Category Archives: Weapons

“Navy To Explore Arming Other Ships With Missiles Amid Constellation Frigate Woes” –Coast Guard, Raise Your Hand

Posted on by
3

USS Savannah (LCS 28) conducts a live-fire demonstration in the Eastern Pacific Ocean utilizing a containerized launching system that fired an SM-6 missile from the ship at a designated target. 

The War Zone reports,

“Congress has demanded the U.S. Navy look into buying a new class of small warships loaded with missiles or adding bolt-on launchers to existing vessels…to help increase its combat capacity. Lawmakers ordered the study in response to major delays in work on the Navy’s future Constellation class frigates…”

The problem is simple. The Navy has been shrinking. Without a replacement in sight, they are rapidly decommissioning cruisers, each of which has 122 Vertical Launch Missile (VLS) tubes and eight Harpoon missile launch tubes. New DDGs, equipped with 96 VLS cells are coming online slowly and the new class of frigates, each of which has 32 VLS and 16 launchers for Naval Strike Missiles are long delayed and will also come out slowly.

Put simply, too few ships, with too few launch tubes.

It has been frequently proposed that missiles be mounted on Navy auxiliary ships. This is not likely to happen. These ships are not even armed for self-defense, beyond occasional crew served machinegun mounts. Most are limited to 20 knots, and they are busy scuttling supplies.

Few of the Navy’s MSC civilian manned auxiliary ships, are as well equipped for fitting into a Surface Action Group as the ten (soon to be eleven) National Security Cutters, with their higher speed, secure communication systems, data links, and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). The Offshore Patrol Cutters will be only slightly less appropriate for the role.

The Coast Guard alone can’t fix this problem, but the Coast Guard can certainly help. It may not be necessary to mount missile launchers all the time. The Navy could build kits that could be quickly mounted on cutters. There are at least two options already available:

The Navy has already demonstrated use of the Mk70 containerized missile launcher on the flight deck of a Littoral Combat Ship.

The cutters would probably need a cooperative engagement capability (CEC), but that is probably also true of other platforms that might be used.

Each cutter could carry three or four containerized systems providing 12 or 16 launch tubes. Mk41 VLS mounted forward of the bridge, either conventionally or as Adaptable Deck Launchers could add eight more. Upon mobilization, there is potential for Navy or Marine Reservist to augment the cutter crews and operate the missile systems.

USS Savannah (LCS 28) Independence-variant littoral combat ship leaving San Diego with a U.S. Army MK 70 missile launcher on its deck – September 18, 2023. Photo Credit: WarshipCam.

Vertical Launch AAW Missiles on a New Russian Coast Guard Cutter?

Posted on by
1

The Army Recognition Group’s Global Defense News organization reports,

According to Tehnoomsk on June 28, 2024, Russia is currently developing a new patrol ship using the Karakurt class as a platform. Shipbuilders from the Leningrad shipyard “Pella” and engineers from the Central Marine Design Bureau “Almaz” are working on this project for the Coast Guard of the Border Service of the FSB of Russia. This project leverages the established design of the Project 22800 Karakurt class missile corvette. The new vessel will be equipped with the Resurs 3K96-3E multi-channel anti-aircraft missile system and various other weapon systems.

We should note that this does not report there has been a contract awarded for construction, but if these are built and armed as described, it would mark a return to Cold War practice we have not seen for more than three decades and despite their small size, these cutters could be the most powerfully armed coast guard vessels in the world.

Russian Rubin class (Project 22460) patrol vessel Rasul Gamzatov, typical of recent Russian Coast Guard construction of a similar size ship.  It is armed with a single 30mm six-barrel Gatling gun. (Picture source: Военный Осведомитель)

During the Cold War the Soviet coast guard counterpart frequently operated variants of Soviet Navy vessel classes. The Russian Coast Guard still has a pair of Krivak III frigates and a Pauk class corvette that came out of this era, but since that time Russian Coast Guard patrol cutters have had no Navy counterpart. Their armament has not been much different from that of typical Offshore Patrol Vessels. I have seen no indication of either Anti-Ship missiles or Anti-Aircraft missiles (other than man portable air defense missiles) on Russian Coast Guard vessels.

Russian Project 22800 Karakurt class corvette with 76.2 mm 59-caliber AK-176MA gun and Pantsir-M gun and missile CIWS. Vertical launch system for surface to surface missiles visible amidships. Photo Source: Reddit (Warship Porn)

The ships that this proposal is based on are the Project 22800 Karakurt class missile corvette, two of which appear to have been lost in the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Members of the class have been able to reinforce the Russian Black Sea Fleet even after Turkey closed the Dardanelles by using the Russian river and canal system.

The Reported Coast Guard version of the Project 22800 class would apparently replace the cruise missile vertical launch system with vertical launch systems for the 9M96E and 9M100 AAW missile systems.

The 9M96E missile is smaller than any of the Standard Missiles. In sizes it is closer to the ESSM, longer but with a smaller diameter.

The smaller IR homing 9M100 missile, which can be quad-packed into the launcher, replacing the larger missile on a 4 to 1 basis, is about the size of an AIM-9 Sidewinder, another IR homing missile, in length and diameter, but reportedly considerably heavier.

Why the Change?

Why would the Russian Coast Guard be suddenly adding AAW missiles to their cutters? It probably has something to do with the emergence of unmanned systems as a threat. If the intent was simply self-defense, I would think they would use the Pantsir-M gun and missile CIWS as mounted on all but the first two Navy Karakurt class. Instead, they will have two 30mm gatling guns. The AAW system they are getting is the same one used on the currently in production Project 20381/20385 subclasses of Steregushchiy-class corvettes where it replaced the Kashtan CIWS. 

I am guessing these cutters might be used for force protection or as mobile AAW missile batteries. There is no indication of an ASW capability on either Navy or Coast Guard versions of the Project 22800.

The Pantsir-M was presented at Army 2017

“Iran’s ‘Zulfikar’ Submersible Torpedo Boat” –Covert Shore

Posted on by
1

Covert Shores reports on Iran’s version of an unusual asymmetric threat that originated in North Korea. Used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, PATFORSWA may encounter these.

“I originally interpreted these to be Special Operations assets intended as a form of swimmer delivery vehicle. This would be consistent with related types in North Korean and Vietnamese service. In that role the torpedoes would be for self-defense. However, I now view them more as submersible torpedo boats intended to sink ships with torpedoes.”

The torpedoes are 12.75 inch (324mm) light weight anti-surface homing torpedoes. (243mm noted in the diagram above is apparently a typo.) We can’t take too much comfort in the fact that these are not heavy weight torpedoes. Heavy weight torpedoes frequently break ships in half, but because water is not compressible, the 100 pound warhead of a typical light weight torpedo still has about one half the impact of the 600 pound warhead of a typical heavy weight torpedo. These smaller torpedoes can seriously hurt even a large ship, possibly including immobilizing it, and making it an easier target for follow on attacks. Used against a vessel the size of PATFORSWA’s Fast Response Cutters, they would be fatal. Assuming these are wake homers, it might be wise to learn the maneuvers used to defeat wake homing torpedoes.

It is unlikely these little submersibles can go very deep or that they have much mobility while submerged. Even so, much of the Persian Gulf is shallow, so there are certainly places where they could rest on the bottom, lying in wait.

Turkish Twin 35mm CIWS on South Korean Built Philippine Corvette (corrected text)

Posted on by
3

Gökdeniz twin 35mm CIWS (Aselsan image)

Naval News reports,

“On June 25, 2024, Türkiye’s leading defense company Aselsan announced that the Philippine Navy’s newly launched corvette, BRP Miguel Malvar, is equipped with the Gökdeniz close-in weapon system (CIWS).”

This is the first of a class of two 3,200 ton light frigates or corvettes. It is notably larger than the two previous 2,600 ton Jose Rizal class frigates also built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in S. Korea for the Philippine Navy which have yet to receive a CIWS they are expected to mount. I presume they will receive this system as well. Hyundai has also been contracted to build six 94.4 meter Offshore Patrol Vessels. They are well armed for OPVs including a 76mm gun, short range AAW missiles, and two 30mm guns presumably in this mount.

