AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)

[SeaKingTacco]

Kirkhill- I check your remarks.  The question now for Navy Shooter is: does Canada have a similar enough Defence/geopolotical situation which would warrant the acquisition of the this system?

Remember- to sell DND on purchasing something, you must clearly define the Capability Deficiency that must be filled.  If you can't do that, there is no point in going further.

Cheers!

 

[NavyShooter]

Ok,

Part of my discussion is based on the ability to use 120mm Rocket Assist rounds, that'll get you out to almost 13 km.  True, that's still only 6.5nm, but what are our present capabilities, and what options would exist in the near term (short of getting a new platform, ie CADRE etc) to add NGS to our existing ships?

I don't think anyone would argue that the 57mm is suitable for the NGS role. 

Removing the 57 and replacing it with something bigger is a HUGE engineering project, from magazine layout to hoists, to CCS, etc.

Adding the Land Attack capability to our Harpoons gives us only 8 really big rounds to fire, nothing to followup with.

What other options are there? 

Where do we have space on a CPF to put an NGS system, and what kind of footprint would it require?? 

The foc'sle is out.  The flight deck and quarter deck are out if you want to be able to operate helos.  There's no space on top part ship unless we lose our RAS capability on one side.  Take off the RHIB or a Zod?  I don't think so.  Dump half our Sea Sparrows?  Maybe if we had the quad cell ESSM, but we're not getting them...we're only getting the single cannisters.  Bridge wings?  No space, and do you think the CO is going to give up space in his cabin for the system?  I doubt it.  That leaves the hangar.

If we're willing to lose one torpedo magazine (retain both sets of launchers, but only store torps on one side) we have a reasonably sized area to play with for putting in a NGS system.

That said, you're still close to the helo and it's "Barn" so you need to consider recoil...too much recoil would be bad for the helo, so you are limited in what you can put onboard from that perspective.

You're also limited in weight.  Removing the torps gives you about 3 tons to play with (500 lbs each) plust their mounts, etc, so say 3 1/2 tons.  (You have to keep the handling system to load the tubes though.)

So, we've pulled 3 1/2 tons off, and can probably fudge that a bit if we need to, counterballast can be added, or controlled via fuel tanks if it's only a bit of weight.

What weapons systems weigh around 3 tons, can fit into the footprint provided for the space available, don't recoil too much to affect the helo?

Can you guys see any better options?

As for the capability deficiency, well, having a Commodore come down to the Cave and tell us that they're trying to find a way to put a NGS system on a CPF...that sounds like the problem being defined quite clearly.  If a Commodore says that it's a capability that he wants, and needs to have in the not too distant future to be able to support troops going ashore, well, sounds like a Capability Deficiency that needs fixing to me.

A CPF is a multi-role ship.  It's not really great at any one thing....but, giving it another role, in support of the new JTF-A SCTF is not a bad thing, and while the 120mm AMS/AMOS might not be the ideal tool for the job, it's better than a 57mm, it'll fit in the space we have, and we could carry a meaningful loadout of ammo for it.  Also, it'll provide a training and learning platform for employment when we do get a full-blown NGS system on a new class of ship.

Note, there are PGM's available for the 120mm mortar, and new ammo under development giving engagement ranges of 15km:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/x/xm395.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm

http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/mortar.html

So, based on my above assumptions, and thoughts, and presuming that we could get an extra couple of miles or so out of RA rounds, is it a reasonable idea?

Any army guys able to comment on the utility of a 120mm mortar for fire support?  Are they good/bad/useless?  Would a limited capacity missile/rocket system be better? 

NavyShooter

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=913

How about something like this Navy Shooter?

Mounting a 155mm turret in place of the 57mm. The Germans have apparently trialled a PzH 2000 turret on a Sachsen frigate in place of their 76s.  Perhaps some massaging of the missile mix and the CIWS could cover the capability gap that might be created by removing the 57.

That would give you a 40 km PGM capability to use with shipborne UAVs against both shore and surface targets.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I lost a posting in the power outage.

Kirkhill, I like the 155mm turret idea.  Not sure if it would fit on the current 57mm space without significant mods.

I was going to propose building a "fire-support barge" or a "monitor".  Make it fit inside the well-deck of the BHS, put a 120mm mortar turret, 155mm howitzer turret and a MLRS type system on it, give it water-jet propulsion, a bit of armour.  It can be the first thing out the Amphib and move around on it's own doing fire support.  This leaves the CPFs to handle force protection (AAW, ASW, ASUW).  Couple million bucks should do it...

