tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post6611460725035850837..comments2024-03-19T01:17:12.212-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Mk45 AssessmentComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49594464777970122302018-12-21T17:36:04.830-08:002018-12-21T17:36:04.830-08:00The concept of a 155 mm gun on the LCS is okay (st...The concept of a 155 mm gun on the LCS is okay (structural issues notwithstanding on the very lightly built LCS!) but my problem is with the numbers. A single gun is almost useless in an assault scenario. In order to mass effective fire volumes, we need many, many guns. Now, if we could fit several of these on one LCS then we'd have the start of a useful platform.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31542524971093717252018-12-21T15:01:55.558-08:002018-12-21T15:01:55.558-08:00The US Army recently tested a light, recoil-absorb...The US Army recently tested a light, recoil-absorbing 155mm howitzer. Perhaps this technology could be adapted to arm the LCS or a ship specializing in NSFS. For a Flight III Burke with all its expensive electronics, it's too risky. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24663/army-tests-low-recoil-155mm-howitzer-small-enough-to-fit-on-the-back-of-a-truckAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73732410158515359142018-12-20T19:45:45.293-08:002018-12-20T19:45:45.293-08:00" The weight penalty between the weapon and h..." The weight penalty between the weapon and hull strengthening just adds more complication and cost to a ship that needs to refocus on AAW,"<br /><br />I quite agree about focusing on AAW. However, you should note that there is no real weight penalty in the sense that you're suggesting. The Spruance class was designed and built for the Mk71 and that class was only around 8000 ton displacement versus the Burke's 9000 tons. A properly designed ship can handle armor and heavy weapons while maintaining speed and endurance (range) as we repeatedly demonstrated with class after class of ship in WWII.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21075785512526855312018-12-20T14:10:36.010-08:002018-12-20T14:10:36.010-08:00While Im a proponent of ressurecting the 8in gun, ...While Im a proponent of ressurecting the 8in gun, I dont think its somthing that should find its way onto a Flt III/properly sized AMDR-carrying Burke, as it goes against the notion that it should be AAW-centric. The weight penalty between the weapon and hull strengthening just adds more complication and cost to a ship that needs to refocus on AAW, and would probably never be hazarded close to shore anyway due to current Navy policies. In wiki articles, accuracy was cited as the reason for the discontinuation of the experiments in the 1970s. I imagine that modern manufacturing processes and gun control could fix that. But as the basis for a "gun" ship the 8in is absolutely somthing thats needs to be revisited!!Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78543065429628782112017-08-10T11:24:15.098-07:002017-08-10T11:24:15.098-07:00I have no idea what point, if any, you're tryi...I have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make. Try again?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35997868909906400652017-08-10T11:04:20.293-07:002017-08-10T11:04:20.293-07:00Online 'analysts' like to pick at performa...Online 'analysts' like to pick at performance nuances. There's so much more that goes into an acquisition. Investing in the development of a slightly better gun system that's still just for show would pull funds from projects developing real improvements. If cost wasn't a factor, every ship would be nuclear powered with ten railguns. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79864196535844050842014-11-07T06:17:01.002-08:002014-11-07T06:17:01.002-08:00Smitty,
8” naval weapons absolutely spank modern ...Smitty,<br /><br />8” naval weapons absolutely spank modern 155mm guns even using 1940s technology carrying 3x the shell weight of the medium caliber guns.<br /><br />The 8"/55RF (20.3 cm) Mark 16 weapon found on the Des Moines (CA-134) class had a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute (times nine guns = 90 rounds per minute!) and could throw an AP Mark 21 weighing 335 lbs to a range of 30,050 yards (27,480 m). That is 15 tons of shells per minute from one ship!<br /><br />On the receiving end, at maximum range, the AP shell struck at a velocity of 1,296 fps (395 mps) and an angle of 54.7 degrees. This is guaranteed to be <br /><br />The best current 155mm system is the PZH2000 has a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute and could throw an L15A2 or M795 round weighing~103lbs to a range of 30km. <br /><br />Using modern weapons technology, there is every reason to believe that we could build a 20-25cm (8” -9”) gun with a sustained ROF of 12 rounds per minute and the ability to lob 360 lb shells to 40km with no reliability issues, and minimal development risk. We could also easily use sabot technology to throw a smaller 155mm projectile, significantly longer distances (yes the Germans pioneered firing sub projectiles from rifled barrels in WWII). We could also go with a smoothbore weapon and use PGM technology.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14655588067587625552014-11-06T21:05:23.983-08:002014-11-06T21:05:23.983-08:00Didn't the older 5" 'ers have higher ...Didn't the older 5" 'ers have higher rates of fire? The lightweight 5" slowed things down- but shed so much weight the Navy went for it. The 5" is a sad compromise- but it was easy enough to throw a 5" on- if for aesthetic reasons only. Maybe they should ditch the 5"- put a VLS in its place - and maybe put a 30mm somewhere for small boats/helicopters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28818832191714693152014-11-06T13:33:32.262-08:002014-11-06T13:33:32.262-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63297047607506175642014-11-06T07:14:16.147-08:002014-11-06T07:14:16.147-08:00Smitty,
You make some great arguments against the...Smitty,<br /><br />You make some great arguments against the 8" (and larger) calibers, but the real determinant has been driven by weight (logistics) rather than effect. <br /><br />Weight is much less of an issue for ships and there is no question that a larger shell becomes much more effective at delivering HE, frag, and cargo munitions than medium caliber (155mm) weapons. The penetrative power of 203mm or larger gun against concrete targets is phenomenal, and the effects of such a weapon using super quick PD against abatis, barbed wire and other fortifications is likewise spectacular.<br /><br />We have spent the better part of 70-years chasing 3rd world peoples around the battlefield in unimportant wars of choice: I have no doubt that a serious fight with a competent near peer competitor will invalidate much current theory and practice. <br /><br />You may want to hunt down a copy of "Field Artillery and Firepower" by general J. B. A. Bailey as probably the best treatise of modern artillery tactics and theory. Note that General Baily expresses reservations, not about rockets and15cm systems, but the precise lack of large caliber guns.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82823285235915005832014-11-06T06:46:44.530-08:002014-11-06T06:46:44.530-08:00Anon,
BAE was developing a 155mm gun for the Roya...Anon,<br /><br />BAE was developing a 155mm gun for the Royal Navy as a direct swap for their 4.5" guns, but along came the fiscal crisis and pfzzzt... no more development!<br /><br />As Smitty noted, the charges were an issue requiring either double ramming (halve you rate of fire), or a fixed/semi-fixed case.<br /><br />Nonetheless, this remains a great solution, and frankly the USN would save a lot of future RDT&E costs by going with a common round and fuse as the development costs for fuses and PGMs dwarf the costs of developing a new propellant.<br /><br />GAB<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12924607837457907242014-11-06T01:31:19.422-08:002014-11-06T01:31:19.422-08:00IO know this is off the topic, but you hit one of ...IO know this is off the topic, but you hit one of my pet peeves, the effect of titles and tags have on Engineering practices. The Navy's attempt to shoe horn the AMDR into a Burke hull it typical of such problem. I believe it is driven by politics mostly as they use this tag line to make Congressman believe it is the "economical solution."<br /><br />Un fortunately, your proposal of major design upgrades is only slightly better in my opinion. By holding onto the Burke tag line, you imply to the NARCH and Engineers that the resulting product should be tied somehow to the Burkes, design as much as possible. Which in turn will results in problems not being corrected, or desirable design improvements not being made.<br /><br />I think it would be better to do away with all the old baggage that old titles and tags give, and go with a new ones, It is one method the the LSC program show was quite effective, as adopting a new title gave the designers a freer hand (even if you don't like the LCS you must admit this much is true.)<br /><br />Personally I suggests using a titles like Command Cruiser or Fleet Cruiser for the AMDR ships as it will avoid all the stereotypes of calling them Destroyers.<br /> G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5025047089214966112014-11-05T09:36:27.010-08:002014-11-05T09:36:27.010-08:00http://www.navalshipbuilding.co.uk/navalship_warsh...http://www.navalshipbuilding.co.uk/navalship_warships.asp?ID=WAR9&catID=5<br /><br />Links from there to BAE documents<br /><br />Navalised 155mm. issues with recoil. Cancelled relitivly recently.<br /><br />Very disappointed. Promising project. Army Navy Commonality.<br /><br />BenoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29849885336665872342014-11-05T09:35:51.126-08:002014-11-05T09:35:51.126-08:00GAAAAR Sorry guys wrong place. let me try again.
...GAAAAR Sorry guys wrong place. let me try again.<br /><br />http://www.navalshipbuilding.co.uk/navalship_warships.asp?ID=WAR9&catID=5<br /><br />Links from there to BAE documents<br /><br />Navalised 155mm. issues with recoil. Cancelled relitivly recently.<br /><br />Very disappointed. Promising project. Army Navy Commonality.<br /><br />BenoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62663726520866487782014-11-05T09:19:08.409-08:002014-11-05T09:19:08.409-08:00http://www.navalshipbuilding.co.uk/navalship_warsh...http://www.navalshipbuilding.co.uk/navalship_warships.asp?ID=WAR9&catID=5<br /><br />Links from there to BAE documents<br /><br />Navalised 155mm. issues with recoil. Cancelled relitivly recently.<br /><br />Very disappointed. Promising project. Army Navy Commonality.<br /><br />BenoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11138645132322315082014-11-05T07:26:35.846-08:002014-11-05T07:26:35.846-08:00The utility of a 5 inch gun is similar to a 105mm ...The utility of a 5 inch gun is similar to a 105mm howitzer in terms of effects on target and range. While the published Range Of The 5/54 is longer, due to the high velocity of the round and the resulting low trajectory skips, the gun mainly provides NSFS in High Angle. The gun is very useful in providing fire support during a landing against enemies with no anti ship capabilities as it has to get close to shore. What it really needs is a precision fuse like the PGK to increase accuracy and decrease skipsSurfGWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07881317167759086625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19036430690658215372014-11-03T20:50:29.312-08:002014-11-03T20:50:29.312-08:00Sorry, brain cramp, I think.
What I was talking a...Sorry, brain cramp, I think.<br /><br />What I was talking about was the PzH-2000/ MONARC program, G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67210092232431194632014-11-03T15:40:13.130-08:002014-11-03T15:40:13.130-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89053474464852652282014-11-03T14:37:24.422-08:002014-11-03T14:37:24.422-08:00B.Smitty
Most self propelled guns are 155mm, towed...B.Smitty<br />Most self propelled guns are 155mm, towed guns 105mm<br />Mortars 120mm and 81mm.<br /><br />If smaller = better, there would be little reason for vehicle mounted weapons to be 40-50% larger.<br /><br />That's not to say bigger is better, but bigger is different.<br />To my knowledge I'm the only person to have suggested a medium tank with a quad turret of box fed 40mm GMGs.<br /><br />Higher calibres give longer range and greater shot effect. Smaller gives more shots and more effect per ton.<br />If the ship has to stay 25miles out to sea, a gun with a 26mile range is not that useful.<br />Super duper glide bombs are all well and good, but they cost a £%&* load and aren't going to be used for recon by fire or harrasment fires<br /><br />TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54432862315219805202014-11-03T11:34:18.045-08:002014-11-03T11:34:18.045-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38437483245246140362014-11-03T10:54:25.240-08:002014-11-03T10:54:25.240-08:00"Another issue with larger munitions is their..."Another issue with larger munitions is their considerably larger danger-close distance. Troops in contact can't call them in as close to their position."<br /><br />They also can't call in nuclear weapons on themselves!<br /><br />If only there were some kind of magic flying vehicle whose driver could fly right up to the area, look around, and then drop a bomb really close. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32007673799217132612014-11-03T10:51:45.544-08:002014-11-03T10:51:45.544-08:00"The Navy isn't considering cratering wid..."The Navy isn't considering cratering wide swaths of landscape part of the NSFS mission (as I understand it)."<br /><br />The Navy, and the military in general, has forgotten what war and opposed landings are (a common theme of mine!). After the first few Marines are killed by enemy hidden in brush or buildings, they'll remember what area bombardment does.<br /><br />You also seem to be assuming an idealized scenario of troops in the open politely waiting to be mowed down by the ideal munition. Enemy infantry will be hidden in whatever cover, including buildings, are available and will have to be rooted out one by one in a bloody mess or simply disposed by large caliber area explosives.<br /><br />I printed the study off some years ago and filed it in of my many piles of hundreds of reports. I'll try to remember the name and/or find it but my success rate on that type of thing is notably poor! In the meantime, you'll have to accept my statement (or not, as you choose) that the data was overwhelming.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25057078484681177752014-11-03T10:32:19.531-08:002014-11-03T10:32:19.531-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30882794632695251532014-11-03T10:29:47.295-08:002014-11-03T10:29:47.295-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50240050017826352032014-11-03T07:54:12.788-08:002014-11-03T07:54:12.788-08:00B.Smitty, I'm not familiar with that study. D...B.Smitty, I'm not familiar with that study. Do you have a reference? I find it very hard to believe that the Navy is advocating using million dollar TLAMs in a NSFS role!<br /><br />In your comments, you seem to be assuming a near mystical ability to see all the targets. I've consistently maintained, and backed with operational evidence, that most targets in an assault scenario will be unseen. That leaves two courses of action: don't shoot or conduct area bombardment. For the latter, the bigger the gun, the more real estate we can chew up and the more likely we are to destroy a hidden target. It's pretty simple and every Marine who witnessed the effects of the BB's 16" guns would agree. Again, the VN studies were quite clear.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com