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: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 01 Dec 2018, 13:53

shark bait wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:MHC is primarily a mine counter measure asset. It must be evaluated as such. Patrol is primarily T31 and River B2s role.

That would be a missed opportunity, it should be considered a multi-role maritime security vessel, that will be just as happy clearing mine as it is chasing pirates. Long term it would be nice to sell off the Rivers and consolidate around a common platform.
(As this is MY comment, not Tempest414-san's)

The word "primarily" is important.

I have no objection using a MHC with 18 knot top speed (or may be 20 knot, with improved technology, as next-generation stern-flaps or hull-paints) for "chasing pirates".

I am just against adopting a "narrow hull" or "large engine" not optimal for MCM operations.

Even if the ship is to be multi-purpose, I think it must have "primary" task and designed as such, and add "small" modification to make it possible to cover "secondary" tasks. "ALL-flat mutli-purpose ship" is not a good solution. In other words, I am against making Venari (if ever to happen) 25knots speed ships, and prefer River B2s to be remaining there as a "25 knotter".

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Dec 2018, 15:05

donald_of_tokyo wrote:MHC is primarily a mine counter measure asset. It must be evaluated as such. Patrol is primarily T31 and River B2s role.


Let's turn that around:In addition to their primary roles
- MHCs can do (coastal) patrols
- River B2s (do they retain the crane?) will do remote MCM by deploying the remote-controlled assets to the scene, and carry containerised command & control facilities for them, while also providing those containers "with ship services", ie. mainly power
- a somewhat similar statement for the T31s (to be heeded in the design; at v little extra cost?)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 02 Dec 2018, 00:36

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I am just against adopting a "narrow hull" or "large engine" not optimal for MCM operations

I agree, there's little benefit behind that extra expense, big and simple is preferable. Much like the bay class, it doesn't have to be fast and slim to be successful.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Dec 2018, 05:59

shark bait wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I am just against adopting a "narrow hull" or "large engine" not optimal for MCM operations

I agree, there's little benefit behind that extra expense, big and simple is preferable. Much like the bay class, it doesn't have to be fast and slim to be successful.


Yes. And let's just watch these remote controlled "toys" to grow in range/ endurance and hence in size, too. And soon we will need a Bay class vessel to deploy them :).
- the 15 t crane capacity (old Rivers) can be increased somewhat when you have an OSV type of hull, but why bother if you can have your assets to be deployed neatly "swimming out" from the back?
- yes, I know that welldocks come out expensive in the overall design, but assume the "bigger" Bay successor for some of them ... as we can probably only afford one in the 28-40 kt range. Leaving a hull (if we don't get greedy; can't remember how much the same to Oz fetched)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Dec 2018, 06:51

Totally aside the topic of this article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46657470 it starts with an excellent shot of the working deck. Showing how little modification the Echo Class would need for becoming work horses with the new, remote MCM solutions. Instead of being 'just' -in the in itself v useful - command role for such missions.
- an instant remedy to the ever shrinking MCM fleet numbers
- tilt the new-builds emerging from the MHC prgrm more towards the 'H' and bring at least a prototype forward, from the '30s

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 22 Dec 2018, 08:53

ArmChairCivvy, agree these ships are very useful and with evolution could become the basis of a multi role Utility Sloop (MHPC) that I think is what the RN actually needs coupled with a larger fleet of T26s.

We discussed elsewhere the value of forward basing a T31e with thier limitations - I’d say with with its sensors Echo is probably of more concern to Russia than if GP T23 was in the Black Sea.

The problem is that it is very vulnerable - just look at what HMS Duncan had to face against with shadowing warships and being buzzed by fighters.

Now I’m not suggesting that it should be similarly armed but if there is value in operating solo in a “medium threat” environment then it should have a level of self defence to avoid a HMS Cornwall scenario.

The 2 Echo Class ships costed £130mn back at the start of the century - so around £140mn per unit now.

I recon setting a budget of £200mn per unit would get a very strong capability and that would be give much more value of money and more suited to forward basing than a half arsed T31e. Appledore has capacity, let’s start building :angel:
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Dec 2018, 09:10

Repulse wrote: become the basis of a multi role Utility Sloop (MHPC)


The more ship-minded could perhaps comment how different, and in which respects, the updated Venari concept is, relative to these more specialised ships.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 Feb 2019, 08:04

This Belgian/Dutch programme appears to be progressing well.

https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/01/atlas ... nehunters/

image.jpg

It will be very interesting to see what this programme produces in the end. If the Belgian and Dutch Governments are confident that the technology is sufficiently mature to proceed with this MCMV programme why is the UK going to wait for at least another decade to do the same thing?

In my opinion Atlas Electronik would do very well if they incorporated many of the multipurpose features of a 21st century MCMV into their T31 proposal.

With a few modifications, could something along the lines of this MCMV design make for a perfectly acceptable and cost effective non combatant T31 alternative?
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Feb 2019, 09:09

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the Belgian and Dutch Governments are confident that the technology is sufficiently mature to proceed with this MCMV programme why is the UK going to wait for at least another decade to do the same thing?

In my opinion Atlas Electronik would do very well if they incorporated many of the multipurpose features of a 21st century MCMV into their T31 proposal.

With a few modifications, could something along the lines of this MCMV design make for a perfectly acceptable and cost effective non combatant T31 alternative?


It's like a house on fire, and people rushing for the door create a log jam: " you go first. No, please, you go first!"
A less British example is about going on thin ice: "Ladies first! As they tend to weigh less... a perfectly rational approach??"
- the thin ice is more applicable
- two different sets of kit (existing as of today) have been specified to guide the design of the hull
- no one, as yet, has commented on my comment that the crane would seem oversized; Is that an indication that future (more effective) kit might be expected to grow in size?

Which then takes me back to my more general argumentation
- BMT's Venari is just a design to express interest; to stay in the game
- a modified T-31 design is more likely
- "here" we always add a block, mid-ship, but you can also do the reverse (some allowance will need to be made in the original/ mother design for that to be straight-forward)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 05 Feb 2019, 09:16

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the Belgian and Dutch Governments are confident that the technology is sufficiently mature to proceed with this MCMV programme why is the UK going to wait for at least another decade to do the same thing?

What do you mean wait another decade? The RN used unmanned mine sweepers in theatre 15 years ago, and they have just recently taken delivery of its autonomous successor.

The RN are fully aware of the benefits and the maturity of the technology and have been pushing the state of the art for a while now. The UK has developed a platform agnostic solution, that can be deployed and operated on many ships, or as is preferred at the moment deployed by air/road and operated from the shore.

Just because the UK isn't pushing out fancy renders of grey ships does not mean they're not investing in the technology.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Feb 2019, 10:02

shark bait wrote:The UK has developed a platform agnostic solution, that can be deployed and operated on many ships


I seem to remember it was a joint Anglo-French prgrm, no? 1+1
Now we have the hulls proceeding to Belgo-Dutch contracting phase (1+1)

1+1+1+1 = 5.75 :?: :!:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 Feb 2019, 10:41

shark bait wrote:Just because the UK isn't pushing out fancy renders of grey ships does not mean they're not investing in the technology.
I agree the technology is being invested in but when it comes to the means of deploying it we are faced once again with almost complete inaction.

A multi-mission Venari type vessel is what RN needs today, not in 15 years time regardless of its MCM credentials. Why not build a Venari 85 and a Venari 95 and trail them between now and 2030? The Hunts and Sandowns are going to be 30 to 40 years old by the time their are due for replacment. When they get uneconomical to repair they will be quietly scrapped and numbers will fall further.

This is one of the reasons why I believe the RB2's are badly unbalancing the fleet. Once the 'P' was removed from the MHPC programme all momentum was lost.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 05 Feb 2019, 11:13

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I seem to remember it was a joint Anglo-French prgrm, no?

There are two separate projects;
  1. An Anglo-French autonomous mine hunting suite
  2. An all British autonomous mine sweeper (already delivered)
Both use different vehicles so its unclear how each fits into the wider programme, hopefully it will converge around a common system.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 05 Feb 2019, 11:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:A multi-mission Venari type vessel is what RN needs today

Why is it? With completely overhauled mine hunters where is the requirement coming from?

Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not build a Venari 85 and a Venari 95

Presumably because the RN don't get quite as excited over marketing material as some around here.

The RN are approach this pragmatically by delivering platform agnostic equipment that will be first operated from exiting platforms, meaning they can approach a replacement program knowing exactly how they want to operate in the future.

At one point there was a plan to modify the Hunts to launch and operate a unmanned boat from the back, but that's gone quiet recently. Instead we have seen SD Victoria and even on of the tankers operating the unmanned systems.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Feb 2019, 12:34

Poiuytrewq wrote: Once the 'P' was removed from the MHPC programme all momentum was lost.
Partly true; see next
shark bait wrote:An all British autonomous mine sweeper (already delivered)

"Following a period of successful trials the demonstrator system could go on to be used by the Royal Navy in the future to defeat the threat of modern digital mines.

The system has been designed and manufactured by Atlas Elektronik UK in Dorset"
... and will, therefore :lol: , be seamlessly integrated onto T-31s
- Batch2, the latest ;)
shark bait wrote:The RN are approach this pragmatically by delivering platform agnostic equipment that will be first operated from exiting platforms, meaning they can approach a replacement program knowing exactly how they want to operate in the future.
And also making the best of the hulls in the water, as of NOW
shark bait wrote: Instead we have seen SD Victoria and even on of the tankers operating the unmanned systems.
Sounds like a quick fix; order a "sample" copy from the Belgo-Dutch prgrm for further, more realistic trials on how to integrate & operate :) ... I think all this advice should be made chargeable; what sort of day rate for "consultancy" :) :?:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 Feb 2019, 19:16


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Feb 2019, 13:39

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the Belgian and Dutch Governments are confident that the technology is sufficiently mature to proceed with this MCMV programme why is the UK going to wait for at least another decade to do the same thing?
In my opinion Atlas Electronik would do very well if they incorporated many of the multipurpose features of a 21st century MCMV into their T31 proposal.
With a few modifications, could something along the lines of this MCMV design make for a perfectly acceptable and cost effective non combatant T31 alternative?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:...Which then takes me back to my more general argumentation
- BMT's Venari is just a design to express interest; to stay in the game
- a modified T-31 design is more likely
- "here" we always add a block, mid-ship, but you can also do the reverse (some allowance will need to be made in the original/ mother design for that to be straight-forward)
Speed requirement differs a lot. So, I think future MCMV being T31e variant is a bad idea. MCMV do not need to fight, in 95% of the case. MCMV do not spring in 25+ knots in 95% of the case. And, MCMV will starve in deck size, weight and center of gravity, with rapidly evolving MCM drone technology. Although just my personal idea, but it make me feel "waste of money" to merge T31e and MHC.
Poiuytrewq wrote:A multi-mission Venari type vessel is what RN needs today, not in 15 years time regardless of its MCM credentials. Why not build a Venari 85 and a Venari 95 and trail them between now and 2030? The Hunts and Sandowns are going to be 30 to 40 years old by the time their are due for replacment. When they get uneconomical to repair they will be quietly scrapped and numbers will fall further.
Because modified Hunts and Sundown is still very useful, MCM drones era has just started and RN must do good operation research before buying MHC in number.
This is one of the reasons why I believe the RB2's are badly unbalancing the fleet.
?? I think River B2 themselves are good mother ships for MCM drones.

River B2 can handle 2 or 4 Altas ARCIMS USVs with its long 15t crane and large mission deck (which can also be used as a flight deck). It can carry additional crew, up to 60-70 in addition to the core 36 crew. This number is large enough to operate those USVs. The only drawback is, if they carry 4 USV the flight deck will be lost, and with 2 USV the flight deck will be "only Wildcat capable". But, this is because they are narrow and not that bulky.

And, because of "narrow and not bulky", they can steam at 25 knots.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 06 Feb 2019, 14:43

donald_of_tokyo wrote:. Although just my personal idea, but it make me feel "waste of money" to merge T31e and MHC.
It all depends on how you intend to clear the way for an Amphibious fleet in a conflict scenario. Escorted or self escorting. It matters a lot.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Because modified Hunts and Sundown is still very useful, MCM drones era has just started and RN must do good operation research before buying MHC in number.
Why not test the host platforms as well as the drones? A commercially procured PSV adapted to a Venari type configuration would cost peanuts in the greater scheme of things.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think River B2 themselves are good mother ships for MCM drones.
Would the RB1's not be a better option? Perhaps Clyde, slightly modified to raise the height of the deck head above the covered working deck?

Plenty of deck space and no need to worry about impeding the flight deck. Mounting the 16t crane shouldn't be to much of an issue.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Feb 2019, 15:19

Thanks
Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:. Although just my personal idea, but it make me feel "waste of money" to merge T31e and MHC.
It all depends on how you intend to clear the way for an Amphibious fleet in a conflict scenario. Escorted or self escorting. It matters a lot.
As I said, I think conflict scenario is only a very tiny fraction of their task. Peace time job is long lasting, time consuming, and the vast majority of their task. Capable of "self escorting" for a very tiny niche is not a good idea, I think, because it will make the hull very expensive to purchase and operate. Note that, if it is only detecting mines, a REMUS pod from T26 or T31 can do it. It is a great improvement, compared to sending HMS Alacrity to "suicide check" if there is no mine in Falkland Strait.
Why not test the host platforms as well as the drones? A commercially procured PSV adapted to a Venari type configuration would cost peanuts in the greater scheme of things.
I have no problem with getting PSV. Just against mixing T31e and MHC. But, River OPV can do it, I think.
Would the RB1's not be a better option? Perhaps Clyde, slightly modified to raise the height of the deck head above the covered working deck?
Plenty of deck space and no need to worry about impeding the flight deck. Mounting the 16t crane shouldn't be to much of an issue.
I fully agree, not only River B2, but also River B1 are good candidates. Combined with Hunts and Sandowns just finished their refits, this is the reason why I think we do not need MHC hull right now.

By the way, why Clyde? Tyne, Severn, Mersey are much better candidates. A covered deck will significantly restrict the rapidly improving MCM drones to be handled.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1477
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 06 Feb 2019, 17:11

I think the point is not that the T31 is merged with the MCH program, but that ALL hulls with the capability of deploying an 11-metre ARCIMS-type system BECOME, effectively, MCH-capable. As does any convenient dockside or suitably equipped civilian vessel. The 11m variants of the Atlas Electronic hulls in Project Vahana (HMS Magpie is an 18m variant of the same hull) are the same as the one used for ARCIMS, and other variants carry a survey module (for use by HMS Scott, Enterprise and Protector), with an inshore ASW module apparently in development. They are air-transportable and containerisable (if that's a real word!) - dedicated host vessels are no longer really needed, though a few cheap, non-specialist hulls (such as the PSV-based designs discussed before) might be helpful to take the service and supply onus off the "combat" fleet in situations where areas of interest are too far from a friendly shore base.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Feb 2019, 17:45

Poiuytrewq wrote:It all depends on how you intend to clear the way for an Amphibious fleet in a conflict scenario. Escorted or self escorting. It matters a lot.
Indeed.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Would the RB1's not be a better option? Perhaps Clyde, slightly modified to raise the height of the deck head above the covered working deck?
They would (but Clyde "is gone")
This is why RB1s are ideal:
Caribbean wrote:take the service and supply onus off the "combat" fleet


Caribbean wrote:I think the point is not that the T31 is merged with the MCH program, but that ALL hulls with the capability of deploying an 11-metre ARCIMS-type system BECOME, effectively, MCH-capable.
Yes, but the points made above mean that the opportunity cost (in capability) of using Rivers/ T31s is the least.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1477
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 06 Feb 2019, 21:47

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This is why RB1s are ideal:

Agreed - I remember posting something similar back when it was announced that they were being taken out of service. Clyde would also have been good, as her flight-deck was designed to take an LCVP
ArmChairCivvy wrote:the opportunity cost (in capability) of using Rivers/ T31s is the least

Agreed - I can only see a T26 being used if a) she was going in that direction and had some "spare" capacity in her mission bay (unlikely), or b) the threat level at the destination was too high for anything else to suffice.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 07 Feb 2019, 08:19

Caribbean wrote:though a few cheap, non-specialist hulls might be helpful to take the service and supply onus off the "combat" fleet


A few simple cheap hulls are definitely required. Whilst the escorts will have the capacity to operate mine clearance equipment, that shall be the exception more than the rule. It would be an absolute travesty to routinely tie up the RN's small combat mass on mine clearance duties.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Feb 2019, 08:25

shark bait wrote: It would be an absolute travesty to routinely tie up the RN's small combat mass on mine clearance duties.


Agreed. RB2s are built to (near-) naval stds, but I seem to remember the RB1s aren't. So if they are routinely used to count fish (as long as we have them... which is it now :lol: ), they can take a break in such circumstances and will not be "away from any combat mass".

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Feb 2019, 14:29

A candidate (of the 3) MCMV for Dutch and Belgium navies.

Bulky and slow, but 3500t large with 92m length. Its USV system and deploy/recovery system is also worth looking at.

https://www.navalnews.com/news/2019/02/ ... m-program/


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: silabario, Wrekin1410 and 24 guests