Hot off the press from Janes
[browser-shot width=”600″ url=”http://www.janes.com/article/36180/mk-45-mod-4-gun-in-frame-for-uk-s-type-26-programme#”]The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has earmarked BAE Systems’ Mk 45 Mod 4 5-inch (127 mm)/62-calibre gun system to meet the Maritime Indirect Fire System (MIFS) requirement for the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Type 26 Global Combat Ship
Read more about the potential equipment fits on the Type 26 Global Combat Ship
[browser-shot width=”600″ url=”https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/08/the-type-26-global-combat-ship-2/”]and from BAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbE8bQJk8-Q
Did we really think the designers and manufacturers of the the Type 26, BAE, were not going to pick a BAE gun?
Good news though
April Fools???
I thought that, but Janes does not have a sense of humour
A bit disappointing. I though the OTO merla gun was better with the vulcano ammunition. At least we will get commonality with the USN. Do they have any plans for long range precision munitions.
Brilliant. We’re going to get an odd calibre gun with a low shell weight and rate of fire, manufactured in tiny numbers with a small selection of unguided ammunition – all available from a single source with a proven track record of taking the British taxpayer for a ride.
Especially given the recent Vulcano successes dueing test firings. This is… underwhelming.
On the flip side, it gives strong commonality with 11 navies including our most common naval partner. It’s a more proven gun system in this respect, with an established logistics train and has existing modes such as anti-aircraft and FIAC engagement.
BAE has established local manufacture of systems and rounds for a number of the system’s users.
Don’t forget that BAE have also developed a 5″ version of the LRLAP round used in the 155mm AGS.
http://www.navalsystemsseminar.com/extras/abstract/BAE_Abstract.pdf
EDIT: SCRIBD Link just popped up for me. You can read about most of the features in the literature.
Not at present. BAE’s equivalent is the 5″ version of the LRLAP. Shorter range but a larger charge which should make RT happier.
Nor (AFAIK) does it have the SALH and IR (anti ship) homing options of Volcano.
Trying to be slightly less cynical than TD but could this have something todo with trying to get the Aussies more onboard with the Tyoe26 project?
But what about commonality with the rest of the RN, which only upgraded to the mod 1 a few years ago.
The mod 1 4.5, this is a totally different system.
New Zealand, Turkey… even the USN as an LCS Flight II alternative? :D
Ok, Ok, that last one. I know.
The best way forward with T26 for export is to make it easy to change the gun for different customers, ie pick the one with the biggest gunbay and design around that, and then if you fit a gun with a smaller gunbay it just becomes more spacious.
If you did the same with the main radar, the computer systems, and VLS, you would have a vessel that many navies could then mold into what they really want.
Shame but on the other hand there is a strong numbers argument to operate the system as the USN and a large number of allied navies. It is a capable system and guided munitions options are not off the table.
Also incorrect statement that BAE Systems made this decision, the MFIS requirement was run by the MOD. The MOD are the ones who decide what gun is procured then BAE Systems have to accommodate that decision.
Thats what I mean, currently the main gun used by the RN is the 4.5′ Mark 8 Mod 1, for me there would have to be a huge increase in capability by going to the USN’s main gun, purely to offset the costs of running two guns in RN service, and from what I have seen there isn’t this huge increase.
The 4.5 Mod 1 had a few issues off Libya :( It is a mod of an old system and whichever 5 inch system we move to will be a big improvement. When T26 comes into service only the 6 T45 will field the MK8 Mod 1 and that could possibly be changed in refit.
Isn’t the point of the Type 26 that you could use any of the available gun systems?
To be honest, this isn’t a bad decision is it, at least it is not, lets just use the existing ones from Type 23, which would have a bit rubbish
The Oto might appear a little sexier in the brochure specs but this has many other advantages as others have pointed out
As I understood it they would literally use the guns from the T23’s which are fairly new, and this would save on the cost of buying a new gun.
I have heard that the USN are going to look at the extended range munitions that Oto Melara have come up with.
Commonality of rounds between the 127/64 and the Mk45 Mod2/4’s?
If there is an issue with the MOD 1 that effects it’s operations then this could be a reason, but just off pure specs I would say it is close as to which is best, rate of fire or shell size which is preferable (I have no idea).
Not 100% certain tbh, they may be looking at them with a view to designing something similar.
The MK 45 will fire as many if not more shells per minute further than MK 8 mod 1, has more scope for extended range munitions and has greater reliability.
Still prefer the 127/64.
We appear to favour the gun used by the USN for our next frigate. The USN may be in the market for a new frigate. Related? Time for one of my all time favourite quotes: “You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/quotes
As an aside, what about thoughts on how long the type 26 production line will run ? I know a number of commentator have suggested the type 26 will at some point replace the type 45. It would not take many hulls after that to keep the line running to the point the first of the class would need replacing. Some clever strategic planning could give us a production run lasting50 years,knocking out effective reasonably priced general purpose war ships.
The first question is ‘what is the barrel life’, is it more or less than the on-board ammo load.
Next, no sign of an MV radar so presumably the navy with continue with their notoriously inaccurate methods of trying to determine a MV that has some tenuous connection with reality.
Finally, presumably the FC system uses the NABK, but where is the data for non-standard
conditions coming from?
The current 4.5 on the T23 and T45 fleet are refurbished from older examples. They are elderly and unique with no chance of new examples being built.
Far better to husband the remaining turrets for the T23 and T45 fleet. There has been some talk of moving the T45 over to the 5″ once they reach their mid life update. At that point the T23 will be out of service so it makes sense to switch the whole fleet over to a far better supported system.
A word from the opposition:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140401/DEFREG01/304010016/Oto-Melara-s-Vulcano-Munitions-Ready-Sale?odyssey=mod_sectionstories
Ammunition: the problem is we’re now the only user of that calibre, which means we can only look enviously at new natures of 5″ ammunition knowing it’ll never be affordable to produce a 4.5″ version. (Even getting some more starshell made to an existing design, because we basically used our entire stock off Libya, was an expensive and time-consuming exercise).
If they are compatible with the 127/54 on the De Zeven (though it is an Oto Melara mount) and the 127/64 LW then there is no reason why they should not be compatible with BAE MK 45 mod 4 127/52
If you want people to respond perhaps try and explain your acronyms. For everyone else.
MV Radar- Muzzle Velocity Radar
NABK- Nato Armaments Ballistic Kernel
Can you argue with accuracy or results though? Especially given that we are often shooting from a platform moving in 3 dimensions :)
….4 dimensions, time also being a consideration (the firing solutions are not the same for a boat firing at targets ahead, athwarts (RT now maxed out on nautical lingo ;) ) or behind when you are doing 30 knots.
There’s also air pressure, wind effects and air temperatures at different altitudes baked into the NABK. Quite complex, which is why we let the Gunners do it, as they love that sort of thing. I think there’s also algorithms for solving earth’s rotational spin for long range weapons: Obsvr will know more than me on that.
True :) That’s why we have computers. We need inputs that effectively tell us our position, our course and speed and our movement laterally and vertically before we even reach the starting point for a land based artillery calculation.
Artillery, its proper science innit
I guess it was too much to hope for a MCLWG (8 inch/55 caliber) mount…
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h98000/h98314.jpg
Gyrostabilised mounts? I guess too much recoil is not good for them, so only useful for smaller caliber (here is a bait for some jargon…) Weapons?
You would be surprised, the new Zumwalts will have an extremely advanced system on their 155/62 mounts
Or you could just ram the fucker. ;)
I am only half-surprised as the rounds are rocket assisted, and initial velocity plays a lesser role.
Only some rounds will be rocket assisted but they will all be specifically made.
That looks like what the bow is designed for.
I guess you could put on pointy cap on the sonar bulge…
Oh, ok… So it is only the long-range land bombardment?
@TD, well indirect predicted fire does depend on some proper science.
Any bunch of wallys have a possible chance of getting somewhere near the target with adjusted fire. Of course this depends on an observer and has no prospect of achieving tactical surprise. Sums up naval gunfire rather well, methinks.
Many many moons ago I visited (on a course) the RN’s T42 command simulator set up for their 4.5s. It was optimised to engage aircraft! The ergonomic arrangements for surface engagements were a joke. If I’d ever found an arty battery CP similarly disorganised then heads would have rolled. Still it partly explained why opening rounds from ships have to be such a large distance from the nearest friendly troops. It’s a spray and pray system at the best of times.
@Osvr
It must have been many many moons ago as 4.5 has not had an AA role for sometime. As for tactical surprise NGS was used in Libya for precisely that reason with the spotter being in an MPA, of course the advent of UAVs and organic shipborne ones with precision guided extended range munitions makes tactical surprise extremely likely.
As for ergonomics, in an Ops room the manpower may well be hunting a submarine, engaging or preparing to engage an air raid, using secondary weapons to cover a FIAC threat or setting up for an ASuW missile engagement and worrying about NGS at the same time. The CO may have tactical charge of the formation and the Ship will almost certainly be the coordinator in one environment which will involve pushing updates and instructions externally. All from the same ops room and utilising multi skilled personnel.
Now if I ever saw that in an Artillery Battery CP I would probably die of shock.
Interestingly there is a display at the fleet air arm museum that shows a future RN battle group which includes some type of global corvette mounting a 5 inch gun, never seen the thing mentioned anywhere else. It’s one of the newer touch screen displays in the projecting power room.
A ship trying to deliver NGF (or naval gunfire to the undereducated) and trying to hunt submarines at the same time does sound a tad troubling, presumably it reflects naval multi-tasking and lack of ships, and no doubt extra praying alongside the spraying.
“It must have been many many moons ago as 4.5 has not had an AA role for sometime”
About 25 years after the army abandoned heavy AA guns ;-)
The reason for moving away from 4.5 is primarily (as Jason Lynch pointed out) that getting a secure, reliable cost-effective ammunition supply is very tricky and secondly that the 4.5 doesn’t really cut it in terms of range & effect any more.
We’ve spent years trying to get a 155 solution (nominally to exploit ER ammo developments for land forces) only to discover that because the ammunition for LF is generally separate projectile and charge, that more complex handling systems in the gun, mag and for RAS would be required. All of which means the capital cost of the mounts becomes higher than we want to pay – unless you fancy building a ship around the US AGS that is going on Zumwalt, which is still a very limited run at the minute and far from cheap.
That leads inexorably to the choice of 127mm as the compromise weapon. Large user base, which means relatively easy ammo supply, extended range rounds under development and a couple of mounts to choose from. If you want to get away from 4.5 (which we eventually have to do) then this is probably the least painful way of doing so.
For T26, the gun is one of the very few combat system equipments that will be “new” – as opposed to cross-decked from T23. Irrespective of what the RN choose, you should be able to fit either gun in A position, although some of the more exotic ammo handling arrangements appear to be having an untoward effect on the design (or at least the hull lines forward). From what I’ve seen the Oto/Babcocks arrangement actually looked pretty good, particularly for ease of striking down ammo during a RAS.
Still wouldn’t hold my breath on exports though. Appetite for a ship displacing not a million miles away from a T45 is likely to be limited. As if that wasn’t enough, the Japanese are on the point of relaxing their export restrictions for military equipment. Our friends in Canberra wlil be interested (as they are with their submarines)……
@NaB
Are you able to provide some details or pointers to where to find out more about the AA capabilities of the Mk45 (or similar)? There’s quite a bit of literature around the different fuze and extended range natures in development, but not a lot else.
Is it a function of fuze on the more standard rounds or a special round in itself?
@NAB
I can definitely see the Australians being interested in something like a Soryu SSK(IP) but notbso much in the surface vessels. The smallest cheapest thing the Japanese have built in years was the Takanami which was 7,000 tonnes and £600 million in 2009 prices.
TOC – I doubt anyone is considering the 5″ for an AA role – certainly not in the RN. Surface fires and NGS only.
APATS – true, but the point is that they build very good designs using the US kit that the Ockers like. It’s the potential they have that ought to be worrying people, rather than what they’ve built recently. I wish we could say the same regarding BAE……..
@NAB
Tru but they also tend to be large and man power intensive like the US Ships. The Australians like US weapons but they do not like US manning levels. It will be interesting to see if the Japanese design something smaller than they currently use given that it would be a pure export design.
If you look at Takanami, she has T23 manning levels on a much bigger hull, including most of what T26 is supposed to bring to the party, but somewhat smaller than what’s lurking in Filton/Scotstoun atm. Automation & manpower reduction won’t be a problem for Japanese shipbuilders.
There is of course a long, long way to go before Japan exports any military kit, let alone before Australia get its head around the idea. What i’m driving at is that Australia FFG/ANZAC replacement is far from an open goal for T26.
It is but the idea will be to decease not increase and the Japanese have been increasing since that build. They do not see a requirement for something like an Anzac so it would be a pure export design with the buyer funding the R&D or the cost including it?
I do not think an Anzac replacement is anything like an open goal for T26 but the Japanese are way down my list of competitors that I would worry about.
Without wishing to be negative I really don’t see the Australians buying T26 from us at all.
There’s more to it than just main gun compatibility. I’d have thought they’d have purchased the T45 if they were at all interested in “going British”. Added to that are the problems with the British built HMAS Choules.
But the main thing is the use of the 10t SeaHawk copter. If they “go American” they get ships designed to operate two of them. We simply wouldn’t do this we have to take the whopping Merlin or a couple of dinky Lynx.
They’re more likely to look to Europe and those that operate the NH90 for sizing and space allocation to sustain a smaller copter than Merlin. Something like the Italian FREMM would serve them better.
@ Simon
T45 was expensive and beyond what the Australians were looking for at that time.
The Anzacs only carry 1 Sea hawk at the moment though and you have to look at the tasking carried out by a Helo. A lot of it is surface search, frequently at dawn and Dusk to build the RMP. Other roles include ASW, as a weapon carrier and as a detection asset, AsUW and general transport duties.
Hopefully the T26 Mission bay will allow the deployment of organic UAVs which can take up the RMP riole providing more hours on station and free up airframe and aircrew hours for other tasking at which point you start to actually examine the capabilities of the Helicopters carried in a slightly different light.
The issues with FREMM is that it is complete and uses very few US systems. This will be an issue for T26 as well but as it is not yet being built thenthere is more room to flex an “export version”.
The Canadian design will be interesting as it will be the approximate size and will use US kit. May well be the favourite.
@APATS, RE ” 7,000 tonnes and £600 million in 2009 prices.”
– would that be the same ratio (£/ tonnes) as for the “too expensive” T45?
I might be behind of times, but at some point the Canadians were going to kit theirs out based on the USN refinements of the kit on ABs… surely by far more expensive than the above?
ACC
I think the T45 was even more expensive per ton but it not price per ton but price per hull that matters.
The Canadian design will be smaller than an AB and probably not have a full sized aegis system and the expensive associated radars. The Command System will probbaly be Canadian and the propulsion system designed for the Frigate.
What they will almost certainly have though are Mk41 silos and a 5 inch gun along the magazine and handling systems to allow US weapons to be fully integrated.
I would guess using a Uav like scan eagle and a helicopter together is preferable to two helicopters?
Is there not some black deck issues using 2 helicopters from a frigate? Were as using a Uav and helicopter together would be less of a problem.
IIRC the newest RAN destroyers are Spanish. For obvious reasons the key issue is the AD msl system, and for this US is the only way to go as far as RAN is concerned. In T45 RN has chosen European. That said local defence msls are a different matter all together. UK has abandoned 4.5 because it is an idiosyncratic calibre and nobody is going to fund further R&D because the potential market does not justify it.
I always regarded naval 155mm as pie in the sky. Naval guns are a second order issue (basically in terms of effectiveness naval gunfire is a waste of the taxpayer’s money), and as any fule kno (well those of us who actually understand the more obvious issues in ordnance design ) to navalise 155mm meant a completely new ordnance and a completely new cartridge. Compared to this the benefits of using existing shells almost certainly don’t stack up. I wonder how much cash has been wasted, almost certainly a lot less than my consulting fees to tell them this up front. If you want to waste taxpayers money smooge the navy, a pack of prats. You only have to look at the daft German efforts with a PzH2000 turret.
Mark,
What is a “black deck”?
I’d have thought that a copter+UAV would be great for ASuW but can’t see a UAV helping out with ASW so when the copter needs to go back for fuel or more weapons that’s the sub contact lost.
Having two copters will definitely double the hunting time and could obviously create a certain level of continuity of operation with one being readied whilst the other is in the air.
Quick question about NGFS…
What is the realistic range for doing artillery (not particularly accurate) barages for a 4.5, 5 and 6 inch weapon?
@Osvr
Yes the F100 based Hobart allows the Australians to continue to use ESSM and SM based missiles. We decided to go with Aster. Is my biggest bug bear as the actual system and radars on T45 is phenomenal but we are limited in what it can fire by having a Sylver A50 silo. Wish we had fitted Mk41 silos. If T26 was to be exported to Australia a different silo may have to be fitted and with it comes the complications that ESSM needs a FC radar.
@Simon
I believe mark is referring to periods when the deck is unavailable for the airborne cab due to what is happening with the non airborne cab.
I would say that 90% of the time a UAV and even better 2 (they are quite small) combined with a single cab would offer a better package. The ability to have a continually airborne sensor system compiling the over the horizon picture will be a massive leap forward, especially given the amount of MSO now done.
Even in an ASW environment the idea is to go hot with the Ship as soon as possible even if the initial contact is made by the helo, which things like LFAS allow us to do at much longer range and utilise the helo as a weapon carrier. It will lose contact when it breaks the dip in any case so you would need 2 dippers and close coordination to try and remain hot through helo assets alone.
where dippers are extremely useful is in a screen to dip ahead or astern of the force but in this type of scenario large vessels will be present which would hopefully provide a base for ASW helos.
It is not set in stone by any means and new equipment will see tactics evolve but those are my thoughts.
4.5 Mk8 Mod 1 with new ammo about 15NM max
Mk 45 127/62 about 20NM
I think As90 with a 52 cal barrel and proper ammo can do 22NM
APATS,
From my reading any sonar as a pretty poor range (in the order of a few miles) and the only reason we tow them around is to “hear” a sub breaching a CZ, which will ultimately give us the range needed to get rid of it by copters.
I was under the impression the towed array would give a “contact” then requiring localising and prosecuting by the copter. I was not aware that the ships sonar would provide enough information to target the threat unless the boat is really too close for comfort :-(
What you are indicating is quite the opposite, which I rather prefer :-)
PS: Thanks for the NGFS ranges.
Working with the 20nm range…
Is that considered “over the horizon”?
Does that not provide artillery support for an amphibious assault?
If not then I see that Observer means with lack of value for money.
@Simon
Do not get mixed up between active and passive. Passive contacts only give a bearing. Active contacts give a range and a bearing. Detection ranges are of course dependent upon water conditions and depth, what the frequency of the sonar is and for passive the noise made by the target is of course crucial.
Towing them allows us to have more hydrophones from a passive point of view, it also allows us to alter the depth from an active view to account for water conditions. Modern active sonar allows Ships to be “in contact” and control the helo as a weapon carrier.
20NM is probably just about over the horizon dependent upon how high you are. You can never have too much range :)
“…modern active sonar allows ships to be “in contact” and control the helo as a weapon carrier”
Wow!
Does that not render the need for Merlin on an ASW frigate a little overkill?
No, what happens if you want to look at a possible choke point 60NM ahead of you that may harbour a lurking SSK. In shallow water the higher frequency sonar of the helo will be more effective than an LFAS, though the ship should have a MF Hull sonar as well. As I already pointed out Merlin can also dip ahead of a screen and deploy and monitor sonobuoys.
It may also make the initial contact even if it then hands it over.
ASW is a team sport and complimentary systems and correct tactics are the key to success.
Some clarification
Yes, active sonar allows a frigate to control a helicopter purely as a means of delivering torpedoes – that was formerly the case. Wasp was introduced in the 1960s with no onboard sensors and Lynx (in RN service) had neither sonar nor sonobuoys – some did get MAD, perhaps as early as the Falklands war though. An even better example would be the abortive 1950s/60s US MATCH drone helicopter system. There are disadvantages to this approach however.
1. Convergence zones that give large gaps in coverage.
2. Islands etc. in littoral waters blocking coverage
3. The sonar giving away the frigate’s presence (and location if triangulated)
4. That the helo is dependent on the ship
5. EMCON compromised by transmissions to/from the helo
Now it is a basic difference that active sonar gives bearing AND range whilst passive only gives bearing, but if you use a trailed sonar with enough spacing between its hydrophones and/or use the difference in target bearing over time when towing, you can calculate an approximate position (obviously target movement complicates this) . Using multiple passive sonobuoys enables you to triangulate the position of the target with greater precision. Some weapons can home in entirely on passive sonar, whilst others use active or both active and passive sensors.
@ TOC, RE “Come across any sonobouy launchers” on external pylons?
– would not a pressurised launcher system through the side of the a/c be better? As you will need quite a few, so reloading within the wide body would be a plus
@ APATS, yes, of course per hull, but I wanted to avoid the discussion “which one brings more capability”. The capability measure would probably be best divided by heads ( as in required manning), and then you would have comparators both for the initial cost (T26 minimum size was driven be global deployability, and Oz has a good share of the world’s oceans around it) and the biggest component of the on-going cost.
Thanks for the elaboration on the Canadian plan. I hope they are not going to go all the way to the Norwegian solution, where also the weapon reach was scaled down, because of going “budget” with the sensor sets, in order to get more hulls?
– btw, their slow rate of refurbing the Halifaxes is (?) a cunning plan to get these new ships more quickly. As, for the many years of the programme, there will be a permanent reduction in all of the associated costs, not just in the number of active hulls. I never understood how it could take so long…
@ Chris Werb
That is why we have active and passive policies and we use different systems inn different areas and situations. Data Link fitted helos help with EMCON but it would be extremely unusual to be EMCON silent when hot with a submarine.
To try and sum it up, it is a complex subject, even force ASW course is an add on to already 13 month PWO course. like most things in Naval warfare, one system or answer does not cover all the likely or even unlikely situations, it is about flexibility and integration of capabilities to best fit the situation.
@ACC
I meant for the MQ-4C but missed it off the question, sorry :(
(ACC is referring to a tongue in cheek question on the Open Thread)
@APATS – Maybe I should be politicking for an 8″/62 lightweight gun mount to get more range with more throw weight!
@APATS – (Continued…) At least until we can afford the BAe railgun that the US Navy is testing. On the other hand, that will probably require a nuclear powerplant to provide enough juice to fire more than once an hour unless we forego crew space for batteries.
Thanks apas that what I was meaning.
Simon yep should a runway or deck become unavailable due to weather or an accident or whatever it’s referred to as being black. It you only have a small deck and your airborne cab develops an emergency that requires an immediate return you have a prob if it’s black.
Thanks all, just clearing things up a little :-)