# RCN conducts first ever land attack with a Block II Harpoon missile



## jollyjacktar

Interesting.  Story and video at link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-navy-precision-missile-1.3527532


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Story and video at link below.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-navy-precision-missile-1.3527532



Reading the comment section is quite soul destroying. Mainly because these are the types of people the current government wants to hear from.  :facepalm:


----------



## Hungover_cat

Haven't you heard? You should NEVER read the comments section of anything on the Internet. Ever. Unless you're looking for a reason to drink. 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> Reading the comment section is quite soul destroying. Mainly because these are the types of people the current government wants to hear from.  :facepalm:



Just think of them as a target rich environment, then imagine a half dozen FFG heading up the St Lawrence within striking range of said targets...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can the ESSM not hit a land target? I seem to recall the USN used the SM2 in a SSM role in the Persian gulf for low profile targets that the Harpoon Blk1 could not lock onto.


----------



## CBH99

I know you guys warned us, about the comments section...

But, being childish like I am, it only made me want to go read it more.  And I did.    :facepalm:


How can these people honestly not understand that having a warship, in the navy, that can actually fire weapons, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY translate into some kind of paranoid NWO bullcrap?


----------



## PuckChaser

Because our education system reinforces them to challenge authority, so they see a conspiracy in every news article.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I would be happy if these were high school students asking these questions or making these statements, for they can be corrected (mostly).  But something tells me these are not high school students.


----------



## Cloud Cover

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Can the ESSM not hit a land target? I seem to recall the USN used the SM2 in a SSM role in the Persian gulf for low profile targets that the Harpoon Blk1 could not lock onto.



Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?


----------



## winnipegoo7

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?



You're confused. Check Wikipedia.

The harpoon wasn't used against land targets during combat ever. And while the sm2 and essm can physically hit land, they can't effectively be used to engage landbased targets.


----------



## Occam

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?



I did a little looking around, and the publicly-available product literature for the ESSM does describe a "surface mode".  A lot of the discussion online seems to describe that an ESSM target has to be illuminated by the ship's radar for mid-course guidance, and since you get a lot of backscatter over land, the performance is probably questionable.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because our education system reinforces them to challenge authority, so they see a conspiracy in every news article.



Well, the article is on the CBC website, so there is a conspiracy at work there, just not the one they are thinking of !  [



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Does anyone have an answer for this? I know there is a big difference between SM2 and ESSM, but Im just asking the question- can an ESSM be directed against a fixed land target?



The answer, W601, is no. ESSM's or SM2's cannot be used against specific land targets. You can shoot them at land if you want, and you will hit, but without any control whatever as to where it would hit.

It's all in the brains of the missiles. Tomahawk and Harpoon II in land mode have onboard guidance systems that let them receive specific coordinates input and self-guide to those very specific coordinates. They don't need to even know what is at this given coordinates: they will simply hit the given location. Hence, you can call in a land strike if need be.

The SM2 and ESSM, on the other hand, as anti-air missiles, have brains meant to deal with highly kinetic targets. They are not meant to go to a specific location, but to go to a general area and, once there, use their onboard various sensors to guide themselves to their target and detonate in front of it or on it. These sensors, radar, infra-red, ESM systems, look for a clear individual target and for lots of movement in it. It's bit like the Jurassic Park movie thing: T-Rex looks for movement, so don't move and he can't see you  [. Thus a fixed land target doesn't work for them: when they get there, they would have a hard time distinguishing the target from the background (one house in a village, for instance) and the lack of movement would deprive them of targeting information to act on.

The reason they can be used less effectively and as a secondary measure for surface attack is that getting near, they would still see only one target (a ship or a boat) on a generally empty background and it has some, albeit slow, movement. The info is not as developed or crisp as what the missiles are used to, but absent anything else, they can try. Their drawback is that coming from well above (unlike anti-surface missiles like the Harpoon or Exocets that come in horizontally), they may or may not find something on the surface within their "search" cone to guide themselves to it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

CBH99 said:
			
		

> How can these people honestly not understand that having a warship, in the navy, that can actually fire weapons, DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY translate into some kind of paranoid NWO bullcrap?



Because if that's the only narrative in your head, everything must be made to fit it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because our education system reinforces them to challenge authority, so they see a conspiracy in every news article.



I have a great idea.  Lets pack them all up and ship them to Hit, Al Quaim, Mosul or some other lovely place in Africa currently in a SHTF state.

They can wave their hands around and be the Social Warrior Commando's there, in the real world, instead of from their tablets at their coffee shops and cottages.

Nothing like a good shot of 'the real world beyond our borders' to shock them into reality outside the relative safety of their pampered lives...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> You're confused. Check Wikipedia.



 :rofl:

At the very least, log into JANES from a DWAN computer and check there...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Drop them off and leave them there.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> At the very least, log into JANES from a DWAN computer and check there...



Janes is overrated and often wrong.  In many cases Wikipedia is a better source as it will give links to references. Additionally, Wikipedia is better in this case as Wikipedia has links to the respective guidance methods for the missiles. This way the op can learn how the missiles work.


----------



## jollyjacktar

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> Janes is overrated and often wrong.  In many cases Wikipedia is a better source as it will give links to references. Additionally, Wikipedia is better in this case as Wikipedia has links to the respective guidance methods for the missiles. This way the op can learn how the missiles work.



The op, as in me, doesn't give a shit how they work.  Not my part ship.


----------



## RocketRichard

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I have a great idea.  Lets pack them all up and ship them to Hit, Al Quaim, Mosul or some other lovely place in Africa currently in a SHTF state.
> 
> They can wave their hands around and be the Social Warrior Commando's there, in the real world, instead of from their tablets at their coffee shops and cottages.
> 
> Nothing like a good shot of 'the real world beyond our borders' to shock them into reality outside the relative safety of their pampered lives...


Well that was a disgusting photo to have pop up on my feed whilst I was eating breakfast and drinking my coffee.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> Janes is overrated and often wrong.  In many cases Wikipedia is a better source as it will give links to references. Additionally, Wikipedia is better in this case as Wikipedia has links to the respective guidance methods for the missiles. This way the op can learn how the missiles work.



ROFL.  Yup, Wiki is better than low-side Janes!   :rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Well that was a disgusting photo to have pop up on my feed whilst I was eating breakfast and drinking my coffee.



The world isn't all puppies and butterflies.  Like I said...reality of the real world out there.


----------



## RocketRichard

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The world isn't all puppies and butterflies.  Like I said...reality of the real world out there.


Agreed.  I'm sure many of us that have served or are serving have seen corpses before. Just a wee wake up this am. Have a good one.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The world isn't all puppies and butterflies.  Like I said...reality of the real world out there.



Unfortunately, their perception of reality, is not the same as yours.   [


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good news!

Does this open the door to exploring other weird and wonderful innovations like, you know, naval gunfire support?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Operation Praying Mantis:

"Action continued to escalate. Joshan, an Iranian Combattante II Kaman-class fast attack craft, challenged USS Wainwright and Surface Action Group Charlie. The commanding officer of Wainwright directed a final warning (of a series of warnings) stating that Joshan was to "stop your engines, abandon ship, I intend to sink you". Joshan responded by firing a Harpoon missile at them.[6] The missile was successfully lured away by chaff.[7] Simpson responded to the challenge by firing four Standard missiles, while Wainwright followed with one Standard missile.[8] All missiles hit and destroyed the Iranian ship's superstructure but did not immediately sink it, so Bagley fired a Harpoon of its own; the missile did not find the target. SAG Charlie closed on Joshan, with Simpson, then Bagley and Wainwright firing guns to sink the crippled Iranian ship.[6]"

Now these are surface actions, not land attacks. But it does go to show the lengths to which even the USN has to fight with what it has....and the Harpoon back then was apparently less than stellar compared it's modern equivalent. 
It does appears that the new software updates to the SM-6 Missile permit it to strike surface targets beyond the range of the harpoon, and with great accuracy:

From the National Interest Magazine:

"The U.S. Navy and Raytheon recently demonstrated that the company’s Standard SM-6 missile could destroy an enemy warship for the first time. During the test, USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)—an Arleigh Burke-class—destroyer sank the decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Reuben James (FFG 57) with a SM-6 missile.

“This test event demonstrated Raytheon's decades of continued technological development and partnership with the U.S. Navy,” said Dr. Taylor Lawrence, president of Raytheon’s missile systems division, in a statement released on [4] March 7. “The ability to leverage the Standard Missile Family and the legacy AWS [Aegis Weapon System] in newly fielded systems brings additional warfighting capability to the U.S. Fleet.”

Until last month—when U. S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter disclosed the closely [5] held secret that the SM-6 is capable of engaging surface targets—most analysts believed that the U.S. Navy lacked any meaningful capability to attack enemy warships. With the revelation that the SM-6 does have anti-surface capability, it is now known that the U.S. Navy does have a long-range supersonic anti-ship missile at its disposal. This capability would be essential should any serious conflict arise with the Chinese or Russian navies, for example.

