Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Image

MHPC? (painted grey)
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

partially agree but they should have higher standards of damage control, EMCON and fire fighting capability

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Lieutenant Commander Kev Giles wrote:Instead, we are taking a deliberately conservative approach. We are building demonstrators to de-risk the offboard minehunting and sweeping capabilities that we are seeking to initially integrate on the Hunt class. At the same time, we have made a conscious decision with the Sonar 2093 capability sustainment programme to ensure that the Sandown class remains effective and relevant for the foreseeable future should the French/UK minehunting programme not demonstrate the capability we require - either because the technology isn't there or we are not in a position to use it properly
A great approach to manage the transition to unmanned MCM.


Image

The above is an image from the royal navy publication the naval enginer, and shows how the MHC system is intended to look in the future. A single USV, acting as the surface platform for multiple underwater systems depending on the role. It is envisaged it will be rapidly air transportable, and operated from land or a simple sea based platform.

Now, does any one have the link to the article its from? I read it a long time ago and would like to re-read as I remember it was a good piece, however my googling only leads me to the image above
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »


  • the ship is 128 metres long – or more than 5 tennis courts
  • it weighs 15,000 gross tonnes – that’s one and a half times the weight of the Eiffel Tower
  • it has 900 cubic metres of space for scientific cargo – that’s almost 3 squash courts
  • it will have 30 crew and 60 scientists and support staff
A design for a future auxiliary, perhaps MHC?
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Also nice to see that the remote underwater support vessel that is will carry is to be named BoatyMcBoatface. A Government Department with a sense of humour!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Caribbean wrote:Also nice to see that the remote underwater support vessel that is will carry is to be named BoatyMcBoatface. A Government Department with a sense of humour!
Image
^ Boaty McBoatface

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Seems quite relevant for a MHC, it is after all a survey ship.

£200 million for an ice hardened, frigate size ship, built in the UK seems pretty good!
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
  • the ship is 128 metres long – or more than 5 tennis courts
  • it weighs 15,000 gross tonnes – that’s one and a half times the weight of the Eiffel Tower
  • it has 900 cubic metres of space for scientific cargo – that’s almost 3 squash courts
  • it will have 30 crew and 60 scientists and support staff
A design for a future auxiliary, perhaps MHC?

be nice to get 2
1 to replace HMS Protector in full red Antarctic Patrol ship livery
1 to replace HMS Scott in either hydrography white or standard Grey

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Yeah that was my thoughts, it would seem like a suitable replacement for them, then if the unit cost comes down enough another 10+ for the rest of the MHC fleet.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

for the 10 MHPC i'd like to see it go to open competition to let other yards and designers bid for the work but suspect they will be the fill in work for Govan between Type 31 and Type 45 replacement

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

I'm not so sure, it quite reasonable the T26 & T31 programmes will take us out to 2040, at which point Daring will be 31 years old, so no gap in the schedule.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

its very dependent on type 31 happening

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

And of course MHPC should go to an open competition, I was commenting on the type of platform, a frigate sized ship, that is not a frigate.

It is very cles to TD's concept, a big flexible civilian ship, that could find some applications in the Navy.

Big with extensive cargo space and handling facilities, flight deck and hangar, and equipment for launching and recovering maned and unmanned off board systems. Like it!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
2HeadsBetter
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
United Kingdom

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

Post by 2HeadsBetter »

Promo video for Unmanned Warrior later this year:


User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

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

Post by GibMariner »

QinetiQ contracted for unmanned systems C2 demonstrator
QinetiQ has been awarded a GBP1 million (USD1.45 million) contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to demonstrate the command, control, and integration of unmanned systems into Royal Navy (RN) mine countermeasures (MCM) operations.

This latest award follows a GBP4.2 million contract placed late last year by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) under which QinetiQ will deliver a similar command and control demonstration system - known as MAPLE (Maritime Autonomous Platform Exploitation) - for the co-ordination of multiple unmanned vehicles. Both projects are being delivered by QinetiQ leading a team comprising BAE Systems, Thales, Seebyte, and Atlas Elektronik UK.
http://www.janes.com/article/60527/qine ... monstrator

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

a variant of the Eithne or RNZN Protector class or BAM would be a great hydrographic platform with a helicopter like the old Hydra & heralds

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

We're talking about mine clearance here, so i'm going to jump over to this thread.
Repulse wrote:Was that because they were too small to make it to the Falklands so we never really saw how bad it would have been? The world has even changed since then so putting any warship in the front line without a level of AAW defence is criminal.
Survivability is to understand the threats and to ensure that the design presents a balanced solution to the threat. If the threat is low, relaxed suitability is acceptable.

I fully agree we don't put warships into a high threat environment without suitable active and passive and passive protection.
  • At present our fleet of mine hunters don't work in a high threat environment, so relaxed standards are acceptable here.
  • In higher threat scenarios there is always the option to shadow the fleet with a frigate, or even sit 100 miles over away on and let the off board systems to the dangerous work over the horizon.
  • Finally in very high threat environment the MCM kit will be operated out of the mission bay of a T26, not the commercial platform, providing highly credible protection.
The commercial hull only exists as a base to launch and operate remote MCM equipment within a permissive environment. Where the environment is less permissive, the remote equipment is simply transferred to existing complex platforms. Our next generations of surface combatants have been designed with this specifically in mind.

Repulse wrote:No it doesn't, it gives 3 T26 to protect a larger force of slow / unprotected ships that have no chance keeping up with a QE, plus a big hole in your Patrol force.
It does, spending less on mine clearance gives us more to spend complex platforms. You are also making an assumption on speed, but there is nothing to mandate a commercial MHC has to be slow. The current platforms manage 17 knots, it's very easy to improve on that with a commercial hull.

Repulse wrote:Does the same logic apply that the F35B initial order for 48 a/c is costing 8 T26s?
Of course the same logic applies. We have a finite defence budget, spending more on A reduces resources for B.

Repulse wrote:No. The RN is missing proper (not substandard paper ship) mass, the world is moving quickly to platforms acting as motherships for modular systems. Building an affordable world class one would be a great export opportunity.
There is indeed a shortage of escorts. However over spending on mini complex warships, for non complex tasks will only removes resources that could be used to fix the escort shortage.

How can you point out a shortage of proper warships, and then suggest fixing that by introducing a huge fleet of patrol ships?

Repulse wrote:A common MHPC class built to a regular drum beat (1 a year) is a good use of the budget and will provide efficiency and savings. A commercial design built in foriegn yards does nothing for the RN nor the UK.
  • It will deliver substantial savings that can be used to properly support the complex surface combatant industry in the UK.
  • It will release resources to support a larger escort fleet
  • It will give create opportunities to build to commercial standards within the UK, which is what appledore does.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

the danger you end up with is you get "Jack of all trades masters of none" type vessels. Do you have ships with all MCM fit or all Hydrography fit or fitted as patrol ships or a mish-mash of roles? Do the crews have to be capable of Mine clearance or Survey or Mine Clearance & Survey? which require different skill sets.

personally I'd like to see the MHC/MHPC be a number of vessels 20+ but in batches with standard hulls , machinery and basic sensors but then fitted out as either Hydrography or Mine Hunter vessels and having dedicated crews of specialists in either Mine Hunting or survey. And allocated to Mine Hunter squadrons, Patrol Squadrons, Training Squadron and Survey squadron depending on Role.

fitted with small caliber guns like 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 30mm and LMM/Starstreak

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

The black swan concept introduced the idea of a very small core crew, and then embarking specialists and equipment depending on the task in hand, kind of a tailored air group for AUVs

I like the idea, and it creates a flexible structure that allows specialist skills to join any Auxilary, Escort or future Mine Hunter.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

Sorry on hols, so not easy to reply.
marktigger wrote:There is indeed a shortage of escorts. However over spending on mini complex warships, for non complex tasks will only removes resources that could be used to fix the escort shortage.

How can you point out a shortage of proper warships, and then suggest fixing that by introducing a huge fleet of patrol ships?
I think the most likely outcome of the MHC programme is that the capability in future will be modular and therefore "any" ship can do it. This may on the face of it support cheap simple craft, but it doesn't in the real world outside of the UK EEZ where there will never be enough ships to escort / protect these snatch landrover type vessels.

Instead, as I've stated let's use the T31 to go back to the MHPC concept and maximise the number of useful ships we have which can maximise what the RN can do. Simple single role ships are the last thing the RN needs.
”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

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:I think the most likely outcome of the MHC programme is that the capability in future will be modular and therefore "any" ship can do it.
That sounds highly likely.

With that in mind I think we wills see the MHC kit deployed from the T31 and T26 in hostile environments, and a PSV painted grey in permissive environments.

Image
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by Engaging Strategy »

I'm sure it works fine, but i'm not a fan of the looks of "HMS Vessel Name" :lol:
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In short, my point here is, comparing REMUS and Hunt/Sandowns is not fair. In that case, you should compare Danish MSF1 vs REMUS. Yes, REMUS is more cheaper. Good. But, here we are talking about Hunt/Sandown replacements, not Danish MSF1.
We are not replacing the hunts and sandowns. They are platforms that exist to operate within a mine field, which means they cost a lot. Instead we are transitioning to MCM system that sits outside the mine field and send in small, cheap, commercial robots to do the work. That completely changes the fundamentals of MCM work from the time the Hunts and Sandowns were built.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:We are not replacing the hunts and sandowns. They are platforms that exist to operate within a mine field, which means they cost a lot. Instead we are transitioning to MCM system that sits outside the mine field and send in small, cheap, commercial robots to do the work. That completely changes the fundamentals of MCM work from the time the Hunts and Sandowns were built.
Historically yes, but the role of the current MCM fleet (in particular the larger Hunts) is increasingly to act as motherships, so any replacement would ultimately replace these vessels.
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:That completely changes the fundamentals of MCM work from the time the Hunts and Sandowns were built.
There must be folks here who are more familiar with MCM in the RN than I am, but:
- Sandowns were built to operate within minefields (hence the most expensive in the RN, per meter)
- Hunts were built when the main method was still sweeping (hence less stringent requirements for degaussing, composites, etc) even though that era now has even officially past, and the Hunts were converted into mine hunting long ago
- Hunts have come to the fore in trialling the new kit because they have enough deck space for handling it (and expert crews, but that's not a differentiator between the two classes) and are more self-deployable to far-away places (like a certain Gulf)

As a curiosity, I wonder if the Estonian navy will have to take their Sandowns out of the water when it freezes over?
"The three decommissioned vessels were sold to Estonia in September 2006."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply