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.
SW1
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 20 Mar 2019, 17:19

donald_of_tokyo wrote: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?


Arguably the bays and indeed the ponce trials show what the littoral combat ship should of been and mothership for maritime security. The technology now is at a stage to allow independent systems not ships for a great part equation below full on war fighting. I’ve bored everyone enough with the fact that the 2 lpd and 3 bays are what should be, the presence/ maritime security vessels.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 12:07

An interesting overview of the recent trail with Mounts Bay.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... drone-tech

SW1
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 31 Mar 2019, 12:31

Poiuytrewq wrote:An interesting overview of the recent trail with Mounts Bay.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... drone-tech


Good article to read, a fwd deployed vessels conducting disaster relief able to re-role to conduct maritime security and then mcm operations because its big, flexible, has a flight deck, dock and can sustain people on board. Even better we have 5 such vessels of similar configuration. One wonders why we are playing about with other build programs, we should be using that money to configure and equip what we have staring us in the face accordingly.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 31 Mar 2019, 13:33

SW1 wrote:Even better we have 5 such vessels of similar configuration. One wonders why we are playing about with other build programs

Perhaps because one of the 5 is tied up, one is "permanently" deployed to the Caribbean (Mounts Bay on 3-year forward deployment), one is in the Gulf supporting the existing MCM effort and presumably one is in the maintenance/ training phase. That, in reality, leaves us with an Albion (presumably about 50% of the time), that is probably being used for it's primary purpose, whenever it is available.

We also currently have 13 dedicated MCM vessels. Two of which have been converted to trial the offboard systems, IIRC. Aren't they in the process of being life-extended?

Once all these trials are completed and the kinks worked out, we can probably start making decisions. But it does show, if these trials are successful, that a PSV-based design with a helicopter deck (maybe along the lines of TD's "Ship that is not a frigate") is the most likely "dedicated" MCM vessel of the future.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby SW1 » 31 Mar 2019, 13:45

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:Even better we have 5 such vessels of similar configuration. One wonders why we are playing about with other build programs

Perhaps because one of the 5 is tied up, one is "permanently" deployed to the Caribbean (Mounts Bay on 3-year forward deployment), one is in the Gulf supporting the existing MCM effort and presumably one is in the maintenance/ training phase. That, in reality, leaves us with an Albion (presumably about 50% of the time), that is probably being used for it's primary purpose, whenever it is available.

We also currently have 13 dedicated MCM vessels. Two of which have been converted to trial the offboard systems, IIRC. Aren't they in the process of being life-extended?

Once all these trials are completed and the kinks worked out, we can probably start making decisions. But it does show, if these trials are successful, that a PSV-based design with a helicopter deck (maybe along the lines of TD's "Ship that is not a frigate") is the most likely "dedicated" MCM vessel of the future.


And perhaps that would make sense if it wasn’t for the fact that these new vessels are supposed to cover roles like disaster relief, maritime security and presence in areas like the Caribbean,gulf, Far East were as you point out the bays currently are and Albion was in the Far East last year doing exactly that.

The hunts being the unit’s involved in the trials, which should continue it doesn’t happen overnight there’s refits And experimenting to go.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1092
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 31 Mar 2019, 14:30

SW1 wrote:Good article to read, a fwd deployed vessels conducting disaster relief able to re-role to conduct maritime security and then mcm operations because its big, flexible, has a flight deck, dock and can sustain people on board.


This why still think if we are going to go ahead with this we should go for something like a 160 meter long 24 meter beam Makassar class.

The Makassar class is 122 m by 22m beam has a flight deck , hangar, dock and cost 45 million dollars = 34.5 million pounds I think we could the ship above i.e 160m by 24m with what we want on it for 50 million pounds each = 65 million dollars if built in South Korea

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 16:22

SW1 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:An interesting overview of the recent trail with Mounts Bay.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... drone-tech
Good article to read, a fwd deployed vessels conducting disaster relief able to re-role to conduct maritime security and then mcm operations because its big, flexible, has a flight deck, dock and can sustain people on board. Even better we have 5 such vessels of similar configuration. One wonders why we are playing about with other build programs, we should be using that money to configure and equip what we have staring us in the face accordingly.
Agreed, maximise what is in the water now before building anything new. I have to say I extremely encouraged by the apparent success of Mounts Bay in this role. Justifying a meaningful cut to our Amphibious vessels now without replacement just got that little bit harder.
Caribbean wrote:We also currently have 13 dedicated MCM vessels.
The critical part is the 500+ crew to operate them. That's a lot of manpower to fill the gaps if they aren't all required on dedicated MCMV's going forward.
Tempest414 wrote:The Makassar class is 122 m by 22m beam has a flight deck , hangar, dock and cost 45 million dollars = 34.5 million pounds
It seems impossibly cheap but it must be worth sending a delegation to find out how it was done and what standard they were built too. Who knows, we might learn something :thumbup:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1424
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 31 Mar 2019, 16:47

Tempest414 wrote:The Makassar class is 122 m by 22m beam has a flight deck , hangar, dock and cost 45 million dollars = 34.5 million pounds I think we could the ship above i.e 160m by 24m with what we want on it for 50 million pounds each = 65 million dollars if built in South Korea

A stretched version might be a good candidate for a DfID-purchased & operated multi-purpose hospital/HADR vessel, which would then release the Bay from the Caribbean. I can already hear the screams about "not supporting UK shipbuilding"
SW1 wrote:And perhaps that would make sense if it wasn’t for the fact that these new vessels are supposed to cover roles like disaster relief, maritime security and presence in areas like the Caribbean

Though I think that it is far more likely that these ships will hang around potential flashpoints, pretending to do HADR patrols (or trying to be invisible), I guess they might well take turns in covering the Hurricane season (if only to publicly reinforce their HADR credentials). That would, however, occasionally release a Bay/Wave for tasks that they are better suited for than the FLSS. Hopefully the suggestions for one or two DfID-run aid vessels also finally come to fruition, in which case those are more likely to cover the Caribbean/ Indian ocean etc. than the RN.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1628
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 13 Apr 2019, 07:40

Good pictures of the new Dutch / Belgium MCM replacement in Warships IFR this month. 1.1bn Euro for 12 sounds good value for money also.

I’d say a fleet of 12 similar MCM ships (with Survey and Littoral ASW capability) for the RN combined with systems deployed on the LSDs/FLSSs would give a good balanced / affordable capability for the RN.
"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: 212
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Pongoglo » 13 Apr 2019, 14:10

Poiuytrewq wrote:An interesting overview of the recent trail with Mounts Bay.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... drone-tech


Great article and really showcases the huge flexibility of the Bays , Amphib Ops, HADR, Counter Narcotics and now MCMV. Having such kit on board would really enhance the one we already have in the Gulf supporting our MCM effort, but we need to be careful it doesn't become their primary role. Some good inside shots of the hanger and you forget how large it is, should easily be able to support two Merlin's folded. I've been inside the one on Largs Bay ( a massive loss to UK PLC) and that was my impression at the time. Also got to get a ride down on her lift which you can also see in the vid, the RFA crewman who was operating it said it was capable of taking a folded Lynx although he had never seen it tried.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 15 Apr 2019, 08:24

Image
Image
Image

More or less the direction the RN is heading in. Looks good.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1628
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 15 Apr 2019, 09:32

shark bait, interesting, the image in IFR look different - shorter with the USuVs launched from side davits from what looks to be a missing bat under the landing spot.
"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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 15 Apr 2019, 09:36

Yeah that option wast selected, just thought it was an interesting launch method whereas all other have side davits.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1628
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 15 Apr 2019, 10:24

shark bait, agree interesting and looks similar to the USN LCS approach.

Must admit, I’ve always fancied something similar as a Multirole Utility Sloop for the RN (ultimately replacing the MCMs, Echos and OPVs - and T31), just extend for a rear flight deck, and space in the mission bay for an optional Wildcat, add a 57mm, a 8 cell VLS and Artisan and Bob’s your uncle :)
"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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 15 Apr 2019, 10:40

Something similar to the above could be a valuable addition, but I guess it wont take them long to regret not having proper aviation facilities on board. Add a hangar and get a multi role security vessel at the same time.

In the end it shouldn't matter what the platform looks like, as long as it can take a couple of boats and a couple of aircraft it has all it needs. Let the payload do the work.

If the RN can accept that they open up a world of commercial vessels and the chance to get some good value utility ships.
@LandSharkUK

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 15 Apr 2019, 10:47

By the looks of it a lot on here are wanting something like this but perhaps with a smaller flight deck and larger work deck
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 15 Apr 2019, 11:26

I would argue something like the above is a dam sight more useful than any of the T31 proposals.

Imagine, would the RN be in a better position if instead of buggering about with the River class and T31 it cracked on with MHPC?
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2942
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 15 Apr 2019, 15:44

shark bait wrote:I would argue something like the above is a dam sight more useful than any of the T31 proposals.

Imagine, would the RN be in a better position if instead of buggering about with the River class and T31 it cracked on with MHPC?
I cannot understand your point. T31e is a fighting vessel filling the huge huge gap between T26 and OPVs. "something like the above" is even much less than T31e in fighting capability (in place they can do MCM). If it is for fighting, T31e is more than twice better than "something like the above". Of course, "something like the above" is 10-times better in MCM than T31e. But, it is the same against T26.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Apr 2019, 17:13

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e is a fighting vessel
If it ends up with a medium calibre gun and 12 CAMM and no HMS it will be more of a coastguard vessel than a credible frigate IMO. I think it would be fair to say that the T31 has the potential to be a fighting vessel, it all depends on the level of armament when it hits the water. It must be more than a floating target.

An Arrowhead 140 with a Mk8, 24x CAMM, 24x VLS Spear3, 4x Harpoon, Artisan, Phalanx and 2150 would probably be the middle ground between the RB2's and the T26's. Add a credible HED propulsion system from the outset with an option of adding 2087 later if required and the A140 would be as credible as any other Tier2 Frigate afloat. Order eight and the magic 24 number would be sorted.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1168
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 15 Apr 2019, 17:42

Poiuytrewq wrote:Order eight and the magic 24 number would be sorted.


Think you're maths is out....
6 T45, 8 T26 + 8 T31 = 22 Escorts

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1427
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Apr 2019, 18:06

Timmymagic wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Order eight and the magic 24 number would be sorted.


Think you're maths is out....
6 T45, 8 T26 + 8 T31 = 22 Escorts
Apologies for not being perfectly clear. I had in mind 6x T45's, 8x T26's, 8x T31's and two dedicated TAPS vessels.

These dedicated TAPS vessels could be T26 or T31 based, whatever RN requires performance wise.

I would ideally like to see a sub variant of the T26 with an unaltered hull and propulsion system with a reduced weapon spec. Something along the lines of what I listed for the T31 above,

Mk8
24 CAMM
24 VLS Spear3
4x Harpoon
Single Phalanx
2x 30mm's
Artisan
2150 and 2087

I think these would make excellent escort frigates for the CSG and LitM group and perfect for FRE. They would also allow the T26's to be the global combat ships they were originally designed to be.

A further reduced spec would be ideal for the two TAPS vessels:

Mk8
12x CAMM
2x 30mm's
Artisan
2150 and 2087

I am well aware that this is not the way current planning is heading but if the books were better balanced I think it would be a better outcome.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2942
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Apr 2019, 06:30

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e is a fighting vessel
If it ends up with a medium calibre gun and 12 CAMM and no HMS it will be more of a coastguard vessel than a credible frigate IMO.
Surely no, at least for me. Please enjoy how Japanese Coast Guard OPVs are armed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... d_aircraft ). "A basic Leander" is orders-of-magnitude more fighty than our Coast Guard OPVs. Even compared to US CG cutter, Leander is much more fighty for sure.
I think it would be fair to say that the T31 has the potential to be a fighting vessel, it all depends on the level of armament when it hits the water. It must be more than a floating target.
A basic T31e armed with, say, a 57mm gun, 12 CAMM, 2x 30mm guns and a Wildcat with ESM/chaff/flare kits is not "a floating target". You need at least 6-12 modern SSMs or a SSK to beat it. Of course, modern SSK is very expensive and the number of SSKs in hostile nation is NOT increasing, OTHER THAN those around China.

To sink a Japan Coast Guard OPVs, or a Danish Holland class OPV, Irish OPV, and of course a River B2, only a single old cheap SSM (Exocet, or even a Silkworm) is enough. It is order of magnitude cheaper than the assets needed to sink the "basic T31e".
An Arrowhead 140 with a Mk8, 24x CAMM, 24x VLS Spear3, 4x Harpoon, Artisan, Phalanx and 2150 would probably be the middle ground between the RB2's and the T26's. Add a credible HED propulsion system from the outset with an option of adding 2087 later if required and the A140 would be as credible as any other Tier2 Frigate afloat. Order eight and the magic 24 number would be sorted.
I really hope this happen. But, to make this happen, I'm afraid RN need to sell PoW or cancel T26 at ~5, which I do not prefer.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 16 Apr 2019, 08:09

donald_of_tokyo wrote:T31e is a fighting vessel

But it isn't.

At best it's a patrol frigate, with 90% of its fighting capability coming from the helicopter. If that is the case, its preferable to buy a commercial vessel that can operate a helicopter.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2942
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

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

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 16 Apr 2019, 08:45

Yes a Wildcat is important asset in T31. But, why ignore 12 CAMM which can defend herself and accompanying vessels from attack by a few SSM? How about the ESM/decoy coupled with a radar cross section at least an order of magnitude smaller than such merchant vessels? Much higger damage controle standard compared to a floating match box?

I am always against calling a ship like T31e “the same” to a RORO ship. They are not. Huge difference.

Saying T31e is “not enough” is understandable. But, what is bad is lack of money, not the design. I myself is always complaining calling a ship like T31 with the same name as FRIGTE as T26 is pointless. But it is much nearer to a frigate than a RoRo ship. If T31 is the same to a RoRo ship, T26 is also the same, simply because difference between T31 and a RoRo ship is much larger than those between T26 and T31.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 16 Apr 2019, 09:28

The middle zone is dangerous, the Navy do not need a Snatch Land Rover at sea. Do our service personnel justice, give them the equipment to fight and win, or do not send them at all.

The T31 is corner cutting to the extreme, not even the Brazilian could fit their crap ship inside the Brits budget. Either do a proper job and make it a real frigate, or don't bother at all and make it a simple utility platform.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jensy and 19 guests