Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

[Ron5]

I also find a naval 40mm CTA very appealing

I know the feeling! Unfortunately the gun and ammo would be rather expensive. Way too much for a junk buster.

[Tempest414]

Yes the Venari 85 looks like a good start for me the question is how will the RN use them. I would like to see 20 of them built to cover the mine hunters - Echo class and the 5 Rivers I would also like to see them 90 to 95 meters with a top speed of 20 to 25 knots with a flight deck and hangar for a wildcat they will need to be mine hunters first and other duties second and I feel they should go along the lines of a core crew and a mission crew I think the ships should be able to accommodate up 70 with core crew Mission crew and air crew however the norm would 45 to 50 as for armament the good old 57mm should be the start point and it should have a good radar

[shark bait]

True the 40mm CTA is the more expensive option, and it may still be worth while because it has potential to replace 2 legacy systems.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

True, and as the mine hunting is often close to shore/ islands, the background radar scatter thus produced complicates matters further.

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.

Batch2 T31?

... and no need to scale it down, as in the below. Just improve accommodation capacity (and helo hangar facilities?).

would also like to see them 90 to 95 meters with a top speed of 20 to 25 knots with a flight deck and hangar for a wildcat

- a Wildcat could meet boghammers, coming in with box std ATGWs onboard, before they get within launch range
... an overwatch, rather than an offensive function (if you only have one Wildcat in the area, must use it rather sparingly?)

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

AAW analysis is to,
- estimate the future location of the targets,
- evaluate threat level, calculate the best timing to shoot multiple targets down,
- based on hit or miss of the shot, re-evaluate the threat and do 2nd short,
etc etc ... AAW tasks on CMS is very complicated and analysis power heavy, and it must be done in hurry. Having a 3D missile and (a cheap version of) CMS cannot handle this.

[Poiuytrewq]

Venari 85 was designed from the outset as the perfect MHC platform using current and planned systems for RN but it's not necessarily the perfect MHPC platform.

If this design becomes the basis of the RB2 replacements similar to the C3 role it must be worth looking at a multipurpose design with plenty of potential for adaption and future growth as new systems come on line.

What build qualities does a vessel need to excel in the MHC role for the next 20+ years?

What is the optimum balance of size, cost and armament?

Personally I think there could be a lot of export potential here especially if the design allows for multiple versions to be manufactured on a single hull form and costs are keep competitively low.

I would look in to the feasibility of producing 3 sub classes all based on the same hull.

Variant A for EEZ patrol:
90m, 2000t, flight deck,uav hanger, 30mm main gun
Target cost: £85m

Variant B for MHC role:
105m 2750t, flight deck and helicopter hanger, 57mm main gun plus 12 CAMM
Target cost: £125m

Variant C for GP and ASW role:
120m 3500t, flight deck and helicopter hanger, 57mm main gun plus 32 CAMM
Target cost: £175m

Off board systems for the MHC role would be in addition to these costs as we don't know what they are yet

The important thing would be to keep complete commonality across the class to keep costs down with only the hull length being determined by the Variant required.

Variant C is creeping into T31 territory but there would be no need for RN purchase all 3 variants. Variant C may be mainly for export unless the T31 programme moves towards a 5000t GP frigate.

With a 3 variant class commonality can be maintained but dedicated roles can also be catered for, whilst costs could be keep as low as possible both in procurement as well as in running costs and maintenance.

[Tempest414]

For me something like the Protector class stretched out to 95 meters would be a good start able to accommodate up to 70 has a top speed of 22 knots plus a range of 6000 nm it also has a flight deck and hangar. The extra 10 meters would allow for a bigger working deck as said fit a 57mm and also a 3 cell ExSL on top of the hangar plus pick the right radar. order 20 and push for a price of £100 million each

[ArmChairCivvy]

Variant A for EEZ patrol:
90m, 2000t, flight deck,uav hanger, 30mm main gun
Target cost: £85m

Variant B for MHC role:
105m 2750t, flight deck and helicopter hanger, 57mm main gun plus 12 CAMM
Target cost: £125m

Sounds like the Spanish BAM desing (by Navantia... there is even a 130m version, for use in the Arctic/ Antarctic waters):
"The 2 700 ton, 93 meter long Meteoro is the lead BAM (Buque de Acción Marítima) modular Offshore Patrol Vessel of the Spanish Navy and was manufactured by Navantia. The modular design enables the ships to be modified for purposes outside the main mission, such as hydrographic research, intelligence gathering, diving support and salvage operations.

The sea-keeping ability of the vessel was put to the test shortly before her arrival in Table Bay. Whilst two days out, east of Cape Town, the vessel was subject to 65 knot winds and 9 metre swells. “The handling was just perfect,” Almira says.

[As is evident, the write up is from S.Africa, for some reason the ship came back the long way round, from being part of the Op Atalanta]

Apart from her own crew of 55, the ship embarked an eleven man Marine Corps unit, but the normally embarked AB-212 helicopter was left in Djibouti to continue with the Operation Atalanta mission.

Equipped with a multi-mission deck that accommodates a helicopter and two rapid deployment boats, the ship is equipped with a 76/62 mm gun, two 25 mm automatic cannons and two 12.7 mm machine guns"

The good news is that it comes at a mln of euros, not £££, per meter

[Repulse]

The BAM class is definitely something looking closer at, however given the MHC programme is moving to the right, the RN should again be looking at this as a MHPC programme. However, for me it is a Patrol Sloop at most, let’s not confuse it as a Treasury Standard frigate. It is there to do MHC duties in low threat environments or supported by real warships, and for Patrol is primarily constabulary, act as a deterrent and ultimately act as a trip wire (so that enemies know when tripped the CSG is coming).

The best MHPC design I’ve seen remains the Venator 90 - I do like the Venari 85 but the original design just looks more flexible. @Gab did a great adapted drawing on one his blogs which for me remains the right design (ignoring overdoing the Stanflex with SSMs and replacing the gun with a 57mm). The principle with CAMM and Phalanx is that they get fitted when the mission dictates.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Venari 85 is designed under a philosophy, as you can see in the PDF brochure, which is using many pages to adress it.
(1) The hull is in higher grade than River B2, because BMT analyzed that MHC needs some level of shock tolerance. Extending the hull is not as cheap as a marchant vessel.
(2) BMT started with Venator 90 concept with 76 mm gun and 12 CAMM, and evolve into Venari 85. It means, (at least BMT) thinks there is no need for CAMM.
(3) Interestingly, BMT continued to not having a Wildcat hangar but a UAV hangar.

Making it larger is not good in view of (1), adding CAMM is reversing the way of (2), and adding Wildcat hangar needs to adress why we need it in addition to (3). Also, increasing speed from 20kt to 25kt means it needs 60% more powerful engine, which must be shock tolerant as well.

I like Venari 85 as it is. Any modofication can be there, but I think it shall be small, so that it does not largely deviate from the original philosophy. I do not think "adding CAMM" can be done in cheap. This is not because CAMM is expensive, but simply because these vessels are designed to be cheap. Adding ~100M GBP for 1B GBP hull means 10% reduction in unit number, but for a 100M GBP hull, it halves the unit number. Simple and clean. More cost, less number.

[Tempest414]

I understand that Venari 85 has evolved from Venator 90 however I do agree with Repulse and for me Venator 90 looks a better all round design for MHPC and for me I would push the hangar back over the ships boat and make it a full length and width hangar able to take a SH-60 ( for export) for me if you are going to have a hangar make it big enough to take a manned helicopter. I agree that CAMM will bump up the price and after all that I have read here I still think that a stand alone unit like SeaRam is the best way to go as said if we were to buy 20 ships then buy 10 SeaRam units and fit them as needed

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, We’d need BMT to confirm, but my suspicion is that the design changed when the P(atrol) requirement was removed - I’m saying it should be back, as I see the T31e as an Amphibious Support Warship.

[Poiuytrewq]

I like Venari 85 as it is. Any modofication can be there, but I think it shall be small, so that it does not largely deviate from the original philosophy. I do not think "adding CAMM" can be done in cheap. This is not because CAMM is expensive, but simply because these vessels are designed to be cheap. Adding ~100M GBP for 1B GBP hull means 10% reduction in unit number, but for a 100M GBP hull, it halves the unit number. Simple and clean. More cost, less number.

I fully understand your point. Keep it simple, keep it cheap, keep the maximum numbers of hulls.

A couple of questions,

If we drop the P and concentrate for a moment purely on MHC, what do you think the target price for these vessels should be?

How much do you estimate a Venari 85 would cost in its current form?

How many MHC hulls do you think RN actually need bearing in mind the increased level of capability of the new design and also it's ability to work as a solo unit?

[Aethulwulf]

Wildcat needs to be available to the MCMV during ops. CAMM (or sea viper) needs to be available to the MCMV during ops. The debate is whether they should be on MCMV or on an escort.

Take a fictitious example - mine clearance during the San Carlos landings. Pretend for a minute that the UK had deployed mine hunters with the amphibious fleet and the Argentina had mined Falkland Sound and San Carlos waters. First assume the mine hunters have similar capabilities to Hunt and Sandown classes. Lets say there are 4 mine hunters plus a mother ship. The mine hunters would have been detached from the main force and sent into Falkland Sound. One or two escorts would have been sent with them, reducing the number left to protect the main fleet. The mine hunters work their way into the mine field, but the escorts have to stay quite a few km well outside the mine field. They come under air attack. The mine hunters are at the edge of the protective air umbrella provided by the escorts, where the level of protection is low. So they break off their work and sprint back towards the escorts. After the air attacks, they come under attack from small fast attack craft. Again the mine hunters are force to sprint back towards the cover of the escorts, which launch helicopters to intercept the FAC.

Without the presence of capabilities like CAMM and Wildcat, the mine hunters are destroyed and the operation fails.

So the options are:
(A) 4 mine hunters + 1 mother ship + 1 or 2 escorts
(B) 2 Venari 85 ships + 1 or 2 escorts
(C) 2 Venari Enhanced ships with CAMM and Wildcat.

BMT have stated that a Venari 85 using unmanned systems in Channel Standoff can clear an area in half the time of present Channel Immune systems.

Channel Standoff concept employs unmanned offboard systems while recognising that, due to the maximum range and communications capabilities
of unmanned technology, the host ship will be required to enter and operate within the swept channel once cleared by the unmanned vehicles.

So two Venari 85s can do the work of 4 Hunt/Sandowns. They are large enough to be unlikely to require their own mother ship.

As has been pointed out, for most routine mine clearance force protection is not required and so option C would be overkill.

However, for those critical ops where force protection is required, option B slows down mine clearance as the Venari ships would still need to sprint back towards their escorts when they come under attack and risk losing their comms link to the unmanned systems. This enemy disruption and loss of tempo could have larger knock on effects. Option B also depletes the main force of some of its escorts at a critical time. Given the limited number of escorts available this could also have larger knock on effects.

It could be that for Option C, a Wildcat flightdeck and the ability to refuel and re-arm Wildcat is all that is needed and there is no need for a Wildcat hanger.

[Poiuytrewq]

donald_of_tokyo, We’d need BMT to confirm, but my suspicion is that the design changed when the P(atrol) requirement was removed - I’m saying it should be back, as I see the T31e as an Amphibious Support Warship.

I agree fully with a T31 ASW, that's Anti Submarine Warfare for me

The best MHPC design I’ve seen remains the Venator 90 - I do like the Venari 85 but the original design just looks more flexible.

I agree, the general principle to utilise the available space under the flight deck is the obviously the way forward. Although the Venator 90 is nowhere near perfect, if a hanger was added (as Tempest suggested) and the CAMM cells were moved forward to the rear of the main gun. It's pretty much there in my view.

The attraction of the Venator hull design is it could be produced with a hull length from 90m to 120m and built in either patrol ship, patrol frigate or light frigate configurations. Great for export.

90m as OPV
105m as MHC
120m Patrol Frigate

The T31 could then become much more useful as something designed to fight if necessary.

Sounds like the Spanish BAM desing (by Navantia... there is even a 130m version, for use in the Arctic/ Antarctic waters):
"The 2 700 ton, 93 meter long Meteoro is the lead BAM (Buque de Acción Marítima) modular Offshore Patrol Vessel of the Spanish Navy and was manufactured by Navantia.

The general modular approach to the design and build is what I am proposing but I think the BAM design tries to cram to much onto a hull that is a bit too short, certainly on the 90m versions.

In my view the modular design philosophy with multiple variants and build standards within a single class would reduce costs, improve exports for UK PLC and result in more hulls in the water for RN.

[Aethulwulf]

How many MHC hulls do you think RN actually need bearing in mind the increased level of capability of the new design and also it's ability to work as a solo unit?

In BMTs technical brief pdf they compare the current Channel Immune MCMV solutions to the Venari Channel Standoff concept, to estimate the relative time taken to complete the same operational scenario.

For the same operational task,
one Channel Immune MCMV takes 75 hours
two Channel Immune MCMV take 35 hours
one Channel Standoff MCMV takes 28 hours

There are 4 key tasks for MHC:

a. Maintain a MCM capability in UK waters to ensure CASD.
b. Maintain a forward MCM capability in high risk key choke point (the Gulf)
c. Maintain an expeditionary MCM capability able to deploy worldwide, and linked to amphibious capability
d. Maintain a worldwide hydrographic survey capability.

Each of these 4 task woukd require 2 or 3 MHC ships, plus an extra 2 in refit. Total number 10 to 14.

[Poiuytrewq]

So the options are:
(A) 4 mine hunters + 1 mother ship + 1 or 2 escorts
(B) 2 Venari 85 ships + 1 or 2 escorts
(C) 2 Venari Enhanced ships with CAMM and Wildcat.

It could be that for Option C, a Wildcat flightdeck and the ability to refuel and re-arm Wildcat is all that is needed and there is no need for a Wildcat hanger.

This seems to come down to simple planning. As RN is drastically short hulls why would you plan for scenarios A or B?

This is good example of how RN can maximise its available assets and offset the lack of hulls.

I think the hanger essential. It will cost a small amount to add to a design, cost nothing if the helicopter is not embarked for most MHC duties and become a force multiplier with a credible offensive option if required.

[donald_of_tokyo]

donald_of_tokyo, We’d need BMT to confirm, but my suspicion is that the design changed when the P(atrol) requirement was removed - I’m saying it should be back, as I see the T31e as an Amphibious Support Warship.

"P" was a ship to replace River B1, and we already have River B2, which will stay active till 2040 or so. No need for "P", now. (T31e is "F" and not "P" . )

I fully understand your point. Keep it simple, keep it cheap, keep the maximum numbers of hulls.
A couple of questions,
If we drop the P and concentrate for a moment purely on MHC, what do you think the target price for these vessels should be?
How much do you estimate a Venari 85 would cost in its current form?
How many MHC hulls do you think RN actually need bearing in mind the increased level of capability of the new design and also it's ability to work as a solo unit?

Thanks. My answer will be, "100-150M GBP per hull", "the same", and "9 units".

"Solo" capability is an addition to the current MCMVs, which will virtually increase the number of available Bay LSDs.

Take a fictitious example - mine clearance during the San Carlos landings. ....
.... Without the presence of capabilities like CAMM and Wildcat, the mine hunters are destroyed and the operation fails.

So the options are:
(A) 4 mine hunters + 1 mother ship + 1 or 2 escorts
(B) 2 Venari 85 ships + 1 or 2 escorts
(C) 2 Venari Enhanced ships with CAMM and Wildcat.

For me, (B) is the best answer for sure (as you expect ).
Actually, for me, (B) means "2 Venari-85 and 1 T31 with CAMM", and (C) means "totally cut the T31 program to built 2 up-armed Venari". I agree (C) has its own beauty, but it means ~5 hull reduction of RN fleet. In other words, RN will be forced to gap Persian gulf MCM to send a Venari for APT-S or NATO fleet.
And this is only for your war scenario. Most of the MCM tasks are "in peace". Now, 4 MCMVs are in Persian Gulf with 1 Bay = none is an escort. It means, now the MCM tasks within the Persian gulf is (relatively) peace.

For me, (C) has little merit over (B) even in San Carlos scenario, because Venari will abort MCM tasks and start AAW maneuver anyhow. And (C) is much less useful than (B) in all peaceful scenario. This is why I prefer (B).

The best MHPC design I’ve seen remains the Venator 90 - I do like the Venari 85 but the original design just looks more flexible.

I agree, the general principle to utilise the available space under the flight deck is the obviously the way forward. Although the Venator 90 is nowhere near perfect, if a hanger was added (as Tempest suggested) and the CAMM cells were moved forward to the rear of the main gun. It's pretty much there in my view.

Sorry, for me, your idea means "4 Venator 90 is better than 8 Venari 85" to replace current MCMV fleets. I do not agree.

[Repulse]

"P" was a ship to replace River B1, and we already have River B2, which will stay active till 2040 or so. No need for "P", now. (T31e is "F" and not "P" . )

The earliest any MHC will hit the water is @2028, after at least 10 have been built to replace the MCMs and Echos we are talking late 2030s when the River Class will need replacing - so no I don't see a conflict here. Any additional Patrol Sloops needed before then (I'd like to see another 4 to do what is touted for the T31) can be a River 2+ design.

The price for a Venator was said to be around 100mn at the time (excluding CAMM and CIWS). I'd see these as modular, and a fewer sets bought to be fitted as the mission role dictates.

[Tempest414]

I agree and feel that Venator 90 could be built for the same money with the same armament as Venari 85

[donald_of_tokyo]

I agree and feel that Venator 90 could be built for the same money with the same armament as Venari 85

Then, Venari 85 isn't better?
- bulky hull,
- larger deck space astern,
looks much more capable for future growth, i.e. evolving MCM drone kits.

Note, it may not be only MCM.

[Poiuytrewq]

For me something like the Protector class stretched out to 95 meters would be a good start able to accommodate up to 70 has a top speed of 22 knots plus a range of 6000 nm it also has a flight deck and hangar. The extra 10 meters would allow for a bigger working deck as said fit a 57mm and also a 3 cell ExSL on top of the hangar plus pick the right radar. order 20 and push for a price of £100 million each

If the speed could be increased to 24knts or 25knts, with a vessel such as this why would you need a T31?

[shark bait]

Batch2 T31?

... and no need to scale it down, as in the below. Just improve accommodation capacity (and helo hangar facilities?).

I hope not, £250m is double what a new mine hunter should cost.

AAW tasks on CMS is very complicated and analysis power heavy, and it must be done in hurry. Having a 3D missile and (a cheap version of) CMS cannot handle this.

I'm not sure that's true anymore, and I'm confident Sea Ceptor is integrated into the T23's combat system, there is no stand alone computer or console.

from MDBA's brochure;
"or to operate as an integrated layer within a higher command & control architecture hosted on the ship’s Combat Management System."

[shark bait]

The best MHPC design I’ve seen remains the Venator 90

The RN do not need another pretend frigate.

MHCP needs to be a modified civilian platform, there is absolutely no need to waste money designing a bespoke hull from scratch. Let BMT take a hull from the oil and gas industry and modify it for mine clearance, that way the RN might get more than five. Keep it simple stupid.

These are exactly the same reasons why the RAF don't fly bespoke takers or bespoke MPA's anymore.

[ArmChairCivvy]

enemy disruption and loss of tempo could have larger knock on effects.

The Mother of most fails, in military plans?

The general modular approach to the design and build is what I am proposing but I think the BAM design tries to cram to much onto a hull that is a bit too short, certainly on the 90m versions

Agreed, that base design was restricted to Ops within the NATO area (no further than the Tropic of Capricorn)... reflected in the range, too.

Which then begs the question how our 85m becomes "glolbally self-deployable"?