Asymetric Littoral scenario

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi:

As Chris said in the thread on CV survivability, this topic deserves its own thread. So I'll start it off. First we should probably define what sort of asymetrical littoral scenarios might arise and where. Most emphasis has been either on the Straits of Hormuz, the gap between China and Taiwan and possibly operations in Indonesian waters. There are undoubtably many more that will come to mind.

Next what are the threats that don't see as often in blue water operations? Well first off mines become a major threat and any littoral warfare ship has to be able to cope with them. Stealthy high tech diesel subs are next on the list since they are designed to work closer to shore than the big attack and boomer subs. Small high speed combatants like missile patrol boats, corvettes and frigates all are part of the littoral scenario. Land based aircraft and missile launchers all become factors when operating close to shore. Disguised suicide boats have proven to be a threat and have to accounted for.

What possible missions would a high tech blue navy like the USN be undertaking in littoral waters? They could be supporting Marines landed as part of the War on Terror. They could be safeguarding the sealanes and offshore oil platforms. They could be supporting a disaster relief effort. They could be suppressing piracy, especially in Asian waters. They could also be used in the war against illegal drugs.

So the question becomes do you utilize the traditional carrier battle group or a smaller force to perform these missions? Here's hoping we can add to our understanding of this complex topic.

[Warship NWS]

Just to add to the mix.. don't forget congested neutral shipping traffic challenges, a major reason for the requirement of MITL or ID memory terminal guidance capable ordnance.

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

As Chris said in the thread on CV survivability, this topic deserves its own thread. So I'll start it off. First we should probably define what sort of asymetrical littoral scenarios might arise and where. Most emphasis has been either on the Straits of Hormuz, the gap between China and Taiwan and possibly operations in Indonesian waters. There are undoubtably many more that will come to mind.

Next what are the threats that don't see as often in blue water operations? Well first off mines become a major threat and any littoral warfare ship has to be able to cope with them. Stealthy high tech diesel subs are next on the list since they are designed to work closer to shore than the big attack and boomer subs. Small high speed combatants like missile patrol boats, corvettes and frigates all are part of the littoral scenario. Land based aircraft and missile launchers all become factors when operating close to shore. Disguised suicide boats have proven to be a threat and have to accounted for.

What possible missions would a high tech blue navy like the USN be undertaking in littoral waters? They could be supporting Marines landed as part of the War on Terror. They could be safeguarding the sealanes and offshore oil platforms. They could be supporting a disaster relief effort. They could be suppressing piracy, especially in Asian waters. They could also be used in the war against illegal drugs.

So the question becomes do you utilize the traditional carrier battle group or a smaller force to perform these missions? Here's hoping we can add to our understanding of this complex topic.


The Carrier Strike Group was never designed to enter the littoral zone, it really requires deep water for its sonar and its layered defense. The CSG will not enter that zone unless absolutely necessary. However, the ESG or expeditionary strike group will and must be equipped to handle the three basic threats; diesel submarines, mines and small boats. Our passive sonar was developed to detect and track noisy nuclear subs not quiet diesels. The bottoms of the littoral zone are not areas that support passive sonar due to the nature of the terrain. This requires use to use active sonar, and that betrays the presence of the strike group. Mines are passive and quiet, presenting numerous problems.

A small nation with a limited budget can afford mines and small boats. These two threats can present some real issues for a navy built to fight a blue water naval battle in the open ocean. A nation with a more sophisticated economy, and a better infrastructure can support some diesel submarines along with the other two threats. The political value of hitting and damaging a HVU such as an Aegis cruiser, Zumwalt Destroyer or a carrier would be immense for any nation of such a size.

[old_pop2000]

It occurred to me, that many of you may not completely understand where the littoral zone is located. Here is my feeble attempt.

The littoral zone is essentially the area off of the coast of the continents extending the length of the continental shelf. Exact distance is difficult to estimate because it varies with every continent. It is an area of relatively shallow water, and the environment is drastically different from what is found in the deep oceans. Factors such as freshwater outflows from rivers and rainfall greatly affect the yearly cycle of salinity, or percentage of salts in the water. The continental shelf impose a boundary on ocean currents such as the Labrador and Gulfstream. The temperature of the shallower water, due to surface heating, can vary fare more than the deeper ocean. Tidal currents generated in the deep ocean upon entering this coastal zone can begin to change in direction and magnitude as they interact with the friction of the bottom. Biologically the littoral zone can be an optimal environment for algae and other micro-organisms. The influx of sediments from rivers and wind blown sand can change the optical properties of the shallower water, as opposed to deep water. Turbidity currents caused by undersea landslides off of the continental shelf can disrupt sound and optical devices.

Our navy studied the deep water extensively during the Cold War, to better understand the nature of the deep oceans for possible undersea warfare. Unfortunately, the littoral zones or enclosed seas have been neglected. This is an area that needs to be extensively studied and modelled, to better understand how this region will affect our sensors and weapons in any low order conflict.

I hope this gives you some idea of the area that we are investigating and discussing. If you are interested, google littoral zone or continental shelf.

[john964]

It occurred to me, that many of you may not completely understand where the littoral zone is located. Here is my feeble attempt.

The littoral zone is essentially the area off of the coast of the continents extending the length of the continental shelf. Exact distance is difficult to estimate because it varies with every continent. It is an area of relatively shallow water, and the environment is drastically different from what is found in the deep oceans. Factors such as freshwater outflows from rivers and rainfall greatly affect the yearly cycle of salinity, or percentage of salts in the water. The continental shelf impose a boundary on ocean currents such as the Labrador and Gulfstream. The temperature of the shallower water, due to surface heating, can vary fare more than the deeper ocean. Tidal currents generated in the deep ocean upon entering this coastal zone can begin to change in direction and magnitude as they interact with the friction of the bottom. Biologically the littoral zone can be an optimal environment for algae and other micro-organisms. The influx of sediments from rivers and wind blown sand can change the optical properties of the shallower water, as opposed to deep water. Turbidity currents caused by undersea landslides off of the continental shelf can disrupt sound and optical devices.

Our navy studied the deep water extensively during the Cold War, to better understand the nature of the deep oceans for possible undersea warfare. Unfortunately, the littoral zones or enclosed seas have been neglected. This is an area that needs to be extensively studied and modelled, to better understand how this region will affect our sensors and weapons in any low order conflict.

I hope this gives you some idea of the area that we are investigating and discussing. If you are interested, google littoral zone or continental shelf.Dennis, I've often heard that the Littoral Zone is defined as being inside either the 100 fathom or 600 fathom curve, It is more likely the 100 fathom line, but I am not sure.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis, I've often heard that the Littoral Zone is defined as being inside either the 100 fathom or 600 fathom curve, It is more likely the 100 fathom line, but I am not sure.


You are correct, it is usually defined as being inside of the 100 fathom or 600 foot line. However, that is just a reference line, it does vary with each continent or coastline.

[Ed Rotondaro]

You are correct, it is usually defined as being inside of the 100 fathom or 600 foot line. However, that is just a reference line, it does vary with each continent or coastline.

Now this is getting interesting and informative which was my plan and Chris' plan (I think?). Thanks!

[old_pop2000]

Just some more information on littoral zones. Semi-enclosed marginal seas are classified as littoral zones and have similar issues. Two of the most saline seas are the Persian gulf and the Red Sea. In both, evaporation exceeds freshwater influx. Both are in what is termed the semitropical zone of climate. The Persian Gulf is surrounded by some of the worlds most extensive deserts. The gulf averages 36 meters in depth or about 120 feet. It's shallowest areas are on the coast of the UAR an area of less than 20 meters in depth termed the Southern Shallows. It is also shallow at the upper end where Shatt-Al-Arab River flows into the gulf. The deepest portion is on the Iranian coast, an area of around 36 miles in length. This area is over 40 meters deep with subsidence occurring creating canyons of around 70 meters in depth. Due to the high salinity, the water sinks then flows outward like an estuary through the Straits of Hormuz at depth. The influx, what little there is from the Indian Ocean occurs at the surface levels. Again, due to the shallow nature of the gulf, uneven temperature gradiants exist, because of surface heating of the water. This is the type of environment our Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike Groups will have to cope with.

