A useless announcement - Updated

Happy news, but useless announcements that tells nothing.
The Warrior upgrade is going to happen, and it is presented as a "1 billion" investment, which will safeguard some 600 jobs in the UK.

The winning team is (no surprise) Lockheed Martin, which is also the only bidder left after BAE was turned down months ago. Lockheed leads a team which includes: Ultra Electronics; the Defence Support Group; SCISYS (Electronic architecture); Rheinmetall Defence (suppliers of the FRES Scout turret, they will rework the Warrior turret and change it radically as part of WCSP. BAE had offered a whole new turret along with wider modifications to the hull, which probably would have delivered better overall protection, but at greater cost); Curtiss Wright (they supply the turret-drive servo system to the FRES Scout turret. Their role with Warrior is likely to be the same); Thales UK (optics and Battlegroup Thermal Imaging system); Moog; Meggitt; CTA International (supplying the 40 mm CTA gun); Westwire; TKE; MTL and Caterpillar UK.
The turret will feature appliquè armor for added protection, new, larger hatches for crew wearing personal body armour, electronics (with MOD mandating an as-high as possible commonality with the Scout systems) and new mine-blast protected seats. The driver will also get a mine-proof seat. 

PR Newswire reports, interestingly: 

The Ministry of Defence has selected Lockheed Martin UK to lead a 642 million pounds ($1 billion) contract as part of the major 1 billion pounds ($1.6 billion) upgrade of the British Army's Warrior Armoured Fighting Vehicle. 

The remaining 358 millions, according to their article, seem set to finance a different contract, part of the wider WCSP programme, while other interpretations see the remaining money as that going to the other contractors in the team. Hopefully, the first hypothesis is the right one. In that case, in fact, it could regard the Battlefield Armoured Support Vehicle programme, which is (or potentially, was) about modifying "up to 300" (in 2005, of course this number is nowhere near valid now) of the over 780 original Warriors for support roles. In its early hours, BASV included an APC variant, a Command variant and an Ambulance variant.
With the APC now theorically set to be FRES Protected Mobility (in good part because reworked Warriors would not suffice, and new vehicles would have to be acquired anyway on top of them, biting into the sense of the maneuver), and with FRES SV Command Posts and Ambulances planned for the future, the ABSV might change direction of travel: in particular a Warrior bridgelayer/engineer support variant is around since last year, was shown at DSEI this year, and fits perfectly the role once planned for the FRES Maneuver Support vehicle, which could be acquired in some 35 units.
One other requirement that exists, but never seems to gain the spotlight is that of Mortar Carrier. There's no "FRES SV mortar" planned, so a solution to replace the FV430 Mortar carrier before it is 70 years old would definitely be welcome.

At least, the ABSV hypothesis is my hope, since WCSP was expected to cost one billion when 640+ vehicles were to be upgraded and 449 of those were to be "fighting" vehicles, getting the new turret and gun, for an army with 8 Armoured Infantry Battalions plus a Training formation.
Since now we can expect at most between 250 and 340 Warriors to get new turrets, for a total of five battalions plus training formation, and total number of upgraded vehicles has gone down as well, one would hope that costs went down too, and that the same amount of money now covers both paths.


But the MOD announcement, sadly, does not tell a single useful thing, apart perhaps from an interesting "beyond 2040" as new OSD, when, years ago, the upgrade was meant to stretch the service life only out to 2035. But this means little to nothing anyway. After all, back then it was envisaged that, come 2011, the upgraded Warrior would have been in service...!

The real questions, that i still wait to see answered, are:

- How many vehicles get the upgrade
- How the new modular armour kit is designed and what it offers
- What about the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle, which in 2005 became part of the Warrior upgrade? Is it gone? Is it happening? What kind of "support" vehicles are coming out from the otherwise wasted Warrior hulls? Can we get a Mortar Carrier for the Armoured Battalions, PLEASE? What about the Warrior Bridgelayer/engineer platform? How does the bridgelayer variant (eventually) fits into FRES? And so along...
- What kind of provvision has been made to try and synchronize the FV514 Artillery Observation vehicle upgrade (which the RA is desperately trying to obtain funding for) with the WCSP, so that the RA Warriors enter the factory only once, and get their WCSP vehicle electronic and the separately procured Fire Support software and hardware in the same main rework period, to try and minimize costs, unavailabilities and possibility for software troubles?
It wouldn't be wise to soon have to rip the software and electronics apart once more to get the Fire direction kit in place, and risk a "Chinook MK3 fuckup repeat".
- What about engine power, vehicle weight, and all related (possible) mobility issues? 

The WCSP contract announcement is something i've long waited and hoped for. But seriously. I hoped in something more substantial and useful to be said.  In this format, the announcement is pretty useless.
I'll be ready to analyze all details, as soon as they finally (eventually) come out. For now, cheers. A little but fundamental step forwards is moved.

This might also signal that the 10-years procurement plan document, originally planned for September, is getting closer to release date as well, since Warrior CSP and FRES SV were reportedly the biggest issues left to fix and fit within the budget.

Who lives, sees.

UPDATE - 26 October 

According to DefenseNews, the contract with Lockheed Martin will be signed by the end of this month. Lockheed however says that the programme has been quite massively reduced in numbers: from over 640, now it is expected that only around 380 vehicles will be upgraded, and not all of these will be the Fighting variant, with the new turret and gun. The total number of re-turreted vehicles is probably going to be insufficient to cover even the 6 Battalions requirement, but this is being justified on the grounds of the reduced deployment objectives.
Peacetime strenght of the battalions is always partial, with good part of the vehicles in storage. This will also be the destiny of the Warrior.
Besides, apparently the full production of upgraded vehicles is not due until 2018, with 2020 as initial in-service date. Trials should begin in 2013. LM has already validated and test-fired the CTA40 mm installation for their proposal. 

The new dates are even worse than what the NAO had guessed, talking in its recent report about armor of 2017 as the new likely date. The delay is likely due to the need for the Army of securing funding for FRES SV, the other top-priority on its list, which is (in theory) going to start delivering in 2015.
The delay means that the programme moves out of the most critical Planning Rounds (2012 and 2013 on top of all) and into the period of 1% real term uplift in the Defence Budget.

However, we have to hope that the Army is doing its calculations well: there's a stated plan for re-opening competition for FRES UV in 2018, aiming for a 2022 ISD. "Around the middle of the decade" it is also planned of taking the first decisions about the Challenger Capability Sustainment Programme, which is going to be a necessity to keep it going effectively as long as the Warrior, or even more.

August 2011:

Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) what plans he has to upgrade the Challenger weapons system;
(2) what assessment he has made of the future of the Challenger weapons system.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Challenger 2 main battle tank provides the Army’s principal organic precision direct fire capability. The strategic defence and security review set out an enduring requirement for this capability in the future.
The Challenger 2 capability sustainment programme is currently in the concept phase. We expect to take a decision on the assessment phase around the middle of the decade.

Next year, the Operational Utility Vehicle System is also expected to restart, and the Army Air Corps maximum priority in the next few years is to add its own Apache helicopters to the tail of US ones going under the Block III upgrade, to life-extend the system out to, again, 2040.
It is evident that the Army has several high-priority, big-ticket needs that will have to be fit into a limited, already crammed budget literally with blows of hammer.

Warrior numbers 

The production run of Warrior originally delivered:

- 489 FV510 Infantry Section Vehicle (105 of which are platforms for the mobility of ATGW teams, once with Milan, now with Javelin)
- 84 FV511 Infantry Command Vehicles
- 105 FV512 Mechanized Combat Repair Vehicles
- 39 FV513 Mechanized Recovery Vehicle (Repair)
- 52 FV514 Mechanized Artillery Observation Vehicles for the RA
- 19 FV515 Battery Command Vehicles for the RA

It appears that 380 vehicles are to be upgraded, comprising a mix of infantry section support, command and control, repair and recovery and artillery observation vehicles.

A standard armoured infantry battalion of the British Army can be expected to use some 63 Warriors:

- Around 47 FV510 Infantry Section Vehicles (including those kitted for ATGW transport role)

- 9 Infantry Command Vehicles
- 4 FV513
- 3 FV512

That means 56 "gun" vehicles per battalion, for a total of 336 for six battalions. The number of "gun" vehicles re-turreted and upgraded is almost certainly going to be quite lower than this meaning that never will the six remaining battalions ever be all at full strength again.


Kuwaiti connection

LM and the UK Mod are trying to secure synergies and perhaps some kind of collaboration on the wider Warrior recap, since Kuwait is also looking to release a requirement for the upgrade of all of its 250 Desert Warrior vehicles.
The idea is not at all new, and is being pursued from some time. Despite the two upgrades being quite different, there is scope for efficiency by bringing the two programmes together, since common areas could be found within the chassis, turret and electronic architecture.


Forces News offers an interesting video regarding Warrior upgrade, with some interesting new LM images and views of the prototype: here. 

News and readings

Libya ops might really about to finish 


Colonel Gaddafi has been found, captured, and eventually killed. Despite confusion remaining over the events, it appears that the dictator was trying to escape from Sirte, his hometown and last bulwark, in a very large (80 vehicles according to some sources) convoy. A U.S. defense official said Oct. 20 a U.S. Predator drone along with a French fighter jet attacked said convoy, with Paris signaling that it might carry Gaddafi.

French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet had earlier revealed that a French Mirage-2000 fired a warning shot at a column of several dozen vehicles fleeing Sirte.
Longuet told reporters in Paris that the convoy "was stopped from progressing as it sought to flee Sirte but was not destroyed by the French intervention."

Libyan rebels then intervened, destroying the vehicles, and capturing Colonel Kadhafi. With the fall of Sirte and of the dictator, the war should be over, but arguably, the complex part of the deal is only about to begin, with thousands of armed rebels spread all over the country, and over 100 tribes to bring together to a table to ensure that a peaceful process of nation-building can begin.
  
 
Sentinel R1

An instructive, even if perhaps a bit too-optimist (it comes from the makers and sellers of the system, after all!) description of the Sentinel R1 and its many operational merits: Raytheon UK written evidence on Sentinel R1

My readers will know that i'm a great supporter of retaining this vital piece of kit as a fundamental component of the wider ISTAR element of the present and future force. This document only strengthens my belief that Sentinel will remain, for many more years, essentially unmatched in its performances.


MARS Fleet Tanker 

In the written answers released to public by 20 October, one particularly interesting one is this: 

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) when he expects the final downselection in the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tanker contract to occur;
(2) what the total cost to the public purse is of the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tanker contract;
(3) on what date he expects the (a) first and (b) last Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tankers to be delivered to the Royal Navy.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Final bids have been requested from the bidders in the ongoing international competition for the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) Tanker contract. We anticipate announcing the winning bidder early next year.
I am withholding information on the cost of the contract and the planned delivery schedule as their disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.

It seems that, finally, the time of MARS FT might have come. MARS rivals the FRES programme for the infamous title of most-delayed procurement item in history, despite it being fundamental for the Navy, and despite appearing even in the MOD Document about lessons learned from the Iraq war, as indispensable to ensure continued independent logistical support of british units at sea and ashore in absence of host nations support.
MARS is part of the "Carrier Enabled Power Projection" main programme, and in the years it has been broken down into segments, mainly FT (Fleet Tanker) and Solid Support, the replacement for the Fort class replenisher ships. Not entirely clear is the destiny of the Joint Sea Based Logistic vessels, meant specifically to support forces ashore for prolonged periods of times by providing fuel, supplies, ammunition, medical facilities and other utilities including workshops and helicopter facilities.

FT is the most urgent of the group, as the last ancient and single-hulled tankers of the RFA urgently need replacing, having previously been planned to retire by 2010.

In 2007, year in which MARS was split, from a single, 12-ships programme into separate segments, the MOD issued, on 10 December, an “Invitation to Participate in Dialogue” to industry to for up to six fleet tankers at an expected cost of £800 million. The intention, to keep costs down, is specifically to procure the hulls abroad, with only the fitting of specific military kit due to be done in the UK.

On 21 May 2008 the MOD announced the results of the invitation, indicating that four companies had been shortlisted: Fincantieri (Italy); Hyundai (Republic of Korea); Navantia (Spain) and BAE Systems with BMT DSL and DSME (Republic of Korea).

The programme was unable to progress, however, despite the Navy trying to secure its prosecution in every Planning Round. In October 2009 a revised international competition was launched, and the bidders selected for final consideration grew to 6, and from these, the winner is to be finally selected.
I've been unable to find out the identity of the 2 new bidders, but it is very likely that one of the two is France's DCNS. 

Let's hope that this time, things effectively do progress. The latest ISD i saw indicated was 2016, and the number of vessels has been brought down to 4, to be acquired with a contract in the "2 + 1 + 1" fashion.
The vessels would work alongside the two Wave class Fast Fleet Tankers, and replace the remaining Rovers (Black Rover and Gold Rover) and the 40.000 tons Orangeleaf.

The fourth MARS FT vessel might be intended as replacement for RFA Fort Victoria, the last Auxiliary Oiler Replenisher left after the SDSR ordered the premature retirement of RFA Fort George.
The two "Fort I" oilers are also Single-Hulled, despite carrying huge amounts (some 12500 cubic meters) of fuels and oils. They also carry up to 3500 tons of solid stores in 6250 cubic meters of holds, part of which refrigerated, and have facilities for up to 4 Merlin helicopters.

The MARS FT tankers won't match these last two characteristics, despite provvision for a Merlin helo probably going to be required. The imbalance in Solid Stores and Helicopter capacities is to be met, in the short term, by bringing out of mothball RFA Fort Austin, one of the two "Fort II" vessels, which had been put in reserve in 2009.
RFA Fort Austin and RFA Fort Rosalie will serve for many more years, before being replaced by the second element of MARS, the Solid Support ships, fundamental to keep ships, in particular the Strike Carrier, armed and supplied.


Warrior CSP

Again, from the latest round of answers:

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the preferred bidder for the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme will be announced.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

An announcement concerning the main investment decision for the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme will be made shortly.

The announcement will probably come nearly simultaneously with the promised 10-years procurement plan, which had been expected for September, but which is proving far more challenging than hoped, with the Army reportedly struggling to secure both FRES SV and Warrior CSP, its two main urgencies.


One more brigade to go...?

I wouldn't place much confidence in the content of this article, but the news (unsurprisingly, a bad one) is too big not to signal it at least.

From the army’s point of view that was not the most worrying thing. Libya provided a timely reminder of the value of air and maritime assets for projecting force at short notice. But the political appetite for operations involving large numbers of boots on the ground may not recover for a generation. The SDSR made no attempt to say, other than in the vaguest terms, what the army might be for after Afghanistan. Given the prospect of a defence budget under strain for years to come, the army fears it will be the target for any piecemeal cuts that may have to be made. Manpower is both expensive and a softer target than big procurement programmes, such as Britain’s future aircraft-carriers, which are protected by tightly drawn contracts.
Seizing the opportunity provided by Dr Fox’s plans for decentralisation, General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the army, asked Major-General Nick Carter, a former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and the director-general of land warfare, to carry out a review that would shape the army of the future. Insiders say General Carter is reaching radical conclusions.

His review starts from the premise that whatever the tactical successes of the British army in Iraq and Afghanistan, those campaigns have not worked out well overall. It also makes a number of other assumptions. The first is that the next few years will be dominated by “getting off the Afghan hamster wheel”—extracting men and equipment from Afghanistan in good order and deciding which bits of kit to keep and which to leave behind. The second is that by 2020, after troops have come home from Germany, the army will be almost entirely based in Britain for the first time in generations. The third is that the army must move to a “contingency” posture rather than a campaigning one, putting the onus on adaptability.

It looks as if one of the ideas in the SDSR—that there should be five essentially identical multi-role brigades—will be quietly junked in favour of “tailoring the force for the challenge” around two light and two heavy brigades which will draw on other resources as needed.

One brigade less then, and further reductions in all kinds of capabilities and kit. Also, issues with sustaining a long term deployment unless Guidelines are changed, because of the absence of the indispensable Fifth brigade.
Can the Army and Government afford to once more betray the SDSR indications that they did write so short a time ago?

I would hope no.

Towards tomorrow's minesweeping ops

Minesweeping today

The drones

SeaFox: In 2006, the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) announced that it had placed an order worth around £35m for 16 ship sets and a war-stock of expendable mine destructor vehicles of the Seafox One-Shot Mine-Disposal System (OSMDS). Prime contractor Ultra, developer and design authority Atlas Elektronik and logistic support house Babcock was to supply the systems to the RN over a period of three years, starting in 2007.
The contract award followed the successful deployment of the system back in March 2003 during 'Op Telic' when Atlas Elektronik provided the RN with a number of Seafox rounds for operational use in theatre.

An MOD report – entitled 'Operations in Iraq: Lessons for the future' – stated that the one-shot system was 'vital to clearing the waterway leading to the port of Umm Qasr', and that 'it is estimated that the OSMDS reduced the time to neutralise a mine by a factor of four'. The Seafox system offered UK forces a simplified and quicker system, which required fewer operators.

Subsequent evaluation tests since then, both in a tank and at sea, and a live trial of the explosives against sea mines, convinced the MOD of the value of such a system, until the decision was taken, and the OSMDS replaced the PAP Mk 3 and Mk 5 remote controlled mine disposal system vehicles previously used by the Rn’s fleet of MCMVs.

The current SeaFox is actually a family of drones, with two different machines working in cooperation: the re-usable SeaFox I is the “recce” element, used to locate the mine on the seabed, while the SeaFox C is a suicide, one-shot disposal drone which is destroyed together with the mine to neutralize. The SeaFox I, remarkably, can be readied for a new mission in just 15 minutes after being recovered at the end of the previous sortie, while the shaped charge warhead used by SeaFox C is insensitive and allows for safe transport. SeaFox is operational in Sea State 5, and has a range of some 1000 meters.  

SeaFox and a mine on the seabed. Found ya!

Currently, minesweepers deploy SeaFox by a modified crane dropping the drone into the water from the side of the ship. Recovery is done by using a portable command console that a man from the deck of the ship uses to visually drive the drone onto a “fishing net” which is then lifted back up on the ship. ULTRA has a good video showing all the operations, you can see it here.

SeaFox is, currently, the main weapon of the Hunt and Sandown class minesweepers, and the system has been again used, wholly successfully, in the recent Libya operations, when HMS Bangor disposed of a 2500 pounds mine and a torpedo which had been obstructing entrance to the port of Tobruk.

REMUS 100: Again, operations in Iraq in 2003 inspired the evolution of core-role equipment for the RN’s MCM operations. The UK MCM capability deployed during 'Op Telic' was enhanced with the Australian-developed Shallow Water Influence Minesweeping System (SWIMS). SWIMS was developed specifically for this operation and was the coalition's remote-controlled minesweeping equipment designed to operate in the small rivers and waterways in the south of Iraq. SWIMS uses Mini Magnetic Dyads which are towed behind Combat Support Boats to blow up magnetic mines. A mini-dyad is a floating tube, which contains high-powered strontium ferrite magnets. When strung together with a noise maker, a number of mini-dyads are able to fool the mine into thinking that a ship is passing by, causing detonation

The Dyads were acquired from Australian Defence Industries (ADI) as they were the only known influence minesweeping system self-powered and able to operate in a shallow water environment. The mini-dyads were acquired by the Royal Navy to undergo a 12 month testing period, but were rushed into service to deal with the sophisticated Manta mines laid by the Iraqi forces in the Khawr Abd Allah waterway during operation Telic.

SWIMS successfully filled a gap in the RN's shallow water capability, and after being procured against a tight timescale and delivered through the Urgent Operational Requirement process, offered very good reliability in theatre.

Interestingly, the US used the AN/ALQ-219 SWIMS system, towed by helicopters such as CH53 and MH60, a work for which Japan uses the AW101 Merlin. The Royal Navy does not have a great fondness for this kind of methods, also due to its cost, but an Aerial drone is planned as part of the future, stand-off MCM capability. It will be interesting to see what role such drone receives as part of the overall solution.

Building on the success of SWIMS in Iraq, the RN subsequently introduced a very shallow water UUV (from 30m to the surf zone) capability. The experience of operations in Iraq in 2003 is behind the decision to acquire 10 REMUS 100 vehicles. The UUVs were acquired in March 2005 from Hydroid under a £2.7m contract awarded by the UK Defence Procurement Agency. Two further systems, which have been trialed by QinetiQ, have subsequently been upgraded to the same standard as the new vehicles, giving a total inventory of 12 vehicles. QinetiQ and Babcock provide training and logistic supports for the UUVs. The REMUS 100 only weights 37 kg and is designed for operation in coastal environments up to 100 meters in depth.

REMUS 600: The MOD then procured two large UUVs to undertake MCM reconnaissance, hydrographic surveys and environmental monitoring, but they will also be capable of providing more general support to both military and civilian search and salvage operations. The contract was signed in 2007, and saw the acquisition of the US manufacturer Hydroid's REMUS 600 drone, for some 5.5 million pounds. The REMUS 600 vehicles provides a detailed maritime survey and mine detection and classification capability, and was procured for MCM reconnaissance in the 30m to 200m depth range, although the vehicle can operate down to 600m. It is fitted with a range of sensors and runs on re-chargeable batteries giving it an endurance of over 70 hours. The Remus 600 can be deployed from any vessel equipped with a one tonne crane or davit, so it is a quite easily deployable system, although they will almost certainly be mainly operated from the RN's Hunt class minesweepers. The Remus 600 weights 240 kg, and is remarkably similar to a lightweight torpedo such as Stingray, sharing even the 324 mm diameter of it.

The manned part of the deal: The other key tenant of the navy's MCM capability is of course undertaken by the UK Royal Navy's Fleet Diving Squadron (FDS). Limited in terms of numbers, the role of the FDS is increasingly expanding into new areas, and new technology is required in order to accomplish additional roles.

The FDS has a wide remit, including dealing with unexploded Second World War mines, conducting underwater surveys of ports and jetties for deployed RN ships, and clearing waterways and beaches of mines ahead of the arrival of amphibious assault forces or humanitarian aid.

The majority of the RN's operational clearance diving has been to a maximum depth of around 50m. Some aspects of MCM require a deep dive capability, such as mine investigation and exploitation, particularly in the early stages of a campaign when it is important for the MCM Vessels to know what they are up against. They can then alter their tactics accordingly.

Each RN MCMV currently has a diving team on board to undertake mine-clearance operations. As a result of this requirement, an RN diver can expect to spend roughly one-third of their career as a minehunter in the MCMV fleet.

Each MCMV team has three AB divers, one leading hand and one petty officer diver, as well as two specialist mine clearance divers. The divers are there as part of the weapon system of the ship along with the remote controlled mine disposal system vehicles. They are there to identify contacts detected by the ship's sonar. Once a contact has been identified, the diver can lay explosives to destroy the mine.

Towards MHPC and tomorrow’s stand-off minesweeping

The MCM, Hydrographic, Patrol Capability, or MHPC for short, previously known as “C3”, is the multirole mothership and the associated family of unmanned drones and systems that the Navy plan to use to replace its current fleet of minesweepers and the two Echo class survey ships from around 2018. The programme, with a budget currently indicated in some 1.4 billion pounds, aims for some 8 ships, which as the name suggest will combine several roles in one only hull.

They will be rather large ships (2000 to 3000 tons), with steel hulls and thus with nothing to share with current, expensive, plastic-hulled minesweepers. The Hunt class minesweepers have the (questionable) glory of being the most expensive ship per ton built for the RN. They have superb capacity of holding a steady position even in rough waters, and their Glass-Reinforced Plastic hulls allow them to slip even into minefields. However, GRP is of course not as good as steel for seafaring and for resistance, and the Hunts and Sandowns aren’t the best of ships to sail in rough seas. They are also slow and relatively short legged, which makes their deployment to the Gulf more difficult. The US Navy has been using Float On – Float Off (FLO-FLO) vessels for long range transfers of minesweepers, but this of course is not financially viable for the UK.

The MHPC will be larger, built out of steel, and with a greater range and endurance, suitable for Ocean Patrol and Maritime Security taskings, as implied by the “Patrol” part of their name. They will be ships more capable across the range of roles, and far more deployable. But they won’t have the Hunt’s capability of going into minefields.

Nor does the RN want ships to go into minefields anymore. Ever since 2005, MCM ops are increasingly of a stand-off nature, and the Combined Sweep kit used by Hunt minesweepers has been retired.   

The MHPC will have to do its MCM work from a safe, stand-off position, which might be miles away from the minefield to remove. To do this, and to cover all other missions it is asked to take over, it will have to be able to carry and operate suites of modular, remotely-controlled or autonomous kit.  

ATLAS Elektronik is the MOD’s selected main partner for working towards such an unmanned MCM “systems of systems”. If the plan is not changed, before this month is over, ATLAS Elektronik and the MOD / Royal Navy will stage a week long test and demonstration campaign, to validate the latest solutions and continue to refine the concept.

Such week of activies would build on the success of another demonstration, which ATLAS staged last July, when the company showcased its C-IMCMS system and concept at its test site at Bincleaves, Weymouth on south coast of England. Representatives from Germany, Great Britain, Canada, the USA, Belgium, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Thailand took part. During this demonstration, there was no mothership, but a containerized command centre deployed ashore, and a variety of drones deployed again from ashore. The new demonstration of this month, if confirmed, should be staged from a ship, probably a RN Hunt minesweeper.

The July demonstration, anyway, was already of capital importance, as it proved the immediate feasibility of a number of concepts indispensable for the successful prosecution of the MHPC vision. The C-IMCMS (Containerised Integrated Mine Countermeasures System) consists of several systems:

-          a portable combat management system as well as the analysis software CLASSIPHI for post mission analysis of side-scan sonar data, which, installed in a TEU container, would be easily transferable to any vessel with sufficient space provision and adequate power interface

-         the unmanned surface vessel (USV) FAST, developed by ATLAS under a 2007 contract awarded by the UK MOD

-         the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) SeaOtter Mk II;

-          the mine disposal system (ROV) SeaFox

FAST (Flexible Agile Sweeping Technology): this USV was developed by ATLAS ELEK-TRONIK UK to carry out acoustic and magnetic influence sweeping, in which a towed body is used to emulate the corresponding signatures of a ship and thus cause the mines to detonate. The FAST was funded by the MOD with the aim of developing a replacement for the Combined Influence Sweep (CIS) capability which was dismissed from the Hunt class minesweepers in 2005. It has yet to enter service, but was trialed successfully in several occasions since 2009, and it is being used actively to shape the future requirements and systems.

According to a Sunday Mirror article, the FAST drone will be ready for adoption in service within the next two years. But the article is wrong on the 600-jobs loss and on the Hunt retirement rumor. This is a conclusion too bold: the FAST is actually intended, ever since it was ordered, to EQUIP the Hunt class minesweepers to replace them in the dangerous Combined Sweep work, not to REPLACE the vessels and their crews whole. In this sense, Babcock did already prepare plans for the modifications to the rear working area of the Hunt class, which will enable each Minesweeper to carry and deploy a couple of FAST drones.  So, while some jobs will be perhaps lost, the scenario is very different from that painted by the short article. Far more jobs are effectively at risk come 2018, when the 8 MHPC eventually replace 14 Hunt and Sandown vessels, but this is another story, and one too far away in time for advancing hypothesis about. 

Babcock has already made proposals for modifications of the rear area of Hunt minesweepers, to allow the carriage and deployment of two FAST drones

Since contract award, the role of FAST has expanded. From a more sophisticate, non-UOR SWIMS, it became an unmanned workhorse acting as a mothership itself to a range of other drones. During the July demonstration, in fact, FAST was used to remotely deploy SeaFox. SeaFox can work some 1000 meters away from the deploying platform, so it is essential to have a “taxi” platform capable to deploy it at distance and fitted with radio for relaying data to and from the SeaFox drone over the miles separating it from the mothership. And this was demonstrated in July, proving that one of the most challenging aspects of the whole concept is perfectly feasible, and indeed already working. SeaFox was for the first time remote-controlled from the container based ashore through a combination of a radio link to the FAST USV and a fibre-optic cable from FAST USV to Seafox. Both sonar and video data captured by SeaFox were transmitted in real-time via radio link.

The FAST (Flexible Agile Sweeping Technology) system is being developed by an industry team led by Atlas Elektronik UK, and has completed an Interim Design Review for a mine countermeasures (MCM) Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) demonstrator system under development for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). The Atlas-QED industry team also includes EDO Corporation and QinetiQ. The consortium won a GBP4.3 million (USD8.6 million) contract from the UK's Research Acquisition Organisation in May 2007 for the two-year Technology Readiness Demonstrator (TRD) programme, known as Flexible Agile Sweeping Technology (FAST), which culminated in trials aboard HMS Ledbury in mid 2009.

The FAST platform is a modified Logistic Support Boat (LSB-R), sharing the hull of the proven, in-service Combat Support Boat.  The CSB is a powerful, versatile craft whose major role is to support both bridging and amphibious operations.  The FAST platform builds on the success of the CSB while incorporating significant performance improvements to meet the demanding requirements of this programme. 

A graphic of FAST, shown in its main roles: as "taxi" for SeaFox, and as Combined Influence Swep drone

 

The FAST system’s main features are:

• Flexible
• Configurable 2/3-Electrode magnetic sweep and Integrated Coil
• Cable design includes replaceable electrodes
• Easily configurable for alternative noise source(s)
• Design accommodates multiple towing configurations
• LSB-R - New Engines/Jets, Hamilton blue ARROW Control
• Clip-on sweep system
• Integrated Sweep Payload control

• Agile
• Remote/Autonomous Control
• Combined Planing/Displacement hull
• Revolutionary Waterjet/Control system

• Sweeping
• Enhanced ITT Power Generation Unit
• Waveform Generation
• New Sweep Cable design

• Technology
• Fly-by-wire
• Open Standards
• Common Interfaces
• Collision Avoidance

Evolving the SeaFox: this year, SeaFox has evolved. Presented also at the DSEI show, the new concept was introduced by Atlas Elektronik, teamed with ECS Special Projects Ltd. The new idea was to install a stand-off EOD killer effector on the re-usable SeaFox I. The COBRA (Clip-On BX-90 Re-loadable Assembly) can be fitted to the re-usable SeaFox vehicle offering Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) capability from surface to 300m depth, removing the need for the SeaFox C, and providing a reusable disposal system  offering multiple target prosecution / multiple target initiation by remote means. In addition, SeaFox has now been evolved to be deployable even from a RHIB, allowing stand-off, automated operations away from the mothership.

These two new capabilities will be priceless, and in addition to FAST, will provide the Royal Navy with an effective, wholly remotely-operated mine disposal capability. An unmanned FAST, properly kitted, could deploy from the mothership, to which it’ll be connected by radio link, enter the minefield, and deploy (and then recover) the SeaFox I drone fitted with COBRA for the disposal of the threat. The advantage of COBRA is also in the inferior time that will now be required for disposal, as the RECCE element will be now capable to dispose of the mine by itself, without need for a second vehicle to be launched and vectored to the target. SeaFox is now an “hunter-killer” asset, evolving in the same way the Predator UAV has, by changing from an unarmed scout to a long-endurance killer.

Cobra is a “mask” worn on the front end of the SeaFox vehicle. For mine disposal, Cobra attaches itself to the mine while the SeaFox vehicle manoeuvres away. Attachment can happen in three ways: nail attachment units, harpoon for soft-skinned targets, and magnetic grabs. In this way, only the COBRA is disposed of, while the SeaFox I returns to the ship for recovery, providing a considerably cheaper and easier solution for disposal of mines.

An unmanned, Stand Off MCM solution taking shape: So. REMUS 100, 600, SeaFox, perhaps “tomorrow” used with COBRA, and FAST seem to be an excellent “terminal” section of the Minesweeping operation. They also are a mature and proven solution, which can provide a very solid base for development of a containerized, ship-agnostic MCM capability for the future navy. Arguably, these systems are modern enough that at least some of them are very likely to migrate from the current Hunt ships to the MHPC, assuming that the MHPC is not delayed by decades as sadly happened with recent ship programmes.

But, of course, before employing these systems, we have to discover where the minefield is, something that, currently, is done largely by the sonar of the minesweeper. If we have to remove the minesweeper from the equation, we have to offload the sonar payload to a remotely-operated, unmanned platform as well. MHPC or Type 26 will of course have sonar themselves, but we still are not going to want them scouting in a possibly mined area, for obvious reasons. The excellent, Thales 2193 sonar, adopted in 2004 for the Hunt fleet, has the capability to detect and classify an object the size of a football at a range up to 1,000m, but this distance is far shorter than the desirable one for the future.

ATLAS Elektronik, has demonstrated to the MOD their own solution, which is based on their Sea Otter MK2 autonomous underwater drone. This 1-ton drone can be equipped with a high-resolution side-scan sonar. In addition, it can be fitted with other mission payloads, including a powerful MCM synthetic aperture sonar, as it has a 160 kg useful payload. It has a search endurance of 24 hours at a 4 knots speed. It can dive to 600 meters, and is some 3,45 meters long. Once a drone was selected and kitted, it would need a containerized launch and recovery solution, to make it easily deployable on the Mothership, and this should not be an issue. In this sense, Think Defence’s own article about Minesweeping can provide more info. 

The Sea Otter MKII is a solution for the problem of finding the mines with sonar searches.

Other possible platforms for the role could emerge. One alternative could be BAE System’s Talisman. But a larger Unmanned Surface Vehicle, launched from the mothership, could also be the way to go to provide a platform to send in harm’s way, carrying the sophisticate sonars, such as the Thales 2093 variable depth sonar used on current minesweepers. Indeed, France looks set to follow this very path, even if FAST, due to its smaller sizes, has the advantage of being more readily carried by pretty much any kind of vessel, including the Type 26 frigate in the Mission Bay aft. The French unmanned boat is much larger, and could pretty much only be carried by the 2-3000 tons motherships they envision to replace their own minesweeper fleet.

French connection

MCM systems are an area of possible collaboration highlighted following the Lancaster treaty between UK and France, and in the sea environment, there is a surprisingly similar timeframe and requirement which could make such collaboration possible on a very large scale.

France is in fact planning to start replacing its current MCM fleet in 2018, with a fleet of multimission motherships of as many as 3000 tons, employing a standoff suite of MCM drones and systems. Roughly, the same target that the Royal navy is pursuing. The French effort comes under the name Système de Lutte Anti Mines – Futur (SLAM – F) and aims to a “system of systems” capable to operate in a minefield 10/14 miles away from the mothership, even in Sea State 5.

Following studies started in 2009, France is currently considering a mothership of around 3000 tons, which will deploy a large multifunctional Unmanned Surface Vehicle “taxi” that will deliver the Mine Countermeasure assets from the mothership to the danger zone. 

The target is to build some 5 Motherships, each capable of deploying two or three “Taxi” vehicles. They are considering a catamaran vessel for the mothership role, offering higher speed than current Eridan minesweepers and larger deck and working areas. 

And this might be an issue: even if the MHPC design of the Royal Navy is far from taking on a concrete shape, a catamaran solution might cause some eyebrows to rise in a traditional organization where monohulls are preferred.

Another possible issue on the way of collaboration is represented by the philosophy and sizes of their Unmanned Surface Vessel, as it is a stealthy catamaran displacing some 24.5 tons, 17 meters long and 7.5 meters wide, presenting some challenges regarding launch and recovery, particularly in rough weather, and anyway making the USV hard to deploy with anything other than its intended motherships, differently from the much smaller FAST. France, in studies dating back to 2009, assumed that the final USV design would be made compatible with the Mistral LHDs as well, but carrying USVs would still almost certainly require the sacrifice of some of the landing crafts, making it a far less than optimal solution.

Of such USV, they have built a prototype, already being tested at sea, the Sterenn Du. The unit was launched in 2010, and this year it should move into more advanced testing, with a towed array sonar planned for it, plus a number of submarine drones to be used for validating launch and recovery systems and procedures.  

There is obvious difference between the Sterenn Du and FAST

FAST and Sterenn Du are very different, but share the same notional mission (even if, at the moment, it does not appear that the Sterenn Du would run Combined Influence Sweeps, differently from FAST) as remotely operated “taxi” for underwater drones. They both are set to be the vital link between the mothership and the deployed underwater drones, with which the mothership very hardly could communicate without such a relay node in the middle. SeaFox, after all, works only up to a kilometer away from the launching ship, and the standoff operations envisaged for the future require the mothership to stay well further away than that. They have both advantages and faults: FAST is small, and this allows it to be employed also from the future Type 26 and possibly by other vessels of the Navy. But its small sizes are also a limit to what can be installed on it.

However, there is certainly scope for collaboration. France is trying to fuse its SLAM-F with the European Defence Agency’s project of studies into future MCM means, which involves some 13 nations, reportedly awakening some real interest, which is only going to get greater when the Sterenn Du eventually begins to successfully prove the concept and to do its job.

Ideally, collaboration could be expanded to the Mothership, with each other’s design being informed by the work of the ally. And possibly, in time, UK and France could end up deciding to pursue a single, high-commonality design for the vessel, in order to pursue savings and financial efficiencies in the building phase that both countries direly need. Which does not necessarily mean aiming for a “no differences” common solution. To be not just safe from problems stemming from national requirements incompatibilities, but also exportable, the new system should be as modular as possible, allowing each nation to, for example, select its own fit of radars, weapons and even engines for the Mothership, and of course drones for the proper MCM suite.

This year, anyway, and very possibly this very month, should provide us further news about the new MCM concepts, and about SLAM-F. It will be interesting to read into the results of the ATLAS demonstration to the MOD, when news come out.

I’ll ready to post all significant updates when time comes!