Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naval weaponry

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

  • just out of curiosity, are some people trying to get points here?
    Some really childish crap removed 21-02-2019.
    Last edited by Turkey; 21 February 2019, 05:26.
    "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

    Comment


    • 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?

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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.
          MBDA presents the SPIMM (Self-Protection Integrated Mistral Module), an all-in-one air defence module based on the SIMBAD-RC system and designed to equip ships of all types.

          SPIMM 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.

          Janes | The latest defence and security news from Janes - the trusted source for defence intelligence

          The 10 foot ISO container it is based around is also a common fit on the MEKO ships.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
            SPIMM seems to fit the bill, and seems lightweight compared to other systems.


            MBDA presents the SPIMM (Self-Protection Integrated Mistral Module), an all-in-one air defence module based on the SIMBAD-RC system and designed to equip ships of all types.

            SPIMM 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.

            Janes | The latest defence and security news from Janes - the trusted source for defence intelligence

            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.

            Comment


            • 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.
              A blog about UK defence issues which tries to put a positive and fresh look at many current matters impacting UK and wider defence.

              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.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • 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
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • 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 "

                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • Kongsbergs has received an order for its SS2030 hull mounted sonar to be fitted to the new Pohjanmaa-class corvettes, four sets worth NOK100m (E2.5m per set).

                          https://www.janes.com/article/95534/...-squadron-2020
                          https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j...bClOS49hWnScxQ
                          Last edited by EUFighter; 20 April 2020, 18:31.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            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.
                            As a matter of interest, I have seen over the past few months, our ships conducting live firings from main armament for ships exercise and, at least one Gunnery course due to pass out. At this stage with a nine ship fleet, what type of surface target do we deploy to test accuracy of the FCS. One gunnery manual I perused stated that the last thing you do is to make holes in the water and to improvise with any target such as a weighted 50 gal drum with pole radar reflector attached. Many other types should be on the inventory including towable or remotely operated surface target units.
                            In general surface firing exercises for 76mm should be at 3000m + and in sea state 1 where possible but never above sea state 4. Smaller weapons are exercised against a mix of shorter range surface targets and balloons filled with LP air for AA practise and a lurid colour to make sighting easier.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              As a matter of interest, I have seen over the past few months, our ships conducting live firings from main armament for ships exercise and, at least one Gunnery course due to pass out. At this stage with a nine ship fleet, what type of surface target do we deploy to test accuracy of the FCS. One gunnery manual I perused stated that the last thing you do is to make holes in the water and to improvise with any target such as a weighted 50 gal drum with pole radar reflector attached. Many other types should be on the inventory including towable or remotely operated surface target units.
                              In general surface firing exercises for 76mm should be at 3000m + and in sea state 1 where possible but never above sea state 4. Smaller weapons are exercised against a mix of shorter range surface targets and balloons filled with LP air for AA practise and a lurid colour to make sighting easier.
                              Post WW1 few navies were " air-minded " and were slow to realise the impact of airpower. it took some persuading and demonstrating to show the vulnerability of ships to sustained air attack and indeed Naval Gunnery coupled with smarter optics and Fire Control machines. The RN concentrated on improving Gunnery and FCS and did show pieces such as a single main Gun destroying an incoming missile. All navies at this time are well equipped with combat management systems and can deal with multiple mixed targets in all modes. Practise is important and must be sustained. The P31 gunnery system handed over by Bofors got the benefit of a Beech baron towing an active target in 1984/5 but nothing since AFAIK. Ships are the only part of a Defence Force that are fully operational, when at sea, both in peacetime and at war. They must be capable of detecting and dealing with threats/intrusions in their AOP. Right now we are sea-blind ashore and a bit indifferent to coping with all the threats at sea.

                              Comment


                              • 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?
                                We already have the 76mm, convert to Strales mount. No extra deck space needed. Add a Thales NS100 or Hensoldt TRS-4D R.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X