Thread: Speaking of NGFS.......

I would tear into that OMFTS description you posted, but the stupidity it represents is so blatantly obvious, that i highly doubt you need me to point out the inherent flaws.

It amuses me that half the systems they mention in the article are either cancelled or wildly over budget though, lol.

maybe a topic all its own is needed here...

To be titled: "OMFTS: Why it's a cluster fucck."

LOL...

At the very least the pretty and expensive ships will not be hurt being 50 miles from shore.

And the USMC will get new toys to play with along with the navy... and the best part is they will never have to do it againist a compentent OPFOR...

(Sniper)
No one said it wasn't. What was said was that if the USN were tasked with the mission, could we see a Burke being used that close to shore. To which i answered, "No".

(Gun Grape)
That’s an opinion. I know that they had no hesitation bringing them into the restricted maneuver waters off Sierra Leon..


(Sniper)
TACTOM does nothing LASM does except explode.
Two totally different animals, for two totally different missions.


(Gun Grape)
I’m afraid you are wrong here. TacTom is part of the NSFS suite. But you are right in there isn’t much in common. LASM is a blast warhead designed for airburst. Can only be sent to one target, like a regular gun round.
TacTom can be reprogrammed in flight via an UHF satellite link to divert to any one of 15 pre-programmed alternate targets or to an arbitrary location defined by GPS coordinates. It can also loiter over the target area for some time while transmitting imagery from its on-board TV camera via the satellite link. The image can be used to assess battle damage and/or to retarget the missile.
Has 2 different versions in production, a blast and a deep penetration, In the works is a sub munitions version like TLAM-D. All for the same cost (400Thous ) as a SM-2.


(Sniper)
Would you use 127mm guns to take out hardened targets(like tanks for instance), bridges, or a bunker complex?

Nope...me either.

(Gun Grape)
No, not until a DPICM round is developed for it, like the ERGM. But in reality, I would use one of the other weapons that are part of NSFS. F/A-18 with PGM, or Cobra with Tow or if I’m already ashore, Jav or TOW., maybe one of my M-1s. You want to make the “All or nothing” argument but that’s not how fire support works

(Sniper)
500 meters is DC for the Mk13BD.
(approx, i dont have access to the exact figures at the moment).
750 meters is DC for the Mk13PD munition.
2000 meters is DC for the Mk13VVT munition(because it has such a massive lethal radius, more than 3x larger than the Mk13BC munition).

Lethal Radius for various Mk13HC munitions:

The Mk13PD 16" HC develops a lethal radius of 2,778 sq yds(yes, that's one shell).

The Mk13 VVT fuzed HC projectile has a lethal radius of 10,240 sq meters vs exposed troops(again, one shell.).

The Mk13BD fuzed projectile creates a crater 25-35 feet in diameter, and 10 to 20 feet deep. Lethal radius is approx 1,000sq yards.

(Gun Grape)

Where the heck did you get those numbers from? Because they are BS.
According to my Fire Support handbook danger close is 2000 meters for adjusted 16in.
If you have info from either USAFATS or NGF Spotters course that changes that please post. Its been 9 yrs since I attended the course.



(Sniper)
NOTE: The only difference between the 3 rounds is the fuzing.

The Mk8AP 2700lb shell has penetrated as much as 36 feet of reinforced concrete in tests, and is capable of penetrating 18 feet of reinforced concrete beyond 30,000yds(try that with a 155mm gun, lol).

The Mk8AP projectile is a sub MOA munition, which is accurate even by rifle standards(the current US Army M-24 sniper rifle is just under 1 MOA with M-118 ammunition).

(Gun Grape)

I’m betting you got this info from the USNFSA group. They are the same that say the DARPA round was test fired. It actually never got off the drawing board. There is a lot of disinformation on that site. Especially anything talking about Scramjet rounds. They are real good about mixing fact and fiction.

Like the accuracy statement. One BB at one shot put their rounds in an area the size of the Puzzle Palace. Oh wow. Let me see it consistantly. Because that isn't what I've seen with my own eyes. And I'll quote from Naval weapons web site:
"For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range."

When targeting a bunker, 230 yds is still a miss. Pop a JDAM and be done with it.

No tell me the difference between a saboted 16” round with DPICM rounds and TLAM-D or MLRS. None in penetration, others have better accuracy, why bring back BB s if you are using them as expensive DPICM launchers?


(Sniper)
Arty isn't really ideal for moving targets either, but with the proper arithmetic it is possible. Arty is greatly helped by it's high volume of fire.

(Gun Grape)
And things like Copperhead, SADARM, DPICM, FSCAM to name a few. This isn't your dads arty.

(Sniper)
Still, SM-4 in it's stillborn form would not be what you'd want to use for moving targets. You'd want an IIR or SALH version for that, and a cluster warhead. Even just a cluster warhead would aid greatly, but that would remove any semblance of hard target engagement capability.

Such a missile is certainly well within the technology of the US, but again, it would be quite pricey.


Rick, there was also a "Block II" version of LASM that had 9 SADARM submunitions, that would've been IDEAL for engaging moving targets. I completely forgot about it until now, for whatever reason, lol

(Gun Grape)
No you couldn’t develop a high speed carrier round.. Either for DPICM, and especially not for SADARM. You have bad info.
A high speed deployment of SADARM would shred the parachute.
The round that’s within tech of US is already deployed. Its called TacTom

(Sniper)
"How many men on the ground are trained to spot for the guns?"

It's the same as calling for any other type of fire, just bigger bullets with a coorespondingly larger DC exclusion zone. Besides, the Iowa has numerous on-board UAVs to provide it with an organic spotting/adjusting/BDA capability.

(Gun Grape)

No it isn’t. That’s why they have a separate school for it. Much different.

Why not start a thread about why you disagree with the tenants of OMFTS? I would be interested in your take on it.

(Troung)
Well I also wonder if they train with say a real mobile, well equipped and trained enemy in mind? So not like training against the Iraqis/Grenadans in mind but say a mobile enemy force. So that just wouldn't be getting onto the beach but then fighting off real counter attacks from a mobile heavliy armed force.

(Gun Grape)

Yes we do.

Sniper: "More now than there were the last time the Iowas were reactivated, as a matter of fact.(They've only been deactivated for about a decade. The last time they were taken out of mothballs, they'd been deactivated for much longer, and they had to find 4 ships worth of gunners mates. This time, they'd only need enough to man 2)"


Heres a little clarification of dates for you.

USS New Jersey was decommissioned 17DEC69 and recommissioned 28DEC82 almost exactly 13 years.

USS Missouri was decommissioned on 31March92 just over 13 years ago.

But that doesnt tell the whole story she was to decommission by 30SEPT91(getting close to 14 years ago) just like the Wisconsin but was kept in service with a skeleton crew so she could take part in the 50th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Attack. Many parts of the ship already stripped and sealed up if I understand correctly.

This is still amazing to me coming so soon after GWI.

Here is a statement that says it all by AD Baker III (former editor of Combat Fleets) at the time:

"The ships have been decommissioned to reserve because of the expense of operating them, leaving the US Navy without a significant shore bombardment capability, despite the excellent work carried out by these ships in the Persian Gulf in 1991"

At the time of their reactivation the USN had somewhere around 200,000 more sailors than now(I havent checked exactly) relying on my fallible memory. GMs are certainly many fewer then than now by any measure. But they arent really the issue. Unrated Seaman and Fireman are. As they make up the vast majority of a battleship crew.

And the USN has been drastically reducing their #s over the last 15 years.

In fact outgoing CNO Clark is on record as saying he doesnt want any!!!!!

Having said that I would still think that after having four battleships in-commission over the course of nearly a decade that there would be more people with battleship experience now than then.

Of course if the last 15 years of downsizing(which is continuing at this very moment) targeted that group..........well........

AS for OMFTS well dont get me started. LOL

Remember this though:

"The Operational Maneuver from the Sea concept was published 4 January 1996 by the 31st commandant, General Charles C. Krulak."

and look at what hasnt been realized in addition to NSFS:

"OMFTS fuses amphibious ship and landing force maneuver to create and exploit opportunities in time and space to project amphibious power ashore as seamlessly as possible. The impact of this kind of maneuver warfare was foreshadowed in Operation Enduring Freedom, when Marines seized a forward operating base in Afghanistan, approximately 400 miles inland from their seabase in the Arabian Sea. However, though the Marines successfully demonstrated the viability of these new warfighting concepts with current platforms, they will not be truly realized until they are married with the future elements of the "mobility triad" - the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC). "

Only the LCAC has and its getting old waiting for the other two.