Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ideal Gun Caliber for 21st century
earlm    6/1/2010 9:29:06 PM
If a vessel can have one gun only which caliber is preferable? It seems the guns are used to spray the upperworks of opponents with time or proximity fused ammo rather than to hole the hull. Looking at it that way is it best to have a 155mm for shore work and 57mm for all else. How does a 3 inch compare to the 57mm?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Juramentado       7/8/2010 10:18:14 AM

WRT to the Bofors alternatives on the LCS, the choices would have to be defined by the missions, and influenced by what replaces NLOS. If ISR is still part and parcel of the CONOPS, then a 57mm is good choice. Scouts aren't expected to be engaged decisively - there should be enough armament to bloody the nose of the other guy while scooting back into the protective umbrella of a CSG. Now if the NLOS replacement is still oriented towards land attack and some anti-ship, then the 57 makes more sense as it's ROF will give some measure of offensive AAW against slow, low-flying targets. Otherwise, if the missiles are dual-role and can give a semblance of stand-off SAM, then up-gun to a 76mm so you can enhance the Strike capability against shore-based targets.

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       7/8/2010 12:52:06 PM

......
 Scouts aren't expected to be engaged decisively - there should be enough armament to bloody the nose of the other guy while scooting back into the protective umbrella of a CSG. .....

Then that's where the USN needs to make up its mind.
You don't spend half a billion dollars to develop a minimally-armed high speed scout that's the size of a typical frigate,
yet has to run and hide behind the cover of bigger, better armed ships
when something a quarter to half its size with more and bigger guns and more and bigger missiles shows up to call its bluff.
 
The LCS was built, perhaps foolishly, to be a fighting combatant, hence in part its Surface Warfare Mission Modules equipped with 30mm MK44 guns, even shorter-ranged than the 57mm gun (and slower firing even: 200spm for the Chain Guns, 220rpm for the 57).
It's woefully underarmed for fighting any aircraft shy of an MG-armed scout helicopter or UAV (only credible anti air armament is the 57mm gun foreward  and RAM missile pod aft),
can't really engage submarines without the aid of its helicopters,
and with the demise of NetFitres, has no truly effective, precise, stand off weapon to engage surface threats (land or sea).
 
Being the size it is, it will need every extra mph of speed to evade the multitude of guns and missiles
of numerous smaller FAC types it may find itself up against
(but again, that's assuming the "C" in LCS actually stands for Combat,
meaning it actually does fight, rather than run away to hide behind Burkes, Ticos, and other major CBG assets).
 
Suggesting the LCS is little more than a scout, means far too much money has been wasted for designing a ship for that purpose.
Maybe in the end, all it is and ever will be is just an overglorified Coast Guard cutter that can double as a minesweeper,
only picking fights with the local flotsam of pirate skiffs, renegade pleasure craft, and other dhows and garbage scows 
which are armed only with light machine guns, assault rifles, and the random RPG,
something the 57mm gun easily outclasses (but Navy ROEs would limit the use of, anyway!).
And you shouldn't be designing boats that cost half a billion dollars
 that can't do anything more than that (unless of course you just so happen to be the USN, duh!).
 
There are suitable SAMs out there than can integrate into the LCS (Barak 8, SLAMRAAM), just as there are capable surface to surface longer ranged precision systems (longer ranged and more precise than the gun, such as the P44, LAR160),
all of which could be made ready fairly soon if the USN was really serious at all about the endeavor called LCS.
 
I'm not knocking the gun itself.
I just don't feel it's enough for everything the LCS is expected to do (I expect those Mission Modules will escalate in price, and themselves have their numbers cut to the point that few ships, if we even get a few dozen of them, will even go to sea with any one installed....).
 
I'm just saying: gunfire, the USN needs to sit down with its USMC underling and decide exactly what it deems is necessary, and how to go about providing it.
57mm can't really provide any useful fire support to landed units or friendlies inshore.
And without NetFires, neither can the LCS.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Which drives us back to Netfires or something like it.    7/8/2010 1:09:20 PM
We need to take an existing missile (Hellfire) with proven guidance and fusing and VLS it with a booster.to shove it to the required range. It needs to be kept SIMPLE in that it will home on reflected laser light directed at the target by an illuninator. Once the baseline missile is established, then we can get fancy in our applications.
 
H. 
 
Quote    Reply

C2    Is there an echo in the room?   7/8/2010 1:59:10 PM
oh mercy...

I retract me previous idea, launched from the air a HELFIRE 3 will have an estimated 16km range (compared to 20+km for the 54mm) even if that can boosted 50% it is still too expensive, too complicated and even though it has a killer warhead, you can still get more pain on target faster and for less with a 54mm...

what a turn around huh folks?   
 
 
Quote    Reply

Juramentado       7/8/2010 2:37:43 PM
LCS has always been a victim of shifting priorities and competing strategies. As I wrote in the other active LCS thread here, the program started out with an intention of replacing a low-end Cold War combatant (OHP) with a modern equivalent, but ended up instead of with a Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none to fulfill several traditional roles and two "new" missions (ISR and Littoral Warfare).
 
For LCS to succeed, the Navy needs to rethink the CONOPS. But they're doing it backwards. Because of SECDEF Gates' influence, LCS is being pushed through no matter what happens. That much is clear. The selection of the NLOS replacement will drive the CONOPS and indirectly, the strategic purposing of the asset. ISR is one of the big-ticket roles that is being trumpeted for the class, and yes, the current CONOPS really says they're dependent on air superiority or AAW support from other combatants. I have never been able to get an answer about how one scouts with a very large and noticable CG or DDG trailing you at 60nm (2/3rds maximum range for an SM-2, a more real-world engagement range use of the weapon).
 
The Mission Modules will eventually mature. But because of the NIH attitude, the Navy is bound and determined to repeat the mistakes already solved by the likes of MEKO and StanFlex. The remote systems of all three modules still needs a lot of growth and work. Things are not as autonomous as NAVSEA would claim it to be. Of all the systems, the SuW module is the most advanced, particularly with the UAV (FireScout) as seen on the MacInerney deployment. The USV is still just mostly a pipe-dream, but it's time will come with enough funding. And then there's the problem of not enough Mission Package Support Facilities and the lack of standardized support equipment. Gack - I could carry on ad naseum...
 
Sorry to drag this so off-topic. Back to the discussion - in looking at the SuW components that are available, I feel the 30mm  mounts and the 57mm are more than adequate to address most of the "small wars" battlespace that is currently envisioned in the littorals. Against FACS, it's absolutely questionable until the NLOS replacement is addressed, mostly because the ship is not designed for a hardcore missile defense engagement, SeaRAM/RAM or not. We also have to factor in the aviation strike component - they'll carry at least 1-2 Romeos with Hellfire or Penguin - but I don't have as much faith in those systems as I would like. SAMs and MANPADs are easily proliferated - put 1-2 on each boat in a "swarm" and you are going to bag a Seahawk or at least drive it off as a mission kill.
 
Shelling a coastal outpost or knocking down a makeshift dock with the 57mm could be easy work depending on the building materials, but you guys are more knowledgable about relative effectiveness with what types of ammo. Suffice it to say, I would find it very rare to see such a lop-sided combat situation. Again the proliferation of portable missile weapons and the lack of kinetic armor on most surface combatants would make sharp type commanders leery of getting too close. The object lesson of course is ARA Guerrico during the Falklands War - the corvette commander made a foolish mistake of parading up and down an inlet to bring all his guns to bear on what he thought was a totally cowed Royal Marine detachment, and was struck by a Karl Gustav AT round fired by the defenders. To add insult on top of injury, they also managed to down the attached Puma helo.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       7/8/2010 3:32:10 PM

We need to take an existing missile (Hellfire) with proven guidance and fusing and VLS it with a booster.to shove it to the required range. It needs to be kept SIMPLE in that it will home on reflected laser light directed at the target by an illuninator. Once the baseline missile is established, then we can get fancy in our applications.

 

H. 



Actually,
that puts us in the ballpark of the P.44 (discussed ad naseum before).
(yeah, I know, H., it's a LockMart design....)
 
Hellfire diameter, Hellfire warheads.
Just considerably more range due to the longer rocket motor section.
 
Question is, would we be better off adopting a Hellfire with a separate, detachable booster, or is it more cost-effective just to refine the current P.44 configuration? (see the pic with the above link).
(I mean, it's not like the ship could share Hellfire stores with its helicopters: once in the VLS or trainable launcher (attached to a booster), the rounds are pretty much there to stay until launch, anyway...)
 
Here though, if we actually have something that long (boosted Hellfire/P.44),
why not just use the fullsize GMLRS rocket which has a 70+km range and 90kg warhead?
 
Keep in mind that the P.44 launch pod holds ten 7inch diameter rockets in the same volume/installation as the six round MLRS pods (9inch diameter rockets).
So unless we configure some kinda trainable MLRS launcher for the ship, or a VLS array that uses the same MLRS-sized pods (which also work very well with the single ATACMS with its 500pound penetrator warhead),
we're hard-pressed for ship installation (above-deck trainable launchers in a few different Mission Modules could add considerable topside weight, suggesting a VLS arrangement is better....).
 
Were it to be a VLS, we have to design a larger wrap-around container to vent the MLRS pods' exhausts forwards/upwards just like current VLS do.
For that much effort, we might as well outright design a new VLS class specifically suited to such sized munitions (it needn't be as big as the ESSM cells, not if we just want to accomodate Hellfire/P.44-sized missiles...but at 7"diameter, that also puts us in the running to utilize AMRAAMs, a win-win for the ship.
 
Now if we did want to fire off GMLRS-sized missiles, we just might as well opt for the ESSM VLS array.
But these bigger missiles means less carried.
 
Where that VLS array built to accomodate ~7inch diameter munitions could be beneficial,
is that, again, in addition to highly-capable SL-AMRAAMs,
there is that Israeli development of putting guidance into the LAR160 16cm rockets,
 
 
Back to Hellfire, in that we already have a missile about 5&1/2 feet long (~64inches?).
How much booster do we want?
To configure it for VLS launch from a Mission Module, that limits us to just a couple feet of booster section, and still maintain length to fit in the Mission Module container dimensions (I'm still looking for those dimensions.
Does anyone know the actual physicalities of the Mission Modules?
Are they ISO-Standard-sized freight containers (~8feet wide by ~9feet high by ~40feet long?),
or something unique to the LCS?).
That's where the constraints lie in the LCS' modular design,
and currently what limits us as to what missiles or guided rockets it could employ for surface strike and other roles.
 
In the DDG1000 design, we see that VLS arrays need not be at the centerline of the ship, but rather they can just as well be fitted along the periphery, freeing up the deck for fire support guns....
Certainly it would be an all-new design, but it bears consideration for future projects...

Juramentado       7/8/2010 5:44:44 PM
You forced me to find it. :) The original solicitation was scheduled to end 30-June IIRC, but it appears there have been many questions from interested bidders which raises some interesting points:
 
Some of the amendments show the Navy is unwilling to release the LCS Capabilities Development Document (! - talk about hamstrung), but the indications are that the bay will provide GPS, DC and Fire Enable Auth services - so it's still mostly NLOS oriented (no surprise). Neither will any Interface Control Documents be provided.
 
Question #6 - Can the Weapon/Launcher exceed the dimensions of the standard SUW Mission Module of 4.8m x 4.25m x 2.5m, mainly in height above deck?Response - Yes, the vertical dimension can be exceeded by 1.3m above the coaming.
 
Question #7 - Is there a not-to-exceed maximum weight requirement for the launcher loaded with weapons? Response - No, there is no specific maximum weight requirement allocated for the launcher fully loaded with weapons. However, there is a 7500 kg (16,535 lbs) maximum weight requirement for the entire LCS Weapon Zone. This weight requirement includes the launcher, weapons, and supporting mission module equipment. As the weight of the weapon and/or launcher increases, the number of weapons that can be accommodated decreases.
 
Question #8 - Will any portion of the existing NLOS-LS launcher or electronics package be made available for integration of a new weapon? Response - Possibly, existing mission module hardware and/or electronics could be made available to an offeror with a viable solution, but the specifics of any integration activities or efforts will be determined by the government on a case-by-case basis.
 
And the list of interested vendors is available - the usual suspects - LM and GD and a new but familiar player - MBDA(!) and what appears to be a minority-owned/operated cooperative called American Information Management Systems.
 
The bid still calls for a strike missile only - no dual-role SAM capability (!) so it would appear LCS will still go forth having to rely on a Burke or Tico, making that SeaRAM/RAM more important than ever in a full-spectrum threat environment. Oh boy - I would not want to get assigned to this type vessel.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    !@#$%^&*()   7/8/2010 5:56:27 PM
Those dimensions are too tight. There is no way to design a 3 meter long rocket to fit! 
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

Juramentado       7/8/2010 5:58:02 PM
I just realized - 1.3 m = 4.2 feet or so. Really? So what does this do to the RCS, or impacts to any deck handling for maintenance or (shudder) underway reload.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Awesome   7/9/2010 9:41:22 AM

I just realized - 1.3 m = 4.2 feet or so. Really? So what does this do to the RCS, or impacts to any deck handling for maintenance or (shudder) underway reload.

Thanks for those specs, J.
Much appreciated.
 
As to the RCS of the LCS (damn these acronyms!),
some time ago over at DefenseIndustryDaily.Com,
there was an article on the DD(X)/DDG1000, with one of those Demotivators someone made up called, "Naval-Next-War-Itis", and the text was something to the effect about 14,500ton stealth destroyers attacking enemy coastal areas under the cover of daylight (I have been having trouble with DID as of late, so I can't bring the pics up myself and link to them here).
 
Anyhow, how this relates to the LCS is,
for the physical size of the ship (length/height), if it's in a littoral environment (near-shore coastal areas...it does after all have a fairly shallow daft, something like 3-4m),
then if it's daylight the ship will not be hard to see at all just with the naked eye (depending on weather, of course).
So if the ship is even remotely in range enough to fire its guns at targets on land, someone somewhere on land can just as easily physically see that ship, so no amount of radar signature or infrared/thermal reduction is really going to matter, is it?
 
And without the accuracy of Netfires, the ship cannot respond to any land-based artillery (rockets, guns) that's able to shoot out at the ship.
As to the ship's aviation elements: that's another flaw in the design.
The Black Hawk Down incident (and others in Iraq and A-stan) has shown us that no H-60 helicopters are armored enough to withstand ground fire (small arms & MGs, RPGs, MANPADS), so using the LCS' SH-60 for engaging targets over land is out of the question.
Those Fire Scout UAV helicopters? It's a fair assumption that, without eyes actually in the cockpit, the fragile little FireScouts aren't going to have the situational awareness to evade ground fire, and most certainly they aren't maneuverable enough (like an OH/AH-6 type) to evade and duck and cover behind hills and other terrain features.
So I expect that in any serious shooting match (most likely, an unexpected one such as happened in Mog'shu), the LCS' aviation component will either be out of the action due to not wanting the risk of losing them, or because they were already lost.
Plus, neither of these rotary wing designs are stealthy nor low observable (neither have a small RCS, and can easily be spotted thru commonplace thermal optics), nor are they quiet.
So their presence easily alerts watchful eyes that there's obviously a ship somewhere nearby.
 
So that then suggests greater aviation support is needed, and that means amphibs or carriers, and that means escorts for them which will have sufficient weapons to engage those land targets (if ROEs allow).
So that effectively then negates even needing the LCS there, except maybe to actually troll for fire from shore/inland units so the bigger ships and any fixed wing assets can then target them (we always called that "running rabbit", luring out the enemies by giving them what looked like too easy a target).
That, and to act as a forward screen against all those smaller inshore surface combatants, terror boats, and pirate skiffs.
 
But there again, we don't need half-billion-dollar boats to do that mission.
 
Gowind (a Euro design, that surely some of the smaller US shipyards hungry for work could build something similar to).
 
 
As to missiles or rockets that would fit within the ~3m vertical confines of a VLS Mission Module,
well, we already know seeker tech the likes of Stinger & RAM, AIM-9X (which has been tested in an air-to-surface role),
so a new light/medium sized (welterweight, if you will, for those who know boxing lingo) missile system could be designed to exploit that niche (a niche which could greatly expand if it proves successful).
Oh wait, someone's already exploring in that
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics