DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

[johnpjones1775]

Maybe look into existing Long Range Precision Fires strategy for the future and move the needle forward. Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) was pretty effective up to 150 km (93 mi), but cannot effectively target moving targets. How many rocket-boosted GBU-53/B Storm Breakers (formerly known as SDB II's) can be stacked in a container? Seems like you could run an unmanned boat steered from an Arleigh Burke or Legend class frigate without putting the expensive manned asset into harm's way. GLSDB was cheaper than a HVP round. GLSDB was 600 pounds per unit versus 285 pounds for the air-dropped version. GBU-53/B is about 80 pounds lighter. Throw in some rocket-boosted ADM-160A/B MALD and ADM-160C MALD-J to cause havoc. Only ADM-160A is relatively cheap, compared to the -C and -J models, so the latter may be asking too much.

I think we need to bring big guns back. An 8 gun firing a sub caliber munition will have solid range.
Mk71 gun had an effective range of 18 miles with an 8” round.
How much farther would a lighter 4” or 5” round fly off the same powder charge? I’d be willing to bet 24 isn’t out of the question.

I’m not an expert on ground based artillery but pretty sure most 155mm guns have an effective range of about 13-16miles, so an 8” gun even with a full sized projo still allows you to outrange shore based artillery.

There was experimentation with an 11” sub caliber round for the mk7s in the 80s and 90s that had an expected range of 100nm for example.
We don’t need expensive rocket boosters and shit for longer ranged fires.

Heck how far would a 3” projo fly out of a 5” gun?

 

[Josh_TN]

I am hardly a proponent of ASMs on USN ships either, outside Tomahawk and SM-6.

USS Turner Joy during Gun Runs in Nam off the coast of Chu Lai Hammering out 40 shells a minute at time for over 24 hours, then you have the US WW2 Standard for the 5'38.

Which was 15 RPM per Hour for an hour by Friedman.

In WW2 and Vietnam, those guns use the same materials at the same thickness as the old 54 cal Mk45, the newer 64 cal barrels are just as thick but use newer metals. Very likely to be even stronger. As is the older guns often fire fast enough long enough that their decks got cover in shells, and the paint blistered off the barrel from the heat with the crews dropping from exhausten.

Then you have the facts.

Any missile attack will not last an hour, cause that means its being piece meal out and easy pickings for Aegis. That is the Worse possible way to attack an Aegis Task Force.

No it be 5 to 15 minutes of Fucking Hell as the enemy tries to overwhelm the system. Meaning that the gun needs to hammer out for at most 5 maybe 10s minutes.

In Bursts, giving it amble time to cool off.

Cause the Incoming has to Punch there 3 different lays, Sm3/SM6/SM2, before the gun comes into play. Unless target by nearly 100 missiles, the gun needs to to fire more then 3-5 shots at a time assuming a similar hit ratio.

Thats for the high end attack.

For the Low end, like against drones, you have even more time to pace out the firing. Cause well these are slow, theres multiple other weapons in effect like the 35mms or 20mm, to say nothing of EWAR, the already issue otu DEWs, and helicopters for surface ones.

Its a web and each weapon system has it part and job all to work together to defend the ship.

Ok, I am half convinced, but I still see no sources. I do not understand how gun barrels last that long and I want an explanation or at least a source that hundreds of rounds can be fired without issue. I am not saying you are wrong, but if if I presented this to anyone else, I need a source.

 

[MadRat]

LRLAP technology is pushing 100 km (62 miles) on shells that are significantly longer than conventional rounds. However, LRLAP is expensive. The Europeans used sabot-type cases around projectiles to reach between 48-70 km (30-40 miles) out of the same size shells without the added costs of the LRLAP technology.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I am hardly a proponent of ASMs on USN ships either, outside Tomahawk and SM-6.

Ok, I am half convinced, but I still see no sources. I do not understand how gun barrels last that long and I want an explanation or at least a source that hundreds of rounds can be fired without issue. I am not saying you are wrong, but if if I presented this to anyone else, I need a source.

You can use the Google machine right? Our algorithms are probably close enough on this subject that we’d get similar results.

Now I wish I could remember what he barrel life of my mk38s was but I think it was like 1000 rounds.
Any gun that has a barrel life of a few hundred rounds isn’t much use.

Per Google AI results mk45 gun for example has a standard barrel life expectancy of 8k rounds 1500-3k for some ‘high energy’ rounds.

USA 5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[johnpjones1775]

LRLAP technology is pushing 100 km (62 miles) on shells that are significantly longer than conventional rounds. However, LRLAP is expensive. The Europeans used sabot-type cases around projectiles to reach between 48-70 km (30-40 miles) out of the same size shells without the added costs of the LRLAP technology.

Hey we had the same post topic

Unfortunately though is a sub caliber munition out of a 5” or 4.5” gun going to be big enough to be an effective bombardment round?

This is why I think we need to bring back the mk71. An 8” gun can throw a 5” round pretty far I’d bet.
Put 2 on a big ship, with 2 mk45s and 2 mk110s and you’ve got your battleship’s gun armament, back that up by 120+ VLS and you’re good to go.

My AI actually estimates mk71 could shoot a 5” round about 40-50 miles

 

[MadRat]

Hey we had the same post topic

Unfortunately though is a sub caliber munition out of a 5” or 4.5” gun going to be big enough to be an effective bombardment round?

This is why I think we need to bring back the mk71. An 8” gun can throw a 5” round pretty far I’d bet.
Put 2 on a big ship, with 2 mk45s and 2 mk110s and you’ve got your battleship’s gun armament, back that up by 120+ VLS and you’re good to go.

My AI actually estimates mk71 could shoot a 5” round about 40-50 miles

I posted yesterday somewhere about how VGAS (vertical gun for advanced ships) was looking at both 155 mm (6") and 203 mm (8"), but the 8-inch never materialized. Personally I never saw the 155 mm being big enough. I'm not so sure 255mm (10") isn't a better aim point for a VGAS. To me the VGAS was promised as more of a mortar than a gun. Now once you drop the slope below 45 degrees to make it a gun, then it takes way too much structure for 203 mm, and the basic 5"/127 mm (or the bigger 6.1"/155 mm) makes more practical sense. If they can build MALD-A at $30k apiece, I do not see why a small turbine from the MALD program couldn't be adapted for a VGAS to get projectiles up over 50,000 feet. Get it to a height for the turbine to kick in and then glide using fold-out wings like on SDBs out way past 48-70 km to more like >200 km. If you cannot get outside the range of most anti-ship missiles then adapt GLSDB to unmanned platforms and drive into anti-ship missile range to unload. The GLSDB could be rapidly unloaded at a target and then the unmanned asset moved back out of range. This is a much better scenario for deployment of long range fires than using a larger manned asset.

The 5-inch/54-cal (127 mm) Mark 45 to me is an all around gun that can be justified on its own merits for everything but direct fire. It has utility for defense that is worthwhile even if it is never aimed at a ground target.

 

[Scott Kenny]

LRLAP technology is pushing 100 km (62 miles) on shells that are significantly longer than conventional rounds. However, LRLAP is expensive. The Europeans used sabot-type cases around projectiles to reach between 48-70 km (30-40 miles) out of the same size shells without the added costs of the LRLAP technology.

As I understand it, Vulcano is the same technology as LRLAP (GPS/inertial/SAL guided and rocket boosted), Vulcano is subcaliber for more range, but is not rocket boosted. Subcaliber projectile means that the overall length is the same as a full bore projectile or even longer, but has much better ballistic coefficient.

127mm Vulcano is reaching 100km, 120km out of the 64cal barrel. Annoyingly, there's no room in the Vulcano design for a rocket booster.

That said, LRLAP was reaching out 100nmi/180km at the end of testing, courtesy of a rocket booster half the overall length of the projectile!

========
Looking at it, 8" Mk16 or Mk71 guns seem to run a projectile that is ~36" long, plus a separate loading case that is ~50" long. So it'd be possible to make a longer 8" subcaliber round of ~50" overall length. Still not the full length of the old LRLAP, but it should not need as much rocket booster for the desired range when it's already starting at 1200m/s or faster.

 

[MadRat]

Vulcano is subcaliber for more range, but is not rocket boosted. Subcaliber projectile means that the overall length is the same as a full bore projectile or even longer, but has much better ballistic coefficient.

127mm Vulcano is reaching 100km, 120km out of the 64cal barrel. Annoyingly, there's no room in the Vulcano design for a rocket booster.

That said, LRLAP was reaching out 100nmi/180km at the end of testing, courtesy of a rocket booster half the overall length of the projectile!

========
Looking at it, 8" Mk16 or Mk71 guns seem to run a projectile that is ~36" long, plus a separate loading case that is ~50" long. So it'd be possible to make a longer 8" subcaliber round of ~50" overall length. Still not the full length of the old LRLAP, but it should not need as much rocket booster for the desired range when it's already starting at 1200m/s or faster.

I believe the VULCANO still uses base bleed technology. It expels gas into the low-pressure area behind the shell to reduce base drag, but does not produce thrust like on LRLAP's rocket-assisted projectiles.

This was posted in the thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mk-71-lightweight-8-gun.1077/page-2
Naval Gunfire Support of Amphibious Operations: Past, Present, and Future (1977)
By Donald M. Weller, Major General USMC (Ret.)

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA051873.pdf

 

[johnpjones1775]

I am hardly a proponent of ASMs on USN ships either, outside Tomahawk and SM-6.

Ok, I am half convinced, but I still see no sources. I do not understand how gun barrels last that long and I want an explanation or at least a source that hundreds of rounds can be fired without issue. I am not saying you are wrong, but if if I presented this to anyone else, I need a source.

I’m really confused by this post though.

What is the hang up with understanding how a gun can shoot hundreds of rounds?

Do you mean hundreds of rounds in a continuous fire mission?
Hundreds of rounds through out a day?
Hundreds of rounds before the barrel wears out?

Im just really confused why this is such an issue for you.

 

[MadRat]

No worries. They can swap barrels of smaller guns out at sea, but the larger barrels of the 5"s require swaps at port. Mark 45 Mod 4 is rated for 8,000 rounds. When you rely on guidance packages the barrel accuracy is less important.

 

[johnpjones1775]

No worries. They can swap barrels of smaller guns out at sea, but the larger barrels of the 5"s require swaps at port. Mark 45 Mod 4 is rated for 8,000 rounds. When you rely on guidance packages the barrel accuracy is less important.

I know that, I’m just trying to understand where he was having the hang up in his thought process

 

[Josh_TN]

You can use the Google machine right? Our algorithms are probably close enough on this subject that we’d get similar results.

Now I wish I could remember what he barrel life of my mk38s was but I think it was like 1000 rounds.
Any gun that has a barrel life of a few hundred rounds isn’t much use.

Per Google AI results mk45 gun for example has a standard barrel life expectancy of 8k rounds 1500-3k for some ‘high energy’ rounds.

USA 5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Barrel life is a very different thing compared to sustainable rate of fire. Most howitzers cannot maintain a RoF of n more than 1-3 rounds per minute after a few minutes of rapid fire (say a half dozen rounds per minute) due to heating constraints. The actual barrel life is usually >2000 rounds, but not all inside several hours.

 

[Josh_TN]

I’m really confused by this post though.

What is the hang up with understanding how a gun can shoot hundreds of rounds?

Do you mean hundreds of rounds in a continuous fire mission?
Hundreds of rounds through out a day?
Hundreds of rounds before the barrel wears out?

Im just really confused why this is such an issue for you.

Hundreds of rounds at cyclic RoF. The original conversation was a comparison of Mk41 RoF with Mk45.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Barrel life is a very different thing compared to sustainable rate of fire. Most howitzers cannot maintain a RoF of n more than 1-3 rounds per minute after a few minutes of rapid fire (say a half dozen rounds per minute) due to heating constraints. The actual barrel life is usually >2000 rounds, but not all inside several hours.

It is, but what exactly is the question

 

[johnpjones1775]

Hundreds of rounds at cyclic RoF. The original conversation was a comparison of Mk41 RoF with Mk45.

Again, what is the question exactly.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Heck how far would a 3” projo fly out of a 5” gun?

Less than 100km. The Vulcano 5" shell is basically a 3" diameter unit, but has vastly better ballistic coefficient.

 

[Seragina]

Perhaps we should move all these gun topics and VLS packing topics to separate dedicated threads as these will come up again at infinity.


My two cents on guns.
Barrel life is based on material (quallity) and wear due to friction of the projectile with the barrel and ofc the heating-cooling stress.
Rate of fire depends on heat transfer coefficient: at some point more heat is generated than the barrel can move it which woud lead to a meltdown. Ofc bending adds another limitation to rate of fire. Energy expanded per shot is proportional to caliber (not linear).
The ideal caliber I get here is slightly over 36 mm. It's why the millenium gun is so good.

 

[Josh_TN]

Again, what is the question exactly.

How many rounds can mk45 fire at its maximum cyclic RoF without undue risk of catastrophic barrel failure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How many rounds can mk45 fire at its maximum cyclic RoF without undue risk of catastrophic barrel failure.

It's not a matter of catastrophic failure, it's a matter of overheating the rifling and ripping it out of the barrel.

For a small arms example, an AR15 barrel will burn out the rifling after a couple hundred rounds of full auto, but the barrel will last more than 10,000 rounds if you're not rapid-firing.

 

[MadRat]

How many rounds can mk45 fire at its maximum cyclic RoF without undue risk of catastrophic barrel failure.

Information like that would be sensitive. And it appears that its not relevant to anyone else here.

 

[johnpjones1775]

How many rounds can mk45 fire at its maximum cyclic RoF without undue risk of catastrophic barrel failure.

100-200 like most guns

They weren’t mk45s but one DD(G?) burned its barrel out shooting at the oil rigs during praying mantis, and it fired several hundred rounds iirc.

Edit
Minor correction, it was operation nimble archer, not praying mantis. Each ship is stated to have fired hundreds of rounds

Bottom of page 161 ‘America’s first clash with Iran’ Lee Allen zatarain
“The three American ships made three more firing runs at decreasing ranges of 5000, 4200, and finally 2300 yards. Nearly 400 rounds were fired in the first two passes, 224 on the third, 84 on the fourth.”

Correction, my memory was bad, some of the guns had paint peeling off from the heat of the barrels. They did not burn the barrels out.
3 ships fired 1,065 rounds in about an hour and a half for an average of 355 rounds per ship.

 

[MadRat]

That was almost 40 years ago. Just think how much better they are now.

 

[MadRat]

That was almost 40 years ago. Just think how much better they are now.

 

[cccgong]

Or think of how little improvement has been done as it hasn’t been important.

Either way there’s no usecase for firing hundreds or even 100 rounds in one go. Even if you ram jet assisted AAW rounds, you don’t have the fire-rate nor does the enemy have the ASM depth. You aren’t going to be getting close enough to the coast to do hundred of rounds for fire support even with 100mi range guns. As if you feel safe to do so, you’ve already neutralized all sea, air, and shore battery threats so you’ve basically won already. And a large land invasion with the associated losses is then questionable.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Or think of how little improvement has been done as it hasn’t been important.

Either way there’s no usecase for firing hundreds or even 100 rounds in one go. Even if you ram jet assisted AAW rounds, you don’t have the fire-rate nor does the enemy have the ASM depth. You aren’t going to be getting close enough to the coast to do hundred of rounds for fire support even with 100mi range guns. As if you feel safe to do so, you’ve already neutralized all sea, air, and shore battery threats so you’ve basically won already. And a large land invasion with the associated losses is then questionable.

What do you mean there’s no use case to firing 100+ rounds in one go? I literally just shared an example of 3 ships firing 300+ rounds in an hour and a half.

Before that I shared several examples where the total rounds expended in a campaign would indicate 100+ rounds were fired in a single go several times…

So coastal towns and cities that can light artillery or mortars, or armor don’t exist?

Do you think that just because you won sea, air and immediate beach control the OPFOR is just going to let you walk right in without putting up a fight? Knocking out building a with sniper or MG positions, destroying armor, hitting trench lines are all fire missions that could be called in to save lives of infantry and vehicle crews while not wasting the money of a TLAM, or fuel and ordinance for an aircraft, let alone putting the aircraft in danger of MANPADS or other thus far hidden AA weapons unnecessarily.

 

[Kat Tsun]

That was almost 40 years ago. Just think how much better they are now.

It's literally the same gun my dude.

If anything, they're a bit worse, because the longer barrels are harder to train for visual range surface attack and air defense.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It's literally the same gun my dude.

If anything, they're a bit worse, because the longer barrels are harder to train for visual range surface attack and air defense.

Not really. One was a mk42, and different mods can be very different.

Like mk38. Mod0/1 almost identical. Mod3 is almost a completely different set of capabilities.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Not really. One was a mk42, and different mods can be very different.

Like mk38. Mod0/1 almost identical. Mod3 is almost a completely different set of capabilities.

Oh I figured it was a Mk 45 Mod 1 tbf RIP.

That would be the last time there was a noticeable barrel life increase in the 5" guns I think.

 

[Firefinder]

It's literally the same gun my dude.

If anything, they're a bit worse, because the longer barrels are harder to train for visual range surface attack and air defense.

