So, 127mm gun is progressing well:
Persistent RF decoy like the IDS300.
Persistent RF decoy like the IDS300.
Project 18, Next Generation Destroyer (NGD) : News and Updates
- Thread starter Vishwamitra
- Start date
-
- Tags
- project 18
With SRGM you can fire like 12-15km.
With a 127mm Oto melara you can fire upto 30km.
And with a guided shell from 127mm way beyond.
More explosive power at more distance, accurately.
Yeah, do we have a need for shore bombardment?
Or engaging in gun fight under 50km ranges?
It will put the ship at quite a risk, being this close to enemy ship/shore.
The only thing where this could be useful is
1 against pirates
2 if enemy is rendered incapable of retaliation .
While the srgm, can also be used as a ciws against aerial threats including cruise missiles.
The USN's Zumwalt class stealth DDG was originally designed with 2x 155mm main guns capable of firing guided rounds at coastal targets from more than 100+km away.
Iirc, even the Germans have tested the 155mm turret from the PzH-2000 SPH on one of their F-124 frigates in the past.
In the age of guided missiles, modern navies still use big calibre guns for fire support mainly because they are cheaper, provide high volume firepower and are just as accurate.
Both projects of US and Germany got cancelled.
In the latest rendering of US next gen destroyer, main gun is gone, in its place more vls.
And its not about modern navies.
Its about Indian navy and its needs.
The reason Indian navy went with 76mm srgm oto melara instead of 127mm oto melara was because srgm was considered better for Indian navy's need.
So what need IN have of 127mm that would make it better to use instead of 76mm srgm?
plus if its about range, than 76mm vulcun round developed for srgm gives range of 40+km.
Like chinese with taiwan invasion plans have need/desire for 127mm or even 15mm guns.
But why IN?
Coastal bombardment, what else? It's called naval gunfire support or ngfs. Bigger caliber rounds= greater firepower. Same reason why the IA chose to standardize on 155mm arty under FARP.
Here's a scenario: The IN moves in to blockade Karachi. After an initial Brahmos barrage, it could batter the Pakistanis with guided 127mm rounds instead of expending its uber expensive Brahmos.
After all, missiles cannot be replenished at sea. Not in the IN, at least.
The definitive 155mm round for the AGS gun proved to be too expensive and ultimately canceled. The USN is now fitting HGVs/HCM cells instead.
127mm was planned for P-15A/Bs. The IN evaluated both the US Mk45 Mod4 and the Oto Melara 127mm gun, selected the former. But the cost came to around $1b for a mere 13 guns iirc. So they decided to go the IDDM route.
The last time large guns were used for coastal bombardment in a significant conflict was during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when the US battleships fired their main 16-inch guns against Iraqi targets.
I have not heard of coastal bombardment being done by any invading force in a long time. I would rather have 40-50 km loitering munitions carry out any such activity that required precision strikes along a coast. I believe sea launched versions are already available. Of course this hinges on the cost of shells vs the drones.
Can it be done still? Yes. However, brother baba has some points going for him.
I have not heard of coastal bombardment being done by any invading force in a long time. I would rather have 40-50 km loitering munitions carry out any such activity that required precision strikes along a coast. I believe sea launched versions are already available. Of course this hinges on the cost of shells vs the drones.
Can it be done still? Yes. However, brother baba has some points going for him.
Iddm?
Srgm is Italian, oto melara .
And
I'm not talking about Zumwalt.
The next gen destroyer of us, ddg(×) that's what I'm talking about, in latest rendering any sort of main gun is absent In design.
Indian navy's ships would be quite vunerable at close distances to Karachi, with the age of drones,uuv, drone boats, the amount spends on taking these threats down will cost
, and risk of atleast one successfully hitting a ship.Using mig29'k's or other fighters( carry dumb, guided, glide bombs) to bombard after initial strikes to knock out main Pakistani defences is a better idea.
I clearly mentioned Oto 127mm. Minor correction though. Back then, parent company Leonardo was barred from competing for the IN 127mm requirement (AW101 kickbacks case). So United Defense was the only contender back then and they tried to push their luck too far.
Haven't seen those. Do you have a link you could share?
Doubt LMs could match the saturation effect of tube arty, at least in the naval domain. We'd need trainable launchers for that or VLS capable LMs.Indian navy's ships would be quite vunerable at close distances to Karachi, with the age of drones,uuv, drone boats, the amount spends on taking these threats down will cost
Afaik, navies are investing in rail guns, ramjet-powered LR rounds, and even MBRL for the NGFS use case.
In any case, we'd use Brahmos, Nirbhay and other strike weapons to take out coastal defences (C-802 batteries, etc) before getting into range for 127mm guns to open up.
If the priority is the Pakistani coastal facilities, there are several other options available. Coastal bombardment scenario can be carried out by other weapon systems.
Also did someone say VLS? Vls badhao, desh bachao!
Also did someone say VLS? Vls badhao, desh bachao!
Last edited:
The tube arty gun will be limited in guns, and rounds
The saturation effect ain't gonna be large, but puts the ships at lot more vunrability being this close to enemy shore.
Rail guns are envisioned to have 100-200km ranges in ships, the same concept for zumwalt.
That's a lot more relatively safe distance.
But
....
Rail guns are not ready, even the Japanese one the ship is a tech demonstrator with barrel life still quite low, same with chinese and others
We are more than a decade away from fully in service rail guns.
Ramjet shells are not gonna be cheaper than loitering munitions.
DDG(X): US Navy's Next Gen Destroyer Loses Main Gun In Latest Rendering - Naval News
The PMS 460 DDG(X) Program Office showcased a new rendering during a celebration of outgoing program manager Captain Matt Schroeder.
www.navalnews.com
Rail guns are too hard i talked with an engineer from General Atomics and he said they literally gave up and US stopped funding. They would fire the damn thing once and the gun would fire the projectile but end up getting destroyed lol. He also said delivering and managing the power to the thing was also a nightmare.The tube arty gun will be limited in guns, and rounds
The saturation effect ain't gonna be large, but puts the ships at lot more vunrability being this close to enemy shore.
Rail guns are envisioned to have 100-200km ranges in ships, the same concept for zumwalt.
That's a lot more relatively safe distance.
But
....
Rail guns are not ready, even the Japanese one the ship is a tech demonstrator with barrel life still quite low, same with chinese and others
We are more than a decade away from fully in service rail guns.
Ramjet shells are not gonna be cheaper than loitering munitions.
DDG(X): US Navy's Next Gen Destroyer Loses Main Gun In Latest Rendering - Naval News
The PMS 460 DDG(X) Program Office showcased a new rendering during a celebration of outgoing program manager Captain Matt Schroeder.
Until rail guns become operationally viable, tube arty will remain the mainstay for surface combatants. They are compact, have large automated magazines, can deliver multiple types of effects (point, area targets) at medium to long ranges.
The IN apparently wants 70Km max range/rounds for its new 127mm. That already exceeds ATAGS class performance. Future rounds like ramjet etc could take that to 100km+.
The IN uses the same NGFS philosophy as the Russians who still use twin-barrel 130mm guns on their biggest ships + MBRL on Zubr LCAC and other amphibs. We do the same on our LST ships.
So you can be sure 127mm is a priority for the IN.
This description reminds me of our KALI series EMP generator.
Huge potential but blocked by lack of engineering Innovation.
On lst and other amphibious crafts/ships the bigger gun makes sense.
The Indian Navy has acquired the DART/STRALES variant of the OTO Melara 76mm SRGM for use as anti-missile CIWS primarily with an independent search radar.
The AK 630 CIWS has no independent targeting and requires a separate fire control radar like the ELM-2221 (used with Fregat-ME radar) or the MF-STAR AESA radar. This reduces the response time and the design of the autocannon limits depression at 30* thus reducing FOV.
Compare this to the Phalanx CIWS which has an integrated search radar (w/ integrated FLIR), reducing reaction time across a higher FOV.
Unless we have massive WW2 style 406mm/50 caliber railguns or atleast 155mm ones, you won't be able to pack enough explosive power and range into a naval shell to justify bombardment roles. That technology could easily emerge in the 2030s as portable nuclear reactors become more frequent in naval designs.
Last edited:
We need to develop a replacement for the AK 630. A modern CIWS should not be that difficult to develop. Maybe the navy thinks that a CIWS would not be effective anyway against modern threats so it doesn't matter?
For the main gun in most situations I would much rather have a OTO Melara 76mm with DART/STRALES for missile defence than a 127mm for shore bombardment.
Shelling Karachi or Gwadar is nice to think about but the main threat to our navy is China not Pakistan. We don't have the enough ship to be able to build a class for shore bombardment.