Finland signs formal order for Umkhonto-IR missile

Some info on these Finnish designs here http://www.akerfinnyards.com/naval.cfm

Neptune: It all depends if I am senior enough to disembark aboard the helo – if I am, then I might wait a week, while I relax at the nearest shore base…

I would certainly not go out hunting mines in a DDG, but I would like the ability to at least have the option of freeing myself from the minefield. Besides, if you are in a minefield, you are a sitting duck anyway!

Agreed on Flyvefisken, the one I visited was also in the minehunting role, together with an unmanned drone ship commanded from the Flyvefisken.

As for the DDG, I’d rather wait for a week than try to get through yourself. If you really have wandered in the middle of a minefield, you better try to head back and wait. It’s not because you have seen that one mine ahead of you at one time that there couldn’ tbe a Manta just below your ship… Better have a full sweep with minehunters than try to get out.
If you’re hunting mines with your destroyer you will be a nearly motionless target, bait for FACs. (which is the Finnish method of fighting I believe?)

Neptune: I agree, using DDGs to hunt mines makes no sense, but I was actually meaning having dual-role small vessels, more akin to the Hamina. I actually think that DDGs should carry some countermine gear – having the ability to clear mines is important in enclosed waters, if only for self defence (if a DDG wanders into an area with mines, I do not want to wait a week for a minehunter to arrive!). The idea I was proposing was to fit smaller patrol boats with a few UUVs, to allow mine hunting as a secondary duty.

As Gollevainen says, the Flyvefisken is a good example of a patrol vessel that can carry out MCM. With modern minehunting systems, having a dedicated minehunter does not always make sense, but having a large fleet of patrol boats that can carry out the mission does make some sense.

well then there is the option of Danmark’s idea, to have sinlge hull to function n various different purpose such as patrol or MCM…kinda remainding of the Old pre wwII Soviet SRK idea of the Uragan class torbedo boas whit minesweeping gear…
Anyway sofar we only have nice little sweepers of KUHA class of 90 tons…I would like to see some dedicated minehunters for change…after all we are the likely candinate to clear our waters from our own mines if we ever have to lay them…

Ed, it doesn’t make sense at all. Would you want to risk a destroyer to hunt a mine? I wouldn’t… USN doesn’t seem to want it either as they are now returning from the idea, leaving their ROV’s off the latest Burkes again. It could be a costly mistake to keep hunting mines with major ships, and I’m pretty sure that Finland knows that too. They’ll probably opt for dedicated ships. For minehunting you need VERY specialised crews and it will give trouble to put those on a destroyer. First you have the space issue, which can probably be solved if necessary, but the biggest problem is economy. What do you do with them? Put them on all the time? They’ll get bored pretty soon when crossing an ocean… And they need practice, haven’t seen a destroyer practicing with any minehunting unit of the NATO yet.
All in all it’s better to have dedicated ships (and yes I know, it isn’t “cool” or “impressive” to have minehunters and give extra money for them, but they are one of the most important ships in the fleet).

It will be interesting to see what form the minesweeper takes – there is an increasing trend for regular ships to be fitted to carry an ROV and sonar suite, without being a dedicated minesweeper. The attraction is obvious in terms of cost, and since most minesweeping now is actually mine hunting (which is safer, if a bit slower), using non-dedicated ships makes some sense.

well like I already said there migth be two extra Haminas coming…and i remember catching some rumours about new minesweepers…
Ofcourse I would like to see some replacements for the Karjala and Turunmaa corvettes…
But if we speculate by following the current trends, some sort of transport ship migth come next, similar to Danish Absalon class in concept…Anyway this as a educated quess as the parialamentary elections are coming and switch to the rigth (and NATO 🙁 ) migth be anticipated….

Ed you’re right on that, Hamina is only 270t!! that’s very small, and indeed smaller than Flyvefisken (I checked that now, I saw a Flyvefisken in real and it looked really small, I wonder how small Hamina looks then…)
Tuuli is indeeda pitty, they should have proceeded with that project. Is there anything new on the line Gollevainen? Any new ship project? Or do you think they’d only go for extra Hamina’s if they had the money?

and add to the list that its pretty cardboard made against even enemy 40mm…but still, It would have suited to operate in our rugged and shallow coastline to lurk behind narrow channels and small islands and attack from where the enemy least expects…but the offical reason why it was canceled was that in NATO-led europe our navy should focus more on ships that can be used in international crisis invertion operations…But somehow I get the feeling that more Hamina’s would be build instead thougth those tiny missile boats are pretty much as useless as howercrafts in any offshore missions.

Part of the problem is that hovercraft always had speed as their novelty – they could make 40-50 knots, whereas conventional ships could only make 30 knots. This difference has narrowed, with high speed monohulls and cats making up to ~45 knots. Hovercraft cost a lot to run, and have a lot of downtime, so the benefits come at a very high cost. The other problem is that of integrating anything with recoil on a hovercraft – you probably cannot mount even a 40mm.

In a few years, I suspect the USMC will probably be trying to play around with Netfires boxes on LCACs… One LCAC could probably carry 32 Netfires boxes, each with 15 missiles, meaning 480 missiles!

The poor thing is beeing hel by the Navy in order to use as presentator for possiple byers. There migth be civilian use for it as its become the latest fasion to cross the gulf of finland as fast as possiple from Helsinki to Tallin…and passenger hovercrft seems attractively novel idea that someone whit enough money could convert it…If it is, Im defianetly going to use it in my trips to the Estonia.

but no, we dont operate any other sort of hovercrafts 😡 🙁 Too bad that would have been nice thing to boast whit in the international naval circles…and effective weapon, in FAC and transport versions in our coastlines…

…Orginally it was planned to have four of these and punch of howercraft FACs but somehow our politicans decided that howercrafts are no good in participating NATO -led invasions of some poor third-world countryes so they were cutt of…and as usuall, whitout no replacement desing…

What happened to the Tuuli class hovercraft? Does Finland operate any other type of hovercraft?

well you guys ned to remember that all scandinavian missle FACs can be used as minelayers as well and then the SSMs are not fitted.

Neptune: sorry, I was meaning the SSMs, not the fact that it has a VLS. It was more to do with the fact that up until the missile age, ships were guaged by their main gun, which was reliant on the size. In the west, anti-ship missiles are, broadly, just anti-ship missiles, whether they are mounted on patrol boats or frigates. I agree, size does still dictate the type of missiles that can be used, particularly with Russian missiles, where they seem to have a missile for every day of the week.

(As for the Flyvefisken, if memory serves, it is around 450 tons displacement, whereas the Hamina is a bit smaller)

Well, on that picture of Tornio, the SSMs are not there… There is a zodiac in that position ready for launch from the rear. There do seem to be hatches in the sloped flank of the ship aft, next to the VLS, maybe that’s a hatch for the SSMs?

Ed, it’s not because it has a VLS that it’s armed well… There even smaller boats with VLS’s too (for examply Flyvefisken), doesn’t really mean well armed. If it had a regular 8-round SAM launcher, it was equally well armed then!
As for “Offensive armament”, size does matter, the West only uses silly small Harpoons, indeed on both large and small ships. With Russian ships, such sizes do matter, you can’t put 4 Bazalt or Granits on a small boat like this!

So Golle, do you mean that Tornio already has the VLS system fitted? Or just that she was already prepared to receive those missiles (and hence this contract was just a matter of time?), I do recall the non-fitted Umkhonto modules on the South African Meko’s which is indeed looked pretty similar to this.
So what’s with her SSMs? Would be pointless to sacrifice those for the Umkhonto, as that would actually make Tornio a patrol boat against fishery or something. Without any anti-ship capabilities, she would just be a boat with self defence, but no real use (except for being a bait).
I’m waiting for those other shots of Tornio, she does indeed look much different from Hamina. And how about the third unit that was ordered? Did it get through?

Well honestly im not sure. Someone claimed that it is already fitted and the pics sure do look like that there are some sort of ‘tubes’ in there…But thats the place where the missiles are to be fitted. the SSMs are to be placed in the traditional rear positon fashion of our FACs so i dont think they sacrifice any of the SSMs. Most of our FACs sails whit less missiles than maxium
And if the rumours are correct, they should get the Mk3 version of the RBS-15 which would make them even more dedlyer..

And im not sure either wheter there is going to be another pair. Some books like the latest weyer indicates that two more are planned, but I have not seen any info of any beeing building. But then again I wasent even aware of the commisioning of the Tornio untill i saw it’s pics…guess i should keep my eyes open more on the home front as well…

It is impressive fitting a VLS to such a small vessel, and does make them relatively well armed for their size. I always find it funny how missile boats are now armed with the same anti-ship missiles as destroyers and cruisers, and how little size now matters in offensive firepower.

So Golle, do you mean that Tornio already has the VLS system fitted? Or just that she was already prepared to receive those missiles (and hence this contract was just a matter of time?), I do recall the non-fitted Umkhonto modules on the South African Meko’s which is indeed looked pretty similar to this.
So what’s with her SSMs? Would be pointless to sacrifice those for the Umkhonto, as that would actually make Tornio a patrol boat against fishery or something. Without any anti-ship capabilities, she would just be a boat with self defence, but no real use (except for being a bait).
I’m waiting for those other shots of Tornio, she does indeed look much different from Hamina. And how about the third unit that was ordered? Did it get through?

Pics attached are of the ASW RL system for illustration

‘ve seen that b-position mount somewhere before and I’m nearly certain that its a chaff launcher though, to be honest, the description of the ships decoy fit as the CelsTech Philax suprised me – didnt think it looked like that?!