HMS Glasgow, currently undergoing fitting out at the BAE Systems facility in Scotstoun on the River Clyde, appears to have started the process of having her main gun fitted.

Earlier in the year, we reported that HMS Glasgow had reached approximately 65% completion, marking significant advancements in its construction phase.

The focus had been on major equipment installations, including the fitting of the bow sonar and preparations for the main gun installation.

The gun is the 5-inch (127mm) Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun system already in service with the U.S. Navy. Here’s how the gun will look.

The Mk 45 naval gun system, as described by its developers, BAE Systems, is promoted as “the world’s lightest and most compact 5-inch, 54-calibre fully automatic naval gun system.” Initially deployed on the U.S. Navy’s CALIFORNIA and VIRGINIA-Class cruisers, as well as SPRUANCE-Class destroyers, this system has reportedly been installed on over 200 ships, including those of allied nations. BAE Systems highlights that the early versions, Mods 0 through 2, were designed with continuous technological enhancements aimed at improving system controls and ammunition handling, which they claim resulted in better reliability and maintainability.

The latest iteration, the Mk 45 Mod 4, is described by BAE Systems as a significant upgrade, featuring a longer 62-calibre barrel intended to enhance the gun’s range and accuracy, particularly for Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) missions. The company asserts that the Mod 4 incorporates major subsystem upgrades to handle high-energy munitions and optimise the performance of various ammunition types. Additional design improvements are said to focus on ease of operation and maintenance, as well as reducing the radar signature of the gun mount, which BAE Systems suggests could enhance the system’s adaptability and efficiency in modern naval warfare.

According to BAE Systems, the Mk 45 Mod 4 is designed for flexibility and resilience, with the capability to handle a wide range of 5-inch ammunition types, including conventional and extended-length projectiles.

The system is claimed to offer high ammunition selectivity and loading flexibility, allowing for automatic operation that is responsive to changing mission needs.

BAE Systems also notes that the system is built to endure harsh environmental conditions, including extreme weather and missile blasts, while maintaining consistent performance, which they state contributes to the system’s high mission availability. They further claim that “all-weather operation for the entire range of Mods 0 through 2 and 4 variants” is assured by the watertight gun shield enclosures.

BAE Systems also emphasises the Mk 45 Mod 4’s operational versatility, particularly its ability to handle a diverse inventory of ammunition types, which the brochure describes as a key feature. The system is designed with “remote round-to-round selectivity,” allowing operators to select and fire different types of ammunition without manual intervention, which BAE Systems claims enhances the gun’s flexibility in rapidly changing combat situations.

The company highlights the system’s compatibility with various fire control systems (FCS), stating that the Mk 45 can be adapted to the latest digital fire control interfaces. According to the brochure, this adaptability ensures that “the inherent gun pointing accuracy of Mk 45 Mod 4 maximises the overall gun weapon system accuracy achievable with any FCS,” suggesting that the system is future-proofed for evolving technological standards and operational requirements.

The build process for each ship involves its structure being completed in Govan where skilled teams of fabricators and steelworkers construct the units before they are assembled into two main blocks which are joined together externally on the hardstanding before the ship departs.

In Scotstoun, the ship’s outfit is completed and the complex systems are installed before test and commissioning takes place. Currently in Scotstoun for outfitting, Glasgow is on the cusp of entering its testing and commissioning phases. With sea trials anticipated in 2026. As the first ship in class, HMS Glasgow is expected to enter service in 2028.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

123 COMMENTS

  2. Would they ever actually let a £1b frigate get within less than 20 miles of a hostile shore to lob a 5 inch shell in support of ground forces?
    There also seems to be far easy ways to kill fast boats and surface targets with other weapons.

    • Yes there are many ways to kill fast boats, drones etc.including CAMM…but a five inch gun can engage any and all targets ( including sub surface if they move forward with kingfisher)…and you can carry more 5 inch shells than you can CAMMs.

      A medium gun is still required as it’s the most efficient way to attack so many things.

      And the answer is yes you would let your frigate get within 20 miles of a hostile shore if that’s the mission required…navies are after all there to effect something, change something or protect something and quite frankly there is very little to effect, change or effect in the middle of the the Ogin…look at sea lanes most are actually very close to land..within about nautical miles…that’s why merchant ships are at risk of piracy in some parts of the world.

      • I would also add the potential for future longer ranged and guided ammo over the service life of the frigates.
        BAE recently restarted, or so I gather, their Hypervelocity Projectile programme. This is supposedly a guided, extremely aerodynamic sabot shell that can be used for ballistic missile defence and also anti-surface.
        No details on guidance method, possibly imaging or command guided, but anti-everything over 50 miles sounds nice to me.

        • It’s already been successfully trialled from the 5″ by the USN. It got quietly shelved by the USN, after they needed to save some cash. But since the Houthis attacks on shipping in and around the Red Sea this year. The Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) is being looked at again, as another method to deal with both asymmetric and conventional threats, i.e suicide UAVs and USVs, along with cruise and ballistic missiles.

          One big factor is cost. The guided HVP is expected to cost less than $100k, whereas ESSM costs about $1.8M. Especially pertinent when in April the US Navy Secretary told the Senate, that the Navy had used about $1B in missiles against the Houthis. (Didn’t elaborate if this was just for surface to air or included surface to surface and air to surface!).

          • I see. It’s ridiculous how much American missiles cost at present.
            Do you have any idea of the details of HVP? Guidance, maneuvering, warhead etc?

          • Hi Sailorboy. I do have a few nuggets. The first is when fired from the 5” the HVP reaches a terminal speed of just over Mach 3. When fired from a 155 Paladin it reaches Mach 4.5. But when fired from the M110 203mm howitzer, it is just above Mach 5. When fired from the rail gun it was reaching speeds up to Mach 7. Though it was predicted to reach Mach 9 in later tests. The 155 and 203 guns have much larger breech chamber volumes, than the 5”, so can use a lot more propellant, hence the higher speeds.

            During test by the US Army, the HVP when fired from the Paladin and M110 intercepted low flying target drones that were mimicking the flight profile of cruise missiles. The interceptions was at 100km. The 5” version will be lower probably in the 50 to 75 km bracket.

            Neither BAe or the USN/Army have said how the round is guided or what type of fuzing it uses. Normally you’d want a nice hemispherical lens for an IR sensor, but this would screw up the aerodynamics. I suspect therefore that the round uses either radio command guidance or semi-active radar homing (SARH). Command guidance would be the cheaper option, whilst SARH is more expensive but a lot more accurate. Plus it probably incorporates a radar proximity fuze for near misses.

            There is one issue though. The HVP is aerodynamically designed for hypersonic speeds, ie Mach 5+. As it was originally intended to be fired by a rail gun, hence the conical shape. At supersonic speeds fired from the 5” and 155mm guns, it is less efficient. As the aero needs are different at these speeds. Something similar to a tank fired armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) dart is more efficient at Mach 3 to 4 speeds.

            There are two other contenders for guided artillery rounds that can intercept aerial targets. Which are Leonardo’s DART fired by the OTO 76 and DARPA/Raytheon’s MAD-FIRES fired by the Bofors 57. The DART is now in service with the Italian Navy. I don’t think it has been exported to other Navies. Whilst MAD-FIRES is still in development. Though it’s planned to be integrated on the USN’s Constellation class frigates.

            Both use sabot darts to increase the effective range and terminal velocity. However, MAD-FIRES is also rocket assisted. Which gives it a similar effective range to the larger 76mm fired DART. Raytheon have said MAD-FIRES could be scaled up for the 5”. Whilst Leonardo have said the same for the DART.

          • Whatever DO you do at work, DB?
            Thanks for the summary. I think you’ve told me most of that before (not the HVP stuff) but it’s nice to see the options laid out.
            Wasn’t MAD-FIRES grinding to a halt? Something about the seeker (SAR IIRC) not working well enough?
            DART seems the best of the options in terms of scalability and capability fired from the 5″, unless some sort of family could be developed for madfires that retains commonality of components for both 57mm and 5″.
            DART is beam-riding, isn’t it? We’d have to put a radar next to the gun like with all of the Italian 76 mounts.
            Ideally we would have a system reliable enough that we can have a similar setup to the new PPAs. A 127 forwards and a 76 on top of the hangar doing all of the CIWS work by firing DART.
            If we could have that for OPVs and auxiliaries, and then a thing like the DDX design with the two 76s but with 57 for T83 that would be pretty good coverage especially if we can get a 127mm guided AD round.
            P.S bring back the 8″ gun, just to fire HVP.
            I wonder how fast it would go from a 16″?

          • Let’s put it like this, if the Government cancels one of the key forthcoming defence programs, I will be mightily pi**ed off!

            From reading between the lines from the DARPA and Raytheon’s blurb. I believe MAD-FIRES will be using semi-active radar homing (SARH), rather than command guidance, as it will be significantly more accurate. Which for a CIWS role is critical.

            A little known fact about Leonardo’s DART, is that BAe helped design the guidance system, which has in part been subsequently used in the HVP.

            The biggest advantage MAD-FIRES has over DART will be the higher number of targets that can be simultaneously engaged. SARH works by using a radar to transmit a continuous wave that illuminates a target within a beam. The target which is travelling has a velocity, so will generate a doppler frequency change on the reflected signal. Which can then be tracked. If you are using an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. You can still sweep the area with a pulsed wave, whilst keeping the target illuminated using CW using a separate beam. With the newer AESA you can use multiple CW beams as well as pulsed beams. Therefore, if a swarm of targets is approaching each can be individually illuminated, for a stream of MAD-FIRES to intercept.

            Managed to find some info on big guns firing sabots. In the late 1960’s the USN did a number of live firing trials with 8″ and 16″ guns using sabots in the Gunfighter Program (Long Range Bombardment Ammunition (LRBA). The cruiser USS St. Paul conducted a two day fire mission against the Vietcong positions at ranges up to 64,000m. The 8″ gun fired a sabot, which used a 4.125″ (104mm) diameter shell.

            The USN also trailed using 11″ (280mm) shells as sabots for the 16″ L50 Mk7 guns used on the Ohio class. The 11″ shells were originally used by the US Army as artillery fired nuclear weapons. Which were later deactivated and had the nukes removed and replaced with standard HE. The shells went well over 100km (62 miles). But in the 1980s there was a program looking at a new 11″ GPS guided version, that was expected to reach 185km (115 miles). They also planned for a 13.65″ (347mm) sabot that would carry 300 submunitions, with an expected range of 64,000m.

            The original 11″ shells used were designed in the 1950’s, they weren’t even boat-tailed (parallel side wall to the shell’s base). The 13.65″ sabot had a muzzle velocity of 1097m/s which is Mach 3.2. I can’t find the muzzle velocity for the 11″ shell, but it would have had a higher muzzle velocity due its lighter weight.

            Today we could improve the range by incorporating both a boat tail, plus a base bleed or rocket assistance. Along with a longer more aerodynamic shape. Pz2000 and its 155mm L52 gun, will lob a boat tail shell about 30km, with base bleed this goes up to 40km and rocket assist (RAS) pushes it to 54km. Which is a 33% and 80% increase over the boat tail.

            For the 11″ sabot, the percentage increases wont be as large, due to the additional drag at higher supersonic speeds. But a 15% and 40% would be a fair starting point of range estimates. Thereby giving the sabot a new range of 213km for a base bleed and 259km for a RAS. Which doesn’t take into account a better aerodynamic shape, which could add an additional 5% to the range. Which could pump the range of a RAS sabot to nearly 270km. Which is a bit of interesting thought for a GPS/INS guided shell!

            Back to the HVP fired from the 16″ gun question. As the HVP is significantly lighter than the 11″ sabot, plus having 300kg of propellant pushing it. The muzzle velocity will be awesome. If the M110 203mm howitzer fired version hit Mach 5. I honestly think you would be getting near to the lower end of the rail gun speeds, i.e. in the Mach 5.5 to 6.5 territory. Which is where the HVP aerodynamic profile was shaped for. It won’t have the same inertia as the 11″ sabot, therefore I’m not sure if could it exceed 300km? Certainly need to re-evaluate the statement of battleships and in particular their guns are no longer relevant!

          • Tempest, hmm? Or FC/ASW?
            I think your specialism is radar, so I’m guessing Tempest.
            Any chance of a job offer when I come out of Uni?
            MAD-FIRES is sounding better and better the more you say about it. Don’t tell me you work on that, too!
            The HVP stuff makes me wonder whether it could be used as a sort of integrated “shooting stuff” system.
            If MBDA make it so that their Land Precision Strike can be launched from a CAMM tube (though I doubt it with the design they showed at Farnborough) and we fit air picture datalinks to our RCH 155 then we can use Giraffe to illuminate targets for the HVP from the artillery and CAMM trucks to strike ground targets along with the guns.
            I’m sure there are a million ways it wouldn’t work but an interesting thought experiment given the utility of the HVP.

      • Putting 12.5% of your only of non repalceable surface ASW assets in range of enemy drones, SPGs or truck mounted ASM seems a risk.
        If anything T31 should have the NGS role.
        A 57mm on T26 could deal with fast boats out to 15km, and with the right ammo drones and air threats, as well as saving weight for additional VLS.

        • Ideed, it’s your less critically valuable warships you want to do NGS, not your best, especially when the entire escort fleet is tiny. Bit surprised to see the 5″ only elevates to 65 degrees. Thought 80 degrees plus was the norm post WW2.

        • Yes but there are only 5 T31 and ASW work is not just done more than 20nm from the coast…if the escort there is a T26 that’s what will be doing the job and type 26s will be around 40% of the fleet, T31 will be less than 25%….if you think the RN is keeping its T26s in the well out in the occean hunting SSNs at all times..your wrong…what does it do with the T23s with tails ( the present high end ASW asset) or when it had them the Type 22s…they did everything as will the type 26….

          • Yep..100%
            Spookily enough RN vessels do other stuff outside of their primary role.
            NGS
            AAW
            ASW
            ASuW
            Boardings
            Disaster Relief
            Anti Drug Patrols
            ELINT

            T23 without a tail is still a formidable ASW asset with its active sonar.
            With a Helo embarked T45 and T23 can do All of the above as well.

        • Given Ukraine is launching drone attacks at 1200km keeping out of range of drones isn’t feasible as a potential method of dealing with them.

          • And what are these drones aimed at…
            Let me guess 135m long Oil refineries that move around at up to 30 knots ?
            No?
            The drones going against fixed land-based targets have the intelligence of a PTI at a spelling test. They fly flat dumb and happy to a GPS location and then stop flying to hit it.

            Fly a drone 1200km at 200Km per hour and when it arrives the ship it was aimed at will be anything up to 180 nm away or if you include course as well then anywhere in over 100,000 Km of sea area.

        • What could you not do with CAMM, hit small boats ? You are aware CAMM has this secondary anti surface function…Aster does not.

          • CAMM has some other tasty features that it can do beside AAW. It can do ASuW doing a M3+ high dive attack into a target. It can also use targets info from a variety of sensors with radar being only one of them.

          • Indeed, I don’t think most people have quite considered the level of energy dumped into a hull, when a 100kg object hits it at around 2500mph, especially as that object will tumble, shatter and has a blast frag warhead to shatter itself and ensure every bit of energy is expended into the hull. That’s far more destructive weapon than say an 8inch shell..and a 10kg warhead is nothing to be sniffing at.

            As for range let’s be honest who really has surface vessels that undertake engagements beyond the radar horizon.. I know everyone gets obsessed with 100mile range heavyweight anti ship missiles. But as far as I’m aware for surface vessels the radar horizon is still generally a hard limit to detection unless it’s really luckily and it’s small ship flight finds the target and can stay undetected and manages to set up a kill chain ( a hard ask in a rotor when faced with a moving high end integrated air defence system and no hills or terrain to hide behind..just the horizon).

            Finally speed of engagement..a CAMM is going to hit a target 20Nms away in 25 seconds flat..a standard speed western heavyweight ASM (travelling at 600mph) will take around 2.20 minutes to travel that distance.even a six inch shell takes 25 seconds to travel only 10 Nms…that means if you detect and get the kill chain first there is a reasonable chance your enemy is not going to have time to find you get a kill chain and fire back if you use the Mach3+ CAMM.

            I really think people underestimate what a nasty beast a CAMM armed RN escort is in the surface action role…after all they are all likely to carry 48+ ( I would imagine that the RN is going to leaver CAMM into some of its MK41 silos…after all its a cheap effective missile for all aspects of naval combat and its not going to have the budget to fill them with high end everything).

      • Any recent articles available re Kingfisher development? Last article read on the subject was a 2022 NL article.

      • Jonathan, there is another benefit, shells can be RAS’ed at sea, missiles could be, but, not sure they can be actually loaded.

        Programmable she’ll ammo can be AA as well as ASuW and AAW, Kingfisher as you stated.

        Allows to platform to remain on station for longer if required AND and inherent lesson from the LCS was that in wargaming, Red team took out the supply bases that Blue team would have used to reconfigure the LCS, rendering the LCS combat ineffective.

        My only bugbear is to standardise the fleet on the 5″…

        • Totally agree, that the RN should now standardize on the 5″. However, as we are skint, it’s not going to happen any time soon. Unless there is a UOR blank cheque.

          US Navy have started to seriously look at how its Mk41 VLS can be replenished at sea. As the current crane is not suitable when the sea state get too bad. But more importantly is how quickly the Arleigh Burkes were expending missiles against the Houthis. That then needed to go to a friendly harbour to get replenished. Which therefore meant there was a gap in the merchant ships protection.

    • 5 inchers have been used by the USN to engage ground targets as recently at 2016, and both the USN and the Hellenic navy have shot down drones with them recently in the Read Sea. Guns can still be a very useful and relatively inexpensive weapon.

    • The gun – i hope RN is not that idiotic to curtail the capability like it did to 4.5″ – can also hit air drones.

      The Type 26 should have around 400 rounds of 5″, should you use expensive and much more limited number of missiles in a 300kt air drones or 40kt sea drones?
      The Type 45 was recently expending Asters into drone that had a little better than WW1 performance aircraft.

      • Mk 8 was at one time good at AA and then was stopped in surface mode we were good at putting up a wall of HE against sea skimmers that we learnt during Corporate although we never used it but a 4.5 brick is a lot cheaper than Vls and Asters. against different threats

        • 4.5 gun can do still do AAW tracking with ease.
          The RN EOS trackers can track air targets.
          However,
          The base bleed ammo and fire control system predictor cannot.

          • Afternoon GB, could they add the AAW function back into the 4.5″ ammunition particularly if patrolling the Suez-Gulf? It would be pretty useful and affordable?
            I’ve asked this before, but I can’t remember the answer, if a Phalanx could be added to the top back of the T23 hangar? There’s a fabulous arc of fire with nothing firing from it? Seems a wasted space.

    • Not with sea ceptor as your missile defence no 🤣 I’d not like to see one of them trying to knock out an agile anti ship missile , it’s a poor man’s aster 15

          • Aster is a an area defence Surface to Air missile, CAMM is a close in defence Surface to Air missile. They fill different roles, which is why the T45’s are being retrofitted to fire both.

          • Due to the pif paf jets I presume. Wonder what manoeuvrable anti ship missiles can exceed 40g or can automatically respond as the interceptor approaches which I guess would be the true judge of ‘superiority’ though nice to have that extra capability on paper. Is there a range difference as a result of those jets however or size/weight disadvantage? Does CAAM’s supposed superior aerodynamics give it other advantages to balance it out? All a balance I guess. It will be interesting to see how CAAM’s developmental potential comes into play as time passes, the ER version is already a good enhancement.

          • A couple of points:

            1. Aster can pull a higher “G” turn than CAMM. This is due to the mid-body strakes, that create lift when turning. However, the knock on effect is that by generating that lift, it looses energy more quickly.

            2. CAMM is a lot more aerodynamic than Aster, as it only has the tail fins. CAMM can reach a comparable terminal velocity to Aster 15 (Mach 3) without the additional 1st stage booster, but it doesn’t loose speed as quickly after the motor has burnt out.

            3. The “Piff-Paff” reaction jets are mounted mid-body. This is designed to push the whole body of the missile in a certain direction. Unlike the ones used in the Patriot missiles, which are near the front. So they help to point the nose towards the new direction. Patriot uses its reaction jets throughout the flight. Whereas Aster’s are used towards the terminal phase, where they enhance the missile’s Pk chances.

            4. At a 25km interception, CAMM will have more energy to intercept a highly manoeuvring crossing target, ie tail chase. However Aster, can cut the corner much tighter, but will loose more energy doing so. CAMM can still pull significantly higher G than any human could survive. Plus can pull enough to keep up with most targets. Though MBDA unsurprisingly won’t give the G figures.

            5. Aster 15 is getting an upgrade similar to Aster 30 Block 1NT, this is called Aster 15 EC (Enhanced Capabilities). As quoted by MBDA (France): “The upgrade aims to enhance the missile’s auto-director, guidance algorithms, flight profile, and onboard computational power. These enhancements are anticipated to double the missile’s range (horizontal range 30km to 60km, not height) and decrease the minimum engagement distance, thereby strengthening both long-range offensive and close-range defensive capabilities. Which puts it in a similar class to CAMM-ER.

          • Aster 15 is larger, longer ranged, and more expensive than CAMM. You have more magazine depth at shorter range with CAMM. They don’t fill the same role.

          • CAMM has a shorter min engagement range so better than ASTER in that respect.
            KP is up there with ASTER 15.
            Any ASM in the terminal phase isn’t going to be jinxing too much.
            Pop up manoeuvre may be…
            If you are worried about it then Salvo shoot. The KP miss chance then is so small as to be negligible.
            You still have Phalanx and the Gollys will, I would hope, to have done their bit with ADR and DLF well before that.

      • I thought sea skimmers, agile or not, were precisely the target set for which Sea Ceptor was designed. I also understood that Sea Ceptor is regarded as a significantly more capable missile than Sea Wolf, which although shorter ranged, was no slouch. Is it already obsolete?

        • It’s areal defence for every frigate , it’s broadly as good as aster but against certain missiles it’s just not . Is it just sea skimmers that will be fired at type 26 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

          • So, what certain missiles?
            High divers?
            Well within the systems capabilities

            ASBM?
            They have hardly had a stellar performance so far in the Red Sea.

          • t’s got – very roughly and broadly – the same sort of performance and reach against subsonic aircraft or missiles, and it’s got a pretty decent capability against supersonic threats.

            What Sea Ceptor doesn’t do as well as ASTER15 is the high-supersonic, high-G weaving, very low RCS, threat that was considered a risk in the mid-1990s when the system was being drawn up; the author of the document defining the threats, wryly pointed out that he’d been asked for, and had described, the most terrifying missile threats he could imagine, expecting them to be dialed down a little on the basis of “but this needs to be physically possible…” and instead they’d been included verbatim.

            Sea Ceptor took a different tack – instead of an extremely capable missile with a very high SSPK against even extremely challenging threats, Ceptor went for a “bronze bullet” approach: very effective against the majority of threats, accepting a lower performance against the really scary ones… so you fire more against them.

            Instead of a single shot having a 90% Pk, firing three that have a 50% Pk each get you the same effect; you use more missiles but you can afford more of them. That’s copied from else where .

          • So, just catching up with informative posts. Standout comment I think is above. Camm is ( affordable) area defence for every frigate. Understand possible weakness against George Best class missiles and as you say you put in more tackles. High g missiles can only do do much midfield jinking. At the end of the day you know they’re coming for goal. 🙂

          • At 1.2 billion a frigate the size of a destoyers don’t you think it should pack even 16 aster 30 , hell an expensive loss potentially considering the time to build a type 26 . Affordable shouldn’t come into it if we are putting men at sea

          • Fair question. I can’t judge. My understanding is that the experts consider things from a holistic weapon system perspective i.e. effectiveness = radar + software +cms+ decoys+ missile + guns. So destroying the incoming is good, but forcing it wide is also a result. Aster is very good, otherwise the RN would not have chosen it. Interesting that the Italians developed Camm- ER; I assume this will enable engagement of higher altitude missiles at greater range and give you more shots; Aster level probability of a kill without requiring top end radars like Samson?

    • Having 127mm gun in T26 is nothing bad. Putting the 127mm on T31 and let T26 with 57mm is also no bad. It is not “which is the only choice”.

      1: If a CVSG is made of 1 CV, 1 SSS, 1 Tide, 2 T45 and 2 T26 (with 127mm), that is the “max” RN can provide. ALL active T31 will be needed to cover other tasks, like KIPION and FRE. Sending T26 “near” shore is a risk, but it is now 40-100km from the shore, not 5-10 km like it was on 1980s. ASW might be the main risk for this task, in which case T26 must do it.

      2: If a CVSG is made of 1 CV, 1 SSS, 1 Tide, 2 T45, 2 T26 (with 57mm), and 1 T31 (with 127mm), RN will be needed to gap either KIPION or FRE. As it is 40-100 km from the shore, again, ASW might be the main risk for this task, in which case T26 must escort the T31. If there is no SSK threat, then T31 might be happily doing the job.

      Both cases has pros and cons. It is just a matter of choice.

      • If they’re going to keep the T45s in service for another 10-15 years why not update them too with a 5″ for commonality? Would six gun sets break the budget bank? Keep the 57mm for T31s?

        • I’d rather hope T45 to be equipped with a 57mm gun and two 40mm guns (like T31), as they will not be expensive. As this will save a lot of weight, I even hope to add “24 more” (total 48) CAMMs using the weight.

          These guns will also be essential drone defense tools, albeit for short range. I understand some escorts will be surrounding the CVF, and T45 will be located relatively near so she can do the close-in defense there (coupled with another T45 (or T31) in the other side).

    • Surely the primary role of that gun is to support ground forces. It can’t be to enage enemy ships, surely?

      What anti-ship missiles capable of 20 mile range might the enemy gound forces have on-shore?

    • Why not?
      What is different about doing NGS now as opposed to 50+ years ago.
      Nothing.
      Missiles where a thing 50+ years ago.
      They where a thing in the Falklands.
      They where a thing off Iraq
      They where a thing off Libya.

      Fast boats and fast surface targets are easily killed by NGS. You don’t need to hit, you just need to get close… ish.
      Set to VT High or VT Low and the shell will airburst and spread the love around over a 100+m radius. Looking at a shell burst on a THIM lets you see how far all those hot , sharp, fast moving bits of steel go…its a long way.

      Against nice big slower targets a bit of Surface DA shooting will put holes in things. Again VT shots will shed stuff on the upper deck

      Gunnery is funnery.

  3. Let’s hope we purchase a good selection (and quantity) of ammunition for her.

    BTW, what is going on under the bridge wings? Looks like that area would be right radar reflective?

      • I know we discussed it before but was it confirmed they will be covered up? If so I didn’t get to that point in the thread. Good to hear if true mind, it’s the only distracting element that takes away from the overall clearness of the lines.

  4. Canada interestingly choose the competitor, the Leonardo Oto Melara 127/64.
    Maybe because they already had the 70’s Oto Melara earlier variant in their Iroquois destroyers.

    • The RN had the Oto melara’s in the 80ts for the Hong Kong Squadron, I do believe that the boats were sold off to the Irish navy not sure if the Otos were a part of the package

      • 76mm on the HK boats.
        Some went to the Irish and have paid off.
        The last 3 went to the Philippines and I think are still in service.
        I was the Level 3 Base maintainer 1993-1996 for the Oto .

        Interestingly the RN removed the AA predictor capability from the Sea Archer FCS
        It was deemed that having that capability may have annoyed the futureoccupants of Stonecutters Island and POW Barracks.

        • They removed the AA capability for the appeasement of those over the fence at the time ,but kept the ‘ Brasso tin’ firing capabilities of the saluting Guns

  5. Would it be possible to quad pack spear 3 into the mk41 or even a deck launcher? It would give these ships a great weapon for small craft and shore bombardment from 80 miles.

    • If you could figure a way to stack them you could probably fit 16 in there! Tiny little things, you fit eight in an F-35B.
      Probably more likely to hang then off your helicopter.

      • Would need a booster to get them up to speed, though.
        That dinky little jet engine isn’t going to get them out of the VLS fast enough.
        The same goes for helicopters, the lower launch speed impacts range.
        The best option would be for the Navy to try to get the Army Land Precision Strike launched from VLS like CAMM.
        Brimstone accuracy and supersonic out to 80km.

        • Yep, absolutely and it’s mk41s so you can hot launch it.
          As for ALPS, there is something to be said for maintaining your native science, engineering and manufacturing capability rather than buy a foreign weapon.
          UK had learnt that lesson rather painfully and repeatedly.
          And there’s something to be said for the capability to launch a 16 missile salvo from a single Mk41s tube! 😂
          Rack em, stack em and then obliterate em 😉

          • Land Precision Strike is an MBDA UK thing, so sovereign capability is there.
            I think you are confusing it with the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) which is US.
            An air launched PrSM would be fun, but not really feasible (more like Kinzhal).
            LPS is based on Spear but is longer to fit a bigger warhead and more fuel to maintain range, as well has having the rocket booster. I think you would quad pack in mk41 but vertical stacking doesn’t sound like a good idea.

  8. The RCN River Class is going with the Italian designed 127mm.In modern terms they are all “autocannons” with a tremendous rate of fire.The Russians have developed a 152mm shore battery with a high rate of fire.Top Hat C and Top Hat D with Bass Tilts and Drum Kits are the “Cold Wars ” worst fears for Soviet ships main guns.THC THD Tango Hotel Charlie Tango Hotel Delta ?It’s a little more complicated then Tim Hortans Coffe or Tim Hortens Donuts.Target Housing for main guns causes some sort of bizarre “house clearing” when deployed as a D flag so have a nice day,not my cup of tea.

      • Thank god it’s not just me. I wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes in a military setting if that’s indicative of how one communicates.

    • Popped into the Tim Hortons in Chichester last week en route back from familiy holiday. Great to re-acquaint with the experience I had when stationed in Canada (Ottawa) 2004-6.

    • It’s just a comparison to the Soviet tecknowlogy in the cold war top hat bass tilts drum kits are all nato code names for the Soviet main gun systems on thier ships.top hat means target housing. Drum kit and bass tilt have to do with Soviet fire control and target acquisition of thier ships “main gun”.Sorry if I seemed a little to inundated.

      • It’s just your admiralty phonetic codes Top Hat C Tango Hotel Charlie?Ask your Admiralty what it means now or in the 70s during the cold war or War Measures Act in Canada.I live in Halifax.

        • Figure out what HFD is?High Frequency D Band?You wouldn’t like it if they just drop 50 rds of GFD into the ass end of your port city.Some sort of Satanic “broadside” off a Soviet main gun.

  9. Keep building them. We have the facilities to support our Fleets .
    Give our Yards the chance build and support them. Ships of this type need skilled crews. No other Navy can outdo the British Royal Navy and all of those who make it this way.

    • Not useless but some would get through.
      That’s why it isn’t the only gun on there and there are 4 others that can also take down drones, not to mention CAMM.
      Bit of a silly comment.

      • I like your confidence in unproven defensive weapons systems .I seem to remember watching a documentary on the Falklands campaign which highlighted how ineffective our warships were in defending themselves against low flying aircraft dropping simple bombs. I can’t see it being any different decades later if we had a similar scenario ,defending against modern missile attack systems, or drone swarms.

        • They couldn’t defend against aircraft because our self defence SAMs at the time, that we relied upon completely, were terrible.
          Now we have Sea Ceptor, the 30mm and working Phalanx, this is one of the most well protected ships we’ve ever had against a drone swarm.
          The use of the 5″ for air defence is at best a secondary function.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here