According to the USS Thorn conversion doc (closer to a real engineering assessment), an AGS mount plus 320 rnds would occupy the same space as a Mk45 mount plus ammunition and a 61-cell VLS!

That is about accurate, but consider this, the AGS mount is throwing a more massive rocket boosted shell, that while no where near as large as the PGM rocket is designed to achieve the same range [and that would be larger than POLAR I'm afraid-almost 2/3 the size of STANDARD II] is 3X the MER range of the standard 5 inch naval gun delivered shell.

The only weapon drawback is that the shell still doesn't have interceptor rocket guidance. I'd like to see that HTK capability built into the shell.

Herald

We wouldn't be having all these ":negative waves" now would we?

Its a good concept. Cannon launched HTK vehicle just warms the cockles of my heart!

You think the SCRAMJET is any easier?

Herald

Ahhhh!  Now if you are talking abount a seperate "cannon launched" interceptror muniton thats easy!!!!   I thought you wanted that capability combined with the proposed LRLAP shell!!!!

Hells yeah, I like this idea.

'tis why I suggested a few threads back, about if an EM railgun does find its way eventually into a DDG1000,

as the technology matures and we learn to increase efficiencies,

we'll definitely be building EM guns in lesser calibers than 6" class (or greater, even?).

 

But even if we're only going to be playing with chemical energy guns for the foreseeable next half century,

that DTIC pdf I like posting up about EAPS, using a 50mm Bushmaster cannon to fire guided (course correcting) shells as a C-RAM (counter rocket, artillery, and mortar) systems,

in a 2" diameter munition,

certainly makes plenty of case for renewed interest in dedicated, gun fired anti-aircraft/anti-missile munitions for larger caliber guns.

All the better from a railgun, as that added velocity compared to CE guns means reduced time of flight to target, and lower ballistic loss (proper terminology? it doesn't droop as much because of gravity over the same distance) and less crosswind interference.

But even still for CE guns, the ability to fire HTK rounds at both aircraft and missiles, while still a few dozen km away,

certainly should be within our grasp.

(Shucks, we were firing off Sprint ABMs back in the day that accelerated to a phenomenal 6miles/sec, and built mostly with hardened tube tech and the earliest IC chips,

so I don't see the reason why we can't do better today, with modern microminiature electronics that, I would think, can be built to fare much more reliable than the umpteen thousand G's of an accelerating Sprint.)

 

Dual ammunition for shipborne guns isn't uncommon: a general purpose surface role (LRLAP in this instance),

and a more dedicated AA/AM munition that, much like in WW2 in the early days of proximity fuzes,

is used principally against airborne threats.

 

How far down can we shrink an NCADE sensor/guidance system, and still make it work from a gun-fired munition, perhaps in the 5" class...?

Unlike AAMs that, often, are built with the intention to maneuver at high G's to catch evading targets,

a gun-fired AA/AM guided munition shouldn't need that level of complication, as the gun is providing the majority of velocity at launch.

 

Hey, wait a minute: isn't this how the Italians' DART round for the 76mm naval gun works now?

(currently being marketed as part of the STRALES system:  http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Com...   )

www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/development/STRALES.pdf

 

Here....

ERGM was a failure in 2005 and has since been rebooted to try to get the costs per shell way down.

Costs of rocket assisted projectiles here....

Yes that is a small boost engine in comparison to this.

ATACM...

Small cost as well.

Herald

So the 2D is an "add on" kit of sorts?  Just a question...

That is about accurate, but consider this, the AGS mount is throwing a more massive rocket boosted shell, that while no where near as large as the PGM rocket is designed to achieve the same range [and that would be larger than POLAR I'm afraid-almost 2/3 the size of STANDARD II] is 3X the MER range of the standard 5 inch naval gun delivered shell.

The only weapon drawback is that the shell still doesn't have interceptor rocket guidance. I'd like to see that HTK capability built into the shell.

Herald