U.S ARMY's STRATEGIC LONG RANGE CANNON WILL HIT TARGET FROM MORE THAN 1000 MILES AWAY !

[@spartacusthebringerofrain3007]

It'll just be a a longer ranged rocket powered Copperhead type round. It's not a artillery shell but a missile launched from artillery tube.

[@thesirmaddog8209]

Well if you are going to get smart about it ... It would be a rocket, because "Missiles" have targeting instruments

[@thesirmaddog8209]

@ClickNSpam DIPSHIT... ROCKETS are NOT guided... FUCKING know what you are talking about before opening ones MOUTH

[@jamesferguson5279]

No real description of how this works but in the video it did say that is operates like conventional artillery, only scaled larger. So it's not a missile in the classic sense of the word. However it is none the less confusing, simply shrinking the warhead down to save weight and achieve greater range seems insufficient in and of itself, unless of course our plans are to blast Chinese islands with firecrackers.

[@thesirmaddog8209]

@@jamesferguson5279 Unless the have explosives inside the shell... Then it can be More deadly... But they are not really saying a lot about it... like you said... Probably all top secret and some moron trying to get the scoop about it

[@thesirmaddog8209]

@ClickNSpam YOU still don't READ much.. READ the LAST sentence NOT the first

[@montanabulldog9687]

They FAILED to mention the "Sub-Cal" shell for the IOWAS guns . . . its a 12 inch shell, that has a range of 79 miles currently, with an EXTENDED range of 110 miles. Its also a "Guided Shell". This tech is now "Over", 25 yrs old.

[@jimhenry1262]

One of the additional value adds would be to use this same long range capability to deliver resupply containers via artillery shells to LRPS in hostile territory. I thought this idea up when I was working in the Middle East some years ago as a military defense contractor. Firing 8 inch rocket assisted gps guided shells that could fly at very long range could be designed to carry ammo,MRE's, batteries, and medical supplies to imbeded troops without the attention getting noise of choppers ect.

[@avnrulz]

Artillery has a major impact...I see what you did there!

[@digger105337]

The opening artillery peice is a retired " Atomic annie " from the 1950's at ft Sills Oklahoma.

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

It fired the famous shot at Operation Upshot-Knothole. That's where they get all the films of houses and trees being blown away.

[@patelivid1637]

It’s meant to connect with the F-35 to give data and intel on where enemy air defense are so it can take them out.

[@thatguy-zs1my]

Possibly but my guess would be it will be used with the new SR-72 hypersonic UAV. It makes alot more sense then endangering F35s.

[@patelivid1637]

that guy the SR-72 isn’t new, it’s was made right after the SR-71 was retired. Nah the F-35 is super stealthy, it won’t be exposed to radar unless it’s in beast mode or as it’s bomber doors open.

[@thatguy-zs1my]

@@patelivid1637 WRONG!!! Lockheed Martin is still developing the SR-72 HYPERSONIC UAV. Which means its brand new. do your research.

[@patelivid1637]

that guy I already did, the SR-72 was seen in the top gun trailer, and it was already developed. You act like they are sitting In Area 51 doing nothing. Nope, do you watch Lockheed Martin speeches? They have repeatedly so many times spilled the beans and said they already created the SR-72. We are at least 3 generations ahead in Aircraft technology.

[@patelivid1637]

that guy www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationist.com/2020/02/24/new-matchbox-top-gun-maverick-themed-line-reveals-shape-of-movies-mysterious-hypersonic-aircraft/amp/

[@sumerbc7409]

Just think what these could do if mounted on Navy ships. You could put these on isolated islands for 1,600 km fire support.

[@republiccommando6104]

Funny you said that because there’s an article that this cannon could bring back an obsolete class of warships: battleships.

[@briancrane7634]

Absolute game-changer for land and sea warfare

[@Mr2pint]

Don't forget these shells that are being developed are heat seeking with radar. Absolutely incredible.

