Long-Range (1000 Mile Range) Strategic Cannon Program Update or New Details?

Ironmiked

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
5 May 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
72
slrc-graphic-top-2.jpg



The U.S. Army stopped major research and development work on a huge artillery piece, intended to be able to hit targets out to a range of 1,000 miles or more, last year. With the Russia/Ukraine War being very artillery-centric, any updates on the program or hope for resurrection?

The Army’s Strategic Long Range Cannon program had been planning to demonstrate a prototype weapon by 2023.


A graphic, showing a notional SLRC design that emerged showing the gun on a "platform" style mount similar to that used in conjunction with the Cold War-era 280mm M65 cannon, a weapon specifically designed to fire nuclear artillery shells that is better known as Atomic Annie. That platform was depicted attached at the front to an 8x8 Oshkosh M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter System (HETS) tractor and at the rear to a three-axle trailing section. The implied a concept of operations similar to that employed with the 83-ton M65, wherein the weapon would be employed from a fixed position after being detached from the tractor and trail.

message-editor%2F1622732536061-slrc-model.jpg
 
Last edited:

2.6.1 SLRC Program Funding
The lack of dependable multi-year resourcing is the key risk factor in determining program feasibility to the point that BG Rafferty, Director, LRPF CFT, believes that funding uncertainty is the single largest risk to SLRC development. The SLRC is not a program of record and has no specific Program Objective Memorandum funding allocated toward its development.

In August 2021, DEVCOM AC noted that the FY 2022 funding decision had been paused until pending re-briefs are complete. It is estimated program funding may be reduced by up to one third in the FY 2022 budget cycle (Table 2-2). Undependable funding amounts, coupled with large annual fluctuations in program resourcing, are negatively impacting several aspects of SLRC development. This has been exacerbated by decoupling of funds specifically directed to the SLRC program. The AFC has retracted and is now holding SLRC funds in a “general tech R&D” account (Table 2-3). This is having a direct negative effect on research and development testing and development timelines. Without dedicated funding, it is unclear when funds will be allocated.

Conclusion: The FY 2021 funding release was expected in the fall of FY 2021. SLRC funding is now consolidated as part of AFC generic hypersonics development verses dedicated to the SLRC and projectile development. Without specific science and technology funding, these resources could be used elsewhere in Army hypersonics development, without benefit to solving specific SLRC developmental issues. Consolidation of hypersonic technology development program funding is not a signal of funds disruption. However, the program would be put back to Technology Maturation Initiative board, pausing decisions on FY 2022 funding, as well as negatively impacting FY 2023 funding budget development and subsequent allocations. Uncertainty in funding puts the program at risk. This risk is detrimental to demonstration and testing as multiple Army and DoD test ranges are involved.


Personalities are policy so someone is to blame for this shameful short sightedness.
 
 
2.6.1 SLRC Program Funding
The lack of dependable multi-year resourcing is the key risk factor in determining program feasibility to the point that BG Rafferty, Director, LRPF CFT, believes that funding uncertainty is the single largest risk to SLRC development. The SLRC is not a program of record and has no specific Program Objective Memorandum funding allocated toward its development.

In August 2021, DEVCOM AC noted that the FY 2022 funding decision had been paused until pending re-briefs are complete. It is estimated program funding may be reduced by up to one third in the FY 2022 budget cycle (Table 2-2). Undependable funding amounts, coupled with large annual fluctuations in program resourcing, are negatively impacting several aspects of SLRC development. This has been exacerbated by decoupling of funds specifically directed to the SLRC program. The AFC has retracted and is now holding SLRC funds in a “general tech R&D” account (Table 2-3). This is having a direct negative effect on research and development testing and development timelines. Without dedicated funding, it is unclear when funds will be allocated.

Conclusion: The FY 2021 funding release was expected in the fall of FY 2021. SLRC funding is now consolidated as part of AFC generic hypersonics development verses dedicated to the SLRC and projectile development. Without specific science and technology funding, these resources could be used elsewhere in Army hypersonics development, without benefit to solving specific SLRC developmental issues. Consolidation of hypersonic technology development program funding is not a signal of funds disruption. However, the program would be put back to Technology Maturation Initiative board, pausing decisions on FY 2022 funding, as well as negatively impacting FY 2023 funding budget development and subsequent allocations. Uncertainty in funding puts the program at risk. This risk is detrimental to demonstration and testing as multiple Army and DoD test ranges are involved.


Personalities are policy so someone is to blame for this shameful short sightedness.
dependable fund SLRC see above
(a rather lg prototype is in the report


Assessing the Feasibility of the Strategic Long Range Cannon: Unclassified Summary | The National Academies Press

Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.
nap.nationalacademies.org
 
I'm assuming that we're talking about a 12"-16" bore gun, firing rocket assisted gliding shells similar to to the 155mm LRLAP or ramjet shells (or perhaps ramjet then gliding shells for max range). These shells will likely be discarding sabot types, shell diameters of 8"-11".

The M65 Atomic Cannon was a 280mm bore, but I'm having a hard time finding a barrel length. Based on a 2500fps muzzle velocity, I'd expect something in the neighborhood of an L50 barrel, 14m long. But for the SLRC, I'd expect more like an L90 smoothbore.
 
I'm assuming that we're talking about a 12"-16" bore gun, firing rocket assisted gliding shells similar to to the 155mm LRLAP or ramjet shells (or perhaps ramjet then gliding shells for max range). These shells will likely be discarding sabot types, shell diameters of 8"-11".

The M65 Atomic Cannon was a 280mm bore, but I'm having a hard time finding a barrel length. Based on a 2500fps muzzle velocity, I'd expect something in the neighborhood of an L50 barrel, 14m long. But for the SLRC, I'd expect more like an L90 smoothbore.
The M65 barrel is an L40.

Its is 38.5 feet in length or 462 inches.

It collapses in on its recoil system to fit on a 42 foot long "trailer". The Trailer also doubles as the main firing platform that drops down to site on any flat piece of ground that has an area of at least 22 feet in diameter from the center of the platform so long as it within 3 degrees of angle. Which is actually fairly common. Take up and set down time is roughly 15 and 10 minutes respectively by the book, can tell you from experience's with similar size systems you can get sub ten minutes for both. 1 shot a minute is again by the book but all the stories from the Crews state you can make 2 easily and do burst of three if you were good.

With Modern gear, read engines and tires, you can do away with the rear prime mover on the trailer and extend the gun length up to 50 foot fairly easily, up to 75 if you want to go the ragged edge of what can be ship around easily.

So a 11 inch 80 caliber gun is the max you can expect using standard army limits.

Now for the non standard bit...

Which is building the 11 inch bore, 75 foot long barrel. That will need to have special order machinery cause all the stuff used to make the likes of the M65 and Mark 7 went the way of the Dodo in the mid 1970s. It does not exist anymore in the US or any of our allies. The biggest guns we can make today is the 203mm cause the Army made sure that Watervliet Arsenal could do in the rebuild they did in the 1990s.

And before someone says use high pressure pipe. SLAP YOUSELF FOR ME WITH YOU SHOE! The Navy look into that in the 80s for the Iowas and found it to be non-sat. Then bout a decade ago when the army started looking at rebuilding Watervliet Arsenal, they looked into just buy similar gear off the shelf as it were. But they too found it not workable due to the imprecision of the machines, basically for pipes you need .XX precision, for guns you need .XXXX precision. And the metals that modern guns use will destroy the machines since the devil details are THAT different. The Baylon Gun managed it by trading mobility, any accuracy, and barrel life to use the pipe sections, and even that barely worked.

So eyeah, as much as I will love to see the SLRC come to life.

I can't see it actually happening sadly thanks to the lack being able to make the barrel cheaply.

Which is annoying Ironic considering whats is in multiple harbors showing what could be done in days past.
 
The M65 barrel is an L40.

Its is 38.5 feet in length or 462 inches.

It collapses in on its recoil system to fit on a 42 foot long "trailer". The Trailer also doubles as the main firing platform that drops down to site on any flat piece of ground that has an area of at least 22 feet in diameter from the center of the platform so long as it within 3 degrees of angle. Which is actually fairly common. Take up and set down time is roughly 15 and 10 minutes respectively by the book, can tell you from experience's with similar size systems you can get sub ten minutes for both. 1 shot a minute is again by the book but all the stories from the Crews state you can make 2 easily and do burst of three if you were good.

With Modern gear, read engines and tires, you can do away with the rear prime mover on the trailer and extend the gun length up to 50 foot fairly easily, up to 75 if you want to go the ragged edge of what can be ship around easily.

So a 11 inch 80 caliber gun is the max you can expect using standard army limits.
Thank you!


Now for the non standard bit...

Which is building the 11 inch bore, 75 foot long barrel. That will need to have special order machinery cause all the stuff used to make the likes of the M65 and Mark 7 went the way of the Dodo in the mid 1970s. It does not exist anymore in the US or any of our allies. The biggest guns we can make today is the 203mm cause the Army made sure that Watervliet Arsenal could do in the rebuild they did in the 1990s.

And before someone says use high pressure pipe. SLAP YOUSELF FOR ME WITH YOU SHOE! The Navy look into that in the 80s for the Iowas and found it to be non-sat. Then bout a decade ago when the army started looking at rebuilding Watervliet Arsenal, they looked into just buy similar gear off the shelf as it were. But they too found it not workable due to the imprecision of the machines, basically for pipes you need .XX precision, for guns you need .XXXX precision. And the metals that modern guns use will destroy the machines since the devil details are THAT different. The Baylon Gun managed it by trading mobility, any accuracy, and barrel life to use the pipe sections, and even that barely worked.

So eyeah, as much as I will love to see the SLRC come to life.

I can't see it actually happening sadly thanks to the lack being able to make the barrel cheaply.

Which is annoying Ironic considering whats is in multiple harbors showing what could be done in days past.
Yeah, I can't imagine how to bore out that barrel. Not a single EDM machine in existence that can handle that distance down the pipe.

As to using drill casing, that only works at black powder pressure levels, some 8kpsi, and that's using drill casing as the liner and casting the rest of the cannon shape around it. Pretty typical for reproduction black powder cannons, actually.
 
Thank you!



Yeah, I can't imagine how to bore out that barrel. Not a single EDM machine in existence that can handle that distance down the pipe.

As to using drill casing, that only works at black powder pressure levels, some 8kpsi, and that's using drill casing as the liner and casting the rest of the cannon shape around it. Pretty typical for reproduction black powder cannons, actually.
Yup with this entire thing being particularly annoying.

Cause there is nothing major that says that this would not work like what happened with say the XFV12.

The most likely way for the SLRC to have worked been by basically replacing the Boost phase of a missile. Basically the Gun punts the warhead section up to the upper atmosphere and skip glide back down to the target. With all the tech working well on their own at least.

Excaliber and like shows that electronics needed to fly this brick can withstand over 20k gees of both axial and linear acceration, and still go through you chosen window at a very reliable rate.

And everything from Pershing 2 to the many hypersonic tests shows that the flight path is very do able.

Heck be even simpler with Ramjet rounds which been shown to work so far with no major issues. Whats the latest range they hit again? 130km so far? Imagine that scale up to 280mm.

Things that holding it up? Getting a barrel to launch it. That and money but since it will cost like triple to build machines to build the barrel and ect...


But you could do similar with a smaller gun at the expansive of range, an eight incher with over 400 kilometers of range be handy...

In many meanings of the term handy, since it be smaller and likely able to be self-propelled. The Soviets put a 16"/L50 barrel on basically a tank chassis in the 50s, so a 8"L60 barrel on a SPG be very doable. Make the Round a Ramjet? Double the range over the 155mm easily.

And the Machines at Watervliet can do 203mm barrels within the week.
 
Idk if there's a realistic for a military application of any gun that has to do with gas mixing. seems like a nightmare to maintain and operate
 
Idk if there's a realistic for a military application of any gun that has to do with gas mixing. seems like a nightmare to maintain and operate
Light gas guns are old hat in academia as they are necessary for the simulating space debris impacts on space assets..
 
..was addressing gas mixing only as that was the original question.
"seems like a nightmare to maintain and operate"

Toughness gets into how much maintenance you need and how easily it can be operated when full of Astan moon dust.
 
..was addressing gas mixing only as that was the original question.
Thank you @Scott Kenny for clarifying my point.

@jsport Maybe I didn't word it right but as Scott stated, I'm talking about practicality of such system in military usage context not the feasibility of the technology.

Though the weapon is supposed to be strategic, lobbing shells far away from the front line. So maybe it doesn't have to meet the level of logistically robustness and ruggedness as other systems?
 
Though the weapon is supposed to be strategic, lobbing shells far away from the front line. So maybe it doesn't have to meet the level of logistically robustness and ruggedness as other systems?
Still needs to be mobile and getting set up in less-than-ideal locations.

But honestly I'm just not seeing how the ammunition will be cheap. You're going to have to fire guided projectiles with a significant amount of rocket boost in the shell itself. And shells like that are expensive. Well over $100k each when made in fairly large numbers (Excalibur), over $1mil each when you're only making a couple hundred...
 
Not to mention entirely new logistical and training chains.

However, there's 1 factor I can think it may be worth it - deterrence.

Military generals and experts don't decide to go to war, especially in govt system like China. It's the politician. The idea of a giant super gun that can lob shells day and night over and over again can evoke some unpleasant trauman of the great wars of the past for someone who isn't militarily savy.

In a top down style of government, the leader usually surrounds himself with yes men who knows about their own military's deficiencies but too afraid to voice them. Imagine as a general tryin to come up with an excuse of not goin to war with taiwan/US. Citing some type of wonder mythical weapon like a thousand miles super gun that the enemy has is much more preferrable than telling your dear leader your own military isn't as good as advertised.
 
Honestly the SLRC makes more sense as a naval weapon then Army.

Imagine a ship with one just putputinng around the latest snafu point lobbing shells day and night at sometime.

That going to be unpleasant no matter who you are even if theres a Carrier or four doing hit and fades. Its going to be as hard to find as a Carrier, if not harder due to smaller size. And able to do sustain operations fair easier as well.

Throw on a Whooping great radar a few ABM systems and maybe laser?

Well I say call her a Monitor so she can monitor the situation and respond in kind.
 
Light gas guns are old hat in academia as they are necessary for the simulating space debris impacts on space assets..
The light-gas guns used in experiments are different to the Combustion Light-Gas (CLG) guns that would be viable for the military. (Not sure which kind the hypersonic cannon linked is, I suspect the former due to the relative simplicity and the low-stress environment it operates in).


If I recall correctly, a CLG can attain velocities similar to or greater than railgun technology, at least our current railgun technology, but must suffer from some other issues (hence their lack of adoption).
 
The light-gas guns used in experiments are different to the Combustion Light-Gas (CLG) guns that would be viable for the military. (Not sure which kind the hypersonic cannon linked is, I suspect the former due to the relative simplicity and the low-stress environment it operates in).
That was a test system for Zumwalt.
If I recall correctly, a CLG can attain velocities similar to or greater than railgun technology, at least our current railgun technology, but must suffer from some other issues (hence their lack of adoption).
First well its a gun using gas a propellent.
 
Honestly the SLRC makes more sense as a naval weapon then Army.

Imagine a ship with one just putputinng around the latest snafu point lobbing shells day and night at sometime.

That going to be unpleasant no matter who you are even if theres a Carrier or four doing hit and fades. Its going to be as hard to find as a Carrier, if not harder due to smaller size. And able to do sustain operations fair easier as well.

Throw on a Whooping great radar a few ABM systems and maybe laser?

Well I say call her a Monitor so she can monitor the situation and respond in kind.
Cough - Submarine - cough
 
Is limited in multiple ways ranging from lack of sensors and ammo to needing to surface to use such a gun.

AkA, this is no where need a Submarines wheelhouse
Agreed, this is completely ignoring the fact that a submarine exists to be stealthy, while a naval monitor exists to be obvious.
 

Seems like an attempt to reinvent AGS or VGAS with extra bells on, yet LRLAP was unaffordable, $.8-1.0mil per round, and it only had to get to 150km (83nm). If you want to go 1000 miles, then you pretty much have to assume very high elevation if not vertical, because you have to get out of the thicker atmosphere for most of the flight. And, unlike LRLAP, any 1000 mile capable projectile probably needs a second stage (counting its muzzle velocity as the first stage) to boost it in the appropriate direction, because otherwise you're going to be talking flight times of around an hour or more. Muzzle velocity for AGS was 825m/s, which equates to a 32 minute time of flight to 1000 miles, assuming it doesn't slow down at all, which is unlikely, especially if you expend that initial velocity getting to height).

Remember, the USN concluded LRLAP was unaffordable even when estimates were they might get it down to $35k/round in volume production (but were 'challenging'), whereas the Army was happily talking $.4-.5m for SLRP. Another issue to consider is that LRLAP had a CEP of 20-50m. If you're firing a handful of conventional shells to 1000 miles, and probably attacking hardened infrastructure (because what else is worth engaging at that range) then you probably want better accuracy than that, but drift etc will be far worse at 1000 miles than 83 miles, so it's a harder - more expensive - problem to fix.

WRT submarines, I'm pretty sure VGAS came up in relation to the Ohio SSGN conversions (same timeframe), but no idea how serious that was. Sensors on the submarine are irrelevant, because it would be firing at downlinked GPS coords (just the same goes for the Army version). WRT the advisability of firing from a sub, if you're punting a dozen Tomahawks out of your VLS that's pretty non-stealthy, yet that's what exactly what the Ohios do, so putting a VGAS in a sub isn't a non-starter in terms of operational concept.

On a historical note, there have been subs with 12" guns, the RN's M-1 class, but the operational concept there was to use the 12" as a torpedo substitute, coming up to periscope depth, with the muzzle just above water, and engaging at short range. There have been other subs intended for gun combat, HMS X-1 and Surcouf, plus a bunch of never-builts, but again they were meant for surface combat, not bombardment.
 
WRT submarines, I'm pretty sure VGAS came up in relation to the Ohio SSGN conversions (same timeframe), but no idea how serious that was. Sensors on the submarine are irrelevant, because it would be firing at downlinked GPS coords (just the same goes for the Army version). WRT the advisability of firing from a sub, if you're punting a dozen Tomahawks out of your VLS that's pretty non-stealthy, yet that's what exactly what the Ohios do, so putting a VGAS in a sub isn't a non-starter in terms of operational concept.
The proposed CONOPS for the SSGN "deck gun" was to broach the ship, flop a couple of muzzle hatches open, send however many rounds up and out, nitrogen purge the bore, shut the hatches, and get back off the surface. All in about 3 minutes or so.

That was for dropping rounds in support of a SEAL team in trouble.

18-20 Trident tubes available, so 2 tubes for VGAS, 4 tubes for Cormorant UCAVs, 6 tubes with N-ATACMS in triples, and 6-8 tubes of Tomahawks in 7s.
 
The proposed CONOPS for the SSGN "deck gun" was to broach the ship, flop a couple of muzzle hatches open, send however many rounds up and out, nitrogen purge the bore, shut the hatches, and get back off the surface. All in about 3 minutes or so.

That was for dropping rounds in support of a SEAL team in trouble.

18-20 Trident tubes available, so 2 tubes for VGAS, 4 tubes for Cormorant UCAVs, 6 tubes with N-ATACMS in triples, and 6-8 tubes of Tomahawks in 7s.
I knew I'd heard it somewhere, just couldn't find a reference when I wanted one. That sounds pretty much like what I was trying to recall.
 
I knew I'd heard it somewhere, just couldn't find a reference when I wanted one. That sounds pretty much like what I was trying to recall.
The Deck Gun CONOPS is from a Submarine Review magazine from 2004, I have a hardcopy I ninja'd from work. https://archive.navalsubleague.org/2004/articles-time-to-re-man-the-deck-gun

The loadout is from a LockMart video that I haven't seen make it to YT, despite being unclassified. I was unable to ninja that CD/DVD-ROM from SUBRON19 when I worked there.
 
Seems like an attempt to reinvent AGS or VGAS with extra bells on, yet LRLAP was unaffordable, $.8-1.0mil per round, and it only had to get to 150km (83nm). If you want to go 1000 miles, then you pretty much have to assume very high elevation if not vertical, because you have to get out of the thicker atmosphere for most of the flight. And, unlike LRLAP, any 1000 mile capable projectile probably needs a second stage (counting its muzzle velocity as the first stage) to boost it in the appropriate direction, because otherwise you're going to be talking flight times of around an hour or more. Muzzle velocity for AGS was 825m/s, which equates to a 32 minute time of flight to 1000 miles, assuming it doesn't slow down at all, which is unlikely, especially if you expend that initial velocity getting to height).

Remember, the USN concluded LRLAP was unaffordable even when estimates were they might get it down to $35k/round in volume production (but were 'challenging'), whereas the Army was happily talking $.4-.5m for SLRP. Another issue to consider is that LRLAP had a CEP of 20-50m. If you're firing a handful of conventional shells to 1000 miles, and probably attacking hardened infrastructure (because what else is worth engaging at that range) then you probably want better accuracy than that, but drift etc will be far worse at 1000 miles than 83 miles, so it's a harder - more expensive - problem to fix.
Thing is this is forgetting bout current tricks and what happening right NOW.

Which is the Army Tossing the $100k a pop Excalibur round out to 68 miles, 109km, with the new Erca gun with sub 10 meter accuracy. Like that was done two years back with made records.

And just test a ramjet shell last year out to a range out to a over that distance which broke that record.


The Army can have AGS type preformance this year, probably by june, if it needed too by putting out the ERCA and fast tracking tge ramjet shells. As is they are planning on getting this in a few years time..

And the SLRC was planned on being BIGGER then 155mms, like pushing 280mm going by graphics. Which makes everything so much easier then trying to do it with 155mm suze shells.


The AGS was a poorly run program before getting into the costing ballooning by cutting the guns count from 64 plus to 9. And should not be used for what is possible for artillery, the USN been left behind in the US Army dust.
 
The Deck Gun CONOPS is from a Submarine Review magazine from 2004, I have a hardcopy I ninja'd from work. https://archive.navalsubleague.org/2004/articles-time-to-re-man-the-deck-gun

The loadout is from a LockMart video that I haven't seen make it to YT, despite being unclassified. I was unable to ninja that CD/DVD-ROM from SUBRON19 when I worked there.
thats the goddamn craziest idea and i love it. ohios or VPMs with artillery is some of the dankest gwot powerpoint engineering i think i've seen.

does anyone know why the navy seemingly refuses to make the switch to army sized/155mm rounds? It seems like a good way to field some of those needed fire-support reqts, while spreading the cost out to the army. These days, the Army might also be interested in any of the air-defense rounds that the Navy seems to express interest in.
 
The Army can have AGS type preformance this year, probably by june, if it needed too by putting out the ERCA and fast tracking tge ramjet shells. As is they are planning on getting this in a few years time..
Fair point about Excalibur, but what's its accuracy in the face of GPS countermeasures?

I also think you're combining several different shells to get that affordable, near term AGS-like performance. It's not the cost of Excalibur we need here, but the cost of XM1115 or the Boeing ramjet shell. And if they can only get Excalibur down to a $68k package, then we can reasonably put the cost of XM1115 significantly past $100k as you're squeezing better guidance and countermeasures into a smaller package, and the same plus a ramjet into the Boeing one. Firing a handful of prototype shells does not mean you're ready for production.

On top of which fielding it will need you to re-engineer significantly more than a couple of Paladins with the ERCA barrel and autoloader.
 
Last edited:
SCRAMJET is simply Supersonic Combustion Ram Jet as discussed above. Lots of work done on SCRAMJET engines but nothing in production yet that I know of. The goal is sustained flight from Mach 5-10. As far as I know the record is a US test vehicle that in 2013 flew for 3 minutes at Mach 5. I know there have been flights since, but I believe a lot of the work is classified.
 
thats the goddamn craziest idea and i love it. ohios or VPMs with artillery is some of the dankest gwot powerpoint engineering i think i've seen.
It honestly makes sense if you consider the job of an SSGN to be supporting the SEAL teams ashore.


does anyone know why the navy seemingly refuses to make the switch to army sized/155mm rounds? It seems like a good way to field some of those needed fire-support reqts, while spreading the cost out to the army. These days, the Army might also be interested in any of the air-defense rounds that the Navy seems to express interest in.
Navy shells tend to be a lot longer/heavier than army shells. IIRC the USN 5" is almost as heavy as the Army 155mm.

Plus, they have an absurd 5" stockpile they're sitting on, both shells and gun barrels.
 
Navy shells tend to be a lot longer/heavier than army shells. IIRC the USN 5" is almost as heavy as the Army 155mm.

Plus, they have an absurd 5" stockpile they're sitting on, both shells and gun barrels.

Plus the latest Mk 45 installations (on Type 26 at least) are basically a turret sitting atop an autoloader for every shell aboard. The shells are in 32 shell modules, each module holding two 4x4 blocks of shells, and my guess would be you could only fit 3x3 in each block if you switched to 155mm vs 127mm. On Type 26 that would cut 192 shells aboard to 108. It's not just changing out the barrel, or even the turret, it's rebuilding a substantial part of the bow of the ship.
 
Navy shells tend to be a lot longer/heavier than army shells. IIRC the USN 5" is almost as heavy as the Army 155mm.
Not so sure as Navy Mk45 5"/62 approx 69 lbs whereas Army 155 mm NATO standard M107 approx 95 lbs nearly 40% heavier
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom