Article

2005-07-13 Home Front: Tech

Whatever Happened to Saddam's Super Cannon?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hopefully, the barrel sections have found a more useful home irrigating some farmers field. Shooting a supercannon is asking for a JDAM sandwich.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-07-13 00:17|| 2005-07-13 00:17|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm pretty sure the cannon pieces were sold for scrap; I've heard speculation that it wouldn't have even worked well anyway.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-13 00:41|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-13 00:41|| Front Page Top

#3 It would have been no match for my "laser".

Posted by Dr. Evil 2005-07-13 00:56|| 2005-07-13 00:56|| Front Page Top

#4 Sold as scrap. Much if the important parts were never even made. Only the tube sections for the barrel.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-13 02:14|| 2005-07-13 02:14|| Front Page Top

#5 The cannon is being reserved for Saddam's sentencing, when he will be shot out of the cannon without a net?

Am I close?

Posted by Captain America 2005-07-13 04:34|| 2005-07-13 04:34|| Front Page Top

#6 As artillary the thing was of very little value,except as a terror weapon.It had very limited ability to traverse.Beside it would have had time for,maybe,1/2 dozen shots before it was turned into a smoking scrap heap.

Posted by raptor 2005-07-13 08:05|| 2005-07-13 08:05|| Front Page Top

#7 January 2002? What's next, Hitler's secret weapons that could ahve won the war?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-13 08:18|| 2005-07-13 08:18|| Front Page Top

#8 My point was that such a weapon could fire projectiles towards Iran that would possibly be powerful enough to destroy deep underground nuclear installations. Protected by the US Air Force, three or four such guns could accomplish in short order, and at a fraction of the cost, what "space based weapons", like "the rods of god" are supposed to do someday. And even if Saddam's versions have been destroyed, we should consider re-creating them just for this purpose. That is, of an estimated 350 targets in Iran, many of which are extremely hardened, what better way to reduce them?

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-13 08:53|| 2005-07-13 08:53|| Front Page Top

#9 Only a smaller scale breech and barrel segments were built to provide proof of concept. They were assembled in Iraq and test fired. The main pieces were seized in Britain and were never sent to Iraq. They had been listed and tagged as oil pipeline parts to try and get them through customs. It's rumored that the Israeli Mossad tipped off the Brits.

Posted by AlmostAnonymous2520 2005-07-13 09:34|| 2005-07-13 09:34|| Front Page Top

#10 I remember seeing a documentary with US soldiers standing around pieces of that cannon after it was dismantled. Having said that, why not build another one? or ten, or hundred?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-07-13 10:11|| 2005-07-13 10:11|| Front Page Top

#11 Given that is most likely the Mossad that capped Bull the notion that they tipped the Brits and others (the propellant charges were being made in Belgium or Holland IIRC) makes sense. The 350MM proof of concept was test fired in Iraq although I have no idea of the range capability. The 1000MM version was partially delievered to Irag and the sections there where rendered into scrap while sitting in a storage area after the Gulf War. Where ever the sections ended up after that is problematic. IIRC Bull originally had proposed the concept of the super gun to the US Army. In this version it would of been capapble of traversing a full 360D but could not elevate. The art work for the proposal looked more like a large refractory telescope than anything else. Nova actually did a show on this in the early '90s. PBS is good for something sometimes. Now as to whether such a weapon would be a vialble weapons system given they worked. A number of these based inside the US would be immune to anything short of an inbound ballistic warhead. And they could threaten just about any target worth considering. There several gun systems under consideration now that IMO could bring about a new golden age for artillery systems. Enhanced ranges, GPS guidance etc. As I understand it the USN would eventually like to put to sea a gun system that would have ranges out to 500 to 600KM. Such projectiles would be launched fom elctromagnetic gun systems (rail guns) and would have flight profiles that take them out of the atmosphere. Sounds like to me they could be used as anti missile waepons. Just my $.02

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-07-13 10:17|| 2005-07-13 10:17|| Front Page Top

#12 Wasn't Bull's original design intended as a cheap space launch platform? The thing has many drawbacks as a weapon (e.g. it isn't mobile) but getting things into space is a different beast.

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2005-07-13 11:02|| 2005-07-13 11:02|| Front Page Top

#13 The biggest advantages I see are that it could be assembled in a few *weeks*, just about as long as it would take to build the proper munitions, and would be one of the few really effective ways of taking down the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. For what? $100-200M a gun? That is peanuts! And not a damn thing the Iranians could do to stop it.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-13 11:55|| 2005-07-13 11:55|| Front Page Top

#14 I think they're gonna use it to blast Hunter Thompson's ashes into space...

Posted by tu3031 2005-07-13 11:58|| 2005-07-13 11:58|| Front Page Top

#15 As I remember from a show on Discovery or History Channel, the heat and pressure necessary to achieve the high muzzle velocity necessary to carry the distances proposed means that the barrel sections have to be replaced after six shots. Also artillery isn't that accurate. Sadaam was a better novelist than he was a military tactician.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-07-13 12:15|| 2005-07-13 12:15|| Front Page Top

#16

Sadaam was a better novelist than he was a military tactician.

That's cold, SH.

True, but cold. :-D

(And he was a lousy novelist.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2005-07-13 13:38|| 2005-07-13 13:38|| Front Page Top

#17 Super Hose: the shot doesn't have to be terribly accurate, if you are using GPS guided munitions. Also, I'm betting that the US could fab up a dozen cannon like that, along with a bunch of replacement barrel tubing, overnight, then ship it off and assemble it where best to do the job, north or south. While it's best bet would be to use it as a very high altitude bunker buster, it would be used in concert with cruise missiles and and air power to devastating effect.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-13 14:21|| 2005-07-13 14:21|| Front Page Top

#18 I think this graphic would be appropriate for this story.

Posted by Xbalanke 2005-07-13 17:15|| 2005-07-13 17:15|| Front Page Top

#19 Guys...
I think you really want a scaled up

Sharp Gas Gun from LLL

Posted by 3dc 2005-07-13 22:16|| 2005-07-13 22:16|| Front Page Top

#20 Anonymoose, your idea has much more value than what Sadaam bought. GPS guided artillery shells is a new (post Sadaam getting his gums examined on worldwide TV)idea. Sadaam's gun was just a chance for some yahoo's to steal his money, and based on his penchant for spending larged sums on velvet-Elvis lke desor for his palaces, it was money well spent.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-07-13 23:14|| 2005-07-13 23:14|| Front Page Top

23:54 badanov
23:50 Tkat
23:40 GK
23:35 Barbara Skolaut
23:32 Super Hose
23:28 Matt
23:28 GhostOfBonzo
23:27 rjschwarz
23:14 Super Hose
23:10 phil_b
23:10 Asedwich
23:05 Bomb-a-rama
23:03 Jarhead
23:01 Aussie
23:00 anymouse
22:57 Super Hose
22:57 Frank G
22:54 Frank G
22:52 Jarhead
22:52 tipper
22:49 Super Hose
22:47 rjschwarz
22:46 Jarhead
22:44 Frank G