Big Battleship Doctrine

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Oh wait, typo. The DD(X) doesn't mitigate two more requirements over the Iowa, it ONLY partially mitigates the requirements! For 100 billion dollars I expected a lot more!

For 100 billion I get 20 to 20 DD(X)s.

How many Iowas could we ever get? Two.

If you're going to throw around numbers, at leat try to make them meaningful.

(Edit: I meant to say 20-30 DD(X)s)

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You didn't say anything about from target. So if someone read that, they would make the assumption that you were talking about 700 miles offshore when it fact that isn't the case. And we don't even need BB(X) guns to get the job done. Current Iowa guns with PCM can indeed fire up to 100 nm or more.

At any rate, the DD(X) has the same limitation. And unfortunately a carrier can't perform NSFS. So it's either the DD(X) or the Iowa class BB's.

Do you just make up stuff to support your argument?

navy planes were flying 700-900 miles one way to strike targets in Afghanistan. Maybe you should do a little more research

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

For 100 billion I get 20 to 20 DD(X)s.

How many Iowas could we ever get? Two.

If you're going to throw around numbers, at leat try to make them meaningful.

A DD(X) gives you 2 155mm guns and 20 PVLS units = 80 VLS cells

An Iowa has:
x9 16" guns (thats 406mm)
x12 5" guns in 6 twin turrets.


CIWS:

4 x 20mm/76 cal Mk 15 Vulcan Phalanx 6-barrelled Gatling
2 port 2 starboard
2 x Mk 32 25mm Bushmaster chain gun were installed during "Earnest Will"
12.7mm HMG's and 40mm grenade launchers were carried during "Earnest Will"

VLS/ Launchers

32 x RGM-74 Tomahawks in 8 quad Mk 141 ABL launchers
4 port 4 starboard

16 x RGM-84 Harpoons in 4 quad launchers
2 port 2 starboard

2 Iowas gives you=
x18 16" guns
x 24 5" guns

x64 TLAMS
x32 Harpoons

All for 5 billion tops (including full modernization)

What does 20 DD(X)'s give you?

40 155mm guns
and 1,600 TLAMS 1,600 (VLS cells)

So at 5 billion total you get roughly twice the firepower, gun wise. And enough TLAMS to fulfill mission goals.

Sounds to me like a better deal than 100 billion for 20 DD(X)'s.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

It's Oliver North.

And your response is the typical response of anti-bb crowds. High on denial and dislike, light on analysis. The funny thing is, that article is inaccurate on several issues but you can't tell the difference, can't tell truth from fact, and you don't have the technical knowledge on the issue to ever be heavy on analysis in this case.

You're right. I don't design warships for a living. And I can tell you don't either, Mr. Scrap Aluminum.

I don't have the background or information to do an effective analysis myself, but I am able to recognize one when I see it. And IMHO, that article is pure propoganda.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

What does 20 DD(X)'s give you?

40 155mm guns
and 1,600 TLAMS.

It gives you 20 ships that can be in 20 different places doing 20 different things.

NSFS and popping off TLAMS are only two, rather infrequent roles for warships.

[Defcon 6]

Do you just make up stuff to support your argument?

navy planes were flying 700-900 miles one way to strike targets in Afghanistan.

Actually we wern't even refering to that at that point. if you read that you'll notice that was in reply to Smitty's remark that if the fighters had a combat radius of 900-1000 nm's then the carriers could sit 900-1000 nm's away. Good job at miss-reading that.

Maybe you should bother reading things through more thoroughly.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

You didn't say anything about from target. So if someone read that, they would make the assumption that you were talking about 700 miles offshore when it fact that isn't the case.

http://worldaffairsboard.com/showpos...&postcount=226

You too.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

You're right. I don't design warships for a living. And I can tell you don't either, Mr. Scrap Aluminum.

I don't have the background or information to do an effective analysis myself, but I am able to recognize one when I see it. And IMHO, that article is pure propoganda.

Too bad you failed to be able to analyze anything in that article. Too bad you don't understand the GAO report. Besides, Mr. palletized MRLS, lets see you prove that you can recognize it. Very clearly you can't. At least GG made an effective counter-arguement analysis of that article.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

http://worldaffairsboard.com/showpos...&postcount=226

You too.

Clearly I explained exactly what I was talking about when I explained how the carrier would have to be closer than the maximum combat radius without ATA Refuel. So yes I did. But, now your deviating from any sort of point whatsoever. Clearly you don't seem to have one.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Doesn't really matter. They could be talking about an extension to it's service.

Oh yea, I can just see the NVN deligation saying to Kissinger "We will pull out of the peace talks if you EXTEND the scheduled deployment of your Battleship.

Come on I have faith, you can do better than that.

There have not been any. Perhaps that is why.
I assume your refering to opposed naval landings. And if your not, then its irrelevant since you specify no details and the whole concept is debatable alltogether. Since it does not matter whether they succeed or fail without a BB present.

Maybe you should tell that to the Marines and Soldiers at Inchon or the Brits in the Falklands. Just to name 2 examples. A few more come to mind.

Tell that to Oliver North.

ooh good comeback. I've discussed the King of battle (do you know of what I refer?) with the likes of Gen Christmas, James Webb and a few others. They agree with me

Thats your opinion since strategic bombing is not in the Iowa's mission description. However they are armed with 32 TLAM's since the 80's. So to be exact, they could have taken those targets if they had the correct hardware at the time. In what way do you think the DD(X) is gong to do the job better?

Strategic bombing? WTF. Can I add that to the M-198 capabilities? And this was during the 80s. Yes the DDX will do a better job. Better accuracy.

The Iowa's using Mk. 38 VLS can carry 32 toms. Regardless, if modernized they could carry more than a DD(X).

You missed my point. We don't ned more hawk shooters. Its a stupid argument to use for BB justification.

Opinion and rheotric. Ultimately you admit that the Iraqi's surrendered to the RPV.

your right the stearman story is rheotric. Do you really surrender after your side has declared defeat? But the logical extension to the RPV story is that we should hire CNN reporters to fight for us. The cost of 1 CNN reporter is much less that a BB. And he achieved the same result.

In the GAO 2005 report they state that 16" rounds could be designed. With means the Iowa would become equal with the DD(X) as far as mitigating those mission requirements.


5" ERGM= 7.5 lbs HE= 1,187 Sq Yds fragmentation
relative effectiveness= 1.04

16" HE Shell= 153.8 lbs HE= 45,200 Sq Yds frag.
effectiveness= 10.90

Once again how much money do you think the Navy would spend on R&D for something that can be used by 18 tubes in the whole fleet.

Where are you getting your effectivness info? Do you realse that you are comparing a HE round to a DPICM round?

You are aware that the M927 105mm HF HE round is more effective than the M107 155mm HE round. That , with the same amount of explosive filler it is 80% more effective that the M-1 105mm HE

Unfortunately this doesn't help your arguement any. If anything you just stated it took 3 ships to do the job of one Iowa.

No I'm pointing out that it took 3 guns, 2 smaller than 5" to complete a mission you want to reactivate a BB for.

Yes but it's likely nothing else was fired at those times either.

Well how about Operation Cromate as an example. The task force comprised (Shooters) 4 Aircraft carriers, two heavy cruisers, two British light cruisers, eight destroyers, and two rocket-launching landing assault craft. (B Smittys paletized MLRS)

The DD(X) is not conceptual. The design has been finalized as of months ago. And in fact the Iowa's are indeed 10% faster. If I recall the DD(X) has a maximum speed of 28 kts.

So how fast did DDx go in her speed trials? Oh yea, she aint built yet so we only have design specs( min requirement).

The Iowa's smaller calibre guns were removed in the 80's. At any rate the Iowa is capable of handling sea sparrow missiles.

No they wern't. half were.

That is incorrect. A 16" gun can fire to ranges of 100 nm, however the COF would be terrible. The round might land dozens of miles away from the target. But with PGM's the Iowa's current 16" range of 23 nm could be enhanced to 100+ nm. So Oliver North was completely accurate.

No the HARP gun and round can fire that far. Not a conventional 16"/50cal tube.

WTF is a COF?

JDAM isn't part of a NSFS system. So it's irrelevant. Unless the DD(X) or Burke IIA's have some new fantastic ability to somehow launch a JDAM at a target.

No but JDAM shooters are a part of the fire support triad. Once you learn about fire support , and fighting with fires you will see that the BBs are not needed.

[Defcon 6]

Maybe you should tell that to the Marines and Soldiers at Inchon or the Brits in the Falklands. Just to name 2 examples. A few more come to mind.

If I told them what do you think they would say in return?

ooh good comeback. I've discussed the King of battle (do you know of what I refer?) with the likes of Gen Christmas, James Webb and a few others. They agree with me

Don't really care. He's a battle hardened veteran and he deserves respect.

Strategic bombing? WTF. Can I add that to the M-198 capabilities? And this was during the 80s. Yes the DDX will do a better job. Better accuracy.

Very clearly you don't understand the issue here. Which is NSFS. I don't care about any other crap you want to bring to the table, NSFS is the main issue here. The DD(X) was developed because of NSFS. The Iowa is such a hot issue because of NSFS. I don't care about strategic bombing, since it is not part of NSFS. Unless you reasons have to do with NSFS, I don't really care, because regardless of the USAF and USN/UMC strategic bombing capabilities, they don't have anything to do with NSFS.


AND

16" PGM's can do it with just as much accuracy in regards to DD(X) PGM's.

You missed my point. We don't ned more hawk shooters. Its a stupid argument to use for BB justification.

Smitty was making the arguement, that such a thing was why the DD(X) was so important. I was just refuting that the Iowa can carry enough hawks to get the job done. besides, hawks are a good justification since its something that the Iowa has allowing it to perform the same duties as a DD(X). My guess is you don't wanna hear about it because it strikes validity from your entire arguement.

your right the stearman story is rheotric. Do you really surrender after your side has declared defeat? But the logical extension to the RPV story is that we should hire CNN reporters to fight for us. The cost of 1 CNN reporter is much less that a BB. And he achieved the same result.

Regardless, they still surrendered. I could careless about that part of the article. it seems the only reason you even mentioned it previously was because it gave you a chance to rant about stearman.


[qoute]
In the GAO 2005 report they state that 16" rounds could be designed. With means the Iowa would become equal with the DD(X) as far as mitigating those mission requirements.



5" ERGM= 7.5 lbs HE= 1,187 Sq Yds fragmentation
relative effectiveness= 1.04

16" HE Shell= 153.8 lbs HE= 45,200 Sq Yds frag.
effectiveness= 10.90
[/quote]

Once again how much money do you think the Navy would spend on R&D for something that can be used by 18 tubes in the whole fleet.

Less than 100 billion dollars. At any rate designing 16" munitions would cost peanuts since we already have the technology. Take a look at JDAM and how little time it spent in development.

Where are you getting your effectivness info? Do you realse that you are comparing a HE round to a DPICM round?

realse? well if you mean "realize" then yes I do. Regardless, it does matter since Smitty keeps trying to tell me how a 5" shell can compete with a 16" shell.

You are aware that the M927 105mm HF HE round is more effective than the M107 155mm HE round. That , with the same amount of explosive filler it is 80% more effective that the M-1 105mm HE

If the navy uses it that, wow, I'm amazed. regardless it doesn't matter in a general side by side comparison of a 5" shell vs. a 16" shell.

No I'm pointing out that it took 3 guns, 2 smaller than 5" to complete a mission you want to reactivate a BB for.

First, using that as an example is pointless since you didn't bother to say how many shots were fired, over how long, and what the accuracy was ect. ect. ect. My point IS, that ONE Iowa could do the job of those three ships. According to the logic of your arguement I could conclude that we should get rid of our navy since the brits and aussies can do it for us. At any rate, makes one wonder why we didn't do our own dirty work.

Well how about Operation Cromate as an example. The task force comprised (Shooters) 4 Aircraft carriers, two heavy cruisers, two British light cruisers, eight destroyers, and two rocket-launching landing assault craft.

Point is...

So how fast did DDx go in her speed trials? Oh yea, she aint built yet so we only have design specs( min requirement).

The designers themselves have told us. 28 kts max since it doesn't have power to go beyond that. It's physics. Unless your trying to tell me that the DD(X) is so amazing that it bends the laws of physics.

No they wern't. half were.

Only thing left is the 16" and 5" guns. I don't consider those smaller calibre. Regardless, good for the Iowa.

No the HARP gun and round can fire that far. Not a conventional 16"/50cal tube.

No, a 16" tube can fire that far with assisted munitions.




No but JDAM shooters are a part of the fire support triad. Once you learn about fire support you will see that the BBs are not needed.[/quote]

You seem to have this problem with not understanding the basic concerns of the issue here. JDAM's are NOT part of NSFS. According to the logic of your arguement, we don't need the DD(X) since JDAM's can do its job for it

Once again, you just don't know how to look at it from a professional viewpoint. No military analyst would really gives a rats ***** about JDAM's since regardless of how useful it is we still have a NSFS requirement even if you don't want to aknowldege it. Once you understand the mission gaps, you'd understand that we don't need the DD(X) either since neither of them mitigate the mission requirements. I gave you a chart. The DD(X) only partially mitigates 4 out of the 4 gaps, while the Iowa partially mitigates 2 out of the 4. With PGM 16" shells, it would partially mitigate 4 out of 4 of the mission requirements as well. This is why your JDAM fire support theory doesn't matter. Your barking up the wrong tree.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

If I told them what do you think they would say in return?

That the lack of BB assets didn't stop them one bit. And since you arn't making that great leap of reasoning here. I used Inchon (Chromite) as an example because BBs were in service, in theater. Two hardened battlefield commanders, who knew what they could do, decided that they wern't needed. This in the most important operation of the Korean War.

Don't really care. He's a battle hardened veteran and he deserves respect.

"Battle Hardened Veteran status, which the other 2 have also, and $1.50 will get you a decent cup of coffee. He is also the one that overstepped his boundaries during Iran/Contra, lied to Congress, embellished his MC service record and other things.

Very clearly you don't understand the issue here. Which is NSFS. I don't care about any other crap you want to bring to the table, NSFS is the main issue here. The DD(X) was developed because of NSFS. The Iowa is such a hot issue because of NSFS. I don't care about strategic bombing, since it is not part of NSFS. Unless you reasons have to do with NSFS, I don't really care, because regardless of the USAF and USN/UMC strategic bombing capabilities, they don't have anything to do with NSFS.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The 2 examples given (Arty position/Power plant) were not "Strategic bombing targets". The arty btry was a 'Priority Tgt" (We were getting shelled) . Power plant part of a SEAD mission.

Both of these targets are what NSFS is all about. Instead, due to lack of accuracy of NSFS assets, desire to minimize collateral damage and speed needed for engagement, those assets wern't used. A M-198 was

16" PGM's can do it with just as much accuracy in regards to DD(X) PGM's.

But we don't have them. We are just breaking the code on 155 PGR.

Smitty was making the arguement, that such a thing was why the DD(X) was so important. I was just refuting that the Iowa can carry enough hawks to get the job done. besides, hawks are a good justification since its something that the Iowa has allowing it to perform the same duties as a DD(X). My guess is you don't wanna hear about it because it strikes validity from your entire arguement.

No its a stupid argument because we have an over abundence of hawk firing capability. Way more tubes then we have missiles, so to use that as a justification is asinine.

Less than 100 billion dollars. At any rate designing 16" munitions would cost peanuts since we already have the technology. Take a look at JDAM and how little time it spent in development.

No we do not have the tech. You claim to be a eng. Please discuss the G load of these "Super 16" shells' and how it will effect the electronics of any guidance system. Something that JDAM doesn't have to worry about.

If the navy uses it that, wow, I'm amazed. regardless it doesn't matter in a general side by side comparison of a 5" shell vs. a 16" shell.

Sure it does. Its not the size of your round but the effect it has on target. The fact that a 25 lb (app) round is more effective than a 96lb round just blew right over you.


More later. Gotta take the little Gun Bunny to school

[Dreadnought]

Point is we are still comparing two classes of ship that are incomparable.

A) The battleships. Here, Now. They have their own records for others to read in black and white with no estimations all to fact.

B) DDX. Estimated delivery 2013. No records of past performance only what the contractor claims it will perform.

There are just too many differences between them. DDX could never replace the battleships on their best day. And currently the Iowas could not do what DDX will be configured to due in its flexability.

