The future of naval fire support

[Marek Tucan]

@Jua, for 120mm on LCAC, what about just purchasing that Swedish gunboat with AMOS?

[MODERATOR]

Gentlemen,

 

it pleases MODERATOR to see his minions engaged in robust discussion, but in order to prevent things getting out of hand:

 

TDHM - thank you for self editing Post # 112

 

FITZ - please edit the word liar from Post # 103

 

pfcem - please edit the swearing from Post #110 and you are instructed to modify your confrontational attitude forthwith. You have recently been penalised for this kind of behaviour, and MODERATOR is unimpressed to see you once again disrupting an interesting and informative thread. Please also note that this is not a matter for discussion, and that any backchat WILL result in sanctions.

 

Thank you all for your co-operation and carry on.

 

MODERATOR

[FITZ]

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.

 

A lot of misconceptions get thrown into this debate. Among the most common are...

 

1. NSFS is only used to support amphibious landings.

 

This is not true. Most NSFS since Korea has been used to support troops already ashore. Current U.S. requirements for NSFS are highly skewed towards supporting landings but not exclusively so by any means.

 

2. NSFS in these discussions almost invariably becomes NGFS. Everyone quickly forgets about the big picture and only talks about guns, which are only part of the overall package.

 

3. NSFS is rarely used.

 

Also not true. NSFS has been used very regularly since WWII and is not going away anytime soon. One could argue the lack of attention to NSFS systems in a tight budgetary climate and with primarily Cold War concerns has been the primary restriction on its use and effectiveness. We would use it more if we had better ways to do it.

 

4. Every potential enemy has built an Atlantic Wall impregnable to 155mm artillery but magically not immune to 8-inch (or 16-inch ) gunfire.

 

Where is this Atlantic Wall and why would we attack it directly? The whole idea behind OMFTS is that we don't have to. Why would we use artillery to attack it? That has never been all that successful before. Bunker-busting is not one of the things artillery does best. Let us recall that (at the risk of turning this into a discussion NGFS instead of NSFS) the AGS guns on the Zumwalt class and the Mk 45 Mod 4's on DDG-51's have the same mission as the M198, M109 and M777 howitzers currently in use by the Marines and Army and they would be used against the same types of targets against which those systems have proven so remarkably effective. They are a surrogate for land-based artillery until that artillery can get ashore and in range of the enemy. And yet nobody is proposing replacing those land artillery systems.

 

The use of 155mm for AGS makes perfect sense. It makes for a much smaller ship, no matter what that (edited out of respect for Moderator) believes, and it means you can carry a lot more ammunition - and volume is a critical requirement no matter how much the annointed one would like to pretend it isn't. It also means you can take advantage of the most expensive parts of modern artillery munitions from land based 155mm artillery - the payloads and guidance packages. Pick a different caliber and you have to spend a lot of money to re-engineer a lot of that stuff for an alleged minor gain in a few areas of dubious importance - because you might be able to bust a couple more bunkers, even though you have other systems to deal with those anyway. So what? It's not important.

 

If you have a thick concrete bunker on a beach you either avoid it or use something else more suited to the job to destroy it. This whole guns and bunkers argument is just so much nonsense. This is where the loss of LASM and ALAM really start to hurt BTW, but then again, that is why NSFS in the U.S. Navy sense is concieved as a combined-arms affair with multiple, highly integrated ship and air based systems. All of this in spite of attempts to turn it into a discussion about guns.

 

pfcem need not reply to this post. I already know what he is going to say, he lacks any credibility at this point and thus will not sway me (nor do I expect to ever sway him) and he will not get a reply back at any rate.

Edited October 19, 2007 by FITZ

[FITZ]

I will do as Moderator asks only out of my deep respect for moderator, not because the statement is factually inaccurate.

Edited October 19, 2007 by FITZ

[TonyE]

@Jua, for 120mm on LCAC, what about just purchasing that Swedish gunboat with AMOS?

 

One word Tuccy; NIH*.

 

 

(*= Not invented here)

[MODERATOR]

I will do as Moderator asks only out of my deep respect for moderator, not because the statement is factually inaccurate.

MODERATOR thanks you for your co-operation, and points out that the request was connected to the ROE prohibiting abusive language.

 

MODERATOR

[Chris Werb]

One word Tuccy; NIH*.

(*= Not invented here)

 

The USN isn't completely averse to purchasing foreign ordnance. They're using (or have used) Italian 76mm and Swedish 57mm guns, for example.

[FITZ]

The USN isn't completely averse to purchasing foreign ordnance. They're using (or have used) Italian 76mm and Swedish 57mm guns, for example.

 

Except that the Swedish gunmaker was purchased by U.S gunmaker (now owned by a British gunmaker) and it is the U.S. gunmaker who offered the Swedish gun to the Navy.

 

Anyone follow all of that?

[TonyE]

The USN isn't completely averse to purchasing foreign ordnance. They're using (or have used) Italian 76mm and Swedish 57mm guns, for example.

 

Only as topping for cancelled oddities like the LCS (57mm) or hid away in shame at a place were no one will see it like the OTO-Melara on the OHP class.

[Guest pfcem]

A lot of misconceptions get thrown into this debate. Among the most common are...

Indeed.

 

 

 

1. NSFS is only used to support amphibious landings.

 

This is not true. Most NSFS since Korea has been used to support troops already ashore. Current U.S. requirements for NSFS are highly skewed towards supporting landings but not exclusively so by any means.

Yes & No.

 

 

 

2. NSFS in these discussions almost invariably becomes NGFS. Everyone quickly forgets about the big picture and only talks about guns, which are only part of the overall package.

The informed among us do not forget the big picture. If fact it is an understanding of the big picture which supports the informed among us.

 

 

 

3. NSFS is rarely used.

 

Also not true. NSFS has been used very regularly since WWII and is not going away anytime soon. One could argue the lack of attention to NSFS systems in a tight budgetary climate and with primarily Cold War concerns has been the primary restriction on its use and effectiveness. We would use it more if we had better ways to do it.

Exactly.

 

 

 

4. Every potential enemy has built an Atlantic Wall impregnable to 155mm artillery but magically not immune to 8-inch (or 16-inch ) gunfire.

 

Where is this Atlantic Wall and why would we attack it directly? The whole idea behind OMFTS is that we don't have to. Why would we use artillery to attack it? That has never been all that successful before. Bunker-busting is not one of the things artillery does best. Let us recall that (at the risk of turning this into a discussion NGFS instead of NSFS) the AGS guns on the Zumwalt class and the Mk 45 Mod 4's on DDG-51's have the same mission as the M198, M109 and M777 howitzers currently in use by the Marines and Army and they would be used against the same types of targets against which those systems have proven so remarkably effective. They are a surrogate for land-based artillery until that artillery can get ashore and in range of the enemy. And yet nobody is proposing replacing those land artillery systems.

 

The use of 155mm for AGS makes perfect sense. It makes for a much smaller ship, no matter what that (edited out of respect for Moderator) believes, and it means you can carry a lot more ammunition - and volume is a critical requirement no matter how much the annointed one would like to pretend it isn't. It also means you can take advantage of the most expensive parts of modern artillery munitions from land based 155mm artillery - the payloads and guidance packages. Pick a different caliber and you have to spend a lot of money to re-engineer a lot of that stuff for an alleged minor gain in a few areas of dubious importance - because you might be able to bust a couple more bunkers, even though you have other systems to deal with those anyway. So what? It's not important.

 

If you have a thick concrete bunker on a beach you either avoid it or use something else more suited to the job to destroy it. This whole guns and bunkers argument is just so much nonsense. This is where the loss of LASM and ALAM really start to hurt BTW, but then again, that is why NSFS in the U.S. Navy sense is concieved as a combined-arms affair with multiple, highly integrated ship and air based systems. All of this in spite of attempts to turn it into a discussion about guns.

 

pfcem need not reply to this post. I already know what he is going to say, he lacks any credibility at this point and thus will not sway me (nor do I expect to ever sway him) and he will not get a reply back at any rate.

Straw man.

[Josh]

@Jua, for 120mm on LCAC, what about just purchasing that Swedish gunboat with AMOS?

 

I'd be fine with that. I was thinking LCAC only because it would be resistant to pressure mines and could come ashore, plus the basic platform is in inventory and has a mother ship already. AMOS is boss though.

[Josh]

A lot of misconceptions get thrown into this debate. Among the most common are...

 

1. NSFS is only used to support amphibious landings.

 

I would argue at this point that's its only really significant purpose where it can't be replaced by air or ground assets. If troops are ashore inland use landed howitzers or air support. Build more of them and have more helos rather than try to come up with some 100nm fire support that has a two minute flight time.

 

2. NSFS in these discussions almost invariably becomes NGFS. Everyone quickly forgets about the big picture and only talks about guns, which are only part of the overall package.

 

To be cost effective and carry sufficient stowed rounds to really get used and also truly be supressive as opposed to point targets and one time strieks, I believe a dumb, cheap gun shell is needed. IE unguided and non rocket. MLRS is not a supressive weapon. Neither is LASM. Nither is going to be especially timely at the OTH ranges we are talking about. And when it comes down to some Lt calling it in, neither is likely to be released by whoever is in charge.

 

3. NSFS is rarely used.

 

Maybe not used, but give me an example where it was really critical. AFAIKthe only time its been used in support of troops, which IMO is when its really time critical and can't readily be replaced by air, was Lebanon. If someone just needed some target on the shore bombed whenever, let the airdales do it for less cost and less risk.

 

4. Every potential enemy has built an Atlantic Wall impregnable to 155mm artillery but magically not immune to 8-inch (or 16-inch ) gunfire.

 

Totally agree. Artillery is not for fortifications; every opposed landing in WWII proved that.

[Olof Larsson]

@Jua, for 120mm on LCAC, what about just purchasing that Swedish gunboat with AMOS?

 

The CB90/AMOS combo didn't work very well (as expected prior to the trials).

The idea was to mount the turret on a larger boat (20-25m and 40-70 Mt).

 

 

[JOE BRENNAN]

"Maybe not used, but give me an example where it was really critical. AFAIKthe only time its been used in support of troops, which IMO is when its really time critical and can't readily be replaced by air, was Lebanon. "

 

The overwhelming majority of naval gunfire missions in Korea were not in support of landings; there was one opposed landing of consequence, and a relatively brief (by WWII standards) DD/cruiser bombardment (famous picture of Iowa class off Inchon is after the landings). But most naval gunfire in Korea particularly, but also a good deal in Vietnam was substitute or supplement for aerial interdiction strikes (or for long range land artillery in same role), not close support of forces in contact with the enemy, nor in support of landings. Some celebrated cases are close support, but a lot of those have legendary elements, especially if they purport to feature large caliber fire in direct support of troops. Same with Lebanon and 1991, as far as >5" fire. Many things are surely possible in terms of improving responsiveness and closeness of support with modern or future precision NGF (or land arty or air strikes); in terms of the weapons themselves and moreover the gear and organization and training to make it safely quickly responsive to forces in contact. But historically BB and cruiser guns relatively seldom directly supported forces in contact (*good* BB salvo patterns were hundreds of yards long) and their targetting cycles/responsiveness overlapped with a/c; ie. you could find WWII/Korea examples, with differing command and organizational arrangements, where BB/cruiser fire was more, or less, responsive than a/c. I'd add this to 'common myths of >5" caliber NGFS in the past'.

 

I'm off to one side of the 'famous' debate about 155 and 8" . I don't think 155 is justified. I think adding trick capabilities to 5" (like ERGM or fitting limited capability 155's within 5" weight/space limitation) is about the limit of what can be justified cost-benefit wrt to guns, things with limited impact on the design on surface warships for the key missions *only* they can do. Potential low cost modular missile type land attack systems (Netfires on LCS, that general kind of thing), could be interesting as well. Industrial base-wise I wouldn't disrupt the DDG-1000 at this point. I hope they work, and if so their 155's will be used in combat if any opportunity arises, only naturally. That alone won't prove the design impact is cost/benefit justified though.

 

Joe

Edited October 19, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[Chris Werb]

Only as topping for cancelled oddities like the LCS (57mm) or hid away in shame at a place were no one will see it like the OTO-Melara on the OHP class.

 

Or on a class of hydrofoils they had to retire prematurely just to get rid of the embarrassing Italian gun

[Chris Werb]

Pfcem, how about having a go at actually answering those three questions I posed you?

[Argus]

Does anyone have any idea about how well modern projectiles actually stack up as bunker busters? AFAIK when steel meets concrete it comes down to the mechanical properties and design of the shell as much physics of the impact. If the shell can't hang together to dig though then extra energy isn't going to help, and modern shell bodies are optomised for ballistics, HE/payload and fragmentation not punching holes like a AP or SAP. Just having a conventional nose fuse pocket isn't going to help and I really don't know what hanging all that PGM stuff up front would do either.

 

IIRC the few shells specifically designed for concrete busting in the past have all been low crh with heavy side walls and modest bursters, just about the antithisis of a modern GP shell AFAIK. If 12" of ferreocement is enough to stop a modern 155, it tends to suggest they are not as tough as their older SAP brethren, and being HC (to use 40's speak) that's hardly a surprise.

 

Aside from hard targets Arty is an area weapon right? Can we all agree on that? These days it might be a very precisise area weapon, particularly when its been warped into this VLR PGM NGFS 'thing', but when we're talking about plain jane HE fired for effect arty works on its foot print. So a specialist penetrating shell is not going to be ideal for the majority of shoots against the most common target sets. Thus a ship would need to carry a minimum of two types of projectile, if not three or more, in a magazine that is hardly generous. I can't remember what DDX (etc) is suppsed to carry but a hundred rounds a tube doesn't buy much endurance on the gun line, and as best I can remember the talk was of less than 200 a turret. If out of this capacity we're going to lose 10-20 rounds for hardened targets, the mission hardly makes any sense unless such targets represent the same percentage of our target set - otherwise we're losing capability we can use for that we can't - its no good firing SAP at troops in the open because we've run out of HE is it.

 

This works for 155, 8" or 18" and if in doctrinial terms the naval gun is to be a substiitute for conventional field arty, there has to be some concideration for DPICM, Smoke, perhaps Illum etc etc, if the land force it get what it needs from NGFS. And all these shells are needing roughly the same sort of guidance widgets as any HE or SAP to get the extended range even if they don't need them for precise targeting. It looks a whole lot easier to get the Marines their regular Arty ashore and up front, buy another dozen LCAC's or squadrons of heavy lift choppers, hell heli-insert the crews and LAPSE the guns and ammo into them via C-17 etc. At least that way you get some extra general purpoese capability out of the investment rather than a magazine full of shells that are too expensive to fire at anything less than a Div HQ.

 

I like guns, I like BIG guns, but artillery is supposed to be cheap (per shot), versitile and reliable*, the price is finite range. If that can't be worked around without distorting gunnery into something that isn't cheap, versitile or reliable, then its time to move on and give something else the job. Becuase is anyone going to crack off a Volcano round just to get some Liberian rustbucket to heave-too?

 

 

shane

 

* Reliable covers both availability and effect, you can't jam or spoof Sir Isaac Newton.

[jwduquette1]

There are numerous empirical relationships developed for projectile penetration of concrete and reinforced concrete. There is also a large data base of “field” information collected during the various wars over the last century detailing the effects of modern shot & shell vs. reinforced concrete fortifications.

 

Armor piercing shot will invariably penetrate\perforate greater thicknesses of reinforced concrete than armor piercing shell. This is followed by SAP and than HE. This assumes velocity, weight, caliber, etc are all held constant. The parameters of greatest influence for the projectile are nose shape, projectile weight, impact velocity, projectile weight, and projectile strength.

 

The target resistance capability is governed by concrete strength, percentage of reinforcing steel within the concrete matrix, aggregate strength and average aggregate size\gradation. Ferro-Cement is more of a grout than honest to goodness concrete. Ferro-Cement being a rather simple matrix of sand & cement. The empirical data available tells us that this sort of “concrete” matrix would not be nearly as effective at projectile resistance as concrete with a more uniform aggregate gradation – durable high strength gravel or crushed rock down to sand sized aggregate.

 

Part of what is entailed in defeating concrete emplacements or concrete fortifications or the like is of course maximizing behind concrete effects following projectile perforation. While AP shot or shell may perforate more reinforced concrete than say SAP or HE, its resultant crater and behind concrete effects are minimal – some back surface spalling (assuming spall plates are not part of the design) and the projectile itself. The question than becomes one of developing effective fusing and bursting charges that allow passage of the concrete and detonation within the interior of the bunker or fortification or building or whatever. A projectile optimized for concrete penetration is not always a projectile that is optimized for defeating what is on the other side of the concrete.

[Guest pfcem]

Does anyone have any idea about how well modern projectiles actually stack up as bunker busters? AFAIK when steel meets concrete it comes down to the mechanical properties and design of the shell as much physics of the impact. If the shell can't hang together to dig though then extra energy isn't going to help, and modern shell bodies are optomised for ballistics, HE/payload and fragmentation not punching holes like a AP or SAP. Just having a conventional nose fuse pocket isn't going to help and I really don't know what hanging all that PGM stuff up front would do either.

I think you pretty much answered your own question.

 

 

 

IIRC the few shells specifically designed for concrete busting in the past have all been low crh with heavy side walls and modest bursters, just about the antithisis of a modern GP shell AFAIK. If 12" of ferreocement is enough to stop a modern 155, it tends to suggest they are not as tough as their older SAP brethren, and being HC (to use 40's speak) that's hardly a surprise.

Note that 1' was just a ballpark estimate. WWII-era 6" AP shells could penetrate ~2-2.5' of concrete at ~20,000 yards, HC (which were still designed to do some penetration) shells from 0.5-1.0' less. Modern 155mm HE shells (as you yourself have noted) are MUCH more optimized towards ballistics & blast/fragmentation effect so their penetration capability is obviously even less. WWII-era shells do give us a ballpark idea of what SHOULD be easily obtained using dedicated 155mm heavy pentratration projectiles though.

 

 

 

Aside from hard targets Arty is an area weapon right? Can we all agree on that? These days it might be a very precisise area weapon, particularly when its been warped into this VLR PGM NGFS 'thing', but when we're talking about plain jane HE fired for effect arty works on its foot print.

Yes & as even the 1994 NSFS COEA points out as the gun bore size increases, the percentage of targets hit increases and the wartime cost per target decreases. The cost becomes of even greater significance when dealing with MUCH more wxpensive guided projectiles. And according to Ordnance Pamphlet 1172: Performance of Bombs and Projectiles Against Shore Installations, the lethal area of a base detonating fused 8" projectile is 2.53-4.85 times larger than that of a similar base detonating fused 6" projectile. That means that you need three to five 6" projectiles in order to cover the same area as one 8" projectile.

 

 

 

So a specialist penetrating shell is not going to be ideal for the majority of shoots against the most common target sets. Thus a ship would need to carry a minimum of two types of projectile, if not three or more, in a magazine that is hardly generous.

This is where the beauty of larger guns REALLY comes in. If (as I have suggested) your NGFS projectiles (at a minimum) are equivalent to a "250 lb" SDB then you have a single projectile that can penetrate 6+' of reinforced concreted & STILL have superior blast/fragmentation than any current 155mm HE shell - you don't need separate heavy penetration & HE projectiles because your "standard" projectile can do both better than even dedicated smaller projectiles.

 

 

 

I can't remember what DDX (etc) is suppsed to carry but a hundred rounds a tube doesn't buy much endurance on the gun line, and as best I can remember the talk was of less than 200 a turret. If out of this capacity we're going to lose 10-20 rounds for hardened targets, the mission hardly makes any sense unless such targets represent the same percentage of our target set - otherwise we're losing capability we can use for that we can't - its no good firing SAP at troops in the open because we've run out of HE is it.

The DDG-1000 (as currently envisioned) will have a total of 600 LRLAP. I know that previously a significant number were stored in a separate magazine at the rear of the ship, I do not recall off the top of my head if the current design still has that or if one of the reasons for the now smaller projectile count is due to the elimication of the aft magazine.

 

 

 

 

This works for 155, 8" or 18" and if in doctrinial terms the naval gun is to be a substiitute for conventional field arty, there has to be some concideration for DPICM, Smoke, perhaps Illum etc etc, if the land force it get what it needs from NGFS. And all these shells are needing roughly the same sort of guidance widgets as any HE or SAP to get the extended range even if they don't need them for precise targeting.

As has already been conclusively demonstated with examples of real sub-munition shells, 8" shells carry more than twice as many submunitions per shell as 155mm shells. So you only need about half as many 8" submunition shells as 155mm submunition shells to get the same number of submunition.

 

Smoke & illumination can be dealt with in a number of ways. Including by the 5" guns (within their lesser range limitations) we already have. And sub-munition, smoke & illumination munitions do not have to be quite as accurate - Low Cost Competent Munitions (LCCM), Guidance Integrated Fuze (GIF) or Course Correcting Fuze (CCF) should be accurate enough for them.

 

Also note that we have already demonstrated a Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) low collateral damage warhead for the SDB, which is another type of projectile you are DEFINATELY going to want even for a 5" or 155mm gun.

 

 

 

It looks a whole lot easier to get the Marines their regular Arty ashore and up front, buy another dozen LCAC's or squadrons of heavy lift choppers, hell heli-insert the crews and LAPSE the guns and ammo into them via C-17 etc. At least that way you get some extra general purpoese capability out of the investment rather than a magazine full of shells that are too expensive to fire at anything less than a Div HQ.

You need NFS before you could ever hope to get regular artillery ashore. And you are either going to have to buy more assault ships &/or you are going to have to send the artillery ashore before singinficant numbers of actual troops, supplies & other equipment (such as AFVs). And has already been pointed out, NFS is not just for support of opposed landings.

 

 

 

I like guns, I like BIG guns, but artillery is supposed to be cheap (per shot), versitile and reliable*, the price is finite range. If that can't be worked around without distorting gunnery into something that isn't cheap, versitile or reliable, then its time to move on and give something else the job. Becuase is anyone going to crack off a Volcano round just to get some Liberian rustbucket to heave-too?

shane

 

* Reliable covers both availability and effect, you can't jam or spoof Sir Isaac Newton.

That is one of the problems I have with the current "solution". It is by no means cheap or versitile due to it being focused around basically two projectiles (the 5" ERGM & the 155m LRLAP), neither of which are cheap. They could become more veristile by developing additional "warheads" for them but at the moment it looks as though unitary HE blast/fragmentation is the only warhead we are likely to get for either (both were originaly intended to have submunition "warheads").

[A2Keltainen]

The CB90/AMOS combo didn't work very well (as expected prior to the trials).

 

That reminded me of some bottom-of-the-barrel naval fire support experiments conducted at Nyland's Brigade in Finland, that I heard about during my conscript service there during the mid 1990's. The idea was to take a assault boat, which is a small and very simple outboard engine equipped open boat approximately the same size as the newer squad boat (seen here);

 

 

mount a sand filled low box in the center of the boat, put an ordinary unmodified 81 mm mortar in the box, and fire the mortar from the boat against targets on land. Unfortunetly, I don't know how the experiments went, but it sure was an interesting idea.

[gewing]

Only as topping for cancelled oddities like the LCS (57mm) or hid away in shame at a place were no one will see it like the OTO-Melara on the OHP class.

 

 

 

I seem to remember someone saying that the 76mm on the Pegasus class hydrofoils was horribly inaccurate. Is my memory correct? If so, how are the newer guns like the Super Rapido, etc?

 

 

 

I agree with the idea of a smaller, cheaper, gun carrying fire support craft. The idea of a hovercraft is interesting, but iirc they tend to have HORRIFIC costs in fuel and maintenance. Would it be feasible to build a hydrofoil big enough to mount something like a 39 caliber 155 caliber gun? My impression was always that a hydrofoil used much less power and thus fuel once it was up on foils, and at 35-50 knots, they should be a whole bunch harder to hit with either gunfire, torpedoes or ashms. Maybe a hydrofoil cannot be built big enough to do the role of the Littoral Combat Ship, but what if the role was scaled down further, and the LCS was used basically as a flotilla leader or command ship for fire support ships that had almost everything automated, or were even unmanned?

 

Due to recoil and weight issues, it might work better to use rockets, but this is one of the things I think I DO agree with PFCEM. If you are firing a LOT of rounds, particularly if they are relatively dumb, a gun based system is probably cheaper than a rocket based system. OTOH, the volume and mass of the launchers needs to be included, as while guns with similar payload to rockets will use smaller ammunition, the launcher itself will be much heavier.

 

 

Again I come down on the side of a mix of systems. No one system is likely to fulfill all roles or solve all problems.

 

IMO The 155mm AGS really only made a lot of sense if it could also use Army shells. If it cannot, then??? Unless they are assuming that they will never fire enough rounds that the ammunition costs will really matter.

[gewing]

What targets CAN we AGREE need to be targetable by NSFS?

 

 

 

If the primary goal is to allow the assulting forces to land their integral fire support vehicles (and what would be best for that?) then how can we best achieve the goal?

 

IF the NSFS role needs to include interdiction and other roles, then what are the best ways to achieve that?

 

 

I'm not sure I don't think the older 5" 54 caliber, possibly even with the Oto Melara higher rate of fire gun and turret is not the best general purpose gun, though I would want it backed up by something with a much higher rate of fire for defense against aircraft, missiles, and small boats.

 

It lacks some seriously extended range capabilities that some drool over, but are the tradeoffs to get that capability worth it?

 

 

Hmm. I'm not sure I am not actually leaning toward a couple of 35-100mm guns and something like POLAR or even NETFIRES. Particularly as the missile based systems might be able to be modular, mounting whatever is needed.

 

Actually, I have thought for 20+ years that a navalized MLRS system would make a lot of sense. a mount that carried a single 6 tube pod, with the ability to reload it semi-automatically... and it could carry that new P44, or the ATACMS... would it really be that hard to do? yes, it would need a stabilized mount, but without recoil to contend with that should be relatively easy.

[Guest pfcem]

What targets CAN we AGREE need to be targetable by NSFS?

None. Anything & everything CAN be dealt with by airpower. But airpower is expensive & is not always available when & where needed. The question then becomes how reliant on airpower (&/or expensive rocket/missile systems) do you want to remain...

 

 

 

If the primary goal is to allow the assulting forces to land their integral fire support vehicles (and what would be best for that?) then how can we best achieve the goal?

It isn't. Never has been & likely never will be.

 

 

 

IF the NSFS role needs to include interdiction and other roles, then what are the best ways to achieve that?

That is a matter of debate but it is DEFINITELY not with a 155mm AGS/LRLAP.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I don't think the older 5" 54 caliber, possibly even with the Oto Melara higher rate of fire gun and turret is not the best general purpose gun, though I would want it backed up by something with a much higher rate of fire for defense against aircraft, missiles, and small boats.

 

It lacks some seriously extended range capabilities that some drool over, but are the tradeoffs to get that capability worth it?

The OTO Melara 5" L64 (or similar gun) IS a great "general purpose" gun that can be placed on most reasonably sized ships to provide "general" fire support. A 155mm gun provides a bit more punch, potentially a bit more range (note for example that the range of the 5" ERGM is ~63nm while the range of the 155mm LRLAP will be ~83nm) & a bit better costs (especially if firing shells common to land-based howitzers) BUT in order to get a 155mm gun with significantly superior overall performance, you are then limited to only having them on larger ships but still able to be placed on most current larger destroyers. One of the problems I have with a 155mm gun is that if you already have plenty of 5" guns around & intend to keep them (as apposed to spending the money to replace most/all of them with 155mm guns on most/any ship providing NGFS), the benefits of a 155mm over 5" guns just are not all that significant for the cost involved to replace what you already have.

 

If you are building new dedicated or specifically for NSFS ships, then building them with 155mm gun instead of the same 5" guns as other ships is reasonable. But if you are developing an all-new gun with all-new projectiles for an all-new ship, why not spend a little more money & build it with a real gun & SIGNIFICANTLY lessen your reliance on more expensive rocket/missile systems & airpower?

 

 

 

Hmm. I'm not sure I am not actually leaning toward a couple of 35-100mm guns and something like POLAR or even NETFIRES. Particularly as the missile based systems might be able to be modular, mounting whatever is needed.

 

Actually, I have thought for 20+ years that a navalized MLRS system would make a lot of sense. a mount that carried a single 6 tube pod, with the ability to reload it semi-automatically... and it could carry that new P44, or the ATACMS... would it really be that hard to do? yes, it would need a stabilized mount, but without recoil to contend with that should be relatively easy.

I am sure most everyone (myself included) has thought as some time or another that a navalized MLRS might be a good idea. The problem is that when you really start to look at it & the advangates vs disadvantages it really isn't that great of an idea (not a BAD idea, just not a great one).

[Praet]

I seem to remember someone saying that the 76mm on the Pegasus class hydrofoils was horribly inaccurate. Is my memory correct? If so, how are the newer guns like the Super Rapido, etc?

The early Compact had accuracy problems, however, this was resolved in the later Super Rapido as the mount was strengthened and the weight of the moving parts reduced. This also applies to the mod kits available for the Compact.

[Chris Werb]

If you are building new dedicated or specifically for NSFS ships, then building them with 155mm gun instead of the same 5" guns as other ships is reasonable. But if you are developing an all-new gun with all-new projectiles for an all-new ship, why not spend a little more money & build it with a real gun & SIGNIFICANTLY lessen your reliance on more expensive rocket/missile systems & airpower?

 

That argument of course relies for its validity on the answers to the questions to which you have chosen not to respond.