The future of naval fire support

[Guest pfcem]

I have but one question.

 

What Target set can not be engaged by existing and proposed NSFS solutions, but an 8 inch weapon can?

 

Please note, I'm asking for a definitive target set.

I have already answered that.

 

A number of other posters have already answered that.

 

The 1994 NSFS COEA has already answered that (not that you would bother to have found that out).

 

And a number of other documents (including Colonel Welch's thesis) have already answered that.

 

Of course you just can't admit that it has been answered because then you would have to stop TROLLING.

Edited October 18, 2007 by pfcem

[Junior FO]

,..

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[FITZ]

I have already answered that.

 

A number of other posters have already answered that.

 

The 1994 NSFS COEA has already answered that (not that you would bother to have found that out).

 

And a number of other documents (including Colonel Welch's thesis) have already answered that.

 

Of course you just can't admit that it has been answered because then you would have to stop TROLLING.

 

That's dishonest. Do I have to repeat the number of times I asked you this very question in the last thread that you ignored?

Edited October 19, 2007 by FITZ

[Mote]

I have already answered that.

 

A number of other posters have already answered that.

 

The 1994 NSFS COEA has already answered that (not that you would bother to have found that out).

 

And a number of other documents (including Colonel Welch's thesis) have already answered that.

 

Of course you just can't admit that it has been answered because then you would have to stop TROLLING.

 

For the benefit of those who have not seen it before, and don't care to go through hundreds of pages of documents, would you be so kind as to provide a short answer of what those target sets are?

[Guest pfcem]

For the benefit of those who have not seen it before, and don't care to go through hundreds of pages of documents, would you be so kind as to provide a short answer of what those target sets are?

Sure.

 

More-or-less any target which is considered "hardened" or "fortified".

 

Any target which can be defeated by a (or a small number of) 200+ lb "warhead(s)" but can not be defeated by any reasonable number of ~100 lb "warheads".

 

[from the 1994 CNA NSFS COEA & other documents] As the gun bore size increases, the percentage of targets hit increases and the wartime cost per target decreases. So not ONLY are there targets which larger guns can defeat that smaller guns cannot but MOST ALL targets can be defeated more effeciently & less costly with larger guns.

 

Think about it...why do more fire support munitions have "warheads" >100 lbs than have 100 lbs or less...

 

Oops...I forgot...and ALL targets out of range of a 155mm gun but not out of range of an equivalent 8" gun.

Edited October 18, 2007 by pfcem

[gewing]

I suspect that delay fused 155mm barrages will kill MOST hard targets that do not need 2000lb bombs. Needing to detonate 5-10 rounds in the ground at the same time is not optimal, but...

[Mote]

Sure.

 

More-or-less any target which is considered "hardened" or "fortified".

 

Any target which can be defeated by a (or a small number of) 200+ lb "warhead(s)" but can not be defeated by any reasonable number of ~100 lb "warheads".

 

Alright, but what targets are those? How much hardening is required to defeat 155mm shell fire, but not 203mm? How common is that hardening? Will a significant portion of 155mm fires fail their purpose because of hardening?

 

[from the 1994 CNA NSFS COEA & other documents] As the gun bore size increases, the percentage of targets hit increases and the wartime cost per target decreases. So not ONLY are there targets which larger guns can defeat that smaller guns cannot but MOST ALL targets can be defeated more effeciently & less costly with larger guns.

 

But as the gun gets larger, the effects on the ship design also increase. An 203mm gun will require the ship to be much larger and more expensive than a 155mm gun would. Furthermore, with the guidance methods we currently have, and that are necessary for long ranged munitions, 155mm should have no appreciable difference in the percentage of hits, while having the additional benefits of more shells for the same volume/weight (and thus the ability to service more targets) and being used closer to the troops because of the smaller danger zone.

 

Think about it...why do more fire support munitions have "warheads" >100 lbs than have 100 lbs or less...

Can you define what you mean by fire support munition please? I'd be hard-pressed to think of one that has a greater than one hundred pound warhead that is applicable to the same roles (missiles such as Hellfire, TOW, JCM), but it may be that we are defining them differently.

 

Oops...I forgot...and ALL targets out of range of a 155mm gun but not out of range of an equivalent 8" gun.

 

LRLAP is expected to achieve one hundred nautical miles range, and any further range belongs to the realm of guns brought ashore or aircraft/missiles.

 

I'm not denying that a 203mm gun would have some benefits compared to a 155mm, but it will also have some disadvantages and you have to factor those in plus the cost/benefit ratio. Are the additional billions spent on that 203mm gun and platform worth it, or is 155mm with air support good enough?

 

For what its worth, LRLAP is supposed to weigh as much as the shell from an 8"/55 Mark 71 with a slightly larger burst charge, so I'm not real sure that you're missing out on anything with the 155mm compared to historical 8" gunfire.

[FITZ]

Alright, but what targets are those? How much hardening is required to defeat 155mm shell fire, but not 203mm? How common is that hardening? Will a significant portion of 155mm fires fail their purpose because of hardening?

 

Believe me, you want to let this one go. I've been down this road too many times before. It does not matter how directly or how many times you ask, you will not get an answer on this question. The whole reason we started this topic while pfcem was in purgatory is because of his unique ability to evade answering such direct questions and back up his dubious claims with anything other than s--- he just made up.

 

He will not ever change. Just let it go.

[Chris Werb]

Sure.

 

More-or-less any target which is considered "hardened" or "fortified".

 

Exactly what fortified target can be taken out by a guided 8" shell that cannot be taken out by a 155mm with the same guidance?

 

(I know guys, I'm really not expecting an answer to this, but I have to try)

[Guest pfcem]

Alright, but what targets are those? How much hardening is required to defeat 155mm shell fire, but not 203mm? How common is that hardening? Will a significant portion of 155mm fires fail their purpose because of hardening?

You asked for a short answer, not a long detailed answer.

 

Against modern 155mm shells, about 1' of concrete (would be 2-3' vs proper "heavy" penetrating shells but then you are taking up magazine space for dedicated penetration rounds).

 

They are more common than most people think & unfortunately we far too often find that out the hard way...

 

 

 

But as the gun gets larger, the effects on the ship design also increase. An 203mm gun will require the ship to be much larger and more expensive than a 155mm gun would. Furthermore, with the guidance methods we currently have, and that are necessary for long ranged munitions, 155mm should have no appreciable difference in the percentage of hits, while having the additional benefits of more shells for the same volume/weight (and thus the ability to service more targets) and being used closer to the troops because of the smaller danger zone.

Do some research. An NFS vessel with 8" guns does NOT have to be THAT much larger than one with 6"/155mm guns & the most expensive elements of a modern vessel are (or about) the same whether it has 6"/155mm guns or 8" guns.

 

More shells but you need more shells to defeat each target (except for those which require only one) & more smaller shells are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than fewer larger shells for the same effect...

 

But once again, we are getting too much into 6"/155mm vs 8" when 8" is just a MINIMUM for what we (the US) SHOULD be getting. If you go with significantly larger (say 10" or greater) gun than the difference in the size of NFS vessel needed becomes significant but the advantages of such become MORE significant as well.

 

 

 

Can you define what you mean by fire support munition please? I'd be hard-pressed to think of one that has a greater than one hundred pound warhead that is applicable to the same roles (missiles such as Hellfire, TOW, JCM), but it may be that we are defining them differently.

Good GOD you don't know what a fire support munition...

 

Think about it...when one askes for fire support (whether is comes from land, sea or air) what munitions are they "asking" for.

 

Those are (primarily) anti-armor missiles, not fire suport munitions.

 

 

 

LRLAP is expected to achieve one hundred nautical miles range, and any further range belongs to the realm of guns brought ashore or aircraft/missiles.

That is a wet dream. LRLAP has yet to demonstrate more than ~65nm. It will (hopefully) achaive its 83nm threshold goal but 100nm is still a LONG ways off. Also note that in order to achieve such range the 155mm LRLAP requires a 4" long rocket (>50% the overal length of the projectile).

 

What ever range you want, it is easier (& require proportionally less) to achieve with larger guns than with smaller guns.

 

 

 

I'm not denying that a 203mm gun would have some benefits compared to a 155mm, but it will also have some disadvantages and you have to factor those in plus the cost/benefit ratio. Are the additional billions spent on that 203mm gun and platform worth it, or is 155mm with air support good enough?

The cost difference is chump change compared to how much we are spending overall.

 

The 1994 CNA NSFS COEA already did a cost/benefit ratio & determined that the wartime costs are LOWER for larger guns than smaller guns BUT since the COEA emphisized peacetime costs & attributed (what we know to not be applicable to what we are getting) significant cost benefits to the 155mm guns due to (supposed) commonality with land-based systems, the 155mm was a bit less expensive (but less operationally effective) over 20 years as long as we do not fight more than two short, regional conflicts during that time.

 

And the point is to not have to rely so much on MUCH more expensive & not always available when & where you need it air support.

 

 

 

For what its worth, LRLAP is supposed to weigh as much as the shell from an 8"/55 Mark 71 with a slightly larger burst charge, so I'm not real sure that you're missing out on anything with the 155mm compared to historical 8" gunfire.

Which is worth ablosulety NOTHING.

 

The 8"/55 Mark 71 DOES NOT represent a modern 8" gun (nor does the WWII-era HC Mark 25 shell represent a modern 8" shell). The 8"/55 Mark 71 was not intended to fire the WWII-era HC Mark 25 shells - do you have any idea what the burst charge the intended shells would have had...

 

AND, nobody is suggesting historical 8" gunfire as a benchmark (except those who wish to be disingenuous/misleading & compare DECADES newer 155mm shells to WWII-era 8" shells). If you care to do any research you will find that historically MOST 8" shells had 2-3 times (sometimes even more but seldom less) burst charge than comparable 6"/155mm shells.

Edited October 19, 2007 by pfcem

[Guest pfcem]

Believe me, you want to let this one go. I've been down this road too many times before. It does not matter how directly or how many times you ask, you will not get an answer on this question. The whole reason we started this topic while pfcem was in purgatory is because of his unique ability to evade answering such direct questions and back up his dubious claims with anything other than s--- he just made up.

 

He will not ever change. Just let it go.

You are talking about yourself & your ilk, not me.

 

I have answered THIS question & others, you just cannot accept the answer because it completely & utterly debunks a cornerstone to your position.

 

I have also provided ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE to support my posts than you.

[TDHM]

Edited for Obscenities.

Edited October 19, 2007 by TDHM

[Anixtu]

 

Is that big enough for you?

[Mote]

You asked for a short answer, not a long detailed answer.

 

Against modern 155mm shells, about 1' of concrete (would be 2-3' vs proper "heavy" penetrating shells but then you are taking up magazine space for dedicated penetration rounds).

Well, what sort of targets have that foot of concrete, how much concrete to defeat your suggested 203mm, and why can't we simply task air power with hitting those stationary targets rather than developing our NGFS requirements based around a very small fraction of the likely missions?

 

They are more common than most people think & unfortunately we far too often find that out the hard way...

 

Do you have some examples of where we have come across targets that were impervious to 155mm and organic weapons fire, but would have been vulnerable to 203mm, and the resulting delay due to the necessity of calling in an airstrike led to unfortunate results amongst our troops?

 

Do some fucking research. An NFS vessel with 8" guns does NOT have to be THAT much larger than one with 6"/155mm guns & the most expensive elements of a modern vessel are (or about) the same whether it has 6"/155mm guns or 8" guns.

I beg to differ. The twin 8"/55 was three times heavier than the contemporary twin 6"/53. That imposes certain requirements on the size of the vessel. The magazine size will be dictated by a need to fire a certain number of shells, and the larger size of the 203mm shells will result in an increase in magazine size, and resulting in a larger ship size to perform the same function. Since a pure LFS ship is simply not going to happen, as smart of a move as it may be, the larger 203mm ship will be subjected to greater mission creep in its design than would the smaller 155mm vessel simply due to the size and expense. There will be an additional electronics shock hardening expense because of the greater blast and recoil of the 203mm gun compared to that of the 155mm one. Most importantly, we have no 203mm gun program but we do have a naval 155mm gun and so it would cost additional billions to begin development of a 203mm gun.

 

More shells but you need more shells to defeat each target (except for those which require only one) & more smaller shells are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than fewer larger shells for the same effect...

 

I'm sorry, but all you did was repeat yourself. An assertion is not proof. Given guided shells, the number of shells required should not be vastly different. Furthermore, one will have the available additional smaller shells and so will be more available for additional fire missions than a 203mm with fewer shells in the magazine. The additional rate of fire from a 155mm gun may also prove more lethal thanks to the possibility for multiple rounds simultaneous impact.

 

But once again, we are getting too much into 6"/155mm vs 8" when 8" is just a MINIMUM for what we (the US) SHOULD be getting. If you go with significantly larger (say 10" or greater) gun than the difference in the size of NFS vessel needed becomes significant but the advantages of such become MORE significant as well.

I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. You'll have to demonstrate that the number of targets requiring such heavy shells is numerous enough to be worth a multibillion dollar effort and that the job cannot be more efficiently done with POLAR or naval aviation.

 

Good GOD you don't know what a fire support munition...

 

Think about it...when one askes for fire support (whether is comes from land, sea or air) what munitions are they "asking" for.

 

Those are (primarily) anti-armor missiles, not fire suport munitions.

 

No, I want to make sure we are on the same page.

 

Not having been a member of the armed forces and asking for such, I wouldn't venture to say with any certainty, and I would be very much obliged if one such member would correct me if I should be wrong, but I would presume it would be "anything they can get."

 

And what would you suggest in their place?

 

That is a wet dream. LRLAP has yet to demonstrate more than ~65nm. It will (hopefully) achaive its 83nm threshold goal but 100nm is still a LONG ways off. Also note that in order to achieve such range the 155mm LRLAP requires a 4" long rocket (>50% the overal length of the projectile).

 

What ever range you want, it is easier (& require proportionally less) to achieve with larger guns than with smaller guns.

If you must resort to 203mm or greater over range concerns, then you'd be better off, I suspect, by simply utilizing POLAR, which happens to come with a nice big bang far larger than any shell could provide.

 

The cost difference is chump change compared to how much we are spending overall.

 

Multiple destroyers is not chump change.

 

The 1994 CNA NSFS COEA already did a cost/benefit ratio & determined that the wartime costs are LOWER for larger guns than smaller guns BUT since the COEA emphisized peacetime costs & attributed (what we know to not be applicable to what we are getting) significant cost benefits to the 155mm guns due to (supposed) commonality with land-based systems, the 155mm was a bit less expensive (but less operationally effective) over 20 years as long as we do not fight more than two short, regional conflicts during that time.

So in the conditions that prevail (extended times of peace) and given the fact that we will not be fighting more than two short regional conflicts requiring NGFS, the 155mm solution is cheaper. Congratulations, you have proven my case.

 

Which is worth ablosulety NOTHING.

 

The 8"/55 Mark 71 DOES NOT represent a modern 8" gun (nor does the WWII-era HC Mark 25 shell represent a modern 8" shell). The 8"/55 Mark 71 was not intended to fire the WWII-era HC Mark 25 shells - do you have any idea what the burst charge the intended shells would have had...

 

AND, nobody is suggesting historical 8" gunfire as a benchmark (except those who wish to be disingenuous/misleading & compare DECADES newer 155mm shells to WWII-era 8" shells). If you care to do any research you will find that historically MOST 8" shells had 2-3 times (sometimes even more but seldom less) burst charge than comparable 6"/155mm shells.

 

And if you size up a 203mm shell by that standard then you'll end up with a gun fired 500-700 pound missile (given that the extended range and guidance are necessary) to which we must ask: What is the point of going to all that effort?

[FITZ]

Moderator, can we just put this one out of its misery?

[tankerwanabe]

Didn't want to muddle through 6 pages of knife-fighting. So I just want to ask....

 

Has there been any plans of putting wings on munitions rather than using rocket power?

 

Sorta like shooting a JADAM.

[Mote]

Moderator, can we just put this one out of its misery?

 

I'm sorry, I'll drop this if its taking the thread off-topic.

[Guest pfcem]

Well, what sort of targets have that foot of concrete, how much concrete to defeat your suggested 203mm, and why can't we simply task air power with hitting those stationary targets rather than developing our NGFS requirements based around a very small fraction of the likely missions?

"fortified" targets

 

Assuming a "250 lb" SDB equvalent projectile, 6-8' of reinforced concrete. And it only INCREASES with larger guns...

 

The idea is to not HAVE to rely on air power so much (because it is expensive & may not be where you need it when you need it)...

 

 

 

Do you have some examples of where we have come across targets that were impervious to 155mm and organic weapons fire, but would have been vulnerable to 203mm, and the resulting delay due to the necessity of calling in an airstrike led to unfortunate results amongst our troops?

Just about every war we have ever been involved in since the introduction of combat aircraft.

 

 

 

I beg to differ. The twin 8"/55 was three times heavier than the contemporary twin 6"/53. That imposes certain requirements on the size of the vessel. The magazine size will be dictated by a need to fire a certain number of shells, and the larger size of the 203mm shells will result in an increase in magazine size, and resulting in a larger ship size to perform the same function. Since a pure LFS ship is simply not going to happen, as smart of a move as it may be, the larger 203mm ship will be subjected to greater mission creep in its design than would the smaller 155mm vessel simply due to the size and expense. There will be an additional electronics shock hardening expense because of the greater blast and recoil of the 203mm gun compared to that of the 155mm one. Most importantly, we have no 203mm gun program but we do have a naval 155mm gun and so it would cost additional billions to begin development of a 203mm gun.

8"/55 (20.3 cm) Marks 12 and 15

Tuscaloosa (CA-37), Wichita (CA-45), Baltimore (CA-68) and Oregon City (CA-122) classes

Tuscaloosa: 250 tons (254 mt)

Wichita: 314 tons (319 mt)

Baltimore and Oregon City Classes: 303 tons (307.7 mt)

 

6"/47 (15.2 cm) Mark 16

Brooklyn (CL-40), St. Louis (CL-49), Cleveland (CL-55) and Fargo (CL-106) classes

Brooklyn and St. Louis classes: 154 to 167 tons (156 to 170 mt)

Cleveland and Fargo classes: 165 to 173 tons (168 to 176 mt)

 

...

 

8"/50 (20.3 cm) Mark VIII

Kent, London, Norfolk and York classes

Mark I: 205 tons (226 mt)

Mark I*: 210 tons (231 mt)

Mark II: 220.3 tons (242 mt)

 

6"/50 (15.2 cm) BL Mark XXIII

Leander, Perth, Arethusa

Mark XXI: 91 tons (92 mt)

 

...

 

20.3 cm/60 (8") SK C/34

Admiral Hipper, Prinz Eugen

Turrets "A" and "D": 548,951 lbs. (249,000 kg)

Turrets "B" and "C": 577,611 lbs. (262,000 kg)

Difference in weights was from the thickness of the rear armor and the rangefinder, which was used only on "B" and "D" turrets.

 

15 cm/55 (5.9") SK C/28

Scharnhorst and Bismarck classes

Bismarck

___With range finder: 256,290 lbs. (116,250 kg)

___W/O range finder: 242,500 lbs. (110,000 kg)

___W/O range finder and short barbette: 238,100 lbs. (108,000 kg)

Scharnhorst: 264,555 lbs. (120,000 kg)

 

...

 

20 cm/50 (7.9") 3rd Year Type No. 1

Furutaka, Aoba and Myoko classes

Twin Turrets: 154.5 tons (157 mt)

 

15 cm/50 (6") 41st Year Type

Agano

Two-gun turrets: 72 tons (73 mt)

 

...

 

203 mm/53 (8") Models 1927 and 1929

Zara class: Model 1927

Bolzano: Model 1929

Model 1927: 178.1 tons (181.0 mt)

Model 1929: N/A, but lighter than Model 1927

 

152 mm/53 (6") Models 1926 and 1929

1st through 4th "Condottieri" Light Cruiser groups

Model 1926: 83.7 tons (85 mt)

 

...

 

203 mm/50 (8") Model 1924

Duquesne, Suffren and Surcouf classes

Model 1924: 177 tons (180 mt)

 

155 mm/50 (6.1") Model 1920

Duguay-Trouin and Jean d'Arc classes

Twin Mount: about 78.7 tons (80 mt)

 

SEE A PATTEREN? And note than in most of the above example the 8" turrets are more heavily armored than the 6" turrets which adds significantly more weight than if they had the same thickness of armor.

 

And I bet you don't even know why the Omaha turrets were so light...

 

You are GREATLY exaggerating. We are talking about tens to low hundreds of tons on ships that are 14,500+ (DDG-1000 example) tons. I am not advocating four twin or three triple main gun turrets.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but all you did was repeat yourself. An assertion is not proof. Given guided shells, the number of shells required should not be vastly different. Furthermore, one will have the available additional smaller shells and so will be more available for additional fire missions than a 203mm with fewer shells in the magazine. The additional rate of fire from a 155mm gun may also prove more lethal thanks to the possibility for multiple rounds simultaneous impact.

Take that up with the CNA, the USN, the USMC, the US Army & just about every other source concerning munitions & fire support you can think of becasue that is their assertion.

 

No you won't (really) have additional smaller shells because you NEED more smaller shells to achive the same effect as fewer larger shells.

 

What is the ROF of 155mm guns & what is the ROF of equivalent 203mm guns with similar automated loading systems?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. You'll have to demonstrate that the number of targets requiring such heavy shells is numerous enough to be worth a multibillion dollar effort and that the job cannot be more efficiently done with POLAR or naval aviation.

Why? The CNA already did. As has more than a hundred years of naval gunfire history.

 

Besides it is not ONLY that you can defeat more targets with larger guns but you can defeat most targets more effeciently & less costly.

 

And you are WAY off on your numbers, the difference in cost is not anywhere near what you are trying to make it out to be.

 

 

 

No, I want to make sure we are on the same page.

 

Not having been a member of the armed forces and asking for such, I wouldn't venture to say with any certainty, and I would be very much obliged if one such member would correct me if I should be wrong, but I would presume it would be "anything they can get."

 

And what would you suggest in their place?

I have already provided a nice long list of reading that I suggest to bring yourself up to speed.

 

 

 

If you must resort to 203mm or greater over range concerns, then you'd be better off, I suspect, by simply utilizing POLAR, which happens to come with a nice big bang far larger than any shell could provide.

 

 

 

Multiple destroyers is not chump change.

I never said they were...but the difference in cost between a 6"/155mm gun ship & an similar/essentialy the same (perhaps 5-10% larger displacement) ship IS compared to the total cost of the program.

 

 

 

So in the conditions that prevail (extended times of peace) and given the fact that we will not be fighting more than two short regional conflicts requiring NGFS, the 155mm solution is cheaper. Congratulations, you have proven my case.

No. Do some reading rather than simply accepting the conclusion of the 1994 NSFS COEA...it actually does more to DISPROVE your case than to support it.

 

 

 

And if you size up a 203mm shell by that standard then you'll end up with a gun fired 500-700 pound missile (given that the extended range and guidance are necessary) to which we must ask: What is the point of going to all that effort?

How in the hell do you come up with 500-700 lbs?

[Guest pfcem]

Didn't want to muddle through 6 pages of knife-fighting. So I just want to ask....

 

Has there been any plans of putting wings on munitions rather than using rocket power?

 

Sorta like shooting a JADAM.

Doesn't quite work with spin-stabilized projectiles.

[FITZ]

I'm sorry, I'll drop this if its taking the thread off-topic.

 

It's not about going off topic. It's about pfcem and the never-ending cycle of evasiveness. Only bad things can result from trying to squeeze a real answer out of him and every time he doesn't answer, he insists he has with ever increasing vigor and he believes it!. We have been down this same road many times before. Nothing good can come out of this. Big guns shooting SDB sized bombs are his religion and I mean religion with a capitol R. He is a zealot of the highest order so it is best to just drop the whole thing. Like I said before, there is a reason why were were having this discussion during his temporary banishment - he was being quite deliberately and deservedly excluded.

[Corinthian]

Didn't want to muddle through 6 pages of knife-fighting. So I just want to ask....

 

Most of the posts are good, informative, and funny. It's only when the multicolored stuff and the f-word started to appear that we now see this thread going to the bin....

[Chris Werb]

"fortified" targets

 

Just about every war we have ever been involved in since the introduction of combat aircraft.

 

OK: Let's look at the last 60 years.

 

1) Exactly where and when (as in a date and a time) did US or UK forces run into a target that could not be taken out by a guided 155mm projectile (or two or three thereof) that could have been taken out by a guided 203mm?

 

2) What was that target? (as in how was it constructed, what did it house and what threat did it pose)

 

3) What were the implications of not taking out that target with NGFS?

[Assessor]

Another thing here. It ought to be born in mind that concrete is cheap, and in the sort of places you might want to shell, labour is pretty cheap too. Why stop at 8"? Surely if the "Evil Dictator" sees that the 8" NGFS solution can defeat x inches of ferroconcrete, then he can "upspec" his bunkers to 2x, 3x, 4x inches? I have the uncomfortable suspicion bunkers can be be modified or rebuilt to higher standards quicker and cheaper than one could "upspec" an NGFS system.

[Chris Werb]

Another thing here. It ought to be born in mind that concrete is cheap, and in the sort of places you might want to shell, labour is pretty cheap too. Why stop at 8"? Surely if the "Evil Dictator" sees that the 8" NGFS solution can defeat x inches of ferroconcrete, then he can "upspec" his bunkers to 2x, 3x, 4x inches? I have the uncomfortable suspicion bunkers can be be modified or rebuilt to higher standards quicker and cheaper than one could "upspec" an NGFS system.

 

Indeed. He can also build dummy bunkers, putting his real bunkers under orphanages and hospitals, integrate them into dual-use infrastructure, put hostages into them, or build them on reverse slopes or (geography permitting) beyond any conceivable NGFS range. It makes you wonder why the USAF bothered with ever more penetrative 2000 and 4800lb warheads when something you could shoot out of a 203mm tube could do the job.

[Josh]

I think the calibre debate is inane compared to the fundamental problem of cheaply providing supressive fire OTH in a timely fashion, IMO a task that basically can't be solved via artillery at all. And I think its foregone conclusion that no blue water surface combatant is going to steam near the shore against anybody who has normal artillery pieces let alone truck mounted AShMs. Even Hezbollah can threaten major combatants now. In the rare cases where naval gunfire is needed (how many times has it been used since Korea? And how many times was that actually in support of landings as opposed to BB's just getting their licks in because they were there and it didn't cost much?) the current 5" is adequate. If you really want to make a different in naval fun fire, figure out a way to get normal unguided shells without wings or two minute flight times to get on target. My vote is aircraft; perhaps more novel munitions are needed for more persistent supression. Delayed fused cluster bomblets maybe so the affected area is always 'popping'. Another idea: shorter ranged artillery on a faster, more expendable plaform. Would a LCAC type platform be stable enough (and sturdy enough--probably, they can carry an MBT) for 120mm motar fire? Probably not, but if so, it makes some sense to have an artillery system on a hovercraft that was largely too small to engage with larger AShMs, too fast for easy artillery counter battery, and could go ashore and countinue to provide support inland to some degree. Ideally dismount a SP unit that could continue forward perhaps, though I doubt you could have a vehicle in the LCAC parked with sufficient stability to fire accurately. Perhaps an ultra light 120 or 81mm weapon on a wheeled mount that could be driven inside a '53 so that fire support could be delivered inland with the troops? Both probably ideas wouldn't work, but the point is, ships aren't going close enough to provide fire in timely or cost effective way anymore. So think of something else and save the argument over two inches of difference.

 

 

EDIT: one other issue I have with this stupid argument that I don't think anyone has pointed out; if you are taking out hardened concrete point targets with artillery you are using the wrong tool for the job. Artillery is IMO about timely supression (or destruction, if your are really lucky and the targets is out in the open enough). Hardened targets are best surviced by direct fire weapons or air assets. So in the case of 'a foot of concrete' we should be talking about amphib assault guns or already existing air to ground ordnance.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jua