You're missing the point. There will be sophisticated, dedicated minehunting sonars. Just instead of on the bottom of an expensive ship, of which you have very few, you stick it on a remote vehicle. That way you don't put expensive ships and people into the minefield, where a sophisticated enemy can specifically target you. Killing the minehunters early on in a war makes your real or fake minefields totally effective.
Yeah but where do you deploy them from?
[snip] Build class of vessels larger than Hunt/Sandown size (small frigate size?) from demagnetised steel. [snip]
Gadzooks, how much money do you think we have? The German MCM's are extortionate, and they're smaller than a Hunt in footprint (good ships though)
Plans for future developments such as a longer range version of Sea Fox,
Seafox breaks and goes rogue enough without sending it even further from the ship.
Information Dissemination: Strength in Numbers: The Remarkable Potential of (really) Small Combatants
But surely small means short range, unstable in heavy seas, and vulnerable to damage?
Would protecting MCMVs not be a FF/DD/carrier based aircraft task?
Surely your cheap metal ship then becomes a target, with all the eggs in one basket? I think my idea is not a million miles away from yours, but I worry about how you communicate with remote vehicles, particuly in noisy seas. I worry even more about how all that informtion is integrated in real time. These are fragile technologies. Also where do you deploy the Seafox (or whatever) from?
I think that minehunting sonar is a reasonable back up (use demagnetised steel for the hull), and allows other tasks to be performed, such as survey or looking for shipwrecks/lost aircraft. I think I gave my thoughts on this on page one.
My knowledge of sonar is limited, but surely a larger transducer and high power gives greater resolution that a small one with limited power? Clever mines (Manta?) are intended to look like the seabed.
The BLACK SWAN concept seems to be an attempt to square the circle. It say that the declining number of hulls flying the White Ensign is an issue, then proposes a reduced number of hulls. It proposes the use of remote systems, but proposes a ship with very austere communications - surely communications are what make the remote systems work.
Well the navy is pretty stuck in the idea that the only the gods of the executive warfare branch ever get any where.The number of ships per potential driver is what is small. The RN has been wrestling with this for fifty years. On experiment was the 'wet' and 'dry' list concept whereby fish head promotion to cdr went one way or the other with the supposed most bright-eyed and bushy-tailed going 'wet' and the also-rans going 'dry' i.e.debarred from further sea service and thus unlikely to make flag. Another was reducing the length of a drive so that more could have a turn, resulting in a big mental gear change for everyone else half-way through a commission. There is another factor, mentioned in a talk I went to some years ago, which is that the RAF was better at producing Whitehall Warriors and the RN needed to find a way of bringing forward future admirals who had political nous and were good at staffwork, whereas (my inference) the whole of one's early training was geared to produce captains of ships and this effectively filtered much other but different talent out of the flag list. I have no idea what the answer is.