kev 99
Member
2008 (Russian vs Georgia, which is probably a great more recent than most poeple would think.
But probably quite a big gap between 2008 and the previous instance.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
But probably quite a big gap between 2008 and the previous instance.
Do you have any 'documentary evidence' of this, like a link to a website / newspaper ??
A friend of mine was amongst a group that was invited on board Daring 2 weeks ago when she was in Malaysia. He was told the same thing by an RN officer; that Harpoons would be fitted when she got home.
Here's a video on Daring's visit -
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccklcYJb7EM&list=UUZFMKMrvA9nyYl1k6U23z-w&feature=c4-overview"]HMS Daring at Port Klang - YouTube[/nomedia]
And of the 1st Sea Lord's recent visit to the Royal Malaysian Navy base which included a visit to PASKALs [the special operations unit] HQ -
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZP3DaoTuI"]RN First Sea Lord Visit to Lumut Naval Base - YouTube[/nomedia]
Here's a video on Daring's visit -
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccklcYJb7EM&list=UUZFMKMrvA9nyYl1k6U23z-w&feature=c4-overview"]HMS Daring at Port Klang - YouTube[/nomedia]
And of the 1st Sea Lord's recent visit to the Royal Malaysian Navy base which included a visit to PASKALs [the special operations unit] HQ -
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkZP3DaoTuI"]RN First Sea Lord Visit to Lumut Naval Base - YouTube[/nomedia]
See STURM's reply. From similar sources who visited the ship.
the concerned
Active Member
When the type 26's get 127mm guns will the type 45's be fitted out with the same gun. Maybe they could start fitting them now everytime one goes in for a overhaul.
Ultimately they will, most probably when we start accepting Type 26's into service they'll be getting them mid/early 2020's, by then HMS Daring will be ~15 years old and go in for a major MLU. Ordering them alongside the orders for Type 26 guns has financial benefits too rather than before.
There's always going to be an overlap in gun types when you change to a new type, doubt we'll be seeing it for a while however,
There's always going to be an overlap in gun types when you change to a new type, doubt we'll be seeing it for a while however,
Is the 127mm gun even confirmed for the Type 26 yet? I mean it'll definitely show up on export versions, no question - but has the RN stated a preference to move away from the 114mm? I know it makes sense considering the increasing number of modern ammunition types in 127mm, but then making sense and military procurement don't always go hand in hand (and I'm not singling out the RN specifically here, my country's procurement does its fair share of head-shaking moves too)...
I can't get a definite confirmation any place I looked, but as far as I understand it, it's a choice of either the Oto Melaro mount or the BAE - I don't think there are any plans to retain the 114mm gun as they're no longer in production and every one of them would have to be refurbed from the Type 23, plus there's no development of ammunition for them.
I'd love to be able to point to a definitive announcement however - they all say "a medium calibre gun"
I'd love to be able to point to a definitive announcement however - they all say "a medium calibre gun"
Certainly, there is no confirmation from the main parties, but although the 114mm gun was there as an option, it was never seriosly considered.
Most thoughts were for the 127mm versions from the aforementioned manufacturers, with the 155mm considered as an outside bet (but given cost constraints it had little chance of being implemented).
The smaller and larger guns were mostly there to compare against in the design process.
Most thoughts were for the 127mm versions from the aforementioned manufacturers, with the 155mm considered as an outside bet (but given cost constraints it had little chance of being implemented).
The smaller and larger guns were mostly there to compare against in the design process.
I wonder if any thought has been given to investigating the possibility of implementing the Advanced Gun System from the Zumwalts onto other hull types such as the Type 26 - I'm not sure how practical it would be given the AGS is designed specifically for the Zumwalts, but it doesn't sound impossible to me. I do wonder whether you'd be able to get optimal use of the AGS with a single gun and likely a substantially smaller magazine to go with it.
All conjecture anyway,,,
All conjecture anyway,,,
I'm too lazy to check the power requirement for the AGS but IIRC its huge. Can the power be generated in a 6,000tonne hull? I suspect it may be a problem.
I see, do you know why the power requirements are so high? Cooling or ammunition hoisting or something? I don't really know enough to understand why the power requirements for a naval gun would be particularly high, but would love to become more familiar with the topic.
I mention cooling just because if I recall correctly the AGS is supposed to be capable of firing ten shells per minute, with the ammunition potentially being composed of rocket-assisted projectiles. I assume that'd get the gun mighty hot... I might be totally off-base though. Again, just thinking out loud
My brain fade, was confusing AGS with Rail GunI see, do you know why the power requirements are so high? Cooling or ammunition hoisting or something? I don't really know enough to understand why the power requirements for a naval gun would be particularly high, but would love to become more familiar with the topic.
I mention cooling just because if I recall correctly the AGS is supposed to be capable of firing ten shells per minute, with the ammunition potentially being composed of rocket-assisted projectiles. I assume that'd get the gun mighty hot... I might be totally off-base though. Again, just thinking out loud
Cheers
Ahh gotcha, yeah not seeing much of a chance of emplyoing a rail gun with a stock standard frigate's power output, cheers anyway though
Does anyone else know if other designs besides the Zumwalt are being considered as potential AGS platforms?
kev 99
Member
The AGS weighs over 100 tons* while the Otobreda 127/64 LW comes in at 30, I doubt any consideration will have got much further than that, and if it did system cost will almost certainly have finished it off**.
I strongly suspect that the size and weight of the AGS system would require a ship to be designed with it in mind right from the start.
*Yes there is a proposal for a 50 ton lightweight AGS from BAE but I can't see the RN having the funds to pay for development.
** Anyone know what the cost of the AGS is? I would expect it to be substantially more than the OTO 127/64.
At one point we tried getting a 155mm 39 cal gun from an AS90 into the mounting of the guns we've got now, weight difference being ~2t and something like 12rpm. But the AS90 as is isn't a great system, we bailed on replacing the 39 cal gun for a 52 cal gun so suffers with range compared to contemporary SPG systems.
If we did the number crunching I suspect that for a given time, the 127/64 would put a greater weight of shells down at a longer range than the 155mm proposal.
AFAIK DDG-1000 is the sole target for the AGS, now effectively becoming a test bed for future technologies. I can't imagine the scale of chopping necessary to mount AGS into existing designs.
If we did the number crunching I suspect that for a given time, the 127/64 would put a greater weight of shells down at a longer range than the 155mm proposal.
AFAIK DDG-1000 is the sole target for the AGS, now effectively becoming a test bed for future technologies. I can't imagine the scale of chopping necessary to mount AGS into existing designs.
You'd be wanting AGS-lite then:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14034weyer.pdf
Proposed for Flight III Burkes - similar in size 51 ton mount.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14034weyer.pdf
Proposed for Flight III Burkes - similar in size 51 ton mount.
I'm not going to comment on the standard AGS being able to fit, especially in existing platforms because of a couple of reasons
Based on that, I really don't think it is a good idea to add the system onto existing designs. Not to mention that because the DDG-1000 has been cut to 3 ships, the AGS will remain the oddity in NGFS compared to the 5in rather than vice versa.
IIRC BAE offered up an AGS-L which had a weight of 50t specifically for ships like the AB, however the limitations were things like drastically reduced ammunition storage and rate of fire.
The US even through out reviews of backfitting the system (standard AGS) to DD-988 (USS Thorn - Spruance class) with AGS in a number of locations. The forward mounting being the worst scenario
To get the appropriate space and mass requirements, they had to rip out the 5in gun and all related machinery as well as deleting the entire 61 strong VLS up front to provide a total magazine capacity of 320 rounds (compared to 600+ for DDG-1000 and about 700+ i think for current 5in on DDG-51's)
I get that an AB is slightly wider and deeper than a Spruance, but i'd imagine that a significant proportion of the fore missile silo would need to be removed (if not all) to make those same margins.
All in all, I wouldn't be a fan.
Just realised this is a RN thread . . . oops
EDIT: AGS backfit report, http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...d=9E56F762FA104CBD92568F3C08DEEEE6?sequence=2
- Space margins in the hull, I have zero knowledge of the rough layout below deck and if there is any room for expansion
- System itself, the gun, the ammunition handling system, the magazine and their details
- Mass - the standard AGS comes in at 100t compared to the current 5in gun which when empty (with the gun AND ammunition hoist) comes in at almost 1/'4 of that (~26t). Presumably the decks would require some kind of strengthening to deal with that extra mass.
- Volume - NFI how big the system below decks is, so NFI if the current space is compatible and what it would limit (well, No of rounds for a start, big reductions in an AB)
- Power and cooling requirements have probably gone up with the AGS.
- Actually installing the system would rip a significant proportion of the front end of the ship out, it wouldn't be cheap or easy to do.
Based on that, I really don't think it is a good idea to add the system onto existing designs. Not to mention that because the DDG-1000 has been cut to 3 ships, the AGS will remain the oddity in NGFS compared to the 5in rather than vice versa.
IIRC BAE offered up an AGS-L which had a weight of 50t specifically for ships like the AB, however the limitations were things like drastically reduced ammunition storage and rate of fire.
The US even through out reviews of backfitting the system (standard AGS) to DD-988 (USS Thorn - Spruance class) with AGS in a number of locations. The forward mounting being the worst scenario
To get the appropriate space and mass requirements, they had to rip out the 5in gun and all related machinery as well as deleting the entire 61 strong VLS up front to provide a total magazine capacity of 320 rounds (compared to 600+ for DDG-1000 and about 700+ i think for current 5in on DDG-51's)
I get that an AB is slightly wider and deeper than a Spruance, but i'd imagine that a significant proportion of the fore missile silo would need to be removed (if not all) to make those same margins.
All in all, I wouldn't be a fan.
Just realised this is a RN thread . . . oops
EDIT: AGS backfit report, http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...d=9E56F762FA104CBD92568F3C08DEEEE6?sequence=2