Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

[Caribbean]

All these sloop-type designs are rather nice, but they all seem to ignore one salient passage in the report

" This size increase already witnessed, to deliver more payload space, power and speed, is likely to continue into the future as more capability is added; the host platform needs to be designed from the start to accommodate this change."

They all seem to be maxed out by the minimum of two "classification units" (i.e. offboard surface units) requirement at the current 11m length. If 13m plus units are already on the horizon and larger ones following, then the Uk needs to see how far it can go with the Hunts, then move to a platform that will be capable of hosting much larger offboard surface units (maybe up to 20m or more in length).

[shark bait]

Adding to @caribbean's post; they should not only be built for MCM drones, but also to tend to all kind of drones in development now. This means when a couple of systems drop out of the development tube, the Navy already have a host platform already in service.

We're looking at things like;

• Remote MCM Kit
• Survey drones
• An autonomous sonar array
• Swimmer delivery vehicles
• The XLUUV
• UAV's
• Or test bed for future combat systems

Essentially they should be a big fat naval pickup truck, ready to sling anything on the back.

[Caribbean]

Agreed. The reason that I raised TD's old "ship that is not a frigate" concept above is because it falls into that "pick up truck" category. At 120 x 25m, it might even be too big, but it will certainly have ample capacity, not only for offboard systems, but for other uses.

From memory, it featured:
Two 30 x 5m boatbays, either side of the superstructure
Chinook-capable flight deck and Merlin x 1/Wildcat x 2 capable hangar on a mezzanine deck, over
40 x 25m covered garage (might have been 50 x 25)
30 x 25m open work deck
Cranes on all decks (25t travelling deck edge for the flight deck, 50t overhead in the garage and 25t standard knuckleboom on the open working deck, IIRC), with ample room for davits etc
200 lane metres in the garage
70 TEU capacity on the lower deck (garage and open) plus possibly another 30 on the flight deck
side-loading ramp

To adapt it for MCM use, it would need improved shock resistance, just as it would need improved levels of damage control and naval quality sensors/ comms, (I don't think anyone is suggesting that we divert one from the North Sea straight to the Gulf) but the basic hullform is remarkably adaptable and has huge capacity, particularly when the drilling mud, concrete and other tanks are removed (and replaced with additional fuel, fresh water, dry stores, armouries and additional engines/ power generation (more for redundancy than speed, though 18kts would be nice).

All in a package that looks not dissimilar to the final image in the report linked above (though TD favoured the Ullstein X-bow design)

[SW1]

I would agree, mind you I think we have a very suitable vessel in the 3 bays to make it work or experiment with now.

Also feel that if we end up with a optionally manned vessel around the size of the archer patrol/or mk6 patrol craft then it makes things interesting in so much that at that size they have the ability to within limits self deploy in stages or operate out to sea. The question then is do develop a ship to deploy then or simply one they can tie up in operating location in the later case provided they have the ability to offload some fuels and has capacity for additional crews the options around what the vessel is changes somewhat. It also would allow a platform useful as a base design for configuration various littoral and coastal operations and could be purchased in numbers for deployment around the uk and beyond.

In essence we are I think seeing a return to a depot ship concept In some respects but with unmanned systems at there heart.

[Tempest414]

All these sloop-type designs are rather nice, but they all seem to ignore one salient passage in the report

" This size increase already witnessed, to deliver more payload space, power and speed, is likely to continue into the future as more capability is added; the host platform needs to be designed from the start to accommodate this change."

They all seem to be maxed out by the minimum of two "classification units" (i.e. offboard surface units) requirement at the current 11m length. If 13m plus units are already on the horizon and larger ones following, then the Uk needs to see how far it can go with the Hunts, then move to a platform that will be capable of hosting much larger offboard surface units (maybe up to 20m or more in length).

And again we are coming back to a 100 meter Venari with a 25 meter open working deck and a 25 meter covered working deck. SB keeps saying that the RAF are flying the same jet as Ryianair so if we take this view and start with a 737-800 what is added to make it a P-8 the three main things are radar, CMS and weapons package so if we take this view and apply it to the new MHC and start with say a 100 meter by 17 meter PSV and then add a covered working deck and Radar , CMS and a 57mm for me come up with a Venari

[Repulse]

I think we are jumping ahead 20 years by talk of large drone motherships and depot ships. The range for operating these drones from the parent platform / base will be limited, and the security overwatch is still a requirement that cannot be delivered from Bay type platforms currently.

I completely agree with shark bait’s “pick up truck” analogy, but we need an interim version of this which is able to operate closer to the drone and provide a base level of security itself. They need to be smaller and agile - this is where I see the Venari/ Venator designs fit in.

[SW1]

I think we are jumping ahead 20 years by talk of large drone motherships and depot ships. The range for operating these drones from the parent platform / base will be limited, and the security overwatch is still a requirement that cannot be delivered from Bay type platforms currently.

I completely agree with shark bait’s “pick up truck” analogy, but we need an interim version of this which is able to operate closer to the drone and provide a base level of security itself. They need to be smaller and agile - this is where I see the Venari/ Venator designs fit in.

But surely the transition is starting hence why we are extending the hunt class vessels this is the first interim step. The next could possibly be an optionally manned smaller vessel that can operate from a larger vessel followed to the fully automated one operating with the larger vessel.

[Lord Jim]

The new Belgium / Dutch vessels are reported to be 82m length and 2800 t displacement.

I think these vessels fill the "Transition" capability requirement quite nicely, as would replacing half our MCV force with them. The remainder would then be replaced by the next level platforms, in the meantime the legacy vessels would be updated to use as many of the systems off the Dutch/Belgian vessels as is reasonable.

[Aethulwulf]

The new Belgium / Dutch vessels are reported to be 82m length and 2800 t displacement.

I think these vessels fill the "Transition" capability requirement quite nicely, as would replacing half our MCV force with them. The remainder would then be replaced by the next level platforms, in the meantime the legacy vessels would be updated to use as many of the systems off the Dutch/Belgian vessels as is reasonable.

Like many others, I would probably prefer something similar but with more space for growth over its 25 year (ish) working life.

The other discussion to be had is the force protection fit. Should they be fitted with a single 57mm / 40mm main gun and still rely on an escort + Wildcat for added protection when required? Or should some also be fitted with Seaceptor and a Wildcat hanger, with maybe others in the fleet just FTR Seaceptor?

Currently in the Gulf, the capability is based on
4 x MCMV
1 x LSD
1 x FF

But keeping the 4 MCMV within range of a single FF is actually quite restrictive. So, in an ideal world, the current capability would be
4 x MCMV
1 x LSD
2 x FF

Should this be replaced by:
2 x (F)MCMV
1 X FF (or maybe 2)

or just

2 x (F)MCMV (self escorting)?

I guess it depends on your view on how likely it is the RN escort numbers will increase or decrease in the future.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The range for operating these drones from the parent platform / base will be limited, and the security overwatch is still a requirement that cannot be delivered from Bay type platforms currently.

The first part was nicely evidenced in that linked doc (range/ speed/ endurance)

The next could possibly be an optionally manned smaller vessel that can operate from a larger vessel

I think the French have at least a concept (in metal) for that; will try to look it up at some point today

But keeping the 4 MCMV within range of a single FF is actually quite restrictive.

As per my post upthread:
- the FF (LF ) can uniquely provide the CAMM local-area air (incl. missile) defence, and
- much cheaper "sheep dogs" will be needed to run to the edges of the area over which the MCVs are dispersed. As we are there not just for ourselves, these could be the v fast ones (as linked) from the USN or they could be from local allies (and still be working within their range and rotated, to give persistent presence)

[shark bait]

Rather than buying new vessels the Navy should continue to use the mine hunters they have just refurbished. The Navy had a plan a plan to modify the working deck to optimise the Hunts for new generation of remote MCM, which should still be the interim solution.



This should still be the plan; modify the current platforms for the 'transition phase', then as confidence grows in the new remote systems, transfer them to a new hull that is both bigger and simpler.

[Aethulwulf]

"Whilst the existing MCM platforms are able to host a handful of smaller offboard systems, used for individual roles such as classification or disposal, to progress to the next step the range of systems required for the full spectrum of MCM capability are required. This includes the USVs, UAVs and UUVs employed to conduct search, localisation, classification, influence sweep and disposal activity within acceptable operational timescales, with additional systems to provide redundancy and allow for maintenance. The current MCM platform designs lack the real-estate to store, operate and maintain these systems, and the stability and buoyancy to launch & recover them in adverse weather conditions. This leads to the requirement for a new breed of MCM platform."

Might be helpful to this debate if people read the previously posted link to the open source MCM paper published by industry:

https://zenodo.org/record/2530761#.Xs-eaGnTXqv

[shark bait]

You mean to say the people selling new boats say you cant modify the existing ones . Who'd of thought that!

[ArmChairCivvy]

SW1 wrote:
The next could possibly be an optionally manned smaller vessel that can operate from a larger vessel

I think the French have at least a concept (in metal) for that; will try to look it up at some point today

This is what I was thinking about: the Sterenn-Du USV remote control system as well as the world first AUV launch and recovery system from a USV.

There is a better picture somewhere else, where this optionally-manned mothership is inside a depot ship (in the current circumstances those will be amphibs... and not sure whether the dimensions make for a single lane, or side-by-side operation within the dockwell. This is from 2016 https://www.ecagroup.com/en/business/su ... on-program

[ArmChairCivvy]

This includes the USVs, UAVs and UUVs employed to conduct search, localisation, classification, influence sweep and disposal

Exactly what is covered in the link above, and the RN has adopted one of the three components of the described system... which really is of 4 parts (not counting the physical implementation of the mothership) as the solution to control the mothership and then the subsystem to automatically launch and recover from it can be seen as separate.

[Aethulwulf]

You mean to say the people selling new boats say you cant modify the existing ones . Who'd of thought that!

No, wrong again.

They say that modifying existing ships is the Preliminary Step, which will always be limited due to the size constraints of current platforms and the size of UxVs

Next is the Intermediary Step, with the next gen. of platforms like the Venari 85.

You know reading isn't so bad - why don't you try it sometime.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Currently in the Gulf, the capability is based on
4 x MCMV
1 x LSD
1 x FF

I understand 4 MCMVs deploy by pair (2 pairs), so you are making it 2 (F)MCMV. Reasonable, I agree. But, as MCM is very time consuming tasks, their tasks is defined by time. They can deploy 4 together, to double the MCM speed in a theater, and then mode to another place.

Then how about "1 LSD with 4 set of MCM drone systems, supported by 1 FF" ?

Should this be replaced by:
2 x (F)MCMV
1 X FF (or maybe 2)

or just

2 x (F)MCMV (self escorting)?

I guess it depends on your view on how likely it is the RN escort numbers will increase or decrease in the future.

Yes, depends on threat assessment, AND cost assessment. Yes if you DISBAND 1 FF, arming 2 (F)MCMV will be easy. But, surely you do not intend so.

But, I'm afraid, "4 self escorting (F)MCMV" will cost as much as "4 simple (F)MCMV + 1 T31". Then, which will you (sorry, not Aethulwulf-san, but others) chose? Not a simple question. But, I prefer the later.

[donald_of_tokyo]

You mean to say the people selling new boats say you cant modify the existing ones . Who'd of thought that!

No, wrong again.
They say that modifying existing ships is the Preliminary Step, which will always be limited due to the size constraints of current platforms and the size of UxVs
Next is the Intermediary Step, with the next gen. of platforms like the Venari 85.
You know reading isn't so bad - why don't you try it sometime.

Sorry, I may be wrong, but I think Sharkbait-san is saying "concluding the need for Venari-85 like asset" itself is "sales talk".

I read though the paper, and I understand both of your visions. Just a matter of standpoint, I think.

We read many such papers, which are mostly impressive and convincing. But, must of them does not come true. It could be a matter of cost, or a matter of "new idea coming in later". Anyway, there is on-going discussion on MHC replacement hull in UK (although not budgeted at least for 10 years = so it is still a bit far away). As Belgium and Dutch has gone with (similar to) Venari-85 concept, it surely has its own rationale. But, it does not mean it is the only answer.

Note, Belgium and Dutch solution do not have any strong self defense measure (no SAM, no 57mm guided rounds). That is their conclusion. So, arming MHC hull "not strongly" has its own rationale. But does not mean it is the only answer, as well.

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, good question, but I would still opt for the former “4 self escorting (F)MCMV” - why? Because, currently my four MCMs are relatively limited without a FF, by have four of the other Incan chose to have two or base them separately for different mission profiles. Perhaps it’s because I do not understand what a T31 gives me that is key to U.K. strategy, whereas for a (F)MCMV I do.

[SW1]

SW1 wrote:
The next could possibly be an optionally manned smaller vessel that can operate from a larger vessel

I think the French have at least a concept (in metal) for that; will try to look it up at some point today

This is what I was thinking about: the Sterenn-Du USV remote control system as well as the world first AUV launch and recovery system from a USV.

There is a better picture somewhere else, where this optionally-manned mothership is inside a depot ship (in the current circumstances those will be amphibs... and not sure whether the dimensions make for a single lane, or side-by-side operation within the dockwell. This is from 2016 https://www.ecagroup.com/en/business/su ... on-program

This kind of thing is what I was thinking of. Crew to pilot the boat and the mcm deployment and working task is automated then moving to the whole thing being automated.

[Repulse]

Note, Belgium and Dutch solution do not have any strong self defense measure (no SAM, no 57mm guided rounds). That is their conclusion. So, arming MHC hull "not strongly" has its own rationale. But does not mean it is the only answer, as well.

True, but even they note the potential need in the future:

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

The ship, which will act as a mine counter measures (MCM) mother-ship, is now fitted with a BAE Systems Bofors 40Mk4 40mm main gun. This gun, which as already been select by the Brazilian Navy (launch customer), Swedish Navy and the Japanese Coast Guard respectively, is used as a general purpose system to combat both air and surface threats, but it can also be used against coastal ground targets. It's 3P ammo can be programmed for optimised effect against any target, including airburst patterns for new threats that were previously impossible to engage (namely, UAV threats).

[donald_of_tokyo]

True, but even they note the potential need in the future:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... look-like/
The ship, which will act as a mine counter measures (MCM) mother-ship, is now fitted with a BAE Systems Bofors 40Mk4 40mm main gun. This gun, which as already been select by the Brazilian Navy (launch customer), Swedish Navy and the Japanese Coast Guard respectively, is used as a general purpose system to combat both air and surface threats, but it can also be used against coastal ground targets. It's 3P ammo can be programmed for optimised effect against any target, including airburst patterns for new threats that were previously impossible to engage (namely, UAV threats).

Not sure.

Any bofors 40mm gun can be modified to handle 3P; need programming circuit, so-so FCS (anti-surface) or good FCS (anti-air), and better to have muzzle speed radar. These "additional parts" might be even more expensive than the gun itself.

If you are talking about this level, it is the same to say, "RN 30mm gun turret can carry 5 LMM each, easily added later, if needed". Also, it is cheaper. At this point, many RN assets including MCMV carries 30 mm gun. If it can be added with LMM "when needed", it might be "enough".

With T31 coming in with 40 mm gun, the situation may change. If "40mm+3P" replaces "30mm + LMM" in RN inventory, it will be one option for future MHC (if realized). (*1)

*1: I personally think RN shall better stick to 30mm(+LMM) and 57mm on T31. I know it is not the current plan, but cost cutting likely come after detailed design phase. A good candidate to cut, as it can be replaced with GFE (and RN has plenty of 30mm guns).

[Lord Jim]

When we talk about the "Strong Self Defence Capability" that is desirable for our possible future MCVs, I think aiming to install almost the same amount as is carried by the T-31 is a rabbit hole we do not what to go down. Even if the vessels are also to have a "Patrol" function, I do not see the need for anything beyond say a BAe 40mm Mk4 Bofors, possibly with 3P ammunition as its main weapon. This would be more than enough to prevent the vessels being harassed by unfriendly Speed Boats and have a limited AAW capability. If a greater anti-surface capability is needed then maybe having a five round launcher of the LMM attached to the Mk4. For the vessels to operate in more hostile waters then an escort will have to be provided bringing with it greater AAW and ASuW capabilities

When to comes to the replacement of the Hunts and Sandowns we must try an avoid trying to leap to far ahead with the list of capabilities we require, especially if the majority of them are not mature. We need an evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary approach, bringing in new capabilities step by step to limit the risk and manage costs. It is possible that we might see unmanned MCVs being deployed onboard out T-26 before we see the types of manned MCVs some are proposing here.

Phase 1:
Retire Sandown calls and upgrade Hunts with current generation unmanned mine clearance platforms, and increase the capabilities of an RFA to act as a mothership, by utilising modular or containerised mission modules.

Phase 2:
Purchase six to eight interim MCV(F) to compliment modernised Hunts, being larger, between 75m and 90m, bringing with them greater capabilities such as increased endurance, self defence capabilities (see above) and larger more capable unmanned vehicles. These new vessels would also be capable of operating as OPVs or in the Oceanographic role, if needed to supplement the existing River B2s and replacing the Echoes, when they are not needed in their primary role Mine clearance operations. There would still be the need to provide a "Mothership" for persistent deployments, and this will also be required to be given a boost in its capabilities.

Phase 3:
Purchase a "Pick Up Truck" style platform using mission modules and possibly autonomous unmanned platforms able to operate over a large area and conduct mine clearance operations at a higher tempo to help counter A2/AD scenarios as well as more traditional mine clearance operations. The aforementioned "Mission Modules" would also allow the self defence capability of the platform to be increased is the threat level in their operational area requires it, but even here we are not talking about arming the vessels like a light Frigate or Heavy Corvette. With these larger vessels there would no longer be the need for a "mothership" as they will have become "Motherships" themselves to a large contingent of unmanned platforms. As above would be fully capable of operating in the Oceanographic role as well as carrying out the duties of an high endurance large OPV.

In phases 2 and three it is possible that in higher risk areas they would also be able to supplement their unmanned platforms with those carried by their assigned Escort(s), which could include both air and sea assets, and integrate them into a co-ordinated mine clearance operations.

If we try to turn our next generation MCVs into vessels that to all intents and purposes are another class of Escorts with a greater mine clearance capability, in one leap we are going to get into a whole heap of trouble, with issues such as mission creep, cost, possibly affecting the number of actual Escorts we have in service and so on. A step by step approach has to be the way to go and have I made any sence at all?

[Scimitar54]

This is, but just one more symptom of the “Not Enough Frigates/Destroyers” (escorts) disease and the resulting move (need) to multi-task. This problem will not go away unless we have enough of each type of Warship!

[Repulse]

Scimitar54, agree with you, unless society and government priorities change radically then funding will never be enough to have enough of each platform. Let’s not hold our breath, but face reality and get on with it - pretending otherwise to date has just continued to weaken our forces and waste money.