Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Thought the below image gave a rather good perspective of the relative size of the future minehunting platforms from Atlas Elektronik UK:

Image

Definitely bigger than I thought.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

how long is it?

#T31

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

too long at 11 meters type 31 as we think / see it can take a 9.5 meter rib

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Happen to know this movie. Impressive. A few points I noticed.

- systems operated from far away.
- harsh weather example movie is, for me the first time seen how "harsh" (at max) it was during the trial.
- delivery of UUVs from USVs scene is impressive, very large UUVs (compared to the USV cargo deck).

MMCM success sea trials - Thales, 2021/05/05
https://youtu.be/-LKgVUcsIv4

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4171
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

At least in NavyLookout page (https://www.navylookout.com/a-big-futur ... pbuilding/), "Mine Countermeasures Logistic Support Vessel (MCMLSV)" are defined. It would be the "PSV-like MCM drones support vessel" we were discussing for long. How many, how large and capable, is not known yet. But, as it is named as "Logistic Support Vessel", it will be very lightly armed or even un-armed. Good thing, as it will make it very cheap to operate. (when needed, just add 10-30 RM soldiers with guns and man-held missiles).

Good news.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2323
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

I suspect that they will probably have a similar self-defence fit to the Hunts and Sandowns - a 30mm ASCG and assorted miniguns/ GPMGs and HMGs. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the sensors, comms gear and CMS were ported over as well. It would minimise the integration task. Perhaps depart from the standard PSV design by covering part of the rear deck to create a hangar/workshop with flight deck (for UAVs and vertrep/ pax transfer) on the workshop roof. Internally, they would probably re-purpose stuff like mud and chemical tanks as additional fuel and water tanks, plus dry storage and workshop/ accommodation spaces. All fairly straight-forward stuff
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It would be the "PSV-like MCM drones support vessel
This is clearly all that is needed for operating in low threat environments.

In areas that have a higher threat level the T32’s can take over MCM duties. This is likely to be a rare occurrence outside the gulf allowing the T32’s to primarily focus on escorting the LSG’s.

This direction of travel is proportionate and affordable with a solid rationale going forward.
Caribbean wrote:Perhaps depart from the standard PSV design by covering part of the rear deck to create a hangar/workshop with flight deck (for UAVs and vertrep/ pax transfer) on the workshop roof.
Converting existing vessels to such a configuration would be relatively straightforward and highly cost efficient. They would be highly versatile vessels, operating at minimal cost whilst maintaining high levels of availability. All good.

It may also throw the cat amongst the pigeons as regards the T32 design. Given the direction of travel with UAV/USV/UUV surely Babcock or BMT must sense a gap in the market here for a multipurpose escort capable of providing MCM and ASW via off board systems

A tweaked T31 may prove to be a missed opportunity for RN and UKPLC to get ahead of the pack. The T31 is a cost effective stop-gap but the T32 should really be a clean sheet or at least highly modified design to offset some of the USV/UUV size/weight constraints with the T26’s.

Basically the T32 needs to be a vessel with all the qualities of a traditional Frigate combined with the utility of a large PSV. A highly modified Absalon would seem like an excellent starting point.

Post Reply