ChaffersAs to buying UUV’s equalling the costs of an off the shelf SSK buy you only need to buy enough for the deploying SSNs you know?
So you’re not going to train with them? Can’t afford 7 of them? None will ever be U/S? Lol
Likely the same kind of speed range as your 4000ton SSK would be able to do without generating a surface wake.
But your entire argument is based upon SSNs being faster!! In other words speed isn’t an advantage in the littoral… Neither is size. Even endurance isn’t, 1 month pottering is more than enough, unless you’re volunteering to clean their UUVs without seeing daylight for months on end.
Run ashore?. Otherwise the pongos ashore want support and the best way to do it is with persistent sensors overhead i.e A160T, Firescout, Camcopter. Armed where possible.
What use is a two shot fragile toy in a firefight? What sort of support are you suggesting here, moral support? Comedic value?
We’re talking about frigates being hit by missiles
We are talking about frigates being vulnerable. Add in the ships damaged or destroyed by dumb bombs from aircraft incabale of anything but VFR and the 5 Styx kills in the Indo Pakistani war.. If I were being harsh I’d count the unexploded ordinance in the Falklands as mission kills. Thats 20+ easily.
But I wasn’t looking isn’t much of a defence if you’re sinking in enemy territory. Just makes them seem more vulnerable.
Please believe this…we have no need of an SSK whatsoever.
The South Atlantic is going to be teeming with oil rigs in 2020 and you think we have nothing to patrol? You don’t think our SSNs are currently tasked there? You don’t think their month long transit alone is a waste of a $2billion asset? Give me strength….
We have no maritime reconnaissance and you think we have nothing to patrol?
Completely wrong, there is a gap in our wide area undersea surveillance capabilities you could drive an SSBN powered by air raid sirens through.
Most importantly its a multirole platform able to deploy capability against a wide set of threats and undertake taskings from civvy evac and defence diplomacy through to warfighting.
And little use for NGFS. Looks more expensive than the $500m cheap frigate you posted earlier. Wouldn’t be allowed within 15nm of the shoreline if even a small ASM threat was present.
Close to the shore = vulnerable is what the data suggests. Equipment levels seem to be less important than vigilance.
You’d be happy polishing UUVs on this craft whilst shore batteries containing Brahmos or Sunburns were 10nm away? Frankly the Hanit was better armed than what you just posted.
ChaffersSo your SSK is, as you claim, outpacing the amphibs by virtue of the fact they dont exceed 10 knts and leave earlier?.
The real life example that you quoted was the Falklands, possibly the most extreme example of a long range expedition. I’ve already given you the dates, I make the average speed to be a shade over 8 kts. 🙂
Virginia SSNs designed to operate in the littoral specifically.
If they were designed to operate in the littoral specifically they would be a quarter the size. They are an improvement over the Los Angeles but 8000 tonne subs are not ideal in such an environment. Why else would they need UUVs which I must admit I thought had been cancelled anyway…. Saying that giving each of our SSNs a UUV and you could have bought several SSKs or SSIs off the shelf…. 😮
You didn’t answer my question though, how fast do you think an SSN could go in 200ft of water without creating an easy to spot surface bulge? How fast could it go safely in poorly charted waters?
An escort carrying carrying a couple of Firescout with a few LMM’s strapped on would have been hugely more valuable than your SSK.
A couple of Firescouts for each of our escorts? An excellent way to crash $2billion into the sea!
Is there any mundane military task that doesn’t require fragile and expensive drones in your world?
No there are a couple of examples of switched-off frigates being caught by surprise ASM attacks…not the same thing. There are also a number of examples of ASMs being successfully defeated by more alert escorts.
Include bombs and I’m thinking 20+ without considering FAC. Include those and the number is probably 60+.
A number of examples…. One is indeed a number, can’t think of any other occasions.
You dont think that stability of your gun platform is an issue?.
Watch an AS90 firing, then multiply the weight of the vehicle by 100. 🙂
Perhaps I can make this simpler for you: defence=SSK/attack=SSN hows that. Its a simplification but you do seem to need it.
And our SSNs have to do both. Have you not considered that we might have something we need to defend? I’ve already outlined why SSKs would be a force multiplier for our SSN force yet you keep on wittering on about expeditionary capability as though it’s a purely blue water game. SSKs would free up our SSNs for such work and in the event of such an expedition provide a unique capability in their natural environment, the littoral
The only difference between an SSK providing NGFS and a surface vessel is the vulnerability of the latter close inshore. The reality is that in every situation where FFs have provided NGFS they have had the backing of DDs, carriers or land based air. In any situation with boots getting wet these would be preconditions for an FF and mere advantages for the SSK.
Provide even the threat of such and MPAs, ASW helos and FFs are going to have to be very brave and very lucky. Using a sub simply removes the most likely threats from the equation. Hell you could sit it in between 4 Darings, 3 T23s and 14 anti-satellite weapon UAVs if you wanted (and I suspect you would), it would still be a dedicated NGFS resource which could fulfill traditional SSK roles and be capable of operating independently if the threat scenario allowed.
Your cheap frigate argument doesn’t hold water because of the range of threats they have to counter. A cheap frigate is just a target, give them the capability to defend themselves against a range of threats and they aren’t cheap anymore. Add the sort of hardware you are obsessed with and they become very expensive. Add the capability to deal with such threats at exceptionally short range and notice and you have something as far removed from your cheap frigate as you can get.
A corvette or Frigate is a much better platform for NGS as it can pack all the necessary sensors and self defence systems to operate on the surface close to the enemy!
History suggests that it needs them, and is still remarkably vulnerable close to the shore. As for sensors it is the grunts that ask for NGFS and all they supply is a grid reference. The mk1 eyeball is still the best sensor out there.
ChaffersAgreed. Which design of, currently afloat, SSK can sustain 20knts surfaced or submerged for several thousand miles?.
20kts? For an amphib fleet? Only if you ignore weather, logistics and common sense. The only way you’d get 20kts out of the STUFT (you weren’t really thinking about outrunning your logistics were you?) and Amphibs would be if there was a time limited special offer in the nearest whorehouse. You mentioned the Falklands, I doubt the amphib fleet averaged 10 kts on the way down. They set off in Early April and arrived in late May, the first landings on the Falklands weren’t until the 21st of May. An SSK setting off from the UK mainland on April the 10th would arrive, assuming it spent the entire time on the surface, Somewhere around May the 7th….
Do you think the Marines operate on a 1 hour notice to move?
SSNs work inshore…we train to put them close inshore…part of training is that sometimes cockups happen!
Thinks are much more difficult in uncharted water, when the pressure is on. Think what the N Koreans would do to an Astute than ran aground, or any unfriendly nation for that matter.
Yet its the USN that is at the forefront of ASDV and submarine-launched AUV technology to maximise their SSNs capability in the littoral.
The US Navy’s definition of the littoral is water depth of less than 200ft. Taking an 8000t nuke into such would either be desperation or a navigational embarrassment. Talking of which how fast do you think such a beast could go in such shallow water without creating a surface bulge?
Modern SSKs are not outpacing any proper surface escort.
The surface escorts? There is a clue in the title. They go as fast as the STUFT and amphibs. Or is your cheap escort going to morph into a stealthy AEGIS all singing and dancing behemoth which can survive a few miles off the enemy coast? Is is going to be shallow draught or designed for fast blue water transits?
The SSK can outpace the main fleet because it can operate independently, there are numerous examples of rather expensive frigates succumbing to ASMs close to land, you won’t be risking them without air cover or a DD in tow.
Barracuda size at minimum.
Rubbish, I gave an example of an SSK that carried three IRBMs. The weapon system isn’t important, it is the space they take up which is. The complete volume of the D5 design was 1600 cubic feet which would barely bring the size of an existing design like the 214 to 2000t submerged.
Seeing as though you’re playing possum I’ll spell it out. The assembly wouldn’t have to be 40ft in height, it wouldn’t have to sized to a D5 tube. It wouldn’t even have to be cylindrical. Extendable barrel housing in the sail, ammunition and loading mechanism deep in the hull.
The Golf class put a larger weapons system in a similar configuration in a hull capable of 17kts using 1958 technology. Your objections based upon size, weight and dimensions are not credible.
