Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

Another prime example of illogical short term cash savings - I do hope replacements are on the way. It’s not just about Surveying it’s also the loss of platforms that have been globally deployed fulfilling valuable constabulary/surveillance/training roles. People will point to T31s and the future T32s, but the ships like the Echo / River class give real value to global ops, allowing frigates to be frigates (and kitted as such!).

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-echo-re ... apability/
”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

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Repulse wrote: 05 May 2022, 12:12 Another prime example of illogical short term cash savings - I do hope replacements are on the way. It’s not just about Surveying it’s also the loss of platforms that have been globally deployed fulfilling valuable constabulary/surveillance/training roles. People will point to T31s and the future T32s, but the ships like the Echo / River class give real value to global ops, allowing frigates to be frigates (and kitted as such!).

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-echo-re ... apability/
I know high intensity warfighting is the first priority of the RN right now, but it is a shame to see another vessel taken out of active service. The article notes that it's annual running costs are only £5.5m so it is IMO a cheap cost for what capabilities she provides.
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqRepulse

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 05 May 2022, 12:43
Repulse wrote: 05 May 2022, 12:12 Another prime example of illogical short term cash savings - I do hope replacements are on the way. It’s not just about Surveying it’s also the loss of platforms that have been globally deployed fulfilling valuable constabulary/surveillance/training roles. People will point to T31s and the future T32s, but the ships like the Echo / River class give real value to global ops, allowing frigates to be frigates (and kitted as such!).

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-echo-re ... apability/
I know high intensity warfighting is the first priority of the RN right now, but it is a shame to see another vessel taken out of active service. The article notes that it's annual running costs are only £5.5m so it is IMO a cheap cost for what capabilities she provides.
The thing is that this capability may not be sexy but is required to do high end operations. Also, using ships like this and the B2 Rivers frees up high end ships.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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


Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... 08.49579.h
MHC programme … funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Poiuytrewq
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 09:35
MHC programme … funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
So six MCM systems and 3 PSVs.

Considering the capability it is replacing the budget must be a fraction of what went before.

It’s pretty clear where the T32 budget is coming from now.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

So, MHC block 2 is to deliver
- up to six mission systems
- and three Logistics Support Vessels. [/i][/b]

Then, what is covered by MHC Block 1 ?
It will provide
- three production standard autonomous minehunting systems from Thales
- and three Sweep systems from AEUK, the ARCIMS USVs.

Looks not so bad?

see https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... ew-course/

As part of MHC Block 1, a team led by Thales has been contracted to deliver three production standard autonomous minehunting systems based on the primary system developed under the French/UK Maritime Mine Countermeasures (MMCM) programme. ...

MHC Block 1 also includes three Sweep systems to be provided by Atlas Elektronik UK (AEUK). This builds on an MHC Sweep demonstrator previously delivered by AEUK using an 11 m ARCIMS USV ...


Also important to note is
The drawdown of the RN’s remaining five Sandown-class minehunters – HMS Penzance, HMS Pembroke, HMS Grimsby, HMS Bangor and HMS Shoreham – will continue through to 2025. Their retirement is aligned to the introduction of operational demonstrator systems being procured under the umbrella of MHC Block 1.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 12:07
Repulse wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 09:35
MHC programme … funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
So six MCM systems and 3 PSVs.

Considering the capability it is replacing the budget must be a fraction of what went before.

It’s pretty clear where the T32 budget is coming from now.
Including the 6 systems on MHC block 1, it seems reasonable replacement. I'm wondering from where T32 budget may come. Maybe none (= needs fresh increase).

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 12:14 Including the 6 systems on MHC block 1, it seems reasonable replacement. I'm wondering from where T32 budget may come. Maybe none (= needs fresh increase).
Regardless, the T32 programme is going to cost between £2bn and £3bn.

Building four T26 lites still looks like the more sensible option, especially with the new build hall in Govan.

Lots of other things for Rosyth to do.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

I'm not sure that you would save that much on a T-26 lite - removing the tail and associated computers/ software etc. would save around £60m per ship, I believe. If the T32 was to be scrapped, then I would prefer an extra full-fat T26 and four T31 (giving 9 of each), with the extra four T31 being being built to better equipped standard (5" gun, 16-24 x MK41 VLS, Captas 4CI).
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
RichardIC
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 17:53 I'm not sure that you would save that much on a T-26 lite - removing the tail and associated computers/ software etc. would save around £60m per ship, I believe. If the T32 was to be scrapped, then I would prefer an extra full-fat T26 and four T31 (giving 9 of each), with the extra four T31 being being built to better equipped standard (5" gun, 16-24 x MK41 VLS, Captas 4CI).
I agree, this would be a highly desirable outcome.

My point was based on an equipment and armament level identical to the proposed T32. Now that both Rosyth and Govan have covered building halls another look is really overdue by the MoD to quantify the possible economies of scale of an extended run of the T26 and T31 classes.

The T32 really would need to be a step change in capability to warrant a new class. Perhaps a PSV working in combination with a T26 or upgraded T31 is the optimal blend going forward rather than a single hull trying to do too much.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Repulse

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

More cuts in plain sight.



Where are the replacements?

The T32’s are a model on a board.

No additional PSVs have been procured to provide motherships for the new off-board tech

Are the new MCM off-board systems even mature enough to delete the current MCMVs yet?

Looks like another capability gap due to indecision, procrastination and lack of funds

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

France goes with the Dutch/Belgium design:

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/eu ... rtnership/

Still think the RN missed an opportunity by not going with the MHPC programme. Having said that I do like the B2 River design, and can’t help but think an extended version would be a good basis for a RN vessel with longer endurance.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Follow the process of type 31, work with the Dutch, Belgian and French license built the design in the U.K. and integrate U.K. specific systems and sensors as that is were we have spent the money and replace rivers ect with it.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 09:23 Follow the process of type 31, work with the Dutch, Belgian and French license built the design in the U.K. and integrate U.K. specific systems and sensors as that is were we have spent the money and replace rivers ect with it.
IMO it’s way too small.

Very very little growth margin.

Should the next generation of MCMV just be a modest batch of MROSS?

The UK would be much better with something like this:

- 105m or 110m
- 18knts
- Add hanger for helo and/or UAVs.
- Perfect for everything in low threat areas including virtually everything the Forward RB2s are conducting.
D154B176-14BB-404E-8051-F539712188B0.jpeg
https://www.bmt.org/projects/project/33 ... liary-ship
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacRepulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 11:01
SW1 wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 09:23 Follow the process of type 31, work with the Dutch, Belgian and French license built the design in the U.K. and integrate U.K. specific systems and sensors as that is were we have spent the money and replace rivers ect with it.
IMO it’s way too small.

Very very little growth margin.

Should the next generation of MCMV just be a modest batch of MROSS?

The UK would be much better with something like this:

- 105m or 110m
- 18knts
- Add hanger for helo and/or UAVs.
- Perfect for virtually everything in low threat areas including virtually everything the Forward RB2s are conducting.
D154B176-14BB-404E-8051-F539712188B0.jpeg
https://www.bmt.org/projects/project/33 ... liary-ship
It’s not that small it’s the same size as the rivers and near 3000 tonnes in displacement.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

In many ways with the new unmanned MCM kit and UAV's all 8 RN River class ships are close to becoming MHPC maybe we should build 8 or 9 more River B2's to replace the B1's and MCM fleet
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Repulse

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 11:16 It’s not that small it’s the same size as the rivers and near 3000 tonnes in displacement.
It really shouldn’t be small.

It needs to be globally deployable and have a hanger if they are to be used for HADR and Maritime Security.

Offboard systems will continue to evolve and get bigger. Any replacement MCMV needs to have all the space and capability of the BAE ASF minus the offensive firepower and speed.

That won’t be possible in an 80m class vessel.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 11:46
SW1 wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 11:16 It’s not that small it’s the same size as the rivers and near 3000 tonnes in displacement.
It really shouldn’t be small.

It needs to be globally deployable and have a hanger if they are to be used for HADR and Maritime Security.

Offboard systems will continue to evolve and get bigger. Any replacement MCMV needs to have all the space and capability of the BAE ASF minus the offensive firepower and speed.

That won’t be possible in an 80m class vessel.
I’m not saying they should be small simply saying the Dutch/Belgian vessel is not small.

As these are the same size as the rivers and they’re considered globally deployable don’t see why these should not be able to either. As we’ve seen the North Sea and Baltic infrastructure has gained importance in government circles and operating these type of vessels there with our nordic and Baltic allies would make sense imo as would positioning one or two in Gibraltar.

It depends what you mean by HADR, the ability to survey around a port or coastline would be a useful contribution to such a mission. Going fwd we simply aren’t going to have the helicopters available to be everywhere and not on these type of vessels, I can see things like Malloy uav being more predominant in roles traditionally used by helicopters. If helicopters go tiltrotor for troop transport then that will see them staging in and out of areas much more than today.

Systems will evolve but there seems a relatively set parameters box for the likes of mcm off board and martime security ribs/boats developing, bigger more expensive systems maybe something else altogether.

What we’ve done is investment in the systems themselves and payloads they carry we do not need to spend the time and money developing the ships when our closest allies have put the time and money into developing the ship and how they integrate and recover the unmanned systems within it for us. We buy the design and build it in the UK.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 11:25 In many ways with the new unmanned MCM kit and UAV's all 8 RN River class ships are close to becoming MHPC maybe we should build 8 or 9 more River B2's to replace the B1's and MCM fleet
No we don't need more Rivers particularly for MCM they just aren't wide enough. The beam of the Dutch/Belgian rMCM is 4 metres wider than a River. You need the stability of you are lifting the MCM USVs over the side.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

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.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

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.
A modern version of the Black Swan concept, something around 105m by 16m wildcat capable hanger and flight deck, large open work deck rear joining to a covered work deck under the flight deck.

Maybe the design could be evolved from the RB2s, I have often said the RB2 design should be evolved in to a family of 3 covering all low end roles.

RB2 as is for OPV ops
RB3, a lengthened design with hanger for low end global patrol.
RBS ( sloop ) for multi mission ops designed for unmanned systems.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

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.
”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