NSFS - gun or missile or both?

[B.Smitty]

The current USN plan for Naval Surface Fire Support is to use a combination of TLAM, 5" guns on DDG/CGs, and 155mm AGS on however many DDG-1000s we end up getting.

I know the USN has done studies on various gun and missile combos, but none of them have been made public, to my knowledge.

My question is, given the desire for warships to stay at least 25nm offshore, do guns still make sense?

The USMC has stated a range goal of at least 83nm from ship to target.

To reach these ranges, guns have to use guided, rocket-assisted projectiles - basically gun-launched missiles. So they lose their primary advantage over missiles - namely, cheap but relatively accurate munitions.

These gun-launched missiles have to be engineered to survive the thousands of Gs during launch and fit in a restrictive projectile.

As a consequence, GMLRS missiles with a 180lb warhead and a 70km range have a LRIP unit price that's only a bit more than a LRIP 155mm Excalibur gun projectile.

I can only imagine what ERGM and LRLAP will cost if/when they're produced.

On top of this, gun pojectiles require a complex and large (in the case of AGS) gun mount.

Guns do have one advantage over VLS missiles - ease of at sea replenishment.

At some point, there was a VLS replenishment system, but it was removed from service for some reason. I've seen various reasons why, such as to make room for additional VLS missiles, and because there really wasn't expected to be a great need to reload VLSs at sea.

Anyone have any information about how it performed?

In any event, it seems to me that the USN would be better served by a selection of VLS missiles plus a VLS UNREP capability, rather than AGS on DDG-1000 for NSFS.

I would concentrate on two missiles.

The first would be POLAR, which is a 120nm ranged GMLRS adaptation that can be four packed per VLS cell.

The second would be a new ~7" diameter, 10-15' long missile that can be nine-packed per VLS cell, has a 60-100nm range, unitary and DPICM warheads, and leverages as much of the Netfires-LS PAM missile technology as possible. Call it Netfires-ER.

I would start with just GPS/INS guidance (with the PAM datalink, if possible). Then later add on the SAL/IIR terminal seeker as an option.

I imagine that this sized missile could fit a unitary warhead at least as effective as a 155mm HE round, probably a lot more so.

With these two options, plus UNREP capability, any Burke or Tico could be NSFS tasked. (beyond TLAM shooting)

A Burke load out might spend half of its 96 cells on POLAR/Netfires-ER in some combination. Maybe 24 cells with POLAR, for 96 missiles, and 24 cells with Netfires-ER, for an additional 216 missiles.

That's 312 missiles.

That seems like a decent load out, especially when you consider that any of the 50 odd Burkes we're buying could be loaded this way.

And with these munitions developed, we could get rid of the AGSs on the Zumwalts and just pack them full of VLS cells. Figure at least 128.

VLS missiles can be ripple fired faster than the twin AGS mounts on DDG-1000. Each VLS missile can be individually targeted, while two AGS mounts can only fire at two targets at once.

And VLS cells are much more reliable than mechanical gun mounts.

The biggest question would be the VLS UNREP capability. Would it cost-effective, reliable, safe and fast enough?

 

[Galrahn]

I'll reserve comment about NETFIRES and the capability of missile launched systems from sea until at least one version exists, because as it is now it doesn't. I don't like to promote weapons until they are actually available, because costs and those hidden "actual capabilities" sometimes make weapons systems less attractive than they are on paper.

However, I have spent the last few days reviewing the arguments and counter-arguments of the DD(X), and when it comes to the NSFS argument I tend to go back to this one:

Setting the costs of the increase in strike weapons, what about the argument that the AGS is needed to fill a specific void in naval gunfire? When comparing the 155mm AGS with the 127mm 5-inch naval gun found on DDGs, it is not surprising that the AGS comes out on top. The larger shell packs three times the explosive punch and boasts a longer range. However, the 127mm ERM apparently will meet the range requirement for naval surface fire support established in a December 3, 1996 memorandum signed out by the Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command. This memo assumed that the supporting gunfire ship would be operating 25 nm off the beach, and that as Marine surface and heliborne landings occurred, they would need the same level of fire support that would be provided if a Marine artillery battery were on the beach firing in support of the helicopter insertions. As Marine 155mm howitzers have a range of 16 nm, the minimum requirement for a supporting naval gun became 41 nm (25 nm offshore+16 nm inland). The objective range was an additional 22 nm farther, which would provide effective naval counter-fire against enemy general support artillery capable of ranging the initial helicopter landing zones located 16 nm inland. The threshold and objective ranges of 41 and 63 nm thus became the target for the 127mm Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) program, which is now know as the ERM.

Without question, the DD(X)/AGS combination improves the range at which surface combatants would be able to support troops ashore. Assuming that the improved stealth of the DD(X) allows it to close to within five miles of the coast, and sticking to the logic that naval gunfire must range approximately 22 miles farther than the deepest aerial insertion, the AGS’s greater range would allow initial Marine helicopter insertions to be made as deep as 58 nm inland. This represents nearly a four-fold improvement in aerial insertion range. However, as impressive as this improvement is, it is still nowhere near the “full range requirement” of 200 nautical miles set out for naval surface fire support in the initial memo—a range necessary to support deeper insertions made by the higher speed, longer range MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, and a driving factor behind the pursuit of an electromagnetic gun. An important question, then, is whether or not the interim range improvement provided by the AGS is worth the costs to introduce it into the fleet?

Said another way, given the fact that the 127mm gun and ERM will apparently meet the basic naval gunfire support requirements set by the Marine Corps, what would provide the most flexible level of TFBN fire support until the electromagnetic gun is developed and fielded: a fleet of eight to 12 DD(X)s with 16 to 24 155mm guns, or a 84-ship surface battle line carrying 106 upgraded 5-inch guns capable of firing ERM?

Page 298 of Robert Works Report on the Future Fleet.

I honestly don't think the DD(X) is going to make it. Every day it is starting to look like there will only be 2 built, and the DD(X) and perhaps even the CG(X) are going to be dropped. There is already a good deal of support to build a limited number of new DDG-51 variants within the shipbuilding industry as a stopgap, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress would prefer it as well, and it is getting more and more difficult to find any respected NGO that researches strategic naval issues to agree the DD(X) is worth it.

With the LCS costs on the rise, and the topic of completely canceling LCS 3 as soon as this week, the Navy is heading into a very tough month ahead. Both the House and the Senate are going to get an earful over the next 30 days and when you look at the list, it is hard to find any group, either conservative and liberal, that doesn't think the US Navy's plan is flawed.

What this means for NSFS is still uncertain, but one possibility I have read recently is the advocation of making all current 5" guns standardize on the Mk160 Mod X gun control system, 5”/62s, and magazine mods to handle ERGM/BTERM.

I think that is a sufficient capability for the near to mid term, because honestly if the Navy doesn't build more LPDs and modernize their LSDs, there won't be a need for naval gunfire, because there isn't going to be enough ships to provide an assault from the sea. Sea Basing hit a wall last year, and the only Marine related ship program that has support right now is the High Speed Vessel program, which isn't an assault ship, rather a rapid transport.

 

[EW3]

Can't see naval gunfire as a solution. With the ever increasing range of land based missiles, we won't get close to the shore. (an opposed amphibious assault is out of the question.) So the gun keeps needing longer and longer range. A never ending problem.
Netfires or some kind of 50-100nm GPS guided (perhaps with trimode final seeker) is a decent solution for now. It also permits other tactical options that a gun round will never have.
I'd be careful of counting the LCS out. We went through the same drill with the VA class subs. First few early in development were way overpriced, but the efficiency is starting to kick in. If I were worried about money in the USN it would be CVN-21. And to think it will be a Ford!

 

[gf0012-aust]

(perhaps with trimode final seeker)

There has been a bit of development with tri-modes for the last 2-3 years, so that may be closer to the release curve than before...

