Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

25mm


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

Quote

USS America (LHA 6) conduct a live fire exercise with a Mk 38 MOD 2 25mm machine gun to test the ship’s defense capabilities against a simulated unmanned small fast-boat attack.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure a far cry from the M60’s we used. Never fired on a speed boat but did put a few rounds in front of them which changed their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could get real uncomfortable on that little boat.  Couldn't something like the "Gatling guns" used on helicopter in the middle east be adapted with a deck mount to do the same thing with better saturation of the target?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmon Chief, I drove the boat last time! Surely its someone else's turn:(

 

Isnt 25mm a cannon and not a MG?

I'm wondering if it is the same gun as the LAV- a Bushmaster 25mm Chain Gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

I wasn't too impressed with the accuracy of fire.  That was a very expensive looking sighting system to miss the first 20-30 shots.

I thought the same thing but looked again and it appears to be a test of the platform and not a normal process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

It could get real uncomfortable on that little boat.  Couldn't something like the "Gatling guns" used on helicopter in the middle east be adapted with a deck mount to do the same thing with better saturation of the target?

Phalanx system

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In SDJs video in addition to the 25mm firing they are also firing a 50 cal at the target (red RC boat) The small splashes are 50 cal and the big ones are the 25mm. Looks like a new proof of concept test. Hard to know what tracking / targeting method they were using.

 

CIWS (Christ It Won't Shoot) :o which was replaced by CIWS-A (Christ It Won't Shoot, Again) :D was designed to track and shoot down aerial targets not small surface targets.

 

Engaging a small surface target in choppy seas a lot harder that it looks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Looks like a lot of rounds expended..... and the little red boat keeps on coming.

+1.

A multi-million dollar weapons platform designed for another mission that costs many thousands of $$$$ to operate per encounter. All to take out a Zodiac? 

 

But then, we have AC-130s to take out pick-up trucks, and F-15F/F-16/F-18s to take out mud huts. And lets not forget B-1s flying close air support and "show of force" sorties.

 

Does anyone in the Pentagon remember A-6/F-4/A-4s taking out wooden bridges over creeks and ravines? Is anyone looking at the big picture? Is swatting flies with billions of dollars the best way to go about this?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2018 at 6:05 AM, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

I wasn't too impressed with the accuracy of fire.  That was a very expensive looking sighting system to miss the first 20-30 shots.

It seems that accuracy if of little importance anymore.

 

If you look into the history of kill ratio, rounds fired vs. number of kills, since WWII, it is astounding.

 

WWII - 1:7, except Okinawa - 1:71

 

Current conflict(s) in Middle East - 1:250,000 - 350,000

 

And now, the U.S. cannot manufacture all of our own ammunition for our military. Lake City is only running at around 20% capacity and is  classified as a toxic site under Super Fund and will be shut down. We import most of our ammunition from foreign nations. 12 of 13 components used to manufacture gun powder are imported.

 

U.S. manufacturers cannot get funding from U.S. banks. U.S. manufacturers are not allowed to approach the U.S. government for contracts.

 

I know I veered off topic, but it's all related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

But then, we have AC-130s to take out pick-up trucks, and F-15F/F-16/F-18s to take out mud huts. And lets not forget B-1s flying close air support and "show of force" sorties.

 

Popular legend has it that at one time President George W. Bush was briefed on a possible missile strike on an Al-Qaeda camp, and he turned it down saying "I'm not going to waste a $10 million missile on a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't make the assumption that the little red boat is supposed to blow up or sink.  Suspect the hull is foam filled and the power plant is armored. Remotely controlled targets are expensive and in all likely hood it is designed to be recovered so that the number of hits can be recorded.

 

Besides it would make for very short gunnery practice if it was disabled the first time it was shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.