NORGE/Norway
Re: NORGE/Norway
Repair of Helge Ingstad could cost up to 1,6 bln. USD:
https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/16/repai ... iry-finds/
https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/16/repai ... iry-finds/
- These users liked the author abc123 for the post:
- Scimitar54
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: NORGE/Norway
Not very clever to hit Norgie vessels - they are known to speak their mind (Reuters just put this one out):
"The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Norway are investigating the attacks, which also hit a UAE- and a Norwegian-flagged vessel.
A confidential assessment issued this week by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Mutual War Risks Insurance Association (DNK) concluded that the attack was likely to have been carried out by a surface vessel operating close by that despatched underwater drones carrying 30-50 kg (65-110 lb) of high-grade explosives to detonate on impact. "
Can't use the same trick twice... the next deniable one is probably with mines. These drones must be made of easily/ widely available materials, not traceable to any factory as they have been probably handicrafted
- calling them torpedoes would make the incident an act of war
The other two countries whose vessels were targets are 'investigating'.
"The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Norway are investigating the attacks, which also hit a UAE- and a Norwegian-flagged vessel.
A confidential assessment issued this week by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Mutual War Risks Insurance Association (DNK) concluded that the attack was likely to have been carried out by a surface vessel operating close by that despatched underwater drones carrying 30-50 kg (65-110 lb) of high-grade explosives to detonate on impact. "
Can't use the same trick twice... the next deniable one is probably with mines. These drones must be made of easily/ widely available materials, not traceable to any factory as they have been probably handicrafted
- calling them torpedoes would make the incident an act of war
The other two countries whose vessels were targets are 'investigating'.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: NORGE/Norway
Only just realised that Helge Ingstad was one of the ships involved in Exercise Saxon Warrior 2017, and on 8th August 2017, she was there when QE and USS George H.W. Bush met up in the North Sea...
See 0:23 ^
See 0:23 ^
Re: NORGE/Norway
Helge Ingstadt to be scrapped.
Lesson: Never use the number 13 as part of a pennant number.
Re: NORGE/Norway
Very sad, but seemed inevitable once they were unable to keep 313's topsides from submerging.
Re: NORGE/Norway
Norway officially decides to scrap KNM Helge Ingstad frigate
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... d-frigate/The disposal of the navy frigate will have significant consequences for Norway’s defense. “We have large sea areas and a long coastline. Good control at sea is absolutely essential in the defense of the country. Therefore, we have been aware all the way that the capacity represented by KNM Helge Ingstad must be re-established,” he said.
Re: NORGE/Norway
Well it does give them the opportunity to build a similar ship with greater C&C capabilities, providing a Flagship for any Norwegian or NATO Task Force.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: NORGE/Norway
Will Navantia's 'product warranty' go anyway towards funding that
... they could recoup some of that from the profits
... they could recoup some of that from the profits
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: NORGE/Norway
Norway has flown some cv90 into Lithuanian as part of the NATO response.
Some have proclaimed you’d never want to do that…….
Some have proclaimed you’d never want to do that…….
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: NORGE/Norway
A short hop... lifting armour costs in range (as the structural limitations, otherwise, are well known).
When Germany still had their mini-panzers (I believe mortar carriers are still in service), they had specially made floor elements for the Lufthansa cargo 747s so that , err, 7 of those armoured Wiesel vehicles could be carried
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: NORGE/Norway
There’s a range payload trade off in anything you fly anywhere. Sometimes speed is important he who gets there first usually winsArmChairCivvy wrote: ↑08 Mar 2022, 11:58A short hop... lifting armour costs in range (as the structural limitations, otherwise, are well known).
When Germany still had their mini-panzers (I believe mortar carriers are still in service), they had specially made floor elements for the Lufthansa cargo 747s so that , err, 7 of those armoured Wiesel vehicles could be carried
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: NORGE/Norway
Especially if we are talking about contesting nuclear powers (ref: Pristina airport).
However, I was referencing that particular situation:
"Flight distance from Vilnius to Oslo (Vilnius Airport – Oslo Airport, Gardermoen) is 653 miles / 1050 kilometers / 567 nautical miles. Estimated flight time is 1 hour 44 minutes"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: NORGE/Norway
IndeedArmChairCivvy wrote: ↑08 Mar 2022, 12:17Especially if we are talking about contesting nuclear powers (ref: Pristina airport).
However, I was referencing that particular situation:
"Flight distance from Vilnius to Oslo (Vilnius Airport – Oslo Airport, Gardermoen) is 653 miles / 1050 kilometers / 567 nautical miles. Estimated flight time is 1 hour 44 minutes"
Yes not particularly far but i guess shipping was on the days category. Think they’re was once a requirement to move small amounts of armour over around 2000 miles rapidly for the likes off ourselves.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: NORGE/Norway
What would that, say over 3 days, translate to with our C-17s and A-400Ms?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: NORGE/Norway
You might get two flights a day in , then dependant on how many aircraft and crew assigned. But if you wanted to do it and set a requirement against it you could work the other way as size your transport need to cover it.ArmChairCivvy wrote: ↑08 Mar 2022, 12:25What would that, say over 3 days, translate to with our C-17s and A-400Ms?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: NORGE/Norway
Given recent developments who thinks this is rather a good idea....turns a rather anaemic M72 LAW from a light anti armour weapon into a stand off MBT killer...its HEAT warhead will penetrate any MBT's roof armour. Simple, cheap....in development since 2017, pity there aren't any in Ukraine...yet.
NAMMO Press Release
Nammo is pleased to announce that the company is working on a drone-mounted M72 concept. The M72 is a 66mm caliber single use light anti-tank weapon effective against a range of targets such as armored vehicles, personnel, lightly fortified structures, or similar.
The M72 is qualified and in use by a wide range of armed forces in several (mostly NATO) countries and offers a good combination of low weight and heavy firepower. In a regular usage scenario, it is fired from the shoulder of the operator.
While most variants have a maximum effective range around 350 meters, the new drone concept opens up several new possibilities for versatile use and much longer ranges.
– With the M72 mounted on a drone, users can bring the weapon to the target in a way not previously possible. This opens up both a “top attack” option against more heavily armored targets, even up to main battle tanks, while at the same time removing operators from the danger zone, says Quoc Bao Diep, Nammo’s Vice President for Shoulder Fired Systems.
Drone Swarms
The M72 drone concept is also a low-cost concept that does not rely on GPS or similar to function. With a degree of automation, the number of operators can be kept at a reasonable level, and the light anti-tank weapon / drone combination can likely operate in so-called swarms. Compared to conventional anti-tank missiles, this can be an effective and inexpensive solution against armored forces. M72 variants meant to be used against armored targets can penetrate at least 450mm of steel.
– Currently, we are looking at using existing and commercially available drones. Since there is no or very little recoil from the weapon, it is an ideal combination within a range of 3 to 4 kilometers, says Diep.
Extending range
Nammo is also looking at options to extend the range of a drone-carried M72 systems even more. Currently, a live video feed from cameras on the drone is transmitted back to the operator. This has a maximum range of around 3-4 kilometers, but with improved signal strength, the company is experimenting with ranges up to 50 km.
In development since 2017
Nammo’s M72 drone concept has been developed as an in-house project, with support from Norway’s Defense Development Institute (FFI). The system has been presented at the ADEX trade show in Seoul (October 2021), and has gone through several live fire demonstrations for potential clients such as the Norwegian Army as well.
– The next stage for us is to refine and improve the system. We believe a qualification process in cooperation with potential customers should be possible as well within the coming next few years. Even though the drone-mounted M72 is currently best described as a “proof of concept”, the individual components – the weapon as well as drone options – are already mature, qualified and in use. Now we need to make sure that everything works well together. Also, there are possibilities for enhancing sensor and system integration, says Diep.
https://www.nammo.com/story/drone-mount ... g-results/
NAMMO Press Release
Nammo is pleased to announce that the company is working on a drone-mounted M72 concept. The M72 is a 66mm caliber single use light anti-tank weapon effective against a range of targets such as armored vehicles, personnel, lightly fortified structures, or similar.
The M72 is qualified and in use by a wide range of armed forces in several (mostly NATO) countries and offers a good combination of low weight and heavy firepower. In a regular usage scenario, it is fired from the shoulder of the operator.
While most variants have a maximum effective range around 350 meters, the new drone concept opens up several new possibilities for versatile use and much longer ranges.
– With the M72 mounted on a drone, users can bring the weapon to the target in a way not previously possible. This opens up both a “top attack” option against more heavily armored targets, even up to main battle tanks, while at the same time removing operators from the danger zone, says Quoc Bao Diep, Nammo’s Vice President for Shoulder Fired Systems.
Drone Swarms
The M72 drone concept is also a low-cost concept that does not rely on GPS or similar to function. With a degree of automation, the number of operators can be kept at a reasonable level, and the light anti-tank weapon / drone combination can likely operate in so-called swarms. Compared to conventional anti-tank missiles, this can be an effective and inexpensive solution against armored forces. M72 variants meant to be used against armored targets can penetrate at least 450mm of steel.
– Currently, we are looking at using existing and commercially available drones. Since there is no or very little recoil from the weapon, it is an ideal combination within a range of 3 to 4 kilometers, says Diep.
Extending range
Nammo is also looking at options to extend the range of a drone-carried M72 systems even more. Currently, a live video feed from cameras on the drone is transmitted back to the operator. This has a maximum range of around 3-4 kilometers, but with improved signal strength, the company is experimenting with ranges up to 50 km.
In development since 2017
Nammo’s M72 drone concept has been developed as an in-house project, with support from Norway’s Defense Development Institute (FFI). The system has been presented at the ADEX trade show in Seoul (October 2021), and has gone through several live fire demonstrations for potential clients such as the Norwegian Army as well.
– The next stage for us is to refine and improve the system. We believe a qualification process in cooperation with potential customers should be possible as well within the coming next few years. Even though the drone-mounted M72 is currently best described as a “proof of concept”, the individual components – the weapon as well as drone options – are already mature, qualified and in use. Now we need to make sure that everything works well together. Also, there are possibilities for enhancing sensor and system integration, says Diep.
https://www.nammo.com/story/drone-mount ... g-results/
Re: NORGE/Norway
An interesting idea, but the range of the M72, even in its latest forms is still very short and that means the drone carrying it will be flying at low level where it could be seen and definitely heard. Saying that if used in conjunction with higher altitude UAS, the drone carrying one or more M72s could fly at very low level, only exposing themselves at the last minute, and even then the UAS being looked at as very cheap relatively speaking, a few hundred Dollars each, and the M72 is also a cheap weapon. As long as both remain as such the combo is inherently disposable and so further development is a good idea.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: NORGE/Norway
Using them like the Ukrainian's do, at night with cheap civilian thermal imaging, seems to be the way forward. M72 has a 500m range, but thats horizontal...flying vertically downwards you're not going to have significant drop in the trajectory, wind would need factoring in. But 200m up will reduce the sound dramatically. You'd be near guaranteed a hit at that range.
- These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 2):
- Lord Jim • ArmChairCivvy
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: NORGE/Norway
OK, instead of shooting down, shooting up with this enhanced 40mm AGL. Just about any vehicle could be turned into an anti-drone capability, with AB making it hard to 'miss'
- it is only a short part towards the end of this demo
Now the earlier parts will surely make @LJ recommend that our new MIVs get some on the top
... and I do agree
- it is only a short part towards the end of this demo
Now the earlier parts will surely make @LJ recommend that our new MIVs get some on the top
... and I do agree
- These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
- Lord Jim
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: NORGE/Norway
German's are alreadt developing a 40mm Grenade Launcher for anti UAV work.ArmChairCivvy wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 08:55 OK, instead of shooting down, shooting up with this enhanced 40mm AGL. Just about any vehicle could be turned into an anti-drone capability, with AB making it hard to 'miss'
Problem is....UAV optics, cheap thermal imaging and battery tech is all advancing that fast that everything points to them going even higher and faster, a 40mm MV grenade is not going to be good at dealing with anything flying fast or higher...
- These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: NORGE/Norway
The Spanish have developed a lightweight RWS using either a 40mm AGL with said ammunition or a 7.62mm Mini Gun. It takes about twenty minutes to change weapons but both have been seen to be very effective against UAS within range. The air burst grenade's are of the higher powered variety with greater range and velocity that the more commonly used types. HE and other types are available in this more powerful format for use from AGLs.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: NORGE/Norway
All is not well in NH-90 land...Australia...then Sweden....now Norway.
Looks like Norway has a choice of Merlin HM.2, MH-60R or CH-148 Cyclone...
Don't think anyone will touch CH-148 with a bargepole however....and they already operate AW-101 for SAR and Utility and are very happy with them....but will Merlin HM.2 fit on their ships.....if not the way is clear for MH-60R.
EDIT: Some are saying Merlin will not fit on Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen Class Frigates (not shocking, its a tight squeeze on T23 to say the least, but if it can be made to work on T23...) or other vessels (the helo's are operated by the Norwegian Coast Guard and Norwegian Air Force, not the Navy). The Norwegian's were replacing their Lynx with NH-90...possible chance for Wildcat in its South Korean/Phillipine ASW guise, but more likely they'd go for MH-60R/S (if they fit).
Looks like Norway has a choice of Merlin HM.2, MH-60R or CH-148 Cyclone...
Don't think anyone will touch CH-148 with a bargepole however....and they already operate AW-101 for SAR and Utility and are very happy with them....but will Merlin HM.2 fit on their ships.....if not the way is clear for MH-60R.
EDIT: Some are saying Merlin will not fit on Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen Class Frigates (not shocking, its a tight squeeze on T23 to say the least, but if it can be made to work on T23...) or other vessels (the helo's are operated by the Norwegian Coast Guard and Norwegian Air Force, not the Navy). The Norwegian's were replacing their Lynx with NH-90...possible chance for Wildcat in its South Korean/Phillipine ASW guise, but more likely they'd go for MH-60R/S (if they fit).
- These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5600
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: NORGE/Norway
SH60R, "Romeo", is becoming more and more "common" ASW helicopter worldwide...
Not sure what's wrong with NH-90. Every issues states availability issue. Just, not enough spare parts? Or, very high malfunction rate?
Not sure what's wrong with NH-90. Every issues states availability issue. Just, not enough spare parts? Or, very high malfunction rate?