NSFS - gun or missile or both?

[B.Smitty]

Looks like LockMart is already working on a shorter ranged version of my 7" missile. (granted not VLS yet)

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/080307_p44.htm

Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) unveiled a new missile designated P44, designed to demonstrate a long range high precision strike capability. The P44 is designed for quick precision strike against moving surface targets under any battlefield conditions without minimum range limitations. It is designed to fill the gap in the ability to effectively engage and neutralize long-range artillery, particularly mobile rocket launchers. This compact missile (7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter) weighs 220-pound (100 kg)). It will have an effective range from zero to more than 70 kilometers. It will be launched from an MLRS multiple launch platform, such as the tracked MLRS, GMLRS or therapidly deployable wheeled HIMARS platforms.

The missile uses a fast boost-sustain motor, and terminal seeker capable of operating under adverse weather conditions. The projected warheads for P44 are either a 28-pound Hellfire II Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) or a 17-pound shaped charge with precursor. Ten missiles can be loaded into MLRS rocket pods, stored with their wings folded. The missile uses a mature tri-mode terminal seeker with semi-active laser (SAL) for designated targets; Doppler millimeter-wave radar (MMW) for weather penetration and detection of moving targets; and cooled imaging infrared (IIR) for imaging and discrimination, augmented by Global Positioning System -aided inertial guidance (GPS-INS) for mid-course guidance and.

The missile completed its first flight February 15, 2007 launched from a surrogate HIMARS launcher. Further tests are planned in the near future, demonstrating confirming rocket motor performance, maneuvering and aeroballistics.

 

[iugim]

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...

Although small and stealthy didn't help the INS Hanit, I have seen renderings of a stealthy corvette sized "DDG-500" based on the DDG-1000 hull. It looked like its main gun was a 76. As mentioned by posters the 76 isn't the best NGFS solution. But if you replaced it with a 105MM mount. USNS's AGS is 155MM to sync with land based guns so how about a 105MM? Like a navalized LEO from Denel? USA was looking at putting a LEO on a Stryker.

 

[kev 99]

Royal Navy went and tried no gun on its escorts, didn't like it much.

 

[StevoJH]

Royal Navy went and tried no gun on its escorts, didn't like it much.

Yes, and soon they might end up with a 6" gun replacing their 4.5", which gives some idea of how useful they consider the gun.

 

[iugim]

Navalized 105?

Yes, and soon they might end up with a 6" gun replacing their 4.5", which gives some idea of how useful they consider the gun.

What would be the smallest displacement ship that could carry a 6" (155mm)? For smaller ships, would a navalized 105mm be an option. It could use existing ammo. Something like the Denel LEO or the BAE v2c2? i saw an image of a LEO in a turret on a Stryker.

 

[ASSAIL]

155mm guns for the future RAN Frigates

One of the advantages of being a newcomer is that when catching up on old threads you find something that can be relevant now and in the future.

Three developments require a reappraisal of our NGS capability/requirements.
Firstly, the amphibious doctrines are curently being reassessed with the introduction of new capability. (NGS requires saturation fire in most cases that doesn't involve H&I )
Secondly, Army has made the 105mm obsolete and 155mm ammunition will become generally available in the ADF, and;
Thirdly, the USN will be introducing155 mm guns in some future AB destroyers.

Given all of the above and the limited rate of fire in the 5"/Mk45's in the AWD's, 3 or 4 Anzac replacements with 155's could provide wonderful support for the LHD's in a comparable situation to the Gulf War 2 scenario aformentioned in this thread.

Great to hear peoples thoughts.

 

[kato]

Thirdly, the USN will be introducing155 mm guns in some future AB destroyers.

Since this is a common mistake: AGS is not compatible with 155mm artillery shells. It fires huge rockets that are coincidentally 6.1" in diameter.

Also, AGS will not be mounted on ABs. Ever. And it will never fit on an ANZAC, or anything of comparable size.

 

[ASSAIL]

Since this is a common mistake: AGS is not compatible with 155mm artillery shells. It fires huge rockets that are coincidentally 6.1" in diameter.

Also, AGS will not be mounted on ABs. Ever. And it will never fit on an ANZAC, or anything of comparable size.

I understand that AGS is not capable of being fitted (nor desireable) on an ANZAC replacement.
The article that prompted my interest comes from "The Navy" magazine Vol 74 #1in an article by "Thermistocles" (the OZ defencepros probably know who this is) and he quotes:"the USN is considering a lightweight155mm gunsystem for the projected Flight III AB destroyers"
Given the timeframe for the ANZAC replacements and the proposed size ( 6,000 tonnes +) I thought it should be discussed.

 

[AegisFC]

The USN has not stated what the Flight III Burkes will look like beyond generalities but there isn't room for AGS without removing the FWD VLS farm.

 

[Belesari]

I still think the MK-71 8In gun would be better than the AGS. That or something like a modern big gun Heavy cruiser.

Or just go all out and build a class of BS with alot of CIWS and point defense guns and have then run escort for the Amphibs. Lots of armor underwater protection systems.....no worries about small boats because of the shear amount of secondaries.......yes i know a dream but a good one. Hey look at it this way a single 16in round carries 50times the firepower of a AGS round and im pretty sure if you used advanced guided rounds you could get the same range with a bigger warhead.

 

[LGB]

As the cost of DDG-1000 indicates trying to do NGS, long range missiles strike, asw, and an expensive point defense system results in a large expensive ship in many ways incompatible with NGS.

Since naval guns are no longer primary weapons the BB or CA model for NGS is the wrong way to go. What is really required is a cost effective NGS ship optimized for that mission. A modern monitor. Make it a mine resistant double hulled 20 knot ship. Resist the temptation to put a VLS on it or a hanger. Since it will operate near or inshore make it's secondary mission command and control of inshore forces and support (at least refueling).

As an aside it's very possible given the cost of upgraded DDG-51's it's more than possible we'll see more than 3 DDG-1000's. The 1000's have a smaller less expensive over time to operate crew and superior shallow water asw. If the USN buys more of them they might actually end up willing to risk these ships doing NGS.

I still think the MK-71 8In gun would be better than the AGS. That or something like a modern big gun Heavy cruiser.

Or just go all out and build a class of BS with alot of CIWS and point defense guns and have then run escort for the Amphibs. Lots of armor underwater protection systems.....no worries about small boats because of the shear amount of secondaries.......yes i know a dream but a good one. Hey look at it this way a single 16in round carries 50times the firepower of a AGS round and im pretty sure if you used advanced guided rounds you could get the same range with a bigger warhead.

 

[Belesari]

As the cost of DDG-1000 indicates trying to do NGS, long range missiles strike, asw, and an expensive point defense system results in a large expensive ship in many ways incompatible with NGS.

Since naval guns are no longer primary weapons the BB or CA model for NGS is the wrong way to go. What is really required is a cost effective NGS ship optimized for that mission. A modern monitor. Make it a mine resistant double hulled 20 knot ship. Resist the temptation to put a VLS on it or a hanger. Since it will operate near or inshore make it's secondary mission command and control of inshore forces and support (at least refueling).

As an aside it's very possible given the cost of upgraded DDG-51's it's more than possible we'll see more than 3 DDG-1000's. The 1000's have a smaller less expensive over time to operate crew and superior shallow water asw. If the USN buys more of them they might actually end up willing to risk these ships doing NGS.

LOL the Navy isnt willing to risk those at what 1.5-3bil a copy? Not happening. A single DDG-1k hasnt even touched the water yet lets hold off on their cost savings.

The Cost of the DDG-1K came from ALL THE SYSTEMS that went into it this thing has more systems than just about anything we've built. Add to that the hull form and the AGS itself and it became a nightmare. Change a little test alot.

A CA or BB wouldnt rely on the stealth technic obsession for cover but on defensive systems. EW, point defense weapons like the Phalanx or such(the phalanx shallow ammo supply and Long loading times makes it a liability in my mind.), Armor.

Whats more such a ship could be upgraded in the future with directed energy weapons and if they become workable railguns.

Still dont see why you couldnt just use ATACMS for Long range strikes where you cant call in a airstrike.

Plus those guns would allow an offensive capablity well past the first expending of missiles. Meaning even if the enemy has alot of well dug in bunkers they wont be able to bring out the guns/missiles etc because they will face a near constant barrage of fire.

If i remember correctly that saturation fire ability was one of the reasons the AGS was chosen. There was another system that used a Large bore cannon i believe around 8in sunk into the vessel alot like a VLS but it could only use guided rounds and its been stated that was the reason it lost to the more traditional system.
Now the AGS only uses guided rounds...go figure.

 

[History1]

gun or both?

Both. The ships own missiles should only be of the defensive ABM type and of the anti-aircraft type (target: jet aircraft). The ship's (i.e. A.Burke, Oliver Harzard) only anti-ship arsenal should be torpedo (small, fast, powerful and many, including decoys).

The U.S. (USN, therefore) should revamp the purpose, grand strategy, strategy, tactical goal and mission to be only in the DEFENSIVE posture, never the offensive. (Though it's capability can be defensive counter).

The USN should, now, in the new era, never attack - only defend, or, counter an attack. It should master diplomacy, and finally, the blockade, and include air superiority (air blockade) as the sole means of decisive measure.

Guns = anti-missile type. The projectiles intercept incoming missiles (ship-launched, aircraft-launched and sub-marine launched). EW of incoming missiles approaching triggers two types of gun. Developed, accurate tracking of incoming missiles required to direct fields of intercepting fire.

Smaller caliber gun = 8-barrel rotary 37mm (high rate-of-fire), high-velocity, long-range projectiles. Range, velocity and rate of fire most important. One gun on bow, one on stern. Both 270-degree, with 92-degree elevation (with negative 2-degree).

Larger (2nd) gun = 45mm fast-firing, high-velocity, long-range proximity (sensing) shell. Quadruple-mount, each. One gun on bow, one on stern.

At the bow of this basic ship (i.e., A.Burke or Oliver Harzard), one cannon of small to medium-small caliber, capable of 16-mile (15 + 1) range, potent high-explosive with armor-piercing tip. This gun should be designed only to destroy or wreck the opposition's mast and cause damage to the opposition's deck structures.

Both smaller and larger guns should be capable of prolonged, sustained fire and the ship must hold ample magazine ammunition.

The role of destroying the opposition (sinking vessels) should remain within the scope of the USN submarine.

 

[RobWilliams]

Both. The ships own missiles should only be of the defensive ABM type and of the anti-aircraft type (target: jet aircraft). The ship's (i.e. A.Burke, Oliver Harzard) only anti-ship arsenal should be torpedo (small, fast, powerful and many, including decoys).

Rubbish, the Mk41 VLS is extremely versatile and to only use it to jam in AAW munitions is damn near as wasteful you can get at least considering TLAM exists. It proviedes the surface fleet with a powerful land attack munition with a long reach and can hit hardened targets, considering the USN SSGN fleet isn't down to be replaced then that'll be a massive waste of capability and would mean that without a CVN on station in the future the USN would be incapable of surgical strikes inland when the SSGNs go.

Only anti-ship weapon is the torpedo? AFAIK even in the best circumstances ship launched torpedos are purely defensive weapons given their short range (Mk46 ~ 11km + Mk54 probably isn't massively more) so to even consider using them against anything remotely big in a ASuW capacity would be ludicrous considering Harpoon is what 120km there abouts? Unless you're considering trying to get heavyweight Mk48 torpedos on there which brings about it's own problems.

Therefore by your ideas, you'll take out TLAM, ASROC, Harpoon from the surface fleet in one fell swoop?

That's some serious capability reduction right there.

At the bow of this basic ship (i.e., A.Burke or Oliver Harzard), one cannon of small to medium-small caliber, capable of 16-mile (15 + 1) range, potent high-explosive with armor-piercing tip. This gun should be designed only to destroy or wreck the opposition's mast and cause damage to the opposition's deck structures.

You're not seriously suggesting that a Burke or Perry should get within 16 miles of an enemy ship and start bombaring her + that the gun should ONLY be designed for targeting ships?

If you are, then SURELY there are more suitable guns out there. Like the Oto 127/64 with Vulcano ammunition up to 120km, ANYTHING to keep the ship away from ship launched ASM.

Not to mention that the only real reason guns are mounted on ships is for NGFS and maybe for limited ASuW action against FAC but NOT to attack much else.

Have to say, your recipe for a USN escort (only AAW missiles, lightweight torpedos and a gun with 16 mile range) has some VERY serious shortcomings considering what's out there now, IMO.

Anyone else, feel free to shoot me down in flames but from my POV these ideas are unbelievable.

 

[Bonza]

I for one am not going to shoot you down, those are ridiculous ideas. Methinks someone needs to get more well acquainted with the capabilities of modern naval weapons and the logic behind their design and use before they start making suggestions like the ones mentioned. They present a very blinkered, unrealistic view of how these systems work, and even as a life-long civilian I can see that.

 

[RobWilliams]

Definitely.

The only weapons the USN uses I might change would maybe trying to combine an ASM with a land attack munition into 1 common missile possibly but even then if they're perfectly happy to operate 2 seperate weapon types then that's fine too. But I get there's other issues with that too.

One thing I would like to see changed though is some form of performance upgrade for the Mk45 because IMO "13nm with conventional ammunition" [1] isn't enough to be able to provide NGFS whilst trying to keep away from land based threats like shore based ASM.

 

[kato]

The only weapons the USN uses I might change would maybe trying to combine an ASM with a land attack munition into 1 common missile

The only reason why Harpoon is not used as a land-attack missile (which at least Block II is perfectly capable of) by the USN is because of its crappy range and the availability of TLAM.

I for one am not going to shoot you down, those are ridiculous ideas.

Actually, it's not that ridiculous. The USN ran that kind of concept from the mid-50s to the late 60s. Pretty outdated carrier-centric concept though.

 

[RobWilliams]

Exactly, which is why (in the scenario I was playing around in my mind) was something based on TLAM. But considering that did exist in the past + was withdrawn shows the concept isn't particularly brilliant but IMO there's still scope for it.

I was about to say it's a shame because Harpoon is probably cheaper, but looking at USN fact file Harpoon BlkII seems extremely expensive. FY99 at unit cost of $569k for TLAM but FY09 (that's the last webpage update, so that's the most modern figure it could possibly be for) for Harpoon BlkII is $1.2million.

I get that it's not entirely true because of inflation and what-not, but even if the price of TLAM has doubled it's still horribly close + not even really worth trying to get land attack capability.

 

[Bonza]

Actually, it's not that ridiculous. The USN ran that kind of concept from the mid-50s to the late 60s. Pretty outdated carrier-centric concept though.

Extremely outdated, if even comparable considering the myriad differences between that era and the present day. And the pure defensive posture stuff doesn't make any sort of sense to me, whether it be from a mid 20th or early 21st century USN perspective. So IMHO, for a concept of how the USN of the future should operate, if not ridiculous, than shall we say unrealistic.