Of course - most want 8-inches instead, with a few Marines dreaming of the joys of a 16-inch - but if you only have 3 or 5 inches to work with - you've got to make it count.
Wait ... that doesn't read right. Oh, nevermind ... see below.
Oto Melara unveiled yesterday a family of extended range and guided 76mm projectiles it is developing for the popular 76/62 naval gun system. The new Vulcano 76 round transforms this classic naval weapon into a multi-mission weapon system, capable of handling surface targets at sea and on land. The weapon addresses new operational requirements evolving from modern littoral warfare missions; as reflected in the Second lebanon War (2006) and the Libyan campaign in 2011. In addition to engaging surface targets, the system can handle air-defense as well as fulfil classic naval gunnery support (NGS).Yea .... but not our Littoral Combat Ship - it uses the unsupported 57mm.
...
As a guided projectile, the fin-stabilized Vulcano 76 will offer autonomous GPS/INS guidance, practically doubling the range of current 76/62 systems. When engaging fixed land based targets or surface targets at sea, the new projectile enables even small vessels to engage targets with high precision, from ranges exceeding 40 km, at a high rate of fire. The new capability will enable small littoral combat ships, frigates or gunboats to dominate a wide coastal area from a stand-off distance, out of the range of contemporary medium range anti-ship coastal defense missiles, rockets or artillery. Vulcano 76 will use a common guided or unguided projectiles, fitted with a new multi-modal RF microwave fuse offering altimetric (airburst), proximity (against aerial, naval and surface targets) or delayed impact (penetrating) and self-destruct modes. Employing the optimal fusing method enables the five kilogram pre-fragmented warhead made of tungsten-steel compound to provide twice the lethality of existing rounds at 80% of the weight. ... The time of flight reaching targets at 40 km is about 120 seconds.
Something beats nothing. The French, as we saw, made good work in Libya with their 100mm and the Brits with their 4.5" ... so ... the gun continues to prove its utility. Improvements to proven systems; what a radical concept.
Hey ... what about our ERGM. Ummmm, errrr .... oh, yea.
81 comments:
At the Halter shipyard in Pascagoula, Ms. there are 3 or 4 Egyptian missile boats under construction. Roughly 600 tons each, they are going to sport 1 RAM launcher, a separate CIWS, some harpoons, and a 76mm gun.
So, the Egyptian Navy will be gaining some small boats that carry 76mm gunmounts. Of course they will never fire them in battle with a USN modern LCS. You know why ? Because these 600 ton boats will simply remove each LCS from the surface using their Harpoon weapon system (supplied by USA). BTW, for comparison, LCS-1 is well over 3,000 tons depending on how much fuel, helo, etc. they ever load onto it. But, LCS-1 has a 57mm gun which does shoot accurately up to about 5nm. 76mm is obviously a better choice to have installed onboard all 3,000 + ton LCS Navy warships.
5" would be much better. What is Dahlgren doing to justify it's existence, anyway?
Interesting devolpment, but fails the smell test - too much reliance on offboard assistance, specifically UAVs and GPS.
A free, uncontested EM spectrum will be among the first things to go even before hot metal starts flying.
-MPJ
ERGM is on the shelf, but production is ongoing for LRLAP. Say what you will about DDG 1000, but a 155 mm round packs a lot more whup@ss than a 5'. Only down side is the dang things cost almost as much as a Tomahawk. No economy of scale when you ony have 6 guns that will shoot them.
Weight of projectile and charge achieved by interior ballistics still rules the day.
While a 127mm (5") is better than a 76mm (3"), and the 155mm (6.1") is better than both, the 155mm has been sexed up to make it slightly more lethal by having to add expensive components in the design, driving the cost to nearly $60,000 per projo.
Clearly, the argument should start at 203mm (8"), where there is sufficient capacity to be highly lethal using a traditional design, at a very small fraction of the cost of the 155mm LRLAP. Eextended-range full-bore (and not just Fridays) designs with base burn and a course-correcting fuze is the way to go. Fired with modern, more efficient propellants, the 203mm is the caliber of naval gun for a platform of a capital unit.
The progressive shrinking of the naval gun has been one of the absurdities of the last forty years of naval architecture. With the myriad technological breakthroughs, it is well past time to revisit the concept. Cheaper and far more effective/appropriate for many tasks than are missiles. Which also have their place.
<span>The Navy needs to uncancel the Rail Gun technology project.</span>
Check your news sites... LRLAP is being carved into a 5" tater with the goal of a very cheap per round cost, longer range than ERGM, etc.
The problem is the USN has cold feet now and will NOT fund any new gunnery development programs after the 720M Raytheon failed jobs program.
In reality, 76mm does not have any real "bang" for NSFS. Tried it, saw it, was not impressed. Take that same bullet and remove all the explosive for rocket and guidance systems and it becomes even smaller.
The rail gun isn't the answer, really. There are other, far less expensive solutions, out there. Unfortunately, none could be described as "transformational".
Nobody wants to consider a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) to be forgetting all this silly sh*t that costs a bundle and never worked, and going back to incremental but significant improvements on proven systems and technologies.
Something beats nothing.
Dahlgren is home to the Dry Dock and hosts social events :-D .
76mm is good for 400 tons FAC, 5in for 2-3k ton FFG, 6in for 5-7k DDG and 8in for 10k CG(N). These were classic calbres for the tonnages involved. Still, having better ammo for existing guns is a good thing (TM).
UltimaRatioRegis: "The progressive shrinking of the naval gun has been one of the absurdities of the last forty years of naval architecture. With the myriad technological breakthroughs, it is well past time to revisit the concept."
As I've heard it through the grapevine, certain USN factions have consciously manipulated the upfront requirements management process in ways that effectively exclude any solution larger than 155mm from ever coming under consideration.
As for railguns, the Navy hasn't been spending anything like the kind of money which would be necessary to achieve Admiral Clark's 2005 public statement of IOC by 2020.
Not that a practical railgun could be deployed as early as 2020 in any case, regardless of how much money is being spent. Look to 2030 or maybe even 2035 before a practical, reliable working railgun and its companion guided ammunition are fielded. (If that soon.)
there are now and will be plenty of FACs, OPVs and smaller combatatns with 76mm guns and better. I wonder if the USN is myopic, oblivious or just firmly fixed on bigger, better and more expensive weapons in the future?
Better is the enemy of good enough goes along with SAL said.
I noted this: "five kilogram pre-fragmented warhead" Ok for some shots not for all
GP yes on big ships but not of the FAC(M) at Halter
this is all interesting NOW tie them to existing USN warships or those in the pipeline.
Alas, the foe no longer need fear the Big Badger Boat's bark!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEB8TSu1Pw
But we will have the Vulcano, so what difference does it make.
Still think they should just use the 8in. the 8in is so much more powerful per round its stupid.
6.5in 250lbs shell......24lb warhead.
So lets count. If a 6.5in 265lb can fire a shell with a HE warhead of 24lbs a 1,900lb can fire a shell with how much HE?
So how many 6.5 round does it take to make one 16in round in fp?
Or it figures it wont engage in a conventional war and if it does super ninja moves come out and the navy wins flawlessly.
I dont see that happening........i see a hard day for the Navy and country. Hopefully it doesnt cost us a fleet or MEU.
Wow, very impressive, but I'm confused. How can Oto Melara make a guided 76mm round work and we can't make a guided 127mm round work? That's a huge difference in size and volume.
Also, could we add a 76mm gun to the LCS? That sounds like a reasonable upgrade, no?
Lastly, can we use the 127mm Vulcano rounds for the DDG-51 guns? No need to re-invent the wheel if we can just buy it. And all of our attempts to develop a guided 127mm round have failed miserably, right?
This is great that the Italians did something so useful and solved a tech problem that the US has failed at repeatedly. Let's just buy it.
And exactly WHAT purpose does this serve? A gun is by definition a low-tech, non-ECMable (if that's a word) cheap means to deliver HE and hot steel close in. If it's more than 15-20 miles away, we ALREADY HAVE Harpoon and Tomahawk. Never mind the SH-60 Armed Helo.
Then again, I might just be a crusty so-and-so. I still think A-6s and A-7s are the best medium and light attack aircraft around, and I won't allow telescopic sighted small arms in my home...
NH,
You might have a differing view if you needed NGF support ashore. And where did you get this idea that a projectile is limited to 15-20 miles?
When you absoultely need to put a round ashore to kill something like this. It would be nice for the PhibRon commander to have the Marines light something up and put a round out to make sure that it is dead.
Oh and Harpoon is a anti-shippng missile and there are minimums engagement ranges with both Harpoon and Tomahawk. If the air defenses are too dangerous to put an H-60 or any aircraft ashore or maybe if it is danger close since the Marines are right on top of the target as well (like in Khafji), that would neglect a PGM drop from an aircraft.
Juan:
sounds like you haven't used any italian military gear have you?
C
tell me URR:
how about a saboted 8" projectile out of a 14" barrel and a 55 degree turret/mount.
?
Dammit, JS-kit ate my response.
So here goes again. Retrofit the Ticos with Mk 71 fore and aft, the hulls were built for it. Put a 6.1" (155mm) on the Burke IIIs, at 10,000 tons, well capable of handling such.
I would also put the Mk 71 on the DDG 1000s, which are 15,000 tons, and in no way destroyers, but capital ships.
Upgrade the LCS to at least the 76mm.
Time to get serious about arming warships again.
The Israelis used to fire 155mm projos as sabot rounds out of their 175mm guns. The Syrians would always run around looking for M109 batteries within 30km, but they never found any.
The problem with a 14" gun tube is we have no means of manufacturing it any longer, or a hull capable of withstanding the shock of firing. But just for the hell of it, I would like to see how far an 8" sabot out of a 14" tube could go.....
wait -- are you saying this Italian tech won't work as advertised?
don't get me started on the Phases of Warfare. One can go from Phase Zero to much higher at the crack of a bullet~
It would be nice, but what does the modern PHIBRON have in its quivver to deliver gunfire?
I did not see a major caliber weapon on any LPD17?
Or are the Gators too far away at 12 or 25 nmi standoff? Nope I say arm them and bring them inshore to help the Marines
Or from peacetime base activity to "air raid Pearl Harbor this is not drill" within minutes...
For that purpose you'd better off with smaller, expendable, but armed to the teeth old style LCS (Landing Craft Support) not the big, costly, and too valuable to risk LPDs... Sigh...
starting point the 5" gun we have.
Not the guns that you think we should have.
Was there another gun you greatly admired on a US Warship in commission?
no I don't really think so. Bring your own guns to the fight and stop whining about what the navy brings. You've got whole artillery regiments and you stoop to demand that the fleet bring your guns to the fight and yet we say we have. You and we get them on the beach and you start shooting what you bought as the perfect ne plus ultra of artillery at the enemy. I'm sorry, were those 6 inch guns" 8 inch guns? maybe 16 inch guns? Aviation?
I wonder if our host can direct our attention to what he knows so well and I will not be surprised to be wrong. In the ship's roc/poe where does shoba fall? P or S?
USMC has not conducted an opposed landing in over 60 years. Sometimes old requirements are OBE. Obviously this is one of them.
Well, before marines big guns can be landed, deployed and used, you need naval gunfire, and what about softening defences before tha landing itself? Falklands show opposed landings are not thing of the past... In 1942 last opposed landing in the USN history was 1898 :P
Seems the Commandant and the CNO disagree with you, Bistro. And your understanding of amphibious doctrine is a bit underwhelming. Your consideration of air as the "ultimate artillery" shows some parochial bias that doesn't play out in real life, either. Especially since the retirement of the A-6, the last true all-weather attack a/c.
USN hasn't fought a surface engagement since before the last opposed landing, or fired a single torpedo in anger since then either. Perhaps we don't need a surface or submarine fleet at all. Passes your test of reason.
Give ewok a gold star!!!!
I'm taking that gold star away and putting both URR and Ewok in the penalty box. As soon as the USMC gets rid of its current vehicle squared and cubed requirements, you can bring back the Lanading Craft Support. But you need an LPD with sufficient self defense capability to get your leakers--everything that gets through your CRUDES-NIFC-CA area defense shield. And Gentlemen, there will be leakers. Limitations of geography, time-distance, and atmospherics tell you this.
