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.

A Case Study in Solving

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.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=...Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=

more than interested in this discussion. a little more info on yourself would be good before hand though.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Nicollscp2:
more than interested in this discussion. a little more info on yourself would be good before hand though.

Nic, Player has been around for a long time.

I will vouce for him.

He is not a Marine, so far as I know, but he does know his stuff on Naval Weapons Systems.

He use to post on the Wingers Forum Osprey Tread, 4 years ago.

He's alright and a man of his word.

I don't know what he did to get thrown into the mil.com e-brig, but a lot of folks that I know are in that same boat.

Player I don't know if I just helped you or caused you to get your nads hacked off.

Your word is good with me RonMan. I would be happy to join in the pro's and con's of this but am only on here every so often. As you know Ron, I have a "bit" of experience in NGF. NSFS is different as they include sea to land missiles into that acronym.

The allusion that aircraft can take out any target is what is driving this new "model" of warfare and is an incorrect way to approach the subject matter. Just look at the number of rounds dropped on Iwo versus the number of enemy casualties incurred from said same. Even less from air strikes and nearly equal tonnage. This same ideology was applied in the first Gulf War and the Air Force admitted at the end that their battle damage estimates were way off. That I have first hand experience in.

There used to be a poster on here on the Navy side that was "bring the battleships back" some years ago. His argument was well founded but not with reduced manning of ships and the over quantity of officers/ enlisted ratios now in force.

Just my thoughts.

Nic

quote:

Originally posted by Nicollscp2:



There used to be a poster on here on the Navy side that was "bring the battleships back" some years ago. His argument was well founded but not with reduced manning of ships and the over quantity of officers/ enlisted ratios now in force.

Same,same.

Bringing back the old BBs was a great debate we took to task back in the 2000-1 time frame where we covered all the different aspects. I totally agree with Nic thats it's a balance of surface & indirect fires used in conjunction with CAS that really gets the job done. Strange we haven't heard from this threads originator.

As for vouching for Player, I too have always found him to be a man of his word and had the pleasure of talking with him via telephone on numerous occasions just before the war started. He is indeed great folks whose heart it totally committed to helping our Warriors in anyway that he can. I can honestly say I've always found him to be a true Patriot in every sense of the word.

Dean and Ron, I know Player very well and he was kicked off Military.com because a Mod in the Navy section was fed up with hearing bring back the BB's. He made a post about the failures of railguns I believe and they banned him for good. I will tell him to take a look here and I know he would personally thank you for the kind complements. His email is still tedy@usnfsa.org He is also going to be making a run for Congress in 2010 giving up his IT Company.

Recently the Navy testified and lied to congress saying that the USMC no longer requires Naval Gun Fire. The Adm. stated they could do it with CAS and Tactical Tomahawk. Well I ask the USMC leadership and they disagree with the Adm. This fight for NSFS for our troops is not going to be easy. Player is still fighting this on the hill but as you are well aware he is fighting a tough battle. The above thesis gave him some ammo but its still no where close to being a fair fight.

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Seapower, Senate Armed Services Cmte.


Porsche,
Can you quote your source for the testimony? I could not find anything saying the Marine Corps no longer required Naval Gunfire.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SCMerle,

Here you go was real easy to find

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/navy_destroyer_upgrades_080108w/



"That fire-support mission can now be handled by Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision air strikes, McCullough told the seapower subcommittee, and the Navy was studying ways to provide more long-range fire support from the new littoral combat ships, which carry a 57mm gun."


USMC is in REAL TROUBLE

quote:

Originally posted by Porsche996:
Here you go was real easy to find

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/navy_destroyer_upgrades_080108w/



"That fire-support mission can now be handled by Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision air strikes, McCullough told the seapower subcommittee, and the Navy was studying ways to provide more long-range fire support from the new littoral combat ships, which carry a 57mm gun."


USMC is in REAL TROUBLE

I agree. Like the Navy is going let a spotter CFF and have a Tomahawk in effect. Aint gonna happen.

At over $500K each, I think the Navy will be real hesitant to let that LCpl spotter call in missions. The TLAM/D is really not cost efficient to provide on call fire support. Pre-planned and high threat targets are a different category all together. It will be real interesting to see what the Navy comes up with. The 5"/62 apparently has the range which we are looking for Over the Horizon Amphibious Operations, but once again, estimates for $50K per projectile make cost effectiveness a question when that spotter calls for 10 salvos in effect. Bring back the Battleships, if you are going to put out that much money, I would rather have 16"/50's out there for support.

But, just like any other journalist, they tend to leave things out.

This is taken directly from Adm. McCullough's testimony, the link to the video is below.

"The demand from Combatant Commanders is for ballistic missile defense, integrated air and missile defense and anti-submarine warfare, best provided by DDG-51s and not the surface fires support optimized in DDG-1000. The Marine Corps supports the Navy's position on DDG-100, just as the Navy remains firmly committed to Marine Corps and Joint and Combined Force clearly stated Surface Fires requirements. These Surface Fires requirements can be met with existing precision strike capability from Tactical Tomahawk, Improved Aircraft Delivered Precision Munitions and current Surface Combatants. Additionally, the Navy is researching capability to extend the range of current surface guns to meet ship to objective maneuver required ranges.

Current Surface combatants include:
106 5" guns on 22 existing Aegis Cruisers (2 Guns ea.) and 62 DDG-51s (1 gun ea.) already in service or under construction.

Just so those of you with little or no experience with Naval Gunfire, a 2 gun ship is equal in firepower to an Artillery Bn. This comes from a)the gun mounts being automated, and rounds are mechanically loaded from a magazine below decks and b) the Gunfire Control System is capable of performing multiple fire missions simultaneously.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SCMerle,

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces
Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor
Opening Statement
Oversight Hearing On Navy Destroyer Acquisition Programs

July 31, 2008
“The hearing will come to order.

“Good morning. This may very well be the most important hearing this subcommittee has held since our hearing last January on the procurement of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. I thank the Members of the subcommittee for their attendance on this very busy legislative day.

“Because this is such an important topic we are discussing today, the Ranking Member and I extended an invitation to other Members who are not members of this subcommittee to attend. In accordance with the Rules of the House, I ask unanimous consent for our colleagues to participate with us today. Hearing no objection, our colleagues will participate in regular order after all Members of the subcommittee have had the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. Because of time constraints and the number of Members who wish to ask questions, the clerk will maintain the 5 minute clock during the question and answer period.

“When the Ranking Member and I first called for this hearing, the purpose was to ensure that all of the facts associated with the capabilities and procurement costs of the DDG 1000 and the capabilities and procurement costs of the DDG 51 were discussed in open session by a variety of expert witnesses. We envisioned a hearing that would clear the air of rumor and lay out all the facts without championing any ‘side’ in the debate.

“Much has changed in one month’s time. Last week the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations announced they would stop the DDG 1000 destroyer class at two ships and re-start the procurement of DDG 51 class destroyers. They propose 8 ships in the 5 year plan beginning next year.

“Predictably, this announcement from the Navy has generated a firestorm here on Capitol Hill. There are Members who are opposed to the decision and Members who support the decision. There also appears to be significant efforts by certain defense contractors to shore up support for the DDG 1000 and have Congress overturn the Navy decision.

“So, we still need a hearing to clear the air on mission capabilities and costs of the two destroyer programs. But now I presume our Navy witnesses, particularly VADM McCullough who is the senior officer in the Navy charged with developing future platforms and technologies, will attempt to educate us on the reasons the Chief of Naval Operations has decided that he can best support the interests of national security with continuing the line of DDG 51 class ships than he can with building the small class of highly capable, but very expensive DDG 1000 destroyers.

“This subcommittee was, and is, concerned with cost estimates for the DDG 1000. But let me be very clear – this subcommittee did not recommend canceling the DDG 1000 as we have been accused in the press. What this subcommittee recommended, and the full House adopted in May of this year, was a pause to the third DDG 1000 while the development of technologies and true costs of construction became known on the first two ships. This subcommittee also recommended allowing the option of returning to DDG 51 class destroyer procurement if the Navy could prove it was in the best interest of the nation to do so. The report accompanying our bill clearly states that the funding provided in the FY 09 National Defense Authorization Act could be used for either DDG 1000 advance procurement or DDG 51 advance procurement.

“I would like to make my position clear: I want the Navy to have the finest, most capable fleet in the world. I want the Navy to have a sufficient number of ships with the capabilities needed to counter next generation threats. I don’t think we have enough submarines, and this subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan manner to allow the Navy to increase the production of submarines, my friends Joe Courtney of Connecticut and Rob Wittman of Virginia were instrumental in that effort. I don’t think we have enough amphibious assault ships for our expeditionary forces and with the support of the Ranking Member we have authorized an additional LPD to the Navy fleet.

“And finally I don’t think we have the correct balance in our surface combatant force. I understand the history of the DDG 1000, it grew out of the DD 21 program and became the poster child for ‘revolutionary change’ in ship capabilities in the Rumsfeld era. The question before the Congress is simple: does this ship have the correct capabilities the Navy needs for the future? Does the Navy ever envision shore bombardment again? If not, why design a ship which is sized for a gun that won’t be used? In this day of precision guided munitions and air dominance the idea of a World War II type of naval bombardment support needs to be debated.

“This leads us to the DDG 51, the finest destroyer in the world today. A ship that is capable of multiple missions, from anti-submarine warfare to cruise missile strike warfare to area air defense with its Aegis weapons system is the premier workhorse of the fleet. And perhaps most important, the ship is capable of serving in a ballistic missile defense role, which the DDG 1000 cannot do. Fifty three of these ships are currently in the fleet, nine more are in various stages of construction.

“But if the Navy wants to build more of them, we need more information. Information not just about cost targets for new ships, but information on the total concept of support for the entire fleet of destroyers. The modernization program for destroyers is just as important as the construction program. We can never allow the decommissioning of vessels like we did with the first five Aegis cruisers because they could not be modernized to meet the new threat. So I am interested in the DDG 51 modernization program also. I question why the Navy is not modernizing these destroyers at a faster rate, and doing the modernization in the construction shipyards which have the expertise and experience to do the major modifications effectively and efficiently. I would like to know how we can use the technologies developed for the DDG 1000 weapons system and propulsion system and back fit them into the DDG 51’s during a modernization period.

“So there is lots to discuss, the Navy has a tough road ahead. There are still some pretty large hurdles here in the Congress that they need to jump. Hopefully this hearing will allow the Navy the opportunity to explain their side of the issue.

“We have two panels of experts today to walk us thorough all these issues. I have requested that VADM McCullough give the subcommittee a brief tutorial on the capabilities of both vessels at the beginning of his testimony. Members will also find a side-by-side description of the ships in the memorandum prepared by the staff.

“We need to get this right. We need to get the Navy on a stable path of building ships and then build them at the time and at the cost that is projected. Our shipyards and the contractors who support them deserve to know what we expect them to do and when we expect them to do it. But more importantly, we need to give our naval commanders the capability they need to defeat our current and potential enemies.

“So I believe this debate needs to focus on the capabilities of these ships. I remind my colleagues, and the public, that numbers of ships is in itself a significant capability. The full Congress must weigh the capabilities of the ships, the costs associated with the ships, and the effect on the nation’s national security industrial base when making the final decisions to proceed or not proceed with either destroyer program

“I am happy to acknowledge our first witnesses today. The Secretary has again sent to us the ‘A’ team. Ms. Allison Stiller is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Ship Programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. VADM Barry McCullough is the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for the Integration of Resources and Capabilities.

“Our second panel also consists of witnesses well known to this committee. Mr. Ron O’Rourke is a senior analyst in naval affairs with the Congressional Research Service, Dr. Eric Labs conducts independent ship cost analysis with the Congressional Budget Office, and Mr. Paul Francis heads the maritime analysis branch at the Government Accountability Office.

This is the testimony by Mr. Ron O'Rourke, Congressional Research Service It is some good, unbiased research regarding the two platforms for NSFS.

Video of the Hearing.

DDG-1000 is an oversized beast with extremely limited capabilities. Upgrading Burke cans with the old 8" major caliber light weight gun concept is a sure fire winner but they've sold themselves on the 155mm technology so it won't happen. But imagine if we fielded multipurpose Burkes which could provide dual NGF and AAW to our landing force at less cost. Then we could build the three additional LPD-17's and other Gators to field 12 fully capable ARGs which would give us true flexibility to flood any zone at will.

Deanosaur,

I would have to disagree with you on the 8" is a winner on a Burke. The burke will only carry if its lucky 120 rounds of 155 LRLAP so how many 8" rounds would it carry? What kind of volume fires will that be? Yes the rounds will be more lethal but you are not going to have enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Porsche996:
Deanosaur,

I would have to disagree with you on the 8" is a winner on a Burke. The burke will only carry if its lucky 120 rounds of 155 LRLAP so how many 8" rounds would it carry? What kind of volume fires will that be? Yes the rounds will be more lethal but you are not going to have enough.

I agree with you on this. When we received GURF reports from the ship providing support, we were given the number of projectiles of each configuration. But, they always leave a number of projectiles for self-defense. If a ship can only carry 120 rounds of 155 LRLAP, that leaves nothing for the infantry they are supporting. If we continue to plan for over the horizon operations, even though it is expensive, the 5"/62 is going to be our best option. The number of rounds that can be carried by the ship is adequate to provide NSFS and self-defense, while giving the ship the stand off capability for protection from shore based artillery and anti-ship missiles.

You both present a good arguement.

What if we modify several Burkes into a Type III NGF configuration? By redesigning the forward magazine area we can increase the number of rounds carried. This provides one NGF/AAW/ASW all purpose platform which can support an ARG and the 1-2 LCS which will be assigned to it. Realistically any potential hostile out there can (and probably will) throw extremely quiet diesel electric submarines and small manned aircraft at our ARG's. Why detach two destroyer types covering different roles when we can do the same job more cost effectively with one multi capable platform?

Now take a look at the projectiles themselves: 155mm vs. 203mm. 203mm has increased cargo carrying volume/capacity which requires less rounds on target and can be engineered for a greater range due to size. Many who remember the 203mm's back in the day know they tended to be a lot more accurate than the 155mm's. Plus take a look at the experience rate of 5" ammo against everything from Iranian oil platforms in the late eighties to shore bombardment. Sorry Brothers, but 5"-6" ammo has never really cut it and it's always been 8"-16" that really gets the job done.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Deanosaur,

The Burke is not really suited for NGF missions. NGF missions should be done from ships with two guns. One forward and one Aft. The reason is to be able to provide retreat fires and the ship is not such a target for land based artillery. The Burke also can't take a hit and the hulls are extremely weak. The issue is Congress and the US Navy do not want to invest in this JROC Requirement. They will continue to do bogus analysis as Col Welch points out until they get rid of the NGF requirement all together. The USMC Leadership and the Army are not waging this fight in congress to explain that NGF is not a redundant system that competes with CAS. The Army is busy fighting to keep its Apaches under Army Control and not with the Air force deciding/controlling these air assets and what targets should be attacked first. The Army defers the issue of NGF to the USMC. The USMC is fighting other issues and NGF does not appear to be a priority.

Once NGF has been pulled out of the toolbox and thrown away the question of do we need such a large amphibious force? They will point to Afghanistan and Iraq and say we don't do that anymore. That is where this is heading next.