# New .50 Cal For Kingston Class?



## Stoker (30 Dec 2006)

East Coast trials new weapon system
SLt Ryan Bell 
HMCS Summerside
November 20, 2006

 Crew members from HMCS Summerside spent two weeks in October trialling a new remote controlled heavy machine gun. If the gun gets the eventual thumbs up, it would be part of the navy’s upgrades to the close defence capabilities of Canadian warships. A growing need to upgrade the close defence capabilities of Canadian warships has led to the trial of a remote controlled heavy machine gun. 

For 10 days in October, HMCS Summerside supported the weapons trial staff from Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre in gathering data for the Oto Melara Remote Controlled Heavy Machine Gun (RCHMG). 

After two weeks of physical installs, which saw the ship’s 40mm Bofors deck gun replaced with the new RCHMG turret, an operator console installed on the bridge, and countless hours of tweaking and rehearsing the drill for the new gun, the ship and gunnery crew were ready to take the gun to sea. 

From Oct. 16 to 26, Summerside operated south of Halifax conducting trials of the weapon system, firing thousands of rounds against towed targets. 

Summerside’s gun crew, conducting shoots from a variety of distances and angles of approach, sunk a fast in-shore attack craft target and put countless holes in the high speed plastic target. 

All members of the gun crew were impressed with the handling and accuracy of the new system. The target results showed the remote controlled heavy machine gun offered many improvements in operator use and target accuracy over the conventional, manual .50-cal system currently in use. 

For Summerside’s .50-cal operators, used to physically standing at the mount and operating the gun manually, switching to a remotely controlled weapon took some adjustment. But all agreed the remote system offered numerous operator safety benefits, such as removing the requirement to have personnel on the upper decks during engagements. 

Staff at CFMWC is now conducting ashore analysis of the data gathered during the trial to determine the effectiveness of the weapon. If deemed effective, the remote controlled heavy machine gun could be slated for installation throughout the fleet including the Halifax and Kingston class vessels. 

Hopefully the ships will get this new weapon system and finally get rid of the old 40MM.

Stoker


----------



## Journeyman (30 Dec 2006)

Stoker said:
			
		

> *Hopefully the ships will get this new weapon system and finally get rid of the old 40MM.*


Let me acknowledge that I'm outside my lane here......

You'd rather "finally get rid of" a heavier calibre weapon, leaving 3 x .50 HMGs? Why not convert the two HMGs on the wings of the bridge to remote-fire, and retain the 40mm? I can see scenarios where both weapons systems might be useful....as well as developing/maintaining the skill sets required for both.

As noted, I'm out of arcs here, and maybe it's just an infantry mindset, but I'd prefer to have all the firepower in the world available - - in terms of options and quantity - - if push comes to shove. 

It's not like you sailors have to carry the stuff


----------



## navymich (30 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Let me acknowledge that I'm outside my lane here......



You wouldn't be the only one JM.  Yes, I would be too, but I also believe that the original poster is as well.  A stoker, as his user name implies, is an engineer.  Onboard an MCDV, they are not part of the weapons safety organization, or do any of the firing of them.  So I am curious as to his comment too.  A bit more background on it, as well as a profile would be nice.

edited to add: Here is a link to the article, as the original poster didn't provide one: http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/archive/20061120/index.shtml


----------



## George Wallace (30 Dec 2006)

JM and AM, I have to agree with you.  I can see the 40mm being removed for the sole purpose of SAFETY, and providing a safe, controlled space in which to conduct the trials.  I cannot see it as being a replacement for the 40mm.  It would probably be mounted on the sides where existing .50 Cal HMG's are currently mounted, and the 40mm replaced back into it's forward mount.

It would be foolhardy to replace a large calibre gun with a smaller calibre HMG.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Dec 2006)

Geez c'mon guys 3 50s would be best for the MCDVs......don't you know anything???? :


----------



## George Wallace (30 Dec 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Geez c'mon guys 3 50s would be best for the MCDVs......don't you know anything???? :



Now wait a minute......Are we going to talk 3 50's or .50 Cals?


----------



## navymich (30 Dec 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Geez c'mon guys 3 50s would be best for the MCDVs......don't you know anything???? :



Doesn't matter much to me anymore anyway.  Not my part ship!  ;D  

Although there is a former buffer on the board.  I would be interested in his comments on this.  I'll track him down and point him in this direction.


----------



## Thorvald (30 Dec 2006)

I actually just caught the episode of Truth, Duty, Valour the other night on the HMCS Nanaimo (CDV), where they fired both the .50's and the 40mm.    Now you can only judge so much by a quick TV documentary, but while it is fresh in my mind... I'll jump into the fray.

Based upon the amount of safety preparation it took to simply fire the .50 I can see some members looking forward to a remotely operated station...  : ;D

However they didn't go into great detail on how much preparation it took to fire the 40mm but they certainly didn't seem to have any issues with it (besides the fact they were only allowed to fire very small/short salvos which seemed slightly odd but not being a Navy type, there must be a perfectly good reason).

Out of curiosity, what brought this about?   Are our 40mm mounts ancient or something?

Cheers
   Tim


----------



## navymich (30 Dec 2006)

Thorvald said:
			
		

> Are our 40mm mounts ancient or something?



Yes.  I am not a SME on these, by any means, but here are a couple of quotes to get you started.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mcdv-midlife2.htm


> ...but the main armament is a  40mm L/60 Bofors.  This gun is a museum piece dating back  to 1944.  Even as training weapons,  the Bofors is of  dubious value  –  they were just on hand and  lowered costs.



http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/kingston/


> The guns carried by these ships are Second World War surplus, and are very limited in capability. These guns have been in the Navy for many years, serving on such ships as the PRESTONIAN class ocean escorts, TRIBAL class and ST. LAURENT class destroyers, Bay class minesweepers, Porte class gate vessels, and in Europe on airbases for anti-aircraft defence.


----------



## fear-acfhuinn luinge (30 Dec 2006)

I've read the article about SUMMERSIDE's trials, and suspect, since there isn't a ton of evidence, that the new mounting will replace only the 40mm mount in the short term while leaving the existing gun deck mountings intact. That, of course may change in the coming years as the effectiveness of the new mount is established.

While I personally like the 40mm, I also acknowledge the limited usefullness of an unstabilized optically aimed weapon on a platform that moves as much as an MCDV - (can you say rolls on wet grass). The new .50 turret will allow for far better accuracy but the myth of better protection is still that - a myth. Whether you're standing on the gundeck or inside the bridge behind 3/8 steel plate, the guncrew is still well and truly exposed to shrapnel and blast injuries.

Anyway, at least some progress is being made, and the workhorses of the fleet are getting at least some of the attention the glory boys on the floating hotels get.  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> warning shots and disabling fire in MIO situations



You actualy think that the MCDV has a role in MIO ?


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Well they do SOVPAT and FISHPAT.  I read it in a book once.........



Unless they are chassing rowboats...who are they going to stop ?

just curious.As my knowledge of the Kingston class limits itself to knowing what they look like and being on Whitehorse once.  Seems to me they lack the speed for MIO and that a unless they are trying to stop a small fising boat, a .50 cal wouldnt be much use if they are trying to stop and board anything like a group 1 or 3 vessel.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2006)

http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_naval_small

Here's the link to Otomelara's glossies on the RCHMG.  CASR has some other options available (http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-navy-rchmg-project.htm)

I think Ex-Dragoon brought up the subject of increasing the calibre of the HMGs to 25mm.  Maybe the .50 was a proof of concept trial?  If it works with the .50 then perhaps a larger caliber can be trialled to replace the 40mm?


----------



## Stoker (30 Dec 2006)

airmich said:
			
		

> You wouldn't be the only one JM.  Yes, I would be too, but I also believe that the original poster is as well.  A stoker, as his user name implies, is an engineer.  Onboard an MCDV, they are not part of the weapons safety organization, or do any of the firing of them.  So I am curious as to his comment too.  A bit more background on it, as well as a profile would be nice.
> 
> edited to add: Here is a link to the article, as the original poster didn't provide one: http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/archive/20061120/index.shtml



No i'm not part of the weapons safety organization but I know from experience that the 40MM is maintenance intensive, for what the ships do the RCHMG can easily serve the same purpose. The weapon is easy to operate, maintain and the ship can store a lot more ammunition. The weapon system can increase the surveillance capability of the platform as well. The cost saved in preventive and corrective maintenance and training makes it attractive.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2006)

> The weapon system can increase the surveillance capability of the platform as well.



That's a really interesting point,  for all vessels.  The Dutch are installing one (1) Long Range E/O system (Sirius?) on their new vessels and I believe we are looking at something similar?  The Remote Weapons Systems all seem to come with excellent day and night optics that would enhance the ability of operators to conduct surveillance (vice standing on the bridge wings with binoculars).


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Kind of like a Cp-140 doing ASUW, you can always drop a sonobouy on there heads.



ASuW for the CP-140 involves OTHT and SURPIC so yes we do have a role in ASuW beyond dropping SSQs on people's heads  :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2006)

The US is using 25mm bushmasters on shipboard mounts for dealing with small craft. This combined with the new mount would be quite nice.

The fact that they even mounted guns on these vessel was a huge step up for Canada. The 40mm has had a long and successfully career aboard a large variety of different vessels, both in the AA and anti-vessel role. Plus there is a large selection of ammo for it on the market. Should it be replaced with a more capable mount? Yes and there are quite a few options out there.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The US is using 25mm bushmasters on shipboard mounts for dealing with small craft.



The RAN too has a naval version of the M242 25mm CG. I seen one up in Darwin earlier this year. Its fired from a RWS pod, so the beast is unmanned. Impressive!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## GO!!! (31 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The US is using 25mm bushmasters on shipboard mounts for dealing with small craft. This combined with the new mount would be quite nice.



Now if I ran the CF, I would take a weapon we already use in a few vehicles, and recognise an even greater cost savings in ammo, training and technicians by using it on a ship, especially given the precedent set by our similarly armed allies.

Or we could buy yet another piece of overpriced, overly complicated, un-battle tested european kit, just to thumb our nose at the US.  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Dec 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53132.0.html


----------



## Stoker (31 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Now if I ran the CF, I would take a weapon we already use in a few vehicles, and recognise an even greater cost savings in ammo, training and technicians by using it on a ship, especially given the precedent set by our similarly armed allies.
> 
> Or we could buy yet another piece of overpriced, overly complicated, un-battle tested european kit, just to thumb our nose at the US.  :



It would be nice to get a bushmaster, however that means we need a NWT onboard to maintain the gun, vice a heavy barrel .50 cal that can be easily taken out of its housing and worked on. Right now its difficult to get BOSN's to carry out PM's on the 40MM, let alone the bushmaster. That is due of course to factors such as weather. The RCHMG is used by a number of navies and in the Italian army under field conditions.


----------



## GO!!! (31 Dec 2006)

Stoker said:
			
		

> It would be nice to get a bushmaster, however that means we need a NWT onboard to maintain the gun, vice a heavy barrel .50 cal that can be easily taken out of its housing and worked on. Right now its difficult to get BOSN's to carry out PM's on the 40MM, let alone the bushmaster. That is due of course to factors such as weather.



Strange, because the Bushmaster mounted on LAVIIIs and Coyotes is mostly maintained by the crew of that vehicle. Mounted Infantry units in Afghanistan right now do'nt have a weapons tech anywhere close by most of the time.



> The RCHMG is used by a number of navies and in the Italian army under field conditions.


*We* have a RCHMG mounted on the Nyala *right now* - and it was originally designed for naval use. Without getting into capabilities, it rivals the bushmaster in many areas.

*We* also use the bushmaster *right now* on two different vehicles. I don't recall the last decisive engagement by the Italian armed forces, using any sort of weapons, since WWII. (Although I do remember reading about alot of fighting _in_ Italy  )

The bushmaster and RCM2 are tried, tested and we already own them, and the associated expertise to operate and maintain them.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2006)

Stoker said:
			
		

> *The RCHMG is used by ... the Italian army under field conditions.*


 :rofl:


----------



## Stoker (31 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl:



Pretty funny ;D, although Oto Melara does sell its guns to over 50 navies including Canada.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2006)

Stoker said:
			
		

> It would be nice to get a bushmaster, however that means we need a NWT onboard to maintain the gun, vice a heavy barrel .50 cal that can be easily taken out of its housing and worked on. Right now its difficult to get BOSN's to carry out PM's on the 40MM, let alone the bushmaster. That is due of course to factors such as weather. The RCHMG is used by a number of navies and in the Italian army under field conditions.



Stoker

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend how you would find a "Remote Controlled" HMG easier to maintain than the 40mm.  To me there would be many more complications with anything involving the electronics and mechanisms that operate such a device, than what you'd find in a 40mm gun.  If you feel the HMG is easy to maintain, a Bushmaster would be just as simple, perhaps simpler.  

Your post refers to a "Heavy Barrel .50 Cal."  There is a heck of a lot to maintain on a HMG, than the barrel.  Some of your logic escapes me.


----------



## Stoker (31 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Stoker
> 
> I'm finding it difficult to comprehend how you would find a "Remote Controlled" HMG easier to maintain than the 40mm.  To me there would be many more complications with anything involving the electronics and mechanisms that operate such a device, than what you'd find in a 40mm gun.  If you feel the HMG is easy to maintain, a Bushmaster would be just as simple, perhaps simpler.
> 
> Your post refers to a "Heavy Barrel .50 Cal."  There is a heck of a lot to maintain on a HMG, than the barrel.  Some of your logic escapes me.



I don't know why the Bushmaster wasn't considered, it would be nice to have that extra punch. The RGHMG are suppose to replace the .50 cals already on the CPF's . There may be a consideration to put these on the Kingston Class but that is still to be determined. Summerside was only a test platform. There is not that much to maintain on these guns, you have a ups/transformer unit(very small) very little maintenance there, the operators console again a very compact unit, very few PM's, the mount and optical aiming device is a sealed unit that requires little maintenance. The gunmount itself is sealed and requires little maintenance. All the electronics you talk about can easily be taken care of by the NET onboard. The mechanisms on the gun its self are pretty simple, no hydraulics just electric.  The gun does not require pre fire cleanings and daily maintenance like the 40MM, maintaining the 40MM is a unbelievable dirty job, especially outside in the middle of winter on a moving platform like a MCDV. The Bosn's with the exception of cleaning the .50 cal inside after firing do not to have to do a lot of maintenance. If something breaks on the 50 cal they can swap it out with a new one.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Dec 2006)

I was always led to believe its always good to always do prefiring cleaning on any weapon. Was taught that from BASIC all the way thru my career. This is the first weapon I have ever heard that prefiring cleaning was not required.


----------



## Stoker (31 Dec 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I was always led to believe its always good to always do prefiring cleaning on any weapon. Was taught that from BASIC all the way thru my career. This is the first weapon I have ever heard that prefiring cleaning was not required.



Sorry about I was mistaken on that point, the Oto Melera reps were surprised that we did prefire cleanings to the extent that we did them, since the gun was in a sealed housing. Apparently they do them once or twice per week.


----------



## fear-acfhuinn luinge (31 Dec 2006)

Stoker said:
			
		

> The Bosn's with the exception of cleaning the .50 cal inside after firing do not to have to do a lot of maintenance. If something breaks on the 50 cal they can swap it out with a new one.



I'm hoping you are referring only to the firing routines here. Since the implementation of the new force protection measures requiring the weapons to be shipped with ammo at the ready, maintenance has increased significantly. Daily routines along with watch maintenace are now required just to keep the weapons from rusting in place, and we have yet to find that magic cover that allows the weapons to breath while protecting them from the worst of the elements.

As far as swapping out parts, it ain't that easy. Carrying spares is generally frowned upon   ??? , and not all pieces fit all weapons equally.


----------



## Stoker (31 Dec 2006)

fear-acfhuinn luinge said:
			
		

> I'm hoping you are referring only to the firing routines here. Since the implementation of the new force protection measures requiring the weapons to be shipped with ammo at the ready, maintenance has increased significantly. Daily routines along with watch maintenace are now required just to keep the weapons from rusting in place, and we have yet to find that magic cover that allows the weapons to breath while protecting them from the worst of the elements.
> 
> As far as swapping out parts, it ain't that easy. Carrying spares is generally frowned upon   ??? , and not all pieces fit all weapons equally.



Of course i'm talking about the RCHMG, the regular .50 cals still require all the daily routines and daily onwatch maintenance. As for the swapping out, i'm talking about the whole .50 cal unit not parts. If they did get rid of the regular .50 cals and only went with the RCHMG, a spare unit could be easily be kept and used as a replacement.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Dec 2006)

Just from the spec's, it's looks like the biggest advantage in mounting the .50 cal turret vs the 25mm Bushmaster (at least from Oto Melara specifications) is the weight savings at 220kg vs 1200kg....

Add in the probable cost savings both in procurement and training in context of how often the vessel will actually fire those systems and perhaps (and I'm not pretending to be an authority) the .50 cal is sufficient....especially when as others have mentioned perhaps the addition of the optics are the real key capability improvement.


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Now if I ran the CF, I would take a weapon we already use in a few vehicles, and recognise an even greater cost savings in ammo, training and technicians by using it on a ship, especially given the precedent set by our similarly armed allies.



Seems reasonable



> Or we could buy yet another piece of overpriced, overly complicated, un-battle tested european kit, just to thumb our nose at the US.  :



Before trashing all Eurokit I would note that the following kit currently in Canadian (and US service) actually saw the light of day first in Europe:

Browning HP - FN
C6 - FN MAG
C9 - FN Minimi
81mm mortar - Royal Ordnance
Kingston 40mm - Bofors
CPF 57mm - Bofors
DDH 76mm - Otomelara
M777 - Royal Ordnance
Remote Weapons Stations - Kongsberg

Grizzly/Bison/Coyote/LAVIII/Stryker - Mowag
G-Wagen - Mercedes
HLVW - Steyr
Leopard - Krauss-Maffei
Bv206 - Hagglunds

Mechanical Engineering is not a US strong-suit at this time, in any field of endeavour, with the exception of the aircraft industry. In addition to weapons and ships you can look at automotive design.  Europe and the Japanese produce much more competent mechanical engineers in traditional fields.  The US excels in aerospace and electronics - resulting in surveillance, comms, computing, command and control advantages as well as in missile systems.   The Japanese, of course, are pretty up to speed on the electronics side of things as well.

As fear-acfhuinn luinge notes indirectly the environment at sea is not the same as on land. 


> Daily routines along with watch maintenace are now required just to keep the weapons from rusting in place, and we have yet to find that magic cover that allows the weapons to breath while protecting them from the worst of the elements.
> 
> As far as swapping out parts, it ain't that easy. Carrying spares is generally frowned upon, and not all pieces fit all weapons equally.



Unless the weapon is protected from salt and condensation it will turn into a block of rust.  Sealing the weapon and controlling the environment by circulating heated/dried air are probably the minimum requirements.  Also an externally driven weapon (like the bushmaster) with its fewer moving parts and less need for fine balancing is probably a better solution in any event. (Bushmaster calibres - 7.62, 12.7, 25, 30, 35, 40)

The weapon and the weapons mount are two different things.


----------



## GO!!! (31 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill,

While I am willing to concede that the Europeans have developed some fine equipment, and continue to do so, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes in reference to acquisitions. 

Lest we forget the ERYX?

The prevailing attitude seems to be "buy Euro first, if nothing exists, then buy American". The Cormorant is a perfect example of this, whereas superior, and well tested and refined helos exist from numerous sources in the states, we bought European. Airbus is still trying to sell us the as yet unbuilt A400M, despite the fact that Boeing makes aircraft we need, right now. 

I believe the LUVW will cost us millions in the near future, once the overly complex electrical and sensor systems in that vehicle deteriorate with age. The G is needlessly complex, and extraordinarily difficult to work on, and turnaround times on warranty work are very long.

As for the AVGP family, a bit of sanity there, we bought the US versions, probably because Mowag was uninterested in building a plant in Windsor.

The BV was kind of sole supplier deal, the Bombardier products were crude and inefficient, and there were no alternatives manufactured in the states.

Cheaper alternatives to the HLVW were and are available from a variety of sources - all with equivalent performances.

IMHO, performance, price and ease of maintenance always take a backseat to political considerations, and this RCHMG appears to be no different.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2006)

GO!!!

I will comfortably concede the Eryx (a missile) and the Cormorant (an aircraft) to you. Although I think the pilots round about here have a mixed bag of opinions on the Cormorant.

And I will also concede the LSVW (I wouldn't buy a Fiat either   - a Ferrari maybe)

I can quibble with some of your other comments but at bottom I can't agree more with these:



> I think we shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes in reference to acquisitions





> IMHO, performance, price and ease of maintenance always take a backseat to political considerations,


 although "always" may be a bit much.

I don't think I am willing to agree that the RCHMG is no different yet.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## fear-acfhuinn luinge (31 Dec 2006)

As for the swapping out, I'm talking about the whole .50 cal unit not parts. If they did get rid of the regular .50 cals and only went with the RCHMG, a spare unit could be easily be kept and used as a replacement.
[/quote]

Well that'd be a treat, but I'll believe it when I see it. If they can't be bothered to give us a spare .50 now, or spare 40mm parts, then I'm not sure about a bunch of spares for the new system (at least not kept by the ship at sea)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jan 2007)

To be fair to the Navy guys. the Salt water environment attacks everything on a chemical, electrical, biological level, the salt laden moisture is incredible nasty on everything.


----------



## Cayuga (9 Jan 2007)

http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_naval_small_12_ge
That is the link for the Oto Melera page.

I was in the Summerside for the trials. It was an impressive looking piece of kit, especially when observing the tracking and the stabilization in operation. It was referred to colloquially as the 'Mosquito". We went through a decent storm coming back from Newfoundland, so it also enabled that aspect of the system to be tested. The best part of the trials were the live fire trials. It is a beautiful thing seeing AP tracer rounds fired at sea, especially on a grey Atlantic day. They shoot up like fireworks when the ricochet off the wave tops. It was a nice bonus experience to get on a MARS IV trip.


----------



## Navy_Blue (9 Jan 2007)

Sorry to highjack this but on the topic of .50cals and rust.  Just had a brain wave.  As an ET we commonly get parts (motor's controllers ect) which come with large baggies full of moisture absorbing material.  Kind of like the little bags that come in IMP's and shoe boxes that say "do not eat" just bigger.  It was mentioned that we have yet to find a cover that would prevent the gun from rusting.  If someone was a little inventive and could acquire some of this material place it in the covers and tie the bottoms tight it might reduce the rust on the guns considerably.  It might need to be changed out weekly but the guns would be better off.  A friend of mine puts them in his tool box at home (salt air in Nova Scotia) his tools all look great.  A possible source would be Desiccant the stuff we use in our high pressure air dryers on the CPF's.  dump some in a burlap sand bag and stick it on top of the gun before the cover goes on.  Again just a thought.  

