gunnut

A lot has been said about naval gun fire support, or the lack thereof by the US Navy right now. The USN is working on the AGS, a new 6" gun of extreme complexity and price tag to equip the DDX for the NGFS role.

Instead of spending billions of dollars on a new destroyer and a new gun system, why not just adapt the army's 155mm howitzer for this role?

Is it possible to create a mission module or 2 for this system to be carried on the LCS to perform the gun fire support role?

A gun is a gun, right? The 155mm howitzer is pretty good at lobbing shells. Why create the AGS to fulfill this single role?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

B.Smitty

The USMC has stated a near-term, threshold/objective range requirement of 76km/117km (41nm/63nm) for NGFS.

The M777 has a max range of 40km with assisted projectiles. The AGS with LRLAP will have a max range of 153km. So there's a bit of a difference in capability here.

There are a number of munitions under development for standard 155mm guns that could improve this (e.g. Sabre, Vulcano, Impaqt), so this situation may change over time.

The AGS also has a sustained rate of fire of 10rnds/min, which no US Army system can do (short of the canceled Crusader).

kato

The German Navy finally scrapped a similar project in April this year, due to ongoing problems with navalization - especially regarding stabilization and recoil handling.

(MONARC, which, btw, could have fulfilled the USN NGFS threshold requirements)

RustyBattleship

Are you saying the German Navy exhibits more common sense than us? Good show.

__________________
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

B.Smitty

Wasn't MONARC shelved in favor of the OTO 127mm LW gun for the German F125?

Galrahn

yes.

There is an interesting idea out of MIT regarding an improved LCAC style NSFS concept deploying a stabilized 155 gun with precision rounds and two 30mm guns for self defense.

gunnut

So even if we reactivate the battleships, their poor range won't satisfy the Marine's demand?

That is very true. But the AGS costs a lot more. While the M777 might have short range, it's on par with the Iowa's main gun, and cheaper to operate.

Can we just pack a few more tubes onto a ship or send 2 LCS with 2 tubes each instead of a single DDX? It'll probably be cheaper to develop and operate.

gunnut

Ah, glad to see great minds think alike.

MIT wants to pack a 155 onto an LCAC. I propose a mission module of 155 for the LCS.

Let me try not to hurt myself while patting myself on the back.

B.Smitty

I don't see how an LCAC is going to be an improvement here. If it uses a regular gun, it will still have too short a range for USMC STOM reqs. Plus it needs to be carried and supported by an amphibious ship or MLP. And every LCAC dedicated to fire support will reduce lift.

Plus, personally, I'd rather see a stabilized MLRS on an LCAC than a gun. Then at least it could fire 70km range GMLRS missiles.

I understand that there are issues navalizing MLRS. So perhaps this isn't a great option either.

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.

JA Boomer

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.

B.Smitty

I wonder if we could modify the Mk45 mount to take a 155mm / 39 cal or 155mm / 52 cal gun like BAE proposed for the British 114mm Mark 8? I'm not sure it'd be worth the complexity and price.

Along the same lines, maybe revisiting the 127mm 70-cal "Magnum" upgrade to the Mk45 would also be worthwhile.

IMHO, sticking with the Mk45 footprint gives you the largest number of potential hulls to mount it on.

Taking a further step back from the gun argument, I have to wonder if gun-launched missiles like LRLAP and ERM are really the right way to go about the deep, volume fire aspect of NSFS.

It seems to me that a VLS-launched or containerized missile along the lines of GMLRS/POLAR/P44/Netfires makes more sense.

Why develop a missile for the demanding environment of in-bore launch when you don't really get a whole lot from it? A standard 5" round with the EX-175 cartridge will go around 38km. ERM with the same charge will go 115km. So the ERM rocket is really doing most of the work anyway.

Why not just make a 5-6" diameter missile that's moderately longer than ERM and pack 9 or more of them per Mk41 VLS cell? In parallel, you could develop an UNREP-able, containerized module for it (like a longer Netfires CLU) and fire them directly from the decks of cargo ships, HSVs, LCSs, and so on.

Any VLS equipped ship could use them, opening up fire support options to a large number of existing warships worldwide.

Galrahn

I know this is an unpopular position, but I'm not sure I see the need for NSFS beyond the latest gun systems on the existing AEGIS fleet.

The MV-22 extends the range for NSFS well beyond existing gun technology, and until rail guns are a reality, it isn't worth building any new ships specifically for NSFS.

If the USMC is going to emphasize the MV-22, which it is doing with its huge buy, then how can it also claim it needs the DDG-1000 gun for NSFS? Seems to me DDG-1000 gun doesn't solve the problem; it is just an interim solution, and not even a good one at that. Unless the USMC moves to a more balanced CH-53K / MV-22 model for aviation the DDG-1000 gun is obsolete upon arrival.

B.Smitty

I agree with you Galrahn. I think ERM is a good program to pursue because it enhances the capability of the existing Mk45 Mod 4.

I don't think AGS and LRLAP make much sense. Nor does reactivating ancient warships or building new large, gun-armed NGFS warships.

JA Boomer

There we go! This makes the most sense to me as well. The ol' 5-inch mount has worked fine for the last 40 or 50 years. Granted it hasn't been used extensively in this role. But why replace it now, the upgrade makes sense to me, but leave the 5-inch well enough alone. It is a cost-effective, mission-effective solution if you ask me.

I have always thought using missiles or even rockets in a primary NGFS role is a bad idea. The cost of the missiles/rockets versus a gun projectile and volume of available fire are the main reasons I would stay away from these.

Although I might suggest the Navy integrate the SLAM-ER missile into the Mk 41 launcher. This would give surface ships the ability to make precision strikes on important ground targets in the NGFS role without wasting a Tomahawk.

The whole idea of NGFS to me is to have the surface ships knock out any potential threats close to shore, and to support landing Marines as they assault the beach. So the need to touch a ground target 100+ miles inland does not seem to be an issue to me. Clear out the beach and nearby area, land the troops with support, and then let M109's, MRLS's, and HIMARS's take over the artillery role. Of course having the surface ships support the troops as they move inland makes sense, but only up to a point (like 27-50 miles). You don't need billion dollar Cruisers and Desroyers chucking lead 100+ miles, they have better things to do.

B.Smitty

The Marine's STOM doctrine emphasizes rapid movements inland, without significant buildup on the beach, via V-22, CH-53K and AAAV. They feel there is a need to support those deep assaults with sea-based, volume fires.

5-inch gunfire (without ERM) doesn't provide the range they desire. ERM will get them part way there, but the long-term, threshold range for guns is 97nm.

Unfortunately if you have to rely on ERM-like munitions for volume fires, you are relying on a missile anyway. So my argument is, since you've already committed to a missile, why bother with the gun mount at all? It just adds complexity, cost and constraints to the missile's design. The price for an ERM appears to be no less than a GMLRS missile, yet the later's warhead alone is heavier than entire ERM munition!

Now if you want the USMC to revise its STOM doctrine to rely less on long-ranged, sea-based fires, then that's a different argument.

I do agree that guns should primarily fire unguided or "lightly guided" (in the form of Precision Guidance Kits) rounds. The big draw for guns has always been that they can achieve reasonable accuracy with cheap munitions, so designing a gun-based solution around exclusively firing big, expensive, guided missiles (AGS/LRLAP) just seems wrong. But what do I know.