 

[Tasman]

This discussion sounds remarkably like the debate about whether fighter aircraft need a gun or can get by with an all missile armament! I think that we can learn from the huge error that was made in moving to all missile armed fighters in the 1960s only to have to fit guns back onto aircraft as a result of lessons learned in Vietnam. At some time in the future fighter aircraft may again be built with no gun, but air forces have learned their lesson and are taking no chances at present (well the RAF almost did with the Typhoon!).

It may eventually be the case that the gun will not be required for NSFS, but until that is proven I would continue to put guns on surface combat ships. They will most likely be needed for anti shipping tasks anyway, with NSFS as a secondary but still valuable role. Some of the things that need to be sorted out include:

* the performance and cost effectiveness of the 155mm gun,
* the cost effectiveness of missiles compared with ERMs, and
* the ability to reload VLS cells at sea.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

This discussion sounds remarkably like the debate about whether fighter aircraft need a gun or can get by with an all missile armament! I think that we can learn from the huge error that was made in moving to all missile armed fighters in the 1960s only to have to fit guns back onto aircraft as a result of lessons learned in Vietnam. At some time in the future fighter aircraft may again be built with no gun, but air forces have learned their lesson and are taking no chances at present (well the RAF almost did with the Typhoon!).

It may eventually be the case that the gun will not be required for NSFS, but until that is proven I would continue to put guns on surface combat ships. They will most likely be needed for anti shipping tasks anyway, with NSFS as a secondary but still valuable role. Some of the things that need to be sorted out include:

* the performance and cost effectiveness of the 155mm gun,
* the cost effectiveness of missiles compared with ERMs, and
* the ability to reload VLS cells at sea.

Cheers

Some other points to consider with regards to ERM vs. missle.

• Displacement of munitions

• Minimum platform size

• Frequency of munitions exhaustion/replenishment

I believe ERM and a 5" of 155mm gun system will take up less space & tonnage than a VLS, unless only a small number of missles or ERM are carried. While a number of vessels can carry a 5" with 300 ERM, how many vessels have enough VLS to carry 300 SSM, even with quad packs? To be honest, I don't see, for the time being, missles or guns dominating. Instead, I see them used in concert. For some roles, and some situations, a gun is better, for others a missle. Until one system is better than the other, in all roles, both should be deployed.

-Cheers

 

[Distiller]

I think that if the operational requirement is "only" to establish a beach head or helicopter landing zone in an invasion zone, a container ship type vessel (kind of an arsenal-monitor) with navalized ATACMS would be the best solution. Guns are good for sustained fire, establishing a beach head is a matter of hours only till land-based USMC assets are in place and combat ready.

 

[Rich]

I would think the introduction of precision gunnery will actually save us money in the long run. ERM will basically be able to take out any target it has the targeting data for, and out to a little less then the range of the LASM. More accuracy means less rounds expended, this of course when they work the kinks out of the stuff.

Sure land based aSHms are a worry but they have always been. That's part of the reason for developing ERGMs.

Truth is USN and USMC folks are a long way from wanting to say goodbye to their guns. Theres still plenty of Jarheads that want the Iowas back.

 

[Systems Adict]

I've read the comments made above. They make for interesting reading.

They also are completely about one nation, the US of A.

In combat, time & time again, it's been proven that new ideas or new equipment, while designed to be superior, sometimes just don't "cut the mustard", straight outta the box (classic example the M-16 rifle).
The majority of warfare has been conducted using current or old technology.


(Mantra : "If it 'aint broke, DON'T fix it !")



Additionally, at this present time, why is the US developing the LCS platform??

NOT so they can load it full of missiles !

Something to do with the fact that warfare & operational tactics have changed & that the majority of future conflicts are believed will occur in Littoral waters, too shallow for the majority of the US naval fleet ?


These facts would seem to help the reasoning for NGS. Current equipment works, with the majority of the navies across the globe operating FFG & DDG hulls smaller than 135 Metres long, weighing less than 4,000 GRT & fitted with some form of naval gun between 40mm & 127mm bore size.


Having been involved in NGS trials, I KNOW that a ships fitted with a gun from 57mm up to 127mm can get 90 -100% of a burst of 10 or 20 shells on target from 6 - 10 Nautical miles away*, 100% of the time, dependant on the accuracy of the tracking & spotter system used.

(* distance dependant on the bore size, with 57mm achieving approx. 6 NM & 127mm achieving approx. 10 NM).

The majority of these systems have NOT yet been digitised, & don't rely on the accuracy of GPS / DGPS.

Additionally, with the introduction of systems & explosives that make the munitions safer, so that they are less susceptible to detonation while in storage, added to the facts mentioned earlier about total weight of the systems used vs. Missiles, their ease of replenishment & overall costs, its should be apparent that NGS & Naval Guns in general will be here to stay for at least the next 25 years.



Systems Adict

 

[B.Smitty]

I believe ERM and a 5" of 155mm gun system will take up less space & tonnage than a VLS, unless only a small number of missles or ERM are carried. While a number of vessels can carry a 5" with 300 ERM, how many vessels have enough VLS to carry 300 SSM, even with quad packs? To be honest, I don't see, for the time being, missles or guns dominating. Instead, I see them used in concert. For some roles, and some situations, a gun is better, for others a missle. Until one system is better than the other, in all roles, both should be deployed.

Quad-packs maybe. But then you're comparing quad-packed POLAR with a 180lb warhead to a 5" ERGM with a 40lb warhead. That's apples to oranges, effects-wise.

A 7" missile could be nine-packed. A 5" missile could be 16-packed.

A Burke can carry 680 conventional 5" projectiles, but only half that many ERGMs.

Using a 5" missile in 16-packs, a Burke could equal its max ERGM loadout with around 21 VLS cells. And instead of 10 rpm until the barrel melts, a Burke could fire off 60+ 5" missiles per minute until the VLS is empty.

I agree that a gun is still needed on warships. But unless we allow them to get close to shore to fire conventional projectiles, I don't think a gun is as cost-effective as a VLS missile for NSFS. (assuming at-sea VLS reloading can be made to work effectively, and that we can build long-range, small diameter, inexpensive missiles)

Maybe future surface combatants should drop down to a much smaller 57-76mm gun and larger VLS.

If you have to stand off 25+nm from shore, what roles will a gun be better than a missile?

 

[Systems Adict]

If you have to stand off 25+nm from shore, what roles will a gun be better than a missile?

With guns like the 57mm having a Max. fire rate of approx. 200 RPM & the 76mm having a Max. fire rate of 120 RPM, these are ideal weapons in AAW mode, for point defence against incoming missiles & aircraft.

These systems are being further developed for this very purpose, requiring minimal additions (e.g. an additional Tracker system, plot extractor, modified software in the currently fitted combat system & some cabling) in comparrison to ripping them out to replace them with say a VL missile system.

Again, added to the newer, smarter munitions that are being developed for this type of operation, even the US Navy & coast guard have shown some interest.


Systems Adict

 

[B.Smitty]

I honestly don't think the DD(X) is going to make it. Every day it is starting to look like there will only be 2 built, and the DD(X) and perhaps even the CG(X) are going to be dropped. There is already a good deal of support to build a limited number of new DDG-51 variants within the shipbuilding industry as a stopgap, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress would prefer it as well, and it is getting more and more difficult to find any respected NGO that researches strategic naval issues to agree the DD(X) is worth it.

I wonder, though, will a new DDG-51 variant be that much cheaper? Maybe we could design a smaller, cheaper DD(X) instead.

What this means for NSFS is still uncertain, but one possibility I have read recently is the advocation of making all current 5" guns standardize on the Mk160 Mod X gun control system, 5”/62s, and magazine mods to handle ERGM/BTERM.

I think that is a sufficient capability for the near to mid term, because honestly if the Navy doesn't build more LPDs and modernize their LSDs, there won't be a need for naval gunfire, because there isn't going to be enough ships to provide an assault from the sea. Sea Basing hit a wall last year, and the only Marine related ship program that has support right now is the High Speed Vessel program, which isn't an assault ship, rather a rapid transport.

You're probably right. 100+ 5" guns with ERGM plus TLAM is likely all we'd need, given our shrinking amphibious assault capability.

I still feel POLAR deserves another look. In Iraq, GMLRS unitary is getting very positive reviews. It has a good combination of range, fast reaction time and appropriate warhead size.

Dedicating a few cells per Burke/Tico to quad-packed POLARs would give commanders a relatively inexpensive, long ranged munition to complement ERGM.

 

[tatra]

do guns still make sense?

Absolutely! There is no doubt about gun power > see Iowa class. The interesting development is not so much in caliber but in what is becoming possible in accuraracy and range for a given caliber.

 

[B.Smitty]

do guns still make sense?

Absolutely! There is no doubt about gun power > see Iowa class. The interesting development is not so much in caliber but in what is becoming possible in accuraracy and range for a given caliber.

There are no Iowas in the fleet registry. Weren't they all to become reefs or museums or something?

 

[Galrahn]

I'd be careful of counting the LCS out. We went through the same drill with the VA class subs. First few early in development were way overpriced, but the efficiency is starting to kick in. If I were worried about money in the USN it would be CVN-21. And to think it will be a Ford!

I think it is hard to compare cost issues with the Virginia and cost issues with the LCS, or compare a submarine program with the LCS program.

The Virginia class is the only option for the next generation submarine. It was a class designed on all the lessons learned from the previous several classes of submarines. No matter what the Virginia cost was to be early in the program, the priority wasn't going to change because it is in fact the only follow on platform to replace existing attack submarine classes.

The LCS on the other hand is a brand new type of ship. It is a combination of a new concept ship and a replacement for common type ships with life left in their hulls. It is one thing when a submarine, an aircraft carrier, or an LPD goes over cost, but it is quite another when a brand new concept ship advertised as a low cost alternative has cost overruns well over 33% of original estimates.

The LCS 3 could now cost as much as 650 million with its mission modules, that is going to make it very hard to justify its cost, particularly now that Rumsfeld is gone.

 

[B.Smitty]

The LCS 3 could now cost as much as 650 million with its mission modules, that is going to make it very hard to justify its cost, particularly now that Rumsfeld is gone.

The LCS was supposed to be a truck, but it's built more like a corvette.

How much of the cost blowout is a result of the requirement for high speed?

 

[Galrahn]

The LCS was supposed to be a truck, but it's built more like a corvette.

How much of the cost blowout is a result of the requirement for high speed?

Apparently none, there are the magic details regarding the overrun explanation so far:

Navy reason and Industry reason.

The Naval Vessel Rules are getting most of the blame.

Also CSBS's Bob Work released a summery of his upcoming report on the way he sees the current US Navy strategy, particularly regarding the DD(X). He makes some compelling points and raises some interesting questions, a good read.

Link

 

[B.Smitty]

Apparently none, there are the magic details regarding the overrun explanation so far:

Navy reason and Industry reason.

The Naval Vessel Rules are getting most of the blame.

Also CSBS's Bob Work released a summery of his upcoming report on the way he sees the current US Navy strategy, particularly regarding the DD(X). He makes some compelling points and raises some interesting questions, a good read.

Link

I still wonder if the high speed requirements aren't at least partly responsible for the delays in the main reduction gears and HSLA 80 steel issues.

Would LM have needed as much HSLA 80 steel or as complex main reduction gears if they had had a less ambitious speed goal?

It looks like there were a number of other contributing factors, which means any ship built under those conditions would've exhibited cost growth.

But would we be talking cancellation now if it were a slower, more traditional design?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Getting back to the original topic, where is it written that ships must be 25nm off the coast?

HMAS ANZAC and 2x British Type 23 Frigates got to within 3 miles off the Iraqi coast during GW2 (despite the land based Silkworm threat) and were able to use their 5 inch and 4.5 inch guns respectively, to good effect in supporting the Royal Marines.

"Five inch friday" has actually become somewhat legendary, given the length of time since RAN was actually engaged in combat operations, other than maritime interceptions...

 

[B.Smitty]

Getting back to the original topic, where is it written that ships must be 25nm off the coast?

USMC/USN NSFS reqs.

Here's a fairly old but informative paper,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Stent.htm