The future of naval fire support

[FITZ]

Could a GMLRS be launched verticaly? Perhaps fitting then for and for in a VLS-tube like the ESSM?

 

Yes, at least in theory. There was an unsolicited proposal to the USN from industry about 5-6 years ago for a round called POLAR - essentially a GMLRS with a longer booster adapted for vertical launch from "quad-packed" Mk 41 VLS cells. It would have had a range of 105nm and carried standard GMLRS payloads. Like most unsolicited (not invented in the Pentagon) proposals this one fell on deaf ears. Personally, I thought it filled a nice slot between AGS and LASM. It would have been cheap and quick into service but I suspect was too slow and short-ranged for the LASM requirement and didn't provide enough volume for the AGS requirement and with no requirement to be filled in the middle...

 

Over at Warships1 about a year ago I had a very long, drawn out discussion with a passionate pro-Iowa reactivationist where I proved, rather unintentionally but beyond all doubt that resurrecting Arsenal Ship equipped with POLAR offered more firepower, sooner and cheaper than a reactivated Iowa. I say unintentionally because I found myself advocating a solution I did not even personally support. It was wierd but fun and the other guy was nearly as much a loon as pfcem.

 

I think de-funding LASM was short-sighted. That system had lots of potential but something had to give in order to pay for the war to promote terrorism in the middle east.

 

So far as the various guns go I don't really have anything else to say on that subject. I don't even follow what is going on very closely anymore. I'm pretty used up on that subject.

[dpapp2]

What could have the USN done 15-20 years ago, i.e. alternatives to the AGS.

 

In this case I'd still argue for the 8" gun - At least I did have arguments for the 8", but that thread was ruined by pfcem.

 

Then there'd been the budget solution, build a good enough 155mm gun system that can use standard NATO ammunition unlike the current AGS - forget the gold plating. It could have been cheap enough to put on a frigate-sized ship (like LCS) that would be expendable, unlike the DD(X).

 

But the USN had to go his own way. Develop a gun system that is better than any 155mm artillery, but cannot use standard ammunition. Has the weight of a 8" one, and needs very long range (= very expensive) ammunition to do the same job, as the USN won't risk a $2bn ship in a littoral environment unless really needed.

 

As what to do now...

Continue with the effort of developing an affordable 155mm ammunition for AGS. Build a fire support ship. Based on a DD(X) hull, with larger ammunition magazines (you need the displacement for this one), limited electronics, ESSM and Harpoon (both for anti-ship and SLAM). Make it able to launch and retrieve Predator-class UAVs that can loiter and provide targeting information, and take a few Hellfire missiles. Or do the same on a 20,000t 30kts capable merchant standard hull.

 

Continuing the railgun development is essential, there's nothing bad how the USN is handling this. However, there should be a fallback option.

 

The Skoda calibers are btw 14.9cm, 19cm, 24cm, 30.5cm, 35cm, 38cm and 42cm.

[KingSargent]

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.

I find it interesting that we can label as "big naval guns" weapons of calibers that were considered small-bore in 1914 naval circles.

[KingSargent]

Dude, you are really scaring me. The resemblence is eeeeeeeeeerie.

Haven't you seen his LIC shtick?

[FITZ]

What could have the USN done 15-20 years ago, i.e. alternatives to the AGS.

 

In this case I'd still argue for the 8" gun - At least I did have arguments for the 8", but that thread was ruined by pfcem.

 

If Mk 71 had not been cancelled in 1977 it would be the de-facto weapon of choice today, at least for further development. But it was round-filed and that was then and this is now and... Recall that the justifications which resulted in Mk 71 becoming an 8-inch gun (remember, it began as 175mm) don't exist today.

 

Then there'd been the budget solution, build a good enough 155mm gun system that can use standard NATO ammunition unlike the current AGS - forget the gold plating. It could have been cheap enough to put on a frigate-sized ship (like LCS) that would be expendable, unlike the DD(X).

His worshipfulness pfcem recently announced to us that AGS won't fire unguided rounds. Apparently they had to make some change to the barrel to improve the performance of GPS guided rounds that FUBAR'd the chances of firing conventional, short-range unguided ordnance. So far as AGS goes I don't think that is any great loss since I find it unlikely anyone was seriously contemplating firing such rounds anyway.

 

BAe is probably still persuing a 155mm version of the standard Mk 8 4.5-inch gun mount using left-over AS90 ordnance. This may be a practical, low-cost solution for those with far less ambitious requirements than the USN but I don't find this solution that impressive myself. Same with MONARC (mentioned earlier). Both the then Royal Ordnance and United Defence back in the 80's were proposing purpose-built 155mm/52 naval mounts that would have had about the same footprint as a Mk 45 5-incher. No one seems willing to cough up the funds to do it the right way from scratch though even though Thales is consistently rumored as working on such a beast currently.

 

But the USN had to go his own way. Develop a gun system that is better than any 155mm artillery, but cannot use standard ammunition. Has the weight of a 8" one, and needs very long range (= very expensive) ammunition to do the same job, as the USN won't risk a $2bn ship in a littoral environment unless really needed.

 

And the USN is right. Lack of reach prevented the USN from providing gunfire support in Desert Storm for weeks. And look at OIF. Advancing U.S. forces would quickly have outrun the support of more convential naval guns like the ones I just described.

 

As what to do now...

Continue with the effort of developing an affordable 155mm ammunition for AGS. Build a fire support ship. Based on a DD(X) hull, with larger ammunition magazines (you need the displacement for this one), limited electronics, ESSM and Harpoon (both for anti-ship and SLAM). Make it able to launch and retrieve Predator-class UAVs that can loiter and provide targeting information, and take a few Hellfire missiles. Or do the same on a 20,000t 30kts capable merchant standard hull.

 

Proposals for dedicated NSFS ships always die and always for the same, very practical reasons. This is a non-starter.

Edited October 4, 2007 by FITZ

[DougRichards]

Would the Royal navy be prepared to lend the plans to the HMS Roberts and HMS Abercrombie?

 

After all these two ships were specifically designed for naval gunfire support.

 

15 inch - nothing less!

[dpapp2]

BAe is probably still persuing a 155mm version of the standard Mk 8 4.5-inch gun mount using left-over AS90 ordnance. This may be a practical, low-cost solution for those with far less ambitious requirements than the USN but I don't find this solution that impressive myself. Same with MONARC (mentioned earlier). Both the then Royal Ordnance and United Defence back in the 80's were proposing purpose-built 155mm/52 naval mounts that would have had about the same footprint as a Mk 45 5-incher. No one seems willing to cough up the funds to do it the right way from scratch though even though Thales is consistently rumored as working on such a beast currently.

Does the USN need to have more impressive requirements, that require a billion dollar to meet...just because it is the USN? I don't think so.

And the USN is right. Lack of reach prevented the USN from providing gunfire support in Desert Storm for weeks. And look at OIF. Advancing U.S. forces would quickly have outrun the support of more convential naval guns like the ones I just described.

If the DD(X) cost 700 milllion instead of half a CVN, I'd agree that the USN is right.

However, a bit less ambitious (= cheaper) project could still have ~40-50nm range, and small enough footprint to be put on a smaller littoral ship that can be built in large enough numbers, and still have longer range than any conventional naval gun.

Proposals for dedicated NSFS ships always die and always for the same, very practical reasons. This is a non-starter.

And multipurpose ships that are designed with NGFS as an afterthought like DD(X) won't have the required magazine capacity, as it would be cut back at least three times during the design process to keep displacement within limits.

 

Aren't we at

[baboon6]

Craft that always fascinated me were the various landing craft and ships converted for close fire support. Could craft of these sizes be useful today?

 

First you have the quite large Landing Ship Medium Rocket or Inshore Fire Support Ship as it was later designated. These were US WW2 conversions from LSMs, some were used in Korea and even Vietnam. Some serious firepower:

 

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/06/06525.htm

 

Single 5-inch gun, 2 twin 40mm mounts, 2 twin 20mm mounts, 20 5-inch rocket launchers, 4 4.2-inch mortars, displaces 1175t fully loaded.

 

Then there is the Landing Craft Support Large, later Landing Ship Support Large:

 

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/05/050129.htm

 

1 twin 40mm or 3-inch gun on the bow; also 2 twin 40mm mounts, 4 single 20mm, 4 .50s, ten Mk7 rocket launchers, displaces 387t fully loaded.

 

The Brits also had various support craft, Landing Craft Flak, Rocket or Gun, all converted from LCTs, similar in size to today's LCUs:

 

LCG

 

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/20/200424.htm

 

LCF- armament 8 2pdr pom-poms and 4 20mm guns, or vica versa, displacement 500 tons

 

http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/amphib.php?id=14

 

LCG- armament two 4.7-inch guns, 2 20mm guns, displacement 500 tons

 

http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/amphib.php?id=15

 

Would it be viable to convert landing craft today to such gunships and would there be apurpose for them?

[Tony Williams]

BAe is probably still persuing a 155mm version of the standard Mk 8 4.5-inch gun mount using left-over AS90 ordnance. This may be a practical, low-cost solution for those with far less ambitious requirements than the USN but I don't find this solution that impressive myself. Same with MONARC (mentioned earlier).

MONARC is dead (too expensive to adapt a land turret to naval requirements). The German navy has ordered OTO Melara 127mm (aka 5") guns instead, and want the Vulcano long-range ammo being developed for it.

 

I don't know about the current status of the 155mm/4.5" but I think it's a brilliant idea, because it combines two existing pieces of equipment: the 4.5" mountings and surplus 155mm L/39 gun barrels. Assuming that there are no unforeseen problems, this should be by far the most cost-effective way of getting 155mm artillery to sea, and can easily be retrofitted to existing 4.5"-armed ships.

[Bluelight]

The interesting thing about the USS Wisconsin use of navel fire in the first gulf war was the use of a drone to find targets and evaluate firing on the spot. I am going to argue, that no matter what the weapon any type of fire support (naval or not) will need an eye in the sky to be truly effective.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

For naval fire support to be truly attractive you need to have a long range weapon that fires a cheap projectile over a hundred miles, and be able to link that weapon to an infantry squad via a forward observer. This forward observer should be able to share the eye in the sky view with the ship, and be able to draw on this view the location of friendly & enemy positions. Outside of that, an Aircraft carrier is just more practical for fire support, and more flexible.

[Assessor]

Let’s assume no one in their right senses is going to bring a super-expensive vessel relatively close to shore where it’s at risk of being sunk with a homemade mine laid by a couple of gumbies in a fishing boat. Therefore, whatever you have for fire support has to sit offshore, and every metre you go offshore is a metre less far you can reach inland.

 

As amphibious assault evolves, and the equipment allows men and materiel to be moved further inland (LCAC type, helicopters etc), the gunfire support needs to reach further and further inland for it to be “fit for purpose”. The larger the distance between target and platform, the greater the difficulty in targetting is going to become.

 

I’m not sure if this circle can be squared. Something cheap bristling with relatively low-tech guns that you are willing to risk, or something hideously expensive that sits a long way offshore and is equipped with tech-intensive ultra long range weapons? At what point do “cab rank” air strikes (even if you have to buy more dedicated ground attack platforms) become more efficient and cost effective?

[FITZ]

Does the USN need to have more impressive requirements, that require a billion dollar to meet...just because it is the USN? I don't think so.

If the DD(X) cost 700 milllion instead of half a CVN, I'd agree that the USN is right.

However, a bit less ambitious (= cheaper) project could still have ~40-50nm range, and small enough footprint to be put on a smaller littoral ship that can be built in large enough numbers, and still have longer range than any conventional naval gun.

 

And multipurpose ships that are designed with NGFS as an afterthought like DD(X) won't have the required magazine capacity, as it would be cut back at least three times during the design process to keep displacement within limits.

 

Aren't we at

 

Are we sure pfcem isn't still here operating under a different handle? There isn't a single assertion in the above post that is rooted in fact.

[FITZ]

Craft that always fascinated me were the various landing craft and ships converted for close fire support. Could craft of these sizes be useful today?

 

Would it be viable to convert landing craft today to such gunships and would there be apurpose for them?

 

Not if you plan to land by helicopter or Osprey a few dozen clicks beyond the beach.

[FITZ]

I don't know about the current status of the 155mm/4.5" but I think it's a brilliant idea, because it combines two existing pieces of equipment: the 4.5" mountings and surplus 155mm L/39 gun barrels. Assuming that there are no unforeseen problems, this should be by far the most cost-effective way of getting 155mm artillery to sea, and can easily be retrofitted to existing 4.5"-armed ships.

 

It's not a bad way to do things on the cheap, it is just the performance of the end product I find lacking. It just really doesn't give you that much more than the 4.5 with extended range ammo other than a wider variety of payloads using army ammo but ROF sucks for sustained fire.

[FITZ]

I don't know about the current status of the 155mm/4.5" but I think it's a brilliant idea, because it combines two existing pieces of equipment: the 4.5" mountings and surplus 155mm L/39 gun barrels. Assuming that there are no unforeseen problems, this should be by far the most cost-effective way of getting 155mm artillery to sea, and can easily be retrofitted to existing 4.5"-armed ships.

 

It's not a bad way to do things on the cheap, it is just the performance of the end product I find lacking. It just really doesn't give you that much more than the 4.5 with extended range ammo other than a wider variety of payloads using army ammo but ROF sucks for sustained fire.

[Junior FO]

....

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[dpapp2]

Are we sure pfcem isn't still here operating under a different handle? There isn't a single assertion in the above post that is rooted in fact.

Why are you so vehemently trying to justify the USN building the wrong ship for the job? You are failing.

[FITZ]

Why are you so vehemently trying to justify the USN building the wrong ship for the job? You are failing.

 

I wasn't aware I was defending anything at this point. I should point out though that if you thought you were discrediting the Zumwalt class you have a very long way to go. You've made some mild assertions but no substantial arguments, and certainly nothing with factual backing.

Edited October 4, 2007 by FITZ

[dpapp2]

I wasn't aware I was defending anything at this point. I should point out though that if you thought you were discrediting the Zumwalt class you have a very long way to go. You've made some mild assertions but no substantial arguments, and certainly nothing with factual backing.

While some of the capabilties of the Zumwalt class are impressive, it costs just too much to get one shell every three second into the air. With the skyrocketing development ($8,690m) and unit procurement cost (currently at $2,441m FY2007 dollars) it was the good decision to go for LRLAP.

 

One only wonders why could not the USN go for a cheaper solution. I am arguing that had the Navy some foresight about the ballooning prices, they would not have tied future NGFS, AGS and DD(X) so closely together. And forgive me to have the delusion that there could have been either a cheaper or a more effective alternative to the AGS/DD(X) combo.

 

An option is to put a 5"/62 on whatever LCS follow-on. it would have 50nm range with ERGM, and still affordable, with not much additional development cost.

[FITZ]

While some of the capabilties of the Zumwalt class are impressive, it costs just too much to get one shell every three second into the air. With the skyrocketing development ($8,690m) and unit procurement cost (currently at $2,441m FY2007 dollars) it was the good decision to go for LRLAP.

 

One only wonders why could not the USN go for a cheaper solution. I am arguing that had the Navy some foresight about the ballooning prices, they would not have tied future NGFS, AGS and DD(X) so closely together. And forgive me to have the delusion that there could have been either a cheaper or a more effective alternative to the AGS/DD(X) combo.

 

An option is to put a 5"/62 on whatever LCS follow-on. it would have 50nm range with ERGM, and still affordable, with not much additional development cost.

 

OK then, setting aside for a moment your apparent and very mistaken belief that the whole reason for the existence of DD-1000 is to lob shells how much $ is not too much, exactly?

 

What would the cheaper/sooner/better solution be? It certainly can't be Mk 45 Mod 4 and ERGM w/LASM. The Navy knew early on that system couldn't meet its own near-term requirements, let alone the long-term requirements DD-1000 is supposed to cover and LASM got broomed.

Edited October 4, 2007 by FITZ

[Olof Larsson]

The Skoda calibers are btw 14.9cm, 19cm, 24cm, 30.5cm, 35cm, 38cm and 42cm.

 

They did develop and sell (to Yugoslavia and Poland) a 22cm howitzer vetween the wars,

and a think that the swedish coastal-artillery 21cm cannons that we bought from germany during the war

was designed and built buy Skoda.

 

But mayby you meant calibers introduced by Skoda.

At the very least france used 22cm and the germans 21cm guns prior to the above mentioned guns.

[Marek Tucan]

The Skoda calibers are btw 14.9cm, 19cm, 24cm, 30.5cm, 35cm, 38cm and 42cm.

 

Also 3.7cm, 4.7 cm, 7.5 cm, 8 cm (in fact 76.5 mm), 10 cm, 10.5 cm, 21 cm, 22 cm... Skoda was very busy arms factory

[dpapp2]

OK then, setting aside for a moment your apparent and very mistaken belief that the whole reason for the existence of DD-1000 is to lob shellshow much is not too much, exactly?

Can you point it out where did I suggest that the primary mission of DDG-1000 is to lob shells? It would be of a great help, because I only remember stating that it was a secondary mission (I used the word 'afterthought' here).

 

What would the cheaper/sooner/better solution be? It certainly can't be Mk 45 Mod 4 and ERGM w/LASM. The Navy knew early on that system couldn't meet its own near-term requirements, let alone the long-term requirements DD-1000 is supposed to cover and LASM got broomed.

I am unconvinced that NGFS requirements were not custom-tailored so that it could be only fulfilled by something very similar to AGS and DDG-1000. I also think that the cancellation of the AGS would have meant the end of the DD(X), too, so the navy was stuck with it. And I know you think I am mistaken in this regard.

 

I also think that 10 units of DDG-1000 will not meet future the requirements for NGFS - especially as Burke cannot meet those.

 

Skoda: My fault, I was unaware of the 21 and 22cm ones...

[gewing]

How about a mix of systems, such as unmanned boats with AMOS

Littoral combat ships or arsenal ships with a mix of ERGMLRS, Netfires, P44, and something like Polyphem,

 

Unmanned aircraft with guided 70mm rockets, (hypothetically) guided 5" Zuni rockets, SPike micro missiles and Small Diameter bombs.

 

deployed from one of the older Landing assault ship, so they have a nice large well deck and flight deck to take off from...

 

The aircraft would probably be a mix of rotary and fixed wings, depending on the exact role. The key would be to make them reliable and sturdy enough to have them where they are needed WHEN they are needed, even if it is a storm.

[Kensuke]

Nothing less than an 8" gun will do. Also, it needs a catapult to launch IFVs directly onto the beach. They can then proceed to do a Thunder Run. Israel won't need this because they are a purely defensive nation.

 

For air defense, numerous .50cal BMGs ARE SUFFICIENT TO GET THE JOB DONE!

 

DON'T ASK ME TO RESEARCH FOR YOU. IT'S ON PAGE 3445 OF TONY'S BOOK. I'M NOT PLAYING THAT GAME!

 

- John

 

:lol: :lol:

Edited October 5, 2007 by Kensuke