# Iraq to get Italian-made OPVs



## CougarKing (20 Nov 2008)

Nice craft to start a little navy with.



> -- Saettia Mk. 4 naval vessel for Iraq (c/o Fincantieri).
> 
> 
> *Italian Modified Missile Boats For Iraq*
> ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Nov 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Nice craft to start a little navy with.



Cougar..your title is a little misleading. From the article from my impression this variant of OPV will be gun armed only, and not missile equipped.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Nov 2008)

Are there significant technical obstacles in employing current-generation ATGM's from vessels such as this?


Matthew.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Are there significant technical obstacles in employing current-generation *ATGM*'s from vessels such as this?



Why would you want to ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Nov 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Are there significant technical obstacles in employing current-generation ATGM's from vessels such as this?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Matthew I don't think the Iraqi Navy will have to worry about too many main battle tanks in the Persian Gulf. I've been there a few times and never come across any.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why would you want to ?



My thought pattern went as follows:
i)  Hmmm....doesn't appear to be an ASM's onboard.
ii)  Hmmm.....I wonder if ATGM's could be mounted to create a cheap alternative against small craft.
iii)  Hmmm.....I wonder if there are any technical hurdles to employing such a configuration.

In short, I really hadn't given it much thought.  

After the fact, I also was looking at the OPV design noticing the lack of reward-facing weapons as the only heavy weapon (the unspecified medium calibre gun) faces forward.  That means that during maneouvre where the bow is facing away from the potential enemy (or worse, in retreat where it is 180-degrees from where the gun can be used) they have no practical means of defending themselves.

But more than anything else, it was a more of a 'fill in one of the many gaps in my knowledge' question.  



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Nov 2008)

Hellfire would be a possibility, wire guided would be useless.

As for positioning, a good CO would not allow himself to be positioned at a disadvantage as you describe it, ideally he would have some sort of support. If the threat was too great he would either back off and wait for aid or position himself in a more optimum position.


----------



## Marshall (21 Nov 2008)

So Iraq has no navy at the moment I'm guessing. I do not think they will need too much more then four ships to man that little chunk of the water they have  

Its a good step though.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Nov 2008)

Marshall said:
			
		

> So Iraq has no navy at the moment I'm guessing. I do not think they will need too much more then four ships to man that little chunk of the water they have
> 
> Its a good step though.



You do know they claim farther out into the Persian Gulf right? At one time they actually had frigates and corvettes in their navy. So its not a stretch for them to start to rebuild.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Nov 2008)

Marshall said:
			
		

> I do not think they will need too much more then four ships to man that little chunk of the water they have



The size of the water is not the only factor. Training, maintenance have a huge effect on the number of ships available for operations. The biggest factor to take into account is the threat. Who cares of you have only 10 miles of water to cover, you need the number of vessels needed to deal with what your neighbours will throw at you.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (21 Nov 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Hellfire would be a possibility, wire guided would be useless.
> 
> As for positioning, a good CO would not allow himself to be positioned at a disadvantage as you describe it, ideally he would have some sort of support. If the threat was too great he would either back off and wait for aid or position himself in a more optimum position.



Wire-guided wouldn't necessarily be useless, just restricted to way less than maximum range.

Not sure how you'd aim an ATGM from an unstabilised mount though. Especially through a zoom lens.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Nov 2008)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Wire-guided wouldn't necessarily be useless, just restricted to way less than maximum range.
> 
> Not sure how you'd aim an ATGM from an unstabilised mount though. Especially through a zoom lens.



Think of the maneuvring a ship does when in combat because if your firing on a ship you can be assured they are firing back at you. I am sure the TOW operators out there will tell you its better for them so as to guide their weapons onto target.


----------



## MJP (21 Nov 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Think of the maneuvring a ship does when in combat because if your firing on a ship you can be assured they are firing back at you. I am sure the TOW operators out there will tell you its better for them so as to guide their weapons onto target.



That is a valid point plus this;

_Firing across bodies of water wider than 1,100 meters can reduce the range of the TOW. Signals being sent through the command-link wires are shorted out when a large amount of wire is submerged in water. Maximum and limited range firing over water varies according to missile type. If the range is less than 1,100 meters, the missile's range is not affected. A TOW position should be as high above and as far back from the water as the tactical situation allows._

Taken from here....http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-34/Ch2.htm

Most of not all wire guided missles have the same problem IIRC.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (21 Nov 2008)

I realise WHY they'd want to use a zoom lens. I just think that it would..err..."magnify" the stabilisation issue. Try holding a pair of bigeyes on an object next time you're at sea, and then lock them. Sea/target/sky/target/sea/etc....I really don't know how a SACLOS weapon would deal with that.

The "water shorting out the wires" thing doesn't help either. You'd only know the weapon went "too far" went it stopped responding to commands.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

For newbie sailors like myself, how do these ships compare to the offshore patrol vessels Canada is working on?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Nov 2008)

You may find some valuable information here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77766.0.html


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

Read through that last night actually.  Based on what I could tell it seems the new Iraqi ships will be faster and more heavily armed.  Is that assessment correct?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Nov 2008)

Sounds right but think what ours will used for as well as what the Iraqi navy will be doing with theirs. Quite the difference.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

Perhaps but it seems to me that added speed would be very welcome when our ships are operating outside of the arctic.  I was also surprised at the relatively low cost of these italian made ships.  Any idea what the cost of ours would be, I dont recall seeing anything about that.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Nov 2008)

I believe the announcement of the project stated the cost for the ships and the project.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

Found it, looks like 387 million per ship, almost 4 times the cost of the Italian made one.  I dont know enough about all the other details nor am I an expert on ships yet but it seems to me that the Italian ones are a much better deal.  No helicopter and no northern capability, but rather then building one ship that can do both arctic patrol and regular ocean patrol it may be more economical to get some for the arctic and the rest for open ocean patrolling.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Nov 2008)

Ok lets look at several things here why would you want to get two types of ships for the same role? You only add to the price and complicate training and maintenance issues. Next point, think of the waters our AOPs wil be operating in compared to the Iraqi ships, the North Atlantic and the North Pacific are some of the most treacherous seas a mariner will ever sail in. In both deployments to the Gulf I have been on, I do not recall any sort of rogh seas whatsover. We are building these AOPs for waters that they will likely encounter.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (25 Nov 2008)

Granted we would need something that is arctic specific for the northern waters.  I guess its the speed issue I am concerned with.  Right now I am with an NRD so MCDV's are the big talk for us.  Based on what the experienced folks are telling me the MCDV's arent very viable on patrols because of their low speed.  Great for minewarfare due to the Z drives and manouverability (I got to do some NABS work this weekend and they can certainly turn a corner) but they cant cover ground fast or catch someone.  My understanding is that the AOPS will be expected to fill more then just the arctic role.  

Maybe the helo capability is what they plan to use to make up for the lack of speed, if that is the case, lets hope we actually get enough of them on time and working regularly.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Nov 2008)

Its amazing what a shot across the bow can tell a faster ship.

I am not a Naval Reserve and while the Kingston class is not a fast ship it establishes the most important thing a Navy can do...presence!


----------



## CougarKing (24 Jun 2009)

A notable update:



> *New Iraqi Navy Flagship Comes Home*
> Multi-National Force - Iraq ^
> 
> Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:02:09 AM by SandRat
> ...


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (24 Jun 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I repeat it is provided to you, rather building
> schools or hospitals or other things, in order to have all the protection for your people and sons of your people.




Hmm...  Well as long as they put them to good use, with their 58km of coast line.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jun 2009)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> Hmm...  Well as long as they put them to good use, with their 58km of coast line.


:

58 km is still 58 km plus their offshore assets. At least they are taking that step to do something.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (24 Jun 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 58 km is still 58 km plus their offshore assets. At least they are taking that step to do something.



I know, Its just the "rather building schools or hospitals or other things" part that doesent sit right with me.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Dec 2009)

A related update:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Swiftships-Shipbuilders-Gets-181M-for-Iraqi-Navy-Patrol-Boats-05812/



> Swiftships to Build Up Iraqi Navy’s Coastal Patrol Capabilities
> 10-Dec-2009 12:49 EST
> 
> Swiftships’ 35-meter patrol boat contract is part of a larger program that also delivers spare parts, guns, ammunition, training, naval simulators and infrastructure to the Umm Qasr Naval Base in southern Iraq. To expand capabilities at the naval base, the US Army Corps of Engineers is partnering with Iraq by managing a $53 million pier and seawall project. The new project in southern Iraq will provide the Iraqi Navy with new port facilities as it continues to expand its military naval capabilities. The total program for the Iraqi Navy is the 3rd largest case of foreign military sales to Iraq, according to the Bullhorn, the newsletter of the Pensacola Council of the Navy League.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2010)

Speaking of missiles, I think missile defense would the greater concern, considering the waters she will be operating in. However trials have been done by the Swedes using Hellfires, a fairly cheap way to up the armanment of a ship.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYXBvCrzbHo


----------



## CougarKing (20 Feb 2010)

A related update:



> *As part of the Government of Iraq’s effort to increase stability and the international standing of its country, the Iraqi Navy welcomed two new ships to its fleet during a ceremony along Iraq’s southern coast, Feb. 14.*
> 
> In 2008, Iraq was the world’s 13th-largest oil producer, with 75 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product and 86 percent of the government’s revenue coming from oil exports.
> 
> ...



link


----------

