Whatever happened to the navalized PzH2000 155mm turret?

[Corinthian]

I recall seeing pix of a PzH-2000 turret mounted on a warship for trials. Whatever happened to that program? Was the 155mm gun system used for the PzH-2000 adopted for some navy's ship?

[Archie Pellagio]

One barrel per turret wasn't sufficient, some were screaming for more...

[Tomas Hoting]

I recall seeing pix of a PzH-2000 turret mounted on a warship for trials. Whatever happened to that program? Was the 155mm gun system used for the PzH-2000 adopted for some navy's ship?

 

MONARC (Modular Naval Artillery Concept) was mainly cancelled due to the fact that adapting the PzH-2000's turret for the corrosive naval environment proved to be more difficult than expected. The German Navy has therefore selected the Italian Oto Melara 127/64 Lightweight (LW) naval gun for the new F-125 frigates.

[Tony Williams]

The last I heard the BAE were still proceeding with their rather different approach to the 155mm naval gun - stuffing a 155mm barrel into an existing 4.5 inch naval mounting - although whether that will survive the impending slaughter of the projects is uncertain, to put it mildly.

[Corinthian]

Tomas, Tony: What was the impetus for going to the 155mm calibre? What is it with the PzH-2000 gun system that traditional (i.e., the usual suspects) 3-inch/5-inch NGFS cannot provide? Was it simply a way to streamline logistics concerns? (i.e., with just one calibre, Army and Navy uses the same shell, simplifying the logistics) Or was 155mm really better? Or the Pzh-2000 gun itself was better (except that it wasn't corrosive-proof)?

[Richard Young]

Tomas, Tony: What was the impetus for going to the 155mm calibre? What is it with the PzH-2000 gun system that traditional (i.e., the usual suspects) 3-inch/5-inch NGFS cannot provide? Was it simply a way to streamline logistics concerns? (i.e., with just one calibre, Army and Navy uses the same shell, simplifying the logistics) Or was 155mm really better? Or the Pzh-2000 gun itself was better (except that it wasn't corrosive-proof)?

 

 

Even if you don;t use the exact same rounds and propellant, you can leverage off of the development of land-based 155mm rounds - especially the really expensive guided, sanse-and-destroy-armor, extended range, or other specialty rounds.

[Marcello]

Tomas, Tony: What was the impetus for going to the 155mm calibre? What is it with the PzH-2000 gun system that traditional (i.e., the usual suspects) 3-inch/5-inch NGFS cannot provide? Was it simply a way to streamline logistics concerns? (i.e., with just one calibre, Army and Navy uses the same shell, simplifying the logistics) Or was 155mm really better? Or the Pzh-2000 gun itself was better (except that it wasn't corrosive-proof)?

 

From what I have read a weapon the 6inch range would be better for fire support duties, much for the same reasons land armies have standardized on that caliber getting rid of lighter and heavier weapons: it offers the best compromise between various needs. Standardization (of components at least) would be an additional reason.

5inch is the mainstay in the western navies because it was the most powerful antiaircraft gun that could be practically built with pre WW2 technology. Inertia has carried it on past the cessation of the need for antiaircraft capability.

Others with more knwledge might chime in.

[Tony Williams]

A few additional supporting comments:

 

The number of large-calibre (100+mm, by current standards) naval guns in modern navies is tiny compared with the quantity of army artillery, but the increasing costs involved in developing and producing new (especially guided) ammo for them are just as large. So there should be huge long-term cost savings in being able to use army projectiles.

 

On top of that, 155mm is better for the most usual use of such naval guns - shore bombardment.

 

Information about the BAE project, from my web article on modern medium-calibre naval guns:

 

More recently BAE Systems have changed tack and are now offering a new concept, the existing 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval mounting with the gun switched to the 155mm L/39 from the AS90 (surplus barrels being available). This is known as the 155 TMF (Third generation Maritime Fire support). The existing mounting is apparently strong enough to stand the additional weight and recoil (and could also accept the 155mm L/52 if required). The weight of the 155 TMF mounting goes up from 22.5 tons (Mk 8 Mod 1) to 24.5 tons. although this is still lighter than the original 4.5 inch Mark 8 Mod 0 at 26.4 tons. Other modifications needed to the mounting include a double-stroke loading cycle to fire the separated ammunition (which would presumably halve the RoF to around 12 rpm) plus some adjustments to accommodate the wider ammunition. It appears that the gun will use a single-module L10 artillery charge. Obvious advantages include commonality of gun and ammunition with the British Army (with a huge long-term saving in future ammunition development costs), 80% commonality with the existing Mk 8 Mod 1 mounting without requiring the "navalisation" of an army turret, and greater destructive power than the 5 inch gun with a longer range than even the new 4.5 inch Extended Range ammunition: 30 v. 27 km. There is clearly the potential for far greater range and effectiveness increases in the future using advanced ammunition, including guided projectiles; for instance, Italy is planning a 155mm artillery version of the 5 inch Vulcano ammunition (see above). The RN is very keen on the 155 TMF project, resulting in the award of government development funding in 2007. The main problem to be solved is the handling of the propellant charges, which the RN requires to be encased for fire safety reasons.

