Article

2005-09-09 Home Front: Tech

The DD(X) -- the Return of Big Naval Artillery

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 Mike 2005-09-09 06:55|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mike, thanks for the chop job.

This is a giant step for navy and woefully needed.

Posted by Captain America 2005-09-09 08:06|| 2005-09-09 08:06|| Front Page Top

#2 The first DDX with a railgun should be named the Robert Anson Heinlein.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2005-09-09 08:44|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2005-09-09 08:44|| Front Page Top

#3 (or, to take another theoretical example, allow the Navy to bombard Paris from the English Channel)
Or maybe the Nelson.

Posted by Shipman 2005-09-09 09:28|| 2005-09-09 09:28|| Front Page Top

#4 #2 The first DDX with a railgun should be named the Robert Anson Heinlein.

Or maybe the Dr Jerry Pournelle. One thing I do like in the AGS is the adoption of the 155MM bore size. This should allow the use of common projectiles with the Army's Paladin mobile guns to a point.

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-09-09 10:40|| 2005-09-09 10:40|| Front Page Top

#5 ...each gun will be capable of putting up to eight rounds on a target simultaneously.

HOLY CRAP!! Those 155s are BIG guns too. Ouch.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-09-09 11:39|| 2005-09-09 11:39|| Front Page Top

#6 I am worried about this ship. I've been reading some very harsh reviews about procurement, design and construction.

The bottom line is that the ship, while good, is just to freaking expensive, too few can be produced, and quality control at the shipyard is awful. In addition, its power system has been *changed* mid-development, which is a cardinal whoopsie in shipbuilding.

Tinyurl links: da8of, bxj8w

How the DD(X) fits into the big picture: bpt8t

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-09-09 11:39|| 2005-09-09 11:39|| Front Page Top

#7 Anybody have any idea how it could be as accurate as 2 m over 68 miles? That doesn't seem possible with cross winds and eddies unless self guiding munitions are used.

Posted by DO 2005-09-09 11:42|| 2005-09-09 11:42|| Front Page Top

#8 Of course the AGS should hopefully be able to be retro fitted into any of the current surface combatants.

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-09-09 11:47|| 2005-09-09 11:47|| Front Page Top

#9 At that range, they will be GPS guided, rocket assisted projectiles. At one time, the Navy was talking about 100 mile ranges. Expensive (Army's Excalibur GPS guided 155mm round is expected to cost $50,000), just not as expensive as missiles.

Posted by ed 2005-09-09 11:54|| 2005-09-09 11:54|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm all for stealth technology, but it seems that since stealth came along, military toys have been getting decidedly uglier instead of sleeker and cooler looking. Just compare an F-16 with an F-117 or an Arleigh Burke with the DD(X). Oh well, the price of progress.

Posted by Xbalanke 2005-09-09 12:41|| 2005-09-09 12:41|| Front Page Top

#11 My nomination for the first three Ships

USS Heinlein
USS Asimov
USS Pournelle

And following
USS Wells
USS Einstein
USS Ellison

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-09-09 13:37|| 2005-09-09 13:37|| Front Page Top

#12 I dunno Xbalanke, I think the F-22 is a beautiful aircraft.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-09-09 15:51|| 2005-09-09 15:51|| Front Page Top

#13 Return of big naval artillery? Pleaaaaase! Your average battleship fired shells who were 15 to 20 times heavier and they had not two but eight guns.

There are reports of Tiger tanks upturned by close misses of battleship shells after D-Day. Think in this: sixty tons of steel being pushed aside and upturned by a close miss

Now what would be nice, would be having the Uss New Jersey beng reequipped with the 406mm version of this gun.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-09-09 16:41|| 2005-09-09 16:41|| Front Page Top

#14 Wouldn't a 406 throw a projectile into orbit?

Posted by interested conservative 2005-09-09 19:13|| 2005-09-09 19:13|| Front Page Top

#15 I remember years ago, seeing a beautiful video of a 16" round landing on the side of a large hill in Lebanon, lifting up the whole side of that large hill and shaking it really hard. Took out four well-spaced artillery positions.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-09-09 19:24|| 2005-09-09 19:24|| Front Page Top

#16 HHHmmmmmmm. a five-incher is a five-incher, but is now too politically incorrect to call a six-point-one incher a "six-inch gun"!? It makes me laugh that Nelson kicked the asses of the French fleet all around the world but both the RN and USN have to become metric.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-09-09 21:32|| 2005-09-09 21:32|| Front Page Top

#17 HHHmmmmmmm. a five-incher is a five-incher, but is now too politically incorrect to call a six-point-one incher a "six-inch gun"!? It makes me laugh that Nelson kicked the asses of the French fleet all around the world but both the RN and USN have to become metric.

True, but at least you have to admit that the metric system makes a lot more sense strictly from a logical viewpoint. Besides it really is the only legal system of measure in the USA. The inch is officially described as 25.4MM

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-09-09 23:47|| 2005-09-09 23:47|| Front Page Top

23:47 Cheaderhead
23:44 Captain America
23:43 AJackson
23:43 ed
23:42 ed
23:39 OldSpook
23:37 IT Insider
23:35 Bomb-a-rama
23:35 Jan
23:35 ed
23:28 Jan
23:28 Tony
23:26 Bomb-a-rama
23:22 Alaska Paul
23:08 Alaska Paul
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:45 Phil Fraering
22:36 DanNY
22:34 Rafael
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:14 AJackson
22:11 Alaska Paul
22:08 Alaska Paul
22:00 JosephMendiola