When was it ever implied that the reason for the raised deck for the WHEC was because it could not take the deck penetration?
The original gun extended several decks down, and that was a known quantity when the deck-penetration discussions started.
Actually, it was never implied implicitly. I was simply drawn to that conclusion, perhaps in error, on the basis of discussions we had on mounts that required naval deck penetration.
. an intermediate step on the road to the missile-navy: Modern gun mounts. The assertion:
Add these to our existing ships; figure out how to operate them; and then we will be better able to operate more complicated equipment in the future.
Thoughts and comments are welcome . . . as always.
=== ~~~ ===
Radical armament changes, such as adding an Oto Melara 76mm gun to an old ship, are possible as shown by the photographs below. These show the results of the FRAM conversion of the Hamilton class high-endurance cutters of the USCG.
But the sample above is an American undertaking, on a superpower's budget. Note how they had to create a new deck for the new gun. For the Philippines, we may need to look for simpler solutions.
=== ~~~ ===
The Philippine Navy upgraded the firepower of the Jacinto Class OPVs with the addition of a 25mm gun turret manufactured by MSI Defense. The MSI Defense Web site described their product as a "no deck penetration" solution. Indicating that it was a system that could, essentially, be bolted on to whatever ship needed it. Details here: http://www.msi-dsl.com/naval.html
......Here's the idea:
Why not replace some, or all, of the Bofors mounts on our older ships with this mount?
IMHO, here are the advantages to the plan (please feel free to shoot holes):
- Improved night fighting capability. The MSI gun can be slaved to an electro-optical device which can track targets in a variety of low-light conditions. The old Bofors used the old Mk.1 eyeball.
- Crew size reduction. Based on the photo below, a twin 40mm Bofors mount requires six people to operate:
-> two for traverse and aiming
-> two loaders
-> two assistant loaders (who give the loaders the ammo)
The MSI gun mount only requires one individual to operate. For a ship like the PF11 which has three of these twin mounts, that's a reduction of 15 crewmen. I don't have operating costs for our ships, but it would be reasonable to assume that some savings would result from such a crew reduction.
- Improved crew protection. The MSI mount can be operated either at the mount itself, or remotely from within the ship. Bofors operators work in their unprotected stations. (This has other advantages, in relation to our sailors "demeanor" when in the presence of flying projectiles . . . but that is another story)
- Economies of scale. Right now we have three ships that either already have, or will have this mount. If we increased the number of instances of this mount, it would justify improving in-house support for this equipment. That's another important step in preparing for electronics-intensive missile ships.
The following list shows the potential number of mounts that could be replaced:
Rajah Humabon (PS 11) [Cannon class] - 3 x twin 40mm/56 Bofors
Rizal (PS 74) - 2 x twin 40mm/56 Bofors
Quezon (PS 70) - 2 x twin 40mm/56 Bofors
Miguel Malvar (PS-19) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Magat Salamat (PS-20) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Datu Marikudo (PS-23) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Cebu (PS-28) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Negros Occidental (PS-29) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Pangasinan (PS-31) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
Iloilo (PS-32) - 2 to 6, twin or single, 40mm/56 Bofors
That's anywhere from 21 to 55 mounts -- if the PN does a one-to-one replacement.
Why the DS30?
- Approximation of the gun being replaced. This is the largest of the MSI gun mounts. Since they're replacing 40mm guns, might as well get as close to the original caliber as possible.
Alternatively we could go with the same 25mm mount already used on the Jacinto class, which uses the same 25mm Bushmaster gun used on the Mariano Alvarez, and the Jose Andrada class. This would also simplify logistics.
- Leveraging existing experience. This gun mount that already exists in the navy inventory, so we already have some experience with it. (If anyone else knows about equivalent systems, feel free to share)
- Upgrade opportunity. Expanding our experience with this mount, puts us in an interesting position to move up to MSI Defense's other interesting mount: the SIGMA gun/missile array
What do we do with Bofors if we remove them?
More of these perhaps?
The above-highlighted statements, COUPLED with this ones below caused me a lot of questions:
For how much longer are you willing to see these old ships in service?
A project like this will require structural re-work so that these ships can support the weight of new equipment (both missiles and blast deflectors that would keep the missiles from damaging the ship when launched), as well as to accommodate new power generation equipment and all the electrical connections required for the sensors as well as the weapons. If the PN commits to that expense, these ships have to operate for quite a while to make all that effort worthwhile. What would be the return on investment on such an effort if we're looking at the Humabon-generation of ships?http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=27520.0
On hindsight, even the old "Baby-steps with gun systems" idea would have been similarly ill advised.http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=10502.0
As we found out in the gun system inquiry, thanks to a retired USN sailor (on another forum), there ain't no such thing as a zero deck penetration system. This is simply a marketing term that ignores the fact that you need a fair amount of structural reinforcement to accommodate something that wasn't meant to be there in the initial design.======
May the Humabon, PCEs, et. al. serve out their term in the PN in their current state. There are, after all, other missions that do not require missiles. We need hulls in the water to maintain a presence. That is what these ships are still in service for.
Leave the function of going toe-to-toe with missile armed ships to the new generation of PN boats that are to come.
That being said, there is at least one ship in the inventory where a missile retrofit is less of a "what-if", and more of a "when".
As per AO 169 . . . this ship will be in service for at least another 15 years.
While you were centering on accomodating Missile Mounts, I was of the impression that the Naval Deck Mods required on existing PN decks may not have the structural integrity to take new 76 mm OTO Melara Gun Emplacements.
You and the others, as evidenced by your posts above, were actually pushing/suggesting/postulating the possibility of more modern Gun/Missile emplacements, as we are currently doing here, and suggesting an adaptaion of current WW II guns if removed.
It was just that I personally had questions about and needed clarification on, that Chuck helped bring to light.