According to Raytheon, the recent test was a demonstration of the Navy’s “distributed lethality” concept where firepower is dispersed amongst a multitude of warships. It also showcased the SM-6’s expanded mission capabilities—which include anti-air warfare, sea-based terminal missile defense and anti-surface warfare.

The SM-6—which incorporates an active radar seeker and networking—was designed to engage targets beyond a ship’s radar horizon. Using the Naval Integrated Fire Control (NIFC) battle network, an Aegis warship could engage over-the-horizon targets—including aircraft and missiles—by using targeting data from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

The physical radar horizon for a S-band radar such as the Aegis SPY-1D is about 250 nautical miles for a target flying at about 30,000 feet. For target flying at lower altitudes, the radar detection range would be shorter—which is where the E-2D comes in. While the range for the SM-6 is classified, the weapon’s range could potentially be greater than 250 nautical miles.

Because the E-2D has the capability to track air and surface targets, the SM-6 would effectively allow U.S. warships to engage enemy surface combatants over-the-horizon with a Mach 3.5+ missile. While the SM-6’s warhead was designed to kill aircraft—and as such is relatively tiny—the fact that it also has ballistic missile defense capability suggests it has a hit-to-kill capability.

Given that modern warships are not the armored battlewagons from the battleship era, it is relatively easy to achieve a “mission kill” on a current-generation surface combatant. That means even with its small warhead, the SM-6 should be more than effective against, for example, a Russian Kirov-class battlecruiser or the Chinese Type 52D destroyer due to the warhead's speed. The kinetic energy from a very fast missile can do enormous damage by itself—as the recent test [4] against USS Reuben James (FFG 57) amply demonstrated.

Thus far, Raytheon has delivered more than 250 SM-6 missiles, which became operational in 2013. Production will continue for the foreseeable future as the Navy begins to replace its older Standard missiles with the new weapon.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar." 

Ok, so that's the SM6 missile. Maybe that should be our next missile for the CSC, if there ever is a CSC. I am sure it will not be a big leap before the software on the SM6 is further modified for a land attack capability. Too bad for the ESSM though...


----------



## Kirkhill

W601

Why wouldn't you retain the ESSM as well?  That seems to be the preferred solution for Navies like the Aussies, Danes and Dutch.

32 Cells - 24 loaded with 24x SM-6 (ABM-SSM) and 8 loaded with 32x ESSM (for local defence)


----------



## AlexanderM

Keep in mind that the new Joint Strike Missile can be fired out of the MK41 launcher and has a very good range, so it is also an alternative to the Harpoon. I like the thought of getting rid of those dedicated Harpoon launchers that take up space, then go from 32 cells to 48.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html


----------



## winnipegoo7

​


			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The op, as in me, doesn't give a crap how they work.  Not my part ship.



My bad. I meant the person who asked the question, whiskey601, not you.


----------



## winnipegoo7

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ...I am sure it will not be a big leap before the software on the SM6 is further modified for a land attack capability. Too bad for the ESSM though...



Well, according to Wikipedia,


> The U.S. Navy is adding the Global Positioning System (GPS) to the SM-6 so it has the capability to strike stationary land targets if needed, but given its higher cost than other land attack weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile it would not likely be used as a primary option


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM

And the ESSM isn't going anywhere. They are currently working on an upgraded version.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=916139


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> W601
> 
> Why wouldn't you retain the ESSM as well?  That seems to be the preferred solution for Navies like the Aussies, Danes and Dutch.
> 
> 32 Cells - 24 loaded with 24x SM-6 (ABM-SSM) and 8 loaded with 32x ESSM (for local defence)


You keep both, but they don't have to be on the same ship.  They have different roles, different ranges, different seeker heads, different ways to hit the target, different speeds and different warheads.  You can put roughly 4 ESSM's in the same space as a single SM2, 3 or 6.  SM's are for long range shooting (120NM or so) and the ESSM are for much closer in (horizon type ranges).  

One of the reasons that ESSM's and other SAM's can hit ships is that they can be guided into the target by active radar.  Active radar is not as useful when trying to guide into a land based target because of as mention before backscatter etc... that's why the army prefers lasers and GPS for their guided munitions.  

