ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- There is some controversy around the number of new gun systems that the Royal Navy is introducing but the Bofors Mk4 appears to good value, being relatively cheap and effective. Assuming the gun proves successful on Type 31, this compact and light weapon could be fitted to other Royal Navy platforms.
- แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
40mm Bofors has always been an excellent weapon system. My Dad used them while in the Royal Artillery in the 50's , stationed in West Germany. He spoke about them very fondly!
And Sea Ceptor as well would be hopefully be fitted for the Royal Navy's Type 31 Frigate.
AI generated video and speech = not enough fact checking so the video matches the content. This is how humans will win the war against the machine XD
But humans rely heavily on the machine... AI is not as clever as they say as it follows a program and people forget that... Like AI is programmed to be inline with the climate agenda and Covid response when we know both to be fatally flawed...
Empty shell casing recovery should be incorporated.. This caliber is more defensive than offensive, good for the smaller patrol boats that will become more prevalent and good vehicles for commanders to start on.
"300 roads per minute?" "Bay Systems?" And, as mentioned below, why so much video of 5" and 57 mm guns?
And M K 4, not pronounced Mark 4 😅
Why use the dreadful automated voice over ?
I guess the idea of paying a human a few Dollars (or Euro's) is asking too much? Just profit generating click-bait.
40mm Cannon, is to be the British Army standard for the Ajax Reconnaissance Tracked Vehicles that are replacing the Scimitar.
So for once, they will be able to share ammunition.
Ajax uses the 40mm CTA cannon which has different ammo to the Bofors
Vehicle application looks great but it carries only 18 rounds. Definitely need more.
A step in the right direction. Particularly in the current anti-ship missile environment. Larger, faster missiles mean a more powerful, accurate and harder hitting CIWS system is needed. Weapons in the 4 to 8 cm range make a lot of sense. Would like to see the development of a 40 mm chain gun. Primarily for use against faster ballistic and hypersonic missiles. A weapon designed to put 10 or more smart rounds in the path of such fast moving and hard hitting missiles. Preferably preventing pieces of those missiles from hitting the ship. Endangering things like radar antennas, and deck personnel.
Actually not. Systems like SeaRAM are the solution. Bigger guns are not advantageous in this situation.
The result will be a frigate, that is dangerously under defended and also lacks respective offensive capabilities (as it has just a very small VLS if at all).
So cutting cost results in ships that are cheap in comparison, but lack capability.
Fit radiowave system to remove all air threats
They should retrofit the River class with this 40 mm.
Cool weapon but ciws are essential in total coverage
Where to start......
Right on Go Army!
Rule Britannia from Glasgow 🇬🇧👍💙😎
Rule Sweden. Bofors are Swedish!
Yet... the MOD have access to a "super gun" rather than just a poxy 40mm derived from WW2. The BAE CTA 40mm with it''s cased telescopic ammunition, SMART round capability that sees multiple round types selected without interrupting firing rate... Delivers a higher kinetic damage with solid shot or can distance/fuse a flak round in-front of an air target or above say a small dingy. The same fools who dithered about catapults on the new aircraft carriers...
Yup at least France is using the round on a series of 7 opv’s and another series of ships. I didn’t know France was involved also with the UK on development but they were. Anyways France has the right idea, ammo cost will come down as u order more/they produce more which 189 AFVs should use enough ammo anyways so add in a few Navy orders and the price should come down. That’s why US never fielded the BAe 155 mm gun on the zumwalt, even tho development was finished as ship numbers and gun numbers were cut back price of ammo shot up where it was cheaper just to use missles. Stupidly the navy wanted a 155mm round which was not interchangeable with Army’s instead of taking their gun, designing a naval mount, and then designing the ammo u want. Something I never understood tho is they say price shoots up because development costs spread across 40 isn’t as much as 6 (2 Guns per ship) but when price jumps and contract gets canceled u know the contractor still gets paid so why lump it in. And why does the contractor have the rights to sell these systems if we pay for development? I think the way they do everything is ass backwards!!
@@Legion-xq8eo You are well informed and yes BAE worked with a French firm on the CTA. The intersting bit I did not mention they already have smart amo. A distance fused flak round that can explode within a building or take out a chopper of low flying plane. Plus you can switch amo on the fly without dropping the 160 rounds a minute. Can't see a reason why you can't make a 120mm/155mm CTA.
Once again there's the statement referring to Phalanx's 'wall of lead' operation. With ten years experience with operating Phalanx for the RN this is a myth. Phalanx tracks it's own projectiles as well as the target and brings both together, it is an accurate weapon not a shotgun!
Why is it a super gun it's a gun no matter how big or small it is . Nothing super about it
Programmable shells
40mm as the main gun of a frigate? That is too small a calibre. Why not use the 57mm Mark 3 gun?
Should also come back with pom-pom guns, cheaper than missiles to knock out drones, don't rely on electronic weapons, one power cut or electronic interference stops the power.
...so italian navy was right choosing 40 mm gun, specifically a twin gun, over commonly selected Phalanx in the eighties, like probably is right too going on 76 mm Superapido Leonardo gun as CIWS and more...
The British army used the L/70 before Rapier
I wish we would do as America does and instead of scraping and selling off our older warships and military weapons off all types even armoured fighting vehicles we should invest in creating safe sites in Australias dry climate and mothball our older equipment, I know some people will say it’s to expensive and it’s possibly cheaper to build new ships and yes this might be the case but should a large war ever break out and we lose a few of the very limited few we have them surely
It would be quicker to upgrade the systems and weapons onto the older vessels than trying to build new during a large conflict, just look at Russia with its vast stocks off old tanks which it kept in terrible conditions and Terran but yet it’s these old scraps that has kept them in this war, im sure we could do a much better job than them at looking after our old equipment
6:42- Stryker MGS (105mm)
say Bee- ay-eee systems .
👍👍👍
It might be a great gun, but the MOD will pair it up with a director from another manufacturer and a computer control system from a third. Typical “Bath” RN procurement method!
Cheap I suspect is the key factor here !
Ai sux.
Lousy ship....👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼
Get rid of that awful AI voice
Christ, what an awful computer voice, loaded with mispronounciations.
Crap.
Bosswanka clickbait. We see more footage of the 5inch gun and the 57mm bofors than we do the 40mm Bofors...???🫡
I think that's because the 40mm aren't used by many navies right now while the 57mm are very popular.
But the 40mm does compete well with CIWS and got longer range as well.