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.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 19 Aug 2016, 18:44

by the time we're replacing the hunts there are 2-3 major classes of MCMV across the world that will need replacing the Tripartites and the Lerici are all of a similar age. I think a Joint program to replace them with Proper minehunters would be a better option than the jack of all trades frigate

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 » 19 Aug 2016, 18:50

marktigger wrote:Great in Electronically benign enviroments how good if being actively jammed or spoofed?

this whole thing of UAV/ROV's is great till people start playing radio wars you broadcast what you are doing and where.


The first half of the system is autonomous, collecting data over a fenced area. That data is then brought back to a human who uses some mission planning system to plan the mine hunting step. The next second half can be performed autonomously, over the radio, or over a wire so is resistant to EM countermeasures.

Autonomy is pivotal to MMCM because salt water is the perfect jamming hardware, so any MMCM equipment must be able to operate without the radio contact.

Autonomy is also critical for drones working within a non permissive EM environment, that is why Taranis was such a big deal.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 19 Aug 2016, 19:03

shark bait wrote:
marktigger wrote:Great in Electronically benign enviroments how good if being actively jammed or spoofed?

this whole thing of UAV/ROV's is great till people start playing radio wars you broadcast what you are doing and where.


The first half of the system is autonomous, collecting data over a fenced area. That data is then brought back to a human who uses some mission planning system to plan the mine hunting step. The next second half can be performed autonomously, over the radio, or over a wire so is resistant to EM countermeasures.

Autonomy is critical to MMCM because salt water is the perfect jamming hardware, so any MMCM equipment must be able to operate without the radio contact.

Autonomy is also critical for drones working within a non permissive EM environment, that is why Taranis was such a big deal.


yes the ROV is a great adjunct but should be that used in tandem with a proper minehunter built as such and with onboard systems capable of search, sweep/hunt neutralise and survey

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 » 19 Aug 2016, 19:12

Why? Whats the benefit duplicating?

The plan is it will be to start off operating from the Hut class to verify the technology can do the job and to de-risk future decisions before moving to a manned platform out of the minefield if everything goes as planned.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 19 Aug 2016, 19:18

great if you know exactly where the minefield is but you don't always have that luxury. By adding it to a "Frigate" or "patrol boat" its specialism will be lost and the vessel will be misused till the point where its needed then the capibility will be found wanting due to dilution of the skill set!

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 » 19 Aug 2016, 19:34

If you don't know where the mine field is how do you know where to send the hunt? Is the hunt immune to mines? The small autonomous drones can search a much larger area than the crew of a traditional hunter ever could so detection capabilities should improve.

The vessel is not the specialist, the system is completely decoupled from the platform. The specialism is in the people and equipment that can embark on any platform, there is nothing to suggest they will have fewer opportunities to train and maintain the incredible high standard the RN demands. That affords us much greater operational flexibility, using portable systems allows a faster and less constrained capability deployment option.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 19 Aug 2016, 19:57

its not immune to mines but is allot less susceptible to them as have most of the post war minehunters as they have been built from Nonferrous materials and are becoming quieter and have lower displacements than the types of vessels being envisaged by the bloggerati.
Stick with what works and refine from it. Yes and the people have to be deployed with a platform and work as part of that platform as a team not as a group of specialists parachuted in. If the Vessel is being commanded by someone who wants to run it as a frigate there will be tensions with the minehunting team and that causes issues.

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 » 19 Aug 2016, 20:33

We would still be riding into battle on horse back of we all had that attitude :D
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 20 Aug 2016, 00:22

In the discussion about motherships and offboard systems - is this perhaps an example of future thinking? Looks like some sort of ROV or whatever on the back of the RHIB in the foreground (I hope the link works)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpZsiChXgAAiAH0.jpg:large

RFA Lyme Bay - her first participation in one of many regular RN / USN mine warfare exercises in the Gulf. SQUADEX16 (Courtesy of NavyLookout)
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 » 20 Aug 2016, 01:17

Yes its a Remus 600 on the back of the RHIB, used by the USN and RN. Thats the biggrt autonomous RECCE drone, fitted with a side scan sonar that will collect data within a fenced area. This is the big one used for deep water and large areas, endurance is over 24 hours, it finds the mines, and then something else deals with them.

@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 20 Aug 2016, 07:38

marktigger wrote:And a venator is it built of Steel Or GRP or other non ferrous material?


Steel. There is no need to build 600t GRP ships anymore, smaller manned / unmanned ships operated from the MHPC mothership yes, but not the mothership itself. If you merge the T31/MHC programmes (to a total of @16 ships) as I suggest and build one a year from 2020, then we are looking to start to replace the Hunts from 2028, by which time technology would have advanced even more.
"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

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 20 Aug 2016, 09:23

Repulse wrote:
marktigger wrote:And a venator is it built of Steel Or GRP or other non ferrous material?


Steel. There is no need to build 600t GRP ships anymore, smaller manned / unmanned ships operated from the MHPC mothership yes, but not the mothership itself. If you merge the T31/MHC programmes (to a total of @16 ships) as I suggest and build one a year from 2020, then we are looking to start to replace the Hunts from 2028, by which time technology would have advanced even more.


famous last words spoken by someone who is very unlikely ever to have to go mine hunting in a Steel ship.

I don't know what planet you are currently occupying but there is no chance there will be anywhere near 16 vessels in the MHC program let alone combined with T31. If you combine it you will end up with the same number as the treasury will argue each ships can do 3 roles so you only need a third of the current fleet and will fund accordingly. which i would suggest will end up with a number less than 10

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 » 21 Aug 2016, 14:18

My Future MHC concept

Image

Shares all of the features of the BMT Venator 90, but built on top of a commercial hull.

I think the Venator 90 has all the hallmarks of an excellent multipurpose support and stabilisation platform, but I would like to see something that can leverage savings by reusing existing commercial designs, rather than a new class of mini complex warships.

Reinvest the savings to the T31 programme to ensure we can have a credible ship, that can be used for support and stabilisation in less permissive environments, as well as acting as a real escort.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 21 Aug 2016, 18:41

marktigger wrote:mine hunting in a Steel ship.


Who is suggesting this? You get your ROV / USV to do this.
"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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 21 Aug 2016, 18:43

@SB, I have no problem with getting additional MHC motherships, but let's lease them commercially off the shelf. Also, let's not try and put a gun on the front and pretend it's something it's not.
"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: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 21 Aug 2016, 19:00

I agree with the gun point, just the base image I used had the gun there and I couldn't be bothered to swap it out for a 30mm :D . But yes, we should certainly not pretend its something it isn't.

My concept is based of the Ulstein design, chosen for superior standards and sea keeping within the commercial market, it is suppose to be an off the shelf design to deliver the best possible value. One of their specialisms is Seismic research which is centres around a big garage for operating off board systems, very similar to future MHC ops.
@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 » 21 Aug 2016, 19:21

shark bait wrote:I agree with the gun point, just the base image I used had the gun there and I couldn't be bothered to swap it out for a 30mm

- would not solve the problem, because you would still have to have to have at least HMGs at ends of the bridge (wait! there's no bridge. it is all enclosed to handle the Nort Sea weather) due to the lacking negative gun elevation (=depression)

I would suggest CAMM there and automated self-degence weapons (operated from the bridge, in remote) in locations that give good coverage both sideways and elevation-wise

BTW, there is a lot of cost information for these on TD's not-a-frigate threads (off he top of my head that one comes for £116m).

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 » 21 Aug 2016, 20:06

Remote self defence weapons sound like a good choice. I think its worth exploring CAMM modules, also gives anti-surface and land attack through the compatible Spear. The Venator 90 design has a space mid ship for extra mission modules, as does my concept which copies BMT.

Cost for a 106m Ulstein seismic vessel is 100 million USD each, which represnets excellent value.
http://www.hydro-international.com/cont ... sel-orders
Length: 106.5 m, Beam: 24/28 m, Dead weight: 6013 tonnes, Draught (max): 8 m, Speed (max): 18.2 kn, Accommodation: 70 POB
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 21 Aug 2016, 20:51

Repulse wrote:
marktigger wrote:mine hunting in a Steel ship.


Who is suggesting this? You get your ROV / USV to do this.


The ROV/SUV should be an Adjunct to a Proper minehunter not a accessory bolted onto any passing vessel.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 21 Aug 2016, 21:44

@SB: As I say I do not have a problem with the RN having access to simple commercial vessels such as these as long as they do not pay for any to be built and only lease as needed (otherwise double your numbers).

Also, I see these supplementing the T31/MHC and a new inshore patrol class not replacing them.
"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: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 21 Aug 2016, 22:13

I wonder if the leasing option is still attractive. VT Group used it to their advantage with the original river classes so it's clearly a viable model for simple vessels. It also offloads the risk to the builder which I'm sure the government would like.

I also see MHC as a supplement to the T31, which in my mind must be a fully credible escort. That allows the MHC to more relaxed, creating savings to maintain a real escort fleet.

You mention an inshore patrol class, what do you mean?

I would support a CB90, which should be carried by the T31 and MHC, to send off into the littorals to protect a group. I think it fits in well with the concept of a non specialist hull sending of smaller special off-board systems to do the hard work.

Image

Here it is on HNLMS Johan de Witt, I tired to include it in my concept but it looked bad so it got left out. That how I would give the MHC a combat element. Its compatable with the same davits used by the LCVP.

Edit: tried again;

Image
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 21 Aug 2016, 22:18

problem with leasing/PFI is the "owner" can say they can't be used for some things. Interesting how the rivers were quite quickly purchased from VT. they also seam to charge a fortune for any repairs needed outside the contract.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby marktigger » 21 Aug 2016, 22:28

the Hunts and Tons that preceeded them have been used as coastal patrol vessels and fisheries protection ships so its quite a normal thing for the Mine hunters to supplement the patrol boats

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 22 Aug 2016, 07:18

marktigger wrote:problem with leasing/PFI is the "owner" can say they can't be used for some things. Interesting how the rivers were quite quickly purchased from VT. they also seam to charge a fortune for any repairs needed outside the contract.


VT were no more at this point, so probably BAE didn't like what VT had signed up for. Clyde is still PFI and I've not heard anything negative.
"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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Repulse » 22 Aug 2016, 07:37

shark bait wrote:I also see MHC as a supplement to the T31, which in my mind must be a fully credible escort. That allows the MHC to more relaxed, creating savings to maintain a real escort fleet.


We probably need to clean up the terminology as MHC is the capability rather than the ship. To put in other words, MHC capability should be
deployed on both Auxiliary Motherships (your Ulstein seismic vessel) and also the T31 (Venator 90+ design).

The RN could buy 4 Auxiliaries, 2 for UK Survey / MCM work and 2 for Global Survey work to replace the Echos. The rest goes into 16 T31s in a 50/50 initially configured lite vs heavy mix - the number being built should remain high to get the efficiencies needed for export, even if the T26 number slips to 9 rather than 10.

On the subject of nearshore Patrol craft, I am thinking about something larger than the CB90 (which I'd love the RM to get). I think the RN needs something in the 250t range (like the Diane class in the link below) that can act as a mini mothership, but is also fast (25+kts) and give better presence patrolling UK waters complimenting the Rivers, say around 6 vessels.

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheS ... Class(2007).htm
"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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Digger22, matt00773 and 14 guests