By: Gollevainen
- 20th May 2006 at 12:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and add to the list that its pretty cardboard made against even enemy 40mm...but still, It would have suited to operate in our rugged and shallow coastline to lurk behind narrow channels and small islands and attack from where the enemy least expects...but the offical reason why it was canceled was that in NATO-led europe our navy should focus more on ships that can be used in international crisis invertion operations...But somehow I get the feeling that more Hamina's would be build instead thougth those tiny missile boats are pretty much as useless as howercrafts in any offshore missions.
By: Neptune
- 20th May 2006 at 13:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ed you're right on that, Hamina is only 270t!! that's very small, and indeed smaller than Flyvefisken (I checked that now, I saw a Flyvefisken in real and it looked really small, I wonder how small Hamina looks then...)
Tuuli is indeeda pitty, they should have proceeded with that project. Is there anything new on the line Gollevainen? Any new ship project? Or do you think they'd only go for extra Hamina's if they had the money?
By: Gollevainen
- 20th May 2006 at 17:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well like I already said there migth be two extra Haminas coming...and i remember catching some rumours about new minesweepers...
Ofcourse I would like to see some replacements for the Karjala and Turunmaa corvettes...
But if we speculate by following the current trends, some sort of transport ship migth come next, similar to Danish Absalon class in concept...Anyway this as a educated quess as the parialamentary elections are coming and switch to the rigth (and NATO :( ) migth be anticipated....
By: EdLaw
- 20th May 2006 at 19:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It will be interesting to see what form the minesweeper takes - there is an increasing trend for regular ships to be fitted to carry an ROV and sonar suite, without being a dedicated minesweeper. The attraction is obvious in terms of cost, and since most minesweeping now is actually mine hunting (which is safer, if a bit slower), using non-dedicated ships makes some sense.
By: Neptune
- 21st May 2006 at 09:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ed, it doesn't make sense at all. Would you want to risk a destroyer to hunt a mine? I wouldn't... USN doesn't seem to want it either as they are now returning from the idea, leaving their ROV's off the latest Burkes again. It could be a costly mistake to keep hunting mines with major ships, and I'm pretty sure that Finland knows that too. They'll probably opt for dedicated ships. For minehunting you need VERY specialised crews and it will give trouble to put those on a destroyer. First you have the space issue, which can probably be solved if necessary, but the biggest problem is economy. What do you do with them? Put them on all the time? They'll get bored pretty soon when crossing an ocean... And they need practice, haven't seen a destroyer practicing with any minehunting unit of the NATO yet.
All in all it's better to have dedicated ships (and yes I know, it isn't "cool" or "impressive" to have minehunters and give extra money for them, but they are one of the most important ships in the fleet).
By: Gollevainen
- 21st May 2006 at 11:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well then there is the option of Danmark's idea, to have sinlge hull to function n various different purpose such as patrol or MCM...kinda remainding of the Old pre wwII Soviet SRK idea of the Uragan class torbedo boas whit minesweeping gear...
Anyway sofar we only have nice little sweepers of KUHA class of 90 tons...I would like to see some dedicated minehunters for change...after all we are the likely candinate to clear our waters from our own mines if we ever have to lay them...
By: EdLaw
- 21st May 2006 at 11:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune: I agree, using DDGs to hunt mines makes no sense, but I was actually meaning having dual-role small vessels, more akin to the Hamina. I actually think that DDGs should carry some countermine gear - having the ability to clear mines is important in enclosed waters, if only for self defence (if a DDG wanders into an area with mines, I do not want to wait a week for a minehunter to arrive!). The idea I was proposing was to fit smaller patrol boats with a few UUVs, to allow mine hunting as a secondary duty.
As Gollevainen says, the Flyvefisken is a good example of a patrol vessel that can carry out MCM. With modern minehunting systems, having a dedicated minehunter does not always make sense, but having a large fleet of patrol boats that can carry out the mission does make some sense.
By: Neptune
- 21st May 2006 at 12:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed on Flyvefisken, the one I visited was also in the minehunting role, together with an unmanned drone ship commanded from the Flyvefisken.
As for the DDG, I'd rather wait for a week than try to get through yourself. If you really have wandered in the middle of a minefield, you better try to head back and wait. It's not because you have seen that one mine ahead of you at one time that there couldn' tbe a Manta just below your ship... Better have a full sweep with minehunters than try to get out.
If you're hunting mines with your destroyer you will be a nearly motionless target, bait for FACs. (which is the Finnish method of fighting I believe?)
By: EdLaw
- 21st May 2006 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune: It all depends if I am senior enough to disembark aboard the helo - if I am, then I might wait a week, while I relax at the nearest shore base...
I would certainly not go out hunting mines in a DDG, but I would like the ability to at least have the option of freeing myself from the minefield. Besides, if you are in a minefield, you are a sitting duck anyway!
Posts: 1,773
By: Gollevainen - 20th May 2006 at 12:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and add to the list that its pretty cardboard made against even enemy 40mm...but still, It would have suited to operate in our rugged and shallow coastline to lurk behind narrow channels and small islands and attack from where the enemy least expects...but the offical reason why it was canceled was that in NATO-led europe our navy should focus more on ships that can be used in international crisis invertion operations...But somehow I get the feeling that more Hamina's would be build instead thougth those tiny missile boats are pretty much as useless as howercrafts in any offshore missions.
Posts: 627
By: Neptune - 20th May 2006 at 13:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ed you're right on that, Hamina is only 270t!! that's very small, and indeed smaller than Flyvefisken (I checked that now, I saw a Flyvefisken in real and it looked really small, I wonder how small Hamina looks then...)
Tuuli is indeeda pitty, they should have proceeded with that project. Is there anything new on the line Gollevainen? Any new ship project? Or do you think they'd only go for extra Hamina's if they had the money?
Posts: 1,773
By: Gollevainen - 20th May 2006 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well like I already said there migth be two extra Haminas coming...and i remember catching some rumours about new minesweepers...
Ofcourse I would like to see some replacements for the Karjala and Turunmaa corvettes...
But if we speculate by following the current trends, some sort of transport ship migth come next, similar to Danish Absalon class in concept...Anyway this as a educated quess as the parialamentary elections are coming and switch to the rigth (and NATO :( ) migth be anticipated....
Posts: 1,327
By: EdLaw - 20th May 2006 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It will be interesting to see what form the minesweeper takes - there is an increasing trend for regular ships to be fitted to carry an ROV and sonar suite, without being a dedicated minesweeper. The attraction is obvious in terms of cost, and since most minesweeping now is actually mine hunting (which is safer, if a bit slower), using non-dedicated ships makes some sense.
Posts: 627
By: Neptune - 21st May 2006 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ed, it doesn't make sense at all. Would you want to risk a destroyer to hunt a mine? I wouldn't... USN doesn't seem to want it either as they are now returning from the idea, leaving their ROV's off the latest Burkes again. It could be a costly mistake to keep hunting mines with major ships, and I'm pretty sure that Finland knows that too. They'll probably opt for dedicated ships. For minehunting you need VERY specialised crews and it will give trouble to put those on a destroyer. First you have the space issue, which can probably be solved if necessary, but the biggest problem is economy. What do you do with them? Put them on all the time? They'll get bored pretty soon when crossing an ocean... And they need practice, haven't seen a destroyer practicing with any minehunting unit of the NATO yet.
All in all it's better to have dedicated ships (and yes I know, it isn't "cool" or "impressive" to have minehunters and give extra money for them, but they are one of the most important ships in the fleet).
Posts: 1,773
By: Gollevainen - 21st May 2006 at 11:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well then there is the option of Danmark's idea, to have sinlge hull to function n various different purpose such as patrol or MCM...kinda remainding of the Old pre wwII Soviet SRK idea of the Uragan class torbedo boas whit minesweeping gear...
Anyway sofar we only have nice little sweepers of KUHA class of 90 tons...I would like to see some dedicated minehunters for change...after all we are the likely candinate to clear our waters from our own mines if we ever have to lay them...
Posts: 1,327
By: EdLaw - 21st May 2006 at 11:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune: I agree, using DDGs to hunt mines makes no sense, but I was actually meaning having dual-role small vessels, more akin to the Hamina. I actually think that DDGs should carry some countermine gear - having the ability to clear mines is important in enclosed waters, if only for self defence (if a DDG wanders into an area with mines, I do not want to wait a week for a minehunter to arrive!). The idea I was proposing was to fit smaller patrol boats with a few UUVs, to allow mine hunting as a secondary duty.
As Gollevainen says, the Flyvefisken is a good example of a patrol vessel that can carry out MCM. With modern minehunting systems, having a dedicated minehunter does not always make sense, but having a large fleet of patrol boats that can carry out the mission does make some sense.
Posts: 627
By: Neptune - 21st May 2006 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed on Flyvefisken, the one I visited was also in the minehunting role, together with an unmanned drone ship commanded from the Flyvefisken.
As for the DDG, I'd rather wait for a week than try to get through yourself. If you really have wandered in the middle of a minefield, you better try to head back and wait. It's not because you have seen that one mine ahead of you at one time that there couldn' tbe a Manta just below your ship... Better have a full sweep with minehunters than try to get out.
If you're hunting mines with your destroyer you will be a nearly motionless target, bait for FACs. (which is the Finnish method of fighting I believe?)
Posts: 1,327
By: EdLaw - 21st May 2006 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neptune: It all depends if I am senior enough to disembark aboard the helo - if I am, then I might wait a week, while I relax at the nearest shore base...
I would certainly not go out hunting mines in a DDG, but I would like the ability to at least have the option of freeing myself from the minefield. Besides, if you are in a minefield, you are a sitting duck anyway!
Posts: 1,574
By: SteveO - 22nd May 2006 at 10:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some info on these Finnish designs here http://www.akerfinnyards.com/naval.cfm