Chris Werb Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 We have just under 14 days to have a sensible discussion about naval fire support for the first time in years. Make the most of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 We have just under 14 days to have a sensible discussion about naval fire support for the first time in years. Make the most of it! What, is pfcem on holiday or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) What, is pfcem on holiday or something? Yep. 13 days and counting, courtesy of MODERATOR (genuflect, grovel, etc & so forth). Edited October 3, 2007 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 What, is pfcem on holiday or something? Let me guess: banned for a fortnight. Lots of choices, innit? Dedicated ships for high-volume fire (I suggest MRLs & lots of 'em), close-in stuff, including going up rivers (CB90 with AMOS or similar would get my vote), or a capability on ships for which it's a secondary role (worrabout a nice OTO 127mm gun with the option of long-range precision-guided ammo?). Please feel free to tear to pieces any or all of the above. I'm just trying to seed a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Let's face it, anything except 8" rifled cannons isn't going to 'get the job done'. True, it may mean reviving an obsolete, inefficient calibre and designing new ammunition that will only be used by a tiny number of huge, obcenely expensive NFS ships. They may only be able to cover a tiny portion of the globe (if they aren't denied access or sunk by simple, cheap, easily deployed and widely available systems). But what the hell. There's infinite money in the budget. It's not as if US forces actually have any other committments or equipment shortfalls and there are thousands of WW-2 veterans that would jump at the chance of reenlisting to man them. I say go for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Chris, I'm going to have to ask MODERATOR to ban you so we can have a decent discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Deleted by poster Edited October 3, 2007 by FITZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Yep. 13 days and counting, courtesy of MODERATOR (genuflect, grovel, etc & so forth). Damn, how did I mess that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Let's face it, anything except 8" rifled cannons isn't going to 'get the job done'. True, it may mean reviving an obsolete, inefficient calibre and designing new ammunition that will only be used by a tiny number of huge, obcenely expensive NFS ships. They may only be able to cover a tiny portion of the globe (if they aren't denied access or sunk by simple, cheap, easily deployed and widely available systems). But what the hell. There's infinite money in the budget. It's not as if US forces actually have any other committments or equipment shortfalls and there are thousands of WW-2 veterans that would jump at the chance of reenlisting to man them. I say go for it! Chris of course is right. I mean, if it were not for pfcem's careful elaboration on all of those targets that can only be dealt with by 8-inch caliber rifled guns (with only modest prodding) I could never have come around to the dark side Edited October 3, 2007 by FITZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Williams Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I think that standard 155mm artillery (compatible with army ammo - unlike the DD-1000 guns) would do the job for the time being, with MLRS style guided missiles for a heavier/longer punch. 120mm mortars for close-in/riverine work, as mentioned. In the medium term the answer is likely to be electromagnetic rail guns, powered by a hybrid powerplant providing all-electric drive. These should be very much more efficient than powder guns, achieving very high velocities for extreme range yet without the huge cartridge cases powder guns would need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Employing guns capable of fire both "dumb" and guided ammo. Since NGFS is intended for a cooperation with ground forces and is about the only remaining shipboard gun duty, I'd see a sensible way of making Naval NGFS weapons ammo compatible with ground forces. For patrol boats or gunboats, I'd say 120mm AMOS or NEMO is ideal. For bigger ships, 155mm. Rockets - dunno. Navy might want them too guided - I'd say somethng like GMLRS would be ideal. As for mounts, AMOS comes with its own mount, 155mm - I like the idea of MONARC, but there might be issues with ammo transfer from hull magasine to turret autoloader? Plus MONARC isn't stealth so no way DDG(X) or CG(X) would take it Of course another way is scrapping 155mm in ground forces and replacing it with common 7.99 inch gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasidas Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 We have just under 14 days to have a sensible discussion about naval fire support for the first time in years. Make the most of it! You're dumb! I'm uber-super-smart-infallible, and you're all full of BS! I'm the only possible correct person here! Anyone else that posts who may agree with me, is purely accidental and only in this instance!.................Just thought I'd give us all a reminder of what we're in for in 13 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 In the medium term the answer is likely to be electromagnetic rail guns, powered by a hybrid powerplant providing all-electric drive. These should be very much more efficient than powder guns, achieving very high velocities for extreme range yet without the huge cartridge cases powder guns would need. And for long-term orbital nukes OT, I will confess it publicly, just found that translation of article about 57mm CS AA gun, somehow forgot about it when I was rebuilding the whole PC last winter. Mea culpa maxima. Getting back to it, will send it when it's complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Chris of course is right. I mean, if it were not for pfcem's careful elaboration on all of those targets that can only be dealt with by 8-inch caliber rifled guns (with only modest prodding) I could never have come around to the dark side It's all about MEETING THE OFFICIAL REQUIREMENTS!!! Those SAME requirements to which I have provided links MANY times on this very thread!!!! I'm NOT going to do your research for you anymore as you just won't accept the TRUTH!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 You're dumb! I'm uber-super-smart-infallible, and you're all full of BS! I'm the only possible correct person here! Anyone else that posts who may agree with me, is purely accidental and only in this instance!...Just thought I'd give us all a reminder of what we're in for in 13 days. You are full of CRAP!!! As is well known, USN sailors all expressed a preference for the 8" even when given a choice of EVERY conceivable alternative - 16" guns, Godzilla, the Death Star, and a device that fired freakin' black holes at 100,000,000,000 rpm. In WW-2 the USN issued the 8" gun and it got the job done. That makes it THE optimal solution. That's the TRUTH. And BTW I'm NEVER wrong about ANYTHING, EVER!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Chris, please, please! It is not compulsory to take his place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Chris, please, please! It is not compulsory to take his place! I'm afraid he's starting to believe his sig line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon6 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Employing guns capable of fire both "dumb" and guided ammo. Since NGFS is intended for a cooperation with ground forces and is about the only remaining shipboard gun duty, I'd see a sensible way of making Naval NGFS weapons ammo compatible with ground forces. Surely most fairly big naval guns (57mm/76mm/127mm) can be used and are still useful for air defence and anti-surface warfare? I agree on the ammunition commonality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mote Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Would there be any great reason not to deck out an LCS sized vessel with several 155mm mounts, with only a RAM launcher for self-defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Has anyone other than the USN adopted a 155mm solution? I was aware that the German Navy experimented with a Pzh2000 based system, but I didn't think it had been adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Would there be any great reason not to deck out an LCS sized vessel with several 155mm mounts, with only a RAM launcher for self-defense? Not sexy enough? With the possibilty of EM guns coming online with a long extended range, way not just use a commerical freighter hull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Has anyone other than the USN adopted a 155mm solution? I was aware that the German Navy experimented with a Pzh2000 based system, but I didn't think it had been adopted. Seems there were problems in MONARC project with adapting it to corrosive seaborne environment... Didn't Brits plan 155/52 for their DD's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'd have to agree to the idea of using 12cm mortar/15,5cm gun and MRL. Could a GMLRS be launched verticaly?Perhaps fitting then for and for in a VLS-tube like the ESSM? Of course another way is scrapping 155mm in ground forces and replacing it with common 7.99 inch gun Being from the country of Skodawerke, I'd expect you to pick a 21cm or at the very least a 14,91cm.8'' is for nations, made up by pale, sexually oppressed and system-of-measurement challenged clientele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 You are full of CRAP!!! As is well known, USN sailors all expressed a preference for the 8" even when given a choice of EVERY conceivable alternative - 16" guns, Godzilla, the Death Star, and a device that fired freakin' black holes at 100,000,000,000 rpm. In WW-2 the USN issued the 8" gun and it got the job done. That makes it THE optimal solution. That's the TRUTH. And BTW I'm NEVER wrong about ANYTHING, EVER!!! Dude, you are really scaring me. The resemblence is eeeeeeeeeerie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now