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.
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, 14:30

I think the point comes in that in peace time you are right unmanned systems can be carried by a host of classes in the fleet but in war the very limited number of type 26s /31s and Bays will be swamped carrying out there prim roles and will not be able run around acting as a mother ship to unmanned mcm and other fancies. Yes unmanned is the way forward but also having a class of ship to deploy them is as important to me

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, 15:45

Tempest

Thinking more they could carry them in the type 26 mission bay 2 off and maybe 2 ribs or 4 off all optionally manned for mcm/choke point/force protection ect likewise an lpd several in place of one of the lcu’s. Part of there war role at present must be to protect the mcm fleet while it works, benefits of having a big hull with space to grow and expand into.

Is this any different to deploying helicopters and controlling them at present

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, 17:03

Using a billion pound ASW frigate to clear mines is about the most wasteful thing the navy could do. No matter how many mission bays are around, there will always be a place for a MCM platform for the large baseload of mine clearance work.
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 16 Oct 2018, 18:10

shark bait wrote:Using a billion pound ASW frigate to clear mines is about the most wasteful thing the navy could do. No matter how many mission bays are around, there will always be a place for a MCM platform for the large baseload of mine clearance work.


The notion that Type 26's will be mine clearing is patently absurd.

P.S. and they won't cost 1 billion each.

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, 19:11

I'll believe that when I see it. I've yet to see any efficiency gains materialise as a cheaper price through the Astute programme, so I expect similar things to happen drip feeding T26 contracts. I hope I'm wrong.
@LandSharkUK

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, 19:19

You wouldn’t be using it for mine clearing it’s the systems that it carries which could be 50 miles + from the ship.

Obviously as absurd as sending a frigate up the sound in the falklands to see if it hit anything because minesweepers couldn’t make it dwn.

Even today there is escorts that provide cover to the mcm fleet. They’re not sent out on there own with no protection

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Oct 2018, 19:32

SW1 wrote:because minesweepers couldn’t make it dwn.


And going forward, a design capable of self-deploying is a stated requirement. Didn't MHPC start out wit a 1.4 bn indicative budget?
- well, we've squandered a lot of it on "P"
... but,if :idea: we are not talking about dedicated hulls, whatever is left might still get us somewhere

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, 20:14

Acc

Going fwd the systems themselves will take several hundred millions out of the budget alone. So how many hulls would it buy you 4? We will see the mcm systems trialed on the hunts in due course but 10 years dwn the line?

Even in the Iraq operations is a type 26 going to sit on a gun line or the Libyan operations , if it’s in that close to shore then the ability for it to dominate the environment sub surface and above water from all threats will be important. If it’s not to carry such unmanned systems what exactly is the point of the mission bay just two carry an extra boarding rib.

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 16 Oct 2018, 21:30

I think that it is far more likely that the T26 will use it's mission bay to transport offboard systems to where they are needed, then drop them and their containerised control systems off for another ship to actually operate them. I suspect that operating the systems itself would be the exception. I also think that it is quite likely that the future MCM will be a very cheap and simple ship, along the lines of TD's "ship that is not a frigate", though perhaps the Venari concept might get a look in. It depends on how much money is available.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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, 22:04

Caribbean

Yes i can see the the mcm being fwd deployed offloaded and operating from shore and I can see a merchant vessel operating them for tasks around the uk or indeed from shore

But in a situation where the mcm groups are being asked to clear littoral areas or choke points or port entries under air/surface or even sub surface threats where would be the best place to house them and there ops unit.

Part of the reason for having these systems is to allow platforms to dominate a much larger area of sea.

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 17 Oct 2018, 07:42

SW1 wrote:in a situation where the mcm groups are being asked to clear littoral areas or choke points or port entries under air/surface or even sub surface threats where would be the best place to house them and there ops unit

Yes - that's the sort of "exceptional" situation that I was thinking of. Even then, I would think that it is more likely that a T31 or a Venari-type vessel would be tasked with the actual operation, with the T26 doing what it does best, but it does give you the option in the more extreme circumstances, of operating directly from the T26, presumably with other T26 and T45s in attendance (and possibly even F35 and a carrier), if the threat level is that high. I would see it more as a route clearance capability, for when you don't want to announce your presence in advance, than for an area clearance effort.
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 » 17 Oct 2018, 07:47

SW1 wrote:Even today there is escorts that provide cover to the mcm fleet. They’re not sent out on there own with no protection

The vast majority of MCM task occur under in a non combat environment, even in Iraq there were no escorts for the mine hunters. That's why there is still the need for a simpler mine clearance platform. There may well be exceptional circumstances that require the new boats to be operated from a Frigate or Auxiliary, its great to have that flexibility, and it wont become the norm.


Caribbean wrote:I think that it is far more likely that the T26 will use it's mission bay to transport offboard systems to where they are needed, then drop them and their containerised control systems off for another ship to actually operate them.

You think the RN will use a billion pound ASW frigate as a delivery van??? :roll:
@LandSharkUK

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 17 Oct 2018, 11:55

shark bait wrote:You think the RN will use a billion pound frigate as a delivery van

If it's going in the right direction, yes. Saves sending another. The point is that all vessels are capable and can be used as needed
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 17 Oct 2018, 11:55

... and appropriate
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 » 17 Oct 2018, 12:20

Its air transportable, it'll be a total spoon who chooses to send it in a T26 over an A400m.
@LandSharkUK

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 17 Oct 2018, 12:49

That assumes that you have a friendly airport available
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 » 17 Oct 2018, 15:02

Caribbean wrote:That assumes that you have a friendly airport available


And that from said airport you can deploy the system to an appropriate mothership or a point on the shore near enough to the minefield to be within range of the USV control. Range is not unlimited.

The ability of Type 26 to deploy a USV to locate mines is not a design driver but is definitely useful. Hopefully means there won't be another embarrassed admiral Woodward calling the CO of "poor, expendable HMS Alacrity" to send him into the Falklands Sound with said CO understanding the reason and quietly asking "should i go in and out of the north entrance a few times; do a big of zig-zagging?"...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Oct 2018, 15:21

Gabriele wrote: with said CO understanding the reason and quietly asking "should i go in and out of the north entrance a few times; do a big of zig-zagging?"...


It is worthwhile to have an MCM capability that is self-deploying... in one way or the other
- and as far as my memory serves (as Ron said, always a dangerous assumption) that has been written down as a requirement

That 'one way or the other' can e.g mean that mission bays, indeed, are used for a taxi service, but the actual operating will be out of the space vacated by LCUs, by then busy - or self-deploying in a limited sense, once they have been transported to the intended area of Ops

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 17 Oct 2018, 17:10

No Type 22's were sent mine hunting in the Falklands. No Type 26 will be either.

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 » 17 Oct 2018, 17:32

Ron5 wrote:No Type 22's were sent mine hunting in the Falklands. No Type 26 will be either.
Type-21 was sent to see if they will sink by mine or not. Fact.

Because she was not sunk, amphibious fleet go into Falkland strait and San Carlos bay.

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 17 Oct 2018, 17:43

There were also 4 converted trawlers loaded with a bolt on minesweeping kit. One of them was forced to sail around in circles, revving its engines when the sweeping gear failed.
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 » 18 Oct 2018, 08:57

Ron5 wrote:No Type 22's were sent mine hunting in the Falklands. No Type 26 will be either.


Correct. Maybe if the GP Type 26 was still being built the above comments could be justified, but as it stands all T26 will be tied up protecting the carrier 200 miles away from any mines.

However we look at it, there will always be a requirement for a simple mine clearance platform for 99% of the tasks.
@LandSharkUK

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

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

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Oct 2018, 09:17

What the RN has lined up for the future is 6 type 45 8 type 26 5 type 31 and 5 B2 Rivers it needs at leased 10 MHPC or it won't have the hull numbers and for me if go for Venari 95 or 100 with the kit I have put forward they could self deploy and deploy as part of a task group this gives the navy

6 45s
8 26s
5 31s
5 B2 Rivers
10 multi mission Sloops

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 » 18 Oct 2018, 09:23

Now sell the rivers and T31, then build 20 multi mission ships. That's far more elegant.

I hear talk about the need to 'rebalance' the RN's fleet, perhaps its correct, but at the moment the plan is swinging way to far to the low end.
@LandSharkUK

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 » 18 Oct 2018, 09:33

shark bait wrote:Now sell the rivers and T31, then build 20 multi mission ships. That's far more elegant.

I hear talk about the need to 'rebalance' the RN's fleet, perhaps its correct, but at the moment the plan is swinging way to far to the low end.
?? Your "20 multi mission ships" are high end? At least for MHC, what we need is low end, I guess.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caribbean, KMP1230, pbs, RHK3, warspite, Zero Gravitas and 2 guests