quote:

Originally posted by msfzoe:
Impressive video, but does cost justify benefit?

It's a lot cheaper than an airstrike.

They could always try this...




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/jOC2xaxjfCk

I thought I read somewhere that the US Navy was going to use modified 155mm Guns from the US Army howitzers on their Zumwalt ships while perfecting the railgun ??? Did I hear it wrong ??? God Bless

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
I thought I read somewhere that the US Navy was going to use modified 155mm Guns from the US Army howitzers on their Zumwalt ships while perfecting the railgun ??? Did I hear it wrong ??? God Bless

According to the video in the post just above yours, that project was cancelled because each shell was going to cost $800,000 to $1 million. The ones in the OP are considerably less expensive. They appear to be less expensive than the Excaliber shells, too (but don't have GPS technology).

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
I thought I read somewhere that the US Navy was going to use modified 155mm Guns from the US Army howitzers on their Zumwalt ships while perfecting the railgun ??? Did I hear it wrong ??? God Bless

According to the video in the post just above yours, that project was cancelled because each shell was going to cost $800,000 to $1 million. The ones in the OP are considerably less expensive. They appear to be less expensive than the Excaliber shells, too (but don't have GPS technology).

flashguy

I find it hard to understand how each of those shells can cost almost $1 Million each. It seems to me this is one of those items that is overcharged when sold to the US Government. God Bless

How long does it take to travel the 40 miles?

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
How long does it take to travel the 40 miles?

Not sure what the velocity is, but 1/2 mile a second would not be impossible. So, maybe 70-80 seconds?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
How long does it take to travel the 40 miles?

Enough that you have to adjust for the rotation of the earth.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
I find it hard to understand how each of those shells can cost almost $1 Million each. It seems to me this is one of those items that is overcharged when sold to the US Government. God Bless

Let's start with complex electronics (hardened GPS receivers and inertial navigation systems) and, of course, software.

From Wikipedia: In November 2016, the Navy moved to cancel procurement of the LRLAP, citing per-shell cost increases to $800,000–$1 million resulting from trimming of total ship numbers of the class. That reduction in the number of ships was from 32 (64 AGS) down to the current 3 (6 AGS).

Each AGS system was to hold 750 LRLAP projectiles. Given an initial production of 32 Zumwalt destroyers and 2 AGS systems per ship, the procurement objective for LRLAP projectiles would be at least 48,000 projectiles (not accounting for surveillance testing, some training, etc.). Cost/quantity rules here. Now, reduce the number of ships to buy down to three, and the procurement objective for the projectiles goes down to just 4,500. Spread all those R&D and procurement costs to just 4,500 projectiles and I can see why the unit cost skyrocketed. And that's why the LRLAP program was canceled. Unintended consequences of reducing the number of ships.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 229DAK,

Don"t know if these artillery weapons and projectiles are the same that I was testing in the early to mid 1970"s at Fort Greely, Alaska (Cold Regions Test Center).......... new recoil design 155mm towed howitzer and a "rap" (rocket assist propellant in the base of the projectile). under extreme cold sub-zero temperatures up to and greater than -50*F... 1st 5(five) rounds greatly exceeded the projected impact zone (target) but the shot pattern was a very tight shot group. These were the first times to fire at these temperatures for this new weapon system. Yes the temperature of the air /humidity / wind / firing bore temp / projectile temperature/ propellant temperature of powder all come to play in range/distance and accuracy just like when we go to the rifle range . Primary responsibilities were to occupy the observeation post (3) and record the actual points of impact with survey instruments so that shot groups could be plotted by fire direction control for accuracy ................ But due to the massive concussion around the gun when fired there was a round limit within a certain time period that could cause internal body organ damage to the gun crew. ............ Do not remember the designation model or even if it was accepted or denied for use by our active duty troops........................... drill sgt.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: drill sgt,

Like drill sgt we tested in the '70s @ Ft. Carson with M109A1s and the R.A.P. round and used a designator to put the rounds in the hatches of M113s an beds of duece and a halfs.

quote:

Originally posted by john crusher:
M109A1s and the R.A.P. round and used a designator to put the rounds in the hatches of M113s an beds of duece and a halfs.

You maybe thinking of this: M712 Copperhead.

The M549 High-Explosive, Rocket-Assisted (HERA) or RAP was a separate and distinct projectile from Copperhead.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 229DAK,

quote:

Originally posted by drill sgt:
Don"t know if these artillery weapons and projectiles are the same that I was testing in the early to mid 1970"s at Fort Greely, Alaska.. new recoil design 155mm towed howitzer and a "rap" (rocket assist propellant in the base of the projectile).

I don't recall any new recoil designs for 155mm towed systems. The Army progressed from the M114 to the M198 to the M777, all with pretty much conventional recoil systems.

There was a prototype of a new "soft recoil" 105mm howitzer, the XM204 around that time. When the cannoneer pulled the lanyard, the cannon would unlatch and move forward out of battery, fire at a pre-determined point, recoil rearward and then return forward back into battery. It was never adopted.

The M548, 105mm RAP round was out around that time, too.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
I thought I read somewhere that the US Navy was going to use modified 155mm Guns from the US Army howitzers on their Zumwalt ships while perfecting the railgun.

Maybe thought about it, but IMO it would not work.

From Wikipedia: "The Navy is monitoring research on alternative munitions, but since the AGS was tailor-made to use the LRLAP, modifications will be needed to accept different shells, which is unlikely to happen by the time the first Zumwalt vessel enters operational service in 2018, leaving it unable to fulfill the naval gunfire support role it was designed for." [Interesting that the Navy now has two guns on each Zumwalt destroyer and absolutely nothing to shoot. ]

Some basics: Navy guns are designed to use fixed ammunition, kind of like rifle cartridges - fuze, projectile, case, propellant and primer all in one package (better for automated ammunition handling and thus crew reduction). Army 155mm ammunition is all separate loading ammunition - the howitzer crew attaches the fuze (and sets it) to the projectile before firing, loads it, then loads the proper amount of propellant, closes the breech and attaches the primer. Kind of like battleship 16-inch guns but on a much smaller scale.

Army 155mm cannons cannot accept metal cartridge cases. Further, the entire AGS ammunition handling system, several decks deep, is not designed to handle separate loading ammunition (manpower intensive).

I believe one would have to completely redesign the AGS system to accept Army cannons and their separate loading ammunition.

The Navy would be better served to develop unique fixed ammunition compatible with the current 155mm AGS cannon and its ammunition storage/loading system.

quote:

The Navy would be better served to develop unique fixed ammunition compatible with the current 155mm AGS cannon and its ammunition storage/loading system.

It would be a lot cheaper to use the tech in the Army rounds and adopt them to caliber guns the Navy already owns and uses...than to re work a ship to allow hand loading of projectiles and change tubes from 5” to 155mm

Some Naval guns used to be Like the army way, set fuse, ram round,load bags,seal breech fire...but fixed ammo is easier and faster to fire and to automate-which is why the naval guns were systematically removed and replaced with automated mounts.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
Spread all those R&D and procurement costs to just 4,500 projectiles and I can see why the unit cost skyrocketed. And that's why the LRLAP program was canceled. Unintended consequences of reducing the number of ships.

R&D and tooling are sunk costs and should not affect ongoing decisions. What should affect ongoing decisions, is the cost of producing new rounds.

Piss-poor accounting procedures/decision processes. Yes, R&D and tooling cost money, and should be considered in looking at new projects and expansion. But if the sole reason to cancel that project was amortizing the sunk costs....that's just dumb.

/sarc on
Can't wait to see the accounting logic when the USG handles all medical care. "Hey, that vaccine we just finished developing at the cost of $100B R&D? Turns out, now, there aren't so many people that need it. So if we spread that development cost over the few people, it's crazy expensive. So, let's cancel it, so nobody benefits from that R&D!"
/sarc off.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
It would be a lot cheaper to use the tech in the Army rounds and adopt them to caliber guns the Navy already owns and uses...than to re work a ship to allow hand loading of projectiles.

IIRC, Raytheon and the Navy were investigating the possibility of adapting the Army's GPS-guided 155mm Excalibur to the AGS and possibly the Navy's 5" gun systems. One hurdle (of many) is how to feed firing information to a Navy Excalibur given the automated loading systems.

I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to simply develop a 155mm high explosive round for the AGS, possibly even a RAP version. The Zumwalts need something to shoot out of those AGS guns to help support their naval gunfire support role.

quote:

...and change tubes from 5” to 155mm.

The Navy would also have to change the entire below deck ammunition handling/storage system from 5" to 155mm. NOT a trivial feat.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 229DAK,

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
R&D and tooling are sunk costs and should not affect ongoing decisions.

I could not agree with you more. But the budget wienies and decision-makers DO look at it. That is just a fact of Pentagon life. BTDT.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
They could always try this...

Ramjet Powered Artillery Shell

Link to original video: https://youtu.be/jOC2xaxjfCk

Nice concept but totally worthless w/o guidance IMHO. CEP at 100km for an unguided version is going to be huge. And an integrated guidance system on this isn't going to be ready to field by 2023 or 2024 (or cheap).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 229DAK,

I'm pretty sure guidance is part of the plan. My question: Once you stuff a ramjet and a guidence system into a 155mm artillery shell, is there any room left for any kind of payload, especially a useful one. Or is this going to be a hit to kill weapon?

Also, they're working on a guided, extended range missile (can't really call it a rocket anymore) for the MLRS. It will have just under a 100 mile range. Would a guided, ramjet powered 155mm shell be any cheaper? And the GMLRS-ER will have a payload.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
They could always try this...

Ramjet Powered Artillery Shell

Link to original video: https://youtu.be/jOC2xaxjfCk

Nice concept but totally worthless w/o guidance IMHO. CEP at 100km for an unguided version is going to be huge. And an integrated guidance system on this isn't going to be ready to field by 2023 or 2024 (or cheap).