When in 2011 Russia demonstrated prototypes of the Club-K container missile systems, they were positioned as a means to quickly build up the striking power of the armed forces, placing these complexes on various types of mobile carriers - on landing boats, cars, railway platforms, merchant ships and anywhere.
In the West, however, they saw mainly the latter option - placement on merchant ships. And it was precisely this option that caused the concern of military specialists in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This is understandable.
In both world wars, Britain's survival depended on keeping communications between the British Isles on the one hand and the colonies, allies and the United States on the other. The British understood this, the Germans understood this.
During the First World War, the latter, in addition to waging an unlimited submarine war, massively used auxiliary cruisers-raiders, civilian ships, hastily armed with small and medium-caliber artillery, whose task was to destroy shipping - the banal sinking of enemy merchant ships. It was very difficult for the raiders to survive - sooner or later the Allied naval forces, consisting of more or less "real" warships, found and sank the raiders. But before that, they managed to inflict serious damage. And, of course, there were exceptions, for example, the most successful German raider in history, Möwe, was never caught by the allies.
During World War II, the situation repeated itself, only now the former civilian raiders were better prepared. They had not only guns, but also torpedo tubes, sea mines and even reconnaissance float planes on board.
The most successful raider of this type (not to be confused with special warships carrying out raiding missions) during World War II was the Atlantis, which sank 16 and captured 6 Allied merchant ships, deployed 92 naval mines and carried out two refueling of submarines in the Atlantic. It is worth noting that the raider was "caught" precisely because of them - the British intercepted a radiogram on board the submarine, in which the coordinates of the meeting point with the Atlantis were indicated. If not for this, it remains to be seen how many things this former cargo truck would have done.
Another raider, Cormoran, was able to attack fewer ships - 11, but sank the Australian Navy warship Sydney in battle.
In total, during the Second World War, Germany threw ten auxiliary cruisers-raiders on the communications of the Allies:
Orion (HSK-1)
Atlantis (HSK-2)
Widder (HSK-3)
Thor (HSK-4)
Penguin (HSK-5)
"Stir" (HSK-6)
"Komet" (HSK-7)
"Kormoran" (HSK-8)
Mikhel (HSK-9)
Coronel (HSK-10)
And although they could not inflict fatal damage to shipping, they caused a lot of problems to the allies. They drowned or hijacked 129 ships, including one warship - the cruiser Sydney. Two of them even survived!
The advertisement for Russian container launchers seemed to have raised the ghosts of the past from the depths of the Anglo-Saxon consciousness. After all, now any container ship could suddenly unleash a volley of missiles on any other ship, which the latter simply could not repulse. And this any container ship has the possibility of the first missile salvo.
Chuck Hill's article “ RETURN OF THE CLANDESTINE MERCHANT RAIDER?"(" The return of the secret armed merchant raider ship? "). Hill is a veteran of the US Coast Guard, who also underwent special tactical training in the US Navy, a graduate of the Naval War College in Newport and one of that cohort of Coast Guard officers who, in the event of a war with the USSR in the 1980s, would have had to fight against the USSR Navy, and do not provide any auxiliary functions. In general, this is one of the most militarily literate officers of the Coast Guard of the eighties of the last century.
Briefly the essence of the article for those who do not speak English.
In 2017, container launchers for missiles, located on the deck of any ship, were successfully tested by Israel, ahead of the Russian Federation, which did not go further than throw tests and mock-ups.
The Israelis were shooting, however, from a car parked on the deck. And then the PU was just shown. But here is just the case when everything is clear.
And in 2019, news agencies reported that China had tested container launchers.
From the point of view of the Anglo-Saxons, it looks like a slow crawling of a genie out of a bottle. They are simply not ready for such a problem and do not know yet what to do with it. They do not have any panic, and this problem has not yet been included in the program documents on military construction in any country, but alarmism reigns in expert get-togethers. And it’s not just that.
Consider whether it is realistic with the help of a secretly armed merchant ship. Do serious harm in a war at sea. As we know, last time (the Germans) there was no decisive harm.
In order to bring the situation "to the limit" let us consider an attack by the strongest rival, the United States, by some weak country, for example, Iran.
So, introductory: the United States began to concentrate troops on the Arabian Peninsula, Iranian intelligence is unequivocally convinced that we are talking about the beginning of preparations for the US invasion of Iran by land. Can the raiders "smooth over" such a problem, for example, by reducing it to a series of air raids on Iran, but without a land invasion?
On March 29, the newspaper "Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozreniye" published an article by your humble servant "There will be no ground invasion"dedicated to the logistical capabilities of the United States for the transfer of troops to Europe in the event of a major war. For those interested in the naval topic, it will be quite interesting, but we are interested in this: at the moment, the United States has very few transport ships that could be used for military transport. At present, the Maritime Transportation Command has only 15 large transports suitable for massive troop transfers. Another 19 vessels are the so-called forward deployment support vessels, that is, to put it simply, transport that carries equipment, fuel supplies and ammunition for a specific formation. The personnel of such a unit are airlifted, and then receive military equipment and supplies from such a ship for engaging in hostilities.
