Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[ArmChairCivvy]

marktigger wrote:
So has the 127mm and the 4.5 but the main reason we put guns back on the requirements list for Frigates was for NGFS. The 76mm was fashionable in the 80's/90's and I'm sure there was a pitch for them to be put on the Type 23, Type 45 and Type 26. But as an NGFS weapon the 127mm is the better option.


The 76mm seems like an odd choice. A bit to small for our frigate's and way too big for our patrol ships.

In the 80's & 90's the thinking was that any ship having a missile coming at it was doomed. Hence there was a boom in building smaller units to deliver the doom-and-gloom weapons (and as they had to be effective -somewhat, at least - in other roles too, even a "patrol boat" version of the 76mm was developed, with no under the deck ammo feed system... and therefore the ROF obviously curtailed, not to spend it all in a couple of seconds.

[WhiteWhale]

As we have little in the 2-3Kt range the 76 doesn't really neatly fit anywhere so I would doubt we will ever see it in use.

Personally my choices would be a 40mm CTA for the Rivers now that they are (literally) being expanded with shared ammo with the same gun currently being developed for the Army and a standardised 5-inch across the entire destroyer/frigate fleet.

But as previously mentioned I wouldn't be shocked if the FLF is 'fitted for but not with' a main gun, it will be spun as keeping options open for a future weapon and being geared towards foreign sales as well as not draining the dozen or so 4.5 Krytens we have left.

[ArmChairCivvy]

not draining the dozen or so 4.5 Krytens we have left

- what are they needed for; spares for the remaining T23s?

Someone upthread mentioned that the 76 is quite respectable in the CIWS role, reducing the need for more of them to one, aft (now that the Phalanx B's are effective against surface targets - fast boats - as well).

[WhiteWhale]

not draining the dozen or so 4.5 Krytens we have left

- what are they needed for; spares for the remaining T23s?

Someone upthread mentioned that the 76 is quite respectable in the CIWS role, reducing the need for more of them to one, aft (now that the Phalanx B's are effective against surface targets - fast boats - as well).

6 Are being used on the T45's leaving 6 or 7 available for T26's the rest would be older mk8's that weren't upgraded and if memory serves don't have the stealthy cover. (Happy to be corrected on that!)

Anti-missile defence should never be compromised, relying on just one that can only cover the rear arc is a set of Falklands lessons waiting to be learnt again. Considering that in all it's career the Phalanx has only been able to successfully intercept a friendly battleship relying on just one to cover a large ship seems... optimistic. Especially as the 76 itself may be busy trying to hit whatever fired the missile.

[Gabriele]

Someone upthread mentioned that the 76 is quite respectable in the CIWS role

The modern 76mm Strales with guided ammunition is more than respectable at what it does. Guided rounds, intercept at longer range, and greater expected lethality than that of 20 mm rounds. And even without the guided rounds, putting up a barrage (up to 120 rounds per minute for the Super Rapido variant) of 76 mm HE rounds exploding in front of an incoming missile ought to work pretty nicely.

Shooting boats and taking down Banshee target drones with the guided round:

[seaspear]

Gabrielle
What types of incoming missiles would that be effective against and what types it may not be so effective against

[marktigger]

Like I said the main reason for having a gun on a frigate or destroyer in the ROYAL NAVY is to provide NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT for LAND forced so the round has to be delivering enough yeild to do that against shore targets,
CIWS is the domain of the Phalanx and 30mm guns. Yes the 4.5 does provide some limited AA capability its along way down its priority lists with more capable weapons in the mix.
76mm does not provide enough to make it an viable alternate to the 127. You are also complicating the Logistics and Engineering lets keep it simple and stick to the 5in gun.

[shark bait]

76mm does not provide enough to make it an viable alternate to the 127

Agreed, it has to be big enough to match the naval gunfire support of the T26, otherwise you would be better off not fitting one and instead relying on the platforms missiles.

[Pymes75]

I agree that the Lighter Frigate should have the 5in Gun for NGS.

What I would like to know is, has MSI ever looked at mounting the CTA International 40mm gun on their Seahawk mounts? If the 40mm is as effective an upgrade to the Rarden as they say, then it would be great to mount them on RN ships!

[ArmChairCivvy]

If the 40mm is as effective an upgrade to the Rarden as they say, then it would be great to mount them on RN ships!

That would nicely close the circle as Rarden was the first gun on the Seahawk mount.

[ArmChairCivvy]

6 Are being used on the T45's leaving 6 or 7 available for T26's the rest would be older mk8's that weren't upgraded and if memory serves don't have the stealthy cover.

Speculation: The 6 from T45s will become available from mid-life refits during the construction cycle of the (first?) 8 T26s. But it has been indicated/ speculated that the FLFs might go into build already after the 4th T26
- how will all of this stack up? New units can always be bought, but that will hardly be done to cover older Mk8s if the ships from under them will be heading for the scrappers

[ArmChairCivvy]

Agreed, it has to be big enough to match the naval gunfire support of the T26, otherwise you would be better off not fitting one and instead relying on the platforms missiles.

Why not both; cfr.
"
Kolkata class destroyers are fitted with IAI's EL/M-2248 MF-STAR radar , VLS to launch 16x Brahmos anti-ship supersonic cruise missile and 32x Barak-8 surface-to-air missiles, 4x AK-630 close in weapon systems and a 76mm main gun from Oto Melara. The class can accomodate two HAL Dhruv helicopters."
- or shall we maintain that a 'pop-gun' ruins the ship for two and a half penny's worth of tar?

[Repulse]

The 127mm BAE gun in my view is a poor choice when compared with the Oto Melara version, however as that ship has sailed, I'd like to see the 76mm version standard on all Frigates and Sloops. NGFS is a consideration, but should not be the driver as in the modern complex environment a smaller, more accurate shell in my view would be much more appropriate. Still if a traditional barrage is needed the T45s and T26s would still be available.

The flexibility of the VOLCANO ammo, and the fact that more (smaller) rounds can be carried is a big tick. We should be looking at weapons / modules (including Helicopters / unmanned vehicles) that are flexible and can easily be scaled.

[shark bait]

or shall we maintain that a 'pop-gun' ruins the ship for two and a half penny's worth of tar?

That is my preference.
If we are going to be cheap with the gun we may as well be really cheap and remove the complexity associated with a new type.

[marktigger]

@ Repulse NGFS isn't a consideration its the reason why the 4.5 and a medium caliber gun has been fitted to Every Frigate and destroyer the UK has built since the Type 22/II. The AA/CIWS capability is very secondary to the role of supporting troops ashore. If you aren't intending the Light Frigate to do NGFS and want the gun for CIWS then you fit it with Phalanx or better still golakeeper in the A position. 76mm is to light a round for what the British use the main gun for. And has been said they see the oto melara as to small for Frigates and Destroyers and to big for patrol vessels.
Looking at it the intention of this program is to produce something of similar size and capability as the type 21 and the Type 21 had a 4.5 on the front.

[Ron5]

I agree that the Lighter Frigate should have the 5in Gun for NGS.

What I would like to know is, has MSI ever looked at mounting the CTA International 40mm gun on their Seahawk mounts? If the 40mm is as effective an upgrade to the Rarden as they say, then it would be great to mount them on RN ships!

What a nice thought. Maybe could use the Thales Rapidfire turret as a startig point.

[Ron5]

Gabrielle
What types of incoming missiles would that be effective against and what types it may not be so effective against

a) slow ones flying in a straight line (plenty of those in the world)
b) fast ones dancing about (some of those too)

[marktigger]

allot of the 30mm mounts are Chain gun or Oerlikon. But yes for commonality the 40mm thats going on the warrior upgrade should be looked at. I do wonder how big the savings would be if we only had on 30 or 40mm cannon in the inventory. Its complicated by the 27mm mauser on Typhoon and the 30mm on the apache. But if were were only buying ammo and spares for 1 gun system would it be cost effective?

[WhiteWhale]

allot of the 30mm mounts are Chain gun or Oerlikon. But yes for commonality the 40mm thats going on the warrior upgrade should be looked at. I do wonder how big the savings would be if we only had on 30 or 40mm cannon in the inventory. Its complicated by the 27mm mauser on Typhoon and the 30mm on the apache. But if were were only buying ammo and spares for 1 gun system would it be cost effective?

For the Apache commonality with the Yank fleet is more important and there is no reason to go ditching that tried and proved M230, for the Typhoon as the Mauser is there entirely for ballast purposes again there is no reason to spend any money on changing that.

Converting the 40mm CTA to naval spec will, of course cost money but it's a nice step up from the 30mm we use on light ships and would allow ammo and key component commonality with the army. BUT I'm not seeing a place for it on the FLF, Rivers and patrol vessels definitely but surely by now we should be looking at the 5 inch side of things for a main gun?

[ArmChairCivvy]

For the Apache commonality with the Yank fleet is more important and there is no reason to go ditching that tried and proved M230

Quite the contrary, embrace rather than ditch. As the M230 is fully encased and (on this one I am not quite sure) for its hitting power has a reasonably soft recoil, then
- it might be the ideal solution if , for the new MIV, we go the unmanned turrets way
- recoil being more difficult to handle on wheeled chasses, compared to tracked ones

Both Bradley and Stryker are being trialled with a 30mm, but the guns origin is not specified (instead the American integrator is mentioned and the prototype turrets have Kongsberg written on them).

Navy-wise, the only kind of vessel where I would see a place for it is a patrol boat (or a hovercraft). And then it would be an oddity, about half a dozen of them to be introduced.

[marktigger]

there is always a place for a smaller calibre weapon for stopping small vessels like pirate skiffs and for light airdefence

[Pymes75]

Converting the 40mm CTA to naval spec will, of course cost money but it's a nice step up from the 30mm we use on light ships and would allow ammo and key component commonality with the army. BUT I'm not seeing a place for it on the FLF, Rivers and patrol vessels definitely but surely by now we should be looking at the 5 inch side of things for a main gun?

Nah, my thinking is that to save money in the long term, the RN would evenutally convert all MSI 30mm Guns to 40mm - hence wondering if the Seahawk could be redesigned to mount the CTAI. My idea is that in the long term all major surface combatants (including FLF) would mount 1x 5in (Fwd) for NGS and 2x 40mm Guns (Port/Starboard) whilst the OPVs, MCMVs would mount a single 40mm Fwd and the Amphibs and Carriers would mount the requisite number of them...

Just an idea as there seems to be interest in commonality between land and sea weapon systems (CAAM, etc).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Just an idea as there seems to be interest in commonality between land and sea weapon systems (CAAM, etc).

Driven by the fact that aside from small arms and autocannon ammo, one shot/ one kill is becoming the rule, and munition production runs are tending from millions towards thousands
- so, without enough commonality (at least at the major components level), how do you keep a hot production line, to replenish at times (w/o disproportionate line restart costs)?

[shark bait]

My idea is that in the long term all major surface combatants (including FLF) would mount 1x 5in (Fwd) for NGS and 2x 40mm Guns (Port/Starboard) whilst the OPVs, MCMVs would mount a single 40mm Fwd and the Amphibs and Carriers would mount the requisite number of them...

I like that idea. It scores some nice commonality point's which is always great.

5inch should be common across all surface combatant's.

For OPVs, MCMVs 40mm is the maximum we could possibly need, possibility a bit overkill but it could be worth it for the sake of commonality.

[marktigger]

yes be funny the hunts going full circle back to a 40mm gun