Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
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 advocate that principal, but differ on the specifics. MHC is definitely a capability rather than the ship, and that capability should be present across an Auxiliary Mothership, T26, and T31.

I think we differ with the capability level of the T31, and the numbers of each platform. I would like 8 + 8 + 8, partly because I like the symmetry, and partly because that lets us forward base two in Bahrain, two some where else (Singapore?), then 4 in reserve for training, UK, defence engagement, maritime security patrols, perhaps even standing in on APT(n&s) occasionally.
@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 wrote: I think we differ with the capability level of the T31, and the numbers of each platform. I would like 8 + 8 + 8, partly because I like the symmetry, and partly because that lets us forward base two in Bahrain, two some where else (Singapore?), then 4 in reserve for training, UK, defence engagement, maritime security patrols, perhaps even standing in on APT(n&s) occasionally.
I'd disagree with the balance on three counts. Firstly, the T26 are far too few and stretched already and whilst technically they could act in the MHC role let's not pretend that they will not be needed 100% for ASW duties. Having more globally based Auxiliary Motherships is an option, but I see that as a dangerous thing as you are potentially putting them into situations where due to the lack of Escorts they cannot be protected. Lastly, what the RN needs more than anything is a versatile ship built in numbers that can be the backbone of the navy - builds of 8 or less just costs more per hull in the fixed design and development costs.
”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

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

so shark baiit and Repulse you want to see the end of the mine hunter fleet as the treasury will say thank you very much for the savings but you will still only have 14 escorts (19 if they are very luck and get Type 31) and the Navy will have sacrificed more capability.

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 »

Repulse wrote:Firstly, the T26 are far too few and stretched already and whilst technically they could act in the MHC role let's not pretend that they will not be needed 100% for ASW duties.
Agree. They have extensive facilities for operating off-board vehicles, but its unlikely they will have availability beyond ASW ops.
Repulse wrote: Having more globally based Auxiliary Motherships is an option, but I see that as a dangerous thing as you are potentially putting them into situations where due to the lack of Escorts they cannot be protected.
Agree, and leadership will recognize this. It certainly cant be put into a high intensity situation without escort, and even then it would send in specialist off board systems into the 'hot zone'. There are a few security and stabilization roles an Auxiliary Mothership could pick up independently, using its off board systems again to keeping escort escorting.
Repulse wrote:Lastly, what the RN needs more than anything is a versatile ship built in numbers that can be the backbone of the navy - builds of 8 or less just costs more per hull in the fixed design and development costs.
Agree, that sounds wonderful, but I think you miss out one word, credible. The value does not come in the form of lots of platforms, the value comes from lots of credible platforms, that is the difficult part.
marktigger wrote:so shark baiit and Repulse you want to see the end of the mine hunter fleet as the treasury will say thank you very much for the savings but you will still only have 14 escorts (19 if they are very luck and get Type 31) and the Navy will have sacrificed more capability.
Not "the end of the mine hunter fleet", a transition of the mine hunter fleet utilizing new technologies.

I don't accept that second point either. The equipment budget is protected, so spending less in one area releases resources for another area. These is clearly distrust here, caused by the poor transparency lately, one of my big hope is this can be turned around.

My thinking is by building the next mine hunting platform to commercial standards we can increase the T31 from five units to eight, giving a very welcome boost to the escort fleet, withuot requiring an increase in funding from the treasury.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

I still don't think type 31 will ever see water.
Hammond has a defence background so knows what state the navy is in I think he is a better prospect for the navy than osborne ever was. But with a very expensive defence program getting uner way in the Trident replacement The treasury will be clamouring to make savings and combne the equipment budget into it. So I suspect we will end up with 14-16 escorts and any other sacrifices the navy wish to make the funding will be greatly accepted back into the treasury coffers.

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 »

Maybe it will, maybe it wont.

We know the current plan, and that's what has to be worked within. At present that is a cheap T31, and successor coming from a different funding stream.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

at the minute but New Pm New Cabinet, New Game/rules and a chancellor who knows defence and was fairly ruthless with it as Defence secretary.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by PAUL MARSAY »

I saw a post on another news site that Liam Fox was keen on " REBUILDING THE ROYAL NAVY" and I have since seen ab article from Lord West arguing that the RN needs rebuilding and that the army and RAF are well down the batting order .

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 »

PAUL MARSAY wrote: " REBUILDING THE ROYAL NAVY" and I have since seen ab article from Lord West arguing that the RN needs rebuilding and that the army and RAF are well down the batting order .
That would be the old type of game: get your house in disorder frst (by overconcentrating investment on too few assets) and then go and beggar-thy-neighbour to get the rest (that were conveniently forgotten).
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

The priority should be rebuilding the Navy and the Army the RAF re-equipment program is well under way

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 »

marktigger wrote:the RAF re-equipment program is well under way
I agree, but the first step is to take the slices allocated to main categories in the EP (the latest, covering 10 yrs) and reallocate within categories.

Then, if the result does not look good, do a zero-budgeting approach. Assume nothing is there and see how you would rebuild from scratch, compare to what exists (now and in the Plan) and adjust for the biggest gaps.
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 »

I didn't realize it at the time, but apparently this thing is part of the MHC program. Looks nice at least.

@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

yeap a system like that could be brought to theater on any of a number of vessels as cargo and be controlled from a console on any number of platforms including a dedicated purpose built minehunter.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Looks like SD Northern River will be the afloat command and control centre for the unmanned vehicles of Unmanned Warrior.



How do you incorporate tweets on here, again...? EDIT: Thanks! I had forgotten again, and was messing around with incorporation code when it is not necessary...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Gabriele wrote:How do you incorporate tweets on here, again...?
Just paste the URL to it and the forum will make it appear when you hit post.

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 »

Good to see, a modular system that could be fitted to any vessel, a very positive direction to be heading in.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by hovematlot »

shark bait wrote:Good to see, a modular system that could be fitted to any vessel, a very positive direction to be heading in.
Yes, would fit nicely in a Type 26 mission bay

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 »

Indeed! It also needs to work with the T31.

T26 & T31 for risky MCM, and then the same systems fitted to civilian platforms for the more low intensity ops.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:Indeed! It also needs to work with the T31.

T26 & T31 for risky MCM, and then the same systems fitted to civilian platforms for the more low intensity ops.
Or on proper Minehunters!
I agree the containerised systems are useful but they should be part of the arsenal

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 »

no point spending lots of cash on a bespoke platform whose capabilities will never be needed.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:no point spending lots of cash on a bespoke platform whose capabilities will never be needed.
ROFLMAO.......it isn't Type 45's, type 23's or OPV's that are forward based in Barhain its Minehunters they are an essential part of force protection and have never been busier!

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 »

You miss my point.

A traditional mine hunter is so expensive because it is built to operate inside the mine field. There is little point spending all that cash on a future platform that will never operate inside a mine field.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

and its built that way or a reason mined areas aren't signposted and your sarting point could be discovering something when you are in the field I'd rather that was on hull sonar or by a sweep on the vessel or an ROV than by the bow disappearing in a cloud of water and shrapnel!

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 »

If mines are suspected send a robot in first, no need to send a ship full of people in.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

correct but have them controlled by a vessel that can operate nside the field

Post Reply