Where to put the big guns?

To be fair it did look like they only missed by a few yards, which if you where firing on frigate or a destroyer would likely still be a hit.

Plus presumably there is some sort of radar based gun director and it’s not going to be much use detecting a small fibreglass boat.

The gun, for direct fire, will take direction from the forward 909 radar or from a manned optical director called the Local Area Sight or LAS. Collimation errors between the LAS and the mount can give you a couple of yards deviation and usually, as described, this is inconsequential as the things you try and hit with the main gun are bigger that a few yards across!.

Every time I see that picture I think to myself that I’d pay real money to see what happens if he fired that. 😀

He’ld probably move faster backaward firing the gun, then motoring forward 😉

To be fair it did look like they only missed by a few yards, which if you where firing on frigate or a destroyer would likely still be a hit.

Plus presumably there is some sort of radar based gun director and it’s not going to be much use detecting a small fibreglass boat.

Has anyone been watching the Channel 5 series about HMS Manchester? In the latest programme they tried and failed to sink an abandoned drug smuggling speedboat with the 4.5″ gun. It doesn’t matter what sort of gun you have if the crew are not trained how to use it. Of course, shells are expensive, so no doubt training is an easy candidate for cuts, until you have to use the bloody thing!

Every time I see that picture I think to myself that I’d pay real money to see what happens if he fired that. 😀

To answer the posed question….where do the big guns go?. The answer to me is any combattant hull that can embark one.

I’m with you on this.

I’m afraid I’m just old enough to be a believer that form should follow function.

If your vessel may find itself, as the Mighty Sausage currently is, sat off a potentially hostile coast then the very visible impact of having a big gun, on the pointy end, to aim at people and give them food for thought is worth the price of embarkation all by itself.

The sudden and dramatic appearance of very large shell splashes in front of druggy go-fast boats and other unfriendly sea-users has been proven, repeatedly, to have the most galvanising effect at promoting meaningful peaceable discourse.

Should the main gun be the most expensive weapon system on a principle combattant in this day and age?. No certainly not. Is it a huge enabling system for a whole raft of sub-warfighting roles….very much yes. Does the main gun need to be 100mm+ to accomplish the desired results?. In my view yes…you have the ship impact of mounting a ‘big gun’ so why not get the most capability out of that gun possible?.

A good MANPADS team will offer as much AAW potential as your standard issue light-MCG mount (57mm/76mm). Davide-style guided ammo on uprated OTO76’s may shift this slightly, but, its a strange warship, designed to face an air-threat, that is configured with a MCG as its primary AAW system. Generally then, today, the principle roles for MCG’s are anti-surface and, put simply, for anti-surface work size matters.

For the RN we have a mount in service that offers a good balance of range and throw weight, is finally generally reliable, and can be fit down to vessels as light as 1500tons. Give that mount a 3000ton hull to sit on, properly designed, and stability is no issue. Ship impact may well be an issue but, again, the mount itself is a key enabling system to service a wide swath of roles that make for a more deployable, effective and responsive hull.

To answer the posed question….where do the big guns go?. The answer to me is any combattant hull that can embark one.

Your fingers weren’t co-operating with your brain for much of that post, were they?

GRIN.

If that’s the only factual error then I’ll be a happy man! (And surprised)

…There have been calls (on this forum amongst others) for our secondline ships to have a smaller gun (57mm and 67mm being favourites) …

In the Deutsche Marine however the frontline ASW and AAW units have 67mm and .
…
Would the RN be better served fitting 67mm…

Vague images of C3 as monitor float past my mind’s eye but I kinda recognise that as being unlikely. Reasonable readers will no doubt point out that the smaller German units also have 76mm rather than 127mm ….

Your fingers weren’t co-operating with your brain for much of that post, were they? 😀 Got it right in the end, though.

I like the idea of a artillery ship. Maybe 2 127mm guns up front and MLRS system or two at the rear. With also harpoons and other smaller land attack missles. Just a thought

I don’t believe in a landing where such a barrage is called for in the first instance,
and current guns will also force those T45 to an unhealthy close distance to that hostile beach, in an age where ‘over the horizon’ amphibious assault is the watermark.
Perhaps rail guns can make it semi useful, but until then, bring the carrier.

I think the answer could be the same as for NGFS/Land Attack Burkes:

I can certainly see the attraction. Deterrent effect would be awesome if nowt else. But again I am worried that we are looking at high-cost, big, vulnerable, rare resources being put in harm’s way.

And then delete all the expensive anti-air and anti-sub systems. Saves a huge amount. But I would just delete stuff, and keep the structural differences to the absolute necessary minimum.

In warship design as with legislation I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that deletion is as important as addition. Gold-plating seems to me to be a very poor design trend so its very avoidance as you suggest is as the young people say ‘made of win’.

I don’t think putting large artillery complexes on relatively small vessels, like a C3, is a viable solution. Not stable enough.

There might very well be truth in that. If Monitors (which is in effect what I’m suggesting upon reflection) were the be-all and end-all in NGS we would still have them.

BUT (and I don’t have the best nor even the least-worst solution to this) how do we get sufficient numbers of NGS platforms that we are prepared to put in close to shore?

I think the answer could be the same as for NGFS/Land Attack Burkes:

A NGFS/Land Attack T45 version could have the forward VLS hive and the standard gun removed, and replaced by something heavy with a large magazine (AGS, or that navalized Rheinmetall 155mm). Weight-wise that’s pretty neutral.

And aft the large aviation complex could be replaced by either a second gun system, or a large land attack missile hive (e.g. SCALP Naval). A small aviation complex targeting VTOL UAV would be a good idea.

And then delete all the expensive anti-air and anti-sub systems. Saves a huge amount. But I would just delete stuff, and keep the structural differences to the absolute necessary minimum.

I don’t think putting large artillery complexes on relatively small vessels, like a C3, is a viable solution. Not stable enough.