As for round size, you need the damn thing to be able to follow the Marines inland. You need sufficient lethality per round, and you need to be able to delvier volume fires so that when the natives are charging your lines you can call in fires for effect. All of these reasons are justification why you don't want to go with the $100,000+ LRLAP, the silly Rail Gun (whose capacitor technology has not been sufficiently shrunken to be effective on board ships) or any kind of missile (including TACTOM...have any of you actually ever inputted a STRIKE mission using T-LAM? It takes a little while...). Personally, the ideal weapon is the 8" gun. You get the best of all worlds. Step 2 is actually having a steel ship that can survive mounting and firing it.
Now returning to my self imposed exile.
Ticos are being de-com'd. But I like where your head is at.
Bistro, I have all the EXW roc/poe's in my desk. Including NGFS. Shipmate, you do not want to go down that road.
As for Title 10 requirements for the United States Marine Corps, to include the MEB lift requirement and the capability to conduct an opposed landing, perhaps you should consult with the CBO and the House / Senate armed service committees. They seem to disagree with you, Bistro.
Run the numbers, Bistro Math. how are the Marines supposed to provide their own fires before they have even established a beach head? Do you know when that key objective is actually completed? What is your experience in EXW? You're throwing out a lot of lackluster ideas that appear to be unsupported by either logic, experience or research.
C'mon Salty, the accumulation of vehicle requirements will be gone soon enough. We will get back to a very lean T/E embark package. Precisely some of what we are working on right now. But those vehicles were needed when we got them. Fifty mile foot patrols through bad guy country is likely not the way to go.
By the way, Mister Salamander, your lead sentence has likely frightened away Kristen and DB. Now go wash your computer out with soap.
Sometimes smart ladies know it's good to let the men go into the man cave with their drinks, cigars and conversations and leave them be.
Why is the 8"/71 considered the best of all worlds and not the 155mm/62 AGS?
Here is a side by side comparison of some of the principle caracteristics:
8"/71 155mm/62
Projectile Weight 240-260 lbs 200-225 lbs
Explosive Chage 22 lbs 24 lbs
Rate of Fire 12 rounds/min 10 rounds/min
Range 30 km 40 km
Apart from the ROF, it looks to me like the AGS should compare favorably with the 8"/71. Details not captured in the side to side comparison are that the 8"/71 for the Spruance class only had a 75 round ready service magazine and required a crew of 6 while the AGS has access to all 300 rounds with a smaller crew size. The Spruance class was designed to hold one 8"/71 forward and DDG-1000 should have two AGS forward somewhate mitigating the ROF deficiency.
Help me understand why the 8"/71 is a better option.
Besides, I personally stay out of discussions that I'm not competent to comment on. All I know about ballistics is that a .44 Magnum aimed at the center of mass probably will stop the problem.
BW,
Fair question. This from L/M:
"<span>In July 2004, Terry Bowman, Lockheed Martin business development spokesman, was projecting that the LRLAP round would have "a cost of $35,000 per round. It will definitely be a challenge." As the forecasted cost of the 5" (12.7 cm) ERGM round is at least $50,000, it would seem to be unlikely that the much larger LRLAP round would be so significantly less expensive."</span>
Next point is that the 203mm projectile is at the bottom of its technical potential. A 203mm round that is an extended-range full-bore (ERFB) base bleed and base-burn design with modern propellant has much greater potential than does one of 15mm caliber. Base bleed can be described as a "boat-tail" design for large projectiles, which reduces the form drag that creates the drag cone at the rear of any projectile. This increases range. A base-burn is essentially a small disc that burns for some period of time in flight that produces just enoug overpressure to reduce what is left of the drag cone, further increasing range.
Base burn also has the distinct advantage of not displacing bursting charge area. A RAP round has a significantly smaller bursting charge than a standard HE in the artillery community, and would be more pronounced in a Naval rifle projectile.
Hence, coupled with modern propellants that burn more efficiently, range is greatly increased, and in some cases more than doubled. Some of the ERFB/BB projectiles fired from G5 and GHN (155mm) howitzers have ranges in excess of 50km. Better than twice that of an non-rocket assisted standard HE M107.
Mated with a course-correcting fuze, an 8" round has far greater potential than does a 155mm round, at a small fraction of the cost. Well below $1,500 per projo for a one-up round.
I call out the 8" Mk 71 gun system because it was developmentally mature. We need this NOW, not in twelve years and $800 million later.
URR has exactly the point. MK-71 works ... NOW. 155mm is all PPT and lab work. How much treasure have we expended on PPT programms and "decommission now to recapitalize later" only to have nothing but "Oops" at the end.
You can do both. Re-engineer one of the new construction Flt IIA to the MK-71 as a re-test bed; and then make it happen for Flt III Burkes to take the MK-71 as it. Spiral develop as needed. Let DDG-1000-02 work the kinks out of the 155mm then incorporate in future platforms.
We can do both. The cost delta is doable. That decision should have been made 10 years ago ... but guns are so .... non-transformational dontchaknow.
lets say that for some of thier diesel engines parts interchangability is a fond dream.
;)
C
last i heard a 16" he was ~2500# @ 2750 fps and about 1900# bursting charge.
quoted range was 25 MILES in 1955.
C
URR:
think about this. all of the gas turbine ships have propellor shafts that are hollow. they are made out of solid forgings. the same outfit that turns and gundrills propellor shafts with a ~30" od and a 12" bore sixty feet long can do your liner and tube work. and would probably be happy for the income.
C
URR:
another basic question.
years ago a fellow acquired a quantity of a certain teflon as surplus from GE and tested it as a sabot, firing 357 mag projectiles out of a 44 mag gun. he wrote it up in one of the pistol mags of the time claiming a phenominal speed increase.
has anybody tried this material as sabot liners on the full sized stuff?
C
sirrah:
i believe that you are barking up the wrong tree when advocating the use of "smart rounds" in beach preparation for the webfoots. if you use the expensive rounds for everything then you will get into one of those deals where you have to evaluate each and every target to see if it is worth the round or not. by the time the chain of command gets through masticating it the marines won't need it anymore as they will be grieviously injured or dead.
for example see the citation of the "fellow from Kentucky" lately awarded the golden bauble with the blue/white stars ribbon.
C
here we go with the big gun monitors again.
C
You have good points, but there is NO reason to believe that the 8" rounds that URR is advocating (still a developmental item) would enjoy any more success than we've seen with other developmental projects. If you could keep requirements creep out of the equation, then you might have a point. That said, you won't keep requirements creep out of the equation, so many of the low cost assumptions just don't hold up in the face of reality.
Also, when the program was cancelled, the 8"/71 development effort on the gun system itself wasn't complete, so there is additional developmental cost and risk associated with the gun itself. Contrary to your assertion that the AGS is merely powerpoint and lab work, I'd suggest that except for ship based testing the AGS and the current coniguration of the 8"/71 is about equal. What is your evidence that the AGS is still vaporware? Is there risk. Yes, but I'm pretty sure that it's pretty well under control. The greatest challenges will be the integration of the gun with the combat system, and that same risk exists with the 8"/71.
The 8"/71 on the DDG-51 was looked at, and while the ship could be modified to handle the weight up forward, the ship modification were quite extensive. Testing on the Hull suggested that aluminum superstructure cracking MIGHT be accellerated by the 8"/71 as well. Additionally, the height of the mount is above the level of the bridge, so that presents a few visibility issues. Are these really issues, I don't know and I'll leave it to you to debate.
Beyond that those advocating the use of larger caliber rounds usually do not address the trade between numbers of rounds that can be carried vs. downrange effectiveness. I'm not smart enough to know where the knee in that curve occurs, so if you have opinions, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Finally the 8"/71 is a 9 man mount, so you'll have to overcome the beancounters life cycle cost arguments over AGS if you hope to prevail. I'm not saying it's right, but it is the reality.
"<span>there is NO reason to believe that the 8" rounds that URR is advocating (still a developmental item) would enjoy any more success than we've seen with other developmental projects."</span>
You might wanna take a crash course in ballistics. And in contemporary artillery systems worldwide.
I acknowledge that you are an expert in artillery. I don't doubt that what you suggest is technically feasible. The question remains, what happens to expose any development approach to this:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/09/14/defense-acquisitions-explained/
Something with the design philosophy and general size and sea keeping of a Fletcher is about right. Updated with diesel (big diesel) in lieu of 600 lb steam; a medium caliber 5" or 155mm gun battery - 2 fwd, 2 aft; vertical launch tartar niche update/ a few cells reserved for asroc update, CIWs and 3 " as possible (wt and moment limitations) and available, ASW suite (modest) and LWT tubes and a helo deck and hanger for a navalized light attack helo that can drop a torpedo or lug a dipping sonar/sonobouy dispenser. Unrep rig? But of course.
Oh yes, LCS delende est.
To throw one's hands up and not to do something that needs doing because of self-inflicted institutional stupidity is criminal.
There are already ERFB/BB 8" projectiles out there. The engineering time should be measured in weeks.
Lock the program manager in a room. Tell him he doesn't get to eat anything but rice until it is finished.
We are decommissioning Ticos because we are idiots whose destructive manpower policies (optimal manning) did irrevocable damage to maintenance practices, and because we lack the foresight to modify expensive and state of the art capital units, because we deem them too old, or not "cost effective", as if anybody deciding that has the slightest idea what it means.
Bursting Charges:
AP Mark 8 : 40.9 lbs of Explosive D
HC Mark 14/14 : 153.6 lbs of Explosive D
Nuclear Mark 23: 15-20 kilotons of TNT equivalent
I would suggest that some folks take a deep breath and step back from the incense that is the Mk71 mount. Some of the reading out there that is available via open source data seems to state that NavWeps center at Dahlgreen actually tested the gun it was found to have some fundamental issues that would have proven too costly at the time of declining budgets of the Carter era to fix. The biggest one according to Mr. Polmar in his book on Naval Weapons, was that the Mk71 had a circular error of probabilty that was worst then the newer 5"/54 mount coming into service when it was using rocket assisted projectiles and the gun in service right then is just as effective (along with being cheaper). How much of that accuracy issues come from having an oversized mount on a Sherman class destroyer, is speculation. However, the CG47 hull form (which would also have the Spruance and Kidd class built from as well) would have space for mounting those guns in the ship; the super strike cruiser was also suppose to mount the Mk71 as well. So there are questions to be asked whether or not the Navy could have taken the CG47 and done the live testing of gun during a trial period of the ship.
<span><span><span>
</span></span></span>
That said as the good CDR has documented we have been lacking for a few years in Naval guns. It is so bad that the GAO has done numerous reports on the US Navy's piss poor planning on replacement naval guns. Some of the reports:
<p><span><span>Navy’s Near-Term Plan </span></span><span><span>Is Not Based on </span></span><span><span>Sufficient Analysis -1995</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Naval Surface Fire </span></span><span><span>Support Program </span></span><span><span>Plans and Costs - 1999</span></span>
<span>
<p><span>Evaluation of the Navy’s 1999 Naval Surface Fire Support Assessment -1999</span>
</p></span>
</p><p><span><span>Challenges Remain in Developing Capabilities for Naval Surface Fire Support - 2006</span></span>
<span><span>
Issues Related to Navy Battleships -2005
All of which over the past 20yrs the GAO has smacked the Navy with the cluebat nearly everytime that a Congressional critter has asked for information in this topic.
</span></span>
</p><p>
<span><span><span>
</span></span></span></p>
Dang it! These were mine, stupid NMCI!
You are correct with the testing off an undersized hull, regarding the CEp. Also negating that is the course correcting fuze.
As I said, technical developments in the last 30+ years make revisiting such systems and how they would perform with upgrades a prudent thing.
But as Sal says, it isn't transformational.
GB: i used to get a small monthly safety pamplet from dahlgren and thirty years ago they were way out past what you guys are talking about with 5" on the 5"54 mount.
C
Not to point everything back to the (f&$@ing disastrous) LCS but why can the Danes put a 76mm mount, torpedoes, AND 4 Harpoons on a f&$@ing patrol boat, and we put a brain-damaged 10-year-old with a .22 on the LCS? I'll post the picture of that particular FAC when I get back home tonight...but someone PLEASE tell me why we can't float a decent littoral ship? I have had an inestimable pride in the USN for decades, but that pride is severely challenged at this point...
Why can't we float a decent littoral ship? Well, for one thing, we have to make up our minds what it is we want before issuing the RFP, not afterwards.
So, the only thing I took from this whole post and subsequent comment string is that it is okay to have six inches instead of eight, as long as you can shoot more often and have a bigger ammo magazine.
Is that right? 8-)
First, lock the right people in a room with the rice. The PM follows the CDD as approved by the JROC, so OPNAV, MCCDC, and JCS need to get in the room and figure out what is actually required.
Second, if the development and installation is measured in weeks and not years (and is inexpensive too boot), why waste the resources pursuing it now. I assume you intend the 8" to be used in an opposed amphibious assault. Surely there will be enough time during the planning phase and force mustering phase of such an operation to design and install the required 8"/71 assets required according to your estimate.
Yep. As others have said in this space...Quantity is a quality on it's own.
Why the hell would I need JCS to tell me what is required for a naval gun projectile? We used to have LTs doing that work.
The 8" is a good NGF weapon, for support of amphib assault, shore bombardment, and will be quite useful against surface combatants, too.
What do you mean by wasting time pursuing it now? You want to wait until we HAVE to make a landing to begin testing and manufacture of the weapon system?
Tell you what. You get to go first into the beach, then.
You can thank Congress (via the Goldwater-Nichols Act) for that little piece of happiness. I don't want to waste time, I'm just using your suggestion earlier that we could stand that capability up quickly. I'm not the one that said the engineering would take weeks and be inexpensive. You were. In fact, I said I believe that there is a non-trivial development effort with both systems. Fine. Let's go with that assumption, and the logical conclusion of your assumption is that it would be a waste of R&D to pursue something easy and cheap.
I happen to agree that the 8" is a good NGF weapon, but so is the AGS. I'll go to the beach with either system.
What is the largest land based gun caliber in the USMC or USA? Is that also poor decisions by the PTB?
"<span>the 8" is a good NGF weapon, but so is the AGS."</span>
Perhaps. But one munition costs twenty times the other.
Are we going to simply decide to overcomplicate designing a frigging PROJO? When there are myriad examples in existence? An eight-inch PROJECTILE?
Filler, casing, bourrelet, baseplate, fuze. For Chrissakes, it hasn't changed substantively since 1900. If we make this overly complicated and expensive, how do we ever expect to design anything like a ship? Or an airplane?
If you told me this was a six month project, I'd fire you. If I had engineers tell me this was complicated, I would fire them. If I had admirals or generals telling me THEY needed to tell us requirements, I would fire them too.
Anything else is silly, tax-wasting stupidity.
URR,
Sometimes it isn't the size of the gun, but how you use it. Didn't they teach that to you in Artillery school? Geeze, silly jarhead :-P Oh and isn't always important to have more rounds hitting the target more often to be effective?
That last sentence is entirely incorrect, SAP!
It isn't how many bullseyes, it is how many times you got to go to the firing line!
Oh excuse me. I am an airdale so I am all about cardinal rule number one in ground attack. "ONe pass and haul arse" ;)
I know polite ladies don't laugh... but I am... in another room.
<span>"If you told me this was a six month project, I'd fire you."</span>
<span>Life would indeed be much simpler for me as well if I were king for a day. Back to reality.</span>
<span>A one-off engineering development model being used for a display at Dahlgren for 20 years and a few hundred rounds in a magazine at Seal Beach is not a weapons system. I suppose logistics is tax wasting stupidity. All those extra parts that you might not ever need. </span>
<span>Vent all you want, but the reality is in fact more complicated than you make it out to be. You never answered my question re: largest bore diameter for USMC and USA in-service land based arty. </span>
Okay Benjamin. It is more complicated because we are idiots. No other reason. So that isn't a real reason. The best piston-engined fighter of WWII went from an idea to a flying prototype in 103 days. And this is a projectile. <span>Filler, casing, bourrelet, baseplate, fuze. </span>
A few hundred rounds? Where I grew up, a converted machine shop that had made textile machinery made ten thousand rounds a DAY during the war. It is just a matter of wanting to.
Answer your question? Answer your own damned question. Do your homework.
But know that the HE M106 is a ballistic duplicate of the HE M107.
Post a Comment