That basically an none issue for modern weapons since they are all power moved.

It was a issue for the older ones due to being manually operated so you had to work with human muscle to fight the inertia and like

Modern guns use 15 to 100 horsepower motors to train the things which care ALOT less bout that.

It amusing how many times some list an issue.

and the Issue been fixed longer then they have been alive cause tech has improved in the last... oh 80 years?

 

[DJK]

And yet it is at the bow of BBGX, as its main feature.

My imaginary battle ship features antigravity.

While something like the CAMM has a Exhaust port per missile with massive spacing to allow fast firing, like 3 a second. But for 24 fairly small RAM size missiles you are looking almost a 32 count MK41 mount in deck area.

CAMM has exhaust ports? Or did you mean it can charge the cold launch system 3 timpes per second? As far as I know, a module containing 3 cells shares 1 controller, but the recharging system might plausibly be dedicated to either the cell or module. Quadpacked ExLS might fire 3 missiles in a module before having to recharge the launch system, but a ship might have 3 or 4 ExLS modules. But no eflux system needed.

While a Mk45 gun can average one shot every 3 seconds, for... 680 shells a Burke, call it 80 HVPs. So bout 40 minutes worth of fifiring.

Wasn't there a 20 ready round limit before sailors have to load shells by hand below deck? And is there any dual feed system to swap ammunition types in US service. If USN can triple the rate of fire and come up with an autoloading magazine, it woulx start to look like an AA weapon.

 

[jsport]

Immediate mass effects which also enable shoot-n-scoot requires rapid fire ratrs near to AAA. Problem is a 8" VGAS system in beyond even contemplating currently. Even if it where contemplated the development time would be too lengthy for a BB(X) procurement schedule.

 

[TomS]

Wasn't there a 20 ready round limit before sailors have to load shells by hand below deck? And is there any dual feed system to swap ammunition types in US service. If USN can triple the rate of fire and come up with an autoloading magazine, it woulx start to look like an AA weapon.

There is, in Mods1-3, since there is a 20-round drum that is then loaded manually from the magazine. I think you can select any round in the drum, so it's effectively dual-feed (or even multiple; I believe you can have up to 6 different types of ammo in the drum and select them from the control station). Mod 4 plus the new ammo handling system can probably shoot 20 rpm more or less indefinitely, but it's not going to get faster without redesigning the whole mount.

FMC (as was) did propose an Advanced Mk 45 around 1990 that could shoot burst up to 40 rpm and sustain 23 rpm indefinitely. It also improved the elevation and training speed of the Mk 45, which honestly are at least as significant limitations as RoF right now. Mk 45 just can't point fast enough to deal with really fast targets at short ranges.

 

[Firefinder]

Wasn't there a 20 ready round limit before sailors have to load shells by hand below deck? And is there any dual feed system to swap ammunition types in US service. If USN can triple the rate of fire and come up with an autoloading magazine, it woulx start to look like an AA weapon.

Yes but with the way the mount design the 6 crew who are battle station there can chain gang the shells from deep magazine to the ready mag.

And the system will automatically send the shell from the ready mag up to the gun normally.

The speed which the crew can do so is equal to 18 to 24 rounds a minute by the USN Gunnery TM standards. Or 16 if they need to manually set the fusing.

People vastly underestimate how fast movitated and train people can move. Remember this is part of the USN training for battle, they do that every other fucking month.

They can likely do that for over an hour until exhaustion hits, since they are not carrying the shell but twirling it on the shell rim across the deck into the loader.

But since you unlikely to be firing nonstop for over an hour, but in short bursts...

It's not going to a hold trigger but.

Fire 3, traverse to next sector with a minute or two wait, fire off 3 more, traverse and repeat. Which is more then enough time a crew to reload the ready mag.

But this is the future and BAE made deep to ready reloader so let's use that.

CAMM has exhaust ports? Or did you mean it can charge the cold launch system 3 timpes per second? As far as I know, a module containing 3 cells shares 1 controller, but the recharging system might plausibly be dedicated to either the cell or module. Quadpacked ExLS might fire 3 missiles in a module before having to recharge the launch system, but a ship might have 3 or 4 ExLS modules. But no eflux system needed

Was talking more bout how the mushroom farm launcher can dump its entire load inside of a few minutes and how big it needed to do that in comparison to other VLS.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Yes but with the way the mount design the 6 crew who are battle station there can chain gang the shells from deep magazine to the ready mag.

And the system will automatically send the shell from the ready mag up to the gun normally.

The speed which the crew can do so is equal to 18 to 24 rounds a minute by the USN Gunnery TM standards. Or 16 if they need to manually set the fusing.

People vastly underestimate how fast movitated and train people can move. Remember this is part of the USN training for battle, they do that every other fucking month.

They can likely do that for over an hour until exhaustion hits, since they are not carrying the shell but twirling it on the shell rim across the deck into the loader.

But since you unlikely to be firing nonstop for over an hour, but in short bursts...

It's not going to a hold trigger but.

Fire 3, traverse to next sector with a minute or two wait, fire off 3 more, traverse and repeat. Which is more then enough time a crew to reload the ready mag.

But this is the future and BAE made deep to ready reloader so let's use that.

Was talking more bout how the mushroom farm launcher can dump its entire load inside of a few minutes and how big it needed to do that in comparison to other VLS.

Umm no, the navy doesn’t train mag rats every other month. Even during GQ they dont train them to load rounds.
At least my ship didn’t.

Never seen a magazine crew on a watch bill for PAC fires even

 

[Firefinder]

Umm no, the navy doesn’t train mag rats every other month. Even during GQ they dont train them to load rounds.
At least my ship didn’t.

Never seen a magazine crew on a watch bill for PAC fires even

You ship also apperantly wasn't a Burke going by prior posts of your ship being smaller than an LCS, while one of my friends is on a Burke in Hawaii just got done with doing just that over Christmas...

Also there videos of them doing jsut that on youtube.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

CAMM has exhaust ports? Or did you mean it can charge the cold launch system 3 timpes per second? As far as I know, a module containing 3 cells shares 1 controller, but the recharging system might plausibly be dedicated to either the cell or module. Quadpacked ExLS might fire 3 missiles in a module before having to recharge the launch system, but a ship might have 3 or 4 ExLS modules. But no eflux system needed.

Each individual CAMM cell has its own single-use gas generator for soft launch, no need to recharge anything.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You ship also apperantly wasn't a Burke going by prior posts of your ship being smaller than an LCS, while one of my friends is on a Burke in Hawaii just got done with doing just that over Christmas...

Also there videos of them doing jsut that on youtube.

Yes my ship was a Burke. Going by my prior posts it could have only been a Burke or a tico

Oh man, there’s a few videos of people in the magazine loading rounds, you got me. It’s not like they don’t make propaganda videos for release…there’s a lot of videos of the navy doing a lot of things they don’t normally do.

 

[DJK]

Yes but with the way the mount design the 6 crew who are battle station there can chain gang the shells from deep magazine to the ready mag.

6 crew on the gun loading? Its like WW2! Why would they not switch to an autoloader? Not like modern navies don't have recruitment issues.

But this is the future and BAE made deep to ready reloader so let's use that.

At least until a new mount is available. But sounds like traverse speed is a big problem.

Was talking more bout how the mushroom farm launcher can dump its entire load inside of a few minutes and how big it needed to do that in comparison to other VLS.

Mushroom farms on a new ship or comparing with existing ones? But Mk-41 timing limits would also affect CAMM inserts, so maybe better to use dedicated ExLS instead of inserts. Presume ALBATROS is dedicated launchers.

Each individual CAMM cell has its own single-use gas generator for soft launch, no need to recharge anything.

Thats a pretty good system.

 

[Josh_TN]

It's not a matter of catastrophic failure, it's a matter of overheating the rifling and ripping it out of the barrel.

For a small arms example, an AR15 barrel will burn out the rifling after a couple hundred rounds of full auto, but the barrel will last more than 10,000 rounds if you're not rapid-firing.

I mean, I would consider that pretty bad as well, but I wanted to differentiate between barrel wear and conditions that made the gun unusable, even if the barrel didn’t spike.

 

[Josh_TN]

That was almost 40 years ago. Just think how much better they are now.

Physics is still physics. The basics of artillery barrel wear have not changed in most of century AFAIK. You can provide active cooling to change that (eg the cancelled Crusader system) but gun barrels get hot.

I feel like the original point of my argument has now been taken wildly out of context: a poster stated that a 5” mount could continuously fire at 20 rounds/minute for ~40 minutes (the full 680 round magazine) until the ammunition the ship was exhausted, and I disagree. And based on some of the information posted here, I still disagree that is a physical possibility.

I consider the issue closed.