RN Type-4X Poll: Main Gun

G) Bofors Archer

F)

C)

Well the AGS is a dead duckling. BAE Sys Bofors Archer is already existing and could be stabled for ships?

b)

c)

d)

1 – “C) BAE Systems 155mm naval gun” – I´l go with the “voice of the people”…

2 – “F) OTO-Melara 127/64 LW” – If the Germans selected this one…

I think the MoD has listened to the voice of the people.

Click here for the big news concerning the probably new main gun for future surface combatants.

The other thing to bear in mind is that Oto have specifically been talking about it being adaptable to other calibres. Now admittedly they were primarily meaning scaling up for the 155mm, but scaling down from 127mm to 114.5mm shouldn’t be impossible!

On Vulcano program is involved Italian Army, indeed the program request extended range/guided 155mm ammo for Pzh2000.

No argument there. Looks a very, very good weapon. If it were for a Navy that uses 5″ currently then its a no brainer. Doesnt make a good choice for us for 2 reasons:

For example Japan Maritime SDF use Oto 5″ on its Burke flight 1 and on its newest flight IIA the mk45 62 cal. because OTO haven’t ready the newest 127/64 LW

—-

If you want a General Purpose frigate you can see FREMM GP, 1 127mm as main gun plus a 76mm over (in the middle) the hangars.

Sferrin

The only time I’ve ever really discussed the Mk45 mount with a USN weapons lad was before the present Mod 4 version. He had nothing bad to say about the weapon other than the types of gripe all maintainers have about microswitches positioned where you cant get a test meter in and that sort of thing. The advertising says that the mod 4 variant rationalises the design to improve serviceability….which has to make it a reasonably good weapon.

The new OTO mount has been selected by the Germans – that itself is usually all the testimony you’d look for. Going by the brochure it looks like an excellent weapon and one that will benefit from ongoing development.

So you have two decent weapons, both reassuringly expensive, the US gun has a very wide installed customer base and no shortage of ammunition suppliers or spares – for us its even better as BAE now ‘make’ it!. Against that the OTO is undoubtedly one of the most advanced medium calibre naval mounts on the market and offers a range of interesting ammunition. You’d have a hard time picking between the two – if we were to switch to 5″.

Seeings as we are not likely to do that it would be hard to envisage either weapon on an RN escort. The Mk45 was, in fact, very intensely promoted to MoD to find a place on the T45’s but rejected.

Also what’s your opinion of the OTO “Super Rapid” 76mm vs the Mk 110 57mm?

I have to admit a bias here. One of my instructors had experience of the OTO Compact in RN service, used on the HK patrol boats, and did not like it. Its widely known that the base Mk8 4.5″ was an absolute bag of spanners in reliability terms, but, his views on the Compact were darker even than his views on the Mk8. His words went along the lines of wondering ‘how much trouble you had to go through for a poxy 3″ gun’!!!. Apparently the main issue was with the turret hydraulics and, even after more than a decade, it colours my opinion on the weapon.

From the last discussion we had on this it came to light that OTO had developed an AHEAD/3P type round and an on-muzzle RF fuse-setter for the 76SR. It will therefore do everything the Bofors mount will…. plus it will fire the ‘gucci’ guided rounds that are so widely touted which the Mk110 cant. I’m told the hydraulics have been torn out for the SR mount too so reliability should be back where you’d expect.

It is illogical I’m sure but, personally, I’d want the Mk110 with 3P ammo every time.

1. C
2. F
3. B

Theoretically we could be using these escorts against opposition with little or no meaningful ASW threat so a good secondary capability would seem sensible. Putting this vessel on gunline is still going to be a very brave call by the Task Group flag seeings as the hull numbers would be so short.

Part of me likes the Mk110 57mm option as a good way of making sure that sending such a valuable escort too close inshore would never happen!. Otherwise we need the longest ranged mount physically possible. AGS is, by all accounts, monstrous and therefore not physically possible!. To me that leaves the BAE 155 as the only choice.

1, C
2, C
3, B (place holder in case C isnt ready!)

How does that compare to the 62 caliber Mk 45 and the Italian piece? Also what’s your opinion of the OTO “Super Rapid” 76mm vs the Mk 110 57mm?

B, because we know it and it works.
C, if money comes available and we really need the land attack capability that bad….

d
f

f) for an aaw and asw ship imho this is the best allrounder and right now it’s also hard to get a better land attack gun.

My choice is

1. B
2. C

As you can upgrade from one to the other as suggested, and continue to make use of the current RN logistics setup.

Unicorn

my vote is
B
C

Ed, you forgot to vote 😉

F – The Oto 127mm gun – not common, but lots of potential new rounds
C – The 155mm gun – still good potential for new rounds
B – The 114mm gun – low risk and cheap, pretty much sums it up!

Would there come anti-air ammo with the 155?

In my view – no!. Not impossible of course. OTO could do a guided round mitigating the RoF restriction, but, short of some fantabulous guided 95lb super-AHEAD round I dont really see the point!.

A point against the 4.5″: Max elevation.

55 degrees maximum should be sufficient for most scenarios even AAW. If the air target is close enough that you’d need to elevate above 55 then your main mount probably isnt the ideal weapons system anyway. Its plenty for most illumination and chaff rounds too!.

Would there come anti-air ammo with the 155?
A point against the 4.5″: Max elevation.

I agree. I’d not see a huge problem putting the OTO-Melara gun on a RN warship even if it’s making logistics less optimal; the gun itself is low risk compared to the 155mm idea which presumably requires single-piece ammunition so not common to AS90. But I would overall prefer the 155mm anyway as you could stock up on Volcano and LRLAP ammunition.

Ed, you forgot to vote 😉

Its not a huge problem – it just wouldnt happen in reality because no-one wants to make logistics sub-optimal. Logistics is hard enough as it stands without deliberately making it more difficult!.

The 155 would be using seperate ammunition for commonality with Army stocks. The mount is designed incorporating a dual-stroke loader to facilitate that ammunition type. It means the RoF is down from twenty odd rounds per min to about 12 sustained, but, we’re not training the weapons lads using the Mk8 for AAW these days anyway!. I suspect that occasions of using the 5″ OTO in such a role would be equally limited single-piece ammo or not!

I agree. I’d not see a huge problem putting the OTO-Melara gun on a RN warship even if it’s making logistics less optimal; the gun itself is low risk compared to the 155mm idea which presumably requires single-piece ammunition so not common to AS90. But I would overall prefer the 155mm anyway as you could stock up on Volcano and LRLAP ammunition.

Ed, you forgot to vote 😉

The other thing to bear in mind is that Oto have specifically been talking about it being adaptable to other calibres. Now admittedly they were primarily meaning scaling up for the 155mm, but scaling down from 127mm to 114.5mm shouldn’t be impossible! Obviously, if the 155mm (hopefully the L/52 version) is chosen, then this is even more convenient. I would definitely avoid the L/39 – if you are going to go to the hassle of adapting a land-based gun to a naval mount, you may as well make it worthwhile! Alternatively, just stick with the 114mm and adapt Vulcano for it – should still get pretty impressive range figures anyway!

Agreed. I think there are still advantages that would come with the original 39cal ordnance, but, it does look frankly absurd, after going to the expense of developing the weapon, to stop it before its maximum potential is exploited.

The thing with the OTO Vulcano round is going to be whether its viable, economically, to develop the round in RN 4.5″. Apart from us what is the customer base for the round?. Pakistan is discarding its T21’s in the not too distant future so the market is, barring a few Chilean T23’s and Irans remaining Vosper Mk5’s, Brazil’s dozen or so Mk8 equipped escorts and they make thier own ammunition locally.

A closer possibility is that they could develop a 105mm version of the round for the general market and, later, come up with a sabot/spacer to see the round fit the 4.5″ chamber. I’d not be convinced of the chances on that one though to be honest!.

The other thing to bear in mind is that Oto have specifically been talking about it being adaptable to other calibres. Now admittedly they were primarily meaning scaling up for the 155mm, but scaling down from 127mm to 114.5mm shouldn’t be impossible! Obviously, if the 155mm (hopefully the L/52 version) is chosen, then this is even more convenient. I would definitely avoid the L/39 – if you are going to go to the hassle of adapting a land-based gun to a naval mount, you may as well make it worthwhile! Alternatively, just stick with the 114mm and adapt Vulcano for it – should still get pretty impressive range figures anyway!