The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 1, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USS Carronade
Librarian    5/19/2006 4:14:33 PM
I was perusing a late 60s copy of Jane's Fighting ships and came across the listing for a USS Carronade LFR-1. I had read about it in a comic book many years earlier. In the entry in Jane's it appeared to have been built in response to the Korean War, commissioned in about 1955, retired to reserve in 1960 and then reactivated in about 1965. From the web I found out that it served in Vietnam. However, I couldn't find any reference as to how effective it was. Does anyone know how useful it was?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
MadRat    RE:USS Carronade   5/19/2006 6:04:05 PM
Was this your source? link
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:USS Carronade   5/19/2006 6:27:36 PM
Also try: link link
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:USS Carronade   5/19/2006 9:39:14 PM
Question I just posted up on the Austal "LCS Jr" thread: If DD(X) numbers are indeed cut/reduced to a barely-even-useful tactical battle asset, would the equivalent of a modern-day Carronade be a feasible alternative? Meaning, something along the lines of a "US MONARC" NSFS gun systems in a modular package that could be installed into the LCS to provide surrogate long range fire support (75km has been achieved with that DENEL VLAP ammo) in place of the limited numbers of DD(X). Looking at the Carronade herself, it seems like it did have potential, as far as what's being looked at for today's (coming generation) naval requirements. It certainly looks like there was ample room to install a single 6" gun in place of the 5"/38 (or at least a 5"/62), adequate sensors (I assume it would, like LCS, not oeprate alone), and even has a decent amount of deckspace that could incorporate a UAV (Eagle Eye?) platform, even room for a small (self-defense?) VLS. Or, in place of its unguided rockets, those wonderful NetFires cells, or even a next-generation scaled-up APKWS, perhaps returning to the once-popular 4.5" & 5" diameters (would need to be cheaper than MLRS & NetFires rounds, yet offer range or saturation fire capability the gun could not, to justify the cost).
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:USS Carronade   5/21/2006 12:15:24 AM
I can see the value of a simple gunship using a combination of one or two 155 mm/52 caliber automatic cannon(s) and a variety of M269 modules complete with MLRS-compatible rockets. Your rockets could range from extended-range M26 rockets to TACMS - on the M39 rocket - that kill multiple targets simultaneously with their clusterbombs or BAT submunitions. Your basic 155 mm/52 caliber gun system can reach 30km unassisted or 40km rocket-assisted. The rate of fire out of a basic 155 mm/52 caliber gun system is generally at around 6 per minute sustained with bursts up to 8 per minute. That is enough for beachhead operations. The TACMS systems vary by block: Army TACMS Block IA: 100 - 300 km Army TACMS Block II: 35 - 140 km Army TACMS Block IIA: 40 - 150 km At those ranges the Marines should have a majority of their timely fire support needs met. Sure would fill a gap that is much cheaper than the full blown LCS or DD(X) niches.
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:USS Carronade   5/21/2006 12:34:12 AM
The DDG modernization is a hot topic on captial hill. The CG modernization upgrades all guns to a Mk160 Mod X GCS, 5?/62, which will allow for magazine mods to handle ERGM/BTERM when they are available. I can't think of a reason a rocket launch system couldn't be a mission module for the LCS, except maybe the "requirement" issue, the concept itself may be deemed unnecessary today. If the DD(X) is cancelled, there will be a major push to upgrade the lower number DDG-51s to the same gun. That could give the US Navy a battery of 106, 5?/62s capable of firing ERGM/BTERM spread across 84 platforms.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Naval guns - accuracy?   5/21/2006 12:51:34 PM
Have to admit I'm not much of a fan of any type of gun system. My issue with them is that they are unguided. Extending the range would seem to make the problem worse, since the extra flight time would have more time to effect the accuracy. For me it boils down to one guided rocket with a high % chance of a hit vs firing several rounds of unguided munitions. I assume we would need a resource to provide feedback on where the shells are landing. For short range, WVR so to speak, naval funs are fine and efficient, but a good old 5/54 can work wonders at a target 8-10 miles away.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Naval guns - accuracy?   5/21/2006 4:05:58 PM
I think another thing to consider when using guns: it's easier and much less costly to put a round or two in front of a running suspect's vessel (or challenge the intentions of a potential aggressor) as opposed to firing off a SeaSparrow, Standard, or TacTom across their bow. But I still pretty much agree with EW3: large numbers of precision rockets/missiles occupying the same space taken up by a gun turret and all its mechanisms and magazines of (currently) mostly unguided shells seems more sensible and a better use of space (there's probably some weird ratio or formula for figuring available firepower per ship's volume, but I haven't the foggiest...)
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:Naval guns - accuracy?   5/21/2006 9:38:28 PM
I don't really see the point in spending billions on a gun. That is why they should stick to the 52 caliber 155mm automatic cannon that the armies are fielding. The gun on the other hand offers a high volume of inexpensive fire support against close-in targets. It also, as was noted a couple posts back, more general utility. I don't see guns going away because of their handy dandy general utility. The guided rockets offer the range, velocity, and precision needed for quick fire support. There is be plenty of justification for the expensive rockets when an MEU is under fire and they need to put down the threat quickly. The guns just don't do the job as well in this day and age.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? MR   5/21/2006 10:32:05 PM
On these small lightweight ships I wonder how much the weight and recoil from a 155mm might require adding but it worth considering. The other problem is that of being on a moving ship the gun needs stabilization. Navy gunfire has incredibly poor accuracy. Only the BBs hit close to where they were aiming and that was do to their incredible weight which provided a stable firing platform.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? MR   5/21/2006 11:11:56 PM
Just another option - What if they added a GPS to the IR sensor on the Penquin missile? The missile already has all the control systems so all you are adding is a small circuit board for the GPS to also provide signals to control systems. It has a 25nm range and a delivers a 110 lbs High Explosive, semi armor piercing warhead. It's also not very large, 10ft x 1ft. The USN already uses them on the Seahawk Helicopter for anti-shipping purposes, so the knowledgebase is there. 12 of these wouldn't take a lot of space and would add a lot of offense to these small ships (and the LCS). Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? MR   5/21/2006 11:34:45 PM
"On these small lightweight ships I wonder how much the weight and recoil from a 155mm might require adding but it worth considering. " artyengineer might be able to throw some recoil figures in for the M-777, but I remember seeing data for the TDS-120 (120mm) that showed it generated 15 tons of recoil.
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? gf   5/21/2006 11:46:44 PM
Just got done reading up on the Bofors 57mm mkIII, and I'm fairly convinced it's a winner. Good range against surface targets and excellent fire rate for AA defense. Anything beyond that can be handled by a variety of rockets/missiles. Big guns just don't make sense anymore. Should add that the SEA RAM missile system is also capable against small vessels to a range of about 4+nm (although I would save them for AA)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? gf   5/22/2006 5:45:36 AM
Guns at the most basic level will always be superior to rockets. This being due to the guns propellant being burned up in the tube, while the rocket has to carry the weight of its.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? gf   5/22/2006 8:06:50 AM
Guns at the most basic level will always be superior to rockets. Hardly. Guns have different, and often complimentary, properties to missiles and rockets. Unfortunately, to get the ranges and accuracies needed for NSFS, guns and their munitions have to go to inordinate and expensive lengths. These tend to mitigate one of artillery's advantages - the relatively inexpensive nature of its munitions. LRLAP and ERGM are essentially gun-launched missiles. They have rocket propulsion, guidance, folding control surfaces, and so on. However, unlike traditional missiles, these rounds have to cope with high-G firings. This vastly complicates their design and production. As to the relative propulsive efficiencies of the two, I have to disagree here too. Guns can only contribute a relatively short duration impulse to a projectile. There's a reason why modern tube arty maxes out at 52km (VLAP), but rockets like ATACMS can go 300km or further and "guided rockets" like the Minuteman can go thousands.
 
Quote    Reply

MadRat    RE:Naval guns - accuracy? gf   5/22/2006 8:46:05 AM
Well, for one rockets tend to fly in much thinner atmosphere for those ranges. The gun is going to require relatively little in the expense of propellant to get its range. The gun trajectory is going to be in the lower atmosphere where air resistance is much higher. The gun is also going to depend more likely on unguided projectiles which are also cheaper. The rocket needs guidance for any useful range beyond the gun's range. That makes it inherently more expensive. The rocket also needs considerably more propellant to get off the ground. Per nautical mile it will use relatively a fraction what a gun uses, but pound for pound the gun is more efficient at equal ranges. It gets even more expensive when you consider the cost of a hot or cold launch. The hot launch generally destroys the launcher. The cold launch takes a pre-ignition boost that again adds cost to the overall system. They could combine rockets and guns in a two-stage rocket from a mortar system. The hot launch wouldn't destroy the launcher. The first stage of the rocket would take it to the apex. The second stage would take it to target or at least to the glide phase. Not all multistage rockets have to have the complexity of an Atlas V. Estes model rockets used to offer class A two stagers for under $50.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy