# Are we getting rid of our mine warfare capability?



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jul 2007)

With us getting the new Arctic/OPVs and the talk of us getting rid of some of the 700 series hulls are we giving up on mine warfare? If so I believe its a dangerous road we travel. While I realize the MCDV is not the ideal platform to hunt mines right now they are all we have. Thoughts?


----------



## cameron (14 Jul 2007)

+1 Let's not forget what happened to the world's most powerful navy, the USN, a couple of decades ago when Iran planted mines in the Persian Gulf in retaliation for the embargo placed on them.  The Yanks had neglected mine warfare capability in favour of larger, sexier, more glamorous ships.  CH53 Sea Stallion helicopters outfitted for mine warfare proved inadequate to fight the threat, because a helo can loiter on station as long as a ship.  The US had to rely heavily on the Royal Navy's minehunters to protect their ships including those large, sexy and glamorous aircraft carriers.  The MCDV's may not be perfect but an imperfect capability is better than none at all.  In this age when we're seeing more assymetrical warfare because terrorist organisations and terror sponsoring states know they cannot battle our superior western armies, navies and air forces head on, we should be extending not reducing our mine warfare capability.  BTW I heartily endorse the purchase of the new AOPV's, just don't think it should be to the detriment of any other badly needed capability.


----------



## Stoker (14 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> With us getting the new Arctic/OPVs and the talk of us getting rid of some of the 700 series hulls are we giving up on mine warfare? If so I believe its a dangerous road we travel. While I realize the MCDV is not the ideal platform to hunt mines right now they are all we have. Thoughts?



Well mechanical mineweeping is not being taught anymore and the gear mothballed and the 511 is plagued with problems. The BOIV, and the Klines can be operated on other platforms, so I think that if we lose hulls it won't make much difference.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> With us getting the new Arctic/OPVs and the talk of us getting rid of some of the 700 series hulls are we giving up on mine warfare? If so I believe its a dangerous road we travel. While I realize the MCDV is not the ideal platform to hunt mines right now they are all we have. Thoughts?



Build this capability into the new Coast Guard as it doesn't require them being armed....

In addition, since they already have infrastructure in most of our major ports which would be the targets, then building dual-capability ships with non-magnetic hulls (in Canada) would seem like a prudent course of action.


Matthew.


----------



## cameron (14 Jul 2007)

I agree with Cdn. Blackshirt's suggested alternative of building dual-capability vessels with non magnetic hulls in Canada, I just don't think minehunting should be a Coast Guard as opposed to a Navy role, unless we're going to change the mandate of the CCG and make more like the USCG, an actual armed force.


----------



## cobbler (14 Jul 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Build this capability into the new Coast Guard as it doesn't require them being armed....
> 
> In addition, since they already have infrastructure in most of our major ports which would be the targets, then building dual-capability ships with non-magnetic hulls (in Canada) would seem like a prudent course of action.
> 
> ...



And if you need to clear mines in a port outside of Canada? With the probably requirment of amrs and/or tactical data links?

When you get amphibs, you'll want mine warfare capbility capable of going with them to ensure the fat ships are safe.

It is NOT a Coast Guard role.


----------



## Stoker (15 Jul 2007)

cameron said:
			
		

> I agree with Cdn. Blackshirt's suggested alternative of building dual-capability vessels with non magnetic hulls in Canada, I just don't think minehunting should be a Coast Guard as opposed to a Navy role, unless we're going to change the mandate of the CCG and make more like the USCG, an actual armed force.



Building non magnetic hulls with a dual purpose is not as easy as you think. Apart from being very expensive, we don't have the expertise in this type of ship building.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Jul 2007)

cobbler said:
			
		

> And if you need to clear mines in a port outside of Canada? With the probably requirment of amrs and/or tactical data links?
> 
> When you get amphibs, you'll want mine warfare capbility capable of going with them to ensure the fat ships are safe.
> 
> It is NOT a Coast Guard role.



Well, then I would argue if you want an expeditionary capability to do so, you build an expeditionary capable asset, again with a non-magnetic hull at the same time you add the LPD's/LHD's....

