Constellation Mk 110 57 mm Gun

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

The Ship That Couldn't Shoot Straight

The Navy has announced that the Coronado (LCS-4) has completed live fire tests of its major gun systems, the Mk110 57mm, and the Mk46 30mm.  I apologize for using the word “major” to describe a machine gun and a 2.2” gun but for the LCS, they’re considered major.  As usual, the Navy describes the tests as stunningly successful.  Given the Navy’s egregious PR spin efforts in the past, I’m not even going to bother offering a link to an announcement.  If you want to read made up rainbows and sunshine that badly, you can easily find it on the Internet.

So, why is this event of interest?  A couple of reasons, actually.

First, this is a rare sign of progress for the LCS-2 version which has, thus far, failed to deploy and failed to demonstrate any useful progress towards becoming  a functioning warship.  Again, I apologize, this time for using the word “warship” in conjunction with the LCS.  We’re stuck with these ships so it would be nice to see them at least achieve whatever functionality they’re capable of.

Second, and more important, you’ll recall that the LCS-1 version’s 57mm gun was found to be inaccurate at much above 10 kts due to the ship’s vibration.  The question is whether the -2 version suffers from the same problem.  On the one hand, you’d think not simply due to the fact that the two ships have nothing in common as far as the shape of their hulls or the way the move through the water.  On the other hand, both ships have been built extremely light with all signs pointing to woefully insufficient structural reinforcement in both classes.  The -2 version suffered cracking of structural members during heavy weather testing and has had restrictions placed on its operating envelope.

A 57mm gun is nothing to write home about.  You’ll recall that the Zumwalt program rejected the gun and switched to a smaller 30mm gun for close in protection – a fairly stunning commentary on the 57mm.  Still, the 57mm is what the LCS has so it would be nice if it could shoot straight.  The Navy certainly won’t tell us if the -2 version has gun problems so ComNavOps will keep an eye on the DOT&E reports.

Here’s hoping that the -2 version will begin to actually do something and that its gun will shoot straight!

Manufacturer's Claims

ComNavOps has pointed out in previous posts and numerous comments that manufacturer’s performance claims are almost always significantly over exaggerated.  History guarantees this with near 100% certainty.  Despite this, many people continue to latch onto manufacturer’s claims while discussing weapons and systems. 

The LCS was the poster child for this phenomenon for the longest time.  Supporters would continually fall back on PowerPoint-ish claims of capabilities to defend the program.  Of course, the LCS has now gotten to the point where even the most ardent defender has pretty much admitted that the LCS isn’t ever going to do all those wonderful things that were promised.

Historically, we’ve noted the abject failure of the USN’s WWII torpedo, the Sparrow missile, Soviet SAM systems, and so on.

More recently, the JSF has taken over as the poster child for manufacturer’s claims.  The list of things the F-35 will do is simply amazing, bordering on magical.  Of course, at the moment, after two decades of development, the plane can barely (and only sporadically) get off the ground and then only utilizing a multitude of workarounds to get past the maintenance software fail safes.  Despite an unbroken history of weapon systems failing to live up to their billings the JSF true believers still cite the wonders of the future JSF.

Here’s the most recent example – the Mk110 57mm naval gun that’s mounted on the LCS.  You remember the glowing claims about this gun, don’t you?  It would singlehandedly decimate scores of small boats and transform littoral warfare.  Of course, ComNavOps noted long ago that the only publicized tests involved shooting a land mounted gun at a fixed, unmoving small boat on what appeared to be an isolated lake or inlet.  The result was a bunch of pinholes appearing in the boat which seemed totally insufficient to sink the boat.  Still, the Navy bought in on the hype and outfitted the LCS with the Mk110 without even providing radar fire control for it – just EO guidance. 



Mk110 - Debunked



Anyway, it turns out that the Mk110 has significant reliability and performance problems on the LCS as documented by various reports.  As if that’s not bad enough, it turns out that the Mk110 is rendered ineffective due to vibration when the LCS is at any speed.  To be fair, that’s probably more of an LCS structural design issue than a gun failing.

Now, though, it turns out that the Zumwalt program looked at the Mk110 and decided that it lacks the lethality needed to stop small boats and they’ve opted, instead, to select a smaller 30 mm gun.  So, the main claim of small boat lethality turns out to have been vastly overstated – just as the history of manufacturer’s claims have shown.  Who could have seen that coming?  Well, anyone who reads this blog, I guess.

Is my point to beat up on the Mk110?  No.  My point is that here is yet another example in an almost unbroken chain of examples where the manufacturer’s claims were significantly overstated.

We must begin to recognize this phenomenon as we discuss weapons and systems.  We have to stop blindly citing claims with no allowance for reality.  For example, the F-35 isn’t going to do all those wonderful things.  It may, eventually, do some of them to a partial degree – and that’s the best case.  ComNavOps offers this blog, in part, to educate readers about the realities of war and weapon systems.  This phenomenon is one of those realities.

As bad as it is when outside observers, like us, opt to wholeheartedly and blindly believe manufacturer’s claims, that’s just an irrelevant side issue.  The real impact is when our professional, uniformed military leaders wholeheartedly and blindly buy in to manufacturer’s claims.  Someone in the Navy bought into the manufacturer’s claims about the Mk110 without looking critically at the claims and the testing.  Along comes the Zumwalt program and their folly is exposed.  [A salute to someone in the Zumwalt program, by the way.  Now, I hope they’re carefully scrutinizing the 30 mm claims!]  The Navy bought into the LCS claims.  The Navy bought into the JSF claims.  And so on.

Whatever the next great program is, ComNavOps can already predict with near 100% certainty that it won’t work as claimed.  I don’t even need to know what the program is.  There’s a simple lesson to be learned here that’s supported by overwhelming historical evidence, right up to current events, and yet the Navy refuses to learn.  If you hit me on the head 37 times in a row with that board you’re holding after promising each time that you wouldn’t, isn’t it kind of stupid of me to believe you the 38^th time?  And yet the Navy keeps believing!

Mk110 57 mm Gun - Hit or Misfire?

The Bofors Mk110 57 mm gun is the standard armament on the LCS. 

A recent Navy Times report (30-May-12) stated that of 840 rounds fired from LCS-1's Mk110 gun, there have been 2 misfires.  That's a misfire rate of 1 every 420 rounds or 0.2% which, on the face of it, seems pretty good.  However, thinking about it a bit more I wonder if that's acceptable.

The Bofors data sheet credits the gun with a rate of fire of 220 rounds per minute.  If a misfire occurs every 420 rounds, that means the gun will misfire every 1 min:54 sec of use.  If an anti-ship missile (the data sheet claims this capability) or small craft swarm is inbound and the gun has to be stopped and cleared every 420 rounds (less than 2 min of firing) that's potentially a good way to have a bad day.



Mk110 57 mm Gun - Hit or Misfire?

Now, before anyone, myself included, gets too wound up about this, let's note that this is a very small amount of data to be drawing conclusions.  Greater experience with the gun may show better performance;  on the other hand, it may show worse.  Also, the amount of time to clear the gun is unknown to me.  If the entire clearance procedure takes one second and happens automatically, that's not too bad a problem.  If, however, it takes several seconds or minutes or longer, or requires manual intervention, then this is a potentially serious problem.

Maybe a reader can shed some light on this?