The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has published a Pre-Procurement Notice, signalling its intent to engage with the industry on 57mm and 40mm operational and training ammunition for the Type 31 Frigates.
This comes as part of the Type 31 Design & Build (D&B) Programme, which introduces new gun systems into service with the Royal Navy.
“The 40mm and 57mm Gun Systems and Ammunition were offered as part of a competitive bid for the T31 Design & Build (D&B) Programme,” the MOD disclosed.
It was mentioned that “a comprehensive set of performance modelling was performed” to ensure these selections met the T31’s key characteristics. While the advanced capabilities of the “3P ammunition” offer “significant advantage against a range of complex threat scenarios,” they also present a potential challenge in “through-life cost of ownership.”
To address this, the MOD’s RFI aims to “grow the understanding of the medium calibre naval ammunition market,” “gather knowledge of VfM (Value for Money) alternative options,” “understand the operational performance of alternative ammunition natures,” and “inform future considerations in respect of Ammunition Procurement.”
The intention is to identify alternative ammunition solutions that may offer comparable performance at a reduced lifetime cost.
RFI Timeline and Objectives
The RFI process for the Type 31 40mm and 57mm Training and Operational Naval Ammunition is structured with specific objectives and a timeline:
- The RFI Notice was published on August 31, 2023.
- Industry parties have until September 14, 2023, to express their interest.
- One-to-one industry engagements are scheduled for October 2-13, 2023.
- Final responses from the industry are due by October 31, 2023.
- The Authority’s operational analysis is slated to take place from October 31, 2023, to May 10, 2024, with industry close-out activities planned for May 13-17, 2024.
Now 57mm 3p ammo is too expensive? It’s the whole reason the MOD bought the gun! They’ve lost their minds!!
Just a purchasing procedure…. its an attempt to keep the costs competitive by ensuring that there are options and multiple sources of supply and less subtly ensuring that the current supplier knows that there are alternate suppliers.
57mm can also have more than one feed so it possible to have 3P as well as simple AP or Frag.
Can we assume that it means building this ammo under licence in the UK? Where’s the Ajax CT 40mm ammo made?
Why not a couple of pairs of 40mm on the Carriers? They might be useful for shooting down drones and complement the Phalanx’s.
Just realised I’m repeating myself…😂
Fairly sure it’s a one source deal, and with only 3 choices of round. It’s rival the 40mm Bushmaster
has got nearly 40 from 4 manufacturers. So there’s plenty of competition
3p from BAe comes as part of the package, however they are looking to build stocks now, so an investigation into non-BAe suppliers and other natures makes sense – Nammo and L3 Harris make other natures.
So, you can get 100 rounds for the price of a coffee?
Great to consider options but is there any good reason the ammunition types and options weren’t considered as part of what i assume, would have been through life evaluation modelling as part of the gun selection process ?
I was wondering the same thing. Buy a fantastic car and then realise the insurance is expensive and it drinks petrol. Certainly sounds that way.
Yeah it is really strange, just buy a very expensive naval gun, after the fact what are really the ammunition that we can get for it since 3P is too expensive?
This will not be disaster like Zumwalt since there are more round types and it is an established gun. But it is a weird sound.
Always makes me think of Judge Dredds lawgiver, he never worried about cost just getting the job done
Only a 57mm pop gun. Not much good for providing NGS to the Bootnecks on the beach. I’d have thought they would prefer a 5″/125mm firing in support.
Same. It’ll be interesting to see what they go for on the T32 if that ever eventuates. Feel that they could takeaway the forward 40mm and replace with MK41 vls or even CAMM.
Spare 2-3 x 40mm could then go on the two carrier’s for a bit more CIWS punch. We’ll have to see what happens.
The intention with the smaller 40mm and 57mm guns isn’t really for NGS, they were chosen on cost grounds, but also to act as a CIWS and another layer of defence against missiles, using smart ammunition such as: 3P, ORKA, ALaMO, MAD-FIRES etc to kill incoming missiles at a greater range than current ciws (out to over 4km with regular 57mm airburst- more if you use independently targeted ammunition’s). NGS is becoming less and less useful in this modern world with onset range and more precise missiles and weapons and this extra layer of air defence/multi role use with smaller calibre, faster firing guns isn’t available for slow bae mk45 mod 4 guns on t26 for example. I for one thought it would behave been a better option for a 57mm etc on t26 rather than mk45, but prehaps the gov/MOD still sees some use in naval gunfire support, or other action a larger calibre is needed for? If anyone knows please enlighten me on the matter, because as I’ve written here, I’ve been led to believe pretty firmly that NGS is all but dead these day.
P.S I just remembered Kingisher ASW round, but i dont think MOD will purchase it in its current form anyway, so kinda irrelevant.
57mm or 40mm isnt designed for NGS – think of them as an extended range CIWS with precision guided mini missiles (if we decide to go with guided anti air ammo like 3P) – to be honest i am kinda surprised that t 26 was fitted with far more expensive mk45 mod 4, as as far as I have been led to believe, naval gunfire support is all but dead in this era of long range missiles and area denial systems. Prehaps the larger cannon is for rounds like kingfisher ASW etc, but i dont think MOD planes on buying it – at least in its current form?
I think the T31 was never intended for NGS duty. From the original spec, it appeared to be wholly a defensive ship(as compared to near-peer designs), thankfully 1SL changed all that when he made the decision to include MK41 VLS in the fit-out.
Trouble is that leaves only our most expensive, vital, 6 air warfare T45 DDGs or 8 ASW T23/T26 FFGs capable of NGS, when a cheaper, more expendable T31 should’ve been equipped for that task. Only hope is some better MG on the T32, if they happen, or for cheap drones to fulfill the role.
Anti-ship, anti enemy merchant ships, gunfire to destroy is far cheaper than missiles & a 57mm needs far more hits to achieve the result a more normal calibre MG provides, usually at longer range than 57mm is capable of.
I would expect a 12.5mm MG to have a 1500 – 2000m range, whereas the 57mm gun range should be 8500 -17000m.
I think the rate of fire (220 rpm) would more than make up for the lighter caliber.
Maybe there will be a role for Underwater drones/loitering munitions for engaging other surface vessels, who knows?
No it doesn’t. Canada did a live fire exercise to test this out. 57mm made neat holes but little damage. 76mm was noticeable. 127mm caused real damage.
Try it out yourself. Go get a concrete paver & a small hammer. Then see how long it takes you to smash it up. Then try a sledge hammer. Just getting the small hammer to hit the same place more than once gets hard after the first few hits. Sledge hammer with a full swing & you have likely broken the one underneath as well.
Do you have a link/report to that exercise?
57 mm is not a small caliber and the shells are not solid they are high explosive rounds. BTW The comparison with the hammer and concrete is not right.
Fit-out?
H.m.s Blake’s 6′ must still be tucked away somewhere.
🤗
Thats what the t26 gun is more for, the T31 is more small boats, drones and middle east, ie the whole point of the 40mm programmable ammo
I would’ve standardised on the 5 inch for uniformity savings across the escort fleet, but 76mm should’ve been the minimum spec for any “medium” gun. Effective NGS or anti ship gun seems beyond the 57mm. It is excellent at AAA & anti missile, though at lower ranges, though that is covered well by the 40mm.
We can save lots of money by using sub-standard systems, but at the cost of lives, capability, deterence & security. At ranges beyond point blank occasional hits usually occur; so the larger that hit the better. So for effect you’d used an expensive AShM or cruise missile far sooner.
I’d like to see heavier MG for the T32/follow on T31 orders.
I agree that 76mm may have been a better calibre. However, regarding NGS, I can’t really envisage another San Carlos, or Normandy landing scenario where troops are landing on a contested beachhead requiring immediate suppressing artillery fire. Something would have gone seriously wrong with military planning if that was the case.
In war things often go seriously wrong with military planning. Not all NGS is related to major amphibious landings. There is sometimes the need to bombard shore installations with no landing related, or just a landing party needing covering fire & extraction for example. UKR recently landed on the western tip of Crimea or a raid & if the PLAN invaded Taiwan, there’d be plenty of NGS needed on either side. Other systems can suffice, but only an escort has its usual set of capabilities & sometimes a MG is the only shore attack capability available. Then of course there’s battle damage. You may have an excellent land attack missile system, but if that is KO’d by a very incondierate & inconveinient enemy, a decent MG is the back up, or you just have to go home.
Yes, I can see where for example a SF detachment may need covering fire during a ‘hot’ exfil, or similar. I wonder if there would be a role for a navalised HIMARS/MLRS system for the examples you have given?
NGS was also undertaken by the RN in the second Gulf War and in the Libya conflict. In fact, the NGS mission was undertaken far more recently than the RN last fired a missile from a ship. It’s a common useful tasking which the T23 GP could undertake but the T31 cannot. I get the 40mm guns for close in defence but the main gun should have been 5″.
A bit like when an Australian warship armed with a 127mm, provided NGS to the British forces in Iraq March 2003.
Naval Gunfire Support is not longer viable, ships close inshore are too vulnerable to missiles and drones – needs longer range over the horizon precision fires, which Mk 41 VLS can provide along with some Brimstone with the landed marines. 57mm has a high rate of fire, good against both air targets and swarming boats etc.
You are assuming everywhere is maxed out with missiles, facs, fighter aircraft etc. Most of the world, when you get away from Europe & North East Asia, isn’t. Some countries like Indonesia & Philippines consist of thousands of islands spread across thousands of kilometres. Others like Canada, Australia, Brazil etc are simply massive. Think about how many NSM launchers would be required to defend Australia’s coastline. Australia could never afford the number of launchers, let alone the missiles to go in them. NGFS keeps getting used because if the missiles aren’t there or are taken out or suppressed then it’s the cheapest & most effective option. Look at Ukraine. NGFS is naval artillery. Despite Sea Wolfs ability to knock out 4.5” shells, it’s not sustainable. A T23 will carry 32 CAMM (was 32 Sea Wolf) but hundreds of 4.5.
127mm is effective but expensive. 76mm is NGFS capable (marginally), but with Volcano can go out to 40km. 76mm ammo is available worldwide in its basic forms (its the worlds most common frigate & corvette gun). 40mm L70 ammo is readily available (for decades). Programmable (3p like) rounds are also available for the 76mm (Leonardo 4AP). Missiles (especially at sea where reloads are a problem), need an exact target. Guns don’t. A single mk 41 gets you 8 missiles. You can’t afford not to hit. A single 127mm gets you 500 shells. Ships can move (while firing) making counter battery fire that little bit harder.
The 57mm is like the CTA 40mm. It works (sort of), but please don’t fire it. The budget doesn’t stretch that far.
The cost of the shells is derived from the need. The RN sort of screwed up in getting the Bae/Bofors 40 Mk4 for the T31s. It means the Army has to shoulder the burden of cost fot its shells, as they’ll be the only ones using it (in the UK). If the Navy had picked the Rapidfire mount with the CTAS 40, then cost would have been shared. I get why the Navy picked it, as there are lots of manufacturers producing the 40mm Bofors ammo, which wasn’t great for the Army!
The Rapidfire with the CTAS 40 outranges the standard Bofors fired shell. But has a lower cycling rate of 200 vs 300 rounds per minute. But in its favour the Rapidfire turret can come equipped with its own installed Electro Optical thermal sight and can be fitted with Starstreak.
If they’re going for 4 MK41s on the T31s and have no aft CAMM farm, putting CAMM in the MK41s, you wonder if they would ever do the same on the T26s even on the T45s? Maybe too late for later two, decision already made. Anyway, Carry On [with] CAMM.
I really hope they go for 32x MK41, as that is what is needed to be an acceptable surface combatant and not just an oversized OPV. It’s kind of crazy to think that in its build form (before MOD does capability upgrades) the t31 will have less CAMM, less ASW capabilities and a worse radar (depends on who you ask) than the t23 that preceded it 😞
Each Mk 41 set has 6 tubes, so four is 32. They don’t come in sets of four.
Each mk 41 is a set of 8 cells (normally). Two rows of 4. I understand you can buy them in other configurations (even singular), but that’s the standard layout.
I meant go for full 32x Mk41, rather than a half way house of 16 as I dont like the way the MOD have so far kept quiet about how many Mk41 is going on them – makes me think they are planning to just go for 16, which would be a disaster and such a waste of potential.
Loads and loads of space for mk 41 to be fitted elsewhere in the fleet. The carriers and the Albion’s really need some teeth for defence
Agree, however Warship International MAG HMS Albion could be up for sale to Brazil 🙄 🇧🇷
Oh that’s just great! Sold to Brazil for pennies on the pound like Ocean and I’ll bet with no replacement. That just leaves Bulwark or will she be sold off too??
Does Warship international give any reason for the government’s so-called ‘logic’?? I’d love to hear it!!
Not really I should think it’s same old problem money again 💰💰💰or manpower who knows how our government goes on 🤔
So that will be alternative suppliers for something like TP/TP-T or dumb HE rounds.
Companies in Malaysia, Finland, Sweden, and Canada make it.
Price?
From open source USN contracts for 57mm
Point Detonating, HE – 1600 USD a round
Training Practice Tracer( No HE) 1200 USD a round or less
Low Cost (!!) Guided Round ALaMO — 19 000 USD a round during development but will come down from that. Will be for use on boat swarms.
Madfires– Smart Sabot round probably around the same cost during development.
ORCA –around the same?
Unfortunately I cannot find anything on 3P. It will be more than the HE round with the smart fuze so 3000-4000USD (?) a round?
Gun ammo is cheaper than a missile but it’s still 1000s of dollars for a few rounds burst. Smart rounds are expensive but with better hit to kill % so it’s a balance between the two.
Thanks for the info GunBuster…. Ghee, perhaps I should set up a 40mm production line in the garage and give up my day job!
I’m astonished at how expensive the dumb ammo is.
We used to be told that 4.5” cost £100 a shot in the late 80’s. Probably a made up number.
£ 4,194.85 per round
That may well the including the costs of barrel wear – which are probably included these days.
That does seem a lot TBH.
Nope. Thats contracted cost to manufacture the USN rounds and supply then in the stowage case.
Similar to a 155mm round then? BAE are charging £5k per 155mm round currently. With back orders from NATO across the board for probably millions.
Base bleed HE 4.5 was more expensive than earlier rounds . Early rounds around 1000 GBP I think, base bleed probably 4 times that
Joint purchases across NATO (and perhaps selected other parties) of munitions incorporating proprietary patented tech (e g., ALaMO, MadFires, 3P, etc.), may provide some bargaining leverage w/ the munitions manufacturers. 🤔🤞 For profit corporations appreciate long term contracts, featuring stable to increasing demand, w/ enforceable minimum purchase clauses, essentially eliminating traditional boom (no pun intended) and bust procurement cycles. Absent that approach, leverage disappears. 😳☹️
I’ve got it figured out – Take the twin 4″ mounts off HMS Belfast and put them on the rivers class opv for when we need gun fire support 😂
This is only an Request for Info(RFI), or market sounding exercise.
The guns for the type 31 frigate, 40mm fair enough ,but a 57mm it has a punch but not enough for potential situations that require a bigger gun,I know a lot of this and that or what ifs with the bean counters,is a 5inch shorter barrel variant of this gun available?I would really appreciate some help on this matter and I know it can be done according to some but I’m out of my depth on this one .
Why do you want a shorter 5″ barrel? Yes, a shorter barrel will cost less and probably reduce the wear on the barrel liner. But having a shorter barrel reduces your round’s muzzle velocity. As the gas has a shorter time pushing the round. By having a lower muzzle velocity you decrease the range of the round.
Although a standard 57mm HE shell contains around half of the explosive content of the standard 76mm shell. It is still useful for shore support, especially against light vehicles and troops in the open. Where its rapid rate of fire can cover a wider area for better suppression. Admittedly it will struggle against hardened targets like bunkers and armoured vehicles. Where something like a Brimstone might be better.
David
As DaveyB says, it’s not worth it. But yes it exists. It’s an old model (54 caliber) & many navies have either purchased or plan to purchase the available upgrade kit from BAE that takes it to the current 62 caliber mod 4 version. Opposition Leonardo 127mm also was originally 54 caliber as well but current ones are 64 caliber.
There were even older shorter barrel 127mm guns that are no longer made & likely not still in use (not sure the ammo is compatible either). The 54 caliber ones still exist in sizeable numbers & fire NATO standard ammo.
Dj,many thanks to yourself and davey b,that helps me better with my question ,cheers
Great, what can we buy that’s cheap and nasty while pretending the RN is using the full up rounds?
Just don’t buy anything with Swiss components.
TPT aint cheap and nasty. Its a practise shell with no explosive and used for practise shoots. It mimics the ballistics of a more expensive HE round without needing the safety trace around the impact point that HE does. Used on 20mm/30mm/76mm and 4.5 for ever and a day and I have shot it on all 4 guns.
Also if TPT gets stuck in a barrel you don’t have to ditch the barrel over the side like you did with 20 and 30mm HE rounds…and that was “a thing” that did happen more than it should have !
Can HIMARS/ MLRS be navalised as that would deliver an impressive accurate NGS role?
Sort of, though it needs more development. The USMC used a single HIMARS launcher from the flight deck of the USS Anchorage (LPD) in 2017. This was done during an exercise off the coast of California. Looking at the sea state in the videos and photos, I’d say the sea was fairly calm. So it wasn’t test in harsher conditions.
If it was fired ion harsher conditions, the rocket has an integrated inertia measurement unit and GPS. The rocket would correct for any misalignment and guide itself towards the target. However, this may alter the range, as the optimal firing angle may not have been initially achieved.
However, it is not impossible to have a stabilized launcher, or a weapons aiming computer that fires the rocket at the optimal time between swells. We already have these systems for automated guns aboard ships already.
MV Ocean Trader the USSOC sneaky ship had some “stuff” done to it to allow it to store pods and to fire MLRS via I believe a HIMARS Truck.
I’m sure I read that 57/40mm manufacturers were working on “smart! guided ammunition and various other rounds for these weapons. Seems to me, a simple uninformed soul, that purchasing the stuff that the makers design to come out of the barrel would be cheaper and more effective than a long winded procurement, development and introduction of the type we are all too familiar with. Again, a simple thought, that the outcome, at the manufacturers cost, would be a much better way forward. It’s a bit like buying a spud gun and then spending a fortune buying every type and variety of potato to test which is best! Daft!
Not sure on the 40mm. Definitely being worked on for the 57mm & already exists on the 76mm. Anything developed for the 57mm should be re-doable for the 76mm but not necessarily the other way round. 40mm doesn’t give you much space to work with & guided components reduce the space for explosives. Check out the difference between 76mm HE & 76mm Volcano.
Didn’t we hear somewhere before that the Admiralty were looking at loitering munitions too? Not sure if for the T31 so might be wrong here but maybe they could also go in the MK41s? I believe the Israeli Navy deploys these. Might be very useful against smaller more agile craft in Gulf type sea areas.
I am truly amazed at the depth of knowledge here on subject! Are you gents all at the coal face in the industry or just have the subject of Naval guns and ammo top of the list as a hobby and absorb info like blotting paper? As a kid I followed the local NFL, particularly my team Durban United. I could at any time(with a small exagerration for effect) tell you who scored the goals, why the Ref should have been tarred and feathered or awarded a holiday to the south of France, and the size of the crowd for any particular match of the season!
Cheers from Durban
PS or I forgot the obvious other explanation-serving or retired RN😊
go the Boks Mate!
Howsit Klonkie! Bokke!!😂
For everyday practise shoots use practise ammo (TPT) No HE and cheap. Reduced safety trace so you can shoot it at sea with others around and no chance of fragging them.
For enhanced practises against say a towed target or a remote Banshee drone use the real stuff. You do need enhanced safety traces, big NOTAMS and be careful where the stuff comes down. You dont want to frag a yachtie’s sail!
The real stuff however aint cheap so you use it for enhanced practise and real use only loading it in high threat areas like the Gulf, SoH transits and BAM. Rounds get damaged going into and being taken out of loading systems. Eventually they exceed the damage limits, and they get written off. You cannot repair them and they are destroyed by the ammo depot on return.
So.. Guided rounds are probably going to cost =10K. One round one hit(?)
Smart fused round say a 3-round burst to achieve a hit total cost =10K
You need to consider the hit and kill % probabilities. More rounds at a target mean a higher kill chance. If a round (or missile for that matter) has a hit/kill % of say 90% then 2 rounds have a total hit/kill % against the same target during the same engagement of 99.9%. (90% for the first round and 90% hit chance for the 10% left over from the first round.)
As an aside, One of the reasons why early USN TICO and AB needed to fire 2 SM2 missiles at a target to kill it whilst say ASTER only needs one…ASTER kill% is way higher for a single missile. That also affects the number of VLS silo tubes you need…. AB = 96 tubes but you need to fire 2 SM2 missiles so effectively 48 targets to engage Vs a T45 with 48 tubes and 48 targets to engage… USN is changing the SM2 for better hit % on newer versions of the missile to reduce that anomaly. (in short there is more to just tube numbers for killing stuff!)
Anyway…
If the smart round misses…you must shoot again but now the target is closer ,Its a new engagement (The hit % figures reset) and you cannot shoot at other targets.
Smart fused rounds …you have fired 3 so the chances are that one of those 3 will kill the target and with 3 rounds per target you are guaranteeing a kill (90% then 90% of 10% then 90% of 0.1 %). Once your 3 round burst is out you can move onto another target and not need to re-engage.
Hope that makes sense its jumping around a bit but in my defence, I haven’t had a coffee yet…its 36deg, 70% humidity and I have already had to climb around inside a fuel tank to assess a repair plan for a cracked stiffener!
Not to mention that SM2 is/was a semi-active radar homing (SARH) missile. Where firing as a pair increased the chances of a kill. If the target’s approach angle and manoeuvring alters the amount of reflected radar returns that the missile receives. Using two missile would mitigate this problem, as they would be flying towards the target with a separation distance. Therefore at least one missile will receive a stronger radar return when the other may be reducing.
With something like Aster, you do in effect have two radars guiding it towards the target. The first is the Sampson, that guides it towards the target. Whereby the Aster’s on-board radar then takes over in the terminal stage of the engagement. However, the missile is still monitored by Sampson, to make sure it stays on course. If it doesn’t it is corrected by a data-link command.
The main missiles that the S400 uses, use this form of command guidance right into the terminal phase. Where the main tracking radar guides the missile towards the target. It predominantly uses SARH towards the end of the engagement. Russia has invested in developing missile for the S400 that have active radar seekers, but these aren’t very common.
I think the RN should slim down its gun types to the 57mm, 40mm, and the 5 inch. We should ditch Phalanx, the 30mm and the old RN mk8.
I think as part of the T45 upgrade the mk8 should be removed and a57mm put in its place. Remove Phalanx and put in 40mm.
Massive undertaking to achieve now so it wont happen. As new builds come online I would expect it to happen then.
EO Trackers required. Command system integration. Main CRW Magazine storage rework. Ammunition resupply routes reworked. Top weight changes.
The Mk 8 is old but no older in its Mod0 guise than say a 5″ in Mount.
If the mod had been sensible and opted for the CTA gun that we have loads in storage, they would also have the ammo, which is made in UK.
you just can’t make this shit up, we have several hundred guns of a calibre they have bought 8-12 of..
barking mad