I'd also add, that the chances of hitting what you're shooting at today with one barrel is much greater than hitting the same target in 1942 with 10 barrels.
@@miketorres8441 A soldier got dropped through their armor vest! Clearly we should- Tell me how standard combat protocol was to engage submarines with the deck guns.
The biggest concern I see with the reduction in guns is the loss of redundancy. When New Jersey had a damaged gun barrel, they were only firing 8 rounds at once. If your single gun is damaged, you no longer have guns available. I'm also a little surprised that they aren't doing at least a front and rear turret on some of these destroyers to have coverage without turning the ship around.
Ticonderoga cruisers have two turrets, but they're older and bigger ships. I could ask an old navy buddy of mine, but I THINK its due to magazine space vs a helicopter bay. They wanted the helicopter over the rear turret for the 'burkes.
As a former Gunners Mate on a Knox class frigate I fully agree with your assessment with the range factor when compared with missles for long range strikes and anti-aircraft use. But for the drone and even point defense work I beieve the new 30mm and 40mm guns with their rapid fire and programable projectiles will be the future for ships defense.
I would tend to agree but I think they should have two five inch mounts positioned in such a way that the arcs of fire would be almost completely around the ship. If you have something coming at the stern the fie inch on the bow is not much good and making a 90-degree turn is not a quick fix. Especially if a swarm of drone is approaching.
Using a gun on today's ship is equal to having to use a 50. Cal on a tank because the main armament is no longer functional. It's not a factor of fun but pucker factor.
... Battleship New Jersey receives operating support from the New Jersey Department of State, also from a number of other business and private individuals like yourselves.
@@hellrocker1212the guns still work fine, the armor on most modern vessels is not heavy at all. The problem is the range of engagement is so far that you can’t hit with them or reach for that matter. Other than that the 5in guns are more than good enough for facing destroyers and frigates.
@@andrewyork3869that still are not ready for mass use. Have you ever wondered why we still use good old autocannons or rotary cannons as CIWS to this day?
@@andrewyork3869 Directed energy weapons require immense amounts of power, more than can be supplied by existing ships without sacrificing other systems. There's also the problem of countermeasures such as ablative and/or reflective coatings. Kinetic weapons are crude but use insignificant amounts of power and cannot be countered save for armor.
For rapid fire with the biggest guns, the problem with that is heating, or cooling, depending on whether you want to measure in terms of the problem or the solution. Imagine scaling up any modern semi-automatic pistol until the hole in the business end is 16". The result shows you how much more metal would have to surround the barrel sticking out of the turret to allow for what might amount to short bursts of fire every five or ten minutes. That can potentially defeat the purpose alone. Even if that's not a problem, that's still a hell of a lot of mass to move. It's reasonable to assume you'd be sunk long before you could line up your shot... and your most dangerous targets move.
@@rowanmeads8598 Good call. Everything I put out there completely ignores the structural integrity of any given ship. While all that extra mass would help with the recoil. I doubt a system that heavy could float on the same sized hull. Now that I think about it, there's also the fact that normal battleships have been moved a significant distance by a lengthy barrage. Think about how much bigger the ship would have to be just to maintain firing accuracy. The damned thing would have to be an artificial island. If you do that, it might as well be its' own aircraft carrier as well as be able to drydock a significant portion of the anti-submarine assets it'd require. And then all that capital investment could be laid to waste by a single nuke. That's why I'm not designing ships.🤪
@@rowanmeads8598 Thats one of the main reasons why the US navy stuck with the 5 inch guns instead of upping to 8 inch ones. The other being 5 inch shells weigh less, take up less room, and the gun platform itself being lighter and smaller. They tried testing an 8 inch gun on a small ship and it warped the hull and as it turns out it was less accurate.
The use of drones on the modern battlefield has made the naval gun more valuable than ever. Particularly the smaller caliber/higher fire rate variety. Not just to protect against flying drones but the types of unmanned Sea drones being used in Ukraine. Which are basically sea skimming missiles.
@AW-ix5qg It's because the term is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. An abbreviated name for that being drone. Then somewhere along the line people started combining the two, incorrectly. It gets repeated and eventually becomes a part of the lexicon. Language is a funny thing and so many words don't make common sense.
@@Alpha_Digamma if you know what I meant, why does it matter to you? Getting hung up on small details just makes you look like the “know it all/fake expert” type.
I could definitely see a comeback of the old pom-pom type guns with ranged or proximity fuses in a automated configuration. Now that it doesn't take a nation state type organization to manufacture large payload drones, remotely operated bomb boats, and probably reasonably accurate rockets and eventually missiles, the likelihood of them being used is going to continue to grow. The Navy is going to need something with more range and the ability to put a lot of rounds down range quickly to defeat multiple targets and do it multiple times.
Proximity fuse isn't very good answer to drones. It isn't reliable enough against such small targets made from very different materials, flying at various speeds. What you'd want is programmable fuse. Where FCS measures distance to target with laser, calculates it's speed and makes calculation to intercept target at optimal range - in most cases showering target with high speed fragments and shredding it. Programmable fuse to proximity fuse is like space magic. Especially when CWIS's with 30/35 mm programmable fuse gun systems exists, who would bother with proximity fuse? Proximity fuse will always have limited range where it can detonate, and range would be different depending on material of target - some proximity fuses will detonate when they detect something 1 - 2 meters around it after armed, some more some less - but it's always fixed. If something flies fast it may not be enough. Programmable fuse... you can tell to detonate 50 meters ahead of fast flying target, to basically put a wall of shrapnel in front of object. And honestly per shot cost wouldn't be that much different - modern proximity fuses would be prty expensive.
@@znail4675 doesn't really matter. Proximity is inherently inferior to programmable ammunition. To the point that in most applications proximity munitions for guns became redundant. They are still used in missiles, but that is entirely different story. For conventional ammunition though - pointless when you have far more effective ammunition available. Funny how people look at things like Gepard and think these are proxy fuses... these are programmable fuses. Proximity fuse is by today's standards ancient technology, not really worth investing in. Everybody long since switched to programmable fuses. If somebody needs a reminder - proximity fuse detects nearby object on it's own - there's either magnetic sensor or optical sensor of some kind. Once something triggers sensor it detonates. Programmable fuse has fuse set up by fire control system to detonate at pre-designated distance from target, calculated automatically by computer - and that computer can program each round differently if needed. It is superior in every way, doesn't rely on magnetic or optic sensor (although all proxy shells I know rely on magnetic, hence against drones made from composites... it's not really the best idea anyway) in ammunition.
During her Vietnam deployments, the USS Newport News' automatic 8" 55s ran out of HC ammo a few times. They had to use AP in at least once that I was made aware of.
You nailed it (IMHO). Fighting low tech enemies will require guns and bullets. Not just to fight flying drones but unmanned surface “drones” (and manned). I remember a battleship Chief talking about the power in the ability to drop an explosive VW Beetle on a target 20 miles away.
@@mugnuz Correct. Note the quotes. One of the USN’s greatest concerns in operating capital ships close to shore or in environments that limit their ability to maneuver is a wooden row boat full of explosives.
I would note, it's difficult to predict the effectiveness of weapon systems, in peacetime. I cite the Fairy Swordfish. It was obsolete in 1931. It was a sticks and strings and canvass biplane, something to show the boy-scouts what real men had done 30 years earlier. But a Fairy Swordfish jammed the rudder on the Bismark. That didn't sink it, but it made the Bismark a sitting duck for the rest of the Royal Navy. The Americans sent Brewster Buffalos to Finland and Aerocobras to the Soviet Union, and both became surprisingly effective combat equipment when used by people who didn't see them as second-best crap ... In many places, the P-40 War Hawk / Kitty Hawk was seen as crap, but I'm an Australian, and we sure as fk got value for money out of our P-40s. Not quite up to dogfighting a Zero, but as a strafing / ground attack / close air support aircraft, they saved a hell of lot of Australian lives. The defence of Milne Bay and the defence of Port Moresby, was largely thanks to the strafing of our P-40s. We wore the rifling clean out of those machine guns, but we got our money's worth from them.
@@ICCUWANSIUT ~ Yeah, the P-39 and the P-63 King Cobra. A lot of people at the time, didn't like the layout. The engine of an aeroplane should be in front of the pilot, where God and Henry Ford intended it to be. I am a fan of Canard aircraft, and I note the Beach Starship was killed because of exactly this same kind of prejudice and negative mind-set. We do things by the book, which means aircraft are made from Aluminum (not aluminium) and sure as fk not made from Carbon Fibre. The big wing should be in the front and don't try to mess with the system we have. It worked after Pearl Harbour so we continue with it. BAE bought Beachcraft, which was possible because it was losing money, because the Starship was being delayed in development and certification, because people didn't want something new and different. Then BAE transferred everyone they wanted to get rid of, onto Starship production and killed it. The Starship was a failure, but the reasons it failed, had not much to do with being a bad aeroplane.
@@ICCUWANSIUT~ Sorry about the multiple reply ~ I just spotted this. P-63 Kingcobra - In Defense of America's Overlooked Fighter th-cam.com/video/qpx2pcdmVIA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MilitaryAviationHistory
@@ICCUWANSIUT ~ Also maybe this one. 5 Underrated American Fighters of Early World War II th-cam.com/video/pvyFCbc_hD0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=GreatHistorySeries
Yeah, the Swordfish jammed the Bismarck's rudder. But I guarantee the Ark Royal's captain would have killed to swap his squadron of Swordfish with a squadron of Avengers. Which probably would have done even more damage. Just because it works doesn't mean it's not obsolete, or that we shouldn't replace it.
Re: the USS Carney- I, too, have been wondering how long she can keep up shooting down swarms of drones, cruise missles, and even ballistic missles, etc, with her SM2s, SM6s, or even SM3s (at $2.1, $4.5, and $15 million per, respectively!) I also wonder how many ESSMs ($1.7 mil/per) are being used? Or her gun? It sounds like a lot, bit, against an opponent with limited capacity like the Houthis in Yemen, the U.S. can probably afford to expend all the missles it has to. That ship definitly deserves, at the least, a unit citation, etc!
Your point on a new battleship having less guns is probably correct. In fact it might not even be a full sized battleship for such a purpose but something more akin to the Erebus-class monitors with their single turret with two 15 inch guns and a displacement of only 8,000 tons or so. Such a vessel with a more modern propulsion system that can bring it to 30 knots (instead of only 12) as well as modern self-defense systems such as Rolling Airframe Missiles and Phalanx would be a more economic design for the specialist role of shore bombardment and the smaller hull size would better fit modern force structures. Shore bombardment monitors would be cheaper to both acquire and operate as well as have higher readiness rates than battleships would have.
i think we will see the return of the battlecruiser or some form of light battleship. one with the armor to basically shrug off the ordnances that dji drones deliver as well as being able to perform fleet picket and shore bombardment roles. we wont be seeing any gun slug fests but there are still tasks that could be done much cheaper with a modernized BB. imagine something like the Iowa but with less staff.
@@Andrew_Sword In the modern fleet and economy monitors make more sense than full blown BB or BC. Monitors were DD sized but had a single BB turret and roughly cruiser levels of armor. Though I think in a modern monitor design most of that armor would be removed and that displacement used for more modern defensive systems, AA, and improved maximum speed to about 30 knots. For something intended for the rather niche role of shore bombardment I think something much cheaper than a BB would be used and probably not too many of them would be built.
Lasers may be the preferred answer to drone swarms and cheap missiles (e.g., Iron Beam). But the USN should probably keep developing both advanced flak type systems and energy systems because nobody really knows what will work best right now.
@@shinjiikari1021 A lot of energy needed to fire the weapon, and a ton of wear and tear per mount makes cost per shot super $. The tech just isn't there yet. Testing still continues. Lasers are probably going to take over as a result. Problem is they can be spoofed, diffused, etc. Don't work well in bad weather, smoke screens reduce effectiveness. It's just a mixed bag at the moment. Honestly, guns work. But range is an issue and often your shooting at something that's one one hundredth of the cost of the shell your sending down range. Lots of factors to figure in. Way above my paygrade.
@@shinjiikari1021 at the moment they have too high of an energy demand and have trouble with cooling. Besides rail guns are good at firing a fast moving long range round but due above stated reasons rapid fire is very limited. Think about current and future weapons on ships like this. Rail guns, long range anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles are like the 16 inch guns of a battleship. They are good for slow long range fire targeting ships and enemy positions on land. Weapons like phalanx CWIS, goalkeeper, and rolling airframe missile are like the 20 mm guns. They have a relatively small round a short range but have a extremely high rate of fire and are best used for close range self defense. Lasers are like the 40mm. They have a slower rate of fire but have a longer range and more fire power. Surface to air missiles are like the 5in guns the slowest rate of fire other than the extremely large weapons but have a very long range and a large amount of fire power. The comparison isn't perfect because of things like the laser systems don't really have a rate of fire and anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, surface to air missiles all have more or less the same rate of fire but it should be close enough.
One thing about the battleships and other older fighting ships. When on active duty I spoke to many Marines and soldiers from several wars and they all loved naval gunfire support, especially from the battleships. Only the A-10 (Warthog) seemed to receive as much affection.
I'd like to see a few smaller gun mounts to better protect our vessels from smaller pirate craft. As for drones, I'm hoping directed energy becomes much more viable/reliable for that task, as fleet-grade drones seem much bigger and better engineered than what you might find in the infantry scenario.
Directed energy is a red herring for drone defence. It would get overwhelmed very quickly. It's very good for last minute anti-missile defense. Anti-drone will be phalanx close in defence systems.
I'm a curmudgeon. :-) I think it would be doable to go with an 8 inch gun on a destroyer in order to regain some increased shore bombardment capability as well as a little bit of range. As the current trend seems to be to mount only one "serious" gun on a destroyer then you can go ahead an stick as many missile systems and other smaller gun systems on the destroyer as you think you need. I still remember film footage I saw where the Navy was experimenting with 8 inch laser guided projectiles. They were taking out the exact center of the target on a range, and on hulks that were being used for practice they were taking out the specific doors, hatches, bridge sections, turrets, antennas, etc., that they wanted. Nice capability to have, and I'm sure the Marines would like to have some extra punch available for shore bombardment.
Modern Destroyers are just about as large as the WW2 Cruisers were in tonnage. And now days an Arleigh Burke is 9200 tond full load and a Ticonderoga is 9960 tons full load. I would say that you could upgun destroyer.
Between 1975 & 1979 the destroyer USS Hull (DD-945) replaced one of her 5"/54 turrets with a 8"/55 Mk 71 turret. While the tests were apparently successful, the Navy decided to not to fit further ships with that weapon.
@@stvdagger8074Unfortunately, the Navy didn't like how the 8-inch gun wasn't accurate and thought that 5-inch rocket-assisted projectiles would do the job just as well. The rocket 5-inch didn't come into service.
The guns on these modern frigates are radar controlled and fire many rounds a minute. When they shoot at a moving object, radar computes the deviation between the projected and the actual trajectory, and the next shot is automatically compensated. I've read about a laser system to shoot down drones. I hope it works and I hope it's true because that would be cool.
They do have a laser system for air defense. Pretty much for small stuff it actually destroys the object. Bigger stuff it either fries the 'eyes' or forces the objects own warhead to explode. Which that is the current best way to kill stuff like drones. Simply cause its a one time cost and it just keeps killing unlike missiles that have a (really exspensive)cost each time you use one obviously. I think something in the 40mm range will come back as a 'swarm defense' weapon. Simply cause while 20mm will easy kill a drone the fact is you have to hit the drone or be on top of it for a 20mm HE to kill it. You could use a cwis but I'd assume it fires to fast and would waste ammo effectively from spooling up and down as it changes targets in a drone swarm. I still think lasers and jammers will be the main anti drone weapon. But at some point either swarms are gonna be so big you just can't physically fit enough laser mounts to engage all of them in the time/distance you have to engage them in. Or the drones are going to become hardened enough were the time required for a laser to destroy a drone makes it a ineffective weapon against swarms above a given size once again cause of a limited amount of mounts to fire the lasers and the time/distance that they have to engage in. But in that circumstance something of a reasonable fragmentation/flak pattern would help thin the swarm out and let the laser engage point targets to mop up. Pretty much what i imagine will come out is a love child of a 40mm bofurs single or twin mount a cwis and the 5inch deck gun of a arleigh burke class destroyer. Pretty much take the 5 inch guns look and shrink it down to 40mm with the projectile size and purpose and probably rate of fire of the bofurs with the fire control and radar tracking/aiming of a cwis. Slap 2 or 4 of those on a ship depending on the size and needs of fields of fire to provide adequate protection.
@@ReclinedPhysicist thats what i was thinking. Use the cwis like tracking and targeting cause with that not only can you easily track and engage targets rapidly and automatically. You can identify clusters to more effectively flak them. So you not wasting a 40mm on a single drone your using the 40mm on 3 or 4 drone and with that targeting system already built into the fire control of the weapon having it program and set each shell as its firing for the given range and proximity to target would be somewhat easy. Given it already has all the necessary info for its own self use for engaging. You would just have to integrate a automated shell setter into the weapons loading system. Which we already have had such automated fusing systems for some time. Usually for grenade launchers and larger sized cannons.
Another reason for guns downsizing is lack of naval armor (thanks to missiles and air power). What's still in service today that will survive a series of shells from a 57 mm (the primary armament of the newest ships in US service where a gun is the primary armament)?
A 57mm round is 2 1/4 inches. A 2 1/4 inch round is not going to sink a ship. Unless it accidentally hits something of value it won't even cause much damage. As for what will survive it, anything larger than a small patrol boat.
@@kanrakucheese In addition you're not firing a single shot at the target you're hosing it down until the waterline looks like a colander and/or the radars and other sensors are nothing but a ragged twisted wreck.
pretty sure modern destroyer has 75-130mm main gun. the newest ship you are talking about, the freedom class, is not a frontline ship. that ship would be consider a 3rd line (corvette) in most navy... yes it an oversize corvette. a chinese frigate could easily sink it by range, the firepower difference is just laughably large. those ship are design for patrol, not war. you can't build just warship, you need someone to deal with the pirates... US newest warship are the Burke 3s with their 125mm main guns...
When I was a little kid I went to go see USS Lexington. I was so excited. Unfortunately as an elementary school student I was not as thorough in my research so the Lexington I imagined I was going to see was like when she was in her WWII configuration. My disappointment when I saw her was immeasurable. Angled flight deck, jets on display, and most tragically almost no guns. I was crushed. I never got over it and joined the Air Force instead of the Navy.
One of the most effective anti-drone systems in Ukraine is the German developed "Flakpanzer Gepard" (there's lots on TH-cam about it) which is also capable of firing an anti-tank round. There is also the small boat armed with an RPG or a mortar to contend with. Sailors on deck with MANPADs or Javelin missiles anyone?
Not as effective... but then it's better than nothing in a shooting war... imagine the high seas and chaos of the deck is gonna be nuts in using it... remember *CLEAR BACK BLAST*
Yes, the Gepard has a standard load of 320 AA and 20 AT rounds. But I don't think a 35mm "anti-tank" round against a modern main battle tank is going to do more than annoy the crew and bring yourself to the attention of the tanks main gun - and even a "small" 105 mm tank gun will be one hit, one kill against a Gepard. That same 35mm AT round might be more useful against light armored vehicles, such as BMPs and BTRs.
The barrels they have been adding seem to be Ma Deuce. After being entirely eliminated by 20 mm Oerlikons in WWII, the 50 cal is back on many Navy ships as an anti boat armament in this age of asymmetric warfare.
For small boats, .50 BMG will chew them up. 20-30 mm a bit further out; useful depending on the anti-ship weapons on the small boats. CIWS guns, with their much higher rate of fire, would be more useful for tiny drones. More space will need to be allocated for ammunition; drone swarms will have many more targets than a typical ASM attack.
This is purely due to economy it would seem, the 50.cal is in use in every service, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Army ect. Cant say the same for the 20mm, plus lot harder to carry, Just so much easier to use 50.cals against Somali boats and Drones.
I was stationed on USS Mississippi CGN - 40 and part of the commissioning crew. I was an Operations Specialist and was on the Naval Gun Fire Support Team. We had two Mk 45 5" - 54s. My favorite thing to do was "John Wayne" attack runs. We did them multiple times training at Vieques Naval Training Range. Basically you sail directly at your target, firing your forward gun the whole way. Then you turn, expose the rear battery and fire both as you parallel the beach. Then turn away and the rear battery continues to fire. All at 32 knots. 5" naval shells are no joke and the heaviest guns on modern ships. You do not want to be on the receiving end of a John Wayne.
I would think that with drone swarms becoming a thing, as well as small surface craft, Adding say, 2 mk 110's and boosting the number of autocannons could be a viable option. Esp if guided rounds for the 57's become widely available and inexpensive enough to have in bulk. I believe Bofors calls them ORCA(?) rounds. Between the advanced combat management systems, and the multimode fuse, they'd be useful against a lot of targets- including as another layer of defense vs an incoming missile. The ROF of that gun is quite high, too- it'll actually put a higher weight of ordnance downrange than a 76mm in a given time, even though it's rounds are significantly lighter. (that's one of the reasons the USN chose it over the Oto Super rapid 76mm for the Constellations. That, and we already have it- and the supply chain for it- in inventory) Cheaper than expending a RAM or ESSM on a drone- and you can carry a lot more rounds. Allowing you to save those for more pressing threats- like incoming AShM's. And/or extending your time on station. I believe Italy's ASW version of the FREMM uses that configuration: a 5" and 2 76mm's Bumping the 25mm autocannon up to 30 or 40mm would allow access to more different kinds of rounds as well. (the manufacturer already makes both) The question then becomes what do you trade -off for these extra guns, and the storage and handling space they'd require. Might be interesting to dust off the plans for a modern 8" gun for a Ticonderoga replacement, if we ever get around to planning one.
I completely agree with your assessment. The only thing I would add is that direct energy weapons like lasers are coming on fast for point defense. They would be the cheapest of all per shot, the most accurate, and potentially the fastest "reload".
I tho k you're spot-on with your prediction of how guns will become the preferred anti-drone weapon on ships that can't operate lasers. I think that if this is the weapon these ships rely on, having two would be good for redundancy.
Can you imagine some type of CIWS computer system like that of the phalanx in command of all of the AA available on a late WWII battleship? No drone or missile would ever get through. I can see something like that coming back as actual swarms of smaller drones become a threat.
This comment for some reason reminds me of the scenes in the expanse where ships like the rocinonte have all of their point defence guns blazing away at incoming missiles from hardpoints all over the ship
With drones, I suspect the best way of stopping them will be electronic, blocking their signals and feeding them false ones. That will force the attackers to use more sophisticated and expensive (and therefore fewer) ones. But it will still need old fashioned flying lead and lots of it to stop the ones that get through.
Electronic warfare technologies has been in use and continuous development for many decades, modern warships use them to jam signals, especially for missiles, aircraft and enemy ships radar and communications. They works equally well against drones, but of course technologies to counter it has also been developed. So electronic warfare is really nothing new.
We see guns start coming back. With Phalanx and goalkeeper being replaced with missiles the 57mm and 40mm guns are coming back in decent numbers. The British Type 31 Frigate will have 1+2 of those guns. An advantage of the 57mm and 40mm is the range, there is no way a skiff can get into range to fire anything against those guns but the guns can also handle advanced air targets owing to advances in fire control and ammunition since the 60's.
With Hypersonic rounds and Railguns becoming relevant, the range of guns is starting to get into the 100-300 mile ranges. I would love to see the New Jersey fire a volley of Hypersonic ammo at least once. The range on 16 inch guns with a Mach 5+ shell would be insane.
Railguns aren't going to be relevant for a long while as we currently hit a material science limit where nothing we have will last long as a barrel. Hypersonic rounds ended up being too expensive to bother with compared to missiles this is why the Zumwalts have those pretty guns that are never used because they refused to pay the price they wanted for the rounds after they canceled all the other Zumwalt orders.
@@bill5982becoming relevant= in service, I guess They're in development, and they have been for quite some time. They'll be on the scene eventually, and probably sooner rather than later
Even once they get railguns operationally effective, they won't put them on an Iowa-class. Their armor's good, but still outdated and outclassed. They'll build new ships then.
If they make railguns railgunbitself will be no bigger 5 inch turrets in most cases + yes we did hit a material science limit unless we find a way to RELOAD A BARREL and whichever ship carrying these railguns needs a couple nuclear reactors for it to be viable soooo yeah long time m8 loong time
Awesome choice in Forrest Sherman class picture. My grandfather served on the USS Barry DD 933, it’s a shame I never got to go on it before they scrapped it though
Carney almost certainly used SM-2s for some of the threats, likely the ballistic missiles - perhaps not the drones. When protecting yourself or another ship, using the 5” or CIWS doesn’t guarantee you a kill - the missiles do. I’m guessing almost everything was SM-2 or ESSM, but perhaps some fancy ammunition with the 5” may have been possible.
5" guns are good for general purpose use, air, surface and land. Smaller guns, 57mm and 76mm are sufficient for air and surface, lighter ammo than 5" and higher rate of fire. I do not see the need for any gun over 5" in the foreseeable future.
I gotta tell ya man, I’m not one for leaving overly poetic comments for content creators, but this channel is DAD-GUM interesting. Seriously.I’ve had so many oddball questions answered here on a regular basis. Keep ‘em coming man.
The USS-Brush had 3-5"-38 dual gun mounts. Great for shore bombardment. Not much good for anything else. A big factor not mentioned was manning levels. I remember 5 or 6 men in the mount and more below. Much of that is automated now. The mounts were cramped and very hot in Viet Nam. No AC. No heat. Noisy. Very dangerous.
Another thing I'd add is that many people forget that pirates are still a thing in some parts of the world, and dealing with them is often left to navies. When dealing with a couple small and extremely cheap boats, missiles are probably overkill and in some cases may be more expensive than their targets. However, just having even a single modern 3in or 5in gun can be a great deterrent to pirates and easily deal with them if needed.
No ship really ever fires at full capacity in combat. They fire a couple of shells, check results, adjust if needed and fire again. Ability to rapid fire doesn’t require you do.
