The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Fitting the T31e with a 'pea shooter' would mean introducing a new type & logistics chain into the RN, so any savings would be limited. If they're desperate to keep costs down, they could always carry on with 4.5" guns carried over, as long as there are spares & ammunition available.

The Venator 110 & Arrowhead 120 are as long as or a bit longer than an ANZAC, but between 20 & 30% broader beam, so can carry a fair bit more. I'm not sure why technology is referred to as if it has something to do with the size of a ship.

I’m pretty confident I won’t be the only one describing it as a ‘pea shooter’ if the modern RN decides to fit a 57mm gun to a 4000t ‘frigate’ as it’s sole platform based NGS and ASuW capability... The USN has copped a ton of flak for doing the same thing to LCS and are finally now moving away from such an idea... Not sure why the RN would be exempt from that.

As for cost a new system is obviously going to have a cost burden, but then so does maintaining old equipment, there is a sunk cost in the acquisition investment true, but then we hear so often about the cost of long term support for systems and I’m not entirely sure the old RN 4.5inch guns will stack up economically in the support cost stakes against a new medium calibre gun system, so we will see, given extreme low cost and domestic build / political shoring up, appear to be the principal drivers for the design of this new platform...

 

[StobieWan]

I suspect the gun will be the least of concerns but I'd hazard a guess and suggest there's already an order in for 127mm guns for the type 26 so that contract could be extended a bit for simplicity's sake.

I'm sure the export version will be offered with a choice but for the RN, let's have one main gun, get shot of the 4.5 inch asap (including from Type 45) and reap the benefits of a single supply chain.

 

[Systems Adict]

I suspect the gun will be the least of concerns but I'd hazard a guess and suggest there's already an order in for 127mm guns for the type 26 so that contract could be extended a bit for simplicity's sake.

I'm sure the export version will be offered with a choice but for the RN, let's have one main gun, get shot of the 4.5 inch asap (including from Type 45) and reap the benefits of a single supply chain.

I 'like' the thought of the whole fleet being tied to a single gun, as the maintenance / spares / training / logistics / operability would streamline. That would save some money over time.

However, switching to the 5 inch intended to be used on T26, would be restrictive. The rate of fire of this larger calibre gun is around 16-20 RPM (according to Wikipedia) & this reduces after the first full minute of fire & reduces again after the 2nd minute. There are similar issues with the 4.5 inch, which has a 25 RPM (according to Wikipedia) ROF.

The 76mm has a larger rate of fire (120 RPM for the SR Super Rapid, on Wikipedia), with the ability to continue firing at a high rate, but inevitably reducing by the end of the 2nd minute.

The 57mm (BAE Mk 110 (Mark 3)), has a larger rate of fire again (at 220 RPM)

EACH of the guns quoted above WOULD provide the RN with a capable facility, no matter the calibre. Each gun has it's own merits, as well as some drawbacks (SOME have MORE than others...).

The problem (as always) with UK Gov't PLC, is the funds (or lack of), in the coffers to pay for it all.


SA

 

[swerve]

I don't think size will be the issue, most of the proponents are in the 3500 a 4000 tonne range and 110 a 120 mtr length, the same as the modified Anzacs.
The level of equipment though is worrying, if some or most is transferred over from the T23 it will be a capable ship but the cost limitation makes a complete outfit difficult.
The RFI indicates a 76 mm gun and only point defence missiles with a speed limitation around 24 kts. ....

The RFI indicates a gun of up to 127 mm & a speed of at least 24 knots.

 

[ASSAIL]

The RFI indicates a gun of up to 127 mm & a speed of at least 24 knots.

The way I read annex F of the RFI is a gun equal to or no less than 57mm and the speed equal to or no less than 24 kts.
If they are looking for added capability to fit within the cost limitation it would be likely that the "equal to" gun and speeed would be used.
This would enable more and better aviation capability, more or better sensors, ESM etc
IMHO I don't think a medium calibre gun (127mm) is critical provided the Missile outfit is adequate but I do think that a speed of at least 28 kts is critical in order to perform escort duties for which they will inevitably be required despite statements to the contrary.

 

[ADMk2]

The RFI indicates a gun of up to 127 mm & a speed of at least 24 knots.

The RFI states bluntly >57mm...

 

[Tasman]

The RFI states bluntly <57mm...

Annex F states:

1 x Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm and interoperable munitions with Allies.

To me that reads as equal or greater than 57mm so there is a lot of confusion among us regarding what ≥ means...

I found it surprising that an RFI would not list the desired weapons, speed, range, sensors, etc until annex F (almost an afterthought at the end of the document!).

Tas

 

[StobieWan]

I 'like' the thought of the whole fleet being tied to a single gun, as the maintenance / spares / training / logistics / operability would streamline. That would save some money over time.

However, switching to the 5 inch intended to be used on T26, would be restrictive. The rate of fire of this larger calibre gun is around 16-20 RPM (according to Wikipedia) & this reduces after the first full minute of fire & reduces again after the 2nd minute. There are similar issues with the 4.5 inch, which has a 25 RPM (according to Wikipedia) ROF.

The 76mm has a larger rate of fire (120 RPM for the SR Super Rapid, on Wikipedia), with the ability to continue firing at a high rate, but inevitably reducing by the end of the 2nd minute.

The 57mm (BAE Mk 110 (Mark 3)), has a larger rate of fire again (at 220 RPM)

EACH of the guns quoted above WOULD provide the RN with a capable facility, no matter the calibre. Each gun has it's own merits, as well as some drawbacks (SOME have MORE than others...).

The problem (as always) with UK Gov't PLC, is the funds (or lack of), in the coffers to pay for it all.


SA

There's a lot to be said for using a smaller calibre, higher rate of fire weapon - the Italians and French both have done so for some of their escorts - I'm not saying 76 or 57mm are useless or whatever, just juggling with ways to cut down on fleet costs - I mean, potentially, at some point we'd end up with three calibres of main gun in service on a total fleet of 19 if the 31's got something else. That's going to be a bit of a nightmare to resupply.

I've already mentioned how adding 31 into the mix could complicate training and manning issues so I'm leaning more and more to a one size fits all approach where possible.

 

[John Fedup]

This link is a summary of current available naval guns along with the pros and cons of each.




https://www.google.ca/amp/s/defency...rtance-of-naval-guns-on-a-modern-warship/amp/

 

[swerve]

The RFI states bluntly <57mm...

No it does not. < means 'less than'. It states "1 x Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm and interoperable munitions with Allies" (cut & paste from the RFI), i.e. equal to or more than, not less than.

The offers all state that they can take larger guns, which suggests they think there's a point to designing in that capability, i.e. that they think it'll enhance their sales prospects. BMT states in the Venator 110 brochure that it can take a gun from 57 to 127 mm. Babcock says 'design provision up to 127 mm'.

The claims that the gun must be less than 57 mm, or 76 mm has been specified, have no basis in fact.

Range: ≥ 6,500 nm at economical speeds
Speed: ≥ 24 kts

And so on . . . These are minimum requirements, not ceilings.

 

[StobieWan]

This link is a summary of current available naval guns along with the pros and cons of each.




https://www.google.ca/amp/s/defency...rtance-of-naval-guns-on-a-modern-warship/amp/

well, realistically, that's 57 m Mk110, whatever 76mm the USN may choose for the Frigate flavoured version of LCS and the 127 mm - it'll be one of the three.The annex basically states it'd be of a calibre in service so no funny rounds that no-one else uses.


I am interested in the fact that at least two of the designs being put forward have large flex bays for mission equipment and all have Merlin sized hangers. That's a bit more encouraging and they'd be well placed for counter piracy, disaster relief etc. I think the mission bay end of things will be much more central to how these pan out in terms of utility - if we can send one of these off down to do anti drugs missions (they all seem to have good boat handling, UAV and stern ramps in mind) then that's a major combatant free for other duties.


Which I guess is the point.

 

[StingrayOZ]

well, realistically, that's 57 m Mk110, whatever 76mm the USN may choose for the Frigate flavoured version of LCS and the 127 mm - it'll be one of the three.The annex basically states it'd be of a calibre in service so no funny rounds that no-one else uses.

So no 4.5" then... Giggles.

I think on a ship like this the 76mm would be a fine fit, but going 127mm would also make a lot of sense with the Type 26. I think the 57mm would be a mistake, particularly if it already has a 30mm.

I think the mission bay end of things will be much more central to how these pan out in terms of utility - if we can send one of these off down to do anti drugs missions (they all seem to have good boat handling, UAV and stern ramps in mind) then that's a major combatant free for other duties.


Which I guess is the point.

My personal preference is that these can missions can be done by up gunned big OPV's. I think there is better value there. Frigates are better off being a little bit more of a independently capable ship.

Type 31 travelling alone in the Persian gulf or South China Seas or Horn of africa might be a bit dicey. It certainly won't be able to fill in as a carrier escort in a particularly meaningful way.

But that is not to say these ships won't be useful. But I would rather they came from patrol ship funding/replacements rather than frigate funding/replacements.

 

[StobieWan]

So no 4.5" then... Giggles.
.

the appendix states "by allies" not "by allies and us" - I'm assuming 4.5 is out.


These things can sit somewhere between the Rivers (crippled by a lack of a hangar) and the 26's - a bit noisier than 26 but also much larger than most OPC/OPV ships.

If they had Artisan plus CAMM they'd be pretty tough local targets - not so much in a full on WWIIII sit, but in the gulf vs some Mig23's etc, yeah, they'd work.

 

[pussertas]

Current Naval Guns

This link is a summary of current available naval guns along with the pros and cons of each.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/defency...rtance-of-naval-guns-on-a-modern-warship/amp/

Thank you for that John. Most interesting

Pussertas

:hul

 

[ASSAIL]

Annex F states:

1 x Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm and interoperable munitions with Allies.

To me that reads as equal or greater than 57mm so there is a lot of confusion among us regarding what ≥ means...

I found it surprising that an RFI would not list the desired weapons, speed, range, sensors, etc until annex F (almost an afterthought at the end of the document!).

Tas

I agree Tas, you've expressed the size the way I should have, its what I meant when I wrote it very badly.

 

[swerve]

well, realistically, that's 57 m Mk110, whatever 76mm the USN may choose for the Frigate flavoured version of LCS and the 127 mm - it'll be one of the three.The annex basically states it'd be of a calibre in service so no funny rounds that no-one else uses.


I am interested in the fact that at least two of the designs being put forward have large flex bays for mission equipment and all have Merlin sized hangers. That's a bit more encouraging and they'd be well placed for counter piracy, disaster relief etc. I think the mission bay end of things will be much more central to how these pan out in terms of utility - if we can send one of these off down to do anti drugs missions (they all seem to have good boat handling, UAV and stern ramps in mind) then that's a major combatant free for other duties.


Which I guess is the point.

Yes, I think it is.

In 76 mm, is there any real alternative to Oto Melara?

There is an argument that anything other than 127 mm will mean introducing a new logistics chain, which is likely to be decisive. To set against that, a smaller gun would be cheaper, lighter, have a much higher rate of fire & have a useful AA capability. The companies offering designs seem happy to accommodate whatever the RN chooses.

Well, we'll have to wait & see.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm more concerned about timings and delivery - the gun is going to be a useful tool but I'm worried about program issues - we've three major contenders, all of which potentially could make quite good contenders - I'm leaning towards Venator 110 right now but could be persuaded otherwise - it does look like a CODAD design with about 26-28 knots is possible which would be cheap to buy, and to run.

All of the contending designs (Spartan, Arrowhead and Venator) are all displayed with a 57mm gun, and a hangar, plus plenty of mission focus including launching and supporting boats and other remote effectors.

If they get Artisan, CAMM and maybe even the 'poon launchers from the decomm'd Type 23's (assuming Harpoon is retained) then they could plug into a surface action group and contribute, as well as operating in isolation or with other low end assets in international endeavours.

I'd sooner have had 13 Type 26 but if we ended up with a run on order of another two or three 31, probably coinciding with the disposal of some of the OPV fleet to provide manning - might not be a total disaster.

 

[spoz]

All of the contending designs (Spartan, Arrowhead and Venator) are all displayed with a 57mm gun, and a hangar, plus plenty of mission focus including launching and supporting boats and other remote effectors.

All of them seem to be displayed with 5"/62s as well; and certainly the blurb from each of the designers says they can take up to 127mm. Venator blurb says it will take Mk 41, and the Arrowhead stuff implies that. Since they are c 4000 tons, you would expect a fair bit of capacity. Given what an ANZAC can manage on 3600, or the Turkish Meko 400 on about 3000, of the same sort of tons that's not really a surprise.

 

[ADMk2]

No it does not. < means 'less than'. It states "1 x Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm and interoperable munitions with Allies" (cut & paste from the RFI), i.e. equal to or more than, not less than.

The offers all state that they can take larger guns, which suggests they think there's a point to designing in that capability, i.e. that they think it'll enhance their sales prospects. BMT states in the Venator 110 brochure that it can take a gun from 57 to 127 mm. Babcock says 'design provision up to 127 mm'.

The claims that the gun must be less than 57 mm, or 76 mm has been specified, have no basis in fact.

Range: ≥ 6,500 nm at economical speeds
Speed: ≥ 24 kts

And so on . . . These are minimum requirements, not ceilings.

Got my arrow the wrong way around. Point is it doesn’t say or indicate up to 127mm gun as you said initially, it says as you have since more accurately stated equal to or greater than 57mm.

Hence my earlier point that IF they put a 57mm gun onto a 4000t frigate, there will likely be more than just me that refers to such as a pea-shooter...

They didn’t put that particular calibre in by chance and nor do all the illustrations of possible vessels fitted with a Mk110 / Mk3 57mm gun happen by chance. It is obviously under serious consideration as a possibility.

 

[swerve]

Consideration as a possibility, yes - but it's not (at least publicly) been specified as the chosen gun, any more than 76 mm, & nor has the top speed been specified as 24 knots.

I have no more knowledge than you, or anyone else, about exactly what we'll get, but I'm not going to assume that it's what the RFI says is the minimum requirement, across the board.

The drawing published by the MoD specifies under 'Adaptable' (i.e.what the ship should be capable of taking) 'Medium range gun >76mm capable of Naval Gunfire Support'. Given the available naval guns, I think it's safe to assume that '>76mm' means 127mm. 'Adaptable' is additional to the 'Core' required for the RN, but the ship must be capable of taking it.