B.Smitty

Copperhead's electronics were specifically designed to take the thousands of Gs needed for a gun-launch. SDB's are not. They're probably fairly rugged, but not on that order.

$50k each is the volume price that I saw. I'll try to find the link.

Yep, most of the guided rounds are also pricey.

This is certainly true if you have accurate targetting. But that's not always the case. There's still a need for relatively cheap, area fires - which is what a gun can give you.

Except that putting a pound in orbit costs ~$10k, and weaponizing space has serious political ramifications.

Like what?

My ideal system would share a common engine, airframe and basic avionics for a disposable UAV, loitering attack munition, and mini-cruise missile variants. All of which could be packed four per VLS cell, or maybe even nine per PVLS.

If you could make the cruise missile variant have a similar warhead penetration and performance to the SDB, it could take over many of the TLAM's tasks.

A 24 hour endurance, disposable UAV could be used like an airborne sonobouy - just fire off a few when you need extra sensor coverage.

The loitering munition could be used to hunt down SAM sites, attack hidden armor, kill Scuds, Al Qaeda, you name it.

Heck, if you could get a high-subsonic cruise plus a short, supersonic burst out of the engine (ala MALI), you could even use it as a long-ranged, loitering SAM.

B.Smitty

They would have to do a lot more than just tweak the aerodynamics (as was proposed for the ST 21) to drop the RCS by that much.

Anon

They planned to make serious RCS improvements for the ST-21.

Anon

"Don't forget trained pilots who are able to fly often, sound doctrine and supporting units etc "

There are numerous such threat nations in the world right now.

Swift Sword

I see your point. I guess I was comparing apples and oranges, but not beyond the theoretical possibility that an apple could be an orange



Thats ok, I will take that figure at face value.

At the risk of sounding flippant, missing can be priceless.

True and certainly on all points.

However, I have been lead to believe that in practice, the flexibility and responsiveness of 16 inch gun strikes left a bit to be desired when compared to 5 inch and smaller gun strikes (the bigger gun's longer range and throw weight not withstanding). This could be an inaccurate assesment, but I have heard it from the mouths of more than one Marine from more than one conflict.

Too, I find nothing relatively cheap about 16 inch guns and their platforms in the scheme of things.

I have no hard figures OTTOMH, but I a have a suspicion that when we take into account all of the reindeer games required to deliver a piece of ordnance from the factory to the guys you want to get dead, getting said ordnance in and out of space and onto target is very likely going to be cost competitive and offer some added benefits to boot. Again, though, let me reiterate I have no figures, just a sneaky suspicion.

As to the political ramifications of weapons in space, it appears to be an almost foregone conclusion that the United States is going to have to move in this direction given the number of and value of military assets already in orbit around this planet. In for a penny, in for a pound so we might as well do it right though I am admittedly in the camp that says such activity is not with out risks of geostrategic and geopolitical destabilization.

Besides, the appropriate sheds in the system architecture could be pop up in nature and do not have to be based in orbit.

Probably the most serious political ramification of placing weapons in orbit is the number of military jobs that will become redundant and officers who will find themselves without a fiefdom. We all know how hard generals and admirals will fight to prevent the acquisition of an effective weapon for the country when their perogatives are threatened.

Even though I sometimes advocate it, my base position is to look unfavorably at proposals where large numbers of roles are speced for a single platform; chalk it up to a peculiarity in my pathology borne of English Protestantism. I can be convinced, however.

To name particulars, I am inclined to think that things like forward swept wings and supersonic capability might incur unneccessary inefficencies viz engineering difficulties and costs when applied to ground attack weapons that are essentially disposable. Might be good for my bottom line but not the contents of the Public's Granary.

I am pretty hip to proposals for maritime use of long loiter UAVs in the ASW role and even better yer the countermine role.

Countermine capability: now we are talking about something the Navy really needs more than most anything else that has been mentioned here. Lord knows that if I had Osama bin Laden's American Express card I would be dogging hard the World's most powerful Navy on the cheap with pre-World War I technology.

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Anon

"However, I have been lead to believe that in practice, the flexibility and responsiveness of 16 inch gun strikes left a bit to be desired when compared to 5 inch and smaller gun strikes (the bigger gun's longer range and throw weight not withstanding). This could be an inaccurate assesment, but I have heard it from the mouths of more than one Marine from more than one conflict."

The 5" gun is more versatile just as a 60mm mortar is more versatile than a 155mm gun.

Does that reflect negatively on the 155mm gun?

Not in my opinion.

As far as what marines say what about the 16" system, there aren't that many around that would even know- one way or another.

B.Smitty

Well I'm not a fan of reactivating the BBs either. I think advanced 5" guns and munitions plus AGS will do the job adequately.

Possibly, but they may also be a useful design compromise to improve slow-speed handling for a loitering UAV, while still permiting a resonable dash/cruise speed.

I agree it is unclear what additional costs are involved in going this route though. If you can build a multi-use airframe, you may save over the long haul with a larger production run. Or, you may not.

I just think you can get a lot of mileage out of the small airframe/turbojet combination, and packing them multiple per VLS cell seems like a natural fit.

Agreed.

Swift Sword

Naturally, you are correct; what I was trying to say and the impression I gave might not have come out quite right.

One example that sticks out in my mind was is aging, retired Marine Colonel who had experience in both Korea and Vietnam had several poor experiences with that system and naval gunfire in general.

He liked the timeliness and accuracy of CAS much better.

The Colonel had a very low opinion of ANGLICO and would very much like to have killed some of their people after a few botched jobs. Too, he liked CAS becuase it was nice to be able to get different types of ordnance or cannon fire and considered it a much safer than getting shelled by your own boats.

Naturally, I am sure that things have progressed significantly since those days but the Colonel had some legitimate gripes, I think. Having few or no people between the shooter and the spotter and having as little distance between the supporting units and the target were the gist of his problem, I think.

When the US went into Afghanistan, the Colonel thought that the orbiting B52s plinking bunkers with JADMS on request was the cats meow. He does not think naval gunfire should be done away with, he just feels that it is easy to over rate and is not always delivered by people who are on the ball or situationally aware which makes it part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Anon

B-52s are pretty useless in the CAS role when there's any IADS or air threat.

When there's not even Cessna's can be effictive support platforms.

B.Smitty

Actually that's not entirely true. Standoff munitions will give a B-52 some capability against a lower end IADS. (not SA-10-class obviously).

Plus there's always F-teens, B-1/2s, F-117s and now F-22As.

Besides, if history is any measure, the enemy IADS and air threat will have been reduced well before the need for CAS.

Franco Lolan

If there is a significant air threat, battleships won't be cruising along the coast for fear of Ashm's.

TopHatter

If there's a significant air threat, then it'll be flying from big fat highly visible airfield(s).

The kind that cruise missiles eat for breakfast.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Defcon 6

Not true. First of all, these aircraft you mention aren't total stealth. For instance the B-2 will appear on radar no matter what the distance. For instance a radar might pick it up as a blip the size of a bird at med. range and a bumble bee at longer ranges. But the radar software filters that crap out since radar operators don't care about where every bird in the area is at, unless it's the kind of bird that drops bombs.

A B-2 costs 1.2 billion (2.2 according to some sources) to build. Are you trying to tell me that we should send that in to hostile territory? When instead we can have a battleship sit a couple miles off shore and bombard the target? if they have the technology to threaten a Iowa a couple miles off shore, then you can bet your social security benefits that they will have some primative means of threatning a B-2.

And the F-22 is less stealthy than a B-2 and a F-117. It's only stealthy enough to ensure air superiority. And the new JSF is only stealthy enough to ensure tactical advantage. duh.

A Iowa costs about 1.2 billion to reactivate and modernize according to Phase I plans. 2.1 billion to fully modernize. So good idea! Lets send a 1.2 billion dollar bomber in right over the enemys heads rather than a Battleship a ways offshore! Great idea!

Terran empire

Uhh you kinda got that back words the F22A has a smaller signature then both the B2 and F117 due to size vs the B2 and Technology vs the F117. the JSF is less stealthy then the F 22 yet still more stealthy then the F117. the advances in Ram, plastics, aerodynamics and stealth have made the 1970's-1980's F117 based tech pale in-comparison.

A ship at sea is not as safe a place as it once was, Look at the USS Cole. A Iowa Class Battle wagon is about a subtle as a mack Truck. it's outdated in has limited range of battle, And most of our enemies like to hide inland A battle ship for action in Afghanistan would be about as useful as a pair of Chimpanzies.

__________________
"Finger never touches Trigger unless some one is going too need a grave digger" (Me)[

Defcon 6

That is actually incorrect. It is third generation stealth technology, but it was not designed for the same stealth spectrum as the F/A-117. The mission requirements are totally different. To put it simply, they are two different animals. But of course, perhaps you have evidence to back your claim up?

All ships have a limited range of battle. The burke is limited. Pretty silly example. And your notion about hiding inland is pointless. Not to be rude, but it is.

First of all the Iowa is used for the NSFS role. So is the DD(X). However the Iowa is capable of heavy suppression which is a method of firing non-precision weapons. As far as Afghanistan goes, Iowa's carry or can carry 32 TLAM's. Next time make sure you use a better example than simply "action in Afghanistan" since it is overly vague.