Thanks guys not an area I have been paying much attention to, a look at the JCG’s shikishima class especially from this angle shows just how big they are:

Considering the amount of sea that China is laying claim to I can understand why they would want a large long range variant but 12,000 tons is clearly an exercise in “we can make bigger then you”.

I agree with the observation that it allows a show of force but in a graduated way, big but not too “fighty”. I presume it will have some nice efficient diesels to chug along but with enough poke to get it up to speed if so required, huge range and big enough to overawe anything it comes up against…kind of reminds me of this without the heavy armament!

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.

You know I am surprised about that, interesting move by Russia. As a PR move it is quite interesting.

This is a rare incident where the cause of the crash started more than half an hour before the crash. To record every flight for it’s entirety would be a waste of time and money. The pilots are scared that some operators would listen in on their “Off duty” moments. How would you like your boss or some sort of office administrator listen to every thing you say at work?

Rgds Cking

Frankly that doesn’t wash with me and sounds like excuses rather then reasonable cause for complaint.

Up to two hours is already recorded so they are already in a position of monitoring, if they are concerned that management are listening in with what they are saying then I would say they are already in a disciplinary situation. Management are hardly going to listen through millions of hours of audio on the off chance the pilots are up to something naughty. If pilots are up to naughty stuff on a regular basis then I think we should have cause for concern not use it as an excuse to prevent introduction of more appropriate technology for the current situation which is 20+ hour non stop flights in some cases!

Waste of time recording all the flights audio? How? That is such a poor excuse it beggars belief! The airlines already record millions of hours of audio each year, how is extending that to the entire flight duration a waste of time? If the pilots are so bothered by the possibility of people listening into “off duty” moments why not an agreement that the audio is wiped automatically when the aircraft lands. Anyhow if they are in the cockpit there is no such thing as an “off duty” moment so pilots should maintain a certain of degree of decorum just like anybody else in their place of work! This is technology available NOW! My mobile phone can record thousands of hours worth of audio and delete it in seconds! A solid state HDD based flight recorder could record the entire flight and then automatically delete at a set period after landing of lets say a week. If the recording is needed when the aircraft landed because of some issue in the flight or with the pilot a ground engineer should have the ability to plug in a cable and take it off in a matter of minutes. If the aircraft is lost in a crash and the box loses power to it then the HDD won’t delete the data.

The only thing I can see as an issue is cost but then again new technology is introduced all the time so a rolling program of installing HDD based flight recorders could be instigated over time. Put it this way the industry was able to move quick enough and spend plenty of money when they were forced to fit hardened cockpit doors!

Frankly if that is the pilots attitude I feel like campaigning for cockpit video recorders out of spite.

Sorry if I come over as blunt and it is not personal.

So Draken will only get one batch then, the chance of a real military contract was clearly too much to resist. Interesting that Aero will have to buy back the airframes, on the other hand it means overhaul work getting them ready for Iraqi service.

Well it baffles me nevertheless, why should it be an issue when cockpit voice recorders are required? We have non stop flights from the UK to Australia that can take over 20 hours. It seems logical to record everything when flights are just that long!

If the pilots are not careful they might find cockpit video recorders forced upon them which I can understand as being maybe a stop too far in respect of privacy. The technology is here to capture all that information so even with the conservative nature of the industry when it comes to certain changes in technology I can’t see the issue.

Mk 45 Mod 4 for Type-26

Looks like the MK45 MOD 4 is going to be purchased for the T26 class:

http://www.janes.com/article/36180/mk-45-mod-4-gun-in-frame-for-uk-s-type-26-programme#