The disadvantage of such vessels is that they are too versatile - there are both containers for liquid cargo, and space for containers and decks for equipment. This is good when it is necessary to provide everything necessary for the expeditionary brigade of the Marine Corps, but it is very inconvenient when supplying, when it is necessary, for example, to load only shells or only tanks.
Another 46 vessels are in reserve and can be released on the line within a short time. And 60 ships are in the hands of private firms, which have an obligation to provide them to the US Navy on demand. In total, we have 121 normal transport and 19 more warehouse vessels, which are of limited use for sea transport. This would not be enough even for Vietnam, and very much.
This is little more than the primitive German raiders found and drowned in the ocean during World War II. At the same time, the Germans had to look for their victims, and at the services of our "Iranians" there is AIS and they can simply see every merchant ship. They know in advance where to strike.
Also, the United States does not have enough people - with a six-month transport operation, there will not be enough even for the rotation of crews, and there is no question of compensation for losses.
Now we look at the merchant fleet. The United States has a total of 943 ships under the national flag with a displacement of over 1,000 tons. Is it a lot or a little? This is less than that of "land" Russia. At the same time, a significant part of large ships flying the US flag is already on the list of 60 ships that are available to the Pentagon at any given time (see the article in the HBO). Frankly speaking, there is nothing special to "rake" there, many small ships will not do the weather.
And also there is nothing to escort the available transport - the times when the United States had a lot of simple and cheap frigates of the Oliver Perry class are long gone.
Thus, in order to deprive the United States of the opportunity to transfer troops, it is necessary to damage or sink only a few dozen merchant ships, which, firstly, go without an escort, and secondly, the location of which in the world's oceans is known in advance. And which are defenseless, even a machine gun is not on board (mostly). And all this in conditions when no one will touch the raider before the first salvo.
Iran is one of the world leaders in the production of UAVs, they also make missiles at the very least, and they will not have a problem to buy the same X-35 after the lifting of sanctions, to recruit motivated crews ready to desperately risk to save their country - also never no problem.
Iran has hundreds of large ocean-going merchant ships, if we count together the neutral flag and the Iranian one, where they have container launchers.
So are Americans' fears justified?
Obviously, yes.
Indeed, one and a half dozen "traders" with anti-ship missiles and UAVs, walking along a route that allows you to intercept vehicles of interest at a point where there is no congestion of targets, and there will be no one to be diverted to other than the target of attack, the anti-ship missiles will instantly reduce the tonnage used in military transport to such a value, which will make any large-scale use of ground forces simply impossible, at least for a long time.
The same goes for a hypothetical shore strike. At the moment, Iran does not have the ability to deliver such a strike on US territory. However, it is widely known that Iran reverse-engineered the Soviet Kh-55 cruise missile, created its modification with a non-nuclear warhead for launch from the surface, and established small-scale production. The secret placement of such missiles on raiders will allow them to be taken to the launch line, close enough to the United States, and kept there under the guise of containers on a container ship under a neutral flag for as long as desired, without revealing themselves until the missiles are launched. In a sense, this placement turns out to be even more secretive than on submarines.
Yes, all these raiders will not live long. They will be overheated quickly, within a matter of days. But the damage inflicted by them in a specifically described situation will already be irreparable - everything necessary for an overland invasion will simply not be transferred - even if urgently, for any money, all the necessary ships available in the world are bought (and there are fewer of them in the world than necessary, and smart people considered it is too). And after such bloodletting, the Americans will not be able to recruit people into the merchant fleet.
So our Iran seems to have won (If you don't like Iran in this capacity, replace it with anyone).
Does the West have an antidote to these tactics?
Most recently, retired US Navy officer (and now CNA (Center for Naval Research, a private think tank) analyst) Stephen Wheels wrote the article “ MERCHANT WARSHIPS AND CREATING A MODERN 21ST CENTURY EAST INDIAMAN"(" Merchant Warships and the Creation of the 21st Century East Indian."
In short, the essence of his proposal is as follows: it is necessary to create well-armed transport ships, in terms of cargo capacity and dimensions, approximately similar to container ships of the Panamax or Super-Panamax class, and armed at the level of a light frigate, mainly contained (to reduce the cost of the ship) weapon systems, but not only by them.
This makes sense. A fast ship capable of defending itself will not need an escort. But there are also many disadvantages - in peacetime such a ship is completely ineffective, and it will not be able to enter most ports. Or you will have to place ALL weapons in containers.
Most likely, such decisions will come into play after the first organized act of sea raiding.
However, if we assume that our raiders carry both rockets to strike along the coast, and combat swimmers, for sabotage in the harbors, where they come under the guise of merchant ships (and even unload something there), and self-transporting mines, and armed UAVs (and all this can be hidden in containers or structures made of containers), and even that they rely on full-fledged navies deployed in the oceans (albeit weak), and themselves, for example, serve to supply submarines, there is not even an answer here in theory.
Hill, mentioned above, ends his article like this: "I do not believe we will see the end of the offensive use of merchant ships."
It remains only to agree with him.
