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.
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 » 08 Feb 2019, 18:40

Quick update on RRS Sir David Attenborough progress.
(do we have an RRS SDA thread?)

Time for a lick of paint :thumbup:
image.jpg


Seems like great value for around £150m, and built in the UK.

Technical features

Tonnage: 15,000t
Length: 128.9 m (423 ft)
Beam: 24 m (79 ft)
Draught: 7 m (23 ft)
Depth: 11 m (36 ft)
Ice class: Polar Class 4 (propulsion system PC 5)
Installed power:
2 × Bergen B33:45L6A (2 × 3,600 kW)
2 × Bergen B33:45L9A (2 × 5,400 kW)
Propulsion:
Diesel-electric; two shafts 2 × 2,750 kW per shaft. Two 5-bladed controllable pitch propellers
Speed:
17.5 knots(maximum) 13 knots(cruising) 3 knots in 1 m (3 ft) ice
Range: 19,000 nm at 13 knots
Endurance: 60 days[3]
Crew: 28 crew, 60 scientists plus 2 spare berths
Aircraft carried: 1 helicopter in double hanger


With greater fuel efficiency and an ability to use remotely operated and robotic technologies, the ship is expected to reduce the environmental impact of ship-borne science and save more than £100m in operating costs over its 25-year lifespan.
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 » 08 Feb 2019, 19:52

Great quality vid/ animation. Thx!

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 08 Feb 2019, 23:44

I didn't realise it had a hanger ? The video above stated a hanger for 2 helos is this true ?

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 09 Feb 2019, 00:39

it is. Just a different concept, having the helicopter facilities in the bow. Be interesting to see how it works
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 » 09 Feb 2019, 01:26

Jake1992 wrote:I didn't realise it had a hanger ? The video above stated a hanger for 2 helos is this true ?
Caribbean wrote:it is. Just a different concept, having the helicopter facilities in the bow. Be interesting to see how it works
So it must be the dark-red painted hatch on the photo! Great.
スクリーンショット 2019-02-09 10.25.59.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 » 09 Feb 2019, 04:01

Caribbean wrote: helicopter facilities in the bow. Be interesting to see how it works


Quite different from ASW work (out in the ocean) as the helo is mainly a ship to shore connector, so the ship can be positioned in the lee, to moderate the movement of the helo pad

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 09 Feb 2019, 10:01

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote: helicopter facilities in the bow. Be interesting to see how it works


Quite different from ASW work (out in the ocean) as the helo is mainly a ship to shore connector, so the ship can be positioned in the lee, to moderate the movement of the helo pad


With the hangar capabilities it really does look like the ideal design to base hms protectors replacement on. I heard its one of the big things her crew miss being able to deploy their own helo.

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 » 09 Feb 2019, 19:11

Must admit the helicopter hangar was a surprise for me also, agree a sister ship in the RN would be a good replacement for HMS Protector.
"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

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Pongoglo » 10 Feb 2019, 13:36

Poiuytrewq wrote:




Great vid, two helicopters, USV's and she's even got an LCVP ? :thumbup:

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 » 10 Feb 2019, 18:06

Pongoglo wrote:...two helicopters, USV's and she's even got an LCVP ?
Its a great design. Not sure about the forward flight deck/hanger setup, how would that work in heavy seas? Could be less than ideal.

It does show what can be built in the UK for around £150m, even as a one off with no economies of scale. The hybrid electric propulsion and reduced hull acoustics are particularly exciting at this price point. It will be interesting to see how capable the overall platform proves to be in the end.

Personally I think this is what the T31 programme was supposed to achieve. A highly innovative design that would make the most of the modest budget. Instead we have ended up with a stretched OPV from BAE and an off the shelf foreign AAW frigate design from Babcock (no idea what Altas Electronik is proposing). The T31 programme looks at this stage to be a missed opportunity but we might still be in for a surprise yet.

Credible Frigates can't be built in the UK for £250m but if you were to take the RRS SDA design as an example, what could be achieved for an extra £100m?

How much would these modifications actually cost?

- Replace the reinforced ice breaker bow with a more conventional profile. This should raise the top speed into the 20/21knt region without too much modification to the propulsion system?

- Remove the forward flight deck and hangers and move the superstructure forward. Fit a 57/76mm in a conventional location.

- Create an amidships 2 spot flightdeck above a large deck garage and incorporate a 4 Merlin hanger.

