Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

[Jake1992]

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

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.

This is my thinking behind a stretched Venari 85, I was just under the idea that I might if needed closer to 15m extra for a wildcat hanger but if it can be done for just 5m extra and abit if jigging around then that's perfect.

I read a couple of years ago that the plan was for 12 vessels like this to replace the mcm fleet and the survey vessels, if this is still the plan I have no idea

[donald_of_tokyo]

...I read a couple of years ago that the plan was for 12 vessels like this to replace the mcm fleet and the survey vessels, if this is still the plan I have no idea

Hmm, it was when there was 13 or even 16 T26s. It was when the MHPC even carried a CAMM launcher. Days of big optimisms. Also, the number of MCMVs they need to replace has decreased to only 12, which was 16 at that time? (If my memory serves).

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

Agreed on former. In addition, it shall better be able to handle the evolution paths of "the multiple autonomous boats" (thus open-deck is important).

On the later, I cannot understand why "a self sustain operations" needs helicopter hangar. HSM Echo cannot do self sustain operations? Nor HMS Scot? I do not think so. It will all depend of "what kind of operations" they need to do, and not directly related to if it is "self sustained" or not.

[Jake1992]

...I read a couple of years ago that the plan was for 12 vessels like this to replace the mcm fleet and the survey vessels, if this is still the plan I have no idea

Hmm, it was when there was 13 or even 16 T26s. It was when the MHPC even carried a CAMM launcher. Days of big optimisms. Also, the number of MCMVs they need to replace has decreased to only 12, which was 16 at that time? (If my memory serves).

It's a shame a fleet of say 15 of these would really help the RN out, well you never know maybe in 10 years odd when this project is really off the ground things might be different one can only hope.

I never sure mention of CAMM of them to me that's abit over kill for the role they'll play, at most I'd say a phalanx

[donald_of_tokyo]

It's a shame a fleet of say 15 of these would really help the RN out, well you never know maybe in 10 years odd when this project is really off the ground things might be different one can only hope.

Thanks.
May be. When RN had many ships, all were small, simple and focused on their tasks. RN continued to going large. And, coupled with decline in defense budget per GDP, it resulted in SIGNIFICANT decline in number.

I prefer to build a base hull, which can do something (say MCM) nicely, and do other tasks "as much as they can". By requiring "self deploy", MHC became very large = less number. If we make it more larger, it will be much less number.

I never sure mention of CAMM of them to me that's abit over kill for the role they'll play, at most I'd say a phalanx

I'm referring to Venator 90 design, which is now not existing in the BMT list anymore.

bmt-design-portfolio-venator-2.jpg

Compared, we can see how Venari 85 evolved.
- larger mission deck astern
- wider, a bit shorter, and taller bulky hull for "more internal space"
- much simple armaments (only a 57 mm gun), right as the minimum.
For me, it is more focused, simple, can be operated with less maintenance and crew = Venari 85 is much much more beautiful than Venator 90.

[Jake1992]

It's a shame a fleet of say 15 of these would really help the RN out, well you never know maybe in 10 years odd when this project is really off the ground things might be different one can only hope.

Thanks.
May be. When RN had many ships, all were small, simple and focused on their tasks. RN continued to going large. And, coupled with decline in defense budget per GDP, it resulted in SIGNIFICANT decline in number.

I prefer to build a base hull, which can do something (say MCM) nicely, and do other tasks "as much as they can". By requiring "self deploy", MHC became very large = less number. If we make it more larger, it will be much less number.

I never sure mention of CAMM of them to me that's abit over kill for the role they'll play, at most I'd say a phalanx

I'm referring to Venator 90 design, which is now not existing in the BMT list anymore.

bmt-design-portfolio-venator-2.jpg

Compared, we can see how Venari 85 evolved.
- larger mission deck astern
- wider, a bit shorter, and taller bulky hull for "more internal space"
- much simple armaments (only a 57 mm gun), right as the minimum.
For me, it is more focused, simple, can be operated with less maintenance and crew = Venari 85 is much much more beautiful than Venator 90.

