PLAN Mine/Counter Mine vessel Thread

[tphuang]

well, picture of 810 and an article on it. Note, it's a 805 class and also part of the ESF.

1月11日，东海某海域，某扫雷舰大队利用自主研制的“扫雷实时监控系统”，仅在一个训练日内就进行扫布雷训练50余枚次。据悉，采用这一新成果后，长期困扰部队的水雷引信容易封闭、扫雷结果难以检查、扫雷过程难以监控、反复布捞费时费力等4个难题得到有效解决，训练效率提高近5倍。

传统扫雷训练强度大，布、捞雷效率低，扫雷效果难以监控。去年以来，装备我军新型猎扫雷舰的某扫雷舰大队通过自主创新，相继取得了首次实扫某型战雷、首次扫爆数枚不同引信战雷、首次遥控实扫战雷、首次实时监控扫雷等突破。他们还依托信息化平台自主创新，采用现代信息技术对水雷引信加以改进，使训练效果更加直观。通过分析检测数据，扫雷成功率大大提高，标志着我军海上扫雷能力跃上新台阶。

仗怎么打，兵就怎么练。今年开训后，他们主动提出对新型猎扫雷舰进行“全过程、全内容、全要素”训练，全面掌握新装备在实战环境下的性能特点，使某新型扫雷具的理论数据在实战中得到充分检验，进一步发掘了新装备的作战潜能。在训练中，他们还集智攻关，探索形成了扫除智能化水雷的一系列有效方法，并对舰艇任务编组、扫雷航线进行严格的比对测试，积累了大量第一手数据，为未来海上作战提供了重要参考。

Just talks about on Jan 11, it went to do minesweep exercise, use the indigenously developed real time mine sweep monitoring system, it did 50 sweeps. Basically improved training efficiency and a bunch of other stuff. It says since last year with the induction of new minesweeper, they developed many new sweeping and detonating methods and made a lot of advancements.

 

[Galrahn]

Feng I have a question.

On your blog you posted a pic of some minesweepers, they look rather old. I also noticed in the same set of pics uploaded to bbs there were some longer range mine warfare ships, also older, with numbers in the 830s. Do you know what class that is?

Looks like they have some mine laying machinery under those covers in the aft of the ships.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[man overbored]

Conventional minesweepers are slow and are not very seaworthy. They often take far to long to reach the operational area and do not have anything close to the speed necessary to keep up with modern surface warships. You pretty much have to keep minesweepers near where you expect to need them.
The current thinking is to use remotely piloted vehicles and helicopter born sleds carried on regular combat ships, along with divers and marine mammals to locate and destroy mines. In this fashion every combat ship becomes a minesweeper and all surface forces have an integral mine clearing capability. For the USN, bringing minesweepers from San Diego to the Persian Gulf was the last straw. A better way had to be found. The new way is as I described. Every USN CVN carries at least one dedicated minesweeping helo and divers with their animals may be brought to any ship with a helo deck. Same for RPV's.

 

[Pointblank]

Conventional minesweepers are slow and are not very seaworthy. They often take far to long to reach the operational area and do not have anything close to the speed necessary to keep up with modern surface warships. You pretty much have to keep minesweepers near where you expect to need them.
The current thinking is to use remotely piloted vehicles and helicopter born sleds carried on regular combat ships, along with divers and marine mammals to locate and destroy mines. In this fashion every combat ship becomes a minesweeper and all surface forces have an integral mine clearing capability. For the USN, bringing minesweepers from San Diego to the Persian Gulf was the last straw. A better way had to be found. The new way is as I described. Every USN CVN carries at least one dedicated minesweeping helo and divers with their animals may be brought to any ship with a helo deck. Same for RPV's.

Some navies have moved toward a multi-purpose design, that is capable of coastal patrol, surveying and minesweeping in one platform. I think this will be very popular trend, especially for smaller navies for a variety of reasons.

 

[Gollevainen]

I wouldnt call Minesweepers unseaworthy, as it common has been, the oceanic minesweeper have been one of the best sea boats of many navies. Good sea keeping is essential for MCM operation, and thus their non-frontline duty, that seakeeping has traditionally accuired in expense of speed and protection.
It isent therefore any wonder, why many Minsweeper desing has its roots on sturdy civilian offshore boats, like Oil rig supporters or basic trawlers.

Small RPVs and helicopters cannot really replace the need of specialised MCM vessels, particulary when the mining is dense.

 

[Pointblank]

I wouldnt call Minesweepers unseaworthy, as it common has been, the oceanic minesweeper have been one of the best sea boats of many navies. Good sea keeping is essential for MCM operation, and thus their non-frontline duty, that seakeeping has traditionally accuired in expense of speed and protection.
It isent therefore any wonder, why many Minsweeper desing has its roots on sturdy civilian offshore boats, like Oil rig supporters or basic trawlers.

Small RPVs and helicopters cannot really replace the need of specialised MCM vessels, particulary when the mining is dense.

The issue is that most minesweepers have short, beamy hulls, which can cause hull slamming in rough seas, leading to hull damage. Another issue relating to the short hulls is that minesweepers are slow ships; most top out at 15 knots.

 

[Gollevainen]

well the slowness have been fault of the Minesweepers from the beging, but the speed is a factor dealing with the transist period. In minesweeping operations, the ships speed doesent count that much, its the speed of the actual sweeping or controlling the underwater robotics.

 

[man overbored]

Transit speed and seaworthyness of a small vessel crossing the Pacific are driving the USN's move to make minesweeping a core mission of all surface combatants. The USN is an expeditionary force. It has to be able to move anywhere in the world on short notice and do so with great speed. When a force arrives somewhere the commander might just find a mine field. Now what? Wait for some achingly slow minesweeper to take weeks to grind it's way across the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean? Maybe the poor hardworking minesweeper has an engineering casualty en-route since those diesels will be working hard non-stop for two weeks straight. This is the reality of it. Minesweepers are good to have if they are to be used in your own local waters but terrible if they are required to move across oceans on short notice. They are simply too small and short legged to routinely accompany carrier strike groups. There are never enough to have them spotted across the globe so one is always available on short notice. So the alternative is to place a minesweeping capability on surface combatants. Now when that carrier group commander arrives at the scene and finds a minefield he ( or she ! ) will have the ability to sweep the minefield and continue the mission without delay.

 

[Troika]

Transit speed and seaworthyness of a small vessel crossing the Pacific are driving the USN's move to make minesweeping a core mission of all surface combatants. The USN is an expeditionary force. It has to be able to move anywhere in the world on short notice and do so with great speed. When a force arrives somewhere the commander might just find a mine field. Now what? Wait for some achingly slow minesweeper to take weeks to grind it's way across the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean? Maybe the poor hardworking minesweeper has an engineering casualty en-route since those diesels will be working hard non-stop for two weeks straight. This is the reality of it. Minesweepers are good to have if they are to be used in your own local waters but terrible if they are required to move across oceans on short notice. They are simply too small and short legged to routinely accompany carrier strike groups. There are never enough to have them spotted across the globe so one is always available on short notice. So the alternative is to place a minesweeping capability on surface combatants. Now when that carrier group commander arrives at the scene and finds a minefield he ( or she ! ) will have the ability to sweep the minefield and continue the mission without delay.

Like Golly mentioned I think we are looking at quite different roles here. The doctrine you mentioned involve allowing a surface group to act unhindered by minefields over blue-water distances. Minesweepers in other case involves keeping sealanes open. In the former case multi-use vessels that can keep up with the main fleet is good to have, obviously, in the later... do you really want to use your expensive multi-function warfleet to steam about clearing mines?

Again, doctrine and circumstance of China bears examination. China has no prospect or frankly desire to steam across half the world in the foreseeable future. Geographically she is constrained by the 'two island chains', so small minesweepers capable of intense mine-clearing operations in local waters reasonably protected by shore-based aviation and assets is useful to have, and good also for technical skill accumulation.

If we are talking about mining sealanes far from China's shore... well, the major transit points at which China is vulnerable is not good places to mine (mining the Strait of Malacca is a good way to get the world mad at you)... in other cases, China doesn't have the capability to project such forces anyway, and there're no realistic scenario where the lack of range ans strategic mobility of a minesweeper becomes problem.

 

[Pointblank]

well the slowness have been fault of the Minesweepers from the beging, but the speed is a factor dealing with the transist period. In minesweeping operations, the ships speed doesent count that much, its the speed of the actual sweeping or controlling the underwater robotics.

It just isn't safe to send minesweepers out when there is rough seas. Indeed, I have heard of many occasions of where Kingston class MCDV's had to make a run for port or a sheltered bay on the West Coast due to an approaching storm while the frigates and destroyers can stay out there and handle the weather. And that's with a steel-hulled ship. The majority of the minesweepers out there are reinforced glass-fibre hulled for the latest types, with some of the older ones using plywood, which is not as durable, and more prone to damage in rough seas due to hull slamming.

And here's a little article on hull-slamming detection and avoidance:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!