BMT say the design exploits the next generation of offboard vehicles, mission systems and operational concepts and can rapidly clear mines faster, over a greater area and with less risk to the crew than any current conceptual or existing design.

The flexibility in the VENARI-85 design, they say, provides a navy with a broader utility and a clear development path to incorporate future unmanned technologies and operating concepts.

Key features include:

  • Mission spaces for optimum operation of the mine warfare capability
  • Hullform and hydrodynamics to guarantee capability delivery in various conditions and locations
  • Optimised propulsion arrangement provides speed, accuracy and manoeuvrability
  • Survivability and signatures provide crew and mission protection
  • Self-defence and surveillance capabilities are scaled to the intended role

The large working deck, mission equipment garage, flight deck and hangar, and the platform’s stability and self-defence capability are employable in roles beyond mine warfare.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pacman27
Pacman27
5 years ago

Too late I fear This should have been a type 31 candidate (mine hunting, sweep and piracy, fisheries, OPV) but it looks as if it is now redundant. It’s a pity as it is a great concept ans something I think a lot of navies would like. For the RN I think 13 T26 (fulll spectrum ASW/AAW Destroyer ) 13 T31 (frigate) and 25 T86 (Venari – all other tasks) would represent a great fleet and potentially a good export vessel Given where we are with T26/ T31 perhaps this buys us the time to refine the Venari design and… Read more »

Julian
Julian
5 years ago
Reply to  Pacman27

When I first saw Venari 85 my “if only” thoughts turned more to River Batch 2 than T31. I’m not sure what sort of cost BMT think would be attached to these but, given the price we paid for the first 3 River B2s, it would have been pretty sweet to have got these instead. Rear working deck that could host containers with flight deck still usable plus abUAV hangar and we would have had a hull in production that could then go on to fulfill the MCM mothership role. And who knows, with ships in the fleet with dedicated… Read more »