The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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.

There seems to be such an interest in a standard 155mm (39 or 52 cal) but so limited orders for any Navy. This really would seem to be the ideal project for a JV development, if BAe don't want a risk a private venture? Most euro navies would probably be up for it as would be most of the customers of 127mm. Who knows even the Russians might buy it with their interest in arms imports!

 

[Waylander]

Why is it so attractive to develop a 155mm ship gun? Especially in times of scarce ressources?

Why not just buy off the shelf and go for a 127mm/64 LW gun from OTO-Melara? The calibre itself is widespread in the western world. The new vulcano ammo comes with three ammunition types with a range of 70km for the "dumb" multi-purpose round and the active seeker one for use against ships and 100km for the GPS guided one. One may very well shoehorn one or two SMARt projectiles into the round if the active seeker one doesn't work well against vehicles.

This should cover pretty much all the wishes one can have and may very well exceed any possible 155mm development especially when it comes to range, rate of fire and AA.

All this in a widely spread calibre with lots of other customers nearly no need for own development money (Apart from a possible SMARt round which may be interesting for others, too).

 

[Systems Adict]

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.

I know of what you speak, but @ 3am when I was typing this up last nite, i couldn't find a link for it, that went back to BAE.

The discussion about the AS90 / 4.5" modification is that, as mentioned many times here on this thread, never mind this site is that, Yes the 4.5 can be up-barrelled to take the AS90 / 155 barrel, but the loading issues put it from 25 Rounds/Min. down to anywhere between 8 -12 Rounds/Min.

Going to the AGS which appears to be the US navies preffered method, (allegedly utilising a development of a United Defense weapon), means that the shell, loading & delivery systems have been designed to give a sustained / constant Rate of Fire of 10 RPM. (well that's wot the blurb says on the BAE link)

IMHO, the issue around the 155mm, is the same as that experienced by the Army, i.e. having to 'double-bag' (load x2 explosive charges behind the projectile). No one has managed to produce a suitable 'bullet-style' case that takes projectile & charge in one casing.

Until money is spent on this problem we wont see a continuous rate of fire that exceeds 12 Rounds/min.

...& as for 'reverting' to the 76mm, it's not seen as they way to go, as we dont have any in the UK fleet / It would cost too much to convert the fleet for what is considered a'backward - step', due to it being nearly half the size / weight of our current NGS weapon of choice...

SA

 

[1805]

Why is it so attractive to develop a 155mm ship gun? Especially in times of scarce ressources?

Why not just buy off the shelf and go for a 127mm/64 LW gun from OTO-Melara? The calibre itself is widespread in the western world. The new vulcano ammo comes with three ammunition types with a range of 70km for the "dumb" multi-purpose round and the active seeker one for use against ships and 100km for the GPS guided one. One may very well shoehorn one or two SMARt projectiles into the round if the active seeker one doesn't work well against vehicles.

This should cover pretty much all the wishes one can have and may very well exceed any possible 155mm development especially when it comes to range, rate of fire and AA.

All this in a widely spread calibre with lots of other customers nearly no need for own development money (Apart from a possible SMARt round which may be interesting for others, too).

You make a good case, I suppose 100lb over a 60lb round could be an advantage, but you could just fire more rounds? Maybe the standardisation issue with 155mm land based artillery is less of an issue when you consider the number of 127mm US & Italian weapons out there (I have always assume these can use common munitions?). I guess it also depends on where the USN goes with the ACS and the impact this has on other navies, after all the use of the 127mm has largely been influenced by its use in the USN.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, the US and Italian guns can fire the same ammo. And with 25 rounds/minute it will be a huge upgrade over the 115mm currently in use with the RN.

And even when the US decides to go for a new design they will still have alot of 127mm ships in service for some time.

Lots of other nations use the Italian 127mm guns with the Netherlands, SK, Japan, Italy and Germany being the ones I remember out of my head.

 

[Grim901]

Germany tried and failed on a 155mm project didn't they? That suggests that if the UKan build a 155mm that works and is in NATO standard calibre, they might actually have an exportable product.

 

[riksavage]

Germany tried and failed on a 155mm project didn't they? That suggests that if the UKan build a 155mm that works and is in NATO standard calibre, they might actually have an exportable product.

BAE has undertaken extensive tests using the AS90 gun/breach inside an adapted 4.5'' turret. The slower rate of fire is offset by the increased firepower and range of ordnance available. For example: Excalibur removes the need for a high rate of fire simply because pin-point accuracy will achieve a first round hit every time - fire for effect will be a thing of the past. Shore based forward observation officers or UAV's will be able to laser guide rounds on top of static or moving targets. With the reduction in the number of land-based SP guns spare barrels can be utilised and inserted in the new mount. It is the cheapest option out there, a gun barrel is a gun barrel, today R&D funds are being spent developing new intelligent 155 rounds, so why not buy into existing innovations, which can be used on land and sea simplifying logistics and supply chain.

I have a PDF BAE presentation which explains the whole concept in detail (too large to attach). The new 155TMF design integrates the AS90 155mm ordnance with the Mk8 Naval Gun alowing for cost savings and a similar footprint, bringing (according to BAE):

•Enhanced capability
•Affordable through-life cost
•Land and Naval fire coherence
•UK funded research programme to inform the Future Surface Combatant requirements
•Mitigating technology risk
•Excellent progress to date

Ship Installation factors:

•Type 23 Ship Structural Interfaces - Minor reinforcement
•Type 45 Ship Structural Interfaces - Minor reinforcement and minor structural stiffening
•Electrical System Modifications Required
•Additional control and drive systems defined and power requirements estimated
•Harmonic limits for ships supply met
•Fire Control Interfaces
•Ballistic calculations can be updated
•Capacity available to control future intelligent munitions
•Existing system interfaces will allow integration with wider battlefield command and control systems

The complete tried and tested 155TMF design will be ready by 2011-14 (subject to funding)

I guarantee who ever comes up with a workable 155 maritime gun mount, which is cost effective and light enough will dominate the market, particularly in countries with limited budgets. If you are a nation who uses both land based and ship based 155's, it means you can buy a single stock of ammunition and divert it to where the threat materialises (on land or sea). Your home grown ammunition manufactures only have to focus on a single ammo type avoiding additional expense, tooling and training.:flash

 

[Waylander]

In Germany thay played around a little bit with putting an automatic PzH2000 turret onto ships but soon stopped the project as it offered not enough advantages over simply buying the 127mm OTO-Melara.

And while a conversed 155mm land artillery system seems interesting I don't see that many advantages. RoF and range would be inferior and the AA capability is non-existend.

And it is not as if it would save that much money to buy two kinds of ammo instead of one. The discount one would get for the higher volume is nothing compared to the development costs of a new gun system.

 

[riksavage]

In Germany thay played around a little bit with putting an automatic PzH2000 turret onto ships but soon stopped the project as it offered not enough advantages over simply buying the 127mm OTO-Melara.

And while a conversed 155mm land artillery system seems interesting I don't see that many advantages. RoF and range would be inferior and the AA capability is non-existend.

And it is not as if it would save that much money to buy two kinds of ammo instead of one. The discount one would get for the higher volume is nothing compared to the development costs of a new gun system.

BAE's argument is a maritime 155mm AS90 derived system is the most cost effective option because you are using existing components taken from the 4.5" and AS90 system. This approach is cheaper up-front and taking into consideration through life costs (maintenance, ammo etc.) than opting for a brand new 127mm OTO-Melara

I'm not convinced the T45/26 class need a primary NGS weapon that has a secondary AAW role, after all the T45's will have Aster 15/30, Phalanx, 30mm's and the T26 will have CAAM, Phalanx and 30mm's. Should the threat warrant, Starstreak could be carried in addition and fired from triple launches welded to the decks and operated by artillery personnel, the weapon is effective against both air and surface targets (can penetrate 30mm of rolled steel) and it is impervious to all known countermeasures.

Not since the Falklands war have we witnessed saturation air attacks against Naval shipping and I believe the current missile/CIWS combination planned for the RN is enough. We will more likely witness NGS in support of strategic raiding or against failed coastal states over the next few years than an all out shooting war against a tier one enemy with modern fast-air and sea skimmers. And hopefully in addition to the missile/CIWS layer the RN will have F35B flying overhead to help mitigate any air threat.

The T45 can carry a fully equipped platoon of RM/SBS, and I'm sure they would be happy to know that in support of any raid they have a 155mm capable of providing the same concentrated level of fire as an AS90, delivering smoke, HE, top-attack anti-tank munitions and airburst etc.

The UK's philosophy is different from other nations, they still strongly believe that the main gun's role is there to provide support for the amphib group or as a cheap means of delivering a strong message (gunboat diplomacy) in the form of a warning shot or direct attack against land/sea based threats not requiring an expensive missile. If the UK was to disband the Commando Brigade and supporting ARG, then the large calibre main gun might disappear and be replaced by something that tries to tick all boxes - land/air/sea threat mitigation - light and fast firing. The RN still believes in the gun-line and for that reason they would like the 155 or something of a similar heavy calibre to continue that tradition of ship-to-shore bombardment.

 

[Moebius]

Regarding the T26, due to the relatively limited amount of T45s being purchased wouldn't it make more sense for each individual ship to be more capable in the self-defense/multirole areas? To me its simple, if you can't have enough specialists then you have to have more "jack of all trades".

I noticed that some have doubts pertaining to to Phalanx's ciws utility. According to Raytheon it should be relatively easy to install SeaRam in the same location as a Phalanx mounting.

 

[riksavage]

Regarding the T26, due to the relatively limited amount of T45s being purchased wouldn't it make more sense for each individual ship to be more capable in the self-defense/multirole areas? To me its simple, if you can't have enough specialists then you have to have more "jack of all trades".

I noticed that some have doubts pertaining to to Phalanx's ciws utility. According to Raytheon it should be relatively easy to install SeaRam in the same location as a Phalanx mounting.

One of the famous lessons from the Falklands was the mistake of relying on an ALL missile defence system, once bitten twice shy as they say. If anything I would like to see a mount which combines both gun and missile in a single unit (like the Russians), say Phalanx plus six Starstreak mounted port and starboard. I'm a big fan of the latter because of its hypersonic speed, range and ability to hit both surface and air targets using laser beam-riding technology - an ideal last-ditch defence system against UAV/Helo and small fast attack boats, to compliment CAAM. The Starstreak three dart system is a joy to watch in slow motion, each dart able to cause severe damage to a wide variety of targets.

 

[1805]

One of the famous lessons from the Falklands was the mistake of relying on an ALL missile defence system, once bitten twice shy as they say. If anything I would like to see a mount which combines both gun and missile in a single unit (like the Russians), say Phalanx plus six Starstreak mounted port and starboard. I'm a big fan of the latter because of its hypersonic speed, range and ability to hit both surface and air targets using laser beam-riding technology - an ideal last-ditch defence system against UAV/Helo and small fast attack boats, to compliment CAAM. The Starstreak three dart system is a joy to watch in slow motion, each dart able to cause severe damage to a wide variety of targets.

I'm also a big fan of a combined gun/missile CIWS. I think the great thing about Phalanx is the bolt on nature. A combination of both would make an excellent CWIS for large ships and a primary system for support/small craft.

Just on the NCS, is a 10-12 rpm rate of fire such a disadvantage, I don't think the USN/RN ever regard these weapons as having any AA role? I have seen some talk of the 4.5" having an AA role in combination with Sea Dart, but the Falklands must have proved it's limted value compared to other systems. I always thought with the OTO 127mm you just paid a heavy weight penalty for emtying the magazine faster (however I think the new one is much lighter?)

It would still enable c300 rounds (almost 15t) in a 30 minute burst?

How much of the German Navy selection of the Italian 127mm a result of the need for German to meet counter trade obligations for the 212a deal (nothing wrong with that by the way)?

 

[Moonstone]

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.

The last time the Spanish navy found itself preparing for a spot of shore bombardment was the Armada Campaign of 1588

Leaving aside the unnecessarily snide remarks re my 'wisdom' (or lack of) you provided no actual evidence that NGS has had any real decisive (or even important) impact in the last 60 years of RN operations . Yet despite this clear lack of empirical evidence to support your case you still propose that NGS is of some crucial import and that as a result we must invest heavily in expensive new naval artillery systems .You do realize that our current (small) amphibious warfare capability was built primarily to operate on NATO's northern flank - landing a few UK & Dutch marine battalions in Norway not invading China or Iran !

I see this as a fine example of preparing to refight the last war (or WWII) rather than the next .

I see yesterdays news was full of stories that the MOD is facing potentially crippling 10% budget cuts for years to come - does this not imply some kind of economy measures might be in order ?

Even when/if we do manage to dig ourselves out of the financial hole we are currently in who really thinks it's very likely that the MOD will be so awash with cash that (aside from RAF & Army projects) it will be able to simultaneously fund the mega expensive renewal of the RN's SSBN force , build and maintain two (I hope) CVF airgroups , and order a useful number of 7000mt multi role cruiser/destroyers ? It's all a question of priority's and If something from that lot has to go then lets face it - it's going to be the overambitious T26 'Behemoth' class isn't it ?

My warning for the RN's top brass and the legion of 'big navy' fans on here is that history shows that dreaming of buying a 'Rolls Royce' ship on a 'Ford Fiesta' defence budget may well lead to disappointment .



ps - I'd say defending a £1bn(?) 7000t ship against 'nasty little speed boats' with a gun little larger than that you might find on such a craft is the very definition of 'unwise' .

 

[StevoJH]

Leaving aside the unnecessarily snide remarks re my 'wisdom' (or lack of) you provided no actual evidence that NGS has had any real decisive (or even important) impact in the last 60 years of RN operations .

RN and RAN Frigates spent quite a while bombarding Al Faw in preparation for the RM landings. The frigate bombardment was in addition to bombardment by Artillery Batteries setup on a nearby island. Take away that island and the Frigates support would have been even more important.

In the falklands war, if they had not been important, they would not have fired so many rounds, and the post-war T22B3 and T23 frigates likely would not have been fitted with the Mk.8 114mm gun.

 

[sandman]

Leaving aside the unnecessarily snide remarks re my 'wisdom' (or lack of) you provided no actual evidence that NGS has had any real decisive (or even important) impact in the last 60 years of RN operations . Yet despite this clear lack of empirical evidence to support your case you still propose that NGS is of some crucial import and that as a result we must invest heavily in expensive new naval artillery systems .

Battle of Al Faw. 3 Frigates didnt spend a considerable amount of time within artillery range of potential shore batteries in poorly surveyed mined waters because somebody anted to live thier childhood fantasy of WW2.
It was a necessary capability to support the RMs in thier push ashore in providing crucial and accurate fire to both suppress and de-moralise the enemy.

And you clearly have not read anything relating to the falklands war where however many thousands of rounds were fired to destroy objectives, create diversions, support SF operations and see the liberation through to success.

If you dont count NGS as a valuable capability in todays warfare then you have your head very deep in the sand. I'd say it is perhaps the most likely capability to be required of any surface combatant, with the exception of MIO.

 

[Hambo]

The last time the Spanish navy found itself preparing for a spot of shore bombardment was the Armada Campaign of 1588

Leaving aside the unnecessarily snide remarks re my 'wisdom' (or lack of) you provided no actual evidence that NGS has had any real decisive (or even important) impact in the last 60 years of RN operations . Yet despite this clear lack of empirical evidence to support your case you still propose that NGS is of some crucial import and that as a result we must invest heavily in expensive new naval artillery systems .You do realize that our current (small) amphibious warfare capability was built primarily to operate on NATO's northern flank - landing a few UK & Dutch marine battalions in Norway not invading China or Iran !

I see this as a fine example of preparing to refight the last war (or WWII) rather than the next .

I see yesterdays news was full of stories that the MOD is facing potentially crippling 10% budget cuts for years to come - does this not imply some kind of economy measures might be in order ?

Even when/if we do manage to dig ourselves out of the financial hole we are currently in who really thinks it's very likely that the MOD will be so awash with cash that (aside from RAF & Army projects) it will be able to simultaneously fund the mega expensive renewal of the RN's SSBN force , build and maintain two (I hope) CVF airgroups , and order a useful number of 7000mt multi role cruiser/destroyers ? It's all a question of priority's and If something from that lot has to go then lets face it - it's going to be the overambitious T26 'Behemoth' class isn't it ?

My warning for the RN's top brass and the legion of 'big navy' fans on here is that history shows that dreaming of buying a 'Rolls Royce' ship on a 'Ford Fiesta' defence budget may well lead to disappointment .



ps - I'd say defending a £1bn(?) 7000t ship against 'nasty little speed boats' with a gun little larger than that you might find on such a craft is the very definition of 'unwise' .

SteveJO and Sandman have amply given you the facts about NGS in two recent ops, if you still choose to dismiss it then thats up to you.

I see in the space of a few of your posts the T26 has now grown to 7000 tonnes has it.?

Behemoth??? Hmm, quick, email the French Defence Minsiter and ask him why he is buiilding those Behemoth FREMM's and FREDA's

As for dismissing the UK amphib capability as small? Second to the USA, huge sealift capapbility, with Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, the Bays , the Points. Regular amphib exercises on the US east coast, the middle east, Norway.

 

[swerve]

ps - I'd say defending a £1bn(?) 7000t ship against 'nasty little speed boats' with a gun little larger than that you might find on such a craft is the very definition of 'unwise' .

Who has suggested another* £1 bn 7000 ton ship for the RN? The T26 is expected to be (1) a bit smaller than that, & (2) a lot, lot, cheaper than that.

Nor have I seen anyone suggest that such a ship, if bought, should be equipped with a gun similar to that found on 'nasty little speed boats'.

BTW, your feeble attempt at humour at the expense of the Spanish navy failed. Jokes like that have to have an element of truth to be funny.

*7000 tons, £1bn is T45.

 

[Waylander]

BAE's argument is a maritime 155mm AS90 derived system is the most cost effective option because you are using existing components taken from the 4.5" and AS90 system. This approach is cheaper up-front and taking into consideration through life costs (maintenance, ammo etc.) than opting for a brand new 127mm OTO-Melara

I'm not convinced the T45/26 class need a primary NGS weapon that has a secondary AAW role, after all the T45's will have Aster 15/30, Phalanx, 30mm's and the T26 will have CAAM, Phalanx and 30mm's. Should the threat warrant, Starstreak could be carried in addition and fired from triple launches welded to the decks and operated by artillery personnel, the weapon is effective against both air and surface targets (can penetrate 30mm of rolled steel) and it is impervious to all known countermeasures.

Not since the Falklands war have we witnessed saturation air attacks against Naval shipping and I believe the current missile/CIWS combination planned for the RN is enough. We will more likely witness NGS in support of strategic raiding or against failed coastal states over the next few years than an all out shooting war against a tier one enemy with modern fast-air and sea skimmers. And hopefully in addition to the missile/CIWS layer the RN will have F35B flying overhead to help mitigate any air threat.

The T45 can carry a fully equipped platoon of RM/SBS, and I'm sure they would be happy to know that in support of any raid they have a 155mm capable of providing the same concentrated level of fire as an AS90, delivering smoke, HE, top-attack anti-tank munitions and airburst etc.

The UK's philosophy is different from other nations, they still strongly believe that the main gun's role is there to provide support for the amphib group or as a cheap means of delivering a strong message (gunboat diplomacy) in the form of a warning shot or direct attack against land/sea based threats not requiring an expensive missile. If the UK was to disband the Commando Brigade and supporting ARG, then the large calibre main gun might disappear and be replaced by something that tries to tick all boxes - land/air/sea threat mitigation - light and fast firing. The RN still believes in the gun-line and for that reason they would like the 155 or something of a similar heavy calibre to continue that tradition of ship-to-shore bombardment.

It would be interesting to see program cost estimates for a 155mm conversion of the existing 115mm guns. Might really be cheaper but might very well also be more expensive. For sure BAE states that it is going to be a piece of cake as want to get the contract.

I accept that the AA capability can be dismissed as not an elemental capability.

Nevertheless there are other advantages a 127mm offers which have a huge impact on shore bombardement and anti-ship capabilities.

First one is range. What does one gets out of a 39calibre AS90 barrel with base bleed? A little bit more than 30km? The same should apply for Excalibur. Less for SMARt. Compared to the 70-100km of vulcano a AS90 system offers much less flexibility.

And while the 155mm carries alot of punch IMHO this can be countered by the high rate of fire. If one really needs to saturate an area with HE or attack a bigger force of vehicles one may very well just shoot some more rounds which will bring enough HE into the target zone. Nevertheless the two SMARt projectiles per 155mm round are nice when used against vehicles.

And the 127mm comes with an active seeker round which I expect to be much better against ship targets. At big ranges one needs active homing rounds to get a good chance of hitting another ship or a bunch of small ships. I doubt that SMARt is very effective at this as it is optimized against vehicles. A small bolt with no explosives in it may very well don't hurt a ship at all.

 

[Waylander]

I'm also a big fan of a combined gun/missile CIWS. I think the great thing about Phalanx is the bolt on nature. A combination of both would make an excellent CWIS for large ships and a primary system for support/small craft.

Just on the NCS, is a 10-12 rpm rate of fire such a disadvantage, I don't think the USN/RN ever regard these weapons as having any AA role? I have seen some talk of the 4.5" having an AA role in combination with Sea Dart, but the Falklands must have proved it's limted value compared to other systems. I always thought with the OTO 127mm you just paid a heavy weight penalty for emtying the magazine faster (however I think the new one is much lighter?)

It would still enable c300 rounds (almost 15t) in a 30 minute burst?

How much of the German Navy selection of the Italian 127mm a result of the need for German to meet counter trade obligations for the 212a deal (nothing wrong with that by the way)?

It may very well be the case that the 127mm for the German Navy are part of an offset deal for the U212A. Nevertheless several other navys also field it.

A 127mm/64 LW comes in at 22 tons. How much does a 4.5 inch weight?

 

[StevoJH]

Battle of Al Faw. 3 Frigates didnt spend a considerable amount of time within artillery range of potential shore batteries in poorly surveyed mined waters because somebody anted to live thier childhood fantasy of WW2.
It was a necessary capability to support the RMs in thier push ashore in providing crucial and accurate fire to both suppress and de-moralise the enemy.

I hate to do this, but it was four frigates, plus four artillery batteries.

And you clearly have not read anything relating to the falklands war where however many thousands of rounds were fired to destroy objectives, create diversions, support SF operations and see the liberation through to success.

If you dont count NGS as a valuable capability in todays warfare then you have your head very deep in the sand. I'd say it is perhaps the most likely capability to be required of any surface combatant, with the exception of MIO.

I honestly think he's cherry picking the parts of our posts that he feels fit in with his argument and ignoring the rest.