Naval Gun Projects

[Voltzz]

Detailed article (in German) on the Mauser 27mm Vierling CIWS
Images from there and some other sources, including of the prototype tested by the German navy and a model of non-naval variant. Interestingly the description of the naval model states that it has an integrated stinger launcher. I assume thats the two dots over the gun which i had previously interpreted as optics.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Phalanx Block II, also known as CIWS 2000, intended as a major ordnance alteration (replacing approximately 70% of the Phalanx Block I) to provide a larger calibre and higher rate of fire. Intended to enter service in the early 2000s, it doesn't appear to have survived beyond 1992.

The system shown in the image at post 2 (8 barrel 35mm CTA gatling) likely relates to this programme (note ORDALT, standing for Ordnance Alteration) whilst the text next to the image at post 127 (twin 6 barrel 25mm CTA gatlings) specifically refers to it as being a concept for Phalanx Block II.

Congress directed the Navy to evaluate the Goalkeeper system as an alternative to CIWS 2000. The subsequent trials, that included the Royal Navy, showed that Goalkeeper matched the performance of Phalanx Block I against subsonic targets but was inferior to Phalanx Block I against supersonic targets as a result of inferior accuracy. This probably explains why Goalkeeper was phased out by the Royal Navy.

 

[johnpjones1775]

First up, a 35mm CIWS proposal presented at the 1991 US Navy League show.

Source: Navy International, October 1991, Vol 96, No 11, Publ: Maritime World Limited

EDIT
Some information from the same source:

• GD proposal to use GE Cased Telescoped ORDALT 35mm weapon system.
• 8 barrels.
• 8000rpm.
• Balanced linkless feed holding 1200 APDS rounds.
• Nearly 6x on target energy per shot compared with 20mm Phalanx.
• Dispersion of less than 1mrad.
• MV greater than 1130m/s.

[Edit: corrected date]

Would this have airbursting rounds?

 

[TomS]

First up, a 35mm CIWS proposal presented at the 1991 US Navy League show.

Source: Navy International, October 1991, Vol 96, No 11, Publ: Maritime World Limited

EDIT
Some information from the same source:

• GD proposal to use GE Cased Telescoped ORDALT 35mm weapon system.
• 8 barrels.
• 8000rpm.
• Balanced linkless feed holding 1200 APDS rounds.
• Nearly 6x on target energy per shot compared with 20mm Phalanx.
• Dispersion of less than 1mrad.
• MV greater than 1130m/s.

[Edit: corrected date]

Would this have airbursting rounds?

The info we have is all quoted above -- it specifies APDS. The date of 1991 is a couple of years too early to even be thinking about AHEAD-type airbursting ammo.

 

[Tzoli]

Detailed article (in German) on the Mauser 27mm Vierling CIWS
Images from there and some other sources, including of the prototype tested by the German navy and a model of non-naval variant. Interestingly the description of the naval model states that it has an integrated stinger launcher. I assume thats the two dots over the gun which i had previously interpreted as optics.

Are those silencers at the end of the barrels?

 

[TomS]

Detailed article (in German) on the Mauser 27mm Vierling CIWS
Images from there and some other sources, including of the prototype tested by the German navy and a model of non-naval variant. Interestingly the description of the naval model states that it has an integrated stinger launcher. I assume thats the two dots over the gun which i had previously interpreted as optics.

Are those silencers at the end of the barrels?

Nope, just muzzle brakes/flash hiders. The BK27 went through quite a few different muzzle devices in different applications.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now all we need is the ability to update the target coordinates for the guided shell and hey presto, gun engagements on enemy surface ships at 70-plus miles.

Oh, and we need to at least double the rate of fire for line of sight engagements.

The one thing I'm sure of re. naval gun systems is that Western warships do not have enough of them, in any calibre.

Why does a warship need more than 1-2 large-caliber guns? Even a Harpoon Missile delivers a 500lb explosive.

Now, for small caliber stuff, I agree with you. And include 57mm Mk110 in that list of small calibers, to deal with swarming boats.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Now all we need is the ability to update the target coordinates for the guided shell and hey presto, gun engagements on enemy surface ships at 70-plus miles.

Oh, and we need to at least double the rate of fire for line of sight engagements.

The one thing I'm sure of re. naval gun systems is that Western warships do not have enough of them, in any calibre.

Why does a warship need more than 1-2 large-caliber guns? Even a Harpoon Missile delivers a 500lb explosive.

Now, for small caliber stuff, I agree with you. And include 57mm Mk110 in that list of small calibers, to deal with swarming boats.