It is a poor comparison. However as they start to come on line and experience damage, conflict, reliability, then we may sit and have this conversation again but until that time happens I have to side with the battleships and their long record of reliability and proven survivability where as the DDX for the next 8 years will be nothing more then a "paper tiger" with a huge price tag when comparing with the battleships of 70 years ago.

Do I think DDX will be an excellent replacement for our aging Destroyers?
IMO Absolutely and with no doubt ..far more capability.

Can they replace the Iowa class battleships? IMO No they cant.

Will the Navy use them in the same role as the battleship? Probably but they arent built for the same purpose as the Iowa's were and I doubt their survivability if they were to take a direct hit.

When they survive as long as the battleships and have the proven record that they do as far as conflict then I would give merit to the DDX. But to anybody that says they can replace the BB's with a paper tiger 8 years in the future with no credibility as to performance then this poses no question its a moot point.

The point is our troops cant wait eight years for the DDX. They need fire support now as in the present day. Thats what will save lives. Thats the entire point of this. I dont care if DDX can support them in 8 years if anything I would want its support for them now in present day. With uncertain conflicts looming on the horizion like North Korea, Taiwan, & Iran they will need DDX before she is ready Thats why I opt for the Iowa refits.

Look, In the last 2 years we have bled money for Iraqi War, Katrina and every other flood for that matter including earthquakes, Sunami's etc and every other disaster that happens around the world and to say the very least it has been expensive.

Ok we have given to the World cause now lets atleast protect our own children (troops) until the newer systems are perfected and if refitting two Iowas provides gunfire support and protection for these troops then I say as a U.S. citizen & taxpayer they should without question have it. God knows enough of our money has been spent fighting over it with not one dam thing to show for it except for articles and hearings and a promise of replacement 8 years from now. Cover their ass now not after 8 years of waiting for DDX to arrive.

[Defcon 6]

That the lack of BB assets didn't stop them one bit. And since you arn't making that great leap of reasoning here. I used Inchon (Chromite) as an example because BBs were in service, in theater. Two hardened battlefield commanders, who knew what they could do, decided that they wern't needed. This in the most important operation of the Korean War.

However its unimportant. You still haven't specified why the DD(X) is a better choice than the Iowa. I don't care about the Korean war, but in fact the Iowa's did indeed fire their 16" guns during the korean war at hostile targets.

"Battle Hardened Veteran status, which the other 2 have also, and $1.50 will get you a decent cup of coffee. He is also the one that overstepped his boundaries during Iran/Contra, lied to Congress, embellished his MC service record and other things.

Sounds like politics to me. GG, maybe you would be better in a suit and tie.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The 2 examples given (Arty position/Power plant) were not "Strategic bombing targets". The arty btry was a 'Priority Tgt" (We were getting shelled) . Power plant part of a SEAD mission.

No, very clearly that isn't the case. Let me quote what you said concerning power plants and what not-

Strategic bombing? WTF. Can I add that to the M-198 capabilities? And this was during the 80s. Yes the DDX will do a better job. Better accuracy.

Before that statement-

Bullsh*t. She suffered from CHS syndrome. Was she able to take out the Druse Arty positions in the hills? No Was she able to take out the citys power plant? No
Was another, Far more accurate, asset able to do it Yes.

It's not my problem that you don't give any detail to your arguements. Instead we had just been talking about carriers and JDAM's and then all of the sudden you mention a power plant and artillery battery? yeah, good one!

Too bad you didn't say anything about towed artillery the first time around.

Unfortunately as I said, the M-198 has nothing to do with NSFS. Unless it somehow floats in the ocean! Or better yet, maybe we can install them on Smitty's palletized MRLS rafts. lol!

Both of these targets are what NSFS is all about. Instead, due to lack of accuracy of NSFS assets, desire to minimize collateral damage and speed needed for engagement, those assets wern't used. A M-198 was

You seem to fail to grasp the concept here. An M-198 has nothing to do with NSFS. It has nothing to do with a 100 billion dollar fleet of DD(X)'s and it has nothing to do with the Iowa class BB's. If anything your just pointing out that NSFS need PGM's. However unfortunately that has no connection to the general point you tried to make. It doesn't matter how great the M-198 is. Towed artillery won't mitigate the NSFS mission gaps!

According to the logic of your arguement, we should just cancel the DD(X) since the M-198 can do the job better!

The M-198's mission objective is indirect fire support, not NSFS.

But we don't have them. We are just breaking the code on 155 PGR.

Breaking the code? Nice terminology.
Unfortunately for you, 16" rounds can be designed and built from 155mm technology. And, 155mm PGM technology is in its first generation with Exalibur. So, regardless of whether it's just being code broken or what not, it really doesn't matter. If you can do it with a 155mm shell, you can do it with a 406mm shell.

No its a stupid argument because we have an over abundence of hawk firing capability. Way more tubes then we have missiles, so to use that as a justification is asinine.

Exactly! So why build DD(X)'s each with 80 VLS cells?! Your arguement doesn't make any sense. At least with the Iowa we don't need to build more hawk tubes! Its funny you told Smitty what a good job he was doing arguing his case, when he made the exact opposite point.

No we do not have the tech. You claim to be a eng. Please discuss the G load of these "Super 16" shells' and how it will effect the electronics of any guidance system. Something that JDAM doesn't have to worry about.

Lets look at the hardware:

Mark 7 16" Gun:
Muzzle Velocity: 2,500 FPS max.
Working pressure: 18.5 tons/in. squared.

155mm AGS gun:
Muzzle Velocity: 2,707 FPS
Working Pressure: 20 tons/in. squared

Right there we see the 155mm AGS fires at a higher muzzle velocity, in which case more G-force would be in effect than the 16" Mark. 7 shell! But even more interesting is the fact that they have roughly the same characteristics give or take the fact they are over 60 years apart in design.

Sure it does. Its not the size of your round but the effect it has on target. The fact that a 25 lb (app) round is more effective than a 96lb round just blew right over you.

No it didn't, because you didn't specify how many of those shells it took to acheive the objective! It's almost like...your in a fantasy world. What I can't figure out, is how the fact that a 5" shell is more effective has anything to do with the DD(X) being a better platform?

[Gun Grape]

The designers themselves have told us. 28 kts max since it doesn't have power to go beyond that. It's physics. Unless your trying to tell me that the DD(X) is so amazing that it bends the laws of physics.

No according to PEO DDX will have a Sustained Top speed of 30kts. Not a max speed of 28.

No, a 16" tube can fire that far with assisted munitions.

Quick, name the 16” assisted rounds (RAP/BB) that are type classified and have been produced. Give me a link/reference to any 16” round with a 100nm. Type classified or not.

And once again what is this COF?

You seem to have this problem with not understanding the basic concerns of the issue here. JDAM's are NOT part of NSFS. According to the logic of your arguement, we don't need the DD(X) since JDAM's can do its job for it

Once again, you just don't know how to look at it from a professional viewpoint. No military analyst would really gives a rats ***** about JDAM's since regardless of how useful it is we still have a NSFS requirement even if you don't want to aknowldege it. Once you understand the mission gaps, you'd understand that we don't need the DD(X) either since neither of them mitigate the mission requirements. I gave you a chart. The DD(X) only partially mitigates 4 out of the 4 gaps, while the Iowa partially mitigates 2 out of the 4. With PGM 16" shells, it would partially mitigate 4 out of 4 of the mission requirements as well. This is why your JDAM fire support theory doesn't matter. Your barking up the wrong tree.

So even by your chart DDX is a better buy.

JDAMs are part of the fire support matrix and a member of the NFS family. Battleships look good in a a BB vs DD vacuum. It doesn’t look so good in the real world when you look at overall fire support available.

You like many of the “We need 16” “ seem to forget that we don’t do anything in a vacuum. The Battle for Okinawa is oftem brought up, for the amount of BBs and the volume of fire they expended. With a “See if we ever do a frontal amphib assault, we won’t have anything to replace that firepower. Of course they don’t mention the other assets used. Like the 30+ days of pre invasion air strikes.

In the Fire Support Cell ,those decisions are made. We take the targets, assign the appropriate shooter for them. Fight the battle. In addition to those Pre Planned targets, there will also be systems blocked off for Tgts of opportunity. Then you break down the Fire support assets in Direct Support, Direct Support Reenforcing, General Support, GSR