Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Further, even if it did work(which it does not), it has ALREADY cost MORE than the cost of fully modernizing and reactivating the two remaining Cat B Iowas.

As of August 2004, Total Program Cost for ERGM was $598.4 millions (in FY05 US dollars).

Which is much less than the cost of fully modernizing and reactivating the two remaining Iowas (which BTW should be stricken from the NVR any time now).

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Not really.

Assuming a circular pattern, the USNFSA so-called *lethal fragmentation area* (whatever that means) of 2,778 square yards would translate into a radius of 29.7 yards.

Which of course is nowhere near the *about 200 x 200 yards* area mentioned in on the USNFSA website.

First of all, "Lethal (fragmentation) radius" is a universally used, well defined completely accepted military term. It means the area in which exposed, unprotected troops are expected to be killed.

Second of all, the 16" PD or BD projectiles have a lethal radius FAR in excess of 29.7 meters.
The 4.2" mortar using QT fuzing has a 35 meter lethal radius, and the Mk84 is in excess of 300 meters.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

As of August 2004, Total Program Cost for ERGM was $598.4 millions (in FY05 US dollars).

Which is much less than the cost of fully modernizing and reactivating the two remaining Iowas (which BTW should be stricken from the NVR any time now).

Sorry cuz, total program cost for ERGM(including R&D and PLANNED PRODUCTION) is almost 2 billion USD.

[Anon]

These are the most accurate figures i could find for the Mk13 based on one of my previous posts:

"The Mk13PD(Point Detonating, ie QT) 16" HC develops a lethal radius of 2,778 sq yds.

The Mk13 VVT fuzed HC projectile has a lethal radius of 10,240 sq meters.

The Mk13BD(Base Detonating, ie Delay) fuzed projectile creates a crater 25-35 feet in diameter, and 10 to 20 feet deep. Lethal radius is approx 1,000sq yards."

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

ANSR is an AGS munition, which means it will not be in the fleet until AGS is in the fleet, and AGS won't be in the fleet until DDX is in the fleet(2013 at the soonest).

ANSR is NOT an AGS munition, the only AGS munition currently funded being LRLAP (Long Range Land Attack Projectile).

ANSR, the Autonomous Naval Support Round, was proposed in two calibers back in the early 1990s : 5-inch and 8-inch.

The 8-inch ANSR variant was never funded.

The 5-inch ANSR variant, in its latest incarnation (BTERM II), is currently competing against ERGM to be selected as the Navy 5-inch ERM (Extended Range Munition).

Competitive contract for ERM should be awarded in 2Q FY06, leading to an FY11 IOC.

[Anon]

Yeah, got my alphabet soup munitions mixed up. ANSR shows some promise(certainly more than the total waste of time ERGM), but so far, it's not ready for primetime yet either, though it has not suffered from the same massive cost overruns that ERGM has. And if you combine the program cost of ANSR with that of ERGM, then all FOUR of the Iowas could've been reactivated for roughly the same cost.

And we'd have them NOW, not many years from now.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Sorry cuz, total program cost for ERGM(including R&D and PLANNED PRODUCTION) is almost 2 billion USD.

NO.

Per GAO Report 05-301, "Assessments of Selected Major Weapons Programs", dated March 2005, Total Program Cost for ERGM, including R&D and Procurement cost, was $598.4 millions as of August 2004 in FY05 US dollars.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

That's a gross overstatement.

At 40,000 yards, range dispersion is 95 yards and deflection dispersion is 25 yards for the US 16"/50 Mark-7 gun firing the 2,700 lbs Mark-8 APC shell at a Muzzle Velocity of 2,500 fps (new gun).

No it isn't a 'gross overstatement'.

The Mk8AP projectile is a sub MOA projectile, whether you like it or not....it is.

Your goofy figures make the Mk8 about an 7+MOA projectile, which is utterly nonsensical, just like most of your observations. What you've obviously failed to take into account is the unavoidable affect of atmospheric conditions on the quoted rounds trajectory.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL DoD FINDINGS WRT THE ACCURACY OF THE Mk7 16"/50 gun system and it's various rounds.
http://www.usnfsa.org/DOD%20Documen...Battleships.pdf

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

NO.

Per GAO Report 05-301, "Assessments of Selected Major Weapons Programs", dated March 2005, Total Program Cost for ERGM, including R&D and Procurement cost, was $598.4 millions as of August 2004 in FY05 US dollars.

I dismiss that figure as utter nonsense, because it is.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

No it isn't a 'gross overstatement'.

The Mk7AP projectile is a sub MOA projectile, whether you like it or not....it is.

The Mark-8 AP bullet for the 16"/50 Mark-7 gun (there is no such thing as a *Mk-7 AP projectile* for the US 16" naval guns) is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile.

BTW :

1. Do you understand what sub-MOA means ?

2. Do you realize that MOA is not relevant when discussing indirect fire dispersion ?

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The Mark-8 AP bullet for the 16"/50 Mark-7 gun (there is no such thing as a *Mk-7 AP projectile* for the US 16" naval guns) is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile.

BTW :

1. Do you understand what sub-MOA means ?

2. Do you realize that MOA is not relevant when discussing indirect fire ?

The gun is the Mk7, the projectile is the Mk8, that's WHAT I WROTE.

YES, i know what a Minute of Angle is. Do you? See my screen name? It's not just a cool sounding name i picked out of the blue. It reflects my former profession in the US Army. I also have extensive REAL WORLD experience in calling/plotting and adjusting all manner of indirect fires.

And NO, it is NOT irrelevant to indirect fire you ignorant fool. Of course i shouldn't be surprised when such comments come from the same poster who said "Whatever lethal fragmentation radius" is.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I dismiss that figure as utter nonsense, because it is.

Perhaps you have a more credible source than the Government Accountability Office ?

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Perhaps you have a more credible source than the Government Accountability Office ?

Yep. Try the USNs actual cost figures INCLUDING PLANNED PRODUCTION.

It's well over 1bn USD.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

No it isn't a 'gross overstatement'.
Your goofy figures make the Mk8 about an 7+MOA projectile, which is utterly nonsensical, just like most of your observations.

The *goofy* figures are not mine, there are from the US Navy Tech Memo K-26-67 "Naval Gunfire Dispersion".

The Mark-8 AP bullet is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile, except in your wildest dreams.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Yep. Try the USNs actual cost figures INCLUDING PLANNED PRODUCTION.
It's well over 1bn USD.

Can you post a link for that or did you just make it up ?