tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post906044289791514846..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Excalibur - LRLAP ReplacementComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47953142804733445072016-12-21T15:51:06.761-08:002016-12-21T15:51:06.761-08:00Excellent observation.
GAB
Excellent observation.<br /><br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24428771486031365702016-12-20T09:27:38.970-08:002016-12-20T09:27:38.970-08:00Precisely my point! You might need X men for a Flt...Precisely my point! You might need X men for a Flt III Burke, but we can at least take a guess based on the Flt II's. <br /><br />Tico's and CVN's are, presumably, well known. <br /><br />But the Zumwalt might me more like the LCS which is 'Let's have real wide ladders so that men can get topside as fast as possible, and make sure there are a lot of rafts...'<br /><br />I hear much about 'Level X' survivability, but not much about how the Navy came up with how many men are needed for damage control in a ship that has X tons of reserve buoancy made to level Y standards.'<br /><br />Even in the Burkes and Tico's it seems like we take the manning necessary from older models, ut the Burkes and Ticos aren't built with STS or its equivalent. So I fear that they might get hit and we find out we have too little men on board. Or worse, that the design isn't salvageable. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41357195479281539132016-12-20T08:40:22.593-08:002016-12-20T08:40:22.593-08:00"damage control model for a hybrid electric Z..."damage control model for a hybrid electric Zumwalt looks radically different from that of a 'Burke."<br /><br />Remember that the waterline "footprint" of the Zumwalt DECREASES as the ship settles in the water, unlike conventional hull ships where the "footprint" INCREASES. Thus, the buoyancy of the Zumwalt decreases as the ship sinks which is the opposite of a conventional ship. In other words, once the Zumwalt begins to sink, it's going to accelerate because the reserve buoyancy is negative, not positive.<br /><br />I don't believe the Navy has clearly thought through all the ramifications of a tumblehome hull.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40678807709422253972016-12-20T07:01:19.320-08:002016-12-20T07:01:19.320-08:00What are our damage control concepts based upon? T...What are our damage control concepts based upon? There is the truism out there that damage control needs X amount of men... given that we haven't had to do damage control since the Stark, and that the ships out there now are arguably alot older, and for the newer ones, less robust, do we have any idea what damage control numbers on a modern vessel look like? Is there something like a damage control 'conops' done for a vessel as its commissioned? <br /><br />For example, I'd have to imagine that the damage control model for a hybrid electric Zumwalt looks radically different from that of a 'Burke.JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64305641626832346722016-12-19T09:17:47.435-08:002016-12-19T09:17:47.435-08:00"why did USN go such an unique solution?"..."why did USN go such an unique solution?"<br /><br />Who can say why the Navy makes the decisions they do? Still, it's obvious that the Navy wanted a very long range attack weapon and no gun could do it. It had to be a rocket or missile and the hope was that a rocket shell would be cheaper. That didn't pan out. <br /><br />Given the "want" by the Navy, a unique solution was almost a given. The other obvious approach would have been the navalized MLRS/ATACMS, however, the ATACMS appears to cost around $750K each.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37599816625050349452016-12-19T09:11:46.242-08:002016-12-19T09:11:46.242-08:00"But its either that or sink a mountain of mo..."But its either that or sink a mountain of money into re-equipping zumwalt."<br /><br />Another alternative is to do nothing. Retire two of the Zumwalts and use the remainder as a test bed for electronics, propulsion, and hull form. Why sink more money into a what will, at best, be a substandard platform?<br /><br />If someone wants to play around with AGS and Excalibur as an R&D project, that's fine, and if it ever matures then we can revisit equipping the Zumwalt with it. Of course, pouring money into an R&D project that can only benefit three ships in the entire fleet seems unwise.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23405195374728781742016-12-19T06:44:14.316-08:002016-12-19T06:44:14.316-08:00"Do we really want to sink a ton of money int..."Do we really want to sink a ton of money into adapting the AGS to use 155 Excalibur "<br /><br />No, obviously not.<br /><br />But its either that or sink a mountain of money into re-equipping zumwalt.<br /><br />Or rename it the DGS ( Dunsel Gus System ) because although it represents a high percentage of the ship by cost, mass and volume, it serves no actual purpose.<br /><br />Its rock and a hard place time really.<br /><br />On the "bright side". By the look of the above stats ( and of course air resistance is linear, but .... ) it looks like you might be able to double Excalibur normal range if you adapt AGS to that round.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729830680739249692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64246848671803688742016-12-19T03:49:34.176-08:002016-12-19T03:49:34.176-08:00(cont fr. above)
As for the Effectiveness of the ...(cont fr. above)<br /><br />As for the Effectiveness of the 5in Gun without requiring kills...<br /><br />Page 9 (Tactics and Equipment) states:<br />"Early in 1945 fast carrier task groups developed AA. coordination plans, designed to provide concentrated 5-inch gunfire against targets at long range, guarding at the same time against further undetected attacks."<br />Now, realizing this is VERY CLEARY spelling out that this primarily centered around 5in Gunfire, let us look at the effects in comparison to other fleets presented on Page 18.<br />[ FCTF (AACP) Percentage AA. success: 86 ]<br />Now, because they made a typo here, I take you back to page 5 (which is covering the same period):<br />[ Other Forces Percentage AA. success : 68% ]<br />This is a 26.4% increase in effectiveness, the only major difference being synchronized concentrated 5in gunfire (serenades)! <br /><br />HOWEVER, it was NOT increased lethality that caused this difference.<br />If we look at Table II, p18, we see that the lethality spread is 23±3% compared to 18±2%, which is within the margin of error and not really significant enough to cause a 26.4% difference in chase-aways.<br />The resulting conclusion is simply that the 5in Gun must have been very effective at deterring Air Attacks - the change in tactics did not generate a notably higher kill count, but still drove off a significantly greater number of air attacks.<br /><br />I believe that this is clear indication that the 5in Guns were considered VERY effective by that document.<br /><br />But, let me step away from the document for a moment.<br />Consider, even if they failed to destroy the A/C in flight, the Psychological effects of the 5in shells going off in mass.<br />Japanese Ace Pilot Saburō Sakai described the sensation as "Thousands of Oni (Japanese Ogres) beating on you as if you were a taiko (drum), knocking the wind from your lungs, destroying your vision, and making [life?] a nightmare." He actually went so far as to say he feared going against the 'Five Inch Machine Guns' more than going against any Fighter or Ace that the US could throw at him.<br />Fellow ace Takahide Aioi (later an Admiral of the JMSDF) would corroborate this opinion, adding that many A/C that 'survived' were structurally destroyed by the beatings, rendering them unfit for service - even as Kamikaze. He also pointed out that it was not uncommon for pilots to return and end up laid up for days, 'coming back as more bruise than man', despite their A/C not being hit. I recall reading that he found humor in wondering 'if the Americans had intentionally designed their guns to kill pilots instead of sink aircraft'.<br />In its proper role, the 5in gun was highly effective at deterring air attack - the 'respect' of them developed by the Japanese is clear indication of this. This alone quite probably deterred many would-have-been attacks, as the Japanese Pilots were simply too intimidated to engage unless they had something immediate and material to gain (unfortunately, this also drove the adoption of the Kamikaze, where the pilot injury and plane damage did not matter as it was a one way trip).<br />The Germans even had similar appraisals of the American 5"/38cal Guns (which was the envy of the world at the time), and they were NOT flying A/C almost made out of paper.<br />I call this a complete success of the 5in gun!<br /><br />Comparatively, the US Aviators didn't think much of the Japanese Naval AA, going so far as to consider it a joke.<br />As a result, any opportunity to attack Japanese ships that presented itself was jumped on by the American Aviators.<br /><br />Oh, one more thing. The Japanese insist that most Kamikaze pilots were not 'barely trained' - it was completely true of the Home Guard (which made up only about 15% of the Kamikaze), but not the main force.<br />Japan sent many of their vets to the deep as Kamikaze pilots, and several fighter aces - as a matter of fact, almost all of the Kamikaze pilots had at least a year's worth of experience.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63840166525289115542016-12-19T03:48:14.015-08:002016-12-19T03:48:14.015-08:00CNO, I appear to have read too deeply into your co...CNO, I appear to have read too deeply into your comment and pulled the wrong result.<br />Truly, my apologies.<br /><br />The modern gun concept is something that is simply too much to get into at the moment, so I will decline to continue with it further. We may discus that later if I ever finish that proposed design (life is in the way).<br /><br />> "The data clearly supports my assessment that the 5" gun was not terribly effective."<br /><br />On the contrary, if you actually can read the document, the data is clear that the 5in Gun System was very effective.<br />Note, however, that I stipulated that on actually being able to read the document - like most WW2 Era official documents, it is a tangled mess and requires a certain 'art' to read.<br />(Your issue with Chapter VI Table 1 (p18) is addressed in the same chapter in Table 3 (p19) - 24/26 were kills, only 2 just missed.)<br /><br />I've been pouring over WW2-era documents (mostly ship designs) for going on 20 years now, let me try to break it down a little for you.<br /><br />Firstly, the document is VERY CLEAR that any chase away is considered an AA Victory.<br />Page 8 clearly states the following:<br />"Since the primary purpose of the fleet's antiaircraft is the protection of ships, the effectiveness of AA. defense is reflected not only in the number of planes shot down, but also in the damage suffered by ships from enemy aerial weapons--bombs, torpedoes, suicide planes, and others."<br />The data presented by the document then proceeds under this assertion (even labeling the misses/chase-aways as 'AA Success Percentage').<br />Kills do not equate to Success, Success does not equate to Kills. One can still happen without the other.<br />Therefore, Kills that happen WITHOUT the ships being damaged is a Success.<br />A/C that are taken under fire and then miss is considered a Success.<br />That is simply the reality of AA Warfare.<br /><br />> "Of course not, since the AA never fired... You, however, are..."<br /><br />Please don't stick words in my mouth.<br />The data presented in the document IS referring to A/C that were brought under fire and many tables are clearly labeled as such, no deciphering needed.<br />My "5in Guns only accounted for a whopping 30% of all confirmed AA kills in the war or about ~9% of every enemy aircraft that even thought about coming in range" comment is still valid even without requiring the A/C to have been fired upon because it's just comparing numbers (number of A/C shot down by the 5in guns compared to the number of enemy aircraft that entered gun range) - limiting the total aircraft to those actually fired upon only improves the 5'/38's results!<br /><br />> "(not sure where you got that number?)"<br /><br />Page 6 and 7, 7 clearly stating:<br />"Five-inch guns destroyed 30 percent of all "sures" during the war. VT-fuzed projectiles, used in only 35 percent of 5-inch rounds, were responsible for 50 percent of 5-inch kills."<br /><br />> "I also note that Table III, p19 lists the effectiveness of the 5" gun as 1000 rounds per kill. That's not what I would call effective."<br /><br />Page 7:<br /><br />"Rounds per bird, except for 1945, increased for all types of weapons as the war progressed. This was the result of the following factors:<br />1) Increase in the number of weapons installed on all ships.<br />2) Increase in the number of ships firing at each target as operations increased in size.<br />3) Increase in the number of night attacks, in which fire control was less accurate.<br />4) Increase in speed, maneuverability and armor of enemy planes.<br />5) Adoption of - doctrine calling for opening fire at extreme range.<br />6) Lack of sufficient opportunity for training."<br /><br />With the advent of the Kamikaze, the fleets were opening fire at ranges of 15,000 yards - they had no hope of accurate fire at this range, but they opened fire anyway because they weren't willing to give the enemy an inch.<br />This clearly explains the inflated RPB.<br />Do also check Page 6 for the yearly and war total RPBs.<br /><br />(cont below)<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82287426169355712822016-12-18T20:56:46.897-08:002016-12-18T20:56:46.897-08:00The Worcester did have some reliability issues wit...The Worcester did have some reliability issues with the rapid fire guns, but the Des Moines class was very successful and the 8" guns as you can see achieved some pretty impressive fire rates. <br /><br />I suspect that a modern design could be made more reliable, accurate, and if need be, perhaps even higher firepower rates.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36358695874116699942016-12-18T20:47:46.479-08:002016-12-18T20:47:46.479-08:00The F-35 is probably an even more costly failure t...The F-35 is probably an even more costly failure than the above. It's an aircraft with numerous deficiencies and very expensive at that. <br /><br />Perhaps the only real success in recent procurement has been the MRAP?AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54316222675101910032016-12-18T07:53:58.090-08:002016-12-18T07:53:58.090-08:00Keep in mind that the Vertical Interval (gun altit...Keep in mind that the Vertical Interval (gun altitude - target altitude) is likely to be negative (Ship will be at sea level and will fire at targets above sea level). This can shorten range a lot if the VI difference is large.SurfGWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07881317167759086625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61654810293330271342016-12-18T07:46:11.269-08:002016-12-18T07:46:11.269-08:00Good observation, and would apply if Excal followe...Good observation, and would apply if Excal followed a more or less ballistic trajectory like Copperhead. Excalibur is fired at High Angle and the extra few feet of altitude do not translate into much extra range. The extra altitude would mostly extend the range at which you can get a top-down attack. <br />To get LRLAP like range, it would have to be re-designed to glide.SurfGWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07881317167759086625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58555937502629091062016-12-18T00:36:01.088-08:002016-12-18T00:36:01.088-08:00Its perhaps worth a mention that the quoted 25mi/4...Its perhaps worth a mention that the quoted 25mi/40km range of excalibur is achieved when fired from the relatively short barreled (ie 39 caliber) M109 self propelled howitzer. <br /><br />In newer longer barreled artillery , like the 52 caliber gun of the PZH2000 SPG, the range of Excalibur is around 50km. <br /><br />Both the 155mm AGS and the 5" MK45(mod4) boasts L62 caliber barrels and so is likely to achieve even longer range. mortenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820623900563194759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91339862694030390192016-12-17T20:10:45.446-08:002016-12-17T20:10:45.446-08:00Well, you obviously took offense so let me start b...Well, you obviously took offense so let me start by offering a sincere apology. Such was not the intent. I'll learn a lesson and try harder.<br /><br />To the subject at hand ...<br /><br />To be fair, the concept, as you described it, contained no option of failure. As described, it was presented as a 100% success for the defending 5" gun, whether directly or indirectly. You presented no scenario in which an incoming missile would have any chance of success. The logical extension of that is that a defending ship would not need SAMs, decoys, ECM, etc. I suspect you don't believe that but that's how it was described.<br /><br />Moving on the 5" in WWII. Yes, the 5" was an extremely important part of the AA defenses. However, extremely important is not the same as extremely effective. Let's look at the numbers in the reference you cited.<br /><br />For starters, the data and descriptions are confusing. Look at Table 1, p18. It lists 43 aircraft engaged with 17 hitting a ship or missing close enough to cause damage. That seems straightforward enough. The remaining 26 is where it gets confusing. The description for the 26 says "Number missing without damaging" which I interpret to mean that the aircraft either left the area or attempted a suicide dive but missed by a sufficient margin as to not cause damage. It does not say that the 26 were shot down. In fact, it does not say that ANY were shot down. I know that some had to have been shot down, hence my confusion. I'll speculate that the 26 consists of some that were shot down, some that left the area without attacking, and some that attacked and missed by a non-damaging margin. Again, the data does not indicate how many, if any, were shot down. <br /><br />Table II, p17 is a bit clearer. It lists an overall AA success rate of 23%. Using your number of 30% for the share of kills by 5" (not sure where you got that number?) gives an overall 5" success of 6.9% (23% x 30%). A success rate of 6.9% is hardly effective. It may be vital but it's not effective.<br /><br />I also note that Table III, p19 lists the effectiveness of the 5" gun as 1000 rounds per kill. That's not what I would call effective. The 5" was important, certainly, but not terribly effective.<br /><br />Finally, and most importantly, you're misinterpreting the data. Let me illustrate. If a bomber approaches its target and is not taken under fire, drops its bombs, they miss, and the bomber returns to its base, is that considered an AA win? Of course not, since the AA never fired. It was a simple case of the attacker missing in the face of non-existent defense. You, however, are interpreting every non-successful attack as an AA win. This is not even remotely true. Torpedo planes and dive bombers may be completely unaffected by the AA and still miss. Similarly, a suicide plane may be completely unaffected by AA and still miss. The AA didn't drive them off, they simply missed and returned to base or crashed, in the case of suicide planes.<br /><br />Also, bear in mind that the suicide pilots were barely trained. Many were simply incapable of piloting their aircraft into a ship regardless of whether there was AA fire or not. Taking AA credit for those is misleading.<br /><br />The data clearly supports my assessment that the 5" gun was not terribly effective.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-92200258158369274602016-12-17T18:35:47.639-08:002016-12-17T18:35:47.639-08:00CNO, forgive me, but I do take offense.
Not becaus...CNO, forgive me, but I do take offense.<br />Not because you mocked a concept, but because you are trying to claim I said something that I quite clearly did not in any way say.<br />If you disagree with my comment, then by all means disagree with my comment, please, I am here to learn. But it is invariably insulting to have commentary forced into my metaphorical mouth.<br />Let me repeat myself for your benefit:<br /><br />"From what I understand... the Destroyer/Cruiser 5in guns' role in modern Anti-Missile warfare is not a direct Hard-Kill, BUT RATHER A SUPPLEMENTAL AID TO THE OTHER HARD/SOFT KILL ASSETS ON THE SHIP." [emphasis added]<br /><br />On top of this, I then referred to CIWS... twice.<br />CLEARLY, this SYSTEM is not only SHORT RANGED but part of the LAST LINE of defense if it is intended to SUPPLIMENT the CIWS.<br />Please, explain to me how suggesting bolstering the LAST LINE of defense is magically suggesting (or even justifying) removing in its entirety the FIRST LINE of defense which is LONG (to EXTREME) RANGED?<br />What you are claiming I said is essentially the same as 'We need to get rid of Soldier's Rifles, because they have Kevlar and Handguns'.<br />Or, in base English, you are suggesting myself to be a moronic imbecile. Of course I would take offense.<br />I DID say it would make the missile an easy kill, yes, but I was speaking relatively (and I ought to have said relatively, I assumed it was obvious, but I am now left to assume it wasn't).<br />A 70% chance of failing is a whole lot easier than a 99.9% chance of failing.<br /><br />You also lifted the quote out of context and used it to justify your mocking tirade, when in context I was very clearly speaking of the outcomes of a single avoidance maneuver and why a missile would not do that maneuver. Disingenuous of you, at best!<br /><br />For another point, your deriding of the 5in Gun's performance in WW2 very clearly displays either a near-complete lack of understanding of WW2 Doctrine or a demand for unrealistic magic pixie dust defenses - in the latter case, forgive my snark, but I suggest you reevaluate the Zumwalt and LCS, you ought to love them!<br />Here's real history for you:<br />The 5in Gun was used as part of a SYSTEM of Anti-Air Defenses, and it was considered an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT part of that system.<br />The goal of the Anti-Air Defense SYSTEM was NOT to shoot down enemy aircraft, their goal was to drive off enemy aircraft and prevent damage to the allied fleet.<br />Fleet wide, the system had a Sixty Eight percent (68%) SUCCESS RATE against the Kamikaze (which are arguably harder to shoot down/force to miss than Sub-Sonic and low Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles according to Norman Friedman).<br />That is roughly comparable to the expected success rate tossed around for our modern Anti-Air Systems (about 70%)!<br />The Fast Carrier Task Force had actually evolved that SYSTEM (ironically by putting MORE emphasis on the 5in guns) and had an EIGHTY SIX PERCENT (86%) SUCCESS RATE against the Kamikaze, and NINETY SIX percent (96%) against Non-Kamikaze.<br />War wide, the fleet's AA SYSTEM had an astounding NINETY ONE percent (91%) success rate of driving away enemy aircraft - of the approximately 7,600 enemy aircraft that came within gun range, only 715, or 9 percent, scored hits or damaging near misses on naval and merchant vessels.<br />You may call that an abysmal record, but I call that record an ASTOUNDING success.<br /><br />Here, an actual historical document to prove my point:<br />http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/#VI<br /><br />Yes, yes, the 5in Guns only accounted for a whopping 30% of all confirmed AA kills in the war or about ~9% of every enemy aircraft that even thought about coming in range - even though directly splashing them wasn't even their job (as clearly implied by that document).<br />I suppose you are going to suggest now that we scrap all ECM because as an Anti-Missile asset it has a kill record of a resounding ZERO?<br />Of course not.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41388810293588392642016-12-17T09:20:59.046-08:002016-12-17T09:20:59.046-08:00I'm not so much interested in Anti-Air as much...I'm not so much interested in Anti-Air as much as I am in bombardment. There are going to be situations where you need a smaller gun and not the 16" guns, but you need bombardment. <br /><br />IIRC the battleships have the ammunition capacity for a much larger number of rounds than the smaller sized warships and for much heavier bombardment.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58865369953916494822016-12-17T06:03:55.661-08:002016-12-17T06:03:55.661-08:00"standards that were used for the requirement..."standards that were used for the requirements I stated are actually still in use - Capital Ship Standards, as in use with the Super-Carriers."<br /><br />As you know, the Ford class carriers, while being larger than the Nimitz, have reduced the crew size by 600 or so. The wisdom of this remains to be seen.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73499368839699715462016-12-17T05:59:51.852-08:002016-12-17T05:59:51.852-08:00"Either way, a win for the ship."
Final..."Either way, a win for the ship."<br /><br />Finally, we have an absolutely fool-proof, 100% perfect anti-missile defense! I wonder why the Japanese, Italian, and SK navies still have surface to air missiles? I wonder why the US Navy hasn't abandoned the Standard, RAM, SeaRAM, and ESSM missiles in favor of this simple, invicible 5" gun?<br /><br />I'm mocking the concept, of course, to make a point (take no offense). Every weapon ever conceived was perfect on paper but few have actually risen to the level of "good", let alone perfect. Being more serious, my mocking point is valid. If the Japanese, Italian, and SK navies were really convinced that the 5" was that good they would abandon their SAMs but they haven't. That alone should tell us what they really think about the gun as an AAW weapon.<br /><br />Historical perspective: We had air burst 5" guns in WWII and they couldn't stop the slow propeller driven aircraft of the time. Yes, they had some limited success but not enough. Air attacks always got through. I'm sure you'll say that we now have superior fire control, which is true, but at the same time the incoming aircraft have now become supersonic missiles so the gain in fire control is balanced by an increase in the threat.<br /><br />There's no way around it, the 5" gun has an abysmal record in service.<br /><br />I have no problem firing a 5" gun at an incoming missile. If you've got the gun, anyway, why not try? Worst case, you miss and waste a few rounds but you might get lucky and get a hit.<br /><br />I'd love to see some realistic testing of the 5" gun in the AAW role (I'd like to see it tested in the anti-small craft role, too!). Until someone does that and publishes the results, I'll continue to believe what history has conclusively proven which is that the 5" gun is ineffective as an AAW weapon.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-764290992425511342016-12-17T00:32:23.474-08:002016-12-17T00:32:23.474-08:00Regarding crew size, I suppose I am being a little...Regarding crew size, I suppose I am being a little too optimistic.<br />The Navies of the world are far too focused on Sudden Death Warfare to know any better.<br />That being said, the standards that were used for the requirements I stated are actually still in use - Capital Ship Standards, as in use with the Super-Carriers.<br /><br />Regarding guns, at some point we both have to admit that we are asking for data that we simply don't have access to.<br />The Leonardo 127 mm/54 Compact is an Italian gun that is not in service with the US Navy, and the Italian, South Korean, and Japanese governments are under no obligation to release testing data - unlike our own navy, through the valued work of the GAO and the like, which openly does not give a single hoot about the role of Gunfire, and therefore does not train for it except in the most superficial of ways which in turn produces rather horrible results in both testing and practice.<br /><br />However, I would like to make a tactical appeal here.<br />From what I understand (by speaking to Japanese seamen), the Destroyer/Cruiser 5in guns' role in modern Anti-Missile warfare is not a direct Hard-Kill, but rather a supplemental aid to the other hard/soft kill assets on the ship.<br /><br />To explain the concept in brief,<br />Modern Anti-Shipping Missiles use a complex Terminal Guidance System that is programmed to attempt to dodge around common close range Anti-Missile systems that any given target may be carrying, to include the classical 5in gun - but therein lies an issue that can easily be exploited.<br />Unlike Kinetic Kill Vehicles (such as the RAM), the 5in gun is essentially throwing a giant air-burst grenade that automatically detonates ~600 yards from the missile, throwing shrapnel in a 38 yard wide cone ahead of it - and at the ranges involved, the gun just has to put the shell anywhere near the missile since the effected area is greater than the shell deviation.<br />This leaves the missile with two choices:<br />A) Attempt to fly directly through the cloud of shrapnel, which is a near certain hard-kill (according to the missile).<br />or<br />B) Pull a hard angle pull up at 30-plus Gs since it's going too fast to attempt a roll around the cloud, and then burn most of its Terminal Motor trying to realign itself with the ship.<br />The thing is, of course, only one of these is actually an option - they cannot go through the cloud, their terminal guidance systems just won't allow it.<br />They will make a hard pull up and attempt to turn the complication into a horribly executed pop-up attack, making the missile easy prey for CIWS and ECM.<br /><br />That or the programmers are stupid and have the thing try to curve around the cloud, which means it has to burn even more of the Motor for ever more hard turns, leaving it with nothing for terminal navigation...<br />Essentially, it would end up either heading in a straight predictable line (making it an easy target for CIWS) or would try to dodge around the incoming fire and miss the ship entirely because it couldn't regain speed for a second attempt and crash harmlessly into the water.<br />Either way, a win for the ship.<br /><br />Now, don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting to take this concept into battle just yet.<br />I'm suggesting that the issue needs to be thoroughly tested, even while hypothetical modern battleships that are theorized to use the guns in bulk are underway.<br />However, I also suggest a caveat.<br />Simply design the in-deck gun housing on the ship to accept a modern, hardened (armored) version of the 8"/55 Mark 71 mount (probably a new gun system, though, but nothing crazy like the AGS - just a simple derivative), similar to how the Spruance-class were (so long as the design already calls for 8in guns to begin with, which they should).<br />Should the 5in gun system fail in the tests, simply replace the unneeded guns with the 8in guns, and you have greatly increased the ship's mass shore bombardment capabilities; losing virtually nothing from putting those original guns in the design.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55162765117023925982016-12-16T18:50:51.072-08:002016-12-16T18:50:51.072-08:00When it comes to crew size, I'm discussing wha...When it comes to crew size, I'm discussing what the Navy would likely be able to do according to modern standards. That said, you won't get any argument from me about damage control personnel needs.<br /><br />Regarding 5" guns in the AAW role, I have yet to see any credible data (tests under realistic conditions) that shows a 5" gun is effective. All 5" gun manufacturer's claim to be able to do AAW but none have proven it to the best of my knowledge. If you think the gun you cited is capable, point me at some actual test data.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33502935605458336242016-12-16T16:30:05.134-08:002016-12-16T16:30:05.134-08:00> "My guesstimate is that a modern BB coul...> "My guesstimate is that a modern BB could operate with a crew size of around 500."<br /><br />For a ~700ft long ship, which is the minimum you want for a modern 8in fleet gunship (just to hold the weight of the guns - unless you want only a handful of Mark 71 mounts), 1200 men is the minimum you need for Damage Control purposes (remember, the Des Moines-class sailed with 1800).<br />A Modern Battleship (a real battleship, not the monitor you call for) would still require at minimum 1300 men - with 1500-1800 suggested.<br />As a matter of fact, the 1800 crew compliment of the Iowas during the 80s was selected due to being the minimum manpower to perform damage control on that ship (source: Cpt. Mike Eagan (US Navy, ret, dec)).<br />A modern ~500ft long 4-Gun (12in) Shore Bombardment ship (which is to say, the monitor you call for) based on the immediate post-dreadnought South Carolina-class (modern 12in guns are a lot larger than the guns on the South Carolinas) with everything simplified to points beyond stupidity would still require a crew of almost 800 (incidentally, about the same crew the South Carolinas actually sailed with).<br />So, you can go ahead and strip the ships of the secondaries and AA guns, but you still end up with one of two circumstances:<br />A) Hundreds of men sitting around on the ship doing nothing except maybe playing cards and spit shining the bulkheads;<br />or<br />B) a ship that cannot afford to take damage because it does not have the crew to perform adequate damage control - meaning first sign of combat, that ~$14 billion USD ship is going under with ~500 lives still aboard.<br /><br />The Burkes and Ticos are horribly undermanned when it comes to Damage Control - the cases where Burkes or OHPs have survived horrifying damage has been<br />1) Not in Combat Circumstances<br />and<br />2) a miracle to begin with.<br />This would be extremely unlikely to repeat itself in a real fight.<br /><br />Come real combat, the world is going to learn really fast that every major navy is sailing around the ocean in glass cannons that cannot patch themselves up and keep going, and that is not how you win wars.<br /><br />This is the reason that I still design my capital ships as ~2800 crew monsters, which is the same reason the Carriers still have MORE than that many just to operate the ships, not flight or anything else - Damage Control.<br />The simple fact is, you want combat power, you pay in manpower - that has always been a truism of military combat and automation can do nothing about it, you just replace low paid elbow grease (enlisted men) with highly paid technical engineers (officers), which is NOT going to lighten your manning expenditures one red cent.<br />There are many ways that the Navy could reform their system that would benefit the sailors while increasing readiness and decreasing per man expenditure, allowing them to afford the massive manpower pool needed to maintain the mass standing fleet it takes to prevent wars, but they are not interested.<br /><br />I also feel it worth pointing out that the Italian Leonardo 127 mm/54 Compact gun, which uses the same 5in shells as the US' 5in guns, is considered an effective AA weapon by the Italians, Japanese, and South Koreans - all of whom regularly practice with it in the AA (Anti-Missile) role to this day.<br />The Japanese and South Koreans are also under the opinion that the American 5"/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 functions adequately in the same role (albeit not as well as the Leonardo gun, which fires over twice as fast - the Japanese actually claim Leonardo understated their guns fire rate), and have been using theirs in AA Drills since the mid 2000s.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19352020368484445092016-12-16T15:34:12.861-08:002016-12-16T15:34:12.861-08:00What kills me is the Navy just figured out, after ...What kills me is the Navy just figured out, after the Zumwalt was commissioned, that the rounds were that expensive? Excuse my language but BULLSHIT! They KNEW the outcry would be massive and he calls to change the ship would be deafening. <br /><br />How many more of these mega-screw ups can we taek? The LCS? a ship without an offensive weapons system to its name but is slated to make up a 1/4 of the fleet.<br />Ford Class carrier? 12 billion dollars for an aircraft carrier that cannot launch or recover aircraft! If they have problems with its core mission set, what other fun things are in store?<br />DDG-1000? What more needs to be said? Another massively expensive whip with no offensive weapons systems to its name. I am sorry...it has one...with no rounds!! <br /><br />The Pentagon needs to be fumigated, starting with the Dept of the Navy.Coffee Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07303759803639176370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67742720356542398752016-12-16T14:00:55.712-08:002016-12-16T14:00:55.712-08:00More on the Worcester Cruiser.
https://www.youtu...More on the Worcester Cruiser. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeDVCR4TnHo<br /><br /><br />They along with the Des Moines were the last "gun" cruisers the USN ever made. <br /><br />Note the rapid fire 8" guns:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs<br /><br />Both classes were laid down in 1945 near the end of WW2, so consider what might be possible with modern technology. Accuracy of guns could be improved, as perhaps better damage control (although I will note the Des Monies class had 8" turret armor).<br /><br />If they could "scale up" for a 16" (or larger) super battleship, that would be pretty amazing. They could use a long barrel and rocket assisted projectiles for long range. <br />AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15949566855855565642016-12-16T13:47:32.073-08:002016-12-16T13:47:32.073-08:00It makes too much sense for the USN.
That said, I...It makes too much sense for the USN.<br /><br />That said, I actually think that the secondary armament could be of use, so I'm not comfortable with removing those.<br /><br />The real problem is that the defense industry won't get as much cash as building a Zumwalt white elephant. <br /><br />At some point though, I think that a classic battleship is worth it. Heavy armor, large guns, and a powerful secondary armament. <br /><br />I've always thought that a modern day equal to the Worcester-class cruiser would be amazing for secondary armament. They might even be able to make the rate of fire even faster, considering they were using WW2 era level technology.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.com