Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Ten Forward => Topic started by: Sirgod on July 10, 2007, 03:11:06 pm
-
http://www.heinleincentennial.com/ussheinlein.html
And some info on the DDG1000
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/
Stephen
-
*sigh*
With its POS 155mm arty pieces.... the Marine Corps will NEVER get the naval bombardment that the Navy is supposed to supply....
Still going with the ERGM system... for those who missed the arguements before... that means a whole 8 lb war head will 'glide' its way out to 100 nm....
Not too mention that they haven't quite reached that promised 100nm range as of the last I checked.... more like 47nm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m982-155.htm)
Average time for Fire For Effect from launch is, IIRC, about 9 minutes.... the Marines better hope they don't need those rounds quick.....
Especially when you consider the new 'over the horizon' doctrine that has only the delivery vehicles coming anywhere close to shore... That DDX is gonna be 20-30 miles out.
The best 155mm 'regular' round will reach out to about 18 miles... so anything after that will have to 'glide' in...
-
The days of the big gun battleship are over. Hell, the ships in todays navy don't even have the structural ability to mount more than a 5 incher.
The role of navy gunfire support is fulfilled quite well by CAS aircraft.
-
*sigh*
With its POS 155mm arty pieces.... the Marine Corps will NEVER get the naval bombardment that the Navy is supposed to supply....
Still going with the ERGM system... for those who missed the arguements before... that means a whole 8 lb war head will 'glide' its way out to 100 nm....
Not too mention that they haven't quite reached that promised 100nm range as of the last I checked.... more like 47nm ([url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m982-155.htm[/url])
Average time for Fire For Effect from launch is, IIRC, about 9 minutes.... the Marines better hope they don't need those rounds quick.....
Especially when you consider the new 'over the horizon' doctrine that has only the delivery vehicles coming anywhere close to shore... That DDX is gonna be 20-30 miles out.
The best 155mm 'regular' round will reach out to about 18 miles... so anything after that will have to 'glide' in...
This isn't too accurate on the gun system while the ERGM is still in testing, the platforms that I seen in the testing phses were modded DDGs mk45 cannons tooled to use the rounds. The ship actually hit a target in exccess of 80nm. But the gun still in development for DDX id the rail gun system. The idea is to mve out from powder systems if the weapon is viable.
I know what you are saying about the ol' battle ships and it's cannons but as we in the Navy already acepted, those days are gone.
-
The days of the big gun battleship are over. Hell, the ships in todays navy don't even have the structural ability to mount more than a 5 incher.
The role of navy gunfire support is fulfilled quite well by CAS aircraft.
It is a matter of timing and weather, my friend.
You can have the best air force in the world, but they can't keep the planes flying 24 hours a day thru bad weather from an aircraft carrier.
You never know when you will need CAS or where they are going to be in relation to the fight when called upon or even if they are going to be in the air at that time.
Naval Gun fire and artillery are able to fly thru any weather an aircraft can launch in.
And while the rail gun will be great... it won't be great until they are actually in use.
That is no where close to being right around the corner....
As of the last I heard, at 80 nm... the ERGM only delivers an 8 pound warhead....
The Marines would be better off adding a few more grenades each to their load....
-
And that naval gunfire would be limited in range, well within the range of just about every surface-to-surface anti-ship missile known to man. Every aspect of fire support has its negatives.
We'd also have to design a new vessel around this gun, as current warship designs aren't capable of mounting more than a 5" gun. The recoil is absorbed by the vessels frame. So you'd have the cost of a new vessel with weapons of limited range and firepower just for use in supporting amphibious landings -- which we haven't done in decades.
The Navy/air force has some excellent all weather attack aircraft.
I've seen the studies. The cost of the new vessel would far outweigh it's usefullness.
-
I might be wrong, But Didn't Ferrit mention the new Frame that allowed for multible weapons fire, from those 5 inchers? I believe it was a Honey comb structure through out and under the deck plates. It might have been for the Anti Missle defence, firing 32 weapons at the same time. anyway's my question is, If the structure can handle that load, why not something larger?
Mind you I'm not up on modern Naval artillary anymore.
Stephen
-
You'll want a bigger gun than a 5"er for naval gunfire support. Something like 8" at least. The recoil of the guns would require something a lot stronger than the current warship frames we have.
-
Imagine 32 small hits compared to one big one. If the 32 hits have a combined force equal to the one big hit, but spread throughout the ship and over several seconds, the result is much lower impact to the frame than a single large hit in one spot.
Like a demo derby. The winner will have absorbed several impacts over the course of the contest, but if that car were to take all that energy in a single blow it would be toast.
-
Imagine 32 small hits compared to one big one. If the 32 hits have a combined force equal to the one big hit, but spread throughout the ship and over several seconds, the result is much lower impact to the frame than a single large hit in one spot.
Like a demo derby. The winner will have absorbed several impacts over the course of the contest, but if that car were to take all that energy in a single blow it would be toast.
The problem is that the potential "warhead" size of a 5 incher isn't good enough, even if you stack 30 of the suckers on a destroyer superstructure.
30 of the suckers still wouldn't equal one 1,000 bomb dropped from an F-16.
-
Imagine 32 small hits compared to one big one. If the 32 hits have a combined force equal to the one big hit, but spread throughout the ship and over several seconds, the result is much lower impact to the frame than a single large hit in one spot.
Like a demo derby. The winner will have absorbed several impacts over the course of the contest, but if that car were to take all that energy in a single blow it would be toast.
The problem is that the potential "warhead" size of a 5 incher isn't good enough, even if you stack 30 of the suckers on a destroyer superstructure.
30 of the suckers still wouldn't equal one 1,000 bomb dropped from an F-16.
If they could somehow work out a rapid-fire 5-inch gun, perhaps a round rate of 30/minute? Or a triplet set resulting in 30 rounds in the air in a minute. Each barrel would have 10 seconds cooling/reloading time. That ship probably wouldn't be the most pleasant place to be at max. fire rate, but there ya go.
-
Imagine 32 small hits compared to one big one. If the 32 hits have a combined force equal to the one big hit, but spread throughout the ship and over several seconds, the result is much lower impact to the frame than a single large hit in one spot.
Like a demo derby. The winner will have absorbed several impacts over the course of the contest, but if that car were to take all that energy in a single blow it would be toast.
The problem is that the potential "warhead" size of a 5 incher isn't good enough, even if you stack 30 of the suckers on a destroyer superstructure.
30 of the suckers still wouldn't equal one 1,000 bomb dropped from an F-16.
If they could somehow work out a rapid-fire 5-inch gun, perhaps a round rate of 30/minute? Or a triplet set resulting in 30 rounds in the air in a minute. Each barrel would have 10 seconds cooling/reloading time. That ship probably wouldn't be the most pleasant place to be at max. fire rate, but there ya go.
Oh they've had rapid fire 5 inch guns since WWII. The problem of course is that with naval gunfire of that calibur you still can't hit reverse slopes, and the warhead size is more like a submunition --- which is good for taking out unarmored or flesh targets -- but near useless for much else.
-
So it looks like the navy's putting all its shore bombardment capability in the hands of bombers instead of guns.
-
IIRC, anything beyond 9 miles will require the use of ERGM round. With its 8 pound war head... you would need to shoot 100 to make the equivilant of a 1000 pound bomb. (IIRC, the 1000 pound holds about 800 pounds of explosives encased in about 200 pounds of steel)
-
So it looks like the navy's putting all its shore bombardment capability in the hands of bombers instead of guns.
Aye, and the Corps has been arguing against it for years....
We have the exact opposite philospohy as pre-WWII.... it used to be Big guns over aircraft... now it is aircraft (and their bombs and missiles) over guns...
Conviently forgetting that guns are more all weather than aircraft and were used to protect those CV's....
-
So it looks like the navy's putting all its shore bombardment capability in the hands of bombers instead of guns.
Aye, and the Corps has been arguing against it for years....
We have the exact opposite philospohy as pre-WWII.... it used to be Big guns over aircraft... now it is aircraft (and their bombs and missiles) over guns...
Conviently forgetting that guns are more all weather than aircraft and were used to protect those CV's....
Yea, but the aircraft are much more capable and the bombs much more accurate than they were before.