Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 19/11/20 by taschoene
Latest 6:43 by poliorcetes
Latest 2:05 by stancrist
Latest 5-Feb by graylion
Latest 5-Feb by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5-Feb by Farmplinker
Latest 4-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 4-Feb by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 4-Feb by poliorcetes
Latest 3-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 2-Feb by roguetechie
Latest 1-Feb by roguetechie
Latest 1-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 31-Jan by DavidPawley
Latest 30-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 30-Jan by Guardsman26
Latest 30-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 30-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 27-Jan by stancrist
Latest 27-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 26-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 26-Jan by autogun
Latest 25-Jan by schnuersi
Latest 24-Jan by ZailC
Latest 24-Jan by stancrist
Latest 24-Jan by renatohm
Latest 23-Jan by Apsyda
Latest 21-Jan by graylion
Latest 21-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 20-Jan by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 18-Jan by nincomp
Latest 17-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 14-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 14-Jan by Refleks
Latest 13-Jan by EmericD
Latest 12-Jan by APFSDST
Latest 12-Jan by APFSDST
Latest 11-Jan by RovingPedant
Latest 8-Jan by wiggy556
Latest 7-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 6-Jan by roguetechie
17/9/20
gatnerd said:Reportedly to have a mix of 57mm and 40mm guns, which seems a bit odd caliber mix.
That may have something to do with the fact that Bofors, who make both the 40mm and 57mm guns, is owned by BAE Systems...and guess who won the contract for supplying the frigate?
Actually, I don't think that a formal decision about the armament has yet been made. It would indeed seem odd if two new gun calibres were introduced for a handful of new ships.
17/9/20
I think you are right that no formal decisions have been made.
Budget probably does exclude the Mk45 or Mk8 guns on the Type 31. Which is fine -- callbacks to Falklands era gunlines are just not realistic and the only other role for 5-inch now is likely to fire things like the new Hypervelocity rounds for air and missile defense, which is clearly outside the T31's mission space. The selection of 57mm Bofors or 76mm OTO probably should come down to cost, as both are functionally interchangeable.
On the secondary guns, the current service 30mm with the possibility of adding airburst munitions (AHEAD-style) and/or Martlet seems like the most versatile option while avoiding introducing a new system. Plenty of small-boat killing capacity without too much cost or complexity.
And although the chap at UKLandSystems complaining about how old Phalanx is, the newer versions are almost entirely different from the 1980s version he is familiar with, with new radars, new electronics, better guns, and much better ammo. A Phalanx Block 1B with Surface Mode would be a fine terminal defense. Probably to be fitted for but not with in the current budgetary environment.
17/9/20
76mm has more range though. On another site, when I mention 57mm, several commenters go nuts. I then get a lecture on the superiority of the OTO 76mm.
17/9/20
Farmplinker said:76mm has more range though.
Not nearly as much more as some people think. A lot of reference books are doing apples to oranges comparisons, things like maximum range versus maximum effective range (very different) or HE versus sabot rounds. Best I can figure, the real-world difference is about 10% in favor of 76mm. That's not much.
17/9/20
2.8 kg versus 6.5 kg and 300 grams versus 650 grams.
There are more modern rounds but actual naval SAP is relatively rare and conservative. Both are kinda useless for shooting at ships, which is why the Russians have a lightweight 100 and the French have stayed with their 100 for new designs.
18/9/20
autogun said:That may have something to do with the fact that Bofors, who make both the 40mm and 57mm guns, is owned by BAE Systems...and guess who won the contract for supplying the frigate?
Lets hope BAE pushes forward with the 57mm, as they also make the very promising ORKA 57mm guided shell:
BAE has also developed a new, deck mounted Missile pod, which allows missiles like the Tomahawk, Standard 3, LRASM, Naval Strike Missile etc to be easily mounted on any available deck space. Previously, these Mark41 sized missiles tubes had to be launched in a VLS cell, which the ship had to be built around.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/adaptable-deck-launcher
This would allow adding some Anti-Ship (as well as surface strike) capability to the Type 31, which it seems to currently be lacking.
The new US FGGX frigate will use a similar deck launcher.
18/9/20
I somehow doubt that they are going to be firing Orkas at 220 rpm....
Incidentally, I find it hard to comprehend US designation systems. The ordinary 57 mm HE shell is the Mk 295, yet the Orka is the "Mk 295 Mod 1". That's one hell of a Mod!
18/9/20
gatnerd said:Lets hope BAE pushes forward with the 57mm, as they also make the very promising ORKA 57mm guided shell:
Worth noting, as mentioned previously, that ORKA lost the USN's competition for a guided 57mm round in favor of the L3 ALaMO round. I'm not sure where it stands now as a candidate for other navies, but it's probably not going to reach USN service so anyone else who wants it will probably have to pay some more development costs.
gatnerd said:BAE has also developed a new, deck mounted Missile pod, which allows missiles like the Tomahawk, Standard 3, LRASM, Naval Strike Missile etc to be easily mounted on any available deck space. Previously, these Mark41 sized missiles tubes had to be launched in a VLS cell, which the ship had to be built around. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/adaptable-deck-launcher This would allow adding some Anti-Ship (as well as surface strike) capability to the Type 31, which it seems to currently be lacking. The new US FGGX frigate will use a similar deck launcher.
It's funny to see this described as a new concept. This same system, then called Cocoon, was offered at least 20 years ago (with the exact same picture) as a way to put Mk 41-compatible launch tubes on ships like aircraft carriers and big-deck amphibs that could not accommodate standard Mk 41s. No takers back then, but they seem to be trying again.
The USN's new FFG(X) will NOT in fact use this type of launcher, despite BAE's advertising copy. They will have standard Mk 41 tubes for Standard and ESSM, plus dedicated topside box launchers for NSM antiship missiles. As a way to add antiship missiles, dedicated NSM (or Harpoon) tubes are a lot lighter and more compact. Besides, there are no Mk-41 compatible canisters for NSM (or Harpoon) right now anyway.
18/9/20
taschoene said:The USN's new FFG(X) will NOT in fact use this type of launcher, despite BAE's advertising copy. They will have standard Mk 41 tubes for Standard and ESSM, plus dedicated topside box launchers for NSM antiship missiles. As a way to add antiship missiles, dedicated NSM (or Harpoon) tubes are a lot lighter and more compact. Besides, there are no Mk-41 compatible canisters for NSM (or Harpoon) right now anyway.
Good to know, thank you.
Do you know what the typical mix is for Standard 6 vs ESSM quads? Looking at the 32 cells, I had thought 12 Maritime Tomahawks, 16 Standard 6's, and 16 ESSM's would be a pretty versatile mix.
Its a shame they wont be using a MK41 compatible canister. That would allow the use of both the LRASM (VLS being developed) as well as Tomahawk Martime. Both of which offer substantially greater range and payload vs NSM.
How much does the extra weight matter on a warship?