One of the [many!] weaknesses of the LCS is that the Mk110 57 mm gun is not radar controlled but is, instead, optically (EO) controlled. The gun has not performed well in testing to date. Surprisingly, it appears that the new Constellation class is repeating this EO controlled 57 mm gun system. From the Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget Estimates, May 2021, Navy Justification Book, Volume 1 of 1 Shipbuilding and Conversion, (1)
The MK 48 MOD 2 Gun Weapon System (GWS) is fully integrated with MK 160 MOD 18 Gun Computer System w/ MK 20 MOD 1 Electro Optical Sight System and MK 110 MOD 0 57mm gun. The MK 160 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS) is the standard USN gun fire control system; the MK 20 Electro-Optical Sensor System (EOSS) is the standard gun optical sight used for gun engagements; and the MK 110 is an automated 57mm gun system used for surface and air engagements of hostile targets. (1) [emphasis added]
This statement is not quite 100% conclusive but , presumably, if there was a radar control component it would have been mentioned so it appears that the Constellation’s 57 mm gun control will be strictly optical and will likely repeat some of the LCS fire control and accuracy problems as described in the various annual DOT&E reports.
If correct, this is troubling and baffling.
 |
| Mk 110 57 mm Gun |
__________________________________
(1)https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/22pres/SCN_Book.pdf
A tiny little single gun mount like that is nothing but a token anyway, it's there just so people can't say "you built a warship without a gun!".
ReplyDeleteSide thought: wouldn't an optically controlled gun offer more resistance to jamming?
"wouldn't an optically controlled gun offer more resistance to jamming?"
DeleteRadar interference wouldn't have any effect on the fire control system. On the other hand, an EO fire control is susceptible to fog, darkness, weather, rain, high waves, smoke, etc. EO is a nice backup to radar control but has weaknesses as the only fire control.
Well it has a thermal camera to negate some of those issues but not having radar in 2021 is ridiculous unless this is a stealth feature no using radar for guns! but ignoring all the communication and network broadcasting the ship is doing in the meantime.
DeleteIf you are engaging with a 57mm gun you are in visual range, if the target has a working radio then the enemy knows where you are. EMCON no longer matters much in this situation.
DeleteRadar controlled guns was game changing in WW2 why is it 76 years later the USN has gone back to optical for it's guns?
ReplyDeleteBecause a modern optical gun doesn't use a Parallax range finder
DeleteAt least it is tied to the Mk 20 EOSS instead of the commercial sensors on LCS.
ReplyDeleteWhat would Navy Brass be doing differently if they wanted to weaken the Navy? Seems to me, not much.
ReplyDeleteA frigate with a BB gun? A 57mm gun is great for a sampan or a junk but to duke it out with an enemy surface combatant? What is wrong with the OTO-Melara 76MM gun? Fewer rounds but don't you get more bang for the buck? Weren't the old 3-inch/50.cal MK22 reliable enough? I think the range of those were around 14,000 yards.
ReplyDeleteThe future is not looking too bright.
Why didn't they just keep the FREMM?
ReplyDeleteThey've turned what could have been a useful GP escort into a cheaper and less capable for the Ticos.
CDR Chip, your comments have been going into the spam folder. I transfer them as soon as I see them but I have no control over their initial placement in the folder. You might want to check things at your end to see if anything is triggering the spam classification.
DeleteI agree I see no reason for not retaining the larger gun. Particular since the USCG has discovered it (57mm) will not sink a larger ship/floating hulk and has to use teams with explosives to do the job. And I mean hulks not ships maneuvering or what not.
DeleteSorry just adding things on the fly. But by the time you are in range to use the 57 mm is there an argument not have both radar and optical aiming. If you are using the gun its likely stealth and no radar signature is kinda long past its time.
DeleteI meant to type why not the 2 guns on the Italian version. Having two guns was actually one reason I was excited for the FREMM pick.
Delete"Having two guns was actually one reason I was excited for the FREMM pick."
DeleteSo … you went from hoping for 2x 76mm guns to having to settle for 1x 57mm. That had to be disappointing!
It kinda was I though the navy was investing in just a bit of redundancy with a least a decent gun.
DeleteNote that this 496 foot frigate that displaces 7291 tons will carry at 57mm gun, while the American made Ambassador class 206 foot missile boat displaces just 600 tons yet carries a 76mm gun.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_MK_III_missile_boat
Also note that Bofors has already teamed the small PS-95 radar for its vehicle mounted 40mm gun. Can't the Navy slap that small thing atop its Bofors 57mm?
https://weaponsystems.net/system/62-CV+90+TriAD
Interesting how 81 years ago we built a ship of the same tonnage, with 16 5in guns...
DeleteOr for a couple thousand more tons, 15 6in guns...
Maybe not so interesting, as depressing!!!
For what it's worth a BMP-1 displaced about 13 tons and had 73 mm cannon. If the ship gets to close to shore it'll taken out by old IFV's. Humorous, in a morbid kind of way. Well at least the boat should perform better in the water than a BMP.
DeleteThis weapon is the "product improved" 2 lb anti-tank gun from 1939 and obsolete in 1942. Why on earth would you make this the main gun on a naval warship?
ReplyDeleteThe 57mm gun is a good weapon, and is a couple of generations removed from the 40mm Bofors gun it is based on. It has a greater slant range for AA work than the ubiquitous 76mm and a greater RoF. Like all weapons it has its weak point (weight), but put in a proper mounting, it is a fantastic autocannon. BTW, it has sufficient muzzle velocity to eat any modern MBT alive outside of the frontal arc. Any issues are not the fault of the basic weapon.
DeleteTo me the biggest problem with no radar is that it pretty much precludes any AA use by the 57mm. Other navies using the 57mm have AA capability.
ReplyDeleteThe space and associated weight could be better served with a RAM launcher. Not only would it increase the AA protection but Griffin missiles have been successfully tested (way back in 2011) from a RAM launcher.
As a guided missile with a 13lbs warhead Griffin would be more accurate and pack more punch against the smaller vessels the 57mm would be used against.
The lack of radar is no doubt another cost saving measure by people who still don't believe the Navy will never see real combat.
Griffin works well but is too expensive for the application. APKWS Laser-Guided Rockets are in production, proven weapons. Based on the old 2.75" rockets, which are plenty effective on boghammers and other small craft.
DeleteA smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others, and a insane man does the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
ReplyDeleteMounting a Thales STIR or SAAB Ceros would solve the problem easily. The Ceros is available with integrated EO system.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems the Navy has run into is intellectual property rights. Understandably, manufacturers don't want to give up their proprietary data. Equally understandably, the Navy wants exactly that data so that they can model system performance as they contemplate integration and modifications.
DeleteIt's an impasse, currently, and has resulted in the Navy abandoning some promising systems.
I don't know whether Thales or SAAB would release proprietary data or not but it's becoming a major issue as the Navy attempts to substitute modeling for actual tests in order to save money.
The point is that blithely assuming the problem could be solved by 'simply' installing some give system is potentially glossing over major stumbling blocks. DOT&E has documented this problem multiple times across multiple weapon system programs in their various reports.
Just something to bear in mind!
The leverage that we have in these IP situations is that the USN is looking at much longer production runs than anything that either Thales or SAAB have at home. For example, the proposed 20 FFG(X)s are as many hulls as the entire Swedish navy above patrol boat size.
Delete"For example, the proposed 20 FFG(X)s are as many hulls as the entire Swedish navy above patrol boat size"
DeleteIt is … IF the Navy follows through. The original 32 Zumwalts program eventually became 3. The original 55 LCS eventually became 30 or so and only half of those were of a given type. And so on.
The Navy is erratic, to say the least. Those 20 FFG may become 40 or the Navy may decide to go whole hog on unmanned and cut the FFG at 8. Who knows? The point is that the manufacturer is being asked to give away their proprietary information for the hope of a substantial sale that history strongly suggests is unlikely to occur.
Further, the Navy's ability to protect proprietary data is highly suspect with network infiltrations happening all the time.
If I were a manufacturer, I'd be very reluctant to give away my industrial advantage for a shaky deal the US Navy.
Some companies might consider it worthwhile but, apparently, many are deciding it's not worth it.
Well, Saab lately has been selected to deliver an illuminator to replace the Mk99 used with the Sea Sparrow, it's probably a version of the Ceros. Older varians of the Thales Stir were in service as part of the Mk92 FCS, so both should be known in some ways by the Navy.
DeleteIs it possible that the MK 160 MOD 18 Gun Computer System provides a radar-based fire control solution based on data from the Constellation's AN/SPY-6(V)3 radar?
ReplyDeleteAs noted in the post, there is no indication of that. Just as the LCS radar is unconnected from the gun, it would appear that the FFG is also unconnected.
DeleteThe EOSS Mk20 Mod 1 with its " visual and thermal imaging sensors, a laser range finder, stabilization system and shock isolation unit, and a “below deck unit” that contains the control, tracking, power supplies and interface to display and control stations" the latest version of the fire control unit developed for the 5" main guns for the Ticos and Burkes, optimized for surface warfare. As understand the EOSS was not fitted on either of the LCS classes as fire control for their 57mm guns, used a different system.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy has chosen the L3 ALaMO 57mm round, ~10km/5.4nm range, FY2022 production rounds $20,500 each in preference to the BAE ORKA a development of its 3P projectile for the small boat, anti-swarm scenario. AA, the Navy in prior years procured 16,000+ 57mm proximity fuzed 3P rounds at a cost of ~$4,700 each, now in R&D with the Raytheon AA 57mm Madfire projectile, not clear on fire control, perhaps the Constellation's main radar the three panel S-band SPY-6(V)3?
A different approach taken by the Army EAPS AD gun program "In order to minimize the electronics on board the interceptor and to make it 'cheaper', all the ‘smarts’ are basically done on the ground station". The fire control radar, a Technovative Applications CW interferometer radar (interferometers use multiple receive antennas to enhance angular measurements for centimetric tracking accuracy of both target and projectile). In 2015 tested a Bushmaster 50mm for anti-UAS, with its relatively simple projectile with a thruster for course correction. Expect the EAPS 50mm projectile would be substantially cheaper than Madfire at $20,000 to $30,000 each?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30057/u-s-warships-have-this-seldom-discussed-but-very-powerful-optical-targeting-system>
https://www.army.mil/article/156634/Army_engineers_demonstrate_anti_drone_technology/>
The Mk 20 is being added in the survivability upgrades with Mk 160 fire control. It looks like they have been buying these upgrades at 1 ship per class per year in the first year and have only bought 1 for LCS-2 class in year 2. Well, requested anyway. I hate trying to read Congress' write ups.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the premise of this post is correct. The Mk 110 57mm gun will be controlled by the Mk 160 GFCS, which is designed to take radar input to compute firing solutions.
ReplyDelete"The Gun Computer System (GCS) MK 160 Mod 4 accepts target data from the Aegis combat weapon system target sensors (i.e., AN/SPY-1D and AN/SPS-67 radars), and/or operator-entered data for indirect targets. Based on this target data, together with the ship's attitude and clock data, the GCS computes ballistic solutions and gun orders for the mount." This quote is not specific to the Constellation, but makes the point about accepting data from the radar.
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/gunno/INFO24.html
In addition, it appears that the Mk 110 57mm gun also is also radar guided for the CG cutters and LCS:
"MK 110 Gun Mount is remotely fired from the MK 160 Gun Computer System on USCG WMSL class and uses various Gun Computer systems on LCS class ships."
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167940/mk-110-57-mm-gun/
The quote in the original post appears to be a comment specific to three line-items listed in that section of the DoD report: the Mk 110 gun, the Mk 160 GFCS, and the Mk 20 E/O sight. It doesn't appear to be any more than that.
The Navy has earned a lot of criticism, but I think we jumped the gun on this one.
Crap, I was wrong.
Delete"The ship’s electro-optical/infrared camera,
SAFIRE, is the primary sensor for targeting the
57 mm gun. The system suffers from a number
of shortcomings that contribute to inconsistent
tracking performance against surface and air targets,
including a cumbersome human-systems interface,
poor auto-tracker performance, and long intervals
between laser range finder returns. These problems
likely contributed to the poor accuracy of the 57 mm
gun observed during live-fire events, though the
root cause(s) of the gun’s inaccuracy has not been
determined definitively."
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2016/navy/2016lcs.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105304-133
Maybe it really is this bad...
Hey, these posts aren't just random thoughts. I actually do my homework for these posts! :)
DeleteYou need to bear in mind that the software component of the fire control system provides the OPPORTUNITY (the framework) to link together sensors and weapons BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE LINKED. Such is the case for the LCS which has a gun and a radar but the two are not linked. There's no reason they couldn't be but they aren't. It appears to be the same with the FFG. It has radar and it has a gun but the two appear not to be linked. It appears that, in the Navy's mind, the 57mm gun purely an optical system.
My apologies, but one more comment on this: On the LCS, the gun is optically guided. On the CG Cutter, it can be radar guided: the SPQ-9 is one of two primary sensors.
Deletehttps://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2011/gunmissile/Thursday11660_Aswegan.pdf
Maybe the Constellation will choose the more capable Coast Guard option?
Also, how did that ppt get on the internet? The Chinese don't even have try to spy. They just need to be able to work the Google.
Lots of things get put up and then pulled down. Not sure why, the secret is out. They log everything that was ever up whether its still up or not.
DeleteSo the Coast Guard cutters have better fire control than the US Navy.
DeleteMaybe the Coast Guard should be in charge. Scrap the whole lot of Naval officers that have produced the current mess, make every sailor get a Merchant Marine credential and start over. I don't see a lot of institutional knowledge in the US Navy that needs to be preserved. Starting over may be better.
mw
"SPQ-9 is one of two primary sensors."
DeleteThe Navy considers the SPQ-9B to be obsolete and it was scheduled to be replaced by the dual band radar. However, given the out of control costs, only half the DBR was installed and the SPQ-9B was retained on Navy ships as a stopgap for the missing half of the DBR. The -9 is used as a low level, horizon search radar.
I don't know about Coast Guard use.
"Also, how did that ppt get on the internet?"
DeleteThat's just routine sales brochure stuff. From a quick skim of it, there's nothing really secret in it. It does not contain actual performance data which would be critical to know or software source code which would allow cyber attacks. It's just sales claims which, as we've seen, are pretty much made up and useless. I wouldn't worry about it.
"make every sailor get a Merchant Marine credential "
DeleteSetting aside the other aspects, there is a LOT of validity to the idea of requiring Naval officers to meet merchant shipping standards. Clearly, naval officers are, as a group, unqualified. The Navy's testing after the Burke collisions demonstrated this but the Navy never took the next step of requiring some kind of merchant certification. Yet another in the long list of Navy mistakes and failures.
"I don't know about Coast Guard use."
DeleteLooks pretty much like anything the SPQ-9B can do so fire control at least at sea level, periscope detection and linked data communication. aside from the front line manufacture pitch works good in cluttered environments.
So is the lack radar fire control for the navy on their FF just result of the not full implementation of the replacement they opted for and they left that out?
MK 110 57mm gun's effective range is only 9,300 yards. Its maximum fire speed is 220 rounds/minute. Therefore, use optical system is not a big problem. Not just US, there are many other nations use this gun. If it had wide spread problem, it would not be so popular.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that there are doctrinal elements at play?
ReplyDeleteI would guess that the giant US navy that sees frigates/destroyers not really in the role of destroying other ships (that's what carriers are for), the gun is simply a last-ditch / self-defense weapon when stuff like FAC geht way too close. Enemy frigate in gun range simply should not happen. And there 57mm with high rate of fire and simple optics seems cost-effective.
In smaller navies where frigates have to do most of the work, putting more money in the gun makes more sense - and a 76/127mm with strales/dart could really make a difference.
"Enemy frigate in gun range simply should not happen."
DeleteBear in mind that the list of things that should not have happened in naval history and yet did is nearly endless!
"57mm with high rate of fire and simple optics seems cost-effective."
Assuming it's not raining or foggy or high waves or dusty (Middle East) or there are no chemical obscurants ...
I'm not argumenting for dumb 57mm - and am quite happy that my homeland's navy is going the Oto route with upgradeability to range-extended and/or guided ammo.
DeleteThis is me trying to make sense of this choice - only because something else is better on paper must not mean it's really better or cost-effective in your doctrine. Or so I would guess since I lack definite knowledge
"This is me trying to make sense of this choice - only because something else is better on paper must not mean it's really better or cost-effective in your doctrine. Or so I would guess since I lack definite knowledge."
DeleteDoctrine? What's that. We don't have no stinkin' doctrine.
That's why we are having a hard time making sense of it.
There's no doubt in my mind that if USN could get away with it, they wouldn't even bother with a 57 or 76mm. They just don't want to answer why no gun to Congress or media. You kind of need to have a gun on the deck of a ship for visual PR, for all USN cares, it could be a plastic model.
DeleteThey need something with at least the minim range and splash for a waning shot. Not sure 30mm can do that. Also 57 mm still lets them roll out a Power point laser guided rocket assisted ammo mumbo jumbo and convince at least enough congress members they are not just BS-ing.
DeleteA major question is why the Zumwalt design team, given that the Mk110/57 was spec'ed in, rejected the 57mm in favor of the 30mm, claiming that the 57mm was ineffective for its intended role. I'd like to know a lot more about that evaluation and decision.
DeleteMy theory is the 57mm was too close to sensitive gear and would cause some kind of shock damage that the 30mm wouldn't. Either that or there is no loading from below and therefore the rounds on mount of the 30mm moved it up. Of course it totally hoses its ability to act as a real CIWS.
Delete"There's no doubt in my mind that if USN could get away with it, they wouldn't even bother with a 57 or 76mm."
DeleteOne can make a reasonable argument that naval guns are not needed on today's naval battlefield. One would be wrong but one could make the argument. The reason one would be wrong is that Mr. Murphy still roams the battlefield. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. The unexpected is the only sure thing. That naval gun that, by all reasonable analysis shouldn't be needed, will, at some point, be critically needed - that's a guarantee.
Aircraft guns were not needed, according to all reasonable analysis … until Vietnam proved them necessary.
As the saying goes, "if you have one helo, then you have none."
DeleteSimilarly, if you have one single gun mount, you have none.
"Similarly, if you have one single gun mount, you have none."
DeleteThe entire modern military tendency toward single points of failure indicates a complete lack of understanding of the realities of combat.
Similarly, even if one enters combat with a functioning gun, it won't last long. The modern practice of unarmored mounts means the gun will be quickly lost to simple shrapnel damage. Again, this betrays a complete lack of understanding of modern combat survival requirements.
We are simply not designing our ships for combat anymore.
Nope wars aren't allowed. Only peace keeping missions. I mean we control who and when goes to war dont we.
Delete