MCM operations

[contedicavour]

There are 3 approaches to mine-hunting/sweeping operations today :
> the American one : mainly via heavy helos such as MH-53 Sea Dragons
> the "traditional" one : via dedicated MCM ships with minehunting and minesweeping assets, ROVs , etc. Examples abound, from the Gaeta/Ospreys to the Tripartite to the Sandown classes.
> the "modular" one, such as the US LCS ships, which are supposed to be able to embark dedicated modules for MCM operations

From my point of view, the 2nd approach remains the best, because of a big platform with all the appropriate sensors and equipment (vs a helo), and because of a highly trained & dedicated personnel (vs a ship with MCM modules occasionally embarked).

I'd like your opinons on this.

cheers

 

[Gollevainen]

Yeas. The 2nd option is still the best, thougth helicopters are good supplement to it. In general, only one navy in the world can afford sizable MCM helicopter fleet, but I still doupt that that fleet is sufficent, Mines are bitchy weapon And I cannot retain highlighting them as the seccond in importance of all martime weapons after airpower. Mines are used to denye the most important fundamental of maritime operations, the presence of vessels in open waters. They are the far most cost effective of all naval weapons, but their image have largerly been poor mans weapon has unfairly downrated their importance. I would suspect it a great tool for forces that oppose such high-tech forces as USN or Israel naval forces. Expecially the latters total lack of MCM assets&tradition is almoust confusing.....I wouldn't suprise at all, if the possiple scennario against Iran cripples to the plain fact that Iran can mine the Gulf of Persia....

But back to countering mines. The modern trend is to emphasis more on minehunting and leaving the weary and dangerous sweeping for unmanned drone sweepers like the German troika system. But MCM forces suffer lot for their single purpose usage and the fact that they arent so called 'front line' units and cannot combat enemy forces or destruct their installations. I have the feeling that most bigger navyes (or the ones waving thier flags in internet forums) tend to think MCMs as some sort of auxillary ships. MCMs are also very expensive as they require advanced construction to whitstand and/or prevent mine explosions and modern times they are packed whit very high-tech gizmoes. Relatively few current MCM craft have any other usage or multipurpose functions, exception migth Be the danish Flyxevixen class, but one can argue over such solution's uability in its many dedicated role....

 

[contedicavour]

Yeas. The 2nd option is still the best, thougth helicopters are good supplement to it. In general, only one navy in the world can afford sizable MCM helicopter fleet, but I still doupt that that fleet is sufficent, Mines are bitchy weapon And I cannot retain highlighting them as the seccond in importance of all martime weapons after airpower. Mines are used to denye the most important fundamental of maritime operations, the presence of vessels in open waters. They are the far most cost effective of all naval weapons, but their image have largerly been poor mans weapon has unfairly downrated their importance. I would suspect it a great tool for forces that oppose such high-tech forces as USN or Israel naval forces. Expecially the latters total lack of MCM assets&tradition is almoust confusing.....I wouldn't suprise at all, if the possiple scennario against Iran cripples to the plain fact that Iran can mine the Gulf of Persia....

But back to countering mines. The modern trend is to emphasis more on minehunting and leaving the weary and dangerous sweeping for unmanned drone sweepers like the German troika system. But MCM forces suffer lot for their single purpose usage and the fact that they arent so called 'front line' units and cannot combat enemy forces or destruct their installations. I have the feeling that most bigger navyes (or the ones waving thier flags in internet forums) tend to think MCMs as some sort of auxillary ships. MCMs are also very expensive as they require advanced construction to whitstand and/or prevent mine explosions and modern times they are packed whit very high-tech gizmoes. Relatively few current MCM craft have any other usage or multipurpose functions, exception migth Be the danish Flyxevixen class, but one can argue over such solution's uability in its many dedicated role....

Interesting, thanks. Basically from what you say one would imply that modular MCM units on more multi-purpose vessels are likely to be tomorrow's choice. Unless rogue states and guerrillas blow up enough holes in the West's ships and remind the navies that minehunting is a very serious job that requires dedicated assets

cheers

 

[Waylander]

I would also prefer the 2nd possibilty.
After a visit of our MCM crafts in Kappeln/Olpenitz (Not a town you have to know ), a lecture, a visit of one craft and some talks to the crew I got a look at how longsome and difficult such a mine hunting operation is.
With Helos you are not able to operate for longer periods and to use UAVs and mine divers. These soldiers are very good and have their main selection procedure and basic training together with our SEAL equivalent (Kampfschwimmer). This shows how difficult it is to operate a good MCM force.
As said before big ships are a waste of personal and tonnage and they are not able to cover as much space as smaller vessels which are more in numbers.

 

[Todjaeger]

There is a second multi-role vessel that also engages in MCM, the Canadian Kingston class MCDV. Vessels of the class can carry one of three different modules for MCM. These are (a) single or double Oropesa sweeps, (b) a route survey system, and (c) Mine/bottom inspection and vehicle ROV. Not sure performance wise how the Kingston is compared to the Flyvefisken in MCM mode, or a dedicated MCMV like the Gaeta, etc.

Regarding MCM vessels. The US Navy plans to have all of the Osprey class MHC decommissioned by the end of 2008. By this time, the Osprey vessels would only be between 8-12 years old. I've also noticed two other navies that seem to be deactivating or decommissioning their MCM vessels fairly early. Norway launched 5 Alta class MSC between 1996-1997, currently 2 are active, 1 destroyed by fire in 2002, and 2 have been decommissioned. Again after only 8-10 years of service. Also the RAN had deactivated HMAS Huon, lead ship of the Gaeta-derived Huon class MHC. HMAS Huon has since been reactivated but like the HMAS Hawkesbury MHC, is now operating in a patrol capacity. HMAS Huon was originally commissioned in May, 1999 so had only been in service seven years.

Is this apparent trend in shutting down MCM vessels the result in a change in tactics for handling sea mines, or is it more that mines are no longer considered much of a threat? If the reason is the latter, I have to agree with Gollevainen about the possible threat. Iran could conceivably shut the Straits of Hormuz given there are only two shipping channels. Don't forget that a US Navy frigate struck a mine there in 1988.

 

[Gollevainen]

Well USN had unfortuanate history to ignore minewarfare. After WWII all the vast classes were retired or sold and no new devolpment came out, but WHen they entered Korea, the where in mess as the new magnetig mines made the steelhulled old ships useless.
So i think US is makeing the smae mistake again. The helicopters can handle mining when its not done in largescale minefield. Also Its worrying me also that many nations are decommisioning new ships and cripling their MCM ability. But Im also waiting for the new finnish minesweeper class that beguns to be mentioned in some refrence books. Its said to be more in size of other western MCM vessels, and not small inshore unit as our previous boats.

 

[contedicavour]

Well USN had unfortuanate history to ignore minewarfare. After WWII all the vast classes were retired or sold and no new devolpment came out, but WHen they entered Korea, the where in mess as the new magnetig mines made the steelhulled old ships useless.
So i think US is makeing the smae mistake again. The helicopters can handle mining when its not done in largescale minefield. Also Its worrying me also that many nations are decommisioning new ships and cripling their MCM ability. But Im also waiting for the new finnish minesweeper class that beguns to be mentioned in some refrence books. Its said to be more in size of other western MCM vessels, and not small inshore unit as our previous boats.

Regarding the USN's MCM fleet, last time this was discussed on this site, people wrote the LCS' modular MCM capability will more than do the job of replacing Ospreys. I just can't believe it... as written in this thread, learning how to run minehunting is not just like learning how to fire a 76/62 gun ...
Frankly navies around the world should just profit from the firewall sale of Ospreys by the USN ! Although next time the USN is in trouble because of mines (a Iwo Jima LPH also got hit by a mine in the Gulf in the '90s) Western European navies will be urgently called to help

cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

Regarding the USN's MCM fleet, last time this was discussed on this site, people wrote the LCS' modular MCM capability will more than do the job of replacing Ospreys. I just can't believe it... as written in this thread, learning how to run minehunting is not just like learning how to fire a 76/62 gun ...
Frankly navies around the world should just profit from the firewall sale of Ospreys by the USN ! Although next time the USN is in trouble because of mines (a Iwo Jima LPH also got hit by a mine in the Gulf in the '90s) Western European navies will be urgently called to help

cheers

I agree with that, if you have the size, why no a specialist ship? Will be interesting to see how the USN develops the modular approach.

Foe smaller countries the modular approach may well be the way to go as size and budget restraints impact an ability to have a specialist capability.

 

[aaaditya]

iam in favor of a modular mcmv's particularly for small countries or countries with extensive island terrioteries,the reason is that they offer genuine multirole capabilities,the best example being the dutch flyveisken sf300.

 

[Waylander]

Let's just take China as an example. If they would want to open up an embargo against Taiwan big minefields should be really efficient. And if I look at their increasing number of subs the US could suddenly stand in front of a big minefield with one of their task forces and I really doubt that some Helicopters and a big multi-role ship are as efficient as many smaller specialized vessels.

 

[Todjaeger]

Slight offshoot of MCM discussion

From reading about the Flyvefisken, of the class of 14, only about 10 can be tasked for MCM due to different versions of hull-mounted sonar. This led me to question, what equipment is essential for mine hunting/clearing? Also, what equipment, though not essential, is very useful? Lastly, from the lists of essential and useful equipment, which must be built into the ship, and which can be deployed via a modular or containerized system?

What are people's thoughts on having a dedicated mine warfare school to train for MCM, and then having the personnel deploy along with modular MCM packages? I would think this approach would make the LCS a somewhat more viable concept than just adding MCM modules on and telling the crew, "okay, now go out and find some mines..." A navy would still have the trained personnel doing the work, but there would be more flexibility in terms of where they operated from.

 

[Gollevainen]

This led me to question, what equipment is essential for mine hunting/clearing? Also, what equipment, though not essential, is very useful? Lastly, from the lists of essential and useful equipment, which must be built into the ship, and which can be deployed via a modular or containerized system

Well the minehunters have bit different equipment than minesweepers. Hunters usually have hull mounted sonar specialized for hunting mines and also a remotely controlled drones to deactivating the spotted mines. Sweepers, at least tradditionally carriers a mechanical sweeping gear which soemwhat resamples in it fundamental method a fish-trawling. The russian word for minesweepers "Tral" means also Trawling.

What are people's thoughts on having a dedicated mine warfare school to train for MCM, and then having the personnel deploy along with modular MCM packages? I would think this approach would make the LCS a somewhat more viable concept than just adding MCM modules on and telling the crew, "okay, now go out and find some mines..." A navy would still have the trained personnel doing the work, but there would be more flexibility in terms of where they operated from.

You hit the nail there. This is the proplem of all multipurpose ships, you need to train the crew to be top-of-the-nocth in all the ships primary roles and more there are thos missions, the more restrain it causes the crew. That's why in my obinion if you can affoard for singlepurpose hulls, then go for them...

 

[Todjaeger]

You hit the nail there. This is the proplem of all multipurpose ships, you need to train the crew to be top-of-the-nocth in all the ships primary roles and more there are thos missions, the more restrain it causes the crew. That's why in my obinion if you can affoard for singlepurpose hulls, then go for them...

Are there certain roles/missions that a MCM vessel could carry out without compromising it's MCM ability? Given a minehunter's hull sonar and the precision navigation, I would think that they would be able to double fairly effectively as Auxiliary Survey vessels. Also, would a MCM be able to make an effective ASW vessel? I believe the Swedish Landsort class MCM carry ASW mortars.

As Whiskyjack wrote earlier, smaller nations or navies might have more difficulty maintaining dedicated MCM vessels given operational requirements. Modifications to MCM designs allowing them to perform additional mission types without loss of primary capability could help.

As for the USN switching to the LCS for MCM, it would depend on how that gets implimented. If the mine warfare is done by trained specialists that are flown in along with the modules, and the modules are primarily ROVs operating well away from the LCS, that could work. Given the size of the LCS hull, and use of standard contruction materials and techniques, I don't think the form of the vessel itself helps. If someone is aware of LCS using something other than steel for a hull, please chime in. The only real advantage I see in a LCS becoming a MCM for the USN is the ability to get MCM equipment on station rapidly. From what I've put together on current vessels, most MCM ships have slow top and cruising speeds, and usually only have a range of about 2,000 miles. The previously mentioned Kingston MCDV being somewhat of an exception, with a range of approx. 5,500 miles at 8 kts (still slow though). The LCS, if not already on station, should at least be able to arrive faster than a dedicated vessel.

 

[Gollevainen]

Are there certain roles/missions that a MCM vessel could carry out without compromising it's MCM ability? Given a minehunter's hull sonar and the precision navigation, I would think that they would be able to double fairly effectively as Auxiliary Survey vessels. Also, would a MCM be able to make an effective ASW vessel? I believe the Swedish Landsort class MCM carry ASW mortars.

Most of the minesweepers and hunters are equipment for low-threat escort work and are usable as a patrol vessels, exspecially those ceangoing sweepers. In wwII our navy's most used ships where four sloop orginally intended for minesweepers for the Imperial russian navy. The ships where used apart of the minesweeping role as a gunboats, escorts, minelayers and even supporting land forces movments. They saw extremely lot of actian and all vessels took considerable ammount of damage from soviet naval aviation but miracleously they all survived the war and even the exhausting minesweeping of the gulf of finland forced upon us after the war.

As Whiskyjack wrote earlier, smaller nations or navies might have more difficulty maintaining dedicated MCM vessels given operational requirements. Modifications to MCM designs allowing them to perform additional mission types without loss of primary capability could help.

Small navies and small countries in general have to make adaptions and bargains which usually means multipurpose hulls. But like I said if you can affoard singlepurpose hulls then you should use it as they often tned to be far better in their spesified role than multipurpose ships...

As for the USN switching to the LCS for MCM, it would depend on how that gets implimented. If the mine warfare is done by trained specialists that are flown in along with the modules, and the modules are primarily ROVs operating well away from the LCS, that could work. Given the size of the LCS hull, and use of standard contruction materials and techniques, I don't think the form of the vessel itself helps. If someone is aware of LCS using something other than steel for a hull, please chime in. The only real advantage I see in a LCS becoming a MCM for the USN is the ability to get MCM equipment on station rapidly. From what I've put together on current vessels, most MCM ships have slow top and cruising speeds, and usually only have a range of about 2,000 miles. The previously mentioned Kingston MCDV being somewhat of an exception, with a range of approx. 5,500 miles at 8 kts (still slow though). The LCS, if not already on station, should at least be able to arrive faster than a dedicated vessel.

If I had a change to influence the USN decision making I would go for both LCS having MCM ability for emergy situations (in crisis situations around the world) and specialized MCM ships for more extensive minesweeping when they get there...

 

[contedicavour]

Most of the minesweepers and hunters are equipment for low-threat escort work and are usable as a patrol vessels, exspecially those ceangoing sweepers. In wwII our navy's most used ships where four sloop orginally intended for minesweepers for the Imperial russian navy. The ships where used apart of the minesweeping role as a gunboats, escorts, minelayers and even supporting land forces movments. They saw extremely lot of actian and all vessels took considerable ammount of damage from soviet naval aviation but miracleously they all survived the war and even the exhausting minesweeping of the gulf of finland forced upon us after the war.



Small navies and small countries in general have to make adaptions and bargains which usually means multipurpose hulls. But like I said if you can affoard singlepurpose hulls then you should use it as they often tned to be far better in their spesified role than multipurpose ships...



If I had a change to influence the USN decision making I would go for both LCS having MCM ability for emergy situations (in crisis situations around the world) and specialized MCM ships for more extensive minesweeping when they get there...

Fully agree with all you wrote
Regarding the secondary roles for a dedicated MCM vessel, in Italy these ships are used on survey missions, archeological missions, etc.
ASW missions might make sense in very shallow waters such as most parts of the Baltic and Adriatic seas. Besides, they are very silent ships. In this case the MCM could signal positions to a ASW helo based on land. Though for the moment luckily enough we still have enough ASW assets...
Regarding patrol missions, these ships wouldn't be that good because they are very slow (13kn), but in case of emergency the ships are still armed with 20mm automatic guns and they are highly manoeuvrable with all the auxiliary propellers on port and starboard.

cheers

 

[aaaditya]

the slow speed of mcmv's is a requirement for their primary role of mine countermeasures,the slow speeds increase their endurance while at the same time reducing their acoustic signatures.these acoustic signatures are capable of detonating mines accidently if the vessel is close enough.

 

[Todjaeger]

the slow speed of mcmv's is a requirement for their primary role of mine countermeasures,the slow speeds increase their endurance while at the same time reducing their acoustic signatures.these acoustic signatures are capable of detonating mines accidently if the vessel is close enough.

I'm aware that during actual MCM operations the vessel would operate a low speeds to keep acoustic signatures low. From what I've seen, a number of the designs seem to have secondary propulsion systems that are engaged during actual mine-clearance that propels the vessels around 5-6 kts. What I was wondering about was the fairly low transit speeds of 10-12 kts, compared to 18-24 kts found on most escorts. Does the acoustics of a vessel go up if it has a faster engine, even when operating at low speed?

As a side note, would something like the Praire-Masker bubbler system reduce the noise emissions from an MCM as far as mines are concerned? The system was/is deployed aboard US ASW frigates and was intended to make it more difficult for Soviet subs to know when US warships were nearby.

 

[Waylander]

The question is how does praire-masker effects the mine searching sonar.

As for the speed question.
There might be three reasons why they are relatively slow.
First, most of these vessels are intended to operate in the home territories of the countrys ans the distances there are not that big, for example the baltic sea.
Second, it is harder (And more expensive) to get a big engine quiet.
Third, budget...

 

[contedicavour]

The question is how does praire-masker effects the mine searching sonar.

As for the speed question.
There might be three reasons why they are relatively slow.
First, most of these vessels are intended to operate in the home territories of the countrys ans the distances there are not that big, for example the baltic sea.
Second, it is harder (And more expensive) to get a big engine quiet.
Third, budget...

Fully agree. I would only add that Prairie Masker systems are big and are supposed to be installed on propellers for ships the size of a FFG upwards. We have these systems on the ASW FFGs Maestrale.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

The low speed is perhaps also an attribute of the Voith-Schneider propellers used on the specialised MCM vessels. Flyvefisken class is multipurpose and use normal screw propellers and goes 20 knots on diesels and 30+ knots on GT.

Voith-Schneider drive - an circular array of hydrofoils with a rotational axis perpendicular to the sea surface:

http://www.voithturbo.com/vt_en_pua_marine_vspropeller.htm