Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
No lets Keep the Type 31 & MHPC as seperate programs And If Possible British Waste of Space out of one of them so we actually get working mine hunters and hydrography vessels.
Looking at where mines are most likely to be you do need smaller vessels to get into some of them and yes ROV's will feature heavily but you sometimes need to get into the shallows which a frigate cannot do ans your ROV's may not have the endurance to do any meaningful work having to transit a distance from the mother ship to the working area because the Mother ships draught percludes them getting close enough.
By mixing roles of Frigates/Escorts and minehunters you are basically making massive cuts in the fleet easier as politicians can argue flexible ships that can do job of 3 vessels therefore we only need a third of them.
BTW snatch landrover vessels......What utter bullshit the Royal Navies Mine Hunters have been some of the most flexible and used vessels in the Fleet since the end of WW2 not only clearing wartime mines, but clearing the suez canal before its reopening, Clearing numerous wartime devices that have appeared round our coastline, helping the Baltic states clear their coasts of soviet mines, sweeping of the falklands post conflict Yes some HUNTS went down with RMS St Helena as their support ship. Clearing the way into Kuwait, Clearing the way into various Iraqi ports, providing force protection for all royal navy movements through the suez canal in terms of mine hinting why are there a batch ofthem permenantly based there? There there has been the patrol operations of Borneo, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, Fisheries protection taskings.
So what they haven goten a 3D radar or Towed array sonar and have light guns they are meant to be part of a package where other ships provide the overwatch whilst they stop them becoming victims of mines. The more additional capabilities you add the more pressure will come for them to loose their specialist roles and skills they will be expected to spend more time on Frigate type duties and the skills and collective knowledge will be diluted. Yes they are small and made of GRP.....for a very serious reason reducing the risk of influence mines taking them out. So as your GP type 31 approaches the suspected area where it hopes to deploy its ROV's and runs over a good old magnetic mine laid outside as a booby trap oh dear.
Looking at where mines are most likely to be you do need smaller vessels to get into some of them and yes ROV's will feature heavily but you sometimes need to get into the shallows which a frigate cannot do ans your ROV's may not have the endurance to do any meaningful work having to transit a distance from the mother ship to the working area because the Mother ships draught percludes them getting close enough.
By mixing roles of Frigates/Escorts and minehunters you are basically making massive cuts in the fleet easier as politicians can argue flexible ships that can do job of 3 vessels therefore we only need a third of them.
BTW snatch landrover vessels......What utter bullshit the Royal Navies Mine Hunters have been some of the most flexible and used vessels in the Fleet since the end of WW2 not only clearing wartime mines, but clearing the suez canal before its reopening, Clearing numerous wartime devices that have appeared round our coastline, helping the Baltic states clear their coasts of soviet mines, sweeping of the falklands post conflict Yes some HUNTS went down with RMS St Helena as their support ship. Clearing the way into Kuwait, Clearing the way into various Iraqi ports, providing force protection for all royal navy movements through the suez canal in terms of mine hinting why are there a batch ofthem permenantly based there? There there has been the patrol operations of Borneo, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, Fisheries protection taskings.
So what they haven goten a 3D radar or Towed array sonar and have light guns they are meant to be part of a package where other ships provide the overwatch whilst they stop them becoming victims of mines. The more additional capabilities you add the more pressure will come for them to loose their specialist roles and skills they will be expected to spend more time on Frigate type duties and the skills and collective knowledge will be diluted. Yes they are small and made of GRP.....for a very serious reason reducing the risk of influence mines taking them out. So as your GP type 31 approaches the suspected area where it hopes to deploy its ROV's and runs over a good old magnetic mine laid outside as a booby trap oh dear.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Sorry Mark, BAE are already involved. I do agree though, it would be nice if some other yards can be competitive, CA and Appledore seem well suited to the program, and BAE can do what they are well suited to, complex warships.
might happen if they have another naming competition!Engaging Strategy wrote:"HMS Vessel Name"
@LandSharkUK
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
They went in after the war, as someone had already stated the RN simply sailed in an expendable frigate to test the waters. Will that be a T26 in the future??marktigger wrote:Yes some HUNTS went down with RMS St Helena as their support ship.
You are exactly right that MCMs were used in the Gulf war, after any significant threat (apart from mines) was neutralised.
”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
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
That is the whole point the RN at its current scale cannot give this over watch, therefore the mothership shpuld.marktigger wrote:are meant to be part of a package where other ships provide the overwatch whilst they stop them becoming victims of mines.
