Strategic, long-range cannon.

As in the V3. But that makes a very large mounting even larger and more vulnerable. And using a sabot reduses the effective diameter of the projectile.
More vulnerable to what?

The reduction of the diameter in using a sabot is negligible. In this case the sabot is to supply forward obturation and provide a sacrificial wear surface. Not as a means to drive a smaller projectile faster, as in AT Kinetic rounds.
 
More vulnerable to what?

The reduction of the diameter in using a sabot is negligible. In this case the sabot is to supply forward obturation and provide a sacrificial wear surface. Not as a means to drive a smaller projectile faster, as in AT Kinetic rounds.
More vulnerable to any force with sufficiently good targeting and counter-strike capability. If this wonder-weapon is to be used against enemies equipped with the equivalent of the sharpened mango then it's munitions might arrive un-noticed, and remain so. But that's a rather cost-ineffective method. And against roughly comparable opposition either they (or an affiliated super-power) might be less forgiving.

As a glorified driving band then fine but that implies rocket assistance. There are easier ways.....
 
..More vulnerable to any force with sufficiently good targeting and counter-strike capability. If this wonder-weapon is to be used against enemies equipped with the equivalent of the sharpened mango then it's munitions might arrive un-noticed, and remain so. But that's a rather cost-ineffective method. And against roughly comparable opposition either they (or an affiliated super-power) might be less forgiving...
Would I be right in thinking that you have not read through the thread?

...As a glorified driving band then fine but that implies rocket assistance....
No it doesn't. Since when does a sabot mean that something is rocket assisted?
 
Unless you could use it in peacetime to launch reconnaissance payloads into a high altitude parabola, for example firing them from the Scottish highlands and islands (Shetlands maybe?) to get a quick peek into the Murmansk area. How you recover it, or transit the information back, is another issue.
Really petty sure you could do this using a missile, whether launched from the ground or a plane cheaper or one of the satellites that's already up there.
 
Would I be right in thinking that you have not read through the thread?
No.

No it doesn't. Since when does a sabot mean that something is rocket assisted?
I presume that you want this thing to be very accurate at very, very long range. That implies an extraordinary level of stability for the projectile. A conventional rifled barrel would not generate enough range: the most successful so far, the Paris gun, used an 69ft long, 8in liner in a 15in barrel to project a 234lb shell to 81mls - and to gain that range the charge was sufficiently powerful to burn an inch off the chamber throat with each shot. More modern ballistics and propellants would yield incremental improvements to that but not factorial.

Now an 8in shell is not big enough anyway to generate the effects considered previously. The biggest rifled barrel in service so far was the Kraut 31.5in Schwere Gustav railway gun which fired a roughly 7t shell to about 29mls. A rocket-assisted shell was planned with a range of 93mls - not much better than the Paris gun. To do all of that the mounting set up for firing weighed 1,350t, on the move the twenty railway trucks took up just under a mile of track. The Krauts were also planning bigger guns and mountings but you have to wonder....

Using a smooth-bore barrel allows a bigger projectile but needs a means of stabilising it, both in the barrel and in flight. A sabot or driving band, or whatever, would work in the barrel but in flight some sort of control surfaces would be necessary (or a piece of wire a few hundred miles long?). To achieve range you could use either one very big bang or lots of smaller ones (and the best of the latter so far, the V3, had a range of about 100mls but only a 6in, 310lb shell) but the former comes with wear constraints (and the effect on sensitive payloads) and the latter probably calibre limits. Or you could use a rocket motor, it removes the constraints above but, once again, why limit yourself to a gun barrel when perfectly good guided missiles exist already?
 
I think many of our forum members are forgetting, that this weapon will also be purely conventional. In the coming years the US could use the Minuteman 3’s as a conventional global strike weapon. However that would cause to many people to change pants, when one of those puppies is launched.
And as for Russia's A N Other side's reaction when they see that launch signature...
 
So why argue a point that had already been addressed?

...I presume that you want this thing to be very accurate at very, very long range. That implies an extraordinary level of stability for the projectile. A conventional rifled barrel would not generate enough range: the most successful so far, the Paris gun, used an 69ft long, 8in liner in a 15in barrel to project a 234lb shell to 81mls - and to gain that range the charge was sufficiently powerful to burn an inch off the chamber throat with each shot. More modern ballistics and propellants would yield incremental improvements to that but not factorial.

Now an 8in shell is not big enough anyway to generate the effects considered previously. The biggest rifled barrel in service so far was the Kraut 31.5in Schwere Gustav railway gun which fired a roughly 7t shell to about 29mls. A rocket-assisted shell was planned with a range of 93mls - not much better than the Paris gun. To do all of that the mounting set up for firing weighed 1,350t, on the move the twenty railway trucks took up just under a mile of track. The Krauts were also planning bigger guns and mountings but you have to wonder....
You keep referring back to very old technology, it's like trying to design a modern sports car with the limitations of Henry Ford's production line!

...Using a smooth-bore barrel allows a bigger projectile but needs a means of stabilising it, both in the barrel and in flight. A sabot or driving band, or whatever, would work in the barrel but in flight some sort of control surfaces would be necessary (or a piece of wire a few hundred miles long?). To achieve range you could use either one very big bang or lots of smaller ones (and the best of the latter so far, the V3, had a range of about 100mls but only a 6in, 310lb shell) but the former comes with wear constraints (and the effect on sensitive payloads) and the latter probably calibre limits. Or you could use a rocket motor, it removes the constraints above but, once again, why limit yourself to a gun barrel when perfectly good guided missiles exist already?
We have been putting terminal guidance is artillery shells since the 1970s (with varying degree of success). And I take it you are unfamiliar with laser ring gyros and solid state accelerometers (which are the basis of all modern aircraft IRS. These things are only about 5 cm across and supply stability reference and guidance in all three planes (much smaller examples are also available). The entire guidance system (CPU, IRS & power supply) would fit in the palm of your hand. The control system is very simple and is already fitted to a range of munitions.

Why not use a guided missile - because unless you are willing to forward base a launch site, you are going to use an incredible amount of energy launching the missile, of which its biggest mass is it's fuel!
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
And as for Russia's A N Other side's reaction when they see that launch signature...
It would definitely create a sporty atmosphere. But a large cannon, is not the same as an ICBM and could be very useful indeed.
 
We have been putting terminal guidance is artillery shells since the 1970s (with varying degree of success). And I take it you are unfamiliar with laser ring gyros and solid state accelerometers (which are the basis of all modern aircraft IRS. These things are only about 5 cm across and supply stability reference and guidance in all three planes (much smaller examples are also available). The entire guidance system (CPU, IRS & power supply) would fit in the palm of your hand. The control system is very simple and is already fitted to a range of munitions.

Why not use a guided missile - because unless you are willing to forward base a launch site, you are going to use an incredible amount of energy launching the missile, of which its biggest mass is it's fuel!
Yes, I know that, and the circuitry will only get smaller.

So use an air-launched missile....
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Yes, I know that, and the circuitry will only get smaller.

So use an air-launched missile....
Which means you need platforms from the Air Farce to do the launching, and they will have their own program and their own priority targets. Giving the Army the ability to shape the deep fight, without needing as much support from the other branches is a good idea. Long Range Precision Fires are one of the top modernization priorities for the US Army.



Some members of the forum seem to think, that airpower will not be contested by a near peer adversary and area denial weapons don't exist. The US military is preparing to fight and defeat opponents who are advanced.
 
Yes, I know that, and the circuitry will only get smaller.

So use an air-launched missile....
And we are back to the point I raised in Post #6 about the cost and risk of deploying assets near the target.
 
And we are back to the point I raised in Post #6 about the cost and risk of deploying assets near the target.
And my #10, the classic circular argument.

This thread has raised some interesting questions outside of the original thrust. Maybe later.
 
And my #10, the classic circular argument.

This thread has raised some interesting questions outside of the original thrust. Maybe later.
Agreed, despite the initial advantages, it has a very niche capability and will be very quickly replaced by future advances.
 
D

Deleted 24582

Guest
Agreed, despite the initial advantages, it has a very niche capability and will be very quickly replaced by future advances.
That is a very bold assumption. If it comes to fruition, I could imagine the US Army procuring quite a few battalions of LRFA. Missiles are great until one realizes just how much they cost and how much more vulnerable they are to advanced ADA.
 
That is a very bold assumption. If it comes to fruition, I could imagine the US Army procuring quite a few battalions of LRFA. Missiles are great until one realizes just how much they cost and how much more vulnerable they are to advanced ADA.
It could be, if I haven't seen what Boeing are up to.
 

Latest Threads

Top