The UK Type 31 Frigate Will Be Equipped With Two Deadly Advanced Weapons | The Gigantic Bofors Mk110
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2023
- The UK Type 31 Frigate will be equipped with two new types of weapons for Royal Navy Service. The frigate will uniquely feature a combination of a single 57mm main gun and two 40mm secondary gun. So, how strong are these two weapons are?
Thanks for watching, please like, share, and subscribe - Наука та технологія
swedish and uk combining efforts in weapon development is a beatiful thing
Bofors 40mm range is probably 6-7 miles not 77.
He says 12km, so they must have missed the . from the script, stating 77m rather than 7.7m
That’s what you get when you let a machine read the script. Lazy lazy lazy.
1,2km
the Swedish are experts in artillery systems wether land or sea based, and have been for a long time, it's no surprise that the British BAE arms wanted them in the group..... the naval guns especially anti aircraft systems are legendary and the shoot and scoot army artillery systems make a huge impact on the battlefield......
Yeah they are clever chaps
The Swedish make some top notch weapons
They created the largest autocannon with a bore of 150mm or 155mm.
57 mm is far from “gigantic”! Do it right or not at all. Phalanx has no air burst capability. The Bofors with 3P will be a better weapon, there’s no doubt.
Phalanx was devolved and in the 1960s. No doubt it will be a better weapon. The reason smaller navies such as the Nordic countries have better weapons is because they have so little weapons that upgrading is much easier and cheaper. The idea that the US uses the absolute most ground breaking technology in all aspects of its military simply isn’t possible. Look at China, Russia, India and USA. They all use modern weapons but if they compared them to the best equipment that just came out there’s a big difference. I mean Russia still uses BMP-1 why? Because they so many of them. It’s cheaper to store 2,000 BMP-1s than it is to buy and maintain 500 BMP-3s.
Cwis on ships i belive. Also he didn't say if the mk41 was a hot launch system. All the launches where hot launch but the video with open hatches looked like a cold launch system.
Hot launch the main rocket fires in the launcher.
Cold launch it's shot up with a compressed air or string or whatever then the main motor ingnites.
ciws is close defense and the bofors is some sort of middlegroud between missiles and ciws with its 7-8mile range. they should be viable alongside each other
gepard/oerlikon 35mm 2-3mile effective range
The largest autocannon even made had a caliber of 150 or 155mm.
Because they know that swarm attacks can't be dealt with by missiles that cost £1m per shot.
Interesting to see the old 6 pounder make a return. The Royal Navy used them on the Fairmile D MTBs which were designed to take on the Germen E Boats. Doing something similar now.
At least you won't have to worry about running out of ammo like you would with missiles and way cheaper, and high firing rate. Way better for in close protection and then the missiles for everything else. Sound idea.
57mm rounds are infinite? Good to know.
@@edwhlam No but a hell of a lot smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, easier to store, resupply, handle and fire than missiles are. Also considerably faster to produce and easier to transport. There's a reason the US navy spent so much on the Zumwalt class even if it was a failure. Missiles are unrealistically expensive for defence, just look at whats happening in the Red Sea, sure they work but often times they are more expensive than what they are trying to shoot down and in the event of a war the supply issues would be horrendous. Especially with modern drone systems.
There is the small problem that guns are shot ranged, are very limited in regards to fleet defence, and are totally unsuitable for the anti missile scenario in the Red Sea. Guns are better than nothing if the anti ship missiles are subsonic and heading towards your ship. Basically useless for defending other ships that are miles away.
The next evolution will be directed energy weapons. Until those are practical and affordable, we are stuck with missiles.
Currently anti aircraft lasers run at about $100 to $150 million each and are ineffective against fast missiles because the lasers take too long to sufficiently damage fast moving targets.
@@edwhlam Yeah they are not a substitute for missiles because as you said they cannot provide protection for fleets or large operation areas like the Red sea. But missiles cannot be relied upon consistently for personal defense especially if they are used to protect other targets too, since you cannot carry that many of them. Ideally you would only use missile for wide area defense and rely on the CIWS to defeat direct threats, but thats still not realistic.
The problem with lasers is they require direct line of sight which is relatively short range for low flying missiles. So they cannot really compete with advanced missiles either in wide area defence.
My point isn't that they are not effective but that realistically it's unsustainable to use against threats like drones and cheap missiles. There needs to be a cheap reliable alternative for medium to short range interception that doesn't risk nearby explosions such as Phalanx.
Personally I'm a big fan of ship borne gun system, they do make for great final defence, but they are also highly effective in offence. Yes, they lack the range of missiles, but their munitions are much cheaper and practically impossible to intercept.
I'd go with something like the Russian AK130, give all the missile/aircraft defense as any other, but also give an anti surface capability out to 25km and hard to take down full size warships. Plus looking like a turbolazer off a star destroyer can't hurt 😂
I don't know how effective the AK-130 is against air targets; isn't that a dual barrel 125mm? No way smaller guns like 30mm reach out to 25km. 76mm/3 inch or smaller, is best against air threats. 5 inch is more for other ships and shore bombardment, where you want that range. Of course, if the larger shells are guided and integrated with the ships own radar, that changes everything. In any case, on all guns on type 31 and 32: the 57mm and 40mm use smart, or AHEAD ammo.
@@rocketassistedgoat1079 Five inch with indirect fire using GPS guided shells. I'll take two before a railgun. :)
Ever been to a missile range and the 127mm were used against air targets, try flying through a wall of flak, nothing survives, we had pilots on board to see the effect of a 127mm against towed targets and decoy missiles, same with the 76/62mm, if I was to serve again, the ship I serve on would have to have these two instead of a 40 or 57mmbut then seeing ESSM, sm2, sm3 and sm6 against air targets is something to behold, debris scattered over 5 square nm's@@rocketassistedgoat1079
It's great finding a channel like this is that isn't full of misinfo. Keep up the good work mate.
Except for the 40mm gun with a 77 mile range...
@@ScienceChap yeah that wasn't great
Don’t understand why you fit an inferior CIWS to the one already in use by the other ships in the fleet. This also means that you have to build a new support network which includes things like spares, trained personnel in the form of operators and maintenance crews, ammunition types etc. We realised that we had a massive problem during the Falkland conflict where the ships basically had near zero CIWS. That is why every ship frigate size and up was fitted with either the Vulcan Phalanx or Goalkeeper system. Secondly, they realised that the ‘all missile’ ship, type 22 needed to be fitted with the mk8 gun. Not just for the ships use, but for shore bombardment, Naval Gunfire Support, to work with land forces. A capability that was vital during the campaign. So can we please heed the lessons of history, and stop trying to reinvent the wheel
We didn't even learn our lessons with the Type 23. The Sea Wolf was considered so reliable and accurate, Phalanx or Goalkeeper wasn't needed. Always seemed a poor decision in my books. Mind you, PWLS doesn't have any CIWS fitted at present!
Sounds like someone is preparing to fight the last war instead of the next.
CAMM or Sea Ceptor are the same as RAM CIWS.
Reducancy.
US Navy removed the phalanx from Destroyers.
Great video
Cartoon looks lovely 😂 i am surprised they don't show Godzeller in the background on top of a UFO how many type 45's were we getting 😂 and has this on time or behind schedule
Can the 57mm fully replace the 76mm in shell weight on target and range? I don't quite get why you don't go with 76mm, 40mm...and 20mm CWIS. Weight?
UK has 30 ships. We are the emperor with no clothes
Good vid.
Back in WW2 the 40mm gun would have been the 2 pdr, and the 57mm gun the 6 pdr. Makes me wonder if this is still the weight of the round being fired out of the new guns.
It's pretty much the same still give or take a few ounces on the 40mm or maybe up to a lb on the 57mm depending on the particular model gun/shell.
In kgs the 57 mm Is 2.850 kgs, 76 Is 6.300kgs
the omission of Phalanx CIWS is concerning, sea skimming anti-ship missiles are only detected seconds before impact
That's why a more accurate airburst design is better then hurling a wall of lead at them for a few seconds. The area covered by a single round from the 40mm would be higher then what the Phalanx could cover in an equal amount of time. The question is can it rotate and fire fast enough assuming they are taken by surprise and don't detect what fired the missile. i think radar balloons, AWACS or similar will be used more frequently when in at risk areas to detect this kind of attack in future.
They have a vls. Given the success at aster-15 at intercepting inbound missiles and drones I'm not sure you have anything to worry about.
@@lmaoroflcopter Not worried about its success rate but its availability. It has 32 VLS tubes meaning it can fire a total of 32 intercepting missiles meaning in theory if you fire 33 then 1 will get through, i'm not sure if they carry reloads onboard but i'd imagine they would take a while to reload regardless.
From a logistics point of view relying on missiles for defence is not viable since they take a long time to reload are expensive and large. They need to be able to operate for days without resupply. VLS tubes are effective and versatile allowing ASM's as well as AA missiles to be fired but that comes at a cost since they cannot be reloaded rapidly so if you have ASMs in your tubes they cannot be quickly replaced with AA, especially if given short notice by modern sea skimming stealth missiles.
Redundancy is very important when it comes to warships, especially when talking about their biggest threat: Missiles.
When I got notification of the 40 mil bofors instead of the phalanx I didn’t believe that the broken royal navvi couldn’t be this dense but I was wrong. They could’ve had them both
Ya I agree……I feel like there’s some pride or $ decisions behind the scenes, no reasons they couldn’t have 1-2CWIS.
Completely agree…
@@olddiver one thing I can’t get my head around is why didn’t they fit a 155 mill gun mount on the bow or is it because I’m just a dumb former boot neck
The new guns seem to be able to protect the fleet more, rather than just themselves if using the 20mm gun.
No. The T31 isn’t really intended for fleet use. The Bofors are simply better weapons. Phalanx is not a great system, just the best available 40 years ago. OK its fire control has been improved, but it’s never brought down a live AShM in combat.
Not unless they got some ESSM or SeaCapors in those MK41s.
ciws should also be on board
cutting cost..notice he said should some what be sufficient without them..?
They should also carry "Dart" rounds and "Ahead" rounds for further versatility in air defense and high speed boat defense.
Dart can only be fired from oto melara 76mm strales gun.
AHEAD can only be fired from 35mm oerlikon millennium gun.
Neither of which this frigate has.
@@RR-us2kp But they can make it so, if they try. Innovation, adaptability, and versatility is what we need more of, not less.
While the probability of kill of a 20 mm CIWS is near certain for most incoming geometries, they have tendency to reduce supersonic or subsonic (drones) objects to an incoming shrapnel cloud of 0.25” metal fragments close aboard that can shred radomes, radars and surfaces of the ship as a high velocity cluster munition effect. Impact force is a function of mass and the square of velocity.
I suspect the target aircraft,drones or subsonic cruise missiles will be reduced to much larger pieces of widely varying sizes and a range of reduced velocities/vectors at greater stand off ranges by the BOFORS proximity ammunition. I am sure that the Royal Navy has done computer modeling to minimize damage for most scenarios.
Ballistic missiles must be killed by high mass, high velocity missiles like the SM6 at large stand off distances. Thankfully targeting for such inbound hyper velocity missiles is relatively imprecise against a mobile target like a warship.
Basically 20mm is inferior to the task as the 40mm delivers a swarm of tungsten
Australian navy surface ships, including our landing helicopter deck ships, and air warfare destroyer could benefit from additional CWUS firepower.
Once upon a time in the West, two British warships collided in a port in Bahrain and the damage prevented a critical mission to the Red Sea. Then a British Aircraft Carrier had serious problems due to a non-functioning propeller. Then there was a NATO mission, whereby another British Aircraft Carrier could not attend due to Operational Readiness issues, it promptly limped back to Scotland and went on fire a few days later. Most embarrassing of all was the state of the art British Submarine that test fired a Trident Missile off the coast of Florida, Defence Secretary Grant “Peach” Schnapps CVwas on board to witness it and he was not disappointed when the missile failed and landed 12 metres away. Yes, Type 31 Frigate is a great idea.
When it comes to rate of fire, an important parameter indicating how effective a naval gun is in neutralising missiles, CIWS definitely outperforms this 57 mm gun.
Phalanx is on it's way out with modern navies. It's effective knock down range is too low.
How is 57mm gigantic compared to the currently used 4.5inch (114mm)?
Off to Dave Jones Locker pretty quickly I would guess.
the 57 mm gun BAe first had 2 customers when it was Bofors, namely Sweden and Finland, when BAe bought the factory it reached 16 navies., a matter of lobbies, the 57 mm is a derivative of the 40 mm gun from the first war world. not only that, but the Bofors bullet but also the OTO bullet have a 4-mode fuse. Plus the OTO cannon has been adopted by 58 navies around the world, and is combat proven (ask the Israelis when they sank Soviet-built missile patrol boats at a distance) The OTO cannon has demonstrated its real combat performance which Bofors says is equal but without proving it. the Italian cannon is also very light and does not need to make a hole in the deck to install it and there is also a retractable version and a guided projectile version (strales/Davide). finally, the Bofors cannon fires 220 shots per minute, the Italian one 120, but the single Bofors shot weighs 2,850kg, the Oto Melara one weighs 6,350. now you calculate how many fragments each produces per minute. the difference is enormous in favor of the Italian one, the Italians let the products speak without political pressure, the Anglo-Swedes make prime ministers, kings and queens intervene in the name of a colonial past, a sign that military servitudes always have their weight, including little Brunei, a small state and former English colony. for the rest of the countries that the speaker has nominated the same applies, as for the new RAN frigates in which the Australian admirals chose the fremms but the new government chose ships still on paper, and now in addition to the rising costs they still have not put nothing on the non-existent ports.
Deep breaths sir in out in out. Take a friendly word of advice switch to decaf.
The reason the Zumwalt DD has had its main gun removed was because the gun was to use new sophisticated ammo that was thousands of dollars per round it turned out availability of the ammo was very limited, i hope these 40mm's have better results because a wall of dumb lead does work (Phalanx).
The difference is the Zumwalt main gun was supposed to be very long range ship killer to replace ASM's whilst the Bofors is basically the same as most proximity or timed fuse shells used as AA since WW2, the only difference is the software and guidance systems that tell the shell when and what to do. It's nowhere near as big of a jump as the Zumwalt since the 40mm is an evolution of a weapon system that's been in use for decades doing the same role it's always been intended to do. I think with super/hypersonic missiles becoming more common place the Phalanx system will need to improve its range and ammo consumption if it want to keep up with modern missile tech. It might be cheap but if you cannot intercept the missile til its 1,500m away a wall of dumb lead might not have time to intercept those missiles if fired in swarms. Plus even if it can shoot all the missiles down it has 4,500 rounds per minute with a 1,550-round magazine and it can dump that load very quickly. There's only so much ammo you can carry and supply to the weapons at a time and even a a few seconds of stoppage can be lethal when your engagement range is so little. Ideally you would fire only a few rounds for each missile instead.
In conclusion i think the Phalanx system needs to be improved or replaced in order to keep up with technology and doctrines and the 40mm seems a good improvement provided they are as effective as they claim.
thousands of dollars = the per-unit cost of each LRLAP shot increased to $800,000-1 million
@@2adamast thank you, I appreciate the actual amount, and damn I wish it was only thousands smdh.
A single AGM-158C LRASM missile costs between $700 000 and $1 million.
So LRLAP are comparable in cost to modern ASM's which defeats one of the major points of it.
It still needs longer range SAM and anti ship missiles.
Should have both phalanx and bofors guns. Saving money again.
First sequence is of the Swedish Visby Stealth Corvette
The U.S. Navy needs 50 of these units.
The big question for me is what SAM the RN intend to fit in the MK41 VLS cells - or will that just be used for long range strike missiles? We know they intend to fit Sea Ceptor to the Type 31s. I don’t think the Aster 15/30 has been integrated to the Mk41 so will we see RN ships fielding the Standard family of SAMs instead?
CAMM-MR with a range of 100km can be dual packed in a Mk 41 cell. Standard missiles won't be bought for T26 or T31 but might be for T83 to replace Aster.
@@Louis-ej1lx CAMM-MR is just a concept at the moment, albeit a development from an existing missile not a brand new design. Considering RN frigates and destroyers don’t carry enough SAMs as it is, I would much prefer quad-packed Sea Ceptor to dual packed CAMM-MR if the only VLS is going to be a 32-cell Mk41
@@servicekid7453
CAMM-MR is not just a concept...
Its been in development for a few years.
T31 will likely have 24 CAMM cells on top of the 32 Mk41. Irrelevant choosing between CAMM and CAMM-MR because they offer completely different functions.
@@Louis-ej1lx MBDA and the Polish navy signed the CAMM-MR agreement on 7th September 2023. Do you have any other sources that indicate any other navy’s involvement? Until physical hardware is being tested, it’s a concept. I don’t have a problem with the concept, developing an existing missile is the easiest way to go.
It’s not an irrelevant choice. Are T26 and T31 SAM systems meant only for self-defence or for local area defence? The mission role dictates the weapons fit. What VLS cells are they going to use for CAMM-MR on the T31? The existing ones on T23 aren’t tall enough, everything I’ve read indicates T26 and T31 will be fitted with the standard Sea Ceptor missiles. If they want to fit CAMM-MR they will have to use some of the cells in the Mk41 VLS, there is no time or budget in the build program to integrate them with any other VLS system.
@@Louis-ej1lx from Naval News, 7th Sept….
“This particular LOI [Letter Of Intent] is intended to pave the road map of *future* activities that both PGZ and MBDA should undertake to engage in *design*, *development* and production of CAMM-MR. We also call this initiative as Future Common Missile to convey our aspiration it will serve both the Polish and British Armed Forces as common munition with dual source of production. This is a new chapter for PGZ and we are very motivated to engage especially in design and development with assets that we have at hand or being implemented right now e.g. HWIL Laboratory, as a solid and strategic partner of MBDA.”
Sebastian Chwałek, President of the Management Board of PGZ S.A.
(My emphasis)
People seem to be forgetting that this is a frigate.
"Lethal" is kind of the point of naval artillery
LOL These look like something made by the Daleks!
OK ito... Lagyan. Lng ng VML Vertical Missile Launchers at multiple rocket systems... Torpedo
and chopper anti ship, submarine and aircraft missiles...
Absence of Phalanx/ similar CWIS (mini-gun) leaves vulnerabilities, partic 2 swarming drone/ cluster munitions,......; Frigate is left defenceless &/or dependent upon defence in depth from eg, carrier gp
I'd argue the airburst ammo and greater range from the 40mm makes it better at taking down drone and munition swarms as it has more time to react and has a fairly large blast/shrapnel radius. In fact i'd almost say the 1,500m range and time to kill of the Phalanx makes it poor at dealing with swarms since it only has seconds to react and destroy all the targets by hitting them directly and even then it might be close enough that the blast damages the vessel anyway. whilst the 12,500m range and large blast radius of the 40mm makes it ideal for swarms.
CIWIS is the first thing that should go on a ship, its omission is odd. I get it has 32 cell VLS and isn't and AAW ship like a type 45 or even have that capability like the Type 26 (48 Cell) but not having it at all is odd, even if it had one at the back it's better than none.
40mm Bofors is CIWS: Close in weapon system, is a point-defense weapon system for detecting and destroying short-range incoming missiles and enemy craft which have penetrated the outer defenses, typically mounted on a naval ship. but it also works against surface vessels such as small drone attack craft so is arguably more of a CIWS then Phalanx.
@xXBisquitsXx Exactly it is a CWIS system but also a medium range weapon system..
@@xXBisquitsXx Oh fair enough didn't know that, but yeah did a little research and with the 3P ammo seems quire effective.
4:48 A 40mm gun that fires 77 miles? Bloody hell. I detect a typo.
yup 7.7
Why aren't they using the Thales Rapidfire 40 mm gun?
I don't know why they don't put artillery on some of these ships. It would be cheaper than missiles and the range and accuracy of artillery these days it would be very effective for shore bombardment or even naval engagements.
They do, just not on these which are the "General Purpose" Frigates.
Think pirate hunting or defending against swarms of low tech speed boats.
If you’re in range of an enemy ship and you can’t fire until your artillery is close enough then you’re dead. Artillery does NOT have the range of missiles like ATACMS (320 km), artillery has trouble tracking moving targets whereas missiles can use image recognition to follow targets. (Russia put tyres on the wings of parked bombers, they thought it would confuse the image recognition seeker). Artillery rounds are cheaper but when survivability is at stake cost has less of an impact on decision making. Artillery IS on some of these ships, 3 pieces to be precise, the new threats seem to be two, 1. Over the horizon missile threats from planes/helicopters/subs/ships which artillery cannot target, especially planes, helicopters, cruise missiles etc and 2. Overwhelming swarms of small threats via marine or airborne drones which these smaller calibre cannons can designed to eliminate with air burst and high rates of fire. Shore bombardment is easily completed by cruise missiles or airborne assets, you don’t want an expensive naval force parked off shore being sitting ducks as we’ve seen the Russian fleet attacked by Ukraine.
Unlike the Type 26 which has heavy duties such as anti-submarine warfare, The Type 31 is intended to be covering the more peaceful areas (but to be able to survive if attacked, and fight its way out if things get lively).
The Type 26 has more complex weapons and sensors, and it's engines (including a gas turbine) are raft mounted and suitably silenced to aid in Anti-Submarine Warfare work.
The Type 31 hull is cheaper than the Type 26 hull, but that's simply because it's smaller and lighter.
The Type 31 makes heavy use of lower end, off-the-shelf components: diesel engines and popular exported weapons and sensors.
@@flyingdutchman7757
EXACTLY.
The Type 31 sole purpose is to have something to send which doesn't tie up your high end war fighting AAW Destroyers and ASW Frigates which need to be available to build a Carrier Group with one of the QE Class CVBs (CVB = Large Conventional Aircraft Carrier, CVN = same but nuclear)
These are private hunting, flag showing ships which, as demonstrated, stop have done series defensive teeth.
That shrapnel wall put up by the 57mm is savage! 😮
And this new paradigm shift of automatic larger, smarter anti-drone and missile flak is very cool indeed, much better than the hit-to-kill 20 & 30mm radar Gatling guns.
And once you add Mark 41 VLS and BAE's laser weapons they'll be a real source to be reckoned with.
How would that work with a landlocked country or a very large country?
I was on Leanders, rather have their 4.5" (114mm) main guns any day.
Never understood why modern warships have so few redundant weapon platforms. One/two malfunction(s) and most are dead both offensively and defensively... The Russians (the Orcs) load their ships with platforms. One argument here in Denmark is that is too expensive to make a warship ready to fight like a warship... Then why build them?
4:50 "12.5km or 77 miles" Pretty sure you're missing a decimal point there.
Pop guns. Tanks have 120mm or 125mm main guns, ships need to have a main gun, with variable munitions.
A 57 or 76 mm isn't really used as a primary anti-ship weapon. Both ships would be firing missiles at each other over the horizon.
But they are useless for shore bombardment.
I did not know that the Bofors 40mm cannon had a 77 mile range!?!?!?!?4:42
7.7 miles. The drawback of using an AI for the narator.
I say you will still need a close in system
Our politicians may be bought off and incompetent but we can ALWAYS rely on the Royal Navy, RAF, Royal Army and Royal Marines.
So many experts in the comments
12km is 77 miles?
Why can I think of only one word when I see this gun emerge; "EXTERMINATE!!!". Probably to much Dr Who :)
Technology has it's limitations! Mass will always overwhelm technology! 30 ° to reload the other 90% will always get thru! All it takes is one! That's why WWII Vessels were bristling w auto cannon!
4:47 12.5 km is not 77 miles
They really need to teach the computer how to talk.
What if someone develops an armoured kamikaze drone boat that can deflect rounds from such guns. What defense is there then?
Torpedoes?
If they had something like these in the Falklands. A pitiful couple of hand aimed 20mms.
Montenegro? How many boats?
I always feel the 40mm or 57mm guns are much better than 76mm oto
No country can continue to down £10,000 drones with a £1,000,000 missile.
12.5km is not 77 miles. More like 7.7 miles. That decimal point can be important.
12 kilometers = 7 miles approximately.
Ships still need big guns....
During the Falklands the Sheffield had crap radar and crap missiles 'not fire and forget) , Thjey should have had far more stuff. And now they think 2 or three guns will do it. They have no money. Stay at home and protect Scapa Floe!!
So you think a war fought 40 years ago with ships, radars and sensors that have long since left service has any bearing to the subject of the video ?
The thumbnail has two sahi block railguns from modern warships
Failed to mention the two most important ammunition rounds, Mad-Fires and ALaMO . Both are fully guided for fist round hits at range one for fast boats the other for missiles. Both are close to deployment.
Yes, Alamo, davy crockett e fort Lobbies
the only cannon capable of sinking corvettes and motor missiles is the 76/62 oto melara, as well as being both in the strales-davide version and in the 4 p the first to be invented and then copied by bofors, called in military jargon pea shooter or leg short. if we then consider that the Italian projectile is 2.5 times heavier there is no match, (ask the Israelis) or in the NATO exercises where it was the OTO gun that sank the target ships and not the Swedish 57mm, once again for its new ships Israel chose 76, the best in all categories, then if we talk about the lobbies on the 127 cannon the thing is even more evident, the Italian cannon shoots faster and further, but it's not enough, if you don't buy the American cannon you won't they give the Aegis radar, or the Mk 41 launcher, thank goodness that if Italy wants it can build from H bombs, to ICBM or SLBM missiles or dual band radar, satellites of all types.
So, how strong are these two weapons are?, drop the last are
Four rounds per second that cnt be right
Response to changing threats
Wow you say the gun has a range of 77 miles ! That’s going some, does anybody ever read the script ?
Yes ofcourse 57mm can fire 1 ton shell well over 100 nautical miles....very lethal 😅
The 57mm gun is a poor choice. It is significantly range limited and it lacks kinetic punch and warhead size. Anyone who wants to rely on "guns"" to defend against missile attacks or any kind of swarming attack needs to re-think their tactics. If a ship needs a gun (and that's a matter of legitimate debate) then it needs an adequate gun, the 57mm is a Patrol Craft sized weapon not fit for Frigates or Destroyers. The 57mm makes a good secondary battery but that's about it.
@@karmakazi101 Spoken like a true politician. What's the purpose of a Frigate...it's not Patrolling, it's about fighting, if it weren't then why put weapons on it at all? If the purpose is to be able to fight/defend itself then why design it from the budget standpoint? It would be better not to get involved then to send sailors into Harm's Way in a inferior ship. It's not like European Navies don't have experience with 57mm, 76mm and larger guns and if there's one thing everyone can agree on is that 57mm guns are point defense weapons against small surface threats, aircraft/helicopters and as a last ditch air defense system...but the 57mm wasn't design as a primary surface attack weapon or shore bombardment or even as a primary air defense system. It's okay though because by the time it comes to put the Type 36 in the water, someone will come to their senses and up-gun to a 76mm or larger main gun.
@brianfoley4328
Did you not see that the type 31 is fitted with vertical launch Missiles, these are for attacking/defending against surface threats, over the horizon attacks where guns are not accurate or LACK a powerful enough kinetic punch. From WW1 when steam powered warships evolved, the methods of attacking and defense have changed, imagine equipping destroyers or cruisers with torpedoes to attack other ships with! Same thing with air defense, there were torpedo Bi-planes being successfully used by the British in WW2 to attack both the Italian & German naval warships, also the use of dive-bombers to attack ships too, the threats are so different, and have evolved so much, that different methods are being examined.
I agree that guns should not be overlooked, as they do provide a less-expensive "per unit" method of attack or defense. The CIW or phalanx type weapons are impressive, yet they consume a massive amount of ammo, have a very short barrel life, are just CLOSE-In defense systems, whereas the 40mm Bofors has a greater capability, in power, range and flexibility of round types to counter different threats, small boats, UAV's, pirates, helicopters etc.
Modern arms makers have been able to produce ammo which can be programed to air-burst, or proximity burst, or penetrate, needing less rounds per kill, and allowing more targets to be engaged successfully in a shorter time-frame.
Finally the type 31 Frigate has a different mission to other Frigates or Destroyers, it has its bigger brothers to do the heavy lifts, while it can do the smaller jobs while they are busy. Its about Teamwork.
@@karmakazi101 Then by your own argument the Type 36 doesn't need a 57mm gun at all...why not a CWIS/RAM style system in its place. What sense does it make to have multiple systems with dissimilar ammunition, parts, etc.? Navies love layered defenses...guns and missiles...so if one is disabled, a second system can cover for it.. The 57mm is a poor choice...if all you need is more anti-aircraft/missile defense then load up on multiple smaller systems spread around the hull...a forward mounted turret can not cover the aft end of the ship. So the decision boils down to what purpose and what anticipated threats will the ship face ? Will it be a "special purpose" hull and not a participant in NATO operations?
@@karmakazi101 Same to you, Pal.
@@brianfoley4328Britain can't afford to replace it's 13 Type-23 frigates 1-1 with the full fat (and price) Type-26, which is 2€ billion Sterling a ship. So what they've done, is build 6 '26s as permanent escorts assigned to the fleet to protect the 2 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, with the remainder being a mix of much cheaper (250 million) Type-31 and 32s. If you think about it, ALL seven of those ships combined are cheaper than one Type-26.
The idea is, the cheaper frigates are the workhorses of the fleet, can handle most frigate duties and can handle up to a threat level 2 environment (eg the Arabian Peninsula). If they encounter a neer-peer opponent (threat level 3-the maximum rating); they withdraw to be replaced by a more capable (and expensive to build and operate) ship, like a '26 or an Arleigh Burke.
I could do on and on...but what the RN have done, is very clever. There's a MASSIVE difference in Frigate sizes and capabilities, just as there were huge differences in destroyers WW2, with full-sized fleet-destroyers and cheap and nasty escort types. The Type -31 and '32 are not designed to take on other ships, but can do so with their ASMs.
Every time i look at the type31 and just think is that all the missiles they could fit? Especially for how large it is.
Delivers high survivability. What?
What about the new laser gun being developed in Northern Island?
12km doesn't equal 77 miles.... more like 6.5nm.
There is only one Royal Navy. It is redundant to provide a UK prefix. Other monarchies provide a national prefix to their navy names (e.g. Swedish Royal Navy).
I suggest that you study history and military protocols or risk losing your credibility.
No use laser weapon s
12.5 kilometres is around 7.6 miles. Nowhere near 77miles.
The air brust looked bad as s
12 kilometers = 77 miles...?
Whut?
The 57mm isn't gonna be big enough for if ships get close, id still have the 127mm and either 2 57mm or 2 40mm to complement the 127mm
But not good enough vs hypersonics. These weapons easy being counter by the like of railguns.
thats why its got VLS....
Hypersonic weapons have been incredibly overrated, I'm not saying they aren't a threat, but they certainly aren't the unstoppable wonder weapon that some would make out, as proven in Russia.
That’s the whole purpose of air bust fragmentation.
We onto ballistic now xd.@@AB-gi3qy
Assuming someone can develop a railgun that works under field conditions.
Reactivate HMS belfast and upgrade all her sysytems
I would have thought that the decisions have been made by those who know what theu are doing, so who am i to comment on things that i know nothing about ,i just the experts good judgement.
Lol these weapons are just a cost cutting measure to keep the costs per ship to a minimum for a cash strapped UK Navy
In my personal opinion, the concealed mechanics are going to be a back draw, there going to be days when either rain or snow is going to be problematic on your ship, maintenance will be a nightmare, crew shift routine will have be well adjusted to it and it could chafe, speaking as someone who use to work as as warehouse loader, bad timing with gear that is more complicated is something I don't like,
Might as well spend more time and effort into developing a electronic warfare to the point to you can jam any radar
Can this UK frigate stands up to china’s rail and rail coil gun?
Bankrupted Nation
Bankrupted totally Navy and airforce 🇬🇧❗
These won’t survive first contact. Fit for coast guard duty, nothing else.
boffers where used in the 80s absolute crap, you may as well throw potatoes, hope these are a 100% improvement
Ridiculous. Should have a twin 127mm/5inch and a twin 57mm or 76mm gun.
To the best of my knowledge there are no twin 127 or 57mm guns currently in production. It would therefore be difficult to fit either of them to type 31.
twin 127 on a FRIGATE????? Whats next, triple 16-inch on the destroyers?
Its a frigate, its not a destroyer.
@Debbiebabe69 what are you talking about? The Type 26/City class has a single 127mm/5 inch gun you fool. So to does the new German Baden-Wurttenburg class, so does the new Japanese Mogami Class, so does the Korean Chungnam class, the new Russian Admiral Gorshkov Class has a 130mm/5.1inch gun, the British frigates and destroyers in world war two operated 4.5 and 6 in guns?
You don't know what you're talking about.
@Belisarius1967 you uses the same guns in a twin mount. The Ticondarogas used to have twin mounts. It's not hard to design a twin mount.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 from wikipedia:
'The Ticonderoga class of guided-missile *cruisers* '
We are talking about a FRIGATE, not a cruiser....
...gigantic...? Dude, what have you smoked - this 57mm gun is the smallest main gun in all Nato.....
Lol. They'll be delivered 5 years late, massively over budget, will have technical issues and half will be cancelled anyway.
57mm = 2.3inches tiny gun lol
Disappointing to see no NGS capability. Anything less than 155mm is useless
I am surprised and underwhelmed by the armament choices for this vessel class. I remember when “ Britannia’ ruled the waves, but am admittedly long in the tooth. I have seen GB weakening their commitment to an adequate naval presence in quality and technology for quite a while, a dangerous shortsightedness.
Not as lethal as #UniversalCruelty
Gundam?😅😅😅