Pass the idea on to any of the bos'n and NWT's that have to deal with rust and crap on a regular basis  

Let me know if it works out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jan 2007)

Actually just a small vent blowing warm air from the ship into the tarp would make all the differance, of course it would need a shut off valve.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jan 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually just a small vent blowing warm air from the ship into the tarp would make all the differance, of course it would need a shut off valve.



it would also increase how a ship appears in the IR spectrum....


----------



## navymich (9 Jan 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually just a small vent blowing warm air from the ship into the tarp would make all the differance, of course it would need a shut off valve.



Wouldn't something like that just dry any water, and therefore sea salt, onto the equipment?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jan 2007)

One of the ongoing problems in a marine environment is condensation caused by temperature changes, this has a habit of concetrationing the salt content and increasing the corrosion. Either having dryer warm air from the ship interior or having a heating element in the equipment (sometimes accomplished by keeping it powered up). There is the old saying, use it or lose it, vessels and equipment at sea are like woman, they hate being ignored.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jan 2007)

Or we could keep cleaning the weapons and make it more frequent.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2007)

If you just blow hot air over exposed metal on the deck then you will get the result airmich talks about (salt concentration on the metal).

If you just seal the device in a baggie then you get the problem that Colin talks about (condensation).

You have to do both.  You have to both seal the device AND keep the contained air dry.  

The air can be kept dry by:
- using dessicants and regularly replacing them (probably every few hours at sea), 
- installing a heater (although without insulation that will give you IR hot-spots), 
- circulating cabin air (which is warm and humid and would likely cause more condensation inside the sealed container even with good insulation, as well as increasing the IR signature) 
- or else you dry the circulated air first by super cooling it over a condenser and then blowing it into the weapon containment system.

The final option would be my preferred solution.

Cleaning and testing will always be necessary but it has been my experience that often equipment is most adversely affected NOT by regular use but by regular maintenance.  More damage occurs with people taking things apart and putting them back together again than ever happens when they are employed doing what they are designed to do.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2007)

See....now this is probably a good time to look at the Chaingun...... lots of grease to keep out the moisture.   ;D


----------



## navymich (9 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If you just blow hot air over exposed metal on the deck then you will get the result airmich talks about (salt concentration on the metal).



Thank you for reading my post Kirkhill, because you know:



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> ...vessels and equipment at sea are like woman, they hate being ignored.



 :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jan 2007)

aimich
I take you disagree with my equating vessels with woman?


----------



## ghazise (24 Jan 2007)

In regards to storing deck mounted weapons at sea, if you use a canvas gunbag (non-plastic treated) soaked in lube and a healthy amount of lube on machine-gun this low tech method works really well at keeping away the effect of condensation, sea spray and air.


----------



## navymich (24 Jan 2007)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> In regards to storing deck mounted weapons at sea, if you use a canvas gunbag (non-plastic treated) soaked in lube and a healthy amount of lube on machine-gun this low tech method works really well at keeping away the effect of condensation, sea spray and air.



With all of that goo on it, are you going to be able to use it right away.  For example, if the ship went to action stations, are you going to be able to take the cover off, load the weapon and start firing right away, or is it going to need to be cleaned off a bit first?

And these suggestions are good if you have the chance to keep the weapons covered, but depending on what state you are in, it could mean that your guns crews are on notice and the weapons are uncovered and ready to go, but out in the elements for extended periods of time.


----------



## Navy_Blue (25 Jan 2007)

Should be able to lock and load right away.  The only thing the oil should contribute is more smoke from the barrel and housing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jan 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> With all of that goo on it, are you going to be able to use it right away.  For example, if the ship went to action stations, are you going to be able to take the cover off, load the weapon and start firing right away, or is it going to need to be cleaned off a bit first?
> 
> And these suggestions are good if you have the chance to keep the weapons covered, but depending on what state you are in, it could mean that your guns crews are on notice and the weapons are uncovered and ready to go, but out in the elements for extended periods of time.



They did this for years during the battle for the Atlantic, but yes it does mean more work. Mind you with the modern metal coatings and materials used the wear and tear can be reduced.


----------

