PDA

View Full Version : OT: battleship guns in todays USA Navy?



fordfan25
03-10-2007, 03:08 PM
i was just thinking, what would your opinion be of haveing moddern battle ships in todays navy. the cost of missels ect are crazy high and alot of the targets thay are used on could be taken out with modern versions of the battle ship big guns for MUCH less. We still use artillary after all. Now keep in mind im not suggesting we clone ww2 style BB's. think some what scaled down versions. still large enough to carry guns in the 16 to 20" range. something say a bit larger than a modern crusier. of course with top line anti air and anti sub tech. includeing surface to air misseles and even a limated surface to land rockets like used on ships now but with maby a frount and rear main gun turrent in the large 16,18" caliber. with toadays tech and fire control in artillary riveling that of alot of high priced rockets it would sure cut down on cost IMHO. of course this is just for fun thread. what do you guys think.Also keep in mind these ships would be used in fleet op's so when the need for extreemly high persition is needed it could be carried out by the other current ships.

MEGILE
03-10-2007, 03:11 PM
.50 cal artillery.

Airmail109
03-10-2007, 03:19 PM
Laasers will make all projectile weapons obsolete in 50 years, be sure. Except maybe small arms.

MEGILE
03-10-2007, 03:21 PM
How does one laser over the horizon?

Strategically placed mirrors? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Spectre1968
03-10-2007, 03:27 PM
http://images.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_StealthShip5.gif

This is the future. There is no need (unfortunatly) for huge Battleships to pound other battleship the Aircraft carrier took care of that. All these ships are designed for is shallow water, anti-terrorist counter-insurgency work the biggest gun is 155mm rapid fire job with top line AAA,anti-sub and anti-ship weapons

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 04:06 PM
now im not talkimng pounding other ships mostly ground targets in the opening days of a war or op

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
.50 cal artillery. you mean 1c disgned .50s? na thay would just bounce off camels

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
How does one laser over the horizon?

Strategically placed mirrors? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif curve beamed lasers DU

Platypus_1.JaVA
03-10-2007, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
i was just thinking, what would your opinion be of haveing moddern battle ships in todays navy. the cost of missels ect are crazy high and alot of the targets thay are used on could be taken out with modern versions of the battle ship big guns for MUCH less. We still use artillary after all. Now keep in mind im not suggesting we clone ww2 style BB's. think some what scaled down versions. still large enough to carry guns in the 16 to 20" range. something say a bit larger than a modern crusier. of course with top line anti air and anti sub tech. includeing surface to air misseles and even a limated surface to land rockets like used on ships now but with maby a frount and rear main gun turrent in the large 16,18" caliber. with toadays tech and fire control in artillary riveling that of alot of high priced rockets it would sure cut down on cost IMHO. of course this is just for fun thread. what do you guys think.Also keep in mind these ships would be used in fleet op's so when the need for extreemly high persition is needed it could be carried out by the other current ships.

This all might be true about the SF like fire control stuff but I think the real issue with artillery hasn't been mentioned yet. With all the equipment and radar we have today, we cannot predict or steer the path of an artillery shell precisely enough. So in order to get maximum precision, you need something to steer the shell. I don't believe they have succeed doing that (yet).

Precision is everything these days. Hell, the airforce even has laser guided lumps of concrete! (see http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005107231617.asp ) Most of the wars the US or any other western country is going to fight is probably against terrorists in densly populated area's. With today's media attentions it is absolutly vital not to make any civillian casuallities. Hundreds of pounds of explosives flying ten, maybe 20 or more miles is not precise enough to destroy this one anti-air gun in a busy residential area. Also, because the shells are a lot less precise, you'll need to fire more of them to destroy a single target. That was essentially why the big battleships dissapeared from the seas. Aircraft with bombs, and later on, guided missiles would do they job more quickly and more accuratly then a really huge big gun.

It is a shame tough. Big ships with big guns are really very cool.

gdfo
03-10-2007, 05:46 PM
The reason that the last Iowa class BB were decommisioned after the last sortie was because of the expense of running the ship on a daily basis. Were they effective? Yes are they expensive to run? YEs.

I think that a few F-111's can take take out the same targets for less expense.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2007, 05:58 PM
F-111 has been removed from service as well. The FB-22 is supposed to fill that role sometime by 2018 or something like that.

As far as shore bombardment from a ship goes...I really think the US Navy is hoping that their Rail Gun or maybe Coil Gun technology pays off. You'll have the range of cruise missiles with a relatively cheap cost in terms of the warheads. Its still experimental and with the Rail Gun the whole rail needs replacement after firing...if they can solve these problems then they'll have a cruise missile and heavy battleship gun replacement.

BillyTheKid_22
03-10-2007, 06:13 PM
http://www.formsys.com/uploads/qz/03/qz03XCdCLDCr8d3AZ2XzIg/Austal_LCS_sm.jpg



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LCS-GD_cutaway.png



http://www.austal.com/images/delivery/lcs-gallery-1.jpg



NEW Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I just look new ships!!



http://www.formsys.com/uploads/wI/Yb/wIYbsbdOFqAjw1gFCW6n8A/Austal_LCS2_sm.jpg

LStarosta
03-10-2007, 06:30 PM
Looks like a civil war ironclad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Monterey13
03-10-2007, 06:44 PM
The big guns would never do. you're looking at a range of less than 50 miles. Some of the cruise missiles have a range in excess of 1000 miles. Sure, you could tear up a beach, but not far inland. Also, if you get a ship that close nowadays, then small shore-based missiles can reach it no problem. guns aren't much help with anti-ship capability nowadays either. I had Tomahawk anti-ship missiles, and the Russians had NUCLEAR anti-ship missiles. guns would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

BillyTheKid_22
03-10-2007, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Looks like a civil war ironclad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



haha!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://americancivilwar.com/pictures/ironclads_battle_3.jpg



Civil War Ironclad!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

StG2_Schlachter
03-10-2007, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
This all might be true about the SF like fire control stuff but I think the real issue with artillery hasn't been mentioned yet. With all the equipment and radar we have today, we cannot predict or steer the path of an artillery shell precisely enough. So in order to get maximum precision, you need something to steer the shell. I don't believe they have succeed doing that (yet).



Steer an artillery round ?
They did. It's called XM982 Excalibur. Basically a GPS-guided artillery shell.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/62248/guided_artillery_projectile/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm

But using artillery for precision strikes is contradicting it's original purpose - doing maximum damage over a large area. Artillery is slow and there is massive logistics involved in keeping the howitzers mobile - fuel, spare parts, ammo. Using airborne artillery (i.e. Global Hawks, Harrier, F/A-18) is a lot more precise, faster and easier. The downside is, that it's much more expensive.

And concerning the defense against artillery:
The USA are field-testing a land-borne version of their PHALANX-System, which is used to counter incoming anti-ship missiles.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a015fdb96
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d306b12449

IMHO neither battleships nor their guns are needed for the kind of asymetric warfare the US is engaged in all the time.

Akronnick
03-10-2007, 07:48 PM
A Battleship has no more reason for being than horse cavalry. They were obsolete fifty years ago.

BillyTheKid_22
03-10-2007, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
A Battleship has no more reason for being than horse cavalry. They were obsolete fifty years ago.



http://www.army.mil/leaders/leaders/sma/photos/2006July/060720/group-cropped-small.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
A Battleship has no more reason for being than horse cavalry. They were obsolete fifty years ago. thats what thay said about tanks and artilary and what many are sayn about large carriers.

FritzGryphon
03-10-2007, 10:02 PM
There's no cheaper replacement for tanks and artillery. Except newer and better tanks and artillery.

There are cheaper replacement for battleships.

If large caliber guided shells do have a future, they'd be better off with new, smaller and easier to maintain ships with large guns. Not 50,000 ton heavily armored behemoths with thousands of crew. The operating cost of the battleship offsets whatever they save using shells.

You wouldn't need to have a dozen large guns, if the rounds are guided. 1 gun would suffice.

Maybe an LCS with a 16 inch gun. No need to be limited to the open sea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Tater-SW-
03-10-2007, 10:19 PM
All the big guns we need are in Lstarosta's sig.

StellarRat
03-10-2007, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
All the big guns we need are in Lstarosta's sig. Exactly! Who is that girl? And where was that pic taken? Is she a real Army person?

Snuffy Smith
03-10-2007, 11:03 PM
This is a really dangerous topic. The problem with large bore naval rifles is that, dispite all their vertues (and they are many), range is less than 25 miles, and they need help see that far. Their most valuable purpose is close support of amphibious assualts against a defended shore, but the last time the US did that was 57 years ago. Asking the question makes one wonder why the US even has a Marine Corps of 3 full divisions? Come to think of it, aren't they all in the desert, a very long way from the sea?

woofiedog
03-11-2007, 04:13 AM
USS Zumwalt class destroyer (DDG-1000)

http://www.themarrowfoundation.org/EVENTS/2006/images/ddg1000_destroyer.jpg

The DDG-1000 has 50% more displacement than the Arleigh Burke class, and both by terms of displacement and firepower is more in line with light cruisers. The Arleigh Burke class, currently still in production with a projected total of 62 ships, is anticipated to be the Navy's main air defense ship for the next 4 decades.

Up to 2006, the remaining Iowa-class battleships were kept on the Naval registry, in part to fill a naval fire support role. The Navy had never had any intention of recommissioning either battleship; their high manpower and fuel requirements were far in excess of the Navy's projected allotment of either for the fire support role (a fully manned Iowa-class battleship can have a crew of over 1,000 sailors, vs the 400 sailors needed to operate one Ticonderoga-class cruiser). Their 16" (406 mm) guns are capable of firing 2,700 lb projectiles approximately 24 nautical miles inland, but very large crews are required for them; whereas the current 5" weapon can be operated by a single loader and the 6.1" weapon requires no crew members. Experimental sabot shells for the 405 mm with multiple times this range were proposed, but none ever reached prototype stage. Since the 1992 decommissioning of USS Wisconsin and USS Missouri, all naval gunfire support has been through missiles or through 5"-armed cruisers and destroyers and 3"-armed frigates. DDG-1000 is noted to be able to fire a specially designed "guided" artillery shell some 63 nautical miles inland.[18] However, this shell has a reduced warhead size and uses new technology, so most of the shells carried on the DDG would have vastly shorter range. The specific concern of the Marine Corps is that the last 2 Iowas will be let out of reserve. This would leave the Marines with an insignificant shore bombardment support capability.

The same shells placed in a sabot 406 mm round would achieve the same effect with much farther range but considerably reduced accuracy due to the lower inherent accuracy of the 16" weapon and a much lower rate of fire (2 rounds per minute per tube versus 8-10) due to the slower manual reloading of the 16" weapon, versus fully automatic loading of the 6.1" weapon. With only a few hundred shells at its disposal, the DDG-1000 could fire at a cyclic rate for less than an hour before needing resupply (in practice, the DDG-1000 would only seldom be firing at a cyclic rate). In fact, with planned number of long-range shells, the DDX could only fire a fraction of that time at the longest range. However because both guns are on the bow, and the helicopter pad is at the stern a DDG-1000 could be supplied with ammunition by helicopter while continuing to fire.

[edit] 6.1 inch (155 mm) against 16 inch (406 mm) guns
To frame this debate: the Iowas have nine 16" guns each and can carry many more shells. The Zumwalts will have two 6.1" guns with limited ammunition. While smaller calibre guns (and missiles) have been used for centuries in naval fire support, very large guns have special capabilities beyond that of mid-range calibres. US battleships were re-activated three times after WWII specifically for NFS, and their 16 inch gunfire was used in every major engagement of the U. S. from WWII to the Gulf War.

It is claimed by the proponents of the new design that the 6 inch guns, unlike the much larger 16 inch, have a smaller "danger space" and are easier to use as a close-support weapon for friendly troops, who are less likely to be wounded or killed by friendly fire as they advance. In either event, the primary weapon of close support is aircraft (especially the A-10 Warthog, which has excellent rough-field handling characteristics and very long on-station loiter time) and is likely to remain aircraft for the foreseeable future, with ships filling an allegedly necessary secondary role of heavy bombardment.

While the 16 inch guns can fire larger shells when needed, the 6.1 inch guns cannot. However, the 16 inch weapon is not sufficiently accurate for a close-support weapon. The battleships can also use their 5"/38, which supposedly can actually carry a similar weight bursting charge, even though the 6.1 inch/62 gun fires a projectile approximately four times heavier and much longer-ranged than the 5 inch projectile used by Iowas 5"/38 Mk. 12. The 6.1 inch gun fires a 200 pound unguided bombardment projectile at a range (elevation unknown but presumably 45 degrees) of 24 km, comparable to the 16"/50 at an elevation of 20 degrees (the 16"/50 has a range of 38 km at 45 degree elevation) and much longer than the 5"/38's range of only 16 km (at 45 degrees). The modern 5"/54 weapon has a range at 45 degree elevation of 21 km and the 5"/62 of 23 km. The two share a common projectile which is 25% heavier than the 55 pound surface bombardment high-explosive projectile fired by the 5"/38, and the 62-calibre weapon is compatible with a newly-developed 127 mm extended-range guided munition which shares many design features with the 155 mm LRLAP. The 14 calibre-long ERGM is incompatible with the smaller 38 calibre weapon because there is insufficient barrel length to develop high muzzle velocity with the larger and heavier munition.

155 mm gunnery is a well-used calibre in American military strategy on land-based systems. The Advanced Gun System, which uses 155 mm ammunition (though not the same ammunition as the Army's 155 mm gun artillery systems) is a versatile artillery piece for both land and sea combat in many applications.

While it is always possible to put a smaller bursting charge in a shell, the 16" weapon's bursting charge is only 48 pounds of a 2,000 pound projectile, and most of the danger to unarmoured or lightly-armoured objects (people and vehicles) is shrapnel thrown out from the point of impact, up to 300 meters (330 yards) away in the case of the heavy 1,900 or 2,700 pound projectiles. The analog computers used in the Iowa-class fire control system have a circular error probable of over 100 meters, more than double the CEP of the FCS developed for the AGS. A 100 meter CEP is acceptable when fighting guns against a 200 meter long enemy warship but wholly unacceptable when firing into a battlefield situation where friendly soldiers are operating within 50 or fewer meters of the enemy (the effective range of modern personal weapons is generally less than 50 meters without mechanical compensation for the motion of the human body). A subcalibre sabot round had already been partially developed for a battleship gun; 11 inch subcalibre saboted long-range round for the 16"/50 Mark 7 and was tested in the 1960s[citation needed]. Another, even longer range one was proposed in the late 1980s and was evaluated. The studies for this formed the basis for the original (not current) long range AGS gun in the DD21 (but not DDG-1000)[citation needed].

Proponents of the 16 inch weapon claim frequently that only battleship-calibre exceeds merely adequate fire support (often going further than that, deriding lesser weapons as "popguns"). Smaller calibres have good track records in most applications.

In the Pacific theatre of World War II, while battleships armed with 12 inch, 14 inch, and 16 inch weapons gave good fire support, so too did cruisers armed with 6 inch (152 mm) and 8 inch (203 mm) guns, with a lower throw weight than the modern 6.1 inch (155 mm) Advanced Gun System weapon. Since the 1992 final decommissioning of the battleships, 5" (127 mm) and 3" (76 mm) calibres have been the primary tools of naval gunfire support, with aircraft and missiles providing heavy firepower in all applications where heavy firepower is called for. The GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb has roughly the same explosive charge as a 1900 lb. 16" high explosive shell, while its overall weight is only 250 lbs. The heaviest aircraft-dropped bombs are over 2,000 pounds, heavier than a battleship's shore-bombardment shells. The 2,700 pound "superheavy" shells developed for World War II were solely intended for sea combat against other battleships, as their fragmentation and explosive characteristics were considerably inferior to the 1900 pound HE shell.

Cruiser-calibre weapons have been occasionally tested since the retirement of the last Baltimore and Cleveland-class cruisers, with the 8" Major Calibre Lightweight Gun tested in the 1970s (and nearly accepted for the Ticonderoga-class cruisers) and the 6.1" AGS in the present. Battleship-calibre weapons were periodically reactivated via the re-activation of existing battleships. There have been some experimentation with 16" guns, such as the EX-148 round. No new battleship-calibre weapons have been created or tested, however, since the beginning of World War II.

