Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by S M H »

This happened to HMAFV Seal in Dover She ran into The dredger Admiral Day . It was a fault in the Z F gear box link .Causing her to go in the opposite direction than selected. The gearbox then would not disengage. It turned out to be a incorrect setting by the dockyard.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ad-to-2024

Later in the year, they will build on integration with Stirling Castle to show how MCM operations can be conducted from different platforms and they will also test a small patrol vessel in operations away from UK waters.

Likely a River B2?
- FIGS (HMS Forth), no.
- WIGS (HMS Medway), not likely.
- GibGS (HMS Trent), very likely, I guess?
- HMS Spey and Tamar, might be.

PS Another candidate is XV Patrick Blackett, but I'm afraid she is too small to take the full MCM kits. If only part of the systems, may be.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
new guy

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 26 Jan 2024, 13:48 https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ad-to-2024

Later in the year, they will build on integration with Stirling Castle to show how MCM operations can be conducted from different platforms and they will also test a small patrol vessel in operations away from UK waters.

Likely a River B2?
- FIGS (HMS Forth), no.
- WIGS (HMS Medway), not likely.
- GibGS (HMS Trent), very likely, I guess?
- HMS Spey and Tamar, might be.

PS Another candidate is XV Patrick Blackett, but I'm afraid she is too small to take the full MCM kits. If only part of the systems, may be.
Why not one of the B1s in the Baltics?
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 26 Jan 2024, 16:43
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 26 Jan 2024, 13:48 https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ad-to-2024

Later in the year, they will build on integration with Stirling Castle to show how MCM operations can be conducted from different platforms and they will also test a small patrol vessel in operations away from UK waters.

Likely a River B2?
- FIGS (HMS Forth), no.
- WIGS (HMS Medway), not likely.
- GibGS (HMS Trent), very likely, I guess?
- HMS Spey and Tamar, might be.

PS Another candidate is XV Patrick Blackett, but I'm afraid she is too small to take the full MCM kits. If only part of the systems, may be.
Why not one of the B1s in the Baltics?
I understand River B1 has no good crane.

wiki says they have, but never seen one with enough reach.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 03:24
Repulse wrote: 26 Jan 2024, 16:43
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 26 Jan 2024, 13:48 https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ad-to-2024

Later in the year, they will build on integration with Stirling Castle to show how MCM operations can be conducted from different platforms and they will also test a small patrol vessel in operations away from UK waters.

Likely a River B2?
- FIGS (HMS Forth), no.
- WIGS (HMS Medway), not likely.
- GibGS (HMS Trent), very likely, I guess?
- HMS Spey and Tamar, might be.

PS Another candidate is XV Patrick Blackett, but I'm afraid she is too small to take the full MCM kits. If only part of the systems, may be.
Why not one of the B1s in the Baltics?
I understand River B1 has no good crane.

wiki says they have, but never seen one with enough reach.


About 40 seconds in - it reportedly has a 25t crane vs a 16t crane on B2s. I’ve seen it documented that the flat deck was designed to provide space for MCM modules and can even accommodate / deploy a LCVP.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 07:56
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 03:24
Repulse wrote: 26 Jan 2024, 16:43 Why not one of the B1s in the Baltics?
I understand River B1 has no good crane.

wiki says they have, but never seen one with enough reach.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=F0SzS6M6F0w

About 40 seconds in - it reportedly has a 25t crane vs a 16t crane on B2s. I’ve seen it documented that the flat deck was designed to provide space for MCM modules and can even accommodate / deploy a LCVP.
I do not believe River B1 has 25t crane. It is written in wiki, states sometimes, but I never saw it.

The 16t crane of River B2
Image

25t Crane of Singapore Endurance class LSD
Image

The crane onboard River B1. Very small, short-arm. Cannot believe it is "a 25t crane". Even if true, it is for very short arm.
Image

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:14 I do not believe River B1 has 25t crane. It is written in wiki, states sometimes, but I never saw it.
Interesting, the RN website says a 25t can be fitted, so that could explain why we haven’t seen it. If it can load / unload containers the reach should be sufficient for most uses one would think.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ ... iver-class
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:20
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:14 I do not believe River B1 has 25t crane. It is written in wiki, states sometimes, but I never saw it.
Interesting, the RN website says a 25t can be fitted, so that could explain why we haven’t seen it. ..
Thanks. So, "not yet".
So, the MCM trial shall be onboard River B2.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 11:03
Repulse wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:20
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:14 I do not believe River B1 has 25t crane. It is written in wiki, states sometimes, but I never saw it.
Interesting, the RN website says a 25t can be fitted, so that could explain why we haven’t seen it. ..
Thanks. So, "not yet".
So, the MCM trial shall be onboard River B2.
Probably, though fitting a crane isn’t the biggest engineering challenge.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 11:26
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 11:03
Repulse wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:20
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 Jan 2024, 10:14 I do not believe River B1 has 25t crane. It is written in wiki, states sometimes, but I never saw it.
Interesting, the RN website says a 25t can be fitted, so that could explain why we haven’t seen it. ..
Thanks. So, "not yet".
So, the MCM trial shall be onboard River B2.
Probably, though fitting a crane isn’t the biggest engineering challenge.
As I am talking about the trial planned this year, I said River B1 is unlikely. Future is future.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

16 tonnes also happens to be the same weight the RR MMB handling system for T26 can take.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I think the RN ishoing to want to trial deoying MCM USV and USuV from a variety of platforms to see what works best in practice in a variety of locations i a variety of Sea States.

Ininitialy they were being triialled in Persian Gulf of Lyme Bay, they are shortly be about to be trialled in UK Home Waters of Stirling Castle, once she has completed FOST.

So a trial using these MCM USV and USuV off the much smaller (in displacement, length, beam and also crew requirements) seems to be a sensible addition of more trial data points that will enable the RN to make the long term optimal choice of how best to deploy them.

(And I am sure that the RB2 crews will appreciate themselves some variety in their service work, as according to some Forum members they must be tired of the non-stop cocktail parties that is apparently their sole purpose to RN).

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 14:20
Repulse wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 13:38
SW1 wrote: 24 Feb 2024, 17:01 I would joined the Dutch,Belgium and French program and built around 6-8 vessels…
Absolutely - 8 would allow the RN to commit a vessel permanently each to SNMCMG1, SNMCMG2 and Kipion, plus one “on call” for anything happening in UK waters.

Make it 10 and we’ve answered the B1 River replacement requirement.
We have already outgrown that design.
The RN plans to have 3 boats per MMCM system, and the french design ownly has 2 boat bays.
Then add the fact that we also have the SWEEP system which is at a minimum 1 ARCIMS boat and 3 Coil Auxillary Boats that I believe stack into the space of 1 ARCIMS.
Add on the Portable Command Centres, the multiple equipment changes for the USV's, future growth, UUV's, e.c.t, e.c.t then it is all to clear.
Unless things have changed recently the below is what the RN will receive as it’s deployed mcm capability.




The centrepiece of the RN’s moves toward autonomous mine hunting is the Anglo / French Maritime Mine Countermeasures (MCMM) / SLAMF (Système de Lutte Anti-Mines Futur) project. A consortium led by Thales Underwater Systems, BAE Systems, ECA (France) and L3Harris, Wood & Douglas and SAAB (UK) was awarded the contract in 2016 for the demonstration and assessment phase. This was successfully completed ahead of schedule and a joint manufacturing contract worth £184M was awarded in November 2020.

Each navy will receive 4 sets, the first complete system being due for delivery in late 2022 for evaluation prior to achieving Initial Operating Capability.

Each set comprises 4 main elements.

A Thales Portable Operation Center (POC) including Mission Management System and Mi-MAP software for post-mission analysis. Up to 3 systems deployed at sea can be controlled from the POC simultaneously. Control is exercised at all times via a secure Man In The Loop (MITL) communications channel.

