Mark-san's argument for 5in gun is understandable. But, my point is, T31 MUST be half the cost of T26. Without this limit, RN will lose escort number. This is my standpoint. If you do not agree, please tell me from where you are thinking you can get that additional resource. (increase Tax? Yeh, if you like).
"Cheap T31", reminds me that Venator is in its highest end. It could be Cutlass or even Avenger. In this two cases, a 3in gun design is already existing. The bow section "detailed design" is reusable completly. In Cutlass, mouting 24-cell CAMM on 12-cell SeaMICA place looks doable, thanks to LM's ExLS quad pack system. But, making 3in to 5 in will require big redesign, I'm afraid.
At the same time, RN is going to have large CVF, with "quantum leap" in land attack capability. T26 with 24-cell Mk.41 VLS will support it, in hi-end. Wildcats will carry 20 LMMs in near future, another "quantum leap" in precision (but low-end) land attack. Thus, "land attack" comes into mind as the "1st choice" to cut, to keep T31 cheap.
If 3in can do (in support with 8 canister SSM's land attack option and a Wildcat with full of LMMs), Cutlass and Avenger can reuse their design, which will make the design cost cheap, which will enable the other armament costs to increase (with fixed total cost).
As I clearly stated, I am proposing simple 3inch gun, with no "brand new ammunition". The support cost will surely related to the ammunition, so it shall also be cheap, if we omit it. Having no mid-calibre gun will make "cost-guard" tasks difficult, and "normal" 3in gun will be very usefull in fighting with cheap drons and fast boats. Much better than 4.5inch or 5inch. (3in OTO was "designed" for AAW, from its origin).Ron5 wrote:I assume the love shown for the 76mm gun is because of the assumption it would be cheaper.
I doubt that. A brand new 76mm plus brand new ammunition plus a brand new support contract vs a refurbished 5" with ammo already bought for the Type 26's and extension to an existing support contract.
On the maintenance cost, I agree it will be addition to the logistics and training. But, I do NOT agree it will be expensive (if we stick to the ordinal shells, which exits everywhere in the globe). For exmaple, it will be cheaper than 20mm CIWS, and of course 30mm Gaol-Keeper.
However, all the idea here is to "increase other armaments". Please note it is not just "I DON'T LIKE 5inch". For example, carry CAPTAS2, introduce UAVs and/or UUV/USVs. For exmaple, everybody is talking about buying them, but none is refering to the cost to aquire it. I am here proposing to reduce the detailed design cost as well as procurement cost to intorduce these "much needed" systems. (There are no such thing as a fee lunch).