Mines: Will They Sink The U.S. Navy?
CSC 1992
SUBJECT AREA National Military Strategy
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: Mines: Will They Sink the U.S. Navy?
Author: LCDR C. A. Donahoe, U.S. Navy
Thesis: The inadequate force structure of twenty active mine
countermeasures and minehunting ships, the dearth of sufficient
funding and research and development, and the woeful lack of
education and recognition of qualified officers in the field of mine
warfare have formed a disastrous deficit. Until this situation is
corrected, the U.S. Navy cannot keep up with, much less defeat, such
an effective and inexpensive form of warfare.
Backround: The deficit of adequate mine countermeasures proved all
too costly in the Persian Gulf. The commercial tanker BRIDGETON and
U.S. Navy frigate USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (FFG-58) both struck mines
in 1987 and 1988, respectively. During Operation Desert Storm in
1990, two U.S. Navy ships, USS TRIPOLI (LPH-10) and USS PRINCETON
(CG-59), struck mines. Fortunately, injuries were few, but damage
and cost of repairs were enormous. In addition to these calamities,
amphibious operations were affected to the point where such
operations could not be conducted. All of these incidences are
indicative of the Navy's lack of interest in planning and education
in the field of mine warfare. If the Navy does not reconsider its
warfighting and budgetary priorities, it is doomed to repeat in the
future the same costly mistakes made in the Persian Gulf.
Recommendation: The Navy should strongly reconsider its warfighting
and budgetary priorities in terms of mine warfare. The field needs
to be approached and promoted as a legitimate warfighting arena. In
doing so, recognition will be afforded to the problems of adequate
force structure, proper education and reward of qualified officers,
and funding and research and development to insure an adequate mine
capability for the future.
MINES: WILL THEY SINK THE U.S. NAVY?
OUTLINE
THESIS: The currently inadequate force structure of active mine
countermeasures and minehunting ships, the dearth of sufficient
funding and research and development, and the woeful lack of
education and recognition of qualified officers in the field of mine
warfare have formed a disastrous deficit. Until this situation is
corrected, the U.S. Navy cannot keep up with, much less defeat, such
an effective and inexpensive form of warfare.
I. Introduction
II. Mines in the Persian Gulf - Before the War
A. Commerical tanker BRIDGETON
B. USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (FFG-58)
III. Mines in the Persian Gulf - During the War
A. Multinational minesweeping effort
B. Threats and delays caused by mines
C. Effect on naval gunfire support
D. Effect on amphibious operations
E. USS TRIPOLI (LPH-l0)
F. USS PRINCETON (CG-59)
IV. Why the Navy is where it' is in relation to enemy mines
A. Traditional lack of interest
B. Lack of professional education and coordination
C. Lack of recognition of qualified officers
D. Lack of funding and research and development
E. New construction problems
V. Conclusion
MINES: WILL THEY SINK THE U.S. NAVY?
Mine warfare and mine countermeasures in the United
States Navy are nearly as old as the Navy itself. The use
of mines began in the Revolutionary War, and has continued
through the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea, and
Vietnam. Mines have sunk ships, causing death and
destruction to crews and vessels. Countermeasures to such
a threat (or the lack thereof) have shaped strategy at the
highest levels. The inadequate force structure of twenty
active mine countermeasures and minehunting ships, the
dearth of sufficient funding and research and development,
and the woeful lack of education and recognition of
qualified officers in the field of mine warfare have formed
a disastrous deficit. Until this situation is corrected,
the U.S. Navy cannot keep up with, much less defeat, such
an effective and inexpensive form of warfare.
Nowhere was the use of enemy mines and the absence of
a sound strategy to combat them more vividly illustrated
than in the Persian Gulf. Even before the war broke out in
1990, mines took their toll. One example is that of the
commercial tanker BRIDGETON during the Navy's 1987
deployment to the Persian Gulf to escort reflagged Kuwaiti
oil tankers. The BRIDGETON struck a mine and nearly sank
in July 1987. As a result of that incident, the Navy had
no choice but to equip a Liberian-registered tanker with
sonar gear to act as a minesweep. Additionally, the Navy
was forced to request minesweeping assistance from Britain
and France, an embarrassment to say the least. This
assistance was not granted until mid-August, when Omani
minesweepers detected five mines in the Gulf of Oman. (1)
During that same month, six aging American minesweepers
started preparations in order to be towed to the Persian
Gulf. This preparation and transport required more than
three months.(2)
In 1988, the frigate USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (FFG-58)
was damaged by a moored contact mine on 14 April. It cost
$52.1 million to transport and repair her -- one-sixth of
what it cost to build her from the keel up. The ROBERTS
was out of service for 17 months. By contrast, the cost of
the mine that did the damage was less than $1,5000.00. (3)
These events turned out to be dire predictions of events to
come.
