Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:And they have to be protected by a frigate or two because they have almost no self defence capability.
False. The Frigate its not in the Gulf escorting the Mine Hunters, they both go about their business almost independently of each other.
Not False. If the mine hunters had to start clearing any mines from the Strait for real, the frigate would 100% be escorting them.

This possibility is in fact the actual reason why the frigate is based north of the strait, alongside the mine hunters.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote:reason why the frigate is based north of the strait
Quite, the frigate is the shepherd, and here are the sheep https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1

What we are missing are a few sheep dog,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_ ... h_2015.JPG to be able to quickly run around to any trouble possibly arising as the mine hunters will have to work over a wide area
- or to position themselves along the thread axis, so to say
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)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

That's not the reason the 'why the frigate is based north of the strait' because the Mine hunters have been there for a decade, whereas the frigate has only been based there for a year. The Royal Navy accepts the risk is reasonably low enough, and the Mine Hunters are not escorted.

This brings me back to the point I keep making; 99% of mine clearance operations are in a low risk environment. It is simply not worth spending an exorbitant amount to cover the fringe conditions, and this is exactly the same reasoning that lead the RAF to buy the same aircraft as Ryanair.
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:That's not the reason the 'why the frigate is based north of the strait' because the Mine hunters have been there for a decade, whereas the frigate has only been based there for a year. The Royal Navy accepts the risk is reasonably low enough, and the Mine Hunters are not escorted.

This brings me back to the point I keep making; 99% of mine clearance operations are in a low risk environment. It is simply not worth spending an exorbitant amount to cover the fringe conditions, and this is exactly the same reasoning that lead the RAF to buy the same aircraft as Ryanair.
Wrong, yet again.

The reason the mine hunters are there is a contingency in case the Strait is closed by mines. If it is, then ships north of the Strait can not be reinforced and must conduct their tasks with whatever assets are available.

For many years the RN tried to maintain a permanent presence of one or two escorts in the Gulf (Op Kipion), so at least one would be north of the Strait before it could be closed by mines. Over time, with reduction in escort numbers, this became more difficult. Hence the decision to permanently forward base a frigate in the northern Gulf.

Clearly the frigate undertakes many roles while in the region. But the reason it is based in the northern Gulf, alongside the mine hunters, is to be able to escort the mine hunters if the Strait is ever closed by mines.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:False. The Frigate its not in the Gulf escorting the Mine Hunters, they both go about their business almost independently of each other.
So you would be happy to do MCM operations in the Gulf without a Frigate nearby to support?
”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

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

The Navy makes an assessment based on the operating environment, and as history shows us 99% of mine clearance operations are in a low risk environment where no escort is required.
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Caribbean »

To take @SBs example further. In the Gulf, we use a Bay as a mothership, the MCMs as the control ships and a mixture of onboard and remote systems to perform the task.

The model envisaged removes the intermediate system, the MCMs. All systems become off board systems and the mothership now manages the offboard systems directly, rather than through the intermediate MCM layer.

If built for the task (and I also envisage a vessel based on an OSV, probably similar to TD's old "ship that is not a frigate" idea) then a future MCM vessel would be able to carry similar weapons to the Bay class (or heavier if it is judged that they are needed), since there will be plenty of space, unlike a 90m sloop, which will already be crammed to the gills with cradles, handling equipment and controls for offboard systems'.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by SW1 »

Or perhaps going one stage further the type 31 with excess space is where the mcm command and divers are based. The mcm vessels being unmanned depending on size may come out from shore to operate with the type 31 or even tie up alongside it like the riverine or torpedo boats used to do. Or if small enough launched from the type 31. Lots of options to explore

Anymous
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 20 May 2020, 17:51
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Anymous »

Detailed TTPs used in an escalating threat environment are not generally discussed in open source documents.

I previously posted a link to an open source MCM paper published by industry folks in another thread, but is more appropriate here:

https://zenodo.org/record/2530761#.Xs-eaGnTXqv

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A good read, the above document, thank you.

Going back to what was written upthread about the extensive area that any mine clearing operation might have to be able to work through, even if under threat, the document makes a point of what has been done and what could be done:
"it is important to use realistic assumptions, especially for the depth of the minefield. 50nm is representative of a mid-sized minefield; comparable to mining within the length of a strategic choke point such as the Straits of Gibraltar, the Dardanelles or the width of the Gulf of Finland, or a defensive minefield laid in the approaches to a port.

A deeper minefield (>100nm), such as one that would deny the Straits of Hormuz..."

Hence the best a single frigate can do is to provide a local-area air defence bubble for, say, 4 MCM vessels with their semi-autonomous little helpers working through such a minefield.

And to fend off, say, a swarm of boats of fibre-glass construction that can confidently approach over the yet-to-be cleared minefields - as they happen to know the types of mines in a given zone - we will need something like
ArmChairCivvy wrote: a few sheep dog,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_ ... h_2015.JPG {for them} to be able to quickly run around to any trouble possibly arising as the mine hunters will have to work over a wide area
The helo (1; and not always available) from the frigate can, sure, have loadsa nice little missiles to help to deal with a serious swarm of boghammers or the like.
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)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

Anymous wrote:Detailed TTPs used in an escalating threat environment are not generally discussed in open source documents.

I previously posted a link to an open source MCM paper published by industry folks in another thread, but is more appropriate here:

https://zenodo.org/record/2530761#.Xs-eaGnTXqv
Thanks for this. I have seen and read a similar paper written by BMT. This one goes into more detail about where we are today and how we transition to a standoff area MCM capability. It clearly explains why the next generation of MCM ships will need to be an interim step and hence why they will still need to be dedicated MCM vessels. Use of commercial vessels or giving a secondary MCM role to military vessels (e.g. OPVs, frigates, LSDs) will not be possible for this next generation of MCM capability.

In appendix B, it goes it to some depth about what requirements this next generation vessels will need - and ends up with something very similar to the new Belgian/Dutch ships.

It also states that this next generation of MCMV is likely to be the last. When they go out of service, use of commercial vessels or giving a secondary MCM role to military vessels will be possible.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Good read, as a rationale of Venari-85 design. Many of these features were already written in the Venari brochure, but this kind of comprehensive document is always welcome. Among them, comparison of Hunts and Venari-85 in page 14 (figure 9) is very good image.

Thanks a lot Anymous-san.


Among the discussion, I spot two thing relevant to current discussion here. They are in p.18.

Working Areas .... Sufficient working deck space is critical to ensure the platform is not overtaken by developing technology and the increasing size of UxVs, to prevent the platform becoming obsolete within its lifetime. For example, the trials USVs already at sea as demonstrators are around 11m length (15te full load), however the lessons from these trials have led to the next generation of USVs that are around 13m (>20te full load). This size increase already witnessed, to deliver more payload space, power and speed, is likely to continue into the future as more capability is added; the host platform needs to be designed from the start to accommodate this change.

--> USVs getting larger. Even T26 may not be able to handle them.

Force Protection .... a 40-76mm gun system, with fragmentation ammunition and a range up to 10nm to protect both the assets and the host platform is likely to better satisfy the requirement, provided surveillance, identification and target acquisition requirements are also met. However, any increase in the capability of the force protection systems will have a subsequent impact on the manpower and maintenance required.

--> In other words, adding armaments will increase manpower and maintenance, hence cost. In other words, less number of hulls. If it is CAMM (which needs good CMS), not only 57mm/40 mm 3P guns (only a good FCS is needed), "much less number" will be there. Just a trade-off. More armament = less hull number. Clear.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

Aethulwulf wrote:Thanks for this. I have seen and read a similar paper written by BMT.
The paper posted above is also written by BMT. There is some nice material in there, but don't be mistaken, it is marketing material for their Venari concept.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Thanks for this. I have seen and read a similar paper written by BMT.
The paper posted above is also written by BMT. There is some nice material in there, but don't be mistaken, it is marketing material for their Venari concept.
They did indeed and as they have put the leg work in I make them right I would only say go for 95 meter Venari to make sure it is not out grown as at this time the 85 meter ship looks to have a 20 m covered working deck and 15 meter out side working deck by adding 5 or 10 meters to the out side deck it should see it alright

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote:hence why they will still need to be dedicated MCM vessels. Use of commercial vessels or giving a secondary MCM role to military vessels (e.g. OPVs, frigates, LSDs) will not be possible for this next generation of MCM capability
I must have given it only a cursory read as it was spelled out v clearly why commercial vessels won't do; but I must have missed out on the frigates bit
- shock resistance rating was the key thing... well, T31 hasn't even been built yet and has passed those tests (if they don't change the base design too much)
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)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:hence why they will still need to be dedicated MCM vessels. Use of commercial vessels or giving a secondary MCM role to military vessels (e.g. OPVs, frigates, LSDs) will not be possible for this next generation of MCM capability
I must have given it only a cursory read as it was spelled out v clearly why commercial vessels won't do; but I must have missed out on the frigates bit
- shock resistance rating was the key thing... well, T31 hasn't even been built yet and has passed those tests (if they don't change the base design too much)
"Station keeping and low-speed manoeuvrability, critical to maintaining position within the narrow swept channel and reacting to threats, requires a dynamically unstable hullform. The hullforms of a Frigate or OPV are unsuitable for this role in this regard, as these platforms are instead hydrodynamically designed for straight line speed and high speed manoeuvrability requirements; these types of platform will not be capable of accurately maintaining position or manoeuvring in confined waters at low speeds in the high sea states required, to provide appropriate levels of safety to the Ship’s Company and the vessel"

Basically, for this next gen. interim capability you need a hull form good at station keeping and low speed maneuverability. That's not a frigate, T26 or T31.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I must have given it only a cursory read as it was spelled out v clearly why commercial vessels won't do
It's marketing materials written by a naval design house chasing a future contract, of course they're going to say that.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thanks for saving me from reading the 19 pages "again".

And, when there is the will, there is a way:
"Pohjanmaa-class - Corporal Frisk
[Search domain corporalfrisk.com/tag/pohjanmaa-class/] https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/pohjanmaa-class/
The Pohjanmaa-class is also equipped with twin bow thrusters, a crucial feature to ensure that the vessels can get around unassisted in the narrow waterways of the archipelago, including when mooring at the spartan infrastructure used for dispersed operations."
- not sure, though, if they are classed as frigates or corvettes: Displacement about 3,900 tons and length 114 m
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)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

shark bait wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I must have given it only a cursory read as it was spelled out v clearly why commercial vessels won't do
It's marketing materials written by a naval design house chasing a future contract, of course they're going to say that.
Of course it is written with a certain point of view, which supports their own design philosophy.

However, if you disagree you need to say which of their assumptions or arguments are wrong, and why they are wrong.

The fact that the Belgium and Dutch new MCMV design is very similar in concept suggests that at least some navies agree with this analysis.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Me too, me too.

So much so that if Venari ever gets ordered, I bet it will have two bow thrusters
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Lord Jim »

How about we ask the Dutch and Belgians very nicely if we could join their little party with the aim of initially ordering between eight and half a dozen of their new MCVs. this would allow use to try them out in the Gulf, and further refine our take on how the future development of unmanned platforms may need to head.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

I'd say theirs is a bit too small. The Navy could do with a big vessel that can support itself removing the need for a bay class to babysit.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Repulse »

shark bait, you are probably referring to something larger, but I keep coming back to the original Venator 90.

Image

Edit: I appreciate people do not share my views but when I look at these videos I weep with what could have been.


”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

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by Aethulwulf »

The new Belgium / Dutch vessels are reported to be 82m length and 2800 t displacement.

Nice, slick YouTube video is of course available...

https://youtu.be/PsjQvjfBLLU

Further info:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-belgium/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Post by shark bait »

But it's only 15m wide at the water level, which doesn't sound like much.

Since there is no reason for these to be speedy ships they should be much fatter, making a more spacious and stable hull. Sticking close to home, make it something like HMS protector, but maybe look a bit cooler.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply