Thanks Thanks:  80
Likes Likes:  175
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 266

Thread: Naval weaponry

  1. #201
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Maybe after it is actually operational anywhere
    Maybe when they sell it on in 30 years time we can pick it up!
    Time for another break I think......

  2. #202
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Where do the empty shells go...couldn't see any being ejected?
    Most naval weapon ( gun ) systems are designed to have shell case recovery systems, especially those 12.7mm and above. The weapon arrangements aboard our vessels is well documented and listed. They range from 7.62mm LMG, 12.7mm HMG, 20mm CRAA aboard all ships, and 57mm (1 ship) 76mm (7 ships) . The 20mm is not as popular with navies now other than in CIWS systems, mid range out to 4km is suited to weapons such as 27mm and 30mm using RWS mounts. The 12.7mm can backup the latter especially in twin mounts to increase stopping power. Decent gun systems need a DARDO configuration with guided ammunition or else provide a missile system.

  3. #203
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like

    Naval Ship Defence

    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Most naval weapon ( gun ) systems are designed to have shell case recovery systems, especially those 12.7mm and above. The weapon arrangements aboard our vessels is well documented and listed. They range from 7.62mm LMG, 12.7mm HMG, 20mm CRAA aboard all ships, and 57mm (1 ship) 76mm (7 ships) . The 20mm is not as popular with navies now other than in CIWS systems, mid range out to 4km is suited to weapons such as 27mm and 30mm using RWS mounts. The 12.7mm can backup the latter especially in twin mounts to increase stopping power. Decent gun systems need a DARDO configuration with guided ammunition or else provide a missile system.
    Ships in hot or challenged areas need to defend themselves by adequate response within inner ranges from 5km inwards. The principle threats are from air coupled with missile launches and attacks by fast surface craft. Ships so threatened need either a suitable range of anti multi threat missiles or a smart gunnery system which can cover all three functions and additionally allow for shore bombardment with extended range munitions. The popular 76mm system currently in use has features which cover all these aspects at costs around 2m USD per ship with additional costs for ammo and outer area detection radar for first contact. The gun has an integrated beam riding radar to deal with missile and aircraft. The ship would also have a decoy system as a first response. The pundits say that the Decoy system coupled with the smart gunnery system and ammunition is a cheaper option than missile systems.

  4. #204
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Ships in hot or challenged areas need to defend themselves by adequate response within inner ranges from 5km inwards. The principle threats are from air coupled with missile launches and attacks by fast surface craft. Ships so threatened need either a suitable range of anti multi threat missiles or a smart gunnery system which can cover all three functions and additionally allow for shore bombardment with extended range munitions. The popular 76mm system currently in use has features which cover all these aspects at costs around 2m USD per ship with additional costs for ammo and outer area detection radar for first contact. The gun has an integrated beam riding radar to deal with missile and aircraft. The ship would also have a decoy system as a first response. The pundits say that the Decoy system coupled with the smart gunnery system and ammunition is a cheaper option than missile systems.
    Although I agree with many of the above points the first thing that needs to be fitted is a decent sensor suite and Combat Management System, There needs to be an active sensor such as a modern AESA radar which is coupled with an EO sensors and some ESM. Time is essential, a typical ASM like a Harpoon or Exocet will travel at around 240m/s, this gives around 60 seconds before the ship would be hit. In this 60 seconds, the threat has to be detected, interrogated, identified, classified and then engaged. That more time you can win the better as the best weapon system is useless unless it has time to be used. Remember any incoming ASM must be destroyed at least 500m from the vessel to have a good chance of avoiding debris causing damage which can be worse than if the missile had hit.

  5. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  6. #205
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Although I agree with many of the above points the first thing that needs to be fitted is a decent sensor suite and Combat Management System, There needs to be an active sensor such as a modern AESA radar which is coupled with an EO sensors and some ESM. Time is essential, a typical ASM like a Harpoon or Exocet will travel at around 240m/s, this gives around 60 seconds before the ship would be hit. In this 60 seconds, the threat has to be detected, interrogated, identified, classified and then engaged. That more time you can win the better as the best weapon system is useless unless it has time to be used. Remember any incoming ASM must be destroyed at least 500m from the vessel to have a good chance of avoiding debris causing damage which can be worse than if the missile had hit.
    Absolutely sensors are critical. A missile launched at 240m/s with 60 secs flight time will have been fired 14.4km away, hopefully the A/C would have been tracked and even engaged by time of launch. In gunnery terms 60 secs is a LOT of ammunition.

