It’s the Poms own fault the tanker was tanker, if they hadn’t taken the Iranian tanker off Gibraltar the Iranians wouldn’t have taken the British tanker. It goes both ways.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I don't know if this has been posted earlier (had a quick look and couldn't see it) but this looks like a very useful addition to 30mm turrets:
The U.K.'s Pint-Sized Martlet Missile Will Guard Royal Navy Ships And Much More
The LMM was, I think, originally only intended for mounting on Wildcat in RN service. I imagine it won't be long (in military purchasing terms) before we start seeing this combination fitted to RN ships deployed to the Gulf.
WillS
The U.K.'s Pint-Sized Martlet Missile Will Guard Royal Navy Ships And Much More
The LMM was, I think, originally only intended for mounting on Wildcat in RN service. I imagine it won't be long (in military purchasing terms) before we start seeing this combination fitted to RN ships deployed to the Gulf.
WillS
USNI article on the RN, how's been pushed to its limits and how the pommy pollies cannot afford to make any mistakes handling their current crisis with Iran. The article states that the RN has been shrunk by 75% of what it was during the 1982 Falklands conflict.
Iran Tanker Seizures Pushing U.K. Royal Navy to its Limits as New PM Takes Charge - USNI News
Iran Tanker Seizures Pushing U.K. Royal Navy to its Limits as New PM Takes Charge - USNI News
It looks like a really neat idea - fits right on the standard 30mm mount and puts 7 rounds of guided goodness at the operators finger tips, allowing engagements of light targets out to well beyond the 30mm round could reach to - either terminating the engagement at range or greatly expanding the range at which a target would be brought under fire.
Gets a thumbs up from me
Always strikes me as a good use of space incorporating light weight missiles on small / medium cannon mounts.It looks like a really neat idea - fits right on the standard 30mm mount and puts 7 rounds of guided goodness at the operators finger tips, allowing engagements of light targets out to well beyond the 30mm round could reach to - either terminating the engagement at range or greatly expanding the range at which a target would be brought under fire.
Gets a thumbs up from me
Gives flexible options of defence and gives an adversary less choices.
Missile choice can cover both anti Air and Surface requirements depending on the mission.
I would certainly like the RAN to explore this realm should we persevere with our 25mm Naval Bushmasters.
Regards S
The critical thing apart from the backblast which looks minimal (although of course in the Hobart class the guns are mounted on the bridge wings and personnel are likely to be in the area) would be the effect on the speed of training, and potential transverse loading, on the mount. The RN must have looked at that and decided the results are acceptable for their situation; I’m not sure how it would affect the Typhoon mount.
I was glad to see someone else has made a more practical small missile sea weapon. The LCS Hellfire VLS module looks good for taking out multiple small targets quickly, but is complex (the VLS module) and takes up space.
The Martlet /30mm gun system looks far more practical, while providing the same 5 mile firepower. Looks like every navy in the world could mount a Martlet launcher.
One thing- Stobie mentioned there were 7 missiles. When I look at The Drive's pictures, it looks like there's only 5. Did I miss a couple somewhere?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I believe the AW159 mounting holds seven missiles, while the 30 mm gun mounting tested by the RN held five. Interestingly, Jane's had reported that a Turkish company had developed a naval mounting suitable for use aboard FAC, though I have not been able to access the article which reported this to get more info.
Me being me, I would like to see if the Millennium Gun mounting could also be fitted with some of these, though I readily admit this is more due to my dislike of the Bushmaster family of guns being used aboard ships.
Agree with the Bushmaster comment.
My understanding is they are a relatively cheap system giving good accurate fire out to one, to two Km's at best, depending on the calibre of the cannon.
Generally a surface weapon only and not with a high rate of fire. Again a great budget weapon system if all you want to achieve is the above.
I'd suggest the Royal Navy like other Blue water fleets would be better much better served in having a weapon that did the above and was also a true CIWS for high intensity threats.
I'd suggest having a slow rate of fire bushmaster type system are a dated concept in this day and age for major fleet units. A pair of true CIWS capable of handling the full range of threats out a few of to few KM's from the ship with 360 degree cover is the way forward.
A true CIWS will both weight and cost more than your Bushmaster, but what would you prefer if on board a ship in harms way?
My earlier suggestion that the RAN try to utilise a missile system on their own Bushmaster systems was only to do with the practicality that the system is already in service. Hopefully they will be replaced in the near future.
For your small constabulary type vessels a bushmaster is fine and that's money well spent.
Destroyers / Frigates / Large fleet ships such as Aircraft carriers / Amphibs and Supply ships all need something better than a pop gun.
There should be no compromise.
As to which CIWS, well have the debate, but certainly not a Bushmaster.
Regards S
A full Carrier Air Group. And a ful screen of escorts. But that might be excessive when chasing pirates, drug runners and illegal fishing vessels
In your small and medium sized navies, Destroyers, Frigates and even supply ships and other auxiliaries are used for constabulary duties 99% of the time. Major conflicts are just not that common. I suggest that there is a very good reason for them to carry a pop gun rather than the full nuclear winter, or at least as an option.
oldsig
This is only tangentially related to the RN but this article about the state of USN mine countermeasures vessels in the Persian Gulf is shocking if accurate.
Iran Has Hundreds of Naval Mines. U.S. Navy Minesweepers Find Old Dishwashers and Car Parts. — ProPublica
The USN has four MCM vessels in the Gulf, the RN has 4 MCM vessels in the Gulf. Let's hope the RN ones are in better condition. I suspect they are and the article may indicate that a continued focus on so-called high-end warfighting capabilities (ones that the general media and voters will understand and appreciate) can often lead to neglect of less glamorous but vital capabilities such as MCM or fleet support/replenishment. How the French Navy, with which the RN is often compared, can get away with a grand total of 3 replenishment ships for instance, has always amazed me (and not in a good way).
WillS.
Iran Has Hundreds of Naval Mines. U.S. Navy Minesweepers Find Old Dishwashers and Car Parts. — ProPublica
The USN has four MCM vessels in the Gulf, the RN has 4 MCM vessels in the Gulf. Let's hope the RN ones are in better condition. I suspect they are and the article may indicate that a continued focus on so-called high-end warfighting capabilities (ones that the general media and voters will understand and appreciate) can often lead to neglect of less glamorous but vital capabilities such as MCM or fleet support/replenishment. How the French Navy, with which the RN is often compared, can get away with a grand total of 3 replenishment ships for instance, has always amazed me (and not in a good way).
WillS.
Found this 7 missile launcher while perusing 'google'
MSI Seahawk SIGMA - Think Defence
I have a feeling that as the 30mm being used was acting as a test-bed & the fact that Thales already have the x5 barrel launcher fitted to wildcat, that looks like it's been partially re-engineered to fit the mount, it was easier to do that than build something from scratch when they already have the tech.
Arrrh yes OldSig, some Pirates are so big and nasty a fully Carrier group may not be enough!
Out of curiosity what would you prefer in reference to the RAN's Hobart Class.
The existing weapons fit, or the swapping out the Two Bushmasters for an additional Phalanx CIWS.for a total of two.
May ships of this size across the worlds navy's
Thoughts
Regards S
Yeah, shame on us for enforcing an international embargo..
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had taken the 'pop gun' comment as more directed against vessels being kitted out with a small calibre gun with (just) the capabilities of a Bushmaster. By way of comparison, the RN's MSI DS30M Mk 2 mounting with a 30 mm Bushmaster II gun has a max ROF of ~200 rpm, while the MSI DS30B mounting with a 30 mm Oerlikon KCB gun, like can be found on RAN Huon-class MHC's, has a max ROF of ~650 rpm.
Of course the actual number of shots which could be fired in a minute would be lower, due to the limited amount of ammunition immediately available on the gun mount, but a higher ROF would permit rapid bursts which would IMO be more likely to be effective vs. aerial targets/threats, especially if some of the specialty rounds like AHEAD were used. By sticking with just the Bushmaster though, a vessel so kitted will have a gun that is only effective vs. smallcraft, as opposed to having potential dual-use in a CIWS/air defence role as well as against smallcraft.
My understanding is that the bustmaster series were at best having a conservative rate of fire up to 200 RPM. For most constabulary stuff this would be fine.
As to aerial engagement, I guess the question is what are you firing at? Using the larger 30 mm round with some of the new "Smart " AHEAD technology they would certainly have a much improved capability compared to older generations of systems: but is this enough?
It's one thing to provide some inner layer of defence against a SLOW low flying small drones / UAV's ,helicopter's or aircraft. Another thing to defend against fast moving incoming ASM's.
Would the DS30B with a 30 mm gun be up for the challenge with its higher rate of fire mated to an effective fire control ..........I'm not sure.( But open to be corrected )
I'd suggest the way forward for gun based CIWS, will be finding the correct balance between rate of fire and the use of smart and larger ammunition.
SMART v VOLUME
I think this does not favour your 20 mm phalanx type systems for the range of threats emerging
Will this mean the 30 mm round still has a place, I'm not sure. I think smart rounds may lend themselves to a slightly larger calibre with the associated beneficent of increased range and weight of shot.
In this case the millennium gum comes to mind. Good rate of fire with a large 35 mm calibre of smart ammunition.
Maybe the the 40 mm round has yet again reinvented it's self. Good range and weight of shot with the trade off, of a slower rate of fire
This round may be the way forward with ships limited space competing for the correct range of weapons but still required to fulfil the full range of operational requirements from the low end to the high end.
After all destroyers are not OPV's,even though they may be employed in such constabulary tasks for much of the time for reasons of expediency.
They need a gun for all occasions.
Regards S.
No, they need a complete armament package suitable for all occasions. That does not mean that every weapon has to be usable in every situation. To take it to a ridiculous level they are all armed with shotguns for boarding ops but nobody expects them to be used for ASW. The logic behind selection of VSRSD and VSRAD weapons is the same; use the best weapon for the task.You might get a secondary capability in the other domain, but don’t compromise on each’s speciality.
I have taken part in sea trials / watched a standard DS 30M take out a 550 / 600 Kt towed target at 3k, some 20 years ago. All because it was hooked up to the right TV/IR camera / Command system. Target locked at 6km, open fire at 3Km, with the detector for fall of shot being taken out by the 3rd round, the 1st went straight thru the nose cone, 2nd thru mid body. Most larger missiles that are fired from over the horizon (like Tomahawk), are sub-sonic & so the towed target is a 'representative' equivalent.
The fact that the DS SEAHAWK range has the ability to accept from 20mm thru to & including a 40mm barrel, has no thru-deck impact to most hulls (other than possibly needing a little bit of enhanced under-deck structure, which is generally added as the ship is constructed), means that they are an ideal weapon. Current arrangements on many smaller hull types mean that there is a great opportunity for the nations using them to up-rate them. The RN has employed 30mm guns on the majority of their hull types from mine-hunters thru to the QE carriers, with the RFA also being equipped with them.
30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun - Wikipedia
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It was a DS30M and not a DS30B? I ask because I had been under the impression that the DS30M mounting had been developed just over a decade ago and using a different gun. As a side note, does anyone have an idea why the gun used was changed from the Oerlikon KCB 30 mm to the Bushmaster II 30 mm?
I believe the 30M was an early 2000's update on the 30B, moving from analogue to digital (but I could be 1000% off base & am more than happy to be proved wrong - I no doubt have got my letters arse for elbow
)The change from Oerlikon to Bushmaster might well have been based on the fact that most modern 30mm equipped weapons systems (whether they be based on land craft, naval ships or aircraft) seem to predominately based on the Bushmaster. Again I'm speculating, but it may be that the barrel is lighter / is capable of accepting a higher ROF & with inter-equipment compatibility, it means that nations are spending less on training / spares, because of the commonality across the services....
SA