autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3177
    MEMBERS
  • 180491
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Marines JLTV RWS: 30mm + 7.62 + Stinger   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 21-Sep by gatnerd; 1134 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

22-Sep

Yeah, the rolling airframe missile would also be a good option, already has a 21 shot launcher, and can also provide air defense / anti missile as well. 

Downside is I think the rolling airframes are pretty expensive, $998k.

Whereas APKWS is $30k, and Hellfire $90k; I assume Martlet is something in between.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

22-Sep

SEARAM is a CIWS though.

MK44 is a replacement for pintle mounted M2HB, controllable by CIC for superior capability vs small surface targets.

tldr navy autocannon are big MG, not small NGS or DP.

taschoene

From: taschoene

22-Sep

I think there is value in a 25-30mm gun, as warning shots and for some defense against really small boats.  But I tend to agree with the idea of mounting something like APKWS on the same mount.  They've already demoed a 5-round Martlet pack on the standard RN 30mm mount, which seems like a very sensible idea.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

22-Sep

taschoene said:

I think there is value in a 25-30mm gun, as warning shots and for some defense against really small boats.  But I tend to agree with the idea of mounting something like APKWS on the same mount.  They've already demoed a 5-round Martlet pack on the standard RN 30mm mount, which seems like a very sensible idea

I'd figure the 57mm already provides warning shot capability no? And a more authoritative warning at that. 

The range on the 30mm is short enough that even a small boat with an anti-tank rocket like the Koronet would be in range of the ship before the 30mm could engage. 

Anti tank used against ship:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/claims-missile-attack-egypt-navy-boat

While an AT missile wont sink a ship, it would certainly cause significant damage.

In reply toRe: msg 12
Refleks

From: Refleks

23-Sep

Naval guns are so rarely used in anger I am an advocate of phasing out of the 127mm and divesting it's supply chain, I'd rather consolidate and share the 155mm chain with the Army / Marines. 

In fact, I would go so far as to say I would like to see the 76mm and 127mm phased out on future combatants in favor of a marinized 155mm SPG mounted hull down in a recess on the deck, chained down, with a rubberized weather barrier between the hull and the deck.  Peak recoil impulse mitigated though the SPG's own suspension (along with the typical muzzle brake and recoiling gun) and reinforced deck rather than the more complex arrangement they attempted with MONARC when they were just using the turret.   Thinking in terms of modular weapons systems, it would be plug and play and have a software mode available specifically for this role. At ~$68k a pop, 60 rounds of GPS / RAP+GPS guided ammunition onboard should be more than sufficient for a cruise unless specifically planning to operate in a NGFS role, and Raytheon has already been working on GPS guided ammunition with MMW terminal guidance and shaped trajectories.  The position could be occupied instead by a marinized future MLRS / GMLRS or a marinized SPAA / C-RAM (a gun / missile system along the lines of Gepard or Tunguska)

 This would likely require a new build SPG designed with a maritime environment in mind from the start, as IIRC they ran into difficulty marinizing the PZh2000.  This isn't the end of the world in my opinion, as I also advocate for a USMC with a mechanized brigade available at theater level, and would therefore be operating the same SPG for land use, capable of operating in a saltwater environment, likewise the Army would also use the same system.

I understand the position of many that there's no point in spending the money at all when the 127mm is good enough and I suppose that's true.  The 155mm option requires people manning the turret and uses separate ammunition, which I acknowledge is not ideal, but despite those issues I'm still in favor of it, even if it's nothing more than musing.  

  • Edited 23 September 2020 0:25  by  Refleks
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

23-Sep

Refleks said:

Naval guns are so rarely used in anger I am an advocate of phasing out of the 127mm and divesting it's supply chain, I'd rather consolidate and share the 155mm chain with the Army / Marines. 

The Navy and Army both seem interested in BAE's HVP guided shell; both services recently tested the shell for shooting down a simulated cruise missile.

What's interesting is it seems that the 127mm (5") naval gun, 155mm Naval Gun, and 155mm Ground Artillery all use the same HVP projectile, just with a different sabot diameter. 

So in theory this should achieve enough commonality between the 127mm and 155mm and their respective branches to keep shell costs down / achieve greater economy of scale. 

Sort of in reverse of your line of thinking, it would be interesting if the Marines - who are now switching to a more Pacific, naval integrated posture, replaced their current 155mm SPG's/Howitzers with 127mm, to allow sharing of Naval ammunition stores. 

autogun

From: autogun

23-Sep

The obvious problem with using an army-pattern SPG on board a ship is that such guns lack stabilisation - which is really essential for any naval gun bigger than a .50 cal.

Conversely, the problem of using a naval gun as onshore artillery is that they used fixed high-velocity ammo, whereas army guns need to vary the propellant charges according to the situation.

Red7272

From: Red7272

23-Sep

Refleks said:

Naval guns are so rarely used in anger I am an advocate of phasing out of the 127mm and divesting it's supply chain, I'd rather consolidate and share the 155mm chain with the Army / Marines. 

That idea does the rounds periodically. There was even a lightweight 155 mm naval mounting at one point.  A dedicated super charge just designed for the naval round would deal with any questions about the propellant and the existing flick rammer could also be adapted to a naval role.  ROF would be slower than existing naval guns shell weight would be significantly higher. 2x in the case of the 4.5"   Both the 76 mm and the 127 mm are old designs at heart and could do with updating.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.php

Refleks

From: Refleks

23-Sep

autogun said:

The obvious problem with using an army-pattern SPG on board a ship is that such guns lack stabilisation - which is really essential for any naval gun bigger than a .50 cal.


Since I'm thinking of a new design anyway with a maritime environment in mind rather than trying to retroactively marinize an existing design, it might as well incorporate stabilization so it can function in the role (along with a software mode specifically for use as shipboard armament).  While I'm fantasizing of course  ;)

  • Edited 23 September 2020 4:19  by  Refleks
autogun

From: autogun

23-Sep

Refleks said:

Since I'm thinking of a new design anyway with a maritime environment in mind rather than trying to retroactively marinize an existing design, it might as well incorporate stabilization so it can function in the role (along with a software mode specifically for use as shipboard armament).  While I'm fantasizing of course  ;)

Even a new design wouldn't end the problems. 

Yes, it is better to start with a naval mounting since that environment is much more difficult. BUT the ammo and its handling will still be problematic. The army basically wants manual loading as that's simple, compact and reliable (and much cheaper). It also makes separate loading of the projectile and however much propellant you need easier. The navy wants an automated system with fixed ammo using a metal cartridge case (which protects the propellant from fire). Difficult to square that.

I think that BAe got closest to solving this about ten years ago, with the 155 TMF. This basically consisted of the existing 4.5 inch naval mounting with the gun replaced by an ex-army 155 mm tube, of which the UK had many surplus. So it was done by re-using existing kit, and should have been very cheap. Automated ammo handling was achieved, but the big problem was the RN's requirement for a metal cartridge case. This hadn't been resolved in 2010, when there was a change of government and big cuts to defence, so the TMF got the chop. Sad.

TOP