Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Timmymagic]

Is MSI system capable of 3P rounds? Integration into Bushmaster 40mm cannon?? Not sure.

Doubt it. Super 40mm Bushmaster is an impressive round but it isn't 40mm Bofors.

Ultimately, if there was a need to go to airburst then I'd hope we'd go to Super 40mm Bushmaster as even though 30mm airburst has been demo'd there is still the issue of space for a bursting charge in amongst the electronics. 40mm has enough space for the fuse and a worthwhile charge, 30mm's effect is going to be a whole lot lower than the calibre difference suggests.

I've no expectation that the RN will go down this route, as others have said it appears to be a case of 2 ammo feeds or 1 feed and Martlet canisters (not as a result of space, more likely weight, as having both would imbalance the mount). Saying that realistically you only need 1 nature anyway. Airburst is the perfect round to target UAS, helos or Fast Attack Craft. Even with a modern stabilised mount the number of rounds that do not impact a target if there is the slightest ship motion or non-cooperative target is huge...and damn the cost...if they're that close that you're using the ASCG you want to kill them and kill them fast.

I think its worth noting that there are simple solutions out there that could be useful to upgun some of the fleet and provide increased protection against threats that are only increasing. River Batch 2 with a Super 40mm DS40M with programmable airburst rounds and a 4 round Martlet/Starstreak launcher would be very capable of looking after herself for a comparatively small outlay.

[Lord Jim]

With modern programmable fuses, surely you can set the round to detonate in various ways, such a air burst in front of target, on impact with target or once the round has penetrated the target, I have seen video of both the Bofors and Bushmaster do all three of the above and I guess the Bofors 57mm can do the same as well.

Dumb rounds for auto cannon, artillery and so on are going to become the norm going forward. Unlike Russia or China we are bound to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, so clever munitions are the only option, in the majority of cases. Out a sea there is a lot more leeway, not many houses, but we will still want a high degree of precision to minimise the number of rounds needed for a kill. Fortunately the cost of clever rounds can now suit most budgets, dependant on what capabilities you are looking for.

As mentioned CAMM is ideal for saturation attacks by supersonic or faster missiles, with its fast reaction tome and accuracy, but Medium autocannon and lightweight missiles like LMM have a vary valid role dealing with older missiles, UAVs and even aircraft, not forgetting Fast Attack Craft and boghammers. My worry is our warships carry the minimum or less number of CAMM they really should, and our Carriers, Amphibs and RFA vessels carry none. Any peer opponent can do the maths and work out how many AShMs would be needed to overwhelm our CSG and then add a dozen or so more for good measure. Yes there will always be a limit on how many missiles our warships can carry, but shall we say there is room for improvement.

[Tempest414]

Is MSI system capable of 3P rounds? Integration into Bushmaster 40mm cannon?? Not sure.

Doubt it. 40mm Bushmaster is an impressive round but it isn't 40mm Bofors.

Ultimately, if there was a need to go to airburst then I'd hope we'd go to 40mm Bushmaster as even though 30mm airburst has been demo'd there is still the issue of space for a bursting charge in amongst the electronics. 40mm has enough space for the fuse and a worthwhile charge, 30mm's effect is going to be a whole lot lower than the calibre difference suggests.

I've no expectation that the RN will go down this route, as others have said it appears to be a case of 2 ammo feeds or 1 feed and Martlet canisters (not as a result of space, more likely weight, as having both would imbalance the mount). Saying that realistically you only need 1 nature anyway. Airburst is the perfect round to target UAS, helos or Fast Attack Craft. Even with a modern stabilised mount the number of rounds that do not impact a target if there is the slightest ship motion or non-cooperative target is huge...and damn the cost...if they're that close that you're using the ASCG you want to kill them and kill them fast.

I think its worth noting that there are simple solutions out there that could be useful to upgun some of the fleet and provide increased protection against threats that are only increasing. River Batch 2 with a 40mm DS40M with programmable airburst rounds and a 4 round Martlet/Starstreak launcher would be very capable of looking after herself for a comparatively small outlay.

I was thinking that the Bushmaster IV 40mm used the same 3P round as the Bofors L/70 is that wrong

[Timmymagic]

I was thinking that the Bushmaster IV 40mm used the same 3P round as the Bofors L/70 is that wrong

It does. But I don't think the MSI Mount will take a Bushmaster IV firing Bofors. It's the Bushmaster II Super 40mm that will fit the mount. It does have an AB round but I don't believe its the 3P which is a BAE product. AFAIK 3P is only available in 40 and 57 Bofors. The Super 40 uses Orbital ATK's Programmable Air Burst Munition (PABM) which to all intents and purposes is a 3P analogue.

I've amended my original post to make it clear that its the Super 40mm Bushmaster.

[Timmymagic]

RN is currently planing to operate 7.62, .50cal, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 114mm and 127mm.

Time for a spot of rationalisation to ease logistics IMO.

Rationalisation always sounds like a great idea. For example the search for the inevitable 'perfect' calibre for small arms has been underway for a century...and we're still not there. Truth is for ships there isn't the need to do so as much as there is for land force.

RN is actually planning to operate 7.62, .50 cal, 20mm x 102 (Phalanx), 20 x 128 (GAMB0), 30mm x 173, 40mm Bofors , 57mm Bofors, 114mm and 127mm. And thats before you get in to the plethora of natures available..

We actually got rid of 30mm ADEN, 35mm, 40mm Bofors, 76mm and the 30mm Goalkeeper rounds in recent years (obviously we've gone back to 40mm Bofors again...). We also trialled RARDEN at sea briefly....

If we'd been serious about rationalisation, across the forces as a whole, there have been a lot of opportunities...how many 27mm Mauser's have the RAF scrapped with Tornado? 40mm CTA with the Army, 155mm with TMF.

If we'd have been the slightest bit smart for the RN we could have got it down to...
7.62, .50cal, 20mm x 102 (Phalanx), 27mm Mauser, 40mm CTA...then straight up to 155mm. There would probably be room for a calibre between 40mm and 155mm, either 57mm or 76mm.

There was even a CIWS using 27mm....(the Vierling, 4 x 27mm)..could have scrapped Phalanx...or bought Myriad in 27mm...

But we didn't...

[Tempest414]

I'm a lover of replacing T45's 114mm gun with a 57 mm gun,

I would go for removing the 114mm , 30mm and Phalanx and fitting 3 x 57mm and more CAMM

[Tempest414]

RN is actually planning to operate 7.62, .50 cal, 20mm x 102 (Phalanx), 20 x 128 (GAMB0), 30mm x 173, 40mm Bofors , 57mm Bofors, 114mm and 127mm. And thats before you get in to the plethora of natures available..

And with these new options for me we should be looking again at the River B2's and for me I still fill the best fit in light of over seas role would be 1 x 40mm , 2 x 20mm 4 x Minigun's . Throw in say 10 Hero 120 Loitering weapons that can be used from the ship or by a EMF from a ORC and we have our self a great low end ship

[NickC]

I think the point is,
- CAMM (or even Aster) shall be used for enemy high-end (= very expensive) ASMs
- 30/40/57 mm air-burst/3P ammo coupled with EO (better with radar) FCS range-finding for simple slow (=cheap) UAVs/suicide drones
will be the answer.

There can be another layer of
- LMM and/or 57 mm guided rounds (MADFIRES) against sub-sonic middle-class (= so-so expensive) ASMs.

Forcing to wast high-end AAW missiles on cheap = numerous UAVs/ASM is the easiest way to kill a high-end warship. Better to have cheap and numerous AAW assets, combined with high-end ones.

Don't disagree, worth looking at the US Army ~2000 programme, Enhanced Area Protection and Survivability, to counter UAS and RAM, rockets, artillery shells and mortar bombs, looked at guns and missiles.

The gun option they trialed in 2015 used twin barrel 50mm Bushmasters firing 10 round bursts. To minimise costs, cheap, no expensive electronics in projectile eg no 3P, used a CW interferometer radar which was capable of centimetric accuracy and tracked both target and projectile with the projectile incorporating a simple thruster for course correction and a tantalum-tungsten alloy liner to form forward propelled penetrators. Point to note that they went with the 50mm shell, presume the minimum firepower required for C-RAM

The EAPS also funded the Lockheed Martin 5 lbs Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) interceptor missile, understand still being funded.

Should note Madfires is not a program of record but still in R&D and may not come to pass.

https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/401539.pdf

[Ron5]

The gun option they trialed in 2015 used twin barrel 50mm Bushmasters firing 10 round bursts. To minimise costs, cheap, no expensive electronics in projectile eg no 3P, used a CW interferometer radar which was capable of centimetric accuracy and tracked both target and projectile with the projectile incorporating a simple thruster for course correction and a tantalum-tungsten alloy liner to form forward propelled penetrators. Point to note that they went with the 50mm shell, presume the minimum firepower required for C-RAM

Bollox. No such system was trialed.

[SKB]

It's spelt bollocks.

[NickC]

The gun option they trialed in 2015 used twin barrel 50mm Bushmasters firing 10 round bursts. To minimise costs, cheap, no expensive electronics in projectile eg no 3P, used a CW interferometer radar which was capable of centimetric accuracy and tracked both target and projectile with the projectile incorporating a simple thruster for course correction and a tantalum-tungsten alloy liner to form forward propelled penetrators. Point to note that they went with the 50mm shell, presume the minimum firepower required for C-RAM

Bollox. No such system was trialed.

Luciano and his team, working on enhanced area protection and survivability, tested an integrated system April 22 by shooting down a class 2 unmanned aerial system using command guidance and command warhead detonation at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Funding for development and testing was provided by the ARDEC Technology Office.

The April 22, 2015, test was performed with a single shot Mann barrel. The UAS was flying a surveillance-type track and was engaged on the approach path leg. The airplane fell precipitously from its flight.

The integrated test demonstrated a proof-of-principle that direct fire, command guided ammunition can intercept and negate aerial threats, Luciano said.

Innovative Army technology gains new potential By Ed Lopez, Picatinny Arsenal Public Affairs July 14, 2015
https://www.army.mil/article/151792/inn ... _potential

[J. Tattersall]

Out of interest what is the drone the Iranians are using to attack shipping on the Gulf region, and do they use mass attack/ swarm tactics or singleton attacks?

[Lord Jim]

I cannot see a reference to a twin 50mm system in the article but the idea is interesting. Mind you what the US Army refers to as cheap often has a different definition than for he rest of us. It also helps them that they are looking at using the same weapon on their replacement for the Bradley.

[NickC]

I cannot see a reference to a twin 50mm system in the article but the idea is interesting. Mind you what the US Army refers to as cheap often has a different definition than for he rest of us. It also helps them that they are looking at using the same weapon on their replacement for the Bradley.

Ref to twin Bushmaster 50mm, EAPS image shown on following article (unfortunately cannot seem to post pics on forum, expect due to software conflict with my computer).

From <https://www.army.mil/article/151792/inn ... _potential>

[NickC]

DefenseNews "Lockheed refines bid to modernize the Greek frigate fleet. Here’s what it’s offering" 16th Sept, mentions will be able to fit CAMM-ER (Albatros NG) presuming using EXLS cells in the Mk41 VLS cells, reflecting Greek Navy preference for CAMM-ER to RAM and ESSM?
(Babcock bidding with variant of the A140, showing model at DSEI).

The Lockheed frigate for Greece based on the Saudi MMSC which fitted with a 11 cell SeaRAM Mk15 Mod 31 stand alone launcher for CIWS and a 8 cell Mk-41 for up to 32 ESSMs

From <https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -offering/>

[Ron5]

I cannot see a reference to a twin 50mm system in the article but the idea is interesting. Mind you what the US Army refers to as cheap often has a different definition than for he rest of us. It also helps them that they are looking at using the same weapon on their replacement for the Bradley.

Ref to twin Bushmaster 50mm, EAPS image shown on following article (unfortunately cannot seem to post pics on forum, expect due to software conflict with my computer).

From <https://www.army.mil/article/151792/inn ... _potential>

A slide computer picture of a twin 50mm system is the only thing that exists. No twin 50mm system has been built or trialed. I'm not sure the Bushmaster 50mm even existed in 2015, it's not been around that long.

[Halidon]

I cannot see a reference to a twin 50mm system in the article but the idea is interesting. Mind you what the US Army refers to as cheap often has a different definition than for he rest of us. It also helps them that they are looking at using the same weapon on their replacement for the Bradley.

Ref to twin Bushmaster 50mm, EAPS image shown on following article (unfortunately cannot seem to post pics on forum, expect due to software conflict with my computer).

From <https://www.army.mil/article/151792/inn ... _potential>

A slide computer picture of a twin 50mm system is the only thing that exists. No twin 50mm system has been built or trialed. I'm not sure the Bushmaster 50mm even existed in 2015, it's not been around that long.

The 50mm supershot of the 35mm Bushmaster III has been around quite awhile, the XM913 is a modern development of the system by ARDEC. The EAPS program 50mm was a different offshoot of the gun, also developed by ARDEC, eventually it gained a unique receiver to support a much larger case compared to the supershot 50.

[Ron5]

I cannot see a reference to a twin 50mm system in the article but the idea is interesting. Mind you what the US Army refers to as cheap often has a different definition than for he rest of us. It also helps them that they are looking at using the same weapon on their replacement for the Bradley.

Ref to twin Bushmaster 50mm, EAPS image shown on following article (unfortunately cannot seem to post pics on forum, expect due to software conflict with my computer).

From <https://www.army.mil/article/151792/inn ... _potential>

A slide computer picture of a twin 50mm system is the only thing that exists. No twin 50mm system has been built or trialed. I'm not sure the Bushmaster 50mm even existed in 2015, it's not been around that long.

The 50mm supershot of the 35mm Bushmaster III has been around quite awhile, the XM913 is a modern development of the system by ARDEC. The EAPS program 50mm was a different offshoot of the gun, also developed by ARDEC, eventually it gained a unique receiver to support a much larger case compared to the supershot 50.

I'm no expert but I thought just the XM913 had programmable air burst ammo and that gun's only been around for a couple of years.

[Poiuytrewq]

These are shaping up to be better armed than a T31!

https://www.navylookout.com/small-warsh ... -scotland/

Can anyone identify the VLS behind the 76mm?

[Halidon]

I'm no expert but I thought just the XM913 had programmable air burst ammo and that gun's only been around for a couple of years.

You are correct as far as the XM913. But it and the EAPS gun both started as developments of the Bushmaster III in 50mm supershot, it would be equally inaccurate to describe any of the above as PowerPoint weapons as it would be to describe them as being the same weapon.

Interestingly, while the EAPS program sorta lost the plot (when the gun was killed it had grown much larger so that it could accommodate oversized guided projectiles), the XM913's performance and emphasis on high-angle fire make it a very good candidate for C-RAM+ work.

[Lord Jim]

Can anyone identify the VLS behind the 76mm?

At a guess I would say they were a local systems using a local missile. It could however be a four cell Mk41 or a four cell ExLS launcher. Well that's my ten pence worth anyway.

[Ron5]

Can anyone identify the VLS behind the 76mm?

At a guess I would say they were a local systems using a local missile. It could however be a four cell Mk41 or a four cell ExLS launcher. Well that's my ten pence worth anyway.

The description mentioned a light anti-air VLS missile. I can only think of a couple and the picture/model doesn't look like either.

[NickC]

EAPS

Bollox. No such system was trialed.

It's spelt bollocks.

Luciano and his team, working on enhanced area protection and survivability, tested an integrated system April 22 by shooting down a class 2 unmanned aerial system using command guidance and command warhead detonation at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Funding for development and testing was provided by the ARDEC Technology Office.

The April 22, 2015, test was performed with a single shot Mann barrel. The UAS was flying a surveillance-type track and was engaged on the approach path leg. The airplane fell precipitously from its flight.

The integrated test demonstrated a proof-of-principle that direct fire, command guided ammunition can intercept and negate aerial threats, Luciano said.

Innovative Army technology gains new potential By Ed Lopez, Picatinny Arsenal Public Affairs July 14, 2015
https://www.army.mil/article/151792/inn ... _potential

Further info, after some fire-control improvements were made after the April 22 tests the final testing in Aug. 19,2015 at Yuma where they shot down two class 2 UAS, ~300mph, the intercept engagements occurred at over a kilometer range and about 1500 meters. The second shoot down was executed at a ~50% greater range and exceeded the EAPS demonstration objectives.

The Picatinny 50mm Bushmaster was developed for EAPS now the XM913 as Halidon mentioned above, EAPS plan was to mount a pair of 50mm Bushmasters on the HEMTT, the US Army heavy truck

Back to the point of the discussion which was looking for an effective and least costly method for defending ships from UAS etc at short range and thought the US Army EAPS gun objectives would be a good benchmark as designed "In order to minimise the electronics on board the interceptor and to make it cheaper, all the ‘smarts’ are basically done on the ground station".

The Bofors 40mm and 57mm guns which fire 3P rounds which expect much more expensive than the Bushmaster 50mm rounds, USN paid an average of $4,700 over the years for each of its 16,500 57mm 3P Mk295 rounds prior to 2020 when they last bought them, USN since moved to the L3 57mm AlaMO round.

From <https://www.army.mil/article/156634/Arm ... echnology/>

[NickC]

Reading my post above, should amend the L3 ALaMO is only for the surface role, for anti-air USN has the Madfires in R&D and expect if procured might be as or more expensive than the 3P rounds? which not great.

[donald_of_tokyo]

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf ... 266_10.pdf

57MM, 3P MK295 unit cost = $4,278.47
57MM ALaMO (HE-4G) unit cost = $14,000.00

ALaMO round is 3 times expensive than 3P round.