A naval artillery entry in the land artillery section....

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: A naval artillery entry in the land artillery section....
doggtag 9/19/2010 9:09:22 PM

Just recently saw this, and wonder if a US defense contractor (team in this case) can get it right on the umpteenth try, that is, a 5inch(127mm) guided projectile. What's interesting in this case is, it's led by BAE who seems to be somewhat porting over the tech from the 6.1inch(155mm) AGS system proposed for the USN's DDG1000... (linked from BAE website, 16 Sep 2010 | Ref. 208/2010 ) ------------ BAE Systems Completes Successful Rocket Ballistic Test of 5-Inch Long Range Land Attack Projectile ( http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_110816135155.html ) MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota -- BAE Systems has conducted a successful rocket ballistic flight test of its 5-inch Long Range Land Attack Projectile at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. Employing a tactically configured airframe propelled by a rocket motor, the rocket ballistic test met all predicted performance parameters during its flight. Coupled with previous component and subsystem testing, this successful test sets the stage for planned guided flight demonstrations of the 5-inch LRLAP. The 5-inch LRLAP is being designed to allow deployed surface ships to strike shore-based targets at ranges that exceed 50 nautical miles. "Our team continues to progress toward demonstrating the full capability of a highly effective and low-cost 5-inch Long Range Land Attack Projectile," said Gary Slack, president of BAE Systems U.S. Combat Systems. "We stand ready to support the U.S. Navy by providing technology to meet the future needs of the fleet within three years." The 5-inch LRLAP is a GPS-guided projectile being developed for the MK 45 Mod 2 and 4 naval guns on board Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers within the U.S. Navy fleet, and various MK 45 guns in allied fleets around the world. This internal research and development project is run jointly by BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation. Additionally, a saboted variant of the munition is being developed to be fired from 155mm artillery howitzers employed by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps. Further tests of the 5-inch LRLAP will follow in the upcoming months. ------------ What perked my interest mostly wasn't so much the fact that they are finally (...AGAIN...) tailoring the system to be used by the principal (most numerous) USN ship gun, the 127mm series, but rather that they anticipate success in sabot-ing it to be used from US land-based 155mm artillery. In small part, in concept it's not wholly unlike the Italian's development of the Volcano guided artillery rounds, one core design that can be utilized in both 127mm aqnd 155mm systems (but I do believe the Italian approach is actually two distinct caliber systems, not "sabot-ing up" the 127mm round to be suitably fired from 155mm tubes. Letting LockMart have a share in this endeavor literally almost dooms it to failure (technical malfeasance, if not budgetary), not wholly unlike every other US 5" guided projectile program that no matter how much promise it showed, was deemed not cost effective. However, even if it does work, the fact that the US Army has recently considerably reduced its desired number of $125,000 Excalibur 155mm GPS-guided shells from upwards of 20,000 down to just over something in the 6000 units range, suggests there isn't going to be any significant defense budget being cut to fund this latest 5" guided projectile. With a little luck, enough foreign navies using US-pattern 127mm ship guns will see enough interest in it gto get the program going off the production lines where the USN (not necessarily thru direct fault of their own) has consistently failed to do so (no 5" guided projectiles in even low-rate production). Meh, I'd almost suggest that BAE drop LockMart, and pony up with OTO Melara to share heads on projectile development. Although I'm sure the Italians have had their fair share of setbacks, it isn't generally in the open media media that they've attempted and failed at least half a dozen times to create a workable, cost-effective 127mm PGM (unlike the US...) Fingers crossed, because if it does eventually pan out, that 50-nautical-mile-range as suggested at Defense-Aerospace.Com ( http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/118195/bae-tests-5_inch-long-range-land-attack-projectile.html ) would certainly be a boon to navies who deserve that surface fire support capability. But better still if it does prove functional being sabot'ed into 155mm tubes for the land gun bunnies. That might be a tough squeeze for autolading systems in self propelled artillery, depending on its finaliozed dimensions, but for manually-loaded towed guns that shouldn't be too much an issue. The key sell point for the US, however, is proving it can be had cheaper than the $125K of the Excaliburs, and more user-friendly to land artillery units than the projected PGK precision

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

VelocityVector 9/19/2010 10:15:47 PM

I may as well place my ignorance on public display again.

What likely missions justify the pricepoint for a 5-inch basebleed gps-guided naval projectile given its reduced payload and expensive support equipment?

Naval targets are a wash, as either these are equipped to detect and/or maneuver to avoid damage else will not suffer mission kill if struck. (I seem to recall during Praying Mantis a US 5-inch gun emptied its entire magazine into an offshore drilling rig only to retire for its own safety with the rig still standing and functional as an observation platform. Even without accommodation for basebleed and gps the payload proved inadequate hundreds of rounds over.)

Aerial targets are a wash because gps does not improve effectiveness in that realm. That's pretty intuitive I claim.

So land targets are the inducement. With 50nm range, less for plunging fire, in the -stans can 5-inch, saboted in 155mm or not, reliably spell the difference against:

foot soldiers behind concealment
mobile vehicles
key installations
barracks
mud huts
storage bunkers
tunnels
mine fields

vice larger payload weapons?

Non-capital US ships that, on paper can close the shoreline, cannot fire 5-inch weapons. Capital ships, what, we are going to risk placing them line of sight near shorelines?

Apparently we're planning to play "tag" with the enemy else willing to spend a lot of otherwise useful money attacking Somalis. Are our military enemies following us here? Bueller?

I don't get this development. Please enlighten me.

v^2

Quote Reply

doggtag 9/20/2010 1:16:04 PM

I don't get this development. Please enlighten me.

v^2

Your guess is as good as mine.

With regards to any meaningful/useful explosive payload, seeing as this is/was a ballistics/rocket power test, I doubt payload was on the agenda.

Certainly future testing will see an actual warshot (live warhead, not just a weight simulator) to gauge its overall proof of concept (that it will work as speculated/advertised).

As to 5inch gunfire being of questionable utility: someone then better tell scores of navies who've clung to 127mm systems since WW2.

Gets even worse though, doesn't it, when one consideres how many others are clinging to even lesser calibers (3inch-4.5inch).

Even smaller autocannon are understandable, as rapid fire can be effective against smaller surface raiders.

But these big guns, in the days of guided missiles and complex countermeasures systems, large caliber unguided gunnery may seem almost anachronistic (for shame it seems then on the USN for even pondering 155mm surface fire, doesn't it?).

As to payloads of projectiles,

well, the fairly dependable NavWeaps site suggests typical USN pattern 5inch projectiles have approx 3.5kg of bursting charge (explosive filler).

Compare that to 105mm land artillery types, various mortars (60-120mm), even several man-portable and aerial rocket types.

Just how much actual explosive does one need for a given target set?

Just over 7 pounds of most military-grade explosives is more than sufficient to wreck most civilian vehicles,

any parked aircraft, and a majority of AFVs if it's a direct hit: the GPS (and assumably an Inertial Nav System, as is incorporated into many GPS-guided weapons in case of GPS failure) is there to guarantee precision hits.

And with precision, we don't need as large a payload, or as many rounds to do it in.

Argument could be, how many nations now even utilize ship gunnery for engaging surface targets (at shore or in beyond the shore)...?

It could well be argued that, for the many maritime nations that can conduct naval gun fire support,

they don't because they haven't got the proper tools with which to do it (or must settle for more expensive options, like manned aircraft).

As to the outright absolute destruction of an oil rig,

well, the steel-and-reinforced-concrete pylons of those are built for serious structural integrity for years at sea, so it's doubtful that 5" shellfire is going to outright obliterate one.

Best bet if that rig is really so troublesome: there are any number of tactical aircraft that can deploy the really big 4000+pound heavy bombs (the USAF has this 30,000pound beastie called MOAB, that oughta break it down once and for all).

Otherwise, raking it with gunfire and equivalently blockading it (no additional food, water, ammo, medicine, repair equipment, etc) will pretty much starve out any observers unfortunate enough to hole up in it.

And would a ship's compliment of 155mm shells have really changed such an outcome?

People once argued the rationale behind packing guidance into those 70mm rockets

(even bombs as small as the <300 pound SDB), which for most intents and purposes prove little more than nuisance value when fired, unguided, to any measurable combat range.

Now, we see even the USMC/USN has finally jumped on the LRIP bandwagon in procuring these latest precision systems with their smallish warheads.

The benefit of 5" naval precision fire is that not every nation has amassed dozens of tactical aircraft for the maritime/littoral strike roles.

For the sense of using it from land-based systems: I could only guess it's because some people feel that 155mm and Hellfire-sized rockets/missiles are overkill at times, and a smaller payload is more desireable.

It could be argued even further the how and why of it, when one considers that even the US' DARPA has contracted defense giants to develop precision guidance down to 60mm mortars, and in-house projects even have people toying with the notion of guiding shells down to 40mm, even subcaliber guided sabots down below 30mm yet...

But again still, they have to make it cost effective to

Quote Reply

WarNerd 9/21/2010 4:53:01 AM

As to the outright absolute destruction of an oil rig, well, the steel-and-reinforced-concrete pylons of those are built for serious structural integrity for years at sea, so it's doubtful that 5" shellfire is going to outright obliterate one.

The key is to attack the supporting structure, preferably below the water line. Wire guided anti-ship torpedoes would probably be the preferred weapon of choice.

For a platform supported from the sea floor go for the legs, for a floater target the buoyancy. Take out all the legs/buoyancy on one side, so it will tip over.

Quote Reply

Mikko 9/21/2010 5:16:18 AM

Not much to add to doggtag's guess on the utility of the shell type. 50 nautical miles is over 90 kilometers and that's a long way. Coasts are also the populated areas in general, I wonder how many Australians for example live beyond the reach of this weapon.. Well anyway, a navy unit becomes a relatively cost-effective fire support unit for all typical irregular warfare targets within its reach.

It makes a lot of sense to me. You are able to take out single targets such as huts and civilian vehicles, improvised training camps etc can be given a good wake-up call though I doubt the shell is meant to actually "bombard" anything.

You have a satellite / unarmed drone / special ops to spot targets and a 127mm equipped ship near the coastline; you don't risk political or economical damage by either armed overflights or men getting tangled up in surprising problems.

You can deliver Marine units with precision strike capability without bringing any carriers, helo's, harriers or non-man portable land artillery with them. "Here's a GPS spotter, and a snorkel. Swim ashore and start taking out enemy tents."

A single destroyer or frigate, fully able to defend itself from all perceivable threats, becomes much more of a power projection tool when accompanied only with some target spotting guys / birds. Sure, cruise missiles do the same but are both expensive and an overkill for most modern asymmetric warfare needs.

When used on land, well, 90 kilometers is a long way. 127 mm projectile is probably lighter than an Excalibur to ferry around, more of them also fits on a standard pallett, and it has smaller bang, thus able to avoid collateral damage better. I suppose it pays off not to have an airplane in the air or an Abrams-posse lurking around just in case.

Quote Reply

stonefort 12/11/2010 3:07:23 PM

Very cool. Yeah, how many attempts is this now? It's gotta work eventually I guess. I can't imagine too many technical problems stand in the way. More a question of cost and just how useful that 50 mile range is. Still, precision never hurt, it's just whether or not you can get it affordably.

Quote Reply

doggtag MONARC, and PGM range 12/26/2010 4:33:08 PM

Thanks, NGI.

I've been an admirer of all things PzH2000, including the MONARC.

From my understanding though, it appears the turret-proper (as a component of the land vehicle, not a custom-built navalized design) was prone to "sea concerns", including corrosion issues,

as well as ammo magazine safety (the MONARC retained some of the ammo & charge storage inside the turret, as used on the ground vehicle: naval gun designs tend to frown on storing so much explosive materiel above decks, preferring instead internal magazines that can be better protected).

As to earlier inquiries of the range of the PGM in question: 50 miles (80km) is twice the range of the NetFires PAM missile that would've graced the Mission Modules of the USN's LCS.

For the time being (foreseeable future), that is a capability the USN has chosen to overlook, as the NetFires has achieved less-than-stellar performance to the point that the US Army pulled out of participation in the program, leaving it solely to the USN, whose budget concerns may not support funding it.

Quote Reply