What if Modernized USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin

[zadmiral]

Actually Ive been to sea with these weapons. The data and sources would probably still be classified, or so I would assume.
But I can tell you that tracking an incoming 16inch projectile would be easier than tracking an incoming missile because it has no guidance and its trajectory is purely geometric. So yes it could distinguish a miss at 100 feet. A ten foot miss would still be a threat thus it would likely engage that target.

[HvyCgn9]

I'm no expert but wouldn't shooting CIWS rds at a 16" shell be like shooting tennis balls at a Tank? You would think that with the shape of the incoming 16" shell (Be it AP or HE) the CIWS rds would be deflected off?? Does that sound reasonable??

Bruce

[zadmiral]

I suppose that's feasible. But it did take out a 5 inch shell. The CIWS uses depleted uranium rnd so it would definitely chew up the HE shell. And would likely knock off the ballistic cap on the AP. Stopping or destroying the HE rnd would be feasible but maybe not the AP rnd. IDK

[Busto963]

I suppose that's feasible. But it did take out a 5 inch shell. The CIWS uses depleted uranium rnd so it would definitely chew up the HE shell. And would likely knock off the ballistic cap on the AP. Stopping or destroying the HE rnd would be feasible but maybe not the AP rnd. IDK

This seems dubious.

CIWS frequently failed to completely stop target drones: it shot them to pieces, but large bits continued into the target, causing at least one shipboard death when debris breached the hull.

A 5" round fired towards maximum range is going to impact the ship at an angle of ~50 degrees from horizontal. Even HE shells are significantly denser and have several orders of magnitude greater wall thickness than an aircraft or missiles. Even if the CIWS generates multiple hits, it is not going to destroy the projectile unless it somehow triggers the fuse: highly unlikely.

BTW, many fuses are in the base of the projectile.

Even if the fuses are destroyed, and the shell broken into four or five pieces; due to the impact geometry, and speeds, many of these pieces are going to hit. Several 2.5 kg masses impacting at 600+ meters per second, is going to play havoc with topside electronics, weapons and exposed flesh...

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

Regardless, the concept of using CIWS in a C-RAM role is interesting. I've never heard of it being done but it sounds plausible.

Pretty sure you have, just not at sea:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=5014



In this one, you can see it actually hits the target shortly after firing.

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

Regardless, the concept of using CIWS in a C-RAM role is interesting. I've never heard of it being done but it sounds plausible.

Pretty sure you have, just not at sea:

Just to remind everyone: C-RAM is about destroying incoming Rockets and Mortars (thin skinned targets) not necessarily artillery shells (to include naval artillery). Artillery shells, particularly guns, have much thicker casings to enable the shell to withstand rifling and tremendous g-force loads generated by the tube.

The theory is certainly there; but remember that rockets and mortars are very much thinner skinned and, in the case of mortars, much slower in velocity.

In any case, the systems in question were not anywhere near 100% effective, and this was in a role where they were countering only one or two tubes, with perhaps one-two dozen shells per launcher.

How well current systems would handle a battery of 6 tubes firing up to 30-rpm-per gun (doable with any 6-8cm mortar for brief periods) is anyone's guess.

I think this is the reason that the Germans (Rheinmetal) are pushing the 35mm milllennium gun deployed in 4-gun batteries, and why the Israelis are pushing their rocket based Iron Dome system.

In any case, C-RAM is only part of the defense grid. The real answer to rockets and mortars is to kill the enemy system before it fires, or to at least engage it with air or counter-battery fire as soon as the tubes/launchers are identified.

[navydavesof]

I think this is the reason that the Germans (Rheinmetal) are pushing the 35mm milllennium gun deployed in 4-gun batteries, and why the Israelis are pushing their rocket based Iron Dome system.

In any case, C-RAM is only part of the defense grid. The real answer to rockets and mortars is to kill the enemy system before it fires, or to at least engage it with air or counter-battery fire as soon as the tubes/launchers are identified.

I think it's really interesting arranging 4 gun batteries. Because things have been so busy around here lately I have not been able to get much work done on the LCS Flight II, but the millennium gun is a big part of its defense, in both a CIWS and CRAM role.

Busto, to your knowledge, how is the Millennium gun loaded? It appears it is only loaded from the rear similarly to how the Mk38 is loaded. I wonder if it could be loaded internally from the bottom.

I wonder if the gun could return to a position where the box magazines on the back of the loading mechanism could be hinged down and reloaded similarly to how Bofors guns do.

[Busto963]

I think this is the reason that the Germans (Rheinmetal) are pushing the 35mm milllennium gun deployed in 4-gun batteries, and why the Israelis are pushing their rocket based Iron Dome system.

In any case, C-RAM is only part of the defense grid. The real answer to rockets and mortars is to kill the enemy system before it fires, or to at least engage it with air or counter-battery fire as soon as the tubes/launchers are identified.

I think it's really interesting arranging 4 gun batteries. Because things have been so busy around here lately I have not been able to get much work done on the LCS Flight II, but the millennium gun is a big part of its defense, in both a CIWS and CRAM role.

Busto, to your knowledge, how is the Millennium gun loaded? It appears it is only loaded from the rear similarly to how the Mk38 is loaded. I wonder if it could be loaded internally from the bottom. I wonder if the gun could return to a position where the box magazines on the back of the loading mechanism could be hinged down and reloaded similarly to how Bofors guns do.

If I understand what your asking, I think you could load the gun from the bottom. The KD series of cannons have been loaded via belt, or "clip". I think the best option is powered belt similar to a gattling gun.

I think the current mounts are designed more for ease of transport (land versions) and ease of installation on ships as a C-RAM/CIWS. If you are thinking of mount with deck penetration and feeding the "revolver" from the bottom, that would allow for a lot of ammunition.

Imagine a low silhouette two-gun mount version in an armored turret (for Messer Carr), possibly with a tracking radar mounted in between. Plenty of missile/boghammer shredding capability, brings a tear to the eye!

I have a picture of a civilian tech reloading a MG, but I am travelling and cannot put my hands on it. It did not show much detail.

[navydavesof]

While the previous discussion is interesting, it has already been had during this thread, and the arguments against the battleship's armor and armament has already been countered. As a result, there is no need to rehash what has already been established.

I have gotten the model out again, and in addition with the LCS-3 Flight II, I will be building this beast up again. I have gotten the last of my resin pieces in so I am ready to get started again.

Who is ready for this build to be resurrected?!

Hooyah!

[johndon]

Who is ready for this build to be resurrected?!

Hooyah!

Go for it

John

[Sauragnmon]

Bring it on!

[navydavesof]

The camera...iffy, but she is back out of the box, and I am surveying the damage.

Next will be a little better survey of the damage, the new parts and pieces I have, where they will go, and the project goes from there!

[SumGui]

Great to see this moving forward again!

[navydavesof]

I thought this might be interesting:

Hey David,

Thank you for your continued interest in Raytheon's Excalibur 1B GPS/SAL system. Yes, just as our add says with the 5" naval projectiles, the new add on to the 1B system is adaptable to larger calibers. The 8" HERA and 11" USA rounds you inquired about would be a suitable candidates for the system. It appears that with minimal modification to the payload sections both projectile bodies could be adapted with the system. Your points about the 11" projectile appear to be valid. A RAP capability could be added into a boat tail attachment to the 11 round to boost is range significantly. For general numbers, you may want to compare the range differences between the 8" Standard and the 8" HERA USA rounds to find corresponding 11" range. Good luck with your project.

Base bleed rounds produced nearly 50% greater range. The 8" HERA rounds produced 45% extra range over standard HERA rounds. The combined technology would be 72.5% increase in range? So, consider a additional 70% in range; 69.7 mile. So, a nearly 70nm range with modification to existing projectiles being fired from existing guns using existing precision guidance technology...interesting!!!

The 155mm Excal has already been fired over 40km from a 39caliber artillery piece in combat.

Not bad. Just imagine if the Navy had procured the 155mm version of the Mk71 (155mm/60caliber) in 1996...

The 155mm version would have had the same foot print as the Mk42 5"/54. Hmmm...If the USN had procured that, NSFS might not be a problem today...

[Sauragnmon]

Of course, Dave, you missed the other peripheral benefit that Base Bleed gave - it also improved round stability in flight, without that vortex throwing the round's behaviour out of whack for a chunk of the flight, it served to improve accuracy as well as range. Rocket-assist would offer even more benefit over Base Bleed.

[Busto963]

Of course, Dave, you missed the other peripheral benefit that Base Bleed gave - it also improved round stability in flight, without that vortex throwing the round's behaviour out of whack for a chunk of the flight, it served to improve accuracy as well as range. Rocket-assist would offer even more benefit over Base Bleed.

Yes,

But, manuevering also reduces velocity and range, and the space allocated to base bleed also reduces explosive capacity or case density (AP).

No free lunches in engineering, but good stuff nonetheless.

[navydavesof]

But, manuevering also reduces velocity and range, and the space allocated to base bleed also reduces explosive capacity or case density (AP).

No free lunches in engineering, but good stuff nonetheless.

Indeed, typically a zero-sum game if you don't change the length of the projectile. However, I imagine that the 11" projectiles could have a 1 caliber or so boat tail/base bleed kit replacing their base plug plate, similar to how the HERA projectiles are assembled. Now, does that off set the projectiles center of gravity and pit-over moment? We would have to run the numbers, but I bet not.

Picture from the 11" sabot 1969 NAVORD report after conducting a feasibility study of adapting 11" rounds to 16" gun barrels. This arrangement produced a range of 83,900 yards at a 40.5 degree elevation.

This is how the 1989 projectiles were going to be arranged in components.

You can see that the above picture depicts the projectile being adapted with keyways for a submunition pusher plate. The base in the above picture was void to help hold the 16" sabot onto the subcaliber round while the projectile travels down the barrel. The void was filled with the high pressure barrel pressures, expanding the base of the projectile against the sabot. I am sure this effect can be achieved another way, and perhaps a base bleed or RAP kit can be added to that same void, or that entire base can be replaced with a base-bleed or RAP kit.

Anyway, more pictures of the model this weekend!

[navydavesof]

Here is a good stage of the parts. I have identified that I will need to replace nearly all of the PE on both masts, but both the SPS-48 and 49 are good to go. The first real step is going to be to build up the hull.

Let me ask opinions: Should I go full hull or waterline like the one displayed?

Thanks!