UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2540
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 09 Jun 2018, 02:27

I happen to fined a nice article on RoV based MCM.

As you can see, "MCM Denmark" is a system made of command container, to be deployed from "other" ships, controling
- 2 MSD Holm class 98t MCM drones (with MCM ROV) (other 4 Holm class are manned, for training and survey)
- 4 MSF class 125t drones (with side-scan sonar)

Interesting read as follows:
https://www.marinelink.com/news/capabil ... mark349814

It is well known that Danish navy has long been developing/operating remote operated MCM systems, based on STANFLEX300 class supported by 6 MRD class 32t drones in 1990s, and now with a container on "any ship" with new drones. So, it was there for 2 decades or more.

From this fact, I see two points:

1: Danish navy has many lessons learned on these systems. They will be of great importance when developing RN's one.

2: Even though it was there for decades, it has not been adopted by any other navies (including RN). Similar to STANFLEX, there must be some shortfall.

May be the "lessons learned" and "shortfall" significantly overlaps, but anyway it is worth analyzing this system in detail before re-inventing a wheel.

Oh, 3rd point to add;

3: I think the MSF's side-scan sonar tasks can be replaced with REMUS UUV.

Historically, side-scan sonar tasks were performed by cheap small patrol boats, or training boats. The well known example (at least for me) is RNZN Moa class inshore patrol boats. Operated mainly by Volunteer Reserve, their main task was doing Q-route survey with side-scan sonar. (In USN and RAN, it was called COOP, Craft of OPportunity, doing the same side-scan sonar Q-route survey).

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Jul 2018, 08:32

Looks like Rolls Royce won't be participating in the MHC programme after all.....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -b05g86mgj

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 09 Jul 2018, 09:17

The move has very little effect on the Royal Navy, that part of the business was never British anyway. The Telegraph slapped a picture of the MT30 on their article which is not part of that deal either.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Jul 2018, 09:24

A victim of the downturn in offshore; but a great asset (being more design focussed, rather than just a shipbuilder) for the Norgies
- and they will have offshore to support, come rain (Bergen has the most rainfall of any city in Europe), shine or snow (which they get regularly, 4 m in one go the record so far)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2540
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Sep 2018, 16:21

Great summary of current and future MCMV capability, by navy lookout.

"The future of Royal Navy mine hunting"
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-fu ... nehunting/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Sep 2018, 17:50

Now we can see how the build prgrm will interleave with T31/ T26 (and precede the amphibs renewal):
" There will almost certainly be steel-hulled mine warfare ‘motherships’ to deploy this capability but procurement is some way off, expected between 2026 – 2033."

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1160
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 10 Sep 2018, 19:22

They could be cheap second-hand merchant conversions such as oil rig support ships. A sizable working deck for launching and recovery is the primary requirement above basic sea keeping and habitability. Alternatively, the RN could consider dual purpose platforms such as BMT’s Venari-85 hybrid OPV/Minehunter.

As I said before, I suspect that a sizeable portion of the minehunter fleet will probably look more like SD Victoria, or Northern River - utility vessels designed to transport and operate offboard systems (both MCM and hydrographic) in low-threat areas. Probably with sufficient armament to deter FACs and the like (as the tupperwares are). This would leave more money to spend on a small number of better hulls (possibly based on the Venari), suitable for higher-threat areas.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 12 Sep 2018, 08:53

I suspect some will even have the Serco sticker on the side.
@LandSharkUK

clinch
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby clinch » 12 Sep 2018, 10:38

shark bait wrote:I suspect some will even have the Serco sticker on the side.


Then the defence budget really will be screwed.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/19/offender-electronic-tagging-serco-repay-68m-overcharging

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2540
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2018, 00:53

From T31 news thread:
Ron5 wrote:Not seen this before. To my eyes looks like a cut down Arrowhead 120.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6522-modern-multi-role-offshore-patrol-vessel-by-babcock.html
Modern_Multi-Role_Offshore_Patrol_Vessel_by_Babcock_.jpg
1: I will cross-post this to MHPC thread, because I could not find better thread.
2: In DESI 2017 there is already a similar ship, captured in navy-recognition movie. You can see similar OPV on the back. Naturally, Arrowhead series are a series of OPV design, and on top of it there is Arrowhead 120 light frigate. Hope to see more info coming on Arrowhead 120 or yet another proposal from babcock for T31.

On this OPV itself, I like it. Looks like built to similar standard of RNZN Otago-class OPVs. Simple, has a hangar, has a stern deck (presumably for ~2 ISO containers). It does not have any mission bay, so cannot be MHC platform candidate. But, it will make the ship smarter, and hence provide higher top speed with the same power, which is vital for OPV (>25 kts is needed), but not for MHC (guess ~20kts is enough). It should have been "the River B1 replacements", planned to be ~2025.
arrowhead_family.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2540
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Sep 2018, 01:01

For MHC, they can make the hull 3-4 m wider (bulky but with lower top speed), raise the flight deck 3 m higher (to make a enclosed mission bay underneath), extend the stern by 5m, .... oh here comes Venari 95 :D

#Note, Venari is BMT, Arrowhead is babcock. But, they can "steel" good ideas each other?

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 11:24

Interesting option from France as MAURIC & ECA Group unveil OCTOPODA range of MCM motherships carrying unmanned systems.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... stems.html

At 30m and 50m the Octopoda 300/500 are a lot smaller than the Venari options but I think it's interesting that the basic vessel configuration is now apparently moving in the same direction.
image.jpg
image.jpg
The Octopoda stern arrangement is different with a stern ramp preferred over the Venari 85's davit and crane arrangement but the flight over the covered working deck/garage is very similar.
image.jpg


Venari 85 for a direct comparison.
image.jpg
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 11:40

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Octopoda stern arrangement is different with a stern ramp preferred over the Venari 85's davit and crane arrangement but the flight over the covered working deck/garage is very similar.

In a bigger hull, why not go for both. With autonomy (systems capability) developing in leaps and bounds, tasks can be undertaken at ever increasing distances from the mothership.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Venari 85 for a direct comparison.
Even in that size the helo pad is restricted to a UAV; going bigger gives options (and by far better self-defence fit-outs; actually being a helping hand rather than a burden, tying other task force vessels into a fairly restricted 'map box').

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 12:31

ArmChairCivvy wrote:In a bigger hull, why not go for both. With autonomy (systems capability) developing in leaps and bounds, tasks can be undertaken at ever increasing distances from the mothership
I think it comes down the need for a towed array. If the Littoral ASW capability is not deemed necessary via a TAS then a stern ramp is possible but it would cut down on space on the working deck.

It's worth considering that the Venari is CB90/LCVP/LCAC capable. The working deck is large enough to embark up to 4 CB90's simultaneously plus a multitude of other kit/craft under the flight deck in the garage. I think that's an important facility especially considering that going forward only 1 RN vessel is due to be CB90 capable.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Venari 85 for a direct comparison.
Even in that size the helo pad is restricted to a UAV; going bigger gives options (and by far better self-defence fit-outs; actually being a helping hand rather than a burden, tying other task force vessels into a fairly restricted 'map box').
Absolutely, and that is the reason that I believe the MH(P)C vessel should be scalable between 85m/90m for EEZ patrol, 100m/105m for MCM, up to 120/130m for a light Frigate option. If HMG are sticking with the £1.25bn budget for the T31 programme, I think combining the T31 and MH(P)C programmes is now the most sensible way forward.

BMT has already confirmed that Venari is available between 70m - 100m and with a 16m beam it should be possible to stretch it out into a light frigate configuration. With a change to the bow angle Venari becomes a very interesting proposition especially considering that it can be made Merlin capable relatively easily by lowering the level of the flight deck slightly.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 13:00

Lots of new info (to me, at least):
Poiuytrewq wrote: The working deck is large enough to embark up to 4 CB90's simultaneously plus a multitude of other kit/craft under the flight deck in the garage
:clap:
Poiuytrewq wrote: If HMG are sticking with the £1.25bn budget for the T31 programme, I think combining the T31 and MH(P)C programmes is now the most sensible way forward.
So do I.
Poiuytrewq wrote: becomes a very interesting proposition especially considering that it can be made Merlin capable relatively easily by lowering the level of the flight deck slightly
:clap: Anyway, it was only a couple of weeks ago that I learnt that ASW is a force protection, not a combat tasking :oops:
- with the RM Force Protection "boat" cancelled
- and the CB90s (even if we had any) very littoral in hull from, rather than for rough seas (for any length of time)
we could have some units capable of both littoral ASW (a screen for other ops) and MCM, including supporting advance beach (recce and clearance) parties from fairly close up

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1880
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

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

Postby Gabriele » 13 Oct 2018, 13:39

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting option from France as MAURIC & ECA Group unveil OCTOPODA range of MCM motherships carrying unmanned systems.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... stems.html

At 30m and 50m the Octopoda 300/500 are a lot smaller than the Venari options but I think it's interesting that the basic vessel configuration is now apparently moving in the same direction.
image.jpg
image.jpg
The Octopoda stern arrangement is different with a stern ramp preferred over the Venari 85's davit and crane arrangement but the flight over the covered working deck/garage is very similar.
image.jpg


Venari 85 for a direct comparison.
image.jpg
image.jpg



The Venari 85 was designed by someone who followed the UK unmanned Sweep development and the UK-FR MMCM programme. Both are supposed to include two USVs.

ECA and others seem to have provvision for only one.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1160
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 13 Oct 2018, 17:10

Poiuytrewq wrote:up to 120/130m for a light Frigate option.

I remain unconvinced that the layout of the Venari is suitable for use as a frigate. I tend to agree over the first two (OPV and MCM) roles, since they both would make good use of a large aft working deck, but the rest of the world seems to have settled on the forward gun and VLS/ amidships weapons deck/ stern flight deck and hangar layout - there must be a reason for that. The amidships flight deck on the Venari would, to my mind, limit what you could place aft of it.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 15 Oct 2018, 11:13

Poiuytrewq wrote:At 30m and 50m the Octopoda 300/500 are a lot smaller than the Venari options but I think it's interesting that the basic vessel configuration is now apparently moving in the same direction.


Looks more like a drop in replacement for the existing fleets of mine hunters, whereas the Venari is developing a new breed of mine hunters that will be much more capable operating alone. Given how tight resources are elsewhere the less support the mine hunters need the better.

Poiuytrewq wrote:The working deck is large enough to embark up to 4 CB90's simultaneously

4? Where does that come from? Only looks like space for 2 boats to me.

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think combining the T31 and MH(P)C programmes is now the most sensible way forward.

As I've mentioned this a few times around here, if the T31 is tending towards the lower end of a frigate a merger is preferable. There is very little a patrol frigate can do that something like Venari couldn't do more efficiently. Furthermore the more utilitarian vessels are ready to accept future unmanned systems thanks to the abundant space built in across a couple of working decks.

It may well be preferable to develop a low cost utility platform that operates a wide range of off-board systems and replace the base load of no combatant tasks with a single platform.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Oct 2018, 11:49

shark bait wrote:4? Where does that come from? Only looks like space for 2 boats to me.
Do you mean davit deployed? The working deck is large enough to embark 4 CB90 size vessels that can be deployed via the stern crane.

The internal makeup of the garage under the flight deck is unclear but the footprint is again big enough to hold another 4 CB90's making 8 in total.

I'm not suggesting RN would ever want to embark 8 or even 4 CB90's on a Venari but it's a useful illustration as to the space available in this highly practical and cost effective concept.

As an aside, when moving the parameters around with the Venari concept something quickly becomes clear, either the garage under the flight deck is CB90 capable (still marginal) and the hanger is wildcat capable or the hanger is Merlin capable and the garage is only ISO capable. With Venari, a Merlin capable hanger and a CB90 capable garage is not possible without raising the COG.

If the MHPC and T31 programmes were to be merged this would be one the first issues I would look to rectify by a small increase in the beam dimension.

A Venari with a change to the bow angle looks like a totally different vessel and with a Leander style propulsion setup could be a very interesting option.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Oct 2018, 12:24

shark bait wrote:Given how tight resources are elsewhere the less support the mine hunters need the better.


Bull's eye! with that one
Poiuytrewq wrote:The working deck is large enough to embark 4 CB90 size vessels that can be deployed via the stern crane.

The internal makeup of the garage under the flight deck is unclear but the footprint is again big enough to hold another 4 CB90's

+
Poiuytrewq wrote: it's a useful illustration as to the space available


MCM? Pinchpoints in SLOCs, harbours and their approaches in home waters... and clearance of beach approaches, in creating an abutment [from the "to border on : to touch along an edge"] for other forces to follow the first-entry RM contingent.
- those are the areas of focus for MCM
- only the last mentioned needs Force Protection boats - of any description - and that is why the 4+4 example given is a good one. Which ever way the unmanned mine hunters can best be put into water, repeatedly. The boats you only need to hoisted up and refueled.

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the MHPC and T31 programmes were to be merged this would be one the first issues I would look to rectify by a small increase in the beam dimension.

- "first" only if ASW is added; neither programme as they stand prescribes it

Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Location: Niue

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

Postby Keithdwat579 » 15 Oct 2018, 12:28

If the venari is chosen, which seems likely, in the 85 or larger variants, would/should they be classed as mcms? Maybe sloop would be better, they seem to be of a descendant study of the black swan concept a few years ago, if there is aversion like the 95 poiutreyq submitted it would be more than just an MCM!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Oct 2018, 13:02

Keithdwat579 wrote: sloop would be better, they seem to be of a descendant study of the black swan concept a few years ago


Like SW1 was suggesting, RN has driven a supertanker over their budget boat, not once, but twice:
- carriers, at the cost of the rest of the surface navy; "escorts will follow HUV carriers, like night will follow day"?
- and once they were in that conundrum, they went for cruisers in the T26 spec'cing (instead of the 1:1 T23 replacement). Same thinking there!

Black Swan was a propaganda piece for "how could we find a way of backing out of this cul-de-sac" without totally losing face. Paving the way. Go "one up" and it must be a good thing?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5292
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 16 Oct 2018, 07:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:The working deck is large enough to embark 4 CB90 size vessels that can be deployed via the stern crane.


I don't get it, how can it fit four 15m boats on a 17m working deck?
@LandSharkUK

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 16 Oct 2018, 10:41

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Like SW1 was suggesting, RN has driven a supertanker over their budget boat, not once, but twice:
- carriers, at the cost of the rest of the surface navy; "escorts will follow HUV carriers, like night will follow day"?


We all know that budgets have been blown out of the water but this is the fault of all involved the RN - MOD - HMG and to a lesser degree the builders not one of them has any understanding of the word budget. However here is hope in that Babcock have built the 4 90 meter Samuel Beckett's on budget at a cost of 71 million each. Given this and the skill set built up over the time of this program at Appledore I feel UK should be looking to start its MHPC program with a order for the first batch of 4 Venari -95 ships with a budget of 600 million pounds and fitted out as so

Scanter 4100 radar
BAE- CMS
type 2193 HMS
Wildcat capable hangar
Phalanx mount on the hangar roof ( weapon to come from RN pool when needed )
Armament as set out ( I would like to see a 57mm fitted )

I feel now is the time as we should be making use of the training gained from the OPV program

SW1
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 16 Oct 2018, 13:36

But the point with this is why would you build a ship to specially carry these. With the unmanned systems that are appearing and there size they allow themselves to be distributed thru the fleet In a type 26 one of the lpds or rfas or deployed from a shore base. We essentially are buying the payloads. Over the next while there will be a mix say holding onto the hunt minesweepers and adding unmanned systems. The bay in the gulf acts as a mother ship to two minesweepers at present in future those minesweepers might be carried by the bays.

The french have developed the large fast L-CAT landing craft say something in future that size has minsweeper, hydrographic or asw capability and was carriered by lpds. This maybe getting into future fantasy but it’s coming and any ships we build for a 20-30 year life needs to consider it


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests