MTB maintain their role in an era of guided antiship missile

boatsIf one separates the weapon and the delivery system the MTB is too vulnerable, missile boats always grow into quasi frigates just as dragoons always became ersatz cavalry.

Missile dropped torpedos are too large a package not to attract air defences. The modern answer must be fast long range autonomous torpedos. To get the warhead under the hull. Perhaps combining it with the mine concept by dropping them ahead of the predicted track of the targets and leaving them to await their arrival within range.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Geography (Very very Littoral) and money (ie not a lot of it)
And consider secondary roles like attacking coastal merchants ships, minesweepers etc
Plus MTB possibly could be used to attack warships that did not have modern ASM [ and in the 60s and 70s many vessels did not]
 
If so how can the MTB be made to survive against Missile boats ?

Once helicopters armed with lightweight anti-ship missiles become common, the Fast Attack Craft is as about as survivable as a dinosaur. They're basically too small to mount an effective anti-aircraft fit and will get slaughtered by stand-off missiles.

To echo the post above FAC are not surviveable in the era of aircraft. That was demonstrated as early as the First World War when a squadron of RN CMBs was massacred by German aircraft. Another massacre of FAC occured in 1991 during Desert Storm.

That FAC are still around at all, is to some extent, somewhat surprising. Their utility is pretty limited.
 
Perhaps the MTB in the 70/80s might be used alongside missile boats. 1 missile boat, (as flotilla leader), to 3 MTBs for example. As they approach the enemy there are 4 targets for the enemy to pick from - which one is the missile boat if the approaching craft are close together and weaving as they run in? The missile boat can fire off it's armament to further add to the enemy workload. Hopefully the MTBs might then get into torpedo range before being destroyed.

It might work in an area with lots of islands, Sweden or Indonesia for example but you'd need to compare the cost of manning and operating 3 MTBs as opposed to just buying another missile boat, a shore-based missile battery or fixed or rotary wing aircraft also carrying missiles. For a western nation, the manning costs will be significant. For a third world nation, the cost and technical skills required for an MTB will be less than a missile boat, so the MTB might be a better fit for the budget and capabilities of your navy, particularly if you don't envisage any combat actually occurring.

Nowadays, with missiles like IAI's LAHAT, an MTB can easily be converted to a missile boat, so apart from nations that are really cash-strapped, the MTB's day is, I would venture, pretty much over. Although that's not to say an MTB size craft couldn't carry a torpedo or two, it's just that it wouldn't be the boats primary armament.
 
But what would you use a torpedo for that you couldn’t use a missile on? Just carry more missiles.

Also it would not surprise me if nowadays a decent torpedo costs more than a missile and is harder to use properly, aside from the need to maintain and train on two separate weapon systems. They are certainly a far more specialised weapon.
 
Long story short, no, there is no point WHATSOEVER to use torpedoes instead of missiles on small attack crafts. They can't defend themselves, they are reliant on maximum range, speed and deception to hit their targets and they do not have the right equipment for Anti-Submarine warfare. Norway is mentioned but its worth pointing out that we got ASMs on all our serving MTBs the moment the penguin was ready for deployment retaining the torpedo capability on existing ships only because they already had them.

And if you doubt the effectivness of ASMs here is a moskit without the warhead.


QGcdH8l.gif
 
Last edited:
If you have a long range torpedo that can have a preset course and then turn on a seeker head, and is fast, then theoretically in a very specific littoral environment a boat could dash out of shore cover, launch against target/targets at long range and then dash back to hide. A lot of ifs and buts here. Basically MTBs are marginally useful in very specific circumstances, and this gets worse after the first attack and your enemy twigs to the threat/tactics.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
But what would you use a torpedo for that you couldn’t use a missile on? Just carry more missiles.

Also it would not surprise me if nowadays a decent torpedo costs more than a missile and is harder to use properly, aside from the need to maintain and train on two separate weapon systems. They are certainly a far more specialised weapon.
This thread was not about using MTB in present age

But merely discuss the scenarios in which MTB may persist until 70s to 80s latest 1989

During this era note
1- not all ASM were as advanced as of today
2 - a lot of warships still did not carry ASM

but as correctly pointed out strike aircraft esp with PGM made littoral FAC torpedo or missile obsolete long before ASM superseded torpedo
 

Khanzeer

Banned
If you have a long range torpedo that can have a preset course and then turn on a seeker head, and is fast, then theoretically in a very specific littoral environment a boat could dash out of shore cover, launch against target/targets at long range and then dash back to hide. A lot of ifs and buts here. Basically MTBs are marginally useful in very specific circumstances, and this gets worse after the first attack and your enemy twigs to the threat/tactics.
1 Basically very defensive tactics esp against an amphibious landing
2 Employ geographical features to their advantage to confuse ASM
3 Target bigger slower poorly armed targets
Avoid modern enemy warships, and if encountered use swarm tactics.Soviet naval tactics book of Milan vego describes attacking one destroyer by 5 MTB at different angles and firing all 4 torpedoes simultaneously.The vast spread of 16 -20 torpedoes hopefully 1 or 2 will hit home

4 MTB can be useful if you have local air superiority over your littoral and will discourage enemy warships from interference, give your torpedo boats more freedom of action
5 And as noted, in lieu of their torpedos can carry mines and combat divers
 
This thread was not about using MTB in present age

But merely discuss the scenarios in which MTB may persist until 70s to 80s latest 1989

Simply put, the answer you get in 1970 is going to be the same one you get in 2020. The effective range of torpedoes against an alerted (see maneuvering) target is quite short and, even in the absence of guided-missiles and aircraft, the widespread adoption of radar coupled with the accuracy of post-war gunnery makes closing that distance in a unarmored surface vessel near suicide. Like I said before, If your plan requires you to be within 40mm Bofors range of a major surface combatant it's time to reconsider your choices.
 
There is a significant problem in that an FAC's radar doesn't get above the surface ducting layer, which severely compromises radar performance and when combined with an FAC's inherent instability as a weapon platform means that anything smaller than a corvette isn't really viable.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Simply put, the answer you get in 1970 is going to be the same one you get in 2020. The effective range of torpedoes against an alerted (see maneuvering) target is quite short and, even in the absence of guided-missiles and aircraft, the widespread adoption of radar coupled with the accuracy of post-war gunnery makes closing that distance in a unarmored surface vessel near suicide. Like I said before, If your plan requires you to be within 40mm Bofors range of a major surface combatant it's time to reconsider your choices.
Ok I see your point,
but then I fail to see why missile equipped FAC became so popular in the 80s and 90s with smaller navies when they can have the same antiship capability by fitting shore based aircraft and helos with antiship missiles and for a lot cheaper.The FAC have no real ASW or AAW capabilities and just serve as mobile ASM batteries.
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
There is a significant problem in that an FAC's radar doesn't get above the surface ducting layer, which severely compromises radar performance and when combined with an FAC's inherent instability as a weapon platform means that anything smaller than a corvette isn't really viable.
So does it affect the accuracy of FAC radar directed gunfire at small combatants ?
 

MatthewB

Banned
This thread was not about using MTB in present age

But merely discuss the scenarios in which MTB may persist until 70s to 80s latest 1989

During this era note
1- not all ASM were as advanced as of today
2 - a lot of warships still did not carry ASM

but as correctly pointed out strike aircraft esp with PGM made littoral FAC torpedo or missile obsolete long before ASM superseded torpedo
MTB can persist into the 1980s, you just won’t use them, in combat. Same as most of the naval hardware of the Cold War.
 
Littoral combat itself is an overrated concept. Nothing you would risk in the littoral can defend itself against aircraft. Ground-launched ASMs are far more survivable because they are harder to find than boats and ships. Anti-surface torpedoes are not necessarily obsolete, especially against very large cargo ships, but guns are more reliable against modern warships in the absence of missiles than torpedoes. Besides, you probably shouldn't be pressing the engagement after expending all of your missiles. Anyone you're chasing will have the advantage if they have their own torpedoes. The fact that you can put missiles on a torpedo boat means that there's no reason to not convert your torpedo boats to missile boats.
 
Ok I see your point,
but then I fail to see why missile equipped FAC became so popular in the 80s and 90s with smaller navies when they can have the same antiship capability by fitting shore based aircraft and helos with antiship missiles and for a lot cheaper.The FAC have no real ASW or AAW capabilities and just serve as mobile ASM batteries.
That's because they're cheaper than full sized corvettes or frigates (more hulls for the same amount of money), as well as have better endurance and versatility than strike aircraft. Here in Malaysia, the RMN used their FACs not just for littoral combat, but also as patrol ships to guard our EEZ, they can remain at sea for days while aircraft can stay up for hours only. Also, the FAC's high speed made them a good choice to chase down pirates' speedboats and illegal fishing vessels.

Hell, we even stationed the CB90 combat boats all the way in Spratly Islands.
 
Last edited:
That's because they're cheaper than full sized corvettes or frigates (more hulls for the same amount of money), as well as have better endurance and versatility than strike aircraft. Here in Malaysia, the RMN used their FACs not just for littoral combat, but also as patrol ships to guard our EEZ, they can remain at sea for days while aircraft can stay up for hours only. Also, the FAC's high speed made them a good choice to chase down pirates' speedboats and illegal fishing vessels.

Hell, we even stationed the CB90 combat boats all the way in Spratly Islands.

This is an excellent point. A FAC has a lot more options than an aircraft if they spot unwanted activity. In any situation short of an all-out shooting war against a top-tier opponent, they can be very useful. Nations not rich enough to equip a separate maritime law-enforcement arm often task their navy with similar roles, and FACs can be a good compromise craft for them. Even nations which are rich enough often equip their coast guard with vessels which very much resemble warships, just with rather fewer missiles and a lack of grey paint, so it's not as if there's no crossover at all.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Littoral combat itself is an overrated concept. Nothing you would risk in the littoral can defend itself against aircraft.
No, but you make them cheap with small complements so any losses against aircraft have negligible impact.

The perfect example of this is the USN's new Mark VI patrol boat class. 72 tons, 45 knots, 10-18 crew, two M242 Bushmaster cannons plus mgs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_VI_patrol_boat

IN4jTjC.jpg


And, if you're upriver and worried about enemy aircraft the crew can always bring some of these along.

stinger-554x350.jpg

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-return-of-the-stinger-missile/

The MTB may be dead by the 1970s, but the MGB carries on to today and beyond.
 
Last edited:
Top