Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Smitty
IMHO, it's more cost effective to just push forward with ERM, which could give you 100+ 127mm guns in the fleet (once the Burkes are all built, and assuming they're all eventually upgraded to the 62 cal gun) with 60+nm range.
|
mmm...lets see, your complete development of a project which has already had significant research, retrofitting the system onto existing platforms, providing most of the capability that the Marines have ask for (not all), cost effective, easy integration and operation, and a significant capability upgrade. Sound like a brilliant idea...na, they'll never do it.
To be honest, the US Navy has been using the standard 5'' mounts on surface ships since the larger battleships and cruisers were retired in the 50's (with the exception of the reactivation of the Iowa's in the 80's). So if the 5'' had apparently done the FGFS job for 40+ years, why does the US Navy/Marines need something different now.
I know that there had not really been a recent conflict where serious NGFS was needed. But can you foresee a conflict in the future which would buck the trend and require extensive fire support? I know you have to prepare for every situation, but sometimes reason has to outweigh spending a lot of money.
With the ERM, you have the capability to send rounds 60 miles. With the ships a safe distance from shore, you can still put rounds on target a fair distance inland. This gives you enough fire support for the Marines to land some 155 howitzers on the beach, providing organic fire support as they move further and further inland. For me, the 5'' can do the job fine.
If it were up to me, I would have developed an 8'' deck gun for my cruisers, a 6'' for my destroyers, a 5'' for my frigates, and a 76mm for the corvettes. A modern 8'' would provide a significant NGFS capability. But that’s just for the Navy that floats around in my head.