Naval operations
At their most basic, minesweepers are designed to search for and destroy naval mines to allow for the safe passage of vessels.
underwater threats. Another is ‘SWEEP’, whose magnetic, electric and acoustic signals can detonate a range of naval mines. No less important, meanwhile, is the comparable work being done by other countries. Unveiled in 2022, for instance, the US’s so-called Unmanned Influence Sweep System uses sensors to detect and destroy naval mines. Across the Pacific, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has moved in a similar direction, with autonomous vessels and Chinese frogmen working together to disarm mines. If all this represents a market that was already worth $2.4bn by 2022, Kaushal is unsurprised. Between the sonars, the sensors and the multi-shot payloads, he stresses that autonomous vessels can operate “at greater reach” than tethered alternatives. That’s just as well, he adds, given how important mine warfare could become later in the century. “Naval mines will be of great importance to both sides in a Pacific war,” he says. “The PLA has one of the world’s largest stockpiles of mines and would deploy them liberally using a range of tools including maritime militia vessels.” No less important, Beijing’s American rivals see mines as a vital means of limiting the Chinese navy’s freedom of action around Taiwan – where the US in principle only needs to achieve “sea denial” to doom any invasion from the mainland.
$2,000
The cost of a simple naval mine.
War on the Rocks) 42
Going it alone? With these strategic considerations in mind, at any rate, it makes sense that the market for countermine technology could reach $3.1bn by 2032. All the same, and notwithstanding the stark need to develop autonomous mine-busting tools from Taiwan to the Middle East, difficulties do remain. One arguably
involves the ability of the public sector to develop complex new systems independently. To an extent, this is apparent if you return to DE&S: alongside its partnership with the French government, MMCM is being delivered by Thales. SWEEP, for its part, is being built by the Bremen-based giant Atlas Electronik.
Not that these hurdles are insurmountable. As Kaushal puts it: “Working with industry is important – but much of the technology here is mature and at either initial-operational or full-operational capability. In a sense, a well-defined technical challenge like mine countermeasures is where autonomous solutions are already ready to be fielded, as compared to more complex tasks.” That’s doubtless true from a technical perspective – just look at achievements like SWEEP – but that hardly leaves naval leaders totally without worries. Ironically enough, one involves the implications of automation. For if crewless vessels are obviously safer, they’re also more vulnerable to attack from drones or submarines. Probably for that reason, naval commanders seem increasingly drawn to hybrid manned/unmanned systems, with SEACAT just one example among many. Then there’s the threat of cyberattacks – automated ships are obviously more exposed than old-fashioned helm-steered vessels. Yet here, too, there’s reason for optimism, not least given the US Navy lately unveiled a new ‘national cyber range’ to keep its seaborne forces safe. Given how important sea mines seem destined to be over the years ahead, ensuring the countermeasures are also adequate surely makes sense. ●
Defence & Security Systems International /
www.defence-and-security.com
Laskin Nikita/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51
