Best naval gun in the 100-130mm range?

USN Aircraft Carriers have Sea Sparrow and Phalanx. Yet, they just fired a ESSM from a Sea Sparrow box launcher. So, I beileve the plan is to convert them to fire ESSM at some point. As usually ESSM are fired from Mk-41 VLS. Regardless, I would support a gun/missile defense. Hopefully the trend continues????

Well if DDG-1000 is anything to go by it will.;)

Not realy, all the DDGs and all the carriers retain the Phalanx ESSM combo, in fact the only ships I can think of is the San Antonio class and they have the 30mm. The wasp class even have ESSM, RAM and Phalanx.

USN Aircraft Carriers have Sea Sparrow and Phalanx. Yet, they just fired a ESSM from a Sea Sparrow box launcher. So, I beileve the plan is to convert them to fire ESSM at some point. As usually ESSM are fired from Mk-41 VLS. Regardless, I would support a gun/missile defense. Hopefully the trend continues????

Well, the ESSM/57mm guns makes sense as it allows the USN to engage cruise missile at greater distances. As for RAM and Phalanx to me it seem that the former is replacing the later at least in most ships. That said, the new 57mm and to a lessor degree the 30mm bushmaster are making inroads!:D

Not realy, all the DDGs and all the carriers retain the Phalanx ESSM combo, in fact the only ships I can think of is the San Antonio class and they have the 30mm. The wasp class even have ESSM, RAM and Phalanx.

Actually they seem to sticking with a combination of both, most ships with RAM seem to have Phalanx as well. What does seem to be happeing is that the range of CIWS is being pushed out, hence a combination of ESSM and 57mm on the DDG-1000.;)

Well, the ESSM/57mm guns makes sense as it allows the USN to engage cruise missile at greater distances. As for RAM and Phalanx to me it seem that the former is replacing the later at least in most ships. That said, the new 57mm and to a lessor degree the 30mm bushmaster are making inroads!:D

Impressive…………Yet, the US seems to be moving away from guns (i.e. 20mm CIWS) to missile based systems like the RAM and ESSM. So, time will tell……..Personally, I prefer both!:D

Actually they seem to sticking with a combination of both, most ships with RAM seem to have Phalanx as well. What does seem to be happeing is that the range of CIWS is being pushed out, hence a combination of ESSM and 57mm on the DDG-1000.;)

:confused: http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=4090&lang=3

In my humble opinion this is the best gun based CIWS on the market at the moment, but I find it very interesting that the US DDX is going to use 57mm as CIWS:eek:

Impressive…………Yet, the US seems to be moving away from guns (i.e. 20mm CIWS) to missile based systems like the RAM and ESSM. So, time will tell……..Personally, I prefer both!:D

and some say navy men don’t have a sense of humor.:diablo:

:confused: http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=4090&lang=3

In my humble opinion this is the best gun based CIWS on the market at the moment, but I find it very interesting that the US DDX is going to use 57mm as CIWS:eek:

35mm millenium aheadwould be the best option.;)

and some say navy men don’t have a sense of humor.:diablo:

I didn’t say it would have no self defense systems? More than likely it would at least have RAM and possibly ESSM’s. As for close in I would prefer the 30 mm Bushmaster. Though, a 20mm CIWS could also be used………….:D

35mm millenium ahead would be the best option.;)

Would still be inclined to have some sort of defensive missile system. Would not be expected to stand-up under massed AShM attack, more against the odd-missile threat of a coastal sub or of course Hezbollah-type agency!

I didn’t say it would have no self defense systems? More than likely it would at least have RAM and possibly ESSM’s. As for close in I would prefer the 30 mm Bushmaster. Though, a 20mm CIWS could also be used………….:D

True but they would operate under or within the umbrella of DD(X)’s supported by LCS. All backed up by Marine or Naval Aircraft………..:D

Would still be inclined to have some sort of defensive missile system. Would not be expected to stand-up under massed AShM attack, more against the odd-missile threat of a coastal sub or of course Hezbollah-type agency!

I see your idea scooter, but I would be very worried about the threat from shore based AShM’s.

True but they would operate under or within the umbrella of DD(X)’s supported by LCS. All backed up by Marine or Naval Aircraft………..:D

I see your idea scooter, but I would be very worried about the threat from shore based AShM’s.

Maybe something like this armed with a 155mm in place of the old 5in/38cal. Of course the ship would have to be of a Stealthy Design………:diablo:

I believe a modern day Monitor could have a place especially in the Littorals.

Yes but the RN’s monitors never had to face long range supersonic anti-ship missiles, or satisfy the desires of many USN officers who are looking for a multi-purpose DDG to follow on from the ABs.;)

True, yet the DD-1000’s are only going to be procured in small numbers with something like 6-8 units. Further, my so called “Monitor” would not replace either the DD(X)’s or LCS. They would just be a cheap force multiplier. Giving much needed close fire support for troops going ashore…………:diablo:

The Royal Navy used to build Monitors with Battleship Guns. (i.e. 2 X 15inch) So, why not construct a Small Monitor that could operate in the Littorals and be equipped with 2-3 155mm AGS? It would not have to be large nor complex……………:rolleyes:

Yes but the RN’s monitors never had to face long range supersonic anti-ship missiles, or satisfy the desires of many USN officers who are looking for a multi-purpose DDG to follow on from the ABs.;)

Depends what you want it for- for sea control I would say the Russian dual 130mm used on the Sovremennys. Otherwise I would say the Oto Melara 127/64LW. However nothing on the horizon even comes close to the 155mm AGS for the DD-1000.:diablo:

The Royal Navy used to build Monitors with Battleship Guns. (i.e. 2 X 15inch) So, why not construct a Small Monitor that could operate in the Littorals and be equipped with 2-3 155mm AGS? It would not have to be large nor complex……………:rolleyes:

Sorry, I didn’t mean the OTO-Melara 76mm rapid fire gun but the 127mm OTO-Breda. That said, maybe I should have included smaller naval guns like the Italian 76mm or French 100mm. Of course your correct in that the larger caliber guns are better suited for naval bombardment. Really, I don’t see guns in the 100-130mm range being effective against fast boats or modern aircraft. So, why are they so common? Seems like most navies would want either smaller super fast firing guns like the 76 mm OTO-Melara or big 203mm class weapons?????

The Japanese initially went for the Oto-melara 127mm becouse it offered the same ballistic performance with a higher rate of fire than the American weapon. At the time the 64 calibre 5 inch gun did not exist. However IIRC on their new ships the Japanese use the US 64 calibre weapon as when it was selected Oto-Melara 64 cal was not ready. IIRC it is going to be used on the German F125 frigates. The extended range 5 inch ammunition has a massive range. The only country actively pursuing shipboard MLRS is China, and their efforts show the problems with it.

As to why this calibre is so common- history, most world war 2 heavy AA/DP guns were of this calibre so that is what has been retained. Incidently in the 50s the British planned on using a twin 3inch fast firing gun for their frigates but it wasnt ready in time so they stuck with the 4.5inch. I believe the canadians did use that weapon. It is interesting that DD-1000 will be using 57mm guns as CIWS!

The OTO-Melara super-rapid I mentioned is only 76mm so maybe not in the framing of this thread.

But comparing the worth of a (conceptual) large MRLS versus a typical 100-130mm naval gun for shore bombardment is well worth it. Obviously the naval gun would have more rounds for a given magazine volume, but the range and throw-weight of the rockets would be in a completely different league. Chinese navy have played with SMERCH rockets for this sort of thing and Germans toyed with the idea but I guess money nipped that in the bud.

Sorry, I didn’t mean the OTO-Melara 76mm rapid fire gun but the 127mm OTO-Breda. That said, maybe I should have included smaller naval guns like the Italian 76mm or French 100mm. Of course your correct in that the larger caliber guns are better suited for naval bombardment. Really, I don’t see guns in the 100-130mm range being effective against fast boats or modern aircraft. So, why are they so common? Seems like most navies would want either smaller super fast firing guns like the 76 mm OTO-Melara or big 203mm class weapons?????