Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Thought the below image gave a rather good perspective of the relative size of the future minehunting platforms from Atlas Elektronik UK:

Image

Definitely bigger than I thought.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

how long is it?

#T31

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 »

too long at 11 meters type 31 as we think / see it can take a 9.5 meter rib

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 »

Happen to know this movie. Impressive. A few points I noticed.

- systems operated from far away.
- harsh weather example movie is, for me the first time seen how "harsh" (at max) it was during the trial.
- delivery of UUVs from USVs scene is impressive, very large UUVs (compared to the USV cargo deck).

MMCM success sea trials - Thales, 2021/05/05
https://youtu.be/-LKgVUcsIv4

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 »

At least in NavyLookout page (https://www.navylookout.com/a-big-futur ... pbuilding/), "Mine Countermeasures Logistic Support Vessel (MCMLSV)" are defined. It would be the "PSV-like MCM drones support vessel" we were discussing for long. How many, how large and capable, is not known yet. But, as it is named as "Logistic Support Vessel", it will be very lightly armed or even un-armed. Good thing, as it will make it very cheap to operate. (when needed, just add 10-30 RM soldiers with guns and man-held missiles).

Good news.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

I suspect that they will probably have a similar self-defence fit to the Hunts and Sandowns - a 30mm ASCG and assorted miniguns/ GPMGs and HMGs. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the sensors, comms gear and CMS were ported over as well. It would minimise the integration task. Perhaps depart from the standard PSV design by covering part of the rear deck to create a hangar/workshop with flight deck (for UAVs and vertrep/ pax transfer) on the workshop roof. Internally, they would probably re-purpose stuff like mud and chemical tanks as additional fuel and water tanks, plus dry storage and workshop/ accommodation spaces. All fairly straight-forward stuff
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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:It would be the "PSV-like MCM drones support vessel
This is clearly all that is needed for operating in low threat environments.

In areas that have a higher threat level the T32’s can take over MCM duties. This is likely to be a rare occurrence outside the gulf allowing the T32’s to primarily focus on escorting the LSG’s.

This direction of travel is proportionate and affordable with a solid rationale going forward.
Caribbean wrote:Perhaps depart from the standard PSV design by covering part of the rear deck to create a hangar/workshop with flight deck (for UAVs and vertrep/ pax transfer) on the workshop roof.
Converting existing vessels to such a configuration would be relatively straightforward and highly cost efficient. They would be highly versatile vessels, operating at minimal cost whilst maintaining high levels of availability. All good.

It may also throw the cat amongst the pigeons as regards the T32 design. Given the direction of travel with UAV/USV/UUV surely Babcock or BMT must sense a gap in the market here for a multipurpose escort capable of providing MCM and ASW via off board systems

A tweaked T31 may prove to be a missed opportunity for RN and UKPLC to get ahead of the pack. The T31 is a cost effective stop-gap but the T32 should really be a clean sheet or at least highly modified design to offset some of the USV/UUV size/weight constraints with the T26’s.

Basically the T32 needs to be a vessel with all the qualities of a traditional Frigate combined with the utility of a large PSV. A highly modified Absalon would seem like an excellent starting point.

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 »

Interesting read. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... g-systems/

MHC Block 1 consists of three operational demonstrator systems, including the UK and French collaborative Maritime Mine Countermeasures (MCM) programme, and is aligned with the Sandown class drawdown between 2021-2025.

1: Looks like a single MHC-1 kit will replace two Sandown class in the Gulf.

2: using LPD-A as a mother ship is confirmed.

3: the 3 MHC-1 kits will be at Clyde, Porsmouth, and Persian Gulf. It looks like these three system are replacing the whole Sandown fleet.... Really??

...
MHC Block 1 will deliver a total of three Mission Systems. Two will operate in the UK at Her Majesty’s Naval Bases Clyde and Portsmouth, and one in the Gulf. A Mission System consists of:

- a Portable Operation Centre;
- an Autonomous Surface Vessel;
- towed sonar;
- Mine Neutralisation System;
- Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, and;
- an autonomous mine sweeping system.

MHC Mission Systems can be operated from the shore and from any suitable RN, Royal Fleet Auxiliary or commercial platform.
...
Gulf assets will be operated from the in-theatre Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) but could be operated from shore with the agreement of the host nation.
...
MHC Block 2 is the mainstay of the full replacement MCM capability; the investment decision point is planned for 2024, subject to cost profiling.
...
Project Wilton will be conducting MCM survey operations on the Clyde in early 2022 and delivery of a Block 1 system has been accelerated, to be deployed into the Gulf region (Op KIPION) by the end of 2022.

-------

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Good to see how things are progressing. I wonder if exports, especially from the Gulf States could result, especially after the first systems is deployed operationally in the region.

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by imperialman »

A tender for related drones?

"The vessel, a new ship of around 500 tonnes, will be procured through a £9m contract and will support trials for “autonomy development”."

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ministr ... pose-ship/

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 »

Royal Navy to boost minehunting capabilities with delivery of 1st MMCM demonstrator:
https://www.navaltoday.com/2021/12/09/r ... onstrator/

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

imperialman wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:20 A tender for related drones?

"The vessel, a new ship of around 500 tonnes, will be procured through a £9m contract and will support trials for “autonomy development”."

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ministr ... pose-ship/
The article references an oil and gas fast crew transfer vessel, which makes a huge amount of sense. There's a huge crossover between autonomous MCM and what Aberdeen oil and gas have been doing for the last 50 years.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by RichardIC »

Just glancing through the new National Shipbuilding Strategy refresh and this:

New mine countermeasures systems and support ships

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

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

Post by Jake1992 »

RichardIC wrote: 10 Mar 2022, 13:22 Just glancing through the new National Shipbuilding Strategy refresh and this:

New mine countermeasures systems and support ships
Is this the T32 or a different expected design ?

If it’s the T32 it’s just another cut dressed up as expanding the fleet but if it’s a new class then great

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 »

No type 32 is there on a different line the plan is for

8 X type 26
5 x T-31
up to 5 T-32
3 x SSS
new MCM and support ships
New MROS
and up to 6 MRSS

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

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

As expected, extremely vague and little new info but confirming 3 FSS is good news.

Also the MCM support vessels are intriguing but I suspect they are simple PSV’s for use in low threat environments. Looks like the MCM technology is maturing nicely though:

“These systems are now in production and from late 2022 will begin to deliver autonomous mine hunting capability within the UK and, in due course, the Gulf.”
One of the most interesting things in the document is the detailed production timescales and the planned decision points.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 10 Mar 2022, 14:56 As expected, extremely vague and little new info but confirming 3 FSS is good news.

Also the MCM support vessels are intriguing but I suspect they are simple PSV’s for use in low threat environments. Looks like the MCM technology is maturing nicely though:

“These systems are now in production and from late 2022 will begin to deliver autonomous mine hunting capability within the UK and, in due course, the Gulf.”
One of the most interesting things in the document is the detailed production timescales and the planned decision points.
I would like to see something a little bit more like a Venari-85 / 90 with 40mm gun

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

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Mar 2022, 14:37 No type 32 is there on a different line the plan is for

8 X type 26
5 x T-31
up to 5 T-32
3 x SSS
new MCM and support ships
New MROS
and up to 6 MRSS
Well that looks good then from all the rumours floating around that the T32s were going to be used as mcm replacements I was worried the so called escort increase would just be another cut really.
Poiuytrewq wrote: 10 Mar 2022, 14:56 As expected, extremely vague and little new info but confirming 3 FSS is good news.

Also the MCM support vessels are intriguing but I suspect they are simple PSV’s for use in low threat environments. Looks like the MCM technology is maturing nicely though:

“These systems are now in production and from late 2022 will begin to deliver autonomous mine hunting capability within the UK and, in due course, the Gulf.”
One of the most interesting things in the document is the detailed production timescales and the planned decision points.
They could be or if the moneys there and the RN looks at it in terms of the wider fleet these could a the old C3 vessel that were planed. If we got a true multi role vessel in the 105 by 15 range it could be used for all low end roles from mcm to counter piretcy to survey work freeing up all the T classes to be proper escorts.
Tempest414 wrote: 10 Mar 2022, 15:57 [quote=Poiuytrewq post_id=137639 time=<a href="tel:1646924175">1646924175</a> user_id=1753]
As expected, extremely vague and little new info but confirming 3 FSS is good news.

Also the MCM support vessels are intriguing but I suspect they are simple PSV’s for use in low threat environments. Looks like the MCM technology is maturing nicely though:

“These systems are now in production and from late 2022 will begin to deliver autonomous mine hunting capability within the UK and, in due course, the Gulf.”
One of the most interesting things in the document is the detailed production timescales and the planned decision points.
I would like to see something a little bit more like a Venari-85 / 90 with 40mm gun
[/quote]

I’d say more like a 105 version to allow flexibility or something like the old black swan idea but with a smaller flight deck and larger work deck.

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

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

Post by Repulse »

IMO should be dusting off the MHPC concept and merging MCM Support and Future OPV lines; I’d even add in the MROSS / Future Ice Patrol Ship lines also (the ability to fight in the polar regions will be key). A fleet of 16-20 ships with slightly different configurations would give both scale and cost effectiveness.

Let’s sign a contract for Appledore… :D
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
SD67
”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 »

For ice patrol ships, do you mean for the Artic? Do we need to concentrate surface ships for the Artic polar regions? We are not one of the eight Artic Council members.

And with global warming, unfortunately I can see less need for UK to have such specialist ships in the future.

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 »

The rest of suggestion sounds good. What size of ship were you thinking of compared to River B2's? I presumed if you were talking 16-20 ships that would be smaller than B2's?

We have a lot of British Oveseas Territories and with policing their maritime zones is going to be more important as more focus placed on maritime zones as food and other resources become rarer.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 12 Mar 2022, 11:43 We have a lot of British Oveseas Territories and with policing their maritime zones is going to be more important as more focus placed on maritime zones as food and other resources become rarer.
We are taking the approach, at the moment, of standing up local coastguard units in the Caribbean BOTs, along with SAR helicopters and local engineering Regiments. Most currently have a Marine Police detachment, but they are commonly both underfunded and regarded as somewhere that police careers go to quietly die. The engineers on the Rivers have fixed a lot of boat engines for the local police forces.

That said, we have moved to also using the "two ship" approach used by France and the Netherlands, with a patrol ship backed by a logistics vessel for disaster relief (and the USA to do the regional "heavy lifting"). Adopting a common design for the patrol vessel, as well as MCM and survey seems sensible to me, though I would argue for a slightly larger vessel than the current RB2s (i.e. with additional logistics/ offboard systems capacity), not smaller.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

I really hope the MCM support ship being simple PSV-like ship with good USV recovery/delivery gears added, like the following example:
https://www.equimer.com/wp-content/uplo ... 1_2019.pdf

Simple PSV-like hull will make RN the most powerful, efficient, cheap, and thus enabling more resources to be put on CVTF, escorts, amphibious vessels, logistics, and UAV/USV/UUVs themselves, while maximizing the actual MCM operations done faster.

We know 4 MCMVs are forward deployed to Persian Gulf. Their task is performed in peace, because most of the mine-clearing tasks are done AFTER the war. Mine finding will be done in wartime, but it does not need many USVs, and T26, T32 or River B2 can easily handle it.

Carrying armaments onboard the MCM support ship is a waste of money. Better put all of them onboard CV for self defence, to up-arm T31/32, or even 2 of the 5 River B2s (Forth, Medeway and Trent do not need much armaments). Also, armaments onboard will increase crew, reduce availability (because of maintenance), and just be a dead-weight to increase fuel consumption.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Lord Jim

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 »

Caribbean wrote: 12 Mar 2022, 12:12
wargame_insomniac wrote: 12 Mar 2022, 11:43 We have a lot of British Oveseas Territories and with policing their maritime zones is going to be more important as more focus placed on maritime zones as food and other resources become rarer.
We are taking the approach, at the moment, of standing up local coastguard units in the Caribbean BOTs, along with SAR helicopters and local engineering Regiments. Most currently have a Marine Police detachment, but they are commonly both underfunded and regarded as somewhere that police careers go to quietly die. The engineers on the Rivers have fixed a lot of boat engines for the local police forces.

That said, we have moved to also using the "two ship" approach used by France and the Netherlands, with a patrol ship backed by a logistics vessel for disaster relief (and the USA to do the regional "heavy lifting"). Adopting a common design for the patrol vessel, as well as MCM and survey seems sensible to me, though I would argue for a slightly larger vessel than the current RB2s (i.e. with additional logistics/ offboard systems capacity), not smaller.
The more the Carribean BOT's can have local Coastguard / SAR, the better. For the Carribean we have six separate Territories - when I posted about this on River OPV thread, I googled the distances between them:

"There are six different British Overseas Territories in the Carribean. They are roughly in a triangle with Bernuda in the north being 2,188km from Cayman island to the south west, and 1,749km from Montserrat to the south east, and 2,034 km between Cayman Island and Montserrat. Add in Anguilla and British Virgin Islands and Turks and Caicos Island, and you have huge spread of area that the RN is responsible for protecting their respective EEZ."

"Then lets look at the five different British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. There are 1,550 km between Falkland Islands and South Georgia, 3,427 km between Ascension Island and Tristan de Cunha (with Saint Helena in between), and a whopping 6,366 km between Falklands islands and Ascension Island."

My point was that one single patrol boat can't cover all six Carribean BOT's and similarly for all five South Atlantic BOT's. In addition the UK's Blue Belt Programme covers the five South Atlantic BOT's, Diego Garcia in Indian Ocean and Pitcairn Islands in Pacific Ocean; it is a UK Government initiative to enhance marine protection across over 4 million square kilometres of marine environment in the UK Overseas Territories":

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-blue-belt-programme

We need patrol boats to cover all the areas in Blue Belt Programme. I dont think we need a boat as big as the River Class OPV - would nt need to be military construction, armanent would need to be enough to deter pirates etc - maybe one 20mm autocannon or 12.7mm HMG, with a couple of lighter MG. i.e. similar armanent to the current Echo class hydrographic survey ships.

The forthcoming Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship have nt been detailed much but apparently will have a crew complement of around 15. This compares to crew of 72 for aforementioned Echo Class and 58 for River B2 OPV.

I do agree that we could use multiple new ships to cover OPV, Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship and Mine countermeasure vessels. And I agree that these are perfect for being constructed at Appledore.

So the main difference between our view I think is that these new vessels should be smaller with less crew, so that we can have more of them spread over a wider area covering the lower level policing, patrolling, surveying and intelligence, fielding UAV/USV/UUV to fullfill their specific missions.

That will free up the current River B2's and the future T31's to be used for more militarised missions.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by RichardIC »

imperialman wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:20

"The vessel, a new ship of around 500 tonnes, will be procured through a £9m contract and will support trials for “autonomy development”."

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ministr ... pose-ship/
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?p=25417

Looks like a contract has been signed with Damen (in response to Kevin Jones). Good to read some more in UKDJ.
These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyo

Post Reply