- Fit a 40t crane on the stern to operate on a large working deck with direct access to the deck garage.

- Create a small vehicle deck below the aft working deck of around 750sqm.

- Add a generous medical facility and accommodation for around 65 crew and an EMF of around 150.

By removing a lot of the ice breaking and complicated scientific specific capabilities, in effect many of these adaptions could end up being cost neutral.

This would result in the following.

Tonnage: 15,000t
Length: 130 m
Beam: 24 m
Speed: 21knts
Range: ~15000nm
Armament: 57/76mm, 2x 30mm's.
Aviation: Merlin capable flight deck (2 spots) hanger for 4 merlins.
Deck garage: 1800sqm, CB90 and LVCP capable
Working deck: 1000sqm, LCM, LCVP, LCAC, CB90 capable. 40t stern crane
Vehicle deck: 750sqm

Effectively it's not so much adapted as it is a totally new design but even if they ended up costing the full £250m, they would be a whole lot more useful than stretched OPV's.

It's a pity the T31 programme didn't proceed in a much more ambitious direction.

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 » 10 Feb 2019, 18:23

Poiuytrewq wrote:no idea what Altas Electronik is proposing
Would it not be derived from the same base design as this one?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rials.html
- with "half" of the weapons, of course :)

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 » 10 Feb 2019, 19:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:no idea what Altas Electronik is proposing
Would it not be derived from the same base design as this one?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rials.html
- with "half" of the weapons, of course :)
Highly likely but I haven't seen enough info to be sure.

If the £250m unit cost cap remains firm, I think the best we can hope for is an Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon hybrid with virtually no weapons :D

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5301
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

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

Postby SKB » 10 Feb 2019, 19:06

There's an established RSS Sir David Attenborugh thread in the Off Topic section, as she isn't a Royal Navy ship.
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=548&start=25

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 » 10 Feb 2019, 20:25

It’s a nice ship, but I still can’t help think that not evolving the Black Swan Sloop-of-War was a big miss.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Swan-U.pdf

A nice balance of 6 T45s, 9 T26s, 8 B2/B3 Sloops and 12 (MCM/Survey/Multirole) Black Swans please...
"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

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

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

Postby Caribbean » 10 Feb 2019, 20:27

Poiuytrewq wrote:I think the best we can hope for is an Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon hybrid with virtually no weapons

Except for what is ported over from the T23's, of course
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 » 10 Feb 2019, 20:49

Caribbean wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:I think the best we can hope for is an Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon hybrid with virtually no weapons

Except for what is ported over from the T23's, of course
Absolutely. I think the T31's only make sense if they are kept very simple (and cheap). A Mk8, 12 CAMM, Artisan plus a couple of 30mm's is plenty with another 24 CAMM, 8 Harpoon and a single Phalanx FFBNW.

A modest HMS would be a luxury.

A Huitfeldt/Absalon hybrid could make up for this very basic weapon load out in other ways. A double Merlin hanger, compact vehicle deck with intergrated 40t gantry crane and side/rear doors, generous medical facility and a decent EMF capacity would make for an attractive and cost effective proposition.

If Babcock can pull off a multipurpose OMT derived T31 design I think their trump card is the ability to build additional Iver Huitfeldt derived goalkeepers for the CSG. With a 30knt top speed, Artisan and a weapons deck full of CAMM they might just to a tempting option at some point.

First things first, whatever they come up with it must beat Leander.

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 » 11 Feb 2019, 07:54

Repulse wrote:It’s a nice ship, but I still can’t help think that not evolving the Black Swan Sloop-of-War was a big miss.

I was an interesting concept, and a real shame all novel thinking as now disappeared and we're left with a stretched patrol boat from the 90's.

Hopefully some of those tones will be revived when the mine hunters need replacement, at the moment that project is set to kick off in the early 20's.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Quick update on RRS Sir David Attenborough progress.

It's great to see.

Such a vessel would make the perfect polar patrol ship, but would it also make a good general purpose vessel for the RN? Tasks could include sonar operations, maritime security and mine clearance.
@LandSharkUK

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 » 11 Feb 2019, 08:31

shark bait wrote:It's great to see.

Such a vessel would make the perfect polar patrol ship, but would it also make a good general purpose vessel for the RN? Tasks could include sonar operations, maritime security and mine clearance.
Agreed. Unfortunately their appears to little appetite for such a programme at present. The problem is the RB2's. They have completely unbalanced the fleet and we are now heading down the wrong track in my opinion with the T31.

If we committed to operating all of the RB1's and RB2's inside the UK EEZ and organised a pool of logistic/support and amphibious vessels to conduct the remaining standing tasks when not required for larger ops we could then concentrate on getting as many T26's in the water as possible.

The MHPC could then proceed as planned possibly as a two variant programme (18knt and 25knt) giving the UK the correct Hi/Lo balance within the fleet.

The RRS SDA build is a very important litmus test for UK shipbuilding. Cammell Laird at present appear to be doing a great job also.

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 » 11 Feb 2019, 12:22

shark bait wrote:It's great to see.
Such a vessel would make the perfect polar patrol ship, but would it also make a good general purpose vessel for the RN? Tasks could include sonar operations, maritime security and mine clearance.
Agreed, and I think MHC will be such ship.
Poiuytrewq wrote:... Unfortunately their appears to little appetite for such a programme at present. The problem is the RB2's. They have completely unbalanced the fleet and we are now heading down the wrong track in my opinion with the T31.
I see no problem with River B2 as the "P" part of MHPC. As a "P", yes it came too early, but it is for T26. Anyway I believe "P" must be independent from "MHC", and thus River B2 has no interference with MHC. What is your point?
If we committed to operating all of the RB1's and RB2's inside the UK EEZ and organised a pool of logistic/support and amphibious vessels to conduct the remaining standing tasks when not required for larger ops we could then concentrate on getting as many T26's in the water as possible.
Agreed.
The MHPC could then proceed as planned possibly as a two variant programme (18knt and 25knt) giving the UK the correct Hi/Lo balance within the fleet.
I do not want the MHC to be high-speed. High speed will totally degrade the viability of MHC hull.

The "25knots" part cannot be a good MCM platform. Required hull form will be completely different = completely independent class from the 16 (or 18) knot vessels. I am not surprised of the "25knots" part be very similar to River B2 and/or T31.

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 » 11 Feb 2019, 12:47

I do agree Donald, if we were going to spec a platform today there should be no speed requirement. Big fat and simple is the way. Payloads, not platforms.
@LandSharkUK

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Pongoglo » 16 Feb 2019, 14:44

Poiuytrewq wrote:
If the £250m unit cost cap remains firm, I think the best we can hope for is an Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon hybrid with virtually no weapons :D


I'm not so sure , I'm a big fan of Arrowhead 140 if indeed it is still in the game, , less so Arrowhead 120 which is a bit too complex to my mind. However I'm pretty confident that even if Leander or Meko' are selected the RN version will have a lot of GFI ported over from the T23, hopefully including Artisan, the gun, sonar and CAMM so there is a good chance it will still be quite respectably armed.

Of course the great thing about the Arrowhead 140 proposal is that it is big enough to allow for quick fit upgrades in future if the threat changes , especially if from the start FFBNW. Harpoon and Phalanx by example, but there is also plenty of space for CAPTAS 4.

The Leander brochure also implies this ' quoting a 'large stern handling space with anti submarine customisation in mind'. Just noticed the Leander site has been updated with a bit more of an RN focus, pics of QE and RN crew, especially in the Roles and Habitability bits. Sorry, this post is not in the escort thread and I apologise from the start but I was responding to the points raised by P above.


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 » 20 Feb 2019, 08:05

interesting to see them using lifeboats, exactly as proposed on here a little while back
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 20 Mar 2019, 09:56

Who would of thought it

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... nia-coast/

A British amphibious warship embarked with U.S. Navy sailors is slated to operate out of this Virginia port for what officials term a two-week “experiment” to test new mine warfare techniques.

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Mounts Bay pulled into port on March 17 after sailing from the United Kingdom, a journey that included a pit stop in Aruba, according to British officials.

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 » 20 Mar 2019, 12:36

Just personal thought.

- UK is introducing two LSSs, which partly overlaps with Bays (like HADR = WIGS summer).
- With River B2 "forward deployed", even one Wave (or Tide) become "redundant" (WIGS winter).

If Bays can be "re-rolled" to MHC mother ship tasks, it could be interesting. French is building 3000t class "MHC", Belgium/Dutch looks as well. If UK are to build "16000t MHC", it is interesting. But, if so, how many MCMVs will a Bay replace?
- 3 to 1?
- Or even 4 to 1?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: charlielloyd, Digger22, Jake1992, Jdam, serge750 and 12 guests