The Navy, today, seems to have a fascination with small guns – the smaller the better, it seems. The Constellation FFG, for example, has an incredibly small gun given the size and role of the ship. Following is a table of some smaller ships and the guns they carried. The list is sorted by gun size. It’s illuminating, to say the least.
Note that the Constellation FFG, despite being the largest ship listed by a significant margin has the smallest gun. Also, note that the two most modern ships in the list are also the two lightest armed.
|
Ship Type |
Ship Length, ft |
Gun(s) |
Gun Range, yds |
|
Knox Class FFG |
438 |
1x 5” (127mm) |
25,000 |
|
Landing Craft LSM(R) |
203 |
1x 5” (127mm) |
17,500 |
|
Flower Class Corvette |
205 |
1x 4” (102mm) |
13,850 |
|
Perry Class FFG |
453 |
1x 3” (76mm) |
20,122 |
|
Harris Class APA |
435 |
4x 3” (76mm) |
14,600 |
|
Buckley Class DE |
306 |
3x 3” (76mm) |
14,600 |
|
Gato Class Submarine |
311 |
1x 3” (76mm) |
14,600 |
|
Pegasus Class PHM |
133 |
1x 3” (76mm) |
20,122 |
|
LCS - Freedom |
378 |
1x 2” (57mm) |
19,000 |
|
LCS - Independence |
418 |
1x 2” (57mm) |
19,000 |
|
Constellation FFG |
496 |
1x 2” (57mm) |
19,000 |
Naval guns are no longer considered main weapons but still … this is embarrassing. If this trend keeps up, it won’t be long before our main naval gun will be a guy with a pistol sitting in a lawn chair on the bow. Or, maybe we’ll upgrade to a dual mount with two guys sitting side by side?
"If this trend keeps up, it won’t be long before our main naval gun will be a guy with a pistol sitting in a lawn chair on the bow. Or, maybe we’ll upgrade to a dual mount with two guys sitting side by side?"
ReplyDeleteWith four guys, it could be a quad mount: superior firepower!
Lots of potential, here. I'm envisioning a multi-billion dollar program!
Delete"...maybe we’ll upgrade to a dual mount with two guys sitting side by side?"
ReplyDeleteDue to manning considerations, the one man in the lawn chair will be required to hold a pistol in each hand to accomplish the dual mount capability.
Cost savings, YES!!!
Lutefisk
That's actually pretty good !
DeleteAn online commentator claimed the USN wanted to replace the 76mm gun, because of its unreliability. Is there any truth to this claim, or is it "sour grapes" from a service that keeps failing to perform the maintenance necessary to ensure its weapons and equipment remain operational?
ReplyDeleteHaven't heard that.
DeleteYes, they had reliability issues, but those weren't Super Rapides so the comparison may be moot. I'd love a shoot off of the mk 110 vs Strales/Super Rapide and Sovraponte.
DeleteAs you consider various guns, keep firmly in mind that every gun is a miracle of warfare ... according to the manufacturer. In reality, every gun has weaknesses revealed by testing and use. Our own DOT&E has demonstrated this with regard to the Mk110/57mm. It was going to revolutionize naval combat and yet it turned out to have serious accuracy issues. Foreign guns are no better, it's just that their problems are not publicly pointed out like our systems are.
DeleteMk 110 can't automatically haul ammo back down to the magazine which seems a huge issue to me. Its also air cooled vs water cooled on the 76mm guns. AGS used glycol to cool. I also look at how fast a gun can train and elevate. To me, this is a big reason to go with a 57 or 76 vs 127.
Delete"how fast a gun can train and elevate"
Delete? Why is this an issue? The standard US 5"/62 has an elevation rate of 20 deg/sec and a train of 30 deg/sec. Unless you're trying to shoot a hypersonic weapon passing by ten feet away, that seems more than adequate.
For example, a target moving Mach 1 perpendicular to the gun (worst case), one mile distant, would travel 1114 ft in one sec. Simple trigonometry gives an angular change for the gun of 12 deg in that one second. Since the train rate is 30 deg/sec, this is more than adequate.
Most viable targets would be heading more or less towards the gun which greatly reduces the gun's angular change requirements.
I think that we're missing the opportunity to field some serious capability by ignoring guns on our warships.
ReplyDeleteDuring the naval exercises that China was doing off of Taiwan a few months ago we could have been shadowing them with our own ships.
Imagine how intimidating WW2 destroyers or cruisers would be, with their massive firepower, sitting a few short miles away from all those unarmored ships.
Now add modern radars/sensors, anti-ship missiles, and CIWS on those WW2 ships. They'd be a force to be reckoned with.
Lutefisk
"Imagine how intimidating "
DeleteOf course, without the will to use them, they're useless. Our current ships have all kinds of firepower but China laughs because we have no will to use the firepower. Having battleships wouldn't accomplish anything because we have no will to use them. Example, despite overwhelming firepower superiority, two of our riverine boats and crews meekly surrendered to three Iranians with almost no weapons.
"...China laughs because we have no will to use the firepower..."
DeleteThe truth hurts.
Lutefisk
"......China laughs because we have no will to use the firepower"
DeleteWhat the hell are you even talking about? At what point should we have fired on the Chinese?
"What the hell are you even talking about? At what point should we have fired on the Chinese?"
DeleteWhen they forced down an EP-3 aircraft, seized it, captured and held the crew, stripped the aircraft, and cut it up into parts. When they seized a US underwater, unmanned vehicle in 2016. When they interfered with USNS Victorious in international waters. When they attempted to snag USS McCain's towed array. When they constructed illegal artificial islands and then militarized them. When they illegally entered Philippine territorial waters (if we were so invited). When they directed lasers at landing US aircraft in Africa a dozen or so times in early 2018 and injured two C-130 pilots. When they directed lasers at a US P-8 in Feb 2020. When they conducted any of the 18 unsafe naval actions near our ships between 2016 - 2018. And so on.
Your polite inquiry is very much appreciated. Do you have any other questions? Perhaps something productive?
Has the failure of the AGS for the Zumwalt DDGs contributed to the declining focus on naval guns? Have the Marines, to anyone's knowledge, complained about the lack of a gun system to conduct NGFS (Navy Gun Fire Support)? I just don't see the effectiveness of F-35s for CAS.
ReplyDeleteThe Russians and the Chinese are all about their naval gun mounts. In particular, the AK-130, 130mm.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-70_ak130.php
Meanwhile the Chinese went from 100mm guns on the 51 series destroyers to 130mm guns on the 55 series
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that the Chinese destroyers are as contemporarily armed as any other navies out there, 127mm to 130mm is the standard for destroyer/cruiser ships.
DeleteROKN Incheon FFG, 374ft, 1x 5” (127mm), 40,000yd,
ReplyDeleteMod 45 L62.
Ship is 3200t full load. w/16AshM.
True, but considering her role for costal defense of the ROK, such a large armament is not out of place
DeleteNaval battles move toward to beyond visual range thus naval guns' usefulness is diminishing. Main guns are mainly used for:
ReplyDelete1. Support land invasion
2. Air defense, yes, they can delivery shells containing lots of small particles explode in air
The US has a history related to this, regarding guns.... remember when cannons were no longer installed on fighter aircraft, which led to unacceptable losses over North Vietnam? Lessons learned (in that instance): guns reinstalled, Top Gun (and other schools) created and implemented, and air superiority regained. How long will it take to relearn this lesson WRT surface vessels? How many losses?
DeleteThe problem is going to happen as much with naval vessels compared to "stealth" 5th and 6 th gen fighters where BVR is supposed to be all the norm now BUT with radars turned off and no one really seeing it each other, stumbling into each other is a real possibility, then you would need close-in A2A missiles AND GUNS! I could see the same happening with Chinese vessels and USN vessels under severe EMCON closing in on each other and then all those long range missiles won't do much good but having a bigger gun than the other guy could come in real handy...no one is going to live very long broadcasting with active radar! Ships will end up a LOT CLOSER than envisioned....
DeleteGreat observation about the radar issue.
DeleteThe American made Ambassador Class Missile boat. Just 206 feet with a 76mm.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_MK_III_missile_boat
Just after WW II, we had the Talbot LSTs at 382 feet with two 5-inch guns. And this was a transport ship!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Talbot_County_(LST-1153)
Ambassador class. Good one!
DeleteOnly the Italians seem to be keeping multiple guns on most of their ships. Quite sad to see.
ReplyDeleteAndrew
I have a certain fondness for the Sovraponte 76mm gun. Zero deck penetration, can be emplaced on top of a helo hangar, used as a CIWS gun, with 76 rounds in the ready magazine.
Delete"Sovraponte 76mm gun"
DeleteI have found very little information on the gun. Do you know the rate of fire? The 'parent' 76 mm guns claim 80-120 rounds/min so I would assume something on the same order. That means the ready ammo would be gone in less than a minute. How is the ready ammo reloaded? Presumably by hand? In the middle of a battle? Is this a good idea? It sounds like a useful peacetime gun but a questionable combat gun.
Any thoughts or information?
It can optionally be fed under deck like a traditional gun. I really don't understand why they haven't marketed it harder. Stealth mount. Guessing it may be lighter.
Delete"It can optionally be fed under deck like a traditional gun."
DeleteIf that's the case, then there's no advantage over traditional guns and are likely drawbacks like smaller magazine, flimsier construction, lighter - meaning less strong - materials of construction, physically weaker, less resistant to combat damage, etc.
The entire - and only - selling point seems to be the lack of deck penetration. If you give that up, it's just a typical gun with lots of potential drawbacks due to its 'lightness' and small size.
The Sovraponte 76mm can be fired in full auto, single shot, or 3-round burst. The intended use case is to load it with DART guided rounds and fire in rapid semiauto/burst. The light weight is basically to get it into the same footprint as CIWS or SeaRAM - it's a point defense gun, not the main gun.
DeleteIt can't be reloaded while firing, but that's an inherent limitation of all point defense mounts - you only have the ammo you have onboard, and all that ammo goes away quite fast at max ROF (CIWS runs dry in 20 seconds).
As a no-deck-penetration mounted weapon, Sovraponte could allow quick, field-expedient solutions to up-arm vessels. Fitted with independent FC as on STRALES mounts, you might install this on a skid for use on helidecks or on strengthened deck locations.
DeleteWhile the Stan-Flex system is nice, the required precision engineering and power/cooling limitations do seem to fall short of the potential of such a system. Being able to mount self-guided weapons in open locations would really allow the armament of minimally armed vessels to improve when required (sort of how SeaRAM improves on RAM).
Why do ships need bigger or more guns? CONOPS and mission drive requirements. NGFS isn't a mission for the FFG. Its gun is primarily for signaling (firing across the bow), and anti-small craft. For those roles, the 57mm seems adequate. Probably could even get by with a 30mm RWS. Anything more is a waste of space, weight and money.
ReplyDeleteThe need for naval guns - of all calibers - is manifest and obvious and should go without saying. However, for the benefit of those who cannot see the uses (and probably called for the elimination of guns from aircraft prior to the Vietnam war), I'll list some example uses:
Delete-sinking patrol boats
-sinking fishing boats
-providing limited gun support to special forces, raids, evacuations, etc.
-striking damaged, surfaced submarines at very short range
-sinking enemy corvettes, frigates, and missile boats
-shooting large UAVs
-shooting small UAVs and UAV swarms
-sinking unmanned surface craft
-attacking merchant ships
-destroying oil rigs and platforms
-attacking artificial islands
-destroying port facilities
-attacking enemy logistics ships
-providing anti-air and anti-missile protection
-and so on
As we've known throughout history (you should study naval history before commenting!), ships need the largest gun they can reasonably carry (primary gun(s)) plus additional, smaller secondary guns. The large caliber primary gun plus additional secondary guns provides a good mix of capabilities for any eventuality.
Now you have a very basic understanding of the uses of, and need for, naval guns. I applaud you for asking about something you didn't know and I'm happy to help.
Naval guns, in general, sure. But the requirements for the FFG don't encompass all of these.
DeleteThe 57mm seems reasonable for sinking patrol boats, fishing boats, missile boats, and USVs (I called it anti-small craft). With the proper fire control upgrades, it seems reasonable for shooting down UAVs and UAV swarms.
Attacking islands and port facilities is not part of the FFG's requirements or CONOPs.
Even 5" guns didn't do very well against the oil rig during Op Praying Mantis. Maybe guns aren't the right answer there.
For the FFG, the 57mm seems fine for its missions, and a 30mm might not be that much worse.
"the requirements for the FFG don't encompass all of these"
DeleteIf history has taught us anything about naval combat it's that a ship never knows what situation it will find itself in. The escort carriers, destroyers, and tiny destroyer escorts of Taffy 3 never thought they'd be dueling with Japanese battleships at spitting distance and yet they did.
I encourage you to study your naval history. It will help you grasp and apply the timeless lessons of naval combat to today's fleet. It will be well worth your time and you can contribute more meaningful comments. Good luck!
"If history has taught us anything about naval combat it's that a ship never knows what situation it will find itself in."
DeleteWouldn't this imply the need for multi-function ships over single-function ships? (e.g. DDGs with ASW gear and helicopters) After all, single-function ships can never really know what situation they'll find themselves in.
"Wouldn't this imply the need for multi-function ships over single-function ships?"
DeleteNo, it demonstrates the need for sufficient numbers of single function ships to ensure that there are always optimized ships for whatever situation arises.
"NGFS isn't a mission for the FFG."
DeleteNor for anything else. The USN does not have a viable NGFS ship in the fleet right now.
"...Why do ships need bigger or more guns? CONOPS and mission drive requirements. NGFS isn't a mission for the FFG."
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point.
Of course, if I had my way we would have ships whose specific jobs would be NGFS or engaging enemy ships at 'close' range with guns. The Burkes would not be expected to do these missions.
But a couple of things might be problematic.
The first is that these ships that I'd like the navy to have don't actually exist.
The second thing is that war has a tendency to do present the unexpected.
Since the Burkes are pretty much all we have, they will likely end up doing all the jobs that are needed to get done.
-Marines trapped up against the coast by an enemy force need NGFS to keep from getting overrun and massacred.
-In the ENCOM environment that will likely implement itself by necessity a few hours into a conflict, ships will stumble into each other unexpectedly and at much shorter engagement ranges than anticipated.
In situations like those it would be nice to have our ships armed with capable naval guns.
Lutefisk
Until the Navy fixes itself and increases fleet size, any surface combatant with a gun (s) should be able to provide NGFS. If all you have available is an FFG with a BB gun, it's better than no gun at all. I don't know what the navy does for gunnery training, but in the Army we had firing tables for gunnery for just about every gun system and missiles too.
ReplyDeleteExample of Table V and Table VI Gunnery for BGM-71 TOW https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-34/fig5-6.gif
Any weapon system can be accurate,effective, lethal if you consistently train on it. Gunnery is a very perishable skill to begin with.
I think the trick is, why put billion dollar ships into a naval gunfire spot to get shot at on the cheap. The radar and sonar should be somewhere else when that is going on. Just like everything else with the navy, its a web of problems. If we had say quad packed GMLRS, we really could live with guns to cover thange inside their minimum range. We could also look at APKWS and what it might offer. It seems that all the cool rounds we kept hearing about for 5" guns hasn't gone anywhere. No HVP and Vulcano has limits such it plays out just like Ukraine. Tube artillery getting outranged by rocket artillery. I say go with the rockets and have a shoot off on a small caliber gun every 5 years and buy the winner. That starts to make sense as we buy numerous, affordable ships again.
ReplyDeleteWith its rate of fire and light weight, I can see the 57mm having some utility as a secondary gun, but given that even a PHM can mount a 3-inch gun, I can't see it as the primary gun for any combat ship.
ReplyDeleteThe question is not rate of fire or weight. It's destructive power, pure and simple. It could have an infinite rate of fire and weigh nothing but if it can't destroy the target, quickly and effectively, what's the point. A 57 mm gun - barely bigger than a WWII 40 mm anti-aircraft gun - just doesn't have much destructive power. The burst charge is less than 1 lb. Firecrackers are more lethal than that!
DeleteFor an extremely small target that you can afford a long dwell time on, that's adequate. As a main weapon for a corvette or frigate, it's a joke.
"As a main weapon for a corvette or frigate, it's a joke."
DeleteWhich is why I said as a secondary gun and not as a primary gun.
It appears 57mm bofors has 2.5 times the energy of a 40mm. These things can be deceptive. Just eyeballing the area of a 57mm circle vs 40 mm tells me the 57mm is already starting with about double the area before we start the 3rd dimension. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Tuesday13975williams.pdf
DeleteBigger guns have larger ammo. That's not exactly stunning news. Do you have a point to make?
DeleteWould mention my understanding re 19,000 yard you quote for the Constellation 57mm gun is the theoretical range, only achievable by firing at 45 degrees, effective range with chance of hitting target more likely max of ~11,000 yards/5.4 nm.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. It's just meant to offer a ballpark comparison.
DeleteThe navy forgets that having redundancy in weapons systems is necessary for ship survival. A hit to the missile control system disables every missile whereas a gun can still be locally controlled.
ReplyDeleteThink gun/launcher. most MBTs fire gun ammo as well as some kind of tube launched ATGM. LAHAT is popular with western countries and already has a naval version that the IDF navy uses (box launcher). LAHAT rounds are handled just like any other gun round. A NLOS tube launched LAHAT would be handy for smaller targets/close in fights, as well as give you a back up in case the main missile battery gets knocked out. Tube launched drone systems are now being tested from tanks. A naval version of medium range would be nice for ISR, EW, anti drone defence, ect.
Delete