Naval fire support - or lack their of

[Mike D]

In line with another thread that was running, I accidentally ran across an excellent document. Titled "Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap." It is a masters thesis and won the National Defense University Foundation Award. And it was written by an Army Colonel no less. Go figure, an army type writing about naval capability of marine needs.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2007-05_JFSC_Thesis_NFS_and_DDG-1000.pdf

In general it is an excellent report in both breadth and depth with top notch analysis and excellent supporting documentation.

Well worth the read.

(BTY, it also supports my contention that we need a solid, old fashioned hardened and reliable gun boat with big guns and lots of them. Not new shiny and very expensive toys that break easily[read DDG-1000].:cool:)

Let the arguments begin!

[old_pop2000]

In general it is an excellent report in both breadth and depth with top notch analysis and excellent supporting documentation.

(BTY, it also supports my contention that we need a solid, old fashioned hardened and reliable gun boat with big guns and lots of them. Not new shiny and very expensive toys that break easily[read DDG-1000].:cool:)

Let the arguments begin!

Hi Mike:
I downloaded that from STINET, a couple of weeks ago. It is interesting. I think we would all agree that littoral zone operations have been the bread and butter of navy's since the invention of the warship. Most naval actions and operations are in support of land operations. All of the carrier battles fought in WWII in the Pacific were in support of littoral zone operations, even Coral Sea was fought over the protection of the Moresby invasion fleet. The Cold War moved the US Navy into another area of fighting, the Blue Water. It was a reaction to the Soviet Naval attempt to interdict the US movement of supplies and troops to support NATO forces during a possible Russian move on that organization. It was to be fought initially in the NA but later, in the Norwegian Sea. But that was an aberration and with the end of the Cold War, those requirements are no longer valid. We are now back to littoral zone operations of sea control. Which will have different requirements placed on the navy.

Strategy over time rarely changes, but tactics do. Mahan observed this at the turn of the century. Moving back to the coastal regions is laced with danger for capital ships. Lot's of threats that a blue water navy can neglect. It complicates fleet defense. The successful identification and mitigation of these threats will directly affect the size of the NSFS ship.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Mike:
I downloaded that from STINET, a couple of weeks ago. It is interesting. I think we would all agree that littoral zone operations have been the bread and butter of navy's since the invention of the warship. Most naval actions and operations are in support of land operations. All of the carrier battles fought in WWII in the Pacific were in support of littoral zone operations, even Coral Sea was fought over the protection of the Moresby invasion fleet. The Cold War moved the US Navy into another area of fighting, the Blue Water. It was a reaction to the Soviet Naval attempt to interdict the US movement of supplies and troops to support NATO forces during a possible Russian move on that organization. It was to be fought initially in the NA but later, in the Norwegian Sea. But that was an aberration and with the end of the Cold War, those requirements are no longer valid. We are now back to littoral zone operations of sea control. Which will have different requirements placed on the navy.

Strategy over time rarely changes, but tactics do. Mahan observed this at the turn of the century. Moving back to the coastal regions is laced with danger for capital ships. Lot's of threats that a blue water navy can neglect. It complicates fleet defense. The successful identification and mitigation of these threats will directly affect the size of the NSFS ship.

Dennis:

I downloaded the report and have just started reading it. One thing I don't understand is if the Marines feel that they need a large gun to support them, then why haven't they asked for a land version of it? The same goes for the Army. They seem quite content to use the 155mm howitzer either the new light weight towed gun or the self-propelled Paladin system. They even went so far as to cancel the high end self propelled 155mm gun that was under development. What target or threat are they envisioning that would require a gun larger than 8 inches max? Nobody has pointed this out.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I downloaded the report and have just started reading it. One thing I don't understand is if the Marines feel that they need a large gun to support them, then why haven't they asked for a land version of it? The same goes for the Army. They seem quite content to use the 155mm howitzer either the new light weight towed gun or the self-propelled Paladin system. They even went so far as to cancel the high end self propelled 155mm gun that was under development. What target or threat are they envisioning that would require a gun larger than 8 inches max? Nobody has pointed this out.


I get back to my original question. What are the requirments? What kind of scenario or targets are going to require an 8 inch gun. Is the distance the reason? Are the scenarios or operation envisaged going to be forced entry attacks deep inland that require long range gun support if the navy cannot provide the necessary air support or until Marine and USAF air support is available? The gun range, as defined currently is 65 miles. What 8 inch gun has a range of 65 miles. Sounds like a theatre ballistic missile or TLAM missile to me.

[Mike Malanaphy]

In line with another thread that was running, I accidentally ran across an excellent document. Titled "Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap." It is a masters thesis and won the National Defense University Foundation Award. And it was written by an Army Colonel no less. Go figure, an army type writing about naval capability of marine needs.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2007-05_JFSC_Thesis_NFS_and_DDG-1000.pdf

In general it is an excellent report in both breadth and depth with top notch analysis and excellent supporting documentation.

Well worth the read.

(BTY, it also supports my contention that we need a solid, old fashioned hardened and reliable gun boat with big guns and lots of them. Not new shiny and very expensive toys that break easily[read DDG-1000].:cool:)

Let the arguments begin!

Hi Mike,

WOW! That guy is clearly in violation of MUAP ( Minimize Use of Acronyms Program ). Some of his scenarios are interesting. It shows the problems that planners can have trying to anticipate weapons needs in terms of long developement times and almost instant obsolesence once fielded by rapid technoplogical advancement. But I agree with you there is a need for a relatively cheap, but capable ship against a multitude of low intensity threats in the littoral areas.

His thesis that a ship of capital size is required works against the need for a ship that can be made available in numbers and whose size, cost, and possible propanda negatives if lost or damaged severly limits its use. In his example of 5 CWS in service, I asume that means only 3 would be available at any one time. Being in the right place at the right time would be chancy.

His examples of battleship surviveablility aren't really applicable. The likely effects of mines, torpedoes, suicide attack, missiles, or counterbattery fire from shore that can happen in low intensity conflict can mission kill the battleship like most other surface combatants. Any shore based operation is going to require air superiority to be successful and those aircraft can hit targets outside of normal artillery range. The marines would be better served developing a capble 155 mm artillery element to take ashore with them.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Mike,

WOW! That guy is clearly in violation of MUAP ( Minimize Use of Acronyms Program ). Some of his scenarios are interesting. It shows the problems that planners can have trying to anticipate weapons needs in terms of long developement times and almost instant obsolesence once fielded by rapid technoplogical advancement. But I agree with you there is a need for a relatively cheap, but capable ship against a multitude of low intensity threats in the littoral areas.

His thesis that a ship of capital size is required works against the need for a ship that can be made available in numbers and whose size, cost, and possible propanda negatives if lost or damaged severly limits its use. In his example of 5 CWS in service, I asume that means only 3 would be available at any one time. Being in the right place at the right time would be chancy.

His examples of battleship surviveablility aren't really applicable. The likely effects of mines, torpedoes, suicide attack, missiles, or counterbattery fire from shore that can happen in low intensity conflict can mission kill the battleship like most other surface combatants. Any shore based operation is going to require air superiority to be successful and those aircraft can hit targets outside of normal artillery range. The marines would be better served developing a capble 155 mm artillery element to take ashore with them.

Mike:

I totally agree with you and Dennis. The term forcible entry seems to be more politically correct than amphibious invasion which I find amusing. I don't see anybody building coastal fortifications do you? As Chris pointed out on another thread, there is a new light weight MLRS that is being fielded that in conjuction with the Marines own organic artillery assets should be more than adequate. If they are so worried about gun support they should buy some of the German Panzerhaubitzer 2000 vehicles. They are a lot cheaper than the cancelled Crusader gun system was.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I get back to my original question. What are the requirments? What kind of scenario or targets are going to require an 8 inch gun. Is the distance the reason? Are the scenarios or operation envisaged going to be forced entry attacks deep inland that require long range gun support if the navy cannot provide the necessary air support or until Marine and USAF air support is available? The gun range, as defined currently is 65 miles. What 8 inch gun has a range of 65 miles. Sounds like a theatre ballistic missile or TLAM missile to me.

Hi Dennis,

A lot of this stems from the need to interdict deep in a conventional war scenario from the air land battle. Aircraft can do it, but would be faced by an integrated air defense system. In low intensity situations, the capture of a pilot or two as in Syria can be a big monkey wrench. That deep, Tomahawk can do the job.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I totally agree with you and Dennis. The term forcible entry seems to be more politically correct than amphibious invasion which I find amusing. I don't see anybody building coastal fortifications do you? As Chris pointed out on another thread, there is a new light weight MLRS that is being fielded that in conjuction with the Marines own organic artillery assets should be more than adequate. If they are so worried about gun support they should buy some of the German Panzerhaubitzer 2000 vehicles. They are a lot cheaper than the cancelled Crusader gun system was.

Hi Ed,

I don't know enough about the lift capability of the Marine Expeditionary Forces at sea as to whether they have room for 155mm artillery pieces and ammunition. Such operations will require lots of shells though fortunately the Fire Direction Center can be on a laptop computer. Even with PGMs, a low intensity conflict ala the Israelis in Lebanon require a large volume of fire for suppression against, small, fleeting, and dug in targets. ICMs smell like cluster bombs and there is nothing wrong with the politically correct VT airburst for target effect and to keep the press happy.

The Army's problem with the 155mm in the late 70s-early 80s was the fact that the Soviet 130mm artillery piece outranged if by about 7 kms (21 versus 14). The M109A6 is a superb weapon though perhaps a little big for the Marine amphibs. So they can use towed 155 mms.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I don't know enough about the lift capability of the Marine Expeditionary Forces at sea as to whether they have room for 155mm artillery pieces and ammunition. Such operations will require lots of shells though fortunately the Fire Direction Center can be on a laptop computer. Even with PGMs, a low intensity conflict ala the Israelis in Lebanon require a large volume of fire for suppression against, small, fleeting, and dug in targets. ICMs smell like cluster bombs and there is nothing wrong with the politically correct VT airburst for target effect and to keep the press happy.

The Army's problem with the 155mm in the late 70s-early 80s was the fact that the Soviet 130mm artillery piece outranged if by about 7 kms (21 versus 14). The M109A6 is a superb weapon though perhaps a little big for the Marine amphibs. So they can use towed 155 mms.

Mike:

From what I have read, a typical Marine Expeditionary Unit has six 155mm towed guns, so they should have no trouble toting them along on an amphib op. Also the same unit has a platoon of M1A tanks so if they can haul them on an amphib ship, the SPG 155 shouldn't be a problem since its lighter.

What I find interesting is the whole concept of long ranged gunfire. Look at all the ampbious invasions in the past. Once the troops went inland they relied on their own organic artillery and airpower to provide the heavy firepower. Now suddenly we need guns that can reach over 65 miles? If the Marines of Army are penetrating that far inland then we are talking a major war effort and you better bring all the toys to fight it. I think the proposed 155mm advanced gun system with its precision munitions should be more than adequate assuming it works as planned.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

A lot of this stems from the need to interdict deep in a conventional war scenario from the air land battle. Aircraft can do it, but would be faced by an integrated air defense system. In low intensity situations, the capture of a pilot or two as in Syria can be a big monkey wrench. That deep, Tomahawk can do the job.

It seems to me, that the issue here, is what are the mission requirements placed on the Army and Marines for these forcible entry operations, by the civilian government. I am not attempting to be political, but the capabilities are directly related to foreign policy. What kind of capability does the government want? What do they expect the Army and Marines to be able to do? The Navy and Air Force requirements are directly related to those expectations by the civilian government. So far, none of our current operations had requirements for large caliber guns to be off of the coast to aid in the initial assaults. Are we planning for a time, when there will be no friendly bases from which to plan and launch such missions or operations? When, where and how? You cannot divorce your naval requirements from those answers. What operations, past and present, did not have friendly bases near enough to provide the necessary air and land support? Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korean, Lebanon, Somalia. How about Panama? Have there been situations where we did not have support nearby for these operations. Even Inchon had air support for Korea and Japan, besides the Navy gunfire.

I can see that if the Navy is unwilling or unable to move a CSG into a marginal or inland sea, the ESG will have to move in alone, and have its own integral support. But what areas are likely to have such occurrances. The Persian Gulf, Red Sea? Where?

Same question remains unanswered. What are the Army and Marine requirements placed by the civilian leadership, that is driving the Navy NSFS requirement for an 8 inch gun ship the size of a cruiser. Which by the by, all but two have been cancelled due to cost along with the only gun system that could satisfy the 65 mile range requirement.

It seems to me to be a Marine requirement, they know the Navy cannot satisfy, so now they can go back to the civilian leadership and get out of their requirements by blaming it on the Navy's lack of ships.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

From what I have read, a typical Marine Expeditionary Unit has six 155mm towed guns, so they should have no trouble toting them along on an amphib op. Also the same unit has a platoon of M1A tanks so if they can haul them on an amphib ship, the SPG 155 shouldn't be a problem since its lighter.

What I find interesting is the whole concept of long ranged gunfire. Look at all the ampbious invasions in the past. Once the troops went inland they relied on their own organic artillery and airpower to provide the heavy firepower. Now suddenly we need guns that can reach over 65 miles? If the Marines of Army are penetrating that far inland then we are talking a major war effort and you better bring all the toys to fight it. I think the proposed 155mm advanced gun system with its precision munitions should be more than adequate assuming it works as planned.

Hi Ed,

Exactly. I know it's hard to anticipate all possible situations, but any situation where a land force has moved 65 plus miles inland is a major effort as opposed to an "enclave" to protect humanitarian operations or rescue attempts. In the latter, 155 mm is a potent and effective weapon for that mission, provided there is teh will to use it. But that's a whole other question outside the military realm..

[Mike Malanaphy]

It seems to me, that the issue here, is what are the mission requirements placed on the Army and Marines for these forcible entry operations, by the civilian government. I am not attempting to be political, but the capabilities are directly related to foreign policy. What kind of capability does the government want? What do they expect the Army and Marines to be able to do? The Navy and Air Force requirements are directly related to those expectations by the civilian government. So far, none of our current operations had requirements for large caliber guns to be off of the coast to aid in the initial assaults. Are we planning for a time, when there will be no friendly bases from which to plan and launch such missions or operations? When, where and how? You cannot divorce your naval requirements from those answers. What operations, past and present, did not have friendly bases near enough to provide the necessary air and land support? Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korean, Lebanon, Somalia. How about Panama? Have there been situations where we did not have support nearby for these operations. Even Inchon had air support for Korea and Japan, besides the Navy gunfire.

I can see that if the Navy is unwilling or unable to move a CSG into a marginal or inland sea, the ESG will have to move in alone, and have its own integral support. But what areas are likely to have such occurrances. The Persian Gulf, Red Sea? Where?

Same question remains unanswered. What are the Army and Marine requirements placed by the civilian leadership, that is driving the Navy NSFS requirement for an 8 inch gun ship the size of a cruiser. Which by the by, all but two have been cancelled due to cost along with the only gun system that could satisfy the 65 mile range requirement.

It seems to me to be a Marine requirement, they know the Navy cannot satisfy, so now they can go back to the civilian leadership and get out of their requirements by blaming it on the Navy's lack of ships.

Hi Dennis,

I would completely agree and that is the benefit and liability to civilian control of the military. As a politcial body, it is very hard for congress to give specific guidance on those areas and would likely defer to the recommendations of the JCS. Thgey however have the same lack of crystal balls. The Clinton administration desired the capability to be able to fight two regional wars at the same time. That establishment was severely tested by one regional war starting in 2003. With the exception of natural disasters, there is nothing more avarice for resources and or harder to predict or anticipate that the needs of war.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I would completely agree and that is the benefit and liability to civilian control of the military. As a politcial body, it is very hard for congress to give specific guidance on those areas and would likely defer to the recommendations of the JCS. Thgey however have the same lack of crystal balls. The Clinton administration desired the capability to be able to fight two regional wars at the same time. That establishment was severely tested by one regional war starting in 2003. With the exception of natural disasters, there is nothing more avarice for resources and or harder to predict or anticipate that the needs of war.

The issue I have with this thesis is that he never questions the conclusions, tenets or requirements placed by the Joint forces command. He relates them, but never questions their validity. The main requirement for an NSFS ship is the near peer opponent, proposed to be China by 2015. The other two; regional and emerging global competitors does not seem to be the major opponent. He focuses on China.

He cites past history as a proof that NSFS has been critical to success. He uses the Pacific campaign, Normandy, Korean and Vietnam. This is bogus proof. Two of these were invasions of strongly held positions in a time when bombing accuracy was minimal. Korean is cited as is Vietnam. Just how much NSFS does he really think was accurate and useful in those two later operations. At Inchon, the destroyers sailed into the Inchon harbor to bombard the emplacements, which by the way, gave the enemy the advanced notice they needed to prepare for the coming invasioni. So, NSFS actually eliminated the surprise. The majority of the fire support came from tactical aircraft and fire bases located throughout Vietnam. These examples prove nothing. Most of the targets in the first two could have been eliminated with cruise missiles or JDAMs dropped by a B-52 from 40000 ft. or a cruiser missile fired from a submarine.

His use of the battleships during the Gulf War is bogus; citing the fact that these ships "contributed mightily to the amphibious deception " and "when a bombardment caused the Iraqi's to abandon the coastal port of Ras Al Qualalyah." In the first case, does the fact that a ship with 16 inch guns really contribute that much to a deception plan or was it the fact that whole amphibious group was located nearby with the Marines and air support. As far as the abandonment of the coastal port, you think maybe the fact that the whole front was collapsing might have had more to do with this along with Naval air support pounding the dog crap out of them. Would the absence of the battleships have changed anything? Most likely it would not.

As far as I can tell, he has proved nothing. If China and the WWII invasions are all he can conger up for proof of a requirement, he needs to study the history of the last 20 years and forget about WWII, the Cold War and the USSR.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Exactly. I know it's hard to anticipate all possible situations, but any situation where a land force has moved 65 plus miles inland is a major effort as opposed to an "enclave" to protect humanitarian operations or rescue attempts. In the latter, 155 mm is a potent and effective weapon for that mission, provided there is teh will to use it. But that's a whole other question outside the military realm..

Mike:

You know what I find so strange? The article seems to believe that the US will have to undertake a Normandy type invasion against prepared forces with lots of fortification. Where in the world is that going to happen? How has coastal defenses anymore? The closest I could think of would be if the US decided to do an end around on North Korea and land behind the 38th parallel like at Inchon. Even then we would still rely on on massive airstrikes to pave the way. The proposed DD(X) with two Advanced Gun Systems would be more than adequate. If range is the question, then as Chris has mentioned either TLAMs or SLAMs would do the job and they already exist. Sure a missile is more expensive than an artillery round, but if you have to develop a new ship and new gun to fire this round, maybe an existing solution is better? Have a great Sunday.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

You know what I find so strange? The article seems to believe that the US will have to undertake a Normandy type invasion against prepared forces with lots of fortification. Where in the world is that going to happen? How has coastal defenses anymore? The closest I could think of would be if the US decided to do an end around on North Korea and land behind the 38th parallel like at Inchon. Even then we would still rely on on massive airstrikes to pave the way. The proposed DD(X) with two Advanced Gun Systems would be more than adequate. If range is the question, then as Chris has mentioned either TLAMs or SLAMs would do the job and they already exist. Sure a missile is more expensive than an artillery round, but if you have to develop a new ship and new gun to fire this round, maybe an existing solution is better? Have a great Sunday.


Hi Ed,

Yes, especially now with the force struture of ground units we have available. Any kind of contested landing would be brutal as even many third world countries have access to decent weapons and pools of manpower. Potential casulaties would be very high. The provocation would have to be extremely high for the public to accept that kind of loss.

[old_pop2000]

I have referred to Joint Forces Command several times in my posts, as of late. Here is a link to the Joint Forces Quarterly on the Joint Electronic Library. On this page, is access to all the quarterly since the creation of this force in 1993. This documentation is the source of requirements for NSFS. If you wish to understand how Joint Forces is going to fight or what its mission is and the requirements, this is the place.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/

Enjoy, and I hope this elevates our understanding of this complex subject.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The issue I have with this thesis is that he never questions the conclusions, tenets or requirements placed by the Joint forces command. He relates them, but never questions their validity. The main requirement for an NSFS ship is the near peer opponent, proposed to be China by 2015. The other two; regional and emerging global competitors does not seem to be the major opponent. He focuses on China.

He cites past history as a proof that NSFS has been critical to success. He uses the Pacific campaign, Normandy, Korean and Vietnam. This is bogus proof. Two of these were invasions of strongly held positions in a time when bombing accuracy was minimal. Korean is cited as is Vietnam. Just how much NSFS does he really think was accurate and useful in those two later operations. At Inchon, the destroyers sailed into the Inchon harbor to bombard the emplacements, which by the way, gave the enemy the advanced notice they needed to prepare for the coming invasioni. So, NSFS actually eliminated the surprise. The majority of the fire support came from tactical aircraft and fire bases located throughout Vietnam. These examples prove nothing. Most of the targets in the first two could have been eliminated with cruise missiles or JDAMs dropped by a B-52 from 40000 ft. or a cruiser missile fired from a submarine.

His use of the battleships during the Gulf War is bogus; citing the fact that these ships "contributed mightily to the amphibious deception " and "when a bombardment caused the Iraqi's to abandon the coastal port of Ras Al Qualalyah." In the first case, does the fact that a ship with 16 inch guns really contribute that much to a deception plan or was it the fact that whole amphibious group was located nearby with the Marines and air support. As far as the abandonment of the coastal port, you think maybe the fact that the whole front was collapsing might have had more to do with this along with Naval air support pounding the dog crap out of them. Would the absence of the battleships have changed anything? Most likely it would not.

As far as I can tell, he has proved nothing. If China and the WWII invasions are all he can conger up for proof of a requirement, he needs to study the history of the last 20 years and forget about WWII, the Cold War and the USSR.

Dennis:

Bingo! Precisely. As they say militaries prepare to fight the last war. It appears here that the US is preparing to fight WWII all over again. Is the USN trying to justify itself in the wake of the lack of a viable blue navy threat? Can't wait to see how we wargame China in a naval war.:rolleyes:

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have referred to Joint Forces Command several times in my posts, as of late. Here is a link to the Joint Forces Quarterly on the Joint Electronic Library. On this page, is access to all the quarterly since the creation of this force in 1993. This documentation is the source of requirements for NSFS. If you wish to understand how Joint Forces is going to fight or what its mission is and the requirements, this is the place.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/

Enjoy, and I hope this elevates our understanding of this complex subject.

Dennis:

Thanks as always. I'll be busy for awhile since work is somewhat slack.;)

[john964]

Dennis:

Bingo! Precisely. As they say militaries prepare to fight the last war. It appears here that the US is preparing to fight WWII all over again. Is the USN trying to justify itself in the wake of the lack of a viable blue navy threat? Can't wait to see how we wargame China in a naval war.:rolleyes:If we ever go to war with China. The only branch of PLA that will last as a viable fighting force beyond a few weeks is the PLA. IMHO the PLAN will last less than a week with only small units eg PT and PGM lasting longer. The PLAAF will be the next to go with any surviving units falling back to the deep interior of China or flying off to another country like Iraq did in PG I.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Bingo! Precisely. As they say militaries prepare to fight the last war. It appears here that the US is preparing to fight WWII all over again. Is the USN trying to justify itself in the wake of the lack of a viable blue navy threat? Can't wait to see how we wargame China in a naval war.:rolleyes:

I don't believe the navy is attempting to fight the last big war. It understands that the blue water threat posed by the USSR is gone, and now they have to change their paradigm again. As Admiral Frank Kelso states in the 1993 journal: "With no credible global naval threat, the need for separate independent naval operations at sea....... have been reduced. Our maritime operational focus has now shifted to littoral warfare and direct support of ground operations." Source: Joint Forces Journal, dtd 1993, "The wave of the Future" By Admiral Frank Kelso.

In point of fact, the navy has to return to what it did in WWII, support land operations and forced entry missions. The Navy's mission at the end of WWII, shifted with the threat to the Atlantic shipping lanes during any possible move against Nato and the Mediterranean by the Soviet Navy. The Navy had a paradigm change, it now had to focus primarily on those independent naval battles to secure those supply lines in case of a Warsaw Pact move through Germany. It's weapons and tactics were tailored by those scenarios. Now, we have essentially come full circle. The Navy is back to what it was originally designed to do, protect our shores and support land operations usually in marginal seas and littoral zones.

As for the NSFS requirement and littoral zone operations, I don't disagree with the mission and the operations. I disagree with the numbers used to justify a 14000 ton destroyer and 8 inch guns. The mission and operations are valid, but not a 65 mile requirement for fire support. Especially when it is difficult to imagine the kinds of targets that will be requiring that kind of power, that cruise missile, JDAM or even a Fuel-air bomb dropped from an aircraft cannot dispense with.

[Mike D]

Knew this would start a ruckus.

I think some of the posts are missing the point of the paper. Fire support from ships are intended to open the beach head for landing forces, eliminate SAMs and radars it can reach opening up the air for helos and aircraft and to eliminate C3I facilities prior to landing. And to provide rapid reaction in a situation where land based fire support may not be available. The Marines already have the best 155mm gun in the US arsenal today in the M777 but it's no good until after landing on shore and setting up. Also arty can't go everywhere, there are allot of coastal deltas that are impassable to towed or tracked arty.

The author actually supported use of a 155mm gun but as the current naval 155mm AGS gun was flop felt there was better and that ships could support a larger gun with more range and more 'effect' using current technology. He also goes over the advantages of specific calibers in different situations; air burst/frag, cargo, impact, penetration and delayed detonation. I think he even made a comment that the 6 or 8" round had better frag effects the the 16" round.

Dennis also asked a question that the author asked, just what are the requirements for gun support. Seems they are nebulous and get changed all the time and the Navy's requirements for Marine fire support are significantly different then Marines requirement. Politics again. So who wins.

As to why? Off hand I can think of three of quick examples; Bekaa Valley/Beirut, Tet Offensive and Somalia. In these cases politics and politicians determined both strategy and tactics and commanders on the ground made mistakes. In all these cases quick reaction hi-effect long range arty may have made the difference. As it was the ground forced either didn't have arty on the ground or didn't have guns near by and ready nor could they get within range in time.

Also there is a question of cost and risk. Yes a JDAM or a TLAM can be used but why fire a TLAM at $1million that has a range of 700 or more miles at a target 60 miles away you may actually need that missile later, also are you willing to risk an aircraft and a pilot if there is a safer and cheaper way. There is also a question of time. I'm not sure how long it takes to program a TLAM but say 10 minutes, plan the launch another 10 minutes, launch and TOT at 60 miles about 9-10 minutes more. So 30 minutes for a TLAM fire mission. For a strike aircraft, who knows, from 20 minutes to an hour or more. Call in a fire mission for a hypothetical 8"-12" gun and it might take 5 minutes for mission plan, 2 minutes to train the guns and 2 minutes flight time for the rounds that's 9-10 minutes from receipt of call to impact.

Dennis is very correct in that political considerations come into play and sometimes quick fire missions may be needed to pull Marines or SOF teams out of some trouble that a politician created. What's the Boy Scout motto, "Be Prepared" or the other one, "expect the unexpected."

[old_pop2000]

While I know the ERGM has been cancelled, how interesting it is, for pundits to say that it is too expensive to fire a TLAM at a simple target, yet the only way for a 5 inch gun to hit a target accurately and reach a range of 65 miles was to use a rocket propelled shell with canards, retargetable datalink system and a semiactive laser seeker and a 110 lb. warhead. The cost of that weapon was estimated at over $100,000 dollars per copy. It would take about nine of these to really do sizeable damage. This elevates the cost to over $900,000. Doesn't that shell sound like a missile. The TLAM has a range of over 900 nm with a 1000 lb warhead. Unit cost is $579,000 dollars as of 28 August 2007.

Just for reference. The WWI Paris gun had a range of 81 miles, firing a 210 mm or 8.2 inch round. The barrel length was 92 ft. long. Ever think there might be some ballistic limits on this stuff.

Fascinating!

[Warship NWS]

I will toss this in.. risking a pilot? Well.. use stand off weapons.. we have lots of them. Even a JDAM can be launched from a pretty good range and altitude and be used in almost any weather conditions and is pretty darn cheap. Who said we have to stick with TLAMs? There are new LAM medium and short range missiles being developed all the time that are more cost effective vs various tactical targets then a TLAM, SLAM is one such example.. no ships to shoot at? No problem, swap out the guidance package with a MITL/GPS package.. bingo.. a LAM! Point being, and Dennis nailed it square, need a tank or building to go away.. use an all weather guided bomb or missile with OTH capability. More accurate, developmentally cheaper (we have the stuff.. dont need to research squat), just as quick if not faster then a multi-service comms linked artillery barrage that requires the entire firing platform to be in the right place at the right time otherwise it needs time to maneuver, etc.. BTW, what else are our planes supposed to do off the coast if nothing is challenging the skies against them? Why have planes at all if they are not there to blow something up? I mean really, why build some expensive noise maker to do what we can already do now and not risk anything to do it with and that has far less chances of causing collatoral damage and that can do more then carry a few pounds of explosives per shell? To me.. NGFS is a complete waste as well as a totally obsolete concept. Give the USMC MRLS and SPG capability.. they are cheaper, faster, and they already exist and not one darn thing has to be developed and tested with teething problems. The Isrealis did it and I know they have some experience in opposing modern military forces, so what is our problem exactly again?

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Knew this would start a ruckus.

The author actually supported use of a 155mm gun but as the current naval 155mm AGS gun was flop felt there was better and that ships could support a larger gun with more range and more 'effect' using current technology. He also goes over the advantages of specific calibers in different situations; air burst/frag, cargo, impact, penetration and delayed detonation. I think he even made a comment that the 6 or 8" round had better frag effects the the 16" round.






Mike:

So is the Advanced Gun System considered a failure and no longer being developed? Just curious.

[old_pop2000]

Mike:

So is the Advanced Gun System considered a failure and no longer being developed? Just curious.

The DD-1000 ships have been halted at two, that was the platform for the gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

It appears that the gun is still viable, but will have to be retrofited on different ships. It is hard to assess what will happen to the gun system.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The DD-1000 ships have been halted at two, that was the platform for the gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

It appears that the gun is still viable, but will have to be retrofited on different ships. It is hard to assess what will happen to the gun system.

Dennis:

Thanks. Ahh cost overruns, the ultimate killer of any weapons system.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The DD-1000 ships have been halted at two, that was the platform for the gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

It appears that the gun is still viable, but will have to be retrofited on different ships. It is hard to assess what will happen to the gun system.

Dennis:

I've read more of that report and I don't know who is wackier here, the Marines or the Army with the range requirements for the guns in question. Why do you need 200 nautical miles range? I realize that littoral warfare is dangerous for big ships in shallow waters, but hell just over the horizon capability would be adequate. Also the author and the studies he quotes all seem to think that any landing will be along the lines of Iwo Jima. With the recon and satellite capabilities at our disposal, I think we could avoid any fixed defenses and get the Marines on shore with their own artillery.

One has to wonder if US amphib doctrine has gotten so confused that all sides of the equation are not reading from the same page. If you are to take this study at face value, then the US forces in Iraq do not have adequate artillery support since all they have are 155mm weapons. One wonders what the Air Force must think of all this nonsense.

[Mike D]

Mike:

So is the Advanced Gun System considered a failure and no longer being developed? Just curious.

Its the rounds that are the problem. The gun system is pretty straight forward, just a longer barrel, better alloys and materials and a new turret and mount, etc. But designing a "brilliant" extremely long range guided round that can carry enough punch and be re-tasked mid-flight or with terminal guidance at less then the cost of a missile has been a bit of a bugger. The base gun with base-bleed or RAP rounds can get 30nm+ and a conventional round about 25nm. So its still better then the Mk45 Mod 4.

[john964]

If you want shore bombardment, lets try some off the self equipment like the rockets used in the MLRS. IIRC they have 640 sub-munitions, range 20-30 nm, the sub-munitions cover an oval area 50x150ft. I dont think it would be that hard to put them in a VLS or have bolt on launchers on amphibs or other ships. You could also try to do the same with the Army's ATAC which IIRC is about the same as the MLRS but has a range of about double MLRS.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Its the rounds that are the problem. The gun system is pretty straight forward, just a longer barrel, better alloys and materials and a new turret and mount, etc. But designing a "brilliant" extremely long range guided round that can carry enough punch and be re-tasked mid-flight or with terminal guidance at less then the cost of a missile has been a bit of a bugger. The base gun with base-bleed or RAP rounds can get 30nm+ and a conventional round about 25nm. So its still better then the Mk45 Mod 4.

Mike:

Thanks. I figured the round had to feature base bleed or RAP if they wanted to get that kind of range. From what I have read, RAP rounds at least initially were not as accurate as conventional rounds, but with the add-ons for guidance, perhaps this has been addressed. I know many land based guns use RAP rounds.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If you want shore bombardment, lets try some off the self equipment like the rockets used in the MLRS. IIRC they have 640 sub-munitions, range 20-30 nm, the sub-munitions cover an oval area 50x150ft. I dont think it would be that hard to put them in a VLS or have bolt on launchers on amphibs or other ships. You could also try to do the same with the Army's ATAC which IIRC is about the same as the MLRS but has a range of about double MLRS.

John:

There are a lot of existing solutions to the fire support mission that don't require an expensive ship or new large gun. One wonders if the supporters of these ideas don't have their own agenda. I wonder how many of them have actually seen combat and had to place a call for fire in their careers?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Its the rounds that are the problem. The gun system is pretty straight forward, just a longer barrel, better alloys and materials and a new turret and mount, etc. But designing a "brilliant" extremely long range guided round that can carry enough punch and be re-tasked mid-flight or with terminal guidance at less then the cost of a missile has been a bit of a bugger. The base gun with base-bleed or RAP rounds can get 30nm+ and a conventional round about 25nm. So its still better then the Mk45 Mod 4.

Mike:

I have another question regarding the study on naval gunfire. The author keeps comparing the cost of airpower, especially in terms of losses to sophisticated air defense schemes. It seems he has missed the point. If the US decides to undertake a conventional ground war, the current doctrine is to win control of the air as we did in both Gulf conflicts. No ground forces are going in until that happens. Now if we take the example of Afghanistan where the enemy was lacking airpower and sophisticated hard targets (outside of caves), then perhaps we send in the troops right off the bat. Then we rely on airpower and land based artillery. I can't see anyplace in the world outside of North Korea where the US would face sophisticated defenses, a powerful airforce and the need to invade via the sea. Unless of course we're planning on invading the People's Republic of China?

[Mike D]

Mike:

I have another question regarding the study on naval gunfire. The author keeps comparing the cost of airpower, especially in terms of losses to sophisticated air defense schemes. It seems he has missed the point. If the US decides to undertake a conventional ground war, the current doctrine is to win control of the air as we did in both Gulf conflicts. No ground forces are going in until that happens. Now if we take the example of Afghanistan where the enemy was lacking airpower and sophisticated hard targets (outside of caves), then perhaps we send in the troops right off the bat. Then we rely on airpower and land based artillery. I can't see anyplace in the world outside of North Korea where the US would face sophisticated defenses, a powerful airforce and the need to invade via the sea. Unless of course we're planning on invading the People's Republic of China?

Usually MEU/ARG/ATF's are deployed with a CBG what can provide CAP and strike support. This covers most situations we can think of. What about the situations we can't think of. When I used to compete in various martial arts I had an instructor that always told me to fight to my oponents weaknesses, not his strengths. In combat out oponents will do the same, they know our strengths and will search for the weakness. We used to rely on the nuclear "Triad" because even is one option was unuseable you still had two more option.

My take on the "fire support from sea" idea is because its one more option for commanders to use, its one more danger that an opponent has to consider, its sustaneable, low tech, and cheaper and flexable.

Actually I'm not a hard fast belever in the gun boat theroy, what I am a belever in is a weapon system that can provide sustaned accurate and wide-area fires at a range of sub-100 miles with a sub-3 minute response time and doesn't break the bank. So do it with missiles, rockets, guns, or aircraft is irrelevent. But today the only system that can do this is probably a gun or rocket system. Actually the best today is probably the AC-130 gun ships but they can be shot down, take hours to get on station and have limited ammo and loiter time. But if one is near buy, oh Bessy! Watch out.

You right as far as it goes. Who is the opponent this would be aimed at, there has even been arguments that the era of forced beach landings are in the past and its a capability no longer needed. Untill you need it. Just thought of a situation. What if your carrier hits a mine or is hit by a sub, looses a catapult, has a deck crash, hit by a FAC, etc. and is down for several hours or is a mission-kill. Now what, the whole invasion/attack is off. Unless you have a second option that can buy your Marines some time and the navy time to get back into the game.

[old_pop2000]

You know, in WWII all submarines had guns. Why not develop or use ballistic missile submarines as NSFS ships. Mount two waterproofed AGS for and aft. The submarine accompanies the ESG into action, rises to the surface, and the automatic gun system fires on request. Someone shoots back, just lock and seal the gun, submerge and hide.

Yeah, I know! I've watching the Sci-Fi channel too much.:D

[asnrobert]

You know, in WWII all submarines had guns. Why not develop or use ballistic missile submarines as NSFS ships. Mount two waterproofed AGS for and aft. The submarine accompanies the ESG into action, rises to the surface, and the automatic gun system fires on request. Someone shoots back, just lock and seal the gun, submerge and hide.

Yeah, I know! I've watching the Sci-Fi channel too much.:D

The problem is that submarines are the most vulnerable on the surface. All you need is some clown on the beach with a short range missile to put a hole in the "people tank" and the sub is virtually done for.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The problem is that submarines are the most vulnerable on the surface. All you need is some clown on the beach with a short range missile to put a hole in the "people tank" and the sub is virtually done for.

Robert:

"People tank"? Never heard that one before. Must be bubblehead jargon eh?;)

[old_pop2000]

The problem is that submarines are the most vulnerable on the surface. All you need is some clown on the beach with a short range missile to put a hole in the "people tank" and the sub is virtually done for.


You don't think that same clown on the same beach can't send a cruise missile into a DD-1000 destroyer? A sub is a much lower and harder target to hit.

[Warship NWS]

You don't think that same clown on the same beach can't send a cruise missile into a DD-1000 destroyer? A sub is a much lower and harder target to hit.

Depends on the missile being fired at it.. and how much time the sub will have before the missile slams into it. The best any SS radar can detect out to on a sub is ~20nm.. vs a VSMALL seaskimming target.. much less. Total time to submerge.. around 30 seconds or less. Anti-navy weapons can also be quite dangerous.. mines, CAPTOR type weapons, etc.. A sub might have the advantage of being able to submerge and a low profile but it is also very vulnerable if detected and just as vulnerable to mines as any surface ship during a bombardment mission.

WM also brought up the idea about a submersible for NGFS missions but I have doubts of its effectiveness. IMHO, I think the USN had a better idea.. a butt load of TLAMs on a boomer. The dangers to the sub are greatly minimized.

In the end.. fire a GPS or MITL guided LAM type weapon or drop a guided munition from a plane or give the Marines HIMARS, M198s, F-35s, and SPGs.. no submersible or ship or any silly gun at sea required. My opinion anyways.. the NGFS mission is obsolete in a modern war.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Usually
My take on the "fire support from sea" idea is because its one more option for commanders to use, its one more danger that an opponent has to consider, its sustaneable, low tech, and cheaper and flexable.

Actually I'm not a hard fast belever in the gun boat theroy, what I am a belever in is a weapon system that can provide sustaned accurate and wide-area fires at a range of sub-100 miles with a sub-3 minute response time and doesn't break the bank. So do it with missiles, rockets, guns, or aircraft is irrelevent. But today the only system that can do this is probably a gun or rocket system. Actually the best today is probably the AC-130 gun ships but they can be shot down, take hours to get on station and have limited ammo and loiter time. But if one is near buy, oh Bessy! Watch out.

You right as far as it goes. Who is the opponent this would be aimed at, there has even been arguments that the era of forced beach landings are in the past and its a capability no longer needed. Untill you need it. Just thought of a situation. What if your carrier hits a mine or is hit by a sub, looses a catapult, has a deck crash, hit by a FAC, etc. and is down for several hours or is a mission-kill. Now what, the whole invasion/attack is off. Unless you have a second option that can buy your Marines some time and the navy time to get back into the game.

Mike:

I'm not opposed to naval gunfire support or the elimination of naval guns on ships either. My main concern with the study in question is that is a very flawed analysis. In fact if the author had tried to put that Masters Thesis forth in a normal college environment, it would have been shredded during his defense. Having watched a few thesis defenses in my time, I can tell you his advisor would have been a fool to let him even bring it up for review. To justify the need for major caliber gunfire support, he uses a simulation that he himself admits is flawed and even assumes that certain types of shells that don't even exist yet (scramjet) will perform as advertised. As you pointed out with the Advanced Gun System, the proposed shells are failing in development. So we are supposed to believe that the shells proposed for the hypothetical Capital Surface Warship (hey let's call this 57,000 ton ship a battleship OK?) are going to be as effective as planned?

We need surface gunfire and ships with more magazine capacity. We don't need a 21st. century battleship anymore than we need a 21st. mounted knight. I do appreciate the study if only because it does have lots of information on weapons and weapons development. Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Let's really examine the NSFS problem. The real issue here is the range of the gun. Ballistically, we are not going to be able to build a 5, 6 or 8 inch gun that can accurately fire 62 miles without rocket motors and GPS guidance. The acceleration of the rocket motors will involve much hardening of the delicate electronics to support GPS. If we accept the notion that the Army/Marine requirement is valid, then lets reduce the range to something within ballistic limits without GPS guidance or rockets motors. Let's accept the 24 nm limit of the ballistic Long Range Projectile. Let's also accept the fact that with a 24 lb explosive limit, it's effect is going to be minimal. Let's simply build an HE projectile and a scatterable cluster munitions projectile. Infantry, non-armored vehicles, guns and missile positions in the open etc. will be the primary targets. Any moderately armored vehicle or hardened targets will be the responsibility of JDAM's or TLAM's. Target's outside of the 24 nm limit will also be the responsibility of UCAV's, manned aircraft, cruise missiles or at worse, theatre ballistic missiles.

Once the AGS system is modular and finalized, let's simply build wings or sponsons on the LHA-6 class of carriers or use ready reserve hulls to mount the guns, man them, install electronic sensors etc. to include them in the network centric systems currently fielded and ensure we have 12 to 24 hulls. If need be, buy the hulls from our European allies, install our propulsion systems, sensors and weapons ensuring that we field at least 24 of these ships. This would give us two per Expeditionary Strike Group, with two guns per ship.

Now, after satisfying the immediate requirement, let's go back to the drawing board, and redefine the missions, requirements and develop a long term NSFS ship, if after our review, the requirement is still valid.

[old_pop2000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg1uHRVx8-I

Forget the rocket assisted ammo, it has been cancelled.

[Warship NWS]

Now, after satisfying the immediate requirement, let's go back to the drawing board, and redefine the missions, requirements and develop a long term NSFS ship, if after our review, the requirement is still valid.


Requirement.. boy there is a key word. Note to Dennis, this is a general response, not directed at you specifically.

That has always been my problem with this whole topic the whole NGFS requirement thing... not only do I feel it is invalid.. it is obsolete. The whole idea of spending millions or even billions of dollars to simply blow up a building or tank that probably costs less then the weapon your firing at it is absurd (remember it takes a ship that costs money per hour to operate to haul that expensive gun around that fires expensive shells). There are MORE then enough portable or transportable weapons in the USMC arsenal that can blow up tanks and buildings .. why give them to USMC if you do not intend to use them? If you just flat out are that darn desperate for a crater maker on a ship.. put a darn MRLS on it with GPS guided rockets.. and we can do this with almost any ship in the USN. I want someone to prove to me that we need to build new weapons to blow up a silly tank or building when we already have weapons that can get the job done. I want someone to give me conclusive examples of when and where the USMC could not do their jobs because some ship could not lob a 5-8" shell for them.

Requirements.. that is the key word here. When have we required a NGFS (AKA floating crater maker) ship to accomplish a mission in the past 50 years??? Note, would the mission at the time have failed without it? Was the mission critically effected in a positive way with it? Was their other weapons available or that could have been deployed at a cheaper cost to allow the same effect?

Remember, and before anyone brings them up, the Iowas cost us $10k an hour to operate (the same costs of 2 CGs, 3 DDGs, much less mulitple FFGs).. and those were the ONLY dedicated NGFS in the USN since the end of WW2. What did they blow up that cost the enemy more then $10k an hour in exchange? I cannot think of a SINGLE thing they blew up that made them cost effective.. nothing, nada, squat, zippo. The only weapon they ever fired that proved cost effective on its own merit was the TLAM.. of which any ship or sub in our USN can carry for FAR cheaper. In the end, the only thing the Iowas ever proved really good at was a big extremely noisy missile barge that required constant babysitting by far more flexible warships.

[old_pop2000]

Requirement.. boy there is a key word.

That has always been my problem with this whole topic the whole NGFS requirement thing... not only do I feel it is invalid.. it is obsolete. .....

Requirements.. that is the key word here. When have we required a NGFS (AKA floating crater maker) ship to accomplish a mission in the past 50 years??? Note, would the mission at the time have failed without it? Was the mission critically effected in a positive way with it? Was their other weapons available or that could have been deployed at a cheaper cost to allow the same effect?




No offense taken. I have been saying in most of the threads, that I have doubts about the requirement and object to the range quantity. My point here is simply that all the pieces except the long range projectiles, are available. So let's fulfill the requirement with a smaller, more readily available hull, AGS with ballistic projectiles, sensors etc. and no stealth. If you want to put a cruise missile VLS on board, fine. Now, field the d... ships, and now, see if the Army/Marines actually put the ships to use. If they don't, then the requirement is bogus. Simply put, give them the ships, and review the requirement on a yearly basis. If the requirement is not being used, then it is not needed. Scrap the idea of a gun armed NSFS ship. The ships already produced can be used in the Frigate role if the that kind of hull is used. We can retro fit ASW, anti-mine equipment, and gain space, by removing one gun if that satisfies the needs. Build a frigate sized ship that can be reconfigurable if the NSFS requirement is determine through actual battlefield operations, to be a non-starter.

[paladin5]

Remember, and before anyone brings them up, the Iowas cost us $10k an hour to operate (the same costs of 2 CGs, 3 DDGs, much less mulitple FFGs).. and those were the ONLY dedicated NGFS in the USN since the end of WW2. What did they blow up that cost the enemy more then $10k an hour in exchange? I cannot think of a SINGLE thing they blew up that made them cost effective.. nothing, nada, squat, zippo. The only weapon they ever fired that proved cost effective on its own merit was the TLAM.. of which any ship or sub in our USN can carry for FAR cheaper. In the end, the only thing the Iowas ever proved really good at was a big extremely noisy missile barge that required constant babysitting by far more flexible warships.


Hey Warship how old is that 10k per hour figure? I am betting it would be much higher now thanks to the high price of fuel. Also i am betting that figure doesn't take into account to cost of paying about 2,000 people to crew an Iowa. Given those 2 factor i would say the cost of operating an Iowa is closer to 100k per hour then it is to 10k per hour.

[Warship NWS]

Hey Warship how old is that 10k per hour figure? I am betting it would be much higher now thanks to the high price of fuel. Also i am betting that figure doesn't take into account to cost of paying about 2,000 people to crew an Iowa. Given those 2 factor i would say the cost of operating an Iowa is closer to 100k per hour then it is to 10k per hour.

That was based on 1990s figures.. at present day, including the age of the ship itself, it would probably be $15-$20k per hour by now. The costs were based on operational figures including crew, maintenance at sea, etc.. it does not however include the costs of required escorting ships, remember, the Iowa was good for only two things.. moving mud around and collecting seagull crap. The Iowas were the ONLY ships in the USN inventory since the end of WW2 that operated for only one single purpose.. moving mud. Every other major naval platform has had mutiple naval operational functions.

[old_pop2000]

That was based on 1990s figures.. at present day, including the age of the ship itself, it would probably be $15-$20k per hour by now. The costs were based on operational figures including crew, maintenance at sea, etc.. it does not however include the costs of required escorting ships, remember, the Iowa was good for only two things.. moving mud around and collecting seagull crap. The Iowas were the ONLY ships in the USN inventory since the end of WW2 that operated for only one single purpose.. moving mud. Every other major naval platform has had mutiple naval operational functions.

While the cost per hour is useful as one factor for not bringing them back, in point of fact, the 16 inch shell's collateral damage effects is such that it would limit it usefulness in some operations. Most of the targets for the NSFS ship will not be hardened bunkers or block houses and shore line fortifications. No one is going to be invading Iwo Jima or Normandy, anytime soon. If I am a Marine recon unit, and I want to take out a building nearby, I might not want a 2750 lb 16 inch shell landing anywhere near my position. If for no other reason, that is why the battleships are useless. If I am that Marine Recon unit, I might not mind a 2000 lb JDAM with GPS or laser guidance since I have some reasonable assurances that it will hit exactly where I have planned it to hit. I can't say that with a ballistically guided 16 inch shell.

[Warship NWS]

Yeah, blowing up every tree in the forest, every vehicle in a combat zone, or every building on a city block is simply not an option in a present day combat environment - can anyone remember why we used 70% guided munitions in GW2? Big guns with unguided ordnance.. obsolete big time.

[old_pop2000]

Yeah, blowing up every tree in the forest, every vehicle in a combat zone, or every building on a city block is simply not an option in a present day combat environment - can anyone remember why we used 70% guided munitions in GW2? Big guns with unguided ordnance.. obsolete big time.


Yeah, deforestation isn't good for the global warming issue. And if you destroy a town, you will probably have to rebuild it, so that gets expensive. 16 inch shells do not discriminate between friend or foe.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Requirements.. that is the key word here. When have we required a NGFS (AKA floating crater maker) ship to accomplish a mission in the past 50 years??? Note, would the mission at the time have failed without it? Was the mission critically effected in a positive way with it? Was their other weapons available or that could have been deployed at a cheaper cost to allow the same effect?

Remember, and before anyone brings them up, the Iowas cost us $10k an hour to operate (the same costs of 2 CGs, 3 DDGs, much less mulitple FFGs).. and those were the ONLY dedicated NGFS in the USN since the end of WW2. What did they blow up that cost the enemy more then $10k an hour in exchange? I cannot think of a SINGLE thing they blew up that made them cost effective.. nothing, nada, squat, zippo. The only weapon they ever fired that proved cost effective on its own merit was the TLAM.. of which any ship or sub in our USN can carry for FAR cheaper. In the end, the only thing the Iowas ever proved really good at was a big extremely noisy missile barge that required constant babysitting by far more flexible warships.

Chris:

I agree, but for whatever reason the supporters of the NGFS mission seem to think that the US will have to perform a forced entry in a hostile nation and thereby require gunfire until the Marines get off the beachs. Now why they have to reach so far inland is beyond me. None of the invasions in the past required that long ranged mission. While airpower is not always available, I can't see any long range targets that would not have been neutralized well before the ground forces ever deploy.

I think there must be a group of Marine and Army officers who are the 21st. Century's version of the "Gun Club". They have fixed in their minds some sort of backwards notion of how we fight wars these days. In their minds its Korea all over again.

[Ed Rotondaro]

While the cost per hour is useful as one factor for not bringing them back, in point of fact, the 16 inch shell's collateral damage effects is such that it would limit it usefulness in some operations. Most of the targets for the NSFS ship will not be hardened bunkers or block houses and shore line fortifications. No one is going to be invading Iwo Jima or Normandy, anytime soon. If I am a Marine recon unit, and I want to take out a building nearby, I might not want a 2750 lb 16 inch shell landing anywhere near my position. If for no other reason, that is why the battleships are useless. If I am that Marine Recon unit, I might not mind a 2000 lb JDAM with GPS or laser guidance since I have some reasonable assurances that it will hit exactly where I have planned it to hit. I can't say that with a ballistically guided 16 inch shell.

Dennis:

Another thing to keep in mind is that for the battleship to be effective, it would need a whole new line of ammo types. The old AP or HC shells just aren't going to work on the sorts of targets that the Marines want to take out. I'm not even sure if the SADARM program is still viable.

[asnrobert]

You don't think that same clown on the same beach can't send a cruise missile into a DD-1000 destroyer? A sub is a much lower and harder target to hit.

Yes, but submarines are just as expensive. Also, I don't know about attack subs, but the boomers I served on (and they would probably be the ones converted to do this since the attack subs might be too small) don't dive in 30 to 60 seconds like the WWII pigboats, more like a couple minutes. However, I suppose they could broach without blowing their tanks, fire the weapon, and submerge.

BTW, the British did have a 1910s-20s submarine called the M1 that was designed to do what you describe:
http://submariners.co.uk/Boats/Barrowbuilt/M_Class/index.php
http://submariners.co.uk/Dits/Articles/m1.php

[old_pop2000]

Yes, but submarines are just as expensive. Also, I don't know about attack subs, but the boomers I served on (and they would probably be the ones converted to do this since the attack subs might be too small) don't dive in 30 to 60 seconds like the WWII pigboats, more like a couple minutes. However, I suppose they could broach without blowing their tanks, fire the weapon, and submerge.

BTW, the British did have a 1910s-20s submarine called the M1 that was designed to do what you describe:


Thanks, my idea was so screwy after all. We could call them submarine monitors.

[asnrobert]

I think the whole idea of gunfire support, whether from a submarine, or a DDX or a battleship is rather antiquated. I don't believe our armed forces will need to be storming Festung Europa any time in the near future. Plus from what I've read, battleship bombardments weren't always that effective, as the attacks on the fortified island garrisons in the Pacific proved. I think if there is any need to attack any sort of fortified beach, I think airstrikes and/or cruise missiles would be sufficient to neutralize any defenses, followed by troops landed by helicopter. If there was any real need for gunfire support, I think it could be done on the cheap as suggested (MRLS or howitzer on a landing craft).

[Ed Rotondaro]

Thanks, my idea was so screwy after all. We could call them submarine monitors.

Dennis:

Remember the French submarine cruiser Surcouf? It had a turret with twin 8" guns and a hanger for a seaplane. It was lost under mysterious circumstances while trying to defect from Vichy France in WWII. There was a class of US subs with two 6" guns, the Narwhal and the Argonaut. These were old boats designed in the late 1920s and actually spent most of their time as transports for Marine raiders.

[Warship NWS]

Ironic question.. why are we even discussing the battleship at all in terms of NGFS when all that is being asked for is a single barrel on a ship of 5-8" in calibre to start with? Does this not in itself prove to some degree that the battleship was never really needed to begin with for such missions or is there the percieved and supposed requirement of the idea that we just cannot operate an MEF without some darn naval gun firing shells around the countryside?

I just find that entire line of context somewhat ironic.

[john964]

Dennis:

Remember the French submarine cruiser Surcouf? It had a turret with twin 8" guns and a hanger for a seaplane. It was lost under mysterious circumstances while trying to defect from Vichy France in WWII. There was a class of US subs with two 6" guns, the Narwhal and the Argonaut. These were old boats designed in the late 1920s and actually spent most of their time as transports for Marine raiders.
Ed, The FNS Surcouf was in Brest under going a refitt when France fell she sailed to Plymouth with only one engine working and a jammed rudder. Sucouf was accidently rammed and sunk by the SS Thompson Lykes off Panama near the CZ. Both ships were running with out lights due to the U-boat threat.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, The FNS Surcouf was in Brest under going a refitt when France fell she sailed to Plymouth with only one engine working and a jammed rudder. Sucouf was accidently rammed and sunk by the SS Thompson Lykes off Panama near the CZ. Both ships were running with out lights due to the U-boat threat.

John:

"Conspiracy Theorists" are touting she was deliberately sunk.;) None of them have ever been at sea at night at war.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ironic question.. why are we even discussing the battleship at all in terms of NGFS when all that is being asked for is a single barrel on a ship of 5-8" in calibre to start with? Does this not in itself prove to some degree that the battleship was never really needed to begin with for such missions or is there the percieved and supposed requirement of the idea that we just cannot operate an MEF without some darn naval gun firing shells around the countryside?

I just find that entire line of context somewhat ironic.

Chris:

As I posted, the entire thesis would have been crushed by any decent reveiw board. The Marines are brave, determined and well trained. They need to get with the modern program though.

[old_pop2000]

Here is a slide show, giving the overall requirements for NSFS. Simple and straightforward.

See the interesting part about response time: 2.5 minutes from target acquistion to impact.

Note the future range requirement in excess of 262 nm.

Where did they get this stuff from, a ouija board.

Yeah!! Right!!

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002artillery/milligan.pdf

Enjoy

[Warship NWS]

Non-organic NGFS would not be able to respond in 2.5 minutes.. not unless comms, targeting, spotting, ship positioning, etc.. were in perfect harmony, I would be surprised if the USMC organic artillery could pull that off. BTW, a shell of WW2 took around 40-60 seconds to land on a target at around 12-15 miles.. and they want to pull this off at 60+ miles??? Where does reality come in knocking here?

[old_pop2000]

Non-organic NGFS would not be able to respond in 2.5 minutes.. not unless comms, targeting, spotting, ship positioning, etc.. were in perfect harmony, I would be surprised if the USMC organic artillery could pull that off. BTW, a shell of WW2 took around 40-60 seconds to land on a target at around 12-15 miles.. and they want to pull this off at 60+ miles??? Where does reality come in knocking here?

I can honestly see why is took almost fourteen years from the time the last BB was sent to the boneyard, to 2006 for the Marines and Navy to come to some sort of agreement on the NSFS requirements. The Navy probably just got tired, said yes. Then as they left the room, said to themselves " In your dreams, Marines". :rolleyes:

[old_pop2000]

For those of you interested, a shell from the new AGS weapon would be traveling as it leaves the barrel at 30 miles per minute. That means it would reach the target at 262 miles in about 8 minutes or so. To reach it in 2.5 minutes, it would have to be traveling at over 8000 feet per second as it leaves the barrel, to arrive in the required time.

I believe that a jet would have to be traveling at over 4000 miles per hour, to accomplish that same feet.

Based on Google conversions, so don't blame me.

[Mike D]

Non-organic NGFS would not be able to respond in 2.5 minutes.. not unless comms, targeting, spotting, ship positioning, etc.. were in perfect harmony, I would be surprised if the USMC organic artillery could pull that off. BTW, a shell of WW2 took around 40-60 seconds to land on a target at around 12-15 miles.. and they want to pull this off at 60+ miles??? Where does reality come in knocking here?

Actually, I think the 2.5 minutes comes in as from fire-mission call to lanyard pull. I've actually seen Army units at Ft. Sill do just about that with towed artillery. Stop the truck, dismount, set up the gun and train it, load and fire in about 3 minutes or less.

Dennis your spot on. The Canadians rate their M777 at 827m/sec with a "standard" loading. Not sure what that means. And the M777 is on the velocity top end of field artillery, most are slower. So at that velocity 30 miles/minute is spot on. Isn't that about the same for the naval 5 inch?

Did a quick check and the specs for the AGS list 821 - 835m/sec (depending on source) which is essentially the same as the M777. So that makes it basically on par with the M777. For about 50 times the price. Hmmmm.... I smell a rat.

[old_pop2000]

Actually, I think the 2.5 minutes comes in as from fire-mission call to lanyard pull. I've actually seen Army units at Ft. Sill do just about that with towed artillery. Stop the truck, dismount, set up the gun and train it, load and fire in about 3 minutes or less.

Dennis your spot on. The Canadians rate their M777 at 827m/sec with a "standard" loading. Not sure what that means. And the M777 is on the velocity top end of field artillery, most are slower. So at that velocity 30 miles/minute is spot on. Isn't that about the same for the naval 5 inch?

Did a quick check and the specs for the AGS list 821 - 835m/sec (depending on source) which is essentially the same as the M777. So that makes it basically on par with the M777.


A 5" 62 cal with a Mark 80 projectile and a Mark 67 cartridge fires at an MV of 831 M/S or 2725 FPS. So, yes, it is just about the same.

You are correct, it is 2.5 minutes from the time the target is acquired to the time the first projectile is on the way. That is still cutting it pretty close, but it is manageable with network centricism. thanks for the clarification.

At least I know my math wasn't too bad. :D

[Warship NWS]

Actually guys.. read that report again.. the 2.5 minutes INCLUDED time of flight. Also, name the last time any naval gun was fired within 2.5 minutes of a fire mission call in any war and where the shells landed within a 20-50 meter CEP? If the organic artillery can BARELY push 3 minutes how the heck is a ship going to do it that is not organic? Organic DOES make a critical difference in interservice communications and logistical considerations.. it is not some word for fun. Another problem not addressed.. if they want accuracy and volume of fire how do you do this with guided munitions? Sorry, can't fire 20 RPM with ERGMs.. and who is going to target 20 ERGMs in flight at once to start with? How about wear and tear on the gun barrel from firing non-standard guided rounds? The devil is in the details.. and LOTS of details are missing here.. I see a lot of wishfull pipe dream thinking, not enough reality checks in that brochure level of report. I also found it interesting about the "augmenting" of the MEF artillery units using the naval guns.. so how long are those ships going to be doing donuts off shore waiting for targets? Does this not multiply the risk factor for the ship itself or are they counting on the enemy just not doing squat about it?

Stick with organic artillery/MRLS systems, aircraft, and OTH land attack missiles.. I cannot see in any way shape or form how naval gunfire will be anywhere close to being as efficient, accurate, effective, or versitale -- and definitely not as cost effective.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Actually guys.. read that report again.. the 2.5 minutes INCLUDED time of flight. Also, name the last time any naval gun was fired within 2.5 minutes of a fire mission call in any war and where the shells landed within a 20-50 meter CEP? If the organic artillery can BARELY push 3 minutes how the heck is a ship going to do it that is not organic? ....



On one slide, it states clearly that "A responsive system should achieve the first round away within 2.5 minutes of acquiring the counterbattery target." However, on the next slide they imply that the 2.5 minutes was from target acquisition to fire impact. The NSFS requirements summary matrix show 2.5 minutes for near term, mid term and far term system response.

[Warship NWS]

Dennis, that PDF file was not only unorganized but also vague and extremely inconlusive. A few fancy numbers with no real basis of research and analysis.. I hope someone did better then that when they thought up this whole crater maker idea.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is a slide show, giving the overall requirements for NSFS. Simple and straightforward.

See the interesting part about response time: 2.5 minutes from target acquistion to impact.

Note the future range requirement in excess of 262 nm.

Where did they get this stuff from, a ouija board.

Yeah!! Right!!

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002artillery/milligan.pdf

Enjoy


Dennis:

I can't believe that nonsense. What the hell has happened to the military? Do they believe that they can kill anything from long range without risk? I think the Marines went from close assault gung-ho mentality to "let's make sure nobody gets hurt by letting the guns do the job". While keeping casualties down is admirable, this idea of push button instant kill from a distance is nonsense. This is the sort of stuff that desk officers make their careers on. Push some sort of unrealistic theory and let it gain traction and spend years writing papers about it. In the end nothing changes.:rolleyes:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Non-organic NGFS would not be able to respond in 2.5 minutes.. not unless comms, targeting, spotting, ship positioning, etc.. were in perfect harmony, I would be surprised if the USMC organic artillery could pull that off. BTW, a shell of WW2 took around 40-60 seconds to land on a target at around 12-15 miles.. and they want to pull this off at 60+ miles??? Where does reality come in knocking here?

Chris:

Exactly! While land based artillery has a pretty good response time, this is just pure nonsense. I actually have to give Congress credit for not buying into this as well as the top brass in the navy. The Marines need a wake up call.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Actually guys.. read that report again.. the 2.5 minutes INCLUDED time of flight. Also, name the last time any naval gun was fired within 2.5 minutes of a fire mission call in any war and where the shells landed within a 20-50 meter CEP? If the organic artillery can BARELY push 3 minutes how the heck is a ship going to do it that is not organic? Organic DOES make a critical difference in interservice communications and logistical considerations.. it is not some word for fun. Another problem not addressed.. if they want accuracy and volume of fire how do you do this with guided munitions? Sorry, can't fire 20 RPM with ERGMs.. and who is going to target 20 ERGMs in flight at once to start with? How about wear and tear on the gun barrel from firing non-standard guided rounds? The devil is in the details.. and LOTS of details are missing here.. I see a lot of wishfull pipe dream thinking, not enough reality checks in that brochure level of report. I also found it interesting about the "augmenting" of the MEF artillery units using the naval guns.. so how long are those ships going to be doing donuts off shore waiting for targets? Does this not multiply the risk factor for the ship itself or are they counting on the enemy just not doing squat about it?

Stick with organic artillery/MRLS systems, aircraft, and OTH land attack missiles.. I cannot see in any way shape or form how naval gunfire will be anywhere close to being as efficient, accurate, effective, or versitale -- and definitely not as cost effective.

Thanks.

Chris:

As a corollary to your post, have any of these "experts" considered barrel wear? The level of fire support that they are asking for from major caliber guns would burn out a gun barrel in a day. So great, the ship fires like crazy and then has to leave to get a new gun. Mission kill by doing the mission.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis, that PDF file was not only unorganized but also vague and extremely inconlusive. A few fancy numbers with no real basis of research and analysis.. I hope someone did better then that when they thought up this whole crater maker idea.

Thanks.

Yea, a real con job! The Marines are learning political tricks. They know the numbers are bogus.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Chris:

As a corollary to your post, have any of these "experts" considered barrel wear? The level of fire support that they are asking for from major caliber guns would burn out a gun barrel in a day. So great, the ship fires like crazy and then has to leave to get a new gun. Mission kill by doing the mission.

Hi Ed,

I don't know about the AFGS, but gun life in 155 mm artillery is pretty long, thousands of rounds. Barrel change is pretty easy as well, you can change a tank gun barrel pretty quickly in the field with a 5 ton wrecker. An M68 105mm tank gun had an effective life of about 400 full service rounds. Had to keep track of rounds fired in the vehicle log book. HEAT, HEP, and WP were considerably easier on the barrel as opposed to APDS by a factor of three or four to one. One of the reasons, service APDS was not fired in qualification in addition to the large range fan of 33,000 meters required. Target practice APDS featured an aluminum penetrator and sabot. Training rounds had the suffix TPT and were panited blue. They featured aluminum shell heads to reduce wear on the barrels. Once a year the guns were gauged to check wear and tehelife remaining adjusted based upon actual wear. Generalltreplaced after the 50% mark was reached overseas and more in the states as we would draw tanks from depots if deployed to Europe or Korea.

[old_pop2000]

Here is some fresh information, dtd July 31,2008 on the Navy's Surface Combatant Programs.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/95xx/doc9571/07-31-Shipbuilding_Testimony.pdf

This is budgetary information but that is important when considering alternatives to the current solutions to a perceived requirement.

[john964]

John:

"Conspiracy Theorists" are touting she was deliberately sunk.;) None of them have ever been at sea at night at war.The "Conspiracy Theorist" claim that she was carring the French Gold reseves ala USS Trout. They also claim that she was sunk in Long Island Sound by at least 2 US subs a U-boat and at least 1 blimp.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I don't know about the AFGS, but gun life in 155 mm artillery is pretty long, thousands of rounds. Barrel change is pretty easy as well, you can change a tank gun barrel pretty quickly in the field with a 5 ton wrecker. An M68 105mm tank gun had an effective life of about 400 full service rounds. Had to keep track of rounds fired in the vehicle log book. HEAT, HEP, and WP were considerably easier on the barrel as opposed to APDS by a factor of three or four to one. One of the reasons, service APDS was not fired in qualification in addition to the large range fan of 33,000 meters required. Target practice APDS featured an aluminum penetrator and sabot. Training rounds had the suffix TPT and were panited blue. They featured aluminum shell heads to reduce wear on the barrels. Once a year the guns were gauged to check wear and tehelife remaining adjusted based upon actual wear. Generalltreplaced after the 50% mark was reached overseas and more in the states as we would draw tanks from depots if deployed to Europe or Korea.

Mike:

Interesting data, thanks as always. I was referring more to the proposed "major caliber" weapon that the study was advancing. For all intents and purposes, the author wants a 16" armed ship. Now the 16"/50 cal that arms the Iowa class was good for about 300 AP rounds before needing to be relined. It could fire many more HE rounds since they are fired at a lower velocity and weigh less. Still you put 500 rounds down the barrel and you will be shooting a 16.25" gun (Malcom Muir, Iowa class battleships). The rounds will not seat correctly and will actually be pushed further up the barrel by the rammer.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is some fresh information, dtd July 31,2008 on the Navy's Surface Combatant Programs.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/95xx/doc9571/07-31-Shipbuilding_Testimony.pdf

This is budgetary information but that is important when considering alternatives to the current solutions to a perceived requirement.

Dennis:

This should be fun to read. My boss is out of the office so I can goof off even more than usual today.:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

The "Conspiracy Theorist" claim that she was carring the French Gold reseves ala USS Trout. They also claim that she was sunk in Long Island Sound by at least 2 US subs a U-boat and at least 1 blimp.


John:

That is so funny. Where do these rumors come from?

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Interesting data, thanks as always. I was referring more to the proposed "major caliber" weapon that the study was advancing. For all intents and purposes, the author wants a 16" armed ship. Now the 16"/50 cal that arms the Iowa class was good for about 300 AP rounds before needing to be relined. It could fire many more HE rounds since they are fired at a lower velocity and weigh less. Still you put 500 rounds down the barrel and you will be shooting a 16.25" gun (Malcom Muir, Iowa class battleships). The rounds will not seat correctly and will actually be pushed further up the barrel by the rammer.


hi Ed,

A 16" gun is a whole different animal. Garke and Dulin's revised volume on US Battleships spends some time dealing with attempts to develope a cooler burning powder and less erosive shells for edh Iowas in the 80s with some success. Have top look it up at home tonight, but time had passed the battleship by for gunfire support as well. You can buy a lot of cruise missiles and other PGMs for what the reactivation and operating costs of those ships would be. You never want to say never, but such large scale amphibious landins are as thing of the past as well because there are simply better strategies to accomplish that task.

I think Dennis mentioned the Paris gun ealier. Hogg describes it and how barrel erosion was dealt with by having the rounds numbered sequentually, shell diameter growing to compensate. That was only part of teh problem as the long barrel suffered from whip, dispersing the shells for range.

[Ed Rotondaro]

hi Ed,

A 16" gun is a whole different animal. Garke and Dulin's revised volume on US Battleships spends some time dealing with attempts to develope a cooler burning powder and less erosive shells for edh Iowas in the 80s with some success. Have top look it up at home tonight, but time had passed the battleship by for gunfire support as well. You can buy a lot of cruise missiles and other PGMs for what the reactivation and operating costs of those ships would be. You never want to say never, but such large scale amphibious landins are as thing of the past as well because there are simply better strategies to accomplish that task.

I think Dennis mentioned the Paris gun ealier. Hogg describes it and how barrel erosion was dealt with by having the rounds numbered sequentually, shell diameter growing to compensate. That was only part of teh problem as the long barrel suffered from whip, dispersing the shells for range.

Mike:

That is an interesting solution to the problem of barrel wear. I don't know if you have had a chance to download that study that Mike Dobbins had posted the link to. Some of the stuff being advanced there is quite questionable. I think this forum has done better research than the Lt. Colonel who wrote it and won an award for it. I get a real kick out of the requirement for 2.5 minutes from call to fire and then firing. So is the warship supposed to go around with a 16" shell already loaded? Does the author even know how long the firing cycle is on an Iowa class ship? Sure once the action starts an Iowa can probably pump out two rounds a minute per barrel, but for accurate fire the ships usually fired single shots while anchored. I would have loved to have had the chance to grill this author during his master's thesis defense. It would have made a Top Gun Murder board look like a picnic.

[john964]

John:

That is so funny. Where do these rumors come from?
To say the least "Conspiricy Theorist" are a wierd bunch. Here are some "Offbeat" ones frome WWII.

1) The British actully attacked Pearl Harbor.
2) Chirchil knew of the attack but refused to warn the US.
3) Norwegain gold reserves were never returned by GB.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

That is an interesting solution to the problem of barrel wear. I don't know if you have had a chance to download that study that Mike Dobbins had posted the link to. Some of the stuff being advanced there is quite questionable. I think this forum has done better research than the Lt. Colonel who wrote it and won an award for it. I get a real kick out of the requirement for 2.5 minutes from call to fire and then firing. So is the warship supposed to go around with a 16" shell already loaded? Does the author even know how long the firing cycle is on an Iowa class ship? Sure once the action starts an Iowa can probably pump out two rounds a minute per barrel, but for accurate fire the ships usually fired single shots while anchored. I would have loved to have had the chance to grill this author during his master's thesis defense. It would have made a Top Gun Murder board look like a picnic.


Hi Ed,

I read it online. A lot of the dead time is also commnicating the information to your FDC, be it afloat or ashore. It's just not just looking and talking, there are observations to be made to determine teh target's location wither by eye or laser. You have to send your target info to the FDC and have the solution determinined, sent to the guns, and then fired. A lot of this had been digitalized, but your still dealing with humans in the loop. 2.5 minutes seems very optimistic as is that CEP. I'm sure the gun can be that accurate, but your target location my not be. So additional rounds may have to be adjusted by teh observer. That's without counting teh dead time for gun operation.

Perhaps these review boards are looking more for composition and completeness rather than the idea's practicality. There is the story, perhaps apochyphal, that the founder of FEDEX used his idea in a college thesis about air shipping of packages and was told the idea was ridiculous.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I read it online. A lot of the dead time is also commnicating the information to your FDC, be it afloat or ashore. It's just not just looking and talking, there are observations to be made to determine teh target's location wither by eye or laser. You have to send your target info to the FDC and have the solution determinined, sent to the guns, and then fired. A lot of this had been digitalized, but your still dealing with humans in the loop. 2.5 minutes seems very optimistic as is that CEP. I'm sure the gun can be that accurate, but your target location my not be. So additional rounds may have to be adjusted by teh observer. That's without counting teh dead time for gun operation.

Perhaps these review boards are looking more for composition and completeness rather than the idea's practicality. There is the story, perhaps apochyphal, that the founder of FEDEX used his idea in a college thesis about air shipping of packages and was told the idea was ridiculous.

Mike:

Good points about the practicalities of gunfire support. Were you trained in calling in artillery when in the Army? That is a funny story about FEDEX if true.

[old_pop2000]

http://www.defense-update.com/features/2008/august08/lcs.html

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Good points about the practicalities of gunfire support. Were you trained in calling in artillery when in the Army? That is a funny story about FEDEX if true.

Hi Ed,

I heard that story about FEDEX in the mid 80s, nice if it were true. Yes, I was trained in calling in fire support and manual FDC proceudres using a manual plotting board. However, my skills were lacking to say the least as we didn't use them much. I used to tease an arty friend of mine if Germany about "never trust a guy that shoots at somethingf he can see." Direct fire was tough enough for me.

Calling in fire is not that difficult, the big trick is knowing where you are and the enemy is when you do. I was always pretty good at reading a map. Once the first rounds hit, you adjust from there. I left the service just as TAC Fire was coming into service, so I don't know how much faster in terms of response the new automated systems are. The new systems definitely help arty units set up and fire without the extensive surveying in teh past. I'm sure automated systems allow masssing of fires and TOTs faster and easier.

In Korea, we used to take out our three M109 mortar tracks up to Crab Island for fire control training and crew training. I used to sweat those FC solutions.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I heard that story about FEDEX in the mid 80s, nice if it were true. Yes, I was trained in calling in fire support and manual FDC proceudres using a manual plotting board. However, my skills were lacking to say the least as we didn't use them much. I used to tease an arty friend of mine if Germany about "never trust a guy that shoots at somethingf he can see." Direct fire was tough enough for me.

Calling in fire is not that difficult, the big trick is knowing where you are and the enemy is when you do. I was always pretty good at reading a map. Once the first rounds hit, you adjust from there. I left the service just as TAC Fire was coming into service, so I don't know how much faster in terms of response the new automated systems are. The new systems definitely help arty units set up and fire without the extensive surveying in teh past. I'm sure automated systems allow masssing of fires and TOTs faster and easier.

In Korea, we used to take out our three M109 mortar tracks up to Crab Island for fire control training and crew training. I used to sweat those FC solutions.

Mike:

Thanks, You are a good man to have in a fight!;)