An interesting video Ryan :). I am not military never have been. But does not mean am not interested in it. I think the biggest reason for the reduction of guns is simply the role they play has changed. During WW2 for example the main guns were either used for shore bombardment / troop support or Ship to Ship combat. The smaller guns were primarily used for Air Defense of the ship itself. In the modern era. What used to be done by the main guns is now essentially done by missiles and or drones. When comes to close in ship protection yes there is still missiles but you also have things likes of the CWIS type systems. As backup to that then there is the 40mm, 30mm or 25mm guns out there now with the guided / programmable ammo etc. As the 25 or 30 or 40mm guns I would imagine are a lot lot cheaper to both build and install on a ship than installing more CWIS guns on a ship. Like what Ryan said I could definitely see the amount of those guns increased on modern ships. And because they are a lot lighter than say a CWIS setup you could fit more without effecting the overall weight being added to the ship. Maybe even more ships themselves carrying drones but again they are a costly item when compared to a gun.
Didn't the USN warships start WW2 with 50 cal machine guns and swap them out during the war with 20mm Oerlikon cannons, only for the 50 cal to come back much much much later? It's a very small thing in the overall grand scheme of things, but like Ryan said. We might need to throw in a bunch of small caliber machine guns/cannons if drones continue to evolve.
Maybe we'd need to go back the good old air burst AA bullets... I imagine most of the rounds these days are FMJ or just pure metal AP rounds. WWII UK AA bullets almost all have some airburst element to it to down the planes much easier (it was not used in pacific for OPSEC reasons, IIRC)
I dont believe the US navy ever switched back to the .50 on mass. As the war progressed, they move to larger and larger anti aircraft guns, and by the late war, the 40mm was standard issue on most things, but the US navy was already moving up to the 76mm, the 3inch/50 Mk 22. Simply because, while the other weapons were sufficient at defending against standard air attacks, against Kamikaze planes coming in on a direct course, they were often insufficient to stopping it. Since, even if the pilot is killed, it can still crash into the ship and destroy it. And with increasing speed of aircraft, you'd get so little time on target, moder powerful is better. For the thing about the Airbust elements to UK ammo. I assume you mean the proxy fuse shells. They were incredibly secret yeah, but they were still widely deployed throughout the pacific. Problem was, fitting them in in the smaller guns was difficult, so they were only really used in the 5 inch guns, and later, the 3 inch guns. Modern naval guns still use them, the big ones. Navy destroyers dont tend to carry AP anymore, its not necessary. The main gun is used in surface shelling, engaging small targets at close range, and MAYBE trading fire with enemy fleet combatents. Given modern warships dont tend to carry more than shrapnel protection for armour, its sufficient. Those HE sells have a variable time fuse, a proxy fuse, set electronically, that can be used against air and ground targets. The US 20mm Phalanx does use solid tungsten APDS. Higher velocity and the penetrative power is ideal for a small calibre weapon. The sheer volume of fire compensates. But I think almost every other nation's CIWS have mixed munition loadouts and can utilise variable fuse HE as well.
@@Thraxus Iirc 50 cal machine guns were brought back specifically to counter small attack crafts. I don't believe they are deployed on mass like the 20 mm were firing WW2, and they serve a very different purpose nowadays. But I could be wrong. I'm more interested in the historical stuff because modern weapon systems doesn't engage my monke brain the same way 100+ barrels of various caliber sizes do.
@eric24567 Ah yeah. There are a few that are usually scattered around ships, or personal to quickly man to deal with tiny boats and commando teams, thought not the main countermeasure for that by any means. That's just the habit of the US military to stick as many machine guns on something as they can xD and not always approved by the top brass. A pair of 25mm autocannons usually handles the smaller threats primarily.
I was on the Elliot (DD-967) when we went into the yards in San Pedro to get the forward mount and asroc taken off to put in the VLS, that was about 3 years after she was commissioned, the New Jersey was there at the same time, just brought down from Bremerton
I don't know if the US Navy is the same, but the big problem the British Royal Navy has is a lack of offensive capability. We have fantastic anti-air systems, anti-ship systems, anti-submarine systems and anti-mine systems, but no way to go on the attack. They are looking to correct that in the next generation of ships. I wonder if that will include giving them more guns.
Dad was a gunner’s mate during WW2, he found the reduction of guns afloat disturbing. He was qualified on everything from machine guns to 8 inch guns. Shells are cheap and effective when used in the envelope it was developed for…it’s hard to argue with a 5” HE round going off in your lap!
That's what they're realizing with the anti-aircraft guns vs. the drone waves over in Ukraine. Guns are cheaper in the long run. Missiles rule, but guns (both 5" and 20mm) are still essential components.
@@tyree9055 Not every missile is a multi million dollar wonder weapon. Low end guided missiles cost 10's of thousands, about the same as a medium sized drone.
155 mm shells of today have quasi missile capabilities (and price to match) but you can use various types of shells for various tasks. If I were to build a modern missile boat, I would never forget to add at least one 155mm very capable gun like we see a French Ceasar truck, and also a a very capable AA gun like a 35 mm of a Gepard, the shells are each timed when exiting the barrel to fragment close to the target. Ammo capacity of the 155mm must be deep with different shell types. The systems are like oignon rings from radars to missiles for far away and last resort guns for closer targets. To defeat a boat you must use saturation attacks to deplete missiles, so guns add and complete missile capabilities, missiles can miss, then the guns are there.
Traditionally, I'd would improve on the number of guns fitted on a ship. Yes, it's not as accurate or have insanely long range as missiles, but guns are far cheaper to maintain and fire than a missile launcher. Which reminds me. Hey, Ryan, is there any chance you could possibly do a video on explaining why battleships like Tennessee, California, West Virginia, and the Montana-class (IF they were built and commissioned) couldn't just go through the Suez Canal instead of taking the longest route possible to the Atlantic coast or being limited to the Pacific fleet?
@@fluffysheap True. But there are many circumstances to also factor in. Like the fact IF a battle fleet that is restricted from using the Panama Canal is located off the coast of Japan or anywhere else in the western Pacific region and had to report to the Mediterranean or back to the East coast of the US. Do you really think that said fleet would cross the Pacific Ocean to the southernmost tip of South American and come up that way?
There might also be a matter of older designs having a “accuracy through volume” approach where you carried more guns to help increase your odds of one of those rounds hitting the target. As systems improve or rate of fire of individual weapons increases, you don’t need that many guns to have the desired effect. Something similar happened with air-to-air systems. At the end of WWII, US fighters regularly carried six guns. Over time, that’s gone down and now they usually have one gun that spits out a lot of ammo by itself. (This could be another example of missiles not completely replacing guns, since “missile-only” aircraft were tried and found wanting.)
According to Friedman, the original discussion on the KGV design was between 12x14”, 9x15” (or 16”). The 12x14” won out because of the greater chance of a hit. The n squared rule
The failure of missiles in Vietnam was a combination of training and doctrinal failures, for the most part. Navy Phantoms had dramatically higher kill/loss ratios than Air Force Phantoms, even after the introduction of the E model, thanks to a combination of better training and a more capable Sidewinder variant that the Air Force didn't think was necessary.
Gunpowder behind a big hunk of metal in a tube wasn't good enough for the guys designing the Zumwalts, so they had to over engineer the round to the point it was too expensive to shoot.
The one million dollar shells right? If so the largest factor as to why the cost was so high is because of scale. I'll give you an example with video game consoles. Specifically the PS5. When it and other game systems come out, they tend to be quite expensive. But once time passes, the industry to create it gets streamlined, and millions of units get sold/are in inventory, the prices drop. Sometimes significantly. That would have been the case for the Zumwalt's shells because if all 32 ships were made like originally intended, those shells would cost anywhere from 80,000 a shell, all the way to around 30,000 a shell. And each shell would have been rocket propelled, guided, and have a range of 65 to 115 miles. (Future advancements could increase that range even more.) The range of a number of short-range missiles. However, due to changes in naval doctrine, naval politics, and enemies (insurgents), the Zumwalts weren't viewed as necessary anymore do only 3 were made. That made the shells massively more expensive. 800,000 to 1,000,000 dollars a shell. At that cost, you could just get a Tomahawk cruise missile with a far greater range and the exact same cost.
I think in a real engagement with VLS, you might quickly see CWIS cover being tight enough to suppress most incoming missiles and it coming down to a gunfight. We might be envious of the old battleships if it comes to that.
There have been a lot of cases of ships destroying other ships with guns after ww2, mostly in low intensity conflicts or against an underpowered opponent, but even when two warships of same capabilities with no limitations face off, guns can still be used to finish off an opponent after a misle has crippled them. An example I can think of is when three American destroyers sunk a Persian frigate during operation praying mantis, but there are a couple others with different countries
I would love to see an all gun cruiser or Destroyer platform with the amphibious task groups. Something like the Des Moines-class with three, three-gun(not triple) 8"/55 Mk 16 turrets for main battery and dual mount the 5"/62 Mark 36. Nothing says, the US Marines are landing like accurate shell fire that the landing force, the beach party, or even FACs can coordinate. The onboard Gunners can click on a target map, insert the fire mission in the gunfire queue, and send the steel rain.
Very informational video. In my opinion, I think it would be more ideal to build larger destroyers/battleships. Like you said, more guns on a ship means more defense against drones and more offense for shore bombardment.
Dreadnoughts and large gunship were never effective for any country, ever. They contributed, yes, but they were a military industrial complex boondoggle that never made up their cost. We have a hundred+ years of history to prove that.
I've seen in those war Sims that a modern vs 40s fleet Battle that the missiles run out. When the missiles run out the guns of the old ships completely obliterate the modern ships. A single 5 in vs 9 16in is a pretty hilarious battle. Even if all the big guns run out. The sheer number of smaller guns of the old ships still win. If not for the US Air craft carriers we would never have seen a large war ship in action again.
I lived at Smith Barracks from 1977-80. 8 man bays was the accomodations. CSC 1/13 Inf. TOW plt. Only E-6 and above had two man rooms, nevermind a private bath. Y'all got it like the Hotel Ritz this day in age 😅
You also miss a key factor, Ryan. When New Jersey was built, you needed all those gun barrels because of (1) Rate of Fire and (2) accuracy. The current automatic 5" guns have a rate of fire so that one gun can pump out as many shells as several manually loaded 5" double turrets on New Jersey could and, just as importantly, lay those shells onto a target where the New Jersey guns relied on "a whole bunch of shells" to blanket an area, especially in terms of AA. Not a slam at New Jersey, but technology has allowed a single gun to do the work of several. As for the caliber of the guns...I'd LOVE to see bigger guns make a comeback for shore and other bombardment issues...8" or even 16". But they'd likely be a single, automated mount much like the Burkes now mount a single, 5", unmanned gunhouse. And if, we're talking about shore-bombardment, then you'd also have to ask if a Howitzer as opposed to a traditional rifle might be preferable.
I think it would be killer if the Iowa class was recommisioned, replace the old twin 5inch guns with modern 5 inch automatic guns ringing all the way around the ship.
And yet in a previous video, Ryan stated stated that on the NJ some of the 5" gun crews could fire over 15 rounds a minute, per barrel! If I remember right, he said one crew could do 22 rounds per minute on one gun!
Great video and you made me think that beehive round the Japanese made at the end of the war for super battle ship guns ironically decades later may have found a use in shooting down drone swarms 😂
I think there will be more guns. not sure of the size something flak for sure though. I have concerns over the effective range of lasers and the time it take to knock targets down. Lasers i think have questionable capability vs swarms. I think with the level of AI advancing there will be a point where the radar will see the drone swarm and a gun can fire of clouds of flack at various targets before the first one is confirmed down.
I like to see a Tico-arrangement with a 5in forward and a 5in aft, and a heftier 30mm rotary or 40mm Bofors for point-defense. It's a shame they're removing the two forward guns from the Zumwalt's, I would replace the forward 155mm gun with a 5in and fit the Hyper-Sonics in the remaining space of the second 155mm mount. Of course, lasers offer another anti-drone weapon.
I wouldn't be surprised to see ships with more Phalanx CIWS style weapons - For drone swarms, the BRRRRRRAP from the Gatling gun might be just the thing. That, and the aft flight-deck present on modern destroyers might get more exercise - it's begging to be used to deploy drone-swarms! And higher caliber guns might be used with smart munitions, sort of like the Excalibur. But really, the big stick seems to be missiles, because of the range. Oh, and lasers (does the Dr. Evil pinky thing.)
I think warfare could become up close and personal again. Electronic countermeasures and defenses against missiles and aircraft is always evolving. Who knows, maybe someday a 16" shell could be required to defeat a hornets nest somewhere.
Mk8 12 inch guns that can carry 12 inch 520kg shells can still penetrate almost same armor thickness as 14, 15 inches gun , so 16 inchs gun are not necessary
@@thanosfickda Armor is irrelevant, as nobody has any. What your 12" slug cant do, is penetrate hardened bunker structures as well as any given heavier shell. Its all about mass,speed and potential thickness of the shell to go through meters of steel reinforced concrete.
@@Ganiscol...or we could deploy a bunker buster. instead of parking a warship inside enemy weapons range, and firing however many rounds to get a target down.
Or where ships (and especially whole fleets)’s PD (anti missile) networks are so effective that guns are required to wear down an enemy by destroying and disabling radars, CIWS turrets, etc to allow for a killing/finishing blow with missiles.
Well Ryan, I do agree somewhat with your assessment of returning to what I will call point defence guns but then you also have to explain the shift from CIWS to Sea RAM
SEARAM - overall system footprint and power requirement less than the prior regular RAM Mk 49 launcher. Making me think The LCS - SMALLER shorter range to its "main gun" necessitated some SAM missile. One class has RAM MK 49 other the SeaRAM.- wonder the what why. IRT a few DDG with SeaRAM replace the Phalanx - that a 1-off reason. Humm - next FFG will be Mk 49 - no SeaRam or Phalanx. Wonder system design - and maintenance comparisons.
I believe it’s the same reason that 20mm Oerlikons were obsoleted and replaced by 40mm Bofors; modern missiles have become too fast, stealthy and smart (I.e. evasive) for the 20mm Vulcan to be able to _reliably_ intercept them before impact. SeaRAM and similar systems have about 3x the range, so have a much bigger window to intercept.
I say bring back the monitor concept. Get a ship with one or two big gun turrets for shore bombardment, a 5 inch or two for lighter bombardment/flak, CWIS/Rolling Airframe missiles, and some tomahawk VLS tubes for longer range work. It'd fill the role the Iowas kept getting pulled back for without having to go through that whole process again.
@@jstogdill The Zunwalt is what happens when brutalism meets immature weapon technology. The Monitor I envision is already existing technology amalgamated onto a ship. Might need to do some research for the guns, since we haven't made stuff that big in decades, but all of it is already existing technology.
@@wrenchinator9715 fair enough. I’m Curious though, what compelling strategic contingency requires one? If I were tasked with prioritizing navy shipbuilding I’m not sure that would be high on my list.
More anti-swarm CIWS type weapons will need to be implemented in future conflicts as the Ukraine war and current Middle East fighting have clearly demonstrated. Using missiles against drones, at a 1000-to-1 cost factor, is fine for saving ships and saving lives in the short-term, however it's not sustainable.
I think we will see more Small caliber guns and Phalanx system, Better Missiles and also smaller missile systems for self defense. Its true that missiles are Expensive and get better sensors but "older" missile will get cheaper and already have insane capabilities. lets hope the esm systems can keep up the pace also. Early detection is key for defense and offense. When it comes to guns, they are nice to have to deal with smaller vessels and are probably most useful on Coastguard vessels or on vessels that deal with pirates who dont have warships, should be more then enough to make them think twice. If you are facing another warship then battle will most likely be outside of canon range. i could go on longer but i dont really know much about the subject and this is only an opinion so dont take it all so serious since i dont know what i am talking about.
Plus when you expend a 10 million dollar cruise missile to sink a 100,000 dollar fishing jonk you're doing something wrong. This is exactly why guns were added to USS Long Beach at the eleventh hour of her design. The USN realized that they could fight enemies that wasn't the USSR and far poorer.
Not asking about that when I went to the Interprid is my biggest gripe about that trip! I noticed that the Aircraft Carrier clearly had a bunch of guns turrets earlier but the latter iterations had almost none anywhere near as visivle
True, but the bugs from the early Sidewinders have been worked out after 40+ years of development. If you could send modern missiles back to the Vietnam-era, the Phantoms wouldn’t NEED a Vulcan.
And every fighter since has had a gun (except the F-111 and F-117 if you take the 'F' literally), however the quantity of ammunition they carry for those guns has trended sharply downward with the latest F-35 carrying just 180 to 220 25mm rounds.
And yet Navy Phantoms, which lacked a gun, _still_ heavily outscored the E-model. It's almost like training and taking advantage of the best available missiles is what made the difference.
there's nothing as badass as a world war era battleship remember the line in "TED" about the apache attack helicopter? they got nothing on battleships. they are swimming cities where every single inhabitant tries to shoot you down at all ranges or helps others directly in doing so
One argument for guns I have is that, while VLS missles are certainly better in terms of accuracy, damage, etc etc, there's a distinctly limited amount of them ready to fire, and their direct access to the deck requirement makes them limited too, plus replenishing them is currently a nightmare even in calm seas. Therefore, I feel it would make sense for perhaps a cruiser with a much larger gun to be made, with a payload at least rivaling that of missiles, especially for targets where pinpoint accuracy isn't as key (like for shore bombardment, especially for static positions), and especially as anti-missile tech advances. Furthermore we have advances in artillery technologies that are making them very precise - of course there are many more variables shooting from water but the tech will come, and current waterborne 5-inch gun precision is proof of that. Overall I'm not expecting more guns, I'm expecting bigger guns complete with autoloaders, precision, and range.
Once upon a time, they took guns off fighter aircraft because they thought dog fighting was a thing of the past, eventually they started putting guns back on fighter aircraft, think the same thing will happen with ships.
Yes, but they eventually started to take the guns back off the fighters. The prediction that dog fighting was a thing of the past was only wrong in timing, not in being eventually correct. The technologies allowing Beyond Visual Range engagements are now well developed. Mostly Identifying Friend and Foe, as well as improvements in Radar and missiles. (and stealth). Guns could make a come back on unmanned craft, but for manned craft, they are no longer necessary. (neither the F-35B nor the F-35C have a gun) Just like the predictions made by the aircraft admirals between WW1 and WW2. They would eventually be kinda right, Aviation makes surface ships take the back seat, but they were way off on when that would happen.
@@loganvanderwier8866but if anyone has stealth technology how are your missiles going to lock on. I know that might be far-fetched but I would say that's more closer to reality. Because we haven't had stealth aircraft versus stealth aircraft yet. So if your missiles can't lock on to your opponent you're going to have to need a gun to be able to defeat the other stealth aircraft.
@@celtic1842 radar stealth, like camouflage, don't make you invisible. They just decrease the range of detection. So the battlefield will be more and more networked. Cheap drones will be feeding information to fighters, which then make decisions and launch missiles themselves or tell other drones to launch missiles
Funny you should ask, because I've given this some thought myself recently. The answer is that lasers have reached the point where they will overtake phalanx and rolling airframe missiles as well as 25-40mm gun turrete for general defense. Obviously there is no limit to their magazine as long as the ship itself is fuelled, and the costs per shot are negligible comparatively. Second, the development of 155mm guns which use standard artillery shells, but are propelled at hyoersonic speed by hydrogen-oxygen fuel hydrolized from seawater using electricity will become the preferred main gun for shore bombardment and also anti-ship engagement where applicable. This will all take pressure off the ship's missile magazine, which can be reserved for strategic necessities.
Great video! Did I miss the point about intense ship to ship fire fights being largely replaced with more sophisticated missile, subsurface, or aircraft opperations?
What we have today(Houthis drones attacking) is the ships launching a $500,000 to $2,000,000 missile to knock down a $10,000(or lower) attacking drone. A problem we also have today is we do not have the capacity to reload the missile cells at sea. We decided we wouldn't need to reload our ships on the move after the USSR fell.
The Netherlands Navy new frigates are getting a combo of 2x40mm guns and a 76mm gun with guided ammunition (DART). With that combo you can down a lot of drones at a much greater distance than a traditional CIWS like Goalkeeper or Phalanx..
Considering how much more common air drones are but also sea drones which basically brings the small torpedo boat dynamic back from obsolescence we will see more guns but of smaller calibers meant to take on targets that are not worth expending a missile but still essential to take down in numbers
The short answer is accuracy and quality is always replacing quantity and target tolerance. When a 12inch gun had to fire tens of shells to hit or affect a target, with a single missle this job is now much quicker and and more repeatable. Imo: automation and miniaturization will replace most jobs currently are done with missles. Kamikaze Drones is one immediate future, but I think another contender will ultimately win the game. Consider a shell roughly the size of a 50 cal that comes with integrated circuits and GPS navigation. It will be programmed as bullet/shell ie leaving the barrel , each round can theoretically hit a different target or they can converge on a point in series or even in parallel (all at once) for greater affect. Such new weapons can take over roles and responsibilities of 1-10 mile, and they range can be expended with small flight fins and a small rocket booster. This may sound futuristic but every element of my example has already been deployed on various platform. We just need to bring it all together in one small but smart bullet, with impeccable backend software to support its targeting. My 2¢
As missile defenses become more sophisticated, I can see naval guns and gun cruisers coming back to overwhelm missile defenses with high rates of fire, though they will be single or a pair of barrels shooting shells similar US Army's new ERCA ramjet-assisted shells, guided by drones (the ships will also be unmanned or minimally manned).
I remember cruisers having one 5 inch gun in the forward section and one on the aft section(unless it was a smaller caliber of gun for the aft section). Missiles and carrier air groups do a lot more in terms of naval combat. But, I think one more gun, single barrel and a smaller caliber added to the aft section of a warship could be possible. But I may be wrong because the Arleigh-Burke destroyers use speed and their offensive capabilities to defend a carrier, or even an Iowa class battleship. If a battleship or battle cruiser were to be built today, it would probably resemble Russia’s Kirov class battle cruiser and it might be longer and stronger in order to hold a larger capacity of shells. Or include another Phalanx CWIS.
I'd also add, that the chances of hitting what you're shooting at today with one barrel is much greater than hitting the same target in 1942 with 10 barrels.
Yeah, but imagine a 16 inch version of the Excalibur shell 😈
@@SonsOfLorgarAdding range with Rocket Assist or RAM Assist, those 16" shells would have pretty decent range as well
And yet on Dec 7 a destroyer hit a midget sub with open sights and sank it
@@miketorres8441
A soldier got dropped through their armor vest! Clearly we should-
Tell me how standard combat protocol was to engage submarines with the deck guns.
No it's not lol, if it was then they would have replaced the Iowas analog fire calculation computers with digital ones in the 80s but they didn't.
The biggest concern I see with the reduction in guns is the loss of redundancy. When New Jersey had a damaged gun barrel, they were only firing 8 rounds at once. If your single gun is damaged, you no longer have guns available. I'm also a little surprised that they aren't doing at least a front and rear turret on some of these destroyers to have coverage without turning the ship around.
If they put a gun on the rear, then they can't have a helicopter deck.
@@JonBerry555 The Ticonderoga class has both a helicopter deck and a rear gun mount.
The Ticos are larger than the ABs to accommodate that rear gun mount
Ticonderoga cruisers have two turrets, but they're older and bigger ships. I could ask an old navy buddy of mine, but I THINK its due to magazine space vs a helicopter bay. They wanted the helicopter over the rear turret for the 'burkes.
Agree, you need more than one gun. It's like the engines. You need more than one, or you become a sitting duck.
As a former Gunners Mate on a Knox class frigate I fully agree with your assessment with the range factor when compared with missles for long range strikes and anti-aircraft use. But for the drone and even point defense work I beieve the new 30mm and 40mm guns with their rapid fire and programable projectiles will be the future for ships defense.
Isn’t the navy adding more 25mm?
Yes they are; I failed to mention them and the 57mm gun mount. I believe that all have programable projectiles available.@@tomhenry897
@@tomhenry897 I read just yesterday that guns may need to be added to meet the challenges of drone warfare.
Maybe the phalanx could be replaced with laser eventually but that has it's own problems (besides technology).
I would tend to agree but I think they should have two five inch mounts positioned in such a way that the arcs of fire would be almost completely around the ship. If you have something coming at the stern the fie inch on the bow is not much good and making a 90-degree turn is not a quick fix. Especially if a swarm of drone is approaching.
Because somebody decided that we’re not allowed to have fun anymore 😒
Using a gun on today's ship is equal to having to use a 50. Cal on a tank because the main armament is no longer functional. It's not a factor of fun but pucker factor.
... Battleship New Jersey receives operating support from the New Jersey Department of State, also from a number of other business and private individuals like yourselves.
That would be the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fun.
Killing and dying isnt very fun imo
@@hellrocker1212the guns still work fine, the armor on most modern vessels is not heavy at all. The problem is the range of engagement is so far that you can’t hit with them or reach for that matter. Other than that the 5in guns are more than good enough for facing destroyers and frigates.
It would be wild to see flak make a comeback. With the drone threat it could happen.
I don’t think it ever left, just morphed into CIWS
CIWS are FlAk
We have cheaper laser systems....
@@andrewyork3869that still are not ready for mass use. Have you ever wondered why we still use good old autocannons or rotary cannons as CIWS to this day?
@@andrewyork3869 Directed energy weapons require immense amounts of power, more than can be supplied by existing ships without sacrificing other systems. There's also the problem of countermeasures such as ablative and/or reflective coatings. Kinetic weapons are crude but use insignificant amounts of power and cannot be countered save for armor.
Just like the Gepard all of sudden being in demand, I can definitely see 40 mm making a comeback on ships.
Life needs more 40mm
arent the Italian CIWS DARDO already sporting two 40mm guns on each turret ?
Yeah drones will force ships to have some rapid fire small caliber gun. Maybe even a few of them, because drone swarms will be a thing
I wonder if it would be possible to make guided 127mm or 76mm shells for longer range anti air engagements.
@@JimCarnerdude what did you read or watch to know all of that. Impressive
If you haven't seen a video of a modern 5 inch firing at max speed, it's worth a watch. Unbelievably fast
If only they did that with a 16".
For rapid fire with the biggest guns, the problem with that is heating, or cooling, depending on whether you want to measure in terms of the problem or the solution. Imagine scaling up any modern semi-automatic pistol until the hole in the business end is 16". The result shows you how much more metal would have to surround the barrel sticking out of the turret to allow for what might amount to short bursts of fire every five or ten minutes. That can potentially defeat the purpose alone. Even if that's not a problem, that's still a hell of a lot of mass to move. It's reasonable to assume you'd be sunk long before you could line up your shot... and your most dangerous targets move.
@@sirnukesalot24 honestly thought recoil would be the larger issue.
@@rowanmeads8598 Good call. Everything I put out there completely ignores the structural integrity of any given ship. While all that extra mass would help with the recoil. I doubt a system that heavy could float on the same sized hull.
Now that I think about it, there's also the fact that normal battleships have been moved a significant distance by a lengthy barrage. Think about how much bigger the ship would have to be just to maintain firing accuracy. The damned thing would have to be an artificial island. If you do that, it might as well be its' own aircraft carrier as well as be able to drydock a significant portion of the anti-submarine assets it'd require.
And then all that capital investment could be laid to waste by a single nuke.
That's why I'm not designing ships.🤪
@@rowanmeads8598 Thats one of the main reasons why the US navy stuck with the 5 inch guns instead of upping to 8 inch ones. The other being 5 inch shells weigh less, take up less room, and the gun platform itself being lighter and smaller. They tried testing an 8 inch gun on a small ship and it warped the hull and as it turns out it was less accurate.
The use of drones on the modern battlefield has made the naval gun more valuable than ever. Particularly the smaller caliber/higher fire rate variety. Not just to protect against flying drones but the types of unmanned Sea drones being used in Ukraine. Which are basically sea skimming missiles.
If it's manned it's not a drone. Which joker came up with the term "unmanned drone"?
@@Alpha_Digamma who cares?
People should stop to make up terms that make no sense. It makes them sound less intelligent.
@AW-ix5qg It's because the term is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. An abbreviated name for that being drone. Then somewhere along the line people started combining the two, incorrectly. It gets repeated and eventually becomes a part of the lexicon. Language is a funny thing and so many words don't make common sense.
@@Alpha_Digamma if you know what I meant, why does it matter to you? Getting hung up on small details just makes you look like the “know it all/fake expert” type.
I could definitely see a comeback of the old pom-pom type guns with ranged or proximity fuses in a automated configuration. Now that it doesn't take a nation state type organization to manufacture large payload drones, remotely operated bomb boats, and probably reasonably accurate rockets and eventually missiles, the likelihood of them being used is going to continue to grow. The Navy is going to need something with more range and the ability to put a lot of rounds down range quickly to defeat multiple targets and do it multiple times.
Proximity fuse isn't very good answer to drones. It isn't reliable enough against such small targets made from very different materials, flying at various speeds.
What you'd want is programmable fuse. Where FCS measures distance to target with laser, calculates it's speed and makes calculation to intercept target at optimal range - in most cases showering target with high speed fragments and shredding it. Programmable fuse to proximity fuse is like space magic. Especially when CWIS's with 30/35 mm programmable fuse gun systems exists, who would bother with proximity fuse? Proximity fuse will always have limited range where it can detonate, and range would be different depending on material of target - some proximity fuses will detonate when they detect something 1 - 2 meters around it after armed, some more some less - but it's always fixed. If something flies fast it may not be enough. Programmable fuse... you can tell to detonate 50 meters ahead of fast flying target, to basically put a wall of shrapnel in front of object.
And honestly per shot cost wouldn't be that much different - modern proximity fuses would be prty expensive.
Well the research into railguns might be the push the Navy needs to stay competitive with other attack options.
@@Beneficiis I am pretty sure that electronics have progressed from WW2 to now making it possible to make proximity fuses that detects drones.
Doubt 40mm guns would have the range to effectively reach out as far as drones can spot ships at. Ships need to be able to destroy shadowing aircraft.
@@znail4675 doesn't really matter. Proximity is inherently inferior to programmable ammunition. To the point that in most applications proximity munitions for guns became redundant. They are still used in missiles, but that is entirely different story.
For conventional ammunition though - pointless when you have far more effective ammunition available.
Funny how people look at things like Gepard and think these are proxy fuses... these are programmable fuses.
Proximity fuse is by today's standards ancient technology, not really worth investing in. Everybody long since switched to programmable fuses.
If somebody needs a reminder - proximity fuse detects nearby object on it's own - there's either magnetic sensor or optical sensor of some kind. Once something triggers sensor it detonates. Programmable fuse has fuse set up by fire control system to detonate at pre-designated distance from target, calculated automatically by computer - and that computer can program each round differently if needed. It is superior in every way, doesn't rely on magnetic or optic sensor (although all proxy shells I know rely on magnetic, hence against drones made from composites... it's not really the best idea anyway) in ammunition.
During her Vietnam deployments, the USS Newport News' automatic 8" 55s ran out of HC ammo a few times. They had to use AP in at least once that I was made aware of.
They were also firing aimlessly into hillsides. Are you also suggesting modern warships will do that with a 75mm?
You nailed it (IMHO). Fighting low tech enemies will require guns and bullets. Not just to fight flying drones but unmanned surface “drones” (and manned).
I remember a battleship Chief talking about the power in the ability to drop an explosive VW Beetle on a target 20 miles away.
tbh its not that expensive to tape APKWS on a turret or something...
arent drones unmanned by definition. so unmanned and mannes drones as a term make no sense at all...
@@mugnuz Correct. Note the quotes. One of the USN’s greatest concerns in operating capital ships close to shore or in environments that limit their ability to maneuver is a wooden row boat full of explosives.
I would note, it's difficult to predict the effectiveness of weapon systems, in peacetime. I cite the Fairy Swordfish. It was obsolete in 1931. It was a sticks and strings and canvass biplane, something to show the boy-scouts what real men had done 30 years earlier. But a Fairy Swordfish jammed the rudder on the Bismark. That didn't sink it, but it made the Bismark a sitting duck for the rest of the Royal Navy.
The Americans sent Brewster Buffalos to Finland and Aerocobras to the Soviet Union, and both became surprisingly effective combat equipment when used by people who didn't see them as second-best crap ...
In many places, the P-40 War Hawk / Kitty Hawk was seen as crap, but I'm an Australian, and we sure as fk got value for money out of our P-40s. Not quite up to dogfighting a Zero, but as a strafing / ground attack / close air support aircraft, they saved a hell of lot of Australian lives. The defence of Milne Bay and the defence of Port Moresby, was largely thanks to the strafing of our P-40s. We wore the rifling clean out of those machine guns, but we got our money's worth from them.
First time I'm hearing the aerocobra in a negative light, that's the P-39 right?
@@ICCUWANSIUT ~ Yeah, the P-39 and the P-63 King Cobra. A lot of people at the time, didn't like the layout. The engine of an aeroplane should be in front of the pilot, where God and Henry Ford intended it to be.
I am a fan of Canard aircraft, and I note the Beach Starship was killed because of exactly this same kind of prejudice and negative mind-set. We do things by the book, which means aircraft are made from Aluminum (not aluminium) and sure as fk not made from Carbon Fibre. The big wing should be in the front and don't try to mess with the system we have. It worked after Pearl Harbour so we continue with it.
BAE bought Beachcraft, which was possible because it was losing money, because the Starship was being delayed in development and certification, because people didn't want something new and different. Then BAE transferred everyone they wanted to get rid of, onto Starship production and killed it. The Starship was a failure, but the reasons it failed, had not much to do with being a bad aeroplane.
@@ICCUWANSIUT~ Sorry about the multiple reply ~ I just spotted this.
P-63 Kingcobra - In Defense of America's Overlooked Fighter
th-cam.com/video/qpx2pcdmVIA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MilitaryAviationHistory
@@ICCUWANSIUT ~ Also maybe this one.
5 Underrated American Fighters of Early World War II
th-cam.com/video/pvyFCbc_hD0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=GreatHistorySeries
Yeah, the Swordfish jammed the Bismarck's rudder. But I guarantee the Ark Royal's captain would have killed to swap his squadron of Swordfish with a squadron of Avengers. Which probably would have done even more damage. Just because it works doesn't mean it's not obsolete, or that we shouldn't replace it.
Re: the USS Carney- I, too, have been wondering how long she can keep up shooting down swarms of drones, cruise missles, and even ballistic missles, etc, with her SM2s, SM6s, or even SM3s (at $2.1, $4.5, and $15 million per, respectively!) I also wonder how many ESSMs ($1.7 mil/per) are being used? Or her gun?
It sounds like a lot, bit, against an opponent with limited capacity like the Houthis in Yemen, the U.S. can probably afford to expend all the missles it has to.
That ship definitly deserves, at the least, a unit citation, etc!
Your point on a new battleship having less guns is probably correct. In fact it might not even be a full sized battleship for such a purpose but something more akin to the Erebus-class monitors with their single turret with two 15 inch guns and a displacement of only 8,000 tons or so. Such a vessel with a more modern propulsion system that can bring it to 30 knots (instead of only 12) as well as modern self-defense systems such as Rolling Airframe Missiles and Phalanx would be a more economic design for the specialist role of shore bombardment and the smaller hull size would better fit modern force structures. Shore bombardment monitors would be cheaper to both acquire and operate as well as have higher readiness rates than battleships would have.
Hear me out... Hovercannon
Nevermind, after 3 shots, it would be moving faster than the aircraft.
That does sound good
Monitors are wacky. I need more of them...
i think we will see the return of the battlecruiser or some form of light battleship. one with the armor to basically shrug off the ordnances that dji drones deliver as well as being able to perform fleet picket and shore bombardment roles. we wont be seeing any gun slug fests but there are still tasks that could be done much cheaper with a modernized BB. imagine something like the Iowa but with less staff.
@@Andrew_Sword In the modern fleet and economy monitors make more sense than full blown BB or BC. Monitors were DD sized but had a single BB turret and roughly cruiser levels of armor. Though I think in a modern monitor design most of that armor would be removed and that displacement used for more modern defensive systems, AA, and improved maximum speed to about 30 knots. For something intended for the rather niche role of shore bombardment I think something much cheaper than a BB would be used and probably not too many of them would be built.
Lasers may be the preferred answer to drone swarms and cheap missiles (e.g., Iron Beam). But the USN should probably keep developing both advanced flak type systems and energy systems because nobody really knows what will work best right now.
What about rail/coil guns
I think the crew of the USS Carney would disagree.
@@shinjiikari1021 A lot of energy needed to fire the weapon, and a ton of wear and tear per mount makes cost per shot super $. The tech just isn't there yet. Testing still continues. Lasers are probably going to take over as a result. Problem is they can be spoofed, diffused, etc. Don't work well in bad weather, smoke screens reduce effectiveness. It's just a mixed bag at the moment. Honestly, guns work. But range is an issue and often your shooting at something that's one one hundredth of the cost of the shell your sending down range. Lots of factors to figure in. Way above my paygrade.
@@shinjiikari1021 at the moment they have too high of an energy demand and have trouble with cooling. Besides rail guns are good at firing a fast moving long range round but due above stated reasons rapid fire is very limited. Think about current and future weapons on ships like this. Rail guns, long range anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles are like the 16 inch guns of a battleship. They are good for slow long range fire targeting ships and enemy positions on land. Weapons like phalanx CWIS, goalkeeper, and rolling airframe missile are like the 20 mm guns. They have a relatively small round a short range but have a extremely high rate of fire and are best used for close range self defense. Lasers are like the 40mm. They have a slower rate of fire but have a longer range and more fire power. Surface to air missiles are like the 5in guns the slowest rate of fire other than the extremely large weapons but have a very long range and a large amount of fire power. The comparison isn't perfect because of things like the laser systems don't really have a rate of fire and anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, surface to air missiles all have more or less the same rate of fire but it should be close enough.
I hope no one attacks on a cloudy day. Lasers wouldn't be very effective in atmosphere unfortunately.
One thing about the battleships and other older fighting ships. When on active duty I spoke to many Marines and soldiers from several wars and they all loved naval gunfire support, especially from the battleships. Only the A-10 (Warthog) seemed to receive as much affection.
What’s not to love about big guns
I'd like to see a few smaller gun mounts to better protect our vessels from smaller pirate craft. As for drones, I'm hoping directed energy becomes much more viable/reliable for that task, as fleet-grade drones seem much bigger and better engineered than what you might find in the infantry scenario.
They have .50 cal mounts and the sailors can grab an M-16 if necessary.
Our warships don't have a pirate problem.
@@reubenmorris487 Yeah on second thought I can't imagine 'pirate'-grade craft will survive a welcome from Ma Deuce.
I’d like to see you keep your opinions to yourself. Nobody asked you. 😂 Just kidding, I like trolling people 😊
Directed energy is a red herring for drone defence. It would get overwhelmed very quickly. It's very good for last minute anti-missile defense. Anti-drone will be phalanx close in defence systems.
I'm a curmudgeon. :-) I think it would be doable to go with an 8 inch gun on a destroyer in order to regain some increased shore bombardment capability as well as a little bit of range. As the current trend seems to be to mount only one "serious" gun on a destroyer then you can go ahead an stick as many missile systems and other smaller gun systems on the destroyer as you think you need. I still remember film footage I saw where the Navy was experimenting with 8 inch laser guided projectiles. They were taking out the exact center of the target on a range, and on hulks that were being used for practice they were taking out the specific doors, hatches, bridge sections, turrets, antennas, etc., that they wanted. Nice capability to have, and I'm sure the Marines would like to have some extra punch available for shore bombardment.
Modern Destroyers are just about as large as the WW2 Cruisers were in tonnage. And now days an Arleigh Burke is 9200 tond full load and a Ticonderoga is 9960 tons full load. I would say that you could upgun destroyer.
Between 1975 & 1979 the destroyer USS Hull (DD-945) replaced one of her 5"/54 turrets with a 8"/55 Mk 71 turret. While the tests were apparently successful, the Navy decided to not to fit further ships with that weapon.
@@stvdagger8074Unfortunately, the Navy didn't like how the 8-inch gun wasn't accurate and thought that 5-inch rocket-assisted projectiles would do the job just as well. The rocket 5-inch didn't come into service.
The guns on these modern frigates are radar controlled and fire many rounds a minute. When they shoot at a moving object, radar computes the deviation between the projected and the actual trajectory, and the next shot is automatically compensated.
I've read about a laser system to shoot down drones. I hope it works and I hope it's true because that would be cool.
They do have a laser system for air defense. Pretty much for small stuff it actually destroys the object. Bigger stuff it either fries the 'eyes' or forces the objects own warhead to explode. Which that is the current best way to kill stuff like drones. Simply cause its a one time cost and it just keeps killing unlike missiles that have a (really exspensive)cost each time you use one obviously. I think something in the 40mm range will come back as a 'swarm defense' weapon. Simply cause while 20mm will easy kill a drone the fact is you have to hit the drone or be on top of it for a 20mm HE to kill it. You could use a cwis but I'd assume it fires to fast and would waste ammo effectively from spooling up and down as it changes targets in a drone swarm. I still think lasers and jammers will be the main anti drone weapon. But at some point either swarms are gonna be so big you just can't physically fit enough laser mounts to engage all of them in the time/distance you have to engage them in. Or the drones are going to become hardened enough were the time required for a laser to destroy a drone makes it a ineffective weapon against swarms above a given size once again cause of a limited amount of mounts to fire the lasers and the time/distance that they have to engage in. But in that circumstance something of a reasonable fragmentation/flak pattern would help thin the swarm out and let the laser engage point targets to mop up. Pretty much what i imagine will come out is a love child of a 40mm bofurs single or twin mount a cwis and the 5inch deck gun of a arleigh burke class destroyer. Pretty much take the 5 inch guns look and shrink it down to 40mm with the projectile size and purpose and probably rate of fire of the bofurs with the fire control and radar tracking/aiming of a cwis. Slap 2 or 4 of those on a ship depending on the size and needs of fields of fire to provide adequate protection.
@@high633 the ammo they'd be using would probably be smart ammo similar to radar controlled proximity shells used in WW2
"The fire control system knows were it is by knowing were it isn't...."
@@ReclinedPhysicist thats what i was thinking. Use the cwis like tracking and targeting cause with that not only can you easily track and engage targets rapidly and automatically. You can identify clusters to more effectively flak them. So you not wasting a 40mm on a single drone your using the 40mm on 3 or 4 drone and with that targeting system already built into the fire control of the weapon having it program and set each shell as its firing for the given range and proximity to target would be somewhat easy. Given it already has all the necessary info for its own self use for engaging. You would just have to integrate a automated shell setter into the weapons loading system. Which we already have had such automated fusing systems for some time. Usually for grenade launchers and larger sized cannons.
It is truly wonderful and refreshing to listen to an expert who happily provides the facts without showing any bias whatsoever. Well done Sir.
Another reason for guns downsizing is lack of naval armor (thanks to missiles and air power). What's still in service today that will survive a series of shells from a 57 mm (the primary armament of the newest ships in US service where a gun is the primary armament)?
A 57mm round is 2 1/4 inches. A 2 1/4 inch round is not going to sink a ship. Unless it accidentally hits something of value it won't even cause much damage. As for what will survive it, anything larger than a small patrol boat.
@@bill5982 Proximity fused HE leaves a far bigger hole than the projectile itself.
@@kanrakucheese In addition you're not firing a single shot at the target you're hosing it down until the waterline looks like a colander and/or the radars and other sensors are nothing but a ragged twisted wreck.
pretty sure modern destroyer has 75-130mm main gun. the newest ship you are talking about, the freedom class, is not a frontline ship. that ship would be consider a 3rd line (corvette) in most navy... yes it an oversize corvette. a chinese frigate could easily sink it by range, the firepower difference is just laughably large. those ship are design for patrol, not war. you can't build just warship, you need someone to deal with the pirates... US newest warship are the Burke 3s with their 125mm main guns...
@@lagrangewei The new Constellation class frigates also have the 57mm gun.
When I was a little kid I went to go see USS Lexington. I was so excited. Unfortunately as an elementary school student I was not as thorough in my research so the Lexington I imagined I was going to see was like when she was in her WWII configuration. My disappointment when I saw her was immeasurable. Angled flight deck, jets on display, and most tragically almost no guns. I was crushed. I never got over it and joined the Air Force instead of the Navy.
wait, what, are you like 100 years old? the Lexington sank in 1942!
@@Blackadder75 I imagine he's talking about the museum in Corpus Christi
@@reteric19 ah, I learned that there are 2 USS Lexingtons
One of the most effective anti-drone systems in Ukraine is the German developed "Flakpanzer Gepard" (there's lots on TH-cam about it) which is also capable of firing an anti-tank round. There is also the small boat armed with an RPG or a mortar to contend with. Sailors on deck with MANPADs or Javelin missiles anyone?
Not as effective... but then it's better than nothing in a shooting war... imagine the high seas and chaos of the deck is gonna be nuts in using it... remember *CLEAR BACK BLAST*
Yes, the Gepard has a standard load of 320 AA and 20 AT rounds. But I don't think a 35mm "anti-tank" round against a modern main battle tank is going to do more than annoy the crew and bring yourself to the attention of the tanks main gun - and even a "small" 105 mm tank gun will be one hit, one kill against a Gepard. That same 35mm AT round might be more useful against light armored vehicles, such as BMPs and BTRs.
@@AlexanderSchreibershould work like a Charm againts old T55S.
But yeah it's mainly self defence againts lightly armored vehicles.
@@PrograErrori dont see them getting that close.
@@AlexanderSchreiberi can see it takimg out any carousel magazine tank.
The barrels they have been adding seem to be Ma Deuce. After being entirely eliminated by 20 mm Oerlikons in WWII, the 50 cal is back on many Navy ships as an anti boat armament in this age of asymmetric warfare.
For small boats, .50 BMG will chew them up. 20-30 mm a bit further out; useful depending on the anti-ship weapons on the small boats.
CIWS guns, with their much higher rate of fire, would be more useful for tiny drones. More space will need to be allocated for ammunition; drone swarms will have many more targets than a typical ASM attack.
The Brits called it "Junk-bashing" back in the day.
This is purely due to economy it would seem, the 50.cal is in use in every service, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Army ect. Cant say the same for the 20mm, plus lot harder to carry, Just so much easier to use 50.cals against Somali boats and Drones.
I was stationed on USS Mississippi CGN - 40 and part of the commissioning crew. I was an Operations Specialist and was on the Naval Gun Fire Support Team. We had two Mk 45 5" - 54s. My favorite thing to do was "John Wayne" attack runs. We did them multiple times training at Vieques Naval Training Range. Basically you sail directly at your target, firing your forward gun the whole way. Then you turn, expose the rear battery and fire both as you parallel the beach. Then turn away and the rear battery continues to fire. All at 32 knots. 5" naval shells are no joke and the heaviest guns on modern ships. You do not want to be on the receiving end of a John Wayne.
showing broadside, aint no joke either
@@bennygummiskofor real. No ship wants to be caught out broadside
a great clip with balanced, reasonable analyses on modern guns and their use among other ship's weapons
I would think that with drone swarms becoming a thing, as well as small surface craft, Adding say, 2 mk 110's and boosting the number of autocannons could be a viable option. Esp if guided rounds for the 57's become widely available and inexpensive enough to have in bulk. I believe Bofors calls them ORCA(?) rounds. Between the advanced combat management systems, and the multimode fuse, they'd be useful against a lot of targets- including as another layer of defense vs an incoming missile. The ROF of that gun is quite high, too- it'll actually put a higher weight of ordnance downrange than a 76mm in a given time, even though it's rounds are significantly lighter. (that's one of the reasons the USN chose it over the Oto Super rapid 76mm for the Constellations. That, and we already have it- and the supply chain for it- in inventory)
Cheaper than expending a RAM or ESSM on a drone- and you can carry a lot more rounds. Allowing you to save those for more pressing threats- like incoming AShM's. And/or extending your time on station.
I believe Italy's ASW version of the FREMM uses that configuration: a 5" and 2 76mm's
Bumping the 25mm autocannon up to 30 or 40mm would allow access to more different kinds of rounds as well. (the manufacturer already makes both)
The question then becomes what do you trade -off for these extra guns, and the storage and handling space they'd require.
Might be interesting to dust off the plans for a modern 8" gun for a Ticonderoga replacement, if we ever get around to planning one.
Just make Modern Des Moines class cruisers.
I completely agree with your assessment. The only thing I would add is that direct energy weapons like lasers are coming on fast for point defense. They would be the cheapest of all per shot, the most accurate, and potentially the fastest "reload".
You can see this trend towards more guns with the Royal Navy’s new Type 31 frigates that have 1 x 57mm and 2 x 40mm turrets
One day I will be able to thank you Ryan personally for all the wonderful knowledge you share in your YT videos. I hope I can shake your hand.
I tho k you're spot-on with your prediction of how guns will become the preferred anti-drone weapon on ships that can't operate lasers. I think that if this is the weapon these ships rely on, having two would be good for redundancy.
Can you imagine some type of CIWS computer system like that of the phalanx in command of all of the AA available on a late WWII battleship? No drone or missile would ever get through. I can see something like that coming back as actual swarms of smaller drones become a threat.
This comment for some reason reminds me of the scenes in the expanse where ships like the rocinonte have all of their point defence guns blazing away at incoming missiles from hardpoints all over the ship
Thank you for not stretching this out to a 15-minute video. Your talks are always engaging and informative.
The video is only 7 minutes long, though?
@@Ink_25 Yes.
With drones, I suspect the best way of stopping them will be electronic, blocking their signals and feeding them false ones. That will force the attackers to use more sophisticated and expensive (and therefore fewer) ones. But it will still need old fashioned flying lead and lots of it to stop the ones that get through.
It is already circumvented by have AI to find and destroy targets automatically.
Electronic warfare technologies has been in use and continuous development for many decades, modern warships use them to jam signals, especially for missiles, aircraft and enemy ships radar and communications. They works equally well against drones, but of course technologies to counter it has also been developed. So electronic warfare is really nothing new.
We see guns start coming back.
With Phalanx and goalkeeper being replaced with missiles the 57mm and 40mm guns are coming back in decent numbers. The British Type 31 Frigate will have 1+2 of those guns.
An advantage of the 57mm and 40mm is the range, there is no way a skiff can get into range to fire anything against those guns but the guns can also handle advanced air targets owing to advances in fire control and ammunition since the 60's.
I think that’s a very accurate and well thought out analysis.
With Hypersonic rounds and Railguns becoming relevant, the range of guns is starting to get into the 100-300 mile ranges.
I would love to see the New Jersey fire a volley of Hypersonic ammo at least once. The range on 16 inch guns with a Mach 5+ shell would be insane.
Railguns aren't going to be relevant for a long while as we currently hit a material science limit where nothing we have will last long as a barrel. Hypersonic rounds ended up being too expensive to bother with compared to missiles this is why the Zumwalts have those pretty guns that are never used because they refused to pay the price they wanted for the rounds after they canceled all the other Zumwalt orders.
And what ships have hypersonic or rail guns? Name one.
@@bill5982becoming relevant= in service, I guess
They're in development, and they have been for quite some time. They'll be on the scene eventually, and probably sooner rather than later
Even once they get railguns operationally effective, they won't put them on an Iowa-class. Their armor's good, but still outdated and outclassed. They'll build new ships then.
If they make railguns railgunbitself will be no bigger 5 inch turrets in most cases + yes we did hit a material science limit unless we find a way to RELOAD A BARREL and whichever ship carrying these railguns needs a couple nuclear reactors for it to be viable soooo yeah long time m8 loong time
Awesome choice in Forrest Sherman class picture. My grandfather served on the USS Barry DD 933, it’s a shame I never got to go on it before they scrapped it though
Carney almost certainly used SM-2s for some of the threats, likely the ballistic missiles - perhaps not the drones.
When protecting yourself or another ship, using the 5” or CIWS doesn’t guarantee you a kill - the missiles do.
I’m guessing almost everything was SM-2 or ESSM, but perhaps some fancy ammunition with the 5” may have been possible.
5" guns can easily take down supersonic aerial threats.
This guy has the coolest job ...and he is really good at it !!
5" guns are good for general purpose use, air, surface and land. Smaller guns, 57mm and 76mm are sufficient for air and surface, lighter ammo than 5" and higher rate of fire. I do not see the need for any gun over 5" in the foreseeable future.
I'm thinking a 155 or 6" would have more kill power than a 5/54, that's why they stuck them on the Zumwalts. And yes I know the gun system was a flop.
@@miketorres8441About the 155mm AGS, why didn’t the Navy go ahead with using M982 Excalibur rounds on it instead of cancelling AGS along with LRLAP?
I don't know why, I'm guessing the military industrial complex along with paid off Pentagon wonks just cared about the money.
I gotta tell ya man, I’m not one for leaving overly poetic comments for content creators, but this channel is DAD-GUM interesting. Seriously.I’ve had so many oddball questions answered here on a regular basis. Keep ‘em coming man.
The USS-Brush had 3-5"-38 dual gun mounts. Great for shore bombardment. Not much good for anything else. A big factor not mentioned was manning levels. I remember 5 or 6 men in the mount and more below. Much of that is automated now. The mounts were cramped and very hot in Viet Nam. No AC. No heat. Noisy. Very dangerous.
Another thing I'd add is that many people forget that pirates are still a thing in some parts of the world, and dealing with them is often left to navies. When dealing with a couple small and extremely cheap boats, missiles are probably overkill and in some cases may be more expensive than their targets. However, just having even a single modern 3in or 5in gun can be a great deterrent to pirates and easily deal with them if needed.
It's the time of year when Ryan and co. think "What spaces *inside* the ship can we make the topic for a video?"
Better to be warm inside the Battleship than be cold outside lol😂
Pirates in speedboats require something with a personal touch.
No ship really ever fires at full capacity in combat. They fire a couple of shells, check results, adjust if needed and fire again. Ability to rapid fire doesn’t require you do.
Gps guided shells could close that gap between salvos.
In how many ships have you qualified as a Tactical Action Officer?
@@frankbeardsley2941 The US navy has already started integrating laser weapons into Military ships. Please see USS Dewey....
@@andrewyork3869 What does that have to do with the question I asked?
@frankbeardsley2941 because the us navy is going that way regardless....
An interesting video Ryan :). I am not military never have been. But does not mean am not interested in it. I think the biggest reason for the reduction of guns is simply the role they play has changed. During WW2 for example the main guns were either used for shore bombardment / troop support or Ship to Ship combat. The smaller guns were primarily used for Air Defense of the ship itself. In the modern era. What used to be done by the main guns is now essentially done by missiles and or drones. When comes to close in ship protection yes there is still missiles but you also have things likes of the CWIS type systems. As backup to that then there is the 40mm, 30mm or 25mm guns out there now with the guided / programmable ammo etc. As the 25 or 30 or 40mm guns I would imagine are a lot lot cheaper to both build and install on a ship than installing more CWIS guns on a ship. Like what Ryan said I could definitely see the amount of those guns increased on modern ships. And because they are a lot lighter than say a CWIS setup you could fit more without effecting the overall weight being added to the ship. Maybe even more ships themselves carrying drones but again they are a costly item when compared to a gun.
Didn't the USN warships start WW2 with 50 cal machine guns and swap them out during the war with 20mm Oerlikon cannons, only for the 50 cal to come back much much much later?
It's a very small thing in the overall grand scheme of things, but like Ryan said. We might need to throw in a bunch of small caliber machine guns/cannons if drones continue to evolve.
Maybe we'd need to go back the good old air burst AA bullets... I imagine most of the rounds these days are FMJ or just pure metal AP rounds.
WWII UK AA bullets almost all have some airburst element to it to down the planes much easier (it was not used in pacific for OPSEC reasons, IIRC)
I dont believe the US navy ever switched back to the .50 on mass. As the war progressed, they move to larger and larger anti aircraft guns, and by the late war, the 40mm was standard issue on most things, but the US navy was already moving up to the 76mm, the 3inch/50 Mk 22. Simply because, while the other weapons were sufficient at defending against standard air attacks, against Kamikaze planes coming in on a direct course, they were often insufficient to stopping it. Since, even if the pilot is killed, it can still crash into the ship and destroy it. And with increasing speed of aircraft, you'd get so little time on target, moder powerful is better.
For the thing about the Airbust elements to UK ammo. I assume you mean the proxy fuse shells. They were incredibly secret yeah, but they were still widely deployed throughout the pacific. Problem was, fitting them in in the smaller guns was difficult, so they were only really used in the 5 inch guns, and later, the 3 inch guns. Modern naval guns still use them, the big ones. Navy destroyers dont tend to carry AP anymore, its not necessary. The main gun is used in surface shelling, engaging small targets at close range, and MAYBE trading fire with enemy fleet combatents. Given modern warships dont tend to carry more than shrapnel protection for armour, its sufficient. Those HE sells have a variable time fuse, a proxy fuse, set electronically, that can be used against air and ground targets.
The US 20mm Phalanx does use solid tungsten APDS. Higher velocity and the penetrative power is ideal for a small calibre weapon. The sheer volume of fire compensates. But I think almost every other nation's CIWS have mixed munition loadouts and can utilise variable fuse HE as well.
@@Thraxus Iirc 50 cal machine guns were brought back specifically to counter small attack crafts. I don't believe they are deployed on mass like the 20 mm were firing WW2, and they serve a very different purpose nowadays.
But I could be wrong. I'm more interested in the historical stuff because modern weapon systems doesn't engage my monke brain the same way 100+ barrels of various caliber sizes do.
@eric24567 Ah yeah. There are a few that are usually scattered around ships, or personal to quickly man to deal with tiny boats and commando teams, thought not the main countermeasure for that by any means. That's just the habit of the US military to stick as many machine guns on something as they can xD and not always approved by the top brass. A pair of 25mm autocannons usually handles the smaller threats primarily.
I was on the Elliot (DD-967) when we went into the yards in San Pedro to get the forward mount and asroc taken off to put in the VLS, that was about 3 years after she was commissioned, the New Jersey was there at the same time, just brought down from Bremerton
I don't know if the US Navy is the same, but the big problem the British Royal Navy has is a lack of offensive capability. We have fantastic anti-air systems, anti-ship systems, anti-submarine systems and anti-mine systems, but no way to go on the attack. They are looking to correct that in the next generation of ships. I wonder if that will include giving them more guns.
Maybe more medium caliber guns like 40 and 57mm. But I don't think there will be more than 1 main gun.
Nope. Constellation frigates will have a single 57mm gun.
I think he was talking RN ships. But that's true, constellation will only have 1
Great video man! Loved the info and perspective
Drones have changed the game.
I don't know very much about these ships so I wont try to predict anything, but i learnt alot. Thanks for the informative video
Dad was a gunner’s mate during WW2, he found the reduction of guns afloat disturbing. He was qualified on everything from machine guns to 8 inch guns. Shells are cheap and effective when used in the envelope it was developed for…it’s hard to argue with a 5” HE round going off in your lap!
That's what they're realizing with the anti-aircraft guns vs. the drone waves over in Ukraine. Guns are cheaper in the long run. Missiles rule, but guns (both 5" and 20mm) are still essential components.
@@tyree9055 Not every missile is a multi million dollar wonder weapon. Low end guided missiles cost 10's of thousands, about the same as a medium sized drone.
@@Akm72 That's still way more expensive than a $1 or $100 gun round.
Quick Google search shows that a 57mm Bofors round is over $1200 per round.
155 mm shells of today have quasi missile capabilities (and price to match) but you can use various types of shells for various tasks. If I were to build a modern missile boat, I would never forget to add at least one 155mm very capable gun like we see a French Ceasar truck, and also a a very capable AA gun like a 35 mm of a Gepard, the shells are each timed when exiting the barrel to fragment close to the target. Ammo capacity of the 155mm must be deep with different shell types. The systems are like oignon rings from radars to missiles for far away and last resort guns for closer targets. To defeat a boat you must use saturation attacks to deplete missiles, so guns add and complete missile capabilities, missiles can miss, then the guns are there.
Traditionally, I'd would improve on the number of guns fitted on a ship. Yes, it's not as accurate or have insanely long range as missiles, but guns are far cheaper to maintain and fire than a missile launcher. Which reminds me. Hey, Ryan, is there any chance you could possibly do a video on explaining why battleships like Tennessee, California, West Virginia, and the Montana-class (IF they were built and commissioned) couldn't just go through the Suez Canal instead of taking the longest route possible to the Atlantic coast or being limited to the Pacific fleet?
Sometimes it is more about the security of the travel than the travel it's self
Look at a globe - Suez is on the other side of the world! It's much shorter to go around South America.
@@fluffysheap True. But there are many circumstances to also factor in. Like the fact IF a battle fleet that is restricted from using the Panama Canal is located off the coast of Japan or anywhere else in the western Pacific region and had to report to the Mediterranean or back to the East coast of the US. Do you really think that said fleet would cross the Pacific Ocean to the southernmost tip of South American and come up that way?
There might also be a matter of older designs having a “accuracy through volume” approach where you carried more guns to help increase your odds of one of those rounds hitting the target. As systems improve or rate of fire of individual weapons increases, you don’t need that many guns to have the desired effect. Something similar happened with air-to-air systems. At the end of WWII, US fighters regularly carried six guns. Over time, that’s gone down and now they usually have one gun that spits out a lot of ammo by itself. (This could be another example of missiles not completely replacing guns, since “missile-only” aircraft were tried and found wanting.)
According to Friedman, the original discussion on the KGV design was between 12x14”, 9x15” (or 16”). The 12x14” won out because of the greater chance of a hit. The n squared rule
The failure of missiles in Vietnam was a combination of training and doctrinal failures, for the most part. Navy Phantoms had dramatically higher kill/loss ratios than Air Force Phantoms, even after the introduction of the E model, thanks to a combination of better training and a more capable Sidewinder variant that the Air Force didn't think was necessary.
Gunpowder behind a big hunk of metal in a tube wasn't good enough for the guys designing the Zumwalts, so they had to over engineer the round to the point it was too expensive to shoot.
The one million dollar shells right?
If so the largest factor as to why the cost was so high is because of scale.
I'll give you an example with video game consoles. Specifically the PS5.
When it and other game systems come out, they tend to be quite expensive. But once time passes, the industry to create it gets streamlined, and millions of units get sold/are in inventory, the prices drop. Sometimes significantly.
That would have been the case for the Zumwalt's shells because if all 32 ships were made like originally intended, those shells would cost anywhere from 80,000 a shell, all the way to around 30,000 a shell. And each shell would have been rocket propelled, guided, and have a range of 65 to 115 miles. (Future advancements could increase that range even more.) The range of a number of short-range missiles.
However, due to changes in naval doctrine, naval politics, and enemies (insurgents), the Zumwalts weren't viewed as necessary anymore do only 3 were made. That made the shells massively more expensive. 800,000 to 1,000,000 dollars a shell.
At that cost, you could just get a Tomahawk cruise missile with a far greater range and the exact same cost.
Couldn't agree more about the flak systems. I think we'll also see a much more hardened ECM systems on ships to counter drone swarms.
I think in a real engagement with VLS, you might quickly see CWIS cover being tight enough to suppress most incoming missiles and it coming down to a gunfight.
We might be envious of the old battleships if it comes to that.
There have been a lot of cases of ships destroying other ships with guns after ww2, mostly in low intensity conflicts or against
an underpowered opponent, but even when two warships of same capabilities with no limitations face off, guns can still be used to finish off an opponent after a misle has crippled them. An example I can think of is when three American destroyers sunk a Persian frigate during operation praying mantis, but there are a couple others with different countries
I would love to see an all gun cruiser or Destroyer platform with the amphibious task groups. Something like the Des Moines-class with three, three-gun(not triple) 8"/55 Mk 16 turrets for main battery and dual mount the 5"/62 Mark 36. Nothing says, the US Marines are landing like accurate shell fire that the landing force, the beach party, or even FACs can coordinate. The onboard Gunners can click on a target map, insert the fire mission in the gunfire queue, and send the steel rain.
Yes please.
for what?
Very informational video. In my opinion, I think it would be more ideal to build larger destroyers/battleships. Like you said, more guns on a ship means more defense against drones and more offense for shore bombardment.
Dreadnoughts and large gunship were never effective for any country, ever. They contributed, yes, but they were a military industrial complex boondoggle that never made up their cost. We have a hundred+ years of history to prove that.
I've seen in those war Sims that a modern vs 40s fleet Battle that the missiles run out. When the missiles run out the guns of the old ships completely obliterate the modern ships. A single 5 in vs 9 16in is a pretty hilarious battle. Even if all the big guns run out. The sheer number of smaller guns of the old ships still win. If not for the US Air craft carriers we would never have seen a large war ship in action again.
I lived at Smith Barracks from 1977-80.
8 man bays was the accomodations.
CSC 1/13 Inf. TOW plt. Only E-6 and above had two man rooms, nevermind a private bath. Y'all got it like the Hotel Ritz this day in age 😅
You also miss a key factor, Ryan. When New Jersey was built, you needed all those gun barrels because of (1) Rate of Fire and (2) accuracy. The current automatic 5" guns have a rate of fire so that one gun can pump out as many shells as several manually loaded 5" double turrets on New Jersey could and, just as importantly, lay those shells onto a target where the New Jersey guns relied on "a whole bunch of shells" to blanket an area, especially in terms of AA. Not a slam at New Jersey, but technology has allowed a single gun to do the work of several. As for the caliber of the guns...I'd LOVE to see bigger guns make a comeback for shore and other bombardment issues...8" or even 16". But they'd likely be a single, automated mount much like the Burkes now mount a single, 5", unmanned gunhouse. And if, we're talking about shore-bombardment, then you'd also have to ask if a Howitzer as opposed to a traditional rifle might be preferable.
I think it would be killer if the Iowa class was recommisioned, replace the old twin 5inch guns with modern 5 inch automatic guns ringing all the way around the ship.
That'd be a killer idea, but it'd probably be cost intuitive.
And yet in a previous video, Ryan stated stated that on the NJ some of the 5" gun crews could fire over 15 rounds a minute, per barrel! If I remember right, he said one crew could do 22 rounds per minute on one gun!
@@miketorres8441 with a well-trained gun crew, that's possible.
You're going to hit a hard wall with how many rounds you can put down range, and how much you can heat the barrel, before you shoot the barrel out.
Great video and you made me think that beehive round the Japanese made at the end of the war for super battle ship guns ironically decades later may have found a use in shooting down drone swarms 😂
I think there will be more guns. not sure of the size something flak for sure though. I have concerns over the effective range of lasers and the time it take to knock targets down. Lasers i think have questionable capability vs swarms. I think with the level of AI advancing there will be a point where the radar will see the drone swarm and a gun can fire of clouds of flack at various targets before the first one is confirmed down.
40mm bofors flak is back on the menu, boys!
I like to see a Tico-arrangement with a 5in forward and a 5in aft, and a heftier 30mm rotary or 40mm Bofors for point-defense. It's a shame they're removing the two forward guns from the Zumwalt's, I would replace the forward 155mm gun with a 5in and fit the Hyper-Sonics in the remaining space of the second 155mm mount. Of course, lasers offer another anti-drone weapon.
I’ve wondered if the Mk110 Mount can be added to a Burke.
I wouldn't be surprised to see ships with more Phalanx CIWS style weapons - For drone swarms, the BRRRRRRAP from the Gatling gun might be just the thing. That, and the aft flight-deck present on modern destroyers might get more exercise - it's begging to be used to deploy drone-swarms! And higher caliber guns might be used with smart munitions, sort of like the Excalibur. But really, the big stick seems to be missiles, because of the range. Oh, and lasers (does the Dr. Evil pinky thing.)
I think warfare could become up close and personal again. Electronic countermeasures and defenses against missiles and aircraft is always evolving. Who knows, maybe someday a 16" shell could be required to defeat a hornets nest somewhere.
Mk8 12 inch guns that can carry 12 inch 520kg shells can still penetrate almost same armor thickness as 14, 15 inches gun , so 16 inchs gun are not necessary
@@thanosfickda Armor is irrelevant, as nobody has any. What your 12" slug cant do, is penetrate hardened bunker structures as well as any given heavier shell. Its all about mass,speed and potential thickness of the shell to go through meters of steel reinforced concrete.
@@Ganiscol...or we could deploy a bunker buster.
instead of parking a warship inside enemy weapons range, and firing however many rounds to get a target down.
Or where ships (and especially whole fleets)’s PD (anti missile) networks are so effective that guns are required to wear down an enemy by destroying and disabling radars, CIWS turrets, etc to allow for a killing/finishing blow with missiles.
Well Ryan, I do agree somewhat with your assessment of returning to what I will call point defence guns but then you also have to explain the shift from CIWS to Sea RAM
SEARAM - overall system footprint and power requirement less than the prior regular RAM Mk 49 launcher. Making me think The LCS - SMALLER shorter range to its "main gun" necessitated some SAM missile. One class has RAM MK 49 other the SeaRAM.- wonder the what why. IRT a few DDG with SeaRAM replace the Phalanx - that a 1-off reason. Humm - next FFG will be Mk 49 - no SeaRam or Phalanx. Wonder system design - and maintenance comparisons.
I believe it’s the same reason that 20mm Oerlikons were obsoleted and replaced by 40mm Bofors; modern missiles have become too fast, stealthy and smart (I.e. evasive) for the 20mm Vulcan to be able to _reliably_ intercept them before impact. SeaRAM and similar systems have about 3x the range, so have a much bigger window to intercept.
I say bring back the monitor concept. Get a ship with one or two big gun turrets for shore bombardment, a 5 inch or two for lighter bombardment/flak, CWIS/Rolling Airframe missiles, and some tomahawk VLS tubes for longer range work. It'd fill the role the Iowas kept getting pulled back for without having to go through that whole process again.
You are describing the Zumwalt. Sort of.
@@jstogdill The Zunwalt is what happens when brutalism meets immature weapon technology. The Monitor I envision is already existing technology amalgamated onto a ship. Might need to do some research for the guns, since we haven't made stuff that big in decades, but all of it is already existing technology.
@@wrenchinator9715 fair enough. I’m
Curious though, what compelling strategic contingency requires one? If I were tasked with prioritizing navy shipbuilding I’m not sure that would be high on my list.
I agree, I think the 40mm will make a big comeback as an anti drone/missile point defence weapon.
More anti-swarm CIWS type weapons will need to be implemented in future conflicts as the Ukraine war and current Middle East fighting have clearly demonstrated. Using missiles against drones, at a 1000-to-1 cost factor, is fine for saving ships and saving lives in the short-term, however it's not sustainable.
I think we will see more Small caliber guns and Phalanx system, Better Missiles and also smaller missile systems for self defense. Its true that missiles are Expensive and get better sensors but "older" missile will get cheaper and already have insane capabilities. lets hope the esm systems can keep up the pace also. Early detection is key for defense and offense. When it comes to guns, they are nice to have to deal with smaller vessels and are probably most useful on Coastguard vessels or on vessels that deal with pirates who dont have warships, should be more then enough to make them think twice. If you are facing another warship then battle will most likely be outside of canon range. i could go on longer but i dont really know much about the subject and this is only an opinion so dont take it all so serious since i dont know what i am talking about.
The problem with missiles is once you expend your missile cells, you really can't reload at sea.
Plus when you expend a 10 million dollar cruise missile to sink a 100,000 dollar fishing jonk you're doing something wrong. This is exactly why guns were added to USS Long Beach at the eleventh hour of her design. The USN realized that they could fight enemies that wasn't the USSR and far poorer.
Not asking about that when I went to the Interprid is my biggest gripe about that trip! I noticed that the Aircraft Carrier clearly had a bunch of guns turrets earlier but the latter iterations had almost none anywhere near as visivle
Remember, the F-4 Phantom originally didn't have a gun. It was added at the F-4E version because of the missile failures in Vietnam
True, but the bugs from the early Sidewinders have been worked out after 40+ years of development.
If you could send modern missiles back to the Vietnam-era, the Phantoms wouldn’t NEED a Vulcan.
And every fighter since has had a gun (except the F-111 and F-117 if you take the 'F' literally), however the quantity of ammunition they carry for those guns has trended sharply downward with the latest F-35 carrying just 180 to 220 25mm rounds.
Yeah, that argument doesn't work anymore bc missiles are good.
And yet Navy Phantoms, which lacked a gun, _still_ heavily outscored the E-model. It's almost like training and taking advantage of the best available missiles is what made the difference.
there's nothing as badass as a world war era battleship
remember the line in "TED" about the apache attack helicopter? they got nothing on battleships. they are swimming cities where every single inhabitant tries to shoot you down at all ranges or helps others directly in doing so
Too close for missiles, switching to guns…
One argument for guns I have is that, while VLS missles are certainly better in terms of accuracy, damage, etc etc, there's a distinctly limited amount of them ready to fire, and their direct access to the deck requirement makes them limited too, plus replenishing them is currently a nightmare even in calm seas. Therefore, I feel it would make sense for perhaps a cruiser with a much larger gun to be made, with a payload at least rivaling that of missiles, especially for targets where pinpoint accuracy isn't as key (like for shore bombardment, especially for static positions), and especially as anti-missile tech advances. Furthermore we have advances in artillery technologies that are making them very precise - of course there are many more variables shooting from water but the tech will come, and current waterborne 5-inch gun precision is proof of that. Overall I'm not expecting more guns, I'm expecting bigger guns complete with autoloaders, precision, and range.
Once upon a time, they took guns off fighter aircraft because they thought dog fighting was a thing of the past, eventually they started putting guns back on fighter aircraft, think the same thing will happen with ships.
Yes, but they eventually started to take the guns back off the fighters. The prediction that dog fighting was a thing of the past was only wrong in timing, not in being eventually correct.
The technologies allowing Beyond Visual Range engagements are now well developed. Mostly Identifying Friend and Foe, as well as improvements in Radar and missiles. (and stealth). Guns could make a come back on unmanned craft, but for manned craft, they are no longer necessary. (neither the F-35B nor the F-35C have a gun)
Just like the predictions made by the aircraft admirals between WW1 and WW2. They would eventually be kinda right, Aviation makes surface ships take the back seat, but they were way off on when that would happen.
@@loganvanderwier8866I liked your comment but respectfully disagree. Guns are necessary.
@@loganvanderwier8866but if anyone has stealth technology how are your missiles going to lock on. I know that might be far-fetched but I would say that's more closer to reality. Because we haven't had stealth aircraft versus stealth aircraft yet. So if your missiles can't lock on to your opponent you're going to have to need a gun to be able to defeat the other stealth aircraft.
@@celtic1842They can lock on, it just reduces the range which they can.❤
@@celtic1842 radar stealth, like camouflage, don't make you invisible. They just decrease the range of detection. So the battlefield will be more and more networked. Cheap drones will be feeding information to fighters, which then make decisions and launch missiles themselves or tell other drones to launch missiles
I for one would love to see the rebirth of the battleships. The battleship is even more of a symbol of the Navy than the modern aircraft carrier.
Funny you should ask, because I've given this some thought myself recently. The answer is that lasers have reached the point where they will overtake phalanx and rolling airframe missiles as well as 25-40mm gun turrete for general defense. Obviously there is no limit to their magazine as long as the ship itself is fuelled, and the costs per shot are negligible comparatively. Second, the development of 155mm guns which use standard artillery shells, but are propelled at hyoersonic speed by hydrogen-oxygen fuel hydrolized from seawater using electricity will become the preferred main gun for shore bombardment and also anti-ship engagement where applicable. This will all take pressure off the ship's missile magazine, which can be reserved for strategic necessities.
Great video! Did I miss the point about intense ship to ship fire fights being largely replaced with more sophisticated missile, subsurface, or aircraft opperations?
Informative video!
Thanks for the video. It's interesting how anti air doctrine will probably take us back to a deck full of AA guns
Pretty informative video. Subscribed!
What we have today(Houthis drones attacking) is the ships launching a $500,000 to $2,000,000 missile to knock down a $10,000(or lower) attacking drone. A problem we also have today is we do not have the capacity to reload the missile cells at sea. We decided we wouldn't need to reload our ships on the move after the USSR fell.
The Netherlands Navy new frigates are getting a combo of 2x40mm guns and a 76mm gun with guided ammunition (DART). With that combo you can down a lot of drones at a much greater distance than a traditional CIWS like Goalkeeper or Phalanx..
Considering how much more common air drones are but also sea drones which basically brings the small torpedo boat dynamic back from obsolescence we will see more guns but of smaller calibers meant to take on targets that are not worth expending a missile but still essential to take down in numbers
And I was looking forward to a 15 second video. With 15 seconds intro and outro and the world ROCKETS somewhere in between.
The short answer is accuracy and quality is always replacing quantity and target tolerance.
When a 12inch gun had to fire tens of shells to hit or affect a target, with a single missle this job is now much quicker and and more repeatable.
Imo: automation and miniaturization will replace most jobs currently are done with missles. Kamikaze Drones is one immediate future, but I think another contender will ultimately win the game.
Consider a shell roughly the size of a 50 cal that comes with integrated circuits and GPS navigation. It will be programmed as bullet/shell ie leaving the barrel , each round can theoretically hit a different target or they can converge on a point in series or even in parallel (all at once) for greater affect. Such new weapons can take over roles and responsibilities of 1-10 mile, and they range can be expended with small flight fins and a small rocket booster.
This may sound futuristic but every element of my example has already been deployed on various platform. We just need to bring it all together in one small but smart bullet, with impeccable backend software to support its targeting.
My 2¢
As missile defenses become more sophisticated, I can see naval guns and gun cruisers coming back to overwhelm missile defenses with high rates of fire, though they will be single or a pair of barrels shooting shells similar US Army's new ERCA ramjet-assisted shells, guided by drones (the ships will also be unmanned or minimally manned).
I remember cruisers having one 5 inch gun in the forward section and one on the aft section(unless it was a smaller caliber of gun for the aft section).
Missiles and carrier air groups do a lot more in terms of naval combat. But, I think one more gun, single barrel and a smaller caliber added to the aft section of a warship could be possible. But I may be wrong because the Arleigh-Burke destroyers use speed and their offensive capabilities to defend a carrier, or even an Iowa class battleship.
If a battleship or battle cruiser were to be built today, it would probably resemble Russia’s Kirov class battle cruiser and it might be longer and stronger in order to hold a larger capacity of shells.
Or include another Phalanx CWIS.
Requesting a part two video titled: Zumwalt.
Glad to see Ryan has a new belt. 🙂🇦🇺