Here's Why the UK Navy's Bofors Naval Gun Combination is Superior to the Phalanx CIWS in Any Case
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июн 2024
- The Royal Navy's Type 31 general-purpose frigate will be outfitted with two gun types new to its service. Each ship will be outfitted with sophisticated multipurpose gun systems, such as a Bofors 57 Mark 3 medium-calibre gun, and two Bofors 40 Mark 4 small-calibre guns.
The combination of these two weapons would be very useful against aircraft, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, small boat swarms, and enemy boats.
By delivering heavier shells further away from the ship, the double Bofors gun is superior to Phalanx CIWS in any case. 
Наука
The Type 31E /Arrowhead 140 is based in the Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class air defense frigate, which has two 76mm canon in tbe feont ans a Millenium 35mm CIWS in the rear.
Merah Putih Class Frigrate of Indonesia (Redesign AH140) will use 2 CIWS (front and back) Gokdeniz 35 mm double barrel with atom super brust
Yh they've already said the type 31 will be from the start for close in support using the laser dragon fire system like the type 26 will be & the type 45 will get it fitted at the same time when they go in for refit to install the extra vls systems etc
I bet it's already nicknamed 'The Dalek'
In 1906, HMS Dreadnought was commissioned. For nearly 40 years afterwards. Experts claimed that big guns and heavy armor, were the premier combat force, at sea. During WW-II these experts were proven wrong.
Today the experts on naval warfare are in a similar position. Technology and operational parameters have changed. A ship capable of destroying satellites in space. Could be seriously damaged by a 50,000 dollar drone. That's a problem.
Sunk by drone boats, even. Ukraine has repeatedly shown how dangerous drone boats can be when deployed in groups by experienced operators. They're more accurate than torpedoes, so you can ram a boat into a hole made by a previous boat.
@@alltat What ever works! One wouldn't think that would be effective. Still, a swarm of fast moving suicide drones. For a ship designed to be in a very different operating environment. Most Russian navy ships are designed to confront US Navy ships and aircraft.
@@alltat The weapons configuration on the type 31 does seem to suggest the Royal navy are putting more emphasis on defence against both drone boats and UAVs rather than the more traditional torpedos. the 57mm and the 40mm can be used against both air and surface targets. While the type 31s main defence against torpedo attack will be a towed array passive decoy system with countermeasure launches (sea sentor)
When speaking of gun calibers you use the singular "millimeter," not the plural "millimeters." It's a 57 millimeter gun, not a 57 millimeters gun.
I think it is because “ milimiter”, although is a sustantive, it really acts as an adjetive
It is just like saying “four star hotel”: here, “star” play an adjetive role so it most be singular
*MILLIMETRE
@@redherring6154 Do you happen to know why its changed from meter to metre ? I am curious
@@matso3856 no idea mate and now even questioning my own spelling
Antiquated, archaic spelling just. I still use "re" in terms like health centre but, will write center if I'm talking about the middle of something. There are many others I do this with also. Throw back to French language.
Wonder if they’ll install the versions which have no reload magazine.
Bofors 40mm was (and still is) a very successful system that’s in use in a wide variety of roles by military forces all over the world.
Reliable, accurate, and provides a lot of firepower in a relatively compact package. The 40mm will take out any enemy vehicle up to a main battle tank, and will likely severely damage most of those. With high-explosive shells, an effective anti-troop weapon as well.
You also have the "bigger brother" of the 57 mm if the 40 mill for some reason wouldnt cut it.
Cannot understand why either of these guns were not considered for the Arafura class opv's. Sadly the decision by the RAN to short change them in every area means that they will never serve in the RAN in the OPV role and will more than likely be handed to Border Force.
The Italians have been making this choice for the CISW for years. The rotary barrels have a range of only 2500 meters. But also compared to the RIM 120 RAM: 900K DOLLARS for a single missile. The Vulcano Projectiles 10 times less... and from the results against the HOUTIs, WHERE the RIM 120 missiles on the German frigate misfired. and the rotating barrels hit the target only a few meters from the American ship. WE ITALIANS ARE THE LEARNERS OF GIULIO CESARE..THE COUNTRY OF MODERN SPECIAL FORCES, THE COUNTRY OF FINCANTIERI, LEONARDO, BERETTA, BENELLI (THE RIFLE USED FOR THE T. REX AND THE TERMINARS), OF THE SUPERCAR S, 😅
@@valerianocuomo996 Italy is dying. You can’t continue with a fertility rate of only 1.22 children per woman and such bad border security
@@williamzk9083 what the fuck does this have to do with my message? And then Europe doesn't have children either: 1.20 Italian or 1.30 European fertility doesn't change much.
You lost to Ford at Le Mans
I can see the appeal of 40mm and 57mm
Its very easy to make programmable 40mm and 57mm rounds as well equip them with data link so when fired against missile, they know exactly when to detonate
Making it less spray and pray and more 1 shot 1 kill. Additionally you can equip it with multiple magazines allow the gun switch between ammo types for various targets
But I would keep the 57mm but trade the 40mm for the Germany 35mm
the older twin 40mm breda looked effective. huge ammo(400+ and 700+) and firepower potential
They should add Martlet missile launchers to the 40mm guns.
Has that yet been done with a 40mm Bofors installation? Iirc, it was a combo tested with a 30mm Bushmaster one but I don't know about the option you suggest.
got to say the italian twin bofors 40mm seemed effective, though just looking at videos. marine versions would have much higher ammo capacity though
To what extent? The 57mm gun is just as capable against small boats, it even has a longer range.
Martlet is great for really lightweight platforms which can't mount a naval gun, like helicopters, UAVs or naval drones, but I don't see what the benefit would be here.
Doesn't offer increased protection as a static ship mount vs the guns already installed, and they will have martlets available through the onboard helicopters for threats further out.
Navies are really bricking themselves after seeing the Ukrainian drone ships at work.
It is called the Royal Navy, not UK Navy
Haha, nomenclature of UK forces totally baffles foreigners, especially Americans.
What’s betting he calls the British Army, the ‘Royal Army’ 😂😂😂
@@MrSummerblade Casts doubt on their other info
Even tho UK spent decades developing the CTA 40mm together with France. I guess the CTA is just too expensive.
@jimfrazier8611 Yes, the 40CT is super compact, closer to a typical 30mm gun... Which as you said, not a lot of use on a ship.
But it sacrifices in other respects, not just complexity, like it has a lower rate of fire & less range.
It's not made in a maritime version, as far as I know.
@jimfrazier8611
Theres a naval version of the cta40
Phalanx is a fairly cheap self contained system but it's range is pretty short it would take out the missile but the debris could still inflict some damage
Hence why they're switich to a gun with longer range.
Phalanx dont use programmable fuses so it need direct hits on a target.
They missed out the most important ammunition, “madfires” and “ALaMO” which are continually guided during their flight time making them extremely effective
Yes, the Italians use DART guided ammunition on their 76.2 mm gun which is guided, the United States has Mad fires FOR THE 57 MM gun which is not only guided but have their own seeker. It remains to be seen whether 40 mm guns will get a guided round or even 35.. The
Smaller calibre of the gun the higher the fire rate which gives more opportunities for a hit at the sacrifice of range. I believe the technology that made this possible was the laser ring gyro but I’m pretty sure pendulous gyros are now used.
@@williamzk9083 it’s interesting that the ALaMO is 40mm with a spacer so it will fit the 57mm these can replace the ciwis with a much more versatile weapon
Not enough guns. Boat swarm to port, flying drone swarm to starboard and a couple of either up the wazzu and boat goes out of action.
Except there's a 40mm variant fwd & aft aswell as the main 57mm gun.
@@markmaher4548 Ohhh WOW, did not realize, a whole 3 guns. Well bring on the 3 dozen swarm.
@@couespursuit7350 That shouldnt be a problem with these 3 weapon systems , if you trippel that however ..
57 mm...÷ 25.4. = 2.24 Inches...or two and a quarter inch diameter shell...medium range defence gun...
Bofors 57mm mk3: 220 rpm
Bofors 40mm mk4: 300 rpm
😳
And they still have about a 10km range.
And they fire bofors 3P
Think bigger main gun at least a 75mm.
We got a grower not a shower
That Mk III gun in the opening sequence reminds me an awful lot of the Daleks from Dr Who. Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!
to me, just to me, 30mm munition with an airburst fuze and API indeed a mix of three different rounds: two HE but one with impact fuze and the other with the airburst fuze, closing with API as third one, so even a single feeding gun can fire a short 9 rounds burst with 3 of each kind (more then 20 burst with 200 rounds ready to fire) are the easy and cheap solution for hardened surface drones, suicide boat or pirates, flying drones up to 2 nautical miles. You must only select a 30mm mount with good optics and stabilization!
I'm considering price of mount, price of ammunition, easy installation on board, weight.
Phalanx 1b have same range and capabilities about, but is heavier (even if it could be just on board), fire a much bigger amount of rounds per burst which are way more expensive, so live it for missile only!
Again to me, Leonardo 76mm gun is better (have a look to sinkex exercise) because offer not to expensive Dart antimissile round and the similar Vulcano round a 20 nautical miles as antiship or land support capable.
Italian Navy was the first to believe in 40mm caliber as anti-missiles last ditch gun capable of destroying them at about 2 nautical miles from the ship instead of less then 1 of first Phalanx, but are decades it shifted on 76mm as much better solution!
One last question:
why a logistical nightmare duplicating rounds?
It's not easier have all three 57mm guns.
No penetrating deck variant of Leonardo 76mm gun can fire just over half minute cause it have 72 rounds ready to fire.
I think is a clever choice the normal one not for 85 rounds capabilities but because it could be reloaded from inside the ship. It make no difference on large ships as the modern one.
Same funny "lie" as the lighter BAE 127mm gun at 20 ton instead of 34 of Leonardo 127mm LW (lightweight 😁) on 10.000 ton ships!!! 14 ton difference on 10.000 ton!?!
While depending on barrel position the italian one can fire from 28 to 32 rounds per minute and reloaded accordingly with an automated Ammunition Handling System, the american one can fire the whole 20 rounds ready to fire it have and then 10 rounds. I believe it's clear how much US Navy think a gun is important (because they are "the navy" and have planes and missiles for everyone!)
Elevation , 40 mm has better elevation
@@matso3856
How could I not notice that it doesn't reach the canonical 85 degrees of elevation 🤦🏻♂️
Thank you
Who made the FOI request?
Really ? 2 40 and a 57 mm gun thats cost cutting to the extreme ok ISH for defence but what about offense maybe we will write a stiff note and ask them to move close without shooting back please
I dont know if it can be called superior, Phalanx already have saved a few warships of potentially letal missile attacks while the Bophors as far as I know is yet to be tested on that function.
Really I thought Phallanx kills were mainly friendly fire. It is the inspiration for moms attack robots in futrama that just end up shooting each other.
hmm 57mm does seem big enough for a main calibre deck gun, should be more like 105mm or 120mm
105mm and 120mm aren't used by any country in the world as a naval calibre. Larger calibre guns are not used for engaging large naval vessels anymore and are a very risky method of shore bombardment. The Type 31's shouldn't ever be used for shore bombardment, so the 57mm is perfectly good for the jobs it's intended to do (as would the Leonardo 76mm). The new US Navy frigate is going to be fitted with exactly the same gun, so they seem to have reached the same conclusion.
This modern warfare not WW2
During WW2, ships had no less than 127mm cannons but advances in modern warfare
you dont need big guns anymore
Those big guns have been replaced by missiles.
The Type 31 will have a 32 cell VLS capable of carrying anything up to cruise missiles.
@@vincefont4765I disagree, I think type 31 should be used for shore bombardment as it means we don’t have to bring a type 26 down and in that case we could use a 127mm gun on it
@@vincefont4765 Every US destroyer has the Mark 45 5inch (127mm) gun. Lots of other navy's using it too and building new ships to use it. The Mark 45 is still the preferred gun for surface warfare. A lot of research and work has been done to extend its range and accuracy.
BAE should start making new military guns again.
BAE Bofors..they bought it.
@@old_stoat They don’t actually make military guns though BAE also consists of Royal Ordinate one of the most famous gun companies in the world.
They should buy CTA international.
Maybe come up with some more applications for their cased telescoped ammo.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 BAE already owns 50% but it’s not actually based in Britain.
You mean like a new 120mm or even a 110mm or even a 160mm would be interesting to see but really we need the facilities in Britain if that was to ever going to happen.
@@jammiedodger7040 Actually, I meant more guns to share the 40mm CT round, like a revolver cannon to be used as a longer range CIWS.
But yes, eventually other calibres too.
Stőd Bofors, bli kanon 🍺
For a growing variety of reasons. Mostly missile armed ships, are fast becoming obsolete. Missiles have their advantages. Until they are used up, or are not practical to use, on all threats. Like a missile designed to hit supersonic missiles and aircraft. Against a small inexpensive drone, flying or otherwise.
As Moskva demonstrated, a large load of high tech missiles can easily become an equally spectacular fire at sea. Rather bad, for the health and welfare of the crew.
A variety of weapons are needed. Guns don't have the range of missiles, but they don't need to. Energy weapons are new and exciting, until you realize how much fuel it takes to power them. So, energy weapons won't be too practical, until fusion powered ships are available.
The Moscow also showed that a ship with a large array of gun based CIWS-systems can easily become an equally spectacular fire at sea. It wasn't just the three missile systems (1xSA-N-6 and 2xSA-N-4) that failed on the Moscow. It was also the 130mm dual purpose gun and the six 30mm CIWS-systems. The lesson from the Moscow is that a air defence systems with radars and/or FCS that doesn't work, doesn't work, no matter if it's a missile or gun based system.
@@oloflarsson7629 offline combat systems systems accomplish nothing. Moskva's crew had settled into a routine of nothing much happens. The reaction time was too short. Radar sets were also likely offline. Old ship, poorly maintained and a crew composed of conscripts who were not well motivated. On and on, and on.
@@oloflarsson7629 There are too many unanswered questions? When or if the ship detected the missiles. State of material readiness. Crew's readiness to defend the ship. Finally the ship's guns were too big in case of the 130 mm. Guns like those in this video were not aboard.
The RN should've went with RAM or Phalanx for close-in defense.
They do use phalanx
Sea ram and rhe RM116 is not used by the RN, cost is one major reason, the RM 116 cost some $900,000 per missile, phalanx is very short range
@@paulhill1665 SeaRAM has a greater interception range. And you can replace Phalanx with SeaSnake 27mm revolver cannon. Greater range, programmable air burst ammunition etc and immediate full burst RPM unlike with a gatling gun.
155 MLRS
Not sure why they do not just have a Phalanx as well, afterall it is a fairly self contained system.
probably going to fit the Dragonfire laser system insted.
They may add one when going to a higher threat environment
I believe they’re still a thing on the Type 26.
I suspect it is just down to money 💰 considering threat these ship's may face seems to be shortsighted.
Because it's pretty much useless against anything coming at you fast - the effective range is like 1-2 km. That's why the USA is going towards short range rolling airframe AA missiles on most of their ships nowadays
Not enough guns for full combat. You must not have just high tech
If in modern days you get your ship so close to other ship that you need to use guns you have screwed badly. Those are for shooting down missiles, drones, small vessels and aircraft. Not sinking a ship.
After 40 years, someone comes up with something better than phalanx?
Why are the ships named Type XX? What happened to giving ship classes proper names like Leander Class? Are Royal Navy afraid of pissing off Gen.Z?
They have both names. The Leanders were the Type12i (improved). The Type 31 is known as the Inspiration Class. Generally, the 'Class' name is taken from the lead ship or a designated theme e.g. the Type 23 Duke Class or the Type 26 City Class. In this case, the ships are being named after famous Inspirational RN vessels from the past. HMS Active, Bulldog, Formidable, Venturer and Campbeltown.
0
The reality of modern combat is that a capital ship would need all of them. 57mm, 40mm, Phalanx, and RIM 116. It would also need EW/Laser/Maser for soft kills. Line of sight defense should prioritized direct energy over bullets and missiles. The challenge for the UK Navy is you don't have the money. The problem with my US Navy is we waste billions on junk the MIC foist upon us.
Basically says nothin...
Big mistake have both
Not bad at all. As usual the Royal Navy has it's act together. These weapons should be added to US Navy ships. Where ever space is available. Especially to the CVNs
I would still like to see a 40 mm bofors gatling gun. Similar to Phalanx, but with a lot more range, and striking power. Both gun mounts have the advantage of being light weight.
The navy can afford to get its act together as it is allocated almost two thirds of the total defence budget.
The closest anyone got is the Oerlikon RK 421. It fired a 42 x 348mm cartridge at 450 rpm.
It was bought out by a British company and played around with under the project name 'Red Queen' before being dropped.
It's just really difficult to get an action to move fast enough (thanks to the square-cube law and exponentially increasing mass) as you get to that sort of size cartridge.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Interesting I wonder what the largest practical gatling gun is? Physios have their limits, yet the question remains. What's the most effective response to the evolving combat environment at sea? What's clear is that today's ships need to evolve to deal with the changes in battle at sea.
@@scottjackson5173 I don't know if any larger than 30mm though there are plenty of 35mm revolver cannons.
I suspect you could make a 40mm rotary gun, but the fire rate wouldn't be what people would expect from that kind of gun, maybe more like 1,500-2,000 rpm and the spool up time would be bad too.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Much better than 400 to 500 rounds per minute. When a hypersonic missile is about to strike the ship. As for spool up, the barrel can be rotated, with the feed at idle, until the targeting solution is ready.
Not accurate presentation....very confusing ...
It will make a nice new reef. Hi tech fish home.
Sounds like a poor man’s CWIS
It isn't, it is pretty good overall, and particular the range is important.
Waste of money
This gun is already obsolete. Point defense guns are a very limited last line of defense and are no match for hypersonic missiles. You need to shoot down the attacking aircraft a couple hundreds of miles away before it launches its missiles. The British lost ships in the Argentine Falklands war because of this lack of ability. Seems they have still learned nothing from very recent history.
The type 31 has missiles for that and will be fitted with laser at later refit.
The british didn't loose a single ship in the Falklands, because the lacked the capacity to destroy the non-existent threat from Argentine hypersonics. They lost ships, because they failed to shoot down subsonic AShM's and subsonic aircrafts, armed with unguided bombs and guns. And a missiles system designed to handle hypersonics, will not be suited for engaging the wast majority of targets, that is likely going to be subsonic AShM's, UAV's, USV's and so on. Just look at the US Navy in the Red Sea right now. They are failing to keep one of the worlds most important sea lanes open, not because of a lack of capacity in individual ships, sensors and missiles, but because they don't have enough ships, sensors and missiles with sufficient performance. Because using 5'000'000 dollar SM-6's, to shoot down swarmes of 10'000 dollar drones, simply doesn't cut it.
Load of old toash propaganda 😅😅
Why are you keeping Chinese advertisments. I believe this is a Chinese content as well