Subscribe
Notify of
guest

197 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hugo

Doesn’t Lancaster/T23 have 32 Sea ceptors?

Stuart

They do. Must just be a mistype.

Duker

Yes. Its the T26 which has 2 sets of 24 SC VLS silos [plus the 24 MK41]
T26 has two, well-separated 24-cell Sea Ceptor VLS modules, one below the bridge and one abaft the funnel. 48 missiles is an increase on the 32 carried by the T23 and reflects the need for the ship to be able to defend itself when operating independently or if providing escort for merchant ships or the carrier strike group.’
https://www.navylookout.com/a-guide-to-the-type-26-frigate/

stephen ball

you should maybe add in yemen, 50% of the population need food aid in Houthi controlled area and seems like that number is going up. Funding for future aid seems in doubt too
api.godocs.wfp.org/api/documents/6bdef99b11c54817bdb3a4722c2a5abc/download/?_ga=2.219349081.1989395538.1703018921-1938470699.1702917315

stopping red sea being a transit route also hurts food exports to Saudi Arabia because they have too take a longer route.

Last edited 2 months ago by stephen ball
Duker

Saudi or Egypt can pitch in with their navys … but arent interested for some reason.
Maybe a convoy system and those flag of convenience ships can pay $100k each for protection. Others can take their chances or go the long way round.

Rekud

How about your beloved mate the PLA Navy?

Duker

Wrong person thats Arjun. I have no interest in their navy or their clones russian aircraft

Joe

Something missing, Im assuming they used aster 15 rather than 30 for the drone shootdown. If so once the T45s get seaceptor, the aster 15s will be withdrawn and the T45s will have a full load of aster 30s. So those aster 15s will become surplus anyway. So why not use them now?

Stuart

They will use what they have. The aster 15s will be remanufactured as 30s. Only difference is the booster. It’s not ‘lets just fire them off as they are useless in the future’

Jon

Aster 15s can be converted to the more powerful Aster 30 Blk 1 much more cheaply than buying new missiles, so not exactly surplus. Nevertheless, they are there to be used if necessary, and you have to trust that the Captain knows their job.

OkamsRazor

Grammatical error in last line of 3rd from last para.

Order of the Ditch

In a strange way these events are good news for the navy. The disruption to maritime trade posed by the Houthis has the potential to add pressure to inflation and stretched supply chains, this demonstrates the need to have properly funded and equipped navy. The RN should have had 12, or even at least 8 T45s. 6 just isn’t enough to handle multiple taskings. The MoD and RN should find it easier now to convince the Treasury to stop cutting the fleet funding further and possibly even ask for an uplift in escort numbers.
On another note can someone comment on the weapons fit of Type 31 as it isn’t clear. Are they getting MK41 and the SeaCeptor ‘mushroom farm’ or are they just getting MK41 silos? Secondly has there been an announcement to acquire the inserts to go into the MK41 cells so that SeaCeptor can be quadpacked, has any navy actually operated quadpacked SeaCeptor from MK41?
Finally on another note it would be interesting to know how quickly MBDA can produce new Aster missiles. If things get hotter stockpiles could be reduced pretty quickly.

Order of the Ditch

I’ve previously read that article but it isn’t clear there.
“ 1SL did not specify if the Mk41 cells will be fitted from the outset on ship 1”
Is MK41 replacing the SeaCeptor cells or in addition?
If the T31 is getting SeaCeptor cells and MK41 does anyone actually know the SeaCeptor cell number.
The language around T31 has been unclear.

ATH

The RN is being deliberately vague in public about both the exact final planned missile fit of the T31 and when the Mk41 will be fitted to each ship. All we know for definite is that Babcock have been given a contract for post build upgrades to the T31. There is no public information on when this upgrade will take place for individual ships in the class.

valeoak

Given the Sea Ceptor tubes were occupying the same space meant for the Mk41 VLS, it would seem fair to say that no T31 ship will simultaneously operate the ‘mushroom farm’ and Mk41, unless a ship gets only one or two 8-cell Mk41 fitted next to the 12 Sea Ceptor tubes with the idea not to brother certifying Sea Ceptor for Mk41. But in those circumstances I would think the RN would be better to just double the Sea Ceptor tubes from 12 to 24 and forgo Mk41 on the T31.

ATH

We will see that actually happens in a few years. If you made me guess I would think at least the first 2 T31’s will enter testing and probably service without the Mk41’s as the RN needs ship’s quickly. Later ships may get the Mk41 between completion and service entry or they may all get it at first refit

Duker

The Type 31s are already being built with the foundation structural seats for four 8-Cell Mk41 Strike-Length VLS modules. In light of justifiable accusations the surface fleet “acts like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”, the RN has now decided to equip the ships with 32 cells. “
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system/
It seems the early decisions allowed the ships under construction to be ‘fitted with instead of just for’

Duker

Sea ceptor has been certified and test fired for Mk41 insert , by Lockheed. Why make it difficult by having 2 types of VLS hardware for the same missiles . MK41 has greater flexibility for other missiles too.
Decision made and best if its stuck too rather than more prevarication

Chris

Get both. The mushroom farm launchers are cheap. Mk41 can be repurposed to TLAM, SUBROC, SM6, SM2 etc..

In a situation like this, loading up a T31 with 30+ TLAM could maintain a constant offensive posture off the coast of say Yemen, without the need to rotate or resupply for weeks.

Jonathan

Ever underestimate the “cheap” drive…those cold launchers are a lot cheaper the MK41 silos.l also think they may have a really been contracted for..it would not be a supprise to me at all of they ended up with a mix of mk 41 and CAMM Cole launch silos..just like the T26.

Supportive Bloke

Agreed.

As we have been over there are many good reasons for cold launch anyway.

I see 16 Mk41 VLS slots on T31 which is still plenty with 8 NSM and a decent load of Sea Ceptor.

Supportive Bloke

There is a bit of a misconception here.

Whatever system you use you need to have the correct controlled cabinet connected to the relevant tubes.

Just because you have Mk41 doesn’t mean you can put any old Mk41 compatible missile into it.

Each group of tubes is physically attached to a specific controller cabinet.

Duker

We do know that MK41 has the suitable adaptors and connectors for Sea Ceptor and been test fired. I suppose it only has yet to go to sea

D J

RNZN Anzac class fitted 20 of the older individual CAMM cells in the space allocated for 16 mk41 cells. Considering the newer slightly closer packed 6 cell CAMM units are intended for T31, you should be able to fit 24 CAMM cells & 16 mk41. Is Aster 30 integrated into the T31 CMS?

ATH

Not the RN version of the CMS. The base system is widely used so Aster could be integrated with another version allowing an easy (but probably not cheap) integration for the RN.

BUT

I don’t think Aster in either form is integrated with the Mk41.

D J

I believe Aster would physically fit in mk41, but is not yet integrated. However I believe there was a memorandum signed between MBDA & LM as to integrating MBDA missiles where possible to mk41 (signed in 2013 I think).

Supportive Bloke

The CMS on T31 is not the BAE one.

T45 uses BAE CMS.

