50-mm EAPS ARDEC gun

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
18 May 2019
Messages
636
Reaction score
1,564
8521260895_bbeccbb78f_b.jpg


Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) 50mm Cannon

2010 year
correct link
f85cee1004e924c30c535b2b7c5e243a.jpg


2020 - work still going

Dynetics, Huntsville, Alabama, has been awarded a $92,999,625 basic, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Test Systems and Equipment Capabilities (TSEC) support and $30,934,550 delivery order for the Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility (GWEF) Radio Frequency (RF) Modernization Design. The contract provides for the specific needs to include: Hardware-in-the-loop simulators for the GWEF RF Modernization and AFRL Kinetic Kill Vehicle Hardware in the Loop Simulator system upgrades; joint multi-platform advanced combat identification development; calibration sets integration, and software updates; Air Defense Artillery Phased Technology Digital Command Link, and immediate need technologies to support Department of Defense (DoD) ranges. Work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama and other DoD locations. The contract has a five year ordering period with work expected to be completed by Jan. 2025.

 

Attachments

  • WednesdayLandmarkAArthurAeberli.pdf
    913.3 KB · Views: 80
Last edited:
U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS)
2016 ARMAMENTS SYSTEMS FORUM
 

Attachments

  • 18295_Luciano.pdf
    651.5 KB · Views: 104
Last edited:
The drone was a lot cheaper than the missile. Not a good rate of exchange for what is essentially a small unarmed drone of dubious value.

Orlan 10 cost the Russian MoD c$120,000 per copy...and yes the Russian MoD got ripped off and probably paid for someones yacht...

Martlet is c$65,000 per copy....so Martlet is a lot cheaper...

Besides the Russian's are running low on Orlan's according to intercepted conversations. The cost is not a straight missle vs drone comparison...its what you just protected from being attacked...

Orlan 30 have been used in Ukraine, and shot down...

The altitude of this drone can’t exceed 1500 meters so this sort of threat isn’t worth the missile. A good reason why the Indian army is still procuring 40mm L70 Bofors guns.

Horses for courses. A Bofors L70 is a huge system to carry around in comparison to a Martlet and man portable launch kit. If its not got good sensors and airburst rounds available in quantity it will likely just be a target for more modern loitering munitions...
Your figure for the unit cost of Martlet is a little low. https://militarymatters.online/weapons/martlet-ukraines-latest-surface-to-air-missile/

To quote this source: “Best public estimates I have seen say that Martlets cost about £1.5 million each; Starstreak’s are about £3 million.” That seems quite high to me but $65,000 also was a bit low. Consider that Starstreak and Martlet are make work projects for job creation in Belfast (at least 500 jobs circa 2009) I don’t see either system as being especially low cost.

The Russians apparently quoted the price of Orlan-M as a package deal with a pair of drones, spares and the base station for $160,000 circa 2013. I assume that’s an export price and no doubt padded.

Don't compare the cost of a dead drone to a missile. Compare the cost of a live drone to a dead company or battalion instead.

Because that's the actual economic exchange occurring. If the drone doesn't die it will be able to direct accurate artillery fire onto a defended ground unit and cause far more material damage and costs than a single MANPADS.

Ditto the attack helicopter team/platoon with Vikhrs or something that Martlet has occasionally bullied.

40mm probably doesn't have much a future as a CUAS system though. It has too few stowed kills to handle the actually large numbers of targets of Group 1/2 UAS that make up observer team or swarming attacks, and against something like a Orlan-10 or similar Group 3 UAS it's typically better to use a missile. The stowed kills of a Bofors gun on a large tracked chassis is something puny like 20-25 after all, if we assume a 8-12 round engagement cycle with airburst 3P rounds.

The unironic best gun caliber for a dumb round SHORAD these days is somewhere between 20-30mm with the latter leaning towards PABM and the former leading towards APDS. This gives you a large magazine and the additional rounds needed don't encroach on stowed kills.

Somewhere between 30-50mm is where you see this bizarre dip in stowed kills against swarming drones but retaining similar lethality against higher altitude threats. This only makse sense if you intend to use the cannon as an all-threat engagement system like Lvkv 9040. Beyond 50mm you can get terminally guided, radar beamriding projectiles that cut the engagement cycle from "a dozen or two" shells to literally 1-3 rounds against all threats, and you start to see an improvement in stowed kills over smaller calibers. The downside is that you need a radar guided projectile with an airburst warhead and you still don't carry many rounds.


The most realistic options going forward are 20x102mm, 30x113mm, and various 57-76mm calibers that have only really seen use in naval guns and the occasional crazy clown car that no one buys. Since we know it is possible to make PABM 20-25mm rounds, that's a possible solution, using MEMS fuses derived from the 20mm rounds used in the OICW. They wouldn't be particularly dangerous to a helicopter but they would absolutely shred most lightweight forward observation team UAS.

For helicopters, you will have a missile for BLOS autonomous guided shots (Brimstone or Longbow Hellfire), and short-range LOS interceptions of battalion or regimental observation UAS using something like RBS 70, Martlet, or Stinger. The gun would exist solely to kill Group 1/2 UAS that are too small for reliable IR missile engagements and too numerous for any stowed quantities of guided rockets regardless.

You can expand out the engagement capabilities by addition of extremely small missiles like MHTK or something, or APDS ammunition for the 20-30mm gun, to shoot down mortar bombs and terminally guided artillery rounds that might harm accompanied main battle tanks or something, too.

Anyway my point is Martlet is fine for swatting Orlan-10s. It could be cheaper I guess, but a LAADS team isn't exactly the most common type of munition or biggest equipment user of a battalion task force, nor are the targets they engage (attack helicopters and Group 3 UAS) particularly common in of themselves.

The real problem is that terminally guided projectiles can murder a battalion to a track fairly swiftly and that Group 1 UAS can direct TGP/TGSM artillery pieces as effectively as an Orlan-10 while being about a dozen times more numerous a target. Which is why a future SHORAD will need to be very low level (sub-sub-unit possibly), have the capability to destroy or disrupt incoming terminal guided projectiles, and have a lot of stowed kills because you might be fending off artillery and their eyeballs for a while before getting more ammo.

All of that points to small calibers as being ideal. Preferably the same caliber as the platoon/company carrier.

The really big guns can be used by the battalions for protection against the same threats, but at longer ranges, letting them disperse a battery of half a dozen heckin' chonker trucks, instead of a company of a dozen SHORAD LAVs, throughout the battalion's COMMZ.

...or if you're Rheinmetall the field artillery battery fires a shot of 155mm PABM rounds to obliterate anything that flies.
You have seen the US Army's 50mm C-RAM system, right? Bofors 40mm/L70 case necked up to 50mm, to support a guided projectile. The only reason it ended up in the 50x319mm case was because the 50x228mm (aka 50mm Supershot or 35/50mm) didn't have enough overall length for the guided projectile.
 
You have seen the US Army's 50mm C-RAM system, right? Bofors 40mm/L70 case necked up to 50mm, to support a guided projectile. The only reason it ended up in the 50x319mm case was because the 50x228mm (aka 50mm Supershot or 35/50mm) didn't have enough overall length for the guided projectile.

The EAPS gun was derived from the 40mm Bushmaster IV but the projectile isn't based on the Bofors 40mm. The EAPS cartridge is a stretched 50mm Supershot, which means it's a necked out and elongated 35mm. I believe it was actually 50x330, based on @Tony Williams research. (Lots of past tense there because I understand the EAPS is cancelled.)

 
One wonders how much cheaper, allowing for size of production run, a guided, gun-launched projectile is than a pocket-propelled one with the same level of performance.
 
You have seen the US Army's 50mm C-RAM system, right? Bofors 40mm/L70 case necked up to 50mm, to support a guided projectile. The only reason it ended up in the 50x319mm case was because the 50x228mm (aka 50mm Supershot or 35/50mm) didn't have enough overall length for the guided projectile.

The EAPS gun was derived from the 40mm Bushmaster IV but the projectile isn't based on the Bofors 40mm. The EAPS cartridge is a stretched 50mm Supershot, which means it's a necked out and elongated 35mm. I believe it was actually 50x330, based on @Tony Williams research. (Lots of past tense there because I understand the EAPS is cancelled.)

Right, projectile is not based on bofors 40mm, but the brass case is. Same case head diameter and overall length. And yes, should be 50x330mm.

I do know that the Army is still pursuing the 50x228mm XM913 chain gun and ammo, not sure about the 50x330mm EAPS/CRAM. But I'd argue that 40mmL70 or 50x330mm is a smaller package overall than any 57mm or 76mm, and potentially capable of higher rates of fire as well.

Though with firing guided projectiles, I'm not entirely sure how much a higher rate of fire would be useful. Probably depends on the capabilities of the guidance system, and whether it's held in the projectile or in the ground mounts. Notes from presentation on the 50x330mm EAPS gun imply a 10 round salvo at 200ish rounds per minute as their system goal.



One wonders how much cheaper, allowing for size of production run, a guided, gun-launched projectile is than a pocket-propelled one with the same level of performance.
Well, the M982 Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shell is $68k, while a Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb is on the order of $168k. And, that's with re-using the M26 rockets from the MLRS/HIMARS. Both of those are high production run items, well into the thousands of items procured scale.
 
The EAPS gun was derived from the 40mm Bushmaster IV but the projectile isn't based on the Bofors 40mm. The EAPS cartridge is a stretched 50mm Supershot, which means it's a necked out and elongated 35mm. I believe it was actually 50x330, based on @Tony Williams research. (Lots of past tense there because I understand the EAPS is cancelled.)

Wasn't the 50x330mm (3rd from left) also round a telescoping round?



47x326R Vickers Class P (ac/AT), 47x428R Vickers 3½ pr (naval AA, repA), 50x330 (Supershot, necked-up 35x228, German 1980s, RepP), 50x355 501 MK (Oerlikon for USN, late 1950s, repA), 55x450B Gerät 58/MK 114 (German AA/ac, late-WW2, repA), 57x515R 6pr 6cwt (British AA, 1940s), 60x408R (IMI/OTO 1980s AFV)

1686579782027.png
 
I think what happened is that the original 50x228 Supershot was disappointing for sabot rounds due to lack of velocity and the Germans experimented with a 50x330 case and a tractor sabot to maximize the propellant volume/volume. Same length overall as the HE round, just a lot more case volume. Then EAPS used that stretched case with a projectile sticking further out for even longer LOA.

I'm certain the 50mm casehead matches 35x228, not Bofors 40mm.
 
I think what happened is that the original 50x228 Supershot was disappointing for sabot rounds due to lack of velocity and the Germans experimented with a 50x330 case and a tractor sabot to maximize the propellant volume/volume. Same length overall as the HE round, just a lot more case volume. Then EAPS used that stretched case with a projectile sticking further out for even longer LOA.

I'm certain the 50mm casehead matches 35x228, not Bofors 40mm.
And yet the US Army is running the 50x228 Supershot as the standard-to-be for the next generation of ground vehicles, not 50x330
 
I think what happened is that the original 50x228 Supershot was disappointing for sabot rounds due to lack of velocity and the Germans experimented with a 50x330 case and a tractor sabot to maximize the propellant volume/volume. Same length overall as the HE round, just a lot more case volume. Then EAPS used that stretched case with a projectile sticking further out for even longer LOA.

I'm certain the 50mm casehead matches 35x228, not Bofors 40mm.
And yet the US Army is running the 50x228 Supershot as the standard-to-be for the next generation of ground vehicles, not 50x330

Yes.

Because the sabot performance of the round isn't paramount; the real driver of 50mm over 35mm is the desire for better HE effect for airburst and probably wall busting. In practice, 50x228 APFSDS isn't going to do dramatically better than 35x228 -- you have more piston area but not much if any more propellant and more parasitic mass in the sabot. the 50x330 APFSDS was much better, thanks to more case volume for propellant, but a 50x330 HE round ends up with way too much of the HE projectile buried in the case (IIRC, they used a subcaliber HE round, giving up some of the advantage of 50mm). And the attempts to make a gun that could fire both 50x330 sabot and 50x228 HE were not 100% successful. So, they went with the 50x228 compromise. the APFSDS round is fine, and you'll use a missile on any real tank or heavy IFV target anyway.
 
I think what happened is that the original 50x228 Supershot was disappointing for sabot rounds due to lack of velocity and the Germans experimented with a 50x330 case and a tractor sabot to maximize the propellant volume/volume. Same length overall as the HE round, just a lot more case volume. Then EAPS used that stretched case with a projectile sticking further out for even longer LOA.

I'm certain the 50mm casehead matches 35x228, not Bofors 40mm.
And yet the US Army is running the 50x228 Supershot as the standard-to-be for the next generation of ground vehicles, not 50x330

Yes.

Because the sabot performance of the round isn't paramount; the real driver of 50mm over 35mm is the desire for better HE effect for airburst and probably wall busting. In practice, 50x228 APFSDS isn't going to do dramatically better than 35x228 -- you have more piston area but not much if any more propellant and more parasitic mass in the sabot. the 50x330 APFSDS was much better, thanks to more case volume for propellant, but a 50x330 HE round ends up with way too much of the HE projectile buried in the case (IIRC, they used a subcaliber HE round, giving up some of the advantage of 50mm). And the attempts to make a gun that could fire both 50x330 sabot and 50x228 HE were not 100% successful. So, they went with the 50x228 compromise. the APFSDS round is fine, and you'll use a missile on any real tank or heavy IFV target anyway.
Numbers I have seen bantered about for 50mm APFSDS penetration are (edit) >140mm RHAe, which makes it capable of popping BMPs and Bradleys etc.
 
Last edited:
Numbers I have seen bantered about for 50mm APFSDS penetration are 140mm RHAe, which makes it capable of popping BMPs and Bradleys etc.

The Naamo (tungsten) 35x228 APFSDS apparently penetrates about 120mm at 1000m, so not a lot less than the 50mm. The long 50x330 tungsten sabot round could pen about 180mm, so you do lose some by cutting back the cartridge but not so much that it can't do the job.
 
Numbers I have seen bantered about for 50mm APFSDS penetration are 140mm RHAe, which makes it capable of popping BMPs and Bradleys etc.

The Naamo (tungsten) 35x228 APFSDS apparently penetrates about 120mm at 1000m, so not a lot less than the 50mm. The long 50x330 tungsten sabot round could pen about 180mm, so you do lose some by cutting back the cartridge but not so much that it can't do the job.
Correction, greater than 140mm RHAe.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom