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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby RetroSicotte » 24 Sep 2019, 14:24

Indeed, I believe the question exists, "What explicit threat are the 40mms required to fight that CAMM, 30mm/Martlet, Phalanx, and (likely) 57mm do not already counter effectively?" When working on a budget, that's a big thing, and why I feel iffy about these guns (if true) being chosen simply so they can tout BRAND NEW SYSTEM to make it sound more than it is.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Sep 2019, 14:46

If/ when you have 40 + CAMM, then you won't need the rest (here omitting the arches of fire 'angle'... pun intended).

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 24 Sep 2019, 15:23

ArmChairCivvy wrote:If/ when you have 40 + CAMM, then you won't need the rest (here omitting the arches of fire 'angle'... pun intended).


If radar jammed or taken out, its a single point failure?

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Sep 2019, 15:40

NickC wrote:a single point failure?

Won't say anything about CAMM in that scenario, but as for 40 Mk. 4
"airburst patterns for new threats that were previously impossible to engage. The automatically loaded, remotely controlled weapon can also be locally controlled as a backup, equipping the operator for any scenario. "
- that includes a tv/ thermal camera in the turret
- the fact sheet does not say of which type, but you could go all the way to this option, to maximise effective engagement range:
"The test firing, with a VT1 missile, conducted at a Finnish Defence Forces training range, demonstrated the capabilities of the Crotale NG equipped with the Catherine XP camera. It proved the accuracy and robust performance"

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Sep 2019, 18:55

Do we know what spec level we are going for with the Mk4 if we adopt it. Like the 57mm you get what you pay for. Also if we are going to introduce the Mk4 shouldn't we be looking at also including it on the T-26 instead of the 30mm?

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 25 Sep 2019, 10:01

Lord Jim wrote:Do we know what spec level we are going for with the Mk4 if we adopt it. Like the 57mm you get what you pay for. Also if we are going to introduce the Mk4 shouldn't we be looking at also including it on the T-26 instead of the 30mm?


This could be what the thinking is after the 30mm LMM trial. LMM fitted to a 30mm mount offers 5 rounds of what is about 40mm stopping power out to 9 km so maybe the new thinking is by fitting 40mm it gives you around 100 rounds of the same effect at a cheaper per unit cost.

As I have said before I feel all escorts should move over to 40mm as it is a better all round weapon

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Sep 2019, 10:06

Tempest414 wrote:40mm stopping power out to 9 km
In the trials (as for LMM) extending out to 6 km was mentioned
- so the reach is also different (both much better than the 30 mm, obviously)

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 25 Sep 2019, 10:57

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:a single point failure?

Won't say anything about CAMM in that scenario, but as for 40 Mk. 4
"airburst patterns for new threats that were previously impossible to engage. The automatically loaded, remotely controlled weapon can also be locally controlled as a backup, equipping the operator for any scenario. "
- that includes a tv/ thermal camera in the turret
- the fact sheet does not say of which type, but you could go all the way to this option, to maximise effective engagement range:
"The test firing, with a VT1 missile, conducted at a Finnish Defence Forces training range, demonstrated the capabilities of the Crotale NG equipped with the Catherine XP camera. It proved the accuracy and robust performance"


The 57 and and/or 40 assume using narrow range azimuth EO/IR sights and would be of limited effectiveness if no radar available to give advance warning of surprise attack. Will be pleasantly surprised if T31 equipped with 57/40 guns they have a sophisticated EO/IR and laser range finder for fire control.

Why think a ship with passive IRST high on mast to give 360 degree surveillance a necessity to give time to bring guns on-line in absence of radar due to failure for whatever reason or operating in EMCON mode, with very limited budget unlikely to be fitted.

A question mark hangs over operational capability of the 57 gun, from memory saw video of USN shock trials of a LCS, was surprised the 57 gun as well other equipment removed beforehand as thought too delicate to take the explosive shock.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Sep 2019, 11:07

NickC wrote:If radar jammed or taken out, its a single point failure?

NickC wrote:The 57 and and/or 40 assume using narrow range azimuth EO/IR sights and would be of limited effectiveness if no radar available to give advance warning of surprise attack.


That is correct. I was responding from the POV of staying in the fight, rather than having resilience through duplication (e.g. surveillance beyond LOS once the radar/ the mast for it has taken a hit).

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 25 Sep 2019, 12:25

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:40mm stopping power out to 9 km
In the trials (as for LMM) extending out to 6 km was mentioned
- so the reach is also different (both much better than the 30 mm, obviously)


Think 40mm 9 km range would be optimistic, my understanding the effective range of the Bofors 40 in the AA role will be ~ one third of claimed max range of 12.5 km, max ~4 km (effective surface range will be slightly higher), 100 round magazine able to fire 2 sec 10 round bursts at 300 rpm, 3P shell 2.5kg with a 0.975kg fragmentation warhead.

Compare to the Oerlikon Millennium 35 chosen by Danes to install on IH, effective max AA range ~3.5 km, 252 round magazine with 1.5 sec bursts of 25 rounds at 1,000 rpm, AHEAD shell 1.77 kg with 0.75 kg 152 tungsten balls warhead. Both shells similar mv of just over 1,000 mps.

My simple ROM for effectiveness of warhead weight on target if above figures correct
Bofors 10 x 0.975 = 9.75 kg
Oerlikon 25 x 0.75 = 18.75 kg

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Sep 2019, 12:43

NickC wrote:My simple ROM for effectiveness of warhead weight on target if above figures correct
Bofors 10 x 0.975 = 9.75 kg
Oerlikon 25 x 0.75 = 18.75 kg


A good one :thumbup: . Let' sbear in mind, though, that
- AHEAD is only good against missiles, helos (and for keeping heads down, should we need to extract a party from shore... who would otherwise be under fire)
- whereas the quickly switchable ammo varieties make Bofors truly multi-purpose (S. Korea has made sure that their IFVs can penetrate anything short of an MBT by going for the 40mm)

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 25 Sep 2019, 14:43

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:My simple ROM for effectiveness of warhead weight on target if above figures correct
Bofors 10 x 0.975 = 9.75 kg
Oerlikon 25 x 0.75 = 18.75 kg


A good one :thumbup: . Let' sbear in mind, though, that
- AHEAD is only good against missiles, helos (and for keeping heads down, should we need to extract a party from shore... who would otherwise be under fire)
- whereas the quickly switchable ammo varieties make Bofors truly multi-purpose (S. Korea has made sure that their IFVs can penetrate anything short of an MBT by going for the 40mm)


First thoughts is the No. 1 priority for the Millennium 35 is CIWS/AA with its AHEAD shell, the warhead contains 152 tungsten sub-projectiles that are stacked in 8 layers with 19 sub-projectiles in each layer (8x19=152) to maximise hit probability by distributing a lethal cone of its tungsten sub-projectiles in the path of the oncoming threat. Rheinmetall also manufacture 35mm HEI and APDS-T rounds to counter surface threats.

For surface firepower think far better option is to use the new USN AlaMO 57mm round for the Bofors 57 gun to counter surface threats up to max effective 10 km range. In the USN competition the L3 ALaMO 57mm round won out over the BAE ORKA round developed from the 3P.

Think you would require more range to support shore party from offshore and need larger calibre/explosive power than minuscule 1 kg warhead of the 57 will give you, eg Leonardo Super Rapid 76MM or 127mm/5" with its 70 lbs shell


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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 25 Sep 2019, 14:52

Correction to my last post 57 warhead ~ 2.4 kg, not 1 kg quoted, that was the 40mm, stiil think very light for NGFS.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Sep 2019, 16:20

Thx, great vids! Reminds me of when I went, for the first time, to see the live firing of the gun... in 1968 :lol:
,- no, not the SkyRanger, the other one
AND AHEAD was not around then, either, but have always thought that it is a v good solution.

I mentioned the Koreans for 40 mm, the Japanese have the 35 for 'land use'.

Yes, they are all useless for NGFS; but I was talking about extracting a party (recce; beach; civilian rescue) that might come under fire from hostiles in the vicinity
- even the dumbest will put their head down if that (dispersed) cloud of tungsten is heading their ;) way

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Sep 2019, 18:13

Without upsetting people by crossing thread boundaries, Skymaster or the equivalent weapon system using the CTA40 is something the Army needs as a matter of urgency. Both weapon systems have been shown fitted to a Boxer Mission Module as would be ideal for VSHORAD including against UAVs and Helicopters. Further discussion under Future Artillery or MIV threads I think.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby tomuk » 25 Sep 2019, 21:17

There is the Thales / Nexter Rapidfire Naval
https://youtu.be/LCFWUFWh3Io

Or could you fit the CTA40 to the Phalanx mount? The self autonomy (Radar, EO/IR) of the mount and the extra fire power of the CTA40.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby shark bait » 26 Sep 2019, 08:09

Funny they call it Rapidfire, its has the lowest rate of fire of any modern naval gun.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Sep 2019, 19:14

I could see Rapidfire with its programmable ammunition as well as more conventional types, as an alternative to the Mk4 40mm currently being proposed for the T-31. Given the weapons commonality with those due to enter service with the Army already and the fact that the Army could use a land based version of Rapidfire, mounted on the Boxer would reduce support cost some what. I have not seen much as to how capable the Rapidfire is against very fast moving targets such as AShMs, but it should match the Bofors Mk4 in most areas and may surpass it in others with the addition of the commonality trump card that should please the Bean Counters.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 27 Sep 2019, 14:20

Quick look at the 40mm CTA, design imperative was for a compact short round, 65 x 255mm, to fit more shells into the very limited space of turret of army vehicles eg Ajax/Warrior. ThinkDefense "Anecdotally, the cost of the new ammunition is said to be ‘eye watering'"

The Nexter/Thales RapidFire Naval T40AA gun system, 70 calibre, 180-200 rpm, max burst rate of fire limit five rounds?, limited by convoluted path required by short breech, 2.4 kg GPR-AB round, warhead mass 0.98kg with its 200 3.3g tungsten pellets, range 4 km, magazine capacity 140.

Using my previous simple ROM for effectiveness of warhead weight on target if figures for warhead and burst rate
Rapidfire 40mm 5 x 0.98 = 4.9 kg in 1.5 sec
Bofors 40mm 10 x 0.975 = 9.75 kg in 2 sec
Millennium 35mm 25 x 0.75 = 18.75 kg in 1.5 sec

Quote at at Euronaval 2018 on introduction of the T40AA seems to infer not suitable as CIWS for missiles and aircraft "The RapidFire® anti-aircraft system 40, designed in partnership between Nexter and Thales, performs short-range self-defense missions. Thanks to the accuracy and efficiency of the CTAI (Joint Venture Nexter and BAE) 40 mm gun and ammunition, the RapidFire® T40AA system is capable of intercepting helicopters, drones or light craft up to a distance of 4000 m. This performance is achieved through a viewfinder with electro-optical day/night cameras and a moving target tracking function."

From <https://www.defaiya.com/news/International%20News/Europe/2018/10/23/nexter-s-solutions-for-tomorrow-s-navies-at-euronaval-2018>


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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2019, 14:40

NickC wrote:RapidFire® T40AA system is capable of intercepting helicopters, drones or light craft up to a distance of 4000 m

So, sticking to that "same" category:
NickC wrote:Rapidfire 40mm 5 x 0.98 = 4.9 kg in 1.5 sec
Millennium 35mm 25 x 0.75 = 18.75 kg in 1.5 sec
hmmm... :think: [where is the emoji for "scratching head"?]

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 27 Sep 2019, 16:31

Weight of shell in a given time period seems very 1950's.

Do heavier missiles perform better than light ones?

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2019, 20:16

OOps; the tungsten cloud (conical), vs. AB (programmed by individual round as for the right distance) vs. fragmenting (in any, whatsoever, other way)
... discuss!

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 30 Sep 2019, 17:07

NickC wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:40mm stopping power out to 9 km
In the trials (as for LMM) extending out to 6 km was mentioned
- so the reach is also different (both much better than the 30 mm, obviously)


Think 40mm 9 km range would be optimistic, my understanding the effective range of the Bofors 40 in the AA role will be ~ one third of claimed max range of 12.5 km, max ~4 km (effective surface range will be slightly higher), 100 round magazine able to fire 2 sec 10 round bursts at 300 rpm, 3P shell 2.5kg with a 0.975kg fragmentation warhead.

Compare to the Oerlikon Millennium 35 chosen by Danes to install on IH, effective max AA range ~3.5 km, 252 round magazine with 1.5 sec bursts of 25 rounds at 1,000 rpm, AHEAD shell 1.77 kg with 0.75 kg 152 tungsten balls warhead. Both shells similar mv of just over 1,000 mps.

My simple ROM for effectiveness of warhead weight on target if above figures correct
Bofors 10 x 0.975 = 9.75 kg
Oerlikon 25 x 0.75 = 18.75 kg


But we will have 2 x Bofors 40 MK 4 on Arrowhead whereas IvH has one Millennium 35. 2 x 9.75 kg = 19.5 kg, plus the advantage of having two guns rather than one is that they can engage two different target simultaneously and at approx twice the range of the 30mm DS30M we currently mount on the T23.

I see that according to the brochure the Bofors 57mm we are going to stick on the front has a maximum range of 17 km. So if the same maths are applied as above by my reckoning this equates to an effective range against aerial targets of approx 5.6 km - anyone know? Also whats the cost differential between the Bofor 40 MK 4 and the Millennium 35?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Sep 2019, 21:45

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?

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Postby NickC » 01 Oct 2019, 10:12

Pongoglo wrote:
But we will have 2 x Bofors 40 MK 4 on Arrowhead whereas IvH has one Millennium 35. 2 x 9.75 kg = 19.5 kg, plus the advantage of having two guns rather than one is that they can engage two different target simultaneously and at approx twice the range of the 30mm DS30M we currently mount on the T23.

I see that according to the brochure the Bofors 57mm we are going to stick on the front has a maximum range of 17 km. So if the same maths are applied as above by my reckoning this equates to an effective range against aerial targets of approx 5.6 km - anyone know? Also whats the cost differential between the Bofor 40 MK 4 and the Millennium 35?


You do know that the IH class besides the Millennium 35 have two Oto Melara 76mm compacts that fire at 85 rpm, with ~ 6.3 kg warheads, no info if they will be updated to fire the guided DART sub-calibre round, mention of 5 km range, the newer 76mm Super Rapid fires at 120 rpm.

Re. the 57mm range, L3 who won USN contract against BAE with ORKA/3P, with their ALaMO round for surface warfare, mention of 10 km range, Wikipedia states effective range 8.5 km with HE shell. Your estimate for effective AA range may or may not correct as have seen no figures for its 3P shell in proximity mode.

Costs, Millennium 35, Danish Navy 2015 contract for IH class with Rheinmetall ~ Euro 20 million for three, ~£6 million each, IH using the Saab Ceros for FCR. No info on cost of the Bofors 40 Mk4, would guess much less expensive than the Millennium 35, expect Babcock would have obtained good price/discount from BAE on order for five 57's and ten 40's for T31, lowest price is the priority for Babcock driven by the MOD/RN £250M FP


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gandalf, Max Jones, rhodes76, rightroyal and 24 guests