[@sadvenom7826]

3:32 looks like a waffenträger e100.

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

Did you call someone?

[@DavidRLentz]

The word cannon is informal. Artillery is 1) field gun, 2) how- itzer, 3) mortar, and 4) anti-air- craft. The field gun is direct fire, in which one selects a specific target, aims at it, and fires. This continues till the objective is destroyed, then proceeds onto the next, of present. The howitzer is indirect fire, in which one assembles sev- eral units into a battery that targets an area, peppering it with various rounds; such bar- rage may last for hours. The mortar is where a fight- ing unit (platoon, company, battalion, brigade, regiment, etc) uses for close attacks (a few kilometres). Modern air support and ground attack aircraft go too fast and fly too high for con- ventional antiaircraft. Surface to air missiles are more effective. The most the U.S. Army us- es in combat is the howitzer.

[@NinjaKiller1022]

This is coming sooner than people think, and it’s great.

[@lyfandeth]

Thousand mile canon range, no matter how you change the ratio of propellant to projectile, sounds like magical thinking. Especially once you run the physics, the numbers, the energy transfers.

[@sameerthakur720]

After the US declaration that intermediate range missiles will now be developed, this is no longer required.

[@anarchyandempires5452]

Oh it definitely is, the difference you see is in the money, a missile is probably a good 10 or so million dollars, a shell from this baby is probably around 10,000 -50,000 dollars, considering we are talking about the US with the military budget it has you could realistically just keep shooting all day with either of them and it would make just about the same difference to the budget, but hey those senators have to earn them votes, And there's no better way to do so than to save taxpayers a few coins. Plus you know, it's really fucking cool, I mean just imagine calling in a danger close artillery strike on the streets of downtown Beijing while your artillery pieces are all the way in Alaska, I mean that is the definition of military superiority, I mean just imagine getting shot by guns that aren't even in the same continent you are.

[@Bv2097]

That looks like U.S nuke cannon from the 50s o.O

[@genejeffries2888]

It is. That's pure 50's tech.

[@marcuswelch4515]

It is--the image is a speculative stand-in for the actual piece.

[@robbleeker4777]

Missiles can be intercepted.... shells not so much

[@MrSmith336]

The newest version of the "Paris Gun".

[@PanioloBee]

Put these on battleships along with SAM’s and cruise missiles. The battleship could be used as an area denial platform.

[@ericclausen6772]

One great thing about it is you wouldn't have to shoot and scoot because no one else will be able to use counter battery against it

[@RainCloud123]

Russia and China: Develop missiles to counter the USN and USAF. US Army: *Big Iron intensifies*

[@mayuri4184]

"Artillery is the god of war." -Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin Also, the S-500 is just Russia's version of the THAAD.

[@paladin0654]

I prefer the quip that the Infantry is the Queen of battle and the artillery is the "King of Battle" because it puts the balls where the queen wants them.

[@mayuri4184]

@Shlomo Shekelstein Still, they fill the same roles.

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

Stalin was a lot of...bad...things... ...But on arty he was right...

[@stillwater62]

Sounds like something from " Duck Dodgers in the Twenty Fourth and One Half Century ". All that is needed now the " Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator " and we are all set.

[@montanabulldog9687]

The gun shown, is nothing but "Atomic Annie" . . . just giving a new LIFE to it. ! ( but its the "Same Gun" )

[@stupidburp]

It would be more practical to just bring back mobile 203mm artillery on modern platforms. Leave the longest range fire to mobile missile and rocket artillery. Huge guns with limited mobility are going to be small in numbers and easy targets, as has been proven in historical examples.

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

Stu Bur Yeah. The Extended Range Cannon is good work, but it’s merely trying to improve existing tech as best as possible and not setting these...very extreme goals.

[@wjones7743]

The artillery piece shown is the obselete 280mm cannon called "Big Bertha" which was assigned to the 3d Bn/8th Arty. Last seen in static display at Fort Sill, Okla.

[@philchristmas4071]

I thought it was called the "Attomic Anni." M65 280mm cannon.

[@andrewlambert7246]

No way that the gun in the picture has a range of 1000km. It must be used for testing different concepts.

[@RednerKlallamStrong]

Try making the shells more longer than the normal size shells . like they did to some amo shells for guns to hit targets further and harder .

[@parthsna]

What is to stop a 4500km range Kalibr-M cruise missile, or say a Chinese equivalent, mounted on the back of a truck or on a destroyer VLS, hitting this artillery canon? It is a stationary target and very large.

[@antbonyziemiak208]

Imagine these on modern 'battle ships' !! Awesome !!

[@blue280485]

Nice! Put this Super Gun on a Railway Car and what would you call it RailGun🤪

[@ericclausen6772]

I believe that we need to get our navy and Marine Corp respectfully upgrades in each and every weapons systems upgrades and updates to make them twice as effective as they are now

[@josephschmidt1975]

When I was a kid, I had a model of Atomic Annie. Truck cabs at both ends and roads specially built for its extreme length.

[@hathaway3979]

1000 miles range is insane! if it was fired from Copenhagen in Denmark it could reach Moscow in Russia.

[@choppaa22]

1000 miles is bs for a artillery shell, a missile on the other hand can easily do this.

[@jaimearredondo787]

@@choppaa22 that’s because it used an artillery piece that shoots a missile lol.

[@Armored_Kong]

It look like a old WW2 artillery.

[@ashcarrier6606]

As a former FDC guy with 8 inch and 155mm howitzers, the idea of setting up a battery of guns in Central Park and hitting targets in Columbia, Missouri just...staggers the imagination. My guess is it will use an Excaliber-type smart shell to overcome variables like meteorology and the rotation of the earth.

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

Ashley Carrier Most definitely. The idea that this would be unguided isn’t true. The problem is if it can reach the range described with a payload that isn’t just the equivalent of a pea-shot for the task the military wants for it...

[@ferry602]

How many shots before the barrel give up?

[@krap101]

Between 0 and 1

[@ShovelMonkey]

The King of Battle.

[@cpawp]

Just imagine the incredible bang of a shot ranging over 1000 miles, it would flatten houses and even towns, how many shots would the tube last, 3, 10, 15 - how long would be the reload times, hours for this range - I presume. Simultaneously the gun is a nearly immovable object and has to be protected against air threats/ drones. A nice tale of military SF, but I am not convinced that project makes any sense...

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

cpawp If they want a strategic bunker buster with massive range, the US is better off investing more money in space and trying to figure out how to make rods from god than this abominable idea of theirs, lol.

[@flippinnngiraffe808]

@@bigbluebuttonman1137I think it’s illegal under international law to put weapons in space

[@terryalberts5892]

I feel this would bring back the battleship

[@Puff_Chady]

Put 6 of these guns on a new class of Battleship.

[@larimadunaldo9814]

Grand cannon in red alert

[@808bigisland]

Barrelwear? 50-80 rounds before the barrel is worn out and needs replacement. Massed fire? After a 1 h barrage, a unit of 10 guns - no guns remain in firing condition. 500 rounds...A 88 had a barrelife of 2000 rounds and 400 rounds in the highest powerlevel. Bertha up to 150 rounds of life. A 14 inch ship barrel 200-400 rounds.

[@jason4275]

Man the maintenance on that must be a pain

[@bryanmchugh1307]

More than 1000 miles away? That would have to be a rail gun using perhaps a rocket assisted shell. Building a rocket assisted round that works under such amazing pressures of rail guns is a very tall order.

[@davidforsberg5675]

M65 atomic annie retro seems to be work in even the military.........

[@cav1stlt922]

Yep, the M65 cannon has long been retired in the early 60s and no functional piece survived! So, what is this guy talking about!!!

[@marksmith1779]

I would like to know what caliber the gun will be? Will it be another 6.1" (155mm) gun. Well, 4 x 155 mm guns are unlikely to have any impact on the islands in the South China Seas. Nor would it be very effective against an S-400 battery. It could force them to re-locate, the time of flight over 1,000 miles means that they could simply move off.

[@sokhoms]

Good luck with this development USA

[@derptrolling4740]

Ramjet shells in a railgun type cannons.

[@davec5153]

This could mean the return of the battleship, if they perfect the ammo. A battle ship with nine of these guns would have twice the range of an aircraft carrier. It could also send a lot more ordinance than aircraft. You could sit in the middle of the north sea and bombard every capital city in western Europe.

[@cbeaudry4646]

That would be E P I C

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

How do you possibly build a conventional cannon that shoots 1000 miles away? The g-forces on launching a shell with enough speed to land 1600km downrange would literally squash whatever was fired into a pancake. Not to mention the ridiculously large explosive charge needed to fire that thing would have a muzzle blast that'd probably kill people standing near the cannon. You could possibly get 1000 mile range firing a gun launched ballistic missile from a railgun, but at that point aren't you firing missiles anyway?

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

Arkadeep Kundu The idea would probably be to add some sort of rocket booster on the back. It would go off after the initial propellant to add more speed mid-flight. Otherwise you’re talking about using TNT as a propellant for your gun to even TRY to reach these ranges without building a sky-scraper of a gun and...well... ...No, LMAO...

[@Rospajother]

Thanks

[@ericclausen6772]

I would appreciate it if America would use old aircraft carriers to launch Long range missles that will take out anti ship missles launchers from a distance out of their own range

[@Milivoy84]

Even if they said 100 miles range cannon that is powered by railgun and rocket propellant munition- it would be an engineering challenge for something of that size and BUT 1000:) yeah right. I think somebody in Pentagon accidentally added one 0 more or less :D

[@Desire123ification]

Totally and completely agree with the statement! For the first time in my opinion the US is doing the right thing strategically. So far Sweden and Norway have similar systems. A Swedish Gliding, Rocket Assisted Artillery Projectile and the Norwegian Army Ramjet Artillery Shell. The idea isn't new; South Africa almost perfected the canon and indirectly helped other nations notably Iraq. Russia could have, would have and should have followed suit in this venture? Not quite! Simply because Russia already has a potent weapon; Iskander! A 1500 km plus range could be the answer, currently at 500 km.

[@TheBenchPressMan]

6:20 is wrong, there is part of the cannon in the British Imperial War Museum! upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Iraqi_supergun_bolted_together.JPG

[@alankaufman385]

Actually, it looks a lot like Atomic Annie, the old U.S. nuclear capable cannon back in the Fifies.

[@scottmcintosh4397]

What happened to the U.S. Army's 'Long Tom' cannon?

[@irontongue5389]

WW2 tech, half the range of M109 Paladin and less accurate, slower rate of fire

[@thetopsecretpentagonsclass6350]

Finally United States is back in business.😁🇮🇱🇺🇲🇸🇦🇬🇧😍.

[@patelivid1637]

TR3B

[@ChanahsCreativeEdits]

Its a Big gun folks

[@dyingearth]

Gerald Bull's gun?

[@PseudoProphet]

You simply can't achieve these ranges with conventional artillery guns.... Only railguns can achieve that kind of range.

[@ogc9649]

Well that’s why it’s probably not completely conventional.

[@Eboreg2]

This either some kind of sick joke or the clumsiest attempt of "eyeball gapping" I've ever seen.

[@th3lev1athan22]

Its like the long tom artillery

[@purplenurp5590]

It's probably gonna be a railgun

[@divo_n1437]

Can't wait to see the gun dropping some shells

[@skippy5712]

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. I don't believe its feasible without some form of rocket assist.

[@bigbluebuttonman1137]

Unless it’s adopting cruise missile tech and stuffing it into a shell and pairing it with a cannon...don’t see how this thing is feasible.

[@tsclly2377]

Whoops.. just got kicked out of he Philippines / Look.. in France, Cannes there was a gun emplacement that has dual FLaK 39 electrics and the where able to shoot at the landing troops 45 miles away. It has been written that there where 'unknown' 88s in the area, but I was informed, first hand, as a child that these where sub-munitions out of the anti-aircraft guns [based at La Bastide de LaRouquette; the ground pound pattern is still there}. Now the idea that the Army is going to revive the 'Atomic Anne' type gun and make a super gun is quite freezable but not in the doctrine of Army Warfare. It is in the realm of the Navy and Missile command, as to get a projectile 1000 miles with any sort of booster, makes it a gun fired missile.. so that is the first problem. I do like the idea of the long range firing cannon, both Army and Naval, but have a Naval preference as they actually could be used in a dual to settle differences, that is if the nations could get back to civility that the bankers and corrupt politicians have been walking away from. The one thing that the Army should do is take care of the traitors and quit hording funds for show pieces that they do not need.. The Army needs a moble170mm first. As for the Navy, they need to make their own projectiles for the Zumwalt guns and extend their range , then make a ship for dueling when the UN gets moved to Tahiti and the Azores..

[@wsg4847]

This has been done before, the M65 nuclear cannon. It was only shot once and was of no tactical use. A missile mounted on a truck can do the same. This is a bizarre retro project and of little value.

[@aigaion4315]

Well, the program has been defunded now, so you are correct!

[@WildBill-kf2pc]

If they are trying to get such a weapon they will do it. It’s keeping up with the times. If you can think it. It will be built. But again none of them will be used. All super powers know what would happen

[@noahater5785]

Next: The US Army improves the SLRC so it can shoot up to 2000 miles

[@liberty4all885]

Definitely needs to be more mobile. I think money could be spent on other things like hyper sonic weapons

[@lucouellet6315]

Shells will be hypersonic as well to sustain a such range.

[@ethan20364]

Nice job

[@ericclausen6772]

We actually never left

[@johnknapp952]

Is it April 1st already???

[@Kackspack0815]

01:35 What model is shown here?

[@blabla9845]

How far is 1,000 miles? That's about a two day drive by car ... crazy!

[@Michael_Scott_Howard]

This is a joke.. do the physics.... better to build low cost, B52, or 777/747 air launched cruise missile

[@oblivionrx854]

That cannon was only used once in a test and it fired a nuclear round. The information in this video is incorrect. That exact weapon is located in Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

[@denysxenyev3929]

May be it has sense. But it is too heavy to operate - it is not quick and mobile.

[@nil981]

Mount this on a warship and the age of big-gun battleships will return

[@RicardoMrMendes]

So cool and Diferent

[@67Kiffy]

How could you possibly accurately aim a cannon 1000 miles away??

[@psuedozardozz]

I think they have limited manauverability in the shells now.

[@kameronjones7139]

Excalibur type shell

[@teddyballgame4823]

The shells will be similar to the Excalibur 155 mm shell. It uses GPS, inertial navigation.

[@67Kiffy]

That’s insane. So pretty much you could set these cannons up in the center of a country and be able to shell any single place anywhere in that country??

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

How do you extend the range to 1000 miles anyway? A tomahawk carries fuel for 1000 miles of flight. Have you seen the size of a tomahawk? To have a shell that'd reach 1000 miles you'd basically have a gun launched ballistic missile that'd need a railgun for firing.

[@rise-amorph8178]

The slrc will likely fire a missile not a rocket or artillery projectile

[@MRsolidcolor]

milley was talking to china behind everyones back

[@ericclausen6772]

I don't understand why you really need a 1000 mile artillery pieces I mean it would be so far ahead of the rest of the world

[@fatbass5751]

Does nobody remember Dr Gerald Bull and his supergun

[@johnpatz8395]

This is silly, it's sort of like the Air Force pump money into developing a new fighter that's a prop driven biplane? This seems to be a pie in the sky idea that a company that only makes artillery would come up with just after missiles started being efective out to those ranges. the money spent on this would be much better being put toward developing longer range standard artillery. There are realitively few times an army artillery commander would need to hit a target 1000 miles away, but would have regularly have use for standard artillery that could reach, 20, 30 or 40 miles away. Even naval artillery would benefit from adding, 10-100% to it's effective range.

[@jamesricker3997]

If it cost the enemy has to spend more money to counter it than it does to produce, the weapon can be judged a success.

[@MRsolidcolor]

its gonnabe like a rocket. i dont see how you can push a round that far with out a fuel to keep it at flying speed

[@fuzzylogic5507]

Since it is not a truly self-propelled cannon, it would be a mastodontic waste of money

[@ericclausen6772]

If it was to expensive for the navy wouldn't it be to expensive for the Army and marine corps

[@dDoOyYoOuUtTuUbBeE]

It is not April 1st yet...

[@jimbritt2874]

Go with two stage solid fuel missiles , much easier

[@ghostmost2614]

List of course only works if you don't hit airliners

[@carlhull8276]

It's no Atomic Annie!

[@Llkc60]

they ceased the R&D for this

[@marksolarz3756]

As technology gets smaller. Old ideas have new life! Hypersonic missiles and such. Atomic Annie...for example shot a 17lb warhead ....bout 20 miles.......took 11 seconds to detonate! That was then, this is now! So rocket assist,...capable perhaps of launching.or hitting..small satellites! Kinetic Ballistic course with a say 20lb payload. And of course you can fire it from quite a ways! Artillery ain’t going anywhere.......but being upgraded. Bean Counters like efficiency in there budgets! Shell vs Missle vs light weapons.

[@marksolarz3756]

Hold on tight to your Dreams! ELO!

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

Imagine putting a nuke on this weapon.

[@genejeffries2888]

That's what that cannon was for, it's from the 50's not a "sneak peek " it's a display piece.

[@tembot6363]

If its got 1600 km range why not just mount them on the 4 iowa battleships in reserve in the us navy . It gives the guns instant protection and mobility . Imagine a broadside of these guns arriving on a target 1600 kms away. The target wouldnt know what hit them .....

[@ThatCarGuy]

4:13 The s400 is terrible though(at least from what the Russians claims, since they act like it can't be defeated) Russia said the S400 could see stealth planes anywhere in its airspace and that was proven wrong with Israel, among others flew in Iran and Syria, causing Iran to fire an IRGC general(quote below) and they couldn't shoot down slow moving Tomawhawks Russia claimed to have downed 71 of the 103. Then when video you can see right here on youtube of the missile striking and not being shot down came out, Russia changed their story and said the S400 was there and only monitored... They were caught in their own lie... (albeit thats how you defeat any SAM system, over-saturate it) The S400 can not see the F22 until 21km out and the F35 until 34km out, Israel already tested it in Iran hence the huge IRGC firing...(why do you think Russia/China is investing in stealth?) Russia said they downed 71 of the 103 missiles... "Russia claims Syria air defences shot down 71 of 103 missiles He said Russian air defences in Syria - including state of the art S-400 coastal missile batteries located at the Russian naval base at Tartus and elsewhere - monitored the strike but did not engage any of the missiles." "Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) commander Brigadier General Farzad Ismaili, who had been in office since 2010, has been fired by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after he kept secret that Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-35 stealth fighters had violated Iran’s airspace, the Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida reported on Saturday."

[@LBGUKRWP]

Sounds like someone might have dusted off Dr Gerald Bulls research

[@Jaemeli]

Why does it have creepy ass music in the background, its a military weapon not a horror story…