NATO ships are at rising risk. Top commanders tell BI it's time to rethink naval defense.
NATO warships are sailing into a dangerous new era of naval warfare in which the threats are growing fast, two senior alliance commanders recently told Business Insider.
From the Black Sea to the Red Sea, the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have exposed key vulnerabilities and shown NATO what its naval forces need to operate in risky environments. Dangers to warships these days include threats like hostile drones, missiles, and other naval vessels, capabilities built on rapidly advancing combat technology.
So what does NATO need? Layered defenses, cheaper ways to destroy enemy threats, and deeper ammunition stockpiles.
Vice Adm. James Morley, the deputy commander of NATO's Joint Force Command Norfolk, told BI that Ukraine and the Red Sea "have revealed the need to be ready to deal with a higher level of intensity than we had previously scaled for, both in terms of stock and in terms of time on the front line."
In the Black Sea, Ukrainian forces have repeatedly used domestically produced naval drones to damage and destroy Russian warships, showing the risks that relatively cheap, asymmetric combat solutions pose to conventional naval forces.
Far away, at the southern end of the Red Sea, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have launched missiles and drones at merchant vessels and NATO warships defending international shipping lanes.
In its efforts to fend off the Houthi attacks, the US Navy has faced its most intense combat since World War II, US officials have previously said.
Morley said NATO warships are at a higher risk because of the number of global actors who are prepared to use military force.
Weapons proliferation has given actors who might previously have been unable to threaten advanced navies a new ability to do so. In the case of the Houthis, for instance, the group's missile attacks have raised the level of danger in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden to a level not seen in years.
The situation is different in Europe, where NATO warships have not been shot at but tensions are running high. There have been several incidents with Moscow that raise the level of risk.
'The mindset needs to be layered defense'
Surface warships face an expanding range of threats, from anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles and torpedoes to enemy aircraft and drones. Some weapons now in play only recently saw combat for the first time.
The high operational tempo in the Red Sea has informed Western military planners about what limitations they face regarding magazine capacity, weapons inventory, and reloading capabilities.
Morley said that as the weaponry that can threaten warships increases, so must the defensive capabilities aboard the vessels in danger. It's important to invest in missile stockpiles and ensure that NATO defense industrial bases can produce enough and ships can carry enough should they sail into a fight.
The days "of driving around with a silo of ammunition that never gets used is sadly now in the past," he said, explaining that "ships routinely come back from the Red Sea, for example, having expended ammunition, and they need to be resupplied and then get back out on patrol." US Navy warships, for instance, have expended significant quantities of SM-series interceptor missiles for air defense.
Air defense isn't just about numbers. It's also about dollars.
The rise of inexpensive strike drones — some just tens of thousands of dollars apiece — as a tool of naval warfare has NATO forces trying to figure out how they can cheaply defeat these threats without wasting a surface-to-air missile costing millions. The aim is to bring the cost difference between the threat and the interceptor much closer to parity.
"I think the mindset needs to be layered defense," Morley said. Warships need the expensive, higher-end missiles to deal with sophisticated threats. But breaking the cost-curve challenge means having a range of capabilities so complex interceptors aren't expended on the simple threats.
American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, for instance, are kitted with options like the M2 Browning .50 caliber machine guns, Mark 38 turret systems, five-inch artillery cannons, and a variety of surface-to-air missiles. These weapons allow the warships to confront a range of threats, though some options, like the deck guns, come with drawbacks, such as permitting threats to get much closer to warships than desired.
Big platforms aren't obsolete
Adm. Pierre Vandier, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, who oversees alliance modernization efforts, said emerging technologies, like drones, have created new problems for larger platforms like warships, as has been the case in the Black Sea. Anything that exists on the water could effectively be hit.
Vandier identified uncrewed systems as one of the biggest changes in naval warfare over the past decade and said one risk is that a warship could be overwhelmed by a swarm of drones.
"You need to find ways on the ships to be protected from that and to engage multiple targets at the same time," he said. That could be kinetic, involving a physical strike, or some alternative, like electronic warfare.
NATO is working to incorporate lessons learned from Ukraine and the Red Sea into its combat training. At last month's Formidable Shield 25 exercise, US sailors practiced using the deck guns to shoot down small quadcopter drones that they could face in a swarm attack.
They also practiced defending against uncrewed surface vehicles like the ones Ukraine has used to batter Russia's Black Sea fleet.
Exercises such as Formidable Shield allow allied navies to practice navigating air defense challenges and learn how to engage cheaper threats with cheaper defenses, thus saving the more expensive methods for the higher-end threats.
Despite the growing number of threats to warships, Vandier said the rise of drones doesn't necessarily render them obsolete. Aircraft carriers, the flagships of a fleet, can project force globally with embarked aviation. They travel in heavily defended strike groups, making the carriers particularly formidable and hard to reach for enemy attacks.
"To get to a carrier, you have layers," Vandier said. "It's a battle between the shield and the sword. My personal feeling is that the story is not finished for the big platforms. Not yet."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran Stands Alone Against Trump and Israel, Stripped of Allies
(Bloomberg) -- Iran's leaders are discovering they're on their own against the US and Israel, without the network of proxies and allies that allowed them to project power in the Middle East and beyond. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports As the Islamic Republic confronts its most perilous moment in decades following the bombing of its nuclear facilities ordered by US President Donald Trump, Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines and offering only rhetorical support. Militia groups Iran has armed and funded for years are refusing or unable to enter the fight in support of their patron. After decades of being stuck in a game of fragile detente, the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East is being redone. The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was only the beginning. It led to multiple conflicts and tested decades-long alliances. It offered Trump, on his return to power this year, a chance to do what no president before him had dared by attacking Iran so aggressively and directly. Since Israel started strikes on Iran on June 13, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of goals beyond neutering Tehran's nuclear threat, even hinting at regime change. But the risk is that an isolated Iran could become more unpredictable with its once-steadfast allies keeping their distance. 'As Iran faces its most critical military test in decades, further tangible assistance from either Moscow or Beijing remains unlikely,' said Bloomberg Economics analysts including Adam Farrar and Dina Esfandiary. 'While both maintain bilateral strategic partnerships with Tehran, neither Russia nor China is a formal military ally, and neither is likely to provide significant military or economic aid due to their own limitations and broader strategic considerations.' Iran isn't getting any support, either, from the BRICS grouping of emerging markets that purports to want a new global order that's not dominated by Western nations. The organization — set up by Brazil, Russia, India and China and which Iran joined in early 2024 — has been silent over Israel and the US's attacks on the Islamic Republic. Iran signed a strategic cooperation treaty with Russia in January and it was a vital source of combat drones early in President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. However, Russian officials have made clear the pact includes no mutual-defense obligations and that Moscow has no intention of supplying Iran with weapons, even as they say Tehran hasn't asked for any. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Turkey on Sunday he plans to travel to Moscow to discuss the situation with Putin on Monday. He can expect warm words and little practical support. That's a far cry from 2015, when Russia joined Iran in sending forces to Syria to save the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad, which was eventually toppled by rebels last year. Moscow risks losing another key ally in the Middle East if the government in Tehran led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei falls. Yet while the Kremlin has condemned the Israeli and US attacks, Putin is distracted and stretched — militarily and economically — by his war in Ukraine. China, too, 'strongly' condemned the US strikes as a breach of international law. But it hasn't offered assistance to Iran, which sells some 90% of its oil exports to Beijing. Iran's Gulf neighbors urged restraint and warned of potentially devastating implications for the region if Iran retaliates against US assets in the Middle East. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates spent months trying to use their geopolitical and economic heft to bolster nuclear talks between the Americans and Iran. In the end, the talks have been overtaken by military power. Iran's proxy militant groups are mostly absent too. Hezbollah in Lebanon, hitherto the most potent member of Tehran's 'axis of resistance' was pummeled by Israeli forces last year, much as Hamas was. Israeli strikes on Assad's military in Syria, meanwhile, played a part in his government's collapse. Hezbollah still poses a threat and on Sunday the US ordered family members and non-emergency government personnel to leave Lebanon. Still, the group's not threatened to back Iran by firing on Israel, as it did right after Hamas' attack in 2023. The Houthis in Yemen are an exception and hours about the US strikes on Iran, they issued fresh threats against US commercial and naval ships. Yet they risk another American bombardment like that one Trump ordered before a truce with the group in May. The Europeans, meanwhile, are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of swaying Trump and Israel, and Tehran. The UK, France and Germany have historically held an important role in the Middle East. They represented the dominant economies in Europe. The first two were colonial powers in the region and in the case of Germany, given its Nazi past, there was a strong pro-Israel voice. Both the UK and France have had to handle a vocal voter constituency that was pro Palestinian and complicated their messaging. That was not always an easy needle to thread. The current UK government is led by Labour, whose legacy was damaged by Tony Blair's decision to join US President George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq in 2003. So for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has finally wrested control of the country from Conservatives, there is no upside to supporting any US military involvement. Trump didn't seem to need it, and the UK was happy to stay out of it even though it has enough of a presence that it could have been useful. Europeans find themselves sidelined with little power to influence the outcome. At the Group of Seven summit, Trump put France's President Emmanuel Macron in his place for suggesting the US was working toward a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. That did not stop Macron from working the phones, but the harsh reality that has filtered through is that Europe has its own existential crisis much closer to home. It needs Trump to at least make a cameo in The Hague for a NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday. The organization's leaders want assurances the US post-World War II commitment to stop Russian expansionism still stands. Europe has provided back channels for Iran in the past. In a climate where Europe and the US aren't working together on Iran, it's possible some valuable diplomatic signaling may be lost. That's one side effect of the US going it alone and of Europe being a bit player, as the crisis in the Middle East deepens. --With assistance from Eric Martin. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
33 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
US boosts emergency Middle East evacuations and travel warnings after Trump orders strikes in Iran
WASHINGTON — The State Department has doubled the number of emergency evacuation flights it is providing for American citizens wishing to leave Israel, ordered the departure of nonessential staff from the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and is stepping up travel warnings around the Middle East amid concerns Iran will retaliate against U.S. interests in the region. In internal and public notices, the department over the weekend significantly ramped up its cautionary advice to Americans in the Mideast. In a notice on Sunday, after American strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, the department said it had ordered nonessential personnel and the families of staff at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut to leave Lebanon 'due to the volatile and unpredictable security situation in the region.' The notice made no mention of any potential evacuation flights or other assistance for private Americans wanting to leave Lebanon but said those who want to should try to use existing commercial services to depart. At the same time, the department issued warnings to U.S. citizens in Saudi Arabia and Turkey to take extra security precautions given the uncertainty. 'Given reports of regional hostilities, the U.S. Mission to Saudi Arabia has advised its personnel to exercise increased caution and limit non-essential travel to any military installations in the region,' the department said in its notice for Saudi Arabia. In Turkey, the department said U.S. personnel 'have been cautioned to maintain a low profile and instructed to avoid personal travel to the U.S. Consulate Adana consular district,' which includes the NATO airbase at Incirlik. 'Negative sentiment toward U.S. foreign policy may prompt actions against U.S. or Western interests in Turkey,' the statement said. Late Saturday, the department said it was stepping up evacuation flights for American citizens from Israel to Europe and continuing to draw down its staff at diplomatic missions in Iraq. But even before the U.S. airstrikes on Iran were made public by President Donald Trump on Saturday evening in Washington, the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem had announced the start of evacuation flights for private Americans from Israel. Sixty-seven American citizens left Israel on two government flights bound for Athens, Greece on Saturday and four more evacuation flights to Athens were planned for Sunday, according to internal State Department document seen by The Associated Press. A nongovernment charter flight is scheduled to depart Israel for Rome on Monday. In addition to the flights, a cruise ship carrying more than 1,000 American citizens, including several hundred Jewish youngsters who had been visiting Israel on an organized tour, arrived in Cyprus, according to the document. It also said the evacuation of non-essential personnel at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and consulate in Erbil is continuing. Those staffers had been ordered to leave even before Israel began its military operation in Iran more than a week ago. 'As part of our ongoing effort to streamline operations, additional personnel departed Iraq on June 21 and 22,' the department said. 'These departures represent a continuation of the process started on June 12.' As of Saturday, more than 7,900 Americans had asked for assistance in leaving Israel and more than 1,000 had sought help in leaving Iran, where the U.S. has no diplomatic presence, the document said. There are roughly 700,000 Americans, many of them dual U.S.-Israeli citizens, in Israel and many thousands of Americans, most of them dual in Iran. It was not clear how many Americans had successfully made it out of Iran through overland routes, although the document said more than 200 had entered neighboring Azerbaijan as of Saturday since the conflict began. After the U.S. strikes in Iran, security officers at all U.S. embassies and consulates have been instructed to conduct reviews of their post's security posture and report back to the State Department by late Sunday.
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
WATCH LIVE: Israel's UN representative speaks ahead of emergency session
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Emergency UN session after US attacks Iranian nuclear sites
