The RN has re-established a minesweeping capability for the first time in nearly two decades with the acceptance of three USV-based autonomous Combined Influence Sweep systems, developed and delivered under the Mine Hunting Capability (MHC) Block 1 programme.
Old threat, new tools
Traditional minesweeping relied on crewed vessels towing cutting gear designed to sever the mooring cables of tethered mines. Acoustic, magnetic, and pressure signature simulators were later added to this equipment to trigger influence mines. Once detonated, or if cut free, mines could be neutralised by gunfire, allowing the channel to be declared safe. This crude method of disposing of tethered mines required lots of minesweeping vessels and was the main approach employed up until the 1980s, until more sophisticated mine hunters were developed.
Mine Hunting (MH) uses high-resolution sonar and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to enable the detection and disposal of individual mines with precision. Although slow, mine hunting is well suited to clearing confined or high-risk areas such as harbour entrances or narrow straits, where buried or stealthy mines pose a significant threat.
Minesweeping (MS), by contrast, remains the only practical way to rapidly clear or verify larger sea areas. While older sweeping methods were less effective against newer, programmable mines, the emergence of remotely operated and autonomous sweeping systems has restored this capability.
Back to sweeping
The RN has now restored a minesweeping capability, something it has not had since 2005. It should be noted that the RN acquired the Shallow Water Influence Minesweeping System (SWIMS) as far back as 2003 for clearing mines in Iraqi waters. SWIMS used a remotely-controlled modified Combat Support Boat (CSB) to tow minesweeping equipment and was a forerunner of today’s system. SWIMS was purchased under an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) but did not remain in RN service after Operation Telic. HMS Middleton and HMS Ledbury carried out the last minesweeping exercise off the Isle of Wight in October 2005, the final deployment of sweep gear by the RN until now.
In 2015, a contract was awarded to Atlas Elektronik UK (now TKMS Atlas UK Ltd) to develop a sweep demonstrator system. This led to the delivery of the first ARCIMS-based uncrewed sweeping platform in 2018. Initial trials, led by the RN’s Maritime Autonomous Systems Trials Team (MASTT – now disbanded and absorbed into the Mine Threat Exploitation Group), began with a series of evaluations including cold weather testing in Halifax, Canada, in early 2020 and a 10-day hot weather deployment in the Gulf in October 2020 using RNMB Halcyon.
Based on feedback from these evaluations, a production contract was awarded in early 2021 for three updated sweep payloads. These systems were built by TKMS Atlas UK, whose design and integration work is centred on their Winfrith facility in Dorset, with over 95% of the supply chain based in the UK. The Coil Auxiliary Boats (CABs), Power Generation Modules and electronic subsystems all rely on British manufacturing partners.
Three further USVs were also procured from TKMS Atlas during this period (RNMB Hussar, Harrier and Hazzard) and employed by the RN for other mine countermeasures tasks, including route surveys in UK and Gulf waters, and as platforms for the small uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV) trials.
Considerable delays were caused by shifting RN requirements and supply chain disruption during the pandemic, but all three ARCIMS sweep systems were formally accepted by DE&S on 24 June 2025, with a handover ceremony at TKMS Atlas’ Bincleaves facility the next day.
Anatomy of the sweep system
The autonomous sweep system is centred on the ARCIMS uncrewed surface vessel (USV), towing a flexible configuration of Combined Influence Sweeping (CIS) modules. The CIS array is built around one, two or three Coil Auxiliary Boats (CABs), connected by cables that can be reconfigured to vary spacing and magnetic influence. The CABs carry tilt-adjustable coils to simulate magnetic signatures of different vessel types.
A compact, high-power Power Generation Module (PGM) on the USV includes a diesel Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and electronics that produce four independently controlled current outputs, as well as power for the acoustic sweep. This modular approach enables tailored configurations to match specific mine threat profiles.
An advanced wide-band acoustic generator provides programmable acoustic signatures across a broader frequency range, simulating various ship types. Additionally, a towed echo-repeater simulates the hull reflections generated by sonar pulses, adding another layer of deception for sonar-triggered mines.
Trailing the CABs is a distinctive yellow Sweep Monitoring System (SMS) that performs two key functions: monitoring the acoustic and magnetic output of the sweep gear and detecting mine actuations, including their bearing, timing and frequency. The system is controlled from a containerised Portable Command Centre (POC) which can be based ashore or embarked on vessels of opportunity.
While the system has not yet detonated live mines in trials, it has been evaluated against operational mine algorithms in real-world conditions. These tests confirmed that the system can safely and reliably replicate the signatures necessary to trigger a mine detonation. The USV has an upgraded structural design to provide improve survivability if in close proximity to underwater explosions (UNDEX). The CABs also incorporate novel ‘drop stitch’ inflatable panels to provide structural support, stability and UNDEX resistance.
Looking ahead
The £25 million MHC Sweep contract has supported 55 skilled jobs across the UK and forms part of a wider transformation of RN mine warfare. The RN can now employ mine hunting and minesweeping as separate or complementary capabilities.
TKMS Atlas UK retains an in-service support contract for the systems. The system is also being marketed internationally, having been originally developed for an overseas customer prior to UK acquisition. Variants have since been sold abroad, with further discussions underway with potential buyers.
The new sweep capability adds another important option in the toolkit for clearing the sea lanes. Uncrewed MCM systems have now been definitively proven to be faster, safer, cheaper and more effective than using crewed mine hunters at the core task, at least in benign conditions and in a low-threat environment. It is these important caveats that the RN must still address, along with the loss of naval presence, patrol and training opportunities that have gone with the MCMVs.
With the return of HMS Stirling Castle to operations after being laid up for 8 months, development and trials can get back on track, but the acquisition of three properly armed and equipped MCM motherships is needed to make the whole transition to autonomy credible.
A token capability, using the term loosely, given any mothership will be limited in the area is can sweep/hunt, and there are many more ports and areas which need to be sanitised.
.
.
The RN, The UK, requires many more such assets, noting the Ton and preceding Algerines were much more numerous (in time of war).
Agreed that it is just a token. At least it appears to scalable
No, not a token capability, rather the prototype completing development and testing to enable serial production of that class. A usual approach to custom manufacturing to the customers new requirements.
How many that the customer decides to purchase and so commission into service is a different decision.
SDR does suggest some Navy capability generation so there’s some hope..
I can understand, I think, how these systems might be best for inshore sweeping but how about coastal or offshore or even an opposed amphibious landing?
• We don’t go over the top out of trenches walking slowly in lines towards machines guns anymore.
• We don’t do opposed amphibious landings anymore.
Both for the same reason.
Yes, not in that way and we also now have helicopters but we might, at some future time, wish to land on a shoreline to which the approaches could be mined. Meanwhile my questions about coastal and offshore minesweeping remain.
Opposed landings no. But I think what you meant was, what if the shore is ‘owned’ by the ‘opposition’.
You have to watch it around here. Many seize on the slightest thing because they think it makes them look good.
No, Just you.
Sean
By “we”, can I take it that you really mean that us Brit’s will all have to be “very British” in these type of wartime situations
Unfortunately = very recent history has already proved you wrong…
During that long-running (ongoing) war in Eastern Europe (called Ukraine)
Ukraine war: Satellite images reveal Russian defences before major assault – BBC News
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
And just because the Russian Navy was ill-prepared and/or incomptent back in Feb 2022 – that also does not mean than amphibious landings have gone out of fashion.
What worries me, in the immediate future, is a (Very) Large, Multi-Capability, Chinese Fleet.
Quite able to launch Amphibious Landings … with a Robot & Human Military onboard.
The Robot Video-Footage is, currently, all very clumsy and funny.
But Not So Clumsy as a year back; and every time a new piece shows improvements.
Picture a Landing Craft which drops a Ramp, and a Large, Fast, Practically Unstoppable, Army pours out.
Meet the ‘New, Man-Sized Tank’.
To quote the ‘Ghost Busters: ”Now, whottcha gonna do?”
Harry
I agree😎
Whenever anybody mentions “Chinese Progress”, I always think back to the Clarkson, Hammond and May Top Gear Episode, first broadcast in 2011.
Bing Videos
However, just over a decade later, some very good Chinese made cars are now for sale in my local garage…….and frankly, some of them are now better than very good ..
—
and has been exactly the same with the development of their Navy
So today …
…you have not even mentioned (posting above) the most worrying new development in Chinese amphibious warfare
Why new Chinese maritime tech is spooking defense watchers | CNN
These are basically a huge modern development of the orginal D-Day WW2 jack up barges
Very recently developed so the PLAN can transfer huge amounts of vehicles and logistics off any big sea-going ship – “directly over the shoreline” – and they can do so in a very short period of time
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note1
Considering the utter, utter stupidity I am hearing about attacking Kaliningrad I would be more bothered about Kilos laying mines around Faslane. They can carry 24 mines. We, well the UK, well the Starmer Regime can’t say much after applauding the Ukraine’s attack on those Bears a month or two back. The danger is far closer to home. If the UK took CASD seriously there would be a layered bastion defence of it. There isn’t…..
Interesting. You seem to be confusing what British tactics are with the tactics of the Russians in Ukraine. Why are you identifying with the Ruskies so much?
Maybe you’re having trouble maintaining your real identity Питер?…
You seem to be getting confused with what British Army tactics are, and the tactics of the rabble deployed by Russia to the Ukraine front.
Are you suggesting the British Army is on the same level of professionalism as the Orcs? Which is rather insulting to our servicemen.
Or are you having difficulty remembering which nation you’re referring to when you say “we”.
Perhaps time for you to come clean Petrovich?
Original comment
We don’t go over the top out of trenches walking slowly in lines towards machines guns anymore”.
Sean
When I commented on your post (copied above)
Hence your comments (your two posts, directly above) are a figment of your imagination
I merely pointed out that you seemed to have got it “very badly wrong” with your comments about modern warfare…….
To recap, this is what I actually said:
“During that long-running (ongoing) war in Eastern Europe (called Ukraine)
“old fashioned trenches and GMPG’s seem to have come back into fashion”
Finally, can I suggest that you now apologises for your frankly libelous comments about me being a Russian troll
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
If you look back though this site or do some Googling you’ll find ROV’s operating from USV’s that the RN is testing/buying for those types of mine clearance.
Nurton my last ship and sad to see the old ways go but we must move with modern technology and accept modern wars will be fought in different way.
“Considerable delays were caused by shifting RN requirements”
All
Thus, whilst it is now great to see an RN MCM capability (back) in full service, one ought not to loose sight of the fact that it has taken two decades – the first decade of pontifucation (by RN) followed by another full decade of detailed development (by Atlas) – to actually bring this first ever fully uncrewed system-of-systems into full operational use
Even now – as has quite rightly been pointed out by others posting above – this MCM capability is only effectively useable in inshore and some coastal areas.
Frankly this very extended timeline / schedule does not bode at all well for all of those blue sky’s dreamers – of which the RN seems to have plenty in its senior ranks these days – who hinestly seen to think that uncrewed naval systems are going to be quick and cheap and easy to bring into service.
Peter (Irate Taxapayer)
PS A very well done to those few senior engineers working at TKMS Atlas UK – who’s main achievement was to (repeatedly) flight off swarms of incoming MOD bureaucrats.
Yes modern ways……….
Three Seehund drones FROM THE 1970’s.
There is nothing new about these things.
During my time in the RNR, the main designated role was extra deep armed team sweeping using the River class sweepers, though they seemed to spend a lot of time alongside with gearbox issues.
Restored? At the end of the Cold War we had 25 front line RN MCM hulls and 11 RNR sweepers……..
Another world’s best capability lost through government stupidity. One second hand hull and one set of gear is hardly a restoration is it?
JMSDF Awaji-class minesweeper the last of which commissioned in March. One of 17 MCM hulls………
……backed up by 2 Uraga class support ships
How does that ship fill our needs
The Italians are getting two classes of MCM vessel.
A large ocean going craft up to 1500 tonnes to work with task groups: Cacciamine d’Altura
A smaller 650 tonne class for coastal work: Cacciamine Costieri
And then a further two support hulls.
The last one is outdated. Should be the same design base but different sizes. 12 to be build.
Thank you.
Great capability restored, and it’s fantastic the risk to our servicemen has been greatly reduced in performing this.
While these are presumably far more efficient too, sweeping is a process that needs regularly repeating. Which means we probably need far more of these units in a protracted war situation.
What about mine laying capabilities? Surely the RN should have Offensive aswell as Defensive capabilities!
Do we have any high tech mines?
Very good question!!
See article here: https://www.navylookout.com/should-the-royal-navy-rebuild-its-minelaying-capability/
We gave that up when we retired Sea Urchin and Stonefish mines back in the mid 90’s. Yet another ‘peace dividend’ money saving measure.
🤦🏻♂️
Sean
TLDNR
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
That looks at best, a harbour capability only . They would struggle to sweep the approaches to the Thames estuary in any thing less than calm water. Another example I guess of relying on the Belgium`s Dutch and French to protect our interests.
You’re assuming that when it’s obviously not the case
Martin
Westcliff seafront cordon after bomb disposal team called | Echo
UK: Bomb disposal units called to Southend-on-Sea after WWII bombs found washed up on coast – Demining and EOD Tech
Even now – eighty years on – here is very regular demining work: on average at least one big horney mine goes “bang” there every year (plus lots of much smaller stuff)
The Navy’s first ever plastic minesweeper, HMS Wilton, is now used there as a clubhouse and bar
Essex Yacht Club HQ, formerly HMS Wilton | Ships Nostalgia
That would make an idea base for autonomus MCM
And the Essex even race an EOD series of boats
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Yes. For a while now I have wondered whether RNR should be tasked with route surveillance for our important ports. Say HMS President (and Medway) could look after say Felixstowe. Cambria and Flying Fox look after Milford Haven and Severn/Avon. King Alfred Southampton and so on.
Many here think the new Dutch Belgian French MCM class is stupid for some reason.
Zookeeper
I know that the RN minesweepers spent several months in the Thames Estaury in the year after 9/11- doing excatly what you suggested – so sweeping the very narrow dredged channel for suspicious objects
Local rumour had it that most of what the RN found was “friendlies” off Canvey Point
Apparently the Royal Ordnance barges coming down the river from the big Woolwich Arsenal repeated dropped – i.e. careless crane drivers on their own barges – whenever those munitions were being transferred from the barges onto seagoing RFA ships in the Thames Estuary.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Regularly see these things in Plymouth Sound and in anything above F4 perhaps in wind over tide conditions near an estuary or harbour entrance I would have concerns about the robustness of this equipment which have numerous cables between each unit.
Undoubtedly clever kit but it does have the look of an interim system.
You think you can determine the capabilities of this system from a couple of photos… 🤦🏻♂️
Yep, by noting there size and freeboard. Even the author of the article agrees with me, he states they can be effective in benign conditions.
Take it from me you do not see benign conditions many days of the year around the British isles.
Sean
The towing boat shown here in the NL photo (note 1), – the powered unit which is often called “a tug” in expert naval circles – is exactly the same model / series of tupperware boat that has been used by the British Army as their riverine / estuary workboat ever since the millenium wheel was first erected in central london.
There is also a long-standing, and it also has to be said – very good – civilian “multiple role” workboat of the same class / type.
Here are the details
SEA Class Marine Craft – ATLAS ELEKTRONIK
During your very long (and hithertoo undistingished) naval service, you may even have been board one of these small boats on a run ashore….across a harbour.
———————
Frankly, these sea class boats were a very good choice (by Atlas) for an new type of uncrewed RN inshore minesweeper.
(not least because they are very easily and very quickly transported on a standard low-loader – so without needing a “plod escort”).
However,
= and his comment is fully supported by the manufacturer’s own evidence/data!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
For all newbies and landlubbers reading Navy Lookout – the towing boat (tug) is the one at the front – so it is the one with the tow rope out behind it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbZe6krFFaA
An enclosed lifeboat should be a better tug
I entirely support martin’s views:
In addition to my personal experience of flogging up and down the laps in MCMVs with their tin-gear streamed, my edition of an East Coat Pilot waxes lyrical about the problems associated with The Thames estuary, and conjures up something of the problems to be encountered in that estuary. Having been in and out of those waters a few times (and those similar ones at the approaches to the Stour and Orwell at Harwich/Felixstowe) I get what Martin is talking about; I do wonder how the towing vessels in this article will cope in those, sometimes, steep wind-over-tide/current conditions which give rise to rather lumpy sea conditions.
But also, equally importantly, I do wonder about the absence of the supporting ‘armed T-cutter wire sweeps’ which were first taken though the intended swept area as ‘precursor sweeps’ whose job it was was to remove moored contact mines laid to interdict the influence sweepers which would follow.
Notwithstanding their simplicity, such moored mines remain effective (and cheap) counters to unsupported influence sweepers.
How does todays’ MCM world cope with such issues?
It seems to me, an Outsider – but ‘Son of an Old Salt’ and – with an interest in History; the Royal Navy requires both the Ability, and Flexibility, to cope with all manner of Water-Borne Threats.
In both in Deep & Coastal/Harbour Waters; with anti-Ship Weapons from the Crude to the Highly Sophisticated; and to always be Pro-active, and Not Re-active.
A good start would be to dismiss the entire (expensively incompetent) M.O.D; and rehire with – e.g. Ukrainians; who can apparently always be relied upon to produce a ‘Quart From A Pint Pot, For A Shilling’.
Carry On.
P.S. Do stop ‘Naming Names’ – on Companies & Everything Else …
”Walls – and the Russians/Chinese/N.Koreans/et Al – Have Ears”.
“A good start would be to dismiss the entire (expensively incompetent) M.O.D”;
Harry
👍👍👍👍👍
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Iran and Russia are so scared.
Why would any national be afraid of another’s mine sweeping capabilities?
Mine sweeping is defensive in nature, not offensive.
Don’t you know the difference? 🤦🏻♂️
Sean
I am very surprised that you, as a former RN naval officer, do not know that sea mining can be offensive
Here is just one (of many possible) examples:
Sweeping the minefield: The case for a NATO Black Sea Fleet | Middle East Institute
This russia has been mining the black sea since 2022 = to stop various supply ships reaching ukrainian ports
Therefore this obviusly offensive action cannot possibly be classed as “defensive”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Some of the fastest and most advanced ships the RN has ever owned were minelayers.
Ships like Manxman, Abdiel-class minelayer, could do 38 knots so they could steam into enemy waters at night to lay mines and be well on their way home by day break.
Zookeeper
And the Abdiel class minealyers were often / primariliy used as fast supply ships = to deliver stores to isolated bases, garrisons, ports etc (Tobrok and Malta being the two best known examples)
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Sean, this is quite funny.
As you do mine sweeping to get free to move, it’s always offensive in nature.
Indeed an amphibious landing always begins with a large mine sweeping operation.
Russia doesn’t care beyond keeping the SSBN bastion safe they are a land power.
Iran and the Straits?
The ability to defend yourself limits the offensive options of others.
The ability to defend yourself limits the offensive options of others.
Bang on.
To which I will add “with the obvious intentention of doing so.”
It’s sort of obvious isn’t it?
If we don’t want a country mining our SSBN base we need to be seen to active in route surveillance and active in deterring submarines in the approaches to the base as well. That we can hardly do either says a lot to the international community most of which is no longer friendly towards the West.
There appears to be discussion about what can be discerned from photographs and what cannot be discerned. Now it is obvious that we cannot tell how well the sensors work just by looking at them. But the sensors are only part of the system. And their effectiveness is dependent on everything from the environment to the tug. So I think as somebody who has RYA quals and spent time at sea and mused over things like wind against tide for real that the sensors would probably work better towed behind something more robust.
11m long, 3.2m in the beam and 6000kg and bouncing about in a light sea……..
Or 26.9m long, 4.6m in the beam, and 99 tonnes…………….
All from looking at pictures.
Suggest, Designed and built to a price with very limited capabilities ????
Probably. What the whole project does is diminish the utility of the navy. A MCM hull did more than hunt mines. It had to do it because most of the time there was no real work to do. Ships only spend a small amount of time on exercise too. MCM has been about ‘working remotely’ for decades. And once again nobody else is doing it this way………
You will never get anywhere displaying that much common sense.
If the Royal Navy had ships built for what it did most on deployment they would look like this………..
Zookeeper
Looks ideal for the RN’s primary tasking…..
…… only you forgot to mention where we can buy some from
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I’d say it was astonishing but it sadly isn’t. These motorboats and pontoons cannot sweep in anything above sea state 2. Sea state 4 would I’d argue put them in imminent danger of sinking. Recovery in sea state 4 would be difficult to impossible even if a mothership was equipped to do so
Ergo these things are not going into operational service.
The sole reason these devices and their ilk exist is, I would argue, the financial and material cost of the employment of humans operated vessels and devices is now judged to outweigh the operational need for them.
Once again why are we not importing Ukrainian drone tech, technicians and constructors to the UK or simply buy their kit and bring their chaps over to train ours?
As for the Chinese threat why would China a country whose corporations export directly to the United Kingdom want to takeover a profitable customer?
As for the Russians, as whale island zookeeper said “The Russians ain’t coming.” Why would they when there is nothing they would gain by taking over and running the UK.
You may be wright in the short or even medium term about China and Russia, in the long term who knows.
But what about non government belligerents, who might just that laying ground mines in our offshore waters could be a major political coup.
In this day and age does not seem fanciful to think such could get their hands on these devices.
Call me a nutter but there are no such things as non government belligerents. Certainly non that possess or operate a mine laying capability even one using the state of the art mine laying container system that can be used from just about any vessel that can carry a standard container unit.
Incidentally if that mine laying container system is as good as the manufacturers claim it is then surely it belongs in the Royal Navy’s offensive and defensive inventory.
A mine wouldn’t be hard to construct. But there is a difference between a state laying a field of mines to deny an area of sea and a terror group positioning a mine or two outside say Felixstowe. Once the mine has gone bang it is too late. Do you then go sweep the seas there again? How often do terrorists bomb the same target? And if not where do you ‘sweep next’? Do you grasp the scale of the problem?
There are so many so called Pinch areas around the World..
Straights of Gibraltar, Suez , Panama, Aden, Mallacca, Bosphorus, StLawrence,and our own Channel, Surely it makes sense for the West to take Mines a little bit more seriously, its an ideal weapon for a terrorist state!
I am surprised it hasn’t happened yet to be honest. Certainly easier than flying planes into sky scrapers.
The sole reason these devices and their ilk exist is, I would argue, the financial and material cost of the employment of humans operated vessels and devices is now judged to outweigh the operational need for them.
No you are wrong here. Un-crewed doesn’t mean an absence of personnel they are just somewhere else. These are just remotely controlled sensors. These aren’t sci-fi robots which have their own agency. Such things are not new either. Up the page I have posted a picture of the German Seehund mcm drone FROM THE 1970’s. This is more about doing away with the cost of a ship and portraying such as an advantage. ‘Aren’t we clever we can fly this all over the world!’: If we can find a hull the other side of the world where the owner is happy for you to take it on a hunt for mines, where the comms work straight away, where your engineers are so talented they can adapt to all the ships systems, where we always have two or three A400m or C17 available to move the kit, where force protection isn’t a problem……..and so on……..and so on………
Consider a USAF UAV squadron often has more manpower than a squadron with manned aircraft.
Apologies. I was lax there. I was referring to the Navy as a whole in terms of the financial costs of employing humans.
The replacement of crewed operational units with unmanned operational units always significantly educes the number of available operational units and with that reduction the pool of operational experience empties but crucially the financial cost of that pool of experience reduces at the same time.
Unmanned is sold as keeping “our brave men and women” out of harms way by using expendable machines fitted with computers to replace them.
What unmanned actually means is the end device is either wholly controlled by onboard software or more usually it has a human connected to it by non physical means.
The operational cost of putting a manned mother ship kitted out with lets say half a dozen computer controlled mine clearing ‘unmanned systems’ into operation, is lower than sending a pair of manned mine clearance ships to do the job The effectiveness of manned mine clearance vs manned computer control mine clearance does not feature in the thinking nor the actions of any government oversight people be they permanent secretary’s or politicians. The former carrying far, far more weight in decision making than the latter.
This all originated a few years back when the buss around ‘Main Building’ was a navy of capabilities not ships. I was agog with the lack of understanding of the basic fundamental of naval warfare that displayed within the MoD(N). ** Never mind an overestimation of our diminishing political capital and diplomatic strength in what even then was becoming evidently a multi-polar world. That is to say the days of a war canoe flying the White Ensign rocking up in port and instantly having the natives scurrying about to aid us are disappearing. The UK, the US, the West are no longer that popular around the world. Diminishing assets with strategic reach and endurance is the last thing we should be doing right now. It wouldn’t be so bad if we actually invested in the systems to a decent degree. If we had 18 C17 and 36 A400m and we were talking about say, a system based on a folding semi-submersible of which had a dozen or more then yes. But we hardly have any strategic air lift and we are buying smallish RIB’s in penny packets towing something that looks like a final year engineering project. It is Crowsnest all over again. Look at what the Dutch Belgians and French are doing. Buying decent sized ships with decent reach that can act in their primary role but are also suited to be OPV’s too. The Japanese are still building MCM as we know them but they have robotic systems aboard and the Japanese who hardly deploy that far from the home islands have depot ships in support too. The Italians are building two classes of MCM, one for coastal work, and one to support expeditionary warfare capability. When I mention Italy here I often get hammered by those who think Italy never goes further than Sardinia or Greece. And they are building two support ships as well. The only tale of woe across La Manche is Germany’s new MCM project has had to be scrapped…….because they couldn’t get the robots to work.
Your assessment of Britain’s position in the World is Sadly Spot on, an Island drowning in Imigrants, A military with falling capabilities and Very little Industrial or Economic Strength..
Sad to see our PM summoned to the Kings Chair in Scotland 🏴 but it’s the way our Political Classes.
MAJOR, BLAIR, BROWN, CAMERON, etc (NOTE: All Lords) have taken us.
These mine clearance vessels tell a sad story..
By placing the blame onto names it glosses over the real culprits, the permanent members of government.
It’s bad government. Irrespective of the party in power. Just bad government.
Would suggest that Enemies and friends are privately working very hard to cut the link between drones and the like, and their operators using AI and Quantum Computers, This MAY mean we’re ultimately heading down a dead end road!
Nig e
This NL article was all about the use, by the British military, of remote controlled “vehicles” (note 1) to defuse unexploded bombs (note 2).
Worth remembering that, back in the early 1970’s, the UK military was easily the world leader in the then state-of-the-art, and thus very pioneering, field of remotely controlled “drones”
Invented by George Styles and Peter Muir, the UXB (note 3) “wheelbarrow”
What does a bomb disposal robot actually do? – BBC Future
It is shame that the UK has not moved on very much over the past half-century.
Also worth noting that the orginal rapid development of the Britsth Army’s wheelbarrow owed a very great deal to the salesman in the gardening centre near Belfast: the person who persuaded the army to buy a electrically-powered tracked wheelbarrow (i.e. rather than their preffered choice of a wheeled manual one).
Unlike so many of Q department’s buffon’s = the gardening centre’s salesman never got a gong…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
In this particular case, the “vehicle” is a tupperware naval boat.
Note 2.
In this particular case, the bomb floats (thus being called a Mine by a matelot”
(as in the phrase, when the lookout at the bow of the RN tupperware minesweeper sees a floating bomb = “mine time’s up“)
Note 3
Indeed our British Q department R&D development of military UGV’s and UUV’s has been so glacially slow over the past half century that even the TLA has had time to be changed.
I would suggest that right now teenagers are working on hacking drone/usb control software just to see if they can. The inherent flaw with digital everything is digital is hackable.
Billy
You can sleep safely in your bed at night…..
…….knowing that our government already has this situation with the cyber-security of thus once-great nation fully under control 😉
—————
Indeed, only in May of this year, that bunch “woking” at Defence Equipment and Support (DES) in Bristol appointed two new non-executives directors onto their their main board.
New DE&S Non-Executive Directors announced – GOV.UK
These non-execs will be giving DES their expert advice!
This is our governments own, very brief, words: i.e. their own resume of just one of their new non-executives previous career highlights:
“Nick Folland has an extensive legal and governance background and from 2001, he held a number of General Counsel and Company Secretary positions in FTSE 100 businesses. (GA) Nick is currently the General Counsel and Company Secretary of Marks & Spencer Group plc, where he is a member of the Executive Committee and has responsibility for governance“
So you will be very pleased to know that within Defence Equipment and Support down at Bristol there is a leaeding expert in cybers secirty
advising both DES and MOD and Army and Navy and Air Force etc
So Nick will already be deciding what cyber-sercurity equipment and professional cyber services etc all three of our armed forces will buy next week:
….obviously spending over £2Billion per annum wisel
(i.e. a huge and ever-growing budget).
As this news story shows
MOD’s £2.1 billion IT spend and cyber “pinch” revealed
—————
So, just three weeks after Nick Folland’s appointment, to DES
…..guess what happens next…..?…
……thus preventing all movements of urgent chicken kiev’s (note 1) out from their logistics depots into all of their stores….
Four arrested in connection with M&S and Co-op cyber attacks – BBC News
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Just as well it was not “chickens to kiev”: othewise our ukrainian allies would all be starving by now (i.e. just like gaza)
I see the Ukrainians have taken delivery of a former RN minehunter.
They seem to like such vessels.
If more systems are procured would there be any value in having Navy Reserve units specialising in mine sweeping? Regional units to keep UK waterways open in the result of a threat or crisis. Mostly shore based or vessels of opportunity.