Military Review

Britain began the development of artillery shells to destroy submarines

38
Surface ships will soon learn to hit submarines using conventional artillery guns. According to Jane's, BAE Systems is developing a special ammunition designed to destroy submarines.


Britain began the development of artillery shells to destroy submarines


Specialists from the British company BAE Systems have begun developing a special artillery shell for the 5-inch naval guns (127-mm - approx. BO), capable of hitting submarines. According to available information, this ammunition will consist of two parts: a fired container and a projectile with a main charge.

It is assumed that after firing such a projectile from a conventional weapon, the ammunition flying over an underwater target will fire a sub-caliber projectile with a small charge, which will already go to the water with the help of the tail rudders, where the main charge will fire at a pre-programmed depth. The company does not give other details of the new project.

According to the company, at the moment the project, called Kingfisher, is at the stage of preliminary design and some details may change in the future. However, in BAE Systems it has already been called a budget solution for the destruction of enemy submarines as opposed to more expensive torpedoes and mines.

Kingfisher project presented at the international exhibition DSEI 2019 in London. BAE Systems hoped that in the future the military would pay attention to the development and the company would receive a large military order for the production of these ammunition.
38 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ser56
    ser56 13 September 2019 16: 00
    0
    and what they do not like ordinary diving shells? request
    1. Destiny
      Destiny 13 September 2019 16: 06
      +2
      By the fact that they are bespontovye. Practice has shown low efficiency of diving shells. During the Second World War, the main means of destroying submarines was a depth bomb.
      1. ser56
        ser56 13 September 2019 16: 15
        +2
        Well, how do they stuff a mini torpedo into such a small caliber? hi
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 13 September 2019 16: 40
            +1
            Probably the projectile will be equipped with a sub-caliber core - hit by a projectile, a burst of charge in the submarine and a sub-caliber pierces a double, durable body.
            1. The black
              The black 13 September 2019 16: 45
              +6
              BAE Systems is developing a special ammunition designed to destroy submarines.
              I'm working on the concept of an automated moonshine smile He came, filled the mash, closed the tank, opened the valve on the gas cylinder, put the cans in the right places for different distillation products, pressed the button and left. wassat
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 13 September 2019 17: 18
                0
                My friend you are a terrible trash. Maybe robots will consume the finished product for you? Or wipe the contacts of the computer.? .
                1. Shurik70
                  Shurik70 13 September 2019 21: 21
                  -1
                  The main problem with the defeat of the submarine is to detect it.
                  And the detected one is easily destroyed. Aerial bombs, depth charges, if at shallow depths, then artillery shells. Yes, even just a steel network on its way to drop - and everything, winds on the screws, jam. And it remains only to emerge.
                  Smart shells are not invented today either.
                  Most likely the Angles stuffed a homing torpedo into the shell. And the shell is just a means of delivery.
              2. Dmitry Bolotsky
                Dmitry Bolotsky 13 September 2019 17: 44
                +3
                Thank you, smiled. And the news painfully draws on the topic "British scientists have found out that the Volga does not flow into the Caspian Sea, but flows into it ..."
              3. Rwmos
                Rwmos 13 September 2019 18: 32
                +1
                You can and succeed. And if it is designed by Bredan scientists, the moonshine still will fill its owner’s face, gobble up the whole snack and proudly leave the EU
              4. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 14 September 2019 05: 14
                0
                Quote: Black
                Came, flooded the mash,

                What kind of "automated" it is ?! request Mislead honest people, sir! stop What is it that turns out? It is also necessary to put the mash separately, and pour it into the device! So it won’t work! No. Do you have a bread machine or crock-pot in the house? Disassemble it, study the design and go for it! bully For advice from you liter ... hi
              5. vadim dok
                vadim dok 14 September 2019 18: 12
                0
                Consult with Medvedev, he drives premium class moonshine!
            2. ser56
              ser56 13 September 2019 16: 47
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              Probably the shell will be equipped with a subcaliber core

              but nothing that submarine in the water? Which density is 1000 times more air? feel
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 13 September 2019 17: 01
                +1
                And what - charge initiation in ammunition with a contact fuse, and even the tungsten core itself, does it somehow interfere?
                1. BARKAS
                  BARKAS 13 September 2019 17: 21
                  +1
                  Even how it will hurt if there is no cavitator.
                2. ser56
                  ser56 13 September 2019 17: 34
                  +4
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  initiation of charge in a munition with a contact fuse,

                  about water won't work? bully
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  and the tungsten core itself,

                  you do not confuse submarines with a tank? crying
                  1. BARKAS
                    BARKAS 13 September 2019 17: 46
                    0
                    I suspect that the submarine at depth is too fast a target for such ammunition.
                  2. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 13 September 2019 19: 19
                    +1
                    RBU does not work, after all. No, I don’t confuse it with a tank, since the alloy of steel from which the nuclear submarine is made is similar in strength to tank armor in terms of strength.
            3. K-50
              K-50 13 September 2019 18: 56
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              Probably the projectile will be equipped with a sub-caliber core - hit by a projectile, a burst of charge in the submarine and a sub-caliber pierces a double, durable body.

