California and Virginia Classes, hobbled by armament?

regarding Virginia/Kidd assuming you want ~16 ASROC aboard and you put them all in the forward launcher and you still need 2 guided missile training rounds, that would leave only 6 Standard for the forward launcher yes. but the launcher/illuminators were not used in such a "married" way as far as I know, the practice is to turn broad side to an air threat IE you may care about fore/aft initially but you use whichever illuminator for whichever missile as the situation develops

I guess in practice it was found that even for a saturation attack you don't need to illuminate more than 3 targets at once but that sure seems penny-wise/pound-foolish especially when as mentioned, California with only 2 shots every ~10 seconds can support 5 missiles in terminal homing (compare this to a circa 1998 Burke which could put 10 birds in the air in that time if needed)

FAS illustrates the California layout well

cgn36-cruiserweap.gif


SPG-60 I would imagine is considered MR-3 here
 
The Virginias were supposed to be "mass produced" DLGNs, (originally imagined as a "nuclear DXG" or the closest the USN ever got to a DDGN) so a lot of corners were cut to hit price targets. The fact that the initial production examples were seen as essentially an interim fit, with later ships to get ASMS (proto-AEGIS), was probably a factor, since that would reduce the demand for illuminators.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The 8" Mark 71 didn't add much range to the package, and lost a lot of rate of fire when compared to the 5" Mk42. 8" Mk71 was 12rpm max (and only 6rpm for guided projectiles) and 17 mile range, 5" Mk42 was downrated to 28rpm (original design was 40rpm!) and had a 15 mile range.
Click to expand...

Sprucan carried the 20rpm Mark 45s, 60% of the fire rate isn't really that bad of a tradeoff for a projectile ~4x heavier (with the 8" Mark 71)
 
henshao said:
Sprucan carried the 20rpm Mark 45s, 60% of the fire rate isn't really that bad of a tradeoff for a projectile ~4x heavier (with the 8" Mark 71)
Click to expand...
If you're doing shore bombardment with it.

If you're using it as an AA weapon with flak shells, you want the ROF.

When was the last time the USN did shore bombardment?
 
isayyo2 said:
Carney fired off 285 rounds (half a magazine) into Libya in 2016.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

22nd MEU Marines rocked ISIS fighters in Libya in 2016 with naval gunfire

Marine efforts to push out ISIS fighters from Sirte was described as “one of the largest counter terrorism campaigns to be conducted from amphibious shipping.”
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
Click to expand...
Whoa! Hadn't heard that. And getting a PUC out of the deal, too, well done!

Says that was the first time in the GWOT, so hadn't happened in 15 years prior.


But aside from that, 1991 for the battlewagons but maybe 1983 in Lebanon for smaller ships?

That's an extra low probability, over the more likely use of the gun for AA work.
 
The most likely use of the gun at this point is definitely surface targets. In particular other tin cans. Even still Spruance and Kidd would have retained the 5" gun aft so they would have twice the rate of fire of a Burke either way, I'm not sure what the nuclear cruisers could have carried
 
henshao said:
The most likely use of the gun at this point is definitely surface targets. In particular other tin cans. Even still Spruance and Kidd would have retained the 5" gun aft so they would have twice the rate of fire of a Burke either way, I'm not sure what the nuclear cruisers could have carried
Click to expand...
Depending on the class, a similar doubled ended set up with the 5 inchers or a single 8 incher with the Strike Cruiser designs. Through the single ended 5 incher becomes more likely the closer to the 90s the design is.

Honestly the small odds of it happening is why Ill be fine with a size drop 3 incher/76mm. With modern extrand range shells like, Vulcano/Dart, RAP and now Ramjet inaddition to presicion guidence?

Is roughly in the sweet zone of big enough boom to be helpful to the Marines while being fast enough, 90 to 120 RPM for AA work. While also being more then light enough to fit on anything so Standardization fun.
 
3-inch really isn't up to NGFS, especially in support of an airmobile landing. It just doesn't have the range or the bang (especially when you start on extended range sub-caliber shells).
 
TomS said:
3-inch really isn't up to NGFS, especially in support of an airmobile landing. It just doesn't have the range or the bang (especially when you start on extended range sub-caliber shells).
Click to expand...
It's honestly why I'd go with a 155mm for NGFS. Standardized shells with the Army, dig out whoever made the brass casings for the 6"/47 guns on the Atlanta class, liquid cool the barrel and see if we can get 20+rpm out of the autoloader, reliably. (dangit, this forum needs that "evil grin" smilie for this!)

Yes, the shells would need to pass the Insensitive Munition tests, which would require some work. But then all the Army shells would pass once the stockpile had been rotated, so that is a win all around.
 
TomS said:
The best opportunity, IMO, would have been the 155mm Vertically Loaded Gun (not VGAS) in the 1980s. The battleships killed it dead, of course.
Click to expand...
Loses a bunch of Rate of Fire due to having to elevate the barrel to vertical and then back down to firing angle between every shot... Does have a massively simpler loading mechanism, however.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Loses a bunch of Rate of Fire due to having to elevate the barrel to vertical and then back down to firing angle between every shot... Does have a massively simpler loading mechanism, however.
Click to expand...

It could have managed 10 rpm which does not suck. And for real fun, later iterations of smart shells would be firing nearly vertical anyway (optimal elevation is around 80 degrees, IIRC, which is how we get to VGAS) so cycle time could even improve slightly.
 
TomS said:
It could have managed 10 rpm which does not suck. And for real fun, later iterations of smart shells would be firing nearly vertical anyway (optimal elevation is around 80 degrees, IIRC, which is how we get to VGAS) so cycle time could even improve slightly.
Click to expand...
Point taken, especially when we now have the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit that turns any shell that takes the standard deep fuse into a guided shell.
 
henshao said:
Did the 8" Mark 71 steal someone's wife, kick someone's dog??
Click to expand...
It was 20 tons heavier than the 5"/54 Mk42 and "only" offered 2 miles more range. Plus it was apparently inaccurate, though I don't know if that was due to using a bad gun barrel, or a flaw in the gun mount. Plus, a new, lightweight 5"/54 Mk45 mount was starting to be fielded which weighed about 23 tons total (21,691kg), and that was 60 tons lighter than the 8" Mk71.
 
Ok from my perspective: "no 12rpm in 8" is not enough" "10rpm in 6", sign me up!"
 
Ok well I guess if you're gonna use the fanciest gee-whiz rocket-assisted computer guided shells in the hypothetical 155mm and 30 year old surplus ww2 era shells in the hypothetical 8" how one gun might seem more desirable than the other. Reports of accuracy that I've seen were "satisfactory" on the Mark 71 though I'm curious what other information is out there
 
Scott Kenny said:
It was 20 tons heavier than the 5"/54 Mk42 and "only" offered 2 miles more range. Plus it was apparently inaccurate, though I don't know if that was due to using a bad gun barrel, or a flaw in the gun mount. Plus, a new, lightweight 5"/54 Mk45 mount was starting to be fielded which weighed about 23 tons total (21,691kg), and that was 60 tons lighter than the 8" Mk71.
Click to expand...
Needs to be point out that the 29 km, over the 5/54s 25km, range was with WW2 surplus shells from the USS Hull test piece which was limited at a 41 degree, out of 65, barrel elevations. At 45 degrees the shell will go bout 34 km.

They also did tests with modern US Army Shells with the test piece at Dahlgren. Getting 40km with basebleed and over 50km with RAP.

The often seen specs are from the Hull tests not Dahlgren since the Army shells were not Ship certified. And these were done with old Heavy Cruiser 55 caliber barrels and not the planned 60 caliber one.

As is the Navy did plan an sub caliber arrow project that was to be GPS/INS/Laser Guided and have over 170km of range BEFORE basebleed/RAP.

So eyeah the MK71 did have performance ready for usage.

Just not a hull to go on...
 
Firefinder said:
So eyeah the MK71 did have performance ready for usage.

Just not a hull to go on...
Click to expand...

Well, I'd argue about how close to ready those guided rounds really were. We're talking Copperhead era technology, which worked, but was very limited in utility.

If the USN had wanted to field the Mk 71, there absolutely was a platform -- the DD-963s could have taken it, even without the full DX Modernization package. But it would probably have limited the future VLS upgrade to 29 cells instead of 61, which would be a loss once Tomahawk came out (basically, you get either VLA or Tomahawk in useful numbers, but not both).

Ultimately, though, two things killed it

1) the budget crunch of the late 1970s. A new gun just for NGFS was a luxury, and there was no money for luxuries

2) the rapid expansion in the 1980s, especially the battleships. Who needs 8-inch guns for NGSF when you have 16-inchers instead? And who needs precision when 16-inch guns will kill anything even with a near-miss. (So went the thinking of the time, anyway.)

Another damaging factor was the apparent feasibility of similar SLAGP rounds for 5-inch guns (Deadeye). The prospect of putting Deadeye and the Seafire EO/laser designator pckage on the DDG-51s and possibly other ships with 5-inch guns, made a separate 8-inch gun less essential. And that idea hung about until at least 1987/88.
 
