BAE Systems was awarded a contract by the Commonwealth of Australia to upgrade existing Mk 45 Mod 2 naval gun systems on Anzac class frigates with a Common Control System (CCS).
The upgrade modifies existing Mk 45 systems to eliminate obsolescence issues and extend the life of the gun system.
“In addition to delivering commonality and interoperability with the U.S. Navy’s gun systems, the upgrade will equip the Mk 45s with the capability to integrate future extended-range precision guided munitions, such as the hypervelocity projectile.”
The CCS upgrade replaces electronics on earlier Mk 45 Mod 1 and Mod 2 gun systems to be compatible with the Mk 45 Mod 4, the latest configuration used by the U.S. Navy.
“The Common Control System upgrade is the most cost-effective way to extend the life of Mk 45 gun systems, enabling them to provide critical ship naval fires and creating a configuration that allows for the integration of future precision guided munitions” said Brent Butcher, vice president of weapon systems at BAE Systems.
“We are committed to modernising and equipping allied nations with enhanced Mk 45 gun systems to address current and future threats.”
Work on the contract will take place at the BAE Systems production facility in Louisville, Kentucky with the first delivery planned in early 2026.
Are the type 26s getting the MOD 4 variant or an earlier baseline unable to integrate with USN systems or take the forthcoming more advanced rounds?
I’ve worked out the answer to my own question.
The type 26s are getting the latest Mod4 configuration. Phew.
They mention BAE’s Hyper Velocity Projectile. Are we supposed to be getting these? BAE say they can do missile defence, anti-ship and anti-small boat. Their website only has CAD renderings, but it seems like a serious project.
That’s interesting this round can be fired by 155mm army systems too it says. Even more interesting ‘future rail guns’ which suggests as I stated before this technology may have been paused but that it’s still a project that has legs as and when the environment and prospects change. Clearly Bae hasn’t given up on railguns.
The concept is for a sub-calibre maneuvering munition, so the launch calibre is largely irrelevant. I don’t think it’s that BAE are pushing for railgun development at the moment but they want to have a product ready if that becomes necessary
HVP relies entirely on aerodynamics to maintain near-hypersonic speed, so again the launch platform is irrelevant. Think of it more like the hittile of StarStreak or the terminal dart of Aster. Instead of a booster providing the launch altitude and velocity, you have a gun.
The US Navy had been doing firing trials from the Mk45 using the HVP, from 2018 to 2021. The HVP when fired from the 5″ travels at just over Mach 3 to a range of 50 miles (80km). This is much faster and further than a standard HE shell. The HVP is a guided sabot round, but BAe have declined to say what the guidance is. But based on the projectile’s shape, it probably used command guidance. It is pretty manoeuvrable have been used to target small aerial drones and larger drones mimicking cruise missiles. The USN renamed the HVP… Read more »
I have seen references to MAD-FIRES alongside Bofors 3P for the T31s, but not for 127mm. I suppose launching normal MAD-FIRES from a 5″ would be a waste of calibre, wouldn’t it. No point firing a tiny little buzzy thing from a massive gun. I quite like the concept of HVP; it seems to have a wide range of targets, reasonable cost and at least the promise of high performance.
No not really. Raytheon have said MAD-FIRES can be scaled up to be fired from larger guns. This can mean one of two things. Either they keep the dart the same size and just increase the size of the carrier. Or the increase the size of MAD-FIRES dart and adjust the carrier to suit. The first option when fired from the 5” weapon system, means there is significantly more propellant (at least 8 times as much) generating a massive muzzle velocity. So the dart will travel both significantly faster and further than from a 57mm gun. It still uses the… Read more »
That makes sense, but then wouldn’t putting a little cylinder of propellant on the back of the HVP have the same effect of increased range by turning it into Zumwalt style base bleed? You’d retain the utility of wider target set too.
I understand the use of MAD-FIRES from a 57mm, but there isn’t really a point from 5″ when there’s a calibre-specific option available, beyond, as you point out, the advantages in muzzle velocity.
Hi SB, if you were a ship’s Commander, would you prefer to intercept a target/group of targets 10 or 20 miles away? This is the difference of using the 5″ gun compared to the smaller 57mm. I would tend to agree that using the standard size MAD-FIRES using a scaled up carrier for the 5″, on the face of it doesn’t make sense. For Raytheon it does mean you only have one production line building the dart and another line building the significantly simpler to produce various sized carriers. But, scaling up the dart does also have its advantages. Simply… Read more »
I didn’t mean that I would choose 57mm over 5″ if I had the choice, that would be silly. It would be nice for future ships such as the T83 if the 57mm were considered as secondary armament alongside the 5″ firing guided shells in multiple roles, so you would get anti fast boat out to 20 miles, hitting large drones out to nearly that, then smaller drones and swarms would bring in the 57mms as a layered defence.
If Madfires is Semi Active then it is not fire and forget by definition, the illumination antenna needs to be pointed to the target until the interception. Unless there are more than one illumination antenna.
Yes, you’re technically correct. For example Leonardo’s DART is a command guided weapon. In that it requires the ship’s radar to track the target continuously with a high resolution. Fire the DART in the general direction. Then via radio data-link, command the DART to steer towards the target. Where the radar must follow the targets track to generate a very high target interception resolution for the interception. For such an interception, you will have to use a high resolution radar waveform, such as pulse-Doppler or frequency modulated carrier wave (FMCW). MAD-FIRES from what little information that has been released. Uses… Read more »
Yippeee BAE again flying the flag for oh right… themselves. Ff sake.
Morning Klonkie, I wonder if NZ will follow Aus and upgrade their Anzac’s 5″ guns if not mod 4 already?
And why NZ never got AShMs fitted or even FFBNW on their Anzac’s? It might be a bit of squeeze but they could get at least 4 NSMs forward per ship. Just to give them a bit more punch. Non of my business, just asking. 😆