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.
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 16 Apr 2019, 09:54

shark bait, even Snatch Land rovers would have been okay if they’d been used as a light vehicle in low threat environments. What is dangerous in my view is taking money from the T26 budget which will be a key fighty bit of the RN to fund half arsed / compromise frigates.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Apr 2019, 10:12

shark bait wrote:The middle zone is dangerous, the Navy do not need a Snatch Land Rover at sea. Do our service personnel justice, give them the equipment to fight and win, or do not send them at all.

The T31 is corner cutting to the extreme, not even the Brazilian could fit their crap ship inside the Brits budget. Either do a proper job and make it a real frigate, or don't bother at all and make it a simple utility platform.
I understand your argument. But I just have a different opinion. That's it.

We do not need to make the whole army made of MBT and IFV. Boxer will be needed, and JLTV(?) will be also needed, in addition to numerous soft-skin vehicles. The point will be, where are UK going to send these assets? French La Fayette class and Floreal class were never attacked. Some USN escorts were attacked in Persian Gulf (SS Stark, USS Samuel B. Roberts, USS Princeton), but the Coast Guard cutters were not. And, these USN escorts was not sunk, not because it was armed heavily, but because their damage control level was high.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 20 Apr 2019, 09:53

1: Bay class LSD will be starving for tasks, I think.

Needs to amphibious assets are relatively low in peace time. A guy of German shipbuilder was also stating so in some article.

With 4 Point class, Bay lost a "peace time" job = transferring vehicles of Army/RM. With 2 LSS coming, some other tasks (SF support and HADR) will be lost.

2: Partly related, partly independent, RFA Mounts Bay used as MCM drone's mothership in collaboration with USN is very attractive.

Regardless of future MCM drones size, weight, and numbers of assets included, Bay class can handle any of them. For example, Bay can handle up to 8 ARCSIM drones, which I believe amounts to 4 MCM-team. Even if a more larger drones are added, Bay can handle it.

So I propose to use Bay-class much more for MCM tasks.


MCM is an activity "always busy" even in peace time. If one Bay is actively used in MCM, it will need at least 1.5 hulls to cover the task. By assigning another Bay for amphibious task, another 1.5 hulls will be needed, securing the need for 3 Bays.


3: My fantasy plan for MCM tactics including Bays, will be as follows.

- Currently RN has 13 MCMVs. So, let's assume it has 13 MCM teams.

- Assign 5 of them to a Bay (or 1.5 Bays), 3 active, and 2 in training? In other words, with drone-based MCM teams introduced, RN will be able to disband 5 Hunts/Sandowns, providing the "ship handling" part of their crew to relax the man power issue (I guess 60-100 in total).

- What if the "MCM-Bay" were required for amphibious task? I think a River B2 can carry 1 MCM team. It has a large deck (named "flight deck", not needed within a TF), 16t crane, +50 accommodation, simple CMS with good communication suites. RN can send 3 River B2 to cover the 3 active MCM teams from the MCM-Bay.

- Number of MHC hull will be reduced. If an MHC carries 2 MCM teams, 4 hulls plus 2 more for Echo/Enterprise replacements. By reducing MHC build cost required in ~2030, the money could be used for buying these drones.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 21 Apr 2019, 12:38

donald_of_tokyo, I think you are on the right lines, but if we include the LSDs and FLSSs as potential MCM motherships, why not maximise the 2 LPDs also? Appreciate their primary role will be at the core of the ARG with RMs onboard, but why not use the one in reserve also?

If the RN went for another T26, 5 B2+s Sloops (with mission bay) in place of the T31 and kept 10 of the current MCMs till the 2030s (to keep Kipion going and CASD sweeping duties), then it would be a well balanced fleet, giving cash towards the unmanned programmes and with some effort free up the cash to keep the 2nd LPD operational.

Then in the 2030s build 10 additional mothership Sloops to replace the MCMs and B1 Rivers.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 May 2019, 11:50

Cross posted from New Zealand thread

New HMNZS Manawanui (to commission soon), diving support, marine salvage and hydrographic survey vessel has reached New Zealand.

The "Littoral Warefare Ship" budget was cut, to pay for the significantly increased ANZAC FF LIFEX cost, and this reused-ship idea came. Even though it is a reused ship, I think it is an impressive ship. Not a bad business.

Her predecessor HMNZS Resolution (hydrographic survey vessel) was 2500t displacement, and HMNZS (former) Manawanui (diving support, marine salvage vessel) was 910t displacement. But the new Manawanui is as large as 5700t (ref. http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/rn ... b.pdf).

[EDIT] "The project budget for the purchase, modifications and introduction into service of the dive and hydrographic capability is $103 million." (see https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new ... sel-navy-0 ), which is ~50M GBP including the survey and diving kits (presumably partly transferred from the ships she replaces).

Extremely cheap solution, I think. Good buy. Could be relevant for (part of the) hull part of the MHC program. (USV part of MHC program is the most expensive part, another issue, but hull part can be cheaper as this one).

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

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

Postby abc123 » 22 May 2019, 16:34

A question- wouldn't it be smart to just plug in into this Belgian-Dutch programme? As a replacement for current Hunt/Sandown classses...

https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/22/belgi ... y-awarded/
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 May 2019, 00:46

Belgian and Dutch MCM vessel, Xav-san’s article with good images. Impressive, and invoked many idea.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... look-like/

Impressions;
- Pretty much designed for purpose. Very easy to understand the reasonings of each orientations.
- I’m afraid the hull is too tight?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 08:58

I think you are right, it looks very tight. If heading down this route is it preferable to go big fat and simple enabling flexibility for extra features and more deployments?

Also are the RN in danger of being overtaken here? At one point the RN were the users cutting the edge, but developments appear to be slowing while other press on.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 May 2019, 10:45

shark bait wrote: developments appear to be slowing while other press on.

Watch and learn... and shipbuilding (even w/o boats included) seems to be walking a tightrope between
- investment funds available (vs. pending mass obsolescense)
- and crewing

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1052
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Postby xav » 09 Jun 2019, 07:49

Thales was demonstration its USV/TSAM combo this week (in Brest) as prat of the UK/FR MMCM program


User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 10 Jun 2019, 08:36

Is that the sonar its pulling?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1052
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Postby xav » 10 Jun 2019, 15:48

shark bait wrote:Is that the sonar its pulling?

Yes, the TSAM

The USV launches and recovers the MuMNS too:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Jul 2019, 12:40

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... lass-bsam/

How about 6 of these kind of ships (may be with 5-10m hull with larger accommodation) for "lower" half of MHC part?

Meanwhile, I'm proposing 3 Bay-like LSD (shall be 70% in size to make it cheaper) for higher half of MHC.

Also, River B2 or T26 (or even T31) can "partly" provide MCM capabilities using their mission space (may be not full kit, but at least side-scan sonar surveillance kit will be able to be carried).

Image

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 07 Jul 2019, 15:47

donald_of_tokyo, my vision would be to replace the current MCM vessels in three ways:

- 5 more Secro SD Victorias for UK waters
- 5 more T31s (assuming the design has a sizeable mission bay) for globally independent operations such as the gulf
- 1 more Bay for Task Group duties

This as you say would be coupled with the mothership capabilities already given by the T26s, Rivers and LPDs/LSDs.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Jul 2019, 19:02

donald_of_tokyo wrote:How about 6 of these kind of ships (may be with 5-10m hull with larger accommodation) for "lower" half of MHC part?

Meanwhile, I'm proposing 3 Bay-like LSD (shall be 70% in size to make it cheaper) for higher half of MHC.


How about 6 Venari 85 MHC light and 4 150 meter Makassar MHC heavy

As I say I think we could get 4 150 to 160 meter Makassar's for 200 million pounds or 250 million dollars the extra 20 million per ship should buy a good bit of upgrade from the base line design

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 08 Jul 2019, 09:16

Something like the above in Donald's post would be suitable, and sharing the system between different sized platforms is a nice idea.

Using Frigates for MCM tasks is a terrible approach. 99% of mine clearance work is performed in low threat environments, there is simply no need to dedicate such valuable and costly platforms to this line of work. MCM from frigates must be the exception, not the norm.

The RN needs a bunch of simple commercially delivered platforms for mine clearance and survey tasks. On top of that its advantageous to have a couple of large hulls as part of the same system, but for more isolated operations, reducing the support requirements.
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Jul 2019, 11:57

I would like to see some real capability in the MHC program and so maybe a good mix would be 8 to 10 Venari -85 like so

85 x 15 meters
Crew 45 + 40 exrta bunks
Scanter 4100 radar
CMS
covered working deck
flight deck for Widcat
Hangar for up to 3 uav's
1 x 40mm , 2 x 12.7 HMG , 2 x Miniguns

Off board systems
Unmanned MCM
unmanned ASW
Hydrographic
UAV,s

And 2 Makassar LPD like so

150 x 22 meters
Crew 60 + 340 extra bunks
Scanter 4100 radar
CMS
Hangar for 2 x Merlin + 3 x UAV's
Fight deck 2 spots one Chinook capable
Well dock for up to 6 USV,s or 2 x LCVP,s ,or 1 x LCU ,
1 x 40 ton deck crane
2 x 40mm , 4 x 12.7 HMG , 4 Miniguns , FFBNW 1 x Phalanx

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 08 Jul 2019, 12:26

What on earth is a "real capability"? And what is so special about Venari that generates "real capability"?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1735
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 08 Jul 2019, 13:53

shark bait wrote:The RN needs a bunch of simple commercially delivered platforms for mine clearance and survey tasks.


Why the RN, rather than Serco operated vessels for UK waters with RN MCM specialists onboard? If war ever happened they would be mobilised anyway.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Jul 2019, 19:18

shark bait wrote:What on earth is a "real capability"? And what is so special about Venari that generates "real capability"?


The ship put forward by Donald is fine but for me it is missing a flight deck and a covered working deck.
[quote="Tempest414"]85 x 15 meters
Crew 45 + 40 exrta bunks
Scanter 4100 radar
CMS
covered working deck
flight deck for Widcat
Hangar for up to 3 uav's
1 x 40mm , 2 x 12.7 HMG , 2 x Miniguns

Off board systems
Unmanned MCM
unmanned ASW
Hydrographic
UAV,s [/quote

The ship I have put forward is a standard Venari 85 design with my chose of radar and armament. were the extra capability comes form is the said radar , flight deck and covered working deck

1 ) The covered working deck allows day and night all weather kit generation and repair to take place
2 ) the flight deck allows UAV operation around the clock allowing if fitted with I-Master radar up to 25,000km2 to be swept around the ship an hour plus helicopters to land in support of the crew
3 ) The scanter 4100 radar would allow the ship to keep tabs on everything around it both in the air and on the surface
4 ) the off board systems would allow the ship to be a multi - mission asset


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andy456, Jake1992, kevinbotz and 15 guests