BPE news and information

[Aussie Digger]

thats 65km of "Hallmark" - not bad going when you look at the old 5" ranges...

You're not wrong. "5 inch friday" should have been a massive wake up call for RAN about this issue. HMAS ANZAC was only 3 kay's off the coast for those missions and it was STILL firing at it's maximum range. God forbid our Digs need some NGS, PAST the beach and there's actually a shore based threat to RAN...

The Vulcano or similar range of munitions seems like a great idea to me, precisely because they offer 70k+ ranges and DON'T require the extra long barrel that ERGM needs, nor do they apparently suffer the recoil issues that ERGM brings with it, meaning they should slot virtually, with perhaps only some minor modifications to the stowage arrangements, into the magazines...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im a big advocate of sticking nothing on the deck of a LHD (not even a tank), sitting it in blue water and using its escorts. Which is what Spain appears to be aiming with its BPE.

If thats not possible then we need to reassess the escorts. If we are talking about up gunning a Anzac or the AWD's then yes, lets do that.

While the BPE is large for a ship, its not large for what its designed to do. The americans get by with a ship of twice the size, doing fewer jobs.

If we ever want to operate it as designed, as a LHD or as a light carrier you will need every inch of that deck space. Moving aircraft, rearming aircraft, storing aircraft. Look at the drawings, there aint enought room. Even if Australia has to lease the aircraft off the US/UK to do it, I think I would much rather 6 F-35B's providing air support to ground forces rather than shells being fired from over the horizon willinilly. The days of mass naval bombardments of coastlines are hopefully over.

Aircraft can reach out over a thousand miles with the latest of munitions. They can drop precision munitions, they can do recon, they can drop larger munitions, they can hit multiple targets in a single strike. They can protect against threats on land, at sea and in the air. There is a reason why aircraft carriers won out over battleships.

Or as suggested, get some of these smaller armed boats. I think these might be the go.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If we ever want to operate it as designed, as a LHD or as a light carrier you will need every inch of that deck space. Moving aircraft, rearming aircraft, storing aircraft. Look at the drawings, there aint enought room. Even if Australia has to lease the aircraft off the US/UK to do it, I think I would much rather 6 F-35B's providing air support to ground forces rather than shells being fired from over the horizon willinilly. The days of mass naval bombardments of coastlines are hopefully over.

Aircraft can reach out over a thousand miles with the latest of munitions. They can drop precision munitions, they can do recon, they can drop larger munitions, they can hit multiple targets in a single strike. They can protect against threats on land, at sea and in the air. There is a reason why aircraft carriers won out over battleships.

Or as suggested, get some of these smaller armed boats. I think these might be the go.

Have you not heard of "5 inch Friday"? It was the NGS support HMAS ANZAC provided to the Royal Marines in Iraq in 2003. There were more tactical fighter aircraft in theatre than Australia will EVER have, yet NGS was still an important capability to have as it was the only way the Royal Marines were going to get any fire support.

FYI HMAS Manoora was sitting there in the Gulf besides HMAS ANZAC. The only difference being that whilst HMAS was firing NGS missions, Manoora was simply sitting there "commanding". If she had a 5 inch gun she could have provided the same fire support as ANZAC whilst "commanding".

"Smaller armed boats" might be the go? I don't dismiss the idea as unworkable, but it's not going to provide the same level of capability as a 127mm naval gun firing 20+ rounds per minute.

Plenty of options exist to increase the range of 5 inch guns to beyond that available to land based artillery (tube or rocket) and even for most land based missile systems.

Factor in the large magazine capacity of a 5 inch gun (around 500 projectiles and charges) and you have a weapon capable of providing long range PERSISTENT fires. Aircraft can strike further and employ 4 or maybe 5 weapons. A ship can bombard a target for days on end.

They don't fire "willy nilly" as you like to call it either. Naval NGS is probably more accurate than even regular land based artillery fire. Certainly the Mk 45 Mod 2 gun on HMAS ANZAC proved decisively superior to Iraqi land based artillery batteries, with which it was tasked to surpress.

If you wish to read something about NGS instead of thinking it fires simply "willy nilly" a summary of modern ideas about NGS can be found here:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCG.html

Other more extensive summaries can probably be found too if you're interested...

 

[Tasman]

If you wish to read something about NGS ... a summary of modern ideas about NGS can be found here:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCG.html

Thanks AD for an excellent link re NGS.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks AD for an excellent link re NGS.

Cheers

My pleasure.

Regards

AD.

 

[Jezza]

How about this for fire support the germans are trialing....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a320/Jeremy70/WNGER_61-52_MONARC_Hamburg_pic.jpg

The F124 is equipped with an Oto Melara 76mm gun, and two Rheinmetall 20mm guns. HOWEVER,

A KMW PzH 2000 howitzer turret with a 155mm gun has been mounted on the deck of FGS Hamburg (F220) as a demonstration of the feasibility of the system for naval applications. The concept is called MONARC and requires a flexible elastic mounting. MONARC has a range of 22nm. Live fire trials were conducted in September 2003.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm

 

[Aussie Digger]

How about this for fire support the germans are trialing....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a320/Jeremy70/WNGER_61-52_MONARC_Hamburg_pic.jpg

The F124 is equipped with an Oto Melara 76mm gun, and two Rheinmetall 20mm guns. HOWEVER,

A KMW PzH 2000 howitzer turret with a 155mm gun has been mounted on the deck of FGS Hamburg (F220) as a demonstration of the feasibility of the system for naval applications. The concept is called MONARC and requires a flexible elastic mounting. MONARC has a range of 22nm. Live fire trials were conducted in September 2003.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm

It's an idea alright. I'd probably argue that adding Vulcano or similar to existing 127mm NATO standard guns would probably be more cost effective though...

 

[Grand Danois]

The Germans recently placed an order for Vulcano for the F125, the class which MONARC was intended for.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Nice link, cheers, I will look over it.

The reason why I don't think you should arm and use a LHD like this is because the closer you are to shore, the greater the risks of mines, of submarines, of land based attacks (motar or rockets), small boat attacks etc.

The LHD is WAY to valuable for that. Sinking one would effectively cut Australia's ADF. Your going to risk 1,000 troops, maybe 16+ helicopters, 300 crew, and all the other equipment? Thats the type of casuality I think could sink the entire ADF. For what? A 5" gun? Even a disabling of the LHD is going to have massive concequences for troops already deployed.

I think up gunning is the best we can hopeful bar increasing the number of surface units. 155mm gun (or enhanced 127mm) on both the AWD's and the frigates (as germans example given above). Because the 5" gun on a AWD places it very close to the shore, which means as a escort, its LHD is going to have to be very close too.

I don't have any answers. Increase number of surface ships (such as these smaller boats), increase the guns on the current ones. Certainly the destroyers are going to go some way to addressing it. As will having Tigers able to be deployed, as well as being able to land tanks and other heavy equipment.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Nice link, cheers, I will look over it.

The reason why I don't think you should arm and use a LHD like this is because the closer you are to shore, the greater the risks of mines, of submarines, of land based attacks (motar or rockets), small boat attacks etc.

The LHD is WAY to valuable for that. Sinking one would effectively cut Australia's ADF. Your going to risk 1,000 troops, maybe 16+ helicopters, 300 crew, and all the other equipment? Thats the type of casuality I think could sink the entire ADF. For what? A 5" gun? Even a disabling of the LHD is going to have massive concequences for troops already deployed.

I think up gunning is the best we can hopeful bar increasing the number of surface units. 155mm gun (or enhanced 127mm) on both the AWD's and the frigates (as germans example given above). Because the 5" gun on a AWD places it very close to the shore, which means as a escort, its LHD is going to have to be very close too.

I don't have any answers. Increase number of surface ships (such as these smaller boats), increase the guns on the current ones. Certainly the destroyers are going to go some way to addressing it. As will having Tigers able to be deployed, as well as being able to land tanks and other heavy equipment.

I agree with the fact that we don't want and LPE destroyed, however if it is to deliver it's load it has to get close to shore. It doesn't deliver it's troops, helo's etc from hundreds of k's off shore.

Most likely it will only just be on the other side of the visual horizon in most cases (about 7 k's) off shore and thus well within range of a 5 inch gun particularly with -ER munitions.

In a higher threat environment it may indeed be further off the coast, but in any case ANY LHD is going to be reliant upon it's escorts to protect it from the threats you list.

I do NOT imagine the LHD be sent into such environments without protection from the sorts of threats you list. That would be foolhardy indeed, with 100k ranging weapons, it could make a very useful and precise contribution to NGS SINCE it's going to be there ANYWAY...

 

[swerve]

Thanks AD for an excellent link re NGS.

Cheers

And a lot more - Tony Williams is good on all sorts of guns & gunnery. Look at his list of published works. And he'll respond to any sensible questions.

 

[swerve]

The Germans recently placed an order for Vulcano for the F125, the class which MONARC was intended for.

As I recall, an Oto Melara 127mm lightweight for each ship, plus one for shore training, spares, training, & ammunition including Vulcano extendd range rounds. Yep, MONARC is either dead or shoved onto the back burner for the indefinite future.

 

[swerve]

...
"Smaller armed boats" might be the go? I don't dismiss the idea as unworkable, but it's not going to provide the same level of capability as a 127mm naval gun firing 20+ rounds per minute. ....

That does rather depend on the smaller boats, what they're armed with, & the circumstances. They can't carry anything with the range of a naval 127mm, but in some cases, that's compensated for by their ability to get in closer. The particular environment of the Iraqi coast (a river delta, lots of channels & islands) is a perfect example of this: small boats can follow advancing troops, where a larger ship cannot. Of course, that doesn't apply on every coast.

I'm not putting forward the CB90/AMOS as a panacea, only as an example (you could also mount mortars on landing craft, there are other boats, other mortars, and none of these options excludes also having a naval 127mm), but I think you've missed something about this particular example. I mentioned it specifically because I thought that a dual-barrel 120mm automatic mortar with a ROF of up to 26 rpm, 13 km range, MRSI ability & the capability to fire top-attack anti-tank rounds might, in some circumstances, match or even exceed the capability of a single naval gun - especially when you consider that you can probably buy more of them for the money.

 

[Aussie Digger]

That does rather depend on the smaller boats, what they're armed with, & the circumstances. They can't carry anything with the range of a naval 127mm, but in some cases, that's compensated for by their ability to get in closer. The particular environment of the Iraqi coast (a river delta, lots of channels & islands) is a perfect example of this: small boats can follow advancing troops, where a larger ship cannot. Of course, that doesn't apply on every coast.

I'm not putting forward the CB90/AMOS as a panacea, only as an example (you could also mount mortars on landing craft, there are other boats, other mortars, and none of these options excludes also having a naval 127mm), but I think you've missed something about this particular example. I mentioned it specifically because I thought that a dual-barrel 120mm automatic mortar with a ROF of up to 26 rpm, 13 km range, MRSI ability & the capability to fire top-attack anti-tank rounds might, in some circumstances, match or even exceed the capability of a single naval gun - especially when you consider that you can probably buy more of them for the money.

Maybe, but to include the CB90's you've got to reduce capacity of the vessel in it's primary role due to the space they will take up... It's a tradeoff between reduce landing craft and increasing offensive options.

Personally I think something liike a CB90 would be a better option for frigates given their offensive role, than RHIB's, but size and weight may preclude this...

The 127mm gun will intrude in the vessel I agree, but as much as multiple CB90's? I'm not so sure of that.

 

[harryriedl]

That does rather depend on the smaller boats, what they're armed with, & the circumstances. They can't carry anything with the range of a naval 127mm, but in some cases, that's compensated for by their ability to get in closer. The particular environment of the Iraqi coast (a river delta, lots of channels & islands) is a perfect example of this: small boats can follow advancing troops, where a larger ship cannot. Of course, that doesn't apply on every coast.

I'm not putting forward the CB90/AMOS as a panacea, only as an example (you could also mount mortars on landing craft, there are other boats, other mortars, and none of these options excludes also having a naval 127mm), but I think you've missed something about this particular example. I mentioned it specifically because I thought that a dual-barrel 120mm automatic mortar with a ROF of up to 26 rpm, 13 km range, MRSI ability & the capability to fire top-attack anti-tank rounds might, in some circumstances, match or even exceed the capability of a single naval gun - especially when you consider that you can probably buy more of them for the money.

i personally prefer the idea of something similar to the CB90 with AMOS as it seems to offer a very graceful solution to sea based Arty as the AMOS vessels could be mounted on davits as said previous which keeps them out the way when not in use and could be as landing craft RIB raider with the AMOS removed or stored.
the logistics would be simpler for the the LHD as their would be less special ammo [vulcano] and they could use the army 120mm stocks which would be carried anyway and offer an unparalleled flexibility of possibly 4 CB90 on davits [Ark Royal can carry 4 larger equivalents] a well deck full of LCU would offer an effective landing force with a backup which could go right up the to the beach head and support and have a reaction time which would be much faster than the 5inch when they are deployed and be with the landing craft for the op

 

[alexsa]

i personally prefer the idea of something similar to the CB90 with AMOS as it seems to offer a very graceful solution to sea based Arty as the AMOS vessels could be mounted on davits as said previous which keeps them out the way when not in use and could be as landing craft RIB raider with the AMOS removed or stored.
the logistics would be simpler for the the LHD as their would be less special ammo [vulcano] and they could use the army 120mm stocks which would be carried anyway and offer an unparalleled flexibility of possibly 4 CB90 on davits [Ark Royal can carry 4 larger equivalents] a well deck full of LCU would offer an effective landing force with a backup which could go right up the to the beach head and support and have a reaction time which would be much faster than the 5inch when they are deployed and be with the landing craft for the op

Firing 120mm mortars from a small craft which will be very active in all axis of movement and will have realtively high acceleration in movment between axis is going to be a challenge in respect of accuracy.

Add to that the cost.

With the AWD (if the ALP don't kill that) all escorts will have a 127mm naval gun idealy suited to the NGS task. Putting a 127mm on the BPE does not appear to be an option but this can be compensated for by using ARH to provide additional fire power (even better if combined with F-35B ... but now I am day dreaming).

This would appear to be more effective than specialised armed landing craft whoes effectiveness will be marginal and whcih reduce the LHD's effectiveness in their principal role as they take up sapce that can be used by load carrying vessels.

If additional fire power is needed I would prefer to see additional ARH.

It could all be a moot point if the ALP repeat their emasculation of the ADF as was the case with the last time they were in power.

 

[Aussie Digger]

i personally prefer the idea of something similar to the CB90 with AMOS as it seems to offer a very graceful solution to sea based Arty as the AMOS vessels could be mounted on davits as said previous which keeps them out the way when not in use and could be as landing craft RIB raider with the AMOS removed or stored.
the logistics would be simpler for the the LHD as their would be less special ammo [vulcano] and they could use the army 120mm stocks which would be carried anyway and offer an unparalleled flexibility of possibly 4 CB90 on davits [Ark Royal can carry 4 larger equivalents] a well deck full of LCU would offer an effective landing force with a backup which could go right up the to the beach head and support and have a reaction time which would be much faster than the 5inch when they are deployed and be with the landing craft for the op

The Australian Army doesn't use 120mm mortars so I am unaware of what this available ammunition supply would be??? Are you suggesting CB90's equipped with the 120mm AMOS mortar system could use M1A1 Abrams 120mm TANK AMMUNITION???

Furthermore, the range of a 120mm mortar is about 13k's at present. Some longer ranged ammunition might reach 20k's in future. The CB90 fire support variant, will be okay if the troops stay on the beach I suppose, but if they have to move inland...

The Mk 45 Mod 2 gun already achieves greater ranges than this with current munitions. Any future -ER munitions will provide an increase on this. I ONLY suggested Vulcano as the SORT of -ER munition that is available to achieve much longer ranged NGS fires.

Obviously RAN will need to do some testing to establish if it's suitable for their requirements. There are other types of -ER 127mm ammunition around as well, beside this or ERGM.

In any case as already pointed out, 120mm AMOS mortars will require a "special ammo". I'd rather if we have to purchase a new range of ammunition for use by RAN, that we acquire something that can be used across the range of RAN surface combatants and gives us 70-100k strike range, rather than 13k's...

 

[swerve]

The Australian Army doesn't use 120mm mortars so I am unaware of what this available ammunition supply would be??? ...

Obviously RAN will need to do some testing to establish if it's suitable for their requirements. ...

I'd rather if we have to purchase a new range of ammunition for use by RAN, that we acquire something that can be used across the range of RAN surface combatants and gives us 70-100k strike range, rather than 13k's...

Might I remind you that this thread is about BPE, not the Australian LHDs. There's a separate thread for that. BTW, I believe Spain uses 120mm mortars.

Now, those range figures: you have to add in the stand-off distance. An LHD will be several km off the coast, & a mortar boat can be several km inland. This is something that will depend on the particular coast. In a delta, for example, the LHD & escorts will stay outside it. Mortar boats would be extremely useful in such an environment, or in the tangle of islands off Stockholm* (if I was an LHD captain, I'd want the islands cleared, one by one, before taking my ship in there, & I'd never venture into some areas), or the entrance to the Baltic - etc., etc. They could get to places which will be out of range of even a 100km range gun on a ship which daren't or can't sail through the islands.

Since you almost certainly know where you're intending to land when you set sail, the decision whether it's worthwhile taking some mortar boats along is taken at that point. You don't have to deploy a fixed package for all circumstances.

*I've sailed through there a few times. One look tells you why the Swedes think CB90/AMOS is a good idea.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Might I remind you that this thread is about BPE, not the Australian LHDs. There's a separate thread for that. BTW, I believe Spain uses 120mm mortars.

Now, those range figures: you have to add in the stand-off distance. An LHD will be several km off the coast, & a mortar boat can be several km inland. This is something that will depend on the particular coast. In a delta, for example, the LHD & escorts will stay outside it. Mortar boats would be extremely useful in such an environment, or in the tangle of islands off Stockholm* (if I was an LHD captain, I'd want the islands cleared, one by one, before taking my ship in there, & I'd never venture into some areas), or the entrance to the Baltic - etc., etc. They could get to places which will be out of range of even a 100km range gun on a ship which daren't or can't sail through the islands.

Since you almost certainly know where you're intending to land when you set sail, the decision whether it's worthwhile taking some mortar boats along is taken at that point. You don't have to deploy a fixed package for all circumstances.

*I've sailed through there a few times. One look tells you why the Swedes think CB90/AMOS is a good idea.

True, though presumably any deploying land force is going to have it's own mortar and artillery capabilities, if the threat is there to justify mortar boats, but for mine, you can never have too much fire support, particularly in the Australian context, when too much is NEVER the problem...

However I also agree with you that this is a BPE thread, not an Australia NGS requirements thread and so I'll let the matter drop...

Regards

AD.