Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

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

Isn't what I've heard. Even then the Iowa is still faster by a good bit.

So even by your chart DDX is a better buy.

No. Better luck next time.

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.

NFS eh? Anyways I find it highly amusing that you have that notion when no military analysts or civilian analysts have stated such a thing! Your entire notions is pure conjecture. The mission gaps in NSFS requirements are just that, GAPS!

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.

I wouldn't make that arguement unless I was stupid enough to take Smitty's bait a second time around.

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

This is the problem with your arguement....you make no point whatsoever. Instead you go about in a rudimentary way of instructing me or whoever reads this about the method used to shoot an artillery piece or what not. Doesn't matter. Has nothing to do with reality. Read the GAO report.

[Defcon 6]

Congressional Budget Office Report Dec. 05' -
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6...ipbuilding.pdf

Surface Combatants
The Navy’s plan would buy seven DD(X) destroyers at a rate of one per year starting
in 2007. Press reports indicate that the Navy hopes to reduce the cost of the
first two ships of that class to $3.1 billion, with subsequent ships costing about
$2.0 billion. CBO estimates that the cost of the first ship would be $4.7 billion
and that the average cost for a seven-ship class of DD(X)s would be $3.7 billion
(see Table 2).
In addition, the Navy intends to begin buying a new missile-defense surface combatant,
the CG(X) cruiser, in 2011. CBO assumes that a CG(X) would use the
same hull—and cost about the same—as a DD(X) destroyer. However, the
CG(X)s would have a lower average cost than the DD(X)s because more of them
would be bought (19 between 2011 and 2023) and because some CG(X)s would
be purchased at a rate of two per year, reducing their unit cost.
The Navy’s 313-ship plan would also maintain a fleet of 62 Arleigh Burke class
destroyers (DDG-51s). CBO assumes that those ships would be modernized and
would serve for about 35 years, which is consistent with the Navy’s plan. Under
that assumption, the first replacement for the DDG-51s—a DDG(X)—would need
to be purchased in 2020.11 For this analysis, CBO assumed that the new DDG(X)
would be somewhat larger than existing DDG-51s but smaller than DD(X) destroyers
(since it would be unlikely to carry the advanced gun systems that DD(X)s
have). In particular, CBO assumed the DDG(X) would displace about 11,000 tons
at full load. In CBO’s projection, those replacement destroyers cost an average of
about $2.2 billion apiece—the same cost per thousand tons as today’s Arleigh
Burke destroyers—assuming that they are bought at a rate of three per year.
Finally, CBO assumed for this analysis that the littoral combat ship would have a
service life of 25 years, the midpoint of the Navy’s goal of 20 to 30 years. As a
result, by 2030, the Navy would have to start buying large numbers of LCSs again
to replace those purchased between now and 2017.
Submarines

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

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

2 155mm guns with a range of 100 miles. Studies have been conducted on backfitting these to Burkes

80 VLS cells along with the sensor suite to shoot SM2, SM3, Tomahawk, ESSM and all other weapons in the VLS Common Canister family.

In stride mine avoidance.

State of the art, command, radar and sonar systems. To include plugging to Netfires and CECS.

Helo hanger, to include maint capability.

Standard engine used throughout the Navy(LM2500/LM5000) Reduced training, maint cost.

An Iowa has:
x9 16" guns (thats 406mm)

With a 20 odd mile range

x12 5" guns in 6 twin turrets.

Obsolete

CIWS:
4 x 20mm/76 cal Mk 15 Vulcan Phalanx 6-barrelled Gatling
2 port 2 starboard

obsolete, first generation will have to be replaced.

VLS/ Launchers

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

Obsolete, cannot be used

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

Score

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.

SO for 5 billion (where did you get that quote?) I get 2 ships that can fire 20 miles away with about a 230 meter dispersion pattern.

Or I get 20 ships that can be deployed at 20 different places in the world with 100 Nm range guns that have a dispersion pattern less than 30 meters. Can provide their own antiAir and Antiship protection. In addition to firing the entire range of weapons certified for VLS. Plug into Netfires ect

I'll go for the 20 ships thank you
:

[Defcon 6]

2 155mm guns with a range of 100 miles. Studies have been conducted on backfitting these to Burkes

Then we could also backfit them to Iowa's.

80 VLS cells along with the sensor suite to shoot SM2, SM3, Tomahawk, ESSM and all other weapons in the VLS Common Canister family.

You just said we didn't need more tomahawk tubes. I quote:

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

But the Iowa can already carry 32 hawks. And with modernization it could use the rest of those vls common weapons.

State of the art, command, radar and sonar systems. To include plugging to Netfires and CECS.

Iowa Modernization.

Helo hanger, to include maint capability.

Iowa has helo capability as well as UAV capability.

Standard engine used throughout the Navy(LM2500/LM5000) Reduced training, maint cost.

Iowa would have modern propulsion with modernization or maybe even only reactivation.

With a 20 odd mile range

Could be increased with assisted PGM's. The 155mm AGS only has a range of 100 miles because it uses assisted PGM's. And to correct you, the Iowa's 16" guns have a range of 23-24 nautical miles.

Obsolete

Then they can be replaced. Either way they still get the job done.

obsolete, first generation will have to be replaced.

I estimate a cost of 10 million or less to do so.

Obsolete, cannot be used

Well they can be used. They just aren't supported anymore, so it would be difficult to maintain. Either way they can be replaced for the cost of peanuts.

SO for 5 billion (where did you get that quote?)

GAO/NSIAD-99-225
Defense Acquisitions
Evaluation of the Navy’s 1999 Naval Surface Fire Support Assessment
September 1999

Page 3 :

During the 1980s, the Navy spent about $1.7 billion to modernize and reactivate its four Iowa class battleships. During their reactivation, each of these ships was fitted with 16 Harpoon and 32 Tomahawk missile launchers, along with updated communications, fire control, and target acquisition systems.

The estimated cost cited for reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was $209.4 million and for the U.S.S. Iowa, was $221.3 million, including repair of the damaged turret. To accomplish the reactivation, the Navy estimated 14 months for industrial support and 3 to 6 months for modernization and training on and certification of newly installed equipment.

The estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was based on the actual cost to reactivate the U.S.S. New Jersey battleship in the 1980s, less the modernization costs that occurred during its reactivation, and escalating the figure to fiscal year 1999 dollars. The estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Iowa is the same as the U.S.S. Wisconsin plus $12 to $14 million to repair the damage to the number 2 turret.

I get 2 ships that can fire 20 miles away with about a 230 meter dispersion pattern.

PGM's.

Or I get 20 ships that can be deployed at 20 different places in the world with 100 Nm range guns that have a dispersion pattern less than 30 meters. Can provide their own antiAir and Antiship protection. In addition to firing the entire range of weapons certified for VLS. Plug into Netfires ect

The Iowa would equal the DD(X) for accuracy with PGM's.

You only get 7 ships.
Congressional Budget Office Report Dec. 05' -
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc...hipbuilding.pdf

Surface Combatants
The Navy’s plan would buy seven DD(X) destroyers at a rate of one per year starting
in 2007. Press reports indicate that the Navy hopes to reduce the cost of the
first two ships of that class to $3.1 billion, with subsequent ships costing about
$2.0 billion. CBO estimates that the cost of the first ship would be $4.7 billion
and that the average cost for a seven-ship class of DD(X)s would be $3.7 billion
(see Table 2).
In addition, the Navy intends to begin buying a new missile-defense surface combatant,
the CG(X) cruiser, in 2011. CBO assumes that a CG(X) would use the
same hull—and cost about the same—as a DD(X) destroyer. However, the
CG(X)s would have a lower average cost than the DD(X)s because more of them
would be bought (19 between 2011 and 2023) and because some CG(X)s would
be purchased at a rate of two per year, reducing their unit cost.
The Navy’s 313-ship plan would also maintain a fleet of 62 Arleigh Burke class
destroyers (DDG-51s). CBO assumes that those ships would be modernized and
would serve for about 35 years, which is consistent with the Navy’s plan. Under
that assumption, the first replacement for the DDG-51s—a DDG(X)—would need
to be purchased in 2020.11 For this analysis, CBO assumed that the new DDG(X)
would be somewhat larger than existing DDG-51s but smaller than DD(X) destroyers
(since it would be unlikely to carry the advanced gun systems that DD(X)s
have). In particular, CBO assumed the DDG(X) would displace about 11,000 tons
at full load. In CBO’s projection, those replacement destroyers cost an average of
about $2.2 billion apiece—the same cost per thousand tons as today’s Arleigh
Burke destroyers—assuming that they are bought at a rate of three per year.
Finally, CBO assumed for this analysis that the littoral combat ship would have a
service life of 25 years, the midpoint of the Navy’s goal of 20 to 30 years. As a
result, by 2030, the Navy would have to start buying large numbers of LCSs again
to replace those purchased between now and 2017.

I'll go for the 20 ships thank you

I already knew you would.

I, however would go with the Iowa's which should hold us over until the CG(X) bears some fruit. As you can see, DD(X) acquisition WON'T be complete until oh...2020. So by 2020 we'll have 7 DD(X)'s. Oh, and the program costs haven't gone down!!

Again, I'll go for the Iowa's. For 5 billion.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

2 155mm guns with a range of 100 miles. Studies have been conducted on backfitting these to Burkes

80 VLS cells along with the sensor suite to shoot SM2, SM3, Tomahawk, ESSM and all other weapons in the VLS Common Canister family.

In stride mine avoidance.

State of the art, command, radar and sonar systems. To include plugging to Netfires and CECS.

Helo hanger, to include maint capability.

Standard engine used throughout the Navy(LM2500/LM5000) Reduced training, maint cost.


With a 20 odd mile range


Obsolete



obsolete, first generation will have to be replaced.



Obsolete, cannot be used



Score



SO for 5 billion (where did you get that quote?) I get 2 ships that can fire 20 miles away with about a 230 meter dispersion pattern.

Or I get 20 ships that can be deployed at 20 different places in the world with 100 Nm range guns that have a dispersion pattern less than 30 meters. Can provide their own antiAir and Antiship protection. In addition to firing the entire range of weapons certified for VLS. Plug into Netfires ect

I'll go for the 20 ships thank you
:

GAO/NSIAD-99-225
Defense Acquisitions
Evaluation of the Navy’s 1999 Naval Surface Fire Support Assessment
September 1999

Page 3 :

During the 1980s, the Navy spent about $1.7 billion to modernize and reactivate its four Iowa class battleships. During their reactivation, each of these ships was fitted with 16 Harpoon and 32 Tomahawk missile launchers, along with updated communications, fire control, and target acquisition systems.

The estimated cost cited for reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was $209.4 million and for the U.S.S. Iowa, was $221.3 million, including repair of the damaged turret. To accomplish the reactivation, the Navy estimated 14 months for industrial support and 3 to 6 months for modernization and training on and certification of newly installed equipment.

The estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was based on the actual cost to reactivate the U.S.S. New Jersey battleship in the 1980s, less the modernization costs that occurred during its reactivation, and escalating the figure to fiscal year 1999 dollars. The estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Iowa is the same as the U.S.S. Wisconsin plus $12 to $14 million to repair the damage to the number 2 turret.

GAO-05-39R
Options for NSFS
November 2004


Page 4 :

To reactivate two Iowa class battleships to their decommissioned capability, the Navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million. This does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish gunpowder for the 16-inch guns because a recent survey found that it is unsafe.

In terms of schedule, the Navy’s program management office estimates that reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate memory and the shipyard industrial base.

Reactivating the battleships would require a wide range of battleship modernization improvements, according to the Navy’s program management office.

At a minimum, these modernization improvements include :
* command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment;
* environmental protection (including ozone-depleting substances);
* a plastic-waste processor;
* pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations;
* firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea alterations;
* a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar);
* new combat and self-defense systems.


Page 12 :

Current cost to reactivate estimated to be in excess of $500 million for both ships :

* Cost assumption based on 1999 estimate with a 4% annual inflation rate;

* Cost assumption does not consider availability of shipyard space to complete the reactivation;

-------------------------------------------------------------
US Battleships 1935-1992
By William Garzke and Robert Dulin
Revised Edition (1995)

Foreword :

Garzke & Dulin discuss several Phase II variants in pages 255-263 of their book, giving a cost estimate for each variant.

Cost estimates are presumably in FY82 or FY83 dollar values.

Variant 3A labelled as 'Small Helo' is similar to what they describe later in the books as 'Modest Upgrades' (pages 263-265) and similar to the BBG design proposed by USNFSA.

Variant 7 labelled as 'Cost Constraint' is similar to the Phase 1 reactivation scheme actually carried out.

As noted on page 263, the cost estimate for each alteration did not include such overhaul costs as the replacement of cabling and piping.

Details for both variants below :


Alteration Code 3A 'Small Helo' :

Full-load Displacement, tons (m.t.) : 59,253 (60,211)

Armament :
* 16-inch/50 : 3-3-A-3
* 5-inch/38 : 12
* CIWS : 4

Missiles :
* Tomahawk : 96
* SM-2 Standard : 0
* Harpoon : 16
* NSSMS : 4

Aircraft : 4 SH-60B

Electronics :
* Air Search : AN/SPS-49
* Surface Search : AN/SPS-67
* CIC : SYS-1/TFCC

Hangar : Small

Flight Deck : 1 Helo

Complement :
* Manning : 1,675
* Accommodations : 1,768

Cost (millions of $) : 700-900


Alteration Code 7 'Cost Constraint' :

Full-load Displacement, tons (m.t.) : 58,504 (59,460)

Armament :
* 16-inch/50 : 3-3-A-3
* 5-inch/38 : 12
* CIWS : 4

Missiles :
* Tomahawk : 32
* SM-2 Standard : 0
* Harpoon : 16
* NSSMS : 4

Aircraft : 4 SH-60B

Electronics :
* Air Search : AN/SPS-49
* Surface Search : AN/SPS-67
* CIC : SYS-1/TFCC

Hangar : Small

Flight Deck : 1 Helo

Complement :
* Manning : 1,722
* Accommodations : 1,817

Cost (millions of $) : 400-500

Alteration Code 7 'Cost Constraint' :

Full-load Displacement, tons (m.t.) : 58,504 (59,460)

Armament :
* 16-inch/50 : 3-3-A-3
* 5-inch/38 : 12
* CIWS : 4

Missiles :
* Tomahawk : 32
* SM-2 Standard : 0
* Harpoon : 16
* NSSMS : 4

Aircraft : 4 SH-60B

Electronics :
* Air Search : AN/SPS-49
* Surface Search : AN/SPS-67
* CIC : SYS-1/TFCC

Hangar : Small

Flight Deck : 1 Helo

Complement :
* Manning : 1,722
* Accommodations : 1,817

Cost (millions of $) : 400-500


1. Source #1 : Reactivation cost (i.e. rehabilitation + modernization) for all 4 Iowas during the 1980s was $1,700 millions in total, i.e. an average $425 millions per ship.

This is close to the $400-500 millions estimate for Alteration code 7, which may suggest that rehabilitation costs were included in this estimate, and therefore also included in the cost estimate for alteration 3A.


2. Source #1 : The cost for rehabilitating the Iowas (i.e. reactivating without modernizing) was estimated at $209 millions in 1999 dollars. This would be equivalent to $120 millions in 1983 dollars based on inflation.

This $120 millions is relatively consistent with the $170 millions for rehabilitation per Friedman, given that "the estimated cost of reactivating the U.S.S. Wisconsin was based on the actual cost to reactivate the U.S.S. New Jersey battleship in the 1980s, less the modernization costs that occurred during its reactivation, and escalating the figure to fiscal year 1999 dollars".


3. Source #2 : escalating the $210 millions estimate for 1999 with an annual 4% inflation rate yields a rehabilitation cost (i.e. reactivation without modernization) of about $250 millions.


4. Source #4 : modernization cost can be estimated for alteration code 3A by removing the rehabilitation cost from the overall cost estimate.

Using Friedman's $170 millions for rehabilitation yields a modernization cost for alteration code 3A of $530-730 millions per ship in 1983 dollars, i.e. $1,000-$1,400 millions per ship in 2005 dollars.


5. Source #2 : an additional $110 million needed to replenish gunpowder for the 16-inch guns should be added to the total, i.e. about $50 millions per ship.


Combining the above yields the following cost estimate in 2005 dollars for a reactivated BB with characteristics similar to Alteration Code 3A :

* Rehabilitation : $250 millions per ship (per point 3.)
* Modernization : $1,000-1,400 millions per ship (per point 4.)
* Gunpowder replenishment : $50 millions per ship (per point 5.)
=> TOTAL : $1,300-1,700 millions per ship


The above estimate does not include :

a. some overhaul costs (see source #4);
b. non-recurring costs for restoring the supporting infrastructure;
c. R&D and manufacturing costs for developping and producing battleship-specific ammunitions that would meet the USMC requirements;

[Defcon 6]

I make the final note, that full modernization for 5 billion. That means, replacing all obsolete weaponry and adding modern propulsion and fire control and communications.

[B.Smitty]

Ok, an alternative NSFS idea,

Palletized MLRS (PMLRS):

Remove the launcher components from your average M270A1. Mount them on a standard-sized pallet. Navalize where appropriate.

This should produce a pallet of around 10' x 15-16' that could be transported by air, ship, truck, rail, whatever. They could even be moved ashore and fired from static positions.

Create another pallet with fire control & operator stations.

For the sake of argument, lets say each PMLRS has a program cost of $5 million (including dev, testing & some ratio of fire control pallets to rocket pallets). There's no way they'd cost that much, IMHO, since full-up M270A1s cost less than that, but I'd rather overestimate.

Each PMLRS could carry the following [b]existing[/i] munitions, ready to fire,

- 12 70km GMLRS (200lb unitary or DPICM)
- 2 up-to-300km ATACMS (BAT, DPICM, 470lb unitary)

or the following demonstrated growth munitions:

- 12 100km GMLRS-ER (200lb unitary or DPICM)
- 2 220km ATACMS-P (BROACH unitary penetrator)


Add attachment points to the LCS helo deck for up to 4 PMLRS pallets, including power & C4 links. Offset them so all four can can be fired broadside in either direction, over a limited arc without obstruction.

Store some number of reloads and a loader in the LCS hangers instead of aircraft.

COmparison to Iowas:

For the cost of just reactivating the two Iowas, $500 million, we could buy 100 PMLRS systems - enough to equip 25 LCSs with four each.

That's up to 1200 GMLRS or 200 ATACMS rounds ready to fire out to a 70-300km range.

Assuming one round per second per LCS, combined, they could fire all 1200 GMLRS missiles in 48 seconds!

Try to match that with a pair of Iowas. In 48 seconds, they'd've just gotten their first salvo off - 18 rnds - and only to 24nm.

Additional flexibility would come if you could continue air operations while mounting only one or two PMLRS per LCS. Two PMLRSs plus a pair of VTUAVs per LCS would allow each to search for & strike targets independently.

Risks/Drawbacks:

- Shipboard PMLRS might require a degree of stabilization, which increases costs & complexity. Guided rounds will mitigate this somewhat.
- GMLRS-ER meets the threshold USMC range (41nm) but doesn't have the desired STOM range (200nm). ATACMS comes close, but it's expensive. (IIRC, GMLRS missiles are around the same cost as gun-fired PGMs like ERGM). USMC stud
- Lack of Illum & smoke capability.

[Dreadnought]

modern propulsion

You can probably drop this one from modernization as the propulsion systems, ie. boilers, turbines, jacking gear etc. for the four Iowa's are kept in very good condition in their cat"b" status. Any replacements on these may be either brand new or replaced from the two ships "AOE-1 Sacramento or AOE-2 Camden as they were mothballed in Sept 2004 or 2005 respectively. Both are at Bremerton, WA. Naval Yards to this day.

[Defcon 6]

They wouldn't be interested in that. The GAO report specified modernized propulsion

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Ok, an alternative NSFS idea,

Palletized MLRS (PMLRS):

Remove the launcher components from your average M270A1. Mount them on a standard-sized pallet. Navalize where appropriate.

This should produce a pallet of around 10' x 15-16' that could be transported by air, ship, truck, rail, whatever. They could even be moved ashore and fired from static positions.

Create another pallet with fire control & operator stations.

For the sake of argument, lets say each PMLRS has a program cost of $5 million (including dev, testing & some ratio of fire control pallets to rocket pallets). There's no way they'd cost that much, IMHO, since full-up M270A1s cost less than that, but I'd rather overestimate.

Each PMLRS could carry the following [b]existing[/i] munitions, ready to fire,

- 12 70km GMLRS (200lb unitary or DPICM)
- 2 up-to-300km ATACMS (BAT, DPICM, 470lb unitary)

or the following demonstrated growth munitions:

- 12 100km GMLRS-ER (200lb unitary or DPICM)
- 2 220km ATACMS-P (BROACH unitary penetrator)


Add attachment points to the LCS helo deck for up to 4 PMLRS pallets, including power & C4 links. Offset them so all four can can be fired broadside in either direction, over a limited arc without obstruction.

Store some number of reloads and a loader in the LCS hangers instead of aircraft.

COmparison to Iowas:

For the cost of just reactivating the two Iowas, $500 million, we could buy 100 PMLRS systems - enough to equip 25 LCSs with four each.

That's up to 1200 GMLRS or 200 ATACMS rounds ready to fire out to a 70-300km range.

Assuming one round per second per LCS, combined, they could fire all 1200 GMLRS missiles in 48 seconds!

Try to match that with a pair of Iowas. In 48 seconds, they'd've just gotten their first salvo off - 18 rnds - and only to 24nm.

Additional flexibility would come if you could continue air operations while mounting only one or two PMLRS per LCS. Two PMLRSs plus a pair of VTUAVs per LCS would allow each to search for & strike targets independently.

Risks/Drawbacks:

- Shipboard PMLRS might require a degree of stabilization, which increases costs & complexity. Guided rounds will mitigate this somewhat.
- GMLRS-ER meets the threshold USMC range (41nm) but doesn't have the desired STOM range (200nm). ATACMS comes close, but it's expensive. (IIRC, GMLRS missiles are around the same cost as gun-fired PGMs like ERGM). USMC stud
- Lack of Illum & smoke capability.

Probably would have a nice steady speed of...10 kts.

Only capability is NSFS. Waste of money. Can't protect itself or engage naval or air threats. Your little raft would be a sitting duck.

Only carries missiles and rockets. Aside from what you think, theres a development called the Free Electron Laser which when perfected will make 98% of rockets and missiles obsolete for attacking tactical targets.

And theres a reason the DD(X) won't carry a MRLS system. And the munitions may exist, but then so do 16" shells and 155mm PGM's. Not to mention there isn't a naval fire control system configured for mrls.

[Defcon 6]

oh yeah, lol.

SS-N-19 has a range of 550 - 625 km
SS-N-22 has a range of 120 km

And too bad your raft doesn't have CIWS or any way of defending itself against anything.

[B.Smitty]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Probably would have a nice steady speed of...10 kts.

Well LCS is slated to have a dash speed of 40-50 kts, but who knows how fast it could go and actually fire GMLRSs. But regardless, if this is for fire support of troops inland, I doubt it'd need more than 10kts once in range.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Only capability is NSFS. Waste of money. Can't protect itself or engage naval or air threats. Your little raft would be a sitting duck.

In the basic package, LCS is slated to carry a Bofors 57mm CIWS, SeaRAM, SRBOC/Nulka and may get a block of Netfires VLS missiles. And it's small, fast and has a reduced signature. Later flights might get ESSM.

Besides, it fights as part of a team with Burkes, DD(X)/CG(X)s, subs and CVNs, so it'll hardly be a sitting duck.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Only carries missiles and rockets. Aside from what you think, theres a development called the Free Electron Laser which when perfected will make 98% of rockets and missiles obsolete for attacking tactical targets.

I'll believe it when I see it. Besides THEL has already proven it can shoot down mortar and artillery rounds, so 16" gun rounds aren't safe either.

In any event, these systems can still be saturated. And 1200 GMLRS in 48 seconds is far better than 36 16" rounds in a minute in this regard.

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

And theres a reason the DD(X) won't carry a MRLS system. And the munitions may exist, but then so do 16" shells and 155mm PGM's. Not to mention there isn't a naval fire control system configured for mrls.

Well, I'm not saying get rid of guns. AGS-armed DD(X)s and long-ranged 5" guns have there place too. There was talk of adding a VL ATACMS though.

Guided 70-300km range 16" shells don't exist, not even in prototype form. 155mm PGMs exist but LRLAP does not.

The exact GMLRS and unitary ATACMS rounds I mentioned above have been used in Iraq. The only ones that aren't fielded are the 100km GLMRS-ER and ATACMS-P.

There doesn't need to be an existing naval fire control system configured for it. LCS contains large multi-mission areas where you can plug in palletized systems. I mentioned this in my description.

[Defcon 6]

Well LCS is slated to have a dash speed of 40-50 kts, but who knows how fast it could go and actually fire GMLRSs. But regardless, if this is for fire support of troops inland, I doubt it'd need more than 10kts once in range.

I assume its unmanned? This is the point I should just say "WHATEVER" since it doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion. I can tell your attempting to derail the thread. Maybe you should make a new thread? But for now I'll amuse you concerning your fantasy naval combatant.

In the basic package, LCS is slated to carry a Bofors 57mm CIWS, SeaRAM, SRBOC/Nulka and may get a block of Netfires VLS missiles. And it's small, fast and has a reduced signature. Later flights might get ESSM.

Thats cute. Your imaginary armed Canoe sounds pretty well thought out.

Besides, it fights as part of a team with Burkes, DD(X)/CG(X)s, subs and CVNs, so it'll hardly be a sitting duck.

Hah, thats what I said about my BB(X).

I'll believe it when I see it. Besides THEL has already proven it can shoot down mortar and artillery rounds, so 16" gun rounds aren't safe either.

So can SeaWolf Block II, but if you read the military reports about those they state theres less than a 10% they could actually shoot down any shell in an actual combat situation. You see, with those tests they knew when the rounds were going to be fired thus they actually had NLOS advanced warning. But in reality even Seawolf Block II couldn't perform such a thing in an active hostile situation. You need to read about the Free Electron Laser, it's already been tested successfully.

In any event, these systems can still be saturated. And 1200 GMLRS in 48 seconds is far better than 36 16" rounds in a minute in this regard.

Free Electron Lasers would make that scenario pointless diatribe. Most of those rockets aren't quick enough to avoid current CIWS, let alone a FEL.

Well, I'm not saying get rid of guns. AGS-armed DD(X)s and long-ranged 5" guns have there place too. There was talk of adding a VL ATACMS though.

You just did with your pointless statement about THEL. Ridiculous statement.

Guided 70-300km range 16" shells don't exist, not even in prototype form. 155mm PGMs exist but LRLAP does not.

And GMRLS munitions capable of being integrated into naval applications don't either.

Edit: Oh, and by the way. They do exist in prototype form. DARPA had worked on exactly such a thing:

All BB Rounds Can be Fitted with Precision GPS Error Correction - “One Shot- One Kill” Capability for ~ $4K/Round
Heavy Weight BB Projectiles with Extended Range Tested and/or under Development:
1900 lb. Super Charge (24 NM)
2240 lb. DX-149 (30.42 NM);
1,300/16” (33.82 NM);
1,350/13.65” EX-148 (44.97 NM)
Testing in Nov 1968 / Feb 1969 to ranges over 45 nautical miles.
A 750 lbs. 16”/11-inch sabot which was basis for proposed 1991 DARPA 100 mile (100NM) range sabot.

The exact GMLRS and unitary ATACMS rounds I mentioned above have been used in Iraq. The only ones that aren't fielded are the 100km GLMRS-ER and ATACMS-P.

Not on a boat. If you don't belive me ask someone who knows, totally different situation.

There doesn't need to be an existing naval fire control system configured for it. LCS contains large multi-mission areas where you can plug in palletized systems. I mentioned this in my description.

B.S. Thats pure fantasy, more so than my BB(X). If it won't work with AEGIS (and it won't) then it won't be used because it would complicate things.

Now quit derailing the thread. If you want to talk about them more, create a new one. Because theres an ongoing discussion going on about reactivation and the DD(X).

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

And theres a reason the DD(X) won't carry a MRLS system. And the munitions may exist, but then so do 16" shells and 155mm PGM's. Not to mention there isn't a naval fire control system configured for mrls.

NAVTACMs was sucessfully fired from a Mk-41 VLS cannister in 1996. The program languished due to lack of funding after the Arsenal Ship concept was canned. Started back up in 03. Being planned for use in any ship with Mk-41s and the SSGNs

SSGN Submarine Modification To Accommodate Diverse Payloads
By Hunter Keeter, Defense Daily

The Navy's effort to modify four USS Ohio-class (SSBN-726) fleet ballistic missile submarines to SSGN strike and Special Operations Force (SOF) support variants will accommodate multiple weapon and unmanned vehicle payloads, a service official said.

"One of the issues the submarine force have always wrestled with is payload," Rear Adm. Paul Sullivan, director of submarine warfare requirements, on Monday told a Defense News strike warfare and precision attack conference audience in Alexandria, Va. "The plan for SSGN is not to have [the missile tube volume] unique to just Tomahawk but to accommodate any payload in the future."

The Navy has funded the $4 billion modification of the Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Georgia to include developing Northrop Grumman's [NOC] new Multiple All-up-round Canister (MAC) as an insert for the Trident ballistic missile tubes, enabling SSGN to carry as many as 154 Raytheon [RTN] Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM).

But Sullivan said he did not view the MAC-TLAM modification as the end of the road, noting that in future the SSGN could also host Lockheed Martin [LMT] Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).

Sullivan noted that the Navy is working on ways to incorporate ATACMS, relatively unmodified, directly from the current inventory. The Navy during the 1990s had started and then cancelled a program to develop a naval ATACMS missile; that effort was set aside due to cost.

"SSGN will be able to accept any payload that would make sense 20 years from now," Sullivan said. "[Regarding ATACMS,] just leave the 'U.S. Army' on the side of the missile. We don't care."

The TLAM Block IV is the likely choice for initial operational capability with SSGN, when it arrives in the fleet after FY '07. SSGN is expected in the near term to add to the submarine force's contribution to TLAM strike missiles with 31 improved USS Los Angeles- class (SSN-688) attack submarines each boasting 12 vertical launch system tubes forward the boat's sail.

The Navy has deployed 12 attack submarines to the Red Sea for strike missions against Iraqi targets.

Sullivan said that as payloads are developed and brought to SSGN, these would also be backfitted onto the new Virginia-class, the latest attack submarine design. Virginia is now about 83 percent complete and will be floated in August, with an initial operational capability date set for June 2004.

A feew months ago a joint Navy/Army ATACMs with a deep penetrator was tested.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zzzh.html

The Navy has jumped aboard the latest version of AFATDS. This so that DDX can accept fire missions from the same system that the rest of the fire support community uses. So ATACMs would be a "Plug and Play" item.