Have just read through this thread, below are my comments on a few of the points borught up. ;) “Unfortunately, to get the ranges and accuracies needed for NSFS, guns and their munitions have to go to inordinate and expensive lengths.” – B Smitty There are cheaper ways than ERGM and Excalibur, combine Denels V-LAP munition with BAE’s Course corrective fuze and you have a serious contender. “Guns can only contribute a relatively short duration impulse to a projectile.” – B – Smitty Statement is true, but the longer the tube the more energy can be transferred, plus even just give the projo limited ability to glide rather than following a true ballistic arc and huge increases in range are achievable. Accuracy may be an issue but there are ways to mitigate this, see previous comment on the Course Corrective Fuze “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”. – B Smitty. Tube artillery does not “Max out” at 52km. Expect even more impressive numbers than 75km from the boys from South Africa in the not too distant future. In actuality the US has shot a 155 projo considerably further than this. It didn’t come out of a 155 tube however and as such isn’t eligible for the record. Cant say any more than that. “Well, for one rockets tend to fly in much thinner atmosphere for those ranges”. – Madrat. Not true, max ord on a high angle 155mm max range shot is considerably higher than the trajectory of any MLRS system. “Seeing as the South Africans (DENEL) have taken the world by storm with their range claims in artillery (a G6/L52 gun reaching 75km with those VLAP shells),” – Doggtag It aint a claim, its true ;). Expect even more impressive results later this year. About Recoil, stop worrying about recoil forces guys, if a 9000lb howitzer can take it even the smallest conceived LCS can handle it. In response to GF the max trunnion load experienced on the M777 is in the region of 25 tons. Recoil forces can be mitigated in numerous ways. If anyone is interested I can explain in detail the M777 recoil system, which I am actually surprised about, but detailed schematics of it are availble from the FT Sill website in the Student Handout for the M777 so I guess I can explain what the diagrams show.

Galrahn, EW3: I agree, it would take a large hull, and that is actually what I was suggesting, I was thinking more along the lines of the baby arsenal ship I have proposed a number of times. The idea is to build a large, simple hull, powered by diesels for simplicity - a limitation of 15-20 knots is not a show stopper, since it could simply come in with the sealift shipping. I was actually thinking something around 5000tons, though with a crew perhaps as small as 50 (no complex systems aboard, relying instead on CEC for defensive purposes). As for the smallest shipping with 5in guns, I would actually point you to the Italian/Venezuelan Lupo class, at 2500 tons!

There are cheaper ways than ERGM and Excalibur, combine Denels V-LAP munition with BAE’s Course corrective fuze and you have a serious contender. Yes, VLAP plus CCF would be an option. However, IIRC, this still won't meet the desired USMC NGFS range reqs (63nm). It will meet their stated 41nm threshold range though.

Well, short of building the worlds largest dredger, you probably are not going to get naval gunfire 60+nm inland!

Off-topic, but does anyone know how far naval gunfire support went inland in the Falklands, and perhaps the Gulf Wars?

Any idea what the CEP of BAE’s Course corrective fuse might be?

Well, short of building the worlds largest dredger, you probably are not going to get naval gunfire 60+nm inland! Actually the 5" ERGM is supposed to have a range in excess of 60nm, and the 155mm LRLAP for the AGS is supposed to go even further.

I'm pretty sure they are aiming for 100nm with the third generation of 155mm gun for the AGS. The first generation was set at 41nm, simply because that put it at the Marines initial threshold for fire support. Quite frankly they should be relying on aircraft beyond those ranges anyhow.

Which is why the Naval Fires concept is a joke to the Marine Corp no matter what you read in the press. Sea Basing is establishing the Marine Corp operational doctrine to be deployment beyond 150 nautical miles centered around the MV-22, but they are trying to get a gun that can maybe reach 100 nm? It isn't the Marines who want the gun, it is the Navy, and it isn't for amphibious assault purposes either.

It isn't the Marines who want the gun, it is the Navy, and it isn't for amphibious assault purposes either. Bingo!