I agree with pretty much everything there like mentioned earlier if a 5m extention to allow a wildcat hanger could be done then the Venari 85 will be pretty spot on for the roles its expected to do if it can be got in numbers.

The big reason for drop in numbers isn't really the increase in size and capabilty of RN vessel ( yes it's played a part ) but the simple main course is the massive drop in funding. In real term since 98 deffence budget has dropped by 50%, from around 3-3.5% of GDP around 98 to roughly 1.6-1.7% of GDP today by the same metric

[Aethulwulf]

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.

It is a mistake to think that MCM operations do not require Wildcats or CAMM like capabilities - they do. Because there's a third thing to add to list of things needed for the next generation of mine hunters:
• the ability to survive in a hostile environment to complete their mission.

It is easy to think of credible scenarios in the Gulf, in the Baltic, in the South China Seas, where mine clearance will need to be carried out under the threat or presence of hostile enemy action.

Most people are aware that the current MCMV require a Bay to act as a mothership to sustain their operations. It is less widely realised that they would also require an escort vessel or two (e.g. T45, T23) if they needed to clear mines in a hostile environment.

So the debate is about is it better to included self-sustaining and self-escorting capabilites on new MCMV or continue to rely on motherships and escorts.

Clearly adding CAMM and guns and Wildcat and Artisan radar etc to MCMV will increase their unit cost but that needs to be compared with the current situation of:
• a squadron of 4 MCMV
PLUS
• a Bay mothership
PLUS
• a T45 escort (and/or a T23)

which would all be needed to achieve the same effect.

[Caribbean]

Also, of course, there is the factor that with increasing autonomy, the "countermeasures" will become increasingly less dependent on the hull that carries them. It is entirely possible that, during the next iteration, the MCM "platform" moves from undertaking the actual MCM work, to itself becoming the mothership and escort for a number of much smaller, semi- or fully- autonomous MCM platforms. Instead of sending a small flotilla of MCM, Support and Escort, we might be sending a single vessel, carrying two or three complete offboard MCM systems, each equivalent to a Hunt or Sandown.

[Poiuytrewq]

Much better than Daman Crossover design, which is NOT optimized for MCM.

As I said in the previous post I am not proposing that the MHPC vessel should be built from the Damen OPV design but I do think the general layout would make a decent starting point. The Venari 85 is an excellent bespoke design for an mcm vessel with all of today's cutting edge technology but as we all know today's technology is tomorrow's old news and with the Venari design I don't see enough future proofing built in.

I suppose the main question is, has the Patrol element definitely been dropped from the MHPC programme and if so what is going to replace the RB2's?

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.

I understand your point, best to focus on the main requirement but kitting these vessels out for a dedicated mcm role will not be cheap if all of the modular off board systems are included in the overall cost.

For example,

Common hull, approx 105m, 2750t with flight deck and hanger suitable for small to medium helicopter. Basic radar and combat system, 57mm main armament. Designed for CIWS but not permanently fitted.

Batch One:
Fully kitted out for mcm role, no helicopter embarked.

Batch Two:
Patrol variant, no mcm equipment, helicopter embarked.

Combined tasking:
Mcm equipment and helicopter embarked

Excluding the cost of the helicopter which variant would be cheaper?

If the hull is designed at the outset to incorporate both roles and the mcm equipment as well as the helicopter support equipment is designed to be modular and can be added or removed depending on the tasking surely this is preferable to a single role bespoke design?

[Ron5]

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.

It is a mistake to think that MCM operations do not require Wildcats or CAMM like capabilities - they do. Because there's a third thing to add to list of things needed for the next generation of mine hunters:
• the ability to survive in a hostile environment to complete their mission.

It is easy to think of credible scenarios in the Gulf, in the Baltic, in the South China Seas, where mine clearance will need to be carried out under the threat or presence of hostile enemy action.

Most people are aware that the current MCMV require a Bay to act as a mothership to sustain their operations. It is less widely realised that they would also require an escort vessel or two (e.g. T45, T23) if they needed to clear mines in a hostile environment.

So the debate is about is it better to included self-sustaining and self-escorting capabilites on new MCMV or continue to rely on motherships and escorts.

Clearly adding CAMM and guns and Wildcat and Artisan radar etc to MCMV will increase their unit cost but that needs to be compared with the current situation of:
• a squadron of 4 MCMV
PLUS
• a Bay mothership
PLUS
• a T45 escort (and/or a T23)

which would all be needed to achieve the same effect.

By the same argument, if the RN put CAMM's on QE, she wouldn't need T45 escorts.

[shark bait]

On the later, I cannot understand why "a self sustain operations" needs helicopter hangar. HSM Echo cannot do self sustain operations? Nor HMS Scot? I do not think so. It will all depend of "what kind of operations" they need to do, and not directly related to if it is "self sustained" or not.

The survey vessels don't tend to work in war zones, mine hunters do, so a wildcat to counter small water craft would be a valuable addition.

For me, it is more focused, simple, can be operated with less maintenance and crew = Venari 85 is much much more beautiful than Venator 90.

I agree, looks very close to what the RN may need, a hull focused on mine clearance, and can do some other security stuff on the side.

It is a mistake to think that MCM operations do not require Wildcats or CAMM like capabilities - they do. Because there's a third thing to add to list of things needed for the next generation of mine hunters:
• the ability to survive in a hostile environment to complete their mission.

I wouldn't want to make that a 'hard' specification for a future mine hunter. The alternative in highly hostile environments is to just operate the autonomous MCM kit from the mission bay of the frigate.

However there is a middle ground, where the threat is not clear, and it may not be worth assigning one of the highly valuable escorts. The threat may be from Hybrid action in the south china sea for example, not enough for a full time escort, and too great to leave the mine hunter defenseless. In this type of scenario the ability to operate a wildcat and a CAMM module would be highly valuable.

I will suggest its preferable to keep the base as simple as we can, but with facilities baked in to add modular self defense capabilities in the future, to allow them to self escort in low threat environments. (This work would also come in handy on auxiliaries)

[Tempest414]

For me this is where something like SeaRam is better than CAMM as it has its own radar and optics which takes the pressure off the CMS and if planned for in the design is easy to fit and remove as needed i.e if you had 12 ships of a class you could buy 6 SeaRam units and fit them as the task needed. And as said if the RN got 12 SeaRam units now it could fit them on the carriers the Albion's and any RFA's that have Phalanx

[shark bait]

We can use a similar argument for CAMM, which is totally platform agnostic, and dependent on no specific radar.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Also, of course, there is the factor that with increasing autonomy, the "countermeasures" will become increasingly less dependent on the hull that carries them. It is entirely possible that, during the next iteration, the MCM "platform" moves from undertaking the actual MCM work, to itself becoming the mothership and escort for a number of much smaller, semi- or fully- autonomous MCM platforms. Instead of sending a small flotilla of MCM, Support and Escort, we might be sending a single vessel, carrying two or three complete offboard MCM systems, each equivalent to a Hunt or Sandown.

Sorry, the later half is not clear for me.

Why a mother ship needs to perform escort tasking? Even in the "mother ship+MCMV" era (now), the mother ships were not armed. Tasks "when the war is hot", is only a fraction of MCM activities. What is more, in such a case, the MCM vessels are opening up a "route" for landing ships and escorts. Thus, MCMV is defending escorts from mines, and escorts are defending MCMVs from air and surface threats. It is "nice" (and not a must) to have a close-in or point-defense something, but not anything more powerful.

MCMV's main task comes "after the war". The armament levels needed in this circumstances will differ a lot. In most of the cases, any armaments onboard MHC will just be a man-power intensive "dead-weight", expensive bit for both purchase and maintenance = directly meaning reduction in hull number as well as sea-going days.

I'm not against having a 57 mm gun, or carrying a CIWS and/or StarStreak launcher as "add-ons".

On the other hand, I think a canistered SeaCeptor system is not easy nor cheap. Arming CAMM on 5 T31e as a built-on will be much cheaper than developing and buying a canistered system. And I understand we even may lack the money to realize the former.

...

