Shipbucket

aaah. that sounds like something that large caliber lightweight guns seemed to suffer from more still possibly something could be done about that, I saw things like an paveway grenade and all.... and accuracy would be improved by mounting it on a bigger platform, too.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Probably because a dome turret hasn't been done yet. But then again, stealth turrets have only been around for a short while.

And I definitely posted quite a few operational ships which use RAM. 5 to be exact.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

none of them uses Radar Absorbing Materials. they are stealht, but none of them uses RAM.
and what I meant with aircraft and ship stealth: the F-22 uses rounded shapes to let the radar signal go over it without changing much of the direction. the F-117 reflected it towards everyware EXCEPT the sender.

ships have by default a lot of almost 90 degrees corners. the hull with the deck, the structure with the deck, the hull with the water.... that's why the ways of the F-22 work, don't work with ships.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Skjold Class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class_patrol_boat

And I quote:

To ensure stealth capabilities, anechoic coatings of radar absorbent materials (RAM) have been used in the load-bearing structures over large areas of the ship. This strategy leads to significant weight saving compared to the conventional construction technique of applying RAM cladding to the external surfaces. The ship's profile has a faceted appearance with no right angle structures and few orientations of reflective panels. Doors and hatches are flush with the surfaces and the windows are flush without visible coaming (edge of window aperture) and are fitted with radar reflective screens.

La Fayette Class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fayette_class_frigate

And I quote:

These frigates were referred to as "stealth" frigates. Their reduced radar cross section is achieved by a very clean superstructure compared to conventional designs, angled sides and radar absorbent material, a composite material of wood and glass fiber as hard as steel, light, and resistant to fire. Most modern fighting ships built around the world since the introduction of the La Fayette have followed the same principles of stealth.

Visby Class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class

Which uses polyvinyl chloride with a carbon fibre and vinyl laminate. That acts like a type of RAM. RAM doesn't just mean iron ball paint. There are a large variety of RAM's, a lot of which, most people have probably never heard of.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

better source then wikipedia?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

As far as the Mk-71 goes, the Mk-71 has a max fire rate of 12. That max was 6 when using guided shells. A Mk 45 5" turret will place more rounds on target per minute than that Mk-71 ever will. Not just accuracy, but a high rate of fire and a decent shell weight. At best the Mk-71 put twice as much on target as the Mk 45, and slightly less on target than the Mk 42. And that assumes it has the same accuracy as those two 5" guns, which it did not. So you've solved absolutely nothing by building Spruances with Mk-71's. Remember, the Tico's have two 5" guns right now. Why go with two Mk-71's when we already have Tico's with 2 better guns? Even Tico's with two better guns doesn't come close to solving the problem.

That my friend is why the USN has not yet mitigated the Joint-Fires gap. And for now, they have the luxury of time. For now, China is behaving themselves, and North Korea has gone silent again. One thing that history has shown though, is that simply won't last. At the very least we shouldn't assume that it will, either.

Furthermore, you'll still have the same problems supplying volume of fires. 9,000 rds a day and 18,000 rds over 17 hours is not even remotely solved by using Spruances with Mk-71's. Or Tico's for that matter. When using Tico's as the example, you'd empty the magazines of 16.8 Tico's every day, and 33.7 Tico's over a 18,000 round surge (they can carry 534 5" ERM munitions or 780 standard 5" munitions, I use ERM because the range is necessary). And with the guns having barrel lives of 8,000 rounds, you haven't solved that problem either.

Furthermore, the U.S Government and U.S Military both acknowledge the fires gap. So questioning whether it exists is relatively pointless.

I'll give you links to the reports.


GAO-RCED-94-31
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0539r.pdf

GAO-NSIAD-99-91
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS ... 8-302T.pdf


GAO-07-115
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07115.pdf


GAO-05-39R
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0539r.pdf


Enjoy.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Oh wait, the Mk-71 would have had a longer range than the pre-ERGM Mk-45s. Oops. (Navweaps 1)
The HC Mark 25 Shell that the Mk-71 would have fired has twice the weight of the ERGM rounds for the Mk-45 Mod 4 (260lbs vs 110lbs)(NavWeaps 2,Navweaps 3). Also note that the Ticos can't take the ERGM in their magazines.

Also note that Sustained rates of fire are broadly similar between the mounts once the ready magazines are exhausted. This is an advantage of the AGS system which is designed to be able to pull directly from the magazine without human loading, allowing for a higher sustained rate of fire. (NavWeaps 4).
While I see where you get the numbers from (after having to hunt for them), I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where the USN would need to put 18,000 5" rounds in a single theatre inside of 17 hours. The only reason for such striking power is a large opposed landing by a large number of marines (which I don't see happening anytime soon), a mission that isn't supported by the rest of the naval force structure.
Air Power. Air Power solves the gap. The proliferation of UAVs at all levels is helping to offset the decline in manned assets, and is putting fire support closer to the front-line infantryman. Medium caliber naval fire support is never totally going away, but it is being reduced in importance with the rise of the UAV swarm.
Ah, sources. Sources are good. Other than the Marines screaming for more fire support (which I have never denied), I don't see anything in those reports that challenges what I've said.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I have to wonder if you understand what that even means.

That's incorrect.

The range of a Mk 45 5"/62 gun, with conventional projectiles using EX-175 casings is 40,000 to 42,000 yards. Using Mark 67 casings it's 25,000 yards (as opposed to the Mk-71's 32,000 yards). ERGM is 125,000 yards.
Yes but fires fewer of them.

as for the weights involved-

HC Mark 25 - 260 lbs. (117.8 kg)
New design projectiles: 240 lbs. (108.9 kg)

I used the new design weight. Either way it doesn't really matter.

8" 12 RPM/260 lb round, 3,120 lbs
5" 40 RPM/ 70 lb round, 2,800 lbs
8" 12 RPM/240 lb round, 2,880 lbs
5" 20 RPM/110 lb round ERGM, 2,200 lbs

When discussing the actual bursting charges, it pans out like I said. Assuming 7.7 lbs for the standard 5" munitions and 21 lbs for 8" munitions.

Except of course the Mk-71 has a max fire rate of 6 when using guided munitions.

Furthermore, it would be assumed that the Tico's would be upgraded to the 62 cal Mk 45 if they were going to be used in any seriousness for mitigating the Joint-Fires gap. The graphs include reduced number of ERM "like" munitions to represent the usage of an extended range munition.

Of course a single sixteen inch round could outperform a full minutes worth of firing from either gun in question.
The graph lists how many rounds are carried on the ships, total.



Notice the DDG-51's round totals are listed at 7 ships. Meaning 244 per ship.


It's called the North-East Asia scenario.

The OMFTS scenario uses the South-West Asia scenario.

Even the OMFTS scenario requires 1,136 rds per day.

In order to understand the figures, you'd have to understand the OMFTS scenario. Either way, what any of us see happening soon has nothing to do with what the military determines in it's procurement process. Personally, I think they need to either mitigate the Joint-Fires gap, or get rid of it entirely. Obviously I'd prefer they mitigate the gap. Relying on air power for everything makes too many assumptions with too many uncertainties.

And forced entry scenarios are still the only way to get into a contested territory via amphibious means.

No it doesn't. That's the oldest argument in the book and it never pans out no longer how long you debate the issue. The main problem with that line of reasoning, is that the military is the one stipulating requirements.

Aircraft, typically do not meet the 10 min response time that the USMC has stipulated.

Observe-

The CNA analysis points out that NSFS ships are very responsive and can be on
station for days. Aircraft, however, are limited to a few hours and sometimes, even
minutes on station without extensive air refueling. Significantly, even at an Alert-5
launch, aircraft never meet the ten-minute response time required by the Marines.

Unless they are already in the area of course. Also of note, is that it's not an issue so much with stationary targets, in which case bunker-busters can be used, unless the area has significant anti-air defenses. However, tanks and APCs are hardened targets which are mobile. Major caliber munitions achieved significant kills against vehicles in the Firesim XXI simulation, when compared to aircraft and other platforms. So it can be said, that gun systems have a serious advantage against mobile targets, in areas where significant anti-air capability exists.

Then there's cost and risk assessments that need to be taken into consideration.







In the NEA and SWA scenarios, anti-air capabilities are considered prohibitive when compared to naval fire support. Also, the military uses a weighted index for gauging the capabilities of near-peer competitors, and gauging what it would take to launch a opposed landing against such an opponent.

The costs in the graphs above point out the obvious. It would be cheaper to mitigate the Joint-Fires gap with Naval Fire Support than it would be to mitigate it with TACAIR alone.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

It's a thermoplastic polymer.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"