UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 Oct 2017, 13:40

Is cutting by 5 true? Which means, MCMV going down to 10?

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Zealot » 29 Jan 2018, 00:03

Belgian Government Green Lights Procurement of New Generation MCM Vessels

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ssels.html

As far as the Belgian Navy is concerned, six MCMV with related equipment, support equipment and initial support will be procured to replace the six existing Tripartite-class MCMV. Six similar, new generation vessels, will also be procured for the Royal Netherlands Navy. According to a Belgian government press release, other European partners can join this project as a result of this public contract. The vessels and "MCM toolboxes" are expected to be delivered between 2021 and 2030.


This is is something we should be jumping on board with!

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby benny14 » 29 Jan 2018, 03:11

Gabriele wrote:Now the MCM ships to be lost are 5, with the 2 Hunt going because they were in for expensive refits. Easy cuts, "easy" money (but for what was already committed and cannot be recovered).


Could the 2 recent ships to leave service not be including in the original plan, just far earlier than planned? If that were the case, there would be 1 more to be removed from service, taking us from 13 to the 2025 plan of 12.

10 would be dangerous considering our current commitments require us to have 7 MCN vessels. 2 on home duties, 4 in the gulf, 1 in NATO.

Edit: SDSR 2015 said the three oldest sandown vessels. RN perfect logic, so last month we also decommission two of the newest and more capable hunt classes vessels.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Jan 2018, 10:47

For me as said take the Kit off the newly decommissioned Hunt class and make portable to fit the new Rivers flight deck and making use of the hoofing crane

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Jan 2018, 14:17

Kits on the decommissioned Hunt will not be easily become "portable". How far a Sea Fox can be used? And, how near a River B2 can be safe with mine detonation? Locating Sea Fox always at the edge of its effective range is also very very ineffective.

I will rather let the modernization of Hunts to stop, and send these RoV kits to a PSV, like B2M of french navy. Good for HADR, good for cheap, and good for sea going. Also Rive B2 can be used, but not sure we need at 25kts speed for MCMVs, while patrolling tasks do need it.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 10 Apr 2018, 01:06

Is a stretched variant of the eventual MHPC hull now the most credible way to introduce more ASW capability into the fleet?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 10 Apr 2018, 07:54

That depends on too many variables to make a real call.

It's unlikely the future mine hunters will be high performance vessels (nor should they be), making it unlikely they will smooth running at task group speeds, resulting in poor sonar performance. Big blue water ASW is probably off the cards here.

They may find a use operating a small active tactical sonar in the littorals, either directly from the hull, or maintaining an autonomous boat, possibly a derivative of the autonomous mine hunters in development (like the Israelis are doing) . Perhaps this may be use for infrastructure protection, or supporting an amphibious operation.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 10 Apr 2018, 11:23

I don’t see the need to stretch the Venari 95 design would fulfil the MHPC and littoral ASW role IMO.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 12:18

Repulse wrote:I don’t see the need to stretch the Venari 95 design would fulfil the MHPC and littoral ASW role IMO.


If I remember right the Venari 85 at 85m has s wildcat flight deck but only a UAV hanger.

If they are intended to do ASW rolls and low end security ( counter piritcy and so on, which I believe they are ) then wouldn't stretching the design by 10m-15m to allow a wildcat hang be a good call ?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 10 Apr 2018, 12:55

Jake1992 wrote:
Repulse wrote:I don’t see the need to stretch the Venari 95 design would fulfil the MHPC and littoral ASW role IMO.


If I remember right the Venari 85 at 85m has s wildcat flight deck but only a UAV hanger.

If they are intended to do ASW rolls and low end security ( counter piritcy and so on, which I believe they are ) then wouldn't stretching the design by 10m-15m to allow a wildcat hang be a good call ?


Typo on the number, thanks. If we are talking about primarily UK/BOT ASW duties I’d say a Merlin capable flight deck would be ok.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 13:02

Repulse wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Repulse wrote:I don’t see the need to stretch the Venari 95 design would fulfil the MHPC and littoral ASW role IMO.


If I remember right the Venari 85 at 85m has s wildcat flight deck but only a UAV hanger.

If they are intended to do ASW rolls and low end security ( counter piritcy and so on, which I believe they are ) then wouldn't stretching the design by 10m-15m to allow a wildcat hang be a good call ?


Typo on the number, thanks. If we are talking about primarily UK/BOT ASW duties I’d say a Merlin capable flight deck would be ok.


I was under the impression that the idea behind the MCH program was for a comman platform design that will at any time be able to undertake any of the roles from mcm to survey work to low end sercurity and "maybe shallow water ASW"

To do all of that especially low end security wouldn't a wildcat hanger be of more use ?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Apr 2018, 14:50

Why we need a helo hangar on a MCM vessel?

I think Venari 85 as it is is a good ship. Extending it will just result in less number of hulls. The reason Venari 85 has a UAV hangar is that US Navy is developing a laser based mine detection system to be carried on RQ8B = for MCM.

I think the MHC vessel must be a vessel built for MCM, equipped with MCM kits, and primary operating MCM. Mine is a big threat. The new idea here is that MHC can "self deploy" = no need for the Bay as their mother ship. Note, from this fact only, I'm pretty sure their number build will be less than the MCMVs + Hydrographic vessels, RN has now.

AND,

thanks to the "self deploy" capability, they can work as a Patrol Vessel when they are free / in leisure. Not vice versa.

If we want a "good" Patrol vessel coupled with MHC, I propose to just build MCM version and "Patrol Ship version" separately. Say, nine 85-m-long MHC vessels for MCM+H, and four ~100-m-long patrol ship version to replace (or cancel) T31e.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 15:01

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Why we need a helo hangar on a MCM vessel?

I think Venari 85 as it is is a good ship. Extending it will just result in less number of hulls. The reason Venari 85 has a UAV hangar is that US Navy is developing a laser based mine detection system to be carried on RQ8B = for MCM.

I think the MHC vessel must be a vessel built for MCM, equipped with MCM kits, and primary operating MCM. Mine is a big threat. The new idea here is that MHC can "self deploy" = no need for the Bay as their mother ship. Note, from this fact only, I'm pretty sure their number build will be less than the MCMVs + Hydrographic vessels, RN has now.

AND,

thanks to the "self deploy" capability, they can work as a Patrol Vessel when they are free / in leisure. Not vice versa.

If we want a "good" Patrol vessel coupled with MHC, I propose to just build MCM version and "Patrol Ship version" separately. Say, nine 85-m-long MHC vessels for MCM+H, and four ~100-m-long patrol ship version to replace (or cancel) T31e.


Because as I said the idea behind it is that it's meant to be one class of ship that can do all 3 roles ( mcm, survey and low end security ) a Helo is ideal for the latter one of them.

Breaking it in to 2 seperate classes and designs would lose the economy of scale and commonality that the RN are going for with the project.

From what Iv seen on it the plan is to allow the vessel to be able to almost which role at a click by just changing the off board systems they are carrying

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Apr 2018, 15:21

Jake1992 wrote:Because as I said the idea behind it is that it's meant to be one class of ship that can do all 3 roles ( mcm, survey and low end security ) a Helo is ideal for the latter one of them.
Then why not just use T26 for it. It can do "ASW frigate", "GP frigate" and even "MCM" I think.
Breaking it in to 2 seperate classes and designs would lose the economy of scale and commonality that the RN are going for with the project.
From what Iv seen on it the plan is to allow the vessel to be able to almost which role at a click by just changing the off board systems they are carrying
RN is NOT requiring ASW for MHC. It is not requiring helo hangar, neither. RN wants a MCMV which can self deploy. And, just because it means a slightly larger hull, many secondary roles may come in. Not vice versa. If the secondary roles are taken so high, the final answer will be a T26, and there will be very limited number of MHCs on water. :D

And this MUST be avoided.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Apr 2018, 15:58

Two related comments

1: How a "extension amidship" will cause maintenance difference?
Between T22B1 and B2, or between T42B1/2 an B3, there was a big maintenance gap?

2: A multi-purpose ship to change the mission unit. Is it feasible idea? To my understanding;
- USN LCS stopped that idea. They are to operate a dedicated MCM fleet, ASW fleet and training fleet, and not going to mix them. Yes, the hull is common, but I'm not sure commonality made it cheap or not.
- Danish stan-flex ships. SF300 class was a missile FAC and MCMV. But, they were also not mixed.

I think, between "carrying a MCM mission system for MCM tasks" and "nothing for Patrol duty", will be OK. But, "carrying a MCM mission system for MCM tasks" and then "carrying an ASW mission system for ASW tasks" may not work.

Thus, building nine (?) Batch-1 vessels for MCM/Hydro or Patrol, and building a few extended Batch-2 vessels for shallow-water-ASW or Patrol, may make sense. Uhmm, no confidence here. Sorry.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 10 Apr 2018, 16:19

I’d say medium term a Venari 85 would be able to take over from the River Class for EEZ / Fisheries Patrol duties - the current MCMs help out already. Note though, it is not a GP/Patrol Frigate whatever that does...
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 17:00

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Because as I said the idea behind it is that it's meant to be one class of ship that can do all 3 roles ( mcm, survey and low end security ) a Helo is ideal for the latter one of them.
Then why not just use T26 for it. It can do "ASW frigate", "GP frigate" and even "MCM" I think.
Breaking it in to 2 seperate classes and designs would lose the economy of scale and commonality that the RN are going for with the project.
From what Iv seen on it the plan is to allow the vessel to be able to almost which role at a click by just changing the off board systems they are carrying
RN is NOT requiring ASW for MHC. It is not requiring helo hangar, neither. RN wants a MCMV which can self deploy. And, just because it means a slightly larger hull, many secondary roles may come in. Not vice versa. If the secondary roles are taken so high, the final answer will be a T26, and there will be very limited number of MHCs on water. :D

And this MUST be avoided.


Because the RN wants a relatively cheap and small vessels that can do the 3 roles I mentioned above ( coastle ASW would just be a bonus )
Why on earth would you waste a high end T26 in those roles especially with how little T26s were going to have. The Venari 85 slightly stretched to allow a wildcat hanger would be near perfect for the 3 roles the RN want the MHC program to do.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 10 Apr 2018, 18:02

Jake1992, the current B2 Rivers are 90.5m long so granted the final Venari design could be made longer to ensure it has a Merlin capable flight deck. Assuming the P(atrol) goes back into MHPC then the earliest it will come into operation will be in 10 years time, there is not a lot of hurry given the Rivers (and option to build a couple more) and the life extensions on the MCMs. In a decades’ time, the RN should have its act together and will be operating Helo UAVs, asssuming that there are enough Wildcats, perhaps an optional extended rectractable Hangar that could be added / removed as needed would be appropriate.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 18:13

Repulse wrote:Jake1992, the current B2 Rivers are 90.5m long so granted the final Venari design could be made longer to ensure it has a Merlin capable flight deck. Assuming the P(atrol) goes back into MHPC then the earliest it will come into operation will be in 10 years time, there is not a lot of hurry given the Rivers (and option to build a couple more) and the life extensions on the MCMs. In a decades’ time, the RN should have its act together and will be operating Helo UAVs, asssuming that there are enough Wildcats, perhaps an optional extended rectractable Hangar that could be added / removed as needed would be appropriate.


I have no doubt the Venair 85 could be stretched as its only a concept design right now.
I just thought a wildcat hanger would be of more use than a Merlin flight deck.
A retractable hanger could work well just the RN doesn't seem to like them much

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 10 Apr 2018, 19:41

Jake1992,

I agree regarding the Venari 85 concept, it's a good starting point but in my opinion given the rapidly reducing numbers of hulls in the fleet RN can't afford bespoke single role hulls that can't be used in a wider role if conditions dictate.

Hulls can specialise in a particular role but should also have the capability of also performing secondary and tertiary roles if needed. Maximisation of all RN assets will be the name of the game in the coming years to try and get the most out of a shrinking fleet.

The attached image is of the new Damen OPV design and although I am not suggesting the MHPC vessel should be based on this design I think the general layout is arguably a better starting point than Venari 85. This vessel is 103m and approx 2600t, can easily house an embarked helicopter and also carry substantial amounts of equipment and ISO containers in the mission bay under the flight deck.

image.jpg


If compared with the RB2's this design shows that much more capability could have been extracted from the RB2's for probably not a great increase in expenditure.

If a design in this general configuration based on an acoustically optimised hull form was chosen for the MHPC role, could a follow on variant be stretched to 120m or more and given a dedicated ASW role to add extra strength in depth to the fleet and help perform ASW operations in both littoral and blue water areas.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 20:13

Poiuytrewq wrote:Jake1992,

I agree regarding the Venari 85 concept, it's a good starting point but in my opinion given the rapidly reducing numbers of hulls in the fleet RN can't afford bespoke single role hulls that can't be used in a wider role if conditions dictate.

Hulls can specialise in a particular role but should also have the capability of also performing secondary and tertiary roles if needed. Maximisation of all RN assets will be the name of the game in the coming years to try and get the most out of a shrinking fleet.

The attached image is of the new Damen OPV design and although I am not suggesting the MHPC vessel should be based on this design I think the general layout is arguably a better starting point than Venari 85. This vessel is 103m and approx 2600t, can easily house an embarked helicopter and also carry substantial amounts of equipment and ISO containers in the mission bay under the flight deck.

image.jpg


If compared with the RB2's this design shows that much more capability could have been extracted from the RB2's for probably not a great increase in expenditure.

If a design in this general configuration based on an acoustically optimised hull form was chosen for the MHPC role, could a follow on variant be stretched to 120m or more and given a dedicated ASW role to add extra strength in depth to the fleet and help perform ASW operations in both littoral and blue water areas.


I agree with numbers the way they are the RN can't have single role hulls, but that is the whole idea behind the MHC(P) program its to replace all low end vessels ( mcm survey out off EEZ patrol ) with one class of hull that will use off board systems to conduct any of the above roles.

The Vanri 85 concept I believe has been design to meat this programs requirements, the only real problem I see with it is lack of ability to operate and maintain a light halo.

I do like the damen OPV but I do fear cost and mission creep with it, the MHC(P) needs to be cheap to allow high numbers. I could see a stretched Venari 85 ( say 10m-15m extra for wildcat size hanger ) could be done for around £150m average cost

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 10 Apr 2018, 21:46

Jake1992 wrote:
I agree with numbers the way they are the RN can't have single role hulls, but that is the whole idea behind the MHC(P) program its to replace all low end vessels ( mcm survey out off EEZ patrol ) with one class of hull that will use off board systems to conduct any of the above roles.

I could see a stretched Venari 85 ( say 10m-15m extra for wildcat size hanger ) could be done for around £150m average cost


I agree it must not become overly complicated and expensive but if it does not have an embarked helicopter what is it going to do better than the current mcm vessels?

The Venari would have a longer range, endurance and better sea keeping qualities and perhaps a 57mm main armament, is that enough of an upgrade?

In my opinion to make the most of the MHPC vessels they will have to be substantially more capable than the hunt and sandown classes that they will replace and increasing tonnage and crew numbers won't necessarily achieve that.

I think 10 or 12 MHPC vessels built to the Venari spec would be a missed opportunity considering they will make up about a quarter of the RN escort and patrol fleet.

Also I think your £150m budget would go a long way to producing a 100+m, 2500+t vessel with room for a helicopter and a large mission bay under the flight deck. Unless you are shopping with BAE that is :D

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 10 Apr 2018, 21:57

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
I agree with numbers the way they are the RN can't have single role hulls, but that is the whole idea behind the MHC(P) program its to replace all low end vessels ( mcm survey out off EEZ patrol ) with one class of hull that will use off board systems to conduct any of the above roles.

I could see a stretched Venari 85 ( say 10m-15m extra for wildcat size hanger ) could be done for around £150m average cost


I agree it must not become overly complicated and expensive but if it does not have an embarked helicopter what is it going to do better than the current mcm vessels?

The Venari would have a longer range, endurance and better sea keeping qualities and perhaps a 57mm main armament, is that enough of an upgrade?

In my opinion to make the most of the MHPC vessels they will have to be substantially more capable than the hunt and sandown classes that they will replace and increasing tonnage and crew numbers won't necessarily achieve that.

I think 10 or 12 MHPC vessels built to the Venari spec would be a missed opportunity considering they will make up about a quarter of the RN escort and patrol fleet.

Also I think your £150m budget would go a long way to producing a 100+m, 2500+t vessel with room for a helicopter and a large mission bay under the flight deck. Unless you are shopping with BAE that is :D


What you describe is very similar to what I have put forward for a stretched Venair 85

By adding 15m to the length taking it up to 100m by 14.5m this should allow the curtens UAV hanger to be enlarged to a wildcat hanger allowing an embark Helo if required.
A vessel like this would be able to do everything that is planed for the MCH program and give a better patrol capability for the Carrabean or off Africa for a relatively cheap price

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3473
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Apr 2018, 14:12

Venari 85 is already large, may be 3000t FLD or so. ref: https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... phic-ship/
2l-image-1.jpg
1l-image-1.jpg
Venari has an open mission deck, optimized for MCM operations. Very important. Much better than Daman Crossover design, which is NOT optimized for MCM. It also has a ROV hangar, below the Wildcat-capable flight deck. In addition, it has a UAV hangar in the bridge. I like it.

With some shock tolerance, the hull is just "so-so cheap" but might be expensive than River B2. Thus, I cannot see Venari 85 to be built in number. May be 10, including Echo-class replacements. What I'm very afraid of is, enlarging it by 15m may directly cause reduction in number, say 8 or even 7.

I think the need for helicopter hangar is not large. Simply, there is not enough Wildcat. Five to replace T23GP is just enough. The two huge hangars (2 CVFs) are coming soon. So it is not worth losing the hull number to get the hangar.

But, I do think having a hangar space, which can be used for Wildcat if needed, will be "nice to have" (but never MUST). One option is to have 5 extended version as a patrol ship variant. It will be "T31e based on Venari 85 (Venari 95 or so)".

Another idea is to add hangar to all Vernal 85s. Looking at the images, we can easily see that, the bridge is 3-story high with a UAV hangar. What we need is to just enlarge it a little. I think we just need a hull extension of +5m or so, move some accommodation space into the hull, to enlarge the hangar. In its primary MCM role (80%), the hangar will be filled with, 8m for UAV, and another 8m for gym/meeting room. In most of the Patrol roles (20%), no Wildcat nor MCM kits is needed. Only some of (5%?) the patrol roles needs a Wildcat. In this case, the RoV hangar is empty and gym/meeting room be moved to there. By doing so, it can be built cheap, and the 10 hulls could be kept.

Focus on MCM, and take the "secondary tasks" just as secondary. With less number of hull, RN needs to make many assets multi-purpose, you all say. BUT, if it results in less number, it is another disaster. Keep it simple, small, focused on the primary tasks, and only put "very small" addition to make it "a little more versatile". This is my opinion. Jack of all trades will result in just much less number of hulls.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 11 Apr 2018, 14:27

The next generation of mine hunters need two things;
  • Facilities to operate a multiple autonomous boats at the same time.
  • The ability to self sustain operations on station.

To be able to do the latter properly it needs full facilities for manned helicopters. The Venari concept looks very close. So does the new polar ship.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests