Read the forum code of contact
By: - 15th May 2006 at 07:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Finaly, the intention to equip our Hamina class FACs whit umkhonto have been around too long whitout any formalizating...
and now as we bougth it, swedes propaply follow to have their Visby's upgraded as well...
_________________________________________________________________
Thougth I could say it again in here as well....
By: - 15th May 2006 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and now as we bougth it, swedes propaply follow to have their Visby's upgraded as well...
Hmmmm... I would expect the Swedish navy to acuire navalised BAMSE for the Visby's. Thats the impression that i get anyway. However with South africa buying Gripen it might be accepted anyway. Timw will tell. :)
/Dan
By: - 16th May 2006 at 20:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gol: Those are nice boats mate, you should be proud to have them, can you provide any specs on them as I know very little about them other than what they look like!
Also with this deal I guess the L3 MAPPS will be fitted as the standard consol for operating the weapons system?
Here's a pic for you
By: - 16th May 2006 at 20:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well they displace some 268 tons of water by full load, are 50.8 meter long and 8.5 meters width and draft is only 1.5 meters...so they can go in wery swallow waters. Orginally it was planned to have four of these and punch of howercraft FACs but somehow our politicans decided that howercrafts are no good in participating NATO -led invasions of some poor third-world countryes so they were cutt of...and as usuall, whitout no replacement desing
The actual Hamina boats are futher devolpment of the older Helsinki and Rauma class missile FACs and are wery imaginary named after our coastal cities...as are all other naval vessels, effectively killing the old heritage of naval units naming....
Im not sure about their combat data system...lately I have been more intressed about other nations navyes than our own...but i will check it out. They are armed, now whit the Umokhoto SAM and RBS-15mk3 SSMs as well as Bofors 57mm/70 Dual purpose gun instead of the 40mm fitted in completion of the lead boat.
By: - 17th May 2006 at 05:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Facinating, thanks mate
By: - 17th May 2006 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I started a thread about the Hamina Class a long time ago. This deal to get the Umokhoto SAM has been in the works for a long time.
Here is the old thread that I posted. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34415&highlight=Hamina+Class
By: - 17th May 2006 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ja, any idea when this picture was taken? It's a LOT different from the pictures posted before! What is in that VLS behind the mast? There used to be some Mistral launchers there... And where are the SSM boxes? Is the VLS for SSM? Or is that already a structure for the Umkhonto? Is this the third unit maybe?
By: - 17th May 2006 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The VSL is for the umokhoto SAM, SSMs are fitted in the rear but are absent from this boat which is the Tornio [81].
If you wondering why it looks different than previous pics, It's becouse they where from the class leadship Hamina [74] Which didn't have the umokhoto fitted and have a 40mm in place of the 57mm...I will try to find out wheter it will be similary fitted as the Tornio
here's a pic of Hamina:
By: - 17th May 2006 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a clear difference in the fit out of the two types, Gol is probably the best person in this case! It does look like a VLS aft of the main mast, though with only eight tubes, one can only wonder what system is in there.
On Tornio, what is that forward of the bridge? Looks like some sort of Chaff launcher.
By: - 17th May 2006 at 19:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well 8 VSL tubes doesent sound strange at all as we are talking about under 300 ton vessel.
And to my knowlidge that is chaff launcher...if it isent the LLS-920 ASW Rocket launcher that is fitted in previous Rauma class FAC(M)s. I cannot remember what that thing looked thougth I have een seen the boats whit my own eyes...(and looked way too many times them in pics :rolleyes: )
By: - 18th May 2006 at 03:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pics attached are of the ASW RL system for illustration
've seen that b-position mount somewhere before and I'm nearly certain that its a chaff launcher though, to be honest, the description of the ships decoy fit as the CelsTech Philax suprised me - didnt think it looked like that?!
By: - 19th May 2006 at 10:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So Golle, do you mean that Tornio already has the VLS system fitted? Or just that she was already prepared to receive those missiles (and hence this contract was just a matter of time?), I do recall the non-fitted Umkhonto modules on the South African Meko's which is indeed looked pretty similar to this.
So what's with her SSMs? Would be pointless to sacrifice those for the Umkhonto, as that would actually make Tornio a patrol boat against fishery or something. Without any anti-ship capabilities, she would just be a boat with self defence, but no real use (except for being a bait).
I'm waiting for those other shots of Tornio, she does indeed look much different from Hamina. And how about the third unit that was ordered? Did it get through?
By: - 19th May 2006 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is impressive fitting a VLS to such a small vessel, and does make them relatively well armed for their size. I always find it funny how missile boats are now armed with the same anti-ship missiles as destroyers and cruisers, and how little size now matters in offensive firepower.
By: - 19th May 2006 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So Golle, do you mean that Tornio already has the VLS system fitted? Or just that she was already prepared to receive those missiles (and hence this contract was just a matter of time?), I do recall the non-fitted Umkhonto modules on the South African Meko's which is indeed looked pretty similar to this.
So what's with her SSMs? Would be pointless to sacrifice those for the Umkhonto, as that would actually make Tornio a patrol boat against fishery or something. Without any anti-ship capabilities, she would just be a boat with self defence, but no real use (except for being a bait).
I'm waiting for those other shots of Tornio, she does indeed look much different from Hamina. And how about the third unit that was ordered? Did it get through?
Well honestly im not sure. Someone claimed that it is already fitted and the pics sure do look like that there are some sort of 'tubes' in there...But thats the place where the missiles are to be fitted. the SSMs are to be placed in the traditional rear positon fashion of our FACs so i dont think they sacrifice any of the SSMs. Most of our FACs sails whit less missiles than maxium
And if the rumours are correct, they should get the Mk3 version of the RBS-15 which would make them even more dedlyer..
And im not sure either wheter there is going to be another pair. Some books like the latest weyer indicates that two more are planned, but I have not seen any info of any beeing building. But then again I wasent even aware of the commisioning of the Tornio untill i saw it's pics...guess i should keep my eyes open more on the home front as well...
By: - 19th May 2006 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, on that picture of Tornio, the SSMs are not there... There is a zodiac in that position ready for launch from the rear. There do seem to be hatches in the sloped flank of the ship aft, next to the VLS, maybe that's a hatch for the SSMs?
Ed, it's not because it has a VLS that it's armed well... There even smaller boats with VLS's too (for examply Flyvefisken), doesn't really mean well armed. If it had a regular 8-round SAM launcher, it was equally well armed then!
As for "Offensive armament", size does matter, the West only uses silly small Harpoons, indeed on both large and small ships. With Russian ships, such sizes do matter, you can't put 4 Bazalt or Granits on a small boat like this!
By: - 19th May 2006 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune: sorry, I was meaning the SSMs, not the fact that it has a VLS. It was more to do with the fact that up until the missile age, ships were guaged by their main gun, which was reliant on the size. In the west, anti-ship missiles are, broadly, just anti-ship missiles, whether they are mounted on patrol boats or frigates. I agree, size does still dictate the type of missiles that can be used, particularly with Russian missiles, where they seem to have a missile for every day of the week.
(As for the Flyvefisken, if memory serves, it is around 450 tons displacement, whereas the Hamina is a bit smaller)
By: - 19th May 2006 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well you guys ned to remember that all scandinavian missle FACs can be used as minelayers as well and then the SSMs are not fitted.
By: - 19th May 2006 at 19:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...Orginally it was planned to have four of these and punch of howercraft FACs but somehow our politicans decided that howercrafts are no good in participating NATO -led invasions of some poor third-world countryes so they were cutt of...and as usuall, whitout no replacement desing...
What happened to the Tuuli class hovercraft? Does Finland operate any other type of hovercraft?
By: - 19th May 2006 at 21:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The poor thing is beeing hel by the Navy in order to use as presentator for possiple byers. There migth be civilian use for it as its become the latest fasion to cross the gulf of finland as fast as possiple from Helsinki to Tallin...and passenger hovercrft seems attractively novel idea that someone whit enough money could convert it...If it is, Im defianetly going to use it in my trips to the Estonia.
but no, we dont operate any other sort of hovercrafts :mad: :( Too bad that would have been nice thing to boast whit in the international naval circles...and effective weapon, in FAC and transport versions in our coastlines...
By: - 19th May 2006 at 22:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Part of the problem is that hovercraft always had speed as their novelty - they could make 40-50 knots, whereas conventional ships could only make 30 knots. This difference has narrowed, with high speed monohulls and cats making up to ~45 knots. Hovercraft cost a lot to run, and have a lot of downtime, so the benefits come at a very high cost. The other problem is that of integrating anything with recoil on a hovercraft - you probably cannot mount even a 40mm.
In a few years, I suspect the USMC will probably be trying to play around with Netfires boxes on LCACs... One LCAC could probably carry 32 Netfires boxes, each with 15 missiles, meaning 480 missiles!
Posts: 6,208
By: Ja Worsley - 15th May 2006 at 05:24
The Finnish Navy has placed a formal order for the Umkhonto-IR vertically launched, infrared (IR)-homing surface-to-air missile (SAM) developed by Denel in South Africa.
[Jane's Navy International - first posted to http://jni.janes.com - 21 April 2006]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Denel might have been thrown a life line after all!