Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: txradioguy
According to this site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/ags.htm

the 155mm gun will have a range of 100 nautical miles. Novak's statement that the gun wouldn't be able to reach the shore doesn't seem true. Novak seems to be overly pessimistic about the DD(X).

Also, I thought the Navy was going to use an electric rail gun in these ships. What happened? Is the technology not in existence yet?

3 posted on 12/05/2005 1:50:34 AM PST by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: j. earl carter

Ollie North has written on this too. Talked with Marines in the field.

They all seem to think that the new guns on the DDX won't cover them adequately.


6 posted on 12/05/2005 2:22:44 AM PST by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Eng. K.I.A. 25 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: j. earl carter

I believe the following is true.

A six inch (155 mm) gun for shore bombardment is too small. Projectile is too light, maybe 100 - 120 pounds. Need eight inch or larger, projectile 250 - 300 pounds. The sixteen inch 2,000 - 2,700 pound projectiles are much better. The landing force has all the 155 mm it needs as part of their own equipment.

The landing force needs a heavy hitter on one minute notice at all times day or night. Aviation is not suitable as a carrier cannot fly enough missions to keep loitering aircraft up over the target area 24 hours a day and at the same time put in 25 tons of ordinance in thirty seconds, repeat as desired.

155 mm can reach 100 miles only with RAP. Warhead is very small, and the projectile inaccurate without terminal guidance (expensive).

The marines are correct. Ideally something modern would be available instead of 1920's technology of course.


11 posted on 12/05/2005 2:37:31 AM PST by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: j. earl carter

My understanding is the rail guns can only launch small projectiles albeit at extraordinary velocities. The power supply is huge, the capacitors slow to charge, and current and voltage hard to switch. Heat management is difficult. Think 8,000 cubic feet of capacitors. More like a power supply for plasma research than something everyday like a sixteen inch gun.


21 posted on 12/05/2005 2:48:26 AM PST by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: j. earl carter
The "100 mile 155mm projectiles" are still a long ways from production and when and if they are ready will have very long times of flight; 10 - 11 minutes or more to reach the target. Not exactly "responsive".

Guided projectiles like this design have another flaw - if they don't maintain GPS lock, they go somewhere but not to the target. That can be pretty rough for planning for safety to innocent bystanders...

The rail gun is another "defense vendor special" - nobody has solved the inherent problems of rail erosion (only lasts a few shots), acceleration and EMP loads on explosive payloads and fuzes, etc.

The major defense companies are big on Powerpoint presentations and cost estimates, but short on fulfilling the promises.

49 posted on 12/05/2005 3:46:24 AM PST by USMCVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: j. earl carter
the 155mm gun will have a range of 100 nautical miles. Novak's statement that the gun wouldn't be able to reach the shore doesn't seem true. Novak seems to be overly pessimistic about the DD(X).

There is a big difference between 155 mm and 16 inches.

265 posted on 07/02/2006 11:50:47 AM PDT by MistrX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson