Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Caribbean wrote:That is the part of the "industrial strategy" that is not often discussed, but is probably the most important. Grip.
Yes, having read the defence industrial strategies, until they shrank to mere updates with not too much underlying rationale included, and then watched "the action" it brings the scenario to mind in which we are driving over icy winter roads with summers tyres and sliding all over the place
- some industries (like AFVs, where we used to be the world leader) have ended up in the ditch... but perhaps ti was too low tech :crazy: to count
- some industries have been forcefully restructured by the Gvmnt (warships; the jury is out)
- aerospace has been doing well as it is so widely spread across civilian, military and space (don't forget the big trend in that 'space': dual use). We've even managed to be a key player in a x-Europe industry rationalisation (missiles)
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)

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

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

Post by xav »

UK MoD Seeking UUV for Mine Warfare Missions from USV
Image
According to a pre-contract information notice (PIN) issued on June 26, the UK MoD is seeking to procure three Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) to conduct mine warfare missions from Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV). for the Mine and Hydrographic Capability (MHC) program.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -from-usv/

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 team seem to be on the right track and managing things well, testing numerous platforms and mission profiles from both what is out there already and what they can put together in house. It could result in an actual we thought out and joined up solution.

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

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

Post by Repulse »

Have just been looking at the UK Maritime Power 2017 report, and saw the picture below. Looks like a Hunt class but with a clear deck and using cranes for 3-4 Rhibs - has anyone seen this before and can confirm? If so, looks like the Hunt would be a good part of the “bridge” MCM solution.

Image

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... p_0_10.pdf
”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: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

In the unmanned trials the Hunts received an A-frame, not cranes. But trials are trials

BTW, an excellent, well written document. Just the coloured quotes/ examples boxes make for a good read. Picked one from
Admiral Cunningham: ‘you can build a new ship in three years but you can’t rebuild a reputation in under 300 years’.
- the first part has changed for major warships, but the latter holds
- also makes me think that the MCM approach has the right emphasis: develop the kit and skills which takes forever, whereas the platforms to deploy them you can churn out in numbers... in three years
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)

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 »

HMS Brecon, now a training vessel.

Image

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

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

Post by Caribbean »

A great birdseye view photo. It also gives you a good idea of what could fit on a platform 50% longer and 50% wider (i.e. 90m x 15m), which seem to be a popular option for suggested replacements
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote:A great birdseye view photo. It also gives you a good idea of what could fit on a platform 50% longer and 50% wider (i.e. 90m x 15m), which seem to be a popular option for suggested replacements
I would say with the way USV and UUV's are going the a 90 meter ship is starting to look a bit tight for me now I feel something like a 100 x 16 meter Venari with a 25 meter covered working deck and 25 meter open working deck will be needed to handle the operation and regeneration of future off board kit from the ship this would also allow for a good size heli deck / working deck and operation of kit up to 20 meters

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 »

Slightly off topic but are the Estonians using their Hunt(s) for simply patrol work or are they still operating as MCVs?

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:I would say with the way USV and UUV's are going the a 90 meter ship is starting to look a bit tight
I tend to agree, especially considering the extra large unmanned vehicles the RN expect to be operating in the future. The bigger and more generic the better, just needs to be something to put 'stuff' on the back.
@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 »

shark bait wrote:just needs to be something to put 'stuff' on the back.
Whether it has a covered working deck or not it will still need something like M-Cube CMS and a Radar like Scanter 4100 to operate and control UAV's and USV's. using your own words that the RAF fly the same jet as Ryianair ( P-8 and 737-800 ) a Venari 100 is the same as 100 meter PSV in as much as what it takes to make a 737-800 into a P-8 the will be needed to turn a PSV into a MHC

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 »

Steadily proceeding. Nice to see, Atlas electric ARCIMS system evolving.


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/atlas-el ... BA3Q%3D%3D

Atlas Elekronik UK, AEUK, has met a significant contract milestone, having successfully delivered the first 15m SEA Class workboat. The boat, officially named Royal Navy Motorboat, RNMB HEBE, is supplied with a work module complete with dedicated operator workstations for use when conducting survey operations.

RNMB HEBE will ultimately be transferred to “Project Wilton” and will play a role in the Royal Navy’s (RN) Mine Countermeasures & Hydrographic Capability (MCH) team in achieving its goal “to deliver UK peacetime route survey capability by exploiting Maritime Autonomous Systems”.

In this programme, RNMB HEBE will be integrated with several specialised payloads such as sonars and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) that can be remotely launched and recovered. The increased capacity of the 15m workboat allows RNMB HEBE to function as a floating Command and Control Centre from which to operate an 11m Autonomous Surface Vessel (ASV) RNMB HARRIER which AEUK is also delivering as part of its involvement in Project Wilton.

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 »

Interesting discussion starts.


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:Interesting discussion starts.

This is what I have been saying for sometime now that the RN needs MHCP to be something like a 100 meter Venari with M-Cube CMS a good Radar , 25 meter covered and open working decks = 50 meters plus a 40mm or 57mm main gun

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 »

I believe some replacement ship will come, but there isn't much of a rush, without the mine clearance kit they'll just be empty ships with nothing to do.
@LandSharkUK

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
United Kingdom

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

Post by cyrilranch »

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Interesting discussion starts.

This is what I have been saying for sometime now that the RN needs MHCP to be something like a 100 meter Venari with M-Cube CMS a good Radar , 25 meter covered and open working decks = 50 meters plus a 40mm or 57mm main gun
Just wanting know what people who think of this.

If we replace minehunting/sweeping with about 6 or so motherships that can do the job of upto 12 ships.
So if in the gulf for example we replace 4 ships with mothership.
What is stopping a enemy from targeting the lone mothership to stop the minesweeping. As it only has to go for one ship as opposed to 4 (ships.
A lone ship would be very easy target for a fleet of dornes or cruise missiles.

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 »

cyrilranch wrote:If we replace minehunting/sweeping with about 6 or so motherships that can do the job of upto 12 ships.
So if in the gulf for example we replace 4 ships with mothership.
What is stopping a enemy from targeting the lone mothership to stop the minesweeping. As it only has to go for one ship as opposed to 4 (ships.
A lone ship would be very easy target for a fleet of dornes or cruise missiles.
Yes and no. Currently, RN MCMVs are relatively poorly defended against such cruise missiles. I guess a large MHC with CIWSs will better survive such air-raid than current 4 MCMVs.

1: Then, what if we add CIWS to current MCMVs? I'm afraid current hull size is too small to "easily" (with little damage to its primary role = mine hunting) add a CIWS. If MHC is to be 1:1 replacement, not sure adding CIWS is easy for such hull.

2: Then, how about replacing 12 current MCMVs with 6 Medium class MHCs, 2:1 replacements. In this case, there will be 2 MHCs in the Gulf, in place of current 4 MCMVs. In this case, each MHC may carry 4 ARCIMS (or alike) to cover 2 current MCMVs' task with 1 hull. Not bad, actually.

3: Yet another idea is to have "three smallish LSD" to replace current 12 MCMVs, 4:1 replacements. (continue)...

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 »

Nowadays, I am deeply thinking about option-3.

First of all, I'm afraid there might be not enough money to replace the "1+1 LPDs and 3 LSDs" fleet.

But, if this fleet also covers MCM tasks, may be RN/RFA can even increase the LPS/LSDs number. For example, how about 2 LPD-Rs (replacement for 1+1 LPD, and 1 LSD, in view of cost), and 5 multi-purpose LSDs (3 as replacement for 12 MCMVs and 2 as replacement for 2 remaining Bay LSDs).

I think MCM task and Landing/assault task will rarely overlap. Landing will be held, only after mines in danger are neutralized. If properly coupled with Passenger ships (for soldiers) and Flo-Flo ships (for LCU/LCVPs), the 5 multi-purpose LSDs (say, 3 at theater) will be able to convert there tasks from MCM to landing within 1-2 days (say, at South Georgia Island) and then proceed to the theater (say, Falkland Islands).

Also, one of the Bays is already assigned for MCM support task for very long period (currently as a mother ship of the 4 MCMVs). Using LSD to MCM tasks are not that bad, I guess?

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 »

If the MCM kit is designed properly it should be able to operate from any ship in the RN's fleet.

In the future fleet there is no shortage of expensive platforms to deploy the work-boats from, however it is lacking is a cheap hull to enable the base load of simple mine clearance tasks. The Hunt/Sandown replacement should be the pickup truck of the Navy to fulfill the simple tasks without costing too much. For more demanding roles any other vessel of opportunity could be used, such as a Frigate or LPD.

Unfortunately Donalds option will make everything too expensive.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

shark bait wrote:a cheap hull to enable the base load of simple mine clearance tasks. The Hunt/Sandown replacement should be the pickup truck of the Navy to fulfill the simple tasks without costing too much. For more demanding roles any other vessel of opportunity could be used, such as a Frigate or LPD.
Dare I say, something along the lines of the (seemingly unloved) Black Swan concept:

Image

Minimal crew (eight core), huge, flexible interior spaces. Room for weapons but decidedly not a warship, in looks or capability.

Could see something along these lines meeting other requirements down the line, including small-scale Littoral Strike, HADR and aviation training.

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 »

shark bait wrote:If the MCM kit is designed properly it should be able to operate from any ship in the RN's fleet.

In the future fleet there is no shortage of expensive platforms to deploy the work-boats from, however it is lacking is a cheap hull to enable the base load of simple mine clearance tasks. The Hunt/Sandown replacement should be the pickup truck of the Navy to fulfill the simple tasks without costing too much. For more demanding roles any other vessel of opportunity could be used, such as a Frigate or LPD.

Unfortunately Donalds option will make everything too expensive.
Thanks, reasonable comment I agree. But, I do not think T31 nor T45 will be able to carry any of the high-end MCM-drones to come. (*1)

So, it will be only
- some T26 frigates (8 may come, but very late, 2036 or even later)
- 5 River B2 OPV
- 1+1 LPD and 3 LSD
- 2 Echo class Survey vessel
(- 3 River B1, but only if added with good crane)
Among them, T26 will be used only in very demanding cases (as we need to pull out her from CSG to do MCM). So, may be the 5 River B2s and 2 Echo-class will be the main mother ships?

By the way, my original comment comes from the fear that RN/RFA amphibious force may "shrink". Not to "save" MHC, but to save LPD/LSDs.

What if it is "2 LPD-R and 3 LSD-R" (shrunken in number) to replace BOTH amphibious force (1+1 LPD and 3 LSD) AND MCMV force (12 Sandown/Hunt)? In other words, adding MCM tasks to LSDs will save their number? In place leaving MHC absorbed in River B2 (low end) and T26 (high-end).

I guess, MHC (MCMV replacement) and LPD/LSD replacement might be mixed up. Both are littoral. Both now needs to deploy boats. At least, they will need to wait for the testing results, which will start soon with Atlas and Thales MCM drones.
- Is a 1500-2000t class MHC "large enough" to be used as MCM drones mother ships for coming 30 years future? Or a ~3000t class needed?
- How distant can MCM drones operate from mother ship? Can a LCU equipped with control container be a liaison for 2 or 4 MCM drones?
- Can a civilian PSV be "comfortable enough" for RN to use them for MCM tasks? (I fear not).
- How much a MCM drone mother ship (other than T26) shall be armed?

All these issues are important, when considering MCMV replacements.

*1: Low-end MCM drones are just REMUS pod = autonomous side-scan sonar, and they can be carried even on a RHIB.

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 current generation of unmanned MCVs really need a proper mothership, be it a Frigate or a purpose designed MCV. I think the Dutch/Belgians have the right idea, and have fully realised the importance of mine warfare is going to have in the future. What if some other country develops a smart mine that can move around and hide until needed, or an UUV minelayer launched for a submarine that remains outside a nations territorial waters.

Yes have unmanned platforms on platforms such as Frigates to provide a supplementary capability, but there is still a real need for dedicated MCVs though having these being able to do survey work would still be useful as long as making them multirole doesn't push the price tag up too much.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: I think the Dutch/Belgians have the right idea
I agree, but at the same time I wonder how much weight they attached to (our) requirement to be able to self-deploy across oceans?
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)

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:.. I think the Dutch/Belgians have the right idea, and have fully realised the importance of mine warfare is going to have in the future. What if some other country develops a smart mine that can move around and hide until needed, or an UUV minelayer launched for a submarine that remains outside a nations territorial waters.
In the drone world, suicide-drone air-attack can be there. Small ship with relatively minor war-fighting capability will be easily sunk.

At the same time, it is a clear fact that 90% of the MCM activity is AFTER war, in peace time, to clear up the remaining mines. This task is important, but can be done with almost no threats to MCMVs other than the mines themselves. I understand Dutch/Belgians new MCMVs are designed for this task. "PSV" like idea also presented here is on the same line, while the "PSV" idea is limited by the lack of special davit design, to what sea state it can deliver the USVs.

So, there can be a variety of new generation MCMV design, and I still think using LSD for it may be one idea.

#Say, 2 teams of "LCU with command module + 2 MCM USVs", in addition to "2 MCM USVs" directly controlled from the command module onboard the LSD?

Post Reply