Interesting & obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities)

[magicbandit7]

Back in 2004, BAE Systems proposed the the Royal Navy a modified 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval gun by replacing the gun with the 155mm/39 caliber gun of the AS-90 SPH. It would have the same footprint as the 4.5 inch gun and would take advantage of standard NATO 155mm ammunition and although its rate of fire would be reduced, it made up for it with range and firepower. Also there were plans to extend the barrel to 52 calibers. It was meant to go onto the Type 45s. Makes me wonder if we could do the same by replacing the 5 inch gun on the Mk 45 with the gun from the K9 Thunder.

155 mm (6.1") Future Naval Gun

Also I believe that the Germans had a similar program as well with their Pzh-2000 SPH but went with the Oto Breda 127/64

 

[Unric]

Kind of ironic that after a short space of time a ww2 County class cruiser could be more powerful than any modern ships. Makes you wonder if they would reconsider commissioning the Vampire!
The 155mm always seemed to make a huge amount of sense to me for a naval system but it seems the mk 45 has cornered the market.

 

[Hazdog]

The Americans tried the 8inch gun experiment in 1975 on the USS Hull DD945 a Forest Sherman class destroyer. They removed A and B turret and replaced it with an experimental 8-inch gun. She conducted several trials and did two deployments with the Pacific Fleet. The project was cancelled in 1979 deemed not viable and the gun removed and the two 5-inch turrets returned to the A and B position. These remained until 1983 when she was decommissioned and she was sunk as a target in 1998.

USS Hull (DD 945)

Although I am not certain that there existed 2 forward turrets at any point; the 8' gun did have a few issues, but, it is likely with modern applications and developments, the gun would be well suited to the role outlined above.

I believe that one of the main issues with the 8' gun for the USN, was that during testing and evaluation, long-range rocket-assisted projectiles were being analyzed for the 5' gun that negated the range advantage of the 8' gun, thus eliminating the gains of the new 8' system. (Many of the other issues of the 8' gun stemmed from the 'bad' choice of the testbed ship, as the 'Hull' was unsuited to the physical size of the gun).

- The sad part of this story is that the long-range projectiles never fully materialized to be deployed, leaving the capability undeveloped.

 

[Bob53]

Given this situation, should we be designing a second type of warship, based on larger calibre guns, similar to ww2 battlecruisers/ships again? Should there be development of , say, 8 inch guns, throwing 100kg+ shells again?

So in the beginning, we'd send guided missile ships first. Then weeks and months later, with no more missiles, the guided missile ships would take a back seat and the battleships come forward, with stockpiled guided shells. The warhead of an 8 inch (ww2 era at least) is around the same as a nsm ( do I need to reference this?)

Such a design might have fore and aft to Melara 76mm guns using strales system for anti missile defence, and then 1-2 X 8 inch guns, twin helicopter hangers rear ( anti sub ).

Is this the sort of thing naval warfare noggings should be considering?

Week and months later the guided missile would take a back seat! In an all out it war there would be no ships left. I’m not sure how anyone thinks any ship could survive an all out assault by ASMs? A first round salvo of 4-10 missiles would probably completely deplete any defence. Assuming every incoming is killed...what happens when the next salvo is headed your way?

In the event of this happening it’s probably going to come down who has the most missile tubes (if they are full) and the longest range ASMs weapons wins and even then it’s highly likely that the winner will get a seriously bloodied nose.

 

[MickB]

Given this situation, should we be designing a second type of warship, based on larger calibre guns, similar to ww2 battlecruisers/ships again? Should there be development of , say, 8 inch guns, throwing 100kg+ shells again?

So in the beginning, we'd send guided missile ships first. Then weeks and months later, with no more missiles, the guided missile ships would take a back seat and the battleships come forward, with stockpiled guided shells. The warhead of an 8 inch (ww2 era at least) is around the same as a nsm ( do I need to reference this?)

Such a design might have fore and aft to Melara 76mm guns using strales system for anti missile defence, and then 1-2 X 8 inch guns, twin helicopter hangers rear ( anti sub ).

Is this the sort of thing naval warfare noggings should be considering?

Given the development of HVP perhaps a gun armed ship has a place in a modern fleet.
I envisage a 3000/4000 ton vessel with fore and aft 5 in, CWIS, MSM launchers and a heli pad for drone operations.
Add a high level of automation to keep crew levels low.
Such a vessel could assist the Hobarts in air defence, opertate in the littorals against swarm attacks and provide NGS.
And (as per the current discussion) still be operational when missile stocks are depleted with easier to produce ammunition.
Ammunition stocks to be extended by use of standard dumb rounds as much as possible.

 

[ASSAIL]

The entire discussion around large caliber guns on modern warships defies reality IMHO.
Guns fitted on modern ships provide multi purpose options for the command team, they contribute (not very well but some) to AAW, they are useful in surface engagements and their primary use is for NGS although, without long range options, that is increasingly risky in a contested environment.

The weight and space requirements for large caliber guns totally compromises all other uses for the ship, they can only be used for shore bombardment and that can be accomplished just as effectively with a medium caliber 5”.

Finally I suspect that any gain to be had by having a large caliber gun for shore bombardment can be easily matched and surpassed by CAS.

 

[Redlands18]

Week and months later the guided missile would take a back seat! In an all out it war there would be no ships left. I’m not sure how anyone thinks any ship could survive an all out assault by ASMs? A first round salvo of 4-10 missiles would probably completely deplete any defence. Assuming every incoming is killed...what happens when the next salvo is headed your way?

In the event of this happening it’s probably going to come down who has the most missile tubes (if they are full) and the longest range ASMs weapons wins and even then it’s highly likely that the winner will get a seriously bloodied nose.

But you have to be able to launch those Salvos and that will not be easy, because your enemies first priority will be to kill the launch and ISR Platforms, Bases, supply dumps, Comms etc , that is the greatest weakness of any weapon system, the launch Platform. Doesn’t matter how good your ASMs are, they are useless if the Aircraft is a smoking hole in the ground or a ship sitting on the ocean floor, or you can’t feed it the information it needs due to your ISR Platforms being out of commission or your Comms have been taken out, supply lines have been severed or your Air Base has been destroyed while your on that first sortie.
Missile effectiveness is subject to failure in so many ways and the only way to assure effectiveness is to have command of the Battle space. There are no absolutes in warfare, everything is subject to so many factors including blind dumb luck

 

[76mmGuns]

I don't mean directly replacing a 5 inch gun with an 8 inch gun. I mean a totally new design revolving around gunned ships. The shells could sink ships given their angle of attack and hit land targets with a much bigger range and warhead.

If you didn't want to experiment with larger guns, you could use the Italian's 5 inch gun with Vulcano shells. 100km range in reality?

 

[spoz]

This discussion is fast approaching fantasy, as Assail has suggested, and with not even a tenuous connection to anything to do with the real RAN. I feel that if prolonged it will attract a mod in an unfortunate way.

We’re all guilty of not doing this from time to time but please read earlier posts before rushing into print; the OPV block move was discussed nearlly two months ago, and the video posted sometime ago.

Things on the Arafura front have moved on considerably, with quite a bit of the superstructure erected.

 

[alexsa]

Good day folks

We need to stay on topic and I suggest the discussion on 8" guns on warships on Australian warships is a fantasy subject. There is enough going on with the OPV construction, progress on the Hunter Class and the new submarine to have a robust discussion on what is really going on and what is really achievable. There is no modern 8" naval gun in development or even under consideration so this is not reality.

Suggest this gets dropped

Alexsa

 

[76mmGuns]

Sure thing. Just wondering if an artillery ship was worth considering. I found Takao's comment to be quite eye opening.

In any case, the RAN future is exciting enough as it is

 

[Wombat000]

The answer, if there is one, to the issue of longer term attrition of premium spec missile stocks (that would leave the VLS empty) is perhaps not naval gunfire but a cheap missile, so as to keep the VLS actually useful.

Obviously it’s a no-frills cheap option, but seriously how hard would it be to make something that fits & fires, and travels on a preset direction and detonates on a simple fuse? If nothing else it fills an aimed area with a field of shrapnel.
Nothing fancy, just a cheap flying Claymore when you can’t get silver bullets so easily anymore.
And it is a fallback alternative that doesn’t otherwise exist.

Ship sensors are already there, the missile would be a cheap, easy to build, blunt defence option.
Might be what we rely on after a few months of the spinning fan.

 

[t68]

The answer, if there is one, to the issue of longer term attrition of premium spec missile stocks (that would leave the VLS empty) is perhaps not naval gunfire but a cheap missile, so as to keep the VLS actually useful.

Obviously it’s a no-frills cheap option, but seriously how hard would it be to make something that fits & fires, and travels on a preset direction and detonates on a simple fuse? If nothing else it fills an aimed area with a field of shrapnel.
Nothing fancy, just a cheap flying Claymore when you can’t get silver bullets so easily anymore.
And it is a fallback alternative that doesn’t otherwise exist.

Ship sensors are already there, the missile would be a cheap, easy to build, blunt defence option.
Might be what we rely on after a few months of the spinning fan.

Gee when I read it the images of a naval barge barrage fire comes to mind like the LSM(R) but those are all about land attack I suppose the concept could be utilised against other naval targets

I don’t think you are really going to get anything that cheap, when you consider you are against a mobile target, one also has to consider how you are going to reload at sea or the magazine storage capacity.

The only real way around it the RAN has a Arsenal type ship with only a small number of ship that are available something like the SK Sejong the Great-class destroyers, to get the maximum number of VLS tubes

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think we will go back to a battleship era long term. I'm not sure larger naval guns are the answer.
Missiles aren't that hard. Even non-state actors can make them. There will however likely be period after initial large scale engagements when stocks are low. 5" is fine, I don't think we will see any significant change on that front.

• NK whole missile program really grew out of scud type missiles. NK has proliferated this technology and that could certainly be used in the naval space. Many of these developments grew under strict embargo. You would be surprised how low tech these are.
• Hamas has missiles that basically evolved out of model toy rockets. But they have scaled up to more damaging weapons. This has proliferated to other non-state actors.

Building a missile to hit a ship isn't that hard, particularly if you think the opposition will be out of any decent counter systems. Building an agile interceptor like ESSM or SM-2 is much harder. Arguably the bigger problem we will have is the proliferation of larger scud type missiles to actors that previously weren't seen as long range threats.

In any high intensity conflict subs, IMO will rule the roost. There are more than just surface ships and jet fighters. Even a single sub with a single torpedo is formidable. Subs have significant range and endurance. The problem with subs your never really sure how many are operational and how many weapons they have. Each weapon is more likely to go into a high value target.

 

[Wombat000]

Not necessarily against a surface target, but a longer range area defence weapon, FLAK.
Direct it to a section of sky to create a field of shrapnel.

In absolute simplistic form, a tube, a motor, an electric trigger, a direction & a fuse.
Im no rocket scientist but it must be close to basic 101 construction level, if we cant even do that we should give up.

 

[vonnoobie]

I think the best thing we can do is work towards extending the lifespan of our stocks. The US army has done so in the last few years and near enough tripled the life span of them. How much overlap such would have with naval missiles I can't say but any increase in life could potentially allow us to stockpile missiles to cover a 15 year period rather then a 10 year period (nothing official in those years just an example). If in worst case we need to build munitions in Australia rather then trying to build missiles rather just build the Boeing LW into a Kamikaze version. We ideally will have the tooling and personal in place to ramp such production up rather then starting from scratch.

 

[ngatimozart]

A MODERATOR HAS ALREADY COUNSELLED STAYING AWAY FROM FANTASY IDEAS, YET SOME POSTERS PERSIST. DO THE MODERATORS HAVE TO GET ALL CRANKY AGAIN FOR SUCH POSTS TO STOP?

 

[Wombat000]

I respectfully ask that Mods reconsider the judgement of “fantasy” re this discussion.
I suggest it’s a very valid discussion point.
i accept the commented notion of reconstituting a ‘gunned cruiser‘ draws a long bow, but

6mths ago strained supply chains would’ve been considered “fantasy”.
6mths ago Australia manufacturing Spike missile would’ve been considered “fantasy”.

The question of supply in protracted scenarios, whilst not guccI, is directly relevant to RAN fighting units and maintaining their magazines. They will still have a beautiful Aegis system. Will they be the best informed target, because they have nothing, not even a cheap 2nd tier response, because it was considered a “fantasy”?

What is so outlandish about a cheap point-and-shoot airburst missile round?

I suggest there is genuine merit in exploring this issue, because it’s relevant & its doable by industry.

 

[vonnoobie]

I respectfully ask that Mods reconsider the judgement of “fantasy” re this discussion.
I suggest it’s a very valid discussion point.
i accept the commented notion of reconstituting a ‘gunned cruiser‘ draws a long bow, but

6mths ago strained supply chains would’ve been considered “fantasy”.
6mths ago Australia manufacturing Spike missile would’ve been considered “fantasy”.

The question of supply in protracted scenarios, whilst not guccI, is directly relevant to RAN fighting units and maintaining their magazines. They will still have a beautiful Aegis system. Will they be the best informed target, because they have nothing, not even a cheap 2nd tier response, because it was considered a “fantasy”?

What is so outlandish about a cheap point-and-shoot airburst missile round?

I suggest there is genuine merit in exploring this issue, because it’s relevant & its doable by industry.

Sorry but it is fantasy. For a gunnery ship to be fielded we would need them before conflict broke out which means ignoring our entire plan around the DWP and shipbuilding. An extremely costly and risky proposition.

In all reality the only way we will ever acquire a larger gun is if it is a joint program among several navies to give the scale needed to make it sustainable and even then they won't exceed a 155mm.

In regards to the 8" it simply is no good. A 5" can do just as much damage to a modern ship that is far less armoured then an 8" in WW2. at the same time the rate of fire means that a 6" can fire off far more in destructive power in a minute then the 8" with a 5" firing off even more. Speaking to some WW2 historians and history buffs in another forum a few years back they said that the RAN would have been better off as an all 6" cruiser fleet as the trade off for the 8" wasn't worth it.

To summarise an 8" won't happen. A 155mm won't happen unless other nations sign up too in scale and we need to stop thinking of WW2 weapons for the modern battlefield.

 

[Wombat000]

There is a fixation with gunnery.
im NOT referring to gunnery.
its NOT abt guns, it’s about CHEAP point-and-shoot missiles.

a 2nd tier option that fleshes out the VLS in protracted scenarios, when optimal rounds are scarce.
home built.