Thanks Thanks:  116
Likes Likes:  209
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 326 to 349 of 349

Thread: Naval weaponry

  1. #326
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    All the AESA radars mentioned are marine radars.
    https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/ns100...eillance-radar
    https://www.hensoldt.net/products/ra...4d-fixed-panel
    https://www.hensoldt.net/products/ra...trs-4d-rotator
    https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/de...er_400-v01.pdf

    Thales are even offering an upgrade kit for the DA-05 to go to a solid state transmitter.
    It would be interesting to know if our DA05 and IFF still function. The solid state 3 and 4D, some fixed panel, radars require a major ship under them with above deck weights in tons. We might be happy with a good CMS that is both Radar and optically based and able to handle 30mm and 76mm guns against aircraft and airborne threats, surface swarm or single attacks, and not require a major mast rebuild. Any system for us should include linking and a simulation capability for training. Maybe clutter is a thing of the past but eliminating unclassified targets by electronic means can also mean missing targets designed to be ignored.

  2. Likes Graylion liked this post
  3. #327
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    585
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    There has been major advances is radar technology availability over the past 30 years. This has come in form of hardware (AESA) and software (signal processing).

    Many moons ago the only thing that could be done to counter weather clutter was to change the Gain on the radar to try and eliminate the unwanted signals, but there was always the risk of missing real targets. This is no longer the case as the massive power of modern signal processing allows a radar system to sift out many of those unwanted returns and present a much clearer picture. Thus on a day with heavy rain if the display of an old X-band radar is compared to that of something like the Hensoldt (Kelvin Hughes) SharpEye it is like night and day. Gone for a large part is the white screen that was familiar with the older systems all thanks to the improved processing.

    Modern radars now use solid sate digital transmitter and receiver units, this allows for a better signal and easier processing. The introduction of AESA radars has allowed beam steering and for a single radar to transmit on a number of frequencies thus improving still the radar image.

    But some general rules still apply, the lower the frequency normally the longer range the application. This is the reason why on Air Defence vessels there is a L-band radar while a more GP vessel gets a shorter range S-band. The X & Ku bands then being used for close-in work. Taking the Phalanx system; it has both a Ku search radar and tracking radar. The Dutch Goalkeeper uses a X-band search radar and a Ku tracking radar. They use these higher frequency radar as it allows for a sharper steering of the radar beam. The Goalkeeper for example not only uses its Ku to track the target but also the out-going rounds to adjust for atmospheric conditions. But it is not limited to CIWS such as those mentioned above, the vast majority of tracking FC radars use the Ku-band.

    With the exception of the DA-05, the radars used by the NS are basically surface search radars with some additional software features to allow for tracking etc. The X-band SharpEye can do helicopter approach as the target is relatively low and slow. They are however far from what would be needed to support a CIWS that did not have its own radar systems like on the Phalanx & Goalkeeper.
    Interestingly enough APAR is X-band

  4. #328
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    There has been major advances is radar technology availability over the past 30 years. This has come in form of hardware (AESA) and software (signal processing).

    Many moons ago the only thing that could be done to counter weather clutter was to change the Gain on the radar to try and eliminate the unwanted signals, but there was always the risk of missing real targets. This is no longer the case as the massive power of modern signal processing allows a radar system to sift out many of those unwanted returns and present a much clearer picture. Thus on a day with heavy rain if the display of an old X-band radar is compared to that of something like the Hensoldt (Kelvin Hughes) SharpEye it is like night and day. Gone for a large part is the white screen that was familiar with the older systems all thanks to the improved processing.

    Modern radars now use solid sate digital transmitter and receiver units, this allows for a better signal and easier processing. The introduction of AESA radars has allowed beam steering and for a single radar to transmit on a number of frequencies thus improving still the radar image.

    But some general rules still apply, the lower the frequency normally the longer range the application. This is the reason why on Air Defence vessels there is a L-band radar while a more GP vessel gets a shorter range S-band. The X & Ku bands then being used for close-in work. Taking the Phalanx system; it has both a Ku search radar and tracking radar. The Dutch Goalkeeper uses a X-band search radar and a Ku tracking radar. They use these higher frequency radar as it allows for a sharper steering of the radar beam. The Goalkeeper for example not only uses its Ku to track the target but also the out-going rounds to adjust for atmospheric conditions. But it is not limited to CIWS such as those mentioned above, the vast majority of tracking FC radars use the Ku-band.

    With the exception of the DA-05, the radars used by the NS are basically surface search radars with some additional software features to allow for tracking etc. The X-band SharpEye can do helicopter approach as the target is relatively low and slow. They are however far from what would be needed to support a CIWS that did not have its own radar systems like on the Phalanx & Goalkeeper.
    As you say Radar is evolving form using X-Band in clear calm conditions and using S-Band to overcome the MET drawbacks. Later Automated Gain Control was adapted and was OK while well offshore. Most cleaning of target returns cleared out weak returns like small vessels, buoys. Approaching land the AGC would be turned off. Multi-frequency for naval radar was to offset the jamming of a particular frequency so that the other frequencies would still see the target. Those that fly don't like using suppressed radars for their control and guidance as they feel the item been seen is their transponder. They prefer RAW data and guidance.

  5. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  6. #329
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    While a lot of naval RWS seem to be going with one of the Bushmaster series as their gun system this does has limitations as a CIWS due to their low rate of fire. So as it is unlikely that the DoD would agreed to a couple of Phalanx systems the newest offering from Rheinmetall could be an option for the replacement of the Rh202s.

    They have developed from their original MLG-27 system now a family of lighter weight RWS system from 20mm to 30mm. IMHO the Sea Snake 30 would make a good replacement as it has a high rate of fire for a 30mm system.

    https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...nake_30_LR.pdf

  7. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  8. #330
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    While a lot of naval RWS seem to be going with one of the Bushmaster series as their gun system this does has limitations as a CIWS due to their low rate of fire. So as it is unlikely that the DoD would agreed to a couple of Phalanx systems the newest offering from Rheinmetall could be an option for the replacement of the Rh202s.

    They have developed from their original MLG-27 system now a family of lighter weight RWS system from 20mm to 30mm. IMHO the Sea Snake 30 would make a good replacement as it has a high rate of fire for a 30mm system.

    https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...nake_30_LR.pdf
    I could see such a system as a benefit particularly if our vessels are to be deployed on anti-piracy patrol as envisioned by the new MOD. I would like to see more about the "steerable platform" if that is a substitution for a stabilised gun system, you wouldn't want it to bottom out on a steep rolling turn. The other question, is the maximum elevation at +60 degrees OK in AA roles.

  9. #331
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I could see such a system as a benefit particularly if our vessels are to be deployed on anti-piracy patrol as envisioned by the new MOD. I would like to see more about the "steerable platform" if that is a substitution for a stabilised gun system, you wouldn't want it to bottom out on a steep rolling turn. The other question, is the maximum elevation at +60 degrees OK in AA roles.
    The gun is fully stabilised; the "steerable" platform is on the side for the sensor unit which can be controlled separately from the weapon. So the sensor can do a search pattern with the need to move the entire system.

    The +60deg does seem to be a bit low but then again if you have a missile that does a climb and dive profile before hitting its target then the climb phase would be the optimum time to engage as this would be when it presents the biggest target. What is the limit on the Rhinos today?

  10. #332
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,365
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you have to go greater than 60 degrees, its probably too late? MLG27 at work.

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

  11. Thanks Shaqra thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  12. #333
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=na grohmiti;478204]If you have to go greater than 60 degrees, its probably too late? MLG27 at work.

    Not sure where that comes from. The old AA doctrine established an effective ceiling for engaging approaching aerial targets. it was based on engaging a closing aerial target with 20 seconds of gunfire before the gun reached 70 degrees of elevation. At a restriction of 60 degrees elevation you would have to engage at longer range to get your twenty seconds.

  13. #334
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,365
    Post Thanks / Like
    The "Old AA doctrine" probably comes from a time of flinging 4 inch shells at propeller powered aircraft. After the Falklands everything changed with regards to AA doctrine. A layered approach is now the idea. You either hit the aircraft at max range, hit the incoming missile with CIWS or equivalent, and once it gets inside those layer, try to distract the incoming missile with chaff or electronic decoys.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. #335
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    The original Rheinmetall S2 mount for the Rh-202 was limited to 55deg later increased to 60deg.
    As with most things it is copy and paste what went before.

  15. #336
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ancientmariner;478222]
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    If you have to go greater than 60 degrees, its probably too late? MLG27 at work.

    Not sure where that comes from. The old AA doctrine established an effective ceiling for engaging approaching aerial targets. it was based on engaging a closing aerial target with 20 seconds of gunfire before the gun reached 70 degrees of elevation. At a restriction of 60 degrees elevation you would have to engage at longer range to get your twenty seconds.
    A missile such as the AGM-84 Harpoon has a closing speed of 240m/s which puts the 20 second distance at 4,800m well beyond the effective range of 20-30mm shells of around 2000-2500m. However at 1,800m the Harpoon can climb to performe pop-up attack which would present a good target for something like the MLG-27 or SeaSnake-30.

  16. #337
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    585
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=EUFighter;478226]
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post

    A missile such as the AGM-84 Harpoon has a closing speed of 240m/s which puts the 20 second distance at 4,800m well beyond the effective range of 20-30mm shells of around 2000-2500m. However at 1,800m the Harpoon can climb to performe pop-up attack which would present a good target for something like the MLG-27 or SeaSnake-30.
    Neither of these are CIWS.

  17. #338
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Graylion;478227]
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post

    Neither of these are CIWS.
    Please read the first paragraph of the attachment to post #329.

    While the SeaSnake family if not a standalone CIWS in the way that the Phalanx is, they can be the effector of even one which can engage ASM missiles.
    Not all CIWS has all the sensors mounted on the RWS. The Millennium Gun system is an example where the direction is from other ship mounted sensors via a CMS.

  18. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
  19. #339
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    While a lot of naval RWS seem to be going with one of the Bushmaster series as their gun system this does has limitations as a CIWS due to their low rate of fire. So as it is unlikely that the DoD would agreed to a couple of Phalanx systems the newest offering from Rheinmetall could be an option for the replacement of the Rh202s.

    They have developed from their original MLG-27 system now a family of lighter weight RWS system from 20mm to 30mm. IMHO the Sea Snake 30 would make a good replacement as it has a high rate of fire for a 30mm system.

    https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...nake_30_LR.pdf
    As you know the Goalkeeper 30mm is CIWS with 7-barrel Gatling mode. The Dutch used it extensively on the anti-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa. Rate of fire is important, and the range at which it can commence on an acquired target. It is interesting to note that almost half of aerial attacks on ships were destroyed by mainly 20mm gunfire in WW11.However the target speed then was 400 knots and today attacking speeds could be supersonic. We need a system that is packaged to acquire, lock on , engage, destroy,.and look for the next target. We must be able to engage at not less than 3,500 metres. Sea Snake looks interesting and some practical data/demo on the 30mm version would be useful.

  20. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  21. #340
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    As you know the Goalkeeper 30mm is CIWS with 7-barrel Gatling mode. The Dutch used it extensively on the anti-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa. Rate of fire is important, and the range at which it can commence on an acquired target. It is interesting to note that almost half of aerial attacks on ships were destroyed by mainly 20mm gunfire in WW11.However the target speed then was 400 knots and today attacking speeds could be supersonic. We need a system that is packaged to acquire, lock on , engage, destroy,.and look for the next target. We must be able to engage at not less than 3,500 metres. Sea Snake looks interesting and some practical data/demo on the 30mm version would be useful.
    The Goalkeeper is a fine system due in a large part to its local FCS being basically a STIR EO. This makes it very flexible which it showed off the Horn of Africa. Interestingly one of the key upgrades that comes with the -1b kit for the Phalanx is a new EO system to allow it to better engage small agile fast boats.

    While rate of fire is a good indicator, the time to get that rate is interesting. Gatling guns like that used on the Goalkeeper and Phalanx rely on a motor spining the barrels up to speed. While this may seem fast it is apparently slower than the revolver action used by the Rheinmetall KCE-30 or BK-27. So even if their rate per minute is lower they can have more weight downrange in a 1s burst.

    But not to be forgotten for CIWS application is rate at which these systems can train and elevate. The Phalanx in the -1b configuration has rates of 115deg/s, while the Goalkeeper is slightly slower at 80deg/s for elevation and 100des/s for train. The SeaSnake only gives a single value of 90deg/s.

  22. #341
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    585
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=EUFighter;478228]
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post

    Please read the first paragraph of the attachment to post #329.

    While the SeaSnake family if not a standalone CIWS in the way that the Phalanx is, they can be the effector of even one which can engage ASM missiles.
    Not all CIWS has all the sensors mounted on the RWS. The Millennium Gun system is an example where the direction is from other ship mounted sensors via a CMS.
    Interesting. And I would not compare SeaSnake with Millennium. But I can see that it would make an interesting system for the NS together with a decent radar.

    Edit: Holey Moley ROF!
    Last edited by Graylion; 22nd July 2020 at 21:10.

  23. #342
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    What is interesting about the revolver cannons is their controllability, they can fire single shot, or any number of different burst rates. AFAIK a gatling gun cannot do a single round shot but I could be wrong.

    Another interesting point if the shells, they can fire similar sabot rounds as their gatling cousins but they also have the programmable round like ABM and AHEAD. It has been reported that Rheinmetall is looking into an AHEAH round for the 30mm like what is available already for the 35mm.

  24. #343
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is a very interesting article in the July issue of DTR magazine on 30mm ABM. Although the focus is on what weapon/ammo will be fitted to the next Australian IFV it does give a good insight to the differences in the two ABM ammo that the Rheinmetall Mk30-2 cannon and the ATK Bushmaster Mk44 will be offered with. Both of these 30mm weapons could be a possible solution for a Rhino replacement.

    https://defencetechnologyreview.part...20/flipbook/52

  25. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  26. #344
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    There is a very interesting article in the July issue of DTR magazine on 30mm ABM. Although the focus is on what weapon/ammo will be fitted to the next Australian IFV it does give a good insight to the differences in the two ABM ammo that the Rheinmetall Mk30-2 cannon and the ATK Bushmaster Mk44 will be offered with. Both of these 30mm weapons could be a possible solution for a Rhino replacement.

    https://defencetechnologyreview.part...20/flipbook/52
    Particularly if we deploy to east Coast of Africa, we need to replace with 30mm system , ideally with AD ammunition and programmable Air Burst rounds with tracer. don't see why we couldn't try out the Cavalry's 30mm system--even on board--load one of the vehicles.

  27. #345
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,365
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is there Hitfist available in a naval mount? It's a fine gun if there is.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  28. #346
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Is there Hitfist available in a naval mount? It's a fine gun if there is.
    Hitfist is a turret system, it mounts the ATK Bushmaster Mk44 30mm cannon.
    Leonardo the maker of Hitfist offer the Marlin RWS with the same cannon for naval use.

  29. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV thanked for this post
  30. #347
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Particularly if we deploy to east Coast of Africa, we need to replace with 30mm system , ideally with AD ammunition and programmable Air Burst rounds with tracer. don't see why we couldn't try out the Cavalry's 30mm system--even on board--load one of the vehicles.
    The USMC has already tried this

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...ship-security/

  31. #348
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,561
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Particularly if we deploy to east Coast of Africa, we need to replace with 30mm system , ideally with AD ammunition and programmable Air Burst rounds with tracer. don't see why we couldn't try out the Cavalry's 30mm system--even on board--load one of the vehicles.
    The issue with the concept is that the Bushmaster Mk44 that is installed on the Piranha III MRV does not use ABM ammunition. Also it has a significantly lower rate of fire than the MK30-2 from Rheinmetall 1,100 rds/min. As the Hitfist turret is manned it has a very low training rate of 1 rad/sec. A RWS will have rate of 90 or more which means tracking small swarming craft is easier. However such a test would be better than nothing especially if Rheinmetall also took part and strapped a Sea Snake 30 to the upper deck.

    Both the Bushmaster Mk44 and the Rheinmetall Mk30-3 use the 30 x 173mm round which means they can fire all the non-ABM rounds such as HEI-T, MPLD-T, APFSDS-T, the latter is used on the Goalkeeper CIWS. The main difference comes in the AMB rounds, the Bushmaster fire the Mk310 PABM which is a programmable but more conventional explosive type round. The PMC308 KEFT round from Rheinmetall is a smaller version of the AHEAD shells and releases a cloud of 162 tungsten projectiles. It also uses a steel case allowing high pressures which then helps to give it the 1,100 m/s muzzle velocity compared to the 907 m/s from the alu cases Mk310 round. The final advantage of that the Mk44 can only fire at 200 rds/min with standard ammo and only at 100 rds/m with ABM rounds due to the way the round is programmed.

  32. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  33. #349
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The issue with the concept is that the Bushmaster Mk44 that is installed on the Piranha III MRV does not use ABM ammunition. Also it has a significantly lower rate of fire than the MK30-2 from Rheinmetall 1,100 rds/min. As the Hitfist turret is manned it has a very low training rate of 1 rad/sec. A RWS will have rate of 90 or more which means tracking small swarming craft is easier. However such a test would be better than nothing especially if Rheinmetall also took part and strapped a Sea Snake 30 to the upper deck.

    Both the Bushmaster Mk44 and the Rheinmetall Mk30-3 use the 30 x 173mm round which means they can fire all the non-ABM rounds such as HEI-T, MPLD-T, APFSDS-T, the latter is used on the Goalkeeper CIWS. The main difference comes in the AMB rounds, the Bushmaster fire the Mk310 PABM which is a programmable but more conventional explosive type round. The PMC308 KEFT round from Rheinmetall is a smaller version of the AHEAD shells and releases a cloud of 162 tungsten projectiles. It also uses a steel case allowing high pressures which then helps to give it the 1,100 m/s muzzle velocity compared to the 907 m/s from the alu cases Mk310 round. The final advantage of that the Mk44 can only fire at 200 rds/min with standard ammo and only at 100 rds/m with ABM rounds due to the way the round is programmed.
    To maximise ship Defence the chosen system must be totally automated after initial acquisition on EO or radar. The system should deal with a minimum of 4 fast attack craft and also be capable of dealing with AA, Drone, and Missile targets. The ammunition must be a step above kinetic with air burst a must. Engagement range must be not less than 3000m and rates of fire from single rounds to 200 RPM. Reloading must be handy and should not take longer than 20 minutes. The 76mm system should also be upgraded to be target specific and a range of appropriate ammunition.

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
  •