The Indonesian Navy has selected BAE Systems’ Bofors 57 Mk3 naval gun system for the country’s KCR-60 fast-attack vessel program.
The initial contracts with government-owned shipbuilder PT PAL Indonesia include four 57 Mk3 gun systems.
The Bofors 57mm naval gun is designed to address surface, air, and land threats in the littoral environment, and is already in service with a wide range of navies and coast guards, including those of the United States, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Mexico.
“This most recent contract with PT PAL Indonesia signifies the nation’s continued trust that BAE Systems naval guns consistently meet quality requirements and capability needs,” said Ulf Einefors, director of Weapon Systems Sweden at BAE Systems.
With a length of 60 meters, the KCR-60 was designed to quickly deploy guided anti-ship missiles against surface combatants and then rapidly and safely withdraw into the region’s archipelagos.
Three KCR-60 vessels are currently in service with the Indonesian Navy, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Laut, or TNI-AL, with a fourth ship scheduled to be operational in 2021.
Two of the new 57 Mk3 systems will be for two KCR-60 vessels currently under construction, while the remaining two guns will be integrated onto two existing KCR-60 ships. The gun systems will be produced at BAE Systems facilities in Karlskoga, Sweden. The first unit is scheduled for delivery in 2020 and the final unit in 2021.
Cough OPV Cough
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampari-class_fast_attack_craft
Thought they’d done away with mast-head lookouts a few years ago.
Lol… you think someone could have found a better picture….
Lol, I bet he could se Miles.
What are people’s views on this for Type 31? Based on the spec the RN published ages ago, the smallest gun they want is 76mm, but the 57mm offers a lot of advantages:
-commonality with the US and Canada (arguably now more important than the Oto Melaro 76mm’s commonality with EU nations)
-option of US guided projectiles (although that’s not a unique advantage)
-use as an additional CIWS (same as above)
-supports a British company (even if it is BAE)
The only major disadvantage I can see is that the 57mm is less effective than a 5″ gun for NGFS, which is one of the main reasons we actually still put medium guns on ships
I thought the whole plan was for the RN to go to a single medium gun, as this gives long term savings in logistic and training pipeline. Add in the the RN suddenly runs 3 medium guns…..that’s a lot.
Better to bite the capital cost bullet and go for the original plan of the 5 inch across the fleet. It should not be an issue if the right hull is picked for the type 31. It would end up cheaper in the long term, Also the 5 inch has a lot more uses that a 57mm and potential future hypervelocity, guided and extended range rounds and would give the type 31 greater operational flexibility.
The type 31 no doubt should be getting the 5”
I won’t be surprised to see the 4.5” mounted on the T31. It may not have the development that the 5” is getting, but it’s still a useful gun.
I don’t think the 57mm should be seen as a main gun for anything except an OPV. However, as a CIWS yes. I haven’t seen anything about it’s below deck requirements. I take it, the ammo feed is done from below deck? A gun like this or the CTA 40mm would be a useful to either replace the two 30mm canons or in addition mounted above the ship’s hangar, so long as the ammo feed didn’t penetrate the roof and was more self contained.
Does
“and interoperable munitions with Allies”
Rule out the 4.5 ” gun?
I’m thinking so if the RN stick to the RFI guideline.
The US FFGX frigate is spec’d with the 57mm and while they call it a light frigate its actually closer to the T26 in terms of other armaments and systems. The 57mm is already in use on the LCS and Coastguard cutters.
The RN might go with re-furbished 4.5″ as you say but that really seems a dead end. I can’t see anyone developing new types of ammunition for it and I wonder what stocks of current ammo are for the 4.5″, because we surely wouldn’t want to make more at this stage? In addition the RFI called for interoperable munitions with Allies and I don’t see many users of the 4.5″.
When you look at BAES ORKA/L3 ALaMo and programmable rounds from BAES and others, along with developments like Raytheon MAD-FIRES, the 57mm seems to provide a significant increase in capability and flexibility.
Well since my first post on this topic disappeared after showing up on the web site let’s have another go …
That’s some bullet you’re biting there in fitting a 5″ gun. We know that each gun system plus ammo costs ~$60M, based on the T26 order for 3x gun systems plus a training system. While T31 may no longer be £250M, $60M is still a large proportion of what the ship will cost.
What are the “lot more uses” for the 5″ over the 57mm? There is an increasing amount of flexible and programmable ammo for 57mm, either already in existence or being developed. Take for example the development of Raytheon MAD-FIRES as a potential 57mm future capability. No surprise given the US have the 57mm spec’d for the LCS, Coastguard Cutter and new FFGX frigate
FROM:-
Request For Information
(RFI) to support Type 31e
(T31e) Market Testing
• 1 x Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm and interoperable munitions with Allies.
• ~ 2 x Small Calibre Guns 20mm/30mm
• ~ 6 x 50 cal Machine Guns
• ~ 2 x Miniguns
•
(So 57mm meets the minimum criteria.)
RN info sheet:-
Adaptable: Medium range gun >76mm capable
of Naval Gunfire Support.
I like what the 57mm gun offers and what its range of ammo can do. The Arrowhead 140 has two forward positions for gun mounts. So you could fit 57mm initially and still have the second position to fit a larger gun later.
The 57mm gun is not less effective for NGS, it is utterlu useless for NGS. You need a much heavier weight projectile to have the ballistic properties and range for NGS. 5inch for type 31 or handed down 4.5 inch from type 23s.
The BAE/Bofors 57mm cannon according to wiki: “it may not seem as powerful as larger naval guns, such as the OTO Melara 76 mm, some of its performances are comparable; given its rate of fire (220 rounds per minute) and amount of explosive per shell, the Bofors gun actually achieves a higher amount of “explosive fired per second” than the 76 mm. It could put more explosives into a surface target within a thirty-second window than any naval gun with a calibre smaller than 100 mm (3.9 in).”
The above sales pitch is quite persuasive when compared to say the OTO 76mm. I doubt it has the same effect for NGFS as say the Mark 8 4.5″ firing at 25 rounds a minute. The issue being the explosive content of the shell and the number required to equal the effect of the larger calibre shell.
The two benefits I see over the larger calibres is that the gun has the option of only penetrating one deck or be completely deck mounted, unlike the 4.5″ and 5″. It can also be used as a CIWS due to its higher rate of fire, although I’m not sure it would do that well against super-sonic sea skimmers as it can only put out 3.7 rounds per seconds compared to Phalanx which does 75 rounds per second. By comparison the OTO 76mm puts out 2 shells per second. Both the 57 and 76 can use guided rounds such as the OKRA and DART to give it a better chance of hitting moving targets.
A real life comparison of the two guns was conducted during a Canadian Navy Sinkex. This used a decommissioned destroyer to demonstrate a variety of weapons effects. The ship was sent down by an Oto Melara 76mm in short order after the 57mm had failed to achieve the same result. The deciding factor was that, while the 76mm shell is twice the weight of the 57mm, it is much more than twice as destructive; the explosive content of the bigger round is proportionally much greater.
The problem for the OTO 76mm is that, while it has convincingly demonstrated its superiority over the 57mm as the main armament of a ship, its position as a air defence gun is not so clear cut. As an anti-missile weapon, both guns have more or less the same range. However, rate of fire is more important in the surface-to-air role. The US Navy believed the air defence capabilities outweighed the surface attack requirements. Hence why the LCS went with the 57 rather than the 76, even though they have a licence-built version in their inventory.
In some respects this is where the 57 is better than the Phalanx as a CIWS, because it has up to four times the effective range. Even though the rate of fire is some 20 times less. With the use of guided rounds, the weapon has a much greater chance of hitting/disabling the target with less rounds.
If I was on a frigate under attack by swarms of small boats, missiles or aircraft/drones, I would rather the 57mm as my main gun.
In some respects, I think a deck mounted (no hull penetration) 57mm would be more useful than the DS30 mounts, however, the DS30s are much lighter.
As much as people hate mixing gun sizes, I think there is a very strong case of having a 4.5″ and 57mm fitted. Perhaps not on the T26, but definitely on the T31. The reason I say this, is that I expect the T31 to be the main platform for NGFS when operating in the littorals. The T26 armed with the 5″ will probably use the extended range ammo, so it can operate beyond the horizon. If it can be spared from ASW duties that is.
I’m certain that the T31 should be seen as the face of the Navy, basically flying the flag. But, more importantly doing the policing duties (anti-pirate, tanker escorts etc). For this role an auto-cannon is more useful than a missile, its cheaper for starters and for such instances visual identification is required, before engaging.
Whether the 57mm should be used as the sole CIWS is debatable.
It depends on what happens the T23’s. If they are sold the 4.5 inch gun would most likely go with the ship.
But if there was even a couple of 4.5 inch guns available for reuse I would be in favour of a couple of the Arrowhead 140s ( if selected) with the two forward positions having both the 57mm and 4.5 inch guns.
The latest images of Arrowhead and Leander seem to show a BAe. 57mm gun.
Noticed a bit of an issue with the Arrowhead design. If you need to mount a pair of Phalanx amidships. The design of the exhaust stacks prohibit coverage over the rear. They may need to be fitted to sponsons, to allow the guns a clearer field of fire.
These images are just place holders. Non of the T31 bidders have given any indication exactly what weapons fit they are proposing to the RN.