So I doubt that ASTER has been integrated ready for T31. So you have ASTER and Mk41 integration then you have ASTER and Mk41 and CMS integration to deal with. That smells expensive to me. Which is why I would bet that T31 uses CAMM + CAMM-ER / CAMM/MR as this is cheaper and UK IP etc. I would see CAMM in the mushroom farm and the longer variants either in the cold launch or in Mk41.

valeoak

Not the way the RN has used the Sea Ceptor tubes thus far. It seems the RN likes it to be possible to inspect them on all sides, which prevents the close packing that the RNZN did on their Anzac-class frigates. A six-cell Sea Ceptor launcher module occupies the space of one eight-cell Mk41 VLS. Thus, given you only have the space for 4 × 8-cell Mk41, if you had 2 × 8-cell Mk41, then you only have space for 2 × 6-cell Sea Ceptor launchers.

But with the most recent suggestion being that T26 is now getting ExLS for Sea Ceptor, it seems highly likely that T31 will only have Mk41. It just remains to be seen what the T45 will get.

D J

Any version of ExLS eliminates inspection on all sides for CAMM. Mk41 is an expensive way to launch soft launch missiles. Why pay for mk41 on T31 if it’s not to launch hot launch missiles? ExLS standalone is way cheaper & lighter. My preferred option on T31 would be 16 mk41 (2 sets) & 4 sets of 3 cell ExLS. If you want more, drop the 40mm at B for 1-2 more sets (there are A140 designs with missiles at B). The same position on IH is a stanflex module, so Denmark also has that option.

Some mk41 on T31 gives options. 4 sets by 5 ships is a lot of money that could perhaps be better spent otherwise (like HMS & torpedos). Fitting more mk41 later is always an option.

valeoak

I didn’t say you could inspect Sea Ceptor on all sides in ExLS – what’s that got to do with the Sea Ceptor tubes? (Unless you think the RN would treat two different launch systems as the same?)

And the marginal cost of Mk41 over 3-cell ExLS needs to be weighed against the increased flexibility of the load-outs with Mk41. It would seem silly to limit the T31 to just 16 larger weapons like FCASW, particularly when some of those ExLS cells you mentioned are probably going to be empty for a lack of Sea Ceptor in our stockpiles. And whilst the Mk41 is more expensive than 3-cell ExLS (which is more expensive than the standard Sea Ceptor tubes), it’s not so much more expensive that the ships would be given entirely new systems with the savings from ExLS.

Duker

ExLS is quad pack which makes all the difference
Dont understand your reference to ‘inspection on all sides’ ? Arent they just stored as is

valeoak

I don’t know if you meant to reply to me, but Mk41 and ExLS can both quad-pack Sea Ceptor.

Jonathan

It’s not yet been decided, they are doing a study on the balance of numbers of MK41s…I suspect that what you will find is a mix and match.a wild guess I would say 18-24 mk 41 ( probably 24 mk 41s and 12-24 CAMM cold launchers ( as they are are cheap)…but I would bet 24 CAMM cold launchers and 24 MK41s…probably with deck launched NSM as the Anglo french ASM will not be ready until 2034/35.

no announcements at all as to what will go in the MK 41s…but I suspect If a ship is being sent of to do escort work in the Red Sea it would probably be packed with more CAMM..due to their use for swarm air and swarm surface attacks.

Duker

It was clear that because of the location of the T31 multimission bay below. It’s Mk41 only and a portion of those with the S-C quad pack launcher insert.

D J

There is space for 32 mk41, but any VLS that is the same or smaller size will fit in the same area. It’s just an empty space. It’s been designed to take the weight of mk41, but you could mix & match with whatever fits. T45 was originally designed to take both Sylver & mk41. Except the 16 cell mk41 space is now going to get 24 CAMM cells.

Duker

Thanks NL for putting some context and the usefulness of larger calibre naval guns. The RNs Diamond also has the 4.5 in

The USN is understandably unwilling to discuss what weapons were used but it it likely her 5 inch Mk 45 Mod 4 gun was employed, if not alone, in combination with missiles. Having good accuracy and advanced ammunition types the Mk 45 has a maximum range of up to 27km but is probably effective against aerial targets at substantially less distance and depending on the rounds used.

BetterInMyDay

Interesting how once again we have forgotten the lessons of old to protect from air threats. Sufficient effective close range weapons, 4.5″ AAW mode, Goalkeeper, Phalanx and most importantly the ability to RAS Sea Dart and Sea Wolf. Now we are taking a BMD system to a drone fight.

Wilcox

Excellent comment

Greta Thunderpants

No not really, you think Phalanx is of sufficient range to shoot down these drones when in fact they can only do that if within a couple of K’s. Think about it.

BetterInMyDay

Yes I did think about it. We have forgotten about how to really fight in favour of sexy expensive tech and reduced manning. How many times have we had to retro fit close range weapons to ships because we didn’t properly understand the threat to our own platform and those escorted? It is highly likely these things will be coming at us in their dozens. If we do not have a lower cost and replenishable solution, then I fear for the lives of our men and women at sea. Phalanx has some potential if the ship is positioned correctly, but in reality we need better and more close range air defence solutions.

Duker

Up to 7-9kms for a slow moving target like a helicopter or..drone

valeoak

I would be interested to know where you got information that Phalanx CIWS can engage and kill a target at 7 km, let alone 9 km. And what is the Pk for such an engagement? For a start, in automatic operation, Phalanx normally will not engage a target with a sustained burst of fire until it is ~2 km away. And Wikipedia cites sources that list its maximum firing range as ~5.5 km and its maximum effective firing range as ~1.5 km. Now, I will readily accept that one should be careful with published ranges for engagement (e.g., I would happily accept that Sea Ceptor could kill a helicopter or a slow-moving drone at more than twice its stated range of 25 km – not least because it has reportedly been done (with a drone) in trials). But you have to wonder what they think Phalanx’s muzzle velocity is for these 20 mm rounds to be able to hit anything at 9 km, let alone a flying target.

Duker

Thanks for that . yes as a CIWS for a very fast low level missiles its within a very short range 0.5-1.5km with very high accuracy- as it needs to be
The longer distances are for slower targets like helicopters and drones at lower altitudes especially crossing rather than heading towards you. This enables a couple of engagements, helicopters are bigger too

valeoak

I’m very sceptical that Phalanx could reliably kill drones at 5 km. But even if it could, that still makes it a PDW to be used when other options have been exhausted.

Toby J

Not BMD, at least not yet
We haven’t upgraded them to B1NT standard , so not, we’re bringing an area defence system to a drone fight.
Ignoring cost, it’s the most effective thing for this job on Earth

Ex_Service

The argument re the T31 57/40mm guns being used over Sea Ceptor is flawed. No captain worth his salt, would allow a closing (or crossing) threat to pass through their primary AAW weapons long range engagement envelope, and not use it.

The argument also implies the RN will purchase smart munitions, such as 3P for the 57mm, which there has been no indication of yet.

Tom

MOD contract placed in November 2022…

“…for the supply of technical support, gun simulators to be commissioned into a Land Based Integration Facility (LBIF) for T31 Frigate and qualified 3P (programmable) ammunition for the 57mm Mk3 and 40mm Mk4 naval gun systems that will be supplied with the five Type 31 General Purpose Frigates.”

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/contract-awarded-for-type-31-frigate-gun-ammunition/

Ex_Service

Noted this looks like integration (trials) only, and does not represent a long-term/ongoing contract; which would allow an operations / warload fit out for ops.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

I don’t think you understand the scale or nature of the coming threat.

It won’t be long before these things will be attacking in waves of a hundred or more. They can build these thing for one hundredth of the cost of a Western AShM.

And you won’t need smart ammunition to hit them because they will be moving too slowly.

Your dozen Sea Ceptor will be gone in an instant. And once they are gone what is stop the enemy using something larger and faster against the ship? Nothing.

Ex_Service

Quote “I don’t think…”. I agree.

Practised naval warfare dictates threat engagement at the maximum range possible. It matters little how much the threat weapon system cost to manufacture, while considering the damage it can do to yourself, or whoever you are protecting, hence why a few SAMs have been launched to counter these threats. I haven’t seen any reports of the LCS’ in the area using their 57mm to engage drones over using SeaRAM, nor do I expect too (and if it did occur, I am sure a few stiff drinks would be had afterwards!).

If the naval force has robust rules of engagement; and if an enemy actor has the capacity to launch “…waves of hundreds or more”; then such a capacity to launch a mass attack would be high up in any naval commanders mindset to neutralise before hand (with land attack missiles no doubt, or perhaps UCAV to minimise collateral damage).

While the T31 is muted to have 12x Sea Ceptor, It is logical to assume any forward deployed unit(s) would be outfitted with additional silos and capabilities to deal with the threat (including EW & direct energy weapons) – considering the hypothetical time-frame with the T31 in service, up-threat.

Last edited 2 months ago by Ex_Service
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

I agree with your basic assertion. But we are not talking about facing penny packets of missiles mid-Atlantic. These drones are cheap. If sources other than Iran start to produce the salvos will reach saturation point. As I said…….

I don’t think you understand the scale or nature of the coming threat.

It won’t be long before these things will be attacking in waves of a hundred or more. They can build these thing for one hundredth of the cost of a Western AShM.

And you won’t need smart ammunition to hit them because they will be moving too slowly.

Your dozen Sea Ceptor will be gone in an instant. And once they are gone what is stop the enemy using something larger and faster against the ship? Nothing.

It is called carrying the conversation on. Nowhere did I say what you said in conventional terms was wrong. What I pointed where this is likely to go. This is maritime asymmetric warfare.

Trucks, moped engines, and glass fibre are simple known technologies. Whereas energy weapons are a decade out from being deployed across Western fleets.

It is what happening now in the Red Sea that matters not staff doctrine from the Cold War or weapons from the future.

comment image?h=1d34674f&itok=28Yvjcbr
comment image?auto=webp&crop=16%3A9&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1440

Harkens

Quite agree with your comments on waves of drone attacks by the hundred or more followed by waves of AShM in future sea combats. Is a question of which side has more missiles,

These should help to even the odd against drone

Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwjcayPuag

Bofors 3P 40mm/57mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG9QK-Uq_bA

OtoMelara Dart Strales
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnrA4VfjgPI

BTW the Ukraine seems to be putting the old 1970s technology Gepard to good effect against drones. It is more cost-effective than more advanced and expensive air defense missile systems but with only a limited range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFW02xZVoWQ

Gepard_1a2_overview
Last edited 2 months ago by Harkens
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

To me it is a repeat of the $100 million aircraft and $100 thousand bomb to a hit a single man in sandals with a Chinese AK scenario.

I suspect also the kinetic kills are so that opfor don’t gain sigint revealing our ECM / EW capabilities any more than necessary.

The Russians have already used wave of 46 drones in the Ukraine. (One supposes that NATO ECM / EW kit is already deployed around vital Ukrainian infrastructure.)

Modern gun based AA systems are extremely sophisticated. But these drones’ characteristics would hardly present a problem to radar laid systems that we had at the end of WW2.

Missiles are the optimum solution. But this asymmetric areal drone technology is going nowhere. I suspect they will have them flying with optical target recognition well before the West navies are patrolling up and down the Red Sea with energy weapons.

Last edited 2 months ago by The Whale Island Zoo Keeper
Harkens
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Yes. Lots of options from short range (point) out to medium range.

Even the US are going to start to baulk at $20 million dollar SM-2 salvos at some point.

Arjun

25 drones per day for 10 days will require at least 250 missiles for a total cost of more than $500million
How about the British taxpayer shooting more Aster missiles?

Beijing shrugs at U.S. call for help protecting Red Sea shipping

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/21/beijing-u-s-red-sea-shipping-00132861

The Italian is sending the FREMM Virginio Fasan (F 591) but with only 16 Aster missiles, at least it has 2 × Leonardo OTO Melara 76 mm/62 Davide/Strales

Fasan_Virginio_F_591_11_@chesi
Last edited 2 months ago by Arjun
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

I said something similar in the last thread.

For $10 million they could bring shipping to a halt in the Red Sea for months.

Nobody is arguing that Aster or SM-x are not ideal for shooting down aircraft. But if there are several hundred heading in and they all have to be shot down those missiles aren’t going to last long.

The US doesn’t need to keep the Red Sea clear. If it closes it will be Europe that suffers shortages.

The war is now. FFBNW fallacy has caught up with us.

Last edited 2 months ago by The Whale Island Zoo Keeper
Magnus

Indeed! The chickens are coming back to roost.

FFBNW fallacy… oh plenty of time to get back to Portsmouth to mount the CWIS, sonar… and change the underpants too,

Fight tonight… ah no, next weekend maybe.

Last edited 2 months ago by Magnus
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

That is where modularity fails. A ship just can’t return from half way around the globe, have something fitted, and then toddle off back like a cargo ship receiving its next batch of containers.

Never mind the financial reality that the government would never have ‘systems’ sitting on the dockside to be swapped just in case. An escort can’t leave the wall without a full set of sensors and weapons for all spheres of combat. There are no sleep backwaters now. Never mind that in times past we ‘owned’ those backwaters we don’t today.

The reality of modern naval warfare is that you have to be ‘there’ first with the most ‘firepower’ to deter. Go look at the Italian Horizons and compare them to T45.

Jonno

I agree with the complete idiocy of FFBNW as have most on this site. If we have the 10x 40mm systems on order for the type 31s I suggest they are redirected to be fitted on the Type 45s PDQ and another batch ordered for the Type 31s.
The Carriers likewise need the same fit and CAMM whatever the purists say about deck debris. What a fatuous argument that is! Drones are the new kamikazis see how busy popping off the 4.5″s were on the fleet carriers in 1944-45.
We cant have our ships half baked any more, or they will be.

Roger

,

40mm
Ex_Service

Bold and underlined. Does not add weight, apart from waste some pixels, for your point of view.

+ Pics…

Now I suspect you work in marketing for someone.

Thanks for the whale of a time

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

The bold and underlining was to aid your comprehension.

Last edited 2 months ago by The Whale Island Zoo Keeper
Magnus

It is a bit rich to say that any forward-deployed T31
“would be outfitted with additional silos and capabilities to deal with the threat”

when recently HMS Mounts Bay was deployed to the Baltic not even with any Phalanx CWIS and was buzzed by the Russian air force as target practice.
Well done Russky!

The usual excuse given here for not having any CWIS mounted was although we have plenty of CIWS there is no need for unnecessary salt corrosion maintenance so better to keep them safe in Portsmouth.

Maybe is also better to keep the SeaCepter in Portsmouth in case of salt corrosion.

Last edited 2 months ago by Magnus
Ex_Service

The Baltic deployment was training related, so not necessarily indicative of what would be deployed in a hot environment (would be the MoD / HMG line).

I do agree though, the MoD/HMG/ The UK populace are kidding themselves if they think the present force levels (in any of the services) are sufficient for a peer-on-peer, or even as leading coalition partner in a medium to large conflict.

You should train as you intend to fight if you want to win.

If the MoD are too stupid to outfit, or provide the means too, extra silos etc, then perhaps the UK should rethink the relevance of that all-powerful organisation (which staff wise is bigger than the RN and almost in parity with the army …sorry don’t know or care about RAF strength (sic) ????)

Magnus

Baltic deployment was training related — excuse and more excuse

Russky don’t shoot, we are on training

Last edited 2 months ago by Magnus
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

comment image

Magnus

salt corrosion ??? or target practice ???

Last edited 2 months ago by Magnus
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

HMS Mounts Bay…..

Last edited 2 months ago by The Whale Island Zoo Keeper
Jonathan

Indeed, the threat is very much large swarms of slower drones…the worry is that it will also be large swarms of very clever missiles…just look at what spear three could offer..a single F35 can attack with a swarm of 18 of very very clever missiles with in built EW..US doctrine would require the expenditure of 32 AAW missiles…a strike package of 4 f35s could deliver 72 very clever swarm missiles with their own integrated jamming…that will overcome any present AAW ship….if we can do it so can china etc…Iran could ( via its proxies) hurl a huge number of drones or missiles at ships in the Red Sea and eastern med….the RN did actually know what they were doing with the T31…they set the designers specific tasks around the best solution for a very specific set of threats..that is how the 57/40/40 combo was developed…it was not the cheapest option as most think, but one of the most effective for the threat the scenario the RN set up.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

In a way it is good for us that is happening now with all the technological and geopolitical shifts. I think the only way a clear path will present itself is if a worst case scenario battle occurs.

As for the RN and the T31 in its current fit out being optimum no.

I think the Danish hulls are fantastic. But the RN’s thinking is off. I have no faith in the Service at all.

Duker

Notice the side opening and the deck above

F-362-HDMS-Peter-Willemoes-52a1
Supportive Bloke

I, slightly, disagree.

It depends on the threat level and the general resources available / required.

If the drone is fingerprinted and known from Radar, EO, EM etc combined in a picture that is very hard to fool.

If, say, the drone is relatively poor at manoeuvres and slow then it *might* be wisest to engage at range with the 57mm. This is still well outside the envelope that Sea Ceptor can operate in. So Sea Ceptor can be cued to auto launch if the 57mm fails to do its job.

Thus all the layers are still there but the order is slightly altered.

You wouldn’t fire off Sea Ceptor or A15 at low value targets. In this case it might have been a demonstration of intent as well as a real world test.

Although I agree that spending £1m to prevent a ship being damaged or sunk is still a good use of resources.

I’d also agree with other commentators that changing out the 30mm to 40mm cannons would be a really good idea that wouldn’t break too many budgets and at the same time increase the T45’s ability for cheapo area defence.

Which of course leaves the issue of the legacy 4.5” which is only any use for NGS….so is it swapped out for a 5” or 57mm? When NSM is fitted its surface to surface role is redundant…..which tends to point to 57mm?

Coll

What was the result of Martlets being fitted to the 30mm bushmaster? I have looked and can’t seem to find a conclusion to the tests. I know they have strapped 20 to Wildcats, but they could do with them in this sort of location.

Last edited 2 months ago by Coll
Theoden

The Martlet tests were not successfull. There were issues with excessive backblast damag but I could be wrong.

Coll

Ok. You would think that putting a piece of metal to deflect would be the answer. It would have made a great stop gap.

Last edited 2 months ago by Coll
Gunbuster

Part of the back blast issue was firing at red/green 90 the back blast went straight onto the door of the 30mm mag. Good luck getting that past the Risk mitigation stage and approved by the Platform Duty Holder.

Coll

It could be put on the Type 26 considering the position of the 30mm bushmaster..

Gareth D

Surely its a blast door!!

Teves

I wonder if the Thales rapid ranger could be adapted to fit on ship with 6 pods per side and a mix of star streak and lmm martlett.

Bruce

6 pods per side, just a drop in the ocean

Teves

They are reloadable which is a big bonus and cheap I suppose it may be possible to make a lager array but reloading may become difficult. Certainly opvs and t31/32 may be useful as well as rfa vessels

Bruce

How many reload? 50? And where do you store them? just a drop in the ocean but not saying there is no use at all.
Could have been more useful in San Carlo against Skyhawk, the Blowpipe MANPADS then were totally useless.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bruce
Challenger

Too bad only T26 will field the MK45 for the RN in the future. Granted a mix of 40/57mm guns will be good in the anti-swarm role, but with shorter ranges than missiles surely a vessel would only look to use them if it was either the target itself or directly in the path of a drone!

Ultimately the RN is going to need A LOT of quad packed Sea Ceptor on T26/T31/T32 and preferably all vessels fitted with 40mm turrets for additional protection.

Theoden

One good thing that could come out of this is a decision to replace the 30mm with the new Bofors 40mm. Since it’s already on order increasing the order should be ‘relatively’ quick and simple.

ATH

But not free. Setting aside the issues of integrating the Bofors with the T23/45 CMS and finding safe storage for 40mm ammo there is the issue of cost. In the recent spending statement HMG committed only to keeping defence spending at 2% of GDP and not increasing it as was hoped. Without more money few new equipment projects will get started.

Theoden

In terms of the overall equipment budget additional 40mm wouldn’t have a significant impact. The proposed uplift to 2.5% of GDP has no timeframe so is/was basically meaningless. We might learn more when the election manifestos are published.

Jonathan

Yes 40mm bofors mk 4 replacing the 30mms would make a great deal or sense..you could even deliver an efficiency saving…remove the 30mm from the RN arsenal would free up cash…the RN is heading for to many medium gun types..20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 57mm, 4.5inch and 5inch…a great deal of ongoing spend could be reduced and lethality increased by swapping out the 20mm and 30mm for 40mm or even 57mm.

Theoden

Agreed. The RN has already taken a step towards simplification of types by phasing out miniguns and standardising on 50 cal and GPMG. The benefits are understood now it’s a matter of priorities.

Wilcox

Well, the Yanks get what they want.. another ME shoot up, but not against the preferred target (too cowardly).. pathetic!

Chris

??? Your comment makes zero sense. Yemen faction attacks commercial shipping and the US is to blame? Incredible logic.

Duker

History says otherwise . US has been attacking various factions in Yemen for decades.
Eg 2017 alone
2017, U.S. Central Command said it conduced more than 131 air strikes in Yemen, strikes listed as “insufficient detail” represent those strikes that account for those numbers, where New America was unable to identify specific location and date information.”

I was very surprised it was that large, obviously the means to retaliate only recently became available
https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/americas-counterterrorism-wars/the-war-in-yemen/

Last edited 2 months ago by Duker
Chris

And the world is just now finding out why. Iranian factions attacking commercial shipping. I guess we should just sit back and let it happen.

Duker

US and Britain have boarded Iranian tankers too , apparently a court in US has legal authority in the Indian ocean off South Africa or elsewhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/royal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions

Sean

More politically-driven incoherent nonsense. Been drinking too much vodka Ivan?

Greta Thunderpants

ha.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greta Thunderpants
AlexS

Maybe you should be educated what is the Houthi Islamic supremacism and r*acist slogan:

Allah is the Greatest
Death to America
Death to Israel
A Curse Upon the Jews
Victory to Islam

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
Duker

Some interesting background on the capability of the Phalanx system range and the improvements of the latest versions Block1B2 and such
“The multi-projectile nature of a very high-volume rotary cannon improves the effective range significantly, but still, the maximum potential range on larger, slower-moving targets is only around 5 nautical miles, or around 9 kilometers.”..

“The Phalanx Surface Mode variant adds a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera to assist in detecting the heat signatures of inbound threats such as low-flying helicopters and high-speed boats at sea, and ground vehicles on land. The FLIR’s capability is also of use against low-observability missiles and can be linked with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) system to increase RAM engagement range and accuracy……… The Block 1B variant also allows for an operator to visually identify and target threats instead of, or in addition to, the CIWS’s auto-targeting capabilities.”
https://ig.space/commslink/phalanx-ciws-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gatlin-gun-navy-ship-defense

Helicopters act like some of slow moving drones which may come within range of a system ( under manual control) rather than heading for the host vessel. Up to 9km is a decent distance where there is some capability against a slow target and its not heading for you

Last edited 2 months ago by Duker
AlexS

Please take moment to think of ballistics of 20mm gun.
Not even firing at 45º elevation a 20mm round will hit land at 9km.disatnce.

Moonstone

Points about ship defences being saturated by mass drone attack (at least inshore) are well made of course. ECM and the fleet wide adoption of additional 40/57mm guns would seem to be an appropriate response, but such measures might take years to implement and have to overcome the MoDs longstanding reluctance to spend money on equipment not already allocated in the equipment budget.

I understand the Ukrainians have experienced a significant measure of success in countering UAV attack with the UK supplied Starstreak HVM/LMM system – either in its MANPAD or vehicle mounted form. It seems to me that deploying this weapon system aboard warships and merchant shipping in the threat area might prove to be a useful and cost-effective means of augmenting our defences in the short term.

In the loner term something needs to done about Iran.

Sean

Min the longer term something needs to be done about the Iranian regime, something that a large proportion of the Iranian people would agree with.

Jonathan

i do agree, but I’m not sure what though, short of a major and very bloody war that kills a million or two people….it’s one of those real quandaries…as to do nothing will likely lead to Iran just kicking off a load of proxy wars that kill the same sort of numbers just over a longer time frame.

Clive

I think that a lot of people may be missing the point, Diamond was protecting another ship. The distance of the drone or the other ship from Diamond was not stated, it may well, and probably was, a long way away from the drone and thus the only available option would have been a missile.

Phalanx and guns of any sort aren’t going to be much use if the drone is 20 miles away and closing on its target.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Missiles are few and expensive whereas shells are plentiful and nowhere near as expensive. Some natures of 76mm can reach out to 40km.

The issue of distance is also a question of platform numbers. Perhaps there should be something closer than 20 miles away to deal with the problem? There are not enough escorts in theatre.

DaSaint

It is unlikely that a naval combatant, miles away from a ship determined to be under attack, is going to be willing or able to use gunfire to destroy the target vs a missile. You would have to presume that the combatant was between the ship and the drone when that’s not often going to be the case. Many times, the target ship will be closer to the approaching drone than the naval combatant, therefore the more likely use of missiles, expensive as they may be.

The cost of the missile isn’t the major factor. The cost of the possible damage or loss of the commercial ship and the implications to world trade is several times larger than the cost of the missile. In other words, worth the cost.

Duker

For this short period 15 were shot down ,14 by Carney which has SM6 ,ESSM, Sea ram missiles, 5 in gun and 20 mm phalanx. The exact mix which likely involved most of those hadn’t been released for operational reasons. UK government jingoism meant Diamonds missile type was revealed

Toby J

It’s pretty obvious
Mk 8 4.5in isn’t used for AA any more and as pointed out above, the other weapons wouldn’t be much use
The only option was the Aster 15

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

He is convinced the Mk8 is a wonder weapon. It had limited to none utility in anti-air. The mount is too slow in the traverse and the gun is too slow in its cyclic rate. He likes to argue for attention.

Duker

Not so. Some had the idea the Phalanx was ‘only-1-2km’ , which is roughly the time for a very fast sea skimmer when for a slow and slower target like a helicopter or drone its 7-9km.
the 30mm has reasonable capacity out to 5km depending on the targeting system too.
To say the 4.5 in ( the mount doesnt matter in this context) has no capability against the slowest targets at the longer distances is just uninformed speculation.

I suppose when it does down a drone in the Red Sea, Ill let you know

Some interesting background of the USN 5 in
“The Mk 45 has similar performance to the Mk 8 (Mk 8 figures in brackets) although being a slightly heavier weapon, it *elevates more slowly* at 20º (38º) per second and *trains at 30º* (42º) per second. This reflects the original design aspiration for some anti-aircraft capability for the Mk 8 while the *Mk 45 has always been primarily an anti-surface and naval gunfire* support weapon.”
“Using standard ammunition it has a *lower rate of fire* 16 – 20 (20 – 26) rounds per minute and fires 31 kg HE shells (21 kg) containing 3.2 kg (3 kg) of explosive to a maximum range of around 36.6 km (27.5km). ”
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-127mm-mk-45-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-26-frigates/

very important in this Red context
” but as an indicator, the Type 45 destroyer can embark up to 800 4.5-inch rounds”

Last edited 2 months ago by Duker
Jonathan

It was my understanding the 4.5inch was no longer able to engage airborne targets due to the capability being removed.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

He besotted with the idea that a single purpose mount with low elevation, slow rate of fire, and not to staggering rate of fire is the answer to everything from drones to the Common Cold to how many beans make five.

johnny

Yeah, he claimed to have shot down an Exocet with the 4.5in… and the guy down at the chip shop swears he is Elvis.

Duker

Its a credible claim, well publicised at the time .
Were you in the CIC on Hermes along with Admiral Woodward to say it didnt ?

Gary

Did you hear that from Admiral Woodward personally or Santa Claus?

Must be the best keep secret since Little Green Man landed at Rendlesham and 5G is causing Corona.

Have you also videos of the Loch Ness monster?

Last edited 2 months ago by Gary
AlexS

Its a credible claim, well publicised at the time .

Ridiculous.

Duker

Still works for slow moving aerial targets within range ….back to the future
The perfect all seeing 100% accurate weapon system doesnt exist, neither is the 4.5in perfect

300px-HMS_Jaguar_F371
The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

You are just trolling now.

Duker

Pictures tell a story, some here are…. visual first

Duker

Who is saying ‘its removed’
Navy Lookout just says the software module hasnt been updated, as if it needed to do that as the weapon system and ammunition hasnt changed either
Software libraries which combat systems use have many many separate functions
Phalanx for instance has a number of upgrades over the years , which the RN doesnt use , so neither does their computer modules for that system need to change ( you’ll introduce new bugs if the existing system is stable over a longer time)

Its clearly a simple misunderstanding of how modular software systems works.
For goodness sake if the software was *removed* the 4.5 in gun would operate at all. Its too silly for words to claim this

Jonathan

Babcock who undertook the maintenance of the 4.5 inch stated:

“The Mk8 MCGis a modern, semi-automatic variant and can rapidly fire high explosive rounds against land and sea targets with pinpoint accuracy, say Babcock.( 2021)”

I am afraid it is only now able to engage land and sea targets not air.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

It was poor system in the anti-air role in Mod 0 form anyway. It was a typical MoD bodge.

Duker

The USN 5 in is even less

Malcolm

Will that make you feel better talking about the 5in gun?

Gate

You are the one who brought up the topic of software with inside knowledge, and what type of modular software would that be?

Last edited 2 months ago by Gate
Duker

I didnt say ‘inside’ knowledge. Its just how software upgrades work. Some modules are updated , others not and are still there
been there and done that in the civilian world
Whats you software upgrades experience ?

Gate

Tell us what are the device drivers, applications, operation system, and program language used by the 4.5in gun?

AlexS

You continue to peddle misinformation for 20mm There is no 9km range for Phalanx, not even firing at 45º.

Do you even know anything about ballistics? For that to be possible a 40mm gun would have a range over 20km.

Arjun

A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone:
Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks
“That quickly becomes a problem because the most benefit … is in their favor”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/missile-drone-pentagon-houthi-attacks-iran-00132480

Are you paying?

Things to come;
Kyiv Wants A Million FPV Drones In 2024,  more than 11,000 medium- and long-range attack drones, among the long-range attack drones, it’s planned to build at least 1,000 drones with a range of more than 1,000km (620 miles)

If Ukraine can do it, why not someone else?

The writing is on the wall

Last edited 2 months ago by Arjun
AlexS

Because we have a fetish for ships, aircraft, tanks.

Theoden

Heard on Ward Carroll podcast (He’s a former senior USN carrier pilot) that Carney shot down the 14 drones with 18 Standard missiles.

Donald

I heard that Donald Trump was the presenter

Arjun

18 Standard missiles that will be $38 million and 14 drones that will be $28K

Sunmack

I’ve seen reports that the T31 will not have fire control radar for it’s guns whose guidance will be optronic only. Does anyone know the truth or otherwise of this?

ATH

If you mean a dedicated fire control radar the no. But I suspect the quiet sophisticated main radar will have gun control modes.

Tom

The T31 AESA Radar provides the gun fire control radar capabilities. Take a look at the gun system diagram in Navy Lookout’s previous article at the link below, I think that was based on something published by the T31 project itself:

https://www.navylookout.com/developing-the-type-31-frigate/

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Moonstone,

Picking up on your very good points about what would now be the best way to defend vulnerable merchant shipping transiting through the Red Sea.

The key issue today is that lots of merchant shipping needs both protection and reassurance. The UK’s response means thinking about how to best to utilize the most-effective parts of the existing UK defence resources. Critically those RN resources must be those which we already have available and also personnel who can be deployed both quickly and very effectively.

I would have though that in the current “grey war” situation in the lower half of the Red Sea is a very good example of where several very-small detachments of RMC Bootnecks would come in very useful.

Lets say just eight RM commandos were deployed onto each UK flagged merchant ship – just for the couple of days it takes for that ship to transit through the threat area – they would be a very effective deterrent to any possible attack.

Hospitality would be provided by the shipping company: who would undoubtedly welcome the presence of a few extra GFCL (Grey Funnel Cruise Line) passengers

Thus, as you imply, even a small number of RMC/FCF armed with (lets say) plenty of GMPG’s; Starstreak (AA) and Javelin (AT) missiles would be a very effective deterrent. Even a quite small commando troop would easily able to defeat any incoming pirates who are using either small boats, terrorist-type helicopter attack’s and most drones (ie. all of the numerous recent attacks).

Obviously longer range drones and larger ballistic missiles would still need to be dealt with by warships (see above).

However a few good men in the right place and armed with the right kit (i.e. Starstreak) would be both a very effective deterrent. Critically, they would also provide reassurance and support to all of the shipping lines.

regards Peter The Irate Taxpayer

Matt

GMPG’s; Starstreak (AA) and Javelin (AT) missiles – wishful thinking

Under British maritime law, which precludes the use of fully automatic weapons in these circumstances, only bolt action or semi-automatic rifles like the L1A1

Since 2010, a UK company at Ambery has been providing armed maritime security for 500 and 600 transits a month in the Red Sea 

Commercial ships being attacked by Houthi 
https://youtu.be/5sYvfBUvhW8

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Matt

The nitty-gritty deatils of maritime law is not, I must admit, my specialist field.

However I believe that your comments only apply to the arming of civilians who are on board merchant ships; and not to serving members of the UK armed forces

regards Peter The Irate Taxpayer

Jonathan

That is not quite completely true..as there is actually a group of privately owned Uk flagged merchant vessels that are armed with 30mm cannons…they are provided with a police crew for the weapon systems.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

PNTL’s ships……….

comment image

The Japanese coastguard built escort ships for their nuclear ships. They have sufficient range to circumnavigate the globe to negate having to enter ports.

Jonathan

Indeed Pacific nuclear transport limited, run a fleet of armed merchant vessels…I did not want to give it away and was waiting for Matt to do his research.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Whoops! Sorry.

Jonathan

???????? no worries….

Matt

Was that in WW2?

QF_4_inch_Mk_IV_gun__crew_1942_LAC_3572367
Jonathan

Pacific nuclear transport limited, is a UK company that run armed merchant vessels..they are armed with 30mm cannons, the weapons are manned by the civilian nuclear constabulary…who provided armed guards for all all civilian nuclear establishment’s including the Pacific nuclear transport fleet…they have a full armed response team on each vessel as well as the crew for the 30mm cannon..effectively they are designed to be able to fight off any non estate actor.

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Jonathan

Good point = well made.

In my post and especially in my reply to Matt, I was quite-obviously referring to the vast bulk of merchant shipping.

These three ships are often seen in the port at Barrow: just down the road from Sellafield and next door to BAe Submarines.

I believe these ships are correctly described as being ships in government service: hence being able to be armed more heavily that conventional merchant shipping just defending against pirates.

The PNT vessels are the very good example of precisely what I had in mind for defence in the Red Sea = a conventional ship however armed with sufficient weapons’ to be able to defeat all except nation-state actors.

regards Peter The Irate Taxpayer

AlexS

Starstreak needs to continuously track target until hit, not a good idea in a ship moving at sea.

AlexS

The T31 AESA Radar provides the gun fire control radar capabilities.

Of course it does, to fire at ships which are slow.
It also give initial data to optronic system.

But it is not precise like a X band director like Leonardo NA-25X and it needs to keep rotating to search for targets.

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
AlexS

There is no radar gun fire control unless you track permanently the target.

That can only be accomplished by:
1- proper radar director
2 – planar radar with precision director capabilities that covers 360º
3- in theory a rotating radar that only fires the gun for the time the radar is tracking the target – should be noted that the radar needs to have an high frequency X band like for propose.

The French also have only optronic gun control for their FREMM-ASW 76mm , but for FREMM-AA they added a radar director like Italians have in all their FREMM. Now read about the motive for that…

Royal Navy ships only have radar tracking in Phalanx.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

I am unsure why the T31 designs has the IH’s ‘weapons tub’ plated in. Seems better to keep the original design.
comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by The Whale Island Zoo Keeper
Duker

Boat bays

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

So I say the original design should have been kept. And you just point at one of the changes. Wow.

D J

Babcock have publicly stated that all features that were designed out remain available on the A140 if requested. ie they were designed out in such a way that they can be reinstated. Sadly, T31 is being built down to a price rather than up to a capability.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Then not altering the design too much would have saved money and gave a more flexible vessel.

D J

Except that it wouldn’t meet MoD requirement for a GP frigate. The IH is an AAW frigate. It can carry more missiles that current T45 & in AAW max configuration, can carry more than upgraded T45 (when 24 CAMM are added). It also has high end radars to go with the missiles.

As a GP frigate, I assume it was thought additional & larger boat bays for policing, HADR, RM raiding parties, autonomous mine warfare vessels etc would a better match. T31 though is still well short of most modern GP frigates for its size (no HMS, no ship launched torpedoes & no NGFS capable main gun, no dedicated fire control radars etc),

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

I am not going to engage in pointless discussions about ‘GP frigates’.

What you need to take aboard is that T31 is more a product of reduced funding than an actual need.

What you describe is an OPV not a frigate.

If the RN was having a pedalo constructed the collective here would be conducting mental somersaults to justify it.

D J

I think you have me confused with someone else. I am not a fan & never have been of the T31. It’s main attribute is it can be upgraded (even at a later date). Weight margins are not a problem. A140 shows what it could have been & if someone wants to find the money, T31 could almost get there. Cheaper to have put more money upfront, but it is what it is.

Duker

You have a picture, thats all , Theres pictures too of the boat bays . Its unimportant as this is Babcocks design now and many changes for many reasons. The engineer in me says its better structural strength to cover the deck when you open the sides. But its done now

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

The engineer in you says large holes in the ships side are structural more sound than a floor capable of carrying several tonnes of missiles and VLS cells? Oh…….

Duker

Babcock think so …Im not privy to their digital design results.

The center area of the ship where these decks-openings-tubs are locations of higher bending stresses. Im sure theres a number of possible solutions, your one missed out . Time to move on and back to the other silly T31 arguments which ignore the big picture as well.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

No the Royal Navy specified more boats. If there was a need the Danes would have done it. Unlike us Brits the Danes know how to design a ship these days.

You are just being argumentative and attention seeking again.

Jon

If I had to be firing £2m quid missiles, they would be Tomahawks. So I’d start with a dedicated cluster of LEO satelites so I could see who was firing the drones and where they resupply.

Duker

US has had over 300 air strikes against various Yemen factions in the last 5 years .
so they been there done that. Check this comment thread for pictures of launchers based on light trucks, they are shoot and scoot.
remember this is how Ukraine uses a US rocket and ballistic missile- Shoot and scoot so they cant hit back.
Its a low tech version of this

886x486-411
Jon

Shoot and scoot is how they are delivered from the trucks. I think the hits need to come earlier in the supply chain. Where do they get onto the trucks?

As for been there and done that, good point. Now do it again and again and again. There are times I feel so uncharitable towards philosophies that demand I submit or die while they won’t feed or clothe their own children, I’m really glad I’m not in charge.

Duker

This isnt the place to elaborate on ‘ feeding children or similar domestic needs’, but was say the Falklands war really worth Britain £10-12 bill in todays money or was raising the flag again ‘priceless’

David Barry

I wonder if the accountant in Rish! is finally getting with the programme.

£2m missiles vs £1k drones is a tad uneconomical. Of course if we had more platforms equipped with 40mm, we could be in more places at the same time and save money.

I’d suggest we are in the opening phase of a world war, so best we start to rearm.

Bloke down the pub

Has Martlet been fired from an UAS against an aerial target? It might offer a cheap option with decent range.comment image

Teves

They have only test fired it from the jacket, don’t think there’s a a laser target designator on the jacket required to allow the missile to bear down on the target. Seen them on schiebel UAV and that has the laser designator but not seen any firing info.

Chris

No and not cheaper than a 3P 40mm

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

The French have decided to go their own way with their own conveys outside Op Prosperity Guardian.

The Whale Island Zoo Keeper

Italy and Spain have left Prosperity Guardian too so refusing to put their warships under US command.

Interesting.

Chris

The French are prioritizing French flagged ships. Why am I not surprised.

Duker

Why should EU nations warships give any protection to flags of convenience.
of course theres the sheer volume of shipping spread over a distance, so I can see France putting its ships first, meaning CMA-CGM and its subsidiaries. Its HQ is Marseilles

ShaunR

With the advances in so many forms of IT technology I hope that someone at the MOD is looking into a new form of anti-air software for the 4.5 inch gun. Our ships may soon be needing every form of firepower they can muster.

Theoden

Unlikely. The 4.5 is on it’s way out. In the short term there’s not much we can do. In extremis we could deploy manpads but that’s about it.

Duker

Quantity has a quality all of its own
T45 can embark 800 4.5in shells.

Thomas

Copycat and fake news as usual

Samuel

I reckon the RN will replace with either the 76mm SR from Leonardo or more likely a Bofors 57mm MK3 AKA MK-110 in USN service from BAE. Either system are capable of Anti Aircraft/ Anti-Missile

Theoden

It’s possible. I’d be surprised if the RN bought the 76mm. Comprehensive tests were undertaken to identify ideal systems for Type 31. It would be surprising if that judgement had changed significantly in the meantime. There’s an article on this site explaining why the 57 was preferred to the 76.
In focus: the Bofors 57mm Mk 3 gun that will equip the Type 31 frigates

Last edited 1 month ago by David Steeper
Theoden

.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Steeper
OkamsRazor

I think you’ll find that the MOD bought a quantum computer at the beginning of the year so maybe they are aware of what’s happening with AI and software development!

Duker

‘Quantum’ computer wont help with AI. None what so ever , all you need are high end NVIDIA graphics processor cards [up to 624 teraflops performance, 80GB memory, 1,935 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 600GB/s interconnects….EACH] but a whole server farm of them. Then theres the software and the then theres the ‘training’ of your AI system.

OkamsRazor

Maybe I was unclear or you are confused. I was not trying to say that quantum computers help with AI, but that if they have people proficient enough with tech to be playing around with quantum computing, then they are probably well in the loop with AI. Considering the fact that school kids can use generative AI, which is what most people mean. Because most people don’t understand that they are dealing with gAI or machine learning rather than aGI, which we are nowhere near.

DaveyB

Sadly, the lack of investment in the 4.5” shell by the MoD over the last 30 years, is now coming back to haunt the Navy.

However, the US 5” has had constant investment of the last 30 years. Plus it has a significantly larger export base. So more Navies are willing to ask for updates. That kind of demand helps drive development.

The only development the 4.5” shell has had, is incorporating base bleed. Which helps to increase its range. What is missing is the rocket assisted HE shell along with the extended range sabot shells.

Both the US and Italian 5” guns now have the ability to fire guided rounds. That are either guided by INS/GPS corrections or home on to a third parties laser designator reflection.

The Italian 5” also can engage air targets using the Leonardo DART round that was originally designed for the 76 Strales system. DART is a radio command guided sabot dart. That is guided on to the target via the ship’s radar. During trials in the 5” form, DART has an effective range over 30km.

BAe also have the high velocity projectile (HVP(. Which is again a sabot, but was originally designed for the now shelved ISN rail-gun project. In trials the 5” HVP has been used to intercept target drones replicating cruise missiles at ranges of around 20 miles.

Then there’s the DARPA/Raytheon MAD-FIRES round developed for the Mk110 57mm gun. This is also a sabot guided round. But also includes a solid fueled rocket in the sabot’s tail to not only increase range, but also its velocity. Unlike DART, MAD-FIRES is really a semi-active radar homing gun fired missile. It can potentially engage more targets simultaneously than DART. Although initially designed for the Mk110, Raytheon have said it can be scaled up for the 5” gun.

Due to the very small number of 4.5” systems. The cost of developing one of these guided anti-air rounds would be pretty exorbitant. For the 5” and the Mk110 that the Navy will be getting. It would make a lot more sense to buy some of this type of ammo. As there’s likely to be a greater number of Navies looking to invest in it, therefore bringing down the price.

I guess a lot of the decisions will be made by whichever round the USN choses. One big advantage with the guided rounds, is that they don’t have to be fired with the gun pointing towards the intercept point. Being guided they can maneuver towards the target after leaving the barrel. Though if the gun is pointing in the direction of the intercept, it will be a major advantage.

These guided rounds may make the 5” gun more useful. As it can now be used with a much greater chance of intercepting an airborne target. But crucially push out the effective engagement range significantly greater than can be achieved with smaller calibre guns. The attacks on the merchants ships may drive the impetus for the USN to push the 5” anti-air guided round. The usual hurry up and wait I guess!

Duker

Thanks very much for the useful info.

Samuel

USS Carney Battle Hardened? USS Mason was attacked by 9 Chinese made Anti-ship missiles fired from Yemen over the course of 3 separate engagements within a week. Its one thing shooting down drones but when you are facing sea skimming anti ship missiles that can and will kill you if not eliminated…USS Mason faced the greater danger that was previously held by HMS Gloucester from 1991 when she took out that Seersucker with a pair of GWS-30 Seadarts

Harkens

HMS Gloucester was not the target of the Seersucker attack but USS Missouri was, and HMS Gloucester was protecting her,

In that incident, there were more ships involved;

HMA Cattisiock
HMS London
HMS Gloucester
USS Missouri
USS Avenger
USS Jarrett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfDnZ7FiZg

Last edited 1 month ago by Harkens
Samuel

Even the aspect of the missile targeting USS Missouri is questioned, some sources state it actually locked onto a ship further past Missouri (Based on the crude seeker head of the Seersucker and the whopping great radar signature of an Iowa Class BB I find this odd). You are correct in that Gloucester was protecting Missouri, my point was it was a very real threat being faced with severe loss of life likely on both Gloucester/Missouri and USS Masons engagements compared to a unknown type of drone. To my knowledge they haven’t started carrying heavyweight Anti Ship weapons…yet (Obviously will at some point).

On a second note….Despite the unfortunate friendly fire incident at least USS Jarrett and her crew were ready for combat the days after the missile attack when Jarrett’s CIWS shot up Missouri’s Chaff shell and hit Mo a couple of times. Beats USS Starks response for sure

Jonno

With the latest threats specifically against Gibraltar; can the Government spend some money and upgrade its defences and with our Nato allies ensure all shipping, including small craft, is properly monitored in and around The Straits and in the Bay of Algeciras. They could declare a protective zone in concert with the Spanish and make this a priority.

Jon

Can the government spend more money? Yes. Will the government spend more money? No. Despite the obvious deterioration of the world’s stability, our Prime Minister only cares about the next election which he thinks will be won by being tough on immigrants and bringing down inflation (something he’s willing to create a recession to achieve).

I’d hope that Gibraltar has good defences against missile attack. If not, putting Sky Sabre and a small drone defence in place would not be all that expensive.

Duker

Well the Royal Gibraltar Regiment currently has units deployed ….in Estonia
https://www.yourgibraltartv.com/society/28465-13-royal-gibraltar-regiment-deployed-on-operation-cabrit

All the tee shirts….umm uniform patches have been distributed

cabrit21
Someone

Well X users say forget the world ram the refugees and sink them in the Channel. Invade France.

AlexS

Without recourse to expensive missiles, the 40mm Mk 4 is effective out to about 10km.

I would have expected a naval website to know more about weapons range.
No it is not 40mm Mk.4 is not effective about 10km , that is the land range firing at around 45º elevation. It is even doubtful if the fuze allows an AA round travel that range.

Phalanx 1km
40mm 4km
57mm 6km
Would be the generic effective range against AA, against very slow drones maybe 500m to 2km can be added to those numbers.

Another issue is that the guns in Type 31 are not radar directed except Phalanx.- neither in any RN ship – but electro optical, that makes them less precise.

Duker

“The “close-in” part of the Close-In Weapons System is not a misnomer. The Phalanx utilizes non-powered projectiles (basically large bullets) that start slowing down the instant they leave the muzzle of the barrels, and simply follow a ballistic path to the earth. Even a 20mm projectile can only travel so far once it leaves the barrel of the cannon. The multi-projectile nature of a very high-volume rotary cannon improves the effective range significantly, but still, the maximum potential range on larger, slower-moving targets is only around 5 nautical miles, or around 9 kilometers. The effective range on smaller, faster-moving threats is from around 2 nautical miles or 3.6 km “

The unit cost of this Raytheon CIWS system isnt cheap maybe US$8-10 mill
https://ig.space/commslink/phalanx-ciws-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gatlin-gun-navy-ship-defense

AlexS

Stop posting erroneous links believing anything that is on web.

And a rotary canon is inherently less precise than conventional one.