Source Document: The circulation of the Persian Gulf: A numerical Study by J. Kampf and M. Sadrinasab Published April 2006 in Ocean Science.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just some more information on littoral zones. Semi-enclosed marginal seas are classified as littoral zones and have similar issues. Two of the most saline seas are the Persian gulf and the Red Sea. In both, evaporation exceeds freshwater influx. Both are in what is termed the semitropical zone of climate. The Persian Gulf is surrounded by some of the worlds most extensive deserts. The gulf averages 36 meters in depth or about 120 feet. It's shallowest areas are on the coast of the UAR an area of less than 20 meters in depth termed the Southern Shallows. It is also shallow at the upper end where Shatt-Al-Arab River flows into the gulf. The deepest portion is on the Iranian coast, an area of around 36 miles in length. This area is over 40 meters deep with subsidence occurring creating canyons of around 70 meters in depth. Due to the high salinity, the water sinks then flows outward like an estuary through the Straits of Hormuz at depth. The influx, what little there is from the Indian Ocean occurs at the surface levels. Again, due to the shallow nature of the gulf, uneven temperature gradiants exist, because of surface heating of the water. This is the type of environment our Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike Groups will have to cope with.

Source Document: The circulation of the Persian Gulf: A numerical Study by J. Kampf and M. Sadrinasab Published April 2006 in Ocean Science.

Dennis:

In keeping with the subtopic of varying salinity, there is an article on Yahoo about the expanding "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisana. The cause is large amounts of fresh water from heavy rains and flooding affecting salinity and thereby lowering oxygen count and killing the sealife.

[old_pop2000]

... the expanding "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisana. The cause is large amounts of fresh water from heavy rains and flooding affecting salinity and thereby lowering oxygen count and killing the sealife.

Fresh water is lighter than salt water, therefore it sits on top of the ocean water. They don't mix well, so the oxygen from the atmosphere, is blocked from reaching the bottom where some types of fish and the shell fish like crab, lobster, crayfish etc. like to feed. So, they die.

The famous atlantic conveyor, an ocean current that flows around the oceans of the world mixing warm waters and cold along with nutrients is caused by salty water sinking at the edge of Iceland. When glacial water is mixed, it stops this flow because it weakens the salinity of the water in this area. This is what caused the Little Ice Age from around 1300 to 1820.

[paladin5]

Would the Baltic sea be considered a littoral area?

[old_pop2000]

Would the Baltic sea be considered a littoral area?

Absolutely, it is an inland sea, like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf etc. It, of course, has its own ecosystem and oceanographic parameters unique to its position. It is probably, although I haven't research it, not as salty due to less evaporation and more freshwater runoff. It is a brackish sea, as most sat photos present. Maximum depth is 1506 feet, it occupies a glacial basin. Ice covers it about 45% during its maximum during the year.

Rather than describe it, here is a reasonably accurate article from a source I usually don't quote, but this will help your understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea

Hope that helps your understanding. :)

[paladin5]

Your post answered my question well enough dennis, thanks. I was asking because lately I have been working on a new mission for NWP. It revolves around carrier operations in the Baltic. In real life I think someone would have to a Class-A idiot to operate carriers in the Baltic because there just isn't enough room to manuver you forces around, but I also figure it will make for a fun mission. Now I just need to get motivated enough to get around to adding the kill goals for the mission.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your post answered my question well enough dennis, thanks. I was asking because lately I have been working on a new mission for NWP. It revolves around carrier operations in the Baltic. In real life I think someone would have to a Class-A idiot to operate carriers in the Baltic because there just isn't enough room to manuver you forces around, but I also figure it will make for a fun mission. Now I just need to get motivated enough to get around to adding the kill goals for the mission.

Michael:

Keep in mind that the Russians maintained a decent fleet in the Baltic in both world wars and that Germany conducted a large amphibious operation know as Operation Albion to seize several islands there in Sept-Oct 1917. Their forces included two modern dreadnoughts. Of course airpower wasn't as much of a threat during that time period.

[old_pop2000]

Your post answered my question well enough dennis, thanks. I was asking because lately I have been working on a new mission for NWP. It revolves around carrier operations in the Baltic. In real life I think someone would have to a Class-A idiot to operate carriers in the Baltic because there just isn't enough room to manuver you forces around, but I also figure it will make for a fun mission. Now I just need to get motivated enough to get around to adding the kill goals for the mission.


The question of operating carriers in those waters really depends on the scenario. With the Russians, they have good land bases from which to operate so a carrier force is redundant. Any force has to deal with diesel subs, which can lurk in those water. Active sonar should operate well due to the depth and lack of salinity. Temperature gradients should not be much of a problem. Mines might be difficult to spot in the brackish water, but only at the chock points like Gotland, Bornholm Island, areas of off Estonia, entrance to the Gulf of Bothnia, and the entrance to the Gulf of Finland. The numerous inlets and fjords can hide small attack boats especially during winter with the low ceiling, eliminating air reconnaissance.

Could be a fun spot to fight a small navy war?;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

The question of operating carriers in those waters really depends on the scenario. With the Russians, they have good land bases from which to operate so a carrier force is redundant. Any force has to deal with diesel subs, which can lurk in those water. Active sonar should operate well due to the depth and lack of salinity. Temperature gradients should not be much of a problem. Mines might be difficult to spot in the brackish water, but only at the chock points like Gotland, Bornholm Island, areas of off Estonia, entrance to the Gulf of Bothnia, and the entrance to the Gulf of Finland. The numerous inlets and fjords can hide small attack boats especially during winter with the low ceiling, eliminating air reconnaissance.

Could be a fun spot to fight a small navy war?;)

Dennis:

I would assume that the Black Sea could be considered littoral and probably the Aegean and Adriatic Seas.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I would assume that the Black Sea could be considered littoral and probably the Aegean and Adriatic Seas.


Black Sea would be considered an inland sea while the Aegean and Adriatic would be considered Marginal Seas possibly. All would have littoral zones stretching out into the middle of the seas. Some of the areas in all would be deep ocean, but not much. All would have unique problems in naval warfare. More research is necessary for definite answer. I will investigate.

[old_pop2000]

Further note that these three seas are considered as part of the Mediterranean sea oceanographic area. As such, they share characteristics of this inland sea. Inland seas, marginal seas all have the same naval problems associated with them, as does Littoral zones. So, while they aren't Littoral zones in the oceanographic sense, they are lumped together by naval analyst as having similar issues. However, each is unique, with uniquely solvable problems by naval commanders and weapons designers.

In a report by a symposium on coastal oceanography and Littoral Zone warfare that I read, four areas were outlined for study:

1. Harbors and Approaches

2. Straits and Archipelagos

3. Surf Zone

4. Continental Shelves

This would seem to indicate the Littoral zone maybe analyzed with amphibious operations in mind. But I would extend that analysis to protection of shipping lanes etc.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Further note that these three seas are considered as part of the Mediterranean sea oceanographic area. As such, they share characteristics of this inland sea. Inland seas, marginal seas all have the same naval problems associated with them, as does Littoral zones. So, while they aren't Littoral zones in the oceanographic sense, they are lumped together by naval analyst as having similar issues. However, each is unique, with uniquely solvable problems by naval commanders and weapons designers.

In a report by a symposium on coastal oceanography and Littoral Zone warfare that I read, four areas were outlined for study:

1. Harbors and Approaches

2. Straits and Archipelagos

3. Surf Zone

4. Continental Shelves

This would seem to indicate the Littoral zone maybe analyzed with amphibious operations in mind. But I would extend that analysis to protection of shipping lanes etc.

Dennis:

Thanks for the data. I'm going to do a little surfing to learn more about how bodies of water are classified.

[old_pop2000]

For those of you skeptical about requirements for protection of shipping lanes, let me remind you of the 1984-1987 tanker wars. In that episode, 286 missile attacks were recorded against commercial ships. 100 ships recorded significant damage and 80 were sunk or scuttled. The Stark was one of those victims. These attacks were most by Exocet missiles, not the more sophisticated AShM of the today.

Navias and Hooten reported in their book "Tanker Wars" that 1% of the 800-1000 ships entering the Persian Gulf in each month, incurred some sort of damage. They reported 411 ships as having been hit in their work, with 287 by missile. 60% were tankers, 40% were container ships, bulk carriers, general cargo ships and other smaller vessels.

It is a truism that commercial vessels are easier to hit, but far harder to sink


Protection of shipping has been and still is one of primary tasks of a navy.

[old_pop2000]

In Capt. Wayne Hughes book "Fleet Tactics", he cites a mathematical relationship proposed by Brookings Institute which states that the number of hits required to put a ship out of action can be related to the length of the ship. Hughes cites that vulnerability is proportional to the cube root of the displacement. Displacement is roughly proportional to the three dimensions of length, beam, and draft, the cube root reduces to one dimension. Brookings concluded that a hit by one large warhead could incapacitate a modern warship of up to 300feet in length and that a similiar warhead was required for every additional 100 ft.

Based on that theory, an aircraft carrier would require seven hits, three would kill an Aegis cruiser, one or two for a frigate and one for a small patrol craft.

Hughes does point out that this theory is based on models and most damage models have difficulty reflecting the progressive effects of fire and flooding.

I throw this out for your appraisal. I may research the Brookings Institute site for this report, if available online.

Understand that this is only one threat in the littoral zone, and not necessarily the worst threat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

For those of you skeptical about requirements for protection of shipping lanes, let me remind you of the 1984-1987 tanker wars. In that episode, 286 missile attacks were recorded against commercial ships. 100 ships recorded significant damage and 80 were sunk or scuttled. The Stark was one of those victims. These attacks were most by Exocet missiles, not the more sophisticated AShM of the today.

Navias and Hooten reported in their book "Tanker Wars" that 1% of the 800-1000 ships entering the Persian Gulf in each month, incurred some sort of damage. They reported 411 ships as having been hit in their work, with 287 by missile. 60% were tankers, 40% were container ships, bulk carriers, general cargo ships and other smaller vessels.

It is a truism that commercial vessels are easier to hit, but far harder to sink


Protection of shipping has been and still is one of primary tasks of a navy.

Dennis:

The Tanker War was a classic littoral scenario that could easily occur again.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In Capt. Wayne Hughes book "Fleet Tactics", he cites a mathematical relationship proposed by Brookings Institute which states that the number of hits required to put a ship out of action can be related to the length of the ship. Hughes cites that vulnerability is proportional to the cube root of the displacement. Displacement is roughly proportional to the three dimensions of length, beam, and draft, the cube root reduces to one dimension. Brookings concluded that a hit by one large warhead could incapacitate a modern warship of up to 300feet in length and that a similiar warhead was required for every additional 100 ft.

Based on that theory, an aircraft carrier would require seven hits, three would kill an Aegis cruiser, one or two for a frigate and one for a small patrol craft.

Hughes does point out that this theory is based on models and most damage models have difficulty reflecting the progressive effects of fire and flooding.

I throw this out for your appraisal. I may research the Brookings Institute site for this report, if available online.

Understand that this is only one threat in the littoral zone, and not necessarily the worst threat.

Dennis:

And lets not forget the frigate that was damaged by a mine. I believe it was the Samuel Roberts.

[old_pop2000]

Hughes states that a study was done by the NSWC at the David Taylor Test Basin that showed that 10,000 ton plus warships could be built more invulnerable to cruise missiles. That was their conclusion and based on the theory previously posted, I would say that this may be the one reason for the 14,000 ton Zumwalt destroyers. Since they have to move into the Littoral Zone with the ESG, they would need that extra protection. The data from the tests are confidential, but it seems to make sense based on historical Operations analysis data that I have seen, for large warships.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

The Tanker War was a classic littoral scenario that could easily occur again.

Iran could certainly close the straits and is probably better equipped now, with land based sensors, improved cruise missiles and better mine technology. The hydrographic status of the Gulf has not changed, so the problems still exist.

If anyone is looking for a good example of a failed littoral zone operation-albeit a little dated-examine the WWI Gallipoli Campaign. Look at the British PDN's sunk by subs and especially mines. The dangers are still there, although much more sophisticated and deadly.

[old_pop2000]

Some more littoral zone operations that can be considered:

Norway
Santiago
Port Arthur
Inchon

During WWII in the Pacific, New Guinea, Okinawa, Guadalcanal. These are all examples of some of the problems associated with littoral zone operations. Not all are good examples, but they do provide a wealth of information about the dangers. A bigger list can be developed.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Dennis:

And lets not forget the frigate that was damaged by a mine. I believe it was the Samuel Roberts.

Hi Ed,

The littoral areas, especially a shallow area like the Persian gulf, are potential havens for mines. Simple, inexpensive, and can be layed by a myriad of non descript civillian craft that ply those waters. The USS Princeton struck a mine and was disabled in the First Gulf war. Any repeat of the "Tanker War" might see the use of more mines as our missile defense systems are so much better now.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hughes states that a study was done by the NSWC at the David Taylor Test Basin that showed that 10,000 ton plus warships could be built more invulnerable to cruise missiles. That was their conclusion and based on the theory previously posted, I would say that this may be the one reason for the 14,000 ton Zumwalt destroyers. Since they have to move into the Littoral Zone with the ESG, they would need that extra protection. The data from the tests are confidential, but it seems to make sense based on historical Operations analysis data that I have seen, for large warships.

Dennis:

But to quote from you and Chris' observations, the ship might survive, but it would be a mission kill which is good enough. Imagine a cruiser hit by a missile and still afloat but in need of a tug or a specialized salvage ship to bring it home. The stress on the logistical tail of the fleet would be very great.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Iran could certainly close the straits and is probably better equipped now, with land based sensors, improved cruise missiles and better mine technology. The hydrographic status of the Gulf has not changed, so the problems still exist.

If anyone is looking for a good example of a failed littoral zone operation-albeit a little dated-examine the WWI Gallipoli Campaign. Look at the British PDN's sunk by subs and especially mines. The dangers are still there, although much more sophisticated and deadly.

Dennis:

Gallipoli was the classic "Catch 22" campaign. The bombardment ships could not silence the fortress guns because of the mines. The mines could not be swept because of the guns. So they land the poor bloody "Diggers" and they suffer hell on earth.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Some more littoral zone operations that can be considered:

Norway
Santiago
Port Arthur
Inchon

During WWII in the Pacific, New Guinea, Okinawa, Guadalcanal. These are all examples of some of the problems associated with littoral zone operations. Not all are good examples, but they do provide a wealth of information about the dangers. A bigger list can be developed.

Dennis:

Isn't any amphibious landing by its very nature a littoral campaign? Unless you're talking some place as small as Tarawa.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

The littoral areas, especially a shallow area like the Persian gulf, are potential havens for mines. Simple, inexpensive, and can be layed by a myriad of non descript civillian craft that ply those waters. The USS Princeton struck a mine and was disabled in the First Gulf war. Any repeat of the "Tanker War" might see the use of more mines as our missile defense systems are so much better now.


Mike:

I agree. I went and did some quick and dirty research on Wikipedia about the mine incidents in the gulf and apparently they found several more in path that the Princeton was sailing. The cost of the mines? $1500 a piece. Repairs to the Princeton? $24 million dollars. For everything else there's Master Card.;)

[john964]

Hi Ed,

The littoral areas, especially a shallow area like the Persian gulf, are potential havens for mines. Simple, inexpensive, and can be layed by a myriad of non descript civillian craft that ply those waters. The USS Princeton struck a mine and was disabled in the First Gulf war. Any repeat of the "Tanker War" might see the use of more mines as our missile defense systems are so much better now.USS Tripoli also hit one on the same day. This is not widely known but my first ship also hit a mine on the same day but it failed to explode. We did not find out untill 2 days later when we pulled into port and had under water hull inspection and they discovered a bent prop blade. That same day a EOD team off of USS Camden found a mine with gouge in it, the mine was reported within a 1/4 mile of our course track.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Isn't any amphibious landing by its very nature a littoral campaign? Unless you're talking some place as small as Tarawa.

Yes, they certainly are littoral zone operations. But so are escorting tankers and merchants in enclosed or marginal seas. Examine some of the major landings in WWII. Look at the preparations that had to be effected to make the landing a success. We had UDT surveying the coast and landing zones, destroying mines and clearing paths, Naval gunfire silencing on shore batteries, with aircraft destroying air bases and aircraft gaining air supremacy.

Now, fifty years later, we have similar threats. Can't we equate the kamikaze with an exocet missile? Mines are more sophisticated, they can be distributed on the bottom and triggered by a passing ship to pop up. We have small attack craft like the WWII E-boat and PT boats except the modern boats are faster, and can launch AShM's. The opponent might have an air force that has air launched cruise missiles, which can be a threat. Maritime patrols planes and land based sensors. They can also have very stealthy diesel-electric submarines. They can sit on the bottom in the stealth mode, much longer than the typical WWII type VII U-boat. They have torpedoes and cruise missiles and they know the coastal water much better than the maritime power does.

All in all, it is a risky area and the defense has many of the advantages.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, they certainly are littoral zone operations. But so are escorting tankers and merchants in enclosed or marginal seas. Examine some of the major landings in WWII. Look at the preparations that had to be effected to make the landing a success. We had UDT surveying the coast and landing zones, destroying mines and clearing paths, Naval gunfire silencing on shore batteries, with aircraft destroying air bases and aircraft gaining air supremacy.

Now, fifty years later, we have similar threats. Can't we equate the kamikaze with an exocet missile? Mines are more sophisticated, they can be distributed on the bottom and triggered by a passing ship to pop up. We have small attack craft like the WWII E-boat and PT boats except the modern boats are faster, and can launch AShM's. The opponent might have an air force that has air launched cruise missiles, which can be a threat. Maritime patrols planes and land based sensors. They can also have very stealthy diesel-electric submarines. They can sit on the bottom in the stealth mode, much longer than the typical WWII type VII U-boat. They have torpedoes and cruise missiles and they know the coastal water much better than the maritime power does.

All in all, it is a risky area and the defense has many of the advantages.

Dennis:

I think that basically naval power and warfare have always been about littoral control. Because you are either protecting your shipping or neutral shipping, or else bringing the war to your enemy's shores to ultimately defeat them on their on ground. Or you are using your naval strength to prevent the other guy from doing the same to you. With the exception of carrier battles, think about how the bulk of naval combat occurred near land. Leyte Gulf, the greatest naval battle in history occurried in littoral waters, at least the surface actions. The various battles of the Spanish Armada occurred in the English Channel. While the admirals of the past may have dreamed of huge fleet engagements in the middle of the ocean, it just didn't occur. Until the carrier came to the forefront, naval battles were fought defending something and it was usually near a coast. Or at least that's my observations.

[old_pop2000]

I was just looking over a report on the modification of SHIPCAS for its hit projections. Most of the data is from WWII. 80 Naval operations and 800 strikes were the basis. As we are all aware, weapons have changed and this report is a summation by SME (subject matter experts) on their modifications.

Keep in mind, that these are increases in the numbers already in the system, not absolutes. If we talk about a 97% increase, we talking about an increase over the number currently used for casualty projection.

In the area of aircraft delivered bombs, the smart bomb is given a 90% mean shift in hit probabiliy with standard deviation of 10%, while a gravity bomb has not changed. The bomblet dispenser is given a 34.3% increase with a 5.1% SD. The rocket assisted bomb has no change.

Hit probability is degraded to 80% for non-stealth aircraft but is kept at the 90.7% level for stealth aircraft.

Laser guided guns are increased to 66.7% while gatlings are increased by 141.7% over the non-gatling, non-laser guided weapon.

In the area of mines, influence mines are given a mean shift in hit probability of 46.7% while encapsulated mines are 65.0%. Contact mines stay the same.

Torpedo hit probabilities really increase. Active home increased the hit probability to 91.7%, passive homing to 141.7%, wire guided to 97% and dumb did not change. The launch platform does make a difference with the submarine launched increasing to 88.3%, ship launched to 87.7% and air launched to 81.7%.

The fun really begins with missiles. Cruise missile mean shift in hit probability increases by 73.3 %, guided by 123.3%, anti-radiation by 85% and ballistic by 78.7 %.

Launch platform again, makes a difference. The sub launched guided missile being 110%.

So, what do we gather from all these numbers? The littoral zone is going to be a much more dangerous spot. But they are only projections. However, they do get entered into the mix when examining ship construction, weapons and tactics.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A317467&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

[old_pop2000]

Here is a short piece on a new Danish Frigate, the Absalon. It is termed by the Danish, a Command And Support Ship.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-danish-naval-projects-absalon.htm

[Mike D]

Here is a short piece on a new Danish Frigate, the Absalon. It is termed by the Danish, a Command And Support Ship.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-danish-naval-projects-absalon.htm


Wow! How did I miss this one. What a brilliant example of thinking "outside the box." I'm not sure of its applicability or practicality but what a great concept.

[old_pop2000]

Wow! How did I miss this one. What a brilliant example of thinking "outside the box." I'm not sure of its applicability or practicality but what a great concept.


I thought it was great idea. I am going to read more on it, time permitting.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is a short piece on a new Danish Frigate, the Absalon. It is termed by the Danish, a Command And Support Ship.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-danish-naval-projects-absalon.htm

Dennis:

Definitely a littoral warfare ship and a good mix of capabilities.