Mk16G = 12" / 50 mark 8 naval gun or 8"/55 RF Mark 16

Dilandu wrote:

Hegemon wrote:
Yes, it is true. The soviets even put nuclear warheads on some of their S-200 anti-air missiles and on their 240 mm mortars. Talk about overkill!

Well, who doesn't? The USA have nuclear-tipped Nike-Hercules SAM, nuclear variants of "Talos" and "Terrier" naval SAM, 203-mm and 155-mm nuclear artillery shells, and even nuclear air-to-air missiles. Basically, it was typical overkill for the 1960s, when the guidance systems still weren't reliable enough, and small nuclear warhead were the best way to compensate for the guidance system inaccuracy. Or provide additional firepower for artillery - one nuclear shell could won the artillery duel in seconds.

I knew there had been nuclear artillery shells in the Cold War. But I thought they were only for larger guns. I never realized they shrunk nukes down to fit in a 155mm, regular field gun. Thank you. I learned something today.

Yep. Although IIRC, they were for 155mm cannon, not the M109 SP howitzer. [or was it the longer-barrel M109 variant? there was some constraint on which ordnance they could be fired from]

Henry Brown wrote:

Dilandu wrote:
Well, who doesn't? The USA have nuclear-tipped Nike-Hercules SAM, nuclear variants of "Talos" and "Terrier" naval SAM, 203-mm and 155-mm nuclear artillery shells, and even nuclear air-to-air missiles. Basically, it was typical overkill for the 1960s, when the guidance systems still weren't reliable enough, and small nuclear warhead were the best way to compensate for the guidance system inaccuracy. Or provide additional firepower for artillery - one nuclear shell could won the artillery duel in seconds.

I knew there had been nuclear artillery shells in the Cold War. But I thought they were only for larger guns. I never realized they shrunk nukes down to fit in a 155mm, regular field gun. Thank you. I learned something today.

Louis R wrote:Yep. Although IIRC, they were for 155mm cannon, not the M109 SP howitzer. [or was it the longer-barrel M109 variant? there was some constraint on which ordnance they could be fired from]

Henry Brown wrote: Well, who doesn't? The USA have nuclear-tipped Nike-Hercules SAM, nuclear variants of "Talos" and "Terrier" naval SAM, 203-mm and 155-mm nuclear artillery shells, and even nuclear air-to-air missiles. Basically, it was typical overkill for the 1960s, when the guidance systems still weren't reliable enough, and small nuclear warhead were the best way to compensate for the guidance system inaccuracy. Or provide additional firepower for artillery - one nuclear shell could won the artillery duel in seconds.

Dilandu wrote:I knew there had been nuclear artillery shells in the Cold War. But I thought they were only for larger guns. I never realized they shrunk nukes down to fit in a 155mm, regular field gun. Thank you. I learned something today.

They actually had a fraction kiloton warhead that could be fired from a recoiless rifle on a jeep.

The Davy Crockett was produced in two variants: the “light” M28 120mm recoilless rifle and the “heavy” M29 155mm recoilless rifle. The M28 had a range of approximately 1.25 miles (2 kilometers), while the larger M29 could launch a projectile out to 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Both variants fire the 76-pound M388 atomic projectile, which had a diameter of eleven inches and a length of thirty-one inches. After firing, four fins on the round’s tail popped out to stabilize it in flight. Due to its oblong shape, some soldiers referred to the projectile as the “atomic watermelon.” The M388 carried the W54 warhead, the smallest nuclear weapon deployed by U.S. armed forces. The W54 weighed fifty-one pounds and had an explosive yield of .01-.02 kilotons of TNT (the equivalent of approximately 10-20 tons). The same warhead was also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Air Force’s AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile.

The Davy Crockett was operated by a three-man crew and mounted on an M38 or M151 jeep. Both variants could be launched from jeeps, but they could also be launched from a tripod placed on the ground. The M28 launcher weighed 185 pounds. The larger M29, weighing in at 440 pounds, was often carried by an M113 armored personnel carrier (APC), but it was fired only from a tripod mounted on the ground near the vehicle, not from the APC itself.

Despite the jokes, they never developed the nuclear hand grenade.

tlb wrote:
Despite the jokes, they never developed the nuclear hand grenade.

There was a nuclear "demo charge" though. It was a backpack with a kiloton range weapon in it. There were several teams in W. Germany and S. Korea which were prepared to use them.

Theemile wrote:
There was a nuclear "demo charge" though. It was a backpack with a kiloton range weapon in it. There were several teams in W. Germany and S. Korea which were prepared to use them.

To be exact, it was SADM - Special Atomic Demolition Munition, based of W-54 subkiloton warhead (from "Davey Crockett" nuclear recoiless rifle). This was the only ADM's that was really man-protable. Others were usually nuclear mines/engineering devices, and weighted several hundred kilograms.

tlb wrote:

Louis R wrote:Yep. Although IIRC, they were for 155mm cannon, not the M109 SP howitzer. [or was it the longer-barrel M109 variant? there was some constraint on which ordnance they could be fired from]

Henry Brown wrote: Well, who doesn't? The USA have nuclear-tipped Nike-Hercules SAM, nuclear variants of "Talos" and "Terrier" naval SAM, 203-mm and 155-mm nuclear artillery shells, and even nuclear air-to-air missiles. Basically, it was typical overkill for the 1960s, when the guidance systems still weren't reliable enough, and small nuclear warhead were the best way to compensate for the guidance system inaccuracy. Or provide additional firepower for artillery - one nuclear shell could won the artillery duel in seconds.

Dilandu wrote:I knew there had been nuclear artillery shells in the Cold War. But I thought they were only for larger guns. I never realized they shrunk nukes down to fit in a 155mm, regular field gun. Thank you. I learned something today.

They actually had a fraction kiloton warhead that could be fired from a recoiless rifle on a jeep.

The Davy Crockett was produced in two variants: the “light” M28 120mm recoilless rifle and the “heavy” M29 155mm recoilless rifle. The M28 had a range of approximately 1.25 miles (2 kilometers), while the larger M29 could launch a projectile out to 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Both variants fire the 76-pound M388 atomic projectile, which had a diameter of eleven inches and a length of thirty-one inches. After firing, four fins on the round’s tail popped out to stabilize it in flight. Due to its oblong shape, some soldiers referred to the projectile as the “atomic watermelon.” The M388 carried the W54 warhead, the smallest nuclear weapon deployed by U.S. armed forces. The W54 weighed fifty-one pounds and had an explosive yield of .01-.02 kilotons of TNT (the equivalent of approximately 10-20 tons). The same warhead was also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Air Force’s AIM-26 Falcon air-to-air missile.

The Davy Crockett was operated by a three-man crew and mounted on an M38 or M151 jeep. Both variants could be launched from jeeps, but they could also be launched from a tripod placed on the ground. The M28 launcher weighed 185 pounds. The larger M29, weighing in at 440 pounds, was often carried by an M113 armored personnel carrier (APC), but it was fired only from a tripod mounted on the ground near the vehicle, not from the APC itself.

Despite the jokes, they never developed the nuclear hand grenade.

Theoretical designs were developed.

They required Californium isotopes with very high neutron absorbion cross sections.

The program was cancelled when they realized that only NFL quarter backs could survive employing them.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Theoretical designs were developed.

They required Californium isotopes with very high neutron absorbion cross sections.

The program was cancelled when they realized that only NFL quarter backs could survive employing them.

The main problem was, that californium-252 critical mass is 2,73 kg, and the whole world production of californium is smaller by four orders of magnitude. And more costly, since one gram of californium-252 cost more than 25 million dollars.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Keep in mind that the theoretical maximim velocity for guns using standard propellants is about 2,500 m/s vs about 800m/s for BB guns. Practical limit factoring in effective pressure drop vs velocity and barrel friction is about 2,000 m/s. 120 mm tank guns with saboted rounds come close to this velocity. Electrothermal hybrid guns could do 2,000 m/s no problem. Range is proportional to velocity squared. Max theoretical range WITHOUT gliding is about 400 kilometers!

WWII guns had steel of ~50ksi. Today we use junky barrels with ~100ksi steel and roughly 120ksri fracture toughness. Back in the 80's they built test guns with 150ksi steel achieving nearly 6500ft's. Also developed steel with working 200+ksi and 200ksri to achieve a barrel exit speed in excess of 7500ft/s or greater than 2000m/s. Barrel wear became excessive so needed something new. They developed something new, throw away barrels. Essentially said 200ksi/200ksri steel liner wrapped in CF and Kevlar creating a barrel that weighed 1/4 that of a normal barrel with the ability to be segmented. True, the chamber/receiver was not able to be thrown away and changed, but the barrel could be. Which means you could have self propelled artillery with the ability to double its barrel length at need while at the same time being compact for transportation achieving exit velocity of 2000m/s giving a range for 200mm artillery of 400km and naval guns with longer caliber and larger diameter an effective range of essentially infinity with the additional benefit of being steerable as the longer barrel gives lower acceleration making the very sensitive INS able to be made cheaper.

Obviously they never got built. But, there is zero need for a railgun other than to get rid of the very sensitive propellant. Of course currently they can't figure out how to make a railgun projectile steerable due to the EMP of the gun itself destroying all electronics on board...

EDIT: PS the so called "modern" high speed projectile developed for the railgun was not. It was developed in the 80's for normal barrels as a saboted 155mm round to be fired from 240mm gun barrels achieving Muzzle Energies of 200MJ, exit speeds of 2200m/s out of a segmented barrel with a working pressure of 100,000ksi. This is why the program CRUSADER/EXCALIBER part of future combat systems started in the 90's had 200+ mm barrels. It would have made a single artillery station able to have a pin point operational range and target distance of around 200nm with ordinance arriving at Mach 7 with 50kg of explosives. CAS from UAV's becomes a joke. Need for airpower/CARRIERS becomes .... a JOKE.

A battleship with larger guns would effectively be able to deliver 5X a carrier air wings tonnage at Mach 6 and do so without putting any uber expensive fighters in harm's way. Of course the Zumwalt got crippled and FCS got eliminated as soon as these stats became available to the naval power structure. It is all based on carrier aviation. If the new ships were built, all those carriers become obsolete along with all those admirals who now have no path to the top. Since it is up or out, well, it means all their friends just got booted OUT. So, Zumwalt got crippled. Crusader got crippled and instead Excaliber got created by only used in essentially useless 155mm short caliber low exit velocity barrels so naturally the army did not buy many and the cost of Excaliber went up massively. Now cost of a Excaliber shell is $100,000 if not more with a tiny tiny tiny warhead and getting the brass up above to fire them is near impossible.

Relax wrote: CAS from UAV's becomes a joke. Need for airpower/CARRIERS becomes .... a JOKE.

A battleship with larger guns would effectively be able to deliver 5X a carrier air wings tonnage at Mach 6 and do so without putting any uber expensive fighters in harm's way. Of course the Zumwalt got crippled and FCS got eliminated as soon as these stats became available to the naval power structure. It is all based on carrier aviation. If the new ships were built, all those carriers become obsolete along with all those admirals who now have no path to the top. Since it is up or out, well, it means all their friends just got booted OUT. So, Zumwalt got crippled. Crusader got crippled and instead Excaliber got created by only used in essentially useless 155mm short caliber low exit velocity barrels so naturally the army did not buy many and the cost of Excaliber went up massively. Now cost of a Excaliber shell is $100,000 if not more with a tiny tiny tiny warhead and getting the brass up above to fire them is near impossible.

To put it simply: wrong.

The carrier main advantage is that she is able to work through her proxies - planes - without endangering or even revealing themselves. Carriers are VERY stealthy. They do not need to activate their own radars to have completely situational awareness.

The described battleship could not do that. As soon as she launch her first salvo, the enemy would detect her shells and calculate her position by their trajectories. After which, ASM's and strike aviation would immediately be zeroed on battleship's position. And without long-range, echeloned aerial defense - which only aircraft carrier could provide - the battleship would be sitting duck. No matter how good is battleship's own defenses, they would be saturated, if you gave enemy missile carriers a free run.

So while the railguns is valuable SUPPORT weapon, they would NOT move the carriers out of buisness.

Dilandu wrote:

Relax wrote: CAS from UAV's becomes a joke. Need for airpower/CARRIERS becomes .... a JOKE.

To put it simply: wrong.

The carrier main advantage is that she is able to work through her proxies - planes - without endangering or even revealing themselves. Carriers are VERY stealthy. They do not need to activate their own radars to have completely situational awareness.

The described battleship could not do that. As soon as she launch her first salvo, the enemy would detect her shells and calculate her position by their trajectories. After which, ASM's and strike aviation would immediately be zeroed on battleship's position. And without long-range, echeloned aerial defense - which only aircraft carrier could provide - the battleship would be sitting duck. No matter how good is battleship's own defenses, they would be saturated, if you gave enemy missile carriers a free run.

So while the railguns is valuable SUPPORT weapon, they would NOT move the carriers out of buisness.

1) Situational awareness: You can see surface ships from satellites from space. No, the Zumwalt is not stealthy. It makes a 747 look like a stealth aircraft. Why carriers are giant ass jokes today. Anyone with satellites knows where they are already. A quick launch of a mini satellite is quite simple and were made in case the space satellites were eliminated(they will die first)

2) Situational awareness: Yes, always need information. No reason you can't put a catapult/trap on a battleship for UAV's to obtain said situational awareness. Don't need 100 plane 5000 person aircraft carrier to do that.

3) Situational Awareness: Need ASW big time and carriers don't do squat for that.

4) Trajectory: Steerable shells. They have no idea where they are from. Can steer 30 degrees, so it gives a range. A segmented could launch these shells into the exo atmosphere. Besides, they have satellites so they know where your ship is already. The only question is their scan frequency. Why semi or fully submersed carriers were postulated as the next reality in the 80's after it became obvious our own satellites could track our own ships...... Of course the cost of such ships beggars the mind.

5) Defense: Short answer: Modern carriers have no defense. Long answer: Currently carriers have no defense at range to begin with except against slow moving bumbling dufus giant bombers. Why? The air arms missiles are Mach 5 birds with piddly diddly range which MEANS you must be sitting ON TOP of the attacking aircraft to take them down. Attacking missiles are Mach 5 birds with 300km range being carried by Mach 2 incoming long ranged stealth/semi stealth aircraft and the air arms distance is a mere 700km with no loiter time and cruising at 400knots which means IF they patrolled in the perfect position(AS IF) they could theoretically intercept for exactly... one hour and their aircraft incoming are stealthy.... yea right, good luck... Which also means subs can launch Mach 5 Brahmos or equivalent missiles by the hundred as they get info from satellites and never be seen by ASW as 300km is an insane amount of real estate to hide in and they can HEAR your task group 1000 miles away.

6) Only defense is what they are working on right now: LASERS.

PS: I highly doubt the navy has launched 100 missiles at itself and actually tested its own defense systems against even 100 Mach 1 missiles. Actually we know they have not. Let alone Mach 5 missiles where a few of them could throw out RADAR dummies doubling the effective incoming numbers. Well the USN effectively already threw up the white flag on this and are going 100% into LASERS which they can mount on a ship by the 100 where their only limitation is the amount of onboard power.

PPS: If you had segmented thin walled replaceable barrels firing mach 5 or greater... Also, add steerable shells means you now have another option for long range missile defense making all active defenses today look like garbage.

Perfect world? Of course not. There are many jobs that still require the ol' mark 1 eyeball tied into the original computer.