Was this your source? http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/06001.htm

Also try: http://community-2.webtv.net/HUSKY5/USSCARRONADEIFS1/page14.html http://community-2.webtv.net/CarronadeIFS1/USSCARRONADEIFS1/index.html

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).

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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.

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.