BAE to build 155mm Naval gun
Tiger
BAE to Build 155mm Naval Gun for U.K.
By andrew chuter
Published: 14 Aug 14:16 EDT (18:16 GMT)
LONDON - The possibility of British warships firing 155mm artillery is a
step closer to reality after an announcement from BAE Systems that it
has signed a deal with the Ministry of Defence to build a gun to
undertake land-based firing trials next year.
155mm Naval Gun (BAE SYSTEMS)
CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
BAE said it is also exploiting the capabilities of other company
business units such as Armament Systems in the U.S. and Bofors in Sweden.
The Armament Systems division is already in the latter stages of
developing a similar system for the U.S. Navy - the 155mm Advanced Gun
System destined for the force's DDG 1000 destroyer program.
No more than two DDG 1000s are likely to be built rather than the seven
planned, but the AGS could find its way onto up-rated Arleigh Burke
DDG-51 destroyers likely to be built in their place.
If the 4 million pound ($7.55 million) British contract goes according
to plan, BAE hopes to move to a full technology demonstrator program
ahead of possible retrofitting of the gun to existing Type 23 frigates
and Type 45 destroyers, as well as an upcoming generation of warships
known as the Future Surface Combatant.
This latest contract is the third phase of work that kicked off in 2006
as part of a three-year MoD research program known as Maritime Surface
Effects. Eight different study programs are looking at issues such as
coastal suppression, naval fire support, offensive and defensive surface
warfare, and the role of unmanned surface vehicles.
BAE said in a statement that replacing the current 4.5-inch gun with a
155mm system would increase the range and effect on targets while also
reducing costs by using the same gun and ammunition as the British Army.
Previous study phases examined the feasibility of fitting the 155mm gun
into the existing Mk8 Mod 1 turret and considered some of the technology
risks of the proposed solution.
"In addition to providing the Royal Navy with a potential low-cost route
to a significant enhancement in capability, this program will help to
sustain the U.K. industrial capacity to design, upgrade and manufacture
artillery and gunnery systems," BAE Land System executive John Kelly said.
Raymond O'Hara
"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48AA2113...@hotmail.com...
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3675384&c=SEA&s=EUR
>
> BAE to Build 155mm Naval Gun for U.K.
>
> By andrew chuter
> Published: 14 Aug 14:16 EDT (18:16 GMT)
>
> LONDON - The possibility of British warships firing 155mm artillery is a
> step closer to reality after an announcement from BAE Systems that it has
> signed a deal with the Ministry of Defence to build a gun to undertake
> land-based firing trials next year.
> 155mm Naval Gun (BAE SYSTEMS)
>
> CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
> business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
> live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
> British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>
why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
Andre Lieven
> "Tiger" <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Because fitting OBSOLETE guns to modern warships would be extra
retarded. Duh.
Andre
Raymond O'Hara
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2ae88726-39a4-4ddb...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
obsolete? all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
auto AA.
same barrel different mounts
frank
wrote:
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
You know how much money they would lose using a tested and tried
technology viz coming up with a new one? And since its based on the
Army system, there has to be additional work and contracting on that.
As Pink floyd said, money $$$$ or EU..
Raymond O'Hara
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2c53fe2e-f7e9-4453...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
=================================================================================================
how true, and what's more fun than spending tax money, why its like free
money.
Keith Willshaw
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7CdnczDsc7kvzfV...@rcn.net...
>
>>
>> CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
>> business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
>> live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
>> British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>>
>
> why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
>
<irony mode on>
Apart from the factsthat the last USN 6" gun was designed in the 40's
as a crew served weapon mounted in large multi-tube turrets and
wasnt that great a system its a fine idea.
While you are it replace all those SP artillery pieces in the army
with goold old horse drawn muzzle loaders, that'll be sure to save
money.
<irony mode off>
Keith
Raymond O'Hara
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g8dsdh$rth$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
we are talking about the RN and putting a proven design back into
production would certainly be no more difficult than building a new gun from
scratch
just to gain 3 millimeters.
Tiger
>
> <irony mode on>
> Apart from the factsthat the last USN 6" gun was designed in the 40's
> as a crew served weapon mounted in large multi-tube turrets and
> wasnt that great a system its a fine idea.
>
> While you are it replace all those SP artillery pieces in the army
> with goold old horse drawn muzzle loaders, that'll be sure to save
> money.
> <irony mode off>
>
> Keith
>
>
Hay is cheaper than Diesel for trucks or self propelled guns. Sounds
like a Al Gore Defense plan Idea?
Peter Skelton
Now that's just silly. Do you really think production methods
from the 40's are best practices today? Do you think the 1940
steel belongs in a new weapon? How about anti-corosion methods?
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
wrote:
>Do you think the 1940
>steel belongs in a new weapon?
Do you think modern steel is any different? The chrome moly used for
small arms has not changed in a century. They haven't discovered any
new chemical elements suitable for steel making since then.
Casady
R.C. Payne
More seriously, what about the 6" mounts from Tiger and Blake?
Robin
Peter Skelton
I know very well it is not the same, and not made in the same
way, although the chemical composition may not have changed. 1970
steel of almost any kind is not marketable as first-line product
today.
The idea being proposed is to restart a 1940's production process
to make 1940's guns for modern ships. It's nonsense.
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
wrote:
Maybe if you compare hay at the field with Diesel at the refinery.
Once you get hay to the fighting front, you will find that most of it
has been used to haul hay. Same thing with oil, but much less so.
The German army was most horse drawn in WWII, so these things are
known, not a matter of speculation: hay is not cheaper, after the
lower energy content has burdened the supply system.
Casady
Joel Bierling
> Maybe if you compare hay at the field with Diesel at the refinery.
> Once you get hay to the fighting front, you will find that most of it
> has been used to haul hay. Same thing with oil, but much less so.
> The German army was most horse drawn in WWII, so these things are
> known, not a matter of speculation: hay is not cheaper, after the
> lower energy content has burdened the supply system.
I've always wondered how many gallons of oil are used to supply a gallon
of gasoline to my car.
-Joel
Andre Lieven
moronised:
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:2ae88726-39a4-4ddb...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 18, 9:31 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> shat:
> >> "Tiger" <Lana_sa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:48AA2113...@hotmail.com...
>
> >> >http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3675384&c=SEA&s=EUR
>
> >> > BAE to Build 155mm Naval Gun for U.K.
>
> >> > By andrew chuter
> >> > Published: 14 Aug 14:16 EDT (18:16 GMT)
>
> >> > LONDON - The possibility of British warships firing 155mm artillery is
> >> > a step closer to reality after an announcement from BAE Systems that it
> >> > has
> >> > signed a deal with the Ministry of Defence to build a gun to undertake
> >> > land-based firing trials next year.
> >> > 155mm Naval Gun (BAE SYSTEMS)
>
> >> > CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
> >> > business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
> >> > live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
> >> > British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>
> >> why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
>
> > Because fitting OBSOLETE guns to modern warships would be extra
> > retarded. Duh.
>
> obsolete?
Yes.
> all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
Wrong.
> the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
> destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
> auto AA.
Not even close to being the same gun.
> same barrel different mounts
Exactly and factually totally wrong.
You are a major idiot.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> >news:f7CdnczDsc7kvzfV...@rcn.net...
>
> >>>CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
> >>>business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
> >>>live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
> >>>British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>
> >>why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
>
> > <irony mode on>
> > as a crew served weapon mounted in large multi-tube turrets and
>
> > While you are it replace all those SP artillery pieces in the army
> > with goold old horse drawn muzzle loaders, that'll be sure to save
> > money.
> > <irony mode off>
>
> More seriously, what about the 6" mounts from Tiger and Blake?
Long ago scrapped. Further, the design goal of that gun was high speed
and high angle fire, so that it could be an A/A gun as well as an
anti
surface target gun. Thats not a requirement for the new gun, what
with
all the other systems that do the A/A mission far better now.
Its boggling that some folks seem to feel that obsolete gun technology
can be useful now to missions that didn't exist at the time of the
obsolete technology. Those are the battleship fetishists.
Andre
frank
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:32:41 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
>
>
>
>
> >"Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:g8dsdh$rth$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> >> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:f7CdnczDsc7kvzfV...@rcn.net...
>
> >>>> CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
> >>>> business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
> >>>> live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
> >>>> British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>
> >>> why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
>
> >> <irony mode on>
> >> Apart from the factsthat the last USN 6" gun was designed in the 40's
> >> as a crew served weapon mounted in large multi-tube turrets and
> >> wasnt that great a system its a fine idea.
>
> >> While you are it replace all those SP artillery pieces in the army
> >> with goold old horse drawn muzzle loaders, that'll be sure to save
> >> money.
> >> <irony mode off>
>
> >> Keith
>
> > we are talking about the RN and putting a proven design back into
> >production would certainly be no more difficult than building a new gun from
> >scratch
> >just to gain 3 millimeters.
>
> Now that's just silly. Do you really think production methods
> from the 40's are best practices today? Do you think the 1940
> steel belongs in a new weapon? How about anti-corosion methods?
>
> Peter Skelton
No get the blueprints and go from there. The 50 cal is an update on a
design from 50 or 60 years ago and is just now being replaced.
Why design from scratch? That is why off the shelf has been a mantra
in a lot of weapons production. sometimes it helps, sometimes you wind
up with a real monstrosity. I seem to recall the F-16 and F-18 used
the same nosewheel, might have been different fighters, but USAF and
USN shared some parts. There were others that shared engines, which
made engine maintenance a lot easier once it was deployed.
Plus you have to train all the squids out in the Fleet.
Minimizing a lot of the changes in this stuff makes supply system a
lot easier also. Start adding all this stuff up, there are a lot of
costs. Its not just a new gun. Stuff like mounts, aiming systems you
put in and maintain but dont change out a lot, yeah, make a new one,
but for the rest, why not use an older design, besides, its also been
tested. Which leads to more costs.
Local taxpayers will thank you. And Christ, what a bunch of whiners
they are around here. Almost as bad as the mean old farts in rural NY
I moved away from.
Keith Willshaw
Wrong. The last 6" gun designed for the RN came off the drawing board
in 1944. The facilities used in its manufacture disappeared in the 60's
and since it was a pre-metrication design not even the fasteners are
made any more.
So you would have to redesign the gun and do all the tool development
from scratch. For all that money you'd get a 60 year old design that was
VERY manpower intensive in service and needed a team of ordnance artificers,
weapons mechanics and seaman armourers on duty to keep it firing.
On the other hand the BAE Systems proposal is to use the existing gun house
for
the 4.5" (114 mm) Mark 8 Mod 1, but use the same 155 mm/39 gun barrel
being used on the Army's AS90.
Much less work in fact
> just to gain 3 millimeters.
>
Last time I checked the difference between 4.5" and 6" was more like 40 mm
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:48d2cc2d....@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:51:02 -0400, Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you think the 1940
>>steel belongs in a new weapon?
>
> Do you think modern steel is any different?
Hell yes. Modern engineers have MUCH better steel available
that has higher strength and is tougher than anything available
60 years ago
> The chrome moly used for
> small arms has not changed in a century. They haven't discovered any
> new chemical elements suitable for steel making since then.
>
But the combinations of elements, rolling and smelting techniques
have been greatly improved by a more scientific approach to
steel making. When I started work the iron masters would judge
the right time to tap the open hearth furnace by eye based on
experience. The mill operator would use equally subjective skills
rolling it. Now samples are taken and analysed real time allowing
much better control of alloying and grain structure.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"R.C. Payne" <rc...@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:g8ejb7$lgq$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Designed in 1944, cut up for scrap 25 years ago, about as good a
basis for a new gun as the Hawker Tempest would be for a new
fighter.
The proposal is to use the gun barrel from the succesful AS90
in an adapted version of the existing Mk8 turret. Why anybody thinks
using a problematic high maintenance 60 year old design would be
better beats me.
Keith
Peter Skelton
OFCS, the fellow I've been reacting to suggested 1940's naval
guns as a better starting point than modern land artillery of
about the same caliber.
Have you a point?
Peter Skelton
Andrew Robert Breen
1944 design, sizing of all fittings was imperial (so you need to redesign
the whole thing with SI sizing and modern screw-threads for manufacture),
needed a large turret crew, no design for single mounts, never worked that
well anyway.
Enough?
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Roger Conroy
What puzzles me is why they would fit an obsolete 39 cal tube when the
current state of the art has moved on to 45 or even 52 cal with a massive
improvement in range.
Roger
Keith Willshaw
On Aug 19, 6:51 am, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>> Now that's just silly. Do you really think production methods
>> from the 40's are best practices today? Do you think the 1940
>> steel belongs in a new weapon? How about anti-corosion methods?
>>
>> Peter Skelton
> No get the blueprints and go from there.
Even if they exist, having been drawn up in 1944 they may not,
they wont help much. We now use SI units not imperial and
you'd have to redesign the thing anyway as modern propellants
and electronic control systems would replace the old
cordite and electro mechanical fire control systems
> The 50 cal is an update on a
> design from 50 or 60 years ago and is just now being replaced.
Not really, while the 5"/54 Mk 42 dates back to 1960 the 5"/54 Mk 45
design was done around 1968 and updated in the 80's
> Why design from scratch?
Who says they are ?
The proposal is to marry the existing AS90 barrel with the
Mk 8 Gun house
> Plus you have to train all the squids out in the Fleet.
Well no, they already know the Mk 8
> Minimizing a lot of the changes in this stuff makes supply system a
> lot easier also.
Yep the use of the AS90 barrel means modern NATO ammunition can
be used, using a WW2 design would mean setting up a whole new
supply stream
So explain again how using a 60 year old design retired 30+ years
ago is better than using existing tried and tested modern designs.
I dont get it.
Keith
dott.Piergiorgio
[6" guns]
> obsolete? all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
> the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
> destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
> auto AA.
> same barrel different mounts
there's another problem with old RN BL's:
RN firing charges have the major defect of igniting easily and in a
rather spectacular manner.... and the current RN ship have nothing in
the passive protection department; a baddie's RPG, even an HMG/AMR
bullet, in the wrong place of a ship retrofitted with 6" BL can have
rather unpleasant consequences (and a casualty rate in the 98%-100%
range, whose today is considered more than unacceptable in the West)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Andre Lieven
And, heres more idiocy that ASSumes that the current RN has learned
NOTHING since 1915... (proklyatiya kretinii kusok)
The sheer stupidity of such a claim is self evident. Its telling that
that RN well defeated the Eityie fleet every time they met in the
40s...
Andre
Peter Skelton
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Aug 19, 7:02 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
><dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>> Raymond O'Hara ha scritto:
>>
>> [6" guns]
>>
>> > obsolete? all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
>> > the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
>> > destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
>> > auto AA. same barrel different mounts
>>
>> there's another problem with old RN BL's:
>>
>> RN firing charges have the major defect of igniting easily and in a
>> rather spectacular manner.... and the current RN ship have nothing in
>> the passive protection department; a baddie's RPG, even an HMG/AMR
>> bullet, in the wrong place of a ship retrofitted with 6" BL can have
>> rather unpleasant consequences (and a casualty rate in the 98%-100%
>> range, whose today is considered more than unacceptable in the West)
>
>And, heres more idiocy that ASSumes that the current RN has learned
>NOTHING since 1915... (proklyatiya kretinii kusok)
>
The 6" of WWII vintage used bagged powder of the type that
exploded in Barham's magazine (and was simillar to that in Hood).
Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:32:10 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >On Aug 19, 7:02 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> ><dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> >> Raymond O'Hara ha scritto:
>
> >> [6" guns]
>
> >> > obsolete? all an "obsolete" gun needs is a new mount.
> >> > the U.S. got great mileage out of the old 3'50. from the main gun on early
> >> > destroyers to an anti-tank/tank destroyer gun to a crew served AA to a twin
> >> > auto AA. same barrel different mounts
>
> >> there's another problem with old RN BL's:
>
> >> RN firing charges have the major defect of igniting easily and in a
> >> rather spectacular manner.... and the current RN ship have nothing in
> >> the passive protection department; a baddie's RPG, even an HMG/AMR
> >> bullet, in the wrong place of a ship retrofitted with 6" BL can have
> >> rather unpleasant consequences (and a casualty rate in the 98%-100%
> >> range, whose today is considered more than unacceptable in the West)
>
> >And, heres more idiocy that ASSumes that the current RN has learned
> >NOTHING since 1915... (proklyatiya kretinii kusok)
>
> The 6" of WWII vintage used bagged powder of the type that
> exploded in Barham's magazine (and was simillar to that in Hood).
You are about to make a own goal statement, since the 6 inch guns
in Barham's casemates (Guns that had been entirely replaced on
the rebuilt QE and Valiant.) were of WW *One* vintage, going
back all the way to Barham's first construction during WW1.
So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
thats well obsolete a generation ago.
> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
Andre
frank
> In article <g8ejb7$lg...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,> >> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Which is exactly the problem when people talk about going metric.
Ain't just doing conversions. Its a whole new manufacturing process.
McDonalds is just a start, get you away from eating that abysmal slop
that passes for food in the UK, we'll have you going to the dentist,
driving on the RIGHT side of the road in no time. You know McCain is
already thinking about taking over the North Sea drilling, getting the
Scots to secede, arm the Welsh, the NeoCons are on the march......
guy
> "R.C. Payne" <rc...@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:g8ejb7$lgq$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >>news:f7CdnczDsc7kvzfV...@rcn.net...
>
> >>>>CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
> >>>>business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
> >>>>live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
> >>>>British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>
> >>>why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
>
> >> <irony mode on>
> >> Apart from the factsthat the last USN 6" gun was designed in the 40's
> >> as a crew served weapon mounted in large multi-tube turrets and
> >> wasnt that great a system its a fine idea.
>
> >> While you are it replace all those SP artillery pieces in the army
> >> with goold old horse drawn muzzle loaders, that'll be sure to save
> >> money.
> >> <irony mode off>
>
> > More seriously, what about the 6" mounts from Tiger and Blake?
>
> Designed in 1944, cut up for scrap 25 years ago, about as good a
> basis for a new gun as the Hawker Tempest would be for a new
> fighter.
Good analogy, with the gun you would have to replace the barrel,
mounting, propellant and crew training, (i.e. everthing)
with the Tempest you would have to replace the airframe, engine,
avionics...(i.e everything)
> The proposal is to use the gun barrel from the succesful AS90
> in an adapted version of the existing Mk8 turret. Why anybody thinks
> using a problematic high maintenance 60 year old design would be
> better beats me.
Me too. I wonder, though, how much redesign will be needed to the
mount and ships structure of retrofitted ships to handle the extra
power of the gun? I have no figures but I would guess the 155mm has
twice or more the kick of the 4.5"
(Obviously changes to the ships structure would apply whatever the
mount.)
Guy
guy
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3675384&c=SEA&s=EUR
>
> BAE to Build 155mm Naval Gun for U.K.
>
> By andrew chuter
> Published: 14 Aug 14:16 EDT (18:16 GMT)
>
> LONDON - The possibility of British warships firing 155mm artillery is a
> has signed a deal with the Ministry of Defence to build a gun to
> undertake land-based firing trials next year.
> 155mm Naval Gun (BAE SYSTEMS)
>
> business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
> live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
> British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>
> business units such as Armament Systems in the U.S. and Bofors in Sweden.
>
> The Armament Systems division is already in the latter stages of
> developing a similar system for the U.S. Navy - the 155mm Advanced Gun
> System destined for the force's DDG 1000 destroyer program.
>
> No more than two DDG 1000s are likely to be built rather than the seven
> planned, but the AGS could find its way onto up-rated Arleigh Burke
> DDG-51 destroyers likely to be built in their place.
>
> If the 4 million pound ($7.55 million) British contract goes according
> to plan, BAE hopes to move to a full technology demonstrator program
> ahead of possible retrofitting of the gun to existing Type 23 frigates
> and Type 45 destroyers, as well as an upcoming generation of warships
> known as the Future Surface Combatant.
>
> This latest contract is the third phase of work that kicked off in 2006
> as part of a three-year MoD research program known as Maritime Surface
> Effects. Eight different study programs are looking at issues such as
> coastal suppression, naval fire support, offensive and defensive surface
> warfare, and the role of unmanned surface vehicles.
>
> BAE said in a statement that replacing the current 4.5-inch gun with a
> 155mm system would increase the range and effect on targets while also
> reducing costs by using the same gun and ammunition as the British Army.
>
> Previous study phases examined the feasibility of fitting the 155mm gun
> into the existing Mk8 Mod 1 turret and considered some of the technology
> risks of the proposed solution.
>
> "In addition to providing the Royal Navy with a potential low-cost route
> to a significant enhancement in capability, this program will help to
> sustain the U.K. industrial capacity to design, upgrade and manufacture
> artillery and gunnery systems," BAE Land System executive John Kelly said.
What I really do not see here is the requirement, what is the bigger
and undoubtedly more effective gun for?
It will not have an AA role, so it will be used as either an anti
surface vessel or shore bombardment weapon.
Against major warships anti-ship missiles are a much better bet, and
against minor ones a Lynz with Sea Squa or similar is much safer and a
4.5" probably just as effective..
As a shore bombardemt weapon it would be madness to put a ship as
costly as one capable of carrying this gun in gun range of coast held
by a major power..
So the only real use is against pirate states with no anti ship
capability for which purpose the use of a very expensive frigate or
destroyer to get one artillery piece into action seems both risky and
not cost effective, and a 4.5" just as usefull.
IIRC the Type 45s were originally going to have a new 5" gun which
would make more sense.
I am a BAE shareholder so of course I want them to make money, but
this exercise seems like a money making exercise, not fullfilling an
actual requirement.
Guy
Jeff
> The 6" of WWII vintage used bagged powder of the type that
> exploded in Barham's magazine (and was simillar to that in Hood).
> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>
>
> Peter Skelton
The 6" QF on Lion, Tiger and Blake used cartridges, interestingly the cases
were steel not brass.
Jeff
guy
wrote:
> guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > It will not have an AA role, so it will be used as either an anti
> > surface vessel or shore bombardment weapon.
> > Against major warships anti-ship missiles are a much better bet, and
> > against minor ones a Lynz with Sea Squa or similar is much safer and a
> > 4.5" probably just as effective..
> > As a shore bombardemt weapon it would be madness to put a ship as
> > costly as one capable of carrying this gun in gun range of coast held
> > by a major power..
>
> pretty useless as AA weapons nowadays, and there's more effective ways
> to deal with Anti-Ship and Anti-Land roles as well...
>
> Pretty much the only thing left would be "shot across the bow", and you
> could probably do that with a 40mm grenade launcher mount just as
> effectively (BTW, has anybody ever mounted automatic grenade launchers
> on ships as close-in defense?)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> And on the eighth day God said, "OK Murphy, you take over."
I am not saying do away with guns altogether, the RN keeps trying that
and then realising they do have uses, my point is that a 4.5" or 5"
gun can do anything that a 155mm can do, and almost as well, more
cheaply. If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
situation where the big shell is worthwhile the ship is probably in
quite a dangerous situation anyway and is too costly to risk in the
first place.
Guy
Peter Skelton
Is the concept of bagged powder alien to you Andre? Don't you
realize that the RN extended its changes to propellant to all its
ships between the wars?
>So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
>
Nope.
>Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
>thats well obsolete a generation ago.
>
Those 4" used fixed ammunition. I'd tend to think they are
irrelevant here. Let's go with the most likely explanation, shall
we?
>> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>
>Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
>
I did. The dott. may have had a point, you were rude to him in a
stupid way.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
wrote:
Those on the Worchesters were also cased. (cartridge can also
refer to a bag, but it's quite clear what you meant)
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
<dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Why design from scratch?
I will believe it is always necessary when they replace the M2HB .50
machine gun.
Casady
Richard Casady
<guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 19 Aug, 20:17, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "R.C. Payne" <rc...@nospam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:g8ejb7$lgq$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> >> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:f7CdnczDsc7kvzfV...@rcn.net...
>>
>> >>>>CORDA, BAE's consulting arm, together with the company's Land Systems
>> >>>>business in Britain and defense research company QinetiQ, hope to start
>> >>>>live-firing trials in fall 2009 with a 155mm naval gun based on the
>> >>>>British Army's AS90 self-propelled howitzer system.
>>
>> >>>why not just dust off an old 6 inch gun.
>>
>> >> <irony mode on>
>> >> Apart from the factsthat the last USN 6" gun was designed in the 40's
>> >> as a crew served weapon mounted in large multi-tube turrets and
>> >> wasnt that great a system its a fine idea.
>> The proposal is to use the gun barrel from the succesful AS90
>> in an adapted version of the existing Mk8 turret.
>
>Me too. I wonder, though, how much redesign will be needed to the
>mount and ships structure of retrofitted ships to handle the extra
>power of the gun? I have no figures but I would guess the 155mm has
>twice or more the kick of the 4.5"
If you simply scale a 120mm shell to 155mm you slightly more than
double the weight.
>(Obviously changes to the ships structure would apply whatever the
>mount.)
Casady
guy
wrote:
> guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I am not saying do away with guns altogether, the RN keeps trying that
> > and then realising they do have uses, my point is that a 4.5" or 5"
> > gun can do anything that a 155mm can do, and almost as well, more
> > cheaply.
>
> sharing ammo with the Army version, which would give the Navy lots of
> new toys.
>
> Who'd develop precision guided shells, bomblet shells etc. for a 4.5"
> gun? There's not nearly enough demand for that, but there's already
> shells available in 155mm...
>
> > If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
> > will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
> > situation where the big shell is worthwhile the ship is probably in
> > quite a dangerous situation anyway and is too costly to risk in the
> > first place.
>
> all kind of tasks, whereas with 155mm you can share the costs with the
> Army.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Help, I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory!
There is plenty of 4.5" ish (it is nearer 4.45) ammo around, my point
is a 5" would be a better bet...
Guy
Richard Casady
<guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
>will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
>situation where the big shell
The 155 has submunition ammo in production. Anti personnel mines or a
smaller number of antitank mines. The US made 70 ton yield nukes for
the 155.[also the 8in] but they got rid of them.
Casady
guy
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:37:39 -0700 (PDT), guy
>
> >If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
> >will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
> >situation where the big shell
>
> The 155 has submunition ammo in production. Anti personnel mines or a
> smaller number of antitank mines. The US made 70 ton yield nukes for
> the 155.[also the 8in] but they got rid of them.
>
> Casady
And?
Guy
Richard Casady
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:50:15 +0100, "Jeff" <je...@local.host>
The Germans do not seem to like bag powder. Even the 800mm Gustav Gun
used cases. Also favored vertical sliding breech designs and did not
go for interrupted screws. Didn't the Des Moines use brass cases for
the 8 in guns?
Casady
Andre Lieven
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
Not at all, and I am also conversant with the fact that propellents
that burned off were well worked out before the end of WW2.
So, you're still trying to squeeze in 70 year old history on a topic
of a FUTURE gun system.
> Don't you
> realize that the RN extended its changes to propellant to all its
> ships between the wars?
None of which is relevent to a FUTURE gun system...
> >So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> >Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
> >thats well obsolete a generation ago.
>
> Those 4" used fixed ammunition. I'd tend to think they are
> irrelevant here. Let's go with the most likely explanation, shall
> we?
Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
over your factless whinging.
> >> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>
> >Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
>
> I did. The dott. may have had a point, you were rude to him in a
> stupid way.
No proof ever offered ? Factless loon claim always fails.
Andre
Richard Casady
Point is, that there is a wider selection of ammo available off the
shelf compared to 4.7 or 5 inch. Grenades are handy, so is smoke,
phosphorus, flares. If you can fit a 6 inch gun into a 4.7 inch mount,
you are almost getting something for nothing. Recoil would double, but
if the ship is beefy around that area, it might work OK as is.
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes but it costs money, weight, redisign... that could go elsewhere.
