Up Gunning the Fleet

Dear Member,

Japan has bought the 35mm system and it is in production in other nations. Also the one barrel 35mm version is becoming popular. Mainly because of the AHEAD round.

One of the reasons that Oerlikon cut back was that the Breda 40mm and the Bofors L70 Trinity mount won out with its special programmable proximity round. With naval mounts, ammo storage is not a problem and on warships the provide for mounting below the deck for storage. And what ever the advantages of the 35mm round a 40mm round will always pack a bigger punch. But it is a heavier mount always remember.

Finally, Oerlikon with a German firm has developed a 30mm AHEAD round. But it will pack a heck of a lot less in tungsten pellets than a 35mm round.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Jack: Mate I have seen the deadly use of the 35mm cannons in full effect on the Geppard of the Bundeswerr and you are correct in what you say, they are a great system to use. They are fully supported on a global scale but I don’t know of any sales of the 35mm system in recent years, in fact the last system I heard sold was back in 83 and that was to an African nation (Kenya think though don’t quote me on that).

Orlikon decided to cut back on the 35mm production and maximize their efforts on the 30mm naval system which is what you see coupled with the Emerson Electic (Emerlec) turret system.

Emerlec 30mm Turret System

Another system which is coming into maturity is the Metal Storm system. Naval applications are being looked into, here are some of the other systems that are being developed now.

Here is an idea that had been trialled recently and could work on these vessels- even the IPV’s: The Dragonfly armed with twin Metal Storm weapons…

Folks,

The best all around practical and cost effective option for medium size patrol warships combating anti-piracy and other low level naval threats is that GDM-A 35mm twin turret that Oerlikon has been offering for years that while can have a man in the turret aiming it can also be remotely operated — a lot of navies in the 1970s and 1980s bought them for small warships patrolling near coast lines or where a lot of islands were present realizing they need a man-in-loop weapon. It allows for about any situation at the right price. For engaging those small high speed boats that pirates use it can either fire HE with quick fuzes that explode as soon as they hit any surface including water or the AHEAD round with range information given either by a portable laser range finder on the bridge or the bridges radar to program the rounds just before firing.

Other options are either two large and expensive, or the range at which they are effective can bring them within the pirates own weapons (ie a 14.5 or 12.7 machine gun has a good a range as a 25mm cannons effective accurate range). Also, .50 cal to 30mm cal weapons rely on a direct hit where a 35mm round with either a quick fuze HE or an AHEAD “shot gun” round does not so aiming offsets due to sea states are not as critical.

Finally, the Oerlikon 35mm cannon and rounds are in wide spread production making cost lower and spares easier to acquire. And the 35mm turret I mention bolts to the deck and does not require any cutting of the deck for a below magazine — ie all it needs is a power hook up.

Jack E. Hammond

BTW> No longer in production, but the old manually aimed and loaded 3 inch DP cannon that was mounted on escorts firing modern quick fuze rounds or proximity rounds (they explode right on the surface and proved devastating in the Korean War against NK PT boats) would be a very effective weapon. But as I said, they are no longer in production.
.

.

That’s ok ELP, but I’d prefer to use these in a warrior role (Which is being developed for the USMC and USCG).

Some of these would be handy…

Officials have confirmed that the OPV Otago is already around 100 tons overweight and thus in trouble when it comes to performance, sea keeping, ice strengthened sections being lower in the water than planned etc.
I’d hazard the guess that all available margins have been blown and there is nothing left to add bigger guns, radars etc.

Pred: mate the Kiwi’s aren’t sure what they want and are doing what we Aussies did with the SH-2G’s, keep adding and changing the specs for use in service, is it any wonder why the design isn’t meeting service specs- look at what’s just happened to Canterbury, there is more proof.

Just looking deeper into the OPV side of this and, Steve’s comments notwithstanding, its a very interesting design!. There are some deliciously detailed blueprints on the Aker website of the PV85 general arrangement.

Jonesy you sly dog, where do you think I came up with the idea for this topic 😉

Whilst I dont know about OTO guns and VLS fitting this design, looking at the capabilities on offer, I’d say it offers remarkable potential as a low-end ASW corvette for the many navies now considering solutions to neighbour states SSK capabilities.

And this is what I was thinking mate- you’re starting to think like me- STOP IT :p

The aft working deck, on the OPV, looks viable to be reconfigured to fit a Thales CAPTAS Nano active towed array on the centreline and an STWS-2 launcher on each beam. The vessel has plenty of spaces convertible to an ASW ops room and the ability to operate a chopper up to FLynx size is an obvious advantage. There appears to be plenty of space to expand the avcat bunkerage aboard though a couple of the 6 berth accomodation spaces on 1deck would likely have to make way for an air ordnance magazine and hoist. Converting the remaining 4 berth rooms to 6 berth should deal with any accom issues.

The Nano is the perfect choice here, but I was thinking of the new generation small VDS that the USN is working on now- the advantage here being the capability to go below the layer where most subs actually operate. Having said that, the Nano would be better for littoral combat situations like what we have in and around Indonesia- so really it becomes a case of pros and cons on both sides! The Lynx you mention was actually in competition with the SH-2G for the RNZN (at the same time as we had ours, the idea was that we needed these for ops off the Anzacs, since the S-70B-2’s were too big, later proved wrong). As for the berths, there seems to be a shift these days away from 6 berth accomidation, apparently this goes along the lines of offering a bit more privacy to the crew (they need to impliment this all the way back in Recruit school if they want to offer this in the fleet- sorry side nopte there from personal experience).

Above water weapons I’d keep common with the upgunned IPV to be honest. Mk110 forward for surface and, limited, anti-air/missile duties and a modest fit of NSM launchers on the weather deck aft of the bridge, displacing the SATCOM dome, should suffice. Any one of a number of commercially available 3D air/surf search sets would fit and a lightweight director plus ESM/offboard decoy fit would round it out.

Commonality with the rest of the fleet would be logistically better in any situation- I totally agree. The 56mm gun would be much better on the OPV and with new long distance shots being developed, would give roughly the same distance in fire support as a 76mm gun would without the LRP’s Speaking of the electronics fit, CEA-FAR and CEA-Span would be ideal here and add a Nulka decoy system- bang you have an effective fighting vessel.

Increases in total weight would actually be marginal and mostly at maindeck level meaning that stability should not be much affected. Removal of the ice strengthening, for those customers not requiring it, is likely to bring the hull very close being in line with the current manufacturers spec. For those requiring it the design would probably benefit from an extra 5m in the length and a couple of metres on the beam, plus a modest upgrade in engine power to keep the performance curve.

Again thinking like me- remove the ice strengthening. These vessels would then easily be sold to various small nations wishing to upgrade their naval arm such as Phillipines, Keyna, heck even Papua New Guinea might be interested in a couple!

Certainly possible. On a new ship though? And how many case studies of successful naval ship hull plugs are there? Better to work with more generous margins up front, and pay for the priviledge.

Some companies actually have done case studies on hull plugs, I know that Austral and Incat have and Meko work on a similar principle.

Austral advertise various vessels with anything up to a 10m plug, if it works then go for it, use the extra space for better equipment or simply just more room.

Sounds like a Braunschweig class corvette.

Certainly would be a good competitor to this vessel!

Better to work with more generous margins up front, and pay for the priviledge.

Absolutely!

Hull plugs?

Certainly possible. On a new ship though? And how many case studies of successful naval ship hull plugs are there? Better to work with more generous margins up front, and pay for the priviledge.

Officials have confirmed that the OPV Otago is already around 100 tons overweight and thus in trouble when it comes to performance, sea keeping, ice strengthened sections being lower in the water than planned etc.
I’d hazard the guess that all available margins have been blown and there is nothing left to add bigger guns, radars etc.

Hull plugs?

Just looking deeper into the OPV side of this and, Steve’s comments notwithstanding, its a very interesting design!. There are some deliciously detailed blueprints on the Aker website of the PV85 general arrangement.

Whilst I dont know about OTO guns and VLS fitting this design, looking at the capabilities on offer, I’d say it offers remarkable potential as a low-end ASW corvette for the many navies now considering solutions to neighbour states SSK capabilities.

The aft working deck, on the OPV, looks viable to be reconfigured to fit a Thales CAPTAS Nano active towed array on the centreline and an STWS-2 launcher on each beam. The vessel has plenty of spaces convertible to an ASW ops room and the ability to operate a chopper up to FLynx size is an obvious advantage. There appears to be plenty of space to expand the avcat bunkerage aboard though a couple of the 6 berth accomodation spaces on 1deck would likely have to make way for an air ordnance magazine and hoist. Converting the remaining 4 berth rooms to 6 berth should deal with any accom issues.

Above water weapons I’d keep common with the upgunned IPV to be honest. Mk110 forward for surface and, limited, anti-air/missile duties and a modest fit of NSM launchers on the weather deck aft of the bridge, displacing the SATCOM dome, should suffice. Any one of a number of commercially available 3D air/surf search sets would fit and a lightweight director plus ESM/offboard decoy fit would round it out.

Increases in total weight would actually be marginal and mostly at maindeck level meaning that stability should not be much affected. Removal of the ice strengthening, for those customers not requiring it, is likely to bring the hull very close being in line with the current manufacturers spec. For those requiring it the design would probably benefit from an extra 5m in the length and a couple of metres on the beam, plus a modest upgrade in engine power to keep the performance curve.

Sounds like a Braunschweig class corvette.

Officials have confirmed that the OPV Otago is already around 100 tons overweight and thus in trouble when it comes to performance, sea keeping, ice strengthened sections being lower in the water than planned etc.
I’d hazard the guess that all available margins have been blown and there is nothing left to add bigger guns, radars etc.

Just looking deeper into the OPV side of this and, Steve’s comments notwithstanding, its a very interesting design!. There are some deliciously detailed blueprints on the Aker website of the PV85 general arrangement.

Whilst I dont know about OTO guns and VLS fitting this design, looking at the capabilities on offer, I’d say it offers remarkable potential as a low-end ASW corvette for the many navies now considering solutions to neighbour states SSK capabilities.

The aft working deck, on the OPV, looks viable to be reconfigured to fit a Thales CAPTAS Nano active towed array on the centreline and an STWS-2 launcher on each beam. The vessel has plenty of spaces convertible to an ASW ops room and the ability to operate a chopper up to FLynx size is an obvious advantage. There appears to be plenty of space to expand the avcat bunkerage aboard though a couple of the 6 berth accomodation spaces on 1deck would likely have to make way for an air ordnance magazine and hoist. Converting the remaining 4 berth rooms to 6 berth should deal with any accom issues.

Above water weapons I’d keep common with the upgunned IPV to be honest. Mk110 forward for surface and, limited, anti-air/missile duties and a modest fit of NSM launchers on the weather deck aft of the bridge, displacing the SATCOM dome, should suffice. Any one of a number of commercially available 3D air/surf search sets would fit and a lightweight director plus ESM/offboard decoy fit would round it out.

Increases in total weight would actually be marginal and mostly at maindeck level meaning that stability should not be much affected. Removal of the ice strengthening, for those customers not requiring it, is likely to bring the hull very close being in line with the current manufacturers spec. For those requiring it the design would probably benefit from an extra 5m in the length and a couple of metres on the beam, plus a modest upgrade in engine power to keep the performance curve.

For all Project Protector ships, add a Sea Sprint naval ADATS mount. Gives the reach of a heavier-than-25mm caliber gun (10km), is also dual purpose (SAM/ATGW roles) but does weigh as much as e.g. 57mm or 76mm naval guns and also does not have deck penetration. Alternatively a 35mm Millenium mount. Incidentally, both ADATS fire unit an Millenium gun unit can function as part of Skyguard/Skyshield SHORADS systems.
http://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/skyshield/skyshield.shtml
http://www.global-defence.com/1998/Missiles/adats.htm

Incidentally, if the Typhoon gun mounts are used, there is the option of integrating 2.5-4km SPIKE (mini-typhoon) / 8km SPIKE-ER or various MANPADS (Typhoon) onto those very mounts.
http://www.eurospike.com/sea.html

Also consider LAHAT by IAI

I agree the 57mm forward would make a very good compromise………..Also, maybe 2-4 small ASM’s?

stinger launchers 1 mount 4 missiles
hellfire launchers 1 mount 4 missiles
:dev2::dev2::dev2::dev2:

76mm gun of the FFGs and stretch the opv to
fit gun and missile launchers

Jonesy: Thanks mate, yes this is a theoretical and one possed on a what if country X desided that they liked these vessels but wanted a bit more fire power on them.

I like the idea of the 56mm, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that. I was thinking of placing it just forward of the 25mm system as it stands now, but just on 1 deck, with the 25mm placed behind and above it on 01 deck.

At least you are understanding the scope of this exercise mate.

I understand the Fitted for- but not with concept, but tbh mate I have never been a fan of it.

As stated Steve Ja was theorising an ‘upgunned’ version. This is purely a theoretical exercise based on what the hull could, potentially accomodate.

At $25mn a pop the IPVs are obviously not suited for any other mission than inshore patrol as they stand.

Whats the purpose of the missiles on the IPV Ja?. I’m guessing you’re thinking of a way of putting a bit more punch onto the boats for dealing with moderately well equipped pirates/terrorists and for a second-role limited warfighting mission?. Local defence/coastal convoy escort sort of asset?. Interesting idea but I think your weapons choice might land the crew in a spot of bother mate!.

As seen off Somalia pirates, all over the place, have real seamanship skills these days. They also have access to a large range of weaponry. I think it was an LTTE manned tramp steamer that used an old Russian 82mm mortar to give the Sri Lankan navy a nasty shock from 3000+ yards a few years back!. If they can get their mitts on an old TOW or Konkurs type ATGM (as confiscated from Hezbollah) or even something like the Type 85 RL’s used by the Taleban all bloody over Afghanistan then that 25mm Typhoon might just be a bit too light for the job.

I think I’d want to truncate the foredeck superstructure extension at the first break. Effectively removing it from the platform currently occupied by the liferafts forwards. In the space created I’d bolt on a Mk110 57mm. Resite the SATCOM dome on the bridge roof and, probably, build out a platform forward from the mainmast to support a lightweight director (LIROD or similar type). Should get pretty good arcs and the Bofors mount seems to be perfectly serviceable aboard the equivalent sized Swedish corvettes.

Manual pintle mount mk44 miniguns or, if you feel the threat warrants, naval mount GAU-19’s on each beam on the gun deck for RHIB/fast boat threats close in and for the normal constabulary work.

The Gabriels are trouble IMHO. If you are faced with a target sufficiently advanced to need them against then the odds are, by the time they are in range of a Gabriel 2, they’ve likely already fired on you. If you want a military capability and beyond horizon-range targets (horizon-range serviced by the 57mm) then first thing fit a datalink terminal!. Perhaps you could mount 2×2 NSM cannisters athwartships behind the superstructure if you remove one of the davits and mount the remaining one again athwartships deploying over the stern. The missiles would be for-but-not-with, but, would at least offer some useable standoff capability on a bearing only attack or with offboard designation.

The IPV’s are supposed to do the same job as the Australian Armidale class, basicly EEZ enforcement ops. The OPV’s were supposed to be for southern oceans patrol duties but they are 100t overweight, resulting in the area of the hull that is ice hardened being under the waterline. If anything they’d be pulling weight off, not adding more on.

These ships are supposed to do the same job as the Australian customs ship Ocean Viking (which has just a pair of .50’s, not the job of an ANZAC class FFH.

Whats the purpose of the missiles on the IPV Ja?. I’m guessing you’re thinking of a way of putting a bit more punch onto the boats for dealing with moderately well equipped pirates/terrorists and for a second-role limited warfighting mission?. Local defence/coastal convoy escort sort of asset?. Interesting idea but I think your weapons choice might land the crew in a spot of bother mate!.

As seen off Somalia pirates, all over the place, have real seamanship skills these days. They also have access to a large range of weaponry. I think it was an LTTE manned tramp steamer that used an old Russian 82mm mortar to give the Sri Lankan navy a nasty shock from 3000+ yards a few years back!. If they can get their mitts on an old TOW or Konkurs type ATGM (as confiscated from Hezbollah) or even something like the Type 85 RL’s used by the Taleban all bloody over Afghanistan then that 25mm Typhoon might just be a bit too light for the job.

I think I’d want to truncate the foredeck superstructure extension at the first break. Effectively removing it from the platform currently occupied by the liferafts forwards. In the space created I’d bolt on a Mk110 57mm. Resite the SATCOM dome on the bridge roof and, probably, build out a platform forward from the mainmast to support a lightweight director (LIROD or similar type). Should get pretty good arcs and the Bofors mount seems to be perfectly serviceable aboard the equivalent sized Swedish corvettes.

Manual pintle mount mk44 miniguns or, if you feel the threat warrants, naval mount GAU-19’s on each beam on the gun deck for RHIB/fast boat threats close in and for the normal constabulary work.

The Gabriels are trouble IMHO. If you are faced with a target sufficiently advanced to need them against then the odds are, by the time they are in range of a Gabriel 2, they’ve likely already fired on you. If you want a military capability and beyond horizon-range targets (horizon-range serviced by the 57mm) then first thing fit a datalink terminal!. Perhaps you could mount 2×2 NSM cannisters athwartships behind the superstructure if you remove one of the davits and mount the remaining one again athwartships deploying over the stern. The missiles would be for-but-not-with, but, would at least offer some useable standoff capability on a bearing only attack or with offboard designation.

Impressive little ship!:D Yet, not a lot of room………….maybe you could mount a 76mm forward and a Goalkeeper, Phalanx, or 25mm Bushmaster at the rear???? Of course were do you mount the SSM’s???:confused: