Thanks Thanks:  419
Likes Likes:  557
Dislikes Dislikes:  14
Page 100 of 102 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102 LastLast
Results 2,476 to 2,500 of 2535

Thread: OPV Replacement

  1. #2476
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    We are very lucky for a change to have a FOCNS with an engineering background. He would be one of the few capable of silencing the naysayers, doing so when he held the appointment of OCNSC.
    Worth pointing out that the FOCNS was also a cadet while L.E. Eithne was being designed and built, earning his commission in 1983.
    Luck should not be a factor. The FOCNS has the experience of 35 years commissioned service and would be expected to follow the MISSION laid down for the PDF and the NS. He will have experienced staff officers around him and will have the final say of how the NS will meet that MISSION. In a conflict of views scenario, requiring radical changes of direction, such personnel should be asked to consider their continued service. No part of the PDF should be compromised by lack of firepower.

  2. #2477
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Luck should not be a factor. The FOCNS has the experience of 35 years commissioned service and would be expected to follow the MISSION laid down for the PDF and the NS. He will have experienced staff officers around him and will have the final say of how the NS will meet that MISSION. In a conflict of views scenario, requiring radical changes of direction, such personnel should be asked to consider their continued service. No part of the PDF should be compromised by lack of firepower.
    I admire the confidence you have. However, should a cost factor become part of the metric in selecting a main armament, and one system becomes more costly to use because of the maintenance hours required, in spite of the far superior performance it provides, suddenly you face a different narrative.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  3. Likes CTU liked this post
  4. #2478
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    No part of the PDF should be compromised by lack of firepower.
    And yet it could be argued that all parts of the PDF are compromised by the same.

  5. Likes na grohmití, X-RayOne liked this post
  6. #2479
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    I admire the confidence you have. However, should a cost factor become part of the metric in selecting a main armament, and one system becomes more costly to use because of the maintenance hours required, in spite of the far superior performance it provides, suddenly you face a different narrative.
    I think the problem stems from the otics what other people are doing with similar size and class of weapons and the missions we engage in don't require a fit like the OTO Melara 76. The neighbours haven't fitted anything bigger than a 30mm to any of their OPVS for many years now and even the USN and RCN are fitting nothing bigger than 57mm to their LCS and frigates.
    Time for another break I think......

  7. #2480
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I think the problem stems from the otics what other people are doing with similar size and class of weapons and the missions we engage in don't require a fit like the OTO Melara 76. The neighbours haven't fitted anything bigger than a 30mm to any of their OPVS for many years now and even the USN and RCN are fitting nothing bigger than 57mm to their LCS and frigates.
    Fleet composition and tasks generally determine armament. The missile school succeeded in ships being built without main armament. This proved to be a premature show of confidence and updated guns are now appearing on most naval vessels. The re-emergence of piracy and fast craft attacks has also underlined the need for greater reach in CIWS such as the 30mm you mention. I believe we have such weapons in service on armoured vehicles, they could be evaluated and be considered as a secondary armament for the P60's. Given the many years of overseas service one would have expected that the PDF would match the POWER generated by the Command and Staff school in it's training courses. Moderately armed an OPV could do many of the tasks assigned to frigates.

  8. #2481
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    But that's just it. The 30mm cannon seen in use on an AFV woud not be modified to fit an opv as a Secondary armament. It would be fitted as a primary armament. In the 70s we had a large fleet of AFVs that boasted 90mm and 76mm cannon that were suitable in both the anti tank and anti pers role. Today neither of those are in service, and the closest is the 30mm which comes nowhere near the punch of either the 76 or 90. These are backed up by APCs fitted with 40mm grenade launchers (short range) or 12.7mm HMG.
    Like all things in this isle, it will take a major tragedy before the DOD and the DF wake up to the risk it puts its crew in.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  9. Likes Tempest, ias liked this post
  10. #2482
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,061
    Post Thanks / Like
    30 mm cannon has been used to sink Spruance class destroyers in exercises.

  11. #2483
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    30 mm cannon has been used to sink Spruance class destroyers in exercises.
    The USN mounts have an integrated FCS and are adaptable to use either a 30mm barrel OR a 40mm barrel. The RN have purchased up to 70 x 30mm mounts for their ships not sure of FCS. All of this is to handle suicide or asymmetric surface/air attacks.

  12. #2484
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,849
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    But that's just it. The 30mm cannon seen in use on an AFV woud not be modified to fit an opv as a Secondary armament. It would be fitted as a primary armament. In the 70s we had a large fleet of AFVs that boasted 90mm and 76mm cannon that were suitable in both the anti tank and anti pers role. Today neither of those are in service, and the closest is the 30mm which comes nowhere near the punch of either the 76 or 90. These are backed up by APCs fitted with 40mm grenade launchers (short range) or 12.7mm HMG.
    Like all things in this isle, it will take a major tragedy before the DOD and the DF wake up to the risk it puts its crew in.
    Thing is international it isn’t unusual for a vessel or vehicle to have a 30mm main armament..... except there is usually a better armed vessel/vehicle around as well

  13. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  14. #2485
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    The OTO Melara 76mm is fiited to the Danish Knud Rasmussen Class OPVs (2050t). (The vessels have a CMS, air search radar, Sea Sparrow capability, helicopter deck a crew of 18 and all for the price of a SB!)

    On the other end the Royal Brunei Navy had fitted the last of its Lürssen OPVs with an MLG27 the other three having the Bofors 57mm, so there is no set standard or benchmark.
    As for 30mm, the Bushmaster II (same as on the MRVs) is fitted to a wide range of USN ships in the most cases to deal with small attack boats and skiffs.

    Given that the NS mission is officially wider that just FP it is fitting that the 76mm but it would be nice to upgrade from the 20mm Rhinos to there newer brother the 27mm MLG.

  15. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  16. #2486
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe we got our batch of rhinos 2nd hand as the germans were refitting their ships with the 27.
    The Rhinos are an upgrade from a mix of Oerlikon and GAMBO 20mm, and 12.7mm HMG.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  17. #2487
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    30 mm cannon has been used to sink Spruance class destroyers in exercises.
    They've been used in SinxEx's they themselves didn't sink any of the ships. The amount of damage a 30mm could do to a Spruance would be minor (particularly if in actual combat conditions)

  18. #2488
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    I believe we got our batch of rhinos 2nd hand as the germans were refitting their ships with the 27.
    The Rhinos are an upgrade from a mix of Oerlikon and GAMBO 20mm, and 12.7mm HMG.
    That is indeed correct and you and I saw the first of the mounts be fitted to the CPVs.

    It is worth noting that we never intended to go down the 76mm route by design but inherited them and based on performance they were fitted to all subsequent builds. I've looked at some stuff on the newer 57mm by Bofors, quite a capable weapon.But this should be the limit of any change made. We have always required a decent aft facing weapons fit, the 20mm fits we always used were always stop gap as such.
    We should look at some of OTO Melaras other turreted systems for secondary fits..

    If we walk away from our ability to provide reasonable NGS with 57mm or 76mm weapons we might as well just turn the whole lot over to the Coast Guard
    Time for another break I think......

  19. Likes Shaqra, EUFighter liked this post
  20. #2489
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,849
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    That is indeed correct and you and I saw the first of the mounts be fitted to the CPVs.

    It is worth noting that we never intended to go down the 76mm route by design but inherited them and based on performance they were fitted to all subsequent builds. I've looked at some stuff on the newer 57mm by Bofors, quite a capable weapon.But this should be the limit of any change made. We have always required a decent aft facing weapons fit, the 20mm fits we always used were always stop gap as such.
    We should look at some of OTO Melaras other turreted systems for secondary fits..

    If we walk away from our ability to provide reasonable NGS with 57mm or 76mm weapons we might as well just turn the whole lot over to the Coast Guard
    Neither the 76mm or 57mm are bad weapons as main armament

    It’s possibly the newer ammunition types and FCS that we need

  21. #2490
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Neither the 76mm or 57mm are bad weapons as main armament

    It’s possibly the newer ammunition types and FCS that we need
    I agree with views expressed and would support arming our P60's with 76mm mains, 30mm secondary ( aft Arcs ) and supports of 20mm, 12.7mm etc. I would also like to see a compatible NSM launch unit and an integrated Decoy system.
    .
    The original outfitting with Rheinmetall in our service was to the Eithne on commissioning, later GAMBO 20mm was fitted by Ordnance Corps, and now we are back with Rheinmetall. It implies an amount of uncertainty and personal choices of decision makers. We should always go with ease of aiming, ease of cocking, ease of loading, and continuous ammo supply.

  22. #2491
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    It goes without saying (to me anyway) that when the Rh101 was selected for Eithne, the rest of the fleet should have been retro-fitted with Rhein Mettal, instead of the situation we ended up at, with some ships sporting as a secondary, Oerlikon 20 x 110mm (with its mental method of cocking, and built in stoppage after 60 rounds), Some with Browning HMG 12.7 x 99mm and some with the Updated Oerlikon, the Belt fed GAM-BO1.
    I don't remember eithne ever getting the GAM-BO1, I think her rhinos are original (but not the same as the ones fitted to the rest of the fleet, perhaps the resident seaman gunners can assist.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  23. #2492
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like



    Photo is a few weeks old.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
  25. #2493
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    It goes without saying (to me anyway) that when the Rh101 was selected for Eithne, the rest of the fleet should have been retro-fitted with Rhein Mettal, instead of the situation we ended up at, with some ships sporting as a secondary, Oerlikon 20 x 110mm (with its mental method of cocking, and built in stoppage after 60 rounds), Some with Browning HMG 12.7 x 99mm and some with the Updated Oerlikon, the Belt fed GAM-BO1.
    I don't remember eithne ever getting the GAM-BO1, I think her rhinos are original (but not the same as the ones fitted to the rest of the fleet, perhaps the resident seaman gunners can assist.
    Gambo were never fitted on P31, unless it was late 80s, Rheinmetall on her since I can remember......

  26. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  27. #2494
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwatch View Post
    Gambo were never fitted on P31, unless it was late 80s, Rheinmetall on her since I can remember......
    I thought, on a visit to sea in the mid 90'3 that there were Gambo's on P31. I could be wrong but I do know that in November 2008 onwards that all ships were fitted with Rheinmetall starting with LE Aoife and including the Peacocks.

  28. #2495
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rh202s were always fitted to the P31 from day one despite the cost in comparison to the oerlikons of which there still plenty of in stores in the original packing grease in 1986.

    GamB 01 were acquired in 1986/87 and a team was sent to the UK to train on them, that course included some guys who had just completed SG3. Aisling was the first ship to be fitted and then Emer.... Aoife being the last

    Oerlikon 20 x 110mm (with its mental method of cocking
    Cocking was very simplistic and the method required was due to the tension of the springs of which there were two types, non interchangable , which defined the origin of the weapon. Even stripping the Oerlikon was a nightmare with 181 parts and specialist tools required depending again on the springs in the weapon.

    It goes without saying (to me anyway) that when the Rh101 was selected for Eithne, the rest of the fleet should have been retro-fitted with Rhein Mettal, instead of the situation we ended up at
    But you forget we didn't have the price of a second set of barrels for the Rh202s on Eithne and we couldn't use the training' break up shot' as it significantly reduced the life of the barrel, which from memory were about 9k a piece..

    Shoestring budget is the understatement of the century
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 7th May 2018 at 13:55.
    Time for another break I think......

  29. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  30. #2496
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Passing through Devon yesterday and decided to divert to Bideford. (Great Italian restaurant just up the hill from the bridge). At appledore managed to catch a photo of P64 alongside at Babcock's fitting out berth. Unfortunately the nice security man at Babcock informed me it is illegal to take photos of ships from the gate and I'm not going to get him into trouble but he assured me everything is on schedule for handover in late July.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  31. Thanks Sparky42, Herald, sofa, ias thanked for this post
    Likes Herald, hptmurphy liked this post
  32. #2497
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good to see her and that she's on time, wonder what the yard will do afterwards while waiting for the decision on the 31 buy?

  33. #2498
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    209
    Post Thanks / Like
    still no 76 fitted?

  34. #2499
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    No. To be fitted after delivery.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  35. #2500
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Has there been any firming up on dates for Shaw's hand over and arrival?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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