The Dutch-Belgian mine countermeasures (MCM) mothership project offers a glimpse at one vision of future mine countermeasures. MCM motherships have been frequently discussed and proposed for US Navy mine clearance efforts. In fact, the original purpose of the Afloat Forward Staging Base was supposed to have been to act as an MCM mothership. However, that usage appears to have fallen by the wayside as the ship searches for a new mission (see, “AFSB – Looking For Something To Do”). Regardless, let’s take a look at the Dutch-Belgian MCM mothership project and see if there are any lessons from the project that are applicable to US Navy MCM needs.
In no particular order, here are some observations, good and bad, collected from a YouTube promotional video[1] narrated by the program manager:
Ship Size – The mothership is 82 m long (269 ft) with a displacement of 2800 tons. Maximum speed is 15 kts and range is 3500 nm (speed basis unknown). Base crew is 33 with a capacity of 63. Contrast this with the Freedom class LCS MCM which is 378 ft long with a displacement of 3500 tons and a maximum speed of 40 kts. Clearly, in the quest for multi-mission modularity, the LCS was grossly overbuilt for the MCM role. Overbuilt means wasted money and resources.
Dutch-Belgian MCM Mothership
Buzzwords and Graphics – The mothership project managers refer to the MCM equipment as the ‘toolbox’ which is, presumably, a marketing buzzword suggesting modularity. This kind of buzzword fascination serves no beneficial purpose and contributes to a feeling of undeserved superiority and arrogance. In other words, when exposed to buzzwords on a daily basis, people begin to believe the hype and fail to ruthlessly examine the concepts and execution, believing that the system is inherently superior. We’ve seen this with the LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, F-35, etc. … all abject failures due, in large measure to a failure to ruthlessly examine and critique the projects at early stages. The projects were protected by their buzzwords. No one wanted to be seen contradicting or criticizing the magnificent buzzwords.
Similarly, today’s digital public relations graphics are hugely detrimental to programs. Again, they convey an awe-inspiring sense of superiority and accomplishment that blinds program personnel to the flaws in the product. It may not seem like it but glitzy graphics are one of the causes of project failure.
Hosting – The mothership can host two UAVs, two RHIBs, and two unmanned surface vessels (USV). While that technically meets the definition of a mothership, in that it plays host to a smaller craft, it is a very small complement for a mothership. I would have preferred to see a mothership capable of hosting a dozen USVs and a dozen UAVs (although I’m dubious about the value of small UAVs for MCM work). That would make the mothership a significant MCM asset.
Hosting merely two USVs and two UAVs of dubious utility is a very minimal capability. The two RHIBs are, presumably, for personnel movements and, perhaps, diver platforms for addressing single mines which serve no useful purpose in combat mine clearance operations. That leaves just two USVs which are far too few to be effective in combat mine clearance.
Launching – One decidedly positive feature is the presence of two separate davit based USV launch mechanisms, port and starboard. This provides redundancy and speed of operations as opposed to a single launch point. One of the major failings of the LCS MCM variant was the installation of only a single UUV/USV launch point which has become a logistic and efficiency choke point with individual launches and recoveries requiring one to two hours per evolution.
Communications – The program manager emphasized that the mothership needed extensive communications with the various unmanned vehicles. The concept of operations calls for a stand off distance of 12 nm from the minefield and the UAVs are intended to act as communication relays as well as providing surface mine visual detection. The downside of all the communications is that it provides the enemy with a positive location. Extensive, continuous communications will be detected regardless of any claims of line-of-sight or low probability of intercept.
Sonar – The mothership has a mine and obstacle avoidance sonar in recognition of the reality of operating near a minefield and never being 100% sure that you’ve avoided all mine threats. This is lacking in the LCS MCM, I believe.
Shock Testing – The mothership was tested for resistance to nearby explosive shocks although no details were provided as to test conditions. As you recall, the LCS failed its shock testing quite badly with the explosive loads having to be reduced and the final tests cancelled due to anticipated damage. Being shock resistant is just a common sense requirement for a MCM vessel.
Mine Hunting – The mine hunting concept involves at least two to three passes. The individual steps are: detection, identification, and destruction. This is a very time consuming process and is, essentially, a one-at-a-time process as opposed to sweeping. The process is suitable for small area clearance with no time constraints but would be unsuited for combat clearance of large areas in short time frames.
Additional information is available in a Naval News article [2]
Conclusion
So, what does all this offer the US Navy in the way of lessons?
There are aspects to like about the Dutch-Belgian MCM mothership such as multiple launch mechanisms, mine detecting sonar, limited size, limited speed, and single function.
There are also aspects that are detrimental such as the very limited vessel capacity, the inclusion of UAVs that serve no real MCM purpose, the limited number of launch/recovery stations, and the need for incessant communications.
Considering the benefits and detriments, it is possible to design a conceptual MCM mothership for the US Navy. An MCM mothership should have the following characteristics:
- Host at least a dozen USVs capable of conducting sweep operations as opposed to one-at-a-time hunting.
- Speed should be limited to around 15 kts which is sufficient for the task and avoids over-building and unnecessary costs.
- Physical dimensions should be minimized to the extent possible.
- No aviation capabilities beyond Scan Eagle type UAVs and even that should be justified by a CONOPS that can actually benefit from them.
- Very long endurance and range.
With the demise of most/all of the Freedom class LCS, the Navy is woefully short of MCM assets and the LCS is not even a capable, effective MCM asset if it was available in numbers. We desperately need a new MCM ship and a mothership, as described, would be a good start.
As a reminder, the Allies used over 250 minesweepers for the Normandy assault.
_______________________________
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCrfvHAKJwg
[2]Naval News website, “This Is What The Future Belgian & Dutch MCM Motherships Will Look Like”, Xavier Vavasseur, 27-May-2019,
The UAV is for detecting floating mines.
ReplyDeleteAs noted in the post:
Delete"UAVs are intended to act as communication relays as well as providing surface mine visual detection."
I continue to be disappointed at how the ASW/MCM LIDAR imaging module for Seahawk has fallen by the wayside and nothing has been said about it - apparently the tech was not quite up to it yet. Would have been a gamechanger if it had worked.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the LCS MCM was a stupid idea. MCM simply cannot be an add-on to a platform designed primarily for other purposes. The USN has never liked mine warfare and has for decades tried to slide by with some half-baked measures rather than building enough dedicated mine warfare platforms to do the job,
ReplyDeleteI would actually like to see two different mother ship concepts. One, a sweep platform, would look something like a small LSD/LPD and would carry 2-3 MCM helos on the flight deck, plus 3-4 sets of helo sweep gear (1 spare) plus 3-4 drone minesweepers (like German Seehunds). Ship would launch and control all sweeps.
Second, a hunt platform, would be similar to the Dutch/Belgian ship modified to incorporate ComNavOps's proposed 12 USVs and UUV hunt platforms instead of UAVs. I don't see an essential role for UAVs in mine countermeasures.
Both ships would also carry some of ComNvOps's proposed seek and destroy UUVs that I have called wild walrus. Send them up the channel, don't screw around classifying, just hunt and blow up anything that might be a mine.
A ship with twelve USVs and UUVs isn't going to look like the Dutch/Belgian MCMV ship. It will be MUCH larger, unless the USV/UUVs are MUCH smaller (hence less capable). The MCMV is pretty much maxed out at 83m and 2,800t.
DeleteThe sizing and USV/UUV configuration behind the MCMV is likely due to span and range of control limits. If you want more USV/UUVs, just bring more MCMVs. They appear to only cost around $190M each.
In the US, there was talk of resurrecting the USS Catskill MCS-1 as a concept, with many MCM launches, but using more capable boats. MCS-1 was 139m and 9000t (fld) and carried twenty 36' MSL launches. A modern incarnation likely wouldn't replicate this density, as the launches would need to be accessed on the vessel to swap out sweep/search/disposal kit. Being stacked on davits wouldn't make this easy.
"It will be MUCH larger"
DeleteWell, let's look at that statement. Being thorough and conscientious, I'm sure you already sized it out rather than just throw out an unsupported, off-the-cuff comment so I'll just run through the numbers for the benefit of readers who haven't had a chance to run the numbers.
Taking the Navy's Common Unmanned Surface Vessel designed for the LCS MCM module as the USV of choice, the USV dimensions are 39 ft x 11 ft. Storing the dozen USVs in a fore-and-aft 4-wide by 3-row configuration would give a minimum storage area requirement of 44 ft wide by 117 ft long, well within even the 269 ft long by 56 ft wide dimensions of the Dutch-Belgian ship, even allowing room for handling and maintenance - and nothing says we need to use that ship or its dimensions exactly.
Taking the storage a step further and using a nested or racked storage system, as has been used for small boat storage on ships for centuries, a double high stack in a 3-wide by 2-row configuration reduces the storage area requirement to 33 ft wide by 78 ft long - again, easily within the Dutch-Belgian ship dimensions.
With those storage area requirements, all that's left is to design the rest of ship and USV handling requirements around that area.
The storage area requirements do not dictate a 'MUCH larger' ship than the Dutch-Belgian ship. Certainly, it would require a redesign of the internal layout of the vessel but that's no problem.
Since it appears that a 'MUCH larger' ship is not needed, you'll want to recheck your math and assumptions that you used to reach the conclusion that a 'MUCH larger' ship was needed.
Watch this video.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/PsjQvjfBLLU?t=54
Maybe you could get three across, but you'd lose the area in the middle used to prep mission payloads. Maybe you could get two rows if you ditched the stern cargo deck, but then you lose cargo, which probably means fewer effectors, spares and so on.
Double high? Well then you have to start worrying about metacentric height and effects on stability. Also, you do actually have to launch and recover these USVs. So they have to be moved from their storage location to a prep area and then to the launch and recovery systems. Or you can just keep them on their own double-high davits, but then that precludes any ability to work on them or change mission payloads.
I don't see where you can get a third row without chopping out a significant section of the deckhouse. This ship is the size of a medium OPV. The deckhouse has accommodations and work areas for the 63 crew. Adding more USVs would undoubtedly increase the number of crew required, necessitating more volume, not less.
So yes, I think it would have to me much larger. Perhaps you could create a ship in this size range that could carry that many as cargo, but not launch, recover and operate them effectively.
Lastly, it's not clear how many USV/UUVs you can actually pack into a LOS operating area. Most of the systems use sonar, so trying to use them in proximity of each other could reduce their effectiveness, essentially jamming each other.
Here's a concept study for a USV mothership. They present three variants, all with more USVs than you want. Variant 2 is the smallest with 10 x 11m RHIB sized USVs and 20 6m USVs. It's nearly 10,000t (fld).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002980182031194X
I would guess a ship designed to effectively deploy, operate, and maintain 12 CUSVs would be in the 5,000t range, but that's just a guess.
We routinely pack aircraft wingtip to wingtip on a carrier flight deck and still manage to access and operate them. We pack aircraft into hangars and still manage to maintain and operate them. We pack many dozens of AAV/ACVs and (once upon a time) tanks into well decks and manage to maintain, operate, launch, and recover them. This is no different except that it's only a dozen craft that are around half the size of aircraft and about the size of a tank. It's easily doable.
DeleteA 3-wide, double stack arrangement leaves 23 ft of empty space which allows for 11 ft between stacks - far more than enough room for access and movement of units.
Even a 4-wide, single stack arrangement still leaves 12 ft of open space for central access/movement.
The conceptual model is the well deck with the boats lined up and waiting to roll/crane down the deck and into the water. This isn't even an engineering challenge.
Hey, I get it. You threw out a statement without actually running the numbers and you were wrong. Now, you're trying to defend your mistake instead of simply recognizing the error and moving on.
Simply making unsupported statements is unacceptable. The blog requirement is facts and data. Unless you have actual numbers about whatever you're claiming, this thread is finished.
"it's not clear how many USV/UUVs you can actually pack into a LOS operating area."
DeleteYou can pack as many as you wish. They can either operate on different frequencies or as a coordinated swarm.
" Most of the systems use sonar, so trying to use them in proximity of each other could reduce their effectiveness"
You appear to have missed the relevant passage in the post so here it is:
"Host at least a dozen USVs capable of conducting sweep operations as opposed to one-at-a-time hunting."
Sweep operations do not require sonar. The more sweeps covering an area, the better.
One comment here is that the northern European nations generally have smaller ships as they don't tend to stray far from home..generally they "deploy" as part of Countermeasures Group One (SNMCMG1) in the north or Countermeasures Group One (SNMCMG2) South. This ship actually looks alot bigger then what they have generally deployed in the past. I will say that the UUV tech has greatly improved. almost 20 years ago I got to see what the Hugin 1000 could do for mine hunting with the Norwegian navy and it was very very effective. lots of CAD CAD which was time consuming, but I assume has gotten better with time. The USV integration is also a great idea as it solved alot of the last mile comms issues. With getting the data from UUV/AUV.. (side note is that many european nations use the term AUV) as it makes it make the distinction between unmanned and autonomous) Also many of the countries.. especially the Germans (did an exchange tour 20 years ago with German MCM forces) have over 50 years experience with using USV for both minesweeping and hunting. So tactically they are used to employing tech. On that note the europeans tend to amalgamate MCM capacity. That means that each nation brings a good ability to the group. So when looking at European MCM forces you have to look at all the nations participating not just one. As they almost always deploy in that group.
DeleteWe don't pack carriers to capacity. There's always room to move aircraft to and around the flight deck. There are queuing areas for fueling and armament. IIRC, Nimitz class carriers have a max capacity, taking up all available space, of something like 130 aircraft. Even in the heyday of the '80s, we only ever had around 100. Nowadays it's more like 70.
DeleteIf you want to pack them, then you need to add extra space to queue them for configuration, maintenance as well as separate space for launch and recovery. So if you want to pack 12 USVs, you should plan on 4 or more extra spots to account for launch, recovery, maintenance, and queueing areas. Just MHO.
You could potentially use a well deck, but not on an 83m vessel like this. Again, a larger vessel is required.
You can disagree with me. That's fine. I'm willing to be proven wrong. But the studies I've seen bear this out. I'm interested in this topic, so let me know if you've seen something different.
Today, mine sweep increasingly relies on USV and UAV. A minesweeper is their mother ship. USV was used during Vietnam War on mine sweep. After the war, it was reported that 76% of mine laid by US against Vietnam were swept by then very crude USV.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine-vn.htm
Therefore, communications and controls of USV and UAV are crucial.
For coastal defense (as many European nations), they don't need to consider too much on sweeping mines under enemies' fire.
On the other hand, for offensive, such as clear a passage for a fleet, then, mine sweepers have to be able to sail fast and install some self defense such as Sea Ram.
"No aviation capabilities beyond Scan Eagle type UAVs and even that should be justified by a CONOPS that can actually benefit from them."
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the minesweeper be rated for the MH-53E or the AgustaWestland AW101, which replaced the MH-53E as an airborne minesweeper in certain services (most notably the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, which operates the AW101 as the MCH-101)? Or are the MH-53E and AW101's minesweeping equipment that unreliable?
I'm not a fan of helo sweeps as a combat MCM clearance method. Helos are notoriously unreliable and towing a sled is a taxing exercise under the best of circumstances and would likely result in poor availability - not something that you want in a combat mine clearance scenario. Helos also require inordinately large areas and volumes of ship space - far more than boats. This requires bigger and more expensive motherships which is the opposite of what we want which is smaller and cheaper motherships so that we can afford lots of them.
DeleteMy reservations aside, if we do want to use a significant helo-MCM component, a much more efficient approach is to build a dedicated MCM-helo-carrier sized to operate a squadron (a dozen helos, perhaps?) of helos.
As a point of comparison, the old Iwo Jima amphibious ship carried 25 helos and was 590 ft long and 18,000 ton displacement. Scaling that down to 12 helos or so ought to give a carrier around 2/3 that size (the scaling isn't linear).
"The downside of all the communications is that it provides the enemy with a positive location."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but you're doing MCM, the enemy already knows where his mines are.
He knows where his mines are but he doesn't know, unless you tell him via continuous communications, that you're there and coming for him through that spot. You're essentially broadcasting your operational plans.
DeleteThe Germans knew they had mined the English Channel but how different would the Normandy assault have been if the Germans had known, instantly, when the Allies began the pre-assault mine clearance? The Germans would have had around 24 hrs pre-knowledge of where the assault would land and when. That would have, potentially, made a huge difference. However, because mine sweeping at that time did not require continuous communications to remote controlled assets, the Germans had no pre-warning.
"The Germans would have had around 24 hrs pre-knowledge of where the assault would land and when."
DeleteOkay, sure, but you cannot clear even a medium sized minefield in 24 hrs nowadays, so this is much less of a factor: the enemy will notice and MCM will have to happen under fire.
Now if USN or any other navy in the world had much faster MCM capabilities, then it would be different.
"but you cannot clear even a medium sized minefield in 24 hrs nowadays"
DeleteDon't get locked into the mentality of fighting a war with only the assets we have today. In WWII, we didn't have nearly the 250 minesweepers we used to conduct the Normandy assault at the start of the war. It took years to build up the resources and assets to conduct the Normandy assault. Today, we'd would do the same, if needed. What we need is to have a proven pattern/design of a minesweeper/mothership so that when the time comes, we can quickly build more instead of having to start from scratch. So, no, we couldn't conduct a sizable assault with what we have now but we couldn't do it at the start of WWII, either.
"He knows where his mines are but he doesn't know, unless you tell him via continuous communications, that you're there and coming for him through that spot."
DeleteI actually agree completely with the danger of continuous communications with USV's, from the point of view of helping the enemy identify where you are.
However, in this particular case of mine warfare, since our method of mine neutralization seems to be blowing them up, won't the enemy hear that and immediately know what you're doing, and where, with or without intercepting communications?
The Navy's deficiency in MCM is more than likely well known to our adversaries. Aren't the MH-53E's due to be retired? Is it too late to modify the CH-53K's to replace them? I don't think cost would be an issue, it hasn't stopped them before. I'm going to toss out a hypothetical scenario. What is going to stop an adversary with a robust UUV, like the Russian Poseidon) from mining the entrance to Norfolk, San Diego or perhaps a commercial seaport?
ReplyDeleteHere is a suggestion (idea). The Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry-class Dock Landing Ships (LSD) underwent an upgrade program from 1998 to 2014. The upgrade, if it was done properly, was supposed to extend their service lives to 2038. Again, going back to the money is not being an issue, could two to four of these LSDs be modified to perform the MCM mission like the USS Inchon (MCS-12)? Thoughts?
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harpers/
There is nothing to stop an enemy from mining our home ports and, if they did, it would paralyze our shipping and strip every MCM asset we have (all half dozen of them) from the fleet and thus paralyze the fleet's forward operations.
DeleteBut, on the plus side, we're building overpriced, marginally useful, shiny new ships so the budget stays strong and that's what's important ... according to the Navy.
There's nothing wrong with converting the LSDs to MCM motherships. They wouldn't be ideal but they're available.
I don't know whether the CH-53K could be adapted for MCM work other than the cost. The base helo is $100M or so and the MCM conversion would add to that cost. They're quite large and heavy so they can't operate from the LCS and an LSD could only operate ?1-2?.
As always, I appreciate your feedback. Is there a way to contact you? I came across an article that you may or may not have read (although, it might be the former).
DeleteAs I'm sure you can understand, I don't like to give out my email. If you can provide a citation or link for the article, I'm sure I can find it.
DeleteEven better, offer a comment analyzing whatever it is that caught your eye about the article!
Understood. I am seeing an all too familiar pattern with construction of the USCG's first two OPC's. May be its nothing or is this considered a disturbing trend in new ship design/engineering/construction?
Deletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2022/10/20/coast-guard-says-main-drive-shaft-issue-puts-opc-delivery-schedule-at-risk/?sh=1d1cdc13ddfe
I don't follow Coast Guard programs very closely and the article offers no useful details so I can't offer any specific comments.
DeleteI will note, however, an overarching issue with all Navy and CG ship construction programs and that is the nature of the contracts which almost always allow the manufacturer to recover costs (and make a profit in so doing?) for problems. Thus, there is no incentive for the manufacturer to detect and prevent problems during or prior to construction. It is more profitable for the manufacturer to fix problems than to prevent them.
Beyond that, I can't offer any specifics.
Com, fair enough.
Delete"The Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry-class Dock Landing Ships (LSD) underwent an upgrade program from 1998 to 2014. The upgrade, if it was done properly, was supposed to extend their service lives to 2038."
DeleteMy idea for a sweep mother ship is something like a smaller LSD/LPD, since you don't need troop berthing and equipment spaces. But since the Whidbey Islands/Harpers Ferrys are already here, perhaps adapting them makes sense in the short run.
As noted, there are really two types of mine countermeasures needed--offensive, go ahead of the fleet in a power projection mission, and defensive, to reopen any domestic ports that happened to get mined. Sweeping is probably best suited to the offensive mission--sweep until you reach a risk/confidence level that the task force/group commander believes is acceptable, then go forward with the mission. Hunting is probably best suited to the defensive mission, were you are more concerned about obtaining 100% clearance for domestic shipping. The European navies are more concerned about the defensive mission--particularly the Dutch, Belgians, and Germans around the mouths of the Rhine and the Brits and French in the English Channel. Therefore they have all emphasized the hunting mission. My idea is to have two separate ships--1) a sweep mother ship that would carry helo sweeps and surface drone sweeps (like German Seehund)--helos on flight deck and remainder in well deck, ad 2) a hunt mother ship that could start with something like the Dutch/Belgian ship, with maybe a dozen UUV, a half dozen USV, and a couple of UAV for observation (depending on size considerations). Both ship types should ideally carry hundreds of ComNavOps's mine destructors that are released into the channel, and seek and destroy anything that looks like it might be a mine, without taking additional time for the classification step.
USVs as sweep platforms are going to be too small to generate enough power to have much of a swept path (this was a problem with the helo sweep), but they could have a role in the hunt process. To minimize the problem of giving away position with communications, perhaps a route could be preprogrammed into each helo/surface/USV/UUV platform, and UAVs could monitor to ensure they are going were they are supposed to go.
Ideally I would like to see 15 sweep mother ships and 15 hunt mother ships. The Whidbeys/Harpers could provide 12 of the sweep ships. I doubt very seriously that the USN would never do anything cost effective (or effective, period) for MCM, but this might be an opportunity to surprise.
DeleteI'm curious how much faster this 2800t thing can clear a field than the 1300t Avenger, which also carried two remotely operated mine-clearance vehicles if I'm not mistaken (AN/SLQ-48 and EX116). I guess the standoff distance is greater since it uses un-tethered remote clearance vehicles, though that raises the EMCON concerns that others have already mentioned, but that doesn't necessarily help with speed.
ReplyDeleteObviously, either needs to have a large speed-of-clearance advantage over helos in order to justify their existence.
When you discuss mine clearance, you need to keep firmly in mind the difference between sweeping and hunting, the later being a one-at-a-time effort that is painfully slow.
DeleteClearance rates are a function of not just the various vehicles and ships but their endurance and availability.
Clearance using vehicles like the SLQ-48 is nearly useless in a combat scenario.
Offensive or costal defense? I think that this determines desired minesweeper.
ReplyDeleteFor nations focus on costal defense, minesweepers are in relatively safe environment. They don't need to sail fast nor need self-defense weapons. Giving today's mine sweep tasks are mainly done by drones (surface, arial, underwater), they only need to be a good mother ship.
For Pentagon, Navy is an offensive force, it has missions to clear mines to make passages for other naval ships. Therefore, minesweepers need to be built like other battle ships even though other ships (destroyers) would provide protections.
Nevertheless, real mine sweep tasks should be done by various UAVs thus real tech challenges are on these UAVs.
When I read the specs of the Dutch MCM, I thought of the RAN Arafura class OPV- 80m long, 1600 tons. Where does the extra 1200 tons in the MCM ship come from? I don't remember reading sonars weighing that much.
ReplyDeleteIf MCM ships only have to carry USV's, then the Lurssen OPV 80 (Arafura base design) could do it. 3 launch points (rear, port and starboard near flight deck), add sonar. 4000nm range (though the Brunei version says 7000nm , so who knows the real figure). This is a practically of the shelf MCM option, and the price is known, since at least 2 countries use this ship. Of course, other OPV options exist, and if you want range, you can even borrow the USCG's largest 2 ship designs.
But yes, I'd love the see proper new MCM ships for the USN.
Andrew
Looked at the Belgium/Dutch MCM and was impressed by the technical expertise in its demonstrated ability at the MARIN Wageningen test tank to launch and recover the 12.3 meter/13.5 ton USVs in sea states 5/6 ,significant wave height of 4 meters with incoming waves from all directions including leeward of the mothership which will a big plus in adverse weather operational conditions. DOT&E has noted for years problems with the Independence in its limited ability to launch and recover its USV with its poorly designed TBEC, twin boom extensible crane.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.naval-group.com/en/world-first-naval-group-successfully-completes-testing-its-launch-and-recovery-system-and-including
A couple thoughts:
Delete1. I don't believe any tank tests can accurately reproduce the actual launch/recovery conditions.
2. I watched a Mar 2022 video of actual, at sea launch and recovery and the video stated they were capable of operations in sea state 3/4. It seemed to imply that was the max but it may have referred to the conditions the day of that test. It was unclear.
3. The system is far more capable, fast, and impressive than the LCS system which requires 1-2 hrs for each launch or recovery and is extremely problematic.
If my understanding correct the launch and recovery davit and cradle for the Belgium / Dutch MCM supplied by Vestdavit, a Norwegian company, also contracted for the advanced motion compensated davits to equip the 78,000t ESB 6 & 7, the davits can launch boats up to 14 metric tons including 7 and 11 meter RHIBs and CCA (ECB has been trialed in MCM role by the Navy), Vestdavit will allow safe operation in much higher sea states than has been possible for the davits/crane used on ESBs 3,4 & 5 and has also contracted for the two USCG Polar security cutters, two new US scientific vessels being built for the US’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, plus retrofitted to the Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigates with telescopic variant capable of deploying to 7 meters and retrieving craft in sea state 6.
Deletehttps://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/05/vestdavit-wins-contract-for-u-s-navy-expeditionary-sea-base-duo/
"sea state xxxx"
DeleteOf course, launch and recovery aside, one has to wonder whether small boats, manned or unmanned, can feasibly and effectively conduct MCM operations in higher sea states. The ability to launch/recover in sea state 117 is great but if the boats can only operate effectively in sea state 2, the launch/recovery capability is pointless.
I have no idea what the effective small boat MCM sea state rating is.
Regarding recovery, watched the Norwegians recover a Hugin 1000 in about sea state 4. Sea state might have been a bit higher, as it was almost a scrub for me to get aboard. That took place in about 2003 just north of Olpenitz, which was at the time the German Navy MCM base in the Baltic.
ReplyDeleteI think this class of ships are made to fit the dutch and belgian requirements. While both navoes partecipate in NATO operations, their principal activities are clearing old UXO and clearing their port approaches which are very constricted.
ReplyDeleteNo expert on MCM but two UAVs, two RHIBs, and two unmanned surface vessels (USV) doesn't seem like a lot for a difficult, dangerous and high volume job. If we facing couple of mines, that sounds about right but what if the minefield is 100 or 500 mines?!?
ReplyDeleteNeed to study MCM, need to buy some books on the topic.
Anyone has some good recommendations?