Author Topic: Retitled: Uparming the Del Pilar class  (Read 124271 times)

Adroth

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31392
  • Logo from: www.proudlypinoy.org
    • http://www.adroth.ph
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #225 on: March 12, 2012, 03:02:49 PM »
Can't tell you for sure. I believe they would have continued to use the same magazine space, but did not spend much time on them after FRAM.

Roger that sir, thanks.

Are the magazine spaces designed in a manner that would facilitate re-purposing, or would they really have required major work to be used for anything other than the intend use?

Would it actually make sense to keep that part of the ship as-is so as not to affect the vessel's ship-handling characteristics?
The campaign to establish a Philippine equivalent to DARPA / DAPA / DSTA: http://adroth.ph/srdp_roadmap_darpa/

Don't get mad at China. GET EVEN. Join the movement to defy a Chinese "order".


Chuck Hill

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
    • CGBlog
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #226 on: March 12, 2012, 03:30:07 PM »
I presumed they would continue to use the same magazine space because it is already piped and wired for sprinkler systems and alarms, and the fore-and-aft location of the gun has not changed much if any.

They have probably converted the old upper handling room to other purposes, but hoists probably still com up through it.

12th BCT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Dulce bellum inexpertis...
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #227 on: March 12, 2012, 09:06:12 PM »
12th,

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.  :beer:

=== ~~~ ===

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.

Before upgrade



After upgrade



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".

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=25937.msg256889#msg256889

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.
Ad praesens ova cras pullis sunt meliora...

miggye

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2362
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #228 on: March 12, 2012, 09:16:50 PM »
Guys, thank you very much on the enlightening discussion! really..... :thumbsup:

@sir Chuck Hill, when 12th brought up the DSI mount, was also tempted about the Typhoon system being able to handle Spike ERs, but then realixed the DSI had a big advantage. the Thales LMM Missile is capable of SAM work, as well as short ranged SSM service.  :D
Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria mori
De Profundis ad Astra

XM1MBT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #229 on: March 15, 2012, 08:44:47 PM »
Can a study be made for the feasibility of mounting  1 or 2 batteries
Of M270 MLRS on the Gregorio Del Pilar?

With M31 missiles or ATACAM conventional warhead?

At a reasonable cost for each unit, would it be possible for
Naval use mounted on a deck of a ship?

Just a thought
STAND BY TO REPELL BOARDERS!!!

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!!!

Duty, Honor, Country, Sempre Fi

F4 Phantom II "the Largest Supplier of MIG SPARE PARTS in the World" Established Since 1962

miggye

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2362
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #230 on: March 15, 2012, 09:25:46 PM »
Can a study be made for the feasibility of mounting  1 or 2 batteries
Of M270 MLRS on the Gregorio Del Pilar?

With M31 missiles or ATACAM conventional warhead?

At a reasonable cost for each unit, would it be possible for
Naval use mounted on a deck of a ship?

Just a thought

uhhhmmm, is there a navalized version of the ATACMS or the MLRS? has both weapon systems been tried under salt spray and rough seas? you also have to consider that the exhaust from the missiles you are talking about is toxic, and that their blast could melt exposed surfaces. VLS systems have venting away from the ship. the ATACM and MLRS do not fit into the standard launcher tube dimensions.
there are land strike versions of the Harpoon, Exocet, Gabriel, AS15. Even the Thales LMM and the Spike ER/NLOS had been designed to be used by naval vessels.
another thing, where do you plan to place the launcher for these missiles? have you studied the deck plans?
Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria mori
De Profundis ad Astra

40niner_com

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4315
  • Obsolete weapons do not deter.
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #231 on: March 15, 2012, 09:30:55 PM »
^ Are you trying to convert the BRP GDP into land-attack ship?  To whom would you want to consign those warheads :)  Bundesmarine did studied integrating such system into the future F125 frigate, but cost of marinizing such was not viable... and that is a new design.  It's really much more difficult to retrofit a new system into an existing design without a very extensive, cost-, and time-consuming study.  Better save that money for a cost effective design.

This is far off her purpose of acquisition.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 09:32:41 PM by 40niner_com »
Obsolete weapons do not deter. You do not base a defence policy on someone else's good intentions.
- Apr 7, 1989 [Baroness Margaret Thatcher, UK PM (1979-90)]

Adroth

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31392
  • Logo from: www.proudlypinoy.org
    • http://www.adroth.ph
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #232 on: March 15, 2012, 10:35:03 PM »

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.

You extrapolated a tad bit too much.

The intent was to highlight the fact that there were mechanisms below the gun itself, and that it was not a simple matter of putting a turret on top of the deck. Nothing more. The engineering rationale for why they choose to accommodate the feed mechanism in a structure above the deck was never the focus.

Quote
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.

Re our ships. As explained in the posts on the links to external discussions, the structural enhancements are required to prevent damage to the decks as a result of the harmonics generated by the guns. Click the links that I cited as references for the original discussions on external fora.

=====

The modifications required would indeed be prohibitive, especially since we are supposed to be looking for opportunities to retire them. If you spend the amount required to modify them to accommodate the Oto Melara, then you'd have no choice but to keep using them to realize a reasonable ROI.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 10:52:05 PM by Adroth »
The campaign to establish a Philippine equivalent to DARPA / DAPA / DSTA: http://adroth.ph/srdp_roadmap_darpa/

Don't get mad at China. GET EVEN. Join the movement to defy a Chinese "order".


Chuck Hill

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
    • CGBlog
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #233 on: March 15, 2012, 10:56:43 PM »
Can a study be made for the feasibility of mounting  1 or 2 batteries
Of M270 MLRS on the Gregorio Del Pilar?

With M31 missiles or ATACAM conventional warhead?

At a reasonable cost for each unit, would it be possible for
Naval use mounted on a deck of a ship?

Just a thought

If you have a tracked MLRS you can put it on the LCU and run it aground on any of the several shoals or islets to steady the LCU or put the MLRS  ashore and fire from there. A little surveying and exploration would probably find a lot of potential launch positions. Shoot and scoot.

The USN has talked about the possibility of mounting MLRS on ships, but so far nothing has come of it.

XM1MBT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #234 on: March 15, 2012, 11:21:16 PM »
uhhhmmm, is there a navalized version of the ATACMS or the MLRS? has both weapon systems been tried under salt spray and rough seas? you also have to consider that the exhaust from the missiles you are talking about is toxic, and that their blast could melt exposed surfaces. VLS systems have venting away from the ship. the ATACM and MLRS do not fit into the standard launcher tube dimensions.
there are land strike versions of the Harpoon, Exocet, Gabriel, AS15. Even the Thales LMM and the Spike ER/NLOS had been designed to be used by naval vessels.
another thing, where do you plan to place the launcher for these missiles? have you studied the deck plans?

Basically using the rotating launcher "turret" from the M270
Dismounted from the track vehicle and re-engineering/routing the computer
That was in the cab into the ships CIC
I don't want to sound simplistic but the idea is there
That's why I suggested a study .
It's a proven system on land. Probably cost effective than a VLS
As for the track vehicle it can be recycled to mount the new 155 mm guns
The army received and used as open topped Mobile artillery or SP
Artillery.

STAND BY TO REPELL BOARDERS!!!

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!!!

Duty, Honor, Country, Sempre Fi

F4 Phantom II "the Largest Supplier of MIG SPARE PARTS in the World" Established Since 1962

Adroth

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31392
  • Logo from: www.proudlypinoy.org
    • http://www.adroth.ph
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #235 on: March 15, 2012, 11:53:17 PM »
It's a proven system on land. Probably cost effective than a VLS

VLS systems launch a variety of missiles, to include those that look for their targets. MLRS systems typically fire unguided rockets at static targets. Unless your looking are shore bombardment applications . . . this is an apples to oranges comparison methinks.
The campaign to establish a Philippine equivalent to DARPA / DAPA / DSTA: http://adroth.ph/srdp_roadmap_darpa/

Don't get mad at China. GET EVEN. Join the movement to defy a Chinese "order".


atty_rcb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
  • PRIMUS INTER PARES
    • Hooded Angel
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #236 on: March 16, 2012, 01:02:44 AM »
Some of China's warships have rockets right?

I saw the circle with rounded tubes on some of their ships on the pictures that were posted here before...

so MLRS is possible.. my opinion only..
"A realistic thinking does not base itself on wishful thinking that peace will come on its own, but it is secured by mutual, hard security guarantees," said Duda's foreign policy adviser, Krzysztof Szczerski.


"To keep the peace, we should have the ability to defend ourself," ---- Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko



Impossible is found in the dictionary of fools


The competitor to be feared the most is the one who never worries about others at all and goes on making himself better all the time --Henry Ford

In critical moments even the very powerful have need of the weakest. ---Aesop ~Zeuxis

They attack the one man with their hate and their shower of weapons. But he is like some rock which stretches into the vast sea and which, exposed to the fury of the winds and beaten against by the waves, endures all the violence -- VIRGIL

“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.”   Jeremy Bentham

“The life of the law has NOT been logic; it has been experience.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Chuck Hill

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 335
    • CGBlog
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #237 on: March 16, 2012, 01:08:24 AM »
Some of China's warships have rockets right?

I saw the circle with rounded tubes on some of their ships on the pictures that were posted here before...

so MLRS is possible.. my opinion only..

Those are ASW rockets. They are fired in patterns to attack suspected submarines.

Unguided shore bombardment rockets were common in WWII. They are fine for saturating a beach before a landing. Not so good for hitting another ship at sea (unless they are guided).

atty_rcb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
  • PRIMUS INTER PARES
    • Hooded Angel
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #238 on: March 16, 2012, 01:21:03 AM »
I stand corrected.. thanks sir C.

Those are ASW rockets. They are fired in patterns to attack suspected submarines.

Unguided shore bombardment rockets were common in WWII. They are fine for saturating a beach before a landing. Not so good for hitting another ship at sea (unless they are guided).
"A realistic thinking does not base itself on wishful thinking that peace will come on its own, but it is secured by mutual, hard security guarantees," said Duda's foreign policy adviser, Krzysztof Szczerski.


"To keep the peace, we should have the ability to defend ourself," ---- Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko



Impossible is found in the dictionary of fools


The competitor to be feared the most is the one who never worries about others at all and goes on making himself better all the time --Henry Ford

In critical moments even the very powerful have need of the weakest. ---Aesop ~Zeuxis

They attack the one man with their hate and their shower of weapons. But he is like some rock which stretches into the vast sea and which, exposed to the fury of the winds and beaten against by the waves, endures all the violence -- VIRGIL

“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.”   Jeremy Bentham

“The life of the law has NOT been logic; it has been experience.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

atty_rcb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
  • PRIMUS INTER PARES
    • Hooded Angel
Re: Retitled: Uparming the PF-15
« Reply #239 on: March 16, 2012, 01:26:30 AM »
Unguided shore bombardment rockets were common in WWII. They are fine for saturating a beach before a landing. ----> I saw in a book once about WWII during the battle of Saipan or Okinawa.. I saw some LST armed with rockets making amphibious assault..
"A realistic thinking does not base itself on wishful thinking that peace will come on its own, but it is secured by mutual, hard security guarantees," said Duda's foreign policy adviser, Krzysztof Szczerski.


"To keep the peace, we should have the ability to defend ourself," ---- Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko



Impossible is found in the dictionary of fools


The competitor to be feared the most is the one who never worries about others at all and goes on making himself better all the time --Henry Ford

In critical moments even the very powerful have need of the weakest. ---Aesop ~Zeuxis

They attack the one man with their hate and their shower of weapons. But he is like some rock which stretches into the vast sea and which, exposed to the fury of the winds and beaten against by the waves, endures all the violence -- VIRGIL

“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.”   Jeremy Bentham

“The life of the law has NOT been logic; it has been experience.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.