BAE Systems has secured a contract with the Netherlands’ Materiel and IT Command (COMMIT) to deliver eight Bofors 40Mk4 naval gun systems for the Royal Netherlands and Belgian Navies.
This acquisition is part of a joint programme to outfit each country’s new anti-submarine warfare frigates, with each navy set to receive two frigates, each equipped with two gun systems.
The agreement includes installation, training, spares, and tools, with an option for BAE Systems’ 3P programmable ammunition and additional guns for training. Delivery of the first system is scheduled for 2026.
“This key milestone will ensure the new frigates have the cutting-edge capabilities they require, with the addition of our advanced 3P ammunition,” stated Stefan Löfström, marketing and sales director at BAE Systems Bofors. “BAE Systems continues to support our NATO allies by delivering enhanced capabilities to help keep Europe safe.”
The Bofors 40Mk4, say its builders, is a versatile, lightweight naval gun designed to engage both aerial and surface threats. Its design allows for seamless switching between ammunition types, enhancing response options across different combat scenarios in air, land, and sea environments. BAE add that the 40mm Bofors 3P programmable ammunition provides flexibility, featuring six function modes to adapt to mission-specific requirements.
We should fit these to the Batch 2 Rivers which would have added benefit by freeing up their DS30M for QE and PoW, currently fitted for not with.
Agreed seems like an easy fix, other than having to take each river out of circulation to refit. I don’t think there’s deck penetration with the 40mm but others more knowledgeable on here will know.
The batch 2 rivers are reportedly adaptable for a light deck penetrating gun. It’s one of the reasons referenced on the internet when their cost gets brought up. I have no better sources at this time though
I do wonder whether the cost of the batch 2 Rivers was in part driven by the RN desire for an insurance policy in case frigate funding for T31 failed to materialize. Features such as Merlin strength flight deck, kevlar armoured magazine, emergency lighting, watertight integrity mods, shared infrastructure CMS mean ‘all’ you have to do is upgrade the armament and maybe the radar to create a credible, albeit modestly sized warship. Thinkdefence had a good article a while back.
Nothing to do with it, the whole price issue was down to up spec from B1 and the MOD / BAe TOB agreement.
Since no one knows what was in the agreement, this is purely speculation.
In any case a very prudent ‘up spec’ from B1 which also enabled BAe to skill up. Retaining the same class name is a bit of a stretch – not complaining mind.
Really the price of the B2’s has very little to do with their capability, and everything to do with keeping the Clyde shipyards running for a few years so they’d not close down before the Type 26 build started.
The Thai version of this design had a 76mm gun fitted with below deck rotary magazine.
With no magazine protection.. that’s a ship that would go boom with even a light round in the wrong place.
They can be deck penetrated or deck mounted.
I wonder if it would save time, modification, and money if they put the Tridon Mk2 system (Bofors but with Chess Dynamics Hawkeye EO system and fire-control system on the turret) on the River class.
The Bofors is a substantial below decks installation.
Plus….the brand new DS30M for the QE Class have already been ordered and delivered…they’re in storage…
Not necessarily
There’s a non penetrating option which stores 100 rounds of ammo in a flat magazine inside the turret ring.
and won’t require the internal refitting to the other compartments below the upper deck mount.
There was an article (perhaps on NL?) several years ago, which stated RN was considering options to upgrade armament/lethality of B2 River class. Obviously not implemented, but options probably remain on file somewhere at the Admiralty, in prep for worst case future scenarios. Actually willing to wager that similar proposals exist for virtually all commissioned RN vessels. Reasonably confident professional military staff (UK and US) are planning for the gathering storm in the East, even though insufficient funding is currently available to implement those plans.
Yes I do recall that article and it was a very interesting read. Unfortunately I don’t see the Rivers ever being upgraded due to lack of money as you point out and the RN has higher priorities for the very limited funds that are available. Still, it was a great article!
If HMS Northumberland is in the poor state that is being reported then stop messaging around and transfer the funds else were, this not ideal as the frigate issue is getting serious I know. Plus the hundred or so million spent on the development of the T32 when we are all aware that it will unfortunately never happen.
if we can waste millions on ridiculous things like Stirling castle and Proteus, not to mention the alleged soopa doopa laser which is now becoming an urban myth. we can spend a few bob on some that will work.
I couldn’t agree more 👍
money was found for the carriers and the government commitment to an increase in defence issues it’s only the willpower to get it done. mostly with equipment we already have in storage
Hi Andy, Money was found for the carriers in part because the RN sacrificed Type 45 ships 7 and 8, as well as the decision to decommission other surface ships early such as the 4 remaining Type 22s. We need to remember that very tough choices had to be made by the RN at the time in order to make the carriers happen. The B2 Rivers weapon systems won’t be upgraded. They have what they have until they leave service. At the end of the day, they are not true warships and were never intended to be. It’s not just… Read more »
the Thai derivative of the B2 River makes for a close examination HTMS KRABI, is fitted with a oto melara 76mm rapid fire gun as is the one that is operated by 3 Oman navy, Krabi has two extra Ds30mm mounted after if the bridge wings and the ship is currently being fitted with a harpoon system after if the funnel id these two navy’s can do it, then we can too but the blinkered old duty admirals inside the MOD, won’t have it because the royal navy in their old fashioned navy doesn’t have small ships. the navy can… Read more »
Yes I recall the ‘max’ configuration which made it a decent fighty ship.
Is that known for sure? Are they dual feed? I wonder if any Thales LMM/HVM mounts might even make the cut or even the Ancilia decoy launcher?
The forward starboard 30mm mount needs more arc of fire as it looks squashed up against Phalanx there.
along with the DS30’S from Monmouth and Montrose.
Get on with installing them then. Whats the hold up?
No both the 40mm and 57mm are offered with a deck mounted option and no penetration.. they can have a below deck magazine.
We can fit these 40mm to the carriers too and leave the Rivers alone. Would compliment the Phalanx’s. Also the 40mm Tridon truck based system might be good for Shorad of airbases.
anything put on the carriers would 5 a step forward.
It makes more sense to fit the 40mm Mk4s to the CVFs and the Rivers. The 3P round is superior to those the DS30s have and the mount is non-deck penetrating, the only issue I see is the electro-optical mounts (on the flight-deck edge, they look like water shuttles) may require repositioning given the Mk4 turret shape. I’d also fit a couple silos on the starboard quarters for Sea Ceptors (less likely to interfere with flight deck ops) given the likelihood these carriers may need those sooner rather than later. The CVF size lends itself to a 2×16 arrangement, per… Read more »
Totally agree, 2-3 40mm and CAMM plus the Phalanx’s should give it a “brick house” defence! Or a fourth Phalanx on the rear starboard side. And some of the new Ancilia decoy launchers.
these would have been 5 perfect addition in the bows if the two echo ships. big platforms that could be fitted out as anything.
It would be ideal, I would suggest the modern threat environment means that even in benign seas even a constabulary vessel like a rivers needs medium gun with a decent AAW capability.
Once again CTA 40 naval version not selected due to cost of rounds !
CTA 40 has a very slow rate of fire and is not optimised for air targets.
There are its supporters on the forum who suggest it should be used on our ships every time their is an AJAX post !
The Thales RapidFire System is capable of prosecuting Aerial targets – it has a A3B Round to do so.,but rate of fire and cost of rounds could be an issue.
👍
No, the A3B round was supposed to be ready by 2025 but its development has not yet started for budget reasons.
From meretmarine « …. Dans un second temps, le RAPIDFire Naval offrira une capacité antiaérienne mais, pour cela, il faut une conduite de tir adaptée, si possible couplée au système de combat du bâtiment porteur pour aider à la désignation d’objectif grâce aux informations fournies par les radars. Et, surtout, il faut développer la nouvelle munition Anti-Aerial Air Burst (A3B), spécialement conçue pour l’antiaérien avec une charge déployant des billes de tungstène vers la cible. Initialement, cette version devait être prête pour 2025 mais, en raison de restrictions budgétaires, le développement de l’A3B n’a pas encore été notifié aux industriels. Ce… Read more »
The French are putting 4 of them on their new carrier so you’d think that they’ve got to be pretty AA capable! And have a truck mounted version similar to the 40mm Bofors Tridon.
But everyone who isn’t actually the French and so has an even choice based on capability chooses Bofors.
I was surprised at this article, I thought the ASWFs were getting some random 30mm RWS.
Yes, that seems revealing. The Bofors must have had the edge over the CTA and even over Oto Melara’s 40mm mounts.
Longer range , cheaper rounds and less barrel wear is a few.
I don’t know respective rates of fire. Bofors is a proven manufacturer. CTA is still fairly new. We have this 40mm gun mounted on the Jaguar. Lately, the Jaguar was used as cover of an EDAR (the small ship carrying troups ashore) in training, having the role to provide air cover and firepower to the barge.
Though if rounds are more costly… Do you know how severe is the issue (20%, 2 folds)?
I think the Bofors gun does 300rpm, ie proper machine gun speeds and much more than RapidFire at less than 200rpm. That helps a lot with CIWS because it reduces the time per engagement when there are multiple inbound targets.
I don’t know the respective costs.
The difference probably isn’t that much (2-1.5x, not important in the grand scheme of things) when the extra 3P rounds are taken into account relative to CTA airburst, but the gap will widen because more and more nations are choosing Bofors and so the manufacturing will become mpre efficient.
I see… Anyway… We have the CTA in the army now. People are not complaining about it, but not… extatique either. May be the product is not finished, maybe it is just not good enough. Thanks!
In the army I think CTA is brilliant, just not in the Navy.
It has advantages in armour penetration and also because the gun and the ammunition don’t take much space inside a vehicle.
But on a ship there are no armoured targets to shoot and you have lots of space for a big turret, like the Bofors.
Btw I think the word you are looking for is “ecstatic” in English
It won’t take up much space inside because of cost they won’t purchase much of it. And the one thing Ajax isn’t short of is interior volume.
It is an awful over complicated design.
Renderings of the ASWF have consistently shown Leonardo’s Marlin 40 mm, until now. Why the Bofors gun has been selected has not been made public, but in all likelihood logistics has something to do with it. Right now, the Bofors 40Mk4 is already being fitted on the rMCM ships, so sticking with Marlins for the frigates and having to keep a separate chain of logistics for another 40 mm gun system doesn’t make sense. The main gun will be Leonardo’s 76 mm Sovraponte, though.
CT 40 has a cyclic rate of 180 rpm, fast enough I think plus a 3 round burst capability. CTAi produce an Anti-Arial-Airburst round, optimised to project tungsten pellets forward. Check their website.
Thales France and KNDS have developed a CTA40 CIWS called Rapidfire with land and naval versions. Can flex between 80 and 200 RPM, but Thales say only 8 rounds are needed to destroy a target due to accuracy and 80 RPM delivers better effect in four round bursts.
We’re over cooking the egg here, get the selection of the right ones which as long as the same cretins in procurement are still in their jobs and we can move on.
a weapon is only as good as the person that uses it.
embarrassing.
Re Rivers the real question here s what the RN uses them for? In peacetime constabulary work. So weapon upgrades not really needed tho a few very cheap bolt on options – eg extra MG’S and perhaps an optronic AA early earning system ( coupled with say placing a Starstreak team onboard) could be useful if really really required. Otherwise a decent SIGNIT outfit would be much more useful. For snoop ing on – well you know who – out in Far East. In a full on shooting war it likely the Rivers would be laid up – crew transferred… Read more »
The problem is that even criminals will get drones.
And do what with them exactly? I fail to see how this affects Rivers fitout to any extent??
They hit the ship.
Yeah, the thing is there’s a big difference between a small quad-copter that can drop grenades or mount an RPG warhead, and a drone that’s big enough to actually damage a ship (or has the range to seriously impact their operations).
They’re unlikely to be laid up, much more likely they’ll be assigned to duty stations that are low threat. e.g the Carribean etc, because those jobs won’t go away, but Frigates and Destroyers will be in high demand.
Realistically there’s very little to be gained from up arming a River except diverting funds from where they’re needed (which is what makes comments like Andy’s especially frustrating).
“except diverting funds from where they’re needed”
Exactly, the focus needs to be getting T26 and T31 crewed and into service and the capability enhancements to T45 – rebuild a credible escort fleet.
As regards the B2 Rivers, if its working don’t fix it. They are doing a good job.
Have to wait and see what the defence review proposes with respect to the MRSS and the LPDs, but it seems to me that there has to be a rationalisation opportunity in sorting out Sterling Castle/ Proteus/ Echo/ Enterprise/ B1 Rivers/ Archer replacement.