The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Jul 08, 2025 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1058
Seems to me that the US Navy doesn't have much variety as far as naval weapons and weapon systems. We've got:
Harpoon anti-ship missile
Asroc anti-sub rocket
Phalanx CIWS
RAM
Tomahawk missiles
SM-2 variety of missiles
ESSM
Seasparrow
5"/54 cal. Mk.45 gun
.......and a few other weapons.

IMO, it's pretty much the "same old, same old" stuff on cruisers, destroyers, and a few other ships. What other "What If" weapons and weapon systems could the Navy possibly develop and use? Is there anything specifically in the US Army's arsenal of weapon systems that could possibly be navalised for ship use? MLRS, Howitzers, Patriot, etc., etc.???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
There's been work on trying to adapt the Army's 155mm Howitzer into a naval gun I believe. DDG-1000 is supposed to 1-2 of those guns but that project is....well you know.... Other than that I'm not sure what else the Army has in its arsenal that the Navy could use/doesn't already have.

MLRS could be neat on say the LCS but what's the range? Are they guided at all? Could you individually guide each rocket? If you could and the range was good I'd say it'd be a good littoral weapon system. Heck of a lot cheaper then a Tomahawk and since we have no guns left above the 5" pop-gun it'd be the best alternative.

Heck, you could even go so far as to bring back the old WWII LSMRs and pack some MLRS launchers onto some modified LCUs or LCACs and have a nice shore bombardment craft. Maybe design field packs that the Amphibs could carry and convert landing craft as needed in the field?

Patriot I don't think would work since the SM family pretty much takes care of all of the medium-long range SAM needs with ESSM/RAM/CIWS handling the short range stuff. Question would be does Patriot have better capabilities for say, supersonic wave hopping SSMs then the current missiles?

The 25mm Bushmaster is already used by both branches (USN Ships and Army Bradley Fighting Vehicles).

CIWS is used by the Army as well or was at least tested. They mounted the guns on trailers for local defense of bases and command posts. Don't know if it went into production or not though.

There's always a navalised AH-64D Longbow :cool_1: Don't know the Marines' thoughts on the Apaches over the Cobras though.

What else does the Army have?

Just thinking out loud. Anyone else?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:41 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12331
Location: Ottawa, Canada
The 30mm Bushmaster II was recently added to the Navy's systems as part of the LPD-17 class. The gun is supposed to be also used on the Marines' upcoming EFV.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Is that supposed to supplant CIWS/RAM on the LPD-17 or supplement it or is it just for small boats and mines and the like?

I thought I heard that the EFV got canned? Budget problems or something like that.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Last edited by Cliffy B on Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:46 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12331
Location: Ottawa, Canada
I don't see a Phalanx on the LPD-17s, but they do have RAM, so maybe? Haha.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
MLRS comes in a number of rocket munitions packages, and can also deliver the ATACMS tactical ballistic missile system, which would hit even harder. They can deliver cluster munitions as well as the heavy rockets, and I would dare to say their range is at the least comparable to the gun systems, if not more than sufficient. I still think it'd be hilarious to see the look on a commander's face when a barrage of 220mm rockets is just raining down on his ship from afar.

RAM is for the most part supplanting the Phalanx, that's why it's not on the LPD-17 - for most threats, RAM works as good if not better than the Phalanx.

There were proposals for a SeaPache so that must have been something of a nonstarter I think. Guess it didn't go so far or something.

It might be interesting to see something akin to the German MONARC project though, with a turret similar to the Paladin's sitting on the deck of some ship or another, as sort of either a precursor or a lower-cost alternative to the DD-1000

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:17 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 935
Location: Bowmanville, ON, Canada
Don't forget all the ordnance carried by the carrier aircraft.
3" gun on the Perry
57mm Bofors on the LCS
ICBMs on the Boomers
Mk44/46/48/50 and 54 Torpedoes
Mines
and weren't they developing a laser weapon as well?

As for variety, I think the weapons carried now do almost everything they need to. Also, commonality is important for streamlining mtce and training.

_________________
Darren (Admiral Hawk)
In the not so tropical climate of the Great White North.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 11:17 pm
Posts: 1404
Location: Columbus, OH
Also, IIRC, they experimented with MLRS, and the salt air ate 'em up. It was too difficult/expensive/changed the system to much to "harden" it for a sea environment.

_________________
--
Sean Hert


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm
Posts: 1091
As another point, most ships never are close enough for the use of things like the 155mm gun anyway, so why spend the $$$ to replace the perfectly suitable 5 inch/54 gun?

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 9
How about navalizing the turret off the M1 tank? If you really want to directly support a beach landing, that would do the trick. Plus in a low intensity conflict like the WOT guns can be brought to bear much easier than missiles. An MPAT or HEAT round would make short work of a Somali pirate craft.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
Smart/Guided 155mm Projectiles
M712 Copperhead
XM898 SADARM - Developmental projectile with a cargo of two submunitions capable of defeating heavily armored vehicles. Each submunition contains sensors for target detection, a means for stabilizing and controlling the rate of descent, and a warhead capable of defeating armor.
XM982 - Similiar to the M483A1 with the addition of a rocket motor to further increase the effective range, and with options to increase delivery accuracy.
XM982 Excalibur
Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile
The Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile, also known as the M982 ER DPICM (Extended Range Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions) Projectile, is a fire and forget, smart munition. It is intended to provide the Army with a capability to attack all three key target sets, soft and armored vehicles, and reinforced bunkers, out to ranges exceeding current 155mm family of artillery munitions. With its accuracy and increased effectiveness, the Excalibur was designed to reduce the logistical burden for deployed ground forces. It would also provide lower risks of collateral damage through its concentrated fragmentation pattern, increased precision and near-vertical descent.

Excalibur is a family of precision-guided, extended-range modular projectiles incorporating three unique payload capabilities divided into Block configurations. As designed, Block I consists of high-explosive, fragmenting, or ting unitary munitions to enhance traditional fire support operations with increased range, improved accuracy, and reduced collateral damage against personnel, light materiel, and structure targets. Block II consists of smart munitions to search, detect, acquire, and engage fleeting and short-dwell targets common to open-terrain battlefields. Block III consists of discriminating munitions to selectively identify and engage individual vehicular targets in urban environments by distinguishing specific target characteristics.
The Excalibur development team combined US guidance expertise with Swedish airframe experience. The projectile would employ Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided inertial guidance and navigation, free spinning base fins, four-axis canard airframe control, base bleed technology, and a trajectory glide to achieve increased accuracy and extended ranges beyond 30 km. The FCS NLOS Cannon would incorporate an inductive fuze setter to transfer target and fuze data to the integral fuze.

Teamed with Raytheon Systems Company, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems was tasked with developing the Army's new 155mm guided projectile. The XM982 utilized a modular concept to provide a multiple warhead payload capability. In addition to submunitions, the projectile can carry two SADARM sensor fused submunitions or a single Unitary warhead. The XM982 as designed was expected to provide 40% greater range and increased effectiveness over the existing M864.

The XM982 projectile began development at the US Armament Research, Engineering and Development Center's (ARDEC) Artillery and Mortar Division of the Fire Support Armaments Center. The government's projectile design combined the technologies of base burn and rocket assist to achieve significant increases in range capability and would, potentially, be the longest range artillery projectile in the US Army inventory. It was designed to contain 85 dual purpose XM80 grenades with XM234 Self Destruction Fuzing providing both anti-materiel and anti-personnel effects while virtually eliminating hazardous duds.

The projected features included:

■Low cost per kill.
■Increased Survivability by allowing greater stand-off from threats and faster defeat of potential threats.

Sr. Gopher wrote:
As another point, most ships never are close enough for the use of things like the 155mm gun anyway, so why spend the $$$ to replace the perfectly suitable 5 inch/54 gun?

■Extended Range 155mm Artillery Projectile:
Nonballistic flight path.
To achieve a range of at least 37km when fired from 39-caliber howitzers.
To achieve a range of at least 47km when fired from the 52-caliber ordnance


■Fire-and-Forget GPS/INS (global positioning system/inertial navigation system) Guidance. Laser designated targeting is being added and laser designators developed for Army UAV's
■Modular Payload:
64 XM85 DPICMs
2 SADARMs (Sense and Destroy Armor)
Unitary


■Modular Design:
XM982 would have the same guidance and tail sections for all three warhead options.
Also would use the same technology with the GPS receiver and guidance package that was used on the XM171 ERGM Program.

The M777 howitzer required a software update to its fire control system to be able to fire the M982, meaning that only howitzers brought up to M777A2 standard or above were capable of utilizing this capability.

Excalibur was fielded in Iraq with its first use in combat in the third quarter of FY07. Reports said the munition performed well in combat operations. Development of the muunition had in fact been accelerated to provide this capability to warfighters who had requested ways to achieve more accurate artillery fires in light of nature of operations being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact Army planners had long forseen benefits to such rounds. Excalibur would be the munition of choice when the following requirements or conditions might exist: Collateral damage must be minimized, complex terrain limits conventional projectiles' effectiveness, the target is beyond the range of conventional cannon projectiles, precise fires on an objective must be maintained to allow friendly assaulting troops to close to within 150 meters of their indirect fires, or tactical or survivability considerations require platforms to fire from compartmentalized terrain (forest, defiles, urban areas, etc.), in a direction other than directly on line with the target.

Commanders would be able to engage targets with the Excalibur unitary in urban operations, making the most of the round's accuracy to limit collateral damage to the immediate target area. For example, it would be the optimum munition when the enemy uses "hugging tactics," that is when they might operate on the periphery of schools, hospitals, churches or congregations of innocent civilians. Excalibur's accuracy and fuzing options would allow commanders to engage targets protected by terrain variations. Excalibur could often be the only cannon projectile able to range a given target. Lastly, the self-guiding projectile would travel nearly vertically (high-angle) as it leaves the firing platform and then alter its flight path (left/right, up/down) to reach the target location.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
Army MLRS missiles

The latest version (M31) has a range of 60K (37 miles) and carries 200 Lb of high explosive. It is guided, currently GPS only.
Army News — By Lockheed Martin on November 9, 2009
DALLAS, TX: Lockheed Martin successfully fired a U.S. Army Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rocket 92 kilometers in a recent test at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The flawless test highlighted recent product improvements of this battle-proven system to give it a longer reach, maintaining its accuracy and effectiveness while minimizing potential collateral damage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
Army’s TNT Replacement Only Detonates On Command
The Army’s set to roll out a new explosive for large-caliber munitions; military-funded developers estimate that it’ll nudge out TNT “within a decade.”

Called IMX-101 (which stands for Insensitive Munitions Explosive) the explosive is one successful result of a four-year Pentagon-funded effort that sought to replace TNT — military munitions’ longtime staple. First to go will be M795 artillery projectiles: 1,200 produced with IMX-101 instead of TNT will be delivered to the Army and Marine Corps by 2011.

The appeal of eliminating TNT comes down to safety, both in transport and storage. The compound’s extreme volatility means that a TNT-loaded munition will detonate, with fatal implications, if struck by an IED or a rocket-powered grenade. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where both threats are everyday occurrences, that’s an ongoing safety risk — one that’s accompanied by significant costs to store and transport TNT while trying to minimize danger.

“But with IMX-101, all that would happen is the explosive would deflagrate (burn quickly), and the shell would break into a few pieces,” Charlie Patel, a program-management engineer for Project Manager Combat Ammunition Systems, says of the key difference between the two explosives. “You wouldn’t have the big detonation that would wipe out the vehicle and driver or a whole storage area and crew.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: Houston, Texas
The Army in the past adapted the AIM-9D to be Chapparal.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 2126
Location: Egg Harbor Twp, NJ
The Navy seems to be unable to convert the relatively low cost Army guided 155 mm projectile to Navy use or to use the principles to modify Naval 5" and up rounds to achieve the same utility.

I suspect that this is due, in large part to money being allocated to support the carrier crowd, and the missileers. Cost effective all weather guided projectiles? Who needs them? We have expensive airplanes and rockets!!! Oh yeah, and bombs we're downsizing in explosive weight! So we have $million plane flying from $billions carriers, weather permiting, dropping small bombs and firing $100,000 missiles. Trouble is, the Navy doesn't have the money to fill the existing carriers to capacity with planes, nor the money to fill existing VLS cells.

What happens when airdales play surface warfare? Why LCS, of course.

Pardon the rant.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group