The equation breaks down well before you get to your mythical SSN-performance SSK!.
I don’t think excessive speed or even endurance are helpful or needed in a design like this. Cheap and cheerful is the order of the day. Current and past production boats provide markers which are more than sufficient for it’s role.
You continue comparing SSKs to SSNs as an argument without appearing to understand the littoral environment or the advantages that SSKs hold.
Indeed given limited budgets your argument is self defeating as each SSK free’s up an SSN from training, NATO commitments, or becoming stranded in safe and well charted home waters during peacetime. Pottering around coastlines, inserting special forces, operating in very shallow depths, mine laying, mine detection and defending merchant shipping are all roles that the SSK already excels in even compared to an SSN. These are also roles that our current small batch of SSNs have to assume, hence any missions requiring such skillsets also free up your tomahawk wielding killers of the deep.
Same with your ‘cheap’ frigates. Advanced and capable ships they are better employed in their primary roles than being risked close to the shore providing necessary, but dangerous, support for our, or foreign, fighters.
The SSK’s role is clear without adding a further component.
If we have infantry ashore why are we needing a covert NGFS platform again?
We didn’t have boots on the ground in Libya, yet we still had to rely on immensely expensive airpower to influence events on the ground. We also needed NGFS, though if the range of the extended range 155 shells was a capability rather than the 12mn of the Mk8 it would have been used a great deal more.
If it is known (& it will be!) that you have such submarines, then as soon as you begin, or seem to be about to begin, hostilities, then there will indeed be ASW helicopters &/or MPAs patrolling every bit of sea from which you can shell the things they most want to protect. They may well also move high-value aircraft to inland airfields.
Sooooo… To counter the threat a potential enemy would have to purchase enough ASW helicopters and fast MPAs to effectively patrol their entire shoreline, fast coastal ASW corvettes, fire control radars, harden their airfields against ballistic 155mm rounds, SAM batteries and CIWS capable of defending their key targets. They would have to operate these forces night and day if they were being naughty.
And there you have the true projected power of the weapons system. The above would bankrupt most medium ranked militaries in the world.
Not that the thought of SBS chappies with medium calibre fire support on demand would give your average tin pot dictator nightmares…. My guess would be regal palaces springing up en mass roughly 80nm from the sealine….
Lets not forget that it would be rather difficult to prove who was responsible for a few well placed rounds. Deniability is almost a weapon in itself
Some of these are too diffuse for precision-guided shells, some too low value to be worth using them, some too tough, & some move around. You have to locate the high-value targets you can destroy & target them.
If you need fires then you need them, there is no such thing as a target too low in value. There is also remarkably little that could survive a direct vertical trajectory hit from a 155. An MBT would be little more than a chassis after such an encounter.
One of the SSKs prime roles is insertion of special forces. Think of them as organic tomahawks with a book contract. Reconnaissance, targetting and getting captured are their prime missions.
MPA sinking a frigate? Possible, but unlike your sub, the frigate can shoot back,
MPA’s aren’t as much use in the littoral as you might think. Sonar (via buoys) is complicated in shallow water, that goes for active torpedoes too. Your concerns are understandable however think of the traditional missions. Sink a ship with torpedoes or a harpoon and the same applies. SSKs are designed to deal with threas of this nature, how many potential enemies have any form of ASW capability which would stand much of a chance against a modern SSK? SS boats have loitered around harbours and choke points in every naval encounter in the last century knowing that once they fire they need an exit plan. Nothing new here….
As for costs, I’ve already outlined why I think such a system would be advantageous. Extending the reach of SSKs inland is a big deal. Clearly I could have argued for a SSGN with X-wing death dealing UAVs, 100kt top speed and 1 meeeellion tomahawks to satisfy the geeky.
Frankly however I think a design of very modest proportions would be more successful. The 214 is an exceptionally capable design but is unlikely to achieve the export success of the 209. It is also rather pricey. SSKs are what they are though AIP has revolutionised the concept. We’ve made the mistake before of building SSN-lite Upholders and struggled to find anyone to buy them even at bargain basement prices. Cheap to buy, cheap to own and silent is all you really need, not a revolutionary SSN killing blue water monster.
The SSK is the single most capable vessel in the littoral, extending it’s reach onshore is something to be feared.
ChaffersIncidentally the cost, per boat, of just converting the early Ohio’s to SSGNs is listed as $700mn!…Thats, by your ballpark figures
Refitting SSBNs has nothing to do with constructing an SSK. Work on the reactors alone would be the vast majority of that figure. 150 TLAMs would come in at $225m.
Go for it. Expeditionary warfare with SSK’s is dense…look how long it took Onyx to get down to the Falklands in 82 and the O-boats were designed for extended surface transits as the basic design predated nuclear propulsion. There have been attempts to get SSN capability out of ‘cheap’ SSK’s and you get BMT SSGT or the DCNS design as the net result. They have one thing in common…theyre less useful than an SSN. If you already have SSNs the decision is an easy one.
Not at all, in it’s primary role it would only realistically have to outpace the amphibs and the main fleet. Risking an SSN close inshore isn’t ideal contrary to your assertion. Indeed this was the reason Onyx was brought along, to free up an SSN. The argies would have had great fun if an SSN had run aground..
The recent spate of SSN’s running aground shows this quite clearly and is directly due to the need to operate nukes close inshore because we don’t have any diesel subs. The USN hardly touches the littoral with it’s SSNs for just this reason, they are blue water boats. A 7000 ton SSN is not the platform of choice.
You fail to mention that SSKs can outpace your cheap frigate, have lower complements and add a great deal of training and force multiplication to our SSNs. Propulsion has moved on a great deal since the 60’s and it might surprise you to know that the Oberon’s tended to do rather better than the nukes in exercises against US CBGs.
Playing fantasy weapon loadouts has little to do with reality and frankly your idea of a cheap frigate isn’t.
A little old diesel sub might. Thats not what you are describing here though…not by a very big margin. Even if your tube gun was a real concept you’re describing a boat that will be bigger than one of the new French Barracuda class fleet jobbies to deploy it!.
Wrong, as I’ve proven with figures. 4 tube guns would add roughly 6% to the size of an Upholder, though given the advances in automation and crew reduction you could happily fit it into a hull of the same tonnage or less.
The technology is in the projectile not the gun, which is just a mechanical loading system with a barrel.
As for cost, take the reactor cost (£700m) out of an Astute and you’re left with £500m for a 7000ton platform. Lets say you kept the same sensor and weapons fit (you wouldn’t) , it would still come in at about £400m. Thats a great deal cheaper, more surviveable and more useful than your ‘cheap’ friagate (which you’d need to add aviation costs onto) and would even have those expensive gunboat diplomacy missiles which you love so much….
In other words 3+ SSKs for 1 Astute. You gain the capability to influence ground conflicts without deploying boots on the ground ( the politicians would kill for this capability) , allow fast air to do it’s primary role (depending upon whether the hotel has tennis courts or not), enhance your sneaky beakyness, don’t suffer PR disasters when your £1.3 billion quid SSN takes a wrong turn and free up SSNs for blue water ops.
Most importantly however you gain the ability to do the primary role of every branch of the armed services, which is to support the infantry.
ChaffersNGFS isnt sufficient role in itself to develop a submarine monitor (doff cap to Distiller).
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly the work has already been done. The reason the AGS became a conventional mount rather than vertical was the insistence by one of the procurement committee that standard Army rounds must be capable of being fired.
Well they are, you just can’t load them, UNREP them or for that matter want them.
A vertical trajectory however is almost optimal and the gun itself is not much removed from technology we were rather good at 70 years ago. The main complication has been the need to stealth the turret due to previously mentioned objections. Development costs are capped at $168million, If BAe doesn’t bring it home for less then they don’t make a profit.
All of the clever stuff is in the shell, and these appear to be mature. GPS guided, 50m CEP, 78nm range (though I suspect different charges will be used for the lighter versions. The Marine Corps originally wanted 45nm, which was 30nm inland and 15nm sea room.
Now… Lets have some fun…
There was never a single cell “MK41” VLS compatible design,
Spat my coffee out at this one, it took you a day to realise that a 155mm naval mount wouldn’t fit in a single VLS cell!
A simple google search on “Compact vertical gun system” would show the entire folly of this idea.
Using nothing but google for research is indeed folly, I think you will agree on that.
Obliterated? Well, first you have to locate it precisely, as already stated, then you have to hit it & keep hitting it. Airfields have been hit by a lot more ordnance than that & been up & running in no time, & ports have kept operating while under sustained barrages far bigger than your sub can provide. They’re big targets, which can take a lot of damage.
Show me a source for a modern airfield operating whilst under medium calibre barrage. Or a modern port for that matter. As for locating the target, please tell me you are joking. Sintra could find the GPS co-ordinates of every fixed target of relevance given a day or two. 🙂
Oh dear. Someone who doesn’t know what his numbers refer to.
You can’t have it both ways, currently operated systems incur accounting costs just as procurement systems do. Stressing the airframes, increased maintenance and spares, munitions used and so on most definitely are valid costs. Think of them as free and you’ll bankrupt the forces in no time, or more likely give BAe shareholders a major boost as you outstrip your support contract and allow them to charge whatever figure enters their head.
Flog them to death and you’ll end up with a large number of hangar queens whilst the rest of the fleet picks up the slack. The people who have to manage the air fleets know this and are careful to rotate airframes. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it is accounting.
Incidentally..
Extra flying hours come pretty cheap in comparison. Divide your £300 million by several to get the true price.
Simply wrong. Fuel and munitions expended alone would be a large fraction of my very generous figure. I did mention that I didn’t include the RAF’s hotel bills, the Defence Select committee puts the total cost of the 6 month det at £1.35 billion. Two replenishment contracts for Paveway have been worth close on £150 million. Indeed an MoD study into the replenishment costs put the figure at close to own generous one.
You keep ignoring helicopters, & counter-battery radars. Is that because they don’t fit your model? And what about MPAs? One modest aircraft such as a C-295 or ATR-72 already aloft with an ASW torpedo or two, & your sub is dead. It’s given away its position. Or if someone gets an ASW helicopter away, you’re in a lot of trouble. By the time it gets to your firing position, you’ll still be well within the danger zone.
You mean the MPA which sunk your lone half a billion quid FF before it even got within 200nm of the gun line? The one which operated from an airfield impervious to barrage? The stealth one which AWACS didn’t pick up?
Counter battery radars protect point targets (when they work) and I know of remarkably few nations which operate sophisticated ASW helicopters to patrol their entire shore line.
Your lone FF, if it got past the remarkably well equipped defences, would face a much higher threat in order to provide NGFS, from a mount which is a compromise between AA, ASuW and shore bombardment. Fast air, MPAs, surface ships, FAC, shore batteries, mobile ASMs and even man portable guided weapons. Frigates are not cheap and expendable any more, we only have 13 of them.
You’re also putting a ships company in jeopardy with little sea room and having to broadcast to the high heavens where they are. NGFS is dangerous and important, hence why the USN is spending $20billion on a solution.
I’ll be talking to quite a few blokes who have been there and done it next month, it will be interesting to see what they think.
ChaffersNGFS is a role in itself and an important one, I think I have illustrated that with regards to the USN.
I completely disagree with your assertion that a platform such as this would be useless against ports, airfields and the like. 600 rounds is a lot of firepower, both kinetic and HE. Come to think of it any airfield operating jets would be out of action for a considerable amount of time just cleaning up the fod, never mind direct hits on the runways and infrastructure. Any fixed asset within range would be obliterated by a full salvo. If, however the target was hardened to the extent that 155 wouldn’t do the job (I’m rather skeptical) then a few T’hawks would be on their way. Very much a complimentary weapons system.
Problem being that to want to hit those mobile things, that 155 is good for, means that you either have people ashore or want to do so.
Hence 4 tubes. Seeing as though they are well within the design constraints of an SSK if you wish to carry sneaky beaky types then take a gun or two out and you have room to deploy and equip the chaps who write the books. Incidentally the Ohios have 22 tubes converted to TLAM launchers and two for SF insertion.
Compared to developing the gun system, the submarine and the tender/UNREP capability to forward support your land attack SSK concept?. You think the cost to deploy a det of any already acquired fast-mover even scratches the surface of that?.
Think about what you are saying… Even given the slight cheat of ‘already acquired’ a gunboat SSK could perform intelligence gathering, SF ops, and maritime patrol on the quiet long before the idea of sending a det of fast air even arose. Say then you had a Libyan scenario where, luckily for your case, foreign basing was not an issue.
So maintaining a 24hr presence with at least 2 jets ready and armed over target for 3 months or so, at a combat radius of 500 miles… The combined EU deployments probably totalled 48 aircraft including replacements and support. Let be generous though and forget the ordinance ( which they didn’t have and had to beg he Americans for) and just think about 2 eurofighters in a cab rank.
Well according to the select committee the EF costs £72k an hour to fly. So, to maintain CAS cover and forgetting about the aircraft crossing each other inbound and outbound (i.e. just 2 aircraft in the air at any time) the figure for a single 3 month deployment comes to over £300 million. The hotel bills and allowances for the small army of sun hungry crabs would come to several million on top of this but I decided to be generous.
Suddenly the little old diesel sub quietly sitting off the coast raining holy death on anyone that requires it starts to look very cheap indeed.
Navy’s deal in terms of engaging the systems that will counter their theatre entry and the establishment of an assembly area/beachhead.
If you wish to argue that vanilla SSKs are useless at this then I might have to start taking the mick.
The Italians…
… Can hit 24 targets, of your preferred variety, before running back to a nice safe port to lie alongside a tender. On a more serious note however it is good to see that they have included a decent gun.
However.. They cost £400-£450 million apiece.
DCNS have proposed a variation on the theme you are talking about in Euronaval about 3yrs back, the SMX-25
Very different concept,and not really a new one either. The SMX-25 is optimized for anti surface warfare not NGFS. The USN had nuke subs designed to run on the surface as radar pickets at high speed back in the 60s.
Kev,
As for your point about Medium Calibre guns existing, well disingenious point there because the sort that you are proposing only exist on paper and require money to be made reality.
Gun development costs are cheap in comparison to other ship bourne weapons systems. As I say most of the work has already been done.
What do you think those 4 guns are going to do to the acoustic picture in the immediate vicinity of the submarine? At the very least it would be visible above the surface and a magnet for any enemy activity in the area.
I’d guess the acoustic signature would be remarkably similar to that of a cheap surface combatant firing a smaller calibre. A quality enemy sub would be interested but SSKs can handle themselves rather well and it would be equally interested in a cheap frigate. Shore based ASM or batteries would be taken out of the equation. Any FF charging towards the firing point could happily eat a Harpoon or Spearfish though more than likely the poor little SSK would have an hours headstart from anything other than fast MR. 250 square miles of sea is a lot to search….
Fast MR would be a problem but I imagine their base would be the first to take a broadside or two….
Frosty,
The idea that we should repeat the mistakes of the 1930s just seems like madness to me.
The main problems were due to the amount of time it took to either get the aircraft or guns in ready order and to dive afterwards. This is a world away from a well versed weapon system which is uniquely adapted for littoral warfare ( the vanilla SSK) which can provide overwhelming NGFS from periscope depth. That’s a few gun barrels and a comms mast showing above the waterline.
ChaffersIf it had to surface you would have a weak point. Frigates are visible, as shown by HMS Liverpool coming under fire several times from shore based batteries during the Libyan campaign.
Periscope depth is the key.
ChaffersA Vanguard class has a beam of 42ft, so basically I’m spot on. Also the crew living conditions on modern subs are massively different and require more space than 1950s designs.
A Golf class had a beam of roughly 25 feet, so no you’re not! Where do you think these would be mounted? Horizontally???
You seem to be missing the point that Tomahawks already exist,
I’m quite sure of my ground here. Medium calibre guns definitely exist too.
So I’ll finish this by saying this: if you think it’s such a great idea why did the proposal never get off the ground?
Probably because the USN see’s it’s sub force as blue water only. The Ohio’s were well suited to TLAM launchers but I’ll bet no-one queues up to volunteer operating them in brown water. To an extent I’m sure they do, inserting sneaky beaky chaps and such like, however they are not suited to the role.
Submarines are uniquely suited with VLG technology. You get the power of multiple naval mounts (incidentally the Marines in the Falklands reckoned one 4.5 inch was worth a battalion’s worth of field guns) with the uniquely stealthy aspects of a sub.
Uniquely these vessels would not require escorting and the only countermeasure against them would be fast ASW aircraft, whose own base would no doubt be vulnerable. Shore based missile batteries are a serious threat to NGFS platforms, as seen in the Falklands when an exocet strapped to a truck with gaffer tape recorded a hit on HMS Glamorgan.
You are also ignoring the utility of diesel electric subs in their own right. Astutes and co are marvellous platforms and do have to go shallow as part of their role. Much better to have diesels for sneaky beaky work though.
Since the age of the SSN subs have never had a weapon which can directly influence the battle on the ground. Counter intuitively though before the SSN the deck gun was the primary armament of the majority of submersibles. You were far more likely to be shelled by a U boat than torpedoed, unless you were heavily escorted.
It isn’t a new idea, it is however one whose time I think has come.
ChaffersDifference is that this isnt a conventional artillery battery its 4 guns firing modest numbers of guided projectiles at point targets.
You’d have a hard time selling that line to the Infantry or Marines.
In short, it isn’t. Whilst crew served artillery pieces can burst decent rates of fire carrying 50kg projectiles, keeping the guns supplied with such and ensuring the guns do not overheat all severely limit their sustained rates.
If you think that 40 rounds of 155mm per minute sustained is modest numbers….
ChaffersIn any case a 155mm howitzer built for a Trident sized tube would require something at least close to the diameter of a Ballistic missile sub,
No it wouldn’t and I’ve already supplied the dimensions so why you think this is beyond me.
I suggest you do some research on the Golf class, they were diesel powered and carried, latterly, three R21’s. These happen to be over 40ft in length and yet were easily accommodated with a hull no bigger than a largish diesel electric (3500t submerged).
Your ideas for adding a couple of thousand tonnes to an existing design are absurd.
The system weight for the Ohio proposal was 130 tonnes, which included ammunition.
As for cost, I’m afraid you’re way off the mark. The Tomahawk programme has probably cost close to $10 billion all in, and the two weapons systems are complimentary.
Tomahawk is an expensive way of delivering HE on target, is useless at traditional NGFS and has a long flight time.
NGFS is an important role, I doubt I’m teaching Grandma to suck eggs when I mention that the Iowa’s were brought out of retirement several times in order to provide it and that the Zumwalt’s role, with it’s ‘expensive’ gun is tailored to NGFS.
So… The US Navy has spent, at a guess, over $20 billion for three of your gun cruisers despite Tomahawk being a better weapon for the job?
Shall we add in the cost of operating and upgrading the Iowas over the years? They weren’t cheap ships to run, in fact when all 4 were operational the US Navy was devoting 10,000 men to NGFS. All this to delivery conventional shells up to 20miles inland.
If you want to it any target then artillery is a good choice. You want to compare the flight time for a CAS strike, or any conventional missile you choose to name, to that for 155mm shells close offshore? I can assure you that when you call for fires or CAS response time is by far the most important consideration. CAS is wonderful, if you have a Yank cabrank loaded with strike eagles or similar. If it’s non existent, doesn’t perform too well in poor weather(hint: RAF), has limited range and payload (hint: RAF) or doesn’t deploy well to places which don’t have 5* hotels (hint: RAF) then it isn’t quite so useful. It is also rather expensive, especially if you’re looking at F35’s or similar. Come to think of it it’s rather expensive if you’re looking at any airframe.
Get out of your head the idea that 155mm is in some way a popgun tickle feather. True there are better weapons systems for hitting hardened targets but the overwhelmingly vast majority of targets are mobile. I’ll give you a clue here, a large proportion of them have legs. Most of the rest have wheels. A few have tracks. Very few live in James Bond bad guy fortresses which the rough equivalent of a battalion of heavy artillery couldn’t scratch.
In this context Tomahawks are a diplomatic tool as much as a war fighting one.
ChaffersYou appear to be confusing the concept of the CVGS with that of the proposal for the Ohio class boomers…
The system does not require a boomer sized vessel, it was however proposed as a drop in module to fit inside just the missile tubes. Indeed the AGS was originally to have been a VGS until using conventional ammunition was mooted.
To show you that your assertion is ridiculous consider the space taken up by the system you pilory as being too large to possibly fit into a conventional submarine. 40 * 7 feet for the gun system designed for a boomer.. Thats about 1600 cubic feet of submarine space taken up by it. Now consider just the space taken up by the Mk48s or similar on a conventional diesel sub. Upholders carried roughly 18 torpedoes, which alone add up to 1000 cubic feet. Add in the tubes, racks, space to load them, firecontrol, sensors etc and you can easily see that the torpedo weapon system itself takes many multiples of the volume. By your logic no diesel powered coastal submarine would be able to carry torpedoes.
As for gun cruisers a Type 45 comes in at £1 Billion and wouldn’t be used unescorted or be capable of stealth. A Zumwalt 4 times that…. Cheaper? Most definitely not.
Most of the development work has been done as part of the AGS and VGS projects, This would be more of a conversion from existing projects.
Quite why you think developing or modifying a gun system is expensive is beyond me. Compared to what? It would cost a small fraction of any similarly capable weapons system and most of the work has been done, especially on the AGS project.
Cheaper to develop, cheaper to build and cheaper to deploy and use.
ChaffersTheres also the question of quite what effects 4 155’s would actually deliver on target?. A 6″ shell isnt actually making all that much of a bang when full sized and the kinds of guided rounds that would be demanded by a ‘Trident-tube VGS’ tend to be sub-calibre swapping charge for precision. The actual target set that this platform could service then is quite limited.
Precision strike using extended range precision munitions would still be extremely effective, especially in terms of cost. Target set would not be dissimilar to conventional artillery, which is pretty much everything. The HE content of 155mm rounds is a bursting charge and should not be confused with it’s destructive force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaJBmyDxtYE&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL94D77C31B89F80B6
ChaffersThe link above to the modular mast doesn’t look to be very expensive to me.
As for the guns, what makes you think it would be expensive or large? Admittedly the proposal for the Ohios was 40 feet deep, but only because it was designed around the existing missile tubes.
Come to think of it there was a project called the Compact vertical gun system…
Proposed CVGS provides:
Stealth
Low-cost
Accurate, Voluminous, and Timely NSFS for Amphibious Forces
Provides New Role for Small Surface Ships and Submarines in Early-Entry Operations
Infuses Existing Technology …lowest risk
You don’t put hugely expensive weapons systems on small surface ships, hence I think you are entirely wrong in saying that the platform would be large and expensive. IIRC it was designed to fit into a MK41 A or B, hence a sub with a hull diameter not much bigger than 25 feet would accomodate it.
ChaffersPersonally I think a variation on this concept would be an invaluable warfighting tool.
The USN’s 4 SSGNs cost $700m each to retrofit, turning them into TLAM and special forces boats. Tomahawks are the weapon of choice in precision strikes especially in enforcement or armed coercion missions.
Expensive beasties to say the least, if a boat were to launch a full broadside the taxpayer would be on the hook for roughly $200m in order to deliver about 70 tonnes of HE on target.
There is also a patented 155mm vertical howitzer designed to fit into the Trident tubes, each of which holds 150 155mm rounds and fires 10 a minute. Clearly this is a compromise system built around the Trident missile tubes however the ability to deliver 220 rounds a minute is not one to be sniffed at, even if a 16000t blue water nuke would not be the platform of choice for this role.
Ports, refineries, dockyards, airfields etc would all be easy targets and would offer a navy the ability to hit well defended targets up to 30 miles inland (more with the later ammunition variants) with the firepower and accuracy that previously only fully loaded CVBGs could muster.
A long range coastal diesel sub with UAVs, space for special forces and 4 155mm guns would be a cheap and effective proposition. The ability to pop up off an enemy coast, shoot and scoot before ASW assets could respond would be rather useful, particularly as land based MR bases are always on the coast
ChaffersThey are vulnerable in daylight conditions.
Gunships are often used in daylight in Afghanistan, dependant upon the perceived threat.
Read my posts again, I’m not in favour of T1s.
Sign In
