# CPF: 57mm Bofors



## Cloud Cover (19 Aug 2004)

Here's a thread that I hope might elicit some thoughtful discussion: 

In the context of the JSS and the concept of jetty independence, could the CPF 57mm weapon be replaced with a larger naval gun, like the 76mm or perhaps an even larger weapon, or weps system with larger payload? 

Considerations: 

1) NGS v. SLAM.   
2) Stretching the hull to accommodate either.
3) Beam riding and other directed rounds for NGS.
4) other.

Cheers.... Whiskey 601.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Aug 2004)

Well one of the reasons the 57mm was obtained was because of its high rate of fire and its use to destroy incoming missiles. While the 76mm can also do this it has a much slower rate of fire. If there was a CIWS mounted forward then we could possibly go up to 76mm and maybe even to a Brit 4.5" Vickers. In this day an age with the threat of a speed boat packed with explosives you want a smaller caliver fast firing weapon.

Let NGS go back to the next generation of surface combatant we will be getting to replace the CPF and 280s (as is currently planned).

As for arming the JSS with larger caliber guns or even missiles such as a SLAM I would be against it. You don't want to use your replenishment vessel to bombard enemy positions and expose it to counter battery fire. Good chance it will go BOOM! Missiles as well I am not fond of that idea as the JSS will be carrying a lot of gas for both the ships and any aviation assets not to mention extra items that go BOOM for the ships and helos. CIWS, .50 cals and even 20/25mm auto cannons not a prob but with missiles embarked you have a greater chance of blowing yourself up.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Aug 2004)

Agreed with most of your post, however I would like to see RAM or some other short range PDMS on the JSS, in addition to CIWS. Where would a CIWS be mounted forward on the CPF, unless CIWS is swapped Port and Stbd. with the Shields, and then maybe put the CtrMeas. system on top of the hanger, and a third CIWS/RAM aft of the flight deck. [tight for space though]. Then maybe put 4.5 inch or 100MM in place of 57mm. [will need lots of CIWS if 280 not around to help out at MR.]   

Maybe we need to think about building a larger frigate of a new design/enhanced capability in shorter timeframe if 280's are laid up ~6500 tonnes?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Aug 2004)

I like the idea of the Phalanx mounted fore and aft, that way a ship can expose less of itself during a missile attack. I think putting a bigger gun on a CPF then a 76mm would require a major refit period and would prove too costly IMO.

I am still not keen on putting a RAM (CIWS not PDMS) on something carrying that much gas and only having 11 or a 21 cell capability does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. I am hoping they will stick with the Vulcan for years to come.

We need new ships period. Especially to replace the 280s but don't start looking for them until the end of the next decade, if we are lucky.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Aug 2004)

I think I must resort to an apples to oranges argument here, because as far as I know, there is no other apple like the JSS at that scale of a vessel. I see the vessel as being similar to the LPD 17 vessel with reduced or no assault capacity, and a little bit of everything else thrown in. Too big of a jack knife to rely on gunfire alone, yet too dangerous to equip as a fighting ship as was once contemplated for the LPD 17, with the VLS system etc.  My copy of Janes FS shows the LPD 17 vessel as having 2 21 cell RAM plus gun systems, while I believe FAS shows more robust weapons systems. On the other hand, the US Command and Control vessels do not appear to have PDMS at all. My copy of Janes FS in the office is 5 years old, and I can't justify getting another this year, so this may be stale dated info. And, I'm sure we've all fuelled from US Supply/Sacramento class ships which carry SSparrow systems. [may be removed now]   

Does not "jetty independence" at least facially suggest some sort of over the sea to shore transfer capability, much like an LPD? I think it is fair comment to suggest that too many roles are being contemplated for the JSS, something is going to have to give way. I would feel a lot better about you guys out there in the JSS if the AOR capability was retained in a separate platform positioned far away from hostile air threats, perhaps even a civilian manned MPRS ala Lewis and Clarke variety. [no armament at all]. Pehaps CSL could get a nice government contract for such a ship!! If LCAC or similar craft are carried on JSS, this contemplates the JSS being in range of shore based artillery batteries, missiles and other weapons, like a tank, helicopters and even armed UAV's. Perhaps I have misinterpreted jetty independence? Does that simply mean COB equipment to offload onto a pier, like RO-RO?    

In any scenario, the MR AAW is crucial. The more I think about it, I cannot see anybody shaving with 280 steel until a replacement is in the water. To do otherwise would be completely irresponsible. [sigh]        

As for the complexity of modifications to add a larger weapon than the 76SR, you are probably right. Might be better to build a different ship altogether. [another sigh]

Cheers ..


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Aug 2004)

I think we are viewing this differently, I see the JSS with some degree of sea lift capability. A LPD/LHA is a different thing altoghter with amphib and very limited AOR capability (I know cause we gassed up in the Gulf). The Sacremento class AOEs are fitted for Sea Sparrow but I have yet to see one with the system embarked. I will have to disagree then with you I see embarking a missille system (CIWS or PDMS) on the JSS as too big of a risk. Not to mention the added expense of putting firecontrol radars on them to accomodate PDMS (you know the goverment won't get the RAPIDS version of the RAM).


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Aug 2004)

Yep, you're right, my confusion. I meant to say that if  the JSS is used for over the sea to shore ops, the design needs a rethink WRT its AOR capabilities. Sealift itself is a different matter. Where did CASR get the latest rendition of the JSS, because it sure looks like LPD 17, with minor variances?


----------



## chief_of_da_fence (16 Sep 2004)

just a small point t.
keep in mind that its more than likely that the JSS will be part of a task group. and this task group will have all the major defencive capability's. again I am not a subject mater expert in the area of layered defencive systems.or naval armaments.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Oct 2004)

Thread reactivated for those who wish to discuss NGS.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Oct 2004)

Guardian said:


> - Non-combatant evacuation operation - Canada deploys JTF-2 to someplace like Ivory Coast or Liberia (without any integral artillery support, of course   ) and redirects a nearby frigate to help with the extraction. The crap hits the fan and JTF needs some firepower... If the frigate had a 5-inch it would help a great deal.



With the exception of the Royal Navy and a couple of others(seeing how the USN seems to be getting out of the frigate business--their OHPs had 76mm anyways) most countries frigates are being fitted with fast firing 76 mm or in our case the   faster firing 57mm. Both are designed primarily to act as AAW weapons against sea skimmers and cruise missiles with secondary anti ship. Frigates are escort platforms not shore bombardment units. The German Navy has trtrialledhe PZ2000 howitzer on one of their frigates, we could always explore that option but you have to remember that the CPF is an escort platform and to take away its 57 mm you eowouldidiminishts efeffectivenesso protect itself and the units that the CPF may be protecting.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2004)

NGS is a bit of a sticky concept. If you use an artillery piece, you are limited to range, while a missile battery has a limited number of rounds available. Of course, you can mount a bigger gun, or a larger VLS cell, but then you need a bigger ship. The DD-X is slated to be in the 10-12,000 ton range, twice the size of a Halifax class frigate. An all gun solution like a WW II battleship is totally outrageous (although the ghosts of our WW II Admirals are probably smiling right about now...). The trade offs for making the Navy capable of doing NGS might be too expensive.

I wonder if a more flexible solution would not be ship launched UACV's (Unmanned Air Combat Vehicles). Like fighter bombers, they can search for targets the FOO/FAC might not be able to see, loiter over the target area and do follow up passes. Since a UACV is much smaller than a manned system, even a relatively small ship could carry some.

Going the other way, the ultimate aim of the DD-X program is to have an electromagnetic rail gun firing kinetic energy "darts" at a target from hundreds of kilometers away (with the projectile out of the atmosphere for most of the flight). Imagine calling for fire and having rounds screaming in from space.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Oct 2004)

> I wonder if a more flexible solution would not be ship launched UACV's (Unmanned Air Combat Vehicles). Like fighter bombers, they can search for targets the FOO/FAC might not be able to see, loiter over the target area and do follow up passes. Since a UACV is much smaller than a manned system, even a relatively small ship could carry some.



Its how I see naval warfare evolving but I am thinking for UCAVs to be effective and carry a decent warload you will need at least a carrier or and amphib to embark your unmanned resources. A frigate, destroyer or cruisers flight deck would not be large enough and if the UCAVs are armed you want them to have the maximum length possible so they can power up and take off. Although more expensive missiles like Harpoon 2 gives frigate size ships and above a means to attack land targets. Hopefully Ottawa will permit the next gen ships to have Tomahawk or its replacement so we can place another card on the table.


