$800,000 US Navy artillery shell - expensive because the cost of the electroncs - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 03:30:03 am
content: $800,000 US Navy artillery shell (5 inch) - heard on the news today is the reason it is so expensive is making the electronics survive the shock of the gun blast. One thing I can thing of, is reinforcing the bonding wires inside the IC. The cost went from $50,000 each to $800,000 each !https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/07/the-uss-zumwalt-cant-afford-its-own-800-000-per-round-ammo/Any other ideas how to make a shock proof IC ? It sure must have been fun to work on this project. Does anyone know the G force? Must be in the 1,000s.FYI Two hours using the gun would cost 1 billion dollars. Thank god they came to their senses and stopped the program.FYI in the 70's I was sailing a boat in San Diego Bay and one of these ships (must have been a prototype) came humming by with no lights on. All I could see was the outline against the city lights. It seemed like an UFO

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 03:41:30 am
content: Maybe they should use toobs... the original proximity fuzes (not a typo) handled 40k g's just fine.Tim

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 08:27:26 am
content: I never thought the gun design was a good idea. We already *have* precision guided munitions. At the very least they should have planned on using existing precision guided artillery shells which already work and are in production. The major advantage of traditional naval gunfire support is that it is cheap and precision guided munitions defeat that.Better I think would have been to use the rapid fire 8" gun from the Des Moines-class cruiser which became theMajor Caliber Lightweight Gun.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 08:34:50 am
content: Really curious whats the "real" cost , especially seeing facts like this ->http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut, and this article dated back in 1986.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 09:12:52 am
content: Some of that is using up EOY budgets so they don't reduce next year, but the process is hardly efficient, on a great many levels...Tim

author: fubar.gr
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 09:17:38 am
content: One way to solve this problem is to use wires:Wire-guided missileAll the sensitive and expensive electronics stay in the mothership and you put just the dumb stuff in the missile.However, according to the wiki article, these missiles only have a range of 4 miles or so. This is a far cry from the 60 mile range of the projectile in question.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 09:29:13 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on November 15, 2016, 08:34:50 amIn this case the problem was that they were originally planning on buying shells for 32 ships but all but 3 were cancelled so now the same R&D investment has to be payed back with an order which is 1/10th as large.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 09:33:21 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on November 15, 2016, 08:34:50 am"If we don't spend the billion dollars one year, then we don't get the billion dollars the next year, and if we don't get the billion dollars the next year, then we'll have to go and spend more money on lobbyists to get the laws changed so we could get our billion dollars the year after that, and nobody wants that because then we might have to compete with other lobbyists. We can get into a penny war, that's how democracy works. On the other hand, the nut cracker room here is a sure thing. I make fun of it, but in the long run it's probably faster and cheaper just to build a giant nut cracker, write it off and be done with it."I wonder if someone here would recognize where the quote is from.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 10:13:02 am
content: That is about the same price as a cruise missile so they better order more of those and sink its price instead of adopting a new system and ordering little ammunition.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 04:54:54 pm
content: So far no one has said anything on how they can make an IC to withstand the G forces?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 05:20:27 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on November 15, 2016, 04:54:54 pmIt is not as difficult as it might seem. Dropping an IC onto a hard surface like concrete yields 100s to 1000s of Gs as well and the electronics in the shell only have to survive once. The packaging, mechanical interfaces, and the printed board have to be designed to handle the static and dynamic forces.There are other effects on silicon when it is put under stress as the precision analog guys will tell you about but that applies to analog circuits and in this case only when fired.The GPS receiver and antenna design is probably fascinating.

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 05:22:13 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on November 15, 2016, 04:54:54 pmLike this:http://caxapa.ru/thumbs/262855/High-G_Ruggedization_Methods.pdfAnd like this:https://www.google.com/patents/CA2738433A1?cl=en

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 10:54:32 pm
content: A better solution would be to not use a conventional canon and instead launch with a much lower charge then fire a boost/sustain rocket -- keep the g's down to a reasonable level and lower the cost. $800K for a shell is in cruise missile range of price and a 5 inch shell would have a much smaller warhead than the 1000# versions on many cruise missiles. Me thinks this is a naval gun maker trying to justify there existence...Brian

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2016, 11:23:07 pm
content: At $800k per shell, wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run just to lose the war?

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 12:20:19 am
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on November 15, 2016, 11:23:07 pmHow about we just not fight the war to begin with?Anyways my solution would to make something really really fast, fly really really straight, with an aiming system that's really really accurate, mounted on a gyroscope to make sure no matter what the range, as long as the shell has enough momentum, it hits the target. That would mean you could theoretically launch anything you want, you can even just have the firing mechanism on the ship.

author: Vgkid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 01:29:22 am
content: What about that railgun they were working on.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 02:09:55 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on November 15, 2016, 03:41:30 amI recommend this bookhttps://www.amazon.ca/Deadly-Fuze-Secret-Weapon-World/dp/0891410872/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479262168&sr=1-1&keywords=fuze

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 02:36:56 am
content: Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on November 16, 2016, 02:09:55 amAmazing differences in prices between the Canadian and US Amazonshttps://www.amazon.com/deadly-fuze-secret-weapon-World/dp/0891410872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479263622&sr=8-1&keywords=Deadly+Fuze%3A+Secret+Weapon+of+World+War+II

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 03:39:25 am
content: Quotein 1942 they did it with tubes its true yes radio tubesup-datemore about the proximity fuze used in the 1940s WW2the tic tac sized radio tubes was used in the artillery shells . power came from a reserve battery (the energizer) and adding electrolyte from a glass vial bracking on the high G force as a hammer pin punched in to it. the electrolyte wet the reserve battery plates by the centrifugal spinning force of the shell and then it powered the radio unit.the US 1940s VT units used a dynamo and fan to power the unit. as rockets had less G force then the UK artillery shellshttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwZTKiltzKYzdUlMd3EyZURRQ0U/view?usp=sharinginformation is very hard to find on this as secret for many yrsup-date added photos

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 03:56:56 am
content: The schematic says rocket/missile. I saw a missile go off one time and it went like hell. I think the Gs of a missile are much less than an artillery shell ( 100 vs 15,000)Found this --> Rating of electronics built into military artillery shells = 15,500 g I did not know artillery shells had electronics (other than the 800k ones)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(acceleration)#cite_note-25Greatest living G force = 5 400 000 g Jellyfish stingerWonder what this means ?

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 05:07:08 am
content: We had some pretty good proximity fuses, but the germans developed even better ones based off a combination of electrostatic/capacitive sense. Like all things german in the war it came too late and without enough interest from old Adolph. Fortunately for everybody else he wanted swarms of bombers. Not shells that could pinpoint tactical targets.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 05:09:56 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on November 16, 2016, 03:56:56 amThe proximity fuze was one of those things that changed warfare. You can see in WWII footage the dozens of black clouds that pop up around aircraft as they had to fire dozens and hundreds of rounds at aircraft. They had to set a mechanical clock and hope that it went off at the right time to damage the airplane. Usually it didn't, hence all the black clouds of shells exploding harmlessly.Suddenly the shells were able to explode at just the right distance from the plane and it didn't require finicky timing setting.Also, when lobbing a shell at enemy soldiers in trenches, having it explode above ground level and spraying down was more effective than exploding below ground and exploding up.I think most missiles have a lot less than 100G acceleration. Believe me, you'd notice a 100G missile launch.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 05:25:24 am
content: Here's another one of these WTF things...Apparently it programs the shells as they exit the cannon, that's what that thing at the muzzle is, an antenna. That system is mostly automatic, it can detect targets and program each shell to explode at the right place.In the meantime, I can't even turn off the radio in my stereo because the AAA batteries in the remote make bad contacts.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 05:54:30 am
content: Often those expensive rounds actually pay for themselves. You shoot one and the target goes down. You take a cheap dumb round and it may take 100 shots. (I don't know the real numbers, and if I did I couldn't use them here, but you can do some googling and find that this number is ballpark correct.) Assuming the dumb round is $500 it sounds like a great deal. A $50,000 dollar kill instead of and $800,000 dollar kill.But that nasty enemy, he decides to send 100 cheap boats against you. It then takes 10,000 shots to get them all. Which won't fit in your magazine. And wears out the barrel of your cannon before you finish firing. And half of the boats get to you before you have time to fire all 10,000 rounds. Oh, and by the way you had to build an ammo transport ship to follow along and keep you supplied with all those cheap dumb rounds.Suddenly those expensive rounds start sounding cheap. Even when amortizing the cost over a smaller than planned number of rounds.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 06:23:31 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on November 16, 2016, 05:54:30 amYou work at the Pentagon by chance?You don't need to spend $800K for a hyper accurate smart weapon -- much cheaper weapons are every bit as accurate and can have a bigger or smaller warhead as needed. $800K for a 5 inch shell is insane anywhere on the planet!BrianBrian

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 06:42:54 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on November 16, 2016, 06:23:31 amI used to work in the defense industry. I have no objection to finding cheaper smart rounds. I had some contact with gun launched programs when I was working. Each gun has it's own environment, and just because something survives one doesn't mean it will survive in another. The numbers of g's, both longitudinal and lateral are really incredible.Neither of us knows the features of the round developed for the navy so we can't say whether they were really necessary or not. But naval rounds do tend to have much stricter safety requirements (things like not going off even if hit by an incoming shell. Something about being out in the middle of the Pacific ocean with no place to stand but the ship you are on makes them pay a lot of attention to things like that.)But the real key is that if you buy only a small number of rounds they will be expensive. Even if you decided that some existing round was good enough you would want to run some sort of test program to prove that there weren't any surprises. A really cheap test program costs millions of dollars by the time you pay for instrumentation, range rental, the targets and all the other hoorah. When you split those millions among a small number of rounds they are expensive. An earlier post pointed out that this was the case here.As an additional aside, the toob version - the VI fuse mentioned before is an inspiring story of cleverness and drive. It wasn't easy. They tried literally dozens of ways to make the tubes survive before they were successful. And tried eight different manufacturers of the tubes. Only one manufacturer found the source of magic dust to make them survive. And then they ramped up to production at an unheard of rate for a military weapon. The resulting product had a pretty high failure rate compared to modern weapons. The first batch tested had 25% or more fail. No one really knows how many failed in actual combat use. Probably many percent or more. But even with that high failure rate they were far superior to the prior rounds.

author: oldway
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 11:02:16 am
content: I would rather fire 1000 shells of 800 US$ each.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 12:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: oldway on November 16, 2016, 11:02:16 amIf you miss, you can hit a school full of starving 4 year old blind orphans, which is bad for PR.

author: oldway
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 02:51:18 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 16, 2016, 12:45:54 pmWho's matter ? War is war...if you don't want to kill people, don't go to war.How much poor women and children as been killed during the WW2 blitz on London?And in Hamburg, Dresden ,....?There is no "clean" war...

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 08:11:09 pm
content: Quote from: oldway on November 16, 2016, 02:51:18 pmTo add, how are you gonna hit civilians in the middle of the ocean? It's the navy, not a civilian defense mechanism.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 08:22:37 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on November 16, 2016, 08:11:09 pmIn this case the weapon in question is for supporting soldiers on land. If it had to be used in the middle of the ocean, then someone really screwed up.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 09:12:19 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on November 16, 2016, 05:25:24 amThat isn't quite the same - that is an anti-aircraft gun and the "smart" shells in this case only mean that the burst timer is programmed as the round exits the barrel. No GPS, no guidance, nothing of the sort. And certainly not $800k/round.However, I believe this gun had a wtf on its own - I think there has been a story some years ago when one of these went "rogue" due to a computer glitch and started to fire out of control during some training. That would have been a majorly scary incident!https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2016, 09:19:14 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 16, 2016, 05:12:03 amIt is not a gray area any more - it is completely legal to sell imported textbooks in the US:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._John_Wiley_%26_Sons,_Inc.