29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed.H
Ed.H
April 2, 2014 7:11 pm

What a creepy creepy man..
I can only imagine that this would have any use in a GIUK set up.

accattd
accattd
April 2, 2014 7:55 pm

The sea area overed by China’s anti-access systems is quite substantial. This could be a way to keep it under surveillansce, and only go in ” for a kill”?

Kent Horton
April 2, 2014 8:24 pm

During the Cold War, the US had the Mark 60 CAPTOR mine which was a Mk 46 torpedo that would sit on the bottom of the ocean (up to 3,000 feet deep) and wait for an enemy submarine to enter its “area of engagement.” With modern computer technology, sensors, and deep water experience, something like this could make every vessel in the PLA Navy one computer command away from playing Titanic. I wonder how well their brand-spanking new/old aircraft carrier would float with three or four big whacking holes in the bottom?

RedTrousers
RedTrousers
April 2, 2014 8:32 pm

I’m slightly disappointed. CAPTOR mines exist. I’d rather hoped that we have been doing this since the 60s.

SOSUS, etc. It only takes a bit of imagination to conjure up a vision of something dastardly on a sunk pallet with an airbag to make it float on command, then fire off hell and brimstone (not Brimstone) at passing OPFOR.

Kent Horton
April 2, 2014 9:44 pm

@accattd – We keep hearing a lot about the Chinese claims to be able to take out major surface combatants (aircraft carriers) with a ballistic missile but have they ever done a live test? Our non-nuclear naval systems are combat-tested.

Kent Horton
April 2, 2014 9:54 pm

I just had a wild thought. Imagine a deep-sea base with four or more Convair F2Y Sea Dart jet fighters in UFP containers. While the Chinese are looking for our aircraft carriers, the pilots man their planes and pop out of the base fully-armed and ready to launch when the containers reach the surface! Sounds like something from Blackhawk Comics in the ’50’s or ’60’s!

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
April 2, 2014 10:21 pm

What I’m seeing is large computerised caltrops with a central core containing a torpedo that automatically adjusts to line up with the upward facing “leg”…when required drop them off the back of an unobtrusive merchant vessel – wait for them to hit the bottom, where they will always land with one “leg” facing more or less upwards – tune them in to a discreet control room with all relevant intel (include UAV’s to check targets)…and then wait for the bad guys to pass more or less overhead and spoil their day.

Very handy for discreetly defending remote offshore islands with unfriendly neighbours surrounded by carefully chartered waters which are carefully monitored…

“So Presidente KIrchner, which ships are missing, and where exactly were they when you lost contact with them…?”

GNB

dave haine
dave haine
April 3, 2014 9:28 am

Thunderbirds are Go!…….

Handy to defend harbours and other maritime installations- I can feel a new Royal marine unit coming on- Boom Patrol,

….ooh hang on, wasn’t that the cockleshell heroes?

Observer
Observer
April 3, 2014 9:43 am

Interesting. So how do you recover them for maintenance?

@Kent

That’s true, but I believe the value of the Chinese DF-21 is not that it WILL hit your carrier but that it MIGHT hit your carrier. A carrier is too valuable to risk just to find that the Chinese were not overstating the effectiveness, so in essence, it does its job by posing a threat that the USN is forced to respect and stay clear of, even if it may be a lemon.

Chris
Chris
April 3, 2014 9:53 am

Also, water not being the best RF environment, what form of comms net is needed? As in “switch on/off” commands to the weapon and “I’m healthy/sick” reports back to the controller? If radio isn’t right then I guess the answers are sonic comms (shades of UWT) or cable/fibre direct connection – but to what?…

Or are they abandoned to the deep with nothing but their own view of the world above, to pick out all by themselves which vessels they fancy consigning to the deep? Just like the torpedo based mines of past decades, I’d hope these are deployed with a definite and limited active life (one or two years max?)

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
April 3, 2014 9:59 am

@Observer – I’m assuming you make them as inexpensive as possible, keep them handy, and drop them in the water when needed…quite a good wartime use for something like TD’s SIMMS concept perhaps? But perhaps you could include some kind of liquid gas canister in the design to float them back up when required? Or choose comparatively shallow sea-areas so that you can visit them by submersible?

GNB

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
April 3, 2014 10:17 am

If I got the intended area of Ops anywhere near right, then 6 km (mentioned in the article) is relatively shallow.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
April 3, 2014 4:48 pm

So the only outstanding question is if we sink the Argentine Navy within swimming distance to shore or not…

A rather vengeful Gloomy.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
April 3, 2014 4:50 pm

Scandinavian countries have used Command Controlled Mine Fields for years.

Randomer
Randomer
April 3, 2014 6:10 pm

Did anyone else immediately think of this:

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
April 3, 2014 7:54 pm

APATS, yes, and at least Norway and Finland have gone as far as (tactical) nuke proofing the command centres. The one I regularly pass does not mind 20kt.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
April 3, 2014 7:54 pm

GNB,

Would that be within water wing distance? But that is probably too confrontational.

There used to be a large number of concrete pads on Britain’s cliff tops, all geared up for various Cold War AD systems to deploy there. Hundreds and hundreds of the things, so that any deploying system had a choice of about 5 to go to. Perhaps we should have the same in the FI (if there are not already, there were not in the late 90s when I was part of an audit of defences).

The only clever point is that it gives OPFOR a troop intensive headache to clear them all, as they could all host a potential threat to air or maritime platforms, and you can’t let air or maritime platforms near them to check. It gives make work employment for a local concrete contractor, and they cost bugger all to maintain.

Kent
Kent
April 3, 2014 9:33 pm

@RT – You could salvage radar emitters from all sorts of obsolete systems, especially search and fire control, scatter them around the coast and on high ground and power them up and maybe make them sweep erratically to REALLY put an OPFOR in a sweat to clear them all. What are they going to do, shoot ARMs at all of them?

@Observer – Recover them? You forget that we were the people who planned toss-bombing nuke strikes with Douglas AD-4B Skyraiders. They should have the range to withdraw to a friendly country or near a friendly ship if they survive. But just think of the poor radar operator telling his supervisor that there are supersonic hostiles inbound that will arrive in 10 minutes or less when the screen was clear a minute before. Wouldn’t want to be that guy.

Kent
Kent
April 3, 2014 9:40 pm

@Observer – Okay, I missed the DF-21 question. If our guided missile destroyers/cruisers can shoot down a satellite in orbit, I think they can take out a DF-21.

Observer
Observer
April 3, 2014 10:58 pm

Kent, maybe. Do you want to be the first admiral to lose his carrier in case they can’t? Or if they simply missed? That’s the problem. The uncertainty and the value of the asset makes you reluctant to test the system when you can simply stand off a bit and use air to air refueling to extend the range. No point taking risks you don’t have to.

I see them as a minor problem really. Stand off is one way to counter them and an easy one to implement, at least until your first sortie blows them up.

Underwater Pilot 1: “10,000 bottles of beer on the wall, 10,000 bottles of beer, take one down, pass it around….”
Underwater Pilot 2: ” Quit it already, you started from 1,000,000 two weeks ago!!”
Underwater Pilot 1: “But I’m bored!”

:P

Randomer, I’m waiting for the spoof where they go: “Wait! That’s not the personnel tube, that’s the garbage… too late…”

Kent
Kent
April 3, 2014 11:04 pm

@Observer – I don’t think they’d let me be an admiral. The Coast Guard barely lets me drive my little boat around. :D

Observer
Observer
April 4, 2014 12:15 am

Maybe you should not have screamed “Ramming speed!!” so loudly to your hortator while they were around. :)

Ben Hur lives! lol

Kent
Kent
April 4, 2014 2:09 am

@Observer – I think it was my longship crew shaking their swords and axes over their heads on the rocky shore shouting, “Hail, Ragnar!”

Observer
Observer
April 4, 2014 2:17 am

@Kent

That’s simply unfair. Political bias should not affect how law enforcement should do their job, regardless of how they hate the politician.

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
April 4, 2014 2:04 pm

Shooting down a satellite in orbit and an incoming DF-21 would presumably be rather different propositions. I’d assume they knew the satellite was coming and pretty much its exact trajectory way in advance. The DF-21 would be a pop up target on a much lower trajectory and there might be more than one of them. I’m not sure if it could also deploy decoy systems as ICBMS do given the low trajectory though.

S O
S O
April 4, 2014 2:26 pm

“the Chinese claims to be able to take out major surface combatants (aircraft carriers) with a ballistic missile but have they ever done a live test? Our non-nuclear naval systems are combat-tested.”

Maybe
http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/strategic-weapons-chinese-carrier-killer-works

Kent
Kent
April 4, 2014 4:23 pm

@SO – Interesting, but very speculative. Noticed that the 200 meter white rectangle couldn’t maneuver at 30+ knots and didn’t seem to have any countermeasures or other defensive systems on board or on escorts (as noted in the article). Of course, if they shoot a nuke at a carrier all bets are off.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
April 4, 2014 4:34 pm

What the DF 21 test actually proves is the accuracy of a medium range missile vs a known static position. We could replicate those results with Trident in terms of accuracy.

Swimming Trunks
Swimming Trunks
April 4, 2014 5:01 pm

Highlights vulnerability of expeditionary airfields…

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1028.html