The future of naval fire support

[swerve]

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:

 

pfcem, what have you done with the real Kensuke?

[tanker_karl]

Has anyone read this recent Master's Thesis :

 

Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap by Col. Shawn Welch (Corps of Engineers, US Army National Guard).

 

Opinions ?

Edited October 5, 2007 by tanker_karl

[DougRichards]

I wasn't really kidding when I mentioned the Roberts and the Abercrombie: two 15 inch guns, massive, by modern standards, armour, bulged against mines and torpedoes, all on around 9000 tonnes full load.

 

If the Brits could do that in 1941 what is wrong with the USA now?

 

Even on a smaller scale: the British Insect class of 'river gunboat': Launched in 1915, still in use in 1940: 625 tons with two 6in guns and a 3in gun. Usefully used in covering the flanks of the 8th army, in support of the Roberts class monitors.

[TonyE]

NOW HEAR THIS! NOW HEAR THIS!

 

Due to the shifting trends in military fashions, the classic triple 8inch gun turret is now totally passé.

Instead the light weight single tube MK71/55 automatic 8-inch gun is NOW the future.

 

Pictures from the highly successfull tests that prove the superiority of the 8-inch gun!!!:

http://www.navybuddies.com/dd/dd-images/dd945_5.jpg

http://www.navybuddies.com/dd/dd-images/dd945_6.jpg

http://www.navybuddies.com/dd/dd-images/dd945_7.jpg

http://www.navybuddies.com/dd/dd-images/dd945_8.jpg

http://www.navybuddies.com/dd/dd-images/dd945_9.jpg

 

As we can see from these pictures the USS Hull (Forrest Sherman class destroyer) successfully tested this weapon back in 1975. It is thus a tested and adequate weapon for the job and it meets the official requirements!

Other than the sufficient and highly successfull 8-inch gun it will also have the two 5-inch guns, this combo will be deceisive when dealing with the combined chinese/north korean highseas fleet and when launching direct amphibious assaults against heavily fortified beaches!

 

The Tanknet Naval Gunfire Support Group hereby recommend that the US Navy recommission the Forrest Sherman class destroyers and re-open the productionlines to mass produce this magnificent class of ships to provide the US armed forces of the future with dedicated naval fire support!

 

The recommissioned Forrest Sherman class will be the future LCS of the US Navy!

[Kensuke]

Joking aside, this is a pretty interesting find.

 

According to to the information I looked up, they were going to put these things on the Sprucans, upgraded Long Beach, and the canceled CSGNs, but the entire project was canceled in 1978.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

 

I wonder if this really was because of Jimmy Carter's budget cuts, or because there was something wrong with the system?

 

Thanks Tony.

 

- John

Edited October 5, 2007 by Kensuke

[FITZ]

Joking aside, this is a pretty interesting find.

 

According to to the information I looked up, they were going to put these things on the Sprucans, upgraded Long Beach, and the canceled CSGNs, but the entire project was canceled in 1978.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

 

I wonder if this really was because of Jimmy Carter's budget cuts, or because there was something wrong with the system?

 

Thanks Tony.

 

- John

 

The official reason for cancellation was that the system did not meet is accuracy requirements but its accuracy requirements were set by the use of guided ammunition, which had not be fired yet at the time of the cancellation. Basically I suspect the system had a low priority and Congress was looking to trim the budget so...

 

Congress cancelled Mk 71 BTW, not Carter.

[Assessor]

"Has anyone read this recent Master's Thesis :

 

Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap by Col. Shawn Welch (Corps of Engineers, US Army National Guard).

 

Opinions ? "

 

Scanned it (it's 100+ pages and pretty dense). The author seems to conclude a "battleship-like" platform is the way to go.

 

Interestingly, it gives a hard number to the shore standoff distance (i.e. to keep away from gumbies with homemade mines): 25 miles. To reach out that far, the assumption must be that the enemy's gumbies are very capable and homemade contact mines are not the upper limit of their fiendishness. This standoff gives a target "reach" inland of (only) thiteen miles, which in the context of LCAC, choppers and the new generation of amphibious armour, doesn't seem very far.

 

Col. Welch talks at great length about railguns and scramjet propelled shells, reaching hundreds, not tens of miles inland. I couldn't really follow how these would be targetted or guided, but surely some sort of guidance is necessary? At 100 miles, 0.1 degrees of angular dispersion on launch gives an "error" of about 300 yards, the ships must be moving at least that much, never mind any weather / atmospheric factors the shell meets on the way.

[DougRichards]

"Has anyone read this recent Master's Thesis :

 

Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap by Col. Shawn Welch (Corps of Engineers, US Army National Guard).

 

Opinions ? "

 

Scanned it (it's 100+ pages and pretty dense). The author seems to conclude a "battleship-like" platform is the way to go.

 

 

 

Col. Welch talks at great length about railguns and scramjet propelled shells, reaching hundreds, not tens of miles inland. I couldn't really follow how these would be targetted or guided, but surely some sort of guidance is necessary? At 100 miles, 0.1 degrees of angular dispersion on launch gives an "error" of about 300 yards, the ships must be moving at least that much, never mind any weather / atmospheric factors the shell meets on the way.

100 miles, isn't that really getting into the realm of naval air, or if a really crucial target the role of the B-2?

 

Wasn't the USAF arguing that a squadron of B-2s, with in flight refueling, could do the job of a CVN anyway at around tye same price?

[Assessor]

100 miles, isn't that really getting into the realm of naval air, or if a really crucial target the role of the B-2?

 

Wasn't the USAF arguing that a squadron of B-2s, with in flight refueling, could do the job of a CVN anyway at around tye same price?

 

 

That was kind of my take on it - by the time this round has reached 100+ (up to 400 in the thesis), the target (or those being supported by the gunfire!) might have moved a bit... Even at an average of Mach 4, it takes about seven and half minutes to cover that distance, not allowing for actually arranging a fire mission.

 

The sums are claimed to support the thesis that:

1 No current ship / gun can meet the current fire support requirements

2 You cannot have sufficient aircraft available to fly "cab ranks" against anyone but a Third-World opponent

3 Missiles are not sufficiently "immediate"

 

1 By the time you start out 25 miles offshore, you need an impressive tool to have any sort of inland reach, and as ships get more densely packed with equipment, magazine storage doesn't grow, so this seemed reasonable.

2 I couldn't quite buy - even at current prices, you could buy a lot of combat aircraft for one "quasi-battleship"

3 At 400 miles between firing platform and target, nothing is going to be very immediate, this side of Star Trek!

 

This is meant to be fairly close, immediate support, over the battlefield. Somehow I can't see the USAF wanting to keep B2 in cab-rank orbit, close to where our enemy's resourceful gumbies can spoil their day...

 

Hell, I don't know what the answer is, but there seem to be a lot of things out there that seem to be what the answer isn't!

[tanker_karl]

The official reason for cancellation was that the system did not meet is accuracy requirements but its accuracy requirements were set by the use of guided ammunition, which had not be fired yet at the time of the cancellation.

 

According to the official Technical Evaluation of the 8-Inch Major Caliber Lightweight Gun Mount, Mark 71 Mod 0, the MCLWG doesn't seem to have failed to meet accuracy requirements as you suggest.

 

Abstract of said Technical Evaluation below (emphasis mine) :

 

The evaluation included determining performance parameters of the laying and loading systems, electrical power consumption levels for the mount, checking misfire and regunning provisions, a safety analysis, and firing tests. During the firing tests: (1) The mount proofed satisfactorily; (2) Rate of fire of the mount was determined to be 11.7 to 12.6 rounds per minute; (3) Accuracy data gathered indicate that round-to-round accuracy was satisfactory; although, a new 8-inch range table is recommended; (4) Barrel life and velocity loss data were too limited to be conclusive, but do not indicate barrel wear and velocity loss to be excessive; (5) A gun blast profile for the gun was established as being slightly less severe than that of an 8-inch bag gun; (6) Smoke and carbon monoxide measurements taken indicate it would be unsafe to circulate the air from within the mount to a ship's manned space during firing, or for maintenance personnel to enter the mount after firing until the mount is purged. Problems were encountered which required minor design changes. Performance of the mount was judged acceptable and certification for release to operational evaluation was recommended.

Edited October 5, 2007 by tanker_karl

[Olof Larsson]

Hell, I don't know what the answer is, but there seem to be a lot of things out there that seem to be what the answer isn't!

 

IMHO NGFS is there to provide fire-support until landbased artillery is put ashore.

 

If you fly troops far inland to sieze terrain rather then just raid,

you will probably litter the sky with fighter-escorts,

SEAD/DEAD-resources, AEW, tankers etc. etc.

so why not bring the CAS-birds needed to support the groundtroops

until you can fly in artillery?

 

If you have to wait a long while for long-ranged NGFS to get there, you might as well use CAS.

[DB]

[snip]This standoff gives a target "reach" inland of (only) thiteen miles, which in the context of LCAC, choppers and the new generation of amphibious armour, doesn't seem very far.

It's not good enough to conduct counter-battery operations, is it? You'd want to be able to interfere with artillery missions against your landing forces, so that they get enough time to set up their own ground-based artillery, and surely they're going to get pounded if you can't support CB work?

 

David

[FITZ]

According to the official Technical Evaluation of the 8-Inch Major Caliber Lightweight Gun Mount, Mark 71 Mod 0, the MCLWG doesn't seem to have failed to meet accuracy requirements as you suggest.

 

Abstract of said Technical Evaluation below (emphasis mine) :

 

What I said was that was the excuse Congress gave for cancelling the program - not the same thing.

[BansheeOne]

As we can see from these pictures the USS Hull (Forrest Sherman class destroyer) successfully tested this weapon back in 1975. It is thus a tested and adequate weapon for the job and it meets the official requirements!

 

That's ADEQUITE, sport!

[shep854]

What I said was that was the excuse Congress gave for cancelling the program - not the same thing.

 

I remember reading in Armed Forces Journal that the complaint was that rounds dispersed "excessively" at the outer third of the gun's range, which is of course normal. Congresscritters (especially the peaceniks of the '70s) are not known for letting facts stand in their way.

Edited October 6, 2007 by shep854

[FlyingCanOpener]

Skimming through the topic (and laughing quite hard too!)...

 

I think air-dropped weapons are far more useful and cost-effective than gun-fired shells, but I'd like to delve into the absurd when it comes into NGFS by asking this:

 

What would be the ideal NGFS shell for 155mm that would meet the magical 8" requirement and actually be useful (in theory) today?

 

The way I see it, you'd need rocket assistance, GPS guidance, and apparently a nuclear warhead in order to give it any kill capability other than of the kinetic variety because all of the fancy gizmos to make it like your average JDAM would fill up the entire shell.

 

How wrong am I (Sane and insane responses welcomed. )?

[Tony Williams]

The way I see it, you'd need rocket assistance, GPS guidance, and apparently a nuclear warhead in order to give it any kill capability other than of the kinetic variety because all of the fancy gizmos to make it like your average JDAM would fill up the entire shell.

 

How wrong am I (Sane and insane responses welcomed. )?

There are 120mm guided mortar rounds in advanced development, which combine GPS and passive laser homing (they can work with either - the latter is more accurate if you can get a laser spot on the target, not too difficult with UAVs).

[Tony Williams]

As far as the general question of the cost-effectiveness of NGFS and CAS is concerned, that is a very complex issue (and one in which some of the factors have changed with technological developments).

 

The traditional advantage of CAS is its long range, that of NGFS is its instant availability night or day in any weather. CAS has in recent years got very much better due to improved electronic sensors and PGMs. NGFS is due to get much better with long-range PG projectiles. This is levelling-out their pros and cons.

 

The cost equation is the hard one, because the delivery systems aren't just used for one role but have other purposes. A warship delivering NGFS can also be used for a range of other duties, as can multi-purpose combat planes. Taking everything into account, NGFS will probably remain cheaper (particularly if the CAS is being provided by carrier planes, because you have to factor in the costs of the carriers as well) but is less flexible.

 

You pays your money and you takes your choice...

[TonyE]

The way I see it, you'd need rocket assistance, GPS guidance, and apparently a nuclear warhead in order to give it any kill capability other than of the kinetic variety because all of the fancy gizmos to make it like your average JDAM would fill up the entire shell.

 

How wrong am I (Sane and insane responses welcomed. )?

 

JDAM is Airfarce! 8-inch is Navy! Navy Strong!

 

The 8-inch would get the needed edge when it would be equipped with GPS guided cannister/grapeshot rounds to takeout enemy humanwave assaults!

Edited October 6, 2007 by Tony Engelsen

[tanker_karl]

The official reason for cancellation was that the system did not meet is accuracy requirements but its accuracy requirements were set by the use of guided ammunition, which had not be fired yet at the time of the cancellation.

 

According to Navweaps : (emphasis added)

 

Laser-guided 8" (20.3 cm) Paveway or CLGP developed at Dahlgren Laboratory, Virginia, in the 1970s. USS Hull made 5 out of 5 hits on a moored ex-destroyer using these projectiles.

 

[TonyE]

That's ADEQUITE, sport!

 

Enough Carp sport! You,re full of it!! It,s clear that you (and others I culd name!) have more then a few issues!. I culd care lest! As one woh did NOT tank for Sam,did NOT flew them grate burd, did NOT man them grate batltewagon or get paided abonus! you,re should not trash there grate sight with such durt! Enough crap i,am not ammused! You (for there most part!) don,t know you,re breach from you,re muscle and, you,re wareplatebolts from you,re coppula!

 

I could go on nad on!

 

Now, let,s get back to discussing them grate stealbeest known as tanks! and, there grate men who thanked them!

Edited October 6, 2007 by Tony Engelsen

[Crowe]

Well, despite the excellent impressions, the topic has actually brought some thought. What exactly is the NGFS mission? Is it to support an opposed landing from 25 miles out? Then probably the 155mm is sufficient, though I wonder if a sprinkling of low-angle 25mm deck guns would deter gumby enough to bring your ranges in closer? . If it is to provide counterbattery fire vs 155mm SPGs from 25 miles out, then obviously something larger is needed. If your mission is to rain fire down on Baghdad from the coast, then maybe you need a spinally mounted Bull supergun or something. I think first, you need a firm idea of what you what your NGFS mission to be, and then choose the right hammer for the job. I think also, that you really need to decide where the tip-point is between generality and speciality. If a Zumwalt isn't tasked with NGFS, would all of its other missions be better served with 57mm or 76mm guns? How much capability are we sacrificing by upping the ante to 127, 155, 175, or 408? NGFS would seem to me to be a very specialized mission under very specific conditions that it might be better to make a handful of specialized platforms rather than tailor the whole navy around a "jack of all trades policy", because while it might be nice to THINK that all of our ships are able to do all jobs, I think the reality is that a carrier escort is never going to be realistically detached and deployed for NGFS. Amphibious Ops take enough coordination that you will bring the right tools along. It just seems that the current pubilicity of our operations in the Middle East has made the priority of NGFS overblown when in reality it is one of the smaller fractions of what a naval vessel is supposed to do.

 

The best answer to me, is to fully form the question first.

 

Some thoughts,

 

C. Rowe

[DB]

[snip]

Some thoughts,

 

C. Rowe

Good Lord, some sanity.

 

A glistening pool a calm in a heaving sea of madness. I salute you.

 

David

[FlyingCanOpener]

There are 120mm guided mortar rounds in advanced development, which combine GPS and passive laser homing (they can work with either - the latter is more accurate if you can get a laser spot on the target, not too difficult with UAVs).

 

But those still are hampered by range. That's why I commented on needing a nuclear warhead on these little puppies. Considering the space consumed by fuel mass needed for a rocket-boosted shell to go ~100 miles, you'll end up with no space for explosives left. After all, it isn't as though we can make shells any bigger. If we do, we're going to have to redo all reloading mechanisms to work with the elongated shells. But when you're rebuilding battlewagons, I guess that's a given.

[Keith L]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as using an Iowa class 16" gun, doens't the South African G6 outrange it? I know that trying to do damage to a BB with a 155 is well slightly dumb, but if you have anything less well armored, and that once it gets in range can massacre you, what does that get you?