Naval Mine Warfare

Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces

Committee for Mine Warfare Assessment

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Naval Mine Warfare Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Committee for Mine Warfare Assessment Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-00-G-0230/0002 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do. International Standard Book Number 0-309-07578-5 Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copies available from: Naval Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces COMMITTEE FOR MINE WARFARE ASSESSMENT GENE H.PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair SEYMOUR J.DEITCHMAN, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Vice Chair ALBERT J.BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ARTHUR B.BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology RUZENA K.BAJCSY, National Science Foundation RONALD L.BECKWITH, LeeCor, Inc. JOHN R.BENEDICT, JR., Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University D.RICHARD BLIDBERG, Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute L.ERIC CROSS, Pennsylvania State University JOSE B.CRUZ, JR., Ohio State University SABRINA R.EDLOW, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT A.FROSCH, Harvard University LEE M.HUNT, Alexandria, Virginia WILLIAM J.HURLEY, Institute for Defense Analyses HARRY W.JENKINS, ITT Industries IRWIN MENDELSON, Singer Island, Florida JOHN D.PEARSON, Naval Postgraduate School RONALD L.WOODFIN, Sandia Park, New Mexico MARKUS ZAHN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology EDWARD ZDANKIEWICZ, Arnold, Maryland Staff RONALD D.TAYLOR, Director CHARLES F.DRAPER, Study Director MARY G.GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G.CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant KERRY A.M.WILLIAMS, Research Assistant SIDNEY G.REED, JR., Consultant JAMES G.WILSON, Consultant

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces NAVAL STUDIES BOARD VINCENT VITTO, Charles S.Draper Laboratory, Inc., Chair JOSEPH B.REAGAN, Saratoga, California, Vice Chair DAVID R.HEEBNER, McLean, Virginia, Past Chair ALBERT J.BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ARTHUR B.BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Special Advisor JAMES P.BROOKS, Litton/Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. JOHN D.CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute RUTH A.DAVID, Analytic Services, Inc. PAUL K.DAVIS, RAND and RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies FRANK A.HORRIGAN, Bedford, Massachusetts RICHARD J.IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses MIRIAM E.JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories DAVID V.KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANNETTE J.KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia WILLIAM B.MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland ROBERT B.OAKLEY, National Defense University NILS R.SANDELL, JR., ALPHATECH, Inc. HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California JAMES M.SINNETT, The Boeing Company WILLIAM D.SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania JOHN P.STENBIT, TRW, Inc. PAUL K.VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia MITZI M.WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses Navy Liaison Representatives RADM RAYMOND C.SMITH, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through November 3, 2000) RADM ALFRED G.HARMS, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through May 25, 2001) RADM LEWIS W.CRENSHAW, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of June 11, 2001) RADM PAUL G.GAFFNEY II, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 (through June 7, 2000) RADM JAY M.COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 (as of June 8, 2000)

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN JOHN E.RHODES, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through August 17, 2000) LTGEN BRUCE B.KNUTSON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through June 22, 2001) LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of July 11, 2001) RONALD D.TAYLOR, Director CHARLES F.DRAPER, Senior Program Officer MARY G.GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G.CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant KERRY A.M.WILLIAMS, Research Assistant

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Preface U.S. naval forces are organized, trained, and equipped to engage in the full spectrum of military operations in the deep sea, the littorals, or inland. Yet today, sea mines in the hands of hostile forces are a growing threat to mobility, as evidenced in the Gulf War. To meet the threat of the proliferation and ever increasing sophistication of sea mines, the Department of the Navy has adopted an integrated approach to countermine warfare1 that attempts to balance dedicated (special-purpose forces) and organic (multimission, general-purpose forces) capabilities intended to leverage emerging technological opportunities. As with other warfare areas, the mine warfare2 community also must deal with limited resources and legacy systems. These constraints complicate the process of defining the optimal long-term strategic balance between dedicated and organic assets, the transition path to achieving the objective, and the technological capabilities (and underlying research and development) needed to meet those objectives. Naval mine countermeasures (MCM) programs for countermine warfare employ a mix of undersea, surface, and airborne systems (including special warfare, marine mammal, and explosive ordnance disposal units). The resulting capabilities, together with support from other command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) sys- 1   The term “countermine warfare” is used in this report to include not only local measures to detect and clear mines, but also the intelligence and other support activities important to countering the threat of mines at sea and in the approaches to shore. 2   The term “mine warfare” is used in this report to include both naval mining and countermine warfare.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces tems, are intended to provide the naval forces with minefield intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to facilitate minefield avoidance, minefield clearance, mine neutralization, and mine and obstacle removal and destruction. Their operational utility depends also on access to key environmental data, and modeling and simulation systems. A combination of innovative technologies, platforms, sensors, and training is key to the naval forces’ ability to achieve and maintain a robust countermine capability. New countermine warfare systems scheduled for introduction into the fleet in the middle of this decade include the undersea long-term mine reconnaissance system (LMRS) for the nuclear submarine force; the (unmanned) remote mine-hunting system (RMS) employed from some guided missile destroyers; the AN/AQS-20X towed mine-hunting system; the remote-controlled, tethered airborne mine neutralization system (AMNS); the organic airborne and surface influence sweep (OASIS), a towed, shallow water, influence minesweeping system; the airborne laser mine detection system (ALMDS); the gun-based rapid airborne mine clearance system (RAMICS) for the MH-60S helicopter; the mine warfare environmental decision aids library (MEDAL) accessible via the global command and control system (maritime); and a littoral remote sensing (LRS) system that uses sophisticated image gathering and processing techniques for operational intelligence. In the area of mining, the ability of U.S. (and coalition) forces to shape the future maritime battlefield through precision delivery of mines is being increasingly constrained by the aging of the current stockpile of sea mines. To successfully conduct this component of mine warfare, U.S. forces need a new generation of mines that are covert, robust, lethal, controllable as required, and safe to use. TERMS OF REFERENCE As requested by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the Naval Studies Board conducted a mine warfare assessment that examined issues related to both countermine and future sea mining capabilities. The terms of reference for the study are as follows: Evaluate present and future threats to deep sea and littoral operations involving mines; evaluate current and projected mine countermeasure capabilities. Evaluate current and projected R&D programs aimed at providing the fleet with new and improved capabilities. Evaluate R&D opportunities that are not part of the current program of record but which hold promise for meeting naval force needs in the future. Evaluate the status of the present sea mine stockpile and mine delivery systems; evaluate R&D efforts to develop next-generation sea mines; and identify associated R&D priorities. Place special emphasis on that part of the littoral region that extends from

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces a sea depth of approximately 40 ft to 200 ft across the beach. With respect to organic mine warfare, the study should consider the implications for organic forces of planned reductions in personnel. In a letter dated December 11, 2000, to the president of the National Academy of Sciences, General James L.Jones, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps, indicated that he also endorsed the study’s terms of reference. COMMITTEE MEETINGS In responding to the CNO’s request, the committee organized itself into three ad hoc panels: (1) Panel 1—Mines and Mining; (2) Panel 2—Offshore Countermine Warfare; and (3) Panel 3—Inshore Countermine Warfare. To integrate the work of these three panels, an integration group was formed that included a lead representative from each panel, as well as the committee chair and vice chair and three additional members of the committee with expertise in Navy and Marine Corps operations, acquisition, and technology. The Committee for Mine Warfare Assessment first convened in August 2000 and held further meetings and site visits over a period of 9 months: August 1–2, 2000, in Washington, D.C. (plenary and integration group). Organizational meeting: Navy and Marine Corps briefings on operational requirements, the mine threat, and procurement processes to meet the threat; Director of Expeditionary Warfare briefing on the current Navy mine warfare program; Program Executive Office for Mine and Undersea Warfare (PEO MUW) briefings on surface mine warfare, mine warfare ship, airborne mine countermeasures, and explosive ordnance disposal systems; and Office of Naval Research (ONR) briefing on the ONR Mine Warfare Technology Program. August 30–31, 2000, in Panama City, Florida. Small group site visit to Coastal Systems Station, Naval Sea Systems Command, to view airborne unmanned vehicles in support of very shallow water mine countermeasure operations. September 5–6, 2000, in Washington, D.C. (plenary and integration group). Center for Naval Analyses briefing on the MCM Force 21 Study;3 Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources (N81X/N87) briefings on integrated warfare architecture, the N87 Mine Countermeasures Study,4 and 3   Edlow, Sabrina, John Clifford, Mike Price, John Benedict, Rich Ruzicka, Joe Gezelter, Gene Ward, Michael Jeffers, James White, Kenneth Montgomery, William Whitacre, Richard Nelson, Curtis McVey, Don Almond, J.D.Ivey Smith, Chuck Beckler, and Jose Cuadra. 1999. MCM Force-21 Study Final Results (U), Annoted Briefing CAB 99–37, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Va., June (classified). 4   Elliott, RADM Thomas J., Jr., USN (Ret.), “N87 Mine Countermeasures Study—Network Centric Warfare Implementation Principles,” briefing to the committee on September 6, 2000, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N87), Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces breaching by explosive channeling; Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) briefing on U.S. Marine Corps land mine warfare requirements; Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) briefing on Navy sea mines; and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency briefing on mine warfare technology efforts. October 3–5, 2000, in Washington, D.C. (plenary and integration group). Joint Staff (Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment) briefing on Joint Staff mine warfare perspective; Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Expeditionary Warfare Division (N75) briefings on the Surface Warfare Development Group, amphibious assault plans and requirements, the physical environment from the surf zone to the beach exit zone, and a description of mine and obstacle types; U.S. Mine Warfare Command (MINEWARCOM) briefings on mine warfare training and education, fleet mine warfare concept of operations, and an overview of MINWARCOM; ONR (Code 321) briefings on ISR systems for mine warfare missions and on R&D for breaching techniques; PEO MUW briefings on legacy MCM systems’ baseline capabilities and on the capabilities of the organic MCM systems in development; and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division briefing on the Coastal Systems Station. October 18–19, 2000, in La Spezia, Italy. Small group site visit to SACLANT Undersea Research Center. November 13–14, 2000, in Washington, D.C. (plenary and integration group). Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR) briefing on OPTEVFOR role in assessing mine warfare; MINEWARCOM briefing on U.S. Air Force maritime mining support; Navy Warfare Development Command briefing on Navy and Marine Corps experimentation and inclusion of mine warfare; NAVSEA and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division briefing on ship protection and ship signatures; general discussion with representatives of OPNAV N75, U.S. Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Command, MINEWARCOM, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine and Undersea Warfare, PEO MUW, OPNAV Air Warfare Division (N78), Multi-Mission Helicopter Program Office (PMA 299), Aircraft Mine Countermeasures Program Office (PMS 210), ONR, MCCDC, and NAVSEA; U.S. Army Science Board/Naval Research Advisory Committee briefing on mine warfare study (unpublished); and ONR briefing on over-the-horizon-delivered countermine and counterobstacle systems. November 15, 2000, in Washington, D.C. (Panel 2). December 6–7, 2000, in Corpus Christi, Texas (plenary and integration group). Site visit to Mine Warfare Command for briefings on mine warfare threats, force capabilities, force command, control, communications, computing, and intelligence (C4I), meteorology and oceanography, and future mine warfare concepts.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces December 18–19, 2000, in Panama City, Florida. Small group site visit to Coastal Systems Station, Naval Sea Systems Command, for briefings on mine warfare threats, U.S. naval sea mines, mine and undersea warfare science and technology, ARES (a system-of-systems approach to a mine countermeasure architecture), mine warfare analysis, mine warfare modeling and simulation, shallow water MCM, Littoral Warfare Advanced Systems Engineering Laboratory, remote mine-hunting system, and airborne MCM. January 5, 2001, in San Diego, California. Small group site visit to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group One for briefings on very shallow water detachment, explosive ordnance disposal MCM detachment, and MHS-1 demonstration. January 8–12, 2001, in Irvine, California (plenary and integration group). Committee deliberations and report drafting. February 7–8, 2001, in Washington, D.C. (Panel 3). February 14–15, 2001, in Washington, D.C. (Panel 2). April 12, 2001, in Washington, D.C. (integration group). April 23–24, 2001, in Washington, D.C. (plenary). Committee deliberations and report drafting. The months between the last meeting and publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, and editing the report.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Gerald A.Cann, Rockville, Maryland, Howard M.Choset, Carnegie Mellon University, James R.Fitzgerald, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Ray M.Franklin, Port Angeles, Washington, Alfred I.Kaufman, Institute for Defense Analyses, Fred N.Spiess, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Robert C.Spindel, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Edward A.Frieman, appointed by the NRC’s Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, who was responsible for making

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   THE MINE WARFARE PROBLEM   17     Mine Warfare for Operational Effectiveness,   19     Future Capability—Next Steps,   23 2   FUNDAMENTAL CROSSCUTTING ISSUES   25     Mine Warfare as a Major Naval Warfare Area,   25     Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance,   38     The Dedicated Mine Countermeasures Forces,   43     Vulnerability Reduction,   49     Joint Interests and Integrated Concepts of Operation,   53 3   U.S. NAVAL MINES AND MINING   56     Current Status of U.S. Mining Capabilities,   56     Why the Low Status for Mining?,   60     Should the United States Have a Mining Capability?,   61     What Types of Mining Capabilities Are Required?,   64     Findings and Recommendations,   66 4   OFFSHORE COUNTERMINE WARFARE   70     Introduction,   70     Technical Capabilities of Current and Planned Systems for Offshore Mine Countermeasures Operations,   73

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces     Shortfalls Affecting Current and Planned Offshore Countermine Warfare Systems and Initiatives,   85     Additional Technical Improvements to Fleet Offshore Countermine Warfare Capabilities,   91 5   INSHORE COUNTERMINE WARFARE   99     Introduction and Background,   99     An Inshore Countermine Warfare Sequence of Systems,   104     Neutralizing Inshore Mines and Breaching Inshore Mine and Obstacle Barriers,   116     Concluding Comments and Recommendations,   128 APPENDIXES             A DETAILS OF AMPHIBIOUS AND LOGISTICS OVER-THE-SHORE OPERATIONS   133     B AMPHIBIOUS PLANNING IN THE GULF WAR   159     C BREACHING BY LINE CHARGE ANALOGUE   161     D COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES   167     E AGENDAS FOR MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR MINE WARFARE ASSESSMENT   175     F ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS   191

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces Naval Mine Warfare

OCR for page R1
Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces This page in the original is blank.