gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185570
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Importance of Naval Guns on a Modern Warship   Naval Guns

Started 19/8/20 by Greg (N9NWO); 11393 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

18/9/20

taschoene said:

The loadouts of SM versus ESSM are variable, and almost certainly at least sensitive if not actually classified on a deployment-by-deployment basis.  The Standards won't just be SM-6, BTW.  It's likely to be mostly SM-2 Block IIIC (basically SM-6 active seeker in a single-stage missile) because SM-6 is expensive and limited in inventory. 

I had figured / hoped SM-6 as its the most versatile

-Terminal anti-ballistic missile (such as the 'carrier killer' Chinese DF21/26)

-Anti Air / Anti Missile 

-Can attack naval and surface targets 

Does the SM-2 have an ABM capability?

"No Tomahawk on FFG(X) -- the ship has a constrained budget and the Tomahawk mission planning system costs millions of dollars and requires several crew billets to operate and maintain. Plus there are so many other Tomahawk shooters in the fleet that it hardly seems necessary."

Thats a bummer.

My concern is that given the increasing emphasis on Anti-Missile defense due to China's A2/AD system, most of our surface fleets Tomahawk capability may actually be occupied primarily with air defense missiles.

IE if a Carrier Battle Group has a total of 500 VLS cells in its escort fleet, less then 1/2 may actually be occupied by Tomahawks due to all the AA/ABMs. 

"The planned load of 8 (threshold) or 16 (objective) NSM is still a lot of anti-ship firepower to play with."

How good is the NSM?

I know its reportedly 'stealthy' but the rest of the specs (275lb warhead, 115mi range) didn't seem that impressive. 

Especially compared to the range and payload of the LRASM or Tomahawk Maritime, as well as longer range enemy missiles. 

taschoene

From: taschoene

18/9/20

gatnerd said:

How good is the NSM? I know its reportedly 'stealthy' but the rest of the specs (275lb warhead, 115mi range) didn't seem that impressive.  Especially compared to the range and payload of the LRASM or Tomahawk Maritime, as well as longer range enemy missiles. 

I think it's quite good.  

On the warhead size issue, it's not that much smaller than Exocet, and we know that works pretty well achieving at least a mission kill on most combatant warships smaller than a carrier.  LRASM and Maritime Strike Tomahawk have huge warheads because they inherited them from their land-attack roles, not because they need them for the anti-ship role.

On range, keep in mind that there's a significant plus behind that 115 mile+ range.  NSM's cousin Joint Strike Missile manages up to 345 miles in hi-hi-lo mode, so NSM could probably manage a good deal more than 100 miles if the mission can accept a high-level cruise phase.  And in any case, there' a lot of need to counter targets that aren't half an ocean away, for which NSM is well-suited.  

I'm not losing sleep about strike missiles being crowded out of magazines, because the enduring problem has been finding enough missiles to fill VLS magazines, not the other way around.  Even the most aggressive projected buys of missiles like SM-3 and SM-6 don't even come close to filling up the available VLS cells.  

TonyDiG

From: TonyDiG

19/9/20

Red7272 said...

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. 

 

The French have transitioned to the OTO 76 mm for their FREMM and Horizon frigates and it is also planned for the new Admiral Ronarc’h frigates.  Gives them more commonality with other EU nations and thus lower munitions costs.  IIRC, the last French ships armed with the 100 mm gun were the La Fayette frigates, although it has been exported to other countries since that time.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

19/9/20

taschoene said:

I'm not losing sleep about strike missiles being crowded out of magazines, because the enduring problem has been finding enough missiles to fill VLS magazines, not the other way around.  Even the most aggressive projected buys of missiles like SM-3 and SM-6 don't even come close to filling up the available VLS cells.  

Good grief. So we're building more ships, without adequately arming/protecting the ones we already have?

When you say shortages, is that primarily AA/ABM, or are we also short on 'Hawks as well, and sailing with some empty VLS cells?

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

22/9/20

"It's just a slight modification of our current ammunition, Congressman".

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

22/9/20

They're operating on the fact you can get new missiles faster than new ships.

Also, at least one guy who has done serious wargaming says SM-6 and ESSM for anti-ship usage have more kill chain vulnerabilities than dedicated ASMs. Don't know if he's right, but he would have inside info we don't.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

22/9/20

Farmplinker said:

Also, at least one guy who has done serious wargaming says SM-6 and ESSM for anti-ship usage have more kill chain vulnerabilities than dedicated ASMs. Don't know if he's right, but he would have inside info we don't

Thats interesting. I wonder why that would be the case? You'd think hitting a ship would be a hell of a lot easier then hitting an incoming supersonic missile, which is what both are designed for.

Perhaps its because the ASM's have infared image seekers vs radar for SM6?

In reply toRe: msg 70
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

23/9/20

A bunch of SAMs had a rudimentary ground attack capability already 5+ decades ago, but as the SAM is meant to deal with rather fragile airborne targets the warhead is hardly something that would sink ships. Particularly if you follow SAM developments, much of the height/range increases in modern SAM systems come from ever smaller/lighter warheads courtesy of precise guidance that now days aims for hard kill hit or at least close proximity vs not so close proximity hit when huge 200kg fragmentation warheads are in play . Particularly with size limitations of VLS cells.

The second thing is the flight profile, considering the booster and motor are designed for really high speed i hardly expect these to be flying in sea-skimming profile of a conventional AShM  

In reply toRe: msg 53
autogun

From: autogun

1/10/20

autogun said:

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.

I am most surprised to read that, according to BAE, the 57 mm and 40 mm Bofors guns are indeed to be fitted to the Type 31:

BAE Systems will produce and deliver Bofors 40 Mk4 and Bofors 57 Mk3 naval guns for the U.K. Ministry of Defence’s Type 31 general purpose frigate program.

The agreement, through a contract with Babcock International, will supply the Royal Navy with a set of advanced, multi-purpose gun systems for its fleet of five ships, with the first ship expected to go into service in 2027.


The contract includes five Bofors 57 Mk3 medium caliber guns and 10 Bofors 40 Mk4 small caliber guns. Both close-in weapon systems are designed to protect the ships against modern and future complex threats. The guns also offer the Royal Navy optimized ammunition types, including the cost-efficient programmable Bofors 3P all-target munition.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

1/10/20

I don't know that it's all that surprising when you kinda look forward at the potential threats and potential hotzones that there's a likelihood of the UK being involved in going forward.

There's a lot of constrained waters and potential foes who have lots of smaller zippier craft etc that could get close and be problematic as well as quite a few places where you could also come under observation from persistent small uav's launched both from naval assets and from shore.

To an extent I can see why you might want to do a bit of layering so that you can dedicate 40's to one threat and 57 to another.

When you look at what navies are actually being used for mostly these days it does make sense.

Especially in light of the way proportional escalation is the rule not the exception now and we see all kinds of actions all over where people just outright Don't use their biggest and best toys unless absolutely necessary.

Having the ability to do an escalation of force ladder with potential threats is definitely an advantage currently and will likely be critical going forward

TOP