FFG(X)

[Desertfox]

Navy wanted a bespoke, custom-built, commercial-off-the-shelf, design...

 

[johnpjones1775]

Not a bad idea but the negative is you would have to let the "bad guys" get pretty close to your before you engage. Something doesn't go quite right and you will get hit because there won't time to do anything else.

He’s talking about for counter drone work.
We’re already letting things get close so we can save money by using guns.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The trade-off being that that 76mm would have more range and likely a higher probability per kill per individual projectile. But the same general rule probably applies if you go to an even bigger gun like 127mm. But of course the larger the gun system the more weight and volume required.

And I guess there is the question if a gun-based CIWS in a smaller caliber is still desirable as a last line of defense.


Ballistically that was a high performer and had a lot of the basic right. But it was seen as something of a dead-end in the missile age and it was a maintenance nightmare, so they just gave up on it rather than trying to fix it. OTO Melera stuck with 76mm starting with the 1950s variants all the way up to today's models and I imagine they are pretty much as good as a modern version of the 3"/70 would be.

I do think it would be worthwhile to dust off the work done on the 60mm ETC type gun the US Navy toyed with back in the 1990s for a bit. It might not be suitable for adding to existing classes of warships but the future DDG(X) and whatever else could be made with provisions for it.

As for the FFG-62, the whole thing just makes me shake my head. I don't know who is trying to shift blame to who at the moment, but I can't help but feel the Navy is far more responsible for the ridiculously long schedule and likely cost increases than FMM is.

Range difference isn’t that great. See my above links.
About 2000 yds.

Again doesn’t matter if a single round covers more area if unless it’s twice or larger area when you’re putting out nearly 100% more rounds and 11% over all more explosives in the same amount of time.

And yea gun based systems are still desirable for CIWS. As you can see from so many modern designs from the last decade to now utilizing 30-57mm sized guns for the role. The Red Sea is confirming this as guns are being regularly used to take out drones instead of missiles.

Also for lower end missiles.
I have a pal was WEPs for a freedom and instructed incoming officers for LCSes and instructed that the 57 was the primary AAW weapon due to the way the SEARAM computer ‘thinks’.

 

[GK Dundas]

Why?

While I was partially joking , there is something to be said for a gun mount that can produce a wartime rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute.
I knew a guy who been a Gunnery artificer aboard Canadian Frigates in the early 70s.there was a wartime setting and a peacetime rate of fire.
I suspect that the 3"/70 mount would be more then handy to have in the Red Sea.
Also on another website there was a posting by Peter Parkinson who served aboard one of the Tigers in the early to mid 60's.
I'd hate to be on the receiving end of all that VT fused HE from one or more of those mounts .

 

[johnpjones1775]

While I was partially joking , there is something to be said for a gun mount that can produce a wartime rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute.
I knew a guy who been a Gunnery artificer aboard Canadian Frigates in the early 70s.there was a wartime setting and a peacetime rate of fire.
I suspect that the 3"/70 mount would be more then handy to have in the Red Sea.
Also on another website there was a posting by Peter Parkinson who served aboard one of the Tigers in the early to mid 60's.
I'd hate to be on the receiving end of all that VT fused HE from one or more of those mounts .

Do you have a source for that 240 RPM, because navweaps says 90-100 RPM…

And a range of 19.5k yds means lower RPM and range than an Oto 76, means it would be worse than the Oto, which as we’ve established is worse than the mk110.

 

[DWG]

Do you have a source for that 240 RPM, because navweaps says 90-100 RPM…

The claim was per mount, not per barrel, and there are two barrels per mounting, on top of which the UK version demonstrated 120rpm during development.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The claim was per mount, not per barrel, and there are two barrels per mounting, on top of which the UK version demonstrated 120rpm during development.

So per barrel is 180-200 RPM not 240 like you claimed.

During development? So not during actual service, drills/exercises in the real world?

 

[DWG]

So per barrel is 180-200 RPM not 240 like you claimed.

During development? So not during actual service, drills/exercises in the real world?

It would really help if you checked who posted what, and did some easy googling. If you check the Navweaps entry on the RN/RCN 3"/70, you'd see that 1) the 3"/70 demonstrated 120 rpm/barrel and 2) it was used in peacetime with frangible pins (aluminium vs steel) in the feedtrain, which were to be replaced in wartime. So peacetime RPM figures don't necessarily apply