climber@sol.UVic.CA (11/18/89)
From: <climber@sol.UVic.CA>
I was wondering what the current status of a rumour I heard about the
American Battleships getting laser-guided shells for their main
armament. Are they working? What are the expected tactics for their
deployment? Also, someone mentioned they may fix rocket boosters to the
shells to provide over-the-horizon strikes. Is this in the works
as well?
Craig climber@sol.UVic.CA
____
vroom /____\----
~~~~~ \oooo/ Disclaimer: the usual
-----\
\ HETZER POWER!
\ terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (11/20/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11522@cbnews.ATT.COM> climber@sol.UVic.CA writes: > > >From: <climber@sol.UVic.CA> > >I was wondering what the current status of a rumour I heard about the >American Battleships getting laser-guided shells for their main >armament. Are they working? What are the expected tactics for their >deployment? Also, someone mentioned they may fix rocket boosters to the >shells to provide over-the-horizon strikes. Is this in the works >as well? Early in the battleship renovation project these were all ideas that were proposed for the battleships. Some were very exotic, such as removing the rear turret and installing aviation facilities, much like the converted Japanese BB's late in WWII. I never heard that the laser guidance or rocket assist even made it to the research stage, they were simply ideas. Both technologies are rather mature so it shouldn't prove to difficult to actually develop them. The Marines would probably love to have both available as they would greatly increase the gunfire support capabilities. Just imagine, a one ton projectile with the accuracy of the Maverick (or insert your favorite precision weapon), and you can fire 9 per minute for hours on end. Unfortunately the surface warfare community has gotten capital ships that can be arguably kept out of the hands of the airdales. They don't relish them being used for floating artillery barges. For those that aren't aware, the USN carriers are earmarked for command by aviators. To gain the necessary experience certain large non-carrier surface ship commands are slated for aviators so they can train for the big job. It is a sore point for the Surface Warfare officers that so manyob. It grates the surface warfare community that so many prestige billets are reserved for aviators. Especially since those billets are essets are reserved for aviators. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogc.edu
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (11/21/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <11541@cbnews.ATT.COM> terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: >In article <11522@cbnews.ATT.COM> climber@sol.UVic.CA writes: >> Also, someone mentioned they may fix rocket boosters to the >>shells to provide over-the-horizon strikes. >much like the converted Japanese BB's late in WWII. I never heard >that the laser guidance or rocket assist even made it to the >research stage, they were simply ideas. Both technologies are >rather mature so it shouldn't prove to difficult to actually >develop them. The copy of _Principles of Naval Ordinance and Gunnery_ (NAVEDTRA 10783-C) that I have describes the 5"/38 rocket-assisted projectile, but doesn't mention the 16"/50 round. However, I have come across references which I don't have access to right now describing a RAP for the 16"/50 which has a range of ca. 70 miles, at a cost of doubling the CEP and about halving the explosive power. Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) (12/04/89)
From: Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz)
In an earlier incarnation the New Jersey (or one of the
other ships in the class) during the Vietnam war successfully
tested the use of rocket boosted projectiles. This increased the
range of the 16in guns to about 100km. However accuraccy
suffered due to the altering of the ballistics of the shell (ie
the rocket motor fired outside the barrel and as a result was
more prone to sidewinds,etc.). In addition an Arrow (highly
streamlined) round based on the WWII German "Phieffelschloss" (I
think thats how it was spelled) experiments was used. This was
more accurate than the rocket boosted round as the only
propellant came from within the barrel. Its range was also about
the same as well.
[mod.note: Risking another attempt at German 8-), I think that's
"Peenemuender Pfeil Geschoss" - Bill ]
Both types of shell however suffered from a decreased
payload and were considered to be rather ineffective. While a
simple guidance system (perhaps inertial) would have corrected
the propblems with accuracy it was thought difficult to design
one which would withstand the savage accelerations experienced
inside a very large gun barrel. One wonders though what a full-
bore extended range round with a base-bleed unit would do for
range and payload. Based upon the experience with the 155mm
calibre round I would expect an increase in range of about 33%
and an actual increase in payload of about 15%.
If teamed with a laser designator along the lines of
the Copperhead round the accuracy problems would also be cured.
However I question the value of using such things as laser
designators with very long range artillery. The use of artillery
firepower depends upon the ability of an artillery battery
(whether shore based or aboard ship) to be able to fire a large
number of rounds in a short space of time. The laser rounds are
dependant upon a designator (whether ground or air based) to
paint a target with a laser beam. If the artillery battery is
firing at a high rate I wonder about the ability of a designator
to change targets fast enough to keep up with the rate of fire of
a normal battery. If the battery fires at a slower rate it is
opening itself up to counter-battery fire. If it fires at its
normal rate it is wasting comparatively expensive rounds on
targets which will have already been destroyed by one or two of
the previous rounds. This of course could be prevented by using
more laser designators operating at slighlty different
frequencies. However the expense of the designators seem to
preclude them being issued at a level where this is possible.
Does anyone out there have any other information about how rounds
like the Copperhead will be employed? Perhaps I've got it wrong.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
|
Brian Ross |Snail Mail:-
"Bill Bracket the self-made man who came|
in a a packet" | Brian Ross
----------------------------------------| Sociology Dept.R.S.S.S.
E-Mail Addresses:- bxr307@coombs.anu.oz | Australian National University
| CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601,
bxr307@csc.anu.oz | AUSTRALIA
|
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-