Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

[Engaging Strategy]

OK, you mean scrap everything except the 19 (best case) DDs / FFs they are useless... That's one way to go I suppose

No, there is a place for lightly armed patrol craft to perform the tasks that it'd be wasteful to use a FF/DD for. EEZ patrol, constabulary duties and counter-smuggling all spring to mind. All valuable missions in need of a cheap low end patrol ship. What I'm saying is that those ships don't need a more fighty armament than what they have now, because they're not really warships. To actually make them survivable in a real combat situation would require you to upgrade them to the point where they're not cheap or low-end anymore. If that's the road you take then I can't help but ask, why not just buy more first rate surface combatants rather than mess around with an expensive up gunned OPV that won't be as effective?

[marktigger]

if you need to add more punch to the 30mm ds30 then you get the sigma variant with LMM piggyback.

given USCG large cutters have a wartime role as escorts its easy to see why they are armed in the way they are.

[Repulse]

given USCG large cutters have a wartime role as escorts its easy to see why they are armed in the way they are.

And why would the RN OPVs not be used in this way?

[RichardIC]

Tell you where I really think there is a case for a 76/57mm? On the flippin carriers as heavyweight multi-purpose CIWS. I'd add CAAM too.

It scares the life out of me that they can't fire back at anything until it's within a mile of them.

And I know about layered defence. I know F-35B will be the outer layer. I know there will be a T45 etc etc... But I'd rather go for belt and braces in this case.

I can't believe any other nation would make an investment in a 70k tonne carrier, an air group worth potentially billions, carrying 1,000 of its finest citizens and leave them so under-protected.

I can just about buy that a medium calibre gun that isn't fully integrated into a proper combat management system is little better than decorative. But fully integrated into a proper combat management system with modern fusing and guided munition possibilities they'd add real value.

For what it's worth I'd still add them to the OPVs.

[marktigger]

HMS Ark Royal Pre invincible one
HMS Hermes in Falklands

what could they fire back out to a mile?
both were fitted for but not with seacat none had Bofors and Arks 4.5's had been removed a long time before. At least the Invincibles had seadart and 20mm's then Phalanx and goal keeper

[Scimitar54]

Wrong,

Hermes was fitted with a quadruple SeaCat launcher on the sponsons on both stern quarters. Although the SeaCat was rather "Old Hat" by the time of the Falklands, they are very clearly visible.

[Ron5]

HMS Ark Royal Pre invincible one
HMS Hermes in Falklands

what could they fire back out to a mile?
both were fitted for but not with seacat none had Bofors and Arks 4.5's had been removed a long time before. At least the Invincibles had seadart and 20mm's then Phalanx and goal keeper

Not sure why this makes it a bad idea to put CAAM on the QE's. The impact and cost to the ship would be minimal. USN carriers carry missiles and they have a much better escort fleet than anybody.

I suppose you could equally say Nelson didn't have missiles on HMS Victory so the navy doesn't need them now.

[marktigger]

Not sure why this makes it a bad idea to put CAAM on the QE's. The impact and cost to the ship would be minimal. USN carriers carry missiles and they have a much better escort fleet than anybody.

I suppose you could equally say Nelson didn't have missiles on HMS Victory so the navy doesn't need them now.

not saying its a bad idea in any way shape or form, in fact I feel the opposite but just pointing out that previous ships hadn't.

[Ron5]

Apologies, misunderstood your point.

[marktigger]

http://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Reso ... 0Paget.pdf

A good argument as to why this weapon system should remain on display at "Explosion" and never grace a Royal Navy vessel larger than an OPV.

[Spinflight]

Quite, though 5" is still a strange choice for NGFS.

Both the 5" and 4.5" we designed around the competing demands of anti-aircraft fire, anti-surface and NGFS. The priority however was the former, the 5" and 4" being the main anti-aircraft calibres in WW2.

The requirements for NGFS are simple, timely weight of accurate fire. There have been many studies into both the history and modern applications though the twelve and 15 gun 6" designs were highest rated by both the troops they protected and their adversaries. The Japanese simply gave up building pill boxes within range of the guns. Hat tip to HMS Rodney for taking out a battalion of jerry tanks of course but in general the Germans would keep their armoured forces away from a vulnerable coast. Saying that the effect on the German troops of a light cruiser bringing it's guns to bear was rather notable.

The last major modern study that produced a new weapon was the US Navy's 8inch, though it never made it into service. It was thought to be the sweet spot between range and weight of shell. I assume there was a study for BAes choice of 6" for the AGS though I've never seen it. 5" is a bit on the light side though the debate has often been warped by the attempts to keep the US Battleships in service. Another interesting problem is that modern naval mounts can be a bit too accurate for their own good. A bit of spray and pray is often a good thing to keep people's heads down, indeed whilst the RN 4" was almost exclusively designed for anti-aircraft work it's rate of fire and dispersion made for a powerful suppressive tool along the Atlantic coast. Still far heavier than most land based artillery.

As an aside the US Coastguard justifies it's 76 and 127s both through the possible need to stop a large merchant vessel as well as it's wartime role. Personally I doubt 5" would do much to stop one of the larger ones.

I wouldn't assume that a 76mm Oto is useless for NGFS though, bear in mind that any hull carrying a 5" is going to be north of 3000t, hence is rather less likely to be risked very close to shore, and might not even be able to get within a few km of the shore. 76mm can be mounted on a surprisingly small platform..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparviero ... atrol_boat

Doubt it would be accurate but 2 rounds a second would be impressive firepower from a 60t craft!

It seems that most navies have given up on their larger calibres having much effect on aerial targets though I wonder whether this is wise. The effectiveness of thermobaric rockets in the Ukraine seems to have come as quite a surprise. I'm not sure anyone has ever developed a thermobaric artillery shell but one does wonder what it's effect would be on incoming cruise missiles. Not so much from the fireball produced but the shock wave. Cruise missiles are effectively just small pilotless aircraft with tiny control surfaces, I very much doubt that the parameters under which they are designed to fly include supersonic shock waves messing up the airflow over their control surfaces, or indeed the doubtless considerable turbulence caused. Same principal applies to UAVs as their low signatures seem to often prevent missile based attacks.

[shark bait]

RE, big guns on small boats



Big boats with big guns would be unusable against any well equipped 21st century opponent, would a small shoot and scoot fast boat be more usable?

[marktigger]

Quite, though 5" is still a strange choice for NGFS.

Both the 5" and 4.5" we designed around the competing demands of anti-aircraft fire, anti-surface and NGFS. The priority however was the former, the 5" and 4" being the main anti-aircraft calibres in WW2.

The requirements for NGFS are simple, timely weight of accurate fire. There have been many studies into both the history and modern applications though the twelve and 15 gun 6" designs were highest rated by both the troops they protected and their adversaries. The Japanese simply gave up building pill boxes within range of the guns. Hat tip to HMS Rodney for taking out a battalion of jerry tanks of course but in general the Germans would keep their armoured forces away from a vulnerable coast. Saying that the effect on the German troops of a light cruiser bringing it's guns to bear was rather notable.

The last major modern study that produced a new weapon was the US Navy's 8inch, though it never made it into service. It was thought to be the sweet spot between range and weight of shell. I assume there was a study for BAes choice of 6" for the AGS though I've never seen it. 5" is a bit on the light side though the debate has often been warped by the attempts to keep the US Battleships in service. Another interesting problem is that modern naval mounts can be a bit too accurate for their own good. A bit of spray and pray is often a good thing to keep people's heads down, indeed whilst the RN 4" was almost exclusively designed for anti-aircraft work it's rate of fire and dispersion made for a powerful suppressive tool along the Atlantic coast. Still far heavier than most land based artillery.

As an aside the US Coastguard justifies it's 76 and 127s both through the possible need to stop a large merchant vessel as well as it's wartime role. Personally I doubt 5" would do much to stop one of the larger ones.