[shep854]

"On top of that, 155mm is better for the most usual use of such naval guns - shore bombardment."--Tony Williams

 

It wouldn't be a slouch at ship bombardment, either.

[Colin]

It would seem to be better to design a barrel and recoil system that takes the 155 shell, however this means going to bag charges, which slows down the rate of fire and increases the fire risk aboard does it not? You could design a new barrel that chambers the existing 155mm shell but with a case for naval ops.

 

It would be cool to see a large destroyer fitted with 2 155mm guns fore and aft along with a QF 76mm up forward.

[EchoFiveMike]

Why bother with 76mm, 57mm is much more useful vs both small boats and as backup CIWS. S/F.....Ken M

[Special-K]

Why bother with 76mm, 57mm is much more useful vs both small boats and as backup CIWS. S/F.....Ken M

 

 

Why is this? Is it because of a higher rate of fire?

 

 

 

 

 

-K

[EchoFiveMike]

Why is this? Is it because of a higher rate of fire?

-K

 

Airburst ammo fielded w/57mm absolutely shreds small boats. Increased RoF compared to 76mm makes it viable as CIWS backup to RAM/VL-ESSM or whatever. S/F......Ken M

[bojan]

Airburst ammo fielded w/57mm absolutely shreds small boats. Increased RoF compared to 76mm makes it viable as CIWS backup to RAM/VL-ESSM or whatever. S/F......Ken M

 

Bofors 57mm (Mk1 in local case) is also ungodly accurate, when it was first time demonstrated it was "wow, we could not do that with 5/38..."

[Tomas Hoting]

Tomas, Tony: What was the impetus for going to the 155mm calibre? What is it with the PzH-2000 gun system that traditional (i.e., the usual suspects) 3-inch/5-inch NGFS cannot provide? Was it simply a way to streamline logistics concerns? (i.e., with just one calibre, Army and Navy uses the same shell, simplifying the logistics) Or was 155mm really better? Or the Pzh-2000 gun itself was better (except that it wasn't corrosive-proof)?

 

In addition to what has been said already:

 

The PzH 2000's gun turret (in theory) proved to be very well suited for the MONARC project due to its autonomy (onboard fire control, automatic gun positioning and laying system etc.) and the fact that it already has an automatic projectile loading system (requiring only one cannoneer to insert the propellant charge and close the breech). Instead of drawing the 155mm artillery rounds from the magazine in the chassis of the vehicle it would have to be modified to draw them from the ship's magazine. The fact that all the modular propellant charges (or older bagged charges) are stored in a protected magazine in the turret bustle also greatly reduces the risk of catastrophic anboard fires.

 

Modern conventional 155mm artillery rounds also offer good performance against hardened and semi-hardened targets and are themselves safer due to use of insensitive explosives.

[Chris Werb]

Airburst ammo fielded w/57mm absolutely shreds small boats. Increased RoF compared to 76mm makes it viable as CIWS backup to RAM/VL-ESSM or whatever. S/F......Ken M

 

Oto Melera claim to have got around the lower rate of fire in the CIWS role with (believe it or not!) guided shells.

 

 

In the anti boat role a 76mm firing a bit slower is still going to shred a small boat. I'd personally still take the 57mm option though.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpqNFkd9gI

 

And if you really want to give a small boat crew 'more then a few isses' as Lee would say:

 

Edited September 19, 2010 by Chris Werb

[TonyE]

12.7 quads backed up with grapeshot firing 106mm RCLs on swivelmounts can take out the Jihad-Joe boatclub any day of the week and twice on sundays....

[EchoFiveMike]

Oto Melera claim to have got around the lower rate of fire in the CIWS role with (believe it or not!) guided shells.

 

 

In the anti boat role a 76mm firing a bit slower is still going to shred a small boat. I'd personally still take the 57mm option though.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpqNFkd9gI

 

And if you really want to give a small boat crew 'more then a few isses' as Lee would say:

 

 

 

Guided shells....yeah, that sounds like a good idea in a last ditch "oh shit!" gun. Prox fuzed 57mm P3 ammo is stand alone. If the gun is turned on, it'll work. 76mm guided requires off mount support, bad idea.

 

I like 35mm, a lot, but 57mm with HE is going to be much better when you actually need a round that explodes. S/F......Ken M

[Chris Werb]

Guided shells....yeah, that sounds like a good idea in a last ditch "oh shit!" gun. Prox fuzed 57mm P3 ammo is stand alone. If the gun is turned on, it'll work. 76mm guided requires off mount support, bad idea.

 

I can see what you mean but the 57mm isn't an 'autonomous' system with its own search and tracking on the mount like Goalkeeper or Phalanx either. Also the proximity rounds, when fired at sea skimmers, use the 3P in 'range gated proximity' mode, which requires an off mount radar to provide the range parameters for the gate. My understanding is that they (or at least the 40mm version) default to proximity when fired in guns that don't have an induction fuse setter. That's a deliberate feature to make the most useful fuse option available to users of older 40mm L70 guns of which there are (as you know) a lot still around.

[Tomas Hoting]

I can see what you mean but the 57mm isn't an 'autonomous' system with its own search and tracking on the mount like Goalkeeper or Phalanx either. Also the proximity rounds, when fired at sea skimmers, use the 3P in 'range gated proximity' mode, which requires an off mount radar to provide the range parameters for the gate. My understanding is that they (or at least the 40mm version) default to proximity when fired in guns that don't have an induction fuse setter. That's a deliberate feature to make the most useful fuse option available to users of older 40mm L70 guns of which there are (as you know) a lot still around.

 

The 76mm Oto Melara can also fire proximity fuzed ammunition. According to the literature, the programmable 3A Plus fuze (programmed in the gun elevating mass) can be set for proximity (gated and/or target optimized), time (programmable or preset air burst), impact, delayed impact or self-destruct modes.

 

The radio frequency guidance antenna for the DART round is mounted on the gun itself.

[Chris Werb]

The radio frequency guidance antenna for the DART round is mounted on the gun itself.

 

That makes a lot of sense with the geometry involved.

[wallaby bob]

The 76mm Oto Melara can also fire proximity fuzed ammunition. According to the literature, the programmable 3A Plus fuze (programmed in the gun elevating mass) can be set for proximity (gated and/or target optimized), time (programmable or preset air burst), impact, delayed impact or self-destruct modes.

 

The radio frequency guidance antenna for the DART round is mounted on the gun itself.

 

ALL. I was amazed just looking at the manafacturers',Bofors and OTO Melara, supplied videos at the amount of smoke generated, quite a lot even after the round had obviously been propelled. No sign of anything like a fume extractor so obvously in an automatic weapon such as these were the need for unmanned turrets is clearly shown.

Incidently the surplus of smoke provided a very good visual demonstrarion of the work of the muzzlebrake in deflecting a considerable amount of the propellant gases rearward to reduce recoil.WB

Edited September 21, 2010 by wallaby bob

[DanielStarseer]

Anyone else catch this one?

 

BAE Systems Completes Successful Rocket Ballistic Test of 5-inch Long Range Land Attack Projectile

 

At first, I thought maybe a typo, as BAE is/was developing the 155mm (6.1inch) LRLAP for the USN's ailing DDG1000 program,

but the article does state they are developing it in 127mm caliber.

 

Interesting that they anticipate they can sabot it into 155mm tubes for land use.

Kicker is, they have to make it cost less than the $125K Excaliburs (GPS-guided 155mm PGM), which the US Army already cut back production numbers for...

 

Other foreign navies might pony up for it, depending on just how serious they are about conducting a lot of naval gunfire (mostly at stationary shore targets...)

 

$.02.

[Chris Werb]

How does it compare the the Italian Volcano 127mm system that Italy, NL and Germany are going to deploy?

[DanielStarseer]

How does it compare the the Italian Volcano 127mm system that Italy, NL and Germany are going to deploy?

 

NIH?

 

No seriously, from what little I gather,

Vulcano seems to be a family of munitions:

a shorter ranged ballistic unguided,

a mid-range possibly terminal homing,

and a longer-ranged GPS/INS guided),

not solely a single LRLAP-type that is simply "saboted up" to be fired from larger-caliber tubes, as appears the BAE/LM system.

(A gut instinct tells me I'd have more faith in it succeeding if it were BAE/ATK or BAE/Raytheon, before I'd trust a BAE/LM endeavor to make it work...)

 

Vulcano:

From NavWeaps (about 2/3 down the page).

From Defense-Update.

PDF from OTO Melara.

 

 

The BAE entry hints at using the same projectile, just sleeving/shoeing it up to fit the larger 155mm diameter tubes.

I am questioning as to whether then it will actually be physically shorter than the 155mm Excalibur.

Most likely the 127mm is longer, as has been the case with all 127mm PGMs so far (the actual gun tube just can't generate the pressures necessary to fire an unpropelled round to the ranges achievable by 155mm, so a longer body incorporating propellant becomes necessary), and therefore more expensive.

 

 

 

Personally, I'd still like to see the Precision Guidance Kit somehow port over successfully into naval guns, if attacking mostly static land targets is our only real naval gunfire priority...(the difficult part would be incorporating the Enhanced Portable Inductive Artillery Fuze Setter (EPIAFS) somewhere into the naval gun mount/system).

(more PGK technical stuff...)

 

Anyone else?