Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Capthale said:
Yes two deck guns are needed plus waist guns 25 mm or 30
Click to expand...
35mm Millennium guns are my pick.. dual use CIWS/anti-surface and high ROF to boot. No "thru-deck" needed unless you want to reload from the inside.
 
The Millennium gun is a weapon system that definitely should have seen more use since its introduction.
 
fredymac said:
Another SAS video covering Block V Virginia class sub and Columbia class (3:15 mark), 57mm guided air defense shells, naval Excalibur, and quad copter grenades and even shot gun shells.

Click to expand...
Here is the patent for the defendex 40mm quadcopter

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE - DEFENDTEX PTY LTD

<div p-id="p-0001">An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) adapted for transit in and deployment from a projectile casing is provided. The UAV includes a wing assembly coupled to the projectile casing and th
www.freepatentsonline.com www.freepatentsonline.com
 
sferrin said:
There should be a pair of those on top of the Zumwalt hangar. Maybe a RAM as well.
Click to expand...
Absoultely

I'd like these on the LCS as well.
 

Attachments

  • y7wK5v0[1].jpg
    y7wK5v0[1].jpg
    537.9 KB · Views: 72
That's the lineup I was thinking of. Gun, RAM launcher, Gun.
 
As cool as 35mm is, it's not in US service anywhere and isn't likely to be. The existing 30mm ABM KETF round is quite effective and just needs a better gun than the Mk 44 Bushmaster to fire it. The Mauser Mk 30-2/ABM could be installed in any number of available mounts and achieve most of the effectiveness of Millenium in a smaller and more compatible caliber.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a good idea.. just don't use those pathetically low ROF 30mm guns from the current LCS :(
 
SpudmanWP said:
Sounds like a good idea.. just don't use those pathetically low ROF 30mm guns from the current LCS :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, those things suuuuuuuck. The whole point of the 35mm is to push engagement range out. (We didn't have 57mm either- until we did.)

Hey, at least I'm not wishing for these :):

614674
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
push engagement range out.
Click to expand...
This was the idea behind my LCS UpGun plan.
The 35mm Millennium Gun located above the hanger and to the rear (near the RAM) opens up the existing 30mm cannon space for a retractable & turreted Hellfire launcher. The reason I went "retractable" instead of VL is that this will allow for use of LOGIR/APKWS in the same mount (see pic) which gives the ship the ability to choose the most appropriate warhead for the target. By using LOGIR/APKWS instead of a Hellfire/JAGM/Brimstone/etc, you can increase the number of targets that can be prosecuted per reload.

Use the Hellfire for far/larger targets, APKWS for midrange/smaller targets, and cannon (Mk51/M230, 35mm, 57mm) fire for close-in targets.
 

Attachments

  • qVwaTOB[1].jpg
    qVwaTOB[1].jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 80
I'm wondering if/when we'll see someone out XM913 on some sort of naval mount. It's not the EAPS gun, but the chamber is big enough for some fancy fused rounds. Of course, it's still a bushie.
 
Grey Havoc said:
blog.usni.org

FFG(X): One Down, Three More to Go

There are two new ship programs running in parallel attempting to do some kind of damage control from the disastrous Age of Transformation that begat LCS & DDG-1000, and the trainwreck of the aborted CG(X) program - and so we wait for FFG(X) and the unfortunately named Large Surface Combatant...
blog.usni.org blog.usni.org
Click to expand...
 
The ship also boats 76mm guns fore and aft, while the U.S. navy wants to put the MK110, a 57mm gun, on the winner instead. Along the port and starboard rails amidships, the Alpino has TESEO anti-ship missile launchers installed, but there is enough space to swap
 
Capthale said:
The ship also boats 76mm guns fore and aft, while the U.S. navy wants to put the MK110, a 57mm gun, on the winner instead. Along the port and starboard rails amidships, the Alpino has TESEO anti-ship missile launchers installed, but there is enough space to swap
Click to expand...

And MAD-FIRES on the 57mm.
 
I don’t understand why we don’t keep the fore and aft guns with the bigger caliber

But then we replace them with one 57 mm I don’t get the thought process
 
One thing the FREMM ships don't have is a point-defense missile like RAM, which is specced for FFG(X). So that basically replaces one of the guns.

The choice between 57mm versus 76mm is pretty close performance-wise, and the USN no longer has a 76mm training and maintenance pipeline, so the 57mm is cheaper. And with the 57mm ORCA coming out, it's at least as effective. There is no guided 76mm in US service, so that would be another expense of adding 76mm.
 
I hope they keep the 30 mm on the stern like the lcs have or midship twin
 
Capthale said:
I hope they keep the 30 mm on the stern like the lcs have or midship twin
Click to expand...

The FFG(X) RFP doesn't actually list 30mm in the notional Government-Furnished Equipment list. Just .50-cals, possibly in remote mounts. If I were on a design team, if definitely leave space and weight reservations for them, but it's not in the baseline spec.
 
news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles - USNI News

The following is the June 25, 2019 Congressional Research Service Report, Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The Navy wants to develop and procure three new types of unmanned vehicles (UVs) in FY2020 and beyond—Large Unmanned...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

The Navy wants to develop and procure three new types of unmanned vehicles (UVs) in FY2020 and beyond—Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles (LUSVs), Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicles (MUSVs), and Extra-Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (XLUUVs). The Navy is requesting $628.8 million in FY2020 research and development funding for these three UV programs and their enabling technologies.

The Navy wants to acquire these three types of UVs (which this report refers to collectively as large UVs) as part of an effort to shift the Navy to a new fleet architecture (i.e., a new combination of ships and other platforms) that is more widely distributed than the Navy’s current architecture. Compared to the current fleet architecture, this more-distributed architecture is to include proportionately fewer large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers), proportionately more small surface combatants (i.e., frigates and Littoral Combat Ships), and the addition of significant numbers of large UVs.

The Navy wants to employ accelerated acquisition strategies for procuring these large UVs, so as to get them into service more quickly. The emphasis that the Navy placed on UV programs in its FY2020 budget submission and the Navy’s desire to employ accelerated acquisition strategies in acquiring these large UVs together can be viewed as an expression of the urgency that the Navy attaches to fielding large UVs for meeting future military challenges from countries such as China.
Click to expand...

Without cruisers, any war with China is likely to be short, to say the least.
 
As the Hypersonic threats increase not only is there a call for Vertical Gun Systems able to put ordnance into near space, but also a ElectroMagnetic Missile Launcher (EMML) to give missiles high altitude before starting their rocket engine.

ieeexplore.ieee.org

Results from Sandia National Laboratories / Lockheed Martin Electromagnetic Missile Launcher (EMML)

Sandia national laboratories (SNL) and lockheed martin MS2 are designing an electromagnetic missile launcher (EMML) for naval applications. Lhe EMML uses an induction coilgun topology with the requirement of launching a 3600 lb. missile up to a velocity of 40 m/s. Lo demonstrate the feasibility...
ieeexplore.ieee.org ieeexplore.ieee.org
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed EMML.jpg
    Lockheed EMML.jpg
    190.6 KB · Views: 56
Hypersonic threats increase where? I'm sure that ship-based lasers will have compensators for drift and other ship-created problems. Speed of light beats hypersonic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edwest said:
Hypersonic threats increase where? I'm sure that ship-based lasetrs will have compensators for drift and other ship-created problems. Speed of light beats hypersonic.
Click to expand...


You need multi-megawatt lasers to deal with things like atmospheric degradation, armoring/coating of missile, short time of flight, etc. We're not even close to that yet.
 
news.usni.org

Navy Ready to ‘Burn the Boats’ with 2021 Laser Installation on a Destroyer - USNI News

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the next two years, the Navy wants to deploy a laser aboard a guided-missile destroyer as the service learns to integrate directed energy weapon systems on warships, the Navy’s director of surface warfare said on Wednesday. “We are going to burn the boats if you will and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric conditions have been tested. This system will only become more powerful. Depending on the missile's speed, which is still unknown, time on target can do the job. And for short time of flight situations, ground-based lasers deployed closer to potential launch points can solve that problem.
 
edwest said:
news.usni.org

Navy Ready to ‘Burn the Boats’ with 2021 Laser Installation on a Destroyer - USNI News

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the next two years, the Navy wants to deploy a laser aboard a guided-missile destroyer as the service learns to integrate directed energy weapon systems on warships, the Navy’s director of surface warfare said on Wednesday. “We are going to burn the boats if you will and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric conditions have been tested. This system will only become more powerful. Depending on the missile's speed, which is still unknown, time on target can do the job. And for short time of flight situations, ground-based lasers deployed closer to potential launch points can solve that problem.
Click to expand...

All the adaptive optics in the world won't help you with fog, rain, cloud cover, armored/ablative/reflective missiles. They need to start seriously looking at nuclear power for the (eventual, someday) Ticonderoga replacement. DEWs need a lot of juice (the SSLs, railguns, microwave weapons, etc.). You don't want to wait until you've got megawatt SSLs sitting around with nothing able to use them.
 
Well then. It will be a mix, however, defense planners are looking at all possible attack scenarios. Based on my research, nuclear propulsion is a waste of time.
 
How much longer CAN the Tico's continue in service?
 
sferrin said:
edwest said:
news.usni.org

Navy Ready to ‘Burn the Boats’ with 2021 Laser Installation on a Destroyer - USNI News

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the next two years, the Navy wants to deploy a laser aboard a guided-missile destroyer as the service learns to integrate directed energy weapon systems on warships, the Navy’s director of surface warfare said on Wednesday. “We are going to burn the boats if you will and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric conditions have been tested. This system will only become more powerful. Depending on the missile's speed, which is still unknown, time on target can do the job. And for short time of flight situations, ground-based lasers deployed closer to potential launch points can solve that problem.
Click to expand...

All the adaptive optics in the world won't help you with fog, rain, cloud cover, armored/ablative/reflective missiles. They need to start seriously looking at nuclear power for the (eventual, someday) Ticonderoga replacement. DEWs need a lot of juice (the SSLs, railguns, microwave weapons, etc.). You don't want to wait until you've got megawatt SSLs sitting around with nothing able to use them.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is going to be really difficult to develop a new class of LSC's that can operate and grow in the 2030-2060+ time-frame and not see giant jumps in electrical demand over that time-span even if DEW's, HPM's and Railguns become more efficient over time. Can the Navy afford that though, and what it is willing to cut to pay for it remains to be seen. I think for now, given that the higher budget dollars are unlikely to be sustainable past maybe 3 or 4 more budget cycles..I'd much rather they look to buy as many new hulls as they can squeeze out in that time frame..Perhaps look to buy DDG-51 Flight III's and the SSN's at 3 x year and look to do the same on the FFG(X) as well. We also need to get high power GaN radars retrofitted on Flight II hulls in a fashion that is faster than a trickle..
 
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
edwest said:
news.usni.org

Navy Ready to ‘Burn the Boats’ with 2021 Laser Installation on a Destroyer - USNI News

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the next two years, the Navy wants to deploy a laser aboard a guided-missile destroyer as the service learns to integrate directed energy weapon systems on warships, the Navy’s director of surface warfare said on Wednesday. “We are going to burn the boats if you will and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric conditions have been tested. This system will only become more powerful. Depending on the missile's speed, which is still unknown, time on target can do the job. And for short time of flight situations, ground-based lasers deployed closer to potential launch points can solve that problem.
Click to expand...

All the adaptive optics in the world won't help you with fog, rain, cloud cover, armored/ablative/reflective missiles. They need to start seriously looking at nuclear power for the (eventual, someday) Ticonderoga replacement. DEWs need a lot of juice (the SSLs, railguns, microwave weapons, etc.). You don't want to wait until you've got megawatt SSLs sitting around with nothing able to use them.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is going to be really difficult to develop a new class of LSC's that can operate and grow in the 2030-2060+ time-frame and not see giant jumps in electrical demand over that time-span even if DEW's, HPM's and Railguns become more efficient over time. Can the Navy afford that though, and what it is willing to cut to pay for it remains to be seen. I think for now, given that the higher budget dollars are unlikely to be sustainable past maybe 3 or 4 more budget cycles..I'd much rather they look to buy as many new hulls as they can squeeze out in that time frame..Perhaps look to buy DDG-51 Flight III's and the SSN's at 3 x year and look to do the same on the FFG(X) as well. We also need to get high power GaN radars retrofitted on Flight II hulls in a fashion that is faster than a trickle..
Click to expand...


I find myself wondering if we'll ever see a logical Tico replacement. As much as I'd like to see a Zumwalt-based cruise (for larger cells, radar, power generation, etc. etc. etc.) I'm getting the impression the USN is going to keep trying to overstuff Burkes.
 
Yes that is definitely something that can happen. But I think budget and pragmatism plays some role here. The Navy has yet to deploy the Ford..it will take a couple of years of investment and testing before that happens. Same with the Zumwalt which will take a year or two as well IIRC. Flight III is the big program that is up next and those vessels won’t likely deploy till mid 2020’s or beyond. Same with FFG(X) which is going to be selected later this year or early next year. LCS’s are being upgunned and will only begin re-deploying this year. On top of all this, the Navy wants to move rapidly and develop an unmanned surface fleet. On the whole, the Navy probably thinks its carrying a fair bit of risk on the conventional side in terms of cost over—runs or schedule slips. On the nuclear side..the Virginia class deliveries are slipping given higher production and block V etc and the Columbia class is a huge investment focus (no 1 priority for the Navy) and will remain so through the next decade..To top it off, the Navy wants to grow to a 355 ships so it must continue to buy ships at the highest rate possible and affordable given other budget priorities. So I think unless there is unanimous bi-partisan Congressional support for a large, capable and expensive cruiser I doubt the Navy will want to move on it very fast unless it trades some of the programs it currently has ongoing to fund it..It may just have to wait till it is done developing the Columbia class and has mitigated risk on the FFG(X) before it moves forward on that. Flight III’s will probably keep the yards busy till such a time..
 
Foo Fighter said:
How much longer CAN the Tico's continue in service?
Click to expand...
Not a one-answer question. While they don't have a hard-out date like nukes do, they're not in great shape and time has definitely caught up. A few who have had especially hard times, like Port Royal after her grounding, arguably should already be out. Those in good enough condition could squeeze out more time, with proper refitting, but will become increasingly more expensive to run.
 
Can you make up the lost capability of the Ticos by just building more Burkes? Say 3 Burkes to 2 Ticos? Can quantity make up for quality?
 
Desertfox said:
Can you make up the lost capability of the Ticos by just building more Burkes? Say 3 Burkes to 2 Ticos? Can quantity make up for quality?
Click to expand...

I think the real issue is the need for larger cells, bigger radars, more electrical, etc. than the Burkes can handle. It doesn't hurt that the Zumwalts also have a much larger flight deck for things like helicopters and UCAVs.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom