Interesting idea? Armor rounds for ships

[richter111]

Ok, so I have been reading about modern armor lately.

With the proliferation of shells, sabot, depleted uranium, rocket assisted and the like, there is no shortage of ways to defeat modern armor.

Take the same concept in armor, and apply it to modern navy projectile rounds.

Could it possibly be more effective, and cheaper than conventional munitions, and possibly even modern missiles?

the floor is open to debate....

[Dave Wooley]

Given the devastating effect of anti ship missiles the like of the vintageSunburn SS-N-22 . Possibly the best chance of survival is not to be located in the first place. That's a hard one for carriers or large ships. Even vintage SS-N-22s at low level can make mach 2.1 , making a mess of any target it hits. Get a saturation attack and I guess it would be almost impossible to defend against .Question is why bother with rocket assisted rounds for anti ship use?. The disturbing thought is the Iranians posses the Sunburn .
Dave Wooley

[bengtsson]

I'm not sure I'm completely in on the original question. Do you mean conventional gun rounds being upgraded in some way to be cheaper than an antiship missile? I do remember that we did use a form of upgraded Five inch round in Vietnam. It gave a greatly increased range for shore bombardment especially of targets in the North. That's all I know, as I was not in gunnery. But I know we used an enhanced round. I was a sonar tech. and guns were not my business.
The modern anitship missile is to my way of thinking the modern equivalent of the naval aircraft at the beginning of WWII. Everyone knew it had potential to overtake the big gun as the primary naval weapons system. But no one could know how it really would transform naval warfare. I see the modern antiship missile in the same light. We all know it's potential, what we don't know is if it can or will transform naval warfare as we know it. I give the missile a 70% chance of being a system capable of completely changing how naval warfare takes place. That is making large surface vessels so vulnerable that the way naval warfare takes place would have to change. Carried by high speed aircraft or, better yet, by the very quiet submarine, it has potential to completely change the game. Imagine the warning time you would have when the quiet sub stands off in visual range and unloads 2 or more supersonic antiship missiles. Could be unstoppable. Notice I said could, it's still not a sure bet. Only my guess

Bob B.

[Guest]

Problem with guns:

1. Limited range

2. Not stealthy. Any enemy worth his salt can trace an incoming artillary projectile on his radar and pin point the location of the gun tube before the projectile has the time to cover 300 yards of its flight.

3. Questionable defense penetration potential. Face it, it is easier to shoot down an Mach 2 artillery shell than it is to shoot down a Mach 2 sea skimming missile.

4. Limited leathality. Large ASM can carry up to 2000 lbs of warhead on top of the kamakazi like impact of its airframe, engine, and unburned fuel. A shell? even a 16" HE shell carries much less than that.

[bengtsson]

Problem with guns:

4. Limited leathality. Large ASM can carry up to 2000 lbs of warhead on top of the kamakazi like impact of its airframe, engine, and unburned fuel. A shell? even a 16" HE shell carries much less than that.

Yes, and the missile can now perform evasive maneuvers on the way in. Plus it is guided by one of a number of target lock on options which can in some cases also change on demand to counter attempts to jam it.
Most important, a Submarine is unlikely to want to surface and fire a deck gun at this stage of the game. And the Sub is the number one threat out there with a range of weapons to employ.

Bob B.

[Sauragnmon]

Ah, here are the usual array of the anti-gun proponents, the missile lovers. They like to point out how missiles can be stealthy, how they can carry more payload. Here's a couple of pointers pro-gun.

1 - Typical shells have no guidance system to track on. They could be rendered stealthy in the form of a sabot to protect a layer of radar-absorbent material. They also present a much smaller target for interception than the typical anti-shipping missile.

2 - Pound per pound, an artillery shell can be cheaper to produce than the typical anti-shipping missile.

3 - As to range, the first poster did mention Rocket Assisted rounds, which would extend firing ranges much further.

4 - Some might bring up the issue of accuracy. With modern radar fire control, and ballistic computers, targetting could actually be rather accurate. Not to mention, could you imagine a 406mm version of the Excaliber artillery round?

5 - Arguably, potentially the only ship in modern naval warfare that could actually stand up to a proper, modernized broadside of high-yield armor-breaking naval gunfire would be an aircraft carrier. And even then, I can only question that to a point. High-Angle of Attack fire could probably still damage the flight deck, and could seriously damage the bridge.


Then again, in the modern age, the battleship is a warship that, to produce, realistically would take on quite a different personality. Could you imagine a nuclear-powered, ground-up, purpose-built BBG, with an anti-submarine compliment of helicopters, cruise missile systems, modernized defensive weapons emplacements, and perhaps even things such as AEGIS?

Perhaps, realistically, the modern incarnation of the battleship, would be something like the Kirov class. Consider that stem to stern, they are the same length as the Bismarck? Ballistic sciences has been near abandoned, since the death of Gerald Bull. So few of the world consider the thoughts of heavy artillery anymore, and the potential for output.

[Foeth]

This is totally ridiculous. If you can get that close to a carrier you may just as well attack it with a roman galley and ram it. Guns are used to threaten across someones bow or attack small craft you didn't really notice were there before. And I am a proponent for more Roman galleys. What worked before surely must work now as well. Using catapults, a high angle hit on the flight deck is guaranteed.

Face it, it is easier to shoot down an Mach 2 artillery shell than it is to shoot down a Mach 2 sea skimming missile.

even though people say that a shell is more damage resistent. If you glue the same shell on a rocket engine, wouldn't you have a shell that combined the properties of a shell with targetting? Wow, did they really not think about this? Oh no, a shell has it's momentum when it's hit, unlike a warp 3 10 ton anti-ship missle which meanders like an autumn leaf into the ocean when spoken to softly...

[Dave Wooley]

This is totally ridiculous. If you can get that close to a carrier you may just as well attack it with a roman galley and ram it. Guns are used to threaten across someones bow or attack small craft you didn't really notice were there before. And I am a proponent for more Roman galleys. What worked before surely must work now as well. Using catapults, a high angle hit on the flight deck is guaranteed.

Face it, it is easier to shoot down an Mach 2 artillery shell than it is to shoot down a Mach 2 sea skimming missile.

even though people say that a shell is more damage resistent. If you glue the same shell on a rocket engine, wouldn't you have a shell that combined the properties of a shell with targetting? Wow, did they really not think about this? Oh no, a shell has it's momentum when it's hit, unlike a warp 3 10 ton anti-ship missle which meanders like an autumn leaf into the ocean when spoken to softly...

The gun and the shell are as dead as the ram bow as a long range anti ship weapon . The whole idea of long range anti ship naval artillery should be resigned to the museum were it belongs . The old SS-N-22 anti ship missile is vintage weaponry but it's range is over 300km and has the ability , unlike a guided shell to select the most opportune target either by video link or pre-programmed selection and can out manoeuvre either physically or electronically in coming AMMs and this was designed in the 1960s . I doubt there is a guided shell that can doge a determined supersonic AMM.
Dave Wooley

[JWintjes]

Guns are used to threaten across someones bow or attack small craft you didn't really notice were there before.

Wrong.

Guns are for providing overwhelming fire support during amphibious landings at much greater effect and much less cost than any other weapon system could possibly do.

When it comes to ship-to-shore action, the shape of things to come is a frigate-type vessel with a SPG- gun turret, like the German experiments with PzH 2000 turrets. Have some enemy machine guns in the scrubs in front of you? No problem - here come 25 155mm HE rounds. Have some enemy APCs there? No problem either - here come 25 155mm cluster rounds.

Ever since the times of Caesar, naval artillery rules when it comes to fire support for amphibious landings. I have yet to see something that points to a change. Missiles and Aircraft most certainly don't.

Jorit

[Foeth]

Guns are for providing overwhelming fire support during amphibious landings at much greater effect and much less cost than any other weapon system could possibly do.

So, what type of frigate or destroyer is going to participate in an amphibous landing at the middle of the ocean? We're not talking fire support but ship to ship action.

[Guest]

Guns are used to threaten across someones bow or attack small craft you didn't really notice were there before.

Wrong.

Guns are for providing overwhelming fire support during amphibious landings at much greater effect and much less cost than any other weapon system could possibly do.it

Overwhelming whom? Some beach combing tribesmen?

Which modern fleet seriously has the gun tubes to match a couple of battalions of 155mm self-propelled artillery?

[Guest]

Naval artillery today has a role similar to what 37mm Maxim machine gun had in late 19th century colonial service warships. It is there partly to scare natives, and partly as mental response to paranoia about some hazy, undefined, but keenly felt threat that would somehow suddenly appear inside the innermost real defense ring of the ship.

[Foeth]

Hmmm, the Indian navy lost a ship due to this "asymmetric warware".

[richter111]

Ok here is my reasoning.

The book I have been reading through (casually for fun) titled

modern land combat by David Miller

speaks of rocket assisted rounds with the ability to hit targets at over 30 miles. He also mentions that there are laser guided rounds as well.

So here is my idea, a Marine LST equipped with a 120 smoothbore cannon to assist in troop deployments on a beach, or at long range to support infantry using a RPV to lase the target.

Cheap and effective.

Imagine some of the rounds that could be had from a 5 inch gun....

[bengtsson]

It seems the last true refuge of the large naval cannon is the amphibious landing. This scenario is most often used when defending the role of the large gun in the 21st century warship.
The scenario of storming the beaches is one the navy and marine corps is still wedded to for obvious reasons. If your enemy is backward and primitive, then the natives can be suppressed fairly cheaply with a warship using a large gun. But if your enemy is a modern state say like Iran or China, then it gets a bit less straight forward.
The battle for sea control out in the blue waters ,or even close in for that matter , has left the gun in the same place a full rig of sails was left many years ago. The aircraft and the submarine combined with the supersonic antiship missile sort of leaves little room for any Jutland style naval action. So leave your guns at home. Don't show up at a missile fight armed with a gun.
I'm open to the possible use of gunfire in amphibious warfare operations against the local natives. I doubt a gun armed vessel's ability to survive within gun range of mobile antiship missile launchers. In Iraq war number I, just remember how many of Saddam's stone age missiles we found and destroyed before they were launched. Or how many we shot down once launched. If the improved V-2s that Saddam had could not be taken out, I hold out little hope for the 21st century mobile supersonic antiship missile being taken out before their use.

Bob B.

[Guest]

speaks of rocket assisted rounds with the ability to hit targets at over 30 miles. He also mentions that there are laser guided rounds as well.

Modern 155mm land artillery firing gas bleeding shells can reach well beyond 30 miles. Armed with artillery counterfire radar, a battery of modern land based self-propelled gun/howizers can pin point the location a ship firing her guns in amphibious support before the ship's artillery shell has had time to fly 300 yards from its muzzle. The land battery can fire a counterfire salvo long before the ship's shells have landed. The land battery's retribution will descent upon the amphibious fire supporting ship within a few seconds of the ship's own shells landing on the land target.

Ship based artillery making a decisive difference to an amphibious attack against a modern, prepared enemy seems unlikely.

[Werner]

The 15.5cm "wonder gun" scheduled for DDG-1000 has a range of 83 miles and a sustained rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute.

The Patriot-based bombardment missile would cost hundreds of time more per target than a gunfire mission. You could also carry precious few of them to the front in a large warship whose magazine could carry thousands of 15.5cm shells.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /lrlap.htm

[Guest]

The 15.5cm "wonder gun" scheduled for DDG-1000 has a range of 83 miles and a sustained rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute.

Does it have a water cooled barrel jacket?

[Timmy C]

Railgun... 200+ mile range ^^ Just have to wait another decade and a half or two.

[Dave Wooley]

If your littoral combat ship can get within 30 miles of the target to fire it's GPS rocket assisted piece of ordinance then before you could reload, assuming your gun ship approached undetected, a mach 3-4 sea skimmer has wiped your keel clean off. You would be better going in with a 3 Decker and fire a broadside of cannon. At least the opposition want be expecting a 200-year-old warship. Any gun with perhaps the exception of the 30mm for anti- pirate / drug interdiction is next to useless in 21century naval warfare.
Dave Wooley