Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:There we go
:clap: :clap:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Deserving of a proper Broadside!

..................... :clap: :clap: ............................................... :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: ........................................................................................... :clap: :clap:

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by NickC »

Blackstone wrote:
NickC wrote:Correction,
The DARPA 57 Madfires in R&D, as yet not adopted by USN, is rocket powered to give longer range, the trade-off will be smaller fragmentation warhead reducing its Pk.
MAD-FIRES is a hit-to-kill interceptor.
Thanks for info that the 57mm Madfires is a HTK missile/projectile, pure speculation on my part of Madfires spec required for HTK capability

Rocket motor with TVC to be able alter flight path in real time.
A dedicated ship high frequency radar for guidance able to continuously simultaneously track multiple Madfires projectiles and targets of multiple fast-approaching targets and re-engage any targets that survive initial engagement (Think the T31 Thales NS100 radar would not be suitable/capable as S-band too low definition?)
A semi-active seeker on projectile (would think active seeker head of this small dia, 57mm, too short range?), comms, batteries etc

Rocket motor/TVC the additional electronic tech in projectile built to withstand the massive g-forces on firing from gun, the weight offset by no fragmentation warhead to enable HTK, a very high ask, what will the effective range be, cost and Pk, can understand why a DARPA R&D project and not USN.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by NickC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:why not Starstreak for CIWS
Who is going to guide it, from an unmanned mount?


I'm unclear if Thales already has a remote control for missile, if not expect they would be delighted if RN funded them to add remote control so as to operate from CIC (would note that the pics have seen of the Aselsan 4 and 8 round LMM launchers show unmanned), to go with the Air Defence Alerting Device, ADAD, spec, per Think Defence.

"A passive infra-red detection, classification and prioritisation system used in conjunction with both the LML and SP launch systems. Operating in the 8-14micron waveband, it can detect fixed-wing targets at 9km and helicopters at 6km.

Consists of three main components, the rotating scanner infra-red assembly (SIA), electronic pack remote display unit (EPRDU) and electronic pack processing unit (EPPU). A power supply unit and cables complete the system. The detector uses a continuously rotating mirror, providing 360-degree coverage at -7 to +17 degrees elevation. The electronics processor and display unit provide prioritised target information to the operator and can also be used to automatically cue the weapon launch system. Multiple display units can be connected, up to 500m from the scanner."

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Going back to 1992 “Options for Change” for the post Cold War -era, and Royal Navy was to consist of
- 3 small Aircraft carriers,
- 2 amphibious assault ships plus 1 amphibious helicopter carrier,
- about 40 Destroyers & Frigates, 34 mine countermeasures vessels,
- 4 nuclear ballistic missile submarines, 12 nuclear attack submarines (SSN)and 4 diesel electric submarines.

So going into gunnery,
the first two blocks above have grown in strength, while the last one has slightly withered (but the vine is there, for renewal)
- whereas the surface fleet is a shadow of itself.

Especially when the AAW element was cut to the viable minimum, in order to expedite the renewal of the other main component, as in http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 9-0011.htm
"I [Bob Ainsworth] can confirm that we have taken a decision not to take the option to order the seventh and eighth Type 45 destroyer….It has been a difficult decision, but to ensure our future naval capability and maintain the tempo of work for industry, we are bringing forward the future surface combatant programme" AKA T26
- we all know what happened next (2027 and all that)

Other than deterrent, the other two key tasks are
- CEPP (and LitM, which in any serious sense needs to be carrier enabled... and in no doubt if it is not merely done as a quick reinforcement of a NATO flank would also have the PP from the acronym, for Power Projection).

So, digging deeper into gunnery in the PP type of context, which looks like a key area, with the above intro in mind
... the funny thing is that with the 6 AAW+ 3 (newer) ASW gems that actually were designed as global cruiser, ie. for the now 'old' mode of operations, the asset that would be best suited - and was probably invested into to do exactly what follows - none of the 3 high volume (deep, automated mags) guns of the T26s' can be afforded onto the gunline for NGFS
- all that will be there is the old type, with only 20 ready rounds
- old T23s will be better at the task as lean manning on the T31s (which will? inherit some of the same guns) will hardly emphasise the manpower needed to do a continuous manual refill of that round tray of 20, in order to maintain any weight of fire, for any significant duration. More missiles (from TLAM down) is not necessarily the answer: just think of Libya, where hi-value targets were scarce (after the first night visit by B2s)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I understand 57mm is much better than 76mm against fast-boat swarm and AAW, "now" and in "future". Even though there were plenty of 76mm guns, USN moved to 57mm (now). Also, they are very heavily investing on it (future).

The only merit 76mm has is on NGFS, while anyway only basic capability it has (compared to 127mm). And I do not think NGFS is a high priority in T31 frigate. With 2 CVF coming, RN land attack capability is an order of magnitude better than it was in 1990s. T26 is also investing a lot on NGFS. Now it is time to invest on other fields, such as countering fast-boat swam, I think. T31 can lead the way.

If possible, I push for having 2nd 57mm gun on top of the hangar (there is a vacant space, which is originally used to house a Merlin without tail-folding = not needed in RN/RM case), and omit both 40 mm guns. "Double-ender" 57 mm gun will make T31 a true close-in warfare monster, specialist in countering fast-boat attack. It will also provide high-level of AAW warfare for self-defense.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: though there were plenty of 76mm guns, USN moved to 57mm (now). Also, they are very heavily investing on it (fut
err, howabout the cancelling of appr. half of the order volume, bcz the 30 mm from another supplier could do more damage (ref: the trials... go and find them)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The only merit 76mm has is on NGFS
What is that, then? Vs. 57 or 30?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:26 is also investing a lot on NGFS.
Oh, well, luckily we now have the RN Gunnery Thread... read about it
donald_of_tokyo wrote: If possible, I push for having 2nd 57mm gun on top of the hangar
Push, push... and push!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Thanks ArmChairCivvy-san, Vs 76mm, I am talking here.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:...howabout the cancelling of appr. half of the order volume, bcz the 30 mm from another supplier could do more damage (ref: the trials... go and find them)
I know it. But, 76mm did not come in, anyway. Also, even with the report, USN is still using 57mm gun. I guess, the report is correct in some aspect, but still 57mm have good room in other aspects.
Independently, continuous big investments on 57mm guided-rounds also tells us the 3P-ammo is not "enough". In other words, 40mm 3P will also see some difficulty? As 57mm gets investments from US, I think it has a bright future. Technology advances with investment.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T26 is also investing a lot on NGFS.
Oh, well, luckily we now have the RN Gunnery Thread... read about it
?? Here we are. T26's automated arsenal is VERY expensive, and very powerful. T26 is designed with NGFS in mind, for sure.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: If possible, I push for having 2nd 57mm gun on top of the hangar
Push, push... and push!
If there are any moment to "push", it is now. Because now is the timing the final decision on T31 armaments is taking place. :thumbup:

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks ArmChairCivvy-san, Vs 76mm, I am talking here.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:...howabout the cancelling of appr. half of the order volume, bcz the 30 mm from another supplier could do more damage (ref: the trials... go and find them)
I know it. But, 76mm did not come in, anyway. Also, even with the report, USN is still using 57mm gun. I guess, the report is correct in some aspect, but still 57mm have good room in other aspects.
Independently, continuous big investments on 57mm guided-rounds also tells us the 3P-ammo is not "enough". In other words, 40mm 3P will also see some difficulty? As 57mm gets investments from US, I think it has a bright future. Technology advances with investment.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:T26 is also investing a lot on NGFS.
Oh, well, luckily we now have the RN Gunnery Thread... read about it
?? Here we are. T26's automated arsenal is VERY expensive, and very powerful. T26 is designed with NGFS in mind, for sure.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: If possible, I push for having 2nd 57mm gun on top of the hangar
Push, push... and push!
If there are any moment to "push", it is now. Because now is the timing the final decision on T31 armaments is taking place. :thumbup:
The T26 is defiantly built with NGFS in mind the problem is there are too few so will be busy doing ASW for any task group in a situation NGFS is needed.

I do like the idea of 2 57mm on the T31, would you look to have just these or look to keep the 40mm aswell or maybe 2 30mm with LLM ?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
If possible, I push for having 2nd 57mm gun on top of the hangar

Push, push... and push!

If there are any moment to "push", it is now. Because now is the timing the final decision on T31 armaments is taking place. :thumbup:



The T26 is defiantly built with NGFS in mind the problem is there are too few so will be busy doing ASW for any task group in a situation NGFS is needed. [/quote]


Indeed, thanks for 'paraphasing'.

And then, as for the fleet mix?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by NickC »

The 76mm gun in the old USN FFG 7s did not have a good reputation for reliability and the US DoD DOT&E reports on accuracy of the 57 on the LCS left a lot to be desired, it was only in last couple of years it shown improvement. The 76 shell is marginal for NGFS as low in weight and short range 16 km, Vulcano BER(unguided) 25 km, GLR(guided) 40 km, BER and GLR will have minimal explosive content.

If the RN was a professional organisation and looking to procure the best guns for the T31 and not rely on manufacturers puff it would use its influence to organise realistic trials of the possible guns (eg Leonardo 76/62, BAE Bofors 57 & 40, Rheinmetall Oerlikon 35, Millenium Gun, Goalkeeper 30, Phalanx 20) in the worst winter conditions at the Outer Hebrides range using the latest Banshee transonic aerial target. Invite the foreign navies to participate in trials eg USN with a LCS with its Bofors 57mm & 3P, Danish Navy Iver Huitfeldt class ship with Milenium 35mm & AHEAD, Italian FREMM with newer Leonardo 76/62 Super Rapid & Dart, De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate with upgraded Goalkeeper 30.

It would be revealing which navies/manufactures took up the challenge, never happen.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

On NGFS, someones says it shall be done with the less capable asset, because of risk. --> T31.
Other says, it must be done with assets heavily armed, because of risk --> T26 or T45.

Which is correct?

I do not know. But I assume, both is correct. Depends on the threat-level of the enemy.

1: when you need a good AAW (T45) or so-so AAW and good ASW (T26) capability to do NGFS (=still your enemy's ASM and SSK is active), are there really good needs for NGFS? I guess, rather than NGFS, RN will send F35B from CV to the enemy.

2: if the threat level has been decreased, then, why RN cannot send "only" one T26 near the shore to do NGFS?

3: if the enemy do not have any ASM nor SSK, even a Floreal-like patrol frigate can do NGFS.

In case-2 and 3, yes, T31 can do NGFS. Good. But, I think RN shall just send a T26, the NGFS specialist. NGFS of T26 with 5' gun, may be with guided rounds, in tireless automated large arsenal, looks great. A Volcano-based 76mm NGFS (not cheap also) on T31 frigate looks very small addition for me, if comped to T26's. As RN is also investing on Wildcat-based land-attack capability (LMM), and T31 can carry two Wildcat at once if needed, need for NGFS further loses priority, from my point of view.

I might be wrong (I am never a specialist), I admit, but what I am saying is, I won't blame RN when I see 57mm gun on T31e.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

As much as I have pushed the 76mm and 2 x 40mm combo I would be happy with a 57mm and 2 x 40mm as said there is still room for 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm mount . I also put forward last year the idea of 3 x 57mm and if A-140 had this plus 2 x Phalanx and 24 CAMM they would be a very good area defence frigate and some wall of led it could put up

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote:As much as I have pushed the 76mm and 2 x 40mm combo I would be happy with a 57mm and 2 x 40mm as said there is still room for 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm mount . I also put forward last year the idea of 3 x 57mm and if A-140 had this plus 2 x Phalanx and 24 CAMM they would be a very good area defence frigate and some wall of led it could put up
I just don't see how you could fit a third 57mm above the hangar. Where would the ammunition feed and magazine go. If you fitted it non/limited deck penetrating you would be limited to the 120 rounds in the gun. Also it weighs 7 tonnes , three times the 40mm.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:As much as I have pushed the 76mm and 2 x 40mm combo I would be happy with a 57mm and 2 x 40mm as said there is still room for 2 x Phalanx one each side of the rear 40mm mount . I also put forward last year the idea of 3 x 57mm and if A-140 had this plus 2 x Phalanx and 24 CAMM they would be a very good area defence frigate and some wall of led it could put up
I just don't see how you could fit a third 57mm above the hangar. Where would the ammunition feed and magazine go. If you fitted it non/limited deck penetrating you would be limited to the 120 rounds in the gun. Also it weighs 7 tonnes , three times the 40mm.
Good point.

1: Arrowhead 140 design has a space below the 40mm gun mount, which was originally used to house a Danish Merlin without tail-folding mechanisms. A space RN/RM do not need.

2: Phalanx CIWS weighs 6 t, and some model of Arrowhead 140 has two Phalanxs on top of the hangar. So, technically, I think mounting a 57mm turret on top of the hangar is "doable", if not easy.

3: (Different from Tempest414-san's proposal) I have been proposing two 57 mm gun on Arrowhead 140, and delete the 40 mm. Simplicity is the good of this proposal. For example, man-power needed for two 57 mm guns will be smaller than twice of that needed for one 57mm gun. Logistic gets simple, because no need to introduce the whole new 40mm gun. In total, the increase in through-life cost may win (or may not) against 57 mm / 40 mm combo.

[EDIT] Cost-wise, "1x 57mm (or 76 mm) gun + 2x 30mm guns" (= replacing the new 40mm with existing 30mm) could be an option.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not think NGFS is a high priority in T31 frigate.
If NGFS was required in the near future, which RN vessels would provide it? Most likely the T23 GP's.

The T23 GP's were supposed to be being replaced by T26 GP's with Mk45 guns, and would have most likely provided the bulk of any NGFS to allow the T26 ASW's to protect the CSG, LitM and conduct TAPS.

If the T31's are replacing the T23's GP's instead of the originally proposed T26 GP's, it stands to reason that the T31's must be capable of providing NGFS or its just another capability cut to fit within the inadequate £1.25bn budget.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: to allow the T26 ASW's to protect the CSG, LitM and conduct TAPS.

If the T31's are replacing the T23's GP's instead of the originally proposed T26 GP's
Yes, let's try to answer the question by rolling forward, to 2028. Surely the answer is neither "no NFGS" nor one of the [ see what I did there :) ] T26s?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the T31's are replacing the T23's GP's instead of the originally proposed T26 GP's, it stands to reason that the T31's must be capable of providing NGFS or its just another capability cut to fit within the inadequate £1.25bn budget.
I think the 5" is out of the question for type 31 this is why I favour the 76mm and 2 x 40mm mix as this would allow limited NGFS by type 31 meaning less of dip in this capability

js44
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 05 May 2015, 11:35

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by js44 »

F35, tomohawk, even potential naval spear (likely none of that will be on type 31 anyway), are not a substitute for NGFS, there is some overlap but they are different capabilities at the end of the day and they cannot lay smokescreen, illume, keep up a barrage etc and each 'shot' is way more expensive. You can say we don't have much an amphibious force any more all you like but the first sea lord said himself that is high up the priority list and we are supposed to be investing in these littoral strike groups, just because RMs won't be opporating at full commando level doesn't mean this capability is not important to what they will be doing. Clearly the RN do believe NGFS is important (ofcourse they would if you actually look at how often it has been used even in recent years) as they have invested in an expensive gun an ammo system that's only use is pretty much NGFS in the 5 inch, but it seems that is going on the wrong ship as the type 26 will be mostly occupied with ASW tasks and won't be able to be on the gun line aswell (unless... We built the original amount).
Dare I say it, maybe it would be better use of resources if we didn't put the 5inch guns ordered on the type 26, and put them on the type 31 instead (could argue that goes for some of the other general purpose items on the type 26 such as some of the mk41 silos), where there is more chance of them actually being used and us getting our moneys worth. Having all this 'global combat ship' stuff on ships that will be spending a significant amount of time just off of the UK coast performing TAPS where none of this stuff will be needed is wasteful. It just seems inefficient and a bit of a waste of resources/ money.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

js44 wrote:Dare I say it, maybe it would be better use of resources if we didn't put the 5inch guns ordered on the type 26, and put them on the type 31 instead (could argue that goes for some of the other general purpose items on the type 26 such as some of the mk41 silos), where there is more chance of them actually being used and us getting our moneys worth. Having all this 'global combat ship' stuff on ships that will be spending a significant amount of time just off of the UK coast performing TAPS where none of this stuff will be needed is wasteful.
Isn't it nice to have a spacious hull... so that the mag, not just the gun, could actually be fitted
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
1: Arrowhead 140 design has a space below the 40mm gun mount, which was originally used to house a Danish Merlin without tail-folding mechanisms. A space RN/RM do not need.
How Large is this space. The specs for 57mm say the minium ammunition hoist is 2m plus you need space for the magazine. Oh and the 1000 rounds in it weigh another 7 tonnes. So that is 14 tonnes for 57mm compared with 2.3 tonnes per 40mm.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not think NGFS is a high priority in T31 frigate.
If NGFS was required in the near future, which RN vessels would provide it? Most likely the T23 GP's.

The T23 GP's were supposed to be being replaced by T26 GP's with Mk45 guns, and would have most likely provided the bulk of any NGFS to allow the T26 ASW's to protect the CSG, LitM and conduct TAPS.

If the T31's are replacing the T23's GP's instead of the originally proposed T26 GP's, it stands to reason that the T31's must be capable of providing NGFS or its just another capability cut to fit within the inadequate £1.25bn budget.
I'm not convinced. If so,
- T31 MUST also have ASW capability, as T23GP has. But, even it is omitted.
- Also, when T26 commissions, and NGFS requirement emerges, I guess it will be sent. Its NGFS capability is an order of magnitude better than T23 and T45.

Now, T23 is not well armed against fast-boat swarm. There is a gap there. New gap. If T31 is to fill it = doing something new, then, reducing the priority of NGFS is not a big surprise for me, because T26 can do it. (I do not agree T26 being completely occupied by ASW. See next post) This is my point.

Budget frigate, T31 is, built with only 25-30% of the T26's cost. Surely, T31 cannot do everything like T26 does.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

js44 wrote: Clearly the RN do believe NGFS is important (ofcourse they would if you actually look at how often it has been used even in recent years) as they have invested in an expensive gun an ammo system that's only use is pretty much NGFS in the 5 inch, but it seems that is going on the wrong ship as the type 26 will be mostly occupied with ASW tasks and won't be able to be on the gun line aswell (unless... We built the original amount).
I have a question here.

If T26 needs to do ASW work, why a T31 can do NGFS? If enemy SSK is alive and active, the T31 will be easily sunk?

RN has heavily invested on T26 for NGFS. Changing the main gun of T31 from 57mm to 76mm will add very little, even negligible, I'm afraid. I am compering 57 mm vs 76 mm. And I think 5 inch gun is totally out of the scope, because of cost.

Swapping the 5-inch gun+automated arsenal between T26 and T31 is one idea, but it is too late. To do that, we need to cut resources from T26 and invest a lot on Arrowhead. Arrowhead can carry a 5 inch gun, bit it is just a part of the conversion. The whole big automated arsenal is the key.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

With the level of proliferation of AShMs even to insurgent groups, any platform conducting NGFS will need to be able to protect itself effectively. This is of course if those at the top decide that a NGFS mission is essential and nothing else can achieve the same result. With the increasing risks, availability of ships and the need to avoid losses for many reasons, I cannot see NGFS being done except in the most benign circumstances. One we will definitely not be dong is storming the beaches under the cover of the Royal Navy's guns as in 1944. What is the point of trying to surprise an enemy and getting troops ashore before the enemy can react if we have a T-26 sailing up and down the coast within range of hostile fire, lobbing shells to wake them up. As for illumination, again a great way to announce your presence. We will retain the capability but how often will it really be used? In GW2 it was more of a case of it was there so why not use it, the enemy can't fire back effectively anyway.

js44
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 05 May 2015, 11:35

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by js44 »

Type 31 may not be an asw specialist but saying it can be 'easily sunk' by an ssk like its some kind of sitting duck isn't right.

Post Reply