The Royal Navy has taken delivery of its second remotely-controlled mine warfare vessel, named Adventure, as part of the ongoing Maritime Mine Counter Measures programme.

Adventure joins her sister vessel Ariadne, which is already in service, as one of four planned “primary systems” being delivered under the Anglo-French MMCM programme. The boats are designed to carry uncrewed survey and mine warfare payloads, including the SAMDIS towed synthetic aperture sonar, which is used to map the seabed and help operators identify and neutralise underwater threats.

The programme is managed by the international armaments organisation OCCAR and involves collaboration between the Royal Navy, Thales, and Saab, among others. According to the Royal Navy, the system is designed to allow mine clearance in sea states up to State 4, with waves as high as two and a half metres, and supports seabed mapping in complex maritime environments.

Each primary system is paired with a portable operations centre from which mine warfare specialists direct missions remotely.

Commodore Michael Wood, the Senior Responsible Owner for the UK programme, accepted Adventure on behalf of the Royal Navy at Turnchapel in Plymouth. He was quoted as saying the delivery marked “an important step forward – and showed the power of the enterprise – with OCCAR, Royal Navy, the National Armaments Director Group, Thales and Saab working collaboratively and transparently to one purpose, and responding to the urgent need to prepare this world-class capability for any operational deployment.”

The system also incorporates a dedicated Remotely Operated Vehicle for mine identification and neutralisation training at sea, which the Royal Navy says improves mission readiness while keeping personnel out of danger.

Two further primary systems are expected to follow as the programme continues to reshape how the Royal Navy approaches the enduring threat posed by sea mines.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

48 COMMENTS

  1. I think the RN needs to bring in its own small boat Design Bureau. They seem to be allowing a wide range of small boats which they need some being mono hulled and some Multi etc; which is it. By now they should have decided on a design standard. Have they? This looks somewhat marginal due to a very low freeboard. 6ft waves aren’t that large but can vary in hazard according to the length of the wave and direction etc.
    Are they standardising on propulsive power and equipment? Something to look at.

    • That would entail some commonsense and jointed up thinking which we know is not one of the skill that we famed for.

    • The Royal Navy has already had Project Vahana, to standardise on workboats, specifically SEA-class vessels built by Atlas Elektronik UK (AEUK) in Dorset on a standardised hull design, ranging from 11 meters to 18 meters in length. The project ran from 2017 to 2924 and delivered 35 craft (including HMS Magpie). These are all crewed boats.

      This article is about unmanned craft chosen specifically for anti-mine operations. They have both remote and autonomous control. Costs are kept lower by working with French Navy on this development.

      • We get it, you want to see British sailors blown to bits. I’m guessing you’re an Irish Republican still unhappy with the Good Friday Agreement. Or maybe you’re a rabid Scottish Nationalist?

        • Just for you, I served 22 years as a engineer in the royal navy. I saw Action in the Falklands in 1982. So take your arrogance and sarcasm elsewhere or better still tell me what makes you better than me I know what I’m talking about unlike you.

          • IF true, which is seriously doubtful. . then you’d value sailors lives more and be happy that we can use unmanned vessels for anti-mine operations rather than using manned minesweepers.

            • Thanks for your kind advice re medication. I do take medication for what my stroke left me with in 2020bwhen I lost the use of my left limbs leaving me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life let’s not converse anymore I don’t need your kind of shit

  3. wow two whole bosts, job done then, good thing we retired most of those old mine sweepers and replaced them with 2 boats and some drones.

    • Not THAT bad, Martin.
      Phase 1 of MHC was Wilton, which has 3 RNMBs for Faslane area, RNMBs Hazard, Harrier, Hehe ( which is a bigger manned support boat of the Vahana type, see Spocks post above ) and another RNMB Hydra, unsure what she’s used for, trials maybe.
      Phase 2 was always planned to be incrementl. We have the existing 3 ARCIMS types RNMBs Apollo, Abdiel, and Ariadne, now Adventure. The RNMBs, which are USVs, operate as part of a system. I think we want 6 systems total for Phase 2.
      Systems include other stuff like towed hunting and sweeping payloads. Then on top waiting for the 3 mother ships that will deploy them.
      They are very capable little boats. Reading on NL they ate built to warship standards. There are advantages and disadvantages with these vs a conventional MCMV. My concern as always is numbers and that we’ve thrown the MCMVs away too soon chasing desperate savings.
      Then on top to deploy them

      • 😆 Mobile autocorrect strikes again….would be hillarious if there was a RNMB called Hehe….HEBE.

      • Yes the actual mine warfare capability will actually be pretty good.. my issue has always been the mine warfare fleet proved 20 crewed vessels that could do presence and patrol work when not looking for mines.. that element we are not replacing… as always there is a blindness to the requirement for numbers when looking at maritime power.. numbers are king, if your not there you don’t matter.. we need presence in benign areas and patrol frigates for the fruity areas, then the hard power battle fleet… navies have always been a pyramid of capabilities for a reason… we are preserving the hard tip at that cost of the whole pyramid….

        • The article saying a second boat confuses me, as I actually have listed:
          RNMBs Harrier, Hazard, Hebe. ( earlier Wilton programme) + RNMB Hydra.
          Plus already –
          RNMBs Apollo, Artemis, Abdiel.
          RNMBs Hussar, Halcyon, Hydra.
          Now Ariadne and Adventure.
          How they all fit together apart from the Wilton boats I don’t know?

          • Yes it’s an interesting set

            So you have the two 11 meter original sweeper ARCIMS, Harrier and Hazard then the 15 meter Hebe as the controller, which can also take a small manned team and act as a survey vessel.

            In the end they ordered 6 11meter ARCIMs Hussar, Hazard, Halcyon, Harrier, Hellcat and Hydra and three sets of sweeper Coil Auxiliary Boats systems as towed minesweeping systems to to towed by ARCIMs and Hebe as essentially an on water control hub

            That was essentially the first generation ARCIMs based 7 boats with three full sweeper systems, one of the boats being a larger control hub..

            Then the RN moved to the second generation set of systems the Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) system, a joint UK french adventure.

            RNMB Apollo was 12 meter boat test bed ( now returned to manufacture for conversion to operational system )
            RNMB Abdiel 12 meter boat test bed not operational system.
            RNMB Ariadne 12 meter boat + POD control centre fully operational system
            RNMB Adventure 12 meter boat+ POd control centre fully operational system..
            With a further two operational systems ordered

            So fully operational wise you have the 7 ARCIM ( 3 are set for autonomous mine warfare and full sweeping, 1 is the command boat and 3 are being used as crewed survey vessels at present I believe) and the 2 MMCM for 9 systems.

            Then the 4 active hunts, 2 extended readiness, 1 sandown and Stirling castle..

            I suspect what will happen is the ARCIMs will end up as home water harbour based vessels and the 4 MMCMs will will be ship bound in the 3 mother ships.. its a good capability but I’m still not seeing how it will replace the 28 hunt and sandowns… in so many ways.

            • They can cover a given area much quicker so a mothership with an MMCM can do what 2 or 3 older ships can do, but that’s still far fewer places at once.

              We also used to station mine hunters all over almost as flying the flag in places which we can’t do with these anymore

              • Yes that’s one of the problems.. it was the same with the 12 t42s moving to 6t45s if you remove real life and just put the capability if 6 T45s again 12 T42s the 6 T45s are massively more capable…. But the difference is 6 hulls cannot replace 12 hulls in one simple way and it’s the single most important factor in maritime warfare…. Time and space.. 12 ships can be in 100% more places in any time period than 6.. and that matters hugely so the loss of those 28 vessels being replaced by 3 is huge..

                In the end the 12 T42s did not need replacing with 12T45s because it is so much better, six was probably ok.. but they should have also build 6 gp frigates to keep up the numbers.. same for the mine warfare ships… work out how much was presence work and build that number of cheap as chips presence vessels.

            • Morning mate.
              Well explained, thank you. This has always been fuzzy with me, I’m going to absorb that when on the PC later away from my phone to try and gat my head up to speed on it.
              Agreed, it doesn’t, not even close.
              A few conventional assets as overwatch seem sensible as well if an enemy can just come along and jam or physically interfere.

  4. My main point, we do in the UK like get rid of things before they less but more expensive replacement is working. The MOD does like a gapped role and there are many things like that AWACs ‘AS90 Replacement, CVRT Replacement, Puma etc etc. saving money in short term the governments like that.

  5. Morning mate.
    Well explained, thank you. This has always been fuzzy with me, I’m going to absorb that when on the PC later away from my phone to try and gat my head up to speed on it.
    Agreed, it doesn’t, not even close.
    A few conventional assets as overwatch seem sensible as well if an enemy can just come along and jam or physically interfere.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here