Nsfs

**rickusn** · 23 Feb 06,, 23:43

March 2006

Navy Artillery: No New Weapons on the Horizon

By Sandra I. Erwin

A decade-long effort to develop advanced munitions for 5-inch guns remains in limbo, and the technology is not likely to be ready for operational use in the foreseeable future.

Under a program called “extended range munition,” which began in 1996, the Navy has been pursuing a satellite-guided projectile that could be launched from ships and hit targets ashore more than 40 miles away.

By unofficial estimates, the Navy has spent nearly $2 billion on the project but has yet to deploy a single round. The original schedule called for the weapon to be deployed in 2001.

“We’re working to figure out the way ahead for this program,” says Rear Adm. Barry McCullough, director of Navy surface warfare.

The extended range munition, or ERM, has been plagued by delays and technical glitches, but the Navy is not giving up on the program, McCullough says. The weapon was designed to provide fire support to Marines landing in hostile territory.

The Navy also is developing a 6-inch guided round that will be fired from its next-generation DDX destroyer. That weapon has seen smoother sailing than the 5-inch, McCullough notes. The 6-inch projectile, made by Lockheed Martin Corporation, has a proven range of 65 miles, says McCullough.

“I need industry to figure out the issues with the 5-inch variants,” he adds. While he is encouraged by the progress of the 6-inch projectile, McCullough says that the 5-inch weapons are a more pressing priority because Navy ships today have 5-inch guns, whereas the DDX may not be in the fleet for several more years.

McCullough says the Navy bears some of the responsibility for the ERM failures. “We haven’t provided industry stable funding for this. That said, however, we’ve been working on this for more than a decade, and we haven’t overcome the technical difficulties.”

McCullough says programs such as ERM require far more tests than the Navy has funded so far. According to the contractor, Raytheon Missile Systems, 11 tests have taken place, and five of those were successful. In each test, only one round was fired.

The Navy has treated ERM as a “science project,” he says. “There’s no repeatability.” One of the most significant challenges is the global positioning system satellite receiver, whose sensitive electronics are subjected to 10,000 times the force of gravity when they exit the gun tube.

Another contractor, Alliant Techsystems, proposed an alternative round and continues to test it, under a separate $35 million program. Raytheon remains the ERM contractor, and received $10 million in 2005 for additional tests.

The Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2007 includes $16.3 million for ERM research and development work.

“We are working with industry to get to the point when we have enough of these rounds to test and see if the program is technically viable,” McCullough says. “If you shoot 40 of them, and only 10 work, that’s statistically significant. When you shoot four and two don’t work, that’s not statistically significant.”

Gary Letterman, business development manager at Raytheon, says the latest test in October 2005 demonstrated the round can fly 45 miles.

“Raytheon’s position is that we have flown sufficient number of rounds that proves that we meet the operational requirements,” Letterman says. “Gun hardening is very difficult. We are taking missile components and launching them out of a gun at 10,000 g forces. This has been a real engineering challenge.”

A comparable weapon developed for the Army, however, has overcome early technical hurdles and appears to be heading to production.

The 155 mm Army round, called Excalibur, has much in common with the ERM, although they are not identical, Letterman cautions.

“We use the same lab,” he says. But they have dissimilar technical requirements, and are fired from different guns, at different pressures. “We use a lot of common components and subsystems,” Letterman says. “Excalibur does not have a rocket motor. ERM has a rocket motor. They are not exactly the same.”

Also, the two programs are managed in entirely different ways, he says. “The Army made the decision to put the funds in, and accelerate the program. So we are at the point that we are getting ready to produce rounds and field as quickly as possible.”

What accelerated Excalibur, he says, “was the need that came out of Iraq for precision weapons … There is a sense of urgency with the Excalibur program, whereas there has not necessarily been that sense of urgency with the ERM program.”

The Army awarded Raytheon a $22 million contract in June 2005 to speed up the development.