The question of 6.1" versus 16" weapons, however, sidesteps the question of whether tube-based artillery firepower remains actually necessary. In order to employ guns with any degree of accuracy, ships must operate in "brown water," close to shore and with minimal maneuverability to evade harm in the case of attack. Modern gun artillery systems are minimally used due to vulnerability against counterfire; tanks use direct-fire 100 to 120 mm cannon for attack and .50 calibre machine guns for defense. Artillery brigades generally use rocket systems (such as MLRS) rather than guns; rockets are more difficult to ballistically track because they are engine-propelled for part of their flight. In realistic terms, naval guns in modern warfare are used primarily against naval targets, missiles against land targets, and aircraft against both land and sea targets. 6+ inch (cruiser calibre) weapons are, however, demonstrably more useful against ship targets than 5" and that will be their probable primary employment. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Marines effectively left their artillery "at home," preferring air power and missiles to either land- or sea-based artillery.

http://www.heinleincentennial.com/images/ussrahbeauty.jpg
Class type: Multi-mission destroyer
Displacement: 14,564 tons[1]
Length: 600 ft (183 m)
Beam: 79.1 ft (24.1 m)
Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Propulsion and power: 78 MW, from 2 Rolls-Royce MT-30 gas turbines and emergency diesel generators
Speed: 30.3 kt (56 km/h)
Complement: 140
Armament: 20 × MK 57 VLS, comprising a total of 80 missiles
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Tactical Tomahawk Block IV
Standard Missile 2 Block III (SM-2)
Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
2 × 155 mm Advanced Gun System
920 × 155 mm total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005
70-100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total
2 × 57 mm Mk 110 Close-In Gun System (CIWS)
Sensors: AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) (X-band, scanned array)
Volume Search Radar (VSR) (S-band, scanned array)
Aircraft complement: 2 SH-60 LAMPS helicopters or 1 MH-60R helicopter
3 MQ-8 Fire Scout VTUAV

Copperhead310th
03-11-2007, 04:39 PM
Actually, Hourse mounted Calvery is a very much needed asset totoday's modern war fighter in the US Army. In Moutounus reagions (Like Eastern Afganastan/Western Packastan's Toroa Boroa Mountains) Places were Atv's and motorized vehichles cant go. you have only 3 choices,
1. Airborn Infantry
2. Foot Infantry or
3. Mounted Calvery.

So these are stil needed. just wish they were in larger numbers. maybe they could actrally find a cetain mountan dwelling snake we've been hunting fot the past 6 years or so.

BillyTheKid_22
03-11-2007, 05:02 PM
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_DDG-1000_2_Ships_Firing_Concept_lg.jpg



USS Zumwalt Destroyer (DDG-1000) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/images/dd21_2.jpg



The DD21 Destroyers would replace Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (FFG 7 ) and Spruance class destroyers (DD963).

The DD21 would have a crew of 95, including the helicopter detachment- a sigificant reduction compared to crew levels 300 on Spruance destroyers and 200 on Oliver Hazard Perry frigates.


www.naval-technology.com (http://www.naval-technology.com)

Philipscdrw
03-11-2007, 06:15 PM
In WW1 the UK put surplus big-gun turrets on purpose-designed small ships (the 'Monitors') and used them to shell the European coast and the warships hiding there. If the 16" shell is still useful then the USMC can surely do something similar?

However, from this book I'm reading now, building large-calibre guns is a very complex and specialised business (apparently, the design of the guns was often longer than the design of the battleship!) and, given that they've not been majorly useful for 50 years, it's probably a lost art...

jarink
03-11-2007, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
You wouldn't need to have a dozen large guns, if the rounds are guided. 1 gun would suffice.

Maybe an LCS with a 16 inch gun. No need to be limited to the open sea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

An LCS is waaay too small to absorb the recoil and firing forces of a 16" gun. It would literally flip that sucker over on it's beams.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

There was an LCS-like ship proposal I recall from a few years ago for shore bombardment that was armed with MLRS-type rockets. That seemed like a decent idea at the time and still makes sense in this context.

BillyTheKid_22
03-11-2007, 09:35 PM
http://www.fototime.com/B379EFB3A081DE3/standard.jpg



http://www.fototime.com/774D42C7C539B9A/standard.jpg



U.S Army M1920 16 in. Howitzer of Pennington-Wake.

ImpStarDuece
03-11-2007, 09:48 PM
Ask yourself if the battleship gun is NECESSARY, given the state of warfare today.

Big guns were designed to penetrate large amounts of steel from long distances and then blow up, destroying the enemy ship. A secondary mission was to penetrate large amounts of concrete and then blow up, destroying the enemy bunker. Sounds good right?

The problem is that that mission has essentially disappeared from the threat environment.

Precision fire support (never really a big gin mission) can now be conducted by 155mm naval artillery. Bunker penetration is likely unnecessay (given the fact that any largw fixed defensive fortifications would be demolished by airpower) and there are no other large ships around for the big guns to penetrate.

Landing suppression is an unlikely role, as no forseeable oppponent is going to be sitting in a 21st century version of the Atlantic Wall.

BillyTheKid_22
03-11-2007, 09:51 PM
http://home.earthlink.net/~azirkle/Gun16.jpg



United State Navy Mark 7 16-inch/50 caliber battleship gun.

BillyTheKid_22
03-11-2007, 10:31 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/pll01towed_155mm1lg.jpg



My Dad, Sgt. Ford ex-army mech 5th and 155mm Towed gun-Howitzer at Ft. Carson, Colorado.



http://www.bravecannons.org/main_grphc/main_gun_2.jpg







http://one-six-one.fifthinfantrydivision.com/vnflag.gif



Ft. Carson, Colorado

woofiedog
03-11-2007, 11:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The Caspian Sea Monster. Built by the Russians in 1964 this huge 'ground-effect' craft still holds the worlds unofficial water speed record at over 350 mph! NOTE that this craft had an all-up weight of 540 TONNES!

http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/km_11.jpg

The Korabl' Maket (Ship Model) KM is more widely known as the Kaspian sea Monster. Boldest of all the Ekranoplans, leaping from 3.5 to 500 Tonnes! The aerodynamics and controls were scaled up from the SM-8, but with 8 starting engines on fixed stub wings on top of the fuselage behind flight deck. Two cruise engines were mounted high on each side of the fin and fitted with inlet spray deflectors. The controls included jet deflectors to vector the starting jets down under the wing, 2 powered flaps forming the trailing edge, 8 sections of powered elevator and 3 air powered rudders. Hull with planing bottom under forward fuselage, with a succession of steps to assist unstick. The KM was constructed from a stressed Aluminium and Titanium skin. The first of the 8 KM's produced was completed in 1965 and after sea trials it was noticed that the fuselage needed strengthening for bad weather operation.

According to Kryla Rodiny : 'The great ship - which is not a ship nor an aeroplane - always appeared in the early morning and roared across the smooth surface of the Caspian Sea. At times, as if tired, it settled; then, after a short run, it rose into the air and at low level and vanished into the distance......'

In 1969, whilst cruising in dense fog, the captain lost his visual horizon and entered uncontrolled pitching which resulted in the KM crashing and catching fire. Another KM was lost in 1980, again due to pilot error.


http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/km_7.jpg

Role Experimental Ekranoplan
Wing Span 131 ft (40 m)
Length 348 ft (106 m)
Height 22 m
Weight 495 tonnes - loaded
540 tonnes - maximum takeoff
Engine 10 (8+2) x VD-7
Maximum speed 500 km/h
Range 3000 km
Armament None
Crew ?
Produced 8 (1965-78)

BillyTheKid_22
03-12-2007, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The Caspian Sea Monster. Built by the Russians in 1964 this huge 'ground-effect' craft still holds the worlds unofficial water speed record at over 350 mph! NOTE that this craft had an all-up weight of 540 TONNES!

http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/km_11.jpg

The Korabl' Maket (Ship Model) KM is more widely known as the Kaspian sea Monster. Boldest of all the Ekranoplans, leaping from 3.5 to 500 Tonnes! The aerodynamics and controls were scaled up from the SM-8, but with 8 starting engines on fixed stub wings on top of the fuselage behind flight deck. Two cruise engines were mounted high on each side of the fin and fitted with inlet spray deflectors. The controls included jet deflectors to vector the starting jets down under the wing, 2 powered flaps forming the trailing edge, 8 sections of powered elevator and 3 air powered rudders. Hull with planing bottom under forward fuselage, with a succession of steps to assist unstick. The KM was constructed from a stressed Aluminium and Titanium skin. The first of the 8 KM's produced was completed in 1965 and after sea trials it was noticed that the fuselage needed strengthening for bad weather operation.

According to Kryla Rodiny : 'The great ship - which is not a ship nor an aeroplane - always appeared in the early morning and roared across the smooth surface of the Caspian Sea. At times, as if tired, it settled; then, after a short run, it rose into the air and at low level and vanished into the distance......'

In 1969, whilst cruising in dense fog, the captain lost his visual horizon and entered uncontrolled pitching which resulted in the KM crashing and catching fire. Another KM was lost in 1980, again due to pilot error.


http://www.samolet.co.uk/jpegs/km_7.jpg

Role Experimental Ekranoplan
Wing Span 131 ft (40 m)
Length 348 ft (106 m)
Height 22 m
Weight 495 tonnes - loaded
540 tonnes - maximum takeoff
Engine 10 (8+2) x VD-7
Maximum speed 500 km/h
Range 3000 km
Armament None
Crew ?
Produced 8 (1965-78)


Wow!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AWL_Spinner
03-12-2007, 01:55 AM
With all the equipment and radar we have today, we cannot predict or steer the path of an artillery shell precisely enough.

As some others have mentioned, that's not strictly true these days. The Excalibur guided shell is on it's way to Iraq, so it'll be tested in combat shortly I'm sure. And you can fire it from standard artillery. There's also a link in the first post on the linked thread to an article on guided bullets.

Thread on PPRuNe (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=267394)


In a late November U.S. Army test at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., 13 of 14 Excalibur rounds fired up to 24 kilometers away hit within 10 meters of their targets " an unprecedented circular error probable (CEP) for cannon artillery, Raytheon program official Everett Tackett said here at the Association of the United States Army's Institute of Land Warfare Winter Symposium. Conventional artillery has a CEP of about 70 to 100 meters at 10 kilometers, 200 to 300 meters at 30 kilometers.

Tackett said the shells were fired from gun barrels pointed as much as 15 degrees away from the target, testing their ability to steer themselves in flight. "The rounds totally changed course, adjusting their ballistic trajectory toward the target," he said.

whiteladder
03-12-2007, 04:01 AM
I think the main reason you that a large calibre guns will not see a return is that the current trends are to reduce the size of munitions. The increased accuracy of almost any munition you can think of has ment that the effective component i.e the explosive can be greatly reduced. In fact during the Iraq invasion in 2003 inert paveway practice bombs (essentially concrete bombs with paveway components) were used to attack Republican Guard tanks in Urban areas.
It seems likely for the foreseable future that many operations will be low intensity one`s were the collateral damage will need to be kept to a minimum, and a 16" gun will not be appropriate for this.

Blutarski2004
03-12-2007, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
In WW1 the UK put surplus big-gun turrets on purpose-designed small ships (the 'Monitors') and used them to shell the European coast and the warships hiding there. If the 16" shell is still useful then the USMC can surely do something similar?

However, from this book I'm reading now, building large-calibre guns is a very complex and specialised business (apparently, the design of the guns was often longer than the design of the battleship!) and, given that they've not been majorly useful for 50 years, it's probably a lost art...


..... Your suspicions are correct on both points.

Delivery rate of BB's was usually limited to the rate at which guns and turrets could be manufactured.

The manufacture of large caliber guns is indeed a lost art in this country, at least. I don't believe that there is even a single arsenal remaining with the machinery and equipment necessary construct new heavy caliber gun tubes.

Blutarski2004
03-12-2007, 08:13 AM
Anyone interested in getting a good overview of the performance characteristics and capabilities of the Mk 7 16-inch/50 should go here - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

The HE component of the 16-inch HC projectile is approximately equal to the weight of an entire 6-inch (155mm) projectile.

As far as accuracy goes, guided projectiles could easily be developed for the 16-inch gun. That they have not been developed has more to do with entrenched opposition to maintaining these BB's in commission (even within the navy) than it has to do with any sort of technological difficulty.

One last comment - the DD21 will never be used for gunfire support. No OIC will ever risk his 15,000 ton, $1.5 billion "destroyer" anywhere remotely near to land and possible enemy return fire.

Corsair_Fanatic
03-12-2007, 10:30 AM
Railguns for the win!

kirkncc1701
03-12-2007, 10:36 AM
Armament Modernisation is a waste of time & money since Russia blew its budget in the cold war. The purpose nowdays for the modern army is for diplomaticly showing off.

I'm not one of these hippies that wants to abolish all guns, that would be stupid, but whats the point in spending 3 million on a super fast aircraft etc? Middle eastern partisans the the only threat now, & they're hardly going to be a use for a million mph jet.

Just give me an old fashioned piston driven 109 anyday!!!

BM357_Sniper
03-12-2007, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fordfan25:
i was just thinking, what would your opinion be of haveing moddern battle ships in todays navy. the cost of missels ect are crazy high and alot of the targets thay are used on could be taken out with modern versions of the battle ship big guns for MUCH less. We still use artillary after all. Now keep in mind im not suggesting we clone ww2 style BB's. think some what scaled down versions. still large enough to carry guns in the 16 to 20" range. something say a bit larger than a modern crusier. of course with top line anti air and anti sub tech. includeing surface to air misseles and even a limated surface to land rockets like used on ships now but with maby a frount and rear main gun turrent in the large 16,18" caliber. with toadays tech and fire control in artillary riveling that of alot of high priced rockets it would sure cut down on cost IMHO. of course this is just for fun thread. what do you guys think.Also keep in mind these ships would be used in fleet op's so when the need for extreemly high persition is needed it could be carried out by the other current ships.

"This all might be true about the SF like fire control stuff but I think the real issue with artillery hasn't been mentioned yet. With all the equipment and radar we have today, we cannot predict or steer the path of an artillery shell precisely enough. So in order to get maximum precision, you need something to steer the shell. I don't believe they have succeed doing that (yet)."

Actually they have succeeded and are using guided artillary rounds now. I wish I could remember where I saw it, however, I did. They used 155mm GPS guided rounds. Basically the same process as smart bombs from what I gathered. Also from what I remember they are REALLY expensive, but very accurate, within 1-3 meters.

edgflyer
03-12-2007, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Snuffy Smith:
This is a really dangerous topic. The problem with large bore naval rifles is that, dispite all their vertues (and they are many), range is less than 25 miles, and they need help see that far. Their most valuable purpose is close support of amphibious assualts against a defended shore, but the last time the US did that was 57 years ago. Asking the question makes one wonder why the US even has a Marine Corps of 3 full divisions? Come to think of it, aren't they all in the desert, a very long way from the sea?

Last Naval Bombardment:
USS Wisconsin
28 February 1991
Fired Last Naval Gunfire during Desert Storm

edgflyer
03-12-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snuffy Smith:
This is a really dangerous topic. The problem with large bore naval rifles is that, dispite all their vertues (and they are many), range is less than 25 miles, and they need help see that far. Their most valuable purpose is close support of amphibious assualts against a defended shore, but the last time the US did that was 57 years ago. Asking the question makes one wonder why the US even has a Marine Corps of 3 full divisions? Come to think of it, aren't they all in the desert, a very long way from the sea?

Last Naval Bombardment:
USS Wisconsin
28 February 1991
Fired Last Naval Gunfire during Desert Storm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEB8TSu1Pw
Do not know if this was during Desert Storm but here it is firing.

BillyTheKid_22
03-12-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Anyone interested in getting a good overview of the performance characteristics and capabilities of the Mk 7 16-inch/50 should go here - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

The HE component of the 16-inch HC projectile is approximately equal to the weight of an entire 6-inch (155mm) projectile.

As far as accuracy goes, guided projectiles could easily be developed for the 16-inch gun. That they have not been developed has more to do with entrenched opposition to maintaining these BB's in commission (even within the navy) than it has to do with any sort of technological difficulty.

One last comment - the DD21 will never be used for gunfire support. No OIC will ever risk his 15,000 ton, $1.5 billion "destroyer" anywhere remotely near to land and possible enemy return fire.



http://home.earthlink.net/~azirkle/Gun16.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif