Type 31 Frigate

Rather than "what did we put on the last ship? Do the same for this ship..." for the close-range battery, there was actual analysis and evaluation of "what does it need to do? Which candidates achieve that best?"
Except when we try and reinvent the wheel that works and spend the next umpteen years trying to convince ourselves it was always the wrong answer when our wheel doesn't work.

See the very sensible lessons learned at the end of WWII, best small gun, 40mm Bofors, best medium gun calibre, 3", for Frigates and smaller and secondary armament on bigger ships, best big boys gun calibre, 5", for Destroyers - All ahead full! standardise on these three calibres!

Now we couldn't muck up the Bofors, so it carried on
But the 3" ? Well, we spent an age and them some trying to develop our own 3" and 5" mounts, and when we made a total horlicks of it and couldn't get them to work, rather than say 'OK, buy ones that work off someone else', we threw both calibre's on the scrapheap and convinced ourselves sticking with the 4.5" for everything was mega and everyone else was silly. So we had generations of Frigates with too much gun, and Destroyers with not enough gun.
Now back to the Bofors, the answer on the day was to move on to the automatic Bofors in the 70's, the DARDO fast 40 was giving people a bit of a stiffy, but no! Guns are so last century, its going to be an all missile navy! Enter Falklands stage left, sure enough, as we knew a decade earlier, a mandraulic Bofors wasn't optimal for shooting at jets, so, back to the automatic Bofors? Nah, buy a 30mm mount and be really different.

And here we are, 75 years on, still trying to find anything but what we, and everyone else came up with, is the right answer.

Finally get the automatic 40mm…
But perversely decide on a very short ranged 57mm that gives little extra over the 40mm, but is nothing like as good as the not much bigger or expensive and hugely popular 76mm for duffing things up, (if only the Iranians, the current threat de jour would get with the programme and stop fitting their patrol boats with a 76mm eh? How do we 'intimidate' an Iranian patrol boat fitted with a bigger gun?)
And having finally bought the US 5" we wanted all along since 1942, now decide its only going on an ASW Frigate and our AAW Destroyers and GP frigates wont get it.

The Royal Navy - always trying not to buy the guns it actually wants
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Except when we try and reinvent the wheel that works and spend the next umpteen years trying to convince ourselves it was always the wrong answer when our wheel doesn't work.
1591189017018.png


It's not even hard to crack open a book (by, say, Norman Friedman - try US Naval Weapons, 1982 Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-735-6) to discover that you're offering a large consignment of geriatric footwear repair technicians.

To have gaps in your knowledge is human and understandable: to flaunt them with such arrogant confidence, rather less so.
 
Why won't he stop making tit of himself? He's been called out by various parties actually involved in the project but just will not give it up. What drives a man to such unprecedented levels of arrogance?
 
Funny thing is, defending against swarm attacks is so ‘vital’, a 40mm and 57mm gun will be fitted to the ships that will replace the B2OPVs in nearly a decades time of operating in the same threat environment.

If Swarm attacks are such a clear and present danger, Where’s the UOR to rush out 40mm and 57mm guns across the Fleet? Hmmm, only a few months back, before the 57mm gun was unveiled, a single 30mm gun was being touted as all the defence a B2OPV operating in the Gulf needed against swarm attacks. Defo no need for a bigger gun firing 3P rounds.

a cynic might think the real decision to go with a 57mm gun on T31 is simply it was the absolutely cheapest possible option, and the requirement was written to justify it.
 
View attachment 479031

It's not even hard to crack open a book (by, say, Norman Friedman - try US Naval Weapons, 1982 Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-735-6) to discover that you're offering a large consignment of geriatric footwear repair technicians.

To have gaps in your knowledge is human and understandable: to flaunt them with such arrogant confidence, rather less so.
like I said, the Navy’s ability for self delusion when it can’t develop what it wants is simply peerless.

”The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. The RN wanted a 4.5” gun. The RN always wanted a 4.5” gun“
 
Funny thing is, defending against swarm attacks is so ‘vital’, a 40mm and 57mm gun will be fitted to the ships that will replace the B2OPVs in nearly a decades time of operating in the same threat environment.

If Swarm attacks are such a clear and present danger, Where’s the UOR to rush out 40mm and 57mm guns across the Fleet? Hmmm, only a few months back, before the 57mm gun was unveiled, a single 30mm gun was being touted as all the defence a B2OPV operating in the Gulf needed against swarm attacks. Defo no need for a bigger gun firing 3P rounds.

a cynic might think the real decision to go with a 57mm gun on T31 is simply it was the absolutely cheapest possible option, and the requirement was written to justify it.
Which B2 river is acting as escort in the Gulf facing off against swarm attacks ?

Or are we back to your unsubstantiated claim that If a river is in that part of the world it will be sent to do that job because its painted grey by hide bound Admirals who think all ships are Star destroyers despote the fact nobody has ever done so with the MCM vessels down there for years already.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Funny thing is, defending against swarm attacks is so ‘vital’, a 40mm and 57mm gun will be fitted to the ships that will replace the B2OPVs in nearly a decades time of operating in the same threat environment.
T31 requirement wasn't "swarm attacks".

But you knew that, right?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
like I said, the Navy’s ability for self delusion when it can’t develop what it wants is simply peerless.
I'm afraid only you are responsible for the fiction you're writing.

I know it's comforting to imagine that the Royal Navy could simply have bought the famously lightweight, reliable Mk 42 5" gun from the US Navy with its trivially low manpower and maintenance requirements; then we'd have shared in the joys of getting through half-a-dozen sub-variants in a decade, as they tried to find one that could at least empty the feed ring without jamming.

And of course the US 3"/70 was the best gun of its generation, entering service in 1949 on schedule... oh, wait, 1952... okay, this is a bit tricky, we'll get one on a ship by 1956... shame it's so overweight you need to add ballast to the ship you're adding it to... just scrap it and pretend it never happened, OK? That would have been a fantastic investment.

But at least the US did better than us on SAMs - we all remember how well Mauler went and how comprehensively it protected the USN's ships. Well, okay, but they bodged up an interim system in 1965 to cover the gap while the Advanced Point Defence Missile System filled all the worries... okay, well, Sea Chapparal will fix the problem... they'll solve the point-defence system with the Shipborne Intemediate Range Combat System... except they won't and that 1965 system was still their main PDMS in the 1980s. (Entire and total combat score, one Turkish destroyer's bridge team. By accident.)


Now, which of those projects should the RN have leapt into and invested its ample funding in?

Since there's some alternate universe where superb, reliable, high-performance capabilities were sitting on a shelf waiting to be bought at amazingly low cost... you can, I'm sure, show us what they were, and how obvious it was that they were superior, mature products that wouldn't abruptly disappear at a stroke of a Congressional pen.
 
T31 requirement wasn't "swarm attacks".

But you knew that, right?

Which explains why all the RN puff about its wonderful ability to defend itself against swarm attacks with its new bespoke guns selected for their ability to defeats - swarm attacks.

B2 OPV in the PG/NAG - No need for new better gats to defend itself against the threat de jour, swarm attacks, but magically, in 2028 , its replacement needs the ability to defend itself against swarm attacks.

I'm glad the IRGC have taken that on board and will not spoil our party until ≥ 2028 and issue ROE's that RN OPV's are not to be unsportingly swarmed as per their SOP.
 
I'm afraid only you are responsible for the fiction you're writing.

I know it's comforting to imagine that the Royal Navy could simply have bought the famously lightweight, reliable Mk 42 5" gun from the US Navy with its trivially low manpower and maintenance requirements; then we'd have shared in the joys of getting through half-a-dozen sub-variants in a decade, as they tried to find one that could at least empty the feed ring without jamming.

And of course the US 3"/70 was the best gun of its generation, entering service in 1949 on schedule... oh, wait, 1952... okay, this is a bit tricky, we'll get one on a ship by 1956... shame it's so overweight you need to add ballast to the ship you're adding it to... just scrap it and pretend it never happened, OK? That would have been a fantastic investment.

But at least the US did better than us on SAMs - we all remember how well Mauler went and how comprehensively it protected the USN's ships. Well, okay, but they bodged up an interim system in 1965 to cover the gap while the Advanced Point Defence Missile System filled all the worries... okay, well, Sea Chapparal will fix the problem... they'll solve the point-defence system with the Shipborne Intemediate Range Combat System... except they won't and that 1965 system was still their main PDMS in the 1980s. (Entire and total combat score, one Turkish destroyer's bridge team. By accident.)


Now, which of those projects should the RN have leapt into and invested its ample funding in?

Since there's some alternate universe where superb, reliable, high-performance capabilities were sitting on a shelf waiting to be bought at amazingly low cost... you can, I'm sure, show us what they were, and how obvious it was that they were superior, mature products that wouldn't abruptly disappear at a stroke of a Congressional pen.

Yes, because having thrown our own 3" automatic in the corner in a temper in the 60's when we couldn't get it to work reliably, we couldn't possibly have bough the Italian one that did like everyone else did.

Nope, 'we never wanted a 3" gun! The 4.5" is perfect compromise'!

SAMs?
Seaslug would have been fine if Dorniers with Fritz X bombs had been attacking the Fleet in 1965, alas…… in the intervening 20 years, bad people invented jets and jets don't allow you 20 minutes flash to bang - and its a bit of a bugger chasing down a crossing target that's travelling twice as fast as the lumbering missile chasing it.
At least RIM-2 as bought by numerous non US Navies could and did actually shoot down aircraft.

Moving smartly onward, yet again, we've dug ourselves into a hole - Aster 30, aka SeaViper, the perfect anti missile missile for a post Falklands Navy obsessed with, and terrified of ASM's, but way too small a warhead, not fast enough, no secondary capabilities, and the perfidious suppliers seems disinterested in developing the myriad wonderful versions they showed in the glossy brochure, but hey ho, as long as its primary threat continues to sportingly come directly at it at ≤ Mach 3, not evolving threats that unsportingly cross at ≥ Mach 5…

Just think, if the Navy had stuck to its guns, (well missiles), and gone with SM and Mk41 VLS as it specifically wanted, you'd be rubbing your hands and waiting delivery of your sexy new 200nmi Mach 6 SM-6's with Anti missile, anti air, anti ship and ABM capabilities, not wondering if/when the French will eventually push out an newer and more capable version of the now waaaay off the pace Aster 30 - I wonder why no one other that the had to buy it development partners bought that wunderwaffe?

Once more, buy unique, get left up development creek.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Which explains why all the RN puff about its wonderful ability to defend itself against swarm attacks with its new bespoke guns selected for their ability to defeats - swarm attacks.
Because of course Media Branch are the ones reading the requirement and conducting analysis, rather than being Reservists looking at pictures going "oooh, dakka-dakka-bang-bang swarm attack!" and bashing out some copy to meet a deadline.

When all you know is garnered from press releases - written by people who don't know themselves, and gathered information from whoever they could persuade to talk to them - you might want to pause and consider whether you're as well informed as you think.

Or you could just continue to accidentally embody Macbeth's words, and act your part as a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
Yes, because having thrown our own 3" automatic in the corner in a temper in the 60's when we couldn't get it to work reliably, we couldn't possibly have bough the Italian one that did like everyone else did.

Nope, 'we never wanted a 3" gun! The 4.5" is perfect compromise'!

SAMs?
Seaslug would have been fine if Dorniers with Fritz X bombs had been attacking the Fleet in 1965, alas…… in the intervening 20 years, bad people invented jets and jets don't allow you 20 minutes flash to bang - and its a bit of a bugger chasing down a crossing target that's travelling twice as fast as the lumbering missile chasing it.
At least RIM-2 as bought by numerous non US Navies could and did actually shoot down aircraft.

Moving smartly onward, yet again, we've dug ourselves into a hole - Aster 30, aka SeaViper, the perfect anti missile missile for a post Falklands Navy obsessed with, and terrified of ASM's, but way too small a warhead, not fast enough, no secondary capabilities, and the perfidious suppliers seems disinterested in developing the myriad wonderful versions they showed in the glossy brochure, but hey ho, as long as its primary threat continues to sportingly come directly at it at ≤ Mach 3, not evolving threats that unsportingly cross at ≥ Mach 5…

Just think, if the Navy had stuck to its guns, (well missiles), and gone with SM and Mk41 VLS as it specifically wanted, you'd be rubbing your hands and waiting delivery of your sexy new 200nmi Mach 6 SM-6's with Anti missile, anti air, anti ship and ABM capabilities, not wondering if/when the French will eventually push out an newer and more capable version of the now waaaay off the pace Aster 30 - I wonder why no one other that the had to buy it development partners bought that wunderwaffe?

Once more, buy unique, get left up development creek.
Remind me what SAM took out the silkworm missile heading towards Missouri?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, because having thrown our own 3" automatic in the corner in a temper in the 60's when we couldn't get it to work reliably, we couldn't possibly have bough the Italian one that did like everyone else did.

Nope, 'we never wanted a 3" gun! The 4.5" is perfect compromise'!
I'm asking where the amazing off-the-shelf worked-first-time 5" gun you're saying the RN rejected was - apparently there wasn't one, and Their Lordships were fools for not buying something that didn't then exist.

During and just after WW2, a 3" rapid-firing gun looked like a really good option. The US tried and failed to get theirs to work, ours was somewhat better and lasted into the 1990s with the Canadians. Clear evidence of failure and the RN rejecting the 3" calibre, I'm sure you'll agree - though it didn't go on the postwar frigates because it wasn't ready, and the 4.5" Mk VI was there, working and effective.

Of course in the 1940 and 1950s, it should have bee obvious to everyone that they should just fire up the DeLorean and drive to 1963 to pick up the design documents for an Italian gun instead - but you had checked the dates, hadn't you?

Moving smartly onward, yet again, we've dug ourselves into a hole - Aster 30, aka SeaViper, the perfect anti missile missile for a post Falklands Navy obsessed with, and terrified of ASM's, but way too small a warhead, not fast enough, no secondary capabilities
Isn't it strange how US carriers really like having Type 45s escort them? To the point that the AEGIS ship gets detached to go and sit by ABOT/KAAOT leaving the T45 and the carrier by themselves?

It's almost as if the US know something you don't. Perhaps you should head over to Norfolk and let them know how wrong-headed they are?


If you don't know what you're talking about, you look as silly as a very silly thing when you start ranting.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Remind me what SAM took out the silkworm missile heading towards Missouri?
Hush now.

You might have to ask how the US ship that was meant to be providing cover (while Gloucester was resetting in the box and had her blind arc pointed at the shore) with the superior US sensor and weapon fit the RN were fools, dupes and dunces for not buying... only detected the Seersucker visually. When it exploded. After Gloucester had shot it.

After all, that ship had amazing US radars, and the far better Standard missile, and the invincible Alkahest of a 76mm OTO-Melara... so just why was it still looking around asking "What? Where? Is something happening?" while a Pompey gas queen was actually dealing with the threat?
 
Hush now.

You might have to ask how the US ship that was meant to be providing cover (while Gloucester was resetting in the box and had her blind arc pointed at the shore) with the superior US sensor and weapon fit the RN were fools, dupes and dunces for not buying... only detected the Seersucker visually. When it exploded. After Gloucester had shot it.

After all, that ship had amazing US radars, and the far better Standard missile, and the invincible Alkahest of a 76mm OTO-Melara... so just why was it still looking around asking "What? Where? Is something happening?" while a Pompey gas queen was actually dealing with the threat?
You omitted the part where the PHALANX targeted chaff.
 
I'm afraid only you are responsible for the fiction you're writing.

I know it's comforting to imagine that the Royal Navy could simply have bought the famously lightweight, reliable Mk 42 5" gun from the US Navy with its trivially low manpower and maintenance requirements; then we'd have shared in the joys of getting through half-a-dozen sub-variants in a decade, as they tried to find one that could at least empty the feed ring without jamming.

And of course the US 3"/70 was the best gun of its generation, entering service in 1949 on schedule... oh, wait, 1952... okay, this is a bit tricky, we'll get one on a ship by 1956... shame it's so overweight you need to add ballast to the ship you're adding it to... just scrap it and pretend it never happened, OK? That would have been a fantastic investment.

But at least the US did better than us on SAMs - we all remember how well Mauler went and how comprehensively it protected the USN's ships. Well, okay, but they bodged up an interim system in 1965 to cover the gap while the Advanced Point Defence Missile System filled all the worries... okay, well, Sea Chapparal will fix the problem... they'll solve the point-defence system with the Shipborne Intemediate Range Combat System... except they won't and that 1965 system was still their main PDMS in the 1980s. (Entire and total combat score, one Turkish destroyer's bridge team. By accident.)


Now, which of those projects should the RN have leapt into and invested its ample funding in?

Since there's some alternate universe where superb, reliable, high-performance capabilities were sitting on a shelf waiting to be bought at amazingly low cost... you can, I'm sure, show us what they were, and how obvious it was that they were superior, mature products that wouldn't abruptly disappear at a stroke of a Congressional pen.
You and your 'kin facts. That will never do, this is arrse.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top