Shallow water capabilities


Lewis B. Puller for todays problems!
Verified Military
Aug 4, 2009
Milford CA Pop 72
This is one of the most informative papers I have ever read on coastal mine clearing and shallow water capabilities.
There are a lot of people in the deep water community that think the new Littoral ships such as the Gifford are a waste of money while others understand the ten new targets we are mostlikely to fight are in shallow water close quarter areas. Take the straights off of Iran and look at water temperature salinity levels and depth of water and we are challenged. In the big pond with sattelite and submarine capabilities I don't think a nation in the world can compete or even come play for long in the big pond. However the shallow water is a place we could improve. if we do nothing there is no new learning no new doctines and no new capabilities resulting in a zero sum gain.
Just my thoughts on an intersting subject.
IIRC The two Littoral Classes were designed to meet this threat. The impitus may have come from an article in the Naval Institue Proceedings, where (IIRC) Two SWO's were arguing for a fleet of inexpensive/expendable ships. They believed that a Littoral War will be expensive in ship losses, and a small Navy can not afford a ship for ship exchange. Large number of limited capability ships would allow us to absorb the losses (in material) and keep fighting.

Problem is we do not want to spend the manpower required for a 1st class military so we have invested in hardware, making the hardware more valuable then the people.

To me, suicide boats are the problem (which is why the Littoral Class ships are good investments). I don't think mines will cause the problems they used to.