The Harpoon Block II basically hits a GPS position.  This feature was added originally to allow the Harpoon to have waypoints set in its flight path so it could attack from various different directions, go around islands or obfuscate where the original ship was shooting from.  It grew into a "hit this point on the map" feature rather organically as the software got updated.  Either way one of my good friends was on the ground there doing the BDA after the fact.  He's quite excited for the new capability and it worked very well for the first time.

BZ to all.


----------



## NavyShooter

Pleasing to hear.

That said, having been there the night we were shot at in 2011, we were well in range for 57mm return fire, and probably under minimum range for Harpoon...my action station was not in Ops, but I am made to understand that things were clearly visible on an IR system.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is there a more efficient way to pack and launch missiles on a ship? while individual launchers likely mean more safety and likely a faster first volley, they seem to require a lot real estate and openings. Could you have something like the older missile systems with a twin boom launcher that could be fed a boxed missile from a magazine through a loader and the spent boxes  ejected/released onto the deck?


----------



## NavyShooter

The footprint of the old Mk.13 as seen on the OHP class ships was just about as large, and much more complex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MK_13_GMLS_Diagram.jpg

Not to mention the fact that there were moving parts, exposed on the upper decks, and the Rate of Fire was limited by the physical movements required of the launcher (rotate, swivel, slide missile on, rotate, elevate, fire, return to loading position etc.)  (ROF listed as :  1 Standard missile every 10 seconds; 1 Harpoon missile every 22 seconds)

With the VLS system, the rate of fire is limited by the software running the systems.  

The capacity was 40 missiles.  The smaller Mk.22 had only a 16 round capacity.

The amount of moving parts to make it all work (plus the amount of space required below-decks) are big factors in my opinion.

The simplicity of the VLS Canisters is delightful.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

NavyShooter sort of beat me to it.

Whether they are in a Mk41 VLS system (which is not BTW a disposable canister system, you put the "box" in the single opening in the ship for it once, and then reload from the top as required) or in a magazine below deck, the missiles themselves occupy about the same volume. But if you put them in magazine below deck, then you also need space below deck to handle them, space for the "loader" space on deck for the launch system and space on deck around the launch system for pivoting and clear arcs of fire. Overall, the VLS systems flush-deck are not only more efficient and faster, but also permit more missiles to be carried on board.

For instance, compare the old Belknap cruisers (final configuration) with the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke.

The Belknap, at 8100 tons, 547 feet, equipped with the Mk 13 twin arm launcher and Harpoons on deck carried a total of 68 missiles. The Arleigh Burke, at 8400 tons and 509 feet with Mk 41 VLS carry a total of 104 missiles.

Moreover, the only way to reload a magazine fed missile launcher was to load it in reverse. basically, you had to use a crane to carefully slip them onto the rails, held in a vertical position and then operate the system in "store-back-the missiles-in-magazine" mode. This was impossible to do at sea. The Mk 41, with a heavy tensioned jackstay lets you slip the missile canister to on top of the Mk 41 and reload at sea. OK, its not for heavy sea states, but it can be done and extends your stay on station by that much.


----------



## NavyShooter

The USS Barry fired a big pile of Tomahawks during OP Odyssey Dawn (2011, Libya bombardment).

She came alongside for fuel and a reload of BGM-109's while we were in getting fuel at the same jetty.

In less than 4 hours, they'd swapped out more empty canisters than a CPF carries, fueled their ship, and departed.  It was quite amazing to see.  

The concurrent fueling and ammunitioning would have given some folks a heart-attack, but it was operationally necessary to get her back to sea with them.  According to open-source data, USS Barry fired 55 Tomohawk missiles in total.  

Trying to do that kind of loading while at sea would be....interesting.  

I do not think that we would be able to load or swap canisters while at sea, either for Harpoon or Sea Sparrow.  

When loading missiles, we've put them on in as little as 15 minutes each (in my experience) but since we have our loadout split across both sides of the ship, you have to flip the ship between sides, so that slows the pace down a lot.  

NS


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> .... USS Barry fired 55 Tomohawk missiles in total...



Holy crap.  Thats *does quick math, runs out of fingers and takes off shoes*  about $77 million US worth of ordinance.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Holy crap.  Thats *does quick math, runs out of fingers and takes off shoes*  about $77 million US worth of ordinance.



Or one F35 give or take.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

100 mil CDN $. Would not take long for a long range Excalibur type round from a ship off the coast to pay for itself. a modern version of this


----------



## Underway

You mean just add one of these to the new CSC?  Doubtful because we've chosen a foreign build, so unless the foreign build comes with some design modifications then we are probably out of luck...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/155mm-ngs-braveheart-goes-to-sea-04476/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For a country like Australia or Philippines some sort of shore bombardment makes sense as they have a lot of potentiel hotspots in Littoral areas. for Canada increasing to the 127mm seem to be the best of all likely worlds, perhaps a ship armed with a 57/75mm for close in defense against small vessels and a 127mm for greater reach.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> For a country like Australia or Philippines some sort of shore bombardment makes sense as they have a lot of potentiel hotspots in Littoral areas. for Canada increasing to the 127mm seem to be the best of all likely worlds, perhaps a ship armed with a 57/75mm for close in defense against small vessels and a 127mm for greater reach.



This might surprise you, but the 57mm is primarily an Anti-Aircraft gun. Yes, we use it against small vessels, and yes we can use it for Naval Gunfire Support (I even wrote the SOPs), but at it's heart, it was designed to throw a bunch of metal in the path of incoming missiles and/or fighter bombers.

For defence against small boats, you are much better off with a remote 25mm.

For NGS, please please please give me 5" or a 155mm.

For AA, you're better off adding extra soft-kill equipment (chaff, jammers, etc), because the 57mm isn't going to hit jack.


----------



## cupper

Lumber said:
			
		

> This might surprise you, but the 57mm is primarily an Anti-Aircraft gun. Yes, we use it against small vessels, and yes we can use it for Naval Gunfire Support (I even wrote the SOPs), but at it's heart, it was designed to throw a bunch of metal in the path of incoming missiles and/or fighter bombers.
> 
> For defence against small boats, you are much better off with a remote 25mm.
> 
> For NGS, please please please give me 5" or a 155mm.
> 
> For AA, you're better off adding extra soft-kill equipment (chaff, jammers, etc), because the 57mm isn't going to hit jack.



Would this help improve the AA effectiveness?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612



> BAE Systems at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea-Air-Space Exposition is showcasing for the first time a new 57mm guided projectile: The Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft or ORKA (technical designation: MK295 MOD 1). The new round is designed to be shot from the 57mm MK110 fitted on both types of US Navy Littoral Combat Ships.
> 
> Currently at design stage, the ORKA is BAE Systems answer to a US Navy requirement aiming at increasing the accuracy and efficiency of naval rounds. Navy Recognition learned that BAE Systems engineers applied the technology developed and mastered with the 127mm and 155mm to the much smaller 57mm.
> 
> ORKA is a "One Shot One Kill" round fitted with an imaging semi-active seeker: It can be guided through laser designation or it can hit its target autonomously by downloading image of the target prior to firing.
> 
> BAE Systems confirmed that the ORKA retains the 3P multiple fuzing modes (timed, proximity and point detonation) found on the existing 57mm round.
> 
> The Mk295 Mod 1 incorporates a reliable and affordable 4-canard actuation systems, to guide the round; a multi-mode imaging seeker and a hihgh explosive warhead to enable single shot defeat of Anti-Surface Warfare and Anti-Aircraft Warfare threats.


----------



## Kirkhill

More to cupper's last:

http://www.baesystems.com/en-sa/download-en-sa/20151124120321/1434555371520.pdf

Would it be fair to say that this would be the equivalent of a 60mm mortar with a 10 km range, firing at a rate of 220 rounds per minute and with a one-meter CEP?


----------



## Lumber

cupper said:
			
		

> Would this help improve the AA effectiveness?
> 
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2612



Well, we don't have any lazer guidance systems...

But, if it can guide iteself (i.e. make mid-course corrections) then yse I can see this improving things. The biggest issue with hitting surface contacts is that the proximity fuses have a lot of trouble distingushing surface contacts from waves.


----------



## cupper

Also, didn't they develop a bee-hive or shotgun type round for the 57mm about 10 years ago? I recall seeing video for it, and the description said it essentially threw up a wall of pellets or ball bearings.


----------



## Kirkhill

Does the RCN use the 3-P round for the 57mm?

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/boren.pdf

And what would it take to fit the SR76 into the Halifax?  With Vulcano rounds that would result in a 30 to 40+ km range.

http://www.finmeccanica.com/documents/63265270/66959619/body_VULCANO_76_mm_REV2013.pdf


----------



## NavyShooter

3P, yes, every one of our upgraded guns has been tested with 3P ammo during the upgrade process to confirm that it will function with our guns post-HCM.  

Lasers.  I just completed the LSO (Laser Safety Officer) course, and part of the instruction/discussion we had in addition to the DLN portion was upgrades coming to the fits on the ships, we currently have only 1 Laser system fitted, that may soon increase.

 76mm on a CPF?  Not going to happen.  The hull structure would have to be modified/strengthened considerably, the below deck arrangements and architecture would have huge changes, not to mention the magazines.


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> 3P, yes, every one of our upgraded guns has been tested with 3P ammo during the upgrade process to confirm that it will function with our guns post-HCM.
> 
> Lasers.  I just completed the LSO (Laser Safety Officer) course, and part of the instruction/discussion we had in addition to the DLN portion was upgrades coming to the fits on the ships, we currently have only 1 Laser system fitted, that may soon increase.
> 
> 76mm on a CPF?  Not going to happen.  The hull structure would have to be modified/strengthened considerably, the below deck arrangements and architecture would have huge changes, not to mention the magazines.



Thanks.

Too bad about the 76mm.  

The Danes mount an SR76 on a 15 tonne, 3m long by 3.5m wide by 2.5m deep module.  That module fits in any of the following ships:

Iver Huitfeldt  5850 tons - up to 2x SR76 in the A & B positions
Absalon 6300 tons
Thetis 3500 tons
Rasmussen 1720 tons
Flyvefisken 450 tons

I think it would have been an interesting experiment (perhaps on Montreal) to reconfigure the 57 to fit inside a Stanflex bucket and then see if the 57 could be swapped for a 76.    If it worked then the concept could be applied to all the CSCs and AOPS vessels and for 25s, 57s and 76s.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

this one?

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel


----------



## Lumber

I never understood why they're able to install a 76mm (or larger) on itty-bitty little patrol boats like this:

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Tiger-class_fast_attack_craft

But CPF can't get 5"? 

What about CSC? My vote is on rail gun.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lumber:

I think the winner for smallest size of ship for a 76 mm gun has got to be the Italian Sparviero  class:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparviero-class_patrol_boat

However, you have to keep in mind that the reason these small ships can have a 76 mm gun (or put it in a sea can) is that they are only composed of the gun and its handling system (on the deck immediately below). It also means that they are restricted to what's in the ready use automatic loader. No magazine to reload from in action.

That may be fine when you are on a small local patrol vessel and can go back in harbour to reload after any encounter, but not so good on a frigate/destroyer doing mid-ocean escort work. The Flyvefisken with the sea can could not reload. The Iver Huitfled have a 76 mm magazine, but the reloading from the elevator to the loader inside the sea can has to be done by hand from the service door, and its a cramped can to work in.

Anyway, it would have been just as easy to put a 76 mm on the HAL as a 57 mm. Just as we could have kept the 5 inch Otto Melara on the IRO instead of replacing them with the 76 mm. The choice is not based on design constraints but on operational use.

Modern warships fight one another at long range with missiles these days, not at short range with guns. So the guns serve one of three basic purpose: fighting asymmetric threats, Anti Air warfare or ground support. The larger guns, from the French 100 mm up in size are considered primarily ground support guns. The smaller guns of 57 mm and lesser calibers are primarily for asymmetric/AA work. And the 76 mm is a weird animal that is neither fish nor fowl right in the middle. It does it all, but none of them as well as the other smaller or larger "dedicated" calibers.

So the choice of the 57 mm for the HAL's was not a design decision (as in: it's the biggest we can carry) but an operational decision: what is the most likely threat that this class of ship will encounter that require a gun: lets maximize that use. AA/asymmetric won and we got the 57 mm. 

The choice is not that bad when you think of it. The last time the RCN did ground support with guns was during the Korean War to do train busting. It required the destroyers to rush inshore, and thus expose themselves to battery fire from the shore, so they could fire from inside the gun's range. Nowadays, with land attack missiles, why would you want to do that? And otherwise, what are the chances of Canada needing to carry out ground support with guns of Canadian troops? Pretty damn near zero. So, good choice, people!


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lumber:
> 
> I think the winner for smallest size of ship for a 76 mm gun has got to be the Italian Sparviero  class:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparviero-class_patrol_boat
> 
> However, you have to keep in mind that the reason these small ships can have a 76 mm gun (or put it in a sea can) is that they are only composed of the gun and its handling system (on the deck immediately below). It also means that they are restricted to what's in the ready use automatic loader. No magazine to reload from in action.
> 
> That may be fine when you are on a small local patrol vessel and can go back in harbour to reload after any encounter, but not so good on a frigate/destroyer doing mid-ocean escort work. The Flyvefisken with the sea can could not reload. The Iver Huitfled have a 76 mm magazine, but the reloading from the elevator to the loader inside the sea can has to be done by hand from the service door, and its a cramped can to work in.
> 
> Anyway, it would have been just as easy to put a 76 mm on the HAL as a 57 mm. Just as we could have kept the 5 inch Otto Melara on the IRO instead of replacing them with the 76 mm. The choice is not based on design constraints but on operational use.
> 
> Modern warships fight one another at long range with missiles these days, not at short range with guns. So the guns serve one of three basic purpose: fighting asymmetric threats, Anti Air warfare or ground support. The larger guns, from the French 100 mm up in size are considered primarily ground support guns. The smaller guns of 57 mm and lesser calibers are primarily for asymmetric/AA work. And the 76 mm is a weird animal that is neither fish nor fowl right in the middle. It does it all, but none of them as well as the other smaller or larger "dedicated" calibers.
> 
> So the choice of the 57 mm for the HAL's was not a design decision (as in: it's the biggest we can carry) but an operational decision: what is the most likely threat that this class of ship will encounter that require a gun: lets maximize that use. AA/asymmetric won and we got the 57 mm.
> 
> The choice is not that bad when you think of it. The last time the RCN did ground support with guns was during the Korean War to do train busting. It required the destroyers to rush inshore, and thus expose themselves to battery fire from the shore, so they could fire from inside the gun's range. Nowadays, with land attack missiles, why would you want to do that? And otherwise, what are the chances of Canada needing to carry out ground support with guns of Canadian troops? Pretty damn near zero. So, good choice, people!



Completely agree.  The 57mm was chosen almost exclusively for its AA defensive capability.  Remember when the CPF's were being developed the Falklands was very fresh in everyone's mind.  57mm rate of fire and rapidity of targeting were key in that discussion.  If you wanted to shoot ships we had missiles for that.  Support to forces ashore was not in the Canadian navy toolbox at the time and not even bottom of mind.  We were an ASW navy that was going to fight subs and deal with blackjack bombers.  It also freed up space and tonnage for other things.  

Switching things up, if you want a surface fire weapons you lose the air defence and vice versa, even with intelligent rounds.  This is why some euro ships have gone with two gun systems.  If land attack is what you want the 127mm is a mature technology and the people who have brought you Excalibur rounds are working on the 127mm version.  Would make for a much cheaper option than launching harpoons.  And finally within the next 10 years we'll have rail guns and lasers as new options.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> Completely agree.  The 57mm was chosen almost exclusively for its AA defensive capability.  Remember when the CPF's were being developed the Falklands was very fresh in everyone's mind.  57mm rate of fire and rapidity of targeting were key in that discussion.  If you wanted to shoot ships we had missiles for that.  Support to forces ashore was not in the Canadian navy toolbox at the time and not even bottom of mind.  We were an ASW navy that was going to fight subs and deal with blackjack bombers.  It also freed up space and tonnage for other things.
> 
> Switching things up, if you want a surface fire weapons you lose the air defence and vice versa, even with intelligent rounds.  This is why some euro ships have gone with two gun systems.  If land attack is what you want the 127mm is a mature technology and the people who have brought you Excalibur rounds are working on the 127mm version.  Would make for a much cheaper option than launching harpoons.  And finally within the next 10 years we'll have rail guns and lasers as new options.



I'm not disagreeing with the original choice of the 57mm. However, the 57mm is essentially useless against modern missiles, and will be come even more so as newer and better anti-ship missiles are developed. 

So, your requirements for a naval gun are now fighting asymmetric threats, Anti Air warfare  or ground support.

As I said earlier, a 25mm remote gun is better than a 57mm against small attack craft.

For NGS, the 127mm/155mm is going to be far superior. With Excalibur rounds, our modern-train busters won't have to "rush in" as far.

The problems with Harpoon's in the land-attack role are that we only carry 8 of them, and using them in this role depletes the ship of it's anti-surface capability. It's all fine and dandy until someone else with a modern navy shows up.


----------



## Cloud Cover

It's too bad the RCN removed the sub harpoon capability from the Victoria class. Carrying a half dozen of these improved missiles (if they are available in sub harpoon) would be a significant addition to the strike toolbox. 
Ditto the Aurora- I think the wing stations are fitted for the weapon, but the backend processesing a targeting systems are absent. (plus there in no RCAF or RCN doctrine for air or sub surface launched strike of this type).


----------



## Lumber

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> It's too bad the RCN removed the sub harpoon capability from the Victoria class. Carrying a half dozen of these improved missiles (if they are available in sub harpoon) would be a significant addition to the strike toolbox.
> Ditto the Aurora- I think the wing stations are fitted for the weapon, but the backend processesing a targeting systems are absent. (plus there in no RCAF or RCN doctrine for air or sub surface launched strike of this type).



I would love it if the Aurora carried Harpoons; not even for the land attack role, just for the ASuW capability!


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ...(plus there in no RCAF or RCN doctrine for air or sub surface launched strike of this type).



Well! That's it then.  There is no doctrine.  You can't do that!

 >


----------



## daftandbarmy

Lumber said:
			
		

> The problems with Harpoon's in the land-attack role are that we only carry 8 of them, and using them in this role depletes the ship of it's anti-surface capability. It's all fine and dandy until someone else with a modern navy shows up.



You mean like Egypt?  

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russia-to-order-french-mistral-lhds-05749/


----------



## Lumber

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You mean like Egypt?
> 
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russia-to-order-french-mistral-lhds-05749/



ASM armed helicopters are, in my opinion, a wholly under appreciated tactical asset. Come in low, pop up, launch ASMs, pop back down below the radar horizon. Now, an SM6 might be able to take care of him, but I just don't know the capabilities of the SM6 to be sure.

As for the Mistrals themselves, that's a whole other issue, but I don't feel like getting into a long discussion about salvo size and mission kill criteria. Besides, most of that is Secret anyhow.


----------



## Baz

Lumber said:
			
		

> ASM armed helicopters are, in my opinion, a wholly under appreciated tactical asset. Come in low, pop up, launch ASMs, pop back down below the radar horizon



Internationally my experience under appreciated in Canada, although a Cyclone ASM is on the consider list... but it will be a while!  MH as a whole is misunderstood in Canada, including in a lot of parts of 12 Wing.

Just another symptom of the fact that the RCN doesn't really understand air power, and the RCAF certainly doesn't understand maritime warfare.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Maybe we could get them one of those so the RCN and RCAF figure it out :nod: :


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Maybe we could get them one of those so the RCN and RCAF figure it out :nod: :



Are those Merlins/EH101's on the flight deck? 

Goddamn you Jean Chretien! :brickwall:


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Italians build sexy looking ships. Glad they have the firepower on board to swat off the gropers...


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The Italians build sexy looking ships. Glad they have the firepower on board to swat off the gropers...



I always thought that even the little 8000 tonne San Giorgios could have found a useful home over here.






















http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/giorgio.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJziqh1_WXk

Entered service	1987
Crew	163 men
Sea endurance	?
Dimensions and displacement
Length	133.3 m
Beam	20.5 m
Draught	5.3 m
Displacement, standard	7 665 tons
Displacement, full load	?
Propulsion and speed
Speed	21 knots
Range	?
Diesel engines	2 x ?
(16 800 shp)
Cargo
Troops	400 men
Vehicles	up to 36 APCs or 30 medium tanks
Cargo	?
Landing craft
Landing craft	2 x LCMs,  2 - 3 LCVPs; 1 x LCPL
Aircraft
Helicopters	2 x EH 101, 2 x AB 212
Armament
Artillery	1 x OTO Melara 76-mm gun, 2 x Oerlikon 25-mm guns

http://www.military-today.com/navy/san_giorgio_class.htm

As for the gropers, I'd be most concerned about the ones between decks


----------



## Kirkhill

Wow! Sorry about that.  Could somebody do me a favour and down-size those images?  I don't have the right ticket for that.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Somehow, I think that if Irving built a ship for the RCN with a big hole in the back end like that, it would sink. But yes, they are a useful platform but I never understood which country Italy was planning a seaborne invasion against? Anyway, nice kit.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think they were originally just for domestic use.  Italy has a long coastline and a few islands to take care of. 

No comment on ISY.


----------



## cupper

I'm thinking that they have a secret plan to invade the Vatican by sea.  [

Don't have to imagine how big that thing is, we have full scale photos. [


----------



## Kirkhill

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that they have a secret plan to invade the Vatican by sea.  [
> 
> Don't have to imagine how big that thing is, we have full scale photos. [



I thought I asked for help to reduce the dam things..... routers, I hate'em.

Can somebody minimize them?  Thanks.   [:-[  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Somehow, I think that if Irving built a ship for the RCN with a big hole in the back end like that, it would sink. But yes, they are a useful platform but I never understood which country Italy was planning a seaborne invasion against? Anyway, nice kit.



North Africa to name some


----------

