Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5608
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
For me 57mm , 40mm and CAMM will offer good level of defence for the money and will make T-31 a good area defence frigate capable of defending its self and others around it
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
That, like the T26, is still pretty low end in air defence, really. Topping out at 25+ km is really not that potent an AAW ability when one looks at the escorts being designed and launched worldwide that push that bubble out much further, even on non-AAW optimised vessels. (EVen the FTI can fit Aster-30).Tempest414 wrote:For me 57mm , 40mm and CAMM will offer good level of defence for the money and will make T-31 a good area defence frigate capable of defending its self and others around it
Good for the price, perhaps. But I think it's worth us staying in perspective.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
The Bofors 40 and 57mm come optionally fitted with an on-mount TV camera and muzzle velocity radar with its digital fire control system, which will no doubt Babcock will chose as the lowest cost option for the T31.Lord Jim wrote:A lot is going to depend on the sensors we are able to fit on the T-31 to control both the 57mm and 40mm. Can we afford a level of sophistication that allows these weapons to achieve their advertised potential?
Would expect in low cloud/fog, heavy rain, snow, mirage and smoke etc guns will be non-operational, have to rely on EW, soft kill decoys and jammers if fitted.
See no indication T31 will be fitted with two high definition Ku-band fire control radars and for backup and control of third gun a stabilised turret with high magnification HDTV camera, SWIR for foggy conditions and eye safe laser rangefinder plus the necessary software/hardware to interface with the guns fire control system eg Saab Ceros 200 and EOS 500?, the Phalanx has the Ku-band radar built-in, though expensive and effective range fairly short at ~1.5 km.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5608
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
This why I use the term Area defence and not AAW. We would all like to see more but type -31 as is will offer anit-air out to 25+ Km or 1000 Km2 around the the ship and its 57mm gun will throw out a a lot of shells to a max of 17km that = a fair amount of area around the shipRetroSicotte wrote:That, like the T26, is still pretty low end in air defence, really. Topping out at 25+ km is really not that potent an AAW ability when one looks at the escorts being designed and launched worldwide that push that bubble out much further, even on non-AAW optimised vessels. (EVen the FTI can fit Aster-30).Tempest414 wrote:For me 57mm , 40mm and CAMM will offer good level of defence for the money and will make T-31 a good area defence frigate capable of defending its self and others around it
Good for the price, perhaps. But I think it's worth us staying in perspective.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Given that all escorts bar the T-45 are going to be carrying Sea Ceptor, I can see the Aster 15 quietly being withdrawn from service as the real need is for the longer range Aster 30.
How effective against air threats will the T-31 be if the vessel is only outfitted with the simplest fire control systems for the 57mm and 40mm? Yes it will still have Sea Ceptor, but would it be better to ditch the 40mm, re-use the 30mm off the T-23s, add LMM and fit a higher spec 57mm?
How effective against air threats will the T-31 be if the vessel is only outfitted with the simplest fire control systems for the 57mm and 40mm? Yes it will still have Sea Ceptor, but would it be better to ditch the 40mm, re-use the 30mm off the T-23s, add LMM and fit a higher spec 57mm?
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Guns haven't defined a warships AA capability for 70 years. Get real folks.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5608
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
I agree is why I talk about the guns in terms of surface threat and a mix of 57mm and 40mm 3P shells against a number of fast attack boats is going to work very well. In terms of anit-air these gun offer a good basic option but for me T-31 should have the option of Phalanx and if fitted this would allow a defence of the ship like so
@ 25 km start to engage air targets with CAMM
@ 6 Km if targets are still coming 57 & 40 mm start to engage along side CAMM
@ 1.5 Km last ditch Phalanx comes in along side 57 & 40mm
This to me sounds like a good weapons fit and yes it will depend on the sensors
@ 25 km start to engage air targets with CAMM
@ 6 Km if targets are still coming 57 & 40 mm start to engage along side CAMM
@ 1.5 Km last ditch Phalanx comes in along side 57 & 40mm
This to me sounds like a good weapons fit and yes it will depend on the sensors
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5583
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Not exactly. In the late years of cold war, USN Knox class frigate replaced SeaSparrow with Phalanx CIWS. Together with vintage 5in gun, it was her main AAW asset. I am NOT saying gun does define the AA capability of escorts, but when the resource is limited, "even a gun can be counted as (one of the) main AAW asset".Ron5 wrote:Guns haven't defined a warships AA capability for 70 years. Get real folks.
For me, T31e is somewhere "on the boundary", and AAW capability of the 57mm gun is a non-negligible addition to her 24 CAMM. Especially when she got the guided-rounds in future upgrades, dozens of MAD-FIRES AAW guided-rounds will be key asset to fight against swarm ASM, like SPEAR3 itself.
But, of course, the main aim of those 57 mm (and 40mm) guns are for anti-fast boat.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
I asked the question because other were quite keen to show the capability of both the 40mm and 57mm to act as CIWS and anti air weapons against advanced threats in addition to engaging surface target, and I wondered what level of FCS we could afford to installed in the T-31 and would it allow these guns to be as effective as people were stating.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
If your operating in a cluttered littoral environment, up a fjord, in a sound, near a coast line with cliffs, then gun anti air systems maybe of more effect than missiles and have better reaction times than missiles where radar will give much less warning time than in open sea.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
SW1 wrote: have better reaction times than missiles where radar will give much less warning time than in open sea.