  7. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  8. #206
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Absolutely sensors are critical. A missile launched at 240m/s with 60 secs flight time will have been fired 14.4km away, hopefully the A/C would have been tracked and even engaged by time of launch. In gunnery terms 60 secs is a LOT of ammunition.
    I would be more worried about a land launched weapon, or one launched from a vessel close inshore. Given the radar clutter of the land background these are difficult to detect and that will only happen if the ship is already at action stations. Remember not all modern ASM need a target lock before launch, they only need an approximate direction and distance, so can be fired OTH.

    A Phalanx has a effective range between 500m and 3500m, so about 12 seconds to fire, a 35mm Millennium gun pushes this out to 5000m and 19 seconds.

  9. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  10. #207
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like

    States of Alert

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    I would be more worried about a land launched weapon, or one launched from a vessel close inshore. Given the radar clutter of the land background these are difficult to detect and that will only happen if the ship is already at action stations. Remember not all modern ASM need a target lock before launch, they only need an approximate direction and distance, so can be fired OTH.

    A Phalanx has a effective range between 500m and 3500m, so about 12 seconds to fire, a 35mm Millennium gun pushes this out to 5000m and 19 seconds.
    Ships on patrol always have their relevant sensors closed up and searching, mostly passively. It's a zero sums game, if you haven't the outfit you shouldn't be there. Be ready and expect to be challenged. First response before maneuver is to launch a salvo of decoys and then follow with a response to incoming.

  11. #208
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thales together with the Indian company BEL have been developing the Pharos Multi Target Tracking Radar a Fire Control radar that can turn the Oto 76mm into a CIWS. From what I can tell it some modification to the gun, control system and dual feed system. It functions by providing a guide beam for the 76mm DART round.
    https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/pharo...tracking-radar

    This could be part of an upgrade for the P60s to give them better active protection. Of course a 2/3d search radar and CMS would need also to be part of the package. Not to be forgotten would also are the passive defences; ESM and decoys.

  12. Likes DeV, Dogwatch liked this post
  13. #209
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Thales together with the Indian company BEL have been developing the Pharos Multi Target Tracking Radar a Fire Control radar that can turn the Oto 76mm into a CIWS. From what I can tell it some modification to the gun, control system and dual feed system. It functions by providing a guide beam for the 76mm DART round.
    https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/pharo...tracking-radar

    This could be part of an upgrade for the P60s to give them better active protection. Of course a 2/3d search radar and CMS would need also to be part of the package. Not to be forgotten would also are the passive defences; ESM and decoys.
    The OTO 76mm that we have is probably two Marks behind the OTO Strales SR. The rate of fire of the two Super Rapido guns is 120 rounds pm.
    The gun capable of firing DART ammo ie the 76mm Strales SR also has a TX Antenna inserted in it's cupola. The question therefore is, can the old gun be redesigned to increase ROF to 120 pm. and can a TX Antenna be fitted and associated FCS's. Better we fit also at least one 30mm Auto on the Centerline for aft arcs.

  14. #210
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The OTO 76mm that we have is probably two Marks behind the OTO Strales SR. The rate of fire of the two Super Rapido guns is 120 rounds pm.
    The gun capable of firing DART ammo ie the 76mm Strales SR also has a TX Antenna inserted in it's cupola. The question therefore is, can the old gun be redesigned to increase ROF to 120 pm. and can a TX Antenna be fitted and associated FCS's. Better we fit also at least one 30mm Auto on the Centerline for aft arcs.
    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.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 26th August 2018 at 17:16.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  16. #211
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  17. #212
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  18. Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #213
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  20. Likes restless, morpheus liked this post
  21. #214
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 4th January 2019 at 10:17.

  22. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Tempest, na grohmiti, Turkey liked this post
  23. #215
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    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:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...l-missile.html

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

  24. #216
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,823
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Australians strapped RBS70s on some of their ships going to the First Gulf War

  25. #217
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  26. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  27. #218
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* 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.

  28. Likes DeV, sofa liked this post
  29. #219
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* 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; 11th January 2019 at 11:06.

  30. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti thanked for this post
  31. #220
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  32. #221
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  33. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, EUFighter liked this post
  34. #222
    BQMS Auldsod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Wesht
    Posts
    507
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  35. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, DeV liked this post
  36. #223
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  37. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  38. #224
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 11th January 2019 at 21:45.

  39. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  40. #225
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,504
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  41. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post

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
  •