Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Royal Navy’s Autonomous Minesweeper Proves It Capabilities In Cold-Weather Trials
The SWEEP minesweeper system – designed to defeat the threat of underwater sea mines and safely clear sea lanes – has recently proven its capabilities during two weeks of cold-weather sea trials.

Developed by Atlas Elektronik (AEUK) as part of a £13 million contract, the autonomous vessel can pull three coil auxiliary boats behind it, with each emitting magnetic, electric and acoustic signals that can detonate a variety of mines.

SWEEP is a complimentary system used to deal with mines that cannot be dealt with using traditional mine-hunting tactics and, having already proven to be capable of defeating the threat of modern digital mines in normal weather conditions, cold-weather trials were recently conducted to ensure its capability.
Read More: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... er-trials/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

Though I should hop over to this thread.
Jake1992 wrote:I think the idea of the multi mission sloop came about from the MHCP concept
Formally called C3, then MHCP, and again renamed as MHC after the OPV Batch 2 contract.

If you look at this graphic, the MOD put the future IOC at 2030, so 25 years between MHCP and the end product. Loads has changed in that time, which I think makes them almost irrelevant to each other.

Image

In that time frame the Navy has bought frigates with mission bays, and will hopefully buy some littoral strike ships. I'll suggest that these vessels can cover the more challenging mine clearance tasks, but it's probably too expensive to use these for all MCM duties. This leaves a gap for a simple vessel to fill the simple tasks.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote: In that time frame the Navy has bought frigates with mission bays, and will hopefully buy some littoral strike ships. I'll suggest that these vessels can cover the more challenging mine clearance tasks, but it's probably too expensive to use these for all MCM duties. This leaves a gap for a simple vessel to fill the simple tasks.
Ok, we’ve ordered 3 T26s with mission bays - let’s hope for 8. Not nearly enough if you want to replace the 8 ASW Frigates and 15 MCMVs. Not sure what you mean by “simple” if you mean just a few civilian PSVs, then no chance of ever safely navigating the CBG or ensuring the SLOCs to UK shipping outside of the UK EEZ.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

That's your fabrication. There is no requirement to put a mine hunter with the carrier group, or whatever that last bit means.

The only thing that's changing is the mine clearance hull will sit outside the red zone, nothing else.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:There is no requirement to put a mine hunter with the carrier group
Only when it sails on a LitM mission, which would mean that there will be ships (are LCUs, and down from there, also ships?) that would need to go close to shore (shallow waters) or even beach.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

In that scenario no dedicated platform is required, operate from another hull, or better yet from the shore.

Use at Iraq as a case study; because of the mine threat, Marines were airlifted to the shore. Once the Marines achieved their objective, remote minesweepers were brought in to clear a channel to port.

It will be a similar model in the future.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:better yet from the shore
Err, we first need to take that shore (an amph. op, if not always an assault)
shark bait wrote:Marines were airlifted to the shore
Yes, from shore to shore. Will seldom apply (otherwise we could make a mega-saving on the amph. shipping)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by SW1 »

Did they not add mcm gear to North Sea trawlers for use in the Falklands ?

Online
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Oh! You mean when we still had half a Fishing industry, with enough trawlers to spare! :mrgreen:

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by S M H »

SW1 wrote:Did they not add mcm gear to North Sea trawlers for use in the Falklands ?
There was a sweep trial with a anchor handling vessel (small rig tender) . It had mixed results. The R.N.R were to man them when they lost there own sweepers. But this was not pushed forward. A more modern mine hunting requirement would be better fitted on rig tenders than sweeping gear fitted to the stern trawlers were pressed into service in 1982.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by SW1 »

S M H wrote:
SW1 wrote:Did they not add mcm gear to North Sea trawlers for use in the Falklands ?
There was a sweep trial with a anchor handling vessel (small rig tender) . It had mixed results. The R.N.R were to man them when they lost there own sweepers. But this was not pushed forward. A more modern mine hunting requirement would be better fitted on rig tenders than sweeping gear fitted to the stern trawlers were pressed into service in 1982.
I was thinking that future mcm may end up a little like the submarine rescue system able to be used and deployed very quickly globally and used from a host of vessels, oil industry ships maybe a way to go

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:That's your fabrication. There is no requirement to put a mine hunter with the carrier group, or whatever that last bit means.
Or your delusion. How do you think Carrier Groups will safely navigate areas such as the Gulf? How do you think we would prevent UK shipping being hit by mines / prevented access in wartime?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Lord Jim »

With A2/AD becoming a n issue more and more, send a Carrier Group up into the Gulf is going to be a non starter, at least north of the Straits. More likely it would be out in the Indian Ocean where it would have room to manoeuvre and be harder to pin point.

But we do need some form a MCV that can go into harms way, not necessarily the enemy's front yard, but at least have inboard decoys and other counter measures to give it some protection. Unmanned Systems will probably be the core of any mine clearance capability, ranging from sophisticated detection platforms able to cover a large area in one go, to disposable assets able to rove ahead of a formation, identify and destroy any threats in its path. The former will need to be autonomous and have considerable endurance and be able to keep up with naval groups, whilst the latter should be able to be deployed from a multitude of platforms, everything from an OPV to an Escort to a RFA or Amphibious warfare platform. Command and control should be modular and deployable, ideally in ISO containers, so that almost any naval platform could become the C2 node for these type of operation.

So rather than looking to replace the Hunts and Sandowns with similar platforms, and removing the Patrol function from the MHPC, it should be embraced, with a vessel the size of the River OPVs resulting from it. The modular Mine Countermeasure assets could be used from these vessels if less hostile areas or when under he protection of higher end assets, or they could be carryout other duties such a Hydrographic research or patrol duties as required. Maybe one of the B1 Rivers could be used as a trials vessel for this idea, equipping it with better self defence capabilities as listed above and test various combinations of unmanned systems as well as the containerised C2 option.

Online
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Scimitar54 »

And out of effective range to be able to hit the likely targets! :mrgreen:

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:With A2/AD becoming a n issue more and more, send a Carrier Group up into the Gulf is going to be a non starter, at least north of the Straits. More likely it would be out in the Indian Ocean where it would have room to manoeuvre and be harder to pin point.

But we do need some form a MCV that can go into harms way, not necessarily the enemy's front yard, but at least have inboard decoys and other counter measures to give it some protection. Unmanned Systems will probably be the core of any mine clearance capability, ranging from sophisticated detection platforms able to cover a large area in one go, to disposable assets able to rove ahead of a formation, identify and destroy any threats in its path. The former will need to be autonomous and have considerable endurance and be able to keep up with naval groups, whilst the latter should be able to be deployed from a multitude of platforms, everything from an OPV to an Escort to a RFA or Amphibious warfare platform. Command and control should be modular and deployable, ideally in ISO containers, so that almost any naval platform could become the C2 node for these type of operation.

So rather than looking to replace the Hunts and Sandowns with similar platforms, and removing the Patrol function from the MHPC, it should be embraced, with a vessel the size of the River OPVs resulting from it. The modular Mine Countermeasure assets could be used from these vessels if less hostile areas or when under he protection of higher end assets, or they could be carryout other duties such a Hydrographic research or patrol duties as required. Maybe one of the B1 Rivers could be used as a trials vessel for this idea, equipping it with better self defence capabilities as listed above and test various combinations of unmanned systems as well as the containerised C2 option.
This is exactly what Iv been saying back to the MHCP from a evolved RB2 design IMO that can defend its self and it’s off board system up to a certain threat level or can be used in the patrol role when the RB2 are called back for EEZ work.
Yet some keep telling me there’s no need for patrol as we have the RB2 ( neglecting EEZ needs ) and that the “mother ship” doesn’t need to defend anything so it can all be done from cheap commercial vessels all the time.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Caribbean »

SW1 wrote:Did they not add mcm gear to North Sea trawlers for use in the Falklands ?
They did - five in total (commissioned as HMS Junella, Cordella, Farnella, Northella and Pict). They were equipped with EDATS (Extra Deep Armed Team Sweep) and various bit of bolt-on sonar and other equipment. I've read that the equipment was prone to failure and, at one point, ofthem resorted to steaming in circles, revving its engine, in attempt to detonate acoustic mines! They did, however, apparently find a secondary use moving and re-supplying Special Forces arund the island
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:Or your delusion. How do you think Carrier Groups will safely navigate areas such as the Gulf? How do you think we would prevent UK shipping being hit by mines / prevented access in wartime?
In the entire history of the aircraft carrier no Navy has ever built mine hunters specifically to escort carriers, and for one really simple reason; a carrier will never risk moving that slowly that close to a hostile shore. A carrier group simply does not feature in the design of a mine clearance hull.

Mine clearance is slow methodical work, and is never done during a battle. This means there has never been a requirement for a 'fighty ship', or 'sloop'. None of this will change moving to the next generation of remote mine hunting, meaning adding more complexity is fixing a problem that has never existed.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

Jake1992 wrote: that the “mother ship” doesn’t need to defend anything so it can all be done from cheap commercial vessels all the time.
Mine clearance platforms today do not need advanced defences. How will change as mine clearance becomes a remote activity?

Furthermore how does a vessel defend anything working a couple of miles along the threat axis? The answer is it would need a local area air defence system, with is ridiculously over the top for a mine hunter and would make it ludicrously expensive. It would cost tens of millions of pounds to protect a drone that costs a couple of hundred grand.
@LandSharkUK

Online
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Unless you can protect a Surface Drone with an (aerial) Drone! :mrgreen:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A 2012 DSTL document identified that USV technology could be used to track ships and provide intelligence to maritime forces, particularly in combination with other types of drones and in support of covert operations.

Demonstrating the Royal Navy’s support for robotic vessels, its future warship, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, is specifically designed to launch and operate aerial, underwater and surface drones.
... and one that has been already demonstrated would fit perfectly (both the mission and the facilities to handle it):
" The US Navy has for the first time launched six Spike missiles from an unmanned surface vessel precision engagement module (USV PEM), successfully hitting a floating target as far away as 3.5km.

[...] successfully engage armed small boat swarms.The USV PEM platform is an 11m-long inflatable hulled vessel armed with a 0.50 calibre gun alongside the missile launcher."

But back to MCM itself (from giving the drones 'force protection'), have just noticed that there is a special issue out on this:
14 May 2020
Analysis
Unmanned minehunters: new issue of Global Defence Technology out now
- promises to be in-depth for the USN and RM assets/ projects under development
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:In the entire history of the aircraft carrier no Navy has ever built mine hunters specifically to escort carriers, and for one really simple reason; a carrier will never risk moving that slowly that close to a hostile shore. A carrier group simply does not feature in the design of a mine clearance hull.
I never used the term MCM Escort. The fact that the T26 will be probably the best designed warship for operating USVs and they will all be tied up mainly escorting they Carriers is a consequence of not buying enough.
shark bait wrote:This means there has never been a requirement for a 'fighty ship', or 'sloop'. None of this will change moving to the next generation of remote mine hunting, meaning adding more complexity is fixing a problem that has never existed
You are stuck with the illusion of a binary war/peace situation. Using my Gulf example, where to say theoretically to strike Iraq (again) the CBG needs to navigate the Gulf. To allow this MCM assets need to be forward based to ensure that the channels are cleared all of the time. As recent events have shown, the mood can turn very quickly and the IRGC would have a field day with unarmed drones or civilian PSV design as some mention. These platforms are and will increasingly become targets and need the ability to defend themselves. Sure, you could protect using frigates, but there are too few and then you are then limited by the number of Frigates you have available.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

You keep making this massive leap with zero justification.

The Royal Navy have basic mine hunters operating in the Gulf today, why will the switch to remote mine hunting require complex mine hunters?
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:You keep making this massive leap with zero justification.

The Royal Navy have basic mine hunters operating in the Gulf today, why will the switch to remote mine hunting require complex mine hunters?
The RN have 4 "basic" mine hunters, 1 LSD and 1 frigate based in the Gulf today.

The current mine hunters are a legacy cold war design. Their role was to protect UK navy bases from being mined and trapping the surface fleet and submarines in port. For this role, it was assumed that they would be working close to home in friendly waters and would not come under air attack or surface attack.

For their work in the Gulf, they have to be forward deployed because their transit speed is too slow. They have to be supported by a LSD mothership because the Strait of Hormuz is a relatively long distance from their base in the Gulf. And they have to be protected by a frigate or two because they have almost no self defence capability.

It is a mistake to look at the current capability and assume it is adequate for its role and all that needs to change is greater use of unmanned systems. It is sort of adequate for its role, provided for every 4 mine hunters you also add in a LSD and one or two frigates.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: The Royal Navy have basic mine hunters operating in the Gulf today, why will the switch to remote mine hunting require complex mine hunters?
Judging by their price, I would not call them v basic (perhaps you mean guns and missiles; nearly absent).

One can go the all singing & all dancing way, as India has decided:
"The Navy wants 800- to 1,000-ton vessels with composite anti-magnetic hulls that can clear sea mines laid by enemy warships, submarines and aircraft to blockade harbors during war, the Navy official said, and will acquire 24 such vessels over the next decade. "
- $5bn for the first dozen (but in that tech transfer has been budgeted for, too)

Why do that when one can do it by remote means: the Hunts, as platforms, are well suited for that (Sandowns a tad small).
- if the treat level is v high, use a mission bay and containerised C2 on a frigate (if it happens to have a mission bay; Rivers would do nicely, too, but can't do much defending... so another, proper :) , warship would be tied down to do the defending)

However, clearly this type of situation should be the exception, because the opportunity cost for tying down the mission deck/ the whole frigate is high
- however, there is no double investment as the kit can quickly be put on another platform
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

Aethulwulf wrote:And they have to be protected by a frigate or two because they have almost no self defence capability.
False. The Frigate its not in the Gulf escorting the Mine Hunters, they both go about their business almost independently of each other.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply