Sounds like you have a problem with that tell me please seriously are you going to go overboard and look for one of those shell's if it goes in the ocean
@@Bigfoot64 I mean they could just make a device that collects the brass but the amount of brass from weapons in the ocean is so ridiculously small that it will never be a problem
The cannon is formally known as the Bofors (now BAE) 57 mm SAK L/70 and there have been three versions (Mk. 1, 2 & 3) produced; it is widely used internationally and can be found on the Canadian Halifax-class frigates (Mk. 2, upgraded to Mk. 3), both of the U.S. Independence and Freedom LCS-classes and on two U.S. Coast Guard cutter classes (Mk. 110, a version of the Mk. 3). It is also planned to be used on the British Type 31 class frigate, the U.S.S. Constellation class guided missile frigate and the future U.S. Coast Guard Heritage class cutter.
It is used widely ??? Till it was Bofors no one want it !!! Now that become "american" with BAE is immediately selected by USN, USCG, Canada, Great Britain and Australia. Leonardo 76mm Superapido and predecessors on board ships of 60 countries, what is? Common as an hand-gun
Other ships have more room to collect the brass on deck. One can only hope they try to save the spent cases during training. I think that would be the last of their worries in a real combat situation. Could be worse, could be plastic cases. They make them now, in smaller calibers.
You would think in this day and age there would have a receptacle attached to catch the expended shell cases to recycle. Rather than letting them eject into the sea to add to the pollution
The fishes. The Navy isn’t shy about polluting the oceans, noise included. It wouldn’t take much to make them better but there’s not much incentive for greedy contractors to do so.
@@Burhanontheranch While I don't disagree that the military industrial complex is indeed motivated in large parts by lust for money, the reason why they don't gather the brass is rather simple, there's a lot of brass, too much in fact. Clearing them out in the middle of combat isn't something you want to do, and cased ammo is much, much safer (see HMS Warspite at Jutland) it's just way more easy for everyone on the ship to get rid of the brass the simple way by ejecting it straight into the ocean rather than having some kind of system of nets for instance to catch it, that then has to be switched out to an empty one every time it fills up. There's usually not a whole lot of extra space, on newer ships they usually leave a lot of empty space so when new systems come out they've got room to integrate them, but I doubt the sailors would like to manage the literal tons of brass that would come as a result of keeping it on board either way, and a lot of the older ships well they don't necessarily have the space to even keep it on board, there's a lot of stuff that's a lot more relevant to the crew that needs to be stored somewhere.
The Swedes did something right here. Weird though that Bofors was sold so much. United Defense a US company bought them in 2000, then BAE bought them in 2005. Since we all share it doesn't matter anyway but it's funny to see it swap different nations hands. Hope to see a MK 4 variant in the future as it hasn't really had a major upgrade since the mid 90's.
Bofors aint bought by anyone and have never been, many company has built their weapons under license and that all… today they are a sister company to BAE due swedish weapon sales laws because Sweden has been a neutral nation for over 200years(about to end by NATO membership)!
@@crissdiamond1907 they have been bought and sold many times... As stated above BAE now owns them... "AB Bofors is a former Swedish arms manufacturer which today is part of the British arms concern BAE Systems."
@@ThatCarGuy nope…sorry to say but you are dead wrong! They ain’t bought by anyone… they are a sister company to BAE as I did say, Bofors Celsius/Saab are working with almost all western companys and Bofors/ Hägglunds and Saab are working with BAE! Everything I say can be found on internet! And it’s all about Swedish laws…
@@crissdiamond1907 I literally just quoted them saying "former Swedish" and being bought by BAE... if you can't accept that this conversation won't go any further and this will be my last comment to you. Goodbye
Imagine being that brass casing faling into the middle of the ocean only to never see the light of day again... at the bottom of the ocan there it will make some crab happy with a new home or octopus LOL NEVER FORGETI
Yeah, GAU-8 doesnt ejected spent casings, just cycles them back into the drum in a ~1200 round closed loop. Reduces weight change, eliminates need to put a port in the plane
Got to say the US Navy calls that gun the BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun as Bofors were bought out in 2005. This is as fitted on the Independence Class LCS but the same gun is fitted to the other LCS the Freedom Class and will be fitted to the Type 31.
The US Government foolishly allowed BAE to buy a lot of US Defense contractors. BAE Systems bought the primary contractor for most US Artillery systems (United Defense). This is why BAE builds the M777 in Mississippi. BAE (US) is also working on a new SP Artillery system for the US Army. BAE is not a good company in the USA or UK... lots of broken promises and over budget items.
@@willw8011 Last point first I beg to differ. Not sure why you say this but in the UK it has been pretty much on point on projects (within the bounds of poorly managed defence projects by the UK MoD) and it delivers ships like the carriers, Type 26 and nuclear submarines pretty much on budget and to time. You say 'foolishly allowed'? Given Bofors was a Swedish company I am not sure the US Government had any say in the matter. Especially as BAE were and are already a solid partner for the US military employing thousands of US workers. Like being the major industry partner to LM in the F-35 for example.
@@1chish United Defense bought Bofors (at least in the USA), so when BAE bought United Defense, then it got that too. BAE did not create anything in the USA. It just bought already created companies and grabs US DoD's money. BAE lied about the Ticonderoga class life extension program cost and the program was canceled. BAE was part of the group that over promised and under performed within the USN electromagnetic cannon project. BAE mismanaged the UK's SSN build program. BAE was also the same group that messed up the Type 45 destroyers. I could go on, but it is one of the worst contractors in the USA.... and the USA has a lot of bad defense contractors.
@@willw8011 Your argument doesn’t really hold water! Every defence manufacturer has went over budget at one time or another! What really matters is that they build in America and employ Americans!!
@@mac2626 BAE could not even manage the Ticonderoga life extension and upgrade program correctly. The USN did not even go to them for the upgrades on the Arleigh-Burkes (DDG-51 class), because BAE was so bad. BAE messed-up the UK's SSN so badly that the UK Government had to call in General Dynamics Electric Boat to manage the project. I read that the SSN's hull sections were so messed up that the CAD blue prints had to be redone. The USA needs a new SP Artillery, and BAE is the company doing it. The USA also needs to maintain independence in its own defense industry. Years ago, I heard, Trump wanted to send AT-4 to Ukraine... Sweden blocked it. He also wanted to send M78 LAW to Ukraine... Norway blocked it. The only ATGM the USA really owns is the Javelin, so more of those were sent. Ukraine would have been in much worse shape if it were not for the USA and UK sending weapons before the war started. National policy decisions should not be held up due to the wishes of other countries' politicians. From what I understand, the M777 is a joint venture of the USA and UK, so the USA does not even control its own artillery production. 30% or so of the M777's parts are built in the UK, and they don't even buy it. If the French can do most of their military production in house, then the USA should be able to. BTW, the British should do the same. As soon as Boden got into office, he forced the British to stop selling Payway4 to Saudi Arabia. He could do that, because the USA owns the Paveway4 and gives license to the UK to build Paveway4.
Need to commit to buy the Mk332 guided rounds to go with these for the Type31s. Best way to deal with the Bayraktar kind of threat seen in the Black Sea.
@@willw8011 most efficient one is the Mk332 guided 57mm round. Also means dozens of drone kills on the mount before reload. RN needs to invest in that.
@@willw8011 Nope no CIWS in the traditional sense. The ship has one 57mm, of the type shown, forward and two of the new Mk4 40mm guns, one just behind the 57mm and higher up and one back aft on the hangar roof. All can fire Bofors special smart-fused flak ammunition so the ship can put up a dense cloud of shrapnel in front of an incoming air target up to about 4-5000yrds from the ship in any direction. Thats about 3 times greater range than you get with the standard US 20mm CIWS. That, coupled with the small battery of Sea Ceptor VLS antiair missiles is expected to make the CIWS unnecessary.
@@SteveJones-om6ks Maybe it was the Type 26 frigate that will have US missiles. The USA has many types of CIWS, including ESSM, Sea Ram, lasers, Phalanx
What's the penetration capabilities of this gun? Would it penetrate a Nuclear Submarine on the surface? Would it penetrate the side hull of an Aircraft Carrier? Obviously it destroys all military aircraft/merchant navy vessels. Would the thick armour belt of a battleship stop this gun?
If somehow you wanted to fit it with discarding sabot shell, it would still punch through the flank of a battleship yes. But the chances of gun range engagement with the modern day? None. Ideally for combat range, the 127mm variant. This gives you at least over half a meter of raw armor perforation. Hit something vital and it'll be very unfortunate.
The zumwalts? Yeah that was a clusterfuck. 'Development was too expensive, reduce build from 15 to 3.' '6 gun magazines is too small a production run, cost after tooling will be over 1 million dollars a shell' 'on second thought who needs guns?' That were the main point of the program lol
Nothing comes free, recycling was deemed secondary to maintaining tonnage and stealth objectives. Perhaps an argument could be made for net mountings to use in training, but fitting and removing them on a sloped deck out at sea would be... Besides, as uncool as it is to litter, crabs like the shelter and certain bacteria eat the metal. Its not all bad.
One of the US Navy's independence class LCS, no pennant number visible so couldn't tell you which. This gun type is also set to be integrated on the future T31 class, so that likely why the channel is sharing US Navy footage.
The anti-fouling paint on the bottom of that ship will leak out more tin and copper in a day, than those brass casings do in a decade. Yes we are destroying the oceans. These brass casings are not the issue though.
In the Army "no one leaves the range until all the brass is collected"... in the Navy "just throw it over board."
Sounds like you have a problem with that tell me please seriously are you going to go overboard and look for one of those shell's if it goes in the ocean
@@Bigfoot64 I mean they could just make a device that collects the brass but the amount of brass from weapons in the ocean is so ridiculously small that it will never be a problem
@@Bigfoot64 you know what a joke is buddy?
@@loscheninmotion9920 no I don't think 🤔 I heard of it let me Google it
@@Bigfoot64 great! Hope that helps :)
the fish can have a few brass casings, as a treat.
The cannon is formally known as the Bofors (now BAE) 57 mm SAK L/70 and there have been three versions (Mk. 1, 2 & 3) produced; it is widely used internationally and can be found on the Canadian Halifax-class frigates (Mk. 2, upgraded to Mk. 3), both of the U.S. Independence and Freedom LCS-classes and on two U.S. Coast Guard cutter classes (Mk. 110, a version of the Mk. 3). It is also planned to be used on the British Type 31 class frigate, the U.S.S. Constellation class guided missile frigate and the future U.S. Coast Guard Heritage class cutter.
It is used widely ???
Till it was Bofors no one want it !!!
Now that become "american" with BAE is immediately selected by USN, USCG, Canada, Great Britain and Australia.
Leonardo 76mm Superapido and predecessors on board ships of 60 countries, what is?
Common as an hand-gun
and all 4 Hamina class missile boats off Finnish navy
I like the gun package on the type 31.
Other ships have more room to collect the brass on deck. One can only hope they try to save the spent cases during training. I think that would be the last of their worries in a real combat situation. Could be worse, could be plastic cases. They make them now, in smaller calibers.
A cage, a net or bucket collecting those shells would be helpful for recycling in war when we need all materials at most.
You have to remember who’s firing those shells, it would cost more to bring those shells back to be recycled than to be thrown overboard.
@@fortunatebum That‘s pollution of the ocean right there
@@dvmvge5766 it’s brass casings, they sink and corrode over time. It’s not hazardous to the environment and you’re just bothered you see it.
@@fortunatebum They corrode but they don‘t dissolve. So yeah, I don‘t know.
Would it be different for steel casings ?
Great for nesting on ocean floor!
Who’s collecting that brass ?
Neptune’s daughters.
You would think in this day and age there would have a receptacle attached to catch the expended shell cases to recycle. Rather than letting them eject into the sea to add to the pollution
The fishes. The Navy isn’t shy about polluting the oceans, noise included. It wouldn’t take much to make them better but there’s not much incentive for greedy contractors to do so.
@@Burhanontheranch While I don't disagree that the military industrial complex is indeed motivated in large parts by lust for money, the reason why they don't gather the brass is rather simple, there's a lot of brass, too much in fact. Clearing them out in the middle of combat isn't something you want to do, and cased ammo is much, much safer (see HMS Warspite at Jutland) it's just way more easy for everyone on the ship to get rid of the brass the simple way by ejecting it straight into the ocean rather than having some kind of system of nets for instance to catch it, that then has to be switched out to an empty one every time it fills up. There's usually not a whole lot of extra space, on newer ships they usually leave a lot of empty space so when new systems come out they've got room to integrate them, but I doubt the sailors would like to manage the literal tons of brass that would come as a result of keeping it on board either way, and a lot of the older ships well they don't necessarily have the space to even keep it on board, there's a lot of stuff that's a lot more relevant to the crew that needs to be stored somewhere.
@@TheThingInMySink that's a lot of words to justify all the pointless pollution
The Swedes did something right here. Weird though that Bofors was sold so much. United Defense a US company bought them in 2000, then BAE bought them in 2005. Since we all share it doesn't matter anyway but it's funny to see it swap different nations hands. Hope to see a MK 4 variant in the future as it hasn't really had a major upgrade since the mid 90's.
Bofors aint bought by anyone and have never been, many company has built their weapons under license and that all… today they are a sister company to BAE due swedish weapon sales laws because Sweden has been a neutral nation for over 200years(about to end by NATO membership)!
@@crissdiamond1907 they have been bought and sold many times... As stated above BAE now owns them...
"AB Bofors is a former Swedish arms manufacturer which today is part of the British arms concern BAE Systems."
@@ThatCarGuy nope…sorry to say but you are dead wrong! They ain’t bought by anyone… they are a sister company to BAE as I did say, Bofors Celsius/Saab are working with almost all western companys and Bofors/ Hägglunds and Saab are working with BAE!
Everything I say can be found on internet! And it’s all about Swedish laws…
@@crissdiamond1907 I literally just quoted them saying "former Swedish" and being bought by BAE... if you can't accept that this conversation won't go any further and this will be my last comment to you. Goodbye
@@ThatCarGuy why would I accept that when it’s quoted wrong, like I did say it’s all on the net.
Imagine being that brass casing faling into the middle of the ocean only to never see the light of day again... at the bottom of the ocan there it will make some crab happy with a new home or octopus LOL NEVER FORGETI
Compare with the collection of spent cases in the Warthog Gatling Gun.
They save all of the brass inside the Warthog. It stays in the plane for balance.
Yeah, GAU-8 doesnt ejected spent casings, just cycles them back into the drum in a ~1200 round closed loop. Reduces weight change, eliminates need to put a port in the plane
Got to say the US Navy calls that gun the BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun as Bofors were bought out in 2005.
This is as fitted on the Independence Class LCS but the same gun is fitted to the other LCS the Freedom Class and will be fitted to the Type 31.
The US Government foolishly allowed BAE to buy a lot of US Defense contractors. BAE Systems bought the primary contractor for most US Artillery systems (United Defense). This is why BAE builds the M777 in Mississippi. BAE (US) is also working on a new SP Artillery system for the US Army.
BAE is not a good company in the USA or UK... lots of broken promises and over budget items.
@@willw8011 Last point first I beg to differ. Not sure why you say this but in the UK it has been pretty much on point on projects (within the bounds of poorly managed defence projects by the UK MoD) and it delivers ships like the carriers, Type 26 and nuclear submarines pretty much on budget and to time.
You say 'foolishly allowed'? Given Bofors was a Swedish company I am not sure the US Government had any say in the matter. Especially as BAE were and are already a solid partner for the US military employing thousands of US workers. Like being the major industry partner to LM in the F-35 for example.
@@1chish United Defense bought Bofors (at least in the USA), so when BAE bought United Defense, then it got that too. BAE did not create anything in the USA. It just bought already created companies and grabs US DoD's money.
BAE lied about the Ticonderoga class life extension program cost and the program was canceled.
BAE was part of the group that over promised and under performed within the USN electromagnetic cannon project.
BAE mismanaged the UK's SSN build program.
BAE was also the same group that messed up the Type 45 destroyers.
I could go on, but it is one of the worst contractors in the USA.... and the USA has a lot of bad defense contractors.
@@willw8011 Your argument doesn’t really hold water! Every defence manufacturer has went over budget at one time or another! What really matters is that they build in America and employ Americans!!
@@mac2626 BAE could not even manage the Ticonderoga life extension and upgrade program correctly. The USN did not even go to them for the upgrades on the Arleigh-Burkes (DDG-51 class), because BAE was so bad. BAE messed-up the UK's SSN so badly that the UK Government had to call in General Dynamics Electric Boat to manage the project. I read that the SSN's hull sections were so messed up that the CAD blue prints had to be redone. The USA needs a new SP Artillery, and BAE is the company doing it.
The USA also needs to maintain independence in its own defense industry. Years ago, I heard, Trump wanted to send AT-4 to Ukraine... Sweden blocked it. He also wanted to send M78 LAW to Ukraine... Norway blocked it. The only ATGM the USA really owns is the Javelin, so more of those were sent. Ukraine would have been in much worse shape if it were not for the USA and UK sending weapons before the war started. National policy decisions should not be held up due to the wishes of other countries' politicians.
From what I understand, the M777 is a joint venture of the USA and UK, so the USA does not even control its own artillery production. 30% or so of the M777's parts are built in the UK, and they don't even buy it.
If the French can do most of their military production in house, then the USA should be able to. BTW, the British should do the same. As soon as Boden got into office, he forced the British to stop selling Payway4 to Saudi Arabia. He could do that, because the USA owns the Paveway4 and gives license to the UK to build Paveway4.
Can I get a boat and a big net to catch all that brass?
would all be steel casings.
That gun is kickass
Need to commit to buy the Mk332 guided rounds to go with these for the Type31s. Best way to deal with the Bayraktar kind of threat seen in the Black Sea.
The US Navy is not as incompetent as the Russian Navy. The US Navy already has a lot of different methods to destroy drones.
@@willw8011 most efficient one is the Mk332 guided 57mm round. Also means dozens of drone kills on the mount before reload. RN needs to invest in that.
@@SteveJones-om6ks I thought the British were going to use the American style CIWS and VLS systems on the Type 31.
@@willw8011 Nope no CIWS in the traditional sense. The ship has one 57mm, of the type shown, forward and two of the new Mk4 40mm guns, one just behind the 57mm and higher up and one back aft on the hangar roof.
All can fire Bofors special smart-fused flak ammunition so the ship can put up a dense cloud of shrapnel in front of an incoming air target up to about 4-5000yrds from the ship in any direction. Thats about 3 times greater range than you get with the standard US 20mm CIWS. That, coupled with the small battery of Sea Ceptor VLS antiair missiles is expected to make the CIWS unnecessary.
@@SteveJones-om6ks Maybe it was the Type 26 frigate that will have US missiles.
The USA has many types of CIWS, including ESSM, Sea Ram, lasers, Phalanx
What's the penetration capabilities of this gun? Would it penetrate a Nuclear Submarine on the surface? Would it penetrate the side hull of an Aircraft Carrier?
Obviously it destroys all military aircraft/merchant navy vessels. Would the thick armour belt of a battleship stop this gun?
If somehow you wanted to fit it with discarding sabot shell, it would still punch through the flank of a battleship yes. But the chances of gun range engagement with the modern day? None.
Ideally for combat range, the 127mm variant. This gives you at least over half a meter of raw armor perforation.
Hit something vital and it'll be very unfortunate.
I love the bass
That is a scary high rate of fire for something so big
Vergüenza, con una simple red recolectora no tirarían las vainas por la borda en una práctica; inconcebible en estos tiempos.
That thing is just shooting $100 bills into the water.Those seal ca sings have to be at least 34 hundred a piece
Sub hundred, c'mon. It's a decent brick of metal but...
Impressed 👍
+1 for giving information...
57mm Versus a large ship?
I wish the DDG 1000 guns were operational
The zumwalts? Yeah that was a clusterfuck. 'Development was too expensive, reduce build from 15 to 3.' '6 gun magazines is too small a production run, cost after tooling will be over 1 million dollars a shell' 'on second thought who needs guns?' That were the main point of the program lol
Good grief
COLLECT THAT BRASS !!
RIP LCS's.
Why do they let empty ones just fall into water?
why not? its not gonna hurt anything down there
Nothing comes free, recycling was deemed secondary to maintaining tonnage and stealth objectives. Perhaps an argument could be made for net mountings to use in training, but fitting and removing them on a sloped deck out at sea would be...
Besides, as uncool as it is to litter, crabs like the shelter and certain bacteria eat the metal. Its not all bad.
Cause brass is expensive as hell
IN THE WATER?
57mmになるとさすがに弾速が凄まじいな
Why are the cases never washed up on beaches 🤔.
They sink?
Because they're metal.
Density
bullet hermit crabs
Fena
A tip is not to be in the receiving end of that thing. 😉
What ship was that.? 🤔
Zumwalt class
One of the US Navy's independence class LCS, no pennant number visible so couldn't tell you which. This gun type is also set to be integrated on the future T31 class, so that likely why the channel is sharing US Navy footage.
@@MacKay1812 it's not
@@MacKay1812 Zumwalt has no gun mount.
@Trooper Yeah, it is one of the Independence class LCS, which is built by an Australian company in the USA.
57 too smol.. 76 too big... we need an intermediary caliber.
A 67mm ammo
@@benjaminrosel7265 Exactly.
POM POM POM POM
空の薬莢は回収すべき。
It's not that much money.
Such waste, to throw shell casing like that.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
WOW! No shame playing car alarms over you video
Wtf. Did it even hit target .??? No vids proven hits ,,how come we never see them.?
i la mierda de municion al mar
Environmentalists will not appreciate all that pollution.
What a concern for the environment when throwing these munitions into the sea. How many enemies of humanity, may God curse you!
Cases not munitions.
its brass casings that will evaporate over time
The anti-fouling paint on the bottom of that ship will leak out more tin and copper in a day, than those brass casings do in a decade.
Yes we are destroying the oceans. These brass casings are not the issue though.
Laughs in metal-eating bacteria
That guns shit
That guns shit