UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
js44
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 05 May 2015, 11:35

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby js44 » 20 Sep 2019, 15:52


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Sep 2019, 17:41

Indeed, the larger, new gun on only two classes, as follows:

"Type 26 ASW Frigate

127mm Mk45 in A mount


Type 31 GP Light Frigate

127mm Mk45 in A mount"

Expensive, as we saw fro Oz purchase, and later from our own (both included a 'training set')
- we should only put it onto ships that are likely to use it
:) so, if a number any less than 8 for the T26... don't bother, but move them over to T31s (and add a couple to the order)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Sep 2019, 18:24

The adoption of the BAe 57mm for a wider variety of ships is something I have been advocating for some time given its flexibility. I must say though that fitting it to the waist positions on a T-45 in addition to replacing the old Mk8 maybe going to far. Placing two on a T-31e though would be a very good idea, and as we are going all in (Possible :D ) fitting the same weapon to the B2 Rivers should be seriously considered.

We should also adopt the 30mm/LMM combo across the fleet including our RFAs. A B2 River with both this and a 57mm would be a very good patrol/policing platform applicable to many missions currently filled by a larger warship. The mount would also give out RFAs a rudimentary sled defence capability against air and seaborne threats if the same stabilised mount as used on the T023 is used. Actually won't there be a dozen or so of these going spare when the T-23s retire or are these also being fitted to the T-26?

Of course we could also adopt Sea Ram to replace our stocks of Phalanx, as this is also a pretty effective CIWS and is gaining some new capabilities in the near future like each launchers being able to engage multiple targets simultaneously.

Serious consideration should be given to the Royal Navy consolidating on the 5 inch and 57mm as the main armament of its warships and patrol craft with the 30mm/LMM combo as the standard secondary. There is a cost involved but both the T-26 and T-31e will have an open CMS which could easily be adapted to handle these weapons and the sensors allocated to them. The T-45 maybe more difficult but with only six platform should not be seen as beyond the realms of possibility to replace the Mk8.

Guns are back in fashion, so lets embrace the trend and seriously p the Royal Navy's capabilities in tis area.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby tomuk » 20 Sep 2019, 18:24

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If T26 needs to do ASW work, why a T31 can do NGFS? If enemy SSK is alive and active, the T31 will be easily sunk?


If NGFS is required it will be part of wider operation such as an amphibious assault. The ships won't be operating on their own they would be part of a task group. eg 1x QEC, 1x Albion, 2x Bay, 2x T45, 2x T26, 2x T31.

The T45 would be busy providing cover from Aircraft and Missiles
The T26 would be busy hunting subs.
The T31s could do NGFS, or supplement T45 with CAMM. Plus it's aviation facilities and boat bays may also be useful

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby SW1 » 20 Sep 2019, 19:01

With the focus on precision and low collateral damage is it possible the 5” gun maybe to much shell for increasingly crowded coastal areas and for longer range stuff either ship or uav mounted missiles preferred.

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Old RN » 21 Sep 2019, 08:26

The Vulcano round has now been declared ready for deployment by Germany and Italy and it gives a 5"/127mm naval gun a range of 90km against stationary and moving targets is this going to be bought for the Type 26?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Sep 2019, 10:48

Adapted from the excellent UKLandPower article posted above.

This might be currently unaffordable but maybe it's just a question of reorganising priorities.

Type 45 AAW Destroyer
57mm with magazine in A mount replacing 4.5 inch gun
Port and starboard Phalanx
Port and starboard DS30 remote mounts with Martlet

Type 26 ASW Frigate
127mm Mk45 in A mount
Port and starboard Phalanx
Port and starboard DS30 remote mounts with Martlet

Type 31 GP Frigate
127mm Mk45 in A mount
57mm deck penetrating with magazine in B (in front of bridge) and Z (central hanger roof) positions
Port and starboard DS30 remote mounts with Martlet

River Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessel
57mm non-deck penetrating mount in A position
Port and starboard DS30 with Martlet

This would give RN four common gun options, 127mm, 57mm, 30mm(LMM) and 20mm Phalanx. Seems pretty well balanced.

The T31 in particular would be an extremely well armed GP Frigate, perfectly suited to dealing with fast boat swarms as well as providing NGS for the LiTM and the LSG's. Adding the second 57mm and the Mk45 127mm would cost around £65m per hull raising the price of the up-gunned T31's to around £315m. Adding a hull mounted sonar and a towed array would likely raise the cost to around £340m. Adding 8 NSM's or similar would round off the platform nicely for a figure somewhere in the region of £350m. Even if the intergration costs for the additional weapons systems increased this figure it still represents remarkable value for money.

T31 GP Frigate
127mm Mk45
2x 57mm Mk110
2x 30mm DS30 LMM
24 CAMM
8x NSM
NS110 or NS200
UMS 4110 or 2150
2870 or Captas 4 compact

A lot of Frigate for the money and very stiff competition for the FTI. Especially considering that the A140 can also embark a Merlin or two Wildcats plus four RHIBs and a sizeable EMF. Very impressive and very exportable.

A maritime security version of the A140 could still be procured for around £260m if eight T31's is the ultimate ambition.

T31 Martime Security Frigate
2x 57mm Mk110
2x 30mm DS30 LMM
24 CAMM
NS110 or NS200
UMS 4110 or 2150

A mixed build of four GP T31's and four MS T31's could be built for a total programme cost of around £2.5bn or roughly £250m per annum over the 10 year T31 construction period.

This would provide a welcome increase in hulls for RN. Good news for the UK shipbuilding sector and good value for the UK tax payer. Difficult to see any negatives.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby SW1 » 21 Sep 2019, 11:31

If you changed the name of your type 31 gp to type 31 asw that would be what you’ve spec’d add fixed propellers and codlad which the builder say is possible for effect.

Then your type 31security frigate which is essentially what we’ve just ordered

And heck throw in the same configuration as the Danes and you have type 31 aaw.

Or in another way what type 26 should of been but isn’t, flexible and configurable at an affordable price. Assuming of course arrowhead can be built for £250m pounds.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 21 Sep 2019, 11:41

Poiuytrewq wrote:This would give RN four common gun options, 127mm, 57mm, 30mm(LMM) and 20mm Phalanx. Seems pretty well balanced.


If we are to move to four common gun options then I would like to see a move to 127mm , 76mm , 40mm , 20mm Phalanx this would allow

Type 45 ) 1 x 76mm , 2 x Phalanx , 2 x 40mm plus 48 Aster
Type 26) 1 x 127mm , 2 x phalanx , 2 x 40mm plus 48 CAMM
Type 31) 1 x 76mm , 2 x phalanx , 2 x 40mm plus 24 CAMM
River class 1 x 40mm 4 x HMG/ Miniguns

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 21 Sep 2019, 11:45

Poiuytrewq wrote:River Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessel
57mm non-deck penetrating mount in A position
Port and starboard DS30 with Martlet

As Donald-san reminded me, the RB2s actually have the room for a deck-penetrating installation, so if we intend to keep them as "minor warships", then I would go for the larger magazine capacity of the deck-penetrating mount. I would only go for the NDP mount if we were going to "roll-back" the changes at some point in the future. It would also give greater commonality across the fleet.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Sep 2019, 12:47

SW1 wrote:If you changed the name of your type 31 gp to type 31 asw that would be what you’ve spec’d add fixed propellers and codlad which the builder say is possible for effect.
The name is unimportant but IMO the spec of a 21st century GP Frigate needs to include a TAS/VDS or a credible off board system that provides the same capability. If it doesn't have a hull mounted sonar then it simply isn't a frigate.

Adding the hybrid propulsion setup should have been done on the baseline A140 but cost got in the way. I don't see that its a problem for the basic security variant but any follow on GP variants should look to improve the propulsion, noise reduction etc.
SW1 wrote:Then your type 31security frigate which is essentially what we’ve just ordered
Agreed, in a nutshell that's what the proposed A140 is, a cheap, security orientated long range patrol vessel. I am not convinced RN needs 8 such vessels with a crew allocation of 100/120. Much better to build the first four hulls as basic security variants, upgrade the fifth hull and test it thoroughly and if successful build another batch of three.
SW1 wrote:And heck throw in the same configuration as the Danes and you have type 31 aaw.
Yep, hulls 8 and 9 should be full Iver Huitfeldt to give RN the eight AAW destroyers that should have been built in the first place.
SW1 wrote:Or in another way what type 26 should of been but isn’t, flexible and configurable at an affordable price.
As the potential of the A140 hull is explored the T26 fully it will put a lot of pressure on the T26 programme. Of course RN will be well aware of this and I believe this is the reason why the initial T31 batch will be so lightly armed.....securing the follow-on batch(s) of T26 must remain the priority.
SW1 wrote:Assuming of course arrowhead can be built for £250m pounds.
Its a prerequisite :D
Tempest414 wrote:If we are to move to four common gun options then I would like to see a move to 127mm , 76mm , 40mm , 20mm Phalanx
Just as good. The 57mm and 40mm look to be an overlap induced by an inadequate T31 budget. Babcock believe they have delivered a credible Frigate for £250m, it's up to RN now whether they accept what is being proposed.
Caribbean wrote:the RB2s actually have the room for a deck-penetrating installation, so if we intend to keep them as "minor warships", then I would go for the larger magazine capacity of the deck-penetrating mount. I would only go for the NDP mount if we were going to "roll-back" the changes at some point in the future.
If the up-gunning and forward basing of the current crop of RB2's is simply a 5 to 8 year stopgap to a larger Frigate/Corvette force then non penetrating is the way to go but maybe RN can see the value of maintaining this force structure long term. In which case the penetrating magazines are surely the way to go.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 23 Sep 2019, 09:41

Again just like to casually remind people (including especially the LandPower article) that the 40mm is in no way a replacement for the Phalanx. The Phalanx has a completely separate mode of operation that the 40mm simply does not have. There's a reason that things like Phalanx, Goalkeeper, and the radar-equipped variant of the 76mm are different to other guns.

There's a huge difference between the crew trying to point a gun in the direction of a known attack and switch over targeting to it, and a gun that simply does that on its own with effectively an instantaneous reaction time.

Getting rid of Phalanx would be a huge HUGE mistake, and yet again forgetting the lessons that were learned at the cost of lives.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 23 Sep 2019, 10:16

Though I agree with the point about keeping Phalanx (even if its effectiveness is diminishing, it still seems effective for now), for the 40mm it depends which variant we purchase. There are variants with their own integrated radar and FCS that can automatically acquire and track targets without external radar input, such as the L/70 BOFI-R (All weather) and the DARDO/Fast Forty. I think we've moved on from manual aiming a la Falklands era
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 23 Sep 2019, 11:22

Caribbean wrote:Though I agree with the point about keeping Phalanx (even if its effectiveness is diminishing, it still seems effective for now), for the 40mm it depends which variant we purchase. There are variants with their own integrated radar and FCS that can automatically acquire and track targets without external radar input, such as the L/70 BOFI-R (All weather) and the DARDO/Fast Forty. I think we've moved on from manual aiming a la Falklands era

For what it's worth I'd like to see both implemented to some extent. They both have their niche, but I think it's just folly to imply one is simply better than the other and thus an entire capability gets removed (again).

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Sep 2019, 11:49

RetroSicotte wrote:
Caribbean wrote:Though I agree with the point about keeping Phalanx (even if its effectiveness is diminishing, it still seems effective for now), for the 40mm it depends which variant we purchase. There are variants with their own integrated radar and FCS that can automatically acquire and track targets without external radar input, such as the L/70 BOFI-R (All weather) and the DARDO/Fast Forty. I think we've moved on from manual aiming a la Falklands era

For what it's worth I'd like to see both implemented to some extent. They both have their niche, but I think it's just folly to imply one is simply better than the other and thus an entire capability gets removed (again).


I would agree and that is why I would push for Type 31 to be fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm and 2 x Phalanx plus 24 CAMM and maybe 36 later I just feel this make it a very good area defence frigate

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 23 Sep 2019, 13:06

Tempest414 wrote:I would agree and that is why I would push for Type 31 to be fitted with 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm and 2 x Phalanx plus 24 CAMM and maybe 36 later I just feel this make it a very good area defence frigate

That gunnery fit (avoiding the rest due to non gunnery fantasy fleeting) would be a good shout for a general purpose frigate, yes. Would prefer the Mk45, but that is clearly out of the range.

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 23 Sep 2019, 15:55

MBDA 11/09/2019 "The core of SPEAR-EW’s payload is Leonardo’s advanced, miniaturised Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, which offers the most advanced and future-proof electronic jamming and deception available on the market today. The new SPEAR-EW will complement the SPEAR network enabled miniature cruise missile, which is designed to precisely engage long range, mobile, fleeting and re-locatable targets in all weathers, day or night, in the presence of countermeasures, obscurants and camouflage, while ensuring a safe stand-off range between the aircraft and enemy air defences. Powered by a turbojet engine the SPEAR missile offers over double the range, and a far more flexible operating envelope, when compared to a conventional glide weapon. SPEAR-EW utilises this long endurance through its capacity to be launched at enhanced stand-off ranges and loiter while carrying out its jamming mission."

Consequences of the very limited T31 budget, if no IRST (as well as the radar) and non-radar guns and missiles eg Starstreak, (as well as Sea Ceptor) T31 will be unable to operate in an independent role in EMCON mode, using its radar will open it up to attack by equivalent Chinese/Russian AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile and/or SPEAR-EW jammer, would think probability that the radar controlled Sea Ceptor and guns will be non-operational and T31 will be left to rely purely on its soft kill defences, high risk.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 23 Sep 2019, 16:41

There are more ways than one to skin a cat.

The primary ASuW weapon of the T31 will be the armed Wildcat. Ship mounted 30mm, 40mm or 57mm guns are the second tier of ASuW defences.

The primary AAW weapon of the T31 will be Sea Ceptor. Ship mounted Phalanx, 40mm or 57mm guns are the second tier of AAW defences.

Regarding defence from fast boat swarms and protection of merchant shipping, Jane's is reporting that a AH1 land variant of Wildcat from 847 Sqn has been deployed onto Wave Knight in the Gulf, together with a detachment of Royal Marines. This allows RMs to rapidly move to reinforce merchant ships under threat, or possibly even board hostile vessels.


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Sep 2019, 17:06

If I was the RN I would accept the T-31 into service with a 57mm, 2x 30mm RWS with or without LMM port and starboard and a Phalanx on top of the hanger, as far as a gun fit goes. there is plenty of room if funding allows additional systems to be fitted if the need arises.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby SW1 » 23 Sep 2019, 19:39

It amazing me how we always seem to go from wanting to add more guns and missiles, to the ship has to face the might of the Russian/Chinese navy on its own in the blink of an eye. I mean not only would the ship be part of a very large task group in would be a very large multinational task force it you were facing off either such countries.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Sep 2019, 20:42

Agreed to a certain extent, if you get enough warning to move assets into theatre. HMS Montrose in the Gulf was out on a limb for quite a while and would have had to fend for itself it the Iranian had decided to make a serious move. The T-31e is probably going to be the vessel of choice for forward deployment by the Royal Navy and so need to have a reasonable level of self defence against attack. Many non governmental factions around the world are gaining access to advanced AShMs these days, often in areas where our forward deployed ship would be operating.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby SW1 » 23 Sep 2019, 20:58

Lord Jim wrote:Agreed to a certain extent, if you get enough warning to move assets into theatre. HMS Montrose in the Gulf was out on a limb for quite a while and would have had to fend for itself it the Iranian had decided to make a serious move. The T-31e is probably going to be the vessel of choice for forward deployment by the Royal Navy and so need to have a reasonable level of self defence against attack. Many non governmental factions around the world are gaining access to advanced AShMs these days, often in areas where our forward deployed ship would be operating.


Some limb! The largest concentration of uk and allied armed forces across all domains almost anywhere in the world are in the middle east.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Sep 2019, 02:58

They are now but a couple of month ago you had a USN CBG outside the HMS Montrose plus one or two USN Destroyers/Cruisers in the Gulf. The distance across the Gulf is very small and a IRG attack group could have launched an attack on Montrose and retire before any help could arrive. They would have taken casualties but Montrose could have bee very badly damaged with considerable casualties on board. Fortunately Iran didn't go that far and backed off when challenged but they are very unpredictable and are getting more and more confident.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby jedibeeftrix » 24 Sep 2019, 07:57

Lord Jim wrote:If I was the RN I would accept the T-31 into service with a 57mm, 2x 30mm RWS with or without LMM port and starboard and a Phalanx on top of the hanger, as far as a gun fit goes. there is plenty of room if funding allows additional systems to be fitted if the need arises.

what's wrong with the 2x 40mm that we understand will be fitted to T31?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 24 Sep 2019, 10:19

jedibeeftrix wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:If I was the RN I would accept the T-31 into service with a 57mm, 2x 30mm RWS with or without LMM port and starboard and a Phalanx on top of the hanger, as far as a gun fit goes. there is plenty of room if funding allows additional systems to be fitted if the need arises.

what's wrong with the 2x 40mm that we understand will be fitted to T31?


Nothing it is only that 30mm and Phalanx are in service with the fleet and with the tight budget of T-31 what LJ has put above is good fit with the RN only needing to bring one new gun type into service


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adnan.ahmed, RB211, Repulse, shark bait and 33 guests