The Great Naval Gunfire Support debate

[mac]

Actually, modernized battleships need less crew, ....when the New Jersey was taken out of mothballs and rebuilt for duty off Lebanon, the modern equipment took up less room and the air conditioning load was significantly reduced. A fellow in my reserve unit went back on active duty just to serve on the NJ.

You're still talking over 2000 crewmen. A littoral or frig has less than 500 and can pack the same punch with missiles.

 

[mac]

Well, I've never been in the military, but I would make an educated guess that the Marines and the Army would rather try to use artillery units under their direct control for fire support than have to ask the Navy for it. I know the U.S. military is all about joint operations, but even so that could be a factor. I'm not in the military, however, so I don't know how much of a factor that is.

Artillery is approaching it's use by date. Precision strikes are where it's at if you want to avoid collateral damage, That means missiles.

 

[mac]

Newer ships have almost no armor compared to a battleship. If you are going to have a platform for lots of weapons, you want lots of armor....

Ship to ship Naval battles are a thing of the past.

 

[Redress]

Aircraft carriers outdated the battleship for ship to ship combat, as proven in WW2. A carrier with screens from smaller cruisers and DD's was more effective than a BB battle group. This went further when there become few if any credible navy threats left and major ship to ship battles became unlikely. The death knell for BB's in ship to ship was the development of modern air ASM's, such as Harpoons and Exocet and some of the newer ones I am not familiar with, with ranges in excess of 100 miles and the ability to sink many ships with one hit(they are also the reason why armor is mostly obsolete, they penetrate nicely).

Standard guns on ships where obsoleted for bombardment missions by the development of cruise missiles and precision guided AGM. Simply put, there is no role a BB is really suited for in the modern navy. They are not good screens, they are inferior to carriers for anti-ship operations by a huge margin, they are not needed for shore bombardment.

 

[deltabtry]

moved to redress post for a reply.

 

[deltabtry]

Aircraft carriers outdated the battleship for ship to ship combat, as proven in WW2. A carrier with screens from smaller cruisers and DD's was more effective than a BB battle group. This went further when there become few if any credible navy threats left and major ship to ship battles became unlikely. The death knell for BB's in ship to ship was the development of modern air ASM's, such as Harpoons and Exocet and some of the newer ones I am not familiar with, with ranges in excess of 100 miles and the ability to sink many ships with one hit(they are also the reason why armor is mostly obsolete, they penetrate nicely).

Standard guns on ships where obsoleted for bombardment missions by the development of cruise missiles and precision guided AGM. Simply put, there is no role a BB is really suited for in the modern navy. They are not good screens, they are inferior to carriers for anti-ship operations by a huge margin, they are not needed for shore bombardment.

You are correct, although battleships may have a purpose but only in countries like Central and South America or similar, that is those who don't possess a air force. The British learned a hard lesson in the Falkland war due to the Exocet missile, so this narrow range of usefulness can't justify the cost and manpower to operate a battleship. That said, if a battleship can get close to shore with minimal threat, it is awesome weapon to defeat a entrenched enemy on a shoreline or even in shore, even if the shells do not score a direct hit, the effects of bombardment can mentally degrade or defeat a enemy. All in all the battleship days are over, if we were to reactivate this ships it would be for nostalgic or training value only. I believe the B-52's have the same effect as a 16 inch gun as it was proven in he first gulf war, the Iraqis being pounded in the desert had broke their will to fight, along with the inadequate logistical support.

 

[deltabtry]

Artillery is approaching it's use by date. Precision strikes are where it's at if you want to avoid collateral damage, That means missiles.

When I was in the Marines and assigned to a artillery regiment, artillery is far from being obsolete. Although your half right, towed artillery will and perhaps has seen it's day or it's quickly coming to past. Artillery for the most part has become self propelled, it can set up, shoot and move with in three minutes, and with exact precision due to it's guided munitions. Another effect that artillery can have is keeping the enemy down, breaking their will or flushing the enemy, degrading harden targets and destruction of logistical support facilities. Most artillery pieces today are also capable of firing shells that are tactical nukes. The days of FO's in artillery batteries are over for the most part, most direct fire orders comes from a PC or AWACS or both.

 

[cpwill]

actually you may be surprised to learn that artillery has had a pretty nice comeback in various sections of Afghanistan; mostly as counterbattery, but also in direct support. FO's out of the arty regiments are assigned to standard grunt units at the company level, now.

 

[apdst]

In the age of heavy lift cargo planes which can drop a large battery of artillery, and cruisers which can carry dozens of missiles, a battleship is not needed. They are still impressive though

Except that heavy lift aircraft can't drop an artillery battery on a beach, under fire, while it's being assaulted by friendly forces.

 

[apdst]

actually you may be surprised to learn that artillery has had a pretty nice comeback in various sections of Afghanistan; mostly as counterbattery, but also in direct support. FO's out of the arty regiments are assigned to standard grunt units at the company level, now.

FO's--FIST--were assigned to infantry companies 20 years ago. That's nothing new, really.

 

[apdst]

Naval fire support still has its uses, but guns are not the way to go. The simplest solution would be to mount a few MLRS rocket pods along with a fire-control system on already existing ships. For a more advanced and expensive system, creating a land-attack rocket that can fit in the standard Vertical Launch System would also work. Going with the MLRS system, you only need five 16 rocket modules to deliver more than an Iowa broadside with a 50% longer range. The only real development costs would be in the mounting system for the pod, and probably some blast protection from the rocket motor.

Rockets can be countered. It's alot harder to do that to an artillery shell.

 

[deltabtry]

actually you may be surprised to learn that artillery has had a pretty nice comeback in various sections of Afghanistan; mostly as counterbattery, but also in direct support. FO's out of the arty regiments are assigned to standard grunt units at the company level, now.

Thanks CP I wasn't awre of this but then again I served some time ago. FO's were directly assigned to the artillery regiments and or Anglo companies (FMF's/Expeditionary).

 

[deltabtry]

Except that heavy lift aircraft can't drop an artillery battery on a beach, under fire, while it's being assaulted by friendly forces.

You are correct, England and USA's military is currently experimenting with the new Titanium, 155mm Howitzer take a peek not to mention a 155mm really can pack a punch...
M777A1 155mm - Ultralightweight Field Howitzer - Army Technology

 

[deltabtry]

Rockets can be countered. It's alot harder to do that to an artillery shell.

No argument here.

 

[deltabtry]

LOL..reminds me of my younger days, these kids are awesome.

 

[rathi]

Rockets can be countered. It's alot harder to do that to an artillery shell.

That is not true. While current rockets may be somewhat easier to hit than an artillery shell, the ability to fire a swarm of rockets at once is better at overwhelming point defense systems than a much smaller number of shells. I don't find such concerns terribly relevant either, as nobody in the world can afford extremely point defense missiles in quantity to defend against any artillery attack. While both guns and rockets have various merits, the main advantages of rockets is that they could easily be integrated on existing ships. Guns need turrets, recoil bracing, and ammunition feed systems, where rockets in self-contained pods can be slapped on nearly anywhere.

 

[spud_meister]

That is not true. While current rockets may be somewhat easier to hit than an artillery shell, the ability to fire a swarm of rockets at once is better at overwhelming point defense systems than a much smaller number of shells. I don't find such concerns terribly relevant either, as nobody in the world can afford extremely point defense missiles in quantity to defend against any artillery attack. While both guns and rockets have various merits, the main advantages of rockets is that they could easily be integrated on existing ships. Guns need turrets, recoil bracing, and ammunition feed systems, where rockets in self-contained pods can be slapped on nearly anywhere.

however, if you were to implement artillery using the Metal Storm system, you have a self contained artillery system without any moving parts, and a much higher rate of fire.

 

[deltabtry]

That is not true. While current rockets may be somewhat easier to hit than an artillery shell, the ability to fire a swarm of rockets at once is better at overwhelming point defense systems than a much smaller number of shells. I don't find such concerns terribly relevant either, as nobody in the world can afford extremely point defense missiles in quantity to defend against any artillery attack. While both guns and rockets have various merits, the main advantages of rockets is that they could easily be integrated on existing ships. Guns need turrets, recoil bracing, and ammunition feed systems, where rockets in self-contained pods can be slapped on nearly anywhere.

Although rockets has it purposes mainly on soft targets as where artillery is for harder targets as a rule but can also be used on soft targets with air burst rounds and prefigured GPS capable rounds. Each weapon system does have it's particular purpose and as for recoil and bracing this also has been remedied. As in my previous link to Titanium 155mm Howitzers no longer really requires bracing, the recoil is now adsorbed within the recoil spring mounted to the tube and the push back is minimal. Also with flash suppressors and smokeless powder the new artillery designs are difficult to detect as where rockets can leave large plumes of dust when launching. Although you are correct where rockets can launch multiple salvo's as where a single artillery piece can not, this is a advantage and probably cheaper in the long run. Lastly the 105 mm Howitzer are now used in the C-130 Specter gun ships and do not required powder bags which increases it's rate of fire and not to mention it's ability to be mounted on many different platforms.

 

[rathi]

however, if you were to implement artillery using the Metal Storm system, you have a self contained artillery system without any moving parts, and a much higher rate of fire.

The Metal Storm system only exists with small projectiles, and it is doubtful it could be scaled up for full-sized artillery. Stacking projectiles in the barrel is problematic with the long barrel lengths and high-pressures needed for a 155mm shell.

 

[rathi]

Although rockets has it purposes mainly on soft targets as where artillery is for harder targets as a rule but can also be used on soft targets with air burst rounds and prefigured GPS capable rounds.

Not true. Rockets and guns can both attack hard or soft targets depending on the warhead. The payload is fairly independent of the delivery system.

Each weapon system does have it's particular purpose and as for recoil and bracing this also has been remedied. As in my previous link to Titanium 155mm Howitzers no longer really requires bracing, the recoil is now adsorbed within the recoil spring mounted to the tube and the push back is minimal.

The recoil of the M777 may be reduced, but with a 40km max range, the ship would have to come dangerously close to shore for its fire support mission.

Also with flash suppressors and smokeless powder the new artillery designs are difficult to detect as where rockets can leave large plumes of dust when launching.

I don't think dust is going to be a problem on a ship.

Lastly the 105 mm Howitzer are now used in the C-130 Specter gun ships and do not required powder bags which increases it's rate of fire and not to mention it's ability to be mounted on many different platforms.

The m102 has a max range of 15km, which is far too short for naval bombardment.

 

[cpwill]

FO's--FIST--were assigned to infantry companies 20 years ago. That's nothing new, really.

i can only speak to my side, but my understanding is that they used to be considered a special attachment, and really only went' with the MEU's. having a fist attach to every line company is something at least that caught my SNCO's by surprise.

 

[apdst]

i can only speak to my side, but my understanding is that they used to be considered a special attachment, and really only went' with the MEU's. having a fist attach to every line company is something at least that caught my SNCO's by surprise.

Back when the company team concept first hit the ground, FIST's were a part of the package. I became aware of it in the late 80's. Obviously, it was all MET-T, but the idea of attaching FIST's to a company is at least 20 years old.

Granted, my experience is with mech infantry; your mileage may have been with light infantry.

 

[Goobieman]

What role could they usefully play? Armor is of minimal usefulness against modern weapons.

This is very NOT true. The Iowa-class ships were designed to be protected from their own armament -- modern weapons simply do not carry that kind of punch.

 

[rathi]

This is very NOT true. The Iowa-class ships were designed to be protected from their own armament -- modern weapons simply do not carry that kind of punch.

The Iowa's armor may protect against a critical hit from above, but even a tiny missile can still disable the radar and other vulnerable systems. Then the ship becomes a big target which can be sunk at leisure with bombs, heavy missiles or keel-breaking torpedo's. I should clarify my statement that such armor is of minimal usefulness in keeping the battleship from being knocked out of the battle, but it does aid in survivability. Assuming other vessels can engage in destroy the enemy, the armor would go a long way to keeping the battleship intact and easier tor repair later.

 

[Goobieman]

The Iowa's armor may protect against a critical hit from above, but even a tiny missile can still disable the radar and other vulnerable systems.

Mission kill v sinking. Any and every ship is vulnerable to mission kill. The Iowa-class is less so because their main armament can be used effectively w/o radar.

Then the ship becomes a big target which can be sunk at leisure with bombs, heavy missiles or keel-breaking torpedo's.

This presumes you have the assets to attack the ship and can get those assets in position, and can get past the screen. That the ship retains her manuverability lessens this considerably.
And again, the ship is designed to take numerous hits from these weapons and not just survive but continue to fight - remember that the Muashi took 19 bombs/17 torpedoes before sinking, the Yamato 11 torpedoes and 8 bumbs, the Bismark took 80 14" and 16" AP shells. The Iowa class is at least as survivalble as these ships and probably more, given their more modern design. A modern cruiser may be disabled by 2-3 2000lb bombs' a battleship will shrug these off with ease.