UK Defence Forum

Not sure. Flat light-gray paint make her look more a patrol ship, while dazzling paint make them look like a (old) warship, tuned for "eye-ball" based close-in / light armament warfare. The color scheme has a message.

I think Forth and Medway are better be with flat light-gray paint, at least. Pretend being peace and or more like Coast Guard assets. Trent, depends, because her task includes littoral operations. Tamar and Spey with dazzling paint looks good, because their main tasks is (for me) diplomatic port visiting to say "hello" to many people in Indo-Pacific area, so that strong "first glance impact" will be good.

Battleships in dazzle paint hark back to light armament?

Any "aiming" relying on optical image is affected by camouflage. In modern world, it is mainly small arms. To counter modern passive guidance, we need infra-red camouflage/dazzle paint, which itself will be interesting to see

I thought the "Dazzle" scheme was to make it more difficult for U-Boats to target the ship with Torpedoes. But Ok, paint them in alternative schemes say one copying the old Swedish scheme, should work well in the littoral areas of West Africa.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑11 Mar 2022, 19:37 How many of the B2s have been camo painted?

3 so far.

2 In the grey dazzle camo and 1 in the grey/blue ww2 Western approaches camo.

Cheers for that. Doing the remainder must be a "Win, win", for the Royal Navy. Now they just need to do the same to the next T-23 going through refit!

HMS Tamar at Brunei, while HMS Spey arrives at Fiji this morning.
Truly great photo of HMS Trent when in Med a few days ago, and HMS Forth now at South Georgia.

twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1506616770639142914


twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1503989716839972867


twitter.com/HMSTrent/status/1506288805711601667


twitter.com/SG_bio_invasion/status/1505263978724966402

Given the tension over Chinese influence over the Solomon Islands, another good demonstration on the value of the B2 Rivers. Personally I think it’s a better match than deploying a frigate.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/roya ... on-islands

Good to see that operating the Wildcat on the OPVs is being practised. Must admit, I always thought a couple of Wildcats based in Gib would be a good idea - might also make a good deterrent against those pesky Spanish

The fact they haven’t done SHOL for Wildcat yet shows how seriously the aviation capability is taken.

The GAM-B01 gun mount and KAA 20mm gun will leave RN service in 2023.


So, theree River B1s and two Echo/Enterprise, and RFA Argus will lose their guns next year?

To be replaced by?

Little J wrote: ↑18 Apr 2022, 16:42 To be replaced by?

Presumably 30mm cannon that was used on newer ships??

Perhaps could explain the decision not to install them on the carriers?

Phil Sayers wrote: ↑18 Apr 2022, 19:27 Perhaps could explain the decision not to install them on the carriers?

We should have given them the 30mm DS30M Mk2 automated Bushmaster cannnon that Queen Elizabeth class are FFBNW, but that is best for another topic.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that perhaps the decision not to install those on the QE class was taken so that they could instead be installed on the B1 Rivers and Echos when their existing guns are retired?

Phil Sayers wrote: ↑18 Apr 2022, 20:33 Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that perhaps the decision not to install those on the QE class was taken so that they could instead be installed on the B1 Rivers and Echos when their existing guns are retired?

Ah ok - I guess that would depend on how long the River B1's and Echo are being kept in service. I am not sure what the current intention on those two classes service lives and eventual replcaments. I would hate to lose any ship, alone the carriers, because they did nt simply want to order a handful more 30mm guns.

well as far as the B1's and Echo's go fit the 30mm off the B2's and then fit the B2's with 40 or 57mm Bofors giving everyone a bit more punch

However I can see the B1's being given 12.7 mm HMG's only

Tempest414 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 16:30 well as far as the B1's and Echo's go fit the 30mm off the B2's and then fit the B2's with 40 or 57mm Bofors giving everyone a bit more punch

However I can see the B1's being given 12.7 mm HMG's only

The more gun systems you are moving around, the more ships will be out of active service duty for refit.

And a reminder from previous discussions on uparming the River B2's or any future potential B3's. The 40mm gun mount is non-deck penetrating, the 57mm gun mount is deck penetrating. Thus if you wanted to up-arm Spey or Tamar it would be a much quicker change to uparm to 40mm gun mount, saving 57mm gun mount for any newly built potential future B3's.

I agree that 12.7 mm HMG's would be fine for B1's used for fishery protection only in UK waters.

(However I am personally not yet convinced that we should be even buying 40mm or 57mm gun mounts in the first place. I have yet to see conclusive stats showing that 40mm is better than 30mm when factoring in cost, rate of fire and angle of fire. But it seems that RN has already decided to make their logistics worse by the choice of weapons on T31).

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 19:55

Tempest414 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 16:30 well as far as the B1's and Echo's go fit the 30mm off the B2's and then fit the B2's with 40 or 57mm Bofors giving everyone a bit more punch

However I can see the B1's being given 12.7 mm HMG's only

The more gun systems you are moving around, the more ships will be out of active service duty for refit.

And a reminder from previous discussions on uparming the River B2's or any future potential B3's. The 40mm gun mount is non-deck penetrating, the 57mm gun mount is deck penetrating. Thus if you wanted to up-arm Spey or Tamar it would be a much quicker change to uparm to 40mm gun mount, saving 57mm gun mount for any newly built potential future B3's.

I agree that 12.7 mm HMG's would be fine for B1's used for fishery protection only in UK waters.

(However I am personally not yet convinced that we should be even buying 40mm or 57mm gun mounts in the first place. I have yet to see conclusive stats showing that 40mm is better than 30mm when factoring in cost, rate of fire and angle of fire. But it seems that RN has already decided to make their logistics worse by the choice of weapons on T31).

I am a little lost here the 40mm with 3P is the better weapon both have a rate of fire of 200 rpm + the 30mm needs dual feed for surface and air and has a effective range of 3000 meter the 40mm has a effective range of 8000 meters and the 3P rounds allow it to engage any target also the stopping power of the 40mm over 30mm is a step change

Tempest414 wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 22:55

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022, 19:55(However I am personally not yet convinced that we should be even buying 40mm or 57mm gun mounts in the first place. I have yet to see conclusive stats showing that 40mm is better than 30mm when factoring in cost, rate of fire and angle of fire. But it seems that RN has already decided to make their logistics worse by the choice of weapons on T31).

I am a little lost here the 40mm with 3P is the better weapon both have a rate of fire of 200 rpm + the 30mm needs dual feed for surface and air and has a effective range of 3000 meter the 40mm has a effective range of 8000 meters and the 3P rounds allow it to engage any target also the stopping power of the 40mm over 30mm is a step change

Simply, 40 mm 3P is much more expensive than 30 mm. Does this cost justifies the introduction of 40 mm 3P, or shall all 40 mm guns replaced with 30 mm to add a few more CAMM tubes onboard T31, is the issue.

Personally, I think 40 mm 3P is there to engage fast-boat swarm and cheap-and-numerous UAVs. Surely, proximity fuses are the best option (in view of effect-per-cost) against these small and lightweight aerial targets, and there was no proximity fused shell for 30 mm when T31 was selected. So I was personally "impressed" with RN's decision to "focus" T31 capability around Persian Gulf, East Mediterranean operations (counter terrorist).

Now, a new proximity 30 mm fuse shell is under development, and we shall see which is better in coming decades. Clearly, it won't be good against larger aircrafts or missiles, but countering small-UAVs, it can do it. USN has moved for 30 mm guns, from their 25 mm guns, making 30 mm guns more attractive than ever.

Engoy...

there is still the question of range as said the 30mm has a max range of 7 km and the 40mm 12 km also type 31 with its two 40mm and one 57mm will have the same effect as having 300+ LMM

However the good thing about the video above is if we fit 30mm to our RWS's on Boxer they would have a anti air round

Whilst the 40mm 3P ammunition os more expensive than the existing 30mm rounds, it is still far more cost effective than using missiles like LMM to engage small boat and UAS, if the installation of the latter on said 30mm mounts was a serious alternative on the T-31. Now the Royal Navy has made the choice could we see the second batch of T-26 also armed with the 40mm instead of the 30mm? If so would the first three be converted on their first overhaul?

Will we see the combination of 3P ammunition and Sea Ceptor replacing the 20mm Phalanx on Royal Navy Warships moving forward?

Has the Royal Navy settled on three main guns, 127mm, 57mm and 40mm? I also think we need to consider replacing some of the 7.62mm tertiary weapons with .50 cal ones. We already have them and they are far more effective.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑20 Apr 2022, 13:08 I also think we need to consider replacing some of the 7.62mm tertiary weapons with .50 cal ones.….they are far more effective

How?