I wouldn't assume that a 76mm Oto is useless for NGFS though, bear in mind that any hull carrying a 5" is going to be north of 3000t, hence is rather less likely to be risked very close to shore, and might not even be able to get within a few km of the shore. 76mm can be mounted on a surprisingly small platform..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparviero ... atrol_boat

Doubt it would be accurate but 2 rounds a second would be impressive firepower from a 60t craft!

It seems that most navies have given up on their larger calibres having much effect on aerial targets though I wonder whether this is wise. The effectiveness of thermobaric rockets in the Ukraine seems to have come as quite a surprise. I'm not sure anyone has ever developed a thermobaric artillery shell but one does wonder what it's effect would be on incoming cruise missiles. Not so much from the fireball produced but the shock wave. Cruise missiles are effectively just small pilotless aircraft with tiny control surfaces, I very much doubt that the parameters under which they are designed to fly include supersonic shock waves messing up the airflow over their control surfaces, or indeed the doubtless considerable turbulence caused. Same principal applies to UAVs as their low signatures seem to often prevent missile based attacks.

and how stable is a 60 foot boat and if you are comming in why not go then for a 120mm Mortar system AMOS system which could be put on a CB90?

[marktigger]

but the 5 inch gun is the better option for weight of projectile on target in 1 round. Unless you go for the 8 inch version the Americans developed. TBH I'd prefer's we had developed the 155mm Based on the AS90

[WhitestElephant]

Big boats with big guns would be unusable against any well equipped 21st century opponent, would a small shoot and scoot fast boat be more usable?

bubiyan turkey shoot

[Spinflight]

I do like the AMOS idea. Wouldn't have to be anything special, but with loads of ammo. Maybe something a little more stable than the vid..

I can't see any technical reason why you couldn't fit a vertical launch gun, as the AGS was going to be, into an SSK.

[marktigger]

maybe because we haven't the money to waste on SSK's

[Spinflight]

I can't see any technical reason why you couldn't fit a vertical launch gun, as the AGS was going to be, into an SSN.

[Old RN]

I can't see any technical reason why you couldn't fit a vertical launch gun, as the AGS was going to be, into an SSK.

Bring back the M class with a 12" gun fired submerged! If the RN could do it in the 1920s then why not 100 years later.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Quite, though 5" is still a strange choice for NGFS.

Both the 5" and 4.5" we designed around the competing demands of anti-aircraft fire, anti-surface and NGFS. The priority however was the former, the 5" and 4" being the main anti-aircraft calibres in WW2.

The requirements for NGFS are simple, timely weight of accurate fire. There have been many studies into both the history and modern applications though the twelve and 15 gun 6" designs were highest rated by both the troops they protected and their adversaries. The Japanese simply gave up building pill boxes within range of the guns. Hat tip to HMS Rodney for taking out a battalion of jerry tanks of course but in general the Germans would keep their armoured forces away from a vulnerable coast. Saying that the effect on the German troops of a light cruiser bringing it's guns to bear was rather notable.

The last major modern study that produced a new weapon was the US Navy's 8inch, though it never made it into service. It was thought to be the sweet spot between range and weight of shell. I assume there was a study for BAes choice of 6" for the AGS though I've never seen it. 5" is a bit on the light side though the debate has often been warped by the attempts to keep the US Battleships in service. Another interesting problem is that modern naval mounts can be a bit too accurate for their own good. A bit of spray and pray is often a good thing to keep people's heads down, indeed whilst the RN 4" was almost exclusively designed for anti-aircraft work it's rate of fire and dispersion made for a powerful suppressive tool along the Atlantic coast. Still far heavier than most land based artillery.

As an aside the US Coastguard justifies it's 76 and 127s both through the possible need to stop a large merchant vessel as well as it's wartime role. Personally I doubt 5" would do much to stop one of the larger ones.

I wouldn't assume that a 76mm Oto is useless for NGFS though, bear in mind that any hull carrying a 5" is going to be north of 3000t, hence is rather less likely to be risked very close to shore, and might not even be able to get within a few km of the shore. 76mm can be mounted on a surprisingly small platform..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparviero ... atrol_boat

Doubt it would be accurate but 2 rounds a second would be impressive firepower from a 60t craft!

It seems that most navies have given up on their larger calibres having much effect on aerial targets though I wonder whether this is wise. The effectiveness of thermobaric rockets in the Ukraine seems to have come as quite a surprise. I'm not sure anyone has ever developed a thermobaric artillery shell but one does wonder what it's effect would be on incoming cruise missiles. Not so much from the fireball produced but the shock wave. Cruise missiles are effectively just small pilotless aircraft with tiny control surfaces, I very much doubt that the parameters under which they are designed to fly include supersonic shock waves messing up the airflow over their control surfaces, or indeed the doubtless considerable turbulence caused. Same principal applies to UAVs as their low signatures seem to often prevent missile based attacks.

This guy either has had a brain fart or is taking you for a ride:
big guns on small boats (and don't believe the speed quote, more like between 45 and 50 knots):
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Turunma ... oat/en-en/

[Repulse]

Not sure where to put this, as it’s not necessarily platform related, but relevant to RN discussions. If the T31e comes with 57mm and 40mm guns that would mean we would have 8 different types of gun mounts / calibres in wide use in the RN/RFA.

1) 20mm “old” Mount (Older RFAs)
2) 20mm “new Mount (Echo class and B1 OPVs)
3) 30mm (T23s, T45s, B2 OPVs, CVFs, Albions, newer RFAs)
4) 40mm (expected on T31)
5) 57mm (expected on T31)
6) 114mm (T23s and T45s)
7) 5” (expected T26s)
8) 20mm Phalanx (CVF, T45, T26 and RFAs)

Surely too many and there would be a real need to consolidate. The question is how?

I’d see #6 going with the T23s, so what happens to the T45s - go to #7 or #5?

#1 could be replaced fleet wide with #2?

Even, replace #8 with #4?

[jedibeeftrix]

Not sure where to put this, as it’s not necessarily platform related, but relevant to RN discussions. If the T31e comes with 57mm and 40mm guns that would mean we would have 8 different types of gun mounts / calibres in wide use in the RN/RFA.

1) 20mm “old” Mount (Older RFAs)
2) 20mm “new Mount (Echo class and B1 OPVs)
3) 30mm (T23s, T45s, B2 OPVs, CVFs, Albions, newer RFAs)
4) 40mm (expected on T31)
5) 57mm (expected on T31)
6) 114mm (T23s and T45s)
7) 5” (expected T26s)
8) 20mm Phalanx (CVF, T45, T26 and RFAs)

Surely too many and there would be a real need to consolidate. The question is how?

I’d see #6 going with the T23s, so what happens to the T45s - go to #7 or #5?

#1 could be replaced fleet wide with #2?

Even, replace #8 with #4?

perhaps:
T26 replaces 30mm+Phalanx with 40mm (keeps 127mm)
T45 replaces 30mm+Phalanx with 40mm (main to 57mm)
T31 uses 40mm + 57mm
RB2 replaces 30mm with 40mm + AD CMS (3P)

maybe with 30mm's transferred on RFA boats...

[RetroSicotte]

Surely too many and there would be a real need to consolidate. The question is how?

Mk45 as main cannons.
DS30M as self defence.
Phalanx for CIWS.

Nice and simple, much cheaper on the long run. Doesn't require any new supply lines.

[ArmChairCivvy]

DS30M as self defence.

Yes and only surface capable, and of limited range... hence the mount is likely to get missiles that reach out to 6 km
- combined, that gives an 'anti-swarm' capability

Which, the CIWS has as of now that 1B is more surface capable and the ROF makes switching between several targets feasible (without losing too much lethality)
- but expensive so not all ships can have it
- and for those that do have it, there is the practical difficulty of getting 360 degrees out of one mount

[RetroSicotte]

Which, the CIWS has as of now that 1B is more surface capable and the ROF makes switching between several targets feasible (without losing too much lethality)
- but expensive so not all ships can have it
- 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?