What do you think?

 

[NavyShooter]

One of the key points about the 57 is that there's essentiall no below decks space required, except for the shell hoists, and the electronics associated.

I don't think we'd be able to fit it to a CPF.  Observe the shock mounting system they had to add: 

(I don't think that the whole white painted base is needed, just the upper part with the black shock mounts.)

Turret weight alone is 16.5 tons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm

Even looking at some other nations projects, the UK's 155mm Future Naval Gun weighs in at an estimated 20-26 tons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.htm

The system planned for the DD(X) weighs in at 95 tons.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

Having a seperate Monitor might work, but then, you have to drag it over there with you, reducing your capability to land troops and equipment.  It also means that we have to wait until the BHS gets here to be able to make use of it.

Adding an auto mortar system to a CPF would probably be do-able within a docking work period.  (4-5 months)  If it doesn't work out, the cost of returning the ship to original configuration would be basically the cost of welding over the turret ring, and re-mounting the torpedo blocks.

If it does work, then we've got a platform to learn and establish methods from.  The BHS may end up with a 155 mounting, or the CADRE (or whatever) may end up with one, but I can't see one on a CPF.  It definitely wouldn't work on a 280, they're already top-heavy enough, and the barrel would overlap the VLS Cannisters.

NS

 

[ringo]

Sweden is developing a small amphibious vessels 72.2 feet in length armed with an AMOS turret forward.
Displacement is 40 tons empty 70 tons full load, vessels role is to provide fire support in transit to landing zone, crew of 8, pototype ready 2008 up to 20 units planned.

LPD/LPH carry motar gunboats to area of ops.

Tribals likely to be replaced by disimilar construction, ie LPH/LPD

Replace frigates with 12 10000 ton vessels similar to Vittorio Veneto,
4 fire support
4 ASW
4 AAW

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Tribals likely to be replaced by disimilar construction, ie LPH/LPD

What do you base that on? There is already a program underway to replace both the CPF and 280. Search the site and you will see.

Replace frigates with 12 10000 ton vessels similar to Vittorio Veneto,
4 fire support
4 ASW
4 AAW

Where are we going to get the crews to man 12 cruisers?

 

[Mortar guy]

I love mortars, I really do. But, as I have said before, I just can't see the utility of mounting such a weapon on an ocean-going ship for the purposes of NGS. Here are my reasons:

1) Range - It's just too damn short. The ship would have to get in real close to shore (i.e. easily within enemy artillery, mortar, and ATGM range) and even then would only be able to lob bombs a couple of km inshore, at best. Why risk a CPF that close in to shore for such minimal fire support? The landing force would out-run their NGS fire support within minutes of landing.

2) Trajectory - Mortars fire high angle and the bombs have a very long time of flight. This makes them very susceptible to weather with the resulting degradation of accuracy. Oceans tend to be windy places - no good for mortars. The swedes will use their AMOS/Combt boat combo in an archipelago where the weather is slightly tamer.

3) Utility - An AMOS turret on a CPF would be of use for only one thing - NGS. A multi-purpose gun could handle NGS, ASuW, and even AA depending on the type.

So, all that being said, I would suggest that we either avoid mounting the AMOS on the CPF or find a more suitable platform. One option I can think of off the top of my head would be the LCUs the BHS will carry. I'm not talking about a monitor, I'm talking about an armed landing craft that can still carry vehicles and troops but can shoot itself ashore. I'm sure our shipbuilding industry could design a modified Mk 10 LCU with an AMOS turret to fit the bill.

Complimentary to this would be the Tribals' 76mm guns which, although not perfect, can still fire NGS with twice the range of the AMOS and with a high rate of fire. Also with Block II Harpoon for precision strike you would have a nice triad of weapons capable of providing fire support.

The BHS should come equipped with some system to provide NGS whether that be rockets (Naval MLRS or NTACMS), guns (MONARC, 5") or flying bombardment monkeys. OK, I made that last one up.

MG

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I wonder if an upgraded form of the CRV7 might be an option?

 

[George Wallace]

One of the key points about the 57 is that there's essentiall no below decks space required, except for the shell hoists, and the electronics associated.

I don't think we'd be able to fit it to a CPF.  Observe the shock mounting system they had to add: 

(I don't think that the whole white painted base is needed, just the upper part with the black shock mounts.)

Um!    That whole 'White painted Base" is known as a "Turret Stand".  It is used to rest a Turret on when it is removed from an armoured vehicle.  The shock mountings are probably installed because of the trials they are conducting, and the Turret Stand in this case, although a rather robust one, is still not the same as the vehicle the turret would normally be mounted on.  This would probably be to prolong the life of the Stand and also in some way imitate the motion of the vehicle suspension when the weapon is fired.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK - I like the monitor idea.  But then Ringo has an idea wrt the Swedish boats that I mentioned.  If we are going to carry boats on board the LPH/LPH/BHS why not carry 4-6 of the Swedish CBHs with some or all of them mounting AMOS just like Navy Shooter is suggesting, and possibly any other system that can be mounted on a 20 tonne vehicle. 
Ex-Dragoon's CRV-7s, mounted in bundles of 19 would probably get the job done as well,  especially seeing as how the laser guided APKWS version is moving along.  I think a 2.5 tonne truck could carry 6x19 ready to fire rounds on its bed or 114 total. 

Then you have boats for conducting fire support, landing troops, conducting patrols or just supplying local security for the BHS while she is firm.  They could be launched from the well or from davits.

More grist for the mill perhaps....

 

[Kirkhill]

Thinking this one through a little more......

The CBH-90/Strb-90 (http://www.soldf.com/strb90h.html - sorry for the non-english spec sheet) weighs about as much as a LAVIII (14.3-17.3 T for a LAV vs 13.3 to 20.5 T for the boat) and is about as big as a Griffon (17.1m x 2.3 m for the Helo vs 15.9m x 3.8 m for the boat).  That would suggest to me that putting a 6-pack of these boats on a BHS might not present an intolerable burden.  Especially seeing as how they wouldn't have to be carried inside.  Like the Landing Craft and Boats for the JSS the could be carried outside and deployed on davits.

They carry 21 troops or 4.5 tonnes of Cargo with a range of 660 km at a speed of around 40 kts.  There is an armoured version (the HS has bullet proof glass, 38 mm plastic and 6 mm steel in combination - probably 5.56/7.62 proof?).

Weapons are usually 3 0.50 mounts but other weapons suites have included 30mm cannons reclaimed from Swedish Drakken fighters, Hellfire AT missiles and of course the AMOS-120 mortar system.

So if we put this together - How about the navy gets into a small boat solution for NGS?  Naval APCs for landing special forces, local and riverine security, escort force for landing craft and finally, adding a whole new dimension to boarding parties.  Arm most of the boats with a 25-30mm RWS with Hellfires or CRV-7s and a couple or more with the AMOS-120 (PGM, 14km range, 155mm equivalent effect).

Edit: In fact how about replacing the RHIBs on the CPFs and DDHs with the Naval APC with 25mm RWS?

Edit2: And finally the Ice-breakers and the JSS could also make suitable transport/launch platforms for this type of craft.  It could find employment in the Arctic in summer months, on the West Coast year round and on the St-Lawrence and the Great Lakes.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Edit: In fact how about replacing the RHIBs on the CPFs and DDHs with the Naval APC with 25mm RWS?

Not a tech or a bosun but you would definitely have to change out the crane and the hyrdraulics to embark one of these naval apc's onboard. Would they be necessary for a FFH or DDH I think they would be kind of overkill, don't forget we also use the RHIB in addition to our zodiacs for rescue work and administration.

 

[Kirkhill]

Understood Ex-Dragoon - and I guess at 15 to 20 tonnes apiece, akin to the weight of the 155mm turret that Navy Shooter was having difficulty with, it would present similar ballasting challenges.....still.....

Ice-breakers, JSS and BHS would still present interesting launch platforms for carrying a useful number individually and combined.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Personally I feel we should keep the FFHs and DDHs out of the troop moving business and let them focus on the escort and protection role. Thats not to say we should never embark troops but to do so on a regular basis would drastically change our mission profile.

 

[aesop081]

Personally I feel we should keep the FFHs and DDHs out of the troop moving business and let them focus on the escort and protection role. Thats not to say we should never embark troops but to do so on a regular basis would drastically change our mission profile.

Not to mention that escort tend to be the first on the receiving end of anti-ship missiles.  Imagine a company of british soldiers on HMS Sheffeild in 1982 !!!

 

[Kirkhill]

Ex-Dragoon and aesop081:

I take your point about embarking troops on escorts.  Actually I wasn't considering that for the existing CPFs and DDHs.  I was more thinking along the lines of supplying an alternative to the RHIBs for the boarding party and also for supplying security while in port.

On the other hand I note that carrying a party of marines is not uncommon in other navies.  Perhaps the new single-hull concept could be designed with a ship to shore capability in mind as well?  Similar to the Global Cruiser concept brought up by whiskey and a_majoor amongst others.....OT drifting back to original thread from which this one was split.....apologies.

A bit closer to the subject at hand....Would it be in the interests of the Navy, or would the Navy be interested in, these type of small boat operations?  Perhaps they could be seen as extensions of your patrol and escort duties, as well as supplying NGS, moving your capabilities right up to the high-tide line. 

Getting back to the NGS role - even if we just looked at the CBH-AMOS - that would supply a system that could supply NGS up to 14 km inland, that could manoeuver to the enemy and away from enemy fire at 40 to 45 knots, that would present a very small an manoeuverable target and would only put a small number of personnel at risk.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think it only makes sense for us to get into Brown Water Ops and establish a doctrine for us to be able to operate in this enviroment. The threat seems to be getting closer and closer to shore and we need to be ready for that aspect of warfare. That being said, in no way shape and form do I advocate getting away from the blue water side of the house. We need that capability now as we did during the Cold War.

CBH-AMOS- as a 120mm, how many personnel would we actually be able to carry whilst carrying a decent amount of the stuff that goes boom?rfare

 

[NavyShooter]

Ok,

Had discussion with another engineer who's more in the know than I, and he basically said thus:

pay attention to the upper slope of the hangar top away from the mezzanine deck - don't think she'll fit let alone rotate plus still too heavy for the deck

In the short analysis - there is not a lot of upper deck real estate as you noticed on a CPF to drop something big into so I can't see how it can be feasible without finding new capability in the systems we already have (ie using new ammo).

So, basically, no-where further to go with my 120mm idea.

Dang, it seemed so reasonable to me.

(Not to mention all the flak I've been getting from you guys!)

So, whereto from here? 

Perhaps a modular system that could be fitted to an MCDV?  Like the personnel modules they drop onto the sweep deck? 

MCDV's could operate a LOT closer inshore than a CPF, with a 3.4m Draft, that's basically less than 50% that of a Frigate.

I wonder what the rated load is for their sweep deck? 

They'd be a lot more vulnerable to return fire, as they have little in the way of self defense (no automated defensive capability like CIWS) but it's also a much less, um, valuable unit if one is lost? 

So, let's say we get a bunch of containerized systems built up, capable of being placed on the sweep deck of an MCDV....this might be the interm way ahead to get a test bed for the Monitor you guys are thinking on.

What sort of packages might be good to have?  I'm thinking:

1.  AMOS system

2.  MLRS (of some sort) system

I don't think an MCDV is an ideal platform for this, but if we had a package that could get bolted onto them, well, that might be a start?

Now, that said, I wonder if there's a bolt-on autonomous self-defense system (anti-missile/air capable) that might be able to fit in place of the 40mm on the foc'sle? 

NS

 

[Kirkhill]

If arthur is monitoring this he can start groaning now....

While the LCS will be equipped with a 57mm gun and Netfires surface-to-surface missiles, the vessel will rely on its off-board vehicles to find or take on an enemy ship. The unmanned helicopters and surface vessels will carry electro-optical and infrared surveillance equipment, and the MH-60R manned helicopter will be able to attack with Hellfire missiles and a gun pod. Eventually, Landay said, Netfires and a 30mm unmanned gun will be placed aboard the 11-meter unmanned surface vehicles.

http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=328015

Or this - Check out Slide 8 or 15

http://128.121.188.113/SNALuncheonBrief,RDML(s)Spicer10Aug04rev3.pdf

Or this

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/firesupport/NETFIRES/product-NETFIRES.html

15 rounds in a container weighing less than a tonne.  Launch from the container anywhere on the deck.  Range 40 to 70 km.  Warhead - equivalent to Hellfire or about 10 kg.  Developmental - maybe never.

As to how many rounds in CBH-AMOS given weight restrictions I am GUESSING it would be a load similar to an APC or something in the 50 to 100 rounds range.  And I think the AMOS craft would be strictly for fire support with little room for Troops - they would have to come in another craft.

I note that the CBH-90 is about the same size as the Brits LCVP Mk5 which is slower at 24 kts but carries 35 troops or a couple of light vehicles.