              Their shells can be equipped with at least devils in a mortar. The only thing that immediately catches your eye is that the shells do not fly underwater. After only fifty meters, well, even a hundred, they completely lose speed, and then a simple fall into the Abyss.
              You can find a submarine at such a depth, only submarines rarely rise on it, especially in the presence of forces to counter them.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 13 September 2019 19: 22
                0
                There, the shell is not quite ordinary, most likely there is a second powder charge for high-speed underwater movement.
            4. Rzzz
              Rzzz 15 September 2019 00: 48
              0
              First, it will be quite difficult to get in. The shell is small, it will move rather slowly in the water. You can't put a lot of explosives in it. An explosion of even a fully explosive charge in such a caliber under water is just a weak "bunch". The torpedoes are out, the charges reach half a ton.
      2. Constructor68
        Constructor68 13 September 2019 18: 06
        -6
        Destiny

        During the Second World War, the main means of destroying submarines was a depth bomb.

        Ehspert, you still refer to the Napoleonic wars as a justification for the effectiveness of a particular type of weapon
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 14 September 2019 00: 55
          0
          Modern anti-submarine bombs are still those units
  2. Retvizan 8
    Retvizan 8 13 September 2019 16: 26
    +6
    ... "it has already been called a budget solution for the destruction of enemy submarines" ...
    I would like to offer an even more budget option: "BULLETS for the destruction of submarines."
    1. Proton
      Proton 13 September 2019 17: 12
      +2
      There is even more budget, the swimmer takes off with a bow and arrow. The shells are worth the money, and the swimmers give a damn, give birth to them. laughing
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 14 September 2019 09: 24
      0
      Quote: Retvizan 8
      I would like to offer an even more budget option: "BULLETS for the destruction of submarines."
      Those. to allocate a special team that will sit with fishing rods on board - less budget?
  3. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 13 September 2019 16: 38
    +3
    With such a caliber, and even a sub-caliber .. and how will it be controlled in water? or will it be unmanageable? and if the boat is at great depths and maneuvers? and if managed, then how? is something acoustic for self-aiming stuffed into such a volume? in short before the tests, there are continuous incomprehensions .. but of course it is interesting to look at the results.
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 13 September 2019 16: 39
    +5

    A cross-sectional model showing the internal components of a Kingfisher shell, including a fuse, ejection charge, and submunition.
    Stabilizers are used to provide the submunition with the desired angle of entry. BB range - 3 kilograms.
    1. KCA
      KCA 13 September 2019 17: 59
      +4
      Imagine hitting a projectile with a warhead of 3kg, for example, in the "Shark", a kilogram of rubber from the skin will rip? Well, or with "Borea", 2 kg
  5. Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 13 September 2019 16: 43
    0
    The explosive charge in such a projectile is not large, it will turn out a rather weak depth bomb, it can cause significant damage by exploding directly in the hull of the submarine.
    1. ser56
      ser56 13 September 2019 16: 48
      +1
      Quote: Chaldon48
      bursting directly at the hull of the submarine.

      if it is at periscope depth ... request
      1. Chaldon48
        Chaldon48 14 September 2019 01: 21
        0
        If the submarines are at re-depth to inflict damage, you can start shooting at it with conventional large-caliber shells. So the Japanese tried to stoke back into Russian-Japanese, opening random shooting at the water when they saw a re-scope or it seemed that they saw it.
  6. Old26
    Old26 13 September 2019 16: 54
    +2
    Quote: Black
    BAE Systems is developing a special ammunition designed to destroy submarines.
    I'm working on the concept of an automated moonshine smile He came, filled the mash, closed the tank, opened the valve on the gas cylinder, put the cans in the right places for different distillation products, pressed the button and left. wassat

    No, better go buy ready-made, industrial-made laughing
  7. Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 September 2019 17: 44
    -1
    Reincarnation of a diving shell.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 13 September 2019 20: 54
    0
    In my opinion, a completely frivolous undertaking.
    You can also try this way! - destroy the torpedo,
    attacking ship. Or some small unmanned underwater
    apparatus ...
    But a submarine? Neither in distance, nor in depth, nor in charge power
    will not pull.
    1. lucul
      lucul 13 September 2019 21: 27
      +1
      In my opinion, a completely frivolous undertaking.
      You can also try this way! - destroy the torpedo,
      attacking ship. Or some small unmanned underwater
      apparatus ...
      But a submarine? Neither in distance, nor in depth, nor in charge power
      will not pull.

      Kghm ......
      One of those rare cases when I agree with you)))
  10. Taoist
    Taoist 13 September 2019 21: 08
    +1
    What a chic budget drank ...
  11. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich
    Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 14 September 2019 09: 42
    0
    In short, there is an idea
  12. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich
    Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 14 September 2019 09: 50
    0
    Why didn’t my whole comment come out? ((