- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Ex-Dragoon said:
Have you seen the video of the AMOS turret firing from a light patrol vessel?
M.
AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
Have you seen the video of the AMOS turret firing from a light patrol vessel?
M.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
I hate to be a nay-sayer but a Mortar on a ship doesn't make any sense to me - especially a CPF-sized ship. The max range of 120mm mortars is not much more than 10km (most are around 9km). This means that if you want to provide NGS to a force ashore you must be very close to the shore. Having a CPF sitting 3-4km off the beach will not make too many sailors happy and providing fire only 6-7km inland won't make too many soldiers happy.
I think the best option for our Navy would be the navalised version of the MLRS rockets or the NTACMS version of the ATACMS missile. Both can be fired from the Mk41 VLS on the Tribals so it would be a cheap and effective way for the Navy to get long range precision NGS capabilities.
MG
I think the best option for our Navy would be the navalised version of the MLRS rockets or the NTACMS version of the ATACMS missile. Both can be fired from the Mk41 VLS on the Tribals so it would be a cheap and effective way for the Navy to get long range precision NGS capabilities.
MG
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Considering a 280 only has 29 cells for SM2s are you sure you want to cut down on your Task Groups Air Defence capability? Protecting your troops and their transportation I think has a higher priority.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
Protect them from what? The air threat in most conceivable situations where we would be supporting troops ashore is not high. I am not suggesting that the Tribals would not carry any Standards, they would just carry fewer of them to make way for about a dozen NTACMS or the like. In a perfect world, the 'big honking ship' that Gen Hillier is talking about would also have Mk41 VLS cells so it could provide its own fire support with NTACMS etc. I know the LPD-17 class are fitted as such and that one option for the 'big honking ship' was to purchase a LPD-17 so maybe this idea isn't too far-fetched.
Another option, which would be incredibly simple for us to do, would be to upgrade to the Harpoon Block II which has a limited land attack capability. This would allow the CPFs to provide at least some precision fire against shore targets.
Regards,
MG
Another option, which would be incredibly simple for us to do, would be to upgrade to the Harpoon Block II which has a limited land attack capability. This would allow the CPFs to provide at least some precision fire against shore targets.
Regards,
MG
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I would prefer the Harpoon II vice losing some of my 29 SM2s.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
With so little SM2s I would rather not take the chance, so I whole heartedly disagree. Lets not forget how many RN ships went down.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
I will definitely bear that in mind when we go up against the Argentines. In the meantime, when we're putting troops into places like Haiti, Sierre Leone, Somalia, East Timor etc. where the air threat is the square root of nil, I will take a NTACMS over a SM-2 any day. But then again, I'm in the Army so I am highly biased
MG
MG
A
aesop081
Guest
Mortar guy said:I will definitely bear that in mind when we go up against the Argentines. In the meantime, when we're putting troops into places like Haiti, Sierre Leone, Somalia, East Timor etc. where the air threat is the square root of nil, I will take a NTACMS over a SM-2 any day. But then again, I'm in the Army so I am highly biased
MG
Do you have a magic crystal ball that says we will always deploy our ships to places like haiti, east timor,somalia....? Do you not think that the Korean peninsula would possibly require maximum AD assests for a naval task group deployed there ? What about east timor...i'm sure if the indonesian government had been beligerent, alot of SM2's would have been nice to have ( in case you didnt know the indonesian air force is rather well equiped) ! The effectiveness of a naval formation depends on its ability to control everything within its area, surface, subsurface and in the air. As mentioned, the argentine air/naval air forces gave the royal navy a serious bloody nose with only a few exocets ( and relatively little training in its employement and no support) and elderly skyhawks armed with conventional bombs. Its not going to take a very powerful nation to send a CPF to the bottom if we let our guard down
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mortar guy said:I will definitely bear that in mind when we go up against the Argentines. In the meantime, when we're putting troops into places like Haiti, Sierre Leone, Somalia, East Timor etc. where the air threat is the square root of nil, I will take a NTACMS over a SM-2 any day. But then again, I'm in the Army so I am highly biased
MG
So let me see if I get this right, you want to use a 1/2 million dollar missile to blow up a shanty in Haiti when you storm ashore with your mortar?
Somebody make this man a General! That's bloody brilliant.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
I see Inch is a graduate of the passive-aggressive school of sarcasm for little girls. Someone make that man a Capt for life!
Just pulling your leg Inch but I think you missed what I was saying. I am not advocating giving up AD all together. All I am saying is that we could have a long range, precision NGS capability very soon with the ships we have (if we wanted to). There is absolutely no need to swap all 29 SM-2s for 29 of some land attack missile. Even 6 NTACMS would be enough to make a serious impact on our potential adversaries. Combine that with a few Harpoon Blaock IIs off a CPF and a heliborne infantry force off the 'big honking ship' and all of a sudden a Canadian TF on a coast is something people will have to pay attention to.
As for your comment aesop - yes I have a crystal ball. Its called the Defence Policy Statement and it says that high intensity conflicts (i.e. big war in Korea) will not be our bag any more. Add to that the numerous presentations I have seen from the CDS Actions Teams and the CDS himself on our future capabilities and I can say with a great deal of certainty that we will not be sending our TFs up against swarms for Chinese Su-30s or Korean MiG-19s any time soon. And besides, even if we do, I am sure the Navy would be smart enough to load the Tribals out with SM-2s. This is what confused me about your post - do you really think that the Navy would send a Tribal into a theatre (Indonesia in your example) where the air threat is high armed only with land attack missiles? You know that the Mk-41 can be unloaded and re-loaded as required, right? So, when you're going into an area where the air threat is high, you max out with SM-2. But, if the threat is low (much more likely), then it would make sense to carry land-attack missiles. That's all I'm sayin.
MG
Just pulling your leg Inch but I think you missed what I was saying. I am not advocating giving up AD all together. All I am saying is that we could have a long range, precision NGS capability very soon with the ships we have (if we wanted to). There is absolutely no need to swap all 29 SM-2s for 29 of some land attack missile. Even 6 NTACMS would be enough to make a serious impact on our potential adversaries. Combine that with a few Harpoon Blaock IIs off a CPF and a heliborne infantry force off the 'big honking ship' and all of a sudden a Canadian TF on a coast is something people will have to pay attention to.
As for your comment aesop - yes I have a crystal ball. Its called the Defence Policy Statement and it says that high intensity conflicts (i.e. big war in Korea) will not be our bag any more. Add to that the numerous presentations I have seen from the CDS Actions Teams and the CDS himself on our future capabilities and I can say with a great deal of certainty that we will not be sending our TFs up against swarms for Chinese Su-30s or Korean MiG-19s any time soon. And besides, even if we do, I am sure the Navy would be smart enough to load the Tribals out with SM-2s. This is what confused me about your post - do you really think that the Navy would send a Tribal into a theatre (Indonesia in your example) where the air threat is high armed only with land attack missiles? You know that the Mk-41 can be unloaded and re-loaded as required, right? So, when you're going into an area where the air threat is high, you max out with SM-2. But, if the threat is low (much more likely), then it would make sense to carry land-attack missiles. That's all I'm sayin.
MG
A
aesop081
Guest
Mortar guy,
I was at some of the same presentations you were ( maybe not the same location) and listen to the same grand ideas. But i think that high-intensity conflicts will not be our bag until one comes up that we are stuck with fighting. No one expected to fight another war after WW2 and then we were in korea. After the Korean war, dogfights were considered a thing of the past, then Vietnam came along. The CDS asside, no plan ever survise first contact with the enemy ( have we told them that high-intensity ops are not our thing anymore)
I was at some of the same presentations you were ( maybe not the same location) and listen to the same grand ideas. But i think that high-intensity conflicts will not be our bag until one comes up that we are stuck with fighting. No one expected to fight another war after WW2 and then we were in korea. After the Korean war, dogfights were considered a thing of the past, then Vietnam came along. The CDS asside, no plan ever survise first contact with the enemy ( have we told them that high-intensity ops are not our thing anymore)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
the air threat is from a asymetrical small planes or UAV's (see Palestine (Hezabollah) invading Israeli airspace). (Can u believe that!! with its Patriot Systems always burnin and churin!)
Or what about the threat of this little ill equipped countries having some old HY-2, STYX's sittin around a warehouse.
An amphib carrier would be well advised to be able to defend itself from short/long range SSM threat with some Tribal Power or a itself.
Or what about the threat of this little ill equipped countries having some old HY-2, STYX's sittin around a warehouse.
An amphib carrier would be well advised to be able to defend itself from short/long range SSM threat with some Tribal Power or a itself.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
No problem. Not only am I a graduate myself, I am also the President and CEO. 8)
MG
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I tend to lean towards a gun (nothing smaller then a 5 inch)and Harpoon IIs. that way we have something for short and long range support. Might be a start to get the basics down again before we can consider trying for the big league stuff.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Just an add on. I was looking at the 5 inch /62 caliber mod 4 that the USN are putting on the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderogas. The new EX 171 ERGM (Extended Range Guided Munition) will have a range of around 60 miles with an effective rate of fire of 16-20 rounds a minute. Although the gun would be useless for AAW and AMD, it would be great to have for ASuW and the NGS roles.
- Reaction score
- 4,019
- Points
- 1,120
I would still lean towards a mortar or gun option.
The unit cost per amount of HE on target for a Mortar/gun vs Missile is way off....what does a block II Harpoon carry? A few hundred pounds of HE? What does it cost? How many mortar rounds or gun rounds can you buy for that money instead?
How many Harpoons has the CF Fired in practice? How many mortar rounds could we fire in practice for the same price??
Certainly there are Extended range projectiles available for 120mm mortar systems, but even if they cost double what a regular round does (just guessing) I would think that it would still be a less expensive option than missiles.
NavyShooter
The unit cost per amount of HE on target for a Mortar/gun vs Missile is way off....what does a block II Harpoon carry? A few hundred pounds of HE? What does it cost? How many mortar rounds or gun rounds can you buy for that money instead?
How many Harpoons has the CF Fired in practice? How many mortar rounds could we fire in practice for the same price??
Certainly there are Extended range projectiles available for 120mm mortar systems, but even if they cost double what a regular round does (just guessing) I would think that it would still be a less expensive option than missiles.
NavyShooter
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Yes but with a 5 inch/62 and a Harpoon II they would have multiple uses. We could still engage ships and shore targets. While we could I suppose do the same with a 120mm mortar I doubt it would have the same accuracy and reliabilty in a surface engagement.
