Arsenal Ships

[ngatimozart]

Understood, and it is a radical idea, but it does have it's merits.

5" shells are less than 70% the size and power of a 155mm, on the average. A hundred missiles have the range, but they can't smoother a target the way 15 guns with hundreds of rounds per gun can.
And given the possibility of counter-battery fire, maybe the armor isn't such a bad idea?

What do you think your counter battery fire is going to be? Its going to be ASCM, probably supersonic or hypersonic and what armour is going to stop that? Bugger all. That's why the USN as been going down the track of distributed lethality, which is basically if it floats - it fights.

 

[Todjaeger]

What do you think your counter battery fire is going to be? Its going to be ASCM, probably supersonic or hypersonic and what armour is going to stop that? Bugger all. That's why the USN as been going down the track of distributed lethality, which is basically if it floats - it fights.

Or how about something other than counterbattery fire? Instead perhaps a modern heavyweight torpedoe which detonates beneath the hull and breaks the back of the ship?

The fundamental problem with the "Arsenal ship" concept has been that it really is too expensive, specialized, and limited in options for both the cost to bring into commission/operate, as well as properly managing the risk vs. reward in terms of potential service losses. So far, none of the ideas I have seen presented either provide the overall broad, very flexible and highly capable options a USN CVN, or the less broad but more independent potential options available to USN DDG's.

One is presently left with a high-value, all eggs in one basket vessel which does not require escort to/through contested areas from undersea, surface & aerial threats. The other option is IMO just about a unappealing, in that it provides a high-value target which is highly capable across a narrow range of combat or fire support options, but would require escort vessels to protect against threat domains that it's capabilities are just not suited to. In effect, it would require an escort of some kind similar to a carrier gets, yet does not provide the range or degree of capabilities that a carrier can.

Either way, it still remains an "interesting" idea, but one that does not seem to be worthwhile at present.

 

[JohnWolf]

.....
Either way, it still remains an "interesting" idea, but one that does not seem to be worthwhile at present.

Agreed.
It was not something I would be enthusiastic about in any case, I just tried to come up with a cheap & cheerful solution to a weird problem.

Edit to add -

What we were told in the 80s when the Iowas were re-activated was that one Battleship could do as much damage in one hour as a Carrier Air Group could in 24 hours. In terms of weight of shells fired vs. iron bombs dropped, that is very true. However, the trick is you have to get close enough.
Last year, Rheinmetall Denel Munitions (RDM) came up with 155mm rounds capable of traveling from 45-76km., so that isn't the issue it used to be.

What motivated me with using that antiquated ship was twofold; there is a limit to the facy gew-gaws that contractors would be able to tack onto it, and the forgotten power of artillery. Instead of one big BOOM and then nothing, artillery is persistent and able to do great damage to a Regiement dispersed and dug-in over a frontage of kilometers. A few missiles costing dozens of millions of dollars can't do that.
That's what was on my mind there.

 

[Todjaeger]

Agreed.
It was not something I would be enthusiastic about in any case, I just tried to come up with a cheap & cheerful solution to a weird problem.

Edit to add -

What we were told in the 80s when the Iowas were re-activated was that one Battleship could do as much damage in one hour as a Carrier Air Group could in 24 hours. In terms of weight of shells fired vs. iron bombs dropped, that is very true. However, the trick is you have to get close enough.
Last year, Rheinmetall Denel Munitions (RDM) came up with 155mm rounds capable of traveling from 45-76km., so that isn't the issue it used to be.

What motivated me with using that antiquated ship was twofold; there is a limit to the facy gew-gaws that contractors would be able to tack onto it, and the forgotten power of artillery. Instead of one big BOOM and then nothing, artillery is persistent and able to do great damage to a Regiement dispersed and dug-in over a frontage of kilometers. A few missiles costing dozens of millions of dollars can't do that.
That's what was on my mind there.

There have been quite a few developments since even the 1980's in terms of air and arty support. At this point, the total weight of shells does seem to be significantly less important than getting a much smaller number (in qty and potentially size as well) of shells with high precision where they need to go. As things stand now, an air-launched weapon like the GBU-53/SDB II costs ~USD$115k (2015 production run) with a range of ~72 km and is able to detect and strike a target with a great deal of precision, so that less ordnance is required and less collateral damage caused.

If one were to talk about precision guided munitions that have a price range in the millions per round, then there is no artillery or NGS gun or shell with comparable capability. AFAIK the guided ordnance costing in the millions all tends to be very long-ranged standoff ordnance. The avg unit FY2020 cost for JASSM (an average including all types) works out to ~USD$1.26 mil. per missile, but these are standoff LACM with ranges starting at ~370 km and also have LO features in addition to advanced guidance. This class of ordnance is typically used against targets of strategic importance like C4ISR centres, critical infrastructure, or logistical chokepoints.

 

[the concerned]

I still think once the technology has matured enough all you need is a vessel with one laser system and one rail gun.

 

[John Fedup]

I still think once the technology has matured enough all you need is a vessel with one laser system and one rail gun.

...and a big a$$ GT to supply the needed electrical power. An IEP system would be nice as well. Too bad the the USN only built 3 such vessels.

 

[ngatimozart]

I still think once the technology has matured enough all you need is a vessel with one laser system and one rail gun.

Dream on.

 

[Boagrius]

TBH I think a weapon like MAD FIRES probably has more promise for the foreseeable future, at least conceptually.

I note that the US EMRG effort has gone strangely quiet in recent years. IIRC barrel wear was a bit of a problem.

 

[John Fedup]

MAD-Fires could be useful for our Halifax frigates, especially if they are required to serve longer due to CSC program delays. Is the rate of fire too low to justify these rounds in a 127 mm gun planned for the CSC/Hunters? Also of note is the 127 mm HVP round.

Navy Quietly Fires 20 Hyper Velocity Projectiles Through Destroyer’s Deckgun - USNI News

Last summer USS Dewey (DDG-105) fired 20 hyper velocity projectiles (HVP) from a standard Mk 45 5-inch deck gun in a quiet experiment that’s set to add new utility to the weapon found on almost every U.S. warship, officials familiar with the test have told USNI News. The test, conducted by the...

news.usni.org

 

[Boagrius]

To be honest the guided 5 inch HVP round sounds very similar, albeit delivered at higher speed over greater distances at lower ROF. It is an interesting trade - 57mm MAD-Fires gives you the ability to put a wall of guided fury between you and any incoming ASCMs at the expense of reach and NGFS, while the 5 inch gives you the speed and reach and NGFS capability minus the sheer volume...

 

[Todjaeger]

To be honest the guided 5 inch HVP round sounds very similar, albeit delivered at higher speed over greater distances at lower ROF. It is an interesting trade - 57mm MAD-Fires gives you the ability to put a wall of guided fury between you and any incoming ASCMs at the expense of reach and NGFS, while the 5 inch gives you the speed and reach and NGFS capability minus the sheer volume...

Not sure that there would really be a significant difference in terms of the weight of shot. A 127mm round (not sure if it is the complete round or just shell weight) is ~29 kg, while a Mk 295 Mod 0 57 mm 3P-HE fuzed cartridge weighs ~6.1 kg, with the projectile having a weight of 2.4 kg. Looking further, it does appear that the weight of 29 kg is the projectile weight, so that works out roughly to one 127 mm round being the equivalent to ~10 57 mm rounds. If a new 127 mm shell were to be developed (or is already in service) with AHEAD-like capabilities could permit a wall of shells and shell fragments to be sent down range. Also, if memory serves and the Leonardo OTO 127/64 naval gun were fitted instead of the BAE Systems Mk 45, the Italian guns are supposed to have a ROF of up to 40 RPM which is about twice of the BAE 127 mm...

 

[John Fedup]

Once both are perfected, perhaps a secret evaluation will determine which system is best for specific ships. Assuming a T26 hull plug to accommodate both is gun fantasy.

Just saw your post above Todjaeger so my comment above is somewhat moot. Interesting info about the OTO gun, there has been some criticism about the 127 mm BAE choice for the CSC. Any idea on the cost difference?

 

[Todjaeger]

Once both are perfected, perhaps a secret evaluation will determine which system is best for specific ships. Assuming a T26 hull plug to accommodate both is gun fantasy.

Just saw your post above Todjaeger so my comment above is somewhat moot. Interesting info about the OTO gun, there has been some criticism about the 127 mm BAE choice for the CSC. Any idea on the cost difference?

Not sure on the costs, currently trolling through the orders for the Leonardo gun to see if any of the contract information will provide any clues to cost. Currently it seems these guns have been either fitted to, or ordered for Italian (FREM and PPA), German (F125 frigate), Dutch (LCF frigate) and Spanish (F110) vessels. The one I find most interesting is the Spanish selection, because the Spanish F100 vessels use the BAE Mk 45...

As a side note, I readily admit to not really liking the 57 mm gun, as from my POV it is either too small, or too big, but that might just be my own bias.

 

[t68]

I think the Iowa class battleships are the closest you will get to an arsenal ship with there mix of guns and MK 141 Tomahawk box launchers

 

[OPSSG]

Thread closed pending a discussion by Moderators; as our collective tolerance to nonsense in this thread has been grossly exceeded.