World Affairs Board - View Single Post

maximusslade · 04-17-2008, 17:05 PM

mweber,

You make a lot of good points and I appreciate your input. I realize that the big bore guns have their limits, but they also have advantages. The best way I can describe our difference in opinion is to compare it to the argument of those who support the 5.56 NATO round vs. the supporters of the 7.62 NATO round. This is how I see it. I see a lot of talk about the 155mm AGS weapon, a lot of people speaking its praises... but where is it? I hear they are still trying to develop the rounds to use in it. Right now, at this moment, I am trying to work with technology that is tried and proven. Not to say the 155 wont come onto the scene and do its thing, it just hasnt yet and no one is 100% sure that it will. Secondly, you would need that 5" shell to be moving at near hypersonic speeds to carry the same amount of energy as a bigger bore shell. Am I advocating a 16" shell? Not necessarily. As I mentioned in my description of my Constitution, I would be willing to scale down the main gun to perhaps 12". I would be willing to go with most any size caliber if I thought it would perform the job well enough. As for scaling of fire, there are a few ways to deal with that. Using sub caliber rounds for the main guns, which is not a new idea. I am certain you could get a pretty sweet velocity with a 10" round using a normal 16"/50 powder charge. It is my understanding that the Army can change powder loads with their large artillery to get different ranges and effects, but I would like to hear from an artillery man if I have that wrong. Not only sub caliber rounds but you also have the secondary guns which could very well be the 155mm gun if it comes to fruition or perhaps the good ole 5"/54 or something new.

Now... for the engineering suggestions. The Navy has tried electric drive ships before, namely on submarines (i.e. USS Glenard P Lipscomb SSN-685). They didn't like how it turned out. That is all I have for now, it is the end of the work day and I am ready for a break. I am grateful for you interest and look forward to hearing more of what you guys have to say.

04-17-2008, 17:05 PM	#15 (permalink)
maximusslade Patron Join Date: 04-16-08 Posts: 195	mweber, You make a lot of good points and I appreciate your input. I realize that the big bore guns have their limits, but they also have advantages. The best way I can describe our difference in opinion is to compare it to the argument of those who support the 5.56 NATO round vs. the supporters of the 7.62 NATO round. This is how I see it. I see a lot of talk about the 155mm AGS weapon, a lot of people speaking its praises... but where is it? I hear they are still trying to develop the rounds to use in it. Right now, at this moment, I am trying to work with technology that is tried and proven. Not to say the 155 wont come onto the scene and do its thing, it just hasnt yet and no one is 100% sure that it will. Secondly, you would need that 5" shell to be moving at near hypersonic speeds to carry the same amount of energy as a bigger bore shell. Am I advocating a 16" shell? Not necessarily. As I mentioned in my description of my Constitution, I would be willing to scale down the main gun to perhaps 12". I would be willing to go with most any size caliber if I thought it would perform the job well enough. As for scaling of fire, there are a few ways to deal with that. Using sub caliber rounds for the main guns, which is not a new idea. I am certain you could get a pretty sweet velocity with a 10" round using a normal 16"/50 powder charge. It is my understanding that the Army can change powder loads with their large artillery to get different ranges and effects, but I would like to hear from an artillery man if I have that wrong. Not only sub caliber rounds but you also have the secondary guns which could very well be the 155mm gun if it comes to fruition or perhaps the good ole 5"/54 or something new. Now... for the engineering suggestions. The Navy has tried electric drive ships before, namely on submarines (i.e. USS Glenard P Lipscomb SSN-685). They didn't like how it turned out. That is all I have for now, it is the end of the work day and I am ready for a break. I am grateful for you interest and look forward to hearing more of what you guys have to say. __________________ Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...