127 mm: BAE 5" L/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 vs. Oto Breda 127/64 Lightweight

I think the key issue is that a new more effective weapon with greater long term capability has been selected. Yes my armchair preference was for the 127/64 but I’m sure the Mk45 Mod 4 will be more than adequate.

EDIT

I still think it would make more sense to ditch Phalanx and DS30M Mk2 and fit BAE 40 Mk4 which could fill the role of both systems across the fleet.

As Jonesy says you can make sure there are spaces/margins available to allow installation of a different turret. Actually many a navy who might be interested in a T26 export variant would probably be more interested in fitting the Bofors 57mm or OTO 76mm for a vessel in this class.

Despite all that has been spoken about making the T26 attractive for export the key driver is UK/RN needs when it comes to the design. The 4.5″ mk8Mod1 is elderly and no-longer in production making it logical to move over to an off the self solution in wider circulation. Looking at what is available in a similar class to the 4.5″ from Western manufacturers a 5″/127mm makes sense. That leaves you two choices the OTO 127mm or the MK 45, at that point the MOD office making the systems fit decisions (not BAE Systems in this case) will draw up a matrix based on trade offs:

Rate of fire: MK 45 MOD 4 is slower then the 4.5″ mk8Mod1 but has higher explosive effect. OTO 127mm has a higher rate of fire then the 4.5″mk8Mod1 but with an increased level of complexity, maintenance and cost.

Range: MK 45 MOD 4 out-ranges the 4.5″ Mk8Mod1 with standard rounds, the OTO 127mm with special shells in theory can reach out two and a half times further then the MK45 MOD 4 but standard shells only go slightly further. What would be needed to provide targeting information for a shot that far, what would that cost? MK45 MOD4 could probably shoot even further but not as far as oto 127mm if special extended range shells developed. MK45 MOD 4 out performs current gun at less cost then the oto127mm.

Guided shells: Currently only oto 127mm offers off the shelf guided shell and it is currently more a paper offering that hasn’t seen operation use. RN currently doesn’t have this capability with its naval guns but can precision hit targets in land with other systems. Does the increased cost of buying the oto 127mm make it worth it just to get this capability when we can do it with other stuff currently. BAE Systems are still doing development work on 155mm guided shells and the technology could be translated to the 5″ in the future also oto have started to suggest that they would be interested in adapting the Volcano round for the MK45 platform, logical considering the large install base for that turret and presumably the minimal work required to adapt their round to it. So in the future we might get the option to buy a guided round anyway for the MK45 MOD 4 if it is deemed a capability that we could find useful.

Installed user base: There are hardly any navies using the 4.5″ Mk8 anymore and only the RN use the Mod1, economies of scale are rapidly fading. The MK45 is used by more navies then the oto 127mm including the USN meaning vast economies of scale.

Costs: MK 45 MOD 4 is less complex then the oto 127mm meaning potentially less maintenance and there are more turrets out there meaning economies of scale.

In the end when you balance all that out however attractive the oto 127mm is performance wise the MK45 MOD 4 is good enough, better then the current in service turret except for rate of fire but balanced by greater explosive effect and much less costly. There are serious questions about being able to perform NGS at the ranges that oto are advertising when it comes to targeting and tracking fall of shot and the guided shell option might well become available on the MK 45 in the future anyway or be an expensive failure when it is tested in combat conditions.

In the end the MK45 MOD 4 becomes the more logical choice when such things are considered.

Now don’t get me wrong I would of loved to of seen the oto 127mm selected for the T26, it was my preferred choice actually but we are not playing fantasy fleets here. The MOD has a finite budget and the MK45 MOD 4 is a very good choice that will perform the NGS role well, with low technical risk and at an acceptable cost.

What I find interesting after the last decade of various 155mm land artillery derived solutions being looked at that most navies have concluded that it is better to stick with systems specifically developed for the naval environment with advancements.

@ Jonesy: It should be possible to design the ship in a way that both guns are possible, see the MEKO 200, which are equipped with the Mk 45 or the French 10 cm gun.

You can ensure that spaces/margins are left in the design so that either (or other mounts entirely) are a possible fit…you would ensure that any spaces around the gunbay can be easily relocated elsewhere in the hull etc to simplify the adaptation as much as possible. You would still complete the design to one specific mounting’s layout and requirements though. Selecting a different mount would mean paying to modify the design accordingly.

Lets say, as a wild example, the Aussies had a stock of Mk45’s from a prior frigate class that still had life left in them and could be economically re-used…the RN have selected the OTO LW mount for the new frigate and built to that design though. In order to be able to use the 2nd hand guns the RAN (or BAE themselves!) would have to pay extra for the incorporation of Mk45 into the design…thereby removing some of the economies of the T26 and potentially damaging its chances of a RAN buy.

Bad news for BAE either way…BAE therefore suggest to the UK govt. that going with Mk45 helps their export chances and point out that Mk45 will still be a good step up for RN NGS over current Mk8blk1 and doesnt require repeat purchases of fancy, pricey, Vulcano ammo!. Cant imagine that decision being a hard one for whichever little beancounting gnome in the MoD arrived at it!.

@ Jonesy: It should be possible to design the ship in a way that both guns are possible, see the MEKO 200, which are equipped with the Mk 45 or the French 10 cm gun.

@ Jinan: yes, the Kongo class have also this gun, probably specially produced for this class (in contrast to the LCFs guns). The interesting point was that the Japanese navy switched from 127/54 to the Mk 45 Mod 4 – instead of the 127/64. Perhaps the reason was that OTO Melaria was too slow with releasing the new gun in time for the Atago class?

The 127/54 of the LCFs are old guns bought from Canada. They were originally built for the Iroquois-class destroyers in the 1970s.

The “complexity” of the 127/64 makes it the better gun, e.g. faster firing.

So? They are still the same gun as on the Kongo’s… which was the point.

As Fed notes I think the premise that the RN may select the US mount for technical reasons is flawed. If it were down to a straight capability match-up the OTO gun would come out ahead. What you get with designing in the Mk45 is the potential for certain potential T26 customers to refurbish mounts from decommissioning escorts and port them across to the new hull for a noteworthy upfront cost saving and a leveraging of existing support, logistics and training structures.

I do not want to state the gun is better because of its complexity, but the gun is better because of its higher rate of fire and much bigger range.

But the higher rate of fire, e.g. fully automatic loading from the magazines is possible, makes the mounting more complex.

I don’t usually hear people using the word “complexity” to assert something is better.

Complex usually means more to go wrong and increased maintenance.

The 127/54 of the LCFs are old guns bought from Canada. They were originally built for the Iroquois-class destroyers in the 1970s.

The “complexity” of the 127/64 makes it the better gun, e.g. faster firing.

Recently there was a report that the Royal Navy have chosen the BAE System Mk 45 Mod 4 gun for the Type 26 frigate.
http://www.janes.com/article/36180/mk-45-mod-4-gun-in-frame-for-uk-s-type-26-programme

Do they have chosen it because it is better than the Oto Breda 127/64 Lightweight or because it is from a British company?

Interestingly the Japanese navy switched from the OTO Breda 127/54 Compact (Kongo and Takanami class) to the Mk 45 Mod 4 (Atago and Akitsuki class) instead of the 127/64. In contrast the French, German and Italian navy have chosen the 127/64 (perhaps also the Algerian navy for the MEKO 200).

From the technical data the 127/64 appear to be the better gun and also better ammunition is available including Vulcano long range guided ammunition, whereas the ERGM ammunition for Mk 45 failed and was cancelled.

Dutch LCF > Oto 127/54 (like the Kongo’s)

The larger install base for the MK45 in all variants is probably a major factor. Also whilst the 127/64 looks very attractive on paper it also looks rather complex, the MK45 is known to be reliable and will perform the NGS role well for the Royal. Also the guided shell option hasn’t gone away with the MK45 MOD 4, BAE Systems is still developing variants and OTO appear to be shifting to the idea of offering their round for the MK45.