In such circumstances true. And it should be remembered that missiles, in their acceleration stage, are not easy to steer. Unlike in telecomms, where the 'last mile' discussion is relevant, here we are talking about the first km (dead zone).
- outside the gunnery discussion, it is also the background radar clutter that favours using IR-homing missiles, which tend to be shorter ranged
- and as putting both radar seeking and IR-homing missiles on the same ship is not very practical, we come back to gunnery: a good, complementary option (last ditch CIWS aside)
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)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
In fairness, that only occurred because of differences in missile reliability at the time, and because there were better sources of missile AAW in the taskforces which (again at the time) were gigantic collections of vessels even larger than the US uses now.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not exactly. In the late years of cold war, USN Knox class frigate replaced SeaSparrow with Phalanx CIWS.
These days it's very different. Guns are a crucial element of air defence to cover their niche role, but thats all they are. A critical one perhaps to have something covering, but niche, and not a replacement for true AAW.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Ponoglo earlier queried the effective range of a 57mm 3P round in AAW mode, googled unsuccessfully but found Leonardo PR of 2014 trials with their 76mm SR and saboted DART sub-calibre projectile, more than 5 km (say 5.25 km?) against targets at low and very low altitude.
DART (Driven Ammunition Reduced Time of flight/ guided sub-calibre projectile with canard fins) ~4 kg/1150 m/s shell v BAE 3P (an unguided projectile) 2.4 kg/1025 m/s, propellant charge weight of 76mm ~ double that of a 57mm, both shells pre-fragmented with proximity fuses.
The DART 4 kg shell has an optimised aerodynamic body shape as a sub-calibre projectile and with its heavier weight / higher kinetic energy to enable a much lower fall off in speed / trajectory than the 3P 57mm shell.
Bottom line think 57mm 3P effective range in similar AAW mode with targets at low and very low altitude would be ~1 km less than the Dart, 4 to 4.25 km? and at the longer ranges the unguided 3P shell dispersion increases and will degrade its accuracy, whilst the DART as guided round shell will not lose accuracy, but requires a high definition fire control radar to track both DART and target, expensive.
From <https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/pres ... rales-76mm>
DART (Driven Ammunition Reduced Time of flight/ guided sub-calibre projectile with canard fins) ~4 kg/1150 m/s shell v BAE 3P (an unguided projectile) 2.4 kg/1025 m/s, propellant charge weight of 76mm ~ double that of a 57mm, both shells pre-fragmented with proximity fuses.
The DART 4 kg shell has an optimised aerodynamic body shape as a sub-calibre projectile and with its heavier weight / higher kinetic energy to enable a much lower fall off in speed / trajectory than the 3P 57mm shell.
Bottom line think 57mm 3P effective range in similar AAW mode with targets at low and very low altitude would be ~1 km less than the Dart, 4 to 4.25 km? and at the longer ranges the unguided 3P shell dispersion increases and will degrade its accuracy, whilst the DART as guided round shell will not lose accuracy, but requires a high definition fire control radar to track both DART and target, expensive.
From <https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/pres ... rales-76mm>
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
and limited as to how many directions can be handled at the same time (add radars and guns... perhaps there is a limit to thatNickC wrote: but requires a high definition fire control radar to track both DART and target, expensive.
There was something about distributed panels for mm/ meter wave length radars on the new Chinese destroyers, but it was a throw off one sentence, so never got to the bottom of that one
- we have people here who seem to follow radar technologies (even though this would not be a new technology; just a different application)
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)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Definitely worth noting that even the Italians, who prop up gunnery based anti-air more than any other nation, still saw fit to have high end radar and Aster-30 capable silos on their PPAs.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
The US Army ~2009 EAPS program (Extended Area Protection and Survivability) for C-RAM, counter rocket artillery and mortar, used a Technovative Applications interferometer radar (US Army claimed it was the most accurate technique known for measuring angle of arrival of a radio signal), with a 50mm Bushmaster chain gun.
Radar specs were impressive, AESA: Ku-band 15.7 – 16.2 GHz; max range 40 km; accuracy 6 m @ 20 km; able to track six projectiles simultaneously.
Re 57mm
Radar specs were impressive, AESA: Ku-band 15.7 – 16.2 GHz; max range 40 km; accuracy 6 m @ 20 km; able to track six projectiles simultaneously.
Re 57mm
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
PPA also has following guns fittedRetroSicotte wrote:Definitely worth noting that even the Italians, who prop up gunnery based anti-air more than any other nation, still saw fit to have high end radar and Aster-30 capable silos on their PPAs.
- 1 x OTO Melara 127/64 mm with Vulcano extended range ammunition and AAHS
- 1 x OTO Melara 76/62 mm Sovraponte (over deck) Strales (DART guided ammunition and radar with associated electronics), FFBNW Vulcano 76 ammunition
- 2 x OTO Melara KBA 25/80 mm remote weapon system
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Quite my point. That being that even the most "guns are anti-air" nation in the world still ensures its escorts have proper SAM cover up to and including Aster-30. FTI has done the same.NickC wrote:PPA also has following guns fitted
- 1 x OTO Melara 127/64 mm with Vulcano extended range ammunition and AAHS
- 1 x OTO Melara 76/62 mm Sovraponte (over deck) Strales (DART guided ammunition and radar with associated electronics), FFBNW Vulcano 76 ammunition
- 2 x OTO Melara KBA 25/80 mm remote weapon system
Guns are useful to have as good AAW for their role, but they are not in any way a replacement for proper SAM systems on a hull.
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
For the Italians it is understandable, as these days when it comes to SAMs it is ASTER or nothing. Not a bad thing as the weapon systems is paid for regarding R&D and so to them must be cost effective. It is interesting though if they are concentrating on ASTER 30 for their non AAW platforms, would ASTER 15 be a better self defence weapon?
We have both ASTER and Sea Ceptor which is a pretty good combination, What we really need is to link our warship through a Co operative Engagement Network to maximise these capabilities, together with the guns mounted on our warships.
I am still not convinced regarding the 40mm unless we are going for the high end solution though.
We have both ASTER and Sea Ceptor which is a pretty good combination, What we really need is to link our warship through a Co operative Engagement Network to maximise these capabilities, together with the guns mounted on our warships.
I am still not convinced regarding the 40mm unless we are going for the high end solution though.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
It's Sylver A50 silos. PPA can fire Aster 15 or Aster 30. Likely will normally carry Aster 15, but the important thing is they can uprate, and are enabled for it, if they need it.Lord Jim wrote:It is interesting though if they are concentrating on ASTER 30 for their non AAW platforms, would ASTER 15 be a better self defence weapon?
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5608
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
this talk of A-50 cells if the money was there T-31 could take 16 x A-50 cell no problem allowing it to carry 16 Aster 30 or 64 CAMM ( MBDA say on there web site that CAMM can be quad packed in A-50) but there is no money at this time. Of course this means the PPA could carry 64 CAMM
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
... or ER of the same, which their AF will be getting (though it is longer, so the silo compatibility, I guess, is still to be announced).Tempest414 wrote:means the PPA could carry 64 CAMM
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: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
Effective range of navy AAW guns, the 76m the West's current most sophisticated and powerful gun/ammo, 4.5 km range at a slow 100 m/s target, higher target speeds will reduce range sunbtantionally.
A November 2017 Leonardo video demo of the OTO Melara 76/62 SR Strales firing its DART guided round against a Banshee aerial target at 10m height simulating a ski-skimming missile, tracked from 10 km, gun opened fired at the Banshee at 5 km with a ~ 2 sec three round burst, hits from 4.5 to 4.3 km.
Banshee target drone speed ~ 200 knots/100 m/s, Exocet era AShM's much faster at ~Mach 0.9/300 m/s and with smaller wingspan and dia than a Banshee (Last month QinetiQ launched the next generation Banshee, Banshee NG, ~250 m/s), the Russian supersonic AShM eg the 1987 ramjet powered P800 Oniks , speed ~ 700 m/s.
4:15
A November 2017 Leonardo video demo of the OTO Melara 76/62 SR Strales firing its DART guided round against a Banshee aerial target at 10m height simulating a ski-skimming missile, tracked from 10 km, gun opened fired at the Banshee at 5 km with a ~ 2 sec three round burst, hits from 4.5 to 4.3 km.
Banshee target drone speed ~ 200 knots/100 m/s, Exocet era AShM's much faster at ~Mach 0.9/300 m/s and with smaller wingspan and dia than a Banshee (Last month QinetiQ launched the next generation Banshee, Banshee NG, ~250 m/s), the Russian supersonic AShM eg the 1987 ramjet powered P800 Oniks , speed ~ 700 m/s.
4:15
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
I was told last year by an RN Cdr who led a review of cyber at the time CEC was canned on the T45's that in a modern conflict having CEC onboard would be pointless.Lord Jim wrote:For the Italians it is understandable, as these days when it comes to SAMs it is ASTER or nothing. Not a bad thing as the weapon systems is paid for regarding R&D and so to them must be cost effective. It is interesting though if they are concentrating on ASTER 30 for their non AAW platforms, would ASTER 15 be a better self defence weapon?
We have both ASTER and Sea Ceptor which is a pretty good combination, What we really need is to link our warship through a Co operative Engagement Network to maximise these capabilities, together with the guns mounted on our warships.
I am still not convinced regarding the 40mm unless we are going for the high end solution though.
Don't know if this was just political cover for funding shortfalls or what 'modern conflict' specifically meant in that instance but she seemed pretty convinced.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion
USN has already moved to the next incarnation of the concept - which enables greater sensor/ shooter separation (and neither of them need to be, solely, ships).Roders96 wrote: in a modern conflict having CEC onboard would be pointless.
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)