AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)

[Ex-Dragoon]

How practical would it be to have an NGS floating barge? Fit each barge with a number of mounting rings on the port and starboard quarters, a number of bigger rings down the centerline and you could have a plug and play system that you can replace depending on mission fit. The rings on the quarters could be utilized for rocket pods and small caliber autocannons. The rings on the centreline would be for larger caliber guns (105mm+).
  The barge could be towed in place and anchors dropped when it reaches its designated firepoint. Yeah it would be vulnerable to counter battery fire and would be as maneuverable as a Strat after 1 beer. . Hmmmm, although there are self propelled barges out there. Thoughts?

 

[NavyShooter]

Just thinking on this a bit more.

I like the little rocket packs....kinda neat.  Netfires.  Put a bunch in the hangar, drive 'em out onto the flight-deck on the Bear-trap, presto-change-o, you've got a mobile MLRS!

Seriously though, you could plunk a couple of these packs in the torpedo mags, and wheel them out of the hangar and fire them from the flight deck.  Not an ideal solution, but hey, it's pretty much self-contained. 

Anyhow, back to my 120mm mortar idea on a CPF...I came across an obscure reference to a version B AMOS, which is lighter, (aluminium turret for shipboard use) and weighs in at 2800 kg, and ranges out to 13 km.

I've written up a draft memo to my CSEO to look at, and both he and the A/CSEO have looked at it and think it's worth further investigation at higher levels.  Heck, my CSEO suggested putting it into the MAR ENG journal too. 

Here's an exerpt from it: 

5. To expand a CPF’s capabilities to include NGS without significantly impacting current shipboard capabilities, there is only one potential location for installation, the Starboard Hangar mezzanine deck.  Removing the torpedoes from the Starboard magazine but retaining the launchers and handling gear to load the tubes would still allow the ship to engage submarine threats from both sides, but would remove several tons of weight, and enable the potential installation of a deck penetrating gun turret system.  The reduction in magazine capacity for torpedoes by 50% is significant, but is the least reduction in ships capabilities to allow the addition of a Naval Gunnery Support system.  Placing the system on the Starboard side also places the CIWS on the side that would be most likely presented with a return fire threat from ashore, enhancing the ship’s response capabilities.

6. The following aspects need to be considered for selecting an appropriate system:

a. With the proximity to the hangar, and the need to sustain helicopter operations, a system with reduced recoil characteristics should be selected;

b. The weight of the system should be less than 3 tons (equivalent to the weight of the torpedoes removed 

c. Additional weight for structural strength supporting the installation;

d. The system should be gyro-stabilized to allow stabilized firing;

e. There must be a capability for firing Precision Guided Munitions;

f. A of sustainable amount of ammunition must be capable being carried; and

g. System must be Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) to reduce costs.

And:

10. The acquisition of this system will allow the Navy to begin to interact with land forces in support operations prior to the acquisition of new ships with an integrated NGS system installed.  This will allow the doctrine governing NGS to be developed and trialed prior to the creation of a new surface combatant.  Feedback from this installation would allow improvements to be made to the design of any following systems. 

11.  This system will provide the Navy with a place in future joint operations, and demonstrate that we are leading the way in changing for the future of the CF.

So, there's some bits....yes, I said I'd let it go, but it still seems reasonable, all the more-so with a lighter system.

Anyhow, rip me to shreds again gang...I'm going to jump on my sword here, ok?

NS

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I was not a big fan of the AMOS originally but I like this approach. Just a couple of questions though:
1) Will embarking on of these mortars cause flight operations to be hampered especially with the new helos coming into service.
2) Maybe someone more familiar with mortar usage can correct me but is there not a seperate propellant charge along with the shell. Would they not have to have seperate magazines in our safety conscious navy?
3) Would we be able to (re) establish NGS procedures using a mortar and carrying it over to a new NGS system when the CPF and 280 replacements come on line?

 

[NavyShooter]

I was not a big fan of the AMOS originally but I like this approach. Just a couple of questions though:
1) Will embarking on of these mortars cause flight operations to be hampered especially with the new helos coming into service.
2) Maybe someone more familiar with mortar usage can correct me but is there not a seperate propellant charge along with the shell. Would they not have to have seperate magazines in our safety conscious navy?
3) Would we be able to (re) establish NGS procedures using a mortar and carrying it over to a new NGS system when the CPF and 280 replacements come on line?

1.  I'm on the Montreal, and the flight deck survey and mods that are being done seem to be confined to the Beartrap and it's track.  I've had my ASIS ripped apart and re-insulated for the survey.  They did not do anthing like that to the hangar, so I'm presuming that the hangar area will not be significantly affected, excepting the deck.  If the ship is actually in the midst of flight ops, it's likely that they'd come to a flying course, which would probably inhibit the NGS ops. 

2.  I don't know, but if you need to separate the charges, well, there's another torpedo mag on the port side you can use....

3.  We don't have anything for NGS right now....and haven't really in over a decade, so at least getting some experience with it, and getting used to a shore observer calling for and correcting fires would be a step forward, not to mention getting Command used to the idea as well.  I don't think the Navy has done shore bombardment (for real) since Korea. 

NS

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

3.  We don't have anything for NGS right now....and haven't really in over a decade, so at least getting some experience with it, and getting used to a shore observer calling for and correcting fires would be a step forward, not to mention getting Command used to the idea as well.  I don't think the Navy has done shore bombardment (for real) since Korea. 

What I mean is would the same principals be able to be carried over from a mortar system to maybe a gun system.

I like the little rocket packs....kinda neat.  Netfires.  Put a bunch in the hangar, drive 'em out onto the flight-deck on the Bear-trap, presto-change-o, you've got a mobile MLRS!

Seriously though, you could plunk a couple of these packs in the torpedo mags, and wheel them out of the hangar and fire them from the flight deck.  Not an ideal solution, but hey, it's pretty much self-contained.

How much damage would the rocket exhaust do to the flight deck?

 

[commando gunner]

What I mean is would the same principals be able to be carried over from a mortar system to maybe a gun system.

Depends what you mean. Ballistically a round in the air is a round in the air whether it came out of a mortar or a gun-however, having said that there are indeed numerous differences between mortars and guns mainly connected with muzzle velocity (most mortars are low) , spin (most mortars do not spin via a driving band)  and trajectory (mortars are generally high angle) and these all have a profound effect-for various technical reasons - on first round accuracy as well as consistency. 

IMHO the AMOS on a boat is a marketing ploy.  13 to maybe 16 Km - with rocket assist -is just not enough range for NGS- remember we want some usable range inland as well, not to mention reliable accuracy.  As pointed out by others previously most NGS guns have multiple utility in other roles as well-be they ship to ship or anti aircraft and something that is just a mortar does not cut it.  OK, it may be of awesome use in a river delta boat for sure, but as our sole gun, forget it!

What we need is a decent capability that has multiple utility - long range as well as ammo choice.  Something along the lines of a 155 would be ideal
and indeed this was specified in the now defunct CADRE spec.

PS  I have a bit of an idea what I am talking about- I have directed ships guns as an NGFO in a previous life  from 76mm up to Iowas 16 Inch (just had to get that in!).       

 

[NavyShooter]

Heya Commando Gunner,

Glad to have input from someone who's called in fire before. 

I agree, having a long range, multiple utility gun would be a good thing, but we will not see that on a CPF.  There just isn't the space unless they stretched the ship (not gonna happen, and the stretch would be midships as per the info on the CASR site a while back.)

I know that for the future ships that are being planned, there is an intent to include a NGS role/capability, but the steel won't be cut on those ships for years. 

How can we get some capability in the near term?

If we got a system like the 120mm AMOS, and backed it up with a deepstrike capability like SLAM (Land attack Harpoon) which is feasible since we already have Harpoon fitted, well, would that be worthwhile?

From the brief we got on the ship earlier in the month, there's going to be (near term) a transport ship of some sort available to prove the deployability of the SCTF.  If the SCTF needs gunnery support going ashore somewhere, what can we provide right now??  57mm or 76mm.  The 76 only has a range of 20,000 yards, the 57 kicks out to around 17,000 with the HCER ammo.    Is a gun system that's able to drop a heavier weight of fire at 75% of the best range we can hit now all that bad??

No, it's not a 155, nor a 16" (wow, I've touched them before, but cannot imagine the blast when they fire!) but it's something that we can learn from before we do get the big guns.

Is some capability now better than no capability until we get a new class of ship?  I think so.  Especially when I probably will not see those ships in the water in my career.

I think that's the essence of my point of view.  We're not gong to see a new class of ship for years.  That means we're not going to see a dedicated or ideal NGS system at sea for years.  If we want to get on the "Joint" bandwagon, and have the ability (which the Commodore stated he's seeking) to do NGS and deliver PGM's, we may have to live with compromise.  Putting a CPF closer inshore to provide NGS brings back the stories of the USN destroyers doing just that a couple thousand yards offshore from Omaha Beach in 1944.

NS

 

[FSTO]

We don't have anything for NGS right now....and haven't really in over a decade, so at least getting some experience with it, and getting used to a shore observer calling for and correcting fires would be a step forward, not to mention getting Command used to the idea as well.  I don't think the Navy has done shore bombardment (for real) since Korea. 

That is true and over the last 10 years we let NGS wither and almost die on the vine. I remember playing with the NGS wheels when I was on YUKON but that was it until last November during TG-EX 5-05. ALGONQUIN, CALGARY, and REGINA conduct NGS shoots at the range off San Diego. The guys I talked to said it went well, although I think they were able to find some of the "wheels" in the museum to help them out. I am pretty sure that there are computer programs out there that would do the job faster and more accurate.
My other question is this; will the NGS observer ashore be army or navy?

 

[commando gunner]

That is true and over the last 10 years we let NGS wither and almost die on the vine. I remember playing with the NGS wheels when I was on YUKON but that was it until last November during TG-EX 5-05. ALGONQUIN, CALGARY, and REGINA conduct NGS shoots at the range off San Diego. The guys I talked to said it went well, although I think they were able to find some of the "wheels" in the museum to help them out. I am pretty sure that there are computer programs out there that would do the job faster and more accurate.
My other question is this; will the NGS observer ashore be army or navy?

As I understand it we only have a direct ( aimed at the target using gun sight or other remote pointing method)  57 or 76 capability - not an indirect one where the ballistic/firing solution is calculated mathematically and the round fired indirectly.  ?????

The short term cheap answer is to outfit the 76 with the indirect capability.  Small it might be but it has a high rate of fire and is much better than nothing.  As my experience is limited to being the end user of what comes out of ships guns,  I have no real idea what extra is required in this case-software / lindirect laying mechanisms or what?? 

NGS famil is taught at the Arty School to FOOs and BCs as well as some staff planning famil on the Arty Ops crse.  All pretty basic but anyone who can direct arty fire, understands some of the characteristics of NGS, allocation procedures and can read the NATO NGS pub ATP 8 (E) can shoot NGS. Conducting a simultaneous twin target coord illum takes a lot more though....

Army or Navy?  Stick to what you do best.  Driving ships and pointing guns at the shore = Navy job, Living in holes, yomping around and directing fire = Army job, especially where Advance Force work is concerned, however having said that, in one of my previous incarnations, in UK's 148 Bty,  I had a naval communicator for expert morse work as one of my 3 guys (all parties had one).  Poor guys came out of a ships commcen having never worn boots and had to pass Commando crse and P company as well as the Naval Gunfire Basic crse in order to serve in the bty.  Smalll wonder that after all that huge effort the few who got in typically transferred to the army after their tour was up.  Ideally each ship conducting NGS also has an army  NGLO on board to speak army (or English when working with some of the more exotic navies!)-at least when missions are being conducted rather than full time that is.

 

[NavyShooter]

So,

Having someone on the ship that can deal with the "Army-speak" is a good thing, and having someone ashore who can do the "Navy-Speak" is a good thing too.

I guess it comes down to working together (that whole joint thing again)

We've had Army guys on ships before, the MON transported a bunch during Narwhal, they loved the Cave and the Beer machine...some didn't want to leave!

NS

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

*snioker* Look at us ex army types that saw the light and went navy as compared to navy types going to the army. >

 

[aesop081]

*snioker* Look at us ex army types that saw the light and went navy as compared to navy types going to the army. >

I still think you screwed up Ex-D..........

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I still think you screwed up Ex-D..........

Sadly there are days when I would agree with you...

 

[navymich]

*snioker* Look at us ex army types that saw the light and went navy as compared to navy types going to the army. >

I think my light has broken ex-D.  This sailor girl is looking to turning to the blue sky, vice the blue waters....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

NavyShooter,

I think that you are doing some good work by asking questions and questioning the status quo in the Navy.  I'm not sure that forcing a 120mm mortar on to a frigate is the way to go.  It is a bit of a one trick pony (only good for NGS), too short ranged (13km), very subject to Met (all mortars are because of the high trajectory and long time of flight).  I'm not sure what adding a 120mm mortar gives a ship that the 57mm doesn't already have.

As for launching rockets from the flight deck and it's effects- I can shed some light on that.  I commanded the Javelin missile troop on HMCS PROTECTEUR during Gulf War 1.  On the way across the Atlantic, we fired about 60 missiles from the flight deck in training.  We broke several dustpan lights and took the deck down to bare metal in several places with our backblast.  The flight stoker and electrician were not amused.  Short answer- firing rockets from the flight deck will probably do some damage and it will foul the deck for flights ops (obviously).  That may or may not be a big deal, depending on what the OTC's plan look's like.

I still like my "gun barge" idea 

 

[NavyShooter]

SKT,

I think that a barge, towed into place and parked, then used for NGS wouldn't really be the way to go. 

Defensively, I think it's a non-starter.  You'll end up having to designate a ship (probably a frigate, 280's would guard the JSS/BHS) to act as guard on it, otherwise it's vulnerable to any threat, air or surface, and particularly subsurface.  If you have a frigate designated to guard it, then that frigate's got to be close, (Sea Sparrow are currently only for point defense) so the frigate will be inshore close enough that it might as well be the gun platform instead.  If you put defensive gear on the barge, you're on your way to a multi-role unit, and to get defensive gear, it's going to be a compromise in some way, so none of it will be ideal, so you're back to making trade-offs the way you would in putting NGS onto a frigate.  The Canadian Navy doesn't seem too much into the "small boat" thing.  I think you'd be better off finding a NGS package you could fit onto a sweep deck of an MCDV.

The 57mm can put down a great weight of fire, but with only 410 gr of HE filler per round (janes).  A 120mm round has an average of 2.8 KG HE filler per round.  That's 700% more!  You have to get 7 hits with a 57 to deliver the same weight of fire as a 120.  A 57mm gun's hot gun procedure is required after only a small number of rounds have been fired (ie less than 200) which means you're not going to get to fire a whole lot of ammo in the run of a day.  If you fire the complete turret load of 57, you've only dumped 49 KG of HE.  The 120mm mortar can fire that much HE with 17.5 rounds.  Basically just over one minutes' worth of firing.  (16 rpm max ROF)

A 57 can fire 17 km with HCER (janes) and with ER ammo, a 120mm mortar can reach 13 km, and the new XM395 PGMM is looking at extending ranges out to 15 km with GPS/laser guidance.  Range is not a significant factor if we can get out to 15 km.  Even 13 km is 76% of the range of a 57's range.  If we get the 15 k range, that gives us 88% of the range of the 57, with a precision guided capability.

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

1.  The 120 would let us fire Precision guided munitions, something the 57mm will never be able to do. 

2.  The 120 would give us a stand-alone NGS capability, letting us keep the 57mm for defensive fires.

3.  The 120 would let us re-learn how to do NGS before we end up strapped with a big honking gun on a new class of ship and us not know how to shoot it effectively.

4.  Giving a Frigate a marginal NGS capability now is better than not having any real capability until our next new class of ship comes along.

For me though, the real clincher is the Precision Guided Munitions capability.  The Commodore stated that he was looking at a way to fit a PGM NGS system.  The PGM capability is something that a 57mm or even the 76 don't have, and won't have. 

NavyShooter

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the "Pocket VLS" option -  15 rounds from a box weighing approximately 1 tonne and occupying about 1 cu.m. or the space of a standard civilian shipping pallet.  10 such pallets, or 150 ready rounds, will fit in the foot print of a 20 foot Sea Can.  All of them are precision attack systems.  Some of them can loiter and conduct real-time recce to allow targeting of the other missiles prior to attacking a target itself.

40 km or 21 NM range for the rocket powered PAM and 70 km plus 30 minutes of loiter time for the turbo-jet powered LAM.

This also allows for a missile to be launched to investigate a contact at which time the operator can decide to abort the attack, prosecute the attack with one missile or multiple, or just put "a shot across the bows" of the target.

Video of launch from deck of Sea Slice at sea.  There doesn't seem to be much risk of damage to the deck from the launch.

http://ness.external.lmco.com/nessb/video/fbe-j/netfires.html

Notice of successful Sea State 3 launch

NetFires LLC Successfully Conducts Navy Ballistic Flight Test for the NLOS-LS Precision Attack Missile
 
 
(Source: Raytheon Company; issued March 28, 2006)
 
 
TUCSON, Ariz. --- The NetFires Limited Liability Company (LLC), composed of Raytheon Missile Systems and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, successfully conducted a ballistic test vehicle (BTV) flight test for the Non Line-of-Sight-Launch System (NLOS-LS) Precision Attack Missile (PAM) at the Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., test range Feb. 16. 

The successful PAM flight test represents a significant milestone for both the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) weaponization goals and for the NLOS-LS program. NLOS-LS PAM and Container Launch Unit (CLU) have been selected as a surface warfare weapon for the LCS, the Navy's next-generation multi-mission ship. 

The PAM missile BTV was vertically launched from the NLOS-LS CLU that was integrated onto a motion simulator. The ship motion simulator is able to replicate a range of sea conditions that the LCS is likely to encounter while under way. The PAM BTV flight test was conducted in upper-sea-state-three conditions to demonstrate the safe egress of the PAM missile from the CLU. Sea state three represents conditions where a vessel experiences three- to five-foot waves and winds exceeding 15 knots. 

"We're extremely pleased with this first shoot-on-the-move demonstration of the combined PAM and CLU," said Nelson B. Mills, LCS Surface Warfare project lead, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Va. "The PAM missile's performance specification for the U. S. Navy requires that the missile is capable of being fired from a moving platform experiencing diverse movements along all three axes. This demonstration was a significant accomplishment in engineering for the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship as well as the Army's Future Combat System." 

"The successful PAM BTV flight test for the Navy is another example of the demonstrated technical maturity of the NLOS-LS PAM missile and CLU," said Scott Speet, executive vice president of the NetFires LLC and Raytheon's NLOS-LS program director. "The ability of the PAM and the CLU to meet the Navy and Army performance requirements is a credit to the design team and the close system engineering work between Raytheon and our Navy and Army customers." 

The NLOS-LS system consists of Raytheon's PAM, Lockheed Martin's Loitering Attack Missile and a joint CLU. In 2004, the Army accelerated fielding of the Raytheon PAM and joint CLU to the Army's Evaluation Brigade Combat Team into Spin Out 1 in fiscal year 2008. 

The Navy selected NLOS-LS PAM and CLU as the premier engagement capability against surface warfare threats for the Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy expects to build more than 50 LCSs with the first ships commissioned in fiscal year 2008. 

NLOS-LS provides a commander with immediate, precise and responsive fires on high-payoff targets with real-time target acquisition and battle effects. PAM is a direct-attack missile that is effective against moving and stationary targets on land and sea at ranges from zero to 21 nautical miles and is effective against hard and soft targets. The missile includes a networked datalink that provides in-flight updates to each missile with ground and airborne sensor nodes and has a large multi-mode warhead effective against both hard and soft targets. 


Raytheon Company, with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide. 

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 135,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

 

[ringo]

For BHS is Canada looking at the Spanish 27000ton LHD from Navantia or the Dutch 30000ton Enforcer LHD from Schelde, IMO Canada needs two such vessels.
I suspect the Tribals will be retired without replacement, the frigates will undergo FELEX, a dozen replacements will be built probably somewhat larger than current ships with ability to change roles and missions buy changing armament and sensor modules, some may feature a Flexdeck like Danish frigates to maximize capability. 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

For BHS is Canada looking at the Spanish 27000ton LHD from Navantia or the Dutch 30000ton Enforcer LHD from Schelde, IMO Canada needs two such vessels.
I suspect the Tribals will be retired without replacement, the frigates will undergo FELEX, a dozen replacements will be built probably somewhat larger than current ships with ability to change roles and missions buy changing armament and sensor modules, some may feature a Flexdeck like Danish frigates to maximize capability. 

I didn't even know Schelde made an Enforcer that big....I thought they maxxed out at 22,000 tonnes.  That being said, I've seen a picture of Navantia LHD design and I like it very, very much....especially the ski jump.  :-X

The other vessel I would think would be of interest should be the French Mistral-class....although it's smaller than the other two vessels mentioned.


Matthew.   

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

As a side note for those with real knowledge of procurement, do we have some kind of unwritten rule against cooperation with another nation?  Specifically, the Australians have allocated $2billion for 2 near-identical ships to the BHS specs.  Does it not make sense to do a joint program in order to maximize everyone's ROI?


Matthew.  ???