donald_of_tokyo wrote:If ever River B2 to be up-armed in reaction to current situation or in view of "dedicated for Persian Gulf", I think one powerful option is to make it "removable", so that the hull configuration can be brought back into EEZ patrol version easily in future.
So, here is the version with
- a 30mm gun with 5 LMM at bow (not shown)
- a 20mm CIWS in place of the crane (from the pooled units)
- and a few 12.7mm and 7.62mm guns
- with simple ESM/chaff/flare kits added (not shown)
How about two of them for Persian Gulf patrol, until T31e will ever be ready? (say, ~2024 at the earliest, and more later if my proposal to delay and even cancel T31e was chosen). If more fire power be needed, add two to four 3-tube LMM launcher operated by RM team, or even 6-8 more 7.62mm gatling guns, operated by RM detachment (plenty of room for them).
I do not think it is stupid, although I agree there can be some better idea (including keeping it as a simple Offshore Patrol Vessel (of course, not inshore ...)).SKB wrote:Stupid to put CIWS on an inshore patrol vessel. Especially as you've also made the helipad unusable. Rotor blades will hit the CIWS.
Figures, replaced.No fantasy ships/weapons refits here please, theres already a thread for that.... https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=215
I think there are many R2D2s waiting for T26 to come, and here I am talking about short term, well before T26 comes into service. But, yes, it is man-power consuming, which is not so good, I agree. For helicopter, see above, but I do understand your concern.RichardIC wrote:Phalanx is an expensive bit of kit and the RN/RFA are already short of them. And there's limited ammunition on the mount which takes an eternity to reload manually. So not good for swarm attacks. And there's the helicopter issue too.
Very good sentence, I thinkIf you have to be so unspeakably vulgar as to upgun the River B2s...
What kind of ballistic protections do T23 have? (How heavy it will be?) I could not find info about it. On the ops room, ESM needs one console, and CIWS needs another one. That's all we need here. If it is 57mm gun, the added console number is the same (because ESM/chaff/flare is anyway needed).But you'd also, as Caribbean said, need to add some serious ballistic protection, which is going to impose further weight penalties, and ESM, ECM etc. . You're probably going to have a very cramped ops room.
I agree it is not 10M GBP or so. But, I am comparing it with 1.5B GBP of T31e. Also in man-power point of view, River B2 ship handling crew will be anyway needed, and only weapon handling crew is needed in addition. Much less than T31e needs.And not cheap. You'd need to be desperate but the RN doesn't have a whole bag of options.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:What kind of ballistic protections do T23 have? (How heavy it will be?) I could not find info about it. On the ops room, ESM needs one console, and CIWS needs another one. That's all we need here. If it is 57mm gun, the added console number is the same (because ESM/chaff/flare is anyway needed).
Thanks. I'm not that against to your comment, which is actually very helpful for me. Only my big concern is, RN do not have enough man-power to handle large "crewing requirements" of the 5 T31e (*1) without keeping 3-4 T45/T23ASW/T26 in extended readiness. Nothing is for nothing = there is no crew.RichardIC wrote:Donald, I’m really content that you can’t Google where RN vessels are fitted with ballistic protection.
Just please remember that that every gizmo you fit adds weight and adds to crewing requirements. Nothing is for nothing.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:One question. HMS Medway is handed-over to RN, but NOT yet commissioned, I understand. Are they doing FOST before commissioning? Or, she has already commissioned?
jimthelad wrote:Manual system is backup only. FCS is by bridge console.
1: Stand-alone launcher, need to be stabilized? I'm not sure, if the system can be accurate enough without stabilization.Caribbean wrote:Correct - attaching LMM to the side of the mount will make reversionary control impossible on the ASCG, which has always been a sticking point for the RN. I'm surprised to see that configuration being used, a stand-alone launcher seemed much more likely.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: Stand-alone launcher, need to be stabilized? I'm not sure, if the system can be accurate enough without stabilization.
Thanks. And it looks expensive. "Will it be cheaper (in view of purchase cost, maintenance cost, and man-power/logistics) to have 2nd 30mm DS turret with 5-LMM, or Aselsan turret independently?", is my question.Tempest414 wrote:donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: Stand-alone launcher, need to be stabilized? I'm not sure, if the system can be accurate enough without stabilization.
There is already a stablilized 8 round unit in the Aselsan / Thales UK system
Rohde & Schwarz provides shipborne communications for line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight connectivity, supporting the future of the Royal Navy.
With the Royal Navy retaining its three Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPV) and the OPV(H), HMS Clyde until 2020, essential for protecting British waters, fisheries and national security, five new-generation Batch 2 OPVs have been ordered. Three of these OPVs are expected to be in service with the Royal Navy by the end of the year. Rohde & Schwarz is providing turnkey communications solutions for both batches, supporting the future of the Royal Navy.
HMS Severn in alongside Portsmouth - regenerating prior to rejoining the fleet shortly
Users browsing this forum: serge750 and 14 guests