UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 09 Oct 2021, 20:44

tomuk wrote:
SD67 wrote:It's too big for undercover assembly at Govan, which is the modern benchmark - Option 1 below build a big assembly Hall at Scotsdoun :

Most things are too big for undercover assembly at Govan even the River B2s were built with the doors of the SBOH open.
A new frgate factory at Scotstoun would be the best option (on the Clyde) but it is politically impossible to close Govan, it should have closed 60 odd years ago but like a cockroach it can't be killed.

SD67 wrote:2 miles from the centre CBD of the UK's number two city, is not exactly the ideal location for a shipyard IMHO

Glasgow isn't the UKs number two city thats Birmingham or Manchester. Glasgow is 7th by size. Having shipyards close to the CBD isn't a problem in Yokohama.


Yokohama isn’t exactly at the cutting edge of gentrification. A better comparison is maybe Williamstown in Melbourne - ironically also a BAE site, the Aussies have been sensible and gone greenfield

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4119
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Oct 2021, 05:53

Timmymagic wrote:Not often you get a DS30M Mk.2 in action with a clear view of the target...and close up of effect. Taken at the Bushmaster User Conference held at Big Sandy range in the US.

This is the mount that the USN and USCG appear to have chosen as the Mk.38 Mod 4. Will be going on all new build US vessels. Quite a win for MSI and shows the confidence in the mount.
Triggered by your post, I made a quick check of the MSI 30mm turret status.

1: MSI 30mm turret looks like selected for US Navy (and USCG?) replacement for their 25mm gun. Named Mk.38 Mod 4. Great!
2: The 30x172 mm Ammo has "air-burst" rounds already there, and
3: "proximity fuse" rounds is coming quite soon.
These two types of ammo will be a great addition to counter drones in cheap

RN is buying 10 (2 each for 5 hulls) Bofors 40mm gun for the Type-31 frigates. It can handle 3P rounds, which is "Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity- fused". In other words, a single 3P round can do, air-burst mode, proximity mode, and time-gated proximity mode. It is good to counter drones, as well, but with improving 30x172mm rounds, the original MSI turret keeps its merit.

I once though the RN shall go with 20 mm gun + 40 mm gun pair in near future, disbanding the 30 mm turrets. But now, the 30 mm gun looks to have very promising future. Commonality with US Navy/USCG is a very very great thing.

Bofors 57mm is OK, it can carry guided rounds (40mm cannot), and it also has a commonality with US Navy and USCG. But, Bofors 40 mm rounds... Are there big future in RN? In extreme, shall we even rip them off and sell it for export, after the initial trials of T31? Or, shall RN go along with having all 20mm (CIWS), 30mm (MSI), 40mm (Mk.4), in addition to 57mm (Mk.110)?

ref:
Good summary by Chuck Hill https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2021/09/24 ... mk38-mod4/
Information on 30mm Proximity ammo, by Chuck Hill. Northrop Grumman is developing it. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2020/01/17 ... 38-mounts/
30x172 mm Ammo. There are "air-burst" round, HEAB-T (programmable time to target with tracer) https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploa ... -Suite.pdf

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2246
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Oct 2021, 09:14

donald_of_tokyo wrote:RN is buying 10 (2 each for 5 hulls) Bofors 40mm gun for the Type-31 frigates. It can handle 3P rounds, which is "Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity- fused". In other words, a single 3P round can do, air-burst mode, proximity mode, and time-gated proximity mode. It is good to counter drones, as well, but with improving 30x172mm rounds, the original MSI turret keeps its merit.


Don't forget the Bushmaster Super40 also has 3P rounds...switch the gun out on a DS30M and you're approaching 40mm Bofor's capability, add in a pannier of Martlet on the side and you're exceeding it...Quite why the RN is buying Bofors 40mm I have no idea, its not as if its a new system to the RN..we had them for 70 years..

I have to say I'm a little sceptical of a 30mm airburst, even with minituarization the complex fusing will take up a lot of space. Airburst is all about bursting charge and fragments, whilst it appears you can do that with a 30mm round the question should be is it advisable? There's just way more space in a 40mm round.

As for 57mm I'm sure its a good gun, but again it has a competitor, 76mm. Again bigger round, bigger airburst and easier to integrate guuidance (which already exists in the real world, ulike MADFIRES). A 76mm can also stop a ship..., but despite Leonardo marketing I remain entirely unconvinced about its capabilty at NGFS...

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4119
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 10 Oct 2021, 10:34

Timmymagic wrote:Don't forget the Bushmaster Super40 also has 3P rounds...switch the gun out on a DS30M and you're approaching 40mm Bofor's capability, add in a pannier of Martlet on the side and you're exceeding it...Quite why the RN is buying Bofors 40mm I have no idea, its not as if its a new system to the RN..we had them for 70 years..
But still, US Navy selected 30mm version of MSI turret. So, presumably, its cost difference is significant, I guess? These turrets are for general use, to be shot frequently. AAW is a small fraction of their task. Everyday cheapness with normal "dull" ammo prevails everything in this kind of weapons, because the turret is ubiquitously equipped from RFA vessels to QECVs (and US Navy ships to USCG cutters, in near future).

The Bofors/Bushmaster-IV's 40x365mm rounds are significantly larger than 30x178mm rounds (very different from 40x180mm rounds for Bushmaster-II's 40mm-option). Their "dull" rounds must cost very different. For the 30x178mm rounds, US involvement will make its ammo-cost significantly cheaper, as well.

Surely the charge within the air-burst shells differs a lot between 30x178mm and 40x365mm, may be by a factor of 4? But, I do not think its control timer shares a large space, its quite simple system. If the 30x178mm air-burst rounds are 4-times cheaper than Bofors 3P (which is likely because the latter has also proximity fuses), just shoot 4 times more rounds. You can do it, because the 30x178mm rounds are cheaper.

[EDIT] Not directly related to this discussion (MSI SeaHawk 30mm vs Bofors 40mm Mk.4 turrets), but, can MSI SeaHawk turret handle Bushmaster IV 40 mm cannon? It is much larger (in recoil) than Bushmaster II 40mm option. Are there any info?

As for 57mm I'm sure its a good gun, but again it has a competitor, 76mm. Again bigger round, bigger airburst and easier to integrate guuidance (which already exists in the real world, ulike MADFIRES). A 76mm can also stop a ship..., but despite Leonardo marketing I remain entirely unconvinced about its capabilty at NGFS...
No big objection, but I do think 57mm has some clear merit against 76 mm. If not, there is no reason why US Navy moved out from 76mm to 57 mm recently. 76mm DARTS rounds are interesting, but looking the movies of its guidance, its just a laser CLOS system. The shell needs to go strait, cannot be in ballistic trajectory, which means significant air drag is always there for control. Not saying it is bad, but just saying a gun-based guided ammo will not be good against highly maneuverable ASMs. And, CAMM is there for it. Thus, for me, DARTS rounds are within the "nice to have" regime.

Again, not saying 76mm is bad. Just saying I see no big merit against 57 mm, and there is no surprise that US and UK selected the 57mm gun. Good rival, but neither prevails.

SD67
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 10 Oct 2021, 12:18

Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Babcock's claim they totally redesigned a great deal of the IH to create the T31 including all of the superstructure. If you believe that, I would question why a T26 type mission bay was not added. I doubt if top weight was an issue considering the parent used to have a frikkin' big radar up there to go with a Mk 41.


Complete nonsense. :crazy: Babcock have made no such claim. In fact they have made the opposite i.e. there has been minimal change. There is an interview by Xav from DSEI 2019? where John Howie talks about it. They have straightened the funnels and moved the weapons deck up to fit the extra boat bay(s) in that's it.


I agree that in 2019 when they were trying to win the contract, they placed huge emphasis on the T31 being a "proven" design that required a tiny bit of change. Hence being the low risk option. I wasn't the only one to raise questions about the huge risk inherent in their total lack of any relevant experience in designing and building frigates at a site where they hadn't built a ship from scratch before. They also said that Rosyth would mainly be assembly of blocks built elsewhere i.e. at experienced shipyards. That didn't happen either.

Nowadays (after winning the contract) they say that seeing the design is mostly theirs: a) it's up the RN standards, b) they can easily modify to meet other requirements and c) they're the best folks to advise on local build. Notice how they shouldered out the Danes to get the Indonesia contract.

Let me quote what a RN guy close to the project wrote last month in response to someone saying the T31 is mostly a Danish design:
Incorrect, hull was a preexisting design, but the T31 version, internal & topside arrangements, systems, weapons, etc. are a British design.


The T31 is Iver Huitfeldt with minor modifications. Widened bridge wings, straightened funnels, APAR removed from foremast, aft radar mast reduced to stub, weapons deck moved up a deck to fit boat bay (it is already an empty void on IH). Internally some mods have been made to meet updated/RN standards and replace obsolete equipment. I understand these are extra bulkhead in the workshop between the two engine rooms. Now it does have a completely different CMS\Radar\Weapons fit to the IH but these are Dutch\Swedish design.

Overall I would say the T31 is a British variant of the IH but it is in no way a British design. Now in comparison the Constellation class version of the FREMM is vastly different to both the Italian and French versions.


It would be interesting how much of the Indonesian money gets passed forward to the Danes. I'm guessing very little.



Interesting question did the Danes get a one of upfront license fee or a cut of future sales or a combination of both?

Do you remember these article from last year about a deal between the Indonesians and OMT?
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/indonesia-signs-preamble-contract-for-first-iver-huitfeldt-variant-frigate

How does that fit with Babcock? What a tangled web.


Yes I remember which is why I mentioned it in my comment :roll:

PS most unlikely that either side would just settle for a fixed one time license fee. Most likely would be a license for the RN's T31's and a cut of any T31 export deals based on amount of UK vs Danish content. Hence my comment.


Babcock official statement after the Indon deal says they pay OMT a small design royalty on each T31 sold and OMT are happy with the arrangement. Sounds similar to the Bren Gun

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 6146
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 10 Oct 2021, 13:54

Timmymagic wrote:Don't forget the Bushmaster Super40 also has 3P rounds.


Are you sure?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 6146
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 10 Oct 2021, 13:55

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not directly related to this discussion (MSI SeaHawk 30mm vs Bofors 40mm Mk.4 turrets), but, can MSI SeaHawk turret handle Bushmaster IV 40 mm cannon?


I do not think so. MSI hasn't ever announced it to the best of my knowledge.

NickC
Member
Posts: 951
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 11 Oct 2021, 09:43

Showing the MSI mount in its new US Mk38 Mod 4 colours firing the Northrop Grumman Bushmaster 30mm single barrel variant with relatively low 200rpm, four rounds fired with its new 30 x 173 HEP round for shooting drone, didn't recognise the fire control used, optical or IR? Normally non water cooled Bushmaster single barrel seem to fire 10 to 15 rounds before having to cease fire to allow barrel to cool down. (The 1979 Goalkeeper with its Gatling 7 barrel fired its 30 x 173 rounds at 3.900 rpm)



Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Oct 2021, 13:57

500 land versions, fitted in RWS or Turrets for teh British Army please! The Navy can go fish for a decade or so. :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4119
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 11 Oct 2021, 13:58

NickC wrote:Showing the MSI mount in its new US Mk38 Mod 4 colours firing the Northrop Grumman Bushmaster 30mm single barrel variant with relatively low 200rpm, four rounds fired with its new 30 x 173 HEP round for shooting drone, didn't recognise the fire control used, optical or IR? Normally non water cooled Bushmaster single barrel seem to fire 10 to 15 rounds before having to cease fire to allow barrel to cool down. (The 1979 Goalkeeper with its Gatling 7 barrel fired its 30 x 173 rounds at 3.900 rpm)
Thanks a lot! Very interesting movie.

At 0:45, we can compare the shell size (diameter 30 mm) with the "blast donuts" size. For me, it looks like the "donuts" diameter is something like 50 cm. The shell with proxy fuse detonates around 50-100 cm before the target drone, and generating 50 cm diameter kill zone.

However, this kill zone will be only for very light airvehicles, such as drones. I do not think this round is effective against any real manned military aircraft, nor any ASM. This is very different from Bofors 40 mm 3P, which was originally designed against ASM and military aircrafts. But this 30 mm proximity fuse rounds will work against these cheap and light drones. Important thing is that the rounds must be cheap. Cheap kill against cheap drones are the best match.

NickC
Member
Posts: 951
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 11 Oct 2021, 17:14

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Thanks a lot! Very interesting movie.

At 0:45, we can compare the shell size (diameter 30 mm) with the "blast donuts" size. For me, it looks like the "donuts" diameter is something like 50 cm. The shell with proxy fuse detonates around 50-100 cm before the target drone, and generating 50 cm diameter kill zone.

However, this kill zone will be only for very light airvehicles, such as drones. I do not think this round is effective against any real manned military aircraft, nor any ASM. This is very different from Bofors 40 mm 3P, which was originally designed against ASM and military aircrafts. But this 30 mm proximity fuse rounds will work against these cheap and light drones. Important thing is that the rounds must be cheap. Cheap kill against cheap drones are the best match.


Agree with your view that 30mm Mk38 Mod 4 kill capability limited to slow speed drones with its ~0.7 kg 30 x 173 round, though as mentioned before the 40mm round at nearly four times the weight at ~ 2.5 kg didn't have the explosive firepower to overcome the kinetic energy of the Kamikaze a/c impacting. Expect current day ASMs will have similar kinetic energy if not more eg BrahMos, so think 40mm Bofors Pk will be limited in capability for countering some of the heavier and faster ASMs.

NickC
Member
Posts: 951
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 12 Oct 2021, 10:40

BAE Inc 11th October PR another option for C-UAS, successfully tested its APKWS 2.75"/70mm at Yuma.

APKWS uses semi-active laser guidance and recently modified its software for the rocket to strike a target at a steeper angle of attack, increasing max range by 30%, current range 1.1 to 5 km when launched from helicopters, BAe claimed 80% hit probability within 2 m of the center of the laser spot per single shot, has done better in trials. The C-UAS variant uses a new proximity fuze by L3Harris which combines target proximity detection and point detonation capabilities. The very big plus of the APKWS is its cost of ~$22,500 each (its a conversion for Hydra 70 unguided rockets) the new proximity fuze will push cost up, ~$22,000 is the cost of the 57mm ALaMO round. A land launched system developed but as far as know has not been taken up.

Of note somewhat similar in concept to the LMM/Martlet which was trialled on T23 Sutherland back in 2019 and secondly the use of the L3 proximity fuze which speculating same or similar to that used in the 57mm L3 AlaMO round?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/b ... al-systems

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 6146
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 12 Oct 2021, 12:19

Yeah, 30mm rounds totally useless against aircraft. Bounce right off :roll:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Oct 2021, 23:04

Going down the BAe route basically leads to a clone of the RAM systems that is already in service, has e future development path in place and is definitely mature with zero risk. If we by some slim chance went down BAE's route we would end up using a CVR-7 rocket as the base that is actually superior to the Hydra. I actually believe we should adopt a AKPWS type weapon based on the CVR-7, but for the AAC's AH-64E Apache Guardians, not shipborne use.

NickC
Member
Posts: 951
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 13 Oct 2021, 12:27

Ron5 wrote:Yeah, 30mm rounds totally useless against aircraft. Bounce right off :roll:


I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

The 30mm Bushmaster designed to take out Class I (25kg - 70 knots) and Class II (25-150kg - max 200 knots) drones.


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 6146
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 13 Oct 2021, 14:01

NickC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Yeah, 30mm rounds totally useless against aircraft. Bounce right off :roll:


I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.

The 30mm Bushmaster designed to take out Class I (25kg - 70 knots) and Class II (25-150kg - max 200 knots) drones.



You seem to be unaware that the majority of aircraft guns carried to shoot down other aircraft are 30mm and smaller caliber. Typhoon for an example carries a 27mm Mauser cannon.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2246
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 13 Oct 2021, 14:40

NickC wrote:I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.


No one is talking about using 30mm Bushmaster or 40mm Bushmaster, or even Bofors 40mm for defence against missiles. That is not the role of the system's...they lack the projectile size for guided rounds, rate of fire and tracking systems to engage missiles. Hard kill missile defence on T31 will be the preserve of Sea Ceptor, and only if the RN ever gets a guided projectile, the 57mm Bofors.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2246
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Timmymagic » 13 Oct 2021, 14:44

NickC wrote:BAE Inc 11th October PR another option for C-UAS, successfully tested its APKWS 2.75"/70mm at Yuma.

APKWS uses semi-active laser guidance and recently modified its software for the rocket to strike a target at a steeper angle of attack, increasing max range by 30%, current range 1.1 to 5 km when launched from helicopters, BAe claimed 80% hit probability within 2 m of the center of the laser spot per single shot, has done better in trials. The C-UAS variant uses a new proximity fuze by L3Harris which combines target proximity detection and point detonation capabilities. The very big plus of the APKWS is its cost of ~$22,500 each (its a conversion for Hydra 70 unguided rockets) the new proximity fuze will push cost up, ~$22,000 is the cost of the 57mm ALaMO round. A land launched system developed but as far as know has not been taken up.

Of note somewhat similar in concept to the LMM/Martlet which was trialled on T23 Sutherland back in 2019 and secondly the use of the L3 proximity fuze which speculating same or similar to that used in the 57mm L3 AlaMO round?


Lord Jim wrote:Going down the BAe route basically leads to a clone of the RAM systems that is already in service, has e future development path in place and is definitely mature with zero risk. If we by some slim chance went down BAE's route we would end up using a CVR-7 rocket as the base that is actually superior to the Hydra. I actually believe we should adopt a AKPWS type weapon based on the CVR-7, but for the AAC's AH-64E Apache Guardians, not shipborne use.


FYI....MSI Defence work with Arnold Defence who produce the Fletcher, a ground launched APKWS system already in service with USSOCOM...

https://www.arnolddefense.com/arnold-de ... -fletcher/

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4119
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Oct 2021, 15:40

NickC wrote:BAE Inc 11th October PR another option for C-UAS, successfully tested its APKWS 2.75"/70mm at Yuma.

APKWS uses semi-active laser guidance and recently modified its software for the rocket to strike a target at a steeper angle of attack, increasing max range by 30%, current range 1.1 to 5 km when launched from helicopters, BAe claimed 80% hit probability within 2 m of the center of the laser spot per single shot, has done better in trials. The C-UAS variant uses a new proximity fuze by L3Harris which combines target proximity detection and point detonation capabilities. The very big plus of the APKWS is its cost of ~$22,500 each (its a conversion for Hydra 70 unguided rockets) the new proximity fuze will push cost up, ~$22,000 is the cost of the 57mm ALaMO round. A land launched system developed but as far as know has not been taken up.

Of note somewhat similar in concept to the LMM/Martlet which was trialled on T23 Sutherland back in 2019 and secondly the use of the L3 proximity fuze which speculating same or similar to that used in the 57mm L3 AlaMO round?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/b ... al-systems
Thanks. Just a comment.

APKWS cost does not include the rocket itself, as I understand. It is also the cost of the version without proximity fuse. As such, I very much admire the effectiveness of ALaMO round (note ALaMO also does not carry proximity fuses, but it will all depend on how they program the seeker information). So cheap! Of course, for land-attack or anti-boat, APKWS-equiped rocket has larger punch. But, ALaMO can be carried in numbers, say, hundred, in a 57mm turret. Hundred rounds of hydra-70 rocket and its launcher are nightmare.


NickC
Member
Posts: 951
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 14 Oct 2021, 14:21

Timmymagic wrote:
NickC wrote:I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.


No one is talking about using 30mm Bushmaster or 40mm Bushmaster, or even Bofors 40mm for defence against missiles. That is not the role of the system's...they lack the projectile size for guided rounds, rate of fire and tracking systems to engage missiles. Hard kill missile defence on T31 will be the preserve of Sea Ceptor, and only if the RN ever gets a guided projectile, the 57mm Bofors.


Totally agree, that was the point I was making, as mentioned in my post the Bushmaster 30mm designed to take out Class I and II drones with max 150 kg / 200 knots.

Would be very surprised even if the 57mm MadFires makes it out of DARPA R&D (as yet not adopted by USN) doubt it will have the mass and explosive firepower to stop an anti-ship missile. Raytheon claim it will be able to hard kill missiles, but as yet no trials to confirm and their video animation shows it side impacting missile which seems an unlikely scenario, thought more likely the anti-ship missile will be head on. The 2015 OTO Melara video shows their trials of the 76mm DART taking out 220 mph Banshee drone, a long way from showing capability to stop an anti-ship missile.


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 6146
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 14 Oct 2021, 14:46

NickC wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
NickC wrote:I don't think any of the sailors would have ben laughing when the Kamikaze hit the ship with a bombs of up to 800 kg despite taking numerous hits from the Oerlikon 20mm and Bofors 40mm shells. An anti-ship missile is the modern day equivalent of an unmanned Kamikaze.


No one is talking about using 30mm Bushmaster or 40mm Bushmaster, or even Bofors 40mm for defence against missiles. That is not the role of the system's...they lack the projectile size for guided rounds, rate of fire and tracking systems to engage missiles. Hard kill missile defence on T31 will be the preserve of Sea Ceptor, and only if the RN ever gets a guided projectile, the 57mm Bofors.


Totally agree, that was the point I was making, as mentioned in my post the Bushmaster 30mm designed to take out Class I and II drones with max 150 kg / 200 knots.

Would be very surprised even if the 57mm MadFires makes it out of DARPA R&D (as yet not adopted by USN) doubt it will have the mass and explosive firepower to stop an anti-ship missile. Raytheon claim it will be able to hard kill missiles, but as yet no trials to confirm and their video animation shows it side impacting missile which seems an unlikely scenario, thought more likely the anti-ship missile will be head on. The 2015 OTO Melara video shows their trials of the 76mm DART taking out 220 mph Banshee drone, a long way from showing capability to stop an anti-ship missile.


You're going to get quite a shock when you find out about lasers in their anti-aircraft/anti-missile role. Zero projectile mass and momentum. How could they possibly have shot down a kamikaze in WW2???? :D :D :D

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 6146
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 14 Oct 2021, 14:53

NickC wrote:.. their video animation shows it side impacting missile which seems an unlikely scenario, thought more likely the anti-ship missile will be head on


In the video, the missiles are seas skimmers following a flat trajectory while the shells are following a curved ballistic course Hence the shell impact from the side or top of the missile.

But I do share your skepticism of whether such an accurate shot can be made. I would have thought that at least a proximity fuse would be mandatory.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6066
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Oct 2021, 20:00

I do not think it is one shot one kill with "Mad Fires". Multiple rounds are fired at each target and will continue to be until the threat is neutralised. The cost of the multiple shells will need to be considerably cheaper than a RAM or ESSM to be seen a beneficial to the USN, let alone cheaper than Sea Ceptor in my opinion. I think Canada has made the right decision in choosing Sea Ceptor as its point defence weapon against high speed threats with Phalanx as a last resort against these whilst still being effective against slower threats. This is why I would like one of the 40mm on the T-31 to be replaced by a Phalanx, from the pool the RN already has. This would reduce the number of 40mm needed for the T-31 or allow five to be mounted on the B2 Rivers as an alternative use.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2931
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Oct 2021, 10:03

lets not forget that type 31 can bring 57mm and 2 x 40mm firing 3P round to bear on a target from 12km with the real hard hitting taking place at 4km with Phalanx only getting down to it at less than a km

As said before the RN has set its stall out as needing 2 x Phalanx fitted to escorts i.e on type 45 & 26 there have been models of type 31 fitted with 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm now for me a Type 31 with

1 x 57mm
2 x 40mm
2 x Phalanx (20mm)
24 x CAMM
8 x NSM
4 x 12.7 HMG
4 x Miniguns
1 x Wildcat with LMM , Venom , Stingray

is a spiky git not to be messed with without proper thinking and in the Littoral is capable of defending its self and hitting targets up to 120 km in land from 40km out to sea

User avatar
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2710
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Repulse » 15 Oct 2021, 10:27

Tempest414 wrote:is a spiky git not to be messed with without proper thinking and in the Littoral is capable of defending its self and hitting targets up to 120 km in land from 40km out to sea


Unless the treat is below the surface...

In seriousness, if the RN got the weapon mix you suggest, and filled in it's ASW blind spot, then I would be ecstatic. However, I would be building 6 and assigning them all to the CBG, freeing up the T26s who could then fulfil their full potential.

The reality is that if they are seen as replacements for the B2 Rivers - primarily in a forward based constabulary role, then the T31 will remain a paper frigate IMO.

Doing this would then allow the T32 to take on the MHPC / UUV+USV mothership role - combined with a level of self defense it could then easily cover standing commitments such as Kipion, TAPs, FRE etc. It could also be the forward based escort for the LRG during peacetime. This would leave the T26s free to be deployed globally as events dictate in areas of higher threat such as the Black Sea, Barents Sea and SCS.

If the RN did as I suggest, then I think the RN would have an appropriate, affordable and credible global navy.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: birrell715, Poiuytrewq and 4 guests