Thanks Thanks:  80
Likes Likes:  175
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 251 to 266 of 266

Thread: Naval weaponry

  1. #251
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    We can put everything in three priority stages;

    Priority one: Sensors
    No matter is the ship is to be fitted with hard or soft kill devices it first needs to detect any attack. This means a air search radar, some form of ESM, possible LWR and a CMS to fuse all the data together into a complete tactical picture. At the most basic level this would increase the combat capabilty of the vessel and as a minimum give the vessel a chance to tackle erasive maneuvers. The latter might not save the ship from being hit but would give it a better chance of surviving.

    Priority two: Soft-kill
    These will always be part of the mix but due to their cost effectiveness they are always going to have a place. These can be either active or passive devices based upon the nature of the threat. They range from siimple chaff, flares to complex decoy systems and IR masking.

    Priority three: Hard kill
    This is were serious money is involved, a single Mk15 Phalanx cost $15m and to effectively cover a ship of the P60 class 2 would be needed. But the question would be what type of system gun or missile unless you are Russian as then there is the massive Kashtan-M and Pantsir-M systems with both! While guns have had the lead there seems to be a move to more missile based systems. The RN will relie on CAMM while the USN is more and more moving to variants of the RAM. Meanwhile Israel will mount a version of their Iron Dome system on their new corvettes. But cost of missiles is a factor a single RAM costs nearly $1m and the standard launcher has 21, normally 2 launchers per ship! The Israeli missile in the Iron Dome is cheaper due to quantity being manufactured, cost $0.1m.
    But we can see the gun based systems make a come back. Today we have shells like the DART and AHEAD which are design for CIWS and as electronics become more compact we may seen smaller and cheaper systems come on the market. The latest version of the Rheinmetall MLG the Sea-Snake has a variant with a 30mm ABM cannon. If that can be programmed for CIWS then the cost could come down.

  2. Thanks DeV, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes Shaqra, DeV, na grohmiti liked this post
  3. #252
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    A new system from MBDA as an all in one system with 2 ready Mistral missiles and 4 reloads with 2 crew on the mount:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...the-spimm.html

  4. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  5. #253
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    A new system from MBDA as an all in one system with 2 ready Mistral missiles and 4 reloads with 2 crew on the mount:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...the-spimm.html
    There is possibility to have a depot store of such systems( say 3), outfit suitable ships with positioned plug-in points. Then equip ships per mission or for specified training shoots. It could be a fixed system for MRV. Ships would still need decoy systems to maximise defence and close the stern arcs with an auto 30mm gun system.

  6. Likes Turkey liked this post
  7. #254
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another bit from NavDEX from Rhienmetall in regards to counter measures systems including a system for ships without detection capability:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...es-system.html
    Developed especially for vessels without organic shipboard reconnaissance systems, Rheinmetall’s MASS_ISS with Integrated Sensor Suite is a standalone system with an integrated sensor suite. Forming an integral part of the MASS_ISS system complex, the REKa-50, which stands for “Rheinmetall ESM Ka-Band”, assures reliable detection and effective engagement of threats in the millimetre wave radar frequency range. Moreover, Rheinmetall is a one-stop-shop supplier here, producing the decoy systems, the decoy munitions as well as providing and integrating the sensors. The number of launchers is scalable. All of them are linked together and controlled by Rheinmetall’s firing algorithms

  8. #255
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Another bit from NavDEX from Rhienmetall in regards to counter measures systems including a system for ships without detection capability:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...es-system.html
    HMS QE is going into dock for a major upgrade, including CIWS to include 2 x Phalanx 20mm and a 30mm system.Hopefully our ship(s) will get 360 deg. coverage.

  9. #256
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,582
    Post Thanks / Like
    just out of curiosity, are some people trying to get points here?
    Some really childish crap removed 21-02-2019.
    Last edited by Turkey; 21st February 2019 at 04:26.
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  10. #257
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    100
    Post Thanks / Like
    If gun-based CIWS, or RWS, were put on the ships, it might be better if they were in some way compatible with existing weapons,.. or have potential future use, in the Naval Service AND army (and/ or an outside chance also in the Air Corps).

    With existing equipment that would only mean a 30mm, or 20mm (euro’ x139). In the past it could have included the 40mm Bofors (and could potentially in the future), but a future compatibility requirement would probably rule out the Phalanx 20mm (US x102), or any 27mm Mauser (unless in the unlikely event that the AC could also get something that could use those calibres!).

    Weapons of the 35mm type could also potentially have shared/ common use in the Naval Service and Army, with existing systems available elsewhere.

    Also, looking at what exists in small, shoulder-launched type, anti-aircraft missiles aka ‘MANPADS’, and their very basic mounts consisting of a stand, and an attached firer’s seat e.g. for a single RBS 70 or Mistral missile (or two Mistrals with a naval Sinbad ‘launcher’), would it be possible to mate one, or two of those missiles (and their sights) onto the existing Naval Service 20mm gun mounts?

    Further, are there potential easy alternative positions for CIWS/ RWS on the existing ships, or such to re-locate the 20mm, or could say, small cantilevered platforms be added on the upper parts of the superstructure for either?

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  12. #258
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    If gun-based CIWS, or RWS, were put on the ships, it might be better if they were in some way compatible with existing weapons,.. or have potential future use, in the Naval Service AND army (and/ or an outside chance also in the Air Corps).

    With existing equipment that would only mean a 30mm, or 20mm (euro’ x139). In the past it could have included the 40mm Bofors (and could potentially in the future), but a future compatibility requirement would probably rule out the Phalanx 20mm (US x102), or any 27mm Mauser (unless in the unlikely event that the AC could also get something that could use those calibres!).

    Weapons of the 35mm type could also potentially have shared/ common use in the Naval Service and Army, with existing systems available elsewhere.

    Also, looking at what exists in small, shoulder-launched type, anti-aircraft missiles aka ‘MANPADS’, and their very basic mounts consisting of a stand, and an attached firer’s seat e.g. for a single RBS 70 or Mistral missile (or two Mistrals with a naval Sinbad ‘launcher’), would it be possible to mate one, or two of those missiles (and their sights) onto the existing Naval Service 20mm gun mounts?

    Further, are there potential easy alternative positions for CIWS/ RWS on the existing ships, or such to re-locate the 20mm, or could say, small cantilevered platforms be added on the upper parts of the superstructure for either?
    Commonality of ammunition types, across services is always useful. Ship weapon systems have to cater for a variety of threats, from a sliding scale of ranges-close in at 1500 meters to zero, medium distance from 1500 meters to 4500meters, and long range above 4500meters to beyond the horizon. Ships generally need systems that will give 360 degree cover with firing arcs overlapping 60 degrees on either beam of the ship.
    In order of use the ship needs a main armament with at least one gun forward and a support weapon aft capable of dealing with the medium threats, the forward gun alone deals with all threats beyond that medium range. The 20mm, 12.7mm, and 7.62mm are all manually controlled and fired, and cover ranges less than 1500meters for the 20mmm and about 600meters and less for the lower calibers. Our weakness currently is engagement of targets at medium range NOT in the firing arc of main armament. We need after arcs coverage of an Auto 30mm gun or similar.
    There are bolt on systems for both CIWS including Defence missiles. We should look to Europe for assistance in completing ship defence especially for the MRV and P60 types

  13. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  14. #259
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Commonality of ammunition types, across services is always useful. Ship weapon systems have to cater for a variety of threats, from a sliding scale of ranges-close in at 1500 meters to zero, medium distance from 1500 meters to 4500meters, and long range above 4500meters to beyond the horizon. Ships generally need systems that will give 360 degree cover with firing arcs overlapping 60 degrees on either beam of the ship.
    In order of use the ship needs a main armament with at least one gun forward and a support weapon aft capable of dealing with the medium threats, the forward gun alone deals with all threats beyond that medium range. The 20mm, 12.7mm, and 7.62mm are all manually controlled and fired, and cover ranges less than 1500meters for the 20mmm and about 600meters and less for the lower calibers. Our weakness currently is engagement of targets at medium range NOT in the firing arc of main armament. We need after arcs coverage of an Auto 30mm gun or similar.
    There are bolt on systems for both CIWS including Defence missiles. We should look to Europe for assistance in completing ship defence especially for the MRV and P60 types
    SPIMM seems to fit the bill, and seems lightweight compared to other systems.

    The SPIMM module consists of a SIMBAD-RC automated naval turret equipped with two ready-to-fire Mistral missiles and a 360° infrared panoramic system to detect and track air and surface threats. The system is entirely controlled by two operators located in a shelter inside the module, which is also used to store four additional missiles. This ISO standard “all-in-one” module, 10 feet long and weighing some 7 tons, can be easily positioned on the deck of a ship using a crane, and requires just a standard electrical connection.
    https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...surface-ships/
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/meet...ule-for-ships/
    https://www.janes.com/article/86677/...elf-protection
    The 10 foot ISO container it is based around is also a common fit on the MEKO ships.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  16. #260
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    SPIMM seems to fit the bill, and seems lightweight compared to other systems.


    https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-r...surface-ships/
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/meet...ule-for-ships/
    https://www.janes.com/article/86677/...elf-protection
    The 10 foot ISO container it is based around is also a common fit on the MEKO ships.
    yes could be done. There are some complexities, if the depiction is correct, you will note that an ideal position requires the clear deck for the unit and its internally manned housing and also collapsible deck rails that also provides a safety net for someone that trips or falls. To minimise manpower something like the Simbad-RC connected to the ships sensors and remotely manned by one operator would be a plus. The portable unit will require separate sole manning but has the benefit of inter-ship transfer for mission specific tasks.

  17. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  18. #261
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    On a related note, there is uproar from certain quarters that the latest RN carrier is only having two of her 3 Phalanx CIWS fitted during her current maintenance period.
    Here is an interesting and well thought out blog on why this worry is misplaced, from a UK DoD insider.
    https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot....z-no-ciws.html
    Whenever this sort of debate happens, there is always a chorus of people complaining that the RN is putting a ship at risk and what happens if whichever ‘wonder missile’ of the day is fired at it. Simply put, if an advanced anti-ship missile is fired, then we are at war – which would suggest either the ship is closed up for action stations, and is thus well protected against this risk, or someone has just launched a surprise attack without warning.

    The former situation is unlikely to happen, the latter even less so, particularly as it would arguably represent the single biggest intelligence failure in British maritime history – yet you still hear people going on about the risk to QE from random Chinese anti-ship missiles that are apparently the latest ‘cool thing’. If we’re in a state where China is intentionally firing anti-ship cruise missiles at QE in the next two years without prior warning, which is resulting in the CIWS being used, then frankly we have far bigger things to worry about than whether she has two or three CIWS fitted.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  19. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes spider, Sparky42, Tempest liked this post
  20. #262
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    yes could be done. There are some complexities, if the depiction is correct, you will note that an ideal position requires the clear deck for the unit and its internally manned housing and also collapsible deck rails that also provides a safety net for someone that trips or falls. To minimise manpower something like the Simbad-RC connected to the ships sensors and remotely manned by one operator would be a plus. The portable unit will require separate sole manning but has the benefit of inter-ship transfer for mission specific tasks.
    One would hope going forward that this type of system would be mounted to a larger vessel, where there is surplus of unused clear deck space such as atop superstructures. Indeed on the P50 and P60 the fact that the deckspace above the bridge and fore and aft the funnel can be used to host social functions in port leads me to suggest the same space could be used to easily accomodate a system of this type. No deck penetration necessary.
    Indeed the current location for the secondary armament on these ships seems like an ideal location, should it be considered necessary.

    Naming and Commissioning-LE? Samuel Becket by Óglaigh na hÉireann, on Flickr
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  21. #263
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    On a related note, there is uproar from certain quarters that the latest RN carrier is only having two of her 3 Phalanx CIWS fitted during her current maintenance period.
    Here is an interesting and well thought out blog on why this worry is misplaced, from a UK DoD insider.
    https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot....z-no-ciws.html
    If you are deploying a vessel the size of an aircraft carrier then it is being positioned to offset or deter a perceived threat. Heavy surface, subsurface, and air screens will be part of the Task Fleet but the Carrier remains the target of the event. Threats to ships that will be pushing the bounds of legal rights of passage can be immense and weakness of response capability is a potential invitation to an incident. To assume that pre-emptive action will not occur is the antithesis of Defence and Offensive action and a blindness to History, not least Pearl Harbour. I would not support the views of the " insider "

  22. Likes DeV liked this post
  23. #264
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well then you go back to the old military conundrum.
    Do I walk through the puddle, because the enemy has the dry side mined, or do I go to the dry side, because the enemy will know I am trained to go through the puddle instead of the mined dry side, and has mined the puddle instead.
    Your first weapon is intelligence. You have to have a level of defence appropriate to the threat. The old tradition of naval crews lining the decks to show the port they visit that the weapons are not manned falls flat if the commander decides that in friendly waters he will keep all weapons on alert in case of random unexpected attack.
    I know locally there is much disquiet when visiting US naval vessels arrive with armed crew visible on deck, manning point defence weapons. Yes they have faced a very real threat in other, less friendly ports (where Intel fell down badly) but the alternative profile does more harm than good in their attempt to fly the flag as a friendly nation.
    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. Likes spider, DeV liked this post
  25. #265
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    Well then you go back to the old military conundrum.
    Do I walk through the puddle, because the enemy has the dry side mined, or do I go to the dry side, because the enemy will know I am trained to go through the puddle instead of the mined dry side, and has mined the puddle instead.
    Your first weapon is intelligence. You have to have a level of defence appropriate to the threat. The old tradition of naval crews lining the decks to show the port they visit that the weapons are not manned falls flat if the commander decides that in friendly waters he will keep all weapons on alert in case of random unexpected attack.
    I know locally there is much disquiet when visiting US naval vessels arrive with armed crew visible on deck, manning point defence weapons. Yes they have faced a very real threat in other, less friendly ports (where Intel fell down badly) but the alternative profile does more harm than good in their attempt to fly the flag as a friendly nation.
    There is always a balanced response derived from Intelligence harvested diplomatically, operatives on the ground, Surveillance by all means, and the potential enemies history.Lining decks is courtesy, as you say, and any other action or readiness is prudence derived from Intelligence as received. One of our National parades some years ago, in response to Intelligence, marched with loaded weapons. The Defence job is always to be ready with the appropriate responses and have a Reserve to augment your actions.

  26. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  27. #266
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,384
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    There is always a balanced response derived from Intelligence harvested diplomatically, operatives on the ground, Surveillance by all means, and the potential enemies history.Lining decks is courtesy, as you say, and any other action or readiness is prudence derived from Intelligence as received. One of our National parades some years ago, in response to Intelligence, marched with loaded weapons. The Defence job is always to be ready with the appropriate responses and have a Reserve to augment your actions.
    It is just possible that insider news from British sources is capricious as the current Naval News in March 2019 Ships Monthly indicates the the RN HMS QE is being fitted with her 3 Phalanx CIWS 20mm and 4 x 30mm auto gun system and also that 9 of their 16 delivered F-35B fighters are available for frontline action.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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 team blows up World War Two mine
    By andy in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th March 2005, 11:15

Posting Permissions

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