Register here

Author Topic: Naval Gun Projects  (Read 108355 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #105 on: August 30, 2011, 07:48:45 pm »
I can't see any reason to want more than two medium-caliber (5-6 inch) guns.  One is less than ideal given the demonstrated unreliability of the Mk45 (ask Vincennes) but more than two seems pointless.


Small-caliber stuff, I could see a case for a couple more, but where do you out them without mucking up all the other essentials?  And of course, most deployed ships actually do have at least four small caliber guns -- a pair of 25mm and a couple of Phalanx, most now with Surface Mode --  plus at least a couple of of .50-cals and/or 7.62mm miniguns.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #106 on: August 31, 2011, 04:18:12 pm »
The Italians never had much of a problem fitting a lot of guns on their ships (e.g. two fast-firing 127mm, FOUR rapid-fire 76mm, and a Mk13 Standard launcher on a medium-sized air-warfare destroyer), so I don't see why other navies can't do the same. VLS should make it even easier.

There seems to me no reason why a 1000ft aircraft carrier can't carry at least six CIWS guns.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #107 on: September 02, 2011, 01:47:36 am »
Does anybody have any information or images on the Vickers GBN? It was a 155mm designed for naval use and was unveiled in 1983, it was a counterpart to the GBT turret that eventually evolved into the AS90, both derived from UK work on SP70. In 1991 Vickers displayed a mock-up of what they called the N155-2000, basically a 155mm version of the 4.5 inch Mk8, I assume using Vickers UFH (Ultralight Field Howitzer- eventually became M777) barrel, basically the same as what BAE has been playing with recently through the 155mm TMF before it was abandoned in 2010.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 01:49:16 am by sealordlawrence »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #108 on: September 06, 2011, 10:22:09 am »
The Italians never had much of a problem fitting a lot of guns on their ships (e.g. two fast-firing 127mm, FOUR rapid-fire 76mm, and a Mk13 Standard launcher on a medium-sized air-warfare destroyer), so I don't see why other navies can't do the same. VLS should make it even easier.

The Italians managed it by having seakeeping and habitability standards similar to the Soviets, IIRC.  Okay if you plan to do most of your fighting in the Med; not so good if you may have to spend a lot of time in the North Atlantic.

There seems to me no reason why a 1000ft aircraft carrier can't carry at least six CIWS guns.

You get into diminishing returns pretty quickly; more than one CIWS on the same firing arc may not be a dramatic improvement in actual protection.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #109 on: September 07, 2011, 04:29:42 am »
Wouldn't it help to prevent saturation, though? For all that a lesser number of guns may be able to switch between targets rapidly enough to shoot them all down, those things do need to be reloaded from time to time. And if you're far from home with your missile magazines getting lean and the next reload is a cordon of enemy submarines away, or if you're a destroyer defending a high-value target, your point-defence gun armament might become your dominant means of self-protection.
 
I take the point about the habitability standards and likely theatre of engagement, though. Wasn't this also the thing which made Italian battleship designers' lives a lot easier?

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #110 on: September 09, 2011, 12:34:32 pm »
Small caliber CIWSs are very much last ditch defenses, the ship is still likely to be hit by debris which may include the intact warhead blasted free of the missile airframe. Larger systems like 76mm can do more, but they also cost more. If you are worried about saturation then packing on more small guns is not the solution, you need missile based systems that can defeat incoming threats at longer ranges and ideally which have more then one engagement opportunity. It also really helps if you can make more then one engagement at a time or in much quicker succession, all the more so then a gun system which often has to fire spotting bursts. The Italians are using a guided shell for the 76mm now to improve performance against supersonic missiles and avoid spotting, god only knows how much that costs per shell but I doubt it is less then tens of thousands of dollars.

You'd also have to look into how many actual fire control channels those Italian ships have for all those guns, I don't think its a 1:1 ratio and this is key for the engagement rate.

Anyway even the small Phalanx style mount costs around 6 million bucks, I don't know about 76mm but the 57mm Mk110 which is a similar size costs around 7.2 million for the gun mount alone. This doesn't count the radar direction or the magazine or major ship and crew impact which must be paid for every year no matter the use. RAM is under 1 million dollars a round with more effective range then any feasible CIWS, and its a wooden round in a simple mount that can be reloaded by a couple people. Mounting more guns to avoid running out of self defense missiles does not make a great deal of fiscal sense. Guns make sense for the primary reason that they have no greater minimal range then the arming time of the shell; and even a unarmed shell can kill a missile if it hits solidly.


Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #111 on: September 17, 2011, 10:07:43 am »
I'm not sure if it was here or on another forum, but I remember a discussion of a Rarden based remote control mounting proposed for the RN. Thanks to an old issue of the gleefully entitled "War Machine" (The 1980's, eh?) I have a few details.

"LS30R"
• Laurence Scott Defence Systems mounting
• RARDE 30mm Rarden automatic cannon
• Power driven and LOS stabilised
• Tests carried out by RN at sea on trials FF HMS Londonderry and on land at the Fraser Gunnery Range
• Hit a 2m2 target 80% of the time at ranges between 1000-1300m
• HE, APSE and APDS rounds
• LS30R was to replace 20mm and 40mm weapons, initially starting on OPVs
• Basic mounting can be used with 30mm Oerlikon KCB and Mauser Model F (LS30B and LS30F)
• -20 to +70 degrees elevation
• 6-22 rounds on-mount

This was the weapon DJ Brown used on a lot of his independent concept designs.

EDIT 2011-07-26:

Warship #25 has an article by Antony Preston entitled "The Naval Rarden Gun" with pictures and a description of the development process. Obviously I'm not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but a few points:

• The mounting was a private venture development of the Laurence Scott / Electromotors Optical Fire Director mounting. As a secondary role, the mounting could act as a director for another system.
• The mounting was tested with Oerlikon 20mm and Rarden 30mm.
• Aim-off and range were estimated manually by the operator. A predictor was to be available for later versions, but no mention is made of a rangefinder, so would still have been based on estimated ranges.
• Numerical specifications are provided. As a summary the complete mounting was 800kg in mass with 2m overall height and a swept radius of 2.2m. Elevation limits were -20/+70 degrees.

- RP1


Does anybody have any images of the LS30R? i am curious about the feed system on the RARDEN that was used, surely there must have been some modifications to suit the transition from the 3 round clips to a 21 round magazine?

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #112 on: September 18, 2011, 04:25:14 pm »
RAM is under 1 million dollars a round with more effective range then any feasible CIWS, and its a wooden round in a simple mount that can be reloaded by a couple people. Mounting more guns to avoid running out of self defense missiles does not make a great deal of fiscal sense. Guns make sense for the primary reason that they have no greater minimal range then the arming time of the shell; and even a unarmed shell can kill a missile if it hits solidly.

And a full load-out of RAMs at a million a pop is $20m or so? And then how much does each round of ammo for the gun cost?

Manufacture time, in a prolonged shooting war, could make the difference here, especially for a second line navy. If desperate, you could always go back to firing jacketed lead, but a missile takes time and much higher QC standards.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #113 on: September 19, 2011, 03:04:35 pm »
And a full load-out of RAMs at a million a pop is $20m or so? And then how much does each round of ammo for the gun cost?

Manufacture time, in a prolonged shooting war, could make the difference here, especially for a second line navy. If desperate, you could always go back to firing jacketed lead, but a missile takes time and much higher QC standards.

Which is just as true for the enemy trying to build piles of anti ship missiles as a defender making a small and fairly basic missile like RAM, aside from its passive homing feature anyway. How many anti ship missiles do you really expect people to field? Guns in any case also need new barrels, which take a very long time to produce in calibers larger then machine guns and cost a fair bit of money, and these modern ultra rapidly firing defensive guns have very short barrel lives because of the speed at which they overheat. Since so few nations produce any kind of naval SAM or naval gun in the first place, the whole production argument is on shaky grounds anyway; and the big powers have nuclear weapons.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #114 on: September 19, 2011, 04:02:56 pm »
Does anybody have any images of the LS30R? i am curious about the feed system on the RARDEN that was used, surely there must have been some modifications to suit the transition from the 3 round clips to a 21 round magazine?

Its not much but here is a painting from an old 'Sea Weapons' book.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #115 on: September 20, 2011, 05:37:51 am »
Thanks Abraham.


I did a google books search today and Warship Volume VII (which I do not have a copy of) seems to suggest that actually there were three proposed variants and only the Mk3 would have the clip-on 21 round magazine.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8066
  • The path not taken.
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #116 on: September 20, 2011, 01:17:13 pm »
Another interesting project is Project MORAINE, from 2004 or thereabouts:


Quote
Gun-type Weapons on Submarines - Project „MORAINE“

Within the scope of the new security challenges the naval forces, too, have to perform to an increasing degree quasi-police tasks. Torpedoes and heavy missile are unsuited weapons for that kind of action. Especially the submarine, which due to its invisibility is particularly well suited for clandestine operations in coastal waters, requires a „downward“ expansion of its escalation-capable weapon employment spectrum. It should therefore be possible to cover the spectrum from missiles and torpedoes down to the employment of an automatic gun.

Today, submarines have no suitable close-range weapons. Already after the Second World War, there seemed to be no use any more for gun-type weapons. Meanwhile, this has obviously changed again in times where the navies take on diverse new tasks. With the missions required today, submarines can effectively bring to bear their capability of surfacing unexpectedly. Covert actions by special units which will not only be carried out by frogman and underwater demolition teams, but also by other specialized task units, will increase to a considerable extent. It may also become necessary for submarines to provide covering fire in the fight against the globally increasing piracy, which can adequately be realized only by means of gun-type weapons. The gun will be bedded in a pressure-resistant bearing in the submarine’s tower and hydraulically raised. It will be remotely controlled from inside the sub. The submarine will remain submerged during this process. Together with the Gabler Company in Luebeck and the Mauser Company in Oberndorf, the HDW shipyard has developed a concept for a gun system. The recoilless gun (RMK 30) will be expanded from the submarine’s tower by means of a hoistable device and can be employed by remote control from the boat, which travels at periscope depth.

http://www.europeansecurityanddefence.info/Ausgaben/1_2004/Hoffmann.html (Scroll down; There are also a fair few other interesting tidbits.)

Also, it looks like Gabler and Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft continued (and expanded) the development of the concept into the TRIPLE-M system: http://www.gabler-luebeck.de/maschinenbau/en/entwicklungen/eigenschutz/index.html

Note that the MURAENA gun is a development of the Rheinmetall RMK 30 created especially for the role (the RMK 30 appears to have been included in Project MORAINE from the outset).


[IMAGE CREDIT: GABLER Naval Technology]


Here's the Gabler TRIPLE-M brochure.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 01:33:19 pm by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #117 on: September 23, 2011, 05:38:20 pm »
Here's some of the FMC brochure for the Mk 71 203mm naval gun mount.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #118 on: September 23, 2011, 05:41:34 pm »
More leaflet pages.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11154
Re: Naval Gun Projects
« Reply #119 on: September 23, 2011, 06:53:23 pm »
Could a Spruace have handled one of these?  (I remember reading that it was planned at one time to replace the forward Mk45 on those ships with these.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.