Posts:270 Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Contact:Yahoo Messenger, AOL
No, the AGS, can't, but the British 155mm FNG can, and there were originally plans for using modified 155mm NATO rounds in the AGS, so it could probably still be modified to do so, perhaps in a Mod 1 mount or something. My point is that the cost of developing a 155mm naval gun system COULD be cheaper since there is already plenty of 155mm ammo still in production. As far as I know, no one is making 8" naval artillery rounds anymore, so you'd have to develop both the gun and the ammo for it.
Posts:381 Joined: October 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Location: Russian Federation
Quote:
Yup, I totally agree. An 8" version of the AGS would be totally awesome. I think all-around, the 8" was the most versatile heavy gun of the modern era against both ships and shore targets
Quote:
As far as I know, no one is making 8" naval artillery rounds anymore, so you'd have to develop both the gun and the ammo for it.
Well, USSR in 1970-th was thinking about navalized version of 2S7 "Pion" 203-mm gun... So, you always could buy the russian shells.
Posts:498 Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:52 pm
Location: Willemstad, Curacao
Dilandu wrote:
Specialized shore bombardment 2 billion dollar ship? In 1980? Colleague, in could kill the elephant...
She still will serve the main role for ASuW but with a 8 inch gun for shore bombardment. her mk41 will be loaded with Tommahawks (nuclear) cruise missile's.
_________________ Vi coactus Door geweld gedwongen Forced by violence
------
Caption signing treaty with England by Johan de Witt
Posts:2936 Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
klagldsf wrote:
It's honestly not worth it. The Mk 16 rifle (which is the actual barrel that goes into the Mk 71 mount) is literally the exact same design that equipped the first USN heavy cruisers (i.e. treaty cruisers)
False statement. I can scarcely contain my shock.
Anyway, the less said about this design, the better. Goodness.
The OP ship is an ugly brute, how could you possibly compare it to the fine lines and martial looks of the USN gun cruisers of the 1940s? The last proper cruisers??!
Posts:270 Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Contact:Yahoo Messenger, AOL
Colosseum wrote:
The OP ship is an ugly brute, how could you possibly compare it to the fine lines and martial looks of the USN gun cruisers of the 1940s? The last proper cruisers??!
There's certainly no comparison where looks are concerned. The late WWII cruisers were definitely sexy. My personal favorite has always been the Des Moines class CAs. They were definitely the pinnacle of cruiser design. It was all down hill from there.
Quick links
FAQ
Register
Login![[Post Reply]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/button_topic_reply.gif "Post a reply"){kind=small}
![[*]](./styles/legacy/theme/images/button_topic_tools.gif){kind=small}
![[Profile]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/icon_user_profile.gif "Profile: travestytrav25"){kind=icon}
![[Quote]](./styles/legacy/theme/en/icon_post_quote.gif "Reply with quote"){kind=icon}
So, you always could buy the russian shells.
The point I was making still stands. I don't think there's any reason why a modern warship needs a rifle that diameter anymore.