If everybody is DEFENDING and nobody is OFFENSIVE, why does the world spend more money on DEFENCE than on Education and Health Care combined?
Time to tone down the rhetoric a bit, not to stumble into a war nobody really want and nobody can actually win?
That’s true but doesn’t history seem to constantly repeat itself. I read the article with an open mind and forgetting about conspiracy theories or thinking like an alarmist or that this is pure crazy talk. The more I read, I started thinking as an engineer, why not. Sailors are the eyes of the sea and I wondered if I could be possibly at some point in the future be sailing by an undetected armed merchant ship going into New York Harbor, Port of Miami, Port of New Orleans or Charleston Harbor or back yard in the Carribean. About 50 years ago in South Carolina we were taught about Raphael Semmes of the CSS Alabama and James Waddell of the CSS Shenandoah of the Confederate States Navy and their British crew. Forgetting politics as I think their names are no longer allowed to be mentioned and Semmess book, Memoirs of Service Afloat has been ban from the public schools, however these were experts at the art of naval deception. Experts! Following their success was the German commerce raider like the Wolf in WWI. We aren’t talking small arms here, we are talking about very destructive missiles doing massive damage possibly launched from undetected container ships in our own front or backyard. If there’s any truth to it then maybe it can be prevented from happening. A year ago, I would not of thought a virus was going to shut down the world for 2020. However, It was last fall that Senator Cotton sounded his concerns and warned of reports he was reading coming out of China about COVID19. Crazy talk and everyone said don’t worry your pretty little heads about it, it won’t affect you. If nothing else, container ship missles seems like a deadly concept and sure seems like some are sounding an alarm. Hopefully, this time it really is just crazy talk but as mariners it might not hurt to keep on open mind on what we read or see.
I agree. It’s time for someone to say: America First. We are directing most of our “defense” budget into domestic healthcare, education, and infrastructure. So the rest of the free world had better start defending itself, or start learning to speak Russian and Chinese.
Yes that is ture. but wars are not the same. The weapons “improve” and are able to kill more people more quickly than during the last war.
A modern war between major powers are not going to be a repeat of WWII, or any other wars.
There are not going to be any “Winners” and “Losers” and “the boys are not going to come back to a ticker parade and kisses on Times Square”.
There will only be dead people from any future major wars.
The best thing to do is avoid conflicts that can escalate to full blow wars by not provoking animosities through “tough talk” and stupid actions.
You ever read of the ‘father’ of the sweet Teddy Bears, President Theodore Roosevelt, saying “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick”?
After more than 100 years, this does not work anymore…
On the contrary, your intimate, outgoing ‘friend’ had a big mouth, but he never started a war!
As for the commercial ships carrying missiles:
As long as they are painted grey, it is up to the Navy to evaluate their utility.
Otherwise, it is certainly not in the interest of civilian mariners… whatever flag they are working on.
The grey ships, the grey area.
a few m1’s are ok for scaring away outboard motor boats but gawd forbid a civmar get hit by the enemy, it’d be in court again and they’d take away the m1’s again !!! and no, they are not going to stuff ten thousand missles in some old cargo ship and in hot times no one would be willing to pay what it’d take to get me to stay aboard … even for one shift!
A Fighting Merchant Ship for the 21st Century (maritime-executive.com)
This is the video from Israel Aerospace Industries.
Who is going to man these "armed merchant ships?
If civilians they wouldn’t have the training (and will) to operate the weapons system.
If military personnel they wouldn’t even touch the cargo operation.
A mixed crew of CIVMAR and Navy personnel would be a dead giveaway that this is no ordinary merchant ship, simply because of the number of crew on board.
That would break their disguise.
A Merchant ship that sail around without calling any ports to load and discharge cargo would do likewise.
Operate them how? Their involvement would be limited to ensuring that the missile boxes are stowed in the top layer, and that the little sat link LED shows green. I don’t think anybody expects shipboard personnel to run diagnostics on a cruise missile… Maybe they’d get asked to unplug it, wait five seconds and plug it back in?
Containerized cruise missiles is actually a pretty clever idea. It would allow a conflict actor to quickly and covertly deploy their strategic assets worldwide during the escalation phase. This in turn would provide a case for smaller, cheaper missiles, dramatically altering the metrics of how much destructive power can be had on a certain budget.
When I was in the Swedish Navy ready to convert Swedish merchant ships into mine layers to protect the kingdom, we simply took over the ship and hoisted the navy flag at the stern. The unhappy ship owner just had to obey! The crew knew how to operate the ship and where to position the mines. I installed the mine rails on the deck, a gun, radio, etc. We didn’t paint the ship gray. And off it went. You don’t argue with the Swedish navy.
klaveness, ““unplug it for 5 minits, plug back in”” …
This kind of idea has been floated on and off in the United States for years. Not long ago some think tank put out a paper about placing missiles on American oilers. Before that it was putting active sonar on American flagged commercial ships. And so on. Arming things that float isn’t a new idea.
Writing provocative ‘news’ pieces to titillate an uneducated public isn’t new, either.
IDK, the article is upfront enough about this being an old idea:
It still misses the point, though. It glosses over the fact that a modern naval engagement is decided not by the strength of the surface assets, but by air superiority, as demonstrated over and over again, not least by the battle of Bubiyan. IMHO, the US military hegemony is sustained in large part by the Nimitz class and the CBG doctrine.
The article also focuses on the availability of cheap boxships as a key advantage, seemingly forgetting that a complement of 50 tomahawk missiles would cost ~USD 70M without the launch hardware and associated control systems.
The strength of containerized cruise missiles lays not in the cheapness of the launch platform, but the ability to introduce them covertly into the AO. I believe the concept holds far greater promise for the underdogs of this world.
Coincidentally,
I welcome any sea fairing technology that China could bring to the table
I think it pays to remember that the U.S. Navy has not faced an adversary with a credible Navy since 1945. Especially one with a capable submarine force. It could prove to be surprising.
Or credible air cover, or long range shore-to-sea and ship-to-ship rockets.
Not to mention surveillance satellites that can pinpoint the position of their ships for targeting at all times.
How long would it take a credible enemy to detect the identity and whereabouts of a container ship masquerading as an “unarmed merchant ship”?
If we’re talking about a containerized cruise missile battery placed on a trading boxship, given sufficient opsec, I believe it could be very difficult if not impossible to detect.
This use of one of these makes sense as a possible one-off on the part of a rogue actor. It doesn’t make sense for a major power to risk igniting an all out nuclear annihilation of the planet.
I think it would be difficult to hide the activity of placing such weapons on a box ship (or any other ship) without that being detected by a major adversary power.
I assume that this will involve some “unusual” activities at loading port, not just an ordinary cargo handling operation.
Also; assuming that we are talking about US-flag ships being used for this purpose, the small number of such ships in existence would make it easier to track and detect any unusual activity, routing and behaviour.
(Switching off AIS would be ONE such suspicious activity)
