Navalizing 155mm Howitzer?

[dy031101]

Years ago Germany tried the MONARC, a PzH-2000 turret modified to fit into any gun position capable of taking a 76mm rapid fire cannon.

Later Germany began testing a lighter derivative of PzH-2000, Artillery Gun Module (AGM), on a MLRS chassis.

Is it just me or does it really have more of a naval turret look to it?

If the technology can be perfected, wouldn't it be able to grant any frigate previously limited to OTO Melara 76mm cannons (like O.H. Perry class) a coastal bombardment capability?

[jcf]

Forward to the past, eh?

There was a time when the 6" (152mm) gun was a common shipborne armament.

Jon

[r16]

and the French navalised their 155 cannons for naval service .

[Thorvic]

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

[GTX]

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.

Not to mention the possibilities for commonality with Army, thus potentially allowing for savings in ammunition buys.

Regards,

Greg

[Joe C-P]

This is a practical idea. The German Navy actually demoed it using one of their F124 type frigates, the Sachen class.

Guns like the 76mm and 127mm aren't much use against missiles, and a 155mm shell will be even more effective against small boats. As Greg said, there are many shell type manufactured for the land howitzer that would be useful for shore support as well.

The only issue is fire control. A ship is moving in three dimensions, while a gun on land is pretty much immobilized. Terminally-guided shells would address that problem to a large degree.

[dy031101]

The only issue is fire control. A ship is moving in three dimensions, while a gun on land is pretty much immobilized. Terminally-guided shells would address that problem to a large degree.

MONARC is stabilized.  One would expect anything derived from AGM to be stabilized as well.

[Joe C-P]

From a modeling perspective, here's my take on it, using a Spruance and the turret from a USMC mobile howitzer.

http://www.quuxuum.org/rajens_list/USAS%20fore.jpg

[dy031101]

From a modeling perspective, here's my take on it, using a Spruance and the turret from a USMC mobile howitzer.

http://www.quuxuum.org/rajens_list/USAS%20fore.jpg

Didn't they come up with an 8" cannon that was to be retrofitted onto all Ticonderoga and Spruance class warships had it not been cancelled?

Are ammunitions for that gun interchangeable with land-based artillery (M110 SPH, for example)?

[B777LR]

If the technology can be perfected, wouldn't it be able to grant any frigate previously limited to OTO Melara 76mm cannons (like O.H. Perry class) a coastal bombardment capability?

That would mean that the danish standard flex ships, as well as the Triton class and Niels Juhl class could be refitted!

[Hobbes]

Fire control isn't much of a problem. The technology exists, it's just a matter of integrating the gun with the ship's computers. 76 mm guns are popular because they have a high enough rate of fire to be useful against aircraft (and iirc it's even marketed as an antimissile weapon).

[RLBH]

Didn't they come up with an 8" cannon that was to be retrofitted onto all Ticonderoga and Spruance class warships had it not been cancelled?

Are ammunitions for that gun interchangeable with land-based artillery (M110 SPH, for example)?

The 8" Mark 71, which was designed to use the stocks of existing 8" naval ammunition which were lying around at that time (shortly after Vietnam, IIRC). The original MCLWG program suggested 175mm calibre for commonality with that Army gun, but the old 8" ammunition wasn't going to shoot itself .

It was to be carried by a small number of Spruance-class ships, apparently in place of the forward Mark 45 and possibly some ASROC magazine space. The Kidd-class was also designed to carry it, hence the smaller Mark 26 magazine forward, and I believe a study was done on fitting it to the Virginia-class; only 24 ships were seen as needed, I think. The Ticonderoga-class couldn't have carried it, as the ships didn't have the space, although if the wish was there, a bigger ship might have resulted.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

[GTX]

Of course a similar idea is to mount a 120mm Mortar on a ship - as with the AMOS system:




Aslo see here:  http://www.patriahagglunds.fi/amosnavy.html

Regards,

Greg

[lenny100]

the royal navy is allready at it
http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=113

[RP1]

The RN 155 is the second time this has been looked at in the last couple of years.  It would seem to be very do-able, using the short 39-calibre tube.  With the new all-electric mount the total increase in weight is only a couple of tonnes, although RoF will be reduced due to the need for double-ramming.

There were some issues with MONARC.  The recoil dampener was a bit complex, and marinisation of army equipment can be difficult.  It would have needed the addition of an ammo lift to be practical - 50 rounds in the turret is not effective NGS.  Also it should be noted that to fire from a moving platform the motors and their control gear will need to be more powerful and capable of faster acceleration than a land based system designed for, at best, "shoot and scoot" operations.  The effects of even small ship motions are the bane of all accurate naval gunfire.

There was an interesting presentation given at RINA Warship 2001 on a notional 155mm, showing the considerable advantages it brings in everything from HE weight on target to performance of illuminants and the possibility of using sub-munitions.  The latter was particularly interesting as it was mooted as a method of dealing with FIACS - in this case a hovercraft - by lobbing some sub-munition dispensing shells at them.

And I wouldn't knock the OTO 76mm too much.  IF it has the Super Rapid conversion and IF it is firing appropriate ammunition and IF it is provided with a dual Radar / optical channel fire control system WITH an AA ballistic computer (OTO recommend the DARDO FCS previously used for 40mm) then it should be very effective against missiles that have "leaked" through missile defences, with the advantage that it can chew up FIACS, Boghammars, spying UAVs, put a proper shot across a bow and mash up the engine block of a Fiat Uno. 

RP1