Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

It can't have been integrated because we have chosen 9LV for the CMS so that work still has to be done. If we'd chosen the Typhoons that may have made sense.
It remains a mystery until all is revealed.

We have chosen the 40mm / L70 weapon which is the weapon already in-service on the platform. It may require a combat management system integration if we chose to operate a different CMS to that the platform provider has already used, but it is physically integrated onto the platform already.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just how difficult, expensive and risky do people really believe it would be for Typhoon mounts with the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm gun to be included in the design? While this would not be what I would want the OPV's to have as a main weapon it would at least have the advantage of being familiar to the RAN and ADF since it is already in widespread use.

The Mk 44 bushmaster could be integrated, which share 60%+ parts (90% operator training commonality) with the M242 and can fire the super 40 round.While I think the super 40 round is interesting for the OPV and as a naval round, it would be ideal for land400.

With the 40mm you can double the amount of rounds you are carrying in a vehicle.

You get all the advantages of the 242, but with a modern 40mm round which comes in a variety of rounds and some real punch for land 400. It (well the mk46) replaced the 57mm on the zumwalts... Plus the mk 44 is in service with the US Army.. Even if they went 30 or 35mm you would still have a lot of commonality.

Eventually many of the 25mm bushmaster could be swapped out to 40mm mk44. Or if you keep both active, at least have high commonality between them.

If we had wanted to go down that route.It would make it pretty flexible to go with what ever round Land400 would go with.

200 rounds per minute of smart 40mm is plenty. I doubt few would feel that these would be undergunned.

 

[rockitten]

Guys, how about if we think it this way:

1.Our navy has chosen 40mm because it is the biggest gun that does not required to penetrate the hull, as the space underneath has been utilized for crew hospitality/storage...etc

2.The platform has provision to build for but not fitted with ASM, with an stern bay for boats

3. As the ship is using the same Aussie common combat system, all warfare officers can be trained on AWD, LHD, new frigate...etc.

In peace time, these ship may just doing constable tasks, and WPO on bord maintaining their skill by rotation and on board simulator.

In war time, the navy play 'distributed lethality' by installing those ASM (and extra ESM, tow sonar, USV....etc) on board.

On scenario I can think of, is dealing with the "grey navy" of china in SCS. We need some small combatants to deal with them and keep them away from our biggies.

 

[hauritz]

Guys, how about if we think it this way:

1.Our navy has chosen 40mm because it is the biggest gun that does not required to penetrate the hull, as the space underneath has been utilized for crew hospitality/storage...etc

2.The platform has provision to build for but not fitted with ASM, with an stern bay for boats

3. As the ship is using the same Aussie common combat system, all warfare officers can be trained on AWD, LHD, new frigate...etc.

In peace time, these ship may just doing constable tasks, and WPO on bord maintaining their skill by rotation and on board simulator.

In war time, the navy play 'distributed lethality' by installing those ASM (and extra ESM, tow sonar, USV....etc) on board.

On scenario I can think of, is dealing with the "grey navy" of china in SCS. We need some small combatants to deal with them and keep them away from our biggies.

That's right. There is no need to fit any weapons to the ship beyond what is required for the constabulary role. I think the problem is that people see a 1700 ton hull and immediately think that it should be fitted out with all sorts of weaponry just because there is the space available for those weapons.

If war or the imminent threat of war were to arise it would be a different story ... but for the peacetime role, the ship carries all that it needs.

What would be the best way going forward as political tensions continue to rise in this region?

Would we be better off having a large number of hulls that could be relatively quickly upgraded?

Or should we have a smaller number of ships that are already fully fitted out with weapons?

The defence budget is limited so it would seem that there would be a trade off of numbers vs capability.

I suspect the navy is looking at the first option with ships that have been fitted with highly capable combat systems sans the actual weapons. I imagine that they could be very quickly upgunned if the situation called for it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suspect the navy is looking at the first option with ships that have been fitted with highly capable combat systems sans the actual weapons. I imagine that they could be very quickly upgunned if the situation called for it.

Hulls with trained crews have always been the long lead items. Guns and missiles and other weapon systems are fairly easy to increase production rates, and there is usually significant stock around. (logistics, old, worn out, excess to needs, war stocks etc) and multiple sources and production lines.

Ship building needs to happen near the water, and there are usually limitations in the work force, sites and capabilities of the sites. These are not easy things to increase. Australia has done a lot of work to establish on going production lines, which is very difficult to do in short notice and have proven invaluable during war time.

Even in the RAN, there is an extensive inventory of older equipment, while some of it might be old, in a war time situation a lot of it could be pressed into service if required until better things are acquired.

At this stage fire power isn't as important as presence. I think Australia is sending a pretty clear message about interfering in our waters, or our neighbors and allies waters.

 

[Todjaeger]

That's right. There is no need to fit any weapons to the ship beyond what is required for the constabulary role. I think the problem is that people see a 1700 ton hull and immediately think that it should be fitted out with all sorts of weaponry just because there is the space available for those weapons.

If war or the imminent threat of war were to arise it would be a different story ... but for the peacetime role, the ship carries all that it needs.

What would be the best way going forward as political tensions continue to rise in this region?

Would we be better off having a large number of hulls that could be relatively quickly upgraded?

Or should we have a smaller number of ships that are already fully fitted out with weapons?

The defence budget is limited so it would seem that there would be a trade off of numbers vs capability.

I suspect the navy is looking at the first option with ships that have been fitted with highly capable combat systems sans the actual weapons. I imagine that they could be very quickly upgunned if the situation called for it.

With respect to the OPV choice there are several questions and concerns which come up in my mind.

Now I cannot speak for others but I do have questions and concerns regarding the armament fitout, both initially and over the life of the vessel.

I do not really feel the need to repeat my questions and issues with the main gun selection, so I will just raise a question that I have not yet asked. Is the Mk 4 version selected a penetrating or non-penetrating deck mount? And relating to that if it is a non-penetrating mount, is there space and structure available beneath the mounting to replace the Mk 4 with a deck penetrating mount like a Mk 110 57 mm or Mk 75 75 mm gun? I ask because of the limitations imposed upon the RNZN's Protector-class by having the space immediately beneath the Typhoon mount occupied with portions of four different compartments IIRC.

That rather limits the options to upgun the RNZN OPV's without recurring significant structural work in a yard.

With respect to the OPV's being fitted with the SaabTech 9LV, are the OPV's also going to be fitted with the comms and sensors to really make use of it, and/or participate in datalinks? When the Huon-class MHC came into service initially, they could participate in Link 11, but it was receive only. Given that most OPV's are not fitted with advanced sensors and electronics to reduce cost since they are not required for the OPV role, I could easily see the RAN getting similarly kitted out OPV's as a 'cost-saving' measure. That would not be an issue, provided RAN OPV's never are exposed to a situation where they need something more. If at some point down the line the RAN decided more was required from the OPV's, it could become difficult and expensive to find suitable places to mount the various sensors and arrays. A similar situation would exist if plans to upgun the OPV's were put into motion at some point, and prior design and construction work did not leave paths to run the required power, cooling, and command/control lines for weapons stations.

Here is a little food for thought. Would people consider the OPV, as it currently appears, to be properly kitted out to support ADF and/or friendly/allied personnel operating in parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, or Thailand against some of the terror & criminal groups?

 

[hauritz]

Hulls with trained crews have always been the long lead items. Guns and missiles and other weapon systems are fairly easy to increase production rates, and there is usually significant stock around. (logistics, old, worn out, excess to needs, war stocks etc) and multiple sources and production lines.

Ship building needs to happen near the water, and there are usually limitations in the work force, sites and capabilities of the sites. These are not easy things to increase. Australia has done a lot of work to establish on going production lines, which is very difficult to do in short notice and have proven invaluable during war time.

Even in the RAN, there is an extensive inventory of older equipment, while some of it might be old, in a war time situation a lot of it could be pressed into service if required until better things are acquired.

At this stage fire power isn't as important as presence. I think Australia is sending a pretty clear message about interfering in our waters, or our neighbors and allies waters.

Couldn't agree more.

Unless you are fighting a war over an extended period you will be fighting it with the equipment you have. It would be better to have a whole bunch of hulls that you can fit weapons to rather than have to quickly build new ships from scratch.

In fact during a total war situation resources for building new ships would be scarce.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Couldn't agree more.

Unless you are fighting a war over an extended period you will be fighting it with the equipment you have. It would be better to have a whole bunch of hulls that you can fit weapons to rather than have to quickly build new ships from scratch.

In fact during a total war situation resources for building new ships would be scarce.

Any new, not previously planned ship, at best, is likely to end at the end of any war.

Refits can happen quickly and in parallel, weapons can be pulled of old ship or made new, or even adapted from other purposes (land weapons).

The question should be, what can be done in <6 months. You can't build a
modern warship in 6 months and you will still need a crew, but you might be able to accelerate a near finished build, perform refits, extend operational lives etc. Ideally, all before the first shot is fired.

Which is why having a rolling production line(s) is important, as is refit facilities.

 

[hairyman]

If there was another full scale war, with the modern weaponry out there, what is there that suggests we would have six months? By the time we mounted weapons etc to our ships, or built new ones, it could be all over.:ar15

 

[oldsig127]

Here is a little food for thought. Would people consider the OPV, as it currently appears, to be properly kitted out to support ADF and/or friendly/allied personnel operating in parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, or Thailand against some of the terror & criminal groups?

Perhaps not. Here's another thought.

Would the Australian public accept a steep increase in taxation in order to fit out (or purchase) *every* navy vessel for tasks beyond those actually required of them in CONOPS ?

I'm a life time advocate of strong defence forces, but there are limits beyond which it's as likely as not counterproductive to overbuild, not least of them the ability to convince the average taxpayer that your bigger gun is more important than his kid's education.

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

If there was another full scale war, with the modern weaponry out there, what is there that suggests we would have six months? By the time we mounted weapons etc to our ships, or built new ones, it could be all over.:ar15

That is what I am saying, at most you would have 6 months before the war began to make reasonable preparations, before the first shot or first open declaration.

Once the war starts, supplies will be impossible to get, because every other nation will be after them as well. On top of that, trade will start to cease and regular systems will stop or be halted or be made inefficent.

I would say currently Australia is building as many sizable hulls as she can.

19 Pacific Patrol boat replacements
12 OPV's
9 Future frigates
3 AWD's
12 new Submarines

~ 55 new "ships" as the prime minister put it. The FFG's and the Anzacs while old aren't in terrible condition so while these are replacements, the older ships still exist and could be useful. Crews from smaller ships might be able to be combined to operate these older ships if needed, and these smaller ships gifted or up armed, and crewed by magic elves. So new ships could a bit a bit in addition in a war time situation.

On top of this you have the stuff we are contracting out for, the new ice breaker, the AOR's, etc.

Hell of a peace time build program for a tiny democratic nation like Australia.

Australia spending 2% of GDP is a good target and one we can afford, that is not too aggressive. The Australian economy is growing, so defense spending can grow with it. We will never be a mighty power like the US, but we could certainly deter anyone from picking on us.

Before they pick on us directly, they would have to take out or subjugate Japan, South Korea, the US, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia etc.Its possible, but its not going to be easy, even if they are lucky.

In any conflict Australia is going to be the mighty uppercut coming up from the south at anything that has reached out too far. We need a force capable of delivering that upper cut as well as general harassment and capable of projecting power to ensure security generally. The current planned ADF is capable of that. Arguably now with the AWD coming on line, subs operating at full tempo, the upper cut is going to pack some significant power.

The question is how many of those 55 ships will be in the water by the time comes. Every day we get closer to more of them.

 

[Todjaeger]

Refits can happen quickly and in parallel, weapons can be pulled of old ship or made new, or even adapted from other purposes (land weapons).

The question should be, what can be done in <6 months. You can't build a
modern warship in 6 months and you will still need a crew, but you might be able to accelerate a near finished build, perform refits, extend operational lives etc. Ideally, all before the first shot is fired.

Which is why having a rolling production line(s) is important, as is refit facilities.

The caveat that I think needs to be added is that in order for weapons to be pulled from old ships and added onto existing ones, there needs to be space & weight for the weapon to be fitted. Otherwise the refit could take a very long time just in modifying the structure of the vessel to handle the displacement and any shock from firing the weapon.

A case in point, the RAN in the near future might have as many as six 76 mm/L62 OTO Melara Compact guns in storage. However, these guns cannot just be installed due to their size, displacement, and need for deck penetration.

Perhaps not. Here's another thought.

Would the Australian public accept a steep increase in taxation in order to fit out (or purchase) *every* navy vessel for tasks beyond those actually required of them in CONOPS ?

I'm a life time advocate of strong defence forces, but there are limits beyond which it's as likely as not counterproductive to overbuild, not least of them the ability to convince the average taxpayer that your bigger gun is more important than his kid's education.

oldsig

I am less interested in the notion of 'bigger guns' and far more concerned about 'better guns'. In the case of the OPV specifically, this would be a gun which is suitable for use as both a CIWS and against FAC. Or if not this, then a gun which the RAN already has in service to make use of the existing support and logistics chains.

Relating to that, I would also want the design to be flexible enough so that a relatively easy path were available should the OPV capabilities need to be modestly increased, especially self-defence capabilities. This would be things like a place to mount Nulka and/or other countermeasures. Perhaps a site to install SeaRAM or a boxed missile launcher for something like Sea Ceptor or some other VSRAD missile.

Basically I would want the RAN to have the option to use the OPV's in higher threat environments that SIEV and/or EEZ violations like illegal fishing, but where a DDG or FFG would be total overkill. Anti-piracy patrols off the east coast of Africa comes to mind. Relating to the concern about the limitations for a gun suitable for just engaging FAC... One thing which has so far only happened in the Mideast (yet) but certainly could spread to some of the non-state actors in the ASEAN region is a limited AShM capability. Hence my interest in current and future RAN ships having a more robust self-defence suite.

 

[oldsig127]

not least of them the ability to convince the average taxpayer that your bigger gun is more important than his kid's education.

oldsig

I am less interested in the notion of 'bigger guns' and far more concerned about 'better guns'. In the case of the OPV specifically, this would be a gun which is suitable for use as both a CIWS and against FAC. Or if not this, then a gun which the RAN already has in service to make use of the existing support and logistics chains.

My apology for using a less than obvious metaphor. By "bigger gun", I meant any weapon system whatsoever, from a real aircraft carrier down to a pistol that provides the armed forces with something they don't already have including quality or modernity.

While there is no existential threat to our lifestyle, the naysayers like the greens have no trouble whatever convincing the electorate that there'll "never" be a threat so the government of the day has to fight to even maintain the existing status. - That is, no new big guns (but rather "slightly" larger grey boxes with some spare room might be possible;-) )

oldsig

 

[spoz]

On 40mm guns, the Bofors Mark 4 requires only minimal deck penetration (power supplies etc) although it has a option for a below deck loading system.

The new Oto Malara gun is non deck penetrating.

If you want to seek a reason "why" consider range. Using data from the net (so probably understated); Bofors Mk 4 max about 14,000 yards; Bushmaster 30mm or 25mm,about 8,000 yards; although I don't know the effective range of the Bofor I imagine it's proportionate to the 30mm's roughly 4000; so maybe 7-8000 yards in surface. That means that the 40mm would seem to give you a reasonable range advantage over likely adversary weapons in the constabulary role at the high end (anti piracy), say sniper rifles and 50 cal machine guns at the top of their random fire range; whereas with the 30mm it's not nearly so clear cut. That, by itself, would be a good enough reason for me.

Then, of course, in comparison to bigger weapons, 57mm and the like, there's cost; the 40 looks to be well under half the cost of the 57 and way less than half the cost of a 76. That's just acquisition cost without considering the through life implications which I would conjecture would also be significantly less for the 40.

 

[ASSAIL]

If there was another full scale war, with the modern weaponry out there, what is there that suggests we would have six months? By the time we mounted weapons etc to our ships, or built new ones, it could be all over.:ar15

Those were the same sentiments expressed at the beginning of the First and Second World Wars and on the introduction of ground troops into Vietnam.
Those all ended well didn't they.

 

[Todjaeger]

On 40mm guns, the Bofors Mark 4 requires only minimal deck penetration (power supplies etc) although it has a option for a below deck loading system.

The new Oto Malara gun is non deck penetrating.

If you want to seek a reason "why" consider range. Using data from the net (so probably understated); Bofors Mk 4 max about 14,000 yards; Bushmaster 30mm or 25mm,about 8,000 yards; although I don't know the effective range of the Bofor I imagine it's proportionate to the 30mm's roughly 4000; so maybe 7-8000 yards in surface. That means that the 40mm would seem to give you a reasonable range advantage over likely adversary weapons in the constabulary role at the high end (anti piracy), say sniper rifles and 50 cal machine guns at the top of their random fire range; whereas with the 30mm it's not nearly so clear cut. That, by itself, would be a good enough reason for me.

Then, of course, in comparison to bigger weapons, 57mm and the like, there's cost; the 40 looks to be well under half the cost of the 57 and way less than half the cost of a 76. That's just acquisition cost without considering the through life implications which I would conjecture would also be significantly less for the 40.

The above is all part of why I do not understand (or there is something I am missing) in the thinking behind the Mk 4 selection.

While the max range listed for a 40 mm/L70 is significant, topping out at ~12.5 km, the listed effective ranges (varies slightly with target and round used) tops out in the 4,000 - 5,000 m range for most listings. Greater than the 20 mm, 25 mm or 30 mm guns already in RAN service, but not IMO significantly greater in an anti-FAC role. As a side note, one source has a max effective range vs. of 9,140 yds/10 km listed for the Bofors 40 mm/L70 (which is wrong...) but that same source also listed the 30mm Oerlikon KCB gun (found in the MSI DS30B mounted on the Huon-class MHC) with a max effective range vs. surface targets at 10,900 yds/10 km, with twice the Bofors ROF...

In an AAA/CIWS role, it should provide a greater capability than the 25 mm in a Typhoon mount, but likely less than either the 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, or the 30 mm MSI DS30B.

In terms of initial acquisition and then support costs, I agree with respect to the Mk 110 57 mm that it should be much lower. Regarding the 76 mm, that I am not certain how much less the Mk 4 would really be. Not so much that it is a question of costing less, but rather how much the RAN would need to purchase to support the 76 mm and how much the RAN already has. Keep in mind that once all the Adelaide-class FFG's are decommissioned the RAN could potentially have a half dozen 76 mm Compact guns sitting in storage, with an already established stock of parts, munitions, and other support. If memory serves, Lithgow is already able to produce 76 mm munitions.

Now having said all the above I seriously doubt if a primary driver was cost, that the costs associated with purchasing, operating and supporting the Mk 4 and 40 mm/L70 gun would be less than the RAN getting more examples of the Typhoon with M242 25 mm Bushmaster, or the MSI 30B with the Oerlikon 30 mm/75 KCB gun. Both guns are already in RAN service with established logistical support, and likely to remain so for some time.

From my perspective, it seems the selection only provides a marginal increase in capability which in a constabulary role is likely to be negligible. The selection would make more sense to me if it were to provide a greater increase in capability, like the OTO Melara DARDO version of the 40 mm/L70 'Fast Forty' single-barrel gun in a non-deck penetrating mount. The higher ROF and larger number of ready rounds would provide a more credible AAA & CIWS capability. Instead, the capability is a bit of an improvement upon the 25 mm Typhoon, but does not seem to getting applied across the fleet. It will be interesting to see if the weapon is also included in the SEA 5000 designs. If it is not, then I will really not understand the decision.

 

[MickB]

From my perspective, it seems the selection only provides a marginal increase in capability which in a constabulary role is likely to be negligible. The selection would make more sense to me if it were to provide a greater increase in capability, like the OTO Melara DARDO version of the 40 mm/L70 'Fast Forty' single-barrel gun in a non-deck penetrating mount. The higher ROF and larger number of ready rounds would provide a more credible AAA & CIWS capability. Instead, the capability is a bit of an improvement upon the 25 mm Typhoon, but does not seem to getting applied across the fleet. It will be interesting to see if the weapon is also included in the SEA 5000 designs. If it is not, then I will really not understand the decision.

I would think that the 40mm equipped with modern ammunition like the 3P round provides a vast increase in versatility and firepower over the 25 and 30 mm weapons currently in service.

Of course this same statement would apply to the 76mm over the proposed 40mm.

The OPV has a top of the line CMS, how well the 40mm performs as AAA/CWIS and anti FAC will depend on the sensor fit.

 

[StingrayOZ]

From my perspective, it seems the selection only provides a marginal increase in capability which in a constabulary role is likely to be negligible. The selection would make more sense to me if it were to provide a greater increase in capability, like the OTO Melara DARDO version of the 40 mm/L70 'Fast Forty' single-barrel gun in a non-deck penetrating mount. The higher ROF and larger number of ready rounds would provide a more credible AAA & CIWS capability. Instead, the capability is a bit of an improvement upon the 25 mm Typhoon, but does not seem to getting applied across the fleet. It will be interesting to see if the weapon is also included in the SEA 5000 designs. If it is not, then I will really not understand the decision.

Would be a bit of weird look putting a fast 40 twin barrel, on a OPV. I am assuming they aren't envisaging any anti-air role for the OPV.

Part of me wonders if the 40mm is not a long term calibre. I could certainly see the Pacific patrol boats getting something like that. Cheap, simple, easy. Maybe once Land 400 is in full swing, something else is mounted and a whole bunch of nearly new 40mm L70's are gifted (or sold cheap) around with just a hand full of rounds for each ship.

The Pacific patrol boats are designed to fit 30mm, but I would 40mm might be possible.

Given enforcement in some EEZ, a 40mm is a heck of a lot more realistic deterrent than a 12.7mm (or even 20mm), particularly on some of the larger fishing ships.

There is an interesting use of this calibre and gun.

Argentina sank a chinese fishing vessel last year, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Yan_Yuan_Yu_010 with the 67m Mantilla which mounts.. a 40mm Bofors L70. Not fatalities, but I would assume a very clear message was given. The ship sank fairly quickly.

If patrol boats started packing 40mm, it may deter attempts to outrun or ramming. A proven sinkable calibre.

 

[alexsa]

Would be a bit of weird look putting a fast 40 twin barrel, on a OPV. I am assuming they aren't envisaging any anti-air role for the OPV.

Part of me wonders if the 40mm is not a long term calibre. I could certainly see the Pacific patrol boats getting something like that. Cheap, simple, easy. Maybe once Land 400 is in full swing, something else is mounted and a whole bunch of nearly new 40mm L70's are gifted (or sold cheap) around with just a hand full of rounds for each ship.

The Pacific patrol boats are designed to fit 30mm, but I would 40mm might be possible.

Given enforcement in some EEZ, a 40mm is a heck of a lot more realistic deterrent than a 12.7mm (or even 20mm), particularly on some of the larger fishing ships.

There is an interesting use of this calibre and gun.

Argentina sank a chinese fishing vessel last year, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Yan_Yuan_Yu_010 with the 67m Mantilla which mounts.. a 40mm Bofors L70. Not fatalities, but I would assume a very clear message was given. The ship sank fairly quickly.

If patrol boats started packing 40mm, it may deter attempts to outrun or ramming. A proven sinkable calibre.

The replacement Pacific Class patrol boats will be fitted for 50 cal HMG. There is space and weight for an autocannon but is is not up to 40mm. With the original PCPB most had 50 Cals with only only PNG option for a 20mm mount.

A 25mm typhoon would also put a fishing boat down pretty quickly. A 50 Cal will disable one in very short order. Noting most fishing vessels are considerably slower than the OPV this is really not an issue.

The known tactic of ramming related to the FCPB (Townsville in particular) when trying to stop a boat that had escaped. The master of the fishing boat, assuming the FCPB would not fire directly on him, bumped the Townsville a few times. After a very protracted stand off Townsville was allowed to conduct a controlled firing on the vessel moving up from 7.62 to 50 Cal..... the vessel stopped.

This was in the days before RHIBs where we had to convince the bloody fishing vessels to stop before we launch the extreamly slow rubber duck.

 

[Todjaeger]

The replacement Pacific Class patrol boats will be fitted for 50 cal HMG. There is space and weight for an autocannon but is is not up to 40mm. With the original PCPB most had 50 Cals with only only PNG option for a 20mm mount.

A 25mm typhoon would also put a fishing boat down pretty quickly. A 50 Cal will disable one in very short order. Noting most fishing vessels are considerably slower than the OPV this is really not an issue.

The known tactic of ramming related to the FCPB (Townsville in particular) when trying to stop a boat that had escaped. The master of the fishing boat, assuming the FCPB would not fire directly on him, bumped the Townsville a few times. After a very protracted stand off Townsville was allowed to conduct a controlled firing on the vessel moving up from 7.62 to 50 Cal..... the vessel stopped.

This was in the days before RHIBs where we had to convince the bloody fishing vessels to stop before we launch the extreamly slow rubber duck.

Correct me if I have this wrong, but I had been under the impression that some of the Pacific Forum recipients have not been using the patrol boats they received as much or as effectively as intended. From what I recall this was at least in part due to having problems properly maintaining the boats' systems which were too complicated for some of the island nations to support domestically.

If the above is correct, then I would expect a remotely controlled weapons station would also most likely be beyond the abilities of several of the nations to support.