The future of naval fire support

[Richard Young]

Yes, but it couldn't hit anything with them. IOWA stuff is notoriously inaccurate, and slow to correct - and the US Artillery FM backs that up.

 

That was a function of improperly stored Korean-era powder. Presumably, whatever NGFS solution is settled on will have new powder.

[Olof Larsson]

Thats funny. We seem to man Nimitz class carriers and their air wings just fine - and thats a LOT more manpower....

 

True, but then a carrier is a far more useful tool.

 

How many targets where destoyed per BB (with 16") vs. per CV in the gulf war?

How percent of the targets engaged in Kosovo and Serbia could a BB have reached with 16"?

How percent of the targets engaged in Afganistan could a BB have reached with 16"?

How percent of the targets engaged in Iraq in 2003 could a BB have reached with 16"?

 

No you're just risking a carrier group, and particularly the men in those flying machines - about 8,000 men. IF a carrier is available. IF weather permits. IF you can get the necesary overfly permissions. Again the performance of air in Kosovo left much to be desired.

 

So you mean that a CV 250 miles of the coast is risky, but not a BB 25 miles of the same coast?

 

So you're just risking a BBBG.

IF a BB is available.

IF the target is close enough to the coast.

IT the target is far away from you're own tropps.

 

Besides. How many landings against an opponent that could not be serviced with 15,5cm guns

have the USMC contucted without fixed-winng support on this side of the Wright-brothers first flight?

 

Can you name even one such case?

[Marek Tucan]

Thats funny. We seem to man Nimitz class carriers and their air wings just fine - and thats a LOT more manpower....

 

Also a lot more firepower on station and with a lot more range

[TDHM]

No reason guided rounds cannot be fired from 16". It would involve only a new nose fuse assembly. Same technology as used elsewhere.

 

Only required R&D for at most 2 ships? You're right there is no reason that guided rounds couldn't be fired from 16". Except Money, and the benefit doesn't outway the cost.

 

Not with full-weight munitions, its not. Only "vapor-ware" exotic rounds at EXHORBINANT cost for the pop-guns can claim such range, and they are way too expensive to use for missions such as suppresion,.

Richard, you seem to be misunderstanding me. Or Actually trying to knowingly turn this thread into NGFS argument, as opposed to an NSFS debate. The Iowa guns are stands are outranged by existing and proposed ERGM, LRLAP, LASM, ALAM, POLAR, JDAM, SDB, JASM TacTom etc. All of which are more accurate than an Iowa round and since the money will not be spent of 3'000 sailors crewing a WWII relic, much more readily available.

 

And since the 16" round isn't used for suppression your point is? I thought the whole point of the 16 inch was to hit fortified targets in a quick time frame. Not provide supression... Strange. So what is it to be? use the 16 inch to provide suppression, or use the 16" to hit targets which the 155mm can't take out (but overlooking that the others systems are meant to do that...)

 

What BIGGER alternative is actually proposed? I was assuming a "best case" scenario for you. You can;t break the laws of physics - all things being equal, a bigger bore, longer gun is going to shoot more payload farther than a smaller one.

 

 

Okay, I'll dumb it down even further. I wasn't talking soely about guns. I've been talking about NSFS. Or using a collection of systems to provide the most effective capability needed. Not using one system and trying to make that fit every possible problem.

 

Missles are expensive - too expensive for some artillery missions. You'll note that MLRS hasn't replaced tube artillery on land, but rather complimented it. The same reasons apply to NGFS.

However Richard, you've just spent one post telling me how time dependant targets are critical. MLRS, LASM, ALAM and all the Acronyms are for those Time dependant targets. And they'll do those jobs with much more effectiveness than an Iowa ever could. And since we haven't put all our eggs in one basket, every single ship in the USN could provide quite a lot of NSFS if the proposed systems got procured.

 

No you're just risking a carrier group, and particularly the men in those flying machines - about 8,000 men.

 

Really? Just risking a CVBG? Richard, I hate to be patronising, but a CVBG doesn't have to be within sight on line to do its missions. It will be at considerable less risk because where it operates. And its going to be there any way Richard because it will have to protect an WWII relic which can not protect itself.

 

You also have to risk the escort ships which will have to inevitably escort the iowa, when they could do the job OTOH.

 

IF a carrier is available.

A Carrier, strangely enough, will be available during an Amphibous landing. Since they are IIRC 12 of them, compared to just 2 posilbly available Iowas, along with dozens of NSFS capable Escorts, excuse me while I'll bet on my favoured systems of providing NSFS and not two ships.

 

Call me conservative, but I know poker. I've got a whole shitload more outs than your two Iowas.

 

Not forgetting airbases...

 

IF weather permits.

 

If Weather permits the Amphibous Assault which relies on alot of Aircraft and Helicopters? Firstly I would say that if the weather is too ad for modern aircraft to fly, then it will also be too bad to launch an assault, or even conducted NGFS with any degree of efetiveness. But I digress. If its to stormy to fly, then it will be down to DDX, and the rest of the Arliegh Burkes etc. Which if kitted out properly (I'm using the money available to reativate and modernise your Iowa's to procure POLAR and LASM incidently).

 

 

IF you can get the necesary overfly permissions.

And just where exactly is the Iowa's gunline? And why do Overfly permissions affect the rest of the NSFS capable surface combatants?

 

Again the performance of air in Kosovo left much to be desired.

 

And why was that exactly? Might it have had something to do with the small issue that the Serbian Forces hid for most of conflict IIRC? Giving no actual targets to be engaged? Why exactly do you think the enemy will be passive like it was in Kosovo during OMFTS?

 

I would be interested, since you mentioned, what effect an Iowa would have had in Kosovo. Since you brought it up, I imagine it must e your trump card, where the Iowa would have solved all the issues. Even without targeting spoting.

 

Then why aren't they using 75mm pack howitzers? Hmmm...must have somthing to do with EFFECTS ON TARGET - which is why we are scrambling to field a lightweight titanium-framed howitzer to take its place - because one heavier round that DIES HTE JOB is still lighter than a bunch of ineffectual rounds that don;t.

 

Wait a minute? 155mm does the job? Why didn't you say so... I don't think there is any actual scrambling to field ULH. Its been in the works a fair few years, and not that many countries seem to be all that taken with it. Strangely enough how you seem to swap between Destructive fires and Suppression at will?

 

How exactly will one round do a better job at supression than 3 incidently?

[TDHM]

name='Richard Young' date='Thu 25 Oct 2007 1459' post='506249']Thats funny. We seem to man Nimitz class carriers and their air wings just fine - and thats a LOT more manpower....

 

Wait a minute richard.

 

Are you suggesting that because the USN mans CNs that that means there is a surplus of men to man two obselete BB's?

 

Superbugs at around 100 mil each plus a crewman with 40 million worth of training is not only a stupid way to deliver ordinance when other less risky means are available,

 

Excuse me, how is steaming within sight of land, in a relic, containing 1500 men less risky? or how is forcing another 500 men who will be in the escorts next the Iowa?

 

Or are you suggesting that an Iowa can do all the missions required all the same time. CAS will happen. Regardless. It happened iN WWII, it happened in Korea, it happened in Vietnam.

it also cannot match a naval gunfire platform for time on station,

 

Its a good job then the USN isn't putting all its eggs in one basket in deciding that it needs a variety of overlapping systems to provide NSFS - not putting all its eggs in two NGFS ships which have no other reasonable use.

 

sustained suppresive fire

Suppressive fire. Surely its a bit expensive just to use an Iowa for 'Suppressive fire'?

responsiveness,

 

No Fitz will be able to correct me but In OP DS I heard that Marines had to wait 24 hours for NGFS from an Iowa. So perhaps your right. So long as the Iowa is in the right location and the trops aren't with danger close...

 

7 day, 24 hour availability (crew rest, maintenance, weather issues), etc. To put it another way, the Marines, who are tasked to do the "over the beach thing", and who HAVE CAS, still maintained a requirement for NGFS, until their masters at he Navy told them to shut up.

 

Really, so where are the Marines (serving marines) alling for Iowa's? And how exactly do Iowas fit in with OMFTS?

[TDHM]

And we still haven't had a single target set named which can't be hit in an effective and timely manner by existing and proposed NSFS systems.

[A2Keltainen]

True, but then a carrier is a far more useful tool.

 

How many targets where destoyed per BB (with 16") vs. per CV in the gulf war?

How percent of the targets engaged in Kosovo and Serbia could a BB have reached with 16"?

How percent of the targets engaged in Afganistan could a BB have reached with 16"?

How percent of the targets engaged in Iraq in 2003 could a BB have reached with 16"?

 

May I add;

How good is the BB at AA warfare, compared to the CV and its air wing?

[Olof Larsson]

May I add;

How good is the BB at AA warfare, compared to the CV and its air wing?

 

I brought that question up in a previous post.

 

However, for AA-work, we all know since before,

that the .50 BMG is adequate, which makes me wonder:

 

If .50 BMG was adequate for AA warfare during WWII (and not in need for replacement)

and if 15,5cm, MLRS JDAMS etc. is adequete for supporting army infantry everywhere and marines inland.

 

Why isn't 15,5cm grenades, MLRS, JDAMS etc. adequete for marines near the coast?

 

Perhaps the US doesn't only need to revive the BB-relics,

but also introduce 16" railroad artillery.

[Marek Tucan]

Perhaps the US doesn't only need to revive the BB-relics,

but also introduce 16" railroad artillery.

 

Nah. Railroad arty is so 1900's! Slap a platform of say 2x3 Gav!ns and base the 16-incher on it! You get superior mobility, air transportability and if you add some odd quad .50's, there's a nice tool to fend off ChiCom humanwave attacks

[Richard Young]

The South African G6 based coast artillery solution uses (or used) DPICM as its primary round. This does not require a direct hit and there are plenty of systems on an Iowa that DPICM will ruin.

 

You are dreaming if you think DPICM is going to take out an Iowa.

[Guest pfcem]

Note all the opposition the the very adea of a battleship...

[Guest pfcem]

The missile I envisage does not currently exist. You can however imagine a sawn off Tomahawk and you have what I am thinking of. Yes, someone with a good anti-missile defense will probably shoot it down but that's a very high end capability.

The 500lb bomb seems to be a good compromise between target and collateral effects. Hellfire is a little on the small side to efficiently service much more than a point target.

 

Simon

500 lbs

 

I thought 100 lbs was THE best compromise between target and collateral effects.

At least that is what SOME here (& elsewhere) would have you believe.

[Guest pfcem]

Excuse me Richard, you hadn't really answered my question. Firstly you haven't even identified a target set. Secondly I would like to take issue with the fact that you seem to think time constraints wouldn't affect an Iowa (that seems to be your baby, excuse me if I'm wrong), which has a RoF at best of 18 rpm for one target, and without Guided munitions, which would have to be deleloped all over again for the 16 inch, you would be spending in not more time servicing a target because you will not even be able to guarrantee hits.

 

Not to mention that the Iowa's are as it stands, are out ranged by nigh on everything except the humble 5 inch cannon.

 

You've assumed, and wrongly I might add, that I was refering solely to 155mm.

So lets refer to this somewhat mythical target set, which neither you or Pfcem has actually defined. Lets say that best case for your scenario was a hardened bunker which couldn't be handled by 155mm LRLAP. Well then a proposed NSFS solution would have been LASM or later ALAM. Carried by More ships, Faster ToF, more accurate. Longer ranged. In general alot more available than an 8 inch or Iowa gun.

 

If that wasn't enough, then the planes flying in support of the troops will simply be given the bunkers location, and they will drop various flavours of SDB's or JDAM's on them. If thats not enough then the deep penetrating seriers of the Paveways can be used. Of if thats not enough, then various TacTom, JASM and the like an all it and destroy hardened targets. All at much greater ranges than a Iowa, all with much greater acurracy than an Iowa, and all without risking 1500+ men.

 

Incidently for airmobile and airdroppable operations will never see the end of 105mm for quite a while. Ammuniton doesn't get lighter..

Troll

[Guest pfcem]

1) Pfcem clearly had specific targets in mind. Neither yourself nor pfcem have explained what they are. I can at least explain what vampires, werewolves and zombies are, but I wouldn't want to base our procurement strategy around fighting them.

 

2) The Iowa class reactivated for use off Vietnam addressed some of the limitations of the then available suite of weapon systems and their own vulnerabilities that largely no longer exist, in a political scenario that is pretty much unthinkable today (fighting an opponent with direct overland and unhindered naval supply routes to two hostile superpowers on the basis that you won't invade his territory). However, conveniently, the theatre had a long coastline, manpower was cheap and pretty much limitless, and the enemy had no SSKs and next to no other ASuW capability. It was also used at a time when pretty much any (non nuclear) collateral damage was deemed acceptable.

Troll

[Olof Larsson]

You are dreaming if you think DPICM is going to take out an Iowa.

 

No one hav claimed that 15,5cm rounds (HE or DPICM) could take out an Iowa.

They have mentioned that 15,5cm could take out soft components outside of the armour.

You know. radars, Tomahawk-canisters, Harpoon-canisters, CIWS, helos etc.

[Guest pfcem]

And we still haven't had a single target set named which can't be hit in an effective and timely manner by existing and proposed NSFS systems.

Troll

[Guest pfcem]

I brought that question up in a previous post.

 

However, for AA-work, we all know since before,

that the .50 BMG is adequate, which makes me wonder:

 

If .50 BMG was adequate for AA warfare during WWII (and not in need for replacement)

and if 15,5cm, MLRS JDAMS etc. is adequete for supporting army infantry everywhere and marines inland.

 

Why isn't 15,5cm grenades, MLRS, JDAMS etc. adequete for marines near the coast?

 

Perhaps the US doesn't only need to revive the BB-relics,

but also introduce 16" railroad artillery.

Strawman

[Brasidas]

I guess someone just punched their eject button.

[Richard Young]

How many Superbugs can one maintain for the maintainance cost of a Iowa?

10?

20?

50?

100?

 

How many NGFS platforms can by obtained and operated for the cost of ONE Nimitz class carrier + task force + air wing? How many "superbugs" can take off if the deck is fouled, on fire, catapult down, weather unfavorable? How many Marines are we gona get killed to find out?

 

How far inland can a 16" gun reach?

Right now? Farther than any EXISTING NGFS platform, or any projected to take the seas in the next 5 years - with the exception of ultra-expensive rounds that can;t be auto-loaded and aern;t maintained in numbers enough to do anything. Standard 5" and 4.5" is good against soft targets only, and extended-range is even less lethal.

 

How far inland can a Iowa conduct SEAD-missions?

 

With sabot or scramjet rounds, some of which have already been test-fired, at least as far as the unrefueled Superbug combat radius.

 

How far inland can a Iowa fight for air-supperiority?

Not its mission - but on a related note, it doesn;t NEED air superiority over th e target to put steel on target.

 

Fixed and known installations is what JDAM's etc. are for.

 

Sometimes you don;t "know" about them until the last minute - you know, when they open up on you....

 

How long would those artillery radars and their firing units survive

in a massive SEAD/DEAD and CAS environment?

How long did they last in Kosovo? I seem to recall numerous birds, including at least one F-117, that got shot down by AD systems decades older than what Syria and Iran are installing....

 

There are several 15,5cm BB-rounds that can shoot +40km from a L/52 barrel, with RAP it might exceed 60km.

 

Max range for a 52 calibur barrel with the 25 liter chamber is 67km with VLAP - HOWEVER, the last I heard is that this beast is not in production. If six-inch fire was a serious danger to a battleship - one would not need to build battlships to counter them - six inch cruisers would have sufficed. Alas, 'tis not so....

 

Somehow I find it more likely that weather would affect USMC LCAC's and helos from operating,

then jets circling at X10k feet above the deck, waiting for someone to call in a JDAM.

 

 

That jet has to get off of and back onto a heaving deck to get to "X10k feet" in the first place - not a problem with naval gun firre.

[Richard Young]

True, but then a carrier is a far more useful tool.

 

How many targets where destoyed per BB (with 16") vs. per CV in the gulf war?

How percent of the targets engaged in Kosovo and Serbia could a BB have reached with 16"?

How percent of the targets engaged in Afganistan could a BB have reached with 16"?

How percent of the targets engaged in Iraq in 2003 could a BB have reached with 16"?

So you mean that a CV 250 miles of the coast is risky, but not a BB 25 miles of the same coast?

 

So you're just risking a BBBG.

IF a BB is available.

IF the target is close enough to the coast.

IT the target is far away from you're own tropps.

 

Besides. How many landings against an opponent that could not be serviced with 15,5cm guns

have the USMC contucted without fixed-winng support on this side of the Wright-brothers first flight?

 

Can you name even one such case?

 

Normandy, Sicily, and Wonsan (Sp? Korean war...) come to mind - as do numerous Pacific landings. Fixed wing support was present, but not able to do what NGFS did.

[TDHM]

Troll

 

It's all over baby...

[Guest pfcem]

Also a lot more firepower on station and with a lot more range

You obvously did not read Colonel Welch's thesis. I STRONGLY suggest you do so.

[MODERATOR]

pfcem,

 

Enough is enough. As you have ignored repeated warnings to modify your behaviour and continue to act in a disruptive manner, your account will shortly be suspended and you will be banned from the Forum.

 

MODERATOR

[FITZ]

No Fitz will be able to correct me but In OP DS I heard that Marines had to wait 24 hours for NGFS from an Iowa. So perhaps your right. So long as the Iowa is in the right location and the trops aren't with danger close...

 

No correction needed, you are absolutely correct. The incident is documented in the Marines official history of ODS. The battleships couldn't keep pace with the troops for the first day and a half of the ground assault and when the Marines finally did call for fire support from (I think it was Mo) they were denied due to "danger-close" issues. The ship was sent to lob shells indescriminately at KC airport instead.

[Josh]

Normandy, Sicily, and Wonsan (Sp? Korean war...) come to mind - as do numerous Pacific landings. Fixed wing support was present, but not able to do what NGFS did.

 

Beg your pardon, but certainly in the Pacific 16" support many times also failed to do anything relavent.