tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1432753407281361014..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Military's FocusComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63157930452751480812020-10-19T11:48:47.818-07:002020-10-19T11:48:47.818-07:00What you need is copy China 052D.What you need is copy China 052D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79891958680455091192020-10-18T13:39:39.360-07:002020-10-18T13:39:39.360-07:00"This makes the 155 mm projectile equal in ex..."This makes the 155 mm projectile equal in explosive effect to a 40 mm or 76 mm gun. I'm not sure the effort of sending a tiny explosive a long way is worth it."<br /><br />If the explosive and/ or kinetic effect is great enough to damage what it hits it might be worth it if the rate of fire is high enough. As an example the difference between an arty shell and a 7.62 minigun. The arty will take out a tank easily. The minigun will piss off the crew when they realize they have to repaint. But an area covered by a minigun can very effectively kill infantry.<br /><br />So the two big questions are: are the projectiles powerful enough to affect the target (or do they just scratch the paint) and can you send enough fast enough to affect the needed area (the ship).<br /><br />If the answer is yes on both the smaller, longer range projectile may be the way to go until the targets add armor.Trondude 5952https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625187976091596494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5279264023879513002020-10-18T11:53:40.068-07:002020-10-18T11:53:40.068-07:00While not familiar with the above-mentioned rounds...While not familiar with the above-mentioned rounds, I recently saw a youtube of a company in (Sweden??). Theyre prototyped and testing a ramjet round. In 155, theyre talking about 150km range. Obviously youre again lowering the amount of explosive, and a massive,heavy round like 16in would have to be significantly light on the explosive. But... If you werent trying for the insane range, and looked at the 40-50 mile range, it might be worthwhile...<br />A revival of the 8in, with a mix of conventional, and long range rounds could certainly hold promise, again not giving up explosive content for ultra long range, but finding the happy medium...Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54426143708587415242020-10-18T10:34:17.588-07:002020-10-18T10:34:17.588-07:00"A 70 caliber barrel would be around 93 ft lo..."A 70 caliber barrel would be around 93 ft long. The actual barrel on an Iowa is around 60 ft."<br /><br />Again, the longer barrel was to fire smaller projectiles. The optimal barrel length for a 16" CLGG could be even less than 60ft.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43592720337204664222020-10-18T10:32:18.536-07:002020-10-18T10:32:18.536-07:00"You're comparing a modern, fully automat..."You're comparing a modern, fully automated system to a 1930's era, fully manual system."<br /><br />Yes, I am.<br /><br />"The Zumwalt gun system uses zero manning, for example."<br /><br />Even the CLGG designed for the Zumwalt would have been an upgrade to that over-priced gun-assisted rocket launcher.<br /><br />I agree that such and automated 16" gun could be built. I just hope to see such a gun in my lifetime. The CLGG could currently be built.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54826513020819666612020-10-18T10:21:53.919-07:002020-10-18T10:21:53.919-07:00"No modern battleship has been 'blown in ..."No modern battleship has been 'blown in half'."<br /><br />Since the CLGG is much safer than powder charges, they wouldn't be in the future either.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85794173886384934082020-10-18T10:19:17.496-07:002020-10-18T10:19:17.496-07:00"Let's also bear in mind that hydrogen is..."Let's also bear in mind that hydrogen is also quite flammable and explosive..."<br /><br />Please refer to "'Twenty Hydrogen Myths' by Amory B. Lovins, which is included in the report.<br /><br />Hydrogen is not in itself flammable and explosive. If a tank was to be hit, the amount of O2 in the atmosphere will be greatly outnumbered by the Hydrogen atoms. Thus, it will burn and not explode.<br /><br />I would place multiple, conformal tanks on the outside of the ship. Perhaps oxygen to port, hydrogen to starboard. Any such leaks would thus go into the atmosphere. The reason they proposed putting the tanks inside the Zumwalt was to maintain stealth.<br /><br />"and requires proper storage"<br /><br />Industry has been storing hydrogen gas for decades and safety protocols are well established. I have a sickly relative who keeps multiple tanks of O2 on his porch. This is also not dangerous because oxygen is also not, in itself, flammable and explosive.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25014064094365661962020-10-18T10:13:51.110-07:002020-10-18T10:13:51.110-07:00"How many sailors did it take to transfer pow..."How many sailors did it take to transfer powder for those guns?"<br /><br />Let's be fair. You're comparing a modern, fully automated system to a 1930's era, fully manual system. A modern 16" gun could be fully automated, too. The Zumwalt gun system uses zero manning, for example.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50285350815957150672020-10-18T10:11:44.314-07:002020-10-18T10:11:44.314-07:00"would make the need for dangerous transfers ..."would make the need for dangerous transfers and shipments of propellants obsolete."<br /><br />You're glossing over the dangers of hydrogen.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69228093926433199332020-10-18T10:10:29.272-07:002020-10-18T10:10:29.272-07:00"I would like to see a 16" Battleship CL..."I would like to see a 16" Battleship CLGG."<br /><br />This is the practical aspect I was talking about. A 70 caliber barrel would be around 93 ft long. The actual barrel on an Iowa is around 60 ft. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74677193311095799712020-10-18T10:04:40.493-07:002020-10-18T10:04:40.493-07:00" Not having this dangerous payload is one pr..." Not having this dangerous payload is one practical reason."<br /><br />I'm guessing you're referring to Hood or Arizona. No modern battleship has been 'blown in half'. Modern magazines and charges are no more or less safe than any other munition.<br /><br />Let's also bear in mind that hydrogen is also quite flammable and explosive (2011 Fukushima massive explosion, for example) and requires proper storage unless it's going to be generated on the fly which I don't think is possible.<br /><br />Small leaks can build up the relatively low (4%) concentration required for ignition and leaks are a reasonably likely scenario in combat or just routine operation.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2752131810740111052020-10-18T09:22:41.775-07:002020-10-18T09:22:41.775-07:00"Bear in mind that the gun must be practical ..."Bear in mind that the gun must be practical to operate."<br /><br />The CLGG compared to the Iowa Class Battleship guns (which I love) is far less complex. It would automate the propellant loading, allow immediate gas expulsion in an emergency or if the round will not be fired after loading.<br /><br />How many sailors did it take to transfer powder for those guns? For this one, it would take 0. How much time to get it from storage and into the gun? For this one, it takes seconds.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-512899884296216832020-10-18T09:13:31.093-07:002020-10-18T09:13:31.093-07:00"Overall, I find this interesting technology ..."Overall, I find this interesting technology but only marginally useful unless I'm missing something."<br /><br />Being able to produce propellant from sea water would free up space used for propellants, allowing more rounds to be stored.<br /><br />Being able to constantly produce propellant, much the same way as nuclear submarines make oxygen from seawater, would make the need for dangerous transfers and shipments of propellants obsolete.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5221864685147071072020-10-18T09:07:21.273-07:002020-10-18T09:07:21.273-07:00"Projectile weight affects range, in addition..."Projectile weight affects range, in addition to initial projectile speed."<br /><br />I would like to see a 16" Battleship CLGG. Same weight for the rounds and a barrel length to maximize performance. It would go much farther than the solid propellant could push it. Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38867926633572144862020-10-18T09:00:42.940-07:002020-10-18T09:00:42.940-07:00"Use that statement cautiously and with under..."Use that statement cautiously and with understanding."<br /><br />While not a cannon expert, I am a math whiz. I tried to copy/paste the CLGG Physics calculations (page 12) but it will not enter correctly onto your form.<br /><br />That is unfortunate because it proves my point.<br /><br />"The CLGG, by using propellants with low molecular mass (as compared to a solid propellant) and thus much higher sound speed, is able to achieve considerably higher performance. In physical terms the pressures produced in the combustion<br />chamber of the CLGG are transmitted much more efficiently to the projectile base as the projectile accelerates downbore."Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86829496625183796352020-10-18T08:47:24.580-07:002020-10-18T08:47:24.580-07:00"Overall, I find this interesting technology ..."Overall, I find this interesting technology but only marginally useful unless I'm missing something."<br /><br />The reason many do not want Battleships is because they remember some in the past being blown in half by their own gun propellants. Not having this dangerous payload is one practical reason.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48119811092332804432020-10-18T08:45:03.149-07:002020-10-18T08:45:03.149-07:00"A hundred foot barrel on 200 ft ship is not ..."A hundred foot barrel on 200 ft ship is not practical, to be illustratively ridiculous."<br /><br />I am speaking of the technology, not that particular gun. A gun made for a larger, heavier round will require a shorter barrel. That gun was made to fire tiny rounds. Try to imagine one that does not.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-395026740462436192020-10-18T08:16:06.471-07:002020-10-18T08:16:06.471-07:00"Using a heavier round will INCREASE THE EFFI..."Using a heavier round will INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY of the gun."<br /><br />Use that statement cautiously and with understanding. While the efficiency may increase, the effectiveness will reach a peak and then decrease. For example, if the projectile weight is increased a little bit, the efficiency may increase and the effectiveness (range, I guess) will also increase. However, if the projectile weight continues to increase beyond a certain point, the efficiency will plateau and the effectiveness will begin to decrease. Consider the extreme of a million pound projectile. The efficiency of the H/O burn will be 100% as it will be completely contained within the barrel but the projectile will not move (0% effectiveness). So, presumably, there's an optimum projectile weight and increases or decreases in weight will negatively impact effectiveness.<br /><br />"twice as fast and therefore, twice as far."<br /><br />Again, be sure you understand this statement. Projectile weight affects range, in addition to initial projectile speed. As an extreme example, a feather launched at Mach 7 is not going to travel to the moon. It will very quickly slow and fall to the earth with very little range. At the other end of the spectrum, a million pound projectile launched at, say, 1000 ft/s will slow and drop quickly (gravity still exists!). So, again, there's an optimum weight/speed to achieve maximum range.<br /><br />The question ultimately boils down to can we achieve worthwhile ranges for a USEFUL weight of explosive and with a practical gun system (barrel length)? The little I read suggested that the benefits are marginal especially when the gun system is factored in. Bear in mind that the gun must be practical to operate. A hundred foot barrel on 200 ft ship is not practical, to be illustratively ridiculous. There are also practical considerations and concerns involving manufacturing of the barrel, barrel/liner changes in the gun, space on the ship, the fulcrum weight of the barrel (one photo seemed to show the end of the barrel being supported in a test shot), etc.<br /><br />Overall, I find this interesting technology but only marginally useful unless I'm missing something.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75206692289389028862020-10-18T07:38:52.734-07:002020-10-18T07:38:52.734-07:00I completely agree with you on switching from firi...I completely agree with you on switching from firing real rounds toward firing little spikes. I actually regret mentioning the Barrage Round while speaking of the CLGG, since I don't want to conflate the two.<br /><br />I think it is a good option for soft targets, or for reaching far off targets of opportunity but I do not argue for it to replace any explosive round.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3323277491504563752020-10-18T07:34:19.718-07:002020-10-18T07:34:19.718-07:00If you read the longer "Final Report" (a...If you read the longer "Final Report" (a lot, I know) you will find that H+O mix burns at a certain rate. Using a heavier round will INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY of the gun.<br /><br />Essentially, this gun can fire the same rounds (with some modification) as any gun, only twice as fast and therefore, twice as far.Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73204066963170961382020-10-18T07:27:03.559-07:002020-10-18T07:27:03.559-07:00"The other thing I note is the barrel length ..."The other thing I note is the barrel length with tests using 70-100 caliber tubes."<br /><br />Imagine that the Navy wants you to fire a 100lb shell out of a 16" gun. As you know, the propellant does not explode; it burns. Being so light, the projectile would begin to exit the barrel quickly. So fast, in fact that most of the power from the propellant would end up being waisted as a big fireball. You would need to make the barrel much longer to continue adding velocity to the projectile...<br /><br />The reason that the tube is so long is because the Navy wants the gun to fire the tiny darts that they are so proud of!Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59031940320363196482020-10-17T16:36:18.622-07:002020-10-17T16:36:18.622-07:00Both the Autonomous Naval Support Round and Barrag...Both the Autonomous Naval Support Round and Barrage Round fragmentation rounds which are only useful against soft targets. The Barrage Round is a sub (sub, sub?) caliber sabot round with, obviously, a greatly reduced explosive effect compared to a standard 5" HE round.<br /><br />This is the problem with all attempts at long range: they depend on significantly sub-size rounds to achieve the range. Sure, we can deliver a rifle bullet a thousand miles but it has no practical effect. Everyone likes to talk about sub-caliber 16" rounds that can travel 50 miles, or whatever, but the sub-caliber round then only has the explosive effect of a 6" or 8" shell and that's not worth the effort. When someone figures out how to deliver a 2400 lb, 16" shell 50 miles, then we'll have something!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20082490303627660482020-10-17T16:27:26.533-07:002020-10-17T16:27:26.533-07:00"Utron CLGG ... I cannot imagine why nobody s..."Utron CLGG ... I cannot imagine why nobody seems to care."<br /><br />I know very little about this but your slide show reference was interesting. One thing that jumped out from it was the very small size of the projectile in the 155 mm test. The projectile, at 21 kg (95 lb) is half the weight of a normal 155 mm HE shell which, presumably, means half the explosive weight or (I suspect) less. This makes the 155 mm projectile equal in explosive effect to a 40 mm or 76 mm gun. I'm not sure the effort of sending a tiny explosive a long way is worth it.<br /><br />I don't know how the technology scales up but, for sake of discussion, if it's linear that would make a 16" shell equivalent to an 8" in effect and so on down the line.<br /><br />The other thing I note is the barrel length with tests using 70-100 caliber tubes. That's getting pretty long on a relative basis. In the slide show example, a 155 mm projectile would require a barrel of almost 36 ft (70 caliber) on up to 51 ft (100 caliber). By comparison, a standard 5" naval gun has a barrel of 26 ft (5"/62). The barrel length looks to be prohibitively long for the weight of explosive being delivered.<br /><br />I see from the graphs that heavier shells and shorter barrels can be used but then the range starts dropping off quite a bit.<br /><br />The 'claim to fame' seems to be the ability to deliver small explosives to long distances but I'm not sure that's useful.<br /><br />Note: I'm not familiar with the technology so I may be missing some attractive aspect.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40237232282810582162020-10-17T15:46:37.224-07:002020-10-17T15:46:37.224-07:00I apologize, this is your statement I meant to res...I apologize, this is your statement I meant to respond to:<br /><br />"Although once again it seems likely to die on the bit where the shell makes missiles look inexpensive. And a fantasy on par with the rail gun."Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66366520638519806842020-10-17T15:45:33.173-07:002020-10-17T15:45:33.173-07:00"Why not just something bigger than a 155mm g..."Why not just something bigger than a 155mm gun that delivers cheap range increases and auto loading rapidity with shoot and scoot ability?"<br /><br />I don't think so. As you can see on the Ultron paper, the CLGG 155mm gun was already tested with the Barrage Round. Some info on that round.<br /><br />https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2002/Navy-Tests-New-RoundsPrometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.com