Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 580
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 804 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 18:59
tomuk wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 17:48
Repulse wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 17:24 Perhaps not a River design, but there is definitely legs in a MHPC class to be built in numbers to ultimately take on the UK and Global Patrol roles also from the B1/B2s. A class of @12 should do it.
Yes there was a rational for a combined class combining mine hunting, hydrographic and patrol but it would need to be focused on the specialist requirements of the mine hunting and hydrographic roles. Patrol would be secondary. However by buying the B2s the patrol element is fulfilled.
The three B1 Rivers need replacing them I’d argue 4 at least to compliment the other unmanned MCM capable platforms. We’d be towards 2035 by then on a one per year drum beat so just in time for B2 replacements.
Not disagreeing with you. But do we have clarity on what their expected role would be?

If fishery protection and policing UK's maritime EEZ, then don't need to be as big as even River B1's and be armed with anything heavier than 12.7mm HMG.

If shadowing Russian warships and protecting UK's North Sea oil & gas platforms then arguably want something bigger and better armed.

The former could be maybe 1500t OPV whilst the latter could be around 3,000t Sloop / Corvette.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4683
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 242 times
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 17:24 Perhaps not a River design, but there is definitely legs in a MHPC class to be built in numbers to ultimately take on the UK and Global Patrol roles also from the B1/B2s. A class of @12 should do it.
As there are 8 River OPVs now, and 3 MCM support ship mentioned, I think your proposal matches very well with just what RN is doing now?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Don't forget the two echos and the 12? hunt and sandown minhunters

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2317
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 106 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 18:59 The three B1 Rivers need replacing them I’d argue 4 at least to compliment the other unmanned MCM capable platforms. We’d be towards 2035 by then on a one per year drum beat so just in time for B2 replacements.
Current planning has the Three RB1s being replaced by three RB2s. The other two RB2s would be forward based in the Falklands and possibly Gibraltar.

The T31s would take over from the RB2s with 3 operating in the Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific. The remaining two would conduct FRE and APT(N) and APT(S).

MCM will be conducted via commercially purchased and/or leased PSVs augmented by the Auxiliaries.

They is no prospect of a class of MCMVs without additional funding. None.

IMO we are rapidly returning to the days of having to cut something to make something else happen.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4683
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 242 times
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 23:26 Don't forget the two echos and the 12? hunt and sandown minhunters
There is only one Enterprise left, but the Scott replacement looks like to be 2 vessels.

Six Sandown MCMVs are to be replaced via 6 USV-MCM systems purchased by MCH blk1, six Hunt MCMVs are to be replaced via another 6 USV-MCM systems and 3 Motherships.

Even though it looks like decreasing, but the 3 mother ships can replace at least 6 MCMVs, I think.

In addition, 8 OPVs are there. Before 2019, there were only 4 OPVs. Four more. And, OPV's sea-going days are much much longer than that of MCMV's. Also, OPV are much faster = optimized for patrol.

So, even if 12 MCMVs are replaced only by 12 USV-MCM kits and 3 mother ships, if we include the "more than doubled" OPV fleet's capability, I think "patrol" aspects of RN is not so much decreasing.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3239
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 158 times
Been liked: 207 times
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 31 Oct 2022, 00:03
Repulse wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 18:59 The three B1 Rivers need replacing them I’d argue 4 at least to compliment the other unmanned MCM capable platforms. We’d be towards 2035 by then on a one per year drum beat so just in time for B2 replacements.
Current planning has the Three RB1s being replaced by three RB2s. The other two RB2s would be forward based in the Falklands and possibly Gibraltar.

The T31s would take over from the RB2s with 3 operating in the Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Asia Pacific. The remaining two would conduct FRE and APT(N) and APT(S).

MCM will be conducted via commercially purchased and/or leased PSVs augmented by the Auxiliaries.

They is no prospect of a class of MCMVs without additional funding. None.

IMO we are rapidly returning to the days of having to cut something to make something else happen.
Selling the first 2 T31s should go a long way towards funding it, allowing the B2s to remain in their global role longer, which they seem to be doing rather well at. There is zero reason IMO to replace them with more expensive (but limited capability) warships when money is short.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply