Yh they've already said the type 31 will be from the start for close in support using the laser dragon fire system like the type 26 will be & the type 45 will get it fitted at the same time when they go in for refit to install the extra vls systems etc
The Type 31E /Arrowhead 140 is based in the Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class air defense frigate, which has two 76mm canon in tbe feont ans a Millenium 35mm CIWS in the rear.
Just to make it clear guys. It's not made to take on ships similar to its own size its basically there to protect bigger ships from drones and small ships. It needs more guns to deal with drones as they will be coming from more than 3 lines in the sky. ship should be dotted with small caliber guns if it is there to take on thousands of drones coming from all directions or will it have at least 4 sister ships?
Bofors 40mm was (and still is) a very successful system that’s in use in a wide variety of roles by military forces all over the world. Reliable, accurate, and provides a lot of firepower in a relatively compact package. The 40mm will take out any enemy vehicle up to a main battle tank, and will likely severely damage most of those. With high-explosive shells, an effective anti-troop weapon as well.
I think it is because “ milimiter”, although is a sustantive, it really acts as an adjetive It is just like saying “four star hotel”: here, “star” play an adjetive role so it most be singular
Antiquated, archaic spelling just. I still use "re" in terms like health centre but, will write center if I'm talking about the middle of something. There are many others I do this with also. Throw back to French language.
105mm and 120mm aren't used by any country in the world as a naval calibre. Larger calibre guns are not used for engaging large naval vessels anymore and are a very risky method of shore bombardment. The Type 31's shouldn't ever be used for shore bombardment, so the 57mm is perfectly good for the jobs it's intended to do (as would the Leonardo 76mm). The new US Navy frigate is going to be fitted with exactly the same gun, so they seem to have reached the same conclusion.
@@vincefont4765I disagree, I think type 31 should be used for shore bombardment as it means we don’t have to bring a type 26 down and in that case we could use a 127mm gun on it
@@vincefont4765 Every US destroyer has the Mark 45 5inch (127mm) gun. Lots of other navy's using it too and building new ships to use it. The Mark 45 is still the preferred gun for surface warfare. A lot of research and work has been done to extend its range and accuracy.
They missed out the most important ammunition, “madfires” and “ALaMO” which are continually guided during their flight time making them extremely effective
Yes, the Italians use DART guided ammunition on their 76.2 mm gun which is guided, the United States has Mad fires FOR THE 57 MM gun which is not only guided but have their own seeker. It remains to be seen whether 40 mm guns will get a guided round or even 35.. The Smaller calibre of the gun the higher the fire rate which gives more opportunities for a hit at the sacrifice of range. I believe the technology that made this possible was the laser ring gyro but I’m pretty sure pendulous gyros are now used.
@@williamzk9083 it’s interesting that the ALaMO is 40mm with a spacer so it will fit the 57mm these can replace the ciwis with a much more versatile weapon
Cannot understand why either of these guns were not considered for the Arafura class opv's. Sadly the decision by the RAN to short change them in every area means that they will never serve in the RAN in the OPV role and will more than likely be handed to Border Force.
@jimfrazier8611 Yes, the 40CT is super compact, closer to a typical 30mm gun... Which as you said, not a lot of use on a ship. But it sacrifices in other respects, not just complexity, like it has a lower rate of fire & less range.
Has that yet been done with a 40mm Bofors installation? Iirc, it was a combo tested with a 30mm Bushmaster one but I don't know about the option you suggest.
To what extent? The 57mm gun is just as capable against small boats, it even has a longer range. Martlet is great for really lightweight platforms which can't mount a naval gun, like helicopters, UAVs or naval drones, but I don't see what the benefit would be here.
Doesn't offer increased protection as a static ship mount vs the guns already installed, and they will have martlets available through the onboard helicopters for threats further out.
40mm was an extremely popular AA Caliber up until early 90s... It was considered great for AA against helicópters, piston engine and subsonic jet engine aircrafts, while kind of OK CIWS against subsonic sea skirmish missiles. In the 90s it was replaced for more rapid firing CIWS like 20mm Phalanx... But reality of present day warfare is that no CIWS would stop a hypersonic missile, while Drones are better engaged by a flak burst ammo from a mid cal gun, than a rapid firing AP round from a small cal gun
Reload time for Phalanx and the cumbersome process is the issue in swarm warfare bbrrrrrrttttt goes through a lot of ammo fast but the drum isn't all that big The RN (and the Belgian Navy on their minesweepers) hope that the 3P ammo will compensate for lower rate of fire
For a growing variety of reasons. Mostly missile armed ships, are fast becoming obsolete. Missiles have their advantages. Until they are used up, or are not practical to use, on all threats. Like a missile designed to hit supersonic missiles and aircraft. Against a small inexpensive drone, flying or otherwise. As Moskva demonstrated, a large load of high tech missiles can easily become an equally spectacular fire at sea. Rather bad, for the health and welfare of the crew. A variety of weapons are needed. Guns don't have the range of missiles, but they don't need to. Energy weapons are new and exciting, until you realize how much fuel it takes to power them. So, energy weapons won't be too practical, until fusion powered ships are available.
The Moscow also showed that a ship with a large array of gun based CIWS-systems can easily become an equally spectacular fire at sea. It wasn't just the three missile systems (1xSA-N-6 and 2xSA-N-4) that failed on the Moscow. It was also the 130mm dual purpose gun and the six 30mm CIWS-systems. The lesson from the Moscow is that a air defence systems with radars and/or FCS that doesn't work, doesn't work, no matter if it's a missile or gun based system.
@@oloflarsson7629 offline combat systems systems accomplish nothing. Moskva's crew had settled into a routine of nothing much happens. The reaction time was too short. Radar sets were also likely offline. Old ship, poorly maintained and a crew composed of conscripts who were not well motivated. On and on, and on.
@@oloflarsson7629 There are too many unanswered questions? When or if the ship detected the missiles. State of material readiness. Crew's readiness to defend the ship. Finally the ship's guns were too big in case of the 130 mm. Guns like those in this video were not aboard.
I can see the appeal of 40mm and 57mm Its very easy to make programmable 40mm and 57mm rounds as well equip them with data link so when fired against missile, they know exactly when to detonate Making it less spray and pray and more 1 shot 1 kill. Additionally you can equip it with multiple magazines allow the gun switch between ammo types for various targets But I would keep the 57mm but trade the 40mm for the Germany 35mm
navies already knew those were coming, small naval drones have been in development for decades, this is why they were ready to go for use in Ukraine. the countermeasures have correspondingly been in development for years as well. The plans for the type 31 frigate date back at least a decade.
In 1906, HMS Dreadnought was commissioned. For nearly 40 years afterwards. Experts claimed that big guns and heavy armor, were the premier combat force, at sea. During WW-II these experts were proven wrong. Today the experts on naval warfare are in a similar position. Technology and operational parameters have changed. A ship capable of destroying satellites in space. Could be seriously damaged by a 50,000 dollar drone. That's a problem.
Sunk by drone boats, even. Ukraine has repeatedly shown how dangerous drone boats can be when deployed in groups by experienced operators. They're more accurate than torpedoes, so you can ram a boat into a hole made by a previous boat.
@@alltat What ever works! One wouldn't think that would be effective. Still, a swarm of fast moving suicide drones. For a ship designed to be in a very different operating environment. Most Russian navy ships are designed to confront US Navy ships and aircraft.
@@alltat The weapons configuration on the type 31 does seem to suggest the Royal navy are putting more emphasis on defence against both drone boats and UAVs rather than the more traditional torpedos. the 57mm and the 40mm can be used against both air and surface targets. While the type 31s main defence against torpedo attack will be a towed array passive decoy system with countermeasure launches (sea sentor)
Because it's pretty much useless against anything coming at you fast - the effective range is like 1-2 km. That's why the USA is going towards short range rolling airframe AA missiles on most of their ships nowadays
@@sergarlantyrell7847 BAE already owns 50% but it’s not actually based in Britain. You mean like a new 120mm or even a 110mm or even a 160mm would be interesting to see but really we need the facilities in Britain if that was to ever going to happen.
@@jammiedodger7040 Actually, I meant more guns to share the 40mm CT round, like a revolver cannon to be used as a longer range CIWS. But yes, eventually other calibres too.
I dont know if it can be called superior, Phalanx already have saved a few warships of potentially letal missile attacks while the Bophors as far as I know is yet to be tested on that function.
Really I thought Phallanx kills were mainly friendly fire. It is the inspiration for moms attack robots in futrama that just end up shooting each other.
to me, just to me, 30mm munition with an airburst fuze and API indeed a mix of three different rounds: two HE but one with impact fuze and the other with the airburst fuze, closing with API as third one, so even a single feeding gun can fire a short 9 rounds burst with 3 of each kind (more then 20 burst with 200 rounds ready to fire) are the easy and cheap solution for hardened surface drones, suicide boat or pirates, flying drones up to 2 nautical miles. You must only select a 30mm mount with good optics and stabilization! I'm considering price of mount, price of ammunition, easy installation on board, weight. Phalanx 1b have same range and capabilities about, but is heavier (even if it could be just on board), fire a much bigger amount of rounds per burst which are way more expensive, so live it for missile only! Again to me, Leonardo 76mm gun is better (have a look to sinkex exercise) because offer not to expensive Dart antimissile round and the similar Vulcano round a 20 nautical miles as antiship or land support capable. Italian Navy was the first to believe in 40mm caliber as anti-missiles last ditch gun capable of destroying them at about 2 nautical miles from the ship instead of less then 1 of first Phalanx, but are decades it shifted on 76mm as much better solution! One last question: why a logistical nightmare duplicating rounds? It's not easier have all three 57mm guns. No penetrating deck variant of Leonardo 76mm gun can fire just over half minute cause it have 72 rounds ready to fire. I think is a clever choice the normal one not for 85 rounds capabilities but because it could be reloaded from inside the ship. It make no difference on large ships as the modern one. Same funny "lie" as the lighter BAE 127mm gun at 20 ton instead of 34 of Leonardo 127mm LW (lightweight 😁) on 10.000 ton ships!!! 14 ton difference on 10.000 ton!?! While depending on barrel position the italian one can fire from 28 to 32 rounds per minute and reloaded accordingly with an automated Ammunition Handling System, the american one can fire the whole 20 rounds ready to fire it have and then 10 rounds. I believe it's clear how much US Navy think a gun is important (because they are "the navy" and have planes and missiles for everyone!)
Phalanx is a fairly cheap self contained system but it's range is pretty short it would take out the missile but the debris could still inflict some damage
Really ? 2 40 and a 57 mm gun thats cost cutting to the extreme ok ISH for defence but what about offense maybe we will write a stiff note and ask them to move close without shooting back please
Offensive power will be it's SSM and land attack missile in its mk41 vls. The guns will be for defence against multiple fast moving air and surface targets.
I guess the navies of the free world should have waited for the 50 years since the CIWS was first designed to await this oh so awesome "upgrade"..... What was Henry Ford thinking with the Model T, he could have waited until they developed the Mustang.
@@paulhill1665 SeaRAM has a greater interception range. And you can replace Phalanx with SeaSnake 27mm revolver cannon. Greater range, programmable air burst ammunition etc and immediate full burst RPM unlike with a gatling gun.
The reality of modern combat is that a capital ship would need all of them. 57mm, 40mm, Phalanx, and RIM 116. It would also need EW/Laser/Maser for soft kills. Line of sight defense should prioritized direct energy over bullets and missiles. The challenge for the UK Navy is you don't have the money. The problem with my US Navy is we waste billions on junk the MIC foist upon us.
No either Bofors 57mm or oto mekara 76mm are the best suited weapons. Larger calibre slower firing guns are not as well suited to multiple fast moving air and surface targets.
If in modern days you get your ship so close to other ship that you need to use guns you have screwed badly. Those are for shooting down missiles, drones, small vessels and aircraft. Not sinking a ship.
@ the strength of phalanx was that it was an integrated system with its own search radar, tracking radar and gun with autonomous threat evaluation. It doesn’t rely on any other system on the ship. It needs power but I dare say you could get a battery back up.
@@williamzk9083 I know, that's why it can defend the ship even if its radar gets oversaturated with targets (which is borderline impossible these days btw) or damaged. But modern systems have that feature too, for example the Rheinmetall Millennium has its own search and fire control radar. It's not mounted on the turret itself, but it can work separately from the ship's CMS. The same goes for the RAM launcher, Dardo, Sea Zenith, RapidFire or the Bofors Mk.4 mentioned here. And systems like the Gökdeniz or SeaRAM have the rasars mounted on the turret itself.
They have both names. The Leanders were the Type12i (improved). The Type 31 is known as the Inspiration Class. Generally, the 'Class' name is taken from the lead ship or a designated theme e.g. the Type 23 Duke Class or the Type 26 City Class. In this case, the ships are being named after famous Inspirational RN vessels from the past. HMS Active, Bulldog, Formidable, Venturer and Campbeltown. 0
Not bad at all. As usual the Royal Navy has it's act together. These weapons should be added to US Navy ships. Where ever space is available. Especially to the CVNs I would still like to see a 40 mm bofors gatling gun. Similar to Phalanx, but with a lot more range, and striking power. Both gun mounts have the advantage of being light weight.
The closest anyone got is the Oerlikon RK 421. It fired a 42 x 348mm cartridge at 450 rpm. It was bought out by a British company and played around with under the project name 'Red Queen' before being dropped. It's just really difficult to get an action to move fast enough (thanks to the square-cube law and exponentially increasing mass) as you get to that sort of size cartridge.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Interesting I wonder what the largest practical gatling gun is? Physios have their limits, yet the question remains. What's the most effective response to the evolving combat environment at sea? What's clear is that today's ships need to evolve to deal with the changes in battle at sea.
@@scottjackson5173 I don't know if any larger than 30mm though there are plenty of 35mm revolver cannons. I suspect you could make a 40mm rotary gun, but the fire rate wouldn't be what people would expect from that kind of gun, maybe more like 1,500-2,000 rpm and the spool up time would be bad too.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Much better than 400 to 500 rounds per minute. When a hypersonic missile is about to strike the ship. As for spool up, the barrel can be rotated, with the feed at idle, until the targeting solution is ready.
Might be great guns but MOD procurement will pair up the Bofors guns with something like Ferranti radars and directors and the interface will NEVER work.
This gun is already obsolete. Point defense guns are a very limited last line of defense and are no match for hypersonic missiles. You need to shoot down the attacking aircraft a couple hundreds of miles away before it launches its missiles. The British lost ships in the Argentine Falklands war because of this lack of ability. Seems they have still learned nothing from very recent history.
The british didn't loose a single ship in the Falklands, because the lacked the capacity to destroy the non-existent threat from Argentine hypersonics. They lost ships, because they failed to shoot down subsonic AShM's and subsonic aircrafts, armed with unguided bombs and guns. And a missiles system designed to handle hypersonics, will not be suited for engaging the wast majority of targets, that is likely going to be subsonic AShM's, UAV's, USV's and so on. Just look at the US Navy in the Red Sea right now. They are failing to keep one of the worlds most important sea lanes open, not because of a lack of capacity in individual ships, sensors and missiles, but because they don't have enough ships, sensors and missiles with sufficient performance. Because using 5'000'000 dollar SM-6's, to shoot down swarmes of 10'000 dollar drones, simply doesn't cut it.
40mm and 57mm with 3p air burst ammunition and modern targeting systems/radar is more effective than ciws at much longer ranges against more types of targets.
Merah Putih Class Frigrate of Indonesia (Redesign AH140) will use 2 CIWS (front and back) Gokdeniz 35 mm double barrel with atom super brust
Yh they've already said the type 31 will be from the start for close in support using the laser dragon fire system like the type 26 will be & the type 45 will get it fitted at the same time when they go in for refit to install the extra vls systems etc
The Type 31E /Arrowhead 140 is based in the Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class air defense frigate, which has two 76mm canon in tbe feont ans a Millenium 35mm CIWS in the rear.
Just to make it clear guys. It's not made to take on ships similar to its own size its basically there to protect bigger ships from drones and small ships. It needs more guns to deal with drones as they will be coming from more than 3 lines in the sky. ship should be dotted with small caliber guns if it is there to take on thousands of drones coming from all directions or will it have at least 4 sister ships?
I bet it's already nicknamed 'The Dalek'
Bofors 40mm was (and still is) a very successful system that’s in use in a wide variety of roles by military forces all over the world.
Reliable, accurate, and provides a lot of firepower in a relatively compact package. The 40mm will take out any enemy vehicle up to a main battle tank, and will likely severely damage most of those. With high-explosive shells, an effective anti-troop weapon as well.
You also have the "bigger brother" of the 57 mm if the 40 mill for some reason wouldnt cut it.
When speaking of gun calibers you use the singular "millimeter," not the plural "millimeters." It's a 57 millimeter gun, not a 57 millimeters gun.
I think it is because “ milimiter”, although is a sustantive, it really acts as an adjetive
It is just like saying “four star hotel”: here, “star” play an adjetive role so it most be singular
*MILLIMETRE
@@redherring6154 Do you happen to know why its changed from meter to metre ? I am curious
@@matso3856 no idea mate and now even questioning my own spelling
Antiquated, archaic spelling just. I still use "re" in terms like health centre but, will write center if I'm talking about the middle of something. There are many others I do this with also. Throw back to French language.
Wonder if they’ll install the versions which have no reload magazine.
hmm 57mm does seem big enough for a main calibre deck gun, should be more like 105mm or 120mm
105mm and 120mm aren't used by any country in the world as a naval calibre. Larger calibre guns are not used for engaging large naval vessels anymore and are a very risky method of shore bombardment. The Type 31's shouldn't ever be used for shore bombardment, so the 57mm is perfectly good for the jobs it's intended to do (as would the Leonardo 76mm). The new US Navy frigate is going to be fitted with exactly the same gun, so they seem to have reached the same conclusion.
This modern warfare not WW2
During WW2, ships had no less than 127mm cannons but advances in modern warfare
you dont need big guns anymore
Those big guns have been replaced by missiles.
The Type 31 will have a 32 cell VLS capable of carrying anything up to cruise missiles.
@@vincefont4765I disagree, I think type 31 should be used for shore bombardment as it means we don’t have to bring a type 26 down and in that case we could use a 127mm gun on it
@@vincefont4765 Every US destroyer has the Mark 45 5inch (127mm) gun. Lots of other navy's using it too and building new ships to use it. The Mark 45 is still the preferred gun for surface warfare. A lot of research and work has been done to extend its range and accuracy.
Type 31, where are the type 26’s?
They missed out the most important ammunition, “madfires” and “ALaMO” which are continually guided during their flight time making them extremely effective
Yes, the Italians use DART guided ammunition on their 76.2 mm gun which is guided, the United States has Mad fires FOR THE 57 MM gun which is not only guided but have their own seeker. It remains to be seen whether 40 mm guns will get a guided round or even 35.. The
Smaller calibre of the gun the higher the fire rate which gives more opportunities for a hit at the sacrifice of range. I believe the technology that made this possible was the laser ring gyro but I’m pretty sure pendulous gyros are now used.
@@williamzk9083 it’s interesting that the ALaMO is 40mm with a spacer so it will fit the 57mm these can replace the ciwis with a much more versatile weapon
Cannot understand why either of these guns were not considered for the Arafura class opv's. Sadly the decision by the RAN to short change them in every area means that they will never serve in the RAN in the OPV role and will more than likely be handed to Border Force.
Even tho UK spent decades developing the CTA 40mm together with France. I guess the CTA is just too expensive.
@jimfrazier8611 Yes, the 40CT is super compact, closer to a typical 30mm gun... Which as you said, not a lot of use on a ship.
But it sacrifices in other respects, not just complexity, like it has a lower rate of fire & less range.
It's not made in a maritime version, as far as I know.
@jimfrazier8611
Theres a naval version of the cta40
so what do you use when the one gun you have needs to be rearmed or breaks down?
Sea ceptor lol
They should add Martlet missile launchers to the 40mm guns.
Has that yet been done with a 40mm Bofors installation? Iirc, it was a combo tested with a 30mm Bushmaster one but I don't know about the option you suggest.
got to say the italian twin bofors 40mm seemed effective, though just looking at videos. marine versions would have much higher ammo capacity though
To what extent? The 57mm gun is just as capable against small boats, it even has a longer range.
Martlet is great for really lightweight platforms which can't mount a naval gun, like helicopters, UAVs or naval drones, but I don't see what the benefit would be here.
Doesn't offer increased protection as a static ship mount vs the guns already installed, and they will have martlets available through the onboard helicopters for threats further out.
40mm was an extremely popular AA Caliber up until early 90s... It was considered great for AA against helicópters, piston engine and subsonic jet engine aircrafts, while kind of OK CIWS against subsonic sea skirmish missiles.
In the 90s it was replaced for more rapid firing CIWS like 20mm Phalanx...
But reality of present day warfare is that no CIWS would stop a hypersonic missile, while Drones are better engaged by a flak burst ammo from a mid cal gun, than a rapid firing AP round from a small cal gun
Reload time for Phalanx and the cumbersome process is the issue in swarm warfare
bbrrrrrrttttt goes through a lot of ammo fast but the drum isn't all that big
The RN (and the Belgian Navy on their minesweepers) hope that the 3P ammo will compensate for lower rate of fire
For a growing variety of reasons. Mostly missile armed ships, are fast becoming obsolete. Missiles have their advantages. Until they are used up, or are not practical to use, on all threats. Like a missile designed to hit supersonic missiles and aircraft. Against a small inexpensive drone, flying or otherwise.
As Moskva demonstrated, a large load of high tech missiles can easily become an equally spectacular fire at sea. Rather bad, for the health and welfare of the crew.
A variety of weapons are needed. Guns don't have the range of missiles, but they don't need to. Energy weapons are new and exciting, until you realize how much fuel it takes to power them. So, energy weapons won't be too practical, until fusion powered ships are available.
The Moscow also showed that a ship with a large array of gun based CIWS-systems can easily become an equally spectacular fire at sea. It wasn't just the three missile systems (1xSA-N-6 and 2xSA-N-4) that failed on the Moscow. It was also the 130mm dual purpose gun and the six 30mm CIWS-systems. The lesson from the Moscow is that a air defence systems with radars and/or FCS that doesn't work, doesn't work, no matter if it's a missile or gun based system.
@@oloflarsson7629 offline combat systems systems accomplish nothing. Moskva's crew had settled into a routine of nothing much happens. The reaction time was too short. Radar sets were also likely offline. Old ship, poorly maintained and a crew composed of conscripts who were not well motivated. On and on, and on.
@@oloflarsson7629 There are too many unanswered questions? When or if the ship detected the missiles. State of material readiness. Crew's readiness to defend the ship. Finally the ship's guns were too big in case of the 130 mm. Guns like those in this video were not aboard.
I can see the appeal of 40mm and 57mm
Its very easy to make programmable 40mm and 57mm rounds as well equip them with data link so when fired against missile, they know exactly when to detonate
Making it less spray and pray and more 1 shot 1 kill. Additionally you can equip it with multiple magazines allow the gun switch between ammo types for various targets
But I would keep the 57mm but trade the 40mm for the Germany 35mm
the older twin 40mm breda looked effective. huge ammo(400+ and 700+) and firepower potential
It is called the Royal Navy, not UK Navy
Haha, nomenclature of UK forces totally baffles foreigners, especially Americans.
What’s betting he calls the British Army, the ‘Royal Army’ 😂😂😂
@@MrSummerblade Casts doubt on their other info
Exactly. It's official name is "the Royal navy" .... Why do foreigners find it so difficult to understand
We don't. I hear Royal before any military force and I think UK@@tigerland4328
Navies are really bricking themselves after seeing the Ukrainian drone ships at work.
navies already knew those were coming, small naval drones have been in development for decades, this is why they were ready to go for use in Ukraine. the countermeasures have correspondingly been in development for years as well. The plans for the type 31 frigate date back at least a decade.
That Mk III gun in the opening sequence reminds me an awful lot of the Daleks from Dr Who. Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!
In 1906, HMS Dreadnought was commissioned. For nearly 40 years afterwards. Experts claimed that big guns and heavy armor, were the premier combat force, at sea. During WW-II these experts were proven wrong.
Today the experts on naval warfare are in a similar position. Technology and operational parameters have changed. A ship capable of destroying satellites in space. Could be seriously damaged by a 50,000 dollar drone. That's a problem.
Sunk by drone boats, even. Ukraine has repeatedly shown how dangerous drone boats can be when deployed in groups by experienced operators. They're more accurate than torpedoes, so you can ram a boat into a hole made by a previous boat.
@@alltat What ever works! One wouldn't think that would be effective. Still, a swarm of fast moving suicide drones. For a ship designed to be in a very different operating environment. Most Russian navy ships are designed to confront US Navy ships and aircraft.
@@alltat The weapons configuration on the type 31 does seem to suggest the Royal navy are putting more emphasis on defence against both drone boats and UAVs rather than the more traditional torpedos. the 57mm and the 40mm can be used against both air and surface targets. While the type 31s main defence against torpedo attack will be a towed array passive decoy system with countermeasure launches (sea sentor)
Not sure why they do not just have a Phalanx as well, afterall it is a fairly self contained system.
probably going to fit the Dragonfire laser system insted.
They may add one when going to a higher threat environment
I believe they’re still a thing on the Type 26.
I suspect it is just down to money 💰 considering threat these ship's may face seems to be shortsighted.
Because it's pretty much useless against anything coming at you fast - the effective range is like 1-2 km. That's why the USA is going towards short range rolling airframe AA missiles on most of their ships nowadays
Aircraft is the plural of aircraft.
English is such a terrible language lol.
Not enough guns. Boat swarm to port, flying drone swarm to starboard and a couple of either up the wazzu and boat goes out of action.
Except there's a 40mm variant fwd & aft aswell as the main 57mm gun.
@@markmaher4548 Ohhh WOW, did not realize, a whole 3 guns. Well bring on the 3 dozen swarm.
@@couespursuit7350 That shouldnt be a problem with these 3 weapon systems , if you trippel that however ..
An attack you described here is impossible to perform at sea.
BAE should start making new military guns again.
BAE Bofors..they bought it.
@@old_stoat They don’t actually make military guns though BAE also consists of Royal Ordinate one of the most famous gun companies in the world.
They should buy CTA international.
Maybe come up with some more applications for their cased telescoped ammo.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 BAE already owns 50% but it’s not actually based in Britain.
You mean like a new 120mm or even a 110mm or even a 160mm would be interesting to see but really we need the facilities in Britain if that was to ever going to happen.
@@jammiedodger7040 Actually, I meant more guns to share the 40mm CT round, like a revolver cannon to be used as a longer range CIWS.
But yes, eventually other calibres too.
I dont know if it can be called superior, Phalanx already have saved a few warships of potentially letal missile attacks while the Bophors as far as I know is yet to be tested on that function.
Really I thought Phallanx kills were mainly friendly fire. It is the inspiration for moms attack robots in futrama that just end up shooting each other.
I guess there needs to be a Sheffield 2.0 before they rethink
Who made the FOI request?
Bofors 57mm mk3: 220 rpm
Bofors 40mm mk4: 300 rpm
😳
And they still have about a 10km range.
And they fire bofors 3P
to me, just to me, 30mm munition with an airburst fuze and API indeed a mix of three different rounds: two HE but one with impact fuze and the other with the airburst fuze, closing with API as third one, so even a single feeding gun can fire a short 9 rounds burst with 3 of each kind (more then 20 burst with 200 rounds ready to fire) are the easy and cheap solution for hardened surface drones, suicide boat or pirates, flying drones up to 2 nautical miles. You must only select a 30mm mount with good optics and stabilization!
I'm considering price of mount, price of ammunition, easy installation on board, weight.
Phalanx 1b have same range and capabilities about, but is heavier (even if it could be just on board), fire a much bigger amount of rounds per burst which are way more expensive, so live it for missile only!
Again to me, Leonardo 76mm gun is better (have a look to sinkex exercise) because offer not to expensive Dart antimissile round and the similar Vulcano round a 20 nautical miles as antiship or land support capable.
Italian Navy was the first to believe in 40mm caliber as anti-missiles last ditch gun capable of destroying them at about 2 nautical miles from the ship instead of less then 1 of first Phalanx, but are decades it shifted on 76mm as much better solution!
One last question:
why a logistical nightmare duplicating rounds?
It's not easier have all three 57mm guns.
No penetrating deck variant of Leonardo 76mm gun can fire just over half minute cause it have 72 rounds ready to fire.
I think is a clever choice the normal one not for 85 rounds capabilities but because it could be reloaded from inside the ship. It make no difference on large ships as the modern one.
Same funny "lie" as the lighter BAE 127mm gun at 20 ton instead of 34 of Leonardo 127mm LW (lightweight 😁) on 10.000 ton ships!!! 14 ton difference on 10.000 ton!?!
While depending on barrel position the italian one can fire from 28 to 32 rounds per minute and reloaded accordingly with an automated Ammunition Handling System, the american one can fire the whole 20 rounds ready to fire it have and then 10 rounds. I believe it's clear how much US Navy think a gun is important (because they are "the navy" and have planes and missiles for everyone!)
Elevation , 40 mm has better elevation
@@matso3856
How could I not notice that it doesn't reach the canonical 85 degrees of elevation 🤦🏻♂️
Thank you
Phalanx is a fairly cheap self contained system but it's range is pretty short it would take out the missile but the debris could still inflict some damage
Hence why they're switich to a gun with longer range.
Phalanx dont use programmable fuses so it need direct hits on a target.
Seems no one wants to fit CTA 40 on a ship despite all the hot air !
Really ? 2 40 and a 57 mm gun thats cost cutting to the extreme ok ISH for defence but what about offense maybe we will write a stiff note and ask them to move close without shooting back please
Offensive power will be it's SSM and land attack missile in its mk41 vls. The guns will be for defence against multiple fast moving air and surface targets.
57 mm...÷ 25.4. = 2.24 Inches...or two and a quarter inch diameter shell...medium range defence gun...
I guess the navies of the free world should have waited for the 50 years since the CIWS was first designed to await this oh so awesome "upgrade"..... What was Henry Ford thinking with the Model T, he could have waited until they developed the Mustang.
The RN should've went with RAM or Phalanx for close-in defense.
They do use phalanx
Sea ram and rhe RM116 is not used by the RN, cost is one major reason, the RM 116 cost some $900,000 per missile, phalanx is very short range
@@paulhill1665 SeaRAM has a greater interception range. And you can replace Phalanx with SeaSnake 27mm revolver cannon. Greater range, programmable air burst ammunition etc and immediate full burst RPM unlike with a gatling gun.
The Bofors 57mm and 40mm are better at dealing with drones than phalanx
Phalanx is quite an old system with a rather limited range, there are many more effective solutions out there.
The reality of modern combat is that a capital ship would need all of them. 57mm, 40mm, Phalanx, and RIM 116. It would also need EW/Laser/Maser for soft kills. Line of sight defense should prioritized direct energy over bullets and missiles. The challenge for the UK Navy is you don't have the money. The problem with my US Navy is we waste billions on junk the MIC foist upon us.
It's called the Royal navy. No such thing as the "UK navy". Also the type 31 has sea ceptor so it only really needs the phalanx
You don't need Phalanx if you have the Bofors Mk.4, it (and many other such systems) performs the Phalanx's role better.
Think bigger main gun at least a 75mm.
No either Bofors 57mm or oto mekara 76mm are the best suited weapons. Larger calibre slower firing guns are not as well suited to multiple fast moving air and surface targets.
Stőd Bofors, bli kanon 🍺
Not enough guns for full combat. You must not have just high tech
If in modern days you get your ship so close to other ship that you need to use guns you have screwed badly. Those are for shooting down missiles, drones, small vessels and aircraft. Not sinking a ship.
Tell me you know little about naval weapons without telling me you know little about naval weapons. "Not enough guns for full combat" it's not ww2
After 40 years, someone comes up with something better than phalanx?
There are many systems better than the Phalanx, and they've been on the market for quite a long time.
@ the strength of phalanx was that it was an integrated system with its own search radar, tracking radar and gun with autonomous threat evaluation. It doesn’t rely on any other system on the ship. It needs power but I dare say you could get a battery back up.
@@williamzk9083 I know, that's why it can defend the ship even if its radar gets oversaturated with targets (which is borderline impossible these days btw) or damaged. But modern systems have that feature too, for example the Rheinmetall Millennium has its own search and fire control radar. It's not mounted on the turret itself, but it can work separately from the ship's CMS. The same goes for the RAM launcher, Dardo, Sea Zenith, RapidFire or the Bofors Mk.4 mentioned here. And systems like the Gökdeniz or SeaRAM have the rasars mounted on the turret itself.
We got a grower not a shower
76 mm gives you more stand off range
155 MLRS
Why are the ships named Type XX? What happened to giving ship classes proper names like Leander Class? Are Royal Navy afraid of pissing off Gen.Z?
They have both names. The Leanders were the Type12i (improved). The Type 31 is known as the Inspiration Class. Generally, the 'Class' name is taken from the lead ship or a designated theme e.g. the Type 23 Duke Class or the Type 26 City Class. In this case, the ships are being named after famous Inspirational RN vessels from the past. HMS Active, Bulldog, Formidable, Venturer and Campbeltown.
0
The Type 31 is called Inspiration-class.
BOFORS 40 mm is 3 time better like Phalanx. the best performance for CWIS with resonable price!
Not bad at all. As usual the Royal Navy has it's act together. These weapons should be added to US Navy ships. Where ever space is available. Especially to the CVNs
I would still like to see a 40 mm bofors gatling gun. Similar to Phalanx, but with a lot more range, and striking power. Both gun mounts have the advantage of being light weight.
The navy can afford to get its act together as it is allocated almost two thirds of the total defence budget.
The closest anyone got is the Oerlikon RK 421. It fired a 42 x 348mm cartridge at 450 rpm.
It was bought out by a British company and played around with under the project name 'Red Queen' before being dropped.
It's just really difficult to get an action to move fast enough (thanks to the square-cube law and exponentially increasing mass) as you get to that sort of size cartridge.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Interesting I wonder what the largest practical gatling gun is? Physios have their limits, yet the question remains. What's the most effective response to the evolving combat environment at sea? What's clear is that today's ships need to evolve to deal with the changes in battle at sea.
@@scottjackson5173 I don't know if any larger than 30mm though there are plenty of 35mm revolver cannons.
I suspect you could make a 40mm rotary gun, but the fire rate wouldn't be what people would expect from that kind of gun, maybe more like 1,500-2,000 rpm and the spool up time would be bad too.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Much better than 400 to 500 rounds per minute. When a hypersonic missile is about to strike the ship. As for spool up, the barrel can be rotated, with the feed at idle, until the targeting solution is ready.
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
touch me where i go wee wees
Basically says nothin...
Might be great guns but MOD procurement will pair up the Bofors guns with something like Ferranti radars and directors and the interface will NEVER work.
Not accurate presentation....very confusing ...
Big mistake have both
It will make a nice new reef. Hi tech fish home.
Sounds like a poor man’s CWIS
It isn't, it is pretty good overall, and particular the range is important.
Waste of money
This gun is already obsolete. Point defense guns are a very limited last line of defense and are no match for hypersonic missiles. You need to shoot down the attacking aircraft a couple hundreds of miles away before it launches its missiles. The British lost ships in the Argentine Falklands war because of this lack of ability. Seems they have still learned nothing from very recent history.
The type 31 has missiles for that and will be fitted with laser at later refit.
The british didn't loose a single ship in the Falklands, because the lacked the capacity to destroy the non-existent threat from Argentine hypersonics. They lost ships, because they failed to shoot down subsonic AShM's and subsonic aircrafts, armed with unguided bombs and guns. And a missiles system designed to handle hypersonics, will not be suited for engaging the wast majority of targets, that is likely going to be subsonic AShM's, UAV's, USV's and so on. Just look at the US Navy in the Red Sea right now. They are failing to keep one of the worlds most important sea lanes open, not because of a lack of capacity in individual ships, sensors and missiles, but because they don't have enough ships, sensors and missiles with sufficient performance. Because using 5'000'000 dollar SM-6's, to shoot down swarmes of 10'000 dollar drones, simply doesn't cut it.
Lol, thanks for the input, admiral.
40mm and 57mm with 3p air burst ammunition and modern targeting systems/radar is more effective than ciws at much longer ranges against more types of targets.
Load of old toash propaganda 😅😅
Why are you keeping Chinese advertisments. I believe this is a Chinese content as well