As for a wider selection of ammo, that is undoubtedly true, but,
bluntly, all you want for a gun on a warship is something that goes
'bang'. If you need more, you should not be using a gun.
Guy
Richard Casady
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
>being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
>over your factless whinging.
What do you think of the speculation that an eight inch from Prinz
Augen might have done it. Would an eight penetrate at that range?
I would think they might glance off from lack of steepness, but I
don't actually know.
My understanding from studying tank warfare, is that it is nearly
always the powder that catches fire from a hit. The fixed case ammo
cooks off slowly enough that sometimes the crew gets out. So fixed
case ammo in bulk, in those large sizes, will burn completely. Small
arms ammo doesn't do that.
Casady
Peter Skelton
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
So you're retreating from your WWI nonsense? That's progress
>So, you're still trying to squeeze in 70 year old history on a topic
>of a FUTURE gun system.
>
Why yes, I'm saying that using 1940's technology in a future
system is silly. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't
then why were you so rude to Dott?
>> Don't you
>> realize that the RN extended its changes to propellant to all its
>> ships between the wars?
>
>None of which is relevent to a FUTURE gun system...
>
Which was rather my point and also Dott.'s. Why were you so rude
and stupid?
>> >So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
Nope.
>> >Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
>> >thats well obsolete a generation ago.
>>
>> Those 4" used fixed ammunition. I'd tend to think they are
>> irrelevant here. Let's go with the most likely explanation, shall
>> we?
>
>Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
>being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
>over your factless whinging.
>
Now that is just plain idiotic. Your claim here is that I
suggested Hood's 4" was involved. You didn't like that and said
so. I didn't make that suggestion and said so. Now you've
promptly taken a position on the other side and are calling the
majority position of serious authorities "factless whinging".
>> >> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>>
>> >Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
>>
>> I did. The dott. may have had a point, you were rude to him in a
>> stupid way.
>
>No proof ever offered ? Factless loon claim always fails.
>
Full proof was offered and your bullshit response has now been
refuted.
Peter Skelton
Paul J. Adam
<47a014d9-1f3b-4d2b...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, guy
<guyswe...@googlemail.com> writes
>What I really do not see here is the requirement, what is the bigger
>and undoubtedly more effective gun for?
Coastal suppression.
>As a shore bombardemt weapon it would be madness to put a ship as
>costly as one capable of carrying this gun in gun range of coast held
>by a major power..
With a range of 30km+ that's doable, and options like Excalibur extend
that further. Indeed, in some places you can't sail through or operate
where you need to be without getting much closer to the coast (e.g. most
of the Persian Gulf).
Also, we're seriously short of ships and saying "no, Type 45 is too big
and expensive and valuable, she can't go in, send a Type 23 instead...
who needs air defence, so we'll need to escort her, with a Type 45...
oh." isn't a good option.
>I am a BAE shareholder so of course I want them to make money, but
>this exercise seems like a money making exercise, not fullfilling an
>actual requirement.
There's a definite need for more capable naval fires than the existing
Mark 8 can provide: this is one of the lower-risk and lower-cost means
of addressing that.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
dott.Piergiorgio
>
> What do you think of the speculation that an eight inch from Prinz
> Augen might have done it. Would an eight penetrate at that range?
> I would think they might glance off from lack of steepness, but I
> don't actually know.
I guess there's also a side in which Mr. Brannigan's opinion is welcome:
As a fact, when the "most studied split second in Naval history"
happens, Hood's deck was on fire, and also a strong fire, by some time;
I No one can know what temperature reach said fire around the upper belt
& armoured deck, but is possible thet the heat has softened one or both
of them, easing the penetration of the fatal hit ?
frank
Boeing Co. The Chicago based aerospace giant's contract to install a
new cannon system on US Air Force gunships was cancelled because the
system couldn't meet accuracy requirements. The Air Force Special
Operations Command told Boeing to stop work on the 4 year old contract
to install Alliant Techsystems Inc 30mm cannons in place of WWII era
40mm weapons on four AC-130U gunships. Boeing was paid the full $71
million promised in the contract but loses the chance for additional
contracts worth as much as $80 million to install the system on the
other 21 gunships the service said.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> guy <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not saying do away with guns altogether, the RN keeps trying that
>> and then realising they do have uses, my point is that a 4.5" or 5"
>> gun can do anything that a 155mm can do, and almost as well, more
>> cheaply.
>
> But you need different ammo. One of the main advantages would be
> sharing ammo with the Army version, which would give the Navy lots of
> new toys.
>
> Who'd develop precision guided shells, bomblet shells etc. for a 4.5"
> gun? There's not nearly enough demand for that, but there's already
> shells available in 155mm...
>
>> If you are shooting at a bunch of pirates in a camp a 4.5
>> will probably be as unnerving as a 155mm and if you are shooting in a
>> situation where the big shell is worthwhile the ship is probably in
>> quite a dangerous situation anyway and is too costly to risk in the
>> first place.
>
> See above: You'd have to spend lots of money to develop new shells for
> all kind of tasks, whereas with 155mm you can share the costs with the
> Army.
No doubt the economic incentives and constraints will determine the
outcome of discussions more than any "neutral" operational
requirements that can be drawn up by military planners (who do not
have direct economic consequences to bear for good or for ill because
of their employment status). For every decision taken, the cost is the
decisions not taken, and the decision about which trade-off is most
beneficial is never clear given the long lead times and inability to
foretell the future a decade in advance with much precision...
Some countries seem to use more than one calibre gun (above 30mm) on
their vessels (Italian and French seem to have that history) so maybe
some EU-wide discussions about cost/benefits and operational needs
might be useful for the Brits? At the very least, the use of existing
weaponry (say, tried and tested 76mm from some EU firm) could be
considered in addition to any new 155mm weapon, so as to not screw up
things completely should the "teething problems" go on for years and
years. As they say in aircraft design (hearsay): only change one majr
thing at a time (airframe or engine).
--
BOFH excuse #32:
techtonic stress
Richard Casady
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>richar...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
>
>> My understanding from studying tank warfare, is that it is nearly
>> always the powder that catches fire from a hit. The fixed case ammo
>> cooks off slowly enough that sometimes the crew gets out. So fixed
>> case ammo in bulk, in those large sizes, will burn completely. Small
>> arms ammo doesn't do that.
>
>Tell that to the widows of T-72 crews...
Is that the one with all the ammo in the same compartment as the crew.
Pyrophoric uranium ammo will set off all of it at once, not a
spreading fire. I said _sometimes_ get out. Some are better than
others.
The M-1 has armored doors between the crew and the ammo, and it is in
individual compartments. [The army noticed how easy it was to set a
Sherman on fire.]
Casady
Fred J. McCall
:On 21 Aug 2008 07:30:55 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
:<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
:
:>richar...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:
:>
:>> My understanding from studying tank warfare, is that it is nearly
:>> always the powder that catches fire from a hit. The fixed case ammo
:>> cooks off slowly enough that sometimes the crew gets out. So fixed
:>> case ammo in bulk, in those large sizes, will burn completely. Small
:>> arms ammo doesn't do that.
:>
:>Tell that to the widows of T-72 crews...
:
:Is that the one with all the ammo in the same compartment as the crew.
:
No, that's the one with fuel lines running around the inside of the
turret ring. Hit 'em right and the turret blows clean off.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Richard Casady
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> My understanding from studying tank warfare, is that it is nearly
>:>> always the powder that catches fire from a hit. The fixed case ammo
>:>> cooks off slowly enough that sometimes the crew gets out. So fixed
>:>> case ammo in bulk, in those large sizes, will burn completely. Small
>:>> arms ammo doesn't do that.
>:>
>:>Tell that to the widows of T-72 crews...
>:
>:Is that the one with all the ammo in the same compartment as the crew.
>:
>
>No, that's the one with fuel lines running around the inside of the
>turret ring. Hit 'em right and the turret blows clean off.
During the gulf war they found that any hit on the hull or turret
would blow the turret fifty feet in the air with a jet of flame that
high. The uranium would fill the entire volumn of the tank with
burning slivers, it seems. They called the DU ammo the silver
bullet. Tungsten, which they now use, seems to be sufficiently deadly
as well, but it costs more, and doesn't burn. Tungsten is as dense as
gold or uranium and has equally good ballistics, fortunately. Both
metals are stronger and harder than the usual steels, and there is
little difference in the penetration. Against battleship armor, it
would penetrate at least as well as battleship ammo although it won't
do enough damage. The tank ammo will penetrate a yard of steel, there
is a reason the Abrams doesn't use steel armor. I am really impressed
with the Abrams, not to knock the roughly similar German or Brittish
products.
Casady
Tiger
> On Aug 19, 9:54 am, "R.C. Payne" <rc...@nospam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
> Its boggling that some folks seem to feel that obsolete gun technology
> can be useful now to missions that didn't exist at the time of the
> obsolete technology. Those are the battleship fetishists.
>
> Andre
A battleship fetish. Hmmm............. You have the wheels in my head
spinning now.
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
> >being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
> >over your factless whinging.
>
> What do you think of the speculation that an eight inch from Prinz
> I would think they might glance off from lack of steepness, but I
> don't actually know.
Its possible, from all that I have read up on the topic, and that
includes owning a copy of Battlecruiser HMS Hood: An Illustrated
History 1916-1941 (Hardcover) by Bruce Taylor.
A lot of the armour on Hood could have been pierced by an 8 inch
shell, and thats true of many capital ships of the period ( The
bridge hit on POW could easily have been replicated by an 8 inch
shell going through there, and all the damage caused to the
Hiei at her last battle did come from guns no larger than 8 inch
in size. ).
The basic problem here is that we will never know, unless we can
develop time travel, and go back to then and there and place all
sorts of hidden recording devices all over Hood for that day.
> My understanding from studying tank warfare, is that it is nearly
> always the powder that catches fire from a hit. The fixed case ammo
> cooks off slowly enough that sometimes the crew gets out. So fixed
> case ammo in bulk, in those large sizes, will burn completely. Small
> arms ammo doesn't do that.
Thats mostly true for larger shells, too, but not always. The
various magazine explosions in such as the RN battlecruisers at
Jutland speak to that point.
Andre
Richard Casady
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>:>Tell that to the widows of T-72 crews...
>:
>:Is that the one with all the ammo in the same compartment as the crew.
>:
>
>No, that's the one with fuel lines running around the inside of the
>turret ring. Hit 'em right and the turret blows clean off.
With a Bradley you need to hit them just right, but it has been done.
A Bradley spotted a tank and hosed the hull/turret junction until they
saw a tracer disappear, not bounce off. It blew. The 120mm uranium
ammo works with a hit about anywhere, however. The troops called it
the silver bullet. It worked every time, any hit blew the turret off.
Casady
Andre Lieven
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
So, you're now trying to claim that HMS Barham was NOT built during
WW1 ? Thats insane of you, but I've seen you display your deep
ignorance
of naval matters that insanely before.
> That's progress
You mis-spelled "regress".
> >So, you're still trying to squeeze in 70 year old history on a topic
> >of a FUTURE gun system.
>
> Why yes, I'm saying that using 1940's technology in a future
> system is silly.
As was I.
> Do you have a problem with that?
So, you are illiterate as well as stupid. OK.
> If you don't then why were you so rude to Dott?
Because that blighy Eiytie is the one who brought in WW1 tech into
a thread about FUTURE RN guns.
> >> Don't you
> >> realize that the RN extended its changes to propellant to all its
> >> ships between the wars?
>
> >None of which is relevent to a FUTURE gun system...
>
> Which was rather my point and also Dott.'s.
Wrong.
> Why were you so rude and stupid?
<Massive McCall Class Projection>
> >> >So, no soup for you, as you flubbed this topic.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >Yep.
>
> Nope.
Idiot.
> >> >Further, even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo, thats still gear
> >> >thats well obsolete a generation ago.
>
> >> Those 4" used fixed ammunition. I'd tend to think they are
> >> irrelevant here. Let's go with the most likely explanation, shall
> >> we?
>
> >Far more learned people than you include the Hood's 4 inch magazine
> >being involved. I'll take their considered professional opinions
> >over your factless whinging.
>
> Now that is just plain idiotic.
Yes, your comments were exactly that. The topic is NEW gun tech,
and you and the blighty Eiytie keep trying to work in WW2 and WW1
tech into that. Insane McCall class madness.
> Your claim here is that I
> suggested Hood's 4" was involved. You didn't like that and said
> so. I didn't make that suggestion and said so. Now you've
> promptly taken a position on the other side and are calling the
> majority position of serious authorities "factless whinging".
<Massive Loon Projection>
I said " Even if Hood was due to the 4 inch ammo ". I took no
position on that point, as to the cause of Hood exploding, I merely
pointed out, correctly, that the details of even 1941 4 inch ammo
had AbZero relevance to FUTURE RN gun tech.
Man, you are a moron.
> >> >> Your desire to be rude has lead you to make a stupid statement.
>
> >> >Own Goal. Try again, this time, with actual real naval facts.
>
> >> I did. The dott. may have had a point, you were rude to him in a
> >> stupid way.
>
> >No proof ever offered ? Factless loon claim always fails.
>
> Full proof was offered and your bullshit response has now been
> refuted.
<Massive McCall Class Projection>
Cool your fevered and empty noggin in KillFile Hell for a while.
Go lick McCall.
Andre
Andre Lieven
I'm sorry about that. Is the mouse all right ?
Battleships are nice items of history. Thats it.
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:22:05 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>
Ummm... Bradleys never had 120 MM weapons. Try again.
Now, if you mean 30MM ammo, thats another matter.
Andre
Andre Lieven
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Ummm... Bradleys never had 120 MM weapons. Try again.
>
> > Now, if you mean 30MM ammo, thats another matter.
>
>
> However, you'll be hard pressed to find a Bradley with 30mm - the
> Bushmaster is 25mm ;-)
Well, I never claimed to a precise expert on all land kit. But, I
was a lot closer, in pointing out that AFCs don't tend to have
tank cannon fitted... <g>
Andre
Peter Skelton
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 3:25 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> weaseled:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>>
Lots of snippage of typical Lievenism before and after.
>
>> If you don't then why were you so rude to Dott?
>
>Because that blighy Eiytie is the one who brought in WW1 tech into
>a thread about FUTURE RN guns.
>
Nonsense. He added an objection to ones Keith, I and others had
already given to an idea of Ray's.
None of us had brought up that particular point, which IMO was
both valid and relevant.
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
You think we all don't know that,? And you failed to notice that
nobody said they did.
Casady
dott.Piergiorgio
> Tiger <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A battleship fetish. Hmmm............. You have the wheels in my head
>> spinning now.
>
for the cats, if one looks to the specs of the various UAV (dimensions &
weights in the range of 1920s & 1930s floatplanes, but a definitively
larger endurance) in my humble opinion is only a matter of thime that
Admirals & Naval engineers notice tha analogy and the midships of euro
FF, DD and CG will sport an cat and two or three float-UAV.
By the way, I never get the concrete f***** reference about loons...
someone can explain once and for all to me ?
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> No, that's the one with fuel lines running around the inside of the
:> turret ring. Hit 'em right and the turret blows clean off.
:
:Only if you can make diesel violently explode ;-)
:
You think you can't? Explain to us how diesel engines work if that
can't be done...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
<usual Lieven Lying elided>
Hmmm, nothing left.
It's not that you're an ill mannered git; it's everyone else.
Right, Andre?
--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 21, 5:39 pm, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
:
You misread, Lieven. He didn't say they did. Try again.
Let me help. He said "With a Bradley you need to hit them just
right". This is COMPARED to the tank gun, where "The 120mm uranium
ammo works with a hit about anywhere". Hence, anyone with a pair of
working brain cells would conclude that the Bradley mounts something
that is NOT a 120mm gun.
That explains why you got it wrong and thought he said the Bradley
mounted a 120mm gun.
:
:Now, if you mean 30MM ammo, thats another matter.
:
It sure is, since Bradleys carry a 25mm gun...
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 21, 5:52 pm, Juergen Nieveler
:
No, you just demonstrated you can't read and comprehend simple English
sentences.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Tiger
> guy <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>It will not have an AA role, so it will be used as either an anti
>>surface vessel or shore bombardment weapon.
>>Against major warships anti-ship missiles are a much better bet, and
>>against minor ones a Lynz with Sea Squa or similar is much safer and a
>>4.5" probably just as effective..
>>As a shore bombardemt weapon it would be madness to put a ship as
>>costly as one capable of carrying this gun in gun range of coast held
>>by a major power..
>
>
> Following that logic, you could do away with guns altogether - they're
> pretty useless as AA weapons nowadays, and there's more effective ways
> to deal with Anti-Ship and Anti-Land roles as well...
>
> Pretty much the only thing left would be "shot across the bow", and you
> could probably do that with a 40mm grenade launcher mount just as
> effectively (BTW, has anybody ever mounted automatic grenade launchers
> on ships as close-in defense?)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
There is always a place for a gun..... Don't make the mistake of Air
forces who thought Missles could do it all. Shells are cheap and last
for years. As For Auto Grenade launcher? The Us Mk. 19 40mm launcher is
used on some ships.
Paul J. Adam
Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> writes
>Well... what do you suggest the gun to be used FOR?
>
>As stated above (and not by me, mind...), guns aren't usefull against
>enemy ships because there aren't all that many naval engagements
>anymore nowadays, and they're useless against land targets as you have
>to be too close to land to use them, and hitting a supersonic ASM with
>them isn't really an option either.
The RN disagrees rather with you. They despatched over ten thousand
shells from ship to shore in 1982: not risk-free (ask HMS Glamorgan) but
worthwhile. As recently as TELIC we and the Australians had ships on the
gunline off the al-Fao peninsula, with good results: a combination of
weather and competing priorities meant that for a while, naval fires and
four TOW-armed Lynx were the only fire support available to that
operation... More standoff range is good, but if the coast is safe
enough to land troops on, then it's safe enough to put a ship in to give
them fire support.
MR guns also give you more visibility for SATB (shot across the bow) and
more potential for disabling fire: 30mm isn't going to stop a ship of
any significant size, Harpoon is very good at hitting and doing lots of
damage but isn't predictable or controllable beyond that, while 4.5"
bricks can be fired with a variety of fuze options (or even inert SU-P
rounds used) and aimed with reasonable selectivity, to try to get
"enough" damage done in the right part of the ship. Not guaranteed, of
course, but more chance of "stop without devastating" than the other
options.
The MR gun also has significant utility against threats like Fast
Inshore Attack Craft (FIAC): too small for Harpoon, and you won't have
many Sea Skua immediately available. MR gunfire allows you to bring them
under effective fire: they're small, agile targets and if they take
vigorous evasive action you're not going to get many hits. However, that
also prevents them holding formation and co-ordinating their attack,
instead of hitting your inner layer of defence in a coherent group and
saturating you.
Air mode is debatable: but the US declares specific fuzing options for
AAW for its 5" guns, presumably on the basis that (a) if you've got an
ASM inbound then firing some extra shells at it is unlikely to hurt, (b)
you might get lucky, especially against the older and larger systems
still widely used, (c) pilots of manned aircraft may be somewhat
dismayed by HE airbursts to the face even if they aren't immediately
destroyed by them, to the detriment of their own weapon-aiming skills.
(There's also the question of small, slow air targets such as UAVs,
which may be more effectively engaged by HE-ET or KE-ET rounds where
other systems might struggle.)
In other words - the MR gun is likely to remain viable for quite a while
yet...
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Richard Casady
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You think you can't? Explain to us how diesel engines work if that
>can't be done...
Diesels work by injecting a flammible liquid into red hot air. If air
at 500 R. could be compressed twenty to one without losing any heat,
adiabatically in other words, the temperature would reach 10 000 R.
While an hit with shot may heat some quantity of fuel to ignition
temperature, I question if you would normally get what you could call
a violent explosion. Many fuel tanks, on planes and ground vehicles
have been ignited by gunfire, and gasoline fumes can explode, but
diesel doesn't. That is a major reason for using it.
Casady
Andrew Chaplin
news:4ZC0s9Ez...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> (There's also the question of small, slow air targets such as UAVs, which
> may be more effectively engaged by HE-ET or KE-ET rounds where other systems
> might struggle.)
What is "ET" in this context?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
dott.Piergiorgio
> Diesels work by injecting a flammible liquid into red hot air. If air
> at 500 R. could be compressed twenty to one without losing any heat,
Holy Cow ! why you use the degree Réamur ??
Saluti,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:Only if you can make diesel violently explode ;-)
:>:
:>
:> You think you can't? Explain to us how diesel engines work if that
:> can't be done...
:
:It only works if you spray the diesel into tiny droplets, and then
:apply high pressure to that spray.
:
And you don't think that slamming a burning piece of metal through
there fast enough so that armor FLOWS out of the way will do it? No
shockwave or atomization of liquid there?
:
:A normal fuel line, or a full tank of diesel, won't explode even if you
:take a blowtorch to it. You might be able to set fire to it (using a
:hot enough flame), but it won't explode, and definately won't explode
:hard enough to lift the turret.
:
:BMPs have a fuel tank in the rear door - you'd think that they'd be
:exploding all around, yet they'll "only" burn severely when hit.
:
A tank is a much bigger volume than a line full of fuel.
How many BMPs get shot in the ass with DU sabot?
David E. Powell
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 9:54 am, "R.C. Payne" <rc...@nospam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > Its boggling that some folks seem to feel that obsolete gun technology
> > can be useful now to missions that didn't exist at the time of the
> > obsolete technology. Those are the battleship fetishists.
>
> > Andre
>
> spinning now.
155mm gun is not a Battleship gun. Now if someone brought up a new 12
inch or 16 inch gun, that would be different.
203mm/8 inch is Heavy cruiser range. 155mm is roughtly light druiser
range, to destroyer range, if mounted in single mounts.
As for "obsolete weapon" being used for missions it wasn't intended
for, such things happen all the time. Lots of times things developed
for one conflict are adapted to another type of missions, such as
F-105s and B-52s carrying conventional bombs in Vietnam though they
were developed as nuclear weapon carriers.
The 5 inch gun developed for dual purpose use on aircraft and ships
can be used on oil platforms or other targets if the mission changes,
as in the US-Iran fighting in the 1980s.
Richard Casady
Rankine. F. degrees, starting at absolute zero. Used for thermodynamic
calculations, gas laws stuff like that, while avoiding metric. Metric
equivilant is Kelvin. The calculator that takes no prisoners has a
conversion program between F,C,R,K.
Casady
Andrew Robert Breen
David E. Powell <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>155mm gun is not a Battleship gun. Now if someone brought up a new 12
>inch or 16 inch gun, that would be different.
Or a 9,4". Plenty of battleships with nothing larger than 9.4" in their
main battery (and one of the most significant ships in the path to the
dreadnought battleship had but 10"...)
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)
frank
>
> BMPs have a fuel tank in the rear door - you'd think that they'd be
> exploding all around, yet they'll "only" burn severely when hit.
>
> --
> You, you, and you: Panic. The rest of you, come with me.
Way back in early 70s, was in an AF hospital in Japan working in
clinical lab, across the hall was physical therapy. They used to put
burn patients in whirlpool baths to try to get the old skin off. Part
of the therapy was having the patient remove the old skin himself. God
knows why they weren't ever tried for war crimes, but that was medical
science.
At least now medicine is a lot more generous in giving out pain
medication.
Paul J. Adam
Chaplin <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4ZC0s9Ez...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> (There's also the question of small, slow air targets such as UAVs, which
>> may be more effectively engaged by HE-ET or KE-ET rounds where other systems
>> might struggle.)
>
>What is "ET" in this context?
Electronic Time, for targets that may not have a good signature for
other proximity fuzes. (Either not enough return, or too much clutter).
Andrew Chaplin
> In message <f8adnczPq_hEIDPV...@giganews.com>, Andrew Chaplin
> <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:4ZC0s9Ez...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> (There's also the question of small, slow air targets such as UAVs, which
>>> may be more effectively engaged by HE-ET or KE-ET rounds where other
>>> systems
>>> might struggle.)
>>
>>What is "ET" in this context?
>
> Electronic Time, for targets that may not have a good signature for other
> proximity fuzes. (Either not enough return, or too much clutter).
<Remembers "MT", "VT" and "MTSQ"> Doh!
Keith Willshaw
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9B0256A5B3DC...@nieveler.org...
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>:Only if you can make diesel violently explode ;-)
>>:
>>
>> You think you can't? Explain to us how diesel engines work if that
>> can't be done...
>
> apply high pressure to that spray.
>
High explosive will atomise diesel nicely.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Richard Casady" <richar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:48b0a917...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Thats what the operator in this case thought
http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19951206.html
and the man here thought the same
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/07/19/maine_boy_8_burned_in_fuel_can_explosion/
Diesel has a flashpoint of around 130 deg F, get it above that
temperature and it will flash over nicely. The IPCS hazard
datasheet on diesel clearly says
"Above 52/C explosive vapour/air mixtures may be formed"
Diesel is less volatile than gasoline but assuming its safe can be
a painful mistake.
Keith
Richard Casady
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>And even then, you wouldn't get SUCH a dramatic explosion - you'd get a
>hollywood fireball, but that's about it.
Holywood fireballs are of course, gasoline atomized with HE. The car
over the cliff explodes and the like.
Casady
Dean A. Markley
Keith Willshaw
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> It only works if you spray the diesel into tiny droplets, and then
>>> apply high pressure to that spray.
>>
>> High explosive will atomise diesel nicely.
>
> simply can-shaped, they can be quite intricately formed to get air and
> fuel to mix just right.
>
> And even then, you wouldn't get SUCH a dramatic explosion - you'd get a
> hollywood fireball, but that's about it.
>
Thats a really unhealthy place to be. Now in the case of the Iraqi tanks
struck in the gulf war its clear that there was ammo cooking off
but the bald statement that diesel cant burn or explode is flat wrong.
Keith
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> The RN disagrees rather with you. They despatched over ten thousand
> shells from ship to shore in 1982: not risk-free (ask HMS Glamorgan) but
> worthwhile. As recently as TELIC we and the Australians had ships on the
> gunline off the al-Fao peninsula, with good results: a combination of
> weather and competing priorities meant that for a while, naval fires and
> four TOW-armed Lynx were the only fire support available to that
> operation... More standoff range is good, but if the coast is safe
> enough to land troops on, then it's safe enough to put a ship in to give
> them fire support.
>
>
> MR guns also give you more visibility for SATB (shot across the bow) and
> more potential for disabling fire: {snip}
So the purpose of the gun is to support infantry/marines and to
capture as an alternative to sinking ships.
Andrew Swallow
dott.Piergiorgio
> In article <4e483727-1e1d-47e0...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> David E. Powell <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>> 155mm gun is not a Battleship gun. Now if someone brought up a new 12
>> inch or 16 inch gun, that would be different.
>
> Or a 9,4". Plenty of battleships with nothing larger than 9.4" in their
> main battery (and one of the most significant ships in the path to the
> dreadnought battleship had but 10"...)
And was the.... ??
The only all-10" design I know was the alternative design for the San
Giorgio Class, in which they trade the four 7.4" twin turrets with
single 10" turrets....
(checking the Blue Conway's to avoid another embarassment)
IF I'm correct, the 10" ACR's was:
-10 out 11 of the large & varied Garibaldi type, the exception being the
Japanese Nisshin.
-the 5 of the Italian Pisas, San Giorgio & the Greek Averoff (the only
ACR still extant)
-the four ships second batch of the USN "Big Ten"
-the second Riurik.
all of mixed battery, from the 8" of the second Riurik to the 6" and
4.7" of the earlier pair of Argentine Garibaldis.
Also, I was sure that in 1905-6 there was rumours that the then-ordered
Renan class was to be armed with an monocalibre battery, but of circa a
dozen 7.5", not 10"
I'm missing something ? (hopefully not obvious)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.