Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

A mothership would not have to stay outside a minefield nor would the unmanned platforms have to operate at such great distances. As pointed out line of sight is an issue but you are not going to cleat a lane 50nm long instantaneously are you. You would do it in segments, clearing 10 15nm the moving the Mothership forward as the unmanned platforms move forward, with the motherships escort(s) moving with it. As for unmanned vehicles being fully autonomous, well the ability may exist but it is going to be quite some time before they are let of the leash so to speak for all sorts of reasons.

Unless the unmanned platforms are stealthy or submerged they are going to have to be under a pretty heavy protective bubble from both surface and air assets to deal with both surface and air assets and maybe even submerged ones as well. So either you are going to go in like Secret Squirrel, without being noticed until it is time to make things go boom or the incredible Hulk and smash everything as you go forward.

In the era of prevalent A2/AD the days of MCVs pottering about clearing one mine at a time in a leisurely manner are nearly over, except for when clearing your own ports, as home waters (hopefully). Mines of various types are going to be key components of such strategies, and the capabilities of individual mines may increase greatly over the coming years, turning them into smart and possibly mobile weapons. Whereas the west may have concerns about collateral damage from errant smart or even autonomous mines, some other countries may not, especially if they believe an area it theirs regardless of what international law says, and that they will defend it against all intruders disregarding any freedom of navigation rules. If a certain country can turn an IRBM into an anti ship missile, what could they do to naval mine warfare?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

So in the list of business critical models put out in April 2020 is

MHC-block 1 - support review note submission

Interesting the use of the words Block 1

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:Interesting the use of the words Block 1
- is it about hulls (could also be a cut) or kit (always a +?)
- or it could be both; cutting hulls to afford kit?
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The latter appear to be the usual practice.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Prior information notice has been published, looking for 3 sets of UUVs, launch and recovery equipment and related payloads for MCM (threshold) and hydrographic (objective) work. They must be compatible with 11 meters motorboat (so any of the ARCIMS and ALCYON classes USVs developed for the Combined Sweep and MMCM systems respectively).

The shipbuilding strategy draft master plan (i know, it's not worth shit) showed the "decision point" for future capability (relating in this case to the new ships) towards 2022, since the first new vessel is not expected before 2028.
On the other hand, a written answer or something i read not long ago suggests that the whole Hunt class might decommission in the space of 3 years after that point. That seems absurdly quick, considering that british shipbuilding is absurdly slow.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Gabriele wrote:Hunt class might decommission in the space of 3 years after that point. That seems absurdly quick, considering that british shipbuilding is absurdly slow.
You say that but the B2 Rivers were built in 5 years from first steel cut in Oct 14 to last hull in the water June 19 so say Babcock's were to start something like a Venari in 2027 along side type 31 they could push out one year giving 6 in the water by 2033

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

It'll also be a couple more years before the Batch 2s are all truly operational, but yes. It might be possible to do it quickly.

I just don't feel like betting on it, considering how things usually go.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Gabriele wrote:They must be compatible with 11 meters motorboat (so any of the ARCIMS and ALCYON classes USVs developed for the Combined Sweep and MMCM systems respectively).
Just for my curiosity - because i can't easily track down the boat bay capabilities anymore - will these USV's be operable from T31?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

jedibeeftrix wrote:
Gabriele wrote:They must be compatible with 11 meters motorboat (so any of the ARCIMS and ALCYON classes USVs developed for the Combined Sweep and MMCM systems respectively).
Just for my curiosity - because i can't easily track down the boat bay capabilities anymore - will these USV's be operable from T31?
If the T31 rendering is "up to scale" (*1), the boat bay cannot hold 11m boat.
Also, Babcock guy never said T31 is capable of 11m boat.

*1: I think it IS up to scale. Writing a CG "not to scale" only on boat bay, while its width and length perfectly matches with the quoted value = complies with the scale, is difficult and meaningless = waste of money.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, Babcock guy never said T31 is capable of 11m boat.
I seem to remember a Babcocks person saying something like "davits for up to 10m boats, but there is room for larger boats if required", or something like that. That's from memory, but I remember thinking at the time, that 11m was a possibility. If they stick with the current plans, then I suspect we will see them with the Pacific 24-based ASVs, rather than the ARCIMS-sized boats.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, Babcock guy never said T31 is capable of 11m boat.
I seem to remember a Babcocks person saying something like "davits for up to 10m boats, but there is room for larger boats if required", or something like that. That's from memory, but I remember thinking at the time, that 11m was a possibility. If they stick with the current plans, then I suspect we will see them with the Pacific 24-based ASVs, rather than the ARCIMS-sized boats.
That's the point. Arrowhead 140 design, if properly handled, shall be able to re-design the boat bay, from current 9.5m + 9.5m --> 7.5m (or larger) + 11.5m (like Leander design). But, it seems like they strictly restricting themselves to be unable to deploy "up to 12m" boats.

It is possible that the frame spacing makes it difficult (= a bit costy) to make it 7.5+11.5 m, but in principle, it is surely doable. Arrowhead 140 with "7.5+11.5 m (or 11.5+11.5 m) boat capability" will be more of use, versatile, and may be good for export, making clear difference to the original IH design.

Now in the detailed design phase is the final chance to accomplish it !

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The idea is sound but that has never stopped the MoD form ignoring such ideas. I personally think it will be best to simply get the T-31e in the water as originally spec'd and then see what the future may hold. Again I think the Dutch and Belgians have the right idea, and 6 to 8 of the design they are building would be a good start for the Royal Navy recapitalising it MCV fleet, supported my unmanned platforms operated from say the T-26 and possible the Bays and/or Albions if needed.

But again whilst the forward deployment of a sizeable part of our MCV force to the Gulf and been a valuable contribution, why are other nations not offering to share the burden, both locally and from others further afield. People keep saying we are going to be operating as part of coalitions, but when it comes to putting their assets where their mouths are they appear to be reluctant. The Gulf is a waterway of international importance so keeping it clear of mines should be an international effort, not left to the UK to carry the burden by itself.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote: I personally think it will be best to simply get the T-31e in the water as originally spec'd and then see what the future may hold
i'd revise that to:
"I personally think it will be best to simply get the T-31e in the water as originally spec'd and then [sell them off as soon as is decently possible]."

[edit]don't get me wrong, i'd rather bin them but we're too far along for that.
my original complaint was that i didn't believe we could build a useful class of five frigates for the price of 1.5 T26.
well we can't, at £2b we could instead have had 2.5 T26 and frankly that is more useful.[/edit]

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

So effectively use the T31 to keep numbers up until we buy more T26s over a longer period of time - say 10 to 2038. Works for me :D
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

If the price is right and we are will to do as usual and take a bog loss, I am sure many Navies would bite the MoD's hands off to obtain them. Say around £70M or what Brazil paid for HMS Ocean, together with their full weapons package and other equipment.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

it was explicitly the intention of the T31's role in the shipbuilding strategy to shorten (RN) service life to keep design/production busy.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

jedibeeftrix wrote:it was explicitly the intention of the T31's role in the shipbuilding strategy to shorten (RN) service life to keep design/production busy.
But, do you believe on it? It was explicitly the intention of the T31's role in the shipbuilding strategy to DELIVER 5 T31 within 1.25B GBP including everything, and the 1st hull deliver by 2023. Actually, these two points were the top two priorities. I NEVER believe on it, and as expected it resulted in 2B GBP program, and 1st ship deliver in 2025. So, similarly, no surprise if 15 years intended service life came out to be 25 years.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

which is a tragic conclusion:

under a false premise of affordability we were forced to buy ships we didn't really want, and then forced to keep them in service longer than we wanted - thus further damaging our prospects of maintaining the numbers in ships that we [do] really want.

what a world! can we sell them with zero miles on the clock to NZ?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Yeah, that 'strategy' isn't worth the paper its written on.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Just maybe the navy woke up just in time and went with A-140 knowing that they would have to keep them for 25 year and they have room to add kit

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

By sacrificing remaining T26? = adding even more cost on T31.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:By sacrificing remaining T26? = adding even more cost on T31.
If the type 26's are to be cut in numbers it will have nothing to do with type 31 and everything to do with HMG what they want or don't want.

China is starting its push out today Hong Kong and the world will kick up little fuss next Taiwan and the sooner HMG gets it head around this the better

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:I personally think it will be best to simply get the T-31e in the water as originally spec'd and then see what the future may hold
Amen bro.

Not only spec'd but contract'd.

But that doesn't appear to be the British style as evidenced on these pages and thru such sagas as FRES. No sooner than a decision is taken, a mass of voices erupts from the undergrowth shouting to change it. And yet the same voices wonder why so much money is wasted. Talk about lack of self awareness.

OK, a little tongue in cheek, but a grain of truth :D

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Very true and the the longer a programme takes the more changes are requested causing further delays and the cycle goes on and on.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:Very true and the the longer a programme takes the more changes are requested causing further delays and the cycle goes on and on.
That is the part of the "industrial strategy" that is not often discussed, but is probably the most important. Grip.

Initial capability: Specify once, build, deploy.

Improved capabilities: Specify once, build, deploy, sell Batch 1

Rinse and repeat
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply