Navalizing 155mm Howitzer?

RP1 · February 22, 2008, 06:08:33 PM

Regarding the Mk 71 (now there was a missed opportunity!) there were also a set of studies presented in an issue of NEJ which included fitting such a weapon to a DDG-51 class vessel.

The true greatness that is the Combatboat 90 (It's an APC! And a jetboat!) is only enhanced by the AMOS trial fitting. Unfortunately, it's turned out to be a bit too big for the worlds most warry speedboat and thus a slightly larger mortar-specific vessel is being developed. Of course, this doesn't stop the CB90 from carrying hellfires, stingers, cannon etc (although not in the current configuration. Which surprises me. Normally the Swedes display the perfect combination of inventiveness, logic and TOTAL INSANITY).

Now *that* would be how to do maritime interdiction. Somewhat more beefy than a speedboat. (Ipods not included)

RP1

anthonyp · February 23, 2008, 08:53:41 AM

Quote from: Thorvic on February 09, 2008, 01:58:50 AM
Most larger navies are looking at replacing their 3-5" guns with 155 turrerts for the future. the longer range and heavier shell being part of the reason, but also the developments to the ammunition mean it can be guided in flight to hit a specific target using either GPS or laser guidance. Couple that with UCAVs to asct as relys and target spotters and the Warship can again become a major playerin coastal areas.

G

A bit late to the party, but the new NLOS-C cannon from the US Army's FCS program and the AGS that's being put onto the Zumwalt class ships are the same gun.

RP1 · February 23, 2008, 09:23:14 AM

QuoteA bit late to the party, but the new NLOS-C cannon from the US Army's FCS program and the AGS that's being put onto the Zumwalt class ships are the same gun

They are the same calibre, but I don't think they are the same gun - the NLOS-C is 38 calibres long (IIRC) whilst the AGS is 52, and the latter is most certainly not light weight.

RP1

anthonyp · February 23, 2008, 02:12:58 PM

Yes, they are. My buddy (who works on the project) has said they're the same gun time and again (as he's complaining endlessly about ever-changing deadlines).

RP1 · February 23, 2008, 04:23:34 PM

Certainly I can see that a number of components of the design would be common, but the AGS is not just NLOS-C on a ship. NLOS-C is 18t, IIRC, and AGS is somewhere around 80 (minus the automated magazine). What you say makes me question the AGS even more. Why the blazes does it weigh so much?

RP1

anthonyp · February 24, 2008, 07:15:08 AM

Quote from: RP1 on February 23, 2008, 04:23:34 PM
Certainly I can see that a number of components of the design would be common, but the AGS is not just NLOS-C on a ship. NLOS-C is 18t, IIRC, and AGS is somewhere around 80 (minus the automated magazine). What you say makes me question the AGS even more. Why the blazes does it weigh so much?

The size quotes you find on the net are not the real weights. Like I said, one of my coworkers is on the project, and if he says they're the same, they're the same.

What's probably being taken into that weight quote is the entire gun assembly (turret, ammo handling, etc). With NLOS-C, there's a version of the FAASV following it around for ammo handling and storage.

RP1 · February 24, 2008, 12:13:02 PM

OK, I've checked and this http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/expeditionary/schopp.pdf shows that the AGS has Crusader heritage, which, AIUI, is also the case for the NLOS-C. The weight breakdown I saw showed 80te as the gun assembly, with the automatic magazine and ammunition separately.

RP1

(Edited for confusion between loader and magazine)

RP1 · February 24, 2008, 12:25:25 PM

I suppose, taking into account the longer barrel, water cooling system, large gunhouse and hutch for the barrel, gunring and support, magazine lift and the increased power drives needed to fire accurately whilst moving 80 tons doesn't sound so extreme. The magazine was even heavier, even when empty, but that is to be expected given the large amount of structure and automation.

RP1