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Feb 2005)

I think part of the issue that's not been discussed is the weapon footprint on the ship.

The entire workings of the Bofors 57 are within the turret, with the exception of the shell hoists, and the magazine.

To add a system that would take space below decks is really not possible without affecting something below decks. 

Additionally, the recoil impulse for a larger weapon system would be greater, and I don't know that these ships were designed for that.  The loss of the 57mm quick firing gun would be a real detriment to the ship's AAW suite.  The three tiers of Sea Sparrow, 57mm, CIWS are well understood, and have been  a key part of the ship's design from the outset.

Instead of removing the 57, or changing it, here are some alternatives that may be more practical:

-Land the helo, and put an MLRS System on the flight deck, use the existing torpedo mags for ammunition storage (with an obvious decrease in torpedo loadout) (Helo support would be available from the JSS if needed.)

-Delete missile armament from one side (Harpoon and Sea Sparrow) install a 120mm automatic mortar turret (such as was envisaged for the Striker system, I think?)  Again, ammunition can be stored in the Torpedo mags, and while it does reduce the loadout of the ship, it provides NGS capability. 

-Alternative to above, land the Helo, and bring the 120mm Auto Mortar Variant Stryker along on the flight deck, you may be able to fit two or three of them there.  If the systems are stripped down to the minimum weight, they shouldn't negatively affect the balance of the ship too much.  (Fully loaded, the helo is 20,000 pounds I think.)

The additional crews required by the MLRS or Stryker could be housed in containerized pods inside the hangar (as per the MCDV Crew pods) 

I don't see an easy way to add a fitted shore bombardment system to a CPF on a permenant basis, because there isn't the space to put it.

Doing a "band-aid" fix like this with a "Strap-down" capability would provide some capability, while not reducing the ship's self defence capabilities.

Comments?

NavyShooter


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Feb 2005)

> Land the helo, and put an MLRS System on the flight deck, use the existing torpedo mags for ammunition storage (with an obvious decrease in torpedo loadout) (Helo support would be available from the JSS if needed.)
> 
> -Delete missile armament from one side (Harpoon and Sea Sparrow) install a 120mm automatic mortar turret (such as was envisaged for the Striker system, I think?)  Again, ammunition can be stored in the Torpedo mags, and while it does reduce the loadout of the ship, it provides NGS capability.
> 
> -Alternative to above, land the Helo, and bring the 120mm Auto Mortar Variant Stryker along on the flight deck, you may be able to fit two or three of them there.  If the systems are stripped down to the minimum weight, they shouldn't negatively affect the balance of the ship too much.  (Fully loaded, the helo is 20,000 pounds I think.)



I have a couple of comments. Putting an MLRS on the flight deck would involve major modifications more then likely making the flight deck unusable even for inflight emergencies.

As for the deletion of missile armament on one side, that would cut down our ability to defend an HVU or any other unit including ourselves not to mention being able to strike back if we need to. A better exercise might be getting Harpoon 2 which does have land attack capability. BTW whats the range of the 120mm mortar? If its too low that opens a CPF up to counter battery fire and forces it to go in closer to the shore line to be able to put effective fire upon a target.

As for your last example a combination of my two responses, I think would preclude the practicality of putting 120mm mortars on the flight deck.

I think NGS if we want it back bad enough will be incorporated in the New Single Hull should it ever be funded.


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Feb 2005)

Ex Dragoon,

The suggestions I posed were just that...suggestions.  I don't think for a minute that we're going to buy a couple of MLRS's from the US and strap them onto the flight decks of a couple of CPF's.  But, it'd be an option for an easy way to provide a good bit of punch for a ship that didn't originally have anything fitted.  Strapping on a tank/afv onto a flightdeck would definitely not be the ideal thing, but it's a quick and dirty way to get it, and not something that's a permenant fit or change.  (ie easy to revert back to an escort platform after you fly/crane off the gun/launcher system.)

Reducing the missile armament is an undesireable option, so that was not really a serious suggestion, but where on a CPF could you fit additional armament?

Here's a pic of the Delco/RO 120mm Mortar turret:







If there was a good way to mount one of these on a CPF, it might be the best option.  Maybe if one of the torpedo mags was emptied, and one of these mounted on the hangar mezanine instead?  (The radhaz concerns mentioned elsewhere do not extend to that area, but the hangartop is denied access.)    You could even retain the torpedo tubes, but store the torps in the opposite mag, and bring over what you need to load the tubes.  The through deck protrusion would be manageable within the torpedo mag, and the loss of capability and storage of torpedos for the gain in capability for NGS would be worthwhile.  

However, the range being only 8-10km, you're entering range for landbased artillery to fire back, although staying outside of the range of most light anti-armour missiles, and mortars for return fire.  

NavyShooter


----------



## Missile Man (24 Feb 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well one of the reasons the 57mm was obtained was because of its high rate of fire and its use to destroy incoming missiles. While the 76mm can also do this it has a much slower rate of fire. If there was a CIWS mounted forward then we could possibly go up to 76mm and maybe even to a Brit 4.5" Vickers. In this day an age with the threat of a speed boat packed with explosives you want a smaller caliver fast firing weapon.
> 
> Let NGS go back to the next generation of surface combatant we will be getting to replace the CPF and 280s (as is currently planned).



Ex-Dragoon has a point here.  In fact, the 57mm's high rof (220rds/min) and relatively small caliber are not simply ONE reason this gun was chosen, it is the PRIMARY reason it was chosen.  In layered defence on a CPF, the 57mm will be pumping rounds out like a trooper against an SSM or A/C.  It is the last magical sound I should hear before the CIWS attains hit parameters on the missile and goes full auto.  Remember, the 57mm round itself it quite small.  Its goal is not to "blow up" the missile, rather, it wants to hit the missile/aircraft somewhere and penetrate its outer skin, thus the sheer speed of the missile will tear itself apart.  Whoever thinks the 57mm is even in the league of NGS/NFS is on crack.  Can you even imagine how comical it would be to the enemy if a CPF started lobbing 57mm shells at land?  They would think it was hail...  Now the 76mm.  Indeed, a much more capable weapons of choice for larger targets, but land?  Please.  The minimum shell you want to use against land for NGS is 5 inches, or maybe even 4.5.  The best example of this was the Aussie's using a 5 inch from their Anzac during the Iraq conflict.

The most tangible threat to a ship today, as Dragoon states, is indeed FIAC.  Mounting a second CIWS up fwd is lunacy, incidentally.  Where are we going to put another bohemoth like that?  You do realize that it takes about 3 decks once all the hardware is installed?  No room on the foc'scle, old boy.  Rather, the Navy has already adopted a brilliant defence to FIAC -the CIWS Block 1B.  Once the fleet is fitted with those bad boys, we will be way more secure from small boat threats.  Thus, either we remain a self-defence platform (which we are now, with the exception of the sole Force Weapon we have, the HARPOON), or we go all the way as an offensive platform (which we have neither the time, money, personnel, nor political will to fully integrate into today's Navy).  Self-defence, gentlemen, will reamin the name of the game for years to come.  Interesting discussion on NGS though.  I completed an in-depth study on the plausability of this in our Navy a few years ago.  I think the 4 ringer at that brief actually giggled a little...


----------



## NCRCrow (25 Feb 2005)

Hey SWC, could not agree more about NGS.......

The 57mm is the most superior gun in the AA mode, I have seen. I saw it shoot down a Milkcan (by accident) Nice work VDQ!! and then tap the towing wire for another 5 rounds.(OUTSTANDING)

I was watching from Stir A and lovin it. Admiral Fraser was not!!!

76mm has its problems, but overall a good piece of "Benjamin". 

We went over to the Netherlands to discuss NGS and it applications for Canada. and surmised.....

Not enough punch for the risk of a Coastal Surveillance Radar suddenly lighting up and a STYX or C-802 inbound.

How did we acquire land tgts? Optically? Does the Bridge take control to designate, acquire and create a tangible FC solution. 

Offset?

I personally like to see two FIM-92A Stingers (MANPADS) on the Bridge or an ERYX system with the thermal imager for swarm night attacks and optical during the day. 

With all our sensors optimized, things always seem to appear and pop up out of nowhere! 


Any thoughts or suggestions......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Feb 2005)

The problem with having manpads of any sort on the bridge wings is limited ammo, slower rate of fire and the expense in both training and equipment. With 20-25mm auto cannons its far more economical and I feel more practical.


----------



## NCRCrow (25 Feb 2005)

Straits of Hormuz/ Suez Canal/Bosphorous Straits type scenerios , where a Helo could suddenly appear and the Stinger would be a quick reaction weapon. 


Slow re-load but a quick solution to a limited environment.

Would they not be a great asset on a MCDV?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Feb 2005)

Having either an auto cannon or a shoulder launched SAM has its pros and cons. I think what we would have to look at is what would be more versatile and cost effective.

Correct me if I am wrong but was not the Javelin trialed years ago on the MCDV already?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Feb 2005)

> Correct me if I am wrong but was not the Javelin trialed years ago on the MCDV already?



Yep-   You can find the TACNOTE in CFCD 106(D).

BTW, I was the Javelin Troop Commander on HMCS PROTECTEUR during Gulf War 1.   The concept of MANPADS on warships is workable (since we stole the idea from the USN), but is not without it's limitations.

Chief among them is operator training and currrency- it is difficult to do on a warship.   Another (Canadian) issue is that Javelin is about to be retired.   Something like Stinger (an IR guided system) is not without it's limitations also, particularily in the hot, humid environment of the Gulf.   And a suddenly appearing helo can be easily dealt with by the 57mm Bofors, so why buy a more complicated and expensive round (a shoulder-launched missile) that can only do one thing?

The "swarm threat" can probably be dealt with fairly easily by clever use of the helo and it's door gun (those tactics also exists, because I wrote them), good ship driving and the Ship's organic machine guns.   A CPF is relatively well provided for in terms of .50 cal HMGs and C9s.   While it can certainly be argued that replacements in the form of maybe C6s and some form of 20mm gun might be useful to a Frigate, I think it is actually pretty well armed to deal with the so-called "asymetric threats" right now- IF- the CO and Combat Officer on each ship understand the capabilities that they already possess.


----------



## NCRCrow (26 Feb 2005)

Scenerio-

Upper deck evolutions/Harbour Defence Stns--RAS--Passges through straits/canals...when RADHAZ/Personnel considerations would limit Radars/Big Weapons.

Stinger has a passive optical feature also. But I do agree with the training aspect.

Sea King would be very suspectible to a SA-7 hit!.(MAWS?) Especially from a multi-axis swarm

Maybe even an RPG!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Feb 2005)

> Upper deck evolutions/Harbour Defence Stns--RAS--Passges through straits/canals...when RADHAZ/Personnel considerations would limit Radars/Big Weapons.



Fair enough- for peacetime.   I would hope, however, that the appropriate radars are being kept in STANDBY during these evolutions, ready to go to RADIATE.   As I understand it, the SG-150 is almost always useable (but, I stand to be corrected...).

In any case, you are depending primarily on the alertness of your lookouts and OOW.   Still don't think this argues for a MANPAD missile being added to a frigate.



> Stinger has a passive optical feature also. But I do agree with the training aspect.



I was more getting at the generally poor atmospheric conditions in the Gulf which (generally) do not favour long range shots with IR based systems.   Can't go into too much more without breaching OPSEC. 



> Sea King would be very suspectible to a SA-7 hit!.(MAWS?) Especially from a multi-axis swarm
> 
> Maybe even an RPG!



While there are no guarantees on the battlefield, an appropriately equipped and well-flown Sea King is not at all that great of risk of falling victim to the more common IR based missiles .   Again, OPSEC does not permit me to go further, but I was on the first Det on Op Apollo to receive the appropriate countermeasure equipment and training and I stake my life on it.

As for RPGs, we did some heavy thinking on that subject and I believe that it we have developed (well, stolen from the USMC) a good enough counter to that threat that I was not overly worried about it.   Think about the fire control problem for the gunner: he is standing in a small boat which is moving, trying to shoot a fairly slow rocket at my helicopter, which is also moving, but in three dimensions.   And hopefully, my door gunner is kicking the crap out of him with 1200 rounds per minute of 7.62mm 4B1T.   All in all, I like my odds.


----------

