Talk:Advanced Gun System

Vertical Gun?

What exactly is a vertical gun? 205.174.22.25 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it can fire at a higher angle than a howitzer... 70.55.89.96 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I Say NO. - I think it means the original design was such that barrel would point vertical fro breech to open and loading system insert the shell and powder.Gun barrel movement might take a little time but vastly simplifies some of the loading sustem. Howitzer or gun - design idea has no limit on firing angle. - In Actuality- this system is NOT a Gun - it is a howitzer at sea. Gun versus howitzer? - Gun has flatter trajectory - close to straight line - High Muzzle velocity for range and short time of flight. Howitzer will arch/ lob its trajectory and higher time of flight. Lack of article even mentioning the muzzle velocity is supporting information Wfoj3 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• A VGAS is a very different gun concept. The AGS is sort of a hybrid between a true VGAS and a traditional naval gun. A VGAS really is vertically mounted and the gun cannot be aimed anywhere except straight up. This radically simplifies turret design. The VGAS can only use guided munitions. You don't aim teh gun. Instead, you program the round to reach a target. It works by shooting a round very high into the stratosphere. The round then glides to its target, which can be up to 100 km away. Falling from that height, the round will have a terminal velocity equivalent to a howitzer round. The AGS will point almost vertically when firing LRLAP rounds at distant targets, just like a VGAS. The AGS can also depress all the way down to below horizontal to allow direct fire, but this is only useful if ammo is developed for this purpose. There is no evidence that this will occur. -Arch dude (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms

The whole tone of this part or the article is decidedly one sided and non NPOV. No allowance is taken in this section of the article that the new munitions will be GPS based and fired from over the horizon from a stealthed vehicle, rather hard to hit by even the most modern surface to surface missiles. I would normally suggest re-writing this section but as it stands and amended it is so one sided and flawed I believe it should just be removed. Galloglass 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The cricism section is hard to fault because it is based on previous proven failures of naval gunfire since the second world war. If the promised improvements do arise then the article could be changed. But given the constant failures of promised military programs to deliver (e.g. Comanche, Sgt York), huge time delays (e.g. Merlin helicopter, Osprey) and gigantic cost over runs (e.g. Eurofighter) a critical attitude to this program is most likely to reflect reality and inform the reader.

There can be no doubt that such criticisms will be annoying, even offensive to the many people employed to develop, build and operate such weapons. That does not invalidate them. This criticism rests on a consistent history of previous military technology failures. It should not be deleted based on conjecture of future possible success.

The self-prmoting manufacturers claims which make up the bulk of the article should remain, but only if balanced by the criticisms. If the criticisms are deleted then, for the sake of balance, so should the whole article, which would be unfortunate. (added unsigned by 86.142.78.119)

The above writer does nothing to dispel the fact that the criticism section is one sided and flawed. Simply stating that navel gunfire is an 'anachronism' does not make it actually so. The Royal Navy experience in supporting the Assault on Goose Green/Darwin and the interdiction of Stanley runway in the Falklands War lead to exactly the opposite conclusion. Taking into account GPS guided ammunition, which is now already in use and proving its effectiveness leads to the conclusion that the new gun system will be both effective and used.

Simply taking cheap shots as the above un-named individual does at previous programs shows that the person is either rather uninformed or has no interest in providing 'balance' to the article. Surely they must be aware that the cost over-runs on the Typhoon, to give the Eurofighter its proper name were due to the re-write in the specification after the end of the cold war.

The problem with the criticism is it is: 1. Unbalanced and biased, 2. Ill informed. 3. Takes no account that both the 155 Gun and its ammunition are 'navalised' adaptations of weapons that are successfully in use in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the whole tenor of the article with its attack on military procurement is misplaced and uninformed. Galloglass 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking that the entire section should be moved, as it is the section that is causing the most amount of problems, and really has no place on this page. It should belong on the main naval artillery page instead, with some modifications, to make this page similar to the other pages such as Otobreda 76 mm or 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun. ThePointblank 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Galloglass, the criticisms do not take into account new GPS guided munitions, and it is definitly non NPOV. It should be removed. Vechs 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the section under dispute. Upon further reflection, I realized that it did not criticise the Advanced Gun System at all, but rather naval artillery as a whole, and should therefore be in an article about naval artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery). It also contained factual inaccuracies. Also, the only one who seems to want the section in is the anonymous author. Vechs 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

advanced gun system

The advanced gun system should be fitted to one of the arligh burke aegis destroyers to see if it is possible to fit the advanced gun system to the remaining arligh burke class aegis destroyers.the addition of the 155mm advanced gun system to the arligh burke class aegis guided missile destroyers and a advcanced version of the Aegis system could more than likely can make the arligh burke class the deadliest ships in the united states navy at least until the new class of adavced stealth aegis ships arrives in the u.s navy inventory. 70.168.88.100 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Update to 2018

The fundamental facts as of 2018 are these:

• There are only 3 Zumwalts and there will be no more.
• The Navy has no plans to deploy AGS on any other platform.
• AGS requires custom-designed ammo.
• LRLAP was the only ammo designed for AGS
• LRLAP procurement was cancelled
• The navy has no plans to develop any other ammo for AGS.

I re-wrote the lede to make this clear and put most of the old lede into the "history" section.

The implication is that the Zumwalts have no ammo for their AGSs and will never have ammo, but I have not found a reference that states this explicitly so I did not put it in the article.

I am trying hard to maintain a NPOV, but it's really hard. Please feel free to comment. -Arch dude (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. A gun that can’t actually be fired because no ammunition for it was ever made sounds the very antithesis of “Advanced” to this Unit, which is probably why I'm neither an Admiral nor a senior official in defence procurement. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Navy has now announced that the guns will be removed and replaced with a new missle system as each Zumwalt comes in for refit. This starts in 2023. It's dead, Jim. -Arch dude (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)