Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FREMM News/thoughts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by chakos View Post
    The LCS is basically a glorified underarmed corvette. Its way overpriced for what it is and i dont expect to see big numbers out of them.

    Lets compare US and Chinese procurement here. The LCS program has been around for over a decade longer than the Chinese Type 56 Corvette and has managed to produce a less combat capable, more expensive ship that will never be produced in the same numbers. Yes the LCS has amazing 'tech' but in the real world where one may sometimes have to shoot at things that shoot back i know what ship I would rather be in.

    I get it, the US doesn't fight that way, the Type 56 would be detected outside its missile range and taken out with subs or aircraft so the advertising material goes. Except in the real world the Chinese have air cover and the brass cant justify the risk of a strike by air assets or the carriers out of range and there is no sub available and that convoy isnt going to do very well unless the ships tasked with escorting it can actually shoot back with something with greater reach and punch than a 57mm cannon.
    Agree with everything you said. What's scary is that the Flag Officers and politicians surely realize all of these points and are still trying to force the LCS down the tax payers throats. It's really about keeping the shipyards and workers employed even if it's for a worthless overpriced "patrol boat".

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
      Agree with everything you said. What's scary is that the Flag Officers and politicians surely realize all of these points and are still trying to force the LCS down the tax payers throats. It's really about keeping the shipyards and workers employed even if it's for a worthless overpriced "patrol boat".
      I completely understand that the shipyards need to keep producing and the workers need employment. What the USN really needs is an OHP replacement that retains full warfighting capabilities with a modular deck that would allow it to plug and play all the goodies as required.

      What should not be left out of the baseline hull is a proper gun (afaik the 57mm is a patrol boat gun), an effective SAM system so that it doesn't have to rely on other ships to provide an umbrella (the RAM is a last ditch missile killer, ESSM would be the way to go) and the ability to operate and store 2 full size medium helicopters. Anti-shipping missiles would also be nice but they can be fit as required with the surface warfare modpack.

      The other option is to throw the whole 'modular' idea out the window and just build a medium cost full size frigate that can balance the high end Arleigh Bourke/Tico classes. Fit it with what I mentioned earlier, an effective Anti-sub fitout and AshM's. Hell buy one of any number of European designs that do the job well, modify it for USN requirements, produce it in the US and still pay 1/3 of what the LCS would have cost you and get 5X the capability.

      With the money you have saved buy patrol boats, minesweepers, minelayers and whatever other vessels you need to purchase to make up for the roles that the LCS was meant to fill and still come in under the LCS budget with a much stronger well rounded navy.
      The best part of repentance is the sin

      Comment


      • #18
        First off let's be clear I've never understood the concept of the LCS and think it's a waste of time and money.

        Originally posted by desertswo View Post
        Let's see if a little side-by-side comparison in terms of armament helps to bring the picture into focus:

        To be fair, if the "surface warfare module" is installed in the Freedom-class, they have two 30mm Bushmasters.

        Originally posted by desertswo View Post
        2) Who really knows what that means, but with a mixed-gender crew, one assumes that there is a certain amount of fornication taking place. What we really are talking about though is, is the ship and it's crew truly capable of doing everything as advertised. Is its weapons system and sensor suite truly "sexy" (a term that is often used to describe technical advancements that either are, or border upon a "Revolution in Military Affairs)? I didn't see anything on the waterfront that made me want to shout, "Look out, here we come!!!"
        The only thing I find revolutionary about the Freedom-class is the modular deck located under the flight deck which allow boat access via crane out a starboard hatch or straight out to ocean via a stern hatch. Eliminating the seemingly awkward deck crane and RHIB's on deck on some of the older ship designs.

        Originally posted by desertswo View Post
        4) Now this is the one area where the answer is a resounding and unqualified, "YES!!!" She can certainly flee, which is good, because she sure cannot fight, and if one cannot fight, one had better be able to get the hell out of Dodge.

        If, as OSD desires, the building program for these things is mercifully capped after 28 ships, and a new, more capable surface combatant is on the drawing boards, the one thing I would most definitely borrow from the LCS is her top gear. 40-plus knots is not a bad thing, and 40-plus knots and a stable combat systems platform, as the LCS appears to be, is just plain "sick" (which, in the parlance of today's "yute," means "good")!! Give me Arleigh Burke-like combat systems capability and Freedom-class speed, and I'll be your friend for life.
        Isn't the saying you can't have your cake and eat it too? Isn't the reason the Freedom-class can attain such revolutionary speeds (asides from being designed from a speed yacht) is that the propulsion takes up a lot of room and to achieve the desired speed, armament must be kept to a minimum?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by chakos View Post
          I completely understand that the shipyards need to keep producing and the workers need employment. What the USN really needs is an OHP replacement that retains full warfighting capabilities with a modular deck that would allow it to plug and play all the goodies as required.

          What should not be left out of the baseline hull is a proper gun (afaik the 57mm is a patrol boat gun), an effective SAM system so that it doesn't have to rely on other ships to provide an umbrella (the RAM is a last ditch missile killer, ESSM would be the way to go) and the ability to operate and store 2 full size medium helicopters. Anti-shipping missiles would also be nice but they can be fit as required with the surface warfare modpack.

          The other option is to throw the whole 'modular' idea out the window and just build a medium cost full size frigate that can balance the high end Arleigh Bourke/Tico classes. Fit it with what I mentioned earlier, an effective Anti-sub fitout and AshM's. Hell buy one of any number of European designs that do the job well, modify it for USN requirements, produce it in the US and still pay 1/3 of what the LCS would have cost you and get 5X the capability.

          With the money you have saved buy patrol boats, minesweepers, minelayers and whatever other vessels you need to purchase to make up for the roles that the LCS was meant to fill and still come in under the LCS budget with a much stronger well rounded navy.
          I will say the the OHP-class has been declawed for years. So the LCS classes probably have more armament than the current OHP. I agree the US Navy needs a new frigate to replace what the OHP's were in their heyday, but for the mission the OHP's are used for currently .. which seems to be patrol and interdiction against para-military threats (pirates or smugglers) - you don't see them operating with carrier strike groups or amphibs very often anymore I don't think, - the LCS is actually probably an ideal replacement. HOWEVER, why you need two designs, and more than a handful of them .. that I can not understand.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
            First off let's be clear I've never understood the concept of the LCS and think it's a waste of time and money.

            To be fair, if the "surface warfare module" is installed in the Freedom-class, they have two 30mm Bushmasters.
            Well, that's different.

            If we are talking about taking on anything more profound than a small boat swarm, the max engagement range for those Bushmasters is already too close. "Anti-Surface Unit Warfare" (ASUW) to this old Surface Warrior is being able to engage any equally capable platform at the horizon and beyond. Right now, the LCS cannot do that.

            One of the major problems I have with this whole "mission package" concept is that it sort of assumes that the enemy is just going to conveniently show up dressed to be killed in the manner in which we would prefer him to be. "Well, we have our two Bushmasters and the 57mm this week, so you guys don't show up with anything bigger than a 12.7mm machine gun and an RPG, and then you stand still and let us kill you from our effective standoff range." To which the other guy will, of course, oblige with a smile. The reality as we all know it, is that the other guy gets a vote in this thing, and if he doesn't want to cooperate in showing up with weapons system capability that is just a little less robust than our own, then maybe we ought to be versatile enough to engage him no matter what he's bringing to the fight. Now of course, that isn't really possible either, but it seems to me that the standard ASUW paradigm that served the US Navy well over the latter half of the 20th, and first decade of the 21st Centuries was both diverse and capable. Does it need tweaking? Sure; what doesn't? But the baby didn't need throwing out with the bathwater either.

            Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
            The only thing I find revolutionary about the Freedom-class is the modular deck located under the flight deck which allow boat access via crane out a starboard hatch or straight out to ocean via a stern hatch. Eliminating the seemingly awkward deck crane and RHIB's on deck on some of the older ship designs.
            Thank God we got that going for us.

            Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
            Isn't the saying you can't have your cake and eat it too? Isn't the reason the Freedom-class can attain such revolutionary speeds (asides from being designed from a speed yacht) is that the propulsion takes up a lot of room and to achieve the desired speed, armament must be kept to a minimum?
            To be perfectly frank, I don't know how much room main propulsion takes up in that class, but having seen these things from the pier now, and being able to compare at least the Freedom-class with its Arleigh Burke-class cousins size-wise, I can say that these are not small ships. I like to use the Knox-class frigates that we used to use as sort of the "basic warship; one each" model for training purposes in the Navy, as a point of comparison with regard to what was, and what might be. The Freedom is 60 feet shorter, but 11 feet broader in the beam. It is 1200 tons lighter. That weight reduction is achieved through the use of composite materials in lieu of steel and aluminum in some applications, but it is also due to the simple fact that boilers, main engines, and ships service turbine generators, and their associated 1200 PSI supply, condensate, and drain piping, being all carbon steel, is VERY heavy. Get rid of it, and you get rid of that weight. Mission accomplished.

            Knox drew 26 feet of water as opposed to the 13 feet of Freedom, but that's deceiving because the truth is that in actual terms they both drew/draw about 13 to 15 feet because the bulk of that depth on the Knox was the SQS-26 bow mounted sonar, which effectively doubled the draft, but only in the bow. When you do some quick and dirty math, you find that the Knox and Freedom, actually have about the same amount of usable internal volume. OK, so in order to make Freedom go fast, they may have filled up a lot of that internal volume with engineering equipment. Again, at first blush, you may be right. They have four IF ships service diesel generators (SSDG), and then two CP diesel engines and two RR MT30 gas turbines to drive the jet pumps. That may be a bit of overkill. One wonders if design engineers might not be able to come up with a CODLAG generated integrated power system (like the new Queen Elizabeth-class CVs in the Royal Navy, or the Zumwalt-class DDGs), that drives everything on board, including the jet pumps, BUT, when you really need to go fast, you put the MT30s on line either driving the jet pumps directly, or to boost the power in order to bring another electric jet pump on line. Regardless, there are a lot of ways to denude that feline while probably being able to effectively reduce the amount of engineering equipment on the ship. One suspects one could get down to four total diesel engines vice the six there now.

            Then there is the new combat systems technology that could be brought to bear. First, I wouldn't go with anything smaller than a 76mm gun, but I don't even like that. 127mm or bust in my book. Again, it would not appear that this is an impossible thing to do in that Freedom-sized hull. It looked big enough to me, but then I haven't seen plane diagrams for the ship, so I really don't know. The really cool thing out there now, that's being installed in Zumwalt is the Mk-57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS). That would cover AAW, ASUW, and ASW. You could literally plug cells in all over that hull. Yeah, I'm sure you would have to make some modifications here and there, but that's all doable. All it takes is some imagination, the funding, and the political will to use it.

            In my mind, there are so many ways to accomplish, stealth, speed, and combat systems versatility and capability in one hull, without having to succumb to this "mission package" nonsense (well, OK, maybe some specialized things like mine hunting, or SEAL delivery, but nothing all that esoteric). The fact that the Navy would push back against it is, in my mind, stupefying.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by desertswo View Post
              Well, that's different.

              If we are talking about taking on anything more profound than a small boat swarm, the max engagement range for those Bushmasters is already too close. "Anti-Surface Unit Warfare" (ASUW) to this old Surface Warrior is being able to engage any equally capable platform at the horizon and beyond. Right now, the LCS cannot do that.

              One of the major problems I have with this whole "mission package" concept is that it sort of assumes that the enemy is just going to conveniently show up dressed to be killed in the manner in which we would prefer him to be. "Well, we have our two Bushmasters and the 57mm this week, so you guys don't show up with anything bigger than a 12.7mm machine gun and an RPG, and then you stand still and let us kill you from our effective standoff range." To which the other guy will, of course, oblige with a smile. The reality as we all know it, is that the other guy gets a vote in this thing, and if he doesn't want to cooperate in showing up with weapons system capability that is just a little less robust than our own, then maybe we ought to be versatile enough to engage him no matter what he's bringing to the fight. Now of course, that isn't really possible either, but it seems to me that the standard ASUW paradigm that served the US Navy well over the latter half of the 20th, and first decade of the 21st Centuries was both diverse and capable. Does it need tweaking? Sure; what doesn't? But the baby didn't need throwing out with the bathwater either.
              I agree with you. But you missed that in your evaluation, so I thought I would point out the 30 mm Bushmaster capability.

              Originally posted by desertswo View Post
              Thank God we got that going for us.
              Sarcasm? I think it's an interesting innovation. Reduces radar signature, keeps everyone out of the weather, and gives more storage space for the boat crews to have available nearby. By all accounts, the RHIB's are heavily used by surface combatants in the US Navy in present day.

              Now I don't know if this concept is workable with a more standard propulsion plant.

              Originally posted by desertswo View Post
              Then there is the new combat systems technology that could be brought to bear. First, I wouldn't go with anything smaller than a 76mm gun, but I don't even like that. 127mm or bust in my book. Again, it would not appear that this is an impossible thing to do in that Freedom-sized hull. It looked big enough to me, but then I haven't seen plane diagrams for the ship, so I really don't know. The really cool thing out there now, that's being installed in Zumwalt is the Mk-57 Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS). That would cover AAW, ASUW, and ASW. You could literally plug cells in all over that hull. Yeah, I'm sure you would have to make some modifications here and there, but that's all doable. All it takes is some imagination, the funding, and the political will to use it.
              Couple of questions for you. Does a 155mm, 6" or 8" deck gun present a substantial increase in capability over the 5"? Or does the 5" provide the best overall multi-role functionality in your opinion?

              One of the reasons for the peripheral VLS system was apparently to spread the missile out. As in the mk 41 is a giant powder keg waiting to go off should the enemy hit that area of the ship. Wouldn't the peripheral mk 57 make almost any hit on the ship likely to trigger munitions? So you have a greater probability of a less serious problem? Not sure which is worse. Also, I'm not sure to what degree modern warships are armoured, but does the mk 57 make this more difficult?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                I agree with you. But you missed that in your evaluation, so I thought I would point out the 30 mm Bushmaster capability.
                Noted. And I knew that. It's just me being froggy. Still a bit early in the day to be thinking great thoughts.


                Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                Sarcasm? I think it's an interesting innovation. Reduces radar signature, keeps everyone out of the weather, and gives more storage space for the boat crews to have available nearby. By all accounts, the RHIB's are heavily used by surface combatants in the US Navy in present day.

                Now I don't know if this concept is workable with a more standard propulsion plant.
                It was sarcasm, but not directed at you per se. It's just that in my view there were so many opportunities missed in this concept that could have been true RMAs. Feint hearts and all that. Meanwhile they put so many eggs in that Zumwalt basket, and it's far from being the right answer either. It's too damn big, and yet in many respects, seems under-gunned for the overall size of the thing. Hell, it's bigger than a Treaty cruiser, and not much smaller than a Treaty battleship circa 1930-ish; and yet, appears to have the punch thus far, of a featherweight. One has the feeling that she and her two sisters are going to serve as technology demonstrators more than practical warships, although they will be all of that too.

                Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                Couple of questions for you. Does a 155mm, 6" or 8" deck gun present a substantial increase in capability over the 5"? Or does the 5" provide the best overall multi-role functionality in your opinion?
                There was an experiment with a quick fire light weight 8" gun that they installed aboard one of the last all gun destroyers, USS Hull (Forrest Sherman-class; beautiful ships, but technologically obsolete almost before they were even done coming off the ways). As I recall, this thing was called the Mk-71, and they installed it in lieu of Mount 51 forward in Hull. They ended the trial just as I was coming on active duty in 1978, but I knew guys who served in Hull during that period, and the said they were lucky the didn't sink the ship. The shock that reverberated through the hull every time they fired was causing cracks to form all over the place, and there was apparently real fear that they bow might fall off. I rather doubt that would happen, but official reports I've read do note the structural damage being done to the ship, and suggested that there may be an endpoint on the displacement of a ship and its ability to support such weapons systems. Could the much larger Spruance hull handle it? Apparently there was some support for the idea, but ultimately, it was determined that the 5" gun with RAP would be just as effective. The 155mm seems to be a happy medium. I have no doubt it will be better overall in the world of NGFS and even ASUW. I am a bit concerned with regard to AAW. Now, a bigger round will make a bigger "boom" and therefore a wider blast radius, so that's not a bad thing. So that gets us to rate of fire, which will be ten rounds per minute vs. the 20 rounds per minute for the current Mk-45 127mm/62. The thing is, I can't even find references to the 155mm in the AAW mode. I can't imagine you couldn't use it like that with the proper fusing, but still, not seeing references that say so doesn't leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Could it be that our fearless leaders are finding their way toward taking the ship's main gun out of the AAW defense in depth paradigm, period? I don't know, but I guess the answer is, "Maybe."

                Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                One of the reasons for the peripheral VLS system was apparently to spread the missile out. As in the mk 41 is a giant powder keg waiting to go off should the enemy hit that area of the ship. Wouldn't the peripheral mk 57 make almost any hit on the ship likely to trigger munitions? So you have a greater probability of a less serious problem? Not sure which is worse. Also, I'm not sure to what degree modern warships are armoured, but does the mk 57 make this more difficult?
                It's an interesting question, and as I was formerly one of the damage control gurus in the US Navy, one that I have given some thought to. Yes, on the one hand, there may be more exposure to some battle damage for that ordnance. However, it's all relative. Typical hull plating in a US Navy warship is anywhere from 5/8 to 7/8 carbon steel. Not very thick. In every ship built since WWII, we sort of compounded that problem by making the superstructures out of aluminum and then plunking them down on that steel hull. Can you say, "Bi-metalic corrosion?" We would comfort ourselves by increasing the thickness of the magazine compartment deck, overhead and bulkheads to a whole one inch!! Whoo hoo!! We did take a positive step forward by building the Arleigh Burkes entirely out of steel. It does make a difference. If they were to do that much, plus use Kevlar and various reactive armor technologies around those missile cells, we can at least reduce cheap "mission kills" due to shrapnel and spalling. Nothing will obviate the effect of direct hit by a large munition, but that would have been the case if you retained the Mk-41 in a centralized location, and as you have indicated, you risk losing all to the so called "golden BB." I believe that in the greater scheme of things, the PVLS scheme may be preferable over the long haul.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                  It was sarcasm, but not directed at you per se. It's just that in my view there were so many opportunities missed in this concept that could have been true RMAs. Feint hearts and all that. Meanwhile they put so many eggs in that Zumwalt basket, and it's far from being the right answer either. It's too damn big, and yet in many respects, seems under-gunned for the overall size of the thing. Hell, it's bigger than a Treaty cruiser, and not much smaller than a Treaty battleship circa 1930-ish; and yet, appears to have the punch thus far, of a featherweight. One has the feeling that she and her two sisters are going to serve as technology demonstrators more than practical warships, although they will be all of that too.
                  Now you've got me fascinated. Any ideas or concepts that you could share on this board as to RMA's which could be fielded by a surface combatant?

                  Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                  There was an experiment with a quick fire light weight 8" gun that they installed aboard one of the last all gun destroyers, USS Hull (Forrest Sherman-class; beautiful ships, but technologically obsolete almost before they were even done coming off the ways). As I recall, this thing was called the Mk-71, and they installed it in lieu of Mount 51 forward in Hull. They ended the trial just as I was coming on active duty in 1978, but I knew guys who served in Hull during that period, and the said they were lucky the didn't sink the ship. The shock that reverberated through the hull every time they fired was causing cracks to form all over the place, and there was apparently real fear that they bow might fall off. I rather doubt that would happen, but official reports I've read do note the structural damage being done to the ship, and suggested that there may be an endpoint on the displacement of a ship and its ability to support such weapons systems. Could the much larger Spruance hull handle it? Apparently there was some support for the idea, but ultimately, it was determined that the 5" gun with RAP would be just as effective. The 155mm seems to be a happy medium. I have no doubt it will be better overall in the world of NGFS and even ASUW. I am a bit concerned with regard to AAW. Now, a bigger round will make a bigger "boom" and therefore a wider blast radius, so that's not a bad thing. So that gets us to rate of fire, which will be ten rounds per minute vs. the 20 rounds per minute for the current Mk-45 127mm/62. The thing is, I can't even find references to the 155mm in the AAW mode. I can't imagine you couldn't use it like that with the proper fusing, but still, not seeing references that say so doesn't leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Could it be that our fearless leaders are finding their way toward taking the ship's main gun out of the AAW defense in depth paradigm, period? I don't know, but I guess the answer is, "Maybe."
                  In interviews, documentaries, and literature I've read they always referred to the 5" gun as a multi prupose weapon with an AAW capability. But like you say, I've never seen or heard of it being used in this capacity.

                  Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                  It's an interesting question, and as I was formerly one of the damage control gurus in the US Navy, one that I have given some thought to. Yes, on the one hand, there may be more exposure to some battle damage for that ordnance. However, it's all relative. Typical hull plating in a US Navy warship is anywhere from 5/8 to 7/8 carbon steel. Not very thick. In every ship built since WWII, we sort of compounded that problem by making the superstructures out of aluminum and then plunking them down on that steel hull. Can you say, "Bi-metalic corrosion?" We would comfort ourselves by increasing the thickness of the magazine compartment deck, overhead and bulkheads to a whole one inch!! Whoo hoo!! We did take a positive step forward by building the Arleigh Burkes entirely out of steel. It does make a difference. If they were to do that much, plus use Kevlar and various reactive armor technologies around those missile cells, we can at least reduce cheap "mission kills" due to shrapnel and spalling. Nothing will obviate the effect of direct hit by a large munition, but that would have been the case if you retained the Mk-41 in a centralized location, and as you have indicated, you risk losing all to the so called "golden BB." I believe that in the greater scheme of things, the PVLS scheme may be preferable over the long haul.
                  What's funny is I build pressure vessels in the oil industry with more wall thickness than that. Somewhat surprising. Interesting take on the PVLS vs. mk 41 though...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                    What's funny is I build pressure vessels in the oil industry with more wall thickness than that. Somewhat surprising. Interesting take on the PVLS vs. mk 41 though...
                    If I had to guess, if they've put an extra inch the ship would sink.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      My bad, I was thinking of the original OHP and to a lesser extent the Aussie evolution, Adelaide-class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

                      Wasn't thinking of what the poor OHP has been reduced to today in the USN.
                      The best part of repentance is the sin

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                        In interviews, documentaries, and literature I've read they always referred to the 5" gun as a multi prupose weapon with an AAW capability. But like you say, I've never seen or heard of it being used in this capacity.
                        I'm thinking now that I wasn't very clear about my concerns vis-a-vis AAW. The Mk-45 127mm/62 is very good at AAW. It was the new 155mm that I was concerned about. I just can't find a whole lot of open source material saying that we still intend to use this larger round in the AAW mode as we did the 127mm.
                        Last edited by desertswo; 04 Apr 14,, 23:23.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                          I'm thinking now that I wasn't very clear about my concerns vis-a-vis AAW. The Mk-45 155mm/62 is very good at AAW. It was the new 155mm that I was concerned about. I just can't find a whole lot of open source material saying that we still intend to use this larger round in the AAW mode as we did the 127mm.
                          Oh I see. That's extremely interesting. Are the mk 45 rounds fused the detonate at a pre-determined time by the firing computer of do they have a proximity fuse when being used in the AAW role?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                            It was the new 155mm that I was concerned about.
                            If you're referring to the AGS - it fires rockets, not shells. Would be a whole different calculation for AA.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                              Oh I see. That's extremely interesting. Are the mk 45 rounds fused the detonate at a pre-determined time by the firing computer of do they have a proximity fuse when being used in the AAW role?
                              It's called a "variable time" or VT fuse, but the truth of the matter is that it is a radar proximity fuse. It has a little radio receiver in the nose of the shell that receives the reflected radio wave energy from the ship's fire control radar bouncing off of the target. So in addition to the reflected energy being received by the fire control radar receiver, it is also snatched out of the air by that receiver in the warhead. When the required parameters for detonation are met, the shell explodes, and that's some 70 pounds of HE and fragmented shell casing that the airplane/anti-ship missile now has to fly through. In other words, a big, freaking hand grenade of sorts that makes any living tissue within its blast radius into Hamburger Helper. Watch this video and you can see how the gun tube remains locked onto the target while the ship gently rolls underneath it.

                              What's really cool is that this technology has been around for a pretty long time. Those with no background in AAW as it is done in the US Navy, or a background in military history, are generally under the impression that the greatest number of Japanese aircraft downed by shipboard AAW weapons were hit by the various .50 cal, 20mm, 40mm, and 1.1 inch guns; all with fairly high cyclic rates of fire when nothing could be further from the truth. From 1943 on, after the new 127mm ammunition with VT fusing entered the fray, the 5"/38 cal gun ruled the waves, and the sky above them, in the Pacific. It proved to be a devastating combination, and again, it still has its uses today, even against the most modern anti-ship cruise missile technology.

                              You can imagine the wall of steel set up with 127mm rounds exploding at the end of their flight in this video. Watch closely and you can see how well the gyro-stabilization system operates as the gun tube remains fixed on target, while the ship rolls gently underneath it.



                              Back to the history aspect for a bit; the VT fuse owes it's existence to a whole lot of different people, but the guy that ran the development program for the Navy was Captain William S. "Deak" Parsons, USN. He and his funny little band of what our British friends used to call "boffins" back in the day, took sort of a bare bones idea and put flesh to it. They knew the idea was sound, but building a better mouse trap so to speak, involved overcoming some basic problems in physics that had no easy answers. For instance, this round, and the receiver in its tip, had to go from zero to 5280 feet per second in the blink of an eye, and still function. That's a lot of shock on some pretty sensitive electronics for the times. Electronics that pre-dates digital technology by decades, and still it worked. Like I said, Parsons had some pretty interesting guys on his team. They had names like Isaac Azimov, and Robert A. Heinlein, and there was this British guy who may, or may not have, also played a role in the US effort on VT fusing who was called Arthur C. Clark.

                              The VT fuse wasn't the only high tech munitions fuse that Parsons worked on. There was this little thing called the Manhattan Project, in which he played a critical role; not the least of which involved him deciding that the B-29s leaving Tinian to drop their bombs, not have full up rounds in their bomb bays on takeoff. This just in case the airplane crashed on takeoff. Parsons didn't want Tinian to be vaporized because of "pilot error." So, he rode in the airplane and just after takeoff on August 6, 1945, he climbed into the bomb bay of Enola Gay, and with only a small flashlight and his fingers to guide the process, he armed the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.

                              Originally posted by kato View Post
                              If you're referring to the AGS - it fires rockets, not shells. Would be a whole different calculation for AA.
                              I tell you what; I'm not really sure what I'm referring to anymore.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X