US Navy's New Minehunter Can't Stop Mines

It's bad enough that the US Navy's newest ship has had wicked problems with corrosion, missed out on the latest naval wartime missions and is generally something of a Frankenstein's monster. Now the Pentagon's top weapons tester has found problems with its abilities to find and withstand mines — which is a big problem for a ship that's supposed to be the Navy's minehunter of the future.

That's the assessment of the director of the Office of Testing and Evaluation, summing up a year's worth of trials for the Littoral Combat Ship, the Navy's cherished — and expensive — next-generation ship for warfare close to a shoreline. Little wonder that defence analysts think the ship is headed for the budgetary chopping block, even though the US Navy wants 55 of the things and only has three.

The report finds that the Littoral Combat Ship's systems for spotting mines, the AN/AQS-20A Sonar Mine Detecting Set and the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System, are "deficient" for their primary task. That deficiency, if uncorrected, will "adversely affect the operational effectiveness" of a ship that's already "not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment".

In other words, right now, the Littoral Combat Ship could stumble, Mr Magoo-like, into a minefield — like, say, the narrow Strait of Hormuz or the coasts of China or North Korea — and then it's lights out. If the Littoral Combat Ship is going to carry the sonar and laser systems that it's currently scheduled to carry, then like Fat Joe and Raekwon, it must respect mines.

Some necessary caveats apply. Just because the testers think there's something wrong with a ship, truck, plane or gun doesn't mean the program in question is doomed. Testing is how you discover flaws before they put someone in uniform at risk. And with the Littoral Combat Ship, those flaws might actually be less damaging than with some other ships, because everything the ship carries is designed to be modular — meaning you can swap out and substitute most everything on the hull.

At the same time, the inability of the Littoral Combat Ship to withstand a sustained assault places a lot of stress on its minehunting systems. "As designed, it wouldn't, ideally, go anywhere near a mine field," explains Chris Johnson, a spokesman for Naval Sea System Command. "It's not designed to take a mine strike. It's designed to send off-board sensors and systems to find and then neutralize the mine." Emphasis on ideally.

"America has forgotten that mine hunting is hard," says Craig Hooper, a vice president for Austal, one of the companies building the Littoral Combat Ship, "and if the work the Independence-variant [Littoral Combat Ship] is doing today re-energises the mine warfare community and enables those specialists to acquire resources to defeat this threat, then America is better for it."

Johnson tells Danger Room that the report is just "one snapshot" in the lifecycle of the ship's mine-hunting packages. "We're certainly not going to just put an unproved system" on the Littoral Combat Ship, he says. As it stands, both systems are scheduled to be ready by 2014.

But it's not like these are the first woes of the Littoral Combat Ship. The first two ships — the third was christened Saturday — have been hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, years behind schedule and without obvious uses in foreseeable naval scenarios. Its vulnerabilities have freaked out at least one blogger for the U.S. Naval Institute, who pronounced himself stunned that the Navy has moved forward with "a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so." And now naval analysts are whispering that they expect the budgetary knives to come out for the ship when the Pentagon unveils its next budgetary blueprint in a few weeks.

Johnson can't comment on the budgetary fate of the ship. "I can say that, as of now, the Navy is very happy with the prices it's getting on the LCS [Littoral Combat Ship] class," he says. So, no budgetary mines in the waters - that is, if the Littoral Combat Ship could even tell.

Wired.com has been expanding the hive mind with technology, science and geek culture news since 1995.


Comments

    This is the one made of Australian steel and aluminum? If it were a Mine Stopper, yes, very bad. But, it's just a mine hunter. So, it's okay. Right? ;)

      If you build something that is designed to find and destroy mines, I would think you would want it to be able to survive a mine blast. Also it doesn't matter where the steel and Aluminium come from, it matters whether it was produced with the correct specs for sea water use. Oh, and in Australia we don't call it Aluminum, just ignore the spell check on that one! :)

    did they misspell clittoral?

      or maybe it's jsut because it can't find the mines.

    Are current minesweepers able to withstand mine strikes?

    Null argument if they cannot.

    Australia's own minesweepers are made of plastic; very high underwater shock resistance, very low magnetic and acoustic noise levels. In service since 1998 there have been no problems with these ships, 6 of them. They are regarded as the most advanced minesweepers in the world.

      Australias mine hunters are based on the same Italian design that the USNs Osprey Class are based on. Besides the plan for the LCS is to use off board systems to locate and dispose of the mines, i.e. helicopters, ROVs etc.

    The concept behind these ships is that they are modular. You could theoretically remove on module and put on a different module for different roles, from mine sweeping to special operations. This reported problem is not a problem with the ship but with the module. Mostly because the ships were designed and built with out any of the modules existing, to see if they would work. A case of too forward a thinking, when the theory of technological improvements were too far in advance of the actual realities.

    Also minesweeping has always been low priority for the US Navy. During the first Gulf War against Suddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti coastline was heavily mined. The US minesweepers were so old and so unseaworthy, they had to be transported across the Atlantic as deck cargo on another ship. So the allies had to rely on a few modern Italian and UK minesweepers and it prevented a seaborne invasion by US Marines from taking place due to the huge mine fields.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now