Thursday, December 18, 2024

Smaller Ships Could Mean More Guns

If, as Galrahn keeps harping on about, the Navy builds a 1000-ton littoral PC in reasonable numbers, they'll need weapons. Unlike all-up amphib ships and their supporting craft, this is a mission for guns. VLS systems are just too space-intensive for a 1000-ton, 250-foot ship. If the ship is intended to self-deploy and remain on station for reasonable periods of time, it won't be able to head back to port to reload a VLS system. The target set for this sort of combatant is quite different as well - it will consist of small to medium sized boats, aircraft, and targets on the shoreline whether vessels, vehicles or structures. It's not efficient to use VLS for that. This is where the gun will thrive again.

The question would be 'which gun?' I'm not talking about self-defense against Zodiacs, because I think that's best handled using the Marines you're carrying to man Ma Deuce mounts. A PC of the size we're talking would have the room for one or perhaps two main gun systems depending on the type. Unfortunately, it looks like the venerable and flexible Mark 45 5"/54 and its ilk may be too large; the smallest vessel I can find sporting one of those is the Blohm & Voss MEKO. Greece's Hydra-class versions are 117.5 meters long and displace 2,710 tons - too big for our notional ship.

The real questions would be whether this is a direct-fire only gun or a true naval rifle; and if it is a standard mount or some new technology. I would posit that given Gal's $100MM cap, an existing mount is the way to go, and it's not like the world is short of medium gun systems. Otobreda makes a nice 76mm gun system with a 20km maximum range that Israel mounts on its 250-ton patrol boats, just for one example of many. This would give you a nice option against small boats (it can depress -15 degrees) and soft-to-medium shore targets while retaining emergency AAW and cruise missile defense capability.

On a more daring note, it might also be possible to use these craft and the module space on the LCS for a more dispersed NSFS capability - which, if they're carrying Marines, would (I'm sure) be appreciated. I need to get off my tuchus and run some quick Lanchester numbers for the survivability of big ablative vessels with many NSFS assets (foamed tankers, etc.) vs. lots of smaller vessels with single or double mounts.

Another project I keep doodling over but haven't really run numbers for: given the number of helo decks available in the fleet, it might be possible to make a dedicated MLRS or HIMARS 'mounting plate' for a standard helo deck - essentially a flat metal lockdown plate designed to securely hold an MLRS or HIMARS vehicle in firing position. I'd want to know if there are standardized lockdown options on USN helo decks; if so, even if they're different across platforms, perhaps the mount could be a universal adapter. Next number to crunch: will a HIMARS/MLRS and a loading vehicle fit on a helo deck? Is there a sneaky way to load them? Realistically, even, you could put just a HIMARS launcher on the mount - save yourself the truck, unless you had plans to use them at the other end of the trip ashore. There should be more than enough space. While of course the LCS mission module space is a better candidate, helo decks are in goodly supply - and maybe a quickly-assembled force of bombardment ships is something we could keep 'on the shelf' this way.

Hm. Helo decks seem to run around 12m in width by 20-25m in length. If we're lucky, LAMPS RAST hardware could be adapted for the mount to provide power and lockdown. Anyone have a reference for an online copy of NAEC-ENG-7576 I could leaf through? (That is, if it's open - I don't know if it's restricted at all).

These are the things I ponder when I should be working.

Update: There is nothing new under the sun. Field Artillery Magazine has mention of a 'navalized MLRS' way back in 1987 - although that was built onto the ships in question. My proposal above involves utilizing existing launcher sets on an as-needed basis. Of course, what I'd love to know is if the USN actually looked at the feasibility of firing these things from a ship, and if it required stabilization - a commenter says the Germans tried it and it didn't work even with guided rockets. Hm.

Image of the Otobreda 76mm - handily, with small boats in frame - courtesy of Wikipedia

No comments:

layModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_HTMLView', new _WidgetInfo('HTML4', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('HTML4'), {}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_BlogArchiveView', new _WidgetInfo('BlogArchive1', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('BlogArchive1'), {'languageDirection': 'ltr', 'loadingMessage': 'Loading\x26hellip;'}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_HTMLView', new _WidgetInfo('HTML2', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('HTML2'), {}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_HTMLView', new _WidgetInfo('HTML1', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('HTML1'), {}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_HTMLView', new _WidgetInfo('HTML3', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('HTML3'), {}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_AttributionView', new _WidgetInfo('Attribution1', 'footer-3', document.getElementById('Attribution1'), {}, 'displayModeFull')); layModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_HTMLView', new _WidgetInfo('HTML4', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('HTML4'), {}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_BlogArchiveView', new _WidgetInfo('BlogArchive1', 'sidebar-right-1', document.getElementById('BlogArchive1'), {'languageDirection': 'ltr', 'loadingMessage': 'Loading\x26hellip;'}, 'displayModeFull')); _WidgetManager._RegisterWidget('_HTMLView', new _WidgetInfo('HTML2', 'sid