Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Why all these threatening remarks? It is a difference in opinion. I knew I have been in a different forum and I also expressed my opinions there. Thus I was banned for expressing what I believed in? I think I'm still in the USA and covered by the First Amendment to the Constitution?
Besides what GF said, I suggest you actually read that First Amendment again. Especially the very first word.
If you're planning on pulling any of the crap you did at the other board, I suggest you depart sooner rather than later.
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
I was thinking a howitzer module would be interesting. Perhaps 105 or 120mm?
Extremely hefty recoil forces there. That's what would probably nix it. Aside from the fact that one would easily weigh about 50% more than a 57mm or 76mm (which are pretty close in weight). A 120mm mortar turret such as AMOS might be doable within the confines LCS provides.
Either way that would also rob the LCS of its forward arc air self-defense and high-velocity gun intercept possibilities.
You could also just drop a manually fed 120mm mortar and its crew in the empty NETFIRES bay and keep the forward gun. Or, if you're adventurous, replace the Mk46 with a new development combining a lightweight 120mm along the lines of NEMO coaxial with a lighter 30mm gun.
I think the LCS cost-for-the-bang might be begining to creep up on some people... half a bilion for a ship that appears half naked is hard to justify...
I agree, in a gunfight, the 76mm is the better choice - but comparing the OTO 76mm Super Rapid Fire to the 57mm M110 is curious, the little one has half the effective range, but similar max range. Weights aren't that different - the 57mm is listed with ammo, the 76mm w/o here:
Specifications Weight Mark 3: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) (weight including 1,000 rounds onboard)
6.5 kg (14 lb) (complete round)
Barrel length
Bore length: 3,990 mm (157.09 in)
Shell 57 mm × 438 mm
6.1 kg (13 lb) complete round
2.4 kg (5.3 lb) pre-fragmented shell
Caliber 57 mm/70 caliber
Barrels Single barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist, 24 grooves)
Elevation
Mark 1: −10°/+78° (40°/s)
Mark 2: -10°/+75° (40°/s)
Mark 3: -10°/+77° (44°/s)
Traverse Full 360°:
Marks 1 & 2: 55°/s
Mark 3: 57°/s Rate of fire
Mark 1: 200 rounds/min
Marks 2 & 3: 220 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity 1,035 m/s (3,400 ft/s) (HE round)
Effective range 8,500 m (9,300 yd) (HE round) Maximum range 17,000 m (19,000 yd) (HE round at 45°)
Originally Posted by USSWisconsin
I was thinking a howitzer module would be interesting. Perhaps 105 or 120mm?
Originally Posted by Kato Either way that would also rob the LCS of its forward arc air self-defense and high-velocity gun intercept possibilities.
Aft mounted NGFS
I was considering a module with the howitzer or mortar, my idea would't replace the 57mm, but might require the aviation suite to be reduced or removed. Alternatively perhaps the LW 155mm AGS proposed for the Burke's could be mounted aft on a special, limited production NGFS variant w/o aviation? This version could carry some full length VLS tubes (for Tomahawks) in the aircraft hanger area?
I think the LCS cost-for-the-bang might be begining to creep up on some people... half a bilion for a ship that appears half naked is hard to justify...
I remember when the VLS cruisers came out, even before that, the Tico's with two 5" guns and the pair of twin missile launchers seemed very lightly armed, after the bristling WWII Fletchers and the Soviet cold war surface combatants.
USN ships often seem lightly armed compared to their potential adversaries and even their own predecessors. Cost is staggering, everything is so expensive these days - its terrible... I hope we get reliable ships, that perform as designed, if they do that, they might be worth what they cost. It is a little strange that not using them may demonstrate their effectiveness better than combat (provided they deter the enemy from engaging in combat).
In the late 19th Century, the Royal Navy built a bunch of strange ironclads, most never saw action, and for those that did see action, it was typically shore bombardment. In their time, they were considered to be expensive white elephants, BUT the Britannia ruled the waves, and no other nation opposed her at sea for many decades.
I remember when the VLS cruisers came out, even before that, the Tico's with two 5" guns and the pair of twin missile launchers seemed very lightly armed, after the bristling WWII Fletchers and the Soviet cold war surface combatants.
Yes, I remember that, specially one time when a Slava and a Spruance were docked in Malta :)
But here we have a "coastal ship", "replacement for the Perrys" that's costing gazilion dollars and is "full of defects", and now there are talks of "undergunned"*... I doubt the controversy over the LCS will calm down anytime soon...
60 knots is pretty insane. the old Knox I was on looks like it was about to fall apart when we push 20 (granted, that's more a testimony of how old she is.)
I'm not sure though, isn't the modern naval warfare concept more or less that ships are just platform for the weapons and electronics? shouldn't you just try to stick with the Perry Class design of a simple and cheap platform then go crazy with what you stick on it?
How does this recoil force compare to a 57mm or a 76mm gun?
I'm looking at historical ships of this size and seeing 5" guns on vessels that performed well (like a DE).
I would appreciate you insights into how a ship like the LCS would be fitted to accept a more powerful gun.
Well, lets start off by making it abundantly clear that I'm not a maritime engineer. With respect to this issue, at the maritime level I've mainly been involved with subs and green/grey water vessels. I've also had some involvement with various ballistics projects, recoil management and acoustic detection/management systems. I've done some work on IFV and heavy armoured vehicle fitouts. All of the above provide an insight but by no means make me an SME.
My primary concerns are less about the gun and more about the support system. It's the iceberg issue. There's a whole pile of gear below the deck that is required to feed and fire a naval gun - and the first question is how much more intrusive is a 5"/5.5" gun than a smaller calibre weapoon? I'd suggest substantial and that means that you immediately have internal redesign issues to attend to. (Bunkerage, sleeping quarters, armoury, autoloader issues etc....)
the other aspect is the empirical testing issues. eg I know of a high mobility gun truck where it passed with flying colours on a high ROF with a 5.56 SMG. It was decided to upgun it as someone decided that 5.56 SMG was not that helpful against some targets and defensive bulwarks. The 7.62 was mounted and no one bothered to re-assess the specs to see whether the pintle was able to take the heavier calibre and its nominal (no change in volume) ROF. In subsequent test the pintle cracked and the ring finally collapsed. Although thats a small example, I've seen cause and effect of much larger weapons. eg Artyengineer and I used to exchange emails about the legion of problems that beset the original M-777. Cracked plates, shattered optics, fractured spades, shocking recoil management in the early days. Naval guns inherit the same problems but to a much larger scale
Ship handling can suffer considerably when the superstructure becomes a shopping centre for military and weapons system structures. There's no shortage of vessel classes which were almost killed off due to an over enthusiasm to upgun/up-missile them and then wonder why flank speed turns were blood draining events.
Force development and platform development go hand in hand IMO, its about balance and considered thought. If you start adding on and lose the coherency of the original design intent, then you end up with the maritime equiv of the ugly red headed step sister who no wants to be seen with in public. - ie eventually loved by none... :)
The other question that I have is, why are we naming it a "LCS" when it should have the designation of FF or a PSMM.
We need to stop this crazy designating ships by their builders names. No LCS, No HSV, no JHSV, and no TSV. They could all fall under ship hull classifications already in use.
The other question that I have is, why are we naming it a "LCS" when it should have the designation of FF or a PSMM.
We need to stop this crazy designating ships by their builders names. No LCS, No HSV, no JHSV, and no TSV. They could all fall under ship hull classifications already in use.
it goes back to basics, whats the capability requirement to address conops and and against the nominal and identified threats.
whether its called LCS or "billy bunters navel" should ultimately be irrelevant.
they can either do the job or not, if not then someone is not mapping the capability and build definitions against the capability requirements
New Missile Competition
The Navy also wants to fix one of the LCS program’s glaring deficiencies — the absence of an effective surface-to-surface missile (SSM), brought on by the Army’s 2009 cancellation of the non-line-of-sight (NLOS) missile. The Navy had expected the Army-developed NLOS would give the LCS a weapon to counter enemy fast attack craft.
A year ago, the service had planned to test the Griffin, a small missile developed for Special Operations Command, on Freedom. But the missile is considered too lightweight for the LCS, and it was not installed. Instead, data is being gathered from testing aboard the coastal patrol vessel Monsoon.
“We really want to do a competition and award for an SSM that has a little longer range than the Griffin,” Murdoch said. “Ideally, what I’d like to have is autonomy — an autonomous seeker that you don’t have to designate with a laser to guide the missile on target.
“That’s another area that’s budget-dependent,” Murdoch added. “We have money this year and next to do studies and get ready for [industry solicitations] in 2014.”
Barring funding complications, the Navy is hoping to field an SSM on the LCS in 2019.
Barring funding complications, the Navy is hoping to field an SSM on the LCS in 2019.
What kills me is they were able to put 4 or even 8 Harpoons on the 133' long 225 ton Pegasus-class PHM's...and now they're wringing their hands trying to figure out how to arm the 378' long 3000 ton Freedom-class LCS with an SSM.
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
IMO, Create a new mount for the ships. Something along the lines of the original Stinger missles but with increased range and fast reloading instead of fire and forget tech.
Just an idea.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Tweet
Comment