DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

[Forest Green]

https://amp.dw.com/en/china-taiwan-...carrier-weapon-military-technology/a-75726514

120,000t at take-off? That's not even propaganda, it's just BS.

 

[jsport]

USN ships have been almost exclusively escorts with little offensive capabilities going back to WWII, where even the fast BBs were effectively escorts against other BBs and additional flak batteries rather than independent assets. Post war, the USN basically adopted an all DDG navy of escorts. They change size and shape, but their role has pretty much always been “self licking ice cream cone”, for the sake of defending other units that actually delivered naval power and policy.

If you are planning to use large surface ships as offensive platforms you are simply planning to fail.





Floating gun platforms are almost pointless and certainly not cost effective and that has been the case for most of a century.

The Mariana Islands were shelled from offshore ships for months. The whole point of the Arsenal Ship was counter AD/AC ie ground strikes. A self licking ice cream cone is as stated. The very definition of pointlessnes for anyone who understands military operational goals well into the future.

PS: No one ever described or advocated a floating gun platform. That is as absurd as self licking ice cream cone. The BB X simply is to possess three guns.

PSS: it is highly unlikely after the current administration invests a certain amount of time & effort into BBX that it will be canceled by any administration by 2029. The ship will have become an integral component of the Def Indust Base(DIB).

 

[Tomboy]

PSS: it is highly unlikely after the current administration invests a certain amount of time & effort into BBX that it will be canceled by any administration by 2029. The ship will have become an integral component of the Def Indust Base(DIB).

I mean surely, we've seen much more extensive programs be cancelled right on the cusp of completion or even with a few units built (DD-1K).

 

[jsport]

I mean surely, we've seen much more extensive programs be cancelled right on the cusp of completion or even with a few units built (DD-1K).

Canceling something near the size of a CVN?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Those two weapons have nothing in common and would work horribly together. Tomahawk has a range a thousand miles if it flies a high profile; CPD has a range likely well in excess of 2000 and I bet it minimum range is mid to high hundreds. The range band in which they overlap is probably fleetingly small.

*shrug*

But the combat ranges do overlap.

There is no reason to put dedicated strike cells on an escort/command ship outside of ten year old “look, cool!” Factor. All you are doing is adding a new mission to a ship that already will not exist in adequate numbers for no tactical or strategic reason whatsoever.

Aside from the sheer size of CPS: 87" tubes and ~40ft long. Takes a large ship to hold many of those.

 

[Josh_TN]

Something like an 200mm gun shooting 125mm diameter missiles would be very interesting. Basically get rid of the missile first stage and hopefully get something like 1.2 kps velocity out of it. Then have the ram jets kick in for the remainder (the nozzles can be slightly proud of the body in sabot space between the body and the barrel). That should get you quite good range, allow you to use a slower burning sustainer motor, and replaces what should be (with modern electronics) the most expensive part of the missile.

But the current BAE HVP out of a 5inch gun, I have doubts we will get more than ~20 miles of AAW range out of it while having worse pK at the same range. I hope they are at least able to put a terminal IR or active radar seeker on it.

No one is inventing a new missile gun system to put on these ships post Zoomie, and they shouldn’t: it is needlessly complicated and solves nothing. 5” or 57mm; take your pick.

 

[Josh_TN]

The Mariana Islands were shelled from offshore ships for months.

Ok, but how about you find a use of naval gunfire from the last half century? I can only think of three minor US examples; maybe the Falklands on top.

The whole point of the Arsenal Ship was counter AD/AC ie ground strikes. A self licking ice cream cone is as stated. The very definition of pointlessnes for anyone who understands military operational goals well into the future.

PS: No one ever described or advocated a floating gun platform. That is as absurd as self licking ice cream cone. The BB X simply is to possess three guns.

PSS: it is highly unlikely after the current administration invests a certain amount of time & effort into BBX that it will be canceled by any administration by 2029. The ship will have become an integral component of the Def Indust Base(DIB).

Arsenal ships are a totally different concept. That involves a ship that is largely just magazine firing weapons that are given targets by off board platforms. What you are proposing is putting all the missions and capabilities onto one ship because “look at how big and cool my ship is!”.

You specifically used the phrase “floating gun platform” in your post previous to the one I am quoting.

Even if the current administration could organize a two car funeral, no one is laying down a keel in three years. So by the time 2029 comes around, ending Big Boy’s boat fantasy will just be a hard drive delete. If DDGX and FFGX could be cancelled, BBGX will be comparatively simpler to kill in its crib.

 

[Josh_TN]

Canceling something near the size of a CVN?

Canceling a planned ship of indeterminate displacement that doesn’t exist in any physical way. I would be shocked if they even finalized a design before it’s canned.

 

[Josh_TN]

Aside from the sheer size of CPS: 87" tubes and ~40ft long. Takes a large ship to hold many of those.

So out it on a large ship. Just make a ship that does not have the additional costs of an ABM system and flag facilities.

 

[Ainen]

No one is inventing a new missile gun system to put on these ships post Zoomie, and they shouldn’t: it is needlessly complicated and solves nothing. 5” or 57mm; take your pick.

Well, they're doing railgun, which appears to be fully capable of direct fire. So they sort of do, guns IMHO are for now a fallback(which via HVAP provides bridging capability at currently several times higher ROF), just in case.

 

[Josh_TN]

The USN cancelled its rail gun program.

 

[Ainen]

The USN cancelled its railing program.

And yet it is at the bow of BBGX, as its main feature.

 

[Firefinder]

I think current 5” is 20/min; hard to imagine a VLS does worse. If HVAP can push the range and probability of intercept out *while maintaining a much lower cost* it might be useful; the baseline 5” certainly is not.

I think an argument coined made for more VLS instead and figuring out a cheaper missile to put it them.

The MK41 is hard limit to 1 shot from a 8 cell module every 10 second with 1 second need between each module per farm.

That is a hard limit of the design even with ESSM due to rocket exhaust issues. You can not push that design to go faster as well. Not without a complete redo that makes it a new weapon.

Which means there a decent delay for every full salvo of 4 for a Burke fore 32 count farm with ts four modules. Something like 4 seconds before that can shot if my math right, likely not but you get the point.

While the 64 count after farm with 8, can average 1 second for an entire minute, IE all 64 missiles. Four Minutes if its loaded with nothing but ESSM.

The MK57 is faster due to being split up into smaller chunks, 4 cell per module with exhaust port, compare to 8 per exhaust port that similar in size to the 57s.

While something like the CAMM has a Exhaust port per missile with massive spacing to allow fast firing, like 3 a second. But for 24 fairly small RAM size missiles you are looking almost a 32 count MK41 mount in deck area.

That before adding in missile numbers limits.

IE a Tomahawk can not intercept an incoming ASHM and if the ship is carrying the standard 24, as well as 12 ASROCs...

Were there basically a 3rd of you total weapons count being useless. The more dedicate purpose missiles, like SM3s, the worse it gets even with Quad pack ESSMs to take up the slack.

While a Mk45 gun can average one shot every 3 seconds, for... 680 shells a Burke, call it 80 HVPs. So bout 40 minutes worth of firing.

Using a guidence system that discontented from the missiles as well. And thats for the MK45, which is noted to be design to be slow for reliabity needs, IN THE 1960s. The Italians use a similar design in their mounts and can push theirs up to 32-40 RPM due to newer shit. And the OG Design for the MK45 was a 50 shot a minute deal, which is not that much slower then a modern VLS. Be very easy to increase the speed, far easier then a new missile design. Lot be just remaking the gear with lighter materials, and using newer stronger motors. Heck the British are using a similar loading system that the Zumwalts do for constant feeding for their new 5 inchers, be very easy to transfer that over*. Meaning that you can maintain that rate of fire till you out of ammo, something breaks, you get hit, or the barrel melts, which ever happens first.

Combine that as is the Mk45 has smack down sea skimmers out past 10 kilometers in live fire training? Add in the HVP ad it be another layer to the Defense Onion around the 15km defense ring. Which is behind the 50km SM2PAC3 ring, the 200KM SM6 ring and the 500km PLUS SM3 ring. All that combine EWAR will SEVERY Blunt all but the most SPAM Worthy Attacks. Like talking needing over A 100 missiles per ship. Which is not too shabby, especially with each ship plus carrier, having a decent land attack option as well.

Edit: Hell did the DDGx transfer that gear over? It will make sense crew wise by removing 12 bodies and add 500 tons IRC the Brits article.

 

[Josh_TN]

And yet it is at the bow of BBGX, as its main feature.

Indeed, the artist/AI spared no expense. Presumably the photon torpedoes are amid ship.

 

[Josh_TN]

The MK41 is hard limit to 1 shot from a 8 cell module every 10 second with 1 second need between each module per farm.

That is a hard limit of the design even with ESSM due to rocket exhaust issues. You can not push that design to go faster as well. Not without a complete redo that makes it a new weapon.

Which means there a decent delay for every full salvo of 4 for a Burke fore 32 count farm with ts four modules. Something like 4 seconds before that can shot if my math right, likely not but you get the point.

While the 64 count after farm with 8, can average 1 second for an entire minute, IE all 64 missiles. Four Minutes if its loaded with nothing but ESSM.

The MK57 is faster due to being split up into smaller chunks, 4 cell per module with exhaust port, compare to 8 per exhaust port that similar in size to the 57s.

While something like the CAMM has a Exhaust port per missile with massive spacing to allow fast firing, like 3 a second. But for 24 fairly small RAM size missiles you are looking almost a 32 count MK41 mount in deck area.

That before adding in missile numbers limits.

IE a Tomahawk can not intercept an incoming ASHM and if the ship is carrying the standard 24, as well as 12 ASROCs...

Were there basically a 3rd of you total weapons count being useless. The more dedicate purpose missiles, like SM3s, the worse it gets even with Quad pack ESSMs to take up the slack.

While a Mk45 gun can average one shot every 3 seconds, for... 680 shells a Burke, call it 80 HVPs. So bout 40 minutes worth of firing.

Using a guidence system that discontented from the missiles as well. And thats for the MK45, which is noted to be design to be slow for reliabity needs, IN THE 1960s. The Italians use a similar design in their mounts and can push theirs up to 32-40 RPM due to newer shit. And the OG Design for the MK45 was a 50 shot a minute deal, which is not that much slower then a modern VLS. Be very easy to increase the speed, far easier then a new missile design. Lot be just remaking the gear with lighter materials, and using newer stronger motors. Heck the British are using a similar loading system that the Zumwalts do for constant feeding for their new 5 inchers, be very easy to transfer that over*. Meaning that you can maintain that rate of fire till you out of ammo, something breaks, you get hit, or the barrel melts, which ever happens first.

Combine that as is the Mk45 has smack down sea skimmers out past 10 kilometers in live fire training? Add in the HVP ad it be another layer to the Defense Onion around the 15km defense ring. Which is behind the 50km SM2PAC3 ring, the 200KM SM6 ring and the 500km PLUS SM3 ring. All that combine EWAR will SEVERY Blunt all but the most SPAM Worthy Attacks. Like talking needing over A 100 missiles per ship. Which is not too shabby, especially with each ship plus carrier, having a decent land attack option as well.

Edit: Hell did the DDGx transfer that gear over? It will make sense crew wise by removing 12 bodies and add 500 tons IRC the Brits article.

You seemed to completely skip over the issues of reloading the gun mount, which someone else touched on, and no one has addressed barrel overheating, which has a hard limit for the same reason mk41s do.

Yes your math was off; four mk41s firing every ten seconds is an average of 2.5s RoF.

Perhaps using mk56 in the shallow, narrow part of the bow would add a higher rate of fire for self defense missiles. That seems more practical than a gun, IMO.

 

[CastleBravo]

No one is inventing a new missile gun system to put on these ships post Zoomie, and they shouldn’t: it is needlessly complicated and solves nothing. 5” or 57mm; take your pick.

Gun launched missiles are out, but it looks like they have tested HVP from an M110, so 8" guns were at least considered.

 

[Firefinder]

You seemed to completely skip over the issues of reloading the gun mount, which someone else touched on, and no one has addressed barrel overheating, which has a hard limit for the same reason mk41s do.

No I didn't, see the comment bout the RN using a AGS base loading system for their Mk45s, which constantly reloads the mount at the same rate as it fires, and can even change out the ammo type without anybody near it. You activate it in the CIC and the system goes til it can't with no sailors needed. It will continue to feed the 20 round ready mag from the 680 round deep mag until its out of ammo or breaks.

Second for the barrel over heating, the older MK42 mounts which use the same barrel profile as the MK45 could and did maintain 40 RPM rate til their mags were empty without an issue so long as their hydros were maintain. Those guns in Vietnam on destroyers like the USS Turner Joy shot themselves at max rate of fire til something broke, and it never was from the Barrel overheating. It was always from the Hydros popping a seal or hose.

And if it became an Issue.

The Italian 5 inchers have a water sleeve to cool the barrel down with their land tests showing it could maintain up to 60 RPM so long as it gear did not break.

Then you need to factor in that this is an ADDITION layer which I see you are ignoring.

The EWAR will take out the first set, then the Sm3 or SM6, the leakers get the SM2 or NPAC3, and those leakers be targeted by 5 inch HVP rounds with the final stage EWAR being the last line of defense with the RAM. All together thats going to make any attack a need high double if not triple digits of missiles to ensure you land a hit.

And since you can carry more shells per ton then missiles....

Mean you can last that much longer.

 

[Josh_TN]

Mk45 can fire 20 rounds per minute for most of an hour? I am going to want to see a source for that. AFAIK they employ no form of active cooling; I do not see how a gun barrel could survive that.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Because when the Trump-class BBG was announced it was stated that it replaced the DDGX program.

And I’ve told you all before what trump says is bullshit, because January 4th Congress still had DDGX slated for commissioning in the 2030s.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Ok, but how about you find a use of naval gunfire from the last half century? I can only think of three minor US examples; maybe the Falklands on top.




Arsenal ships are a totally different concept. That involves a ship that is largely just magazine firing weapons that are given targets by off board platforms. What you are proposing is putting all the missions and capabilities onto one ship because “look at how big and cool my ship is!”.

You specifically used the phrase “floating gun platform” in your post previous to the one I am quoting.

Even if the current administration could organize a two car funeral, no one is laying down a keel in three years. So by the time 2029 comes around, ending Big Boy’s boat fantasy will just be a hard drive delete. If DDGX and FFGX could be cancelled, BBGX will be comparatively simpler to kill in its crib.

Not sure about US but the Brits bombarded the Libyan coast to strike moving columns of vehicles in the 2010s.

But I could change your request slight to down play the usefulness of ASMs.
How many ships has the US sunk or crippled with ASMs in the last 45 years? How many ships has anyone sank or crippled with ship launched ASMs in the last 45 years?

Edit
Preliminary search results since 1990

1991 gulf war the Wisconsin conducted shore bombardment.

2003 Iraq war
US ships bombarded the Al-faw peninsula and surrounding coastlines.

2007 battle of bargal in Somalia the Chafee bombarded terrorist camps ashore


So naval gunfire ashore has been much more useful than ship based antiship missiles over the last 36 years ago.

If we go back to 1980, do the bombardments of oil platforms count?
1982-1984 Lebanese civil war several fire missions, in ‘83 the Bowens and Virginia fires hundreds of rounds against shore targets.


1984 Syria New Jersey fired 300 16” rounds into the Beqaa Valley

Edit part 2 since 1990 for our European allies

RN
2011 HMS lLiverpool fired on shore batteries to silence them, as well as the convoys i previously mentioned

French Navy
2011 Libya Operation Unified Protector French ships fired thousands of rounds of 76 and 100mm rounds in shore bombardment.

Edit 3
Russian navy

2022-?? Russo-Ukraine war
The Russian navy has provided gunfire support to ground forces.

PLAN
1988 Spratley island skirmish Chinese ships bombarded Vietnamese forces in the spratley islands

 

[Scott Kenny]

So out it on a large ship. Just make a ship that does not have the additional costs of an ABM system and flag facilities.

A big ship is the best place to put a 69RMA SPY6.

How many ships has the US sunk or crippled with ASMs in the last 45 years? How many ships has anyone sank or crippled with ship launched ASMs in the last 45 years?

You missed Operation Praying Mantis in 1987.

 

[johnpjones1775]

A big ship is the best place to put a 69RMA SPY6.




You missed Operation Praying Mantis in 1987.

I didn’t miss it I asked how many times. So in the last 50 years we’ve had one ship to ship launch of an ASM, compared to multiple examples of shore bombardment some consisting of hundreds of rounds supporting what another poster above me stated about magazine depth and needing to be able to stay on station and conduct operations for days if not weeks.

 

[johnpjones1775]

For other navies

Just outside of that 50 year timeframe
Isreal
1970 operation Rhodes

Pakistan also has some examples just outside the 50 year cut off but within a 60 year cut off.

Naval guns for shore bombardment have been an important part of naval warfare for the last 50 years across all of the world’s major navies.

 

[TomS]

Actually two in Praying Mantis -- USS Bagley launched a Harpoon at Joshan, which missed after five Standards absolutely wrecked her. This one is well known. The less known one is that Joseph Strauss put a Harpoon into Sahand, along with the two air-launched Harpoons and four Skippers from the orbiting A-6s.

Also, during the 1986 Gulf of Sidra operation Richmond K Turner fired a Harpoon,.crippling one missile boat, and Yorktown fired a pair of Harpoons, sinking another Libyan FAC-M.

So we're basically looking at ship-launched AShM use in every post-WW2 US conflict with a country that had a Navy capable of actually getting to sea. Yes, it's been a while, but basically no one else has tried to threaten the USN using conventional warships since then.

 

[Firefinder]

Mk45 can fire 20 rounds per minute for most of an hour? I am going to want to see a source for that. AFAIK they employ no form of active cooling; I do not see how a gun barrel could survive that.

USS Turner Joy during Gun Runs in Nam off the coast of Chu Lai Hammering out 40 shells a minute at time for over 24 hours, then you have the US WW2 Standard for the 5'38.

Which was 15 RPM per Hour for an hour by Friedman.

In WW2 and Vietnam, those guns use the same materials at the same thickness as the old 54 cal Mk45, the newer 64 cal barrels are just as thick but use newer metals. Very likely to be even stronger. As is the older guns often fire fast enough long enough that their decks got cover in shells, and the paint blistered off the barrel from the heat with the crews dropping from exhausten.

Then you have the facts.

Any missile attack will not last an hour, cause that means its being piece meal out and easy pickings for Aegis. That is the Worse possible way to attack an Aegis Task Force.

No it be 5 to 15 minutes of Fucking Hell as the enemy tries to overwhelm the system. Meaning that the gun needs to hammer out for at most 5 maybe 10s minutes.

In Bursts, giving it amble time to cool off.

Cause the Incoming has to Punch there 3 different lays, Sm3/SM6/SM2, before the gun comes into play. Unless target by nearly 100 missiles, the gun needs to to fire more then 3-5 shots at a time assuming a similar hit ratio.

Thats for the high end attack.

For the Low end, like against drones, you have even more time to pace out the firing. Cause well these are slow, theres multiple other weapons in effect like the 35mms or 20mm, to say nothing of EWAR, the already issue otu DEWs, and helicopters for surface ones.

Its a web and each weapon system has it part and job all to work together to defend the ship.

 

[Desertfox]

Shore bombardment should be done by an LCS type of ship, that can get in and out fast, and is more disposable. If your 30k ton ABM flagship is doing shore bombardment, something went wrong. You don't want the 10 billion dollar investment in littoral waters, in range of artillery and all the other short range nasties.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The USN cancelled its rail gun program.

GA has a functional railgun in the form of Blitzer's heavy 32MJ installation. No doubt they're ecstatic at finally finding a patron after 10 years.

 

[jsport]

Shore bombardment should be done by an LCS type of ship, that can get in and out fast, and is more disposable. If your 30k ton ABM flagship is doing shore bombardment, something went wrong. You don't want the 10 billion dollar investment in littoral waters, in range of artillery and all the other short range nasties.

An issue would be having enough defensive magazines (mostly missiles) to survive the barrage of drones, missiles& artillery returning fire on them as they are close, and possibly visible from shore. LCS still needs a hello, & uas space.

VGAS from distance has limitations & R&D and turrets shouldn't go away, but it still is a way fie mass effects at stand-off.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Actually two in Praying Mantis -- USS Bagley launched a Harpoon at Joshan, which missed after five Standards absolutely wrecked her. This one is well known. The less known one is that Joseph Strauss put a Harpoon into Sahand, along with the two air-launched Harpoons and four Skippers from the orbiting A-6s.

Also, during the 1986 Gulf of Sidra operation Richmond K Turner fired a Harpoon,.crippling one missile boat, and Yorktown fired a pair of Harpoons, sinking another Libyan FAC-M.

So we're basically looking at ship-launched AShM use in every post-WW2 US conflict with a country that had a Navy capable of actually getting to sea. Yes, it's been a while, but basically no one else has tried to threaten the USN using conventional warships since then.

Did aircraft hit it first? I never count an example where aircraft struck a target first and a surface ship just cleans up.

But my point remains.

 

[johnpjones1775]

USS Turner Joy during Gun Runs in Nam off the coast of Chu Lai Hammering out 40 shells a minute at time for over 24 hours, then you have the US WW2 Standard for the 5'38.

Which was 15 RPM per Hour for an hour by Friedman.

In WW2 and Vietnam, those guns use the same materials at the same thickness as the old 54 cal Mk45, the newer 64 cal barrels are just as thick but use newer metals. Very likely to be even stronger. As is the older guns often fire fast enough long enough that their decks got cover in shells, and the paint blistered off the barrel from the heat with the crews dropping from exhausten.

Then you have the facts.

Any missile attack will not last an hour, cause that means its being piece meal out and easy pickings for Aegis. That is the Worse possible way to attack an Aegis Task Force.

No it be 5 to 15 minutes of Fucking Hell as the enemy tries to overwhelm the system. Meaning that the gun needs to hammer out for at most 5 maybe 10s minutes.

In Bursts, giving it amble time to cool off.

Cause the Incoming has to Punch there 3 different lays, Sm3/SM6/SM2, before the gun comes into play. Unless target by nearly 100 missiles, the gun needs to to fire more then 3-5 shots at a time assuming a similar hit ratio.

Thats for the high end attack.

For the Low end, like against drones, you have even more time to pace out the firing. Cause well these are slow, theres multiple other weapons in effect like the 35mms or 20mm, to say nothing of EWAR, the already issue otu DEWs, and helicopters for surface ones.

Its a web and each weapon system has it part and job all to work together to defend the ship.

What 35mm guns?

 

[johnpjones1775]

Shore bombardment should be done by an LCS type of ship, that can get in and out fast, and is more disposable. If your 30k ton ABM flagship is doing shore bombardment, something went wrong. You don't want the 10 billion dollar investment in littoral waters, in range of artillery and all the other short range nasties.

If you’re trying to do shore bombardment when there’s a major threat you already fucked up.

You’re not launching an invasion if you don’t already have pretty good control of the shoreline.
The ship will be standing off 5+ miles from the shore line, meaning an artillery piece needs to be no more than 5 miles from the beach. If you didn’t hit every major threat within 10miles of the beach before launching your invasion you already done fucked up.

On top of that, CIWS can track and engage artillery shells, and we’ve seen phalanx is very good at intercepting incoming rounds ashore.
Between being a moving target and phalanx or RAM, it would be extremely unlikely a round would hit a bombarding ship even if there was artillery in range of the ship.

 

[johnpjones1775]

GA has a functional railgun in the form of Blitzer's heavy 32MJ installation. No doubt they're ecstatic at finally finding a patron after 10 years.

I mean our program had a ‘functional’ rail gun. Functional and practical are very different things

 

[Kat Tsun]

I mean our program had a ‘functional’ rail gun. Functional and practical are very different things

I don't think the railgun is going to last, tbf. I've heard it said that BBG(X) is the USN learning how to play Congress's managerial tendencies.

"Yeah we can give you a bigger ship but you'll need to remove the double five inchers, lasers and HPMs, and the railgun"
"Rgr big dog I guess if we HAVE to sheesh"

The Navy finally learns how to play procurement? Possibly. Or they're going senile and might actually reopen the railgun contract.

 

[Desertfox]

If you’re trying to do shore bombardment when there’s a major threat you already fucked up.

You’re not launching an invasion if you don’t already have pretty good control of the shoreline.
The ship will be standing off 5+ miles from the shore line, meaning an artillery piece needs to be no more than 5 miles from the beach. If you didn’t hit every major threat within 10miles of the beach before launching your invasion you already done fucked up.

On top of that, CIWS can track and engage artillery shells, and we’ve seen phalanx is very good at intercepting incoming rounds ashore.
Between being a moving target and phalanx or RAM, it would be extremely unlikely a round would hit a bombarding ship even if there was artillery in range of the ship.

If that is the case, you don't need a 30k ton, 10 billion dollar, capital ship, to do so. Build some slow 5k ton monitor specifically for the job.

 

[Kat Tsun]

If that is the case, you don't need a 30k ton, 10 billion dollar, capital ship, to do so. Build some slow 5k ton monitor specifically for the job.

Turn some of the Burkes into bombardment ships with a POLAR/GMLRS-ER and TLAM VLS and replace the other VLS with a gun idk.

 

[cccgong]

GA has a functional railgun in the form of Blitzer's heavy 32MJ installation. No doubt they're ecstatic at finally finding a patron after 10 years.

For some very loose defintion of functional. They haven't demonstrated barrel life, sustained fire, nor projectile guidance and pK at range with integrations with shipboard sensors.

 

[TomS]

Shore bombardment should be done by an LCS type of ship, that can get in and out fast, and is more disposable. If your 30k ton ABM flagship is doing shore bombardment, something went wrong. You don't want the 10 billion dollar investment in littoral waters, in range of artillery and all the other short range nasties.

NSFS requires sustained loiter within gun range of potential targets. You have to be able to start shooting more or less immediately upon receiving a call for fire. Having to run in to gun range (even at high speed) is the antithesis of effective NSFS.

The thing is, we have a pretty good idea of what it takes to perform effective NSFS when facing a credible anti-access threat. It looks a lot like DDG-1000, because that was a major driver of the design.

 

[johnpjones1775]

GA has a functional railgun in the form of Blitzer's heavy 32MJ installation. No doubt they're ecstatic at finally finding a patron after 10 years.

I mean our program had a ‘functional’ rail gun. Functional and practical are very different

I don't think the railgun is going to last, tbf. I've heard it said that BBG(X) is the USN learning how to play Congress's managerial tendencies.

"Yeah we can give you a bigger ship but you'll need to remove the double five inchers, lasers and HPMs, and the railgun"
"Rgr big dog I guess if we HAVE to sheesh"

The Navy finally learns how to play procurement? Possibly. Or they're going senile and might actually reopen the railgun contract.

this administration doesn’t know the meaning of finesse

 

[johnpjones1775]

If that is the case, you don't need a 30k ton, 10 billion dollar, capital ship, to do so. Build some slow 5k ton monitor specifically for the job.

Sure, but that’s also a whole other ship that you not only have to build, and maintain, but man.

We’re building a 20k ton DDG regardless, why would we take that capability away, just to plop it on a whole other ship…that will then need its own self defense capabilities which will make it a frigate at the very least instead of a monitor…or you have a ship that literally does one thing and may very well never do anything at all, and if it was needed probably wouldn’t be where it’s needed, and would need a whole ass extra ship to escort it where it needs to be…in a fleet already unable to escort its MSC ships…

 

[MadRat]

Maybe look into existing Long Range Precision Fires strategy for the future and move the needle forward. Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) was pretty effective up to 150 km (93 mi), but cannot effectively target moving targets. How many rocket-boosted GBU-53/B Storm Breakers (formerly known as SDB II's) can be stacked in a container? Seems like you could run an unmanned boat steered from an Arleigh Burke or Legend class frigate without putting the expensive manned asset into harm's way. GLSDB was cheaper than a HVP round. GLSDB was 600 pounds per unit versus 285 pounds for the air-dropped version. GBU-53/B is about 80 pounds lighter. Throw in some rocket-boosted ADM-160A/B MALD and ADM-160C MALD-J to cause havoc. Only ADM-160A is relatively cheap, compared to the -C and -J models, so the latter may be asking too much.