I remember that the procedure was to have a Type 21 as the primary shore bombardment asset but have a Type 12 or Leander standing by to take over if the Mk8 failed.
How did the performance of the Mk8 improve with the Mod1 variant.
Not sure, but the Mk. 8 did get a new stealthier mounting and other improvements. There was also a proposal to build a 155mm version, but that was cancelled:
"The latest 4.5" (11.4 cm) mounting, the "Electric Gun" Mark 8 Mod 1, is a boxier-looking mounting that is designed to reduce the radar cross section. RO Defence, a division of British Aerospace Systems (BAE), was awarded the contract in 1998 for the full development, production and support of this new weapon system. The Mod 1 uses electric motors for almost all functions in place of the hydraulic actuators and servos used on Mod 0 except for those motions on the elevating mass. These changes improve safety, reduce power consumption and cut the overall mounting weight by 3.7 tons (4 mt). Lower deck space requirements have also been substantially reduced. Some Mod 1 mounts will receive a special antenna as part of the Experimental Course-Corrected Shell Program."
"it was proposed that later units might use the 155 mm Naval Gun. However, both the follow on ships and the 155 mm gun were later canceled."
See:
www.navweaps.com
Note that the Royal Navy will be switching to 5-inch guns in future warships:
"Last year, BAE received a $245 million contract from the Ministry of Defence to provide the gun system, known as the Maritime Indirect Fires System (MIFS), for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. Under the contract, the company will manufacture three MIFS Integrated Gunnery Systems (IGS) and one trainer system for the UK Royal Navy. The MIFS IGS includes the 5-inch, 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System, along with an automated ammunition handling system, gun fire control system, and qualified ammunition.
The Mk 45 naval gun is widely used by the US Navy and allied nations."
See:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Amusingly, some in the British media interpreted this the wrong way:
"A British tabloid made an embarrassing error Friday, writing a hysterical piece that incorrectly reported the Defence Ministry had paid hundreds of millions of pounds to buy a five-inch-long gun.
“We just blew £183m on a five-inch gun, but it’s ‘a good value for taxpayers,’” read the outraged headline from The Daily Star. The subheadline also reinforced that the author believed the gun was literally five inches, calling it “the length of a toothbrush.”
The only problem? Five-inch guns are named after their caliber, not their length. They shoot munitions that are five inches in diameter, meaning the guns themselves are necessarily huge."
See:
Yes, the Daily Star has printed this. They seem to have confused the caliber of a new gun with the length of it — UK Defence Journal.
sofrep.com
