Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

[Caribbean]

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

Something like this?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ystem.html

[Poiuytrewq]

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

Something like this?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ystem.html

It would be a big step up from the 30mm but it's max range is only 4km. The 57mm and 76mm both have a similar max range of 15 km to 16km and about 8km effective range with standard ammo.

Is there a system that can match the range of the 76mm and provide a reliable CIWS function?

[Poiuytrewq]

loosing a £150 million ship for a few million mad

I was more concerned about losing the crew but I fully agree with your point

[Tempest414]

I agree the crew is priceless however HMG only see pounds as shown by there mind set to send our men and women to war with sub standard kit time and again

[shark bait]

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.

I don't think that is true. The RN pretty much destroyed the Iraq navy by its self, with some US assistance, and the RN maintain a very similar capability to that today. When sea venom the RN will be well equipped to deal with coastal navy speeding around in missile boats.

Corvettes are not needed, that plays right into the enemy's hands. More helicopters, and well protected aviation platforms are needed.

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.

That's a reasonable point, it will then be another mission bay, so perhaps it makes sense for it to be built compatible with the T26?

[shark bait]

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

On paper this looks like a particularly nice idea, especially if it is an effective CIWS. It shouldn't be adopted as a bespoke gun for the MCM vessels, but if it becomes the standard small gun across the fleet then it should also feature on the MCM vessels.

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

Has anything like that ever happened before?

States don't have a habit of going round popping off missiles at NATO ships, they may like provoking, but they are not stupid and know sinking a ship would be suicide. The bigger problem is hybrid action, where the state can hide behind plausible deniability.

Truth is, if tensions ever grew to a point there something like this was feasible, NATO would be all over the area in proper combatants. There is no way mine hunters would be propping up the front like for us.

[Tempest414]

If we take this view forward there is no need to put any armament on the MHC and just give the crew a personal weapon each because no body is going to take a pop at it and if tensions rise there will plenty of frigates and helicopters about

[Caribbean]

States don't have a habit of going round popping off missiles at NATO ships, they may like provoking, but they are not stupid and know sinking a ship would be suicide.

Were we still in a world where the USA could be absolutely relied on to step up in the event of of an incident like that, I would agree. Unfortunately various statements and actions at the highest level in the USA, might be misunderstood and lead others to calculate that they could "take on" assets belonging to NATO countries that they see as weaker, but where the propaganda value derived would be significant. At the moment, I think that is unlikely for them, but no longer "impossible to contemplate". Let's hope that future statements and actions push that line of thinking firmly back into "impossible to contemplate" territory, rather than allowing it to creep further into "potential course of action" thinking.

The bigger problem is hybrid action, where the state can hide behind plausible deniability.

Agreed, and as such, constant attention should be paid to the capabilities of minor warship defensive capabilities, whether that means basic AAW capabilities (vs helicopters and particularly drones) or improved anti-surface/ anti-swimmer defenses.

[Tempest414]

I think we all agree that the new MHC will be bigger and more capable than the current MCMs that they will replace I also think that most of us would like to see a helicopter capable hangar on these ships. It seems there is split over armament but again most would like to see a mount for a Phalanx and my self I would prefer a 57mm as shown on BTM Venari 85 model

[shark bait]

I think they will be less capable.

That generally the point of current developments, isolating the mission systems from the platform, so the platform can become basic and cheap.

The current mine-hunters are highly capable, with specialist hulls and sonars. I don't expect the next generation to have any of that, it wont be a capable platform, instead it will get all capability from the payload.

[Poiuytrewq]

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

Personally, when I look at the RB2's I just see a missed opportunity.

image.jpg

In my opinion the 100m, 3000t VT concept was closer to were RN's second batch of OPV's should have ended up. With the addition of a hanger between the funnels, the covered working deck under the flight deck and the large crane located on the stern, the RN OPV's could have been truly multipurpose vessels.

(Note, plenty of room for the 57mm)

image.jpg

In my view the River Class design is now a generation behind. They are thoroughly sea worthy vessels but the lack of a hanger seriously limits their usefulness outside of the EEZ.

Other manufactures are squeezing so much more utility out of their designs. This Kockums 75m concept packs plenty in, and it's 15m shorter than an RB2.

image.jpg

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.

If the crane is located on the stern it would be simple enough to move equipment or ISO's up to flight deck and into the hanger if necessary. Looking at the design below it offers a multitude of options for Patrol, MHC and HADR deployments.

image.jpg

How does RN get a generation ahead with the MH(P)C programme rather than a generation behind as with the RB2's?

All the concepts for the MH(P)C programme such as Venator 90 and Venari 85 are roughly 2000t to 3000t. Is that wise, due to the size of the out board systems that are coming online. How much bigger could these off board systems become in next 25 years?

Should the MH(P)C programme be thinking BIGGER? Are all patrol vessels simply going to get bigger?

How big is it possible to go whilst maintaining a crew size similar to an RB2 and keeping the vessel costs to roughly £100m to £125m?

image.jpg

How about something the size of the Norwegian ship Svalbard, 6500t, 103m length and range of 6800nm @14 knts.

The hanger could embark 2 wildcats or a single Merlin and the crew requirement is similar to a RB2 at 65 compared to 58.

Although the ice breaking capability is not required this vessel only cost roughly £50m in the early 2000's.

(Note, the 57mm main armament)

How about carrying a light LCVP in it......Then, a rail-based davit to pull it out to the flight deck and a 15 t crane to handle it will be important.

The Canadian variant of this Vard design, HMCS Harry DeWolf has lots of room for multiple LCVP's and bulky off board systems as the covered working deck is two decks high. The 20t crane on the stern would be extremely useful for mcm and HADR deployments.

image.jpg

It's clear to see in this image the amount of space available in the covered working deck when the flight deck is moved up one level.

image.jpg

The Russian version is similar, again with an ice breaking capability that would be unnecessary for the MH(P)C requirements.

image.jpg

It's hard to estimate the cost of a UK built Svalbard today and trying to compare with the Canadian build is almost impossible due to the fact that Canadian procurement seems to be almost as bonkers as the UK's.

Probably the best guide is the RRS Sir David Attenborough that is currently in build at Cammel Laird. At 15000t it's almost 3 times bigger than Svalbard and Harry DeWolf and the estimated cost is still only £200m.

image.jpg

Maybe it's time to start thinking BIG with the MH(P)C programme. The vessels identified above are not perfect examples but a multipurpose design of a similar size incorporating a standard hull form may be worthy of consideration and by removing the ice breaking facilities it would reduce build costs, increase speed, improve range and maximise efficiency.

These offshore patrol vessels possess a pretty good combination of big ship presence, aviation capability, ample space for ISO's and off board systems along with a 20t crane to deploy them. If the crew requirement could be maintained around 65 and the hull and propulsion system optimised for range and speed they could be hard to argue against. Is it possible to get all this capability for around £100m? It would seem like a bargain if it is.

[shark bait]

The cost to build the polar ship is £150m, the £200m figure includes extra projects.

[Jake1992]

The cost to build the polar ship is £150m, the £200m figure includes extra projects.

If that's true then it's an amazing bargain at that price

[shark bait]

It is good value, its a massive ship. Norway are building a smaller ship from the same Rolls Royce family that costs £125m

They have a lot of features that would make them suitable for the mine countermeasures and hydrography roles. The vessels are purpose build for operating remote vehicles, exactly what is needed from future mine-hunting platform. The British one is also a logistics ship.

Big simple steel is cheap, that's exactly what the future should be.

[Tempest414]

I think they will be less capable.

That generally the point of current developments, isolating the mission systems from the platform, so the platform can become basic and cheap.

The current mine-hunters are highly capable, with specialist hulls and sonars. I don't expect the next generation to have any of that, it wont be a capable platform, instead it will get all capability from the payload.

The ships will be bigger and systems deployed from them will be capable so as a package they will be bigger and more capable than the current MCMs

it is clear from images that there are loads of ship designs that work for around the 100 to 150 million mark lets hope that HMG and the MOD don't muck this one up

[donald_of_tokyo]

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

Personally, when I look at the RB2's I just see a missed opportunity.

"Missing opportunity" you feel is because it is large. And, you are proposing to make it more larger. Surely it will mean less number. This is what I meant.

River B2 is good at their task, EEZ patrol. Perfect solution.

But, if it comes to other tasks, of course your argument is valid.

On the old VT River B2 like OPV design, I think it is too top heavy, and current design is "better" and the original one is "bad". If you want a good stern deck and covered bay, make the hull more fatter, and in place abandon the idea of "25+ knots" (or put much more powerful engine, to make it more expensive to built and operate).

On the latter examples, they enjoy fat and bulky hull. This is why I think MHC is better than MHPC, because the speed requirement is lowered, such a fat hull is enabled.

And I do not agree your proposal of "generation". They are just different. The most modern EEZ patrol ship will be very similar to River B2 itself. See the many patrol ships of Japan Coast Guard.

Should the MH(P)C programme be thinking BIGGER? Are all patrol vessels simply going to get bigger?

I'm sure bigger as you go, surely less number you will see. But, if the size can beat the less number, then yes it is the way to go, I agree. See French navy.

[Jake1992]

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

Personally, when I look at the RB2's I just see a missed opportunity.

"Missing opportunity" you feel is because it is large. And, you are proposing to make it more larger. Surely it will mean less number. This is what I meant.

I don't agree with this, if the RB2s were built as standard cost then yes your premise could hold true higher cost lower numbers, but they weren't they were built under toba at highly inflated costs to meat the contractual requirements. A lot more could of been got for the same money or even an additional RB2. The problem in this case wasn't money it was time. The RB2 had to be rushed in to production to fill the gap so there was no time to do an addiquate redesign. ( this is where it's an opertunity missed )

[donald_of_tokyo]

Partly agree. It should have been something more capable, only if there was a time for designing, say 1year notice. HMG and navy indecision made it happen.

Even if the first 3 hull can be “a surprise”, how about the hull 4 and 5?

Another indecision made another opportunity lost.

If RN foresee it going to happen, they should have modified the design to get a hangar, with redesigning the funnel and after. When it was decided right at the time of ordering the 1st three hulls, it must have been easy.

Three simple EEZ OPV and two OPV with Wildcat hangar should have been a much better balance, I think.

Note I think 3 OPV without hangar is right way to go. No need. But, surely 5 is too much.

[Jake1992]

Partly agree. It should have been something more capable, only if there was a time for designing, say 1year notice. HMG and navy indecision made it happen.

Even if the first 3 hull can be “a surprise”, how about the hull 4 and 5?

Another indecision made another opportunity lost.

If RN foresee it going to happen, they should have modified the design to get a hangar, with redesigning the funnel and after. When it was decided right at the time of ordering the 1st three hulls, it must have been easy.

Three simple EEZ OPV and two OPV with Wildcat hangar should have been a much better balance, I think.

Note I think 3 OPV without hangar is right way to go. No need. But, surely 5 is too much.

Couldn't agree with you more there, I do think there needs to be an increase in over all EEZ vessels both for the RN and ukbf with us leaving the EU

[Poiuytrewq]

A lot more could of been got for the same money or even an additional RB2. The problem in this case wasn't money it was time. The RB2 had to be rushed in to production....

Exactly, it was a simple quick fix due to financial considerations.

With a better design RN could have got a true multipurpose vessel capable of deploying globally and really adding to the fleet. Due to the RB2's limitations the T31 is now going to have to perform these global constabulary tasks which will be a Frigate doing what a OPV could and should be doing.

Much less complex vessels could then have been procured for EEZ patrol and fisheries enforcement with a smaller crew and therefore probably an increased number of hulls.

It's all academic now as the decisions been made and the ships are nearing the end of build. The main question now is how best to use them and I would forward base one at Gibraltar and one in the Falklands and keep the rest in the EEZ.

[Poiuytrewq]

River B2 is good at their task, EEZ patrol. Perfect solution.

Not quite perfect in my view for EEZ patrol, 58 crew is a lot when compared to 30 in the RB1 and why would you need accommodation for 50 Marines in the EEZ? But I agree, although expensive to build and crew, they will suit EEZ patrol very well.

On the old VT River B2 like OPV design, I think it is too top heavy, and current design is "better" and the original one is "bad".

You may be right but I think the high CoG issue could have been resolved, probably a 5m or 6m stretch would have helped a lot. It would have produced a much more useful vessel for Global deployment.

On the latter examples, they enjoy fat and bulky hull. This is why I think MHC is better than MHPC, because the speed requirement is lowered, such a fat hull is enabled.

If mcm equipment is going to continue to increase in size I think the two roles will have to split. Even the Venari 85 is starting to look small now.

And I do not agree your proposal of "generation". They are just different. The most modern EEZ patrol ship will be very similar to River B2 itself.

Was the RB2 purely designed for EEZ patrol? It's the Multipurpose globally deployable designs that are a generation ahead.

Three simple EEZ OPV and two OPV with Wildcat hangar should have been a much better balance, I think.

This would have been a very good outcome and although not perfect it would have been much better than where we are now. The fact that a hanger was not added to 4 and 5 is astonishing.

[Repulse]

The River can be more, it’s called the Avenger Class. Just remove the CAMM launcher midships and replace with an open deck mission deck. The B2s should have been about £70mn each minus TOBA, no reason why this can’t be £120mn each and a competitor to the Holland Class.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't agree with this, if the RB2s were built as standard cost then yes your premise could hold true higher cost lower numbers, but they weren't they were built under toba at highly inflated costs to meat the contractual requirements. A lot more could of been got for the same money or even an additional RB2. The problem in this case wasn't money it was time. The RB2 had to be rushed in to production to fill the gap so there was no time to do an addiquate redesign. ( this is where it's an opertunity missed )

Refusing to face the fact that T26 is to be delayed, this is the point of HMG and RN's irresponsible attitude. They just stop thinking, waiting for some miracle to happen, and failed. If HMG/RN decided to shft to 8 T26 + 5 T31e program already on 2014, the ~650M GBP spent on River B2 should have been added to the 1.25B GBP T31e program cost, making it 1.9B GBP.

River B2 is good at their task, EEZ patrol. Perfect solution.

Not quite perfect in my view for EEZ patrol, 58 crew is a lot when compared to 30 in the RB1 and why would you need accommodation for 50 Marines in the EEZ? But I agree, although expensive to build and crew, they will suit EEZ patrol very well.

The fact is, River B2 will go to sea with 36 crew, +6 compared to River B1. "58" is the over all crew in rotation, to keep the sea going days as high as 320 days/year. This was clearly written in Navy News.

So River B2 is lean manned, 25+ knots speed, 5000nm range, good EEZ patrol ship. The build cost includes TOBA related issue, about 100M GBP (within the 1st 3 order). This is natural, OPV cannot cover all of the engineering tasks which is needed for T26.

River B2 design is "HMS Clyde replacement". Helo flight deck, 50 RM soldiers' accomodation, both are what was needed in Clyde. For the 3 River B2 = replacement for River B1s, I just think the flight deck as a "mission deck". No need for Helo, just use it as a mission deck, e.g. for 6+ ISO containers.

I see no problem up to here.

The 6th hull is for BREXIT EEZ patrol? Then, no need for hangar as well. In this case, River B2 is a perfect solution. Built for their task, very lean manned. What is more, ironically, they were built under "zero cost" = TOBA budget to save T26 program. (Just irony).

Was the RB2 purely designed for EEZ patrol? It's the Multipurpose globally deployable designs that are a generation ahead.

You wrote my answer. River B2 is at the highest end of EEZ patrol vessel. But, it turned out to be tasked for "multipurpose globally deployment". Clearly, these two are different vessel, no relation to "generation". Frigate is not "a generation ahead" of OPV. Similary, "EEZ patrol vessel" is different from "muti-purpose patrol vessel". The latter is larger = more crew and fuel, many assets (cranes and wirings) which increases design, build and operation cost. All these additional assets is "BAD" for EEZ patrol, because it directly means less hull number, less sea going days = less efficiency for patrol.

[Tempest414]

I agree global multi purpose patrol vessel = type 31 in its current form. As for the B2 Rivers as said if you view the flight deck as a mission deck they can still bring some good things to the table i.e operating the new mine sweeping system plus UAVs and mine laying maybe

[Repulse]

The MHC programme has always been about the off board systems rather than the “mother” ships themselves. As such we should expect these systems to be operated from Frigates, Sloops and RFAs - so in that respect we are all correct.

However, I do not see the need to build a fleet of large ships specifically to operate half a dozen MHC USV/UUVs, it will never be more than this number so what is the point. These ships will be targets for the enemy, so self defence and a “good” level of damage control is important.

What the RN really needs is a large number of vessels that can operate these systems with duel roles - this is why I support more T26s and an evolving large class of River sized Sloops (20+). I’d see the latter in the £100-£150mn cost bracket.