Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by alexsa 30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 3.17 average.
Old May 28th, 2006   #61
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa
30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option
agree completely. the Phalanx and SeaRAM are non intrusive, and thats one of the reasons why they're (Phalanx) still held as war stock. It means that we can basically retrofit them to any vessel that has suitable free deck level real estate.

They're a self contained unit, so literally only require juice and minimal integration once they're in place.

The yanks set up a couple in bagdhad mounted on some semi trailer flatties. they wired them up to artillery radar and used them for anti-mortar work on some land based CIWS trials.

Goalkeeper requires almost one deck level of lower space for fitment issues.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C

Last edited by gf0012-aust; May 28th, 2006 at 04:52 AM.
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #62
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
Re: MRV and OPV

Sure, however if they thought about a 76mm to begin
with the engineers may have been able to build this option in the design. Makes me wonder how much thought has gone into this and whether there was discussion on this at all. Every Naval designer and Defense force commitee must realise that to build a Navy vessel you need to protect it and build in the costs for supporting such measures. There has been already some misgivings from the ship builders over the design factor of the MRV so nothing surprises me. I just hope we dont have another Charles Upham.

I have stated in previous postings that i have supported a CIWS like Goal keeper.



Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa
Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #63
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 48
Threads:
I thought the OPVs were based on the design used by the Irish Navy, a vessel that is equipped with a 76mm cannon. Why did we not keep this aspect of the vessel? Has the design been changed so much that adding a 76mm could not be done during the current building phase, or has the building progressed too far?
Padman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #64
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa
Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option
The MRV was initially supposed to be fitted with a 76mm gun. Apparently a design change was initiated when NZDF realised it could afford the in-shore patrol vessels if it switched to a 25mm gun system. Perhaps the design still allows the fitting of such a system if necessary? Sort of like the "fitted for but not with" ideal of the ANZAC???
  Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #65
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
Re: IPV and OPV.

Will the IPVs be fitted with a 25mm?
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #66
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Markus40's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 615
Threads:
Re: ANZAC

I was visiting an open day recently on board the Te Kaha and the weopons specialist said that the VLS can be loaded with a tomahawk. Does anyone know about that? If you do can someone shed some more light on this statement. If its true then our Navy does have a long hand at our operations than what i was supposed to believe.
Markus40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #67
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padman
I thought the OPVs were based on the design used by the Irish Navy, a vessel that is equipped with a 76mm cannon. Why did we not keep this aspect of the vessel? Has the design been changed so much that adding a 76mm could not be done during the current building phase, or has the building progressed too far?

I've seen the plans. There is enough physical space to put in a 127mm turret if so deisred,and if you ignored the fact the superstructure probably couldn't handle the recoil. Any of the standard 76mm turrets would fit in easily, there is ample space in the two decks below.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #68
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus40
I was visiting an open day recently on board the Te Kaha and the weopons specialist said that the VLS can be loaded with a tomahawk. Does anyone know about that? If you do can someone shed some more light on this statement. If its true then our Navy does have a long hand at our operations than what i was supposed to believe.
There are two types of Mk41 Strike and tactical, to the best of my knowledge the ANZACs are equipped with Tactical, so no Tomahawk. But they can load the SM-2. Need the fire control upgraded though.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #69
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
There are two types of Mk41 Strike and tactical, to the best of my knowledge the ANZACs are equipped with Tactical, so no Tomahawk. But they can load the SM-2. Need the fire control upgraded though.
I had an idea that the purchase of the MK41 was for the full-length version (Strike), that tactical length version not being available at the time.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #70
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
I had an idea that the purchase of the MK41 was for the full-length version (Strike), that tactical length version not being available at the time.
Might be, that would add a bit of weight to the superstructure, will have to research it a bit more.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #71
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
There is enough physical space to put in a 127mm turret if so deisred,and if you ignored the fact the superstructure probably couldn't handle the recoil.
Recoil from a 127mm shouldn't be a show stopper or an engineering difficulty. In rough terms you're looking at between 15 tonnes and 20 tonnes of recoil.

Thats is easily structurally resolved without impeding core design.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #72
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
Recoil from a 127mm shouldn't be a show stopper or an engineering difficulty. In rough terms you're looking at between 15 tonnes and 20 tonnes of recoil.

Thats is easily structurally resolved without impeding core design.
It's also a big cannon for a patrol boat

I'll take your word about the recoil. I don't know how crewing or fire control would fit in to the mix. One things for sure, 20 tonnes of recoil seems like a hell of a lot compared to my .308!
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #73
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
It's also a big cannon for a patrol boat

I'll take your word about the recoil.
as an example, and a very broad parallel,. The TDS-120 SP mortar puts out 15 tonnes of recoil, the M-777 155mm puts out 27 tonnes. One of the other posters (artyengineer) can give more accurate numbers on the 777.

thats also "felt recoil" only, so I'm not including the other two types of recoil that are also generated.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #74
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,308
Threads:
Space is one issue. Weight is another. The mount and assocaited supporting structure for the gun and feed system, not to mention recoil and the fire control system (including operator stations) will impose quite a bit of weight on the design set quite high up. This will need to be compensated for and may restrict your operations depending on the load out.

It would not appear to be a 'cheap' fit and spedning the money fitting a decent CIWS (say Sea RAM) would appear to be better option. I wouel appear reasonable to assume that the vessel would be escorted by an ANZAC should it be in a situation where such fire power was required.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #75
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa
It would not appear to be a 'cheap' fit and spedning the money fitting a decent CIWS (say Sea RAM) would appear to be better option. I wouel appear reasonable to assume that the vessel would be escorted by an ANZAC should it be in a situation where such fire power was required.
A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using the existing optical fire control. There's no way you would fit a 127mm, without serious space issues below deck. On the MRV once you fitted a 76mm there are very few spaces left for a CIWS that would provide a suitable firing arc. Acquiring the naval version of Mistral seems to offer a low level of air defence suitable for the South Pacific, that is compatible with the army (one of the reasons the 25mm was fitted). Dito for the OPV.

Operating in a medium intensity environment is going to require an escort, but then thats the same for any LPD or like.
Lucasnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 PM.