The newer 4.5 inch Mk 8 Mod 1 naval gun is a marked improvement regards reliability over its Falklands era predecessor. Plus the MK8's used during the conflict were tested to the limit following the horrendous journey down south and almost continuous firing once on station. see attached phot:
Excellent photo cheers for the link, I am aware that action was taken to rectify issues with the Mk 8s, I was merely challenge the view it was unquestioningly reliable. However I would point out it is not the best in the field (in fact probably weakest in class in terms of hitting power and range) which is why no one has brought it since the early 70s, most going for Italian 127mm or US 127mm as you well know
File:Aftermath Cardiff NGS.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remind me again the last time the 76mm fitted to the horizons were tested to almost destruction in an operational scenario?
You are joking....this is a development of the most wildly used gun in Western Navies there is hardly a Navy that doesn't use it apart from the RN (strangely enough). I understand the USN conducted extensive trials and felt the 57mm was better and that was why I suggested 57mm, but you have to respect Italian dominance in this field. both 76mm & 127mm and even the 40mm twins you mentioned?
I don't want to rain on your parade 1805 (ironic same year as the battle of Trafalgar), but the RN (who have more experience than most), continue to value ship-to-shore bombardment in conjunction with froward deployed NGC's as part of the amphibious package, these I believe are still part of 148 Battery, trained in both CAS and Naval Gun Fire support role, as follows:
Covert insertion methods
Patrolling behind enemy Lines
Concealment - building camouflaged hides
Encrypted Communications
Forward Air Control (calling in air strikes)
Naval Gunfire Control - 148 teams often use preplanned fire missions, observing and adjusting the gunfire as needed
Battle damage assessment
Don't get me wrong I am a passionate support of the RN past and future, I think it should be the cornerstone of our approach to defence. However we need to be very critical and questioning to ensure we get the best out of all we spend. I think this is far from the case at present. You seem far to trusting of the military establishment that they know best, this is often simply not the case and to say the Italian/French view of Naval Ordinance is not relevant is just silly (I notice you didn't mention the USN 57mm choice). The RN was about to abandon NGS in the late 70s (Batch 1 & 2 T22 and the Leander conversion) as the USN had started to do in the 60s, it was the Falklands War that change this view, I think they took one lesson (usefulness of shore bombardment and ignored the evidence of the future...the HMS Glamorgan lesson. Had the ARA put all there ship based Exocets on to lorries rather than on their surface fleet I am sure there would have been many more strikes
The RN will move to a 155mm gun and make use of the new generation of extended range and guided munitions now arriving for use by land based SPA units. At the end of the day the French and Italians can do what they like, they have their own doctrine, but as both nations have never been involved in a major Naval shooting war since WWII I seriously doubt the RN will be looking to them for doctrinal inspiration.
I am sure your right apart from...... the fact PAAMS is based on a French Missile, and the land attack cruise missile maybe French, the VLS is French....the French were first of the block with SSM (were where we...why make Sea Eagle and buy Harpoon!!) This is one of my points for a country that spends more of its not inconsiderable defence budget on the navy than most, we don't seem to be dominating in any fields....why is no one buying our kit?
The PAAMS combination was specifically designed to mitigate existing and future hypersonic sea-skimmers, so please enlighten me what the Iranians have up their sleeve above and beyond Silkworm, Sunburn and Chinese C802's, short of launching inaccurate scud based derivatives designed to hit Israel? If they have managed to get hold of Brahmos
(This is a JV with Russia & India the stated aim is that half of production is to be targeted at exports, no the Iranian have not got them but with exports, eventually this technology will be come as common as Exocet/Harpoon, we are taking about the future not the now, T45 is not operational so our 4.5" would be protected by Sea Wolf/Sea Dart...would you feel safe in the current gun line?),
the Israeli's are going to be v-pissed off.
The already are pissed off with Iran and I am sure the first step will be Israeli air raids but, Iran is not Muppet Saddam Iraq.
Even if Irans full load off C802's are in wroking order I doubt she will fire all 60 at once against a single vessel. Any shooting war with Iran will involve a flotilla of NATO assets, all with credable AEW assets.
Agreed, but we are talking about coast bombardment in the Gulf. My point about Toulon is not a joke, once the RN was expelled, the city had to surrender, equally if the Iranians expell the Allied Navies from the Gulf we are dependent of a very brittal Saudi Araba (to me the Shah looked more stable) . Remember once the Vietnamization of Iraq is complete and the US finally leave, Iraq will likely become a client state of Iran or just collapse into civil war...maybe it already has.
Also your comment reference fitting Phalanx prior to deployment to a shorting war is misguided. Do you seriously believe that all NATO ships currently on deployment have a maximum load of weapons aboard, or do you think they might just deploy with a reduced capacity designed to mitigate anticipated contingences in a low to medium threat environment, such as anti-piracy patrols in the gulf? No Navy (with the possible exception of the USN) would or could divert ships from patrol to go straight into action in a full-blown Falklands type shooting war, most would have to divert to a friendly port and bring on board additional assets and upload full war-scale stores/ammunition etc. T45's on global patrol could realistically deploy to a friendly port and be uploaded with additional stores, man-power and equipment brought in by C17, unless they found themselves in a sudden engagement. This uploading could include the fitting of Phalanx or a similar close support weapon. Unlike the Falklands we have them sitting gladwrapped on pallettes ready to go.
Well minor point as I don't value Phalanx, I think ships would obviously store up, but I doubt fit weapons systems. The French again (I am not French!!) I think use to fit all A69 which where out of area with Exocet, if we said all RN ships out of UK/North Atlantic waters where fitted with full weapons kit I would agree with you. Take the evacuation of Beruit in 2006 ship had to move fast in to what was in retrospect potentially one of the most hazadous since the Falklands (INS Hanit)
Also how many Navy's currently deploy with two x helos permanently aboard Destroyers or Frigates? The T45 will be able to deploy 2 x wildcats if required, So I'm not sure what you are barking on about.
