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 Nov 2018, 11:20

Tempest414-san

Thanks.

First of all, I think we shall handle 7B GBP shortage of money within 10 years, on which they say many are within 4 years. It is only 3-4% of the total equipment budget, but even if distributed flat, it is 700M GBP per year.

Secondly, I agree it will be better to increase defense from 2% GDP to 2.5%, which is 25% increase. Among them, 4% will be used for the "7B GBP" and money to solve man-power issue (4% in both man-power and equipments budget). So, nearly 20% increase can happen. But this issue must be discussed in "Mid-term review for the Strategic review?" or "fantasy" thread, not here.

Even so, I just think RN shall simply increase T26 for hi-end escort, P-8A for ASW, OPV for patrol, and simple MHC for MCM and Hydrographic works. I think by this way MHC program can maximize its figure of merit, although this is my personal impression. Simple is beautiful.

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 » 09 Nov 2018, 11:26

Tempest414 wrote: with 12 to 14 MHPC ships built in the first 15 years of this plan.


MHPC (rumoured) budget was, when the prgrm kicked off £ 1.4 bn. We can't take away the 'silly' money paid for the "P" part, but whatever the R&D and experimentation has cost - yes, certainly.

The two "E's" are not that old so count them twrds the 14. A dozen, over 15 years. Add mission kits to the hulls... anybody's guess what it would cost. 1SL will undoubtedly pick up the bill for 'survey' to keep the subs on even keel; what else? Not just MCM, but littoral ASW as well? One hull or two might be needed for beach recce and clearing party support. If we have "Bay-sized motherships, too, for delivering and supporting mission modules, that cuts down the money needed for the hulls and moves it to mission kits
- what an ideal retirement job for the Bays... now, what will replace them?
- ohh, and I forgot: TD had planned a complete port opening team, with supporting heavy kit, delivered by one Bay. Two left :D !

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

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

Postby Tempest414 » 09 Nov 2018, 16:09

donald_of_tokyo wrote:First of all, I think we shall handle 7B GBP shortage of money within 10 years, on which they say many are within 4 years. It is only 3-4% of the total equipment budget, but even if distributed flat, it is 700M GBP per year.


this 7 billion pound black hole must now be 6 billion pound black hole due to the extra 1 billion form the last budget . Remember this figure comes from the Audit office it may well be that Hammond intends to see how thing go and and pay a extra billion from time to time as needed to cover the hole as it becomes clear.

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

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

Postby SW1 » 09 Nov 2018, 16:24

Perhaps given defences history of financial incompetence we should be preparing worst case rather than best case

From NAO

“The Department’s Equipment Plan remains unaffordable, with forecast costs exceeding budgets by £7.0 billion over the next 10 years. This variance could increase or decrease depending on different circumstances, with the Department estimating a worst-case scenario of costs increasing by £14.8 billion should all the identified risks materialise. However, some of its analysis remains optimistic and costs could increase further. The Department is improving its understanding of affordability risks, but we are not yet fully confident in the robustness of some of its underlying assumptions, particularly around efficiencies.”

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 » 09 Nov 2018, 18:26

Those two add up, and from memory they make appr. 10% more than in the previous report
- the underlying budget/plan has gone up in volume, too

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 Nov 2018, 08:51

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think we must omit "high speed" requirement, which will significantly degrade the effectiveness as MHC ship, by requiring more slender hull. I think, 18 knot is max. Even 16 knots is doable.


I see little need for a high speed platform, especially if the vessels are forward based, reducing the need to rush to the scene. In this instance space is more important than speed.

The polar ship is designed to 18 knots on a very fat hull, so I expect that level is totally feasible for a smaller ship. At that speed its still useful across the patrol and security roles if equipped with some form of aircraft and fast boats, let those do the hard work and keep the hull simple.
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 743
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Aethulwulf » 12 Nov 2018, 09:54

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think we must omit "high speed" requirement, which will significantly degrade the effectiveness as MHC ship, by requiring more slender hull. I think, 18 knot is max. Even 16 knots is doable.


I see little need for a high speed platform, especially if the vessels are forward based, reducing the need to rush to the scene. In this instance space is more important than speed.

The polar ship is designed to 18 knots on a very fat hull, so I expect that level is totally feasible for a smaller ship. At that speed its still useful across the patrol and security roles if equipped with some form of aircraft and fast boats, let those do the hard work and keep the hull simple.
The new MHC ships will need to be capable of deployment as part of an amphibious group. This means a maximum speed of 18 knots and a range of 8,000 nautical miles at about 15 knots.

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 Nov 2018, 09:59

Aethulwulf wrote:The new MHC ships will need to be capable of deployment as part of an amphibious group

Why do they?
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 743
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Aethulwulf » 12 Nov 2018, 10:01

shark bait wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:The new MHC ships will need to be capable of deployment as part of an amphibious group

Why do they?
To clear mines, or conduct survey, prior to an amphibious assault.

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 Nov 2018, 10:07

Aethulwulf wrote:To clear mines, or conduct survey, prior to an amphibious assault.


When has that ever happened? and more importantly, why would the enemy give the RN time to clear the mines they put there to deny the RN?

It doesn't happen like that. Look at Iraq, the assault comes first, then the mine clearance comes in to open the ports for reinforcements.

The whole point of these new systems is they can be flown out and operated from anywhere, so there is little requirement for a mine hunter to keep up with a task group.
@LandSharkUK

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 Nov 2018, 10:16

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think we must omit "high speed" requirement

I'm also going to add a silent propulsion mode would be more important than high speed. A sonar module, similar to the US SURTASS, could come in handy for local patrols, keeping the T26 focused on the carrier group.
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 743
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Aethulwulf » 12 Nov 2018, 10:21

In Iraq, the use of mines deterred a surface amphibious assault and the operation just used helicopters. Luckily, there was a land route available for all the heavy equipment.

In the future that may not be the case.

The enemy is always going to use mines to try to deter the use of an area or route; on land or sea. Clearing that route of mines prior to an assault is always going to hard and bloody.

However, prior to such an assault there will probably be what the military like to call shaping operations (e.g. bombing the hell out of the enemy). These will 'shape the environment', i.e. significant degrade the enemies abilities to prevent you from removing the mines. Still, will not be easy.

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 Nov 2018, 10:40

That sounds unreasonable, clearing a landing site is not a quick job, and furthermore it tells the enemy exactly where the landing is planned a week in advance.
@LandSharkUK

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 743
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Aethulwulf » 12 Nov 2018, 10:51

Well, in addition to your 'shaping operations' preventing the enemy from seeing what you are up to, you can also conduct some distraction or deception ops.

And you only clear what you need, just before you need it; initially a few clear 'lanes' for the first wave which then broaden out over time.

Still hard and bloody. There are also different levels of 'clear' - clear enough for the first wave of an amphibious assault while tolerating a degree of risk is not the same as clear to allow the use of port by civilian ships.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Nov 2018, 11:01

Just buy bigger Hovercraft

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 » 12 Nov 2018, 11:32

shark bait wrote: clearing a landing site is not a quick job


Was going to say that the above is different from 'breaching' which is more like the below

Aethulwulf wrote: initially a few clear 'lanes' for the first wave


Lord Jim wrote:Just buy bigger Hovercraft
'Deep skirt' hovercraft that are more immune to mines are few and far in-between.
- USN invested in the technology so as to not to be totally dependent on helicopters in dealing with sea mines planted close to the beach
- how well it works when there is NO layer of water in between... don't know

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 » 12 Nov 2018, 11:34

Aethulwulf wrote:Well, in addition to your 'shaping operations' preventing the enemy from seeing what you are up to, you can also conduct some distraction or deception ops.

And you only clear what you need, just before you need it; initially a few clear 'lanes' for the first wave which then broaden out over time.

Still hard and bloody. There are also different levels of 'clear' - clear enough for the first wave of an amphibious assault while tolerating a degree of risk is not the same as clear to allow the use of port by civilian ships.
Theoretically, it is as you said. But, realistically, there is no example the amphibious landing force did mine hunting before landing in recent years, I guess?

I think "mine survey" (not hunting) using REMUS side-scan sonar UUVs will be done. By sending many dummy REMUS UUVs, the enemy will be in chaos to identify where will be the landing. This is easy, because REMUS UUVs are very cheap and can be deployed from even a small boat.

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 12 Nov 2018, 11:45

shark bait wrote:When has that ever happened?

The Falklands. We sent 4 converted trawlers loaded with a bolt on minesweeping kit.
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 Nov 2018, 13:23

Prior to the San Carlos Landings?
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 12 Nov 2018, 13:29

Caribbean wrote:The Falklands. We sent 4 converted trawlers loaded with a bolt on minesweeping kit.


I think they arrived after the landings went in though. They were used to clear the waters around Stanley afterwards. Wasn't the minesweeping kit quite specialised as well (for rumoured Soviet Deepwater mines)

shark bait wrote:Prior to the San Carlos Landings?


That was a Type 21 sailing through Falkland Sound on a mission to see if it went bang...


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big Mitch, pbs, RB211, shotleylad and 1 guest