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.

I understand your point, best to focus on the main requirement but kitting these vessels out for a dedicated mcm role will not be cheap if all of the modular off board systems are included in the overall cost.

For example,

Common hull, approx 105m, 2750t with flight deck and hanger suitable for small to medium helicopter. Basic radar and combat system, 57mm main armament. Designed for CIWS but not permanently fitted.
Batch One:
Fully kitted out for mcm role, no helicopter embarked.
Batch Two:
Patrol variant, no mcm equipment, helicopter embarked.
Combined tasking:
Mcm equipment and helicopter embarked

Excluding the cost of the helicopter which variant would be cheaper?
If the hull is designed at the outset to incorporate both roles and the mcm equipment as well as the helicopter support equipment is designed to be modular and can be added or removed depending on the tasking surely this is preferable to a single role bespoke design?

Sorry but I'm very skeptical about making it 105m long.
- The MCM only ship needs large internal space (to carry MCM kits, which are "more remote" operable than those onboard current MCMVs = more large/heavy), but 20 knot top speed is more than enough (even 18 knots may work).
- Using the hangar for either (not both) a Wildcat or UAVs will be not much cost sensitive, but because there is not enough Wildcat anyhow, lack of hangar will not be killing.

Also, I think Venari 85 is large enough for foreseeable future. It is as large as a Floreal-class. Its stern mission deck is 3 or 4 times larger than those on Hunt class, and also it has very large and tall hangar for additional RoVs. And a flight deck and a UAV hangar, in addition. I'm sure RN will find it difficult to even fill it will MCM kits.

Making it 105 m not 85 (or 90)m long for improved versality; isn't it just like ordering only 8 T26 with a mission-bay and Chinook flight deck, while what we really wanted was 13 ASW escorts?

[donald_of_tokyo]

On the later, I cannot understand why "a self sustain operations" needs helicopter hangar. HSM Echo cannot do self sustain operations? Nor HMS Scot? I do not think so. It will all depend of "what kind of operations" they need to do, and not directly related to if it is "self sustained" or not.

The survey vessels don't tend to work in war zones, mine hunters do, so a wildcat to counter small water craft would be a valuable addition.

May be. But, if it is a small water craft, why not a UAV for surveilance and a 57mm gun for self-defence? Is a Wildcat really really needed? As I said, I am not against locating helo hangar onboard MHC if it does not impact a lot. But I even think, NOT ALL MHC needs such hangar, because most of the tasks do not need it, and in most cases there is no Wildcat to carry. Even "adding" retractable hangar in some (2 or 4) of the (10) MHCs will be enough. Retractable hangar is not good in very harsh condition, such as North Atlantic. But, I think retractable hangar is doing pretty well in Med (Italian OPVs), in Carribbean ocean (USCG cutters), and also in Persian gulf.

...However there is a middle ground, where the threat is not clear, and it may not be worth assigning one of the highly valuable escorts. The threat may be from Hybrid action in the south china sea for example, not enough for a full time escort, and too great to leave the mine hunter defenseless. In this type of scenario the ability to operate a wildcat and a CAMM module would be highly valuable.

I will suggest its preferable to keep the base as simple as we can, but with facilities baked in to add modular self defense capabilities in the future, to allow them to self escort in low threat environments. (This work would also come in handy on auxiliaries)

I'm not sure CAMM can be a good canistered solution. I think the only solution is to carry "Land Ceptor" = putting the resource outside the RN budget.

We are struglling hard to make the five T31e to carry CAMM. For sure, "canistered SeaCeptor" will be much expensive than built-on SeaCeptor = the cost for modularity.

Can we afford it?

On the other hand, compared with SeaRAM, SeaCeptor system will be quite high-level (local-area air defence), and hence much more expensive, BUT, if MBDA develop a "point defence version of SeaCeptor" (say, SeaCatcher? ) it will be nice.

[shark bait]

The flexibility to choose between one manned helicopter, or a couple of UAV's, will definitely be worth the investment for a slightly bigger hanger. It's a small addition to the Venari, which would make the vessels better than the River class for maritime security work, helping the RN rationalise the fleet around fewer platform types.

RE CAMM;
It does not need and high level integration with any radar, it just needs an initial bearing and most the smart work is done on the missile, which makes it much easier to 'plug and play' than any legacy system.

CAMM is already integrated with the BAE's shared infrastructure common combat systemm, removing another obstacle.

If we assume a 3D radar and the combat system will already be on the mine hunter, all that is needed is a control cab and somewhere to put the launchers, which thanks to cold launch is much simpler than any legacy system.

I suggest a modular CAMM system does not sound prohibitively difficult, it has been designed to allow for this very purpose.

[Caribbean]

Sorry, the later half is not clear for me.

Apologies if I wasn't clear.
I was trying to make the point that the "MCM" vessel itself will no longer actually conduct the mine countermeasures work. That will be done by the offboard systems, so the function of the MCM vessel changes to one of transporting and servicing (mothership) and also of protecting the offboard systems against attack (escort). All the roles are combined into a single vessel, that transports the offboard systems to where they are needed.
In hostile situations, the "host" vessel could be a T26, a T31 or even, presumably, a Bay or OPV (depending on the actual level of threat). Post-conflict, the control systems could be offloaded onto a civilian vessel or barge, or even the quayside, releasing the host vessel for other duties

[donald_of_tokyo]

RE CAMM;
It does not need and high level integration with any radar, it just needs an initial bearing and most the smart work is done on the missile, which makes it much easier to 'plug and play' than any legacy system.

CAMM is already integrated with the BAE's shared infrastructure common combat systemm, removing another obstacle.

If we assume a 3D radar and the combat system will already be on the mine hunter, all that is needed is a control cab and somewhere to put the launchers, which thanks to cold launch is much simpler than any legacy system.

I suggest a modular CAMM system does not sound prohibitively difficult, it has been designed to allow for this very purpose.

Not sure. CMS-1 is scalable, but it does not mean simpler configuration can do everything.

We will need a decent CMS analysis power, because it is a local-area air defense system. The software is based on SeaViper's one. (and, do not forget the software license fee). The two-way datalink and its control system is also needed. In software point of view, it is a really complex system, I'm afraid.

< from here, a bit of fantasy >
My proposal for "point defense version" is,
- omit 2-way datalink and just command the missile to go to a single pre-programmed position, at launch = no need to datalink antenna.
- omit local-area air defense software, and just handle targets directly incoming (forget the side-way going target) = much more simple software, maybe number of lines be 1/10 or so.

On CAMM, I will even propose to develop a IR-seeker version. Just use the seeker of ASRAMM2, combined with the Lock-On After Launch capability, added with CAMM 1st-stage and main motor, it will be a nice "cheap option" of CAMM, I guess. Combined with 3D radar, IR-CAMM with Lock-On After Launch capability can be RAM replacement.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I was trying to make the point that the "MCM" vessel itself will no longer actually conduct the mine countermeasures work. That will be done by the offboard systems, so the function of the MCM vessel changes to one of transporting and servicing (mothership) and also of protecting the offboard systems against attack (escort). All the roles are combined into a single vessel, that transports the offboard systems to where they are needed.
In hostile situations, the "host" vessel could be a T26, a T31 or even, presumably, a Bay or OPV (depending on the actual level of threat). Post-conflict, the control systems could be offloaded onto a civilian vessel or barge, or even the quayside, releasing the host vessel for other duties

Thanks. So you are thinking about a "so-so armed MHPC" backed up with a civilian vessel, as I understand.

But the former will be of course in very small number, because it will be expensive. The latter idea is interesting, but I'm afraid "off board" systems is very network heavy. To determine the location, identifying-friend-or-fow, and for situation awareness, I guess the mother ship needs at least a baseline CMS (at least as River B2). More higher level will be needed if the ship is to be equipped with link 16 or 22 (data-link is CMS heavy...).

I also think, the current mother ship is just a Bay, with no escorting capability, simply because (at least in Today's Persian gulf), good armament is NOT needed.

This is why I am happy with Venari-85 almost as it is, with very basic self-defense (a 57 mm gun and MANPADs), with a data link and basic CMS, in "so-so" number.

[shark bait]

Changing the seeker removes one of the bigger benefits with CAMM, the active RF seeker means the missile can operate totally independent of any launch vehicle, no illumination or guidance is required.

The 2-way datalink is already optional, it is not a critical system item, its a 'nice-to-have' when its available.

The difficult part of the system is integrating the radar into the combat system, but if we assume that is already done adding CAMM is not a difficult task. There is no high level link between radar and missile, demonstrated by the Army's version, which has no requirement to co-locate the launcher with the radar and combat system, its a simple bearing and launch command, and no continual guidance.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry I was not clear.

1: Radar information is fed into CMS, to determine when and where the CAMM missile shall go (which is analysis power intensive).
2: Then the timing and the location (with velocity vector) is just a "time" and "vector", it is not difficult to send.

I am talking about the complexity of 1, not 2.

the active RF seeker means the missile can operate totally independent of any launch vehicle, no illumination or guidance is required.

it is the same for IR (infra-red) seeker. The big difference is, all-weather config or not, and what is more, IR seeker does not provide "distance". So, IR-seeker version is surely not good at "side-way going" target, but for straight incoming target, it is OK (as RAM does).

[Caribbean]

Thanks. So you are thinking about a "so-so armed MHPC" backed up with a civilian vessel, as I understand.

I think I'm really talking about eliminating the MCM ship as a specialist vessel, since the vessel no longer needs to enter the minefield.

If all major and minor warships as well as OPVs are capable of loading and supporting standard (say) 12m UUV/USVs, plus a couple of containers of control and support gear, then you just select a vessel appropriate to the threat level where you want to use them. Now that we are building ships with mission bays, we should be thinking differently.

[Ron5]

I'm pretty sure that the CAMM datalink is a mandatory part of the system. The missiles seeker is just not powerful enough unless the missile is guided close to the target by mother.

And I'm pretty sure the datalink is one way only. Not sure what the missile would have to say to mother: "ooops I've missed, sorrreeee" "don't worry son, your brother will get a chance" "I'll just crash then, bye".

An IR guided CAMM is an interesting thought. I wonder if the ASRAAM seeker is up to a) working well in close proximity to the ocean and b) sitting unattended in a sealed canister for months/years at a time.

[tomuk]

Looking at Venari there seems to be a lot of space in front of the bridge to allow for the gun.
I would push the bridge forward to allow a larger hangar to fit Wildcat or similar sized helicopter. Replacing the gun with a centrally located 3 cell ExLS with CAMM and on either side 2 40mm CTA turrets. For radar use a SAAB Sea Giraffe.

[shark bait]

1: Radar information is fed into CMS, to determine when and where the CAMM missile shall go (which is analysis power intensive).

This is the difficult bit, and I'm working under the assumption this will already be done.

I am expecting a future minehunter will operate as a mother ship for UAV's as well as the autonomous boats, so I expect it will already have a 3D radar and CMS, which should simplify the task of adding a CAMM module later down the line.

Looking at Venari there seems to be a lot of space in front of the bridge to allow for the gun.
I would push the bridge forward to allow a larger hangar to fit Wildcat or similar sized helicopter. Replacing the gun with a centrally located 3 cell ExLS with CAMM and on either side 2 40mm CTA turrets. For radar use a SAAB Sea Giraffe.

The SAAB radar could be a good candidate, as Giraffe will already be in service with the Army, but I don't know how different the naval version is.

I also find a naval 40mm CTA very appealing, especially as it can double up as a CIWS with the air-burst rounds. Perhaps a simpler hull like a Venari would be a good platform to target for its introduction to the RN. A mine hunter certainly wouldn't need anything bigger than a 40mm. (CTAI are working on a 105mm though....)

BMT's Venari concept looks very close to spot on, and modifying a commercial platform for Naval use is right up BMT's street, so I assume they know what they're doing here. On top of your suggestion I would also stretch it slightly to accommodate a manned helicopter, and space for a missile module later on.