When the war did break out in the summer of 1990,
mines produced not only physical harm and operational
delay. Even the threat of mines was enough to effect
significant psychological damage. How did the U.S. Navy,
the most powerful naval force in the world, allow itself to
be put in this position? As one senior naval officer put
it, "Mine warfare has never been one of our big priorities,
because we've always assumed that other nations would take
on that mission."(4)
Other nations did in fact form the preponderance of
the minesweeping effort. Britain, Belgium, France, Italy,
the Netherlands, and eventually Germany all contributed
personnel and ships to help clear lanes of approach off the
coast of Kuwait. The United States' contribution amounted
to four minesweeps, three of which were of Korean War
vintage.(5) The ratio of effort to effect was hardly what
one would call "fair." The U.S. bore the brunt of the
damage and delay caused by mines.
Just how real the threat of mines could be was
verified through the capture of Iraqi prisoners of war.
Intelligence sources determined that a multi-national
minesweeping force would need at least two weeks to
complete its task.(6) These determinations proved to be
all too true, as discovered during the cease-fire
arrangements:
The complexity of the sea mining by Iraq
became clear when, under terms of the
cease-fire, Iraqi generals handed over
maps of coastal minefields to coalition
commanders. The charts, which stunned
allied officials, showed that Iraq had
built two mine belts, one inside the other
in concentric arcs extending 40 miles off
the Kuwaiti coast.(7) (emphasis added)
Some of the mines used by the Iraqis dated back to World
War I. However, they still proved to be highly effective.
In addition to the difficulty in clearing the mines,
just how effective they were was borne out in the
operational delays they caused. Perhaps the most forceful
example of such a delay was the effect mines had on the
planning and execution of an amphibious operation. A
Marine Corps Lessons Learned Report (MCLLS) states that "It
[mines] also possessed the potential for delaying, even
postponing, a USMC operation into Kuwait. This obviously
eroded the capability to forcibly project sustainable
combat power ashore."(8) (emphasis added) In fact, an
amphibious assault did not take place. One of the major
reasons for this was the presence and threat of mines.
Thus, a cheap, technologically ancient weapon was able to
thwart the advances of the most capable fighting force
known today.
Another way in which mines affected a possible
amphibious operation was the effect mines would have on the
vehicles used to deliver Marines and their equipment to the
beach. Marines would rely heavily on amphibious assault
vehicles (AAVs) to deliver them to the beach. These
vehicles would be launched from Navy amphibious ships
This delivery would require these ships to close within
6,000 yards of the beach. This manuever was impossible off
the coast of Kuwait. Additionally, AAVs could not see to
avoid mines, particularly at night.(9)
In the absence of or in addition to AAVs, Landing
Craft Utility (LCU) and Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM)
would be used in a beach landing. In utilizing these
craft, the launching ship would remain well offshore,
thereby defeating the immediate mine threat. The
disadvantage to these landing craft is the displacement of
their hulls made them vulnerable to all types of mines.(10)
The most recent landing craft innovation, the Landing
Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), is the most resistent to the mine
threat. The ships carrying these vessels can stand farther
out when launching them. The LCAC itself is invulnerable
to moored mines. It possesses a lower signature than
conventional craft against bottom laid influence
mines.(11) However, these craft are very expensive to
build. Currently, there are less than ten in the fleet.
All of the abovementioned landing craft are vulnerable
to mines in one way or another. The only invulnerable
craft for landing ashore are helicopters. While they were
invincible to the sea-based mine threat, having helicopters
as the only option greatly curtailed the
Commander-in-Chief's (CINC) ability to quickly build up
combat power ashore. For a major assault such as this,
all assets were required. Due to the threat of mines, the
CINC could not pick and choose ways to land. It is obvious
just how heavily mines weighed on the choices made on how
to or how not to employ an amphibious force. (12)
Even in the absence of an amphibious assault, enemy
mines made their presence known. A mine is just as
effective against ships of the line providing direct fire
support as it is against an amphibious vessel. Hence,
mines had a debilitating effect on those ships assigned to
provide naval gunfire support (NGFS), a critical element in
the conduct of a possible amphibious operation. Statements
made in an after-action report put it this way:
NAVCENT had great difficulty in
overcoming the sea-based mines and
obstacles employed by Iraqi forces off
the coast of Kuwait. This employment
delayed the availability of NGFS. . .
This limits the CINC's use of naval
forces along a 1ittoral like that of
the Persian Gulf.(13)
The result of these enemy efforts was NGFS was limited
to the support that could be provided by the battleships
USS MISSOURI (BB-63) and USS WISCONSIN (BB-64), utilizing
their 16-inch guns.(14) These were the only ships with
guns large enough to have a range long enough that did not
require firing close-in to shore. Although these guns were
the most powerful afloat, they could not do the job
single-handedly. The numerous destroyers in the area were
forced by enemy mines to remain well offshore.
In planning for this war, U.S. advisers did recognize
the wide array of dangers posed by mines. Such recognition
was noted in the Letter of Instruction for Amphibious
Planning:
Damage/loss of a single amphibious ship, or
the substantial risk of such damage/loss due
to mines, is unacceptable and will result in
the cancellation or appropriate delay of an
amphibious assault.(15)
It is therefore easy to see the withering effect mines had
on the usefulness (or uselessness) of modern available
weapons systems and plans. With the stunning success of
the ground war, the hazards of trying to complete an
amphibious landing through mine-infested waters has once
again been relegated to after-action reports and "fix it"
solutions with an all-too-low priority.
However, all the intensive planning that went into
every facet of this operation could not prevent damage
being done by mines. At 0430 (Saudi Arabian time) 18
February 1991, the USS TRIPOLI (LPH-10), an amphibious
helicopter carrier, was damaged by a moored contact mine in
the northern Persian Gulf. The blast, caused by a mere 300
pounds of explosives, tore a 16-by-20 foot hole on the
ship's forward starboard side, approximately ten feet below
the water line. Flooding occurred in three compartments on
three decks. The ship went dead in the water.
Fortunately, only four of the approximately 1,500 crew
members were injured.(16)
The TRIPOLI was repaired at the Arab Ship Repair Yard
in Bahrain. She eventually rejoined the fleet in the
Gulf. However, the price of such repair was not cheap.
The total cost of building the entire shin was $40 million
(in 1958 dollars). (17) The cost of temporary repairs was
$5 million.(18) Permanent repairs have no doubt added tens
of thousands of dollars to that cost. The cost of the mine
that wreaked this havoc was less than $5,000.00.
Perhaps the most far-reaching damage caused by this
mine explosion was that the entire helicopter mine
countermeasures operation had to be suspended. At the time
the TRIPOLI was struck, she had on board the only MH-53E
mine countermeasure helicopters in the area. She was also
the focal point for direction of U.S. and British surface
minesweeps and minehunters. Her removal from the scene
caused these crucial operations to cease. USS RALEIGH
(LPD-1) was required to move in to provide an interim
platform while TRIPOLI cross-decked her helicopters and
equipment to USS NEW ORLEANS (LPH-11). (19)
All of these operations took valuable time away from
the central mission. Combat power was again eroded by the
efficiency of enemy mines. Not only was the stricken ship
affected, but two other essential amphibious assault ships
were required to divert their attention as well. Personnel
and equipment were taken out from the battlefield, either
directly or indirectly, as a result of a single mine
contact. Viewed in these terms, this mine was more
successful in attaining its objective than its perpetrators
probably ever hoped for.
Unfortunately, TRIPOLI was not the only ship to be
stricken by mines. On the same day, less than three hours
after TRIPOLI's contact, the USS PRINCETON (CG-59) hit two
mines. Luck was with the crew - only three of the 364
members aboard were injured. But the damage was
substantial. The ship's superstructure was torn in two
pieces at the midships quarterdeck. The gun and
missile-launching systems were knocked out. The rudder,
propeller, and main shaft on the port side were damaged,
and her port engine had to be shut down.(20) She was out
of the war for good.
The PRINCETON was, towed to Bahrain by the USS BEAUFORT
(ATS-2). The two ships could proceed at a speed of only
five knots. They had to be escorted through the area by
the USS ADROIT (MSO-509) for 24 hours. Once again, the
enemy was far more forceful through the use of mines than
he probably anticipated. Three ships were removed from the
battlefield for the price of one.
Exact repair costs for the PRINCETON are not yet
available. However, it is obvious they will run into the
tens of millions of dollars. What is also obvious is that
this AEGIS-class cruiser, originally costing $948.3 million
to build(21), was knocked out of action at a cost to the
enemy of $3,000.00. World War II-class mines, such as
those that damaged the PRINCETON, are not an expensive
commodity.
Given these graphic examples of the damage that mines
can cause, both real and potential, the question arises of
how the Navy came to find itself in a such a problematic
situation. One reason is the Navy's traditional lack of
interest in this area. Mine warfare programs have never
been considered "sexy". Even though participation in mine
warfare is frequently dangerous and at times deadly, the
day-to-day routine is seen as dull and dreary.
Due in part to this unglamourous perception, there is
a dearth of professional education in the areas of mine
warfare and countermeasures. The little education that
does exist is by band large cursory in nature. Even that is
not integrated between Navy and Marine Corps officer
training programs. It is little wonder, then, that so few
officers are qualified in mine warfare.
This problem is further exacerbated by the merger of
the Navy Mine Warfare Command with the Charleston Naval
Base, resulting in the Naval Base commander being
responsible for the two commands.(22) Each job in and of
itself encompasses enough responsibility and importance to
warrant its own flag. This combining of positions
de-emphasizes the importance of mine warfare at a time when
its importance cannot be overstated, as witnessed through
the events in the Persian Gulf. One can only wonder how
much this de-emphasis will cost the Navy and America in
future conflicts.
This situation, which downplays the importance of the
program, diminishes the interest of otherwise qualified
officers to pursue this field as a career in the Navy. Why
should up-and-coming officers apply themselves to a field
that holds little promise for them in terms of promotion
and reward? Not seen as a career enhancing field, admirals
seldom emerge from the mine community. Without superior
officers well qualified in all aspects in mine warfare, the
Navy is doomed to repeat the same costly mistakes made in
the Gulf.
Another reason for the Navy's lack of preparedness is
its reluctance to sufficiently fund research and
development in mine warfare and countermeasures. The
Navy's traditional focus has been on the high-tech,
high-visibility weapons platforms, such as aircraft
carriers, submarines, and jet aircraft. With the shift of
global priorities causing a greatly diminished threat of
all-out war, the dollars expended on these programs may be
unwisely spent. Unless there is an immediate refocussing
of priorities and budgets, the Navy will fall even farther
behind in its mine warfare capabilities. What good are the
latest aircraft carriers and destroyers if they are
crippled or even destroyed by a World War I-class mine?
What is sown or NOT sown now will be reaped later. At the
moment, the future harvest looks bleak, particularly in
light of the austerity of the financial climate.
As a result of this lack of attention, the more
immediate near-term harvest is bleak indeed. The new
OSPREY class of coastal minehunter (MHC), currently under
construction, is already more than one year behind
schedule. This is due in large part to the fact that the
mine warfare shipbuilding programs are the most
problem-ridden the Navy, according to a staffer on the
House Armed Services Committee.(23) Delays, cost overruns,
and personal
acrimony are even more pronounced in this program than in
others. The Navy can ill afford such setbacks in a
situation that demands immediate and sustained results.
Another setback in the program may be the Navy's own
fault in that the complexity of the construction of such
vessels was underestimated. Integrating the complex
systems required for minehunting and minimizing the ship's
magnetic signature is difficult, to say the least. To
compensate for these problems, the Navy changed its design
specifications midway through construction.(24) As any
contracting officer will tell you, not only are such
changes next to impossible to employ, but they are
guaranteed to raise costs to unexpected levels. It comes
as no surprise, therefore, to find this crucial warfighting
arena in such disarray.
All of these events graphically illustrate the cost
effectiveness of sea mines. You do indeed get a bigger
bang for your buck. Not only will mines be used against
shipping, but they will be used against other vital areas
of interest as well. Iraq used mines with obvious effect
in damaging not only naval vessels but also oil wells. In
Nicaragua, a mere 39 sea mines planted in the ports of
Corinto, Puerto Sandino, and El Bluff during the
three-month period of January through March 1984 were
enough to affect that country's economy, particularly its
petroleum, oil, and lubricant supplies.(25) If you want to
strangle a nation quickly and on the cheap, sea mines are
the way to go.
In summary, then, the problems facing the Navy in the
area of mine warfare and countermeasures are:
1. Mines are easily attainable.
2. Mines can do a great deal of damage for very little cost.
3. The threat of mines causes significant psychological damage.
4. Mines have the potential to delay, even postpone, an amphibious
operation.
5. Mines 1imit the ability to build up combat power.
The reasons the Navy faces these problems are:
1. the Navy's traditional lack of interest;
2. the absence of professional education of and between Navy and
Marine Corps officers;
3. Lack of recognition of qualified officers;
4. Lack of sufficient funding for research and development;
5. Delays and cost overruns in current construction.
The Navy must reconsider their position and priority
concerning mine warfare. Even though the days of
superpower super warfare may be gone, lesser forms of
warfare, such as mines, are still a very real threat.
Countries that may not be able to afford nuclear powered
aircraft carriers and submarines can certainly afford a
handful of mines. That's all it takes to paralyze even the
most powerful military force on the planet.
It is for all these reasons that mines will continue
to be weapons of the future, even if they were manufactured
decades ago. Regional conflict -- such as Iraq and
Nicaragua -- is likely to be the way future wars are
fought. Mines are nearly always readily available to any
dictator, terrorist, and/or megalomaniac who wants them.
Cheap, easily maintained, and easily deployed, they have
proven themselves to be devastatingly efficient. Without
credible and continuing mine countermeasures, the United
States Navy may well be sunk before it has a fighting
chance.
ENDNOTES
1Edward J. Walsh, "Navy Struggles to Manage Mine Warfare
Shipbuilding," Armed Forces Journal International, March 1991, 49.
2James M. Martin, Captain, USNR (Ret.), "We Still Haven't
Learned," Proceedings, July 1991, 64.
3Ibid., 65.
4Eric Schmitt, "Gulf is Swept for Mining in the Aftermath of
War," New York Times, 19 March 1991, Sec. 1-A, 14.
5Ibid.
6Author unknown, Naval Action in Support of Desert Storm,
Marine Corps Lessons Learned System (MCLLS), Report #42431-81344.
(Studies and Analysis Branch, Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF)
Warfighting Center, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC),
Quantico, VA).
7Schmitt, "Gulf in the Aftermath of War," 14.
8Author unknown, Naval Force Mine Clearance Capability,
MCLLS Report #41243-71580. (Studies and Analysis Branch, MAGTF
Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA).
9Author unknown, Desert Storm Reconstruction Report Volume
V, MCLLS Classified Material Control Center Report #187398.
(Studies and Analysis Branch, MAGTF Warfighting Center, MCCDC,
Quantico, VA).
10Ibid.
11Ibid.
12Ibid.
13Naval Force Mine Clearance Capability, MCLLS Report
#41243-71580.
14Author unknown, Naval Gunfire Support for Operation Desert
Storm, MCLLS Report #42433-38107. (Studies and Analysis Branch,
MAGTF Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA).
15Author unknown, Letter of Instruction for Amphibious
Planning, MCLLS Report #10136-35847. (Studies and Analysis Branch,
MAGTF Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA).
16Martin, "We Still Haven't Learned," 64.
17Ibid.
18Ibid.
19Desert Storm Reconstruction Report Volume V, MCLLS
Classified Material Control Center Report #187398.
20Martin, "We Still Haven't Learned," 64.
21Ibid.
22Ibid., 68.
23Walsh, "Navy Struggles," 50.
24Ibid.
25James M. Martin, Captain, USNR (Ret.) and Bertrand P.
Ramsay, "Sea Mines in Nicaragua," Proceedings, September 1990, 111.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Desert Storm Reconstruction Report Volume V. Marine Corps
Lessons Learned System (MCLLS) Classified Material
Control Center Report #187398. Studies and Analysis
Branch, Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Warfighting
Center, Marine Corps Combat Development Center (MCCDC),
Quantico, VA.
2. Letter of Instruction for Amphibious Operations. MCLLS Report
#10136-35847. Studies and Analysis Branch, MAGTF
Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA.
3. Martin, James M., Captain, USNR (Ret.). "We Still Haven't
Learned Yet." Proceedings, July 1991, 64-68.
4. Martin, James M., Captain, USNR (Ret.) and Betrand P. Ramsay.
"Sea Mines in Nicaragua." Proceedings, September 1990,
111.
5. Naval Action in Support of Desert Storm. MCLLS Report
#42431-81344. Studies and Analysis Branch, MAGTF
Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA.
6. Naval Force Mine Clearance Capability. MCLLS Report
#41243-71580. Studies and Analysis Branch, MAGTF
Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA.
7. Naval Gunfire Support for Operation Desert Storm. MCLLS Report
#42433-38107. Studies and Analysis Branch, MAGTF
Warfighting Center, MCCDC, Quantico, VA.
8. Schmitt, Eric. "Gulf is Swept for Mining in the Aftermath of
War." New York Times, 19 March 1991, Section 1-A, 14.
9. Walsh, Edward J. "Navy Struggles to Manage Mine Warfare
Shipbuilding. Armed Forces Journal International, March
1991, 49.
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|