Posted on Jun 3, 2023
US Navy Discloses 155mm Advanced Gun System’s Preliminary Fate - Naval News
118
1
1
0
0
0
Designed as long-range offshore fire support for a potential U.S. Marines’ amphibious landing, the stealthy Mark 51 155mm/62 (6.1”) AGSs were supposed to be the largest caliber of offshore naval gunfire support aboard a U.S. Navy warship. However, their ammunition magazines and automated loading were not designed to fit, handle, and fire U.S. Army and NATO-standard 155mm howitzer shells due to differences in the shape and size of the projectile and firing charges, thus requiring special custom GPS Long-Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP) costing around $800,000+ each due to the reduction of Zumwalt-class destroyers from 32 to 3.
This exorbitant cost of each shell rendered the AGSs useless for years even though the guns could, in theory, fire at 83 nautical miles (150 kilometers) at 10 rounds-per-minute with LRLAP. A whopping 335 155mm rounds can be carried aboard each AGS, or 670 rounds for both 155mm AGSs. There is also an auxiliary storeroom separate from the automated ammunition handling system that can hold an additional 320 rounds and would require the manual transfer of the rounds to the guns’ magazines. Therefore, one Zumwalt-class destroyer has 990 rounds of 155mm AGS shells.
This exorbitant cost of each shell rendered the AGSs useless for years even though the guns could, in theory, fire at 83 nautical miles (150 kilometers) at 10 rounds-per-minute with LRLAP. A whopping 335 155mm rounds can be carried aboard each AGS, or 670 rounds for both 155mm AGSs. There is also an auxiliary storeroom separate from the automated ammunition handling system that can hold an additional 320 rounds and would require the manual transfer of the rounds to the guns’ magazines. Therefore, one Zumwalt-class destroyer has 990 rounds of 155mm AGS shells.
US Navy Discloses 155mm Advanced Gun System’s Preliminary Fate - Naval News
Posted from navalnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Weapons
Weapons
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
The navies of the world have long claimed to need different cannons from those used by their nation's armies. That made sense when naval guns and army guns served different purposes. Naval guns were for shooting at other ships. Army guns were for providing fire support to soldiers on land. Naval guns could do that too, but they remained primarily for shooting at other ships.
Both also used guns for shooting at aircraft -- the anti-aircraft guns were sometimes the same but not always because both services maintained totally separate ordnance development pipelines that were each loathe to admit the other had any better ideas.
Now that there really isn't any point in naval guns for shooting at other ships, naval artillery is almost exclusively for shore bombardment -- performing exactly the same mission as army artillery. Yes, there still need to be differences in the guns themselves (mostly in terms of fire control and ammunition handling), but we are well past the time when commonality of ammunition ought to be not just considered but required.
Both also used guns for shooting at aircraft -- the anti-aircraft guns were sometimes the same but not always because both services maintained totally separate ordnance development pipelines that were each loathe to admit the other had any better ideas.
Now that there really isn't any point in naval guns for shooting at other ships, naval artillery is almost exclusively for shore bombardment -- performing exactly the same mission as army artillery. Yes, there still need to be differences in the guns themselves (mostly in terms of fire control and ammunition handling), but we are well past the time when commonality of ammunition ought to be not just considered but required.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google