Modern world the mk110 is a large caliber gun, but personally I think we should be moving from 5” to 6” guns.
If the ground forces can benefit from 155s so can the navy, and anything below larger than .50 and smaller than 35mm should be done away with.

6” ‘main guns’ backed up by mk110s for any ship over 8000tons makes sense to me.

Anything under 8k can have 5s and 25s still

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now all we need is the ability to update the target coordinates for the guided shell and hey presto, gun engagements on enemy surface ships at 70-plus miles.

Oh, and we need to at least double the rate of fire for line of sight engagements.

The one thing I'm sure of re. naval gun systems is that Western warships do not have enough of them, in any calibre.

Why does a warship need more than 1-2 large-caliber guns? Even a Harpoon Missile delivers a 500lb explosive.

Now, for small caliber stuff, I agree with you. And include 57mm Mk110 in that list of small calibers, to deal with swarming boats.

Modern world the mk110 is a large caliber gun, but personally I think we should be moving from 5” to 6” guns.
If the ground forces can benefit from 155s so can the navy, and anything below larger than .50 and smaller than 35mm should be done away with.

6” ‘main guns’ backed up by mk110s for any ship over 8000tons makes sense to me.

Anything under 8k can have 5s and 25s still

155mm, not 6". NATO standard caliber for artillery. Because look at all the options that are available! M982 Excalibur alone has GPS, LGPS, Stormbreaker trimodal seeker, plus any cluster/skeet munitions that get developed (which are already part of the program). Then there's the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit that gives any older 155mm deep fused shell the capability of GPS guidance. M712 Copperhead laser guided antitank, which should have a 25-30km range out of an L58 barrel, since the basic shell has a range of 16km out of the L39 guns. XM1113 rocket assisted round has a 70+km range out of an L58 barrel. XM1155 subcaliber rocket assisted shell has a range over 110km. Plus the dozens of different basic dumb shells made in dozens of countries.

And the governments are buying many of these because their Army artillery is already using most of them, so cost per shell is reduced. The only challenge is that most Army artillery 155mm is separate loading, while the Navies of the world do NOT like the idea of separate bagged powder anymore. So you need a brass case that holds the Charge Super load, and a slightly redesigned breechblock to take brass cased ammunition.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Now all we need is the ability to update the target coordinates for the guided shell and hey presto, gun engagements on enemy surface ships at 70-plus miles.

Oh, and we need to at least double the rate of fire for line of sight engagements.

The one thing I'm sure of re. naval gun systems is that Western warships do not have enough of them, in any calibre.

Why does a warship need more than 1-2 large-caliber guns? Even a Harpoon Missile delivers a 500lb explosive.

Now, for small caliber stuff, I agree with you. And include 57mm Mk110 in that list of small calibers, to deal with swarming boats.

Modern world the mk110 is a large caliber gun, but personally I think we should be moving from 5” to 6” guns.
If the ground forces can benefit from 155s so can the navy, and anything below larger than .50 and smaller than 35mm should be done away with.

6” ‘main guns’ backed up by mk110s for any ship over 8000tons makes sense to me.

Anything under 8k can have 5s and 25s still

155mm, not 6". NATO standard caliber for artillery. Because look at all the options that are available! M982 Excalibur alone has GPS, LGPS, Stormbreaker trimodal seeker, plus any cluster/skeet munitions that get developed (which are already part of the program). Then there's the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit that gives any older 155mm deep fused shell the capability of GPS guidance. M712 Copperhead laser guided antitank, which should have a 25-30km range out of an L58 barrel, since the basic shell has a range of 16km out of the L39 guns. XM1113 rocket assisted round has a 70+km range out of an L58 barrel. XM1155 subcaliber rocket assisted shell has a range over 110km. Plus the dozens of different basic dumb shells made in dozens of countries.

And the governments are buying many of these because their Army artillery is already using most of them, so cost per shell is reduced. The only challenge is that most Army artillery 155mm is separate loading, while the Navies of the world do NOT like the idea of separate bagged powder anymore. So you need a brass case that holds the Charge Super load, and a slightly redesigned breechblock to take brass cased ammunition.

Potato puhtahto.

Not to mention we can always develop cheap extended range munitions by utilizing sub caliber sabot rounds.

Iirc in WWII when stepping up from 5” to 6” shell weight doubled. Assuming a 155 can shoot it’s regular shell 15mi it the same is true now a 5” sub caliber round should make a range of roughly 30mi and a 76 round probably around 50mi at least.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not to mention we can always develop cheap extended range munitions by utilizing sub caliber sabot rounds.


