couple of Exocet armed Leanders.

Mine the entrance to the Gulf, sink a few tankers.

Somewhere in the Indian Ocean, obviously near the gulf. I’d do a Sandy Woodward. A Leander with skeleton crew, all light up like a cruise ship and slap four Exocets into a Nimitz class as it approaches as a show of force.

This would really piss the Americans off.

The desire for revenge for the loss of such a prestige target the American would come charging like John Wayne and the 7th Cavalry.

An Oberon lying in wait, as in the novel Nimitz class puts six fish into a second carrier.

All the while ‘pirate ships’ would attack any American flagged cargo ships in the area. Sinking the ships but saving the crews would get you brownie points with the liberal press.

David slays Goilath. The loss of two multi-billion dollar carriers and freighters the public would turn as Vietnam style demos take over again. It’s all about freedom and the big bully USA being in breach of the constitution, etc.

Mean while do some serious ass kissing to the Russians.

These actual scenarios happened to American CVBG’s many times in war games in the ‘70’s.

Hum, where's the CAG aboard the Nimitzs? How to stop the USAF bombers bombing your naval bases? The US government may well decided to bomb your country to its knees before stopping military actions.
 
Scenario of the frigate and ss attacks were conducted in OTL and umpires did classify targets as sunk. In both cases the attacking vessel even managed to escape undetected by the carriers escort.
The frigate incident was in the Indian Ocean approaches to the gulf. The SS incident occurred east of Gibraltar. The 2 SSN’s accompanying the CVBG failed to detect the SS which again managed to slip away at 3 knots, too slow for the SSN,s and ASW escorts to detect.

It really depends on the ROE in effect.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Basically you want to do a Vietnam only at sea.

I’d have bought a couple of Oberon class subs and a couple of Exocet armed Leanders.

Mine the entrance to the Gulf, sink a few tankers.

Somewhere in the Indian Ocean, obviously near the gulf. I’d do a Sandy Woodward. A Leander with skeleton crew, all light up like a cruise ship and slap four Exocets into a Nimitz class as it approaches as a show of force.

This would really piss the Americans off.

The desire for revenge for the loss of such a prestige target the American would come charging like John Wayne and the 7th Cavalry.

An Oberon lying in wait, as in the novel Nimitz class puts six fish into a second carrier.

All the while ‘pirate ships’ would attack any American flagged cargo ships in the area. Sinking the ships but saving the crews would get you brownie points with the liberal press.

David slays Goilath. The loss of two multi-billion dollar carriers and freighters the public would turn as Vietnam style demos take over again. It’s all about freedom and the big bully USA being in breach of the constitution, etc.

Mean while do some serious ass kissing to the Russians.

These actual scenarios happened to American CVBG’s many times in war games in the ‘70’s.
No I'm not considering the superior naval power as USN at all so please do not bring that into this
USN is so far superior to every other navy in 1980 that it's a no contest, even Soviet navy at its height in 1985 can maybe take on Japanese, British and French navies at the same time but it's not even 20% of the firepower potential of USN unless you count nukes
I was thinking more in terms of
E.g Britain vs Argentina
Iraq vs Iran
Pakistan vs India
Greece vs Turkey
Vietnam vs China
North Korea vs south korea
Etc etc
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
Four would just piss it off. There's a reason the Russians built so many Nuclear tipped cruise missiles. They figured it was the only reliable way to sink a super carrier. Four Exocets probably wouldn't even take it out of combat operations.
That is exactly why these Clancy like scenarios of 100 bombers attacking one CVBG seem like fiction to me ...
Why not send 20 bombers and use nuke tipped missiles even if 1 hits you eliminate your target carrier and maybe an escort as well
I think it would take like 3 to 4 conventional kh22 to sink a carrier ?

2 exocets did not even sink USS stark
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
That is exactly why these Clancy like scenarios of 100 bombers attacking one CVBG seem like fiction to me ...
Why not send 20 bombers and use nuke tipped missiles even if 1 hits you eliminate your target carrier and maybe an escort as well
I think it would take like 3 to 4 conventional kh22 to sink a carrier ?

2 exocets did not even sink USS stark
No, that's actually what the Soviets planned to do: throw everything, including the kitchen sink and borscht pot, at a CBG. It was the only way they guarantee enough missiles would break through the escorts to reach the carrier. And since they figured out of 100-200 missiles launched, only 3-4 might actually get through and target the carrier (and not an LST or LPH), best to make those 3-4 missiles nuclear.

One big difference though, is that ideally, the Red Fleet wanted to coordinate their attacks with both bombers and SSGNs. And preferably include a follow up attack with torpedos too. What they wanted, was too use one asset to draw off the escorts to give the other a cleaner shot. For example, use the SSGN to launch an area attack against the battle group with it's missiles, the escorts reorient to defend the threat axis (plus expending limited numbers of SAMs), then there bombers move in from another axis with fewer escorts and launch everything. Not only are their (hopefully) fewer escorts, but the other escorts have a less than ideal angle for their own SAMs to engage the ASMs which, in theory, reduces the number of successful intercepts.

Where Clancy screwed up in his carrier battle in Red Storm Rising is the range at which the carrier air wings engaged the Soviet bombers. He had them wait until they were only 200 miles out. IRL, the Tomcats would have engaged the Soviet bombers 500 miles out with their AIM-54 missiles hitting the bombers at nearly 600 miles from the carrier. The Hornets would have engaged at 300-400 miles from the carrier with Sparrow missiles hitting their targets at 320-420 miles out and Sidewinders at 310-410. Using the French Crusaders that Clancy included, they would have engaged at about the same distance as the Hornets after the -18s were Winchester. Hell, even the A-7s would have been loaded up with Sidewinders and told to target the inbound missiles at about 200 miles out (a small chance at killing an ASM is better than no chance). To get the result he wanted, Clancy basically had to screw the USN and force all their commanders to guzzle lead paint.
 
No I'm not considering the superior naval power as USN at all so please do not bring that into this
USN is so far superior to every other navy in 1980 that it's a no contest, even Soviet navy at its height in 1985 can maybe take on Japanese, British and French navies at the same time but it's not even 20% of the firepower potential of USN unless you count nukes
I was thinking more in terms of
E.g Britain vs Argentina
Iraq vs Iran
Pakistan vs India
Greece vs Turkey
Vietnam vs China
North Korea vs south korea
Etc etc

Thee whole point, is the USN is so invincible, that’s it’s greatest weakness. The two scenarios I’ve posted actually happened in exercises, and both perpetrators were judged to have got away unscathed. Those officiating were professional real life USN & NATO Admirals. Just for added measure. HMS Hermes also took out a CVBG in the southern Caribbean as she could launch her Shars and the sea state prevented F14’s from taking off.
Again these were no “arm-chair generals/novelists” but real life actions.

Now if it is possible to bloodie the USN then anything is possible for those who are brave/foolhardy to try what is considered impossible.
 
Top