This thesis received the 2007 National Defense University Award for best thesis. It's extremely detailed with information that I thought many here would enjoy reading and possibly discussing.
After reading the first 10 pages or so, any of us who were 0861s can relate. After several classes of ships that had 2 5"54 mounts were decommed, they were not replaced with ships that had 2 mounts. The navy favored ships that were capable of firing missiles to replace a gun mount. Although the 5"54 and 5"38's are capable of providing fire support inland, the newer over the horizon assault strategy, greatly reduces the effectiveness of NGFS. Keeping your NGF ships over the horizon, reduces the range inland that your support can reach. The larger caliber guns that Col. Welch supports, can provide the protection of surface fires to the troops making the forced landings as well as giving the ship protection by being off shore and away from any threats that may be present from the shore.
Porche996-You have reached this page because the member you are looking for has requested that their profile page remain private (other members cannot view it).
Although I can see your request for privacy, it would help for your reputation on these boards to at least fill out a little of your profile.
SCMerle- I would prefer to keep it private. I posted the above material because I thought the readers of this forum would first understand the material. Second would enjoy discussing the material. Col. Welch thesis is extremely thorough. What I feel is important about the thesis is that it shows that the Marine Corps requirements for NSFS/NGF are legitimate and that the Navy has dropped the ball. Hopefully the USMC can use this thesis to push for a more effective NSFS solution. If you continue to read on you will see the wargame simulation that was used to justify the DDG-1000 Destroyer and how a Capital Surface Warship with major caliber guns performs in the same scenario. The CSW is extremely lethal. The thesis also shows the true cost of what a CVN with air wing costs for a MRC, something the Navy never likes to show. Extremely expensive. I have the DTIC website where this thesis came from. I tried contacting the author but had no luck but someone did tell me where a smaller version of the thesis was located and I provided that link. As for credibility I think that develops in time vs a bio.
Is that you Player? If so, you're right on cue because we all did say we'd table this discussion until after the war and now that it's almost over here you are. What’s it been, seven years? Wow, I forgot we even had this discussion. Man did we beat this sucker to death ha ha ha ha. What did we have, over 700 posts in that thread? That was some discussion.
If this is you Player, you really should tell everyone who you are because you're credentials are impeccable and this is a more open minded crew who won't crucify you for who you are. In fact these Bros have skills based on actual real time experience so you'll want to hear what they have to say. Coming here is a much better forum than where we were before.
Anyway, the Navy is selling "seabasing" so they're so broke they can't even afford to keep up their 30 year shipbuilding plan because they've got so many cost overruns and program delays its pitiful. Right now they're banking on the Corps selling Congress on a tenth LPD-17 because they couldn't fund it out of SCN or any of the alternative funding sources. It's a shrewd business move but with the Army now in the expeditionary game it's a safe bet which leaves the Navy walking away a winner no matter how it funds (and it will).
Bare in mind they're still downsizing which is why DDG(X) is relying so heavily on technology in favor of reduced crew manning even though she’s a real beast at 14.4K tons. That still leaves the same old nagging problem of who’s going to perform damage control when they're hit which everyone sees coming sooner or later. That’s an awful lot of ship for only 150-175 to keep afloat when she’s shot full of holes.
DDG(X) is in serious trouble so the real surface platform coming to light in the NGF arena is the LCS because they consider her small enough to get in close and bang away deep enough to have any real effect. She’s a good agile smaller platform and with good munitions she'll get the job done. But as we discussed before, it’s always run in conjunction with Marine CAS so it's a two pronged mutually supporting fire and air support threat which will break up any hostile movements or formations.
All of this is in the CRS reports as a matter of public record.
So just as before, it's still a budget battle where the Navy won't fund a major caliber warship because their focus is in another direction as usual.
For the record, I personally still believe they should redevelop the 8" major caliber light weight gun (MCLG) because the current and projected platforms have the size and tonnage to finally support it properly. Given how everyone is stressing commonality, they're all going to stay at the 155MM level and let it go at that. What a waste as the 8" MCLG had some real potential.
