• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New US Frigate gets 57mm Main Gun

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,593
Points
1,060

The US Navy has decided to equip its new Constellation-class frigates with fully automatic 57mm Mk 110 naval guns.

This is the same gun found on the US LCS and the Halifax frigates. Right?



It seems to suggest an emphasis on the frigates standing off from shore in blue water with the main gun being primarily used for self-defence. Missiles will supply the offensive capability. That and UAS and Loitering Munitions. And Helicopters. Which, when you think about it, is just another missile.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
Yes 57mm are on the HFX and some LCS. They are very good defensive weapons against missiles and surface targets. 3P ammunition is quite good when used properly.

By arming with a 57mm it doesn't change the role of the frigate. A GP frigate does pretty much anything the fleet needs. The true workhorse of the fleet.

Its just a likely the USN doesn't need more 127mm and wanted to ensure there is margin for the other design elements. 57mm doesn't take up that much space/weight compared to the 127mm and USN really wants those 32VLS. A bigger gun means less VLS.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140

The US Navy has decided to equip its new Constellation-class frigates with fully automatic 57mm Mk 110 naval guns.

This is the same gun found on the US LCS and the Halifax frigates. Right?



It seems to suggest an emphasis on the frigates standing off from shore in blue water with the main gun being primarily used for self-defence. Missiles will supply the offensive capability. That and UAS and Loitering Munitions. And Helicopters. Which, when you think about it, is just another missile.
Maybe just the Littoral frigates...with the main gun being primarily used for self-defence. With the CSC's getting the Leonardo 127/64 Volcano, they'll be able to reach out and touch someone over 40-50 miles away.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,593
Points
1,060
Maybe just the Littoral frigates...with the main gun being primarily used for self-defence. With the CSC's getting the Leonardo 127/64 Volcano, they'll be able to reach out and touch someone over 40-50 miles away.


And how far can a shore based missile reach, or a fighter, or a fighter with a missile?

Do we put a Billion dollar asset at risk to deliver couple of hundred shells with 3 kg of HE on target? For reference Javelin puts 8.4 kg of HE on target.

Buy the infantry more Javelins and some jeeps to carry them. Keep that Billion dollar boat and its 200 sailors well back where its radars and missiles can be selectively and usefully employed.

Or, to put it another way, wouldn't you rather have an extra 8 VLS cells?
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,579
Points
1,140
And how far can a shore based missile reach, or a fighter, or a fighter with a missile?

Do we put a Billion dollar asset at risk to deliver couple of hundred shells with 3 kg of HE on target? For reference Javelin puts 8.4 kg of HE on target.

Buy the infantry more Javelins and some jeeps to carry them. Keep that Billion dollar boat and its 200 sailors well back where its radars and missiles can be selectively and usefully employed.

Or, to put it another way, wouldn't you rather have an extra 8 VLS cells?
I understand but in essence the choosing of the Leonardo’s is just bringing us back to what the old Tribals had, which we sold to the Dutch, who in turn just classified them last year as ‘past their lifespan’ and are replacing them with the same Leonardo’s as the CSC will have.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,919
Points
1,160
Yes 57mm are on the HFX and some LCS. They are very good defensive weapons against missiles and surface targets. 3P ammunition is quite good when used properly.

By arming with a 57mm it doesn't change the role of the frigate AOP's
Hence the reason I advocated them on the AOP's in addition to the 25mm. Plus commonality in the fleet.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
And how far can a shore based missile reach, or a fighter, or a fighter with a missile?

Do we put a Billion dollar asset at risk to deliver couple of hundred shells with 3 kg of HE on target? For reference Javelin puts 8.4 kg of HE on target.

Buy the infantry more Javelins and some jeeps to carry them. Keep that Billion dollar boat and its 200 sailors well back where its radars and missiles can be selectively and usefully employed.

Or, to put it another way, wouldn't you rather have an extra 8 VLS cells?

Rather have the 127mm. Such an amazing and useful weapon, that is inexpensive and can be used for various jobs.

Right tool for the right job. 127mm shell weighs ~31kg. Prefragmented round has ~3.7kg of explosives in it. The kill radius for that is somewhere around 50-60m (80m for a 155 I couldn't find a reference so extrapolated backwards to 105mm radius of 30m). What's the kill radius of a javelin?

A 127mm has much longer range, is artillery so does the artillery job, rounds are cheaper and can get the gold standard of 5 round simultaneous impact. Also an 127/64 LW can fire 32 rounds a minute. When Charlottetown was off Libya they would have loved to have that gun. Missiles just don't cut it much of the time.

127mm is used for Anti surface warfare being able to engage targets beyond the horizon should that be required. It can be used in AAD as well.

For support to forces ashore, it's hard to beat a 127mm.
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,593
Points
1,060
Rather have the 127mm. Such an amazing and useful weapon, that is inexpensive and can be used for various jobs.

Right tool for the right job. 127mm shell weighs ~31kg. Prefragmented round has ~3.7kg of explosives in it. The kill radius for that is somewhere around 50-60m (80m for a 155 I couldn't find a reference so extrapolated backwards to 105mm radius of 30m). What's the kill radius of a javelin?

A 127mm has much longer range, is artillery so does the artillery job, rounds are cheaper and can get the gold standard of 5 round simultaneous impact. Also an 127/64 LW can fire 32 rounds a minute. When Charlottetown was off Libya they would have loved to have that gun. Missiles just don't cut it much of the time.

127mm is used for Anti surface warfare being able to engage targets beyond the horizon should that be required. It can be used in AAD as well.

For support to forces ashore, it's hard to beat a 127mm.


Underway:

I'm not disagreeing with the selection and the fit of the CSCs. I look forwards to hearing that you are finally taking delivery of them.

My point was to the general utility of the putting a close support weapon on a high value asset. Just me stirring the pot as usual. :giggle:



It also kind of relates to the "24-32 VLS cells" discussion that seems to be unresolved at this time.

As well D&B and I have been having a debate about whether the USMC is being wise to ditch their tanks and howitzers and rely on the USN for Fire Support. He would rather have a large number of tanks and howitzers on shore with him.

It also relates to:

the question of the AOPS and its 25mm versus the 57mm used on the CPFs;
the LCS ships (often derided (unfairly in my view) as under armed);
the use of the 57mm on the original AOPS model, the Svalbard and most of the Scandinavian littoral fleets
the entire STANFLEX concept (which seems to be less of a technical debate and more of a cultural one)

Finally there are elements of the Unmanned Vessel debate to be had.

wHtYPeTylfLAHeqVqr6g6wkeC9PgmJRORxrizRiHodg.jpg


I'm pretty sure that this was an administrative move of a StanFlex 76mm and I have no knowledge if the weapon was ever fired from the platform or was even considered for that.

But

It did churn my last grey cells and get me to wondering what it would take to put a 76mm Vulcano onto a micro platform and employ it. How big does a small USV have to be before it can mount and fire a 76mm gun? Or a 127mm one?

Then D&B and his marines might have a Close Support capability to replace the missing tanks, howitzers and attack helicopters. The USVs would have the advantage of keeping billion dollar ships away from the shore while supplying Close Support up to 100 km inland - a range that is likely to overshoot many Pacific Islands. And unlike tanks and howitzers, doesn't need to get ashore.

An unmanned recreation of the bombards and monitors?

Bomb vessels served in the Royal Navy over a period of about 150 years. The concept entered the Navy in the 1680s, based on French designs and usage, and remained in service until the mid-19th century.[1] Bomb vessels were designed to bombard enemy positions on land, such as towns and fortresses. For this they were fitted with one or two mortars that could fire high-trajectory shells over considerable distances.[1] They were fleet support units, and as such were not intended to engage enemy ships directly except in self-defence, and so received only light conventional armament.[1] They could also carry explosive shells in addition to regular shot, and were the only ships in the navy so equipped.[1

300px-HMSMarshalNeyUnderwayPortsideView1915.jpg


HMS Marshal Ney used a surplus 15-inch gun battleship turret.


A monitor was a relatively small warship which was neither fast nor strongly armored but carried disproportionately large guns. They were used by some navies from the 1860s, during the First World War and with limited use in the Second World War. During the Vietnam War they were used by the United States Navy.[1] The Brazilian Navy's Parnaíba is the last monitor in service.

The original monitor was designed in 1861 by John Ericsson, who named it USS Monitor. They were designed for shallow waters and served as coastal ships
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,302
Points
1,140
As well D&B and I have been having a debate about whether the USMC is being wise to ditch their tanks and howitzers and rely on the USN for Fire Support. He would rather have a large number of tanks and howitzers on shore with him.
I would argue that the USMC is diverging of older tech for newer.
Getting rid of the tanks and tube arty to make them more agile for Amphibious operations.
They still have strike aircraft - AH's. as well as a lot of effort going into long range fires and medium range rocket/missile systems.

They have no interest anymore in trying to out Army the Army - their mission set is not related to a protracted land battle - but of Amphibious landings and battles within a set distance from the sea.



It also relates to:

the question of the AOPS and its 25mm versus the 57mm used on the CPFs;
the LCS ships (often derided (unfairly in my view) as under armed);
Un-Armed is a question to the purpose of the craft.
It seems to be relatively under armed from a surface combatant type - but for a littoral/brown water support ship and they are launching hellfires from it now -- it seems to be a decent support craft.




the use of the 57mm on the original AOPS model, the Svalbard and most of the Scandinavian littoral fleets
the entire STANFLEX concept (which seems to be less of a technical debate and more of a cultural one)

Finally there are elements of the Unmanned Vessel debate to be had.
 
Last edited:

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,428
Points
1,360
My point was to the general utility of the putting a close support weapon on a high value asset. Just me stirring the pot as usual.
By “close”, you mean over twice the depth of the DAA? 🤔
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,593
Points
1,060
By “close”, you mean over twice the depth of the DAA? 🤔

Is close still defined by how proximate the launch platform is to the supported party? Or is it defined as how close the bullet can be dropped, safely, to the people calling for support?
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,428
Points
1,360
I recall briefings in NGS, and it was controlled with a level of accuracy that I believe field artillery could only dream of, so I’d say if good target info (10 or 12-figure grids) were avail, close would be a good thing.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,919
Points
1,160
i would prefer the 76mm for the AOP's but not sure of how the AOP's would handle the stability and internal space requirements. That would give you a large degree of shore support, surface and air engagements ability. However the 57mm is likley easier to put on the ship, gives excellent AD capabilities and decent anti-small vessel capability. Plus commonality with the Halifax's, so training, certification, parts and ammunition are all the same. I would do the same for the 25mm down to the Kingston's and enjoy the same benefits. The 127mm on the CSC are going to open up a lot of possibilities and will be a good counter for "grey zone " tactics by Chinese fishing fleets. keeping a stock of solid shot to use in that case means you can punch a hole in the bow with minimal damage if warranted.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,593
Points
1,060
550 ton gunboat with 76mm in Greece

300px-20080702-Faliron_P-19_HS_Navmachos.jpg



450 tonne gunboat with 76mm in Denmark

300px-RDN_P555_Storen_1.jpg



76mm Stanflex Module

fly4.jpg






If the Danes can put 76mm guns on 500 ton patrol boats and 6000 ton ferries (HMDS Absalon) and switch them out without any stability issues then why not add them to a StanFlex inventory for Canadian ships? Especially seeing as how we are now going to be taking delivery of 6 AOPS-RCN, 2 AOPS-CG and 16 AOPS-MPV built by SeaSpan.

1635889439957.jpeg

Swap out a crane on the Foredeck for a 76mm Gun and man them with RCN reservists if and when.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,593
Points
1,060
And it also kind of answers the question about 76mm USV Monitors.

US-Navy-MUSV-program-1024x612.jpg


According to a notional list of requirements, the medium USV will function as a sensor and communications relay as part of a family of unmanned surface systems being developed by the service. The craft will be able to carry a payload equivalent to a 40-foot shipping container, will operate on its own for at least 60 days before needing to
return to port, and be capable of refueling at sea.

The craft will have to also be able to autonomously operate under the rules of the maritime road at a cruising speed of about 16 knots with a minimum range of about 4,500 nautical miles and operate via a government-provided communication relay system.

The size of the MUSV – 12 to 50 meters – ranges from about the size of the service’s 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) to the Navy’s Cyclone-class patrol craft (PCs). (338 tons light)

The LUSV has a notional 2000 ton displacement



The USMC already has plans to incorporate USVs in its Littoral strategy

 
Top