Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: AGS, Volcano, Excalibur And The Future Of Naval Gunfire
SYSOP    6/11/2014 5:38:17 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
trenchsol       6/11/2014 12:42:18 PM
What is exactly the problem with mounting 6'' gun on older ships ? Is it the ammunition storage / feeding system ?
 
WWII German Narvik class destroyer had 4-5 150 mm guns, displacing about 3600 t. It had problems at heavy sea. Those guns were not automatic, they had a crew and were loaded manually, of course. So, weight and recoil should not be a problem.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    trenchsol   6/11/2014 2:05:32 PM
The typical rapid firing naval guns fire has a "flat trajectory" while the Zumwalt's can fire with a more arched trajectory similar to the army guns. So that is a difference.
 
But the problem of magazine capacity is also real. A ship uses the gun for last ditch defense and carries a magazine appropriate for that role while a ship that is used for shore bombardment needs a bigger magazine.
 
And finally, the guns are built into the hull so you can't simply put one here and another there with out making modifications and taking something else out of the ship.
 
Quote    Reply

Tamerlane       6/11/2014 4:25:48 PM
The magazines, hoists T&E mechanism take up lots of room vertically.  Also, having anything bigger than 127mm is no good for ship's self defense, especially in a sustained engagement.  It's a lot cheaper to have VLS and cruise mis. for land bomb then the standoff is a sierra-load safer too.
 
Quote    Reply

HR    tamerlane   6/11/2014 5:57:03 PM
"It's a lot cheaper to have VLS and cruise mis." - I do not think so.
 
The gun is always cheaper. It is not use more because up to now the shells have lacked guidance and the range of a missile is huge when compared to that of a gun even when as in this instance the shell has a rocket assist.
 
But for shore bombardment these guns have an 83 mile range which will keep the ship relatively safe from attack from shore batteries and a 750 round magazine that will give it a lot more shots than the 80 missiles it carries would have.
 
 This huge gun does not provide for defense but the Zumwalt carries 5" guns too and those will.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/12/2014 1:08:03 AM
"It's a lot cheaper to have VLS and cruise mis." - I do not think so.
 
The gun is always cheaper. It is not use more because up to now the shells have lacked guidance and the range of a missile is huge when compared to that of a gun even when as in this instance the shell has a rocket assist.
The gun is always cheaper only as long as it uses dumb ammunition. Guidance systems that can take up to 100,000g are not cheap.
But for shore bombardment these guns have an 83 mile range which will keep the ship relatively safe from attack from shore batteries and a 750 round magazine that will give it a lot more shots than the 80 missiles it carries would have.
The 750 round magazine is only on the Zumwalt class. Other destroyers will have substantially less.
 This huge gun does not provide for defense but the Zumwalt carries 5" guns too and those will.
NO. The Zumwalt’s do not have any 5” guns. It has 2x 57mm gun mounts as the secondary turrets.
 
Quote    Reply

HR    War nerd   6/12/2014 10:04:39 AM
You are correct about the 57mm guns.
 
I have heard several estimates for the costs of the guided shells for these guns ranging from $30,000 to $100,000 depending on what they do and that is less expensive than alternative guided missiles that can go those 83 miles. Guided missiles that are in that cost range have a range measured in thousands of yards and not miles and of course the other alternative is delivery by aircraft at $15,000 to $30,000 per hour of flight, etc.
 
So the big gun in the Zumwalt is a good addition to the options that a commander has.
 
Warnerd, in WW2 they did shore bombardment using Army howitzers from barges. The Navy has not forgotten that and talks about that option from time to time. Anything to avoid getting a ship to close to shore where it can be targeted.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

ATC619       6/13/2014 9:30:50 AM
Possible Solution....take the Flight 1 and 2 Arleigh Burkes and designate them for the fire support role, install an AGS Mount in place of the 5'/54 mount and call it good.  Ideal, probably not, however, if you put 25-30 of these systems out in the fleet you should be able to provide enough fire support to the Marines. 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    ATC619   6/13/2014 11:49:57 AM
That would be a good system for a dedicated fire support platform. But what else will it do for the Navy the other 99.9% of the time?
 
I think that the Marines' need to develop a gun that they can fire from almost any freighter or oiler's deck. The ships need the 5" gun for self defense.
 
Quote    Reply

Blacktail    Forgetting something?   6/14/2014 6:18:01 AM
"The U.S. Navy, having completed successful testing of its new 155mm AGS (Advanced Gun System) in 2013 has now asked defense firms to provide similar GPS guided shells for navy 127mm (5 inch) guns."
 
Uh-oh, the Navy forgot about the ERGM Imbroglio!;
The Navy is also curiously silent on how the LRLAP, a gun-launched and GPS-guided Cruise Missile, is supposed to reach it's target when jamming is employed. Yes, that's correct --- as you can see, it's a *Cruise Missile*, not a projectile;
 
That's also the same flight profile as used in ERGM;
 
If you want to see the future of LRLAP (whether or not it goes into service and/or is declared a "success"), look at the ERGM's results. It's a distinction without a difference.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/14/2014 8:48:07 PM
I think that the Marines' need to develop a gun that they can fire from almost any freighter or oiler's deck. The ships need the 5" gun for self defense.
Not practical. The deck will need major reinforcing to handle both the weight and recoil for a long range system. You also have the problem of loading it without the below deck machinery to achieve an acceptable rate of fire for the self-defense role. In addition, the self-defense role requires additional sensors and fire control all of which will have to be integrated to account for parallax on an installation by installation basis (just like for regular warships). You can’t just slap a gun on a ship and expect any kind of accuracy, especially in indirect fire, except with guided projectiles.
 
Two practical options, both dropping the self-defense role:
1) Revive the Vertical Gun System program (the VGS was the proposed system before it became the turreted AGS) which is a fixed gun system mounted in the hull over the keel firing exclusively guided munitions. The VGS would be a permanent modification or mounted in a custom built vessel (<4000 tons) designed to keep up with the landing fleet (24 knots) for bombardment purposes. This system has a minimum range of around 20 miles.
2) Base the system on the HIMARS rocket system. This would require a lot of deck space (mostly for ammunition) but does not require a hull penetration.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics