Thanks Thanks:  763
Likes Likes:  1,603
Dislikes Dislikes:  41
Page 15 of 100 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 2496
  1. #351
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post

    Another vessel mentioned in that article is the Enforcer 8000.

    It is 129.9m long, with a 24.8m beam and a 5.2m draught,
    Nice for them!


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  2. #352
    Private 3* Sea Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like
    While Sweden hasn't bought any, their navy has the government go ahead to buy one of two planned combat support ships to replace two of their old tenders. The L-10 will look similar to New Zealand's multi-role ferry design, although larger in length, with the helicopter hangar further aft. There will be only one helicopter landing zone, not two, and the space before their hangar will be the location for many of the tenders work shops. There won't be any well dock alike the Canterbury, there will be a aft ramp to landing craft linkup too. Price will be in the neighborhood of 75-80 million Euros each. I am not sure its a redesigned Merwede ferry, this ship could be of another small to medium sized ferry design. 145 meters in length instead of 131 meters of the Canterbury.

    The Swedish multi-role vessel is designed to be used as a training vessel, a tender vessel for either patrol boats, mine countermeasure vessels, and submarines along with a ro-ro vehicle deck and accommodations for troops. She will also have a hospital facility and a command and control facility as well. Its been interesting what different navies have bought recently to meet their sea lift requirements.

    A link with a very small image: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/id...1102_1_n.shtml
    Last edited by Sea Toby; 30th December 2009 at 00:27.

  3. #353
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Canterbury does not have a well dock either. It has a loading ramp, that landing craft are capable of offloading from. Seems to work ok for them, in ideal conditions.
    Could be an improvement based on the design flaws found in Canterbury. I believe Sweden already experimented with operating their fast landing craft jet boat thingys from other LPDs, but the boats required preparation before docking and undocking.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  4. #354
    Private 3* Sea Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like
    New Zealand had hoped to use a ice strengthened Canterbury for operations in the Southern Ocean or Ross Sea with journeys to McMurdo Sound. As for amphibious operations a well dock only provides another Beaufort scale sea state, from three to four. The New Zealand army ain't a Marine Corps. I doubt seriously New Zealand would attempt to do amphibious operations, or any landing operations during a storm anyway. It would be like D-day, Eisenhower delayed that operation a day cause the weather conditions weren't ideal. He saw no reason to have all of his troops drown before reaching the beach...

  5. #355
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zone 1 View Post
    should one of future replacement ships be a disaster relief vessel helping with humanitarian
    One of the secondary roles of the EPV is to provide humanitarian assistance where required. It is not beyond the bounds of probability that the next major large Haiti size disaster happens someplace that an Irish asset is best located to provide immediate assistance.
    We have demonstrated in the past our capabilities, purely at skill level alone,for example when Eithne provided Electrical repairs to an Orphanage in South America, while en route to a Courtesy Visit to Argentina.
    We have proved we can do the job. All we need is the tools. Cost is not a factor. It is clear that Larger Patrol vessels are required to survive the increasingly deteriorating Atlantic Conditions. It makes sense then that if you can crew a larger ship with a similar number as the smaller ship, you should make full use of the extra space this larger ship has provided. This is why the requirement for the EPV, found elsewhere on this site, seeks space for a minimum amount of Containers. A Container sized space can accomodate anything from modularised water treatment plants, to fully functional hospitals. All you need to provide is the means to get there.
    Helicopters etc are another days work of course, but if you have a deck that can hold 8 containers or more, side by side, then you should have a layout that allows this space to be used as a helideck, when those boxes are taken away.

    Simples.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  6. #356
    CQMS spud68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    One of the secondary roles of the EPV is to provide humanitarian assistance where required. It is not beyond the bounds of probability that the next major large Haiti size disaster happens someplace that an Irish asset is best located to provide immediate assistance.
    We have demonstrated in the past our capabilities, purely at skill level alone,for example when Eithne provided Electrical repairs to an Orphanage in South America, while en route to a Courtesy Visit to Argentina.
    We have proved we can do the job. All we need is the tools. Cost is not a factor. It is clear that Larger Patrol vessels are required to survive the increasingly deteriorating Atlantic Conditions. It makes sense then that if you can crew a larger ship with a similar number as the smaller ship, you should make full use of the extra space this larger ship has provided. This is why the requirement for the EPV, found elsewhere on this site, seeks space for a minimum amount of Containers. A Container sized space can accomodate anything from modularised water treatment plants, to fully functional hospitals. All you need to provide is the means to get there.
    Helicopters etc are another days work of course, but if you have a deck that can hold 8 containers or more, side by side, then you should have a layout that allows this space to be used as a helideck, when those boxes are taken away.

    Simples.
    buy a osv ahts plenty on the market just now give container space , fluid space , rov and towing ability, stick a suitably frc on it and you can do fisheries . a lot even have a heli deck with refuel ability .
    It would all come at a lot less then 130 million . just have to omit the 76 mm and replace with a couple of smaller caliber weapons , not a big problem as the 76 mm is very rarely used .

  7. #357
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just because it is rarely used does not mean you won't at some stage need it. Not to fire it, but to have the ability to fire it. The OTO is quite a versatile platform. You can't delete a defensive weapon, just because it "isn't used much". Its very presence is usually enough.
    You'll find the only OSVs (I assume you mean Offshore Support Vessels) with helidecks are in the larger, more expensive end of the spectrum. Rarely of the "off the shelf" variety.

    Personally I think the type of hull could be based around a research vessel, such as HMS Echo. Built by Appledore, who also built the P50s for us of course. Length is good, not too big, providing a versatile platform. Echo has been very active in Narcotics Enforcement in the carribean, a role she was never expected to carry out when she was designed.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  8. #358
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    tip of iceland
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think our ships need main armament as 8 ship navy we cant afford not to have some sort of decent weapon on it full stop it would be like a mowag with a pistol

  9. #359
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Disagree.

    Some of the more competent high end 25mm or 30mm non crew served weapons are adequate, Secondary weapons fit of a pair of Rh202s and a pair of GPMGs finish it off.

    76mm is a nice weapon, but pricey and has yet to be used in anger, but its afar cry from crew served 40mm weapons, I'll go with RWS 25mm on the foclse asthe main gun with the subsidiares..seesm to work for the RN.
    Time for another break I think......

  10. #360
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    But the RN have Frigates and destroyers to back them up if things get hairy.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  11. #361
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    tip of iceland
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    and don't for get does submarines if all else fails.. htp its best to have them god only knows maybe one day we might ..if we don't if anything some fools trying to bring illegal stuff into our country might look and see the barrel of the 76mm facing them they might think twice

  12. #362
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    The NS has to be capable of war roles as well. In the past the NS has managed to buy at least 1 OTO Melera second hand making it more cost effective.

  13. #363
    CQMS spud68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The NS has to be capable of war roles as well. In the past the NS has managed to buy at least 1 OTO Melera second hand making it more cost effective.
    As The country is facing a cash flow problem , a cost effective piece of kit is one thats used for its purpose and unless the oto melera was designed for display then its not being used .
    The irish navy has not got the abilty to deal with and i missile, airborne threat or sub surface threat therefore can not even protect itself .
    Taking the big bang bang off the sharp end will not decrease the effectivness of the service in its day to day role and I dare say it has made a minimal contrubition to the service.
    Since the 76 mm has been in service has it ever been fired for real .

    As for the OSV look up ulstien they make standard models and helideck are quite simple bits of steel and its easy to make them to CAP437 standard .
    LOts of OSV's for sale at the moment andloads still in the yards waiting for buyers , I can see five half finished from here in singapore now .

  14. #364
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    tip of iceland
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    As we are very small navy we just have to work with the tools we are given I'm sure there is personal in the navy that would love missile tubs radars for anti aircraft and so on but we all no we cant afford anything like that and never will .. I think if we were a serious organisation and it was not just fishery maybe exercising with other navies and taken part in anti piracy patrols things maybe different but having a 76mm is all right for what we need ..

  15. #365
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spud68 View Post
    As The country is facing a cash flow problem , a cost effective piece of kit is one thats used for its purpose and unless the oto melera was designed for display then its not being used .
    The irish navy has not got the abilty to deal with and i missile, airborne threat or sub surface threat therefore can not even protect itself .
    Taking the big bang bang off the sharp end will not decrease the effectivness of the service in its day to day role and I dare say it has made a minimal contrubition to the service.
    Since the 76 mm has been in service has it ever been fired for real .
    The same arguement could stand for the entire defence force. There are many weapons that have never fired a shot in anger. Should we get rid of all of them too? You are contradicting yourself when you say in one hand we don't need big bang, and then say in the next line we have no means to defend ourselves.... Perhaps you would prefer if the Naval service threw pamphlets onto the decks of drug and arms smugglers, pleading with them to change their ways..

    Quote Originally Posted by spud68 View Post
    As for the OSV look up ulstien they make standard models and helideck are quite simple bits of steel and its easy to make them to CAP437 standard .
    LOts of OSV's for sale at the moment andloads still in the yards waiting for buyers , I can see five half finished from here in singapore now .
    That is where you are wrong. The Helideck on the Ulstein P103 is a deck, and no more. The helideck on a naval vessel can be utilised for far more purposes than just landing a helicopter. Would you think it would be a good idea to use the P103 helideck for extra deck stowage? Would you land a seaking on it, tie it down, and bring it accross the atlantic? A helideck is much more than a flat area of deck with a H painted on it. I look forward to you providing me with clips of a helicopter landing on the P103 style of helideck in anything more than sea state 2 or 3. The Old Irish Lights vessel "Gray Seal" had a similar helideck. A crewman I spoke to said it was useless, due to the amount of salt corrosion it was subjected to on a daily basis. The best they could hope for was landing a Bo105 on it when it was anchored in dublin bay....
    I see some merit in your ideas, perhaps as a CPV replacement, but for the roles proposed for the EPV, I don't believe this ship would be suitable.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  16. #366
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    780
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spud68 View Post
    As The country is facing a cash flow problem , a cost effective piece of kit is one thats used for its purpose and unless the oto melera was designed for display then its not being used .
    The irish navy has not got the abilty to deal with and i missile, airborne threat or sub surface threat therefore can not even protect itself .
    Taking the big bang bang off the sharp end will not decrease the effectivness of the service in its day to day role and I dare say it has made a minimal contrubition to the service.
    Since the 76 mm has been in service has it ever been fired for real .
    I agree with GF on this. Just because a system hasn't been fired in anger doesn't mean it's unjustified. how many 5inch guns on US DDGs have been fired in anger? Not many. But all DDGs are equipped with that capability. The 76mm has a naval gunfire support role to play which a 57mm can't do, so this is something else it brings to the table!

    Just because the OTO hasn't been fired in anger, doesn't mean it hasn't been closed up, pointed at something ready to fire. Don't think we'll ever know in this forum (and probably shouldn't) how many times that has happened. But OTO equipped ships have been deployed on numerous military & naval operations since the CPV's first arrived in 1988, which would imply it has been 'tooled up ready to go!'

  17. #367
    CQMS spud68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    GF
    Your wrong , not a very valid starting point for a discussion however just to give you a bit of my backround for the last number of years I have built and commanded of vessels which take choppers on a daily basis everything from the r22 to the super puma .I have completed all required courses to land the buggers and firefight them , also refuel them .
    please tell me about your helicopter time so I can compare and give your view,s the weight they are due.
    Ulstien p103 - I agree with you about that helideck but I said it was easy to build one to cap 473 standards and it could be placed more aft as has been done with survey vessels . You then have to chose do you want a cargo deck which can on occasion land a chopper or a chopper deck which can on occasion have cargo lashed to it.
    On one command we took up to nine choppers superpumas a day and wind up to 30 knots . The limits on the deck were the choppers limits not the deck , the standard for cap 437 has come from the north sea and is used there so force two to three on a deck no problem. a medical lift was doone with gusts of 60 knots and we lashed the dauphain down whilst the squal passed then launched in a break in the weather , the chap lifted off was all right after a couple of days .

    Missiles , airborne and subsurface threats very little the 76mm ships can do about any of them therefore they cant protect them selves . The point i was trying to make is the navy has not got crediable combat ability in a muilti threat operation and as they will never in realistic terms be in a multi threat operation dont need to have it , I would place the 76 mm with the above , Why cling to a system which is very expensive when the same effect can be achived by lower caliber and cost weapons which Iam sure in the right hands could make the smugglers change their ways or at least regret the path they have taken , .
    In the same way the aircorps have no jets and the army have no main battle tanks both had at one stage.
    The navy could step away from the 76 mm and use the money saved to give the ships equipment which it would use frequently .
    If the days comes when the celtic tiger comes back and we are awash with cash then by all means ,but please from a need to have and not nice to have leave the 76mm off and get something we can afford.

  18. #368
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm only going on what HPT told me(he used to feed helis regularly), and an article written by the man who pioneered Naval Aviation in ireland. If their expertise isn't sufficient, then I apologise.
    I didn't realise I needed to compare penis sizes with you. Your expertise in the Civilian area is admirable. What experience do you have of Naval Aviation Operations?

    The EPV specifications clearly states the requirement for a helideck capable of landing a 10 tonne heli.
    Appendix B Con/195/2006
    Statement of Requirement EPV
    Naval Service Patrol vessels are required to undertake a range of duties including, fishery protection, search and rescue, maritime protection, drug interdiction, anti-pollution and maritime security duties, including vessel boarding. The EPV will be required to provide an extended patrol capability capable of undertaking these duties throughout Ireland’s EEZ and in the adverse weather conditions of the North Atlantic. The following is an outline of the characteristics required to fulfil that role. The vessels must be designed and constructed to the Rules and Regulations of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS).

    Length 130 – 140M
    Beam 16-20 m
    Draft 4.0- 5.0 m

    Max Speed 22-26 Kts Cruise Speed 15 Kts Loiter Speed 0 – 8 Kts

    Range 8,500 nm Endurance 24 days

    Propulsion Diesel, Diesel Electric, DE Hybrid,
    Power Generation Diesel Generators, Shaft Alternator, PTO/PTI

    Communications HF, VHF, UHF, GMDSS, SAT
    Radars Navigation and Air Defence
    Stabilisation Active and Passive

    Flight Deck 1 Spot for a 10 metric tonne helicopter

    Medical LEVEL 11, for 2 pers.

    Accommodation Crew + 12 trainees.

    Options
    Proposals should be provided for the following additional options
    1.Helicopter in-flight Refuelling Facility
    2.Provision of Dynamic Positioning class 2 or 3
    3.Because of the required size of the vessel, there may be potential to increase the utility of the vessel in other roles which would be desirable but not essential.* In this regard, the potential to provide a level of carrying capability for personnel, military vehicles and containers within the size and configuration of the vessel to which the mandatory requirements give rise, should be set out in the proposals.
    In this regard, the proposal should indicate the possible arrangements/ combinations of personnel, vehicles and containers that could be accommodated and should indicate the lane metres that can be designed into the vessel.* Annex A indicates the type of items which might be carried on the vessel although not necessarily at the same time.* Proposals should include separately the option of a facility for cargo discharge where no port infrastructure exists.* The implications of including such carrying capacity and cargo discharge arrangements on the nature of the proposed vessel should be fully outlined in the proposal. As already stated above, these optional additional capabilities are desirable but are not essential requirements of the proposed patrol vessel.
    These are the specs. If you can wedge the ship type you want into this specifation, then great. But don't go off the shelf for the sake of it, if it will not fulfil the requirement.

    As for the Main Armament:
    Missiles , airborne and subsurface threats very little the 76mm ships can do about any of them therefore they cant protect them selves .
    Incorrect. This is not a weakness in the main armament, but in the sensor suite, which is designed for engaging surface contacts. However it is clear in the requirement for the EPV above that an air Defence radar must be included. The OTO is a weapon suitable for use against all targets above the waterline, including missile and aircraft, my a simple selection of appropriate ammunition.
    What did the italians ever do to you that you are so keen to get rid of their product(which has a great record in irish service) from future vessels? Did you even read what Dogwatch, who may or may not have more experience than either of us in the day to day use of this weapon, had to say?


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  19. #369
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    But the RN have Frigates and destroyers to back them up if things get hairy.
    But the RN have a tendencey to find them selves in wars..we don't....

    Just because the OTO hasn't been fired in anger, doesn't mean it hasn't been closed up, pointed at something ready to fire. Don't think we'll ever know in this forum (and probably shouldn't) how many times that has happened. But OTO equipped ships have been deployed on numerous military & naval operations since the CPV's first arrived in 1988, which would imply it has been 'tooled up ready to go
    !'

    To engage a weapon of this class would take a hell of justification in a court of law if the target was not equipped witha similar weapon. To that end while it may have be closed up in reality it will never be fired as no Shpis captain will tae responsibilty for firing a weapon of this class when something else would have given the same mesage. Given the rquirement for warning shot the first rounds would have to be fired from a smaller calibre weapon to justify cost.

    Given historically what the NS has engaged with gunfire, the secondary weaposn have always been sufficent, if not more cost effective and a damn sight safer.

    Hitting a small targte from an unstable platform with even a mediocre degree of accuracy is albut impossible..yup surface shoot with a bofors.. how may first time hits with that.

    I can state categorically without fear of contradiction that the 76mm will do its job if it is required....but believe the week link to be in the justification for firing it.

    NGS is a bit like they AC strike option, we have it if we need , but if we get to the stage we need it, we're ****ed anyway.

    Devils advocate again, whats the usefull life of a CPV left? given their limited capabilities and crewing difficulties?

    Now buy your two new ships ready to take the 76mm weapon and just stick them on when they decomission the CPVs within the next five years I reckon.


    The arguement about heos and what it takes to operate them has been done unto death.Two concepts, heli capable or heli operable...think about it.

    Back to guns.. if the price of the weapons was going to be a problem, My CPV option would possibly be the most logical to re use the weapons when the time comes.
    Time for another break I think......

  20. #370
    CQMS spud68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like
    I really dont want to get into this one but just to answer your request about naval aviation
    served on the eithne and worked with the RFA and RN for a while on a number of projects even ended up in the falklands at mare harbour, ,Hung around portland harbour for a bit and had a fun time with the coastguard's chopper there
    I am not sure what your penis has to do with anything and I am not intrested in it mate as iam sure 90% of this board is not intrested in it .
    I was just trying to gauge if there was more to your response than NOPE YOUR WRONG.
    Iam sorry if you felt insulted,

    HTP yeah your suggestion makes a sound argument and a reasoned comment on what we are discussing with out refering to penis and just saying your wrong , I was told by a mate .
    I stand corrected when i stated the 76 could not handle threats what I should have said is the 76mm weapons systema s fitted to irish vessels could not handle threats,missle,air and subsea.
    I have said all i want on this subject so Iam out of this topic for the moment .

  21. #371
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,046
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    NGS is a bit like they AC strike option, we have it if we need , but if we get to the stage we need it, we're ****ed anyway.
    I can think of a few scenarios where the 76mm gun (& the IAC strike option) would be more useful compared to lower caliber weapons - but wouldn't necessitate all out war/aka "we're ****ed anyway!".

    But firstly I think of what California Tanker said about the psychological role a tank can play and I think a big 76mm gun on front of a ship can have a similar impact.

    It could also presumably play a role supporting troops on land.

    Regarding a scenario or two where a 76mm gun might be fired in anger? The following are not very likely, but I'd say they're more realistic than all out war by a factor of roughly a million:

    Say a vessel deliberately rammed a NS ship and disabled it - well the 76mm gun on a second vessel would be able to engage from much further out.

    What if a vessel running weapons to the RIRA refused to stop, fired on a boarding crew - the crew are shown to be armed with automatic rifles and, say for arguments sake - an RPG?

    Likewise, depending on range, PC-9's could be used to launch a retaliatory strike in such a scenario.

    I know all of this sounds like a very very bad, made for TV3 movie plot and these are highly improbable situations.

    But so is all out war and so is an airborne attack, and the Army are equipped with the likes of EL-70's which in all probability will never be deployed against a serious threat.

    Has the 105mm been fired in anger? Has the Javelin? The RBS-70? Has the Scorpion ever been deployed? The mine clearance vehicles?

    Should this discussion be made wider: should there be an audit of which weapons the Defence Forces are likely to use, versus those that have no historical precedent or future likely use? I guess it would cut costs - but where do you stop?

    Just throwing it out there - I have no expertise on any of this, I'm just an interested bystander.

  22. #372
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spud68 View Post
    I really dont want to get into this one but just to answer your request about naval aviation
    served on the eithne and worked with the RFA and RN for a while on a number of projects even ended up in the falklands at mare harbour, ,Hung around portland harbour for a bit and had a fun time with the coastguard's chopper there
    I am not sure what your penis has to do with anything and I am not intrested in it mate as iam sure 90% of this board is not intrested in it .
    I was just trying to gauge if there was more to your response than NOPE YOUR WRONG.
    Iam sorry if you felt insulted,

    HTP yeah your suggestion makes a sound argument and a reasoned comment on what we are discussing with out refering to penis and just saying your wrong , I was told by a mate .
    I stand corrected when i stated the 76 could not handle threats what I should have said is the 76mm weapons systema s fitted to irish vessels could not handle threats,missle,air and subsea.
    I have said all i want on this subject so Iam out of this topic for the moment .
    So again you chose to ignore completely the specifications the Naval Service have put forward as a requirement?
    Did you serve on Eithne when she operated Helis?
    I hung around Rotterdam and Antwerp for some time too but I fail to see what relevence that has to the proposed EPV.
    You wanted to squeeze a OSV into the EPV requirement, I pointed out, where that plausibility would be incorrect. Throwing breaks in absence of real data is hardly the basis of a reasonable argument.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  23. #373
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spud68 View Post
    Missiles , airborne and subsurface threats very little the 76mm ships can do about any of them therefore they cant protect them selves .
    In the Falklands an Exocet was shot down with a 4.5".

  24. #374
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    780
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    In the Falklands an Exocet was shot down with a 4.5".
    Think you may be wrong on that. One Etendard launched exocet hit HMS Sheffield (lost to fire), one Etendard launched one hit Atlantic Conveyor (lost to fire), one shore launched exocet hit HMS Glamorgan (survived). Am open to correction.

  25. #375
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dogwatch is indeed correct with the missile that hit Glamorgan being the Ship launched version mounted on a trailer on land.

    If $.5 inch could not provide the rate of fire required to attempt to take out a supersonic missile.

    The RN found themselves sadly lacking in Light anti Aircraft weapons and after the Exoicet hits anything sent'down south' had 20mm oerlikons mounted in many unusual points, these weapons being begged borrowed or stolen from other ships.

    the transition to GamBo had begun but the weapon hadn't been introduced to service.

    CIWS or Goal keeper weren't on the RN wish list at the time as they barely existed and it was only after the falklands the Gun vs Missile theory was finally laid to rest and was accepted that the light point defence weapon could not be done without.

    Ironically the first ships in the RN to mount the OTO melara were the Peacock Class vessels built as Hong Kong Patrol ships, that were sold on, tow of which became our CPVs
    Time for another break I think......

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •