Naval Gun Projects

[TomS]

IMO, it's not the gun per se, it's that this specific gun was a single-purpose anti-surface mount; most of the other guns you mentioned were dual-role anti-air/anti-surface weapons. The equivalent Bofors 76mm low-angle gun never sold very well, for example.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah exactly, were talking about a single purpose, non automatic, mount intended specifically for very small vessels. This is a very small niche, and one that small missiles could fill better. If you needed a gun for simple police work against say a sampan, then 40mm or even 20mm would work fine and provide AA defense which is critically lacking in small vessels of all types. The smallest vessels you see a weapon like the Italian automatic DP 76mm on are generally already in the 400+ ton range, multiple times the size of the war era motor gunboats the weapon in question seems to have been aimed at.


Wire guided missiles like SS.12 are very cheap in any case, and you could make training even cheaper by firing the smaller SS.11 which had near identical guidance. T

 

[thebig C]

Interesting post Abraham.
Some cojent points made regarding its effective single use. I think the comparison to the Bofors 76mm is apt.
However, given that the Oto 76mm and indeed Bofors 76mms have undergone several upgrades and incarnations, its entirely possible that had CFS2 been proceeded with it could have developed into a true multi-role weapon.
Much has been made of the anti-air role of the 76mm however, its debatable if the majority of its users actually use it for this purpose. In fact its notable that smaller calibre weapons such as 20/25/30/35/40mm are all use for CIWS purposes and missile systems are usually used to target aircraft. In general the 76mm is now used as a primary main armament.
For example, the Irish Naval Service which is a coastguard type navy the use the 76 on their OPVs. The advantage of the 84mm, would be it could have potentially provided a more powerful main gun to smaller Navies without the expense of upgunning to 100mm and above. It could also prove more effective against land based targets.
When the Castles were being commissioned wasn't there a rumour that they would be a test platform for a new primary armament??

C

 

[Sea Skimmer]

The specified shell weight is all of three pounds heavier then typical 3in weapons, this is not a measurable advantage for shore bombardment and muzzle velocity is nothing exceptional either. Inferior to the postwar 60-70cal 3in weapons and not that far ahead of a US wartime 3in 50cal. This is a tank gun put to sea, not some super powerful weapon.
Of course you might develop it into a completely different mounting, but this would then completely defeat the original point of the design by greatly increasing size and weight as well as invaliding the requirement for easily man handled ammunition. At that point it might as well get a longer barrel too, and higher velocity ammunition while you're at it. This is in any case just a validation of my assertion that CFS2 was doomed, if you think in terms of a totally different 84mm gun then sure, go ahead. As for use, I’d argue that use of the 76mm as a main armament simply reflects how marginal guns have become for any role and that the need for dedicated anti aircraft CIWS mounts shows just how serious the air threat became. Italy in any case, inventor of the OTO 76mm and earlier Allargato mount thinks very highly of it as a secondary armament. Its primary armament on a Horizon sure but with multiple guns specifically to facilitate AAW use.
Also looking around a little, navweapons claims that CFS2 was found to be too heavy for the intended coastal craft. I have no idea if this is true, but I can easily believe it would be if it was being intended for craft not much bigger then wartime motor gunboats.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The CFS2 was very different to the Oto Gun. The CFS2 was a stabilised gun mount with the same 20 pounder gun as fitted to the Centurion tank (later rebored to become the world famous 105mm L7 tank gun). It was manually loaded and aimed unlike the Oto Gun which fired automatically from an under deck carousel and needed a fire control system to find targets.

The CFS2 was to go to sea on the Brave class MTB/MGBs and the deck plan drawings above show it fitted. Those Brave class built all had 40mm Bofors guns except the three for Libya which had a heavier anti boat armament. This was SS.12 guided missile launchers which replaced the CFS2 capability. The missiles replaced the torpedos enabling these boats to retain the fore and aft 40mm guns. Each side of the bridge were racks for four SS.12s each and a stabilised sight forward of the open bridge connected to a gunner’s seat underneath in the pilot house. The SS.12 put a 63 lbs warhead onto a target out to 6,600 yards with high accuracy with a well-trained controller. This is far better performance than the CFS2 in the anti Komar/Osa role.

 

[Petrus]

Each side of the bridge were racks for four SS.12s each

The racks could have taken both SS.12 and SS.11 missiles, as may be seen in the photo attached to your post. If I am not mistaken the French tried a similar system, albeit with a trainable launcher, aboard their (experimental) Combattante-class boats. And there were some, also experimental vehicle-mounted installations with the SS.12 as well as the SS.11.
It seems that both types of missiles used the same guidance system.

Piotr

 

[RP1]

I've been scanning...


First up, a proposed Phalanx development with twin 25mm CTA and a big fat belly. Source: IDR 6/1990.


Secondly a land-based Phalanx with what look like twin Stingers on either side. Source: IDR 5/1987. Little additional information other than; trailer or truck carriage, intended for defence of airfields from PGM such as guided bombs, ARM and cruise missiles.


- RP1

 

[RP1]

And to continue the blue-into-brown theme, a trailer mounted version of the French 100mm. Source: IDR 2/1988.


RP1

 

[jsport]

I've been scanning...


First up, a proposed Phalanx development with twin 25mm CTA and a big fat belly. Source: IDR 6/1990.


Secondly a land-based Phalanx with what look like twin Stingers on either side. Source: IDR 5/1987. Little additional information other than; trailer or truck carriage, intended for defence of airfields from PGM such as guided bombs, ARM and cruise missiles.


- RP1

WOW, thank you RP1 for the posting... ;D

 

[RP1]

United Defense NG^2 155mm gun, advert that ran in USNI Proceedings in the latter part of the 1990s. No additional info other than what's on the image.


RP1


[Edited to add 3-view drawing from another advert]

 

[Creative]

Thanks! Fascinating pre-AGS.

 

[RP1]

FMC's 155mm Vertical Load Gun. From an advert and article in USNI Proceedings, July 1983.


The article is largely a discussion of the advantages of 155mm. From the advert, the 155mm VLG would "weigh about the same as current 5-inch lightweight guns" and have "40% fewer components".


RP1


Reference: Lt Col (Rtd) Michael L Mosbrooker & Lt Col (Rtd) John A Murray, USMC, "The Naval Gun: Encore! Encore!, USNI Proc. July 1983

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Good stuff Rach.

 

[jsport]

FMC's 155mm Vertical Load Gun. From an advert and article in USNI Proceedings, July 1983.


The article is largely a discussion of the advantages of 155mm. From the advert, the 155mm VLG would "weigh about the same as current 5-inch lightweight guns" and have "40% fewer components".


RP1


Reference: Lt Col (Rtd) Michael L Mosbrooker & Lt Col (Rtd) John A Murray, USMC, "The Naval Gun: Encore! Encore!, USNI Proc. July 1983

Thanks for posting
Seems like a great idea.

 

[Matt R.]

FMC's 155mm Vertical Load Gun. From an advert and article in USNI Proceedings, July 1983.

The article is largely a discussion of the advantages of 155mm. From the advert, the 155mm VLG would "weigh about the same as current 5-inch lightweight guns" and have "40% fewer components".

RP1

Reference: Lt Col (Rtd) Michael L Mosbrooker & Lt Col (Rtd) John A Murray, USMC, "The Naval Gun: Encore! Encore!, USNI Proc. July 1983

Vertical Loading System for a Gun Mount, Patent EP0058814A2, FMC Corporation, January 1982

 

[Grey Havoc]

A postcard which I discovered in my files recently. It shows an exhibit in the Crystal Palace in London, probably during the Great War Exhibition of 1920. The photo’s title is:

REPLICA OF THE WORLD’S BIGGEST GUN, ITS PROJECTILES AND CHARGE

The four projectiles shown are stencilled as follows (from left to right):
18 IN MK 1A A.P.C. FUZED
18 IN MK 1A H.E. FUZED
18 IN MK 1A SHRAPNEL FUZED
18 IN MK 1A C.P.C. FUZED

The topmost of the six propellant charges stacked up is labelled: 18 IN BL 105 LB CORDITE MD SIZE 45 1/6 CHARGE

A comparison with other gun photos, plus the six charges (which represent the full charge: 6 x 105 lb = 630 lb total charge) confirm that this replica is of the 18 inch naval gun which saw RN service in WW1, not the later, less powerful, howitzer. The shrapnel shell was presumably developed for its ultimate purpose of shore bombardment. The shells weighed in at 3,320 lbs (1506 kg).

More details about the gun and its ammunition are here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1.php

View attachment 616245

 

[ceccherini]

Has anyone information about the WW2 era German naval gun projects above 16", such as the 48 cm and 51 cm of the late H class proposals? I vaguely remember of a Krupp 1934 project for a 45 cm/L52 gun and two 1942 projects for 45 cm and 50 cm naval guns both of 60 calibers length but I've not more information nor I ever saw any drawing related.

 

[Tzoli]

I only know these:

Germany 40.6 cm/52 (16") SK C/34 and 42 cm/48 (16.5") SK C/40 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Germany 53 cm/52 (21") Gerät 36 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Does anybody have any information or images on the Vickers GBN? It was a 155mm designed for naval use and was unveiled in 1983, it was a counterpart to the GBT turret that eventually evolved into the AS90, both derived from UK work on SP70. In 1991 Vickers displayed a mock-up of what they called the N155-2000, basically a 155mm version of the 4.5 inch Mk8, I assume using Vickers UFH (Ultralight Field Howitzer- eventually became M777) barrel, basically the same as what BAE has been playing with recently through the 155mm TMF before it was abandoned in 2010.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=786

N155-2000. This concept is a private venture of VSEL
based on the 155 mm field artillery and coast defense
artillery developments, but intended purely for naval
gunfire support. No N155-2000s have actually been
produced to date. The weapon would have a 52 caliber
air-cooled barrel. The barrel length would be 8.06
meters, and the weapon would be of monobloc
construction, featuring a muzzle brake and fume
extractor. This model would be similar to the Mk 8 but
able to depress farther into enemy territory. Consequently,
the turret would have a height of only 3.3
meters. The below-decks components would be similar
to those of the N114-2000.


The N155-2000 would have the full range of rounds
currently associated with the different 155 mm
howitzers, weighing about 43.5 kilograms. The
mounting would be capable of bursts of 10 rounds per
minute and would be able to fire at a sustained rate of
3 rpm. The traverse range has been stated as 300
degrees, as opposed to the N114’s 340 degrees, while
the elevation is from -15 to +80 degrees. Mounting
weight has been quoted as 23.5 tonnes, and the muzzle
velocity as 945 mps. The projectile weight would be 43
kilograms each, and the rate of fire only 10 rpm, while
the range would be 30 km/40 km (the latter with the ER round).

 

[Tony Williams]

First up, a 35mm CIWS proposal presented at the 1991 US Navy League show.

Source: Navy International, November 1991, Vol 96, No 11, Publ: Maritime World Limited

EDIT
Some information from the same source:

• GD proposal to use GE Cased Telescoped ORDALT 35mm weapon system.
• 8 barrels.
• 8000rpm.
• Balanced linkless feed holding 1200 APDS rounds.
• Nearly 6x on target energy per shot compared with 20mm Phalanx.
• Dispersion of less than 1mrad.
• MV greater than 1130m/s.

Is there any more information or illustrations of the ammunition?

 

[RP1]

I don't have anything more, I'm afraid.

 

[Tzoli]

In the book
Identification of the Parameters of Naval Artillery by K. R. Crawford, N. W. Mitiukov
There is some data about other German "Gerät" cannons apart from the 53cm Gerät 36:

Germany 53 cm/52 (21") Gerät 36 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

and 5,5cm Gerät 58:

Germany 5.5 cm/77 (2.17") Gerät 58 - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

The book mentions these weapons:
40cm SKL/35 Gerät 11, apparently intended for the Derfflinger and König classes
400mm shells with a 885m/s muzzle velocity of a 735kg mass both APC and SAP

34cm SKL/45 Gerät 10 again for the Derfflinger and König classes
337mm shells with a 835m/s muzzle velocity of a 535kg mass both APC and SAP

Do you guys know about these?

 

[Grey Havoc]

 

[World B4]

I know that the IJN was working on a 16 inch gun better than the ones on the Nagato class, can anyone share any info? I also heard that they built an experimental 19 inch gun, but I am not sure where I read this, so any information or verification would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Tzoli]

The first 41cm IJN Cannons were used on the Nagato class and intended for the Amagi, Kii and Tosa classes:
The Type 3 or 3rd Year Type (1914):

Japan 40 cm/45 (16.1") 3rd Year Type - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

Before the years of the 1st London Naval Treaty of 1930, the IJN begun developing battleships to replace the aging Kongo class Battlecruisers, these designs known as the Kongo Replacement designs and two prominent architects proposed a number of designs:
Yuzuru Hiraga and Kikuo Fujimoto
Among the designs the 41cm armed versions preferred which were to be of a new gun, tentatively named Type 90 (1930)
At first this gun was known as a /50 calibre one, but I've found out that it was actually an 53 (To be precise 52,93) calibre weapon:

平賀譲デジタルアーカイブ · 〔各種砲塔図〕 · 東京大学学術資産等アーカイブズ共用サーバ

iiif.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

It would had fired the same 1020kg shell but an increased muzzle velocity of 810m/s

This gun might had been used for the 41cm armed Yamato preliminaries as well, or a completely new 50 calibre design to be used, that is not clear.

For the 48cm cannon you can find info here:

Japan 36 cm/45 (14.2") 5th Year Type - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Modelling bits of equipment to use later. The 1991 General Electric proposal for a 35mm CTA CIWS. MOAR.

 

[Firefinder]

Nice I wish there was more on that design.

 

[Tzoli]

Am I right it's a 10 barelled mount?
Can you make a top, side and front view with a scale? I woul like to try to draw it for my collection!

 

[TomS]

Am I right it's a 10 barelled mount?
Can you make a top, side and front view with a scale? I woul like to try to draw it for my collection!

Should be 8 barrels from the descriptions I've seen. Side and top views here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/naval-gun-projects.1672/post-13946

 

[Tzoli]

Am I right it's a 10 barelled mount?
Can you make a top, side and front view with a scale? I woul like to try to draw it for my collection!

Should be 8 barrels from the descriptions I've seen. Side and top views here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/naval-gun-projects.1672/post-13946

Sadly no scale or data on the mount dimensions and the drawing now only the thumbnail sized version

 

[TomS]

The base was to be the same as 20mm Phalanx, I believe.

 

[RP1]

The base was to be the same as 20mm Phalanx, I believe.

I found I couldn't make it fit on a Phalanx base - assuming the drawing is accurate It would have been wider.

Also I *knew* I'd posted it somewhere, but couldn't find the post, so tried to count the barrels from the drawing

 

[TomS]

The base was to be the same as 20mm Phalanx, I believe.

I found I couldn't make it fit on a Phalanx base - assuming the drawing is accurate It would have been wider.

Also I *knew* I'd posted it somewhere, but couldn't find the post, so tried to count the barrels from the drawing

I've been hunting for the other info I've seen on that. I thought for sure it was in one of the Friedman World Naval Weapons books but I cannot find it.

 

[Firefinder]

The Navy also worked on putting a 60mm revolver cannon on the Phalanx mount in the early 90s.

You can see it here in the video.

Real interesting gun that you cant find much of. Apperantly it was to shot a guided shell and was to have the option for a below decks reloading system like on the Oto Melara 76mm Sovraponte along with a larger built in mag for the production version. Died like many interesting things did in the 90s.

 

[TomS]

The Navy also worked on putting a 60mm revolver cannon on the Phalanx mount in the early 90s.

You can see it here in the video.

Real interesting gun that you cant find much of. Apperantly it was to shot a guided shell and was to have the option for a below decks reloading system like on the Oto Melara 76mm Sovraponte along with a larger built in mag for the production version. Died like many interesting things did in the 90s.

Thanks for digging up that video. The 60mm electrothermal gun embodied a couple of new developments together on one system, which probably didn't help its prospects. It needed guided rounds, and fitting that in 60mm was probably pushing the state of the art at the time. And of course it needed ETC to work, and I'm not sure it really ever lived up to it's promise.

If there had been appetite for a medium caliber guided AA round, fitting it into the 76mm gun would have made more sense to work with the existing guns on the FFGs and then possibly replacing Phalanx on new ships like the DDG-51s. Requiring both a new gun and new ammo at once made for too much risk in one project.

 

[Tzoli]

So the shell would look like something to a fin stabilised / guided shell? Or like a Maverick missile without the rocket motor?

 

[Firefinder]

So the shell would look like something to a fin stabilised / guided shell? Or like a Maverick missile without the rocket motor?

I have seen a picture of a mock up shell and it looked like a maverick without fins and it was to use a similar trick as what the Zeus shell of 1950 vintage was to to use, small retro rockets to kick the shell into posistion to hit the target.

 

[TomS]

So the shell would look like something to a fin stabilised / guided shell? Or like a Maverick missile without the rocket motor?

I have seen a picture of a mock up shell and it looked like a maverick without fins and it was to use a similar trick as what the Zeus shell of 1950 vintage was to to use, small retro rockets to kick the shell into posistion to hit the target.

Interesting. Side thrusters is a tried and true technique (ASTER uses something similar called PIF-PAF).

In looking for a picture of the shell, I came across a really odd study on mining technology (bear with me). Around 2003, Department of Energy was researching the use of gun-fired projectiles for excavation. They apparently got hold of the old 60mm ETC gun for their experiment and reworked it as a conventional powder gun for the test. The interesting thing is that the cases they used for the reworked gun came from IMI. Which suggests the original chamber was similar enough to the IMI 60mm AFV gun for the cases to be usable.

REDUCED ENERGY CONSUMPTION THROUGH PROJECTILE BASED EXCAVATION (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information

www.osti.gov

 

[Firefinder]

So the shell would look like something to a fin stabilised / guided shell? Or like a Maverick missile without the rocket motor?

I have seen a picture of a mock up shell and it looked like a maverick without fins and it was to use a similar trick as what the Zeus shell of 1950 vintage was to to use, small retro rockets to kick the shell into posistion to hit the target.

Interesting. Side thrusters is a tried and true technique (ASTER uses something similar called PIF-PAF).

In looking for a picture of the shell, I came across a really odd study on mining technology (bear with me). Around 2003, Department of Energy was researching the use of gun-fired projectiles for excavation. They apparently got hold of the old 60mm ETC gun for their experiment and reworked it as a conventional powder gun for the test. The interesting thing is that the cases they used for the reworked gun came from IMI. Which suggests the original chamber was similar enough to the IMI 60mm AFV gun for the cases to be usable.

REDUCED ENERGY CONSUMPTION THROUGH PROJECTILE BASED EXCAVATION (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information

www.osti.gov

I do believe I found the PDF where I found it.

Should be in here if I done this right. If I haven't Ill just post a screenshot of the shell.

 

[TomS]

I do believe I found the PDF where I found it.

Should be in here if I done this right. If I haven't Ill just post a screenshot of the shell.

Excellent!

So the projectile is hit to kill and basically consists of a small penetrator on top of a large divert and attitude control system. It's actually similar to the kinetic kill vehicles used for ballistic missile defense. The gas generator produces high volumes of gas, which are vented from probably two valves around the middle of the shell (two rather than four because the projectile is rolling). The shell has no actual seeker; it sends trajectory data via a rearward-looking antenna and receives course update instructions from the launch platform the same way.

It seems to have a sabot, if only to allow that very conical shell to ride the barrel easily, and possibly to protect that aft-facing antenna. There are shallow strakes/fins for some additional stability.

This would have been a pretty expensive projectile, I expect, even with the sophisticated guidance technology offloaded to the launcher.

Edit: I went ahead and pulled out the image of the 60mm shell for ease of reference.