Two Thales / L3Harris 12-metre USVs.
The USV will deploy a Towed Synthetic Aperture Multiviews (T-SAM) vehicle carrying a Synthetic Aperture & Mine Detection Imaging Sonar (SAMDIS), to detect, classify and locate mines. SAMDIS has a low-power requirement and its performance is theoretically equal or better than the much larger sonars used by the Sandown and Hunt class MCMVs, and provides Automatic Target Recognition (ATR).

The Multi-Shot Mine Neutralisation System (MuMNS), is used to visually locate and dispose of mines. It can be armed with up to 3 disposal munitions, This is an improvement on the single-shot Sea Fox ROV system currently in service with the RN (can be enhanced with a COBRA head for two shots).
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

How have you entirely missed SWEEP/ ARCIMS and MHC bock .2??

I believe you are looking at this outdated NL article that only focuses on Block 1.
https://www.navylookout.com/autonomous- ... e-warfare/

Block 1 entailed both your quote above and



We have moved on since then
The MHC programme is procuring up to 6
Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Maritime
Autonomous Mission Systems (MAS), up to 4
MCM (LSV) and a UK MCM (OSV) from the
spot market.
Quote from page 29 of the defence equipment plan referring to MHC Bk.2
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... o_2032.pdf
Block 1 consists of three operational demonstrator systems, one of which is now in the Gulf. The programme and is being brought online in parallel with the retirement of the Sandown class MCMVs between 2021-25. Block 1 is primarily focused on evaluation while Block 2 is the mainstay of the full replacement MCM capability. Block 2 procurement has begun and is funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
Quote from Navy lookout article
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... sharp-end/


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 15:36 How have you entirely missed SWEEP/ ARCIMS and MHC bock .2??

I believe you are looking at this outdated NL article that only focuses on Block 1.
https://www.navylookout.com/autonomous- ... e-warfare/

Block 1 entailed both your quote above and



We have moved on since then
The MHC programme is procuring up to 6
Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Maritime
Autonomous Mission Systems (MAS), up to 4
MCM (LSV) and a UK MCM (OSV) from the
spot market.
Quote from page 29 of the defence equipment plan referring to MHC Bk.2
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... o_2032.pdf
Block 1 consists of three operational demonstrator systems, one of which is now in the Gulf. The programme and is being brought online in parallel with the retirement of the Sandown class MCMVs between 2021-25. Block 1 is primarily focused on evaluation while Block 2 is the mainstay of the full replacement MCM capability. Block 2 procurement has begun and is funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
Quote from Navy lookout article
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... sharp-end/

No but none of that is on order yet nor any definitive statement that it will require more than 2 USVs nor does it change the fact that the same mothership vessel may not be doing minesweeping and mine hunting simultaneously.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 15:53
No but none of that is on order yet, nor does it change the fact that the same mothership vessel may not be doing minesweeping and mine hunting.
Wow you are stubborn.

1) Navy lookout article has said that the procurement of MHC block 2 has begun.
Block 2 procurement has begun and is funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... sharp-end/

2) Mine sweeping is typically done after a mine hunt in-order to activate any left-over mines or any missed. So you probably want to operate two £300m ships instead of 1 £100m one, right? Even if 80% of the time we don't operate them together, when we will we won't use 2x as much resources.

3) Even if 'none of it is in order', it's not like we don't already have Block.1 assets or that we won't order it or that we will marracously switch to something that can fit in the city class.

4) Yes the RN wants to operate 3 boat systems. But even if we don't, the City class is still 3x as expensive, slower introduction into service, Has no growth room, and can't include our other systems.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 16:26
SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 15:53
No but none of that is on order yet, nor does it change the fact that the same mothership vessel may not be doing minesweeping and mine hunting.
Wow you are stubborn.

1) Navy lookout article has said that the procurement of MHC block 2 has begun.
Block 2 procurement has begun and is funded to deliver up to six mission systems and three Logistics Support Vessels.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... sharp-end/

2) Mine sweeping is typically done after a mine hunt in-order to activate any left-over mines or any missed. So you probably want to operate two £300m ships instead of 1 £100m one, right? Even if 80% of the time we don't operate them together, when we will we won't use 2x as much resources.

3) Even if 'none of it is in order', it's not like we don't already have Block.1 assets or that we won't order it or that we will marracously switch to something that can fit in the city class.

4) Yes the RN wants to operate 3 boat systems. But even if we don't, the City class is still 3x as expensive, slower introduction into service, Has no growth room, and can't include our other systems.
Not stubborn realistic.

You clearly didn’t read the naval architects reasons of why such a vessel of the size and capability of the city class is optimal for mine countermeasures. What is also interesting is that it was UK naval architects analysis, then a whole other bunch of other naval architects in different countries came to the same conclusion.

Your conjecture on grow potential only.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 16:43
Not stubborn realistic.

You clearly didn’t read the naval architects reasons of why such a vessel of the size and capability of the city class is optimal for mine countermeasures. What is also interesting is that it was UK naval architects analysis, then a whole other bunch of other naval architects in different countries came to the same conclusion.

Your conjecture on grow potential only.
Did you read the Naval Architects paper?
Tell me, does this sound more like the City class or the LSV's?
3.6 EMBARKING THE MCM TOOLBOX
Unmanned technologies are evolving fast so the ship
(which is designed for a life of at least 25 years) is
expected to embark several generations of the MCM
toolbox over its lifetime. Hence, it is fundamental that
the ship’s design is able to readily accommodate these
different solutions without incurring significant cost or
impact to its availability.
To achieve this flexibility, an approach was adopted
similar to that used by the offshore sector where the ships
are adapted frequently to embark and deploy different
project payloads.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 17:02
SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 16:43
Not stubborn realistic.

You clearly didn’t read the naval architects reasons of why such a vessel of the size and capability of the city class is optimal for mine countermeasures. What is also interesting is that it was UK naval architects analysis, then a whole other bunch of other naval architects in different countries came to the same conclusion.

Your conjecture on grow potential only.
Did you read the Naval Architects paper?
Tell me, does this sound more like the City class or the LSV's?
3.6 EMBARKING THE MCM TOOLBOX
Unmanned technologies are evolving fast so the ship
(which is designed for a life of at least 25 years) is
expected to embark several generations of the MCM
toolbox over its lifetime. Hence, it is fundamental that
the ship’s design is able to readily accommodate these
different solutions without incurring significant cost or
impact to its availability.
To achieve this flexibility, an approach was adopted
similar to that used by the offshore sector where the ships
are adapted frequently to embark and deploy different
project payloads.
Yes it does

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 17:18
new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 17:02
Did you read the Naval Architects paper?
Tell me, does this sound more like the City class or the LSV's?
3.6 EMBARKING THE MCM TOOLBOX
Unmanned technologies are evolving fast so the ship
(which is designed for a life of at least 25 years) is
expected to embark several generations of the MCM
toolbox over its lifetime. Hence, it is fundamental that
the ship’s design is able to readily accommodate these
different solutions without incurring significant cost or
impact to its availability.
To achieve this flexibility, an approach was adopted
similar to that used by the offshore sector where the ships
are adapted frequently to embark and deploy different
project payloads.
Yes it does
that's not what I asked.
And no, the city class does not have the capacity for any Growth room, I mean it doesn't even have enough room for the RN right now!
If anyone has conjecture it's you.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 17:24
SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 17:18
new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 17:02
Did you read the Naval Architects paper?
Tell me, does this sound more like the City class or the LSV's?
3.6 EMBARKING THE MCM TOOLBOX
Unmanned technologies are evolving fast so the ship
(which is designed for a life of at least 25 years) is
expected to embark several generations of the MCM
toolbox over its lifetime. Hence, it is fundamental that
the ship’s design is able to readily accommodate these
different solutions without incurring significant cost or
impact to its availability.
To achieve this flexibility, an approach was adopted
similar to that used by the offshore sector where the ships
are adapted frequently to embark and deploy different
project payloads.
Yes it does
that's not what I asked.
And no, the city class does not have the capacity for any Growth room, I mean it doesn't even have enough room for the RN right now!
If anyone has conjecture it's you.
Yes it does sound like the city class if that’s clearer.

Stuffing all your eggs and multiple tasks into one big unsuitable basket does not equal growth.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 18:16

Yes it does sound like the city class if that’s clearer.

Stuffing all your eggs and multiple tasks into one big unsuitable basket does not equal growth.
??? we can get more LSV's for the price of City class purchases so if anything it is more baskets.

Also in no possible world does the below sound more like the city class than the LSV's.
Unmanned technologies are evolving fast so the ship
(which is designed for a life of at least 25 years) is
expected to embark several generations of the MCM
toolbox
over its lifetime. Hence, it is fundamental that
the ship’s design is able to readily accommodate these
different solutions without incurring significant cost or
impact to its availability.
To achieve this flexibility, an approach was adopted
similar to that used by the offshore sector where the ships
are adapted frequently to embark and deploy different
project payloads.
I have repeated again and again why the LSV's are better so to switch it up can you explain in your opinion why the city class is better?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

new guy wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 19:28
SW1 wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 18:16

Yes it does sound like the city class if that’s clearer.

Stuffing all your eggs and multiple tasks into one big unsuitable basket does not equal growth.
??? we can get more LSV's for the price of City class purchases so if anything it is more baskets.

Also in no possible world does the below sound more like the city class than the LSV's.
Unmanned technologies are evolving fast so the ship
(which is designed for a life of at least 25 years) is
expected to embark several generations of the MCM
toolbox
over its lifetime. Hence, it is fundamental that
the ship’s design is able to readily accommodate these
different solutions without incurring significant cost or
impact to its availability.
To achieve this flexibility, an approach was adopted
similar to that used by the offshore sector where the ships
are adapted frequently to embark and deploy different
project payloads.
I have repeated again and again why the LSV's are better so to switch it up can you explain in your opinion why the city class is better?
I though I already had, the 8 pages of that report before that final quote you continually repeat which explains the what and where the ship needs to be to conduct the operation and why it should be a vessel who’s particulars are almost identical to what the Dutch, Belgians and French designed.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Anyone know what the Echo Class crane could handle? Appreciate the A-frame probably isn't up to the task.

Image

Wonder how much life we could have gotten from them if the money (and crew) was there.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1240
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by new guy »

Jensy wrote: 26 Feb 2024, 23:58 Anyone know what the Echo Class crane could handle? Appreciate the A-frame probably isn't up to the task.

Image

Wonder how much life we could have gotten from them if the money (and crew) was there.
Thought about that too.
From what I have found below, I think the rear deck on the echo class is about 1/3 the size of the working deck on RFA Stirling castle
561 sqm vs ~200 sqm

Image
1) In the Picture we can see SMB Sapphire, which was set to be replaced with one of the 11m SEA class under project vahana
Eyeballing it, I would say on the port side you could have 2 ARCIMS Boats (11m) or maybe if you are very lucky 2 MMCM (12m) boats. Would require new davit's or a new crane.

In the top left of this image we can see the render for the modified Echo's apon receiving the new 11m boats.

Image

the tightness of 2 boats on portside can be confirmed by this picture of a 40ft (12m) container on the deck.

Image

I wouldn't even try thinking about adding another boat on the portside as we still need space for general equipment, the Portable Operations centre, if using ARCIMS / SWEEP then the the 3 CABS that each of them need e.c.t.

In conclusion it would require a refit of the vessel, one that can't operate both SWEEP and MMCM at the same time, has no growth room and on a hull that has already seen 20 years of service life.

A question I would ask instead is why wasn't HMS Enterprise (HMS Echo was let go a few years earlier) retained to do MROSS, which is basically what she was doing before? That RFA Proteus vs HMS Enterprise question is one that seems to be more appropriate to ask, but one that is also easier to answer: Cost.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
Jensy

Post Reply