Salvo project


#1

Does anyone have a list of the US made cartridges that were made for the Salvo Project or experimentals made from the early 50’s to the early 80’s (I’m kind of guessing at the date range). I think some one posted on the old forum before the crash a list with some pictures
Carolyn


#2

Is this the one?
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6320&p=43938&hilit=salvo#p43938


#3

Hi
Maybe my terminology was wrong, I was referring to cartridges like the following below, I’m sure that I’ve missed some but I don’t know what. I thought that Ray Meketa had posted a fairly complete listing with pictures.
Carolyn

4.32 U.S (17 cal.)
6.35 x 48 U.S. Military XM116
6 x 45 S.A.W.
6.35 x 53 U.S. Military
25 Winchester (6.35 x 48mm)
224 Winchester E2 Exptl.
25 Nato Project Salvo
22 NATO Experimental


#4

Carolyn

Project SALVO began in November 1952 and ran through January 1962 (no one is certain about the ending date because no official documentation of SALVO’s demise has been found.)

I did a short piece on SALVO I and SALVO II field experiments some time back along with photos of the cartridges tested. I believe I still have the photos, and possibly the text if that is what you are after. There were other cartridges that I could list that followed the SALVO concept even though they may not have been an official part of SALVO.

You have to understand that several “projects” were ongoing at the same time and there was often overlap in both the goals and the cartridges that were developed. SCHV, SALVO, SPIW, FRP, SAW, CAWS, ACR are examples.These projects continued well into the 1990s and some are probably still active today. Not having much interest in the “new” stuff, I haven’t kept up to date on them.

If you can narrow down your search a little, I can probably help.

Ray


#5

Ray,
I really hope I’m not the only one who doesn’t know but what are FRP and CAWS?
Jim


#6

Hi Ray
I found out that I can go back and search the old threads before the crash, so using the acronyms that you gave me I’m able to find what I’m looking for so far
Thank you, Carolyn


#7

Ray is exactly correct. It is very difficult to discuss a “project” in the US military. That is a pretty informal name.

Although the Research, Development and Acquisition processes have changed significantly over the years, the essentials have remained the same. Basically a program or project that is in development is defined by a financial “Program Element Code” or PEC although that name had varied over time. This PEC is what the DOD and Service financial system uses to identify what money is being spent on and to identify where money planned or authorized in the current years and future years is suppose to be spent.

Each service has it’s own set of PECs so where things are being paid for by more than one service, there may be multiple PECs paying into the same pot of money (Like today on the F-35 Fighter). Relatively small $ programs may be paid for out of a single PEC and their budgets are allocated by somebody like Edgewood.

Much of the early research work is done in Service Labs like the Armament lab at Eglin AFB for the AF and there are similar Army and Navy labs that handle munitions development (most SAA development has been centralized in the Army). The Labs work using basic R&D funds, and they have great descretion on how they can be spent. The Lab commanders basically control their own budget, but have to respond to formal technology needs being stated by their service. They use these basic research funds to develop technologies and related “projects” will come and go and there is very little evidence on which is related to which. Some of this work doesn’t even result in hardward, but may be solely analysis or building models to let people understand the physics of what is happening. Telescoped ammunition is a good example. I think all three services have looked at that technoloby off and on for many years. It was never a single project and the only one I know of that reached advanced development was the 25mm for the GAU-7.

Bottom line is that Ray is exactly correct. Don’t place too much reliance on the title of a specific project because that isn’t how the DOD development and acquisition process works.

Cheers, Lew


#8

Jim

The lack of any one responding tells me that you are not alone. FRP is Future Rifle Program, a 1970s “project” that looked at exotic ideas such as SFR (Serial Flechette Rifle), SBR (Serial Bullet Rifle), Multi-flechette Rifle, and Micro-bullet Rifle. CAWS (Close Assault Weapons Sytstem) was a 1980’s project.

I think the most secure job in the whole danged Army was the guy who made up the acronyms.

Ray


#9

As the others and in particulate Lew have detailed, the naming far less finding of all the project ammunition designations used on the many projects is impossible. To give an example, the CAW project was one I was involved with. When a company was ready to bid they had to have at least on paper there answer to the program requirements. We had 4 potential cartridge shapes that went to dummy hardware. This then led to a further one that we chose which was made in some quantity to test magazines etc. None of these ever had official designations even when they were submitted. The same would be for the other two preferred bidders. In some cases live ammunition was made at the bidders expense and fired. I still have all of the above ‘bits’. I think I designated them CAW/12 a-b-c etc !!
Regards Sandy


#10

Gunner’s Mate Meketa…Don’t forget good ole Mother Navy when it comes to abbreviations !!!..When in San Diego, I was stationed at NavSubSupFac…lets see if anyone can figure it out…!!!

Randy


#11

Randy

Only another sailor boy could figure it out. A hint to others - I’ll bet the Chief knows.

I was assigned to NIFSD. Affectionatly called “enough said”.

Ray


#12

I’m an Air Farce vet, not Navy, but I’ll take a stab: Naval Submarine Support Facility?


#13

Stanc…You got it…!!!..Now let’s see if we can figure out Ray’s Naval abbreviation…

Randy


#14

Hint - I don’t think it still exists and back then it had an even more popular nickname.

Ray


#15

The first ship I was stationed on was homeported in San Diego and was part of Phibron 1 and our Commodore was a Captain as was my ship’s skipper. A good friend who was in the same squadron but was on a LST had a Commander for a Captain. When we were lucky enough to tie up to a pier it was usually at the DesBase just across from PacResFlt.
(Wow!! Does that make sense?)


#16

OK, I’m gonna take a WAG at Ray’s with: Navy Inter-Fleet Submarine Depot.

Was there a specific school to learn all these acronyms?

Dave


#17

My leg is tingling from all the Navy talk.


#18

Dave

What is with all of these submarine acronyms? Have you been hanging around the Chief?

NIFSD is the Navy Inactive Fleet San Diego, AKA the Mothball Fleet. I think Phil’s PacResFlt was the acronym that included all of the Reserve or Inactive Fleet facilities in the Pacific. Today, the few that are left are called NIF.

For a Gunners Mate, the Mothball Fleet was choice duty. Most all of us were First or Second Class Petty Officers. Work consisted mostly of playing cards, pitching pennies, or napping. I was there for only about 6 months.

Ray


#19

Ray,

Perhaps a non-Navy type like me not in on all the neat lingo of acronyms and proper terminologies would feel better around the sub folks.

The submarine guys don’t seem to get too upset when you refer to their ride as a “boat”…

Back to ammunition: Pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but is SALVO an acronym for something? I can’t recall figuring that one out.

Dave


#20

No reason they should get upset. AFAIK, submarines have always been considered boats, not ships.

I dunno. I also had a question regarding SALVO, but this naval acronym sidetrack caused me to forget it. Darned CRS!