# Kingston Class 40MM replacement?



## Stoker

With the Harry DeWolf Class being armed with the BAE RC 25MM, perhaps its time that the Kingston Class rids itself of its 40MM and have something similar or even the same mount and gun installed. With the Kingston Class being deployed south on drug interdiction missions more and more, perhaps the argument could be made to have a more capable weapon system. HMCS Summerside orginally trialled a RCHMG .50 cal, and proved to be a pretty capable mount. It was a gyro stabilized system with a IR camera , that mounted a heavy barrelled .50 cal. The introduction of a 25MM mount would be a great capability.


----------



## Ostrozac

Is the Kingston class going to be kept in service once the AOPS rolls out?

If the answer to that question is yes, then by all means life-extend the weapons systems. But it's an important question to ask, if you want to avoid spending money upgrading a system only to then immediately scrap it.


----------



## Stoker

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Is the Kingston class going to be kept in service once the AOPS rolls out?
> 
> If the answer to that question is yes, then by all means life-extend the weapons systems. But it's an important question to ask, if you want to avoid spending money upgrading a system only to then immediately scrap it.



Thats a good question. I can see some of the older hulls being phased out as the AOPS come on line, however I can't see the entire class being retired. There are a lot of upgrades going into the ships right now and with the oldest hull being 19 years I can see them sailing for some years yet. Not to mention the political fall out of retiring ships in a ship starved navy especially with nothing wrong with them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am pretty sure that if you bought 12 25mm mounts for the MCDVs and the MCDVs were then decommissioned, those mounts would be immediately recycled into other ships.

In other words, I think it would be a good idea.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't think the issue is wether or not all or some of the MCDV's will be retained once the HARRY DeWOLF class enters the fleet.

IMO the issue is more one of commonality and training. The BAE 25mm being introduced to the fleet and the MCDV's 40mm Bofors are guns of the same general category and put onboard these two classes for similar purposes. It makes no sense then to have to  train two  different groups of gunners, operators, maintainers, etc. or to keep two different stocks of ammunition and parts. Hence, it would make sense at this time to upgrade the MCDV's with the BAE guns and get that part of the initial cadre training out of the way for the day the HARRY DeWOLF class enters service.

Besides, the 40mm Bofors are WWII era already, they served on the TRIBAL class and other WWII Destroyers, then on the carriers. The ones onboard the MCDV's are mostly from BONAVENTURE's old stocks. I am sure that the Navy would simply put them in storage for "the next time they are needed…"


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am actually kind of partial to the 40mm...but I do recognize that time marches on.


----------



## Old Sweat

In the seventies and into the eighties they were also used to defend the two Canadian airfields in Germany. In a fit of misguided enthusiasm the air defence wing at the artillery school let me blast a few rounds downrange from the firing point in Shilo.


----------



## dimsum

I'm not sure who else uses them, but wouldn't getting ammunition become more and more of an issue?

I too am partial to the 40mm, but when the museum pieces start looking newer than the ones mounted on the ships....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

On my QL3 course one of the questions for naval ammo was "what is the 40mm used for"

I forgot so answered "to keep the Pirates honest".   ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That answer is actually correct...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They are older than that, came from the Bonaventure as i recall. I would consider it a wise investment, it will take some time to bring the new ships online and replace all of these vessels, it would give us more capability now and as mentioned, it would reduce the training load when the new ships come on line.


----------



## hugh19

The Bonnie never carried 40mm Bofors. She had saluting guns and twin 3 inch 50's.  The 40mm would have come from older destroyers and frigates.


----------



## jollyjacktar

sledge said:
			
		

> The Bonnie never carried 40mm Bofors. She had saluting guns and twin 3 inch 50's.  The 40mm would have come from older destroyers and frigates.


\

According to many references including these, Bonnie did carry 8 x 40mm guns.



> [/BONAVENTURE Statistical Data
> •Pendant: 22
> •Type: Light Fleet Carrier
> •Class: Majestic
> •Displacement: 16,000 tonnes
> •Length: 704 ft
> •Width: 80 ft
> •Draught: 25 ft
> •Speed: 24 kts
> •Compliment: 1300 Officers and Crew
> •Arms: 8 - 3" (4xII), 8 - 40mm
> •Builder: Harland and Wolff Ltd., Belfast, Ireland
> •Keel Laid: 27-Nov-43
> •Date Launched: 27-Feb-45
> •Date Commissioned: 17-Jan-57
> •Paid off: 07-Jan-70
> 
> http://readyayeready.com/ships/shipview.php?id=1041
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bonaventure_(CVL_22)
> 
> or, if you like... some photos
> 
> Bofors 40mm Anti-Aircraft Gun
> Canadian warships sent to the Persian Gulf received anti-aircraft guns on mountings like these to improve their defences.
> 
> A gunner (centre left) aims and fires the weapon, while a loader (centre right) loads clips of ammunition from racks (right) into the gun (left). Seen here on a power-driven "Boffin" mounting, the 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun first saw extensive use during the Second World War, and remained widely used afterwards. HMCS Protecteur, the supply ship deployed to the Gulf in August 1990, received two such weapons, originally from the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure which had been decommissioned some 20 years earlier.
> 
> VR997.190.003
> CFB Esquimalt Naval & Military Museum
> 
> http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/navy/objects_photos_search_bd-e.aspx
> quote]


----------



## hugh19

Ohhh Wikipedia  great source.  :  I have the actual Bonnie book at home 4 x twin 3"50 until mid 60's when two where removed.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oh, sorry that the Canadian War Museum or the CFB Esquimault Naval Museum are not good enough as a source for you.   :


----------



## hugh19

How about taking a look at flight deck pictures. No 40mm except the saulting guns aft.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Of course, of course.  Those museums are totally wrong and don't know what they are talking about.  Silly me...


----------



## hugh19

Or you could actually go check.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, It appears that sledge is right.

It was Magnificent that carried 17 single boors and four double boors 40mm guns for AA protection.

Bonnie apparently only had the four twin 3"50 that were radar directed for its AA. 

Got that from the Bonaventure's book of pictures on Flikr at the following ref. Look mid way down pathe page at the deck comparison between the two ladies.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodgedeora/sets/72157624028100452/page2/


----------



## cupper

The confusion seems to be coming from various sources as to what was installed originally when construction was completed. Some sources claim that the twin 40's were never installed. Others say that they were installed during construction, and removed shortly after delivery.

Originally part of the Majestic Class of light carriers, Bonnie would have had the same armaments as Magnificent. However her construction was put on hold (She was originally was (or to be) named HMS Powerful. When it was decided that Magnificent would be retired and replaced by the Bonnie, construction resumed with a modernized design put in place.

As an additional side note, I remember being on the Bonnie when I was a wee lad just before her retirement. If memory serves correct, my father was briefly posted to her after the Kootenay explosion.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, It appears that sledge is right.
> 
> It was Magnificent that carried 17 single boors and four double boors 40mm guns for AA protection.
> 
> Bonnie apparently only had the four twin 3"50 that were radar directed for its AA.
> 
> Got that from the Bonaventure's book of pictures on Flikr at the following ref. Look mid way down pathe page at the deck comparison between the two ladies.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodgedeora/sets/72157624028100452/page2/



Looking at your flickr above, are these not Bofors?  https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodgedeora/4593744582/in/set-72157624028100452


----------



## hugh19

No those are 3" 50's.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Then, I will apologise.  Eat three helpings of crow and STFU.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't be too hard on yourself JJ. You may note from my first post on the subject that I too mentioned Bonnie as a source of bofors 40 mm. I can tell you that the lore around the Navy has always been that we were fighting with Bonnie's old guns, not maggies'. So there is a definite long standing urban legend around those guns in any event.


----------



## hugh19

I really don't believe they are from Maggie either. As she was a rental. I am guessing she had to be returned as is.


----------



## cupper

Seems that the Canadian War Museum has heard the story as well.

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/navy/objects_photos_search-e.aspx?section=4-A&id=365&page=15

The Twin 40 was used in quite a few ships post war as well, so they could be the original source.

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/navy/objects_photos_search-e.aspx?section=4-D&id=41&page=1


----------



## Old Sweat

To downshift into UFI mode, it seems to me that the Boffin mounts that I saw, mostly in AD Wing at the  Artillery School in Gagetown, were manufactured circa 1943 somewhere in Saskatchewan. Can anybody confirm or deny? 

Jollyjacktar, don't eat all the crow just yet. I may need a couple of plates.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> To downshift into UFI mode, it seems to me that the Boffin mounts that I saw, mostly in AD Wing at the  Artillery School in Gagetown, were manufactured circa 1943 somewhere in Saskatchewan. Can anybody confirm or deny?









Difficult to read if Saskatchewan but likely Canada, however the plate is for the mount (not gun) which were originally made for twin 20mm.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/systems/guns/ (not quite midway down the page)


> 40mm/56.25 "Boffin" or "Bofin"
> 
> Fitted to
> UGANDA / QUEBEC, ONTARIO;  MAGNIFICENT, Tribal (Batch 1 and Batch 2), V, C, some ST. LAURENT class destroyers (ST. LAURENT, SAGUENAY, SKEENA, ASSINIBOINE, and OTTAWA only), PRESTONIAN class frigates, Bay class minesweepers, Porte class gate vessels, KINGSTON class MCDVs, airbases in Europe.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have mentioned elsewhere that my dad related to me their Bofors were taken away in 44 as they were considered obsolete and were replaced with 20mm Orlekions which they used for the remainder of the war.  He did say, however, that if you turn the Bofors against ground troops you have the biggest machine gun around.  Very effective.  They also used them for demolishing houses too.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Hazegray is pretty authoritative. They check their facts properly and give their sources.

In any event, I am sure we can all agree that the 40 mm Bofors are the guns the RCN just won't give up. They will be recycled and recycled and recycled because they seem to be the gun that takes a licking and keep on going.

I think they are the Naval equivalent of the famed 2,500 fruit cakes that were ever cooked, that keep being recirculated as gifts in a never ending chain.


----------



## jollyjacktar

For what we use them for, I think they're a damn fine solution.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I have no doubt Somali pirates would agree with you.

(See how I artfully closed the loop with a reference to pirates here  )


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My regiment found a new in the box single Bofors without lower mount at Pat bay now at the museum, will have to look at the data plate one of these days. I certainly learned something new so being proven wrong in a informative way is always interesting.


----------



## Cloud Cover

When designed as HMS Powerful, the carrier had 40mm gun mounts in the design. When the hull was purchased by the RCN, the 40mm was deleted and twin open turret 3"50 cal was added to standardize ammunition to that of the St Laurent class of ships. When the enclosed turret was adopted for the DDE's, the turret would have obstructed flight deck views for aircraft and the mounts were not changed on the carrier. I believe  they were eventually removed at last refit before decommissioning. I know there were still NSN parts for those mounts in Kalamazoo in the late 80's, even though the twin 3 inch50 had been modified on the DDE/IRE during the 1970's refits.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not quite. The 3"50 were not modified on the DDE/IRE's.

The DDE's (Mackenzie class) were the first built directly with the twin American 3"70 forward and the British twin 3"50  aft. All of them in turrets. Though for reasons unknown, Qu'appelle had twin 3"50 in turrets both forward and aft. Go figure?

The IRE's were originally built as DDE's with twin 3"50's in turrets forward and aft, but in the refits to turn them into IRE's (1968 to 1972), the after twin 3"50 turrets were removed and the forward ones were replaced by the twin 3"70 guns.

Some of those 3"50 that were removed ended up as "bow chasers" on the Protecteur class vessels.


----------



## hugh19

The 3"70 is British and teh 3"50 is American. ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Your right. My bad - Had brain cramp.

That's why the 70's were more complex, but shot better  .


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Qu'appelle had a 3"/50 forward because there weren't enough 3"/70's after the school got their mount. 

From what I saw on Awesome Warship Saskatchewan the 3"/70 shot great for about 3 rounds and then a shear pin was.....sheared. Then there was an hours stoppage while the NWTs hunted down and replaced the pin and got off another few rounds. Yukon seemed to do very well with steel "war-issue" shear pins though....I think she was able to shoot her mags empty on her decommissioning cruise.


----------



## misratah500

I have some good info on the 40mm with regards to life left on them, but I think it's OPSEC. Not sure, with these old dinosaurs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

speaking of the 3" 50, a good video on them 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs&t=552


----------



## jollyjacktar

Interesting rocket ships of the same era in combat off the Vietnamese coast.  From the same video thread.

http://youtu.be/9U0Mex36J_4


----------



## my72jeep

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't be too hard on yourself JJ. You may note from my first post on the subject that I too mentioned Bonnie as a source of bofors 40 mm. I can tell you that the lore around the Navy has always been that we were fighting with Bonnie's old guns, not maggies'. So there is a definite long standing urban legend around those guns in any event.


Don't feel bad we were told the airfield defense guns in Lahr and Baden were off the Bonni also.


----------



## Stoker

So the 40MM has been officially divested from the Kingston Class as its become not supportable anymore. There is a plan to have the Canadian-made Nanuk RWS installed on the platform as a replacement. The install will be pretty much the same as the Oto Melara Remote Controlled Heavy Machine Gun (RCHMG) trials done on HMCS Summerside in 2006.


----------



## kratz

Thank you for the update.  :christmas happy:


----------



## dimsum

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So the 40MM has been officially divested from the Kingston Class as its become not supportable anymore. There is a plan to have the Canadian-made Nanuk RWS installed on the platform as a replacement. The install will be pretty much the same as the Oto Melara Remote Controlled Heavy Machine Gun (RCHMG) trials done on HMCS Summerside in 2006.



Where will the 40mm go?  Museums, etc?  

Also, in the RCHMG setup, where is it controlled from?


----------



## Old Sweat

As one who fired a very few rounds from the Boffin when I was the Chief Instructor in Gunnery at the School of Artillery, I recall reading the available manuals circa 1974. The guns were ex-RCN. but other than that? The Bonaventure had some fitted, but I can't confirm the link. I think some other ships - minesweepers or frigates? - also had them, but that might be an illusion from four decades past.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Where will the 40mm go?  Museums, etc?
> 
> Also, in the RCHMG setup, where is it controlled from?



Saw several shrink wrapped and on a flatbed going somewhere, probably to be stored again I would suppose. If it stays true to what the original RCHMG trial on Summerside in 2006, the control station will be left of the helmsman console with its own chair.


----------



## Underway

There goes my WDO qualification... lol... not that I need it anyway with me having left the darkside and going CSE.  Guess they will be re-writing the course, only be a weekend now if you don't need the range days or the 40mm qual.  50 cal WDO for reg force is literally - "here's the book, read it", but the PRes guys need all the pyro and ammo management quals to be DECKO which was also part of the course.  Wouldn't be surprised if it morphed into a 25mm course at the same location for the AOPs.  Probably the exact same control commands, though the reports would be different.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So the 40MM has been officially divested from the Kingston Class as its become not supportable anymore. There is a plan to have the Canadian-made Nanuk RWS installed on the platform as a replacement. The install will be pretty much the same as the Oto Melara Remote Controlled Heavy Machine Gun (RCHMG) trials done on HMCS Summerside in 2006.



Nanuk RWS was a half decent piece of kit, at least it was in the hot and dry of Afghanistan when I was there.   Now I guess we see how it does in the wet, cold and salty.  Should be alright if its on the bridge, and the mount stays nice and oiled up.  There were a few problems in the beginning with "run on guns" IIRC but they were fixed rapidly, for about $700+ per incident .   There were only a few that were operating 50 cals in theatre when I was there (2 RG-31's) and most used the C-6.  But from what I was told by the operators there really wasn't much of a performance difference at the end of the day.  Only issue was when there was a stoppage you would sometimes have to pop out the top hatch to fix it, then drop back down to continue firing.  Might be a bit awkward sprinting up to the foc'sle to deal with that unless corrected that challenge somehow.

I was hoping for the 25mm that's going on the AOPs to go on the MCDV as well but I suppose that was a bit of a fantasy.  It's odd to me that a warship has less fire-power than a LAV 3 but the role it plays. Three 50 cals are good enough to scare fishermen, shoot floating mines, and provide self defence security I suppose.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The way things are going, I can see where this is headed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w


----------



## cupper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The way things are going, I can see where this is headed.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w



But wouldn't the 16 ton weight create a stability problem if you mount it on the upper deck?


----------



## jollyjacktar

That's never stopped them before.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yep, I have some weather ships, Class 500 Cutters and torpedo recovery vessels to sell you, complete with some minor stability issues


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yep, I have some weather ships, Class 500 Cutters and torpedo recovery vessels to sell you, complete with some minor stability issues



Outriggers.   >


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To fix the "build by committee syndrome"  the weatherships had fuel tanks filled with concrete, the 500 class had flume-tank, active rudders, bilge keels fitted and finally a top weight reduction program Not sure what happened with the torpedo recovery vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> To fix the "build by committee syndrome"  the weatherships had fuel tanks filled with concrete, the 500 class had flume-tank, active rudders, bilge keels fitted and finally a top weight reduction program Not sure what happened with the torpedo recovery vessels.



So everything but outriggers then?

And in the 500 case "top weight reduction" was the final COA, not the initial one?  I guess that would have impacted somebody's cabin boy.


----------



## NavyShooter

Interestingly, when they refurbished those 40mm's back in the 90s, I passed through FMFCS weapons shop and paused to look at the data plates on several of the receivers that were going in for re-finishing from Green to Gray....

I recall the dates of manufacture being as early as 1942, and as late as 1944, but none of the (5 or 6) that I looked at that day were past 1944.

Those guns are all *OLD* and while that doesn't mean the Bofors isn't a GOOD gun, it does make them as old as the Lee Enfields that the Rangers are finally getting replaced.

Ironically, they design of the .50 HMG's that may end up in the RWS date back to 1918 or so (if they're using the .50 M2 style Brownings.)

NS


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Interestingly, when they refurbished those 40mm's back in the 90s, I passed through FMFCS weapons shop and paused to look at the data plates on several of the receivers that were going in for re-finishing from Green to Gray....
> 
> I recall the dates of manufacture being as early as 1942, and as late as 1944, but none of the (5 or 6) that I looked at that day were past 1944.
> 
> Those guns are all *OLD* and while that doesn't mean the Bofors isn't a GOOD gun, it does make them as old as the Lee Enfields that the Rangers are finally getting replaced.
> 
> Ironically, they design of the .50 HMG's that may end up in the RWS date back to 1918 or so (if they're using the .50 M2 style Brownings.)
> 
> NS



All the 50 cals are new build relatively.  I was lucky enough to be escort for a veteran from Kapyong for a day sail on HMCS Toronto.  We got him an excellent view of the 50 cal shoot from inside the bridge as he told me he was a 50 cal gunner.  After the shoot the bosn's did an amazing job showing him the tear down and clean.  He was extremely impressed with the way a barrel change could be done with basically a leaver/latch system.  He looked at me and said "In my day we had to unscrew the barrel and screw in a new cool one.  You can imagine how difficult that would be and I burned myself more than a few times.  This woulda been really handy and so quick with the damn (insert racially derogatory name for Asian's here) bearing down on us!"  

I suppose the Browning 9mm will now hold the record for the longest serving weapon system in the CAF (not including ceremonial weapons).


----------



## NavyShooter

We've had Lee Enfields in service since the Ross's removal in 1916, so that'd be 99 years.

The NEWEST of our Browning HP's was manufactured in 1945 (70 years) that said, I don't think there are any WWI era No.1 Mark 3 Enfields still in service.  The oldest Enfields I've seen have been 1941's, (rare) with a few 1942's.  

The Oldest Canadian Browning HP was made in 1944:

"By December of 1943 the Inglis company had produced a few test pistols and on January 14, 1944 the first preproduction Inglis pistols were going through test trials. On January 31, 1944 the first production of the Chinese Hi-Power pistols which became known as the No.1 was completed."  http://www.ai4fr.com/main/page_militaria__collectibles_canada_inglis.html

I will note that the current generation of M2 Browning .50 Cals are all the "QCB" as described above, none of the older style that require the barrel to be screwed in or out to adjust headspace (and timing) are still in service.

Watching a Weapons Tech muck around with locking blocks to find one that will correctly lock is interesting though.

NS


----------



## jmt18325

So, did this ever go anywhere, or is it dead?


----------



## jmt18325

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1040249

I found this, but it says nothing about the Kingston class.  There aren't enough in the announcement for the Kingston class (4 per ship for the Halifax and the Queenston).  Is it a separate project yet to come, or is it stuff we have on hand?


----------



## gwp

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't be too hard on yourself JJ. You may note from my first post on the subject that I too mentioned Bonnie as a source of bofors 40 mm. I can tell you that the lore around the Navy has always been that we were fighting with Bonnie's old guns, not maggies'. So there is a definite long standing urban legend around those guns in any event.


Ken McPherson's - "Ships of Canada's Naval Forces" says:
Bonaventure  16,000 tons, Dimensions  704' x 80' x 25' , Speed 24, Armanent 8-3" (4xII) 8-40 mm.


----------



## Stoker

First look at the new to the RCN Nanuk RWS mounted on the Kingston Class.


----------



## medicineman

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> First look at the new to the RCN Nanuk RWS mounted on the Kingston Class.



Dude in back/right looks like he and the Army CWO are buddies with all the arm decoration thingies going on...

This gun does look somewhat cooler than a Boffin though.

MM


----------



## dimsum

How different is it to the one they trialled on SUMMERSIDE years ago?  Without researching it, it looks like a Bushmaster with RWS?


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> How different is it to the one they trialled on SUMMERSIDE years ago?  Without researching it, it looks like a Bushmaster with RWS?



Are you talking about on SUMMERSIDE which was a .50 cal? It looks similar and i'll let you know next week as i'm sailing for trials on the weapon, I was also in SUMMERSIDE in 2005 when we trialed the OTO MELARA system, both were .50's.


----------



## TwoTonShackle

Do you know where they put the control panels for these (bridge/ops)? Also are they planning to be controlled by Deck or OPS departments?


----------



## Cloud Cover

That is a mean looking gun system. ...  are they retaining the crew served .50's on the wings or can the RCN just go with this weapon on the MCDV.


----------



## Stoker

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> Do you know where they put the control panels for these (bridge/ops)? Also are they planning to be controlled by Deck or OPS departments?



The control station is on the bridge to the left of the helmsman console. Deck will be operators, however I believe others will be trained as well.


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> That is a mean looking gun system. ...  are they retaining the crew served .50's on the wings or can the RCN just go with this weapon on the MCDV.



Port and Stbd gun positions will be retained.


----------



## McG

Is it the same Nanuk RWS that the Army mounted on a few LAV when the MMEV project died?


----------



## Stoker

MCG said:
			
		

> Is it the same Nanuk RWS that the Army mounted on a few LAV when the MMEV project died?



More or less, I believe the grenade launcher capability was removed and the rest of the mount changed for Naval use and electronics upgraded.


----------



## FSTO

medicineman said:
			
		

> Dude in back/right looks like he and the Army CWO are buddies with all the arm decoration thingies going on...
> 
> This gun does look somewhat cooler than a Boffin though.
> 
> MM



Capt (now Comdre) Craig Skjerpen, former Commanding Officer Sea Training.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

But he still look like a Christmas tree (sorry! Holiday tree  ;D).

You know as well as I do, FSTO, that sailors like things simple and don't like to repeat themselves uselessly. Why should their uniform reflect the opposite?

They need to be recognized individually: Fine. That means name tape, trade badge and rank slip ons.

Then they are proud of their "service" and their country: Again, fine. The rank slip ons say CANADA and a single RCN Ensign on one shoulder reflects both the Naval aspect of their service and their country with the Canadian flag in the corner. That is all that is needed, no other Canadian flags or repeats everywhere else.

Finally, they want to identify with their current unit, so a single small unit crest on the breast pocket will do.

Anything else is overkill.

BTW, Chief, no one mentioned it here but that attached E/O system is a damn useful extra sensor even when no requirement to use the gun exists. Do you know if they have planned to have a protective tarp for the gun that will let them use the sensor even when on?


----------



## medicineman

FSTO said:
			
		

> Capt (now Comdre) Craig Skjerpen, former Commanding Officer Sea Training.



Gotcha - forgot about the Sea Training apparel...

MM


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Capt (now Comdre) Craig Skjerpen, former Commanding Officer Sea Training.



He still wears the red hat as part of sea training group.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But he still look like a Christmas tree (sorry! Holiday tree  ;D).
> 
> You know as well as I do, FSTO, that sailors like things simple and don't like to repeat themselves uselessly. Why should their uniform reflect the opposite?
> 
> They need to be recognized individually: Fine. That means name tape, trade badge and rank slip ons.
> 
> Then they are proud of their "service" and their country: Again, fine. The rank slip ons say CANADA and a single RCN Ensign on one shoulder reflects both the Naval aspect of their service and their country with the Canadian flag in the corner. That is all that is needed, no other Canadian flags or repeats everywhere else.
> 
> Finally, they want to identify with their current unit, so a single small unit crest on the breast pocket will do.
> 
> Anything else is overkill.
> 
> BTW, Chief, no one mentioned it here but that attached E/O system is a damn useful extra sensor even when no requirement to use the gun exists. Do you know if they have planned to have a protective tarp for the gun that will let them use the sensor even when on?



You can blame the dress committee for the extra bling, I just wear what i'm told. The camera and IR sensors is what i'm excited about as it brings a good capability to the ship. Not sure about the tarp, I'll check on Mon when I go out for trials.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## jmt18325

How long before all of the ships have it?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Depends if the retrofit is done by a contractor with an incentive to proceed quickly or by the Dockyard personnel  .

Joking aside, once the system is proven through the testing, this is not big or complex matters it should be fairly quick.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I like what the RWS brings in the way of control and optics, I am disappointed at the gun being used. (I admire the .50cal, but way to small)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Is this what they're supposed to be putting on the CPF as well?


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Is this what they're supposed to be putting on the CPF as well?



Its a different version and a version will also go on the new CSC.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like what the RWS brings in the way of control and optics, I am disappointed at the gun being used. (I admire the .50cal, but way to small)



The reason why this is being used is we have 33 units sitting in storage, this mount unfortunately doesn't support a 20mm.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Depends if the retrofit is done by a contractor with an incentive to proceed quickly or by the Dockyard personnel  .
> 
> Joking aside, once the system is proven through the testing, this is not big or complex matters it should be fairly quick.



The unit will be trialed in an evaluation over the next 6 months to check its suitability.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The reason why this is being used is we have 33 units sitting in storage, this mount unfortunately doesn't support a 20mm.



Is it at least an M3M/GAU-21 variant? (i.e. 1200rd/min)

cheers
G2G


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Is it at least an M3M/GAU-21 variant? (i.e. 1200rd/min)
> 
> cheers
> G2G



I wish but no.


----------



## donaldk

According to wikipedia the NRCWS can take a few guns... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanuk_Remotely_Controlled_Weapon_Station

The cheap choice would be the M2 .50 cal option due to plenty of inventory for both the guns and ammo within CFSS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I also don't hold out a lot of faith in introducing a electronic device not designed for the marine environment, it's been done before and generally ends up corroding badly.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I also don't hold out a lot of faith in introducing a electronic device not designed for the marine environment, it's been done before and generally ends up corroding badly.



I'm pretty sure many of the mods were marine proofing.  It's not like the Summerside didn't do this before with a different system.  Lessons learned and all that.  With 6 months of trials though they'll know real quick if the marine mods are working or not.  Salt water doesn't do things slowly with regards to electronics and that part of the ship get plenty of spray.  Either way, it's a huge upgrade for the ship.  Even with something as simple a night navigation for the watchkeeper, just having night vision capability to look at a ship, buoy or if that thing is a trick of the light or floating debris is pretty useful.

My own experience with NV on an MCDV included my lookout peering directly ahead of the ship saying to himself, "huh... is that bird standing on a rock?" as my head was in the chart table plotting a fix.   I finished the rest of the mids with soiled trousers, but as a plus I didn't need any more coffee!


----------



## Kirkhill

Is the operator sitting side-on to the motion of the ship?  I would have thought it would have been better with fore and aft alignment.   Make it easier to read the motion?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is the operator sitting side-on to the motion of the ship?  I would have thought it would have been better with fore and aft alignment.   Make it easier to read the motion?



He is sitting looking fwd.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for that.  Just as well I'm not driving.  :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure many of the mods were marine proofing.  It's not like the Summerside didn't do this before with a different system.  Lessons learned and all that.  With 6 months of trials though they'll know real quick if the marine mods are working or not.  Salt water doesn't do things slowly with regards to electronics and that part of the ship get plenty of spray.  Either way, it's a huge upgrade for the ship.  Even with something as simple a night navigation for the watchkeeper, just having night vision capability to look at a ship, buoy or if that thing is a trick of the light or floating debris is pretty useful.
> 
> My own experience with NV on an MCDV included my lookout peering directly ahead of the ship saying to himself, "huh... is that bird standing on a rock?" as my head was in the chart table plotting a fix.   I finished the rest of the mids with soiled trousers, but as a plus I didn't need any more coffee!



We trialed NV and FLIR on the hovercraft, the NV googles failed as light discipline inside the hovercraft was not good enough and resulted in the NV picking up glare on the inside of the windows. FLIR was ok, but heavily affected by spray, mists and rains. This was mid 1990 tech.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is the operator sitting side-on to the motion of the ship?  I would have thought it would have been better with fore and aft alignment.   Make it easier to read the motion?



The weapons systems operators on a CPF face to port in their seated positions.


----------



## Privateer

Bumping this as I'm curious as to how (or if) this is progressing.  Thanks.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Privateer said:
			
		

> Bumping this as I'm curious as to how (or if) this is progressing.  Thanks.



HMCS GOOSE BAY was trialing a NANUK based .50 cal RWS with EO IR last year and by all accounts it was a decent piece of kit. But, a few months afterward, it was shipped off. Haven’t heard any reason why. Must have been a surprise decision as everyone I spoke with onboard was convinced it would be adopted across the MCDV fleet. There was even an article in “Maple Leaf Navy” with a timeline for when they’d be installed across the board. Now, God only knows if they’ll ever get anything beyond the pair of crew served .50’s.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sigh and then we send them on Global missions, no wonder we have a hard time being taken seriously and that's not a slag on the personal, just on the equipment we give them.


----------



## Swampbuggy

It’s a kind of mystery why they even bothered doing the trial in the first place. If it wasn’t meant for the MCDV’s then what? Not for the CPF’s or JSS because the order for the Raytheon RWS’s had already been placed. The AOPS already has its BAE RWS and I don’t think there’s any appetite to put them on ORCA’s. So, someone went through the trouble of contracting SNC-Lavalin to repurpose Army stock for Naval use, commenced a sea trial phase and then abandoned it. 
Weird, since the bulk of the cost for weapon was already spent on the initial procurement and then the development for a naval platform.

It makes me wonder if it has to do with the upcoming “gap” between AOPS and CSC construction. Maybe, someone thinks that they may build a few more DEWOLF’s. Maybe enough to retire the bulk of the MCDV’s, and so it wouldn’t be wise to spend too much on them at this point.

Or, maybe the Army plans on exercising its option on a whack load more TAPV’s and feel like they’ll need more NANUK’s for that. 

Or, I’m reading too much into it and it’s just another weird chapter in RCN procurement. 

Regardless, I agree with you Colin. There is a message sent by how you arm your ships and I’m not sure this sends the right one. My 2 cents...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly I think you are giving them to much credit in the planning department, more like fumbling in the dark and stubbing their toes on things, then reacting.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Frankly I think you are giving them to much credit in the planning department, more like fumbling in the dark and stubbing their toes on things, then reacting.



⬆️ This seems likelier...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Here's an article discussing this.

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2017/06/4964


----------



## Swampbuggy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Here's an article discussing this.
> 
> https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2017/06/4964



Yessir, that’s exactly the article I was referring to. It’s really baffling why this just evaporated. I had even chatted briefly with Adm John Newton about it and was left with the opinion that this project was a done deal. It looked like a rare procurement success story, one that was quiet, useful, relatively inexpensive, logical and without any kind of political intrigue. But, of course, here we are now...

Thanks for finding that link, Czech.


----------



## Underway

> Looking ahead, the Naval Nanuk’s eight-month Maritime Technical Evaluation on HMCS Goose Bay, which includes Operation CARRIBE and Operation NANOOK, will be used to optimise the RCWS’s performance, and will potentially pave the way for future RCWS installs on all Kingston class vessels.



It's right in the article (quoted above).  It was a trial.  Trials don't always end up in a contract.  It might have informed the frigate RWS procurement, or technical training/employment of RWS going forward. Remember MCDV's were the first to use UAV's, and trialed the Scaneagle and Puma first.  But the frigates in 2011 (and going forward currently) are the one's who did and are going to benefit most from that trial usage.  It's not uncommon for the smaller ships to sail with equipment bound for the larger ships eventually just to see how things go.

It might have not met the technical specifications fully.  It might not have increased the MCDV capabilities enough related to they systems cost.  Or maybe the most effective thing was the optics system and they decided that an optics system by itself is better.  Or perhaps a full contract is in the works, and we just don't know about it.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> It's right in the article (quoted above).  It was a trial.  Trials don't always end up in a contract.  It might have informed the frigate RWS procurement, or technical training/employment of RWS going forward. Remember MCDV's were the first to use UAV's, and trialed the Scaneagle and Puma first.  But the frigates in 2011 (and going forward currently) are the one's who did and are going to benefit most from that trial usage.  It's not uncommon for the smaller ships to sail with equipment bound for the larger ships eventually just to see how things go.
> 
> It might have not met the technical specifications fully.  It might not have increased the MCDV capabilities enough related to they systems cost.  Or maybe the most effective thing was the optics system and they decided that an optics system by itself is better.  Or perhaps a full contract is in the works, and we just don't know about it.



The timeline doesn’t work out re: the RWS for the CPF’s. The order for 58 units had already been placed with Raytheon prior to the MCDV trial with the NANUK. Maybe they were thinking about ASTERIX? 

As far as the usefulness goes, I’d be hard pressed to think that anyone wouldn’t find a weapon handy that could be fired from the protection of the bridge, targeted accurately in any weather or light condition and also included the ability for better surveillance/visual reference under those same varying conditions. Even at that, why not leave the EO-IR onboard for it’s obvious benefits?

And, it was reusing idle stock to accomplish it. 

I could be way off, but it just screams that the plan was to carry this forward across the MM fleet, but something caused a hard left. 

I do get that the MCDV has been and remains an excellent platform to trial equipment, but it seems like this one was bound to be for them. Otherwise, it’s throwing R&D money at a question that no one asked and as such didn’t need answering.


----------



## Cronicbny

The RCWS and NANUK were always different projects. RCWS has a place within FFH modernization and JSS. 

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1745

I think if you delve into the SSE defence policy you might find (rather not find) the reason why the funding for KIN Class NANUK evaporated.


----------



## Swampbuggy

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> The RCWS and NANUK were always different projects. RCWS has a place within FFH modernization and JSS.
> 
> http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1745
> 
> I think if you delve into the SSE defence policy you might find (rather not find) the reason why the funding for KIN Class NANUK evaporated.



If I read your post right, I’m guessing you don’t figure there’s a place for the MCDV in the fleet for too much longer. Or, are you saying that they’re putting out so much $ on other projects, that they cut this one? Or, maybe both? I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down, but it could be a couple different things, if I’m reading between the lines.


----------



## Cronicbny

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> If I read your post right, I’m guessing you don’t figure there’s a place for the MCDV in the fleet for too much longer. Or, are you saying that they’re putting out so much $ on other projects, that they cut this one? Or, maybe both? I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down, but it could be a couple different things, if I’m reading between the lines.



I didnt intend to speculate as to the long term future of the Class just this one project. I believe that MEPM and the RCN are probably doing some work to asccertain what a life extension looks like financially

The NANUK project does not meet any of the SSE objectives - ergo, it is likely not a financial priority any longer. It certainly wouldnt compete favourably with other projects vying for limited Vote 5 bucks (in my opnion)


----------



## Swampbuggy

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> I didnt intend to speculate as to the long term future of the Class just this one project. I believe that MEPM and the RCN are probably doing some work to asccertain what a life extension looks like financially
> 
> The NANUK project does not meet any of the SSE objectives - ergo, it is likely not a financial priority any longer. It certainly wouldnt compete favourably with other projects vying for limited Vote 5 bucks (in my opnion)



It would appear that they plan to spend SOME money on the MCDV fleet, at least. Interesting bit re: dynamic positioning/bow thrusters project. And, a satellite comms upgrade to boot. That’s all good news, too.


----------

