The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Grim901]

I'm not sure I buy this argument. Ships are not mass produced items, with production lines and dedicated machinery/presstools or certainly not the T45s? There

But ordering is done in batches, that implies there is some benefit at least. The shipbuilders will also become less adept with a certain design as a gap in production appears (in extreme cases leading to excessively rising costs ala Astute) although this probably won't be a significant factor it may lead to some excess costs. After all we know that prices generally go down over the run of any ship class, no matter what size of class be it a run of 16 for T23 or 6 for T45.

I would however like to see more T45's coming in, and with the T26 planned to be a very similar hull from the looks of things, if more T45 isn't possible, how about adapting a T26 slightly to make an AAW version. It can't cost massively more to create a hybrid between 2 existing very similar classes. Unfortunately the costs would prohibit the run of 2-4 we'd want.

 

[1805]

But ordering is done in batches, that implies there is some benefit at least. The shipbuilders will also become less adept with a certain design as a gap in production appears (in extreme cases leading to excessively rising costs ala Astute) although this probably won't be a significant factor it may lead to some excess costs. After all we know that prices generally go down over the run of any ship class, no matter what size of class be it a run of 16 for T23 or 6 for T45.

I would however like to see more T45's coming in, and with the T26 planned to be a very similar hull from the looks of things, if more T45 isn't possible, how about adapting a T26 slightly to make an AAW version. It can't cost massively more to create a hybrid between 2 existing very similar classes. Unfortunately the costs would prohibit the run of 2-4 we'd want.

Yes there is definately going to be advantages in building in batches, but that needs to be balanced with budgets and the overall ability to maintain this drumbeat. I can see why the T45 were ordered so close together; the delays with CGNF/Horizon and the ageing T42, it was just an unfortunate turn of evens.

I think the French plan to build an AWD version of FREMM. The heavy cost of PAAMS will be the development not the manufacture even though I sure it will be fairly bespoke hand built.

If the ASW capability could be enhanced I would much rather have 6 more T45 (3 batch 2 2018-2027 & 3 batch 3 2028-2037). Maybe then 12 smaller T23 like ASW. 4-6 of which could have a 155m or 127mm gun ands better CIWS, maybe a smaller hanger just for a Lynx.

The T45s could drop the NGS 155mm and have a 57mm & more space for VLS maybe a hanger for a couple of Merlins.

 

[Moonstone]

Is NGS usefull?

Operation Barras. I believe the rebel base was 40miles from Freetown (the coast) A 4.5" weapon would be useless but one of those proposed 155mm systems could reach it with some guided munitions, thats a good precision option to have.

Suppressing enemy coatal defences such as radar, AAA and SAM sites.Taking out enemy OP'S, airstrips, supply bases, HQ's, bridges, powerplants or distribution networks.

Covering the withdrawal of special forces with some heavy fire, breaking up a pursuing enemy mechanised unit with some anto armour rounds. Covering an amphibious landing eg GW2. Breaking up an approaching wave of "boghammers"?

Or could a 155mm weapon be used to lay a chaff or decoy cloud? Or how about good old fashion ship sinking where you dont wan to waste a million pound Harpoon.

I can see ample reasons why a decent sized naval gun is useful. If T45 sits next to the carrier, its a decent option to have on a dozen or so ships, an it should be relatively cheap, a fair bit of design work has been done. ER Laser guded or GPS rounds could give the RN a precision 100km sniper capability, thats not to be sniffed at.

I fear the British Army hostages or their SAS rescuers might not have appreciated a 155mm bombardment to add to the confusion . Lets examine the case for NGS in a calm & logical manner .

The historical record shows that there have just 3 or 4 periods in the last 60 years when the RN has been called upon to fulfill this ancient role :

1 - The Yangtze Incident 1949
Ships v shore artillery . As happened so often in the past the ships came of worse .

2 - Korea 1950-53
Semi regular use was made of NGS from various commonwealth frigates , destroyers & light cruisers . Little discernible outcome on the course of this large scale conflict as far as I can see .

3- Suez 1956
A short bombardment by 'Daring Class' ships of a weakly defended assault beach of no great significance .

4 - The Falklands 1982
Much 115mm ammunition expended with varying results . HMS Glamorgan struck and seriously damaged by a coastal defence Exocet SSM while engaged in shore bombardment .

I may have missed something out but the message seems pretty clear - An RN warship is unlikely to be called upon for NGS during the course of its career & even if it is the results will probably be disappointing if not pointless .

The 155mm gun so many on here seem to want for some reason will come at the price of the BAE/Bofors 57mm or OTO 76mm piece the ship could have been fitted with . Put yourself in the place of a future frigate/destroyer captain - which would you rather have ?

A splendid modern rapid fire 57mm that acts like a CIWS & could prove vital in defending your ship against aircraft or missiles (and those nasty little speed boats terrorists employ) or ...

A heavy 155mm artillery piece who's existence is only really justified in the unlikely event of NGS being required - or to impress the neighbors .

The answer seems pretty clear to me . :coffee

 

[davros]

The MOD is reporting that the Royal Navy will be sending twelve fixed wing pilots to the United States to be trained to fly the USN F-18 jets in preparation for the Joint Strike Fighter F35Bs, which will be embarked in the UK's new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

 

[davros]

Here are some more pictures of hms Queen Elizabeth.

 

[1805]

I fear the British Army hostages or their SAS rescuers might not have appreciated a 155mm bombardment to add to the confusion . Lets examine the case for NGS in a calm & logical manner .

The historical record shows that there have just 3 or 4 periods in the last 60 years when the RN has been called upon to fulfill this ancient role :

1 - The Yangtze Incident 1949
Ships v shore artillery . As happened so often in the past the ships came of worse .

2 - Korea 1950-53
Semi regular use was made of NGS from various commonwealth frigates , destroyers & light cruisers . Little discernible outcome on the course of this large scale conflict as far as I can see .

3- Suez 1956
A short bombardment by 'Daring Class' ships of a weakly defended assault beach of no great significance .

4 - The Falklands 1982
Much 115mm ammunition expended with varying results . HMS Glamorgan struck and seriously damaged by a coastal defence Exocet SSM while engaged in shore bombardment .

I may have missed something out but the message seems pretty clear - An RN warship is unlikely to be called upon for NGS during the course of its career & even if it is the results will probably be disappointing if not pointless .

The 155mm gun so many on here seem to want for some reason will come at the price of the BAE/Bofors 57mm or OTO 76mm piece the ship could have been fitted with . Put yourself in the place of a future frigate/destroyer captain - which would you rather have ?

A splendid modern rapid fire 57mm that acts like a CIWS & could prove vital in defending your ship against aircraft or missiles (and those nasty little speed boats terrorists employ) or ...

A heavy 155mm artillery piece who's existence is only really justified in the unlikely event of NGS being required - or to impress the neighbors .

The answer seems pretty clear to me . :coffee

I would just like to add to this post, that although I support some NGS of 4.5" or 155mm, since the Falklands every single RN escort has been saddled with nearly 25t of "nice to have" top weight.

Yes during the Falklands NGS added value to the land operations, but if you had replace each Mk 8 with 1 76mm & 1 Phalanx, you would have improved top weight by about 8t and greatly enhance the survivablity of the ships. I would doubt you would get one captain to opt for the 4.5" option if given the choice.

 

[deepsixteen]

It has become a given these days that 'steel is cheap' and that as a consequence we can/should design ever larger displacement warships . Perhaps we should stop a while and question the validity of that assumption .

I'm happy to acknowledge I don't have reams of official statistics showing the (inflation adjusted) ebb and flow of the world steel price over the last 50 years but I'm pretty damn sure that bigger ships still cost rather more money & time to weld together than their smaller counterparts . Ship construction has never been an inexpensive business , this reality is highly unlikely to change anytime soon .

The simplistic argument that big=good & small=bad is in itself deeply flawed . Some of the most cost effective ship designs to ever serve the RN have been relatively small and cheap - the 1939 'Hunt' class destroyer or even the current Type 23 for instance . For some roles it is even actively preferable to employ a modestly sized warship - 'Littorial' warfare is all the rage I hear .

When you examine the T23 in detail you start to understand what a fine ship they are . On a 3500t hull you not only get what is generally regarded as one of the finest ASW platforms in the business but you also field a versatile warship with significant surface warfare and adequate self defence capability as well . Why can't we do something similar again ?

My preferred T23 replacement (the RN should aim to order around 15 units IMO)

3500-4000T displacement
Strong seaworthy hull
Machinery capable of long range & quiet operation - 25 kts
1x Merlin or 2x Lynx Wildcat (interchangeable with future small UAV)
TAS & hull sonar
Artisan 3D radar if possible
BAE/Bofors 57mm or Otobreda 76mm gun
CAAM VLS

Perhaps you can't have the above capability on this displacement , but it doesn't seem to be asking for very much more than we already have with the T23 .

I see the future RN frigate and destroyer force as being primarily in the business of providing the QE class carriers and/or an amphibious warfare task force with an escorting squadron - The T45's will obviously provide the AAW missile defence with the 'Sea Viper' system which leaves the T23 successors proper role as providing the crucial ASW screen . The designed armament of the T26 is as yet undefined but why must it have a Tac Tom cruise missile armament for instance when the carriers & SSN's can do that job just as well if not better ? When you think about it sailing one of your handful of precious T26's close inshore for a spot of shore bombardment (with its single 155mm gun) is a dubious proposition indeed when this valuable unit is put at extreme danger and the direct assault of a defended shoreline is surely an historically outdated concept anyway . Again if we really must bombard the territory of our enemys with naval gunfire then we should build a monitor or reinvent the WWII LCG .

I've no principled objection to large hangers or building ships with the deck space required to house some vast 64 missile VLS but it seems pretty hard to justify all this when the helicopters and missiles required to actually make use of these expensive facilities are unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future - if ever .

I hasten to add that the above are just the thoughts of a interested layman - not some professional strategist or naval architect alas .

Steel is comparatively cheep in relation to the cost of the systems fitted to warships and if you pull out the corner created by the dog kennel you will have a larger box hence the statement very little steel would be required (I cannot comment on steel prices either).

The argument is not big v small it is about the necessary outfit for a modern multi role warship, the Type 23 is an excellent design of its period as I’m sure the Hunt class were but times change the accommodation for instance is not to present day standards the Type 26 is supposed to be an evolution with an increase in versatility which includes an embarked EMF which necessitates a larger warship.

Grim Kev99 and Hambo have answered your other points but I would like to add that I believe that warships are designed to go into harms way but the ones we buy should be versatile and adaptable fortunately VLS seems to provide an easily updatable and adaptable system and we should ensure our vessels have sufficient to provide a long service life. None of us can see the future and hopefully none of these systems will be needed but its best to be prepared.

 

[deepsixteen]

I couldn't agree more, you have excellently applied logic to emotional arguements based around "we must have as they have them". Just to add weight to your already comprehensive argument:

USN aside, other navies have massive budget pressures aswell, lets see how many of this "Spurance" inspired ships get built.

The additional of "nice to haves" on to an ASW escort will detract from its core role of keeping SSKs away from other assets, by reducing the numbers that get built.

The agrument that a CV or SSN will not be around is so poor. The conflicts we have been involved with, we always deploy a task force of some size.

For an ASW asset there is no need for more than 32 SAMs,based on the expenditure of SAMs in the Falklands, a very unlikely senario. Actually 16-24 would be sufficient with a 57mm gun (this excellent weapon is far more useful and a 1/3 the weight of a 4.5").

I probably would fit Harpoon maybe 4, but agree it is very unlikely these would ever have a target.

Oh and if a F35 was not around for support of troops ashore, because it was doing more important "bridge busting" we could use an Apache. There is going to be so much room on those carriers, the whole AAC can come along.

I do have to say I did not notice any emotional arguments being applied could you quote them? Must have missed the bit that suggested Spruance?

The Type 26 is not supposed to be purely an ASW escort sat in the Atlantic hunting soviet SSN’s it is a multi role warship and needs to be equipped appropriately.
Just like the Type 23 it will be operating independently on many occasions, a large VLS could accommodate land attack missiles anti surface ship missiles perhaps ASROC it would not be exclusively for SAM’s this is supposed to be a multi mission warship and incidentally would not need to be full all the time.

I think that Hambo has pointed up the requirement for a large calibre gun most eloquently in his earlier post I cannot see why a 57mm would be better.

Oh and it may be better to have a larger hanger to accommodate that Apache you mentioned as this vessel like the Type 23 will be on its own the majority of the time.

 

[Hambo]

I fear the British Army hostages or their SAS rescuers might not have appreciated a 155mm bombardment to add to the confusion . Lets examine the case for NGS in a calm & logical manner .

The historical record shows that there have just 3 or 4 periods in the last 60 years when the RN has been called upon to fulfill this ancient role :

1 - The Yangtze Incident 1949
Ships v shore artillery . As happened so often in the past the ships came of worse .

2 - Korea 1950-53
Semi regular use was made of NGS from various commonwealth frigates , destroyers & light cruisers . Little discernible outcome on the course of this large scale conflict as far as I can see .

3- Suez 1956
A short bombardment by 'Daring Class' ships of a weakly defended assault beach of no great significance .

4 - The Falklands 1982
Much 115mm ammunition expended with varying results . HMS Glamorgan struck and seriously damaged by a coastal defence Exocet SSM while engaged in shore bombardment .

I may have missed something out but the message seems pretty clear - An RN warship is unlikely to be called upon for NGS during the course of its career & even if it is the results will probably be disappointing if not pointless .

The 155mm gun so many on here seem to want for some reason will come at the price of the BAE/Bofors 57mm or OTO 76mm piece the ship could have been fitted with . Put yourself in the place of a future frigate/destroyer captain - which would you rather have ?

A splendid modern rapid fire 57mm that acts like a CIWS & could prove vital in defending your ship against aircraft or missiles (and those nasty little speed boats terrorists employ) or ...

A heavy 155mm artillery piece who's existence is only really justified in the unlikely event of NGS being required - or to impress the neighbors .

The answer seems pretty clear to me . :coffee

Well clearly 7,500 114mm shells in the Falklands doesnt impress you, varying results maybe but it other than the artillery attached to the Commando Brigade it was all we had. I would have to concede to your wisdom if it was of value.HMS Glamorgan wasnt engaged in NGS when hit, she had been shelling all night, it was taking a shortcut out to open water that was the error, crossing the arc of the land based exocet.

Two RN frigates and an Australian ship provided NGS in the Operation on the Al Faw peninsula, an opposed amphibious landing in 2003. Again, I concede to your wisdom if it saved lives or not, or if a 57mm would have benifitted the marines more.

Our allies, eg the Americans used NGS in Vietnam, Off Lebanon and heavily in GW1 and GW2.

I would suggest the Parachute Regiment support company in Op Barras who were engaged in a lengthy firefight across a river may have appreciated some 200lb shells landing amongst the jungle positions of the opposition, I expect they would have wilted much sooner.

I assume that you also dont see the point of amphibious operations? Because if you are engaged in any operation on the enemies shoreline, if you plan to land forces either opposed or unopposed then a big accurate gun seems a pretty logical decision. Why would you not want the ability to put down a rapid pattern of heavy ordnance?

I am yet to be convinced the 57mm is a suitable tool against a missile, I would prefer a sea wolf, aster or camm and a Phalanx as a last ditch.

The USN deploy a 5 inch on almost all their front line warships and, are looking at 155mm, The italians will deploy a 5inch gun on their fremm, the Spanish do on the F100, that suggests that they see a role. No offence but I would side with their wisdom.

The historical record says the RN faced anti ship missiles twice in the last 60 years, the historical record shows the RN faced aircraft in 1982 and never since had to engage one with a SAM. I wouldnt base every decision on the historical record.

Finally I think the RN 30mm mounts have been upgraded specifically to put holes in those nasty little speed boats.

 

[deepsixteen]

I would just like to add to this post, that although I support some NGS of 4.5" or 155mm, since the Falklands every single RN escort has been saddled with nearly 25t of "nice to have" top weight.

Yes during the Falklands NGS added value to the land operations, but if you had replace each Mk 8 with 1 76mm & 1 Phalanx, you would have improved top weight by about 8t and greatly enhance the survivablity of the ships. I would doubt you would get one captain to opt for the 4.5" option if given the choice.

Firstly a modern 155mm with the wide range of guide munitions presently available would have utility beyond NGS as has already been pointed out.

I cannot speak with any first hand knowledge of most of the occasions that NGS has been used but the events of 2003 have been missed out. I can however shed some light on the Falklands.
You perhaps are a little off target (pardon the pun) suggesting that special forces and the army do not appreciate NGS support I seem to remember that the SAS were very appreciative of the support provided during the pebble island raid as were the troops calling in NGS during the actions in the run up to the surrender. Indeed Glamorgan and Yarmouth were late leaving the gun line on the day she was struck due to the demand for supporting fire. I also get the impression that you fail to understand the considerable weight of fire of fire a single naval gun brings which is equivalent to an artillery battery and the Royal Artillery have a battery dedicated to directing NGS.

Type 26 will have CIWS as well as a large calibre gun which is the vessel we are speaking about is not?

 

[Hambo]

Steel is comparatively cheep in relation to the cost of the systems fitted to warships and if you pull out the corner created by the dog kennel you will have a larger box hence the statement very little steel would be required (I cannot comment on steel prices either).

The argument is not big v small it is about the necessary outfit for a modern multi role warship, the Type 23 is an excellent design of its period as I’m sure the Hunt class were but times change the accommodation for instance is not to present day standards the Type 26 is supposed to be an evolution with an increase in versatility which includes an embarked EMF which necessitates a larger warship.

Grim Kev99 and Hambo have answered your other points but I would like to add that I believe that warships are designed to go into harms way but the ones we buy should be versatile and adaptable fortunately VLS seems to provide an easily updatable and adaptable system and we should ensure our vessels have sufficient to provide a long service life. None of us can see the future and hopefully none of these systems will be needed but its best to be prepared.

deepsixteen. I would be in the bigger ship is best camp for the reasons you mention, eg adaptablility, I can think of numerous reasons why the T26 would be bigger, I have no knowlege about naval architecture, but if I was thinking of a list I would come up with the following but accept I may be wrong.

Sailors, like the rest of soft civvy world want more comforts, Type 45 offers 50% more personal space per crew man, one shower and toilet between 6, as opposed to one shower to 20 odd on a T42, thats a lot more space. Then factor in a probability of more female crew = more separate living quarters, showers, toilets etc. That makes for a need for lots of space.

I assume reducing the noise signature requires isolation of the machinery, different ordering of machinery spacesmay dictate optimal size and displacement
One hull shape may be more fuel efficient than another, it wouldnt necessarily mean a smaller ship is more efficient.
If the role is more littoral, maybe a larger hull gives better tolerance to damage form underwater explosions eg mines?
Do the new generation of sensors, particularly AESA sets disctate a more stable, and therefore beamier hull for optimum performance? Does a higher radar position (for earlier detection of threats) mean a deeper draught?

Is it easier to operate a helo from a flight deck that is 30m x 18m than 25m x 14 m and does that safety margin make a bigger hull preferable?

Does a more beamier and volumous hull make upgrade easier?

The key term you use is versatility and Moonstone is proposing not having a VLS capability other than a small CAAM capacity . I would think this is a big mistake , simply because it would make it very hard for us to export a HMS Moonstone. Why? Because by the time they are built, a FREMM would be a decade old mature design, offering a buyer the ability to fire sexy land atack munitions for a fair price, on a 6000 tonne , relatively stealthy hull. We would be offering a platform with limited upgrade potential. What would you buy? A cramped single role ASW platform or for similar price a nice FREMM (or an offering from Navantia)

You cant buck a trend, the world frigates/destroyers are getting bigger, I dont think there is any value in trying to be different. You are right in that steel isnt that expensive, the T23 is actually close to 5000 tonnes full up, add 8m in length and 2 m in beam and that would go to 6000 tonnes, its not really an issue, I cant see what the fuss is about, calling the T23 a 3500 tonne frigate is a false claim.

 

[1805]

Firstly a modern 155mm with the wide range of guide munitions presently available would have utility beyond NGS as has already been pointed out.

I cannot speak with any first hand knowledge of most of the occasions that NGS has been used but the events of 2003 have been missed out. I can however shed some light on the Falklands.
You perhaps are a little off target (pardon the pun) suggesting that special forces and the army do not appreciate NGS support I seem to remember that the SAS were very appreciative of the support provided during the pebble island raid as were the troops calling in NGS during the actions in the run up to the surrender. Indeed Glamorgan and Yarmouth were late leaving the gun line on the day she was struck due to the demand for supporting fire. I also get the impression that you fail to understand the considerable weight of fire of fire a single naval gun brings which is equivalent to an artillery battery and the Royal Artillery have a battery dedicated to directing NGS.

Type 26 will have CIWS as well as a large calibre gun which is the vessel we are speaking about is not?

I did make it very clear I supported some ships having 4.5 or 155mm guns. My preference when the current ships retire is to build 2-3 specialist shore bombardment ships (1-2 155mm guns, MLRS equivilant 5000t, c18kt, CIWS/SAMs. Maybe even some protection.

However my point about the 76mm/Phalanx was concerning ships like the T21/T42. There were enough older twin 4.5" about.

Most of our dead were as a result of air attack.

 

[Systems Adict]

I did make it very clear I supported some ships having 4.5 or 155mm guns. My preference when the current ships retire is to build 2-3 specialist shore bombardment ships (1-2 155mm guns, MLRS equivilant 5000t, c18kt, CIWS/SAMs. Maybe even some protection.

However my point about the 76mm/Phalanx was concerning ships like the T21/T42. There were enough older twin 4.5" about....

I'm impressed !

Some of you are actually having a discussion, not a "john thomas" measuring competition !:

...But getting back to the topic at hand.

You all have some very valid points about size of weapon / type of hull / displacement, etc.

But there are a few obvious facts / pointers that should be included in your comments / questions that should be asked & answered.

#1. BIGGER is BETTER....

Let's not beat about the bush here. If YOU had to go to sea, to fight a battle, would you rather go in an over-armed OPV, or head into harms way with an Arleigh Burke / Type 45 ??

I'm not saying that there aren't "horses for courses", but the majority of these should be covered under specialist equipment, not multi-role.

#2. BANG for your BUCK...

Lets look at these 4 weapons :

Bofors / BAE 57mm
Bofors 57mm MK3 Naval Gun System - BAE Systems

Oto Melara 76mm
http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/mediumCalibers/76-62SR.pdf

UK / RN 114mm / 4.5"
114 mm (4.5 inch) Gun : Weapon Systems : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy

Future / New 155mm
Advanced Gun System (AGS) - BAE Systems

They all have the ability to be used for NGS, that is a FACT !

The issue is, which SHOULD you use ??

Some are small & light (don't go that far, but can be fired in High volume).

Some are Large & Heavy (go multiple times the distance, but at a slower RoF)

Generally the rule of thumb goes, the bigger the weapon, the more explosives you can drop on the target in one hit, (due to weight), but with reduced volume (< 25 RPM)

The smaller the weapon, the larger number of rounds you have to fire to get the same effect as a larger weapon, with the added bonus of having to be closer to the target.

Each has its drawbacks & each has its merits.

From the RN point of view, the LOGICAL choice is to uprate to a 155mm.

Given the right sensor feeds, the use of SMART munitions & a vessel capable of taking its weight / being able to deliver the 'Platform' to the right place, you have one of the most flexible weapons in the naval arsenal.

The use of a naval 155mm would HELP with costs, due to possible commonality of ammunition components with the 155mm heavy guns / howitzers used by the Army.

After all, as the RN found out to their disadvantage, a ship with missiles only is pointless... :gun


Your thoughts... :lam

SA

 

[riksavage]

Quote StevoJH - Your point? no one does, yet Australia (with 1/3 britains defense budget) is getting 100 F-35A, just got 24 F-18F, has ordered two LHD's and 3 7,000t AWD's and is planning 8 7,000t Destroyers. Plus ordered ~45 MRH-90's, 22 Tiger ARH and is looking are ordering 20-30 new Maritime Helicopters.....

Yes but one of the single largest costs is man-power and whilst Aus is planning to buy lots of new and expensive kit you still have a very small military headcount considering your population and land mass size. The Royal Marine Commando Brigade plus support is about the same size as what Aus can realistically deploy at any one time. On top of that the UK has 35 infantry battalions to play with.

UK doctrine continues to support NGS in support of amphib operations, The original 4.5" gun was designed to provide the same support and rate of fire as a shore based 105mm battery. Moving to 155mm is the next logical step because it will make use of existing smart ammo currently widely available. 3 Commando Brigade does not want a 57mm pop-gun in support of a contested landing, it wants the same explosive power available to the army (AS90 delivered). If you are up against an enemy in well dug in positions or moving in the open towards the beachhead you will want ammo designed to kill infantry, provide top-attack against armour and have the option of delayed fuses to destroy bunkers - 155mm answers those requirements in the most cost effective manner.

The UK is the only European power to have conducted ship to shore strategic raiding operations in the last 30 years, there experience has reinforced the need to have a credible NGS capability built around a heavy munition rather than utilising a light round based on high volume. Army/Navy and RAF FAC's are used to directing CAS, land and sea based NGS. Knowing that the land and sea based ordinance at you disposal is basically the same (range and impact damage) makes their life easier.

 

[1805]

I'm impressed !

Some of you are actually having a discussion, not a "john thomas" measuring competition !:

...But getting back to the topic at hand.

You all have some very valid points about size of weapon / type of hull / displacement, etc.

But there are a few obvious facts / pointers that should be included in your comments / questions that should be asked & answered.

#1. BIGGER is BETTER....

Let's not beat about the bush here. If YOU had to go to sea, to fight a battle, would you rather go in an over-armed OPV, or head into harms way with an Arleigh Burke / Type 45 ??

I'm not saying that there aren't "horses for courses", but the majority of these should be covered under specialist equipment, not multi-role.

#2. BANG for your BUCK...

Lets look at these 4 weapons :

Bofors / BAE 57mm
Bofors 57mm MK3 Naval Gun System - BAE Systems

Oto Melara 76mm
http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/mediumCalibers/76-62SR.pdf

UK / RN 114mm / 4.5"
114 mm (4.5 inch) Gun : Weapon Systems : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy

Future / New 155mm
Advanced Gun System (AGS) - BAE Systems

They all have the ability to be used for NGS, that is a FACT !

The issue is, which SHOULD you use ??

Some are small & light (don't go that far, but can be fired in High volume).

Some are Large & Heavy (go multiple times the distance, but at a slower RoF)

Generally the rule of thumb goes, the bigger the weapon, the more explosives you can drop on the target in one hit, (due to weight), but with reduced volume (< 25 RPM)

The smaller the weapon, the larger number of rounds you have to fire to get the same effect as a larger weapon, with the added bonus of having to be closer to the target.

Each has its drawbacks & each has its merits.

From the RN point of view, the LOGICAL choice is to uprate to a 155mm.

Given the right sensor feeds, the use of SMART munitions & a vessel capable of taking its weight / being able to deliver the 'Platform' to the right place, you have one of the most flexible weapons in the naval arsenal.

The use of a naval 155mm would HELP with costs, due to possible commonality of ammunition components with the 155mm heavy guns / howitzers used by the Army.

After all, as the RN found out to their disadvantage, a ship with missiles only is pointless... :gun


Your thoughts... :lam

SA

I actually do prefer larger ships to small ones, radar higher, more space etc and would rather have the T45 as an all rounder like a Burke even if this added 1000t or so.

The issue here is not even cheap v expensive, it's single role (well ASW + patrol), in a Hi Lo Mix v all Hi with the impact on numbers. I just can't see how the RN can undertake its peacetime or wartime tasks on c16 escorts, it needs to be near 24.

I don't see the 57mm in the shore bombardment role at all (I know the makers do claim this capability) maybe anti speedboat. I see it as a AA/CIWS.

I much prefer 155mm, its completely logical and I am surprised it has take so long to progress. Maybe an example of gold plating failing is the 8" & ACS. If the USN would only upgun the current 5" to conventional 155mm Artillery instead of pushing the boundries they would have it installed on a lot more ships

 

[Grim901]

I actually do prefer larger ships to small ones, radar higher, more space etc and would rather have the T45 as an all rounder like a Burke even if this added 1000t or so.

The issue here is not even cheap v expensive, it's single role (well ASW + patrol), in a Hi Lo Mix v all Hi with the impact on numbers. I just can't see how the RN can undertake its peacetime or wartime tasks on c16 escorts, it needs to be near 24.

I don't see the 57mm in the shore bombardment role at all (I know the makers do claim this capability) maybe anti speedboat. I see it as a AA/CIWS.

I much prefer 155mm, its completely logical and I am surprised it has take so long to progress. Maybe an example of gold plating failing is the 8" & ACS. If the USN would only upgun the current 5" to conventional 155mm Artillery instead of pushing the boundries they would have it installed on a lot more ships

AHHHHHHHHHH. For the last time T26 is meant to be the High end answer to the lower end C2. C2 is exactly what you want and will make up the numbers (8 C2 planned for 10 C1). Why do you keep ignoring that??

And why are you so desperate for another CIWS on a ship that will have 2 AA oriented CIWS (with capability to engage small boats) plus 2 30mm mounts that can engage boats and air. Any small boats that can survive that isn't a small boat at all, but there are always the miniguns and machine guns to fall back on too.

 

[1805]

AHHHHHHHHHH. For the last time T26 is meant to be the High end answer to the lower end C2. C2 is exactly what you want and will make up the numbers (8 C2 planned for 10 C1). Why do you keep ignoring that??

And why are you so desperate for another CIWS on a ship that will have 2 AA oriented CIWS (with capability to engage small boats) plus 2 30mm mounts that can engage boats and air. Any small boats that can survive that isn't a small boat at all, but there are always the miniguns and machine guns to fall back on too.

I'm aware if the plan, the debate is focused on the impact of budget deficit cuts and the unlikelihood of getting enough C1-C2 built. Also I'm saying I expect my low end to still be able to field Hi end ASW.

Re the 57mm, I don't rate 20mm Phalanx in the CIWS space anymore, I believe it will hit the missiles just at the range it will engage be unable to bring them down. Now I'm not an expert on this, I am just going on the trends navies have adopted over the last 30 years. However I accept the jury is out on CIWS. The RN never really seems to have been keen on Phalanax until now, only fitting when quite frankly nothing else would fit (T42s) and when it has space 30mm Goalkeeper, 35mm autocannon is being used by some European navies and Italy seemed to have dropped 40mm twins for 76mm. The real swing for me is the USN (money no object) installing 57mm on the DDG 1000, but then they still install Phalanx everywhere so must have confidence in it.

Also now it is BAe and has been adopted by USN, we have the chance to displace the Italians in the gun market (get on and build the 155mm and we will dominat it)

 

[Moonstone]

You cant buck a trend, the world frigates/destroyers are getting bigger, I dont think there is any value in trying to be different. You are right in that steel isnt that expensive, the T23 is actually close to 5000 tonnes full up, add 8m in length and 2 m in beam and that would go to 6000 tonnes, its not really an issue, I cant see what the fuss is about, calling the T23 a 3500 tonne frigate is a false claim.

There seems to be some confusion over displacement . When I say the T23 is a 3500t ship I am referring to the ('standard' not 'deep load') displacement figure given in the tables of Norman Friedman's authoritative 'British Destroyers & Frigates' (p332) . Friedman uses the traditional imperial measurements (tons) when it comes to discussing warships while others for perfectly understandable reasons prefer the metric (tonne or mt) . The picture can be complicated further by the small difference between a British & US long & short 'tons' while displacement itself is only a measurement of mass of course (unlike the g.r.t or net tonnage or d.w.t) .

In addition there are about 101 subtlety different ways of calculating warship displacement (in SI or 'Imperial') in the first place ! Any confusion caused is purely accidental and not some devilish attempt to mislead .

For the record :

T23 = 3500 long tons (uk) or 3556 tonnes . ('standard' displacement - as built)
T26 = 6741 long tons (uk) or 6850 tonnes . (exact displacement methodology unclear)

Rather than waste the next week arguing over measurements can we all just agree please that the T26 design is a significantly more substantial (and expensive) ship than the design it is intended to replace ?

Happy to help !

 

[swerve]

There seems to be some confusion over displacement . When I say the T23 is a 3500t ship I am referring to the ('standard' not 'deep load') displacement figure ...
For the record :

T23 = 3500 long tons (uk) or 3556 tonnes . ('standard' displacement - as built)
T26 = 6741 long tons (uk) or 6850 tonnes . (exact displacement methodology unclear)

I believe the displacement given for T26 is full load. This is standard RN practice nowadays. The comparable figure for T23 is 4900 tons (as per RN).

The RN ceased using Imperial tons some time ago. Standard measurements are now metric, though Imperial equivalents are often given -but not for tonnages..

Rather than waste the next week arguing over measurements can we all just agree please that the T26 design is a significantly more substantial (and expensive) ship than the design it is intended to replace ?

Happy to help !

Agreed in general, but it does help if we use comparable measurements as far as possible. Since the RN, USN, MN & most other navies give full load tonnages in their published information, without qualification, it would probably be best if we follow that convention. Other measures (e.g. standard tonnage, or dwt) should therefore be named as such when used.

 

[swerve]

Lets look at these 4 weapons :

Bofors / BAE 57mm
Bofors 57mm MK3 Naval Gun System - BAE Systems

Oto Melara 76mm
http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/mediumCalibers/76-62SR.pdf

UK / RN 114mm / 4.5"
114 mm (4.5 inch) Gun : Weapon Systems : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy

Future / New 155mm
Advanced Gun System (AGS) - BAE Systems

Your thoughts... :lam

SA

You missed one out - the 155mm which has actually been considered by the RN, i.e. the AS90 ordnance in a modified 4.5" mount. The AGS is a very different beastie, much larger, heavier, more expensive, power-hungry etc. - and fires different ammunition, not compatible with NATO standard 155mm guns. Too long for the chambers.