”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
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Hunts were built as joint sweepers/Hunters and designed to operate in a minefield. I guess that's my worry with a mothership that isn't built to those specifications. You dont always know where the mine field is. I just wonder is this (like building nuclear powere stations, civil and millitary aviation) going to be another area where we were world leaders and will be no longer.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Second largest aerospace industry in the world......rec wrote:like building nuclear powere stations, civil and millitary aviation
I can accept the nuclear power station bit though
@LandSharkUK
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Yes econd largest, but if Governments had invested properly, we wouldn't be buying airbuses, but Vickers
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
show me any navy in the world that builds MCMV's that have to be as capable and self suficient as frigates?Repulse wrote:That is the whole point the RN at its current scale cannot give this over watch, therefore the mothership shpuld.marktigger wrote:are meant to be part of a package where other ships provide the overwatch whilst they stop them becoming victims of mines.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Totally agree the Minehunter needs to be capable of surviving in the minfield if thats where it finds itself. And if necessary Hunting and sweeping. Always thought the Hunt was the more flexible of the 2 classes.rec wrote:Hunts were built as joint sweepers/Hunters and designed to operate in a minefield. I guess that's my worry with a mothership that isn't built to those specifications. You dont always know where the mine field is. I just wonder is this (like building nuclear powere stations, civil and millitary aviation) going to be another area where we were world leaders and will be no longer.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
or Shorts.....the A400M strikes me as a 21st C Shorts Belfastrec wrote:Yes econd largest, but if Governments had invested properly, we wouldn't be buying airbuses, but Vickers
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
We are planning for a future of unmanned craft fulfilling the core MCM role so the mothership is the key. That's why I see a common extended Venators 90, that can come in 2 modes lite & heavy being the answer to the T31 and MHC requirements. This would be a true export winner also.marktigger wrote:show me any navy in the world that builds MCMV's that have to be as capable and self suficient as frigates?
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
and as i've stated the MCMV role and Hydrography Role will be put on the back burner as their lordships (Most of whom will be from a frigate/destroyer background) want to generate more escorts! By having different classes you reduce this risk to the future of MCMV/Hydrography as people from those branches finding themselves more involved in ASW and AAW type exercises deskill and vote with their feet.
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
A real danger, because MCM is vital and hydorgraphy is more than useful especially for SSBN navigation etc.marktigger wrote:and as i've stated the MCMV role and Hydrography Role will be put on the back burner as their lordships (Most of whom will be from a frigate/destroyer background) want to generate more escorts! By having different classes you reduce this risk to the future of MCMV/Hydrography as people from those branches finding themselves more involved in ASW and AAW type exercises deskill and vote with their feet.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
you need hydrography and MCMV together to survey cleared routes and boundaries of mined areas
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
I'd say that's exactly what the USN is aiming for. Don't get me wrong in addition I'd like to see a smaller inshore / midshore vessel like the Diane class.marktigger wrote:show me any navy in the world that builds MCMV's that have to be as capable and self suficient as frigates?
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
the Hunt has a draught of 2.9m, the Sandown has a draught of 2.3M i'd say that allows them to work fairly close inshore....A river has a draught of 4m+ a type 31 frigate you're looking at 4M+
You are right we need vessels for inshore and coastal MCMV Like the Hunt & Sandown class and the Type 31 maybe for Ocean sweeping which is what the USN has tended to concentrate its MCMV vessels on buying in if necessary or relying on Helicopter sweeps
You are right we need vessels for inshore and coastal MCMV Like the Hunt & Sandown class and the Type 31 maybe for Ocean sweeping which is what the USN has tended to concentrate its MCMV vessels on buying in if necessary or relying on Helicopter sweeps
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Or, just operate the ROV's from the shore? That is one of the deliverable of the MHC program.
Or even one of these? Very shallow draught.
Or even one of these? Very shallow draught.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
I suspect we will have the Hunts and Sandowns for some time to come. They are still viable and being upgraded to take USV/UAV presently. Sure, some roro for T26/31 would be nice but lets get hulls in the water first (a viable contract and propulsion train for the 26 would be nice too). Cue the BAe backlash.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
The time difference to Nevada desert gives you a lot of time to take cover!jimthelad wrote:Cue the BAe backlash.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
The Hunts certainly will be around for a long time. Plan is to modify 1 to test the UK/FR ASV, and then another 4 if the plan goes well. It's ots of incremental de-risking before eventually transferring to a new hull, beginning in 2028 ish.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
So a Venator build from 2020 which starts with a say 8 configured in heavy mode at a rate of one a year would fit perfectly for a follow on 8-10 MHC lite versions.shark bait wrote:transferring to a new hull, beginning in 2028 ish.
”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
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
So a Venator build from 2020 which starts with a say 8 configured in heavy mode at a rate of one a year would fit perfectly for a follow on 8-10 MHC lite versions.shark bait wrote:transferring to a new hull, beginning in 2028 ish.
”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
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The time difference to Nevada desert gives you a lot of time to take cover!jimthelad wrote:Cue the BAe backlash.
Cheers, will dig in to stage 3 and hope the 6 inches of overhead cover will suffice!!!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Great in Electronically benign enviroments how good if being actively jammed or spoofed?shark bait wrote:Or, just operate the ROV's from the shore? That is one of the deliverable of the MHC program.
Or even one of these? Very shallow draught.
this whole thing of UAV/ROV's is great till people start playing radio wars you broadcast what you are doing and where.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)
Repulse wrote:So a Venator build from 2020 which starts with a say 8 configured in heavy mode at a rate of one a year would fit perfectly for a follow on 8-10 MHC lite versions.shark bait wrote:transferring to a new hull, beginning in 2028 ish.
And a venator is it built of Steel Or GRP or other non ferrous material?