EXCALIBUR PROJECTILE FOR U.S NAVY WARSHIPS !!


Raytheon has revealed this week that the U.S
Navy had conducted a ground test of a precision-guided projectile. John Hobday, senior manager for advanced programs
with Raytheon’s Land Warfare Systems division, told Military.com that test of the N5 naval
variant of the Excalibur projectile took place in September at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. Raytheon’s announcement came on the first
day of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space expo which was organized near Washington, D.C. In the event, the company conducted a briefing
on the technology. Viewers may note that the Excalibur was originally
meant for the U.S Army and has been tested with 155 mm howitzers. Mr. Hobday said, “What we have done is leveraged
and reused the components … in a round that can be fired from the Navy 5-inch gun. Part of [the test] was to establish the fact
that it did work with the existing 5-inch rounds.” Before this, the N5 round was fired from a
naval 5-inch gun in a 2015 test at Yuma. This follow up test indicate that the U.S
Navy is still interested in the technology though it is investing in more pathbreaking
systems like rail guns and lasers. Excalibur could be one of the most important
new tech for the U.S military and it may have an impact on how future naval battles are
fought. In this video Defense Updates analyzes US
Navy’s Excalibur projectile Let’s gets started. This video is sponsored by the free-to-play
military vehicle combat game War Thunder. We talk a lot about military vehicles on this
channel, but what about trying them out for yourself? In War Thunder, you can chose from more than
1200 playable vehicles from the 1930s to the 1990s and go to battle on more than 80 theaters
of war. You can fly aircraft, helicopters, drive tanks
and command ships of all types and sizes, which have all been carefully recreated from
their real-world counterparts. It’s available as a free download on PC, PlayStation4
and Xbox One with cross-platform support, so grab your friends and give it a try! All viewers of Defense Updates that register
using the link in the description below will also get a free premium tank or aircraft and
three days of premium account time as a bonus. The main advantage of the Excalibur shell
is the enhanced range. The Excalibur projectile has double the effective
range of the conventional shell currently being used with the MK-45 5-inch gun present
U.S Navy warships. It can fire out to 40 kilometers, or almost
22 nautical miles, compared with the current range of just over 20 km achieved by traditional
shells. The rounds also have an accuracy inside 2
meters which is much better than that of conventional shells. Mr. Hobday noted that it would be a smart
investment for the Navy because the service will be able to “leverage other people’s money”
by taking advantage of an existing program. He added that the testing validated the projectile
could be used in the existing 5-inch gun without major changes being required. As per him, if the U.S Navy decided to go
ahead with Excalibur rounds then the cost is expected to be around $70,000 per round. Going forward, the U.S navy could also take
into consideration a new variant of Excalibur which is currently being developed for the
U.S Army. The variant, known as Excalibur S has laser
guidance which makes it capable of seeking & engaging moving targets. Hobday said, “What this becomes is almost,
for the Marine Corps, an adjunct to close-air support,” The important aspect is that Excalibur shell
can be fired from MK-45 5 inch guns. The MK 45 gun is installed in Arleigh Burke
class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers. US Navy 66 Arleigh Burke class destroyers
and 22 Ticonderoga class cruisers. So, all these warships could be upgraded with
enhanced engagement range with limited modifications. The MK 45 Gun is a pretty matured system. The MK 45 gun was developed from MK 42 5 inch
gun mount. The main improvements were lighter weight,
easier maintenance, and better fire control. It is designed to engage surface ships and
air targets as well as can act as a land attack weapon. MK 45 Gun Mount is remotely fired from the
MK 160 Gun Computer System or MK 86 Gun Fire Control during normal operations. The fully-automatic naval gun mount is employed
against surface (Anti-Surface Warfare – ASuW), air (Anti-Air Warfare – AAW), and land attack
(Naval Surface Fire Support ) targets. There have been several upgrades. For example, MK 45 Mod 4 gun mount upgrade
has a longer barrel that improves the gun’s effectiveness as a land attack weapon. The gun mount includes a 20 round automatic
loader drum. The gun has a maximum firing rate of 16-20
rounds per minute. The rounds in the loader drum can be fired
with one crew member located below deck. The drums are reloaded by other crew members
all of whom are stationed below deck. A naval gun mount is present in almost all
the major warships. To understand the situation we need to check
what America’s main rivals – Russia & China have. The Russian use the AK-130 naval gun turret
which is of Soviet origin. It was developed in the 1970s as a more capable
gun turret than the earlier SM-2 as armament for destroyers and cruisers. The AK-130 is the most powerful naval gun
turret that remains in service. The AK-130 is one of the few modern two barrel
gun turrets. Its single barrel performance is similar to
the American Mk 45. The AK-130 is a massive twin gun turret. It was developed as a single gun design at
first but two guns were required to meet the desired rate of fire. The 130mm guns have been derived from the
130mm M-46 towed artillery piece. The water cooled guns are mounted side by
side in an unmanned turret with an automatic loader. The ammunition is stored below deck like its
American counterpart. A total of 150 to 180 rounds are generally
stored. Additional rounds are carried and that count
will depend on the warship on which the gun turret is mounted. The MR-184 fire control radar and optronic
guidance package can control up to two AK-130 turrets. The maximum range is 23 km or 14.5 nautical
miles against surface targets and 15 km or 8 nautical miles versus aerial targets. The rate of fire is 10 to 35 rpm per barrel,
so the combined results in a maximum of 70 rpm per gun mount. The AK-130 is present in on the Sovremenny
and Udaloy II class destroyers and the Slava and Kirov class cruisers. The Chinese Navy uses the H/PJ-38 130 mm naval
gun. It is designed by the Zhengzhou Mechanical-Electrical
Engineering Research Institute and manufactured by Inner Mongolia 2nd Machinery Manufacturing
Factory. The H/PJ-38 naval gun was developed by reverse
engineering of Russian AK-130 naval gun turret. The range remains the same as it is inherently
same as Russian AK-130. The main difference was that H/PJ-38 mount
is single barreled and it can fire even gun-launched missiles apart from traditional shells. China is thought to have developed different
kinds of rounds for this gun. It took almost 4 years to develop and is currently
deployed in Chinese Type 052 & newest Type 055 destroyers. Some analysts have pointed out that naval
guns are obsolete due to the advent of missiles. But it is not so, just like Fighter jets still
carry guns irrespective of the missiles, a frontline warship needs a potent naval gun
for close quarter combat. Even the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is getting
a 25 mm Gatling gun in spite of the fact that it is primarily designed to engage the enemy
from a long range including Beyond Visual Range (BVR). Also, naval guns can be used against aerial
threats and as a land attack option. It is clear that at present, in terms of range
the American Mk 45 is at par with Russia & China. But with Excalibur it will beat both of them
by a large margin. U.S Navy does need to up its game keeping
in view a resurgent Russian Navy and ever-growing Chinese Navy. Indications are that the U.S is up to it and
seems to have drawn a long term strategy. U.S Navy plans to substantially enhance the
offensive capability of U.S warships with 3 prong approach- lasers, rail guns, and longer
range projectiles. Overall it can be said that U.S Navy is taking
steps to stay one step ahead of its rivals.

64 thoughts on “EXCALIBUR PROJECTILE FOR U.S NAVY WARSHIPS !!

  1. If India ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ณ buys S400 or turkey buy S400 why USA ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ restrict from buying it…. Can we call this jealousy or fear of S400. By this santions all countries came to know the fact that USA fears ๐Ÿ˜ฑ S400…. For ๐Ÿ‘ sure…

  2. The price of high tech ammo cripples even the largest military budgets, Eventually we'll see the move on to laser and gauss weaponry which will free up a big chunk of money that can then go into R&D budgets, at that point we'll see a spurt of new ideas coming to fruition.

  3. The mighty American only pick some strong countries such as Afghanistan and Libya,
    They leave the weak China alone,very thoughtful indeed.

  4. Is it necessary to show all our military secrets? That why Israel doesnt share items with the US. We cant keep a secret. We think the American people should know everything.

  5. Sounds like a great idea.
    I worked on the Mk-86
    Gun Fire Control System for 18+ years, a good user-friendly and reliable system of hardware and software…
    I enjoyed troubleshooting, testing and calibrating such a highly accurate system capable of running in a fully automated mode.

  6. Oh this isn't the best we have . I think we've got a quite a jump on him in the space Forest next that's where our fights are going, Star Wars, information, Satilites to it's truly nice to know how many top secret defense weapons we have at our fingertips if the need should arise.

  7. Somewhere in America there is an basement with designs for weaponary stashed since the 80s and every time Russia or China develop something new they send Bob down to get something to troll them . Otherwise I can't imagine how they can counterreact so fast.

  8. Any advantage we have in military technology will be wiped away by a clinton crime family member or stooge. Google loral corporation how clinton sold american technology to china.

  9. If anyone was wondering, 5 in. ='s 127mm. Until now, the Excalibur round was only made in 155mm size.

  10. Damn…., are there any pieces of Military hardware/equipment in China's inventory, that China actually designed themselves….!? What a freak'n joke, man…..

  11. What until the Strategic Long Range Cannon becomes operational, along with High Velocity Projectile rounds…..oh…yeah…๐Ÿ˜Ž ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿผ

  12. Check out Italian Vulcano munitions also…

    https://www.leonardocompany.com/it/products/vulcano-155mm

  13. China and Russia are not a threat as they share a boarder and have had many skirmishes, If you cannot beat your next door neighbour a country half way around the world has nothing to fear.

  14. I'm trying to figure out how they shoot 155mm (6.1") rounds through a 5" tube. Obviously they can't shoot the same round. I suppose they can install the guts of the guidance package in a slightly narrower round.

  15. For the life of me I can't understand how one round is worth 70 k in this day of mass assembly line operations… still sounds like good old American corporate greed.. nice to put your pocket book ahead of defending your country..might b a fine weapon but shame on you

  16. American engineering, so it will be 10 years late, 200% over budget, extremely maintenance intensive, horribly low operability and perpetually buggy. Next.

  17. Longterm follower and fan here. First time ever I've seen something to complain about in your videos.
    You fail to address that the Excalibur shell is not American, only part wise.
    You didn't say it was American either, but the video made it look that way.
    It's Swedish.
    United states made the explosive, and the Swedes the guidance.
    There is a 90min documentary about this specific shell in swedish that goes through this in great detail.

  18. 70,000$ per shell, is a LOT OF CRAP ! . . . what it can "Do", DOESN'T out weigh its "Cost" !, frankly . . . ITS NOT WORTH IT !.

  19. $70k per round and a rate of fire of up to 20 rounds per minute. That's 1.4 million dollars per minute folks. Seriously why does the US military allow itself to be so obviously stiffed by arms manufacturers'???

  20. In the 8:40 the video is criticize itself .. guns are limited by its caliber size which power & range are depended on .. look to The V-3 (German: Vergeltungswaffe 3 canon how it failed โ€ฆ add to that the movability problem , the need of constant repair , difficulty of hiding those cannons & even strategies needed to protect it from counterfire โ€ฆ unlike rocket which ha no limitations & much easier to be controlled & upgraded with any addition needed or even programed to seek its target indirectly

    – btw the aircraft is carring a machine gun because a little scratch on the air craft surface is leathel due to air pressure formed by its move speed .. also the accuracy problem on the air

  21. All of these weapons developers donโ€™t give a shit if these things work all theyโ€™re wanting is big government contracts forever so they make the shit not to work. Itโ€™s been a big military industrial scam since the beginning of the United States military in the 1950s Eisenhower warned about it Kennedy warned about trumps warning about it all of these in the rain psychopaths that make the shit that kills everybody simply get rich selling weapons and death all around the world without one damn worrySpace about the moral implications of their damn decisions to kill more and more innocent people

  22. This weapon would be useless as without air cover the weapons range is still below that of BVR weapons launched from air or mobile launcher deep in mountains. Iran China Russia Turkey Israel all field ship to ship missile weapons that exceed the distance well beyond this weapons range. For example the Lebanon – Israel war INS Hanit was crippled by c-802 missile resulting in 4 dead and crippled the ships propulsion. The ships anti missile systems were not even engaged and even if they were they would not have intercepted the missile. This shell will address nothing that a tactical nuke can not solve from a carrier air wing.

  23. In general the US Navy is at the forefront of new weapons technology. Why? My view is that ships can carry large bases of support for new weapons. By that I would mean that a new system generally is large, powerhungry, and immobile. Hence, A SHIP is the solution. Mobile radar jumped hugely when mounted on a Navy ship–the power required was adequate for the early radar sets. Another example are radar directed cannons. In 1944, the US fleets off Japan had to have a better aiming system than was in use against Kamakazis. The solution was a working radar set which was tested in 1945. Before deployment in battle, the war ended but these guns were placed on fleet ships for protection postwar. Finally, the railgun tech is power hungry. To make it practical and mobile it needs the power from the thousands of horsepower built into many of our fleet ships.

  24. So how does a shell made for a 155 mm gun become a round for a 127 mm gun? Is it a new smaller diameter round or is the 155 round a subcalibre shell in a sabot that can be use, without the sabot in the smaller weapon?

  25. Russiaโ€™s new missile fastest ever.(Breaking News: Pentagon runs out of toiletpapir) he he he..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ5Dkf6wHcE

  26. The Russian Defense Ministry's has recently test-firied its Krasnopol laser-guided artillery round has prompted military experts to debate the merits of the Russian system compared with the US military's Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shell.

  27. So the guy thinks $70,000 per round is acceptable? That is fucking ridiculas. A 5 inch round is a very small round that in most warships would not do much damage. It sure as hell won't sink a ship. This is one of the huge problems with procurement. Money seems to be no object. This bull shit needs to stop!

  28. Hi . I found parts hard to listen too as there was an out of tune bell ? noise going through large parts of it to .
    My brain hates out of pitch noises . thanks for the content , its very interesting .

  29. ๐Ÿ˜Žโš“๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ US Navy Gunners Mate Guns GMG1 SW SSDF Veteran. We had this back in 1983 on board the USS Hayler DD997 .. the MK 45 Mod 1 , it to was Capable of Firing the SALGP Semi Active Laser Guided Projectiles .. even back then the rounds where too expensive .. _ $ 10,000 a piece …We never got to fire even one .. so this is just another waste of Money again …

  30. Was certified on the MK 42 gun. Worked on MK 45 gun. Good Cannon.
    Two thunbs up for War Thunder. just sayin.

  31. The USA has equipment the world has no idea about. Let me remind people the original stealth fighter flew operational missions in 1982. The world found out about it in 1992. Most of UFOโ€™s flying over Europe & Middle East Are USA aircraft. Think about that.

  32. Imagine, only $70,000. Per round. That's more than equal to the annual salary for an average college educated adult. Such a bargain.

  33. Interesting. But, Russia does not have the money, nor will it have the money, to greatly improve its Navy. Its Armata tank and SU-57 are higher priority, I think, and they have been cut back.
    China, on the other hand, has the money, and a strong Navy is a high priority for China.
    I expect China to be the main naval threat we will have to face.

  34. BTW, folks — who had the FIRST hyper-sonic missile? And, when was it developed and deployed???….Can you answer that?? If not, scroll down and see the surprising answer.

    It was the AIM-54 Phoenix, used on now defunct F-14 TomCat fighter. First put in service in 1974, it was the first hyper-sonic missile — it went MACH 5!!!!!
    That was almost 50 years ago. The Russians and Chinese are just getting hypersonic missiles. I don't think we have to worry about their missiles, at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *