Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

[Repulse]

When we talk about the "Strong Self Defence Capability" that is desirable for our possible future MCVs, I think aiming to install almost the same amount as is carried by the T-31 is a rabbit hole we do not what to go down. Even if the vessels are also to have a "Patrol" function, I do not see the need for anything beyond say a BAe 40mm Mk4 Bofors, possibly with 3P ammunition as its main weapon. This would be more than enough to prevent the vessels being harassed by unfriendly Speed Boats and have a limited AAW capability. If a greater anti-surface capability is needed then maybe having a five round launcher of the LMM attached to the Mk4. For the vessels to operate in more hostile waters then an escort will have to be provided bringing with it greater AAW and ASuW capabilities

You are correct, the level of “defence” needs to appropriate to the role - which is primarily to protect itself and stand off protection of its drones that would mostly (putting aside UUVs etc) be operating in line of sight against threats like small craft as well as helicopters/UAVs.

However, no one is talking about large ASMs nor wide area AAW protection. Comparisons to the T31 may be a rabbit hole, but my view is the T31 is a rabbit hole. If the capability of a T31 is limited to a medium 57mm gun, a dozen CAMM and a helicopter hangar, then the comparison is not difficult to make.

I agree with donald_of_tokyo, the RN should “stick to 30mm(+LMM) and 57mm”, there is no requirement for a second new gun caliber.

The 57mm is the right way to go - the effective range of the 40mm is @6.5nm, the 57mm is nearer 10nm (30mm range is @3nm and LMM around 4nm). Providing a 10nm radius protective bubble for operations gives the ability to keep attacking ships with similar small caliber guns out of range. Coupled with a LMM armed UAV/Wildcat hangar allows that protective bubble to be maintained either further - for what is a modest cost.

Adding a 12 cell CAMM launcher, does add cost and complexity, but increases the protective bubble against air threats to @14nm. Also, when combined with a 57mm and a LMM armed UAV/Wildcat, it removes the need completely for a Frigate escort which given the very limited numbers is the right thing to do.

I accept that to afford this could be as much as £100mn per vessel, and therefore 2 T31s sacrificed to arm 8 (F)MCMVs but that’s my view.

[jedibeeftrix]

If we want to give new MCM vessels (and B2+ vessels) a level of independence, and T31 is going ahead as planned, then the lowest [common] denominator of Bofors 40mm + 3P ammo seems like a sensible choice.

[Caribbean]

Bear in mind that "30mm" does not represent a single weapon system. It covers the DS30B (Oerlikon gun plus manually operated mount) and DS30M (Bushmaster gun in a remotely operated, automated mount). In other words, two significantly different systems, with different capabilities. The DS30B is said to have a shorter range than the DS30M and also probably can't take LMM as the launcher tubes sit approximately where the operators head and upper body would be (I believe that reversionary control is lost for the DS30M, as well, when LMM is fitted). Currently the DS30B is used by the amphibs, RFAs and the Rivers, with the frigates and destroyers getting the DS30M.

Personally, I would like to see DS30B (and all GAM-BO1 20mm systems) removed from RN/RFA service completely, with DS30M (+ or - LMM) being retained for fleet-wide use, taking the place of the older GAM-BO1/DS30B systems (so all RFAs/ Rivers/ T23s/ T45) and reducing three gun types to one.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Bear in mind that "30mm" does not represent a single weapon system. It covers the DS30B (Oerlikon gun plus manually operated mount) and DS30M (Bushmaster gun in a remotely operated, automated mount). In other words, two significantly different systems, with different capabilities. The DS30B is said to have a shorter range than the DS30M and also probably can't take LMM as the launcher tubes sit approximately where the operators head and upper body would be (I believe that reversionary control is lost for the DS30M, as well, when LMM is fitted). Currently the DS30B is used by the amphibs, RFAs and the Rivers, with the frigates and destroyers getting the DS30M.

Personally, I would like to see DS30B (and all GAM-BO1 20mm systems) removed from RN/RFA service completely, with DS30M (+ or - LMM) being retained for fleet-wide use, taking the place of the older GAM-BO1/DS30B systems (so all RFAs/ Rivers/ T23s/ T45) and reducing three gun types to one.

No objection to make it common.

By the way, looking at HMS Forth's image, it looks like DS30M, not DS30B?

[Tempest414]

Bear in mind that "30mm" does not represent a single weapon system. It covers the DS30B (Oerlikon gun plus manually operated mount) and DS30M (Bushmaster gun in a remotely operated, automated mount). In other words, two significantly different systems, with different capabilities. The DS30B is said to have a shorter range than the DS30M and also probably can't take LMM as the launcher tubes sit approximately where the operators head and upper body would be (I believe that reversionary control is lost for the DS30M, as well, when LMM is fitted). Currently the DS30B is used by the amphibs, RFAs and the Rivers, with the frigates and destroyers getting the DS30M.

Personally, I would like to see DS30B (and all GAM-BO1 20mm systems) removed from RN/RFA service completely, with DS30M (+ or - LMM) being retained for fleet-wide use, taking the place of the older GAM-BO1/DS30B systems (so all RFAs/ Rivers/ T23s/ T45) and reducing three gun types to one.

No objection to make it common.

By the way, looking at HMS Forth's image, it looks like DS30M, not DS30B?

In the images of Forth I have seen you can clearly see the operators seat on the right hand side also on the last images of Tamar on River class thread you can see the operator sitting in it

[donald_of_tokyo]

In the images of Forth I have seen you can clearly see the operators seat on the right hand side also on the last images of Tamar on River class thread you can see the operator sitting in it

- DS30M has options of operator seat or LMM. Having an operator seat does not mean it is DS30B.
- Removing operator seat is surely needed when LMM launcher is to be added. No objection.

[Ron5]

If the differentiator between DS30B and DS30M is that the "M" comes with a Bushmaster gun, that is very easy to spot. The Bushmaster has an external ammunition feed shown clearly here:



I'm referring to the black flexible cage that the ammunition belt runs through from ammo box to gun.

I've seen pictures of 3 configurations: this one, one with the seat replaced with an LMM launcher and one with the seat replaced with another ammo box (as on the left side) enabling dual ammo feeds.

If it were my money, I'd go with the dual feed and leave LMM to the Wildcats and the seat for the operator in the ops room. The air burst programmable round, as a second choice, would work very nicely in a range of scenarios.

[Caribbean]

differentiator between DS30B and DS30M is that the "M" comes with a Bushmaster gun, that is very easy to spot. The Bushmaster has an external ammunition feed shown clearly here:

Good spot. Mea culpa. A DS30B was mentioned early on for the B2s - looks like that got changed, which is good news (one of those rare occasions where I should have checked Wiki ) and hopefully indicates the future "direction of travel".

If it were my money, I'd go with the dual feed and leave LMM to the Wildcats and the seat for the operator in the ops room. The air burst programmable round, as a second choice, would work very nicely in a range of scenarios.

Not a bad option. Particularly for the less "fighty" platforms.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Currently the DS30B is used by the amphibs, RFAs and the Rivers, with the frigates and destroyers getting the DS30M."
- a clear statement of which might be on their own and need instant response as the automated mount does not need anyone running to it
- whereas the first three mentioned have the luxury of an escort and only if there are multiple threats, from different directions, then it is prudent to run ... to the battle stations

Recognising that these guns are there for close-in surface threats (and for anything else other layers of the onion need to be planned) I am all for Ron's suggestion to go for dual-feeds all through as then UAVs can also be effectively dealt with... by the ship that happens to be closest to the one or more turning up (they do not show very well on radar screens)

[Caribbean]

the first three mentioned have the luxury of an escort

I think though, in the context of this thread (MHPC), that the debate is very much not whether they will "be escorted", but whether they will "BE the escort" in the era of offboard systems (both are likely at different levels, of course, but the MCM vessel will become the inner layer of the onion and will potentially start to need weapon systems with local area effect, rather than purely for self-defense, as now).

If the MCMV is going to sit up to 100km behind the forward edge of the demining fleet, then I would suggest we don't really have anything available, other than aircraft, with the required reach. We would need to develop armed autonomous surface vessels, like the BAE and Elbit systems, carrying more weapons systems than just the 50 cal used on the BAE demonstrator (eg chainguns, 40mm GMG and even 30mm like the M230 or the AEI Venom), possibly even light air defence systems like LMM), in which case the MCMV will require the capability of deploying and operating them. These, of course have their own problems and comms, remote control, autonomous systems etc would need to be pretty robust to withstand jamming and hijack attempts. We could use manned patrol boats, but that seems to me to just be putting a different crew into a dangerous position

If the MCM is working closer to them, say at 15-20km, then we are in the realms of the possible for the MCM to act as escort, but once again, it will need to be fairly large, to carry all the defensive systems (say frigate-sized, with all the weapons systems of a frigate, but with a large mission space to carry offboard systems - do we have anything like that planned?).

I'm not against it, but I'm still not convinced as to the need for an "intermediate" platform, when we could exploit the Hunts, Sandowns and even the River B1/1.5s (each with suitable modification for different suites of offboard systems), followed in due time by a much larger hull that carries them all (errr - the offboard systems, that is, not the Hunts, Sandowns and Rivers!) but remains further back in the channel

[Ron5]

"Currently the DS30B is used by the amphibs, RFAs and the Rivers, with the frigates and destroyers getting the DS30M."
- a clear statement of which might be on their own and need instant response as the automated mount does not need anyone running to it
- whereas the first three mentioned have the luxury of an escort and only if there are multiple threats, from different directions, then it is prudent to run ... to the battle stations

Recognising that these guns are there for close-in surface threats (and for anything else other layers of the onion need to be planned) I am all for Ron's suggestion to go for dual-feeds all through as then UAVs can also be effectively dealt with... by the ship that happens to be closest to the one or more turning up (they do not show very well on radar screens)

I thought the T45's had the older model Oerlikon gun?

As for your thoughts on dual feed, exactly my thinking

[ArmChairCivvy]

the MCM is working closer to them, say at 15-20km, then we are in the realms of the possible for the MCM to act as escort, but once again, it will need to be fairly large, to carry all the defensive systems (say frigate-sized, with all the weapons systems of a frigate, but with a large mission space to carry offboard systems - do we have anything like that planned?).

As I read the first paragraph (not quoted) I thought that we are fundamentally in disagreement about the premise for the whole discussion. Fast forward thru the interim steps in shaping the fleet and we ended up in the same place:
- yes we do have such ships planned
- T31; just modify the boat bays to conform with the T26 mission bay... can be done ASAP, or more likely, for the Batch 2

[tomuk]

Sorry to interrupt can anybody confirm that the RN have ordered any LMM mounts/launchers for the DS30?
As far as I was aware the firing from HMS Sutherland was only a trial.
It is all well and good saying RN should stick with DS30 and LMM rather than go with the BAE 40mm but which has actually been ordered?

[Repulse]

As I read the first paragraph (not quoted) I thought that we are fundamentally in disagreement about the premise for the whole discussion. Fast forward thru the interim steps in shaping the fleet and we ended up in the same place:
- yes we do have such ships planned
- T31; just modify the boat bays to conform with the T26 mission bay... can be done ASAP, or more likely, for the Batch 2

I think you are right the interim is the key point of contention including the speed at which we will be through it. I can easily image something the size of QE as a Drone Carrier in the future with 100s of drones, plus long range large independent drones also - though I’d say the technology and concepts will not be mature enough till 2050’s.

If it’s as easy as bolting on the T26 mission bay to the T31, then alleluia I’m converted, let’s get it done now Unfortunately, it’s not like that.

[RichardIC]

Sorry to interrupt can anybody confirm that the RN have ordered any LMM mounts/launchers for the DS30?

There's been no public confirmation that LMM has been ordered for the DS30.

[Aethulwulf]

Everybody would like to go to a concept of mothership that stays well outside the minefield with mine clearance undertaken by UxVs. However, given the depth of minefields could be 50 nm plus, this currently results in two very difficult problems; one technical and one legal/ethical.

The technical issue is comms over this range.
First there is the significant required bandwidth needed for sonar plots, target ID and classification. And this bandwidth needs to be both secure (encrypted) and covert (narrow beam directional). It also needs to be immune to EM spectrum warfare such as jamming or interception and coercion (hacking). For final disposal actions, it will need to allow man-in-the-loop direct control. All of this currently limits comms range to not much more than line of sight. Pushing this out to 100 km is quite a technological challenge.

The legal/ethical problem is how to protect UxVs operating at such distance from a mothership. Extending the force protection bubble of the mothership to such a distance would be very difficult, so the obvious answer is to in someway arm the UxVs. But this would open the door to unmanned systems deploying lethal force (for there own protection), without man-in-the-loop. To put a man in the loop runs in to the exact same comms issues. The legal and ethical issues for allowing an unmanned system full control over the use of lethal force against potential manned opponents are not going to be solved quickly.

Until these two issues are solved, an interim solution will be required that can use UxVs but still needs to follow them into the minefield within a (hopefully) cleared channel.

[RichardIC]

The legal/ethical problem is how to protect UxVs operating at such distance from a mothership. Extending the force protection bubble of the mothership to such a distance would be very difficult, so the obvious answer is to in someway arm the UxVs. But this would open the door to unmanned systems deploying lethal force (for there own protection), without man-in-the-loop. To put a man in the loop runs in to the exact same comms issues. The legal and ethical issues for allowing an unmanned system full control over the use of lethal force against potential manned opponents are not going to be solved quickly.

So we can have a Predator flying over Iraq controlled from Waddington, but we can't have a boat 50 miles from a ship?

[shark bait]

The legal/ethical problem is how to protect UxVs operating at such distance from a mothership.

It's a purely financial issue. No one would spend £100 million to protect an asset worth 200k

[ArmChairCivvy]

All of this currently limits comms range to not much more than line of sight. Pushing this out to 100 km is quite a technological challenge.

Line of sight, out to the horizon - in my books this will be the limit at least for the next 10 years (never say never )
... so we can go back to dreaming about the OTH amph. operations - we know how, but can't afford more than partial steps

[abc123]

The legal/ethical problem is how to protect UxVs operating at such distance from a mothership. Extending the force protection bubble of the mothership to such a distance would be very difficult, so the obvious answer is to in someway arm the UxVs. But this would open the door to unmanned systems deploying lethal force (for there own protection), without man-in-the-loop. To put a man in the loop runs in to the exact same comms issues. The legal and ethical issues for allowing an unmanned system full control over the use of lethal force against potential manned opponents are not going to be solved quickly.

So we can have a Predator flying over Iraq controlled from Washington, but we can't have a boat 50 miles from a ship?

Yep. Water is the problem.

[SW1]

So lift your line of sight higher

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/n ... e-us-navy/

[Tempest414]

for me this is why any new MHC will need to operate UAV's as it is about eyes over the horizon or area of operation and if it could carry 2 or 4 LMM even better.

This could allow say your USV mcm kit to operate 20km from the ship ( outside any ship carried weapons) with say a Hero UAV with a radar and 2 x LMM flying over watch

[ArmChairCivvy]

UAV with a radar and 2 x LMM flying over watch

would have a slight range advantage vs. shoulder-launched missiles (have taken the figures for Stinger as they are not guesswork):
an outward targeting range of up to 4,800 m and can engage low altitude enemy threats at up to 3,800 m

A speedboat swarm could easily include remote-controlled decoys, so how will this work after the two LMMs have been launched?

[Tempest414]

UAV with a radar and 2 x LMM flying over watch

would have a slight range advantage vs. shoulder-launched missiles (have taken the figures for Stinger as they are not guesswork):
an outward targeting range of up to 4,800 m and can engage low altitude enemy threats at up to 3,800 m

A speedboat swarm could easily include remote-controlled decoys, so how will this work after the two LMMs have been launched?

The UAVs radar and optics are the first line of defence early eyes on allowing the USV mcm kit to cut and run using there speed back under the bubble of the mother the UVA can fire its LMM making the swarm take action and giving the MCM kit a little more time

[Aethulwulf]

So we can have a Predator flying over Iraq controlled from Waddington, but we can't have a boat 50 miles from a ship?

Predators operate at around 20,000ft, UxVs operate at sea level or below. The comms challenge is quite a bit different.

Predators also largely operate in uncontested airspace. We don't defend them with lethal force, and accept occasional losses. But put them in a fully contested airspace and they won't last long.

If you want to shoot down a Predator, there is quite a technological barrier to over come. An AK47 ain't going to do it. Not all states have the capability.

But if you want to destroy a USV, a speedboat and an RPG will do nicely if there is nothing in the neighbourhood providing protection.