Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by M21Sniper
    I can't even begin to imagine what it would cost to build a new modernized Montana from the keel up nowadays.

    If i had to take a WAG- $10 billion a pop.

    If we want battleships and all that they can and do offer...it's the Iowas or nothing.
    10 bn is a bit much, a carrier costs about 4bn.

    I think the age of the BB's are what are stopping them from being reactivated more than anything. If those 1000 KM shots are ever fully developed, I think the pressure to authorize a new BB would be immense.
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

    Comment


    • "Sorry Sniper but your CLEARLY mistaken. The USMC does NOT and I repeat does NOT support reactivating the battleships."

      In the hopes that you can actually comprehend plain english, allow me to repost the marine corps statement, as issued in Nov, 2004 verbatum:

      "...Marine Corps supports the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 and supports the Navy’s modernization efforts to deliver a sufficient NSFS capability that exceeds that of the Iowa class battleships"

      So let's break that down shall we? How many BB's are left in Cat B?

      2

      How many BBs do the marines say they support REactivating?

      2

      When was this statement issued?

      7 months ago.

      What is the definition of reactivating?

      To bring back into service.

      So when the marine corps state in Nov2004 that they support the strategic purpose of reactivating the two remaining Iowa battleships, it is obvious what they mean:

      They support the strategic purpose of reactivating the remaining two Iowas in Cat B reserve.

      That's about as clear cut a statement as one is ever going to see.

      I SURE WOULD love to know how it is you interpret that statement though....

      "Wish they did then it would be a done deal. LOL"

      They do, they said it in plain english, and the Commandant of the USMC said the same thing about the same time.

      "Why you have allied yourself with USNFSA is mind-boggling."

      They support a goal that i also support. It's a natural alliance, and gives a 'nobody' like me a voice. How many other ex-corporals get to have a hand in shaping naval policy?

      "But its high time ya'll bring something to the table."

      If i brought any more to the table it would collapse.

      "The Battleships dont fit with the USMC's vision of OMFTS so until the USMC changes THEIR vision it wont happen."

      The USMC and USN have both clearly stated that the Iowas can fulfill the USMC stated NGFS requirements if the ship to shore range restriction is waived. The Iowas can operate more safely close to shore than any other ship in the entire fleet, so it's a perfectly reasonable expectation that waiving that requirement would be a prefectly reasonable course of action.

      Time will tell if that's the way it plays out. I don't have a crystal ball.

      "OSPREY not compatiple"

      Compatible or not, Osprey fails to meet it's stated requirements, and is just plain FAR too expensive at 110 million per copy. That's darned near F-22 money. Ironic that the USN can't afford a top flight interceptor but the USMC can afford 110 million a pop tilt-rotors, isn't it?(Not that the USMC can afford them, but that's another story)

      "AAAV not compatiple"

      Really makes you wonder just how much the USMC buys into the whole OMFTS doctrine, don't it? The only reason OMFTS makes any sense at all is in trying to protect the ships. Navy ships.
      Sorta makes you wonder who's making policy for whom...

      "Of course NOW the USMC is running scared Oprey and AAAV could be canceled at ay moment."

      AAAV's pricetag is pretty crazy too. Having both cancelled would be in the USMCs best interests IMO. Modern legacy helos and abandoning the concept of putting a whole platoon in an aluminum can would be in the USMCs best interests IMO. I've never liked the AMTRAKs, i just dont think it's very smart putting that many guys in a vehicle that is that lightly armored. In Al Nassyriah the Marines lost 3 Amtraks to RPG-7s and took more than 60 casualties, with 19 dead.

      "But nowhere, anyone in the USMC is stating that Battleships need to be reactivated NOW."

      Other than the statement i already posted in black and white, eh Rick?

      WHAT EXACTLY is it you want them to say?

      If "Marine corps supports...the reactivation of the two remaining battleships..." is not enough in your mind, than i honestly don't know would be...

      "OTOH the USMC does have power. The USNFSA never has, does not now, and is likely never to."

      Well let's just analyze that, eh Rick?

      The USNFSA has:

      1)Gotten P&W to start research on gunbased scramjets.
      2) Gotten a new GAO report favorable to the BBs pushed through.
      3) Gotten former CINCCENTCOM Tommy Franks to issue a letter stating strong support for enhanced NGFS, and the Battleships.
      4) And is on the verge of forcing new congressional hearings on the BBs and the NGFS shortfall.

      What more exactly do you expect from a non-profit group?

      To me, USNFSA has been extremely effective at lobbying their cause.

      For the record, i am not in any way affiliated with the USNFSA. I merely have a cordial relationship with it's most public spokesman, and a common interest in a worthy goal.

      Comment


      • "10 bn is a bit much, a carrier costs about 4bn."

        The new DD-X, a vessel roughly 1/5th the size is projected to cost 3.1 billion. 10 bn a pop for a modern build 'Montana' is completely reasonable. Entire industries would have to be re-formed. If you think manning a BB would be a challenge, finding someone that could actually build one would be 100x harder.

        "I think the age of the BB's are what are stopping them from being reactivated more than anything. If those 1000 KM shots are ever fully developed, I think the pressure to authorize a new BB would be immense."

        What's stopping them from being reactivated is that you have a bunch of carrier admirals protecting the mission(and budget) for their beloved flat tops.

        That to me, is the bottom line.

        Comment


        • [(M21)
          They'll say something to the effect of, "P&W is dedicated to the pursuit of many advanced engine technologies, and scramjet propulsion is among them. Unfortunately because of the sensitive nature of our work in these fields, we are unable to go into any specific program details".

          (G G)
          And that Scramjet research is part of the Hyper-X project. See x43a

          (M21)
          "The battleships are costly to maintain and difficult to man and, until the ships' unique contributions in the Middle East can be evaluated, mission-related questions concerning their contributions remain."

          And IMO, and the opinion of many who are familiar with this debate(like RickUSN for instance, lol), those questions have been suitably answered for our tastes.


          (G G)

          Gee now I see the light. I was only daydreaming when DDs operated within sight of the airport off the coast of Lebanon, And Grenada, and the Falklands,Faw and Umm Qasr. Or the USS Nicholas operations in the Dorrah oil field, Or Qurah Island, Your right they are too venerable and 4.5 and 5” aren’t sufficient for NSFS. (coffee break) Wait a minute, those didn’t get sunk and the landings were successful. Damn maybe they aren’t needed after all!!!

          Here’s the BDA outcome for BBs in ODS:
          BDA was obtained for 37 of the 52 missions where spotting was used. Damage was classified as light for 40 percent of these missions, while about 30 percent of the missions inflicted moderate to heavy damage or targets were evaluated as neutralized or destroyed. As expected, a higher percentage of point targets was destroyed, neutralized, or heavily damaged than area targets because area targets are made up of many, smaller individual targets. For point target missions with BDA available, 28 percent were classified as heavily damaged, neutralized, or destroyed.
          That isn’t Awesome firepower in my book.

          (M21)
          The USN has OBVIOUSLY not done that, and is NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE to doing that.

          (G G)
          Sure they have. GAO even certified that they were doing what they were suppose to.

          (M21)
          "Over 30 hit the CP out of over 300 fired that day. Bet you got that under a doz number from Stearmans group also. And it wasn't just UAVs and they didn't fix the problem. Same complaints were brought up again after Desert Storm about accuracy. We not only had ground observers but fire finder radar was there also."

          No, i got that from a former sailor at military.com that was ON the Jersey during the Beirut campaign.

          (G G)
          He has his missions mixed up. The 11 round mission was against AA batteries. That was 14 Dec. The 30 rd bunker busting mission was on 8 Feb. They actually fired around 300 rounds that day.
          Ted had posted that same story on another board. That’s why I thought you got it from USNFSA. Don’t people ever fact check?

          http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...y/bb62-nj.html

          (M21)
          Well for one thing UAVs are much smaller, and have a much lower RCS(especially modern ones, which presumably a modernized IOWA would embark), and UAVs don't have a pilot, and are a lot cheaper. Who gives a shiit if one gets shot down(The USAF has lost dozens of Preadators in Iraq and Afghanistan)...just launch another one. Regardless, GAINS guidance would render the need for UAVs from critical to luxury. With GAINS guidance all you need is a 10 digit grid supplied by any asset(up to and including a satellite or SpecOps operator) and you can get tremendous accuracy with satellite or boots on the ground BDA. The UAVs right now are very important because adjusting rounds are needed. With GAINS guidance, that is no longer the case.(GAINS= GPS Aided Internal Navigation System).

          (G G)
          Well when you loose those easily shot down UAVs(as you point, we lost a lot in Iraq , afghanistan and Bosnia) then your million dollar spotters are gone and all you have is the Mk 8.

          GAINS- Please direct me to ANY GPS guided fuse on any Naval gun. ERGM and ANSR do but the initial firing shock is much lower. Its taken over 10 to make that sort of work. I’ll even make it easy. How about artillery, the shock of firing is lower so that should be easier. Excalibur might hit the streets in 2008. The fuse on it will have to withstand the setback forces of a 155 medium velocity howitzer. They haven’t worked that out yet. As of last year:”
          Another major hurdle in this program was the hardening of the electronics, which turned out to be more complex than anticipated. “The Army is playing catch-up,” said Col. Nathaniel Sledge, Army program manager for combat ammunition system. “Our systems have to be hardened. It’s not a soft launch. … That is probably why we haven’t demonstrated this so far.”
          http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...l/Army_Has.htm

          And you and Ted write like its available today for 16” projos.

          (m21)
          The marine corps states that the Iowa’s can meet their requirements if they do not adhere to the same standoff threshold required for other surface combatants. The Iowa’s are uniquely well suited to operate close to the enemy coastline, and therefore they can meet the USMCs requirements provided the standoff restriction is waived.

          (GG)
          Show me that in writing. A direct quote from the MC. There is none. There is no official policy on what we want or need for fire support. Hey the CH-47 and AA7 meet the requirements for OMFTS if we waive the standoff threshold. But then it wouldn’t be OMFTS.

          (M21)
          Based on the info posted above from the FM, it would seem to me that the minimum range one would want to employ 16" HC QT gunfire in a scenario where you're shooting over your ground forces position would be about 750 meters from friendly troops(this would still give about a 250 meter buffer zone for short rounds, and place the lethal fragmentation radius 150 meters long of a friendly position with QT when rounds do fall short, which is right in line with what the former Anglican Sgt on my site stated. So that all makes sense.

          (G G)
          First it’s Anglico (Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company), but I think you missed that 500 meter OR GREATER. 500 being normal at shorter ranges. Using the Pentagon shoot, that is always referenced as “Best” shooting. At 25k yds the spread was 685 meters and at 38k it was 823 meters. I’ll stick with the 2K DC. I heard the command “Neglect” more than once on a NGB shoot in the P.I. Nothing like the pucker of having a 16” in the air that no one has any idea where it will land. We did know where it wasn’t going to land. In the target area.

          Trust me NGF spotting a whole different ball game. The navy shoots funny. But 5”/54 doing a MRSI is way cool. They were doing those well before Crusader. But then again, an M101 and a good FDC could do the same thing. :)

          As mentioned in a previous post, the non VLS Ticos are being retired because it would cost too much to upgrade to a Mk41 system. That tells me the chance of VLS on BBs is slim to none.

          After the post by RickUSN on the Iowa transfer making it through the House, any talk of BBs coming back in service is nothing but mental monkey spanking.

          Comment


          • "Gee now I see the light. I was only daydreaming when DDs operated within sight of the airport off the coast of Lebanon, And Grenada, and the Falklands,Faw and Umm Qasr. Or the USS Nicholas operations in the Dorrah oil field, Or Qurah Island, Your right they are too venerable and 4.5 and 5” aren’t sufficient for NSFS. (coffee break) Wait a minute, those didn’t get sunk and the landings were successful. Damn maybe they aren’t needed after all!!!"

            And i seem to recall the Princeton, the Cole, the Stark, the Sheffield, and a few other ships whose names escape me(help me out here Rick) getting blasted in the littorals by everything from small AShMs to mines to little rubber boats.

            Not a single one of those hits would've caused serious damage to an Iowa, or likely even moderate damage.

            I also seem to remember a certain former US general wiping out a certain USN carrier task force prior to OIF in a wargame using those same little rubber suicide boats. The same general who then quit in protest after the USN simply 'refloated' the fleet. You've probably heard about that, i know Rick has.
            I also seem to remember hundreds of vessels of all types being lost while underway during the USN in WWII, to all manner of attack. Interestingly enough, i also remember that not a single one of them was a battleship.

            "Here’s the BDA outcome for BBs in ODS:
            BDA was obtained for 37 of the 52 missions where spotting was used. Damage was classified as light for 40 percent of these missions, while about 30 percent of the missions inflicted moderate to heavy damage or targets were evaluated as neutralized or destroyed. As expected, a higher percentage of point targets was destroyed, neutralized, or heavily damaged than area targets because area targets are made up of many, smaller individual targets. For point target missions with BDA available, 28 percent were classified as heavily damaged, neutralized, or destroyed.
            That isn’t Awesome firepower in my book."

            The Iraqis on the recieving end seemed to disagree given their penchant for surrendering to the battleships UAVs. The North Vietnamese also seem to disagree considering that they pulled out of the Paris peace talks until the Jersey was removed from the coast. Nope, they didn't pull out over B-52s, or airpower, or the 5 carriers sitting offshore. They pulled out of the peace talks over one single ship. The battleship USS New Jersey.

            I consider the battleships performance in ODS to be quite impressive considering that they were firing 50yo munitions with worn barrel liners against heavily entrenched targets.

            "Sure they have (fulfilled NGFS needs). GAO even certified that they were doing what they were suppose to."

            Bro, i've debated this subject with a lot of anti-reactivation folks. You are the FIRST guy i've ever had tell me the USN is meeting NGFS needs.

            LOL, you really are something else...

            You should really read the part of the GAO report that talks about how every single planned NSFS/NGFS upgrade the USN has in the works except the 5"/62 gun system has been delayed by years.

            ERGM opened up to new trials with a second manufacturer.
            Rival munition not funded by the USN.
            USN funded ERGM falling far short of specifications.
            AGS in jeopardy because of the possible cancellation of DD-X.
            USN states it will not use CG-X for NGFS role(that's in the GAO report too)
            POLAR unfunded
            SM-4 LASM cancelled

            That's it dude, that's the USN's entire plan right there. Not a single system on that list is on schedule, on budget, or performing to specifications(with the exception of AGS, which as i said, may be stillborn without a home, which really would be a shame, that's a very promising system)

            "He has his missions mixed up. The 11 round mission was against AA batteries. That was 14 Dec. The 30 rd bunker busting mission was on 8 Feb. They actually fired around 300 rounds that day.
            Ted had posted that same story on another board. That’s why I thought you got it from USNFSA. Don’t people ever fact check?"

            I'm doing almost this entire debate from memory, that's how many times i've done this. We used to debate this at warships1 to a level of detail that this discussion hasn't even approached. Rick was there for those too, lol.

            You must therefore forgive me for any minor errors in my posts. It simply gets extremely tedius reposting the same facts over and over again. My memory not being what it once was, i am prone to make some errors.

            My humblest appologies.

            "Well when you loose those easily shot down UAVs(as you point, we lost a lot in Iraq , afghanistan and Bosnia) then your million dollar spotters are gone and all you have is the Mk 8."

            LOL, as small as UAVs are nowadays an Iowa could carry at least a dozen of them, with half in storage and half ready for deployment.

            "GAINS- Please direct me to ANY GPS guided fuse on any Naval gun."

            Excalibur 155mm shell(originally a joint USN/USA project).
            ERGM 127mm shell.
            LRLAP
            ANSR

            There's four.

            "ERGM and ANSR do but the initial firing shock is much lower. Its taken over 10 to make that sort of work."

            Yep, the R&D is all done now. How very convenient. ERGM is a double ram projectile. It's firing shock is probably very comparable to what a 700lb sabot projectile would be.

            A 11.5" shell also has many times more internal volume to allow additional shock-insulation material to be used to protect the circuitry(i guess you didn't think of that?)

            "I’ll even make it easy. How about artillery, the shock of firing is lower so that should be easier. Excalibur might hit the streets in 2008."

            Don't matter when it 'hits the streets'. It's been developed, the guidance package has been validated.

            "The fuse on it will have to withstand the setback forces of a 155 medium velocity howitzer. They haven’t worked that out yet. As of last year:”
            Another major hurdle in this program was the hardening of the electronics, which turned out to be more complex than anticipated. “The Army is playing catch-up,” said Col. Nathaniel Sledge, Army program manager for combat ammunition system. “Our systems have to be hardened. It’s not a soft launch. … That is probably why we haven’t demonstrated this so far.”"

            I would not characterize Excalibur as a 'mediun velocity' shell. For a 155mm munition it does have a high muzzle velocity and chamber pressure, and regardless, a 11.5" sabot would have far more internal volume for additional shock-proofing material.

            Worse comes to worse, a reduced powder charge could be used if neccesary to stay within the shock limitations of modern hardened electronics? A 16" based sabot round has a lot of room for a very powerful rocket motor. A round launched at say 3/4 of the 16"/50s normal chamber pressure with a powerful rocket motor would still possess more than triple the range of a current Mk13 HC shell, and would be far more accurate because of it's superior aspect ratio and resultant ballistic coefficient(the low CD and high BC would also be a great contributer to reduced drag, hence, increased range vs a full bore 16" shell).

            "And you and Ted write like its available today for 16” projos."

            I said it would be a straight forward engineering task to develop. Why? Because it would. All the really hard(expensive) R&D work has already been done.

            This also does not address SALH, which is an even older and more proven technology.


            "Show me that in writing. A direct quote from the MC."

            From the Nov2004 GAO report:

            "Current NSFS guns are not able to achieve Marine Corps gun range requirements when ships are positioned 25 nautical miles from shore due to increased land based threats.

            The 5" guns with a range of 13 nautical miles currently in use on destroyers and cruisers are not able to meet the range objective.

            Desired objective/range could be met with anticipated increase in range using ERGM currently in deployment.

            The 16 inch guns with a range of 24 nautical miles used on battleships unable to meet range when 25 mile standoff is required.

            Minimum accepted threshhold/range to target could be achieved if battleships operated closer to shore.

            Desired objective range to target could be achieved with previously tested but not fielded advanced projectiles".


            "There is none."

            You're probably feeling kind of silly now i bet. ;)

            "There is no official policy on what we want or need for fire support. Hey the CH-47 and AA7 meet the requirements for OMFTS if we waive the standoff threshold. But then it wouldn’t be OMFTS."

            LOL, if it was changed to no longer be OMFTS it would be a definite improvement, whatever it morphed into.


            "First it’s Anglico (Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company)"

            You know exactly what i meant. Don't be anal.

            , but I think you missed that 500 meter OR GREATER. 500 being normal at shorter ranges."

            "No i didn't. I factored in an additional 150 meter error cushion into my figures. 500 meter expected vertical deviation + 100 meter lethal radius= 600 meters.

            I said(or more properly was told) 750. That leaves a buffer zone of 150 meters between the extreme short rounds and the edge of the lethal radius at the range the figures are derived from. Obviously those figures would be range dependent. I didn't see a need to explain that to an artilleryman... ;)

            "Using the Pentagon shoot, that is always referenced as “Best” shooting. At 25k yds the spread was 685 meters and at 38k it was 823 meters."

            And as long as the FO has the proper range tables he can adjust his minimum safe distance accordingly, just as for any system. It's not exactly rocket science.

            "I’ll stick with the 2K DC. I heard the command “Neglect” more than once on a NGB shoot in the P.I. Nothing like the pucker of having a 16” in the air that no one has any idea where it will land. We did know where it wasn’t going to land. In the target area."

            LOL, sure, i'm sure every round falls 2000yds short. Hell, i'm sure that none of them ever even stumble their way onto the target. ;)

            If we use the USNs figures stating an extreme short figure of 823 meters, factor in a 100 meter buffer zone, and the shells own 100 meter lethal radius, you still only get a figure of 1023 meters, which IS the DC rating that's listed in your USMC field manual.

            "Trust me NGF spotting a whole different ball game. The navy shoots funny. But 5”/54 doing a MRSI is way cool. They were doing those well before Crusader. But then again, an M101 and a good FDC could do the same thing."

            We both have one thing in common in a big way.

            We both love artillery. :)

            Explain the subtleties to me if you would, i've never FO'd for naval guns before, much to my great dissapointment. I used to love the old 8" M110 though. :)

            "As mentioned in a previous post, the non VLS Ticos are being retired because it would cost too much to upgrade to a Mk41 system. That tells me the chance of VLS on BBs is slim to none."

            The early Mk26 Ticos have all kinds of shortcomings, the USN has been thinking about ditching them for years. They're really only ditching them for the same reason they ditched the BBs. It's nothing to do with their effectiveness, it's all about the $(just as it was for the Sprucans, the F-14, the A-6, and the OHPs). I'd be almost as happy if the USN converted the early Ticos into NGFS platforms(i actually wrote an article for that nutjob Carlton Meyers website about a NGFS modified early Tico using the USNs proposed NGFS alternative systems of the time, LASM, POLAR, and ERGM). Anything would be better than what we've got now, which is next to nothing.

            You see, i want effective NGFS even more than i want battleships. It is my judgement that the battleship is the best bet, but failing that i'm willing to support any REALISTIC HONEST ATTEMPT by the USN to address the current NGFS vacuum. I was very enthusiastic about AGS and the DD-X, until it became apparent we're likely to never see DD-X fielding in any real numbers, if at all, and not for at least 10 plus years regardless.

            The battleships are just the easiest and most expedient way to get from where we are now, to where we need to be.

            "After the post by RickUSN on the Iowa transfer making it through the House, any talk of BBs coming back in service is nothing but mental monkey spanking."

            Talk to me when it passes the Senate and the NDA of 1996 is stricken by presidential signiture.

            Until then, anything can happen. The very fact that Congress is planning hearings now is proof of that. I'd thought this fight was lost two years ago. I never dreamed USNFSA would be able to get this much done. I'm actually quite amazed.

            Persistant devils they are.
            Last edited by Bill; 17 Jun 05,, 06:45.

            Comment


            • (M21)
              And i seem to recall the Princeton, the Cole, the Stark, the Sheffield, and a few other ships whose names escape me(help me out here Rick) getting blasted in the littorals by everything from small AShMs to mines to little rubber boats.

              (G G)

              Princeton- double mine strike to the stern. This would have been a mobility kill for an Iowa. The hull may be armored but the drive shafts, Props and rudders are not. Also the rigid armor plating would transmit the shockwave throughout the ship. Causing system failures. Stuff that could be brought back on line within an hour or so but its not going to do no damage.

              Solution- RMS fitted on Burkes starting with USS Momsen.

              Cole- Tied up in port. Not a ship deficiency but a ROE deficiency.

              Stark-C.O. relieved because they were in MC yoke and the CIWS wasn’t operational. Not on a war footing

              (M21)
              Not a single one of those hits would've caused serious damage to an Iowa, or likely even moderate damage.

              (G G)

              Yes the Mine strike would as would the Exocet. Exocet flight profile would have it hitting above the hull armor belt. The Roma couldn’t take a very primitive AshM like the FX1400 which punched a hole all the way through the ship and came out the bottom. A modern AShM with penetrator warhead would do the same. Regardless of what others say a SunBurn hitting the Iowa at around Mach 1.5 isnt the same as a a A6M5 hitting it at 300mph

              You keep mentioning that armored deck but the main deck only has 1.5 inches of steel.
              After exocet punches through and the warhead and fuel go off. Without going through any other deck you are still getting major damage.

              (M21)
              I also seem to remember a certain former US general wiping out a certain USN carrier task force prior to OIF in a war game using those same little rubber suicide boats. The same general who then quit in protest after the USN simply 'refloated' the fleet. You've probably heard about that, i know Rick has.

              (G G)
              Yes and I know Gen Van Riper. He pulled a sucker punch. Don’t know if any of you have conducted any of the joint computer operations. He found the glitch. The Navy had programmed the TF to ignore local traffic. He generated boats as local traffic until they got into the TF than changed their designation. And before anyone yells and screams about “Well, it could happen” the program wasn’t designed to handle small scale ops. It’s a operational level game. Just like it doesn’t model individual refugees (suicide bombers anyone). The Navy called foul, as that wasn’t what was being “war gamed” and the general had a hissy fit. He was prone to those on active duty also. Ask anyone who had him as a Regt or Div Cdr.

              (M21)
              I consider the battleships performance in ODS to be quite impressive considering that they were firing 50yo munitions with worn barrel liners against heavily entrenched targets.

              (G G)
              OK with the 50 yr old projos and worn barrels they did ok in an operation that used late 80s tech. Its 05, we’ve improved in leaps and bounds. They have those same 50 yr old projos and worn out barrels. LGBs that have a 50% hit rate don’t cut it anymore. Neither do big dumb inaccurate shells.


              (G G)
              "Sure they have (fulfilled NGFS needs). GAO even certified that they were doing what they were suppose to."

              What I meant is that they are meeting the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996. I have brain farts occasionally.

              (M21)
              I'm doing almost this entire debate from memory, that's how many times i've done this. We used to debate this at warships1 to a level of detail that this discussion hasn't even approached. Rick was there for those too, lol.

              You must therefore forgive me for any minor errors in my posts. It simply gets extremely tedius reposting the same facts over and over again. My memory not being what it once was, i am prone to make some errors.

              My humblest appologies.


              (G G)

              No I’ve heard that story on many boards and during more than one brief. Mostly by people with USNFSA. And almost always used to beef up the importance of BBs.


              (M21)
              "GAINS- Please direct me to ANY GPS guided fuse on any Naval gun."

              Excalibur 155mm shell(originally a joint USN/USA project).
              ERGM 127mm shell.
              LRLAP
              ANSR

              There's four.

              (G G)

              No it isn’t.

              Excalibur – medium velocity artillery round. Fuse still doesn’t work

              ERGM/LRLAP/ANSR/BTERM- Lower firing force, rocket assisted so it doesn’t need to get up to speed at the muzzle. Initial shock is lower, less stress on projo. All having fuze problems still.

              (M21)
              Worse comes to worse, a reduced powder charge could be used if neccesary to stay within the shock limitations of modern hardened electronics? A 16" based sabot round has a lot of room for a very powerful rocket motor. A round launched at say 3/4 of the 16"/50s normal chamber pressure with a powerful rocket motor would still possess more than triple the range of a current Mk13 HC shell, and would be far more accurate because of it's superior aspect ratio and resultant ballistic coefficient(the low CD and high BC would also be a great contributer to reduced drag, hence, increased range vs a full bore 16" shell).

              "And you and Ted write like its available today for 16” projos."

              I said it would be a straight forward engineering task to develop. Why? Because it would. All the really hard(expensive) R&D work has already been done.
              This also does not address SALH, which is an even older and more proven technology.

              (G G)

              Not unless you are talking about rocket assisted fires. And instead of trying to throw money at designing a 16” version we need to spent that money on a round that more than 18 guns can fire. BTERM, ERGM ect… My favorite one was VGAS


              (M21)
              "Show me that in writing. A direct quote from the MC."

              From the Nov2004 GAO report:
              You're probably feeling kind of silly now i bet.

              (G G)
              No, That’s a GAO statement, not one from HQMC. For a couple of reasons, one being that they wouldn’t make any statement that could jeopardize funding for EFV/MV-22

              (M21)
              LOL, if it was changed to no longer be OMFTS it would be a definite improvement, whatever it morphed into.

              (G G)
              You really need to start a thread on what you believe OMFTS is and why it’s a bad idea.

              (M21)
              "First it’s Anglico (Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company)"
              You know exactly what i meant. Don't be anal.

              (G G)
              Anglican Sgt sounded like the Episcopal Church had raised an army :)

              (M21)
              , but I think you missed that 500 meter OR GREATER. 500 being normal at shorter ranges."
              . Obviously those figures would be range dependent. I didn't see a need to explain that to an artilleryman...

              (G G)
              But that not the job of the FO/SO/SALT/NGLO . You are looking at this from a grunt-artillery battery perspective. Battery in a position known to you, you can figure out a MSD to engage with X system. As long as you and the shooter stay put.

              Artillery’s motto is shoot move communicate
              So you would have to figure it out for every time the battery moved and every time you moved, also have to figure the O/T line and G/T line. That’s why Danger close distances are standardized. That FO needs to be adjusting fires not determining DC/MSD distances for each gun battery that supports him every time he or they move. Remember as a FO you may get rounds /support from the battery in DS and from units in the Reenforcing, General support and general support reenforcing roles. The FO doesn’t have time or resources to figure a DC line for everyone he might recieve fire support from.

              NGF add in the extra factor of being on a moving firing line. So depending on the local hydro conditions and the gun lines relation to the battlefield the ship will constantly be moving in both distance and g/t angles. Therefore , once again you do beaten zone worse case and that becomes the defacto DC distance.

              So it is written at the Blockhouse, so it shall be done.

              (M21)
              We both love artillery.

              (G G)
              Because Arty is the God of War and all must bow down to us

              (M21)
              Explain the subtleties to me if you would, i've never FO'd for naval guns before, much my great dissapointment. I used to love the old 8" M110 though.

              (G G)
              Partially explained above. The most pronounced being that the range PE makes a more elliptical beaten zone (Like a Machine Gun) than either a howitzer or mortar.

              The M110A2 was the most accurate artillery piece ever. But after humping an 8” round I no longer wanted to play that game. But the faces of the young girls in San Diego when they inquired “So what do you do in the MC?
              Young Cpl Gun Grape: “I’m an 8 inch man.” Ahh “Trophy’s Lounge” in National City. Aptly named
              Last edited by Gun Grape; 18 Jun 05,, 03:13.

              Comment


              • Battleship debate heats up?????

                I had comments but on second thought the article stands for itself both for good and not so good. LOL

                The Washington Times
                www.washingtontimes.com

                Distortions about ships
                By James F. O'Bryon
                Published June 17, 2005

                Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton's June 13 Op-Ed article on battleships left me confused and somewhat angry, not so much because of his bias toward building the DD(X) and against retaining the two venerable battleships (BBs) still in our mothball fleet, but the apparent distortions in the data he presented to make his case, relegating these two ships to permanent museum status.
                The 15 years I spent in the Pentagon was providing independent oversight of nearly 100 major Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps systems assessing their lethalities, vulnerabilities and survivabilities. The one thing that we fought hard to achieve was to ensure that competing systems were assessed on a level playing field.
                I'm writing because I don't believe that Adm. Hamilton's Op-Ed has placed the DD(X) and BB on a level playing field for comparison.
                First, the DD(X) features two 155mm guns launching projectiles that contain 24 pounds of explosives each, roughly the amount that a suicide bomber might carry. In contrast, each battleship contains nine 16-inch guns, each capable of launching full caliber projectiles the size of Volkswagens, capable of attacking both surface and buried hard targets or saboted rounds traveling much farther. Furthermore, the battleship's guns already exist. The DD(X)'s don't.
                Adm. Hamilton claims that the 16-inch rounds couldn't be given precision guidance, claiming "punishing muzzle energy." In Project HARP over 30 years ago, delicate instrumentation packages were launched from such guns to altitudes of more than 50 miles. While the admiral claims that "super-long-range 16-inch gun rounds are illusory," Pratt & Whitney's design studies, backed by laboratory scramjet experiments, concluded that such shells were feasible, reaching 460 miles in only nine minutes and could be fielded in seven years, well before the first DD(X) joins the fleet in 2014.
                Another issue that needs to be addressed is the comparative survivabilities of the battleship and DD(X). I have overseen a number of ship vulnerability programs over the years and, in my opinion, there is no tougher ship than the BB. While I believe that the DD(X)'s focus on hit avoidance is desirable, sometimes you cannot avoid the fight.
                When I hear the argument that the "passionate advocates" of battleships are uninformed or just plain nostalgic, I'm reminded of the way that the B-52 has repeatedly been upgraded over the past 50 years with improved fire control, avionics, propulsion, improved munitions and a host of other upgrades that put this workhorse of the Air Force at the center of much of our strategic and tactical defense. Is this nostalgia? No, it's recognition of the huge benefits and low risks that retrofitting new technologies can bring to a proven platform. In fact, there are 31 B-52 modification programs currently underway allowing this aircraft to contribute to the nation's defense at least through 2040.
                The same can be done for the battleships. The DD(X) continues to be plagued by increasing cost and system complications with cost estimates ranging from $3.3 billion up to $7 billion per ship. Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett recently referred to it as a "technology demonstration program." The admiral claimed that "spending the billions of dollars to reactivate the battleships, develop advanced munitions, and pay the very high costs to operate them would come at the expense of other vital programs." Is several billion dollars for a destroyer also not a high cost? In fact, the fiscal 2006 defense budget allocates 1.47 billion just to refuel the Vinson carrier. Why would $1.5 billion be to costly to reactivate/modernize a battleship with much more firepower and survivability than the DD(X) and be done in less than half the time at lower risk?
                The nation's two remaining battleships have proven themselves over the years and, as the B-52s aptly demonstrate, were not only effective at their introduction but can be retrofitted with the latest technology to allow them to provide the fire support that the Marine Corps continues to require.
                Allowing these ships to become museums in the defense bill will be irreversible and place our Marines at risk for the foreseeable future. My hope is that any decision on the future of the DD(X) and the battleships be based on a solid analytical footing.

                James F. O'Bryon is chairman of Mobius Business Solutions and owner of the O'Bryon Group. He is also former director of the Defense Department's Live Fire Testing.

                Comment


                • Why using HARP data/example is BS

                  The HARP gun that was launching these long range projectiles is way different than the 16"/50 of an Iowa.

                  1. HARP was High Altitude Research Program. Looking for a way to launch sat into orbit. Not designed for long range accurate fire support. Or I'll believe in sabot round accuracy when long range rifle s h o o t e r s start winning matches with them.


                  2. The HARP 16" gun was the longest in the world,100 Cal long (2 barrels welded together)

                  "At 120 feet long and nearly 100 tons it was recognised that without additional support the new gun had no hope of maintaining a precision bore alignment when elevated to vertical for firing. Some 25 tons of weldments were added to the two-barrel assembly to stiffen it. Eight adjustable drawbars were also installed so that the gun could be aligned at any angle of elevation. This extension made the 16-inch Barbados gun the largest operational artillery piece in the world at the time."

                  Longer barrel, longer time to build up to speed so lower forces on round compared to launching the same round from a conventional 16/50 to get the same range results.

                  Know of any ships that could carry those things?

                  3. HARPs gun was bored out to a 16.5" smoothbore and incorporated a muzzle cover that sealed the tube so most of the air could be pumped out of the tube prior to launch.

                  Comparing Martlet projectiles and their accomplishments with 16.5/100cal gun to 16"/50 cal guns found on Iowas is apples to chicken. Not even in the same food group.

                  2 quick HARP references that break it down barney style.

                  http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smartlet.htm

                  http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm

                  look at the martlet diagrams and see how little payload area there is.
                  To be fair on that aspect, we do have better fuels and I'm sure we would use less. Freeing up space for payload/guidence systems



                  SCRAMJET ROUNDS
                  No one has ever given a link for the P&W claims.
                  A 16in scramjet round fielded in 7 years.
                  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the first real (not test chamber) scramjet flight take place March 04? And about the same time frame in France and Australia.

                  We are going to go from a 12 ft long 5 ft wide 2 ft high 3000lb vehicle that is air launched by B-52 at 40K on a pegasus rocket that shoots it up to 100K where the motor worked for 10 seconds.

                  And in 7 years we will get it down to being launched from a standard 16"/50 cal. Without chamber modifications. Hell its taken ERGM longer than that to work, without worrying about SCRAMJET engines.

                  We could also get into the ship mods, not counting any mods to the mounts, that would be required to store scramjet projos.
                  Last edited by Gun Grape; 18 Jun 05,, 05:11.

                  Comment


                  • "The HARP gun that was launching these long range projectiles is way different than the 16"/50 of an Iowa."

                    No kidding. It was also 20 some years ago. Technology has progressed just a little bit in that time span my friend.

                    "1. HARP was High Altitude Research Program. Looking for a way to launch sat into orbit."

                    The USN funded two programs to develop a scramjet powered missile capable of point intercepts from the 1950s until 1986. The project "SCRAM" engine was succesfully tested in the late 1970s.

                    Scramjet technology is all about the engine, what the platform you put it in's role is has very little to do with the engine itself. Just like any other engine type...

                    "Not designed for long range accurate fire support."

                    Indeed, no. USN Project SCRAM was designed for the far more difficult task of intercepting manuevering enemy aircraft at ranges of hundreds of miles. Flying a pretty ballistic course(such as a shell or ballistic missile) would be absolute childs play in comparison .

                    "Or I'll believe in sabot round accuracy when long range rifle s h o o t e r s start winning matches with them."

                    Tell that to the typical M-1A2 gunner who can kill you over 2 miles away with an APFSDSDU 120mm main gun round....on the first shot, while you're both moving at 40mph.

                    You may also wish to ponder why the USN uses APDS-T projectiles for their Phalanx CIWS(where accuracy is umm...important), and you can also ask yourself why all USAF Vulcan equipped tactical fighters are loaded with 20mm APDS rounds too. Fighter gun accuracy is also fairly important.

                    The reason sabots are not as effective for small caliber(HMG and smaller) projectiles is because they're too small to fit suitably strong stabilizing fins on economically, and by the time the sabot is figured in you're left with an extremely small projectile that by it's very nature is going to have a terrible ballistic coefficient and be very light, making it very susceptible to long range atmospheric drift. It simply can't get an adequate aspect ratio because of case length/action length restrictions and the small overall size of the projectile to begin with. The lack of stabilizing fins is no help either.

                    You may have noticed that sabot slugs are the undisputed accuracy king in shotgun land though. For about oh, 15 years now.

                    If you have a cannon and you want absolute maximum accuracy, you load it with APFSDS rounds. End of story.

                    I also have no doubt whatsoever that a purpose designed .50cal rifle designed from the ground up around a very long cartridge that itself is designed from the ground up to fire .30 cal APFSDS rounds would be extremely accurate. It would also be extremely expensive.

                    "2. The HARP 16" gun was the longest in the world,100 Cal long (2 barrels welded together)"

                    It's also very old technology

                    "Longer barrel, longer time to build up to speed so lower forces on round compared to launching the same round from a conventional 16/50 to get the same range results."

                    Shockproofing has come a long way in the last 20+ years. So has miniturization, powder technology, metallurgical technology, and propulsion technology.

                    Hence the US Army starting a new collaboration for a 120mm scramjet powered tank round, and the USAF demonstrating a close to operationally useful sized(for the B-52) scramjet powered missile. Time for the USN to hop on board. It's not like it would be new for them, the funded scramjets for about 40 years.

                    "No one has ever given a link for the P&W claims."

                    P&W has made no public claims. Of course, there is a whole section of the USNFSA website on scramjets that only members can access, so who knows what they've reported to the group that actually instigated the project to begin with. I'm not a member of the USNFSA, i don't know. If i did know i wouldn't say anyway since they obviously wish to keep that information private.

                    "A 16in scramjet round fielded in 7 years."

                    Might be reasonable. Might not. I can't say, i don't have the data...neither do you. Those who do, aren't saying.

                    "We are going to go from a 12 ft long 5 ft wide 2 ft high 3000lb vehicle that is air launched by B-52 at 40K on a pegasus rocket that shoots it up to 100K where the motor worked for 10 seconds."

                    In seven years? With serious funding and a major engineering effort? We put a man on the moon in about 10 years from the word go. Anything is possible.
                    I'd still bet closer to 10 years for fully operational scramjet powered weapons of the size needed for a 16" gun system though. So i would agree based on what i know that 7 sounds too optomistic.

                    "And in 7 years we will get it down to being launched from a standard 16"/50 cal. Without chamber modifications."

                    I don't recall anyone saying anything about chamber modifications one way or another. We don't know, those that do...aint talking. Amazing how cutting edge technology works that way, isn't it? ;)

                    "Hell its taken ERGM longer than that to work, without worrying about SCRAMJET engines."

                    Scramjet engines are actually the most simple of all engines from a theoretical standpoint. They have no moving parts.

                    And let's compare an ERGM with a 16" scramshell for a moment.

                    ERGM has a conventional sustained rocket motor, fuel, guidance, and warhead all stuffed into a 5" frame(albeit a long one). Because it needs rocket motor sustain to achieve it's specified range(oops, it doesn't come close to meeting it's range specs), it requires a lot of fuel.

                    A 16" scramshell would be able to dispense with the warhead entirely. The sheer KE generated upon impact ensures that it would be far more powerful than any amount of HE you could actually jam into a 16" round. That saves you about 150lbs right there vs a conventional HC round, and a lot of internal space.
                    By volume, a 16" round has what, 1000% more internal volume than a 5" ERGM round(wild guess, i suck at volume equations, lol)?

                    Finally, if you can make a big scramjet engine, you can make a small one. You do not need as much thrust to propel a 7 or 800lb low drag projectile as you do to propel a "12 ft long 5ft wide 2ft high 3000 lb vehicle", so you don't need as much engine. And all it needs is about a 10 second burn time to achieve the kinds of performance the eggheads are looking for. Even a 5 second burn time would triple the range of an equivelant ballistic projectile(Scramjets accelerate fast)

                    What is undsiputed is that once they are perfected(and they will be), they are by far the most superior form of airbreathing propulsion science has concieved to date. IOW, once they're perfected, they will dominate the field because of their mindnumbing performance and simplicity(no moving parts).

                    "We could also get into the ship mods, not counting any mods to the mounts, that would be required to store scramjet projos."

                    Sure we could.

                    Let's use the information we have available:


                    End of information we have available.

                    Seriously, it could require minimal mods, it could require extensive mods. Until someone actually comes up with a 16" scramjet powered projectile, who knows. Obviously a large double ram projectile like ERGM would have far greater range potential cause it could carry more fuel, but what range would a standard length shell have?

                    Answer: We don't know....yet.

                    I've never said scramjets were anything but a long term project. The soonest i could possibly see scramjet powered weapons being fielded is in about 10 years. Once they are, they'll provide a massive advance in lethality, range, and speed.

                    They're coming, it's just a matter of when, and if the USN has the foresight to start investing in them now(instead of pouring money at a technology that really is waaaaaay down the line- rail guns).

                    Time will tell. :)

                    BTW, the only reason he compares HARP to modern rounds at all is to counter the Admirals shock damage claims. And he is quite right, the HARP project did loft sensitive electronics at extreme velocities, and they did prove capable of surviving the shock. And that that was decades ago.
                    Last edited by Bill; 19 Jun 05,, 01:08.

                    Comment


                    • "Princeton- double mine strike to the stern. This would have been a mobility kill for an Iowa."

                      Perhaps. An Iowa has 4 screws, if it even hit the mines in the same fashion- An iowa is a much longer ship with a much wider beam.

                      "The hull may be armored but the drive shafts, Props and rudders are not."

                      No, but there are four of them.

                      "Also the rigid armor plating would transmit the shockwave throughout the ship."

                      It has a triple keel with spacing in between. Makes for excellent shock insulation. That's why it's there. No modern warship has anything even remotely comparable except a US Supercarrier.

                      "Causing system failures. Stuff that could be brought back on line within an hour or so but its not going to do no damage."

                      Light shock damage at most unless they are extremely large mines(which the ones princeton hit were not IIRC). The Iowas also have a lot of redundancy built into them by design though, so that also helps to mitigate the effects of damage(whatever the cause).

                      "Cole- Tied up in port. Not a ship deficiency but a ROE deficiency."

                      It's current state of operations at the time is irrelevant(though i seem to recall it being underway at a reduced speed). If that rubber boat hit an Iowa it would've done no more than scratch the paint. Regardless of a Burkes speed or ROE, if that boat hits a Burke or Tico, a lot of men are going to die.(37 was the toll IIRC).

                      "Stark-C.O. relieved because they were in MC yoke and the CIWS wasn’t operational. Not on a war footing"

                      That's irrelevant. What is relevant is the damage the ship took from a small AShM. An Exocet wouldn't do squat to an Iowa.

                      "Yes the Mine strike would as would the Exocet."

                      Neither would do serious or moderate damage to an Iowa(with the exception of a mine hit right under the screws). If you think an Exocet would seriously damage an Iowa you're on crack.

                      "Exocet flight profile would have it hitting above the hull armor belt."

                      There is no way into the armored citadel without going through triple layered Class A and STS steel armor. Not above the belt, not below the belt, not through the belt, and not through the deck.

                      None.

                      An exocet wouldn't do shiit to an Iowa.

                      BTW, the Exocet that popped the Stark didn't do a terminal pop-up, and some of the ones that ravaged the Brits, the warheads didn't even detonate. 'Modern' warships are just extremely vulnerable, that's just a simple fact.

                      "The Roma couldn’t take a very primitive AshM like the FX1400 which punched a hole all the way through the ship and came out the bottom."

                      Look, before you start babbling on about what pre-war battleships couldn't take what hits just stop. NONE of the BBs sunk during WWII with the exception of the Yamatos were close to as well protected as the Iowas, and the Roma was NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE to as well protected.

                      So just stop, because you don't know what you're talking about. There is no part of the Iowas armored citadel that is vulnerable to an Exocet or comparable AShM. None.

                      "A modern AShM with penetrator warhead would do the same. "

                      In your dreams perhaps. Not in reality. You really have no clue, do you?

                      "You keep mentioning that armored deck but the main deck only has 1.5 inches of steel."

                      There are three layers of armor(de-capping, main, and splinter) all with spacing. An exocet would detonate on the de-capping plate, the jet would then have to overcome the 1st spacing gap, would be absorbed by the main plate, and fully dissapated in the second spacing if it penetrated the main plate at all. Behind that is the splinter plate, and behind that is a highly compartmentalized ship with thick steel bulkheads. An Exocet wouldn't do **** to an Iowa.

                      An SS-N-12 Sandbox, SS-N-6 Silkworm or SS-N-19 Shipwreck yeah...an Exocet, Sunburn, Harpoon or any of the other little popgun AShMs out there would have no chance.

                      I'm not even getting into this any farther, if you think an Exocet can penetrate any point of an Iowas armored citadel you're on crack. I would post a quote from a former Captian of an Iowa addressing exactly this issue if i felt it would do any good, but i doubt it would so i'll just save myself the effort.

                      Enjoy your delusions about the vulnerability of triple layer dual spaced armor all you want, i'm not going to entertain them any further.
                      Last edited by Bill; 18 Jun 05,, 10:45.

                      Comment


                      • I was a sniper with an 11C secondary MOS who spent four years with an Infantry Bn tasked with the support of the USAFAC, i know how to call fire missions bro.
                        I was also trained on FDC and mortar crewman procedures as well(thats the 11C part) but having only spent six months in a mortar plt and about a week in the FDC some 15yrs ago a lot of the nuances are long since forgotten to me. I do still remember all the basics though. In my day i put a good thousand or so 4.2" mortars downrange as a mortar crewman(our mortar plts spent about 150 days a year each on the range supporting FO trainees with live fires. If it was a weekday, one of our two mortar plts were on the range live firing). I certainly know a hell of a lot more about all aspects of artillery fire than the typical Infantry Corporal, that's for sure(You may have picked up on that, lol). On top of that training i was also familiarized in calling for CAS, I doubt i could properly format a nine line radio call anymore, but i could definitely still get bombs on target with a visual reference marker and direct comms link to the controlling AFAC or GFAC, even now. That's pretty simple stuff.

                        Anyway, a good FOs job is to know the basic limitations and characteristics of every system he's going to employ, and it is up to the FDC to factor in the FOs position when firing rounds, which is the whole reason the FO gives his range and direction to the targetted grid when issuing a RFF. That way the FDC can identify if a RFF is safe or not.

                        As far as DC restrictions, you can call inside any systems DC rating just by declaring it DC. That's the whole reason for declaring "Danger Close" to begin with, to let the FDC know that friendly troops are in close proximity so that they can figure in the systems footprint and determine if the targetted grid/fuzing/munition/trajectory is going to 'conflict' with the FO/friendly forces position. Unlike the FO, the FDC does have the specific systems firing tables on hand, and it does have intimate knowledge of it's precise location. It's up to the FDC to determine what the systems expected footprint is at any given range, and how that will interact with the BLUFORs position based on the direction of fire. That's why the FO provides all that information to begin with.(I take it that on a naval ship the FDC functions are carried out by the SWO and his staff?)

                        I'd imagine nowadays most of that info is all done by computers. We had the MBC(Mortar Ballistic Computer) in our FDC section, but compared to the stuff they have nowadays, that was nothing. LOL, the MBC was brand spanking new when i was in, i remember when our unit first got them. I actually had to learn how to plot rounds from the FDC perspective by hand with a calculator when i learned the MOS(that knowledge having long since migrated from my consciousness, lol). I'm reasonably confident that i could still plan a fire mission with an MBC after a brief re-familiarization though, it was really simple to use.

                        "No I’ve heard that story on many boards and during more than one brief. Mostly by people with USNFSA. And almost always used to beef up the importance of BBs."

                        If you don't wish to accept my explanation that it was a simple mistake in confusing two separate firemissions from the same campaign almost 25 years ago, or my subsequent appology, well.....lol, do i even need to say what i'm thinking? It starts with an F. ;)

                        "No it isn’t.

                        Excalibur – medium velocity artillery round. Fuse still doesn’t work

                        ERGM/LRLAP/ANSR/BTERM- Lower firing force, rocket assisted so it doesn’t need to get up to speed at the muzzle. Initial shock is lower, less stress on projo. All having fuze problems still."

                        You asked me to "name ANY GPS guided artillery round" with no other stipulations.

                        I named four.

                        BTW, kindly stop moving the goalposts...it's hard to hit a moving target in a debate(which i reckon is why so many people love to move the goalposts).

                        "Not unless you are talking about rocket assisted fires."

                        I've said all along any new legacy 16" shell should definitely incorporate RAP.

                        " And instead of trying to throw money at designing a 16” version we need to spent that money on a round that more than 18 guns can fire. BTERM, ERGM ect… My favorite one was VGAS""

                        What you seem to not be realizing is that a 16" gun can fire any current 155mm(or even 127mm or 203mm) projectile with no more than a suitably sized sabot. Add the horsepower of a 16"/50 to a 155mm or 8" RAP shell, you just boosted the hell out of the range and velocity of the very same round. This of course is the beauty of Saboted projectiles. The US Army 120mm M829A3 APFSDSDU for instance has a wee l'il 22.5mm diameter penetrator. The rest is just aluminum sabot.

                        I would obviously prefer a purpose designed round(because it would have far better performance and a bigger payload), but there is absolutely nothing to stop the USN from simply saboting a 155mm Excalibur or even a 155mm Copperhead round and firing it as is from the 16"/50 guns, with the caveat that they can survive the launch shock. Even launch shock would do nothing to stop the USN from saboting existing 8" US Army RAP projectiles(i'm sure we have a mountain of those sitting in some bunker complex somewhere, probably at Sill). A saboted 8" RAP projectile from a 16"/50 could probably crack 40 miles range.

                        "The M110A2 was the most accurate artillery piece ever."

                        It was most certainly the most accurate unguided tube artillery system i ever got the opportunity to utilize. The most accurate arty round i've ever seen was the Copperhead. On a clear day that thing was as accurate as a bolt of lightning sent down by God himself. :)

                        "But after humping an 8” round I no longer wanted to play that game."

                        I just carried a radio, i loved the 8"er. ;)
                        (Actually i'm lying...my spotter carried the radio, hehehe).
                        Last edited by Bill; 18 Jun 05,, 11:20.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          "The HARP gun that was launching these long range projectiles is way different than the 16"/50 of an Iowa."

                          No kidding. It was also 20 some years ago. Technology has progressed just a little bit in that time span my friend.

                          "1. HARP was High Altitude Research Program. Looking for a way to launch sat into orbit."

                          The USN funded two programs to develop a scramjet powered missile capable of point intercepts from the 1950s until 1986. The project "SCRAM" engine was succesfully tested in the late 1970s.

                          Scramjet technology is all about the engine, what the platform you put it in's role is has very little to do with the engine itself. Just like any other engine type...

                          "Not designed for long range accurate fire support."

                          Indeed, no. USN Project SCRAM was designed for the far more difficult task of intercepting manuevering enemy aircraft at ranges of hundreds of miles. Flying a pretty ballistic course(such as a shell or ballistic missile) would be absolute childs play in comparison .

                          "Or I'll believe in sabot round accuracy when long range rifle s h o o t e r s start winning matches with them."

                          Tell that to the typical M-1A2 gunner who can kill you over 2 miles away with an APFSDSDU 120mm main gun round....on the first shot, while you're both moving at 40mph.

                          You may also wish to ponder why the USN uses APDS-T projectiles for their Phalanx CIWS(where accuracy is umm...important), and you can also ask yourself why all USAF Vulcan equipped tactical fighters are loaded with 20mm APDS rounds too. Fighter gun accuracy is also fairly important.

                          The reason sabots are not as effective for small caliber(HMG and smaller) projectiles is because they're too small to fit suitably strong stabilizing fins on economically, and by the time the sabot is figured in you're left with an extremely small projectile that by it's very nature is going to have a terrible ballistic coefficient and be very light, making it very susceptible to long range atmospheric drift. It simply can't get an adequate aspect ratio because of case length/action length restrictions and the small overall size of the projectile to begin with. The lack of stabilizing fins is no help either.

                          You may have noticed that sabot slugs are the undisputed accuracy king in shotgun land though. For about oh, 15 years now.

                          If you have a cannon and you want absolute maximum accuracy, you load it with APFSDS rounds. End of story.

                          I also have no doubt whatsoever that a purpose designed .50cal rifle designed from the ground up around a very long cartridge that itself is designed from the ground up to fire .30 cal APFSDS rounds would be extremely accurate. It would also be extremely expensive.

                          "2. The HARP 16" gun was the longest in the world,100 Cal long (2 barrels welded together)"

                          It's also very old technology

                          "Longer barrel, longer time to build up to speed so lower forces on round compared to launching the same round from a conventional 16/50 to get the same range results."

                          Shockproofing has come a long way in the last 20+ years. So has miniturization, powder technology, metallurgical technology, and propulsion technology.

                          Hence the US Army starting a new collaboration for a 120mm scramjet powered tank round, and the USAF demonstrating a close to operationally useful sized(for the B-52) scramjet powered missile. Time for the USN to hop on board. It's not like it would be new for them, the funded scramjets for about 40 years.

                          "No one has ever given a link for the P&W claims."

                          P&W has made no public claims. Of course, there is a whole section of the USNFSA website on scramjets that only members can access, so who knows what they've reported to the group that actually instigated the project to begin with. I'm not a member of the USNFSA, i don't know. If i did know i wouldn't say anyway since they obviously wish to keep that information private.

                          "A 16in scramjet round fielded in 7 years."

                          Might be reasonable. Might not. I can't say, i don't have the data...neither do you. Those who do, aren't saying.

                          "We are going to go from a 12 ft long 5 ft wide 2 ft high 3000lb vehicle that is air launched by B-52 at 40K on a pegasus rocket that shoots it up to 100K where the motor worked for 10 seconds."

                          In seven years? With serious funding and a major engineering effort? We put a man on the moon in about 10 years from the word go. Anything is possible.
                          I'd still bet closer to 10 years for fully operational scramjet powered weapons of the size needed for a 16" gun system though. So i would agree based on what i know that 7 sounds too optomistic.

                          "And in 7 years we will get it down to being launched from a standard 16"/50 cal. Without chamber modifications."

                          I don't recall anyone saying anything about chamber modifications one way or another. We don't know, those that do...aint talking. Amazing how cutting edge technology works that way, isn't it? ;)

                          "Hell its taken ERGM longer than that to work, without worrying about SCRAMJET engines."

                          Scramjet engines are actually the most simple of all engines from a theoretical standpoint. They have no moving parts.

                          And let's compare an ERGM with a 16" scramshell for a moment.

                          ERGM has a conventional sustained rocket motor, fuel, guidance, and warhead all stuffed into a 5" frame(albeit a long one). Because it needs rocket motor sustain to achieve it's specified range(oops, it doesn't come close to meeting it's range specs), it requires a lot of fuel.

                          A 16" scramshell would be able to dispense with the warhead entirely. The sheer KE generated upon impact ensures that it would be far more powerful than any amount of HE you could actually jam into a 16" round. That saves you about 150lbs right there vs a conventional HC round, and a lot of internal space.
                          By volume, a 16" round has what, 1000% more internal volume than a 5" ERGM round(wild guess, i suck at volume equations, lol)?

                          Finally, if you can make a big scramjet engine, you can make a small one. You do not need as much thrust to propel a 7 or 800lb low drag projectile as you do to propel a "12 ft long 5ft wide 2ft high 3000 lb vehicle", so you don't need as much engine. And all it needs is about a 10 second burn time to achieve the kinds of performance the eggheads are looking for. Even a 5 second burn time would triple the range of an equivelant ballistic projectile(Scramjets accelerate fast)

                          What is undsiputed is that once they are perfected(and they will be), they are by far the most superior form of airbreathing propulsion science has concieved to date. IOW, once they're perfected, they will dominate the field because of their mindnumbing performance and simplicity(no moving parts).

                          "We could also get into the ship mods, not counting any mods to the mounts, that would be required to store scramjet projos."

                          Sure we could.

                          Let's use the information we have available:


                          End of information we have available.

                          Seriously, it could require minimal mods, it could require extensive mods. Until someone actually comes up with a 16" scramjet powered projectile, who knows. Obviously a large double ram projectile like ERGM would have far greater range potential cause it could carry more fuel, but what range would a standard length shell have?

                          Answer: We don't know....yet.

                          I've never said scramjets were anything but a long term project. The soonest i could possibly see scramjet powered weapons being fielded is in about 10 years. Once they are, they'll provide a massive advance in lethality, range, and speed.

                          They're coming, it's just a matter of when, and if the USN has the foresight to start investing in them now(instead of pouring money at a technology that really is waaaaaay down the line- rail guns).

                          Time will tell. :)
                          I just started reading this thread and my only care is that I get the most effective and responsive fire support available. I do have a few questions:

                          1. What are the dimensions of the airspace coordination area that would need to be cleared to prevent fratricide from the incoming NGF, especially at extended ranges?
                          2. If the round were laser guided, is there a way to direct its path to the target so that the round will get a good lock on the lase (the direction it's coming from is pretty well locked, so either the round has to change its direction of attack or the observer has to move on those occasions when the lasing angle isn't great)?
                          3. Does the Navy require specialized training in NGF in order to call for it (like the AF, who qualifies their JTACs and runs the JFCC that FOs can go to)?
                          4. At the extended ranges, would the explosive payload suffer due to having to add weight for the fuel/rocket engine/etc.? How would that payload compare to an ATACMS? What would be the equivalent JDAM?

                          Thanks.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • I'll see what i can do about answering your questions. I'm sure if i make any errors GG will be sure to correct me. ;)

                            "1. What are the dimensions of the airspace coordination area that would need to be cleared to prevent fratricide from the incoming NGF, especially at extended ranges?"

                            I would imagine deconfliction zones are about the same as for land based systems, but i'll leave that one to GG because i'm sure he knows.

                            "2. If the round were laser guided, is there a way to direct its path to the target so that the round will get a good lock on the lase"

                            It would depend on what you programmed the round to do. Since a 16" round is a notional idea, you could design it from the ground up to overcome the Mk7 guns max elevation fo 45 degrees to get a steep approach angle such as that provided by a mortar.

                            "(the direction it's coming from is pretty well locked, so either the round has to change its direction of attack or the observer has to move on those occasions when the lasing angle isn't great)?"

                            If the projectile makes it's adjustment in the vertical plane you can bring the round straight down on the target, so that would take care of that problem.

                            "3. Does the Navy require specialized training in NGF in order to call for it (like the AF, who qualifies their JTACs and runs the JFCC that FOs can go to)?"

                            Yeah. It's called Anglico. GG put the acronym in one of the various BB threads.

                            "4. At the extended ranges, would the explosive payload suffer due to having to add weight for the fuel/rocket engine/etc.? How would that payload compare to an ATACMS? What would be the equivalent JDAM?"

                            The 16" shell has always actually had a quite small explosive charge for it's size. Where it does it's damage is in the massive fragmentation zone of it's steel casing. A RAP type shell would have a bit smaller explosive content than a standard Mk13 16" HC shell, probably about 90lbs or so.

                            As far as lethal zones, the Mk13BC(QT) fuzed shell has a 1000sq yard lethal zone(a bit under a 100 meter radius).
                            The Mk13 VT projectile has a lethal radius of 2708sq yards, or about a 250 meter radius, and the Mk13 delayed fuze projectile creates a crater about 30 feet wide, 10 feet deep, and has a lethal radius of about 50 meters.

                            The Mk8 AP round has penetrated as much as 36 feet of steel reinforced concrete in actual USN penetration tests, and when fired at recovered WWII IJN Yamato turret face and armored belt plates it lanced completely through them.

                            The DPICM rounds(of which their are two varieties) have about a 250 meter lethal radius.

                            A scramjet shell with a nominal impact weight of 300kg and an impact velocity of 2kps would produce 600,000 megajoules of energy....or about 353,000 times more powerful than a 120mm M829A3 sabot round(1.7 megajoules). Obviously such a round would require absolutely no warhead at all. Lethal radius against exposed troops would be immense, perhaps as much as 500 meters or more. Such a round would also just about literally vaporize a main battle tank, lol. :)

                            When comparing the BBs to other comparable systems such as ATACM, it is important to remember that an Iowa has a 16" magazine capacity of 1300+ rounds, vs the MLRS SPLL's capacity of 2 ATACMs. The ATACM has a somewhat larger lethal radius, but the 16" round makes up for that in sheer volume of shot and ROF.(At max ROF an Iowa BB can achieve a rate of 18rpm, or 1 round every 7 seconds).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by M21Sniper

                              Look, before you start babbling on about what pre-war battleships couldn't take what hits just stop. NONE of the BBs sunk during WWII with the exception of the Yamatos were close to as well protected as the Iowas, and the Roma was NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE to as well protected.

                              So just stop, because you don't know what you're talking about. There is no part of the Iowas armored citadel that is vulnerable to an Exocet or comparable AShM. None.

                              "A modern AShM with penetrator warhead would do the same. "

                              In your dreams perhaps. Not in reality. You really have no clue, do you?


                              Enjoy your delusions about the vulnerability of triple layer dual spaced armor all you want, i'm not going to entertain them any further.
                              Well let me be delusional and clueless vice thinking that the Iowas are unsinkable.

                              Armor belt was 1.7 inches thicker than Iowa. First round went through armor belt and punched its way all the way through the ship and exited out the keel without exploding. Second missile ended up in a magazine and exploded.

                              A 3,00 lb bomb flying at 630Mph. Hum SS-N-12 with 1K KG warhead hits at Mach 2.5

                              The American bombs had no trouble penetrating Japanese ships like the Yamato

                              Of course you will say that Iowa armor was better steel And I will counter with we have better AshM then the germans did in 1943. But the Iowa doesn’t have better armor than it did in 1944.

                              In 1944 the Navy determined that it would take five WWII-vintage 2,000lb GP bombs (roughly equivilant in explosive power to P-15/20/HY-2 but without the ability to penetrate the armored deck and without the incendiary effect) to mission-kill an Iowa.

                              SS-N-12 with 1K KG warhead hits at Mach 2.5

                              GBU-28 , nothing more than an old 8" tube with a laser guidance seeker and fins strapped on, could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete and more than 100 feet of earth. But I believe you. It would just bonce off the Iowa. Not!!! It took 3 days to design, think the chinese or some other "enemy" doesn't have some spare arty tubes lying around.

                              How about those 2Kt/Blu-109 JSOW with MSTE. Or an AGM-130.
                              Heck I'm betting the 250Kg shape charge hitting at Mach 1 from a 70s AS-30 will penetrate that armor.

                              you have already put forth the idea in another thread that a carrier battle group is vunerable and that the carrier could be sunk because of no F-14s. When that same "mass" of planes that overwhelm the burkes and ticos strike a BB outcome is the same.

                              Comment


                              • (M21Sniper)I was a sniper with an 11C secondary MOS who spent four years with an Infantry Bn tasked with the support of the USAFAC, i know how to call fire missions bro.

                                (GG)

                                When were you with 2/2 armor? On the bad side of the tracks:)
                                I was there in 87 for BNCOC. (waste of time) and again in 91-94 as an instructor.



                                M21)
                                Anyway, a good FOs job is to know the basic limitations and characteristics of every system he's going to employ, and it is up to the FDC to factor in the FOs position when firing rounds, which is the whole reason the FO gives his range and direction to the targetted grid when issuing a RFF. That way the FDC can identify if a RFF is safe or not.

                                (GG)
                                Observer position is only given in the initial fire command if firing a "Shift from known point" or a "Polar" mission. Its not so the FDC can decide if the mission is safe or not but because of the types of missions. Observer position is only given in a grid mission for corrections.

                                It has nothing to do with determining the "Safety " of the mission but determining the relationship of Up/Down/Left/Right on the OT line to the adjustments needed on the GT line.

                                (M21)
                                As far as DC restrictions, you can call inside any systems DC rating just by declaring it DC. That's the whole reason for declaring "Danger Close" to begin with, to let the FDC know that friendly troops are in close proximity so that they can figure in the systems footprint and determine if the targetted grid/fuzing/munition/trajectory is going to 'conflict' with the FO/friendly forces position. Unlike the FO, the FDC does have the specific systems firing tables on hand, and it does have intimate knowledge of it's precise location. It's up to the FDC to determine what the systems expected footprint is at any given range, and how that will interact with the BLUFORs position based on the direction of fire. That's why the FO provides all that information to begin with.(I take it that on a naval ship the FDC functions are carried out by the SWO and his staff?)

                                (GG)
                                Its from higher HQ. The Movie " VT on Me. Its my call" request sounds real good. But doen't happen like that. DC request go up the chain for authorization. And the FDC will use the FM 6-30 ranges for DC. DC will also have the FDC compute and fire subtenths def/quad for greater accuracy. Vice rounding up to the next higher full value.


                                (M21)
                                I'd imagine nowadays most of that info is all done by computers. We had the MBC(Mortar Ballistic Computer) in our FDC section, but compared to the stuff they have nowadays, that was nothing. LOL, the MBC was brand spanking new when i was in, i remember when our unit first got them. I actually had to learn how to plot rounds from the FDC perspective by hand with a calculator when i learned the MOS(that knowledge having long since migrated from my consciousness, lol). I'm reasonably confident that i could still plan a fire mission with an MBC after a brief re-familiarization though, it was really simple to use.

                                (GG)
                                same/upgraded software as MBC just on a PDA now.


                                (M21)
                                If you don't wish to accept my explanation that it was a simple mistake in confusing two separate firemissions from the same campaign almost 25 years ago, or my subsequent appology, well.....lol, do i even need to say what i'm thinking? It starts with an F. ;)


                                (GG)
                                You may have gotten it wrong. I've read Tead and Shawn Welch plus a few others make the same 11 rd mission statement. Thats what I was trying to convey.


                                (M21)
                                You asked me to "name ANY GPS guided artillery round" with no other stipulations.

                                I named four.

                                BTW, kindly stop moving the goalposts...it's hard to hit a moving target in a debate(which i reckon is why so many people love to move the goalposts).



                                (GG)
                                I assumed you would give an example of one that WORKED. Thought you understood that.


                                (M21)
                                What you seem to not be realizing is that a 16" gun can fire any current 155mm(or even 127mm or 203mm) projectile with no more than a suitably sized sabot. Add the horsepower of a 16"/50 to a 155mm or 8" RAP shell, you just boosted the hell out of the range and velocity of the very same round. This of course is the beauty of Saboted projectiles. The US Army 120mm M829A3 APFSDSDU for instance has a wee l'il 22.5mm diameter penetrator. The rest is just aluminum sabot.


                                (GG)
                                Now your smoking crack. Life doesn't work that way, no one would shoot it and they would be inaccurate as hell if anyone did try.

                                Oh I did leave out another landing that the BBs were absent from. Inchon
                                Last edited by Gun Grape; 19 Jun 05,, 21:37.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X