BEC or normal ships?
Lately, many experts and "experts" have been talking about unmanned ships, as vessels that will soon replace regular ships on combat duty. The topic is, in fact, interesting and worth exploring, especially since some hasty navigators have already condemned regular ships.
"The US has calculated how many BEKs are needed to replace one destroyer."
A Russian Telegram channel came out with this headline. In reality, of course, nothing was being calculated in the US; according to American specialized media and channels, the problems and approaches to solving them are entirely different there.
Our “experts,” of course, counted from the heart and practically condemned the American surface vessel fleetHowever, reality is somewhat different from what is written, and it makes sense to take a sober approach to what is happening.
Of course, just ten years ago we spoke of UAVs in the air with a degree of disdain, since they were only good for reconnaissance. But the events in Ukraine have dramatically changed the entire worldview on every continent. And UAV became not only a provider of information, but also a combat aircraft, more effective than more expensive and technologically advanced types of weapons.
At sea, things are a bit more conservative. Yes, unmanned boats were called "torpedoes for the poor" because they began to replace that very expensive type of weapon. The author once made such comparisons, and yes, a kamikaze unmanned boat was more advantageous than a torpedo because it didn't require such a specialized and expensive carrier, a trained crew, or a maintenance base, and such a boat was capable of striking below the waterline.
Experience has confirmed that a surface-to-surface torpedo is a very unpleasant phenomenon. Its strength is that the vessel can be launched discreetly from the shore. Enemy radars will have a very difficult time detecting this small nuisance, due to its large amount of plastic and very low altitude. The range of a surface torpedo can be much greater than that of a submerged one, but the point isn't to "fire and forget," like a self-guided torpedo, but to "fire and kill" with the help of a team of operators.
Yes, you can fight BEKs with machine guns and complexes. EW, and, unlike torpedoes, they're effective in combat. Unfortunately, only counter-torpedoes are effective against torpedoes, and they're just as valuable as torpedoes because they're essentially the same thing. A BEK can be destroyed in many ways: by fire. weapon from machine guns to aircraft cannons, drones-kamikaze, homing missiles and projectiles, guided like the same ATGMs, and electronic warfare systems cannot be discounted, because no one will cancel the satellite guidance channel.
There's a cost issue, of course. A torpedo, with its rather complex guidance systems, is quite expensive, and for the price of a single torpedo (the Russian "miracle" USET-80 cost the budget 360 rubles apiece, or 30 million in 2008 prices), you could build more than one unmanned combat boat. A kamikaze boat is cheaper than a torpedo, but it's also much easier to neutralize.
We seem to have figured it out. But this question goes a bit further than the BEC. It concerns larger ships and more complex tasks.
While the author was deep in thought and analyzing what others had written, a simply incomparable article was published by one of the Russian experts (though in the field Defense) regarding the future of large ships. Its author went straight to the trump card, condemning the regular fleet with the statement that
"For naval victories, we need unmanned boats, submarines, and container ships."
. The argument: a submarine is an unpredictable weapon for the enemy, but it is complex and expensive, while a container ship filled with missiles is cheap and effective. A submarine is simply beautiful; several of these boats can destroy a corvette that costs hundreds of times more.
Regarding submarines, I completely agree. Moreover, I've always advocated for our Navy to operate a powerful submarine fleet, while minimizing surface parade parades.
However, no matter how hard you look, you won't find any criticism of the naval workhorses—destroyers, corvettes, and frigates—on our pages. These classes of ships are still in high demand and aren't going anywhere, no matter how much some might wish them to be.
So, everything is clear with the submarines, we’ll leave the container ships with missiles for dessert, let’s talk about the BECs.
Yes, a UAV costs a lot more than a UAV, but its targets aren't cheap either. Frigates cost hundreds of millions of dollars, destroyers cost billions, aircraft carriers... well, I think you get the idea. An UAV is larger than any UAV and carries a larger explosive payload over a greater distance. And a few boats are more than enough to destroy a ship weighing between 5 and 10,000 tons.
An example is the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. This was long before the BEC became a significant weapon.
A boat packed with C4, manned by two suicide bombers, exploded alongside the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The Americans were incredibly lucky that the boat's crew were simply unaware of the ship's design, otherwise they would have hit the stern, where two-thirds (64) of the missile launchers are located. While it was a good outcome, they struggled for survivability for three days, as the explosion tore a 12 x 18-meter hole, and the destroyer had to be transported across the ocean in a floating dock for repairs. And what would have happened if the missiles had detonated?
This is a good example: modern unmanned aerial vehicles can be armed with anything from single-use explosive charges to surface-to-air missiles or anti-ship missiles. And cases of successful use have already been reported, unfortunately, by our side.
There's already some speculation on our side that a cheap, and therefore numerous, fleet of BECs will be able to paralyze conventional ships, disrupt maritime trade, inflict damage, and even successfully repel attacks thanks to their high speed, small size, and available weapons. However, the only drawback of BECs is considered to be their short range.
Overall, a lot of nonsense was written. They recalled torpedo and missile boats, which, although small and effective, were unable to displace larger ships because:
- were crew-owned;
- had decent dimensions but weak air defense;
- did not have a huge numerical advantage over normal ships.
It's all debatable. As of June 22, 1941, the Soviet Navy had three battleships, seven light cruisers, 59 destroyers, and 269 torpedo boats. If that's not an advantage, I don't know what is. But it had no effect on the fleet's overall effectiveness.
I don't know what to say about the fact that torpedo boats had weak air defense. Yes, that's true. But unmanned combat vessels also have it... occasionally, and nothing more.
As for the crew... This is a completely different story.
Unlike those experts, I see the strengths and weaknesses of BECs, if you don’t mind, somewhat differently.
But first I would like to give my opinion historical example.
December 26, 1943. The Battle of the North Cape. Do you remember how it all began? With bad weather, which forced the German destroyer escorts back to port. The German ships couldn't operate in those conditions, so a decision was made (rather idiotic) to raid the convoy with the battleship Scharnhorst alone.
You all know how it all ended: the Scharnhorst was sunk by a British squadron. Could the outcome have been different if the battleship had had assistants? In theory, yes. The destroyers could have at least launched torpedoes to distract the enemy and lay a smokescreen. As it was, the British made a show of it, with the cruisers' 203mm shells playing a major role, knocking out the German ship's radar and the British destroyers' torpedoes (more than 50).
What's this example about? It's about the BEK's main drawback being its small size. Currently, all such kamikaze boats are capable of operating in sea state 3 or less. Better yet, less.
Yes, a LEF that has entered the harbor and is darting around at high speed is a difficult target, but as experience shows, you still have to reach the harbor. Yes, motherships can help with this, but eliminating such ships is not the most difficult task for normal ships. aviation.
So, what do we have? We have the following disadvantages of the BEC:
- short range;
- poor seaworthiness;
- lack of air defense;
- limited area of application, mainly coastal zone;
- the inability to quickly respond to the situation due to the lack of a crew;
- impossibility of fighting for survivability;
- a large arsenal of suppressive means;
- the inability to act independently; target designation by ships or other guidance means is required.
In the merits
- low cost and the ability to build in large quantities;
- high speed on flat water;
- the possibility of flexible transformation in terms of armament.
Unlike UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) don't yet appear to be weapons capable of dominating the battlefield. While UAVs are somewhat dependent on weather conditions, they perform poorly in rain and fog. But UAVs simply can't navigate in even moderately rough seas, which severely limits their use. Therefore, their total effectiveness shouldn't be relied upon.
Moreover, the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is simply incapable of operating independently, even if artificial intelligence were installed in its control unit. It still requires external targeting, as it's important to understand that it's simply impossible to equip a modern UAV with a full-fledged radar, and even if it were, it would be of no use: the ship's size is too small, its elevation is low, and its range is correspondingly limited. Increasing the mast immediately increases the ship's visibility, and we won't even mention the additional size required, as that would create another vicious circle.
The vicious circle continues. Someone has to guide the UAV to the target, and it's important to consider that distances at sea are somewhat different than on land. On land, 5-15 km is a normal range for a UAV, but at sea, it's practically point-blank range. This means you have to see and sail further. This is comparable to a conventional anti-ship missile, and for that, 100-160 km is a normal combat range.
So, the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) needs tracking and targeting. Yes, we can use a satellite constellation (if available), we can deploy an AWACS aircraft in the area, or we can use radars from regular ships. It depends on what's available.
This means that aircraft, UAVs, or ships are simply required in the area of operation. This is if we're talking about a real naval battle, not just attempts to target enemy ships in the coastal zone or docked in harbors. This is what the supposedly highly successful Ukrainian Armed Forces are demonstrating. Yes, they achieved some success, initially. Then things got worse, and there seems to be no more success. As expected, we've learned to repel UAV attacks.
An AWACS aircraft must be protected. A strategic reconnaissance drone, too. A ship can also be attacked by a bomb, missile, torpedo, or unmanned aerial vehicle.
And on this optimistic note, the image of the BEK as an independent and effective weapon system somehow disappears. And this is right, this is normal.
There are several reasons why it is not worth relying on the experience of the SVO.
Firstly, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (and their followers in the Gulf of Aden) use unmanned aerial vehicles (BAVs) in a blatant guerrilla war, unable to provide adequate cover. They lack adequate ships or aircraft, at least for operations in the Black Sea. However, it should be noted that in the coastal zone, using target designation from the shore via Starlink terminals, they were somewhat effective. This was partly because some of them reached their targets and caused damage, but the ratio of their numbers to those destroyed was not even 1 to 10.
Secondly, the Russian Navy has already taken numerous steps to ensure the success of Ukrainian BECs. These steps weren't taken yesterday, but we'll discuss them below.
Now let's just try to imagine a ship-destroying operation, not in the coastal zone, but at sea. If some believe that a BEF is the key to victory, then we have to imagine it. You know, like a tactical game, "blue" versus "green."
Let's take the same long-suffering Black Sea. A group of frigate-class ships is advancing from the Bosphorus toward Sevastopol with some nefarious intentions. Could unmanned combat aircraft be used against them? Yes, they could. In a 200-kilometer zone, especially if the unmanned combat aircraft's approach and the missiles from the Bal missile systems are synchronized, it could be truly remarkable. A host of conditions must be met: if the sea level and wind permit, if the enemy ships don't deploy countermeasures (and they certainly will), if the ships don't scramble helicopters and fire on the unmanned combat aircraft as they approach, and so on. And these "and so on" factors are far more prevalent for unmanned combat aircraft than for anti-ship missiles.
As for offensive operations outside the coastal "umbrella," things are downright bleak. Naturally, transport would be needed to deliver the boats to the launch range, closer to the enemy. 250 kilometers isn't a very long distance; a missile covers it in 15 minutes. At best, the unmanned combat vessel would be sloshing around in the waves for 5-6 hours, which could put such an operation into question, not to mention the possibility that the ships being attacked could change course and simply escape the unmanned combat vessel's range.
It's much easier to deploy a couple of submarines to sea, whose torpedoes will in any case make those on the ships think twice.
Unmanned boats are a highly effective weapon against enemy ships at extremely close ranges to shore. And they are no substitute for proper warships, especially submarines.
A normal combat ship will perform combat missions such as searching for and destroying the enemy in weather conditions where using unmanned aerial vehicles would be impractical. Just like the battleship and destroyers at the Battle of the North Cape.
A container ship loaded with missiles is tempting, but even more vulnerable in the Black or Baltic Seas. Sure, somewhere in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Aden, such a ship offers excellent camouflage, but in the waters of small inland seas, it's a highly visible and, most importantly, vulnerable target.
There have already been suggestions in the press that such vessels should be ordered from Asia. Overall, the idea of such a surprise ship appearing off enemy shores is not a bad one. A cargo ship dropping its mask and firing off a number of cruise missiles is quite impressive, especially if there are a lot of missiles. However, the speed and overall vulnerability of such vessels raise certain concerns.
A container ship with missiles is an interesting move; the containers could even be fitted with anti-aircraft missile systems, giving the ship a fighting chance against cruise missiles and aircraft. After all, who's to say nothing could hit such a ship? Indeed, such a container ship is essentially a one-time use; from now on, all such ships will be subject to increased scrutiny. Especially those suspected of belonging to a particular country's navy, which is generally easy to do these days. Just like with the tankers of the "shadow fleet." But oil is oil, and missiles are missiles.
Okay, we've solved the air defense issue. But there are still submarines. A missile-carrying bulk carrier is completely defenseless against them. And it wouldn't be difficult for a submarine to neutralize such a ship. Of course, it's very easy to install hydroacoustic equipment in a bulk carrier's holds, that's undeniable.
A cargo ship is also an adversary for a missile carrier. Imagine such a ship leaving Novorossiysk and heading toward Sevastopol, from where it could launch a missile strike on the port of Odessa, for example. How quickly would it be detected and kamikaze boats dispatched from that direction? Yes, a bulk carrier has a large deck capable of accommodating a helicopter, maybe even two. A helicopter is a very unpleasant sight for a cargo ship, capable of quickly and inexpensively organizing a fireworks display on the water.
Stop.
Cruise missiles, hydroacoustic equipment, anti-submarine torpedoes, anti-aircraft missiles, rapid-fire artillery From killer boats, long-range radars—and don't you, dear readers, think this has been around before? And it's called a "frigate"?
For some reason, they had to stuff a frigate's payload into the hull of a clumsy, slow cargo ship for camouflage. It's a lousy idea. It might work, of course, but that would be a serious problem for a fourth- or fifth-world country. Where there's decent intelligence, they'll spot it and neutralize it.
Okay, a dry cargo ship used as a TPM, or transport and launch vehicle, in coastal parlance. That is, the missiles are in launch containers, while the guidance systems and control center are located elsewhere. That's an option, but then a proper ship would still need to be stationed nearby to protect the missile carrier from any problems.
The same applies to those “BEC swarms” that some of us are openly raving about.
Swarm is effective in the air when it comes to small, maneuverable and relatively fast units.
But the six-meter Magura, cruising at 40 km/h, is a different story. A squadron of such boats would be perfectly visible from quite a distance, unless they were creeping along at such a speed that they left no wake.
The unmanned boat has proven its effectiveness as a stealthy means of destroying ships, primarily at night, when detection is somewhat difficult. However, it can still be called a "beggar's torpedo," as it is much easier to destroy an unmanned boat than a torpedo or anti-ship missile. The boat's maximum speed of 60-70 km/h, compared to 800-1000 km/h for a cruise missile, is a significant difference.
The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a very good complement to existing naval weapons, but it will in no way replace conventional ships. At least not for the next 10-15 years.
Another question: why did some experts suddenly start to consider the BEK a very effective weapon? It's an interesting question, and I think there's a very sensible answer to it. But that will be a separate article, as it's expected to be quite lengthy.
I read a very unique analysis and comparison of the Black Sea Fleet's actions in 1941-42 and 2022-2024, written by an author in our segment of the internet. Yes, there are many similarities, but...
Anyway, until the next article, we'll continue there.
Information