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

[Lumber]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...(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]

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]

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]

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: :