The Excalibur project manager, Army Lt. Col. William Cole, says 165 projectiles were procured in 2005. An undetermined quantity of projectiles will be shipped to the Middle East in October 2006. They will be fired from Paladin howitzers.

The technical difficulties seen both in ERM and Excalibur point to the need to rethink the fire-support requirements throughout the military services, says David Johnson, a military analyst at the Rand Corporation. He argues that both the Navy and the Army should consider saving the money it costs to develop new weapons and instead figure out how to take better advantage of air-delivered fire support from Air Force and Navy fighter jets and bombers.

“We pursue these technologies sometimes with the assumption that they fill a valid need without looking across all the capabilities of the other services,” Johnson tells National Defense. “We still have this large bag of service capabilities that haven’t been fully integrated at the joint level.”

**Gun Grape** · 08 Mar 06,, 03:54

Originally Posted by rickusn

March 2006

Navy Artillery: No New Weapons on the Horizon

The technical difficulties seen both in ERM and Excalibur point to the need to rethink the fire-support requirements throughout the military services, says David Johnson, a military analyst at the Rand Corporation. He argues that both the Navy and the Army should consider saving the money it costs to develop new weapons and instead figure out how to take better advantage of air-delivered fire support from Air Force and Navy fighter jets and bombers.

“We pursue these technologies sometimes with the assumption that they fill a valid need without looking across all the capabilities of the other services,” Johnson tells National Defense. “We still have this large bag of service capabilities that haven’t been fully integrated at the joint level.”

This is what I've been saying all during the BB discussions. Especially the N/MC team.

The problem with fire support is that we use history as a guideline for current needs. And the cases we study are over 50 yrs old. When the MC starts determining fire support for a MEF size landing they have to look at Inchon and base results by volume of fire and effect. With no regards for accuracy or capabilities that could now be used that were not avaliable back then.

We do the same with aircraft capabilities. The AF not as bad because they really seem to embrace high tech.

An example, from 1983 lebanon. The Command Bunker that the Jersey fired a few hundred rounds at. And that either 2 or 3 squadrons of A-7 and A-6s tried to hit. Today 1 plane (Take your pick) with 1 JDAM would have the same effect. But if we were only looking at it from a Surface Fire Support aspect that fact would never come up.

Thats one of the reasons I cringe when I hear people that should know better
say that we have lost something beacuse we don't have the "Throw weight" that we once had or that we need a high rate of fire for the suppressive effects.

In study after study, Artillery has been the prime killer on the battlefield. With around 70% of enemy deaths caused by indirect fire weapons.

If I left it at that then you would think we need more shooters, but the other half of that equation is that 95% of those casualties occur within the first 2 min of the battle against troops in the open. Before troops can get under cover. When firing on good defensive positions not many die thill the grunts root them out. Or you smash the bunkers.

50 years ago, airpower wasn't very effective at precision bombing so big ships with big guns was the best we had. Now airpower precision has surpassed
gun precission. Is there a need to duplicate the effort and bring guns up to speed at a much greater cost? There comes a time when the shell gets so expensive that they become Corps or theater level assets.

I think things will get better since we started talking in terms of "Effects based Fire Support"

Now a preemptive strike . Answers to the question that always comes up

What will you do if the weather is too bad for the carrier to fly planes? 2 answers, take your pick

1. If the SS is too rough to launch planes, its also too rough for NGF support

2. If its too rough to launch planes off a Nimitz class, then Wasp class ships won't be launching phrogs. LCACs and AAVs don't splash either. 6 ft seas and 18kt winds (SS4 or 5 on beaufort scale) will stop an assault faster than a minefield.

And once ashore, NGF is a GS asset, not a maneuver elements DS. The king will be ashore to handle the calls.

**Bill** · 08 Mar 06,, 05:50

"This is what I've been saying all during the BB discussions. Especially the N/MC team."

And i think that at the most fundamental level you- like him- are wrong.

As i stated when you first came here, you tend to sound a lot like those geniuses that decreed that the tank was obsolete, or that the gun armed dogfighter was obsolete, or that the dogfight itself was obsolete, etc, etc, etc.

Air power can no more fill the role of artillery than it can fill the role of Infantry or Armor.

"We don't need tanks anymore because the armored gunship can fill that role" sounds an awful lot like "we don't need gun armed ships anymore because TACAIR can fill that role".

Really bro, you should know better, because it's crap.

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 08 Mar 06,, 05:53

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"This is what I've been saying all during the BB discussions. Especially the N/MC team."

And i think that at the most fundamental level you- like him- are wrong.

As i stated when you first came here, you tend to sound a lot like those geniuses that decreed that the tank was obsolete, or that the gun armed dogfighter was obsolete, or that the dogfight itself was obsolete, etc, etc, etc.

Air power can no more fill the role of artillery than it can fill the role of Infantry or Armor.

Really bro, you should know better.

Now that I think about it, stealth technology will probably shorten the range of Air-to-Air engagements, given that both sides used stealth birds. If so, the dogfight may be back in a big way in the future, unless new RADARs and ABLs etc. rule them out again.

**Bill** · 08 Mar 06,, 05:58

The dogfight never left(restrictive ROEs have ensured that), just as the need for naval gunfire support has never left.

It's just that some people need constant reminders of these things or they become deluded and start to think crazy.

Sort of like how the US learned the hard way in WWII and Korea and Vietnam that armored gun shields work great, and how after each war the idea was somehow 'forgotten', and lots of guys had to die in the next war before the idea was 'relearned'.
We had to 'relearn' in OIF too. What a surprise.

Me, i remember lessons.

I am not surprised at the response from the 'anti' side of the aisle though. They chirp all along about how we dont need BBs because all these gee whiz systems are in the pipeline.

Except that the pipeline appears to be quite stopped up and the plumber dont return our calls.

So now what do they say?

'Well, we don't even need NGFS at all'.

Bullshiit.

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 08 Mar 06,, 06:15

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The dogfight never left(restrictive ROEs have ensured that), just as the need for naval gunfire support has never left.

It's just that some people need constant reminders of these things or they become deluded and start to think crazy.

Sort of like how the US learned the hard way in WWII and Korea and Vietnam that armored gun shields work great, and how after each war the idea was somehow 'forgotten', and lots of guys had to die in the next war before the idea was 'relearned'.
We had to 'relearn' in OIF too. What a surprise.

Me, i remember lessons.

I am not surprised at the response from the 'anti' side of the aisle though. They chirp all along about how we dont need BBs because all these gee whiz systems are in the pipeline.

Except that the pipeline appears to be quite stopped up and the plumber dont return our calls.

So now what do they say?

'Well, we don't even need NGFS at all'.

Bullshiit.

Yeah I'm sure the Marines would disagree with the no Gunfire support scenario.

**Gun Grape** · 08 Mar 06,, 12:18

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I am not surprised at the response from the 'anti' side of the aisle though. They chirp all along about how we dont need BBs because all these gee whiz systems are in the pipeline.

Except that the pipeline appears to be quite stopped up and the plumber dont return our calls.

So now what do they say?

'Well, we don't even need NGFS at all'.

Bullshiit.

My argument against the BBs was never about gee wiz stuff. That stuff is icing on the cake, if and when it ever shows up.

That seems to have been the Pro BB argument though. "It will meet NSFS requirements if we develope "Guided shells", Extended range (Sabot or RA/BB) Guided shells and Scramjet rounds."

You must have confused me with the NSNFSA.

The anti argument is that they are old, manpower intensive and don't meet requirements.

And you have never read where I say "No NGFS needed." Thats like saying "We don't need company level mortars."

**Bill** · 08 Mar 06,, 19:48

You put an Iowa 5 miles off the coast of a threat nation and it can do 95% of the things that the USMC is asking for.

And didn't you just say you agreed with the guy in the article(the one you quoted) who DID state that TACAIR could fill the NGFS/NSFS role?

Whatever, short of a disastrous Amphib op the skeptics will not be convinced, and i doubt even then.

Of course the JCOS are way to smart to commit to an amphib op against a fairly worthy opponent with what we have now because it would IMO be a disaster.

So, if we're not going to use the Marines for the role they are intended to fill, what is the point in having them?

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 09 Mar 06,, 00:41

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

You put an Iowa 5 miles off the coast of a threat nation and it can do 95% of the things that the USMC is asking for.

And didn't you just say you agreed with the guy in the article(the one you quoted) who DID state that TACAIR could fill the NGFS/NSFS role?

Whatever, short of a disastrous Amphib op the skeptics will not be convinced, and i doubt even then.

Of course the JCOS are way to smart to commit to an amphib op against a fairly worthy opponent with what we have now because it would IMO be a disaster.

So, if we're not going to use the Marines for the role they are intended to fill, what is the point in having them?

You shouldn't. The Marines should be merged into the Army (Maybe call it the Land Forces), some as regulars, some could serve in a smaller number of specialised amphib-equipped units that could also serve in rapid reaction and riverine environments. Otherwise Marine aviation gets turned over to the Air Force, with carrier-based planes going over to the Navy, and the US Military saves big time on administration costs.
The Navy can handle it's own ship-born security surely.

**Bill** · 09 Mar 06,, 01:27

The three marine divisions could just be used as an Army amphibious corps and rolled right into the army as is.

Replace all that obsolete junk equipment of theirs over time with already standardized top end Army equipment, keep the few Marine systems worth a damn(Like the Cobra Zs, their small force of M-1s, and all their HUMMERs, etc), BUT adopt their standards of training for all Army combat arms personnel.

But, i am not in charge.

LOL.

**Gun Grape** · 09 Mar 06,, 02:11

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

You put an Iowa 5 miles off the coast of a threat nation and it can do 95% of the things that the USMC is asking for.

Yea except for the range and accuracy requirements. Its an obsolete manpower intensive POS that needs to supply me with razor blades.

And didn't you just say you agreed with the guy in the article(the one you quoted) who DID state that TACAIR could fill the NGFS/NSFS role?

Yes I agree with the following statement:
" “We pursue these technologies sometimes with the assumption that they fill a valid need without looking across all the capabilities of the other services,” Johnson tells National Defense. “We still have this large bag of service capabilities that haven’t been fully integrated at the joint level.”"

So yes we should spend our money deciding how Air fills some of the NGF missions then work on the things that air doesn't cover.

Its stupid spending money on a system to accomplish a mission that we already have covered with other assets.

A current example of this is the M-777. All the "experts" say we are wasting money since it still has a 39 cal barrel. "We are undergunned, underranged. What we needed was a 52 cal like all our european allies." Then we could fight the deep battle and do Counterbattery."

Luck was with us in that DOD doesn't listen and instead chose the smart thing.

Counterbattery is, and has been an Air tasking since the late 80s. The deep battle is fought with air and rockets. So what would the extra tube length and range get us?

Well they would take up a bigger footprint on every form of transportation we have. So if we had gone for the redundant capability,(thats covered by 2 systems) we would have increased the amount of assets needed to get to the fight.

Whatever, short of a disastrous Amphib op the skeptics will not be convinced, and i doubt even then.

Of course the JCOS are way to smart to commit to an amphib op against a fairly worthy opponent with what we have now because it would IMO be a disaster.

Well there have been more than a few amphib ops since Okinawa. The last time BBs were used, and none have failed yet.

I've heard you take pop shots in regards to OMFTS for a year now. And yet you have never said why you think its a failure. When are you gonna start that thread?

So, if we're not going to use the Marines for the role they are intended to fill, what is the point in having them?

Lets see what Army Officers have to say about it, Shall we

"Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can? They're the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines."

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle! "

General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, United States Army
12 February 1918

"I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"
General Douglas MacArthur, US Army

The man who will go where his colors will go, without asking, who will
fight a phantom foe in a jungle and mountain range, without counting, and who will suffer and die in the midst of incredible hardship, without complaint, is still what he has always been, from Imperial Rome to sceptered Britain to Democratic America. He is the stuff of which legions are made.
His pride is his colors and his regiment, his training hard and thorough and coldly realistic, to fit him for what he must face, and his obedience is to his orders. As a legionaire, he held the gates of civilization for the classical world... today he has been called United States Marine."

Lieutenant Colonel T.R. Fehrenbach, US Army in "This Kind of War":

And I'll throw in a Pres for fun

"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have ever made a difference in the world, but the Marines don't have that problem. "
Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States

Those are the reasons we have Marines, Straight from the Armys mouth.

**Gun Grape** · 09 Mar 06,, 02:28

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

BUT adopt their standards of training for all Army combat arms personnel.
.

Oh, You don't want to make the Marines part of the Army.

You want to make the Army part of the Marine Corps.

As the old recruiting line use to say: If everyone could make it, It wouldn't be the Marines.

Of course my favorite recruiting slogan was :We'd promise you sleep deprivation, mental torment, and muscles so sore you'll puke, but we don't like to sugar-coat things."

**Bill** · 09 Mar 06,, 02:33

Yeah, like Audie Murphy, the single greatest hero in this nation's history, who was turned down by the Marines cause he was too small.

LOL....whoops, eh?

No friend, i think i shall be very proud to have been a part of the US Army, and i think i would put the battle history of my former regiment up against that of any USMC unit and i would have nothing to be ashamed of.

31st Infantry regiment.......check it out.

Speaking of razorblades, that is all that about 80% of the USMCs vehicles and aircraft are good for. LOL, they're older than US!!!!

OMFTS = Unsustainable logistical impossibility.

**Gun Grape** · 10 Mar 06,, 01:47

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Yeah, like Audie Murphy, the single greatest hero in this nation's history, who was turned down by the Marines cause he was too small.

LOL....whoops, eh?

No friend, i think i shall be very proud to have been a part of the US Army, and i think i would put the battle history of my former regiment up against that of any USMC unit and i would have nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm not sure I would call Murphy the greatest hero in US history. The most decorated sure.

Is an individual a greater hero because he was awarded assortment of medals or would someone who was awarded a higher medal for valor more than once a "Greater hero"?

There is more than one individual that was awarded the MoH twice. Are they lesser heros because they didn't get the other medals Murphy did?

But you did say that you wanted to turn the Army into the MC

BUT adopt their standards of training for all Army combat arms personnel.

When you train to Army standards you get a soldier, no matter what uniform you dress him in or what you call him. When you train to Marine standards you get a Marine.

So by saying that you want to train the Army to MArine standards, you are in effect saying that you want them to be Marines.

OMFTS = Unsustainable logistical impossibility.

What makes you say that? I'm sure you have reasons. Start the thread

**Bill** · 10 Mar 06,, 02:01

Rangers are trained to higher standards than Marines(and they're not the only army personell that are.
Formation wise i'd put any US Army heavy mech or Armor unit up against your choice of Marine units.

WWII US Army infantrymen were trained to much higher standards than current US Marines, and WWI infantrymen even more so.

A standard is just that, a standard. Nothing more, nothing less.

Audie Murphy is widely considered to be the greatest hero in the history of the US, dont biitch about it just cause he wasn't a Gyreene.

PS: The last thing the world needs is another OMFTS sucks high wind thread. God knows there are plenty of them around now. I would simply be repeating myself which i view to be a singularly useless habit.
If you really want to argue with people about OMFTS try google. There is no shortage of skeptics out there.