Naval guns today are guided by radar and automatic, computerized fire control system. Some guns are directed by electro-optic systems and usually those shoots fast at closer range.

 

I mean really fast, try 200-6000rpm.

Even cannon fuzes can be programmable and computer controlled.

sorry about the multiple posts. i keep getting error messages when i send, but it obviously still goes thru?

 if the moderators would like to kill the repeats thatd be tops. cheers.

barely a bite!? im surprised. considering that missile focused doctrine [over the horizon] is the biggest leap since black powder made the flaming arrow redundant.

im not expecting any OPSEC sensitive revelations, but surely theres scope for some comment.

- i can accept the value of missile technology against a smaller less equipped vessel [yes, the enemy elected to put it to sea in that configuration, so your expensive weapons system is accordingly effective]. but what about say... frigate v frigate engagements? just how presumptuous is it to assume that your missile round will actually strike the target? if you know it has good countermeasures is it even worth wasting missile round[s] on it, especially when magazine capacities are comparatively small? IF your missile barrage has a minimal effect and the enemy is still capable, what then?

 

You call to other assets in the area (frigates usually don't plod along by themselves) to finish off your target using the range of their anti-ship missiles. Development and testing of missile technology isn't done by wasting rusting hulks in a firing exercise, the guidance and seeker systems are tested against the latest countermeasures known to exist. You can reduce the RCS of your ship, deploy the latest jamming and chaff systems, arm it with anti-missile missiles and cannons, and there's still a good chance your ship will be hit. The main theme in modern naval combat is saturation. You salvo enough missiles towards the target so one of your shots will leak through.

 

By the time the ships close to gun range, other friendly naval or air assets would be in range to support you. Worst case scenario is that your frigate is alone and help is a ways off. You still have your 5" gun that is certainly capable of inflicting serious damage on a similar sized enemy to incapacitate, or at least cause the enemy to disengage and head home.

 

Although missiles may be replaced somewhat when rail guns become economical enough to put on warships.

LOS weapons are fine and dandy - until the target moves - then you're going to be relying on yield effects to do the job and hope that the CEP is fat enough to still impact the target before it moves out of range

rail guns to all intents and purposes they are unguided weapons.  if you can't steer the weapon to target then you immediately start to limit its utility in complex space.

so, should we get HMAS Vampire outa darling harbour, load it full of latest missile countermeasures, under that umbrella sail up into range and decimate anything that gets in the way? - what do you reckon? cheers.

You need more than ECM, flares, and chaff.  These systems do not stop missiles, just confuse them enough that they have guess where the target is.  Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong but stumble into you anyway.  It's a crap shoot.

 

You need to be able to defend against aircraft using laser and optically guided bombs and missiles, subsonic surface skimming missiles, low, medium, and high altititude supersonic missiles, and IRBMs like the Chinese are supposed to be working on.  And do not forget about submarines.

 

This means lots of missiles to keep the aircraft out of launch range, thin out the missiles, and shoot down the IRBM's.  And a lot of point defense to take out the survivors that the ECM does not confuse.  And add several helicopters to keep the subs from getting to close.  So you end up with something close to the [canceled] CG(X) concept, which would have been about 10x bigger than the HMAS Vampire.