Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

[ArmChairCivvy]

better missile defence platform than the 76mm gun the Perrys used to have, as the 57mm puts out more weight of ammunition per second than the 76mm does.

The other reason was that NGFS was to be seen to by NLOS (which then was cancelled) so it was possible to go down in caliber to get that weight of fire for the CIWS function.

( I know it is 85 but I would like to see it at 90 m)

Easy Venator 90 became hundred, so from 85 to 90...

just select the MSI Sigma mount with capability to add 7 LMM/Starstreak on the side.

A "pity" that Retro made the point for me:

it'd almost be worth just getting a new missile entirely giventhe ship would need a whole new fire control system.

+

LMM however is a very good choice for such a mount on patrol ships if they are expected to engage FICs

So the whole development was based on beefing up the capability to defend against a swarm attack (at a better start distance); having another 30 mm on the other side of the ship may not contribute much in such a scenario.
- and it just happens that the Starsteaks fit into the same launcher tubes
- the manual function/ aiming would beef up defences against helicopters (I don't think that is a very likely scenario, though, so VFM becomes suspect for that "easy" addition)

[shark bait]

just select the MSI Sigma mount with capability to add 7 LMM/Starstreak on the side. Gives it decent punch to deal with UAV's and small vessels at extended range for bugger all cost.

1. The range of LLM is totally insufficient for a surface launch, that's why the RN are putting it on a helicopter.
2. Starstreak is effective against big slow helicopters, its effectiveness against small UAV's is questionable.

The only reason either would feature on a small ship is so it can pretend to be a big boy guided missile ship, there is no real combat use.

A future mine-hunting platform needs nothing more than the River Class has as permanent fit. There is very little to justify fitting bigger guns; these are going to be utility platforms, not surface combatants. If you need to shoot things take a frigate, not a mine hunter.

That being said they may need to protect themselves, so they should be fitted with Phalanx mounts and equipped with the cannon as necessary, exactly like the RFA do. They should also have facilities for sustained wildcat operations as a layer of protection against Iranian fast boats.

[Poiuytrewq]

They should also have facilities for sustained wildcat operations as a layer of protection against Iranian fast boats.

Personally I would fit a 57mm and Phalanx FFBNW but I don't understand the reluctance to add the hanger. It would add minimal cost to the build and if the deployment is in a low threat area, simply don't embark the helicopter or the maintenance crew. In a higher threat area the addition of a helicopter is a massive force multiplier.

If in future mcm taskings are going to be solo deployments surely a hanger is essential.

Should all future RN vessels expected to deploy outside the EEZ now have a hanger built into the design as standard?

[Gabriele]

Should all future RN vessels expected to deploy outside the EEZ now have a hanger built into the design as standard?

Yes. It is incredible that the RN is still wondering about this in 2018 when the answer has been obvious for decades.

[Tempest414]

I think it is more a given that all new RN ships will be deployed out side the EEZ at some point on a regular basis so to my mind I would like to see them have a hangar and a mount for a Phalanx as a base line

[shark bait]

Anything big enough to have a hangar should have one.

That is by far the most effective way to give a any platform a combat ability. It is a modular capability by nature, allowing the RN to tailor capabilities to each mission with no long term burden on the platform. More over its in service already and has been practiced for decades, there is no need to do anything new.

[Poiuytrewq]

Should all future RN vessels expected to deploy outside the EEZ now have a hanger built into the design as standard?

Yes. It is incredible that the RN is still wondering about this in 2018 when the answer has been obvious for decades.

I think it simply stems from the fact that if the smaller vessels are made too capable, escort numbers may be cut further as a result.

.... I would like to see them have a hangar and a mount for a Phalanx as a base line

Agreed, in addition, I would add a 57mm for RN vessels expected to deploy outside the EEZ but if the choice was either 57mm or Phalanx, I would go with the Phalanx.

[shark bait]

I think it simply stems from the fact that if the smaller vessels are made too capable, escort numbers may be cut further as a result.

Rubbish. Its because of bodged procurement.

Agreed, in addition, I would add a 57mm for RN vessels

What is the point in the 57mm? how can you justify introducing a new weapon?

[Tempest414]

I think there is something in both statements above I agree that RN ship are not being made as capable as they could be down to fear of cuts to other projects which is self defeating i.e the rivers where not given a hangar for fear of cuts to type 31 whichit self is dumbed down as to not cut type 26 numbers anymore and it is this that has lead to piss poor procurement the fear that HMG will these ships as more than they are

as for the 57mm it could become a standard if it was fitted to type 31- B2 Rivers and MHC meaning some 25+ guns across the fleet as said before how would type 31 look with armament of 3 x 57mm and 24 to 36 CAMM for me it would not be much more in cost than a 57/76mm and Phalanx

[Poiuytrewq]

Rubbish. Its because of bodged procurement.

Bodged procurement? Did they simply forget to add the hanger on the Rivers? I am pretty sure the hangers were omitted on the RB2's so they could not be classed as 'escorts'.

RN made the conscious decision not to add the aviation capabilities to the OPV's because they did not want enter the corvette club. How much more expensive would it have been to build 5 lightly armed Khareef's?

What is the point in the 57mm? how can you justify introducing a new weapon?

How can you justify NOT adding it if you want to give the smaller vessels increased firepower? It seems like a massive gap in performance between the 30mm and the 5inch Mk45. If any RN vessel is going to be deployed to an area with an raised threat level, a simple 30mm canon is not sufficient to safeguard the ship and the crew in my opinion.

As it is very unlikely that the T31 is going to get the Mk45 at least initially, if not the 57mm, what would you propose for the main armament for the T31?

[Poiuytrewq]

.... how would type 31 look with armament of 3 x 57mm

It would be very interesting to see how reliable this triple 57mm CIWS configuration would compare to the standard Phalanx setup.

[shark bait]

How can you justify NOT adding it if you want to give the smaller vessels increased firepower?

Why do we want to give it more firepower?

There is a big gap, and its a useless gap;

• Anything bigger than 30mm is unnecessary for shooting pirates.
• Anything smaller than 5 inch is too small for NGFS.

There is no use in the medium guns, the days of surface to surface shooting matches vanished decades ago. That is what the helicopter is for.

Do things properly, or don't do it at all.

[Poiuytrewq]

There is no use in the medium guns, the days of surface to surface shooting matches vanished decades ago. That is what the helicopter is for.

Do things properly, or don't do it at all.

You may be right, but a few complications spring to mind when your entire defensive capability is based on the offensive capabilities of your helicopter.

What happens if the helicopter is broken and unable to fly?

The helicopter could be a long way away transferring a casualty or crew? Do you have time to wait for it to get back?

Maybe the threat is sudden and the helicopter is unable to take off in time, what do you do then?

What if your vessel doesn't have a helicopter due to the lack of a hanger or has an empty hanger because no helicopter was deemed necessary?

The helicopter is undoubtedly the best offensive capability a small vessel has but it won't be available at all times and therefore another suitable weapons system should be available to provide backup if required.

[shark bait]

A pair of utility vessels working together could operate a two manned helicopters and a handful of UAV's, which is plenty of power.

If more than that is requited send a Frigate.

[Tempest414]

yes that is true but you could say 2 ships with 57mm and one helicopter and 2/4 camcopters is plenty of power if more is needed send a frigate the thing is we don't have enough frigates or helicopters also when you look at the Iranian navy most of there ships have 76mm fitted. it comes down to the old thing of aircraft don't need guns as they have missiles which will come home to roost again in the F-35 B

[RetroSicotte]

What possible scenario would have higher priority for the escorts than a shooting war with Iran?

[Tempest414]

None what is your point ?

[RetroSicotte]

None what is your point ?

Then why equip ships with expensive systems to fight a scenario that doesn't exist? I cannot see any outcome where minehunters are engaging in a shooting conflict with Iran when escorts won't be there to do the job instead.

[donald_of_tokyo]

... I am pretty sure the hangers were omitted on the RB2's so they could not be classed as 'escorts'.
RN made the conscious decision not to add the aviation capabilities to the OPV's because they did not want enter the corvette club.

