Home » Aviation » Navy Quietly Fires 20 Hyper Velocity Projectiles Through Destroyer’s Deckgun


Navy Quietly Fires 20 Hyper Velocity Projectiles Through Destroyer’s Deckgun

Guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey (DDG-105) transits the Pacific Ocean while underway in the U.S. 3rd Fleet area of operations. US Navy Photo

Last summer USS Dewey (DDG-105) fired 20 hyper velocity projectiles (HVP) from a standard Mk 45 5-inch deck gun in a quiet experiment that’s set to add new utility to the weapon found on almost every U.S. warship, officials familiar with the test have told USNI News.

The test, conducted by the Navy and the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office as part of the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2018 international exercise, was part of a series of studies to prove the Navy could turn the more than 40-year-old deck gun design into an effective and low-cost weapon against cruise missiles and larger unmanned aerial vehicles.

While the HVP was originally designed to be the projectile for the electromagnetic railgun, the Navy and the Pentagon see the potential for a new missile defense weapon that can launch a guided round at near-hypersonic speeds.

Currently, the fleet uses a combination of missiles – like the Evolved Seasparrow Missile, the Rolling Airframe Missile and the Standard Missile 2 – to ward off cruise missile threats. The missiles are effective but also expensive, Bryan Clark with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments told USNI News on Monday.

In 2016, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason (DDG-87) fired three missiles to ward off two suspected Iranian cruise missiles fired from Houthi rebels in the Red Sea, in what amounted to a multi-million dollar engagement.

An artist’s conception of BAE Systems’ Hyper Velocity Projectile. BAE Systems Image

“So if you think about the kinds of threats you might face in the Middle East, the lower-end cruise missiles or a larger UAV, now you have a way to shoot them down that doesn’t require you use a $2 million ESSM or $1 million RAM because a hyper velocity projectile – even in the highest-end estimates have it in the $75,000 to $100,000 range, and that’s for the fanciest version of it with an onboard seeker,” he said.

An added benefit of using HVP in powder guns is the gun’s high rate of fire and a large magazine capacity.

“You can get 15 rounds a minute for an air defense mission as well as a surface-to-surface mission,” Clark said. “That adds significant missile defense capacity when you think that each of those might be replacing a ESSM or a RAM missile. They’re a lot less expensive.”

A range of hyper velocity projectiles from different weapon systems. BAE Systems Image

The HVP is also being investigated to use with ground-based 155mm artillery pieces for the Army and the Marines to provide limited air defense options for forward-deployed troops in austere environments. HVPs could also find a home aboard the Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyers as a replacement round for the classes 155mm Advanced Gun System.

While officials confirmed to USNI News that the RIMPAC test was unclassified, both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Naval Research would not acknowledge the test when asked by USNI News. A spokeswoman for OSD referred USNI News to the Navy.

“I don’t have anything for you,” an ONR spokesman told USNI News on Monday. HVP manufacturer BAE Systems referred USNI News to the Navy when contacted.

In 2016, William Roper, who then headed the SCO, said the promise of ONR’s HVP work had been recognized by the Navy and the Army and changed the way the Pentagon office thought about the evolution of the railgun.

“We now think that we can do pretty revolutionary things with existing powder guns – think howitzers, Paladins, the Navy’s five-inch guns. We’ve shifted emphasis to that,” Roper said during a 2016 talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“We have [more than] a 1,000 powder guns, we have very few railguns.”

  • navweap

    What all the fuzz is about?

    The HVP is just a fancy name for a typical sub-caliber or armor-piercing rounds, such as tungsten-made APFSDS. The APFSDS are routinely fired at “hypervelocities” up to 1700 m/s (Mach=5) from a standard smooth-bore guns, such as M256.

    Or, maybe, the contractors are just trying to squeeze more money from the govennment pretending they did invent a new “game-changing” wunderwaffe? ;))

    • Marauder 2048

      Yeah…all of those guided AFPSDS rounds out there. Just tons of those with onboard seekers!

      • Bubblehead

        That is what the article didn’t address. Was the USN firing nothing but APFSDS rounds or did they actually fire hyper Velocity that were guided. Big difference.

        You have to wonder what type of guidance the USN is looking at initially? IR? Radar?

      • navweap

        No guided HVP version exists yet, so it is not much different from a standard APFSDS rod.

        Yes, there are plans to made it guided, but the cost is likely to be on par with Excalibur. But its impact energy would likely be less than the blast energy of Excalibur – just because it is designed to have smaller or no bursting charge inside. So what is an advantage of HVP, except having higher muzzle velocity than of Excalibur (but still less than of APFSDS)?

        • Marauder 2048

          There are no plans for a production unguided HVP beyond the inert, purely ballistic slugs used for testing.

          “Yes, there are plans to made it guided, but the cost is likely to be on par with Excalibur. ”

          As ably set out in the article. RAM Block II, ESSM, Standard etc are substantially more expensive.

          ” So what is an advantage of HVP, except having higher muzzle velocity”

          What’s the advantage of a high muzzle velocity AAW guided weapon? Uh..

          • navweap

            You probably missed the point – there is NOTHING “revolutionary” in such design of sub-caliber rounds, except adding the guiding capabilities. But this is not something unique – just look at the Vulcano rounds (actually, they even have larger bursting charge than proposed for HVP).

            And for the AAW mission – don’t compare HVP to ESSM etc, because
            the HVP would have only passive flight-control system (by fins) which has limited capabilities for fast maneuvering in comparison with missiles.

          • Marauder 2048

            Tell us more about those other guided, conical, moving tail fin, sub-caliber hypervelocity rounds.

          • navweap

            What’s so fancy about conical? It is a standard shape, I would be more amazed to see something like this:
            apps. dtic. mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a054735.pdf

          • Marauder 2048

            “What’s so fancy about conical? It is a standard shape”

            Then feel free to name some guided gun launched projectiles of that form.

          • Duane

            It is the combination of sub-caliber munitions traveling at higher speeds and longer ranges, combined with precision guided targeting that makes this round “revolutionary”.

    • Curtis Conway

      That Mk45 is a rifled barrel too.

      • Secundius

        Uniform RH 1 in 25 twist…

    • Centaurus

      Let’s all praise that Kinetic Energy = 1/2 M x V squared

  • Bravo Zulu

    Not only are these puppies fast and accurate but they are also silent…

    • Andy Ferguson

      Sonic booms? Shock waves?

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    Anyone know what speed a conventional round leaves the 5″ barrel at?

    • 2750 fps for the 5″/62 or 2650 fps for the 5″/54

      • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

        Cool… thanks.

        So, about mach 2.4
        So, this more-or-less doubles the velocity of the standard round.

        Possibly useful, but I’m unsure its a game changer.

        • I don’t think the speed is really the selling point compared to the 50+ mile range that speed gives.

          • LT Rusty

            50+ mile range is only interesting if you can do something useful at the end of it, and that means a payload. The high MV needed for 50+ mile range also makes indirect fire rather problematic…

          • Duane

            That depends upon the effects you’re trying to achieve. A “useful payload” to damage a ship target is one thing .. to damage or destroy an incoming ASCM is another thing.

        • USNVO

          If you can get mach 4 at the muzzle with a guided round, you can easily average Mach 2+ plus out to the horizon. That is about what you get with ESSM. If the price is as low as they seem to think is possible (roughly 1/20 the cost or less than ESSM), that potentially makes air defense dramatically better. If nothing else, it dramatically improves the effectiveness of you gun in air defense missions over VT-frag or VT-IR.

      • waveshaper1

        That’s kind-of slow. Just one of many examples; The standard M1 tank, 120mm smoothbore, HVP (APFSDS) rounds have a muzzle velocity of 5000 fps to 5700 fps (depends on the round) and we have been using these rounds for decades. The same type muzzle velocities (5,000 plus fps) are typical of Russian smoothbore APFSDS rounds and other western countries smoothbore APFSDS rounds. Heck, the Russian 125mm 3VBM3/3BM9/10 smoothbore, APFSDS round, entered service way back in 1962 and it has a muzzle velocity of over 5900 fps. Also, the 125mm 3BM69 smoothbore, APFSDS round (one of the newer Russian rounds/entered service in 2005) has a muzzle velocity of over 6725 fps.

        • You can’t really compare smoothbore tank gun that fires a 10# dart with a rifled naval gun firing 70# shells. Subcaliber rounds can go really fast, but raw speed doesn’t mean much outside of defeating armor and it comes at the cost of payload, which is much more important for sinking ships and bombarding shore targets. Indeed it is still a real question whether the HVP will carry a meaningful payload.

          • waveshaper1

            Folks don’t realizes that there are some limitations to payloads that can be carried by HVP rounds due to their high muzzle velocities (5,000 fps plus). Here’s a few real world LIMFACs; Most warhead explosive fillers/fuze explosive components can’t handle the shock of such a high muzzle velocity (main charge/booster/detonators/relays/delays/etc/etc). Also, Gun barrel rifling and projectile rotating bands tend to limit muzzle velocity (example Mk45).

          • navweap

            Another limitation is the available volume for a bursting charge – because the density of explosives is much less than that of tungsten fragments inside the shell. According to published data, the HVP would have no more than 2 lbs of explosives, which is roughly 4 times less than the conventional rounds of Mk45.

            To put more HE inside the shell will require bigger volume – and a bigger diameter, which would lead to a higher air resistance and faster deceleration of the “hypervelocity” rounds. For example, the effective range of APFSDS (with 1.1″ rod) is ca.~10,000 ft for a muzzle velocity of 5,500 fps.

          • Michael Hoskins, Privileged

            Not to mention that rhe explosion, when it occurs, is also moving forward at hyper velocity. The shape of an air burst and its shrapnel would be very odd. To make an explosion effective, even with an incredibly quick fuse response, even simple fuses get complicated.

            HPV is to increase range and speed to allow more inbound targets to be engaged, something like…shoot, shoot, shoot, shift target, shoot, shoot, shoot while simultaneously looking at first target.

            At extended ranges gun traverse goes quickly from target to target with least angular change, all of which increases speed of engagement.

            All of that said, engaging multiple inbound high speed missiles will only last a few seconds. That is when magazine depth for the second and third wave is needed.

            Another thought. I am reminded of the Operations Research of WW2 trying to decide how to improve anti aircraft performance, greater accuracy or more rounds in the air. More rounds won out, thus the huge proliferation of bolt on 20mm and 40mm guns and Sumner/ Gearing DDs.

          • Marauder 2048

            It’s around 4200 fps from the 5 inch/62 cal powder guns.

            AAW weapons typically have bursting charges proportional to their
            average miss distance.

          • Andy Ferguson

            Nope.

          • Duane

            The 5-in HVP rounds should have plenty meaningful payload for knocking down or damaging incoming ASCMs or BMs. Whether used as just a solid kinetic HTK projectile or a proximity fused blast effects warhead.

            I don’t know the precise projectile weight of these 127 mm high velocity warheads, but we do know the weight of the 155mm railgun HVP round – 23 pounds. So a rough ratio-proportion suggests that a 127mm projectile would be in the vicinity of about 16 pounds more or less. Plenty of mass to take out a ASCM with a kinetic HTK projectile, or to provide enough blast frag effect to damage or destroy an incoming missile.

            For comparison sake, the warhead on a AIM 9X AAM is but 20 pounds of blast frag HEX – yet that’s enough to shoot down a 70,000-pound fighter or a 200,000-pound heavy bomber. A typical ASCM weighs only about 1,000-3,000 pounds.

        • Andy Ferguson

          That’s an ANTI-TANK round.

          The 5″ rounds are HE…..

  • ElmCityAle

    If the new tech works and is cost-effective, the Mk 45 might have a valuable purpose for the first time in many years. It’s utility in combat has been quite limited, the only real target being the Iranian platforms decades ago and it’s efficacy arguable even for that mission.

    • The Mk 45 put in some good work off Lebanon as well, but for the last couple of decades it really has been little more than a relic of an age when plentiful land attack missiles didn’t exist.

  • Ed L

    Buy buy buy. On the second thought maybe the Taiwanese can make them cheaper for us. Keep the 5 inch proven Surface and Air Defense Weapon.

  • Matthew Schilling

    Why does the Navy use a 5″ gun vs. a more standard 155 mm?
    If HVP rounds will make the gun more useful (vs. a “relic” as someone called it below) then would upgrading to 155 mm make sense? It would mean an approx 20% larger shell, which should mean more range and more impact. (Of course, a larger shell might mean a smaller inventory)

    • Because 5″ has been the standard Navy caliber since 1921, when the Army was still using 75mm, and the current 5″ round actually dates from 1950, when the Army was using 105mm. You have to have a pretty good reason to abandon a round that has been in service that long – especially since ships last 30+ years so you will be dealing with two separate supply lines for decades after the change.

      Second, Navy 155mm ammo wouldn’t be compatible with Army 155mm ammo because Navy guns are automated and fire metallic cased ammo while Army guns are manually operated and use powder bags. So the standardization would be in name only (as discovered with Zumwalt, which does use 155mm guns).

      Third, if you are going bigger, why not keep going and bump up to 8″ (or even larger)? That will bring even more firepower and ships are big enough to handle it with ease.

      • Matthew Schilling

        (Actually, I think the Navy should have 8″ guns in the fleet today)

        • Rocco

          And what ships in service can handle a gun that big let alone the round!!??

      • Phil Gardocki

        The fleet built a test 8″ gun and put it on the USS Hull. The gun was too powerful, and wound up working it’s way backwards through the frames. So the structure of of the ship has to be taken into account. You can’t just drop a bigger gun in.

        • Andy Ferguson

          So, you’re saying they couldn’t add reinforcements to the deck and bulkheads?

        • Duane

          In the interwar and WW II era our so-called “heavy cruisers” like the USS Chicago displaced only about 9.400 tons – about the same as today’s Tico CGs, and only slightly bigger than our Arleigh Burke DDGs – and sported 9 8-in guns in addition to 5-inchers and smaller guns. Indeed some of what foreign navies now call “frigates” are about the same displacement as the heavy cruisers.

        • Secundius

          It was NEVER meant to be used on the USS “Hull” hull. The Original Gun for the Test was the US Army’s 6.889-inch 175mm/60-Caliber Howitzer. But somebody got the Bright Idea of mounting the Mk.71 instead. Which was too Heavy and too Big for the “Hull’s” diminutive hull…

      • Secundius

        Gun YES, Rifling NO. The Mk.45 has a Uniform RH 1 in 25 twist while the Mk.8 had a Uniform RH 1 in 35 twist. Also the Gun Breech design was different…

    • Rocco

      No because a gun that large wouldn’t fit on Berk class ship! DD

      • USNVO

        Hardly, the MK71 8in gun was tested on the USS HULL (DD-945) which isn’t even half the displacement of the DDG-51 and was designed to fit in the same footprint as the MK45. There have also been a proposed lite version of the AGS that could replace the MK45 without issue. The biggest concern has always been the cost and logistics of any change over to a new gun.

        • Hugh

          And recoil and structural strength? The Germans reportedly had issues when they trialled a 155mm tank turret on one of their ships some years ago.

          • David Oldham

            The Germans have issues keeping their ships working……

          • Matthew Schilling

            Unfortunately, we don’t have much room for acting superior in that regard.

          • Rocco

            Duh!!!!!

          • USNVO

            It is possible of course, but there is plenty of space for it.

            The MK71 was designed as a naval mount, specifically to fit in the space needed for a MK42 or MK45 as opposed to being an army howitzer mounted in the space of a 76mm gun. It was tested on the HULL (a ship less than half the displacement as the DDG-51) without any unsurmountable issues and was planned to be fitted to the SPRUANCE class (forward mount) until the program was cancelled.

            The MK71 wasn’t cancelled because it wasn’t working, by all accounts it worked fine during trials and the three years it was carried on the ship.

          • Secundius

            Rheinmetall 15.5cm MONARC (MOdular Naval ARtilley Concept), derived from the PzH.2000 Tracked Howitzer…

        • Rocco

          Interesting! I thought it was a 6″ gun? I guess my memory lapse here on this lol.

          • Secundius

            Original Gun design was based on the M107 SPG which sported the 6.889-inch 175mm/60-caliber gun. But some enterprising idiot(s) decided to mount the 8-inch/50-caliber Gun instead…

          • Rocco

            That’s like what I did back in high school I put a 327 Corvette motor in my mom’s Vega. I blew out the oil pan bottomed out over a man hole cover on a milled down Rd. My mom said nice tune up! Always borrowed the car keys lol!

          • Secundius

            My mother had a 1967 Buick Skylark with a 231 V6! I just added a Low-Profile Paxton Supercharger too it…

          • Rocco

            I remember them lol. My mom got a Opel coupe with the same engine.

          • Secundius

            My parents had an Opel “Kapitan” in Indonesia in the 1950’s with a 2.5-liter (260.5 ci) I6. During the Monsoon Season sat on a Elevated Platform to keep the engine from being flooded out…

          • Rocco

            Indonesia??? I’m a car guy , however I never heard of this car lol!

          • Secundius

            Opel was Chevrolet in Germany. Indonesia had rather Limited Choices in Automotive selections. Only American cars there, were Diplomatic Limo’s, which my parents didn’t qualify for ownership. They were Low Level Diplomats (Staff Employees)…

          • Rocco

            Yes that I knew!

          • Secundius

            Closest kinship the Opel “Kapitan” was the Chevrolet “Cabriolet”, at least in appearance. Where the “Kaptain” used a Inline engine, the “Cabriolet” used the Vee engine…

          • USNVO

            Nope, 8in/55. Basically a single gun mounting of the Des Moines class cruiser triple mount. It used the same semi-fixed ammunition.

            AGS is 6in (well 155mm but close enough).

      • Duane

        The World War II and interwar era “heavy cruisers” of the US Navy (about 9,400 tons) were no larger than a Tico CG or a Flight III Arleigh Burke (9,600 tons), yet featured 9 8-in guns in three turrets.

        • Rocco

          Yes I know that! I’ve seen them 1st hand in Philly moth balled! But it’s just not about the weight being close or similar!! They were 3 barreled turrets! & The hull was designed to handle all 9 broad side firing! The only Heavy Cruiser of that time & only 2 built late in the war were the Alaska class CA ‘s with 12″ specialized guns & cost more than a BB’ s guns FYI!

          • Duane

            Yes, of course the hull and decking needs to be structurally designed to support both the dead weight and the impact loads from firing the guns. Along with providing for magazines, conveyors for the rounds, etc. The hull size is not a limiting factor on any of our current CG or DDG designs.

  • Rocco

    I guess the author ( Sam ) is not aware that only one class of ship uses the 5 ” gun!! Except the few Ticos left in service. 57mm anyone!!! Here Duane Duane!!

    • USNVO

      The Few Ticos? So 22 of 27 constructed is few?

      And as for the Burkes, there are almost a hundred in service or planned for. So there are more 5in gunned ship in service now than at anytime since the massive decommissioning of the Knox class frigates started in 1991.

      • Rocco

        The key word I used was left!!! Jackass!! Read every word!! Are all Tyco cruisers in service?? I’ve boarded knocks class ships in Mayport & Philly yards!! As well as Perry class, ( they should of had a 5″gun!!), + Many old cruisers that were in mothballs at the main entrance! So don’t even think your gonna try to belittle me for no reason!!
        So I stand corrected that the Burke class are the only ones with a 5″ fucking gun other than the Fucking few Tyco’s!!

        • USNVO

          Not trying to belittle you, but there are 22 (all of the VLS Ticos) in active service. The 5 non-VLS Ticos were decommissioned. So I guess to you 22 of 27 is the few that are left. OK, I would not say that but you are welcome to.

          And I am not disputing the fact that besides those Ticos, the Burkes are the only ones left, just that there are 96 planned and over 80 in service or under construction. So when exactly in the last say, 30 years, have we had more ships with 5in/54 guns?

          • Rocco

            Well I guess I was misinformed about the Tyco’s! I apologise! So let me reiterate! The author of this thread said almost every war ship in service has a 5″ gun! Well almost is what? Other than the Burke class which yes out number all surface warfare ships LCS need not apply!! My point is Sam should of been more to the point by breaking it down!

          • Duane

            Other than the 55 LCS and FFGX that are and will be armed with the Mk 110 57mm guns instead of the much slower firing 5 in gun.

          • Rocco

            Not a good choice!! Why invest in hyper velocity rounds to begin with! Either we stay with 5″ guns or we will eventually loose them!

          • Duane

            The 5 in gun has its main value in firing guided projectiles for medium to close in missile defense .. perhaps there are some other uses for that gun as well on an ad-hoc basis. It could be used in within visual range in SuW against even ship sized targets … a precision round that penetrates the bridge or CIC on a frigate or destroyer could do some useful work in a surface fight.

            The 57mm gun can also be used in the same way (for missile defense), but it is much more useful for fighting small watercraft swarms and drone swarms with its much higher rate of fire. The Navy isn’t going to replace the existing 5 in guns with 57mm guns … nor vice versa. But providing a new high speed guided round for the existing inventory of 5 in guns makes a great deal of sense.

          • Refguy

            You might add that the Ticos have TWO guns.

  • Duane

    Having a precision guided round for the 5 in gun is itself the major benefit … particularly if it is capable of engaging moving targets. The hyper velocity aspect mostly affects range and payload … i.e., longer and lesser, respectively.

    As of today, the only naval gun capable of engaging moving targets with precision guided rounds is the Mk 110 57 mm using either ORKA or ALAMO shells.

    • The Italians have the DART round for their 76mm as well.

      • Duane

        OK, then I qualify that by saying that the 57mm is the only naval gun round with bi-modal precision targeting against moving targets. DART is single mode, RF only.

        ORKA and ALAMO are both capable of hitting moving targets, using a combination of either laser guided or imaging IR.

  • RTColorado

    ….less expensive alternative to ESSM or RAM….at $ 75,000 to $ 100,000 at pop (like any contractor is going to sell them to the Navy at $ 75,000) it’s an unguided round that will require several rounds fired to obtain a hit…so, why not send an ESSM/RAM and skip spending the time money and effort developing a round no one is going to trust their ship’s defense to when they have ESSM/RAM on board.

    • Duane

      It’s not a matter of trust. What is needed for effective ship’s missile defense are multi-layered systems that provide successive overlaps in range and cost and that provide redundancy so that large or successive salvos of ASCMs can be attrited effectively down to (preferably!) zero.

      The SM series are good to up to a couple hundred miles, but they’re very expensive. ESSM is much less expensive while effective out to roughly 27 nm … very good for protecting nearby members of a carrier strike group. SeaRam is very good out to (with the latest Block 2s RIM116s) about 10 miles, and Phalanx out to about 2 miles.

      The problem with missiles, besides being very expensive, is that each ship has only a relatively small number of rounds in the magazine, and (other than SeaRAM) reloads are not done at sea.

      But if a ship can also use a high precision guided round out of its deck gun out to around 10-15 miles it provides yet another overlapping redundant layer. And presumably also quite a few more rounds in the magazine.

    • On Dre

      How about using the 5″ and HVP to take out a UAV and save the $$$ Standards….

  • Let’s mark for T5 Canon system will be very effective if we can get it to shoot a thousand rounds a minute similar to our Phalanx Cannon system. Otherwise it’s just like flushing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. When the porter was attacked with a single silkworm missile, all of the essm and SM to muscles missed the advanced silkworm muscle Heaven Help Us if we have an attack by an advanced country more advanced than Somalia or Hootie

    • Secundius

      You’re going to fire a [“Canon”] EOS-Rebel [“T5″] 1200D Digital Camera of a 5-inch Naval Gun Barrel! At 5.1″ x 3.07″ x 3.93”, it wouldn’t even fit inside the Guns Barrel…

  • RobM1981

    “Navy quietly fires 20 hyper velocity projectiles…”

    Something tells me that it wasn’t all that quiet. 😉

  • Mark Keller

    Wow that makes way too much sense! Can’t believe that the Navy went for it?

  • RunningBear

    The 2018 congressional report addressed the Gun Launched Guided Projectile/ GLGP where it revised the term Hyper Velocity Projectile/HVP from the Railgun program at $85k each. ” Mission performance will vary from gun system, launcher, or ship. HVP’s low drag aerodynamic design enables high velocity, maneuverability, and decreased time-to-target. These attributes coupled with accurate guidance electronics provide low cost mission effectiveness against current threats and the ability to adapt to air and surface threats of the future.”

    These shipboard, multiple demonstrations of the lower cost GLGP is representative of the various calibers where the USN has 113+ barrels of the 5″ MK45 Mod2/4, and the US Army/Marines have 1,100+ barrels of the 155mm/6″.

    My favorite is in one opinion column reference; “It takes 300 seconds to pick up such a launched missile’s signature, the missile must be tracked and a vector calculated for defensive projectiles. A single 25-pound projectile can dispense more than 500 three-gram tungsten impactors and be fired at hypervelocity by “electromagnetic” energy. Their impact force—their mass times the square of their velocity—can destroy expensive missiles and multiple warheads.” Obviously, the 5″ would be a subset of these. Couple the GLGP with the ability to network the various sensor technologies from aircraft and shipboard radars and the detection, tracking and final guidance would be greatly enhanced by CEC and NIFC-CA.

    The Silver Bullet has arrived and revitalized the lowly 5″ naval cannon.

    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • waveshaper1

      That’s a great source of info on this subject; The way I understand it “now” after reading this source is (I could be wrong); The round fired out of the MK45 is now classified as a “GLGP” due to it not having a high enough muzzle velocity/velocity (fps) to meet the requirement/standard to be classified as a HVP? On the other hand, the same round fired from a Railgun has more then enough velocity to be classified as a HVP?

      • RunningBear

        Yes, loosely speaking “Guns” yield Mach 3+ and Railguns yield Mach 5+.

        OTS, railguns recently rumored the success of repetitive shots with negligible degradation of the barrel material. This would enhance the “bottomless magazine” until the gas turbines are out of gas!

        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

      • I think its more marketing than any technical classification requirement. Calling it the GLGP emphasizes that its a guided weapon, while HVP emphasizes that its really fast. I guess that decided the former was more likely to find support.

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Nice breakdown, well-written and good points. I know this is not what you’re talking about — nor what anyone wants to hear — but somewhere online there is a webpage/article written about the idea of using the Iowa-class battleships for AAW/BMD … basically using 16″ canister-shot type of rounds, with as you said, thousands of tungsten “BBs” — which would smash incoming missiles to pieces. And the idea was, ONE 16″ round would supposedly be able to easily take out any incoming cruise missile/anti-ship missile/ and if there was, for example, salvos of missiles (like an Oscar-II lobbing 24 Shipwrecks) or China launching DF-21D antiship ballistic missiles, the 9 guns could salvo 16″ AAW rounds that would literally fill the air with destructive canister-shot that would pretty much blanket a given area from the incoming rounds. It seemed like a pretty good idea. It would be cheap, supposedly very effective, a large amount of ammo could be carried and of course changed (so unlike a DDG/CG with VLS, which has whatever it has loaded out and that’s it, so if a CG is loaded with SM-2s, and strike is needed, they can’t just pop in Tomahawks into the VLS out at sea, etc.) –the guns could be shelling targets on land or even shooting at ships, then quickly load up “AAW” rounds and fire when needed. I am sure I am not explaining it very correctly but it sure made sense to read.

      • Ziv Bnd

        The Musashi used the 18.1″ SanShiki air defense round from the main guns in the Battle of Leyte Gulf as did the Yamato in Operation Ten Go/Battle of East China Sea. Didn’t work well at all. The US Navy pilots were stunned at first but later ended up thinking it was more of a pyrotechnic show than a real anti air defense.
        What the US Navy could do with a 16″ gun nowadays might be different, but we won’t get to see it happen. The Navy just doesn’t have the man power to put a single battleship to sea.

        • Secundius

          Another problem, what are you going to use as Ammunition for the Mk.16 Naval Guns! In 2016, the US Army was charged with the “Disposal” of ~15,000 16-inch Naval Artillery Projectiles. Also there Gun Wear! Each Mk.16 Naval Gun is rated at ~390-rounds per Gun Barrel before replacement. And what are you going to Replace Them With…

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            You of course are surely referring to the Mk 7 guns. MK16 guns are SCARs made by FN for troops.

          • Secundius

            Regardless, there aren’t any 16-inch projectiles to be had. The US Army “Disposed” ALL of them in 2016…

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            Do you think, perhaps, it’s possible… in this world of 2019 that we live in… in any sense of reality… within the realm of possibility…. they could, like, you know, make some more? If they did it back in the 1940s… I am thinking, they might be able to make some more … that’s what I’m thinking.

          • Secundius

            It all depends if the “Iowa’s” are refurbished and put back into service. Which “Isn’t” a Sure Thing and with a Naval Manpower Shortage of ~11,000 Officers and Rates. Approximately 5.5 Destroyers could be manned for the cost of manning one Battleship. Keep in Mind, in WWII it cost ~$1.5-Million USD just for One 16-inch Naval Gun Barrel or ~$26-Million in 2018 prices. And each one had a Barrel Lifespan of ~390-rounds fired before replacement. Which required Drydock and ~6-weeks to do…

          • old guy

            May I suggest yhat you search through this thread and find my post on the subject of BBs. Then CHECK IT OUT.

          • wilkinak

            I wouldn’t bet, with today’s environmental laws, that simply manufacturing more is as simple as you think.

            The EPA has forced the building of a lot of um, unpleasant, things overseas.

          • Andy Ferguson

            Wow… You just won’t admit you’re day-dreaming, will you?

            Those 70+ year old museum pieces are NOT credible weapons in the 21st century.

            Let. It. Go.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            No u.

          • Andy Ferguson

            What an astute reply…./sarc

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            ok thanks.

          • Andy Ferguson

            Wasn’t a compliment…

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            ok thanks.

          • Rocco

            Not true about the disposal! I ran into a weapons officer a home depot . Got in conversation because we were in chkout line & he had a USS Missouri hat on. Naval weapons station Earl has a surplus just in case!

          • Secundius

            The US Army’s Watervliet Arsenal performed the deed…

          • Rocco

            What location?

          • Secundius

            The Watervliet Arsenal is in Watervliet, NY…

        • Ser Arthur Dayne

          Yeah I mean, I’m not an engineer, I didn’t design the things nor do I think it would actually happen. However it was a compelling read and made sense. And FYI, if we can put Blue Ridge-class “command amphibious ships” ~1,500 people, we could absolutely put battleships to sea if we wanted to. If the President said in early 2017, we needed $10 billion to modernize and reactivate/rearm/recondition the 4 Iowas ($2.5 billion each, would would be *plenty*), so the budget request was $600 billion instead of $590 billion, they’d be put to sea already. I realize it’s not going to happen. I’m just saying it could have been possible and wouldn’t have been such a bad idea. Let alone, the missile-defense idea as well as regular battleship role, NGFS, 4 flagships, and battleship battle group / SAGs.

          • Secundius

            And how many “Iowa” Boiler Room Technicians are still alive, that can tell the Youthful Sailor of 2018 how too Light Up the Boilers of a nearly 80-year old Boiler…

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            You Should Do A Little Research On The Iowa-Class Battleships. There Were Multiple Engineering/Reactivation/Modernization Studies Which Included Entirely New Proposal Plants. I Recommend “A History of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard” by Richard “Rusty” Landgraff.

          • Secundius

            Still leaves the Ammunition question. With NO 16-inch Projectiles and Gun Cotton Powder Charges in Inventory Anywhere…

          • Rocco

            Not true

          • Secundius

            You are aware that the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was CLOSED in 1997, for the Same reason the Mare Island Shipyard was closed. “Asbestos” contamination…

          • Andy Ferguson

            You should do a LOT of research.

            “STUDIES” were done. And proved it was NOT feasible or cost effective to upgrade them.

          • old guy

            My post, here might give you a clearer picture.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            old guy I wasn’t referencing you when I said that. There is a certain poster who seems to be fixated on me, whom also enjoys attempting to reference historical citations which have no bearing on the conversation (For example: You say, “Man I loved the USS Ranger , it was a great Aircraft Carrier!” , and this gentleman replies, “But what about the Monitor vs the Merrimac?! How can you deny Naval History?!”) — further, the gentleman has a mental fixation on Capitalizing The First Letter Of Each Word He Uses. Sometimes he will Only Capitalize every Other word or even Some Words he Believes are very Necessary for Emphasis!!! — So I was talking back to him, not you sir.

          • Rocco

            All Wasp class LHD’s have boilers. No difference here!

          • Secundius

            “Iowa’s” were made by General Electric! Who produced “Wasp’s” and to what specifications…

          • Rocco

            Babcox / Wilcox boiler Westinghouse turbine engines / 150k shaft HP! Same as Essex class!! Alaska class CA had the same to keep up with Flag ships for escort .33knots

          • Secundius

            So “Wasp” class LHD’s are using 70-year old designed Boilers made by Babcock & Wilcox! Nothing like Recyclinging old Boilers…

          • Rocco

            Hey if it ain’t broke don’t fix it! Pretty much all carriers used this setup until the Nimitz class!! All WASP class except LHA-8 makin island uses hybrid electric drive like the America class.

          • Ziv Bnd

            I hear you. Those hulls, powerplants and main guns are a national asset. I would like to see at least two of them brought back into service. Maybe remove the aft main turret (450 tons?) and install even more VLS tubes which might reduce the crew needed to man her, not to mention free up part of the 4 decks below the turret that was used to service it. Maybe make room for a hanger for helo’s too. Then replace the old Phalanx with newer SEARam’s and change some of the Tomahawk tubes to NSM launchers. Replace the 5 unmanned RQ-2’s with a UH-60, or two, plus the newer MQ-8C’s. Installing the new AMDR would make an Iowa class ship a Tico replacement, possibly. But I have to admit that I have no idea of what all it would take to accomplish that. And I don’t know if it would be better used in a CSG or an ESG. Probably the latter.
            When you 57,000 tons to work with and a ship that can cruise at 33 knots, dealing huge amounts of damage and shrugging off most missiles… But from what I have read, the Navy just doesn’t want them.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            I wanted to say, your post was one of the best I’ve seen on here in a long time- and everything you say is both true and stuff I generally agree with. The book I recommended to someone yesterday, “A History of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard” by Richard “Rusty” Landgraff , has a ton of info on the Iowa-class, because Rusty Landgraff literally and figuratively wrote the book on them. He was one of the actual people in charge of their return to the fleet and he was some sort of absolute shipbuilding & naval engineering expert. He personally oversaw not only the ACTUAL work done on them, he came up with several different (both at request and on his own) concepts for more-modernization, redesign, etc. Including the power-plant- I think there was DETAILED stuff about how they’d replace the engines (like, you need to unweld the temp-welds on the 123 hatch on the ABC section above the 456 room, then move 2 inches down.. that type of thing) — and there was literally a ton of “life left” in those bad boys. I agree with you that it seems the “Navy doesn’t wnat them” — but this can also change. Admiral Greenert and Admiral Richardson are both submariners; however, Greenert was given the job solely to “do more with less” and lead a massive draw-down of capabilities, abilities, and equipment. Richardson literally and figuratively Changed Everything– cancelled the “upgunned LCS” , pushed the FFG(X) program big-time, made sure the Columbia-class got top billing, and even has started the “cruiser replacement” program that was previously hard-cancelled/never-going-to-happen. Obviously, he brought a lot of changes. It’s entirely, entirely possible that a CNO, a SecNav, or even a President (could be this one, could be another) decides, “Listen, this is what we’re doing, get it done” — Again, I do not believe it’s likely. I am not looking to bet money on a futures prop of Battleship Battle Groups sailing our seas. But I just don’t get the people who constantly like to say it’s impossible, just like they love to say tons of things are impossible, when it’s almost always a simple equation of Money, Manpower, & Equipment.

          • Duane

            The armor is useless anyway against any bomb or missile that has a vertical attack profile … the belt armor was designed to fend off shells from distant battleships in near horizontal flight profiles.

            The Japanese figured that out and used near vertical divebomb attacks to take out the Arizona and other BBs in Pearl Harbor. A single 500 pound bomb from a light attack aircraft penetrated the upper decks of the Arizona down to the magazine and the whole ship blew to kingdom come.

          • Ziv Bnd

            Not true, Duane. The Iowa’s armor was designed for similar sized guns firing at ranges from 16,000 yards to 30,000 yards, which is plunging fire. The deck armor was layered with a 1.5″ on the first deck and then 6+” below that plus another layer of armor below that. Here is the quote on the armor…

            ” The deck armor consists of a 1.5-inch-thick (38 mm) STS weather deck, a combined 6-inch-thick (152 mm) Class B and STS main armor deck, and a 0.63-inch-thick (16 mm) STS splinter deck. Over the magazines, the splinter deck is replaced by a 1-inch (25 mm) STS third deck that separates the magazine from the main armored deck. Over the magazines, the splinter deck is replaced by a 1-inch (25 mm) STS third deck that separates the magazine from the main armored deck…. ”
            So there is a 1.5″ initiator plate/weather deck of armor, then another 6″ of armor plus a final .63″ of splinter deck. So a re-furbed Iowa class would have a ton of anti air defenses and the side armor would stop the older sea skimming cruise missiles, but if a plunging cruise missile did get through all the air defenses the amount of damage it could do would be largely limited to a compartment or two. The Iowa’s were built to survive plunging fire of shells weighing in excess of 2500 pounds, fired at muzzle velocities of more than 2600 feet per second, so a modern cruise missile that was designed to damage a modern, unarmored ship would have much less effect on a WWII armored battleship. Probably, no sure things, of course.
            But to be able to build a super Tico for anti air defense and land attack with a huge arsenal of guns and missiles that could both defend the ESG/CSG and deal out a world of hurt on both air attackers and surface combatants, plus land attack from a ship that can move at 33 knots for days on end? That would be an asset that the Navy could find a huge use for. If they wanted it, which they don’t, so it won’t happen. Or probably won’t, any way.

          • Duane

            And the end result was the same – a single 500 pound bomb completely destroyed the Arizona, proving that whatever armor was used it was useless against technology developed more than 80 years ago.

            Today’s armor piercing,void sensing ASCMs would make quick work of any battleship, or any other warship. The only defense that matters is preventing the enemy ASCMs from getting to the ship, any ship.

          • Ziv Bnd

            The Arizona was struck by 4 bombs, and they were 1790 pounders, not a single 500 pounder. Other than that… LOL!
            Modern weapons would have less effect on heavily armored older ships because the newer missiles are predicated upon relatively easily penetrating the hull. Furthermore, a rebuilt Iowa class would probably have as many anti air weapons as two Burkes.
            It wont happen but a reactivated Iowa would be a potent weapon.

          • Duane

            The single 500 pounder that penetrated to the magazine destroyed the Arizona .. the others were just additional damage.

          • Ziv Bnd

            I have read multiple reports that the Arizona was hit by 4 1790 pound bombs, one of which set off the magazine. Not sure where you got the idea that it was a 500 pound bomb that did it. Here is a short quote from the Navy Board:
            ” Damage report on USS Arizona
            Enclosure C to
            CINCPAC action report Serial 0479
            February 15, 1942 USS Arizona Memorial

            “Arizona sank at her berth as a
            result of one or more aircraft torpedoes and about eight heavy bomb
            hits. One of the bomb hits (estimated as 2,000 pounds) exploded the
            forward magazines. The ship is considered to be a total wreck except for material which can be salvaged and reassigned.”
            Stillwell is pretty much THE researcher with regards to the USS Arizona and he writes on pages 277-279 that it was an 800 kilogram bomb that set off the final explosion.

          • The Iowa’s are museum pieces, nothing more. The idea of pouring billions of dollars into 75 year old hulls to try and turn them into modern warships is ridiculous, may as well talk about all the cool things you could do to upgrade USS Constitution. And contrary to what you believe, the armor of an Iowa would do next to nothing against missiles – just look up what happened to the Italian battleship Roma and then imagine what modern weapons would do.

          • Rocco

            Pretty cool! Others than the Wisconsin which can be reactivated. The New Jersey is all cut up inside for display purposes so not worth putting money in her!

          • old guy

            Please read ny post and comment.

        • Rocco

          Not true!!

          • Ziv Bnd

            Which part is “not true”, Rocco? I have said a bunch, some of it fact and some opinion, so I am not sure whether you are right or wrong. LOL! Seriously, though, the whole, “Bring back the battleships” is a pipe dream, but a fun one. The navy doesn’t want them so we won’t see them come back. Every year that goes by makes any refurb that much more expensive and some of the older technology that would be best to keep would be much more difficult to use effectively.

        • old guy

          A GREAT STORY>
          The SECNAV of the early ’80s, John Lehman dreamed of reactivating the 4 battle ships we had at the time, and equipping them with armored box missile launchers ,at a cost of 10 BILLION dollars. The New Jersey was in good shape, from its refurb it had for the Viet war, the Iowa ond the others were poor due to canibalization to field the New Jersey. To get the money, Lehman raided every area within his purview, including all 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 research funds under my control; as NAVSEA 003/03R, I disputed the feasiubility of the missile mounts, with him, even taking him down to “Tongue of the Ocean” firing range to experience the violence of a 9-16″ gun broadside. He would not hold tight, as I recmmended and when the ship moved 2 feet abeam, fell on the deck. For that I got fired and he put in a man who turned the funds over to him. ALL CHECKABLE.
          Move forward to President Cinton’s election. An Admiral and I got an audience with him on the subject. Within 2 weeks, he CANCELLED the entire refurb program, got me back into R&D (as Director of Science and Technology Development), and saved the taxpayers 6 billion dollars. Check it out.
          If interested, ask, and I will tell you how they got the teak,to repair the decks. Hilarious

          • Rocco

            I served under Lehman my last 4 yrs in ! He was aboard The Fid for a visit in the med ! I got to see the BB’s in action off the coast of Lebanon! So how did the get the Teek wood?

          • old guy

            OK, Here it is. In ~1950 it was decided to reactvate one or 2 BBs. the general shape of the New Jersey was the best, so it was selected. The deck condition was deplorable, so good 6X6X varying length TEAK planks were removed from the Missouri for replacements. This was followed by canibalization of pumps, winches and other components no longer in inventory. When, later it was decided to reactivate the other 3. there was not enough good teak in all of them, so the decision was made to cut the planks in three slices and laminate them to oak backings, for the new decks. The cost was about 45 million in then dollars.
            Incidentally, if you were aboard when a 9 gun volley was fired, do you confirm my story?

          • Rocco

            Sir thanks for the information! I shall use this when I do my volunteer day! I was never a crew member of the New Jersey! I was on Forestall! FID! I went on the NJ BB 5 yrs ago in Camden NJ right across from Philly. You can actually see the old WW1 BB across the river. (Alimpia ), I reinlisted aboard the Wisconsin when I was in Philly when my ship FID was in SLEP!⚓

    • Indiana Mike

      A short, modified 5″ naval gun fired the Uranium 235 projectile into the U-235 target of the Hiroshima Bomb to achieve critical mass. That’s why Naval Captain and Ordinance Expert Deak Parsons was so integral to that Bombs design.

      • mail33006

        Ordnance.

        • Andy Ferguson

          Wrong.

          Both are correct, but nice attempt at trolling.

          • nekulturny

            Both are correct,

            No. Never. Sorry, but an ordinance is a law or rule, like a parking restriction. Ordnance is weapons.

      • Secundius

        I sincerely doubt there talking about “Nuclear Projectile”, unless you consider “Depleted Uranium” a Nuclear Projectile…

        • Rabbit

          And you are not paying attention. The “Hiroshima Bomb” used U235 (enriched Uranium). The comment had nothing to do with ammunition (depleted Uranium projectiles).

          • Secundius

            I don’t recall anywhere in the article, that a “Nuclear” Projectile is being considered or even in development. I’ve long misplaced my “Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring”, so please point out to in which paragraph a “Nuclear Warhead” Projectile is being considered or being developed…

          • Rabbit

            You were replying to Indiana Mike. HE discussed the inner workings of a nuclear weapon that utilized a naval gun breach to fire a chunk of Uranium.

          • Secundius

            A “Chuck of Uranium-235”!/? How do you Shield the Crew of the Vessel from Radiation Exposure or Decomtaminate the Magazine and Gun once fired while at Sea…

      • old guy

        My neighbor, Jake Bezer, the elactrical engineer on both flights confirmed your point. I suggest that you read his book.

    • waveshaper1

      FYI; Here’s another great source on this stuff/extremely long and detailed (Source – Defense Systems Information Analysis Center) “Hypervelocity Projectiles: A Technology Assessment”.

    • Refguy

      Three grams is 0.1 ounce. You’re essentially firing a shot gun round filled with sand. It may well erode the dome/window of the seeker of ONE missile, but you won’t disable multiple missiles. Where did you get 5 minutes (300 seconds) to detect a missile launch, develop a track and commit to a response? Sounds more like a timeline for responding to an ICBM launch. In an ASCM defense scenario, you’ll detect the incoming missile when it breaks the horizon and you won’t need (and may not have) five minutes to respond. The radar horizon is about 20 nautical miles and a Mach-1 AScM will be less than 2 minutes from impact, so, you had better react in one minute or less.

      • Duane

        Airborne sensors (radar and IR) can sense from far beyond the target ship’s horizon if deployed. We already use MH-60s and MQ-8s for that purpose, along with MQ-4s, P-8As, and any deployed manned fighters like Super Hornets and F-35s. Additionally, the Navy is developing and will shortly be deploying from all warships small UAVs as well as tethered LTA aircraft with miniaturized AESA/SA radars and FLIRs. So it is quite likely that a ship can feasibly have considerably more than 5 minutes notice of an incoming ASCM salvo.

        As for the effects of the “shotgun blast”, it is only necessary that a given shell take down a single incoming missile … the depth of magazine provided by a 5 in gun, or even a much smaller 57 mm gun, is sufficient to take down many incoming missiles if precision guided munitions with proximity fusing is sufficient to provide defense in depth, along with other missile defense.

        • Refguy

          But we’re not talking about guided weapons. We wouldn’t need 500 grains of sand if we were. We could use the same blast/frag shells with proximity fuses that we already have. It’s not clear that 500 grains of sand would stop an ASCM; if they blind the sensor, it will continue on autopilot to the last known aim point.
          If you have F-35’s in the area, why don’t they just shoot down the missile with a sidewinder or sink the launch platform? Or blind/fry it with a laser?
          Yes, if you are part of a battle group with layered defense systems every unit might believe that it won’t be overwhelmed, but there will always be pop-up threats (like submarine-launched cruise missiles) that can pick off units far from the force center. Do you subscribe to the old adage that there are only two types of ships – subs and targets?

          • Duane

            No, we are talking about guided munitions. There will be no unguided HVP or whatever name is desired. Unguided munitions are going the way of the sail. They are just useless in 21st century warfare.

            DOD has already developed a precision guided round for the venerable Mk 2 50 cal machine gun – think of that for just a moment! A murderous weapon just got 100 times more lethal!

            And yes, you still need a shotgun blast for guided munitions. Indeed that’s been true for many decades ever since the development of air to air missiles. The guidance mechanism gets the warhead close enough to create the desired effects on the target, and the shotgun blast takes care of the rest.

            It is true that we can also use hit to kill munitions, basically firing a non-explosive bullet at a bullet. But that requires even greater precision, down to centimeter or millimeter level precision. Whereas blast frag munitions need only be precise down to roughly a meter give or take.

            As for aircraft, yes, an aircraft like an F-35 or a Super Hornet can fire air to air missiles to take down incoming ASCMs. AIM 9X is actually a very good weapon for that at short to medium range (within 20 miles give or take) .. and for shorter ranges, a Hellfire or similar works well too.

            The Mk 110 57mm gun is actually a superb weapon for shooting down incoming ASCMs, despite common misperception. The 57mm is simply the bigger more sophisticated brother of the venerable Bofors 40mm AA guns used on nearly all our World War Two warships to shoot down fighters and bombers. The 57mm was initially developed in the 1950s to have greater range and firepower to deal with jet fighters – which essentially that is what an ASCM is, an unmanned jet fighter. With its very high firing rate (220 rpm) and precision (to within 1.0 meters) proximity fused blast frag warheads loaded with tungsten filaments, it can liquify the business end of an incoming ASCM in short order.

    • old guy

      Your”Silver Bullet” may be good for the Lone Ranger or killing Dracula, but, I’m sorry to say your story is mostly hype, The bird has almost ZERO maneuverability, Easy kill (because of predictable trajectory) and high cost, in exchange for a for a glamorous name.

      • RunningBear

        OK, this is about the existing 5″ guns on both the CG/DDG and the GLGP with both the sabot and the “shot shell” exiting the barrel at Mach3+. The proposed targets would be existing cruise missiles and UAVs, both sub-mach??……so the GLGuided Projectile would maneuver and intercept both from the 5″ gun. This would be in lieu of the $1-2M ea. for the missiles.

        Yep, shoot the gun and GLGP.
        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

        • old guy

          What you say (about using the 5″ guns) is absolutely correct.The only difference between us is that you appear to champion the Sabot, small caliber hypersonic, unguided round and I prefer the full 5 inch, tested and proved ETC modification, with room for maneuver control and a large explosive or shaped charge,

          • RunningBear

            I am familiar with the 5″ in the usual “attack” modes.
            These tests were for the new ship “defense” modes for the 5″. Systems testing for processing the new rounds and providing detection, tracking and guidance for the “intercept” of the cruise missile and or UAV is what I was focusing on. Networking the various radar tracks and providing a data link to the 5″ projectile for guidance to defeat their target is all new capabilities. I am not certain from the report whether the testing involved firing the new rounds or defeating the targets. No doubt, both are part of testing and hopefully both were successful.

            Preventing injury and death, regardless of cost is paramount. Defending the ship with the $80-100k 5″ round vs. the $1-2M missiles is also of consideration. Layered defenses are necessary and the tactics for the categories of ship defense is enhanced by providing these new options.
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

          • RunningBear

            ….and today we are seeing the Aegis 10 and retrofits, will provide guidance for beam weapons and that will evolve into guidance for the 5″ guided projectiles.
            The speed, resolution and networking of the sensing systems aboard ship is greatly improving and speeding the capabilities of these precision weapons from .50cal to the SM-s.
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

    • John Conrad

      if 300 seconds is correct.. thats at mach 3 x 720 mph/3600 (secs/hr) / 300 secs = 180 miles. by then the target has been hit. I cant believe 300 secs = 5 minutes is true. if it takes 5 minutes to track a target it is too late for the radar system.. 5 minutes is much too slow. operators are watching the radar screen continuously so I cannot understand the meaning of the 300 secs…. erroneous number

      • Rocco

        Mach is not 720!!!

        • John Conrad

          another f’ing nit picking idiot!!! it is the speed of sound in air and changes with altitude and temperature… there is no exact number but 720 is close enough for missiles and aircraft. Unless of course your teacher told you different, then you should nominate him for the Nobel Prize in Physics, because he may have made a new discovery

          • Rocco

            Go fuck yourself!! Arrogant asshole!!

          • John Conrad

            go fuck yourself ignorant argumentative idiot!!!

          • Rocco

            📲

      • RunningBear

        In this day and age of sat tracking and airborne radar, a 5 min track is leisurely at best. As an example of intercepting a Mach3+ attack, it would be a timely preparation for the last 200mi. sprint for a weapon engaging against the radar controls from the various shipboard systems. The recent advent of Aegis 10 as guidance for beam weapons should mitigate any issues of the shipboard layered defense for the entire weapon track from launch to defeat.
        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

  • DaSaint

    Could be a reason to rethink putting a Mk45 on the FFG(X).

    Duane, before you respond…I know, the 57mm has ORKA and ALAMO…is lighter, faster, etc., etc., etc….

    • Duane

      It won’t be rethought. The Mk 110 is already spec’d out for FFGX as GFE.

      The 57mm gun, besides already having two choices of bimodal precision guided munitions that already exist commercially (as opposed to being under study), has a vastly higher (X13) firing rate and much deeper magazine than the 5-in.gun. Making the 57mm gun far superior to the 5-incher for action against typical littoral threats – small boat swarms and drone aircraft swarms.

      But for the 5 in guns already installed on the Ticos and ABs, having a precision guided round is far better than not having a precision guided round.

  • Leroy

    I wonder if they could make a 105mm version for the AC-130? I also wonder if that would be useful? You could bank the a/c to increase angle of fire and thereby increase range (not sure what the angular firing limits +/- of the onboard M102, 105mm howitzer are). Anyway, just a thought. Perhaps it would be too high pressure for the platform or gun? IDK.

    • Secundius

      The AC-130 already uses the 105mm, and has since September 1967…

      • Leroy

        But what about these HV shells? That’s what I’m interested in – using a 105mm version on the Herc gunship.

        • Secundius

          No High Velocity Round currently exists for the M102 105x372mmR Howitzer. M68 105mm Tank Gun Rounds can’t be fired using Howitzer Gun Tubes. They measure 105x607mmR and 105x617mmR respectively…

          • Ed L

            105mm howitzer on the specter gunship shoots M546 anti-personnel tracer (APERS-T), first fired in combat in 1966 Delivers 8,000 fleches

          • Secundius

            Though NOT a “Hypervelocity Round” is it. The Question “Leroy” asked me…

          • Ed L

            Who needs a hyper velocity when you can
            Turn
            The enemy into Swiss cheese with a tried and true round. According to actual events in Vietnam the M546 was used in a direct Fire role by our artillery. We used to move the 105 howitizer around vehicle storage with 3 men. You get the heaviest guy hanging onto the tube and 2 guys on the legs. Easily Peezy

          • Secundius

            If you use the “Hawkeye” 105mm Howitzer, that number can be reduced to only two. But IT still wasn’t the Answer to “Leroy’s” question…

        • Jason

          I thought 3000fps was pretty standard for heavy artillary.

          • Leroy

            I must admit to being deficient in familiarity with arty.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    OK, I’m no physicist, and I’m no ammunition expert. I haven’t yet had the opportunity to portray either on TV. But with that said, it is my understanding that what achieves hypervelocity when rounds are to be fired from railguns is the electrical ‘charge’ that the system generates. That’s why we see blurbs about the Navy achieving firepower metrics that are measured in megajoules. The more the megajoules, the faster the projectiles can fly, and hence the destructive power they can generate when they impact a target.

    So with that said, how are ordinary, typical powder-fired guns going to achieve anything approaching the specs of the railgun projectiles? Is all of the hoped-for improved performance centered on the design of the round to be fired? Will the powder be more powerful? A combination of those things? Or something else altogether?

  • Low cost? $100,000 but how many rounds will be required to take down an incoming anti-ship missile. Since they are touting its high rate of fire, I bet it will be more than one.

    • So? Fire 10 of them and it will still be cheaper than a missile.

    • Duane

      A blast frag warhead that roughly approximates that on an AIM 9X (15-20 pounds) is far more than enough to take down an incoming ASCM. Sidewinders can easily shoot down a 70,000 pound jet attack aircraft, or even much larger .. whereas a typical ASCM weighs in at only about 1,000 to 3,000 pounds.

      A HTK warhead at high speeds would also take out an incoming ASCM with even smaller warheads. LM has developed a miniature HTK rocket (“MHTK”) that only weighs 5 pounds and has a precision guidance seeker capable of tracking and impacting with artillery shells, mortar rounds, and cruise missiles. They’re very cheap – only about $16K per round. Developed for the Army, but the Navy is also looking at it as a supplemental point defense munition for naval ships.

      It’s really just a matter of precision guidance. For blast frag warheads, the guidance system only needs to get close with a proximity fuse (within a couple meters) .. whereas a HTK needs to be precise down to centimeters.

  • MaskOfZero

    It is hard to believe that the Zumwalt class was designed and built to have a long range accurate gun without considering the ammunition cost. How stupid is that?

    Lockheed-Martin was going to charge around $400,000 to $700,000 per shell.

    BAE’s HVP will now give the Zumwalt class some relatively affordable ammo.

    • Secundius

      Original cost for Each LRLAP Projectile was only ~$30-K per round. But because of Design and Delay Issues with the “Zumwalt’s” drove the per unit cost to exceed ~$800-K per round. Also the Rifling on the 155mm AGS was first developed in 1861 and last used in 2003 with the M551 “Sheridan” Light Tank. The Model 1861 Navy Musket also used Specialized Ammunition as did the M551 “Sheridan”. You would have thought the Designers would have learned from Past and Failed Mistakes and not repeat them. Everyone was WRONG…

      • Bubblehead

        The fact that the USN only built 3 Zums, so were going to procure alot less rounds had a lot to do with the cost. Basically they have to recoup the expense of designing the shells spread over a lot fewer rounds.

        • Secundius

          One problem though! NO known NATO 155mm Projectile Round is able to used the “Rifling” of the 155mm AGS. “Rifling” was first introduced in 1861, with the Whitney-Plymouth Model 1861 Navy Musket and last used in 2003 with the M551 “Sheridan” Airborne Light Tank. Both of which fired Non Conventional Ammunition (i.e. Specialized) and by a Single Manufacturer…

  • Secundius

    There NOT going to put the “Iowa’s” back into service, know matter how much you wish they were…

    • Rocco

      He’s very arrogant!!

      • Secundius

        Yes, and goes without saying. Or even convert them to “Nuclear-Powered” Battleship in 1958, or “Amphibious Battleship” in 1961, and or “Battlecarrier” in 1983…

        • Rocco

          Those were all thought of back in the day!! Would be nice to put one BB back in service. The Wisconsin is the only one able from what I’m told! She’s still owned by the Navy & it’s not stricken!

          • Secundius

            And do what! How much Barrel Liner Wear was placed on “Wisconsin’s” 16-inch Rifles before being Decommissioned!/? And where are Replacement Barrels going to come from. “North Carolina” 16-inch Rifles can’t be used on the “Iowa’s”…

          • Rocco

            She didn’t shoot a whole lot to wear the barrels out during her last deployments. Plus barrels are in storage from the Montana class! Rocco

          • Secundius

            Keep in mind the Barrel Life of the “Iowa’s” 16-inch Rifles varies from ~390 Reduced Charged Rounds to ~250 Full Charged Rounds (i.e. Propellant Charges). Before Barrels need to be replaced, which is going to require something a bit larger then a “Tender”…

          • Rocco

            I’m aware. Our new class tender can handle this or the salvage ship that carried USS Cole .

          • Secundius

            BOTH the “Montana’s” and the “Iowa’s” use the same Mk.VII 16-inch/50-caliber Naval Rifles…

          • Rocco

            Yes

          • old guy

            No, the New Jersey is in the best shape. The Ohio and North Carolina are ths worst, I believe. Please read my pust.

          • Rocco

            What Ohio?? As for the NJ I went aboard her 5 yrs ago! Her gun mounts are all cut up so visitors can see how the hoists work even 5 decks below! Can’t fix this!

  • Bubblehead

    My question is, since when did Mach 3 become hypersonic? If thats the case, every missile out there is hypersonic. Hypersonic is the new speed of sound/Mach. The phrase is used to put fear into your enemies.

    This technology has been available and in use for years as the vulcano round. The USN should have adapted this round several years ago. But being stubborn, and the need to spend more taxpayer money, meant they wanted to spend years and billions $$$ to develop their own round.

    • waveshaper1

      Yep, this usage of the term “Hyper” to classify ordnance by their speed is very confusing and IMHO manipulated by the MIC to sell DoD expensive/trendy new stuff. Someone needs to develop a simple chart that explains all these hyper speed terms as they relate to weapons/ordnance “speed” capabilities. Here’s a few confusing definitions the MIC is using to sell their goods;

      – Hypervelocity; A very high velocity, approximately over 3,000 meters per second (6,700 mph, 11,000 km/h, 10,000 ft/s, or Mach 8.8).
      — Hypervelocity is the term used to characterize the speed of objects in “SPACE” and not within the earths atmosphere.

      — Hypervelocity seems to be a term of art in physics/DoD/MIC that has a somewhat more fluid definition when it comes to ordnance speeds within the Earths Atmosphere (see HVP’s). “The Dictionary of United States Army defines the term as [1]: Muzzle velocities of an artillery projectile of 3,500 ft/s or greater. Muzzle velocities of tank cannon projectiles in excess of 3,350 ft/s.

      — In my simple mind these new fancy HVP’s are only really “Army/MIC – Classified – HyperVelocityProjectiles” while their still in the muzzle/gun barrel (about 20 or 30 feet), provided that the muzzle/gun barrel is located within the earths atmosphere. I have no idea what the actual HVP flight speed is?

      – Hypersonic; Is flight through the atmosphere below about 90km (not in space) at speeds above Mach 5. This is the actual flight speed of Hypersonic cruise missiles/weapons/etc. IMHO, this is the best way to truly classify a weapons true speed, from the time it’s launched to target impact.

  • Bob Elfers

    Just speculating that this projectile may be capable of using a small tactical nuke. I would presume that designs are on the shelf.

    • Secundius

      I rather doubt it. the Bursting Charge for a typical 5-inch projectile varies from 7.2-pounds to 9.9-pounds. The W54 Tactical Nuke weighs in at ~54-pounds, and that’s just the warhead…

      • Bob Elfers

        Probably right. Although the W54 is an old design, the physics has not changed. Thank you.

        • Duane

          The W-54 would have required a minimum bore of close to 300 mm. The weight would not be the limiting factor, rather the bore.

          • Bob Elfers

            Right. In looking up the minimum requirements for critical mass, it seems apparent that the pit alone would be approaching bore diameter, even with reduction in mass considered by using a neutron reflector. It is close, although- in my humble estimation. Not close for the W-54, but close as regards absolute minimum requirements for successful initiation with some theoretical device.

          • waveshaper1

            A better comparison would be to the M454 155mm Nuke Projectile containing the W48 warhead (this was the smallest US nuke projectile produced/diameter 6inches/linear implosion warhead). This was also the second most mass produced US nuclear projectile with 1060 produced and fielded. The M422 8-inch Nuke Projectile with W33 warhead had 2,000 produced/fielded (top dog) and the XM753 8-inch Nuke Projectile with W79 warhead had 550 (325 ER, 225 fission) produced, both of these weapons were also retired in 1992. Also, the last of the M454 mod 1’s were retired around 1992, I think? Note; I directly supported the M454/M422/XM753 Nuke Projos and B-61/B-57/B-43 Nuke Bombs – hands-on/etc – all at the same overseas location/during the same timeframe – way back in the day.

          • Secundius

            There was another, that was the successor to the M454, the XM785 (W82-1). But it was also cancelled in 1992…

          • Bob Elfers

            Thanks for participating. Good info.
            I imagine that if there were even the remotest possibility of quick deployment of agile hypersonic nuclear weapons to any surface vessel equipped with a standard 5-inch gun it would change everything. Surface warfare would never be the same.

  • Andy Ferguson

    Try to get a life.

    Being the spelling police merely shows you’re a loser.

  • old guy

    All of this HVP is cover for the failed “Rail Gun” program. I detailed the deficiencies of the system several times. Salient are:
    1, poor maneuver.
    2. no terminal guidance.
    3, small warhead capability.
    4. high kill sensitivity
    5. expense.
    If someone who has no axe to grind would stop this silliness and restart developmet of the ETC (Eletro-Thermal-Chemical) gun, well proven in the late ’70s. we could use current barrels, have Mach 3 maneuvering projectiles, and a relatively low cost upgrade.

    • Rocco

      That’s ridiculous & over kill!! On a specialized ship like the Zumwalt yeah.

      • old guy

        The “Old Flopover” DD1000 is a travesty. That is why several of us, inside and out, were able to cut the buy from 14 to 3, the keels having already been laid.

        • Rocco

          Your right!! However it’s not old!! & I’m not fan of it! But what you propose is purfect!!

    • Duane

      Nope nope nope. Nothing is failed at all with railgun.

      You never give up on your trolling on that topic, facts be damned.

    • navweap

      An expert from CSBA recently acknowledged that the railgun is “not useful military technology”:

      www. businessinsider. my/chinas-aims-to-arm-warships-with-railguns-that-may-not-matter-in-war-2019-1/

      • old guy

        WHOOPEE, despite the editors’ penchant for long dissertatios and little tecbnical facts, you can find my complete explantion supporting the CSBA statement. above and several times in the past few years. It’s about time USNI gets a TECHNICAL savvy editor to evaluate and support or reject TECHNICAL posts. I don’t level critical accusations easily., but my post above would of added more to this discussion than the “WOW. looky here that you can find here above.

    • RunningBear

      HyperVelocity Projectile/ HVP was developed for the railgun and is now being expanded to include Gun Launched Guided Projectile/ GLGP at Mach3+. The projectile developments with guidance technology is expanding to include almost “ALL” projectile weapons fielded by the modern military.

      The USN “Rail Gun” program will not be aborted because……..the modern ships have an ever increasing capability to provide electrical power for future use; it’s that “bottomless magazine” goal that is sought by all. AND…..the barrel technology is being improved with advanced materials and design for the desired “1,000” rounds requirement. (Also, that electrical power capacity will be provided to the lasers and microwave beam weapons)

      The “success”?? of the testing of the guided projectiles from the 5″ is a demonstration of the interest by the USN in the Mk45 and as others have mentioned here, even the ancient “Ma Deuce” .50 cal. The 30, 40, 50+mm rounds will be bringing guidance to their barrels as the technologies advance. The new 25mm round of the F-35 Lightning II has manufacturers exploring the guidance for that projectile.

      As one commenter here has indicated, the 500 3gm (1,500gm or 3.3lbs of “sand”) from the GLGP shot projectile is “ALSO” traveling at Mach3+ for a bit higher energy impact to the cruise missile or the UAV targets. It is not exactly kicking sand on the beach with a flip-flop.
      IMHO
      Fly Navy
      🙂

  • Andy Ferguson

    Lo-ser.

  • Andy Ferguson

    Says the troll who’s completely boggled by the tag “/sarc”….

  • Andy Ferguson

    Lead by example.

  • Andy Ferguson

    You like male backsides, clearly.

    I don’t swing that way, precious.