As the RN begins the transition from crewed minehunters to autonomous systems, the first boat has been deployed to Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. This is a small but significant step and much rests upon the success of this vessel in the operational environment.
The persistent threat of mines
The RN has maintained a forward-deployed mine warfare capability in the Gulf for the last 17 years, typically four MCMVs based in Bahrain for several years with crews rotating in and out from the UK. This force has already been reduced to three, currently comprising HMS Chiddingfold, Middleton and Bangor supported by RFA Cardigan Bay. The Gulf is undoubtedly the sharp end of RN mine warfare activity with the Iranian threat to mine the confined waters traversed by ships that deliver oil and gas across the world an ever-present possibility.
The humble sea mine or IED of the sea poses a complex and evolving challenge to all naval forces. Mine countermeasures is a foundational capability for any serious navy – there is little point in investing £Billions in countering the latest hypersonic anti-ship missiles if your fleet cannot leave port due to the presence of relatively simple mines. Since 1950, the US Navy has suffered 15 warship casualties seriously damaged by mines compared to just 5 damaged by other means of attack. The RN is considered a world leader in MCM and the US Navy, which, perhaps surprisingly has not invested enough in mine countermeasures, sees it as a partner that can help mitigate this weakness.
In a conflict with peer adversaries, as an island nation, the UK is vulnerable to maritime blockade. Mines may be used to impede the passage of merchant ships either in shallow waters and maritime choke points around the globe or even in the ports, harbours and estuaries of the UK. Mines can also exert a direct military effect denying sea areas and preventing naval operations in the littoral.
The threat of mines in the Firth of Clyde and its approaches that could put deterrent submarines and valuable SSNs at risk are given particular priority by the RN. Route surveys (RTSV) of the area produce detailed seabed data which must be updated regularly, making it easier to spot newly laid mines. This is especially important in areas where the seafloor is very uneven with lots of Non-Mine, mine-like Bottom Objects (NOMBO) where it is easier for a potential adversary to lay and disguise mines. Project WILTON has delivered the first uncrewed RTSV capability based at Faslane which will be further enhanced with the arrival of RFA Stirling Castle, dramatically expanding the reach and range of autonomous MCM.
Mines are an attractive and cheap asymmetric weapon, particularly for weaker naval powers, they can be laid relatively easily and the technology continues to develop. Mines can range dramatically in size and complexity. The simple contact mines just below the surface anchored by cables to a sinker on the seabed, little different to those used in the First World War are still a danger to shipping and have been deployed in the Black Sea recently.
Far more sophisticated mines have been developed including devices that can lie dormant on the bottom for months, pre-programmed to activate when signalled or when particular types of ship or submarine noise signatures are detected. Smart, mobile torpedo-like mines with AI capabilities that can reposition or swim to targets and potentially evade MCM forces are also possible. Removing sailors and divers from minefields that are becoming increasingly dangerous is a key objective of the move to autonomous systems.
High-definition sonar will remain the key tool for localising suspicious objects but instead of a small number of hull-mounted systems, will ultimately comprise lighter, more mobile and more numerous sensors. The new autonomous systems will be remotely controlled, at least for the first generation but will still be reliant on the skills of the operator. Processing sonar data with AI may speed up mine recognition and discrimination but the operator must still decide on the course of action and manoeuvre the disposal vehicle laying explosive demolition charges.
MHC
The Mine Hunting Capability (MHC) programme is the RN project to that will entirely replace the MCMVs with autonomous systems by 2033. MHC is divided into two main delivery blocks. 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.
-
MTXG Containerised Portable Operations Centre (POC) embarked on RFA Cardigan Bay ahead of IMX23 (Photo: Commander UK MCMF). -
With HMS Lancaster alongside in Bahrain (Photo: Commander UK MCMF) -
RNMB Harrier returns to mother (Photo: Commander UK MCMF). -
RNMB Harrier will initially be equipped with the Klein MA-X View 600 integrated single beam side scan and gap filler sonar. (Image: MIND Technology). -
Sonar is deployed from the stern of the boat using a bespoke launch and recovery system (LARS). (Image: AEUK) -
The modular SeaCat autonomous underwater vessel configured with a synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) system is being delivered by AEUK, further enhancing RN mine-detection capabilities. AEUK previously supplied the SeaFox remote mine disposal system that has been operated by the RN’s MCMVs for many years (Image: AEUK).
Harrier lands
RNMB Harrier arrived in Bahrain in early 2023. She is one of five 11-metre boats owned by the RN and built by Atlas Electronic in Dorset. (The other 11m boats are RNMB Hussar, Hazard, Halcyon, Harrier and Hydra. A larger 15-m SEA Class boat, RNMB Hebe is based on the Clyde as part of WILTON). The 11m boats are small enough to be air-transportable by RAF A400M and C-17 aircraft and could also be deployed from the Mission Bay of a Type 26 frigate.
Harrier is not the first boat to deploy to the Gulf, in October 2020 RNMB Halcyon conducted an initial 10-day Sweep Demonstrator hot weather trial run by the RN’s Maritime Autonomous Systems Trial Team (MASTT) and AEUK staff. (Cold weather trials were conducted in Canada during February 2020). RNMB Harrier is the first to be integrated into the operational environment and will operate from RFA Cardigan Bay under the command of the new Mine Threat Exploitation Group (MTXG) established in 2022. Besides testing her from a technical perspective, Harrier will be used to develop the concept of operations and refine command and control systems, integrating with the MCM battlestaff, the UK’s Naval Support Facility in Bahrain and allied nations. Harrier’s first major trial was during the recent 3-week International Maritime Exercise (IMX23 held 26 Feb – 16 Mar) which saw multi-national mine warfare forces deployed in the Gulf and trialling various autonomous systems.
Harrier can operate either manually, be remotely controlled or pre-programmed to conduct a mission autonomously without human intervention. For now, she is only equipped with sensors to detect mines, full mine disposal capability using ROVs is not yet operational. It should be noted that the RN says this is part of a phased approach to bringing in new technology and will be used “to evaluate MHC performance in the Gulf against MCMV capabilities, to inform the transition timeframe”.
Harrier is also capable of delivering the RN’s restored minesweeping capability. Coil Auxiliary Boats (CABs) which simulate the acoustic or magnetic signatures of ships to trigger mines or confirm their presence are towed behind the boat. This is an inherently more risky method than using sonar and then using UUVs to lay demolition charges. However, this is a quicker way to clear a path ahead of a naval force when time is precious and is an ideal task for uncrewed systems.
SeaCat
In April 2022 AEUK were awarded a £32M contract to supply nine SeaCat UUVs as part of the MHC project. SeaCat is a modular submersible with parts that can be quickly swapped out and the RN systems will be equipped with a synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) system and Seebyte Neptune advanced planning and analysis software. AEUK has collaborated with Swedish specialists, Lidan Marine to develop a launch and recovery system (LARS) so that SeaCat can be deployed from either RNMB Harrier and her sister boats or the SEA Class boats.
SAS is very high resolution and can map a site at up to 30 times the resolution of traditional side scan sonar. The ability to deploy a submersible in the water with SAS will complement the Thales-made Synthetic Aperture & Mine Detection Imaging Sonar (SAMDIS). SAMDIS is towed body that will equip the autonomous boats being procured for the MMCM programme that forms the main part of MHC Block 2.
A system of systems approach to MCM will provide the RN with a toolkit of different vehicles, sensors and effectors that can be deployed from the autonomous boats. This offers the flexibility to select the best option to complete the mission, depending on water depth, sonar conditions, visibility, weather and type of mine threat.
How we should be doing it……….
Asking France to build our ships? I doubt that will go down too well in Parliament. But more seriously, why do you think the Dutch/Belgian system will work better than ours?
I can’t see where I said France should build our ships. Underline it for me.
France are building these ships.
And where did I say France should build our ships. That is all I want to know. Where did I say it?
You know when I follow something with “but more seriously”, it means I was joking beforehand. The point I was making is that I could only guess at why you preferred the Belgian solution and wanted clarification.
You posted again, clarifying your original point. So thank you.
He only can read Chinese 😉
UK has no money anyway
I’m unsure how building a large mother ship before Gen1 of *deployed* UAV in hunters is totally bedded down is the best use of resources?
Well the Dutch, Belgians, and French seem to have plan. Is this another of those ‘the RN oh so clever’ moments? What a stupid post that was of yours.
the Naval Service has a mine hunter ‘mothership’ newly arrived, yes , it wasnt built in UK either
https://www.navylookout.com/mothership-to-support-autonomous-mine-hunting-systems-arrives-in-the-uk/
Newly Purchased though, It’s some way from entering service with the RN in it’s new intended role, She’s pretty good as a base from what I saw. Just needs a dazzle paint job and a few taxpayers £££’s and a spare chopper to make her good. Cheers. Phil.
I am not convinced by these auxiliary ships without any anti-missile anti drone defence.
If there are five boats how does that equate to more sensors given the number of Sandowns and ultimately Hunts they’ll replace? Does each of the new MCM boats deploy that many SeaCats, or can we expect a lot more of the optionally-manned boats? The idea that an autonomous boat could launch, operate and recover SeaCats and ROVs is a bit mindblowing. Will the autonomous software in the boat run the ROVs or will it pass control to the mothership after launch?
It’s also interesting that minesweeping’s back. Didn’t the Hunts originally have that capability? Still no minelaying though; I’m rather glad about that.
We currently have 9 MCM vessels (3xSandown, 6xHunt) in service, so you might argue that it’s eventually a 1-1swop!
However, notwithstanding how effective or not these unmanned systems turn out to be, we still lose the tertiary roles the current classes have. These systems will still require mother’s hips when operating away from friendly shorelines, which is ultimately what @X is getting at with the pictures of the Franco/Belgium MCM.
Not sure what the differences in crews between both approaches would be, as both require varying degrees of manpower?
There were 28 Hunt’s and Sandown’s built though, it’s depressing when you look back at times.
We had a larger fleet generally then too. But yes, depressing it is.
Maneuver on and from the sea are the twin fundamentals of naval warfare. No dedicated hull undermines those fundamentals.
A lack of potential motherships is worrying, but if we get enough MRSS I’m okay with it. We can’t just say they’ll fit in a Type 26 mission bay, because it’s not like we’ll have enough of those to go around. Our Bay class are so overloaded with duties, we can’t keep making the mistake of claiming that because we have a few ships that can do a lot of things, we can do all those things at the same time. It’s not a true capability if it relies on draining another capabilty.
Why would you even look to basing them on a frigate in the first place? Why? Do you know what an escort does and what it is for?
But they could be based on relatively cheap commercial vessels?
When has the MoD done anything relatively cheap?
RFA Stirling Castle, RFA Proteus, T31 Class, HMS Ocean, Invincible Class, HMS Argus, all spring to mind ????????♂️
And if you compare them to the new Ford class, the QE carriers look a bargain too!
HMS Ocean? Are the Brazilians going to lets us have her back? The Invincible class are all razor blades now. HMS Argus? It is RFA Argus Huge ship so a waste of a ship T31 is a frigate. We don’t have enough escorts so let’s tie one up doing an inappropriate task.
The Dutch are buying 6 new purpose built MCM ships. How does us buying some cheap second hand commercial hulls compare? We had the biggest MCM fleet once in NATO.
And you call me stupid.
The QE’s and the Ford’s don’t compare. You really are clueless.
Tides, T31, QEC are actually relatively to their peers.
I wouldn’t look to base them on Type 26; that’s a premise in the article, not something I’d advocate. On the other hand I might want to base them on a Type 31 in the Gulf or a Type 32 in one of the LRGs. That could add flexibility.
Nobody knows what T32 will look like or it will happen. Why do you all obsess about it?
The LRG’s are a joke.
I would want something better that a frigate as a depot ship.
Because that may be the ship you have in the region. Since the RN is planning to forward base frigates and this capability can be flow out to a region why not.
We should keep the vessels we have. We have perfectly good MCMV ships, brought and paid for years ago. Why do we keep decommissioning ships that have been paid for? Enterprise, Echo, MCMVs
I fully buy the argument that autonomous tech can replace much of what these boats can do, but there will be situations where people are required to get their hands dirty and we need to keep some Sandowns and Hunts for this situations.
Maybe being 20 yrs old has something to do with it. Needs a major refit to get another 10 years?
Greetings from a rather abysmal Plymouth, I must say, I’m not really getting these little boats with their limited seakeeping capabilities personally, Anyone else a bit concerned ?
I am. But they are drones so they are super and duper. And there will be a million comments here in support of the idea.
I suppose that the theory is that the mothership will anchor outside the mine field and then send the autonomous unmanned boats to take care of the mines. In this way, the mother ship has no need to have expensive fiberglass, wood or stainless steel magnetic hull and equipment.
It is a clever way to decrease the cost of the MCM fleet.
Just a question I cannot find an easy solution to.
How do you know where the mine field starts and ends, in order to know where to anchor your cheap commercial standard mother ship?
Who said they had to anchor to deploy the autonomous searcher vehicle first to check the proposed anchorage out
Ok, I reformulate my question. How do you know that NOW it is better to to stop and deploy one or more autonomous searcher vehicles because you are coming close to the first mine of the mine field ?
Sometimes geography will dictate the need to sweep. The channels leading to and from your base or choke points. Route surveillance…
Sometimes something will have to blow up………..
These systems are just the next stage of development of equipment already in use. What many here don’t grasp for some odd reason is that AI is very stupid and equipment has to have a degree of endurance. I think they have watched too much sci-fi. I think they expect something the size of a torpedo to be dropped off a ship and then in an hour for it to pop up sea bed swept clear.
Thank you for description of MCM ships. Often I have wondered why they never felt metallic if you touched the hull. Or why edges were rounded off parts of the engines and so on. Or all that non-ferrous metal. I just thought they did it for fun and fashion….who knew it had a purpose? Gosh! I go to the foot of our stairs.
As someone who works in technology development your comment about AI is the only stupid thing here.
I have been around IT for forty years plus. I don’t give a tuppence about your opinion.
Well X & Sean, you are both right! Think of AI like an idiot savant. Really genius at what it is suppose to do (best case), but really stupid at anything outside specific parameters. I think ChatGPT illustrates this, but so does Alpha GO. It ain’t Sci-Fi, yet.
And really dangerous well outside its limits!
That describes Liz Truss to a T.
I think its moved on from yours ( and mine) era of boxes of computer printout, batch processing
This is Yamaha motobot with a humanoid robot also using AI riding a standard motorbike…. almost as good as top class rider- and far better than every day bikers
Well as an “every day biker”, I’ve never needed stabilisers either on track or road….. Not sure what experience you have of Motorbikes and Every day riding ?
Doesn’t seem the motobot can put it’s foot out when slowing to a stop, but can ride around an actual racetrack faster than you could.
It seems that like ordinary riders-you and me(once) -it still can put the bike in a slide. Maybe they don’t want to damage their expensive ai android ?
So you know all about my riding history and feel arrogant enough to state that here. Deary me you get better every single post !
You said you were an ‘everyday rider’ , not me! . Its simple to assume you have had a skid or slide on road or ground at some time
You were the one bringing your riding into it – I was talking about motobot , not you.
But isnt about you, its just a a further piece of information for some blockheads who have no real idea of the advances in software and AI.
As always you ignore your initial post comments which you said that Yamabot is way better than “every day riders”, to which I am one with 44 years of road and track riding experience, you then referred to “Ordinary Bikers” with a typical arrogance and you then throw in the equally arrogant comment “It’s not about you”. I would suggest you step back a bit before writing such inaccurate comments on things you seem to have no actual idea about… having said that, I guess you would not be able to live your life on this site without posting the thousands of comments whilst feeling far superior and putting down other contributors.
Anyway, Sun’s coming up and I’m off out for a nice ride today and despite being an “ordinary Biker” I still have no trouble mounting and dismounting my 220BHP ZZR1400, unlike Yamabot who requires Human help and Stabilisers.( the future !!! lol )
Yamaha makes the claim, ( heard of them ?) I knew nothing about it until yesterday
Yamaha MOTOBOT 2 vs. Valentino Rossi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjZPvXKewFk
Actually AI is getting some pretty stunning results in healthcare, systems like Brave AI are particularly good at spotting when someone is at risk of hospitalisation or exasperation of a LTC. Other systems have had some very good results in predicting cancer etc.
It works in very controlled circumstance. As I have said more than once I am not criticizing the choice of system. What I have problems with is the collective here thinking we are getting something straight from Star Trek that costs bugger all, needs no personnel, and can be magically plonked onto everything from a rowboat to a carrier just like that and this will hall happen in a permissive environment. Never mind losing general utility. To be honest I am surprised you lot are so keen on T32 and not just pushing for a collection of kit in shipping containers. Lastly why is everybody else buying new MCM huls and only the RN think they can get away with the systems in boxes? Again is the RN right? I doubt it.
I don’t think there is anyone who thinks an autonomous system can go off and work in every environment, you actually have to have the hulls with people on to have all the people as well as self defence. But what you can do is create a very good set of capability agnostic platforms that are designed to house and manage whatever capacity you plop in them. As well as creating platform agnostic capabilities that are air mobile and can be flown out to mate with the platform…if you can do this then why would you not.
The problem with just going with the autonomous system and leaving it the plod along…is someone can easily remove it from play….Iran could find a whole new “piss of the West game” by accidentally running over these systems..so you do actually need some form of warship to be with it…the only place that is not true is in permissive waters ( home) . So for me that is were whatever the type 32 is will be needed..it after all in the end if it’s not a permissive environment and there is risk of actual state on state violence, a hunt class or any other equivalent is always at risk itself and would need an escort to allow it to do its job.
the RN have 9 mine warfare vessels at present ( I think) if these can replace these with 3 mine warfare RFA mine warfare mother ships for permissive waters, 5 type 32s and a reasonable number of platform agnostic mine warfare set ups that are air mobile and can be housed in the any of the RN escorts with mission bays then the or in a permissive port then the RN will have actually developed a more flexible mine warfare response as well as replaced the mine warfare vessels with 8 far larger and more flexible hulls.
Same problem minesweeping has faced …forever. The RN issue is its service and political masters have decided to have only a clever new system and get rid of the existing methods rather than side by side. Its how they think big business works …. which is where the next step in a career is as well. Jolly good
Autonomous mine hunting is clearly the way forwards and it’s great that the Royal Navy will be a front-runner in this area.
But it’s a huge risk to frantically get rid of the Hunt’s and Sandown’s which have plenty of life left in them before the new way of doing things has matured.
Fewer vessels means less command opportunities, less presence, less flexibility and a higher burden on the fewer assets that remain. Let’s hope at the very least that we see a 5 strong ‘Castle Class’ to at least take care of CASD support, ops in The Gulf whilst leaving a handful of platforms to focus on MCM support rather than lumbering frigates or the amphibious fleet with another tasking.
from the illustration the mothership is the floating portacabin, good to test it out in the middle east
These can be transported across the globe by air and then deployed from commercial vessels. If you have global aspirations with limited ships, that makes sense. Belgium doesn’t aspire to do what the RN does. These systems may be required as far a field as Asia in support of AUKUS. Investing in an air deployable system makes sense.
Belgium is a NATO country. Last time I looked NATO now sees itself a global organisation.
If the UK wants to play in the Indian Ocean in needs to put the platforms in place.
Global Britain is what our Armed Forces will support not NATO, NATO just gains the benefit of what Britain has. It’s not all about kit but actually how it is used and sometimes (more often than not) the simple solution can beat the high tech, that is what we get taught in the Armed Forces. As for mines they will not always be high tech but rather those simple ones we see often in war movies. Many are still out there and can cover a large expanse of water preventing access. Cheap but very effective. Such works on land as well as sea and its the simple way that defeats them in the end.
This kit is still in its infancy so the RN is learning about it and how best employ it. Mobile units as already procured gives the teams the kit they need to develop and can be but on any vessel of the required size (nothing new in that either) but its true we also do need support vessels that can cover other roles too which the old MCMV did well and that is a loss we cannot afford to cover unless more River’s are purchased (which can also deploy these units). Non of us know what is around the corner so lets see what comes of this tech shall we.
Our whole defence is dependent on NATO aka the US.
Absolutely spot on X ….. The UK has it’s NHS Mill Stone It’s LGBGTA Injection turbo orientation correction and it’s World emissions Guilt to worry about…… After all, our 3 current coal fired power stations emit way too much in comparison to the 1100 in China …… I have a great Idea though, why don’t we just stop buying Chinese S***e and enjoy better weather/future ?…. currently sat on Dunkery Beacon, enjoying the view over to south wales in my Eco Van waiting for the diesel AA van to turn up. Oh the Irony.
Modern mines are very advanced pieces of kit.
The issue is not so much the capability…yes it’s great that the capability is now via autonomous vessels that can be based either on shore or on any ship ( even an escort), can be flown out by aircraft…the future RN has a forward based type 31/26 etc and needs some mine warfare capabilities it can just fly it out and mate it with the escort in that region.
The problem is we have 9 crewed mine warfare vessels going out of commission being replaced by 3 mother ships….that’s 9 ships that can do other stuff…show RN presence, have a gun for constabulary stuff etc…
finally someone cannot accidentally ram a RN warship without consequence…but an autonomous system….Russia has just shown that you can get away with knocking out each others autonomous systems…so if Iran ever wants to piss the UK off…they can just scrap one of these.
yes these systems are great but in reality we are losing 9 RN vessels. But that is not an issue if we then get 5 type32s and 3 mother ships.
Theres a long history of UK spy planes and vessels both intruding into or *nearby* unfriendly territory. Every now and then , like the US found out, you get a kick in the pants. After the USN shoot down an Iranian airliner in its airspace Iran was probably entitled to attack the USS Vincennes but didnt.
the E class just retired were also snoop ships that seemed to spend a lot time in troubled waters rather than their hydrographic cover
these are RB-45C in RAF colours that overflew Soviet Union from RAF Sculthorpe ( project Jujitsu), later replaced by Canberra’s under project Robin
what is your point dude? china will soon be sending balloons over your Sculthorpe
Thats ludicrous . Its just a reminder that photographic and more recently radio signal in the broadest sense has been happening both sides for a long time
thank you for the outdated information, now go back to bed old man
Not outdated , it was top secret for decades until revealed more recently. That you are a blockhead isnt a secret
We should have kept the Hunts in commission while we went through Brexit for FP tasking.
How come the Dutch think they need 6 of these ships to replace 5 MCM hulls?
Is Hebe one of the 15m Sea Class Survey / Dive work boats ? Presumably 2 of the 11m ones have now also been released from Echo and Enterprise. Does anyone know how these are all now deployed ? Would be interested in an update article 🙂
Asked ChatGPT AI to mimic David Attenborough’s spoken style when describing the Royal Navy minehunting
Who says its stupid ?
Repeated in the spoken style of King Charles
‘My dear friends, it is my great pleasure to speak with you today about the vital role of minehunting in the Royal Navy. As you all know, the seas can be a treacherous place, and hidden beneath the waves are countless dangers that can threaten the safety of our brave sailors….’ etc etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q8PFmM94rA&ab_channel=NavalNews
Expensive target. Why so large?
Because these drone boats are large. To carry a couple of systems plus support requires the size. Don’t worry the RN will be able to use a pedalo as a base. It will only take a few A400 flights to move the kit somewhere.
Did you know tonne for tonne the SRMH were some of the most expensive ships the RN have ever had on ration?
FWIW a Hunt is 60m in length and the City class is 80m. Increases in displacement don’t result in huge increases in length. Maths.
Why so large? You are so funny.