Subscribe
Notify of
guest
44 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AlexS

How much sea state can this boats can operate on?

stephen ball

AEUK ARCIMS ASW – YouTube

ARCIMS_SeaSense_Brochure.pdf (atlas-elektronik.com) Page 7

This bespoke system uses a cradle to safely release and capture the transmit body underwater in conditions up to sea state 3/4

AlexS

Thanks.

Cam

probably hurricane type sea state, not sure how how good the data will be though..lol

Harold G Brathwhaite

I ain’t no expert but, can these things seriously replace the Hunt’s and Sandown’s in all the current areas of interest or are they just some Techno Geeks pipe dream ?

Armchair Admiral

You have to wonder. A Hunt or Sandown surely has serious persistence compared to a smallish drone boat and sea state 3/4 doesn’t sound much ALTHOUGH as an armchair expert I have no idea as to the sea state limit that minehunting can be carried out in. Perhaps those in the know will advise..
AA

donald_of_tokyo

Another issue is, even if Hunt or Sandown can steam in high sea state, they can perform MCM operations at what sea state?

Might be not so different from those with MCM Drons?

X

Mine counter measures are always evolving. These new systems aren’t the problem. The problem is the idea that this capability can be placed into a few containers and just ‘dumped’ where it is needed and use whatever hulls are to hand. Seapower is about ships. The Navy now thinks it doesn’t need ships to deliver effects. And that is troubling.

donald_of_tokyo

I’m not sure if it is troubling. In the Gulf, now 4 UK MCMVs are operating in team, supported by a Bay LSD. I understand they can be replaced with 4-sets of autonomous MCM systems operated from the Bay.

For other tasks (or even for Gulf), RN is planning (a few?) Minecountermeasure Logistic Support Vessel in the reviced ship-building strategy. River B2 had carried the MCM control system onboard at London show. With these two additional “ship classes” to join the MCM support roles, almost no problem I see.

X

That you don’t says a lot about your understanding of the problems.

donald_of_tokyo

Militiary is effect base. If MCM operations can be done by autonomous kits, no need for useless mother ship.

To increase “available ships” at sea, RN had already adopted the highly versatile River B2 OPV. Five of them are actively working all around the globe with rotating crews, with very high availability (or sea-going days), none of the MCMV can achieve.

Many escorts are back at sea. Situation is much better than 2-3 years ago. Losing 12 MCMVs and getting a dozen of autonomous MCM kits AND several MCLSVs will be good enough, I guess?

Cam

But the mcmvs also act as patrol boats out there helping with security! And having 4 is really handy, should we have something like say the p2000 out there to help patrol, we do have two Schimitars for sale so why not put them out there or even at our new naval base out that way. God knows why we are selling them, they are really handy for security…

7FDFB671-0548-4A56-BDCC-F0B7C0B75E50.jpeg
Cam

Far too few ships, and I heard we will be losing more ship from the RN!! That’s on top of all the mcmvs, 2 scimitars, Hms Scott, RFA Argus is up for sale, so Egypt or Brazil might buy thus losing another very handy asset like Scott..!!!, not sure what the other ones we will be losing yet but we supposed to be, Any ideas?

Cam

The mines are patrol boats too though so we will be losing more than 50% of our patrol boats.

donald_of_tokyo

Uhm. But, RN have recently added 5 River B2 patrol vessels, to make the OPV fleet made of 8 vessels. Additional 4 OPVs can cover more than 8 MCMVs in sea-going days, and as MCMVs are spending significant time on MCM operations, while OPVs are specialist patrol ship.

I guess, the patrol taskings covered by 14 MCMVs are already overwhelmed by “4 more OPVs”? And, RN is going to have a few MCLSVs. Thus, at least in patrol aspects, I see no problem here.

Autonomous systems are not for free. They need money, and they also need dedicated crew (unmanned does not mean maintenance free nor operation crew free).

Cam

Yeah agree, and I know the MCMVs patrol duties are poor compared to the opvs, but it’s still their second duty and the 4 in the gulf backed up with a bay mothership gives them a better patrol capability.

And yeah autonomous systems still need expensive highly trained specialist crews and equipment and logistics, I’m not sure how much if any the RN will save by ditching the mcmvs for autonomous platforms, Supose depends on the number of systems they buy and if they do build dedicated motherships.

I noticed the Portuguese had this autonomous OPV that can sail far and wide patrolling, looks great.

189F6A9A-1B27-4A30-A72F-1CB4BD781808.jpeg
Last edited 1 month ago by Cam
Joe16

You make a fair point, but last time I checked none of our OPVs are going to be based in the Gulf, which is where our 4-ship of MCMVs is located. That means we’re removing an admittedly limited patrolling capability without replacement. If I recall, one of those MCMVs provided escort to a British tanker being bothered by the Iranians 12-18 months ago when they were all hot under the collar- because they were in the vicinity and could. We could really do with another River B2 to base in the gulf to be honest, in addition to the T23/T31 that will be there. That way they can sail back and forth through the area. But here I go with fanatasy fleets, which I always try to avoid…!

donald_of_tokyo

Thanks.
Now there are 4 MCMVs there, so no need for OPV. In 5-10 years future, this will change.

But, important thing is, RN do have River B2. Also, Mine Coutermeasre Logistic Support Vessel may also come in. IF NEEDED, they will be there. IF NOT NEEDED (there are couple of designs of USV for patrol), they won’t be. But, anyway, I “think” no need for 4+1LSD assets there, less number of hull can handle it (because MCM tasks are covered bu the USVs).

How about

  • 1 OPV + 1 LSD (with 4 autonomous MCM kits), in addition to 1 GP frigate? or
  • 2 MCLSV with 4 autonomous MCM kits (2 each)? or
  • 1LSD + 4 autonomous MCM kits + 4 patrol autonomous USVs?

Many options are there.

Last edited 29 days ago by donald_of_tokyo
BB85

I think the argument about the current vessels secondary role as an OPV isn’t valid. In a shooting war in the gulf it is completely useless and a soft target if the Iranians wanted to surround one and take it back for propaganda. If we need OPVs in the gulf we need to deploy OPVs. The unmanned mine counter measures is the only way to go and hopefully we will get a good few exports in the Middle East and Asia out of the R&D as well.

Cam

How about get HMS Spey out the Gulf. Do we need two opvs in the Far East.

X

It doesn’t matter how good these drones are without hulls to carry them it is too much of a compromise. This sort of compromise seen all to often through out British defence.
comment image

AlexS

I think that is the Dutch version isn’t it?

Here is the Italian, 80m and it will be in GRP.

Intermarine-MCM_02.jpg
Armchair Admiral

Much poo-pooed at the time I believe but surely this non other than the “black swan” sloop-of-war concept?
Quote “The future ‘Black Swan’ class sloop-of-war is a manned ship that will act as the core for a group of manned and unmanned platforms which, as an integrated system, will provide the units of power required by those surface assets tasked with the protection of Sea Lines of Communication and sea control.”
See, the admiralty was ahead of its time!
AA

X

No. Black Swan was wishy washy rhubarb. The hull is the cheapest part of the overall system. But it the foundation of which everything else is built. Something that isn’t grasped here most often.

X

Yes. I just picked it at random. Like most things we need more than size. As China’s reach expands and Russia re-establish themselves we will need to look at protecting the SSBN’s routes to and from the open ocean. But we will also need a robust hull for global deployment. We are buying broom heads without handles.

The hull has utility of its own. And it is the fundamental element of naval warfare along with a trained crew acting as an element of a larger force. As we are about to find out in the Channel you can’t have too many hulls.

Harold G Brathwhaite

You think like a Visionary from 1939…………. We currently live in the late 30’s truth be known. again !

AlexS

Click to zoom the Italian MCMV image, the quantity of device acronyms is staggering.

Cam

Agree, we need something, and no need for expensive frigates either.. something
like this that the French have ordered, this is their fourth just built.

39C6BBE7-0137-4C43-B8AB-0E0E0BCD3FAB.jpeg
donald_of_tokyo

Agree. And that is why Mine Countermeasure Logistic Support Vessels are planned.

Cam

I didn’t know they were planned, where can I read the details? I thought the type 32 was going to deploy autonomous mcmv

donald_of_tokyo
Cam

Cheers

Cam

.

14FAE242-F6A0-4E3F-8CD7-B4FB429406AF.jpeg
Last edited 1 month ago by Cam
X

I can’t be bothered to go down the modularity rabbit hole today. Saying that how about we just use this instead of all the other type of aircraft we use?

comment image

It has wings. Plenty of space for modules. Everything we need.

Heck that one is even operated by a foreign government, always our government’s preferred course of action.

Harold G Brathwhaite

Once again though, we have far too few.

X

True. But imagine the savings if we replaced everything with A400m from the Grob to Typhoon? Imagine the savings.

Cam

Shouldn’t we base some ASW Merlins near Faslane for helping out keeping the area patrolled, also do the Merlins have external fuel tank capabilities? For added much longer Range and so they can Patrol for longer or even for crows-nest to keep it Airborne for far longer as wasn’t that one of crowsnests weaknesses Range and duration and having Merlins with longer legs on the carriers would be a great idea no? external tanks would solve both range and duration problems wouldn’t they

Is it just commando Merlins that have all the refuelling pipework fitted or do they all have? Also Can airtanker refuel any of our choppers? Chinook or that? Or even merlin if they get probes?, shame we couldn’t get the commando Merlins with probes and convert some outgoing c130js to tankers for refuelling our choppers, that’s a capabilitys we should have. Hell let’s convert some of our outgoing Hercs to the American style gunship with howitzers aboard ect lol I hope we keep the c130s or Atleast get another order of A400a, anyone know when the last two are getting delivered? Or have we cancelled them! Like we done with the other a400s.

FA2D2DBC-774A-4BA5-A332-A128B5B20EA5.jpeg
Last edited 1 month ago by Cam
donald_of_tokyo

How about this? ARCIMS ASW operations. (from stephen ball’s comment above…)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvWkCBEOAUA

Merlin can fly only 10-20% of a day in high-tempo operation, and much less (a few %) throughout its life cycle. On the other hand, I’m not surprised if ARCIMS ASW can be on station 50% in high-tempo operation, and 33% or more throughout its life cycle. What is more, a few ARCIMS ASW will be even cheaper than a Merlin.

Cam

Or this kind of tanks

B03B0250-3F38-4094-BEB9-5D83D11A5D0B.jpeg
Captain P Wash

This Drone stuff is Stupid in my mind………… Hello again chaps.

X

It isn’t daft. These systems are getting cleverer and more independent. But they are still fragile and still need looking after. The problem is more than many on sites like this over estimate them across the board. And still trot out the idea that we just drop a module on a hull and get to it with out reference to anything else. All that says to me is they have no understanding of hardly anything naval be it architecture of ships or the way organisation works or any aspect. Neither the RN nor HMG is competent. Yet individuals who would question government actions in other spheres happily throw support behind anything the MoD produces.

Joe16

I agree that autonomous/unmanned systems have a lot of utility and will only get more and more useful.
But I think
there is something in modularity- it just depends on what you’re trying to
achieve. There are some specialist roles that require a “custom”
platform and specifically trained crew across the vessel- I am specifically
thinking of ASW, but I imagine that AAD would likely be another one. Others,
where the quietness of the hull is less important and the crew’s day-to-day
behaviour is less impactful on the mission, could be more easily modular. I
would say that operating unmanned systems for mine clearance, route finding,
enhanced/distributed patrolling, and potentially even surface warfare all fall
under this category. This is where I think there is value in bolt on modules.
I know that the biggest example of the perils of modularity are the USN LCS. Aside from the technical challenges of creating the modules (which doesn’t really say anything about the operating philosophy), I understand that the biggest problems encountered were the idea that you could switch out these modules very quickly and have a “generalist” crew undertake specialised missions with minimal work up. Their solution has been to permanently fit specialist modules to specific LCS hulls and dedicate them to that function. A less ambitious approach to modularity, but one that makes more sense. Although I’m still not convinced that a 40 kt jet boat is the appropriate hull for ASW, but that falls into my specialist roles bit above.

Deep32

Welcome back, good to see you posting again?

Deep32

Welcome back, good to see you posting again!