Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naval weaponry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    The Pharos MTTR takes the place of the TX antenna on the Strales; the MTTR provides the beam for the DART round. As for the rate of fire of the "Compact" version is 85rpm. This is the same variant fitted to the Holland class OPV, which has been critised for a lack of CIWS and for which Thales sees as a potential user.
    We must also remember that guided ammo needs an input for it's programmable fuse, so that programmer units are required in addition to KA band TX Antennae or equivalent. The question on adaption is one for OTO.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      We must also remember that guided ammo needs an input for it's programmable fuse, so that programmer units are required in addition to KA band TX Antennae or equivalent. The question on adaption is one for OTO.
      We are halfway there. Just saw a promo on facebook of a PDF Technician working on an Auto 30mm gun with remote OpticElec FCS. We need two of these on each OPV instead of 20mm but with additional acquisition FCS for early lock on detection of targets beyond Optical ranges and scanning. The gun was on an armoured vehicle. Our guys could train and fire the weapon to get a feel of the system and add a layer of inhouse knowledge to deal with suppliers.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        We are halfway there. Just saw a promo on facebook of a PDF Technician working on an Auto 30mm gun with remote OpticElec FCS. We need two of these on each OPV instead of 20mm but with additional acquisition FCS for early lock on detection of targets beyond Optical ranges and scanning. The gun was on an armoured vehicle. Our guys could train and fire the weapon to get a feel of the system and add a layer of inhouse knowledge to deal with suppliers.
        Just read a study by W.J. Bradford on single ship Air Defence effectiveness against attacks by Anti-ship capable Missiles-ASCM. The basic needs are detection with Earliest Warning-ESM and an adequate CIWS system. The key ship defence profile is 360deg coverage by having a gun system forward and aft, each with 270deg coverage, basically a two CIWS system. The ship also needs a controlled decoy system. There is considerable Defence capability up to a point where the ships effective response is overwhelmed by saturation. This is expected to occur in wave attacks by 4 or more ASCM's.
        It goes without saying that we must give our new ships adequate defence at both minimum and maximum ranges from rogue attacks while on deployment.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          Just read a study by W.J. Bradford on single ship Air Defence effectiveness against attacks by Anti-ship capable Missiles-ASCM. The basic needs are detection with Earliest Warning-ESM and an adequate CIWS system. The key ship defence profile is 360deg coverage by having a gun system forward and aft, each with 270deg coverage, basically a two CIWS system. The ship also needs a controlled decoy system. There is considerable Defence capability up to a point where the ships effective response is overwhelmed by saturation. This is expected to occur in wave attacks by 4 or more ASCM's.
          It goes without saying that we must give our new ships adequate defence at both minimum and maximum ranges from rogue attacks while on deployment.
          Just some information on the OTO 76mm Gun System. At the outset we note that we have 8 OTO 76mm in Service.
          The Compact at 85 rounds pm was developed in 1964.
          The Super-Rapid at 120 rounds pm was introduced in 1988.
          Strales system was introduced in 2008 to enhance the Super Rapid with DART ammunition and improved anti-missile capability out to 8000 meters.
          To meet requirements for Defence, it seems you need at least a Super rapid gun, the right ammunition, a fuse programmer,and a 3A Plus programmable fuse.
          The ammunition available is , HE standard, MOM (multirole), PFF( antimissile), SAPOM (semi AP), DART (AA guided against manoeuvring targets ), and VULCANO guided with range of 40 km.
          If you go for a minimal option then you need a double CIWS system to make up some of the shortfall against airborne threats.
          Last edited by ancientmariner; 4 January 2019, 11:17.

          Comment


          • While I know we use the RBS 70 systems and have just paid for upgrades, an interesting alternative from the French with their Mistral systems, with them just testing against small surface craft along with their other operational modes:


            How difficult would it be to fit a couple of mounts (and the radar system clearly), and how useful an increase would it be.

            Comment


            • The Australians strapped RBS70s on some of their ships going to the First Gulf War

              Comment


              • Originally posted by sofa View Post
                The Australians strapped RBS70s on some of their ships going to the First Gulf War
                Starstreak Missile manpads have also been modified for use aboard naval vessels.

                I think the Signaal Air Search radar that sits atop the mast of P31 eithne is similar to that used in the early version Giraffe used by the Army (once mounted on a MAN 6x6). Nowadays SAAB produce a "Sea Giraffe", which is, as the name would suggest a navalised version optimised for use in smaller surface vessels.
                We don't need to go SPY1D array just yet to provide decent air surveillance and target identification for uncomplex AA defence solutions.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                  Starstreak Missile manpads have also been modified for use aboard naval vessels.

                  I think the Signaal Air Search radar that sits atop the mast of P31 eithne is similar to that used in the early version Giraffe used by the Army (once mounted on a MAN 6x6). Nowadays SAAB produce a "Sea Giraffe", which is, as the name would suggest a navalised version optimised for use in smaller surface vessels.
                  We don't need to go SPY1D array just yet to provide decent air surveillance and target identification for uncomplex AA defence solutions.
                  First of all the DA05 Signaal antenna has a range of differences with the SAAB Sea Giraffe in that the latter's antenna peak power is 1.2megawatts against 25 kilowatts on the standard Sea Giraffe. Certainly SAAB radars navalised and in combination could provide solutions for modern ship defence solutions to air and surface threats. Probably basic Sea Giraffe as fitted to Swedish ships would be superior to optronic FCS that requires manual target acquisition. When you see it then it's too late to deal with a target at high speed. Effective solutions need early acquisition and high rates of fire.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    Starstreak Missile manpads have also been modified for use aboard naval vessels.

                    I think the Signaal Air Search radar that sits atop the mast of P31 eithne is similar to that used in the early version Giraffe used by the Army (once mounted on a MAN 6x6). Nowadays SAAB produce a "Sea Giraffe", which is, as the name would suggest a navalised version optimised for use in smaller surface vessels.
                    We don't need to go SPY1D array just yet to provide decent air surveillance and target identification for uncomplex AA defence solutions.
                    The current offerings from Saab only share a name with the old Giraffe MkIV, they are totally different. Today there are three different Sea Giraffe radars all of which are new electronically scanned radars: the 1x, the AMB and the 4a.
                    The 1x is the smallest with a range of about 75km, it can be used to provide guidance for RBS70 missiles. The combination is offered as the Saab MSHORAD system with a C2 system and RWS mounted on LMV/RG32M class vehicles. Although Saab have not proposed this for the maritime field they do have navalised RWS which could be adapted.
                    The AMB or AN/SPS-77 to give it the American classification is the next biggest with a range up to 180km. It is installed on a number of vessels including the Independence class LCS and the Victoryclass frigates (Singapore). The land based version is part of the new British Army Sky Sabre system with the CAMM missile and Rafael’s Modular, Integrated C4I Air & Missile Defense System (MIC4AD). As such it could also become a suitable shipborne air-defence system against missiles and aircraft.
                    The largest member of the family is the 4a which is a long range air search radar with a range of 280km and as such would be only really needed on a dedicated air defence frigate or destroyer.

                    Given that the radar horizon for a sensor on a P60 would be about 48km against a sea-skimming missile anything above this might not be needed. Thus the small Giraffe 1x radar could be something to provide a better situational awareness although ESM would also be useful in identifying any targeting sensors. If Saab could provide a suitable RWS for installing RBS70's on a ship then that could be a relatively low cost solution.
                    Last edited by EUFighter; 11 January 2019, 12:06.

                    Comment


                    • Given that the radar horizon for a sensor on a P60 would be about 48km against a sea-skimming missile anything above this might not be needed. Thus the small Giraffe 1x radar could be something to provide a better situational awareness although ESM would also be useful in identifying any targeting sensors. If Saab could provide a suitable RWS for installing RBS70's on a ship then that could be a relatively low cost solution.[/QUOTE]

                      Air dropped anti ship missiles only become sea-skimmers within it's acquisition horizon, with clear view of the target. The ship needs to find the launching aircraft or ship prior to weapon launch and if possible intervene. When the aircraft turns away it may be it's missile has been launched and now the ships's system must find and lock on to the missile to allow it deploy decoys and engage the target. Range is subjective but, when you consider that the reach of anti-ship missiles is pushing 300km, with latest RBS series with 250kg warheads,I would favour higher acquisition ranges.
                      Remote weapon Stations ( RWS ) need to be fully marinised and ideally come weapon and sensor compatiple. Kongsberg certainly, I don't know about the rest.

                      Comment


                      • if you're talking about going up against 'proper' anti-shipping missiles then buggering about with RBS70's is just deck chairs/Titanic stuff - its radars, its jamming, its ESM, its decoys, and its lots of missiles as well as CIWS.

                        none of them cheap, and together they are the antithesis of cheap.

                        the much more likely theat is the ATGW fired from land - or possibly small boat - when the NS vessel is in the immediate littoral environment, or the artillery shells or rockets fired when its a bit more offshore - 15km or so.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                          if you're talking about going up against 'proper' anti-shipping missiles then buggering about with RBS70's is just deck chairs/Titanic stuff - its radars, its jamming, its ESM, its decoys, and its lots of missiles as well as CIWS.

                          none of them cheap, and together they are the antithesis of cheap.

                          the much more likely theat is the ATGW fired from land - or possibly small boat - when the NS vessel is in the immediate littoral environment, or the artillery shells or rockets fired when its a bit more offshore - 15km or so.
                          So essentially it's all in with significant investment in kit or you're just window dressing. I'd rather be on at least a corvette or frigate if I had any like a silkworm or scarier coming towards me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                            So essentially it's all in with significant investment in kit or you're just window dressing. I'd rather be on at least a corvette or frigate if I had any like a silkworm or scarier coming towards me.
                            as with everything else in high-end warfare, nothing is a silver bullet, capabillity is only ever achieved through a system of systems - and if you think systems are expensive, just wait till you see the bill for systems of systems...

                            something like an SS-N-27 SIZZLER is only going to be kept at bay by something like T45/Horizon/AB and maybe T23/26 and the like, and then only with constant drills and realistic exercises - and luck - and by other systems within the systems of systems mitigating and degrading the offensive capability: your SSN's keeping his SSN/K's on their toes and far away, your carrier strike keeping him moving his launch sites and reducing the number of missiles he can launch in a single attack, your EW aircraft degrading his radar performance and communications, and your fighters keeping his reece aircraft a loooooong way from your ships.

                            not cheap.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post

                              Air dropped anti ship missiles only become sea-skimmers within it's acquisition horizon, with clear view of the target. The ship needs to find the launching aircraft or ship prior to weapon launch and if possible intervene. When the aircraft turns away it may be it's missile has been launched and now the ships's system must find and lock on to the missile to allow it deploy decoys and engage the target. Range is subjective but, when you consider that the reach of anti-ship missiles is pushing 300km, with latest RBS series with 250kg warheads,I would favour higher acquisition ranges.
                              Remote weapon Stations ( RWS ) need to be fully marinised and ideally come weapon and sensor compatiple. Kongsberg certainly, I don't know about the rest.
                              That can vary depending on the missile type
                              Last edited by DeV; 11 January 2019, 22:45.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Air dropped anti ship missiles only become sea-skimmers within it's acquisition horizon, with clear view of the target. The ship needs to find the launching aircraft or ship prior to weapon launch and if possible intervene. When the aircraft turns away it may be it's missile has been launched and now the ships's system must find and lock on to the missile to allow it deploy decoys and engage the target. Range is subjective but, when you consider that the reach of anti-ship missiles is pushing 300km, with latest RBS series with 250kg warheads,I would favour higher acquisition ranges.
                                Remote weapon Stations ( RWS ) need to be fully marinised and ideally come weapon and sensor compatiple. Kongsberg certainly, I don't know about the rest.
                                That can vary depending on the missile type[/QUOTE]

                                The preponderance of Bloc countries , headed by Russia, or alliances including Russia, have a range of missiles with high supersonic speeds typically Mach2 and some Mach3 . The western key missiles, some outdated, such as Harpoon, Exocet, Pinguin, Sea Eagle, Sea skua, Tomahawk, Kongsberg NSM, SAAB RBS 15, are quite slow in comparison but have been successful in active roles.
                                The Defence problem for ships is that ecm/esm wise they are radiating lighthouses. The only counter is to be more difficult to detect and maximise passive surveillance. Have a good 360 deg defence system overlapping on the ships beam. Have a Gunnery system to deal with incoming threats and a decoy system to provide alternative targets while own ship moves out of danger. The larger Navies can defend in depth with CAP and other Forces. We have to stand alone and at least should take standard defence measures. If you pay 60m for a ship an extra 15 to 20 % on defence is a good investment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X