Iirc in WWII when stepping up from 5” to 6” shell weight doubled. Assuming a 155 can shoot it’s regular shell 15mi it the same is true now a 5” sub caliber round should make a range of roughly 30mi and a 76 round probably around 50mi at least.

If that we keep the lighter shell weights, yes. I'd rather keep the existing 155mm shell length and strap a rocket to the base of that 5" shell to make up the difference, assuming that the 155mm gun barrels have rifling quick enough to stabilize the longer, skinnier projectile that way. The trick would be figuring out how to fit that rocket booster to the base of a 5" shell with minimal cutting or heating of the shell, to use up the 5" ammunition stockpiles.

Plus, there's now the XM1155, a rocket boosted subcaliber shell that exceeds 110km in range.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Not to mention we can always develop cheap extended range munitions by utilizing sub caliber sabot rounds.


Iirc in WWII when stepping up from 5” to 6” shell weight doubled. Assuming a 155 can shoot it’s regular shell 15mi it the same is true now a 5” sub caliber round should make a range of roughly 30mi and a 76 round probably around 50mi at least.

If that we keep the lighter shell weights, yes. I'd rather keep the existing 155mm shell length and strap a rocket to the base of that 5" shell to make up the difference, assuming that the 155mm gun barrels have rifling quick enough to stabilize the longer, skinnier projectile that way. The trick would be figuring out how to fit that rocket booster to the base of a 5" shell with minimal cutting or heating of the shell, to use up the 5" ammunition stockpiles.

Plus, there's now the XM1155, a rocket boosted subcaliber shell that exceeds 110km in range.

Rocket booster is unnecessary and expensive when there are cheaper methods of extending range.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not to mention we can always develop cheap extended range munitions by utilizing sub caliber sabot rounds.


Iirc in WWII when stepping up from 5” to 6” shell weight doubled. Assuming a 155 can shoot it’s regular shell 15mi it the same is true now a 5” sub caliber round should make a range of roughly 30mi and a 76 round probably around 50mi at least.

If that we keep the lighter shell weights, yes. I'd rather keep the existing 155mm shell length and strap a rocket to the base of that 5" shell to make up the difference, assuming that the 155mm gun barrels have rifling quick enough to stabilize the longer, skinnier projectile that way. The trick would be figuring out how to fit that rocket booster to the base of a 5" shell with minimal cutting or heating of the shell, to use up the 5" ammunition stockpiles.

Plus, there's now the XM1155, a rocket boosted subcaliber shell that exceeds 110km in range.

Rocket booster is unnecessary and expensive when there are cheaper methods of extending range.

It's a typical and in production thing for probably 1/4 of all artillery shells

For NATO 105x372mmR, there are currently 11 shell types in service in the US military. 3 are rocket assisted, 2 have a base bleed drag reduction system (aka a minimal thrust rocket, just enough to "fill in" the low pressure area at the base of the shell in flight), 2 are smoke (WP and HC), two are illumination (visible and IR), and two are basic HE.

For NATO 155mm, there are currently 12 different shells listed on wiki. Sorry, don't have access to Jane's. 3 are rocket assisted, 2 have a base bleed, Copperhead CLGP-laser, Excalibur GPS guided (and more), 2 basic HE, and 3 AT Submunition.

Rocket boost is really just that common. And it's a lot cheaper than a CLGP.

 

[Firefinder]

Not to mention rocket assistant projectiles are far easier on gun barrels then sub-caliber sabots.

Then you also have tgd fact that the US Army is also testing Ramjet Power Projectiles with a range goal of over 150km.

 

[Voltzz]

Found a nice image showing the internals of the Breda/Contraves MYRIAD CIWS

 

[Voltzz]

Found a youtube video showing test firings of the Oerlikon KBD 7-barreled 25mm gatling gun, used in the Myriad ciws. Unusual for testing videos it even seems to have the original sound.

 

[TomS]

Found a youtube video showing test firings of the Oerlikon KBD 7-barreled 25mm gatling gun, used in the Myriad ciws. Unusual for testing videos it even seems to have the original sound.

Pretty tight dispersion in that last section. Impressive.

 

[Voltzz]

Found a youtube video showing test firings of the Oerlikon KBD 7-barreled 25mm gatling gun, used in the Myriad ciws. Unusual for testing videos it even seems to have the original sound.

Oerlikon also designed a 25mm Phalanx upgrade based on the KBD

 

[TomS]

Oerlikon also designed a 25mm Phalanx upgrade based on the KBD

I'd seen those images before but somehow never connected them. Thanks.

IN the end, 25mm probably isn't that much more effective that the 20mm OGB in Block 1B, but it's interesting to think about.

 

[TomS]

Oerlikon also designed a 25mm Phalanx upgrade based on the KBD

Ah, here's what I was remembering, from earlier in this thread, the twin 25mm CTA, which has a very similar lower ammunition housing. Probably just a function of maximizing the volume that fits between the trunnions of the existing Phalanx and can freely elevate and depress.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/naval-gun-projects.1672/post-190112

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'd seen those images before but somehow never connected them. Thanks.

IN the end, 25mm probably isn't that much more effective that the 20mm OGB in Block 1B, but it's interesting to think about.

The 30mm gives about 50% more range, which is a very useful upgrade. Not sure where the 25mm would fit in.

 

[MadRat]

Mauser 27mm Vierling CIWS reminds me of Star Wars with those Millennium Falcon quad guns. Do they reciprocate in pairs, too?

 

[Voltzz]

FMC's 155mm Vertical Load Gun. From an advert and article in USNI Proceedings, July 1983.

Feeding and Firing sequence of the FMC 155/50 Vertical Load Naval Gun Mount

 

[Voltzz]

Another 25mm naval gatling gun: GE Sea Vulcan 25

The [GAU-12] Equalizer was also used as the basis for the Sea Vulcan 25, a turret mounted gun for naval ship self-defense, although not as a Close-In Weapon System, as the gun was not automatic nor did it use radar tracking. Instead the gun was manually aimed using a digital gun sight and fire control. Sea Vulcan consisted of a 540-round helical drum magazine, a one-piece aluminum turret that can be opened with just a screwdriver, and the main gun. One unique advantage of the system was that it was capable of operating independently of ship's power; the gun and ammunition magazine were powered by a 3,000 psi pneumatic drive and the turret motor by twin lead–acid batteries.

Intended as a higher-firepower alternative to conventional deck-mounted machine guns and cannon, the weapon employs the Navy's Mk 24 target designator and laser range finder for enhanced accuracy. The gun was developed in the mid-1980s as a cost-effective protection for ships smaller than frigate or corvette or patrol boats, but did not enter this service.
Wikipedia

Image source

 

[TomS]

P

Another 25mm naval gatling gun: GE Sea Vulcan 25

Image source

One extra image from Friedman's World Naval Weapon Systems, with Seaman Snuffy for scale.



Friedman gives the mount weight as 2,800 lbs (~1,270 kg) loaded, presumably excluding the Stingers. This mount was proposed for the Special Warfare Craft, Medium (SWCM) and was actually tested aboard SES-200B in 1987. GE claimed the ability to hit missiles at 2000m but only ever showed it hitting a "Lynx" target drone at 500 meters using an off-board director. (Can't find more on this drone --Lynx is way too popular a name). ROF was either 750 or 2000 rpm, selectable.

Related to this is the Zenith 25, which looks to be the same basic mount stacked on a canted base like the Sea Zenith. (The upside is unclear to me, since Sea Vulcan could reach +85 degrees on its own and true vertical diving targets were never a major issue -- so-called "high divers" still dive at way less than 90 degrees). This version weighed 4,000 lb (~18,00 kg). RoF was 2,000 rpm, but GE hoped to up it to 3,000 or 4,000 by adapting the linkless feed from the GAU-8. (The slower ROF versions may have used linked ammo.)

 

[Voltzz]

Detailed video on the Sea Vulkan 25 including firing trials:

 

[MadRat]

Stingers mounted over a hot mess doesn't sound logical.

 

[TomS]

Stingers mounted over a hot mess doesn't sound logical.

Why not? It adds a significant bit of AA range and the missiles are already pretty robust. There were very similar arrangements proposed on land platforms (Blazer, for example).

 

[Prophet141]

"If it points, put a Stinger on it" seems to be an unspoken motto for the lower-budget end of SHORAD and point defense.

 

[Scott Kenny]

"If it points, put a Stinger on it" seems to be an unspoken motto for the lower-budget end of SHORAD and point defense.

It's cheap and it works. And it's a missile actually designed for ground launch, unlike the Chaparral.

 

[MadRat]

And it chases hot spots of which firing your cannon shells will give off plenty of heat. On a ship mount it sounds ridiculous.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And it chases hot spots of which firing your cannon shells will give off plenty of heat. On a ship mount it sounds ridiculous.

Except that 1) you'd fire missiles before the gun and 2) the missile won't lock onto the gun barrels, they're out of sensor FOV.

 

[MadRat]

So no way to reload Stingers until you take the gun offline. Makes no sense during an engagement or while a threat looms. Worse yet, a gun engaging a surface target now leaves you vulnerable to air. Time out, bad guys, we need to reload.

It would make more sense to pack the missiles into their own launcher so that after releasing missiles it can swing to new targets while the gun engages at close range. Chaining the two together simply makes it impossible to use both simultaneously or to reload while using the other. I can see why it had no operators.

 

[TomS]

It's not like this is a system for ships that could be expected to handle high-volume raids.

Separate launchers for Stinger would add to acquisition cost, maintenance, manning, and possibly worst deck area. Ships are often fighting for arrangeable deck area and shoehorning in another trainable launcher might just not be possible, especially on smaller ships.

 

[Yellow Palace]

It's not like this is a system for ships that could be expected to handle high-volume raids.

Separate launchers for Stinger would add to acquisition cost, maintenance, manning, and possibly worst deck area. Ships are often fighting for arrangeable deck area and shoehorning in another trainable launcher might just not be possible, especially on smaller ships.

Given that the system was proposed for the Special Warfare Craft (Medium), strapping a couple of Stingers to a cannon doesn't seem at all inefficient. There's no way you'd get a trainable Stinger launcher on a craft that size without sacrificing something else - realistically, one of the 25mm mounts. The CYCLONE class that filled the niche had handheld Stingers, which aren't particularly great beyond having almost no ship impact. At decent speeds, and in any kind of seaway, tracking a target with a handheld launcher is not going to be a simple task.

If a special warfare craft is coming under anything other than very light air attack, there's nothing it can carry that will make any difference. So strapping some Stingers to your powered, stabilised gun mounts to make life difficult for the odd interloper makes a lot of sense.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I believe SWCM had a launching station aft for Stingers.

 

[TomS]

I believe SWCM had a launching station aft for Stingers.

It did. Hard to imagine that adding Stinger to the Sea Vulcan mounts would not have been an improvement.

BTW: In US Small Combatants, Friedman refers to the GAU-12 25mm Gatling as EX-35 and the Sea Vulcan mount as EX-90. Both are consistent with the Navy's designation systems at the time, a bit later than the EX-83 mount (with GAU-8 Gatling gun) and the EX-29 gun (a 20mm small craft gun from GE).

 

[TomS]

Speaking of the EX-29:

https://smallarmsreview.com/the-interview-george-e-kontis-pe-part-i/

Next in line we have the GE127. This was a real nice dual-feed cannon in 27.5mm. This gun, the EX29 and the AMG all were the same basic design, a triangular accelerator, Browning short recoil cycle and a very small distance from the front of the feed to aft of the weapon. This was considered for the MIFV the Mechanized Infantry Fighting Vehicle. This was the gun that we were going to propose. Stoner was in there with his TRW 25mm gun: we competed and he won out.

Next was the X29, which was our first 20mm gun. I worked on this one as well. This was another dual-feedgun, fired the M50 series ammunition. We also had one that fired the Hispano-Suiza round, the long 20x110mm, steel-cased round which was a nightmare to eject.

There's also a reference in Chinn Vol 5 (pg 325)

 

[TomS]

Speaking of the EX-29:

https://smallarmsreview.com/the-interview-george-e-kontis-pe-part-i/

View attachment 718028

There's also a reference in Chinn Vol 5 (pg 325)

View attachment 718029

The EX-29 or Mk 29 (sources vary on whether it was actually type-classified) was used in the experimental LVTPX-12, which sort of evolved into the LVTP-7.

There is some video:

https://imgur.com/KcW4oaK

View: https://imgur.com/KcW4oaK

https://imgur.com/gK6Vjfh

View: https://imgur.com/gK6Vjfh

 

[Bottleship]

From Soviet book, "Naval tactics course: artillery and armour" by L. Goncharov, 1932, about 18" and 20" guns, builted in WW1:


Elswich:
457/40 - 152 mt, 1506 kg shell, propellant 313 kg charge, 731 mps
Krupp:
457/44 - 148.3 mt, 1310 kg shell, 402 kg propellant charge, 850 mps
457/50 - 159.5 mt, 1310 kg shell, 402 kg propellant charge, 875 mps
508/45 - 204 mt, 1805 kg shell, 553 kg propellant charge, 850 mps
508/50 - 219 mt, 1805 kg shell, 553 kg propellant charge, 875 mps
Biggest naval guns ever built?