Firefinder said:
Needs to be point out that the 29 km, over the 5/54s 25km, range was with WW2 surplus shells from the USS Hull test piece which was limited at a 41 degree, out of 65, barrel elevations. At 45 degrees the shell will go bout 34 km.

They also did tests with modern US Army Shells with the test piece at Dahlgren. Getting 40km with basebleed and over 50km with RAP.

The often seen specs are from the Hull tests not Dahlgren since the Army shells were not Ship certified. And these were done with old Heavy Cruiser 55 caliber barrels and not the planned 60 caliber one.

As is the Navy did plan an sub caliber arrow project that was to be GPS/INS/Laser Guided and have over 170km of range BEFORE basebleed/RAP.

So eyeah the MK71 did have performance ready for usage.

Just not a hull to go on...
Click to expand...
The Army shells were also only ~220lbs instead of 335lbs, so that's not necessarily representative of the range naval shells would get.
 
henshao said:
So, the Mk 26 launcher and Harpoon. Was it ever tried in practice?
Click to expand...
Doesn't appear to have been. The ships that had Mk26 also had ASROC box launchers, and Harpoons were fitted there or in the usual canister racks. Though the Mk13 launcher could handle Harpoon.
 
I don't think the Mk 26 an ASROC launcher were ever fitted concurrently, as the Mk 26 was used for ASROC. California had one to supplement the Mk 13s
 
henshao said:
I don't think the Mk 26 an ASROC launcher were ever fitted concurrently, as the Mk 26 was used for ASROC. California had one to supplement the Mk 13s
Click to expand...

That's correct. There were no ships with Mk 26 and separate ASROC pepperbox launchers. Mk26 was considered to be a "universal" launcher. I can only guess that Harpoon was dropped because the high-end AAW ships could not afford to lose even more SAMs (in addition to those lost for ASROC) and it turned out that separate Harpoon canisters had a rather small ship impact.

Harpoon did go into the Mk13, because aside from the California's, the ships with Mk13 tended to be too small to easily carry Harpoon. No ASROC because that missile required some hands on prep work. I recently noticed that there is a storage space for ASROC thermal batteries in the Mk 26 launcher control station, so it looks like that needed to be installed as the missile was prepped. Plus of course the whole nuclear access issue.
 
Now that you guys mention it, California had the biggest potential Harpoon salvo of any ship I can think of. Unrealistic as it might have been, if USN desired California could shoot nearly simultaneously 8 from the pepperbox, 8 from the canisters and the Mk 13s pitching in 1 each for a total of 18 at once.
 
henshao said:
Now that you guys mention it, California had the biggest potential Harpoon salvo of any ship I can think of. Unrealistic as it might have been, if USN desired California could shoot nearly simultaneously 8 from the pepperbox, 8 from the canisters and the Mk 13s pitching in 1 each for a total of 18 at once.
Click to expand...

Probably not. The ASROC launcher Harpoon modification was only ever applied to one of the four banks of tubes, so only two missiles at a time. And only for ships that didn't have Harpoon some other way (mainly Knox DE/FFs, I think) And the last option assumes the Harpoon weapon control system is even connected to the Mk 13s, which it might well not be on a ship that also has Mk 141s.
 
Of course, the actual largest salvo would have been an Iowa, with 16 Harpoons in rapid succession.
 
TomS said:
Of course, the actual largest salvo would have been an Iowa, with 16 Harpoons in rapid succession.
Click to expand...
Plus any Tomahawk AShMs in the box launchers, if you really want to spread some hate and discontent.
 
TomS said:
Probably not. The ASROC launcher Harpoon modification was only ever applied to one of the four banks of tubes, so only two missiles at a time. And only for ships that didn't have Harpoon some other way (mainly Knox DE/FFs, I think) And the last option assumes the Harpoon weapon control system is even connected to the Mk 13s, which it might well not be on a ship that also has Mk 141s.
Click to expand...

*If USN wanted

Once Spruance received VLS, who knows how many anti-ship tomahawks a Spru-can could put on a single bearing if it was desired. More than 40 I would imagine

*If USN wanted
 
henshao said:
Now that you guys mention it, California had the biggest potential Harpoon salvo of any ship I can think of.
Click to expand...
The reductio ad absurdum is to fill both Mk 13's with Harpoons. Of course you can't do this until after she's been superseded as an air-defence ship, and by then she's probably off to the breaker's anyway...
 
pathology_doc said:
The reductio ad absurdum is to fill both Mk 13's with Harpoons. Of course you can't do this until after she's been superseded as an air-defence ship, and by then she's probably off to the breaker's anyway...
Click to expand...
Well, by salvo I mean simultaneous launch. the Mk13s took quite a while to spit individual Harpoons out as they had to warm up on the rail for several seconds
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom