Agreed very interesting.)
Medium caliber naval guns confront naval planners with a divergence of opinions: mount large caliber, slower-firing 5”/127mm guns used mostly for naval fire support, or smaller caliber 100-57mm guns with far more rapid rates of fire that can be used against smaller boats, UAVs, missiles et. al. as well? In recent years, a 3rd option has entered the scene: 155mm guns adapted from Army platforms. Key advantages include potential commonality of ammunition stocks, greater destructive power, and better leveraging of R&D into long range and specialized variants with some land/sea commonality. Hence projects like the American AGS system for its Zumwalt Class destroyers, and Germany’s aborted MONARC that would have mounted a turret from their PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzer on the new F125 expeditionary frigates.
AGS is rather large, however, which leaves the question of what to do with ships smaller than the DDG-1000 Zumwalt’s Graf Spee sized 14,500t. The Royal Navy has become the latest navy to jump into this fray, undertaking a relatively low cost research program that looks at the AS90 Braveheart howitzer’s potential for future warships – and even as refits to the existing fleet.
They’ll have a number of significant challenges to overcome before they can declare success, but a recent release says the project is moving on to Phase 3 now…
During the first study phase, valued at GBP 1.5 million (about $3.1 million), CORDA examined a low risk route to fitting an AS90 self-propelled howitzer ordnance onto the existing 4.5 inch Mk8 Mod 1 gun mounting structure. The second phase, worth around GBP 700 thousand, will build on this research and examine in more detail some of the technology risks of the proposed solution. Should this phase of research prove successful, a further work package will be undertaken in 2008 to perform initial land-based firing trials.
The difficulties involved are not insuperable, but neither are they trivial.
The foremost difficulty involved in placing 155mm howitzer-class guns on ships of destroyer size or smaller is the level of recoil involved, which is significantly larger than a naval gun’s and can play havoc with a smaller ship’s stability. The German KMW/HDW ‘MONARC,’ used a self-sufficient PzH-2000 mobile howitzer turret mounted on an intricate elastic mounting system that handled the recoil.
Unfortunately, the next big problem of adapting all of the PzH-2000’s systems for the corrosive naval environment proved more difficult than expected, and MONARC was removed from plans for the new F125 Class expeditionary frigates.
A third issue is the use of modular propellant charges in land howitzers that are loaded separately from the shell, in the turret. Naval guns moved away from several decades ago, but real commonality with Army 155mm stocks will require either a similar approach, or an integrated shell variant for naval use. That solution, in turn, can affect the required design of the gun itself. Can a naval variant gun be developed, alongside an ammunition system that allows both the integrated shell naval approach and the army’s modular charge system? Automated systems can certainly use dual-load techniques to get around the problem – but only at a penalty to rate of fire. Assuming that the automated systems can keep up, a 155mm gun’s tolerance for higher fire rates can be increased by moving from conventional air cooling to a water cooler system – but this carries a noticeable weight penalty, which feeds into issues of tonnage, balance, and available space on smaller warships.
If BAE can solve all these problems, however, the rewards could be very considerable. A 155mm gun that could drop into existing ships may find a market that stretches beyond the Royal Navy, as the USA contemplates what to do about its $3 billion Zumwalt Class destroyers and accompanying naval gunfire support dilemmas. Clearly, the stealthy Zumwalt Class sits at one end of the solution scale, offering an expense greater than reactivating an Iowa Class battleship, while delivering a less terror-inducing punch for a shorter period of time. Finland’s innovative solution of marrying 120mm automatic mortar turrets and small boats sits all the way at the other end of the scale.
In between, sit solutions that can fit into existing surface fleets. The simple compromise solution involves 100-127mm systems, firing extended-range precision rounds developed to have some commonality with similar Army 155mm ammunition options, but offering even less kinetic punch. Germany replaced the MONARC system with Oto Melara’s 127mm lightweight naval gun, and the Germans will probably integrate Ota Melara’s Vulcano extended range guided shells or develop a similar concept. With proper terminal guidance, rounds like Vulcano can combine land attack capabilities from safer stand-off ranges, with hitting power and range against naval targets that’s comparable to small anti-ship missiles like the Exocet. This munitions family will have land-based 155mm counterparts, allowing partial achievement of a 155mm naval gun’s ancillary benefits without the weight and issues. Given the size of the naval 127mm installed base, this approach is likely to herald a trend.
The step up from that, and below the Zumwalt Class’ AGS system, is a 155mm gun that fits existing ships and can use same caliber, or even the exact same ammunition, as 155mm land howitzers; one providing the same punch at extended ranges, and offering both land and naval forces more ammunition variety. There is some sacrifice in ship to ship gunnery capabilities when compared with a 127mm solution, but if small boats are handled by other systems and the gun is seen as a land-attack weapon only for the most part, this would be a very attractive option.
That solution may not be able to replace a battleship in the naval fire support role, but it would definitely hit a market sweet spot – if it could be done. The US Navy already uses BAE guns in quantity, and will be cycling its Arleigh Burke Class destroyers and Ticonderoga Class cruisers in for refits and upgrades over the next decade. Adding 155mm naval gunfire support weapons to some of those ships would surely be a tempting option for the US Navy.
The naval AS90 study is part of a 3-year Maritime Surface Effects (MSE) research program. It will be led by BAE Systems’ specialist consultancy arm CORDA, alongside its Land Systems business and a team that ranges far and wide across the corporation. Members include BAE Surface Fleet Solutions, BAE Integrated System Technologies (Insyte), Armament Systems in the US, and BAE Bofors in Sweden. Britain’s newly-privatized research arm QinetiQ rounds out the team.Yummy!
Agreed very interesting.)
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Monarc was also cracking the ship hull around the turret ring. Other problems dealing with the mounting system that led to inaccurate gun fire. Corrosion isn't a problem. Keeping it in check is what deck apes and gunners mates do when they aren't shooting.
You take the auto gun laying gizmos out of the turret.
As it was built you had a highspeed turret lobbing rounds. A fire control system designed for computing data for a stable stationary gun doesn't work well when placed on a ship that is moving in all 3 dimensions. There was lots of work to be done to make it a worthwhile system. The Germans realized that and pulled the plug.
AGS is not adapted from a land howitzer system. And the 155mm ammo is not interchangeable.
Whom ever wrote this article doesn't know what he is talking about. Needs to do a little research.
At LBNSY we mounted a M-551 Sheridan turret to a Hydrofoil, the USS Flagstaff (PGH-1). Since it was for test and experimentation, the armored top was not necessary so we mounted a huge plexiglass dome on top to provide a better visual evaluation of the weapon.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Not to be outdone, we then installed an 8-inch gun on the USS Hull (DD-945). Had to do an awful lot of structural and compartment modifications to her. Though I worked in the Fittings and Rigging design section at the time, the Foundations section was up to its ears in plans so I designed the machinery foundations for a new pump room under the gun.
The purpose of the gun was to test it at sea aboard a Destroyer size ship as it was intended to be the guns for the Spruance class Destroyers.
Then Senator Proxmire said it was the most inaccurate gun in the Navy (because it had no rifling) and got the whole project cancelled. He was full of s**t as we sunk the old USS Cunningham with it at a range of 5 miles with one shot.
Last edited by RustyBattleship; 19 Aug 08, at 06:11.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Nice work rusty. I love the 8 inch gun on that destroyer - really would have been something to see.
Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB
Definately would have loved to see an 8" on the destroyers. Excellent.![]()
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Personally I'd like to see some more nuclear powered cruisers sporting the 8" (or 155mm) gun. Get a dozen or two of em out there in the fleet and you'll have plenty of sea based fire support.
Perhaps something like this?? Let me know what you think. LOL
![]()
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
very nice looking ship
is that alot of VSL's i see?
Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB
Yeah, it's quite a few. An actual production ship might have half as many, but I think it is a good concept. 288 tubes on the thing.
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
Your Leadsmen's platforms are too wide. Nothing above the main deck is to (permanently) extend beyond the edge of the main deck.
Your ASROC launcher should be further up in place of the after CIWS and away from the exhaust envelope of the VLS birds.
If you have ASROC, you need SONAR. You need a bow mounted SONAR dome at least as well as a TAS (Towed Array Sonar). If you had a view of the stern, it would show the TAS about on centerline of the transom and NIXIE deploy bolsters Port and Stbd.
The Helicopter line up line is wrong (and deadly). We tried that on New Jersey in 1982 and some helo pilots almost lost it because of the turbulence of wind off the superstructure. Therefore line up lines were redone fore and aft and on centerline. Yours should also.
Those two personnel boats aren't going to make it. They look like only the Captain's Gig and an enclosed cabin boat. You need Encapsulated Life Rafts (they look like beer barrels) along the sides from 01 level on up.
You need a lot more mast structure to support all of the antennas, gizmos, and whatchamacalits that NAVELEX will insist on putting aboard.
No matter how much topside weight it adds or how ugly it makes the ship look, NAVELEX always gets what they want and don't care if the ship floats upside down or not.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, add an expansion joint in the superstructure just forward of the midships VLS. It saves a lot of time sitting in a shipyard for repairs, reinforcement, etc. to have an expansion joint flex with the bending of hog and sag of the hull.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Thanks Rusty. No ASROC on this girl, those launchers are RAM, and yes they are too wide.... i was too lazy to adjust them. To defend myself here, I am drawing these ships of mine using MS Paint. That program is free, but doesn't allow me the level of detail that I would want in a drawing I might send off to the General Board (or whoever approves ship design these days).
But are you saying you like it or don't like it? I mean you aren't talking like I am smoking a crack pipe but instead talking to me like an amature (which I am) who needs some straightening out. :D
Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...
Actually I rather like it. But as a retired Naval Architect (and with age seniority) I am forced by nature to put in my own ideas, opinions, etc.
You could probably delete one set of VLS and the aft turret to have a shorter (and more affordable) hull, a more user friendly helo pad on the fantail (in place of the turret) and still be the tough guy on the block.
Designing a new ship to use EXISTING AND PROVEN weapons and electronics is the only logical way to go (as with your concept) instead of dreaming up a sci-fi, non-existant, impossible to build (yet) weapons system and a (yet to be designed) ship that it can fit into.
Bottom line: You get a B+ for your present design, make some changes similar to my suggestions (but not necessisarily exact) and you get a nice clean A or perhaps an A+. It's a nice looking and PRACTICAL looking ship.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: