Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
On the T31 guns:
As addition of two new types of guns (57 mm and 40 mm) looks like a bit in-efficient, I have some proposal.
How about carrying two 57 mm, in double end. one at the bow, another on top of the hangar.
Arrowhead 140 has an additional "top-space" at the back end of the Merlin capable hangar, just below its aft. gun. It was originally designed to carry Danish Merlin, which lacked tail-folding capability. Using this marginal space, a small deck penetration may work. 57mm gun needs 1960 mm long ammunition hoist. This is not so large. Actually, they can go without it, and in that case, deck penetration is only 590 mm. As Arrowhead 140 has plenty of weight margin, putting one on top of the hangar is doable.
In this case, five T31 will need ten 57 mm guns, which will be logistically friendly than "five 57 mm guns and ten 40 mm guns" ? As 57 mm guns see huge investments on guided-rounds, such as Orca, AlaMo (both anti-fast-boats), and MAD-FIRES (AAW), the ship if with two 57 mm in its double end will be one of the strongest close-in warfare fighter.
As addition of two new types of guns (57 mm and 40 mm) looks like a bit in-efficient, I have some proposal.
How about carrying two 57 mm, in double end. one at the bow, another on top of the hangar.
Arrowhead 140 has an additional "top-space" at the back end of the Merlin capable hangar, just below its aft. gun. It was originally designed to carry Danish Merlin, which lacked tail-folding capability. Using this marginal space, a small deck penetration may work. 57mm gun needs 1960 mm long ammunition hoist. This is not so large. Actually, they can go without it, and in that case, deck penetration is only 590 mm. As Arrowhead 140 has plenty of weight margin, putting one on top of the hangar is doable.
In this case, five T31 will need ten 57 mm guns, which will be logistically friendly than "five 57 mm guns and ten 40 mm guns" ? As 57 mm guns see huge investments on guided-rounds, such as Orca, AlaMo (both anti-fast-boats), and MAD-FIRES (AAW), the ship if with two 57 mm in its double end will be one of the strongest close-in warfare fighter.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
How do you eat an elephant?- and for those that do have it, there is the practical difficulty of getting 360 degrees out of one mount
What ships don't have CIWS on (or SHOULD be on) or planned that would be in that sort of situation?
- slice by slice
So,
CIWS is NOT ALL, but comes with 30 mm to cover other/ all angles?
Next: Which ships did have the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS that was both anti-surface and what the "lighter" Phalanx can do, albeit at a closer range?
Next: are there any RN/ RFA vessels (that have been stripped of that "all-in-one) AND do not have a 360 degree coverage; before even talking about missiles?
- will move on to the next post, without taking exact inventory; this was the line of thought I was following, anyway
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Entirely agreed. IF, rightly or wrongly, there is to be a return of the "broadside" to the Royal Navy then it should be delivered in the manner you have proposed above - with two 57mm weapons.donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the T31 guns:
As addition of two new types of guns (57 mm and 40 mm) looks like a bit in-efficient, I have some proposal.
How about carrying two 57 mm, in double end. one at the bow, another on top of the hangar.
Arrowhead 140 has an additional "top-space" at the back end of the Merlin capable hangar, just below its aft. gun. It was originally designed to carry Danish Merlin, which lacked tail-folding capability. Using this marginal space, a small deck penetration may work. 57mm gun needs 1960 mm long ammunition hoist. This is not so large. Actually, they can go without it, and in that case, deck penetration is only 590 mm. As Arrowhead 140 has plenty of weight margin, putting one on top of the hangar is doable.
In this case, five T31 will need ten 57 mm guns, which will be logistically friendly than "five 57 mm guns and ten 40 mm guns" ? As 57 mm guns see huge investments on guided-rounds, such as Orca, AlaMo (both anti-fast-boats), and MAD-FIRES (AAW), the ship if with two 57 mm in its double end will be one of the strongest close-in warfare fighter.
The rumoured adoption of the 40mm weapon system on the T31 seems like an incredibly silly, very short sighted idea. Any benefits the weapon might offer, which actually seem to be fairly limited anyway, are more than offset by its drawbacks to my mind - particularly with regards to commonality and through-life support.
Consolidating on the 57mm seems infinitely more sensible and, potentially far more capable anyway.
That's my admittedly uninformed opinion anyway.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Why go with 40mm over 30mm+LMM?~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Entirely agreed. IF, rightly or wrongly, there is to be a return of the "broadside" to the Royal Navy then it should be delivered in the manner you have proposed above - with two 57mm weapons.donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the T31 guns:
As addition of two new types of guns (57 mm and 40 mm) looks like a bit in-efficient, I have some proposal.
How about carrying two 57 mm, in double end. one at the bow, another on top of the hangar.
Arrowhead 140 has an additional "top-space" at the back end of the Merlin capable hangar, just below its aft. gun. It was originally designed to carry Danish Merlin, which lacked tail-folding capability. Using this marginal space, a small deck penetration may work. 57mm gun needs 1960 mm long ammunition hoist. This is not so large. Actually, they can go without it, and in that case, deck penetration is only 590 mm. As Arrowhead 140 has plenty of weight margin, putting one on top of the hangar is doable.
In this case, five T31 will need ten 57 mm guns, which will be logistically friendly than "five 57 mm guns and ten 40 mm guns" ? As 57 mm guns see huge investments on guided-rounds, such as Orca, AlaMo (both anti-fast-boats), and MAD-FIRES (AAW), the ship if with two 57 mm in its double end will be one of the strongest close-in warfare fighter.
The rumoured adoption of the 40mm weapon system on the T31 seems like an incredibly silly, very short sighted idea. Any benefits the weapon might offer, which actually seem to be fairly limited anyway, are more than offset by its drawbacks to my mind - particularly with regards to commonality and through-life support.
Consolidating on the 57mm seems infinitely more sensible and, potentially far more capable anyway.
That's my admittedly uninformed opinion anyway.
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Entirely agreed. IF, rightly or wrongly, there is to be a return of the "broadside" to the Royal Navy then it should be delivered in the manner you have proposed above - with two 57mm weapons.donald_of_tokyo wrote:On the T31 guns:
As addition of two new types of guns (57 mm and 40 mm) looks like a bit in-efficient, I have some proposal.
How about carrying two 57 mm, in double end. one at the bow, another on top of the hangar.
Arrowhead 140 has an additional "top-space" at the back end of the Merlin capable hangar, just below its aft. gun. It was originally designed to carry Danish Merlin, which lacked tail-folding capability. Using this marginal space, a small deck penetration may work. 57mm gun needs 1960 mm long ammunition hoist. This is not so large. Actually, they can go without it, and in that case, deck penetration is only 590 mm. As Arrowhead 140 has plenty of weight margin, putting one on top of the hangar is doable.
In this case, five T31 will need ten 57 mm guns, which will be logistically friendly than "five 57 mm guns and ten 40 mm guns" ? As 57 mm guns see huge investments on guided-rounds, such as Orca, AlaMo (both anti-fast-boats), and MAD-FIRES (AAW), the ship if with two 57 mm in its double end will be one of the strongest close-in warfare fighter.
The rumoured adoption of the 40mm weapon system on the T31 seems like an incredibly silly, very short sighted idea. Any benefits the weapon might offer, which actually seem to be fairly limited anyway, are more than offset by its drawbacks to my mind - particularly with regards to commonality and through-life support.
Consolidating on the 57mm seems infinitely more sensible and, potentially far more capable anyway.
That's my admittedly uninformed opinion anyway.
Wouldn't 3 x 57 mm guns be more expensive than 1 x 57 mm and 2 x 40 mm?
Frankly, I would put 4,5-inch guns there ( it's free ) and 2 x Phalanxes ( because of logistical commonalities with existing Phalanxes ).
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
When Russell Hall started construction of the Peacocks for the R N they were to be fitted with a twin 40 mm mount aft to complement the76mm on the bow. The navy procurement may be looking past the procurement requirement of the type 31 frigates. The fitting of a 76mm may be looked at as more appropriate for a frigate the navy lost them as a weapon to cover patrol craft as it was looked as a cheap replacement for the mark 8. so they were never fitted to the castle class even as they were ffbnw. The navy lost them to future patrol ships. By adopting the 57mm and the secondary 40mm gun on the type 31 this allows the future mine hunter replacement to have a effective main gun. As the support chain is in place. and if the navy requires to up arm the batch two rivers a cheaper option than the Oto Melara 76mm. Having towed targets for shore based 76mm guns I was aware of there shortcomings in N.G.S. with the original ordinance and the reasons why the navy did not want them. They had been proposed for the type 23s. as a cost saving. Hence why the the mk 8 were not fitted for A A use. Hope fully the 57mm and 40 mm will not suffer the mistake that was made with the procurement of the 76mm gun fitted to one class of ship. As it was a lost procurement opportunity in the long term.~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:The rumoured adoption of the 40mm weapon system on the T31 seems like an incredibly silly, very short sighted idea. Any benefits the weapon might offer, which actually seem to be fairly limited anyway, are more than offset by its drawbacks to my mind - particularly with regards to commonality and through-life support.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
The newest 40 from Bofors, with appropriate rounds, is also a CIWS; neither in the other combo gives you that.dmereifield wrote:Why go with 40mm over 30mm+LMM?
- xav will, no doubt, soon inform us what the MN chose for their supply ships. One type needs to cover all needs (to avoid the need of having an escort at all times)... what coastal navies need is a different story.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
If can fit the LMM the 30mm why not Starstreak for CIWS.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The newest 40 from Bofors, with appropriate rounds, is also a CIWS; neither in the other combo gives you that.dmereifield wrote:Why go with 40mm over 30mm+LMM?
- xav will, no doubt, soon inform us what the MN chose for their supply ships. One type needs to cover all needs (to avoid the need of having an escort at all times)... what coastal navies need is a different story.
Re. 76mm Dart ~4 kg/1150 mps vs 57mm ~2.4 kg/1025 mps, both shells fragmentation projectiles, 57 has approx twice the rate of fire of the 76.
Dart round would guess twice+ the effective range of a 57 shell due to its optimised aerodynamic shape as a sub-calibre round; higher weight/ kinetic energy; faster giving better accuracy, trajectory and larger fragmentation warhead so would have thought much higher Pk than the 57 even though alower rate of fire.
The DARPA 57 Madfires in R&D, as yet adopted by USN, is rocket powered to give longer range, the trade-off will be smaller fragmentation warhead reducing its Pk.
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Correction,
The DARPA 57 Madfires in R&D, as yet not adopted by USN, is rocket powered to give longer range, the trade-off will be smaller fragmentation warhead reducing its Pk.
The DARPA 57 Madfires in R&D, as yet not adopted by USN, is rocket powered to give longer range, the trade-off will be smaller fragmentation warhead reducing its Pk.
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
LMM is a means of getting a small proximity fused warhead out to a distance of around 5 miles. Exactly the same with 40mm.dmereifield wrote:Why go with 40mm over 30mm+LMM?
I don't see a single way in which 30mm Bushmaster is superior to 40mm Mk4 apart from probably having cheaper but much less flexible ammo.
Exactly, with a lot more range than Phalanx, a much simpler system and much quicker reload times (that's a blind guess - happy to be corrected).ArmChairCivvy wrote:The newest 40 from Bofors, with appropriate rounds, is also a CIWS
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5623
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
And instead of having 5 LMM ready to fire on a mount you will have 100 40mm rounds ready to fire on a mountRichardIC wrote:LMM is a means of getting a small proximity fused warhead out to a distance of around 5 miles. Exactly the same with 40mm.
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
So, from my extensive research (two mins on Google) it seems around four minutes for Phalanx if you have an automatic deckloader, or around 30 minutes if your deckloader is broken/you don't have a deckloader and it has to be done manually.RichardIC wrote:Exactly, with a lot more range than Phalanx, a much simpler system and much quicker reload times (that's a blind guess - happy to be corrected).
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
It's worth stating that the Bofors is not a "full" CIWS in the same manner as the Phalanx.
There's a huge difference between a CIWS you need to actively function and utilise via human reaction, and one you just flip onto automated and know it'll react on its own accord faster than a human ever could without any input required.
That's what makes things like Phalanx/Goalkeeper special.
The 40mm is being chosen because it's either cheap or because it's a quick easy "We're countering Iran guys! Look at us!" political bite. Not because it's the most effective. The already existing DS30M/Martlet does that even better.
If they were genuinely concerned about shooting down missiles with guns, they'd just put another 57mm on there, or the latest 76mm as seen on the PPA, or a Phalanx. But they're not doing that either.
They're interested in the cheapest possible fit while still allowing them to say they're doing something "new".
That's why the 40mm has come up. Because it's the cheapest possible way that they can parrot "brand new!" into their political announcements. As I've said endlessly, T31 is ALL about what they say say about it, not what it can do.
There's a huge difference between a CIWS you need to actively function and utilise via human reaction, and one you just flip onto automated and know it'll react on its own accord faster than a human ever could without any input required.
That's what makes things like Phalanx/Goalkeeper special.
The 40mm is being chosen because it's either cheap or because it's a quick easy "We're countering Iran guys! Look at us!" political bite. Not because it's the most effective. The already existing DS30M/Martlet does that even better.
If they were genuinely concerned about shooting down missiles with guns, they'd just put another 57mm on there, or the latest 76mm as seen on the PPA, or a Phalanx. But they're not doing that either.
They're interested in the cheapest possible fit while still allowing them to say they're doing something "new".
That's why the 40mm has come up. Because it's the cheapest possible way that they can parrot "brand new!" into their political announcements. As I've said endlessly, T31 is ALL about what they say say about it, not what it can do.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5623
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Lets not forget that there is still room for 2 x Phalanx each side of the rear 40mm mount on A-140 meaning if fitted this ship could put out 360 degrees of area defence from 1 km to 25 km's. so as long as the mounts and power are fitted the Phalanx's weapons are pooled. So along with the 57mm and 40mm this would make type 31 a naval porcupine
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5594
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
I share the concern of 40 mm 3P guns. It is designed to be a CIWS, but how much it is "automated" in not clear. For example, AEGIS system has a "fully automatic reaction mode", which I think is virtually the same to Phalanx. Does the 40 mm (and 57 mm) gun systems has similar mode?
As a CIWS, 76mm super-rapid (without guided rounds) are adopted as "CIWS" in Italian navy from 1990s. Their Dardo 40mm twin gun, the same. So, being "a CIWS" does not necessarily mean the same performance as the Phalanx (and Gaol Keeps) CIWS.
In worst case, is the 40mm gun just to replace the 30mm guns = primary for small and agile surface targets?
This is a good question I hope Xav-san or other can cast to T31 program members.
On the other hand, I do think the primary ASM defense kit is CAMM/SeaCeptor. If 24 can be carried, it is "good". It is "only" 25%-less rounds than those onboard T23. Not bad. Actually, it has twice more SAMs (if 24) than most of the heavy corvettes (typically 12 or 16), comparable in its cost. Even if it is 57mm gun, which has a brilliant future, as built T31 will have only 3P and normal rounds, and no guided rounds.
As a CIWS, 76mm super-rapid (without guided rounds) are adopted as "CIWS" in Italian navy from 1990s. Their Dardo 40mm twin gun, the same. So, being "a CIWS" does not necessarily mean the same performance as the Phalanx (and Gaol Keeps) CIWS.
In worst case, is the 40mm gun just to replace the 30mm guns = primary for small and agile surface targets?
This is a good question I hope Xav-san or other can cast to T31 program members.
On the other hand, I do think the primary ASM defense kit is CAMM/SeaCeptor. If 24 can be carried, it is "good". It is "only" 25%-less rounds than those onboard T23. Not bad. Actually, it has twice more SAMs (if 24) than most of the heavy corvettes (typically 12 or 16), comparable in its cost. Even if it is 57mm gun, which has a brilliant future, as built T31 will have only 3P and normal rounds, and no guided rounds.
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
I think you guys are making this too complicated
Do like us, easy and fast
I must specify Im 29 years old and this is the first meme of my life
Do like us, easy and fast
I must specify Im 29 years old and this is the first meme of my life
-
- Member
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
MAD-FIRES is a hit-to-kill interceptor.NickC wrote:Correction,
The DARPA 57 Madfires in R&D, as yet not adopted by USN, is rocket powered to give longer range, the trade-off will be smaller fragmentation warhead reducing its Pk.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Who is going to guide it, from an unmanned mount?NickC wrote:why not Starstreak for CIWS
Yes, for surface targets... at a stretch helos, too.RichardIC wrote:LMM is a means of getting a small proximity fused warhead out to a distance of around 5 miles. Exactly the same with 40mm.
Too true, exc, for the cavitating ammo that can hole boats below their water line.RichardIC wrote: I don't see a single way in which 30mm Bushmaster is superior to 40mm Mk4
Only boats or swarming boats... did any such land on the oil refinery/ oil field, of late?RetroSicotte wrote: The 40mm is being chosen because it's either cheap or because it's a quick easy "We're countering Iran guys! Look at us!" political bite. Not because it's the most effective. The already existing DS30M/Martlet does that even better.
I think you fail to appreciate how far the Mk4 'has travelled' - and hence it does not come cheap. Brazil is still putting old 40s - because they are made in-country - onto their ships, in the hope that one day there will be money for Mk4s.RetroSicotte wrote:That's why the 40mm has come up. Because it's the cheapest possible way that they can parrot "brand new!"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Who can change the name of the thread?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Anything that falls in between 30 mm and mk 8? Poetry in motionRepulse wrote:the name of the thread?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Is this idea of the RN adopting a 40mm for the T-31 anything more than a rumour?
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Why not the Thales rapidfire
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... /rapidfire
The RAPIDFire system has also been designed to enable firing of the STARStreak missile system, a Very Short Range Air Defence missile system with a speed in excess of Mach 3 and a range of around 7km. The combination of six STARStreak missiles and the latest generation 40mm cased telescope ammunition ensure both precision attack and high firepower. Optronic sensors have been integrated directly into the turret thereby ensuring that the RAPIDFire can operate autonomously if required. Using various types of ammunitions,RAPIDFire can also be used against ground targets, including armoured platforms, to ensure the self protection of the system.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... /rapidfire
The RAPIDFire system has also been designed to enable firing of the STARStreak missile system, a Very Short Range Air Defence missile system with a speed in excess of Mach 3 and a range of around 7km. The combination of six STARStreak missiles and the latest generation 40mm cased telescope ammunition ensure both precision attack and high firepower. Optronic sensors have been integrated directly into the turret thereby ensuring that the RAPIDFire can operate autonomously if required. Using various types of ammunitions,RAPIDFire can also be used against ground targets, including armoured platforms, to ensure the self protection of the system.
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
RAPIDfire should he adopted by the Army as well for ground based uav/chopper defence. I'd have though it'd be a no brainer given the commonality of gun & ammo with the Ajax/Warrior.
-
- Member
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
Cost immediately comes to mind. In addition, the Bofors is a mature system built around a very mature weapon with a lot of existing ammunition and a wide customer base for new rounds. I doubt the RN is much into the idea of T31 taking on the risk of being the first platform for such a system, even with the Army leading the way with the gun itself.SW1 wrote:Why not the Thales rapidfire
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... /rapidfire
The RAPIDFire system has also been designed to enable firing of the STARStreak missile system, a Very Short Range Air Defence missile system with a speed in excess of Mach 3 and a range of around 7km. The combination of six STARStreak missiles and the latest generation 40mm cased telescope ammunition ensure both precision attack and high firepower. Optronic sensors have been integrated directly into the turret thereby ensuring that the RAPIDFire can operate autonomously if required. Using various types of ammunitions,RAPIDFire can also be used against ground targets, including armoured platforms, to ensure the self protection of the system.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: 76mm Oto Melara
I can do that, gimme a sec.Repulse wrote:Who can change the name of the thread?
There we go. Was tempted to call it the Broadside Chat, but figured I should be more descriptive. :p