My whole point is this:  We have a fixed number of vessels between the Navy and Coast Guard that we can afford to buy and operate.  We therefore need to be very smart about how we do this and in my world "Well, this is how we've always done it before" is a cop-out.  

In this case we need to do one of two things:
1)  Accept the Canadian Coast Guard as an unarmed unionized force with its limitations and cut back its procurement and operational budgets and limit them to capabilities that will *never* require an armed response.  Buoy tendering, etc.  I still think that domestic mine clearance is a role the CCG could do, but my gut tells me the union will come up with an excuse because it's too dangerous.  Regardless, I find this option to be incredibly short-sighted as you can never maximize the capability of the vessels in the water if you have a bunch of "pacificist" assets (and by that I mean they're incapable of firing a shot) in any given theatre where you may require a security/interediction/military capability. 
2)  Re-role the Coast Guard back into the Canadian Armed Forces, and arm them all as specialist soldiers/seamen.  Congratulations, you're now a soldier/seaman and a fisheries expert.  You're now a soldier/seaman and a buoy tender.   You're now a soldier/seaman and a search-and-rescue specialist.

Bottom Line:  I think this argument keeps coming back to "Well what if the members of the Coast Guard don't like the change?"  My answer is "Tough beans."  The Canadian Coast Guard is a *public service position*.  As such the government has the right to operate said *public service* in the best interest of *the public*.  If the CCG personnel don't like the changes being presented, then I hope they enjoy their retirement.  We'll recruit new naval soldiers to eventually train-up and take your spot.  And if there is a painful 2-3 year transition period with strikes, early retirement, etc....so be it, because the end structure 4 years from now will be ultimately more capable than what we're deploying now.

This applies to any part of government bureaucracy.  Just because you once had a job in government in a certain role, does not guarantee you that role for you entire life.  If things change, departments and personnel may become redundant and restructuring occurs.  

Let's say we disband ACAO because we decide it's been a partisan-driven siphon for taxpayer cash?  Should we not, just because the people there were given jobs at one type based on a specific description?

How about if we decide we should merge the RCMP, Border Services and CSIS to provide a single integrated national security apparatus?  Should we not do that because it's not the way we've done things before?

How about closing down some of the expensive consulate structures that we run in places like New York where taxpayers spend millions per year so rich people can throw parties for one another that generate ZERO new business for Canadian workers?

I'm not even claiming all the above are great ideas (I just came up with them off the top of my head).  I'm just saying you can't have sacred cows and still have a rational and productive debate. 

To me this comes back to the same problem we see around the country with people who were/are fishermen or forestry workers or whatever else and somehow they've developed this entitlement philosophy that "Well I'm a [insert job title here] and that's all I'm willing to do, and the government should do whatever is necessary for pay for me to be a [insert job title here] again....and by the way, while I'm not [insert job here], I expect benefits."  

Order of Operations:
1)  What does the government need?  "Armed multipurpose Vessels and Aircraft operating both in littoral and inland waterways capable of security, military, search & rescue, icebreaking and other varied tasks as needed."
2)  How do we restructure our existing entities and assets to best serve in those roles? [everyone can put their own answer here....it just shouldn't be limited by how structures exist now, if they don't make sense.  Start with an empty chalkboard, then draw it out.]

In the end, we should be willing to do restructure in whatever unorthodox or non-traditional means are necessary in order to best meet the objectives as they're drawn up.  And from the opposite direction, in no way should traditional limitations on roles in any way limit the initial objective settting.  

We do not have the time or luxury of unlimited cash to allow irrational structures/systems to continue to exist in an environment that demands change.


Matthew.  

P.S.  To Stoker re: no national capability to build non-magnetic hulls:  If it's overly cumbersome and building our few ships would be a one-off and after that production there would be no export market for for follow-on vessels, I would propose we do a government-to-government swap where-in perhaps we buy $XXX million in specialised mine-hunting vessels, and they in turn by $XXX million in trains, planes, LAV-III's, satellites, etc.  In short, ensure there's a 100% economic offset so that we still get the positive economic return as if we'd built them here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2007)

Matthew, I also agree that it would not be a good idea for us to use the CCG to clear mines. It has never been their mandate and has always been a military role. You just don't send civilians out there to risk their lives like that. As a member of the CF I found that completely abhorrent.
  We have been down this road before, the CCG does not want an armed role. That's fine, they do a phenomenal job with icebreaking, search and rescue, aid to navigation etc. Working with them during Fisheries Patrols and sovereignty operations, I have always found them to be professional and competent at what they do. 
  Personally I feel we should scale back their Law Enforcement aspect on the high seas (not for safety or fishing) and maybe consider giving the CBSA a maritime component. Heck, in a few years maybe they could have some OPVs built for them as well.
  As for sharing hulls, there is no reason these Arctic/OPVs could not be built to do strictly CCG missions. Add research and survey to the CCG mandate (if its not already there). The only differences between Navy Arctics and CCG Arctics would be a weapons fit.
  As for minesweeping it sounds like its leaving our grasp once again, that's too bad. I fear we will rue that day.


----------



## newfin (15 Jul 2007)

It sounds great - especially the tabla rasa part. But, I bet you it takes more than 4 years before the Canadian Border Services is completely armed and trained.  So we can watch what happens there to get some hints as to what might happen if the same exercise were applied to the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard will be even more difficult since not only are you talking abut small arms but heavier weapons for the ships.

I think the set up should remain as it is.  Get these people what they need to do what we need them to do.  And what they do very well already.  Just equip them.  And when the dust settles in a few years then make changes that make sense.  Too much change at once is difficult to manage well in large organizations.  Especially something as complex as the CCG.  They have a lot of responsibilities to cover off.

What we are really getting in the AOP/S (don't like the awkward lettering) are offshore patrol vessels that are ice capable.  That sounds to me like a capability we are in desperate need of in this country.  The fact that the Navy has to sail so carefully in a place as demanding as our Arctic is ridiculous.  There should never have been a time that we allowed ourselves to not have a Naval capability like that.  The fact that we are making plans to spend the money to acquire it is great news.  But there a lot of years and billions of easily cut dollars between here and 8 ships.  Let's hope this really comes true.

You just know that as long as the Canadian public is interested in paying for this then the Navy will do it right.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Jul 2007)

I wonder if the AMCM equipment fit of the Sea Dragon can be fitted on a few Cyclones if ordered new and built specifically for the role?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mh-53e.htm


----------



## Stoker (15 Jul 2007)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I wonder if the AMCM equipment fit of the Sea Dragon can be fitted on a few Cyclones if ordered new and built specifically for the role?
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mh-53e.htm



I doubt it. The Sea Dragon is HUGE compared to the cyclone. I had a chance to look at one in Panama City Fla a few months ago and the things like a monster. Even then the air frame had to be strengthened to allow it to carry all that gear.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2007)

I still think a ship for mine hunting and clearance is a better way to go, think of on station time and stability.


----------



## Privateer (16 Jul 2007)

The question raised by Ex-Dragoon is one which I was asking myself.  I remember that much of the "sell" on introducing the MCDVs was how we were regaining the lost capability of mine warfare.  Well, the introduction of the A/OPS platform (if it indeed happens) will be test of the Canadian commitment to a mine warfare capability, because it's clear that whatever the A/OPS is going to do, it isn't mine warfare.  Given that a credible threat that mines have been deployed in just a few places in Canada could paralyze our maritime trade, the need for mine warfare capacity is clear.  The MCDVs clearly aren't cutting edge mine warfare platforms (hello - steel hulls?) but they are what we have until something better comes along, so there will have to be a commitment to keeping the MCDVs operating and keeping their crews trained in this skill.

I won't get off topic and talk about how we should really have something like the Danish _Flyvefisken_ class...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jul 2007)

The FlyingFish class is a nice multirole platform but I think its way too small for operations in the Arctic let alone trasniting from Halifax (or that other place) to the North.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The FlyingFish class is a nice multirole platform but I think its way too small for operations in the Arctic let alone trasniting from Halifax (or that other place) to the North.



For expeditionary roles, what about using something like the Finnish Oksoy operating out of the wetwell of our eventual LPD/LHD?  In that manner you can still buy something relatively light, non-metallic, yet because it has a mother ship, it be can carried anywhere in the world we may need it.


Matthew.


----------



## Privateer (16 Jul 2007)

Sorry, I was referring to the _Flyvefisken_ class as preferable to the MCDV, not as an A/OPS.  A topic for a different thread.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jul 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For expeditionary roles, what about using something like the Finnish Oksoy operating out of the wetwell of our eventual LPD/LHD?  In that manner you can still buy something relatively light, non-metallic, yet because it has a mother ship, it be can carried anywhere in the world we may need it.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I know the Norwegians field the Oksoy class I don't believe the Finns do. As well, if we put in the wet dock, then you lose that much more troop landing capability. You would definitely cut out X number of LCACs as the Oksoy is over 50 m long.


----------



## Neill McKay (16 Jul 2007)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The question raised by Ex-Dragoon is one which I was asking myself.  I remember that much of the "sell" on introducing the MCDVs was how we were regaining the lost capability of mine warfare.  Well, the introduction of the A/OPS platform (if it indeed happens) will be test of the Canadian commitment to a mine warfare capability, because it's clear that whatever the A/OPS is going to do, it isn't mine warfare.



I wonder, though, is it feasible for the A/OPS to be "fitted for but not with" an MCM module similar to that available for MCDVs and serve in an MCM capacity in a pinch?  While probably not of optimal design for MCM, might be be as good as an MCDV?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jul 2007)

Good idea Neill but my fear if the A/OPVs were "fitted for and not with" that would give the excuse of holding back in purchasing MCM modules and in sufficient quantity.


----------



## cobbler (16 Jul 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For expeditionary roles, what about using something like the Finnish Oksoy operating out of the wetwell of our eventual LPD/LHD?  In that manner you can still buy something relatively light, non-metallic, yet because it has a mother ship, it be can carried anywhere in the world we may need it.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Because i doubt a >55m, 375 ton vessel could fit in a well dock. Let alone leave room for anything else. It would be a waste of a fat amphib.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jul 2007)

cobbler said:
			
		

> Because i doubt a >55m, 375 ton vessel could fit in a well dock. Let alone leave room for anything else. It would be a waste of a fat amphib.



I believe I said something similar above...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2007)

RE: Norway vs Finland - typo.  

RE:  Size - I was attempting to infer similar design, not equivalent size as obviously the trade-off of wet well space is a prime concern.  Any chance we could design a package that could be integrated into LCAC's so they could have a dual-use?  I'm thinking something similar to the SAM systems used with the Swedish Landsort vessels.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

> RE:  Size - I was attempting to infer similar design, not equivalent size as obviously the trade-off of wet well space is a prime concern.  Any chance we could design a package that could be integrated into LCAC's so they could have a dual-use?  I'm thinking something similar to the SAM systems used with the Swedish Landsort vessels.


I know they carry a 40mm and ASW mortars I don't think they are fitted with SAMs. Unless you are referrring to the mine hunting system they have designated as SAM.


----------



## Greymatters (17 Jul 2007)

Does Canada have any mine-sweeping assets left after this?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

Any NavRes able to answer that?


----------



## Privateer (17 Jul 2007)

> Does Canada have any mine-sweeping assets left after this?



While I have not taken the mine warfare course, as far as I know the MCDV is the only mine warfare platform we have.  There are no other "sweepers", so if the MCDVs go, that's it.  However, you could say that we would still have some mine-clearing assets:  The divers who are trained in destruction of mines.  Even with the MCDVs, in many scenarios the actual destruction of a detected mine would be the responsibility of divers.  We just wouldn't have any platforms for mine detection.

I don't think that you'd want an A/OPS to be involved in mine-clearing operations, even if it were technically capable of doing so.  The A/OPS would just be too large an asset to risk in mine operations.  One of the reasons mine-clearing vessels are small is so that you won't lose a big asset if it goes "boom".


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I know they carry a 40mm and ASW mortars I don't think they are fitted with SAMs. Unless you are referrring to the mine hunting system they have designated as SAM.



Yep, that was exactly what I was referring to.  Based on graphics I've seen, it looks like groups of three (and for those that don't know they look like unmanned pontoon boats loaded with sensors) feed back into the main processing centre on the Landsort (or if we could adjust the model, into a temporary control vehicle mounted on the LCAC.  Then when the minesweeping task is done the control vehicle could be driven into the main vehicle storage area and the SAM's (unmanned pontoon boats, not missiles) loaded on some sort of trailer or carrier system, and their driven on the main vehicle storage area as well).

Another option could be fit the SAM (pontoon boat, not missile) sensor suite onto something that could be carried by davit in the same fashion we'd carry a rescue boat, in that way eliminating the need for fooling around with the wet well at all.  In either case, I think the mother ship-concept is one worth exploring.  


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

Then we lose a small boat and when you have a man overboard and due to weather you cannot use one of the zodiacs, you lose a man, there is a reason why we have zodiacs on both the stbd and port side.

And would not the pressure wave of an LCAC also be more then likely to set off a pressure mine? Minehunting is such a dedicated role, you need a dedicated platform for it. Putting it inside an LPD, then you lose a lot of troop lift making the LPD a glorified tender for most likely 1 minehunter. Waste of a resource.

Privateer good point about the A/OPV not really suited for mineclearance ops.

I do foresee some sort of UUV being developed to hunt and disable mines, but I do think a dedicated Minehunter is the best bet.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then we lose a small boat and when you have a man overboard and due to weather you cannot use one of the zodiacs, you lose a man, there is a reason why we have zodiacs on both the stbd and port side.
> 
> And would not the pressure wave of an LCAC also be more then likely to set off a pressure mine? Minehunting is such a dedicated role, you need a dedicated platform for it. Putting it inside an LPD, then you lose a lot of troop lift making the LPD a glorified tender for most likely 1 minehunter. Waste of a resource.



Are you always so negative?   ;D

RE: The LCAC pressure wave would be significantly behind the deployed SAM's pontoon vessels so pressure wave shouldn't be a problem.   

RE:  Wasting space inside LPD wasting space for dedidated large minehunter - point conceded after initial statement.  Either create multi-use LCAC system, or create standalone mini-vessels.  RE:  Zodiac's on each side - I wouldn't change that.  What I would do is add additional side bays similar to those on the Mistral (and many other classes of vessels) that usually carry Zodiac's, but modify for anti-mine warfare assets (both manned and unmanned).


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

Personally I would feel safer if I had a dedicated MCM with me, that way I know the sailors over there know the ins and outs of looking for mines, not someone on my ship or another that only trains for it when needed.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I would feel safer if I had a dedicated MCM with me, that way I know the sailors over there know the ins and outs of looking for mines, not someone on my ship or another that only trains for it when needed.



Okay....if you were spec'ing out your ideal MCM for expeditionary deployment, what would it look like?  How many do you think you'd need?  Estimated cost per unit?


Matthew.


----------



## Greymatters (17 Jul 2007)

I think before you did that you would have to write a convincing argument for their retention and the likelihood of scenarios that would require anti-mine warfare.  At the moment, the politicians writing our defence strategy dont see the retention as important or the threat as viable.


----------



## Privateer (17 Jul 2007)

In this age of asymmetric warfare, the mine represents one of the cheapest ways to instil fear and damage commerce.  What would be the effect of an announcement by a hostile group that they had used a "fishing vessel" to drop a few mines in the Strait of Juan de Fuca?  Immediate and severe economic damage as maritime trade had to be stopped and/or rerouted.  And how would you address the threat without MCM capabilities?  To my mind the need for MCM capabilities is obvious.


----------



## Stoker (17 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Does Canada have any mine-sweeping assets left after this?



The MCDV's have been out of the "sweeping business" for quite some time. What we primarily operate now is route survey in the form of side scan sonar. Most of the side scans can be operated on other platforms than an MCDV.


----------



## Stoker (17 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I would feel safer if I had a dedicated MCM with me, that way I know the sailors over there know the ins and outs of looking for mines, not someone on my ship or another that only trains for it when needed.



I agree that we need a dedicated MCM capability. If we were serious we would have dedicated MCM forces and be deploying abroad, unfortunately I can't see that happening ever because of money.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Okay....if you were spec'ing out your ideal MCM for expeditionary deployment, what would it look like?  How many do you think you'd need?  Estimated cost per unit?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Matthew, you should know by now I don't do cost, as I am not in charge of finances, I am way too far down the chain and honestly it does not interest me. I do capabilities and roles, thats where my strengths and interests lie.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I think before you did that you would have to write a convincing argument for their retention and the likelihood of scenarios that would require anti-mine warfare.  At the moment, the politicians writing our defence strategy dont see the retention as important or the threat as viable.



I think its a matter of time before AQ, Hamas or the Furry Bunny Liberation Front uses mines in its war against the West.


----------



## Spencer100 (17 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think its a matter of time before AQ, Hamas or the Furry Bunny Liberation Front uses mines in its war against the West.



Maybe dumb question,  what would it take for a AQ or Hamas to run a sea mining operation.  Could they make a simple mine in the basement and rent a boat?  Or do they need state "help" from say an Iran?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jul 2007)

well what is a mine when you look at it...a casing filled with explsoives that may or may not be set off by a complicated trigger


----------



## GK .Dundas (17 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> well what is a mine when you look at it...a casing filled with explsoives that may or may not be set off by a complicated trigger


 Some years back I read an article where the author used an rusty 55 gal, drum as the body for a hypothetical terrorist mine. During OP Praying Mantis the U.S. seized an Iranian tug that had been dropping free floating contact mines,they were Russian built pre war........pre war as in WW I


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jul 2007)

From the July 18 2007 Chronicle Herald:

Navy on hunt for mines
Mini-submarine developed by N.S. defence scientists
By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter | 4:41 AM
ADVERTISEMENT 



The navy has started using a mini-submarine that can hunt for mines in Halifax Harbour — or around the world. 

The remote mine-hunting system developed by defence scientists in Nova Scotia went into operation earlier this year.

"From a terrorist point of view, the mine is the absolute perfect weapon," said David Hopkin, an engineer at Defence Research and Development Canada’s Dartmouth lab. 

Mines can cost as little as $2,000 and they’re highly portable.

"It’s pretty easy for somebody to just sail by casually in the evening, kick something over the side and call the paper the next day and say, ‘I just dumped a mine in Halifax Harbour,’ " Mr. Hopkin said.

Creating mayhem can be even simpler than that if someone knows a country doesn’t have the ability to find mines.

"All I have to do is produce a credible threat and I know I’ve tied that country in knots because they don’t have the tools to actually go out and investigate whether I’m telling the truth or not," he said.

Two U.S. warships hit Iraqi mines during the 1991 Gulf War, causing extensive damage.

"It’s a very real threat," Mr. Hopkin said.

While the navy’s mini-sub — dubbed Dorado after the big fish — is now based in British Columbia, it is highly portable. The sub and the gear used to control it can be loaded into a few shipping containers and sent anywhere in the world.

The navy could use it in the Persian Gulf to find mines, Mr. Hopkin said. "That certainly is a very real possibility." 

After working on the mini-sub project for more than a decade, Mr. Hopkin conceded it was difficult to hand Dorado over to the navy.

"It is sort of like cutting the umbilical cord. . . . It’s my baby," he said.

"It’s actually probably the most satisfying thing possible because you’ve demonstrated the goal that we strive for in developing something in the research and development community and actually having it transition into an operational capability for the navy. It just doesn’t get any better than that, really."

The nine-metre-long sub runs on a diesel engine, with its mast providing a path for air to get in and a place to put antennas to control the vehicle from afar. Sailors on a surface ship can operate it from about seven kilometres away.

The mini-sub is difficult to see now that it’s painted navy grey, Mr. Hopkin said. "It used to be painted yellow, so you can imagine the jokes."

About 15 local defence scientists helped put Dorado through its paces last month during a trial at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Panama City, Fla.

The trial was aimed at getting various countries to operate their unmanned vehicles together to clear an underwater minefield. The Canadian mini-sub was sent in first because it can scan a large area fairly quickly. 

"There really isn’t anything else out there that can provide the same capability," Mr. Hopkin said.

The vessel moves at about 17 kilometres per hour, using high-frequency side-scan sonar towed behind it to hunt for mine-shaped items in shallow waters and on the sea floor.

During the test, after the mini-sub picked out objects that looked like mines, a small autonomous underwater vehicle from the New Zealand navy was sent out to positively identify the devices.

"They weren’t all mines," Mr. Hopkin said. "We actually found a nice stack of tires that someone had thrown down there to give us a bit of a red herring. So needless to say, we didn’t go back and look at that a third time."

Then, a small remote-control U.S. navy crawler vehicle that moves on treads over the sea floor was sent out to videotape the mines.

"While we didn’t have it for this trial, you could actually have a disposal weapon on board that vehicle," he said. "Basically you push the button and it shoots a charge into the mine and detonates the mine, and everything goes up in a puff of smoke."

The Canadian navy relies on clearance divers to dispose of mines. But now it’s looking for a vehicle similar to the crawlers, which sell for about $50,000 each.

"Those little crawlers, like other systems that are developed for this task, are meant to be cheap and so they’re disposable," Mr. Hopkin said. "They call them one-time, one-shot devices. You lose the vehicle when the mine goes up."

The military has spent about $25 million on the remote mine-hunting project.

"Where it gets kind of interesting is when you compare that to part of the development that’s gone on in the U.S, where you’re looking at closer to three quarters of a billion dollars," Mr. Hopkin said.

"We’ve really produced a unique, state-of-the-art product for what I would consider a reasonable investment."

Over the next two years, defence scientists will also look at adding a camera to the sub so it can snap photos of potential mines. "Now you can say, ‘Yup, that’s something that I’ve got to neutralize.’ "

They’ll also work on creating another unmanned vehicle that can conduct clandestine mine-hunting operations.

( clambie@herald.ca)

**ironic as we have been talking about this**


----------



## Privateer (18 Jul 2007)

Timely story!  If this is the system we are eventually going to go with, I still think that we would want dedicated, relatively small MCM vessels crewed by people with specific MCM training to carry and operate the system.  It would be a waste of a frigate's capabilities to tie one up with MCM operations, and an unnecessary risk of a large asset.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jul 2007)

Agreed, worse waste yet would be the eventual/possible LPD


----------



## sonardork (9 Aug 2007)

A little late on seeing this post, my apologies.

I work with the system mentioned by Dr.Dave Hopkin at DRDC. This remotely controlled fully/semi-autonomous semi-submersible vehicle is something that will save lives, period. It not only keeps personnel and assets out of danger with a stand-off distance of 10nm+, but it can identify, and in the future, dispose of detected submerged contacts all in a timely fashion and all done remotely. It provides an incredibly stable platform for multi-beam and sidescan sonars to facilitate target detection and initial recognition. We can work in water as shallow as 10 metres down to 200 + metres. Exceeding the requirements (IIRC) in the White Paper. Airborne MCM, while very flashy, is sketchy at best. We have a proven capability system that is otherwise not present elsewhere in the world. Some may talk of the US "Wyld One" but that is an unproven, not fully functional system. Indeed, when I say "proven" I mean against sensors and inert targets. As it is still a development system until 2010, it has not been proven in a real-world threat environment. I could go on and on about the potential for this system but I digress.


----------



## Cronicbny (10 Aug 2007)

Sonardork - I'm pretty familiar with the IRMDS and look forward to your next NOP to see it's full capabilities. Suffice to say, I was very impressed with what I've heard/seen over the last few years and was equally happy when DND funding was extended.

IN ARDUA NITOR


----------



## sonardork (15 Aug 2007)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Sonardork - I'm pretty familiar with the IRMDS and look forward to your next NOP to see it's full capabilities. Suffice to say, I was very impressed with what I've heard/seen over the last few years and was equally happy when DND funding was extended.
> 
> IN ARDUA NITOR



Hah, so was I till I got my posting msg !  
It is good news, hopefully it bolsters the 511 extension program as well. 

PER PROFUNDUS NOS APERIO


----------

