Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Underway]

Main issue with the NRWS was the forward mount EOIR were failing at a high rate. The Aft mounts were quite good and accurate (scary accurate actually, amazing what gyro stabilization does). They suspect it was main gun shockwave that was causing the problem. There are various solutions.

But like all things military, teething problems have coloured the perception. The reality isn't the same as the perception anymore as any minor issue with the system just goes to its "bad reputation", when in actuality its not nearly as bad as it was when they were introduced. Some of the negative perception with the gun also comes from the requirement on the frigates to have to trial them with a swap to C6 and back again to 50 cal. Which is a gigantic PITA as you have to essentially recalibrate the EOIR with the weapon again. Its not a technical issue it's a "we hate this trial" issue.

 

[NavyShooter]

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wonder if this is the version that will be put on to the RCD, seems the USN is starting to warm up to the system?

 

[oldcpu]

I wonder if this is the version that will be put on to the RCD, seems the USN is starting to warm up to the system?

I believe this is the same gun (Mk38-Mod4) as that planned to install on the River Class.

A also note a defence blog is claiming the US Navy is procuring more of the 30mm Mk38 Mod 4guns (replacing the existing 25mm Mk38 Mod3 on USN ships).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes this video says they have ordered 15 more guns and mounts and upgrading Mk1's to Mk 2's. Seems like the new mount is promising, but they want more real world testing before fully equipping. I suspect MK2 and 3's will be around for a long while.

 

[oldcpu]

Yes this video says they have ordered 15 more guns and mounts and upgrading Mk1's to Mk 2's. Seems like the new mount is promising, but they want more real world testing before fully equipping. I suspect MK2 and 3's will be around for a long while.

I read up a bit on this gun.

From what I read, the Mk38 Mod-4 (30mm) and the older Mod-2 and Mod-3 variants differ primarily in their weapon system, mounting lineage, and sensor/fire-control integration.

While the Mod-2 and Mod-3 use the 25mm M242 Bushmaster gun, the Mod-4 utilizes the 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II gun. Mechanically, the Mod-2 and Mod-3 are built on Rafael Typhoon-derived mounts, whereas the Mod-4 is derived from the MSI Seahawk DS30M mount. All variants provide stabilization and remote operation.

For sighting and fire control, the Mod-2 features a gun-mounted EO/IR sight, while the Mod-3 and Mod-4 use off-mount suites (with the Mod-4 incorporating the stabilized Mk48 Mod-2). The 30mm Mod-4 ammunition suite also introduces programmable air-burst capability, which the 25mm gun variants lack. Finally, the Mod-4 integrates with the Aegis combat system and can accept tracks from it, whereas the Mod-2 and Mod-3 operate primarily as standalone systems.

I also read for the Mk38 Mod-4 (30mm) that the MSI Seahawk DS30M mount , in competition, was chosen over a Rafael Typhoon-derived mount, ... but I don't know why.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Progress continues on the RCD

https://twitter.com/x/status/2111178031116996934

 

[oldcpu]

I read up a bit on this gun.
.....
The 30mm Mod-4 ammunition suite also introduces programmable air-burst capability, which the 25mm gun variants lack.

I was curious about ammunition that may be compatible with the Mk 38 Mod 4 Remote Weapon System (RWS) selected for the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) River-class destroyers, which utilizes the Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30mm chain gun.

My initial research suggests this gun is compatible with standard NATO 30x173mm ammunition, which could include:

• MK310 High-Explosive Airburst - Tracer (HEAB-T / PABM-T): Primary role: Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS), fast inshore attack craft (FIAC), and soft/exposed targets. This round is electronically programmed as it passes through the muzzle/barrel system, enabling it to detonate at a precise range in mid-air.
  
  
• MK258 Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot - Tracer (APFSDS-T): Primary role: Armor penetration. It is an inert, high-density tungsten kinetic penetrator designed to pierce hard structures, with no explosive filling or detonation fuze.
  
  
• MK264 Multipurpose Low Drag - Tracer (MPLD-T): Primary role: Against lightly armored vessels and general surface threats. Features a pyrotechnic delayed contact fuze that allows light armor penetration before initiating an explosive blast and incendiary effect inside the target structure.
  
  
• MK238 / MK266 High-Explosive Incendiary - Tracer (HEI-T/SD / HEI-T”): Primary role: Unarmoured surface targets, small boats, and low-flying aircraft. Delivers blast, fragmentation, and thermal effects on impact. The MK266 (HEI-T) is equipped with a standard point-detonating impact fuze; if the round misses its target, it continues along its trajectory until it impacts the sea surface or land, where it detonates or risks becoming an unexploded dud. In contrast, the MK238 (HEI-T/SD) is equipped with a self-destruct fuze. If the round misses the target and does not strike anything before the self-destruct mechanism functions, the fuze automatically detonates the shell if still in flight.
  
  
• MK239 Target Practice - Tracer (TP-T): Training round ballistically matched to general combat rounds.
  
  
• MK317 Target Practice Discarding Sabot - Tracer (TPDS-T): Training round ballistically matched to sabot penetrators.

The Mk 38 Mod 4’s dual-feed configuration allows two ammunition types to be selected at the weapon. Given that the River class is an ocean-going destroyer, I speculate that a plausible operational pairing could be :

(1) MK310 programmable High Explosive airburst ammunition for aerial and small, fast threats, alongside an impact-fuzed HEI round such as

(2) MK238 or MK266 High-Explosive Incendiary for surface targets (and limited low flying aircraft functionality).

This is speculation based on the system’s stated roles and available ammunition options - and based on my research which may be wrong.

I believe that while smaller NATO coastal patrol craft or amphibious vessels may embark the MK258 APFSDS-T, I believe that armor-piercing kinetic penetrators are less suited for the primary point-defense and surface-threat requirements of an ocean-going destroyer.