 

USCG perspective: All three ship classes are considerably smaller than either the NSCs or the OPCs. The 94.4 meter OPV is about a third larger than the Bear Class 270s.

This will be the first CIWS in the Philippine Navy, but it also notable because of its potential effectiveness in other roles. It should be more effective than Phalanx against threats other than cruise missiles, it might even be better against them. This CIWS is equipped with the same 35mm guns that equip the German made Gepard Flakpanzer that has proven so effective against kamikaze drones in Ukraine. An air burst round is available for the gun as well as Armor Piercing/High Explosive/Incendiary and High Explosive Incendiary rounds. 

At effective ranges, 4000 yards or less, these would also be devastating against above water systems on any surface vessel.

At some point, I believe the Philippine Coast Guard will choose to arm their cutters. The largest of these could easily accommodate a 76mm but this twin 35mm might be a good alternative. It or smaller mounts using single 35mms would probably fit on many of their smaller cutters, simplifying ammunition logistics. The Bushmaster III chain gun can use the same ammunition.

“Chinese Submarine’s Torpedo Destroys Amphibious Landing Ship During Exercise” –The War Zone / More on Why the CG Needs Torpedoes

Posted on by
2

The War Zone has an article including the video above that appears to be a wake homing torpedo exploding under the stern of a small (800 tons, 191′) LST (Landing Ship Tank).

It also includes a discussion of wake homing torpedoes and their capabilities. This is assumed to be a typical heavy weight (21″/533mm) torpedo. Russia and China also have much larger 25.6″/650mm torpedoes. Of course, they have or have had smaller (450, 400, 355, and 330mm) torpedoes too.

Wake homing torpedoes are problematic for the defense because decoys and acoustic countermeasures like Nixie don’t work against wake homing torpedoes. The Navy has been working on developing a hard kill countermeasure.

How is this related to the Coast Guard?

As I have contended the Coast Guard’s missions, particularly counter terrorism, require the ability to forcibly stop any ship regardless of size. For medium to large ships, getting a “mobility kill” with a gun is very difficult since most of the propulsion machinery is below the waterline and large marine diesels are extremely tough.

A torpedo that destroys the propellers and/or rudder may be the answer. It could be either wake or acoustic homing, as long as it blows up under the stern, like the one in the video above.

It is not like the Coast Guard is going to use a lot of torpedoes. A marine terrorist attack is an unlikely event, but the consequences of a successful attack could be catastrophic, perhaps leading to a war as happened after 9/11.

By my calculations, we have 31 individual ports or port complexes that might be targeted. The Webber class WPCs appear the most appropriate asset to arm for the purpose of protecting those ports, since they, are most likely to be underway or at least ready to move, and near the ports that might be threatened. We expect to build a total of at least 67. Assuming two torpedoes per WPC, that would be 134 torpedoes and probably less, since some cutters will not be in a position to use them, and some will be in maintenance status.

This is important.

The Navy does not have to buy torpedoes for the Coast Guard, they just need to loan the Coast Guard torpedoes from war reserve stock, and if a war starts the Navy can have their torpedoes back.

We don’t need the most expensive torpedoes. 

The standard US Navy heavy weight torpedo, the Mk 48, is very large, heavy, and extremely expensive, and the Navy can’t make enough of them, but we don’t necessarily need a large warhead or great range, nor do we need a torpedo that can operate at great depth against submarines.

There are three possibilities for torpedoes that the Coast Guard might use, existing light weight torpedoes, new very light weight torpedoes, or new heavy weight torpedoes.

New Heavy Weight Torpedo: Reportedly the Navy is fast tracking a new heavy weight torpedo with a target price of $500,000, much less than the cost of the Mk48 ($4.2M) and even less than the cost of the Mk54 light weight torpedo ($839,320 in 2014). They don’t say so, but this may be explicitly a wake homing anti-surface vessel torpedo. It might also be smaller than the Mk48. If the torpedo is made significantly shorter than the Mk 48, it might permit Submarines to carry more torpedoes. More war shots would be an advantage.

Mk 46 Light Weight Torpedo

Light Weight Torpedo: For at least three decades as many as 36 US Coast Guard WHECs (aka WPGs) were equipped with light weight torpedoes. Throughout their lives, the 378s had two sets of triple light weight torpedo tubes and a torpedo magazine in the superstructure for additional torpedoes, so the Coast Guard has had these in the past.  At least some Light Weight ASW torpedoes, beginning with the Mk46 Mod5 (1984), still a NATO standard, are reported to have an anti-surface capability. Reportedly 26,000 Mk46 torpedoes, including more than 6000 Mod 5s have been produced. The Navy has also produced more capable Mk50 and Mk54 light weight torpedoes, but for the counter terrorism mission the Coast Guard does not need their additional ASW capabilities.

Very Light Weight Torpedo

Very Light Weight Torpedo: 

The Navy has contracted Raytheon for a new class of torpedo, 6.75″ in diameter (171.45mm), about 85″ in length, and weighing about 220 pounds (100 kilos). More here.

While this Common Very Light Weight Torpedo (CVLWT), also known as Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW), is reportedly effective in both defense (as an anti-torpedo torpedo) and offense against both surface and subsurface targets, by submarines, surface vessels, and aircraft, the initial purchase is only for US submarines.

We may see additional applications for this weapon. There may be good arguments for increasing the production to include defense for surface vessels and offensive use by ASW helicopters and Unmanned surface and subsurface systems.

While the warhead is only half the size of that for the Mk46 and about one twelfth that of the Mk48, it is probably enough to disable even large ships and its small size means more can be carried in the same space.

A Navy briefing slide showing the internal components and describing the various features of the Penn State University’s Applied Research Lab (PSU/ARL) Common Very Light Weight Torpedo (CVLWT) design

It seems the Navy, after a long period of apparently coasting, is showing renewed interest in developing torpedoes and torpedo countermeasures. In addition to the Common Very Light Weight Torpedo, and the new Heavy Weight Torpedo, the Navy is also developing an improved Light Weight ASW torpedo, the Mk54 Mod2.

New weapons may provide an opportunity to repurpose older weapons.

Sweden Selecting New Family of Weapons for Small Craft

Posted on by
1

Swedish Combat Boat 90 (CB 90) in the port of Gothenburg. Photo by Arco Ardon

Naval News reports,

The Swedish modernization of their coastal troops is continuing, with the formal call for tenders for a new surface-to-surface anti-ship missile. The new weapon will receive the formal designation RBS 18, and unlike the current man-portable Hellfire-missile system used in the short-range anti-ship role by the Swedish marines will be mounted aboard the CB 90 combat boat.

Defense News reports,

“Sweden plans to acquire anti-aircraft guns for its fast-assault boats to counter drones and helicopters…”

Defense Industry Europe reports,

“FMV (Försvarets materielverk), the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, announced the signing of a contract for the delivery of mortar-armed boats as part of the Amfbat 2030 programme.”

The Mortar equipped assault craft appears to be a resurrection of the previously cancelled Combat Boat 2010 program. The associated Patria 120mmAdvanced Mortar System could also be used in a direct fire mode.

The Amphibious Battalion operates between sea and land with the overall task of preventing enemy amphibious assaults. With the new maritime artillery, the fire controller on, for example, a Combat Boat 90 HSM can provide target data to the firing platform, enabling the firing of grenades at a high rate of fire while advancing, for indirect engagement of various types of ground targets. Image: FMV.

What we are seeing is a comprehensive overhaul of Sweden’s approach to littoral combat for their Amphibious Battalions (Amfibiebataljonen) of the Swedish Armed Forces from Stockholm and Gothenburg, assigned with defending the coastline, including numerous islands, against potential amphibious assaults.

While the mortars will be mounted on new construction boats, the new air defense and anti-ship missile systems will be mounted on existing CB90 (combat boat) assault craft.

The CB90 is a very popular product, used by at least nine different nations including the US, UK, and Ukraine. The Russian Navy even has what appears to be unlicensed copies of the craft. Mexico’s eight ship Oaxaca class Offshore Patrol Vessels carry a CB-90 HMN Patrol Interceptor in their well deck.

The CB90 displaces 23 tons and is 52 feet long with a 12.5 foot beam. 

If a weapon system fits on a CB90 it will certainly fit on any of the US Coast Guard’s patrol boats and larger cutters. 

In all probability the AAW weapon system will include a 30mm chain gun. Short range AAW missiles are possible. Perhaps the APKWS.

The anti-ship missile may be something entirely new. The closest to the description I know of, other than the MARTE MK2/N mentioned in the article, is the Spike NLOS.

“What The Navy’s Ship-Launched Missiles Actually Cost” –The War Zone

Posted on by
5

The War Zone has published a video (above) with transcript here. In addition to price, they provide a brief overview of capabilities of each system. I’ll cut to the chase and provide a “Reader’s Digest” version.

Sounds like a lot of money, but we don’t fire missiles every day. It is expensive just to keep a ship underway. As I discussed in my previous post, the cost of an operating day for a National Security Cutter is probably more than $250,000/day and I have seen much higher figures.

Just consider what courts award as compensation for wrongful death. You may not be able to put a cost on human life, but they do, and it looks like it’s well over $1M. Defending a ship and its crew is worth doing.

Back in 2020 I did a post based on a similar and perhaps more comprehensive look at the cost of missiles. That post also linked three previous posts that looked at how much it might cost to up-arm Coast Guard vessels here, here, and here.

If you compare the cost figures in the two reports, you might be surprised to find that the costs have not changed much in almost four years and in some cases have actually gone down.

There is another list of costs here, based on 2021 purchases.

It is worth noting that, upgrading cutters, should there be a decision to do so, looks like a real bargain compared to adding another ship to the Navy, arming, manning, and maintaining it. Of course, the Coast Guard would have to pay for the additional personnel to maintain and operate additional equipment, but the Navy does pay for the Coast Guard’s weapon systems.

“In focus: the Bofors 57mm Mk 3 gun” (That Equips the NSCs and OPCs) –Navy Lookout / I Think MAD-FIRES Is Dead

Posted on by
10

Coast Guard Cutter Stratton fires its MK 110 during a gunnery exercise in the Bering Sea April 28, 2021. U.S. Coast Guard photo courtesy Ensign Molly Dolan.

The Royal Navy has chosen the BAE Bofors 57mm Mk3 to arm a new class, the Mk31 general purpose Frigates. This is the same gun that arms National Security Cutters (NSCs) and Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) and which will arm the Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs) and the new Constellation class guided missile frigates.

UK based Navy Lookout has published an independent evaluation of the weapon and its ammunition. This is almost two years old, but it is well done. It makes some good points discussing the both the advantages and limitations of the weapon. I would point out that they note, “The days of medium calibre guns being used against other ships are long gone…” It is adequate for signaling by firing across the bow and for engaging small craft, but maybe we might want to think about adding a weapon suitable for use against ships since that should be part of even our peacetime skill set.

Unfortunately, their hopes for the “Multi- Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System” (MAD-FIRES) guided round will not be realized. It seems the MAD-FIRES round was a non-starter. I checked both the Raytheon/RTX and the DARPA websites and neither had any mention of MAD-FIRES. I thought perhaps the MAD-FIRES program had failed when Northop Grumman was awarded a contract to develop a maneuvering 57mm round, but even in that case, it was intended for use against “fast moving surface threats, drones and swarming threats” not cruise missiles as was the case for MAD-FIRES.

APKWS Affordable Counter UAS System

Posted on by
1

The War Zone (TWZ) reports on a new NAVAIR contract for Counter UAS systems.

See the four fixed radar antenna on top of the cab? Look familiar?

From the Company web site: RPS-42 is an S-Band tactical hemispheric air surveillance radar system. It is a member of the non-rotating, solid-state, digital radar family Multi-mission Hemisphere Radar (MHR), developed by RADA Electronic Industries Ltd.
The RPS-42 is a pulse Doppler, software-defined radar platform, that can detect, classify and track all types of aerial vehicles – including fighters, helicopters, UAVs, transport aircraft, etc. at tactical ranges. A single radar platform provides 90º azimuth coverage. Hemispheric coverage is achieved when four radars are employed as a system. Mobile or stationary, the system can be integrated with any C⁴I system and other radars and sensors. The software is able for On-the-Move (OTM) Operation. The radar can operate either as a stand-alone or as part of a large-scale surveillance system.
The Antenna is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) based on Galliumnitrid (GaN) Amplifiers. Its diameter is 50.4 cm, the max width is 16.5 cm.
The achievable range for detection of the smallest drones (known as Nano UAV) is 3.5 km.

Looks like they or close cousins are on PATFORSWA cutters. (Click on the photo below to enlarge.) They are on the mast.

USCGC Charles Moulthrope (WPC-1141) prior to departure for PATFORSWA.

The TWZ post has a bit of cost comparison as well.

The laser-guided rockets are modular and low-cost, with the guidance section designed to slot in between existing standardized 70mm warheads and rocket motors. The unit cost of the APKWS II guidance section is around $25,000, with the warhead and rocket motor together typically only costing a few thousand dollars more depending on their exact types, according to Navy budget documents. For comparison, the cost of a single Coyote Block 2 interceptor, another counter-drone weapon currently deployed to help protect U.S. Forces in the Middle East, is reportedly roughly around $100,000. Current generation Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, which include new features to improve their effectiveness against drones, have a unit cost of around $400,000.

For comparison, an Alamo round of 57mm costs about $29,500.

The MSI news release is here. More on MSI’s Vehicle Integration Kit (VIK).

“Navy Wants A Cheap Heavy Torpedo That Can Be Stockpiled Fast” –The War Zone

Posted on by
6

WWII surface torpedo launch

The War Zone reports,

Rapid Acquisition Procurable Torpedo, or RAPTOR…early in the testing stages…could provide the service with quick-delivery and inexpensive submarine munitions that may be transferable to other platforms as well. (Emphasis applied–Chuck) Capt. Chris Polk, the Navy’s program manager for undersea weapons, detailed the effort …The goal…was to have a torpedo that costs $500,000 or less, with all components acquired and produced within a year. For comparison, the current unit cost of a Mk 48 Mod 7 torpedo is approximately $4.2 million…”

Why would the Coast Guard care?:

For quite a while, I have contended that Coast Guard cutters do not have a capability implicit in their mission set, the ability to forcibly stop vessels regardless of size. Simply put, we need a ship stopper.

With the increase in vessel size, it has become extremely unlikely we would be able to stop even a medium sized vessel, manned by a determined crew, in anything like a timely manner, using the guns being installed on cutters.

To stop a ship, the logical targets are rudder, propeller, or engines. All three are mostly or completely below the waterline, making a torpedo the logical weapon of choice. The last time I looked, we had 31 critical ports that needed protecting. Distributing enough of the US Navy’s only, very expensive, Mk48 heavy weight torpedoes to protect 31 ports was a non-starter, so I have suggested that we use lightweight torpedoes (the Navy has a lot more of them) with the idea that cutters would generally just serve as another place to store them since, if we are lucky, they would never be used. Even if an attack occurred, most would go unused. The ones issued to the Coast Guard could come out of the reserve stock until the Navy decides they need them in wartime.

The US Navy has not introduced a totally new heavy weight torpedo in more than 50 years. Some foreign surface combatants still carry heavy weight torpedoes, but the US Navy has not built surface combatants with heavy weight torpedo tubes since the 1960s. (Brooke and Garcia class Destroyer Escorts–later frigates–were the last classes.)

If this new torpedo does cost less than $500,000, it would be less than the reported cost of the Mk54 light weight torpedo ($839,320 in 2014).

It seems, the Navy may have decided they need a way to sink ships, maybe a lot of ships, including large ships, that may not be top of the line combatants, without having to empty their magazines of expensive, exotic munitions.

If that is the case, hopefully they will make enough to allow placing some on cutters, including small cutters like the FRCs or the WPB replacement. FRCs are almost seven times larger than the PTs boats of WWII and the PTs carried four heavy weight torpedoes. I would be happy to see cutters carrying two.

former USNS Kilauea breaks in half after being hit by the torpedo.