EEZ patrol OPV do not need hangar for sure. It is only a fraction of tasks of River B2 which needs a hangar. We all know River B1 was a replacement for Island class patrol vessels, and River B1.5 (Clyde) is that of Castle class OPV. BOTH Island class (fishery) and Castle class (FIGS) has no need for helicopter hanger.

It is because River B2 looks so capable, that we start thinking of adding a hangar.

Note I am NOT against having a hangar on OPV. It will add more options to the vessel. But, anyway helicopter operations from 2000t hull is not efficient, so it works in limited circumstances. But, I agree it is a "good" addition.

How much more expensive would it have been to build 5 lightly armed Khareef's?

Good point. I was proposing to build 3 Khareef based large OPV than 5 River B2. But, it is too late.

What possible scenario would have higher priority for the escorts than a shooting war with Iran?

Many. Anyway, RN fleet it not optimized to fight against Iran. If so, the ASW must be much more focussed on shallow water, mine laying must not be abandoned, and more corvettes rather than frigates will be needed. Dedicated asset to counter fast-boat swarm attack must be of more priority than NGFS (good land attack is expected from RAF air raids). Also, more small SSK is needed than seven highly capable SSN, which is a blue water Leviathan.

But, I thin Iran is only one of the many scenario.

Actually, I'm afraid I did not properly understand your comment. If so, sorry.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Even though I think River B2 (at least some of them) do not need a hangar, I actually agree to the following comment.

(hangar) is by far the most effective way to give a any platform a combat ability. It is a modular capability by nature, allowing the RN to tailor capabilities to each mission with no long term burden on the platform. More over its in service already and has been practiced for decades, there is no need to do anything new.

For this, I think it is very important to come to an idea how to use those hangar if there is no helicopter carried = which I guess 90% of the case.

If it is 15m long and 5 m wide, can we carry upto 4 ISO containers within for HADR operations? Then, a simple rail-platform/forklift to handle containers will be important.

How about carrying a light LCVP in it (10.3 x 3.6 m, type 37-17 in https://www.munsonboats.com/military.php)? Then, a rail-based davit to pull it out to the flight deck and a 15 t crane to handle it will be important. Using the 4.7m long space left, it can carry 2 SUPACAT vehicle to be "landed" by the light LCVP, as well.

How about buying an accommodation kit which is 7.5x4.5x4.5m unit, and carrying 1 or 2 such units within the hangar? Again, a rail-based moving base will be important.

Again I would like to point out the fact that, in most cases, these hangars will be empty and usage in such cases is the key point to adopt hangar on such vessels.

[Poiuytrewq]

I cannot see any outcome where minehunters are engaging in a shooting conflict with Iran when escorts won't be there to do the job instead.

Is it not possible that the shooting conflict STARTS with the sinking of the mcm vessels as they cannot properly defend themselves?

The escorts may turn up later but by that stage the mcm vessels are already sunk. It seems like taking an unnecessary risk to me in the quest to save a very small amount of money in the overall scale of things.

If the new breed of multipurpose vessels that are to perform mcm can also escort themselves it will undoubtedly save a lot of money in the long run and enable the T45's,T26's and T31's to concentrate on other tasks.

[Tempest414]

None what is your point ?

Then why equip ships with expensive systems to fight a scenario that doesn't exist? I cannot see any outcome where minehunters are engaging in a shooting conflict with Iran when escorts won't be there to do the job instead.

First of all I never said that a MHC should engaging in a shooting war with Iran my point is that many navies including Iran have 76/57mm as there main gun in the there fleet with this in mind if our MHC is court out by a corvette with support 15 mins way it can't out run it so it might have to go tow to tow and a 30mm is not going cut it . just because you can not see a scenario dose not mean it can't happen as said loosing a £150 million ship for a few million mad

[abc123]

Frankly, I don't see some big need for strong armament for MCM ships, other than say 25-30 mm RWS gun.

[Timmymagic]

Frankly, I don't see some big need for strong armament for MCM ships, other than say 25-30 mm RWS gun.

Or at most a navalised CT40. At least then we could get some savings from commonality.

[abc123]

Frankly, I don't see some big need for strong armament for MCM ships, other than say 25-30 mm RWS gun.

Or at most a navalised CT40. At least then we could get some savings from commonality.

Yeah, something like that.