Offshore Patrol Vessels

The Martlet/Light Multirole Missile would be a better choice, and has been tested against both airborne and waterborne targets. However you still have problems like were do you put the launcher, where do you control it from, who operates and maintains it, and so on. (...)
It's hard to keep track of what's on which thread (it could have been this one for all I know), but someone recently posted that Martlet has been tested on a mount carrying several missiles which attaches to the side of a 30mm gun. It was test fired from a frigate a couple of days ago.
Royal Navy vessel fires Martlet missile - NWI - Naval Warfare - Shephard Media
Lt Cmdr George Blakeman, HMS Sutherland’s weapon engineer officer, said: ‘The current defence against fast inshore attack craft, the 30mm gun, is highly effective for closer range engagements.
‘By adding the missile to the gun mount it is anticipated it will extend the reach of the ship’s defensive systems – key to successful defence against fast craft using swarm attack tactics.’
There has been no announcement yet as to which ships, if any, this will actually be deployed on.



 

Yokel

LE
All frigates, destroyers, LPDs, and the carriers have the DS30M Mk2 mount so can be easily converted. The DS30M Mk2 is also fitted to the Batch 2 Rivers. Personally I think MCMVs, Hydrographic vessels, and RFAs would also benefit from both Martlet and the DS30M Mk2, which was itself designed to counter the small craft threat.

It does not make a major surface combatant though.
 
Last edited:
All frigates, destroyers, LPDs, and the carriers have the DS30M Mk2 mount so can be easily converted. The DS30M Mk2 is also fitted to the Batch 2 Rivers. Personally I think MCMVs, Hydrographic vessels, and RAFs would also benefit from both Martlet and the DS30M Mk2, which was itself designed to counter the small craft threat.

It does not make a major surface combatant though.
Who is going to maintain it? And who is going to pay for it?
 

Yokel

LE
Who is going to maintain it? And who is going to pay for it?
That is the problem - making a case for it. In the case of RFAs, if they get Phalanx for certain theatres then you could make a case for this. As for MCMVs, someone did state that DS30 Mk2 would be a huge improvement - he was the Gunnery Officer aboard a Hunt at the time.
 
It's hard to keep track of what's on which thread (it could have been this one for all I know), but someone recently posted that Martlet has been tested on a mount carrying several missiles which attaches to the side of a 30mm gun . . .



That was me . . Post #694 ;) .

Although others posted similar information.
 
All frigates, destroyers, LPDs, and the carriers have the DS30M Mk2 mount so can be easily converted. The DS30M Mk2 is also fitted to the Batch 2 Rivers. Personally I think MCMVs, Hydrographic vessels, and RFAs would also benefit from both Martlet and the DS30M Mk2, which was itself designed to counter the small craft threat.

It does not make a major surface combatant though.

I don't think anyone suggests a River B2 can be a full blown war fighting killing machine.

However, if larger vessels are having their 30mm DS30B's replaced with DS30M's does that not mean their is now a handy supply of surplus DS30B's?

How about a sensible compromise?
Fit the Batch 2's with two of the DS30B (already fitted for?) and a primary of a DS30M plus Martlet (Martlet as and when required)

As I understand it the vessels are designed for and capable of both options being fitted
It would be interesting to see how cheaply that could be done......
 

Yokel

LE
It would be interesting to see how cheaply that could be done......
My guess is 'not as cheaply as you might think. I imagine you would put one on each side of the superstructure. Does it need structural reinforcement? Does it need electrical power, cooling water, hydraulics....

Not to mention extra manpower. I imagine it is feasible, just not as cheap as you might hope.

Anyway, since when did MOD do anything as sensible as retaining landed weapons as spares instead of selling or scrapping them?
 
That is the problem - making a case for it. In the case of RFAs, if they get Phalanx for certain theatres then you could make a case for this. As for MCMVs, someone did state that DS30 Mk2 would be a huge improvement - he was the Gunnery Officer aboard a Hunt at the time.
It would be a great addition. But there are only two or three WEs on a MCMV. ASCG was fitted to RFA wave ruler, the systems engineers had to be trained to look after the electrics, normally the Weapon Maintenance officer is a ME officer. It could be done but its a pain and we dont have the money to fit any more.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
I don't think anyone suggests a River B2 can be a full blown war fighting killing machine.

However, if larger vessels are having their 30mm DS30B's replaced with DS30M's does that not mean their is now a handy supply of surplus DS30B's?

How about a sensible compromise?
Fit the Batch 2's with two of the DS30B (already fitted for?) and a primary of a DS30M plus Martlet (Martlet as and when required)

As I understand it the vessels are designed for and capable of both options being fitted
It would be interesting to see how cheaply that could be done......
Again the problems include things like is there a magazine that is rated for 30mm ammunition with a fixed FF system next to the proposed mount?

Who is going to do the 30 minutes of barrel cleaning and function checks to conduct preps for firing every morning. Who will conduct the roughly 4 hours of weekly maintenance every week and all the 6 and 12 monthly maintenance that have to be in date if the mount is to be used.

Where are the 3 extra bods per mount to come from? (Aimer, loader and local gun director.)

Plus you know have two seperate 30mm ammunition and weapon spares you have to store and account for.

Not saying it cant be done but this is just some of the pit falls that get forgotten about with these ideas.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 

Yokel

LE
It would be a great addition. But there are only two or three WEs on a MCMV. ASCG was fitted to RFA wave ruler, the systems engineers had to be trained to look after the electrics, normally the Weapon Maintenance officer is a ME officer. It could be done but its a pain and we dont have the money to fit any more.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
The MCMV WE deapartment have a proper weapon system to deal with, the sonar, command system, and Seafox, plus the explosives for the divers. Then they have the radar and communications to worry about, so they are probably busy.

As you say - more weapons means more manpower, and we do not have the people or the money.
 

Riga

War Hero
Yes..... And why Its a bad idea.
Well, actually, I'm really interested!

Please tell, starting with, why would you build a flat bottomed hull!?

However, it does seem to have some potency and it fitted with a 100mm gun - whatever one might say about the Russians, they can get some things right, so why did they choose that calibre?
 
Well, actually, I'm really interested!

Please tell, starting with, why would you build a flat bottomed hull!?

However, it does seem to have some potency and it fitted with a 100mm gun - whatever one might say about the Russians, they can get some things right, so why did they choose that calibre?
Then read this thread, the T26 thread, and I think Yokals future weapons thread where it has been covered repeatedly. We covered this on this thread only last week...
 
My guess is 'not as cheaply as you might think. I imagine you would put one on each side of the superstructure. Does it need structural reinforcement? Does it need electrical power, cooling water, hydraulics....

Not to mention extra manpower. I imagine it is feasible, just not as cheap as you might hope.

Anyway, since when did MOD do anything as sensible as retaining landed weapons as spares instead of selling or scrapping them?

I'll happily stand to be corrected but from what I've read the Batch 2's were designed and built to be able to handle 2x 25mm in addition to the current 30mm, what the requirements are for 30mm in comparison to 30mm I have no idea.

They are built with BAE's Shared Infrastructure combat management system

It seems to me that the Batch 2's were deliberately built and pre equipped to be better armed than they are right now
 
Has anyone mentioned corvette...
It was mentioned a few hours ago on another thread.

(...) Please tell, starting with, why would you build a flat bottomed hull!?
For the ability to operate in shallow coastal waters and up large rivers.

However, it does seem to have some potency and it fitted with a 100mm gun - whatever one might say about the Russians, they can get some things right, so why did they choose that calibre?
I don't have the definitive answer as to the actual thought processes involved in that decision, but it does give them the ability to do minor shore bombardment operations.

I haven't had time to watch the full video yet, but it does start off with mentioning that the particular ship they are featuring is based in the Caspian Sea. The Buyan-M and ships like it are suitable for short range operations along and near the coast of Russia in the Barents, Baltic, Black, Caspian, and Japan Seas. All of those areas are adjacent to countries which Russia may see as being potential military opponents.

Russia's geography as a large country on the northern edge of the Asian continent also presents some unique problems for them in that all of the above mentioned seas are widely separated and it is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for Russia to shift ships from one area to another at short notice. The result is that they end up with multiple small fleets which are not able to mutually support one another. To get adequate numbers in each area they need smaller ships.

If we look at the UK's situation, then their neighbours are Ireland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. While the UK may have disagreements with those countries, none of those disagreements are likely to require arguments to be delivered via missile.

For the UK, military opponents are mainly to be found further afield in the Middle East, South Atlantic, Caribbean, or Far East. Operating in those areas requires ships with longer range and endurance, which means ships several times larger than a Buyan-M which might have an operational endurance of only a week or so.

The UK could theoretically build ships like the Buyan-M, but they would need to be permanently based abroad in particular areas and not easily be shifted from one operational area to another at short notice. Given the UK's geographic position and the UK's budget limitations, the UK has decided to have a fleet that is capable of being flexibly redeployed anywhere rather than focusing resources in one specific place.

This isn't really a new problem. In the 1930s Italy and France were engaged in a building race involving "super-destroyers", which were very fast ships that had the displacement of a large destroyer with the armament of a light cruiser. However, they were suited specifically for the Mediterranean environment, having limited range, endurance, or sea keeping ability. The UK stuck with destroyers that could be used anywhere and so were able to bring their numbers to bear against the Italian navy when required, rendering the super-destroyer wiki-stats advantage irrelevant (leaving aside any RN versus Italian qualitative discussions). Again, geography to a great deal dictated strategy and design policy.
 
Last edited:

Riga

War Hero
It was mentioned a few hours ago on another thread.


For the ability to operate in shallow coastal waters and up large rivers.


I don't have the definitive answer as to the actual thought processes involved in that decision, but it does give them the ability to do minor shore bombardment operations.

I haven't had time to watch the full video yet, but it does start off with mentioning that the particular ship they are featuring is based in the Caspian Sea. The Buyan-M and ships like it are suitable for short range operations along and near the coast of Russia in the Barents, Baltic, Black, Caspian, and Japan Seas. All of those areas are adjacent to countries which Russia may see as being potential military opponents.

Russia's geography as a large country on the northern edge of the Asian continent also presents some unique problems for them in that all of the above mentioned seas are widely separated and it is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for Russia to shift ships from one area to another at short notice. The result is that they end up with multiple small fleets which are not able to mutually support one another. To get adequate numbers in each area they need smaller ships.

If we look at the UK's situation, then their neighbours are Ireland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. While the UK may have disagreements with those countries, none of those disagreements are likely to require arguments to be delivered via missile.

For the UK, military opponents are mainly to be found further afield in the Middle East, South Atlantic, Caribbean, or Far East. Operating in those areas requires ships with longer range and endurance, which means ships several times larger than a Buyan-M which might have an operational endurance of only a week or so.

The UK could theoretically build ships like the Buyan-M, but they would need to be permanently based abroad in particular areas and not easily be shifted from one operational area to another at short notice. Given the UK's geographic position and the UK's budget limitations, the UK has decided to have a fleet that is capable of being flexibly redeployed anywhere rather than focusing resources in one specific place.

This isn't really a new problem. In the 1930s Italy and France were engaged in a building race involving "super-destroyers", which were very fast ships that had the displacement of a large destroyer with the armament of a light cruiser. However, they were suited specifically for the Mediterranean environment, having limited range, endurance, or sea keeping ability. The UK stuck with destroyers that could be used anywhere and so were able to bring their numbers to bear against the Italian navy when required, rendering the super-destroyer wiki-stats advantage irrelevant (leaving aside any RN versus Italian qualitative discussions). Again, geography to a great deal dictated strategy and design policy.
So we don't try to perm deploy a platforms to the Gulf? Carib? (Leaving the Falklands out of this one).
So a potent platform able to undertake multiple tasks and defend itself? RN Batch 2 can do what?
 
It was mentioned a few hours ago on another thread.


For the ability to operate in shallow coastal waters and up large rivers.


I don't have the definitive answer as to the actual thought processes involved in that decision, but it does give them the ability to do minor shore bombardment operations.

I haven't had time to watch the full video yet, but it does start off with mentioning that the particular ship they are featuring is based in the Caspian Sea. The Buyan-M and ships like it are suitable for short range operations along and near the coast of Russia in the Barents, Baltic, Black, Caspian, and Japan Seas. All of those areas are adjacent to countries which Russia may see as being potential military opponents.

Russia's geography as a large country on the northern edge of the Asian continent also presents some unique problems for them in that all of the above mentioned seas are widely separated and it is very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for Russia to shift ships from one area to another at short notice. The result is that they end up with multiple small fleets which are not able to mutually support one another. To get adequate numbers in each area they need smaller ships.

If we look at the UK's situation, then their neighbours are Ireland, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. While the UK may have disagreements with those countries, none of those disagreements are likely to require arguments to be delivered via missile.

For the UK, military opponents are mainly to be found further afield in the Middle East, South Atlantic, Caribbean, or Far East. Operating in those areas requires ships with longer range and endurance, which means ships several times larger than a Buyan-M which might have an operational endurance of only a week or so.

The UK could theoretically build ships like the Buyan-M, but they would need to be permanently based abroad in particular areas and not easily be shifted from one operational area to another at short notice. Given the UK's geographic position and the UK's budget limitations, the UK has decided to have a fleet that is capable of being flexibly redeployed anywhere rather than focusing resources in one specific place.

This isn't really a new problem. In the 1930s Italy and France were engaged in a building race involving "super-destroyers", which were very fast ships that had the displacement of a large destroyer with the armament of a light cruiser. However, they were suited specifically for the Mediterranean environment, having limited range, endurance, or sea keeping ability. The UK stuck with destroyers that could be used anywhere and so were able to bring their numbers to bear against the Italian navy when required, rendering the super-destroyer wiki-stats advantage irrelevant (leaving aside any RN versus Italian qualitative discussions). Again, geography to a great deal dictated strategy and design policy.
They were very cool though. vroom vroom!
 

Latest Threads

Top